Interim evaluation CEDC partner programme of Save the Children Norway in Cambodia

Background

Four assessments were carried out by external resource persons in 2005:

• Thematic evaluation of SCN Cambodia program responding to violence against and sexual abuse of children (CCPCR and VCAO), by Edelwiss Silan

• Impact assessment cooperation project between SCN-CO and OEB (now OEC), by Ngy San

• Impact assessment cooperation project between SCN-CO and CCASVA, by Ngy San

• NGO partnership assessment report by, Taran Abrahamsen

The four recommendations gave a number of recommendations on how SCN-CO's partners and SCN could improve the joint efforts in order to save more children. This interim (mid-term) was carried out in order to assess how SCN-CO and partners have managed to follow up and implement and improve in line with recommendations made in the above assessments.

Purpose/objective

To review if SCN in Cambodia and the partners have been able to improve the work according to the recommendations stated in the four assessments.

Methodology

SCN-CO hired ECR-Group Foundation to carry out this evaluation. The 2005 evaluations consisted of 3 methodological approaches: an internal assessment of SCN using extensive document review, and staff and stakeholder interviews as main methods (Taran Abrahemsen); a field assessment of the NGO partners OEB and CCAVSA using interviews with child beneficiaries, their parents, teachers and others as the main method (Ngy San); a thematic evaluation of SCN Cambodia programme implemented by the NGO partners CCPCR and VCAO, using various methods such as interviews and group discussions as the main methods (Edelwiss Silan).

This interim (mid-term) evaluation applies similar methods and target similar groups of respondents as used and reached by the teams in 2005 in order to be able to compare data.

Key findings

The compliance with the previous recommendations was high for two partners and moderate to low for three partners. One of the two partners whose compliance level was high was also the one who had received previously only minor recommendations for improvement, indicating that this agency need little technical support from SCN. The main reason for the overall low level of attention to the recommendations seems to be a lack of a systematic review of the evaluation reports and a lack of follow up mechanism. Despite this, many improvements have been achieved in the course of the two years since the evaluations took place, mainly because the weaknesses were evident and acknowledged by the partners.

The compliance with recommendations for the SCN sections, in particular the Protection section was moderate to high. The most relevant recommendations have been taken to heart and have been followed-up. However, the recommendation to build capacity in a systematic and comprehensive manner has been less satisfactory. Although much capacity has been built in certain areas and among certain staff the institutional capacity of most of the partners has not improved much and structural shortcomings identified during the previous evaluations still exist to a large extent.

The evaluation also indicated that programme approaches need further improvement in terms of finding more effective mechanisms and procedures for residential care, street children interventions and child protection networks. Also, the cooperation between partners and other NGOs need more attention, while programme exchanges between the partners – in particular for the protection networks and residential centre management – could result in more effective interventions.

Recommendations

1. Review carefully all previous recommendations which not have been followed up (sufficiently) and which are still relevant and devise a plan for follow-up together with the partners.

2. Review the partner relationship in terms of dependency (parent-child relations) and devise a plan for future support by SCN and what support should be provided by other sponsors in close consultation with the partners; in case the support will be temporarily an exit strategy should be developed as well.

3. Define all capacity building and organisational development needs for each partner and design a systematic and comprehensive capacity building plan indicating the capacity which will be built by SCN.

4. Focus CEDC section partner support more on programme improvement and organisational development, including improved cooperation with and between other NGOs.

Comments from the organisation, if any

Recommendation 2 and 4 will be followed up - SCN has started the process of selecting new NGO partners for the next strategy period. The analysis and recommendations from this evaluation will be a base for selecting new partners and deciding which established partners to move forward with. Recommendations 1 and 3 will have to wait until we have identified the future NGO-partner portfolio.