Transcript evaluating partnerships for sustainable development: case

Presented at the AfrEA Conference in Cairo, Egypt
BY
OJUKWU, Mark Ojukwu
ActionAid Nigeria
[email protected]
31st March 2009



There is a growing political support for
partnerships in achieving sustainable
development.
However, partnerships are not a panacea or
universal remedy.
Essentially partnerships need to be properly
monitored and evaluated to determine how
effective they are delivering on their set
objectives.


Multi-stakeholder PSRHH partnership worked
towards facilitating and expediting the
implementation of sustainable development
goals.
Sustainable development defined in PSRHH as
development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising our ability to
meet the needs of the future.



Sustainable development entails integration and
balancing of all interests where possible, making
hard choices and trade-offs where it is not.
Partnerships for sustainable development are
specifically linked to the implementation of agreed
commitments based on development priorities
(NSF, HSP, & NEEDS).
These partnerships are not a substitute for
government responsibilities and commitments.


Intended to strengthen implementation by
involving multi relevant stakeholders who can
make a contribution to sustainable
development.
Commitments by the government remain the
cornerstone of the efforts to pursue sustainable
PSRHH outcomes.

Promoting Sexual and Reproductive Health and
HIV/AIDS Risk Reduction (PSRHH) programme, a.k.a.
“Make We Talk” is a seven-year social marketing and
behaviour change programme funded by:
 DFID, USAID, and the Nigerian Government
 Managed by Population Services International (PSI) and
implemented by Society for Family Health (SFH), ActionAid
Nigeria (AAN) and Crown Agents.


Nested within PSRHH is the BBC World Service Trust
(BBC WST) project ‘Using media to combat HIV/AIDS
in Nigeria, in support of the PSRHH Programme’
The activities were implemented across the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria in partnership with:
 17 civil society organizations (CSO).

Broad based groups PSRHH
partnered with:
Coalition of Support Groups in Northern Nigeria (COSGINON),
Association of Women Living with HIV and AID in Nigeria
(ASWHAN),
3. Civil Society on HIV and AIDS in Nigeria (CiSHAN),
4. Nigeria Network of Religious Leaders living and Affected by HIV
and AIDS (NiNERELA)
5. National Faith Based Advisory Committee on AIDS (NFACA).
6. Network of People Living with HIV and AID in Nigeria
(NEPWHAN)
7. Ansar-Ud-Deen Society (ADS),
8. Evangelical Church of West Africa (ECWA),
9. Jama’atu Nasil Islam (JNI)
10. Church of Nigeria – Anglican Communion (CONAC)
11. the Nigeria Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA)
12. NASRUL-LAHI-IL-FATHI SOCIETY OF NIGERIA (NASFAT).
1.
2.


Quantitative & Qualitative Partnership
evaluation: Quazi-Experimental Surveys,
PM&E, GIS Mapping etc. employed.
PSRHH partnership evaluation was important
as it helped the partnership to seek for ways of
addressing questions related:





What are to be achieved?
How these are being achieved?
What results emanated from the process?
What effects these results have?
And what are the sustainable, replicable and scalable
implications for other projects, programmes and/or
policy activities?



The PSRHH Framework for partnership evaluation
were structured in terms of Dimensions, SubDimensions and Assessment Criteria.
The number and type of dimensions identified
resulted from the nature, purpose and complexity
of the partnership arrangement.
Each dimension is further broken down into
logical sub-dimensions for analyzes and reflection
on key components of how the partnership
operates.

Key approaches used as part of the partnership
evaluation parameters in PSRHH included:
 Value-for-Money Analysis which emphasises questions of program
political-economy,
 Efficiency and effectiveness
 Result-Focused Evaluation which gives greater emphasis to the
assessment of the results of the partnership activity and gives better insight on
how such outcomes are achieved,
 Process-Outcome Evaluation which examines the process of
implementation in order to understand whether and how the objectives of the
partnerships are met
 Stakeholders Analysis which requires the consideration of a range of
stakeholders’ views, since different stakeholders have differential access and
influence
 Evaluation of the Partnership Mechanisms which focuses on
the assessment of the means of partnership i.e. the partnership itself.

These range of partnership evaluation approaches are
underpinned by a set of theoretical assumptions (the IBM theory
& Social Change theory ).
To ensure that the principles and operating procedures adopted by the partnership are
being followed,


Periodic participatory and formative evaluation of
the partnership process were conducted.
Involving all partners in the design and conduct of
the evaluation (e.g. determining questions to be asked, how
data is collected and analyzed),

Feedbacks of the results to the partners in ways
that are understandable and useful (e.g. written
reports, verbal feedback).

All partners were involved in the interpretation of
the findings and applying them to make changes
in the partnership process, as appropriate.




PSRHH partnership evaluation was based on a combination
of approaches to change via policy influencing, advocacy and
social mobilization.
The idea was to promote accountable leadership, social
activism and interaction between & among all stakeholders
through PSRHH partnership evaluation.
PSRHH partnership viewed evaluation in terms of enhancing
systems management; bureaucratic processes; organizational
development; conflict resolution and bargaining.
Helped the partnership understood why the initiative may
fail, and helping to design and strengthen the partnership
structures, processes and relationships in ways more likely to
achieve set objectives




Partnership evaluation requires analysis of the
evidence captured, diagnosis of areas of strengthen
and weakness, and action planning for
improvement.
The resulting evaluation report demonstrated to
partners the value of their participation as well as
the achievement of the partnership to others.
Ensured that the partnership focuses on priority
objectives and that these are aligned across partner
organizations.
Challenged poor performance.



Improved decision making by providing
feedback on progress, identifying areas where
action is required for improved performance
and resource allocation review.
Provided the basis for reflection, learning and
development.
Responsibility for implementing the
recommendations clearly and jointly identified
together with indicative timelines.



Trouble agreeing on the partnership ToR beyond
the PSRHH broad goal and outputs. Consequently
it was difficult to identify criteria against which
success could be measured initially.
Difficulty to define appropriate quantifiable
measures or indicators of partnership success.
Lack of acknowledgement that successful
evaluation was dependent upon the importance
placed on it by the individuals involved in the
partnership.



Partnership evaluation raised critical questions
about the extent to which partnership actually add
value in terms of both process and outcomes, and
how these judgments are made.
Developing robust evaluation framework to
determine the efficacy of the any partnership
model is crucial for success.
The above stresses the importance of reflection,
learning and evaluation within a partnership
context by using respective partners’ competencies
to cooperative advantage.


Partnership evaluation in PSRHH increased
accountability, promoted learning and
enhanced programme improvements especially
in a complex partnership working.
PSRHH partnership evaluation highlighted
and set success indicators on:





Impact and results
Vision and leadership
Partnership dynamics
Strategy and performance management
Participation and cost-effectiveness.

Partnership evaluation concentrating on just
one of the following:
 the partnering relationship
 Partnership dynamics.

Consider assessing the other partnership
aspects such as:
 all outcomes/impact (not just those related to the
partnership objectives),
 the real cost of partnering (and hence the ability to do
an economic efficiency appraisal)
 the value-add of the partnership approach (in
comparison with non-partnering alternatives).



Do not under-estimate the learning curve that
may be required for organisations with
different cultures, approaches, etc.
The danger of partnership lethargy, where the
outputs from partnership arrangements are
negligible or the rate of output is extremely
slow.
Analysis of institutional arrangements & policy
environment (policy Vs. In practice)
For Listening