WORKING WITH CIVIL SOCIETY

PARTNERSHIP SCOPING MANUAL

NORAD FRAMEWORK APPLICATION

FEBRUARY 1, 2018

SAVE THE CHILDREN, NORWAY

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

INFORMATION GATHERING ..................................................................................................................... 2

WORKSHOP – Partnership scoping .......................................................................................................... 3

SESSION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 3

SESSION 2: SEEK COMPLEMENTARITY ................................................................................................. 5

SESSION 3: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 8

SESSION 4: POWER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 10

SESSION 5: PREPARE A PLAN .............................................................................................................. 12

1

INTRODUCTION The Norad Framework application will be submitted to the Civil Society department of Norad where the

grants aim at strengthening local civil society. It is therefore key for the application to demonstrate

strategic collaboration with civil society partners as an integrated approach to the project design.

The commitment towards partnering with civil society is also echoed in Save the Children’s theory of

change for reaching its ambition; for all children to survive, learn and be protected within 2030. This can

include a range of civil society actors from international and local NGOs to syndicates, knowledge

institutions, and community-based groups, including free media and child-led groups.

It is expected that partnerships will increase the community of support, contribute to unity, gather

diverse strengths, and link talents beneficial to the sustainability of Save the Children’s projects.

Although partnerships being the engine driving our theory of change, recent evaluations1 have criticized

Save the Children shortcomings in transforming its theory of change into practice. Thus, the organization

needs to invest more time and resources into supporting the capacity strengthening of local civil society

actors as well as working more strategically through established civil society structures. To succeed, it

has been recommended that Save the Children improve its tool package, including a partnership scoping

exercise to facilitate the initial selection process.

The partnership scoping is an

internal exercise to

contribute to the contextual

understanding, conduct due

diligence checks and ensure

complementarity in potential

partners. This context

understanding is critical to

select the best-placed

partners, with whom we can

work to improve the lives of

children. The partnership

scoping will take place

through two steps - after the objective is set and geographical location for implementation identified.

The first step is information gathering of relevant actors in the context where the project will be

implemented. The second step is a two-day workshop where the information gathered will be analyzed

through several interactive exercises. The sessions will build on each other and produce well-reasoned

recommendations of which stakeholders to approach for a partnership dialogue. The sequence is

illustrated in the table above.

It is important that the PDQ team(s) and (if existing) specific partnership and advocacy personnel

participate in the exercise as a minimum. If other CO staff are available, especially from the field offices,

they are most welcome. The aim for the country offices is to complete the partnership scoping exercise

within the end of March/first week in April – to allow time for partners to contribute to the content of

the Framework application.

1 Partnership Review (2017) and CHS verification Findings for Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative Audit Report (2017)

2

INFORMATION GATHERING Gathering targeted information about who works (actors) in the same thematic and geographical

context as Save the Children will increase the understanding of how Save the Children can influence

children’s well-being, rights, or access to justice. While most country offices are preparing a CRSA that

will provide a valuable situation analysis, additional information must be gathered specifically to the

Norad framework agreement.

Goal: The information gathered should give a context understanding of:

• Who are the change agents in our field of work,

• Which actors have the potential to thrive if supported by an INGO?

Timeline: The information gathering can take place when the overall priorities and geographical

locations for the Framework application have been decided. The information gathered will be analyzed

in a two-day workshop to take place in all countries that are a part of the Norad framework application.

Information sources: The information gathering should not include direct contact with potential

partners, as this can create expectations. Relevant information can rather be gathered through

alternative sources, and these will vary from one context to the next. Typically; this can include but not

be limited to the following:

• Conversations with the government, UN agencies, knowledge institutions, donors, community

members and the media;

• Internal written documents (CRSA, project and donor reports, evaluations, etc.) and dialogue

with colleagues;

• Publicly available sources such as policy statements, press releases, conference reports, etc.

Relevant Information: Questions asked to obtain relevant information need to be tailored to the

context, information source, and objectives of the partnership scoping. The questions below only

provide examples;

• Who can be a convener for relevant actors?

• Who has solid knowledge about the Save the Children priority areas?

• Are there any child led groups, or actors who work in line with our child participation approach?

• Has the actor expertise in a right based approach?

• Has the actor delivered good results in other projects?

• Has the actor a growth potential?

• Has the actor demonstrated a commitment to gender equality?

Documenting findings: It is important to take notes to keep an overview and to inform/compare notes

with colleagues. This information can be put into a spreadsheet. If asked for guidance (by the country

office) on how the notes should be organized, the following table can be provided.

Name of Organization Field of work Reputational strengths Value added to SC projects

3

WORKSHOP – PARTNERSHIP SCOPING The workshop will analyze the information gathered to understand the role of various actors and the

power dynamics taking place. These factors will influence Save the Children’s abilities to reach its project

objectives.

Goal: By the end of the workshop the country office should have clear suggestions of whom to approach

for a partnership dialogue and clear justifications for doing so.

Workshop Methodology:

The workshop excises build on the goals/overall objectives within the Framework application to ensure

practical value. As the workshop is based on group work, it is recommended to divide participants into

thematic/issues based groups as early as day one and keep the same groups throughout the workshop.

SESSION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Goal for the session: Provide the participants with an understanding of;

• findings from previous evaluations

• concept clarification and understanding of SC partner approach.

Background information - findings from evaluations: Various evaluations by SCN and NORAD have

identified good examples of partnership work across the organization. However, the partnership

practices can be further improved by systematic inclusion of the organization’s theory of change in all

stages of the project cycle. Key findings from the evaluations include;

• Collaboration with governments was regarded as relative strong while partnerships with civil

society actors were far weaker, the latter should therefore be prioritized.

• The partnerships with civil society actors are predominately contractual (implementing or

project-based partnerships) rather than based on common objectives and mutual

accountability. Strategic partnerships should be strengthened.

• New partnership agreements are usually awarded to the existing partners without revalidation

of the relevance. Existing partnerships should be assessed in terms of relevance and reviewed

alongside other actors.

Key messages:

• Strategic partnerships will require an investment of time and resources to ensure mutual

accountability towards achieving common goals. To find the best-placed partners, the

current partners will need to be evaluated according to their continued relevance alongside

other actors.

• Collaboration with civil society partners must be an integrated approach in the project

design and accompanied by a budget allocation.

4

Background Information – Save the Children partner approach: Save the Children have identified

three common types of partnership;

The strategic partnerships are long-term to materialize changes and rights for children. It can entail

common advocacy and campaigning objectives, ongoing investment in capacity strengthening, and/or

knowledge partnerships to design, evaluate and scale up innovative solutions for children. It goes

beyond the normal budget cycles and is not defined by a funding relationship.

The project-based partnership is short-term and may only deal with a single piece of work. Its budgetary

implications are clear, competence and capacity building requirements are simpler, and accountability

obligations as well as child rights situation analysis is more straightforward. Its achievements are

measured against the specific objectives of the piece of work.

To take part in allies and networks is the third category. This type of partnerships is less likely to involve

grant transfers and may be based on shared advocacy, campaigning, and communications objectives.

The partnership categories are overlapping, and not exclusive. A partner might move between

partnership categories, preferably from project based to strategic partners, as well as fitting the

description of several of the partner categories at the same time. All partnerships should embody our

principles; value-driven and empowering relationships, transparency and accountability, mutual benefit

and complementarity.

Methodology: Different tools can be used to stimulate discussion. If the meeting facilities will allow, a

“continuum” can be utilized where all the participants stand in a line (behind each other) facing the

facilitator. You as the facilitator will then ask yes and no questions to the participants highlighting typical

dilemmas experienced by country offices in their partnership work. The discussion will then be guided

by the question asked, and it is more likely that everyone will contribute. It is important to ensure that

arguments on both the “yes” and “no” side of the continuum are heard and preferably accompanied by

some examples. Four to five rounds of questions will in most cases generate enough debate- and give

the participants an “energizer” to continue the next sessions.

Key messages:

• Partnerships are the engine that drives innovation processes, ensure that the civil society

can be the voice and that the government will bring proven development practices up to

scale,

• Scoping is the first step in the SCI partnership cycle, and vital for identifying the best-

placed partners that can maximize positive change for children,

• Establishment of strategic partnerships will require time and money. For country offices

who work with many partners, this might mean a reduction in the number of partners,

• Mutual benefit is key for continued commitment of partners and sustainability.

5

SESSION 2: SEEK COMPLEMENTARITY

Goal for the session: Understand what Save the Children can contribute to in a partnership and how

partners skillsets/qualities can complement internal strengths to maximize positive changes for

children.

Background: Positive change for children, and especially the most marginalized cannot be generated

by one organization alone. Partner organizations can complement each other in skillsets, relationships,

and outreach. To be able to ensure complementarity with other organizations; it is important to have a

clear understanding of Save the Children’s added value - and what we should look for in potential

partners. Thus, this session will focus on a self-evaluation of qualities needed to influence positive

change for children.

Methodology:

As the first step, each group will identify what is needed to influence the desired change reflected in the

objectives of the Norad framework application (horizontal axis) and then determine to which extent

(strong, medium or weak) Save the Children possessed these qualities (vertical axis). The group must

have a well-justified argument for their evaluations (preferably with examples).

If the groups in the workshop need some questions to kick off the debate and determine what is needed

to create change, - the following questions can be used;

• Does Save the Children have the technical skillsets relevant for its programs?

• Are Save the Children programs effective in creating lasting change for children?

• Does Save the Children have sufficient and predictable resources that make it possible to reach

the most marginalized and plan project objectives beyond output results?

6

• Does Save the Children have access to decision-makers and the ability to influence policy

processes at the different levels of governance?

• Are the media actors willing to write about Save the Children’s observations, experience and

concerns?

• Does Save the Children have the field presence required to make change for the most

marginalized and deprived children?

• What kind of reputational capital does Save the Children have and how does this influence their

ability to influence change for children?

• Will the Senior Management be able and willing to support the work, and publicly

advocacy/speak on the organization's behalf?

The second step is to complete the self-evaluation according to the qualities required to positively

influence change for the children and reach the objectives of the Norad framework application. The

graph below provides an example of what this can look like.

Step three will look at Save the Children strengths (strong areas) and where it should seek

complementary skills from partners. It is important for the groups to discuss what Save the Children lack

(blue dotted line), and if partners can complement with relevant qualifications/qualities.

7

The last step summarizes the findings. This can be done in different ways, and the table below provides

an example of how the information can be organized. It is important that the groups receive feedback

from colleagues. This can be done by “group-to-group” or plenary presentations/discussions.

SC STRENGTHS SC WEAKNESS SC ADDED VALUE IN PARTNERSHIPS

DESIRED COMPLEMENTARITY IN PARTNERS

8

SESSION 3: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS The information gathered in advance of the workshop must be available to the groups as this will be

analyzed through various exercises.

Goal for the session: Identify a “longlist” of interesting stakeholders that have the potential to

become partner organizations.

Background: Before starting a project, it’s important to identify and analyze your stakeholders

according to their interest, outreach and other criteria related to your project.

Concept clarification:

• Partners are stakeholders with whom we are

committed to collaborate to achieve

commonly agreed goals and objectives; the

partners have distinct accountabilities and

shared obligations.

• Stakeholders are those actors with a decisive

influence (positive and negative) over our

ability to reach our project goals/objectives.

• Actors are all involved parties in the field of

work, independently of having a

relationship/knowledge of Save the

Children’s work- or not.

Methodology:

Step one will be to revisit the information gathering. The groups will collectively review the findings

obtained in the information gathering. It is important that all participants in a group will be able to air

their experiences regarding the different actors. Firstly, the actors should be reviewed in terms of initial

complementarity as identified in the previous session. Secondly, the actors should be discussed in terms

of its their potential to contribute positive or negatively the change for children outlined in the objective

of the Norad agreement. The actors without any relevance will at this stage be removed from the “list”

of actors. Before making a final decision on which of the actors that will qualify as stakeholders to the

project the following questions can be asked:

Partners

Stakeholders

Actors

Key messages:

• Long-standing relationships based on personal ties and previous cooperation are favored by

many stakeholders when choosing partners, including Save the Children. These partnerships

may can or may not cannot yield good results. Thus, to continue long-standing partnerships,

it would be useful to re-assess and validate their current relevance.

• When assessing potential partners, it is important to consider which type of partnerships

(strategic partnerships, project-based partnerships, and allies and networks) that are best

placed to strengthen the impacts of the desired results.

9

• Do any of the stakeholders represent the interest groups the project intends to benefit?

• Do any of the stakeholders have influence over resources that will be beneficial- or not for the

project?

• What is the motivation and interest of the different stakeholders?

The remaining actors should be regarded as stakeholders.

The second step will be to define some minimum requirements the partners must have to influence the

desired change for children. The minimum standards can relate to Save the Children’s values and norms

such as gender equality, inclusion, child participation, child rights, related to the breakthroughs, access

to decision makers or special qualifications (such as budget tracking, disaster risk reduction, etc) that

will be outside of Save the Children core competences.

The third step will be to analyze to which extent the stakeholders fulfill the minimum standards. This is

not a “tick-exercise” with right or wrong; rather it should be a reflective discussion. Each stakeholder

should be discussed and notes made under each of the minimum criteria. Rather than discussing these

minimum standards as something the stakeholders do- or do not have, the groups can grade (from 1-3)

to get a nuanced impression. The table below gives an overview of what such a grading can look like.

Objective (Example): Ending child marriages

Relevant

stakeholders

Minimum requirements- scored on a scale 1-3 Score

Civil society org Gender

equality

Child

participation

Political

leverage at

district level

Community

presence

Experience in

education

Right to education 2 3 1 6

Youth club 1 3

1 5

Association for

culture and children

2 2

Health charity 2 3 5

Development

network

1 3 3 7

Street children

national

1 3 4

Media 1 3 2 1 7

The last step will be the identification of stakeholders: Based on the table, it should be easy to identify

which of the organizations are compatible with Save the Children.

By this stage, it should be clear which of the stakeholders have complementary capacities, and secondly

meet the minimum requirements expected by the partners. These stakeholders should be mapped out

in terms of power dimensions, and their ability to influence the desired change for children.

It may be useful to give the groups an opportunity to present their reasoning in plenary. Most likely

several of the groups will consider several of the same stakeholders as possible partners.

10

SESSION 4: POWER ANALYSIS

Goal for the session: Map out relations amongst stakeholders and identify who will be best-placed to

advance the wellbeing of children, and especially for the most the marginalized and deprived.

Background: In this exercise power has been described as a restricted resource that people and

institutions can hold, yield, lose or gain, - informally or formally through a mandate or force. Power can

lie with an individual or an organization. Power takes different forms and can be described in multiple

terms. In the case of this guideline, power will be elaborated along three dimensions;

• Formal power refers to the power that has the mandate to make decisions and directly impact

political or systematic change. Powerholders in this category include elected officials, religious

leaders, the legal system, senior management, community leaders and donors. Formal power

holders can make decisions in closed groups, and they are entitled to be in the fora due to their

formal role.

• Informal power. In most contexts, the political agenda and formal decisions are influenced

behind the scene. The influencers with informal power can be interest groups, NGOs, media or

a constituency. Informal power can also be within the political system itself, through a bottom-

up approach. This typically entails a push from the bureaucrats, syndicates or legal system for

the political leadership to make certain decisions or how a law will be practiced at the

community level. Institutions and individuals with informal power can participate in decision-

making fora if they are invited, often with specific limitations.

• Cultural power refers to the power, which influences the norms, beliefs, socialization, and

ideology in a community. Change at a systematic level or implementation of policies and laws

build on the communities’ willingness to adapt to change. Thus, partnering with individuals and

organizations with cultural power can make or break a development investment. The cultural

power holders can be difficult to identify as they are not formal power holders. Cultural power

can be found in charismatic individuals, individuals who are intelligent or assumed to be

popular, religious leaders, educators, youth groups and the media. Cultural power is seldom

directly connected to decision-making processes- rather evolved through interactions and

synergies between individuals/groups.

Key messages:

• A power analysis should be a learning process for staff to understand different forms of

power used to fight injustice and to remove discriminative social and legal barriers for the

children.

• To succeed with a stakeholder power analysis, the purpose will need to be clear and

respond to a given context.

• Power analysis is an under-used tool in context understanding, while power dynamics can

have major impact on the success of a project.

11

Methodology: The stakeholders identified in the last exercise (stakeholder mapping) will be analyzed

in terms of its ability to influence change for children. Step one will be to identify relationship between

stakeholders, and their capacity to contribute to the set objective (in red). The stakeholders are mapped

based on their ability to directly influence the objective. The arrows placed between the circles indicate

influence. It will be key to capture the relationships between the stakeholders. At this stage, it is

important to keep an open mind and not be too concerned with the drawing looking disorganized or

messy.

Step two is to consider who

has the most relevant

outreach and ability to

influence the desired change

for children. Color coding as

shown in the figure can be

useful. In this case, dark

orange has the highest

importance, followed by two

shades of lighter orange.

After step two the most

relevant and influential

organizations will be selected for one last exercise. The selection should be encouraged to include

organizations that has the potential to develop into change agents if receiving the right type of support.

Secondly, it is important to consider if the organization has the potential to be gender transformative

and inclusive.

The next step will be to identify the most attractive stakeholders to work with to improve the situation

for children - as outlined in the objectives for the Norad framework application. Normally this will

include the most powerful/influential stakeholders.

The table below provides an example of how the relevant stakeholders can be reviewed in terms of their

ability to influence the situation for children. If the aim is to influence policy or formal structures,

stakeholders with formal power might be most attractive partners while if the aim is to influence norms

Mrs W- lead of

local Charity

Right to education,

local NGO

Youth club Buisness

community

Prevent Child

marriages

Political

constituenc

y

Local Journalistst

UNICEF

Mr T,

community

leader

Religious leader

Protection

Committees CNN

Mothers

Mrs W- lead of

local Charity

Right to education,

local NGO

Youth club Buisness

community

Prevent Child

marriages

Political

constituenc

y

Local Journalistst

UNICEF

Mr T,

community

leader

Religious leader

Protection

Committees CNN

Mothers

12

and unwritten social standards, it will be useful to partner up with those who have cultural power. The

table below presents the power dimensions for the most relevant stakeholders.

In general, stakeholders that score high on power are the most interesting. Which type of power will

depend on the objective and the existing internal capacities and skill sets in Save the Children.

SESSION 5: PREPARE A PLAN

Once the power mapping is completed and most attractive stakeholders are identified, Save the

Children should prepare a plan for how they can initiate a dialogue to with the selected stakeholders

for potential partnerships. The finale selection of partners should be 2-5 per objective. This can include

potential partners in different geographical locations, including capital level. There might be a need to

separate advocacy partnerships and implementing partnerships. Strategic partnerships should not

necessary be guided by budget transactions, rather common objective and mutual accountability. Some

partners will both require financial support and be a strategic partner to Save the Children. One should

further be observant that not all partners we approach will be able to – or interested in working with

Save the Children.

Example: Prevent Child Marriages.

Relevant Stakeholder Power Type of power

High Medium Low Formal Informal Cultural

Mrs. W. Local Charity x x

Local finance committee x x

Mr., G Religious leader x x x

Local UNICEF office x x x

Communities leader x x

Youth club leader x x

Journalist x x x

Right to education; local

NGO

x x