annual review - summary sheetiati.savethechildren.org.uk/docs/save the children... · annual review...

1

Annual Review - Summary Sheet Title: PPA (general) Annual Report for reporting year 2014/2015

Programme Value: £7,774,759 /annum Review Date: July 01 2015 Programme Code:

Start Date: 1 April 2014 End Date: 31 March 2016

Summary of Programme Performance

Year 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2015

Programme Score A+ A+ A A+

Risk Rating

2014 was a very successful year for Save the Children UK, with our work reaching over 17 million children (8,723,963 girls and 8,650345 boys)1, an increase from 14 million in 20132, our previous greatest ever total. The advantages gained through the PPA can be attributed to its unrestricted nature, and flexibility. The PPA has helped us to become a more effective, more efficient and more nimble organisation, by creating space for us to think and act strategically, to advance technically, to take risks and innovate, and to develop strong, forward thinking partnerships. The cumulative impact of the PPA on Save the Children as an organisation is visible in our ability and willingness to work in partnership with DFID to respond to the Ebola epidemic. In a hugely challenging context, we stepped up when others wouldn’t or couldn’t, with innovative, responsive programming in health, education, protection and advocacy, to meet the needs of the affected countries, particularly Sierra Leone. Our teams on the ground and in London are now actively working to build on the lessons we have learned from the crisis – both on how to tackle root causes by building effective domestic health systems, and on how to develop stronger and more structured UK responses to future crises. The support we have had from the PPA has played a catalytic role in the development of our capacity to think in such a strategic and forward-facing way. Continued investment in unrestricted and flexible funding enables us to continue to innovate, generate evidence and enhance our effectiveness as a partner in ways that restricted project funding simply cannot. Breakthrough Funds3 continued to be a flagship for Save the Children’s PPA in 2014. Breakthrough Funds are our venture capital, allowing us to take risks and push boundaries both in developing new techniques and in building innovative partnerships. Underpinned by strengthened capacity to monitor, evaluate and learn, also supported by the PPA, our smart, patient investment of Breakthrough Funds facilitates the development of ground-breaking programmes which have the potential to generate real transformation in the lives of children. Our newest “Signature Programme”4 in Bangladesh, which will tackle malnutrition and stunting in children, grew out of an initial investment of Breakthrough Funds, which leveraged significant additional funding from Unilever. The programme, Suchana, is now on track to secure funding of £46m in total from the EU and from DFID Bangladesh. It will reach 250,000 households directly, but, most importantly, will provide evidence to shape national policy for the benefit of millions more. As well as influencing domestic policies where we work, we have continued to use the evidence from our programmes and the credibility we derive from our global footprint to shape international humanitarian and development policy. In 2014, the PPA helped Save the Children to provide leadership within the NGO sector on action/2015, strongly supporting HMG’s objectives for the range of crucial summits taking place this year. Save the Children influenced recommendations to the UN Secretary General on the future of global sustainable development. We’ve helped ensure a strong continued focus on human development and specifically the adoption of zero targets in many areas, including our top priority of child survival. Climate change was at one stage thought too controversial to include but with others we’ve ensured its inclusion.4a

The PPA has enabled Save the Children to lead the sector in building partnerships with the private sector. It has helped to provide the space to examine our role within the changing development context and to respond strategically by pursuing cutting edge, non-traditional private sector partnerships in line with Save the Children’s development goals. Some of our partnerships involve large amounts of our money – for example Reckitt Benckiser (RB) at £23.5m5, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) at £15M6 and Unilever at €15m7 – but they are not only about funding. Our broader strategic objective is to build shared value partnerships that utilise the full potential of the core business – research, for example – to generate real change for children.

2

Lessons learned

We continued to make genuinely strategic use of the PPA during the extension period. We responded to feedback from DFID that we needed to be better at explaining the impact of the PPA, tracking selected activities consistently to provide solid evidence for the annual report.8 Summary of recommendations (and actions) for the next year

Complete C2030 strategy and 2016-18 plan, preparing Save the Children to remain relevant and effective in a rapidly shifting development context.

Reinforce efforts to build real partnerships at local level and internationally, including with the private sector, with a clear focus on harnessing the power of shared value for development.

Continue to invest strategically in developing and preserving strong operational platforms in long-term fragile state hot-spots such as in C.A.R. and South Sudan.

DFID comment:

Save the Children UK have provided an excellent outline of the PPA and the overarching aims of PPA funding. We welcome details on how PPA funding is being spent across the organisation; both in terms of supporting strategic investment and institutional strengthening. Save the Children work in 120 countries around the globe. We are pleased that they have reached over 17 million children during this reporting year and have contributed to DFID’s results on positive developments for and with children including feeding into education work and targets. They have engaged collaboratively during the year and their running of the Ebola Treatment Centre (ETC) in Freetown, Sierra Leone is testament to this collaboration and their desire to ensure that we worked together to ensure the best outcomes for the people of West Africa and the region. Although we acknowledge that there were set up delays with the ETC, we appreciate the pressure on Save the Children to ensure that the right people were in place before the ETC was at full complement and we acknowledge the challenges of working in such a difficult, unpredictable environment. Save the Children’s Wake Up Call report details the challenges faced by other countries should Ebola or similar disease strike again. The report recognises the weaknesses in country health care systems and considers what needs to be done to ensure that the world is more prepared for a similar emergency in future and this aligns entirely with DFIDs thinking. Save the Children’s private sector partnerships could transform the way in which large pharmaceutical companies engage in the development sector. For example, the RB programme mentioned above is investing in programmes to stop diarrhoea in Pakistan, Nigeria and India (a leading killer of children in all 3 countries) and is developing low-cost disinfectant soap and toilet powder to reduce the prevalence of diarrhoea. This type of work could be transformational in reducing risk for simple-to-treat diseases and save millions more children’s lives.

3

A. Introduction and Context (1 page)

DevTracker Link to Business Case: DFID DevTracker Link to Log frame: DFID

Outline of the programme Save the Children UK has made the commitment to use the PPA to: 1. Maintain the momentum of work achieved under the 2011-2014 PPA to implement our full Theory of Change in our priority sectors;

leverage our local-level impact to influence national and international humanitarian and development policy, effecting much wider change in the lives of children through the increased impact (reach and/or effectiveness) of our own work and the work of others;

putting in place the operational platform and systems required to deliver results at scale across our global footprint; and

ensure our delivery capability keeps pace with developments across the humanitarian and development sectors. 2. Evaluate our Theory of Change We use our Signature Programmes to develop and test evaluation models that enable us to demonstrate our full Theory of Change. These models include effective use of government data and capacity building at the sub-national level to enhance quality of government data. 3. Invest in further improving the quality of our programmes and being able to demonstrate impact. Our aim to invest further in quality and impact builds on our previous work to:

introduce and pilot a global Quality Framework for our programmes;

work with local government authorities (i.e. providing technical assistance) to improve their systems in order to raise the technical standards of data collection and analysis;

partner with universities and other research partners to assess impact; and

use evidence from our evaluations (which include our Value for Money pilots) to influence government replication.9 Our PPA log frame represents the results, in terms of programme reach and programme quality, our investment of PPA funds can leverage across our key areas of work (health, nutrition, education, protection and accountability to children). Advocacy indicators test our ability to leverage lasting change to policy and legislation, thereby testing our ability to deliver across our Theory of Change. Our work under the PPA aligns with DFID’s Business Plan objectives relating to:

supporting actions to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);

improving the lives of girls and women; and

strengthening governance and security in fragile and conflict-affected states. Our ‘Breakthroughs’ Newborn and Child Survival and Education match DFID’s thematic priorities, health and education, constitute 70% of our log frame weighting at output level and share key indicators, i.e. helping children access primary education and ensuring skilled birth attendants. We have invested the PPA to increase our ‘delivery capability’ to help deliver DFID's objectives in key Bilateral Aid Review (BAR) countries and/or at a global level. All of this work is delivered in partnership with companies, governments and other civil society organisations to maximise income, reach, impact and influence, and to ensure long-term sustainability.

DFID comment:

4

Save the Children have provided an excellent outline of the PPA and the overarching aims of PPA funding. We are pleased with Save the Children’s ambition to ensure that all children have access and are protected and have the necessary basic services to support and improve their development. This fits entirely with DFIDs vision. Their programming and institutional effectiveness work goes further now to evidence results and test their ToC which is welcomed. It is useful to note that they are using evidence of evaluations, and the pilots, to enhance and inform government replication thus acknowledging that they alone cannot meet universal access for all children. Their engagement and influence with partners will be a crucial step in the journey. Save the Children received £120m from DFID in the calendar year 2013-2014. This funding, much of it restricted, allowed them to deliver real progress and hope for many children. However, the strategic funding received via the PPA was also used to inform those programmes by building capacity across the organisation; ensuring that new and innovative work could be undertaken and strengthening the organisation across a range of thematic and geographic areas to deliver more. This, plus their strategic engagement across DFID, has enabled the leveraging of even greater levels of funding from other donors.

5

B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS (1-2 pages)

Annual Outcome Assessment

We have made significant progress towards our outcome milestones in the first year of the PPA Extension period and expect to remain on track to reach our targets. In this very challenging year considering the Ebola epidemic and Save the Children’s Health response, we continued to make significant progress to achieve 99% progress against our health and nutrition indicator across 8 selected countries10 (Sierra Leone and Liberia did not report). When we look at our progress against all 37 countries, we see substantial progress towards our global indicator targets. Out of 37 countries 19 countries reported treatment of 2.985 million cases as compared to 1.881 million cases treated in 19 countries during 2013. Reporting on the Key Performance Indicators is dependent on the nature of the projects focus/interventions in our foot print countries. 19 countries reported on the global indicator “Number of cases treated for malaria, pneumonia and diarrhoea”. We anticipate we will see continued success in this area to reach our 2016 target. We expect that the steady improvements made to the quality of learning environments in projects supported by Save the Children will continue. This is not necessarily reflected within year to year trends because of changes in the sample sizes used for QLE reporting and duration of Save the Children support to sites. Of note, due to the civil war and emergency context, South Sudan did not report on QLE this year. Evidence of improved children's protection outcomes was reported in several country reports and evaluations in 201412, and we expect to observe improved protection outcomes in a significant proportion of the countries in the protection portfolio by the end of the project. However our ability to report on outcomes at country level on an annual basis does vary year to year, due to the fact that some projects’ M&E frameworks do not include the measurement of outcomes on an annual basis. Advocacy outcome milestones are also on track13 and we predict them to remain so over the next year. We have developed an International Advocacy strategy for 2014/16 to develop strong national strategies and secure additional resources for advocacy and campaigning, which showed strong results in 2014/15. Save the Children Breakthrough Funding continues to support PPA outcomes by allowing for innovative approaches to enhance the quality and reach of our work. For example, within child protection, Save the Children funded the “Families First” project in Indonesia, due to the high rates of institutionalisation (50,000 children and 8,000 institutions) and the proliferation of institutions/orphanages after the 2004 tsunami. We set up a comprehensive case management systems which have demonstrated great success in achieving permanency for children. In addition to this and as a direct result of Save the Children’s Breakthrough advocacy work, the Indonesia Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA) is gradually reallocating its financial support for children in institutional care away from institutions to support in the community. In 2014 the proportion reallocated in this way increased from 20% of the budget to 30%14. Reasons for success:

A strong partnership with the Government of Indonesia. We have been working on this project since 2005 and the Ministry is committed to continue the financing and roll out of this model with Save the Children being their technical lead. Over this period Save the Children has followed an ‘invest and test’ model that has piloted policy innovation and practice interventions that the Government has then taken up and rolled out across the country e.g. with the National Standards of Care.

A partnership with the University of Bandung, School of Social Work has also been important in facilitating impact on the social work profession and piloting more effective ways of social workers to help vulnerable children.

An adaptable way of working that enabled the programme to cumulatively support a reform process over time beginning with a situation analysis and working through legal and policy change, support to its implementation, the piloting of new service interventions and ways of working, re-orientation of the social work profession, linkages to the evolving social protection schemes, etc.

6

Evidence from research, the voices of children themselves and documentation of progress. Replication: Many aspects of this programme have been replicated in other countries, especially the approach of looking at reform of the entire child care system through a combination of legal and policy change, direct response, and prevention activities. For example:

The Social Worker training and accreditation system is being adapted for District Child Protection Officers in India and in China.

Staff from Save the Children in China visited the Indonesia programme to determine their strategy going forward in supporting the Government in China on social worker training and minimum standards for safe houses in China.

The minimum standards for child care institutions have been shared widely and adapted in Liberia and used in consultation for creating Guidelines for Alternative Care in Kenya and currently Somaliland.

The Director of Families First travelled to Myanmar this year to train the team on case management database that is being used in Indonesia.14a Save the Children’s Breakthrough advocacy work with the Indonesian government also contributed to the enactment of MOSA’s regulation on Child Care15, a regulation that Save the Children has had significant technical input into during its development. Save the Children will continue to support the government to roll out the national standards, specifically in training government officials. During 2014 Save the Children also facilitated the development of the National Standards of Foster Care which are now at draft stage.16 Save the Children started the process by convening a group of interested Ministers, many of whom had helped to write the National Standards of Care for Child Care Institutions. Currently draft standards are completed on the regulation of the selection of foster parents, their certification and training, and the matching process between carers and children. The government is looking at a child protection law amendment which includes foster care regulation. Save the Children is conducting monthly meetings with MOSA and UNICEF to finalise the draft of this new law. Given numerous elections, our team has been careful to work with officials from a variety of posts and political backgrounds which has allowed them to continue their work past numerous elections and changes in posts. We developed new tools to assess how environmental challenges affect our work, and our outcomes. For example, a risk assessment tool required within the Suchana programme for improving the nutritional status of children in Bangladesh. And in partnership with Oxfam and other NGOs within the Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA), we spearheaded new and more flexible approaches to local level government planning that recognises and accepts uncertainties associated with climate change. Overall Output Score and Description

In an extremely challenging year, and while playing a pivotal/crucial role in the UK response against Ebola, Save the Children UK has made exceptional progress against its PPA milestones and has scored itself an A+ as an overall output score. All output indicator milestones were met or exceeded excluding two health output indicator milestones where we fell short. We faced challenges in reaching milestones in health (45% of log frame weighting) largely due to unexpected resource reallocation in response to the Ebola crisis. This was not only seen within the three major Ebola effected countries, but also in programmatic shifts in other countries to ensure preparation and prevention measures, leading us to re-analyse our assumptions and targets. Despite the considerable challenges faced within the health sector this year responding to the incredible needs amid the Ebola epidemic, we accomplished remarkable achievements by reaching our outcome milestones, and our total reach milestones. Education targets (25% of log frame weighting) were exceptionally exceeded due to the inclusion of data from the Girls Education Challenge (GEC) highlighting the significant numbers of girls reached through girl’s education programming. All other output milestones in protection (10% of log frame weighting), participation and accountability (5% of log frame weighting) and advocacy (15% of log frame weighting) have been met or exceeded.

7

Key lessons

Tremendous lessons have been learned in the wake of our response to the Ebola epidemic including the re-affirmation for the need for strong, resilient, appropriately funded health care systems with well trained, skilled staff so that health services are able to effectively respond to and recover from crisis.

2014 saw the introduction of internal knowledge management frameworks and a cross sectoral knowledge management and learning network.

Our improved M&E has impacted the accuracy of results, specifically in health and will therefore also allow us better forecasting in the future.

We have benefited from a completed gender survey of programmes which has highlighted the need for further resources and attention to build staff capacity in gender analysis, adapting programmes to meet the unique needs of girls, boys, women and men, and developing innovative, transformative programming approaches within each of our Breakthroughs.

Save the Children global gender equality working group have used the IASC Gender Marker to create a simple Gender Equality Marker for use by Save the Children to assess whether projects are designed with a regard to their impact on gender equality. The Gender Equality Marker is a tool that measures at the design stage whether or not a proposal ensures girls, boys, women and men will benefit equitably and if the project will advance gender equality.16a Save the Children UK values It’s involvement in the PPA learning partnerships and is continuing the process of exploring how to maximise its benefits by enhanced shared learning across the agency and externally, within the sector. We have worked internally to ensure participation in groups from key people in order to ensure accountability and duration and to fill the gaps of group attendance, according to knowledge and expertise. This will also ensure we are capitalising on opportunities to share learning from Save the Children to the sector - awareness of need/interest. We are also looking at methods to better disseminate information from the groups back to Save the Children such as creating a shared space internally, identifying key leanings for Save the Children, as well as subsequent adaptive management/actions.

Linking the PPA to our Breakthrough Funding approach and key strategies has allowed for tracking progress throughout the year and has allowed Save the Children UK to better monitor and report the direct impact of the PPA over the year.

A completed review of the Breakthrough Funds in 2015 demonstrated that the funds have been used effectively, and have made significant impact.

Key actions

Based on the success of our Breakthroughs, we will continue refine and to track specific programmes throughout the following year and ensure that funds are absolutely targeted to generate increased evidence.

Within Ebola affected countries we will be working to implement our post Ebola strategy. Re-starting programming where able, and continuing to adapt as needed. As outlined in the “Wake up Call” report (which shares lessons from Ebola for the world’s health systems), Save the Children call for Universal Health Coverage and strong resilient health systems. The factors that allowed this Ebola outbreak to spread so far in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone are not unique to these three West African countries. Neighbouring countries – Niger, Chad, Central African Republic, Mali, and Guinea Bissau – are near the bottom of the Index. The health systems of many other countries are also unable to provide people with the essential services they need: 28 countries have similar or worse health services than Liberia. Many countries must learn the lessons from the Ebola outbreak and strengthen their health systems.16b

We will use the vital insights gained from listening to the voices of children through child participation sessions held in Africa, Asia and the Middle East to help shape our global strategy.

8

Across our programmes in target countries we are promoting commitment to address gender gaps in access to care by forming and strengthening community groups to promote access and utilisation to maternal and neonatal health services.

We will work to include multiple stakeholders to improve outcomes for children (community based child protection mechanisms, government and broader referral networks as well as practitioners and organisations from other sectors such as health and education).

Has the log frame been updated since the last review?

Yes: considering Save the Children’s response to the Ebola epidemic and after consultation with DFID, the most updated log frame was submitted in April 2015 removing Liberia and Sierra Leone from the Health Indicator milestones. We have updated our 2016 targets for the coming year after re-evaluating our health assumptions and incorporating improved data collection processes.

DFID comment: Save the Children have made excellent progress and are on track to meet all the Outcomes by the end of the PPA period. They have met or exceeded most output indicator milestones excluding 2 health output indicator milestones. Detailed explanations have been provided on the 2 health indicators and we have approved the revision to the logframe reducing those targets. This section provided a clear outline of progress to date and demonstrates their ability to adapt to lessons learned throughout the year i.e. by improving their M&E resulting in better accuracy of reporting results or using learning from Ebola to inform post-Ebola thinking on how to strengthen weaker health systems of countries. Their work with a variety of partnerships will be important in the coming years and could lead to increased support for children. We look forward to hearing about progress on this in the project completion report next year. Save the Children’s drive to ensure that learning is embedded across the organisation and across the sector is welcomed. The recent 2014 PPA Evaluation clearly noted that learning was not embedded systematically within PPA organisations and we would therefore encourage Save the Children to engage with their PPA colleagues in ensuring that lessons learned are shared with others to enhance reporting and results. We would also encourage them to consider how they and PPA colleagues can ensure that learning is shared without DFID facilitation. Based on the achievement at the Outputs below, progress towards the outcomes and our discussions throughout the reporting year, we have scored this annual report as an A+.

9

C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)

Output Title Save the Children supported health and nutrition services (outreach and facility based) deliver high quality, appropriate maternal, newborn and child health interventions

Output number per LF 1 Output Score A

Risk: Medium/ Impact weighting (%): 45%

Risk revised since last AR? N

Impact weighting % revised since last AR?

N

Indicator(s) Milestones Progress

1.1 Number of live births attended by a skilled birth attendant through Save the Children supported activities or facilities across 10 priority countries

251,784 167,916(-33%)

1.2 Number of health care workers who complete pre-service or in-service training in defined list of child health and nutrition topics using standardised curricula through Save the Children support across 10 priority countries

47,566 34,420(-28%)

1.3 Number of boys and girls directly reached through our health and nutrition programmes

Health Direct Girls: 2,207,132 Health Direct Boys: 1,959,016 Nutrition Direct Girls: 2,762,102 Nutrition Direct Boys: 2,639,849

Health Direct Girls: 2,150,387 (-3%) Health Direct Boys: 2,031,064 (+3%) Nutrition Direct Girls: 2,734,238 (-1%) Nutrition Direct Boys: 2,705,965 (+2%)

10

A key contributing factor to the under achievement against the health and nutrition milestones was the substantial Save the Children response to the Ebola outbreak which led to a redeployment of resources to emergency response in the region. We also implemented a more rigorous validation process accounting for more correct and complete data removing possibilities of double counting which also influenced our numbers. Indicator 1.1: Negative variance is partly due to a significant reduction in the number of births attended by skilled birth attendant in Nigeria as compared to 2013.17 An urgent need was identified to improve polio immunisation coverage for children under 5 which lead to a shift in resource and programming priorities. Secondly, a significant project “PRINN-MNCH” ended in 2014 after the proposal for a second phase was unsuccessful. After an exceptionally challenging year, significant progress has been made across this indicator. Across all Save the Children Country programmes 24 countries reported 408,715 births attended by Skilled Birth Attendants during 2014.18 Indicator 1.2: The negative variance is in part due to a project that focused on training health workers ended in 2014 and most of the health workers in the target areas were trained in 2013. Overall 106,246 health workers were trained across 28 country programmes as compared to 73,456 health workers trained during 2013.19 Indicator 1.3 Our total reach figure is on track. The Northern Nigeria Vitamin A supplementation contributed to the overall achievement.20 The Vitamin A supplementation is part of the DFID funded Working to Improve Nutrition in Northern Nigeria (WINNN) programme. The Vitamin A distribution happens through the Maternal Newborn Child Health Weeks (MNCHW). This intervention contributes 3,000,000 + to the overall children total reaches achievement for nutrition. The PPA contributed to the implementation of a comprehensive model to support maternal and new-born survival in two districts in the Lindi region in Tanzania. There is an obvious gap in information provided to communities’ on their rights to health in terms of service entitlements, how these should be received, and where to report violations of these rights or possible misconduct. We provided support to health facility staff and community groups to improve the health of children under five years of age and their mothers. We also worked with Community Responsible Persons (CORPs)21 to mobilise communities to increase uptake of health services. We’ve strengthened the management and accountability of maternal and reproductive services and empowered communities by improving their knowledge of healthy practices and promoting their decision-making power regarding their own health. A project team also setup a mechanism to collect evidence on the satisfaction of patients on the quality of care.22 Evidence generated from an assessment addressing gender gaps informed approaches to be used in addressing factors influencing access and utilisation of our health interventions within our Signature programme in Kenya. In addition, Save the Children has adopted the Community Action Cycle approach that fosters community participation from those most affected by and interested in improved health services. The development of the new online version of Community-based Management of Acute Malnutrition CMAM23 Report promoting standardised reporting and improved data analysis for decision making has highlighted several key challenges including data quality, complexities of software development and the issues of linking with national reporting systems. To address the issues related to data quality, we are partnering with World Vision to pilot a CMAM SMART phone app/mHealth24 to support health workers to provide better service quality and improve reporting quality. We are extending planning periods to allow for challenges working with new and emerging technologies and we are working to influence national reporting systems to take into context specific approaches for rolling out standardised reporting. Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews In relation to feedback on estimating better forecasting of milestones, this challenge is highlighted at the global initiative M&E group to disseminate the message across countries. We have thoroughly reviewed the data and identified the double counting within our data collated on direct and indirect reach. Numbers are reported after removing the effect of the double counting. Recommendations - We will be working more closely with target countries to review milestones and track programmes against global indicators on a semi-annual basis. This will help us to anticipate divergences from milestones early on and recommend changes as appropriate.

11

In addition, to strengthen our health and nutrition portfolio to support the above output, we are exploring how nutrition can be integrated into ICCM (Integrated Community Case Management) with the aim of increasing access at the community level to life saving nutrition services, particularly treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM). After contributing to and co-leading interagency meetings (including peer NGOs, donors and UN) and an evidence review, we are actively looking for funding opportunities to pilot the integrations of the approaches at scale and to generate evidence to influence policy and practice.

DFID comment: A: output met expectations We acknowledge the challenges faced by Save the Children on meeting their health targets this year. Not only did they redeploy staff to deal with the emergency in West Africa, but access to children was restricted due to hygiene protocols being tightened, schools closed and healthcare workers also being redeployed to Ebola activities. They have demonstrated how they can adapt to the changing context, for example in Nigeria where they identified a need to improve polio immunisation for under 5’s and subsequently diverted funds. And how they have improved M&E ensuring that the numbers of those reached directly and indirectly is more accurate. We are pleased that Save the Children will review milestones/targets on a 6-monthly basis instead of annually to ensure that milestones/targets are realistic whilst remaining ambitious. Save the Children are to be credited with reaching such large numbers of children as they have responded to 97 emergencies – more than ever before – in this reporting year. We appreciate the disaggregation of data and would encourage them to consider analysing this further to identify the number of children with disabilities reached.

12

Output Title Save the Children supported schools and learning sites, especially in fragile states, achieve year on year improvements in access to education in safe and child-friendly learning environments

Output number per LF 2 Output Score A ++

Risk: Medium Impact weighting (%): 25%



N


2.1 Increased number of children enrolled in locally accredited formal and non-formal Save the Children-supported primary education programmes (by sex and formal/non-formal) across nine priority countries¹⁵

55,599 173,389 (85,319 Girls, 88,070 Boys)

2.2 Number of girls and boys, women and men, reached directly through Save the Children supported basic education programmes

3,875,136 7,300,707 (2,871,824 girls, 2,871,824 boys, 446,202 women, 1,220,754 men)

13

Indicator 2.1: The Access figure is much higher than the milestone, despite the exclusion of Colombia, Liberia and Sierra Leone from calculations. The key reason is due to the increase in access in DRC and Afghanistan, which country offices attribute to the GEC programmes. The Access indicator requires two years of enrolment data creating massive challenges in predicting targets. For this reason, we have used a static increase of 55,599 per year, which is the RtF 2011 baseline. Although we anticipated the increase in Access as a result of the GEC projects, it would have been unfeasible to calculate a closer target for this increase. Afghanistan-The increase in Access is attributed to this year’s figures including the DFID girls’ education project (STAGES).25 This is now in Y2 so data could only be included this year (to meet indicator requirement of 2 consecutive year enrolment data). DRC-The 'VAS-Y Fille' project (GEC)23 has greatly increased the DRC Education 2014 achievement as an additional 134 additional schools were supported with an annual 'Back to School Campaign' organised in the beneficiary communities with the aim to reintegrate a maximum of out-of school children. Indicator 2.2: The Total Reach figure is nearly three times higher than the milestone, despite the exclusion of Ebola-affected countries. The calculation of Total Reach uses a standard 10% year on year increase as the target for this indicator. A key factor is the Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria (ESSPIN) project27 as well as the notable increase in the number of girls reached (increased by 94% since 2013).28 This is largely attributable to the DFID GEC projects in DRC, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Mozambique. The PPA supported Save the Children to finalise the design of the curriculum and to implement a pilot (including MEAL components) of First Read in collaboration with a local NGO, Umuhuza in Rwanda. It also supported diversification of the training curriculum for the book sector under the Rwandan Children’s Book Initiative (RCBI) project and a review of the feasibility of additional approaches to improving children’s book availability, access and use. Most importantly, it allowed Save the Children to provide strategic support to both projects to ensure their effective contribution to the Education signature programme in Rwanda. The flexibility of the PPA has allowed the Save the Children team to support advocacy initiatives around the development of a holistic parenting education programme position paper, which was translated to Kinyarwanda for distribution to a wider audience and shared with Ministry of Gender and Promotion of the Family (MIGEPROF), district officials in Ngororero and other stakeholders29. As an example of innovative partnerships at the national level, after a field visit to an implementation site, the MIGEPROF team were so impressed with the work being done and the positive changes in the families that they ensured interviews with families were part of a documentary aired on Rwanda Television (RTV). This initiative generated increased media coverage from other sources. The Director of the Family Unit stated, “We now see the value of parenting education and we will support you in advocating for this to be taken to scale.”30 Save the Children is now recognised by MIGEPROF as a reliable partner contributing expertise in ECD, Family literacy, Parenting Education, etc. Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant) N/A31 Recommendations – Breakthrough work in Rwanda will continue to track growth and development over the next year. Innovative programming over the next year includes holistic parenting education training that will be part of pre-marital counselling in the Ngororero district in the second quarter of 2015 (as an extension of the success of the holistic parenting education programme position paper). During 2014 ECCD data collection, it was found that there was no regular communication between Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) caregivers and parents on child’s progress due to a lack of practice in requesting and providing feedback. In order to strengthen communication, the Myanmar team are hosting parenting education sessions for parents and community members and planning additional trainings for ECCD caregivers.32 The team will also participate in the review and validation of both the Revised ECD policy and the Umugoroba w’Ababyeyi Strategy. These are important documents relevant to the work of First Read and the ESP at large. These activities also solidified the engagement and collaboration of

14

MIGEPROF and Save the Children International, which is a good foundation for the MOU negotiations and signing expected to take place in early 2015.

DFID comment: A++: output substantially exceeded expectation The large overachievement figures noted are largely down to other programmes funded by DFID i.e. ESPNN and GEC. Although funded by other parts of DFID, the PPA has fed in strategically to Save the Children’s organisational effectiveness work in terms of, but not limited to, M&E; Value for Money pilots; Transparency therefore building the capacity of the entire organisation – this contributes to Save the Children’s ability to undertake such large restricted projects. We would however ask Save the Children to ensure that milestones and targets are realistic in order that such large overachievements are addressed earlier in the reporting year.

15

Output Title Increased number of children supported through improved child protection systems as a result of Save the Children supported interventions

Output number per LF 3 Output Score A+




N


3.1 Number of girls and boys reached directly through Save the Children's child protection work

Girls = 150,000 Boys = 150,000

Girls = 176,586 (+11%) Boys = 174,246 (+11%) Total = 359,032

3.2 % of child protection prevention and response service providers supported by Save the Children during a 12-month period which meet quality standards

A minimum of 15% of service providers meet quality standards.

20% of child protection prevention and response services supported by Save the Children during 2014 met quality standards

16

Key Points

Output indicator 3.1: Variance of progress against the milestone is largely due to additional funding being secured during 2014 for children affected by conflict in Myanmar, Colombia, Syria, The Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Central African Republic. Output indicator 3.2: The target for this indicator was exceeded by 5 percentage points. The complexity of capturing data across 26 countries and 652 service providers inherently allows for variance against the milestone. The PPA has provided the flexible funding to our Breakthroughs and has enabled us to focus our strategy and efforts in ways that programme funding could not. It has provided for opportunities to work with government and community based child protection mechanisms to start to build the foundations of a comprehensive child protection system. For example, in Tanzania technical assistance was provided for the establishment of a baseline on child protection mechanisms, systems and knowledge and for the monitoring and evaluation of child protection interventions. In Zanzibar, training was provided to partner and local government representatives on the quality standards for child protection services. Quality of Service Assessments carried out in 2014 in Tanzania provided an important basis on which to develop improvement plans and target support to these organisations and institutions. The PPA has also allowed us to develop a new research partnership with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to carry out formative research into patterns of violence against children in Zanzibar.33 This responds to a need identified by local government representatives, NGOS and UNICEF to strengthen violence prevention programmes on the island. This research will shed light on the different patterns of violence experienced by boys and girls in Zanzibar and provide important recommendations to guide the development of a pilot initiative to prevent violence against children in Zanzibar from 2016. Through providing specific breakthrough funding the PPA has also allowed us to invest more in learning in relation to preventing and responding to violence against children in conflict settings. For example in 2014 an impact assessment of Save the Children’s approach to preventing children’s involvement in armed groups found that the approach had had significant effects on children’s protection behaviours and attitudes, particularly when projects had emphasised children’s political participation as well as designing project activities. Our work with the government of China to develop elements of the national child protection system has been influenced by the Indonesia Signature Programme, for example the way that academics have been involved to support social working training was innovative, creative and useful to the China programme. The China programme is also considering how to incorporate the gatekeeping aspect of the work in Indonesia, which would strengthen mechanisms to prevent the unnecessary institutionalisation of children.

Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant) N/A

Recommendations - As we continue our efforts to contribute to the growing evidence base for effective interventions in child protection we will be looking at new methodologies to gather further learning. We will pilot the use of a Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach to assess the returns on investing in child protection. The proposed research will pilot SROI for one of our child protection programmes/interventions so as to provide information on the SROI for that particular programme/intervention, and generate wider learning for Save the Children on how to conduct a SROI analysis for child protection interventions, as a contribution to improving our methodology and approach to assessing the value for money of our work.

DFID comment: A+: output moderately exceeded expectation

17

Child Protection is often not a priority area when considering child issues. However, Save the Children is influencing governments around the world to change this. For example, they are working with the Government of Indonesia through Save the Children’s Families First programme which is seeking to contribute to a culture shift: ensuring that poor families are supported to care for their children instead of putting children in institutions. This could be a significant moment and cultural shift which should contribute to ensuring that half a million Indonesian children have the chance to remain with their families. It would be useful if future reporting could provide beneficiary feedback on child protection programmes. As Save the Children view children as stakeholders and not only beneficiaries, it is important that child voices are heard wherever possible (within the limitations of working with children).

18

Output Title Increased transparency and accountability to children within Save the Children programmes


Risk: Low Impact weighting (%): 5%



N


4.1 Accountability impact pilots completed with documented lessons informing programme improvements

3 pilots initiated 3 pilots have been completed with the breakthrough funds in Bangladesh, Somalia and Myanmar. Accountability efforts have been also documented in 2 other countries.

4.2 % of Save the Children supported projects involving Child Participation and complying with at least 3 Save the Children practice standards¹⁹

45% 58.2%

19

Indicator 4.1 The success of the three Accountability pilots is directly linked to the Breakthrough Funds supported by the PPA. Mainstreaming conflict sensitivity into programmatic activities is critical in a context where the potential for exacerbating intergroup tensions and divisions run high. Complex dynamics including ethnic make-up, management and committee structures, and issues with trust and relationship differ in each of the camp and poses unique challenges for information-sharing and two-way communications. The PPA has supported Breakthrough Funds in Myanmar which has allowed a conflict sensitive accountability approach. This includes a review of current methods used and available by/to beneficiaries for two-way communications & feedback, external context specific ‘tension level’ indicators as well as conflict-sensitive communications and accountability assessments. Working with the DFID consortium a CwC (Communication with Communities) framework was developed led by Save the Children, including recommendations and strategies not only for Save the Children but also for other consortium members to enhance communication with communities. This includes reviewing current methods used for beneficiary communications by using a CDAC questionnaire adapted by Save the Children.35 This framework and the CwC recommendations will be implemented inter-agency wide within Rakhine. The conflict sensitive communications and accountability assessment questionnaire developed by Save the Children was shared to all agencies at an OCHA meeting since Save the Children is the only organisation doing this kind of assessment very systematically, as acknowledged by UN-OCHA.36

The consortium is focused on WASH and Nutrition programming and our target areas are Sittwe areas (Sittwe, Maungdaw, and Buthidaung townships), as well as northern Rakhine. It is a programming consortium funded by DFID. We are currently in phase four (£4.75 million), which ends at the end of the year. Consortium members include SI (Solidarity), Oxfam, and ACF (Action contre la Faim) with SCI (Save the Children International) as the consortium lead. SCI works most closely with these three partners in Rakhine. Indicator 4.2: Figures for the inclusion of vulnerable groups were similar to in 2013. The largest increases were children displaced by conflict and disaster, from religious minorities and with disabilities, which have increased by 30%, 21% and 17% respectively. Also notable is children with HIV, which dropped by 42% as the ratio of projects reported Child Participation (ChP) indicator under the HIV theme decreased (from 11 projects in 2013 to five projects in 2014).37 The Save the Children Child Participation working group has been instrumental in its efforts to support country offices technically, raise the profile of the value of child participation internally and continues to advocate internally to improve our evidence base on child participation leading to quality programming and improvements. The group has been working collaboratively with Save the Children International colleagues accountable for monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning and the thematic leadership group. Save the Children UK has continued to provide technical expertise to country programmes and has ensured the voices and expertise of children have supported SCI strategy development process by convening a number of consultations with children and by facilitating regional children’s meetings. Save the Children UK has also provided strategic support to the Child Rights Governance (CRG)38 global initiative to integrate child participation across its global portfolio. As a further example of how the PPA has supported innovative programming, in Nepal we have developed innovative approaches to integrate the meaningful participation of children working in hazardous brick kilns in Kathmandu Valley. We set up a children’s advisory committee to help guide our protection project in advocating for safer working conditions, better protective legislation and greater access to education. We have continued to provide technical expertise to project staff and partners, and have engaged with children across brick kilns factories in Kathmandu to ensure their voices, insights and expertise shape the baseline and project design. We have built in learning review specifically focusing on children’s participation within the monitoring and evaluation process to ensure children’s voices influence the learning of the programme.39 Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant) N/A40 Recommendations - We will pilot a tablet-based Information sharing/feedback/CRM in 2 locations. Following feedback about the preference of the community for more informal mechanisms, field and camp-based staff will use tablets to record feedback and complaints from community members as

20

they go about their work, which will then be centralised into a database for review and dissemination to the appropriate channels for a conflict sensitive response. Save the Children has focussed its efforts to ensure child participation is planned for within project concept notes and proposals to generate a shift in culture to ensure strategically planned efforts for children’s participation are considered from the outset, improved country-level reporting/ accountability mechanisms for ChP in programming, a step change in ChP-related evidence, including identifying projects not suitable for ChP reporting. The Earthquake will obviously have a huge impact on work going forward within Nepal.

DFID comment: A+: output moderately exceeded expectation We are pleased that child participation is considered at the project design stage. This will ensure that projects are targeted at the right level and that reporting levels/accountability mechanisms are adapted and improved. It would be useful to hear more about this work as it progresses and of any challenges faced by programmes. At Indicator 4.2, it would have been useful to hear more on any analysis undertaken to establish why the inclusion of vulnerable groups (children displaced by conflict and disaster, from religious minorities and with disabilities) had increased. We are particularly interested in the disability group which is an area lacking in evidence across the development sector. We look forward to hearing more about this in the PCR.

21

Output Title Changes in discourse and debate at national and state level as a result of Save the Children supported advocacy and campaigning activities





N


5.1 Evidence of established coalitions influencing discourse and debate at the national and/or state level (Maternal, Newborn and Child Health and/or nutrition)

Three existing Child Survival (health & nutrition) coalitions contribute to policy implementation on nationally identified priority issues

Achieved. Pakistan, Nigeria and Mali

5.2 No of Save the Children country programmes conducting advocacy activities to change discourse and debate around specific Save the Children advocacy messages and targets, broken down by sector (health, nutrition, livelihoods, education, protection, child rights governance)

36 Achieved. 65 country offices conducted advocacy activities. 34 countries advocated on health and nutrition issues, 30 on education, 34 on child protection and 36 on child rights governance some countries reported on more than one activity).

5.3 Evidence of advocacy targets engagement in Save the Children supported advocacy activities

Issues identified and prioritised by Save the Children are being debated in the public arena/national debates/media, in 10 countries (not reported on in previous years) Policy makers make commitments to address the issues raised by Save the Children, in at least five countries

Achieved. Secured pledges from 32 countries.

22

Indicator 5.1: Strong progress has been made on our EVERY ONE campaign which specifically focused on new-born mortality in 2014. Of note, in Pakistan (with Development Partners for Nutrition), Nigeria (with the Health Reform Coalition) and Mali (under the Campagne Tous et Chacun coalition) we contributed to health and nutrition policy implementation, evidenced by increased budget allocations, legislative change and funding for health workers. We also strengthened local civil society capacity for policy and budget advocacy to drive in future, and helped drive powerful coalitions under the action/2015 umbrella to achieve national focus on the post-2015 development framework process. Indicator 5.2: The significant increase from previous reporting years reflects both an increased focus on reporting efforts for our advocacy work, and increased resources for progressing our national advocacy strategies. Indicator 5.3: We raised media interest and national policy debate on new-born mortality, stimulated by a global launch of our report Ending Newborn Deaths41 and national advocacy strategies in priority countries. In Pakistan we engaged in the Every Newborn Action Plan, and in Nigeria participated in the first National Newborn Health Conference, where the government committed to develop the Nigerian Every Newborn Action Plan (NENAP), following the adoption of the global plan. In India where we led the Indian Every Newborn Action Plan (INAP) consultations and pushed for commitments to reach MDG 4. Our PPA funding has allowed us to continue working on our EVERY ONE campaign in a number of countries where strategic advocacy can be influential in tandem with our programming resources. This has allowed us to achieve greater potential and impact, and has allowed us to continue to seek sustainable approaches for improving children’s lives. For example, in Nigeria, the “Quality of Care at Birth” project funded by Unilever conducted a base line assessment of the location where women give birth. It was found that many women give birth in private facilities, however the local MoH in Lagos does not regulate private facilities in the same way it regulates government facilities. Through sharing the information in this report with the local Ministry of Health we contributed to their decision to increase regulation of private health care facilities. As a further example, in 2014 the country office in Nigeria worked on advocacy and policy activities around task sharing for health workers. This contributed to the Nigerian MoH approving a task sharing policy which once implemented will mean more women and children will be able to access basic health services.41a The sophistication of our advocacy strategies has improved since the adoption of a unified international advocacy strategy, increased fundraising capacity, and stronger planning and M&E for our advocacy work in priority countries. Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant) N/A42 Recommendations - 2015/16 will focus on improved monitoring, evaluation and learning in our advocacy at the national level, in order to further enhance state, national and regional level advocacy strategies, and global learning on our advocacy approaches. We will also use the window of opportunity in 2016 of the new Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) framework to drive national level translation and implementation, across our priority breakthrough areas. This will require increased focus on national and local accountability mechanisms, which we have started developing through the global action/2015 campaign this year, which is building strong local SCO coalitions to track the SDG and climate change summits, and ensure citizen empowerment to hold national governments to account on their commitments.

DFID comment:

A+: output moderately exceeded expectation

Save the Children played an important role in galvanising support for action/2015. Their advocacy work in-country is evidenced by the results shown at Indicator 5.3 with 32 countries pledging

23

support for Save the Children’s identified issues. It would be useful to learn more about the actions taken against the pledges by the 32 countries (if data is available) in the PCR. Save the Children have demonstrated their ability to advocate for change at the highest level – the examples given for Nigeria evidence this. Their ‘Ending Newborn Deaths’ report influenced governments to further consider newborn deaths and set up discussions on how to minimise them. For example, after calling for change for ten years, Save the Children and others witnessed the President of Nigeria signing the Health Bill, making health a constitutionally guaranteed right for all citizens in Nigeria. The Global Goals are of critical importance and Save the Children’s commitment to further improve MEL in their advocacy work therefore enhancing country advocacy strategies is welcomed. We look forward to hearing more on progress in the PCR.

24

D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1 page) The following outlines some of our key cost drivers, and strategies for cost reduction. Programme Delivery Quality of programme design – We use an evidence based approach to select the most effective interventions, and design the most efficient way of delivering them. Where evidence is not available, we trial and test on a small scale. Average size of award and level of unrestricted income subsidy required to deliver award (since costs of running an award does not increase proportionately to size of award) - Tougher award acceptance criteria, and successful bidding for large awards, are pushing up the average size. Tougher award acceptance criteria are helping us turn down uneconomic awards. This more stringent application process ensures increased efficiency. Smaller awards are only accepted if they fit our strategic priorities and provide benefit of scale. Uncollected donor debt (tying up working capital) - Improved debt reporting and recovery processes. Fundraising Efficiency of our fundraising - We benchmark our fundraising costs and returns against others in the sector. Our 2015 budget process involved a thorough review of our fundraising portfolio, and shift of resources from lower-return activities to innovations with a potentially higher return. This is another example of how we benefit from flexibility of the PPA. It has supported the piloting of innovative, smaller projects. We look at what was involved for the design, justification and the return in terms of impact. We are constantly looking for innovative, highly scalable programmes. General Complexity of our internal processes - We are investing in improved automation, and a range of process simplification programmes (especially around award management). Size of HQ team - Our Save the Children UK 2015 budget imposed a 5% reduction on Divisions’ running costs. We have launched a cost structure review across the movement which aims to address duplication, compare costs of our support functions against external benchmarks, and promote shared services with the aim to improve effectiveness, efficiency and genuine VfM, over simple cost reduction. Costs of office space and staff costs - We have moved to a hot desking approach allowing us to absorb Merlin, HLA and START staff within existing office space. We are applying a policy of benchmarking salaries against the sector, while working to reduce our attrition rate of 30%. Travel and expenses - We have strong policies on justification for and authorisation of travel; and on claimable expenses. We have market tested our deal from our travel provider, but will continue to review this. We will strengthen assurance on compliance by further automation of systems (e-expenses etc.). VfM performance over the past year - In addition to the initiatives above, we have improved the framework to achieve VfM in other areas: We recruited a new procurement function in 2014. We are implementing a new procurement policy, developing a procurement forward plan and working with the business to take a pro-active and strategic approach to procurement and supplier management. We have refined our economic model for 2015 to 2018 to ensure our limited resources are allocated to achieve maximum impact for children. This enables us to prioritise our investments, plan growth within agreed cost ratios, and set annual budgets within the context of a longer term outlook. We have made immediate efficiencies through the reduction in combined head of costs and transitioning countries onto our existing Save the Children platform through our 2014 merge with Merlin. Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money - Save the Children currently reflects good VfM and we are continually improving by ensuring VfM is embedded throughout the organisation.

25

Quality of financial management - We moved to new accounting software called Agresso, the same platform as Save the Children International (SCI), which will enable us to produce more timely and consistent data on grant performance versus budget. A restructure of our Finance team in 2014 established the framework to clarify responsibilities within finance, to improve financial management and to scale up for the increasing activities of the business. We continue to work with SCI to improve data quality and improve processes under set projects with agreed deadlines. Our Finance objectives for 2014 included minimum targets for completion of monthly financial controls, which were achieved (and have been reset for 2015). These improvements together with the changes in procurement noted above ensure that we continue to improve our quality of financial management.

DFID comment: We are pleased with Save the Children’s response on Value for Money & Financial Performance. It is clear that Save the Children have taken steps to improve VfM – this is evident through move to the Save the Children International accounting platform allowing quicker and consistent data to be gathered. It is interesting to note that tougher award acceptance criteria, and successful bidding for large awards, are pushing up the average size of awards. Although Save the Children will provide smaller awards depending on the benefit, it would be useful to learn what mechanisms are in place which allows small, innovative organisations to access funds thus driving new ideas and developing capacity. How does Save the Children ensure the balance is right? We welcome the cost structure review addressing duplication, compare costs of support functions against external benchmarks, and promote shared services. This is a sensible approach for a large organisation with an ever increasing income and we would welcome more detail on this as it is available. As discussed with Save the Children, a key element of work has been improving MEL to support better data collection in order to improve understanding as to whether programmes are truly achieving the desired outcome and how they can be improved. It is good to note that Save the Children is applying the same approach to Value for Money. It would be useful to see the framework which guides Save the Children staff on designing programmes in terms of the % of overhead/admin costs applied to programmes internally or for those applications to donors. We are interested to understand more on how organisations calculate those costs.

Date of last narrative financial report DFID

Date of last audited annual statement DFID

26

E: RISK (½ page)

Outstanding actions from risk assessment

We’ve aligned our risk management process to Ambition 2015 and our annual organisational targets. Capitalising on opportunities in new, different or changing environments means that risks are also continually evolving and we need to constantly evaluate and determine how best to manage them. Therefore risk management is integrated into our internal control - a system that facilitates our effective and efficient operation as a charity. With the elements of our internal control in place, we can respond to a variety of operational, financial and commercial risks. As previously discussed, we amalgamated our Fraud and Anti-Bribery & Corruption Policies into an Anti-Dishonesty Policy (incorporating anti-bribery, anti-corruption and counter fraud) 43 which will be reviewed and updated again by Sept 2015. Our Risk Register is also reviewed and updated regularly.

DFID comment: Overall risk rating: Medium Overview of programme risk: The overall risk level is assessed as “medium”, with four out of the five outputs also assessed as ‘medium’. Outstanding actions: Save the Children have adhered to all provisions as a result of the March 2014 due diligence assessment as part of their PPA extension MOU.

27

F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (½ page)

Delivery against planned timeframe Current updates to log frame demonstrate any changes to progress. Outcomes are currently on track to updated log frame. Performance of partnership(s) Our ground-breaking approach to working with the private sector is one example of the way in which the DFID/Save the Children relationship reinforces our joint efforts to maximise the contribution that the UK makes to delivering development results. Our partnership with RB, for example, differs significantly from traditional donor funding models in that our working together started from the inception phase to undertake baseline studies and design a signature programme proposal to achieve systemic change for children. The product innovation approach is in line with Save the Children’s theory of change. RB’s product research capability, social marketing and reach will inform and change behaviours; and create a complimentary approach that will help reach more children and families than through Save the Children’s traditional direct programme reach alone. This approach will have the potential to scale if and when replicated in other countries, potentially saving millions of children’s lives. Where we are leading consortium projects we set up clearly defined governance structures and mechanisms. We use effective sub-contracting to delineate accountability for funding and results. For example, in the Basic Services Component of the Peace and Development Programme in Ethiopia, we use performance-based milestone payments that are linked directly to the delivery of the log frame to incentivise performance and sharpen focus on results accountability. For projects where we are working in partnership we establish decision making and technical working groups to ensure collaboration and consistency in approach alongside transparent decision making. Both are multi-partner, with the former set up as a decision making body and the latter providing a forum for collaboration. These meet on a regular basis to steer the direction of the project across the partnership. We ensure partners deliver VfM through a number of mechanisms, for example:

We benchmark partner costs against our own to ensure economy.

We clearly define roles and budgets.

We undertake effective due diligence checks of partner organisations.

When delivering contracts we use performance based sub-contracting to incentivise the delivery of results. Asset monitoring and control We have information security and data protection policies and procedures, as well as various technical measures to ensure we adequately protect all information, which includes a reporting mechanism for any issues. This is supported by an information governance structure which includes an Information Security and Data Protection Group which reviews and makes decisions on strategy and the group is supported by the Information Security Officer and Compliance & Legal Counsel.44

Stock is stored and managed according to Save the Children Warehousing, and Stock Management Procedures and relevant quality, safety and security standards prevent loss or damage. Stock movement can be traced from its reception to its intended point of use or distribution.45

DFID comment:

We have previously acknowledged the innovative way Save the Children engage with their private sector partners. They have worked with RB to design a programme which could be transformational if adopted by other countries. RB is financially supporting the programmes but will also develop and pilot two hygiene products – a low-cost disinfectant multi-purpose soap and a toilet powder – that will help reduce the prevalence of diarrhoea. Profits from sales of the products will be reinvested in the programme. The products will be manufactured locally, creating jobs and helping stimulate the economy. We look forward to hearing about progress on this in the PCR.

28

We are pleased to see Save the Children ensuring partner alignment with their own frameworks on due diligence; salaries and costs and using performance based arrangements to incentivise delivery. This is very much in line with our own approach and we would be interested to hear of any challenges faced when using performance markers with partners particularly around the level of risk that partners wish to take. We would ask Save the Children to consider a review of Save the Children Warehousing and Stock Management Procedures in light of the recent issues in Central African Republic (CAR). We acknowledge the challenging environment within CAR and ask you to ensure that stock management procedures are robust in difficult environments. Save the Children have played an active part in the PPA Learning Partnership (LP) since its inception and we are aware of their involvement in the Value for Money sub-group. We would encourage Save the Children to remain involved in the PPA LP and to consider ways in which the LP can continue after the current PPA funding ends in March 2016.

29

H: MONITORING & EVALUATION (½ page) Evidence and evaluation

Save the Children UK ’s Impact, Innovation and Evidence (IIE) team (established in 2011 through PPA funding) leads on the improvement of M&E, research and knowledge management systems and processes across Save the Children UK, providing technical advice and capacity building to teams both in the UK and country offices. The recruitment of an economist has been key to the development of our approach to value for money, the improvement of programme value for money frameworks and the quality of economic analysis. With leadership from the IIE team, Save the Children UK has developed a knowledge management maturity model which has been used to guide development in both the UK and country offices. Save the Children UK technical advisors play a strong role in movement level strategy, global metrics and technical support to country offices. IIE team members are currently leading the Save the Children movement in the development of an Organisational MEAL Framework which will further clarify our vision of best practice and give country offices a clear road map to optimise MEAL systems and processes. The work of the IIE team represents a significant contribution to the improvement of organisational monitoring and evaluation processes, much of which would be impossible without the strategic investments from the PPA. Over the reporting period we continued to gather evidence to enable us to make operational/implementation adjustments in our work. In our health portfolio, we have introduced more robust evaluation designs. For example, in our Stop Diarrhoea initiative in Nigeria, Pakistan and India, we have introduced quasi experimental evaluations designs which will enable us to have both internal and external validity of our approach. In our protection work, evidence on the kinds of violence perpetrated against children in both fragile and development contexts has confirmed the importance of including multiple stakeholders to improve outcomes for children (community based child protection mechanisms, government and broader referral networks)46 and to achieve advocacy goals. Based on this learning we have now started making concerted efforts to broaden and deepen our networks. In Zanzibar for example we have deepened our engagement with religious leaders, fathers and local government. In our nutrition work, we have worked with Centre for Disease Control (CDC) to analyse historical data collected through the Minimum Reporting Package (MRP) and CMAM report.47 This analysis highlighted some key learning including some poor quality data entered into the reporting tool. This insight has enabled us to develop improved tools to audit the quality of data, validity checks in the CMAM report database to reduce errors at the time of data entry as well an mHealth innovation in partnership with World Vision which we are about to pilot in Kenya aiming to support better service provision and reporting of CMAM. Additionally we have adapted the CMAM Report software to allow reporting agencies using the tool to disaggregate all reporting categories (admissions and discharges) by sex if desired, whereas previously this was only possible for admission data. In our education work, we commissioned a number of studies to better understand what works and what doesn’t in our ‘Advancing the Right to Read’ Signature Programme. Commissioned studies include a VfM analysis in our RCBI approach, baseline evaluation of First Read, as well as an impact assessment of the 0-3 Child Care programme.48 Reports for these were being finalised at the time of compiling this report. These findings will allow us to practically embed VfM in our education work. Monitoring progress throughout the review period As part of getting children’s voice into our work and particularly our next organisational strategy (2016-2030), we engaged with street children, children with direct experience of poverty, conflict

30

and abuse and children as members of Child Parliaments.49 A total of 160 children participated in regional meetings in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This engagement gave us useful insights into our work in general and will contribute to the development of Save the Children’s shared global strategy. With internal advocating and the children’s input, the SCI strategy 2016+ reflects a commitment to advancing child participation. Insights and quotes from children gained through events such as the Children’s Regional strategy development meetings will be considered as part of design across programming, to further bring children’s voices to the forefront of programming, and policy. Children’s insights reflect a system wide approach as oppose to an issue or service based approach. Throughout the year, staff from the Programme Policy and Quality and the Programme Partnerships departments provided quality assurance support to funded initiatives. Where field visits were conducted, detailed ‘back to office reports (BTOR)’ were developed and shared capturing areas of excellence and agreements reached during support visits. BTORs provide for the ability to monitor throughout the life of the grant, tracking revisions and amendments and provide structured recommendations with responsible persons outlined. They feed into lessons learned for future programming and allows us to embed improvements into future programming, across the organisation and with partners.

DFID comment: Save the Children have demonstrated a strong commitment to monitoring and evaluation through their impact, innovation and evidence (IIE) team (established with PPA funding). The IIE leads on the improvement of M&E, research and knowledge management systems and processes across Save the Children which has already driven key changes within the organisation, strengthening Save the Children’s wider performance systems. This is very much welcomed particularly in terms of Save the Children’s size, reach, income and engagement with DFID. Impact of IIE learning is already recorded across the organisation and programmes have been adapted accordingly. The PPA logframe is evidence of this which has been reviewed over the reporting period to take account of robust analysis on milestones/targets and to ensure that double counting of numbers reached is mitigated against and targets therefore are more realistic. As noted previously, children are stakeholders in Save the Children’s work not only beneficiaries. Therefore is it welcomed that children’s voices are heard at the programming stage and not only at the evaluation stage. We encourage Save the Children to continue with efforts to ensure children’s voices are heard at all stages of programming and learning.

Smart Guide i

I: DISABILITY (½ page) Does your organisation consider disability in its policies and programmes: Yes Save the Children are currently partnering with Handicap International through the global CPWG (Child Protection Working Group) Inclusion Task Force to develop and pilot guidelines, capacity building material and a MEAL framework for the protection of children with disabilities. This builds on the Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, standard 18: “Protecting Excluded Children”, as it was recognised that there was a lack of guidance available to achieve this standard. In order to promote and support the inclusion of children with disabilities and special needs in their MHPSS (Mental Health and Psychosocial Support), Save the Children are piloting a programme in Dohuk (Iraq), working closely with Handicap International. This involves an initial training in minimum standards in protecting children with disabilities, using specially developed training materials and the development of an action plan in order to ensure the inclusion and protection of these children, including through adapting activities for individual children. The programme also looks at wider issues in relation to children with disabilities – for example in relation to WASH. Within the broader framework of Save the Children’s Inclusive Education Framework, we address the right to education for children with disabilities. Under this framework and according to our global experience, our inclusive education programmes seek to address policies, build partnerships, address barriers to access and learning, as well as address attitudes of all involved stakeholders. Save the Children’s Post-2015 strategy, sets out a clear target that by 2030 we will ‘ensure all children have access to good-quality, safe and inclusive basic education, including in emergencies.’ To help achieve this ambitious target, Save the Children will increase programming to support inclusive education following a twin track approach: mainstreaming inclusion and implementing targeted interventions. Our 2030 ambition will focus our work on the most marginalised and deprived children and we’ll advocate for others to do the same.

DFID comment: It is useful to hear about the work being undertaken with Handicap International on the protection of children with disabilities/their families in humanitarian context. DFID are also working on guidance in partnership with Handicap International and HelpAge on disability humanitarian contexts as well as MHPSS and so we will welcome further information on these processes. DFID’s approach is complimented by data disaggregation in humanitarian contexts and so we are keen to ensure that you incorporate this in your work moving forward if you are not doing so already. We are also keen to ensure that, where possible, the Washington group short set of questions are used so that data can be compared with other programmes and interventions. We appreciate that disabled children are reached but would encourage you to disaggregate data by disability and location if possible.

Smart Guide ii

. Teams should refer to the Smart Rules quality standards for annual reviews.

The Annual Review assesses and rates outputs using the following rating scale. ARIES and the separate

programme scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall output score taking account of the weightings and individual outputs scores

Description Scale

Outputs substantially exceeded expectation A++

Outputs moderately exceeded expectation A+

Outputs met expectation A

Outputs moderately did not meet expectation B

Outputs substantially did not meet expectation C

Teams should refer to the considerations below as a guide to completing the annual review template.

Summary Sheet

Complete the summary sheet with highlights of progress, lessons learnt and action on previous recommendations

Introduction and Context

Briefly outline the programme, expected results and contribution to the overall Operational Plan and DFID’s international development objectives (including corporate results targets). Where the context supporting the intervention has changed from that outlined in the original programme documents explain what this will mean for UK support

B: Performance and conclusions

Annual Outcome Assessment

Brief assessment of whether we expect to achieve the outcome by the end of the programme

Overall Output Score and Description

Progress against the milestones and results achieved that were expected as at the time of this review.

Key lessons Any key lessons you and your partners have learned from this programme Have assumptions changed since design? Would you do differently if re-designing this programme?

How will you and your partners share the lessons learned more widely in your team, across DFID and externally

Key actions

Any further information on actions (not covered in Summary Sheet) including timelines for completion and team member responsible

Has the log frame been updated since the last review? What/if any are the key changes and what does this mean for the programme?

C: Detailed Output Scoring

Output

Set out the Output, Output Score

Score

Enter a rating using the rating scale A++ to C.

Impact Weighting (%)

Enter the %age number which cannot be less than 10%.

The figure here should match the Impact Weight currently shown on the log frame (and which will need to be entered on ARIES as part of loading the Annual Review for approval).

Revised since last Annual Review (Y/N).

Smart Guide iii

Risk Rating

Risk Rating: Low/Medium/High

Enter Low, Medium or High

The Risk Rating here should match the Risk currently shown on the log frame (and which will need to be entered on ARIES as part of loading the Annual Review for approval).

Where the Risk for this Output been revised since the last review (or since inception, if this is the first review) or if the review identifies that it needs revision explain why, referring to section B Risk Assessment

Key points

Summary of response to programme issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)

Recommendations

Repeat above for each Output.

D Value for Money and Financial Performance

Key cost drivers and performance Consider the specific costs and cost drivers identified in the Business Case Have there been changes from those identified in previous reviews or at programme approval. If so, why?

VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case? Performance against VfM measures and any trigger points that were identified to track through the programme

Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money? Overall view on whether the programme is good value for money. If not, why, and what actions need to be taken?

Quality of Financial Management Consider our best estimate of future costs against the current approved budget and forecasting profile Have narrative and financial reporting requirements been adhered to. Include details of last report Have auditing requirements been met. Include details of last report

E Risk

Output Risk Rating: L/M/H

Enter Low, Medium or High, taken from the overall Output risk score calculated in ARIES

Overview of Programme Risk

What are the changes to the overall risk environment/ context and why?

Review the key risks that affect the successful delivery of the expected results.

Are there any different or new mitigating actions that will be required to address these risks and whether the existing mitigating actions are directly addressing the identifiable risks?

Any additional checks and controls are required to ensure that UK funds are not lost, for example to fraud or corruption.

Outstanding actions from risk assessment Describe outstanding actions from Due Diligence/ Fiduciary Risk Assessment/ Programme risk matrix Describe follow up actions from departmental anti-corruption strategies to which Business Case assumptions and risk tolerances stand

F: Commercial Considerations

Delivery against planned timeframe. Y/N

Compare actual progress against the approved timescales in the Business Case. If timescales are off track provide an explanation including what this means for the cost of the programme and any remedial action.

Performance of partnership How well are formal partnerships/ contracts working Are we learning and applying lessons from partner experience How could DFID be a more effective partner

Asset monitoring and control

Level of confidence in the management of programme assets, including information any monitoring or spot checks

G: Conditionality (not applicable to PPAs – report on partnerships only)

Update on Partnership Principles and specific conditions.

For programmes for where it has been decided (when the programme was approved or at the last Annual Review) to use the PPs for management and monitoring, provide details on:

Smart Guide iv

a. Were there any concerns about the four Partnership Principles over the past year, including on human rights?

b. If yes, what were they? c. Did you notify the government of our concerns? d. If Yes, what was the government response? Did it take remedial actions? If yes, explain how. e. If No, was disbursement suspended during the review period? Date suspended (dd/mm/yyyy) f. What were the consequences?

For all programmes, you should make a judgement on what role, if any, the Partnership Principles should play in the management and monitoring of the programme going forward. This applies even if when the BC was approved for this programme the PPs were not intended to play a role. Your decision may depend on the extent to which the delivery mechanism used by the programme works with the partner government and uses their systems.

H: Monitoring and Evaluation

Evidence and evaluation Changes in evidence and implications for the programme Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made How is the Theory of Change and the assumptions used in the programme design working out in practice in this programme? Are modifications to the programme design required? Is there any new evidence available which challenges the programme design or rationale? How does the evidence from the implementation of this programme contribute to the wider evidence base? How is evidence disaggregated by sex and age, and by other variables?

Where an evaluation is planned set out what progress has been made.

Monitoring process throughout the review period. Direct feedback you have had from stakeholders, including beneficiaries Monitoring activities throughout review period (field visits, reviews, engagement etc) The Annual Review process

annual review - summary sheetiati.savethechildren.org.uk/docs/save the children... · annual review...

Documents