LEAP Discussion Paper

1. LEAP Discussion Paper FEEDBACK

2. Where do you work? (groups only)

3. Respondents • NOs from all regions represented • 75%+ of SOs and ROs responded, plus GC • Average of 10 per group • Groups included NDs, Ops Dir., MQ, Sponsorship, Strategy, Faith & Dev., Finance, SLT, Int. Programmes, DME, Grants, PE, programme officers, Technical/Sector Specialists, Advocacy, GAM, HEA, Marketing, Zonal, Cluster & ADP Managers, PMU, DFs

5. Analysis 80%+ of respondents thought that the ideas in the paper fully or mostly met the following intentions of LEAP 3rd Edition: • Strengthen the link between NO strategy and its programmes • Is aligned with One Operation, One Organisation

6. Analysis 2 50%+ of respondents thought that the ideas in the paper fully or mostly met the following intentions of LEAP 3rd Edition: • Supports effective advocacy @ local & nat. levels • Rises to 82% if we add ‘partially meets’ • Significantly reduces no. of SO review/decision points • Rises to 79% if we add ‘partially meets’ • Enables SOs to engage more strategically with NO’s portfolio of programmes • Rises to 78% if we add ‘partially meets’ • Strengthens project management & quality implementation • Rises to 78% if we add ‘partially meets’

7. Analysis 3 • 50%+ of respondents thought that all of the ideas in the paper fully, mostly or partially met all 14 of the intentions of LEAP 3rd Edition • 60%+ of respondents thought that 12 of the ideas in the paper fully, mostly or partially met the intentions of LEAP 3rd Edition • 70%+ of respondents thought that 7 (half) of the ideas in the paper fully, mostly or partially met the intentions of LEAP 3rd Edition

8. Analysis 4 BUT more than 20% feel that it does not meet the following intention at all: • Allows SOs to be accountable to sponsors & other donors • This view is expressed mainly by SOs themselves

10. DME requirements can be fully applied by all NOs & SOs for all Programmes • NB the idea for which the greatest no. were unsure (35+%) • Most comments from all groups said we need more info. before they can comment • Some were +, eg: • ‘Yes, as long as SO views heard at PST’ • ‘The direction and approach to LEAP 3 enables the operationalisation of sponsorship planning and enabling funding considerations at a cluster and NO level. This presents a greater opportunity for alignment with the NO strategy and contribution to the CWB.’ • ‘It should do if the SOs are not spending all their time looking at designs.’

11. DME requirements can be fully applied by all NOs & SOs for all Programmes • Some –ve, eg: ‘wishful thinking - DME requirements cannot be defined @ strategic level, but must be in full understanding of local context. There must be a reason that some countries are really poor. If we rely on generalised in - country inputs it is no longer a collaboration but a money delivery system with so called hand outs from SOs.’

12. DPE Response • We’re not proposing generalised NO data in LEAP 3 • Currently have a lot of local-level data of highly varied quality, plus a lot of missing data which does not meet the needs of SOs or NOs • New system would seek to ensure that every technical programme provided rigorous data through six monthly reports and evaluations • Where some NOs or Tech. Progs not making the grade this will immediately become apparent to SOs/PST & NO Ops/QA and the wink links addressed, unlike current system where data is hidden in 300+ project reports and evaluations (eg Ethiopia) that will only be visible to selected SOs and NO staff, who may or may not review them • At same time no. of reports and evaluations greatly reduced so greater chance that capacity can be created for NO & SO reviews

13. DME requirements can be fully applied by all NOs & SOs for all Programmes (2) • Issues to be consider: • ‘assume it will be difficult to roll out Leap 3 for running progs. Especially if Leap 3 means that SOs shall not fund a specific geographical unit within LPA boundaries anymore. For SOs it is crucial that our info. needs are covered through the M&E systems. DME requirements can sometimes not be fully applied because of capacity gaps at ADP/Base/NO level - in order to implement LEAP 3, we would need to ensure that capacities are built accordingly.’ • ‘This statement suggests that there are no other dependencies on fully applying the DME requirements apart from this guidance and LEAP 3. The DME capacity of NOs varies significantly and is usually about # of staff and less about capacity of individuals. # of DME staff in MEER is usually limited by available budget. It has not been systematically addressed by appropriate and relevant organizational structures and systems to support staff retention.’

14. DME requirements can be fully applied by all NOs & SOs for all Programmes (2) • Issues to be consider: • ‘Such a change in LEAP ought to be mandated, as SO's and NO's really need a single, consistent set of DME standards with red tools that are fully aligned. More helpful to consider O4 & LEAP aspects seperately, defining the links; they need different timespans. This would allow a more helpful focus on the programming model aspects such as local capacity and systems to ensure contextualisation & for field testing needed if we are changing a programming model.’ • ‘How do we ensure that the focus remains on some overarching goals, and we don't just end up with national level silos based on sector/technical areas? At a conceptual level this is clear through the CWB focus, but operationally, especially as offices expand grant funding and the leadership/management of programmes shifts to technical staff, I think there is the strong possibility that programmes become quite separate from each other.’

15. DPE Response 2 • We need to clarify what is to be mandated • We won’t finalise LEAP 3rd Edition before field testing in FY14 • LEAP and the DME Management policy will continue to be mandated for all programmes regardless of funding source or type • Nos will have freedom as to how and when they start moving their programming from LEAP 2nd to LEAP 3rd Edition

16. Enables reporting on how individual registered children benefit from programming • NB the idea for which 2nd greatest no. were unsure (25+%) • Another 15+% thought it did not meet this intention at all • Most comments from all groups said this should be possible, but systems need to be adapted to make it a reality • Also a number of comments that the systems we currently have (STEP/STEPWISE) are not fully or consistently used

17. Enables reporting on how individual registered children benefit from programming • To consider: • ‘possible if LEAP 3 can direct on integrating sponsorship in programs and not a separate project’ • Horizon 3 transition appears to work on this, however understand the incompatibility of STEPwise and Horizon , how would this work for us, is not sure. • ‘We believe that the presentation of revelant reports about the children will depend much more of a monitoring system well designed and implemented. If we follow with the same tools and processes we will have the same gaps.’ • LEAP 3rd Edition does not seem to introduce anything new from what’s been done through CMS and SMPS. The tools we have at the moment are not ‘broken’ per se, it’s the level of buy-in and compliance that we’re struggling with. • If the equality/level of SRS becomes standardized, it means decrease in service level for our office. Japanese sponsors value personal connection with their RC, particularly by exchanging the letters. Templates of RC’s APR are tailored every year for Japanese Sponsors because of language and cultural reasons. We are concerned that these tailored donor services will not be provided.

18. DPE Response • We’re not proposing changes in LEAP 3rd Edition to enable reporting on how individual registered children benefit from programming, per se • However, the changes that are made in LEAP 3rd Edition need to ensure that reporting on how individual registered children benefit from programming is still possible

19. Enables SOs to be accountable sponsors & other donors NB the idea for which the greatest no. thought it did not meet the intention at all (20+%, most of whom where SOs) Analysis of comments:

20. Enables SOs to be accountable sponsors & other donors • NB the idea for which the greatest no. thought it did not meet the intention at all (20+%, most of whom where SOs) • NOs say: • Not sure with the pooling of resources and programme portfolio, SOs requirements on reporting which is evidenced based to their donors and sponsors, needs some radical shifts in making this work .If made workable , this would be a real good way forward! • Sponsors and donors are also part of the decision making on what programmes/projects will be implemented in the community. Since there will be a greater focus on monitoring, reporting and accountability at the local level, NOs will be able to generate periodic clear evidence of progress to report to partners including SOs. Monitoring information/data will be used to show progress towards National Office strategic priorities, and can be used in the National Office annual report on child well-being. Support Offices can utilize NO Annual Reports as basis to provide periodic evidence/progress on child well-being to Sponsors and donors as part of our accountability to them

21. Enables SOs to be accountable sponsors & other donors • NOs also say: • We recommend that sponsors have access to horizon version, specially designed for them where they can see the ADP progress in a very simple way. • If the LEAP 3 version takes in to account the various grants requirements, then the LEAP 3 for strategy enables support offices to be accountable to Donors and Sponsors • this will help to simplify and streamline accountability

22. Enables SOs to be accountable sponsors & other donors • NOs say (Spanish): • La información mejorada de acuerdo al documento permitirá rendirle cuentas a los patrocinadores y otros donantes, aunque es necesario una mayor especificidad sobre que aspectos serán claves para informar al donante. • Es importante hacer más explicitas las articulaciones y diálogos con la unidad de patrocinio, en aras de entender si hablar de rendición de cuentas a donantes es también la respuesta a comunicaciones que constituyen un estándar; en ese sentido el documento no aporta a la integración ni da claridades respecto a los qué y cómo. Rendir cuentas de los impactos que tienen su contribución a nivel nacional no solo de los APL que esté apoyando, esto contribuye a ver el patrocinio como una oportunidad de desarrollo de las comunidades y no solo desde el vínculo de un niño en particular. Las OA deberán mantener informados a los donantes y socios de estos cambios a fin de que haya claridad de nuestra intervención. Así es, al darse procesos de M&E eficientes para dar cuenta de resultados e impactos, con una base de evidencia confiable. Pero depende también de la Promesa de Valor que se ofrezca a los donantes.

23. Enables SOs to be accountable sponsors & other donors • NOs say (English translation): • The improved according to the document information will allow accountable to donors and other donors, although a greater specificity on which aspects will be key to informing the donor is necessary. • It is important to make more explicit the joints and dialogues with the unit's sponsorship, in order to understand if talk about accountability accounts to donors is also the response to communications that constitute a standard; in that sense the document does not add to the integration or da clarities regarding where and how. Accountable for the impacts that have their contribution at the national level not only of the APL which is supporting, this contributes to see sponsorship as an opportunity for development of the communities and not just from the link of a child in particular. The OA shall keep informed donors and partners of these changes so that there is clarity of our intervention. So, to give M & E efficient processes to account for results and impacts, with a base of reliable evidence. But it also depends on the promise of value offered to donors.

24. Enables SOs to be accountable sponsors & other donors (SOs also say) This is absolutely not the case – the opposite is true. Nothing beats the power of a story that SO staff can tell from a face-to-face visit. The SO involvement in monitoring activities on field visits and through detailed review of all DME documents ensures a high level of accountability to supporters and sponsors. (As a SO, we can say hand on heart that specific activities and interventions are actually happening using the funds raised by NZ supporters. The additional information we can provide and the confidence we build from programme monitoring visits is priceless and invaluable to presenting programme outcomes to supporters.) SO monitoring visits also allow an external reviewer to ask questions ‘out of the box’ and challenge key assumptions that may have been made by the NO or ADP staff. On page 8, “Solid standard technical products could be sold easily and to most sophisticated donors, like governments, private foundations and development banks.” This may be true, but WV’s primary source of funding comes from child sponsors, while private donors also make up a significant number of our funding partners. We do not believe that child sponsor retention retention will improve, or that it will be easier to acquire new sponsors, as they are primarily interested in information about the children they sponsors and the communities in which they live. They want to see, feel, and experience change, connections, and relationships. Private donors also respond most favourably from some level of customisation of proposals, progress updates and reports that will be difficult to accommodate in this new proposed structure. Sponsorship remains our top funding source, and the impact of O4 on this product needs to be analysed and evaluated before moving forward with O4. O4 and LEAP 3rd Edition seem to suggest that child sponsors do not require or deserve the same level of accountability and customised, high quality programming that other grant or PNS donors do. The rationale for this is not clear, as our child sponsors represent the highest source of revenue in the partnership and their desire to engage and connect more closely with the children and communities they support is only growing. On page 5 it states: “M&E and finance systems will be set up to report both in terms of LPAs and technical programmes.” Donor promise will be at risk as resources are shared and distributed across multiple ADPs/LPAs. An advantage of the current level of engagement of SO programme officers is that we know that funds given for a specific child are being used to benefit that child and the nearby community. We monitor this and we have quality assurance that helps us communicate effectively with our supporters. We understand the new model suggests funds are committed from different SOs into groups of ADPs, which will expose us to greater risk. With programme reports and financial reports prepared at the technical programme and LPA levels only, individual SOs will have no way of knowing how their funds are being allocated to individual projects or communities, and this will actually decrease SOs’ ability to be accountable for their contributions to programmes. With national technical programmes that are only partly funded by different SOs, it will be difficult for us to ‘sell’ the story of one community’s transformation and unique design. This proposed new model will result in a loss of the unique bilateral relationship between supporters and ‘their’ ADPs – for many years we have been able to market ADPs exclusively funded by New Zealanders. We are experimenting with community to community funded ADPs and finding considerable success in this area. Now under LEAP 3rd Edition, if a church or other group of stakeholders want to partner with one community and track its progress, we will be unable to customize reporting or stories to that specific ADP. The ADP may not even be included in the national ‘sample’ of LPAs targeted for the baseline or evaluation, and we simply can’t tell sponsors about results that are obtained at an aggregated level from another ‘sample’ of LPAs. Will Sponsorship projects be designed or managed at the LPA level or ADP level? If at LPA level (as the diagram on p.5 implies), how will an LPA team manage the sponsorship communications expectations of multiple SOs? There are different expectations for reporting, style/language of sponsorship communications, etc, to different nationalities of sponsors and this will be quite challenging to manage at the LPA level. Where will child folders be stored? If these are located at a central LPA office, they will be even further away from the communities than they currently are at the ADP offices, and it will be challenging to manage the day-to-day administration of child monitoring, correspondence/query follow up, etc, with teams of volunteers or child monitors spread across a wide area of multiple ADPs. We need data to be disaggregated at least back to the ADP level, unless larger LPAs are started by multiple SOs at the same time and supporters are aware from the start of the larger area programme their children belong to. Until the current programmes end, we need to continue presenting information to supporters about the specific ADP they have been introduced to.

25. Enables SOs to be accountable sponsors & other donors • SOs say: • - If we monitor the programmes at a more macro level, it becomes harder to monitor individual RCs as to whether they are benefitting from our programmes and makes it more difficult to report to our sponsors. - Currently, SOs are accountable for programme quality and reporting this to their donors. When this shifts to the NO, it makes it harder for the SOs to be accountable to ensure that a minimum quality is ensured and then to report this to the donors. - The implications on child sponsorship also needs to be considered on our end because the messaging we provide to our sponsors would have to change and we would need to explain that their donations are going to an even larger group of communities. (NB challenging O4 not LEAP)

26. DPE Response • It could be argued that if our current systems, reviews and decision points worked perfectly SOs would have all that they require to be fully accountable to sponsors & other donors • Unfortunately all SOs and all NOs fail to meet our current requirements to such an extent that SO are not meeting their responsibilities to donors • These proposals aim to be a big improvement on current realities, but admittedly full some way short of what would be possible with the current requirements in an ideal world • We are seeking a workable, acceptable solution

27. SO Questions • Marketing – starting from scratch LEAP 3 ideas could work, but this is not how we currently market sponsorship. Given time and good collaboration with Marketing and SOs in the field testing, could we therefore make it work? • A lot of concern about LPAs being bigger than ADPs and potentially being funded by multiple SOs. This does not have to be the case and where feel they can better manage their programming in this way they would need to do it in consultation with SOs and the PST; on the other side many ADPs are now shared with increasing numbers of SOs defaulting on funding and other SOs stepping in; if LPAs are generally not bigger than ADPs, could this work?

28. SO Questions • Several comments saying that moving reporting and evaluation to a higher level won’t provide adequate information for accountability to donors. However, this seems to suggest that the current set up provides adequate information. At its best it does, but in most cases the best is not achieved and so it does not. Would consistently good information from reports and evaluations at a higher level be better than what we currently have and could it be made to work in providing adequate accountability to donors? • Some concern raised about SO field visits – LEAP 3 will not stop this happening, but the O4 direction & with NOs increasingly taking responsibility for QA of progs it will feature less

29. SO Questions • The level of detail available about individual RC and from the LPA/ADP level is a concern; this detail needs to be worked out in the field tests and acceptable minimums agreed; must be limited enought that all Nos can achieve it and high enough that SOs can do their job

30. Summary of additional positive thoughts raised groups