Thematic Evaluation of Save the Children Norway's Cooperation with Partners - Nepal Case Study

Background  
The Nepal evaluation is one of the four country review on the impact of SCN’s cooperation with partners. SCN wanted to assess how and to what extent the strategies and policies are being implemented and effective in strengthening local capacity in the countries where SCN work, and how partnership cooperation could develop in the future in order to maximize the development effect. The evaluation in Nepal principally looked backwards in learning lessons up to 2009 but also included aspects of the present as partners described more recent experiences.  

Purpose/objective  
The purpose of this evaluation was to provide an insight into SCN’s work with partners, build learning and ensure accountability, by studying the practices in Nepal:
1. Providing evidence of impact of SCNepal’s cooperation with partners.
2. Reviewing implementation and documenting good practices.
3. Providing recommendations for future partnership cooperation, both in SCN and SCI.
  
Methodology  
Semi structured interviews were conducted with a sample of 15 current and 2 former partners. Interviews were based on a standardized protocol used in each of the country case studies. Interviews with key informants from the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare, Social Welfare Council, Ministry of Education, Norwegian Embassy, UNICEF, Association of International NGOs in Nepal, SCI in Nepal staff etc. A validation workshop towards the end of the fieldwork was conducted to debate the initial findings with partners and SCI staff. In addition to structured/semi-structured interviews; relevant literatures, progress reports, audit reports, country annual plans were reviewed and analyzed, as well as an on-line survey to staff and partners.  

Key findings  
The partnership relationship of mutuality, respect and transparency has been the key to effective partnerships. Capacity building, both in technical areas and in terms of organizational development, has been extremely important for partner’s performance in programmes, capacity to grow and secure funding from other donors and to achieve sustainability as an organization. The length of contracts is a source of concern for partners as annual agreements do not provide the medium term predictable funding needed to fully invest in programmes. Partners had not been adequately prepared in exit strategies and this is a particularly important issue in view of the gradual phase out in many districts across the country. There is a perception that SC has sometimes been more accountable to donors than to local communities and that there are occasions on which the agenda has been led by global rather than local demands. In relation to children’s clubs and the support they receive from partners, children considered that partners sometimes provide support ad hoc (not related to the plans children had made).
  
Recommendations  
- Be transparent with partners on the reasons, plans and timescale for phase out and establish clear plans rather than allowing them to foster false hopes.
- Offer training in proposal writing to interested partners and ensure that partners have access to sufficient data to produce well thought out proposals with strong indicators and monitoring systems.
- Support partners in the development of their own local research and monitoring systems and identify where data coincides with that required by SC Nepal. Consider how data collected can be fed back and debated with partners and communities as well as being used in upward accountability.
- For Government partners, the state reporting schedule could be paramount, review whether it is possible for SC Nepal to adjust to the state’s four monthly reporting period rather than the existing 3 monthly period.
- Review how the reporting needs for different SCI programmes can be harmonized so that partners do not have to provide two separate sets of reporting data.
- Consider proposing that partners provide child-friendly training to child clubs in project cycle management.
- Ensure that the focus is on children identifying their own issues that are most immediate to them and help them to define the best ways to go about tackling those questions.
- Debate with partners whether some approaches taken by children could put them at risk and whether other possible approaches could be analyzed with children. (For example, children going directly to restaurants and demanding that child workers are returned to school could put children at risk; a safer approach could be children’s participation in publicity campaigns, peer education and engaging authorities with the responsibility of addressing the issue directly)." 
 
Comments and follow-up from the organisation, if any  
Follow up plan developed, learning taken into new SC in Nepal’s new Partnership policy and annual plan for 2013. Follow up also depend on SCN and SCI.