Review of Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke/ActionAid Denmark · the areas of local governance, youth mobilization and women’s rights. Organizations receiving an Inspirator or Adviser report

Review of

Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke/ActionAid

Denmark

Date: November 2014

Technical Advisory Services Department,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

2

Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... i

Overall performance ................................................................................................................................... i

Capacity development .............................................................................................................................. iii

Danish Arab Partnership Programme ...................................................................................................... iv

Financial management and administration .............................................................................................. iv

Follow up to previous reviews and evaluations ........................................................................................ v

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Brief Description of MS/AADK ............................................................................................................ 1

2.2 Background to the Review .................................................................................................................. 1

2.3 Approach and Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2

3. MS/AADK’s Strategic Framework .............................................................................................................. 3

3.1 MS/AADK’s Strategy between 2010 and 2012 .................................................................................. 3

3.2 MS/AADK’s new strategy: “Together Against Poverty” ..................................................................... 3

3.3 Relevance to Danida Strategies and Policies .................................................................................... 5

3.4. Attribution, contribution, results and efficiency. ................................................................................ 6

4. The MS/AADK Program under the Framework Agreement ..................................................................... 7

4.1 Activities and Partners under the Framework Agreement ................................................................. 7

4.2 Use of Framework agreement resources ........................................................................................... 7

5. MS/AADK’s MENA Engagement ............................................................................................................. 10

5.1 Relevance of the MENA Engagement .............................................................................................. 11

5.2 Activities and Partners in the MENA Engagement .......................................................................... 12

5.3 Size and Flow of Resources ............................................................................................................. 13

5.4 Analysis of Performance ................................................................................................................... 13

5.5 Issues to Consider Regarding Programing of the MENA Engagement .......................................... 14

5.6 DEMENA Pool ................................................................................................................................... 15

5.6.1 Positioning and Administration of the Pool............................................................................... 15

5.6.2 Performance of the DEMENA pool ........................................................................................... 16

5.6.3 Additional Challenges ............................................................................................................... 16

6. MS/AADK’s Performance in the Area of Capacity Development ........................................................... 18

6.1 MS/AADK’s Capacity Development Approach ................................................................................. 19

3

6.1.1 Analysis of T4C ......................................................................................................................... 19

6.1.2 Global Platforms ........................................................................................................................ 21

6.132 Analysis of P4C ........................................................................................................................ 22

6.1.3 Analysis of MS/AADK’s Sub-granting for Program Support .................................................... 24

6.2 Analysis of MS/AADK’s Capacity Development and AAI’s Theory of Change ............................... 25

6.3 Analysis of Synergies between Capacity Development Methods ................................................... 26

6.4 Analysis of the Performance of MS/AADK’s Capacity Development Approach ............................. 27

6.4.1 Capacity Development Outputs ................................................................................................ 27

6.4.2 Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 28

7. Monitoring and evaluation of programs ................................................................................................... 30

7.1 Reporting ........................................................................................................................................... 31

7.1.1. Annual report ............................................................................................................................ 31

7.1.2 Reporting under the Framework Agreement ............................................................................ 31

7.1.3 Reporting under the DAPP Agreements .................................................................................. 32

7.2 MS/AADK’s New Monitoring System ................................................................................................ 33

7.3 MS/AADK’s System for Evaluation ................................................................................................... 33

8. Analysis of MS/AADK’s financial management and administration ....................................................... 34

8.1 Financial management roles and capacity ....................................................................................... 34

8.2 Management of the Arab Regional Initiative .................................................................................... 35

8.3 Systems and procedures for fund transfer and management ........................................................ 35

8.3.1 Funds managed within MS/AADK’s own organisational structure ............................ 35

8.3.2 Funds transferred to and managed by local partner organisations .......................... 36

8.4 Auditing .............................................................................................................................................. 37

8.5 Anti-corruption ................................................................................................................................... 38

8.6 Human resource management, time registration and duty travel ................................................... 39

8.7 Capacity to generate own financing ................................................................................................. 39

9. Summary of recommendations ................................................................................................................ 42

Annex 1: Follow-up on Recommendations from Previous Review ............................................................ 46

Annex 2: MS/ AADK performance to 2010-12 strategic goals. .................................................................. 48

Annex 3: Current MS/AADK strategic objectives and indicators ................................................................ 49

Annex 4: MENA progress to objectives ....................................................................................................... 50

4

Abbreviations

AAI ActionAid International AA Country Office

This term is used as a common denominator for ActionAid affiliate and associate members.

ARI Arab Regional Initiative Danida Term used for Denmark’s development cooperation, which is an area of activity

under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark DAPP Danish Arab Partnership Program DKK Danish Kronor CBO Community Based Organization Local NGO This term is used to denominate NGOs that are partners with the AA Country

Office LRP Local Rights Programs MENA Middle East and Northern Africa MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MoU Memorandum of Understanding MS/AADK Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke/ActionAid Denmark MS Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke MS-TCDC MS Training Centre for Development Co-operation NGO Non-governmental Organization P4C People for Change SDA Swedish Development Advisors AB T4C Training for Change

i

Executive Summary

The purpose of the review was to assess the performance of MS/AADK in capacity

development since the last Danida Review in 2009. The specific objectives were to assess:

- MS/AADK performance in developing the capacity of civil society organizations in the

South and in the Arab region

- The outcomes of this capacity development with regard to MS/AADK’s objectives and

agreements with MFA and with individual partners,

- MS/AADK engagement under the DAPP, including the administration of the

DEMENA Pool,

- MS/AADK’s organizational and financial capacity to operate its programs with MFA

framework agreement/DAPP funds,

- MS/AADK’s follow-up to the recommendations from the latest reviews and evaluation.

The review was undertaken from February to July 2014 by a team from the Technical Advisory

Services and consultants from Swedish Development Advisers. The Office for Humanitarian

Action, Civil Society and Personnel (HCP) and the Office responsible for the Middle East

(MENA) in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs participated with resource persons during the review.

Overall performance

Strategic alignment

The focus and approach of MS/AADK is aligned the Danish Strategy for Development

Assistance, the Policy for Danish Support to Civil Society and the Danish Arab Partnership

Programme. MS/AADK, in general, they administer the programmes in line with agreements

with Danida. MS/AADK’s programmes have a clear focus on HRBA and aim to build the

capacity of local NGOs in HRBA approaches, particularly in relation to citizens holding

governments to account.

MS/AADK is an affiliated member of Action Aid International (AAI) and is subject to AAI’s

global strategy. MS/AADK has a distinctive and relevant “footprint” in the work of AAI in line

with Danish development strategies and policies. The comparative advantage of MS/AADK is

formalised within the federation in the areas of democratic governance and capacity development

and youth.

MS/AADK, however, should strive towards implementing its HRBA approach in all aspects of

AAI’s work; this includes continued focus on local organisations as equal partners in

implementing programmes and not as service providers; helping National AA offices implement

transparent and democratic governance structures; and avoiding the unintended effects of being a

strong international organisation working with local organisations.

ii

Performance

The affiliation of MS/AADK with AAI has enabled it to make a distinctive and influential

impact within the federation, allowing it to ‘scale up’ its methodologies and best practises beyond

the scope of a traditional Danish NGO. However, membership of a federation also presents

some challenges to MS/AADK as a Danish NGO principally funded by Danida - most obviously

how to monitor and report on the use of Danida funds at country and programme level and on

the specific contribution of these funds to programme impacts.

MS/AADK’s progress towards stated objectives has been generally satisfactory although this

assessment is difficult given the difficulties in accessing adequate monitoring data on some of the

objectives. Progress toward objectives in the MENA programmes has been less than planned –

due to both the volatile context and organisational issues. MS/AADK should adopt a more

systematic, pro-active approach to risk management when operating in volatile contexts.

M&E framework

MS/AADK reporting during the period 2010 – 2012 suffered from a number of weaknesses.

There has been a systemic weakness in how MS/AADK has managed goal setting and Danida’s

annual review of this process. MS/AADK established new goals every year for the framework

funding without reporting against the goals for the previous year. MS/AADK’s most recent

Strategic Plan (2012-2017) establishes eight impact goals and the underlying Implementation

Plans establish output goals. MS/AADK has yet to identify outcome goals and to measure

progress against these. This led to a lack of consistency in MS/AADK’s reporting against goals

and targets, and made it difficult for Danida to carry out its oversight role in assessing whether

MS/AADK has achieved the targeted results.

Similarly, the current DAPP reporting arrangements do not allow MS/AADK or the MFA to

reliably assess progress of objectives. Not all the original indicators are used for annual reporting

to MFA and, as a result, the Annual Reports do not assess overall progress towards the

achievement of objectives. For example, quarterly reports from ARI country program

coordinators to MS/AADK capture all original indicators but the data is presented in different

formats and with different levels of detail which makes tracking of progress extremely difficult.

There is also some ‘double counting’ of activities or beneficiaries in the reporting of different

outputs and objectives.

The 2013 Annual Report indicates that MS/AADK has improved its monitoring and reporting

systems. MS/AADK has recently developed an impressive new system for the monitoring and

collection of data from several different sources. This system if focused on collecting data to

monitor outputs. However, there is room for improvement in the new M&E system to ensure

that MS/AADK can monitor and report output results in a reliable manner, but also to report on

outcomes. For example, MS/AADK should continue to work on clearer targets with partners; to

collect data to measure; to establish indicators for which data can be collected within reasonable

cost; and to implement a data collection system that collects outcome data on a regularly and

iii

consistently manner. MS/AADK should continue its dialogue with AAI on how to improve AAI

monitoring and reporting systems.

Capacity development

Approach

MS/AADK’s approach to and support for capacity development is in line with its own and

Danida’s strategic frameworks. It is important that MS/AADK preserves demand-led orientation

of its capacity development, since there are some indications that AAI country offices and

partner organisations may feel obliged to use MS/AADK training.

The MS/AADK approach to capacity development is heavily dependent on face-to-face training

for which it has a well-developed methodology. There is a yet-to-be-realized potentials for

increased synergies between the various MS/AADK capacity development approaches.

MS/AADK does not have a fully developed methodology for on-line training yet which would

be well suited to the MS/AADK target groups e.g. youth, and key to its leading role in capacity

development within AAI.

Performance

During interviews and surveys, it was clear that MS/AADK’s training methodology and

programme-led approach is highly appreciated by the participants. MS/AADK systematically

monitors the effectiveness of training through annual surveys. This measure how participants

have acquired and used the new skills acquired, but do not address the impact of the training on

their organisation and/or programmes. The measures used for monitoring step-down training,

for example, do not measure whether the overall or aggregated training targets are met.

MS/AADK should address these challenges in order to improve monitoring and reporting on

training outcomes.

The People4Change programme shows evidence of results for communities and beneficiaries in

the areas of local governance, youth mobilization and women’s rights. Organizations receiving

an Inspirator or Adviser report a high degree of satisfaction but it needs to be considered that

more support in preparation to host an Inspirator or Adviser is required to take full advantage of

the resource.

The management responsibilities for MS/AADK Global Platforms need to be clarified so that

MS/AADK can transfer management responsibility for the Global Platforms to the AAI country

programmes/affiliates more effectively. MS/AADK should continue to take responsibility for

the development and quality assurance of the concept of the Global Platforms within the AAI

federation.

MS/AADK’s coaching and mentoring at local rights programmes level was greatly appreciated by

partners. MS/AADK should consider including these activities in its capacity development

model and reporting.

iv

Danish Arab Partnership Programme

MENA programme

The objectives of the MENA programme are well aligned with Danish Arab Partnership

Programme and national youth policies’ objectives. Programme activities are designed through

appropriate consultation with stakeholders and are relevant to the target groups.

MS/AADK progress towards meeting the objectives has been mixed – in part due to a number

of factors beyond the control of MS/AADK e.g. popular protest in Egypt and escalating crisis in

Syria. Youth training targets are likely to be met while targets related to the DEMENA Pool and

institutional capacity development are likely not to be achieved. The review highlights a number

of suggestions to improve the performance of the MENA programme - for example, by

addressing the current focus on school and university students; defining roles and responsibilities

more clearly in partnership agreements; exploiting national and regional networks to facilitate

knowledge sharing and leverage other actors; considering how to explore both the supply and

demand side of work on local governance; and expanding the range of social accountability tools

in the support of youth mobilization.

DEMENA Pool

MS/AADK is well positioned to manage the DEMENA Pool given their experience and

expertise in youth and capacity development and presence in the region. After some initial

difficulties, progress has been made in improving the administration of the pool e.g. the selection

process. However, progress in implementation has been slow due to a low number of applicants.

The Pool would benefit from greater transparency in the selection processes and an M&E

format. The review recommends a number of measures to improve visibility, targeting and

criteria for the Pool support to expand its target groups (to Arab organisations especially) and

improve monitoring and reporting.

Financial management and administration

MS/AADK has relatively comprehensive systems and procedures for financial management and

administration. While the use of resources in MS/AADK was found to be in line with planning

and budgets, systemic weakness in financial systems have been identified, especially with regard

to the administration of the ARI. These weaknesses should have been reported more openly and

quickly to the MFA. At the time of the review, MS/AADK had taken some measures to rectify

the situation. Further efforts are warranted to ensure adequate control of funds transferred to and

managed by the organisation’s local offices, including the Regional MENA Office. Audit and

anti-corruption policies should be reviewed and consistently communicated within the

organisation as well as to external partners.

MS/AADK should continue to monitor and report on the allocation and use of framework

funds transferred to AAI country offices and ensures that AAI has a balanced approach to the

degree of funding channelled to local partners outside AAI. The review found that approximately

25% of framework funding is channelled to what it would consider as partner organisations.

v

MS/AADK will need to continue to ensure the use of anti-corruption clauses in all grant

agreements.

To date, AADK has been able to raise the required level of matching funds and is making

progress on diversifying their funding to a level where 20% of their funding is independent on

funding from Danida. The growth in contributions from individual donors is slower than

expected and MS/AADK will need to actively review their individual and institutional

fundraising strategies to achieve their ambitious targets.

Follow up to previous reviews and evaluations

The majority of the recommendations of the 2009 review have been addressed. However, these

recommendations have become less relevant since the affiliation of MS with AAI in 2010. The

review notes positively that MS/AADK commissioned a thorough evaluation of their practices in

2011 and is gradually implementing these recommendations.

1

1. Introduction

2.1 Brief Description of MS/AADK

Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke/ActionAid Denmark (hereinafter abbreviated to MS/AADK) is one of

the largest civil society organizations in Denmark and has for a long time received substantial

funding from Danida based on an “Agreement of Cooperation” (Samarbejdsaftale, latest from

1994).

MS/AADK is a membership-based organization with an elected Council of Members as its

supreme decision-making body. It meets once per year. In between meetings, MS/AADK’s

Board meets frequently, during the past three year they have met between 7 to 11 times.

MS/AADK was reorganized in 2012. The ARI programme was managed directly by the director

of capacity development at the time of review.1

In 2010, MS became an affiliate member of the federation ActionAid International (AAI). The

transformation to become a Danish NGO in an international federation has included substantial

work in terms of restructuring such as; closing of MS country offices, aligning with AAI policies

and strategies, assisting in developing AAI policies and strategies, designing and implementing

PM&E systems in collaboration with AAI, undertaking the mandate to develop governance,

capacity development and youth as programme areas in AAI, among others.

MS/AADK has an important role of delivering and developing a substantial part of AAI’s

capacity development. As such they deliver training through nine venues; the larger training

village, MS-TCDC, in Tanzania and seven urban and one rural training venue in six countries

(called Global Platforms (GP))2 specifically focusing on youth empowerment training3. Specific

training on HRBA and governance and course development activities carried out in the Global

Platforms has been financed by the MFA framework agreement. Of the total financing of the

GPs, about 20 and 22% was financed by Danida in 2011 and 2012 respectively4. In 2013 the

Global Platform funding model was changed into scholarships that fund each participant.

In August 2006 MS/AADK obtained the status as a Danida framework organization and now

they receive an annual budget directly allocated from the National Budget Act. The annual budget

under the current 4-year rolling plan is DKK 149 million. MS/AADK has been a partner to the

Danish Arab Partnership Programme (DAPP) since 2006. In 2013 MS/AADK was approved as

a strategic partner under DAPP receiving an additional grant of DKK 11 million for 2013-2014.

2.2 Background to the Review

In accordance with the Strategy for “Danish Support to Civil Society in Developing Countries”

the MFA undertakes thematic reviews of the framework organizations to enhance the

1 A new restructuring was announced shortly before the review and will be fully effective in September 2014. 2 El Salvador, Jordan, Kenya (urban and rural), Myanmar, Nepal, Tanzania. 3 In addition MS/AADK also operates one Global Platform in Denmark 4 Based on data provided by MS/AADK compared to Audited Financial statements for MS/AADK.

2

professional dialogue between Danida and these organizations. In March 2014 a Review Team

was formed to carry out this review.

The Review Team consisted of Rene Taus Hansen, Team leader, and Mette Bastholm, Technical

Advisory Services, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Åsa Königson, Jonas Lövkrona and Kevin

Hempel from Swedish Development Advisers. Jens Kåre Rasmussen and Trine Storm from

Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted as resource persons and participated in the field work of the

review in Uganda and Tanzania, Jordan and Egypt, respectively.

The Review Team is thankful to all staff in MS/AADK for their collaboration in the preparation

of the review, especially those who assisted in organizing the field missions.

2.3 Approach and Methodology

The review covers four different agreements with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the framework

agreement and three separate contracts under the DAPP. The framework agreement and DAPP

contracts are different in terms of modalities; the framework agreement allows a greater degree of

freedom in terms of country selection and thematic area of MS/AADK whereas the DAPP

contracts defined to a higher degree which countries and what thematic areas the organization

should engage in. However, due to similarities in thematic areas and means of implementation it

has been decided to include both types of programs in the review.

The review is not tasked to undertake an assessment of the transition process of becoming a

member of the AAI federation. The review focuses on programme delivery and methodology

and whether the transition has allowed MS/AADK to undertake the work outlined in the

framework agreement and application, as modified.

The overall objective of the review is:

to assess MS’s professional performance in relation to capacity development of civil society

organizations in the South and in the Arab region

to assess the outcomes of this capacity development on the objectives stated by the

organization and in the agreements with MFA, at head office level as well as at the level of

the individual partners,

to assess the engagement under the DAPP, including the administration of the DEMENA

Pool,

to provide a general assessment of MS’s current organizational and financial capacity to

operate its programs with funding from the MFA framework agreement/DAPP,

to assess the organization’s follow-up of the recommendations from the latest reviews and

evaluation.

The selection of MS/AADK’s partners selected to visit was based on the need to observe and

collect data on project funded under the DAPP program. . Two countries were selected; Jordan,

which is the regional hub for MS/AADK and Egypt which has a number of activities applying

the various instruments which the review was tasked to assess. .Furthermore, MS-TCDC was

selected as it is MS/AADK’s largest capacity development hub and AA Uganda which is one of

the three main partners to MS/AADK in terms of funds sub-granted. The RT has assessed the

3

performance of MS/AADK against their own stated objectives and indicators. The RT has

assessed reports; validated information and performance during interviews with beneficiaries,

partner organizations and staff; and tried to merge performance indicators with the use of

financial and human resources.

The review has focused on performance assessment of the work undertaken under the

framework agreement and the Danish Arab Partnership Programme (DAPP). Capacity

assessment of the organization has only been done to assess whether MS/AADK has the

capacity to manage and implement the framework agreement.

3. MS/AADK’s Strategic Framework

3.1 MS/AADK’s Strategy between 2010 and 2012

Between 2010 and 2012, MS/AADK had a transitional strategy in place, “MS/AADK in

Transition”. It established MS/AADK’s overall vision, mission, values and approach. During the

transition period MS/AADK’s strategy was not directly linked to that of AAI.

A review of the documentation provided to Danida and the MS/AADK’s Board with regard to

the fulfilment of the prior strategy shows that MS/AADK has achieved three of the seven goals

assessed as part of this review. Details of results to strategic goals can be found in Annex 2. For

some of the goals, it is not possible to provide conclusive data on achievements.

3.2 MS/AADK’s new strategy: “Together Against Poverty”

During the first part of 2012, MS/AADK prepared a new strategy, “Together Against Poverty”

to direct its work between 2012-2017. This strategy is aligned with and support AAI’s strategy for

the same period of time. AAI’s strategy establishes 10 Key Change Promises that the entire AA

federation will work to fulfil. Most of the Key Change Promises are measureable. They cover

several themes within democratic governance: youth, women, mobilization of poor and local

governance. AAI’s Key Change Promises can be called impact objectives, i.e. medium to long

term objectives where several factors will contribute to the actual results. These are important to

the AA federation as these set the direction for all AA Country Offices to work towards,

establishing their own strategic plans with these overall Key Change Promises in mind.

The Key Change Promises are followed-up in the ActionAid’s Annual Report. The AAI 2013

Annual Report provides data on each of the Key Change Promises but one, and attempts to

measure progress.

MS/AADK has selected four of AAI’s Key Change Promises to contribute to, building on their

own experience in capacity development, democratic governance and youth work. The following

MS/AADK Strategic Objectives each contribute to one of AAI’s Key Change Promises:

Objective 1: AADK will contribute to holding governments and corporates to account, and

thereby improved public services for five million people living in poverty.

Objective 2: AADK will contribute to ActionAid winning significant victories in achieving fair

redistribution of resources.

4

Objective 3: AADK will contribute to ActionAid’s work with women and men affected by

disasters.

Objective 4: AADK will contribute to mobilizing 5 million young agents of change

In addition, MS/AADK established the following Strategic Objectives:

Objective 5: Together with AAI, AADK will develop a regional program in the Middle

East and North Africa.

Objective 6: AADK will support the capacity of ActionAid and ActionAid partners to

apply a Human Rights Based Approach.

Objective 7: AADK will have a significant impact on Danish and European policy

within our campaign areas, and we will strengthen cooperation between the Danish

government and international civil society in matters of common interest.

Objective 8: AADK will ensure that Danes have an arena for action as global citizens

and strengthen their engagement and involvement in campaigns aimed at fighting poverty

and promoting sustainable alternatives.

The Strategic Objectives will be measured using a set of indicators, see Annex 3.

In addition to the MS/AADK’s “Together Against Poverty”, five “Implementation Plans” have

been developed5. These documents establish sub-objectives for each of the respective areas,

output targets, and in some cases outcome targets and activities to be implemented. The

“Implementation Plans” cover the period 2012-2015. These are well formulated and clear plans

that allow for an understanding of what is to be achieved, by when and with what activities.

MS/AADK’s strategic framework for the period 2012-2017 has potential for further

improvement:

The strategic objectives are vague and do not help MS/AADK to plan its activities. The

objectives need to be more specific to clearly establish MS/AADK’s responsibilities.

The strategic objectives need to clearly indicate what is to be achieved and what a success

can be defined as.

There are also goals that are inputs i.e. “to establish AA in the MENA region” are a

means to achieve another goal i.e. help youth, women and girls to demand accountability

and justice.

The indicators MS/AADK has defined attempt to measure output i.e. Advisors placed,

or persons trained.

There is no baseline defined in “Together against Poverty” nor in the “Implementation

Plans”. Without a baseline value it is difficult to appraise an achievement both as to the

relevance of the objective and as to the actual accomplishment

The strategic objectives should be formulated to be Specific, Measureable, Achievable,

Relevant and Time-bound.

5 For respectively “Democratic Governance”, “Advocacy and Action”, “Empowerment” and “Resources”. An additional plan has been developed for internal membership – which has not been reviewed by the Review Team as this was outside the scope of the review.

5

Using a Results Based Management (RBM) approach6, the Key Change Promises represent an

Impact target for MS/AADK and MS/AADK’s own Strategic Objectives could be re-defined into

Outcomes with the “Implementation Plans” establishing the Output targets. MS/AADK has

established SMART output-level targets (in the ”Implementation Plans”) but also its Strategic

Objectives would benefit from being specific, measureable and based on a baseline.

As part of a large federation MS/AADK is expected to contribute to the Key Change Promises.

The Review Team does not expect MS/AADK to fully deliver upon the Key Change Promises,

but to establish a baseline and realistic outcome and output targets for the program(s) that

Danida funds. MS/AADK has a system for establishing such goals, together with their partner

AA Country Offices (through the Programme Objective Plans (POPs) and for monitoring and

reporting progress (see Chapter 7).

Findings

MS/AADK’s Strategic framework findings are:

Overall, MS/AADK’s Strategic Objectives are in line with MFA strategies and aim to

contribute to the MFA’s strategic goals.

Objectives are statements of intent and not goals.

Objectives are not specific and as such do not provide guidance on what activities are

important to achieve them.

There are also objectives which actually are input i.e. “to establish AA in the MENA

region” was a means to achieve another goal e.g. greater youth mobilization in the region.

There is no baseline defined.

The goals should be specific, measurable, attainable and time bound.

Recommendation

Recommendation is listed under the section on Monitoring and Evaluation.

3.3 Relevance to Danida Strategies and Policies

MS/AADK Framework Agreement should contribute to the following strategies; the “The Right

to a Better Life – Strategy for Denmark’s Development Cooperation”7 and “The Civil Society

Strategy8 – Strategy for Danish Support to Civil Society in Developing Countries”9.

MS/AADK’s Strategic Objectives are in line with five of eight strategic goals established in the

document: “The Civil Society Strategy – Strategy for Danish Support to Civil Society in

Developing Countries”.10 However, MS/AADK does not fully comply with the requirements of

”setting clear targets” and ”strengthening their results-orientation” (Strategic goal 1.2.7 of the

strategy).

6 An approach applied by a large number of donors (including Danida) and used to report results by NGOs world-wide. 7 The Danish Government. “The Right to a Better Life – Strategy for Denmark’s Development Cooperation”. 2012. 8 The strategy was replaced by a new policy by Danida, however the strategy has been used as reference point as this was in effect for the implementation period under review. 9 MFA. ”The Civil Society Strategy – Strategy for Danish Support to Civil Society in Developing Countries”. 2008. 10 MFA’s strategic goals 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4 and 1.2.6.

6

Finding

Overall, MS/AADK’s Strategic Objectives are in line with the MFA’s strategies and aim

to contribute to the MFA’s strategic goals.

3.4. Attribution, contribution, results and efficiency.

The decision by MS/AADK to affiliate with the global AAI federation poses a challenge

regarding attribution, contribution, results reporting and cost efficiency. While affiliation to a

global programme allows MS/AADK to have a much wider reach - 45 countries - than if MS had

operated alone, clear results reporting becomes more difficult because MS/AADK no longer has

full control of the programmes implemented.

MS/AADK support to AA country offices allows for priorities to be established by the AA

country programmes itself. This is comparable to budget support to an AA country programme,

with the corresponding challenges of attribution and contribution of the MS/AADK share of the

budget. MS/AADK should continue its efforts to enhance the monitoring capability of the

programmes and enter into a dialogue with AAI and country programmes on the balance

between use of the budget support at AA level or at local rights programme level and with local

partners, to ensure that the priorities are set by the country programme.

MS/AADK has a clear and substantial comparative advantage in capacity development in AAI,

specifically in training and placement of advisers and inspirators. The theory of change indicates

that the contributions of MS/AADK to the capacity of AAI and partners allow AAI to engage in

productive programmes which ultimately aim to achieve societal change. Capacity development

efforts are generally measured in number of people trained, placements of staff, and the

satisfaction with training and placements respectively. The challenge for MS/AADK is that

monitoring at the level of trainee satisfaction is a poor proxy indicator for the effect of the

support at the level of societal change. The current monitoring system, while very impressive, is

stretching the evidence for the theory of change to a degree that makes it very difficult to assess

the validity of the theory.

Assessment of effective use of resources in a global federation, with an intentional mingling of

funds, is very difficult. The framework guidelines state that results reporting and cost efficiency

are mandatory considerations. It is difficult to show the MS/AADK contribution to the overall

objectives, to assess cost efficiency and matching results with resources used. The Review Team

finds there is room for improvement in this area and that the organisational model of AAI,

challenges the need for result reporting and cost effectiveness analysis.

In the future it will be important for MS/AADK to be open about the challenges and dilemmas

faced, the rationale for the decisions made and the consequences of these. It is also important for

MS/AADK to continue the discussions in the wider AAI federation on the need for focussing

on the requirements of the Danish framework funding requirements.

7

4. The MS/AADK Program under the Framework Agreement

4.1 Activities and Partners under the Framework Agreement

AAI defines the methods to be used to develop capacity as a) training, b) on-line tools, and c)

people11. MS/AADK and AAI have signed a ”Delegation Agreement” whereby MS/AADK is

responsible for delivering courses, managing the “People” method of capacity development

within the Federation, and establishing 14 Global Platforms.

MS/AADK’s offer to the AAI (partly funded by Danida) consists of:

Training4Change (T4C) i.e. face-to-face training design, delivery and follow-up for training

on democratic governance, HRBA, youth, campaigns, institutional governance and middle

management within AAI.

People4Change (P4C) i.e. recruiting and placing Inspirators (short term professional staff –

up to 9 months) and Advisors (long-term professionals – up to 24 months) with a local NGO

or with an AA Country Office.

Program support to selected AA Country Offices in specific program areas: Governance,

Trade Justice and Land Rights. Funds are sub-granted to the AA Country in accordance with

“Partnership Agreements”12 that are based on the AA Country’s own strategic plans13.

Knowledge generation, exchange of experience, and development of methodologies and

performance management models.

MS/AADK’s target groups include support to local NGOs as well as AA Country offices that

carry out activities and work directly with end beneficiaries. MS/AADK has nine priority

partners within the AA Federation14.

AA country offices fall into three categories – affiliates (fully integrated, independent members of

the federation); associates (with registration in progress or completed); and country programs;

fully managed by AAI structures.

4.2 Use of Framework agreement resources

Danish framework funding can be applied very flexibly within the AAI federation supporting

MS/AADK priorities. The framework agreement does not specify standards for the amount to

be transferred to local organisations, nor does it specify the proportion of funding to be spent for

M&E, programme development etc.15 However, guidelines for framework agreements do state

that results should be documented; activities described using log-frame and /or a result based

management methodology; and efficiency and effectiveness in terms of use of resources.

The review has prepared an overview of the use of framework resources to assess the efficiency

and effectiveness of the implementation of programmes. However, lack of detailed financial data

11 Agreement for delegation of Capacity Development from the ActionAid Secretariat, on behalf of the Federation, to ActionAid Denmark, Revised January 2014. 12 Called ”Cooperation Agreements” prior to 2012. 13 In some cases called “Program Document”, in other, “Program Objective Plan” 14 Guatemala, Kenya, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe 15 Apart from administration, information and specifically agreed activities such as UNV.

8

at the level of outputs and outcomes has made it difficult to make an assessment across the

review period. An analysis has been possible for 2013 only. The RT was unable to make an

assessment of cost efficiency of the various outputs but was able to illustrate the use of resources

allocated under the framework agreement. MS/AADK has a structured generic cost calculation

for scholarships, and cost of courses etc.16 the calculations are used to charge the framework

agreement e.g. according to number of scholarships awarded. However, it is not possible with the

current systems to calculate unit cost of scholarships and training days or other outputs. The

framework agreement is therefore charged according to the budgeted figures developed on the

basis of the cost calculation.

In terms of overall efficiency and effectiveness, the RT finds that the overall allocation of

MS/AADK resources is in line with the focus of the organisation and its mandates within the

federation. 84% of framework funding is used for programme activities; 38% for programme

countries (8% for P4C, 30% for country offices), 10% for People 4 Change, 16% for Training 4

Change and 20% for methodology development.

Overall use of framework funding in MS/AADK programme 2013. Percentages are shares of total framework funding. Compiled from multiple sources of financial documentation and reporting from MS/AADK

16 I.e. the cost of week course in a GP is approximately USD300 and applied across the organisation. MS/AADK informed the RT that while there are differences in cost structures in various countries, they have decided to apply a uniform rate.

9

MS/AADK reported the use of framework funding in 2013 to 21% on cost of development in

support of programmes; 61% on support to AA countries; and 18% on other support,

information and administration.

According to country programme financial reports, 10% of the frame is used in AAI or

MS/AADK country programmes (which the RT does not consider as local partners as they are

directly implemented by AAI or MS/AADK). The remaining 25% is used by AAI Affiliate or

Associate country offices which qualify as local organisations with local systems of governance.

The RT recognizes that financial transfers are made to local organizations outside AA. Therefore

this is not the sole criteria for whether end beneficiaries are serviced and the target group

supported. However, AADK should continue to focus on the balance between funds transferred

to partners and funds utilized within and by the AAI members in AA structures.

The AA Country Offices use a large part of their support to support local partners in the 9

countries, although due to different programme portfolios, proportions vary significantly across

countries. Overall 14% are used in non-AA organisations.

It is important to note that decisions on resource allocation in individual AA country

programmes are not done by MS/AADK, but by the AA country programme. The amount of

resources channelled from AA country programmes to non-AA partners is not directly17 under

the control of MS/AADK. Most funding in AA countries is allocated by Child Sponsorships,

which are restricted in terms of what the fund can be utilized for, i.e. 70% needs to go to the

community level. Danida funds do not have the same restriction18. Therefore, there is relatively

more funding available for empowerment at the local level while, for example, capacity

development, policy/campaign work, research and alliance building are under-resourced.

MS/AADK estimates that the 38% funding from MS/AADK represent approximately 1/3 of

the total funding to the country programmes in priority countries.

Across the period 2010 to 2013 the

support to the 9 priority countries

has amounted to 58% of the

framework allocation19. In 2013, 46%

of the frame is used for P4C, T4C

and methodology development. This

is a high proportion of the overall

frame, but the prioritisation should

be seen in the context of the global

mandate to undertake capacity

development, governance and youth portfolio on behalf of AAI. A good part of the framework

funding for T4C is used for methodology and course development. Most of the funding for the

17 Although MS/AADK can include these considerations in the negotiations with the country programmes. 18 MS/AADK does however specify that maximum 15% of the funding can be used for administration and programme management etc. at the level of AA country programme. 19 The 58% is not directly comparable with the diagram showing the situation for 2013 due to differences in compilation of numbers.

10

implementation of the courses is coming from the participants (organisations) themselves or

from other strategic partners. MS/AADK estimates that T4C only receives 40-45% of its total

resources from the framework funding.

RT team found that the AA federation allows MS/AADK to deploy its comparative advantage in

capacity development to a global programme; it would not have as bilateral NGO. In this context

the proportion of funding spent on methodology and development is justified.

Findings:

The overall balance of resource utilisation is comparable to the mandates and role of

MS/AADK in the federation.

The RT finds that MS/AADK has a clear and sizable “footprint” in the AA federation.

The thematic areas are relevant and MS/AADK methodology is implemented across the

federation and not only in the 9 priority countries of MS/AADK.

Detailed assessment of efficiency and effectiveness in terms of unit cost or cost in

relation to outputs and outcomes has not been possible with the data available.

25% of the framework funding is channelled to organisations which the RT categorizes as

local partners.

While MS/AADK is abiding by the financial reporting guidelines in terms of the

framework agreement, the current set-up does not allow management to make regular

assessment of effectiveness and efficiency in the implementation of results.

Recommendations:

1. MS/AADK should discuss with the wider AAI and with AA country programmes on the

balance between funding to partners outside and inside the AA federation.

2. MS/AADK should consider internal systems for assessment of overall efficiency and

effectiveness in its use of resources20, including actual cost of key outputs.

3. Clarification from HCP on the criteria for what constitutes a local partner should be

considered.

5. MS/AADK’s MENA Engagement MS/AADK has been active in the MENA region since the mid-1990s and a grant recipient under

the DAPP since 2006. Since 2011, MS/AADK has received three additional grants from the

MFA, the latest of which was granted against the background of becoming a strategic partner

under the DAPP.

Title of grant Grant amount Period

Youth Engaging in Change Processes in North Africa

9.6 million DKK July 2011 – 30 June 2013 (extended till March 2014)

Building Bridges for Youth Action – Part II

28.4 million DKK January 2012 – December 2014

Young Women and Men’s Action to address Injustice in the Arab Region

11.0 million DKK July 2013 – December 2014

20 MS/AADK is abiding by the financial reporting guidelines in terms of the framework agreement; the recommendation is aimed at internal systems for assessing whether resources are used efficiently and effectively.

11

These ongoing grants seek to support the implementation of AAI’s “Arab Regional Initiative

“(ARI). Following MS/AADK’s original MENA strategy issued in 2008, AAI has approved a

new strategy for activities across the MENA region in 2013 and mandated MS/AADK with the

management responsibility of the initiative.21

MS/AADK’s overall development objective for the DAPP is to enhance the capacities of and

opportunities for young people and CSOs/NGOs to participate in social and political change in

North Africa and the Middle East.22

The primary target group of the program are young people aged 15 – 30. This includes

adolescents (as young as 10-12 years old), youth with limited prior engagement, engaged youth

that belong to a CSO, as well as informal youth groups. In addition, the program also targets

NGOs/CBOs (and youth centers to a lesser extent) as intermediaries for promoting youth civic

engagement. Geographically, the activities are focused to selected cities and communities in

Jordan, Lebanon, and the occupied Palestinian territory (i.e. the Levant countries) as well as

Egypt (North Africa).23

5.1 Relevance of the MENA Engagement

The Danish Arab Partnership Program (DAPP) was established by the Danish MoFA in 2003

with a dual objective:

To promote reform and democratization processes in the Middle East and North Africa;

To improve dialogue, understanding and cooperation between Denmark and the MENA

region.

MS/AADK’s objectives for its MENA program are focused on youth, youth organizations, their

mobilization and how to strengthen cooperation and dialogue with youth from Denmark.

MS/AADK’s objectives remain fully relevant under the new DAPP strategic framework 2013-

2016, which defines “strengthening youth participation in public life” as a strategic objective

under its thematic area I “Promoting Human Rights, Human Freedoms, and Good Governance.”

The activities carried out by MS/AADK address the aims stated in the relevant national youth

policies in the three countries where it is active - by training youth to become active and

politically active citizens; by training CSOs; and by supporting campaigning thereby facilitating

active participation in the local democracy.

Findings:

Promoting youth civic and political engagement in MENA is important from a youth

development and governance perspective, and well aligned with Danida priorities under

the Danish Arab Partnership Program.

21 ActionAid (2013). Arab People’s Action to End Injustice and Poverty. Arab Regional Initiative Strategy Paper 2013-2017. 22 The specific wording varies across the three project grants. 23 To a lesser extent activities were also targeted at Syria, Tunisia, and Libya.

12

MS/AADK’s goals for its MENA program are consistent with countries’ policy

objectives regarding young people.

5.2 Activities and Partners in the MENA Engagement

While each of MS/AADK’s ongoing grants from the MFA has some specific elements, all of

MS/AADK’s work in the region can be considered to fall under the following types of activities:

Capacity building through the Global Platform in Jordan and strategic partners targeted a)

youth, and b) CSOs and youth groups, in the areas of campaigning, leadership; human

rights based approach, and governance and accountability. This also includes temporary

placements of professionals (6-24 months) in partner CSOs to strengthen their capacity.

Mobilization through providing “safe” spaces and platforms for youth; facilitating local

and national campaigns; young people’s interaction with local authorities; and

strengthening youth movements/networks e.g. through the Activista network or MENAct

meetings.

Dialogue and exchange including supporting partnerships between Danish and Arab civil

society organizations through the DEMENA Pool; facilitating volunteer and internship

placements for young Danes in the Arab region; and supporting youth from the Arab

region to come to participate in international trainings, campaigns or study visits.

To ensure the relevance of its activities, MS/AADK has put in place training needs assessments

with partner organizations and youth to determine which types of capacity development

interventions would be most useful to the target groups. This is in line with the HRBA whereby

the target group is part of the process to design and decide on what it needs.

Program proposals were developed in close coordination with the MENA regional director; in

consultation with staff in the regional office in Jordan; and program managers from Egypt and

Lebanon and local partners.24 MS/AADK’s approach has been informed by a detailed analysis of

key issues and the civil society landscape in target countries carried out when developing AAI’s

strategy for the Arab region.25

Findings

Overall, MS/AADK’s activities in the MENA region are relevant to the target group and

to the achievement of MS/AADK objectives.

The design of the projects/programs is based on a consultative process with management

and staff from country programs and dialogue with local partners.

24 In addition, a MoU between MS/AADK and the ActionAid office in Palestine was developed to outline mutual roles and responsibilities. 25 ActionAid (2011), Assessment for engaging in the MENA region: Analysis of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt and MS/AADK (2012), Desk study for ActionAid International’s Strategy Development Seminar and regional initiative in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

13

5.3 Size and Flow of Resources

In the absence of an AA Country Office in the MENA region outside Palestine, the regional

office in Jordan is managed and almost exclusively funded by MS/AADK.26 These funds cover

administrative and staff costs as well as transfers to partner organizations for specific projects.

Project Total Budget (in DKK)

Total expenditure (by Dec 2013)


9,600,000 6,573,709

Building Bridges for Youth Action – Part II 28,400,000 13,731,994

Young Women and Men’s Action to address Injustice in the Arab Region

11,000,000 0

Total 49,000,000 20,305,703

Of the 20.3 million DKK spent between 2011 and 2013, about 80% was used for program

activities, with slightly less than 20 % for program support, management and administration.

Program activities also include a coordination component, approximately 40% of program

activities are transferred to partners as sub-grants27 and another 40% of program activity

expenditures stem from AADK-implemented activities (e.g. training courses, workshops, etc.).

5.4 Analysis of Performance

The MENA program was appreciated by the beneficiaries interviewed by the Review Team,

especially with regard to the following aspects:

MS/AADK’s T4C approach, content and delivery are adapted to the local context.

MS/AADK’s P4C program. Partner organizations underlined high levels of satisfaction

with Inspirators and Advisors, valuing their professional contributions; the value added

for their organization; the personal relationships; and the element of intercultural

exchange.

MS/AADK’s approach to rally a variety of organizations within a defined geographic area

behind a common goal has proven to be a strong mechanism to foster youth engagement

and mobilization in the region where CSOs traditionally work in isolation.

MS/AADK’s dialogue in developing partnership agreements and tendency to support the

agenda and goals of the local partners rather than imposing its own agenda.

Annex 4 summarizes the achievement of objectives of MS/AADK’s MENA projects for which

data is available28. Progress towards the achievement of objectives is mixed. Targets for youth

training and youth-led initiatives are overall on track or have exceeded but other activities, such

as the DEMENA pool and the capacity building of CSOs in Egypt will likely miss their set

26 From 2013, additional funding has also been raised for the emergency programme by AA UK and AADK. 27 70 percent of sub-grants were composed of sub-grants to local partner organizations and 30 percent of sub-grants were allocated through the DEMENA pool. 28 A robust assessment of the achievements is difficult due to the weaknesses in the M&E and reporting structures

(see section on M&E challenges).

14

objectives. Moreover, the activities under the most recently approved frame agreement have not

been initiated.

The following key issues were identified by the RT as having affected performance:

During 2013, MS/AADK experienced high staff turnover within mostly mid- to senior-

level positions at the Regional Offices, including the Regional Director.

The decision to establish the Syria Emergency Response Program (ERP) drained

resources from DAPP activities.

Work in Egypt suffered from high levels of popular protest, several changes in

government, a deteriorating security situation, and a difficult operating environment for

foreign NGOs e.g. MS/AADK’s inability to formally register.

The escalation of the Syria crisis prevented MS/AADK initiating activities.

Findings:

Overall, AADK’s T4C and P4C activities in MENA are highly appreciated by

beneficiaries and partners. The coalition-building approach is a strong asset to the

program.

Progress towards the achievement of MS/AADK’s MENA objectives is mixed. Targets

for youth training are generally being exceeded. Targets related to the DEMENA pool,

institutional capacity building and engagement efforts are likely not to be achieved. .

5.5 Issues to Consider Regarding Programing of the MENA Engagement

A number of factors may affect MS/AADK’s engagement in the MENA region:

There is a bias towards better educated and already engaged youth participants e.g.

students in high-school or university or university graduates, which is conflicting with

MS/AADK’s strategic objectives to strengthen the voices of the most marginalized.

While it is may be strategically valuable to leverage the propensity of students and

graduates for engagement, there is also a risk of focusing on the “low-hanging fruits.”

MS/AADK Training of Trainers program may not lead to the assumed trickle-down

effects as training and mobilizing others is not necessarily the primary motivation for

some participants.

Partnerships are loosely defined. The roles and objectives for MS/AADK’s partnerships

in MENA have not been clearly articulated in the past. MS/AADK is aware of lack of

clarity in its partner engagements and is planning to revise its partnership approach.

There can be tensions between MS/AADK’s roles as donor, capacity building provider,

and activist organization in the engagement with local organizations. CEWLA in Egypt,

for example, thought they were obliged to accept MS/AADKs training for youth despite

having their own trainers. MS/AADK is too focused on its own methodology with few

strategic partners at national or regional level which could enhance their engagement

beyond local-level organizations (with the exception maybe of the collaboration with

15

UNFPA). Potential for knowledge sharing and leveraging with other stakeholders should

be considered.29

There is some uncertainty about how MS/AADK should engage local and national

authorities. MS/AADK has discontinued capacity development of duty bearers, based on

a recommendation by the most recent evaluation carried out by TANA Copenhagen. As

a result, there is a strategic vacuum if and how authorities should be engaged for best

results. This dilemma becomes obvious in the case of MS/AADK’s work in Zarqa,

Jordan, where partner CSOs strongly value the involvement of the municipality in its

local coalition which has helped them access public spaces; strengthen their voice with

authorities, and the credibility of the CSOs. In the MENA context of very centralized

countries, it could be argued involving national authorities when campaigning for local

issues to increase the legitimacy and chance of success of the initiative. MS/AADK

should continue to explore the possibility of engaging authorities, in the interest of

pursuing the objectives related to rights holders.

The lack of a training portfolio that includes social accountability tools such as

community monitoring, scorecards, and social audits may limit AADK’s ability to provide

a fuller spectrum of opportunities engaging the youth. Given that development partners

and governments increasingly incorporate social accountability and citizen engagement

components in their projects, a broader portfolio of tools might also enable MS/AADK

to mobilize more young people (youth) around specific projects.

5.6 DEMENA Pool

The DEMENA Youth Pool, established in 2006, is administered by MS/AADK as part of the

agreement with MFA on support to the MENA program (Building Bridges for Youth Action).

Grants are provided to three types of project - partner identification, pilot and partnership

projects. To date, 31 projects have been funded, approximately 50% of the total number of

applications received.

5.6.1 Positioning and Administration of the Pool

The comparative advantage of the DEMENA pool is its role as an incubator for less established

civil society organizations and for innovative initiatives. While other small grant pools exist in

Denmark e.g. the Danish Youth Council, the open nature and more risk-taking approach of the

DEMENA pool is considered a distinguishing factor.

The administration of grants is perceived as efficient and appreciated by the applying

organizations. AADK makes a significant investment in supporting prospective applicants,

including comments on drafts of proposals and budgets. Initially, MS/AADK faced some

administrative challenges with regard to the pool. These have been addressed, including the

development of procedures for receiving and screening applications and assisting applicants in

this process. Overall, the process is conducive and flexible to interested organizations e.g. pilot

projects can be submitted on a rolling basis, the processing of applications meet their deadlines

and there are no delays in disbursing funds.

29 MS/AADK informed the RT that it is present in regional fora and has initiated a synergy forum with Danish partners, but it is not seen to result in actual collaboration in joint programming or substantive collaboration.

16

5.6.2 Performance of the DEMENA pool

Implementation in the current grant period has been slow. By the end of 2013, only six projects

were funded, a relatively low number of beneficiaries, leaving an under-spend balance (see table

below).

Indicator Target (by end 2014)

Actual (by end 2013)

Number of new full partnership projects approved through the DEMENA pool

18 6

Number of Danish and Arab youth in dialogue and cross-cultural exchanges*

2,000 507

Grants committed (in DKK) 6.000,000 2.126,429 Data is based on reported numbers by the end of 2013. (*) Numbers are based on completed projects, ongoing programmes have not reported number of youth at time of review.

The main reason for the slow implementation progress is a low number of applications, partner

identification and pilot projects. All which could represent a pipeline for larger projects to be

funded. One reason for lack of applications is MS/AADK’s inability to effectively support

proposals from Arab organizations despite the fact that they are eligible to apply. Only one

project led by an Arab partner organization has been funded in the past. This can be attributed to

the language barriers (applications are accepted in English only) and the lack of structures to help

Arab organizations identify Danish partners. Earlier reviews of the DEMENA Pool have

recommended that MS/AADK’s regional office in Amman should be more involved in

mobilizing and supporting potential applicants in the MENA region, but no systematic efforts to

that end has been initiated. . Another reason is the low demand for small-grant pools in Denmark

in recent years.

MS/AADK has taken some measures to boost demand e.g. changing the selection criteria to

allow successful applicants to reapply as well as putting stronger outreach efforts in place.30 The

open nature of the fund can be seen as a disadvantage given the lack of a clearly defined target

group for the outreach efforts and capacity building of prospective grantees. There is also a

potential tension between supporting new partners and innovative projects and maintaining

relatively high quality standards.

5.6.3 Additional Challenges

It is difficult to assess whether the DEMENA pool’s core objectives are being achieved. The

Danida reporting templates are not necessarily linked to the overall objectives of the DEMENA

pool. For example, grantees are not asked to report on the key indicators of MS/AADK’s grant

agreements with the MFA regarding the DEMENA pool.31 Grantees are not required to report

on progress using the indicators defined in the project applications and the impacts reported rely

on anecdotes and general perceptions.

30 Outreach efforts include communication through embassies, information meetings, newsletters, promotion of the fund to a network of small Danish CSOs, and contacting Danish NGOs with Arab origin. 31 Based on final report template and example of completed final report.

17

While the current selection process is meeting the needs of the DEMENA pool, there is room to

improve the transparency of the selection process. Broad selection criteria32 are laid out in a

guidelines document available on the MS/AADK website33 but this does not provide a specific

list of the selection criteria being used to evaluate the proposals. While the criteria used to

evaluate DEMENA applications are meaningful34, these are not communicated to applicants.

More stringent selection criteria would increase the transparency of the selection process35, and

make the pool less vulnerable to changes among the members of the selection committee.

Linkages between the DEMENA Pool and MS/AADK’s work in Denmark should be

strengthened. MS/AADK is developing a new national strategy which could provide

opportunities to develop linkages for the DEMENA Pool to reach out to less organized youth

groups; provide capacity building support to prospective applicants; and find synergies between

issues relevant to local democracy and ethnic minorities in Denmark and the MENA region.

Findings

MS/AADK is well positioned to manage the DEMENA pool, being a leading

organizations on youth development in Denmark; having strong roots in promoting

intercultural dialogue; having an emerging presence in the MENA region through its

Arab Regional Initiative; and its experience in institutional capacity building.

MS/AADK has been proactive in making adjustments to the DEMENA pool and the

overall administration appears efficient and conducive to meeting the needs of applicant

organizations.

Implementation progress has been slow due to a lack of applications to the pool

M&E arrangements for supported projects are weak and selection criteria are not fully

transparent.

Recommendations:

4. MS/AADK needs to further explore opportunities to foster new applications to the

DEMENA pool. In addition to focusing on strengthening communication as already

carried out, MS/AADK might also want to explore:

Developing a clear communications strategy for the DEMENA Pool, including a

definition of objectives, target audiences, messages, tools and activities,

Targeting not only existing Danish CSOs but also universities (e.g. student

clubs/initiatives) from which innovative ideas may emerge.

32 These include key priorities to be met (i.e. dialogue, gender mainstreaming, communication of results) and specifies project requirements (e.g. eligible countries, targeted age group, focus on innovation). 33 ActionAid, DEMENA Youth Pool – Selection Criteria. 34 These include relevance and realism of proposed activities, target group, partner/management structure, innovation, likelihood of achieving results, budget and cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and communication. 35 There is some indication that unsuccessful organizations have found the feedback communicated to them to justify the panel’s decision as insufficient, potentially discouraging them from resubmitting future applications to the DEMENA pool. This finding can also be supported by the DEMENA pool meeting minutes available to the Review Team, which illustrate that the rejection of an applicant organization was justified with merely five short bullet points (meeting minutes serve as the basis for the feedback shared with applicant organizations).

18

Establishing a process that would allow Arab organizations to be supported in the

proposal development and partner identification stage, for instance by organizing a

separate call for proposals in Arabic through the regional country office and actively

supporting strong applicants in identifying a Danish partner organization.

Formalize a transparent list of evaluation criteria which can be included in the

guidelines for applicants to enhance the transparency of the selection process.

Feedback from the selection panel to successful and unsuccessful applicants should

be systematically structured according to those criteria.

5. Beyond organizing a periodic DEMENA conference, consider facilitating a network of

DEMENA grantees to enhance opportunities for exchange, partnerships, and follow-up

activities beyond the project duration.

6. Strengthen the DEMENA pool’s ability to demonstrate results through stronger

arrangements for Monitoring and Evaluation. This could include

Aligning project application and reporting formats, including with a view to ensure

that pre-defined indicators are used for measuring progress and results and that

information feeds into the key indicators reported under the DAPP agreements

Developing a guidance note on M&E to help applicants put in place relevant

indicators and other appropriate M&E arrangements

Providing a sample evaluation form to supported organizations that they can adapt to

their specific project as needed in order to help them collect relevant information

from their beneficiaries (e.g. satisfaction, changes in knowledge and attitudes, etc.)

6. MS/AADK’s Performance in the Area of Capacity Development MS/AADK’s ambition is that training should go beyond individual outcomes and focus on the

capacity development and empowerment of organisations. Capacity is defined by MS/AADK as

”abilities to achieve strategic change in a sustainable way”36. MS/AADK has two objectives37 for

its capacity development activities:

1. Develop a global training programme that contributes significantly to the capacity development of civil society organisations throughout the world. MS/AADK’s T4C department aims to train approximately 37,000 staff and partners through step-down training within the AAI, 80,000 individuals through on-line training, and directly train 10,000 individuals by 201538. Other outputs targets established are to develop a series of governance related courses, advocacy and campaign courses and youth training, delivered at 11-13 training centers in Africa, America, Asia and Europe.

2. Integrate the P4C program to improve organizational performance of MS/AADK’s target group i.e. transfer skills, knowledge, attitudes to AA Country offices and AAI partner organizations. MS/AADK aims to place 1,200 Inspirators and 300 Advisors during the period 2012-201739 and to expand its P4C offering into 60% of all Least Developed Countries that are part of AAI.

36 “The Six Step Pathway to Capacity Development”. 37 Called Organizational Objectives. 38 There are discrepancies regarding output targets between Implementation Plan A and C as well as discrepancies within Implementation Plan C and between the Implementation Plans and ”Together Against Poverty”. 39 Based on the information provided in meeting with P4C team on March 5 2014. There are two different Implementation Plans (Implementation Plan A and Implementation Plan C) that provide different output targets. Implementation Plan A states that MS/AADK expectes to place a total of 590 Inspirators and 90 Advisors by 2015

19

6.1 MS/AADK’s Capacity Development Approach

MS has adopted a focussed approach to capacity development and is targeted to the specific

needs of the programmes implemented by partners. This is a positive development. Partners and

trainees were very pleased with the applicability of the support given under the programme-led

capacity development model. The main components of MS/AADK’s Capacity Development

methodology that are funded by Danida are: T4C, P4C and Program support and

methodology/strategy development.

6.1.1 Analysis of T4C

MS/AADK provides:

A methodology for designing, delivering and evaluating training, the “Six-step Pathway

for Training Development”, that is generic and can be used for any face-to-face course.

Specific training on democratic governance, HRBA, youth, campaigns, institutional

governance and middle management.

Specific training through scholarship programs that are funded by certain donors (Danida

and Ford Foundation).

The “Six-step Pathway” is a comprehensive and easy-to-follow manual for developing and

delivering face-to-face training and appears to be well-known and applied at the training centers

visited. Training needs assessments are carried out by the training centers (MS-TCDC and AA

Countries). AAI has agreed that the “Pathway” model should be used for all AAI Secretariat-

commissioned training. So far, MS/AADK has only delivered one ‘Pathway’ designed on-line

course. It plans to add content to the “Pathway” relevant to on-line course development once the

organization has more has experience. Given MS/AADK’s ambitions to a) train more than

80,000 young people between 2012 and 201540 and b) to act as a global standard-setting

organization for capacity development for NGOs, the development of a modified or new

“Pathway” for on-line education should be a priority. It is the young people’s learning- and

communication-instrument and cost effective in reaching new countries and target populations.

During 2010-13, MS/AADK has been responsible for training on: Local Governance, HRBA,

Tax Justice, Youth and Disaster, Peace building and conflict management41. MS-TCDC has

delivered other courses on a commercial basis. Some courses offered by MS/AADK’s T4C e.g.

on governance, HRBA and Youth related courses, have been funded by Danida from 2013

onwards through scholarships.

Feedback from participants of the courses at MS-TCDC and in the MENA region was

overwhelmingly positive. MS/AADK’s interactive, peer-to-peer, action-oriented, and multi-

cultural training environment is highly appreciated by participants especially so in the MENA

region. MENA and MS-TCDC participants were all sponsored by MS/AADK’s scholarship

program to attend local governance, HRBA courses and youth oriented courses. The global

survey of training participants that MS/AADK has carried out in 2012 and 2013 also shows that

to support different stratgic objectives. Implementation Plan C states 600 Implementors and 150 Advisors to be placed by 2015. 40 Implementation Plan A. 41 MS/AADK/MS/AADK excel: T4C data 2012 and 2013.

20

the knowledge is used and has helped both the individual and the local NGOs. The step-down

training i.e. the participants training others in what they learned also appears to have worked as

60 % of the participants responding to the training participant survey in 2013 stated that they

have trained up to 50 persons.

The Danida-funded scholarships are only applicable to courses on governance, youth and HRBA.

Focus groups discussion carried out at MS-TCDC indicated that there is a large demand for

organizational development-type courses i.e. project management, fundraising, application-

writing etc. where MS-TCDC is seen as a good, but very expensive option. In the MENA region,

MS/AADK does not offer this type of courses at all.

MS/AADK reports aim to reach a total of 370,000 people with its training and subsequent step-

down training although the RT would highlight the challenge of how to assess the value of the

numbers reached. MS/AADK is attempting to measure capacity through its annual surveys of

training participants which aims to measure training outcomes, not only outputs. The survey

questions measure the participants’ opinion of whether she/he has applied the knowledge gained

through the training and whether the skills acquired have helped the organization. The strategic

and sustainable change aspects of capacity development are not measured. Independent,

observable evidence of training outcomes on an NGO may be difficult to gather through surveys.

Evidence gathered by AA Country offices could be cross-referenced against survey results to gain

a better understanding of the overall outcome of the training.

The Review Team has observed instances in both Africa and the MENA region, where local

NGOs as well as AA country offices were asked to accept training from MS/AADK, for

example, the relatively strong CSO partner CEWLA in Egypt described in the section on MENA.

AA Country offices can, at present, choose other training providers if they wish. There are on-

going negotiations between the AAI and MS/AADK for MS/AADK’s priority AA country

offices to be obliged to accept part of their training from MS/AADK training platforms. This

would appear to contradict the AAI HRBA approach, whereby AA Countries decide on their

own programs, and MS/AADK’s own demand-driven approach. It is important that

MS/AADK’s capacity development methods are a) demanded and b) competitive i.e. value for

money to the AA Country offices. The tying-in of AA Country offices to MS/AADK’s capacity

development methods should therefore not be undertaken.

If a MS/AADK training offering is not taken-up by the AA Country offices, it is important that

MS/AADK assesses why the offering is not needed/demanded so that MS/AADK can review

its theory of change in order to provide the type of activities/courses/support that allows the AA

Country to achieve its objectives and ultimately, AAI’s Key Change Promises.

Finding

MS/AADK’s “Six-step Pathway for Training Development” is a well-developed,

uniformly applied and logical tool for designing, delivering and monitoring face-to-face

training. MS/AADK has only recently started developing on-line training and does

therefore not have a method for developing such learning modalities.

21

Programme led-capacity development is a positive focus by MS/AADK and is assessed

to have increased the relevance of the capacity development efforts.

The methodology used by MS/AADK in training is highly appreciated by all participants

interviewed and validate the surveys undertaken by MS/AADK

MS/AADK does not measure capacity according to its definition “abilities to achieve

strategic change in a sustainable way”.

There are at times tensions between MS/AADK’s roles as donor, capacity building

provider, and activist organization in its engagement with local organizations. The Review

Team’s findings show that MS/AADK has, at times, been seen as insisting on its training

being used in the local AA Country Offices or local partners.

MS/AADK’s on-going negotiations to commission a fixed part of their total training

from AA country programmes each year appears to contradict AAI’s HRBA approach

and MS/AADK’s demand-driven mentality.

MS/AADK has begun to develop on-line courses. Given MS/AADK’s ambitious targets

(number of youth trained and global standard setting capacity developer of NGOs);

MS/AADK should put priority on developing methods for designing and offering on-

line training.

Recommendation

Recommendation related to monitoring outcomes of capacity development is included in section on Monitoring and

Evaluation.

6.1.2 Global Platforms

MS/AADK and AAI have the ambition to expand the number of Global Platforms from eight to

14 in order to contribute to AAI’s Key Change Promises 3 and 6, and MS/AADK’s Strategic

Objective 442. The RT acknowledges the value of a dedicated training concept, especially with

regard to youth engagement and innovation. All participants from GP programmes interviewed

emphasized that training content and methodology were highly relevant to their respective roles.

Some applied their skills in organizations, while others considered it vital in enhancing

opportunities for employment. MS/AADK emphasis on ensuring institutional anchoring, e.g. in

NGO’s, of individual training varied significantly.

The model of Global Platforms having separate structures in some countries, do not coincide

with the ambition having all Global Platforms fully aligned with AA Country Offices. The MOU

on the Global Platforms specifies shared management responsibility for a Global Platform

between the AA Country Office and MS/AADK. However, the AA Country Office is in effect

managing the Global Platform on behalf of MS/AADK and, for example, use the Global

Platform for some of their training needs. A financial surplus at country level will be shared only

if MS/AADK has a surplus globally. In summary, the AA Country Office, formally having a

shared role in the management of the Global Platform, has a financial and legal responsibility but

42 Source: MOU re Global Platforms between MS/AADK and the respective AA Country.

22

little control over the training concepts and methodology 43 44 and is unlikely to share any

financial surplus. MS/AADK intends to hand over full responsibility of the GP to the respective

AA countries45, but no criteria for the handover have been developed, nor has this intention been

formally communicated.

The RT found that MS/AADK’s value added is their ability to develop and safeguard concepts

rolled out in the Global Platforms, rather than to directly manage the platforms. The role of

concept development, quality assurance and mentorship of the Global Platform fits well with

MS/AADK’ commitment to delegated responsibility for capacity development.

Findings:

The Global Platforms have been assessed positively by training participants interviewed

by the Review Team.

MS/AADK is following up on the need for institutional anchoring of participants in the

GP training courses. However, the experiences varied significantly from skills being

transferred to an organizational set up, to being for the benefit of an individual only.

The value added of MS/AADK in the GP concept is predominantly the development of

concepts, and subsequent quality assurance of the methodology.

Recommendations:

7. MS/AADK should clarify criteria for handover of GP responsibility to the respective AA

organizations, and continue to ensure development and quality assurance of the concept

of the GP in line with the overall mandate under the federation.

6.132 Analysis of P4C

Between 2010 and 2013, P4C has placed 844 Inspirators and Advisors. During 2010-2013, 87 %

of all Inspirators were placed with local NGOs. 82 % of all Advisors were placed with an AA

affiliate or associate, supporting local NGO partners and the AA Country office. Local NGO

partners requesting Inspirators from the AA Country Offices who then apply for Inspirators

from MS/AADK. A recent survey of Inspirator recipients showed that 80 % had been part of a

needs assessment and/or participated in designing the ToR for the Inspirator46.

The concept of Inspirators is in line with MS/AADK’s capacity development approach where

the target audience is “those civil society organisations and movements who fight poverty and

demand democratic and rights based alternatives47”. Organizations that have received an

Inspirator report a very high level of satisfaction; emphasizing that Inspirators helped the

43 The RT has visited the GP in Tanzania and Jordan, of which only the Tanzania GP is relevant for the framework

agreement. Therefore the findings in this regard is based on a sample, However, documentation and MOU have

been studied for other GPs. 44 MS/AADK has informed the RT that the GP in Tanzania is closing in August 2014. 45 The concept is likely to be in the form of “Franchises” 46 Presentation by P4C team to Review Team, March 5, 2014. 47 MS/AADK/MS/AADK, “Programme Partnerships with ActionAid Denmark 2014 -2018”. Document not dated.

23

organizations achieve their objectives; and that they had interacted well with the organizations’

own beneficiaries in local communities48.

The Review Team has the following observations regarding the P4C component:

Recruitment processes were generally well managed.

The aspect of South-South cooperation was well received by the organizations and

Inspirators interviewed.

Inspirators still carry out a substantial amount of “gap filling” activities.

Many Inspirators’ expressed that the planning and preparation for their placements was

not sufficient e.g. the time gap between the needs assessment and actual placement is

sometimes too long which makes the need redundant.

The systems established for follow-up on work with Inspirators e.g. quarterly meetings

and debriefings, are not uniformly applied. This sometimes led to a less than optimal use

of the Inspirators.

None of the interviewed local NGOs receiving training through T4C were aware of the

Inspirator/Advisor, and therefore had not benefited.

The Inspirators were worried about the sustainability due to high staff turnover in small

local NGOs.

Inspirators and advisers have concerns with regard to their international health insurance,

preferring local health insurance due to its acceptance by local service providers.

Receiving organizations also need to be prepared and coached to receive an Inspirator in

order to gain full advantage of the facility.

From 2010-2013 none of the placement targets

were met for Inspirators although the numbers

increased substantially in 2013. .

This was due to a need for MS/AADK to ”sell”

the concept of Inspirators to all AA Countries,

and not only to MS/AADK’s priority countries.

During the same period, 50 % of Inspirators were

placed in non-MS/AADK priority countries.

There is a growing awareness of and demand for

Inspirators among AA Countries.

The AA Country offices identify the need for the

Advisors, and placements are administered by

MS/AADK (in contrast to the Inspirator

program). During 2010-2013, 64 Advisors were

placed; 82 % of whom were placed at AA

Country Offices, the vast majority from lower- or

middle-income countries.

48 Presentation by P4C team, March 5, 2014.

24

During 2010-2013, the placement of Advisors has fallen far short of the targets. In 2013, the

number of Advisors increased significantly to slightly below target, and in countries outside the

nine priority countries of MS/AADK. AAI is acknowledging the value of the model.

Findings:

The P4C program is fully in agreement with MS/AADK’s capacity development

approach. MS/AADK’s survey of recipients also shows a high degree of satisfaction and

the Review Team’s focus groups indicated that in many instances; MS/AADK’s theory of

change is working i.e. that by placing Inspirators local communities are strengthened and

end-beneficiaries are able to demand their rights to the authorities.

The Inspirators confirmed that their work had produced results at community and end-

beneficiary level in the areas of local governance, youth mobilization and women’s rights.

6.1.3 Analysis of MS/AADK’s Sub-granting for Program Support

MS/AADK’s sub-granting of the Danida Framework funds for program support to AA Country

offices is a substantial part of the overall Danida framework funding. In 2013, 38 %49 of the total

Danida budget was sub-granted to nine priority AA Country offices (see detailed analysis under

section 4.2 above).

Prior to 2014 AA Country Offices prepared a “Program Document” i.e. a two-year program,

objectives, budget and logframe with details of the local programme NGO partners. AA Country

offices carry out their own activities e.g. training, campaigns, research, networking as well as

support local NGOs funding. As of 2014, the AA Country offices carrying out work related to

the Key Change Promises prepare “Program Objective Plans”. The process of agreeing on a two-

year Partnership Agreement is AA Country led. MS/AADK is seen as a genuine partner,

supporting and helping the AA Country Offices to achieve their goals. During the planning

process, the AA Country offices identify ideas for the programs, and receive feedback from

MS/AADK. They are encouraged to set their own targets and implement the programs. Program

support is negotiated and agreed in Partnership Agreements. MS/AADK does not micro-manage

the implementation. MS/AADK is also seen as a service provider by the AA Country Offices,

mainly through the T4C program and MS-TCDC. The process is made easier by the fact that all

the AA countries are working towards a common set of Key Change Promises, although the

specific links between activities and how they contribute to Key Change Promises is a challenge

in AA, as outlined earlier in the report.

MS/AADK is generally seen as a valuable partner in enhancing the M&E and reporting systems

of AAI. The RT found that MS/AADK have more elaborated M&E systems compared to AAI

and are well positioned to support the wider AAI M&E development efforts.

Program support to AA Country Offices includes sub-grants to local NGOs, funding for

program activities e.g. workshops, training and program staff salaries. A maximum of 15 % to be

49 Off this 8% was utilized for the P4C programme

25

used for staff and administrative support costs. Training carried out by the AA Country offices is

for local communities, end-beneficiaries and networks of CBOs. The interaction between

program officers and local rights program staff and communities is very appreciated and- the

engagement of local rights officers with local communities contributes notably to local

organizations capacity.

The relationship between AA country offices and local partners varies in type and quality. Some

partners reported indirect, and non-intentional, pressure from the AA office in the pursuit of

KCPs. Some local partners, in Uganda and Jordan, reported having changed their own

organisational objectives to comply with AA KCP objectives.50 Several grant agreements

reviewed by the RT in both Uganda and Jordan between national AA office and local partner was

substantially service delivery contracts allowing the AA programme to perform against KCP

targets, rather than assisting a local organisation to pursue their own agenda.

Finding:

MS/AADK and priority AA Country offices appear to work in partnership where there is

ample freedom and independence. The partnerships are based on formal agreements that

are negotiated and adhered to and no micro-management by MS/AADK.

Coaching, mentoring and general assistance from programme officers at Local Rights

Programme Level is highly appreciated by recipients of AA support. MS/AADK should

consider including this as a deliverable in their capacity development monitoring.

Currently “invisible” as a tool for capacity development

6.2 Analysis of MS/AADK’s Capacity Development and AAI’s Theory of Change

Capacity development is not mentioned as a separate strategy or activity in AAI’s Strategy

although it ties in with AAI’s

theory of change. The

MS/AADK’s Strategy defines

capacity development as an

activity to achieve the overall

goals. The Review Team’s

understanding of AAI’s theory

of change and MS/AADK’s

contribution to this is

illustrated below.

The ToC is relevant and

appropriate although the

theory should, once the M&E

system is fully operational,

50 An isolated instance was observed of a national level NGO presenting reports to the respective AA office which had manipulated data in order to fulfil the targets (KCPs) set by AA rather than reflect the work done by the organization out of fear of not remaining as a partner. The instance is not assessed by the RT as requiring further action by AA.

26

Local partners in Egypt.

After initially experiencing problems

with delays in disbursement, an

Inspirator who did not speak the

language and little advisory support

from the AA office in Cairo, the Local

partner organisations in Egypt

received targeted support through

training, Inspirators & Advisor

support. The partner experienced

marked increase in capacity to engage

their communities and collaborate

with local authorities as a result. The

positive impact was attributed to the

combination and close interaction at

programme level.

continuously be tested to see if the methods are appropriate and contribute significantly to the

achievement of both MS/AADK’s Strategic Objectives and the AAI’s Key Change Promises.

Finding:

MS/AADK should regularly test the theory of change i.e. monitor and report against its

Strategic Objectives to verify or disprove if the methods employed are appropriate. This

is done by regular reporting of indicators against targets.

6.3 Analysis of Synergies between Capacity Development Methods

MS/AADK’s ambition is that its capacity development

methodologies be coordinated to have greatest effect e.g.

a local NGO receiving program support can receive

online or face-to-face training at MS/AADK’s training

platforms, and either an Inspirator or an Advisor to

support them in implementing the program or in

following up on the training they have received. Not all

organizations are in need of all aspects of capacity

development and the deployment of the modalities

needs to be based on a needs assessment.

The combination of learning methodologies would make

it possible to ensure that knowledge is transformed and

sustained into practice and/or systems at the local level,

although the prioritization of the various instruments are

not as coordinated as some organizations would wish.

The capacity development initiatives covered by the review were rarely combined. A review of

T4C statistics51 shows only one case of MS/AADK combining all three learning

methodologies.52.

The combination of capacity building methods has the potential to create synergies and a more

sustainable impact for local NGOs. A comparative evaluation, once sufficient samples are

available, of effects of combining capacity building methods with e.g. only training or receiving

an Inspirator, would be a useful test of MS/AADK’s ambition and theory of change.

At present, the planning and implementation of the three capacity development methods is

managed by different teams within the same team. In order to be able to combine the methods, a

common goal for the MS/AADK’s capacity building approach would need to be agreed. Sub-

goals for each of the methods would need to be mutually beneficial. The administrative, financial

and logistical aspects would then need to be coordinated between AA Country offices, training

centers and MS/AADK’s staff responsible for placements.

51 Analysis of T4C and P4C statistics for Uganda, Tanzania, Egypt and Jordan for 2013. 52 However, partners may have received training in other years than the year they benefitted from advisor/inspirator, multiyear cross reference was not undertaken in the review.

27

Finding:

At present, MS/AADK is rarely combining the Capacity Development methods at its

disposal. To succeed in this would require a rethinking of the organization and logistics of

MS/AADK’s Capacity Development approach and setting common goals and

measurement indicators for the three methods. This should be done together with the

AA Country offices that have the direct linkages to the local NGOs.

6.4 Analysis of the Performance of MS/AADK’s Capacity Development Approach

6.4.1 Capacity Development Outputs

During the period 2010-2013 MS/AADK have

significantly increased training activities from

62,000 training days in 2010 to 124,000 training

days in 2013.

In 2013 the largest amount of training was

delivered under the “Youth” program (43%),

which encompasses Global Contact53. 31% of all

training days were delivered on commercial terms

and included language training, seminars and

conferences. Governance, HRBA and tax justice

training represented 25% of all training activities.

During the period 2010-13, data on the type of

training days is difficult to collate as the

definitions have changed and there are a number

of inconsistencies in the data reported to

Danida54 as a consequence of an effort to improve the reporting on the deliverables. However,

governance is the main focus for training and has increased four-fold since 201055.

There is no consistently reported data on who is trained through MS/AADK’s training centres

e.g. type of NGO, AA staff or other, why a comparison or trend analysis is not possible to

prepare. AA staff represented about 16 % of all persons trained at MS-TCDC in 2010 and 2011.

MS-TCDC then mainly trained regional and international NGOs. CBOs represented only about

9% of all persons trained between 2010 and 2011. Statistics from 2012 and 2013 show that 14%

and 12 % of persons trained at all training centers were AA member staff. However, there is no

data on training of regional or nation NGOs or CBOs. The target audience is also the CBOs,

53 Global Contact is MS/AADK’s volunteer program. The mission is to promote a sense of “Global Citizenship”

against the backdrop of growing inequality in a globalised world. Global Contact is included in the People4Change

strategy, although organisationally it functions separately from the Inspirators/Advisers part of P4C. It is not

financed through the Danida Framework. 54 Inconsistencies in terms of what is measured, training days, training participants, training weeks as well as courses that have been re-classified. 55 From 700 persons trained in governance in 2010 to 2,910 persons trained in 2012. Source: Danida Framework Applications.

28

local authorities and the poor and marginalized. The Review Team’s observations are that the

persons trained are primarily university graduates, employees of regional or national NGOs.

The reporting56 against targets established for the period is unclear. It is a narrative as opposed to

measureable indicators and targets appear to change during the period of time. The RT analysis is

that MS/AADK:

- Achieved and exceeded targets57 for T4C and achieved targets in terms of number of

participants (governance and HRBA).

- Did not achieve targets for P4C.

- Achieved targets for their partnership approach with the AA Country offices.

- Did not report against set targets for Governance.

- Did not provide sufficient evidence to be able to conclude if targets have been achieved

for Youth Mobilization in Governance.

6.4.2 Quality

MS/AADK has during the review period endeavoured to collect qualitative data on the outputs

of the capacity development approach through surveys of beneficiaries, training participants,

partners receiving Advisors and Inspirators and impact assessments.

In 2010 and 2011, the MS/AADK M&E system was not robust enough to obtain and analyze

data on learning, behaviour and results of training58. The INTRAC Evaluation in 2011 attempted

to collate data from different sources in order to assess behavioural changes training had on

organizations. The INTRAC Evaluation concluded that 53 % of Governance Course participants

had stated that the course improved the way they delivered their work and 41 % stated to a lesser

extent. These studies further concluded a 90 % satisfaction level in the quality of training at MS-

TCDC, increased visibility of NGOs, improved research and NGOs involved in monitoring

government services.

P4C activities were assessed by carrying out Impact Evaluations in specific countries. The results

revealed a high relevance of P4C’s goals and a large amount of anecdotal positive contributions

from the P4C component on local NGOs.

In 2012 MS/AADK made a concerted effort to establish systems for monitoring both output

and outcome data in line with its “Six Step Pathway for Training Design”. The T4C surveys in

2012 and 2013 show that a majority of

the respondents stated that between 1

and 50 secondary beneficiaries

benefitted from the acquired

knowledge. In 2013 an increasing

percentage (22 % as compared to 14 %

in 2012) of people stated that more than

300 persons benefitted from the

training.

56 As presented in the Danida Framework Applications 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. 57 The targest mentioned here are those established in the Danida Framework Application 2012-2015. 58 INTRAC. Report on Training for Change. 2012.

29

One objective of MS/AADK’s training is “step-down training” i.e. when a participant trains his

or her NGO staff or other stakeholders. The T4C survey reports that step-down-training

occurred in majority of cases, with 70% and 60% of the respondents in 2012 and 2013

respectively, training up to 50 persons. However, the information from the survey is not

sufficiently detailed to allow an analysis of what type of knowledge is transferred and to whom.

The Review Team observed that in the MENA project the step-down training was not

necessarily related to MS/AADK’s social change objectives and it was not defined to what degree

the training was utilized. The Review Team finds that the measure for step down training in the

survey, while relevant, is not sufficient to measure whether overall targets are met for people

trained.

The quality of the P4C component is also measured through a survey, sent out exclusively to

NGOs where Inspirator/Advisor were present in 2013. The survey shows that the respondents

are very satisfied with the work of the Inspirators and Advisors. In 2013 and 2014, more than

70% of respondents stated that their skills were still relevant to the NGO. 91% stated that the

work of Inspirators and Advisors had a positive impact of the effectiveness of the organisation.

Inspirators and Advisers highlighted weak coordination between their placement and the

program support provided, resulting in lack of funds to implement activities and thereby often

rendering placement inefficiency. This was a bigger problem for Inspirators usually posted for

less than one fiscal year, compared to Advisers with a 24 month posting.59Nonetheless, the

Review Team also observed a high level of work engagement of the Inspirators their NGO

partners and the communities benefitting. The Inspirators and Advisers expressed that they

achieved substantial results compared to the inputs provided.

The Advisors interviewed by the Review Team were mainly positioned with the AA Country

office and their work was more in line with the ToRs e.g. coaching in the Activista networks,

mentoring NGOs, providing thematic training and developing networking tools

Findings

The surveys of T4C and P4C participants and beneficiaries are comprehensive and a

good measurement of whether the outputs have been achieved. They do not, however,

capture the extent to which organisational capacity has been improved.

MS/AADK’s new monitoring system shows that participants’ are applying the knowledge

gained through the training; that the skills acquired through Inspirators and Advisors

have helped the organizations; and that step down-training is taking place.

The Review Team finds that the measure for step down training in the survey, while

relevant, is not sufficient to measure whether the targets are met for people trained at an

overall level.

59 The Review Team takes note of the small facility available to Inspirators and Advisers whereby they can access small funds to implement their activities, but it could not compensate enough for the lack of resources due to little or no coordination between ToR and program budgets.

30

Recommendation

8. MS/AADK should articulate partnership strategy, clearly differentiating the different

types of potential local, national, and regional partners, this could include:

specifying criteria for engagement with (local) government authorities,

explore channels for increased use and reach of its training concepts and

methodologies, e.g. through partnerships with other INGOs, large local NGOs, and

appropriate public entities

targeting strategy for individuals for the different types of capacity building services

offered. In particular, consider how to be more inclusive of marginalized youth and

target change agents (TOT participants) to maximize impact.

7. Monitoring and evaluation of programs

During the period 2010-2012, MS/AADK monitored Program Support to priority AA Countries

and progress to Framework targets with the format established in their cooperation agreements

with the priority AA Country offices. This formed the basis of their reporting to the Council of

members, Danida, the MS/AADK Board and AAI.

AAI and MS/AADK are now rolling out a new M&E framework which consists of:

AAI’s “Global M&E Matrix” into which all AA members must submit data.

AA members’ own “Country Monitoring Framework”, which feeds into both AAI’s

monitoring system and that of MS/AADK.

MS/AADK’s internal monitoring of its activities in its “Change Monitoring Framework”.

MS/AADK’s internal project reporting to indicators common with the “Change

Monitoring Framework” and with the “Country Monitoring Framework”. This last

system also includes project specific indicators that each project manager chooses.

All AAI countries,

including MS/AADK,

report annually to the

AAI Secretariat on the

Key Change Promises

they select to help

achieve. MS/AADK

reports to the AAI

Secretariat against the

indicators established in

the “Global M&E

Matrix”. In addition,

MS/AADK’s priority

countries submit the

”Annual Reflection

Matrix” to MS/AADK as

31

it requires more detailed information from partners than requested by AAI. MS/AADK review

and collate this information along with data collected through surveys and training statistics and

this is included in the ”Change Monitoring Framework”. This will, from 2013, form the basis of

reporting to the AAI Secretariat, its Board, Council of Members and Danida. MS/AADK has

established 105 indicators to measure progress towards its eight Strategic Objectives. These are

both at output (e.g. number of training days,) as well as at outcome level (e.g. increased capacities

of trained persons). The following illustrates the Review Team’s understanding of how the data is

sent, where it is compiled and to whom it is reported.

MS/AADK did not report against the targets included in the” Danida Framework Application”

submitted in 2012, nor summarized the results of the previous transition period. In the most

recent ”Danida Framework Application” (submitted 2013), MS/AADK structured their activities

and achievements along six of MS/AADK’s eight Strategic Objectives and presented a narrative

description of activities and outputs. At the point of writing MS/AADK have not provided clear

and measurable outcome level reporting.

7.1 Reporting

7.1.1. Annual report

The MS/AADK 2013 “Annual Report” recounts in a narrative and quantitative manner against

each of the eight Strategic Objectives and Organizational Objectives. The report mainly presents

output results e.g. number of Advisors placed; few outcome results are presented. This is

understandable as it is the first report during the current strategy period (2012-2017). MS/AADK

has a total of 105 indicators to measure Strategic Objectives and only some of the indicators are

used to report on expected output results. MS/AADK should consider eliminating many

indicators considering the data gathering efforts needed and that only a few of these are reported

against.

7.1.2 Reporting under the Framework Agreement

Framework reporting has been reviewed up to 2012, and other reporting up to 2013. A number

of observations have been made:

MS/AADK does not report on achievement of all established targets/goals.

Goals for one period (e.g. 2012-2015) are changed year on year.

MS/AADK mainly reports on a programmatic level. The global reporting tends to focus

at input and activity level as opposed to overall result/outcome level.

The Strategic Objective (# 1) is the only one where the results of all country programs are

collated and reported on.

There is no clear summing-up or reporting of the results of the previous strategy “MS in

Transition”. The Review Team’s analysis shows that MS/AADK achieved three of the

eight goals for the period 2010-2012.

Two separate desk reviews of MS/AADK’s reporting to Danida covering 2011 and 2012

corroborate the same findings regarding lack of measureable indicators, weaknesses in reporting

on achievement of objectives, and lack of aggregated reporting.

32

Overall, the MS/AADK’s latest “Annual Report” (2013) shows that its ability to capture output

data and report against its Strategic Objectives has improved substantially since 2012.

7.1.3 Reporting under the DAPP Agreements

MS/AADK manages the three ongoing grants under the DAPP independently and reports

separately on each of these to the MFA. Discussions with the MFA about consolidating the

different grants have been unsuccessful due to the different nature of the funding streams within

the MFA. Reports to the MENA department are prepared according to MFA standard reporting

templates. Objectives, indicators, and targets are organized according to the logical framework of

the original project proposal. The current DAPP reporting arrangements do not allow

MS/AADK and the MFA to reliably assess progress to objectives. Key issues include:

Not all original indicators are used for annual reporting to MFA60 and, as a result, the

Annual Reports do not assess full progress towards the achievement of objectives.

While the quarterly reports from the ARI regional program coordinators to MS/AADK

capture all original indicators, the data is presented in different formats and with different

levels of detail which makes tracking of progress extremely difficult.

In quarterly and annual reports the same activities or beneficiaries are counted towards

the achievement of output and outcome targets under different objectives.61

There are inconsistencies between status reports and data collected through T4C. In part

this can be attributed to training carried out by local partners which is not captured by

T4C data. However, given the lack of differentiation between who was trained by

MS/AADK directly and who was trained through partners, it becomes impossible to

reconcile the different reporting formats.

Findings

The MS/AADK’s latest “Annual Report” shows that MS/AADK’s system to capture

output data to report against its Strategic Objectives has improved substantially compared

to 2012. MS/AADK should be able to improve its reporting also to Danida.

There appears to be a systemic weakness in the manner in which a) MS/AADK ha

managed the goal setting process and b) Danida’s annual review of this process.

MS/AADK has established new goals every year for the framework funding, without

reporting against the ones for the previous year. Danida has not objected, nor condoned

the practise.

MS/AADK’s target setting process and rolling-plans during the period 2010-2012 has led

to changing goals, lack of reporting against the goals and a lack of consistency.

MS/AADK’s reporting against targets is weak and does not allow Danida or other

stakeholders to assess if the targets have been achieved or not.

With changing goals it would appear very difficult for Danida to carry out its oversight

role and for Danida to assess if MS/AADK has achieved the targeted results.

60 MS/AADK states that this practice is accepted by the MFA. 61 For instance, in the 2013 annual report for North Africa, the same youth-led initiatives were counted towards the objective 1 as well as to objective 3.

33

Recommendation

9. Enhance monitoring system to ensure that outcomes are monitored and reported. Clear

targets with regard to outputs and outcomes should be established. Changes in targets

during implementation, and the rationale for changes, should be communicated clearly in

reporting.

7.2 MS/AADK’s New Monitoring System

MS/AADK has developed an impressive data collection system to ensure that it can collect data

from many sources - AA Country offices, training centers, training participants and NGOs

receiving Inspirators among others. The Review Team observed opportunities for further

improvement of the monitoring system:

Some AA Countries have poor systems for collecting data. It may be difficult to know

what data to collect if there is no baseline or systematic data collection methods/tools.

Reporting formats and levels of detail have, during the review period changed from year

to year, making comparisons and measurement against targets difficult.

The periodic reporting from MS/AADK’s Jordan office suffers from double-counting of

activities and beneficiaries under different program components.

There is inconsistency in the numbers of participants reported by the ARI Regional office

in periodic reports and P4C.

These challenges indicate a potential lack of guidance and training in the wider AAI context on

how to define the data to be collected and the reporting formats. The M&E new system may

need some time to “settle” and the above feedback could serve as input into the process of fine-

tuning the system.

Findings

MS/AADK has recently developed an impressive data collection system with several

methodologies, such as; own statistics, on surveys of training participants and managers

of Advisor and Inspirators and from the AA Countries.

MS/AADK’s new system for monitoring and collection of data is, at the time of the

Review, suffering from weaknesses that need to be addressed in order to ensure

MS/AADK’s ability to monitor and report against established results in a reliable

manner.

Recommendation:

10. MS/AADK and AAI need to clearly define how to measure outputs, outcomes and

impact and provide training in data collection and reporting methods to the AA

federation.

7.3 MS/AADK’s System for Evaluation

An M&E system should include regular evaluations in order to gain information on impacts and

results that may not be captured through the regular monitoring system. In 2011 MS/AADK

commissioned INTRAC to carry out a large evaluation of all its main activities. The evaluation

34

methodology included surveys, tracer studies, document reviews and interviews with partners,

staff and stakeholders.

MS/AADK should consider making a plan for evaluations i.e. what should be evaluated, with

what frequency. Lessons learned from evaluations have been widely shared in the past in

accordance with best practice. In order to ensure that evaluation findings continue to be shared;

the monitoring fulfilment of the recommendations by each cost center should be continued.

Finding

MS/AADK has carried out both cross-cutting and theme-specific evaluations during the

period 2010-2014 in accordance with best practice. MS/AADK should consider

developing a plan for evaluation and reviews.

8. Analysis of MS/AADK’s financial management and administration

8.1 Financial management roles and capacity

The responsibility for the organisation’s finances rests with the Council, Board and Secretary

General. The Board approves the consolidated budget and is answerable to the Council for the

Annual Financial Reports. In line with the AAI financial framework, the Board has established a

Finance and Audit Committee, which has an important role in making financial information

accessible to the Board and the Council.62 Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the Finance and

Audit Committee could potentially be more active in supporting the Board in providing financial

oversight, including by controlling the Annual Financial Reports prepared by the MS/AADK

Secretariat and following-up on audit findings and recommendations.

MS/AADK’s Finance Team has been operating at a reduced capacity during the past one year.

The position of Head of Finance was vacant for almost five months (until January 2014), and

both of the former Controllers also left the organisation in 2013. The capacity constraints facing

the Finance Team have coincided with a high level of staff-turnover at the Regional MENA

office, which in combination with other factors has resulted in considerable financial control

weaknesses.

Findings:

MS/AADK has a democratic organizational structure. Accountability is ensured through

a functioning internal governance system, detailed organizational charts, job profiles and

various guidelines and instructions. However, the quality of the financial oversight

exercised by the Board can be questioned.

The recent re-structuring of the MS/AADK Secretariat will potentially strengthen

important support functions as well as the strategic management capacity of the senior

leadership of the organisation. However, the capacity of the Finance Team remains weak,

especially in terms of financial monitoring of MS/AADK’s local offices and non-AA

partner organizations.

62 Interviews with members of the MS/AADK Board.

35

8.2 Management of the Arab Regional Initiative

During 2013 and early 2014 the Regional MENA Office experienced high staff turnover in most

mid- to senior-level positions. These changes severely affected administrative capacity and

implementation of DAPP-funded activities. The turnover in staff appears to have been linked

largely to the weak management capacity63 of the new regional director and the resulting tensions

between the Regional Director and other staff; below market-rate salaries64; and increasing work

pressure on staff.65

While the immediate management issues were addressed in a generally timely and appropriate

manner, longer-term administrative issues have experienced little progress over time. Many of the

issues raised in an action plan developed by the MS/AADK Knowledge Director in spring 2012

are still relevant today including, for example, scattered project documentation and the lack of a

functioning M&E system and PME manual.

MS/AADK maintains more regular communication with the MFA on the MENA Program than

on the activities funded under the framework agreement. Yet, the management and

administrative challenges facing the Arab Regional Initiative appear to have been insufficiently

communicated to the MFA.

Findings:

The Arab Regional Initiative has suffered from weakened administrative capacity and

slow implementation due to management issues and significant staff turnover during

2013 and early 2014.

The changes introduced by AADK to get the Arab Regional Initiative back on track

should provide the necessary foundation to speed up implementation and improve the

regional office’s systems and processes.

Communication and reporting arrangements between MS/AADK and the MFA have

been insufficient in capturing management and administrative issues experienced by the

Arab Regional Initiative.

8.3 Systems and procedures for fund transfer and management

8.3.1 Funds managed within MS/AADK’s own organisational structure

Procedures for monthly closing of accounts and internal financial reporting are in place but have

not been consistently implemented due to the capacity constraints of the Finance Team during

the past one year.66 This has affected MS/AADK’s ability to meet the Danish auditor’s findings

with regard to improving the financial reporting process, including the correlation between

bookkeeping and the preparation of the annual financial statement, although corrective action

63 Issues raised included micro-management, lack of consultation with others, and other approaches inconsistent with AADK’s culture and policies. 64 In response, MS/AADK has conducted a benchmark analysis of relevant salaries Jordan and revised its salary scales for 2014. 65 While ERP and other (DAPP-funded) activities are separate in the ARI organizational chart, there was a lot of overlap in practice. 66 Interviews with MS/AADK.

36

now has been taken.67 From 2014, MS/AADK plans to institute a new system with fourth-

monthly internal status reports, on top of the monthly financial reporting, focusing on

achievements, financial results, risks, learning and considerations for the next period.

Funds are advanced to MS-TCDC and the Global Platforms on a quarterly basis. The

administrative and financial capacity, including the existence of internal guidelines for

administration, varies from one Global Platform to the other. Significant shortcomings have been

found in the financial management of the Regional MENA Office, including the lack of a proper

accounting software, authorisation policies, attestation rules and bank and cash reconciliation

routines.68 MS/AADK is aware of the seriousness of the situation and is taking remedial action.

In addition to the appointment of a new Regional Director and accountant, an “emergency plan”

has been put in place as an interim measure for the period March-May 2014.69 This would have to

be followed by additional efforts to develop written instructions, checklists, templates, etc., and

the establishment of a system to monitor/audit MS/AADK offices abroad (including TCDC and

the Global Platforms) in relation to the MFA requirements and MS/AADK’s financial policies

and procedures in general.

8.3.2 Funds transferred to and managed by local partner organisations

The case of national AA organisations

A significant share of the funds provided under the framework agreement with MFA is sub-

granted to national AA organisations in Africa and Nepal, and regulated in two-year cooperation

agreements. Notably, the agreement refers to MFA’s administrative guidelines for Danish

framework organisations, which are also attached as an annex. MS/AADK has recently

developed a new standard agreement format that will be used from 2014.70

With regard to the framework funds that are transferred from the national AA organisations to

other NGOs and CBOs, it is noted that AA Uganda and AA Tanzania make use of a standard

agreement that defines the terms and conditions for the use of funds and the reporting

requirements. Both AA Uganda and AA Tanzania adheres to MS/AADK’s budgeting and

reporting cycle and funds transferred on time. They also have well-developed internal control

frameworks. Comprehensive financial policies and procedures are in place responding to global

AAI standards, the respective boards hold the organisations accountable to those standards, and

finance section staff members appear competent. However, AA organisations call for more

substantive and regular communication with the MS/AADK Finance Team.

MS/AADK partner organisations under the MENA programme

Partnerships with local NGOs are formalised in agreements between the Regional MENA Office

and the local organisations although not in a standardised manner. Some agreements are only

67 Deloitte, 2013. Action Aid Denmark Management Letter Financial Year 2012. 68 Interviews with Regional MENA Office staff. 69 MS/AADK, 2014. Arab Regional Initiative – Re-establishing sound financial management systems and procedures. Plan for the period March-May 2014. 70 Partnership Agreement 2014 between ActionAid International (Country) and ActionAid Denmark.

37

available in Arabic and/or do not clearly define disbursement arrangements and requirements on

reporting and auditing.

In general, the Regional MENA Office’s control of DAPP funds transferred to local partner

organisations appears weak – for example, there is a lack of a system for tracking reporting

deadlines and compliance with the terms and conditions for the use of funds; agreements do not

include reference to the MFA terms and conditions; and the management letter of the local

auditor71 does not indicate if records of local partner organisations have been reviewed as part of

the audit.

Findings:

Systems for financial management and administration at the MS/AADK Secretariat level

are relatively comprehensive and are being further strengthened with the help of the new

PME system. However, the reliability of the accounting and internal control system can

be questioned given the weaknesses found in the Regional MENA Office.

The Regional MENA Office has not adhered to MS/AADK’s financial policy and

procedures, which by extension has affected the organization’s ability to live up to MFA’s

requirements on accounting and financial control of the MENA programme.

The cooperation agreement between MS/AADK and national AA organizations

communicates the MFA requirements and conditions on Danish framework

organizations, and transfers the relevant accountability to the national AA organization.

While the field visits to Uganda and Tanzania indicate that national AA organizations

have systems and procedures to ensure responsible administration of framework funds,

there is a clearly expressed wish for closer communication and exchange with

MS/AADK’s Finance Team.

8.4 Auditing

MS/AADK’s financial policy and procedures specify that MS/AADK must comply with the AAI

guidelines on choice of auditors and procedures regarding audit. The external audit of framework

funds, including those remitted to AAI partners must be carried out by an internationally

recognised audit company. The final approval of the auditor is granted by the MS/AADK

Council at its annual meeting.

The selection of Danish auditor is based on a public tender and Deloitte have carried out the past

three audits of the expenditures in Denmark.72 However, Deloitte’s audit report for 2013 does

not include any reference to the local audit of the regional MENA office, as the local audit was

delayed and could therefore not be reflected. The local audit of the MENA programme has so far

been conducted by a Jordanian auditor selected by the Regional MENA Office. Some but not all

of the agreements between MS/AADK and local partners in the MENA region include

71 ActionAid Denmark (MENA Regional Office) Management Letter Points. 72 The instruction repeats the requirements presented in the MS/AADK financial policy and procedures manual and includes further details with regard to the planning and performance of the audit.

38

stipulations on auditing. Expenditures taking place at the level of the Global Platform in

Tanzania are not subject for any external audit.73

AAI’s internal audit department also conducts internal audits of all AAI members, including

MS/AADK. Each year a sample of countries is selected for such internal audits. AA Uganda and

AA Tanzania are subject for internal audits every two years. As earlier indicated, AA Uganda also

has its own internal audit department which carries out yearly compliance audits, including of

partner organisations, and has a system whereby issues arising from the internal and external

audits are compiled in an action plan.74 Notably, MS/AADK does not have a similar system for

its country offices and TCDC. The quality of existing follow-up of audit findings is also

questionable given that important recommendations included in the Danish auditor’s

management letter of 2011 were repeated in the one for 2012. However, that most of the

recommendations of the 2013 management letter have been marked as completed.

Findings:

The audit procedures of MS/AADK could be further improved. There is need to adopt

an audit policy that communicates the existing audit requirements in detail within and

outside the organization to ensure that external audits are performed by international

recognized audit companies in line with ISA at every level and that MS/AADK’s Finance

Team as well as the Danish auditor systematically reviews the findings of these audits and

follow-up on corrective action taken.

8.5 Anti-corruption

MS/AADK has an “Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct”75 and a whistle-blower mechanism that

includes procedures for reporting suspicion or evidence of breaches, guidelines for the report,

procedures for investigation of allegations, and provisions for the protection against false

allegations. The code of conduct establishes that allegations may be reported anonymously.

MS/AADK staff members are responsible for informing partner organisations about the code of

conduct. The standard agreement with AA partners include the MFA “anti-corruption clause”,

which conveys a zero-tolerance stance on corruption and requires that similar clauses are inserted

in project agreements with local partners. This is the case in the MoUs between the national AA

organisations and their local partners in Uganda and Tanzania. Some but not all of MS/AADK’s

agreements with local partners under the MENA programme refer to corruption, and none of

the agreements collected by the review team includes the MFA anti-corruption clause.76

The organisation reports that it has not received any reports of corruption during the past year,

and that there are no unsettled cases. MS/AADK’s auditors have neither identified any suspected

or actual fraud. Nevertheless, interviews with AA Uganda suggest that there have indeed been

73 Prior to 2013, the accounting records of the Global Platform in Tanzania were audited as part of the TCDC audit, but this practice has been discontinued. 74 Interviews with AA Uganda staff. 75 MS/AADK, 2010. Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct – For all MS employees worldwide 2008 (Whistle Blowing Policy). 76 There is also an “AAI Policy on Fraud and Corruption”, which is communicated to national AA organisations and is in overall conformity with the MS/AADK code of conduct.

39

incidents that could have given rise to suspicions of corruption and misuse of funds, but which

have not been reported on to MS/AADK.

Findings:

MS/AADK has an anti-corruption policy and whistle-blower mechanism. The MFA

“anti-corruption clause” is incorporated with the standard agreement between

MS/AADK and AA Country offices but is missing from the agreements with local

MENA partners.

While MS/AADK has not received any reports on suspected or proven irregularities

during the past year, the field studies show that there have been incidents that could have

given rise to suspicions. This suggests that MS/AADK’s anti-corruption policy has not

been sufficiently explained to partner organizations.

8.6 Human resource management, time registration and duty travel

Personnel policies and procedures follow the standards of the AAI and are available to all staff

on MS/AADK’s intranet. In addition, the financial policy and procedures manual sets out

principles and processes for employee related expenses. MS/AADK has a Human Resource

Team (HROD) supporting the rest of the organisation on human resource management issues.

The recruitment procedures are outlined in written instructions.77 Employees’ working conditions

and salaries are set out in an employment letter, based on the collective bargaining agreement

between the Ministry of Finance and the different labour unions. A principle has been adopted

that the conditions of work should be competitive on the Danish labour market but never be

leading amongst comparable organisations. A new staff structure with grades following the AAI

system has recently been introduced in the Regional MENA Office.

Findings:

MS/AADK has a comprehensive human resource management system that meets MFA’s

requirements. Personnel policies and procedures are established in writing and accessible

to all staff. Working hours are budgeted and recorded by project, and monitored with the

help of a web-based time tracking system. Regulations are in place to ensure that cost-

consciousness is observed in terms of the organisation of staff travel and accommodation

and the provision of allowances.

8.7 Capacity to generate own financing

Historically, the main share of MS/AADK’s funding has come from MFA. Although still

dependent on MFA funds, the funding base of MS/AADK has since increased and the

organisation has been able to meet the 10 percent requirement on matching funds.78 In 2012

77 MS/AADK, 2014. Recruitment process in MS/AADK. 78 MS/AADK, 2012. Sub strategy D: Resources.

40

MS/AADK contributed DKK 12.6 million in own financing, corresponding to slightly more

than 10 percent of the framework funds used for programme and projects support and P4C.79

From 2013, MS/AADK had to raise 20 percent in own financing, including 5 percent from

fundraising in Denmark and 15 percent from other sources. MS/AADK’s draft annual report for

2013 states that a total of DKK 152,4 million in framework funds were spent during the year.

MS/AADK contribution from fundraising in Denmark corresponded to 6 percent of this

amount, while the share of funding from other sources was 22 percent.80

MS/AADK’s main income-generating activities are conducted through Global Contact and T4C.

However, the net surplus generated by Global Contact and T4C decreased from DKK 6,1

million in 2012 to DKK 3,3 million in 2013.81 MS/AADK’s expectation is that the trend will be

reversed with the adoption of a more strategic and long-term approach to income generating

activities through these two mechanisms.

MS/AADK is also seeking to increase voluntary fundraising by enlisting more members and

increasing the number of other regular givers and campaign supporters. The target is that

MS/AADK should be able to raise DKK 15 million in unrestricted funds by 2015 and DKK 30

million by 2017.82 In 2013, MS/AADK reportedly received contributions from 12,500 individual

donors, up from 10,000 in 2012 and 8,250 in 2011. However, the number of individual donors is

increasing slower than expected and if the growth of unrestricted funds continues at the present

pace, MS/AADK will raise DKK 18 million from individual donors by 2016, which is far from

the 2017 target.83

Findings:

Although still heavily dependent on MFA funds, MS/AADK has diversified its funding

base in recent years and been able to raise the required level of matching funds.

A strategy is in place to increase all types of income, including from public funds,

voluntary fundraising, and income-generating activities. The targets set for income

generating activities and fundraising activities in Denmark are very ambitious.

MS/AADK has decided, after reviewing lessons learned from previous efforts, not to

focus further on raising funds from the Danish business sector.

Recommendations on Finance and Administration:

11. MS/AADK should strengthen the capacity of its Finance Team to carry out systematic

financial monitoring of local offices, projects and partner organizations abroad

12. MS/AADK must ensure that proper accounting systems, including customized

accounting software, are used at all levels of the organizational chain and be accompanied

by written instructions for budgeting, accounting, and financial reporting.

79 MS/AADK, 2013. Mellemfolkeligt Samvirkes årsberetning 2012. 80 MS/AADK, 2014. Draft annual report for 2013. 81 MS/AADK, 2014. Draft annual report for 2013. 82 The amount of unrestricted funds raised is not reported on in MS/AADK’s annual reports. 83 MS/AADK, 2014. Draft annual report for 2013.

41

13. MS/AADK should develop standard agreement templates for different types of

partnerships and partner organizations, clearly conveying MS/AADK’s own and MFA’s

requirements and conditions, including the requirement to report on suspected mal-

practice. All agreement templates must include the MFA “anti-corruption clause”.

14. MS/AADK should describe the procedures for external auditing in greater detail in

MS/AADK’s “Financial Policy and Procedures Manual”, and a system should be

established to ensure that local audit reports are systematically reviewed and followed-up

by the organization

42

9. Summary of recommendations

# Recommendation Responsible Suggested benchmark

(to be developed in consultation with HCP)

Comments

from HCP

1 MS/AADK should initiate a discussion in the wider AAI

and with AA country programmes on the balance between

funding to partners outside and inside the AA federation.

MS/AADK

2 MS/AADK should consider internal systems for

assessment of overall efficiency and effectiveness in its use

of resources84, including actual cost of key outputs.

MS/AADK

3 Clarification from HCP on the criteria for what constitutes

a local partner should be considered.

HCP

4 MS/AADK needs to further explore opportunities to

foster new applications to the DEMENA pool. In addition

to focusing on strengthening communication as already

carried out, MS/AADK might also want to explore:

Developing a clear communications strategy for the DEMENA Pool, including a definition of objectives, target audiences, messages, tools and activities,

Targeting not only existing Danish CSOs but also universities (e.g. student clubs/initiatives) from which innovative ideas may emerge.

Establishing a process that would allow Arab organizations to be supported in the proposal development and partner identification stage, for

MS/AADK

84 MS/AADK is abiding by the financial reporting guidelines in terms of the framework agreement; the recommendation is aimed at internal systems for assessing whether resources are used efficiently and effectively.

43

instance by organizing a separate call for proposals in Arabic through the regional country office and actively supporting strong applicants in identifying a Danish partner organization.

Formalize a transparent list of evaluation criteria which can be included in the guidelines for applicants to enhance the transparency of the selection process. Feedback from the selection panel to successful and unsuccessful applicants should be systematically structured according to those criteria.

5 Beyond organizing the periodic DEMENA conference,

MS/AAI should consider facilitating a network of

DEMENA grantees to enhance opportunities for exchange,

partnerships, and follow-up activities beyond the project

duration.

MS/AADK

6 Strengthen the DEMENA pool’s ability to demonstrate

results through stronger arrangements for Monitoring and

Evaluation. This could include

Aligning project application and reporting formats, including with a view to ensure that pre-defined indicators are used for measuring progress and results and that information feeds into the key indicators reported under the DAPP agreements

Developing a guidance note on M&E to help applicants put in place relevant indicators and other appropriate M&E arrangements

Providing a sample evaluation form to supported organizations that they can adapt to their specific project as needed in order to help them collect relevant information from their beneficiaries (e.g. satisfaction, changes in knowledge and attitudes, etc.)

MS/AADK

44

7 MS/AADK to clarify criteria for handover of GP

responsibility to the respective AA organizations in the

countries and continue to ensure the development and

quality assurance of the concept of the GP in line with the

overall mandate under the federation.

MS/AADK

8 MS/AADK should articulate partnership strategy, clearly

differentiating the different types of potential local,

national, and regional partners, this could include:

specifying criteria for engagement with (local) government authorities,

explore channels for increased use and reach of its training concepts and methodologies, e.g. through partnerships with other INGOs, large local NGOs, and appropriate public entities

targeting strategy for individuals for the different types of capacity building services offered. In particular, consider how to be more inclusive of marginalized youth and target change agents (TOT participants) to maximize impact.

MS/AADK

9 Enhance monitoring system to ensure that outcomes are

monitored and reported. Clear targets with regard to

outputs and outcomes should be established. Changes in

targets during implementation, and the rationale for

changes, should be communicated clearly in reporting.

MS/AADK

10 MS/AADK and AAI need to clearly define how to

measure outputs, outcomes and impact and provide

training in data collection and reporting methods to the AA

federation.

MS/AADK

11 MS/AADK should strengthen the capacity of its Finance

Team to carry out systematic financial monitoring of local

MS/AADK

45

offices, projects and partner organizations abroad

12 MS/AADK must ensure that proper accounting systems,

including customized accounting software, are used at all

levels of the organizational chain and be accompanied by

written instructions for budgeting, accounting, and financial

reporting.

MS/AADK

13 MS/AADK should develop standard agreement templates

for different types of partnerships and partner

organizations, clearly conveying MS/AADK’s own and

MFA’s requirements and conditions, including the

requirement to report on suspected mal-practice. All

agreement templates must include the MFA “anti-

corruption clause”.

MS/AADK

14 MS/AADK should describe the procedures for external

auditing in greater detail in MS/AADK’s “Financial Policy

and Procedures Manual”, and a system should be

established to ensure that local audit reports are

systematically reviewed and followed-up by the

organization

MS/AADK

46

Annex 1: Follow-up on Recommendations from Previous Review

The following table summarizes the conclusions and recommendations from the previous

Review (in 2009) and the Review Team’s observations as to the current state.

Conclusion/Recommendation Implemented

Governance program

1. MS/AADK have made significant progress in terms of

aligning country programs around fewer and more focused themes

re-conceptualizing its personnel assistance MS/AADK,

putting in place a sound programmatic and thematic guidance framework, including useful planning, monitoring and reflection tools at national level.

MS/AADK has during the past year supported AA Country offices to develop Programme Objective Plans (POPs) that link the local accountability work with the national and international level.

2. The Review Team acknowledges the magnitude of work that MS/AADK have undertaken with respect to programming focus and the development of underlying systems and formats for effective project cycle management, including monitoring work.

MS/AADK has continued this work within the framework of AAI. However, the current M&E system has a number of important weaknesses (see Chapter 8 above).

3. The focus of MS/AADK’s governance work comes across as somewhat biased towards the empowerment element of the governance approach. The country programs include initial experiences on promoting accountability, but work on this issue should be further expanded.

MS/AADK has not yet been able to measure the strategic and change aspects of capacity development, which means that the theory of change remains to be validated. In the MENA program, there is uncertainty about how MS/AADK should engage local and national authorities.

4. The Review Team’s discussions and observations highlighted a weakness in connecting core partner activities (at local level) to national level strategic partners, which is critical for advocacy.

Actions taken by MS/AADK:

country program documents “POP” developed by AA Countries together with local NGO partners

MS/AADK developed training material re local-national linkages

MS/AADK established a seed funding mechanism offering support to AA Country offices and partnering civil society organizations.

However, the Review Team’s field studies in Uganda and Tanzania suggest that the national-level impact of local empowerment work is limited. Within the MENA program, MS/AADK has few partners on the policy and national level. This affects MS AADK’s ability to disseminate lessons learned and leverage other stakeholders.

5. The Review Team noted limited concern of and attention to issues of replicability and scalability of activities in Africa.

Replicability and saleability improved through the

development of Communities of Practice throughout the AAI federation

47

consolidation of AAI’s Reflection-Action methodology

good practice storied from Inspiratory and Advisors.

Some aspects of MS/AADK’s approach could be improved such as:

Increasing synergies between P4C, T4C and the program support.

The lack of strong partners at the national and regional level means less reach,

There is an issue as to if relevant ‘step-down’ training is taking place.

6. There are reservations about past and current assessments of cost-effectiveness. This relates to past practice of Development Worker placements as well as some of the current activities that the team observed.

MS/AADK has made the following changes:

Inspirators work based at both national and LRP level.

The Advisor terms and conditions were revised in 2013 to align to AAI conditions, and a low-cost model was introduced.

However, there are concerns about local beneficiaries not being fully involved in the planning of placements and the substantial amount of ‘gap-filling’ activities that the Inspirators carry out, affecting the prospects for sustainability.

7. The Review Team has observed a more instrumental approach to partners who – for all practical purposes – increasingly are delivering outputs to MS/AADK Country Programming Strategies. The concern of the Review Team is whether MS/AADK will be able to ensure that fundamental features of their partnership approach can be maintained within the merged structure and the actual partnership status of national ActionAid organisations – that technically are at par with MS/AADK – vis-à-vis community based partners.

The current partners of AADK are the AA Country offices, which have full ownership and management responsibility of the programs funded by MS/AADK. In the MENA program, the partnership concept remains loosely defined, with some local partners primarily playing the role of service provider to MS/AADK. There is also evidence of tensions between MS/AADK’s role as donor, capacity building provider, and activist organization in its engagement with local organizations.

48

Annex 2: MS/ AADK performance to 2010-12 strategic goals.

MS’ Strategic Goals related to its work in AAI 2010-2012

Results by 2014

To promote and assist in enhancing democracy and participation within ActionAid and to assist in developing credible well rooted ActionAid members.

The reported results focus on strengthening in thematic areas of HRBA and gender and carrying out a stock taking analysis regarding internal governance. The reporting against this goal does not conclusively establish if MS has achieved this goal or not.

To become a ‘lead agency’ within the governance theme in ActionAid

Achieved in 201085.

To provide a world-wide training structure for civil society within the theme of governance

Achieved 2013 (with the new Delegation Agreement).

To play a coordinating and supportive role in developing ActionAid to become a strong international campaign organization

Not assessed as part of this evaluation

To test and prove relevant People4Change approaches and having these mainstreamed in ActionAid.

Reported to be well-established in AAI in 2011 based on evidence from Tanzania and Kenya86. Report also states that this initiative is beginning to be seen as an important part of the development of partner organizations by AAI. However, the uptake of the P4C program has been slow and none of the targets have been achieved during the period 2010-2012. How to test the relevance is therefore difficult as no target value was established.

To help further develop the Partnership Approach in development activities within AA

Not reported.

To assist in developing professional planning monitoring & evaluation systems and practices within AA.

Achieved in 2013 with the new PME framework Global M&E matrix

Support establishment of ActionAid in the MENA region.

Situation in 2014: MS/AADK country office exists in Jordan (not independent AA associate or affiliate). There is one AAI Country Office in Palestine but there are no AA associated or affiliated country offices in the MENA region.

85 Årsberetning 2010-2011 86 Årsberetning 2010-2011

49

Annex 3: Current MS/AADK strategic objectives and indicators

MS/AADK’s Strategic Objectives Example MS/AADK indicator

Objective 1: AADK will contribute to

holding governments and corporates to

account, and thereby improved public

services for five million people living in

poverty.

Number of people, particularly women & youth,

trained to hold public service providers to account

Number of Advisor placements to support partners to

hold public service providers to account

% of course participants who feel that skills and

knowledge acquired has made them perform better in

their work


ActionAid winning significant victories in

achieving fair redistribution of resources.


trained in quality and gender responsive public

service financing and tax justice


ActionAid’s work with women and men

affected by disasters


trained in accountability in emergency and disaster

responses

Number of advisor placements to support partners in

accountability in emergency and disaster responses

Number of Inspirator placements to support partners

in accountability in emergency and disaster responses


mobilizing 5 million young agents of change

Number of youth trained

Number of Advisor placements

Number of inspiratory placements

Objective 5: Together with AAI, AADK will

develop a regional programme in the Middle

East and North Africa.

Number of people, particularly women, trained

Number of young people, particularly youth who have

increase capacity to act

Objective 6: AADK will support the

capacity of ActionAid and ActionAid

partners to apply a Human Rights Based

Approach.

Number of people trained

Objective 7: AADK will have a significant

impact on Danish and European policy

within our campaign areas, and we will

strengthen cooperation between the Danish

government and international civil society in

matters of common interest.

Number of volunteers engaged by the policy and

campaign team and Global Contact

Objective 8: AADK will ensure that Danes

have an arena for action as global citizens

and strengthen their engagement and

involvement in campaigns aimed at fighting

poverty and promoting sustainable

alternatives.

Number of financial supporters

Number of volunteers engaged by the policy and

campaign team and Global Contact

50

Annex 4: MENA progress to objectives

Objective Target Achievement by end 2013


Objective 1: Develop a forum for youth to act together at policy development level)

6 Inspirators placed Inspirators placed: 4

Advisors placed: 1

3 of sub-fora created 0 sub-fora created

Objective 2: Develop capacities of young people to play an active role in social change

313 youth trained in toolbox courses 389 youth trained in toolbox courses (plus 669 received other training)

60 youth trained through TOT 35 TOT participants

More than 5 collaborations with youth centers

3 collaborations with youth centers

Objective 3: Support youth-led initiatives and CSOs in facilitating social change and democratic reforms

25-30 CSOs received capacity

building

15 CSOs received capacity building

10 CSOs and 10 youth groups

engaged in local campaigns.

11 CSOs and 9 youth groups engaged in local campaigns.

1,000 youth engaged 700 youth engaged

Building Bridges II

Objective 1: Increased

capacity of CSOs to

become advocates for

change

30 CSOs received trainings 27 CSOs received trainings

8 organizations of those trained have

promoted youth citizenship

education and civic engagement

13 organizations of those trained have promoted youth citizenship education and civic engagement

1,600 young people that have shown

civic engagement

514 young people that have shown civic engagement

Objective 2: Increased the competencies of and opportunities for young activists and youth groups to engage in change processes.

500 youth trained 695 youth trained (plus 570 adolescents trained in basic life skills)

15 CSOs and youth groups have

taken action to address local issues

12 CSOs and youth groups have taken action to address local issues

5 youth groups being engaged 24 youth groups being engaged

Objective 3: Strengthened knowledge of Denmark and the MENA region respectively and increased mutual understanding

18 new full partnership projects were

approved through the DEMENA

pool

6 new full partnership projects were approved

2,000 Danish and Arab youth in

dialogue and cross-cultural

exchanges

507 youth had participated in exchanges through the DEMENA pool

290 Danish participants to be reached through volunteerism, internships, or study tours, about 160 have been reached by the end of 2013

160 Danish participants reached by 2013

DAPP Frame-

agreement

No activities initiated.

Documents

Review of Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke/ActionAid Denmark · the areas of local governance, youth mobilization and women’s rights. Organizations receiving an Inspirator or Adviser report