Presented at the AfrEA Conference in Cairo, Egypt 

BY 

OJUKWU, Mark OjukwuActionAid Nigeria

ojukwu.ojukwu@actionaid.org

31st March 2009

There is a growing political support for partnerships in achieving sustainable development.

However, partnerships are not a panacea or universal remedy.

Essentially partnerships need to be properly monitored and evaluated to determine how effective they are delivering on their set objectives.

Multi-stakeholder PSRHH partnership worked towards facilitating and expediting the implementation of sustainable development goals.

Sustainable development defined in

PSRHH as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet the needs of the future.

Sustainable development entails integration and balancing of all interests where possible, making hard choices and trade-offs where it is not.

Partnerships for sustainable development are specifically linked to the implementation of agreed commitments based on development priorities (NSF, HSP, & NEEDS).

These partnerships are not a substitute for government responsibilities and commitments.

Intended to strengthen implementation by involving multi relevant stakeholders who can make a contribution to sustainable development.

Commitments by the government remain the cornerstone of the efforts to pursue sustainable PSRHH outcomes.

Promoting Sexual and Reproductive Health and HIV/AIDS Risk Reduction (PSRHH) programme, a.k.a. “Make We Talk” is a seven-year social marketing and behaviour change programme funded by:

DFID, USAID, and the Nigerian Government Managed by Population Services International (PSI) and

implemented by Society for Family Health (SFH), ActionAid Nigeria (AAN) and Crown Agents.

Nested within PSRHH is the BBC World Service Trust (BBC WST) project ‘Using media to combat HIV/AIDS in Nigeria, in support of the PSRHH Programme’

The activities were implemented across the six geo-political zones in Nigeria in partnership with:

17 civil society organizations (CSO).

Broad based groups PSRHH partnered with:

1. Coalition of Support Groups in Northern Nigeria (COSGINON), 2. Association of Women Living with HIV and AID in Nigeria

(ASWHAN),3. Civil Society on HIV and AIDS in Nigeria (CiSHAN), 4. Nigeria Network of Religious Leaders living and Affected by

HIV and AIDS (NiNERELA) 5. National Faith Based Advisory Committee on AIDS (NFACA). 6. Network of People Living with HIV and AID in Nigeria

(NEPWHAN)7. Ansar-Ud-Deen Society (ADS), 8. Evangelical Church of West Africa (ECWA), 9. Jama’atu Nasil Islam (JNI) 10. Church of Nigeria – Anglican Communion (CONAC) 11. the Nigeria Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) 12. NASRUL-LAHI-IL-FATHI SOCIETY OF NIGERIA (NASFAT).

Quantitative & Qualitative Partnership evaluation: Quazi-Experimental Surveys, PM&E, GIS Mapping etc. employed.

PSRHH partnership evaluation was important as it helped the partnership to seek for ways of addressing questions related:

What are to be achieved? How these are being achieved? What results emanated from the process? What effects these results have? And what are the sustainable, replicable and

scalable implications for other projects, programmes and/or policy activities?

The PSRHH Framework for partnership evaluation were structured in terms of Dimensions, Sub-Dimensions and Assessment Criteria.

The number and type of dimensions identified resulted from the nature, purpose and complexity of the partnership arrangement.

Each dimension is further broken down into logical sub-dimensions for analyzes and reflection on key components of how the partnership operates.

Key approaches used as part of the partnership evaluation parameters in PSRHH included:

Value-for-Money Analysis which emphasises questions of program political-economy,

Efficiency and effectiveness Result-Focused Evaluation which gives greater emphasis to

the assessment of the results of the partnership activity and gives better insight on how such outcomes are achieved,

Process-Outcome Evaluation which examines the process of implementation in order to understand whether and how the objectives of the partnerships are met

Stakeholders Analysis which requires the consideration of a range of stakeholders’ views, since different stakeholders have differential access and influence

Evaluation of the Partnership Mechanisms which focuses on the assessment of the means of partnership i.e. the partnership itself.

These range of partnership evaluation approaches are underpinned by a set of theoretical assumptions (the IBM theory & Social Change theory ).

To ensure that the principles and operating procedures adopted by the partnership are being followed,

Periodic participatory and formative evaluation of the partnership process were conducted.

Involving all partners in the design and conduct of the evaluation (e.g. determining questions to be asked, how data is collected and analyzed),

Feedbacks of the results to the partners in ways that are understandable and useful (e.g. written reports, verbal feedback).

All partners were involved in the interpretation of the findings and applying them to make changes in the partnership process, as appropriate.

PSRHH partnership evaluation was based on a combination of approaches to change via policy influencing, advocacy and social mobilization.

The idea was to promote accountable leadership, social activism and interaction between & among all stakeholders through PSRHH partnership evaluation.

PSRHH partnership viewed evaluation in terms of enhancing systems management; bureaucratic processes; organizational development; conflict resolution and bargaining.

Helped the partnership understood why the initiative may fail, and helping to design and strengthen the partnership structures, processes and relationships in ways more likely to achieve set objectives

Partnership evaluation requires analysis of the evidence captured, diagnosis of areas of strengthen and weakness, and action planning for improvement.

The resulting evaluation report demonstrated to partners the value of their participation as well as the achievement of the partnership to others.

Ensured that the partnership focuses on priority objectives and that these are aligned across partner organizations.

Challenged poor performance.

Improved decision making by providing feedback on progress, identifying areas where action is required for improved performance and resource allocation review.

Provided the basis for reflection, learning and development.

Responsibility for implementing the recommendations clearly and jointly identified together with indicative timelines.

Trouble agreeing on the partnership ToR beyond the PSRHH broad goal and outputs. Consequently it was difficult to identify criteria against which success could be measured initially.

Difficulty to define appropriate quantifiable measures or indicators of partnership success.

Lack of acknowledgement that successful evaluation was dependent upon the importance placed on it by the individuals involved in the partnership.

Partnership evaluation raised critical questions about the extent to which partnership actually add value in terms of both process and outcomes, and how these judgments are made.

Developing robust evaluation framework to determine the efficacy of the any partnership model is crucial for success.

The above stresses the importance of reflection, learning and evaluation within a partnership context by using respective partners’ competencies to cooperative advantage.

Partnership evaluation in PSRHH increased accountability, promoted learning and enhanced programme improvements especially in a complex partnership working.

PSRHH partnership evaluation highlighted and set success indicators on:

Impact and results Vision and leadership Partnership dynamics Strategy and performance management Participation and cost-effectiveness.

Partnership evaluation concentrating on just one of the following:

the partnering relationship Partnership dynamics.

Consider assessing the other partnership aspects such as:

all outcomes/impact (not just those related to the partnership objectives),

the real cost of partnering (and hence the ability to do an economic efficiency appraisal)

the value-add of the partnership approach (in comparison with non-partnering alternatives).

Do not under-estimate the learning curve that may be required for organisations with different cultures, approaches, etc.

The danger of partnership lethargy, where the outputs from partnership arrangements are negligible or the rate of output is extremely slow.

Analysis of institutional arrangements & policy environment (policy Vs. In practice)

For Listening