R E S O U R C E MOBILIZATION W O R K S H O P. Report

Transcription

1 R E S O U R C E MOBILIZATION W O R K S H O P Report BRUSSELS, 9-10 APRIL

2 Introduction In the European Union there are less institutional funds earmarked for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), particularly advocacy in Europe, than a decade ago. This trend is being accelerated by the current economic crises across the continent as well as by shifting strategies of US based foundations and other actors. While some donors and new mechanisms provide good opportunities, there is a clear need for positioning SRHR within the broader development agenda. With this in mind, and based on its experience in training civil society organizations on resource mobilization in East Africa, West Africa and South Asia, DSW took the lead to facilitate a resource mobilization workshop on 9-10 April for 14 EuroNGOs members from 11 countries to improve the ability of European SRHR organizations - collectively and at individual level - to mobilize resources for SRHR. More specifically the workshop aimed at: 1. Improving the resource mobilization capacity and technical proposal writing skills of leading European SRHR organizations; 2. Strengthening the ability of European SRHR organizations to identify and respond to funding opportunities from a range of European donors; 3. Facilitating partnership-building including with Southern partners. Immediate outputs include: 18 participants with different backgrounds (advocacy, programmes, monitoring and evaluation, partnership development) and variable degrees of experience and responsibility in resource mobilization were trained. Trickle-down effect : a majority of participants affirmed that they will share what they had learnt with colleagues and partners. 1 On average, there was an 81% improvement in participants resource mobilization capacity and proposal writing skills. 2 In the next six/nine months, DSW and EuroNGOs will follow up with participants to compile basic information on proposals submitted and the outcome of those submissions. This will measure objectives 2 and 3 above and give an indication of the long-term impact and outcomes of the workshop. Finally, from the evaluation forms it emerged that the training was highly appreciated by participants for its relevance, effectiveness, materials shared, facilitation and methodology, and that EuroNGOs Learning & Training activities are successfully supporting members needs. 1 Source: evaluation forms. 2 Source: pre-test/post-test. To measure knowledge gained during the two days, participants were asked to take the same test before and after the workshop. In the pre-test, average correct result was 49%, compared to 85% in the post-test. On average, participants improved their results by 81%, with several participants improving their results by more than three times, some even four times. Participants with less experience in resource mobilizations generally improved their knowledge more than those with a solid knowledge already at the outset of the workshop. 2

3 The RM life cycle The session discussed different understandings of resource mobilization, common myths and misconceptions, and reviewed the five elements of the RM life cycle : programme implementation, positioning, preparation, proposal development and post-submission. The workshop started with a group discussion on what resource mobilization is, when does it take place, who does it, how is it done, and why is it done. Four key points were raised: The term resource mobilization is broader than fundraising and it is not limited to writing and submitting a proposal. In essence it is an ongoing process of raising different types of support for an organization. Resources are both cash and in-kind (e.g. friends-raising, skill-raising ). Different people use different terms. For instance in the NGO world some larger organizations will often speak of business development. There are plenty of misconceptions and myths around resource mobilization that need to be addressed within each organization ( There is no money ; Donors will not fund us ; We have money for now ; Ideas are more important than format ; Good proposals will get funded ). Successful resource mobilization strategies imply a proactive approach rather than a reactive one (e.g. answering to a call for proposal). The group then turned to the theory and looked at the resource mobilization lifecycle and its five phases: 1. Programme implementation. This is the phase related to: (a) building your reputation through successful implementation of your ongoing projects; (b) collecting evidence on challenges and needs; (c) documenting best practices and identifying lessons learnt, even what did not went well; and (d) identifying partners. 2. Positioning. This is the phase related to getting people to know your organization and recognize it as an expert in the field. This means engaging with partners and donors in various ways (e.g. setting up meetings, presenting at conferences, issuing press releases and articles, participating in networks). 3. Preparation. This is the phase related to specific work that needs to be done before starting writing a proposal: (a) research (e.g. on donors, current policies, new opportunities); and (b) establish partnerships (e.g. meeting partners to understand commonalities, preparing MoUs). 4. Proposal Development. This is a major component of the cycle and includes: (a) analyzing the call of proposal; (b) brainstorming on objectives, strategies and key issues; (c) working with partners; (d) assigning clear responsibilities, tasks and deadlines; (e) drafting the narrative proposal and reviewing it; (f) developing a budget; (g) preparing all required documents for the submission; (h) getting internal approvals. 5. Post-submission. This phase includes: (a) follow up with the donor; (b) checking with partners; (c) requesting feedback on the proposal (knowing however that some donors do not give individual feedback); (d) debriefing with colleagues and partners on the process and outcomes (both when the proposal is successful and when it is not); (e) negotiating the contract. 3

4 Take Home Points on the RM lifecycle Resource mobilization happens all the time, at different stages and different levels. That is to say: the cycle of resource mobilization is not only about writing a proposal and negotiating a grant. The various phases of the resource mobilization are not necessarily linear: often they take place simultaneously. Depending on the type of organization you are working with, you will need to spend more or less time in each of the above mentioned phases. For instance, a new organization will need to invest more time on positioning than a well-established organization. Across all phases of the cycle it is crucial to work as a team with all partners, as well as with colleagues from across your organization. 4

5 Participants continued the discussion with a group exercise on the do s and don ts of RM. The main issues explored were: Dealing with failure and the importance of informing donors if you are facing challenges, showing efforts to address such, and learning from mistakes. The importance of internal positioning: knowing clearly, and being able to present, your organization s strengths and weaknesses; developing a common understanding across the organization. This is a pre-requisite to speak with one voice and thus positioning externally with success. The difficulties of developing selling points and acting as a for-profit organization. The difference between tailor made activities to a call for proposal versus forcing activities into a call that is not fitting the organization s purpose. In other words, the importance of investing in mapping donors and calls that match your organization. The temptation of using jargon. Loyalty and competition issues within a partnership. The session ended with a review of how to develop a proposal in a team. The main message was that this is not a one person job and as many people as possible should be part of the proposal development team. Depending on the size of the organizations, other than a core team of writers, it is useful to include colleagues from the finance department, the human resources department, the executive team and others as relevant (e.g. communication department, in country offices). Working in team requires a structured action plan that assigns roles and responsibilities (e.g. who writes the narrative? Who develops the budget? Who reviews all drafts? ) as well as timelines (e.g. what are the deadlines, who takes the lead and who is supporting?) for proposal development. This can be done with a tool called the Proposal Management Plan (see table below). Proposal Management Plan Part 1 Part 2 A roles & responsibilities table should identify clearly who within the organization and/ or partners will be responsible for each specific task. Proposal Manager* Budget Lead Author(s) Contributors (provide input) Reviewers Responsible executive team member for final approval * It is important to appoint one single person as Proposal Manager. S/he is ultimately responsible for coordinating and managing the proposal development. A timeline should outline: deadlines; who is responsible for what; who is required to give input; who needs to be involved/informed at what time. Partnership Identification Conceptualization 1st Phase Writing 1st Phase Budget and Consultation 2nd Phase Writing 2nd Phase Budget and Consultation 1st review of external reviewers Final Executive approval for submission Submission of Concept Note Debrief after submission 5

6 Take Home Points on the Proposal Management Plan Developing a proposal is not just the responsibility of one person. A lot of people within each organization need to be involved in different phases of the RM cycle to strengthen the quality of the proposal and thus increasing the chances of success. Working as a team requires a clear structure that outlines since the outset roles/responsibilities/timelines and thus expectations, e.g. using a proposal management plan. Partners should be involved not only in conceptualization of proposal but also in writing up and budget development. 6

7 Partnerships and bid-decisions We defined various types of partnerships, discussed the main risks, opportunities and key conditions for building them and explored how the bid decision process works in the context of competitive funding environments. The session began with a group discussion on the opportunities and challenges of working together: What are the benefits of working together? - Complementarity: Each partner has its own expertise (e.g. research, evaluation, advocacy vs programmes); together partners can extend reach (geographically, target groups, advocacy, donors contacts). - Pooling resources (e.g. cofunding/ pre-funding, in-kind contributions when donors allow). -The so called power of numbers (it looks good on a proposal to have several partners). What challenges and risks are associated with partnerships? - Split resources = less resources - Costs of coordination (e.g. finding commonalities, speaking with a single voice, dealing with conflict of interests). -Responsibility of the leader organizations when one partner might be unable to deliver. Risk of playing the donor/cop, partnership vs responsibility of the leader organization this is why it is important to look at the history of your partner before entering into a partnership. -Reputation (when your partner does not deliver or has financial management issues you are responsible, with implications for your reputation). What conditions are necessary for wellfunctioning partnerships? -Shared vision, values. This includes clarifying ethical standards (for instance regarding bribery in certain countries). -Equal partnerships: no partnership is equal but there must be equity - Transparency (budget, conditions and other crucial information must be shared since the onset. That is why the proposal needs to be developed and owned by all partners). -Trust A number of concepts and issues were clarified: Partnerships can have many benefits, but they usually come with costs: a loss of autonomy, conflicts of interest and challenges in cooperation and implementation. Partnerships are usually relationships between organizations/networks with different resources and influencing capacity. Being clear on these differences helps in choosing the right partners. 7

8 In a successful partnership all partners need to benefit from the partnerships, although the benefits might be different. There is a difference between a partnership and a consortium. Both are forms of collaborative working between two or more organizations/networks and can or cannot be formalized relationships. The main difference revolves around the duration of the relationship: a partnership is usually formed around a specific project, while a consortium often has a shared long term vision. Entering in a partnership is a serious business and pros and cons need to be carefully considered. Before entering any partnership, there are a couple of key questions to be answered: Q1: What does my organization bring? Q.2: What is the role of the lead organization? Q3: What are the conditions of the partnership and how will the relationship be managed? Q4: Is there an organizational fit? When considering a partnership, we might be called to take a go or no go decision. The first step is an internal analysis. Each organization must be honest and step back if, for example, the proposal is not fitting the values of the organization, if the size of the project is too big for the capacity of the organization or if the organization cannot match the co-funding. The second step is to make an analysis of the partners and the risks and opportunities of working together. A bid analysis and decision making include: (a) reviewing the context and specific factors (partners, political stability, financial issues); (b) analyzing the risks and opportunities of the bid; and (c)taking the bid decision (go/no go). At the end of the session the group made a simulation of a bid decision to put into practice the above mentioned discussion. 8

9 Take Home Points on partnerships & bid decisions Each partner should have a clear and realistic understanding and acceptance of roles, responsibilities, conditions and timeline. Each organization should have clear criteria for when to opt out of an ongoing proposal development or partnership. Given the limited resources and time of NGOs a strategic resource mobilization plan will help you: - invest in high-opportunity proposals, rather than spread resources and efforts on low-opportunity and/or high-risk proposals; - Favour a proactive approach instead of a reactive/donor driven one. 9

10 Donor relations and donor funding We examined different types of donors and existing funding modalities and discussed how to strategically decide whether to pursue or not a certain funding opportunity. The importance of understanding what type of donor one is dealing with and the different funding modalities was emphasized, for this helps appreciating their strategies, the reasons why they are giving funds to NGOs and what type of relationship they expect with their grantees. Equally this information is useful to assess whether or not a specific type of donor is a good match for your organization. Three broad categories of donors were reviewed: Institutional donors are governments, multilateral organizations (e.g. the World Bank) and large-scale development agencies (e.g. USAID). Pooled funds (e.g. Amplify for Change) are also considered as institutional funding. These donors are established actors, signatories of international treaties and commitments. They are accountable to citizens usually via parliaments and other bodies and for this reason there is a high degree of transparency in their funding procedures. Funding from institutional donors is granted in specific ways (e.g. calls for proposals, framework partnership agreements) and being public money, it is governed by precise financial regulations. Such funds are often highly competitive. With institutional donors it is possible to do reactive resource mobilization when there are calls for proposals. Large Private Philanthropic Foundations are legal entities set up by an individual, a family or a group of individuals (e.g. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). They are structured entities but there are various degree of transparencies among them. A typical feature of these foundations is that they are usually set up by individuals coming from the private for profit sector, which influences their organizational culture and relationship with grantees. The relationship tends to be highly personalized. To note that US based Foundations are subject to specific restrictions for taxation purposes when it comes to what they can fund (e.g. lobby activities are not eligible). Major gifts/private donors are individuals or companies with disposable income and like/are sensitive to your organization s issues. Their specific feature is that they are often not very visible. It takes time to identify them, understand who they are and what they might fund. Usually once a relationship is established, they tend to continue donating over time relatively large sums. These donors usually establish highly personalized and time consuming relationships, e.g. by wanting to follow their money. Private sector/corporate social responsibility (CSR) range from large multi-nationals with departments dedicated to CSR to smaller companies. Their funding is often linked to the community where their mother company is (e.g. improving infrastructure, education, health for employees and their families). To attract their funding, NGOs need to be proactive by contacting them and explore what is possible in terms of mutual objectives and benefits. Being for profit entities they tend to have a strong focus on results. An important issue to consider before entering in a partnership is what implications this relation might have for your reputation. 10

11 The group then discussed different types of funding modalities from less to more restricted: Core funding is a support that covers core organisational and administrative costs of an organisation (e.g. salaries of full-time staff, facilities, equipment). Programme funding is a support earmarked on certain of your objectives (not specific activities). Project funding is the most common form of financial support where money are tied to specific objectives/activities/results Other ad hoc funding modalities include small grants, donations and pro bono services (e.g. research, intellectual property, IT platforms). Participants also reviewed two specific case studies from the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development and Rutgers WPF. The session ended with a donor analysis exercise, to learn how to assess whether a donor is a good match or not. The key points raised were: Conflict of interests and reputational issues linked with funding from private sector and celebrities. Time investment issue with private donors/major gifts. Issue of increased competitiveness for funding from institutional donors/big private foundations. Typically high burden of reporting with institutional donors, and variations in reporting requirements of other donors. Donors as advocacy allies. 11

12 Take Home Points on donor relations & funding One should not rush in a partnership with a donor without having assessed whether the donor in question is a good match for the organization. There are various funding modalities, each with specific rules and restrictions: not all of them necessarily serve your purposes. Donors are partners and it is worthwhile investing time to build and nurturing the relationship before submitting a proposal especially if this is not submitted in response to a large call for proposal. 12

13 Analysing Call for Proposals Using a real example of a recent call for proposals from the European Commission we exercised careful reading to identify the key elements of any call and related guidelines. The session began with a number of clarifications: Funding from the European Commission is awarded via two procedures: open procedure and restricted procedure. A restricted procedure is the most common way in which the Commission awards grants. It is a two-step procedure in which: (1) a call is released and eligible applicants are invited to submit a concept note. (2) only shortlisted candidates evaluated on the basis of the concept note are invited to submit a full proposal. Sometimes the procedure might be open, meaning that all applicants are free to submit an application consisting of concept note and full proposal, which are both evaluated at the same time. This procedure is more often used by EU Delegations in local calls for proposals, but should according to EC regulations only be used in exceptional cases. There is a major difference between a concept note and a proposal: the former is about presenting an idea while the latter is a plan of action. By no means is a concept note a short version of the full proposal. Before preparing a concept note, one should identify stakeholders (e.g. partners, target groups, beneficiaries); outline risks (any physical, environmental, political, economic or social influences that could potentially impact the implementation of the project) and assumptions; and define preconditions (factors on which the project is totally dependent upon). Writing a concept note is about selling an idea in 3 to 5 pages: what is the idea about, why should it be funded and why you should be the organization implementing it? A concept note should be developed on the basis of the donor s guidelines. This means that it should explicitly show how the idea fits the donor s goals and objectives and whether you meet the eligibility criteria. A concept note for the European Commission has three parts (each follows the evaluation criteria used by the EC): -a one page summary of the action, -a one page description of the action and its effectiveness; and -a maximum three pages of relevance of the action. Each part is important for the total score but the relevance should be considered key as it gets 30 out of a total of 50 points that are directly transferred to the full proposal evaluation. Some donors require a certain percentage of co-funding or co-financing by the applicant organisation. The European Commission is one of them. If 20% of the total budget must be co-founded and you submit a proposal requesting a grant of 6,000,000 EUR, your total budget amounts at 7,200,000 EUR of which 1,200,000 EUR is co-financing by the applicant. 13

14 DEVCO calls for proposals are published on: nlineservices/index.cfm?adsschck= &do=publi.welcome&userlanguage=en. Next participants conducted a group exercise in which they examined a call from the European Commission under the thematic programme Civil Society and Local Authorities entitled CSOs Actions to Enhance Social Development: Focus on Maternal and Child Nutrition in Kenya that was issued at the beginning of Key considerations included: opportunities arising from integrating SRHR in other sectors (e.g. nutrition, global health, gender, climate change) to access funds; and key components of the call: overall content; eligibility criteria; partnerships; costs; application procedures. Evaluation criteria used by the European Commission were also reviewed. 14

15 Take Home Points on Call for Proposals Guidelines vary by donor some prefer to provide general guidance to applicants, while others are very explicit about what elements they want to see in a proposal. In both cases it is worthwhile reading the guidelines carefully and ask clarifications when instructions are not clear. Many donors refer to the OECD DAC list of ODA recipient countries in their grant giving. This list is updated annually and categorises ODA recipient countries according to their socioeconomic development. Developing a concept note requires dedicated and focused work, but investing adequate time at concept note stage not only increases success rate, but also makes the full proposal development more manageable 15

16 Problem & Objective analyses We studied together two key components of the log frame, the so-called problem tree and objective tree, to understand the importance of accurately identifying key problems and proposing solutions that are the basis for successful project proposals. The session began with some key considerations and lessons learnt while developing projects: One of the most common mistakes in proposal writing is deciding what to do before thinking about why, meaning thinking in terms of activities instead of identifying problems, constraints and opportunities in your target area that need to be addressed. This results in unsuccessful proposals, with proposed activities that are not clearly linked to the objectives and an unclear logic behind the proposed approach. To avoid these pitfalls it is useful to start with a problem analysis, which is the first step in the Logical Framework Approach. A problem analysis identifies the negative aspects of an existing situation and establishes the cause and effect relationships between the identified problems. It is visualized with a problem tree, which is basically a snapshot of the existing negative situation, or, to put it differently, of how a problem has many causes, and results in certain effects. To identify the causality between identified problems, it is helpful to ask why for every problem, to find underlying causes and short- and longterm effects. Once a robust problem analysis has been conducted, it is time to move into the second step of a log frame: developing the project s objectives and expected results, visualized in an objective tree. This is a representation of the negative situation of the problem tree converted into solutions, expressed as positive achievements (objectives). It is important to identify one main problem which can have several causes and effects. If you have more than one main problem, you will face difficulties translating this into a specific objective. Next participants divided into groups to develop problem and objective trees for potential projects on SRHR advocacy in Europe; Female Genital Mutilation; Comprehensive Sexuality Education and Maternal and Child Nutrition. From the problem tree to the objective tree: Effect Overall Objectives Problem Specific Objective Cause Cause Expected Result Expected Result 16

17 Take Home Points on Problem & Objective analyses It can be very difficult to determine one single main problem. Sometimes, there appear to be many problems. However, we cannot solve everything: we must select a single problem, which will be translated into the specific objective that we are responsible for achieving in our project. Interpretations of the key problem may differ and they can be biased by experiences, expertise, etc. However, without offering time to critically consider the situation, a project may be built upon an ill-considered situation. Objectives and expected results should directly mirror the wording of your causes, problem and effects. The more you can detail your problems, the easier it will be to develop a feasible and SMART objective tree. The Objective Analysis is also a check of the logic of your Problem Analysis: if the Expected Results do not seem to lead to the Specific Objective, which in turn is contributing to the Overall Objective, some revision of your problem analysis might be necessary. Different donors may use different terminology to describe a negative or positive future situation, but the logic and the structure are the same. 17

18 EuroNGOs, All rights reserved. This report was prepared by Patrizia Pompili (EuroNGOs) with contributions from Anna Dahlman and Andrew Pavao (DSW) who also facilitated the workshop, and Benedetta Pagotto (EuroNGOs). Special thanks go to DSW - (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung) for hosting the workshop and to our donors, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. For more information on the workshop, please visit: A condensed and interactive version of some of the materials used in the workshop can be found at and further materials are available at DISCLAIMER: This report is a synthesis of the resource mobilization workshop hold by EuroNGOs/DSW in April It is produced for information purposes only and is not recognized as an official document. Quotes, data, interpretations and findings do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of the network/dsw. 18