NLV Formative Evaluation (2012)

The Oxfam Australia Program Framework for South Africa

Formative Evaluation Scott Drimie, June 2012

1. Background The significant expansion of the Oxfam Australia (OAU) program in South Africa over the five years has been managed principally through the establishment of new thematic programs relating to food security, children’s social protection and water, sanitation and hygiene. However, this framework has become complex and cumbersome because the differentiation between programs is blurred in reality, as OAU and their partners address multiple, overlapping issues facing communities. Issues around vulnerability and marginalisation seldom adhere to strict, program boundaries. The resultant impact of OAU programming often go unrecognised as these fall between the “silos” of differentiated programs, leaving limited options to capitalise on opportunities to consolidate learning and apply them across programs.

A redesign process has led to a new framework which addresses the need to reflect the subtleties of programming, making an effort to better align with a ‘one program’ approach, and setting out the beginning of a monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) system that is geared towards recording and evaluating change in communities and partners. The framework is characterised by three main elements namely (1) the facilitation of an integrated approach that allows for coordination and alignment of focus areas (as defined under the one program approach), of (2) enabling change at community level through programming which is informed by guiding principles and activities relating to accountability, the disjuncture between policy and implementation and establishing an enabling environment for active citizenship, and (3) strengthening partners through capacity strengthening activities, support and administrative allocation.

2. Formative Evaluation In order to place the new framework on a strong analytical foundation and to ensure that the elements were in place to practically guide the emerging programming, a formative evaluation has been undertaken. This evaluation has as its basis the program learning from the past five years. In essence, the formative evaluation is intended to elicit feedback and critique of the new framework to allow modification of the approach at an initial stage.

The OAU programs emerging recently are principally the products of a vision for social change imagined by staff and partners. This vision has guided the course of action whereby social wrongs would have been addressed, particularly to alleviate inequalities of socio-economic conditions that define contemporary South Africa. OAU programs have thus been shaped by a vision of change, and succeeded or failed according to the veracity of that vision. Building on this concept, the formative evaluation has the task of testing out the underlying program theories – the theories of change that define how the program expects change to happen within a given context. In evaluating “realistically”, the evaluator should return to the core theories about how a program is supposed to work and then interrogates it - is that basic plan sound, plausible, durable, practical and, above all, valid? In so doing, the underlying theory of change of the new framework would be verified and tested, as this is fundamentally built on what has worked for OAU in the past.

A largely desk based process was undertaken consisting of a broad review of OAU literature, particularly program documentation (see Annexure Two), with a series of key informant interviews with OAU staff in South Africa and Australia (see Annexure One). This approach was designed to promote mutual learning and reflection as the evaluator and OAU staff jointly interrogated the framework. The source data for the evaluation were the program reports from the last phase of the Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program (OHAP), the Southern Africa Child Social Protection Program (SACSPP) and the uMkhanyakude Livelihoods and Food Security Partnership Program as well as the design documents for the AACES program and the Disaster Risk

Page 1 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

Reduction program. In summary, the process involved the following components: a)

Brief context analysis including issues of inequality, the policy-implementation gap, governance and accountability, and the operating environment for civil society organisations. b) Review and critique of the program learning from last five years of OAU program evaluation. In particular, emphasis was placed on successful examples of integration. This consisted of a review of OAU program documentation and a number of key informant interviews conducted in person, via telephone, Skype and Email. c) Review and critique of the new program framework including an assessment of the theoretical basis (integral theory) and the implicit “theory of change” in relation to the context analysis above. d) Participatory workshop with key OAU staff in Durban to validate the key emerging issues particularly pertaining to the underlying theory of change implicit in the new framework.

The following sections present the results of this process focusing on the specific objectives defined in the terms of reference. Firstly, the identification of the successes emerging from the framework and its underlying experiences from previous programs with emphasis on the inhibiting and contributing factors for managing such programs. This was based on an analysis of the logic of each program to reveal and critique the theory of change adopted by OAU. Secondly, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the chosen thematic focus areas was developed. Thirdly, recommendations emerged pertaining to how the new program framework might be refined through the identification of gaps and the suitability of the thematic areas. And fourthly, a consideration of whether the new framework reflected the integrated nature of the OAU program in South Africa and informed future ways of working that better aligns with a “one program” approach were made.

3. The Theory of Change: Lessons from Existing OAU Programs A key question guiding the formative evaluation was “will the new framework be effective in the current context?” The response most key informants gave to this question was in the positive, justified by the argument that the framework was based on proven success and elements of best practice already implemented. In other words the new framework represented a consolidation of OAU strengths. However, repeating success cannot be guaranteed by imitating the day-to-day workings of successful past programming.

To interrogate this further, a systematic consideration was undertaken of the theory of change implicit in the new framework and how this drew on older programming experience. This involved an analysis of how OAU is intending to activate the mechanisms to bring about the alterations in social conditions defined in the new program’s vision.

One way of understanding how OAU has worked in the past is to break programming down into the steps or series of steps that Oxfam implements to bring about change. This helps clarify the logic of an intervention; tracing the purpose of a program theory to describe what it is about the program that will bring about change.

It is posited, for arguments sake, that programs do not work, it is the resources they offer to enable their subjects to make them work. So two key questions are “what have been the particular processes through which OAU has worked in the past” and “what are the potential processes through which the new framework may work”. The context describes features of the conditions in which the program is introduced that are relevant to these processes. The context both enables and constrains how a program will unfold – and individual capacities respond accordingly. Depending on the nature of the intervention, what is significant contextually may not only relate to place but also to systems of interpersonal and social relationships.

In order to gauge the successes of past programming, each program was analysed both by the author and by OAU staff in a participatory process in Durban using the approach described above. This revealed the “logic” of each program, outlining Oxfam’s way of working. This process revealed the implicit theory of change in these programs and why OAU staff believed they had been successful in enabling change. It also helped define the theory of change implicit in the new framework and how it might unfold in the future. The following sections briefly outline the context in which OAU operates, the processes used to elicit change and some of the outcomes of this interaction.

Page 2 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

3.1

Context

The context of OAU programming is identified in many of the source documents reviewed in this evaluation, most clearly in the Joint Country Strategy (JCAS, 2011), the OHAP Partner Advocacy Mapping study (Phillips, 2011), and the new framework. This context was also articulated when defining the vision for the new framework by many of the key informants. Key factors relate to poverty, inequality and the persistent vulnerability of marginalised communities. The new framework identifies four most critical and relevant contextual challenges: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Increasing vulnerability of individuals and communities (to a range of entwined shocks and stressors) largely as a result of high levels of unemployment and poverty; Poor health outcomes compounded by the AIDS epidemic, high levels of poverty, poor administration and a lack of human resources (characterising a failing health system); Increasing vulnerability of communities to climatic and social shocks; and A lack of accountability on the part of duty bearers for the delivery of social services.

A pivotal issue in these is the inequality between men and women, between rich and poor, between urban and rural, between and within communities, converging in the description of South Africa society as having “duality, disparity and inequality”. Poverty is pervasive, driven mainly by unemployment and eroding livelihood systems. Despite a significant investment in social services, the country faces criticism for not meeting its development responsibilities as conditions in some communities continue to deteriorate (JCAS, 2011). High levels of inequality, poverty and unemployment place an immense burden on the economy, and significant challenges remain in relation to developing and maintaining an economic system that is suited to the social conditions, including underpinning social protection.

Government’s articulation of itself as a developmental state - with an explicit interest in intervening in the economy and society to address poverty - is undermined by the disjuncture between well-intended policies with effective implementation. In addition a series of corruption scandals at various levels of authority have undermined the public image of the state. Of course this generalisation hides the successes that have been achieved but there is a persistent air to the deterioration of the institutional fabric of the state. The private sector, which has an important role in addressing poverty through its large resource base, political influence and ability to absorb labour, often remains distant to constructive engagement on how to support socioeconomic change – apart from demanding an enabling environment for its own growth. Civil society faces severe constraints in accessing funding and support (JCAS, 2011). Although civil society has been able to make significant gains in policy and advocacy at national level, difficult choices remain in trying to enable policy and to ensure delivery.

This narrative, distilled from OAU perspectives, reiterates the importance of an integrated and adaptable response, as these factors interact in complex ways. Thus response issues that become imperative include the accountability of those with power to effect change in communities, the disjuncture between policy and implementation, and the importance of establishing an enabling environment for active citizenship. Rather than analyse these contextual factors in-depth once again, as has been done in much of the OAU source documentation, a few pertinent issues that transcend these are dealt with in more detail. These provide key pointers for the way in which OAU has worked and intends to work in the future.

The Divide Between Government and Grassroots The gap between policy-makers and implementers on one hand and grassroots citizens on the other, has severely complicated attempts to address poverty, inequality and under-development more generally by ensuring that policy choices and implementation priorities often fail to reflect the experiences and needs of the poor (Friedman and Hudson, 2011). This is a thesis part echoed on OAU’s own analysis (Phillips, 2011) and, indeed, its implicit theory of change, which is defined in subsequent sections.

The past six months has brought further evidence of this divide: 2012 accounts for 14 percent of local protests against local authorities recorded since 2004, with May 2012 recording more protests than any other month since 2004 (see Figure One). These protests express a range of material grievances directed largely at

Page 3 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

municipalities through mass protests, demonstrations and violent confrontations. They are partly a direct result of the culmination of numerous frustrations often building up over a long period of time (Atkinson 2007).

The government has acknowledged these protests are prompted partly by a lack of citizen voice and has promised to strengthen the ward committees established by the Municipal Structures Act and a replacement of ANC local election candidates in an attempt to ensure more responsive councillors. While both responses indicate a growing recognition of the need to ensure far greater access by grassroots citizens, they do so in ways that fail to resolve the problem (Friedman and Hudson, 2011). Enhancing citizen access to government by channelling it through structured participation vehicles often does not offer an effective means to ensure response. These channels favour organised, visible, groups rather than organisations of the grassroots poor.

Figure 1: Major service delivery protests, by year (2004 – May 2012) 120

105

111

100

81

80

67

60 34

40 20

10

27

2007

2008

2

0 2004

32

2005

2006

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source: Press Release - Municipal IQ’s Municipal Hotspots results, 6 June 2012.

Available at www.municipaliq.co.za/publications/press [Accessed 22 June, 2012] The state cannot be effectively ‘developmental’ unless it has strong links to society, needed to ensure that those with access to skills and capital are persuaded to co-operate with development and that grassroots citizens respond to initiatives in ways which are likely to unleash energies and initiate development (Edigheji, 2005). The government cannot, therefore, realise its stated goal of initiating pro-poor development unless it allows grassroots citizens far more say in policy formulation and implementation (Friedman and Hudson, 2011). The evidence of the past eighteen years indicates that government will be able to do little unless it wins the co-operation of a range of social actors, including people at grassroots, and that a ‘developmental state’ will not achieve its goals without a significant narrowing of the gap. The technical response of government as a vehicle for specialists to use their greater knowledge to dispense benefits to a grateful populace has proven limited in effect.

Strengthening the Grassroots Strengthening grassroots participation in society to define their future is a key contextual factor facing OAU. Narrowing the gap between state and society requires not only that elites be assisted to develop deeper social roots but also that those at its grassroots - who currently are not heard in policy debates - be empowered to engage with the state and others in the society whose access to power and resources give them the capacity to impact on the lives of the poor. This is a fundamental tenant of OAU articulated throughout past programs and embedded in the way it works with partners and communities.

Friedman and Hudson have argued that efforts by external agents to boost grassroots capacity is unlikely to succeed if it seeks to create new organisations or to impose resources and new approaches on existing associations (2011). Support is most likely to be effective and to build capacity to participate in democratic institutions if it supports existing organisations rather than trying to stimulate new ones and if it concentrates not on dispensing money but on supporting opportunities to engage with power-holders. This resonates with a significant proportion of program evaluations conducted on OAU work. An organisation like OAU is arguably separate enough from partners to act as an ‘honest broker’ and command sufficient resources - in the form of capacities as well as finances - to be able to offer the processes adequate support.

Page 4 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

3.2

OAU Programming: Mechanisms for Success?

The review of program documentation and the OAU staff workshop confirmed that grassroots civil society remained Oxfam’s main entry point and partner to achieve change. This was strongly reiterated in the new program framework discussed under the section entitled “partnership model”. In the Joint Country Strategy, partners were conceptualised as organised groups or institutions that are actors for change, who represent directly or have close relations with vulnerable and marginalised people in society (JCAS, 2011). The model hinges on OAU seeking to strengthen elements of the shared vision and agreed priorities of OAU and partners, as defined in the new framework, so that communities become agents of change in their environment whether family, community, municipality, region, country, or at a transnational or global scale. The framework goes on to identify “five main mechanisms” in which support will be provided to partners to ultimately reach the vision of “less vulnerable people living and working in South Africa”:     

Providing program funding to support organisation’s on-going work; Designing and delivering capacity building programs that seek to improve skills, knowledge and technical competency of partner staff; Commissioning and disseminating relevant/contextual research; Creating opportunities for networking and linkages with other like-minded organisations nationally and internationally; Documenting and disseminating partner and beneficiary experiences and learning.

Through these mechanisms, the role of Oxfam continues to be about working with and strengthening the capacity of civil society to respond to development issues through their own empowerment, through implementation of development initiatives, and through holding government accountable (JCAS, 2011). In the perspective of one staff member interviewed, OAU would measure success in terms of “beneficiaries being better off” if partner organisations were “good at what they do”. Another staff member remarked that Oxfam “needed strong partners that asked for particular resources”. These captured a way of working: strengthen civil society organisations, empower communities, change society. In thinking critically about how this could be achieved, OAU staff identified variants of the mechanisms inherent in specific programs as being key to the change process facilitated by themselves, leveraging different resources (money, time, skills, networks, partnerships, issue knowledge, etc.) to enable partners to work with and within the communities they served and belonged to.

As an example, staff working with the Australia Africa Community Engagement Scheme (AACES), focused on water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), agreed that a common set of mechanisms were in place to elicit change, broadly characterised by participation and evidence-based learning. AACES resonated with OHAP, Food Security and the nascent Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) programs in turn as the design had drawn heavily on previous experience and learning. According to OAU staff at the Durban workshop, implementation would follow a number of steps:     

 

Step One ~ listen to partner needs and identifying how to respond.

Step Two ~ leverage funding, partnerships, networks and technical skills to implement response.

Step Three ~ secure entry points into communities using existing partnerships, where trust and durability in relationships had been built.

Step Four ~ allocate required resources (skills, money, networks, partnerships, knowledge, etc.) to partners based on an analysis of partner strengths and weaknesses.

Step Five ~ adopt an integrated approach to partner and community needs, leveraging a range of resources to deal holistically with challenges. Part of the strategy was to acknowledge challenges and to turn these into opportunities (for example, building capacity to provide “added value” in a partner organisations).

Step Six ~ strengthen symbiotic relationship between partners including OAU to allow peer learning and review as well as the leveraging of partnership strengths.

Step Seven ~ adopt an on-going, innovative learning approach to allow for trial and error in meeting challenges.

Each of these steps might vary but the general approach has been similar across programs. They also help Page 5 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

reveal the plausible mechanisms through which the new program framework might work.

Key to these steps are the allocation of resources to stimulate and strengthen partner’s ability to impact vulnerability at community level. It is this that OAU will offer to enable individuals within partner organisations to make the programs under the new framework unfold effectively. From the experience of past programming, it is clear that it is the combination of resources that Oxfam brings rather than finance alone.

This combination enables partners to effectively engage the complexity of vulnerability facing communities and, in turn, empowers people to define their own future. It allows a focus on long-term development, without losing cognisance of everyday threats, which help people identify what keeps them in poverty, and then control and work towards solutions to their own situation.

The combination of funds with sensitive, ongoing collaboration between individuals within OAU and partner organisations, networking with other individuals and organisations, learning jointly, the transference of skills and technical knowledge, coupled with appropriate research that develops partners capacity – which ultimately empowers communities to take control of their own development (rights holders), particularly through advocacy for government delivery (duty bearers). It is also this combination that creates the flexibility to respond to shifting, integrated issues that undermine communities through a broad spectrum of program options and innovation. Oxfam’s commitment to participatory, reflective capacity strengthening of locally based partners embedded in communities thus allows for a number of positive outcomes to emerge.

3.3

Integral Framework

As argued above the new framework clearly articulates the change processes that will unfold: strengthened civil society organisations will lead to empowered communities, which will ultimately help transform society. A number of mechanisms detail this rationale, underpinned by the transfer of resources that will enable individuals within partner organisations to make change happen. Implicit in this change process is a rightsbased argument that the duty to deliver essential services – and the enabling environment for people to reach their full potential - rests with the state and that citizens should have a voice and active role to play in the design, implementation, governance and monitoring of these initiatives. However, as seen from the complex context in which the new framework will operate, this will depend on change occurring in multiple spheres.

The framework explicitly identifies where these changes must occur, ranging from cultural and institutional systems to changes at an individual level in terms of people’s attitudes and beliefs, or their access to and control over resources.

Reference is made to Rao and Kelleher’s “integral framework” in several recent OAU documents, culminating in an explicit statement of its use as the core theory of change in the new framework. This builds on the AACES program design (2011) and the mapping exercise conducted for OHAP, which outlines the role of advocacy in future programming (Phillips, 2011). The version of the “integral framework” used in these texts has proven a useful tool for articulating the approach of Oxfam and its partners in working towards long term, sustainable change in the lives of women and men, by transforming the social systems and institutions that determine the distribution of power and goods (AACES, 2011). It is through the workings of entire systems of social relationships that any changes in behaviours, events and social conditions are effected.

In taking a holistic view of the system(s) in which people live, the framework provides a model of the various spheres in which change needs to occur in order to achieve transformation (see Figure Two). This Figure Two: The Quadrants of the Integral Framework is based on the premise that the different layers of social reality, which make up and surround programs, need to be accounted for. For example, a programme of education and training offered to small-scale rural producers in uMkhanyakude may offer farmers immediate resources to guarantee the production of nutritious food. Whether the ideas transmitted will reinforce the farmers ability to produce nutritious food depends upon a further four “i’s”: i) the individual capacities of

Page 6 of 18

Source: Brown, 2005

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

trainees and teachers, ii) the interpersonal relationships created between them, iii) the institutional balance in the area towards supporting smallholder production, and iv) the wider infrastructural and welfare systems that support or undermine smallholder production. This relates directly to how OAU might facilitate change: i) strengthened training capacity and learning opportunities, ii) networks, relationship building, valuing trust, iii) institutional engagement through advocacy and networks, and iv) lobbying for appropriate allocation of state resources.

The model presents these “i’s” in spheres, or quadrants, which allows OAU to use a lens on different, but important, dimensions of reality. By looking at a development initiative through all of the quadrants, most of the major forces, which will influence the success or failure of that initiative, can be identified. The quadrants can thus be used as a comprehensive map to help understand the terrain in which the initiative must succeed.

As articulated in the new framework, the strength of this approach is that it challenges assumptions that change in one area, such as reforming policy at national or provincial level, necessarily results in improvements in the ability of individuals to access their rights as defined by that policy – such as infrastructure, services and knowledge. Rather than presenting a theory of change in the form of a linear logic model, this framework accommodates complexity and recognises that strategies to achieve change in one sphere will have effects in others and can, therefore, be supported by complementary changes in others. It also aligns with the established and proven OAU way of working, as demonstrated above.

As with many new concepts, frameworks, theories or models, trepidation was expressed by many of the OAU staff interviewed about this theory of change. This revealed concerns about the novelty of the integral framework - as described in the text - and how it might be applied practically. In discussing this during the workshop and thinking about how to apply the integral framework, OAU staff agreed that it was indeed intuitively useful and that there were examples of how they had implemented such a process in the past. The new framework does provide an example of applying the theory of change using the quadrants: individuals within communities (rights holders) holding local government (duty bearers) to account; improved access to services; effectiveness of governance through strengthened connection between rights holders and duty bearers; and reduced inequalities through access of better services. Examples such of this will need to be explored and interrogated by OAU staff and partners such that a familiarity with the framework is created. This is particularly important as the new framework involves a way of working that moves beyond program coordinators and specialists implementing discrete programs to individuals acting more as facilitators, convenors, connectors and networkers, acutely aware of how change can unfold to reach the ultimate purpose of the new framework.

Tracking a change through the quadrants, as was done in the new framework document, is another exercise that will reveal how the integral framework can be applied in reality – and how it can be used to guide the logic of related interventions. The integral framework may pose a challenge for the MEL framework, which raises the importance of exploring how indicators can be used within the quadrants tracking a change process.

Again, these exercises can be done to test the application of the framework and to build familiarity amongst staff. An example of how such an approach can be strengthened is through the establishment of a “reflection room” at the OAU offices: a small, comfortable space with four walls fitted with pin boards to capture papers, articles, reports, diagrams, photos – that have some relevance to the process of working in an integrative way.

Each wall would represent one of the quadrants and could be used as a visible databank as the experiences and reflections of OAU staff deepen. A minimum reading list can be developed to help people think through the process with small groups set up to discuss the texts and emergent experiences in a structured format. In this way, a safe space can be created in the heart of OAU physical infrastructure to reinforce the practical application of the theory of change.

Essentially the integral framework gives an analytical basis for what OAU has increasingly focused on in recent years. As a theory of change underpinning working through partner organisations to facilitate change in communities, the framework can be applied to ensure that changes are thought through systematically. As argued in the Durban workshop, the integral framework should not to be implemented strictly but rather as a way to account for how change is facilitated through partner organisations. In this way the framework’s ability to allow flexibility and adaptability can be demonstrated.

Page 7 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

4. The appropriateness of the chosen thematic focus areas There was consensus amongst the staff that the new framework builds on past programming – and did not in effect take on a new direction or focus. It rather provided a more effective way of seeking the linkages between the issues confronting communities, predicated on a lack of basic needs, and ensuring that these needs were met over time. As such, there was an agreement that the chosen thematic focus areas – improved health outcomes, improved livelihoods, and increased access to social protection and rights – were appropriate. Not only did they build on OAU’s proven strength and experience but also brought these together in a way that played to the strengths of partners and the needs identified within communities at the grassroots.

A key issue here is that programs cannot be fully isolated or kept constant. Unanticipated events, political change, personnel moves, physical and technological shifts, inter-programme and intra-programme interactions, practitioner learning, media coverage, organisational imperatives, performance management innovations and so on make programmes permeable. Such externalities always impact on the delivery of a program and this entails that they are never implemented in the same way. The broadness of the thematic areas, and the nature of how OAU works in practice, means that there is flexibility and adaptability to address this reality. It also means that OAU is able to use this fluidity as an opportunity.

Nonetheless, an important question raised with staff was whether the thematic focus areas were too broad?

An important response was that this depended on what resources the new framework was able to garner and anticipate for the future. Although these thematic areas appeared broad on first reading, it became clear in the interviews that some focus was intended to ensure effect and impact – and that this focus would build on existing areas of expertise. In other words, the thematic areas could be tightened depending on a specific focus in a particular place or through a specific partner organisation. There was also agreement that it made sense to have three broad areas as defined in the new framework: health beyond HIV (interest and focus on HIV has helped strengthen the health sector more generally) supported by WASH (to underpin health outcomes and sustainable livelihoods more generally), livelihoods (connected back to health and food security), and social protection and rights (essential for Oxfam as defined in the One Program approach). These areas would theoretically converge to achieve the long-term sustainable solutions that Oxfam sought through improved systems and policies.

The tighter focus within these three areas was essential in a context where securing financial resources for programs had become a challenge: the market had constricted with negative effects on funding opportunities.

A number of respondents indicated that OAU and other Oxfam affiliates were increasingly experiencing challenges raising funding particularly as many donor countries were encouraging saving under current austerity conditions. Most affiliates, including OAU, now needed to look at institutional funding from different sources. Similarly, many donors were now looking for direct, tangible impacts from their investments. World Vision’s direct connection between an individual donor and a particular child is an example of this kind of approach. Funding a strategy such as that embedded within OAU, whereby an intermediary receives the funds, has become more of a challenge in recent times – despite the clarity of logic and impact. A related issue was that funding for specific issues had shifted. As an example, there is clearly no longer a dominant emphasis on HIV, as many donors have shifted attention to issues such as climate change and nutrition. The broader program framework – encompassing the three thematic areas – does, however, allow OAU to leverage funding whilst maintaining allocation to less “profiled” issues. The integrated program will allow OAU to talk to donors in a way that opens opportunities for everyone. This will, however, require absolute clarity in describing the impacts that the new program will have.

5. Refining the new program framework: suitability of focus areas, integration and gaps 5.1

Focus Areas

A point that was raised throughout the interviews with staff was whether the focus areas identified in the new framework were suitable as the basis for the program going forward? The framework is clear in stating that in Page 8 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

order to maximise the impact of the limited resources available to the program, at least in the three years for which funding had been secured, the focus of the integrated approach needed to be realistic and achievable.

As such, “multiplier issues”, which have the potential to translate into broader development gains beyond their immediate impact, were emphasised in the focus areas. These included a focus on HIV and AIDS, increasing household access to potable water, food production, and accessing social protection. These are also the core strengths of OAU as evidenced by a range of program documentation and evaluation reports. Building from these strengths clearly provides a “suitable basis” for the new program. Not only would continuity be ensured in staffing and partnerships but core competencies would be maintained, albeit in a more explicit integrated approach.

Respondents intimately involved with OAU advocacy felt that the new framework was better suited to strengthening active citizenship, a key ingredient of the stated way of working and the theory of change. This relates back to the contextual issue highlighted in this evaluation – development will be better placed if duty bearers are held to account by the rights holders themselves. The role for advocacy becomes clear in this regard, and an important dimension to working in an integrated way. It transcends the traditional focus to strengthening networks of people to strengthen systems, as partners become the focus as catalysts for change partly through doing advocacy in every day work. This resonates with the Phillips paper on OHAP partner advocacy mapping, that argued that it was impossible to successfully deliver HIV prevention, treatment, care and support programs without engaging in advocacy work (2011). Advocacy has been essential in creating and maintaining the conditions for OHAP partners to conduct their work, engaging with power structures to influence change, the impacts of which reach beyond the realm of direct activities. These range from engagement with formal institutions such as local, provincial and national government departments to working with more informal structures such as tribal and religious leadership (Phillips, 2011).

5.2

Integration

Integration is intuitively appealing to OAU staff directly involved in programming – partly because the evolution of programs has stemmed from an initial focus on HIV with an incremental “integration” of additional issues identified as being vital to effectively address the epidemic: nutritious food, access to broader health care, WASH issues. Similarly, partners across programs have in the last three to five years identified increasing challenges related to access to water. Although OAU has supported small scale activities in response to these challenges, such as the provision of water harvesting equipment and advocacy training to support local government engagement, the AACES program was essentially intended to provide Oxfam with the opportunity to address these issues more extensively and to integrate broader WASH elements into all existing programs. This demonstrates how integration was provided for in a practical response to an emerging challenge.

The separation of programs in the past was therefore in one sense artificial, as an alignment existed and was reinforced by the way of working. The conceptual separation between the programs was deemed necessary for program design, planning, funding allocation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and auditing. However, almost as a body, OAU staff agreed that an integration of issues was how partners working within communities operated: “they are ahead of us in this regard”. Reflecting on this, some staff believed that the “one program” approach was actually in place for many partners and that, by-and-large, most successful partners would not have to adapt much to new framework, as this is how they have been working for years. According to one respondent, some partners believed that the new framework would allow them to “finally describe all the things that we do” in addressing vulnerability.

Although integration as a concept and way of working is intuitively appealing, evaluation of integrated programs is often beset by lack of a common understanding of what it involves. Indeed, a lack of a commonly adopted definition and the variety of approaches taken to analyse integration has been referred as an “academic quagmire of definitions and concepts analysis” (Howarth and Haigh 2007). A recent critical review of the published literature on concepts, definitions, and analytical and methodological approaches to integration - as applied to health system responses to communicable disease - found that integration is understood and pursued in many ways in different health systems (Shigayeva et al. 2011). This may well be an issue for OAU at the outset of the new program, as a number of staff indicated that integration had taken many different forms across partnerships. Although this is strength, it will be useful for the emerging team of

Page 9 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

coordinators and facilitators – as opposed to program coordinators – to interrogate these and work towards a common understanding that pervades the organisation.

To help with finding such an understanding, a representation has been developed (see Figure Three), which provides provide clarity in terms of levels of sectoral involvement alongside the continuum of integration identified in the literature cited above. These terms may provide guidance for discussions internally to OAU, bearing in mind that these definitions are not definitive (not everyone uses this language in the same way), but rather they are a useful starting place for clarifying the language used for talking about sectoral integration at different levels.

Figure Three: Sectoral involvement and definition of terms

Source: Harris and Drimie, forthcoming It is clear from an analysis of the new framework document and interviews that what is understood to be integration align with the description in figure three. In practice, however, this may be to ambitious to start and another form of integration may be more appropriate, such as facilitating joint planning and action whilst maintaining sectoral remits (of program coordinators) as they build their confidence to become integration specialists.

5.3

Gaps

Implicit in OAU’s way of working is the expansion of local social capital formation, particularly through the growth of civil society organisations. In direct response to the contextual issue of bridging the divide between the grassroots and government, the intention can be described as the “thickening of civil society” whereby greater local participation in self-determined development leads to more effective decentralisation of governance. The strengthening of civil society organisations is intended to place strong demands for greater democratic participation in local government and for greater coordination between local and national policies and programs. The challenge, in time, will be for Oxfam and their partners to transform this “organisational revolution” into an instrument to achieve not only political gains and improvements in local service provision, but also in economic gains that reduce poverty and the inequalities that characterise contemporary South Africa.

One area that might be effective for OAU in achieving the purpose laid out in the new framework could be the support of “second-order organisations” that link community-based organisations to national organisations (Bebbington, 1996). These organisations build social capital that goes beyond interest groups and can identify broadly shared concerns among different groups, allowing them to focus on larger themes such as political

Page 10 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

participation and economic development.

Another key area that could be considered more explicitly by OAU in the new framework is the need and increasing demand for the provision of environmental services. A scan of South African newspapers reveals the increasing extent of the destruction of environmental services: water catchment areas becoming degraded and contaminated through mining, mismanagement of watersheds, pollution of water from chemicals from commercial agriculture, amongst others. Increasing social demands for environmental services in the face of extensive pressures offers new opportunities for rural development. Missing markets for improved watershed management, delivery of higher quality water to urban and rural settlements, reduced pollution from use of chemicals in agriculture, greater biodiversity conservation and carbon capture, and improved landscape management call for introduction of payments for environmental services. OAU has already gleaned experience in this domain through, for example, interactions with organisations such as BioWatch and an important research process on climate change adaptation in uMkhanyakude. The question is whether this is a legitimate area for OAU’s attention going forward, and if so how best could it be managed?

6. Future ways of working that better align with a ‘one program’ approach.

Oxfam as a confederation employs a range of mutually reinforcing strategies to bring about change in the areas in which it works. These strategies comprise the Oxfam “one-program approach” and can be broadly grouped as long-term development, responding to humanitarian crises and campaigning. Each strategy engages with power relations within all spheres and at all levels of society, ranging from campaigning at the global level as Oxfam International to bring about structural changes in global institutions and norms, to working with partner organisations to provide services in response to community need and where gaps in government service delivery are identified (AACES, 2011). When looking critically at whether the new framework aligned with this broader approach, it is clear that important elements of it exist.

Long-term development is the ultimate purpose of the program, as people living and working in South Africa would become less vulnerable. Improved health outcomes, strengthened livelihoods and increased access to effective social protection would clearly underpin long-term changes in the communities with which OAU works. Social protection, even with very broad definitions employed by organisations such as the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in the United Kingdom and the Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP), encompass safety nets to offset acute shocks and stressors, thereby helping communities anticipate possible humanitarian crises (Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler, 2004). This aspect is a core component of the new framework both through the emphasis on social protection and the experiences garnered in building a food security program from an initial focus on food relief. Coupled with a nascent but well articulated disaster risk reduction program, aspects of responding and anticipating humanitarian crises, at different scales, are in place. The integration explicit in the new framework thereby speaks directly to the “one-program approach” although with muted emphasis on campaigning. At a local or national level, these might become advocacy strategies although the scale of operations is unlikely to enter the domain of Oxfam International.

In conducting the evaluation, it became clear that there were some “discomforts” in thinking about the new framework in the broader context of uncertainty facing OAU. As already articulated, this refers to the future configuration of an Oxfam-South Africa and what this new entity would mean for existing staffing, structures and programming. In the process of the workshop, these issues were discussed at length and an emerging consensus was that the new program framework was critical to the future of the organisation, whatever its form, and that the success of a future Oxfam should have to be build on this if proven a success. As such, it was imperative for OAU staff to build a strong a program and to use this to influence the process of change.

This powerful statement emerging from OAU boded well for the new framework and its likely success.

It also reiterates the need for demonstrating the impact of the new program. Thus an important question is how can OAU demonstrate the importance of the new framework, monitor it over time, evaluate the impacts and learn from the processes? This is predicated on the need to articulate how the focus on the thematic areas will best enable change at the grassroots in order to persuade potential donors to provide ongoing funding. In discussions around this issue, some staff pointed to the need to measure real impact at community level, as

Page 11 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

facilitated by Oxfam’s support of partner organisations. A cautionary note was that there was an increasing trend for donors, such as the Australian government through the Australian NGO Cooperative Partnership, to require more specific M&E reporting. These types of requirements would also have to be carefully considered when developing the new MEL framework.

This reiterates the importance of tracking the theory of change, both in terms of the way OAU works and the integral framework, to demonstrate the value add and efficiencies that OAU brings to these program implementers. One respondent felt that in the past, OAU had become overly concerned with activity and output measures whilst there was now a need to focus on higher-level impact to start demonstrating the value of Oxfam (and its strategic way of working). This, as example, would mean measuring the effectiveness of partner organisations in terms of their relationships, linkages, networks, capacity, practice and ultimately their sustainability. Ensuring that these were being met would mean that community impact would also be achieved: “if partners were good at what they do, their beneficiaries will be better off”. Clearly the new framework would require a consolidated report reflecting the new program to encompass all M&E information. This implies that a new MEL framework will have to be developed to effectively capture the notion of vulnerability, the ultimate focus of the new program. The nutrition baseline that was recently completed in June 2012 will be an important component of this.

A related issue raised in the interviews was that impact had been demonstrated through the several case studies that OAU had produced. However, there was a suggestion that these needed to be better liked to the new monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) to capture impact. In order to do this, it was important for OAU to be clear about the purpose of case studies with more effective use of them according to that purpose. As an example, if the case studies were being used for policy dialogue or advocacy, then they needed to be part of a broader policy influencing agenda and clearly part of a strategy. If the purpose was for sharing and learning across organisations then there was a need for a different language. Developing a new MEL framework provided an opportunity to think through and implement such strategies. A challenge will be to keep partners engaged as reporting becomes more difficult, as measurements of change at a number of different levels will have to be secured.

7. Concluding Comments The abiding impression from interview respondents and an interrogation of programming documentation is that the new program framework has been carefully crafted from existing experiences to respond in a more nuanced way to issues facing communities. The holistic approach, underpinned by OAU’s explicit way of working through partners as a necessary catalyst for change, would better meet the needs of civil society operating at the interface with vulnerable communities. Clearly the new framework will require important changes within OAU: systems will have to be adapted, program coordinators will have to adjust to acting more as facilitators, convenors, connectors and networkers, learning processes will have to be facilitated to build an awareness about how change can unfold to reach the ultimate purpose of the new framework. Possibly, most importantly, a new kind of team will have to be created, as individuals will increasingly work together on a daily basis in what can be described as a learning organisation. This will demand a new kind of leadership across the organisation, as people will be required to take responsibility more broadly.

“You change a nation through small groups because they can hear each other’s voices. Small groups are the most effective unit of change because of the characteristic of relatedness” (Peter Block, 2008: “Community: The Structure of Belonging”)

Page 12 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

References Atkinson, D. 2007. “Taking to the Streets: Has Developmental Local Government failed in South Africa”, in Buhlungu, S; Johnson, D; Southall, R; and Lutchman J (eds), State of the Nation South Africa. Cape Town: Human Science Research Council Press.

Australia Africa Community Engagement Scheme Community Led Access to Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Program Design, 2011 – 2016 (revised 29 June 2011 – post peer review) Bebbington, A. 1996. “Organizations and Intensifications: Campesino Federations, Rural Livelihoods, and Agricultural Technology in the Andes and Amazonia”. World Development 24 (7): 1161-77.

Brown, BC. 2005. “Theory and practice of integral sustainable development: Part 1 – Quadrants and the Practitioner”, AQAL: Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 1 (2), 351-386.

Devereux, S and Sabates-Wheeler, R. 2004. “ Transformative social protection”, IDS Working Paper 232.

Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Edigheji, O. (ed). 2005. “Trajectories for South Africa Reflections on the ANC’s 2nd National General Council’s discussion documents”, Special Edition of Policy: Issues & Actors, Vol 18, no 2, Johannesburg, Centre for Policy Studies.

Friedman, S and Hudson, J. 2011. “Filling the Gaps? The Future of CARE in South Africa”, Report on CARE’s Role in South Africa in the Light of Current Development Needs and Stakeholder Responses Commissioned by CARE South Africa.

Harris, J and Drimie, S. 2012 forthcoming. “Towards an integrtaed approach for addressing malnutrition in Zambia: A litertaure review and instituitional analysis”, IFPRI Discussion Paper, Washington DC, USA. Howarth, M. L., and C. Haigh. 2007. “The Myth of Patient Centrality in Integrated Care: The Case of Back Pain Services.” International Journal of Integrated Care 7: e27.

Joint Country Strategy (JCAS). 2011. “Reversing patters of inequality, creating opportunities and outcomes for people to work their way out of poverty’, Oxfam Australia Country Office, Durban, South Africa.

Phillips, M.2011. “OHAP Partner Advocacy Mapping”, Oxfam Australia Country Office, Durban, South Africa.

Shigayeva, A., R. Atun, M. McKee, and R. Coker. 2011. “Health Systems, Communicable Diseases and Integration.” Health Policy and Planning 25 (Suppl 1): i4–i20.

Page 13 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

Annexure One: Interview List General overview of all programs - Allan Moolman ~ AllanM@oxfam.org.au - Colin van Rooyen (Melbourne) ~ colinc@oxfam.org.au - Kerry Farrance (Melbourne) ~ kerryf@oxfam.org.au OHAP - Pumla Mabizela ~ pumlam@oxfam.org.au - Thabi Khoza ~ ThabiK@oxfam.org.au Child Social Protection - Busi Ndlovu ~ BusiN@oxfam.org.au - Wendell Westley ~ WendellW@oxfam.org.au Food Security - Mavis Nyakurimwa ~ mavisn@oxfam.org.au AACES - John Nyamayaro ~ JohnNyamayaro@oxfam.org.au - Wendy Lubbee ~ WendyL@Oxfam.org.au

Page 14 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

Annexure Two: Document List – OAU Programs General overview of all programs 1.

General Oxfam Publications -

-

APAC Perspectives on Change: Impacts of the Australian Partnerships with African Communities program as told by beneficiaries in two South African partner organisations, authored by Dudu Coelho, February 2011 They made me Brave: Reflections on women in leadership at CHoiCe Trust (CHoiCe) and the HIV/AIDS Prevention Group (HAPG), Case Study Number 10, authored by Gladys Ryan, June 2011 Vhutshilo Mountain School: A social study of a rural paediatric antiretroviral program in South Africa, Case Study Number 11, authored by Patricia Henderson, June 2011 Isibani Sethemba: The evolution of integrated approaches to vulnerability in the context of HIV and AIDS, Case Study Number 12, authored by Mark Mattson, June 2011

Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program 1.

Operational Plans -

2.

Six Monthly and Annual Reports -

3.

JOHAP - Joint Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, South Africa, Annual Report (to Participating Oxfams), July 2007 – June 2008 (published September 2008) JOHAP - Joint Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, South Africa, Mid Year Report, July 2009 - December 2009 OHAP - Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, Mid-Year Report, July 2010 - December 2010 OHAP - Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, Annual Report, 1 July 2009 - 30 June 2010 (published 8 December 2010) OHAP - Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, Annual Report, 1 July 2010 - 30 June 2011 OHAP - Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, Systems Review, September 2011, compiled by Michele Besley, Program Management Systems Advisor

Strategic Plans -

4.

JOHAP - Joint Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program South Africa, Phase Three, Year Three, 1 July 2007 – 30 June 2008 JOHAP - Joint Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program South Africa, Phase Four, Year One, 1 July 2009 – 30 June 2010 OHAP - Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program South Africa, Phase Four, Year Two, 1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011 OHAP - Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program South Africa, Phase Four, Year Three, 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012

JOHAP - Joint Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, South Africa, Strategic Plan, Phase Three, 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2008 JOHAP - Joint Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program, South Africa, Strategic Plan, Phase Four (IV), 1 July 2009 – 30 June 2012

Consultancy Reports, 2009 – 2010 -

AIDS Legal Network, Provincial Roundtable Discussions on the Implementation of the National Strategic Plan (NSP) Challenges and Lessons Learned, March 2009 Amber Howard Cornelius, Process Report on the OHAP Working with Men Community of Practice (WWM CoP), July – December 2010, January 17, 2011 Amber Howard Cornelius, Report on the OHAP Working with Men Community of Practice (WWM CoP), January – June 2010, August 8, 2010 Page 15 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

-

-

5.

Learning Notes -

6.

Alison Lazarus, Oxfam Australia Partners Training in Lobby and Advocacy, Centre for Public Participation, Workshop on Lobby and Advocacy, 16-17 February 2010 Fiona Macdonald and Margaret Roper, Moletsie Community Radio Station: Review Of Mobile Phone Technology Process, June – September 2009 Phil Donnell, Funding Development Services, Technical support to partners – Proposal-writing and Capacity assessment workshops, Workshop Report, July 2010 Phil Donnell, Funding Development Services, Technical support to partners – Reporting: Group reflection, review and writing, Workshop Report, November 2009 Graham sessions, IT Audit of Clermont Community Resource Center, 21 June 2010 Greater Molweni Community Resource Centre, Programme Development And Management Capacity Assessment Report, 22 July 2010 Report on Community Home-Based Care Discussion Group Process And The Compilation Of The Community Worker Management Framework Policy Submission, Undated Neville Meyer, Insight Ethekweni, Community StoryTelling Workshop: An Introduction to Participatory Video Methodology, December 2010 Insideout: M&E Specialists, BASELINE SURVEY: Oxfam HIV and AIDS Program (OHAP), Final Report January 2011 Joint Submission to SANAC on the Community Care Worker Management Policy Framework version 6, prepared by Fiona MacDonald, January 2010 Gender based barriers and challenges to civil society implemented HIV and AIDS interventions in South Africa, with particular reference to care, support and impact mitigation activities, prepared by On Par Development, 6 January 2009 Female Condom Consultation Meeting, Conference Report, 21 July 2010, Diakonia Conference Centre, Durban SANGONeT Report on JOHAP Community of Practice Reflection Workshop – Facebook Technical, prepared by Nicolle Beeby SANGONeT Report on the Intersections Media Training, 25-28 October 2009, prepared by Nicolle Beeby SANGONeT Report on Social Media Skills Training, 25-26 January 2010, prepared by Nicolle Beeby Workshop Report on OHAP Communities of Practice, August 2010, prepared by Rebecca Freeth, StrategyWorks Exploring Rights Based Approaches to HIV and AIDS work among JOHAP partners, May 2009, prepared

by Rebecca Freeth, StrategyWorks Organisational Development Process with Oxfam Eastern Cape Partners, Summary Report, 22 March 2011, prepared by Theresa Edlmann Organisational Development Process with Oxfam Eastern Cape Partners, Summary Report, 7 April 2011, prepared by Theresa Edlmann Gay and Lesbian Network (GLN) Organisational Development Process, Final Summary Report, 28 January 2011, prepared by Warren Banks Sex, Sexualities and Identities Workshop Report, 29-30 April 2010, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, prepared

by Sally-Jean Shackleton

Good Practice in Chronic Treatment Adherence: An Overview - Executive Summary, 2010 Knives Allowed: The Bold Move towards a National Male Medical Circumcision Policy for HIV Prevention. A Literature Review By Iyinoluwa O. Ologe, South Africa 2010 State of the HIV and AIDS Epidemic – Executive Summary, 2010

LINK Newsletter -

JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue, 1, October 2008 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue, 2, December 2008 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue, 3, March 2009 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue, 4, June 2009 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 2, Issue, 1, October 2009

Page 16 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

7.

JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Special Edition, January 2010 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 2, Issue, 2, May 2010 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 2, Issue, 3, August 2010 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, Volume 2, Issue, 4, September 2010 JOHAP LINK Newsletter, March 2011

OHAP Publications -

Building Positive Organisations through Policy Development: Learning from Project Empower’s Experiences, Case Study Number 9, (no date), edited by Gladys Ryan Consolidated Stories, September 2010 Stories of Change: A Compilation of 11 Short Stories, (no date), edited by Gladys Ryan

Child Social Protection 1.

Operational Plans -

2.

Six Monthly and Annual Reports -

-

3.

Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Co-joined Six Month Report, South Africa and Zimbabwe, July 2008 – January 2009, compiled by Wendell Westley and Moses Chourombo, March 2009 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Six Month Report, South Africa, July 2008 – January 2009, compiled by Wendell Westley, March 2009 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Six Month Report, South Africa, July 2009 – January 2010, compiled by Wendell Westley, April 2010 South Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Six Month Report, South Africa, July 2010 – December 2010, compiled by Busi Ndlovu, April 2011 South Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Six Month Report, South Africa, June 2011 – December 2011, compiled by Busi Ndlovu, March 2012 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Country Level Annual Report, South Africa, July 2008 – June 2009, compiled by Wendell Westley, October 2009 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Annual Program Report, July 2009 – June 2010, compiled by Busi Ndlovu, November 2010 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Annual Program Report, July 2010 – June 2011, compiled by Busi Ndlovu, November 2011

Program Appraisals -

4.

Southern Africa Social Protection Program Operational Plan, Phase One, Year One, 2007 –2011 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Operational Plan, Regional Overview, Phase One, Year Two, July 2008 – June 2009 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Operational Plan, South Africa Office, Phase One, Year Two, July 2008 – June 2009 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Operational Plan, South Africa Office, Phase One, Year Three, July 2009 – June 2010 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Operational Plan, South Africa Office, Phase One, Year Three, July 2009 – June 2010 Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP) Operational Plan, South Africa Office, Phase One, Year Four, July 2010 – June 2011

Oxfam Australia Appraisal - Southern Africa Childs Social Protection Program (SACSPP), 16 July 2009,

by Kerry Farrance Summary of the Mid-Term Review of the Southern African Child Social Protection Program, prepared

by Bisini Naidoo, August 2010

Strategic Plans Page 17 of 18

Formative Evaluation: OAU Program Framework for South Africa

-

Southern Africa Child Social Protection Program SACSPP (Zimbabwe and South Africa) STRATEGIC PLAN, Phase One July 2007 – June 2012

Food Security 1.

Annual Reports - Umkhanyakude Livelihoods Program South Africa - End of the Year Report on Activities, July 2007 – September 2008 - Umkhanyakude Livelihoods Program South Africa - End of the Year Report on Activities, October 2008 – September 2009 - Umkhanyakude Partnership Program, Livelihoods and Food Security in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Annual Report on Activities, October 2009 – September 2010 - Umkhanyakude Partnership Program, Livelihoods and Food Security in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa - End of the Year Report on Activities, October 2010 – September 2011

2.

Program Appraisals - Oxfam Australia Appraisal - Umkhanyakude Partnership Program, 7 January 2009, by Kerry Farrance, including uMkhanyakude Partnership Program (Food Security) Strategic Plan, October 2008 September 2010 - Oxfam Australia Appraisal - Umkhanyakude Partnership Program, 23 October 2009, by Kerry Farrance, including uMkhanyakude Partnership Program (Food Security) Strategic Plan, October 2008 September 2010 - Oxfam Australia Appraisal - Umkhanyakude Partnership Program, 17 November 2010, by Matthew Phillips, including the Extension of the Food Security Strategic Plan, September 2010 – June 2011 and the uMkhanyakude Partnership Program (Food Security) Strategic Plan, October 2008 - September 2010

3.

Operational Plans - South Africa Food Security Program Operational Plan, 2007-2008 (document status 2 August 2007) - uMkhanyakude Partnership Program, South Africa (Food Security) Operational Plan, 2008-2009 (document status 9 October 2008) - uMkhanyakude Partnership Program, South Africa (Food Security) Operational Plan, 2010-2011, Phase Two, Year Three (document status 1 December 2010, Author Mavis Nyakurimwa) - uMkhanyakude Partnership Program, South Africa (Food Security) Operational Plan, 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2012, Phase Two, Bridging Year (document status 15 September 2011, Author Mavis Nyakurimwa)

4.

Strategic Plans - uMkhanyakude Partnership Program (Food Security), Strategic Plan October 2008 - September 2010

AACES (WASH) 1.

2.

3.

4.

Australia Africa Community Engagement Scheme Community Led Access to Water, Sanitation & Hygiene Program Design, 2011 – 2016 (revised 29 June 2011 – post peer review) Australia Africa Community Engagement Scheme Community Led Access to Water, Sanitation & Hygiene OPERATIONAL PLAN, Year One, June 2011 – July 2012 (Updated 28 October 2011) Australia Africa Community Led Access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene – Snapshot Report July – September 2011, South Africa & Zambia Australia Africa Community Led Access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene – WASH Snapshot Report October – December 2011, Final 28 02 12

Page 18 of 18