Organisational check. by Plan Nederland

Human Rights Funds 2011 III. Organisational check 1. Track record over the past three years The track record will be used to determine whether your organisation is capable of achieving and embedding the planned outcomes and outputs. In this section, provide an overview of the results achieved by your organisation over the past three years. Formulate results as changes relative to the situation at the outset. It is important that you give an overview of recent activities financed or cofinanced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (BZ), including activity numbers. If none of your recent activities were financed or co-financed by BZ, list up to three on-going or recently concluded activities, including the name and telephone number of the contact person(s) at the organisation(s) that contributed financially to the activities, to be used as references. O.1 a: Based on the results achieved over the past three years, the applicant is considered capable of achieving the planned outcomes. Notes: For each of the reference programmes listed above, indicate to what extent the planned outcomes were achieved in a satisfactory and timely fashion. Explain your answer and give reasons for any disappointing results.

Please refer to: Appendix 5.a – List of other grants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Appendix 5.b – Track Record Appendix 14 – Annual Report MFP-exit Explanation: Plan has been receiving grants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the MFP-exit arrangement to finance a wide range of projects in its programme countries. Plan financed projects in different areas: child protection, child participation, health, education, water and sanitation, and livelihood. For the requested Track Record we have selected 6 projects in the area of child protection, and even more specifically covering the theme child trafficking and gender based violence: one project in Kenya, one project in India, one in Indonesia, two projects in the Philippines and one in Pakistan. All were financed through the MFP-exit grant, expect for the Kenya project (Fighting violence to ensure education for all) was financed with a contribution from the Millennium Fund. We also included the latest annual report regarding the MFP-exit programme, putting the examples of the track record into perspective with the other projects financed through that grant.

1. Kenya: Fighting violence to ensure education for all Project

Title

Activity number

KEN0200 Fighting violence to ensure 19429 (Millennium fund) education for all Outcome results Planned Realised # of children who are actively engaged 40.000 in the prevention of violence % of improved child protection system at family, community and school level

60%

1.500

50%

Government institutions promote 3 policies developed on 2 policies developed effective child protection systems reduction of violence against children The main planned outcomes are delayed due to a slow start-up. This was the first project to be implemented through an official consortium of Dutch organisations and their local partners. The setup and coordination of such a consortium has been quite a challenge, and took up most of the first year of implementation. In that year a coordinator in the field was appointed as well as in the Netherlands and after introducing a structure of regular meetings the project took off. The project is in its final stage now, and despite the slow start it will be finalised according to the original planning.

O.1 b: Based on the results achieved over the past three years, the applicant is considered capable of achieving the planned outputs. Notes: Indicate to what extent the planned outputs were achieved in a satisfactory and timely fashion. Explain your answer and give reasons for any disappointing results. Please refer to: Appendix 5.b - Track Record Explanation:

1. Kenya: Fighting violence to ensure education for all Output results

Planned

# of talented and motivated children who were trained as change agents # of government and staff who were trained on the rights of the child # of intern/national exchange visits to share best pratices to eradicate violence against children

Realised 40.000

1.500

unknown

3.400

Due to the slow start-up of the project in the first year, particularly activities regarding training of youth as ‘agents of change’ were delayed considerately. Measures have been taken – such as introduction of alternative ways to raise awareness – to reach the planned amount of youth, regardless the delays.

2. India: Child Trafficking and HIV/aids Prevention Output results

Planned

Realised

# of communities whose capacities were built to combat child trafficking

300

250

Combining two issues ie. HIV/AIDS and Child Trafficking made the project a complex one and it was difficult to do justice to both issues at the same time.

3. Indonesia: Children in Need of Special Protection Output results # of communities whose capacities were built to combat child trafficking # of children receiving training on the issue of trafficking and prevention of HIV/AIDSs

Planned

Realised 300

250

300.000

303.184

Although the CNSP project has successfully strengthened the capacity of NGOs, local government, CBOs and children groups, the networking-coordination system among the stakeholders remains relatively weak, resulting in less communities reached than originally planned.

4. Philippines: Protecting Victims and Organizing Responsive Taskforces Against Trafficking

Output results Planned # of civil society organisations whose capacity to prevent child trafficking has been enhanced # of government institutions whose capacity to prevent child trafficking has been enhanced # of multi-sectoral networks for prevention, interception, prosecution and care have been formed and strengthened

Realised 18

Output results were achieved in a satisfactory and timely fashion. Most output targets have been surpassed. There was a significant multiplier effect released, due to the fact that a wide spectrum of duty-bearers and right holders organizations has been involved. In addition, the capacity building initiatives employed by the partner organization were effective, while the role and authority of the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking were important to involve different government institutions in the capacity building programmes.

5. Philippines: Empowering communities towards child protection Output results Planned # of communities that that are aware of children rights and services

Realised 24

# child protection units that were set up established and rehabilitated

# organizations/councils that were established for the protection of children

Almost all output results were achieved during the course of the project. The final evaluation showed that the capacity building initiatives towards the communities and the local organizations/council were timely and appropriate but were not in all cases sufficiently suitable to the particularities of the communities. The community-based mechanism that were introduced did not fit with the expectations and existing experiences in some communities.

6. Pakistan: Universal Birth Registration (UBR) Output results # of birth registrations # of UBR support teams in project districts

Planned

Realised 1.780.000 30

1.500.000 30

# of civil servants with capacity to provide in UBR

1.800

1.840

Although the targeted number was not completely met, it can be stated that planned outputs were achieved in a satisfactory and timely fashion, considering the absence of birth registration at the beginning of the project and the achievement of 59%. O.1 c: The applicant is considered capable of obtaining contributions from third parties that are necessary to the implementation of the programmes. Notes: For each of the programmes listed above, indicate to what extent the required funds (from donors, counterpart organisations, target groups or others) were obtained in a satisfactory and timely fashion. Explain your answer and describe, if applicable, the consequences of inadequate funding and supplementary measures taken to remedy this. Plan believes in an integrated approach, meaning that we try to involve all relevant stakeholders. In practice this means that all the projects and programmes we support always include elements of cooperation with local NGO’s, local governmental organisations and the beneficiaries themselves. We invest in the capacity building of these actors and in turn ask for their commitment. In general this is given in the form of providing time and/or infrastructure (for workshops and training for instance), which also stimulates ownership of the activities and supports the sustainability of the projects implemented. The projects presented under this organisation check have been mainly financed by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. All required funds were always obtained in a satisfactory and timely manner. Donors

Planned contribution

Realised contribution

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Plan International (match funds) Dutch NGO partners Corporate partners Private sponsors (legacies, project sponsors) Local partners

4.805.375 1.973.584 128.134 160.788 809.933

4.805.375 1.638.268 90.474 160.788 809.933

24.055

16.357

Total

7.901.869

7.521.195

In the Indian programme on child trafficking (IND0122), the match contribution of the Plan country office (Plan International) was reduced as a result of an adjustment in the planned programme activities during the course of project implementation. This was a joint decision taken by Plan Nederland and the Plan country office. Planned contributions from Dutch NGO partners and local partners have not entirely been met. However, as the Millennium Fund programme in Kenya is still in its implementation phase, we expect to receive the remaining contributions before the end of this year. Part of these partner’s’ contributions were ‘in kind’ contributions. Although each partner has committed itself to contribute to the overall budget through ‘in kind’ support, it has been a challenge to account for this support in the financial reports. Particularly for our partners in the field reporting on ‘in kind’ contributions (being mostly ‘time’) was a new experience that took some getting used to. O.1 d: The applicant is capable of ensuring the sustainability of programmes vis-à-vis the ultimate

target group. Notes: Indicate to what degree the outputs and outcomes of the programmes were sustainably embedded in the ultimate target group (i.e. were continued independent from contributions from the original donor). Use examples to explain your answer. The outcome and output results of the above mentioned projects are sustainable due to the following factors:

•

A sustainable delivery of protection services (prevention, care and recovery, reintegration) depends very much on the coordination and alignment between various institutions, both public and private, formal as well as non-formal. If institutional arrangements have been created and are functioning well (laws, regulations, manuals, capacity of coordinating body, attitudes of staff of coordinating body), the availability of good quality protection services can be guaranteed. In the Philippines anti-trafficking project the multi-sectoral partnership achieved between public and private organizations greatly enhances the probability that the gains of the project will continue.

•

The sustainability of these services is also influenced by the capacity of each supplier, for example, the organisation running a Child Helpline. In the majority of the projects, service delivery organisations have been able to strengthen their technical capacity as well as their resource-mobilization capacity.

•

Sustainable access to protection services does also require a continuing demand for services by vulnerable children and their families. Two achievements of child protection projects are crucial: the mobilization of children as peer-to-peer counsellors and as agents of change. Successfully trained and skilled children are able to transfer their knowledge to sometimes 70 children in their neighbourhood. The Kenya shows that when schools stimulate children to become agents of change, children turn to creative ways to discuss topics as for instance violence: they developed speak-boxes at school, write articles, become involved. The second achievement is the changed attitude of families and communities. Projects which succeed in changing social norms and perceptions on child protection, create adequate conditions for sustainable demand of services by those communities. Again the Kenya experience shows that combining activities for youth in schools with radio campaigns (made by youth) in the communities provokes attention for topics that are so often hidden, leading to behavioural change.

•

Birth registration of children is one of the fundamental human rights. It is also known to be a preventive measure towards child trafficking and exploitation of children. The experience in the Pakistan project tells us that registered children are less vulnerable to the risk of being trafficked.

2. Planning, monitoring and evaluation (PME) O.2 a: The PME system is sufficient for monitoring progress in terms of outcomes, outputs and sustainability at programme and organisational level. Notes: Describe the instruments used to monitor progress and specify the variables measured. Use examples to demonstrate your ability to apply the generated information effectively. Plan not only monitors the progress of programme and project activities, it also monitors the development of its partner organisations. Below follows a brief description on the PME process for both the project and programmes and the organisational level.

1. At programme level: a) The following instruments are used to monitor progress on outputs: - Quarterly and Annual Financial Reports: at the end of each quarter and each year, partners and Plan country office report on actual expenditure (set out against planned expenditure).

Annual Participatory Progress Reviews (APPR): these are annual consultations facilitated by

the Plan country office in which key stakeholders (partners, children groups and communities and local state actors) review and reflect on programme progress.

Annual Progress Reports: at the end of each year, and based on APPR findings, partners and Plan country office report on the realisation of planned activities, the achievement of expected output results, changes in organisational capacity, contextual changes and the quality of gender and child rights mainstreaming.

Field visits: during the regular field visits, Plan programme staff discusses progress of on-going programmes and of the relationship with partners and Plan country office. Field visit findings are reported in Back to Office reports.

The basic variables we use to monitor output progress, are meant to measure the actual reach of the programme to the different target groups:

Number of partners with strengthened capacity Number of children and young people reached by the programme Number of communities reached by the programme Number of civil society organisations reached by the programme Number of government institutions reached by the programme

By comparing actual and planned reach of the programme, together with the analysis of actual versus planned expenditures, Plan is able to keep track of the efficiency and effectiveness of its programme. For example: field visit reports and the annual progress report of the Female Genital Mutilation programme in Mali made clear that NGO partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; capacity was not sufficient to cover the planned number of communities. In order to reach the targeted population, new partners, especially those working at grass roots level, had to be included in the programme. For this reason, the programme design was adjusted and the number of CBO partners was enlarged.

b) The following instruments are used to monitor progress on outcome and sustainability: - Annual Participatory Progress Review (APPR) and Annual Progress Report: although these instruments are mainly meant to monitor realisation of outputs, they also serve to collect information on outcomes and sustainability. At the end of the second year of the implementation period, key stakeholders assess and reflect on the outcome changes achieved. Partners and Plan country office also report on the progress towards outcome changes in their second year Annual Progress Report.

Mid-term Evaluation: each programme is subject to a mid-term evaluation. The mid-term evaluation looks into the realisation of outputs, the extent to which they lead to the expected changes in the situation of the target group(s) and their sustainability.

The variables used in monitoring outcomes depend on the specific objectives of a programme. According to the outcome model used by Plan, outcomes are framed as changes in:

use of services by targeted children/young people awareness and capacity to claim rights of targeted children/young people awareness and capacity to protect child rights of targeted communities legislation, commitment, capacity and accountability of targeted government institutions awareness, commitment, capacity and accountability of targeted civil society organisations

In addition to specific variables related to sustainability (which depend on the content and strategy

of a specific programme), Plan also uses some general variables to monitor sustainability:

contributions (financial/in kind) of partners, communities and government institutions number of partners with increased resource mobilisation capacity number of children and youth who act as peer-to-peer counsellors

Example of outcome monitoring: at the start of Plan’s programme ‘Children in Need of Special Protection’ in Indonesia, actions were targeted at four groups of vulnerable children: street children, child labourers, children in conflict with the law and children being commercially and sexually exploited. The mid-term evaluation of the programme demonstrated that target groups still had very limited knowledge and awareness of the different risks of violence and exploitation. The strategy of prevention was not functioning well. This was due to the broad approach of the programme, covering four different categories of child exploitation and neglect. As a result of these findings, several changes were made to the programme including refocusing on two categories of vulnerable children only and an increased emphasis on partner capacity to work on prevention issues.

2. At organisational level: a) The following instruments, part of the quality management system of Plan, are used to monitor progress on organisational performance targets:

Monthly and Quarterly Management Reports: these reports include financial and nonfinancial performance indicators (see below) which are reviewed by the executive management (monthly basis) and between Executive Management and Supervisory Board (quarterly basis)

Stakeholders’ Satisfaction Surveys: Plan conducts annual surveys amongst donors, Dutch partners, Southern partners and Plan country offices to assess stakeholders’ satisfaction with delivered services (funding, capacity development assistance, linking and networking), quality of the relationship and alignment with Plan’s policies and strategies.

Annual Management Review: at the end of each year, departmental and organisational performance is reviewed by each department and by the executive management. The management review also looks into the received feedback from stakeholders (satisfaction, complaints), findings of internal and external audits, preventive and corrective measures implemented and the overall functioning of the quality management system.

Variables used to monitor organisational performance are defined in the Management Dashboard of Plan. This includes the following areas:

Relationship management: for example, % of stakeholders satisfied Fundraising: for example, amount of new funds raised by donor channel Impact: for example, number of girls and boys living in improved protective environment Quality: for example, complaints responded within deadline Human resources: for example, staff satisfaction Communication: for example, name recognition among Dutch public

O.2 b: The organisation periodically commissions independent evaluations of programmes, programme components and its own functioning. Notes: Describe how evaluation is built into your organisation's procedures, including the selection method used to conduct the evaluation. Use examples to demonstrate how the results of evaluations are incorporated in your organisation's activities. Evaluation is embedded in Plan’s programme management in three different ways.

1. Plan and Plan country offices use the Programme Accountability and Learning System (PALS) for result measurement and learning (figure below demonstrates the PALS cycle). PALS requires that during the strategic planning process – in which Plan country offices develop their five-year Country Strategic Plans (CSP) – a Monitoring, Evaluation and Research (MER) framework is established. This means that before the start of a programme, key issues related to evaluation are already addressed, such as: evaluation questions and criteria, type and source of information needed, and the resources needed (within Plan and outside the organisation, such as local consultancy firms, universities, knowledge centres).

2. Plan requires, for each of the programmes it supports, additional MER, the details of which are laid down in the Grant Agreement Document (GAD) it signs with the implementing Plan Country Office (CO). Part of the additional agreements is always a specific evaluation at the end of the supported programme/project. Moreover, all GADs for a period longer than 4 years will have a clause pertaining to a Mid Term Review. GADs may have clauses pertaining to additional research and learning requirements. Evaluation and research in this second category is guided by the MER requirements defined by Plan. Consequently, the ToR and the recruitment of researchers are conditioned by the need for quality evaluations in line with international standards as defined by DAC and IOB. In practice, compliance with such standards is ensured in close consultation between CO staff and programme officers in the Netherlands.

3. Plan regularly carries out research to measure longer term impact of its development activities. Such independent research may be carried out in collaboration with other Dutch MFOs. Plan participates in the joint programme evaluation facility of Partos (before 2010 this facility was part of the “Kwaliteitshuis”). Since 2004, Plan has participated in 4 joint programme evaluations. Individually, Plan carried out an evaluation on Violence Against Children in 2010. All such impact studies are in line with international evaluation quality standards as developed by DAC. Similarly, Plan International has set its own agenda for impact studies (‘post intervention studies’). As part of this agenda, impact studies were carried out in 2010 to assess Plan’s programmes in India and Bolivia. Apart from the three above mentioned types of programme evaluations, Plan International subjects itself to critical review of its own performance as an organisation. Examples are the study carried out by Roland Berger in 2009 to review services provided by Plan International to the National Organisations, the IDS study on the effectiveness of child sponsoring of Plan International (2008), and the study on Child Centered Community Development approach also carried out by Wageningen University (2009), commissioned by Plan. Based upon the information generated by such studies, Plan revises its strategies and approaches on a continuous basis in view of optimising its results. This has most recently meant the development and adoption of a new strategic vision and a new programme strategy. O.2 c: The organisation has a sound, integrated system for quality management in place for its primary processes. Notes: Describe how quality management is laid down in your organisation's formal procedures. In addition, describe what progress has been made over the last three years (2008-2010) in developing and/or embedding the quality management system. Since 2006, all of Plan’s institutional processes fall within the scope of ISO 9001-2008 quality standards. Essential elements of Plan’s Quality Management System are:

•

all processes are described and documented in Plan’s Quality Management Manual

• • • • • •

frequent monitoring of stakeholders’ satisfaction adequate registration and management of complaints received from stakeholders quality control on performance of third parties (suppliers, Dutch and Southern partners) internal and external audits continuous identification and monitoring of ‘improvement issues’ (‘improvement log’) performance is monitored and assessed through a system of KPIs, including indicators regarding the functioning of the quality management system

Plan’s quality management system is subject to audit twice yearly by Lloyd’s Quality Register, within the framework of the ISO-certification. According to Lloyd’s external auditor, the management quality system of Plan has evolved during the past years into a mature management system, in which there is sufficient attention for risk management (audit report, November 2010). Particular progress has been made in the alignment of the different departments of the organisation (on the basis of the chain approach) and the integration of the quality management system in strategic/operational management. In November 2011, Plan will be subject to the regular 3-year certification audit by Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance. Plan’s programmes are implemented by Plan country offices. The quality of their administrative and financial procedures is subject to several audits:

•

Plan International conducts frequent audits in country offices, both financial and programmatic. The audit department functions independently of Plan International’s management structure and reports its findings directly to the Financial Audit Committee and the International Board. The audit programme is formulated in collaboration with external auditors (PwC).

• •

PwC UK conducts independent audits on global programme expenses of Plan International. PwC Netherlands carries out an annual audit on the level of Plan (in the Netherlands), Plan International and the Plan country offices and their local partners involved in Plan programmes.

3. Financial and administrative management The quality of your organisation's financial and administrative management is assessed on the basis of the following criteria: O.3 a: The organisation has a satisfactory policy on the financial supervision of organisations with which it has a financial relationship. Notes: Describe your financial supervision of partner organisations, including audits. Plan’s policy on the financial supervision of partners is defined in our Quality Management Manual (ISO certified) and in Plan International’s Field Operation Book. Financial supervision policies and practices are frequently audited, both at the level of Plan (in the Netherlands) as well as Plan International. The policy of financial supervision of partners consists of:

1. Assessment of the administrative and management capacity of the local partner and resulting action plans to address weaknesses

2. Contractual agreements between Plan and the local partner 3. Financial control and audits during project implementation 4. Anti-fraud and corruption policy These components are explained in more detail below.

1. Assessment Plan country offices assess the potential partner on its governance, financial management, administration and programme management capacities. If weaknesses are identified, an action plan for capacity development can be instigated. Project disbursements can be changed or limited, and/or Plan’s controls over the partner’s administrative and financial processes can be increased until the partner meets required standards. In some cases, Plan might decide not to proceed with the potential partner if the assessment raises serious concerns (see O.3 b.). 2. Contract between Plan and local partner As a minimum requirement, Plan and the local partner agree contractually on:

• Programmatic objectives to be achieved • The budget and its funding source, including financial and other contributions of the partner organisation

• The financial planning of the project and timetable/conditions of payments of Plan and the partner • The financial and narrative reporting requirements of the partner to Plan • The applicability of Plan’s sanction policy (based on Plan International’s Anti-Fraud and AntiCorruption policy)

• The applicability of Plan’s policies regarding prevention of conflict of interest, code of conduct and child protection

• The mechanisms through which Plan and the partner will communicate and through which joint decisions will be made and disputes will be resolved

• Conditions for contracts to be dissolved 3. Financial Control and Audits The Plan country office provides the required level of pre-financing from Plan to the partners in order to implement activities. The amount and frequency of pre-financing depends partly upon the management

capacity of the local partner. For each partner, one Plan staff member in the country office takes responsibility for maintaining the relationship with the local partner and regularly visiting and supervising the supported projects and their financial management. Local partners report at a minimum on a quarterly basis to the country office on project progress and expenditure. The amount and frequency of pre-financing can be adjusted according to reported results. The country office will only make new payments when a satisfactory report of previous expenditure has been received from the partner. If reports are unsatisfactory, transfer of payments will be postponed until a satisfactory report is received. Annually, partners are subject to audits performed by locally registered external accountants. Plan country offices and local partners are also audited by Plan International (see O.2c).

4. Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy In the case of non-compliance with reporting requirements and/or the suspected misuse of financial resources, Plan follows procedures as described in its sanction policy which is rooted in Plan International’s “Anti-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Policy” (Plan International, November 2007). In both cases, Plan conducts an investigation on the expenditures made by the local partner. This audit is done by Plan International’s global assurance department or by a locally registered accountant. If the investigation conducted by the (external) auditor fails to uncover conclusive evidence of fraud, the payments will be resumed. If the investigation uncovers evidence of minor fraud, Plan will ask the partner organisation to implement preventive and corrective measures without delay. Within a period of two months, based on the recommendations made by the (external) auditor, Plan will assess the effectiveness of the measures that have been implemented (Has the perpetrator of the fraud been dismissed? Have internal control procedures been tightened? Etc.) If Plan and the (external) auditor are not convinced that the measures implemented are sufficiently effective, the contract with the partner organisation will be dissolved and payments will be suspended. If reported and/or suspected fraud is confirmed by the external auditor, Plan will dissolve the contract with the partner organisation and will apply the appropriate disciplinary and/or legal sanctions. The sanctions that are to be imposed will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Sanctions can range from the suspension of payments to or recovery of payments from the partner organisation, the dissolution of contractual obligations in relation to the partner organisation, the reporting of the offence to the police, or the instigation of civil proceedings. O.3 b: The organisation has a satisfactory system for assessing the quality of partner organisations with which it has a financial relationship. Notes: Describe how your organisation assesses the capacity and reliability of any partner organisations beforehand (and append, for instance, a copy of the assessment form). Please refer to: Appendix 13 - General Assessment of Partners Explanation: Our partnership selection process and procedure consists of:

•

Identification: Plan and the Plan country office conduct civil society mappings and stakeholder analysis to identify potential partner organisations. CSOs frequently approach the country office for support. Larger organisations may also directly contact Plan. Potential NGOs for the delivery of specific programme services may be identified through a competitive bidding process.

•

General assessment of potential partners: Plan country offices assess whether potential partners fit into their policy and thematic programme choices. In meetings with potential partners, an initial – general – assessment is carried out (by external consultants or by the country office directly).

•

Detailed assessment of potential partners: the best potential partners identified through this general assessment pass through a more detailed assessment. In this second assessment, there is a thorough review of the financial and administrative processes and capacities of potential partners. During the assessment the relevant Plan International policies, including the anti-fraud and anticorruption policy, are presented to the potential partner. If the assessment reveals serious concerns around the financial and administrative processes and track record of the potential partner, which cannot be mitigated through support and capacity development, the organisation does not qualify for a partnership.

•

Joint review of potential partners by Plan and the Plan country office: The country office presents the outcomes of the assessments to Plan. Plan checks whether the proposed partners meet its criteria and whether the programme proposal fits within the available budget. The responsible thematic programme officer drafts a memorandum of the outcomes of the assessment and recommendations. The memo is then reviewed for approval by the Head of International Programmes at Plan.

O.3 c: The organisation has a financial monitoring system in place to identify shortfalls (or potential shortfalls) or surpluses at an early stage and take adequate measures to anticipate these. Notes: Describe the structure of your organisation's annual budget (programmes, result areas). In addition, describe how actual income and expenditure in 2009 and 2010 compared with the budgeted amounts. Please refer to: Appendix 2.b – Annual Account 2009/2010 - Plan, page f28 Explanation: Plan has a comprehensive financial-, management accounting system and an internal control structure, which assures effective and legitimate programme expenditure. The financial accounting system and compliance with relevant rules and regulations is monitored by the Chief Financial Officer. It is subject to an annual independent audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants. All institutional processes of Plan fall within the scope of the ISO 9001-2008 certificate as described in the Quality Management Manual of Plan Nederland. Programme expenditure, including contracting, is monitored through Plan’s management information system. The financial management report is a standard point on the agenda of the management team of Plan. In this financial management report an overview of actual programme expenditure compared to budgeted programme expenditure on the total level as well as on the project level is specified and analysed. The financial management reports can be generated at any given point in time on e.g. income and expenditure status, forward commitments, annual budgetary profiles, actual spending per result area (sexual and reproductive health, education, water and sanitation, economic security, protection, participate as citizens, disaster risk management sponsorship communications), the status of specific funding streams and actual against budgeted expenditure per year. In the table below, we present the actual vs. budgeted income and programme expenditure for the last two financial years. 2009/2010 % 2008/2009 % (amounts * €1.000) actual budget actual budget Fundraising 32.498 33.565 97% 33.816 34.469 98% Revenues from third party 3.146 2.700 117% 3.000 3.000 100% Subsidies 10.920 10.698 102% 14.445 17.420 83%

Other income Total income

145 46.709

15 0 47.113

97% 99%

492 51.753

250 197% 55.139 94%

Participate as citizens Programme development and support Sponsorships communications International programme expenditure Total programme expenditure

1.249 2.465 4.028 34.425 42.167

1.477 85% 2.768 89% 3.604 112% 36.949 93% 44.798 94%

2.101 2.505 5.409 41.874 51.889

2.054 2.064 3.397 42.191 49.706

102% 121% 159% 99% 104%

3.338 1.578

2.872 116% 1.512 104%

3.446 1.732

3506 1927

98% 90%

Fundraising costs Administration and support costs Total expenditure Utilization ratio (CBF) Fundraising ratio (CBF) Administration and support ratio (CBF)

47.083

49.182

90,3% 7,9% 3,4%

95,1% 6,2% 3,1%

96%

57.067 100,3% 7,9% 3,0%

55.139 103% 90,1% 8,5% 3,5%

O.3. d: The organisation has a broad donor base. Notes: Over the 2008-2010 period, specify the contributions (amount and percentage) received from sources in the following categories:

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

government of the country where the organisation or its headquarters is based other donor countries international organisations (including the UN and development banks) businesses foundations and private funds private individuals

other (specify) Please refer to: Appendix 2.a – Annual Account 2008/2009 - Plan1, page f5 Appendix 2.b – Annual Account 2009/2010 - Plan, page f5 Appendix 12 - Contribution specified by sources 2008 – 2010 Explanation: In its Annual Account, Plan differentiates the different sources of contributions. Appendix 12 follows the exact categories as stated above, all the figures are based on the Annual Accounts. Please note that the figures for 2010/2011 are estimates, as the Annual Account 2010/2011 is not yet finalised at the time of submission of this proposal.

1 Please note that Plan’s Annual Accounts cover financial years running from July to June. All numbers in this threshold check are calculated per calendar year.