Sf development policy 2014 2018 by Strømmestiftelsen

DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Contents Identity .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Vision ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mission .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Core Values.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Mode of Operation .................................................................................................................................. 3 Development Approach .......................................................................................................................... 3 Poverty Definition ............................................................................................................................... 3 Target Groups ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Rights Based Approach ........................................................................................................................ 4 Advocacy.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Capacity Building ............................................................................................................................. 5 Service Delivery................................................................................................................................ 6 Relief and Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................................... 6 Implementing Partners............................................................................................................................ 6 Strategic Partnerships and Networking................................................................................................... 7 Exit Strategy............................................................................................................................................. 7 Thematic Focus........................................................................................................................................ 9 Integrated Approach / Synergy ............................................................................................................. 11 Cross-Cutting Issues .............................................................................................................................. 12 Results-Based Management .................................................................................................................. 12 Research / Collaboration with Universities ........................................................................................... 13 Strategies linked to the Development Policy ........................................................................................ 13

Identity SF’s identity is based on Christian values emanating from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Thus, SF, inspired by the Christian view of God´s creation and absolute dignity of man, strives to approach people with openness and respect, regardless of religion, ethnicity, caste, gender, disability or other minority status. With a deep respect for human dignity and a conviction of the value of equitable partnership, SF works to empower the poor to take charge of their own lives and communities.

Vision: A world free from poverty Mission: To eradicate poverty Core Values:  Human Dignity – We believe in the inherent, inalienable rights of every person. To SF, this is the most important human right from which all other fundamental human rights derive  Justice – We have a drive to fulfil not only legal, but also social rights of communities and individuals, in creating a more just distribution of society’s resources and power  Solidarity – We empathically identify ourselves with the plight of marginalised and discriminated groups.

Mode of Operation SF has a decentralised structure, and operates through regional offices in Lima (South America), Bamako (West Africa), Kampala (East Africa) and Colombo (Asia), with a coordinating, capacity building and fundraising Head Office in Kristiansand, Norway. SF is not an operational NGO but only works through local implementing partner organisations in the South. Although this may be a demanding structure, SF believes it ensures a cost effective, culturally sensitive and contextually appropriate approach to development. When problems and solutions are locally defined, we believe there will be better, longer-term results for our target groups. This approach will also ensure that the competency stays in the region, also when there is staff turnover. During the current strategic planning period (2014-2018) SF’s 12 (14) intervention countries are: Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Uganda, South Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Peru and Bolivia. The thirteenth and fourteenth countries are Burma and Sudan, where SF will resume operations when conditions permit and if suitable partners are identified.

Development Approach Poverty Definition SF defines poverty as the absence of sufficient resources to secure basic human needs, coupled with an inability to affect change in one’s life. Poverty may have several dimensions: -

Material dimension – e.g. lack of adequate and appropriate food, clothing, shelter etc.1 Psychological dimension – e.g. lack of self-esteem, trust and the ability to build healthy relationships

SF uses the globally recognised reference poverty lines of USD 1.25 and USD 2 per day (Purchasing power parity) as its SF-wide poverty level line measure. At the country level, the region uses the available national poverty indicators/statistics in determining areas of interventions in respective countries.

Political dimension – e.g. lack of and/or limited negotiation power and representation Social dimension – e.g. lack of and/or limited access to quality education, health and work

These poverty dimensions may be compounded by insecurity, vulnerability, susceptibility to violence and social exclusion on the basis of status, gender, ethnicity, caste etc. The fight against poverty, therefore, is essentially a fight for justice and non-discrimination.

Target Groups SF’s development efforts are targeted to people who live in poverty and/or injustice and who therefore do not have their rights met. Depending on contextual needs, SF may target either: -

Those who are poor in economic / material terms – i.e. those who by living under the poverty line are deprived of the basic necessities of life; and / or Those who are poor in socio-cultural terms – those who due to their bodily impairment and/or socio cultural background are oppressed, marginalised or excluded by virtue of their identity, or remoteness (hard-to-reach areas), as well as those who are powerless victims of human injustice; i.e. those who experience the psychological, political and social dimensions of poverty.

Consequently, the primary focus of SF’s target groups is women, children and youth, as they are the ones most likely to be poor according to the above definition. Furthermore, in our capacity building and advocacy efforts, SF’s secondary or intermediary target group also includes local / implementing partner organisations, Government staff and community members, who by virtue of capacity building and awareness raising from SF are increasingly enabled to join us in our mission of eradicating poverty.

Rights Based Approach SF’s development approach is based on the fundamental principle that all people are equal in human dignity. Thus, development is in essence a human rights agenda. It is about the realisation of human rights for all – whether economic, social, cultural, civil or political. SF is a development organisation with a rights-based approach to development. This approach strives to integrate the norms, standards and principles of the international human rights agenda into the plans, policies and processes for development. More specifically, SF will work to promote the human rights as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Principles of Sustainable Development (the Rio Principles). We understand rights-based development as a locally owned participatory process of empowerment, in which rights-holders actively claim their rights from the respective duty bearers. In the course of this empowerment process, rights-holders gain increased control over their lives and the unequal power relations which keep rights-holders from realising their rights are contested. Development is achieved when people’s rights are respected, promoted and realised – by those who are responsible for it. SF also fully subscribes to the wider definition of the international development agenda given by UNDP; “Human development is the process of enlarging people’s choices”. In an SF context,

enlarging people’s choices also refers to the process of eradicating all forms of discrimination, thus enabling all people to benefit from the wider development agenda. In our interventions, SF shall uphold the following ‘Rights’ principles: participation, mobilisation, empowerment, accountability, transparency and non-discrimination. The rights-holders themselves are expected to be the drivers of their own development. This is facilitated, among other things, by the participation and involvement of the target group in all stages of the programme cycle (planning, implementation, local resource mobilisation, monitoring and evaluation etc.). In accordance with our rights-based approach, SF will make great effort to address not only current needs but also the root causes of poverty. In other words, SF’s interventions will strive to not only ‘teach people how to fish’, but also how to ‘fish' sustainably, for SF pursues sustainable results. This implies that we work towards creating long-lasting impact that is able to be sustained for the target group even when SF withdraws from a given region. Our understanding of sustainable development also implies that we strive for our rights-holders to have their rights met in ways that do not compromise the ability of future generations to have their own rights met. In an attempt to supplement the efforts of the governments in poverty eradication, SF wishes to play a catalytic role in creating enabling conditions and in designing practical development solutions that change unjust and unequal power relations in favour of the poor and marginalised. In order to do so, we emphasise quality in all our work and, to the greatest extent possible, prioritise replicable programmes / models with measurable outcomes. We will primarily work through three modes of intervention: Advocacy To ensure sustainable change, programmes must have a positive impact both on the attitudes and behavior of a) the poor people; our primary target group; and b) decision makers and other stakeholders who bear the responsibility for the needs and rights of the people they serve. Therefore, advocacy is a component of every SF programme. SF defines advocacy as a deliberate process that influences the policies, practices and laws of duty bearers in ways that will have a positive impact on poor, vulnerable and marginalised people's lives (cf. SF’s Advocacy Guidelines). Empowering rights-holders to advocate for themselves (capacity building) is an important part of SF’s development approach. Our methods for advocacy may include lobbying, research, educating communities on their rights and ways of organisation, mobilising for rallies, influencing through the media and more. Advocacy work can be conducted by partners, Regional Offices and the Head Office. Advocacy is not a goal in itself, but an integrated strategic part of SF programmes.

Capacity Building In order to strengthen our advocacy efforts and build the potential of individuals, institutions and societies to eradicate poverty, capacity building is strategically important to SF. In most programmes, rights-holders are enabled to build and enhance their existing knowledge and skills in a contextually appropriate manner. Within communities, SF’s emphasis in capacity building is on the importance of getting organised and on conducting effective advocacy towards duty bearers to assume responsibility vis-à-vis the rights-holders. SF also places great emphasis on the capacity building of programme and partner staff. On an institutional level, SF builds the capacity of implementing partner organisations to develop sound policies, conduct effective advocacy, strengthen organisational structures and effective methods of management and control (cf. SF’s Partner Assessment Tool). SF’s capacity building efforts takes place on three levels; a) on an internal level 5

(with SF or partner staff), b) on an intermediary level (with e.g. partners, governments, other duty bearers) and c) at target group level. At these levels, SF will engage in three types of capacity building: technical capacity building (improving programmes), institutional capacity building (improving partner systems and structures of governance, management etc.) and capacity building for networking / advocacy.

Service Delivery SF’s rights-based approach, which includes advocacy and holding duty bearers accountable for the full realisation of rights, is in essence a long-term perspective. In line with this approach, SF wishes to place more emphasis on advocacy and capacity building, and less emphasis on the delivery of services. Nevertheless, until duty bearers have assumed full responsibility, service delivery may be required in order to bridge the gap, save a ‘lost generation’ and empower people for the long-term RBA perspective. Where SF engages in service delivery, emphasis will be on developing programmes or models that can be replicated across our areas of intervention, as this helps to ensure a cost effective approach to development. SF’s services will always remain temporary measures that ultimately aim at leaving responsibility to the respective duty bearers. We believe this can only happen when duty bearers are capacitated to improve their ability to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities. Therefore, SF believes that the capacity building of duty bearers should go hand in hand with service delivery and that duty bearers should be involved to the greatest extent possible during the implementation process of service delivery programmes. Furthermore, rights-holders should be capacitated to hold duty bearers accountable in the long term. This will strengthen the sustainability of our efforts and is in line with our exit strategy (see below) and our strong conviction that our service delivery programmes should not under any circumstances create dependency. Service delivery may also give legitimacy to SF’s advocacy efforts: where SF has acquired experience, functional models and proven results, it will be easier to advocate for the solution or for better government services. Where SF engages in service delivery, efforts are made to ensure that the solutions implemented are locally defined and designed.’

Relief and Rehabilitation SF is a long term development organisation. As such, SF is not normally involved in relief and rehabilitation work. However, there may be extraordinary situations, when there are natural disasters or other emergencies in areas where partners of SF are working. In such cases SF can, where there is added value from SF’s participation in such interventions, consider assisting implementing and / or strategic partner organisations to undertake relief and rehabilitation work with funds secured from various sources. Geographically, SF will only engage in relief work in our intervention countries. Where SF engages in relief, efforts will be made to link relief with rehabilitation and development, so that our focus continues to be on development work. See SF’s Relief Guidelines for more information.

Implementing Partners SF’s strategic decision to solely work through local implementing partners is a crucial aspect of our development approach. Working through implementing partners enables SF to be attentive to actual needs on the ground, thus tapping into local knowledge and wisdom and putting decision making close to implementation. Through various arenas, SF pursues two-way communication between partners and regional offices. Thus, our ‘implementing partnerships’ are not limited to local partners 6

merely implementing SF’s policies and strategies. On the contrary, our partnerships are premised upon active processes of participation, whereby needs, processes and action plans are locally defined and developed in close collaboration with the partner in question. Working with local NGOs enables SF to better strengthen civil society and make ourselves redundant at the time of exiting from a community. Our strategy goes hand in hand with an emphasis on capacity building and of capacitating duty bearers including local, national (governmental) and nongovernmental structures to own and continue our work upon our exit. SF’s implementing partners are selected based on some common criteria. Among the most important selection criteria are a partner’s compatibility with SF’s vision and values; their connection and added value to the various systems, structures and networks in their respective communities; potential for replicability / scaling up and funding; innovative capacity; advocacy towards both the public and private sector as well as strategic partners, and compliance to the principles of transparency and good governance and zero tolerance to corruption. SF’s implementing partnerships cannot be limited to only well-established partner organisations, given the strategic choice to focus on the ‘poorest of the poor’ and marginalised segments of the population in the South. Often, these communities do not have reputable local organisations precisely because of their being marginalised and disadvantaged, or small and lacking in experience and resources. SF will therefore be compelled to work with some local organisations that do not fully meet the criteria above; that is, organisations that are not as well organised in terms of capacity, competence and good governance in decision making, in order to enable them to develop into better organisations. Thus, the capacity building of partners is strategically important to SF. Our Partner Selection and Assessment tool enables us to develop capacity building plans that are tailored to the needs of each individual partner.

Strategic Partnerships and Networking Empowering people to achieve sustainable development is challenging and cannot be achieved through individual efforts alone. SF and implementing partners will therefore aim at collaborating with other development agencies, donors, Governments and other strategic partners, and will work to build networks on local, national, regional and global levels where this promotes the rights and interests of the poor. Strategic partnerships and networking will take place on two complementary levels; at Head Office and regional level. SF will particularly strategically partner with organisations that have similar values to SF, through e.g. the EU-CORD2 network. In addition, SF will participate in networks arranged by theme with NGOs working on the same issues as SF. Regional Offices will also network with relevant actors on local or national levels. SF believes that such strategic partnerships and networks encourage professional dialogue, funding opportunities and joint implementation, which will strengthen our mutual efforts to fight poverty in our countries of operation.

Exit Strategy In SF, phasing out is understood as a gradual withdrawal from SF’s interventions in coordination with the gradual take-over of interventions by communities and partners. This will happen when communities and/or implementing partners acquire the capacity, competence and resources necessary to move forward on their own. SF expects its partner organisations to have a built-in exit strategy at the time of planning together with the target groups.

European Christian Organisations in Relief and Development

SF’s phasing out strategy is conceptualised at two levels; the community level and the implementing partner level. At the community level, SF will phase out when, together with community stakeholders and supported by programme evaluations, SF is convinced that the sustained interventions have achieved the desired outcomes and impact, and / or the community has developed adequate mechanisms for ensuring the sustainability of the programme in the future. This presupposes a strong civil society, or the existence of sustainable mechanisms at community level to ensure that the poor can work as a collective force to express their views and participate in the entire development process. Therefore, SF’s emphasis on sustainability goes hand in hand with our focus on capacity building and our efforts to strengthen civil society (cf. SF’s Civil Society and Public Sector Strategy). SF’s empowerment of the community through rights-based programming, our establishment of linkages with permanent government institutions (including capacitating such institutions) and our facilitation of networking with other key stakeholders are also crucial elements of our RBA that will strengthen the sustainability of our programmes. At the implementing partner level, SF will phase out when it is determined that the partner has acquired the requisite capacity and competence that enables it to achieve its mission on its own, or together with other donors or strategic partners. However, having invested in building the capacity and competence of a partner organisation, SF can challenge partners that have attained sustainability in a given community to focus on new areas, or to share their competence with other partner organisations of SF. Thus, the acquired capacity and competence of one partner can be made available to other communities or partners. At the termination of each Strategic Plan period, thorough partner / programme evaluations will take place, and SF may terminate partnerships with existing implementing partners if the outcomes expected of the partnership have not been achieved and / or the partner has not shown the ability or willingness to improve weaknesses identified by SF. SF has zero tolerance for corruption and will withdraw from partnership with a given partner if funds are misused (cf. Anti-Corruption Policy). SF will also sever partnership with a partner organisation if the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or agreements are consistently violated. This includes unacceptable audits, poor governance and the discrimination against and / or sexual harassment of women, children, girls and marginalised communities, and / or violations of SF’s Child Protection Policy and Code of Conduct.

Thematic Focus During the current five-year plan, SF will focus on education, microfinance and enhancing access to sustainable income sources, strengthening civil society and the protection of children and adolescents living in violent environments. The following overview presents our thematic goals, intervention lines and overall outcomes for the five-year period.

THEMATIC GOAL

ENSURE QUALITY EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS

INTERVENTION

Quality Education (Formal and Non-Formal)

Literacy and Life Skills Training

ENHANCE ACCESS TO SUSTAINABLE INCOME SOURCES

STRENGTHEN PUBLIC SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY

Livelihood Development Micro-Enterprise Development

Capacity Building of Local Governments, Local NGOs and Communities

OUTCOME Increased enrolment of girls and boys in formal schools having attended SF-supported program Improved attendance and completion rates of individuals continuing formal education Improved learning environment Increased government responsibility for quality of, and access to, education Increased enrolment in secondary school Increased literacy rate among SF participants Reduced early marriage, use of bride price and/or gender-based violence in SF-supported communities Increased awareness of rights and capacity to claim them among participating adolescent girls and boys Increased government responsibility for the rights of disadvantaged groups Increased socio-economic self-reliance for participants Increased access to market and self-reliance among participating individuals and enterprises Fair prices and access to productive assets and markets, through advocacy Local Governments increasingly apply transparency and accountability tools (e.g. Public Audit and hearings) Local Governments adopts participatory planning processes Increasingly independent and locally anchored rights-based NGOs Strengthened awareness of rights and capacity to claim them among rights holders Community Based Organisations and NGOs are oriented in peace development and conflict transformation Duty bearers held accountable

STRENGTHEN SOCIAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS LIVING IN VIOLENT ENVIRONMENTS

Safe environment and/or life skill opportunities created for vulnerable children and adolescents

Social Protection

Strengthened awareness of social risks and how to prevent them Improved government services in child care and risk prevention, through advocacy

The relative emphasis placed on these intervention lines in a region is context-dependent. The four thematic goals are explained briefly below. 1) Ensure Quality Education for Disadvantaged Groups In addition to having a value in itself, education is also decisive for promoting economic growth, social change and sustainable development. Moreover, education fosters the creation of free, critical and creative global citizens. SF has a holistic view of education; we believe the right to education is life long and begins from birth. In all SF’s education work, SF works to improve access to and quality of education that takes place in an enabling learning environment. Interventions will largely be within early childhood education, basic (primary) education, vocational training, adult literacy and life skills. Efforts are made to achieve both gender parity and gender equality3 in education, and SF wishes to promote an education that meets people’s learning needs, that is inclusive and relevant to an individual’s respective livelihood, culture and social circumstances. See SF’s Education Strategy for more information. 2) Enhance Access to Sustainable Income Sources In order to enhance poor people’s access to sustainable income sources, various barriers need to be overcome. These include a lack of skills (technical, literacy and entrepreneurial) and difficult access to financial services, to markets and to appropriate technology. SF will work on several fronts to address these challenges. In order to promote access to financial services, SF will continue its 15-year long work to support microfinance institutions (MFIs) and promote community-based savings groups, strengthening the linkages between these two forms of microfinance so that savings groups become a gateway to more formal credit sources. As much of the economy and welfare of poor families depend on women, women are a prioritised target group. In order to promote the development of technical, literacy and entrepreneurial skills, SF will emphasise capacity building as part of MF interventions and link (potential) entrepreneurs to SF’s educational programmes (including vocational training). SF will also work to increase its target groups’ access to markets by providing organisational support to small producers to increase their negotiation power vis-à-vis suppliers and/or buyers. In rural areas where many farmers depend on a single product, SF will also support value chain development efforts. Finally, SF will facilitate the development and introduction of appropriate technologies that can increase the diversity, sustainability and productivity of income generating activities and of local economies as a whole. If the technology proves to have high replication potential, SF will design market-led strategies to disseminate the technology, together with other, more specialised actors. See SF’s Microfinance Strategy for more information.

3) Strengthen Public Sector and Civil Society A strong civil society is fundamental to ensuring that the poor and marginalised have their own channels for expressing their interests. Individually, poor people are vulnerable and often powerless victims of systems and structures of oppression and deprivation of their rights. SF aims to safeguard 3

Whereas parity requires equal number of boys and girls to be enrolled in school, gender equality is a ‘wider’ concept and is concerned with equal opportunities to attend school, equality in the learning process and in learning outcomes, equality in salary and job opportunities. (Colclough 2011)

people from such exploitation by creating an environment in which they are able to address their individual and collective needs, provide mutual support, resist external threats and claim their rights for durable changes in the lives of their families and communities. Thus, civil society can be strengthened, and people can move from being passive recipients to being active participants in decisions that influence them. SF does not wish to create dependency on the external environment, but works to prepare the community to take control of their lives in deciding what is best for them, having realised their inherent strength, i.e. their potential for collective action. SF also works to strengthen the ability of the public sector to cater for a more active civil society, through promoting improved accountability and transparency tools, and encouraging more participatory planning processes. See SF’s Public Sector & Civil Society Strategy for more information. 4) Strengthen Social Protection for Children and Adolescents Living in Violent Environments In our work with children, SF upholds the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child. SF sees children as an inherent resource with a potential to contribute positively to the development of their families and communities. In this regard, SF is committed to protecting children and ensuring that they become empowered people who are able to develop to their full potential. However, children cannot become empowered agents of change if they are not safeguarded from violence. For SF, it is a key priority to support children and adolescents in advocating for - and in realising their human right to – protection from violence and harm. To SF, social protection is concerned with preventing, managing and overcoming situations that adversely affect the well-being of children and adolescents4. More specifically, we understand social protection as the process by which social risks are minimised and safe living environments for children and adolescents are promoted and secured5. In SF’s work with social protection, we will focus on advocacy for improved government services in child care and risk prevention, and the capacity building of both rights holders and duty bearers to minimise risk, but we may also to a lesser extent engage in service delivery to provide a safe environment for children to grow up in. See SF’s Social Protection Strategy for more information.

Integrated Approach / Synergy SF believes that when interventions are strategically combined, they can complement and reinforce each other in the task of eradicating poverty. Education, for example, empowers people, mobilises them and provides them with knowledge and skills needed to make informed decisions for the benefits of themselves and their communities. If combined with, for example, livelihood and microenterprise development, people will have the means to act upon these decisions through access to capital, secure savings as well as social and economic networks. Similarly, other combinations of interventions can also have an added value for SF’s target groups. Synergy can be defined as “The combined power of a group of things, when they are working together, which is greater than the total power achieved by each working separately.”6 This, in context, refers to the combination of different interventions; e.g. CMMF members also attending Adult Literacy or Accelerated Learning programmes and vice versa to realise maximum empowerment and strengthen results at the project end (literacy and economic empowerment). Synergy is achieved in different ways in SF’s four regions, according to context, available resources and the needs of the target group. SF works with other actors, particularly those in our networks (EUCORD and others) to meet the problems identified in the baseline / situation analysis. SF may strive 4

This definition is based on the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development’s (UNRISD) 2010 definition of Social Protection. To SF, social risks and violent environments may include, but are not limited to, the absence of stable and supportive families or households/homes, hazardous work, drug use, alcoholism, delinquency, forced prostitution, physical and emotional violence and other risks that young people may be exposed to by virtue of their living conditions. 5

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary

for synergy between our own interventions and those of others at various stages of the project cycle; whether through joint planning, joint design, joint baseline, joint targeting and/or joint monitoring and evaluation. The different ways of operationalising synergy are spelled out in each region’s strategy paper.

Cross-Cutting Issues In our development work, SF has identified the following three cross-cutting issues that will be mainstreamed into all programmes:  Gender Equality. Women are over-represented in all aspects of poverty, and SF wishes to promote equal rights and opportunities both for women and men to share in the socio-political and economic order. This implies developing measures for the empowerment and advancement of marginalised girls and women and adopting a gender-sensitive approach throughout all stages of programming.7 Working to advance the rights of girls and women is important to SF both as an end in itself, and as a means of securing development on a wider socio-economic front.  Environmental Sustainability. Climate change and other environmental damage poses a great threat to the livelihoods of our rights-holders and future generations. SF wishes to promote environmental sustainability in all our work by ensuring that our work does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland 1987). With a particular view on environmental issues that directly affect the local community in the project area, SF will mainstream environmental awareness, climate change mitigation and adaptation into existing programmes, whether or not the programmes contain a separate ‘environment’ component.

 Inclusion. Many people are currently excluded from the development agenda by virtue of their physical and mental bodily impairment and/or socio-cultural background. Convinced that every human being is equal in value, SF is committed to uplifting the rights of the most marginalised in our programmes. This includes ensuring that there is no form of exclusion related to participation in SF’s interventions, that programming takes into account the varying needs and resources of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, people suffering from caste-based and all other forms of discrimination, and promoting the non-discrimination and empowerment of these groups in particular. Regions may also adopt other cross-cutting issues in line with other important issues that are considered crucial in a given region (e.g. HIV/AIDS in East Africa, peace & reconciliation in Asia and West Africa, and food security in West Africa). See SF’s Manual for Cross-Cutting Issues for a more detailed description of how we work to mainstream each issue into our programming.

Results-Based Management To assure quality in SF’s programmes, SF places significant emphasis on its monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. To ensure efficiency, monitoring information is designed to meet the needs of decision-making at different levels of the organisation. Evaluation during all programme phases is 7

The United Nations defines Gender Mainstreaming as "the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.”

undertaken in order to summarise lessons learned and to inform any decision about continuation or areas requiring follow-up. Thus, SF’s M&E system serves three main purposes: to strengthen accountability, contribute to decision-making and promote organisational learning. SF strives for participatory monitoring, in which rights-holders and duty-bearers targeted by our interventions participate in decision-making about the types, frequency and contents of monitoring. SF uses the Results-Based Management Approach in planning and reporting, aligned with international standards.

Research / Collaboration with Universities For the purpose of staying abreast of the new trends in development collaboration and in SF’s sectors of intervention, and in order to strengthen results’ reporting, SF places great emphasis on collaborating with universities through research. This may include placing SF personnel, programmes and field sites at the disposal of collaborating universities for the purpose of action research, impact studies, testing and development of appropriate technologies, randomised controlled trials, feasibility studies and similar research. The findings from research will be used to strengthen SF’s programmes and, where relevant, to strengthen our advocacy and innovation actions.

Strategies linked to the Development Policy Linked to the Development Policy are strategies related to the four Thematic Goal and fundraising, as follows: Operational Strategies: -

Education Strategy (Thematic Goal 1) Microfinance Strategy (Thematic Goal 2) Public Sector & Civil Society Strategy (Thematic Goal 3) Social Protection Strategy (Thematic Goal 4).

Fundraising Strategies: -

Communications Platform Communication Strategy Institutional Fundraising Strategy

In addition to this, each of SF’s programme regions may work in line with more specific regional strategies, under the umbrella and guidance of the SF-wide strategies mentioned above. In every region, the following SF-wide documents will also inform our work with development: -

Child Protection Policy Code of Conduct Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy Monitoring & Evaluation Strategy Guidelines and Manuals for Cross Cutting Issues / Advocacy / Relief / Capacity Building