A Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children Exploring options for the partnership’s design and launch
David Steven* Senior Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, New York University 6 June 2015
*
This paper has been prepared with the assistance of a team from River Path Associates and with input from the team that has begun work on designing the partnership and associated fund.
Introduction This options paper is intended to inform discussion of a proposed Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children (we use this as a working title throughout). It has been written by an independent expert and, while it has been informed by discussion with stakeholders, does not represent the position of any of the partners that have come together to design and launch the partnership. Instead, it aims to clarify some of the choices that must be made before the launch of the partnership in 2016. In its proposal for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), the Open Working Group calls for multi-stakeholder partnerships to play a central role in mobilizing and sharing knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources to support the achievement of sustainable development goals in all countries. It also states that new partnerships must be informed by the “experience and resourcing strategies” of existing partnerships. This paper therefore draws on case studies that look at the origins, governance, and impact of six leading multi-stakeholder partnerships;1 a research study conducted by the Center on International Cooperation into how global partnerships can most effectively deliver the SDGs;2 and a review of the literature on what makes for a successful partnership.3 It should be noted that a review of existing work to prevent violence and protect children has not yet been completed (this should be a priority for the next stage of the partnership design). Strong partnerships vary in their purpose, architecture, membership and approach, but some fundamental success factors can be identified: Factor Political will
Requirements Strong political backing from the beginning, combined with bold and entrepreneurial leadership and a willingness to challenge the status quo.
Priorities
A strategy that has clear and achievable priorities, and that has been developed through a process that ensures strong ownership.
Governance
A lean structure that evolves – and, if necessary, becomes more formal – over time.
Funding
Sufficient resources to enable rapid progress to establish credibility.
Accountability
A commitment to demonstrating results and learning lessons based on independent sources of feedback.
Partnerships must also be based on a realistic assessment of what can be achieved and by when. This paper has therefore been written based on the assumption that this new partnership will develop over four phases: Phase 1. Design
Description A development phase that will last until the end of 2015, with the aim of preparing the partnership for launch in January 2016.
1
Phase 2. Start-up
Description An initial phase that will aim to demonstrate early progress by the time of the High Level Political Forum in September 2017, which represents the first chance for heads of state to review implementation of the SDGs.
3. Consolidation An opportunity to consolidate early gains by the end of 2020 and prepare for wider rollout. 4. Scale-up
An acceleration of progress through the 2020s ahead of the SDG deadline in 2030.
This paper is primarily focused on the design and start-up phases, based on the fact that almost all partnerships need to revise their strategies and reform their governance if they have survived and prospered in their early years. The paper:
Sets out some starting points for the partnership – areas where there is already agreement around broad fundamentals.
Identifies and discusses strategic choices at global and national levels, and in terms of the balance between breadth and inclusiveness.
Proposes three scenarios that are designed to help with priority setting.
Draws out some governance lessons from other partnerships and uses them to suggest three potential governance models.
Concludes with questions for discussion under five headings: political will, priorities, governance, funding and accountability.
2
One ¦ Starting Points A Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children has been discussed for a number of years, with the inclusion of wide-ranging and ambitious targets for the protection of children in the post2015 development framework accelerating and deepening the debate. If Not Now When?, a CIC paper published in October 2014, summarizes why stakeholders believe a new partnership is needed and what they think it can achieve.4 That material is not repeated here. Instead, this section focuses on the broad agreement that exists on the partnership’s overarching goal and focus. This sets the stage for an intensive process to develop a strategic framework for the partnership – the main elements of which are briefly described. The paper’s second section moves from this consensus to identify some of the strategic choices that must be debated by partners through a process that leads to a convergence around an agreed set of priorities. A coherent narrative for action Experience suggests that global partnerships are most likely to succeed when stakeholders are motivated by a shared goal that has sufficient power to: Provide a coherent narrative for action, mobilize all actors involved in a particular area, and galvanize the community to develop clear strategies for implementation, raise the financing, and develop the technologies [standards, policies, programs etc.] needed to implement them.5 Based on discussions that have taken place between partners, many of the elements of a “coherent narrative for action” are already in place:
Ending violence against children is the primary goal of the partnership and is also the most resonant message for explaining its purpose to policymakers and to the public. The vision that no child should live in fear is also powerful (and has a positive framing).
SDG16.2 – end abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and all forms of violence and torture against children – will be the partnership’s headline target for 2030. The partnership will also help deliver all other relevant post-2015 targets (see figure 1).6
The partnership will contribute to a broader vision for children agreed by governments at Rio+20 – the protection, survival and development of all children to their full potential – and be based on a holistic, rather than sectoral, approach to improving children’s well-being
The partnership will be integrated with other relevant parts of the sustainable agenda. On the one hand, quality education and healthcare, empowering women and girls, and ‘leaving no-one behind’ all contribute to protecting children. On the other, SDGs for education, health, gender and poverty cannot be met if children continue to suffer unacceptable levels of violence.
The partnership will be rooted in a commitment to child rights and will turn the belief that no violence against children is justifiable; all violence against children is preventable into a compelling agenda for action.7
3
Figure 1
A new kind of partnership Children experience unacceptable levels of violence in all countries. The new partnership will therefore be a test case for the ‘universality’ of the post-2015 agenda – the principle that developed and developing countries should work together to deliver the SDGs, through both their domestic and international policies. It must therefore draw on agreed principles for effective international cooperation,8 but reinterpret them for an era where partnership is more equitable than was generally the case for the delivery of the Millennium Development Goals. This means that the partnership must be:
Driven by strong national leadership and a political commitment to ending violence against children.
Aligned with national priorities and strategies to prevent and respond to violence against children, with countries of all income levels taking action both at home and internationally.
Inclusive in its governance, structures and operation, based on a broad mobilization at all levels of societies (a global, national, and local movement) and of all sectors with a role to play in preventing violence and protecting children (social welfare, public health, criminal justice, education, etc.).
4
Centered around a powerful voice for children and a meaningful role for them in delivering the partnership’s objectives and strategy. In particular, child victims of violence must be enabled to make a substantial contribution to ensuring the rights of children are protected.
Accountable for the delivery of results that have real and measurable impact on the safety and wellbeing of children, and in particular on the most vulnerable.
Towards a clear and realistic strategy Partnerships have an important, and growing role, in the delivery of international goals, given that progress against the vast majority of these can be only be achieved through the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders. But partnership is not a magic bullet. Many – and perhaps most – partnerships fail,9 while even successful partnerships need to demonstrate clearly that they add significant value to what can be achieved through the intergovernmental system and established international organizations; by national governments acting on their own; or by existing coalitions and networks. Experience from the most effective global partnerships suggests that, in advance of its launch, the new partnership will need to:
Develop a value proposition that clearly demonstrates why partners should participate, tailored for countries of different income levels, for civil society organizations engaged in ongoing campaigns and programs, and for businesses from the most relevant sectors (technology and internet companies interested in tackling online sexual exploitation, for example).
Be based on an analysis of the critical interventions that can most cost effectively prevent and respond to violence (for elements of these interventions, see annex 1), allowing the partnership to make a strong case for investment to governments, traditional and new international donors, philanthropists and foundations, and the private sector.
Agree a clear strategy with realistic and attainable objectives,10 probably for 2016-2020, and through a process that includes all stakeholders who will contribute to the strategy’s delivery. This strategy must strike the right balance between ambition and focus – failed partnerships often do not set and stick to a clear set of priorities.
Develop a results framework for tracking and reporting on progress, linked to a plan to improve the availability of data and evidence in order to create the “more comprehensive understanding of the causes and consequences of violence in childhood, and the means of prevention, [that is needed to] shift global attitudes and enable children and adults to lead more secure and peaceful lives.”11
5
Two ¦ Strategic Choices Global partnerships come in a variety of shapes and sizes (see annex 2). A new partnership is most likely to be effective if it has a clear focus, does not spread itself too thinly across multiple objectives, and avoids duplicating or displacing existing activity. This means making choices about scope, priority and focus. This section sets out some of these choices, focusing on the partnership’s mode of action at a global level and nationally, and the relationship it could have with alliances, networks and initiatives that are already working to end violence against children. What are the most important priorities at a global level? At a global level, it is clear there is a need for sustained advocacy to ensure a genuine commitment to deliver the SDG targets for ending all forms of violence against children, but there are choices to be made about the form this advocacy should take. Potential priorities are shown in the following table, alongside the ‘message’ that each area of focus would send. Priority A sustained campaign to change attitudes and social norms that tolerate violence against children.
Message Violence against children is entirely preventable when people come together and say it is not acceptable, and when they make the invisible visible. Join the global movement to end violence against children.12
Promotion of laws and policies that prohibit violence against children.
All countries should have an explicit and comprehensive legal ban on violence against children, preferably as part of the national constitution.13
A systematic attempt to champion early intervention and violence prevention.
Governments must tackle violence against children with the same determination and investment that has been applied to other social ills such as smoking or road safety.
Action to establish and reinforce standards for care and protection of children.
We need to create and monitor a series of measures that are tailored to different country settings and will ensure that children receive the quality services and professional support that will protect them from danger.14
Programs and campaigns to tackle specific transnational threats to children.
We live in a world where children are threatened by forces beyond the control of any single country. We bring together global alliances to tackle abuses such as online sexual exploitation, trafficking or child labor.
Some partners will be tempted to say the partnership must take on all these objectives and more. That may be the case over time, but each priority requires additional resources and creates further complexity. The case for prioritization is further explored in section 3.
6
What model does the partnership need at national level? There are also important decisions to be made at national level. These are rooted in the balance between establishing consistent models and approaches on the one hand, and allowing for countries to make their own decisions about how to participate in the partnership on the other: Priority Support the development of comprehensive multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder national plans to end all forms of violence.
Message Countries that join our partnership are expected to align all government departments and bodies, other levels of government, civil society and business around a single plan to end violence. We support the development and implementation of that plan.
Allow countries to develop their own approaches, focusing on a smaller number of priorities through a shorter-term roadmap.
Countries that join our partnership determine their own approach and set their own priorities. We expect them to set and be accountable for meeting ambitious targets, and to share lessons with others who face similar challenges.
This choice is a important one. In other sectors, partnerships have made a considerable investment in supporting the development of multi-sectoral national plans, in some cases providing prescriptive models on how a plan should be structured and developed.15 There are, however, concerns about the efficacy of this approach (which is not to say that it does not work, but the link from planning to impact remains unproven).16 The alternative is to allow a multiplicity of approaches to emerge at national level. This is in line with the recent emphasis on voluntary pledges, with partnerships such as Every Woman Every Child being formed largely to record ‘registries’ of these commitments.17 Allowing countries greater latitude would allow for innovative approaches to the delivery of the most important and immediate national priorities.18 However, this approach could be criticized for prioritizing piecemeal actions over systemic change; allowing countries to make only a partial commitment to ending violence; and encouraging them to avoid tackling types of abuse that are more sensitive and politically contentious. Should its platform be inclusive or focused? A third relevant question is how broad and inclusive the new partnership should be in its early years. This has two dimensions. The first involves how many countries the partnership should plan to operate in at launch, and how quickly it should expand. Focus Demonstrate results in a small number of pathfinder countries.
Message Joining the partnership demands real political commitment and a willingness to be part of a core group that will demonstrate to other countries what can be achieved.
Be as inclusive as possible from day one – aim to expand to as many countries as show interest in joining.
Violence against children is a universal challenge. We call on all countries to join the partnership as a matter of urgency, so that we can all work together to end violence.
7
Most partnerships have an inclusive ethos, with results that span the spectrum from highly effective (significant impact on a high proportion of eligible countries within a short period), through mixed (impact or potential impact in only some countries), to largely ineffective (failure in most countries).19 Other partnerships, however, set a higher bar for participation, for example by expecting a particular level of political buy-in, a financial commitment, or adherence to a particular standard. Some also explicitly set out a ‘journey’ for countries, where they move from being a ‘candidate’ to a full ‘member’ as their commitment deepens. A second dimension involves the relationship between the new partnership and existing campaigning and programmatic activity (of which there is a great deal – for some major initiatives, see annex 3). Focus Function primarily as an umbrella body, or a partnership of partnerships
Message We aim to act as the ‘admiral’ for a flotilla of networks, alliances, campaigns and programs. While not captaining any of the ships, the partnership aims to provide sufficient guidance that they sail in roughly the same direction.
Pursue a strategy that is based on differentiation and comparative advantage.
We plan to break new ground in the fight to end violence against children by being the first partnership to…
Clearly, there are many positions on the spectrum between these two extremes, but it should be remembered that bringing together a large and diverse alliance of actors is costly, and that some well-resourced partnership do only this. There should also be no presumption that existing initiatives will want to be integrated into an umbrella structure. As one review of partnership argues: ‘Inclusiveness’ and ‘participation’ have been pursued too much as goals in themselves rather than as means to ends. This has tended to divert attention away from the painstaking detail needed for successful partnerships – including clarity on the rationale for inclusion and the specific value-added expectations for each party to a partnership.20 What role will be played by the fund? Child protection and violence prevention are neglected sectors, underfunded in most countries and chronically so in many. To date, governments have failed to invest sufficiently in the systems and skilled professionals needed to keep children safe, nor have we have seen campaigns that challenge the norms that tolerate violence on a scale seen comparable to other threats to public health and wellbeing. Internationally, public and philanthropic support for the protection of children has not grown in line with the finance required for their survival and development. The partnership will have its own multi-partner trust fund to End Violence against Children. The fund has attracted an initial contribution,21 with other donors currently considering the case for support. It could also explore the potential for foundations, philanthropists and the private sector to contribute, and for the use of innovative forms of finance such as social impact bonds.22 But the fund itself can only be part of the answer to mobilizing the finance that ending violence against children will need.
8
Focus The fund is primarily catalytic.
Message We aim to invest in potentially transformative initiatives that demonstrate how violence can be prevented, and provide evidence for what works. We are an ‘angel investor’ – our money is used to leverage much bigger contributions from others.
The fund is primarily for movement building.
We are sponsoring the evolution of a grassroots movement to prevent violence against children. We make sure civil society has the resources it needs to be effective, especially at local level.
We aim to fund large scale program.
While we will start with only limited funds, our aim is to attract and deploy substantial resources for implementation especially for low income countries. We plan to become one of the most important sources of international finance for preventing violence against children.
9
Three ¦ Priorities and Scenarios Section two discussed the decisions that must be taken over coming months by those designing the new partnership, setting out choices on four levels:
Priorities at a global level and what this means for partnership’s overall purpose and direction.
How the partnership plans to achieve impact nationally and what this implies for the interface between global and national structures.
The balance between focus and inclusiveness, both in terms of the numbers of countries that are engaged during the partnership’s start-up phase and its relationship with existing alliances and initiatives.
The role that finance will play in delivering the partnership’s objectives.
Some will have read section two and concluded that the answer is an all of the above strategy, arguing that a partnership that seeks to end all forms of violence against children can only be credible if takes on broad objectives and advances simultaneously along a number of fronts. This section responds to this argument and further explores the case for prioritization. Why now? In CIC’s original paper on the need for a global partnership, we asked if not now, when? But another, tougher question can also be posed: if a powerful movement hasn’t yet coalesced to end violence against children, what has changed to make success likely today? An analysis of the factors that drive an issue up the global and national political agenda argues that: A global policy community is more likely to generate political support for its concern if it is cohesive, well-led, guided by strong institutions, and backed by mobilised civil societies; if it agrees on solutions to the problem and has developed frames for the issue that resonate with political leaders; if it takes advantage of policy windows and is situated in a sector with a strong global governance structure; and if it addresses an issue that is easily measured, is high in severity, and has effective interventions available.23 Some of these factors are in place for the proposed partnership to end violence against children, but not all:24
Partner power. Powerful institutions take violence prevention and child protection seriously, but they are yet to coalesce around a common agenda and few of them have yet made violence against children one of their highest priorities. Political champions exist, but not within a cohesive group. Campaigning power is also somewhat fragmented. A new partnership has the potential to pull an effective ‘guiding coalition’ together, but only with considerable investment in building cohesion and strengthening leadership.
Compelling ideas. We have begun to see the switch from a debate that is primarily about the problem to one that presents a compelling portfolio of solutions. There is common ground about the broad composition of this portfolio, but consensus is at a fairly high level and is backed up by 10
rudimentary evidence to show how pathways run from intervention to impact. There is a lack of detail on what exactly policymakers are being asked to do (and on how much it will cost).
Political opportunity. The SDGs provide a window of opportunity to present this new partnership as a flagship ‘deliverable’ for a sustainable development agenda that is currently stronger on aspiration than action. But this will only happen if actors work together on a political strategy that gives the protection of children the same level of prominence as action to promote their survival and development.
Framing the issue. Many actors remain privately convinced that this is an inherently ‘difficult’ issue, politically and culturally sensitive, and hard for governments to confront directly. In part, this is true; and it is definitely the case that there is a striking lack of analysis of the political economy obstacles that hold back delivery. But the harm that violence causes has huge political resonance (from Malala to the kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls to sexual abuse scandals in many OECD countries). This could become a ‘yes we can’ issue, but only if policymakers can be convinced that interventions will deliver results within their political lifetimes.
What mobilization? All this suggests that success for the new partnership is possible, but far from a given. Attempting to do too much too soon will allow partners to avoid the compromises needed to forge a common agenda (everyone pursues slightly different priorities), and will make it harder for them to ‘sell’ a compelling set of ideas to global and national policymakers. Broader civil society mobilization is also less likely to reach a critical mass. Furthermore, different objectives require different types of mobilization:
If the main priority is to change social attitudes, then a grassroots movement must be built in multiple countries and sustained over a generation or more. Significant social marketing skills will be required.25
A campaign that focuses on persuading more countries to adopt a legal ban on violence would conform to a more classic model of advocacy (simple asks, league tables, name and shame, etc.).26 The partnership will need to be configured actively to challenge government behavior.
‘Selling’ a prevention paradigm would require a substantial investment in evidence and costing models, combined with the mobilization of champions at the most senior levels (head of state, business leaders, global public figures, etc.).27
Strengthening child protection standards would require engagement at a slightly lower and more technical level (ministers of social welfare and senior officials), with the aim of raising the profile and capacity of what is usually a low-status part of government.
Each campaign on a transnational threat to children would require convening a different network of stakeholders and agreeing and implementing an issue-specific strategy. Actors in these networks will not necessarily identify with the aims of the broader partnership.
Scenarios for 2020 In order to help meeting participants think through the challenge of prioritization, three scenarios are provided, each of which is based on a fictional progress report for a partnership that has pursued 11
a clear direction between 2016 and 2020. In each case, results have been achieved that are within the bounds of what existing partnerships and other initiatives have delivered over a similar time period. These scenarios are not exhaustive – others can readily be imagined – but together they illustrate our judgment that a partnership would have performed well if it had delivered one of these sets of results in five years, and that delivering all three at once is an unlikely outcome. Scenario 1: From National Plans to National Action: Background Paper for the Independent Comprehensive Evaluation of the Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children, February 202028 This background paper reviews country experience of the implementation of integrated strategies for the prevention of all forms of violence against children and has five main components:
An analysis of the guidelines that have been prepared for the development of national strategies that offer “a multi-faceted and systematic framework fully integrated into a national policy for the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, with a specific timeframe, with realistic targets, co-ordinated and monitored by a single agency (where possible, and in conformity with national regulations), supported by adequate human and financial resources and based on current scientific knowledge.”29
A review of the structures and processes that were used at national level to bring stakeholders together to develop these plans, and the role played by the partnership and other international actors in providing technical and financial support.
A quantitative review of the composition of the plans and of their implementation, based on Independent Expert Group’s oversight and audit of the partnership’s common results framework. This brings together statistics for each partnership country across a number of dimensions, including levels of investment in prevention, the existence and nature of legislative approaches to banning and preventing violence, and the nature of the arrangements made for implementing integrated national plans.
A summary of country case studies conducted in eight of the 39 countries that have completed plans. These found discernible progress for the safety of children in three countries, with strong attribution to the partnership in one country, a reinforcement of pre-existing trajectories in the other, and only tenuous attribution to the partnership in a third. In a further three countries, political commitment is high and there has been an increase in coordination among stakeholders, but it is too soon to say whether this will lead to impact for children. In two countries there is currently no plausible expectation of impact. In one of these, there has been little progress due to well-known political, institutional and social obstacles to delivery of the national plan. In the other, implementation has barely begun and there is little awareness of the plan’s existence, especially at provincial and district levels where the primary responsibility for child protection lies.
12
A review of the impact and effectiveness of the Global Fund to End Violence Against Children in supporting implementation in country, and in mobilizing resources commensurate with the unmet financial need that the partnership has identified in its partner countries.
Scenario 2: “We have put violence prevention at the top of the international and national policy agenda.” Speech by the Lead Coordinator of the Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children, World Economic Forum, Davos, 21st January 202030 “In my opening remarks, I’d like to look back at what we have achieved over the past five years. To be able to do this in front of such a distinguished audience gives me great pleasure. When we began to build the partnership very few people believed that violence could be prevented. Now it is broadly accepted that we can redesign societies in ways that make them safe environments in which children can live. So let me start the discussion by giving you my thoughts on four areas where we have been successful, and two where we need to do better in the 2020s. Our successes: 1. We have united the international community behind a common approach to preventing violence against children. Major international organizations are now all on the same page, from UNICEF – with its drive to build a world where children’s rights are respected – to WHO, which now takes this issue as seriously as other major public health campaigns against social ills that have a significant impact on child health, wellbeing and development potential. The recent Security Council debate that our work inspired shows just how far we have come. 2. We have received tremendous backing from business and civil society – the former has brought unique skills and resources to areas such as improving internet safety; the latter has consistently reminded policymakers that child victims of violence are the people most likely to be left behind by the promise of the sustainable development agenda. 3. We have relied heavily on the energy and dynamism of young people themselves, with our network of young champions ensuring that a voice for children is at the heart of everything we do. 4. We are now beginning to see the results of a major investment in evidence based on the pathfinding efforts of those countries that have been prepared to invest in, and test the results of, new approaches. We can now push harder for further investment and greater commitment, based on clear evidence of what works. But our recent independent evaluation also set out some hard messages and lessons. 5. We have been successful, it said, in building political will, and in galvanizing innovation. But we are still far from showing that successful pilots can be scaled up to a level where benefits for some children lead to systemic changes that benefits them all. 6. We still only have data for a small number of countries that is of sufficient quality to demonstrate whether or not we are on track to meet the SDGs. For far too many children, we simply cannot say whether they are becoming safer or not.” 13
Scenario 3: Concept Note for the Third Global Forum of the Partnership to End Violence Against Children, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania, 16th-21st November 202031 The third global forum for the Global Partnership to Protect Children Against Violence will be held at a critical moment for the movement to end violence. Seventy countries will participate at ministerial or senior official level, and 250 participants are expected from international, civil society and business partner organizations and alliances. As it approaches its fifth birthday, the partnership continues to grow. Previous annual meetings have begun the work of strengthening the global community that is united behind the objective of preventing violence against children, and have allowed partners from all sectors to interact, share lessons learned, and challenge each other to increase the ambition of their approaches. The forum has also included a smaller membership meeting, where representatives who have been elected from each of its stakeholder communities take decisions about the partnership’s strategy and governance, voting on the basis of consultations with their constituencies. During 2020, the board has decided that the partnership’s focus should be on “strengthening countries’ capacity to deliver violence prevention programmes in a sustainable manner.” The forum will therefore focus on three objectives:
Reaching agreement on the minimum levels of access to a social welfare workforce that children should expect, taking into account national capacity, resources and challenges, and based on the results of the new coverage and costing model that the partnership developed and published in 2018.
Exploring national experience in implementing the global standard that sets out minimum standards for safeguarding children, protecting children from maltreatment, preventing impairment of children’s health and development, ensuring that children grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care, and taking action to enable all children to have the best outcomes.32
Putting children first in conflict and humanitarian emergencies, based on the pilot programs that have been run in two conflict-affected states and three countries experiencing complex humanitarian emergencies.
It is expected that a declaration will be signed by ministers and other leaders, setting out a vision and framework for action for the partnership’s next five years. A zero draft of this declaration has been circulated and we will soon release a synthesis of comments and reactions.
14
Four ¦ Structure and Questions New partnerships risk making early decisions about their governance and structure before they have clarified their remit and broad objectives. This is understandable, as stakeholders are eager to define their roles and responsibilities. However, form must follow function, avoiding the risk that boards and other complex governance structures are “established implicitly as ends in themselves and with no conceptual clarity on the expectations or requirements of different stakeholders.”33 Eight governance lessons A review of the governance experience of existing partnerships offers eight clear lessons. 1. A partnership needs to be built around clear principles for engagement. Stakeholders from different sectors inevitably bring their own mandates, interests, skills, and strengths and weaknesses to the process for designing a partnership. Careful work is therefore needed to bring them together and to respond sensitively to inevitable imbalances in power and capacity. Agreement of a statement of principles of partnership should therefore be an early priority, drawing on the experience of other partnerships, but including commitments on universality, rights, and others issues that are central to this new initiative. This must be more than a paper-based exercise – intensive, ongoing work will be needed to help stakeholders with very different expectations and cultures to work effectively together. 2. The governance you need is not the governance you start with. While some partnerships have become entangled in a cycle of repeated waves of unsatisfactory reform, even successful partnerships have found that their governance arrangements must evolve as they grow. Many partnerships start out without a formal identity, and with ad hoc and ‘light touch’ governance structures. Some even function without a formal board or steering committee.34 Partnerships tend to become more formal over time, with some establishing legal identities (and the ‘constitutional’ framework that this entails). But this requires a willingness to trust in transitional structures and not to allow a partnership to become too complex too early. It also requires partners to have the foresight to commission and respond to a governance review before these structures have outlived their purpose. 3. All board configurations involve compromise. Most partnerships have boards whose members represent different stakeholder groups (though some have independent members as well). Evaluations of these boards tend to reach the same conclusions. Decision-making is ‘protracted’ due to the size of the board and the diversity of stakeholders involved in the partnership, while transaction costs are high and there is a “risk that decisions and positions [are] ‘watered’ down” in ways that prevents the partnership from being innovative and entrepreneurial.35
15
Inclusiveness can, of course, never be optional, given the need for the partnership to have legitimacy and to be integrated with the broader international landscape. However, with board sizes of 20 to 30 members being common, it is important to keep the main decision-making body as lean as is possible. 4. The functions of a board should be defined as narrowly as possible. A board is typically responsible for setting strategy; making decisions about structures and appointments; monitoring progress and results; and being accountable to the funders and stakeholders. Partnerships should look to different structures to fulfill other functions, such as: A high level or champion group to build political will and increase profile. A regular ‘big tent’ forum or gathering that brings together all partners to work on substantive issues, and to inform the board’s thinking. A steering committee and working groups for more rapid decision-making. However, it should be remembered that every new structure brings costs and complexity that are tough for a new partnership to bear. In the early days: elaborate with extreme care. 5. Take time to get national structures right. Many partnerships have made the mistake of insisting that global structures should be replicated at national levels. This can make sense, but often imposes a burden and set of expectations that cannot be supported in practice. National ownership requires that country structures emerge from and complement whatever structures and mechanisms already exist. A partnership will inevitably need a national focal point or host organization that has political backing and broad legitimacy – but care should be taken before making commitments beyond that bare minimum. 6. Think carefully about ownership and conflicts of interest. A partnership cannot be dominated by any single organization, while conflicts of interest can be damaging if not carefully handled. But independence also brings risks. It’s costly for a start, but – more importantly – it can leave a partnership isolated from its main backers at a time when it is not yet strong enough to thrive on its own. The trade-off between hosting and independence can be managed if there is sufficient trust between the partnership’s main sponsors. What is vital is to ensure that, from an early stage, a core group is in place that has the legitimacy and time to work on partnership design. 7. A well-funded secretariat and adequate start-up costs are essential. A partnership has little hope of success if sufficient resources are not invested in its launch and start-up phases.
16
Secretariats should not be elaborate and many-layered bureaucracies, but they do need to have personnel and budgets to move quickly to establish the partnership and give it sufficient substance to make it viable. This is particularly important when – as is the case with the impending launch of the new sustainable development agenda – there is limited time to seize a window of opportunity for getting a new partnership up and running. 8. Leadership matters at least as much as formal structures. Entrepreneurial leadership is perhaps the most underappreciated determinant of a partnership’s success, with the person in the ‘chief coordinator’ role needing to:
Drive the partnership to the top of the political agenda from the outset, and before it has the stature to be invited to the table purely due to its own accomplishments. The early boost that comes from being on the agenda of a major summit or international meeting should not be underestimated, providing the partnership with a ‘license to operate’ at national levels.
Design and staff a transition body with fresh faces that can challenge the status quo, while also including respected experts with established networks and deep specialist expertise and experience. The most effective partnerships are prepared to do things differently, and are respected for their willingness to work across established bureaucracies and siloes.
Governance models Based on these models, four governance models could be considered – in each case, with the proviso that a review should be commissioned towards the end of the partnership’s start-up phase. Model Minimal
Description No legal identity No formal board or steering committee Informal advisory group Small hosted secretariat Mostly reliant on the convening power and networks of its partner organizations
Transitional
Commitment to considering more formal structures after a start-up phase that is based around the following transitional arrangements:
No legal identity Interim board – limited in size, with members drawn from partnership’s stakeholder groups (10-12 members) Political champions group – 6-8 very senior figures Ad hoc working groups to focus on key priorities (developing national platforms, setting up the fund, communications and advocacy, etc.) Secretariat co-owned by key partners, with heavy use of secondments Light touch structures at national level, based around a national focal point (usually government appointed)
17
Model Networked
Description Similar structures to the transitional model but with additional early commitment to:
Formal
A larger board allowing for greater representation of stakeholder groups and a more formal approach to elections, voting etc. An annual global forum to bring together all partnership stakeholders Issue and sectoral networks, with focal points and funding National networks in each partner country
Similar structures to the transitional or networked models but with a commitment to move quickly towards:
An independent organization with a legal identity and agreed constitution An representative board with elections from key constituencies Formal meetings on a regular basis with ministerial and technical segments
18
Five ¦ Conclusions and Questions This paper has been written to inform an initial meeting between stakeholders who have come together to establish a Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children. This meeting provides an opportunity to begin a debate. It should enable areas of both agreement and disagreement to be identified, allowing the former to be documented and a process set out for resolving the latter. This should be the beginning of a design process that aims to:
Raise awareness of the partnership and the potential it offers to build momentum behind delivery of post-2015 targets to protect children.
Consult as widely as possible on the design of the partnership and, in particular, on its principles, purpose, priorities and strategy.
Build political support for the partnership and bring together the champions that it will need to gain profile.
Agree a proposition for how a new partnership will add value at global, regional, national, subnational levels.
Launch an inclusive and thoughtful process to develop a partnership strategy, providing sufficient time for a thorough analysis of challenges, existing activity, and potential solutions.
Finalize design of the fund and ensure it is effectively integrated with the broader partnership.
Develop a medium-term financing strategy with international and national dimensions, while exploring the potential for mobilizing new sources of funding.
Above all, work with a core group of national partners – or pathfinder countries – to ensure that the partnership can make a quick start in demonstrating meaningful change in children’s lives.
Take advantage of the political opportunities to establish the fund and partnership provided by the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, 13-16 July 2015), the United Nations Summit to adopt the post-2015 development agenda (New York 25-27 September 2015), and the launch of the sustainable development agenda in January 2016.
Questions for debate The following questions summarize the issues that have been raised in this paper and are intended to act as a catalyst for debate. Factor Political will
Requirements How can the partnership harness the political will it needs to support its design and launch? What backing does the partnership need at national level if it is to demonstrate the success requuired to build credibility?
19
Factor Priorities
Requirements What is the partnership’s theory of change? What are the main pathways through which it expects to achieve impact? Which existing networks, alliances, campaigns, and organizations need to be part of the partnership? What are their incentives to participate?
Governance
What lean governance arrangements are ‘good enough’ to carry the partnership through its initial phase? Will they ensure sufficient legitimacy and buy-in? Does the core group building the partnership have the right composition and sufficient space to be entrepreneurial and innovative?
Funding
What resources will the partnership and associated fund need over the medium to long-term? Are sufficient resources – both time and money – available to get the partnership up and running?
Accountability
How will the partnership demonstrate results given deficits in the availability of evidence and data? When will the partnership’s start-up phase end? What needs to have been achieved by then?
20
Annex 1 ¦ Common Ground on Ending Violence against Children This annex draws out common ground between the strategies and approaches proposed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization. It provides an initial overview of the interventions that the partnership might promote to policymakers. SRSG: seven imperatives
36*
UNICEF: six strategies
37
38
WHO: seven strategies
All governments should develop and promote a national, childNational centered, integrated, strategies multidisciplinary and time-bound strategy to address violence against children. Explicit legal bans on violence against children, accompanied by Legislation detailed measures for implementation and
Implement laws and policies that protect children.
Reduce access to guns, knives and pesticides; and the availability and harmful use of alcohol.
enforcement.
Social attitudes Greater efforts to address the and cultural social acceptance of violence norms against children.
Change attitudes and social norms that encourage violence and discrimination.
Change cultural and social norms that support violence. Promote gender equality to prevent violence against women.
Ongoing commitment to Participation and inclusion
children’s meaningful participation. Social inclusion of girls and boys who are particularly vulnerable. Support parents, caregivers and
Parenting
families.
Life skills and resilience
Support services
Data and evidence
Collect appropriately disaggregated data on violence against children.
Develop safe, stable and nurturing relationships between children and their parents and caregivers.
Help children and adolescents
Develop life skills in children and
manage risks and challenges.
adolescents.
Promote and provide support
Victim identification, care and
services for children
support programs.
Carry out data collection and research.
*
The SRSG’s 8th imperative – inclusion of violence against children as a cross-cutting priority in the post-2015 agenda – has been excluded from this table 21
SRSG: seven imperatives
36*
UNICEF: six strategies
Stronger focus on the factors that influence levels of violence and Multi-sectoral the resilience of children, their responses families and communities (poverty, political instability, natural disasters etc.)
22
37
38
WHO: seven strategies
Annex 2 ¦ Overview of Partnership Functions Global partnerships usually have a primary area of focus, supported by other secondary roles (for a typology see above). Eight broad ‘roles’ can be drawn from the literature: 1. Knowledge/expertise Use ideas, policies and evidence to shape a policy agenda at global and national levels 2. Political will/advocacy Build political will to deliver shared goals or to campaign for stronger laws, more effective policies, or greater funding. 3. Norms/standards Promote norms and standards that help deliver shared goals. 4. Strategies/planning Create strategies and plans at global, sectoral or national levels. 5. Transnational/public goods and bads Exploit opportunities and tackle threats that stretch across borders. 6. Service/delivery Directly support the delivery of services, programs, etc. 7. Finance/resources Provide finance. Or act as a catalyst for finance. 8. Platform Align partners and existing initiatives and increase their effectiveness Examples of partnerships that fall into these categories include:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is effective purely through the use of knowledge and expertise: (It “assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”)
The Global Partnership for Education is focused primarily on national strategy (“we help our developing country partners develop… sound education plans.”). Now the world’s fourth largest education donor, it increasingly uses substantial levels of finance to motivate implementation.
The Scaling Up Nutrition movement also focuses on the development of national plans. However, it has little funding, and supports implementation through political will and advocacy (convincing policymakers to invest in proven interventions in a 1,000 day window for children; mobilizing international, business and civil society networks to support scaled up work on nutrition).
GAVI – the vaccine alliance – primarily finances the increased use of vaccines in lower income countries (it has raised $7.5 billion for 2016-2020 to save 6 million lives). However, it also
23
strengthens transnational systems, by using its buying power to networks to shape the market for vaccines.
The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is primarily a global standard for the management of natural resources, with countries electing to work towards compliance. It influences transnational systems through its impact on transnational businesses and investors in the oil, gas and mining sectors, and subsequent reductions in illicit international financial flows.
Every Woman, Every Child is primarily a platform for the mobilization of other networks and stakeholders. It uses a global strategy to align partners behind shared objectives for women’s and children’s health.
24
Annex 3 ¦ Existing Activity to End Violence against Children This list contains a selection of some of the many alliances, networks, organizations and initiatives that are working to end violence and to protect children. It is not intended to be exhaustive, but is provided to give a sense of the diversity and range of existing activity. The order in which this list is presented is not based on size, relevance or any other criteria. It should also be restated that, while this paper draws on cases studies of partnerships from other sectors, a review of the child protection and violence prevention field has not yet been completed. Such a review will of course be an essential contribution to the ongoing design process for the Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children. International Society for International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ISPCAN) is the only the Prevention of Child multidisciplinary international non-profit organization that brings together a worldwide crossAbuse and Neglect section of committed professionals to work toward the prevention and treatment of child (ISPCAN) abuse, neglect and exploitation globally.
The Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA) is a network of WHO Member States, international Violence Prevention Alliance
agencies and civil society organizations working to prevent violence. VPA participants share an evidence-based public health approach that targets the risk factors leading to violence and promotes multi-sectoral cooperation. Participants are committed to implement the recommendations of the World report on violence and health.
The Global March Against Child Labour is a worldwide network of trade unions, teachers' and Global March Against civil society organisations that work together towards the shared development goals of Child Labour eliminating and preventing all forms of child labour and ensuring access by all children to free, meaningful and good quality public education.
Plan are the experts on girls’ rights and Because I am a Girl is our flagship campaign. We have Because I’m a Girl
already helped 58 million girls and by 2016, we aim to support hundreds of millions more so that they will be free from violence and can get the education, skills and support they need to become powerful forces for change in their communities.
Together for Girls is a global public-private partnership dedicated to ending violence against children, with a focus on sexual violence against girls. To address this egregious human rights violation and public health problem, Together for Girls brings together the expertise and Together for Girls
resources of many of the strongest organizations working globally in development, public health, and children and women’s rights to collaborate with national governments and civil society. TFG partners include five UN agencies, governments (US and Canada plus host country governments), private sector institutions and civil society partners and is currently supporting work in 15 countries throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America..
Care: Child Marriage
CARE works towards gender equality, women's empowerment, champions among men and boys, and an end to violence against women. Together we can end child marriage.
25
The International Conference on Protecting and Supporting Children on the Move aimed Global Movement for at analysing and debating the current status of the issue of children on the move and Children on the Move presenting some key recommendations on the way forward to initiating the revision of policy and programmatic responses to the protection and support of these children.
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children
The Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children aims to ensure that the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and other human rights bodies are accepted and that governments move speedily to implement legal reform and public education programmes.
ActionAid works in Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Somaliland, The Gambia and Uganda to End FGM – ActionAid
end female genital mutilation. We provide direct support to women and girls who have escaped FGM; we support communities to learn and talk about its damaging effects; and we train women to form Women’s Watch Groups to report cases of FGM.
The End FGM European network (END FGM) is a European umbrella organisation set up by 11 national NGOs to ensure sustainable European action to end FGM. The network creates an End FGM – European Network
enabling environment for coordinated and comprehensive action by European decision-makers to end FGM and other forms of violence against women and girls. The network facilitates the synergy of diverse organisations and the active participation of rights holders and affected communities. The network provides space where member organisations can share their experience and diverse skills.
Our vision is a world free from female genital cutting. We advocate to ensure stakeholders Orchid Project
resource and prioritise an end to FGC. We communicate the potential for an end to FGC, raising awareness about how, why and where female genital cutting happens We partner with organisations that deliver a sustainable, proven end to female genital cutting.
The United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN.GIFT) was conceived to promote the global fight on human trafficking, on the basis of international agreements UN.GIFT.HUB reached at the UN. UN.GIFT works with all stakeholders - governments, business, academia, civil society and the media - to support each other's work, create new partnerships and develop effective tools to fight human trafficking.
International Centre for The International Centre of Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) empowers and equips global Missing & Exploited partners - in government, academia, law enforcement, private industry and the NGO Children community - to make the world a safer place for children.
We're helping to get children out of army uniforms and into school ones. WarChild – Child Soldiers War Child has worked with former child soldiers in Africa for many years. In Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) we're currently helping to reintegrate former child soldiers back into society and into education.
Child Soldiers International
Child Soldiers International works to prevent the military recruitment of children and their involvement in armed conflict through a combination of targeted country work, thematic research and global monitoring.
26
Red Hand Day A worldwide initiative to stop the use of Child Soldiers.
Preventing Sexual The UK Government is calling for international action to address the problem of sexual violence Violence in Conflict in conflict. Initiative (PSVI)
The ECPAT-The Body Shop led campaign advocates for three specific goals that it asks all ECPAT Their Protection is governments to prioritise as tangible steps towards fighting child sex trafficking and for in our Hands Campaign: improving services provided to child victims. These goals are; to implement community-based Stop Sex Trafficking prevention programmes to stop child trafficking reaching at-risk populations; to adhere to international legal standards for protecting children from trafficking and incorporated these in the national legal framework; and to establish specialised government services for child victims of trafficking which are integrated by national policy or decree
Not For Sale Men, women and children around the world are forced to work with little or no pay, and the number of those living at risk is growing. Our work provides survivors and at-risk communities in five countries with safety and stability, education, and economic opportunities.
Learn Without Fear: The A campaign to end violence against children in schools, with a particular focus on the main Global Campaign to End issues identified above. Each Plan office will adapt the campaign in order to tackle the aspects Violence in Schools of school violence that are of greatest importance to children in each country.
International Training for The National Children’s Advocacy Center has been a leading provider of exceptional training, Professionals working technical assistance, and resources for professionals working with abused children and their with abused children and families for the past 30 years, reaching more than 70,000 professionals from the United States their families and 33 countries.
Girls Not Brides
Girls not Brides is a global partnership of more than 450 civil society organisations committed to ending child marriage and enabling girls to fulfil their potential.
By increasing visibility of child marriage, we hope to provoke thoughtful dialogue and ACTION to end this practice and eradicate its consequences. By providing visual evidence of the human Too Young to Wed rights challenges face by women and girls around the world, Too Young to Wed aims to amplify their courageous voices and build a global community dedicated to ending child, early and forced marriage and supporting positive change for these girls. Too Young to Wed partners with local nonprofits and supports income-generating projects, literacy classes and girl engagement groups where the girls in our stories live.
Children are Unbeatable
The Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance campaigns in the UK for the abolition of all forms of physical punishment and for the promotion of positive discipline.
Raise your hand against The Council of Europe is challenging corporal punishment by campaigning for its total abolition Smacking! and by promoting positive, non-violence parenting in its 47 member states.
Hitting Children Must Largest campaign in the UK relating to the problem of corporal punishment of children, it took Stop. Full Stop. place in 2002.
27
Initiative to Protect and Daughters of Eve is a non profit organisation, that works to advance and protect the physical, Empower Girls and mental, sexual and reproductive health rights of young people from female genital mutilation Young Women practising communities.
FOSI Family online safety The Family Online Safety Institute brings a unique, international perspective to the potential institute- #We Protect: risks, harms as well as the rewards of our online lives. FOSI’s 30+ members, from Amazon to Global online child sex Yahoo! represent the leading Internet and communications companies in the world. And our abuse summit. work encompasses public policy, industry best practice as well as good digital parenting.
Children, Not Soldiers
The campaign Children, Not Soldiers, launched in March 2014 by Leila Zerrougui, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, and UNICEF, seeks to galvanize support to end and prevent the recruitment and use of children by national security forces by 2016.
The Protection Project is a human rights research… to address the issue of trafficking in persons as a human rights violation, The Protection Project focuses on the promotion of The Protection Project: human rights values throughout the world. Of particular importance to The Protection Project 100 best practices in child is the protection of human security, especially women’s and children’s rights; fostering of civil protection society and NGO development through capacity building and coalition building; enhancement of the rule of law by encouraging citizen participation in the political process; advancement of human rights education; and elimination of trafficking in persons.
28
Endnotes 1
Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance, the Scaling Up Nutrition movement, the Education for All movement, the Global Partnership for Education, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and Every Woman Every Child. 2 See David Steven (2015), No Magic Bullet: Partnerships and the post-2015 agenda. New York: Center on International Cooperation, New York University, forthcoming, which also includes case studies of Sustainable Energy for All, the Global Environment Facility, and the Green Climate Fund. 3 In particular, studies by Jeremy Shiffman and Stephanie Smith, Keith A. Bezanson and Paul Isenman, Philipp Pattberg & Oscar Widerberg, Jeffrey Sachs and Guido Schmidt-Traub, Sonja Patscheke, and Bruce Jenks & Don Tapscott, See bibliography for details. 4 David Steven (2014), If Not Now, When? Ending Violence Against the World’s Children. New York: Center on International Cooperation, New York University, available at http://www.globaldashboard.org/2014/10/22/ifnotnowwhen/ 5 Jeffrey D. Sachs and Guido Schmidt-Traub (Draft – Nov 2014) ‘Financing Sustainable Development: Implementing the SDGs through Effective Investment Strategies and Partnerships’ 6 Violence against women and girls, trafficking, sexual and other forms of exploitation (5.2), child marriage, female genital mutilation and other harmful practices (5.3), child labour and child soldiers (8.7), birth registration (16.9), promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence (4.7), safe learning environments (4.a). 7 United Nations (2006), ‘Sixty-first session, Item 62 (a) of the provisional agenda - Promotion and protection of the rights of children: Rights of the child, Note by the Secretary-General ,’ available at http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports/SG_violencestudy_en.pdf 8 See for example: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005), ‘The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness,’ available at http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm 9 A review of 330 global partnerships in 2009 found that 38% were inactive and fewer than a quarter reported at least some activities that aligned with their mission and objectives 10 Keith A Benzason & Paul Isenman (2012), ‘Governance of New Global Partnerships: Challenges, Weaknesses and Lessons,’ CGD Policy Paper 014, October 2012. Washington DC: Center for Global Development, available at http://www.cgdev.org/files/1426627_file_Bezanson_Isenman_FINAL.pdf, p24 11 Know Violence in Childhood (2015), Learning and Advocacy for the Prevention of Violence in Childhood. Gurgaon: Know Violence in Childhood, available at http://www.knowviolenceinchildhood.org/pdf/KVICBrochure.pdf 12 These are the core messages of the EndViolence campaign, see http://www.unicef.org/endviolence/about.html 13 Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children (2013), Toward a World Free from Violence: Global survey on violence against children. New York: Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children, available at https://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/toward_a_world_free_from_viol ence.pdf 14 United Nations Children’s Fund (2014), Ending Violence Against Children: Six Strategies for Action. New York: UNICEF, available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Ending_Violence_Against_Children_Six_strategies_for_action_EN_9_ Oct_2014.pdf 15 Global Partnership for Education (2012), Guidelines for Education Sector Plan Preparation and Appraisal. Washington DC: Global Partnership for Education, available at http://www.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/121106-guidelines-for-education-sector-plan-preparation-andappraisal-en.pdf 16 In the 1990s, Education for All expected all countries – developed and developing – to establish an inclusive forum to prepare and deliver a comprehensive, multi-sectoral plan, but this delivered little impact. More recently, the Global Partnership for Education has invested in helping countries develop sector plans as part of a ‘compact’ where donors provide finance and other resources. It is yet to present convincing evidence to demonstrate a link between sector planning and better learning outcomes for children. Nutrition has seen three waves of multi-sector planning (1970s, 1990s, 2010s), with SUN leading the latest. Its evaluation found that it has built considerable political will for nutrition, but limited “progress towards SUN’s multiple stakeholders aligning their actions with high quality, well costed country plans and common results frameworks.” For Education for All see, World Conference on Education for All (1990), Meeting Basic Learning Needs: A Vision for the 1990s. New York: The Inter-Agency Commission (UNDO, UNESCO, UNICEF, WORLD 29
BANK) for the World Conference on Education for All, available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000975/097552e.pdf; For GPE see, Global Partnership for Education (2014), ‘Chapter 4 Overview of GPE Support to Developing Country Partners,’ in Results for Learning Report 2014/15 – Basic Education at Risk. Washington DC: Global Partnership for Education, available at http://www.globalpartnership.org/docs/reports/results-2014-15/Chapter%204%20%20Overview%20of%20GPE%20Support%20to%20Developing%20Country%20Partners.pdf; For SUN, see Mokoro Limited (2015), Independent Comprehensive Evaluation of the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement – final report – main report. Oxford: Mokoro Limited, available at http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=uploads/media/SUN_ICE_FullReportNo_Annexes_15-1-15_a.pdf&t=1526854794&hash=2852f4eda37d6c6e5be9bf4490c98c7541cece6c - Emphasis added. 17 See for example the post-Rio Sustainable Development in Action registry which launched with 700 new voluntary commitments, with an estimated collective investment of half a trillion dollars, with the term ‘voluntary commitment’ represents a deliberate attempt by the UN to focus on “the outcomes of associations rather than the associations themselves.” At https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=12&nr=524&menu=1532#rio; also see Every Woman Every Child as another example, http://www.everywomaneverychild.org/ 18 At a recent national roundtable, for example, the following were (tentatively) proposed as priorities for action: (i) investment in early intervention for the most vulnerable children; (ii) tackling the violence experienced by older children (16/17 years); (iii) a focus on the links between poverty and violence; and (iv) improving data and evidence. 19 Gavi made an early decision not to pilot the initiative in a small number of countries, but to make support available to all countries with annual per capita income of less than $1,000. Almost all of these 75 countries had received some form of support by the end of the first five years. SUN expanded more rapidly than originally envisaged but the recent evaluation found evidence of scaled up nutrition in only a limited number of its partner countries. It engages in a de facto prioritization and is most likely to support a country that it believes is committed making the ‘journey’ from political will, through building a platform for implementation to delivering at the scale needed to demonstrate results. According to the Dakar Framework for Action, National EFA Forums were to be at the heart of the EFA movement. They would bring together all relevant ministries and civil societies, and which would “prepare comprehensive National EFA Plans by 2002 at the latest.” These plans failed to gain any significant traction. 20 Keith A Benzason & Paul Isenman (2012), ‘Governance of New Global Partnerships: Challenges, Weaknesses and Lessons,’ CGD Policy Paper 014, October 2012. Washington DC: Center for Global Development, available at http://www.cgdev.org/files/1426627_file_Bezanson_Isenman_FINAL.pdf 21 On 11 December 2014, the UK Prime Minister announced details of the Child Protection Fund at the #WeProtect Children Online global summit, and confirmed that the UK will make an initial donation of £50 million to the Fund. See Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street, The Rt Hon David Cameron, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and Home Office (2014), ‘#WeProtect Children Online Global Summit: Prime Minister’s speech,’ 11 December 2014, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/weprotect-childrenonline-global-summit-prime-ministers-speech 22 Center for Global Development (undated), ‘Development Impact Bond Working Group,’ available at http://www.cgdev.org/working-group/development-impact-bond-working-group 23 Jeremy Shiffman and Stephanie Smith (2007), 'Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality', The Lancet; Vol 370, Issue 9595, 1370-79, 13 October 2007, available at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61579-7/fulltext 24 This section also draws on Shiffman and Smith, op cit. 25 [Brief note on social marketing approaches.] Julia Coffman (2002), ‘Public Communications Campaign Evaluation: An Evaluation Scan of Challenges, Criticisms, Practice, and Opportunities,’ prepared for the Communications Consortium Media Center, available at http://www.hfrp.org/content/download/1116/48621/file/pcce.pdf 26 Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children (2013), Toward a World Free from Violence: Global survey on violence against children. New York: Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children, available at https://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/toward_a_world_free_from_viol ence.pdf 27 This work has been undertaken both for immunization (though Gavi) and for undernutrition (though SUN).
30
28
Scenario 2 is largely based on the Council of Europe’s Action Programme on Children and Violence. Results at national level draw on SUN’s evaluation which was completed at a roughly comparable stage of the partnership life cycle. The Global Partnership for Education’s experience in national planning is also drawn upon. NB – this scenario is not based on any analysis of the impact of national planning on violence prevention. 29 See The Council of Europe Policy guidelines on integrated national strategies for the protection of children from violence, available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/News/Guidelines/Recommendation%20CM%20A4%20protection%20of%2 0children%20_ENG_BD.pdf 30 Scenario 1 draws on the experience of GAVI and SUN in trying to make immunization and nutrition political priorities. 31 Scenario 3 is based on elements of the experience of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in establishing a global standard for implementation at a national level. Elements from the experience of the Education for All movement are also used. 32 This is adapted from a UK model: see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-childrenand-young-people/safeguarding-children-and-young-people 33 Keith A Benzason & Paul Isenman (2012), ‘Governance of New Global Partnerships: Challenges, Weaknesses and Lessons,’ CGD Policy Paper 014, October 2012. Washington DC: Center for Global Development, available at http://www.cgdev.org/files/1426627_file_Bezanson_Isenman_FINAL.pdf 34 EWEC operates a “highly decentralized network model with very light governance structures. While there is no formal board or steering committee, a small secretariat within the office of the Secretary-General spearheads the work to advance EWEC and to ensure continued support for the strategy at the highest levels. Major partner meetings are organized as needed and hosted by existing platforms and networks that are operating in this space”, see Bruce Jenks and Don Tapscott (2014), Rethinking the United Nations for the Networked World: An Agenda for Strengthening the UN’s Engagement through Global Solutions Networks. Toronto: Global Solution Networks, available at http://gsnetworks.org/wp-content/uploads/Rethinking-theUN.pdf, p31 35 These comments come from Gavi’s second evaluation in 2010, but could have been made about any of the partnerships that have been studied, see CEPA LLP and Applied Strategies (2010), GAVI Second Evaluation Report. London: CEPA LLP, available at http://www.gavi.org/results/evaluations/gavi-second-evaluationreport/ 36 Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children (2013), Toward a World Free from Violence: Global survey on violence against children. New York: Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children, available at https://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/publications_final/toward_a_world_free_from_viol ence.pdf 37 United Nations Children’s Fund (2014), Ending Violence Against Children: Six Strategies for Action. New York: UNICEF, available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Ending_Violence_Against_Children_Six_strategies_for_action_EN_9_ Oct_2014.pdf 38 World Health Organization (2010), Violence Prevention: the evidence. Geneva: WHO, available at http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/4th_milestones_meeting/evidence_briefings_all.pd f
31