This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Critical Shifts: Set the Agenda, Fund, and Partner
Shifting how we set the agenda, fund, and partner
1
Aligning to funder-driven priorities & decisions
Aligning to country-driven priorities & decisions
Shift from a system where priorities, models, and structures are imposed on countries by donors/funders to one where communities and governments own and lead the agenda-setting and coordination of health programing. In this way, donors/funders are playing a complementary supportive role, listening and responding to local needs and priorities.
- Needs and priorities are collaboratively defined with key country stakeholders and decision makers and signed off by appropriate government authority.
- Activities and approaches are co-created under the leadership of the appropriate govt. authority, including ensuring the project design and systems are aligned to existing government protocols, plans, priorities, metrics, timelines and systems.
- Country stakeholders are engaged in determining the TA provider and appropriate partnerships.
- Community stakeholders are engaged in identification of needs and design, including seeking out diverse voices and opinions and those who may not typically be included.
- Country/government leadership and decision making processes are defined and documented, including the project coordination and reporting/feedback mechanism/structure.
2
Creating technical & financial dependence
Respecting sovereignty & fostering independence
Shift from a system that depends on continuous donor/funder support for survival, to one that builds on existing local governance and structures, leverages in-country capacity, and prioritizes sustainability through local resources and expertise.
- Funding parameters (e.g. allowable and disallowable costs, proportion of field vs overhead) are determined with recipients and relevant stakeholders, to minimize potential negative impacts, strengthen support for local industry and support sustainability (e.g. prioritize use of local partners and vendors).
- Existing country-led efforts, systems, resources and capacities are prioritized, leveraged and/or strengthened before establishing new projects/systems/capacities.
- Role of government, relevant country stakeholders and partners, and TA providers throughout the process are collaboratively defined and a clear handover plan/exit strategy is in place to facilitate sustainability and country ownership.
- Non-traditional partners (e.g. local implementers, private sector, CSOs, advocacy groups) are mapped, consulted and leveraged when defining the project team and role of local partners; Mapping is periodically reviewed and updated, and clear records are maintained.
- Time and budget is allocated to prioritize capacity strengthening for sustainability (e.g. through skill transfer and system strengthening) versus filling capacity gaps; capacity and TA needs are collaboratively defined.
- Domestic resource mobilization at national and subnational level are supported during the project implementation to facilitate sustainability beyond project funding, where relevant.
3
Following structures & standards that erode trust
Collaborating on the basis of trust & mutual accountability
Shift from a system that perpetuates power structures and mistrust in institutions and individual motivations, to one that fosters mutual understanding of differing cultural norms and power dynamics, and promotes accountability across different levels and stakeholders (funders, government, implementers etc.).
- Cultural differences around leadership and management are acknowledged and openly explored to establish mutual understanding to build trust.
- Donors/IPs acknowledge their own biases and seek feedback about dynamics in power, gender, and equity throughout their engagement with programs.
- Mechanisms and a safe space are created and used to acknowledge and mitigate power imbalance (equating money with power to decide) in decision-making, management, and reporting structures.
- Equitable systems are established to provide bi-directional feedback on performance and reinforce good behavior across levels (whether a funder or recipient, senior versus junior); Standards for frequency and performance areas are defined and agreed within the specific operational context.
- Clear accountability structures that are sensitive to cultural differences and norms (e.g. in leadership, management, hierarchies, interpersonal relationship building, etc.).