NL-KVK-24316726-NL2030-31306 Ecorys <narrative>Civil Society Facility South Sudan</narrative> Supporting Communities The Civil Society Facility (CSF) for South Sudan is a multi-donor fund established to strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations to bring about positive changes in the lives and well-being of communities and groups. It is funded by the Embassies of Norway, Sweden and The Netherlands, with the latter acting as lead donor. The CSF has a long-term outlook of 20 years based on five-year cycles. During a 12-month Inception Phase (April 2016 – March 2017), the donors and the Fund Manager created a programme that is flexible and scalable in its aim to support local civil society organisations in South Sudan. As CSF we believe that Sustainability of civil society and CSOs is about their ability to remain engaged in activities that are relevant to their constituencies. This will be achieved by focusing on institutional capacity building as opposed to just giving grants, facilitating partnerships between existing institutions, taking time to build trust and long-standing relationships, developing greater dialogue between citizens and government and a gradual long-term vision for capacity development. In doing so, CSOs will help build a more inclusive, democratic and pro-poor governance environment in South Sudan. This is in line with the CSF objective that civil society and CSOs need more than just funding in order to be sustainable. LONG TERM GOAL More responsive and inclusive decision-making provides positive changes in the lives and wellbeing of communities/groups. LONG TERM OUTCOME 1 Individual communities and groups affected by the programme have greater capacity to act on issues that affect them: Collectively identifying and prioritising issues; Acting together/more organised; Able to engage with and influence authorities/decision makers. LONG TERM OUTCOME 2 Change in the knowledge, behaviours, policy, and practice of key authorities/decision makers affected by the programme that enhance their responsiveness to communities/groups: Government (National, State, County Payam / Boma); Traditional Authorities; International humanitarian and development actors; Private Sector. SHORT TERM OUTCOMES 1. CSOs demonstrate improved organisational capacity 2. CSOs deepen their links with communities/groups 3. CSOs have increased their capacity to influence and engage with decision makers 4. CSOS form alliances to work on issues relevant to the needs and priorities of communities/groups Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecorys ZOA World Vision Norwegian People Aid United Methodist Committee on Relief Ecorys Akvo Foundation International NGO Training and Research Centre – INTRAC VNG International Akvo Foundation Capacity for Development Judith Otieno Team Leader Judith.Otieno@ecorys.com NPA Building, ground floor Hai Commercial Juba, Jubek state South Sudan Ecorys NL Jan Willem Knippels Project Manager JanWillem.Knippels@ecorys.com Watermanweg 44 3067GG Rotterdam Ecorys NL Ivo Gijsberts Project Director Ivo.Gijsberts@ecorys.com Watermanweg 44 3067GG Rotterdam 4.850347 31.603677 4.577569 28.398784 6.213266 31.565542 8.767087 27.399837 2175000.00 2569560.00 1000000.00 12075000.00 520000.00 Third advance Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecorys 325000.00 Second advance Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecorys 500000.00 First advance Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecorys 20000000.00 Total commitment made at programme start date Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecorys 480000.00 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecorys 760000.00 Fourth advance Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ecorys 413363.00 Expenditure Q1-Q2 2018 Ecorys 324129.00 Expenditure Q2-Q3 2017 Ecorys 393116.00 Expenditure Q1-Q2 2017 Ecorys 598271.00 Expenditure for 2016 Ecorys 480000.00 First instalment of 120k for 4 OPs Ecorys 2400000.00 Total commitment to four Outreach Partners Ecorys <narrative>Project photo</narrative> <narrative>OCA Training in Juba</narrative> <narrative>1. Change in the lives and well being of the communities/groups reached by the programme</narrative> <narrative>1.1 Reported Changes in the lives/well being of communities/groups reached by the programmes</narrative> NA <narrative>2. Change in the knowledge, behaviours, policy, and practice of key authorities/decision makers affected by the programme that enhance their responsiveness to communities/groups</narrative> NA <narrative>2.1 % of case studies of CSOs supported by the CSF where plausible contribution of CSOs to changes in the attitudes, behaviors, policy or practice of key authorities and decision makers was described by the CSO itself and confirmed by communities and/or authorities and decision makers</narrative> The percentage is calculated as case studies describing contributions of CSOs to changes which are confirmed by either community FGDs and/or decision maker KIIs divided by the total number of case studies in the Rolling Baseline (18) times 100 NA <narrative>3. Individual communities and groups affected by the programme have greater capacity to act on issues that affect them </narrative> NA <narrative>3.1% of (groups of) communities represented by a CSO perceiving a sufficient ability to jointly identify and prioritize issues (disaggregated by gender and age when possible)</narrative> The base for this percentage is the number of CSOs aiming to represent communities. Multiple communities represented by the same CSO count as one community. Data is collected at community level. The measure will be based on the majority opinion or average of the community members interviewed. NA <narrative>3.2 % of (groups of) communities represented by a CSO perceiving an increase in their awareness of and communication with decision makers</narrative> The base for this percentage is the number of CSOs aiming to represent communities. Multiple communities represented by the same CSO count as one community. Data is collected at community level. The measure will be based on the majority opinion or average of the community members interviewed NA <narrative>3.3 % of (groups of) communities represented by a CSO having been within the past 6 months participating in engagement or influencing activities beyond consulting with communities</narrative> The base for this percentage is the number of CSOs aiming to represent communities. Multiple communities represented by the same CSO count as one community. In addition to the evidence from the CSO directly, one participant of the engagement or influencing activity or two community members having heard about this activity are seen as sufficient supporting evidence. NA <narrative>4. "CSOs demonstrate improved organizational capacity in the following areas: - Inclusive leadership - Strategic vision and direction - Good stewardship of resources - Tracking results and learning to improve - Resourcing and resilience</narrative> <narrative>4.1 % of CSOs demonstrating an increase in organizational capacity, classified by area (scorecards)</narrative> NOTE: While the exact wording of the score cards can be tailored towards the specific needs of each organization, the areas they cover need to be identical to aggregate results in each area across organizations. NA <narrative>4.2 No and description of cases of enhanced organizational capacity where a plausible and corroborated/ triangulated contribution from the funding or CB efforts of the Facility can be demonstrated</narrative> The triangulation is based on CSO case studies and on Facility funded activities like trainings NA <narrative>4.3 % of CSOs submitting complete progress and financial reports on time</narrative> Confirmed by the Facility and/or the Outreach Partner NA <narrative>4.4 % of CSOs have secured additional funds from other sources</narrative> Confirmed by the Facility and/or the Outreach Partner NA <narrative>4.5 % of CSOs being satisfied with the capacity development activities they receive as part of CSF and perceiving them as useful</narrative> Directly measured at CSO level NA <narrative>5. CSOs deepen their linkages with communities/groups</narrative> NA <narrative>5.1 % of CSOs consulting with the communities they are aiming to represent at least every 6 months and these communities confirming this consultation</narrative> The base for this percentage is the number of CSOs aiming to represent communities. Multiple communities represented by the same CSO count as one community. Both, CSO and the community(ies) it aims to represent have to confirm consultations NA <narrative>5.2 % of CSOs supported by the CSF with representatives of communities and groups the CSO aims to represent being part of the CSO's decision making bodies (formal structure) </narrative> CSO employees also living in (one of) the community(ies) the CSO aims to represent do not count as representatives of the community in the decision making bodies NA <narrative>5.3 % of CSOs supported by CSF collecting feedback from community members and sharing information on project activities with community members disaggregated by frequency</narrative> Collection of feedback and sharing information are seen as closely related, but independent activities. The disaggregation is consequently by frequency and by collecting feedback and sharing information NA <narrative>6. CSOs demonstrate increased capacity to influence and engage with decision makers</narrative> <narrative>6.1 No of CSOs supported by the Facility showing an increased engagement and improved influencing strategy with decision makers directly or via partners documented in case studies</narrative> The data will be collected at the CSO level with confirmation coming from either partners and/or decision makers NA <narrative>6.2 No of CSOs showing engagement and improved influencing strategy with decision makers (Outcome 5a) and attributing this change at least partially to the Facility's capacity development activities documented in case studies</narrative> The base for this percentage are the CSOs reporting increased communication and engagement with decision makers (Outcome 5a) NA <narrative>7. CSOs form alliances between themselves and with other actors to work on issues relevant to the needs and priorities of communities</narrative> <narrative>7.1 Frequency and description (from partners) of collaborative CSO activities between CSOs on issues relevant to the needs of communities disaggregated by formal and informal forms of collaboration</narrative> NA NA <narrative>7.2 % of Outcome 1 CSOs having their success at influencing authorities or decision makers at least in part attributed to the CSOs alliances and cooperation with other CSOs (according to the CSO itself and confirmed by the authority or decision maker and/or by the community members)</narrative> The basis for this percentage is the number of CSOs in the Rolling Baseline for which plausible contribution to changes in the attitudes, behaviors, policy or practice of key authorities and decision makers was described by the CSO itself and confirmed by communities and/or authorities and decision makers (Outcome 2). At least partial attribution of this success to alliances with other CSOs has to be reported by the CSO itself and confirmed by the authority or decision maker and/or by the community members NA <narrative>S1.1 CSOs receive grants through CSF funding windows</narrative> <narrative>S1.1.1 # of grant ageements signed, disaggregated by region and by funding window.</narrative> Count of all grant agreements signed by both CSF and grant recipients Part of inception phase so granting not yet done Granting not yet done Granting not yet done Only 4 Outreach Partners targeted for granting 06-07-2018: The project targeted only 4 Outreach Partners in the REACH window No new OPs targeted for granting in 2018 No new OPs targeted for granting in 2018 No new OPs targeted for granting in 2018 No new OPs targeted for granting in 2018 <narrative>S1.1.2 Total amount of all grant agreements signed, disaggregated by region and by funding window.</narrative> Total contract value sum of all grant agreements signed by both CSF and grant recipients. Inception period being concluded Identification of potential outreach partners- review of concept notes and proposals contracts already awarded to the 4 Outreach partners 06-07-2018: Each of the 4 OPs signed 3 year grants agreements valued at US$600000 per agreement no new outreach partner contracts awarded no new outreach partner contracts awarded no new outreach partner contracts awarded no new outreach partner contracts awarded <narrative>S1.1.3 Total amount of grants disbursed to date, disaggregated by region and by funding window</narrative> Total confirmed amount disbursed to grantees to date 06-07-2018: Each of the 4 OPs received their initial disbursement of US$120000 <narrative>S1.1.4 % of grants disbursed in a timely fashion and in the agreed upon amount, disaggregated by region and by funding window.</narrative> Timely fashion and agreed upon amounts as stipulated in the grant agreements signed by both CSF and grant recipients 06-07-2018: The first disbursement to the OPs were done in a timely fashion <narrative>S1.1.5 # of CSOs receiving successive CSF grants, disaggregated by region and by successive funding window</narrative> Count of CSOs receiving a CSF grant that have previously received a CSF grant from another funding window <narrative>S1.2 CSOs form alliances and collaborative activities through the CSF "alliances for learning and action" funding window </narrative> <narrative>S1.2.1 # of alliances and collaborative activities funded by the CSF "alliances for learning and action" funding window, disaggregated by degree of formalisation </narrative> Count of alliances and collaborative activities resulting from CSF funding window "alliances for learning and action", disagregated by 1. formal (fully registered and legally documented), 2. semi-formal (partially registered and legally documented), or 3. informal (not registered or legally documented) <narrative>S1.2.2 # of CSOs participating in alliances and collaborative activities funded by the CSF "alliances for learning and action" funding window, disaggregated by degree of formalisation </narrative> Count of all CSOs participating in alliances and collaborative activities resulting from CSF funding window "alliances for learning and action", disagregated by 1. formal (fully registered and legally documented), 2. semi-formal (partially registered and legally documented), or 3. informal (not registered or legally documented) <narrative>S2.1 CSOs receive organisational capacity building support </narrative> <narrative>S2.1.1 # of CSOs receiving CSF capacity building support, disaggregated by region</narrative> Count of all CSOs receiving any kind of CSF capacity building support, disaggregated by region <narrative>S2.1.2 # of people working for CSOs (including paid employees, volunteers, board members, etc.) trained by CSF, disaggregated by (1) gender, and (2) trainee type.</narrative> Count of all people working for CSOs that have been trained by OPs under the CSF REACH funding window,disaggregated by gender, and type: (i) trainee, (ii) trainer <narrative>S2.1.3 % of people trained by CSF who find the training useful, disagregated by gender</narrative> % of people who have been trained under CSF who self-report finding the training useful directly after the training is completed. Disagregated by gender <narrative>S2.2 CSOs' receive support to engage with communities </narrative> <narrative>S2.2.1 # of community/grassroot initiatives supported by CSF, disaggregated by region</narrative> Count of community/grassroot initiatives supported by CSF, disaggregated by region <narrative>S2.3 CSOs' receive support to engage and influence decision makers</narrative> <narrative>S2.3.1 # of CSOs supported by CSF that have a tailored engagement strategy in place, disaggregated by region</narrative> Count of CSOs that have a tailored (non-generic or copied) engagement strategy in writing, , disaggregated by region <narrative>S3.1 Improved supply and demand of Capacity Building Service Providers </narrative> <narrative>S3.1.1 # of capacity building service providers enrolled in the C4C training programme, disaggregated by gender</narrative> Count of all consultants that enroll for the C4C training programme, disaggergated by gender <narrative>S3.1.2 # of capacity building service providers that graduate from the C4C training programme, disaggregated by gender</narrative> <narrative>S3.1.3 # of contracts/assignments issued by CSF, disaggregated by national vs. international capacity building service providers and C4C graduates vs. non-graduates </narrative> Count of all CSF capacity building service provider contracts (aggregate direct and indirect support), disaggregated by national/international profile, and C4C graduates <narrative>S4.1 CSF is positioned as a learning platform for CSOs</narrative> <narrative>S4.1.1 # of learning events organised by CSF, other than trainings, disaggregated by region</narrative> Count of all learning events organised by CSF that are not capacity building training events, disaggregated by region <narrative>S4.1.2 # of participants attending CSF learning events, disaggregated by type of participant and gender</narrative> Count of participants attending events, disaggregated by gender and type (government, national/international CSOs) <narrative>S4.1.3 # of stories shared about project successes and/or failures, disaggregated by mode of dissemination (type of media)</narrative> Count of all stories shared by direct and indirect CSF beneficiary CSOs about failures and successes, dissagregated by type of media (blog, social media, web-page, flyer, verbal presentation, etc.) <narrative>S5.1 Increase support for a stronger enabling environment</narrative> <narrative>S5.1.1 # of policy dialogues between CSOs and local decision-makers directly supported by CSF</narrative> Count number of policy dialogues between CSOs and local decision-makers directly supported by CSF <narrative>S5.1.2 # of success stories of INGOs collaborating with CSOs supported by CSF on the localization of humanitarian assistance (Charter for Change).</narrative> count of all success stories of INGOS collaborating with CSOs facilited by CSF <narrative>S5.1.3 # of success stories of CSF collaborating with NGO Forum</narrative>