Results – Periodic Review Social Development

• Working with national governments and systems, and securing future funding for CSOs contributed to sustainability of programme results.
• The absence of sustainability and exit strategies, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and limited capacity building of CSOs for financial viability hampered the sustainability of results.

• Overall, programmes in WRGE and Education were relevant to the needs of the target groups and country contexts, whereas programmes in Global Health and SRHR and Civil Society were less relevant.
• Relevance in terms of evidence-based programming was mixed, with key assumptions often implicit or unsupported by evidence.

• Coherence within CSO/NGO partnerships went well at times, but was poor between partnerships and with embassies.
• Multilateral instruments were overall well-coordinated globally and thematically aligned with broader Dutch policy objectives.

• Gender received explicit attention and was mainstreamed, but effectiveness was often not measured.
• Attention to locally led development (LLD) increased over time, with some good examples. However, southern partners had limited strategic, programmatic and budgetary decision-making power.

Continue the principle of coordinated and predictable funding of the Netherlands in Global Health and SRHR, aimed at supporting national governments and systems.

a. Maintain the combination of unearmarked, flexible and multi-annual funding for multilateral organisations and global funds, and partnerships with CSOs/NGOs in SRHR (albeit in less complicated set-ups). The former have proven to be efficient; the latter add complementarity by involving local partners. Continuing existing programmes also contributes to efficiency.

b. Continue efforts to support national governments in integrating health services, such as family planning, pregnancy and childbirth care (including safe abortion care), into national health systems, as this fosters more sustainable health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

c. Improve coherence with other donors through existing coordination mechanisms at the country level. Focus on complementarity and support government capacity for donor coordination. This can be achieved through the (global) coordination mechanisms of multilateral organisations and funds (UNFPA, the Global Fund and Gavi) and international finance institutions such as the World Bank (GFF).

d. Document lessons from the Dutch emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic to improve preparedness for future (health) emergencies.

Ensure reliable and accountable partnerships with multilateral and international organisations, as well as with CSO/NGO partners.

a. In future programmes maintain flexible, long-term financial commitments, sizeable programme budgets and sufficient implementation time (more than five years) for partners.

b. Ensure that partners and the MFA (including embassies) have adequate staffing capacity to manage programmes, including specialised monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) capacity.

c. Integrate sustainability strategies at the policy design stage, and make sustainability and exit strategies mandatory in programme proposals. Monitor these strategies throughout implementation and during programme handover.

d. Continue partnerships with CSOs/NGOs given their added value (e.g. working with a wide range of southern/local partners), but avoid large, complicated partnership set-ups

Develop realistic policy frameworks and programmes within the Netherlands’ sphere of influence.

a. Ensure that the Theories of Change (ToCs) include a detailed intervention logic that outlines the connection between activities, outputs, outcomes and final objectives (impact). This will help translate long-term, high-level objectives into actionable steps and intermediary outcomes.

b. Set realistic ambitions, especially with regard to longer-term outcomes such as behavioural, social and political change in five-year programmes.

c. Take into account external factors that could hamper the effectiveness of programmes by developing evidence-based ToCs with explicit assumptions and providing sufficient flexibility to adapt them to country-specific contexts.

d. Integrate MEL from the design phase onwards, including baselines and mid-term evaluations (MTEs) in programmes. For feasibility reasons, the MFA and its partners could jointly select only a limited number of indicators for monitoring.

Involve local organisations and target groups in the programme design stage to ensure objectives align with the needs of the target groups.

a. Allocate time early in the process to work with local organisations, and where possible, target groups, to develop programmes jointly.

b. Combine awareness-raising activities, lobby and advocacy with service delivery to better meet the needs of target groups.

Continue building on good results and best practices from LLD interventions.

a. Establish equal partnerships with local partners that allow for bottom-up decision-making in terms of strategic, programmatic and financial decisions, and ensure upward and downward accountability through joint decision-making.

b. Ensure benefits such as long-term commitments, large budgets and flexibility are passed on to local organisations.

Clearly define, operationalise and monitor equity objectives.

a. Support the inclusion of marginalised, vulnerable and remote groups in programmes, and assess the feasibility of reaching these groups.

b. Translate an inclusive, intersectional approach to gender equality from policy documents into practice.

c. Continue gender mainstreaming efforts, and ensure gender is included from the outset in programme goals, result frameworks, and policy and action plans.