This document discusses Save the Children's experience with evaluating two of its global business partnerships - one with GSK and one with RB. It notes that businesses have different expectations around monitoring, evaluation and data compared to traditional donors. They want reliable results early and often so data can be used for course correction if needed. While this presents opportunities to work more flexibly, it also poses challenges around balancing methodological rigor with flexibility, reporting requirements, adaptive programming vs target setting, and resource needs. The document reflects on questions around finding the right approaches and balances to meet the needs of business partners while respecting implementation realities.

1. Evaluating Business Partnerships –
Reflections & Questions | 4 May 2017

2. Contents
2
Context
Our global partnerships – GSK &
RB
Reflections and on-going questions

3. A bit of background on us…
3
• Global INGO, founded 1919
• 120 countries;
• 2015 revenue of $2.1 billion
• 2015 Total Reach: 62 million children
• Horizontal federation: 29 member organisations + Save the
Children International
• Programming focal areas: health & nutrition, education, child
protection, poverty and humanitarian response
Save the Children
Save the Children UK
• 35 focal countries;
• 2015 revenue of £390 million
• 2015 Total Reach: 17.5 million children (28%)
10 global private sector partnerships
What is Save the Children?

4. … & on the sector
4
Call for the private sector to play a stronger, more integrated role in
developing, including efforts to achieve the SDGs….
…. and business mind-sets are evolving, from focusing primarily on
compliance and philanthropy, to seeing shared value opportunities.
Shared value requires partnership, and business is increasing
willing to move away from a traditional donor relationship to
partnering …
…however, partnering with business can still present risks.
New attitudes towards the role of the private sector in
development

5. Contents
5
Context
Our global partnerships – GSK &
RB
Reflections and on-going questions

6. Focus on 2 current global partnerships:
6

7. GSK
7
10 workstreams
37 countries, 55+ projects
Reached 4.6 million people
(2.6 million children)
3 domains of impact:
• Results for children
• Organisational systems and
capacities
• Influencing the sector

8. GSK partnership – the challenge
8
 10 workstreams – diverse approaches, not all
programmatic
 37 countries, 55+ projects – variable data quality &
indicators
 Data hungry partner
 Impact evaluation not always appropriate/ possible (e.g
humanitarian work, advocacy, work in conflict zones)
 Changing M&E system halfway through the partnership

9. Solution: Putting in place a broader,
more flexible M&E system
9
Initial solutions:
 Strengthened reporting templates
 Identification of partnership indicators
 Commissioning new research to fill gaps on on-going basis
 Theory-based methods, in addition to IE
 Results dashboard- reporting every 6 months
 Seeing impact as dashboard across 3 domains
o Business Benefits study
o Measuring value to the organisations themselves
Enabling factors:
 Funding for M&E and dedicated in-house staff
 Partnership commitment & expectation setting
 Strong teams in-country
 Prioritises M&E

10. RB
10
“Stop Diarrhoea Initiative”
3 countries
WHO 7-point plan
Reached 840,000 people
Key targets
• 50% reduction diarrhoea incidence
• 50% reduction diarrhoea
prevalence
• 80% reduction diarrhoea-related
under-5 mortality

11. RB partnership – the challenge
11
 High expectations for M&E; require rigorous impact
evaluation
 Evaluation design changed after inception phase;
so putting in place evaluation design after project
start
 Projects aiming to implement highly ambitious
design consistently across 3 countries
 Partner is target-oriented; eager to see results and
course-correct

12. Solution: New approaches to reporting,
quicker data cycles & focus on learning
12
Initial Solutions:
 Independent evaluator
 Annual household surveys
 Mix of evaluation designs, but measuring same
indicators:
 Biannual learning & reflection workshops
 Strong evaluation governance
 Specific focus within evaluation on RB products (anti-
microbial soap and toilet powder)
 New approach to reporting
Enabling factors
 Dedicated M&E budgets and staff resourcing
 High quality external evaluator
 Commitment and prioritisation by RB
 Clear & measurable targets and milestones

13. Contents
13
Context
Our global partnerships – GSK &
RB
Reflections and on-going questions

14. Key Reflections
14
Businesses have different data
expectations compared to traditional
donors (& are less constrained in
terms of internal processes and
requirements)
1
They want [reliable]
results early and
often…..
2
3
.. so that data can be used
for course correction &
[radical] adaptation if
needed

15. Business Partnerships provide an opening for new
approaches to monitoring, evaluation & learning….
15
Businesses approach development challenges with different
assumptions and norms, which provides us with an
opportunity to work differently:
 Flexibility around processes,
reporting & evaluation
methods.
 Appetite for innovation
 Emphasis on data: only
measure what’s important
 Open to course- correction and
adaptation midstream
 Assessing impact of the
partnership as a whole– business
value as well as social value
 Desire for close working
relationships and collaboration;
want to be part of the process

16. …. they also throw up challenges
16
Expect hard target setting and
forecasting (both financial and
results)
Variable understanding of
evidence; resistance to
caveats and uncertainty
Evolving needs and
understanding of development
context
Delivering business value creates different requirements and
needs, which we cannot meet if we conduct ‘business as
usual’ M&E:
Evolving needs over project
lifespan
Desire for quick wins and
early results
Prioritisation of hard figures
over qualitative data /
understanding ‘how’ or ‘why’

17. Questions we are asking ourselves:
17
Methodological rigour (vs? ) flexibility?
What is the right balance of reporting?
Adaptive programming vs target-setting and
measurable impact?
Right balance of adaptation and real-time data, while
respecting time and capacity of team on the ground?
Right resourcing within SCUK?
Use of technology?
…. Realistic & feasible?

18. Traditional corporate donor
M&E
Business Partnership M&E
Rigid, linear approach (long reports,
baseline/midline/ endline,)
Concise, relevant reporting –
only what matters; flexible data collection
timelines (e.g. annual, quarterly,)
Exhaustive approach to monitoring:
‘everything but the
kitchen sink’
Measuring select key indicators in an
overarching way; deep dives to assess
specific questions or results
Logframe approach to setting targets
single overarching goal
Broader approach to defining targets &
measuring results – dashboards
Static project designs; relatively
inflexible. Ad hoc and informal learning,
but no explicit mechanisms for turning
learning into action.
Expectation that project designs will be
revised, explicit mechanisms for course-
correction & bringing in new partners
(complexity aware)
Direction of travel?
18