A Global Partnership to End Violence

Against Children
Exploring options for the partnerships 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.

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.

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 partnerships 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 papers 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 partnerships 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 childrens 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

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.).

Centered around a powerful voice for children and a meaningful role for them in delivering the
partnerships 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 strategys 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

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 partnerships 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 partnerships 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 partnerships start-up phase and its relationship with existing alliances and
initiatives.

The role that finance will play in delivering the partnerships 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 CICs 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 hasnt 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 Groups oversight and audit of the partnerships 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
plans 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, Id 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 childrens 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 partnerships strategy
and governance, voting on the basis of consultations with their constituencies.
During 2020, the board has decided that the partnerships 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 childrens 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 partnerships 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 boards 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. Its 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 partnerships 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 partnerships
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 partnerships 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 partnerships
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 childrens 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 partnerships 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 partnerships 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

childrens 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 SRSGs 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 worlds 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 womens
and childrens 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 Im 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 womens 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 Womens 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 Childrens 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. FOSIs 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 womens and childrens 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 Worlds 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 Childrens 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 SUNs 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 Ministers Office, 10 Downing Street, The Rt Hon David Cameron, Foreign &
Commonwealth Office, and Home Office (2014), #WeProtect Children Online Global Summit: Prime Ministers
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 Europes Action Programme on Children and Violence. Results
at national level draw on SUNs evaluation which was completed at a roughly comparable stage of the
partnership life cycle. The Global Partnership for Educations 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 UNs 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 Gavis 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 Childrens 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