Highlights from Dublin and Washington SOCCER Meetings SOCCER Meeting September 2013 Auckland, New Zealand

Dublin – September, 2012 Key messages from last year’s SOCCER meeting

Dublin – September 2012 Key Features of the GFO’s “One Op/One Org” Vision SO IPGs: A Shift in the Level of Engagement From: Programme To: Portfolio Strategic engagement at portfolio and outcome / impact level Activity Monitoring Facilitators, collaborators and strategic partners Capacity Builders Exception monitoring Quality Assurance NOs NOs: empowered to consistently produce evidence-based impact ROs ROs: equips, monitors, evaluates and leads GC GC: efficiently maintains strategic focus and accountability INTERNAL USE ONLY 3

KEEP The overall direction of the One Op/Org vision Largest SO’s affirm the timeline for functional shifts (3-5 yrs) Contingent upon progress toward Established PCR ratings & other key metrics of NO performance FedNet foundation & momentum – Clearly reflect principles within this vision CHANGE/ADD Add full SO role to Vision, then the SO IPG The vision should emphasize common SO IPG functions, not structure Establish clear protocol for accountability & transparency between GC and SO – Ex: Service Level Agreements Acknowledge longer timeline (5+ yrs) for some medium/small SO’s to functionally shift Clear SO IPG program oversight minimums CLARIFY: Risk Management & exception management: SO vs RO vs NO roles Changes needed within the GC to fulfill the Vision NO consultation process for affirming the Vision Functional implication of shifting from capacity building to “facilitation & collaboration” Define ‘portfolio’ Role of grants, advocacy & HEA: part of vision? 4 Dublin – September 2012 Key Messages for SO Executives & e-GOLT

Dublin 2012 – Other Topics TopicComments S&T Projects (Asia and Africa) – FY14 FundingBoth projects continuing through FY14 O4 trends - accountability resting with the SO but not the authority. How do we as SOs manage risks in this model and learn to manage by exception? SO Field facing and Fiduciary roles codification part of the answer GC notion of “pooled” programming funds (not identified by SO): Pooled funds: If projects are not defined by funding office, what about accountability? The present “tussle” over pooled funds is embodied in the ongoing development of “LEAP3” WVC and WVUSA Pilots on GTRN – Registration in GTRN and use of GTRN for field trips WVC doing this. Others? Value add? Larger SOs have been in the process of ‘evolving’ towards a similar One Op/One Org vision before the GC proposed this particular framework. This has continued. Change drivers not only O4 and may be coincidental. Smaller SOs harder pressed to implement O4 direction?

Dublin 2012 – Other Topics TopicComments Shared services Europe and AsiaDifferences in the regions. Europe has progressed towards a pilot On Program Support Teams (PSTs). All participants endorsed the value of the PSTs. PST mandate and organization has been revised since. Revisions now complete. Program Capability Reviews (PCRs). Modest revision foreseen (Jeremy Rempel). SOs to do PCRs in FY13 PCR process and system dismantled. Replacement not yet in place Note: The feedback from the Dublin SOCCER contributed to the design of the workplan of O4 in two important ways: 1)Influencing our leaders/CEOs, 2)Influencing the language and direct influence in the O4 WG which met soon thereafter in Cyprus. Subsequent engagement through the eGOLT has also been active.

Washington DC, May SOCCER Steering Committee The Steering Committee met at a time when the O4 workplan (several versions) and the advisory WG and the streams of work for completion of O4 had already been put in place. In many ways, the primary task in Washington was to articulate and refine the donor and field facing and the fiduciary minimum standards for SOs.

Washington Outcomes, Agreements SO Field Facing Standards recommendations – discussed in in Webex June/July – to be ratified here. Fiduciary Standards: – Webex held with SO partners – including finance staff – Agreed on overall categories, definitions and starting descriptions for standards – Solicited for feedback from all SOs on the Fiduciary Framework. (feedback consolidated in July) – input into the Fiduciary WG – Agreed to draft a TOR and strike a Fiduciary Standards WG (this done in July, and August respectively)

New/Unexpected “Stuff” O4 Advisory WG and streams have not been very active the past 4 months Cancellation of the PCRs Reformulation of the PSTs Coordinated investments Shared ADPs and pooled budgets LEAP3