The Quick-Start Guide divides nine tools into three phases that are roughly chronological in their order of use. The first set of tools focuses on selecting an intervention or activity that the local Joining Forces team thinks is a successful candidate for scale up (tools #1, #2, #3, and #4). The second set of tools support the development and tracking of a scale-up strategy (tools #5, #6 and #7) and the final section offers a single tool (#9) that offers a means of documenting and disseminating lessons learned.
I. Selecting an Intervention/Activity to Scale
Addressing EVAC priorities
When the local Joining Forces team comes together to discuss an intervention/activity or consider a number of potential interventions/ activities to scale, the conversation should touch on whether any candidate intervention/activity is meeting local priorities. These may be priorities established by the government and reflected in a national action plan, priorities that have been expressed by children, and priorities that find support among donors, parents, implementers, or other stakeholders. Interventions/Activities that do not meet priorities already part of the EVAC environment may not be sustainable, and as we’ve seen in the definition of scale, we cannot say that interventions/activities that do not prove sustainable are really scaled.
Of course, the local Joining Forces team may find activities they believe are valuable from a childcentered and rights perspective are not necessarily the priorities of some stakeholders, or that some priorities may be in conflict. In Tool #1 the team is asked to brainstorm a list of priorities held by a range of stakeholders and then match those priorities to the objectives of the candidate interventions/activities. This brainstorm does not have to be in-depth, but should touch on key priorities as documented in policy statements and research with children and their families.
Determining the potential for scalability
Not every intervention/activity that meets Joining Forces’ priorities (or others’ priorities for that matter) lends itself to scale. Nor does every intervention/ activity need to scale to be valuable. Some exciting EVAC interventions/activities that a local Joining Forces partner or some other organization may have successfully piloted will not easily scale because of several limitations. Tool #2 will ask the local Joining Forces team to conduct a simple scalability analysis by rating candidate activities according to the following criteria:
- How credible is the intervention/activity package?
- Does the intervention/activity have relative advantage over existing practices?
- How strong is support for the intervention/ activity?
- How easy is the intervention/activity to transfer and adopt?
- How good is the fit with the implementing organization?
- Is there a sustainable source of funding?
Note that several of these questions may also be a focus of other tools; for instance, the question asking “how strong is support for the intervention/activity?” is one that should be also answered when using Tool #1.
Determining if the evidence-base is adequate and if the candidate intervention/activity is aligned to Joining Forces theory of change.
In the accepted definition of scale-up, the importance of selecting an intervention/ activity with a proven evidence-base cannot be overstated. Scale-up is a significant commitment of resources and donors, governments and other stakeholders including children and their families will want some assurance that these resources are well-spent. To ensure that these resources are used in the most effective manner, it is important to select activities and interventions that have a solid evidence base.2 Knowing how much evidence supports an intervention/ activity—and how credible that evidence is—is important for selecting interventions/ activities to scale. Tool #3 asks the local Joining Forces Team to collect and discuss whatever evidence is available on the effectiveness of the intervention/activity under consideration.
Adaptation and fidelity; thinking
A big question with adaptation is, “At what point have we changed an intervention/activity so much that we are actually doing something entirely different?” The degree to which an intervention/activity keeps the parts that made it successful is called ‘program fidelity.’ Deciding what defines an intervention/activity, and when it loses fidelity, is a complicated but important task. This is because too much adaptation risks changing the intervention/activity to something that is not supported by evidence.
The issue of fidelity is one that every evidencebased intervention must address. To some people, fidelity is about making sure that all elements of a successful intervention/ activity are repeated in a precise manner when the intervention/activity is expanded to new sites. This kind of rigid fidelity—what we might call “fidelity to specific practices”–is difficult because as we know when learning about adaptation, every site is different, and interventions/activities typically conform to their sites and the capacities of their implementers. Instead of this kind of fidelity, it might be more useful to think of “fidelity to principle.” Fidelity to principle recognizes that many aspects of the original/model intervention/activity will not (and cannot) be kept exactly the same. What can be maintained is the commitment to follow the principles core to the success of the intervention/activity to achieve similar results.
To ensure fidelity to the principles underlying a Joining Forces intervention/activity, it is necessary to identify–to the extent possible– those elements (resources, services, staffing, training, technologies, sub-activities etc.) essential to success. These are often called “core” elements. When elements are not considered essential, when they are of secondary importance or perhaps are elements that occurred only because they were needed to make the intervention work in a particular site, they are called “peripheral” elements. For example, it may be determined that in intervention/activity “X” a specific curriculum is absolutely essential and is considered core, while the specific kind of training of the facilitator receives can vary and can be considered peripheral. Tool #4 asks the local team to investigate the intervention/activity they are considering for scale to determine what evidence and implementer experience suggests is core rather than peripheral.
To summarize this section of the Guide, since we must adapt to new environments, losing the fidelity of an intervention/activity to its evidence-based model is a risk we must always consider. When adapting, we should seek to ensure the adapted intervention/activity will still be effective and meet the purpose for which it was designed. An intervention/activity can be successfully adapted without changing it entirely by keeping core elements the same and by making sure the intervention/activity remains grounded in evidence.
II. Developing a scaling strategy and tracking adaptation and scale
Understanding the EVAC environment
The purpose of the guide is to help Joining Forces partners develop a scaling-up strategy and identify next steps. Creating a scaling up strategy requires a shared vision of what the implementation environment will easily facilitate and what it will resist if steps are not taken to reduce that resistance.
The strategy should elaborate the activities to be undertaken and indicate who has responsibility for what part within what time frame. Every effort to scale up interventions to end VAC takes place in a physical, political, cultural and historical context, or “environment.” The strategy must consider a country’s experience of EVAC programming, government engagement in EVAC, the history of successes and failures faced by implementing partners and stakeholders, prevalent attitudes, and beliefs, etc. If the local Joining Forces team does not consider how this history and other factors have contributed to the current situation of EVAC, there is a risk that efforts to adapt and scale-up their chosen intervention/activity will not yield the desired results due to overlooking opportunities and threats that could have been anticipated.
Benchmarking scale-up
Benchmarks are used to set expectations for progress towards reaching the goals set out by the local Joining Forces team. There are two types of scale with which to be concerned. The first type is vertical scale. This is about how well an intervention/activity is “institutionalized,” that is, integrated into the systems that will make an intervention/activity sustainable. To keep vertical scale up on track, the local Joining Forces team should establish “benchmarks” that will be used to track different dimensions of institutionalization, including the degree to which:
- National policies are supportive of the intervention
- Social norms related to the behavior are shifting to accommodate the intervention/ activity
- Interventions/Activities are included in national, regional or district-level budgets
- Routine training and supervision practices align with the intervention/activity
- Service protocols reflect and advance the goals of the intervention/activity
The second type of scale that should be benchmarked is horizontal scale. This simply means successful getting an intervention/ activity functioning in more sites or having it reach additional populations. For instance, an intervention/activity may be scaled-up horizontally if it is taken from a model pilot site where it was proven effective to an entire district or region. National scale-up is also possible but that usually happens after an intervention/activity has been successfully implemented at a regional level. But horizontal scale may also expand the reach of an intervention by moving from a focus on one group to a larger focus on additional groups. An example might be a Joining Forces intervention/ activity designed for in-school girls being expanded to include out-of-school girls or an intervention/activity that was designed for urban children being expanded to reach rural children. The important point here is that both kinds of scale are critical. Horizontal scale without vertical scale will not be sustainable. Vertical scale without horizontal scale will not have the desired impact.
Establishing and tracking horizontal and vertical scale up benchmarks is, therefore, a core function of the Joining Forces team. This information will help guide management of the scale-up process and offer opportunities to engage stakeholders. Tools #6 and #7 help teams collaboratively set benchmarks and track progress against them. Reviewing the benchmarks regularly will help determine how to adjust interventions/activities to focus on areas where insufficient progress has been made towards scale-up goals.
Figure 2: Vertical and Horizontal Scale Up
Establishing Joining Forces’ division-of-labor
Each local Joining Forces team member has undoubtedly worked on a proposal to a donor in which their individual organization has served as the lead (or “prime”) or as a sub-contracting partner (or “sub”). In proposal development, great effort is taken to establish “teaming agreements” to clarify precisely what role the prime and the subs will take on to ensure a common understanding of the roles each will play.
In the case of a proposal among Joining Forces partners, however, this traditional arrangement has to be re-thought. When the local Joining Forces team comes together to think about scaling after selecting an intervention/activity that meets the criteria discussed above (e.g., evidence based, aligned to EVAC environment, scalability) and once core elements have been identified, it is important to determine the division of labor among partners. This division is important for scaling because it suggests distinct ownership and responsibility over key interventions/activities by the different partners, but also helps partners begin to anticipate adaptations that their partner organization’s activities may require.
Tools #8 offers a simple way for the local Joining Forces team members can work sequentially at two alternating levels: first as a Joining Forces team, then in individual partner groups, once again at the Joining Forces level, and finally, back into single partner groups where specific staff from the organization and its local partners can be identified to fill a variety of roles for each sub-intervention/activity. As constituent members of Joining Forces are familiar with their own organizations’ efforts at priming and subbing, it is possible that another approach to dividing labor among the partners can be proposed.
Note that although this guide appears to suggest that a division-of-labor will precede intervention/activity benchmarking (tools #7 and #8 below), the local team may choose to establish benchmarks prior to determining the roles of each Joining Forces partner.
Adaptively managing interventions/ activities
As most implementers know, interventions/ activities are difficult to implement due, partly, to their complexity.
As we also know, cross-sectoral issues such as violence against children operate in complex circumstances that evolve over time and require adaptation. With the increasing attention to the general subject of adaptation, perhaps the topic that has gotten the most consideration is adaptive management.
Similar to processes for quality improvement with which you may be familiar, a key aspect of adaptive management is collecting information regularly and frequently about how an intervention/activity is being implemented. This information gathered is sometimes called “real-time data” as the data reflects—to the greatest degree possible—the situation onthe-ground.
Adaptive managers use this data to assess intervention/activity areas that need improvement, make those improvements, then monitor them to see how well they are working. In contrast, in traditional management practices, targets for outputs are set and only monitored on a quarterly or bi-annual basis to see if they have reached predetermined targets. Because adaptively managed interventions/activities are more responsive to change in the environment, they are likely to be most sustainable.
Because adaptive management is a popular topic in the fields of health and development, there are many tools to help organizations manage in an adaptive manner, but the basic model below suggests a simple four-step adaptive-management cycle that the local Joining Forces team can use to design an adaptive management system that works for the intervention/activity being considered for scale. When using an adaptive management approach, it is important to record what you are doing and why as you go along. Be sure to document the adaptations that you make, what worked, and what didn’t work. Regularly share what you are adapting and learning with Joining Forces at the global level so that others have access to what you are learning, too!
Safeguarding is a critical aspect of operationalising any scale-up. Without a strong foundation to build on, it increases the risk of not only poor quality but un-safe programming which increases the risk of exploitation, abuse, harassment and harm to children and adults impacted on by an organisation’s work.
- Embedding child safety and rights ‘lens’ in programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation – making sure all Joining Forces activities are inclusive and safe for children.
- Designing and implementing activities to achieve the best possible outcomes for children and adults, increased positive impact and cost benefit while making every effort to do no harm (this includes adequate budgeting for safeguarding considerations and risk mitigation in the areas of Awareness; Prevention; Reporting & Response including survivor support and after-care, investigations ; digital technology/online abuse and risks).
- Effective engagement and planning with children and adults in the community and positive interactions between organizations staff and people in the community.
- Effective risk management; identify, assess and monitor all risks to children and adult programme participants and in the affected communities (contextual; programmatic (thematic); operational/institutional; physical).
- Actively looking at ways in which Joining Forces activities and scale-up can contribute to safer environment for children and adults at risk.
- Being prepared NOT to implement a programme where safeguarding risks have not been appropriately assessed/ minimized or where the inherent risks to children are unacceptable.
- Keeping child safety under review, evidence and sharing of learning should inform future work and prevent repeat of abuse/harm and reduce future risks.
- Safer programming is the responsibility of the whole organization.
- Different teams and functions have responsibility for:
– setting the framework, providing guidance which supports safer programming within their scope of work, identifying and managing the risks;
– building the capacity of the organization to design and deliver inclusive safer programmes. - Make every effort to ensure that safeguarding measures and protocols are implemented in vertical and horizontal scaleup plans with governments and partners.
- Ensure safe and inclusive community feedback and reporting systems are built into the scale–up plans and resourced.
III. Documenting and disseminating learning
Taking time to reflect regularly on what you are learning will provide you the opportunity to identify and share useful insights on adaptation and scale up. Decisions and actions may seem like clear choices in the moment, but you may forget later what and why those adaptations were made. Recording this learning will be useful to you and others when scaling up.
Sharing these lessons along the way is also a good way to involve key scale up actors and increase their sense of ownership of the work of Joining Forces and contributes to the broader Joining Forces Learning Agenda. The more people are familiar with, and actively involved in, adaptation and scale up, the more likely it is that you will be able to increase the coverage of interventions/activities and sustain them over time.
Tool #9 offers a guide for you to document learning on a regular basis. It prompts you to select learning questions about adaptation and scale and reflect on what happened, what worked and what did not and adaptations or mid-course corrections that are needed.