P2

UK AID MATCH PROPOSAL FORM

This completed form will provide detailed information about your proposal and will be used to assess your proposal and inform funding decisions. It is very important you read the UK Aid Match Guidelines for Applicants and related documents before you complete this proposal form to ensure that you understand and take into account the relevant funding criteria.

How: You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your proposal and associated documents using the templates provided, by email, to UKAidMatch@dfid.gov.uk. The form should be completed using Arial font size 12. We do not require a hard copy.

When: All documentation must be received by the published funding round deadlines. Documents received after the deadline will not be considered. What: You should submit the following documents: (all templates are on the UK Aid Match web page: www.gov.uk/uk-aid-match.

1. Narrative Proposal: Please use the form below, noting the following page limits:

Sections 3 – 7 : Maximum of 15 (fifteen) A4 pages.For applications for projects which will work in more than 1 country, you may use an additional 2 pages for each additional country (ie. an application for working in 3 countries can be a maximum of 19 pages). Section 8 : Maximum of 3 (three) A4 pages per partner

NOTE: Please complete section 8 information for your own organisation AND for each partner organisation involved in delivering your project.

Please do not alter the formatting of the form and guidance notes. Proposals that exceed the page limits or that have amended formatting will not be considered.

UK Aid Match funded projects that are up to £2 million in value must only work in one eligible country. UK Aid Match funded projects with a total value of over £2 million can work in up to 3 eligible countries. For proposals to work in more than one country or in different regions within a country, you will need to include information about each country/region where the project context, beneficiaries, approach or the expected results are different. This is to enable your proposal to be assessed within each of the contexts you plan to use UK Aid Match funds in.

2. Logical framework and activities log: Please refer to the UK Aid Match Log-frame guidance and use the Excel log-frame template provided.

3. Project budget: Please use the template provided and refer to the UK Aid Match Guidance for Applicants (G1), the Budget Template Guidance (G3), and all tabs on the budget template. You also need to provide detailed budget notes (in the budget template) to justify the budget figures.

For proposals to work in more than one country or in different regions within a country: Where there are substantial differences in the costs of the project in different

countries or regions within a country, you need to include these in the budget and provide an explanation for the differences.

4. Risk register/matrix: This should include the main risks related to the project and how you will manage these risks. Please use your own format for this.

5. Project organisational chart / organogram: All applicants must provide a project organisational chart or organogram which includes all the implementing partners and explains the relationships between them. Implementing partners are defined as those that manage project funds and play a prominent role in project management and delivery. The chart should also include other key stakeholders. (Please use your own format for this).

6. Communications Plan: You will also need to complete a Communications Plan and submit this with your application. The plan is comprised of two parts (communications plan and activity timetable). You must also include final written evidence of commitment from your communications partner(s).

7. Cross-cutting issues: Your proposal must explain how it will achieve good value for money and inclusion of marginalised people or groups who live in the project location(s). It should demonstrate how you have determined that the proposed project would offer optimum value for money and that the proposed approach is the most economic, effective and efficient way of addressing the identified problems. It should explain how the proposal will meet the needs of the target population equitably including how it will address any barriers to inclusion of people/groups which are in the project location(s) including in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDs and other relevant categories depending on the context (eg. caste, ethnicity etc.)

8. Capacity building, empowerment and advocacy: If your proposal includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy objectives it must explain how they contribute to the achievement of the project's outcome and outputs. Please explain clearly why your project includes these elements and what specific targets you have identified. Refer to the Guidance for Applicants (G1) for advice on this.

Before submitting your application, please ensure that you have included all relevant documents by completing the table at section 9.

UK AID MATCH PROPOSAL FORM

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT1.1 Lead organisation name Hope and Homes for Children (HHC)

1.2 Contact person Name: Anna MakanjuolaPosition: Senior Grants Partnerships ManagerEmail:Anna.Makanjuola@hopeandhomes.orgTel:07393765699 / 01722 790111

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT2.1 Project title No child left behind: Transforming children’s lives by

creating a pathway for family and community living for children in institutional care in Rwanda and Uganda.

2.2 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented (Check that all named countries are eligible for UK Aid Match funding, and the number of countries does not exceed 3 for projects over £2 million and 1 for projects for under £2 million).

Rwanda and Uganda

2.3 Locality(ies)/region(s) within country(ies)

In Rwanda the project will target 22 districts not previously included in our current DFID aid match project. In Uganda the project will work in Tororo District and Makindye Section, Kampala

2.4 Duration of grant request (in months)

36 MONTHS

2.5 Project start date (month and year)

APRIL 2018

2.6 Total project budget? In GBP sterling

£2,794,497

2.7 How much do you expect your appeal to raise? What percentage is this of the total project/programme budget?

£2,765,097

98.95%

2.8 Please specify the % of project funds to be spent in each project country

50% in Rwanda29% in Uganda21% in UK/Regional

SECTION 3: PROJECT DETAILS3.1 ACRONYMS

For words which you would normally use acronyms for, please write these words in full the first time you use them, followed by the acronym in brackets, and use the acronym after that. Where you feel that it would be useful to provide an explanation of any acronym, please add

these here.

ACI – Alternative Care Initiatives (Uganda). AFS – ACTIVE Family Support. AVSI - AVSI Foundation (Rwanda). CDN - Community Development Networks. CiF – Child’s i Foundation (Uganda)CWD - Children with disabilities. DI – Deinstitutionalisation. ESA – East and Southern Africa. GoR – Government of Rwanda. HHC – Hope and Homes for Children. MGLSD – Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (Uganda). MIGEPROF – Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (Rwanda)MOU – Memorandum of Understanding. NCPWD - The National Council of Persons with Disabilities (Rwanda). NCC - National Commission for Children (Rwanda). OVC- Orphan and vulnerable childrenPCT – Programme Coordination Team. PSWO – Probation and Social Welfare Officers (Uganda)SDG - Sustainable Development Goals. TAA – Transform Africa Alliance. UNCRC – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNCPRD – United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. UNGAC – United Nations Guidelines on Alternative Care of Children

3.2 PROJECT SUMMARY: maximum 5 lines - Please provide a brief project summary including the overall change(s) that the initiative is intending to achieve and who will benefit. Please be clear and concise and avoid the use of jargon (This should relate to the outcome statement in the logframe).

The project will transform access for 123,193 children – at risk of or in institutional care in Uganda and Rwanda - to services aimed at strengthening families/communities allowing them to thrive in families. Interventions include two demonstration institution closures for CWD. Models developed will help NGOs/governments/donors in the region invest in families, not orphanages. The project will pioneer full inclusion of CWD in child protection reform in Africa, ensuring no child is left behind.

3.3 PROJECT RATIONALE (PROBLEM STATEMENT)Describe the context for the proposed project, by considering the following questions. What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? What are the causal factors leading to poverty and/or disadvantage? (If applicable) what gaps in service delivery have been identified and how has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Which specific groups/people do you expect to benefit? Why and how were these groups chosen? How does the proposal fit with national/regional development plans and with other efforts (eg. of governments, donors, the private sector) to address the development challenges which your proposal aims to address? How does it fit with activities of other development actors? Why has the particular project location(s) been selected and at this particular time?

Institutional care is globally recognised for the harm it causes to children, families and communities and associated high levels of neglect, abuse (Bowlby 1940, Browne 2009) and mortality (Science 2007). The estimated 8 million children confined to institutions globally (UN, Save the Children 2009) are disproportionately vulnerable (UNICEF 2002, Pinheiro 2006), suffering multiple deprivations. Institutionalisation has a catastrophic impact on children’s development. Brain functions in children under 3 are significantly impaired (Harvard University 2012) and children lose 1 month of growth for every 3 months institutionalised (Johnson 2001, Nelson 2003). In contrast, placement in family based care, demonstrates significantly improved outcomes; an evaluation in Moldova showed that just 6 months after placement in foster care, children’s cognitive abilities increased by 31.5%, language by 24.62% and motor skills by 21.13% (HHC, 2013). Drastically limiting educational attainment (Williamson 2004), institutionalisation creates intergenerational cycles of poverty and long term dependence on state care. 1 in 3 children who leave institutions become homeless; 1 in 5 ends up with a criminal record; entrenching poverty (Tobis & Davis 2000). Children with disabilities (CWD) are disproportionately represented and largely excluded from reform plans (DRI 2013). CWD are especially vulnerable to neglect, abuse and lack opportunities for rehabilitation (MDRI 2007; Rosenthal et al., 2011; WHO 2010b). 4 out of 5 children in institutional care are estimated to have 1 or both parents alive (Csasky, 2009) or extended family, who could care for them. A 2010 review in Bosnia, showed our ACTIVE Family Support (AFS) model successfully prevented children’s separation in 98% of cases. Institutional systems focus on the symptoms of separation and are divorced from the root

causes leaving the key driver of child separation, poverty, unaddressed. Child protection reform is critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim of ‘Leaving No-one Behind’ and represents excellent VFM. Reliance on institutional care in Africa has grown rapidly in recent decades, fuelled in part by child sponsorship-based fundraising (Csaky 2009) and volunteering (Richter and Norman 2010). A 6-country African study found institutions being established with increasing frequency (Foster, Geoff, 2003). There is an urgent need for child protection reform to be demonstrated in Africa, in priority locations and with priority target groups such as CWD, to prevent further harm and provide an inclusive and adaptable model for replication. This project is a direct result of HHC’s successful current DFID funded East and Southern Africa (ESA) regional project (ends April 2018). HHC has spearheaded the drive for child protection reform in ESA, delivering the 1st phase of a national demonstration project in Rwanda (comprising the reintegration of 515 children into families from institutions and the development of community strengthening services across 6 districts) and bringing together NGO partners from 5 ESA countries to build capacity to advocate for/implement deinstitutionalisation (DI), now formalised in the regional Transform Africa Alliance (TAA). It is now critical to capitalise on significant momentum built and take the regional reform project to the next level; demonstrating simultaneous reform across 2 priority countries, Rwanda and Uganda where the conditions are in place and there is political will for change, and specifically targeting the inclusion of CWD. This project will reach 123,193 children and provide demonstration models for community mechanisms to strengthen families and prevent children’s separation including CWD, in 2 distinct national contexts. The project will demonstrate - for the first time - the full inclusion of CWD in the development of community based mechanisms in Africa, and critically pioneer the closure of two specialised institutions in Rwanda, through development of family and community-based services; providing a replicable methodology. Rwanda and Uganda have been selected as the project locations in response to an urgent level of need, demand from beneficiaries and key stakeholders (see section 3.6), strong stakeholder commitment and the potential to generate learning and influence regional reform. Rwanda has 5,265 children remaining in institutions, including 4,349 CWDs (NCPWD). It is on track to be the first African country to fully reform its child protection system, presenting an opportunity to demonstrate that the gradual elimination of institutional care, including specialised institutions for CWD, is achievable and delivers positive outcomes. In 2015, with DFID Aid Match support, HHC, as the leading implementing partner for the National Strategy for Childcare Reform (the National Strategy), pioneered reform in partnership with the GoR and UNICEF. Together we have achieved significant progress in reforming the main-stream institution system and securing political support to begin the vital next phase of reform, which will include CWD in specialist institutions. This project builds on models proven effective during the 1st reform phase, ensuring nationwide coverage of community-based family-strengthening services to support the return of all remaining children in institutions. Critically, it will demonstrate closure of two institutions for CWD, through the development of family and community-based services, providing a model for Rwanda, Uganda and the region. CWD are particularly vulnerable to the damaging effects of institutions and lack equitable access to adoption/foster care programmes in Rwanda (Everychild & the Better Care Network, 2012). An assessment of residential centres for CWD (NCPWD, National Commission for Children (NCC) & UNICEF, 2016) highlighted issues, including lack of individualised care-plans (24% of centres), poor exit planning (49% of centres), inadequate monitoring and an unmet demand for prevention services. This confirmed HHC’s experience of working with CWD in mainstream institutions and assessment of specialist institutions. Uganda, has the highest number of children in institutional care in the region (57,000) including 5% CWD and presents an opportunity to demonstrate reform in a highly challenging context. 48% of 40 institutions assessed (including 3 in Tororo District and 4 in Kampala) were found to have poor or very poor standards of care, 50% inadequate provision for CWD (with neglect witnessed) 80% no child protection policy (Riley, Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development (MGLSD), 2012). A key barrier to systemic change in Uganda, is lack of a proven model for strengthening families through community mechanisms. The project will address this by using models developed and proven in Rwanda, as the basis for the development of a Ugandan-specific model. Through our regional work in ESA we have built a partnership with Child’s i Foundation (CiF),

who have strong experience in working with institutions in Uganda to improve social work practice and place children into families. Through HHC’s capacity building CiF are now ready to lead systemic reform across 2 strategic locations in Uganda, (Tororo District and Makindye section, Kampala) with support from HHC Rwanda and pilot an institution closure. The districts have been selected due to 4 key factors. 1) high level of need/poverty: Tororo has 21,000 orphans, over 19,000 CWD (2014 Census), 80% of the population depend on subsistence farming. Kampala has 47,000 orphans and Makindye, the largest of its 5 sections, comprises 8 slums with heightened child protection issues and drastically under resourced authorities 2) the opportunity to build evidence base regarding interventions that best meet urban and rural communities’ needs (Tororo is rural, Makindye densely populated/urban) and provide models for national scale-up 3) political commitment expressed in Tororo / Makindye by division/ district authorities and the commitment of institution managers and donors 3) the variety of institutions providing an opportunity to showcase the full range of alternative care services, including services for CWD (4 institutions in Tororo, 12 in Makindye) 4) the availability of non-government/government structures to support children transitioning from institutions and those at risk of separation including foster care and rehabilitative support for CWD. In addition, Makindye is of strategic significance to this project because of its visibility to government decision makers and the opportunity to develop a model for scale up across Kampala’s remaining 4 divisions.  Working across Rwanda and Uganda simultaneously, brings significant advantages allowing us to: 1) Contextualise a model developed in the particular context of Rwanda to be fit for purpose in Uganda, which in turn opens the same possibilities for other countries in the region. We have employed this tried and tested approach over 17 years e.g. in Central and Eastern Europe where our flagship programme in Romania has influenced significant reform in Moldova and Bulgaria. 2) Build on progress of reform in Rwanda to scale up our successful transition of CWD out of institutions into a comprehensive process to end institutional care for CWD. 3) Prepare communities and families to embrace CWD in Uganda and increase their knowledge and ability to support them early enough in the reform process, to enable us to secure commitments that CWD will not be left behind achieving greater project effectiveness and sustainability 4) Establish a regionally relevant model to influence practice and policy on the use of institutional care and CWD. Uganda’s context is seen as typical environment for the region with the following challenges: a significant number of privately run orphanages, weak government capacity to implement national policy, lack of relevant models at scale to demonstrate systemic change. 5) It will enable us to use the evidence generated to help TAA members to advocate with governments for the inclusion of CWD in national action plans for ending violence against children and child protection system reform. HHC’s global and regional teams will provide thematic and specialist skills to support advocacy, capacity building, research and M&E across both countries achieving economies of scale, effectiveness and efficiency of resources.Child protection reform is central to delivering UK Aid’s strategy objectives in Rwanda and Uganda of tackling extreme poverty and DFID Rwanda’s and Uganda’s priorities of empowering and protecting the poorest and most vulnerable. It aligns with DFID in supporting Rwanda to deliver the SDGs by targeting the poor and addressing government systems for social protection of the most vulnerable. Child protection reform supports DFID’s youth agenda and underpins DFID’s contribution to ‘Leaving No-One Behind’– critical to achievement of the SDGs. The project fits with all relevant international, regional and national development plans, and addresses critical gaps in their implementation. UNCRC and the UNGAC are explicit about the need for states to transition away from institutionalistion. The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of a Child upholds the family environment as most appropriate for the growth and development of a child and obliges member states to take deliberate measures to protect it. In both Rwanda and Uganda, national strategies and implementation plans commit to ending/reducing institutional care through strengthening families and community responses. In Rwanda, the 2012 National Strategy sets out the Government’s ambition to end the use of institutional care. A 2012 NCC cabinet paper outlines that 1st phase of implementation will focus on reform of 34 mainstream institutions and 2nd phase on strengthening and expanding protection, referral mechanisms and services to support children and families.  Despite significant progress made through phase 1 of reform it is critical that we push forward to ensure children

remaining in institutions including CWD are not left behind. In Uganda, the ‘National Alternative Care Framework’ prioritises keeping families together. The National Action Plan on Alternative Care aims to reduce the number of children in institutions by 60% and end the institutionalisation of children under the age of 3. Despite this strong framework, policies are not well implemented and there are major barriers to systemic reform including: insufficient models for strengthening families and community based responses to address child protection issues, resistance to change at orphanage level, and no documented alternative care for CWD. Both countries have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its Optional Protocol on 15th December 2008.  The preparation we have put in place and the engagement we have is significant. Partnerships are in place with all key agencies in both countries. In Rwanda, we have a formal partnership with the Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (MIGEPROF) and NCC, with whom we have strong credibility and a positive working relationship developed over the last 6 years. We have an agreement in principle with the management of Gahanga Institution for CWD for its closure. In Uganda, CiF has partnerships with Uganda’s MGLSD and strong relationships with the relevant district authorities in Tororo and Makindye. CiF has a n MOU with the District Authorities, and one institution in Tororo to radically transform their model of care. The Director has committed to stop new admissions and support her staff to retrain to help children in different ways. There are established models for national adoption, fostering, a national task force in the MGLSD dedicated to child protection system building. It is vital that we continue momentum to capitalise on this commitment and significant stakeholder engagement.

3.4 TARGET GROUP (DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES)Who will be the DIRECT beneficiaries of your project, where direct means those benefiting at outcome level? Describe the direct beneficiary groups, and state how many people are expected to benefit, differentiating between male and female beneficiaries where possible, as well as other sub-groups. Also explain how you have calculated the beneficiary numbers.

DIRECT: a) Description of groups: In Rwanda and Uganda:Children transitioned from institutions (with/without disabilities)Children from families at risk of breakdown and separation (with/without disabilities)Children receiving services at the 2 Community Hubs (with/without disabilities)Community Development Network (CDN) members: e.g. police, church reps, school reps, health workersStaff members at the 2 Community HubsProfessionals and para-professionals (Government reps, policy and decision makers, social workers, community development officers, probation officers, foster carers, institution managers/owners, NGO staff, volunteers, NCC and district staff in charge of PWD)Community peer support group members (care leavers, CWD, parents or carers)

b) Number of beneficiaries: Total: 127,038 (70,841 in Rwanda and 56,197 in Uganda) – 193

children transitioned from institutions, 121,000 children from families at risk of breakdown and separation, 2,000 children receiving services at the 2 Community Hubs, 1,364 members of CDNs, 24 staff members of the 2 Community Hubs, 2,187 professional and paraprofessionals, 270 community peer support group members.Female (63,377) Male (63,661)

Who will be the indirect (wider) beneficiaries of your project intervention and how many will benefit? Please describe the type(s) of indirect beneficiaries and then provide a total number.

INDIRECT: a) Description Children from families at risk of breakdown in non-target districts/divisions in Rwanda/UgandaCWD in non-target institutions in Rwanda/UgandaCDN members from non-target districts/division in Uganda

b) Number Total: 138,240 (20,881 in Rwanda, 117,359 in Uganda) – 6,272 CWD in non-target institutions, 130,600 children from families at risk of breakdown and separation, 1,368 CDN members.Female (68,982) Male (69,258)

3.5 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTPlease describe the anticipated impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. What changes are anticipated for the beneficiary target groups identified in 3.4 (both direct and indirect beneficiaries) within the lifetime of the project?

At impact level, this project will contribute significantly to ensuring that vulnerable children grow up in safe families and benefit from improved community mechanisms; responding to family specific risks and poverty. The project outcome will be strengthened capacity in Rwanda and Uganda to respond to family separation risks and improved knowledge on supporting vulnerable children in families, including CWD. Within the project lifetime 123,193 children (including 1,247 CWD) confined to institutional care or at risk of separation from their families will directly benefit, through gatekeeping and improved access to prevention services and supporting children’s transition from institutions into families, thus enabling them to live in an environment that supports their well-being, healthy development and successful transition into adulthood. The changes anticipated for the identified beneficiary target groups (direct and indirect) are as follows: >123,193 children (68,068 in Rwanda; 55,125 in Uganda; 61,604 male; 61,589 female; 1,247 CWD) and their families (including marginalised groups e.g. single mothers/fathers, elderly carers and those with disabilities) at risk of separation in targeted districts/sectors will benefit from improved access to community based services (output 2) as a result of the establishment of CDNs, Community Hubs and SMS technology (output 1) and intensive family support services. As a result of these new gatekeeping services, families at risk will benefit from early identification, referral and improved access to services such as day care, health and nutrition, education, and income generation support. Families will have the support they need to prevent the separation of children and be empowered to reduce poverty (a key driver of institutionalisation) and improve economic resilience; thereby avoiding crisis situations. This is particularly critical for single mothers and fathers, who often have reduced family support and restricted employment options.

Service such as nutritional support will be helpful to women and girls who are often responsible for this in the home. By ensuring CDNs are able to respond to the needs of CWD the project will ensure they and their families benefit from improved access to volunteers and professionals where available, who understand their needs and are trained to support them without resort to institutionalisation, plus improved access to local services and a reduction in stigma. This will allow CWD to access their right to ‘full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children’ (UNCPRD), to achieve their potential and increase the chance that they can live independently and contribute to society as adults. The project will provide an environment in which all children, including CWD are protected and enable parents to realise their right to raise their children. 4,464 of the children (668 CWD) reached by CDNs will be complex cases and referred by the CDNs for direct support from HHH/CiF. These families will benefit from support via our AFS model described in 3.7, which will achieve sustainable improvements across 5 key well being domains. >193 children (68 in Rwanda; 125 in Uganda; 104 male; 89 female, 77 CWD) in institutions in targeted districts will be transitioned into safe family environments where they will receive individualised care and protection (output 3). Family placements will prioritise children’s best interests and include reunification with birth/extended families, placement into foster/adoptive/kinship care (including specialist foster care for CWD). All children, particularly CWD, will benefit from a dramatically improved quality of life and standard of care, leading to improved health, education and wellbeing outcomes (as outlined in section 3.3). This will be achieved through the provision of tailored support to families receiving children via our AFS model (see section 3.7) and longer term follow up support and monitoring provided via CDNs to ensure benefits are sustained. AFS is a flexible programme, which will enable the project to identify and meet the specific needs of all marginalised groups including women/girls/boys/men/carers/CWD and their parents. CWD will have improved access to support appropriate to their specific disability and to mainstream and specialist services, via the two Community Hubs, including education/health/recreation helping them to limit/redress the impact their disability has had on their development, and overcoming barriers to transition into a home environment. Families of CWD will receive specialised support e.g. educational resources for children with learning disabilities. The project will achieve a major milestone in ensuring equity for CWD by ensuring they are not left behind in national reforms and demonstrating the first closures of specialised institutions to provide a model in both urban and rural settings. Children’s inclusion in community life will significantly improve as a result of attending the Community Hubs and they will experience a reduction in stigma and discrimination. CWD and their families will have increased awareness of their rights and improved ability to advocate for them and prevent their children from segregation in orphanages.Care leavers, CWD and their parents will be supported to set up peer support groups where they can share their experiences and build a support network in their local community. Group sessions for families/young adults/caregivers of CWD have been shown to be particularly beneficial as these families can often become extremely isolated and marginalised. Through the groups we have the opportunity to document and amplify the voice of this marginalised group, thus empowering them to educate the general population and inspire others in the same circumstances. The project will improve equity for all beneficiaries, improving voice, choice and control over decisions that affect them. Moving away from institutionalisation a ‘one size fits all solution’.

3.6 DESIGN PROCESSDescribe the process of preparing this project proposal. Who has been involved in the process and over what period of time? How have the intended beneficiaries and other stakeholders been involved in the design? What lessons have you drawn on (from your own and others’ past experience) in designing this project? Please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal.

The project concept has been informed by our DFID funded ESA regional project (April 2015-March 2018) which has catalysed regional action to reduce reliance on institutional care and fight child poverty. HHC has developed strong partnerships with NGOs from 7 countries (now formalised into our TAA) including 2 in Uganda (CiF and Alternative Care Initiatives (ACI)), 2 in Rwanda (AVSI and UCC -

who provide day care services for people with disabilities) and partners from Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, Ghana and South Africa. The project has built the capacity of NGOs to demonstrate and advocate for change for vulnerable children . Collectively the TAA partners identified the need for a regional  and inclusive demonstration project in differing national contexts and identified CWD as a priority focus due to the high numbers in institutional care in ESA, lack of models for their transition and the development of alternative care, and the consequent high risk that this group will be left behind. The specifics of the design process has been led by HHC and CiF (involving UK/global and regional staff and in-country teams) with involvement from relevant Government ministries and bodies including MIGEPROF /NCC/NCPWD in Rwanda and MGLSD in Uganda, local authority and community representatives and national and international NGOs. It responds to direct feedback from beneficiaries including children, parents and as well as project teams (frontline social workers /psychologists). At the heart of the project design is the roll-out of CDNs across  Rwanda and piloting of the CDN model in Uganda. This responds to feedback from stakeholders in both countries and draws on lessons and best practice demonstrated through phase 1 of reform in Rwanda which since 2011 has focused on the mainstream institutional system and acted as the key demonstration model in Africa. This work has been led by HHC in partnership with the GoR and the Programme Coordination Team (PCT) comprising NCC, UNICEF and Global Communities. CDNs have been a core part of the programme, developed across 8 districts and involving more than 2,000 local community members.  CDNs have been proved as highly effective in preventing family breakdown and supporting children’s transition from institutions. Since their development in 6 target districts no children have entered institutions. Only 4.4% of family placements from 11 institutions closed have broken down. The project will not only roll out CDNs to the target districts (ensuring national reach in Rwanda) but will respond to stakeholder feedback by placing increased focus on building the capacity of CDNs to support CWDs in communities including the transition of CWD from institutions. Feedback from members of existing CDNs in Rwanda highlighted that they lack confidence in supporting CWD and require more support to ensure full equity for this marginalised group. Feedback also highlighted the need for improved identification of CWDs living without support in communities. The success of the CDNs has been recognised by the GoR and NCC - In September 2016 the Executive Secretary of NCC expressed her support for CDNs and requested that HHC work with NCC in more districts to ensure improved provision of support mechanisms for children and families, with emphasis on CWD. In Uganda, contextual analysis, which included meetings with relevant Government stakeholders, enabled HHC and CiF to jointly identify the urgency and high potential for reform to be initiated in Uganda and the benefits of delivering this in parallel with the next phase of reform in Rwanda as part of a coordinated regional demonstration project. The design process in Uganda has been led by CiF with support from HHC in consultation with all key stakeholders including MGLSD as well as the relevant authorities in Kampala and Tororo, including Kampala Capital City Authority (specifically the Director of Gender and Community Services who is responsible for all the probation officers in Kampala Capital City including Makindye), the Probation and Social Welfare Officers (PSWO) in both Makindye and Tororo and the Deputy Chief Administration Officer and Resident District Commissioner in Tororo, the management of 3 target institutions already identified for this project in Tororo district  and ACI (our second Uganda NGO partner in our TAA, established in 2012 to support the Government of Uganda and others implement alternative care solutions). A formal MOU is in place with district authorities in Tororo District and CiF are negotiating an MOU with the authorities in Makindye, which will be in place before the start of the project. Feedback solicited from current and past beneficiaries of CiF has contributed to the project design. To inform joint programming by CiF and HHC recent focus groups in 2016 sought feedback from 17 adult carers (13 female, 4 male) including mothers, aunts, uncles and grandparents of 16 children aged between 2-6 years who had been reintegrated into biological or extended families from institutional care over the preceding 5 years. Children were also consulted with directly, using age appropriate methods. Feedback showed that families viewed the placement of children in their care as a long term situation and while having to work hard to manage on a small income, they were clear that children were no longer at risk of separation and institutionalisation. However, they highlighted a clear need  for more community engagement and support which will be addressed by this project through

the establishment of CDNs, in order to complement the monitoring provided post reintegration by CiF. This will reduce long term dependence on CiF and improve outcomes for children and families through formal community based gatekeeping and support mechanisms. The project design will draw on and contextualise the reform model demonstrated in Rwanda, incorporating locally developed approaches and models developed by CiF and their parters, including best practice for transition of children from institutions, the development of alternative family care and official mechanisms such as the National Alternative Care Panel (a body of professionals responsible for the assessment and approval of foster and adoptive care placements). The project will bring these approaches together to deliver comprehensive district-wide reform in line with HHC’s extensive experience of child protection system building and reform, which shows that it is vital to demonstrate reform at district level to showcase the wide-ranging benefits, provide local professionals and decision makers with know-how and influence policy makers to commit to eradicating orphanages. The design draws on evaluations of past initiatives in Uganda which, (in line with HHC’s own experience -see section 8.10) have clearly highlighted the shortcomings of initiatives focused only on the transition of children from institutions without any commitment to either end to the provision of institutional care facilities or establish community based machanisms to prevent the continued separation and institutionalisation of children such as an increase in gatekeeping and family support programmes to reduce families’ poverty and vulnerability. The knowledge, insight and technical skills of CiF and partners has informed the project design and will ensure the success of the implementation of this project. At district level the project design draws on a recent mapping exercise in Tororo District which identified the type and range of services and projects available to support children transitioning and those in at-risk families and will be informed by a similar exercise in Makindye which is currently underway and will be complete by the start of the project.  In this way the community resources are being leveraged to maximum effect increasing value for money. A key element of the project design are two pioneering closures of institutions for CWD in Rwanda. The GoR, MIGEPROF and NCC recognise that comprehensive implementation of the National Strategy is held back by the continued existence of a specialised institutions and that additional technical skills and resources are needed to achieve change for this group. As a result of our work to pioneer and demonstrate the successful placement of CWD from mainstream institutions into families there is increased recognition that DI for this marginalised group is possible. In 2016, NCC, UNICEF and NCPWD undertook research on centres for CWD (see section 3.2) to inform future interventions and are committed to a closure. Our past experience  demonstrates the power of a successful pilot project in securing the support of key stakeholders. Our pilot closure of Mpore Pefa Institution in Kigali, alongside a national survey of institutions in 2012 catalysed the National Strategy and the operationalisation of DI at national level. Recent consultation with management and staff at Gahanga Institution, identified as the likely pilot urban closure for this project, has informed our approach, in particular the type of interventions needed to ensure children’s successful placement into families.Our approach to working with children and families has been extensively informed by beneficiary feedback. This includes recent feedback in Rwanda, solicited through a child participation project from 90 children including CWD (50% boys, 50% girls) between 2016/2017, led by 19 young researchers who were themselves beneficiaries using appropriate activities (games, focus groups and drawing). CWD were given equal opportunity to participate through measures such as assistance with translation of sign language. Children identified poverty as a key driver of abuse and neglect and highlighted that CWD require special attention and care because they are unable to protect themselves. They recommended children live in families not institutions and emphasised the importance of ensuring that families are suitable in terms of living conditions and education and visited regularly by HHC professionals, local leaders and other agencies.

3.7 PROJECT APPROACHPlease provide details on the project approach proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 3.3. Why do you consider this approach to be the most effective way to achieve the project outcome? Please justify the timeframe and scope of your project and ensure that the narrative relates to the logframe and budget.

The approach is informed by our successfulng experience of leading child protection reform over the past 17 years – specifically catalysing strategically chosen demonstration projects which transform the lives of individual children directly and provide models for replication at scale.  Utilising this approach, in a flexible way to the context, the following critical elements are envisaged: Demonstration – National Scale and Local Pilot of CDN’s In partnership with relevant stakeholders we will establish community based mechanisms and alternative family care across target districts in Rwanda/Uganda to support children at risk of separation and those transitioning from institutions incl. CWD. Key to this is the development of 44 CDNs to provide gatekeeping services and proven to be highly effective in preventing family breakdown (full explanation of CDNs below). In Rwanda where CDNs have already been piloted and the GoR is keen to scale them nationally, we will work with NCC professionals to roll out 22 district level CDNs achieving national coverage. NCC professional/local authorities will then establish CDNS at sector level using our model/materials, monitored by district CDNs. HHC with CiF, will develop a training curricula, manual and protocol for the development of CDNs and provide technical assistance to CiF who will train PSWOs, Community Development Officers and other NGO staff and work alongside them in Tororo and Makindye to pilot 22 CDNs - testing/adapting the model to be locally relevant integrate with existing structures. This will include existing service mapping, to leverage all resources already available. CDNs will include appropriate representation from men/women, child/youth councils and relevant disability bodies (including NCPWD in Rwanda). Across Rwanda and Uganda we will work with professionals to train 540 foster carers to provide high quality care. We will train 1,381 community volunteers, paraprofessionals/professionals to identify/support children at risk including CWD. Training will promote the inclusion of women/girls/disabled people and other marginalised groups taking into account specific risk factors e,g. the increased vulnerability of girls to violence, leaving school early and remaining in the home (Girls are not over-represented in institutions). This will be addressed through a) representation of women in the volunteer recruitment to CDNs b) Sensitisation and training directly addressing the key risks c)  Incorporation of risks in the documented curricular. We will conduct research to document the impact of CDNs and develop a good practice guide to share the processes and key success factors with wider audiences.Demonstration - Active Family Support for vulnerable families. Through the CDNs and via HHC’s AFS approach we will provide prevention services and post placement support to 121,000 children at risk of separation or separated from families with a focus on CWD in Rwanda and Uganda. Parents of CWD will receive training on parenting/child rights. 5,840 children (including 1,000 CWD) accessing CDNs are anticipated to be complex cases requiring a more intensive approach that the CDNs will refer to HHC Rwanda / CiF.  Support is carefully tailored, ensuring efficiency of inputs and eliminating waste. This means resources can be used more flexibly to provide a greater level of support where required (e.g. CWD home adaptations). Local gov. professionals will work alongside our team/ CiF building their capacity to support children/families in the longer term. Support will be concluded when the family is able to function independently within a sustainable system of formal and informal support. All CDNs will be trained to improve the support provided to CWDs and their access to existing health, welfare and educational services.  Demonstration - High quality closures of institutions: We will transition 193 children from institutions into family based care, (125 in Uganda, 68 in Rwanda inc. 77 CWD). In Rwanda we will undertake the closure of two specialised institutions for CWD, the first and second in the region. In Uganda CiF, we will transition 125 children out of institutions in Tororo and Makindye and complete a pilot institution closure. This will be the first high quality closure in Uganda. Working alongside gov. social workers in Rwanda/Uganda we will place children into family-based care (reintegration with parents/extended families/foster care/adoption/independent living) in line with the child’s best interest, the UNGAC through a careful process of family tracing/individual assessments/tailored transition plans/support through our AFS and monitoring by social workers. The placements will be supported by the CDNs. Our approach to the transition of CWD will be based on our extensive experience (see section 8.10). The process will enable beneficiaries to voice their perspectives and input into service design. This will be assisted through the strength of the multi-media skills within CIF. Through various mediums we can document CWD’s voices to empower and ensure they are in a leadership position. The context in Rwanda is more favourable with respect to

CWD and safe return home to communities. The demonstration closure of an institution for CWD in Rwanda can help us develop evidence to educate communities in Uganda where is greater stigma in Uganda, prepare them for the return of CWD from institutions. The experience of closing an institution for CWDs and developing appropriate services will be documented and disseminated. Evidence shows that transitioning children from institutions into family environments achieves significant improvements. Of 578 children transitioned by HHC Rwanda, average scores across all 5 development indicators increased from 61% to 99% for children under 6 and from 71% to 91% for children over 6 within 18 months. Recruitment of champions and influencers from local to national to regional level. We will secure support and create local champions for DI including CWD by targeting key local influencers and opinion makers e.g. NGOs/church leaders/institution managers. We will build support from the public through 74 engagement sessions and dissemination of awareness raising materials to and dispel prejudice against disability. Care leavers, CWD parents and carers will be supported to form community peer support groups and advocate for their own rights. Research will investigate how attitudes to special needs change in response to project activities. We will lobby key decision makers/policy makers to adopt a best practice approach to DI and community-based mechanisms in Uganda and Rwanda via awareness raising materials, policy roundtables and opportunities for study/ exchange visits between Rwanda and Uganda. HHC’s policy paper on the case for the elimination of institutional care and it’s Q+A publication will be adapted for national audiences in and we will engage with the NGO community to ensure they understand and support DI and prevention efforts. Through the project we will contribute models, best practice and direct advocacy to influence the development of 7 national policies/guidelines/decisions forecast/targeted for development (in line with impact indicator 3) including in Rwanda an MOU signed to close pilot institution for CWDs / Reviewed guidelines on alternative care / a national Strategy for national childcare reform for CwDs and in Uganda: a Review of the National Action Plan on Alternative Care to incorporate the HHC model of DI and  the inclusion of the CDN model as the recognised government structure for OVC coordination.Scope. This project will be delivered over 3 years to allow time for HHC/CIF to work alongside relevant stakeholders to establish the community based services and the capacity of the stakeholders to sustain them in the long run. We estimate this on the basis of our previous experience, particularly in Rwanda. The scope of the project has been set to reflect the strategic requirement for scalable reform, recognizing the state of readiness and capacity to deliver.  *The CDNs will provide the following interventions to vulnerable children and families: 1. Preventing family breakdown through identification, support and referral to other services: CDN members will be trained in AFS enabling them to respond to families specific needs inc. CWD ensuring equity in access. CDN wills refer families to existing family strengthening services in the local community including income generation, nutritional support and play groups, and provide additional support and/or develop solutions to fill the gaps in local provision. This support might include food supplies, house repairs, counselling,access to income generation initiatives. 2. Seeking alternative family based care where separation of children from families cannot be prevented: identifying potential foster families (including for CWD)/alternative care options. foster families will be assessed, trained, accredited, matched, monitored by local professionals to ensure they have the competencies to care for the child. CDNs will help coordinate resources at community level to ensure the alternative family care placement are supported and monitored on a regular basis.3. Supporting children’s reintegration into families from institutions:led by NCC in Rwanda and the PSWOs in Uganda

3.8 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALING-UPHow will you ensure that the benefits of the project are sustained? How will costs of any posts or maintenance of infrastructure provided by the project be paid for after project funding finishes? Please provide details of any ways in which you see this initiative leading to other funding or being scaled up through work done by others in the future.

The project will deliver long-term positive change to children and families and put in place sustainable family-strengthening services. Integrating service development into existing state infrastructure and

government staff/systems/budgets will minimise project inputs and maximise sustainability. Through establishment of CDNs as a key gatekeeping and support mechanism (output 1) and building the capacity of local communities and professionals to manage and deliver these services (output 4) the project will ensure children and families have access to long term support after the project ends. Our focus will be on the establishment of these mechanisms, training to ensure they are operating effectively - minimising inputs/ maximising sustainability. Owned and run by local communities/ authorities, CDN members include community volunteers/local authority representatives who are supported independently of project funding, bringing on board contributions from other projects and initiatives operating in target areas. Long term, their sustainability will also be supported through the involvement of local professionals, responsible for managing the national network and by by training volunteers and paraprofessionals within target communities. In Rwanda responsibility for CDNs lies with the body of c. 60 NCC professionals, fully funded by the GoR ,and in Uganda, with the government funded network of existing professionals and local authority representatives including the District Probation Officer, Community Development Officers and para-professionals. 2 members of the project team (Senior Social Work Practitioners) will be based within the Kampala City Council authorities, providing increased capacity to support the achievement of the project. Once the benefits of these additional roles are demonstrated, we will advocate to the authorities to allocate additional funding (from their well resourced budget) to maintain them going forward. Benefits to children and families will be maintained not only through the continued existence of these mechanisms to identify and address risks and provide monitoring but also through the CDNs’ focus on using existing resources in a more effective way and targeting families’ sustainability.  CDNs help communities maximise access to existing services, putting in place coordination and referral mechanisms,  enabling cross-organisational collaboration, driving forward community-led initiatives to fill service gaps, and identifing local solutions to strengthening families. Very complex cases will be referred by CDNs to HHC/CiF for additional support. Our focus will be on ensuring families reach self sufficiency during the project lifetime. By supporting children and their families holistically through our AFS approach and working with the wider community to advocate for the additional support needed, the project will achieve long-lasting difference in children’s lives and influence attitudes towards marginalised groups. Local government professionals will work with our team in order to build their capacity to assess and support complex cases in the longer term. Gradual reduction of support will ensure that children’s needs are met and families are in a secure position to progress. A key measure of the sustainability of project is the very low rate of placement breakdown for children transitioned from institutions into families recorded, 4.4% in Rwanda/less than 3% in Uganda.  Public engagement sessions will raise awareness and dispel prejudices, supporting the sustainability of children’s placement in families. Project beneficiaries will play a key role in sustainability e.g. through the formation of peer support groups. The project is fully integrated with national policies the programmatic approaches of all key stakeholders in both countries (explained in detail in section 3.1). The project will unlock funding from the costly institutional system and redirect it towards more cost effective services. At systemic level institutional care is an inefficient use of funds. A cost comparison in East and Central Africa found that residential care is 10 times more expensive than community-based care (Swales 2006). The cost of supporting vulnerable children will ultimately be reduced through transitioning from institutional to community based care and met in the short term by this project and in the longer term through existing community based mechanisms (such as CDNs). Institutions in both countries are mainly privately funded (though in Rwanda the Government provides modest funding). Through our current DFID funded work in Rwanda we have demonstrated strong results in working with institution managers to redirect funding towards alternative services. 5 of the 9 institutions closed are now providing educational facilities, Private funding towards the largest institution has been successfully redirected towards alternative/prevention services. We will aims to replicate this success with the target institutions in Uganda and Rwanda. Several of the target institutions have expressed support for the provision of alternative services and the management of 1 has committed to providing alternative services; we will support them to secure the re-direction of funding from their donors. Both countries have the interest of a range of institutional donors, offering a significant opportunity to leverage this

funding to support family and community based care. The project presents significant opportunities for scaling up. In Rwanda it will support the GoR’s plans to end the institutionalisation of children by putting in place the necessary support at community level to facilitate the transition of all remaining children out of institutions. Our experience shows that a successful pilot project combined with targeted advocacy is key to securing the support of key stakeholders and achieving scale up. The pilot closures for CWD will provide a model for replication. In Uganda, the models for district-wide reform will influence the National Action Plan on Alternative Care presenting the opportunity for replication. In both countries the project will provide evidence to secure national political commitment and influence policy change, helping governments establish coherent policies across child protection/ education/health/economic development. Regionally, the project will accelerate reform by providing evidence and country/context-specific models for inclusive child protection reform. We will capitalise on this by documenting learning/best practice and sharing it with national/regional stakeholders.

3.9 SCALING YOUR PROJECT UP OR DOWNHow will you expand or reduce the scope of the project if your appeal income is different from what you have estimated it will be?

We have included this as a key consideration in our project design. This is reflected in the diversity and yet coherence of the project activities in multiple locations. This gives us the opportunity to dial up and dial down our interventions, whilst ensuring demonstration projects deliver learning that can be used for scale.  We have been conservative in our forecasts for eligible match to ensure there is an increased likllihood that the amount available to deliver the project goes up, not down. A modest under or overachievement in appeal income will be met by scaling DFID’s relative contribution towards the budget, subject to DFID agreement. This will enable us to maintain focus on preparing for the delivery of the project, rather than adjusting the plans. Where less DFID funding is available we will commit to meeting this through a greater allocation of our unrestricted funding and working to secure restricted co-funding from current and new supporters. If required, more significant variances in the availability of funding will be addressed through adjustments to the scale of the project, while maintaining the strategic importance/integrity of the project across the two countries. Any changes would be made in collaboration with stakeholders including our implementation partners and Government partners. This could include; reducing or expanding the geographic scope of the project, for example in Rwanda to focus the development of CDNs on districts with higher rates of institutionalisation/level of poverty. We are committed to ensuring our projects deliver sustainable change for beneficiaries while delivering impact at national level. In making adjustments we will work to maintain and maximise value for money, while also maintaining equity for marginalised groups, ensuring that children with disabilities for whom interventions are more expensive are not overlooked in order to save costs.

SECTION 4: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION4.1 How does your organisation approach the identification and management of risks associated

with the delivery of a project? What systems and processes do you have in place?Please also include with your application a separate risk register/matrix showing the risks associated with your proposed project and how you will mitigate them, for which you should use your own format.

HHC’s risk management policy is set by our Trustee Board and embedded in management and operations processes. It is reviewed with each strategic review cycle. Operational risks are assessed and reviewed annually. HHC distinguishes between internal risks (within our capability to shape and are kept to a minimum through careful management) and external risks (not in our capability to influence such as changing security situations). All risks are monitored carefully and mitigation strategies put in place as and when appropriate/ Risk are identified at all levels – from the strategic and governance level and cascades to to individual projects. A risk management register is used to monitor and evaluate risks and is reviewed quarterly. As an organisation, four basic strategies are applied to manage an identified risk: 1) Management or mitigation of the risk 2)

transferring the financial consequences to third parties or sharing it usually through insurance or outsourcing 3) avoiding the activity giving rise to the risk completely 4) assessing it as a risk that cannot be avoided if the activity is to continue and taking steps to cover the risk; such as an insurance policy that carries higher level of voluntary excess. Project level risks are assessed at the start of each project, detailed in a risk matrix and then regularly reviewed throughout the project lifecycle, with mitigation strategies updated accordingly. Following these principles we have attached a separate risk register matrix aligned to each of the delivery of the 5 outputs of the project.

4.2 ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGEWhat are the opportunities and the risks of the project in relation to environmental sustainability and climate change? Please specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the project is likely to have on the environment and climate change. Where relevant, please also specify what impact the environment and climate change are likely to have on the project. In each case, what steps have you taken to assess any potential impact?  Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative impacts, as well as how it will make use of opportunities to increase the positive impacts.

The project is expected to have a neutral impact on the environment and climate change. Environmental risks and climate change is not expected to significantly impact on the success of the project. However it is expected that the climate in Rwanda and Uganda may become warmer and wetter over the next 50+ years. There is an opportunity for this project to support the development of robust child protection systems and cohesive communities with increased resilience and adaptive capacities, able to identify and support vulnerable children and families without resorting to damaging institutional care. This will bring additional benefits if environmental or climatic change does lead to challenges such as irregular flooding and drought. In protecting vulnerable individuals/households by strengthening their resilience, including economic resilience, the project is helping to reduce the burden on the state or emergency responses in times of crises.

SECTION 5: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNINGThis section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget.

5.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? What tools and approaches are you intending to use? What training is required for partners to monitor and evaluate the project?

HHC will build an effective M&E system to maximise the project’s effectiveness and impact, with the logical framework fully integrated. Protocols for each logframe indicator will be agreed, specifying what is to be measured, how and by whom, and how collected data will be analysed. Indicators will capture data gathered through HHC’s existing custom designed measurement tools by in-country project teams, local authority and community stakeholders (i.e. CDNs/NCC) and partners. Data will be disaggregated by gender and disability. Data collection and storage processes and mechanisms will be set up and procedures for on-going training for staff collecting and quality checking data established. CDNs will regularly collect standardised data on beneficiaries reached and input into a database. Social workers will record detailed data on interventions through case management of children/families benefitting from AFS and children reintegrated into families from institutions, using a set of tested monitoring tools to track health, economic development, education, food security and nutrition for participating families. These monitoring tools track children and families situation during the course of our intervention and subsequent monitoring until social workers are confident that the family is no longer at risk. This period can be over 12 months. Along with individual support plans, beneficiary feedback is a core component of monitoring, with families/children consulted on their situation, needs and challenges. We will routinely verify the accuracy of data submitted. To ensure data quality, the M&E team will: Conduct verification visits to ensure quantitative data is in line with established standards; Provide oversight and technical assistance to assure integrity of information; Review data collection, maintenance, and processing procedures after every quarter to ensure that practices are consistently applied and provide adequate information. Monthly and quarterly project

performance reports will be prepared by the project implementation teams, drawing on data submitted by social workers/CDNs and Government stakeholders and beneficiary feedback. Reports will include narrative and statistical data, including reflections on challenges, opportunities, learning and an evaluation of project performance and will be used by the DFID Project Coordinator and other key staff to regularly review project implementation. Other ongoing monitoring mechanisms to be used include work plans, quarterly meetings to review program data to ensure that the project is on track, field visits, annual reports.  Feedback meetings with Government partners will occur on a quarterly basis to discuss challenges, agree the course of action to address obstacles and fully utilise linkages with other programs. Project implementation teams/local stakeholders/national partners, will require training/support on: setting up/ use of data collection tools, setting up user friendly data storage, aggregating/ analysing collected data/information and producing monthly/quarterly performance reports. An internal mid-term and external end of project evaluation will be conducted to measure programme outcomes and distil lessons learned. HHC’s Regional M&E Manager will be responsible for overall M&E management/data quality/outcome-level analysis and reporting, with support from the Learning & Research Manager, in collaboration with our national Data Manager in Rwanda and CiF’s M&E Officer. Field based data collection will be led by project teams, or in the case of CDN data by the community members, trained and supported by our project teams. In the set up phase additional technical assistance will be allocated by HHC’s M&E Manager. Baseline data is already available as a result of our current DFID funded regional work.

We will carry out inception workshops at the start of the project in Rwanda with Hope and Homes Rwanda staff and in Uganda with our implementing partner Child’s i Foundation to provide capacity building in M&E, including data collection tools, to agree roles and responsibilities, project planning, and to communicate all donor compliance (including IATI) requirements. The workshops will be facilitated by UK-based Hope and Homes for Children Finance, Grants Partnership and M&E staff. These will be vital to enable all project implementers to have a clear understanding of programme, finance, and donor compliance. A clear implementation plan and project coordination mechanisms will be set up at the inception workshops. The aforementioned monitoring and evaluation protocols will also be agreed. The workshops will be held in Rwanda and Uganda.

We will also organise annual partner meetings at the end of each year to enable all partners involved to review and reflect on the last 12 months implementation, share successes and challenges, further develop shared activities such as regional advocacy initiatives and plan for the next 12 months. The year three meeting will be an opportunity to discuss results, seek feedback and participant analysis of successes and challenges and feed into the final project evaluation.

5.2 Please use this section to explain the budget allocated to M&E. Please ensure there is provision for baseline and on-going data collection and an end of project review. If you think there is a case for undertaking an independent mid-term review of the project, or a final independent evaluation (eg. if the project is testing a new approach, or working in a particularly difficult or sensitive context, or is high value), please include costs for this in your budget.

M&E is vital to a successful project and to disseminating learning. Critical to this is ensuring that adequate capacity exists at regional and national levels through HHC’s Regional M&E Manager (0.7 FTE), national Data Manager in Rwanda (0.45 FTE), and CIF’s M&E Officer (0.5 FTE), with appropriate support and oversight from the UK through HHC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Manager - Global (0.1 FTE). As a result of successful capacity building delivered through our current DFID funded project towards our regional and national M&E functions, these functions will lead on M&E. We will deliver inception workshops and annual partner meetings and we will undertake an internal mid-term and external final evaluations. We consider investment in a final evaluation to be justified due to the complex and strategic nature of the project across 2 countries, and the opportunity for this evaluation to play a key role in gathering and disseminating the learning from these pioneering

demonstration models to be shared effectively. The independent nature of the evaluation will encourage beneficiary disclosure and support advocacy efforts with key stakeholders who have the potential to replicate and support project outcomes. The budget allocated to M&E costs (staff and evaluations) totals £119,649, 5.7% of the overall budget.

5.3 Please explain how the learning from this project will be incorporated into your organisation and disseminated, and to whom this information will be targeted (e.g. project stakeholders and others outside of the project). If you have specific ideas for key learning questions to be answered through the implementation of this project, please state them here.

Accumulating learning and its incorporation in the organisation is critical to the achievement of the project outcome. It will contribute to excellence in implementation of national child protection reform in Rwanda and Uganda; accelerate momentum for change across the region and contribute to the continuous improvement and development of HHC’s global programmatic approaches.During the project timeframe project teams will be supported to capture learning from their implementation, including drawing on beneficiary feedback, to enable approaches to be continually adapted and new approaches tested. This will be facilitated by the DFID Project Coordinator and Learning and Research Manager. Learning will inform and be documented through a range of approaches; eg the development of best practice guidelines and training curricula for the development of CDNs. As described in section 3.7 the project will be implemented in full partnership with stakeholders and learning disseminated both through formal training and via supported transfer of learning at grass roots level. Targeted awareness raising materials designed to influence and educate policy makers will be developed and circulated and 35 policy and decision makers will participate in study visits between Rwanda and Uganda, providing the opportunity for Ugandan representatives to see the feasibility of reform via the demonstration models and for representatives from both countries to share learning, challenges and best practice. These Government representatives from Rwanda and Uganda will also be invited to participate in a policy roundtable event on DI and community based care providing further opportunity for knowledge exchange, discussion and policy development. Specific ideas for questions to be answered through the implementation of this project will be 1)  How can community based services leverage community resources most effectively into targeting the most vulnerable families 2)What are the key protective factors to support CWD living in families and accessing community based services 3) What do children returning to communities find most helpful in their transtition and most challenging?4) What are the core elements of the model that remain irrespective of the context? And what are the key factors to be accounted for when contextualising the approach, for example the CDN’s 5) How can inclusive DI change attitudes towards community based care for children with disabilities?Answers to these questions will inform programme development and dissemination. For example re Q)5 whilst a significant number of CWDs have been reached through phase 1 of reform of Rwanda and a number of specialist services piloted, there is not yet a best practice example of reform of an specialist institution. This project will generate significant evidence, learnings and a methodology to encourage replication both nationally and regionally. A specific strength of working in partnership with CIF is their communication expertise in Uganda. This will allow us to develop a number of media assets which will document the work, the voices of all participants and use them in our raising awareness, training, and advocacy work. We also anticipate significant opportunities to achieve added valued through the dissemination of learning through our regional work in ESA, with oru regional hub providing the ideal platform from which to promote  learning and evidence to catalyse and accelerate reforms across the region  Best practice guidelines / publication on the model of CDN and institutions for CWD will be disseminated drawing on 2 different country contexts to provide guidance that can go beyond country boundaries, and specifically in response to the gaps/learning questions identified by the TAA. Through our regional networks we will encourage the continuation of study visits from NGOs and Gov representatives. The in-depth assessment of residential institutions for CWD in Rwanda will provide an invaluable overview of the situation of children living in those specialised institutions for CWD, in order to provide recommendations to

respond to children’s needs with a focus on children with disabilities (inclusion). The assessment will clearly detail the findings and characteristics of institutions for CWD in Rwanda and will provide a proper baseline on CWD living in institutions to inform future projects of the government and other actors, setting the basis for providing appropriate interventions regarding the promotion of child welfare and system reform, and equal opportunities for all children. The assessment also has the potential to feed into a possible future National Strategy for Childcare Reform for Children with Disabilities.

Across two countries (Rwanda and Uganda), we will research the perceptions and attitudes of social workers and other community leaders involved in gatekeeping towards CWD living with families, and CWD in institutional care with a view to identify the barriers that stand against the full and meaningful integration of CWD into community life and access to basic services. We will also explore attitudes of the above-mentioned categories towards the use of institutional care for children and CWD in the two countries of action, to understand the differences and allow us to identify the evidence necessary to influence the specific attitudes and perceptions held by social workers and community leaders which drive the institutionalisation of CWD.

Finally, the SMS pilot in Rwanda and Uganda will provide important evidence as to the effectiveness of SMS in improving outcomes for children. The evidence will help to inform the scale up of this technology across Rwanda and in other geographical contexts where it can complement existing reform initiatives.

SECTION 6: EXPERIENCE/TRACK RECORD6.1 What is the value added of your organisation in delivering the proposed intervention? What is

your organisation’s track record in delivering similar interventions in similar contexts for a similar cost? Please include the details of the development results achieved. If your organisation has not delivered this type of intervention before, what learning/evidence underpins your proposal?

HHC is a world leader in high quality child protection reform (see section 8) and brings proven experience of delivering similar interventions in similar contexts for a similar cost to achieve positive development results. In Rwanda our in-depth understanding of the context, highly experienced team and strong working relationship with the GoR and all key stakeholders has been developed over an intensive seven year process since we pioneered the closure of the first institution for children in the country and catalysed the development of a national strategy for the reform of institutional care. Subsequent closures and the implementation of alternative family care in a range of contexts (urban and rural), including closure of the country’s largest institution, with children severely delayed in their development as a result of their institutionalisation, has positioned HHC in a key role to catalyse CDN’s nationally and embark on the full closure of an institution for CWD, taking reform to the next level. HHC has drawn on its wider organisational experience in the Central and Eastern European context, for example Romania where it has catalysed national reform inclusive of CWD, with a multiplier effect across the region. Using targeted, hard to reach institutions, ensuring no child has been left behind, HHC has been able to demonstrate tangible change and with this advocate for scale. Key members of our global team are recognised experts in DI and have built the capacity of our Rwandan team and regional staff. While Rwanda and Uganda have regulatory frameworks in place they lack the expertise, government systems, resources and infrastructure to adequately and fully implement reform, particularly relating to CWD.  HHC’s expertise across all aspects of the project design will ensure technical strengthening and quality of standards in implementation, leading to better outcomes and project sustainability. With learning from Rwanda and the strong partnership in place with CiF we are ideally positioned to pilot the delivery of the CDN model in Uganda and support the transition of children from institutions into families. HHC will add significant value in terms of its ability to catalyse regional reform. As described in section 3.3. HHC is

spearheading reform in ESA and recently led the development of the TAA. With our support the TAA has agreed a number of regional and national priorities, and mapped out a schedule for implementation with a view to convening key stakeholders including government agencies in their own countries, in order to negotiate buy-in for national DI. The alliance will be the ideal platform for the dissemination of evidence, learning and models developed through this project and will add significant value in enabling the alliance partners to demonstrate the value and feasibility of reform.

SECTION 7: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION7.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Please outline the management arrangements for this project. This should include: A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners. This should

refer to the separate project organogram, which is required as part of your proposal documentation.

An explanation of the human resources required (number of full-time equivalents, type, skills).

An explanation of how your organisation will manage the delivery of the project, including arrangements for managing delivery partners and how they will report to your organisation.

HHC UK and HHC Rwanda are part of the same global org.. HHC UK will maintain close working relationships with the Rwanda country office and CiF and provide project leadership to ensure smooth programme management, monitoring progress, challenges and risks through regular communication, financial and narrative progress reports and country visits.  HHC Rwanda will be responsible for implementation of national work in Rwanda and provide support to CiF in Uganda. The Rwanda National Director, as National Coordinator for Rwanda, will lead national staff and project delivery. Project activities will be carried out by national/regional staff (see organogram).CiF is our implementing partner for the Ugandan national work, carried out by a range of national staff (see organogram). CiF’s CEO will be accountable to HHC for project delivery and financial management. CiF’s National Director, acting as National Coordinator for the project, will lead national staff and project delivery. CiF’s National Director ,directly managed by CiF’s CEO will report to the DFID Project Coordinator, as described in M&E section. HHC will manage this delivery partner through it’s own DFID Project Coordinator, with oversight from HHC’s Director of Global Advocacy & Programmes, who manages the broader relationship with this partner.  Strategic oversight sits with our Director of Programmes & Global Advocacy, part of HHC’S UK Management team. DFID Project Coordinator is responsible for full project coordination/delivery and coordinating inputs from HHC’s global and ESA regional team, Rwanda project coordinator (HHC) and Uganda project coordinator (CiF). This post manages the planning/coordination of activities, M&E and supports key relationships. CiF team at headquarters level (UK) will provide financial management /strategic guidance for project implementation in Uganda. HHC Global and ESA Regional Teams will provide thematic expertise and skills to support key capacity building, advocacy, research, partnership and M&E activities across the project. HHC National Director will act as National Coordinator in Rwanda,  responsible for delivery of the project in country, including national partnerships, project implementation, capacity building, national M&E and financial management in Rwanda. CiF Programmes Director will act as Project Coordinator in Uganda, and is responsible for delivery of the project in country, including national partnerships, implementation, capacity building, national M&E and financial management in Uganda.

7.2 NEW SYSTEMS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND/OR STAFFINGPlease outline any new systems, infrastructure, and/or staffing that would be required to implement this project. Note that these need to be considered when discussing sustainability and project timeframes.

The project will draw on existing systems, infrastructure and staffing in place in HHC’s national and regional teams in Rwanda, as well as through our partner CiF. One new role of DFID Project

Coordinator is required. This key post holder will be an existing member of HHC’s regional team, who has built strong experience and understanding of deinstitutionalisation and child protection system reform in Africa; specifically in Rwanda and Uganda. The DFID Project Coordinator will therefore be involved in all project preparation and manage the project’s set up and delivery from the start date.

7.3 COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTORSHow will you coordinate project implementation with other development actors and ensure no duplication of effort (including with other DFID funded activities)? How will you work with local/national government and private sector providers?

This project will be delivered in full coordination with all local/national government and NGO initiatives. In Rwanda HHC is the lead partner for the GOR for the reform of the child protection system. We have been working closely with MIGEPROF and the NCC for 6 years to build a pool of financial and human resources for child protection reform. NCC’s role is to ensure the coordination of promotion and protection of children’s rights interventions in Rwanda. Specifically; they are responsible for recruiting and retaining the professionals who will be responsible for scaling up the CDNs, for facilitating work with local authorities and other stakeholders and for developing regulations, mechanisms and guidelines in support of the child protection reform. We have a MoU with NCC, which incorporates capacity building for the NCC social workforce under which we have trained 82 new social workers and psychologists who are the core child protection and deinstitutionalization staff working across all districts and institutions in Rwanda. HHC provides ongoing supervision to these NCC staff and the Ministry of Finance has committed to sustain their employment under District government structures in the future. This project will be implemented through ongoing coordination with the Programme Coordination Team (PCT) which involves the key government and non-government actors in this space - NCC, UNICEF, HHC, Global Communities, Save the Children, CRS, AVSI and SoS Children’s Villages - and is used to coordinate the implementation of all initiatives within the National Strategy and avoid any duplication of effort or structures.  We will work in close partnership with the targeted district authorities, and particularly their Disability Mainstreaming Officer, to ensure local ownership, contribution and sustainability. Collaboration with other NGOs including Save the Children, International Rescue Committee and World Relief as well as organisations with specialist expertise in disability will be maintained through information exchange to coordinate our actions, avoid duplication and provide mutual support and benefit, based on the skills, resources and initiatives of each NGO. We are actively engaged in the Rwanda Civil Society Child Rights Coalition “Umwana ku Isonga” and will continue to collaborate, and maximise project impact, through this forum. HHC communicates regularly with DFID Rwanda to ensure coordination, learning and collaboration with DFID’s initiatives.In Uganda CIF’s existing strong relationship with the relevant district and sub-county authorities will ensure their full involvement in project activities and coordination with all existing initiatives. CiF has an MOU with the Resident District Commissioner of the Tororo District to work with the district authorities to undertake DI and and MOU with the MGLSD to develop alternative care, strengthen social workforce andprovide technical expertise to the Government on Policy. At national level, CiF is a key member of the National Child Protection Working Group and a founding member of the Alternative Care Task Force which provides strategic leadership of alternative care initiatives in Uganda, providing an important forum for coordination of resources. Project activities will be delivered in full coordination with all existing child protection structures from district to village level including the District Orphan and Vulnerable Children Coordination Committee who will review foster and adoption applications, the Sub County Orphan and Vulnerable Children Coordination Committee, Police Child and Family Protection Unit, and the Local Council at village level. CiF will work alongside, and provide training to all key state professionals with a primary focus on District Probation and Social Welfare Officers (PWSO) and Community Development Officers who are the custodians of children’s affairs at District level. In Kampala where the overstretch of the PSWO is a key bottleneck in resolving child protection issues, this will include the placement of two Senior Practitioners within the PSWO office. CiF met with DFID Kampala to discuss programme development in 2017 and plans to establish regular meetings and coomunications to ensure coordination, learning and collaboration with DFID’s initiatives in Uganda.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF APPLICANT ORGANISATION AND ALL IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for your organisation AND for each implementation partner

8.1 Name of Organisation Hope and Homes for Children

8.2 Address East Clyffe, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP3 4LZ, UK

8.3 Web Site www.hopeandhomes.org

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

UK -1089490

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): £7,787,830Income (£ equivalent): £7,787,830Exchange rate: n/a

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2015To: 31/12/2015

8.6 Number of existing staff 47

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 3.05 FTE

New staff 0 FTE

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) X Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget which this partner will directly manage.

A): Responsibilities: first-line management oversight, strategic programme planning, coordination, technical support, M&E support, financial management. Primary liaison with DFID.

B): £392,246, 18.8%8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience and track record in relation to its

roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage). What development results has this organisation achieved which are relevant to this proposal (ie for similar interventions in similar contexts for a similar cost)? Please include details of this organisation’s capacity to deliver and learn from evaluations, where possible including an example. Please list any external evaluations of this organisation’s work (relevant to the proposed project) which have been completed and whether they are available.

HHC is a world leader in high quality child protection reform, with a model of change recognised as best practice by the WHO and UNICEF. The project approach builds on HHC’s experience over 22 years across more than 15 countries of transforming child protection systems through direct interventions, capacity building and advocacy and building regional capacity to take a cohesive approach in lobbying for, and shaping child protection policy.

In Central and Eastern Europe, we catalysed a regional transformation reducing the number of children in institutions from over 1.2 million to less than 400,000. We are now working to catalyse similar regional transformations in Africa. Our pan-African experience has been developed in Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Sierra Leone and Eritrea. In Sudan, HHC successfully piloted an adoption and fostering system; officially adopted in 2011 in Sudan’s National Policy for Children without Parental Care – a policy HHC helped develop and is now implementing country-wide, providing a model for change in other Islamic countries. In South Africa HHC has completed a national survey of the institutional care system and is now working in partnership with the Gauteng Department of Social Development to tackle reliance on institutional care and support development of alternative family care. In Rwanda, as the lead implementing partner for the National Strategy we have pioneered child protection system reform in partnership with the GoR and UNICEF with a focus on the mainstream institutional system. This project will build on and replicate successful interventions demonstrated by HHC, during phase 1 of reform in Rwanda. Building on the demonstration work in Rwanda and with support from DFID HHC recently launched a regional capacity building project in ESA with the aim of building momentum for DI by strengthening the capacity of partner NGOs in 5 target countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan and Rwanda. Support has included training in our model of reform, field visits for partner staff to our programme in Rwanda and regular opportunities for learning exchange between NGO partners and our Rwanda and International Programmes Teams. The training provided has been extremely well received and led to the development of an active partnership with Ugandan NGO CiF. This partnership will be supported by our extensive experience of working with national partner NGOs to transfer and adapt proven models/approaches across a number of countries including Sudan, South Africa and Moldova.Relevant evaluations of our work (available on request) include:-2016 independent evaluation of HHC’s DFD GPAF funded project in Sudan (2013-2015) ‘Developing and Supporting Family Care for the most vulnerable babies in nine States of Sudan and reforming the childcare system for orphans and vulnerable children’.-2016 independent evaluation by Maestral International (commissioned by UBS Optimus Foundation) of HHCs approach to the delivery of systemic change for vulnerable children and families.-2015 Independent evaluation of the program by the Know How Centre on “Strategic Deinstitutionalisation and Child Care Reform in Bulgaria and Moldova”8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund

management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

HHC is experienced in the management of large grants from major international funders. Recent grants include: DFID Aid Match: Regional action to reduce reliance on institutional care of children and fight child poverty in East and Southern Africa (ESA) through a capacity building approach. £2,057m, Apr 2015 -Mar 2018 DFID GPAF: Development of alternative family care in 9 states in Sudan £504,145 Jan 2013 – Dec 2015 UBS Optimus Foundation: mapping the use of institutional care for children under the age of three in South Africa £114,532 Dec 2014 to Jan 2016VELUX Foundations – strategic DI for the eradication of institutional care for under 3s in Bulgaria Eur 1,725,000 Oct 2014 September 2019 Breadsticks Foundation: core programme costs £250,000 2017 £250,000 20158.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)

How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

HHC’s child protection policy, reviewed and updated in 2015, lays down procedures to be adopted by everyone working for, or with, HHC to ensure that children with whom HHC comes into contact, either directly or indirectly, are safeguarded from abuse. The policy has been approved by the Board

of Trustees and applies to all HHC staff (including Trustees, all UK-based, UK-appointed and country office staff), as well as volunteers and other representatives, including partner organisations.The CEO has the final responsibility for the implementation of the Child Protection Policy. The Senior Management Team (SMT) is collectively responsible for the development of policy and good practice.  This includes the development and implementation of policies and local procedures, monitoring and benchmarking procedures and identifying and providing the necessary resources. HHC has a named Child Protection Manager, situated at Management Group level, who is responsible for making sure that the child protection policy is up-to-date, understood, implemented and followed. At country programme level country directors hold final responsibility for developing and implementing local child protection policies and procedures based on and consistent with the global policy. Child Protection Focal People within each country team are responsible for championing and monitoring the child protection policy at country programme level. Each country programme conducts an annual child protection review, develops an annual child protection plan and produces quarterly child protection reports. All HHC staff, Trustees, volunteers and other partners associated with HHC receive training on Child Protection as part of their induction programme. This includes HHC policy and local procedures. In 2013, we developed a core child protection training module that forms the basis of all internal and external child protection training. The training module covers: Definitions and descriptions of child abuse and neglect; Causes and effects of abuse and neglect on children; Child protection laws and systems; HHC local child protection policy, reporting procedures and code of conduct; How to prevent abuse and neglect; How to recognise warning signs that a child may be experiencing abuse or neglect; How to respond to allegations/suspicions of child abuse and neglect; Child protection for children with special needs. Child protection training is provided annually for HHC staff. Training is reviewed on an annual basis to take into account any changes/development in legislation and any lessons learnt. Everyone involved with HHC knows what to do in the event of a child protection incident, ensuring a prompt and appropriate response. The Child Protection Reporting Framework is available and visible in each HHC office. Each local framework includes the name and contact details of the child protection focal person for that country programme. Serious child protection issues are immediately escalated to the Child Protection Manager. We believe that it is important to work in partnership with children and their parents/carers, to ensure that children are protected from abuse and to equip them to be active agents of their own protection.8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the

last 5 years? How was the fraud detected? What action did your organisation take in response? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

We have not experienced any fraudulent activity within the last 5 years. We minimise the risk of fraud activity by: identifying fraud on the organisational risk register; implementing strong financial controls systems which are reviewed by external auditors and internal control review exercises; focussing on control principles such as segregation of duties, reconciliation and tiered authority and signature levels; ensuring accounting records are complete and accurate e.g. keeping original invoices and receipts; checking that financial controls are not overridden, particularly regarding cheque signing, during staff holidays; controlling access to assets and systems using secure logins and passwords; reminding staff, volunteers and trustees of their responsibilities for fraud prevention and detection; having a whistleblowing policy for reporting fraud; having a Major Incidence Response Plan which covers fraud.8.14 DUE DILIGENCE: How has your organisation assessed the capacity and competence of this

organisation to deliver the proposed intervention and to manage project funds accountably? What is your assessment of their capacity and what is the evidence to support this? How will your organisation manage the risks of under-performance and financial mis-management by this organisation throughout the lifetime of the project?

n/a

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF APPLICANT ORGANISATION AND ALL IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each) Please copy and fill in this section for your organisation AND for each implementation partner8.1 Name of Organisation Hope and Homes for Children Rwanda (HHC Rwanda)

8.2 Address HHC Rwanda, Nyarutarama Road Corner, Gasabo District Kigali, Rwanda

8.3 Web Site n/a

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

Rwanda - No.27/DGI&E/12

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): RWF 1,072,844,185Income (£ equivalent):£1,005,602Exchange rate: 1066.87

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From:    01/01/2016To:        31/12/2016

8.6 Number of existing staff 33

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 6.45 FTE

New staff 0 FTE

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) X Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget which this partner will directly manage.

A): Responsibilities: project delivery in Rwanda, training and support to CiF in UgandaB): £886,846, 42.5%

8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience and track record in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage). What development results has this organisation achieved which are relevant to this proposal (ie for similar interventions in similar contexts for a similar cost)? Please include details of this organisation’s capacity to deliver and learn from evaluations, where possible including an example. Please list any external evaluations of this organisation’s work (relevant to the proposed project) which have been completed and whether they are available.

In Rwanda, HHC is at the forefront of child protection system reform and has extensive experience of project management, programme implementation, capacity building and advocacy. Since 2000 they have demonstrated a range of appropriate family strengthening models including Community Hubs, CDNs and ACTIVE Family Support (documented as promising practice in the publication, “Making Decisions for the Better Care of Children: The role of gatekeeping in strengthening family-based care

and reforming alternative care systems” Better Care Network and UNICEF, 2015. In partnership with MIGEPROF, HHC Rwanda closed the first institution in Rwanda in May 2012, piloting community based family support services (supporting over 500 vulnerable families), developed a range of prevention and alternative care services and provided family based care for all 51 children living in the institution. HHC Rwanda provided the evidence base and model which catalysed the development and approval of GoR’s Strategy for National Child Care Reform in 2012 (independently verified in the publication; Keshavarzian, G. & Bunkers, K. (2013). HHC Rwanda is the GoR’s leading implementing partner for the Strategy. With UK Government (DFID Aid Match) support they are reforming the institutional based system to a family strengthening and community based system. 515 children have been reintegrated into family-based care (2015-17) as a result. CDNs are a core part of the project, supporting circa 15,000 children from families at risk of separation to date and have been highly effective in preventing family breakdown and supporting children’s transition from institutions. HHC Rwanda has clearly demonstrated the successful placement of CWD from institutions into families (59 with DFID’s support) and with local partners piloted alternative care services, including Community Based Living and specialised foster care for CWD. Internal Rwanda project evaluations have shown significant improvements in children’s outcomes across all wellbeing domains including, physical, psychosocial, motor and educational performances. For example, children under age six showed an increase across all five development indicators from 61% at initial assessment to 99% after 18+ months. For children and young adults over the age of six average scores increased from 71% at initial assessment to 91% after 18 months. HHC Rwanda has built the capacity of social welfare actors, including CDN members, Community Volunteers and NCC professionals (social workers and psychologists) to support the process of DI and the delivery of family-based alternative services in communities. HHC’s pilot project in Rwanda is seen as a best practice example of alternative care and child protection system strengthening in Africa. The project led to secured political support for the inclusion of CWD in the next phase of reform (elsewhere in proposal?). HHC Rwanda has developed strong relationships with national and regional stakeholders, sharing expertise to strengthen the quality of alternative care initiatives. In Rwanda, through advocacy and training they changed attitudes and built the capacity of key stakeholders, including MIGEPROF, NCC, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Justice, NGOs, media and institution managers. HHC Rwanda has played a key role in HHC’s ESA regional capacity building project; providing training to the network of regional partners, including Ugandan NGOs spearheading alternative care, hosting study visits and coordinating the regional alliance. M,E&L data from the first phase of technical training successfully delivered to 4 national partners from Rwanda and Uganda (DFID Aid Match project), has enabled continuous improvements to project design, including the use of more examples of specific cases of children/families and role play to practice different approaches to working with children and families. HHC Rwanda employs local staff who speak the local language/s and understand the local culture and challenges beneficiaries face in their varying community contexts. Thus, strengthening their ability to engage with beneficiaries and deliver solutions that meet their needs; resulting in positive, sustainable outcomes. A due diligence review (2012) was undertaken by Global Communities in respect of award to HHC as sub grantee of £425,000 USAID funding.

8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

HHC Rwanda has experience of managing and reporting on large funds. Recent grants include:DFID Aid Match: Regional action to reduce reliance on institutional care of children and fight child poverty in East and Southern Africa (ESA) through a capacity building approach. £2,057m, Apr 2015 -Mar 2018USAID/DCOF and World Learning (SPANS/GSM RFA #9) as sub awardee in partnership with CHF International: To reintegrate children living in institutions in two districts of Rwanda into families and prevent institutionalisation through development of alternative care, with significant focus on capacity

building of families, communities and professionals and childcare systems. £425,000, May 13-Apr 15 UNICEF – Rwanda: To build the capacity of Rwandan sub-national social workforce. £150,000, Jun 13-Feb 14

8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

HHC Rwanda’s child protection policy is based on the organisational policy for HHC; differing only in providing local procedures for responding to child protection incidents, allegation or concerns. These procedures have been put to the test following a small number of incidents: the team was able to follow the procedures correctly and responded in a timely and professional manner to the incidents, ensuring the immediate and long term safety of the children concerned. HHC Rwanda has a Child Protection Focal officer within the country team (as referred to in HHC’s 8.12), who is responsible for championing and monitoring the child protection policy at country programme level. All HHC Rwanda staff and partners have been trained in the policy and in child protection generally. HHC Rwanda conducts an annual child protection review, develops an annual child protection plan and produces quarterly child protection reports. HHC Rwanda has also developed a child protection whistleblowing policy which aims to facilitate HHC staff in reporting any concerns regarding the behaviour of their colleagues.

8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the last 5 years? How was the fraud detected? What action did your organisation take in response? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

We have not experienced any fraudulent activity within the organisation in the last 5 years. The risk of fraud is minimised through the same preventative measures described in HHC UK section 8.13.

8.14 DUE DILIGENCE: How has your organisation assessed the capacity and competence of this organisation to deliver the proposed intervention and to manage project funds accountably? What is your assessment of their capacity and what is the evidence to support this? How will your organisation manage the risks of under-performance and financial mis-management by this organisation throughout the lifetime of the project?

HHC UK and HHC Rwanda are both part of the same global organisation. Therefore a formal due diligence process, necessary with independent implementing partners, is not required. Instead HHC Rwanda’s delivery of the proposed intervention will be directly overseen by HHC UK, who are ultimately responsible for project implementation. HHC UK maintains close working relationships with the Rwanda country office and provides project leadership to ensure smooth programme management. Their performance in the management of project funds is monitored by our UK based team. Funding requests are made monthly against agreed detailed project budgets. These are reviewed by HHC UK and any arising queries resolved before the transfer of funds are approved. Monthly and quarterly financial reports are also prepared by HHC Rwanda which detail expenditure incurred. The reports are reviewed by our UK Finance team and any issues arising resolved in conjunction with the local team. An internal financial audit of HHC Rwanda is conducted annually during the first quarter (Jan-March), which feed’s into HHC’s external organisational audit. The internal financial review is based on a programme of system checks. Additional spot checks and tests (on a random basis) occur as part of the organisation’s financial management and internal control framework. HHC UK provides ongoing training and technical assistance to support the team in the management of project funds, including identifying cost savings to maximise value for money.HHC Rwanda have proven that they have the capacity, and a high level of competence in the delivery of large-scale, multi-year projects that entail high value project fund management.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF APPLICANT ORGANISATION AND ALL IMPLEMENTING PARTNER

ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each) CiF to draftPlease copy and fill in this section for your organisation AND for each implementation partner8.1 Name of Organisation Child’s i Foundation

8.2 Address Abbots Rift, Monastery Gardens, Rotherfield, TN6 3NB, UK

8.3 Web Site www.childsifoundation.org

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

UK- 1126212Uganda- S. 5914/8381

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): £620,333Income (£ equivalent):Exchange rate:

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2015To:31/12/2015

8.6 Number of existing staff 92 (90 in Uganda and 2 in the UK)

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 18.2 FTE

New staff 0 FTE

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) X Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget which this partner will directly manage.

A): Responsibilities: project delivery and M&E in UgandaB): £805,212, 38.6%

8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience and track record in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage). What development results has this organisation achieved which are relevant to this proposal (ie for similar interventions in similar contexts for a similar cost)? Please include details of this organisation’s capacity to deliver and learn from evaluations, where possible including an example. Please list any external evaluations of this organisation’s work (relevant to the proposed project) which have been completed and whether they are available.

CiF was established in Uganda in 2009 to pioneer alternative care for children. Since then CiF has been at the forefront of child protection reform, contributing to the development of national policies, the establishment of national gatekeeping mechanisms and in demonstrating change for vulnerable children and families through project delivery. Key achievements include the establishment of the National Alternative Care Task Force in 2010, contributions to the National Alternative Care Framework, and to draft and cost a National Action Plan for Alternative Care in 2015, and influence

towards the amendment of the Children’s Act by the Government of Uganda in May 2015. In addition CiF established the National Alternative Care Panel before handing it over to the MGLSD and run the ‘Ugandans Adopt’ national adoption campaign on behalf of the Government.CiF’s programmes include prevention work, the development of emergency foster care and the placement of children from institutional care into biological and extended families, foster care and domestic adoption.  They have successfully transitioned 1,500 children from institutions into families. In 2011 CiF established a National Social Work Centre to provide social work training in Alternative Care and developed an Alternative Care curriculum with Makerere University. With partner organisation ACI, CiF has worked with the Ugandan Government to establish an Alternative Care Implementation Unit within the MGLSD to co-ordinate the assessment and registration of institutional care facilities. Significant project delivery experience includes: 1) Providing social work technical expertise to a USAID funded programme ‘De-institutionalisation of Orphans and Vulnerable Children Uganda’. Training was provided to Government officials, social workers at residential care facilities, local Government officials and community volunteers to strengthen informal child protection mechanisms and mobilise communities to monitor childhood wellbeing. 2) Involvement in a Terre des Hommes funded ‘Strong Beginnings Programme’ which worked with 20 institutional care facilities to improve social work practices to commence the reintegration of children into families and to prevent the unnecessary entry into their institutions. 3) Current responsibility for case management for ‘Keeping Children in Healthy and Protective Families’ an applied research project to study the impact of a parenting program on child wellbeing outcomes among children being placed back into family-based care from residential care across 3 districts. Evaluations of project results (available on request) have enabled significant learning. For example key learning from the Strong Beginnings Programme included that more focus needed to be placed on monitoring and post placement support for children reintegrated into institutions. This approach has been adopted by CiF, who have also developed their approach drawing on HHC’s AFS model. Other key learning highlighted the risk that improving standards with no structured transformation programme results in cosmetic improvements to the existing infrastructure, rather than meaningful change for children.

8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

Recent major grants include: Terre des Hommes - Lead organisation to strengthen national government alternative care unit and transform 3 districts in Uganda and train social work force- €678,586- April 2014 – January 2016 ChildFund DOVCU (USAID)- Provision of Social Work technical expertise to de-institutionalise children from 12 districts. - $401, 605- July 2014 – March 2017 CRS 4Children (USAID) - Case management for 640 reintegration cases for a randomised control trial- $1,350,155- September 2016 – August 2019

8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

CiF aims to safeguard children from abuse and exploitation, in line with Article 19 of the UNCRC. The majority of children with whom CiF works will have experienced some form of abuse. Their aim is to protect them from further abuse by placing them within the care and love of a family so that they can enjoy their childhood without fear, go to school, be part of the community and have the chance to fulfil their potential in life. With a recently updated child protection policy in 2017, CiF will meet its commitment to safeguard children through the following means:Awareness- they have ensured that all staff and others are aware of child abuse and the risks to children. All staff members received training in child protection and undergo subsequent refreshers annually. The Child Protection policy is translated into the local language to ensure comprehension.Prevention- they have ensured, through awareness and good practice, that staff and others minimise the risk to children, ensuring, through promoting children’s identity, life skills and

participation, that children, wherever possible, are active agents in their own protection.Reporting- they ensure that staff and others take seriously any concerns raised and that there are clear steps to take regarding the safety of children.  There is a clear reporting structure and incident form that all staff has been trained on.  A reporting procedure is visibly displayed in all CiF premises.Responding- they ensure that appropriate and effective action is taken to support and protect children where concerns arise regarding possible abuse. A child protection focal point person has been identified within the organisation.CiF has also ensured that Child Protection is identified as a specific goal in all programme designs including through promoting children’s participation in programme design and implementation.

8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the last 5 years? How was the fraud detected? What action did your organisation take in response? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

CiF has not experienced any fraudulent activity within the last 5 years. The risk of fraud activity is minimised by: identifying fraud on the organisational risk register; implementing strong financial controls systems which are reviewed by external auditors and internal control review exercises; focussing on control principles such as segregation of duties, reconciliation and tiered authority and signature levels with clear delegated authority limits at every managerial level; ensuring accounting records are complete and accurate e.g. keeping original invoices and receipts; checking that financial controls are not overridden, controlling access to assets and systems using secure logins and passwords; having a whistleblowing policy for reporting fraud.

8.14 DUE DILIGENCE: How has your organisation assessed the capacity and competence of this organisation to deliver the proposed intervention and to manage project funds accountably? What is your assessment of their capacity and what is the evidence to support this? How will your organisation manage the risks of under-performance and financial mis-management by this organisation throughout the lifetime of the project?

HHC has undertaken due diligence with CiF – including a review of CiF’s governance and registration; financial management policies; organisational policies (e.g. security, image policy); self-assessment of CiF’s child protection policy and practices; review of annual accounts; review of strategic and programmatic documents. We have worked in partnership with CiF since 2015 and have an MOU. Within this framework, HHC has supported CiF’s capacity development through exchanges, technical assistance and evaluation of its work. For example, HHC has undertaken an evaluation of CiF’s reintegration work (available upon request). CiF was trained and became an advocacy partner under HHC’s current project with DFID. The result of this due diligence process and partnership experience to date is that we assess CiF to be a valued and competent partner that has unparalleled experience and expertise to deliver this project in Uganda. HHC will ensure management processes, including financial reporting to manage the risk of under performance or financial mismanagement.

SECTION 9: CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATIONPlease check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form.All documents must be submitted by e-mail to: ukaidmatch@dfid.gov.ukMandatory Items Check

Y/NProposal form (sections 1-7) Y

Proposal form (section 8 - for applicant organisation and each partner or consortium member)

Y

Project Logframe Y

Project Budget (with detailed budget notes) Y

Risk register/matrix Y

Project organisational chart / organogram Y

Communications Plan - 2 documents: C1 (communication plan form) and C2 (communications activity timetable)

Y

Written evidence of confirmed appeal communications partnership(s), e.g. an email or letter (one for each)

Y