Search for Common Ground | Understanding Differences ...



|GTF Number |170 |

|Short Title of Programme |Football-Based Media to Strengthen Good Governance and Transparency |

|Name of lead institution: |Search for Common Ground |

|Start date: |1/8/2008 |

|End date: |1/8/2011 |

|Amount of DFID Funding: |£4,067,219 |

|Brief Summary of Programme: |Search for Common Ground (SFCG) is an international non-profit organisation that promotes |

| |peaceful transformation of conflict. SFCG’s mission is to transform how individuals, |

| |organisations and governments deal with conflict - away from adversarial approaches and |

| |toward cooperative solutions. Under the GTF, SFCG through its media arm, Common Ground |

| |Productions, works with CSOs in at least 10 countries to develop a TV/radio drama series |

| |called The Team. The show is a metaphor for co-existence. Identifiable and empathic |

| |characters – footballers, their friends and families – demonstrate how cooperation |

| |transcends ethnic, economic and religious differences. SFCG encourages social |

| |responsibility, positive engagement of citizens between one another, their families, their|

| |communities and their government. |

|List all countries where activities have taken or will take |Angola, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, DRC, Guinea, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco, Nepal, |

|place |Sierra Leone |

|List all implementing partners in each country |See separate Appendix A1 |

|Target groups – wider beneficiaries |Elected officials, civil society groups and leaders and people who are most often |

| |marginalised, including women’s associations and youth group members. |

|Lead Contact: |Deborah Jones, Executive Producer |

2. List of Acronyms

AB = AB Picture Company - Nepal

CGP = Common Ground Productions

CSO = Civil Society Organization

M&E = Monitoring and Evaluation

MFA = Media Focus on Africa

JNB = Jean Noel Bah Productions

RTI = Radiodiffusion Télévision Ivoirienne

SFCG = Search for Common Ground

SGBV = Sexual and Gender-Based Violence

SNRT = Société Nationale de Radiodiffusion et de Télévision

UPEACE = The University for Peace

3. Executive Summary

SFCG works to transform the way the world deals with conflict: away from adversarial approaches toward cooperative solutions. Through themes that dramatize the root causes of conflict, the television and radio series, The Team, creates a vehicle for dialogue and reconciliation around these conflicts specific to each country in which we work. Issues can be viewed and discussed in ways that are non-confrontational. Outreach programs that complement the series, reinforce messages and further engage citizens and their leaders, so that all parties are aware of their rights and responsibilities. This document captures the middle phase of this three year, multi-country project and the progress made from start of the grant through March 2010.

Country Activity Progress

Making The Team is a project that is implemented in stages. The process starts when partner CSO’s and media partners engage with SFCG to ‘discover innovative ways to address governance issues.’ [1] With stakeholders and partners, our country programs and local producers develop a set of themes that form the basis of the dramatic series. The results to date are as follows:

Kenya: With our Kenyan partner, Media Focus on Africa (MFA) we have created two seasons (13 episodes of The Team) for both television and radio. Season 1 was broadcast and re-broadcast on Citizen TV, the nation’s most watched television station. We have been consistently rated in the top ten. The radio series was broadcast on Radio Jambo. The series are show in cities as the tent pole of the outreach programs that are conducted in collaboration with local CSOs. We have concentrated on 8 locations where the violence post election was most severe: Maethare, Kibera, Kisumu, Naivaisah, Nakuru, Kakamega, Mombasa and Eldoret. Social networking tools are extensive. Baseline and mid-term evaluations that document the detail of these activities were sent prior to delivery of this document.

Cote d’Ivoire: With our Ivorian partner JNB, we produced 2 seasons of L’Equipe for television. The first season—16 episodes began broadcast in July 2009 on RTI. Additionally, the series is being seen via mobile cinema up country where RTI does not broadcast. JK Multimedia produced the outreach campaign. Memos outlining the campaign is attached are attached as Appendices B 1 and B2. A baseline was conducted by UPeace and was sent to KPMG prior to delivery of this document.

Morocco: With our Moroccan partner, Ali N Prod, we produced and are currently broadcasting 26 episodes of L’Equipe on SNRT, the government broadcaster. The series started broadcasting February 22, 2010 and is seen twice weekly. The audience ratings have been consistently high with around 1.9 million viewers per week. As the series progresses, audiences increase. By episode 14, the series had 2.5 million viewers or a 27.9% of the audience share. The Outreach component launched two weeks after the first broadcast. Over 60 debates have taken place across the country in which participants discuss the issues covered in the series. Social networking tools are being implemented. We conducted focus groups prior to the writing of the series. A baseline has been conducted and the data is being analyzed. However, an outreach report is attached to this document as Appendix B3

DRC: With multiple local partners, we wrote and produced 12 episodes of an all-women’s version of L’Equipe in Kinshasa. The series is currently in post-production and is tentatively set for broadcast in July 2010. A baseline will be conducted by UPeace in late May. This series will also be seen across DRC via mobile cinema.

Nepal: With local partner AFN, we produced a radio series. With local partner, AB and we created 13 television scripts and launched pre-production prior the end of March 2010. We anticipate the TV series will air later in 2010 on Kantipur TV.

Liberia: With Talking Drum Studio in Monrovia, we wrote 10 episodes of The Team in January 2010. Pre-production commenced in March.

Sierra Leone: With Talking Drum Studio of Freetown, we wrote 10 episodes of The Team in January 2010. We are using the same local production team to produce both the Liberian and Sierra Leone series. Due to the rainy season in West Africa, we will produce the Sierra Leone series in the fall of 2010.

The final four (post-March 2010): Angola, Burundi, Indonesia and Guinea. Progress on these countries as of this writing will be included in the work plan attached to this document.

Achievement of Purpose: We are on target to achieve the purpose of this grant and in the next report will summarize the results of the broadcast of the series and the impact of the outreach activities for the series that have not yet reported or not yet come on line.

4. Programme Management

The exchange rate from GBP to USD has continued to fluctuate throughout the year as pound sterling continues to be devalued. SFCG has received fewer dollars than originally anticipated in our budgets, and this has minimized the scope of our operations in some areas, though we have still been able to achieve great results within these budget constraints. USD is the primary currency in our target countries, and as the value of the pound continues to drop, there is a real concern that our output in the third and final year of the grant will be adversely affected.

The monthly exchange rate history is listed below:

|Monthly GBP vs. USD Exchange Rate |

|Date |GBP |FX | USD |

|June 1, 2009 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6195 | $ 6,586,861.17 |

|July 1, 2009 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6568 | $ 6,738,568.44 |

|August 1, 2009 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6573 | $ 6,740,602.05 |

|September 1, 2009 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6250 | $ 6,609,230.88 |

|October 1, 2009 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6020 | $ 6,515,684.84 |

|November 1, 2009 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6450 | $ 6,690,575.26 |

|December 1, 2009 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6502 | $ 6,711,724.79 |

|January 1, 2010 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.6129 | $ 6,560,017.53 |

|February 1, 2010 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.5987 | $ 6,502,263.02 |

|March 1, 2010 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.5237 | $ 6,197,221.59 |

|April 1, 2010 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.5151 | $ 6,162,243.51 |

|May 1, 2010 | £ 4,067,219.00 |1.5322 | $ 6,231,792.95 |

5. Working with Implementing Partners

The partners from last year: JNB, Media Focus on Africa, Ali N Prod and UPeace, have not changed.

Nepal: SFCG entered into a new partnership with the AB Company Pvt. Ltd. (ABC) for the production of a television series in Nepal. Owned and operated by Producer/director Bushan Dal, we chose this production company because of Bushan’s expertise. He’s one of the few internationally recognized directors from Nepal but he also has a commitment to the development of new writers and technicians. Thus, we are able to build local capacity and produce a series with high entertainment and production values.

Sierra Leone/Liberia: Due to a lack of on-the-ground, third-party expertise in these countries, SFCG was granted an exception by DFID to apply funding directly to these projects through Talking Drum Studio rather than working with partners as we do in other countries. Common Ground Producer’s Executive Producer, Deborah Jones developed the scripts with local writers in each country. Talking Drums Studio producer, Emrys Savage from Sierra Leone is the producer in charge of the production for both countries. This producer has experience in documentary film and in radio. We sent him to our Kenya program to learn some basics of producing for television from our partners in Nairobi. We hope to continue this way of sharing skills and knowledge across the country programs during the coming year.

DRC: DRC has little capacity to produce television series and no full service production companies. Thus, we contracted four partners to produce the series: Cyberpictures (camera and editorial), Image Drama (wardrobe and staffing, including production staff), Trheese-Traiteur (catering) and Bisimwa’s Family Business (vehicles and transportation).

6. Risk Assessment

|Country |Risk |Potential impact: |Probability |Mitigation measures |

| | |High, Medium, Low | | |

|Kenya: |censorship |Low |Unlikely: govt support |Alternative broadcast: satellite: CFI |

|TV/radio | | |has been forthcoming | |

|Kenya: Outreach|Tribal violence |medium |Unlikely given |Change venues |

| | | |methodology/ | |

| | | |participants | |

|CIV: TV |censorship |low |Unlikely given the |Alternative broadcast: |

| | | |themes already tackled |Satellite: CFI |

|CIV: Outreach |Political violence|medium |Unlikely given |Change venues |

| | | |methodology/ | |

| | | |participants | |

|Morocco |censorship |low |Unlikely: govt already |Satellite: CFI |

|TV | | |approved series | |

|Morocco |Govt interference |low |Unlikely: due to govt |Reassess ways to communicate ideas |

|Outreach | | |approval of themes in | |

| | | |series | |

|DRC |censorship |Low-medium |Journalists are primary|Alternative broadcast: CFI |

| | | |target: we use fiction| |

| | | |thus it’s unlikely | |

|Nepal |Violence and |Low/Med/High |High: has occurred |Production will accommodate by rescheduling. Broadcast not|

| |strikes due to | |during writing phase |impacted. |

| |political | |however project | |

| |situation | |unaffected | |

|Liberia |Distractions by |High |Low-med |Plan activities well ahead. This also presents an |

| |CSOs due to | | |opportunity since the series targets good governance via |

| |elections | | |creating good election processes |

|Sierra Leone |North/South |Low |Low |22 March 2010 statement from UN Security Council commends |

| |political divide | | |SL on its governance work. Multiple broadcast outlets |

|Angola |Inability to |high |low |1. Develop relationships with broadcaster well before |

| |broadcast due to | | |broadcast. 2. Satellite broadcast 3. Mobile screenings. |

| |bureaucracy | | |4. Radio series that also gets out messages |

|Guinea |Political |Medium - high |Med-high for political |SFCG ceased broadcast to wait out instability during last |

| |instability around| |instability |period. Likely would do the same |

| |elections | | | |

|Burundi |Social tension due|high |Med |The themes of L’Equipe are a social unifier, thus |

| |to leadership | | |development of these during this time of transition is |

| |change | | |critical. Buy-in from all sides will do much to mitigate |

| | | | |potential problems. |

|Indonesia |Inability to |medium |medium |Produce instead a radio version of the series so as not|

| |interest the | | |to waste resources |

| |broadcaster | | | |

7. M&E Arrangements

Our original agreement called for 4 major evaluations: Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Morocco and Nepal. Due to Nepal’s difficulties with the scripting process, our production in DRC came on line first. Thus, we are substituting DRC for Nepal. As of this writing---May 2010---the evaluators are planning the baseline for DRC. Nepal will conduct focus groups and it will have an evaluation but it will occur later. The full working plan for all activities is attached to this document.

8. Log frame changes

No changes

9. Emerging impact on governance transparency

The two programs that best illustrate the emerging impact are in Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire. Please note that the indicators included below are samples. Both baselines and a mid-term evaluation of Kenya have been conducted. These were sent to KPMG prior to the submission of this document.

Case Study 1: Kenya

|GTF programme Number: 170 : Kenya |

|Programme logframe indicator: Indicator 2.1. measures the increase in the number of citizens interviewed who cite an improved ability to |

|collaborate and problem solve around the themes dealt with in The Team and addressed in the outreach activities |

|What is the evidence? The chart below demonstrates improved capabilities to address issues of corruption – one of the main themes addressed in |

|The Team. |

|[pic] |

|What has changed? When asked about how to handle a difficult situation in a government office, the overall comparison between midterm and |

|baseline evaluations showed a positive change in attitude of respondents. There was a decrease in the tendency to ‘give bribes’, ‘use an |

|influential person’ and an increase in ‘insisting on the right procedure |

|Who has benefitted? Citizens, particularly youth and youth leaders |

|How has the change occurred? Change is occurring through the intertribal discussion groups that are associated with the mobile screenings. These|

|discussions happen over the course of several months. |

|Why is this change useful? The mobile screenings are composed of people from tribes that have been in deadly conflict. When people from all |

|tribes share similar problems with issues like corruption they begin to see that everybody has a problem. And it results in a willingness to work|

|together on solutions. |

|Where has this change occurred? We’ve concentrated on the 8 areas that saw the most violence post election: In 2 Nairobi slums: Kibera and |

|Maethare plus Kisumu, Mombasa, Kakamega, Naivasha, Nakuru and Eldoret. |

Case Study 2: Côte d’Ivoire

|GTF programme Number: 170: Côte d’Ivoire |

|Programme logframe indicator: 1.2 Evidence of improved responsiveness by local government officials to the issues raised by local |

|communities related to themes in L’Equipe and in outreach activities |

|What is the evidence? Local leaders and youth engage with one another in question and answer periods following the mobile screenings. Local |

|leaders answer questions posed by youth on a wide variety of topics. |

|What has changed? Prior to these discussions, there were few if any discussions such as these in the bush towns in Cote d’Ivoire and |

|particularly little interaction between youth and leaders. Thus the discussions have changed the interaction between these two groups |

|Who has benefitted? Youth and local leaders but also other citizens in that they can see the possibilities of engagement |

|How has the change occurred? Mobile screenings and facilitated discussions following the screenings |

|Why is this change useful? The question/answers sessions have allayed fears from youth on certain topics. |

|Where has this change occurred? Danane, Bandoakou[2] Guiglo, Gangoa, San Pedro, Abidjan: activity report cited below accompanies document |

10, 12. Cross-cutting Issues and Innovation

In each of the countries, we have used the TV drama + mobile cinema + facilitated discussions. In some countries we also use radio (Kenya) to deliver the same message and in all countries we’re implementing social networking tools to urban audiences via internet, cell phones, etc. We’ve found that though the localized context is different in each country making the storylines different, the approach is effective everywhere.

The issues that cross border vis-à-vis ‘governance’ are similar both in what beneficiaries believe is possible (see #13 on empowerment) and how they interact with those in power at all levels.

We’ve worked extensively on changing the power relationship by showing what a better citizen-leader relationship might look like and by facilitating dialogue between citizens and between citizens and their leaders in different forums.

We use different approaches to target different audiences: to target urban youth, we use social networking: the internet, Facebook, SMS. We broadcast on different networks and use different platforms to reach different audiences. In other words, the innovation is to make sure that while the basics of the program are similar, the details and the way we target the beneficiaries changes depending on context. And the way we facilitate the engagement between citizens and leaders is very strategic.

For example, in Kenya, with the first season, we targeted CSOs and youth leaders, organizing them in facilitated dialogue. The content of the series was easily identifiable to a mass audience. The series is a success and we were able to garner positive attention from leaders – from high levels like the Minister of Education – but also from local leaders. Thus, in season 2, we will engage the leaders by asking them to join the youth groups as ‘advisors’ thus, making it more in their best interest to become engaged.

We think the sequencing of the topics covered in the television series is important because in order to engage citizens and leaders on difficult topics, we must first gain their trust by showing issues on which people can find common ground.

Additionally, in each country in which we work, the issue of ‘communication’ arises. Viewers in Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire and Morocco comment that this series is the first time these issues have been dealt with on television. Additionally, in the discussion groups in each of the three countries, participants consistently talk about how grateful they are for being able to express their feelings between one another ---either between rival tribes, social groups or even between students and teachers. From the Morocco outreach report by Bernardo Monzani, DME specialist for SFCG Morocco:

“…… [Discussions] are often the first time that students have the opportunity to communicate freely on the key topics, among each other but even more importantly with teachers. Communication between pupils and teachers is generally absent during regular class time, according to the facilitators.

…… the participants commented how they appreciated the series and thought that it was the first time such important topics were discussed in such a format on TV.”

11. Progress towards Sustainability

a. Sustainability of services:

In each country we build capacity of the writers, directors, technicians and producing partners so that when the GTF grant concludes, each of the partners can continue to make television and radio series within his/her own country but each will also be able to compete on the international stage. Last year, L’Equipe from Côte d’Ivoire was selected to compete in Fespaco, the most prestigious film/TV festival in Burkina Faso.

b. Sustainability of impact:

Kenya. Collaboration and networking: Dozens of members of the CSOS who have been involved as participants in the mobile screenings and discussions have mobilized across Kenya and created their own actions. There has been a deep desire from citizens to engage with one another across tribal lines in a variety of activities. CSOs have formed for the purpose of screening The Team in more remote places of the Rift Valley and Nyanza province. These have formed on a spontaneous basis and there is no reason to think this activity will cease. One enterprising group applied and was awarded a grant from USAID to continue show the series. The Ministry of Education granted access to government schools, thus we created a pilot program in 24 schools. That program will be expanded in the coming year and will be reported end of March 2011.

Côte d’Ivoire: The SFCG country program uses the episodes of L’Equipe in a wide variety of activities and it has become a popular tool with other donors like UNICEF.

Morocco. The series is highly popular and the outreach programs have been successful. As of this writing, it is too early to determine the depth of the project with the stakeholders/beneficiaries.

As we’re readying the other series for broadcast, we’re modelling the outreach programs on these highly successful series.

External Interest: The Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire series attracted interest from and is being broadcast by CFI (Canal France International) in sub Saharan Africa. It can currently be seen on satellite in:

Botswana, Cameroon, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

13. Learning from GTF

Program Design: Upstream program design should include as many stakeholders and partners as possible. This process immediately creates local ‘ownership’ that is very personal. The more communities have a stake in the success of this project, the better. Planning of outreach activities that follow the broadcast of the series should begin even at this early stage.

On the series: The Team Decisions on important issues to dramatize should be decided early. However, a degree of flexibility should not be overlooked so that partners/producers can react to new issues that may arise during production. One example: In Côte d’Ivoire, the government asked to engage positively with the SFCG country program on an issue involving voter registration---and SFCG did engage on a project. Simultaneously, we were able to work this issue into a script for L’Equipe. This specific episode can be used repeatedly by partners as the election approaches.

The key factors in determining whether or not change in relation to governance and transparency is achieved in different contexts as a result of civil society interventions:

Empowerment of individuals: Civil society interventions like The Team project can show individuals that each citizen has it within his/her power to make positive change; that each person can be a leader in his/her community and leadership doesn’t necessarily require that one is an elected official – although everyone should have the chance to become an elected official should he or she so desire.

Leveraging the desire of citizen engagement: The most influential strategy has been to combine the mobile cinema screenings with the discussions in locations that have seen considerable violence. Most citizens---including elected leaders--- want peace but they don’t know how to get it.

Evidence of innovative practice: Kenya: Local CSOs are creating localized programming to spread the message spread by The Team. Côte d’Ivoire: Local officials and youth leaders are using L’Equipe as a leverage point to connect with formerly disenfranchised groups – like ex-combatants. Each “Team/L’Equipe” project has social networking/new media component.

Significant social change via work funded by GTF: The Team uses fictional television and radio drama ---a soft power style --- to tackle thorny issues around governance

The series in each country deals with one or more of these issues, thus informing viewers on key issues like:

• corruption

• elections

• tribalism

• impunity

• abuse of power

• gender

• the environment; health issues related to poverty

• child labour

• trafficking

• women’s education

• freedom of the press

• rape

• HIV/AIDS

• Country-specific knowledge-based issues like: voter registration, participation in the electoral process and access to public services like how to obtain a birth certificate or a physicians’ advice to a young mother about keeping her child safe from typhoid.

This is an innovative approach in that it opens up the social space, creating an egalitarian environment in which all citizens can and do participate and learn.

Lessons about working with partner organizations:

Capacity of local partners should be realistic. If training is required prior to the project---particularly technical training ---- time should be taken and budgets reassessed to accommodate.

The capacity of local researchers is low particularly when collecting qualitative data (interviews). We have to compensate for that.

Conflict resolution training for local facilitators is highly effective.

Annexes

Annex 1

SFCG/GTF Activities Achievement rating scale.

1= fully achieved

2 = largely achieved

3 = only partially achieved

4 = very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings

5 = not achieved

|Activity per country |1-5 |A judgment statement on |Comments to explain the extent of progress including recommendations |

| | |progress so far with |for key changes to ensure better achievement of objectives |

| | |evidence to support this | |

|Kenya Script writing training |1 |Training manual and script| |

| | |writers lists available | |

|Kenya TV production Season 1 |1 |Hard copies if each | |

| | |episode available | |

|Kenya TV broadcast Season 1 |1 |Series seen on Citizen TV |Also seen on CFI across sub-Saharan Africa |

| | | | |

|Kenya Writer development Season 2 |1 | | |

|Kenya Production Season 2 | | | |

| |1 | | |

|Kenya Mobile Cinema Screening Season 1: |1 |Mobile cinema reports |Film Aid did a separate evaluation on this |

| | |available as well as | |

|Conflict Resolution Training of Facilitators | |facilitators training |The discussion facilitators requested a training in Conflict |

| |1 |manual |Resolution. This was an unintended positive consequence of the |

| | | |intervention. |

|Kenya Music Video |1 |Hard copy available |Produced currently being distributed |

|Kenya Social networking sites of The Team |1 |Facebook page | |

|Kenya The Team website |1 | | |

|Kenya Video distribution plus |1 |Available in hard copies | |

|Viewers guide booklets | |including distribution | |

| | |list | |

|CIV Script writing training |1 |Training manual and script| |

| | |writers lists available | |

|CIV TV production Season 1 |1 |Hard copies if each | |

| |1 |episode available | |

|CIV TV broadcast Season 1 |1 |On national State TV. | |

| | |Broadcast schedule | |

| | |available | |

|CIV Mobile Cinema Screening Season 1 |1 |Mobile cinema and other | |

| | |outreach reports available| |

|CIV Music Video |1 | |Played on TV as part of PR campaign prior to launch of season 1. |

| | | | |

|CIV writing season 2 |1 | |Video being distributed |

|CIV production season 2 |1 | | |

|Morocco writing development |1 |Episodes, synopsis and | |

|26 episodes | |character bible available | |

SFCG/GTF KENYA Achievement rating scale.

1= fully achieved

2 = largely achieved

3 = only partially achieved

4 = very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings

5 = not achieved

|Objective Statement |Achievement rating |Logframe indicators |Baseline indicators |Progress Against Indicators |Comments on changes over last year including |

| |for year | | | |Unintended impacts |

| | | | |Survey at mobile |Midterm values | |

| | | | |cinema screening | | |

|Purpose: Citizens have |2 |% increase of citizens |2.85, 3.30 |6.50 |7.09 |Participant perceptions of The Team’s media |

|increased skills and knowledge| |interviewed who cite an |and 2.78 | | |coverage surrounding these issues were |

|of collaborative problem | |improved ability to |(averages for |Average on a | |overwhelmingly positive in comparison to other|

|solving, thereby becoming more| |collaborate and problem |a proxy |scale of 1-10 | |local Kenyan drama coverage; for 13 of the 15 |

|effective at engaging | |solve around the themes |indicators |with 1=not at all| |identified issues, results were statistically |

|constructively on governance | |dealt with in The Team |related to |and 10=very much)| |significant indicating higher scores in the |

|issues at a local level. | |and addressed in the |handling | | |midterm evaluation as compared to the |

| | |outreach activities |conflicts- | | |baseline. |

| | | |seek a | | | |

| | | |neutral third | | |Almost all respondents said that The Team was |

| | | |party, | | |effective in addressing these issues (97.7%). |

| | | |negotiate with | | |Just under a third stated that The Team was |

| | | |the other, and | | |‘very effective’ in the way that they were |

| | | |forgive and | | |addressed (29.2) |

| | | |forget, | | | |

| | | |respectively | | | |

| | | |on a scale of | | | |

| | | |1-4, with | | | |

| | | |1=not at all | | | |

| | | |and 4=often) | | | |

|Outputs 1: |2 |% of viewers interviewed|3.12 (average for a proxy |8.54 |9.24 |As an integral part of the project, Mobile |

|Enhanced awareness and | |and/or outreach |question assessing the |average on a | |cinema screenings were used to trigger |

|attitudes of viewers of The | |participants who |statement: “Together |scale of 1-10 | |discussions that would inspire citizens to |

|Team about the possibilities | |demonstrate a desire to |everyone achieves more” on|with 1=not at all| |take positive action. Participants reported: |

|and responsibilities regarding| |improve tribal and local|a scale of 1-4, with 1=not|and 10=very much)| |That they are more open and accepting of |

|their tribal and national | |relations, linked to |at all and 4=often) | | |others, particularly from other tribes. |

|identities. | |viewing The Team and | | | |The screenings and subsequent discussions |

| | |participation in | | | |helped them develop individual confidence and |

| | |outreach activities | | | |self discipline and learn how to accept |

| | | | | | |responsibility for their own actions. |

|Output 2: |3 |% of officials’ |Victims of rape: 2.25 |Will be reported in final |We are making a deliberate effort with Season |

|Officials, who have watched/ | |interviewed who |Police impunity: 4.65 |evaluation |II programming and outreach to include members|

|listened to The Team, have | |demonstrate their |Class divide: 2.33 | |of local authorities and civil society in |

|increased respect for HR and | |respect for human rights|Gender divide: 2.63 | |mobile cinema screenings. Some of those |

|the rule of law | |and the rule of law, for|Averages reported by key | |members appeared in some screenings but more |

| | |victims of rape, police |informants for local | |efforts will be made to target them. Their |

| | |impunity, class and |government responsiveness | |presence, and hopeful engagement with citizens|

| | |gender divide, and who |to these themes, on a | |on their actions, will contribute to meeting |

| | |can link it to viewing |scale of 1-10 with 1=not | |the project ouptut 2 & 3. |

| | |The Team and/or |at all and 10=very much | | |

| | |involvement in outreach | | | |

| | |activities | | | |

|Output 3: |3 |% increase among the |Rights of victims of rape:|7.04 |7.78 | |

|Citizens perceive their | |general viewing |71% reported that they | | | |

|governments to be more | |population of their |were not treated fairly in| | | |

|respectful of HR and the rule | |perceived understanding |the court system | | | |

|of law | |of human rights and | | | | |

| | |their ability to claim |Police impunity: 3.33 and | | | |

| | |rights for victims of |4.65 are averages reported|5.64 |Will be reported| |

| | |rape, police impunity, |in interviews, | |on in the final | |

| | |ethnic/tribal, gender |respectively, on | |report | |

| | |discrimination and mob |citizen/community/governme| | | |

| | |violence, linked to |nt involvement, and local | | | |

| | |viewing The Team and |government responsiveness,| | | |

| | |participation in |on a scale of 1-10 with | | | |

| | |outreach activities. |1=not at all and 10=very | | | |

| | | |much | | | |

| | | | | |7.89 | |

| | | |Ethnic/tribal |6.50 | | |

| | | |discrimination: 7.0 and | | | |

| | | |3.5 are averages reported | | | |

| | | |in interviews, | | | |

| | | |respectively, on | | | |

| | | |citizen/community/governme| | | |

| | | |nt involvement, and local | | | |

| | | |government responsiveness,| | | |

| | | |on a scale of 1-10 with | | | |

| | | |1=not at all and 10=very | |8.03 | |

| | | |much |7.41 | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | |Gender discrimination: 3.1| | | |

| | | |average of perceived | | | |

| | | |discrimination against | | | |

| | | |women in various areas, on| | | |

| | | |a scale of 1-4 with 1=not | |6.55 | |

| | | |at all and 4=often |5.75 | | |

| | | |Mob violence: 63% and 68% |All averages on a| | |

| | | |reported, respectively, |scale of 1-10 | | |

| | | |that they should be banned|with 1=not at all| | |

| | | |and should face the legal |and 10=very much)| | |

| | | |system. | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | |Will be reported| |

| | | | | |on in the final | |

| | | | | |evaluation | |

| | | |22 improved practices | | | |

| | | |reported by 15 government | | | |

| | | |and civil society | | | |

| | | |organizations (out of 31 | | | |

| | | |interviewed) | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | |# of case studies of | | | | |

| | |improved government | | | | |

| | |practices as related to | | | | |

| | |human rights and the | | | | |

| | |rule of law, especially | | | | |

| | |in relation to police | | | | |

| | |impunity and mob | | | | |

| | |justice, linked to | | | | |

| | |viewing The Team and | | | | |

| | |participation in | | | | |

| | |outreach activities | | | | |

|Output 4: |2 |Increase in the number |26 actions reported by 13 |Will be reported in final | 3 television writers trained |

|Strengthened capacity of | |and types of actions |civil society |evaluation |Strengthened capacity of 20 person production|

|partner CSOs to address | |taken by partner CSOs to|organizations (out of 18 | |team |

|governance issues in | |address the themes |interviewed) | | |

|innovative ways | |addressed by The Team | | |10 actors/actresses trained in facilitation |

| | | | | |and conflict resolution |

| | |6.2 Number of partner | | |30 facilitators trained in conflict resolution|

| | |CSOs –including partner | | | |

| | |media outfits- who can | | | |

| | |showcase how they have | | | |

| | |addressed the themes | | | |

| | |highlighted in The Team | | | |

| | |on behalf of citizens (#| | | |

| | |of case studies | | | |

| | |disaggregated by type of| | | |

| | |CSO and location) | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | |6.3 % increase of | | | |

| | |citizens interviewed who| | | |

| | |can give concrete | | | |

| | |examples of how CSOs and| | | |

| | |media outfits have | | | |

| | |provided them with | | | |

| | |improved ways to deal | | | |

| | |with issues raised by | | | |

| | |The Team and issues | | | |

| | |addressed by the | | | |

| | |outreach activities. | | | |

|Output 5: |3 |% increase among viewers|The results for |Rape: 5.29 |5.27 |The objectives of The Team project focused on |

|Citizens work with local | |of The Team who report |interviewed government and| | |affecting change among and between citizens, |

|officials on issues addressed | |enhanced responsiveness |civil society officials |Police Impunity: | |civil society organizations and government |

|in The Team and outreach | |by government officials |were presented above for |3.49 |In final report |agencies with regards to governance and the |

|activities | |to cases of rape, police|indicators 1.1 and 1.2 | | |rule of law. The evaluation identified |

| | |impunity, ethnic/tribal | |Ethnic/tribal | |several cases where citizens demonstrated how |

| | |and gender | |relations: 4.37 |4.51 |they changed and/or transformed their actions |

| | |discrimination | | | |and behaviors as a result of, or with the |

| | | | |Gender | |contribution of The Team. |

| | | | |discrimination: | | |

| | | | |5.83 |5.70 |For example actions by The National |

| | | | | | |Secretariat Committee on Peacebuilding and |

| | | | | | |Conflict Management and PeaceNet |

| | | | |All on a scale of| | |

| | | | |1-10 with 1=not | | |

| | | | |at all and | | |

| | | | |10=very much | | |

| |

|No activities were stated in the logframe (but a seperate document reports on achivement in terms of activities for each country) (list the main activities and provide a rating for each,|

|then give an overall rating for all outputs |

Annex 2

SFCG/GTF 170 Global Project Logframe

| |INDICATORS |MOV |ASSUMPTIONS |

|GOAL | | | |

|1. The engagement and actions of |Number of improved policies implemented by local governments |Evidence contained in |Ability to broadcast The Team|

|citizens on governance issues |that are shaped to meet the articulated needs and provision of |SFCG/GTF annual reports |widely in all 10 countries of|

|contribute to making governments more |services for vulnerable and excluded groups. |and external |implementation. |

|capable, accountable and responsive to| |evaluations. | |

|meet the needs of vulnerable and | | | |

|excluded groups. | | | |

|PURPOSE | | | |

|Citizens have increased skills and |2. % increase of interviewed citizens who showcase positive |Evidence contained in |Civil society is allowed to |

|knowledge of collaborative problem |attitudes towards their role in making change happen with |SFCG/GTF annual reports |operate without restrictions |

|solving, thereby becoming more |regards to governance issues and relate it to SFCG’s |and external |that limit their performance |

|effective at engaging constructively |intervention. |evaluations. |and potential impact |

|on governance issues at a local level.| | | |

|ACCOUNTABILITY | | | |

|3. Enhanced awareness of viewers of |3.1. % of interviewed viewers and/or outreach participants who |3.1-3.4. Evidence | |

|l'Equipe about the possibilities and |can name at least three recent government decisions (a |contained in SFCG/GTF | |

|responsibilities of participating in |qualitative component would be added to the survey |annual reports and | |

|governmental decision-making at local |questionnaire to ask what these decisions were and how they got|external evaluations. | |

|level. |the information) | | |

| | | | |

| |3.2. % of interviewed viewers and/or outreach participants who | | |

| |respond “yes” to the question: “I feel my government is more | | |

| |open about decision making” | | |

| | | | |

| |3.3. % of interviewed viewers and/or outreach participants who | | |

| |can name their rights with regards to the governance issues | | |

| |tackled by the intervention | | |

| | | | |

| |3.4. % of interviewed viewers and/or outreach participants who | | |

| |respond “yes” to the question: “I feel my government is more | | |

| |respectful of my rights” | | |

|ACCOUNTABILITY | | | |

| | |4.1 Evidence contained | |

|4. Officials, who have |4.1 % of interviewed officials’ who demonstrate their respect |in SFCG/GTF annual |Officials watch all episodes |

|watched/listened to The Team have |for human rights and the rule of law and link it to SFCG’s |reports and external |of the show. |

|increased respect for HR and the rule |intervention between 2008 and 2013 |evaluations | |

|of law | | | |

|ACCOUNTABILITY | | | |

| | |5.1 & 5.2. Evidence | |

|5. Citizens perceive their governments|5.1 % increase of perceived understanding of human rights and |contained in SFCG/GTF |Official watch all episodes |

|to be more respectful of HR and the |ability to claim rights between 2008 and 2013 by interviewed |annual reports and |of the show. |

|rule of law |viewers of The Team |external evaluations. | |

| |5.2 % increase in of interviewed citizens who say they trust | | |

| |their local officials | | |

|ACCOUNTABILITY |6.1 Increase between 2008 and 2013 in the number and types of |6.1-6.3 Evidence |CSOs discover innovative ways|

|6. Strengthened capacity of partner |actions taken by partner CSOs to address governance issues in |contained in SFCG/GTF |to address governance issues |

|CSOs to address governance issues in |innovative ways |annual reports and |and implement them |

|innovative ways |6.2 Number of partner CSOs –including partner media outfits- |external evaluations. | |

| |who can showcase how they have addressed governance issues on | | |

| |behalf of citizens (case studies disaggregated by type of CSO | | |

| |and location) | | |

| |6.3 % increase between 2008 and 2013 of interviewed citizens | | |

| |who state and give concrete examples of how CSOs and media | | |

| |outfits have provided them with innovative ways to deal with | | |

| |governance issues. | | |

|RESPONSIVENESS | | | |

|7. Citizens take action on |7.1 % increase in interviewed viewers of The Team reporting |Evidence contained in |Citizens develop the skills |

|new/improved policies around |enhanced access to, and satisfaction with, governance |SFCG/GTF annual reports |and motivation to engage with|

|governance processes* implemented by |processes* between 2008 and 2013. |and external |elected officials on |

|elected officials | |evaluations. |new/improved policies around |

| | | |governance processes |

N.B. this is a global logframe that is specific enough to act as roadmap yet flexible enough to allow for country specificities. Depending on circumstances the focus of the intervention and content of the drama will differ e.g. in Sierra Leone interventions focus on PRS consultations, in Liberia we’re working on anti-corruption, in Cote d’Ivoire we are working  on identification and land distribution issues.

Data collected will be disaggregated by age, gender, location and other variables depending on location.

ANNEX 3

FINANCIAL REPORT

A3.1 Programme Identification

|1. GTF Reference No. |GTF 170 |

|2. Organisation Name |Search for Common Ground |

A3.2 Reporting Period

|1. Start of Period |01 April 2009 |

|2. End of Period |31 March 2010 |

A3.3 Funds Received from DFID during Reporting Period

|Payment No. |Date Received |Amount |

|Payment 1 |07/16/2009 |£320,720 |

|Payment 2 |8/19/2009 |£532,913 |

|Payment 3 |1/4/2010 |£377,993 |

|Total Received During Period |£1,231,626 |

|SFCG GTF 170|A3.4 Expenditure During Reporting Period |

|- BUDGET | |

| |Budget Category | Agreed Budget | Actual Expenditure | Variance | Variance % |

| |  |1 Apr 09 - 31 Mar 10 |1 Apr 09 - 31 Mar 10 |  |  |

| |Staff (Salaries & Benefits) |  |  |  |  |

| |Executive Producer | £ 55,865.89 | £ 40,264.81 |  |  |

| |Staff Producer/CGP Staff | £ 35,867.98 | £ 21,886.25 |  |  |

| |Subgrants Manager | £ 34,949.54 | £ 26,700.13 |  |  |

| |Outreach Coordinators | £ 11,919.24 | £ 13,709.17 |  |  |

| |Total Staff (Salaries & Benefits) | £ 138,602.65 | £ 102,560.36 |-£ 36,042.29 |-26% |

| |Travel |  |  |  |  |

| |International & Ground Travel | £ 16,133.30 | £ 12,210.66 |  |  |

| | Total Travel | £ 16,133.30 | £ 12,210.66 |-£ 3,922.64 |-24% |

| |Partner Allocations |  |  |  |  |

| |Outreach | £ 23,867.98 | £ 18,416.41 |  |  |

| |Media Production | £ 1,097,926.90 | £ 736,883.38 |  |  |

| |M&E | £ 9,675.40 | £ - |  |  |

| | Total Partner Allocations | £ 1,131,470.27 | £ 755,299.79 |-£ 376,170.48 |-33% |

| |Operational Support |  |  |  |  |

| |Technical Support (media) | £ 5,194.35 | £ 8,013.16 |  |  |

| |M&E Support | £ 6,971.49 | £ 14,966.93 |  |  |

| |Communications | £ 1,898.53 | £ 2,930.05 |  |  |

| |Office/Utilities | £ 6,645.53 | £ 10,256.01 |  |  |

| | Total Operational Support | £ 20,709.90 | £ 36,166.14 | £ 15,456.24 |75% |

| |Total Direct Costs | £ 1,306,916.12 | £ 906,236.96 |-£ 400,679.16 |-31% |

| |Indirect Costs (@ 5%) | £ 65,345.81 | £ 45,311.85 |-£ 20,033.96 |-31% |

| |Total Budget | £ 1,372,261.92 | £ 951,548.81 |-£ 420,713.11 |-31% |

|SFCG GTF 170|A3.5 Expenditure to Date |

|- BUDGET | |

| |Budget Category | Agreed Budget | Actual Expenditure | Variance | Variance % |

| |  |1 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 10 |1 Apr 08 - 31 Mar 10 |  |  |

| |Staff (Salaries & Benefits) |  |  |  |  |

| |Executive Producer | £ 75,510.23 | £ 59,909.15 |  |  |

| |Staff Producer/CGP Staff | £ 49,854.13 | £ 35,872.40 |  |  |

| |Subgrants Manager | £ 52,030.40 | £ 43,780.99 |  |  |

| |Outreach Coordinators | £ 28,015.14 | £ 29,805.07 |  |  |

| | Total Staff (Salaries & Benefits) | £ 205,409.90 | £ 169,367.61 |-£ 36,042.29 |-18% |

| |Travel |  |  |  |  |

| |International & Ground Travel | £ 26,972.03 | £ 23,049.39 |  |  |

| | Total Travel | £ 26,972.03 | £ 23,049.39 |-£ 3,922.64 |-15% |

| |Partner Allocations |  |  |  |  |

| |Outreach | £ 115,090.97 | £ 109,639.39 |  |  |

| |Media Production | £ 2,195,279.37 | £ 1,834,235.85 |  |  |

| |M&E | £ 132,465.18 | £ 122,789.78 |  |  |

| | Total Partner Allocations | £ 2,442,835.52 | £ 2,066,665.02 |-£ 376,170.50 |-15% |

| |Operational Support |  |  |  |  |

| |Technical Support (media) | £ 12,206.26 | £ 15,025.07 |  |  |

| |M&E Support | £ 16,385.17 | £ 24,380.61 |  |  |

| |Communications | £ 4,462.38 | £ 5,493.90 |  |  |

| |Office/Utilities | £ 15,620.23 | £ 19,230.72 |  |  |

| | Total Operational Support | £ 48,674.04 | £ 64,130.30 | £ 15,456.26 |32% |

| |Total Direct Costs | £ 2,723,891.49 | £ 2,323,212.32 |-£ 400,679.17 |-15% |

| |Indirect Costs (5% of Direct Costs) | £ 136,194.57 | £ 116,160.62 |-£ 20,033.96 |-15% |

| |Total Budget | £ 2,860,086.06 | £ 2,439,372.94 |-£ 420,713.13 |-15% |

Annex 3: Financial Report Notes

Variances

Staff (Salaries and Benefits):

1) A Staff Producer was not hired at the beginning of year as planned, due to an unforeseen delay in the Nepal program. Subsequently, funds were shifted to third year of grant in order to ensure that there would be adequate provision for staff producer and roving producers, who will also be hired in the final year of this grant.

Travel:

2) Delayed production in some countries and the late hire of additional producers negated the need to travel as frequently as planned. Leftover funds will accrue to the final year of the grant, to be used by more people.

Partner Allocations:

3) Production was delayed by several months in Nepal, due to an inability of our first partner to produce suitable script material for the show. In order to rectify and speed up the process, we hired a permanent staff producer with greater expertise for the project; however, his relocation from South Africa to Kathmandu also caused some delay. The show is now on track to be shot in the summer of 2010.

4) Two of our country programs - Sierra Leone and Liberia - have not had prior experience in television production and therefore required additional training. Secondly, having been through crippling wars in recent years, the countries also lack the infrastructure and third-party experience that would have made production here easier to implement. We were granted an exception to the DFID partner rule within these countries, which allowed us to lower production costs and apply the difference to the operational budget for these countries, as they will be required to apply additional manpower in order to effectively run the productions.

Operational Support:

5) Allocations increased to accommodate additional support costs that will accrue in Sierra Leone and Liberia.

ANNEX 4

Materials produced through March 31, 2010

|Item |Date |Title or description of material |Access web site (if any) |

|1. |03/2010 |Côte d’Ivoire: 12 30-minute television|Clip: |

| | |episodes & 12 scripts of The Team |Channel: Search for Common Ground (sfcg) |

|2. |03/2010 |Kenya: 26 30-minute television |Clip: |

| | |episodes & 13 scripts (Season 2) of |Channel: Search for Common Ground (sfcg) |

| | |The Team | |

|3. |03/2010 |Kenya: 13 30-minute radio episodes & | |

| | |13 scripts of The Team | |

|4. |10/2009 |Morocco: 26 30-minute television |Trailer: |

| | |episodes of The Team |Channel: Search for Common Ground (sfcg) |

|5. |03/2010 |DRC: 12 scripts & 12 30-minute |Trailer: |

| | |television episodes of The Team |Channel: Search for Common Ground (sfcg) |

|6. |02/2010 |Nepal: 13 script outlines; 4 TV | |

| | |scripts | |

|7. |01/2010 |Liberia: 10 TV scripts | |

|8. |01/2010 |Sierra Leone: 10 TV scripts | |

|9. |03/2010 |Global: Series’ Music Videos (Morocco,|Morocco: |

| | |Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya) |Côte d’Ivoire: |

| | | |Channel: Search for Common Ground (sfcg) |

|10. |03/2010 |Kenya: Baseline & Midterm Evaluation | |

| | |Reports | |

|11. |02/2010 |Morocco: Baseline Evaluation Report | |

|12. |02/2010 |Côte d’Ivoire: Baseline Evaluation | |

| | |Report | |

|13. |07/2009 |Kenya: The Team website & online | |

| | |virtual community | |

|14. |02/2010 |USA: The Team Global web pages | |

ANNEX 5

Web Updates: Activities through March 31, 2010

| |In 2009, The Team was watched by over 6 million viewers in Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya,|

| |where the show has consistently featured in the top ten television programs. In |

| |addition, our Africa shows have captivated international broadcasters such as |

| |French-owned satellite TV company CFI, which is currently re-airing our shows |

| |worldwide, and MNET, the South African satellite broadcaster, which will air The |

| |Team throughout sub-Saharan Africa. The popularity of our shows has led to the |

| |production of second seasons in three countries so far, and preparations are |

| |underway for a third season in Kenya. |

| |But perhaps the most remarkable phenomenon we have witnessed has been the |

| |appearance of numerous initiatives, spawned by viewers who were so inspired by what|

| |they saw on their TV screens and in mobile cinema discussions that they felt |

| |compelled to take the show’s message into their respective communities and, |

| |hopefully, make a difference of their own. |

| |In the following year, we will take The Team to an additional 10 countries (and |

| |counting). The scope of our project has expanded dramatically, in part due to the |

| |demonstrable success of our outreach program in places like Kenya. In a midterm |

| |evaluation of the program, it was discovered that 98% of Kenyans surveyed said that|

| |the show effectively addressed issues of tribalism, one of the major issues |

| |affecting their lives. |

| |Watch The Team clips at . |

-----------------------

[1] See logframe 6. “Accountability – Assumptions”

[2] From Cote d’Ivoire: GTF activity report by Patrick Masuba, December 2009

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download