Benchmarking of communities of practice in the frame of the Child Protection Hub project

Terms of reference for benchmarking of communities of practice in the frame of the Child Protection Hub project

Short description of the project

The Child Protection Hub (https://childhub.org) is a project of Terre des hommes (Tdh) and other NGOs, to systematically gather and promote knowledge on child protection, provide new opportunities for building the capacity of child protection professionals (including online ones) and offer a virtual space to them for exchange and peer support.

The essence of the project is based on the mobilization and connection facilitated and supported between various agencies and professionals combining different expertise and knowledge (be it on thematic issues, disciplines, or domains), linked up at national and regional levels, through a virtual platform, the backbone of the project. The virtual platform and its services serve as a catalyst to create a community of practices between these actors at different levels and across levels who are supported and equipped to generate new knowledge and evidences, support skills development and promote improved practices to emulate a process of continuous improvements in child protection practices and policies in the region.

One of the expected results in line with the contributing objective of capacity building and cooperation is the online resources and knowledge management via the creation of communities of practice (COPs). Actually there are 7 active virtual COPs formed throughout project cycle so far as venues for professional discussions (disaggregated by themes), and more than 5.400 persons are involved in online professional discussions and virtual communities of practice (disaggregated by type, gender, and SEE country)

In order to achieve the output of increasing sustainability of the initiative, based on the advice of the final evaluation of Project Phase I. and the agreement among partners at the start of Project Phase II., a modified system of project governance is being planned that includes national steering groups and thematic working groups to ensure more ownership and collaborative decision making in the initiative, and so far all national committees have identified benchmarks for governance, organizational, and financial sustainability based on benchmarks identified from ongoing research on sustainability in similar initiatives.

Expectations from service provider

Tdh needs expertise for conducting a benchmarking of other similar initiatives and for developing a report on the findings, that will help the project fulfil its objectives. The benchmarking will serve as the basis of the impact study to be carried out upon completion of the project (i.e. what crieteria to use in order to evaluate the impact of ChildHub). The benchmarking will build on the recently completed business planning and prototyping work of Learning by Helping. It should also explore different organisational setups, e.g. becoming a for-profit enterprise, or a non-profit enterprise, that can generate income and profit (which, in case of a non-profit needs to be reinvested in the original operations).

Purpose of the Excercise is to understand what is ChildHub doing well, and where are areas where it can improve, plus to LEARN from good practices of these organisation for ChildHub’s improvement, especially in the area of online communities of practice, i.e. how to successfully operate and manage these communities, where people are willing and able to share knowledge and experience as well as sustainability (what do others do better to ensure long-term sustainability). Furthermore, building on the business planning excercise, the benchmarking can show whether other models can generate income in a more sustainable way as well as getting an understanding how similar initiatives perceive the value added of the ChildHub.

Benchmarking

The following organisations should be considered for the benchmarking excercise:

1. Childlink: this organisation provides very similar services to social workers in the UK, but they are contracted by the government and are paid for this services by the government. ChildHub always wanted to emulate this, although there is not much openness for this in the countries. This is a for-profit initiative that has been running for more than a decade.

2. CPC Network: this is a network of child protection professionals around the world. This is a well working community, where knowledge is being shared and where peer-to-peer support is working.

3. MHPSS network : similar network, global, on mental health. Again both knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer support is working well

4. Global Alliance Child Protection in Humanitarian Action: global network of child protection professionals, but in humanitarian projects. The goal and mission is very similar to ChildHub’s, but in a slightly different sector and of course global. Their modus operandi is also quite similar.

5. RISE Learning Network: promotes and facilitates learning on recovery and (re)-integration for children and adolescents affected by sexual exploitation. The learning activities directly supported are in three focus regions – Latin America and the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa and South & Central Asia.

6. Global Social Service Workforce Alliance: its mission is to promote the knowledge and evidence, resources and tools and political will and action needed to address key social service workforce challenges.

7. ISPCAN: the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT brings together the range of professionals that work toward the prevention and treatment of child abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

8. MHPSS Collaborative: a global platform for research, innovation, learning and advocacy. In the field of Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS), it connects key academic and humanitarian actors with local civil society to give children and families in fragile circumstances the possibility to thrive.

Furthermore it is suggested to the consultant to identify at least 2 other similar type of initiatives in other sectors (like health) to benchmark against.

The process should also include interviews with at least 4 of the 8 country associates, in order to bounce off ideas with them, and see the reality of ideas on the ground!