Saving Mothers, Giving Life Governance Strengths and Weaknesses Compared With Established Success Factors
| Success Factors | Summary of Partnership Literature2,3,13,14 | SMGL Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strengths | Weaknesses | ||
| Governance structure | Low participation from countries and NGOs on governing bodies but boards are becoming more representative. Partnerships require dedicated staff to support them. | The partnership developed a defined governance structure with voting and clearly identified organizational points of contact. Composition size was seen as a positive. | MOHs were not included on the Leadership Council during Phase 1. They were invited to join during Phase 2, but country factors inhibited their participation. |
| Secretariat | The Secretariat plays a vital role in the effectiveness of the partnership; the costs of coordination and communication are often not well understood or resourced. | The Secretariat provided stability to the partnership and was praised for its leadership. | |
| Governance process: M&E | Agreement on common metrics, data collection approaches, and partner roles are essential. It is important to have indicators that reflect the outcomes as well as the partnership processes. | Rigorous M&E enabled the partnership to demonstrate success and make program adjustments. | The Phase 1 evaluation touched on the partnership, but the partnership did not have any metrics that measured the partnership processes. |
| Governance process: decision making | Dominant decision makers are usually related to the size of funding. | Regular (technical, results, and financial) updates were provided via the Operations Committee and Leadership Council. | The partnership was largely seen as Washington-driven and USG-funded. There were some conflicts of interest and power dynamics between larger and smaller partners. |
Abbreviations: M&E, monitoring and evaluation; MOH, Ministry of Health; USG, United States Government.