Oxfam in Southern Africa (SAF) Cluster Model Review

1. Background
In October 2018 the OI Executive Board (EB) approved a review of the old models of presence,
followed by a subsequent decision in March 2020 of the overall proposals for the Oxfam country
map review and future business/presence models at country and regional level. In March 2020,
the decision included phasing out of a number of countries as well as proposals for clusters as a
new model of working for regions including Southern Africa (SAF). Prior to formation of the cluster
there were four country programmes and a regional platform in Southern Africa. The changes
resulted in these entities being replaced by a single entity with a mandate to programme across
SADC member states where Oxfam does not already have some form of in-country presence.
The Confederation1 further defines this new organizational model as, “The most “traditional” logic of a
cluster, a central office of the cluster that provides support for the influence, the programme and the
personnel, with a small and reduced presence in the rest of the countries of the cluster, including the option
of not having an Oxfam office, working only with partners with “above country” arrangements. Depending
on the context, maintain a portfolio of partners that includes organizations committed to disaster response
and resilience.”
It needs to be noted that SAF had been considering a transition into a cluster well before the
launch of the Country Map Review exercise, with the key driver being enhanced impact and more
value for Oxfam investment by building on gains already achieved in the region. The SAF
Regional Governance Group (RGG) commissioned a feasibility study in September 2019. The
rationale for the new model was based on the assumption that better returns on the investment
in Oxfam’s presence and programming, improved financial and operational efficiencie,; a strong
and agile humanitarian mandate and response capacity’ enhanced centrality of partnerships’
strengthened programme capability and a more effective influencing organisational approach
would ultimately deliver greater and expanded impact in the SAF Region.
The cluster model became operational in July 2021. This resulted in a shift from countries as
programming units with all resources in-house, to a model that looks at the region as a programme
space with country results linked very strongly also to the regional agenda and building new
models of partnerships to deliver quality work with a leaner structure of a multi-located team of
Oxfam staff. Integral to the cluster model was the establishment of a single management and
business support team providing strategic programme leadership, shared programme support
and business services. This approach was expected to streamline programme coordination and
support functions eliminating functional duplication, providing coherent and consistent
programme quality and business support, therefore leading to enhanced overall efficiencies.
The new cluster model preserved some aspects associated with framing of programming
centered on country units such as the ability to influence in-country; ability to provide effective
support to partners; ability to fundraise locally, and the ability to represent Oxfam effectively. On
1 https://oxfam.app.box.com/file/684911119175?s=bp7kpitnkm8j9qll56w9tmf3fzx2nqaa
the other hand, elements in the country set-up that could be harmonized across the cluster to
reduce duplication and release more resources for programming were identified and streamlined.
This informed the configuration of a shared business and programme support team. The funding
for the new structure was inspired by the assumption that working in a cluster would be more
efficient. As such, this form of presence was accompanied by a significant reduction in
foundational resource allocation. The pre-condition to these changes was for the cluster to have
an operating environment of a single Executing Affiliate (EA) – which has not materialized.
The recent Oxfam Presence Review conducted in FY23/24 recommended each cluster
undertakes a review to inform improved operational efficiency. A position that was then endorsed
by the Executive Directors Form (EDF). The SAF Cluster has been in existence for 3 years. While
there is consensus that it is too early to carry out an impact assessment of this form of presence,
it is important to generate reflections on the progress and key milestones that will serve as an
input for future planning. In addition, there is sufficient data and lived experience that can be
distilled to draw key lessons, review the operating cluster model and ways of working. A
comprehensive impact evaluation will be aligned with the end of the Cluster 5-year Strategy in
FY26/27. Any review shall build on prior findings on cluster set-up and subsequent related
processes including:
 The original cluster feasibility study,
 Subsequent related job evaluations,
 Global Humanitarian Team (GHT) supported humanitarian capacity assessment
(2023/24),
 Internal Audit findings (2023/24)
 CAT 2 Real Time Review (2024) findings, and
 broader Confederation-wide processes such as Transforming Business Services (TBS),
and the Confederation Development agenda
The review shall inform organizational adjustments necessary to increase the overall
effectiveness of the cluster model, and ultimately enhance programme impact in the SAF Region.
The findings from this review will be available to key SAF cluster stakeholders and other regional
cluster formations in the Confederation.

The main objective of the Cluster Model Review is to generate reflections on progress and key
milestones. These shall serve as an input into future planning linked with improvements to the
operational model and ways of working to realise the vision and goals of the SAF Cluster.
This is achieved through a review of the assumptions made on the operationality of the SAF
Cluster (see Annex 1). The process is guided by a set of learning questions to enhance
operationalisation of the cluster model divided into five components:
1. Regional Approach to Programming
2. Partnerships
3. Humanitarian Mandate
4. Systems and Control Issues
5. Financial Feasibility
3. Main Questions/Tasks
Set 1: Regional Approach to Programming – Effectiveness and practical application of
the regional Approach to Programming
1. How effective has the coordination and communication been between thematic teams across
the cluster with regional partners and other relevant stakeholders, including local communities
and governments and regional bodies?
2. How effective has the shift been from individual Country strategies to a single cluster strategy?
What have been the blocking factors? And what enablers can be identified?
3. What has been the effect of adopting a regional approach across the participating cluster
countries in terms of effectiveness and results/impact?
4. Assess the level of alignment of the current human resource capacities in the cluster with the
demands to deliver on the cluster model’s vision and mission. What changes are necessary
to guarantee agility and application of the regional approach to programming?
5. What has been the impact of holding dual roles with thematic and country dimensions on staff
workload, organizational culture, and effectiveness? Kindly make appropriate
recommendations for future configuration of the cluster core structure to address limitations
identified, enhance impact and cost effectiveness.
6. What is the nature of the relationship between Oxfam South Africa (OZA), currently the only
Oxfam affiliate in the SAF Region and the SAF cluster? How can it be improved or leveraged?
7. What needs to be in place to ensure that the cluster model can absorb shocks and stresses
in the operating context?
Set 2: Partnerships – Deepening partner led approaches as an integral part of the cluster
model
1. The cluster model is premised on the assumption that working more with partners would
require less resources, is that correct? What are practical cost neutral options for future
reconfiguration for working more effectively with partner organisations?
2. What forms of partnerships have developed with the cluster? In what ways are these working
to deliver change? What is Oxfam’s value addition in these partnerships or where do partners
see value add of Oxfam? What value do partners bring to Oxfam’s work?
3. How are we resourcing partnerships to realize these assumptions? What is working, what is
not, where are the gaps, with what lessons and outcomes?
4. What is the state of readiness for the cluster to work with partners in out-of-presence SADC
member countries? What support mechanisms are required to leverage and achieve scale
and impact working in such circumstances?
Set 3: Humanitarian Mandate – Appropriateness of cluster model design to support the
delivery of the Humanitarian Mandate
1. What are the implications of the cluster model of presence on Oxfam’s humanitarian mandate
and influence in cluster countries? What are the gaps and how can these be addressed?
2. How effective is the coordination, leadership and management and resource sharing
mechanism of the cluster model with partners to deliver timely and impactful humanitarian
responses?
3. How much of Oxfam’s work shifted over the past 3 years from direct to partner led
implementation? What additional steps are necessary to support the ambition to enhance
partner-led humanitarian programming?
4. Is the in-house technical capacity sufficient to support quality delivery of partner led
humanitarian responses (coordination, resource mobilisation, advisory capacity)? What could
be done differently?
5. Has the level of investments by the Oxfam Confederation into SAF been adequate to support
the delivery of the humanitarian mandate within the cluster model? What cost neutral solutions
can be adopted by the Cluster to enhance the ability of SAF to deliver on the humanitarian
mandate?
Set 4: Systems and Control – Degree of Alignment of SAF Cluster Model with the wider
Confederation architecture, systems, and ways of working
1. What has been the net effect of the cluster model on operational efficiency across countries?
What is the evidence in support of this considering coordination, resource sharing, and
programme delivery over the last 3 years?
2. To what extent are the current accountability lines, policies, and procedures applicable to the
SAF Cluster Model enabling compliance and risk management. Have there been sufficient
shifts within the Confederation to support the model better? What adjustments are necessary
to support the realisation of the cluster vision within the cluster and by key Confederation
stakeholders?
3. What changes are required in the current business support services setup to improve decision
making, transparency, and efficient resource allocation across the cluster?
4. How appropriate is the core structural design of the Cluster for responding to a fast onset
emergency and delivery of quality programming /influencing work working with partner
organisations? What has been the impact on staff welfare and workload? Kindly recommend
cost neutral shifts in the cluster configuration to enhance overall model effectiveness. What
specific actions and timeframe will be needed to effect the required changes needed to
incorporate proposed model alterations?
Set 5: Financial Feasibility/Savings – Model Financially Viability
1. What types of new funding streams have been secured for the effective implementation of
the cluster model, in addition to the traditional sources? What is the donor trend analysis pre
and post cluster formation?
2. What measures exist to ensure quality programme delivery, grant management and
compliance and effective risk management (including safeguarding)? What other steps are
necessary to assure donor confidence?
3. Considering funding sources, budget allocations, and other potential revenue sources and
income strategies, can the revised cluster model be financially viable over the long term?
4. Expected Outputs
I. A draft report of a maximum of 7 pages summarising the key findings for use to inform
the OI management line approval.
II. A full report which is no more than 20 pages (excluding Annexes), with an executive
summary, containing the following:
a) Clear analysis of what worked in the SAF cluster model and cost neutral options
relating to what needs to change.
b) Clear propositions towards improvement of the cluster model design and lessons
learnt for future reference.
c) A proposed cost neutral revision of the staff core structure to enhance delivery of the
cluster model.
5. Time Frame
The Study is planned to start by the 1st of February and be completed by 30th March 2025. The
actual Study period should not exceed 45 working days. This includes the preparatory work, desk
reviews, implementation, and production of the final report. The final report should be ready by
15th April 2025.

4. Expected Outputs
I. A draft report of a maximum of 7 pages summarising the key findings for use to inform
the OI management line approval.
II. A full report which is no more than 20 pages (excluding Annexes), with an executive
summary, containing the following:
a) Clear analysis of what worked in the SAF cluster model and cost neutral options
relating to what needs to change.
b) Clear propositions towards improvement of the cluster model design and lessons
learnt for future reference.
c) A proposed cost neutral revision of the staff core structure to enhance delivery of the
cluster model.
6. Budget
20,000 USD
7. Role of Oxfam
Oxfam shall provide the necessary documents and facilitate links between the contracted
personnel and any key respondents (e.g. government officials, NGOs, development partners,
local and regional partner) where this might be necessary. Oxfam will
a) Review key products generated from or to aid the Cluster Model Review (e.g. proposed
tools and methodologies and report drafts), Provide Contextual Insights
b) Facilitate Partner and Stakeholder Engagement
c) Collaborate on Financial and Operational Audits
d) Coordinate Cross-country engagement
e) Allocate Resources for the Review Process
f) Synthesize Findings and Provide Recommendations
8. Project stakeholders
 Project Client: SAF Cluster Leadership Team (Accountable for delivery)
 Project Manager: SAF Programme Director (Responsible for project delivery)
 Internal Stakeholders: SAF Regional Governance Group, Partner Affiliates with investments
in Southern Africa, Executing Affiliates in Southern Africa, Oxfam South Africa, Cluster Staff
Association, Global Humanitarian Team, Oxfam in Africa, Oxfam International Secretariat
 Externals: Strategic and Implementing Partner Organizations
9. Expected profile of the consultant
The prospective consultant(s) should have an appropriate balance of management and technical
skills, knowledge of the Southern African context and experience in conducting this type of Study.
The consultant(s) must have good communication and strong interpersonal skills. If it is a firm
providing the service, Oxfam would expect a gender balance in the team.
10. What is to be included in the proposal
Anyone interested in conducting this work must include in their application a technical and
financial proposal which includes the following:
A. Technical
– Understanding and interpretation of the Terms of Reference
– Participatory methodology and tools to be used
– Written example of a similar review already carried out
– Time and activity schedule
B. Financial
– Consultant’s daily rate
– Other costs, e.g.; accommodation, travel and printing
C. Competencies
– Organizational and personal capacity statement
– Relevant experience of at least 6 years related to the assignment
– Contacts of organizations previously worked for
– Curriculum Vitae of key personnel
– Working knowledge of both Portuguese and English desirable

More details are available on link:

https://oxfam.box.com/s/0zymz5qngzhvh6kp2qgwt6p5eh7adlnw