The survey results

Update from the Commissioners, Steven Sinding and Gill Greer.

As part of the consultations, we launched a joint survey on the reform website on 25 July.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to provide feedback, we appreciated your honest and frank responses. Along with the consultation meetings and emails we have received, the survey feedback has provided us with vital insight and perspectives which have helped inform our draft reports and recommendations.

The objectives of the survey were to:

• understand the variety of opinions about the need for change in relation to the IPPF global and regional governance, as well as its resource allocation model.
• solicit input for the development of appropriate and effective regional and global governance structures, and a strategic resource allocation model.

In total, 199 verified respondents completed the survey, from all regions and across the Federation.

A full summary of the survey results can be found here

• English Version
• Version Française
• Versión en español
• النسخة العربية

Below we have also provided an overview of the quantitative responses to the survey for governance reform and resource allocation.

Summary quantitative survey responses on governance reform:

The current governance structure serves IPPF well: a majority of respondents (57%) strongly disagree or disagree with the statement that the current governance structure serves IPPF well, with only 23% of respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing with this statement. While there was some variation across the regions, the response to this question indicates a strong view that reform of the current governance system is required.

The Governing Council and Regional Executive Committees provide clear and consistent policy and strategic direction: similar responses were received to the questions on clarity and consistency of both policy and strategic direction provided by the Governing Council, with only 28% of respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing with the statement on policy direction and 29% of respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing with the statement on strategic direction. There was a clear variation in responses, with those serving on governance having a more favourable view than presidents/chairs, executive directors or senior management. There was also some variation across regions with East Asia and Oceania having a more favourable response than respondents from other regions.

A slightly increased number of respondents (32%) strongly agree or agree with the statement that Regional Executive Committees providing clear and consistent regional policy and strategy direction, again with variation across regions and by type of respondent.

These responses indicate the need for a governance system that delivers greater clarity and consistency in strategic and policy direction for the benefit of both management and member associations.

IPPF governance structure (regional and global) ensures the most capable individuals rise to the top of IPPF’s decision-making bodies: Only 17% of respondents strongly agree or agree that the current governing structures ensure that the most capable individuals rise to the top of IPPF’s decision-making bodies, with more than half of respondents disagreeing with this statement. This suggests that different approaches are required to ensure that the most capable individuals are part of IPPF’s decision-making structures.

The IPPF governance structure (regional and global) gives enough voice to the Member Associations:  Only 28% of respondents strongly agree or agree that member associations are given enough voice in current governance structures, suggesting need for governance mechanisms that provide greater opportunity for listening to and reacting to members concerns and ideas.

Summary quantitative survey responses on governance reform:

Dependency on IPPF for funding: almost one third of respondents state they receive 81-100% of their total annual income from IPPF; one fifth receive 80-100% of their unrestricted annual income from IPPF. This demonstrates a high dependency on a relatively small amount of unrestricted funding, which comprises only US$40m of IPPF’s total income.

The current Resource Allocation model: what is unequivocal from the survey is that the current Resource Allocation model does not serve individual MAs or the wider Federation well, with only 20% agreeing. Notably none of the MA EDs thought well of the current model.

A mere 18% feel IPPF’s unrestricted funding has been allocated fairly and correctly.

An even smaller percentage – 11% – thinks the current Resource Allocation model is transparent.

Member Associations and unrestricted funding: respondents are divided fairly evenly over whether all Member Associations should receive unrestricted funding.

A new Resource Allocation model: there is almost total agreement amongst all respondents that:

• IPPF should have a special fund to respond to specific issues (93%).
• The new model should be regularly reviewed to ensure it remains honest, equitable and relevant (96%).

The three most popular criteria for the new model were: Size of unmet need; Proven track record; proportion of SRHR services in the country, in that order.