Policy paper

Annex B: Summary of survey responses

Published 7 March 2024

Westminster Foundation for Democracy feedback survey: key findings

In October 2023 the PBR review team sent out a survey to selected FCDO stakeholders for their insights on WFD’s engagement, collaboration, performance, and impact. A total of 30 responses were received. This survey forms a small part of the wider feedback the review team received through many hours of face-to-face and virtual interviews from a broad range of stakeholders (see Annex A).  

The review team recognises that by only surveying FCDO staff the sample data will not represent the full picture of WFD’s activities, such as the programmes WFD commercially bid for and implement on behalf of other organisations. The profile of respondents indicates a bias towards bilateral programming, especially in Eastern Europe / Balkans, with an under-representation of Posts in Africa. What the survey data did tell us is how a group of WFD programmes that are funded through bilateral funds (from Post’s budget), Grant-in-Aid (GiA), other UK government funding, and by third parties, are perceived by FCDO staff from both central teams and at Posts.

1. Overview of respondents

• of the 30 responses received, 20% were submitted by staff across 4 central FCDO Directorates, while the remaining 80% of responses came from staff located across 19 British embassies and high commissions

• we received responses from a diverse range of FCDO staff including Deputy High Commissioners, Head of Programmes, and Research Analysts

2. Familiarity and engagement

• the overwhelming majority of respondents were either ‘very familiar’ (57%) with, or had ‘significant’ (37%) awareness of, WFD activities at their Post or policy area (figure 1)

• respondents reported that monthly interactions with WFD staff were most common (43%) followed closely by weekly (40%) (figure 2). One respondent who selected ‘other’ commented that engagement was mostly based on programme needs and therefore different at certain points of the year. Over 40% of respondents who were ‘very familiar’ with WFD activities also reported having weekly contact with WFD staff

• respondents were asked about areas they engaged with WFD (figure 3). Selecting multiple areas was possible. 26 (87%) selected ‘FCDO programming’, while 15 (50%) said they engaged with WFD on ‘Political engagement’

• 83% felt their level of engagement with WFD was enough to support Post’s objectives in country (figure 4)

Figure 1

How familiar are you with WFD activity?	Percentage of responders
Very familiar	57%
Sufficiently aware of their activity	37%
Would like to understand more	3%
Not at all	3%

Figure 2

How regularly do you or colleagues at Post engage with WFD?	Percentage of responders
Weekly	40%
Monthly	43%
Quarterly	7%
I don’t know	3%
Other	7%

Figure 3

What are the key areas on which you engage with WFD?	Percentage of responders
Strategic thinking/policy development	10%
FCDO programming	26%
Non-FCDO programming	5%
Political engagement	15%
Events	14%
Other	3%

Figure 4

Do you feel that the level of engagement between Post and WFD has been sufficient to contribute to your objectives in country?	Percentage of responders
Yes	83%
No	17%

3. Programme funding

In response to a question on respondent’s awareness of WFD programmes, respondents listed a range of FCDO, UK government and third-party funded programmes, including:

• [14%] Central FCDO Funding (GiA)
• [17%] Bilateral programme budget from Posts
• [43%] Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF)
• [7%] Good Governance Fund (GGF)
• [7%] Global Equality Project (GEP)
• [7%] UK Partnering for Accelerated Climate Transitions (UK PACT)
• [2%] European Union
• [2%] Canadian Government

4. Strategic alignment

• respondents were asked their views on the extent to which the WFD programmes they were aware of aligned to FCDO’s objectives in the country or region where it operated

• over half (57%) believed WFD programmes aligned with FCDO’s objectives to a ‘great extent’, while 30% answered ‘to some extent’ (figure 5)

• respondents who stated ‘to a great extent’ provided additional comments around programmes being designed with FCDO wider objectives in mind, and some Posts programmes were designed to directly align with Country Business Plans

• respondents who stated ‘to some extent’ commented on the need for WFD to take a more ‘innovative’ approach to programming and focus more strategic alignment as they were ‘still adapting to FCDO’s increasing focus on building democratic resilience to state threats’

Figure 5

To what extent do (or did) the programme’s objectives align with the FCDO’s objectives in this country or region?	Percentage of responders
To a great extent	57%
To some extent	30%
To a limited extent	7%
Not at all	0%
I’m not sure	3%
Not applicable	3%

5. WFD’s impact

A wide range of comments were offered, both positive and negative on the question of the impact of WFD’s activities (figure 6).  Some specific feedback included:

• the research data from WFD helped design a new programme for Post
• respondent mentioned an EU Country Report which praised a WFD programme’s work to bring women MPs, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, and other marginalised groups in closer cooperation with relevant civil society organisations
• a programme learning report showcased evidence progress in the delivery of outcomes related to under-represented groups and parliamentary scrutiny
• WFD’s work was mentioned in Parliament and in some publications from other NGOs, showing wider awareness
• WFD activities have achieved good things in niche areas where there are no other partners
• the local context where a programme operates matters. The WFD office should design and be more agile to the changing circumstances in country
• there is low evidence that support given to select committees and women political representatives contributed to long-term accountability and inclusion

Figure 6

In your view, how impactful have WFD activities (eg programming) been in country?	Percentage of responders
Very	17%
Somewhat	47%
Partially	23%
Not at all	3%
Too soon to tell (programme still live)	10%

6. Future plans

• in response to a question on potentially partnering with WFD on democratic governance work the results were evenly split (figure 7)

• respondents who answered ‘Yes’ commented on WFD’s trustworthiness and reliability as a delivery partner. Comments also focused on WFD’s ability to adapt to feedback from Post

• comments from respondents who selected ‘for some activity’ reflected on WFD’s high non-project attributable costs (NPAC) / overheads, the limited reporting, and the length of time it took for WFD to agree a programme’s approach and outputs

• a third of respondents stated they have ‘definite’ plans to work with WFD, mostly commenting that these plans are already in place, with a further third saying they would ‘probably’ work with WFD again, mainly due to availability of budget and waiting to assess the effectiveness of current WFD programmes being delivered (figure 8)

• only 2 comments were provided by the third of respondents who selected ‘it depends/unsure’. These focused on availability of future CSSF budget, and doubts on what WFD can achieve given the political contextual constraints in their country

Figure 7

Would you consider WFD as a delivery partner for your democratic governance programming?	Percentage of responders
Yes	46%
For some activity	47%
No	7%

Figure 8

Does your Post have plans to carry out future activities with WFS?	Percentage of responders
Definitely: plans in development	33%
Probably: but no firm plans	30%
It depends/unsure	37%