Traction Partner & Resource Mobilisation Framework

This Appendix sets out how One Big Change Kenya will identify, mobilise, govern, match, deploy and report resources contributed by organisations outside the core Government commission.

The Traction Partner model is intended to address a central implementation challenge:

Schools may know what needs to change but lack the money, equipment, expertise, infrastructure, technology or relationships required to make that change possible.

One Big Change therefore separates two functions.

The intention is not to substitute Government responsibility. It is to make better use of the wider resources available across Kenyan society.

Kenyan schools interact with many potential sources of support:

• Government
• businesses
• foundations
• development organisations
• NGOs
• universities
• technology companies
• employers
• professional associations
• community organisations
• philanthropists

However, support can become fragmented. A school may receive:

• devices without teacher capability
• software without connectivity
• equipment without maintenance
• training unrelated to its priority
• duplicated interventions
• short-term projects with no continuation plan

The One Big Change approach seeks to move from:

A Traction Partner is not automatically:

• a programme funder
• a programme supplier
• a Government contractor
• a sponsor with unrestricted access to schools
• an education-policy adviser
• an owner of programme evidence
• an organisation entitled to sell products to schools
• a decision-maker regarding school selection

Those roles must remain clearly separated.

The Traction Partner mechanism follows a defined sequence.

A contribution should not bypass this sequence simply because a partner wants to provide something quickly.

Each founding school will produce a structured resource-needs profile. The profile should include:

• school
• One Big Change priority
• identified barrier
• required response
• resource category
• quantity or scope
• estimated value
• urgency
• implementation owner
• sustainability implications
• evidence measure

One of the potential advantages of the Hub model is the ability to aggregate similar school needs. For example, if one school requires a particular capability, the response may be expensive. If thirty schools require the same capability, it may be possible to create:

• shared training
• negotiated licences
• pooled equipment
• regional expertise
• Hub-based support

The founding programme will therefore examine where individual school needs can be converted into collective demand.

The programme will maintain a structured partner pipeline. Suggested stages:

A potential partner should be assessed according to:

• relevance
• capability
• reputation
• geographic reach
• financial/resource capacity
• safeguarding suitability
• sustainability
• alignment with identified need
• conflicts
• evidence expectations
• ability to scale
• willingness to work within programme governance

Before material partner activation, appropriate due diligence should consider:

• legal status
• ownership
• reputation
• financial standing where relevant
• safeguarding
• data practices
• sanctions or significant legal concerns where applicable
• conflicts of interest
• relevant experience
• capability to deliver
• commercial intentions
• political exposure where relevant
• proposed school access

The depth of due diligence should be proportionate to the relationship.

Where a Traction Partner also wishes to sell goods or services into the programme or Government-funded activity:

• the potential conflict must be disclosed
• procurement requirements must be followed
• Traction Partner status must not give an unfair advantage
• relevant decision-makers with conflicts should withdraw
• documentation should show how the decision was reached

Contribution must not become a back door into public procurement.

Traction Partner status does not provide unrestricted access to:

• learners
• teachers
• school data
• parent contact information
• school communications
• classrooms

Access must be necessary for the agreed contribution and subject to school, safeguarding and programme controls.

Participation in One Big Change should not be used to:

• collect learner contact information
• target learners commercially
• create advertising audiences
• promote inappropriate products
• circumvent school procurement processes

This principle applies particularly where technology providers participate.

Cash contributions should be recorded separately from:

• Government commission income
• school activation funds
• in-kind contributions
• commercial procurement

Restricted funding must be used for its agreed purpose.

In-kind value should not be inflated for publicity. Valuation should use a reasonable basis such as:

• market price
• normal selling price
• documented service rate
• verified cost
• equivalent procurement cost

The valuation method should be recorded.

The programme will calculate:

Verified additional resource value mobilised ÷ relevant Government programme expenditure

This is the resource-leverage ratio. It is one measure of value for money. It is not the only measure.

A programme that mobilises expensive but irrelevant equipment does not represent good value simply because the ratio is large.

The programme should determine whether a contribution is genuinely additional. For example:

• Would the partner have provided it anyway?
• Is One Big Change redirecting existing activity?
• Is the programme creating a new contribution?
• Is it improving targeting?
• Is it increasing scale?
• Is it connecting previously fragmented work?

This distinction strengthens the credibility of partner-impact reporting.

Where equipment is provided, the agreement should clarify:

• legal owner
• custodian
• beneficiary
• asset-record requirement
• maintenance responsibility
• replacement
• disposal

Government-funded and partner-funded assets must remain distinguishable where required.

Universities may contribute:

• research
• evidence
• practitioner development
• evaluation
• specialist knowledge
• recognition
• student or academic expertise

Their role should be defined according to actual contribution.

A university logo is not a substitute for meaningful involvement.

Not all resources need to come from large national organisations. Future LocaeHubs may mobilise:

• local employers
• professional services
• local businesses
• alumni
• community institutions
• parents
• local expertise

This reinforces the principle of Harambee and local capability.

Local contribution must remain subject to safeguarding, transparency and conflict controls.

For each identified need, the programme will ask:

This prevents unnecessary external dependency.

A mature national model should seek a diversified portfolio. Dependence on one corporate or foundation creates risk. The portfolio should ideally include a mix of:

• Government
• private sector
• foundations
• universities
• development organisations
• local partners
• professional expertise

Subject to the December Decision Gate, Year 1 may establish a formal One Big Change Kenya Traction Partner Resource Pool. This would coordinate contributions around:

The pool may contain:

• cash
• in-kind resources
• expertise
• services
• infrastructure commitments

It should not necessarily operate as one central bank account. Different contributions may be delivered through different controlled mechanisms.

The amount that can responsibly be mobilised depends on:

• evidenced school needs
• number and maturity of Hubs
• partner appetite
• Government alignment
• implementation capacity
• infrastructure requirements
• ability to absorb resources effectively

The final mobilisation target should therefore be established at the Decision Gate.

External resource mobilisation does not transfer education-policy authority to private partners. Government remains responsible for its statutory mandate. Traction Partners participate within the programme architecture. They do not become parallel policymakers.

At scale, aggregated Change Lens information may allow One Big Change to identify patterns such as:

• repeated equipment gaps
• widespread capability needs
• regional connectivity barriers
• recurring inclusion needs
• professional-development demand

Appropriate aggregated information can then be used to design larger partner propositions.

Individual school or learner data should not be unnecessarily exposed.

Monthly partner reporting should include:

• new partners identified
• qualified conversations
• propositions issued
• commitments
• resources deployed
• verified resource value
• risks
• conflicts
• next actions

Government reporting should focus on programme-level value rather than disclose commercially sensitive partner negotiations unnecessarily.

A photograph of equipment being handed over is not sufficient evidence of impact. Evidence should distinguish:

This distinction is central to the One Big Change model.

The programme should be able to end a relationship where:

• contribution is not delivered
• conduct creates safeguarding risk
• data is misused
• commercial pressure becomes inappropriate
• conflicts are unmanaged
• political activity compromises neutrality
• reputational risk becomes unacceptable
• partner influence threatens evidence integrity

Exit provisions should appear in significant partner agreements.

LocaeFest may provide an opportunity for partners to:

• share implementation learning
• demonstrate useful resources
• participate in practical conversations
• support schools
• hear research findings

It should not become a conventional trade exhibition in which access to decision-makers is effectively sold.

Participation as a Traction Partner does not automatically transfer ownership of:

• One Big Change
• the Change Lens
• programme methodology
• national programme data
• programme branding

Partner intellectual property remains subject to its own agreement.

At the December Decision Gate, Government and programme leadership should be able to answer:

This framework should be read alongside:

Together, these establish how additional resources are identified, mobilised, governed, deployed and evidenced.