2008
DOI: 10.1080/09614520801897279
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

NGO–government partnerships for scaling up: sexuality education in Mexico

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As compared to government, the flexibility structures of many NGOs have allowed them to formulate, implement and evaluate innovative programmes directed at the need of specific populations and communities even for the programmes that could be too controversial for government to work on it [22]. The previous study also showed that with the robust collaboration between the government and NGO can scale up a social development program such as CSE to national level successfully through a carefully negotiated partnership [23].…”
Section: Frham As Advocatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As compared to government, the flexibility structures of many NGOs have allowed them to formulate, implement and evaluate innovative programmes directed at the need of specific populations and communities even for the programmes that could be too controversial for government to work on it [22]. The previous study also showed that with the robust collaboration between the government and NGO can scale up a social development program such as CSE to national level successfully through a carefully negotiated partnership [23].…”
Section: Frham As Advocatementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the government and NGOs avoid collaboration opportunities due to the contradictory relationships in many countries. [ 53 ]…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The findings of this analysis on successful strategies for building community support for CSE and overcoming resistance are similar to findings from other contexts. For example, the usefulness of the public-private partnership between the Government of Jharkhand and C3 – whereby the programme can benefit from governments’ inherent credibility and authority and its schools as an existing delivery platform on the one hand, and NGOs’ ability to nimbly navigate contentious waters while offering enhanced technical support on the other – match similar experiences from Senegal and Mexico [ 17 , 18 ]. Similarly, the choice to label Udaan as an AEP instead of CSE echoes choices made by many programmes in other contexts, such as use of “family life education” or “reproductive health education” in Senegal, “family life and HIV education” in Nigeria, and “life skills based education” in Pakistan [ 8 , 9 , 17 , 19 , 20 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%