Given the significant resource demands of any bridging programme, as well as the importance of pooling knowledge, experience and resources rather than re-inventing processes and structures each time, the right partners are critical. This might entail identifying existing organisations or projects that may use the same educational model as the one you are proposing, or ones that provide similar or complimentary services in the same geographical area, and thus might be able to provide further opportunities for your students. There may be other initiatives that help refugees to enter higher education by providing, for example, CV writing workshops, information on scholarships, or information sessions on what to expect in university. Consider educational programmes that develop similar skills, such as advanced English classes, leadership training, business management skills, and more. 

It is important to also establish which: 

• Funder to approach: The nature of the funder will obviously influence the contours of any project, from how it is designed to how it runs. Certain funders, for example, require precise data on how successful the project is, which requires setting clear benchmarks (e.g. How many students attend class? How well they do in interim assessments?) and the continuous collection of quantitative metrics on how students are progressing. Accommodating these demands require alignment of programme goals, teaching approaches and student engagement in very different ways to a funder who is content with narrative reporting. 
• Governmental departments to engage: it might be useful to partner with governmental departments, particularly when trying to accredit a new educational programme or advocate for changes in the existing system of qualifications. This also reduces the likelihood of any unexpected bureaucratic hurdles preventing the programme from proceeding further down the line. 
• Parts of the university to work with: Power and expertise is not evenly distributed within universities, and there is no guarantee that the different parts of any institution will be ideologically aligned in terms of approaches and priorities. It is therefore important to establish which parts of any university will be useful and agile allies – it may make more sense to work with individuals or small teams rather than large departments or schools, which have more rigid rules and longer timeframes. Be sure to include both academic and administrative and professional staff in this scoping. 
• Features you are prioritising. Large funders may bring more money to the project, but this may be relatively time-consuming to access as procurement can take months. Smaller partners may be much more agile and cost-effective to partner with, because they have reduced overheads and criterion about the conditions/locations in which they can work. They may also be better networked with communities on the ground, and possess significant knowledge about localised and domestic dynamics, which may be critical for programme design and assist with certain activities e.g. outreach for recruitment purposes. There are also ethical questions about recognising and paying for regional expertise, and ensuring that money is going to local organisations and their staff rather than being cycled back through multilateral actors.

An important consideration that needs to accompany discussions about key partners is whose time will be ‘paid for’. Depending on the possible budget available for the project, it may not be possible to ‘buy out’ all the individuals involved in the design and implementation of the programme. In such a situation, decisions might reflect institutional need (including whether or not partners depend on project funding for core salaries) and the planned division of labour and responsibility amongst the partners and project team members. 

Once partners have been identified and these questions answered, have an inception meeting to ensure that all partners have clear expectations about what is to come, a platform to air ideas or concerns, and a visible understanding of the larger team of partners working towards the same goal. In many cases, multiple inception meetings are warranted, one at a very high level to ensure political and institutional support; potentially one at a lower, more operational level, to think about pathways and pressure points for the project. 

PADILEIA/AUB as a partner for FFA Partner organisations do not have to be geographically proximate, as was the case with the FFA programme where the key partner organisation for the project in Uganda was PADILEIA, which is based in Lebanon. Its tried and tested approach to blended, bridging programmes with refugees, and wealth of institutional knowledge about higher education and civic engagement, nonetheless made it an ideal partner for realising this project’s aims. While the FFA team has always recognised the importance of designing contextually relevant educational programmes, AUB’s work on the Case Study produced a set of questions and recommendations that could be used to inform the development of FFA.