MD Oct 2011 Small

nt g me t lop a or ve ob n. de n j io xt ria t ne ita ac ur an er yo m t d hu .
in Fin or ers
re ca
bs jo
October 2011 Vol. 29 Issue 10
MonDay DeveLopMents Magazine

the Latest issues and trends in international Development and Humanitarian assistance
Highlights from
Investing in Common Solutions
FORUM 201 1
www.mondaydevelopments.org
InterAction 9th Annual Photo Contest Winner: Congolese Refugees Seeking Shelter By Jenn Warren
InterAction 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036
THIS ISSUE
October 2011
40 gifts-in-Kind as a resource for Development 41 cost-benefit analysis tools 30 the power of one
Integrating the work and the message of WASH and conservation.
Effectively using a too-often maligned source of support.
Vol. 29 No. 10
8 plenaryshifting Landscapes: Who are the Key actors?
Leaders from the government, think tank and civil society spheres kick off the Forum with a discussion of changes in the development landscape.
21 sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries

Practical tools for your organization.
Proving the benefit of disaster risk reduction programs.
22 the new Metrics of social Media
31 pvo standards
42 Humanitarian Leadership: What Does it take? 43 partnership? Whats that?
10 plenaryFrom Failing states to Development

A senior White House advisor and panel of experts discuss one of the most intractable issues in development.
Experts offer insights on how to maximize your influence and impact.
NGO accountability and transparency through standards.
The how, whys and what ifs of effective humanitarian leadership.
32 is the ngo brand at risk?
23 the Future bottom billion
12 plenaryWomen in the economic Drivers seat

New private sector strategies invest in women and girls as global stakeholders.
The development challenges of an increasingly urban world.
Panel discusses how organizations can increase their brand value by diversifying outreach to target audiences.
Keys to effective partnerships with local organizations.
44 impact evaluation in action 45 Walking the Walk 46 assistance as a Defense system

An aid workers guide to navigating the world of securitized aid.
24 bridges between information islands
33 UsaiD ForWarD
Data sharing for NGO collaboration, coordination and transparency.
Reviewing the initiative at the one-year mark.
How to build knowledge from practice. Gender as a key to linking communities to health systems.
34 Women in the Middle east and north africa

Challenges and opportunities in an opening political space.
14 plenarytough times, good times
25 accountability to the people We serve 26 U.s. expatriate taxation
Staying honest with donors and the public.
Sounds great, but how do we do it?
16 plenaryshaping and protecting our Working environment

Muhammad Yunus speaks about the unique power of civil society and the Forum closes with a panel discussion of the NGO communitys working environment.
35 putting Women at the center of rural Development really 36 paradigm shift in busan?
Best practices for management and the individual.
Creating programs that address root causes, not just symptoms.
27 natural vs. politicallyMade Humanitarian situations

Assessing the risks, preparedness, action and challenges for NGOs.
Can the 4th High Level Forum in Busan bring about a new focus on people?
ExtrAS
4 reflections from the president 5 thanks to sponsors and exhibitors 6 interaction 9th annual photo contest Winners 15 Forum award Winners
All Forum photography was courtesy of Graham Marsden, www.marsdenmedia.com.
37 claiming the Field 38 transforming and advancing Disability civil society
18 Member ceo-only events
Off-the-record sessions allow member executives to meet with key government and civil society figures.
28 Hows it going For you?
What will it take to create a profession of humanitarian action?
A look at the field-level experience to date in Global Health Initiative Plus countries.
20 annual Membership Meeting
29 climate adaptation
Forum session offers a marketplace of ideas.
Knowledge dissemination, organizational development and legal mechanisms.
Attendees elect new board members, review financials and outlook.
39 new Donor countries

Nations are both shaping and being shaped.
OcTOBEr 2011 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
reflections from the President
Investing in Common Solutions

The InterAction Forum has become the place where the U.S. NGO community and our partners gather to think strategically about a wide range of issues.
Global issues from natural disasters and food price volatility, to social and technological change and gender equity remain complex and dynamic. These forces shape our landscape and continue to transform the work of our community. In order for InterAction and the broader development community to create sustainable, long-term solutions that will serve vulnerable populations, we need to harness the strength of multiple sectors, each with different perspectives and mandates. This years Forum, Investing in Common Solutions, focused on creating partnerships between all development and humanitarian actorsincluding NGO, government, philanthropic, corporate and civil society participantsto develop effective programs, policies and mutually beneficial, sustainable solutions to alleviate poverty and advance equity around the world. external affairs of the World Bank, to name a few. The Forum also featured an extensive engagement by senior-level USAID staff, including among others, Donald Steinberg, deputy administrator; Nancy Lindborg, assistant administrator in the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance; Hilda Arellano, counselor; Susan Reichle, assistant to the administrator in the Bureau of Policy Planning and Learning; Lisa Gomer, general counsel; and Paul Weisenfeld, assistant to the administrator in the Bureau of Food Security. From focused trainings to broad overviews of our impact, the Forums 46 separate workshops gave attendees ways to advance their vital work from the macro to the micro: training on new tools to reach each other and our constituents; detailed discussions on problems facing our sector and our field offices; capacity-building tools; high-level discussions on broad policy issues, and more. The Forum truly showcased the breadth of our collective work. It also featured closed-door events for InterAction member CEOs, providing a space for candid dialogue with the U.S. government, foundations, and philanthropic advisors. The exhibit halls featured over 50 information booths, giving attendees the opportunity to learn about and purchase from the wide range of exhibiting organizations. From the opening session Shifting Landscapes Who Are the Key Actors? to the closing session of Shaping and Protecting the Environment to Do Our Work, the Forum was a resource for those interested in saving lives and improving the wellbeing of the worlds most vulnerable people. I hope the workshop and plenary overviews in the pages ahead will provide you with food for thought, both on ways to enhance your own work and on the issues facing our community. Next years Forum will be held April 30-May 2 in the Crystal City Gateway Marriott. We hope you will be able to join us for what is sure to be another powerful gathering. I look forward to seeing you there. MD
Managing Editor/Creative Director Chad Brobst Advertising/Subscriptions Zoe Plaugher Copy Editor Kathy Ward Executive Editor Sue Pleming News Editor Tawana Jacobs Proofreader Margaret Christoph Monday Developments Magazine is published by: InterAction 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202.667.8227 publications@interaction.org ISSN 1043-8157
next years Forum will be held april 30-May 2 in the crystal city gateway Marriott, and earlybird registration opens november 30.
Forum 2011 was our largest to date, with over 1,000 attendees from 281 organizations. It was a dynamic, high-energy gathering. Whether they were members or partners, from NGOs, corporations, foundations, government, or international organizations, it was exciting to welcome the people who work with the InterAction community on a daily basis around the world. As our communitys profile has grown, so has our access to decision-makers. Plenaries and workshops included such high-level speakers as: Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank and Nobel Peace Prize laureate; Gayle Smith, special assistant to the president and senior director, National Security Council; Valerie Amos, under-secretary-general and emergency relief coordinator of the United Nations; Daniel Yohannes, Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO; and Caroline Anstey, vice president for
4 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS OcTOBEr 2011
Monday Developments Magazine is published 11 times a year by InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-based international development and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations. With more than 195 members operating in every developing country, InterAction works to overcome poverty, exclusion and suffering by advancing social justice and basic dignity for all. InterAction welcomes submissions of news articles, opinions and announcements. Article submission does not guarantee inclusion in Monday Developments. We reserve the right to reject submissions for any reason. It is at the discretion of our editorial team as to which articles are published in individual issues. All statements in articles are the sole opinion and responsibility of the authors. Articles may be reprinted with prior permission and attribution. Letters to the editor are encouraged. A limited number of subscriptions are made available to InterAction member agencies as part of their dues. Individual subscriptions cost $40 a year (add $15 for airmail delivery outside the U.S.) Samples are $5, including postage. Additional discounts are available for bulk orders. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Advertising rates are available on request.
Sam Worthington President and cEO InterAction
Thank you ...

Sponsors
InterAction would like to thank the following sponsors for their investment in this years Forum: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation UPS Buddhist tzu Chi Foundation CHF International CivicActions Islamic relief USA Millennium Challenge Corporation Plan International USA rockefeller Financial the participation of sponsors enhances the quality and value of our Forum and their financial support enables us to keep attendee registration costs reasonable.
Exhibitors
We wish to extend our gratitude to all the Forum exhibitors for their continuous support to our community. they are valued partners in our work, providing expertise from variety of sectors, cutting-edge innovation and a broad variety of resources for our community. the Exhibit Hall is a vibrant and vital part of the InterAction Forum where the participants and exhibitors alike can network and share information. We thank the artisan vendors for providing for sale their unique crafts made by indigenous artisans from all over the world; and we thank SPOt LLC for providing SPOt Satellite GPS Messenger and SPOt Connect devices as raffle prizes.
NEVER LEAVE
ANYTHING
TO CHANCE
Clements has been helping embassies, corporations and other organizations meet their international insurance needs for over 60 years. For a free consultation, visit clements.com/mondaydevelopments or call us today: +1.202.872.0060
TAKE CLEMENTS WITH YOU.
CAR
PROPERTY
L I F E & H E A LT H
S P E C I A LT Y & H I G H R I S K I N S U R A N C E
ForUM 2011 aWarDs
interaction 9th annual photo contest Winner: jenn Warren
congolese refugees seeking shelter

UNHCr trucks transport Congolese refugees and their possessions to the UNHCr refugee Settlement in Makpandu, South Sudan. Mabe Oba, age 11, fled from the village of Nampari in northern Democratic republic of Congo. After living in Ganguri with a host family for one month, he hopes to reunite with family members also making their way to Makpandu. the Lords resistance Army (LrA) increased attacks on civilians following the beginning of a joint military operation led by the Ugandan army with support from the Congolese, South Sudanese, and Central African republic armies. Over 20,000 Congolese have fled into South Sudan seeking refuge from the LrA and UNHCr has led a number of humanitarian organizations in the relief effort. jenn Warren is a professional photographer based in Juba, South Sudan, specializing in humanitarian and development projects. Her work has been published in the Sunday times Magazine, rolling Stone, tIME, BBC News Online and Al-Jazeera. Clients include Save the Children, Mdecins sans Frontires, UNHCr, UNICEF, PSI, International Committee for the red Cross, USAID, DFID, UNESCO, CArE International, Amnesty International, the National Democratic Institute and SafePoint trust. Warren teaches photography, and is proficient in Arabic and American Sign Language. Her photography is exhibited and collected internationally.
MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS OcTOBEr 2011
ForUM 2011 aWarDs
Each year, InterActions photography contest focuses on the innovative, effective and inspiring work done in the field. the amazing images we receive help us to raise awareness of our members efforts and to introduce the American public to the lives we help to transform throughout the world.
FinaLists
1. ameen al-ghabri Uniqueness In Contrast 2. johannes burge First Sight 3. peter biro Displaced School Children Eager to Learn 4. Manuel Meszarovits Child Labour in Brick Kilns in Kathmandu 5. eric Kruszewski Hope for HaitiNations Beloved Sport
2
ForUM 2011 pLenary
shifting Landscapes:
Who are the Key actors?

t
HE 2011 FORUM OPENED WITH forceful addresses from key figures in the United Nations and USAID. Valerie Amos, UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, began by observing the critical status of the ongoing famine in Somalia. We face a genuine catastrophe. 12.4 million people urgently need our help and its getting worse. Amos went on to identify questions posed by the new development landscape. Is the scale adequate? Can we work better and faster?
Leaders from the government, think tank and civil society spheres kick off the Forum with a discussion of changes in the development landscape.
How do we work in insecure and hostile environments? What is the appropriate role of government and how do we work when government is absent? How do we work with fragile states and nonstate armed groups? And perhaps most importantly, how do we ensure that those in need actually benefit from our work? Our community, she stated, must be clear that we are only one part of an increasingly complicated picture. Donald Steinberg, USAID deputy administrator, also highlighted the increasing com-
By Will Merrow, Special Assistant to the President, InterAction
plexity of the environment in his address: No government agency, international organization or private organization has a monopoly on ground truth, good ideas or moral authority, he stated. Steinberg also noted the changing nature of the landscapes major actors. Whats a donor? Whats a recipient? he asked, strongly affirming the need to include local voices in development work. Nothing about them without them. He went on to identify four critical issues for the development community: focusing on results; broadening our idea of development to include more than official development assistance; working in fragile states; and anticipating future disasters and crises. He also noted the importance of development being sensitive to gender, minority and LGBT issues. Despite a gloomy outlook for the international affairs budget, Steinberg was optimistic, remarking that In a changing global landscape, the generosity and humanitarian spirit of the American people is one thing that hasnt changed. The opening plenary also featured the presentation of the Disability Inclusion Award to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and the International Rescue Committee (IRC). The second part of the plenary offered a
ForUM 2011 pLenary
no government agency, international organization or private organization has a monopoly on ground truth, good ideas or moral authority.
panel of experts representing a range of sectors: Brookings Institute Senior Fellow and Global Economy and Development Deputy Director Homi Kharas; Ashoka CEO Bill Drayton; Save the Children President and CEO-elect Carolyn Miles; Habitat for Humanity International President and CEO Jonathan Reckford; and Assistant to the Administrator in the Bureau for Food Security at USAID Paul Weisenfeld. Kharas was adamant about the development success seen in the past 10 years and the positive role of aid. While calling for increased attention to issues such as security and justice, he explained that the development community now has the resources and platforms to make real progress. We have the ability to eradicate poverty in many places, he stated. Drayton argued for the importance of teamsand teams of teamsas actors in the new landscape. Miles suggested that the NGO community
must move forward with a focus on preparedness, impact, and including input from beneficiaries. Weisenfeld noted significant changes in the thinking of his organization, explaining that there had been a concerted effort at the agency to turn the ship around, focusing more on country ownership and results. One theme every panelist highlighted was the increasing importance of partnerships in the new landscape. Reckford provided the example of a Brazilian community of subsistence farmers that benefitted from working
with a broad coalition of outside organizations: Habitat for Humanity provided housing improvements; the Methodist Church helped bring in fresh drinking water; the state government invested in the communitys first health clinic; and the national bank, World Vision and McKinsey & Company helped develop a supply chain for local business. In light of the rising importance of partnerships, Kharas stated that the current aid landscape would be better labeled an ecosystem in which everybody helps everybody else. MD
OcTOBEr 2011 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 9
ForUM 2011 pLenary
From Failing states to Development

A senior White House advisor and panel of experts discuss one of the most intractable issues in development.
HERE IS, PERHAPS, NO CHALLENGE IN DEVELOPMENT as difficult or complex as moving a state from failed or failing to a path toward prosperity. As USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg noted earlier in the Forum, not a single fragile state has yet reached a single Millennium Development Goal. Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the National Security Council Gayle Smith opened the discussion by identifying the key issues government and civil society actors must consider when working in such an environment. Citing Haiti, she argued for intervention at the very beginning of transitions, including transitions from conflict, crisis and authoritarian rule. She also noted progress takes time and must be consolidated in the middle of a transition, even though international attention moves quickly from one crisis to the next. Smith also called for the development community to think and act regionally in its responses, for example, by forming regional economic communities. Targeting her remarks directly at the NGO community, the White House advisor called on members to give more rigor to the discipline of development by aggregating and sharing data and lessons learned in post-conflict settings. This is an appeal to all of you: you have enormous knowledge and expertise in this area If we can bring the rigor to the table that you collectively and your partners on the ground have, we can facilitate that great leap. Lastly, she identified the need for sustainable solutions that build resilience to vulnerability. One bright spot in the tragedy of the famine in the Horn of Africa, she noted, is the fact that an estimated 8 million would have been threatened by famine were it not for programs carried out over the last decade. Smiths remarks were complemented by a panel discussion featuring Nancy Lindborg, assistant administrator of USAIDs Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance; Sarah Cliffe, director of strategy and operations for East Asia and the Pacific at the World Bank; and George Rupp, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee.
this is an appeal to all of you: you have enormous knowledge and expertise in this area if we can bring the rigor to the table that you collectively and your partners on the ground have, we can facilitate that great leap.
ForUM 2011 pLenary
greatest challenges of our timean achievement that would constitute a giant leap for mankind. Overall, panelists harbored a cautious, tempered optimism. When you have that kind of chaos, Lindborg declared, you also InsideNGOAd:Layout 1 copy 1 12/16/10 4:22 PM Page 1 have the possibility of positive change. MD
Lindborg led off by reiterating the importance of consolidating progress after a crisis, involving the state and local citizenry, and building institutions. Cliffe agreed that building confidence between national institutions and the citizenry is crucial and identified security, justice and employment as the three most critical areas according to World Bank research. How could we in civil society better work to build confidence in national institutions? she asked the audience. How do you [the NGO community] deliver on partnerships with national institutions? Rupp followed by observing the large gap between state failure and development, and arguing a parallel gap exists in the international communitys response mechanisms. The international aid architecture is structured so as to pay respects to this divide or chasm. Rupp also emphasized the importance of reestablishing markets, noting that it is a long-term process. You cant have people pulling the plant up every month or year to see how the roots are doing. Otherwise were doomed to make it seem like a failed state is still failing. Citing World Bank research, Cliffe said transitions take between 15 and 30 years on average. The problem is that countries are fashionable and one to three years is not long enough. On the timing issue, Lindborg stressed the importance of preparednesshaving plans laid years ahead of time so funds are ready when a crisis occurs. The panel also noted the difficult issue of how to reintegrate human rights violators. We need to have an emphasis on moving forward, Rupp argued. We need a higher tolerance for working with unsavory people were going to have to work with the capacities that are there. Bringing the worlds failed states back from the brink is one of the
260 member organizations worldwide know the value of a network the power of knowledge
InsideNGO provides international relief and development organizations with one stop for keeping current on international operations issues. For information on training, advocacy, professional development, and membership go to: www.InsideNGO.org or email info@InsideNGO.org
11
ForUM 2011 pLenary
Women in the economic Drivers seat

New private sector strategies invest in women and girls as global stakeholders.
By Emily Valk, Administrative Assistant, Strategic Impact Team, InterAction
SE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYTics. Align with your mission. Engage men and boys. These top-line messages on advancing gender equality and benefitting the bottom line were offered by the panelists at the annual Commission on the Advancement of Women (CAW) breakfast plenary. Cosponsored this year with the Chamber of Commerces Business Civic Leadership Center (BCLC), the plenary Movers and Shakers: Advancing Women, Advancing Rights, Advancing Business focused on why and how the private sector and development banks are increasing investments in gender equality and womens empowerment that enhance NGOs own strategies to advance equal opportunities overseas. There was a particular emphasis on the need for the private sector to forge innova12 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS OcTOBEr 2011
tive partnerships with the nonprofit community to achieve these results. Taryn Bird, manager of global corporate citizenship at BCLC, set the stage for the lively discussion with a brief overview of BCLCs work in advancing womens rights. The center and its private sector partners have been making social civic investments in female empowerment globally in support of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. She spoke of BCLCs desire to build collective action around womencentric programs in response to the private sectors growing movement toward a shared value sentiment. She stressed that investing in women is not just the right thing for businesses to do, but the smart thing as well. Susan Hayes, president and CEO of ReSurge International, moderated the panel and
opened the discussion by asking the panelists why investing in women is so important to the public, private and nonprofit sectors. Sally DAmato, a principal at Deloitte Consulting LLP, said that from a business perspective, existing data show a clear picture of the vital role women play within organizations and in the client base. In 1993, Deloitte examined the representation of women in leadership roles in their company and found that women accounted for only 7 percent of senior management. In response, Deloitte instituted its Retention and Advancement of Women Program, aimed at developing strategies for the advancement of women in leadership roles. This led to an overall structural evolution to foster a more engaged approach to diversity in the workplace: women now account for 23 percent of Deloittes senior leadership globally. As DAmato noted, Investing in women goes beyond a moral imperative; it justworks. In a similar vein, Andrew Morrison, chief of the Gender & Diversity Unit at the InterAmerican Development Bank, explained
ForUM 2011 pLenary
that economics as a discipline has become increasingly convinced that limiting the role of women and other marginalized groups stifles development. Women are at the core of economic development, Morrison asserted, noting that, Gender equality promotes reduced poverty by empowering women as economic agents and the evidence there is very strong. The impressive results of womens empowerment include improvements in childrens health and education and better handling of money. Infant mortality rates decline 20 percent when women instead of men handle a familys money. He also noted cash transfer programs almost always put resources into the hands of women. Lack of accountability, resources and will currently hold us back in terms of business and organizational structures that promote gender equality. We need to engage men and boys if we are ever going to truly reach gender equality and womens empowerment, emphasized Ilze Melngailis, vice president of partnerships and impact initiatives at GBCHealth. GBCHealths moMENtum program aims to do just that.
build collective action around women-centric programs in response to the private sectors growing movement toward a shared value sentiment.
And its business community partners see it as making good business sense. The purchasing power of women is growing tremendously and women already control about 20 trillion consumer spending dollars globally. That is why GBCHealth concentrates on a holistic framework combining health, education, economic empowerment, reducing gender-based violence, and increasing the involvement of men and boys. There are several ways in which businesses can make a difference: employee engagement, community investments, core competency, philanthropy and
advocacy are just a few. All three of the speakers emphasized that these innovative strategies will only be successful if we forge innovative partnerships, especially between the private and nonprofit sectors, and noted monitoring and evaluation as an area with great partnership potential. MD
13
ForUM 2011 pLenary
tough times, good times

t
HE MOST DIFFICULT BUDGET environment in recent history provided a sobering backdrop for this plenary, but Josh Rogin, staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, started with an encouraging reminder after being presented with the Award for Excellence in International Reporting. Rogin pointed out that in light of the recent stress on the U.S. foreign assistance budget, many advocates have focused on making the national security argument: Aid is an invest-
Staying honest with donors and the public.

ment in national security and is in the strategic self interest of the United States. This may be true, but it completely ignores the moral case for aid. The NGO community must emphasize the compassionate argument, Rogin stated firmly. You guys have the moral high ground, he declared, reminding everyone that presenting aid as a national security tool could change how the U.S. government uses aid and risks corrupting the process. He called on the NGO community to redou-
ble its efforts and find new champions for the issue. He also called out the Obama administration for being too eager to sacrifice programs lacking large domestic constituencies. The plenary then shifted to transparency and information-sharing in civil society organizationsa critical topic in a tighter budget environmentwith a panel featuring Caroline Anstey, vice president for external affairs at the World Bank; Tony Pipa, deputy assistant to the administrator in the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning at USAID; Jean-Louis Sarbib, CEO of Development Gateway; and Bradford Smith, president of the Foundation Center. Anstey started the discussion by stressing the critical importance of these topics. The future of development is transparency. Finding mistakes is part of doing development better. Pipa followed with a description of USAIDs transparency initiatives, including the publication of data online through data.gov and the Foreign Assistance Dashboard and the sharing of information with governments and citizens of the agencys partner countries. Smith highlighted the importance of there being demand for information, positing that foundations may not be that interested in transparency. Sarbib offered five specific issues he sees as most critical: making information compatible; keeping information current and complete; finding an incentive to make transparency sustainable; involving beneficiaries to confirm if projects have actually materialized; and providing information on project budgets and outcomes to foster greater accountability. Sarbib also highlighted the power of mapping, conjuring the image of 8-year old boys playing soccer to illustrate the importance of deploying resources strategically.
14
MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS OcTOBEr 2011
ForUM 2011 aWarDs
Forum 2011 Award Winners

Julia Vadala Taft Outstanding Leadership Award
Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta
Humanitarian Award
Dr. Thangamuthu Sathiyamoorthy

Panelists emphasized that the scope of transparency and information-sharing must include qualitative and quantitative data. We are what we measure we focus on what we measure, Anstey stated, expressing fear that unmeasurable goals may not be accomplished. Sarbib provided an example from Africa. For years we built roads, but did not build the ministry of roads. The more we focus on quantitative goals, the more we are at risk of narrowing the complex field of development into things we can show to Congressman X or Senator Y. Anstey said the World Bank has developed an appreciation for the benefits of being transparent and noted partner countries may also need to be persuaded that transparency is in their interest. As for the NGO community, panelists voiced strong support for transparency, even if it requires admitting mistakes to donors. If you dont admit them, somebodys going to find them anyway, Anstey stated. Smith noted that NGOs are always better off disclosing mistakes, and while scandals can hurt a sector in the short run, the long-term impact is improved governance and oversight. Theres an inevitability about this, Anstey maintained. If people giving you money arent asking for it now, they will in a few years. She also projected that indicators would assume increased importance over time. The battle in the future is not going to be about what you release; its going to be about how you measure things. While Rogin opened with advice on how the sector could rescue itself from the immediate budget crisis, the panel discussion offered a window into the future landscapes of philanthropy and development. MD
Mildred robbins Leet Award
Donald Steinberg
Mildred robbins Leet Award
Melanne Verveer
Award for Excellence in International reporting
Josh Rogin
Security Advisory Groups Distinguished Achievement Award
Fabian Chimakati Shivachi

Disability Inclusion Award
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) International Rescue Committee (IRC)
15
ForUM 2011 pLenary
shaping and protecting our Working environment

Muhammad Yunus speaks about the unique power of civil society and the Forum closes with a panel discussion of the NGO communitys working environment.
HE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BANGLADESH IN 1971 and today is, in the words of the man partly responsible for the countrys progress, a kind of miracle. Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and recognized father of microcredit, keynoted the closing plenary with a discussion of the philosophy he applied in Bangladesh and a passionate argument for the ability of civil society to make change throughout the world. In part as a result of his social businesses, over 80 percent of the countrys poor have good connections with microcredit and there is a telephone for every three people in the country. Yunuss message was that progress occurred because civil society took the initiative. The countrys gradual health improvements have occurred because NGOs and other civil society groupsnot governmenttook action. Allowing individuals to solve their problems is the key to solving their problems, he declared, arguing government is a slow machine that can obstruct development. He highlighted the importance of empowering women and youth, citing the impact of this in Bangladesh, and said empowering people requires reimagining what we think individuals value. We have been trained to think that people want to make money . We ignore that other part of us which can change the world. How can we unleash that? How can we open it up? According to Yunus, one manifestation of this is social business. Regarding the successful businesses he started, he stated, I didnt create it to own it; I created it to solve a problem. He gave the example of partnering with Dannon to improve nutrition by making yogurt more available to children. What about the other business, the business of changing the world? That is not included in our economic theory. Yunus then joined panelists Doug Rutzen, president and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law; Ingrid Srinath, secretary general of CIVICUS; Ken Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute; and Stacy Rhodes, chief of staff of the U.S. Peace Corps. Rutzen opened by identifying three major trends in the working environment of civil society organizations: the restriction on foreign funding of civil society groups; the restriction of civic space around advocacy work; and the existential threat to civil societyincluding
the death penalty in some areas of the world. He labeled these changes a counterrevolution to the positive developments of the Arab Spring. Srinath saw recent global events in the context of a struggle between the individual and the state: The social contract itself is being renegotiated. She sees an opportunity presented by the record amount of dissatisfaction with governments and the fact that the worlds poor are better organized and connected than ever before. Yunus called for individuals to take a greater role in solving social problems, decrying the separation between a government addressing social issues and a citizenry that generates wealth, only participating in problem-solving by voting. Wollack responded that in the current environment, more resources must be directed at intermediary institutions between governments and
ForUM 2011 pLenary
civil society, including politicians and their parties. There will always be tensions between civil society and government. The question is how do you manage those tensions? When there is separation, how do you build these bridges? He suggested the international community is uniquely positioned to bring people together to build these connections. Srinath highlighted the importance of having an infrastructure within the NGO community, calling for greater investment in platforms and connections. Rhodes highlighted the Peace Corpss work with NGOs and civil society groups, calling the partnerships win-
win arrangements. The speakers painted a picture of a watershed moment for relationships between governments, citizens and civil society groups and a fast-changing, perilous working environment for NGOs. We are in a completely different environment, Yunus observed. This is a time to review what NGOs should be. He was, however, decidedly hopeful. Human creativity is so enormous, so limitless, that if you put that creativity into action, none of the problems we are serious about can survive. MD
UPS is proud to support InterAction.
Put the new logistics to work for you. community.ups.com

2011 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and the color brown are trademarks of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved.
17
ForUM 2011 ceo WorKsHops
into account the increased importance of partnerships (with local governments, NGOs on the ground and international organizations), the fact that 70 percent of USAID resources currently go toward failing or fragile states and conflict environments, and the importance of strengthening systems. One participant called for USAID staff to become more development experts and less assistance experts, while another stated the importance of ensuring that recent reforms are made irreversible in the coming years.
Member ceo-only events

Off-the-record sessions allow member executives to meet with key government and civil society figures.
of the mornings discussion of the shifting landscape of development work. Panelists and member CEOs explored trending topics such as country ownership, building local capacity and the role of multinational corporations. The panel also featured some debate on the importance of national governments in achieving economic and social development, and on the importance of innovation as compared to replication. a conversation with the U.s. government The second CEO workshop provided a space for dialogue with senior USAID officials, including Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg, Counselor Hilda Arellano, Assistant to the Administrator in the Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning Susan Reichle, and General Counsel Lisa Gomer. Panelists and member CEOs discussed USAIDs recent evolution and the tasks currently before the agency. Its critically important for those of us who care about this to stand together, one participant said, acknowledging the deteriorating budget environment for foreign assistance funding. Participants argued that USAID must take
HROUGHOUT THE 2011 FORUM, member CEOs had the opportunity to attend closed-door events covering a range of topics critical to the NGO community, featuring the off-the-record perspectives of plenary panelists, senior U.S. government officials, InterAction leadership and representatives of major private foundations.
a conversation with the interaction executive office The Forum also offered a formal opportunity for member CEOs to speak with InterAction leadership. President and CEO Sam Worthington and Executive Vice President Lindsay Coates sat down with CEOs to field questions about InterAction, its relationship with its members and the general working environment for NGOs. Worthington was adamant about the collective weight of the NGO community. Weve become diplomatic actors on a global stage, he observed. In the discussion, he stressed the importance of members and InterAction learning from each other, noting the value of networking to develop relationships among CEOsparticularly mentoring relationships between new executives and those with more experience. The discussion also touched on the legitimacy of NGOs working in the Global South and the need for sensitivity in this regard. private foundations: views of policy and aid effectiveness Fridays first CEO event gave member executives the chance to hear directly from representatives of high-profile foundations, featuring the voices of Nancy MacPherson, managing director for evaluation at the Rockefeller Foundation, and Nick Deychakiwsky, program officer at the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Participants discussed the importance of working at the intersection of different fields,
shifting landscapewho are the key actors? The first session featured an address by Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) CEO Daniel Yohannes, followed by a panel made up of Ashoka CEO Bill Drayton, Save the Children President and CEO-elect Carolyn Miles, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow and Global Economy and Development Deputy Director Homi Kharas, and InterAction President and CEO Sam Worthington. One participant declared that the MCC and the U.S. NGO community need to work together more so today than at any other time in the past, dubbing NGOs the eyes and ears of U.S. foreign assistance. After questions on MCCs approach to country ownership and working with disabled and elderly populations, the event switched to a continuation
Since 2005, millions of people in need of safe water have bene ted from LifeStraw lters. Thanks to generous donors, victims of crises from Haiti to Pakistanand people across Africaare now using LifeStraw to reduce their risk of lifethreatening waterborne illnesses.
To buy for personal use as a consumer, visit buylifestraw.com, or one of our retail partners:
To buy or donate for public health purposes visit lifestraw.com.
eartheasy.com
greenbeetlegear.com
2011 Vestergaard Frandsen
ForUM 2011 ceo WorKsHops
annual Membership Meeting

Attendees elect new board members, review financials and outlook.
despite the fact that many funders and NGOs are still siloed in their approach to issues. The issue of building connections was also raised by one participant who noted that civil society is a system, and any system requires infrastructure. Panelists discussed how foundations can best structure themselves to encourage these integrative approaches to grant-making. philanthropic investing Audrey Bracey Deegan, managing director of the OMG Center for Collaborative Learning;Erik Kessler, principal and managing director of Arabella Philanthropic Investors; and Doug Balfour, CEO of Geneva Global, discussed the thinking behind their firms strategies for investing to advance clients philanthropic interests. In an animated dialogue, member CEOs and panelists agreed on the importance of (and the need to improve) reporting on the impact of the NGO communitys work worldwide. The importance of involving and connecting with donors beyond a written proposal and report should not be underestimated, a panelist assured. Your organizations are very creative, so be creative, recommended another. When NGOs communications (e.g., appeals, proposals or reports) reach donors, they are likely to be benchmarked against corporate proposals, the panel pointed out. A high percentage of panelists donors have strong professional or family ties to U.S. businesses; it is therefore fundamental, one participant declared, that InterAction members retain their voice and message but also understand how to best communicate in that world. Finally, the panel suggested that civil society groups should not forget to listeneffectively engaging a donor entails listening carefully to their ideas as well. MD
HE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETing provided an opportunity for members to approve new additions to InterActions board of directors and receive an update from board leadership on InterActions health and strategic vision. It also provided a forum for member CEOs to directly question the board. InterAction President and CEO Sam Worthington began by identifying InterAction not as a 52-person organization, but as a conversation among 50,000 people with varying agendas. One central challenge for the community, he argued, is having a voice at the table: NGOs do not yet have the gravitas they should have given their collective weight. He also noted the difficulty of the current budget environment for civil society groups and the rise in collaboration and dialogue among InterAction members around key issues. He then opened the floor to questions from member CEOs. Nominations Committee Chair Anne Goddard, president and CEO of ChildFund International, then reviewed the role of InterActions board of directors and presented six member CEOs whom the Nominations Committee had selected from a pool of 15 applicants to serve on the board. The committees goal, she informed members, was to select candidates who collectively would bring diversity to the board, including diversity as individuals and in terms of the organizations they represent. The nominees were: Pape Gaye, president and CEO of IntraHealth; Cindy Hallberlin, president and CEO of Good360; Neal Keny-Guyer, CEO of Mercy Corps; John Nunes, president and CEO of Lutheran World Relief; Tessie San Martin, president and CEO of Plan USA; and Adam Weinberg, president and CEO of World Learning.
The nominees present spoke briefly about their goals in applying to serve on the board and were then voted on by the members. All were approved, with the only non-yes votes being abstentions. The new board members will serve three-year terms and be eligible to serve a second term if reelected. The board of directors also recently approved six new members at its August 9 meeting: ACDI/VOCA, the Eagle Wings Foundation, the Enough Project of the Center for American Progress (Associate Membership), the Global Giving Foundation, the Lions Clubs International Foundation, and the NGOLD Center at Northern Illinois University (Associate Membership). Following the election of new board members, Treasurer Jonathan Quick, president and CEO of Management Sciences for Health, provided an overview of InterActions positive financial health. Members were presented with a copy of InterActions 2011 financial audit. Worthington then recognized Daniel Pellegrom, retiring president of Pathfinder International, for his years of service. He noted that in past years, Pellegrom has played an extraordinarily active role in working for the health of the NGO community. Finally, Worthington highlighted the upcoming Member CEO Retreat, to be held in December. MD
ForUM 2011 WorKsHops
sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries

Practical prevention tools for your organization.
By Margot Bokanga, Project coordinator, InterAction
EXUAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE [SEA] of beneficiaries cannot be an afterthought in terms of security of both beneficiaries and staff. SEA must be included in [an] organizations programs to better serve those who need us the most. Fabian Chimakati Shivachi, regional safety and security manager in the Republic of South Sudan with FHI 360 (formerly AED) and winner of the Security Award at this years Forum candidly shared this observation, drawing on his experience as a security officer working in South Sudan and as a participant of the SEA Community-Based Complaints Mechanisms workshop conducted by InterAction in Nairobi, Kenya. Margaret Pollack, director for multilateral coordination and external relations and senior advisor, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, State Department (PRM), echoed
Shivachis concerns. She underscored the extreme vulnerability of affected populations targeted for exploitation and emphasized the need for NGOs to prioritize the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries from the earliest stages of emerging humanitarian crises. She also urged senior managers to take the lead within their organizations to institutionalize SEA prevention and response. Participants in the Forum session were introduced to a range of tools developed by InterAction and funded by PRM to prevent and respond to the sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries by staff. Drawing heavily on existing materials, including the Building Safer Organizations Guidelines on Receiving and Investigating Allegations of Abuse and Exploitation by Humanitarian Workers, the curricula for three workshops were developed over the course of InterAction project. These workshop
curriculaone on investigations, one on community-based complaints mechanisms and one on the management of investigationswere piloted over the previous nine months. The three-day investigations workshop is highly interactive, incorporating case studies and role playing to illustrate the principles and methods for investigating SEA allegations. The two-day community-based complaints mechanisms (CBCM) workshop teaches participants how to develop an effective CBCM that can be adapted for agency implementation. The CBCM workshop builds on existing guidance to walk participants through organizational procedures that encourage beneficiaries to come forward with SEA complaints and how to engage communities to design complaints mechanisms. The management of investigations workshop is a day-long workshop, geared toward senior staff who have primary responsibility for overseeing SEA investigations. The curricula for all three workshops was scheduled for posting on InterActions website (www.interaction.org/ sea) by the end of September. These practical workshops are geared towards InterAction members to provide training opportunities for NGO staff to build organizational capacities to respond appropriately to allegations and prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries by an organizations own staff. Beyond building staff capacity to investigate and implement preventive measures, senior NGO managers need to lead the organizationwide change necessary to prevent this type of abuse, which one Forum participant characterized as the most egregious violation of humanitarian principles. To support such efforts and to help reach more aid workers with this message, two e-learning modules have also been developed. The aim of these e-learning modules is to help inform aid workers about the occurrence of sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries and their roles to prevent and respond to it. The SEA 101 e-learning module was launched during the Forum session. The second e-learning is geared towards informing senior managers of the key responsibilities for managing an SEA investigation and where to find additional resource materials. Both were scheduled for posting on InterActions website at the end of September. MD For more information about the tools available, please contact the author at mbokanga@ interaction.org.
21
the new Metrics of social Media

Experts offer insights on how to maximize your influence and impact.
By Margaret Christoph, Senior communications Associate, InterAction
VER THE LAST DECADE, THE LANDSCAPE THAT NGOs use to communicate with their constituents has shifted dramatically. Instead of organizations and the media being gatekeepers and deciding what the public hears, today everyone is at the microphone thanks to social media. But how do you measure your impact? Heather Holdridge, Fenton Communications vice president for digital in their D.C. office, and Victoria Marzilli, new media specialist for Oxfam America, examined this issue in an engaging panel. Holdridge emphasized the need to know your goals and your audience. Once you know those, measuring your impact is much easier. Since social media is so different from traditional media, she suggests that you measure it by what your constituents see (your number of followers), what they say (how many times they echo your message), what they feel (if they personalize your message), and what they do (if they take action on your message). She emphasized that without good content, social media is infinitely harder. Holdridge then presented a case study of a campaign last year tied into InterAction member American Jewish World Services (AJWS) annual anti-hunger campaign. AJWS branched out from traditional discussions of hunger into discussions of food security and food aid, writing a blog called Five Questions Monsanto Needs to Answer about its Seed Donation to Haiti about its May 2010 donation to Haitian farmers. AJWS cross-posted the piece to several different blogs, marketing it through social media. Monsanto even wrote a response blog. AJWS Twitter followers rose significantly, and retweets and mentions increased sixfold, a huge win for AJWS. Marzilli also presented a case study: an Oxfam America social media campaign around the 2010 UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Summit called The World I Want, to introduce the MDGs to a broader public in plain language instead of jargon familiar only to aid workers. To engage their followers, Oxfam America wrote a blog post with several other countries Oxfam branches, and they used the Twitter hashtag #worldIwant to allow their followers to join the conversation. (A hashtag in Twitter is a searchable word with the character # in front of it so you can see comments on a topic even from users you do not actively follow.) Oxfam highlighted one suggestion
for each of the eight MDGs on large cards outside the UN summit on the MDGs in September 2010. Marzilli then explained the metrics they used to measure their impactnumber of uses of their Twitter hashtag, number of new followers, number of influential people who participated (including the secretary of education in Rio de Janiero, Brazil), and the overall sentiment participants expressedand why. She emphasized that social media campaigns are about your followers, not your organization. The session then opened up into a Q&A for audience members. Since social media involves presenting yourself to the public and allowing them to respond, sometimes you get very public, negative comments. One audience member asked for ideas on countering this and measuring the impact of the response. Marzilli suggested that this creates opportunities to correct misconceptions in that same public forum, or to allow your followers to support you by doing the same. Another audience member asked for suggestions on getting blogs to cross-post your organizations pieces, as in the AJWS campaign. Holdridge explained that, when possible, it is best to start building the relationship with other blogs when you do not need anything from them, so that when you do, the structure of the relationship and the reciprocity are already built. In response to a question about who should be doing social media, Holdridge pointed out that more people are likely to see your organizations website and social media output than its press releases, so you should treat your organizations online program with the same care and professionalism as you do press releases. In closing, since the panel focused mainly on Facebook and Twitter, Holdridge and Marzilli suggested other social media forums that they have found to be useful: LinkedIn, YouTube, StumbleUpon, act.ly and Tumblr. MD
the Future bottom billion

The development challenges of an increasingly urban world.
By Susan Corts Hill, President and cEO, International Housing coalition
HE INTERNATIONAL HOUSING COALITION (IHC) AND Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) sponsored the panel Addressing the Future Bottom Billion, which looked at the challenges and opportunities of working in an increasingly urban world. As more people in the developing world move to cities, uniquely urban problems grow, including, but not limited to, the growth of slums and informal settlements. This panel discussed strategies for addressing urban issues and how cross-sectoral programming can help to address these complex issues. In addition, two panelists presented case studies on their organizations work in urban settings. The panel was moderated by Bob Dubinsky, chair of the board of directors at IHC. Panelist Jessica Rosen, team leader for urban programs and engineering services at USAID, reviewed USAIDs upcoming urban strategy. Mario Flores, director of disaster response field operations at
HFHI, then discussed HFHIs experiences in rebuilding a neighborhood in Port-au-Prince following last years earthquake and the unique challenges of post-disaster work in cities. Kirti Devi, senior project development specialist at TCG International, wrapped up the panel presentations with remarks on TCGIs work in Bhubaneswar, India. Participants made several key points. The panelists stressed that urban challenges are unique and require immediate attention as urbanization in the developing world continues to rise. In fact, 90 percent of all growth in urban areas is happening in the developing world. The panelists also emphasized the importance of cross-sectoral programming. While many development projects are funded for a specific sector, the nature of urban challenges, including informal settlements and population density, demands integrated programming. Interventions also benefit from community participation and leadership. Since most urban growth will be in small- and medium-sized cities, urban policy should be broadly defined to include these cities, and the urban challenges they face must be addressed. Audience members noted the linkage between urban and rural social problems as younger people move between cities and rural areas or send money from cities to rural areas. The impact of urban migration on the elderly population was also raised and the panelists agreed that this was an important topic that has not been fully considered. MD
M.S. in International Health Policy and Management Graduate Programs in Sustainable International Development Knowledge Advancing Social Justice http://heller.brandeis.edu HellerAdmissions@Brandeis.edu Phone: 781-736-3820
Brandeis University
The heller School for Social Policy and ManageMenT
23
bridges between information islands

Data sharing for NGO collaboration, coordination and transparency.
By Emiko Guthe, Mapping Associate, InterAction
F WE THINK OF EACH NGO AS AN island in a world of data sharing, significant bridges still need to be built between them. Though technical advances have narrowed many gaps, significant cultural and practical challenges remain concerning why and how organizations choose to share data. This Forum session tackled issues about the value proposition of data sharing, developing technical standards to enable data sharing and the organizational cultures that facilitate and inhibit data exchange. Throughout the workshop, participants stressed the need for geographic information to add value and provide a narrative for data. The value proposition is the need for NGO staff to know that time spent collecting, processing, analyzing and sharing data will produce an outcome worth the effort. Marian Spivey-Estrada, manager of information and reporting in International Services at the American Red Cross, explained that because data standards and definitions vary across organizations, the benefits of sharing (e.g., improved efficiency, coordination,
transparency and donor confidence) are often overshadowed by the tremendous resources required to make the process work. But when organizations unite around a shared goal with associated data and shared definitions to go with itsharing becomes an output of an existing process. NGOs also find it easier to invest time in sharing data if they see that improved standards lead to added value: for example, improving their ability to target beneficiaries by more easily accessing data on demographics or service provision. SpiveyEstrada also noted data sharing is based upon trust built over time and involves changes to program management and organizational structures and cultures. Melissa Bator from the Department of Communication at the University of California Santa Barbara continued the theme, presenting findings from her survey of program offices and senior leadership of InterAction members. Her research investigated employees attitudes and behaviors towards inter-organizational knowledge sharing, which includes sharing both hard data and less
tangible (tacit) knowledge, such as expertise and know-how. Interestingly, both senior leaders and program officers indicated they are more likely to share their tacit knowledge than their hard data, although respondents from both categories did not rate this as a frequent behavior. These findings prompted discussion of how organizational cultures need to change to smooth the exchange of knowledge and data. The session also addressed the role of competition in inter-organizational knowledge sharing and the different ways knowledge may be transferred, including storytelling about successes and lessons learned. Stephen Davenport, senior director for business development, innovation and partnerships at Development Gateway, discussed technical standardsthe tools that facilitate exchanging hard data. Davenport detailed the development of the IATI (International Aid Transparency Initiative) standard, a process that is creating an activity-based standard to manage project information, or ensure that we are all speaking the same language. He also presented the geocoding methodology that was used by the AidData initiative to geocode the data for maps.worldbank.org and is now incorporated in the IATI standard. Davenport noted that the combination of project points overlaid with data on poverty, education and other indicators begins to tell a story that can be presented to a wide variety of audiences. He also cautioned that while standards and mapping cannot provide a definitive answer, they can help practitioners ask the right questions. Andrew Schroeder, director of research and analysis at Direct Relief International, moderated a discussion of the why and how of data sharing and related roadblocks. Participants delved into how institutional cultures frame data sharing relationships, with respondents noting a general concern over how data will be used once it is shared, privacy and sensitivity concerns related to the level of detail available, and the need for clear incentives to share. Discussion also centered on the information requirements of different audiences, with the idea that lessons learned should be shared alongside success stories. The role of competition between NGOs as a roadblock for data sharing was also mentioned. Although practical and cultural challenges for data sharing remain, participants agreed the incentives and benefits for knowledge exchange were numerous and the gaps between information islands can be bridged. MD
accountability to the people We serve

Sounds great, but how do we do it?
By Abby Bruell, Program Associate, Disaster response, InterAction
AVE YOU EVER BEEN A VICTIM of a bad haircut? Did you say anything to the person who was trying to do something different with your hair? If you didnt, what did you do instead? How did you hold the person accountable for what happened to your hair? While a bad haircut has little to do with humanitarian assistance, the sharing of the unfortunate experience kicked off the workshop Accountability to the People We Serve: Sounds Great, But How Do We Do It? Loretta Ishida, technical advisor for emergency M&E (monitoring and evaluation) and learning for Catholic Relief Services (CRS), and Carolyn Marks, director of compliance for Save the Children, guided workshop participants through a discussion about accountability, the different people to whom we are account-
able, and the need to clearly communicate and to provide feedback so that improvements can be made. Participants were introduced to the Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB), which was created to address the capacity gaps constraining the ability to provide timely, effective and high quality preparedness and response to emergencies, including staff capacity, accountability and impact, and disaster risk reduction. The ECB Project is a formal partnership between six international NGOs (CARE, CRS, Mercy Corps, Oxfam, Save the Children and World Vision) working in Bangladesh, Bolivia, the Horn of Africa, Indonesia and Niger. To address the issue of accountability and impact, the ECB Project developed the Good Enough Guide to help field workers develop an understanding of what it means to be account-
able to beneficiaries and to help them measure program impact in emergency situations. The focus is inspired by the good enough approach and is based on five principles of accountability: (1) involve people at every stage; (2) profile the people affected by the emergency; (3) identify the changes people want to see; (4) track changes and make feedback a two-way process; and (5) use feedback to improve project impact. Using these principles, organizations can balance the needs of different groups and better ensure positive outcomes of their programs. By involving beneficiaries at every stage, agencies enhance the buy-in for the project and increase the chances of success. This approach also provides important feedback and information that can be used to adjust the project before moving forward. Profiling the affected population can be done through needs and vulnerability assessments, secondary sources of information, joint assessments, and assessing the assets and capacity of the affected community. When an organization identifies changes the community wants to see, it lessens the chances the community will feel the program is being imposed on them, and also gives the community a stake in the projects success. However, this process of inclusion can create expectations, and disappointment can arise when those expectations arent met. M&E systems are an important component of accountability and can provide a way of getting people involved in the process. Both workshop leaders suggested that feedback and ways to improve the project should be gathered and incorporated from the start of the project. Organizations can achieve the five principles of accountability through 14 different tools described in the Good Enough Guide. Agencies can chose to use these tools by themselves, or they can be combined with any tool an agency has previously developed. These tools and principles can also be applied to recovery and development programs It is also recognized that while agencies are improving accountability to the people they serve, they also need to improve their ability to measure program impact. MD To learn more about the Emergency Capacity Building project, or to download a copy of the Good Enough Guide, visit http://www.ecbproject.org.
U.s. expatriate taxation

Best practices for management and the individual.
By Kate Fisken, International Tax Specialist, Principal, Gelman, rosenberg & Freedman cPAs, Troy Turner, Partner, Tax Department, Gelman, rosenberg & Freedman, and Bernie Fisken, President, International consultants, Fisken & company
ing with other organizations in the United States and overseas. Foreign tax credit U.S. citizens and resident aliens are required to report their worldwide income on a U.S. income tax return regardless of their tax home. Many expatriate workers are subject to host country taxation; to eliminate double taxation, the IRS allows a foreign tax credit for income tax paid on foreign source income. The credit is not allowed on income that is excluded under the Foreign Earned Income and Housing Exclusions nor for income taxes paid to certain countries such as Cuba or Syria. An income tax treaty is not required to be able to take the credit and any unused foreign tax credits can be carried back one year or carried forward for 10 years. Foreign bank account reporting (Fbar) FBAR requires a United Sates person who has a financial interest in or has signature authority over foreign financial accounts to file Form TD F 90-22.1 with the U.S. Treasury if the aggregate value of the accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. The FBAR form is due by June 30 each year and cannot be extended. The FBAR is an informational return with no tax or fee associated with it. However, failure to file the form can lead to stiff penalties, both civil and criminaland the IRS is currently emphasizing compliance. MD
MERICAN NONPROFITS WITH employees or contractors stationed overseas should work with them to manage their special accounting, tax and human resources issues. Expatriate employees and contractorsthose working overseas for more than one yearcan take advantage of significant tax breaks, including the Federal Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE) of $92,900 in 2011 and the Foreign Housing Exclusion (FHE), now $13,006. Increased housing exclusions are also available for high-cost areas, and both exclusions are indexed and therefore can vary annually. expatriate issues In addition to the FEIE and FHE, there are exclusions for state income tax in some states, but not all. Eligible expatriates must establish a tax home in a foreign country and reside there for the full calendar year, or be physically present overseas for 330 days per year. There are limitations on the first-year and last-year exclusion and housing allowance amounts. Before starting work overseas, expatriate workers should submit to their employer IRS Form 673 to exclude income earned in a foreign country from withholding. Human resources departments need to be diligent in handling workers W-2 and 1099 forms to comply with the IRS and minimize organizational risk. Employers should run expatriate workers taxable allowances through payroll during the year, rather than pay it as a lump sum at year-end, and must ensure that state income tax is withheld for the workers state of domicile. The organization can better understand host country taxation issues for expatriate workers by conferring with local experts,
other U.S. NGOs and consultants working in that country. Every effort should be made to provide workers with tax assistancebut not tax advice. Nonprofits can make up for expatriates extra financial burden due to an overseas living situation by increasing their salary, using tax equalization and tax protection schemes (if possible) or reimbursing them for the tax differential. Best practices for managing the nonprofit organizations expatriate issues include: developing a checklist of all documents, forms and websites necessary to handle expatriate issues; conducting entrance and exit conferences with all expatriate workers; developing and regularly updating an expatriate policies and procedures manual; providing periodic and earnings and withholding detail; and network-
natural vs. politically-Made Humanitarian situations

Assessing the risks, preparedness, action and challenges for NGOs.
By Phil Price, Intern, Humanitarian Policy and Practice, InterAction
HE CAUSE OF A HUMANITARIAN situation should directly influence the response. This is especially true in complex emergencies due to conflict or political turmoil. Why? Because while safety will always remain a relative state when responding to crises, in hostile settings NGOs must address additional issues to effectively deliver aid and keep their staffs and beneficiaries safe. During this workshop, and drawing from decades of combined field experience, Adam Koons, director of relief and humanitarian assistance, International Relief & Development (IRD), and Bill Canny, director of emergency operations, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), addressed a number of these critical questions. The first revolved around when NGOs should rush in and when should they hold back. As Koons noted, this can be difficult to determine, yet the decision has serious consequences. For example, postponing a humanitarian response can result in a significant rise in the number of lives lost or livelihoods destroyed, but going in too early can jeopardize NGO staff safety. In the case of IRD, all staff members are made aware of the risks involved, but as an organization they do not respond on the ground until a certain level of security can be assured. This includes knowing who needs help, who the combatants are (if present), who can be collaborated with, who can assist in operational coordination, and how the organization will gain access to the areas where beneficiaries are in need. He also highlighted the necessity of nongovernmental organizations determining what risks they are willing to accept on behalf of the beneficiaries they serve. There are lines that should not be crossed to deliver aid. These lines may or may not be clear, but working
to define them and then adhering to these decisions can literally be a matter of life or death for aid workers. Secondly, both presenters discussed the difficulties of remaining neutral in politically-made humanitarian situations. Unlike a disaster caused by natural hazards such as earthquakes or cyclones, political disasters require a great deal more tact on the part of NGOs. As Koons stated, it is very easy for an organization that is not careful to simply be thrown out of the country or be constrained so badly that it becomes impossible to operate effectively. To work in these environments, certain compromises must be made in order to stay and deliver; and this can sometimes mean working with those who had a direct role in the creation of the crisis. Canny elaborated on this delicate balance by providing examples from CRS and noting the importance of maintaining a low-profile approach in sticky political situations such as they experience working in Libya and Somalia. Humanitarian organizations should think
about the end beneficiary. If lowering visibility is better for them, then that approach should be taken. As the panel closed and the discussion wound down, Koons, Canny and the sessions participants were in agreement that techniques and strategies must adapt depending on circumstance. Disasters are different. There is no template that fits all circumstances, no set format to follow. However, there are common questions to ask, preparations that should be made, and issues to consider when conducting a humanitarian operation which can increase the likelihood of success. Whether a crisis is caused by man or the result of a natural hazard, it is vital that the response be designed to address a specific crisis and not the other way around. Delivering aid in hostile environments is a complicated endeavor and will seldom go exactly to plan, providing humanitarian relief remains critical. As Koons explained, You go where youre needed; you go because that is what you do. MD
Hows it going For you?

A look at the field-level experience to date in Global Health Initiative Plus countries.
By Danielle Heiberg, Senior Program Associate, InterAction
INCE THE LAUNCH OF THE GLOBAL HEALTH INITIAtive (GHI) in 2009, InterActions Integrating Health in Relief and Development Working Group has closely followed its development and roll out. Earlier this year, the working group surveyed member organizations working in the GHI Plus countries to identify how the in-country consultation process has been implemented so far from the perspective of NGOs. (The plus countries are ones identified to receive additional technical and management support to implement GHI; currently the plus countries are: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nepal and Rwanda.) The survey results provide insights into NGO perceptions and experiences regarding engagement by operational agencies and civil society in the roll out of the GHI at the country level to date. The results of the survey were presented at the Forum workshop Reports from the Field: The Implementation of the Global Health Initiative, which also included a dialogue with Mary Pack, vice president, International Medical Corps; Janis Timberlake, country support team lead, USAID GHI Launch Team; Jed Hoffman, senior director for health and HIV programs at World Vision; and Ambrose Misore, project manager for APHIA II at PATH.
the gHi faces a tough battle going forward given the difficult economic climate and lack of knowledge about gHi in congress.
While 31 percent were aware of in-country consultations taking place and six percent responded no, the majority of respondents (63 percent) did not know if consultations had taken place. When asked about future consultations, 93 percent of the respondents had no information about upcoming meetings. All of the respondents indicated that there are no clear indications of change in national health policies since the rollout of GHI. It is clear from the survey results that the consultation process needs to strengthen the involvement of NGOs and civil society organizations, including at the earliest stages of the process. In addition, it is vital to work closely with local government officials to ensure: (1) national policy and the approach taken by the GHI carries forward; and (2) a balance between institutional/facility-based services and community roles in health management. Although the GHI is still in its initial phases, Timberlake cited several early success stories, such as in Nepal where maternal mortality has been reduced through funding innovative programming. However, the GHI faces a tough battle going forward given the difficult economic climate and lack of knowledge about GHI in Congress. Concerning the in-country consultation process, she called on the NGO community to assist with organizing civil society in GHI Plus countries and with hosting consultation meetings. As more countries are added to the list of GHI Plus countries and more country plans are approved, the Global Health Bureau will need to begin to demonstrate results and more efficient business practices in order to ensure sustainability of the GHI. At the same time, the NGO community should continue to challenge the U.S. government to be at the forefront of determining and promoting what works (and highlighting what does not work) in the health arena. MD
Key findings from the survey In the field, the level of knowledge about GHI varies, but survey respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they are only somewhat knowledgeable (69 percent) about the initiative versus very knowledgeable (19 percent). Twelve percent of the respondents indicated no knowledge of the GHI. Thirty-nine percent of respondents feel that civil society is engaged with the GHI process in their countries, while 61 percent do not.
climate adaptation
Forum session offers a marketplace of ideas.
By John Furlow, climate change Specialist, USAID, Kristin Clay, Senior Policy Advisor for Foreign Assistance, The Nature conservancy, Shari Bush, Senior Business Development Manager, Pact, and Jennifer McKnight, climate Adaptation Policy Analyst, The Nature conservancy
ANY DEVELOPING COUNTRY ECONOMIES DEPEND upon activities and resources that are vulnerable to climate variability and change. For those of us working in international development, climate change impacts, current and anticipated, are an ongoing challenge as we seek to support the health, food security,
safety and economic growth of the global community. Changes in rainfall patterns and temperatures associated with climate change can contribute to water shortages; decreased crop productivity; increased spread of tropical diseases; and greater frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Understanding when and how these impacts will occur and supporting the resilience of the communities we work with is now accepted as a necessary element for successful development. Addressing these impacts, however, is an ongoing endeavor. Just a few years ago, we were struggling with the new vocabulary of adaptation, vulnerability and resilience and asking the basic question, what does it actually mean to adapt? USAID and partners began slowly building experience, capacity and tools to adapt development efforts to the impacts of climate change. Today our approaches to adaptation are growing in sophistication. Many interesting approaches, technologies and tools have been developed and are being tested across a variety of sectors within our community, from international development to urban planning to ecosystems protection and management. We are moving from viewing adaptation as a new development sector, to seeing it as a way to deal with one of many stresses that impeded the broader goals of economic and social development. And we are learning to better involve host country beneficiaries, to learn from them and ensure that we work with them to address the stress of climate change. USAID, Pact and The Nature Conservancy collaborated with the Society for International Development to host an intensive workcontinued on page 37
Supporting Aid Projects The World Over
The All-New Ranger!

Latest addition to the GFS family line-up
Providing support to Humanitarian operations in Relief, Aid and Development

GFS is a subsidiary of the RMA Group and is the authorized distributor for Ford Motor Company products to relief, aid and developments programs worldwide. Our vehicle stock is readily available to provide rapid response in emergency relief situations. We also carry a comprehensive range of stock options including safety and security items that will equip vehicles ready for deployment. Providing an after-sales-service second to none, GFS works in close partnership with local Ford dealers, bringing the strength of global support systems and logistics right to your project locations.
A trusted partner on the ground that can provide: A single-source of supplies for all your vehicle needs Workshop tted parts and accessories to vehicles as required Specialized vehicle conversions such as ambulances, mobile clinics, workshops, and more Tailor-made logistics to meet your requirements Up to 5 years / 100,000 km warranty* Complete parts and warranty support in more than 70 countries Consolidated nancing and leasing programs
*Term & Condition Apply
Visit our booth #B36 at AIDEX to preview the New 2012 Ford Transit
Contact Us Today: sales@globaleetsales.net | www.globaleetsales.net

the power of one

Integrating the work and the message of WASH and conservation.
By Chris Seremet, Technical Advisor - Water Supply and Sanitation, catholic relief Services
RADITIONALLY, THE WATER SUPply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector and the conservation sector have not had integrated programming. A panel of WASH and conservation experts addressed the barriers to integration and the linkages between the sectors in a session at the Forum. Ron Clemmer, senior technical advisor for water supply, sanitation and hygiene with World Vision, opened with an overview of the role of WASH and conservation in project development. The WASH sector perspective was presented by Dennis Warner, senior technical advisor for water supply, sanitation, and water resources at Catholic Relief Services. He described WASH as the improvement of access to water supply and sanitation services and the promotion of hygiene behavior change. He also noted numerous opportunities for integrating the two sectors, such as integrated water resources management projects, fundraising and community mobilization. The conservation sector perspective, specifically freshwater conservation, was presented by Sarah Davidson, international freshwater policy advisor with The Nature Conservancy.
She described common freshwater conservation activities, including the preservation of water resources through watershed management practices and the promotion of healthy ecosystems to ensure a sustainable water supply. The value of these activities, as seen by communities, is that they promote continued protection of the environment. Yet there has been surprisingly little effort by the WASH and conservation sectors to collaborate on mutually dependent programs. Perceptional, institutional and operational barriers on both sides need to be overcome in order for the two sectors to work more closely together. Warner noted the perception that conservation professionals tend to be more concerned with the environment than the people living in it. Institutional barriers are also a problem as many, particularly in the donor community, often focus on one sector or the other, but rarely both. In addition, Davidson pointed out that the two sectors do not speak the same language since professionals in both sectors have different backgrounds, experiences and attitudes. Both panelists identified occasional conflicts between WASH and conservation objectives and noted
that a lack of integrated monitoring indicators poses additional operational barriers. However, both panelists emphasized that conservation participation in WASH projects, and vice versa, will help with the development of common objectives to guide the establishment of integrated projects. Using the watershed as a framework for analysis will help identify available natural resources and the communities that depend on them. This will lead to a better understanding of the impacts of development and further environmental protection plans. Compilations of case studies and success stories are needed, as well as training programs that will allow the sectors to share experiences leading to important next steps and lessons learned. Heather DAgnes, an environment foreign service officer with USAID, spoke from the donor perspective, sharing her extensive experience with population, health and environmental integration. She stressed that sustainable water resources, including reliable access to clean water, help build a constituency to protect the environment, which in turn leads back to sustainable water resources. She agreed with the aforementioned areas of misalignment: different professional skill sets, the lack of common objectives and indicators, siloed funding opportunities and the lack of evidence documented from joint programming efforts. DAgnes said integration is not the end in itself, but a means to achieving the goals of WASH and conservation. Partnerships are important since organizations rarely employ expertise in both areas. Moving forward, she supports joint program design and implementation. DAgnes also emphasized that both sectors must be flexible and may need to modify traditional approaches to meet their common objectives. Tracy Farrell, senior director for the Freshwater Initiative of Conservation International, synthesized the points made by the other panelists and suggested next steps towards integrated programming. They include optimizing benefits and trade-offs, comparing short-term and long-term benefits, and controlling the scale of engagement, such as focusing on a village or a region. She concluded by emphasizing the need for more case studies and success stories, joint educational opportunities for both sectors, a common vision for integrated programming and joint proposals for field projects. MD
pvo standards
NGO accountability and transparency through standards.
By Taina Alexander, Program Manager, Membership and Standards Team, InterAction
HIS IS THE THIRD YEAR THAT INTERACTION HAS hosted a PVO (private voluntary organization) Standards workshop at the Forum to provide the background and history of InterAction PVO Standards, share the results of the Self-CertificationPlus (SCP) standards compliance process and provide an opportunity to discuss NGO legitimacy, accountability and transparency. As one of the few standards-based networks of NGOs, InterAction members stand apart from other NGOs for having established and adopted PVO Standards with which member organizations must comply. These standards were born over 20 years ago as a result of members demand for greater transparency and accountability for their overseas work. InterAction members demonstrate their organizational effectiveness, transparency and accountability by self-certifying compliance with the PVO Standards. Since 2006 the self-evaluation and compliance reporting process, known as the Self-Certification Plus (SCP), is done biennially, with the most recent evaluation conducted in 2010. The SCP process appraises a members compliance in the areas of governance and administration, program effectiveness and organizational commitment. Any member that does not complete the self-certification process is suspended from membership, and any member that it is not in compliance and does not create an action plan to address noncompliance is also subject to suspension from membership. Each of the three mandatory SCP rounds has built on the previous one, while also strengthening and increasing members capacity to meet compliance standards. InterAction Membership and Standards Team Vice President Barbara Wallace and I introduced the audience to the PVO Standards and shared information from the 2010 SCP process. There was a significant increase in the number of members meeting compliance in all sections from 79 percent in 2006 to 90 percent in 2010. Also, members who reported noncompliance with any of the standards had developed an action plan to work towards compliance by the next SCP cycle. Members were reminded that they are required to submit their next SCP report by December 31, 2012. In the 2010 iteration, member CEOs noted that the process allowed them to concentrate on improving their internal processes and helped them identify improvements across internal departments and review compliance as areas of work shifted through the years. Some members also reported that the SCP review led to substantive, high-quality discussions among senior staff and boards of directors that resulted in improvements to their policies. The session also discussed member feedback on improving the process, including reducing redundancy, simplifying language and aligning compliance reporting with other reporting systems with which
members comply, including changes in IRS Form 990. Participants also discussed transparency and its relationship to accountability, with a significant number noting the level of transparency is too often resource-driven and assessed based on old models. Dismay that evaluation of organizational effectiveness is still reported using resource allocation pie charts was expressed, as was recognition that NGOs (by reporting the figures prominently) and independent evaluation organizations (by ranking NGOs using that criteria) have supported the publics misconception that this is a useful measure. Participants felt that old habits need to be broken and advocacy should focus on proper measurements, guided by the mission of the organization and its effectiveness in making a demonstrable difference. Several recommendations for further action came out of the discussion period, including the formation of an InterAction working group to review the PVO Standards and recommend updates, simplifications and clarification of compliance determination in the SCP reporting form. The participants concluded that InterAction should also continue to engage in other international discussions on accountability processes and look to development of a family of consistent codes that have similar criteria and would provide guidance and draw attention to best practices for the NGO sector. MD
31
is the ngo brand at risk?

W
Panel discusses how organizations can increase their brand value by diversifying outreach to target audiences.
By Michael Orevba, communications Intern, InterAction

ITH CONGRESS PROPOSING TO DRASTICALLY reduce U.S. foreign assistance funding, and overall public support for international relief and development issues waning in the face of severe domestic economic challenges, NGOs are concerned about the future. A panel of advocacy and communications strategists, including representatives from Habitat for Humanity International, the United Nations Foundation and Women Deliver, discussed how organizations can increase name recognition and strengthen their brand value in these uncertain times. Arlene Corbin Lewis, communications associate director for government relations and advocacy at Habitat for Humanity International, moderated the panel, which also included Diane Fusilli, a global communications consultant and former Rockefeller Foundation communications director. The discussion began with Fusilli stating that an organizations brand represents its reputation and the trust of the communities it serves. She shared a few examples of how some brands have gained enough trust and goodwill that they can sometimes withstand misfortune or tragedy. Fusilli went on to note that because of the staff expertise required, NGOs are best served when they consider communications as an actual program area instead of an organizational support mechanism. She said that a fully-funded communications program can successfully shepherd and strengthen an organizations brand based on its understanding of marketing and public relations. During her talk, Fusilli also referenced
some research on NGO brands conducted by the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University that the Rockefeller Foundation commissioned during her tenure. The research, summarized in the context of the discussion by Sherine Jayawickrama of the Hauser Center, has shown that many nonprofit brands are more trusted by the public than the best-known corporate brands. According to the research, increased competition in the NGO sector is driving the branding discussion and leading to enhanced collaboration and partnerships. The findings from the first phase of the Hauser Centers research can be found online at http://www.hks. harvard.edu/hauser/role-of-brand. In keeping with the discussion on increased competition, Vanita Gowda, advocacy director for Women Deliver, said that NGOs should expand on the strategies they use to broaden their influence. To successfully increase an organizations influence, Gowda stressed that some diversity among advocacy and communications strategists is important. This more dissimilar team would be better equipped to target desired audiences with appropriate messages using a more divergent set of communications channels. The panelists agreed that this more carefully crafted work from NGOs would better resonate with the increasingly large and diverse audience that is interested but not yet fully engaged in international relief and development issues, and increase NGO brand awareness. This expanded base of support would then aid organizations in having a greater impact on the lives of beneficiaries. The campaign strategist on the panel, Devi Ramachandran Thomas, director of the UN Foundations Global Vaccines Campaign, said NGOs need to listen to their supporters and donors because they are invested in the organizations authentic brand. She suggested that organizations conduct regular polling or focus groups or do firsthand research to gain a clearer understanding of how their stakeholders view the organizations work and its brand. Thomas went on to suggest that NGOs look to corporations with good global reputations for guidance in understanding how to estimate the financial value of their brands. She believes that once an organization understands its financial value, it is more willing to invest in strengthening its brand. All of the panelists stressed that an organizations brand is a true reflection of its mission, and ongoing investment is required. MD Tawana Jacobs, InterActions associate director of public relations, contributed to this article.
UsaiD ForWarD
Reviewing the initiative at the one-year mark.
By Filmona Hailemichael, Policy and Advocacy coordinator, InterAction
SAID FORWARD, THE REFORM agenda of USAID, seeks to change the way the agency does businesswith new partnerships, an emphasis on innovation and a strong focus on results. Having unveiled the reform initiative at last years Forum, USAID staff returned this year to discuss the accomplishments and challenges in implementing the reform agenda. The panel was moderated by Chris Milligan, deputy assistant administrator for the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL) at USAID, who started off by enumerating some of the agencys recent accomplishments, which include hiring 720 new Foreign Service Officers, boosting research capacities, and implementing a new evaluation policy. Rebuilding policy capacity. Letitia Butler, senior policy advisor in PPL at USAID, discussed the agencys efforts to rebuild its policy capacity, evidenced by the creation of PPL and several new policies. She gave an overview of their new policy cycle that links policy to strategy to resource development, to implementation, to monitoring and evaluation, to learning, and back to policy. The agency has already released new policies on gender mainstreaming and one on evaluation, which they
would like to be a model for all U.S. government agencies. Upcoming policies include ones on global climate change, responding to extremism, youth and development, broadbased economic growth and urbanization. Another major initiative is the bureaus effort to streamline existing data reporting requirements, some of which research has shown is unnecessary and redundant. The review currently underway aims to cut staff hours spent on reporting by 20 percent. Innovation. Pradeep Ramamurthy, USAIDs deputy counselor for innovation, started his briefing by explaining the agencys definition of innovation. He said it is not just about technology or new and interesting tools. Innovation refers to things that produce more than incremental change and help achieve quantum leaps in development outcomes. To this end, USAID has instituted new programs such as the Development Innovation Ventures and the Grand Challenges, which aim to evangelize and incubate innovation throughout the agency. The new emphasis on innovation is USAIDs response to President Obamas goal of helping people graduate from foreign assistance. Procurement Reform. Ronald Wietecha,
attorney advisor in the USAID Office of the General Counsel, discussed procurement reform and reversing the trend of only 13 percent of USAID funds getting channeled through local entities. The four objectives of procurement reform are: (1) using local financial systems; (2) increasing the participation of local entities; (3) increasing the participation of small U.S.-based NGOs and businesses; (4) increasing the number of fixed price contracts; (5) increasing the use of donor partnerships; and (6) strengthening technical capacity. Science and Technology. Jerry OBrien, senior advisor in the Office of Science and Technology, Bureau of Policy, Planning and Learning, wrapped up the presentations by briefing the audience on the four main strategies for streamlining science and technology across the agency: (1) partnering with agencies like NASA and the National Institutes of Health to tap their scientific expertise; (2) building internal capacity at USAID; (3) establishing GIS (Geographic Information Systems) geospatial capacity; and (4) instituting the Grand Challenges as a means for expanding the circle of smart people trying to solve development challenges. During the Q&A, the speakers discussed their increased focus on partnering with other development actors, including civil society organizations, and the big challenge of coordination. Despite the difficulty of coordinating different actors, they stressed the importance of working with local governments and the need to get away from establishing parallel systems. When asked what impact potential budget cuts would have on USAID Forward, the panelists reiterated their commitment to reform and said they would continue to use existing funds to change how the agency does business. MD
33
Women in the Middle east and north africa

Challenges and opportunities in an opening political space.
By Erin Cox, Program Associate, International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
APITALIzING ON THE EVOLVING political environment in the Middle East and recognizing that the opportunity for change is now, IFES Senior Research Specialist Rola Abdul-Latif and Vasu Mohan, deputy director for Europe and Asia at IFES, kicked off a Forum session on the opening opportunities for women. They were joined on the panel by USAID Senior Coordinator at the Office of Gender Equality and Womens Empowerment Carla Koppell, and Yemeni gender specialist and activist Rana Jarhum. Mohan began by discussing the regional changes as a chance for international organizations to evaluate their gender perspective, citing IFESs experience. He said the most important issue is human dignity and fundamental human rights, concluding that equality of women and men is a gender issue, not a womans issue, and it begins with us. The IFES Status of Women in the Middle East and North Africa (SWMENA) program conducted nationally representative surveys on womens status in Lebanon, Morocco and Yemen between 2009 and 2010. Abdul-Latif, who led the research portion of this project, highlighted some of the
most striking data on womens political and civic participation, and opinions toward law reforms that would improve the status of women in these countries. Abdul-Latif said majorities of both men and women in Lebanon, Morocco and Yemen support gender quotas in elected bodies. But while a majority of surveyed men and women in all three support women as political candidates, a sizeable percentage of even women believe men make better political leaders: 46 percent of women in Lebanon, 35 percent in Morocco and 85 percent in Yemen. Speaking on a more personal level, Jarhum began her presentation with a nod to the concurrent uprisings throughout the region by citing human rights activist Bilquis Allahabi: Saleh threatens that Yemen will turn into Somalia we are now threatening him to turn Yemen into Tunisia. She said what once was a small group of students refusing to leave the university in Sanaa one day, turned into a massive political sit-in encompassing a long stretch of Sanaa that would take 30 minutes to traverse. This city inside a city, Jarhum stated, is the visual representation of this fundamental change throughout Yemen,
creating a chance to renegotiate the social contract. The current reality may paint a different picture than the data on womens participation in Yemen from the SWMENA survey in December 2010. That survey indicated 95 percent of surveyed women reported they had not participated in any civic activities including protests or demonstrations. Yet, according to Jarhum, It is very likely the numbers would be quite different today as the country has seen significant female participation in the demonstrations. Speaking on behalf of Yemeni women, Jarhum said womens highest priorities include: (1) participation in political dialogue; (2) women holding at least 30 percent of seats in political bodies; and (3) equality in all aspects of life and representation in the constitution. She said the most pressing challenge facing women in Yemen in the coming months is to seize this unprecedented window of opportunity; if the heroic role of women is not recognized, all efforts may be threatened. Reminding the audience that democracy is not complete without equal representation of men and women, Koppell highlighted the importance of women gaining political power and representation internationally. She noted women invest differently when they are in positions of power and they assert different priorities in governance and push for nonviolence in conflict resolution. It is these women
saleh threatens that yemen will turn into somalia we are now threatening him to turn yemen into tunisia.
who will break the negative opinions of womens capabilities mentioned by Abdul-Latif. The loss of advances already made is a real threat in many of these reforming countries and is already occurring in Egypt. To avoid such losses and move forward, activists must not accept the usual discourse and challenge views many try to label as cultural norms. The discussion concluded with strong agreement that a structural base for womens advocacy in the region is extremely important; and gaining written representation through laws, quotas, and constitutional references will secure womens involvement in a successful, complete democratic transition. MD
putting Women at the center

By John Coonrod, Executive Vice President, The Hunger Project
of rural Development really

Creating programs that address root causes, not just symptoms.
OW, FINALLY, WE HAVE SOME world leaders who get itwho get that gender equality and womens empowerment must be at the forefront of development policy, stated Hunger Project President and CEO Mary Ellen McNish in framing this panel discussion. Our own capacity to seize opportunities today is limited and strained. So were just going to have to work harder and smarter, cooperate and coordinate with each other, and leverage our experience as much as we can. Amy Boldosser, senior program officer for global advocacy at Family Care International (FCI), presented FCIs work with indigenous womens organizations and health officials to improve the cultural acceptability of obstetric care in public facilities and promote skilled attendance at delivery in Ecuador and Bolivia. Through consultations and workshops with indigenous communities, ministry of health personnel, obstetric care providers and traditional birth attendants, the project addresses cultural barriers, empowers indigenous women to advocate for culturally-responsive care, and is evaluating the models effectiveness. To date, it has resulted in health facilities introducing a range of changes, including allowing delivery in a squatting position, permitting indigenous midwives to attend the births along with obstetric care providers in the health centers, and permitting birthing women to use herbal teas. By making health centers more culturally acceptable, the project increased the number of indigenous women delivering with a skilled attendant at a health center by 11 percent during the pilot phase. Lorena Vazquez-Ordz, country director of The Hunger Project-Mexico, presented a case
study of empowering women to form an effective income-generating cooperative, and analyzed the complex gender barriers that had to be overcome. She emphasized the importance of going beneath of the tip of the iceberg of just treating the symptoms to identifying and addressing the more intangible root causes of gender discrimination, beginning with the deep resignation to which rural women have acclimated themselves. She illustrated the iterative and patient process her team used to alter attitudes and build confidence, step by step, in village time, not NGO time. Paula Kantor, senior gender and rural development specialist at the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), raised questions about what we mean by
reallyquestions to move us beyond the discourse of the past 30 years. For example, in investigating agricultural value chains, are we going beyond looking for products that primarily involve women to doing gender analysis on all agricultural value chains? She highlighted the need for more experimentation and evaluation, moving from strictly technical issues to the underlying social structures. She discussed the theory of change that informs ICRWs gender and agriculture program to illustrate its virtuous cycle of knowledge- and data-informing, gender-responsive program designs, implementation and evaluations, which then generate further knowledge of promising gender-transformative agricultural practices. More than half the session was devoted to dialog among the audience and panelists: To what degree are indigenous women actively engaged with negotiating their own political space? Boldosser noted their entire initiative arose from the demand of strong local indigenous organizations. What is the role of male engagement and how to make that work? Vazquez-Ordz emphasized the importance of creating space for men to reflect on issues. Boldosser noted men play a strong role in womens care-seeking decisions, often because men control the economic resources women need to access health services. Men should also be educated about the importance of lifesaving access to skilled care. What is it important in the growing focus on quantification of results and how can we make the most of it for womens empowerment? Kantor stressed the need to ensure qualitative process monitoring receives equal emphasis in documenting how programs achieve empowerment outcomes. She also noted including quantitative indicators for womens empowerment (as in the Feed the Future results framework) can help increase accountability for gender-responsive programming. Building on earlier comments, Cheryl Morden of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) concluded the session saying we face a dilemma: Gender and agriculture have finally both gained attention and we need to address the expertise deficit in both issues. MD
paradigm shift in busan?
Can the 4th High Level Forum in Busan bring about a new focus on people?
By Kimberly Darter, coordinator, Global Partnerships, InterAction
HE 4TH HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON Aid Effectiveness will take place in Busan, South Korea, from November 29 through December 1. Whether it will be a watershed moment or a repackaged version of business as usual remains to be seen. At the session Advancing Civil Society Priorities Within the Evolving Aid Architecture in Busan, moderator Noam Unger, policy director of the Foreign Assistance Reform Project and a Brookings Institution fellow, noted that unlike other international political forums whose agenda and expected outcome are determined months in advance, Busan is still very much at play. So what would success look like in Busan? It is first important to recall the origins of this series of forums, the first of which was held in 2003 and focused on harmonization. The 2nd High Level Forum, held in 2005, broadened that focus with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, a document containing five
principles that signatories agreed to implement over a five-year period. Those principles were: country ownership, harmonization, alignment, mutual accountability and managing for results. Following a mid-point review at the 2008 3rd High Level Forum, which proved to be a turning point for inclusion of civil society organizations, the five-year implementation period for the Paris Declaration concluded in 2010. The 4th High Level Forum in Busan is meant to determine what comes next. Bringing three different perspectives on the question of what success would look like in Busan were: Samuel Worthington, president and CEO of InterAction; Sherri Kraham, managing director for development cooperation and policy improvement with the Millennium Challenge Corporation; and Borithy Lun, executive director for the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia. Their perspectives ranged from optimistic to cautiously prag-
matic, signaling that in Busan, agreement on priorities may not translate into agreement on how those priorities should be pursued. Kraham noted that transparency, results and country ownership are three of the U.S. governments top priorities in Busan. Affirming the importance of the 4th High Level Forum for the U.S. government and the international development community, she explained that transparency is a priority because it is critical to development outcomes that tangibly impact the lives of the poor. On results, Kraham cautioned that how we as a community define and measure results will be important. She noted that country ownership is a concept that the U.S. government is seeking to integrate across its programs and that this emphasis will be reflected in U.S. government positions in Busan. Bringing a thoughtful yet cautious perspective to expectations for the 4th High Level Forum, Lun prioritized a focus on people. This focus, he stated, should be an investment in social justice and poverty alleviation, particularly because aid can at times increase social imbalance and hurt the poor. Lun emphasized the need for collective work leading up to and in Busan, stating that if the 4th High Level Forum is to truly move towards a paradigm shift, it must include thinking from both inside and outside the box. Cautioning those who are more optimistic that such a shift will occur in Busan, he noted that economic development still appears to be the overarching development priority. Worthington offered a cautiously optimistic view. He emphasized that while many of the conversations about Busan are about countries, the focus for civil society is people. His priorities led off with the need for a more inclusive definition and practice of country ownership. However, without an enabling environment that allows civil society to have a voice, impact and influence in their development, more inclusive country ownership is not possible. Going a step further, Worthington noted the importance of space for civil society actors to engage both at the country and international levels to potentially expand coordination between sectors and actors. Whether the emphasis on people, especially the poor, made by each speaker will be reflected in the outcomes of the 4th High Level Forum remains to be seen. Only after Busan will we know if a paradigm shift is possible or whether business will continue as usual. MD
claiming the Field

What will it take to create a profession of humanitarian action?
By Phil Price, Intern, Humanitarian Policy and Practice, InterAction
climate adaptation
continued from page 29
TARTING FROM THE ASSUMPtion that the humanitarian field is a profession that requires a core set of skills and competencies, what steps are necessary to see this expertise institutionalized? According to Karen Hein, former president of the William T. Grant Foundation, and Peter Walker, director of the Feinstein International Center at Tufts University, one positive step towards imbedding this knowledge throughout the field would be creating an association linked to a system of certification and internationally agreed-upon core competencies taught through accredited training organizations around the world. These regional hubs would be charged with developing and ensuring standards, as well as overseeing the certification of individuals working in humanitarian settings. This approach is similar to that of the medical field; and it would help ensure that the response provided by humanitarian organizations, and the staff that comprise them, is not just committed and compassionate but professional as well. While this is a significant undertaking and has been met with some resistance, there has been a great deal of work conducted in furthering the goals outlined by Hein and Walker. For example, in 2010 the Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies released a list of core competencies they believe would help professionalize the humanitarian field. Similarly, the enhancing learning and research for humanitarian assistance project (ELHRA) has outlined 13 recommendations with the goal of improving the quality, quantity, coverage and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance provided to disaster and conflict affected civilian populations around the world through
shop at the Forum to take a closer look at the current state of adaptation practice and to provide an interactive venue for learning and exchange. USAIDs John Furlow offered opening remarks to set the context for the workshop, noting both the challenges our community continues to face and the learning we have achieved. Over a dozen presenters from a variety of sectors set up a marketplace of cases, technologies and tools that participants could sample and discuss in small groups. Participants learned about efforts to secure water supply, assess vulnerability, finance activities, and to prepare forand recover fromnatural disasters. Cases also covered adaptation approaches for agriculture, urban planning, natural resource protection and management, and community engagement. Tools were presented that support good decision-making and program design through scenario planning, knowledge management and evaluation. A full list and description of the cases and tools presented at the session was compiled into a compendium available at http://www. interaction.org/document/climate-changeadaptation-compendium. MD
the increased professionalism and capacity of individual humanitarian workers. A platform was recently launched to help guide and promote dialogue on the adoption of common professional humanitarian standards. Proponents see these actions as critical steps forward: not only because they provide a logical career path for humanitarians, delineate core competencies and skills for field and headquarters staff, create an apprenticeship program, establish a professional association, and standardize training and accreditation, but also because beneficiaries served by the humanitarian sector deserve professionalism. Each year humanitarians impact on the lives of millions peopleoften when they are at their most vulnerable point. Walker noted that this fact places a huge responsibility on the shoulders of our community to ensure we are sending true professionals to work in the challenging and complex environments this field demands. MD
The latest issues and trends in international development and humanitarian assistance
Subscribe now at www.mondaydevelopments.org
37
transforming and advancing
Disability civil society

Knowledge dissemination, organizational development and legal mechanisms.
By Caitlin Hudson, Intern, Strategic Impact, InterAction
EOPLE WITH DISABILITIES MAKE UP 15 PERCENT OF the worlds population, according to the newly released World Health Organization disability report. Yet they are often overlooked by many in the international development community. The Forum session on transforming and advancing disability civil society offered an encompassing look at some of the challenges, and offered important suggestions on how to advance disability civil society through inclusive international development, including incorporating disability into other sectors like trafficking and gender. Moderator David Morrissey from USICD (United States International Council on Disabilities) began by discussing the importance of treaties that include people with disabilities as an advocacy platform to build upon. He highlighted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) as one of the most significant international treaties so far. He was followed by Chad Vickery from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems who discussed steps governments can take to ensure people with disabilities can participate in the electoral process. He reinforced the importance of the CRPD because it specifically mentions voting rights for people with disabilities. Making sure voting locations have accommodations such as ramps and tactile voting materials, as well as ensuring people can vote by private ballot, is important in order to make sure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the electoral process. He also stressed that best practices and data collection regarding accessibility will continue to be an important part of ensuring the rights of people with disabilities around the world. Andrea Shettle from the Global Disability Rights Library shared some of her efforts to collect, create and disseminate electronic resources. The objective of this collection of materials is to assist people with disabilities and their advocates around the world in attaining civil society goals. Through this library, people with disabilities can have access to information and case studies that they would normally have much less access to. Eric Rosenthal, who spoke on behalf of Disability Rights International, discussed some of the harsh conditions faced by people with intellectual and disabilities in the developing world, particularly people
living in institutional settings. He explained that one of the barriers to community integration of people with disabilities is well-meaning donors that support rundown orphanages and institutional facilities. These institutions are often sources of extensive human rights violations and prevent capacity building for integration and services at the community level for people with disabilities and their families. To illustrate his point about harsh conditions, he showed a portion of a 2009 Nightline program that investigated the experience of long-term residents of an institution for people with intellectual disabilities in Mexico. The program offered a heartbreaking look into the everyday lives of people forced to live in such conditions and moved some of the workshop attendees to tears. After a moment of silence following the viewing, Susan Sygall from Mobility International USA concluded the panel discussion with insightful comments on how to move the advancement of disability civil society forward. She mentioned that while treaties and polices that include people with disabilities are important, they often lack teeth regarding enforcement. A rightsbased approach to inclusion would provide more widely available services for people with disabilities, rather than limited local successes. She also discussed the importance of including people with disabilities in the decision-making process concerning efforts such as disaster relief and microfinance, and how disability groups and organizations need to start to work more closely with international development organizations. This will ensure that they have greater access to funding and grants and increase the sharing of development resources and expertise. Sygall said there are plenty of good models for communitybased rehab, but funding is often a challenge. MD
new Donor countries

Nations are both shaping and being shaped.
By Kimberly Darter, coordinator, Global Partnerships, InterAction
S AID FROM EMERGING DONOR countries increases, questions are also multiplying. The session New Donor Countries: Different Approaches, New Challenges for NGOs, moderated by Nick Roseveare, chief executive of BOND in the UK, delved into some of these questions and brought a number of perspectives to bear. Panelists included: Ivo Lesbaupin, director of ABONG the Association of Brazilian NGOs; Harsh Jaitli, CEO of Voluntary Action Network India (VANI); Ambassador Rong Chuan Wu, vice chairman of the Taiwan NGO Affairs Committee; and Borithy Lun, executive director of the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia. One well-known fact is that the amount of aid from new donor countries is increasing. For example, between 2005 and 2009, Brazilian aid doubled. However, to keep that in perspective, Lesbaupin pointed out that in 2009 the Brazilian government spent $377 million on aid, while the Ford Foundation distributed $468 million. In some new donor countries, this aid comes not only from the governments budget but also directly from citizens. Ambassador Wu highlighted this when he noted that the Taiwanese government sent $4 million, in addition to in-kind goods, in response to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan and
Taiwanese NGOs raised $230 million directly from citizens. As to how new donors distribute their funding, the methods vary, but overall include humanitarian aid, technical and South-South cooperation, tied aid projects, loans, grants and aid given through multilateral development agencies. New donor funding tends to be more flexible than that of traditional donor governments; however, greater flexibility often comes at the expense of transparency and accountability. In short, nothing comes without strings. Certainly not unique in aid funding, new donors give aid with an eye to furthering national strategic priorities, although not exclusively. Such strategic priorities vary, but include trade, market development, access to natural resources and advancing the donor countrys private sector. NGOs in many new donor countries are trying to engage with their governments despite the shrinking space for doing so. In India, for example, Jaitli pointed out it is not clear where aid funds go, and to address issues of transparency and accountability NGOs are advocating for an overseas development assistance department. Another message that Indian NGOs are giving their government is that aid funding should be given in the same way the government would want to receive it.
For example, Indian NGOs are beginning to raise land sovereignty issues connected with Indian aid funding to other countries. And perhaps surprisingly, Indian NGOs are not allowed to receive government aid funds to carry out work outside of the country. From the perspective of an aid recipient country, Lun shared that over the last five to seven years Cambodia has seen a number of new players emerge, including China, South Korea and several Arab states. He noted that while most traditional donors give aid according to an internationally agreed framework and principles under the OECDs Development Assistance Committee (DAC), new donors shy away from these principles. Traditional donors include aid focused on helping the Cambodian government and people nurture democracy and a human rights culture. New donor countries provide more flexible funding, but are not interested in human rights and governance issues. In spite of the problems associated with aid from new donors, Lun believes it is good for recipient country governments to have both options. However, he emphasized that recipient country governments should carefully balance the pros and cons of the various donors to best advance the countrys development and quality of life for its citizens.
Overall, there are three major messages from this session. First, new and traditional donor governments have something to learn from one another. Second, civil society organizations in new donor countries should and are advocating for transparency and accountability of aid provided by their governments. And third, NGOs worldwide should continue to advocate that new donors adhere to the principles traditional donors are expected to honor as part of their membership in the OECD/DAC. If these things happen, chances improve that those who benefit most will be the people. MD
gifts-in-Kind
as a resource for Development

Effectively using a too-often maligned source of support.
By Carol Wylie, Senior Director of GIK Operations, World Vision, Mark Khouri, Director of Gifts-in-Kind, Food for the Poor, and Paul Robinson, Director of International Health Programs, and Susan Talbot, Gifts-in-Kind Manager, World concern
RGANIzED BY WORLD VISIONS Carol Wylie, we came together as gifts-in-kind (GIK) professionals for a Forum session to address this sometimes contentious topic, sharing concepts and ways gifts-in-kind serve as a resource stream rather than a separate distribution program. Properly used, gifts-in-kind can be a resource, not rubbish; field-driven, not dumped; integrated, not insular; monitored, not mystified. Historically, GIK programs have been scrutinized and found wanting in relief and development efforts. And rightly so. The well-intended but random and ill-conceived practice of pushing commodities off the back of a truck has done far more harm than good. However, appropriate GIK commodities, in appropriate amounts and condition, at the appropriate place and time, and within appropriate budgeted costs, can be a valuable resource to support ongoing, effective development programs. GIK resources can and often do make valuable contributions to development projects, if handled with proper planning and sufficient quality control activities to maximize their
potential. To utilize GIK resources effectively, development professionals must: (1) have a clear definition of what GIK is (a resource stream) and is not (a distinct and separate program); (2) establish clear methods of resource planning, integration and tracking; and (3) build an effective GIK resource supply chain. As a resource, GIK enhances existing programs and projects, improves program effectiveness, and contributes to key project and program objectives and outcomes. GIK is not rubbish that is culturally inappropriate, tattered and unusable, or items that will pass their expiration dates before they can be distributed and consumed. GIK is a field-driven resource. Assessments identify needs and program staff request the commodity, which fills gaps in program funding. The commodities are not dumped: that is, shipped without a consignee, without coordination of other agencies, creating overages, or as long-term distributions that create dependencies. GIK commodities are integrated into existing programs, building partnerships and providing grant match to strengthen grant pro-
posals. They are not stand-alone distributions or harmful to local markets. We clarified that GIK as a resource stream has several points of integration beyond enhancing existing programs. It can serve as cash replacement, build staff capacity to establish effective logistics systems, strengthen relationships with partners or community leaders, equip community volunteers, provide commodities in disaster response, and/or improve grant proposals and increase impact. GIK commodities are monitored through end-use reporting, accountability measures and impact assessments. They are tracked from origination to final distribution. Field visits verify compliance to local standards and policies. We emphasized that project personnel are trained on good supply chain principles and that impact is measured on the program the relevant GIK supports, not on the GIK distribution alone. GIK is not mystified; it is not shipped off and never heard from again. On-site visits, a verifiable paper trail, strategic logistics and measurable programmatic impact demystify the resulting outcomes of this resource stream. In answering questions we noted there is no broad industry standard. The Accord standards are great, but focus on financial elements; our organizations all have their own standards and policies. Similarly, determining GIK values varies between organizations, but whatever decisions are made, you must document your process and be consistent. To conclude, we shared the following methods GIK professionals can use to achieve the intended goals: Planning. Develop a plan that will match needs in the field with available resources. Do not wait for the phone to ring, take all that is offered, load containers and ship it to the first recipient willing to accept it. Procurement. Develop relationships with donors that provide quality goods. The most common practice is to enter into agreements with donors and/or manufacturers for goods to be produced with the purpose of donating them to a particular program or country. Positioning. Ensure the infrastructure and logistics systems are in place to allow efficient scheduling of shipments and maximize warehouse resources. Programming. Do not make distribution a separate activity; GIK should be incorporated into existing programs as supporting resources. MD
cost-benefit analysis tools

Proving the benefit of disaster risk reduction programs.
By Abby Bruell, Program Associate, Disaster response, InterAction
ACT: BY 2050, TWO-THIRDS OF THE WORLDS POPULAtion will be living in urban centers. That is roughly 7 million people. Fact: With the onset of climate change, disasters will be less predictable, more frequent and more intense. Combine these two facts and you get more people living in increasingly vulnerable situations. To protect these people, disaster risk reduction (DRR) programs are becoming more important than ever. DRR programs can be a comparatively inexpensive way for communities to guard themselves against disaster and avoid the high cost of recovery efforts. But all too often, the benefit of DRR programs is not realized until after a disaster strikes. Reasons for dismissing these types of programs include scarce resources, potentially high costs and perceptions that such programs are unnecessary. Businesses, NGOs and governments can use cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to demonstrate the effectiveness and benefits of DRR programs. CBA is a process by which the expected costs are weighed against the expected benefits through various quantitative methodologies. Simply said, CBAs make an economic argument for investing in disaster risk reduction. While traditional CBAs are used to evaluate large-scale interventions, community-based DRR CBAs focus on process and examine different options available to the community. During a Forum panel hosted by InterActions Disaster Risk Reduction Working Group, panelists shared their experiences implementing community-based DRR CBAs in Nepal, Vietnam and El Salvador. Moderated by Rod Snider, senior disaster preparedness technical advisor for the American Red Cross, the panelists (Karina Copen, a humanitarian and preparation and response program officer for Oxfam America-CAMEXCA; Ulla Dons, former director of programs for Mercy Corps Nepal; and Marcus Moench, president of the Institute for Social and Environmental Transition) discussed the strengths, limitations and lessons they have learned from their projects. One of the greatest strengths of community-based DRR CBAs is that it is a shared learning and planning process. It identifies the fragility of systems, marginality of populations and their exposure to risk. CBAs also help rule out interventions that are mistakenly assumed to be beneficial, saving valuable time and money. Organizations and the communities with which they work are able to select specific activities that would best increase their resiliency to disasters. Though CBAs are a useful tool, their utility only goes so far. They are highly contextualized and, at times, can be challenging and expensive to conduct. CBAs are limited to measuring the benefits that can be
quantified. They are unable to demonstrate the full value of a DRR program because certain impacts (social benefits and lives saved) cannot be assigned a numerical value. Data collected can also be difficult to compare due to variations. Despite these limitations, community-based CBAs help practitioners and the communities they serve to make the most informed decision about what type of DRR program should or should not be implemented. The panelists agreed that to mainstream CBAs into DRR programs, systematic data collection should be built into the programs, programs should be multi-year and CBA should be seen as a part of the decisionmaking process. Since CBAs can only measure quantifiable impacts, soft interventions such as community organizing for advocacy and trainings for evacuation should be a priority. CBAs are one of many tools in the toolbox to highlight the importance of DRR activities. They still may not convince a community, city or country to implement DRR strategies before a disaster strikes. It still may take the destruction of an entire to city to convince people to invest in preparedness strategies. But organizations should not sit and wait for the next disaster to hit. By getting things started beforehand, by getting facilities ready and pre-positioning ideas, ideas, resources and skills can be available when a disaster hits and may lead to a transformational change in the way communities approach preparedness. MD
Master of Arts in Sustainable Development: International Policy and

Management in Washington, DC
One-Year Program for Development Professionals

n Two Terms Coursework, Washington, DC n One-Term Practicum in the Field of International Development Scholarships and Financial Aid available
Now enrolling for September 2011

Learn more at www.sit.edu/grad-DC
Put Your passion Into Practice
41
Humanitarian Leadership:
What Does it take?
The how, whys and what ifs of effective humanitarian leadership.
By Lucy de los Reyes, Program Associate for Protection and GBV, InterAction
EADERSHIP TAKES MANY FORMS, and different situations require different skills and tactics for success. Humanitarian leadership is no exception, but attention to the topic is often lessened in the press to focus on the immediate need to save lives during crises. A recent report by Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP) took on this crucial subject and served as the basis for a thoughtful session at the Forum moderated by InterAction Vice President for Humanitarian Policy & Practice Joel Charny. The panelists included John Mitchell, director, ALNAP; Mia Beers, senior humanitarian policy advisor, USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA); Nan Buzzard, senior director of international response and programs, American Red Cross; and Claire Messina, senior coordinator, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Humanitarian Coordination System Strengthening Project. The ALNAP study, Leadership in Action:
Leading Effectively in Humanitarian Operations, examined success stories in humanitarian leadership, looking at individual leaders and groups of leaders, and extrapolated the characteristics of these leaders. It also offered recommendations on how we as a community can improve in our approach to leadership by challenging a risk-adverse culture, considering models of group leaders, investing more in national leadership and giving leaders space to lead. Buzzard noted we need to better recognize our successes and ensure leaders are mentored and encouraged. The workshop was well attended by experts, with numerous members of the humanitarian community adding to the discussion on challenges to effective leadership in increasingly complex and risk-averse environments. Audience members and the panelists discussed the difficulties of changing the current system and the intricacies of enabling people to change organizations and the humanitarian system. Debate ensued concerning whether the critical experience required to be a leader
in the humanitarian system can only come from within the field itself, or whether there is some also space for strong leaders to come from outside. Messina noted we should examine leadership in a humanitarian context, not humanitarian leadership, and believes the search for strong leaders should not be restricted to the humanitarian community. Others said that while innovative ideas can come from outside the humanitarian sector, the best humanitarian leaders are able to draw upon personal experiences and their knowledge of humanitarian principles. Discussants stressed that we must keep humanitarian principles at the forefront of our work and priorities, and guard ourselves against risk aversion and turf battles. Suggestions were made on how to achieve this together, and on the challenges of shifting to a collective leadership and accountability within our responses. It was also noted that we need to invest more in organizational leadership and be more proactive in finding and developing national leaders. Audience members challenged the panel and others in leadership roles to build capacity of national staff and reexamine skills that are valued. Buzzard noted there continues to be significant gender gap in the highest levels of leadership. The workshop forced participants to take stock of whether we are doing enough. USAID, including OFDA, are focusing on how they look at leadership. They are looking at how donors can lead and ensure common messaging and engagement on issues such as partnership. Beers called on the community to think creatively and challenge ourselves to experiment and take risks. One audience member referred to a study on best counrty programs that found that the most effective country programs were ones with good leaders. While these strong leaders were working in difficult conditions, Good leaders can make up for deficiencies and take advantage of strengths. She also stressed the importance of having good leaders at all levels, not just at the country level. Messina reminded the audience of Valerie Amoss earlier keynote speech at the Forum in which she said the way ahead is to create an environment in which countries can handle disasters that strike them. To accomplish this, it is essential to invest in people living on the frontlines. As Messina stated so well, We dont need to grow leaders for todays challenges; we need to grow leaders for tomorrows needs. MD
Keys to effective partnerships with local organizations.

By Laia Grino, coordinator for NGO Effectiveness, InterAction
partnership? Whats that?
OR MORE THAN 30 YEARS NOW, those involved in international development have been talking about partnership: What is partnership? Why is it needed? What does it take to make partnerships work? While there are many types of partnerships, this Forum session, moderated by David Bonbright, chief executive of Keystone Accountability, focused on partnerships between international NGOs and local organizations. One problem, Sue Dwyer, vice president of program quality at the International Rescue Committee, pointed out, is the loose way the term partnership is used. Because partnership is now used to describe almost any relationship, those involved in partnerships may lack a common understanding of what partnership truly is, and consequently of what is expected or what to expect. Another fundamental issue is the asymmetry of power between international and local NGOs. As Harsh Jaitli, CEO of the Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), noted, true partnership is only possible between equals. Equality can be elusive, however, since as Ezra Mbogori, executive director of the Akiba Uhaki Foundation in Kenya, said, NGOs usually control the funds. The fact that this power imbalance is in some ways built into the systemat least for nowmakes the challenge of improving partnerships all the harder. To address this challenge, in fall 2010, 25 European and U.S. NGOs participated in a comparative feedback survey with their local partners, administered by Keystone Accountability. Despite its limitations, Dwyer said the survey has served as a clarion call for action and attention. Other participants have echoed this sentiment, saying that while their organizations may have been thinking about partnerships for some time, the hard data from the survey has provided a concrete basis
Mutual trust and respect; Opportunity for joint agenda planning; Equal decision-making, in terms of resources and policies; Shared goals; Recognition of each others circumstances; Respect for each others differences and limitations, or acceptance of what each partner is able to contribute; Continuity in the resources, actors involved and policies guiding the partnership; Genuine commitment to partnership at the organizational (vs. individual) level; and Long-term perspective. Allen also pointed out that better partnerships often require changes to organizational systems. As Dwyer noted, Partnership will never be a box we can check. Still, the convergence of several factors may be pushing us to make faster progress. On the one hand, as the Keystone survey demonstrates, NGOs are committed to improving their partnerships with local organizations. The commitment to partnershipin both North and Southis also reflected in the Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness, which establish equitable partnerships and solidarity as one of eight principles CSOs should follow to be effective development actors. On the other hand, donors are increasingly focusing on the principle of country ownership, which, among other things, is leading to more direct funding of local organizations. Donor practices such as these will undoubtedly have an impact on NGO-local organization relationships, in no small part by helping change the current balance of power. If we are indeed at a tipping point, organizations would do well to think about some of the questions Allen posed at the end of the session: How do we better measure outcomes in terms of partnership? How do NGOs manage the issues of organizational culture that sharing power creates? And what is the role of INGO partnerships as funding mechanisms change? MD The Keystone Public Report is available on InterActions website. For more information about the survey, or to participate, please contact the author at lgrino@interaction.org.
for action. In addition, as Ruth Allen, Mercy Corps director of governance and partnerships, stated, the survey has sparked conversation on this topic with local partners, which has been just as valuable as the results. One key take-away from the survey is that local organizations do not want to serve as sub-contractors for NGOs. Instead, they asked for support in becoming better funded, more influential and independent organizations. In other words, NGOs must become better at sharing power. Based on their experiences with NGO partnerships, Jaitli and Mbogori offered some important elements for good partnerships, including:
impact evaluation in action

How to build knowledge from practice.
By Laura Fishler, Special Projects Manager, The rockefeller Foundation
MPACT EVALUATION INVESTIGATES the changes brought about by an intervention. This sounds simple enough, but unpacking the causal mechanisms and factors affecting those changes is a real challenge for those conducting impact evaluations. Given the increasing demand for impact evaluations in development, it is widely acknowledged that current practice needs strengthening to provide credible evidence on which to base investment decisions and inform program performance improvements. To this end, the Impact Evaluation in Action workshop focused on building knowledge from practice. Moderated by Penny Hawkins, senior evaluation officer at The Rockefeller Foundation, the panelists included: Patricia Rogers, professor of evaluation, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Carlisle Levine, co-chair of InterActions Evaluation and Program Effectiveness Working Group; and Veronica Olazabal, executive secretary for monitoring and evaluation, United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR). The Rockefeller Foundation is providing support to InterAction to lead the development
of practice guidance materials and a series of webinars to support the development of better practice in impact evaluation. It also supports the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) for its Better Evaluation project (http://betterevaluation.org) to develop an interactive web-based platform designed to assist with choosing the most appropriate evaluation methods and approaches. Rogers kicked off the workshop by asking each participant to consider a recent impact evaluation they had been involved in and to identify one positive aspect and one challenging aspect of the evaluation. The responses were then compiled and categorized. One of the most striking characteristics was the strong emphasis on issues related to evaluation management: particularly working with partner organizations to leverage the different resources needed for effective impact evaluation, including technical expertise and local credibility to open access to field sites. This information will be used to inform further development of the Impact Evaluation Guidance Notes and material for the BetterEvaluation web platform. Participants were also invited to contribute to
these projects after the workshop. Providing a practitioner perspective, Olazabal discussed a faith-based approach to assessing impact, examining the Imagine No Malaria project, in which UMCOR distributed malaria nets to houses in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The project evaluation asked, What is the impact of monthly house-to-house followup on the use of malaria nets, and the rate of malaria incidence? Olazabal spoke about the evaluation methodology, the challenges encountered and how they were addressed, as well as different experiences conducting the evaluations in Sierra Leone and DRC. The key challenges presented, which became the focus of questions and discussion, concerned: (a) the difficulty identifying control groups; (b) the difficulty establishing causality or attribution (versus contribution); and (c) how to capture impact on incidence of malaria given poor data collection by health facilities. Summarizing the information she had gathered in a brief survey, Levine presented on the experiences of five organizations in conducting impact evaluations (CARE, Catholic Relief Services, the Feinstein International Center, the International Rescue Committee and Save the Children). She spoke in detail about Catholic Relief Servicess and the Feinstein Centers experiences using a Participatory Impact Assessment Approach (see https://wikis.uit. tufts.edu/confluence/display/FIC/Participator y+Impact+Assessment). She noted some benefits of this approach including: (a) its focus on real impact rather than process measures; (b) an emphasis on community-defined, rather than externally-defined, indicators of impact; and (c) the ability to allow for the discovery of unanticipated outcomes that might turn out to be more important to participants than those anticipated by project designers. She concluded with some broad advice for those conducting impact evaluations. These two presentations can be viewed at http://www.interaction.org/monitoringevaluation. The InterAction Impact Evaluation Guidance Notes and the RMIT BetterEvaluation web platform will both be available by the end of the year. MD For more information about the impact evaluation guidance notes, please contact Laia Grino, InterActions coordinator for NGO effectiveness, at lgrino@interaction.org.
Gender as a key to linking communities to health systems.
Walking the Walk
By Crystal Lander, Director of Policy and Advocacy, Management Sciences for Health
ENDER, GENDER, GENDER. Everyone is talking about it, but are they really addressing it? The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and Management Sciences for Health (MSH) collaborated to bring experts to this years InterAction Forum to discuss gender integration in health programs. The goal was to go beyond a discussion of the value of gender to address real implementation of gender programming. While much is known about how genderbased constraints adversely affect health, social and economic development, successful models that integrate gender into programs have not been widely documented or evaluated. This panel presented an overview of the U.S. governments commitment to integrate gender into health systems as well as examples of successful models of gender integration into national and community health system responses. In recognition of gender inequality as a driver of poor health outcomes, technical agencies and donors are issuing guidelines for integrating gender into programs and proposals. Diana Prieto, senior gender advisor for USAID and co-chair of the Intergovernmental Gender Taskforce, shared the importance of gender for U.S. government programs. One of the Global Health Initiatives core principles focuses on women, girls and gender equality. Prieto explained that the women, girls and gender equality approach is a model that will empower adolescent girls, engage men and boys, use multiple community-based program approaches, and, most importantly, build the capacity of individual and institutions with an emphasis on womenthroughout the health system. The U.S. government and other donor organizations are expected to align their health and gender related policies
gender programming and integration can be complex because of deeply ingrained norms.
to this established principle. But how are these guidelines and strategies implemented in the field? Does implementing gender through health systems change programs and lives in developing countries? Panelists Belkis Giorgis of MSH and Reshma Trasi and Mary Ellsberg of ICRW each shared successful ways gender can be addressed within three different areas, helping to save the lives of women and their families. Start with the women and her community is the approach Giorgis recommended from an MSH project in Ethiopia. The family-focused approach leads to more comprehensive and integrated care by minimizing time away from the family. In Ethiopia, the community- and family-focused model recruited case managers (50 percent female) and Kebele-oriented (defined neighborhoods) outreach workers. This model of community mobilizing also allows women to interact in their own space
and reduces the likelihood of stigmatization. Ellsberg said, Health service centers act as a window of opportunity to identify survivors of gender-based violence [GBV] through routine inquiry. She presented a spectrum of models that allow for the health system to adequately respond to the needs of GBV survivors. Ellsberg also called for integrated approaches to addressing GBV that link health services to other institutions that provide legal services and counseling. Trasi shared results from work in Cambodia to get gender included at the policy level. Gender programming and integration can be complex because of deeply ingrained norms, she said. Policymakers maybe resistant to integrating gender in their policies and programs due to lack of funds or evidence, or the sense that gender is a womens issue. Trasi stressed the importance of carefully negotiating gender integration into national HIV/AIDS responses using local evidence to make coherent arguments for gender equality, while promoting country ownership. The question and answer period, coordinated by panel moderator Willow Gerber from MSH, yielded more discussion on what is next for gender integration in health systems, including education of policymakers, implementers and service recipients. More dialogue and action are needed on results measurement and the inherent challenges of funding and integrating issues of equality and marginalization into a scaled, national response. It was clear from the discussion that gender mainstreaming successes and models need to be documented, evaluated and scaled up. MD
45
assistance as a Defense system

An aid workers guide to navigating the world of securitized aid.
By Lucy del los Reyes, Program Associate for Protection and GBV, InterAction
HE IMPACT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS COUNTERterrorism agenda on relief and development has been a contentious issue for a number of years and continues in many situations today. In a panel moderated by Beth Ferris, senior fellow in the Brookings Foreign Policy Studies Program and co-director of the Brookings-LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science) Project on Internal Displacement, panelists Joel Charny, vice president, humanitarian policy & practice, InterAction; Peter Walker, Irwin H. Rosenberg professor of nutrition and human security and director of the Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University; and Mike Young, regional director for Asia, Caucasus and the Middle East, International Rescue Committee, presented provocative and thought-provoking ideas, highlighting the history of aid being used as a national security objective. Ferris kicked off the panel noting that there has never has been a golden era of humanitarian aid nor a time when aid was not highly politicized. She asked what defines a humanitarian actor. And if a humanitarian actor is one who abides by humanitarian principles, she questioned how the military can see itself as a humanitarian actor. Charny noted that while the securitization of aid was not new, there are new challenges including: the aggressiveness of the U.S. militarys engagement in humanitarian response; the war on terror as a potentially endless war with multiple fronts; and the absolute lack of humanitarian exemptions in antiterror legislation. Charny sees three main implications of this environment. First, organizations need to seek additional private funding to ensure their independence, which can be questioned when using government funds, especially from governments that are belligerents in the conflict. Second, legislation needs to be changed to include humanitarian exemptions. Finally, organizations need to change the way they work, moving to a more locally integrated approach and making national partnerships more meaningful. Walker gave a history of humanitarian aid and politically charged contexts, using examples from Afghanistan, Belarus, Biafra, Cambodia, Somalia and Vietnam. He presented several thought-provoking ideas, including instances where humanitarian aid prolonged conflicts by adding money and resources, and the difficulties of making moral
calculations. He also discussed the dangers of attempting to control and stabilize states and the impossibility of controlling where they go. He questioned the militarys use of aid to win hearts and minds in noting that the model rests on a fallacy that poverty causes people take up arms. This is not always so. In Afghanistan, people take up arms because they do not trust the new government due to rampant corruption. In closing, he urged organizations to carefully define who they are and what they are working towards. Young rounded out the panel, focusing on three main ideas surrounding the concepts of identity, austerity and practicality. In todays environment where a multitude of organizations and actors all share the same space, humanitarian organizations need to actively decide who they are, what they do and what mandate they work under. He asked if there is a need to redefine humanitarian principles in the new security context and if we need to look at what the principles actually mean on the ground. Organizations need to be more proactive: sending out clearer messages to distinguish themselves from other actors. In the current economic environment, foreign assistance funds will decline and aid organizations need to use accountability to demonstrate their comparative value. While studies directly comparing assistance by NGOs vs. the military are thin, a growing body of evidence shows the military is not necessarily the best provider. Aid organizations need to present strong evidence that they can deliver aid better, cheaper and faster. He also urged organizations to improve their collective risk management. Questions from the audience led to a deeper conversation on humanitarian principles, restrictions on humanitarian space and the need for us to recognize our own role in the closing of humanitarian space. The need to take more risks in advocacy around these topics was also discussed. MD
Where do YOU find the latest issues and trends in international development and humanitarian assistance?
Monday Developments Magazine provides in-depth news and commentary on global trends that affect relief, refugee and development work. MD also features new resources for humanitarian workers, professional growth opportunities, upcoming events and employment listings.
Subscribe now at www.mondaydevelopments.org
Committed to the Aid and Development Industry.

Fords quality is equal to Honda and Toyota in RDA Groups Global Quality Research System, which measures vehicle satisfaction in the rst three months of 1 ownership.
Drive Quality
Ford improved fuel economy more than any other major automaker between 2004 and 2009, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA rated Fords combined car and truck fuel economy improvement at nearly 20 percent, almost double that of the nextclosest competitor.2
Drive Green
Ford leads the industry in both National Highway Trafc Safety Administration ve-star crash safety ratings3 and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safetys Top Safety Pick ratings.
Drive Safe
Ford Motor Company is committed to delivering industryleading technology solutions that enhance the driving experience at a value to the consumer.
Drive Smart
To learn more, please contact: Landon Tucker Aid and Development Fleet Sales Account Manager Ford Export and Global Growth Operations ltucker3@ford.com
Based on RDA Groups GQRS cumulative survey at three months of service in three surveys of 2009 Ford and competitive owners conducted 9/08-5/09. Based on analysis of data published by EPA (11/09). 3Star ratings are part of the U.S. Department of Transportations Safercar.gov program (www.safercar.gov).

MD Oct 2011 Small

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MD Oct 2011 Small

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

nt g me t lop a or ve ob n. de n j io xt ria t ne ita ac ur an er yo m t d hu .

October 2011 Vol. 29 Issue 10

MonDay DeveLopMents Magazine

Investing in Common Solutions

MonDay DeveLopMents Magazine

Effectively using a too-often maligned source of support.

8 plenaryshifting Landscapes: Who are the Key actors?

21 sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries

Proving the benefit of disaster risk reduction programs.

22 the new Metrics of social Media

42 Humanitarian Leadership: What Does it take? 43 partnership? Whats that?

10 plenaryFrom Failing states to Development

Experts offer insights on how to maximize your influence and impact.

NGO accountability and transparency through standards.

The how, whys and what ifs of effective humanitarian leadership.

32 is the ngo brand at risk?

23 the Future bottom billion

12 plenaryWomen in the economic Drivers seat

The development challenges of an increasingly urban world.

Keys to effective partnerships with local organizations.

44 impact evaluation in action 45 Walking the Walk 46 assistance as a Defense system

24 bridges between information islands

Data sharing for NGO collaboration, coordination and transparency.

Reviewing the initiative at the one-year mark.

34 Women in the Middle east and north africa

14 plenarytough times, good times

25 accountability to the people We serve 26 U.s. expatriate taxation

Staying honest with donors and the public.

Sounds great, but how do we do it?

16 plenaryshaping and protecting our Working environment

Best practices for management and the individual.

Creating programs that address root causes, not just symptoms.

27 natural vs. politicallyMade Humanitarian situations

37 claiming the Field 38 transforming and advancing Disability civil society

18 Member ceo-only events

28 Hows it going For you?

What will it take to create a profession of humanitarian action?

20 annual Membership Meeting

Knowledge dissemination, organizational development and legal mechanisms.

Attendees elect new board members, review financials and outlook.

39 new Donor countries

OcTOBEr 2011 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS

reflections from the President

MonDay DeveLopMents Magazine

Investing in Common Solutions

Sam Worthington President and cEO InterAction

Thank you ...

TAKE CLEMENTS WITH YOU.

OcTOBEr 2011 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS

ForUM 2011 aWarDs

interaction 9th annual photo contest Winner: jenn Warren

congolese refugees seeking shelter

MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS OcTOBEr 2011

ForUM 2011 aWarDs

OcTOBEr 2011 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS

ForUM 2011 pLenary

Who are the Key actors?

By Will Merrow, Special Assistant to the President, InterAction

ForUM 2011 pLenary

ForUM 2011 pLenary

From Failing states to Development

ForUM 2011 pLenary

OcTOBEr 2011 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS

ForUM 2011 pLenary