User:Ngosustain

There are also other readings at the Transnational Reading Link, which has some interesting articles on transnational NGO's: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/hpschmitz/TNGOProject/TNGOReadingList.htm for example:

Holmén, Hans (2002) 'NGOs, Networking, and Problems of Representation', Working Paper Series 33/02, Torino: International Center for Economic Research.

Liebler, Claudia and Marisa Ferri (2004) 'NGO Networks. Building Capacity in a Changing World', Washington, DC: Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, USAID.

Church, Madeline, et al. (2002) 'Participation, Relationships, and Dynamic Change. New Thinking on Evaluating the Work of International Networks', Working Paper No. 121, London: Development Planning Unit, University College London.

http://www.oneworldtrust.org/documents/GAP2003.pdf http://www.oneworldtrust.org/documents/Pathways%20to%20Accountability,%20The%20GAP%20Framework1.pdf

Sustainability through Earned Income Strategies, A Diversified Approach to Self-Financing: A Case Study of Hogar de Cristo. Synergos. 2000

Bond, Michael. The Backlash Against NGOs. 2000.

Bermeo, Nancy, and Philip Nord. Civil Society before Democracy. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.

Other websites of interest: http://www.sustainability.com/insight/research-article.asp?id=51

http://www.frameweb.org/ev.php?ID=10553_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

http://www.intrac.org/docs/OPS44Final.pdf

http://sangonet.org.za/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=26&Itemid=172

http://www.isar.org/pubs/ST/NGOselffunding48.html

http://lgi.osi.hu/publications/2005/292/NGO_Sustainability_in_Central_Europe.pdf

More: "Financial independence is key to NGO sustainability" interview to Mechai Varavaidya, founder and chairman of Thailand's Population and Community Development Association (PDA) http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_0124_02.htm

"Linking Sustainable Community Activities to Pollution Prevention". By: Beth Lachman. Definitions of sustainability, sustainable community, elements, resources for sustainability efforts http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR855.pdf

"Getting To Outcomes 2004. Promoting Accountability Through Methods and Tools for Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation" By: Matthew Chinman, Pamela Imm, Abraham Wandersman Check especially Question #10: If the Program Is Successful, How Will It Be Sustained? http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR101/ http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR101/TR101.ch10.pdf

"Challenges of Local NGO Sustainability". Jerry VanSant http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/dcid/downloads/vansant_200310.pdf

AED, CCSG. Supporting Civil Society Networks in International Development Programs. December 2005. http://www.aed-ccsg.org/reports/Networks%20English%20Final%5B1%5D.pdf

NGO E-library http://www.ngomanager.org/

USAID. EUROPE AND EURASIA. The NGO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. http://www1.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/

Fowler, Alan. The Virtuous Spiral, A Guide to Sustainability for NGOs in International Development. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2000.

Dicklitch, Susan. "2. Structural Bottlenecks to Democracy." The Elusive Promise of NGOs in Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc. 1998.

Edwards, Michael, and John Gaventa, eds. Global Citizen Action. USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 2001.

Good editorial on sustainability - http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/newsletter/article.php?article_id=111

[edit] Meeting Minutes

1#(10:00a.m Monday May 15) Kick-off Meeting Team with Prof. Lux

Introduction about the project

Discussion about sustainability in terms of mission, result, instituion

Prepare for the questions

Share resources

# (9:00am, Tuesday, May 16) Meet Marta

2#(10:00a.m Tuesday May 16) Conference call with Matt, Chanya from AED

Question&Answers

Who will read this report?

Donors want to have social change (institutional changes?) or the organization itself wants change?

Do you think institutional sustainability refer to AED itself or the organizations it partnership with?

How are you currently thinking measuring sustain ability?

Are there any organizations more successful? If so, what do you perceive your failure?

Could we interview with relevant program manager?

# (2:00pm, Tuesday, May 16) Meet Dan

3#(10:00a.m Thursday May 18) Team meeting

Quick summary on what we used

Yoko: sustainabInsert non-formatted text herele development, sustainability of the impacts, three dimensions How to be financially sustainable? Who define the sustainability? The positions should be taken into account in the discussion Issue of sustainability is developing

Paulina: How to conceptualize framework? Use USAID framework Read two summary articles

JC: evaluation process and sustainability evaluation Basic evaluation part, comparison between each program in terms of case studies Paper from Tshiart class, the superintendence project in Peru

Juanca: NGO sustainability index: (macro and micro) Environmental, organization capacity, finance, framework

Chen: The relationship between sustainability of results and institutions The sustainability of results is more like a goal, and the latter one is the means to ends for the first one. And the measurement of sustainability is mainly based on the phase-out strategies INGO uses. It could be through government, partnerships, other organizational factors May not be as quantitative,except when discussing financials

Suzanne: Institution diffusion: relationship aspect at how norms are transferred Barcelona: collaborative, what factors affect social identity& sustainability as a whole? Joseph: client-driven model, client based entrepreneurial management, project based Against of odds: potential case study? (Epstein) from worldview of the poor Mckenzie/Moore: psychological, get each other to learn social change Clark/Dickson: harnessing science technology to look at interaction because of nature

Outline and allocation

The topics are the following:

1) Notion of sustainability: What do we understand? Is it socially feasible? Do the projects need to be sustainable? (Main responsible: Suzanne)

2)Links between Results and Institution Sustainability (Chen)

3)INGO Phase-out strategies (Chen)

4)Factors affecting institutional sustainability: Financial viability (JC)

Institutional capacity (Juanca)

Legal and political context (Juanca)

Network, community relations (Paulina)

5) Performance Measures (Yoko)

6) Case Studies (For later!)

Our next meeting will be tomorrow at 2pm in the same room.

4# (2:00pm May 19) Team Meeting

The topics for the outline discussion are the following, based on each person's individual summary:

1) Notion of Sustainability – Where does it come from and how do we think about it? Notion of sustainability: (Main responsible: Suzanne)

Diffusion can be used in the social science; the concept of diffusion relies on Separation, communication within and with each other state. The importance to build up the culture and relational linkages through:

Identify population

Specify how to link people together

Compare the diffusion of different population Requires a well-established social fabric, characterized by the formal and informal social support, when that is absent, that is replaced by government service, mafias. And it depends on when community service is planned. Whether we can actually generate/formulate changes A community with social identity, individual efforts to achieve the social sustainability:

Does sustainability imply solidarity?

Psycho-socially, link all the dimensions as an ego system

Propose the section of sustainability with community

It is not coming from within, but need to be adapted into different scenarios

Concept of diffusion is used in anthropology, etc. But concept relies on concept of modernity – separation of nation state, where actors take upon one another. How do these people relate to each other – how do you analyze strategy to create social theory/change. 1. examine variation among populations 2. what links people together 3. compare diffusion of practice across different populations – interaction, interdependence, similarity Thus: identify the population - how to spread within the context – message differs across the community – idea of replication is really hard. Sustainability requires a social fabric that is characteriszed by formal/informal relationships based on social support. When absent, it is replaced by expensive social service by govnt or NGOs, or by crime/mafia. Thus, when growth is planned vs. spontaneous – what are the differences, and can you use the patterns that occur spontaneously? Can you replicate, or ? when not specifically called development. Devpt can be developed - forced change by social intervention. Castells – social fabric always regenerates itself and requires time and social interactions . Social change requires social and economic costs- survival strategies and change to people. Social relations - is it possible without an invertibrated society (meaning community with social identity as the social network of formal/informal support). Human solidarity and equity. Is information enough to advance solidarity? People are not always rational. Does it imply solidarity? Mutual aid/capacitation. Space – sense of belonging and attachment. Are characteristics of space personal and collective identify, and what do they play in adoption of values. When these values are not typical of group, what happens? Authors to look at : Allende Landa, Martinez Aladier - definitions of sustainability fad or passive fashion, political opportunism. Can go back to limits of economic development – excessive population growth, bad living conditions, etc. Modern concept is psychological literature (place names of authors here). This would entail adopting holistic and transactional perspective of social meliu as ecosystem of social behaviors that involve technology, social structures, etc. Proposal: To look at sustainability within the idea of community or physical structure. Perhaps problem is that its not really looking at how information is transferred within different groups of people and how social norms of different groups vary. Idea of replicating models or transposing institutional practices of US on others may not be worthwhile for long-term social impact, as far as theory of social change is concerned. Use psychosocial theories of diffusion to show problem of longevity of programs and so forth is that its transposing too much to different norms that are not relevant to where it is, and is not community based and actual place were the problem is looked at.

JC suggestion: focus on what kind of projects NGOs are working with. Theoretically depends on type of culture, what works in what contexts

Yoko suggestion: have to mention that there is difficulty in coming up with typical model, but agrees with JC in figuring out what are the common characteristics.

The Link between the Results and their Institutions, and the NGO PhaseOut Strategies (Chen)

Regarding the sustainability of results and the institutions, there are not many topics. It is pretty much the same thing that we mentioned yesterday. The sustainability is the support, which is to keep the results in the long term. NGO advocacy – relationship with the government. What is the government policy – does it ask the NGOs? Political regime that gives political space has healthier NGO sector. Is NGO pretty much controlled the government? Does it have a policy to coop the NGO? Incentivs are usually limited – sometimes carrots, sometimes sticks. The second question is what is NGO policy towards government – what are the three different NGO policies. Third, advocacy – does the government strongly support NGOs. Three different scenarios based on three different political regimes.

Discussion:

Yoko – it is also an issue of capacity, defines what gives NGOs the space to perform.

Chen – political regime matters. Even if govnt has no capacity and is not open, there is not ability to give allowances to NGOs. Regardless of which scenarios, there are always dilemmas to enter a country: - Invest in learning or doing? Once they leave country, knowledge should be kept. AED does his well by having training the trainers project . (chong- sustainability depends on who they are working with. - If they choose independence and take over intl NGO, want partnership. But once this happens, what if it damages credibility and effectiveness, particulary in the NGO arena. There is a transaction cost in the phase-out strategy. - Leadership is very important. The ownership of the NGO. Yoko says that Dan mentioned that NGOs don’t have a choice. If USAID funds NGO in same operation. If want to maintain the sustainability of the operation, it may not be sustainable for the INGO itself.

Question for Chandra: What do you consider the definition of success – when you pull out or when you stay in the country (pull-out strategy)?

Comments Yoko: mention the difficulty to come up with a general model

JC: figure out the commonalities

2) Links between Results and Institution Sustainability (Chen) 3) INGO Phase-out strategies (Chen)

The relationship with government:

Government policy towards NGOs

Positive vein, government encourage NGOs to engage in gap-filling service delivery services

Control NGOs by co-opting them with either carrot or stick kinds of incentives and corresponding disincentives to straying from the script

Depends on types of regime, political culture, the degree of political stability

Pluralism and political space correlate with a healthy and active NGO sector

NGO policy towards government

Political isolation – building an appropriate base of support, service delivery more than advocacy

Cooperation with government – project or strategic level  Active policy advocacy

Dilemmas- by local NGOs

Investment in learning v.s investment in doing: serious policy influence usually requires documented learning (AED) UNICEF  Policy awareness v.s policy influence: every NGO should develop the skills and mechanisms to understand the policy environment and how it will affect what they are trying to do.

Independence v.s partnership: the partnership with a INGO may damage a local NGO’s credibility and effectiveness, especially a voice in the policy arena.

4) Factors affecting institutional sustainability:

Financial viability (JC)

How to make the project sustainable by itself in terms of short-term and long-term

Long-term project: which can be measured by financial terms, which can not?

Financial ratios: operation profit, Income statement: income generating

The quality of assets they have: Operating profit/asset

Require performance measurement

Fund raising no matter which cooperation form: Collecting fees from product distribution Try to be creative which activity could generate revenues, The nature of the expense inside NGOs

Financial Viability – two conditions 1. Capacity of NGO to get intl donors in the local ground and condition 2. There is a stable economy that gets donors inside the country. How to make project sustainable by itself 1. Short term and long term 2. Does AED have short-term projects or longer? Short-term projects not important to have financial sustainability. 3. Which projects can be measured in financial terms in the long-run? Bakery projects, Grameen Banks, sustainability measured by ratio, without considering donations 4. Ratio , SIGAP – try to work with this ratio from the World Bank for income sustainability projects. a. Ratio = ROA = operation/asset i. Can only be done for some kinds of projects ii. To generate this, need to run NGO like a company, need performance measurements. iii. There are externalities – economic shocks, etc.

Discussion:

Complement with finding case studies, finding sectors, etc. Juanca mentions that mainly they are not financial projects because they are sustaining intangibles like democracy, civil society vs. health, microfinance. Effectiveness of the program.

Also important to talk about fundraising. Yoko suggests talking about fee for services, product distribution.

Try to be creative of what kinds of activities can be created.

Discuss the nature of expenses inside the NGO - overhead vs. project.

Institutional capacity (Juanca)

Autonomy

Human Resources: Board, CEO, training, more inside organization

Capacity: Bylaws, leadership capacities, Accounting standards and accountabilities Infracture, access to documents& equipments, public image in terms of transparency, public awareness, government awareness,

Legal and political context (Juanca)

Legally environment: entrance, competition, regulation giving NGOs legal base, registration (how NGOs to begin) Regulations on taxation

Incentives for NGOs to continue, Regulations about local legal capacities, NGOs should not be always pushed by the government.

Political stability&regime: democracy or not, how they permit a NGO or not,

Comments: JC: build up link between the legal and political envorinment and phase-out strategy

Chen: Autonomy: Being driven by mission rather than by donors or other funding sources; Financial diversification from any single-source patron; A mass constituency;Technical expertise Strategic knowledge on development issues; Social and managerial knowledge

Factors of Institutional Sustainability 1. Institutional Capacity - 5 factors a. Autonomy – relationship between donor and NGO. Also with government. Could also be bylaws of the NGO. i. Chen- other two points is that NGOs should be driven by mission rather than funding resources and requires funder diversification – based on that , NGOs can achieve autonomy. b. Human resources of the NGO – relation between staff, volunteers, board, CEO, training, identification with mission and project. c. Management System – clarity of mission and procedures, bylaws, strategic planning, leadership capacity, accounting and accountability standards. d. Material support – infrastructure, access to equipment in NGO or network, access to documents, e. Public image – credibility and building it, transparency, public awareness, govnt awareness, media coverage 2. Legal and Political Context a. Legal environment b. Regulation in terms of entrance of other NGOs and competition, regulation preventing interference from governments, necessary legal basis to engage in fundraising and income producing activities. Focus on regulation and registration, regulation of operation, procurement, taxation (deductions or incentives), local/legal capacity and state harassment (or harnessing)

Discussion

JC – does legal framework create incentive to create other NGO or what happens? Let’s talk about the link. - What about Political stability and political regime - This could potentially be where Chen’s part fits in re: the context an NGO works in

Network, community relations (Paulina)

Localization, transnational NGOs changes its notions;

Change the society of the norms, the way people act in the society;

The whole points of network is to change behaviors and change norms,Four campaigns: challenge the notion of norms

Information diffusion (how the quality of information is put out, how many people has been supporting it, whether they have the resources to mobilize, it is the quality of the information that matters)

NGOs have to be patient, they may not see the results quickly, measure the impact how they diffuse

Question to be consider: AED should measure how the information diffuses? Correctly implementing: reliable and accurate.

5) Performance Measures (Yoko)

Indicators of sustainability in different projects

Select examples from other organizations about the evaluation factors

To do list:

By Sunday May 21 midnight, answer the three questions put in the discussion page: the definition of sustainability, the sustainability framework each of us found out, the first draft of summary based on the following roles:

Social literature research on sustainability (Suzzane)

Specific Capacity (including criteria and measurement factors)

Institutional capability (Juanca)

Political and legal context (Chen)

Financial viability (JC)

Networking and external communication (Paulina)

Framework measurement factor summarizing (Yoko)

5# (10:00am May 22) Team Meeting with Prof. Lux

Topic: Report on our findings and ask for advise, Administrative issues: presentation in DC and conference with Croatia people

Discuss last week’s process and brief Lux on research findings Professor Lux

Charity Navigator: measuring the performance

• Measure efficiency

• Measure capacity: increase the funding every year,Expand the case studies not within AED Two things important to AED: Write the proposal and assess the impacts Something functional to them, not a whole system, just the concepts to think; Critics of status quo, AED, sustainability of results and institutions

• Expand the way people think about sustainability – the way you think about sustainability is limited Some people cannot figure how to measure what the organization want, so just measure something else

• How you organize? Indigenous? Country strategy? Is there a team working on that?

• CARE: corporate strategy

• AED: limit their ability to think and act strategically

Yoko: sustainability only relates to outcomes, or relates to others as well?

Prof: Think of different Matrixes, in terms of long-term, medium, short-term sense? Conceptualize the idea of sustainability as there is no norm here; compare the current Sustainability measures and figures out what are missing. World Bank case: economic indicators What US AID really wants in a political sense? How do different funding organizations understand sustainability?

Model There is a readiness in some states, but some are not; everyone is so fragile. The model across different cultures, rational world, we would like you to think about this way. Should USAID fund the places where there cannot find the funding by themselves

To do list

1. Frame model individually, present and discuss on 10:30 a.m May 23

2. Prepare to discuss the purpose of this paper

3. Prepare the questions for meeting with Kim - Croatia case on 9:30 a.m

6# (9:30am May 22) Team discussion (10:00am) Talk with Matt

Conference with AED

Feedbacks to our work Strengths: Practical strategies, financial viability, dilemmas faced by NGOs, difficulties of considering context (transferring institutional practices to other countries without imposing) Weaknesses: Theory-heavy, not too focused on type of projects funded by USAID, USAID programs implemented by contractors To narrow our study: -Sustainability of Programs that are USAID-funded, programs implemented from contractors. Not necessarily of NGOs in general, but programs sustainable in the context of business AED do. Check for long-term sustainability. -Situations when NGO has to find alternative funding when the money stops, continuation of mission when external NGO goes out.

Additional comments from AED : - Check basically on long-term sustainability - AED: within headquarters is pretty decentralized. Not necessarily working together, but each office work independently - There is not any global phase-out strategy? In Croatia, focus is to leave. Facing how the NGO sector is sustainable. Depends on the country/context - Work is project-based: NOT COUNTRY OFFICES!! - Phase-out is country by country, project by project

About USAID: - Technical assistance of a Program in Croatia may bring some continuity. - Sri Lanka. Contract with a subcontractor, to provide a phase-out strategy. - USAID request of proposal, reactive to them, and foreign policy of USA.

Cooperative agreements: USAID give outline of a Program wanting to achieve, and AED says how to achieve that. USAID-> AED -> grants local NGO.
Grant: Funding based on AED’s desires.

- Tensions AED/USAID: autonomy? freedom to chose projects? restrictions for investments? US preferences?

Frameworks for sustainability evaluation

1) Pyramid with Factors

Institutional Capacities:

 Human Resources
 Management Systems
 Governance
 Financial Resources

Legal and Political Environment External Resources(Local Community)

+ Priorities of institutional capacities could change depending on legal environment and external resources.

2) Table of Indicators per Factor

Human Resources Financial Viability Management Systems Indicators Training Volunteers Self-sustaining productive projects Board Fundraising Network of skilled heads Marketing

3) Table of Short- / long-term objectives

Bakery Civic Service Short-term Initial donation USAID / AED grant funding

               Set up                  Set up NGO
               Produce bread           Produce booklets, pamphlets, editorials, reports...

Long-term Savings, fees Expertise on civil political issues

               Out to community

Objectives Reduce malnutrition More active civil society

Division of case studies

Croatia – All

Serbia – Yoko, Suzanne, Chen

Egypt – Suzanne, Paulina, Yoko

Guatemala – 3 Latins

Poland – Chen, JC, Juanca

Questions for Kim and Morana from Croatia

1. How do you define success in a project? 2. What does sustainability mean to you? To headquarters? To field staff? 3. How do you secure/evaluate sustainability after the termination of the project? 4. As mentioned in the Croatia 2001 NGO development program report, two objectives include “National NGO support network was established “ and “collaboration was strengthened among the government, NGOs and donors”. How did the Croatia team measure these objectives? What kind of evaluations (for example, surveys, independent auditors, ect.) have been put in practice? 5. What kind of difficulties did you perceive to be the most challenging in securing project outcomes in the long run? 6. It is noted in the report that the grantees succeeded in leveraging their USAID funding to receive financial and in-kind assistance from other resources, including the government, other donors and the private sector. In your point of view, what strategies did the Croatia team use to help these local NGOs be successful in leveraging funding and garnering supports from other sources? 7. When building training capacity, how does AED ensure/evaluate that the knowledge being transferred through the training has actually been applied? Also in the Croatia report, it mentions that the training capacity has been evaluated in a UK NGO report on good practices for training delivery and sustaining the abilities of training organizations; can we have one copy of that?

7# (9:30am, Wednesday, May 24) Talk with Kim (and Morana), Croatia

CroNGO had two phases: 1998-2001 and 2001-on.

Evaluation:

Exernal evaluation: external evaluators check training components among others. One part ended in March, so external evaluator is checking what was achieved. This evaluation is done after a project ends.

Internal evaluation: Monitoring system, internal assessment, monitoring that goes on a regular basis. Identifying real stakeholders. Interviews with NGO implementing the Program, with governments, with communities (to assess if there is increased participation, mobilization, etc). There are some questionnaires, sourveys for feedback, for improvement of Programs (not for evaluation per se, focus on how to help Local NGOs in the practical work)

In training of trainers: how trainees are applying what they learned in the field.

Difficulties of relations with local governments: local government is not interested in helping organizations; also people in government change, the relationship change accordingly, Local NGOs need the capacity to maintain and develop the relationship.

Important factors for sustainability: - Evaluation, successful partnerships, management system

- Try to design a program that clearly states what it is about, there are no specific common spreads, each project needs to be closely focus on the project objectives itself and work closely with local NGOs.

Imposition vs. freedom

- Need-based Program:

Not to dictate but see what locals said was most valuable for them. Small grants, working in rural and cities Purpose: to increase citizens mobilities, so they would identify issues important for citizens, and how they would engage. Difficult for existing small NGOs to administer this type of Program. Some communities couldn’t receive aid, because of complexities of requirements, even after CroNGO simplify them... it was not simple enough so that NGOs could not receive funds.

- Other more direct grants: Focused on advocacy, visibility. Dictations from USAID in terms of objectives. There is always tension in terms of objectives. USAID will go in 2008, they are focused on achieving certain results. And CroNGO 100% funded by USAID.

Other Important issues in sustainability

-Funding:

Increase org. capacity --> management, financial and programmatic reporting. More professional, the better. Ability to communicate message to public, different groups. Engage in partnerships with business community Other donors? AED has the most restringing requirements. Pros vs cons: Problematic vs educational. Work with communities to do, improve reports, so more able to work with other donors afterwards.

Philanthropy: working hard for that to develop this culture.

Campaign: a business with NGO arm, website working with good businesses, publicizing site, 60 NGOs elected to participate in a contest where public vote, and then get funds. NGOs go to promote themselves, media campaign (annual award)

Launching a Financial Viability Grant: An innovative, creative strategy for income-generating activities, try to find models -of fundraising and income-generating techniques. Hungary, Poland, Czech, Slovaquia with more developed examples.

Volunteerism: They provided initial supports, but the question remains as how to manage volunteers and make them a continuing support force.

Is there a priority among these important factor???

All areas are important in general. Priority is different in each case. Assessment process: 8 different management areas, to identify strengths and weaknesses. Human resources, financial management,... The priority depends on organization you are working with, and how they had worked in the past. A good number of org have increased capacity to build relationships with governments, local businesses (donations or manual labor), especially in the 90s.

8# (10:00am, Friday, May 26)(Maxwell Executive program conference room)

Topic: Case studies Summaries and Discussions

Discussion about the frameworks, factors, outline.

9# (09:15am, Tuesday, May 30)(Eggers 209) Conference Call with Mr. Michael Knott

Draft Meeting Minutes

AED does not have one idea of what sustainability is, or one definition. Several distinctions. a. financial – revenue flows, diversity of revenues b. institutional – ability to survive for some period of time c. presence of systems within an organization – effective in its role, management, tasks, projects, improve learn from past experiences. d. Sustainability of organization vs. nonprofit /subset of sector – not important whether org is sustainable or not i. Is there any interest for the organization to be around? ii. Sufficient number of organization so such exist iii. Sufficient number of individuals to continue iv. Is there a culture within U.S. which sustains such work v. Sectoral sustainability more important than survival/disappearance of organization 1. why make any one org sustainable? What is sustainable? “Trees are not forever” 2. depend on contracts, backlog to three or five years. Not sufficient diversity of income. 3. What do particular countries have to support vibrant and thriving; environment attacks structure, encourages donations, support NGO, human capacity, data about sector – local government and partnerships. Credibility. 4. Central Eastern and Southern Europe central to having mandate to solve local problems, and is backed up with receiving some portion of their funding for NGOs to work with local government. A lot of flux/flow between governments. Former presidents are also NGO leaders. Do it research and design programs on how things work on a particular country. 5. Several positions are helpful- NGO culture preceded culture before war; experienced in the underground; examples were government was closely working with NGOs; places were local government leaders are willing; local people do give money to local service NGOs, but where doing it without transparent process – interest in holding on to money instead of the process.

Issues to Consider:

How manage and disseminate programs in large organization. Large organization flexible and more responsive structure. How to do that when focusing on your own project.

POLAND - Organization over for ten years, but new institution – academy for development of philanthropy. Provides funding to local community foundations, increasingly business funding – polish-jewish dialogue, social marketing/change, left behind sustainable capacity.

Evaluating Strategies for Sustainability:

Networks – essential component

Foundations, local endowments – Hungary, one percent tax deduction. Way of providing for sectoral sustainability, corporate citizenship awards, creation of challenge grants. Not enough work in tension between getting money and working well with donors, credibility with the constituency. Best alternative is NGOs having develop credible constituencies. However, this credibility is usually build for donors.

Is there a way to reconcile credibility between constituents and donors? • There will always be conflict. • Inherent tension no way of reconciling both incentives.

10# (10:00am, Tuesday, May 30)(Maxwell Executive program conference room) Team meeting Prof. Lux

Discuss the project progress:

First draft review: Tuesday May 30

Case study review: Wedneday May 31

11# (1:30pm, Tuesday, May 30)(Eggers 209)Conference Call with Matt

Presentation Logistics

Time: 2:30pm, 30min 30 min for questions Audience: Around 10 persons

12# (3:30pm, Wednesday, May 31)(Moynihan Institute)Conference Call with Ivan Monzon

'GUATEMALA CONFERENCE

INTRAPAZ: Ivan Monzon'

Juanca - responsible for errors in translation ;)

When the AED Project began, he was a Research Coordinator of the Institute. He participated in the research about mediation practices in Guatemala, and in the methodological study for the design of a nationwide quality control system for mediation practices. In charge of a paper published about the topic.

Q: Definition of sustainability

A: When developing a project, it should generate an institutional dynamics, with open doors to continue relations with different members in working teams, to develop capacities of human resources to maintain the spirit of project, promoting the engagement into new actions, new projects that go steps further from the project or that give continuity to the project. Anyway, continuing the experience. All of this affects the institutions in 2 ways: 1) it strengthens the institution, helps it to develop autonomously and with better conditions, helps to create better approaches to other institutions, trying to establish new linkages. 2) better conditions to create financial relations and soundness, from quality to service providing, institutional image, being called from other institutions and do new actions.

Q: Improvement of financial viability: by new relations? Fees? Research?

A: Experience with other institutions to provide assistance about mediation techniques. Worked with Mesa de Cultura de Paz to develop new actions, expand projects. Intrapaz is non lucrative (overemphasized). It received funds, financial support from the university (as a research center inside the university), as it is a private university with mission of public service; university channels funds to different research centers, as Intrapaz. Salaries allocated by the university, as well as assets and infrastructure. It also receives funding from external users, donors. In terms of relation with users: provide training; then, look funds from other sources to cover expenses; in this sense, it is important to sell image to the public. Not only international but also with national partners (even corporations). Typical: gestion de proyectos con cooperacion internacional (project management with international cooperation).

Q: Why did Intrapaz win the bid in this project?

A: Not really sure, but Ivan has his thoughts. Vocation of the institute (mission: involved with peace agreement, concerned about conflicts inside the country, civil society research, discussions with corporations and unions). Intrapaz as an impartial, objective NGO, favoring dialogue process. Other point: Sponsored by the university. The institute was created in 1998, but has gotten good experience with other sponsors  good image.

Q: Exchange with other NGOs involved in the project?

A: There were some common evaluations upon the progress of the project. Revision of conceptual and methodological issues. Mercy Corp, Jade collaborated in mediation process, too. Also, Intrapaz participated in Fondo de Apoyo Financiero (FAF - Fund of Financial Support), with a good communication experience. Another strength: good coordination inside the Intrapaz office. There is still good communication with donors.

Q: USAID vs Intrapaz?

A: Strict policies for filling with indicators, reports, papers. They LEARNED how to work with bureaucracy. When Intrapaz made inquiries about the project, USAID people were understanding. E.g., 1) standardizing mediation processes was USAID’s initial idea. But, Intrapaz showed it was difficult in a multicultural nation, with different ways to see things, approaches. USAID understood. Proposed a quality measure, but not as standard, but formation of mediators, institutional practices. 2) Intrapaz made a slight turn, change in research when discovering ancient mediation practices originated since Mayan culture! They proposed to include and document this experience in the project, although initially it could have been considered out of scope, but USAID was open to that, so they could rescue this topic in the research. It still contributed to make an organized project.

Q: Actions from USAID to influence sustainability?

A: Communication didn’t continue. No more projects. The process in Guatemala is different than Washington DC. They were partners but with authorization from DC. Now, Intrapaz is trying to work from Guatemala, with projects suggested locally  Difficult! Now Intrapaz is trying to get a relation with Cecchi. No more contact with USAID. One level is negotiating in DC, and Intrapaz is local. So, there is a gap. AED were a link, they were also collaborators to strengthen the institution. But now Intrapaz thinks there is a hole and lack of room for them. They are not even sure if Oscar and other US people are still working. It seems the mediation issue is out of fashion and now there is the issue of governance, in which Intrapaz is not much related.

Q: What about the centers of Mediation?

A: There is a design of a center of mediation, to train and improve mediation in the country. Oxfam is helping in the design. The design is already there… now it would be time for the implementation, but donors are not respondent to this topic, yet…

Q: What about the local centers of mediation?

A: There was another project to build mediation, justice centers with support from USAID, government and other judicial mediation centers. Centers were part of the Program of Access to Justice now Program of Estado de Derecho (State of Right or Law??). But Intrapaz was not really involved in this project as a partner (Cecchi was). Ivan knows that community centers and judicial centers are still working. Some problems. Community centers tend to compete with Mayan authorities and traditional way of solving problems. Judicial only deal with individual, not collective conflicts (not about land or social disputes). Important issue that came out: Capacitacion en cabildeo (lobbying training) as a necessity to overcome difficulties in getting support for their projects, goals, activities.

Q: Workshops to improve the mission, goals, institution, Intrapaz as an organization?

A: Process of strengthening, strategic planning, of institution. Worked together with USAID. They have changed some of the recommendations too, but it was basically an important support received by USAID. Also, USAID oriented NGOs working with FAF, in terms of improve their planning for specific projects. However, USAID work with Intrapaz was more institutionally-oriented not project-oriented as with other NGOs.

Q: It seems that mediation training and all the mediation programs developed in Guatemala were done without considering common strategies? Duplicating efforts?

A: In Guatemala there are different social groups, diversity, around 25 different groups. There are small community-NGOs working with different INGOs, without communication, no good coordination. Duplicity is due to different types of cooperation and lack of communication. It’s double-way. Duplicity is also due to emptiness when doing specific projects, because projects need to be executed with a big scope in mind. Some projects are just left undone or in the middle of execution, so they are not effective and other NGOs will try to address the issue once again.

Q: Advice for sustainability: networks?

A: Many networks are joined only for special purposes and contexts. They receive support from donors to work on a topic, but sometimes they don’t have a clear strategy to work with some topic, no clear missions. However, it is always essential to work together. There are different viewpoints and strategies, from different groups. No consensus about different topics. There are some successful networks : missing children….Difficult to maintain networks. In terms of mediators, they hope to convoke a group of skilled mediators to have a staff prepared to deal with different subjects (environment, labor, land, etc). Problem is that networks didn’t really work well. EMPAZ was an attempt to network, but now it is not working like that. Other priorities of their members.

Q: Sustainability in terms of local governments, social groups? Results vs institutional? Links?

A: There is a distance among state and civil society. No participatory democracy yet. Civil society actions are independent from state actions, different strategies, different viewpoints about local problems, too. State institutions are working with Intrapaz (Secretaria de Resolucion de Tierra asked to train mediators, and others as Congress Commission. Also, Mesa de Cultura de Paz to work on a public policy for peace culture. Intrapaz worked, made suggestions and now it’s a suggestion to be included as a public policy for the government).

Q: Any effect on common citizens?

A: Indigenous, cooperatives, Mayan authorities, academic institutions. More contact with some sectors of civil society. There is no measure of impact with citizens, but there is communication with leaders of some communities that have been trained. Difficult to evaluate which was the contribution of the specific project and which was the effect of the Intrapaz work. Positive general impact. Short term: workshops, FAF. Medium term: not really considered. Not really a strategy to evaluate this topic. Although it was important to follow, there was no commitment or posterior communication to continue with it. Probably, because they were partners of AED and worked under their umbrella. Now there is no convocation that deals with continuation of the project. 

Reallocation of Case Studies:

Guatemala -> JC, Juanca, Paulina, Suzanne

Poland -> Chen, JC, Juanca, Yoko

Croatia -> Chen, Paulina, Suzanne, Yoko

[edit] TO DO LIST

1. Fill in specific evaluation questions in each assigned areas concerning the project sustainability by Thursday (May 25) 2:00 pm in the Wiki Discussion Page with title "Evaluation Questions Concerning sustainability of case studies";

2. Fill in Framework Table Juanca sent out (thanks Juanca!)and email GROUP by Thursday (May 25)8:00 pm!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/g/o/User%7ENgosustain_3fe6.html"

User:Ngosustain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposed Project Timeline

[edit] Reading list

[edit] Meeting Minutes

[edit] TO DO LIST

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search