Designing and Managing Partnerships Between U.S. And Host ... · Designing and Managing...

Center for Development Information and EvaluationMay 2001

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

PN–ACG–627

Designing and ManagingPartnerships Between U.S.And Host-Country Entities

This guide and other reports in the evaluation publication seriesof the Center for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE)can be ordered from:

USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)1611 N. Kent Street, Suite 200Arlington, VA 22209–2111Telephone: (703) 351–4006Fax: (703) 351–4029E-mail: [email protected] access CDIE documents from the Internet, key inwww.usaid.gov. Click on Partner Resources, then onUSAID Evaluation Publications.

The CDIE Evaluation Publications Catalog and notices of recentpublications are also available from the DEC.


The views and interpretations expressed in this report are those of the authorsand not necessarily those of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Designing and Managing PartnershipsBetween U.S. and Host-Country Entities

May 2001

Michael Kott,Academy for Educational Development

Chanya Charles and C. Stark Biddle,Academy for Educational Development

Tamer Ibrahim and Dana Wichterman,Academy for Educational Development

Tom Kelly and Jean Bernard,Academy for Educational Development;Michael Hopps,Conwal Incorporated

Ben Dyson,Conwal Incorporated

Project Director:

Principal Writers:

Researchers:

Editors:

Graphic Designer:

ContentsList of Case Studies ........................................................................................... iv

List of Tables .....................................................................................................vii

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. ix

Foreword .............................................................................................................. xi

1. Introduction: Toward Effective Partnerships ............................................ 1

2. Deciding Whether to Use Partnerships ...................................................... 5Contributing to Results Through Partnerships ............................................ 5Will the Partnership Provide a Benefit? ........................................................ 5

3. Designing a Partnership Program ............................................................. 11Partnership Management Models ................................................................11Funding Instruments ................................................................................... 14Financial Arrangements to Strengthen Partnerships ................................. 17Selecting the Partners .................................................................................. 18Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................ 19

4. Managing Partnerships ............................................................................... 23Facilitating the Partnering Process ............................................................. 23Principles for Establishing Partnerships ..................................................... 24Factors to Consider When Forming Partnerships ...................................... 28Creating Common Ground ......................................................................... 32Encouraging Communication and Collaboration ...................................... 37

5. Monitoring and Assessing Results ............................................................ 41Measuring the Effectiveness of Partnerships .............................................. 42Participatory Evaluation ............................................................................. 43Specific Tools for Evaluating Partnerships ................................................. 46

6. Sustaining the Partnership ......................................................................... 51Indications of Organizational Sustainability .............................................. 54Indications of Financial Sustainability ........................................................ 54

Appendix A. Case Studies and Web Sites .................................................. A1

Appendix B. Workshop and Focus Group ParticipantsAnd Interview Subjects ...........................................................................B1

iii

Appendix C. Sample Memorandums of Understanding ......................... C1American International Health Alliance ....................................................C1Katalysis North/South Development Partnership ....................................C6Catholic Relief Services ..............................................................................C10Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum..................................................C20

Appendix D. Katalysis Sample Potential Partner Criteria ....................... D1

Appendix E. AIHA Sample Work Plan Guide ............................................E1

Appendix F. The Alliance for Collaboration onEnterprise Development Sample Sustainability Plan ....................... F1

Appendix G. Partnership Behavior Identification Tools ......................... G1Catholic Relief Services Partnership Reflection Tool ..................................G1American International Health Alliance

High-Performance Teams Evaluation .................................................G8American International Health Alliance Leadership Inventory .............G10Leadership Self-Assessment Test ...............................................................G12

Appendix H. Facilitation Tools ..................................................................... H1

Bibliography

Case StudiesCase Study 2.1. Benefits to U.S. Partners ....................................................... 6

Case Study 3.1. Intermediary as Partnership Broker ................................. 12

Case Study 3.2. Funding the Host-Country Partner ................................... 17

Case Study 3.3. Capturing the ‘True’ Value of Cost Sharing ................... 18

Case Study 3.4. Importance of Leadership .................................................. 19

Case Study 4.1. Exploring Partnership Possibilities .................................. 25

Case Study 4.2. The Use of Program DevelopmentAnd Learning Funds ................................................................................ 25

Case Study 4.3. Shared Experiences and Future Partnerships ................. 26

Case Study 4.4. U.S. Private Voluntary Organization RelationsWith Namibian Nongovernmental Organizations ............................. 27

Case Study 4.5. Collaboration in the New Independent States ............... 28

Case Study 4.6. Finding Common Ground ................................................. 29

Case Study 4.7. Partnerships Between NongovernmentalAnd Commercial Organizations ............................................................ 30

Case Study 4.8. Overcoming DifferencesIn Organizational Culture ....................................................................... 31

Case Study 4.9. Choosing the Most Cost-Effective Partner ...................... 32

Case Study 4.10. Appreciative Inquiry ModelFor Building Partnerships ....................................................................... 33

Case Study 4.11. Mutual Accountability ReflectedIn Formal Agreements .............................................................................. 34

Case Study 4.12. U.S.–Russian Partnerships ............................................... 34

Case Study 4.13. Katalysis Partnership Model ............................................ 35

v

Case Study 4.14. Changing Relationships:From Project Office to Partner ................................................................ 36

Case Study 4.15. Communicating With Partners ........................................ 37

Case Study 4.16. Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia and theNazareth Children’s Center and Integrated Development............... 38

Case Study 4.17. Insights From a 28-Year-Old Partnership ...................... 39

Case Study 5.1. Monitoring Results of the PartnershipBetween Sinclair Community CollegeAnd the Center for Vocational Education ............................................ 42

Case Study 5.2. Monitoring and Evaluation StrategyFor the Institutional Partnerships Project ............................................ 45

Case Study 6.1. New Partnerships Develop From Old Ones ................... 52

Case Study 6.2. From Partnership to AutonomousOrganization: The PRIP Trust ................................................................ 53

Case Study 6.3. Sustainability Grants ........................................................... 56

TablesTable 1.1. Types of American and Host-Country

Organization Partnerships ........................................................................ 2

Table 2.1. Deciding Whether to Use Partnerships ........................................ 8

Table 3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ofAlternative Partnership Management Models .................................... 13

Table 3.2. Characteristics of Alternative FundingInstruments for Partnerships .................................................................. 16

Table 3.3. Roles of Partnership Players ........................................................ 20

Table 4.1. Stages of Partnership ..................................................................... 24

Table 6.1. Sustainability of Partnerships ..................................................... 51

Table 6.2. Organizational Sustainability ...................................................... 54

Acknowledgments

T HE PARTNERSHIPS STUDY TEAM

thanks Sharon Benoliel, seniorsocial scientist in USAID’s Bureau

for Policy and Program Coordination,for her invaluable direction and stimu-lating discussions.

The study team also thanks SharonPauling of USAID’s Africa Bureau andJanet Kerley of the Europe and EurasiaBureau for their assistance in makingtrips to Kenya and Ukraine (to verifythe team’s initial findings) highly pro-ductive. We also greatly appreciate thesupport from Stella Roudenko in theUSAID/Kiev mission and members of theAcademy for Educational Developmentoffice in Kiev, particularly MoniqueGoyette and Alexander Artamonov.

The team thanks all the people whowere involved at various stages in theproduction of this document. Manypeople from USAID and various partnerorganizations contributed their timeand ideas during review sessions and

provided comments on the report. A fulllist of people who were interviewed orparticipated in workshops or focusgroups in Kenya, Ukraine, and Wash-ington is found in appendix B.

The team also thanks the numer-ous organizations that shared their sto-ries to create the 27 case studies listedthroughout the guide. A complete listof these partnerships, along with Website addresses, is found in appendix A.

Finally, the study team thanks theAmerican International Health Alli-ance, the Alliance for Collaboration onEnterprise Development, Catholic Re-lief Services, the Katalysis Partnership,Pact Publications, and the Prince ofWales Business Leaders Forum for gen-erously providing the tools—such asmemorandums of understanding, workplan guidelines, and partnership behav-ior assessments—that make up most ofthe appendixes.

Foreword

S INCE USAID’S INCEPTION, many ofits activities have involved supportfor organizational linkages—or

partnerships—between U.S.–based andoverseas entities. But until the early1990s the Agency devoted relativelylittle attention to the characteristics ofthe partnership process. While linkageswere considered important, the part-nership was viewed as secondary to thegoal of supporting a project, program,or sectoral enhancement. Recently,there has been growing realization thata better understanding of the contentand dynamics of partnership relationsaffects the results that can be achieved.

This guide originates from a storyabout a USAID-funded partnership thatwent wrong. What made the partner-ship fail? What could have been doneto prevent the partnership’s demise?Two particular questions emerged fromthe discussion:

n Why are some partnerships moreeffective and sustainable than oth-ers?

n What can the Agency do to helpUSAID-funded partnerships be-come effective and sustainable?

To address these questions, theCenter for Development Informationand Evaluation in USAID’s Bureau forPolicy and Program Coordinationlaunched a study in June 1999 to ad-vance the Agency’s understanding ofhow best to work with partnerships sothey become effective and sustainable.Although USAID funds all types of part-nerships, senior management decidedto limit the study to partnerships be-

tween organizations in the UnitedStates and those in host countries. Nev-ertheless, much of the guidance con-tained in this report may be useful forestablishing and managing other typesof partnerships.

From an extensive documentanalysis and interviews with key infor-mants, phases 1 and 2 of the study iden-tified a set of factors associated withestablishing and managing effectiveand sustainable partnerships. The studyalso underscored the central importanceof USAID systems and procedures as in-fluencing factors that need to be takeninto account by Agency personnelwhen working on partnerships.

While many of the factors identi-fied in the Durable Partnerships: Phase IIDesk Study may represent commonknowledge, they are not always re-flected in the Agency’s work with part-nerships. It was decided that morein-depth information on the nature ofthese factors, and on how to effectivelymanage potential impediments theyposed, could provide USAID staff with abetter understanding of how to workwith partnerships more successfully.Thus, the third phase of the study wasintended to translate these factors intooperationally relevant guidance forUSAID staff responsible for designingand managing partnership activities.

Preparation of this guide beganwith a workshop in Washington at-tended by about 40 USAID staff and U.S.private voluntary organization repre-sentatives with partnering experience.The workshop participants reviewedand discussed the factors identified in

xii

Designing and Managing Partnerships

*For more information on results frameworks,see the Center for Development Information andEvaluation’s Performance Monitoring andEvaluation Tips #13 (http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/pnaca947.pdf). All uniform resourcelocaters (Web addresses) were current as thisdocument went to press.

the phase 2 document. On the basis oftheir comments, more interviews, anddocument analysis, phase 3 culminatedin this guide. It provides a practical ap-plication of the principles identified inthe earlier phases and is intended tomove beyond theory to offer guidanceand concrete illustrations of which pro-cedures and mechanisms work andwhich do not. Many USAID staff andpartners in Kenya, Ukraine, and Wash-ington reviewed drafts of the guide.Feedback from interviews and focusgroups helped shape the final docu-ment.

The interviews and focus groupsdemonstrated to those of us working onthe project that the concept of “part-nership” evokes surprisingly strongemotions. In part, this is because theterm is used to characterize virtually allof USAID’s organizational relationships.Seemingly everyone has a strong opin-ion on the topic of partnerships. Theseviews range from beliefs that collabo-rative relationships fostered by USAIDare a whole new way of doing businessfor the Agency to beliefs that partner-

ships have always been USAID’s way ofoperating. The truth lies somewhere inbetween. One theory about why talk-ing about partnerships brings so muchanxiety is that there is tension betweenthe Managing for Results philosophyand the use of partnerships to achieveobjectives. The dynamic nature of part-nerships does not fit neatly into the per-ceived static nature of the resultsframework.

A hypothesis of this guide is thatthis tension can be resolved once it isrecognized that the results frameworkis meant to be a flexible planning, man-agement, and communication mecha-nism that must be inspected regularlyand modified as needed.* At the sametime, partnerships, though dynamicand organic by nature, can benefit fromgoal setting, mutual responsibility forachievements, and a rigorous evalua-tion process. This guide recommendsseveral tools that will, without hamper-ing the partnership dynamism, enablepartners to monitor and evaluate theirresults and make needed adjustmentsto ensure that their partnership prop-erly contributes to USAID’s developmentobjectives. We believe that using thesetools will facilitate partnership account-ability to the requirements of a resultsframework.

We hope this guide will be a usefulstarting point for those contemplatingthe use of partnerships to achieve devel-opment results and a practical referencefor those who are already carrying outpartnership programs.

—MICHAEL KOTTProject Director

Durable Partnerships ProjectAcademy for

Educational Development

Partnerships,though dynamic

and organic by nature,can benefit from goal setting,

mutual responsibility forachievements, and a rigorous

evaluation process.

HIS GUIDE is written for USAIDstaff, for intermediary organi-zations the Agency has chosen

to develop partnerships between U.S.and host-country entities, and for thepartners themselves. The terms “part-ner” and “partnership” are used widelyto mean many different things and todescribe a broad set of relationships be-tween USAID and the organizations withwhich it works. Because of its use overthe past decade at the Agency, and itsassociation with reengineering, the term“partner” may generate varied expec-tations for USAID staff. While the term“partnerships” refers to many types ofrelationships, a decision was made dur-ing the conception of this study to con-centrate the guide on partnershipsbetween U.S. and host-country organi-zations.*

The type of partnership describedherein is a voluntary collaboration be-tween two or more entities (U.S. andhost country) where the parties haveagreed to cooperate to achieve mutu-ally desirable objectives. Partners sharedecision-making, investment, risks, andrewards. Normally, the following ele-ments are present in such a partnership:

n A belief that both entities will ben-efit from the relationship

Introduction: TowardEffective Partnerships

*For more discussion of the terms “partner” and“partnership,” see the Durable Partnerships: PhaseII Desk Study.†In this case, volunteers are employees of theorganizations participating in the partnership. Forexample, a doctor at a hospital or a professor at auniversity is paid a regular salary whilevolunteering time to participate in the partnershipactivities.

n A transfer of human resources, fi-nancial resources, or both

n A written agreement that estab-lishes a set of objectives andresponsibilities and outlines oper-ating procedures, such as how theentities will communicate witheach other (see appendix C)

n Some evidence that the two org-anizations intend to collaborate ina manner that reflects the prin-ciples of partnership: balance, eq-uity, sharing, and transparency(see appendix E)

Each partnership is unique. Thereare different kinds of partnerships evenwithin the category of U.S. and host-country organization partnerships—and each has its own dynamics.Partnerships involving volunteers †

within established entities differ frompartnerships between private voluntaryorganizations (PVOs) and nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs).

In cases of partnerships betweenestablished entities, between coalitions,or between cities, volunteerism is a de-fining element. The people in these part-nerships are involved because of theirdesire and commitment, notbecause it is in their job descriptions.Another type of partnership discussed

1T

Partners sharedecision-making, investment,

risks, and rewards.

2


herein is between American PVOs* andhost-country NGOs. Since the work ofan American PVO involves interactingwith international NGOs whether thereis a partnership or not, the dynamics ofthis type of collaboration differ from theones involving volunteer professionals.

Table 1.1 shows some types ofAmerican and host-country organiza-tion partnerships that are the concernof this guide.

For our purposes, a sustainablepartnership is one that has demon-strated the organizational and financialcapacity to continue the activities sup-ported by the partnership without criti-

cal reliance on USAID funds. Evidenceof the financial sustainability of a part-nership might include diverse donorsand supporters, decreasing dependenceon USAID funding, or willingness of theU.S. partner to maintain the partner-ship with its own budget.

An effective partnership in the USAIDcontext should be able to demonstratethe achievement of significant programresults that are also consistent with thegoals and objectives of the participat-ing organizations.

While there is no single recipe fordeveloping partnerships, in every part-nership some basic ingredients are criti-cal. Many of the principles and skillsneeded to ensure an effective partner-ship are applicable to both the relation-ship between USAID and implementingorganizations and between the U.S. andhost-country partners. The collabora-

Table 1.1. Types of American and Host-Country Organization Partnerships

Type Example

Entity/coalition toentity/coalition

City/county to city/county

University to university

American private voluntaryorganization to nongovernmentalorganization

Business to business

n American International Health Alliance andHealth Partnerships Program

n U.S. Energy Association and EnergyIndustry Partnership Program

n Resource Cities Program

n University Development Linkages Programn Association Liaison Office Program

n Fountain House (United States) andHuman Soul (Russia)

n Pact (United States) and Ethos (Brazil)

n United States–Asia EnvironmentalPartnership Program

n EcoLinks Program

*“Private voluntary organization” is a termUSAID’s Office of Private Voluntary Cooperationuses to refer to American NGOs, primarily thoseregistered and working in partnership with theAgency.

3

Introduction: Toward Effective Partnerships

tive nature of a partnership mechanismdiffers from the traditional consultingmindset. For a partnership, process isimportant. This guide argues that tofoster partnerships effectively betweenhost-country and U.S. entities, USAIDneeds to practice what it preaches.Thus, the Agency’s own relationshipwith implementing organizations thatare to develop partnership programsalso must be collaborative. Undeniably,there is some tension between the part-nership philosophy (which stresses pro-cess, parity, and mutuality) and theresults framework (which emphasizesresults). This guide shows how such ten-sion can be creative and productive.

Chapters 2 through 6 of the guidefollow the steps an operating unit (aUSAID field mission, regional entity, orWashington office that expends pro-gram funds to achieve a strategic orspecial objective) might take when con-sidering use of a partnership to achievea particular result.

Chapter 2, “Deciding Whether toUse Partnerships,” outlines a series ofpoints for USAID staff to consider whiledetermining whether the overall effortto achieve a strategic objective could bestrengthened by a partnership pro-gram.

Once USAID has decided to fund apartnership activity, readers can usechapter 3, “Designing a PartnershipProgram,” to help them think throughdecisions regarding the use of a man-

agement model and funding mecha-nism. The chapter examines whichmanagement models and funding in-struments are available. It also discussesdifferent ways to select the partners andoutlines the roles and responsibilities ofthe various actors.

Chapter 4, “Managing Partner-ships,” suggests ways of facilitating thepartnering process by providing someinsight into factors that affect the part-nerships. It considers how to negotiateparticular obstacles that might ariseduring the partnership process.

Chapter 5, “Monitoring and As-sessing Results,” discusses how moni-toring a partnering activity differs fromthe monitoring of any other activity.

Chapter 6, “Sustaining the Part-nership,” considers what USAID can doto help ensure sustainability of the part-nership.

The main text provides principles,factors, and suggestions for how to de-sign and manage a partnership pro-gram, but the appendixes offer theguide’s most practical benefits. The 27case studies mentioned throughout thetext are referenced with Web siteaddresses in appendix A. In addition,examples of memorandums of under-standing, work plan guides, sustainabil-ity plans, and partnership behaviorassessment tools are included in subse-quent appendixes.

Deciding WhetherTo Use Partnerships 2

NCE THE OPERATING UNIT hasdefined its strategic objectives,it must articulate various

approaches for achieving results. Onesuch approach may be partnershipsbetween U.S. and host-country organi-zations.

Contributing to ResultsThrough Partnerships

In deciding whether to include a part-nership program to achieve a strategicobjective, we should address three mainquestions:

1. Will the overall effort to achieve astrategic objective be strengthenedby a partnership program?

2. In addition to the outcomes of part-nerships, are there desired resultsassociated with the process ofpartnering?

3. Is the strategic objective team will-ing to cope with the challenges ofa partnership mechanism?

Partnerships offer flexibility andcreativity in addressing developmentproblems and can often help USAID dealmore effectively with systemic issuesthat cut across sectoral domains. Theycan improve the technical and mana-gerial ability of host-country organi-zations and add to the experience baseof the American groups. Partnershipsare associated with faster organiza-tional learning, increased technical andmanagerial resources, improved capac-ity to adapt to change, and better pros-pects for financial and organizational

O sustainability. Well-constructed partner-ships can provide strong relationshipsthat endure when USAID presence ends.

Partnerships should be consideredas a possible mechanism to contributeto the achievement of any of USAID’sobjectives. Table 2.1 summarizes the is-sues to bear in mind when making thedecision whether to use a partnership.

Will the PartnershipProvide a Benefit?

In the strategic planning process,identify which results can benefitthrough partnership activities. Beginwith questions that will eliminate theuse of partnerships:

n Does the result require a tight, in-flexible schedule?

n Is deviation from course likely tobe costly or unwise?

n Is it important to obtain precisedeliverables?

n Does USAID need to be directly in-volved in oversight to achieve thisresult?

If the answer to any of these ques-tions is yes, a partnership program isprobably not appropriate.

In most cases, the results USAIDhopes to achieve will be the outcomesof the partnership relationship—activi-ties and programs that are implementedjointly under the partnership agree-ment. Partnerships can be used to help

6


achieve just about any result, particu-larly if the strategic objectives involveinstitutional capacity-strengthening ortechnical assistance. Of course, othermechanisms might be equally effectivein achieving the results. What, then, isthe advantage of using a partnershipmechanism?

The reason to use partnerships isthe value they add. Thus, as a means toan end, a partnership may be no betteror worse than any other possible mecha-nism. As an end in itself, though, a part-nership can add great value to adevelopment program. This addedvalue may not be captured specificallyin the results framework. Thus, the de-

cision to use a partnership should bebased not only on the utility of the part-nership to achieve a tangible result butalso on the added benefits that comefrom the process of partnering.

The benefits of partnerships be-tween U.S. and host-country entitiescan be mutual. While on the surface itmay appear that the host-country en-tity gains more from the relationship,closer examination reveals that the U.S.side receives significant, if not equiva-lent, benefits. The host-country organi-zation may receive technical assistanceor transfer of knowledge. But the U.S.organization, through partnership withan international organization, may see

Case Study 2.1. Benefits to U.S. Partners

A glimpse at a few of the partnerships* under the Association Liaison Office for University Cooperation inDevelopment program reveals multiple benefits to American institutions. Rapid globalization has made it es-sential for American higher education institutions to internationalize their programs. Internationalization maytake the form of adding courses, creating study-abroad programs, or developing partnerships with overseasinstitutions. Specific benefits to American higher education institutions include the following:

n Howard University School of Medicine in Washington and the University of the Transkei in South Africahave partnered to produce an Internet educational program in emergency medicine for health care provid-ers in South Africa. Owing in part to this experience of developing training modules in emergency medi-cine and providing real-time consultations through the Internet, Howard University has now established adepartment of telemedicine.

n Metropolitan Community College in Omaha, Nebraska, is working with the Universidad CentroamericanaJosé Simeón Cañas in El Salvador to develop and strengthen the preschool curriculum for at-risk childrenin rural areas. U.S. partners benefit from the development of training modules that will also be applicableimmediately in the Omaha area, which has one of the fastest growing Latino populations in the UnitedStates. Metropolitan Community College is using the materials developed through the collaboration for itsassociate’s degree program in early childhood education and to provide workshop training for local His-panic groups.

n Highline Community College in Washington State is collaborating with the Polytechnic of Namibia toestablish a center for entrepreneurial development and create linkages between the polytechnic and thebusiness community. The partners have also organized trade missions for business executives. Thanksto connections made through the partnership, the Namibian prime minister recently negotiated the pur-chase of airplanes from Boeing Company. Developing such a high profile within its own community hasbenefited Highline tremendously.

*Refer to appendix A for more information on the cases described throughout the document.

7

Deciding Whether to Use Partnerships

old issues through a new lens. Therehave been cases of U.S. organizationsrevisiting their organizational structureand procedures after working in part-nership with overseas groups. Inaddition, since some of the U.S. organi-zations are trying to enter new markets,working in partnership with a local or-ganization enables them to get a foot inthe door. Finally, internationalization isnow an essential part of any U.S. uni-versity (see case study 2.1).

Special and significant benefits—financial and programmatic—typicallyaccrue for partnerships that involveextensive use of volunteers by both theU.S. and host-country partners. Thebenefit from these participants’ commit-ment is something that money simplycannot buy. But beyond the enthusiasmof volunteers, such partnerships canboast of bringing more tangible benefits,such as cost-effectiveness and sustain-ability. In addition to supportingspecific results, volunteer-based part-nerships promote an understanding ofUSAID’s work to constituencies that arenormally unfamiliar with foreign devel-opment work.

Thus, to what extent could theoverall effort to achieve a strategic ob-jective be strengthened by using a part-nership? Specific questions to askinclude

n Are ongoing, intellectual relation-ships between organizations desir-able?

n Is it desirable to strengthen rela-tionships between U.S. and host-country entities?

n Is the establishment of potentiallong-term (post-USAID) relation-ships, especially as part of anAgency exit strategy, desirable?

n Is it desirable to link local organi-zations to a wider fabric of inter-national connections?

n Is mobilization of volunteers desir-able?

If the answer to any of these ques-tions is yes, then a partnership programmight be useful. It is important to beaware that even under the best circum-stances the decision to use partnershipsentails a commitment and readiness todeal with challenges specific to thismechanism.

Partnerships can be an effectiveway to accomplish a variety of results,though their dynamics involve specifictensions and their outcomes may seemless predictable than those resultingfrom traditional contracting arrange-ments. Partnerships can be unstable.They can be expensive to support andmaintain. They often take long to getstarted, and their success frequentlyhinges on factors that are hard to at-tain and manage: trust, good commu-nication, cross-cultural sensitivity.

Partnerships that rely on volun-teers have their own set of complica-tions. Volunteers from U.S. partnerorganizations may find it difficult tocommit time. Further, they may havelittle overseas experience and may needextensive orientation. Though they

Partnerships can takelong to get started, and

their success frequentlyhinges on factors that arehard to attain and manage:trust, good communication,

cross-cultural sensitivity.

8


might be experts in their fields, volun-teers often have little training or tech-nical assistance delivery experience.Finally, in many cases, local governmentvolunteers may not be able to schedulemore than one trip overseas.

Thus, to achieve the strategic ob-jectives and reap the value-added ben-efits of partnerships, the operating unitmust be willing to work through thefollowing potential challenges whenworking with partnerships:

n Goals and objectives shift as thepartnership matures.

n There are potential difficulties as-sociated with working through vol-unteers.

n Some partnerships endure a rela-tively high level of interorgani-zational instability.

n USAID has less control over man-aging and directing the relation-ship to achieve results contributingto Agency goals.

n Frequently a long and cumber-some formative period is neededbefore progress is made in achiev-ing programmatic results.

Donor commitment is particularlyimportant to the success of the relation-ship between a U.S. group and a host-country group. A donor can facilitateexploration of potential partnerships,fund joint activities, and support capac-

Table 2.1. Deciding Whether to Use Partnerships

Do not use apartnership if

Partnerships maybe appropriate ifthe intendedresults include

Partnerships arelikely to be effectiveif additional intendedresults involve

If using partnerships,be prepared for someof the followingpotential challenges

n Result requires a tight, inflexible schedulen Deviation from course is likely to be costly or unwisen Precise deliverables are importantn USAID needs to be directly involved in oversight to achieve the result

n Institutional capacity strengtheningn Transfer of technical skills, methods, or new approachesn Transfer of important principles and values—for example, civil societyn Two-way transfer of information

n Ongoing intellectual relationships between organizationsn Strengthening relationships between U.S. and host-country entitiesn Establishing potential long-term (post-USAID) relationsn Linking local organizations to a wider fabric of international connectionsn Mobilizing volunteers

n Relatively high level of interorganizational instabilityn Long and cumbersome formative period before progress is made in

achieving programmatic resultsn Shifting goals and objectives as the partnership maturesn Less control by USAID to manage and direct the relationship toward

achieving Agency goalsn Difficulties associated with working through volunteers

9

Deciding Whether to Use Partnerships

ity-building efforts so both entities worktogether better. A donor can also pro-vide advice, guidance, and a broad,long-term perspective that the partici-pants may lack. Conversely, insensitivedonor involvement can derail a budding

*Chapter 4 provides suggestions on how tofacilitate the partnering process and overcomesome of the potential obstacles that could arise.

relationship—for example, by pushingthe partners to work together on largerand more complex programs beforetrust and effective communicationshave been established.*

Designing a Partnership Program 3HIS CHAPTER outlines the man-agement models and fundingmechanisms available to USAID

for partnerships. It looks at ways to se-lect partners and defines the roles of thevarious actors.

PartnershipManagement Models

USAID has two basic approaches to-ward supporting partnership activities:

1. The Agency provides funds (agrant, a cooperative agreement, or,sometimes, a contract) directly toone member of the partnership—usually, but certainly not always,the U.S. entity.

2. The Agency provides funds to anintermediary organization thatmanages multiple partnershipsbetween U.S. and host-countryentities. The intermediary may bea broker or catalyst for the part-nerships or may act in a purelyadministrative role.* The interme-diary may provide funds, generallythrough subgrants, to either U.S.or local groups.

If a USAID operating unit has de-termined that partnership activities canhelp it achieve a certain objective butthat only one or two partnerships willbe used (and Agency staff is sufficient

T to provide the oversight required), apartnership funded directly by USAID—option 1— might be more appropriate.If multiple partnerships are to be estab-lished, the operating unit should con-sider an intermediary organization.

In part because of USAID staffinglimitations and in part because of theprofessional competence of organi-zations that can act as intermediaries,operating units have increasingly optedto work through an intermediary. Withinput from USAID, an intermediary can

draft solicitations, conduct screening ses-sions, establish selection panels, andmake selections or recommendations.The organization can also be responsiblefor contracting/granting actions andmonitoring of and fiscal accounting forthe individual partnerships.

The use of an intermediary pro-vides economies and opportunities ofscale. This has advantages and disad-vantages. The intermediary can act asa bridge, or even a catalyst, for part-nerships to occur by creating an oppor-tunity for them to develop. It can alsocause tensions because of the potential

*As a broker, the intermediary is responsible formatching partners, facilitating the partneringprocess, and overseeing the partnership activities.As an administrator, the intermediary overseespartnerships that already exist and assists in thepartnering process as needed.

While an intermediarystructure can provide more

flexibility for diverse activities,it runs the risk of increasedconfusion about roles and

responsibilities between theAgency and the intermediary

and recipient groups.

12


for different interpretations of the op-erating unit’s strategic objectives andresults framework. For this reason,when using an intermediary, USAIDshould be clear with the implementingorganization about core objectives andresults. Similarly, while an intermediarystructure can provide more flexibility fordiverse activities and can assist the re-cipient organizations with some ofUSAID’s procedural requirements, it runsthe risk of increased confusion aboutroles and responsibilities between theAgency and the intermediary and re-cipient groups. For example, in one casethe intermediary spent a great deal oftime working with the partners to buildconsensus on specific tasks for the part-nership to carry out. Later, USAID staffwent directly to the partners to tell themwhat tasks they should perform. Thisconfused the partners and angered theintermediary.

The following questions may helpwhen considering the advantages anddisadvantages of partnership manage-ment models:

n Is there a specific partnership thatneeds funding?

n Are specific results desired for aparticular case?

n Is there a need for close monitor-ing and oversight by USAID?

n Is there sufficient Agency manage-ment time available to oversee apartnership activity?

If the answer to any of these ques-tions is yes, then directly funding thepartnership may be more appropriatethan using an intermediary. While di-rect funding of one of the partners mayresult in a heavier managementworkload for USAID staff, it does pro-vide more opportunity for the Agencyto shape and guide the partnership andpermit close monitoring and oversight.In addition, with fewer layers of org-anizations to convey objectives the di-rect funding model is more likely toreflect an emphasis consistent with theresults framework.

Further questions to ask when con-sidering which partnership manage-ment model to use include

n Is there a need for a partnershipprogram that involves matchingnumerous organizations? (Thismay be sector specific or part ofUSAID’s exit strategy.)

Case Study 3.1. Intermediary as Partnership Broker

Organized especially to carry out a partnership program in central and eastern Europe and Eurasia, theAmerican International Health Alliance (AIHA) moved quickly in bringing partners together and helping them gettheir programs under way. In the early stage, the AIHA field offices were lean organizations that emphasizedlinguistic and logistic competence rather than subject-specific expertise. Once the logistical network andsystems were established, the support structure needed to change to reflect the needs of the individualpartnerships. As the program evolved, AIHA provided more medical expertise and methods for the partnershipsto share their experiences with one another.

13

Designing a Partnership Program

n Is there less than sufficient USAIDmanagement time available tooversee partnership activities?

If the answer to either question isyes, then using an intermediary to man-age the partnership program may bemore appropriate. Although the over-all costs may be higher because ofoverhead charges, the use of an inter-mediary greatly reduces USAIDmanagement’s workload. Also, in some

Table 3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages ofAlternative Partnership Management Models

USAID directly fundsthe partner (eitherU.S. or local).

USAID funds anintermediary organi-zation that providessubgrants. There aretwo variants:

1) The intermediaryhandles all aspectsof the subgrantprocess, includingapplication process,selection, andadministration

2) The intermediaryhandles onlyadministrativeaspects

n Provides opportunityfor USAID to shape andguide the emergingrelationship

n Allows substantiveUSAID involvement

n Permits close monitor-ing and oversight

n More likely to reflectemphasis consistentwith results framework

n Taps special expertiseand experience ofintermediary

n Permits distillation ofsome proceduralrequirements

n Allows for moreclarification of USAIDprocedures

n Reduces Agencymanagement workload

n USAID retains substan-tive oversight and, atsame time, minimizesmanagement burden

n Can assist in taxreductions for host-country partner

n Heavy managementworkload

n USAID staff may lackspecial skills or timeto nurture partner-ships

n Host-country partneris more dependent onU.S. partner

n Policy priorities maydiffer or diverge(intermediary maypush for own agenda)

n Overall costs arehigher because ofoverhead charges

n Local or U.S. groupsmay be reluctant towork through anintermediary

n Creates confusionabout roles andfunctions

n May generate conflictwith intermediary

n A specific partnershipneeds funding

n Specific results aredesired for a particularcase

n Sufficient USAIDmanagement time isavailable to overseethe activity

n There is a need forclose monitoring andoversight by USAID

n There is a need for apartnership programthat matches numer-ous partnerships

n Less than sufficientUSAID managementtime is available tooversee partnershipactivities

Model Advantages Disadvantages When to Use

cases, the use of an intermediary mayeliminate the need to transfer money toeither partner, thus reducing taxes forthe host-country partner. At the sametime, again, the use of an intermediarycan cause some confusion over roles andresponsibilities. Having an additionallayer of organization also may distortthe policy priorities of USAID. For ex-ample the intermediary may work withthe partners to help them assess theirneeds and objectives, but in this process

14


USAID priorities may get lost and theactivities may only reflect local needsand not feed into Agency objectives.Early evaluations of numerous partner-ship programs using intermediaries re-flected concern that the variety ofpartner activities under one programwere too diverse and did not feed intoUSAID results. The situation was rem-edied by designing partnership pro-grams that allowed for more flexibilitybut also ensured a level of consistencyin types of activities.

There are two types of intermedi-aries: The “broker” intermediarymatches partners and facilitates thepartnering process. The other type,which is more administrative, managespartnerships that have already beencreated.

The advantages and disadvantagesto USAID of these different models aresummarized in table 3.1.

Funding Instruments

It is possible to support a partner-ship without providing funds by help-ing facilitate the interaction between

two organizations. In general, though,a contract, grant, or cooperative agree-ment is used to fund the partnershipprogram. If there is an intermediary, thepartners are supported through sepa-rate agreements.

A central consideration whenchoosing the funding instrument is therole USAID desires to play in implemen-tation. The type of relationship theAgency and the recipient anticipatedetermines the implementing instru-ment. While USAID has much controlwith a contract, and a limited role whenmanaging a grant, a cooperative agree-ment permits Agency staff to have whatis known as “substantial involvement”(described later in this section).

A contract is a mutually bindinglegal instrument when the principalpurpose is the acquisition, by purchase,lease, or barter, of property or servicesfor the direct benefit or use of the fed-eral government. USAID states in a con-tract which goods, services, and resultsit wants to buy. It then monitors andevaluates the contractor’s performancein providing these goods and servicesand results. USAID and the contractoragree on the requirements and stan-dards to be used, and the Agency fre-quently provides technical direction forthe activity during contract implemen-tation. Contracts usually have a fixeddesign for implementation, with clearlydefined deliverables along the way.They may be used where both the U.S.and host-country partners are knownto have specific technical capacities thatwill produce the desired technicaldeliverables.

A grant, according to USAID’s Au-tomated Directives System,* is “a legalinstrument used where the principalpurpose is the transfer of money, prop-erty, services, or anything of value to the

*The Automated Directives System—thedocument that guides USAID’s policy, practices,and operations—can be found at http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads.

While USAID has muchcontrol with a contract, and

a limited role when managinga grant, a cooperative

agreement permits Agencystaff to have what is knownas substantial involvement.

15


recipient . . . to accomplish a public pur-pose of support or stimulation autho-rized by federal statute and wheresubstantial involvement by USAID is notanticipated.” In a grant, USAID receivesprogress reports and summary finan-cial reporting. The Agency does notmanage the grantee; it supports thegrantee’s program. A grant is usuallyused with the direct funding model forpartnerships. For example, most part-nerships between an American PVO anda host-country NGO are funded throughthe Matching Grants Program of theOffice of Private Voluntary Coopera-tion.

A cooperative agreement is a legalinstrument used when the principalpurpose is the transfer of money, prop-erty, services, or anything of value to therecipient to accomplish a public pur-pose of support or stimulation autho-rized by federal statute—and wheresubstantial involvement by USAID is an-ticipated. Though there is no formal le-gal reason barring contracts from beingused for partnership activities, the con-sensus among program staff and imple-menting partners is that a cooperativeagreement is better suited for partner-ships. In a cooperative agreement, therecipient has substantial freedom topursue its program. No deliverables orproducts must be produced, as there arein a contract. USAID receives progress re-ports and summary financial reportingbut does not manage the recipient. Yetthe Agency can have substantial in-volvement in key programmatic areas.

The “substantial involvement” ina cooperative agreement is not the kindof involvement USAID has when man-aging a contract. Cooperative agree-ments must describe in detail anti-cipated Agency involvement duringperformance of the award. Substantialinvolvement is limited to

n Approval of the recipient’s imple-mentation plan

n Approval of specified key person-nel

n Agency and recipient collabora-tion or joint participation

n Agency authority to halt a con-struction activity immediately

When the partnership is calledupon to accomplish broader objectives,and the operating unit at USAID is rely-ing on the technical abilities of the part-nership to accomplish those objectives,a cooperative agreement enables allstakeholders to participate in the deter-

mination of what will, in effect, consti-tute mutually agreed-upon results. SinceAgency staff may be quite involved inthe program at the initial stage, it is easyto forget that USAID’s role under a co-operative agreement is not the same asits role under a contract. It is importantto sense when to step back and let thepartners take control.

With a cooperative agreement, theprogram is largely the recipient’s—withUSAID ensuring (before the award) thatthe proposed program supports a stra-

There is generalagreement within the

development communitythat partners should make

financial contributions,because doing so

reinforces their commitmentto the partnership and

services offered.

16


Table 3.2. Characteristics of Alternative Funding Instruments for Partnerships

Contract

Grant

CooperativeAgreement

n Allows maximum USAID involvementn Forces clarity regarding deliverablesn Can be perceived as infringement on

partner prerogatives

n Most consistent with organic natureof partnering

n Minimal USAID management burdenn Appropriate when the Agency wishes

to maintain low profilen May limit USAID influence and leveragen May make interprogram coordination

difficult

n Most commonly used instrument forpartnering

n Moderate USAID management burdenn Allows USAID “substantial involvement”n May create ambiguity regarding roles

and responsibilities

n Both U.S. and host-countrypartners are known to havespecific technical capabilities thatwill produce the technicaldeliverables desired

n There is need for USAID directoversight of the partnership

n To fund a single partnershipdirectly

n To promote an existing partnershipn There is no need for USAID to

closely oversee the partnership

n An intermediary is needed toestablish numerous partnerships

n Flexibility in partner activities isdesired

FundingInstrument

Characteristics When to Use

tegic objective. Cooperative agreementsare often preferred over contracts forpartnerships because of the perceivedflexibility needed, since partnerships aredynamic and do not always have a setcourse. If the long-term endurance ofthe partnership is considered an essen-tial component of the activity, this flex-ibility is virtually demanded. Also, aswith a grant, a cooperative agreementmay leave room for a contribution on

the part of the partners. There is gen-eral agreement within the developmentcommunity that partners should makefinancial contributions, because doingso reinforces their commitment to thepartnership and services offered.

Whichever instrument is used tosupport a partnership, an initial stepinvolving all stakeholders is importantto clarify expectations to reduce thepotential for subsequent misunderstand-ing.*

Table 3.2 describes the character-istics of the alternative funding instru-ments for partnerships and when itmight be appropriate to use them.

*For more information on choosing fundinginstruments, refer to USAID ’s Managing forResults training materials (http://www.dec.org/partners/mfr/training) and AutomatedDirectives System 201.3.6.5.

17


Financial ArrangementsTo Strengthen Partnerships

Several arrangements can be builtinto a grant or cooperative agreementand act as an incentive to steer the de-veloping relationship in a positive di-rection. Here are four of the moststraightforward:

Control of budget. Traditionally,when USAID supports a partnership di-rectly, the funds go to the U.S. organi-zation, which then works with a localgroup. An alternative is to give thefunds to the local organization, as longas the group has the financial and ad-ministrative procedures to be certifiedas eligible for USAID funding. The pri-mary advantage of this approach is thatit puts the local group in a much stron-ger bargaining position than wouldotherwise be the case. Added benefitsinclude organizational learning, an in-centive to “shop around” to find theideal relationship, and a stronger feel-ing of equality in the relationship.

If it is difficult to certify that thelocal organization has the administra-tive capacity to manage USAID funds, itmay be preferable to work through anintermediary organization. In caseswhere the partnership constitutes a le-

Case Study 3.2. Funding the Host-Country Partner

EcoLinks Challenge Grants, each for up to $50,000, support one-year, cost-shared partnership projectsthat address specific urban and industrial environmental problems with a market-based approach. Eligibleorganizations in central and eastern Europe submit brief concept papers to EcoLinks and, if approved,assemble a project team to prepare a full application that meets the guidelines in the request for application. Ifthey don't already have one, EcoLinks is able to help local organizations find U.S. partners.

Quick Response Awards, for up to $5,000 each, can be used to help organizations find and developpartnerships to prepare a Challenge Grant application.

gal entity (such as a joint venture) thepartnership, and not just one of thepartners, can be funded.

Cost-sharing. It is well understoodin the development community that ef-fective partnerships include a sharingof risks. Providing resources (financialor in-kind) shows commitment to thepartnership. When designing and ne-gotiating a development activity, thestrategic objective team may use 25 per-cent as a suggested reference point fora partner’s cost-share, keeping in mindthe need for flexibility and the diversecircumstances and conditions that maydefine a relationship between USAID anda funding recipient. Financial partici-pation rates of less, or more, may be jus-tified as reasonable and appropriate inview of the recipient’s financial re-sources and fund-raising capacity,USAID’s objectives, or where justified byAgency program objectives. Thus, cost-sharing can be a valuable tool used stra-tegically to encourage progress towardfinancial sustainability.

Phased approach. Partnerships tendto move through a series of stages (seetable 4.1, next chapter). Funding for thepartnership can be linked to thesestages, and the grant or cooperativeagreement renegotiated. For example,phase 1 might start at a lower dollar

18


Case Study 3.3. Capturing the ‘True’ Value of Cost-Sharing

The American Council on Education’s ALO (Association Liaison Office for University Cooperation in Devel-opment) awards small grants to U.S. colleges and universities to partner with developing-country colleges anduniversities to work on a host of social and economic issues. Under these awards, ALO requires a minimum25 percent cost-share (a financial or in-kind match of support). Partner cost-share contributions, which are onaverage 100 percent, are not necessarily in the form of money, but “in kind” contributions such as donated stafftime, resources, local transportation, and supplies.

ALO’s partnership between Maricopa Community Colleges in Arizona and the Universidad Veracruzana inMexico struggled with how to present a fair representation of the in-kind contributions of the Mexican partner,since wages differ so vastly between the two countries. They developed a method for capturing the “true” valueof their cost-sharing contributions. Using a model that captures the relative value of the services performed bythe Mexican partners, they identified an average U.S. salary equivalent for a particular kind of work and thenused this amount when calculating in-kind donations of hourly work by a Mexican partner.

level for 18 months to develop and plana partnership. Success of this phase maylead to phase 2—implementation of thepartnership activities—which lasts fouryears and has a higher dollar level.Phase 3, which might be for two to threeyears, follows successful implementa-tion of the activities and concentrateson mentoring by the U.S. organizationto develop an autonomous local organi-zation.

Performance conditions. A wide va-riety of goals and accomplishments canbe incorporated as performance condi-tions in a contract, grant, or coopera-tive agreement. These include jointlydrafting a partnership agreement, es-tablishing a joint capability of some sort,or achieving a specified level of fund-ing diversification.

Selecting the Partners

USAID or an intermediary canmatch U.S. and host-country partnersin any of three ways:

1. Host-country entities find U.S.partners or receive assistance fromthe intermediary to locate a U.S.partner if needed. EcoLinks usesthis approach.

2. USAID advises the intermediary or-ganization on which regions orspecific organizations in the hostcountry should participate in thepartnership program. The interme-diary then assesses the situationand puts out a request for applica-tion (or RFA) for a U.S. partner. TheAmerican International HealthAlliance (for the Health Partner-ships Program) and the Interna-tional City/County ManagementAssociation (for the Resource Cit-ies Program) use this approach.

3. The RFA for a grant assumes thatthe partnership already exists. Thisimplies that the partners them-selves are responsible for findingeach other.* Current programs us-ing this approach include the Glo-bal Bureau’s higher educationpartnerships (ALO and the Univer-sity Development Linkages Pro-

*See appendix D for an example of potentialpartner preselection criteria.

19


Case Study 3.4. Importance of Leadership

In the past decade, thousands of exchanges have occurred between the two small cities of Dubna,Russia, and La Crosse, Wisconsin. The partnership has transformed Dubna’s medical care system. The townhas a new maternity hospital, a kidney dialysis center, women's wellness clinics, and a rehabilitation center fordisabled children and adults. In addition, streamlined medical procedures have eliminated nearly one third ofthe city's hospital beds, a contraception program has reduced the city’s abortion rate to two thirds of thenational level, and there has been a dramatic rise in residents' satisfaction with medical care.

The success of the partnership is in part due to the chemistry between the cities and their early agree-ment that the relationship was not that of an American mentor and Russian protégé, but of equals. Thesuccess is also attributable to the determination of the leaders of Dubna to make the partnership work. Forexample, under Russian government formulas that base hospital aid on the number of patients, promotinghome care meant a huge drop in subsidies for Dubna. Battling Russian bureaucracy, managers of Dubna andLa Crosse argued that the city should not be punished for gaining greater efficiencies and managed to get anew formula to calculate assistance. The mayor of Dubna is described as a visionary who was intolerant ofobstacles to change. He surrounded himself with people who would remain committed to a project—not onlyuntil the money ran out but until it made life better for the townspeople.

gram) and the Matching GrantsProgram of the Office of PrivateVoluntary Cooperation. ALO pro-vides a Web site, “Cupid,” to helpuniversities connect with one an-other.

When USAID or the intermediaryorganization acts as a broker, case aftercase points to the need for dynamic,committed leadership to ensure a suc-cessful and sustainable partnership.Because strong partnerships are diffi-cult to form and sustain, the interestand commitment of the leadership ofboth organizations is critical if the part-nership is to address and resolve the is-sues that inevitably develop. If theleadership is uninterested or ambiva-lent, it is extremely difficult to energizethe staff and sustain interest in thebenefits of the partnership during its for-mative period. If leadership commit-ment is in doubt, consider not movingforward with the partnership. Even so,while it is most important to ensure com-mitment from the top, long-term pros-

pects are better when midlevel manage-ment, which may include future lead-ers, is also involved.

Roles and Responsibilities

Although the main concern of thisguide is relationships between Ameri-can and host-country organizations, therelationship between USAID and anorganization receiving funds for a part-

If the leadership isuninterested or ambivalent,

it is extremely difficult toenergize the staff and sustaininterest in the benefits of the

partnership during itsformative period. If leadership

commitment is in doubt,consider not moving forward

with the partnership.

20


nership (whether it is one of the part-ners or an intermediary) is also crucialto the success of that partnership.

The interactions inherent to a re-lationship with contractors or consult-ants—one that assumes a one-waytransfer of information and services—differ greatly from the collaborative styleneeded when working in partnership.This collaborative style requires a dif-ferent mindset and a specific set of skills.Styles of communication and collabo-ration with partners affect thepartnership.* In other words, USAID’s re-lationship with the intermediary (orwith the partner receiving funds, if us-ing the direct funding model) has animpact on the partnership between theU.S. and host-country entities. In addi-

Table 3.3. Roles of Partnership Players

n Provide program administrationand management consistent withUSAID requirements

n Provide facilitative leadershipn Provide logistical support and

orientationn Provide cost-effective solutionsn Develop indicators to monitor

progressn Help monitor and assess

progressn Help create sustainability plan

n Develop collaborative workplan and memorandum ofunderstanding through aconsensus-building process

n Identify appropriate people towork in the partnership

n Identify indicators to monitorprogress

n Implement activitiesn Monitor and assess progressn Make adjustments to activities

on the basis of informationcollected through monitoringand evaluation

n Submit progress reportsn Participate in debriefing

meetings with donorsn Create sustainability plan

USAID Intermediary Partner

n Establish broad strategicvision and objectives

n Provide strategicdirection

n Coordinate andcollaborate withintermediary in annualstrategic planning andwork plan sessions

n Provide guidance fordeveloping indicators tomonitor progress

n Review progressn Review sustainability

plan

tion, it is crucial that the roles and re-sponsibilities of all groups involved withthe partnership—USAID, an intermedi-ary, the U.S. partner, and the host-coun-try partner—be laid out unambiguously.Table 3.3 describes some of the roles andresponsibilities of the players whenthere is an intermediary. If USAID fundsthe partners directly, Agency staff takeson the responsibilities listed for theintermediary.

USAID sets the stage, of course, byestablishing broad guidelines for thepartnership. Working with the interme-diary, the Agency finds established part-nerships or matches partners with eachother to implement activities that reflectUSAID’s development objectives. Clearlyconveying the connection between thepartnership and the Agency’s objectivesis essential. If the partners do not un-derstand their relationship with USAIDfrom the outset, they may not be forth-

*See appendix G for various tools to identifyeffective partnership behavior.

21


coming later in providing the Agencywith monitoring and evaluation data.

The intermediary works closelywith the partners to assist them in de-veloping a collaborative work plan andmemorandum of understanding. Underguidance from the intermediary, thepartners identify indicators to monitorprogress and develop a sustainabilityplan. In implementing their activities,the partners sometimes disagree; this isto be expected. This is the time for theintermediary to show its mettle and pro-vide leadership to help the partnerswork through their problems.

The partners and the intermediarymonitor and evaluate the partnership.Site visits by USAID staff not only are agood way to obtain direct insight intothe work and its results, but also (andjust as important) bring credibility to theproject. A site visit by an Agency offi-cial is often an occasion for winninglocal authorities’ and additional com-munity support for a given partnership.USAID’s engagement with the partnersto learn what they have accomplishedwill also enrich the monitoring and re-porting process.

Managing Partnerships 4N MOST CASES, USAID staff are notdirectly involved in facilitating theprogress of a partnership. But un-

derstanding the process—especiallysome of its more difficult areas—canbetter prepare Agency staff to helpmove a partnership forward. When thepartnership is managed by an interme-diary organization, the intermediaryplays a leadership role to help solidifythe partner relationship. Understand-ing the role of the intermediary andknowing what to expect in thepartnering process can help USAID staffknow when and how to offer skillfuland timely guidance. In an ideal situa-tion, Agency staff collaborate with theintermediary as a facilitative leader.When there is no intermediary, USAIDmay play a bigger role or assist in find-ing facilitators to help in the partneringprocess.

Facilitating thePartnering Process

Partnerships are organic. Theyarise and flourish, and then often de-cay and die, through continual inter-nal assessments of potential gains. Sincethey involve bringing new groups ofpeople to work together, partnershipscan be unstable. Moreover, becausepartnerships are adaptive and oftenchange direction, the benefits and thefuture of the relationships are difficultto predict. The dynamic nature of thepartnership process suggests that therange and variety of relationships willexpand in the future and that new formswill emerge to suit the participants’needs.

I Most partnerships go through aperiod of adjustment and adaptationthat reflects a learning process andchanging participant capacities. Anec-dotal evidence shows that as a partner-ship matures, the relative importance

of process factors declines and the im-portance of perceived benefits increases.Although the maturation of a partner-ship appears to evolve fluidly andgradually, most relationships movethrough a series of successive stagesthat are built on and based on experi-ence. When a maturing relationshipjumps ahead too quickly or skips a stagein the relationship process, it oftenmeans that the partners need to go backand deal with deficiencies that have notyet been addressed.

Normally there are four sequentialstages in the evolution of a partnership.Each of the stages consists of a set ofactivities that establishes a capacity al-lowing the next stage to occur. Eachstage also brings a new set of challenges.

Anecdotal evidenceshows that as a

partnership matures,the relative importance

of process factors declinesand the importance of

perceived benefitsincreases.

24


Table 4.1. Stages of Partnership

n Exchanging informationn Sharing lessons learnedn Looking at pros and cons of collaboration

n Discussing values and missionn Identifying cultural differencesn Dealing with power imbalancesn Taking steps to ensure transparencyn Drafting letter of agreement

n Establishing working groupn Developing work plann Agreeing on communication protocoln Integrating components of budgeting and accounting systems

n Planning and implementing parallel projectsn Planning and implementing integrated projectsn Establishing capacity to integrate budget and workforce planningn Conducting joint evaluationsn Coordinating response to evaluations/assessments

* Joint strategic planning* Integration of planning office and functions* Establishment of uniform systems* Integration of governance systems

Stage Illustrative Activities

1. Exploration

2. Establishing trust

3. Coordinating systems

4. Cooperation

Strategic alliance

First, organizations explore thepossibility of partnering with eachother. Second, trust is established be-tween the partners. Third, systems arecoordinated so the partners can worktogether. Fourth, the partners cooper-ate to implement activities.

At the fourth stage, partners arestill distinct organizations that collabo-rate on programs. In some cases, thepartnership may subsequently evolveinto a strategic alliance with some de-gree of institutional integration. Thestrategic alliance may even involve theestablishment of an autonomous entity(see table 4.1).

Principles forEstablishing Partnerships

The exploratory phase of anemerging partnership influences thecontent and structure of the future re-lationship and how successful it will be.USAID or an intermediary organizationcan help shape and direct these earlydiscussions. But this is a difficult andsensitive time in the emerging relation-ship. Too much outside donor involve-ment can divert the attention of theparticipants away from the process ofdeveloping an effective and solid part-nership.

25

Managing Partnerships

Case Study 4.1. Exploring Partnership Possibilities

Since 1992, the United States–Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP), a joint project of USAID and otherU.S. agencies, has promoted technology transfer in Asia by linking U.S. businesses with developing-countrybusinesses. Through its partnership with the Water Environment Federation and the efforts of the NationalAssociation of State Development Agencies and the Institute for International Education, US-AEP has been ableto bring hundreds of Asian buyers and decision-makers to the Water Environment Federation Technology(WEFTEC) conferences in recent years. In 2000 alone, US-AEP sponsored the attendance of more than a hundredAsian buyers at the 72nd WEFTEC Conference in Anaheim, California. The partnership also arranges for one-on-one meetings between American companies and Asian buyers as well as between American companies andUS-AEP technology representatives. Since 1992, US-AEP has generated $1.12 billion in sales and contracts forAmerican companies.

Case Study 4.2. The Use of Program Development and Learning Funds

Missions cannot commit Agency funds until they have an established strategic objective. But USAID’sbureaus may create one or more program development and learning (PD&L) objectives to finance programdevelopment costs and program assessments and learning efforts. These PD&L objectives are intended to fundassessments or to support the design of new strategic objectives or new activities under existing strategicobjectives. Thus they may be used to finance the full range of funding instruments, including grants, contracts,cooperative agreements, and purchase and task orders. PD&L funds can be helpful during the exploratory phaseof a relationship when the mission does not have an established strategic objective.

You might use PD&L funds to

n Sponsor a planning workshop

n Provide training so that the local organization can prepare a strong strategic plan

n Finance a study to identify legal impediments to overseas partnering arrangements

n Provide a skilled facilitator to work with prospective partners to identify areas of consensus

n Provide seed funds to finance an experimental joint project to test the possibility of partnership

n Finance an exploratory trip so that the leader of a local organization can visit the headquartersof an American organization

n Sponsor a partnership conference that brings local organizations together at one locationto meet with the representatives of American groups

26


Case Study 4.3. Shared Experiences and Future Partnerships

More than 85 participants from 12 countries met in Albania for two days during February 2000 for aregional conference designed as a forum to forge future partnerships. NGO participants represented variousregions of central and eastern Europe, including Russia and the Balkans. The group represented a broad rangeof successful organizations working in many areas of democratic development, including social services, civiceducation, media strengthening, environmental protection, and the rule of law and human rights.

An important objective of the conference was to facilitate prospective relations between nongovernmentalorganizations from different countries. The formation of working partnerships is an important aspect of thedevelopment of the NGOs in southern central Europe and is believed to depend heavily on compatible values, ashared vision, and a strong understanding of mutual goals and objectives. The creation of effective partnershipsdepends greatly on establishing opportunities for dialog and communication in a free and unpressured environ-ment that encourages openness and candor. Many conference participants commented on the value of theinformation they had obtained about potential collaborations with other NGOs in neighboring countries and howthey thought they could work together. All participants received contact information on one another. Manyindicated that they intended to maintain relationships that were established during the conference.

There are no hard and fast rulesfor this exploratory stage, but five prin-ciples should be kept in mind:

1. Support discussion and joint plan-ning. The USAID system sometimesmakes it difficult for the Agency toprovide financial assistance to sup-port meetings and conferences thatpromote dialog. But in the case ofan emerging partnership, it is es-sential that the two parties workthrough the exploratory phase ofthe relationship and develop a clearunderstanding of each other.

2. Allow plenty of time for the partner-ship to develop. It often takes a longtime to negotiate the relationshipand nurture it to life. Some part-nerships may develop within a fewmonths, but for some the gestationperiod could last five years. Somebenefits are likely to be far off, and

initial expectations may exceedpossibilities. For example, the rela-tionship between La Crosse, Wis-consin, and Dubna, Russia, beganin the late 1980s with childrenfrom the two cities exchangingpeace lanterns to float down theMississippi and Volga Rivers to pro-mote world peace. In the early1990s the cities began a more orless traditional sister-cities relation-ship, with people from La Crossesending food, clothes, and medi-cal supplies to Dubna. In 1992 amore formal partnership was es-tablished through a USAID programthat centered on health care sys-tems. By 2000, nearly $1 millionhad been spent, several hundredRussians had visited La Crosse,and several hundred Americanshad gone to Dubna.*

3. Encourage participants to concen-trate on the substantive content of thepartnership through effective groupprocesses.† Activities devoted to de-veloping a shared vision, clarify-ing and ensuring compatible

*For more information on this partnership, seecase study 3.4 and appendix A.†For more information on group facilitation tools,see appendix H.

27


Case Study 4.4. U.S. Private Voluntary Organization RelationsWith Namibian Nongovernmental Organizations

Under the 1993–99 READ (Reaching out with Education to Adults in Development) project, the AmericanPVO World Education worked with more than 30 Namibian NGOs across a variety of sectors to strengthen theirorganizational capacity and introduce and promote a participatory training method. At the start of the project(soon after independence) the country faced a volatile political environment. There was general suspiciontoward any U.S. presence and toward any U.S.–funded development assistance. The NGO sector was weakand had to adjust to a role that concentrated on broader development issues after spending years in politicalstruggle against apartheid. Old misunderstandings between USAID and the NGO sector contributed to a highlycharged relationship characterized by suspicion of American PVOs.

It took at least the first two years of the project for World Education to overcome NGO mistrust and buildsolid relationships with its NGO partners. The PVO spent a lot of time fine-tuning its process and ensuring thatNGOs felt they were equal stakeholders in the partnership with World Education. The READ project had an activesteering committee made up of members from both the NGO and government sectors. The project reported tothe steering committee regularly. By the end of the project, World Education had strong partnerships with 16NGOs.

*See chapter 6 on sustaining partnerships andappendix F for a sample sustainability plan. Thework plan guidelines in appendix E also refer tosustainability strategies.

values, and generating enthusias-tic commitment are importantduring the early stages of a rela-tionship. If an effective partnershipis to be sustained, it needs to dem-onstrate results to both parties. Inaddition to emphasizing the needfor clarity about desired results,USAID staff can play a valuable roleby encouraging prospective part-ners to think and talk about howthey will coordinate activities, de-sign programs together, and even-tually integrate their programplanning.

4. Place early emphasis on the impor-tance of sustainability.* USAID staffcan play a constructive role in set-ting the stage for sustainability byemphasizing the need to establisha sustainability plan during thefirst few months of the partnership.

To create such a plan, the partnerswill need to determine the fullcosts of building and maintaininga partnership. It is useful for thepartners to prepare a budget thataccounts for direct and indirectcosts associated with the relation-ship. A sustainability plan shouldidentify how enough income willbe generated to cover partnershipcosts. If the partners project signifi-cant income from other donors,they should base these assump-tions on direct discussions with thedonors.

5. Concentrate on providing the broaddelimitations of the partnership.USAID staff should concentrate onproviding the contours of the part-nership between U.S. and host-country entities and leave imple-mentation details to the partners.The partnership will succeed onlyif the two partners are invested inthe outcomes. Supporting the part-ners’ creation of a vision and spe-cific activities that will feed into

28


Case Study 4.5. Collaboration in the New Independent States

Even within the difficult and sometimes hostile legal and tax environment of the post-Soviet states, theInitiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia (ISAR) has found ways to achieve its goals and to do sothrough increasingly independent field organizations that act as local NGOs—if not in name, then in deed.

A U.S. private voluntary organization, ISAR has since 1991 established eight field offices in the newindependent states to act as grant-making organizations that support grass-roots NGOs, with particular empha-sis on the environment sector. Despite operating in an arduous legal and tax environment, these field officeshave become increasingly independent of U.S. headquarters. Where the enabling environment was conducive(Georgia), the field office became a fully indigenous organization. In three other sites (Kiev, Moscow, andVladivostok), the field office has “dual” registration. This allows it to act as an independent, indigenous organi-zation in those areas permissible under local law while maintaining its U.S. registration to carry out activitiesdifficult (given current legal and tax impediments) for a local NGO to implement. The other four offices (Almaty,Atyrau, Baku, and Novosibirsk) operate as branches of ISAR, without dual registration. But on an operationallevel, they too act largely as independent agents.

USAID’s results framework can bea delicate balance.

Factors to Consider WhenForming Partnerships

There is no reliable way to deter-mine beforehand if a partnership willsucceed. Even so, certain characteristicsare associated with effective partner-ships. Five factors—country context,maturity of participating organizations,nature of the organizations’ work, simi-larity of norms and organizational cul-ture, and complementary incomestructure—are, when favorable, nor-mally associated with an effective rela-tionship. Taking these factors intoconsideration when forming partner-ships will improve the chances ofachieving effective and sustainable re-lationships.

Country Context

Some situations are more condu-cive than others to establishing partner-

ships. In general, countries with an ac-tive and growing independent sector,an established tradition of citizen ad-vocacy, grass-roots participation, orintersectoral collaboration to deal withsocial and economic issues provide fa-vorable environments for establishingpartnerships. The presence of these con-ditions provides the financial, manage-rial, and psychological environmentconducive to a healthy process of orga-nizational formation. This does notmean that partnerships will not workin countries that lack a strong civil soci-ety, but it does mean that extra effortmight be needed to help these relation-ships mature in countries without one.

Certain laws and regulations maydiscourage partnerships. These tend tofall into four categories: cumbersomecurrency regulations, onerous taxationprovisions, difficult registration require-ments, and restrictions on affiliationbetween local and foreign organi-zations. Rarely are these barriers suffi-cient to prevent a partnership fromdeveloping. But they are irritants and

29


Case Study 4.6. Finding Common GroundThe Ethos Institute of Business and Social Responsibility, a 2-year-old organization in Brazil that works

with the private sector to spread business social responsibility, is partnering with Pact, a 29-year-old U.S.organization whose mission is to contribute to the growth of civil society—the body of nonstate organizationsin which citizens acting together can express their interests, exchange information, strive for mutual goals, andinfluence government. Ethos argues that companies are important agents in the promotion of economic devel-opment and technological advances. At the same time, Pact recognizes that it takes more than public sectorresources to address the world’s pressing social, economic, and environmental problems.

By concentrating on overlapping visions and objectives, the two organizations have created a flexiblepartnership with mutual benefits. Pact brings Ethos expertise in organizational strengthening. Ethos providesPact with an opportunity to explore engagement of the business community. The difference in the level ofmaturity between the partners—Pact is a well-established institution, and Ethos is a young organizationleading the way in a relatively new field—provides opportunities that would not be possible for either organiza-tion working alone.

can affect the relationship. For example,there may be a restriction on the abilityof a local organization to receive fundsfrom an overseas organization, or theremay be laws prohibiting establishmentof an overseas entity. Where these im-pediments exist, encourage the prospec-tive partners to research the laws, fullyunderstand the impact they will haveon the relationship, and identify optionsfor handling them. If there is a possibil-ity of negative legal or regulatory restric-tions, identify the restriction andencourage prospective partners to costout the impact. Legal obstacles can pro-vide an excellent backdrop for pro-grams that seek to improve the legalenvironment. Such programs comple-ment the development of partnerships.

If the country’s environment is notconducive to partnering, USAID can takeadvantage of the hunger that profes-sionals feel for up-to-date knowledge inareas such as health, education, or cityinfrastructure. In such environments,partnering is frequently the only oppor-tunity people have to familiarize them-selves with the way other societies areorganized. Impediments created by a

difficult environment are compensatedfor by the high motivation of many lead-ers.

If the country has a weak NGO sec-tor or legal restrictions that could inhibitthe functioning of a partnership, USAIDmay wish to engage in policy dialog atthe national level to create a more en-abling environment. Specific to the part-nership being implemented, USAID can

n Put in place a thorough orientationprogram for the American part-ners to ensure an adequate level ofcultural competence.

n Provide institutional strengtheningthat takes into account the currentlevel of institutional developmentand is sensitive to the real obstaclesfaced by NGO leaders.

n Take advantage of regional exper-tise: 1) programs aimed at sustain-ability or financial fundingdiversification can be conductedmost effectively by regional train-ers from slightly more advancedneighboring countries that are

30


Case Study 4.7. Partnerships BetweenNongovernmental and Commercial Organizations

Even though for-profit corporations and social service groups have different organizational goals, theyoften share community interests. These may include a healthy and well-educated labor force, the absence ofcivil strife, and an interest in stable democratic processes. A particular challenge in building relations acrosssectors is overcoming distrust and the attitude that commonality of mission and purpose is impossible.

The motives of each partner must be clear to the other. Business motives may be marketing, production,public relations, or human resource development. The NGO needs to be clear about its social objectives. It isnormal for the two parties to have different objectives, but those objectives must be known and mutuallyrespected.

CARE’s partnership with Enron Corp. in India is a case in which the community had great animosity towardthe oil company's operations. After Enron began working with CARE on economic and community development,cases of vandalism and property destruction decreased, and community support for the company among localleaders and community members increased. Gas and oil companies entering new areas are learning frompublic–private partnership experiences and are seeking NGO partners to prevent problems before negativesentiments develop.

more aware of the obstacles; 2) NGOrepresentatives from countrieswith a weak NGO sector often ben-efit from regional exchanges wherethey meet NGO leaders who haveovercome problems similar to theirown.

Maturity ofParticipating Organizations

Consolidated and well-establishedorganizations have greater capabilityfor sustaining a partnership than thosein an early stage of development. Anemergent organization tends to be fi-nancially insecure, prone to rapidchange, and committed to a particulartechnique and set of values. Moreover,an emergent group is often managed bya founder or leader who has a highlyspecific and sometimes rigid conceptionof the organizational mission and howit is to be accomplished.

If there is a significant dissimilar-ity in the maturity of the two organi-zations,

n Include a tailored training pro-gram in your grant or subgrant.

n Consider funding strategic plan-ning or establish strategic planningas a condition of support.

n Insist on such basics as a writtenpartnership agreement, headquar-ters visits, and leadership meet-ings.

n Encourage both organizations tovisit with other groups in theircountry that have establishedstrong overseas partnerships.

Nature of the Organizations’ Work

The more similar the work of twoorganizations, the easier it is to estab-lish and maintain a partnership. Simi-

31


Case Study 4.8. Overcoming Differences in Organizational CulturePLAN International and the microenterprise NGO Business Initiatives and Management Assistance Ser-

vices (BIMAS) in Embu, Kenya, have successfully worked through differences in their organizational cultures.A particular source of tension stemmed from PLAN’s orientation toward charitable humanitarian programs andBIMAS’s business-oriented emphasis on clients rather than beneficiaries. A second problematic factor wasPLAN’s elaborate set of systems and procedures and its slow and cumbersome fund-approval process. Whilethe partnership is codified in a formal agreement that lays out roles and responsibilities, it is also embodied ina set of informal understandings that have allowed the relationship to evolve over time. That BIMAS is a sophis-ticated and knowledgeable organization with a strong understanding of microenterprise methodology has givenit leverage in the relationship and has counterbalanced PLAN’s size and financial power.

larities in activities are likely to be ech-oed in similarities in management sys-tems, decision-making processes, andthe norms and cultures of the two enti-ties. The establishment of peer relationsbetween professionals working in simi-lar fields can be a powerful link thatadds value and legitimacy to the part-nership.

Yet, in some cases, dissimilaritiesbetween organizations may actuallyincrease the potential for a rich and re-warding association, since each organi-zation has more to offer the other. Forexample, there is increasing evidencethat nonprofits and commercial organi-zations can enter into beneficial part-nerships without corrupting the socialservice mission of the former.

Where the work of the organi-zations is different,

n Place special emphasis on head-quarters visits and extensive inter-personal contact.

n Encourage the partners to pay par-ticular attention early to organiza-tional culture and systemscompatibility.

Similarity of NormsAnd Organizational Culture

If the norms and cultures ofpartnering organizations are in align-ment, the two entities will be better ableto communicate effectively and worktogether. Every organization developsa unique set of beliefs and a supportingculture that influences how it interpretssituations. Sharp dissimilarities betweenorganizations can make communica-tion, joint planning, and priority settingextremely difficult.

But while dissimilarity in valuespresents an impediment, it can also pro-vide a catalyst for positive change. Awell-established organization, for ex-ample, might deliberately choose topartner with a vigorously entrepre-neurial group to benefit from new en-ergy. Additionally, partnerships tend

In some cases,dissimilarities between

organizations may actuallyincrease the potential for

a rich and rewardingassociation.

32


Case Study 4.9. Choosing the Most Cost-Effective PartnerFreedom From Hunger found a startling difference in efficiency and cost-effectiveness when it switched

from one kind of partner to another—in this case, from specialized microfinance institutions (MFIs) to localcredit union federations. Working through MFIs, Freedom From Hunger spent $6.4 million in direct grants andtechnical assistance to reach 30,000 poor women in need of small loans, a cost of $211 per borrower. Yet itcost only $700,000 to create the capacity to reach 36,000 women when partnering with two local credit unionfederations, reducing the cost to only $20 per borrower. Additionally, the credit unions reached their outreachcapacity in half the time and with a greater level of financial self-sufficiency than the specialized MFIs.

over time to develop their own culturesand norms of behavior. While similarvalues may be critical at the beginningof a relationship, they may become lessso as the partnership matures.

Where norms and culture appearto be dissimilar,

n Fund experimental joint projects totest compatibility.

n Support a joint staff conference toexplore practical issues of workingtogether.

n Use a trained facilitator to exploreareas of agreement and potentialdisagreement.

Complementary Income Structure

Organizations that depend heavilyon similar funding sources or on thesame donor may find it difficult to worktogether because of their propensity tocompete with each other for scarce re-sources and also because of an under-lying awareness that their associationmay not yield a net increase in income.Alternatively, when the pattern of finan-cial support is markedly dissimilar, in-centives to collaborate may be strong.Of course, there are cases when a simi-lar donor profile is a distinct advantage.For example, a foundation that gives to

both groups might increase its total levelof support when the groups are collabo-rating to encourage synergies they be-lieve will emerge.

Where the income structure ap-pears competitive,

n Encourage participants to discussit openly.

n Encourage participants to addressthis impediment in their letter ofagreement.

n Provide fund-raising support andtraining to the local group.

Creating Common Ground

The manner in which the partnersare first brought together and the pro-cess they go through to solidify their re-lationship are crucial to achievingfavorable results. A good first stepwould be to provide an orientation thatexplains partnering concepts and whatthe partners might expect from the pro-cess. The partners need to collaborateon developing a common vision and aworking framework that includes awork plan and a memorandum of un-derstanding. The initial discussions be-tween partners also should includeissues of power and influence in the re-lationship.

33


Case Study 4.10. Appreciative Inquiry Model for Building Partnerships

The Global Excellence in Management (GEM) Initiative has developed a model for forging partnerships builton mutual respect and shared goals between Northern and Southern organizations, called the Partnership4–D Model. The goals of the model are to discover common ground for partnership, experience processes forbuilding authentic partnerships, share best practices relating to partnership, and co-create collaborative strat-egies for the future.

In a workshop setting, members from both sides of the partnership gather to work through the 4–D cycle.The discovery phase works to appreciate the best of “what is” by emphasizing peak moments in the life of apartnership. The dream phase challenges partners to use stories about partnerships as a launching pad forenvisioning what the partnership might become. In the design phase the partners begin to design a “socialarchitecture” that will support their shared dreams. The task is to design a partnership that is aligned with thejointly held vision and values and come to agreement on what needs to happen to make the dream a reality.Finally, the delivery phase asks how the partnership can empower, learn, adjust, and improvise. In becoming alearning organization, the partners continually expand their capacity to envision and create the results theytruly desire.

*More information about the GEM Initiative is available at http://www.geminitiative.org.

Existence of a Common Vision

Effective partnerships tend to becentered on a common vision that keepsthe relationship together and helps thepartners transcend the difficulties thatmay arise from different operatingstyles. This integrating vision is oftenrepresented in a mission statement.

A central vision can evolve. To so-lidify it may require an extended periodof interaction between the two organi-zations. Often the vision is at first lim-ited to consensus around a narrowobjective. From this, a larger shared vi-sion arises. In the early stages of a rela-tionship the partners may not be awarethat they share a common vision. Con-versely, they may believe they havemuch more in common than they actu-ally do.

USAID, having set the broad guide-lines for what the partnership must ac-complish to meet the Agency’s strategicobjective, can work with the interme-

diary (or facilitator, if there is no inter-mediary) to build consensus around thevision. The relationship should not behurried. There are tools (such as pro-cess mapping, storyboarding, SWOT—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,and threats—analysis, a decision-mak-ing framework, and force field analy-sis) and trained facilitators who canassist with the partnership process.*

Capacity to Establish andSustain a Working Framework

A working framework refers tothose systems, procedures, practices,and habits that allow two or more org-anizations to communicate and coor-dinate in a relatively efficient andcost-effective manner. A workingframework takes time and patience todevelop. Its durability depends on manyfactors, ranging from the motivation ofparticipants to the similarity of existing

*See appendix H for more information on groupfacilitation tools.

34


management systems. A workingframework often begins with jointdevelopment of a work plan that iden-tifies practical tasks that need to be doneif the two organizations are to work

well together toward the desired results.The work plan should include informa-tion on the broad goals and specificobjectives of the partnership, plannedinputs and activities, outcome indica-

Case Study 4.11. Mutual Accountability Reflected in Formal AgreementsThe Institute for Development Research examined partnerships between African NGOs and American

PVOs as part of a study on strengthening North–South partnerships. With regard to managing partnerships,they found that African partners had concerns about the PVOs’ rigid adherence to procedures and internalresistance to complying with partnership agreements. While all organizations need some policies and proce-dures to ensure accountability and foster consistent behavior organization-wide, the problem was the lack ofwillingness by PVOs at times to respond collaboratively to issues and concerns with existing arrangementsexperienced by the African partners.

A partnership in Ethiopia involving a child-sponsorship PVO explicitly designed a formal agreement toencourage mutual accountability. With the donor's guidance, the PVO shaped the agreement to be particularlyflexible. The PVO staff wanted the formal agreement to support the informal relations of mutual trust theyunderstood to be at the heart of the partnership, so they developed memorandums of understanding rather thanformal contracts. The memorandums were written only after several discussions of mutual interests had takenplace at both PVO and NGO offices. Contrary to standard practice, the PVO encouraged the NGO to keep the bankaccounts close to the communities where they were working, and they expected that some mistakes would bemade with the finances during the learning process. The PVO staff had originally put a liability clause in theagreement, in compliance with its standard procedures. It removed the clause at the direction of the donor,which thought it would hinder the development of trust with the partners.

On the basis of its findings, the Institute for Development Research proposes that extending the principleof mutual influence to accountability mechanisms in formal agreements will increase the satisfaction of NGOpartners and their accountability to their local stakeholders. Revised procedures should emphasize moreflexible forms of agreement, shared liability for inherent risks, and increased Southern-partner influence indetermining conditions of funding.

Case Study 4.12. U.S.–Russian PartnershipsLocal NGOs are unlikely not to know that their American partners benefit significantly from the overhead

earned for managing USAID grant funds and that these charges reduce the level of program funds available for in-country distribution. Tensions arising from this knowledge were documented in a 1996 study of U.S.–Russianpartnerships funded by the Agency.

While American and Russian partners tended to agree that both partners benefited from the partnership,they disagreed on the benefit accruing to the other partner. American organizations, on the one hand, generallysaw the Russian partner as acquiring the resources for new activities. Most Russian partners, on the otherhand, saw financial gain as the chief benefit accruing to their American partner—even to the nonprofit organi-zations and universities. This perception is a potentially corrosive element in sustainable partnership relation-ships, both because it reflects a certain cynicism about the American partners’ motivations and because it cancontribute to an expectation that the American partner can easily afford to sustain the relationship even if USAIDfunding ends.

35


tors, plans for collaboration, sustainabil-ity strategies, and strategies for commu-nicating and collaborating.* The twopartners should also sign a memoran-dum of understanding. The memoran-dum formalizes the commitment of the

partners to the vision, to the work plan,or to both.†

Perception of Equal Power andInfluence in the Relationship

An important factor in determin-ing the long-term success of a partner-ship is a belief on both sides that thereis approximate parity of power and in-

*See appendix E for sample work plan guidelines.†See appendix C for sample memorandums ofunderstanding.

Case Study 4.13. Katalysis Partnership ModelThe Katalysis Partnership is a network of one American PVO and eight independent microcredit NGOs in

four Central American countries. Katalysis has pioneered a partnership model that is consciously designed toovercome traditional North–South inequalities, distribute power fairly, and avoid perceptions of inferiority. Thepartnership is structured so each member has a substantial influence over the governance, policies, andpractices of the partnership and of Katalysis/USA and the Katalysis regional field office.

The partners are committed to

n Cross-representation on one another’s board of directors

n All decisions related to the partnership subject to a council operating on a“one member, one vote” principle

n Participating together in strategic planning, producing a shared mission and values statement

n Joint training that facilitates learning and mentoring as a two-way process

n Joint fund-raising and market studies

n Consultation on key personnel decisions(e.g., Central American members participate in selection of Katalysis/USA’s chief executive officer)

n Consultation before entering into other partnerships

n Evaluating one another's organizational and programmatic performance(e.g., members exchange audits)

n Full transparency in all interactions and decisions(e.g., Central American members approve Katalysis/USA’s annual budget)

n Partner cost-sharing to meet partnership expenses (e.g., Central American partners cover their owncosts of attending board meetings, originally covered by USAID, as an expression of the value of thepartnership)

n Documentation of membership decisions and direction (e.g., written memorandum of understanding,vision statement, partner institutional standards, partnership governance)

36


fluence in the relationship. Where oneof the partners (especially the local or-ganization) believes it has less influenceover important decisions, frustrationand dissatisfaction are likely to result.

This is a complicated issue becausepartnerships between the U.S. and host-country organizations often take placewithin a context of perceived inequal-ity. Organizations in developing andtransitional countries tend to be deeplysensitive about what they see as in-fringements on their autonomy andcriticisms of their competence. At thesame time, U.S. organizations may havea significant stake in the particularcountry and want not to be displacedby a local group with less experienceand managerial depth. These sensitivi-ties complicate the partnering processand add an element of instability.

To some extent, the negative effectof a power imbalance can be neutral-ized if the local group believes it hasleverage on decisions that affect thepartnership and if there is understand-ing about the comparative advantageeach side brings to the table.

There are many things USAID or anintermediary organization can do tohelp put partner relations on an equalfooting. Several American PVOs havedeveloped policies and sets of objectivesto accomplish this. USAID can

n Provide funds to the local organi-zation rather than to the U.S.group

n Provide funds through an interme-diary to negate the need to trans-fer funds to either partner

Case Study 4.14. Changing Relationships: From Project Officer to PartnerDuring 1996–2000, World Learning, under the Shared Project, transformed its field-based project office

into an indigenous Malawian NGO. The intent was to create a means of sustaining the capacity-building benefitsbeyond the life of the project. One of the biggest challenges was for the existing organizational entity (the field-based project office) to break free from its project mentality and gain a new, separate identity. Since allpersonnel relationships had been defined by the project, staff found the transformation jolting.

When World Learning and the Development Center (DevCenter) became separate but equal partners, thenew need for formal and codified legal relationships initially caused misunderstanding between the two. Whereasthe memorandum of understanding had been less formal, a sub-award established the first purely “legal”relationship between the two as partners and was more formal. DevCenter’s initial reaction to the sub-awardwas concern that World Learning was moving away from the partnership tone of the memorandum of under-standing. This point of contention was resolved through individual meetings and group sessions with an outsidefacilitator. Such a commitment to communication was essential to working through misunderstandings thatarose during roller coaster times and to aligning expectations among all parties. World Learning realized thatit needed to better interpret its boilerplate legal language for DevCenter, to better fit the particular context andbe less alienating. DevCenter came to better understand World Learning's intent and the need for more formalrelationships.

World Learning found that in going through this transformation process, face-to-face communication wasessential. Many times a gap in expectations or understanding could be bridged only in person. World Learningleadership made a clear effort to keep in regular contact, particularly at pivotal decision points, to ensuremutual understanding and agreement.

37


n Encourage absolute transparency,particularly on budgetary matters

n Explore the possibility of local rep-resentation on the board of direc-tors of the American organization

n Allocate funds for retreats andgroup facilitation to create a sharedvision and clarify benefits receivedby both partners

EncouragingCommunicationAnd Collaboration

The most common difficulty in apartnership is communication. Clearand regular communication betweenpartners is essential for success. Whileface-to-face exchanges are important,so too are phone calls, e-mails, and let-ters. Establishing systems of communi-cation—such as a Web site for thepartnership, e-mail discussion listgroups, or regularly scheduled phonecalls—improves relations. The morecommunication between partners, themore likely that partners are honest and

open with each other. This assists in cre-ating greater transparency and sharingof sensitive information.

Make Decision-MakingTransparent

Transparency is particularly im-portant in partnerships because of thedanger that one group may think theother is taking advantage of it or ben-efiting disproportionately from the re-lationship. It is especially important thatthe decision-making process be viewedas open and equitable. There should beshared understanding of the objectivesand how they will be carried out, andof the budget and financial systems.

Special problems can arise when aforeign donor such as USAID is fundingthe partnership. In these situations,there can be serious misunderstandingabout such things as the salary differ-ential between American and host-country nationals and the allocation ofoverhead funds to support the head-quarters cost of the U.S. group. Whilediscussing these issues is often awk-

Case Study 4.15. Communicating With PartnersFreedom From Hunger (FFH) and the World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU), both U.S. based, originally

partnered because a USAID grant required the two to work together in a three-way partnership with local creditunions in the Philippines to improve local credit union operations and develop loan products targeting poorwomen. According to FFH, work with WOCCU is one of its best programs.

The biggest challenge to building a successful partnership was working through the communication andcoordination issues that arose in the initial stages of the partnership. Facilitating optimal communicationamong FFH headquarters, WOCCU headquarters, and the local office in the Philippines has been complicated.Face-to-face meetings, patience, and prioritizing the issues so they center on partners have all played acentral role in resolving communication issues. Knowing when an issue is “technical” and when it is “personal-ity based” is key, as well. In some cases, personality-based issues may require reassignment of staff respon-sibilities to resolve issues. Being sensitive to a partner's workload (both within the partnership and beyond thatrelated to the partnership) is also critical to building trust and working relationships.

38


ward, it is almost always preferable tobe forthcoming at the outset of the rela-tionship.

There are several things USAID oran intermediary organization can do toencourage transparency:

n Set an example of openness andtransparency in your discussionswith the partners. This should in-clude being unambiguous aboutUSAID’s goals and expectations andabout procurement rules and regu-lations. Early discussions about themeaning of “overhead” and thereality of salary differences are of-ten warranted.

n Support an exchange of headquar-ters visits to help partners betterunderstand each other’s systems.

n Encourage partners to include thesubject of transparency and open-

ness in their partnership agree-ment.

n Encourage partners to spell out aprocess for dispute resolution. Thepartners should have a clear un-derstanding of how they will re-solve problems, when they mightbring in a mediator, and how theywill dissolve the partnership ifneeded.

Share Oversight of the Budget

It is particularly important thatpartners feel they share responsibilityover money matters. More than anyother area, budget and financial issuesare lightning rods of controversy anddisagreement. This is a difficult areabecause, under USAID procurementregulations, there must be a single or-ganization that can be held accountablefor the use of federal funds. Thus, froma technical point of view, budgetary re-

Case Study 4.16. Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia and theNazareth Children’s Center and Integrated Development

The partnership between Catholic Relief Services/Ethiopia (CRS/Ethiopia) and the Nazareth Children’sCenter and Integrated Development is a good example of a mature relationship that has evolved organically overa decade or more. The partnership began in 1988 when CRS/Ethiopia agreed to drill a well for the orphanage.Cooperation increased as the two organizations gradually became comfortable with each other's systems andvalues and became conscious of a shared vision. Because the relationship is longstanding, each organizationseems to have an intuitive understanding of the larger hindrances on the other while remaining free to articulateparticular problems and issues.

CRS/Ethiopia and NACID have developed effective procedures for dealing with conflict. The reality of conflictis acknowledged by both organizations, and issues are discussed openly and normally resolved by negotiationat the staff level. The thorniest issues are addressed through more formal and senior channels.

Successful resolution of differences appears to reflect consensus on basic mission, similar values, longexperience in working together, a proclivity to discuss differences, and the existence of an established systemfor dispute resolution. When issues have arisen, CRS/Ethiopia has been flexible and adaptive in bending itsrules and procedures and has been especially careful to be open and transparent about financial matters.

39


sponsibility cannot be “shared.” Inmost cases funds are committed to theAmerican group. In some cases, how-ever, the funding instrument can bestructured so the local organization isthe primary recipient. Regardless ofwho receives the funds, it is importantthat partners establish communicationand decision-making systems that giveboth parties reasonable confidence thatthey know how funds are being allo-cated and that they can influence theprocess.

Grant agreements should spell outroles, responsibilities, outputs, budgets,and reporting requirements. It can helpto use a third party to conduct auditsthat are part of accepted internationalinstitutional standards.

Acknowledge Cultural Differences

A factor critical to U.S.–host-coun-try partnerships is cross-cultural sensi-tivity. Without this, logical andwell-intentioned relationships oftencome apart prematurely because of dif-ferences in values that alienate the re-lationship. These often are expressed insubtle differences regarding the inher-ent meaning of the concept of ‘partner-ship’ and varying views regarding roles,relationships, and the distributionof benefits. These differences may beamplified through the application ofwell-intentioned U.S. procurementregulations that can be seen as placingthe host-country organization in an in-ferior position.

Case Study 4.17. Insights From a 28-Year-Old Partnership

Washington State University attributes the success of its 28-year partnership with the University ofJordan, in which the two collaborate in the delivery of services to third-party clients (such as the Ministry ofWater and Irrigation in Jordan, or agriculture extension workers and farmers), to several fundamental factors:

n They have a shared strategic approach under which they choose to pursue joint activities only if thereis a clear benefit to both partners. Many times one or the other will choose not to partner for a specific event.Because of their high level of trust and acceptance, this does not pose a problem.

n Both are committed to a diversity of funding sources.

n The partnership pursues a broad thematic scope of work—in this case including agriculture, water,environment, and information technology. In contrast to some partnerships that may have found it helpful tonarrow their scope to ensure sustainability, this partnership welcomes a breadth of scope to help the partnersride out the ebbs and flows of donor funding and client needs.

n They continually maintain and nurture people in both partner organizations who will champion thepartnership. This has to happen at the level of senior administrators (they need to be kept informed and onboard) and at the operational level (where those who do the work—in this case, faculty and students—maintainan interest in promoting and renewing the partnership, seeking new clients and new talent within their organi-zations).

n Both partners are transparent in their mutual budgeting process and in developing implementationplans. Their high level of trust and functionality has allowed them to operate much more efficiently over time,resulting in tremendous reductions in transaction costs.

40


It can be difficult to spot tensionsthat arise from cultural differences.Here are few things to watch for thatcould lead to cross-cultural tension:

n The prospective partners use dif-ferent terminology to describe theirrelationship.

n The American organization has nooverseas experience.

n The partnership has not scheduleda joint retreat or joint planning ses-sion.

n Staff from the American organiza-tion do not speak the partner’s lan-guage.

Having staff exchanges is one wayto strengthen a partnership and get abetter understanding of different workstyles.

Monitoring and Assessing Results 5HE ABILITY to assess the impactof partnering depends (as anydevelopment result does) on two

facets of development programming:performance monitoring and evalua-tion.

Performance monitoring is the ongo-ing process of collecting and analyzingdata to measure the performance of aprogram, process, or activity against ex-pected results. Partners should buildperformance and learning assessmentfrom experience into their everydaywork. By continuously assessing perfor-mance, they will acquire the knowledgeand understanding needed to adjustactivities to optimize achievement ofresults. Lessons learned will contributeto improvements for future programsand strategies.

To monitor performance effec-tively, a defined set of indicators is con-structed to track the aspects ofperformance. Performance indicatorsare used to observe progress and tomeasure actual results against intendedresults. They serve to answer how or ifan activity is progressing toward itsobjective, rather than why or why notprogress is being made. Defining per-formance indicators for intended resultsis a powerful way to begin clarifyingresults statements. Clearly defined in-dicators that can be understood, agreedupon among partners, and monitoredeffectively can play a crucial role in de-fining and refining desired objectives.Therefore, indicators must be identifiedbefore the program is under way.

Evaluation is a relatively struc-tured, analytic effort undertaken peri-

T odically to answer specific questionsabout programs or activities. Evaluationlooks at why results are or are not be-ing achieved, at unintended conse-quences, and at issues of interpretation,relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, im-pact, or sustainability. Evaluation caninclude quantitative methods or quali-tative methods, or both. One type ofmethod is not better than another; bothare derived from multiple disciplinesand can address almost any researchtopic.

Together, monitoring and evalua-tion are used to

n Assess progress in achieving results

n Identify corrective action needed to optimize the achievement of results

n Build capacity of customers and local stakeholders to reflect, analyze, and act

n Ensure financial accountability

n Provide organizational credibility and garner public support

Defining performanceindicators for intended

results is a powerful wayto begin clarifyingresults statements.

42


MeasuringThe EffectivenessOf Partnerships

Partners need to see benefits fromthe relationship and understand waysto improve it. In most cases, partners

do not think about monitoring andevaluation until after they have begunworking together. But it is important tohave systems established from the be-ginning. Partners should agree to de-velop a monitoring and evaluationsystem in their memorandum of under-standing, and the work plan should re-flect anticipated results and indicatorsat the partnership activity level.*

USAID or the intermediary organi-zation can help the partnership con-struct an effective monitoring andevaluation system by

Case Study 5.1. Monitoring Results of the Partnership BetweenSinclair Community College and the Center for Vocational Education

During 1992–97, USAID invested $750,000, with equivalent matching funds (cash and in-kind) from part-ners, to produce a financially sustainable NGO (formerly the Center for Vocational Education, now the Center forWorkforce Development) located in Chennai, India. The center delivers vocational/technical education to ruraland urban poor throughout the country. The initiative also resulted in the successful start-up of the first commu-nity college in the country, establishing the community college movement and contributing to workforce devel-opment in India.

Sinclair Community College (Dayton, Ohio) found that USAID’s monitoring and evaluation methodologywas invaluable in helping the partnership accomplish its goals. The template required by the Agency was “thebest planning tool USAID has” and, though admittedly tedious, resulted in superior outcomes and timeliness.The quarterly report proved an invaluable planning tool, since the template is set up to assess each objectiveagainst each activity, aligning activities with resources needed, the source of funding, and an expected timeline. This quarterly assessment helped the grant managers identify where problems are likely to arise andwhere accomplishments are occurring, and also significantly contributed to a general understanding of thepartnering process. It helped tie financial resources to objectives in a way that facilitated partner communica-tion, giving the parties opportunities to sort out potential problems or issues ahead of time. The reports alsoprovided a useful means of disseminating to a broader audience in India and the United States the accomplish-ments and lessons learned from this pioneering and successful project.

Given the inevitable differences in cultural business practice between India and the United States, thereporting template also clearly defined USAID expectations and helped the partners avoid potential misconcep-tions. Whereas Indian practice tended toward less formal and more relational systems of accountability andplanning, USAID requirements allowed all partners to operate from similar management and accountabilitystructures. If these systems had been a requirement of the U.S. partner only, rather than of the donor, it wouldhave been more difficult to convince the Indian partner of its utility for planning, evaluating, and making judicioususe of donor money.

Source: Cook 1998.

*In the process of developing this guide, the studyteam sought examples of partnership monitoringand evaluation plans. While all organizationsnoted the importance of such plans, noorganization was able to share one. Manyorganizations said they were developingmonitoring and evaluation systems but did notyet have them in place.

43

Monitoring and Assessing Results

n Including funds for training inmonitoring and evaluation.

n Including funds to design and es-tablish a joint evaluation unit.

n Orienting partners to understandand apply the principles andtechniques contained in USAID’sresults-based program process(demystifying the language of theAgency process at the beginningof a partnership exercise is impor-tant).

n Emphasizing the need for partnersto collect baseline data to providea benchmark against which tomeasure the impact of the new re-lationship. What is most crucial,and sometimes overlooked, is toprovide the partners—especiallythe host-country partner—with in-formation from USAID’s point ofview on how the partnership re-lates to Agency results.

USAID staff and partners have notedthat there are few conventional indica-tors to measure intangible results, suchas those often associated with partner-ships. There is a misconception that itis unacceptable to report qualitativeindicators to USAID/Washington.Partnering, as with many other devel-opment activities, often produces intan-gible results, and qualitative indicatorsare necessary to assess them. Accuratejudgments about results depend on thegrowing acceptance of the value andvalidity of qualitative indicators.*

While it is necessary to captureperformance information that relates

directly to the original objectives, it isalso important for partners to recognizethe unintended benefits of the relation-ship. Showing how the partneringprocess has added value in new,unpredicted ways is beneficial to boththe partners involved and to USAID staffwho have to report on the activity.

Participatory Evaluation

While an outsider (one not associ-ated with the program or activity) mayconduct some evaluations to obtain anobjective third-party viewpoint, mostevaluations can benefit from a moreparticipatory approach. Because of thenature of partnership activities, partici-patory evaluations are most useful inbringing together the perspectives of allstakeholders. Participatory evaluationsinvolve the collective examination andassessment of a program or activity bystakeholders. In participatory evalua-tion, activity stakeholders are the prin-cipal actors in the evaluation process,not the objects of it. Involving variousactors in planning, conducting, and in-terpreting evaluation findings ensuresthat data are collected and used in waysthat meet the needs of everyone in-volved.

Participatory evaluation is basedon the philosophical belief that realityis not a “given” to be discovered by adetached scientist; rather reality is “con-structed” by actors and inquirers whoare actively involved in the object of theirinquiry. These actors and inquirers eachhave a unique perspective, and theirvarious perspectives must be taken to-gether to obtain a full and unbiasedunderstanding of the situation at hand.

Evaluation outcomes are not de-scriptions of “the way things are”;rather, they represent meaningful con-structions of actors’ attempts to under-

*See the AIHA Work Plan Guidelines in appendix Efor examples of outcome indicators. See theCatholic Relief Services Partnership ReflectionTool in appendix G for sample indications ofpartnership behavior.

44


stand the situations in which they act.Evaluators, therefore, are not objectiveoutsiders who set out to discover thetruth about a situation, to judge its wor-thiness, and to recommend actions. In-stead, evaluators are facilitators whoassist stakeholders in constructing ashared reality about the project beingevaluated and to make group judg-ments about project accomplishmentsand problems. Evaluators negotiate so-lutions to the major project issues iden-tified by the stakeholders themselves.

A participatory evaluation startswith an issue, not a topic, making thework more dynamic and implying thatdifferences of opinion about a situa-tion—and perhaps even controversy—may exist. The issue is defined by theindividuals involved in a situation (suchas a partnership) who disagree aboutwhat is happening, about whetherthere is success, and about what thefuture course should be. An importantgoal of this type of evaluation is simplyto get the individuals working togethertoward resolving the issue. This involvesgetting people to share their viewsabout the issue and try to reach con-sensus on what to do about it.

The outcome of a participatoryevaluation is jointly planned actionsthat will improve the working relation-

ships among stakeholders and conse-quently the project as a whole. Thisoutcome is quite different from the out-come of a traditional evaluation, inwhich recommendations for improvingthe working relationships may be laidout but no attempt would be made tobring the individuals involved togetherto talk through the situation and reachagreement on how to improve it. In aparticipatory evaluation, action is inher-ent in the evaluation process. Process isa critical component. The evaluator be-comes a process facilitator whose suc-cess is measured not by the validity ofhis judgments but by his ability to enlistproject stakeholders in identifying anddelving into the real issues of the situa-tion.

A participatory evaluation

n Provides stakeholders with theopportunity to reflect on anactivity’s progress and obstacles

n Identifies differences in perspec-tives held by various participantsand analyzes their reasons

n Generates knowledge that stake-holders can use to change activi-ties to maximize results

n Provides stakeholders with thetools to transform their environ-ment

n Builds evaluation capacity instakeholder organizations orgroups

Participatory evaluation uses quali-tative and quantitative research meth-ods that are grounded in an awarenessthat people in varying circumstancesexperience reality differently. The objec-tive is to gather information about theserealities and put it into context. Rapid

Participatory evaluationuses qualitative andquantitative research

methods that are groundedin an awareness that

people in varyingcircumstances experience

reality differently.

45


appraisal is one of the most commontools used in participatory evaluation.

Rapid appraisal methods arequick, low-cost ways to systematicallygather quantitative or qualitative data,or both. These methods fall on a con-tinuum between extremely informalmethods (such as casual conversations)and highly formal methods (such ascensuses or large-scale surveys). Rapidappraisal methods use an approach todata gathering that is guided by twoprinciples: 1) “optimal ignorance,” orthe art of knowing what is not worthknowing, and 2) “proportionate accu-racy,” or avoidance of unnecessary pre-cision.

Rapid appraisal studies can becompleted quickly because the scope ofthe study is limited. The number of sitesvisited, the sample size, the variablesexamined, and the questions asked areminimized to facilitate quick data col-lection and analysis. Rapid appraisalcan gather, analyze, and report relevantinformation to decision-makers withindays or weeks. Because rapid appraisalstudies can be mobilized and completed

quickly, they can provide managers withinformation on an ad hoc basis as un-foreseen problems and uncertaintiesarise during implementation. Rapidappraisal methods are useful to deci-sion-makers who seldom have the op-tion of holding up important decisionswhile awaiting information.

At the same time, information gen-erated by these methods may lack reli-ability and validity because of informalsampling techniques, individual biasesof the evaluators or interviewers, anddifficulties in recording, coding, andanalyzing qualitative data. But theseproblems can be minimized by takingsteps to reduce bias during data collec-tion and analysis, or by using more thanone method to cross-check results (tri-angulation). Also, some degree of rigorcan be obtained through the followingapproaches:

n Purposive sampling. Interviewingindividuals who meet certain cri-teria (e.g., farmers who own lessthan two hectares) rather than us-ing more time-consuming randomsampling techniques.

Case Study 5.2. Monitoring and Evaluation StrategyFor the Institutional Partnerships Project

Managing 22 partnerships in the Institutional Partnerships Project demanded resourcefulness and flex-ibility from International Research and Exchanges Board staff in Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. IREXemployed a multifaceted strategy to ensure that cultural differences and other obstacles did not overly hamperthe partnerships’ efforts. Day-to-day monitoring of the partnerships allowed IREX to provide guidance and assis-tance that was critical to their success. This approach was augmented with a series of technical assistanceworkshops for partners in all three countries, enabling them to network, share ideas on novel approaches, andlearn more effective program implementation, financial tracking, and reporting skills. IREX staff also took painsto ensure that the distances between partners did not hamper effective communication, using the Internet ande-mail for internal communications and to keep in touch with the partners. Finally, to produce objective feed-back from the partnerships, IREX hired sector specialists who conducted independent evaluations. The evalua-tors then shared the results with each of the partnerships and with IREX so that any problems could be resolvedmutually.

46


n Gathering of empirical data. Usingdata collection techniques such askey informant interviews, focusgroup interviews, group inter-views, observation, informal orminisurveys, and so forth.

n Use of comparison groups. For ex-ample, interviewing participantand nonparticipant farmers in aproject.

n Tabulation of data. Quantitativeanalysis or aggregation of the datainto analytic categories (qualitativeanalysis).

Rapid appraisals are particularlyuseful in situations where an under-standing is required of the motivationsand attitudes that may affect behavior,for instance of a development activity’scustomers or partners. They are oftenhighly successful in answering the“why” and “how” questions.

Specific Tools forEvaluating Partnerships

Intersectoral PartneringAssessment Framework—USAID

Recently developed by USAID, theIntersectoral Partnering (ISP) Assess-ment Framework* provides a compre-hensive view of partnering thatrecognizes the multiple dimensions ofa partnership. It highlights three do-mains of intersectoral partnering: thevalues and capacity of the partnership,the process of partnering, and the im-pact of the partnership. While theframework was created for trisectoralpartnerships (between civil society, the

private sector, and government), theconcepts can be applied to partnershipsbetween U.S. and host-country organi-zations.

The three domains in the frame-work are

n Values and capacity. The existenceof the partnership itself is a resultof an ISP. By assessing the valuesand capacity of the partnership’sorganizational capacity, organiza-tional norms, and the external en-vironment, it is possible to assessthe nature and identity of the part-nership itself.

n Process. The process of partneringis also a result. Process is often themost difficult of the three aspectsto assess. The two dimensionsof the process to evaluate are1) mechanisms for communicationand collaboration within the part-nership and 2) mechanisms forcommunication and collaborationoutside the partnership.

n Impact. The impact of intersectoralpartnering can be assessed at threelevels: the impact of the activity onthe common issue addressed by thepartnership; the impact on thepartner members; and the impacton society.

Within each dimension, the frame-work identifies numerous categoriesand a menu of indicators. While theproposed framework is a new concept,the indicators are not; they have beendeveloped and used by USAID and otherorganizations. Not every indicator inthe framework will be relevant for everypartnership, but the menu of indicatorsallows the partners to select those mostappropriate. The framework is bothflexible and fluid and can be used to fit

*ISP Assessment Framework: http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/isp

47


the needs and mission of each partner-ship.

Grass-Roots DevelopmentFramework—Inter-AmericanFoundation

The Inter-American Foundation(IAF) developed one of the first sets ofindicators that measure the results ofpartnerships. The Grass-Roots Develop-ment Framework (GDF)* attempts to cap-ture both the tangible and intangibleresults of grass-roots development. IAFidentified three levels of impact: per-sonal, organizational, and societal.Each level is divided into the tangibleand intangible aspects of the work NGOscarry out at those three levels. These sixpotential areas of impact are portrayedin an inverted cone shape that donorsand NGOs can fill in. At the personallevel, standard of living and personal ca-pacity are assessed. At the organiza-tional level, organizational capability andculture are assessed. Finally, at the soci-etal level, the policy environment andcommunity norms are assessed.

Each of these six sections containsthree to five variables that can be mea-sured by some of IAF’s menu of 45 indi-cators. IAF has also developed a list ofquestions that can be used when gath-ering data to document an indicator.The GDF assists development practitio-ners in measuring the impact of all NGOprojects. Thus, in some situations theframework could apply to partnerships.

Discussion-OrientedOrganizationalSelf-Assessment—Pact

Pact’s Discussion-Oriented Orga-nizational Self-Assessment tool (DOSA)†

is an effort to measure organizationalcapacity in civil society. With assistancefrom USAID’s Office of Private and Vol-

untary Cooperation and private volun-tary organization colleagues, Pact de-veloped this tool to assist PVOs instrengthening their organizational ca-pacity. The tool has been adapted toassess organizational capacity of smallerNGOs in developing countries and part-nerships, as well. Specifically, DOSA mea-sures organizational capacities andconsensus levels in six critical areas andassesses the impact of these activitiesover time on organizational capacity(known as benchmarking). Currently,the tool serves not only to assess orga-nizational capacity, but also as a spring-board for organizational change. Thesix areas are

n Organizational learning, includingteamwork and information shar-ing

n Strategic management, includingplanning, governance, mission,and partnering

n Service delivery, including field-based program practices and sus-tainability issues

n Financial resource management,including budgeting, forecasting,and cash management

n Human resource management, in-cluding staff training, supervision,and personnel practices

n External relations, including con-stituency development, fund-rais-ing, and communications

DOSA and similar organizationalcapacity tools developed by Pact use

*The Grass-Roots Development Framework:http://www.iaf.gov/results/menu01.htm†DOSA: http://www.edc.org/INT/CapDev/dosapage.htm

48


self-assessment techniques through fa-cilitated discussion. The DOSA tool mea-sures organizational capacity byforming an internal assessment team(usually made up of the organization’sstaff) to discuss a series of questions(outlined in the tool). Each individualscores the discussion questions. Pact hasadapted this same methodology for usewith individual organizations. Themethodology has been applied to mea-sure the effectiveness of a partnership.

Continuing Evaluation Panel—American InternationalHealth Alliance

The American International HealthAlliance (AIHA) is in the process of im-proving its monitoring and evaluationprocess through a continuing evalua-tion panel, or CEP.* The panel will becharged with conducting the midtermevaluation, which includes 1) develop-ing an evaluation strategy, 2) conduct-ing the evaluation through site visits andother methods, 3) analyzing data, 4)preparing reports, and 5) sharing find-ings and recommendations with AIHAand USAID. The CEP will consist of eightindividuals, all of whom will be inde-pendent consultants or others not

directly associated with the partnershipsprogram. The CEP will be multi-disciplinary. The panel will serve as aninformed but objective group of re-searchers charged with assessing cer-tain aspects of progress towardprogram goals and objectives at its mid-point. This panel will be convened wellbefore the midterm evaluation.

In comparing the advantages ofthe CEP approach to evaluation withthose of the standard approach, the fol-lowing benefits were identified:

n Early involvement of panel members.In addition to the benefit to theevaluators of having sufficient timeto become knowledgeable aboutthe program, this approach allowsAIHA to have sufficient time to re-cruit quality evaluators.

n Broad exposure to the project and theoverall evaluation. What gets mea-sured gets done. The CEP createsan opportunity to measure themore qualitative and process-re-lated aspects of the partnerships,such as collaboration and partici-pation, that were not captured inpast evaluations.

n Team approach to conducting theevaluation. The benefits of buildinga team over time (as opposed toconvening a group just before thesite visit) result in a more collabo-rative and cohesive approach tothe evaluation.

n Ongoing education of panel membersabout the project and its evaluation.The CEP stands ready to under-stand the important issues while,because of careful management,not being co-opted. The evaluatorsare thus able to use the evaluationas a learning experience rather

*Continuing Evaluation Panel: http://www.aiha.com/english/m&e/cep.htm

What gets measuredgets done. The continuing

evaluation panel creates anopportunity to measure the

more qualitative andprocess-related aspects ofthe partnerships that were

not captured inpast evaluations.

49


than a punitive experience for allinvolved.

The only drawback associated withthe use of the CEP is that it represents amore resource-intensive approach toevaluation than USAID’s standard ap-proach. Even so, AIHA is committed tousing the CEP and investing the appro-priate level of resources and time to sup-port the mechanism. Over the short term

the CEP may prove more costly than thestandard approach. But over the longterm the depth and breadth of the evalu-ation findings arising from the synergyof quantitative and qualitative data (inaddition to the level of rigor and con-sistency provided by a knowledgeableand experienced evaluation team) willrender the CEP no more costly, if not lessexpensive, than the standard approach.

A

Sustaining the Partnership

S DEFINED IN CHAPTER 1, a sus-tainable partnership is one thathas demonstrated an organiza-

tional and financial capacity to continuethe activities and benefits supported bythe partnership without critical relianceon USAID funds. Sustainability can be as-sessed by examining financial, organi-zational, and programmatic factors.

If the impact of the partnership issustainable, then the partnership can beconsidered a success. This reflects pro-

grammatic sustainability. Having thepartnership itself be sustainable is aseparate issue. A sustained partnershipis one in which the relationship pro-vides ongoing benefits to both part-ners—a condition that requires bothfinancial and organizational sustainabil-ity. Table 6.1 describes possible ways inwhich partnerships are successful andsustainable.

In addition, the ongoing personalconnections that come from partnering

Table 6.1. Sustainability of Partnerships

New entity

Host-countrypartner capacitystrengthened

U.S. partnercapacitystrengthened

a) new entityformedb) new programformed

Project activityincreased

New programdeveloped

Objective ofPartnership

Outcome ofPartnership

Creation of a new entity

U.S. partner assists instrengthening capacityof host-country partner

Host-country partnerassists in strengtheningcapacity of U.S. partner

Technical assistanceprovided by U.S. partnerto host-country partner

Increased project activity

Development of newprogram

New entity can survivewithout the partnership

Host-country partner nolonger needs assistancefrom U.S. partner

U.S. partner no longerneeds assistance fromhost-country partner

a) new entity can survivewithout the partnershipb) new program continueswithout the partnership

Project activity continues,regardless of partnership

New program can survivewithout the partnership

Relationship betweenpartners continues tocreate more new entities

Relationship betweenpartners continues withnew objectives

Relationship betweenpartners continues withnew objectives

a) partnership createsmore new entitiesb) partnership createsmore new programs

Partnership continues newproject activity through self-financing or from new donors

Partnership continues newprogram through self-financing or from new donors

Success is Sustainability is

6

52


Case Study 6.1. New Partnerships Develop From Old Ones

Thanks to the efforts of developing partnerships under the USAID Reaching out with Education to Adults inDevelopment (READ) project, World Education continued a partnership with the Urban Trust of Namibia (UTN)that concentrates primarily on governance and civil society issues while working with local government minis-tries and city councils. The strong working relationship World Education had with UTN during the READ projectcontributed to the current World Education–UTN partnership, which is funded by the Ford Foundation andUNICEF. The program, known as the SESCIT project, is a school governance program in Namibia’s Oshakatiregion. Its primary goal is to engage parents in their children’s education through the establishment of activeschool boards.

A second spinoff partnership having its genesis in READ is the World Education–Rossing Foundationpartnership. Rossing is one of the oldest, most thoroughly established Namibian nongovernmental organi-zations with a broad portfolio of activities. Under READ, Rossing was an enthusiastic participant in its Trainingof Trainers (TOT) program. Rossing sent several of its trainers to be trained by READ and at the end of the READproject took over the TOT program. Rossing employed numerous World Education–trained instructors. It nowconducts successful TOTs of its own. NGO trainers from all over southern Africa attend the Rossing TOT course.The program not only continues the capacity-building work begun by READ but also generates revenue forRossing.

*See appendix F for a sample sustainability plan.

are an important benefit that is some-times lost in the big picture. Collegialrelationships formed during the courseof a partnership may endure far longerthan the program activities or the insti-tutional partnership. These relation-ships may give rise to new partnershipsmany years later.

A mature and longstanding part-nership is usually more stable and prob-ably more effective than a newrelationship. The continuation of a re-

lationship often indicates that the part-ners place a value on the association.However, a long-term relationship is notnecessarily synonymous with an effec-tive relationship. At the same time, ashort-term partnership is not necessar-ily an ineffective partnership. Just as itis healthy for organizations to evolveand go out of business, so is it healthyfor partnerships to end when they nolonger serve a useful purpose.

It is important for all the partiesinvolved to agree on what sustainabil-ity means for their particular partner-ship. Discussing sustainability issuesfrom the beginning makes it more likelythat the partnership will last. * Oneshould ask whether an emerging part-nership is likely to be sustainable be-yond the termination of USAID supportand how Agency assistance can bestructured to increase the likelihood ofsustainability.

Issues to keep in mind when think-ing about sustainability:

Collegial relationshipsformed during the

course of a partnershipmay endure far longer thanthe program activities or the

institutional partnership.

53


Case Study 6.2. From Partnership to Autonomous Organization: The PRIP Trust

The Private Rural Initiative Project (PRIP) Trust in Bangladesh is a well-documented example of a success-ful but difficult process of growth and independence from project to subsidiary to partnership to autonomy. ThePRIP Trust began in 1988 as a capacity-building project for local NGOs funded by USAID and managed by Pact.In 1993 a decision was made to establish the trust as an autonomous national organization. Over the next fiveyears the staffs of Pact and the PRIP Trust, with USAID and other donor support, crafted a plan for full indepen-dence that included recruitment and training of a board of directors, hiring of local staff, identification of alterna-tive funding sources, and a range of efforts to launch a new organization. The strong support and active role ofthe USAID mission director was particularly important to establishing the trust.

Lessons learned include the following:

n The maturation process usually takes quite a while.

n It is important to deliberately engineer a deep sense of institutional ownership.

n A strong and credible local board of directors is invaluable.

n A clear and unifying organizational mission is critical, particularly when different donors arerecommending their own priorities.

The PRIP story offers useful insight into the difficulties an emerging NGO faces when working with multipledonors in an attempt to diversify its revenue base. These include locating discretionary resources to covermanagement costs, finding multiyear funds that will sustain the organization during the growth and maturationperiod, recognizing the considerable time and cost of educating donors, and working with multiple donors withdifferent systems, procedures, and funding cycles.

n The full cost of a partnership to theparticipating groups is muchhigher than the direct financialcost because of the time and en-ergy that staff and managementmust devote to nurturing andbuilding the relationship. Simplybecause two groups can raise thefunds needed to finance the part-nership does not mean it will con-tinue.

n Ongoing partnerships that existedbefore their relationship withUSAID may be less dependent onAgency support and better able toachieve sustainability than part-nerships created in part (or inwhole) to tap donor funding.

n Some types of organizations mayfind it easier than others to createsustainable partnerships. For ex-ample, groups that engage in rev-enue-generating activities cansustain joint projects from raisedincome. Groups such as advocacyorganizations, for which the addedcost of collaboration is minimal, arebetter able to support partnershipsthan, for example, service organi-zations for which the incrementalcost of the partnership is high.

n A partnership’s positive or nega-tive impact on overall fund-raisingactivity may depend on the natureand composition of current sup-port. In general, dissimilarity in the

54


Table 6.2. Organizational Sustainability

Key Factor Related toOrganizational Stability

Result and Benefit

1. Strong and concisemission statement andstrong long-range plan

2. Written partnershipagreement

3. Systems for monitoringand evaluation

4. System for disputeresolution

5. Partnerships with otherorganizations

Consequences,If Absent or Weak

Indicates that the partnership isoff to the right start to guide itsactivities

Indicates partners haveaddressed issues/differences

Provides objective source ofinformation to gauge impact ofpartnership to make neededadjustments

Indicates serious intent andprovides for resolving differences

Indicates prior experience;reference point for resolution ofdifficulties

Difficult to carry out a set of activitiesthat will lead to the intended result

Differences with respect to goals orpartnership

Lack of feedback that could indicatewhen adjustments are needed;disagreement on value of relationship

Unresolved differences that becomeincreasingly problematic

Longer learning period

list of donors suggests a valuableopportunity for collaboration.Where the list is the same, orwhere both groups appeal to a lim-ited donor group (such as is thecase with single-issue NGOs), thepartners may find that the rela-tionship hurts their fund-raisingpotential.

Indications ofOrganizationalSustainability

The factors discussed in this chap-ter are helpful in determining whetherthe partnership is likely to be sustain-able. When there is a shared vision, acommon culture, similar functions, com-patible systems, and organizationalmaturity, the organizational aspect ofthe partnership is likely to be strong.Under these conditions, the partners

share a common language, basic agree-ment on goals and priorities, and a setof compatible values that will be help-ful when differences arise.

In addition to these core principles,there are five specific characteristics ofan emerging partnership that are oftencorrelated with organizational sustain-ability (see table 6.2). While these fac-tors are not essential, they may indicatewhether a relationship is sustainableover the long term.

Indications ofFinancial Sustainability

With regard to financial sustain-ability, consider the following: To whatextent is the partnership capable of gener-ating a stream of additional income equalto or greater than the cost of sustainingthe relationship?

55


If the partnership is not generat-ing extra income, then the sustainabil-ity plan should propose other venuesfor support. USAID should assist in iden-tifying various options. Although a con-clusive answer to the question of futurefinancial self-sufficiency is unlikely,some characteristics of the partnershipmay indicate whether the relationshipwill be financially sustainable (see box6.1).

There are a host of things (and sev-eral of them are mentioned below) thatUSAID, or the intermediary, can do to in-crease the likelihood that the future re-lationship will be financially sustainable.Some things can be done early in theplanning stage of the relationship, oth-ers when it is operational:

n Promote the partnership to otherdonors.

n Include funds for organizationaldevelopment.

n Provide training in organizationaldevelopment.

n Make a multiyear commitment ofUSAID funds.

n Ensure that the partners comparetheir lists of supporters.

n Ask the U.S. partner for amultiyear commitment to the rela-tionship.

n Encourage the partners to conducta cost analysis of the relationship.

n Require a sustainability plan in thegrant application and ask for peri-odic updates.

Box 6.1. Financial Sustainability

Indications that a partnership may become financially sustainable:

n The partners are coordinating their fund-raising efforts.

n The partners have developed a long-range financial plan.

n The partners implement activities that have a potential to generate revenue.

n The partners have a diversified funding base and are not dependent on USAID.

n The partners have a complementary donor profile—that is, there is a minimum of overlap andduplication.

n The local organization is entrepreneurial and imaginative in its fund-raising strategy.

n The partners recognize the full cost of the relationship—including its indirect managerial and staff costs.

n The partnership agreement explicitly recognizes the central importance of financial sustainability, andthe parties have taken concrete steps to address financial sustainability.

n The local organization has adequate internal control, knows the cost of doing business, has effectiveaccounting and financial systems, and can distinguish between fixed and variable costs.

56


Case Study 6.3. Sustainability Grants

The New Independent States Health Partnerships program has sustainability grants to assist hospitalpartnerships that have existed for two or more years and require additional—but substantially reduced andtime-limited—support to complete activities well under way, to disseminate or replicate partnership experi-ence, or to develop a viable sustainability plan whereby important aspects of the partnership can continuewithout further USAID support. These sustainability grants are for one to two years, funded at $50,000 to$100,000 each year.

n Ensure that the two organizationsunderstand time constraints andthe necessity of finding alternativesources of funding.

n Provide only partial funding to en-courage the partners to tap addi-tional sources of support.

n Require significant cost-sharingand increase the cost-sharing per-centage during the life of the grant.

n Include adequate funds for head-quarters overhead—or make surethe U.S. partner includes adequatefunds.

Appendixes

Table 1.1Types of AmericanAnd Host-CountryOrganization Partnerships

American InternationalHealth AllianceHealth Partnerships Programhttp://www.aiha.com

From Albania to Kyrgyzstan, theAmerican International Health Allianceestablishes and manages partnershipsand cross-partnership programs—founded on volunteerism and commu-nity-based programs—to improve thehealth care of individuals in the newindependent states of the former SovietUnion and in central and eastern Eu-rope.

United States Energy AssociationEnergy IndustryPartnership Programhttp://www.usea.org

The United States Energy Associa-tion has organized more than 75cooperative partnerships between org-anizations in the United States andcounterparts in developing and transi-tional countries. Through these partner-ships, U.S. organizations have conveyedAmerican experience and business/regulatory practices to other nations.These relationships have been ap-plauded collectively as one of the mostsuccessful foreign assistance programsever created. Activities have been con-ducted in Africa, Asia, central and east-

Case Studies and Web Sites

ern Europe, Latin America, and thepost-Soviet states. Areas of emphasishave included natural gas distribution;petroleum exploration, production, andtransportation; and electric power pro-duction, transmission, distribution, anduse.

Resource Cities Programhttp://icma.org/go.cfm?cid=1&gid=3&sid=229

The International City/CountyManagement Association, with its mem-bership of more than 8,500 local gov-ernment professionals, has providedmanagement and strategic guidance forthe Resource Cities Program. Througha cooperative agreement, ICMA facili-tates the partnering of U.S. municipalofficials or associations, or both, withforeign city officials to address local gov-ernance issues through technical trans-fers of expertise. The program grewrapidly from 6 partnerships in 1997 tomore than 30 in 2000 among cities,counties, and other municipal supportorganizations.

University DevelopmentLinkages Programhttp://www.usaid.gov/educ_training/ udlp.htm

The University Development Link-ages Program (UDLP) promotes and sup-ports long-term collaboration betweenU.S. colleges and universities anddeveloping-country institutions ofhigher education to

n Further the internationalizationobjectives of U.S. universities andcolleges

AAppendix

All uniform resource locaters (Web addresses)were current as this document went to press.

A2


n Strengthen developing-country in-stitutions to meet the developmentneeds of their societies more effec-tively

UDLP helps build long-term, mutu-ally beneficial relationships betweenAmerican and developing-countryhigher education institutions. USAIDfunding is considered seed money orventure capital that is provided for upto five years and requires up to 25 per-cent matching funds. Partnership ini-tiatives such as the UDLP are an efficientand effective mechanism for elicitinghigher education participation in devel-opment.

Association Liaison OfficeFor University CooperationIn Developmenthttp://www.aascu.org/alo

The Association Liaison Office forUniversity Cooperation in Develop-ment (ALO), established in 1992, coor-dinates the efforts of the United States’six major higher education associationsto build their partnership with USAIDand help their member institutions planand implement development programswith colleges and universities abroad.Uniquely situated to broaden anddeepen the involvement of the Ameri-can higher education community inpartnerships for global development,ALO mobilizes the community’s re-sources toward this end.

Fountain House and Human Soulhttp://www.fountainhouse.org

The purpose of the partnershipbetween Fountain House in the UnitedStates and Human Soul in Russia is tostrengthen the Russian Network ofClubhouses by enhancing their relationswith local authorities, sponsors, and thepsychiatric community and to promote

social services that support people withmental health problems. A “clubhouse”is a form of psychiatric rehabilitation,providing a place where people withsevere and persistent mental illness aregiven opportunities and the necessarysupport to live and work independentlyin the community. The major collabo-ration within the partnership has in-volved the adaptation and transfer ofthe MEMPHIS software program to Hu-man Soul House. The program was de-veloped by Fountain House and is usedas a main tool to collect statistical dataon the efficiency of clubhouse work. Be-yond the ongoing software training, theproject is working to provide assistancefor Russian regional representativeswho express an interest in setting upclubhouse programs in their areas.

Pact and Ethos

http://www.pactworld.org

Pact’s mission is to contribute tothe growth of civil society—organi-zations in which citizens acting to-gether can express their interests,exchange information, strive for mutualgoals, and influence government. Theyaccomplish this by helping strengthenthe community-targeted nonprofit sec-tor worldwide and by working withstrategic partners to identify and imple-ment participatory developmentmechanisms at the community level thatpromote economic, social, and environ-mental justice.

http://www.ethos.org.br*

*This site is primarily in Portuguese. To read anEnglish translation of the Ethos Institute’s mission,go to its home page and click on Mapa do Site;then, under the item Missão, click on Inglês. Toread an English translation of the institute’s vision,go to the home page, click on Mapa do Site; then,under the item Visão, click on Inglês.

A3


The Ethos Institute of Business andSocial Responsibility is an association ofcompanies of any size and sector inter-ested in developing their activities in asocially responsible manner, in a per-manent process of evaluation and im-provement. Ethos’s mission is to spreadbusiness social responsibility by helpingbusinesses

n Understand and incorporate in aprogressive way the concept of so-cially responsible business behav-ior

n Implement policies and practicesthat meet high ethical criteria, con-tributing to the achievement oflong-term, sustainable economicsuccess

n Take on their responsibilities withrespect to all those affected by theiractivities

n Show their shareholders the rel-evance of socially responsible be-havior to their long-term return oninvestment

n Identify novel and effective waysof acting in partnership with com-munities in the construction of acommon welfare

n Prosper while contributing to so-cially, economically, and environ-mentally sustainable development

United States–AsiaEnvironmental Programhttp://www.usaep.org

The United States–Asia Environ-mental Partnership is a public–privateinitiative that promotes environmen-tally sustainable development in Asia.US–AEP is jointly implemented by sev-eral U.S. government agencies, under

USAID’s leadership. The partnershipembodies a new model of cooperativedevelopment, one that encouragesU.S.–Asian partnerships. With the par-ticipation of a wide range of partners—governments, NGOs, academia, and theprivate sector—US–AEP has become aflexible, responsive vehicle for deliver-ing timely answers to environmentalquestions. It currently works with gov-ernments and industries in 11 targeteconomies: Hong Kong, India, Indone-sia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines,Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thai-land, and Vietnam.

EcoLinks Programhttp://www.ecolinks.org

EcoLinks seeks practical market-based solutions to industrial and urbanenvironmental problems in central andeastern Europe and the new indepen-dent states of the former Soviet Union(at USAID this region is referred to as Eu-rope and Eurasia, or E&E). The pro-gram promotes partnerships by linkingbusinesses, local governments, and as-sociations from the E&E region withU.S. businesses and other organizations.In working with their U.S. (or regional)partners, organizations in the region arebetter able to identify and remedyenvironmental problems by learningfrom their partners how to adapt thebest environmental management prac-tices and technologies available. Asthese partnerships mature, trade andinvestment in environmental goods andservices will increase.

A4


Case Study 2.1Benefits to U.S. Partners

Association Liaison OfficeFor University CooperationIn Development Programhttp://www.aascu.org/alo

See notes for table 1.1 (page A1).

Howard University SchoolOf Medicine and UniversityOf the Transkei

See the portable document formatat http://www.aascu.org/alo/IP/1998/1998A46.pdf.

Metropolitan Community CollegeAnd Universidad CentroamericanaJosé Simeón Cañas HighlineCommunity College andPolytechnic of Namibia

See the portable document formatat http://www.aascu.org/alo/IP/1999/hcc.pdf.

Case Study 3.1Intermediary asPartnership Broker

American InternationalHealth Alliancehttp://www.aiha.com

See notes for table 1.1.

Case Study 3.2Funding theHost-Country Partner

EcoLinkshttp://www.ecolinks.org


Case Study 3.3Capturing the ‘True’Value of Cost-Sharing

Association LiaisonOffice/Maricopa CommunityColleges and UniversidadVeracruzanahttp://www.aascu.org/alo/IP/proposals.htmhttp://www.maricopa.edu

The purpose of the partnershipbetween Maricopa Community Col-leges and the Universidad Veracruzanais to strengthen public health educationand to promote the competitiveness andenvironmental protection practices ofbusinesses.

Case Study 3.4Importance of Leadership

Dubna/La Crosse Partnershiphttp://www.aiha.com/english/partners/dublac.htm

AIHA’s Medical Partnership Pro-gram between the cities of La Crosse,Wisconsin, and Dubna, in Russia,funded under a cooperative agreementwith USAID, has existed since December1992. Hospital No. 9, Central City Hos-pital, and the Bolshaya Volga Hospital(which houses the Diabetes School andthe Children’s Rehabilitation Center)are the Russian partners. LutheranHealth System, Franciscan Health Sys-tem, Gundersen Clinic, Skemp Clinic,and the La Crosse Visiting Nurses As-sociation represent the American sideof the program. The general areas ofpartnership emphasis are orthotics, car-diac rehabilitation, diabetes education,renal dialysis, women’s health, alcoholrehabilitation and education, and homecare and hospice programs.

A5


Case Study 4.1Exploring PartnershipPossibilities

United States–AsiaEnvironmental Programhttp://www.usaep.org


Case Study 4.2The Use of ProgramDevelopment andLearning Funds

Automated Directives System201.3.3.6: Program Developmentand Learning Objectiveshttp://www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads/200

Bureaus may create one or moreprogram development and learning(PD&L) objectives to finance programdevelopment costs and program assess-ments and learning efforts. The num-ber of PD&L objectives per bureau shouldbe managed to minimize congressionalnotification and other managementburdens. Operating units and bureauoffices that need to undertake analyti-cal or evaluative work may create andfund such activities under their bureauPD&L objective (there is no requirementto establish an operating unit or office-level PD&L objective to receive bureauPD&L funding). The requesting unitmanages the specific activity.

Case Study 4.3Shared ExperiencesAnd Future Partnerships

Democracy Networkhttp://www.ngonet.org/dnp.htm

The Democracy Network(DemNet) is a major U.S. government–sponsored initiative to support thedevelopment of indigenous nongovern-mental organizations in central andeastern Europe (CEE). The three-yearprogram, begun in 1995, provides anarray of financial, training, legal, andnetworking support to strengthen CEE’spublic policy–oriented NGOs active infour areas: democratization, economicdevelopment, social sector restructur-ing, and environmental protection. Sup-port for NGO development is deliveredthrough nine individual country pro-grams (covering 11 countries) and tworegional programs. All Democracy Net-work programs are administered byU.S. organizations. ORT/USAID AlbaniaDemNet organized a February 2000conference, CEE/NIS NGO Shared Expe-riences and Future Partnerships. Free-dom House provided a travel grant tosupport participants from Yugoslaviaand other Balkan countries.

Case Study 4.4U.S. Private VoluntaryOrganization Relations WithNamibian NongovernmentalOrganizations

World Educationhttp://www.worlded.org

World Education is a nonprofit or-ganization dedicated to improving thelives of the poor through economic andsocial development programs. It pro-

A6


vides training and technical assistancein nonformal education for adults andchildren, with special emphases on lit-eracy, income generation, small-enter-prise development, education for theworkplace, environmental education,reproductive health, HIV/AIDS educa-tion, refugee orientation, and maternaland child health. Projects are designedto contribute to individual growth andto community and national develop-ment.

Reaching Out WithEducation to AdultsIn Development (READ) Projecthttp://www.worlded.org/projects/africa.htm#africa

Through the Reaching out withEducation to Adults in DevelopmentProject, better known as READ, WorldEducation offered training and finan-cial assistance to a wide spectrum ofNamibian NGOs that provide nonformaleducation and skills training to disad-vantaged adults throughout Namibia.The READ project offered training in par-ticipatory education and developmenttechniques (“training of trainers”) tostaff of NGOs providing literacy, income-generation, and HIV/AIDS education.The institution-strengthening emphasisincorporated financial assistance forprogram or staff expansion as well asfor targeted training in planning, man-agement, and other organizationaldevelopment skills. The five-year projectwas completed in 1998.

Case Study 4.5Collaboration in theNew Independent States

Initiative for Social ActionAnd Renewal in Eurasiahttp://www.isar.org

The Initiative for Social Action andRenewal in Eurasia is a nonprofit or-ganization with offices in Washingtonand seven cities in the former SovietUnion. Its mission is to promote citizenparticipation and development of thenongovernmental sector in the post-Soviet states by supporting citizen ac-tivists and grass-roots NGOs in their ef-forts to create just and sustainablesocieties.

Case Study 4.6Finding Common Ground

Pacthttp://www.pactworld.org


Ethoshttp://www.ethos.org.br


Case Study 4.7Partnerships BetweenNongovernmental andCommercial Organizations

CorComhttp://www.corcom.org

CorCom creates links betweenbusinesses and nonprofits. It helpsnonprofits become more effective intheir work and more attractive to busi-nesses as partners in joint endeavors

A7


and to find business partners that canhelp achieve social objectives. CorComhelps businesses be more strategic intheir community investments by link-ing with community development pro-fessionals and expanding into emergingmarkets through partnerships withnonprofits already in those areas.

Case Study 4.8Overcoming DifferencesIn Organizational Culture

The Institute forDevelopment Researchhttp://www.jsi.com/idr

PLAN/BIMAS is one of six case stud-ies sponsored by USAID/Bureau for Hu-manitarian Response/Office of PrivateVoluntary Cooperation and imple-mented by the Institute for DevelopmentResearch that concerns itself with thedynamics between Northern and South-ern institutions. Since 1992, IDR hashelped nongovernmental organizationsidentify and work through the chal-lenges of cooperation. Through actionresearch and consulting to PVO–NGOpartnerships, IDR has built new knowl-edge about issues, structures, and dy-namics that hamper partnershipeffectiveness and has developed exper-tise in assisting partnership improve-ment efforts. It has expanded the scopeof its partnership research and practiceto 1) include the role of donor policyand the impact of Northern organiza-tion structures and 2) address questionsabout the impact of partnership-baseddevelopment strategies.

Case Study 4.9Choosing the MostCost-Effective Partner

Freedom From Hungerhttp://www.freedomfromhunger.org

Freedom From Hunger (FFH)brings inventive and sustainable self-help solutions to the fight againstchronic hunger and poverty. Togetherwith local partners, it equips familieswith resources they need to build fu-tures of health, hope, and dignity. FFHhas more than 50 years of experiencedeveloping self-help solutions to theproblem of chronic hunger. To date, itsCredit With Education strategy hasempowered more than 100,000 familiesto break the cycle of hunger that hasgripped them for generations.

Case Study 4.10Appreciative Inquiry ModelFor Building Partnerships

Global Excellence inManagement Initiativehttp://www.geminitiative.org

Global Excellence in Management(GEM) is a university-based program oflearning and education that works inpartnership with American PVOs andinternational NGOs to conduct capacity-building programs that support newmodels of institutional excellence. GEMis known for programs that are origi-nal and intellectually alive; for its sig-nature themes of appreciative inquiry,global partnership, and knowledge gen-eration; for its human-centered ap-proach that responds to the advancedlearning agendas of PVO and NGO lead-ership teams; and for capacity-buildingwork that is collaboratively constructedfor enduring results. Participation in

A8


GEM programs enables organizations todiscover and heighten their capacitiesto learn, change, and innovate.

Case Study 4.11Mutual AccountabilityReflected in FormalAgreements


See notes for case study 4.8.

Case Study 4.12U.S.–RussianPartnerships

USAID/Russiahttp://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cp2000/eni/russia.html

USAID’s program is part of the Part-nership for Freedom and the compan-ion Regional Investment Initiative,which target funds to the regions awayfrom Moscow and emphasize the cre-ation and strengthening of sustainablepartnerships between U.S. and Russianorganizations in all sectors.

Case Study 4.13KatalysisPartnership Model

Katalysishttp://www.katalysis.org

Founded in 1984, Katalysis helpedpioneer the microcredit model of eco-nomic development: the BootstrapBanking model that the organizationstill practices today. Instead of offeringhandouts that increase dependency and

yield short-term results, Katalysis nur-tures sustainable self-help enterprises.It provides microloans and training tobusinesspeople who already have smallenterprises but lack the resources tomake them profitable and sustainable.Such assistance builds self-sufficiencyand self-confidence. Katalysis works inpartnership with eight community-based organizations that bring Boot-strap Banking to those who need itmost: the rural poor of El Salvador,Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

Case Study 4.14Changing Relationships:From Project OfficeTo Partner

World Learning andThe Development Centerhttp://www.worldlearning.org/pidt/shared.html

In 1996, World Learning and USAIDagreed to take steps to transform SHARED(formerly Services for Health, Agricul-ture, Rural, and Enterprise Develop-ment) into a local independent NGO bythe project’s conclusion in 2000. As aresult of strategic planning sessions andinformational networking, the localproject management unit has estab-lished the Development Center, a non-profit organization that has developedmission, case, and capability statementsfor indigenous NGOs. The DevelopmentCenter became a fully functioningMalawian NGO in July 1999 and has al-ready attracted the attention of donorssuch as the United Nations and theEuropean Union.

A9


Case Study 4.15CommunicatingWith Partners

Freedom From Hungerhttp://www.freedomfromhunger.org


Case Study 4.16Catholic ReliefServices/Ethiopia andThe Nazareth Children’sCenter and IntegratedDevelopment

Catholic Relief Services/EthiopiaAnd the Nazareth Children’sCenter and Integrated Developmenthttp://www.catholicrelief.org

The mission of Catholic Relief Ser-vices Ethiopia (CRS/Ethiopia) is to alle-viate human suffering and promotesocial and economic justice while fos-tering human dignity. This mission de-rives its guiding principles from thefundamental precepts of Catholic socialteachings. CRS/Ethiopia’s strategic goalis to ensure that vulnerable populationsare food secure. CRS/Ethiopia supportsactivities in health, emergency, generalassistance, enterprise development, andagriculture/natural resource manage-ment.


The Nazareth Children’s Centerand Integrated Development case is oneof six case studies sponsored by USAID/Bureau for Humanitarian Response/Office of Private Voluntary Cooperationand implemented by the Institute for

Development Research that concernthemselves with the dynamics betweenNorthern and Southern institutions.

Case Study 4.17Insights FromA 28-Year-Old Partnership

Washington State UniversityAnd the University of Jordanhttp://www.ip.wsu.edu/Partners.htm

The project is called Improving theManagement of Water & Natural Re-sources in Jordan and Washington Statethrough Cooperation in Applied Re-search, Technology Transfer, andGraduate Education. Its purpose is tostrengthen and further enhance educa-tion, research, and outreach perfor-mance and capacity of the Universityof Jordan (UOJ) and Washington StateUniversity (WSU) in water and theenvironment, through planning andmanaging sustainable collaborative pro-grams and activities. The UOJ Water andEnvironment Research and Study Cen-ter provided leadership at UOJ for theprogram. Three Colleges at WSU—Ag-riculture and Home Economics, Engi-neering and Architecture, andSciences—led the WSU efforts.

A10


Case Study 5.1Monitoring Results ofThe Partnership BetweenSinclair Community CollegeAnd the Center forVocational Education

A Community College Linkage toVocational/Technical Training andEducation Programs in Chennai, inIndia: A Multiple Partnershiphttp://ccid.kirkwood.cc.ia.us/exemp/cook.htm

The primary goal of the interna-tional partnership was for Americancommunity colleges to provide opera-tional, logistical, and programmaticsupport to the Center for VocationalEducation (CVE) so that it becomes aproactive, self-sufficient, prototype in-stitution for the delivery of vocational/technical education in India. The tar-get population was women, slum dwell-ers, people with limited opportunitiesfor skills training, adult early schoolleavers, and rural and urban poor. Thepartnership also provided 51 field ex-periences for American community col-lege faculty and administrators toimplement the CVE’s short-term train-ing programs. American communitycolleges represented in this work wereSinclair Community College in Dayton,Ohio (the lead institution), Eastern IowaCommunity College District (the part-ner institution), Community Collegesfor International Development,Kirkwood Community College,Muscatine Community College, Spo-kane Community College, RichlandCommunity College, Tri-County Tech-nical College, College of DuPage, andSt. Louis Community College.

East Meets West: Web SupportOf a U.S.–India VocationalTraining Projecthttp://www.isoc.org/inet97/pro-ceedings/D4/D4_3.HTM

This paper explains how a five-year project that started with no expec-tation of using the Internet has adjustedto take advantage of World Wide Webcapabilities. The project connectsAmerican community colleges with theCenter for Vocational Education. It isfunded by a USAID grant and includespartnerships with education, commu-nity, and business/industry groupsaround the world. The project has ex-ceeded expectations and resulted in theAugust 1996 inauguration of MadrasCommunity College. The Internet playsa vital role in the sustainability of thismultifaceted U.S.–India relationship.

Case Study 5.2Monitoring andEvaluation StrategyFor the InstitutionalPartnerships Project

International ResearchAnd Exchanges Boardhttp://www.irex.orghttp://www.irex.org/pastprograms/ipp/index.htm

The International Research andExchanges Board (IREX) has managedthe Institutional Partnerships Projectsince October 1994, when it signedsubagreements launching the project’s22 two-year partnerships in five tech-nical sectors between American univer-sities and nongovernmental institutionsand their counterpart institutions inRussia and Ukraine. The aim of the proj-ect is to help educational institutions,professional associations, and trade org-

A11


anizations in the two eastern Europeancountries build the capacity to provideprofessional training and education andto improve their member services.

Case Study 6.1New PartnershipsDevelop From Old Ones

World Educationhttp://www.worlded.org


Case Study 6.2From Partnership toAutonomous Organization:The PRIP Trust

The PRIP Trusthttp://www.geminitiative.org/aromafinal.html

As the crowning achievement ofthe Private Rural Initiative Project (PRIP),Pact spun off management to an en-tirely separate and newly established,legally registered Bangladeshi organiza-tion called the PRIP Trust. The trust is inthe process of diversifying its fundingpool and has an independent board ofdirectors and a distinct operationalmandate provided by the Bangladeshinonprofit community. See On Becominga Local NGO: PRIP’s Metamorphosis—AnInterview with Aroma Goon, ExecutiveDirector of PRIP Trust at the Web addressabove.

Case Study 6.3Sustainability Grants

American InternationalHealth Alliancehttp://www.aiha.com


Specific Tools forEvaluating Partnerships

Intersectoral PartneringAssessment Framework—USAIDhttp://www.usaid.gov/pubs/isp/handbook/isp2toc.html

Grassroots DevelopmentFramework—Inter-AmericanFoundationhttp://www.iaf.gov/results/menu01.htm

Discussion-OrientedOrganizationalSelf-Assessment—Pacthttp://www.edc.org/INT/CapDev/dosapage.htm (case sensitive)

Continuing EvaluationPanel—AmericanInternational Health Alliancehttp://www.aiha.com/english/m&e/cep.htm

USAID Resources

Automated Directives Systemhttp://www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads

The Automated Directives Systemis USAID’s official written guidance to itsemployees on policies, operating proce-dures, and delegations of authority forconducting Agency business. Intendedto help USAID employees understand

A12


their responsibilities and achieve theAgency’s development goals—and con-sistent with applicable rules, soundpolicy, and management practices—theADS 200 series outlines new Agencyguidelines on planning, achieving, man-aging for results, and assessing andlearning.

Cost-Sharing Policies

USAID’s policies on cost-sharing areestablished in the USAID–U.S. PVO Part-nership Paper of 12 April 1995 and ADS216. It is USAID policy to apply theseprinciples to U.S. and non-U.S. for-profit and nonprofit NGOs.

USAID–U.S. PVO Partnership Paperhttp://www.usaid.gov/pubs/sourcebook/usgov/uspv.html

ADS 216http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads/200/216.htm

Bureau for Humanitarian ResponseOffice of Private andVoluntary Cooperationhttp://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/pvc

USAID’s Office of Private and Vol-untary Cooperation (PVC) provides di-rect support to efforts made by theAmerican community of private volun-tary organizations and by its local part-ners to address critical needs indeveloping countries and emerging de-mocracies. Now in its 22nd year, theMatching Grants Program is PVC’s prin-cipal vehicle to help American PVOs de-velop their community-based programsoverseas. By matching dollar for dollara PVO’s own resources, the MatchingGrants Program supports PVO programsthat are consistent with USAID’s evolv-ing priorities (such as small enterprise

development and democratic pluralism)and geographic interests (such as thespecial needs of Africa, central Europe,and Eurasia). The Matching Grants Pro-gram enhances the capacity of Ameri-can PVOs to plan and carry out theiroverseas programs, helping them bet-ter partner with host-country, nongov-ernmental, and community-basedorganizations or with local govern-ments. These partnerships betweenAmerican PVOs and their local develop-ment partners concentrate on sustain-able development strategies.

Development Partner Resourceshttp://www.dec.org/partners

This site links the reader to USAIDpolicy papers, R4s (Results Reviews andResource Requests), and mission objec-tives. The site also has links to USAID’sdatabase of publications and to the lat-est information on Agency Tips andpolicy.

New Partnerships Initiative:Resource Guidehttp://www.usaid.gov/pubs/npi/npiresrc.htm

Vice President Gore launchedUSAID’s New Partnerships Initiative inMarch 1995 at the World Summit forSocial Development. NPI is an integratedapproach to sustainable developmentthat uses strategic partnering and theactive engagement of civil society, thebusiness community, and institutions ofdemocratic local governance to bolsterthe ability of local communities to playa lead role in their own development.Following a three-month participatorydesign process, a report was releasedin July 1995. From March to October1996, NPI was piloted in 15 USAID mis-sions. The NPI Resource Guide bringstogether the results of this period of field

A13


testing and provides numerous pro-gramming tools to help incorporate NPIinto mission portfolios.

Participatory Developmenthttp://www.usaid.gov/about/part_devel/docs.html

This Web site contains all the docu-ments (Participation Forum Summaries,Participatory Practices series, and otherdocuments related to participation atUSAID) produced through USAID’s Par-ticipation Initiative. The site also pro-vides information about the GlobalParticipation Network (GP–NET) , alistserv that provides an opportunity forUSAID staff (in Washington and in thefield) and development practitionersaround the world to exchange informa-tion, share ideas, and discuss issues re-lated to participatory development. Thepage also provides links to other sitesdealing with participatory develop-ment.

Partnering for Results—Intersectoral Partnershipshttp://www.usaid.gov/pubs/isp

This Web site provides informationon what Intersectoral Partnerships(ISPs) are, why they are an importantdevelopment strategy, and how donorsand other organizations can facilitatetheir growth. It includes two handbookson ISPs, links to numerous Web sites onpartnering, and a list for further read-ing.

Results Report andResource Request Databasehttp://www.dec.org/partners/pmdb

The Results Review and ResourceRequest (R4) is an annual report that amission or program office uses to de-scribe its strategic objectives, report on

its performance over the past year, andmake budget requests for the upcom-ing fiscal year. Only the Results Review(R2a) portion of the R4 is available fromthis site.

Non-USAIDResources on Partnering

Business Partners for Developmenthttp://www.bpdweb.org/index.htm

An informal global network ofbusinesses, civil society organizations,and relevant government ministries,Business Partners for Development (BPD)seeks to produce solid evidence of thepositive impact of trisector partnershipsby taking the example of numerous fo-cus projects involving business, govern-ment, and civil society organizationsand providing input to them. The BPDnetwork’s objective is to demonstratethat these partnerships provide win–win benefits to all three parties, can beused much more widely throughout theworld, and can be scaled up to nationaland regional levels.

CIVICUShttp://www.civicus.org

CIVICUS is an international alliancededicated to strengthening citizen ac-tion and civil society throughout theworld by promoting citizen action as apredominant feature of the political,economic, and cultural life of all societ-ies; private action for the public good;and the idea that a healthy society isone in which there is an equitable rela-tionship between civil society, business,and government. CIVICUS’s purpose isto help nurture the foundation, growth,protection, and resourcing of citizenaction throughout the world and espe-cially in areas where participatory de-

A14


mocracy, freedom of association of citi-zens, and their funds for public benefitare threatened.

Community Initiativeshttp://www.communityinitiatives.com/fcc.html

Facilitating Community Change is apractical, step-by-step workbook forcommunity members and leaders want-ing to build partnerships for healthier,more sustainable communities. It offersa highly flexible approach to harness-ing the values, assets, and aspirationsof a community. Rather than present-ing untested theories, this guide pro-vides a comprehensive summary ofwhat works, based on extensive real-life experience with dozens of commu-nities throughout the world.

Corporate Community Engagementhttp://www.pactworld.org/Services/CCE.html

Pact’s corporate community en-gagement services help businessesachieve effective social investmentsthrough community collaboration todetermine local needs and maximizesocial and economic goals. Businessescreate internal value by managing riskand improving decision-making andexternal value by building brand iden-tity, increasing customer loyalty, andforging new community relationships.Pact’s approach helps businesses iden-tify and fully map their community ofstakeholders, build a common develop-ment vision, and create collaborativeaction plans. Assessment tools and strat-egies support regular analysis of thecorporate-community engagement ex-perience.

Corporate SocialResponsibility Forumhttp://www.csrforum.org

The Prince of Wales Business Lead-ers Forum is an international charityfounded in 1990 to promote socially re-sponsible business practices that benefitbusiness and society and help achievesocially, economically, and environmen-tally sustainable development. The fo-rum works at the highest levels in 60 ofthe world’s leading multinational com-panies and is active in some 30 emerg-ing and transition economies. TheCorporate Social Responsibility ForumWeb site’s aims are twofold: first, to bea gateway to the broad topic of corpo-rate social responsibility; and second, toprovide a comprehensive introductionto the work of the forum itself.

Higher Education Partnerships forSocial and Economic Developmenthttp://www.ip.wsu.edu/ipdc/jordan/default.htm

This information helps institutionscurrently engaging or planning to en-gage in development partnerships bet-ter plan and implement collaborativedevelopment programs and activities.Combined with results and follow-upactions of two companion workshopsin Latin America and sub-Saharan Af-rica, this information can be updatedto reflect emerging successes and lessonslearned. Carried out in Amman, Jordan,in April 1999, the conference was orga-nized by the USAID–University LinkageProgram.

Institute for Development Researchhttp://www.jsi.com/idr


A15


The Inter-American Foundationhttp://www.iaf.gov/iaf1.htm

The Inter-American Foundation(IAF) strategy for the 1990s recognizesthat sustainable development requiresthe private, public, and nongovernmen-tal sectors of society to work togetherto mobilize and concentrate local re-sources on improving its citizens well-being. Because funds for foreigndevelopment assistance are declining inthe United States and because resourcesdo exist in Latin America and the Car-ibbean, sustainable change must occurat the local—not the international—level. In Latin America and the Carib-bean the IAF helps diversify sources offunding and lessen dependence on for-eign aid.

The International ForumFor Capacity-Buildinghttp://ifcb-ngo.org

The International Forum forCapacity-Building (IFCB) is a global ini-tiative launched by Southern nongov-ernmental organizations (SNGOs) fromAsia–Pacific, Africa, and Latin America.It seeks to concentrate on future priori-ties of capacity-building for SNGOs to en-hance their effectiveness in addressingpoverty, marginalization, democratiza-tion, and strengthening of civil society,human rights, and sustainable humandevelopment. This multistakeholder fo-rum is aimed at initiating a dialog sothat policies, resources, programs, andpractices of Northern NGOs and donorsare influenced by the experiences ofSNGOs. The IFCB Web site engages socialdevelopment players in an interactiveexperience that will help shape policies,evolve imaginative strategies, and ini-tiate programs and activities to help cre-ate sustainable development.

Partnerships Onlinehttp://www.partnerships.org.uk/part

Resources on this page include

n A listserv on partnerships and par-ticipation

n A set of information sheets thatprovide detail on creating trusts

n The Guide to Effective Participation,a comprehensive guide to thewider issues of community in-volvement

n The Guide to Development Trustsand Partnerships, a guide to creat-ing nonprofit organizations forcommunity renewal

n Introduction to Partnerships, anoverview of the nature of localpartnership organizations and abrief A–Z of partnerships

n Other Internet resources on part-nership and participation

Partnerships for Poverty Reductionhttp://www1.worldbank.org/ppr/english/ppr_eng.html

This site, sponsored by the Inter-American Foundation, the United Na-tions Development Program, and theWorld Bank, presents the accumulatedknowledge of a group of researchersand practitioners on the effect of part-nerships on poverty reduction in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. The sitecontains a database of projects.

Workshop on Designing and ManagingPartnership Activities

Date: 22 June 2000

Participants

Workshop and FocusGroup Participants and

Interview SubjectsB

Appendix

Danielle Arigoni, USAID

Darcy Ashman, Institute for Development Research

Sharon Benoliel, USAID

Gary Bittner, USAID

Harry Blair, USAID

Jennifer Brinkerhoff, Rutgers University

Vincent Cusomano, USAID

Joseph Dudley, USAID

Antoinette Ferrara, USAID

Anne Fonteneau, World Council of Credit Unions

Ken Giunta, InterAction

Stephen Haykin, USAID

Steve Hellinger, Development Group for Alternative Policies

Martin Hewitt, USAID

Jerry Hildebrand, Katalysis Partnership

Paul Holmes, USAID

Evariste Karangwa, InterAction

B2


Janet Kerley, USAID

Eliza Klose, Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia

Ada Jo Mann, Global Excellence in Management Initiative

Tina Malone, Save the Children

Sharon Pauling, USAID

Chris Reedy, Opportunity International

Bonnie Ricci, World Learning

Sandra Russo, USAID

Martha Cecilia Villada, Partners of the Americas

Beth Whitaker, Association Liaison Office

Emira Woods, InterAction

Facilitators

Michael Kott, Chanya Charles, and C. Stark Biddle—Academy for EducationalDevelopment

Notetakers

Anne Langhaug, Tom Kelly, and Andrea Usiak—AED

Focus Group Participants in Washington

Date: 19 October 2000

Participants

Bernice Bennett, American International Health Alliance

Forest Duncan, USAID

Martin Hewitt, USAID

Paul Holmes, USAID

Janet Kerley, USAID

Roshani Kothari, Pact

B3

Workshop and Focus Group Participants and Interview Subjects

Alison Paijit, USAID

James Smith, AIHA

Abdul Wahab, USAID

Facilitators/Notetakers

Michael Kott, Anne Langhaug, Chanya Charles, Tom Kelly, and Tamer Ibrahimof Academy for Educational Development; Sharon Benoliel, USAID

Focus Group Participants/Interviewees in Nairobi, Kenya

Date: 8–13 October 2000

Participants

Steven J. Baines, Catholic Relief Services

Carleene Dei, USAID/AFR/SD

Ato Getahun Dendir, USAID/Ethiopia

Dirk Dijkerman, USAID/REDSO

Paul–Albert Emoungu, USAID/Democracy and Governance Team Leader

Elizabeth Hogan, USAID/South Africa

Joseph Igbinedion, African Women’s Development and CommunicationNetwork (FEMNET)

Rudo Jimmy, USAID/Zimbabwe

Evariste Karangwa, InterAction

Sheila Kawamara, Uganda Women’s Network

Liz Regan Kiingi, USAID/Uganda

James Kimani, Kenya AIDS NGOs Consortium

Monica Koep, USAID/Namibia

Ivin Lombardt, Namibia Nongovernmental Organizations’ Forum

David Madurai, South African National NGO Coalition (SANGOCO)

B4


Steve Kirimi Mamba, National Council of NGOs—Kenya

Faarooq Mangera, USAID/RCSA

Ruth Mufuti, AfriCare

T.S. Muyoya, MWENGO

Amos Nakalonga, Zambia Council for Social Development

Mathews Kadewere Nogwe, Catholic Development Commission in Malawi

Solomon Nzyuko, Lutheran World Relief

Deborah Ongewe, National Council of NGOs—Kenya

Sharon Pauling, USAID/AFR/DP

Dr. Allan Ragi, Kenya AIDS NGO Consortium

Marie Memouna Shaba, TANGO

Frank R. Turyatunga, ACDI/VOCA—EPED Project

John Zarafonetis, InterAction


C. Stark Biddle of AED; Sharon Pauling of USAID

Focus Group Participants In Kiev, Ukraine

Date: 6–10 November 2000

USAID/Kiev Participants

Tamara Babiuk

Sylvia Babus

Oleksander Cherka

Elena Choukhno

Ken Duckworth

Bruce Gelband

B5


Irina Goncharova

Judy Hansen

Elena Haver

David Lieberman

Oksana Litvinovska

Paul Mulligan

Bert Oram

Olena Orlova

Eliot Pearlman

John Pennell

Tatiana Rastrigina

Stella Roudenko

Marilynn Schmidt

Andrew Snegirev

Irina Troyanovskaya

Oleg Vashkulat

Vladimir Yatsenko

Implementing Partners

Myroslava Andrushchenko, International Research and Exchanges Board

Megan Falvey, EcoLinks

Alicia Henson, U.S.–Ukraine Foundation

David Kerry, Alliance

Yuriy Knurov, U.S. Energy Association

Oksana Maydan, IREX

Stepan Maylo, American International Health Alliance

B6


Mickey Mullay, Consortium for Enhancement of Ukranian ManagementEducation

Yilyen Pidgornyi, Alliance

Volodymyr Romaniv, Research Triangle Institute

Oleksander Sydozenko, CEUME

Elena Voskresenkayo, AIHA

Eugene Yesirkenov, EcoLinks

Ukrainian Partners

Natalia Apatova, Tavrida National University

Alexander Bondarenko, Ukrainian Real Estate Experts’ Association

Viacheslav Dementiev, Donetsk State Technical University

Natalia Ivaniv, International Management Institute (IMI–Kyiv)

Inna Kirnos, National Electricity Regulatory Commission

Michael Krikynov, Institute for Enterpreneurship “Strategy”

Olga Melnik, Kyivoblenergo

Tetyana Melnyk, Cherkassy Institute of Management

Marina Mrouga, Testing Board of the Ministry of Health

Leonid Symonenko, National Electricity Regulatory Commission


Janet Kerley of USAID; Michael Kott and Chanya Charles of AED

Interviews

Bernice Bennett, American International Health Alliance

Gary Bittner, USAID

Alexander Borovikh, Center for NGO Support (Russia)

Jean Cook, Sinclair Community College

B7


Megan Falvey, EcoLinks

Gill Garb, World Education

Ekaterina Greshnova, Center for NGO Support (Russia)

Jerry Hildebrand, Katalysis Partnership

Martin Hewiitt, USAID

Paul Holmes, USAID

Eliza Klose, Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia

Bertha Landrum, Maricopa Community College

Amanda Lonsdale, International City/County Management Association

Jan Noel, Washington State University

Alison Paijit, USAID

David Payton, World Learning

Tony Pryor, USAID

Anne Quinlan, USAID

Mary Reynolds, USAID

Joseph Sellwood, Pact

James Smith, AIHA

Didier Thys, Freedom From Hunger

Paul Weishaupt, United States–Asia Environmental Partnership

Beth Whitaker, Association Liaison Office

Eugene Yesirkenov, EcoLinks

Sample MemorandumsOf Understanding C

Appendix

American International Health AllianceMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

1.0. PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT

This is an agreement among the following parties:

n US partnern NIS partnern AIHA

2.0. PURPOSE

The purpose of this agreement is to develop a productive and lasting cooperative rela-tionship between the U.S. Partner and the Ukrainian Partner. In the spirit of cooperation, theparties enter into this legally non-binding Memorandum with the understanding that it is asymbolic expression of their mutual commitment to develop a productive working relation-ship, to collectively and separately make their best efforts to overcome obstacles to accomplishthe agreed-upon project goals, and within the means of the parties to contribute the neces-sary resources toward ensuring the success of this collaborative relationship (referred toherein as “the partnership”). The provisions of this Memorandum are intended toward thatend.

3.0. FOCUS OF THE PARTNERSHIP

This partnership focuses on the integration of community-oriented primary care servicesand mental and behavioral health into an urban polyclinic setting. The polyclinic will serve asthe base for the development of a family practice organization that will serve as a model forthe future development of primary care in the city of ___ (NIS) ___ and the U.S. partners willassist the city in the reorganization of the primary care network and the replication of addi-tional sites in the future. Training and retraining of staff in clinical, organizational and man-agement areas will be a major focus of partnership activities, as well as the integration of amental health component to the primary care setting. The partners will also develop strate-gies to incorporate health promotion and prevention services and to effectively improve thehealth of the ___ (NIS) ___ population. The partnership will develop methodologies to assessand monitor the health status of the population that will result in more focused interventions.In addition, the partnership will develop a set of primary care guidelines, develop a residencyprogram in family practice, develop clinical training programs for other health professionalsand develop Ukrainian-language, patient-education materials.

Page 1 of 5

C2


4.0. STRUCTURE

The U.S. and NIS partners are equal members of the partnership and have equivalentresponsibilities and authority. The partners shall work closely with AIHA and its designatedcoordinators (collectively “AIHA”) throughout every stage of the program, and they willcarefully coordinate partnership activities to ensure that the program is developed andimplemented in a manner that is consistent with the health care needs of both communities.

5.0. RESPONSIBILITIES THE US AND NIS PARTNERS

5.1. Development of Agenda and Implementation Plan. In cooperation with AIHA, the U.S.Partner and the Ukrainian Partner shall:

5.1.1. develop a set of realistic objectives to accomplish the goals identified in section 3.0above.

5.1.2. develop quantifiable measures by which the partnership’s progress toward its goalsand objectives can be measured;

5.1.3. establish a detailed and realistic project timeline for the partnership’s efforts settingforth, among other things, a schedule of conferences, meetings, training exchanges, andreport preparation;

5.1.4. establish a detailed itinerary for each scheduled conference, meeting, or trainingexchange setting forth, among other things:

n the personnel involved;n the travel and accommodation arrangements;n the curricular material necessary for the meeting or visit;n the equipment and materials necessary for the meeting or visit;n the persons responsible for preparation of required reports.

5.2. Work Plans and Reports. Working with AIHA, the U.S. Partner and the Ukrainian Part-ner shall collaboratively prepare the following reports in a timely fashion and submit them toAIHA:

5.2.1. a Partnership Workplan, consisting of those items (Objectives, Activities, QuantifiableOutcomes, Timeline, and Budget) set forth in Sec. 5.1, to be prepared annually; and

5.2.2. a Partnership Quarterly Report covering exchange visits occurring during the reportingquarter, as well as other significant events or project developments that may not involvetravel. These activities may include teleconferences, in-country training workshops or confer-ences, significant e-mail or phone consultations, transfer of medical/educational supplies andmaterials, or other capacity-building activities. Quantifiable process and outcome indicatorsidentified in the workplan will be reported on both a current and ongoing basis.

Page 2 of 5

C3

Sample Memorandums of Understanding

5.3. Execution of Implementation Plan. The U.S. Partner and the Ukrainian Partner shallfully cooperate in the execution of the implementation plan by, among other things:

5.3.1. providing the resources necessary for implementing the plan including, but not limitedto, encouraging and allowing staff and other personnel to participate in partnershipactivities; and

5.3.2. making efforts to secure local transportation and low-cost accommodations(room and board) for visiting partners in order to maximize resources available forparticipation in partnership activities.

5.4. Evaluation. In addition to the reports described in Part III (see above), the U.S. Partnerand the Ukrainian Partner shall cooperate with any monitoring and evaluation activitiesundertaken by AIHA or by the United States Agency for International Development(USAID).

5.5. Educational, Research, and Clearinghouse Activities. As part of the education, research,and clearinghouse activities planned by AIHA, the U.S. Partner and the Ukrainian Partnershall:

5.5.1. fully participate in education and training programs sponsored by AIHA, includingboth the training of partnership staff and the sharing of partnership experiences with otherinstitutions and organizations;

5.5.2. provide information to the AIHA Clearinghouse on partnership experiences and otherrelevant materials relating to U.S. and Ukrainian health care; and

5.5.3. fully participate in public education and information dissemination efforts undertakenby AIHA.

5.6. Compliance with USAID Procedures and Regulations. The U.S. Partner and theUkrainian Partner will be briefed on the policies and procedures governing the use of USAIDfunds (including but not limited to AIHA’s policies and procedures as set forth in thesubagreement between AIHA and the US partner) and shall abide by those policies andprocedures.

Page 3 of 5

C4


6.0. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AIHA

This section sets forth some of the details of AIHA’s obligations to the cooperative relation-ship.

6.1. AIHA, in cooperation with Omega World Travel, will provide logistical support to per-sons traveling abroad as participants of the partnership, including making travel arrange-ments, obtaining necessary travel documents and insurance, and securing the requiredgovernmental approval for site visits;

6.2. AIHA will provide domestic and international air transportation (subject to USAIDlimitations) for persons participating in partnership activities;

6.3. AIHA will assist the partnership’s efforts to transport material and equipment as neces-sary for Trips/Events;

6.4. AIHA will provide the partnership with certain non-medical equipment (e.g., office andtraining equipment) necessary for partnership activities;

6.5. AIHA will promote the partnership in other ways, such as the preparation and circula-tion of public-relations materials; and

7.0. TITLE TO PROPERTY

Title to property purchased by AIHA for the sole use of the partnership established under thisMemorandum shall vest in AIHA. AIHA may in the future and at its discretion transfer titleto such property to the NIS partner, with the concurrence of USAID.

8.0. TERM, TERMINATION AND AMENDMENTS

8.1. Term. This Memorandum shall be effective immediately and shall remain in force unlessterminated by one of the parties.

8.2. Termination. This Memorandum may be terminated by any of the parties, with or with-out cause, upon 30 days written notice to the other parties.

8.3. Amendments. This Memorandum may be amended at any time by unanimous consent ofthe parties.

Page 4 of 5

C5


9.0. MISCELLANEOUS

9.1. This Memorandum shall not be interpreted as having established a “partnership,” assuch term is defined under the laws of the United States or Ukraine.

9.2. No party assumes liability for any third-party claims arising out of this agreement.

9.3. This Memorandum is solely for the benefit of the parties; nothing in this Memorandum,expressed or implied, is intended to confer upon any other person any rights or remedies ofany nature.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum by their dulyauthorized representatives.

UKRANIAN PARTNERS

By: ____________________________[name and title]

DATE: _________________________

AMERICAN INTERNATIONALHEALTH ALLIANCE

By: ____________________________

DATE: _________________________

U.S. PARTNERS

By: ____________________________[name and title]

DATE: _________________________

Page 5 of 5

C6


Katalysis North/South Development PartnershipMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Original Document: 1990; Revised: 1997

A. PREAMBLE

This Memorandum of Understanding “MOU” is entered into by Katalysis North/SouthDevelopment Partnership of Stockton, California, U.S.A.; Katalysis/Honduras ofTegucigalpa, Honduras; Organización de Desarrollo Empresarial Femenino (ODEF) of SanPedro Sula, Honduras, Asociación de Mujeres en Desarrollo (MUDE) of Villa Nueva, Guate-mala; Cooperación para ci Desarrollo Rural de Occidente (CDRO) of Totonicapán, Guate-mala; Corporacion de Proyectos Comunales de El Salvador (PROCOMES) of San Salvador, ElSalvador; and Familia y Medio Ambiente (FAMA) of Juticalpa, Honduras, individually re-ferred to as “Partners” and collectively as “the Partnership.” The purpose of the MOU is toestablish an understanding of how we wish to operate in partnership. It is entered into in aspirit of friendship, equality and cooperation.

B. NAME

The name of the Partnership will be Partners in Development.

C. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Partnership is to enhance the ability of each Partner to accomplish itsmission of sponsoring and facilitating the administration of programs and activities thatpromote economic and social development, culture, and environmental preservation. ThePartnership is a vehicle whereby we can exchange information, technical expertise, mutualsupport and goodwill. We wish to do this in an open and public manner and to be identifiedby the development community as Partners. We expect that the Partnership will continue toevolve complementary in scope and activities and that our understanding and practice oftrue partnership will likewise evolve.

D. TERM

This MOU will remain in effect until changed or terminated by the Partners by consensus.

E. ORGANIZATION

The Partners in this venture are: Katalysis/USA, Katalysis/Honduras, ODEF, MUDE, CDRO,PROCOMES, and FAMA. The Board of Directors of each Partner formally recognizes andsupports the Partnership.

Page 1 of 4

C7


The Board of Directors of each Partner delegates the Director of its organization to form the“Partner Directors Board.” The function of the Partner Directors Board is to manage therelationship and growth of the Partnership. The development of the Partner relationshipfocuses on the global program structure of each Partner. It is a process that must begin withcertain defined areas of work, particularly areas that are clearly common and similar amongthe Partner’s programs.

The Partner Directors Board is responsible for promoting the exchange of experiences andinformation among the Partners. This exchange can be conducted to a greater or lesserdegree between Partners depending on the capacity and internal structure of each partner.For example, the practice of having a member of the Partnership on the board of anotherPartner or a technical representative on their own board. [NOTE: All Partners serve on theKatalysis international Board of Directors.]

In every case, the formality of the Partnership relationship should be stated in writing.

It is the responsibility of each Partner Director to share and promote the concept ofPartnership and its implications with their staffs in order that an open dialog be establishedbetween the staffs of the Partners. One goal of such dialog, for example, is to define amutually workable concept of partnership in the technical area.

Katalysis is the sponsoring Partner. However, with respect to the development of thePartnership, Katalysis does not have responsibility to fund the individual Partners partially ortotally per this MOU. The resources of Katalysis will be available and utilized to seek outfinancing for the majority of the Partnership’s activities. These activities (meetings, exchangevisits, etc.) will not result in changes to the decision making process of individual Partners orin the operation of the Partnership.

Per this MOU and Katalysis’ experience within the Partnership, Katalysis will provideconsultant and special assistance involving its staff and Board of Directors. The Director ofKatalysis will serve as Coordinator of the Partner Directors Board.

F. ADDING NEW PARTNERS

It is anticipated that new Partners may be added by mutual consent.

G. FUNCTIONS AND PRINCIPLES

The Partnership will be guided by a set of functions and principles approved by thePartner Directors Board and ratified by the Partners.

The functions and principles of the Partnership will be modified and/or eliminated fromtime to time by the Partners. This will generally take place in the semi-annual Partners meet-ings, but may take place outside those meetings by mutual consent of the Partners. At thedate of signing of this MOU, functions of the Partnership include:

Page 2 of 4

C8


1) Joint participation in grant implementation.

2) Joint participation in the raising of unrestricted operating funds in the United States.

3) Joint participation in the design, implementation, and grant support of a specificnumber of development projects.

4) Information sharing on a wide range of matters including programs, operations, andadministration.

5) Documentation and promotion of the Partnership model.

6) Attendance at Partner Directors Board meetings.

H. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES

Each Partner undertakes the following:

1) To respond openly, thoughtfully and promptly to a Partner’s request for assistance.

2) To actively seek the way to build mutual trust by fully sharing information,confidences, and problems with the other Partners.

3) To comply fully and promptly with the conditions of any projects involving thePartners and to act in a fiduciary relationship with mutual respect.

4) If one Partner believes that another Partner is not living up to the MOU, the firstPartner will communicate this to the other Partners.

I. DECISION MAKING

Decisions affecting the Partnership are to be made by mutual consent. One Partner cannotmake a decision affecting another Partner without the consent of the other. All Partners havethe right to submit proposals which involve a mutual decision. The Partner Directors Boardwill discuss and make decisions it considers beneficial to all Partners.

The decisions will be made respecting the particular characteristics of each Partner and withits mutual consent.

Any decision which impacts a particular Partner, and which presents special conditions notpreviously considered, will require ratification by the Partner Directors Board.

Page 3 of 4

C9


J. ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS

Partners may have additional agreements among themselves or other organizations outsidethe MOU.

K. WITHDRAWAL

In case of disagreements and misunderstandings, every effort will be made to settle thematter through dialog and negotiation. A Partner may withdraw from this MOU by givingsix months’ written notice to the other Partners. A Partner may be expelled from the Partner-ship by the unanimous vote of the other Partners, with six months’ written notice to be given.

Any case of expulsion from the Partnership will include a process to guarantee the Partnersthe opportunity to defend themselves.

Signed in friendship,

________________________________Executive Director, CDRO

________________________________Executive Director, FAMA

________________________________President, Katalysis/USA

Date: ___________________________

________________________________Regional Director, Katalysis/Honduras

________________________________Executive Director, MUDE

________________________________Executive Director, ODEF

________________________________Executive Director, PROCOMES

Page 4 of 4

C10


Catholic Relief ServicesMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Instruction Guidance

This model MOU has been prepared to help facilitate the development of a partnershipagreement between partners. The text is based on external studies and examples of “bestpractice” in formulating agreements within CRS. The intention is to help formulate agree-ments that reflect the CRS Partnership Principles and the mutual understanding of theparties. It should be considered a model and therefore adapted and changed to accuratelyapply to each unique partnership.

More than just a document, the formulation of an MOU is a process for discussion,clarification and negotiation that is critical to partnership. This process could take 2 months,6 months, even a year and should be considered joint work. The Partnership Toolbox:A Facilitators Guide to Partnership Dialogue has a section on creating an MOU and exercisesthat may be useful in guiding the process (found in Chapter 4: Putting It Together). Engagingan external facilitator may be considered if the facilitation skills are not available or if aneutral facilitator would be more effective. The end result is a document but, more impor-tantly, a clearer understanding and communication about why each has entered into thepartnership, expectations and how both parties will engage one another. Editing the documentand sending it to a partner for comment will be counterproductive because it is not practicing thepartnership principles!

Some suggestions from past practice suggest that engaging a facilitator for the process ishelpful. Also a combination of small and large group discussions helped the large groupwork more quickly and productively, i.e., a small joint task force produces a draft discussionpaper.

A note on formatting: For ease of editing, the model has been electronically formatted in sucha way that it can be quickly edited through the use of search/replace functions for commonlyused phrases, such as the name of the partner and the country. Text highlighted in red isintended to apply particularly to church partners. All highlighting can be easily removed byusing ”select all” and changing the highlighting to ”none” and text color to black.

1.0 Organizations to the MOUIdentify each organization and their relationship to one another, especially within thecountry. This document may also be applied to partnerships with multiple partners.If the MOU is being used for an umbrella project, for example, adapt the modelaccordingly.

2.0 Identity of the OrganizationsAdd the mission statements of both organizations to this section.

Memorandum of Understanding Instruction Guidance

C11


3.0 Goal and ValuesThis section describes the overall goals and operational values of the partnership.Make explicit the intention of the partnership and the partnership values that partieswill strive toward. If local principles of partnership have been developed withpartners, these should be reflected here.

4.0 Operating PrinciplesThis gives general guidance regarding how programs are managed. However, eachspecific project should be governed by a project agreement, which outlines criticalinformation, such as time frame, objectives, activities, and outcomes of the project.Most sections are self-explanatory, but a few merit discussion.4.1 Decision-Making—Venues for mutual decision making is key to a successful

partnership and should be addressed here.4.2 Fundraising—Specify how funds for joint programs will be raised. Who will be

approached and by whom? Is joint fundraising possible?4.3 Capacity Strengthening—Not every partnership needs to involve capacity

strengthening. But if both parties agree that it would be beneficial, a sectionoutlining its contents should be added. Note that capacity strengthening flowsboth ways. CRS should identify ways that partners strengthen CRS capacity.

4.4 Solidarity—This section identifies the ways of working together that enhancethe intangible principles, such as mutual trust and transparency. This “code ofconduct” should be generated and mutually agreed upon by both parties.

5.0 Organizations’ individual contributionsRecognizing that each partner both gives to and receives from the partnership, detailthe different types of resources each brings to the interaction. This is a way to valuenon-material assets that are critical to any successful partnership or project. Themutuality discussion should be tied to the agency’s global solidarity mission. Countryprograms should use this opportunity to define global solidarity priorities with theirpartners and enlist them in the CRS mission of educating and mobilizing U.S.constituencies.

6.0 Conflict resolutionWhile hopefully not needed, an agreed upon way to resolve conflicts is important sothat it is not viewed as CRS taking unilateral decision making.

7.0 Consultative CommitteeWhen there is more than one partner in a country, a consultative committee of all thepartners and CRS might be an effective way to facilitate communication and jointaction. If not, other mechanisms, such as annual retreats, should be specified.

8.0 Modifications to the MOUDecide how the agreement will be amended or changed.


C12


9.0 Period of the MOUThis section follows the philosophy that partnerships grow and change but continueuntil they are no longer useful to the parties. The life of a partnership may includemany projects of collaborations that do have explicit time frames and objectives to becompleted, but that the partnership itself does not end until one or both parties are nolonger being served.

10.0 Withdrawal from the MOUIf the partnership reaches a point in which it is no longer mutually beneficial andchanges are not possible, ending the partnership and withdrawing from the MOUwith respect is best.

11.0 Effective Date and SignaturesSelf-explanatory.


C13


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBetween

<PARTNER>

and

Catholic Relief Services—USCC

Preamble

This memorandum between <partner> and Catholic Relief Services (CRS)—USCC establishesthe broad mutual understanding of our two organizations regarding our strategicrelationship in establishing and operating programs of development for the poorest in<country>. We recognize the autonomy of each organization and enter this agreement in aspirit of mutual trust, respect and a shared commitment for social justice and the preferentialoption for the poor. This Memorandum of Understanding is therefore a statement of mutualintent to which the two organizations are bound. For specific jointly developed programs,agreements will be entered into in the form of grant agreements or other documents based onspecific program plans and budgets.

1.0 Organizations to the Memorandum of Understanding

1.1 Organizations to this Memorandum of Understanding are <partner> and theUnited States Catholic Conference (USCC) respectively, hereinafter called theorganizations.

1.2 CRS is in <country> at the invitation of the <Episcopal Conference> to work with<partner> as its partner of preference.

1.3 This MOU does not preclude each organization from working independentlywith other commissions of the church, as well as with other organizations in<country> engaged in humanitarian relief and development efforts. However,the organizations shall be transparent about the establishment of thesecollaborations with other organizations, as they affect the collaboration.

2.0 Identity of the Organizations

2.1 <partner> and CRS affirm that they are both autonomous Catholic organizationswith a common goal. The parties shall therefore work together to fulfill their commongoal while affirming their different identities.

2.2 Mission Statement of <partner>

“- Enter partner’s mission statement here.- ”

Memorandum of Understanding between:Catholic Relief Services and <partner> Page 1 of 7

C14


2.3 Mission Statement of CRS—USCC

“Catholic Relief Services was founded in 1943 by the Catholic Bishops of the United States toassist the poor and disadvantaged outside the country.

It is administered by a Board of Bishops selected by the National Council of Catholic Bishopsand is staffed by men and women committed to the Catholic Church’s apostolate of helpingthose in need. It maintains strict standards of efficiency and accountability.

The fundamental motivating force in all activities of CRS is the Gospel of Jesus Christ as itpertains to the alleviation of human suffering, the development of people and the fostering ofcharity and justice in the world. The policies and programs of the agency reflect and expressthe teaching of the Catholic Church. At the same time, Catholic Relief Services assistspersons on the basis of need not creed, race or nationality.

Catholic Relief Services gives active witness to the mandate of Jesus Christ to respond tohuman needs in the following ways:

n by responding to victims of natural and man-made disasters;n by providing assistance to the poor to alleviate their immediate needs;n by supporting self-help programs which involve people and communities in their own

development;n by helping those it serves to restore and preserve their dignity and to realize their potential;n by collaborating with religious and nonsectarian persons and groups of goodwill in

programs and projects which contribute to a more equitable society;n by helping to educate the people of the United States to fulfill their moral responsibilities

in alleviating human suffering, removing its causes and promoting social justice.

3.0 Goal and Values

3.1 Goal:

The organizations shall work together, each according to the means it cancontribute, for the development of the people of <country>, while enhancingtheir respective capacities and that of the Catholic Church as a whole in<country>.

3.2 Values:

The organizations recognize they have a common vision, based on the Gospelof Christ, for addressing people’s immediate needs and the underlying causes


C15


of suffering and injustice with peace and restoration of human dignity,promotion of self-reliance and sustainable development, addressing the needsof the poor, and an integral approach to mitigate on human suffering.

The organizations commit themselves to a relationship based on valuesembodied in the CRS Principles of Partnership: subsidiarity, complementarityand mutuality, equitability, openness and sharing, mutual transparency,sustainability, community participation, strengthening civil society and mutualcapacity building.

4.0 Operating Principles

This Memorandum of Understanding shall be based upon the following operating principles:

4.1 Structure

The organizations shall utilize and strengthen already existing local structureson the ground or jointly establish any necessary new structures at the national,diocesan and parish level.

4.2 Implementation

Local structures shall be the primary implementers in undertakingprogrammatic activities.

The organizations shall complement each other in the process ofimplementation of programs in full recognition of the requirements of beingaccountable to donors, communities and other stakeholders.

<partner> shall facilitate the process of implementation with the assistance ofCRS.

4.3 Decision-Making

Decisions affecting the partnership will be made by mutual consent. Oneorganization cannot make a decision affecting the other organization withoutits consent. All organizations have the right to submit proposals that involve amutual decision and will respect the particular characteristics of eachorganization and its right to mutual consent.


C16


4.4 Resources

The organizations shall pool together private and public resources as well as resourcesfrom sister Catholic organizations, international and otherwise, for the purpose ofempowering local structures in the implementation of activities.

4.5 Programs

Any shared program interventions shall be undertaken in a joint manner between<partner> and CRS while respecting the principles of subsidiarity.

The organizations shall respect initiatives from other development players andadvocate for information-sharing at all levels.

The organizations shall share the responsibility to take a participatory and holisticapproach to technical issues and program quality.

4.6 Fundraising

The organizations shall be transparent in approaching funding agencies, especiallychurch donors, and approach them together for funding of joint ventures, wheneverpossible. Transparency will be maintained through dialogue, consultations, andsharing of reports and budgets. The Director of <partner> and the CRS CountryRepresentative shall decide through their regular meetings and on a case-by-case basiswhat donors should be approached, based on the nature of the project.

4.7 Communication

The organizations shall advocate for open communication between each other andother institutions at all levels and shall be committed to the ownership of therelationship thus equally bearing the responsibility for initiating the communicationprocess.

Some modes of communication the organizations shall use shall be the following:n quarterly technical meetingsn monthly meetings between the <partner> Director and the CRS Country

Representativen joint communiqué

4.8 Capacity Strengthening

(If appropriate.) Capacity strengthening involves a long-term commitment to completea mutually agreed upon process of organizational development. This commitment is


C17


characterized by a spirit of accompaniment, flexibility and responsiveness. Thiscommitment goes beyond a specific project activity, based rather on a shared vision ofand commitment to ongoing joint action.

Each organization agrees to uphold the following:

n To facilitate and promote the strengthening of each other’s capacities.n To engage in joint and mutual organizational self-assessment and planning

processes in which both organizations collaboratively identify their strengths,prioritize areas needing improvement, and create their own action plans.

n To work together to in turn strengthen the capacities of local communities ordevelopment organizations.

4.9 Solidarity

Each organization undertakes the following:

n To respond openly, thoughtfully, collaboratively and promptly to a partner’srequest for assistance, especially in emergency situations.

n To find flexible and mutually agreeable solutions to situations beyond thecontrol of either organization that affect program implementation(e.g., social/political conflict, natural disaster, etc.)

n To actively seek the way to build mutual trust by fully sharing information,confidences and problems with the other organization.

n To recognize and respect other stakeholders to which each organization isaccountable (e.g., communities, donors, etc.)

n To periodically review their partnership jointly and continually seek ways tonurture and strengthen it.

n To comply fully and promptly with the conditions of any projects involving theother organization and to act in a fiduciary relationship with mutual respect.

n If one organization believes that another organization is not living up to theMOU, the first organization will communicate this to the other organization.

5.0 Organizations’ Individual Contributions

Both <partner> and CRS are committed to building a collaborative institutionalrelationship by sharing their respective experiences and expertise.

Each organization agrees to share its respective materials and approaches in anattempt to develop new materials or approaches, or enhance existing ones.

Each organization will contribute to this relationship the following:


C18


<Partner>n List the physical, material, structural, social, intellectual and spiritual resources

the partner brings to the partnership in separate points.n List the ways in which the partner will support CRS’s global solidarity mission,

e.g., assisting CRS in educating and mobilizing U.S. constituencies byproviding information to or with meeting with U.S. media, as appropriate, etc.

CRS

n List the physical, material, structural, social, intellectual and spiritual resourcesCRS brings to the partnership in separate points.

n List the ways in which CRS will support this partner’s global solidaritymission, if appropriate.

6.0 Conflict resolution

6.1 We enter into this MOU in a spirit of mutual trust and intend that allunforeseen matters on issues that arise, as the relationship evolves, willbe resolved in a spirit of mutual understanding.

6.2 In the event that there is a conflict it shall be resolved in a peaceful andamicable manner. Every effort will be made to settle the matter throughdialog and negotiation and to accommodate the policies and intentionof each other’s respective conference of bishops, board, donors andconstituents.

7.0 Consultative Committee

A Consultative Committee shall be established in the spirit of the MOU and shallconsist of:1) the Director of <partner>2) the Country Representative of CRS3) others appointed by the aforementioned members

8.0 Modifications of the MOU

8.1 Either party can initiate dialogue and call for a meeting of theConsultative Committee.

8.2 This MOU shall be subject to annual review by the MOU ConsultativeCommittee to strengthen cooperation between the two organizations.


C19


9.0 Period of Memorandum of Understanding

This MOU shall remain in effect until changed or terminated by either organizationthrough mutual consent. OR The period of this MOU shall be <duration> subject toextension by mutual consent.

10.0 Withdrawal form the Memorandum of Understanding

Any organization may withdraw from the MOU by giving six (6) months’ writtennotice to the other organization.

11.0 Effective Date

This Memorandum of Understanding is effective <date>.

Signed:


________________________________For <partner>

Date: ___________________________

Witnesses:

Address:

Designation:

Date: ___________________________

________________________________For Catholic Relief Services

Date: ___________________________

Witnesses:

Address:

Designation:

Date: ___________________________

C20


Prince of Wales Business Leaders ForumSample partnership agreement

1. Note: This model is in the form of an early-stage Memorandum of Understandingrather than a legally binding document. Legal documents have to be drawn up in accordancewith national legal frameworks

1.00 PARTNER ORGANISATIONS

1.01 Name of organisationContact detailsContact personDescription of organisation(with registration details, if any)

Name of organisationContact detailsContact personDescription of organisation(with registration details, if any)

Name of organisationContact detailsContact personDescription of organisation(with registration details, if any)

2.00 COMMON OBJECTIVES AND STATEMENT OF INTENT

2.01 We, the undersigned, acknowledge a common concern about / commitment to

............................................................................................................................

2.02 By working together as partners, we see the benefits and added value each of us canbring to address this concern/ fulfil this commitment.

2.03 Specifically, we expect each partner to contribute to the project/programme in thefollowing ways:Partner APartner BPartner CAll partners

C21


3.00 STRUCTURES AND PROCEDURES

3.01 Partner roles and responsibilities

3.02 Administration

3.03 Working group(s)/committee(s)/advisor(s)

3.04 Decision-making processes

3.05 Accountability

4.00 RESOURCESWe will provide resources in the following ways:Core resourcesProject/programme resources

5.00 REVIEW/AUDIT AND REVISION ARRANGEMENTS

5.01 In recognition of the importance of transparency, we agree to make all relevantinformation relating to this partnership available to the partners and stakeholders inthe following ways ...

5.02 We will review the partnership itself every ... months in the following ways ...

5.03 An independent audit of the financial arrangements of the partnership and anyprojects or programmes resulting from it will be undertaken on at least an annualbasis in the following manner ...

C22


5.04 We will make adjustments to the partnership, including rewriting this agreement,should the reviews and audits indicate this is necessary.

6.00 CAVEATS

6.01 This agreement does not permit the use of copyright materials (including logos) anddissemination of confidential information, or allow staff of any of the partnerorganisations to represent the other without prior agreement.

6.02 This agreement does not bind partner organisations or their officers to any financial orother liability without further formal documentation.

SIGNED

..................................................................................................... on behalf of partner A

..................................................................................................... date

..................................................................................................... on behalf of partner B

..................................................................................................... date

..................................................................................................... on behalf of partner C

..................................................................................................... date

Katalysis SamplePotential Partner Criteria D

Appendix

KATALYSIS PARTNERSHIPPOTENTIAL CORE PARTNER PRE-SELECTION CRITERIA

BASICS:n Registered NGO in country of origin.n Personeria Juridica is in place.n Good legal standing in the country.n Current with financial reports.n C or higher ranking on Partner Performance Ratio Scale.

1. Potential Core Partners will have microcredit as a pivotal institutional focus.

2. Client base will be 2000 (exceptions can be made for NGOs that are in a fast trackgrowth mode).

3. Capable of expansion; institutional (board and staff) ability to make businesslikedecisions regarding operational efficiency and growth; vested interest in expanding toincrease client levels and setting appropriate cost-recovery policies (i.e., sustainableinterest rates) that will promote sustainability.

4. Commitment to financially sustainable development through microcredit; ability toachieve full financial sustainability in three to five years given appropriate technicaland financial support.

5. Institution-wide (board, management, staff) commitment to implementing Partnershipinstitutional standards and microcredit industry best practices in a timely fashion withrelevant training and technical assistance.

6. Commitment to strengthening management capacity in standardized financial andaccounting systems; willing and able to report on institutional financial status throughuniform balance sheet, income statements, and budget analysis, as well as regularloan portfolio reports (with back-up TA and training).

7. Dedicated to working with very low income populations, especially women; interestin working with community and solidarity microcredit systems, as well as individuals.

8. Women are represented at all levels of the organization: board, management, staff.

D2


9. Expressed interest in Partnership relationship, both North and South; there iscomplementarity of need, skill and willingness to share experience; respectfulcompliance with the principles of Partnership.

10. Acceptance of the conditions governing one-year probationary status prior to beaccorded full membership in the Partnership.

D3

Katalysis Sample Potential Partner Criteria

NEW PARTNER DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA

Prior to the selection of a new Partner, a comprehensive diagnostic is conducted on-siteby four levels of the Partnership: Headquarters’ CEO, Partner Executive Directors’representative, Regional Field Director, and the RFO Technical Team. Each Partnershipcontact assesses particular sectors of the prospective Partner organization.

HEADQUARTERS’ CEOn Missionn Organizational Structuren Board of Directors: Composition and Functionn Executive Directorn Partnership Potentialn Funding Sourcesn Reputation with Donorsn Project Field Visit

PARTNER DIRECTORS’ REPRESENTATIVEn Organizational Structuren Executive Directorn Partnership Institutional Standardsn Partnership Practicesn Project Field Visit

REGIONAL FIELD DIRECTORn Legal Statusn Managerial and Technical Capabilityn Board of Directors: Role and Performancen Administrative Policiesn Participation in Regional Networksn Partnership Institutional Standardsn Attitude toward Best Practices

RFO TECHNICAL TEAMn Strategic Plann Technical Capabilityn MISn Accounting Systemn Financial Reports and Auditsn Best Practices Implementationn Table One (MIP)n Technical Ranking and Assessment of Needs

AIHA Sample Work Plan Guide EAppendix

Guidelines for completing the 16-Month Workplan Template

The U.S. Partnership Representative, based on collaborative work with partners from theUS and the NIS, is responsible for submitting the 16-month workplan for partner activities,which spans from June 1999 through September 2000. Information from the first 4 months ofthe partnership should be included in this workplan as well.

Feel free to copy and paste to expand any of the sections (e.g. trips, objectives, activities,etc.). However, please complete each section as set forth in the template.

The workplan is a collaborative planning tool that serves as a guide to strategically articulate howthe partners intend to implement a series of action steps to achieve the goals and objectives of thepartnership. The workplan follows initial assessment by both partners and represents a key step in theplanning phase of partnership development. It is endorsed by all team members and mobilizes theappropriate resources within the funds budgeted and in-kind contributions to implement a variety ofactivities over an agreed upon time period. The workplan serves as the main document to monitor andevaluate partnership progress.

In most cases, the workplan should be completed during the first NIS partner visit to theUS based on group work using such tools as the initial assessment and logic model frameworking,as well other information learned during exchange trips. The template to be used in completingthe workplan is attached and is due to AIHA no later than August 31, 1999. This will providesufficient time for partners and AIHA to discuss any workplan issues for partners to make anynecessary revisions and for AIHA to prepare new sub-grant budgets, which must be issuedprior to September 30, 1999.

The workplan is a working document and as such may change over the duration of thepartnership. However, the workplan sets the tone for partnership activities and is used tomonitor and evaluate partnership activities and progress toward workplan objectives.

Forms are being provided to you through this e-mail. Forms are also available at AIHA’swebsite at www.aiha.com. Please feel free to adjust the margins of the answer spaces accord-ing to your needs.

Guidelines, Page 1 of 10

E2


A copy of the workplan, initial assessment, and logic framework modeling tool should besent to your Program Officer via e-mail no later than August 31, 1999. A hard copy withsignatures should be mailed to AIHA direct for submission to USAID. E-mail addresses ofprogram officers are as follows:

Program Officer

Bernice BennettEun–Joo ChangLaura KayserTerry L. Richardson

Guidelines, page 2 of 10

E-mail Address

[email protected]@[email protected]@aiha.com

E3

AIHA Sample Work Plan Guide

The workplan is comprised of 12 sections, which follow below. Detailed information aboutcompleting each section is provided.

1. Partnership and Workplan Information2. Background and Priorities3. Goals and Objectives4. Planned Inputs and Activities4-1. Planned Activities4-2. Anticipated Exchange Trips4-3. Anticipated In-Kind Contributions5. Outputs and Outcomes6. Performance Indicators7. Factors Influencing Change8. Plans for Collaboration9. Sustainability Strategies10. Strategies for Communicating Partnership Activities11. Strategies for Communicating Between Partners12. Workplan Timeline

Section 1. Partnership and Workplan Information

List the date of submission since various versions maybe completed.

The initial workplan, Version 1, is due August 31, 1999.As modifications are made, new versions should besubmitted and numerated respectively. All modifiedworkplans must be approved by AIHA.

This workplan should be signed by program coordi-nators from both US and NIS on behalf of both part-ner sites.

Date:

Version #:

Signatures:

Guidelines, Page 3 of 10

E4


Section 2. Background and Priorities

Based on the initial assessment, SWOT analysis, andLOGIC model, provide a concise summary of the back-ground or problem statement.

Based on the initial assessment, SWOT analysis, andLOGIC model, list the overall priorities that were iden-tified.

Background/Problem Statement:

Priorities Identified in theAssessment:

Section 3. Goals and Objectives

State overall goal of the partnership.

List objectives of the partnership. Each objectiveshould meet SMART criteria – specific, measurable,attainable, realistic, and time-framed.

Overall Goal of Partnership:

Specific Objectives ofPartnership Activities:

Section 4. Planned Inputs and Activities

Provide a brief overview of proposed activities. Spe-cific activities should be described in sections that fol-low.

List and describe specific interventions and timelinefor implementation that are planned as part of thispartnership. Each activity (or intervention) shouldcontain reference to specific objectives of partnershipactivities. List strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,and threats for each planned intervention.

List planned activities of the partnership includinganticipated exchange trips, in-kind contributions, con-ferences, workshops, and other training events, etc.

Overview of Proposed Activities:

Planned Activities:

Page 4 of 10

E5


List planned exchange trips that are anticipated tooccur in either direction during the 16 months of theworkplan. Each trip should contain reference to spe-cific objectives of the partnership. With each plannedtrip, list origination and destination of the trip, travel-ers (individual names where known) and their occu-pation as well as the role they will be playing on thetrip. Also list the overall purpose of the exchange trip.What is to be achieved? List all trips you expect tooccur within the period of the workplan.

List and quantify all in-kind time (hours and mon-etary value) and services by person and occupation(physician, registered nurse, manager, technician, ex-ecutive, health educator, epidemiologist, etc.) that areexpected to be contributed to help meet workplanobjectives. This time includes time of both US andRegional Partner Coordinator. A formula for humanresources valuation will be assigned by AIHA. How-ever, if the value of time for each person is known,please include this amount.

Also estimate medical equipment and supplies, edu-cational materials, pharmaceuticals, and other inputsexpected to be contributed in-kind by the US partnerand its community.

Anticipated Exchange Trips:

In-kind contributions:

Page 5 of 10

E6


Section 5. Outputs and Outcomes

List and describe specific changes that are anticipated as the resultof partnership program activities.

Outputs are synonymous with work or process. Outputs are thequantity, quality, or timeliness of work products and services pro-vided by the organization and supplied to the customer and tar-geted users (e.g. patients).

Outcomes are synonymous with results. Outcomes are the waysin which users (patients) benefit or, put another way, outcomes arethe strategic results experienced by the patients from the organ-ization’s products or services.

Each output/outcome should contain reference to specific objec-tives of the partnership. Examples of outputs and outcomes arelisted below:

Outputs and Outcomes:

Type

Clinical Changes

OUTPUT (somethingyou do)

n Number of mammogramsperformed

n Number of pap smearscompleted

n Number of patients seenn Number of clinicians trainedn Introduction of new tech-

nologies or improvements intechnical skills

n Re-organization of clinicaloversight committees

n Introduction of new orrevised treatment protocols

n Development of new patientflow mechanisms

n Development of new patientservices

n Development of model orpractice standards

Page 6 of 10

OUTCOME (somethingthat results)

n Changes in clinical prac-tices

n Changes in provider/patient interaction

n Changes in record-keepingor information gathering

n Changes in efficiencyn Incidence of late-stage

diagnosis of breast cancern Mortality rates from breast

cancern Percentage of women

initiating prenatal care inthe first trimester

E7


OrganizationalChanges(e.g. manage-ment/financial)

n Reorganization oforganizational structure

n Changes in responsibilitystructure

n Development or revision ofjob descriptions

n Changes in personnelpolicies

n Changes in medical stafforganization

n Introduction of new budgetmodels

n Changes in financialmonitoring systems

n Changes in budget operationor budget control

n Changes in procurementpolicies and programs

n Changes in organizationalculture

n Job satisfaction ofemployees

n Satisfaction of clients orpatients

n Understanding of jobresponsibilities of staff

n Changes in fiscalaccountability

Community,Regional, orNational LevelChanges

n Identification of communityneeds

n Mobilization of multi-disciplinary team to addresscommunity problems

n Prioritization of issuesn Lobbying for new regional

or national policies orlegislation concerningclinical care

n Lobbying for policies orlegislation concerningcredentialing or certificationof personnel or licensing offacilities

Page 7 of 10

n Passage of new regionalor national policies orlegislation

n Reorganization ofhealthcare infrastructure

n Changes in community,regional or nationalinformation exchange

Educational n Development of newcurricula

n Changes in teachingmethodology

n Understanding of corecompetencies

n Job performance of staffn Changes in skills and

technical expertisen Understanding of concepts

E8


Section 6. Performance Indicators

List each performance indicator the partnership haschosen to demonstrate outcomes. For each indicator,note why this indicator was chosen as a performancemeasure for verifying or showing evidence of change.Also describe underlying assumptions for choosing thisindicator. Does it really measure appropriate outcomesconsistent with partnership goals? Describe how datais being collected. What is the baseline for the indica-tor chosen? If a baseline is not available, how willyou collect it? Describe any barriers or issues relatedto data collection.

Performance Indicators:

Section 7. Factors Influencing Change

List factors (positive and negative) concerning thepartnership or conditions external to the partnershipthat are likely to influence change. What factors mighthamper or contribute to partnership objectives? Whatfactors might hamper the achievement of partnershipobjectives? Is this influence positive (+), negative (-),or difficult to determine (+/-)?

Factors Influencing Change:

Section 8. Plans for Collaboration

List international and local NGOs and other organi-zations working on partnership-relevant issues. Whatis the nature and scale of their activities? What areyour intentions for interaction with these groups?Please include specific plans, if any, describing howactivities of these other organizations can be employedfor the benefit of the partnership.

Plans forcollaborationwith otherpartners, NGOs,other donor projects

Page 8 of 10

E9


Section 9. Sustainability Strategies

List all sustainability strategies designed for theachievement of partnership goals and objectives.

Sustainability Strategies:

Section 10. Strategies for Communicating Partnership Activities

List plans or strategies your partnership will employto disseminate information regarding partnershipactivities as well as gain media coverage via newspa-per, radio, or television.

Public Relations,Media, andDissemination Strategies:

Section 11. Strategies for Communicating Between Partners

List activities planned to include promotion of infor-mation exchange between partners such as using elec-tronic mail, the Internet, or any other communicationstechnologies, which may include e-mail consultations,on-line chat sessions, telemedicine applications,videoconferencing.

Partnership Communicationsand Information Exchange:

Page 9 of 10

E10


Section 12. Workplan Timeline

Lastly, we ask that you show your objectives and activi-ties in a Gannt Chart. A Gannt chart is a visual dis-play chart used for scheduling which is based on time,rather than quantity, volume or weight.

For Planned trips, place an “N” under the month inwhich a trip is anticipated to the NIS by US partners.Place a “U” under the month in which a trip is antici-pated to the US by NIS partners.

Type each workplan objective in the appropriate space.Copy and paste rows as necessary. Under each objec-tive, communicate each activity, task, or input neces-sary for the accomplishment of this objective. Shadecells under month and year that have activities. Usethe following codes for the timeline, placing the codeunder the appropriate month:

B: Begin activity, task or input

E: End activity, task or input

O: Ongoing activity, task or input

Gannt Chart:

Page 10 of 10

E11


This workplan and budget proposals were jointly developed and have been carefully re-viewed by the representatives of [click here and type US Partner Organization] and [click here andtype NIS Partner Organization]. As signatories for these partner organizations, we are in fullagreement on all aspects of these proposals, including the proposed activities, outcomes, timeline,and budget as described herein represents collaborative efforts.

AIHA Healthcare Partnership Program WORKPLAN*

SECTION 1. PARTNERSHIP AND WORKPLAN INFORMATION

Partnership:

Date of Submission: Version #:

________________________________Signature, NIS Project Coordinator

________________________________Signature, US Project Coordinator

* Follow “Guidelines for Completing Workplan Template”

E12


SECTION 2. BACKGROUND AND PRIORITIES


Background/ProblemStatement:

Priorities Identified:

SECTION 2. BACKGROUND AND PRIORITIES

Overall Goal of Partnership:

Specific Objectives of Partnership Activities

Objective 1:

Objective 2:

Objective 3:

Objective 4:

Objective 5:

SECTION 3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

E13


SECTION 4. PLANNED INPUTS AND ACTIVITIES


Overview of Proposed Activities

Section 4–1. Planned Activities

Activity #2: (Provide description below & include timeline in Section 12of the workplan)

Title of Activity:

Description of activity andtasks to be accomplished:

Timeframe forImplementation:

Relates to WorkplanObjective Numbers:


Title of Activity:




E14




Title of Activity:





Title of Activity:




E15



Section 4–2. Anticipated Exchange Trips

SECTION 4. PLANNED INPUTS AND ACTIVITIES

Trip #1

Trip Objective #1:

Trip Objective #2:

Trip Objective #3:

(Origination/Destination)

Relates to Partnership Objective # ___.



to

Travelers: Traveler

1.

2.

3.

Occupation

Trip #2

Trip Objective #1:

Trip Objective #2:

Trip Objective #3:





to

Travelers: Traveler

1.

2.

3.

Occupation

E16



Trip #4

Trip Objective #1:

Trip Objective #2:

Trip Objective #3:





to

Travelers: Traveler

1.

2.

3.

Occupation

Trip #3

Trip Objective #1:

Trip Objective #2:

Trip Objective #3:





to

Travelers: Traveler

1.

2.

3.

Occupation

E17



Section 4–3. Anticipated In-Kind Contributions

Person Occupation HoursIn-Kind Time and Servicesto be contributed to helpmeet workplan objectivesby persons & occupation

Medical Equipment and Supplies:

Educational Materials:

Pharmaceuticals:

Other In-kind Inputs &Contributions

SECTION 5. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

Type

Clinical Changes

Organizational Changes (e.g.management/financial)

Educational

Community, Regional, orNational Level Changes

OUTPUT(something you do)

OUTCOME(something that results)

E18



SECTION 6. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Indicator #1

Why chosen andassumptions?

How is data being collected?

Baseline data:

Barriers/Issues with DataCollection:

Indicator #2



Baseline data:


Indicator #3



Baseline data:


E19



SECTION 7. FACTORS INFLUENCING CHANGE

Factor Influence (+,-,+/-) Explanation

SECTION 8. PLANS FOR COLLABORATION

Plans for collaboration with other partners, NGOs, other donor projects

SECTION 9. SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES

Sustainability Strategies

Strategy #1:

Strategy #2:

Strategy #3:

E20



SECTION 10. STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNICATING PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES

PR/Media, and Dissemination Strategies

SECTION 11. STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNICATING BETWEEN PARTNERS

Partnership Communications and Information Exchange

E21


Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

JulA

ug

1999

2000

Obj

ecti

ve: A

ctiv

itie

s &

Inp

uts

PLA

NN

ED T

RIP

S (C

odes

: To

NIS

= N

; To

US

= U

)

Obj

ecti

ve: [

clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe o

bjec

tive

]A

ctiv

ity/

Tas

k/In

put:

[clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe]

Act

ivit

y/T

ask/

Inpu

t: [c

lick

here

and

type

]A

ctiv

ity/

Tas

k/In

put:

[clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe]

Act

ivit

y/T

ask/

Inpu

t: [c

lick

here

and

type

]

Obj

ecti

ve: [

clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe o

bjec

tive

]A

ctiv

ity/

Tas

k/In

put:

[clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe]

Act

ivit

y/T

ask/

Inpu

t: [c

lick

here

and

type

]A

ctiv

ity/

Tas

k/In

put:

[clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe]

Act

ivit

y/T

ask/

Inpu

t: [c

lick

here

and

type

]

Obj

ecti

ve: [

clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe o

bjec

tive

]A

ctiv

ity/

Tas

k/In

put:

[clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe]

Act

ivit

y/T

ask/

Inpu

t: [c

lick

here

and

type

]A

ctiv

ity/

Tas

k/In

put:

[clic

k he

re a

nd ty

pe]

Act

ivit

y/T

ask/

Inpu

t: [c

lick

here

and

type

]

SEC

TIO

N 1

2. W

OR

KPL

AN

TIM

ELIN

E

Out

put/O

utco

me

* Fo

llow

“G

uide

lines

for

Com

plet

ing

Wor

kpla

n Te

mpl

ate”

The Alliance for CollaborationOn Enterprise DevelopmentSample Sustainability Plan

FAppendix

Three-Year Strategic Plan for Creating a “Leave behind” Organization

Over the three-year period of the current Cooperative Agreement, Alliance members willselect and cooperate with Business Support Organizations, including business consultingorganizations, both for-profit and non-profit (hereinafter BSOs) with the aim of developingstimuli for private sector development. These activities will have two primary objectives:1) to identify, select and assist BSOs that can provide business services to Alliance clients andnew clients; and2) to leave behind personnel through which private sector volunteer services can be deliveredshould funding be available to support those assignments.Selected BSOs can be for-profit, non-commercial organizations, associations, or cooperatives,but the organizations should have technical capacity to deliver business services and anidentifiable means of financial support apart from USAID funds, including paid consultingassignments.

In order to achieve these objectives, the Alliance members will engage in the followingactivities:

— BSOs’ staff training will be developed, by Alliance staff in the field, volunteers, or otherprograms, to build selected BSO capacities to deliver business services to local clients.

— Alliance staff members will be provided with training programs. These will includeregional training programs, conducted by Alliance volunteers working on piggy-backprojects, as well as training at formal business educational centers. It is intended thatthis training will support their involvement or employment with the successor BSOs.This will be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the requirements of allparties involved. Where possible, the training provided by Alliance volunteers will beprovided to a combined group of staff from the Alliance, potential successor BSOs andclients.

— Potential successor BSOs will be selected and encouraged to develop close relationshipswith the four Alliance partners so they can call on these organizations in future, whentechnical expertise is required that could be provided by a partner’s volunteer on acost-reimbursable basis.

— In addition, the BSOs will learn how to use volunteers to complement the work theyalready do, as well as receive volunteer assistance to grow and improve their ownoperations. Volunteer assignments will be specifically designed to assist the BSOs indevelopment of management practices, pricing, marketing and the delivery of businessand consulting services.

F2


— Once successor BSOs are identified, Alliance members will introduce the successororganizations to each other, host events that encourage the successor BSOs to interact,and network with each other.

— It will be the responsibility of the successor organizations to register, and implementfinancial management systems so that they are eligible, at their option, to bid on con-tracts and enter into legal agreements to work with, or for, a variety of donor or businessorganizations. It is intentioned that equipment from the existing Alliance program willbe transferred to the successor organizations at the end of the Alliance program.

Implementation Scheme

Implementation of the above strategy is anticipated in 3 phases. Basing on the followingoutline, and maintaining flexibility to account for changes in circumstances over successiveyears, each phase will be further developed in yearly work plans:

Phase 1 - Year 1:— Training of the Alliance’s local staff, covering personal empowerment and the

development of skills necessary to oversee implementation of the Alliance’s leave-behindstrategy.

— Identification of, and non-exclusive cooperation with, potential successor BusinessSupport Organizations (BSOs), including:

— Training of both BSOs’ staff and Alliance staff by volunteers and locally hired experts(linked where possible with training of other clients’ staff).

— Researching and developing market opportunities—jointly arranging business trainingseminars, linking services for clients.

— Empowering potential successor BSOs through in-company volunteer assistanceprojects.

Phase 2 - Year 2:— Ongoing cooperation with potential successor BSOs as described above and extended to

include introducing BSOs/leave behind organizations to each other to encourage coop-eration.

Phase 3 - Year 3:— Finalizing relationships with successor BSOs.

The Alliance members have had previously documented success in working with localconsulting companies and Business Support Organizations with their programs in countriesACDI/VOCA has worked with VISTAA, an indigenous firm, in supplying local volunteers towork in tandem with U.S. volunteers. Eventually VISTAA was able to attract donor fundingfor its independent volunteer services. IESC contracts with local consultants in their pro-grams in Jordan, Egypt, and Bulgaria, where IESC’s office provides local consultants as acost-effective remedy to problems its clients are facing which do not require a full TechnicalAssistance project. CDC is now working on partnering its operations in Russia with local

F3

The Alliance for Collaboration on Enterprise Development Sample Sustainability Plan

consulting companies. The Alliance members will share their experiences and work to ensurethe development of a successful leave-behind program for the Alliance. It is anticipated thatthis program will develop at varying speeds through the Alliance’s offices, as the businessresources available to them will be of different sizes and strengths.

Implementation Plan,Phase 1 - Year 1

Staff empowerment

Identifying and cooperatingwith potential successor BSOs

The Alliance’s local staff will be given theopportunity to attend local business educationestablishments, to participate in courses theypersonally select for their further businesseducation. Subject to case-by-case approval of thestaff’s selected courses by the Alliance partner (theemployer), while taking into account CA budgetsand its published policies, the Alliance partner mayfund course costs. It is anticipated that funding onthis specific topic will not exceed a maximum of$500 per employee in the first year of the CA.

Alliance staff will join together with clientsand BSO staff in attending training seminarspresented locally by Alliance volunteers. They willalso attend seminars presented locally by otherdonor-funded organizations.

The Alliance will attempt to identify potentialsuccessor BSOs in each of its office locations withwhom it can cooperate initially on a nonexclusivebasis. The initial scope of cooperation in the firstyear may include:

Marketing each other’s services to clientsLinking services, to provide a greater range ofservicesTraining/empowering the BSOs staff through in-company technical assistanceJoint participation in organizing seminars/trainingprograms

Partnership BehaviorIdentification Tools G

Appendix

Catholic Relief Services Partnership Reflection Tool

Each partnership is unique and depends on the environment, culture, organizations, andeven the personalities found around the world. There is no model by which to describe orjudge any relationship a CRS Country Program may have with its local partners. The onething they do share, however, is their need for one another in order to most effectively imple-ment programs and benefit the people we both serve.

Just as projects need regular monitoring and evaluation, so do relationships. The complexityof bringing two autonomous organizations together with different strengths, constraints, andhistories can be challenging. Open communication, dialogue, and continual effort are criticalto negotiating this path.

This partnership reflection is designed to guide discussion and planning in monitoring part-nership relationships. Based on the CRS Principles of Partnership, this tool is an opportunityto “take stock” of various aspects of your partnership and identify areas and behaviors bothpartners would like to strengthen in the future. The process is designed to reflect the part-ners’ view of good partnership locally, rather than a global standard of excellence expected todescribe every partnership. It is hoped that this tool will then be used regularly at annualpartnership meetings or other gatherings to monitor progress.

The following is a suggested flow for the process. However, be creative and adapt every-thing!

Step 1: Partners review the CRS Partnership Principles together and adapt them as needed.The end result should be a set of principles that both parties agree reflect their idea ofexcellent partnerships. The checklist is consequently adapted in light of the changes.

Step 2: The revised checklist is given to each partner to complete separately. How this isdone can be decided locally, although a suggestion would be to have each partner or-ganization hold an internal meeting to discuss the different points and agree on the levelthey believe their partnership meets that principle—interactive, functional, consultative,passive.

Step 3: Partners come together to share their responses, note commonalties and differences,and discuss their rankings for any clarification that may be needed. Together theyidentify the key principles upon which they would like to focus for the next year.

Note: The number of principles may vary, although it is suggested that it be limitedto about 3 in order to give each one appropriate attention. It may be the principles

G2


given the lowest ranking or it may be others most critical to the functioning of therelationship. Ironically, partnerships reflecting a number of principles that needimprovement may want to choose only one or two, while stronger partnershipsmay want to choose more. The point is not to bring the partnership to perfection,but only to take the next step and make it a solid one.

Step 4: For each principle identified, the partners jointly brainstorm on behaviors that wouldindicate that the principle is being met. A list of sample behavior indicators are includedin this tool. This list is not finite but only intended to stimulate thinking! The list is re-viewed and the ones partners both commit to work on are chosen. Time frames areestablished for how often this will be done.

Step 5: Go to work engaging in the behaviors and strengthening your partnerships. In oneyear’s time (or however long you choose), repeat the process. Note how much progresswas made over the year, chose new principles or new behaviors or stay with the oldones, according to group discussions.

Reflection Checklist

Partners indicate the level which the partnership meets this principle from their own perspective.The following elaboration of the scores may be helpful.

Interactive Partnership—Partners participate in joint analysis and development ofSPPs, and action and project plans. Participation tends to involve interdisciplinarymethodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and struc-tured learning processes. Partners share in local decision-making and have a stake inmaintaining structures or practices.

Functional Partnership—Partners participate by forming groups to meet predeterminedobjectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion ofexternally initiated social organization. Such involvement does not tend to be at earlystages of program cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made.

Consultative Partnership—Partners participate by being consulted and CRS field stafflisten to the views. CRS defines both the problems and solutions, and may modify thesein light of partner responses. Implementation is then handed to the partners to carryout.

Passive Partnership—Partners participate by being told what is going to happen or hasalready happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or projectmanagement without listening to peoples’ responses. The information being sharedbelongs to CRS.

G3

Partnership Behavior Identification Tools

Participation of communitiesCRS and its partners maximize community participation in all aspects of programming to ensurecommunity ownership of, and decision-making within, the development process.

P

Autonomy and mutualityCRS achieves complementarity and mutuality in its parterships, recognizing and valuing that eachbrings a set of skills, resources, knowledge, and capacities to the partnership in a spirit of mutualautonomy.

A

Pass

ive

CRS Partnership Principles

Con

sult

ativ

e

Func

tion

al

Inte

ract

ive

TransparencyTo foster healthy partnerships, CRS promotes mutual transparency regarding capacities,constraints, and resources.

T

Needs assessment and capacity strengtheningCRS facilitates and promotes the strengthening of partners’ abilities to identify, build on, andaddress their vulnerabilities, strengths, and specific-capacity building needs through a processthat leads to sustainability.

N

EquitabilityCRS fosters equitable partnerships by engaging in a process of mutually defining rights andresponsibilities, in relation to each partner’s capacity, required to achieve the goal of thepartnership.

E

Respect, openness and sharingIn its relationships with partners CRS promotes openness and sharing of perspectives and approaches.

R

Responsibility for decision-makingAll of CRS’s partnerships assign responsibility for decision-making and implementation to alevel as close as possible to the people whom decisions will affect.

R

G4


Principal Indicators List

Complete one indicator list for each principle identified for action. Think ofwhat behaviors indicate that this principle is present. Place the completeprinciple at the top of the table. List as many indicators as you feel are useful,adding additional spaces if needed. (Look at the sample list to get your think-ing started.) Once the list is agreed upon, come up with a time frame for thefrequency of action.

Principle:

Behavior Indicator:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Time Frame

Shared visionCRS bases partnerships upon a shared vision for addressing people’s immediate needs and theunderlying causes of suffering and injustice.

S

Helps strengthen civil societyBy building partnerships, CRS seeks to make a contribution to the strengthening of civil society.

H

Institutional DevelopmentThe engagement of CRS and the local partner in Local Capacity Development involves a long-termcommitment to complete a mutually agreed upon process of organizational development.

I

PartnershipOverall satisfaction with the partnership.

P

G5


Sample Indications of Partnership Behavior

The following is a list of possible indicators for each partnership principle. The list is intended to beillustrative only. Feel free to use, change, or not use the indicators only as useful and applicable toyour specific and unique situation and partnership environment.

Participation of communitiesn Communities are recognized to have capacities and

coping mechanisms that should be identified, under-stood, and strengthened as the primary source ofsolving local problems.

n Participatory methods are used to maximize jointplanning, evaluation and analysis.

n Partners conduct joint field visit and working sessionwhile designing projects to determine how they willwork with community groups and beneficiaries.

n Outputs/results of projects are sustained, protected,managed and utilized by community beyond life ofproject, even during times of change.

n CRS and partners participate in community projects/programs.

n All stakeholders (comm. members, local CBOs, localgovernment officials, private business, etc.) arecommitted to and involved in reaching communitygoals.

n Local officials lobby higher levels for increasedresources or other relevant changes

Autonomy and mutualityn Partners get to know each other and identify issues of

common interest through meetings without precon-ceived projects in mind.

n Field visits/contacts are held to learn more about eachorganization.

n All stakeholders understand and know goals ofrelationship. Local partners express their views ofpartnership, their needs and what they’re looking forfrom CRS; CRS is clear and direct with counterpartsabout its hopes and expectations for partnership

n Partners explore the best kind of relationship for twoorganizations (subcontractor, joint venture, donor,service provider, technical assistance, etc.), institutionaldevelopment arrangements, policy support anddevelopment education responsibilities.

n Comparative advantages of each organization and howthe two can complement one another are discussed.

n Each partner willingly takes responsibility.n Mutual assistance is given.n Identify concrete ways in which each organization can

contribute to strengthening the other during the courseof the relationship; identify innovative

n Management approaches practices by Southernpartners.

n Identification of the technical, financial, and humanresource capacities of both partners.

n IB is as a reciprocal relationship with both organi-zations having areas of strengths and areas in whicheach can serve as a resource to the other.

n Advocacy work is done jointly, e.g., local partnerrepresentatives speak in U.S. on effects of U.S. policyon poor, partner representative on visit congressionalrepresentative to discuss issues of concern.

n Each organization continues to exist and interact withother partners and their reputation remains indepen-dent.

n Sharing of information-gathering and analysisexercises.

n Defining a mutual learning strategy. Acknowledgingexamples of mutual exchange of learning and access toknowledge and skills, innovative methodologies.

n Expression of mutual satisfaction with relations.n Communication is conducted in both/common

languages.n Celebrations are held together.

Responsibility for decision-makingn Priority needs and opportunities are identified through

local partner’s network.n Joint decision-making structures are defined and

utilized.n Clearly defined and agreed upon fiscal accounting.n Willingness to modify expectations and roles to

address lessons learned.n Projects are developed together (e.g., joint field visits

and working sessions while designing projects;determining responsibilities and ownership of theproject, etc.).

n Participation in decision making is regularly employed.n Workshops and meetings are held to discuss decision-

making, project implementation, and risk evaluation.n Guidelines are established for how the budget will be

managed and controlled.n Joint planning for SPP and projects. Partners are

engaged in project activities from the earliest stages ofproblem identification and project planning to ensureappropriate and meaningful collaboration.

G6


n Existence of a strategy for active solicitation of viewsand perspectives of partners in the processes ofprogram exploration and selection

n CRS country programs and headquarters departmentscollaborate with European Catholic agencies to educateand engage constituencies in common global citizenconcerns, as well as link those constituencies with localpartner constituencies to enrich constituency education,and form global networks for action.

Transparencyn Periodic review of expectations, roles, and responsibili-

ties.n Regular meetings are held to review project achieve-

ments, check on working relationship, and solveproblems.

n Willingness to modify expectations and roles toaddress lessons learned.

n Mutual monitoring systems guide how each isaccountable to the other and how both are accountableto community/beneficiary groups.

n Information is shared between organizations, such asfinancial information, long-range plans and organiza-tional assessments, organizational strengths/weak-nesses and challenges faced.

n Sharing of information on grant conditions and donorrequirements.

n Clearly defined and agreed upon fiscal accounting.n Guidelines are established for how the budget will be

managed and controlled.n Sharing of information-gathering and analysis exer-

cises.n Indicators to monitor project progress are mutually

agreed upon.n Evaluations are used as management/training tools so

that both Northern/Southern partners and communitygroups/beneficiaries can learn and grow through them,and the relationship can be strengthened.

n Identification of the technical, financial, and humanresource capacities of both partners.

n IB activities are coordinated with other donor andpartnership NGOs.

n Advocacy work is done jointly, e.g., local partnerrepresentatives speak in U.S. on effects of U.S. policyon poor, partner representative on visit congressionalrepresentative to discuss issues of concern

n Donor agencies are engaged as a partnership team.n Joint reports are submitted to donors or systems are

established so each knows what goes to a donor.

Needs assessment and capacity strengtheningn Capacity-building assessments are regularly conducted

with major counterparts, using self-assessment toolswhenever appropriate.

n CRS country programs and headquarters departmentscollaborate with European Catholic agencies toeducate and engage constituencies in common globalcitizen concerns, as well as link those constituencieswith local partner constituencies to enrich constituencyeducation, and form global networks for action.

n Adequate financial and staff resources are invested incapacity building plans.

n Baseline study and monitoring system followed tomeasure capacity-building progress. Sustainabilityindicators, including financial sustainability, aredeveloped and monitored. Benchmarks agreed upon.

n When goals are completed, new roles and responsibili-ties assigned and taken.

n Existence of an exit strategy and an independentcapacity to access/generate resources

n Existence of plans for strengthening managerial,organizational, and technical capacities of partnerorganizations

n Linkages with a diversity of funding sources.n Plan for fundraising skills transfer.

Equitabilityn The number of organizational partnerships matches

the capacity to provide sound and regular financial,management, administrative, technical, and moralsupport consistent with CST.

n Partner roles and responsibilities are clearly definedwithin a project. Written agreements outline eachorganization’s responsibilities and norms of behaviorand amount and type of resources and skills eachbrings to the table.

n Projects are developed together (e.g., joint field visitsand working sessions while designing projects;determining responsibilities and ownership of theproject, etc.).

n Participation in decision making is regularly employed.n Forums are held for both partners to have dialogue

with respect to the design and implementation of theproject.

n Identify concrete ways in which each organization cancontribute to strengthening the other during the courseof the relationship; identify innovative managementapproaches practices by Southern partners.

n Keeping the vision alive, supporting each other throughthick and thin

n Partners commit to working on common organiza-tional challenges, like fundraising or board develop-ment, and learn from and support each other.

n The partnership is monitored through ongoingdialogue and annual partner meetings.

n Donor agencies are engaged as a partnership team.n Joint reports are submitted to donors, or systems are

established so each knows what goes to a donor.

G7


Respect, openness, and sharingn Cultural sensitivity.n Frequent communication.n Partners take time to develop trust before starting a

project.n All stakeholders understand and know goals of

relationship. Local partners express their views ofpartnership, their needs, and what they’re looking forfrom CRS; CRS is clear and direct with counterpartsabout its hopes and expectations for partnership

n Partners attend fora together (such as conferences,workshops).

n Partners seek to understand and address root causes ofthe targeted symptom of poverty or injustice (such ashigh infant mortality, high erosion rates, illiteracy, orfood insecurity).

n Staff are provided with opportunities to learn why andhow CRS works with partners, using the Principles ofPartnership, the CRS Justice Strategy, and principles ofCatholic Social Teaching as guidelines.

n Sharing information-gathering and analysis exercises.n Engage in staff exchanges or internships.n Partners are appropriately supported in their efforts to

uphold country policies related to their mission/work,such as policies related to rights of woman, laborcodes, etc.

n Joint experiences are documented to share with otherorganizations interested in partnerships.

n Joint international, regional, or country-level workshopsare held with other development organizations.

Shared visionn Partnership is based on shared values of justice and

social change.n Clear and well-defined visions for each organization are

expressed in mission statements and charters.Discussions are held on the compatibility of anydifferences that may exist.

n Strategic plans of both reflect at least some commonapproaches and program areas.

n Project documents integrate shared vision and strategicapproaches.

n Both organizations have congruent charters/missionstatements and each is discussed.

n Alignment on program and implementation issues.n Agreement on values and ideology.

Helps strengthen civil societyn CRS undertakes dialogue and/or action to strengthen

or improve civil society arenas.n CRS encourages its partners to engage in dialogue. and

action with other members of civil society, in order tocontribute to the transformation of unjust structuresand systems.

n Country programs collaborate with other PVOs andlocal NGO support organizations to provide trainingfor organizational development in an effort to increaseconsistency, avoid repetition, increase cost-effective-ness, provide networking opportunities, and decreasedependence of local NGOs on a single PVO.

n Country programs seek to create linkages betweenlocal partners and organizations sharing similarpurposes and mission at both the regional andinternational level, including those in the United States,for the purpose of sharing information, strengtheninginstitutional capacity, building alliances, and accessingresources.

n Country programs facilitate and support networkingand coalition building within civil society as well asbetween civil society and the business and governmentsectors through various approaches, including:

n providing funds for workshops, conferences, andtraining opportunities;

n managing umbrella projects that involve multiple localorganizations working together;

n supporting intermediary or support organizations thatoffer training, networking opportunities, advocacyassistance, and other services to local organizations;and

n Engaging local government and small businesses indevelopment efforts with civil society partners.

n Country programs assist local partners and theirnetworks in strengthening legal, policy, and operatingenvironments through such nonviolent means as:

n providing contacts in other countries to encourage andfacilitate exchanges of information;

n supporting advocacy training, events, and activities,including public awareness campaigns; and

n convening fora for discussion and action among localcivil society, PVOs, U.N. agencies, donors, and host-government bodies.

n Integration of advocacy educational modules in CRSprojects/sectors

Institutional developmentn Comprehensive IB plans developed with major

counterparts to address their needs.n Country programs engage local partners in joint and

mutual organizational assessment and planningprocesses through which all parties, including CRS,collaboratively identify their own strengths, prioritizethe areas in need of improvement, and create their ownaction plans.

n Strengthening of local partners’ organizationalcapacities are based on shared action plans, project-specific interventions, occasional trainings, etc.

n Partners expand their operational network with otherNGOs/donors.

n Opportunities are provided for training and dialogueon strategic issues: justice lens.

G8


American International Health AllianceHigh-Performance Teams Evaluation

Two prominent researchers, Carl E. Larson and Frank M.J. LaFasto, recently identified eightcharacteristics that they believe explain how and why effective teams develop. These crucialfactors associated with team success were found in an extraordinarily diverse collection ofhighly effective teams, including the McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets team, the space shuttleChallenger investigation team, the crew of USS Kitty Hawk, executive management teams,cardiac surgery teams, mountain climbing teams, and the 1966 Notre Dame championshipfootball team.

High-Performance Teams Evaluation ChecklistDirections

Look at the characteristics of high-performing teams shown below and rankyour team. A “10” indicates that your team clearly exhibits this character-istic. A “1” means that you can see little or no evidence of this beingpresent.

n A clear, elevating goal (Vision) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10A sense of purpose; worthwhile and chal-lenging objectives; clear consequences con-nected with achievement of or failure toreach goals; shared vision compelling enoughto create a team identity

n A Results-Driven Structure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10A team design determined by the results to beachieved; clear lines of authority,responsibility, and accountability;communication system allowing informalopportunities to raise issues, methods fordocumenting issues and decisions; effectivemethods for monitoring individualperformance and providing feedback; deci-sion-making processes encouragefact-based judgment

n Competent Team Members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Members possess essential skills and abilitiesto accomplish mission; individuals demon-strate a strong desire to contribute; membersare confident in abilities of others, individualsare capable of collaborating effectively witheach other

© 1999 AYRE, CLOUGH & NORRIS AND THE GROVE CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL

G9


n Unified Commitment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Achieving team goals is a higher prioritythan any individual objective; personalsuccess is achieved through team success;willingness to devote whatever effort neces-sary to ensure success

n A Collaborative Climate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trust among team members is high enough toshare information and feedback; memberscompensate for each other’s shortcomings;members trust each other to act competentlyand responsibly; team embraces a commonset of guiding values

n Standards of Excellence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10High standards are established; membersrequire each other to perform to the stan-dards; the team exerts pressure on itself toimprove performance

n External Support and Recognition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Necessary resources are available; supportfrom critical constituencies; sufficient recog-nition for accomplishments; an effectivereward and incentive structure that is clearlydefined, viewed as appropriate and tied toindividual and team performance

n Principled Leadership 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Leads in an inspired way: exhibits personalcommitment; doesn’t dilute team effort withtoo many priorities; stands behind team withopen support; fair and impartial toward all;exhibits trust by giving meaningful levels ofresponsibility; doesn’t compromise valuesand principles for “politics.”Note: Assume that team leadership is sharedamong ALL members of the team.


G10


American International Health AllianceLeadership Inventory

Use this leadership inventory, created by Donald Hackett and Charles Martin, to gain a senseof your preferred leadership style. Then, on the next page, note the differences betweenfacilitative and traditional leadership styles.

A Leadership Quiz

Check what your colleagues would say is typical of your leadership:

1. Task-oriented2. One-way3. Power-oriented4. Uses threats5. Makes all the decisions6. Works one-on-one7. Motivates with money8. Pushes change top-down9. Good at office politics10. Values structure11. Quality-oriented12. Good discussion13. Open and trusting14. Stresses consensus decisions15. Works well with groups16. Motivates by involving people17. Designs change through groups18. Works across departments19. Encourages risk-taking20. Defines jobs broadly

SOURCE: FACILITATION SKILLS FOR TEAM LEADERS BY DONALD HACKETT AND CHARLES MARTIN


G11


TRADITIONAL AND FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP COMPARISON


Traditional

Emphasizes task completion

Uses one-way communicationto fix a problem

Uses threats and power

Receives some input but stillcalls the shots

Expert at working one-on-onewith subordinates to gainsupport or to motivate

Relies heavily on money andpromotions to driveperformance

Pushes change from the topand “sells the change”with reasons why peopleshould embrace the newway

Facilitative

Focuses more on quality of output

Empowers and encourages teammembers to originate andimplement solutions

Uses openness and trust whileencouraging innovation andrisk-taking

Toils to get all team members tosupport a position before theycall it a decision

Works with groups both withintheir department and acrossdepartmental boundaries

Praise, achievement, and involve-ment are central motivationaltools

Uses groups to evolve change andthus build receptivity

TASK/QUALITY

COMMUNICATION

CONTROL

DECISIONS

RELATIONSHIPS

MOTIVATION

CHANGE

Note: Items 1–10 on the quiz are more representative of traditional leadership.Items 11–20 are more suggestive of facilitative leadership.

SOURCE. FACILITATION SKILLS FOR TEAM LEADERS BY DONALD HACK~ AND CHARLES MARTIN

G12


Leadership Self-Assessment Test

Different Leadership StylesPredicting Partnership Success

Some organizations are better than others at forming, building, and sustaining effectivepartnerships. The reasons for this often are difficult to predict and can even be ephemeral.But one set of factors seems always to be important: management and leadership style. Thesetend to filter down through an organization and influence the way it interacts with othergroups.

Studies of organizational behavior suggest that certain types of management structures andstyles of leadership appear more conducive to forming partnerships. Spotting positive ornegative attributes in advance can help you deduce which partnerships are most likely toflourish.

Leadership styles range from autocratic to fully participatory. There are several useful scalesto help you think about this range of behaviors:

Finding the optimal leadership style means finding a style that incorporates the personalqualities of the leader, the values and personal preferences of the staff, the nature of the task,and the environment where the organization is working.

While there is no “right” or “wrong” leadership style as such, over the past 25 years therehas been a trend in organizations toward so-called open leadership styles. These are charac-terized by accessible information systems, the inclusion of staff in the decision-making pro-cess, heavier reliance on teamwork, and a greater effort to reach consensus on key decisions.*

This shift has been particularly evident in social purpose organizations that place a highvalue on democratic processes (Terry 1993).

In a partnership, it is important that the management and leadership styles of the two col-laborating organizations be compatible. Thus, a partnership between an organization on theautocratic end of the spectrum and one on the democratic end may be problematic.

*For example, see Cleveland N.d.

Different Ways of Classifying Leadership StylesAutocratic

AutocraticLeader controlsLeader decides

Tellings

PaternalisticShared controlLeader consults

Selling

Democratic

ConsultativeShared controlLeader sharesParticipating

ParticipatoryGroup controls

Leader delegatesDelegating

Source: Handy 1993.

G13


There is growing evidence that partnerships are more likely to be workable under a leader-ship style that falls toward the democratic side of the spectrum. The reasons are relativelyclear:

n Partnerships are voluntary associations and tend inherently to resist compliance by“command and control” management structures.

n Partnerships tend to be organic and exploratory, thus they are more likely to growand evolve under an open and responsive management system.

n Democratic management styles tend to encourage open and free communication andto promote an atmosphere of trust—the bedrock of a strong partnership.

What follows is a self-assessment survey designed to profile leader/management styles withthe intent of building strong partnerships. Responses to these questions will help you indicatewhether the leader/management style of two organizations is at odds with or supportive ofa partnership relationship. Keep in mind that the responses measure management andleadership style only. Other factors, such as clear and tangible gain from the relationship,may offset a problematic management fit.

You can use this survey in either of two ways. First, you can send it to the leadership of bothorganizations you plan to work with and suggest they complete it to evaluate their ownleadership style from the perspective of partnership building. Alternatively, you can use it asa checklist to help you assess whether a particular partnership is likely to succeed.

Leadership Self-Assessment

This is a self-assessment survey. It is for your private use only. No one will rate your response.There are no “right” or “wrong” answers.

Please respond to the following eight propositions and then refer to the correspondinganalysis in the subsequent section:

1. I have full confidence in the staff of this organization. If something were to happen tome, I believe the organization would function effectively for at least six months withouta leader (Bennis and Nanus 1985). Rate yourself along a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 indicat-ing that the statement does not apply to you and 10 indicating that it applies quitestrongly.

1……………………5……………………..10

G14


2. I am good at tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty. When things become confusing, Itend to defer to the judgment of my most experienced staff. Rate yourself along a scaleof 1 to 10, with 1 indicating that the statement does not apply to you and 10 indicatingthat it applies quite strongly.

1……………………5……………………..10

3. I believe that effective leadership is based on the following abilities (Maccoby 1981).Check only three:

n To understand the future implications of current events

n To gain and protect power and influence

n To figure out a problem and persuade others to solve it

n To articulate the core values of the organization

n To find points of agreement and build consensus

4. The following best describes how I like to make difficult decisions. Check the approachyou believe applies to you:

n I ask my staff to give me their views in writing; I then synopsize the pros andcons on a piece of paper and pick the best alternative.

n I discuss a particular problem individually with staff members; I then synopsize the pros and cons on a piece of paper and pick the best alternative.

n I convene a group discussion where everybody has his say; I then go into myoffice, sketch out the pros and cons, and pick the best alternative.

n I convene a decision meeting at which everybody has his say; I then write thepros and cons on a chalkboard and make my decision in a group setting.

n I convene a decision meeting at which everybody has his say; I then write thepros and cons on a chalkboard and allow the group to decide.

5. The following two paragraphs begin with the premise that there are two kinds ofpeople: bipods and tripods. As described below, which of the two do you think bestapplies to you?

n The bipods are thinkers and see the world in terms of their relations withother people. The bipods tend to define success or failure in terms of their

G15


relationship with other people—whether they are loved, whether they arefollowed, whether they win or lose in a sporting event or a relationship.

n The tripods are builders and tend to see the world in terms of a task or apurpose. The tripods tend to define success in terms of achieving a result ormaking a change. Tripods don’t give as much importance to winning or losingbut on the results of playing the game.

6. Studies of leadership have identified eight functions of a leader. Of these eight, identifythe four you believe are the most important attributes of an effective leader:

n Defining the task

n Planning

n Briefing

n Controlling

n Evaluating

n Motivating

n Organizing

n Setting an example

7. Several studies have identified a group of personal traits that are associated with effec-tive leadership (Adair 1983). Of the following eight such traits, four are associated witheffective leadership and four are not. Review the list and mark the four traits you be-lieve are associated with effective leadership.

n A high level of intelligence

n A capacity to communicate persuasively

n An irreverent and questioning attitude toward authority

n A willingness to subordinate practical benefits to idealistic goals

n A high level of personal ambition

n A commitment to winning at all costs

n A complete commitment to the mission of the organization

G16


n Distributive bargaining. One side will win and one will lose. It is important tobe extremely competitive and play to win. We will state our position clearlyand take a hard-line position. Concessions will weaken our position. It isdangerous to reveal information that can weaken our position.

n Integrative bargaining. We need to find an optimal solution that constitutes a“win–win” for both sides. We will state our position in terms of desirable andimportant attributes of the solution. We will share information that explainswhy these attributes of the solution are importance to us. We will help testalternative solutions to see whether they are feasible.

n Coalition bargaining. The only way to win is to build a coalition of people whoare willing to support one another. As the coalition grows, a consensus willgradually emerge. Eventually one coalition will dominate. Those who do notconcur initially will eventually either join the most powerful coalition or beoutvoted.

Responses to Leadership Self-Assessment

1. If you rated yourself on the high end (from 6 to 10), you are more likely to delegateresponsibility, seek advice from your staff, and be responsive to their suggestions. Ingeneral, these are attributes related to strong partnerships.

2. If you rated yourself on the high end (from 6 to 10), you are likely to have the patienceneeded for a consensus-building approach. The ability to tolerate uncertainty correlateswith the ability to manage in an open and participatory manner.

3. All of these abilities have been cited in one study or another as important to effectiveleadership. Every good leader will employ some of these abilities at one time or another.But the abilities that are appear most directly related to a capacity to sustain a partner-ship relations are the last two:

n To articulate the core values of the organization

n To find points of agreement and build consensus

If you checked these two abilities, it suggests that you place a value on those attributesimportant to managing an effective partnership.

4. All of these techniques are perfectly acceptable, and the appropriate approach willdepend on the context and the nature of the particular decision. Yet, techniques towardthe bottom of the list (“I convene a decision meeting at which everybody has his say; Ithen write the pros and cons on a chalkboard and make my decision in a group setting”or “ I convene a decision meeting at which everybody has his say; I then write the prosand cons on a chalkboard and allow the group

G17


to decide”) are more participatory than those toward the top and are better suited todecision-making in a partnership.

5. The bipod mentality (seeing the world in terms of personal relations) tends to advanceby using interpersonal techniques of power, control, and domination. Both success andfailure tend to be highly personalized. Bipods may be highly successful in the short termbut tend to alienate and self-destruct over time. Tripods tend to depersonalize and placeprimary emphasis on tangible outcomes. Tripods are uncompromising in pursuit of agoal and less likely to be derailed by short-term failures. Tripods tend to be better thanbipods at managing partnerships because they keep the relationship aimed at resultsand are less concerned about ups and downs in relationships.

6. All of these functions are important for effective leadership. But, on the one hand, if youpicked planning, briefing, motivating, and setting an example, you are reflecting functionsthat are important in the management of partnerships. On the other hand, if you pickeddefining, controlling, evaluating, and organizing, you are placing emphasis on functionsthat can become problematic in managing a partnership if they are too dominant.

7. A recent study of leadership traits suggests that two of these personal traits are posi-tively correlated with the capacity to manage partnerships, while in other cases there isa negative correlation.

Positive traits (and the reasons why) include

n A capacity to communicate persuasively—critical in partnerships wheremisunderstanding and misinterpretation are likely to occur.

n An irreverent and questioning attitude toward authority—indicates a willingnessto be flexible, pragmatic, not dogmatic.

Negative traits (and the reasons why) are

n A willingness to subordinate practical benefits to idealistic goals—effective leaderstend to be pragmatic; idealistic leaders are often inflexible and dogmatic.

n A commitment to winning at all costs—unrealistic and difficult to negotiate anddeal with.

n A complete commitment to the mission of the organization—reasonable flexibilityis important if partnerships are to take root.

n An ability to identify and correct mistakes—effective leaders tend not to beparticularly concerned with past behavior. They learn from mistakes butspend relatively little time thinking about the past or rectifying errors to “setthe record straight.”

G18


8. All three bargaining strategies are legitimate and appropriate, depending on context.But integrative bargaining is the approach most strongly correlated with good partner-ship relations. Distributive bargaining will tend to divide partners. Coalition building willestablish a majority but will tend to upset the balance in a relationship.

Facilitation Tools HAppendix

HIS APPENDIX describes some of thefacilitation tools available to partners.While the tools may appear simple, they

should be used with the help of a trained fa-cilitator.

Group Process Techniques

Process Mapping

Process mapping is a simple flowcharting tech-nique used to display the steps of a work pro-cess and their interrelationships. A process itselfis a particular method of doing work that usu-ally involves multiple steps or operations. Thebasic characteristic of a process is that it doessomething; it is an action. The root cause ofmany problems lies in the fundamental waywork is carried out. Process mapping providesa visual display of the work process to 1) makeit easy to understand how things are done,2) identify bottlenecks, barriers, and problems,and 3) develop new ways to complete work.Process mapping is helpful when a work teamwishes to improve the current way of doingthings, when two or more organizations hopeto improve their working relationship, or whena new work system is being designed.

Storyboarding

A highly visible process of gathering, evaluat-ing, and organizing information, storyboardingis a structured form of brainstorming. It is use-ful for selecting themes, identifying problems,or generating solutions.

T SWOT Analysis

An activity conducted during the planningphase of a project, a SWOT (for strengths, weak-nesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis con-centrates on members’ perceptions of theircommunity. The activity produces “soft” datathat can later be integrated with “hard” datain selecting important performance areas.

Decision-Making Framework

Some decisions are made most effectively byan entire team. In those situations, consensusis vital. Other decisions are best made by anindividual. Between these clear extremes aredecisions that require more or less input fromthe team. A decision-making framework is use-ful for identifying activities that require indi-vidual, small-group, or team decisions.

Force Field Analysis

Force field analysis helps display the forces thathelp a group close—and those that hinder itsattempts to close—the gap between where thegroup is at a given point and where it wants tobe. It can help the group make changes by forc-ing members to think together about all the fac-ets of a desired change (thereby encouragingcreative thinking) and by helping it reach con-sensus on the relative priority of factors.

§

The foregoing information in this appendixderives from Facilitating Community Change by

H2

Durable Partnerships

Darvin Ayre, Gruffie Clough, and Tyler Norris.Facilitating Community Change is a practicalstep-by-step resource for community membersand leaders who wish to build partnerships forhealthier, more sustainable communities. It of-fers a highly flexible approach to harnessingthe values, assets, and aspirations of a com-munity. Rather than presenting untested theo-ries, this guide provides a comprehensivesummary of what works, using extensive real-life experience of dozens of communities world-wide. For more information about the guide,see http://www.communityinitiatives.com/fcc.html.

Another source, Facilitation Skills Training byDian Svendsen, Pam Foster, and Rolf Sartorius,derives from highly effective training programsin Zambia and elsewhere around the world.Facilitation Skills Training provides a trainingapproach to build the knowledge, attitudes,and skills of development managers to activelyinvolve diverse interest groups in developmentprocesses and program management. This pub-lication provides a basic narrative frameworkfor understanding the role of the facilitator,guidance on how to plan and organize work-shop and planning events, and step-by-steptraining sessions to build the facilitation skillsof workshop participants. It is based on prin-ciples of adult learning and is designed to maxi-mize participants’ commitment to the learningprocess and their own personal development.When used at the organizational level, theguide builds the capacities of organizations tobecome more effective catalysts of changethrough greater stakeholder involvement. Atthe project level, it provides a foundation ofskills for managers who are seeking to improvetheir use of participatory approaches to proj-ect design, implementation, and evaluation. Formore information about the manual, see http://www.socialimpact.com/facskills.html.

Participatory LearningAnd Action Tools

Observation

Information can be gathered systematicallythrough direct observation of an occurrence,an event, a process, or a physical object. Theobservation team should consist of people withcontrasting backgrounds and training becauseeach member will be attuned to different fea-tures. Direct observation is useful for

n Collecting preliminary, descriptive data

n Collecting data on an ongoing behavioror an unfolding event

n Collecting physical information, such asdata on layout or physical structures forroads, housing, and irrigation systems

Direct observations may reveal social and eco-nomic conditions or problems and behaviorpatterns that informants may be unaware ofor unable to adequately describe.

Semistructured Interviews

A semistructured interview is constructed froma short list of themes that are used to guideconversations with individuals or small groupsthat are likely to provide information, ideas,and insights on a particular subject. The inter-view guide can be pretested. In general, theinterview is driven by the themes—rather thanby a more structured list of questions.

The interview team should consist of peoplewith contrasting backgrounds and training, sothey will notice the different features of the in-terviews and the contexts in which they take

H3

Facilitation Tools

place. The team should spend as much timetogether reviewing and analyzing the inter-views as they do conducting them. Team mem-bers may decide to revise the list of topics andtheir approach to subsequent interviews as theylearn together, because interview data oftenprovide new, in-depth, inside information. Theteam should maintain flexibility to explore newideas and previously unanticipated issues asthey arise.

Focus Groups

A focus group is a discussion session conductedto explore a specific topic. The number of par-ticipants in a focus group should be limited tono more than 12. As with a semistructured in-terview, a guide is developed to steer the con-versation around specific themes. A facilitatorconducts the focus group, creating a climateand forum for participants to discuss their ideas,issues, insights, and experiences around thetopics identified in the guide. Focus group dis-cussions can also be flexible enough to respondto unanticipated themes or issues raised in dis-cussion. The facilitator should ensure that noone person dominates the group and that ev-eryone is given a chance to speak. Focus groupsare useful for

n Explaining responses of the local popula-tion

n Collecting recommendations and sugges-tions

n Eliciting reactions to recommendedchanges

n Collecting ideas and hypotheses for de-signing a development intervention

n Assessing stakeholder needs and deter-mining whether they have been met

n Examining and analyzing major imple-mentation problems whose nature and im-plications are unclear

Mapping

Mapping is a spatial data-gathering tool thatprovides a visual representation of the commu-nity. Mapping can generate many differentkinds of information. It can clarify a specificinformation such as the skills of communitymembers, which families use family planning,the number of children in and out of school ineach household, and households with familymembers who have migrated elsewhere. Map-ping can be used to gather more general infor-mation such as infrastructure, types of facilities,geographical features, natural resources, landuse, and water sources. Mapping has enormouspotential to generate discussion among com-munity members, because everyone can par-ticipate.

Time Lines

Time lines are time-related data-gathering toolsthat link dates with historical events. A timeline is usually divided into many sections, withthe date written on one side of the line and theevent written on the other side. Time lines cancover any period, but they are most commonlyused to examine a sequence of events overmany years. They can be used to describe com-munity, personal, or project histories. In addi-tion to presenting significant events, time linesidentify changes over time.

Venn Diagrams

Venn diagrams are social data-gathering toolsthat use circles to illustrate how different insti-tutional or community components are linked.They are especially useful for showing relation-

H4


ships within an institution or community,which is important to understand when seek-ing solutions or sources of help for problems.Larger circles represent larger or more impor-tant components; smaller circles representsmaller or less important organizations. Thedistances between circles represent the level ofinteraction between organizations. The circlesare drawn overlapping one another in areaswhere the different components of an institu-tion collaborate or participate in joint decision-making.

§

Information in the foregoing section derivesfrom material found in the following docu-ments:

n The Performance Monitoring and EvaluationTips series by USAID’s Center for Develop-ment Information and Evaluation pro-vides guidelines, advice, and suggestionsto USAID managers on how to effectivelyplan and conduct performance monitor-ing and evaluation activities. To access theTips series on the Web, see http://www.dec.org/usaid_eval/#004.

n Empowering Communities: ParticipatoryTechniques for Community-Based ProgramDevelopment (by Berengere de Negri andElizabeth Thomas of the Academy

for Educational Development, AloysIllinigumugabo and Ityai Muvandi of theCenter for African Family Studies, andGary Lewis of the Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Center for Communication Programs)is a participant handbook intended toaccompany the training course Empow-ering Communities: Participatory Tech-niques for Community-Based ProgramDevelopment. The handbook aims to pro-vide course participants with centralpoints for each session as well as case stud-ies, exercises, and a structured format forkeeping notes during their field experi-ence. Thus, while the handbook is notmeant to serve as a stand-alone guide toparticipatory program development but asa hands-on tool for use during the course,it provides useful, basic background infor-mation on participatory approaches todevelopment. The document is availableon the Web at http://www.aed.org/pcs/documents.htm.

The Eldis Web site is an excellent resource forinformation on participatory tools. The pageon participation, http://nt1.ids.ac.uk/eldis/pra/pra.htm, contains links to manuals, Websites, bibliographic sources, and organizationsand networks. The Eldis page on participatorymethods, tools, and manuals, http://nt1.ids.ac.uk/eldis/hot/pm3.htm, lists 24 rec-ommended guides.

Bibliography

Ad Hoc Group on CRSP Results.1998. “Notes from 8/20 InformalMeeting on Improving USAID–CRSPResults Processes.” Memorandum.

Adair, J. 1983. Effective Leadership.Aldershot, United Kingdom:Gower Publishing.

Aguirre International. 1996. “The NISExchanges and Training Project: Amidterm evaluation of process andpreliminary impact.” Rosslyn, Va.

Allen, Vernon. 1985. Mid-Point ProgramEvaluation of Jamaica/Western NewYork Partners of America PartnersVoluntary Technical Assistance Ser-vice. Creative Associates.

Amin, Ruhul. 1998. “Final Report—University Development LinkageProject Between Morgan StateUniversity, Baltimore (LeadUniversity), and JahangirnagarUniversity, Savar, Dhaka, Bang-ladesh.” PD–ABR–806. Washington:USAID.

Angel, David; and others. 1997. UnitedStates–Asia Environmental Partner-ship: Five-Year Review Contract No.PCE–1–00–96–00002–00. Washing-ton: USAID.

Ashman, Darcy. 1999a. “The Partner-ship Between PLAN InternationalKenya and Business Initiatives andManagement Assistance Services.”PN–ACH–281. Institute for Develop-ment Research. Washington:USAID.

———. 1999b. “The Partnership Be-tween Farming Systems Kenyaand Lutheran World Relief.” Insti-tute for Development Research.Washington: USAID.

———. 1999c. “The Partnership be-tween Nazareth Children’s Centerand Integrated Development andCatholic Relief Services/Ethiopia.”PN–ACH–282. Institute for Develop-ment Research. Washington:USAID.

———. 2000. “Strengthening North–South Partnerships: AddressingStructural Barriers to Mutual In-fluence.” Vol. 16, No. 4. Institutefor Development Research.

Ashman, Darcy; and T.S. Muyoya.1999. “Strengthening North–SouthCooperation: U.S. PVOs & AfricanNGOs: Report of the Conferenceheld March 2–5, 1999, in Nairobi,Kenya.” PN–ACH–284. Institute forDevelopment Research. Washing-ton: USAID.

Ashman, Darcy; and Kisuke Ndiku.1999. “The Partnership BetweenKangaroo Child and Youth Devel-opment Society and Save the Chil-dren Fund/USA, Ethiopia FieldOffice.” PN–ACH–283. Institute forDevelopment Research. Washing-ton: USAID.

Ayre, Darvin; Gruffie Clough; and TylerNorris. 2000. Facilitating Commu-nity Change. Boulder, Colo.: Com-munity Initiatives, Inc.

Biblio2


Bando, Amit; and others. 1997. “UnitedStates–Asia Environmental Part-nership: Five-Year Review–Notesfor the USAID Administrator.” PD–ADP–440. Washington: USAID.

Beebe, J. 1995. “Basic Concepts andTechniques of Rapid Appraisal.”Human Organization (54)1.

Bennis, W.; and B. Nanus. 1985. Lead-ers: The Strategies for Taking Charge.New York: Harper and Row.

Biddle, C. Stark. 1993. “Evaluation ofthe Baltic Democracy Network Pro-gram.” Washington: USAID.

———. 2000. Durable Partnerships:Phase II Desk Study. Washington:Academy for Educational Devel-opment.

Bilimoria, Diana; and others. 1995.“The Organization Dimensions ofGlobal Change: No Limits to Co-operation.” Journal of ManagementInquiry 4(1): 71–90.

Blakeslee, Katherine M.; Bruce A.Johnston; and Ramzi Kawar. 1991.Evaluation of the United StatesAgency for International Dev-elopment Private Services SectorDevelopment Project in Jordan.XD–AB–054–A. Washington: USAID.

Bongiovanni, Annette; and others. 1994.NIS Medical Partnership Program: AnAssessment. USAID Health andPopulation Division, Office of Hu-man Resources, Bureau for Europeand the New Independent States.Washington.

Brown, L. David. 1991. “Bridging Org-anizations and Sustainable Devel-opment.” Human Relations 44(8):807.

———. 1997. “Creating social capital:Nongovernmental developmentorganizations and intersectoralproblem-solving.” In W.W. Powelland E. Clemens, eds. Private Actionand the Public Good. New Haven:Yale University Press.

Brown, L. David; and Jonathan Fox.1998. “Accountability withintransnational coalitions.” In L.D.Brown and J.A. Fox, eds. TheStruggle for Accountability: TheWorld Bank, NGOs and Grass-RootsMovements. Cambridge, Mass.: TheMIT Press.

Bureau for Europe. 1993. “DemocraticPluralism Initiatives: AmendmentNo. 1 to the Project Memoran-dum.” PD–AB–413. Washington:USAID.

Butler, Malcolm; and Shirley Buzzard.1998. “Evaluation of the AmericanInternational Health Alliance Part-nerships Program.” PD–ABQ–112.Basic Health Management Interna-tional. Washington: USAID.

Buzzard, Shirley. 1999. “PartnershipsWith Business: A Practical Guidefor Nonprofit Organizations.” PN–ACH–286. Corporate CommunityInvestment Service (CorCom).Washington: USAID.

CARE International. 1997. CARE USA’SProgram Division PartnershipManual. PN–ACG–776. Washington:USAID.

Catholic Relief Services. N.d. “CRS Prin-ciples of Partnership.”

Centech Group. 1995. “MatchingNeeds and Resources : UDLP [Uni-versity Development LinkagesProject] Guide to Higher Education

Biblio3

Bibliography

Partnerships for Development.”PN–ACA–855. Washington: USAID.

Chambers, Robert. 1981. “Rapid RuralAppraisal: Rationale and Reper-toire.”Public Administration andDevelopment.

Charles, Chanya; and StephanieMcNulty. 1999. Assessing the Impactof Intersectoral Partnering. PN–ACG–107. Academy for EducationalDevelopment. Washington: USAID.

Cleveland, Harland. N.d. “Control: TheTwilight of Hierarchy.” New Man-agement 3(2).

Collins, Randall. 1983. The Strengths ofWeak Ties: A Network Theory Revis-ited. Sociological Theory. San Fran-cisco: Jossey–Bass Publishers.

Cook, Jean; and others. 1998. “ FinalReport: A Community CollegeLinkage to Vocational/TechnicalTraining and Education Programsin Chennai, India.” PD–ABR–322.Sinclair Community College.Washington: USAID.

Cooperrider, David. 1995. “A Call toOrganizational Scholarship; TheOrganization Dimension of GlobalChange: No Limits to Coopera-tion.” Journal of Management In-quiry 4(1).

Coston, Jennifer. 1998. “A Model andTypology of Government–NGO Re-lationships.” Nonprofit and Volun-tary Sector Quarterly 27(3).

Counterpart Foundation, Inc. 1995.“The Volunteer Executive ServiceTeam Initiative: Final Evaluation.”Washington: USAID.

Daniel, Thomas M. 1998. “Final Report:University Development LinkagesProject—Case Western ReserveUniversity–Makerere University:Public Health Linkage.” PD–ABQ–979. Case Western Reserve Univer-sity. Washington: USAID.

Datex, Inc. 1990. A Seminar Report: PVO/NGO Partnership in Mali. Vol. I. PN–ACH–285. PVP/NGO InitiativesProject. Washington: USAID.

Datex. N.d. “University of Minnesotaand Warsaw School of Econom-ics.”

de Negri, B.; and others. 1998. Empow-ering Communities: ParticipatoryTechniques for Community-BasedProgram Development. Volumes Iand II. Nairobi: The Center forAfrican Family Studies, JohnsHopkins University Center forCommunication Programs, andthe Academy for EducationalDevelopment.

de Kanter, Dana; and Martina Morgan.1999. “1998 PVC Matching GrantsProgram: Business Plan.” PD–ABS–081. Small Enterprise EducationPromotion (SEEP) Network. Wash-ington: USAID.

Edgcomb, Elaine; Candace Nelson; andJulie Redfern. 1996. “Moving for-ward: Emerging strategies for sus-tainability and expansion.” SEEP/Pact Publications.

Edwards, Mike; and Louisa Gosling.1999. Toolkits: A Practical Guide toAssessment, Monitoring, Review, andEvaluation. London: Save the Chil-dren.

Biblio4


Fernandez, Adriela. 1991. “ThePurdue–Vicosa Project: A CaseStudy in Institution Building.”Doctoral dissertation, Purdue Uni-versity, West Lafayette, Ind.

Fleisher, Craig S. 1999. “Using anAgency-Based Approach to Ana-lyze Collaborative FederatedInterorganizational Relation-ships.” Journal of Applied BehavioralScience. 27(1): 166.

Fletcher, Leroy S. 1996. APEC [Asia Pa-cific Economic Cooperation] Partner-ship for Education: Private SectorTraining Component–United StatesAgency for International Develop-ment—cooperative agreement No.AEP–0005–A–00–5011–00—final re-port. PD–ABN–021. Texas A&M Uni-versity. Washington: USAID.

Foster, Christian; and Paul Novick.1998. Interim USAID Assessment ofAgribusiness Partnerships–II (AP–II): Program for Western NIS. PD–ABR–357. Washington: USAID.

Fowler, A. 1998. “Authentic NGO Part-nerships in the New Policy Agendafor International Aid: Dead End orLight Ahead?” Development andChange, 29(1): 137–59.

Gale, Steven. 1999. “NPPR [National Pol-lution Prevention Roundtable]Partnership Grant Assessment: Fi-nal Report—Highlights.” PD–ABS–080. Washington: USAID.

Gillespie, Duff; and Nancy Cecatiello.1999. “Report on Partnerships Sur-vey.” Washington: USAID.

Global Excellence in Management (GEM)Initiative. N.d. “Appreciative In-quiry: An Approach to Organiza-tional Analysis and Learning.”

Rosslyn, Va.: Case Western ReserveUniversity, Weatherhead School ofManagement.

Goodin, Joan; and others. 2000. Partici-patory Evaluation of Partners of theAmericas Grant From the U.S.Agency for International Develop-ment (LAG–G–00–93–00032–00)Focusing on the Inter-American De-mocracy Network: Final Report. PD–ABS–017. Washington: USAID.

Granovetter, Mark. 1983. “The strengthof weak ties: a network theory re-visited.” Sociological theory. 201–33.

Gray, Barbara. 1981. “Fostering collabo-ration among organizations.” In H.Meltzer and W.R. Nord, eds. Mak-ing Organizations Humane and Pro-ductive: A Manual for Practitioners.New York: John Wiley, Inc.

Gray, Barbara; and Sonny S. Ariss. 1985.“Politics and strategic changeacross organizational life cycles.”The Academy of Management Re-view, 10(4): 707–23.

Gray, Barbara; and Tina M. Hay. 1986.“Political limits to interorgani-zational consensus and change.”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science22(2): 95–112.

Gray, Barbara; and Donna Wood. 1991.“Collaborative alliances: movingfrom practice to theory.” Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science. 27(1): 3–22.

Handy, Charles. 1993. UnderstandingOrganizations. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Heaton, George. 1997. United States–Asia Environmental Partnership:Five-Year Review Contract No. PCE–

Biblio5

Bibliography

1–00–96–00002–00. Washington:USAID.

Hlatshwayo, Godwin; and others. 2000.The Dawning of the DevelopmentCenter in Malawi: A Case Study ofNorth–South Cooperation in Trans-forming World Learning’s SHAREDExperience. Case Western ReserveUniversity/GEM Initiative.

Holloway, Richard. 1997. Exit Strategies:Transitioning From International toLocal NGO Leadership. Washington:Pact Publications.

———. 1998. Supporting Citizens’ Initia-tives: Bangladesh’s NGOs and Soci-ety. Intermediate TechnologyPublications.

Horkan, Kathleen. August 1996. “Les-sons Learned From USAID LinkagesProjects: Information Memoran-dum.” Washington: USAID.

Initiative for Social Action and Renewalin Eurasia. Fall/Winter 1999–2000.Give & Take.

International Center for Not-for-ProfitLaw. N.d. “Guidelines for EnablingLegal Structures.” Washington.

International City/County Manage-ment Association. 1995. U.S. Re-source Cities: Model Urban Programsfor New Partnership Initiatives. PN–ACA–579. Washington: USAID.

International Research and ExchangesBoard. 1998. “Final Report: Insti-tutional Partnership Project—Strengthening the Foundations ofCivil Society in the Russian Federa-tion and Ukraine, October 1994–August 1998.” PD–ABR–468.Washington: USAID.

Johnson, Scott; and James D. Ludema(eds.). 1997. Partnering to Build andMeasure Organizational Capacity.PN–ACH–280. Christian ReformedWorld Relief Committee. Washing-ton: USAID.

Jordan, Patricia. 1996. Strengthening thePublic–Private Partnership: An As-sessment of USAID’s Management ofPVO and NGO Activities. PN–ABS–548.Washington: USAID.

Kaczmarski, Kathryn; and GurudevKhalsa. 1995. “A Call to Organi-zational Scholarship; The Organi-zation Dimension of GlobalChange: No Limits to Coopera-tion.” Journal of Management In-quiry 4(1).

Kaiser, Joyce; and John Braley. 1997.“Partnerships: A Tool for Achiev-ing Strategic Objectives. A Guidefor Implementation. Draft.” SanMateo, Calif.: Aguirre Interna-tional.

Katalysis. 1991. North/South Develop-ment Partnerships—First AnnualReport to USAID (A CollaborativeStrategy for Sustainability Coop-erative Agreement OTR–01580A–00–0108–00). Washington: USAID.

Landrum, Bertha. N.d. Higher Educationand Business: Building Partnerships.

Leach, Mark. 1995. “Organizing Imagesand the Structuring of Interorgani-zational Relations.” Doctoral dis-sertation, Boston University, Mass.

———. 1997. “Models of Inter-Organi-zational Collaboration in Develop-ment.” IDR Reports. 11(7).

Biblio6


Leach, Mark; and others. 1998. “PVOPerceptions of Their CooperationWith NGOs.” PN–ACH–247. Institutefor Development Research. Wash-ington: USAID.

Letts, Christine. 1997. “Virtuous capi-tal: what foundations can learnfrom venture capitalists.” HarvardBusiness Review. March–April: 36–44.

Lewicki, Roy. N.d. Decision-Making inConflict Situations. Washington:National Institute for Dispute Reso-lution.

Lofstrom, Michael; and Howard Lusk.1990. “Evaluation of the Partnersof the Americas Program WithEmphasis on AID Core Grant–Funded Activities.” PD–ABL–080.National Association of Partners ofthe Americas. Washington: USAID.

Logsdon, Jeanne M. 1991. “Interests andInterdependence in the Formationof Social Problem-Solving Collabo-rations.” The Journal of Applied Be-havioral Science. 27(1): 23.

Lubin, Nancy; and Monica Ware. 1996.“Aid to the Former Soviet Union:When Less Is More.” Bethesda,Md.: JNA Associates, Inc.

Lyman, P. 1989. “Beyond Aid: Alterna-tive Modes of Cooperation.” In R.Berg and D. Gordon. Cooperationfor International Development. Boul-der, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publish-ers.

Maccoby, M. 1981. The Leader. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Magnani, Nanette Brey. 1990. A Train-ing Manual: Building Organizational

Effectiveness Through Participationand Teamwork. Pact Publications.

Management Systems International, Inc.1989. “End of Project Evaluationof Partners of the Americas: Cen-tral America Regional Strengthen-ing Democracy.” PD–ABA–059.Washington: USAID.

———. 1995a. “Midterm EvaluationReport: Environmental PolicyTechnology Project.” PD–ABM–029.Washington: USAID.

———. 1995b. “Evaluation of Institu-tional Development for Agricul-tural Training: USAID Projectnumber 615–0239.” PD–ABM–075.Washington: USAID.

Mann, Ada Jo. 1998. An AppreciativeInquiry Model for Building Partner-ships. Case Western Reserve Uni-versity. GEM Initiative.

Mant, A. 1983. Leaders We Deserve. Ox-ford, England: Martin Robertson.

Marshall, Karen. 1999a. GSG/US–AEPState Environmental Initiative: Sum-mary of Activities Cooperative Agree-ment 4990015. Washington: USAID.

———. 1999b. “ SEI Quarterly Report #20to US–AEP for the period July 1–Sep-tember 30, 1999.” Memorandum.The Council of State Governments.

Martin, Frank D.; and others. 1999.USAID Graduation: Recent Experienceand Outstanding Issues. PN–ACA–926. Washington: USAID.

Meltzer, H.; and Walter Nord. 1982.“Making Organizations Humaneand Productive: A Handbook forPractitioners—Fostering Collabo-

Biblio7

Bibliography

ration Among Organizations.” InFostering Collaboration Among Org-anizations. John Wiley & Sons.

Miles, Raymond; and Charles Snow.1992. “Causes of failure in networkorganizations.” California Manage-ment Review, 34(4): 53–72.

Mudge, Arthur W.; and others. 1994.NIS Medical Partnerships Program:An Assessment. Pragma Corp. TvTAssociates. PD–ABJ–988. Washing-ton: USAID.

Najam, A. 1996. “Understanding thethird sector: revisiting the prince,the merchant, and the citizen.”Nonprofit Management and Leader-ship. 7(2): 203–19.

National Association for Foreign Stu-dent Affairs. 1996. Project ASPIRE:Final Program/Financial Report–IA–ASMA G3190142 . PD–ABQ–029.Washington: USAID.

Noel, Jan C.; and others. 1999. “FinalReport: University DevelopmentLinkages Project—Improving theManagement of Water and Natu-ral Resources in Jordan and Wash-ington State Through Cooperationin Applied Research, TechnologyTransfer, and Graduate Educa-tion.” PD–ABR–805. University ofJordan, Water and EnvironmentResearch and Study Center. Wash-ington State University, Pullman,Wash. USAID.

ORT. 2000. “CEE/NIS NGO Shared Expe-riences and Future PartnershipsConference Report.”

Pact. N.d. “The Partnership Project:Project Summary.” Washington.

Pasquero, Jean. 1991. “Supra-organizational Collaboration: TheCanadian Environmental Experi-ment.” The Journal of Applied Be-havioral Science. 27(1): 38.

Peters, William C.; and Daniel Bienstock1987. “Final Summary Report:USAID/GOI—Alternate Energy Re-sources and Development Pro-gram in India.” PD–ABC–207. U.S.Department of Energy. PittsburghEnergy Technology Center. Wash-ington: USAID.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making De-mocracy Work: Civic Transitions inModern Italy . Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.

———. 1995. “Bowling alone: America’sdeclining social capital.” Journal ofDemocracy (6): 65–78.

Regelbrugge, Laurie. 2000. “Civil Soci-ety Partnerships and NetworksComing of Age.” Presentation atthe Japan–U.S. Community Edu-cation and Exchange FellowshipsCreating Partnerships Forum onU.S.–Japan Collaboration, Washing-ton, 1 November 2000.

Sabol, Tomas. 1997. Future Efforts Involv-ing the Association of CarpathianRegion Universities and the U.S.Higher Education Association andInstitutions. Technical University ofKocise.

Sanders International, Inc. 1997. “FinalReport: Trade in EnvironmentalServices and Technologies.” PD–ABN–846. Washington: USAID.

Segil, Larraine. 1999. “Alliances for the21st Century.” Executive Excellence.16(10): 19–21.

Biblio8


Skaggs, Timothy; and ChristopherSzecsey. 2000. Images of a New Fu-ture: Documentation on the Applica-tion of Appreciative Inquiry at SCPhilippines Field Office. Philippines:Global Excellence in Managementand Save the Children Field/U.S.

Smith, Elise; and Bonnie Ricci. 1990.“Sailing in Uncharted Waters: OEFInternational’s Experience in De-veloping Partnerships With South-ern Organizations.” In Phyllis andJerry Ingersoll, eds. Toward Part-nership in Africa . Washington:InterAction and Forum for AfricanVoluntary Development Organiza-tion.

Sobhan, Babar. 1988. “The PRIP Trust:Becoming an Organization.” Pact.Washington: USAID.

Stedman, William P. 1980. “Evaluationof the Partners of the Americas.”PD–AAG–338–C1. Washington:USAID.

Stewart, James. 1991. “University Cen-ter Workshop Report.” Interna-tional Science and TechnologyInstitute. Washington: USAID.

———. 1992. “Sustainability of Interna-tional Higher Education Linkages.”International Science and Technol-ogy Institute. Washington: USAID.

Sunley, Traer. 1998. “Case Studies Pro-tocol: Pact/PWBLF PartnershipProject.” Pact. Washington: USAID.

Svendsen, Dian; Pam Foster; and RolfSartorius. 1998. Facilitation SkillsTraining: An Introductory Guide.Reston, Va.: Project Concern/So-cial Impact.

Sweetser, Anne T. 1997. “Improving thePractice. PLA: Participatory Learn-ing and Action.” The InternationalAssociation for Public Participa-tion.

Tennyson, Ros. 1998. Managing Partner-ships: Tools for Mobilizing the Pub-lic Sector, Business, and Civil Societyas Partners in Development. Princeof Wales Business Leaders Forum.

Terry, Robert W. 1993. Authentic Lead-ership: Courage in Action. San Fran-cisco: Jossey–Bass Publishers.

United Way International. 1995.“RAPSUDE/USAID grant No. 118–0007–G–00–5149–00: Progress Re-port to 30 September 1995.”PD–ABM–363. Washington: USAID.

University of Montana. 1997. “USAIDUniversity Development LinkageProject: Montana and Belize Part-nership for Resource Conservationand Development—InstitutionBuilding and Internationalizationat the University College of Belizeand the University of Montana:Models for Sustainable ResourceDevelopment.” PD–ABP–088. Wash-ington: USAID.

USAID. 1983. “AID grant No. PDC–0212–G–SS–3129–00 to Town AffiliationAssociation of the U.S./Sister Cit-ies International, Inc., to assistAmerican cities to plan and imple-ment technical assistance pro-grams with their Third World sistercities.” PD–FAJ–135. Washington.

———. 1987. “AID grant to Town Affili-ates Association to support devel-opment assistance collaborationbetween U.S. and LDC sisters cities

Biblio9

Bibliography

in the areas of public health andvocational training.” PD–AAY–973.Washington.

———. 1991. “Project AssistanceCompletion Report [PACR]: Agri-cultural Technology TransferProject, project No. 664–0304.” PD–ABH–889.

———. 1992a. New Independent States:Democratic Pluralism Initiatives. PD–ABD–933. Washington.

———. 1992b. “Private Services SectorDevelopment.” PD–ABF–054.

———. 1995a. Participatory Evaluation.Participation Forum WorkshopNotes #2. Washington.

———. 1995b. Rapid Appraisal and Be-yond. Participation Forum Work-shop Notes #1. Washington.

———. 1996a. “Project ActivityCompletion Report: CommercialAgricultural Production and Mar-keting.” PD–ABN–136.

———. 1996b. American–Russian Part-nerships: Accelerating the Social,Political, and Economic Transitionsin Russia. PN–ACH–246.

———. 1997a. NPI Resource Guide: A Stra-tegic Approach to DevelopmentPartnering—Report of the NPI Learn-ing Team, two volumes. PN–ACA–864. Washington.

———. 1997b. “UDLP University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hilland Indian Institute of HealthManagement Research, Jaipur:1992–99—End-of-Project Report.”PD–ABR–314. University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill. IndianInstitute of Health ManagementResearch. Washington.

———. 1999a. “Factors That Contrib-ute to Successful InternationalPartnerships: Results of HigherEducation Linkages—Proceedingsof the African PartnershipsUSAID—UDLP Higher EducationConference.” PN–ACH–007. East-ern Washington University.University of Cape Coast. Wash-ington.

———. 1999b. “A Guide to ImprovedHigher Education Partnerships forEconomic and Social Develop-ment: Proceedings of the USAID—University Development LinkagePrograms Higher Education Con-ference for Asia Near East, Russia,and Northern Africa.” PN–ACH–006. The University of Jordan.Washington State University.Washington.

———. 1999c. “From Transition to Part-nership: A Strategic Framework forUSAID programs in Europe andEurasia.” Washington.

———. 2000. “Building a ResultsFramework..” PN–ACA–947. Per-formance Monitoring and Evalua-tion Tips #13. Washington.

Westley, Francis; and HarrietVredenburg. 1991. “StrategicBridging: The Collaboration Be-tween Environmentalists and Busi-ness in the Marketing of GreenProducts.” The Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science. 27(1): 65.

White, Joshua Searle. 1998. “Russian–American Cooperation in Organi-

Biblio10


zational Context.” OrganizationDevelopment Journal. 16(2), 73–80.

Wilburn, Michael. 1985. Mid-Point Pro-gram Evaluation of Jamaica/WesternNew York Partners of America Part-ners Voluntary Technical AssistanceService. Creative Associates.

Wines, Michael. 2000. “Freedom’s Toll:A Fit City Offers Russia a Self-HelpModel.” New York Times on theWeb, 31 December 2000.

Wood, Donna. 1991. “Collaborative Al-liances: Moving From Practice toTheory,” Journal of Applied Behav-ioral Science 27(1): 3–22.

World Bank. 1996. The World Bank’sPartnership With NongovernmentalOrganizations. Washington.

World Learning, Inc. 1997. PartnershipAcross Borders: Final Report. PD–ABP–536. Washington: USAID.

Worthington, Barry; and RuthCherenson. 1999. Utility Partner-ship Program for Central and East-ern Europe—Final Report 1991–98.PD–ABR–884. U.S. Energy Associa-tion. Washington: USAID.

FHI 360 is a nonprofit human development organization dedicated to improving lives in lasting ways by advancing integrated, locally driven solutions. Our staff includes experts in health, education, nutrition, environment, economic development, civil society, gender, youth, research and technology – creating a unique mix of capabilities to address today’s interrelated development challenges. FHI 360 serves more than 60 countries, all 50 U.S. states and all U.S. territories.

Visit us at www.fhi360.org.

In July 2011, FHI 360 acquired the programs, expertise and assets of AED.

Designing and Managing Partnerships Between U.S. And Host ... · Designing and Managing...

Documents

Transcript of Designing and Managing Partnerships Between U.S. And Host ... · Designing and Managing...