An event hosted by Global Washington at the University  of Washington’s Magnusson Health Sciences Building with sponsorship from the UW Department of Global Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, May 25^th 2010.  Open to the public, free of charge.

By Evan Forward

On Tuesday afternoon, I was privileged to attend “A Conversation with Sir Fazle Hasan Abed” at the Magnuson Health Sciences Center.    With Muhammad Yunus’ visit still fresh in my mind from Sunday at Town Hall, I was ready for more inspiration on the same plane.  Abed did not disappoint.  It has me wondering a bit what they have got in the water in Bangladesh that they could produce such world changing figures as Yunus and Abed in the same cohort.

The question of drinking water was the problem that set Sir Fazle Hasan Abed in motion in 1978 to create Brac. Brac is now the largest global development organization in the world in terms of scale and impact having served over 110 million people throughout Asia and Africa to date.  BRAC began when Abed decided to solve the problem of infant mortality in Bangladesh which was at that time largely due to dehydration from water borne illnesses. By creating a program for mothers to learn skills to perform infant oral rehydration, Abed found the solution. A simple model and yet incredibly powerful in its leverage. A piece of knowledge communicated to a mother can save her child.   True.

But Abed’s most remarkable quality, in my mind, is his uncanny ability to scale concept to need. Within months of starting Brac, Abed was leading a staff of more than 5,000 people eradicating diarrhea across the country in larger and larger swaths.  Over the 38 years since, Abed has diversified BRAC into dozens of ventures that touch on education, public health, banking and micro-lending, manufacturing industries, agricultural fields and others.

Questions:

How do you maintain consistent quality in your programming while achieving such radical growth in the scale and scope of your offerings at BRAC (BRAC now employs a work force of over 50,000 people)?

“Quality control.” Abed said simply with a smile. It’s common sense, he seemed to say. Abed continued on to say that Brac has a substantial research and evaluation department that is continually monitoring impact.  Abed explains that impact is what Brac focuses upon when it comes to evaluating which brings to mind the Rick Davies and Jessica Dart’s Most Significant Change methodology.   I recommend checking it out. It’s a complete participatory M&E framework but its even more because the significant change concept can be adapted into many different types of qualitative research methodologies.  You can download the entire guide to it’s use by clicking this link. Or cut and paste: http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf.

Further on the topic of quality, Abed later shared more insights when he responded to a question about corruption:

“Brac has 182 internal auditors,” Abed replied. Abed explained that this corps of accountants is responsible for checking the books in all of the arenas that Brac ventures in. If any of the numbers are slightly off, they investigate the problem.  Corruption solved.

In addition to continuing to scale its operations in Asia and Africa to service ever more needs, Brac has also decided to move into Haiti. But Abed explains that Brac’s recent entrance into Haiti is not simply intended as relief effort for the crisis that ensued the earthquake.

“When Brac enters a country, it is there for a lifetime,” Abed says without hesitation in his voice, “Brac will be in Haiti for the next 50 to 100 years.”  Life is fleeting perhaps, but a model for action, growth and change such as what Abed’s work has introduced to the world is everlasting.  I believe him what he claims.

I encourage you to have a look at BRAC’s website, www.brac.net.

The Grameen Foundation was selected by Members Project® from American Express and TakePart to compete for a $200,000 unrestricted grant to support our work. You may have seen the commercials for this contest on television or online. The group with the most online votes wins so I’m asking for your personal support. (You do not need to be an American Express cardholder to register and vote.)

Will you please vote once a week for the duration of the competition and ask your contacts to do the same? It lasts 12 weeks from May 31 to August 22. You can:

1. Register and vote for Grameen Foundation at the TakePart website today. Download this calendar event to be reminded each week.
2. Forward this email to family and friends. In order to be eligible to vote, you must be 18 years of age and based in the United States.
3. Use the Share button on their group page to easily share our page. Follow them on Facebook and Twitter, and repost the weekly updates to your networks.

Thanks for your support of this effort. If you think of other ways you might be able to work with us or want to learn more about our work, please let me know. I’d love to reconnect with you soon.

Vote for Grameen Foundation & help us win $200K!

by Linda Martin, Global Washington Volunteer

As the U.S. government is poised to enact historic changes in foreign aid policy, Global Washington has convened members of Washington State’s global development sector to offer support and recommendations for these changes. Global Washington’s main recommendation is to base reforms on our four Principles of Aid Effectiveness: 1) Transparency and Accountability 2) Consolidation and Coordination of efforts 3) Local Ownership and 4) Targeting Aid to communities most in need.  These principles are presented in Global Washington’s white paper, Making U.S. Foreign Assistance More Effective, which lays out a framework for assessing aid effectiveness.

What do Global Washington’s recommendations and the leaked White House plan for development policy, known as the PSD, have in common?  How does the PSD measure up to Global Washington’s four Principles of Aid Effectiveness?

The recently leaked Presidential Study Directive (PSD) is built on three pillars: 1) A development policy focused on economic growth, innovation and more sustainable, systemic solutions 2) A new business model which better leverages partnerships throughout the foreign aid life cycle; requires greater selectivity in types of aid programs offered and stresses accountability, and 3) A modern architecture which brings together the development skills and experience currently dispersed across government to  support common goals.

The directive also proposes a national Global Development Strategy and intends to “elevate development as a central pillar of our national security strategy, equal to diplomacy and defense”.  Global Washington strongly supports both these proposals.

Transparency and Accountability

The PSD stresses the need for scientific analysis to help guide policy and programmatic decisions, and proposes to empower partner governments which “set in place systems that reflect high standards of transparency and accountability,” by working with their institutions, rather than circumventing them.

We support a national Global Development Policy which stresses transparency and accountability, and would like to see a greater emphasis placed on transparency, to help ensure that “information on strategy, goals and spending is easily available to U.S. taxpayers and international beneficiaries, thereby increasing accountability.”

Consolidation and Coordination

Global Washington recommends “giving USAID autonomy from the Departments of State and Defense so it may effectively oversee the national development strategy”. While the study directive falls short of this proposal, we are pleased with the administration’s decision to rebuild USAID as “our lead development agency” and to incorporate the work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) with USAID’s efforts.

Targeting

Overall, the administration is planning a shift from emergency based or basic needs aid, to sustainable solutions, particularly in the areas of health and agriculture.  Global Washington encourages our government to “target aid to countries and communities most in need” and to help the poorest countries meet the challenges of climate change, through increased aid.

We agree with the PSD’s proposal to focus on fewer recipient countries, to concentrate resources where the U.S. expertise can do the most good, and to employ rigorous monitoring to determine the most successful methods for reaching desired outcomes.

Local Ownership

The United States proposes to work directly with partner governments to address local priorities, and to mold U.S. development strategy to respond both to the unique circumstances of those in need. The directive emphasizes the use of in-country staff and local resources to implement programs.

We support these actions and encourage even earlier collaboration, in the planning and design of aid packages. Early involvement can help ensure program success and encourage local ownership. We also encourage the administration to help develop the capacity of local institutions and infrastructure, to ensure adequate delivery systems, and to develop in-country expertise necessary for sustainable, systemic solutions.

Global Education: A Missing Link to Development?

As the administration moves forward with a National Global Development Policy, we strongly recommend global education as a critical policy component with long term funding. Cultural competence is increasingly necessary for the U.S. to be competitive in a global economy. Education has a proven positive impact on health, reduces gender based violence, and boosts economies. We recommend the funding of programs in poor countries, which develop institutional capacity and the infrastructure necessary for children to safely attend school; and U.S. policies which facilitate student research collaborations, ensure flexible visa access for students, improve cross-sector program coordination,  foster language acquisition, and expand student exchange. We encourage the funding of innovative programs from the elementary to university level, which prepare children, youth and adults to embrace global citizenship for a better world.

A New Era

Comprehensive reform of U.S. foreign assistance will not be easy, but we have a great opportunity before us – to redefine our role in alleviating poverty, and to re-establish the U.S. as a leader in delivering a new kind of aid for a new era. We have the opportunity to raise the bar, by developing a framework based on transparency, accountability, collaboration, and local ownership. Through education, we can bring the best expertise worldwide to bear on the challenges the world’s poorest face. Through capacity building, we can help ensure the long term success of the institutions and infrastructures that deliver aid.

Global Washington announces a position opening for Office Manager.  Deadline for applications June 15^th, 2010.

Organizational Description

Global Washington is a membership organization serving the global development sector. Global Washington has become a catalyst for strengthening the global development sector and its member organizations by leveraging resources, increasing visibility, sharing best practices, convening the sector by country, issue and organization type, and advocating around education and global engagement and foreign policy.

The vision of Global Washington is to promote Washington as a recognized center of innovative, productive and collaborative global engagement.

Function Summary

The Office Manger works closely with the Executive Director and other staff and volunteers to increase the visibility of Global Washington and global development sector.  This is a part-time (32 hours per week),administrative position.  The staff includes: Executive Director (full time) , and Policy Coordinator (half time).

Position Description
The Office Manager is  responsible for:  1) administrative support,   2) Financial tracking of organizational activities, 3) Coordinating events logistics and support ,  4) communications including the production and distribution of communications products for Global Washington members and community, including the website and  newsletter. This position reports to the Executive Director.

Primary Responsibilities

1. Administrative Support

— Processes received donations in accordance with Global WA procedures, including tracking of funds and weekly bank deposit

— Assists with Accounts Payable by recording and preparing all invoices

— Maintains petty cash system

— Researches invoices and miscellaneous financial information for Executive Director as needed

— Data entry and updating of membership database to maintain member records and files

— Assists with organizational technology and office equipment, including working with computer consultant to ensure computer systems are functional, overseeing voice mail system, and troubleshooting equipment issues

— Inventory and purchasing of office supplies

— Scheduling of staff meetings and other staff activities

— Providing administrative support for Board of Directors activities, including meeting logistics; preparation, assembly and distribution of quarterly Board notebooks; and staffing Board meetings as requested

2. Event Logistics

— Organize logistics of on-going events

— Send out electronic invites for all events and track attendance

— Plan and coordinate a weekly calendar of emails going out to members and other lists

— Provides event support including producing materials, promotion, and registration

— Oversee the process of registration and logistics with the Executive Director for the Annual Conference

— Staff all events as needed

3. Member Communications

— Coordinates the timely release of Global WA’s newsletter, including working with volunteer contributors, and editing and publishing electronically

— Communicate with member organizations on a regular basis and build their presence in the Global Washington website and newsletter

— Develop Global WA presence on social networking sites

— Explores strategic opportunities to reach new members, including sponsorships, email list trades, etc.

4. Website and Technology

— Input and update mailing list

— Coordinate and update events page on the website

— Update website on a regular basis

— Ensures consistency of style, tone and design

Skills and Qualities

— Event planning experience

— Book Keeping and financial tracking experience

— Excellent written and verbal communication skills

— Knowledge of the nonprofit sectors

— Ability to work with electronic communication tools and current technology in the support of marketing, web-based programs, and event planning

— Experience with using an array of database technologies

— Ability to manage several projects at once, pay close attention to details and follow-through

— Ability to work cooperatively, foster team spirit and maintain a sense of humor

— Organized and detailed work habits.

Please email resumes to bookda@globalwa.org.  Deadline for applications June 15^th, 2010.

Since the implementation of the Marshall Plan after World War II, America’s foreign assistance operation has grown considerably. In that time, one would expect the overall strategy would be refined and streamlined to effectively balance the foreign policy goals of the U.S. while meeting the needs of the developing world. Unfortunately, the U.S. aid structure has evolved to become a bloated and unwieldy behemoth with no clear, overarching strategy.

The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 sought to organize the international development goals under a single act. In the time since the passage of the FAA, over 400 objectives have been identified through nearly 400 directives, all of which is managed by 12 different departments, 25 agencies, and nearly 60 government offices. To understand the complex and often confusing maze that is U.S. foreign assistance, one can marvel at Lael Brainard’s “Messy Web of the U.S. Foreign Assistance System.” (attached)

Such a muddled structure inevitably leads to miscommunication among the many different entities and a breakdown in the process. With little coordination and virtually no communication, development agencies are often tripping over one another, managing similar projects in the same area. In his article, “Aid Needs Help,” Ray Offenheiser noted “two separate USAID contractors recently discovered by chance they were doing virtually the same project, in the same town” in Afghanistan. To combat the replication of projects and ensure the deliverance of aid, action must be taken to reform the process and elevate a coherent national strategy for development.

Overall, the U.S. foreign assistance process lacks the transparency necessary to effectively meet the needs of the world’s poor and is in dire need of significant reform. Paramount to this reform effort is a comprehensive, national strategy for development policy. As a first step in creating a manageable and effective foreign assistance structure, a national strategy would serve to elevate development as a key component of U.S. foreign policy and increase coordination and transparency within the foreign assistance structure. But what should be included in such national strategy?

The chief component of a national strategy for U.S. foreign assistance would be a cohesive set of clearly established goals and objectives with both short and long term implications for poverty reduction. These objectives should be developed independently of diplomatic strategies and concerns to ensure aid is targeted to those most in need as opposed to partner countries. While foreign assistance goals should be developed separate of other policies, they must be able to interact with other policy areas at a high level, making sure that trade, agriculture and industrial policies complement rather than hinder aid programs.

To ensure such a national strategy would be able to function effectively, the foreign assistance structure must undergo certain institutional reforms. Rewriting the FAA of 1961 would be a necessary first step in clearly defining the role of each institution in the U.S. foreign aid structure. Most important to the coordination and success of a national development strategy is an elevated and empowered USAID, or a cabinet level department of foreign aid.

Accountability and results are also central to creating a foreign assistance structure that will support effective and sustainable development. Within a national development strategy, the U.S. should create systems of monitoring and evaluation systems in the government and independent of the foreign assistance system. Such evaluation mechanisms will simultaneously increase transparency and ensure the national development strategy is being implemented by all development entities, thus increasing coordination. Monitoring development activities by the government and independent entities will also foster a results-based approach to foreign assistance programming, leading to more effective and sustainable project designs.

Without a national strategy for development the foreign assistance structure will continue on its path to become even more of a bloated, bureaucratic mess. For more information on Global Washington’s recommendations for ways to restructure U.S. foreign assistance, please refer to our white paper.

Jim Kolbe, from the German Marshall Fund website

Jim Kolbe, former republican member of Congress and foreign aid champion, wrote on the German Marshall Fund’s blog that Congress may be the best hope for foreign aid reform.  He points out that with all the delays in releasing the QDDR (the State Department’s review of development & diplomacy) and the appearance of major disagreement on aid reform principles between the White House, State Department, and USAID, Congress has an opportunity to take the helm and make aid reform actually happen.

Jim Kolbe is not the only one who senses the promise of reform leadership from Congress.  Last week, his MFAN comrade Larry Nowels gave a talk on the foreign aid process here at Global Washington, and he cited agreement among key players in Congress as one of the reasons why the time is ripe for foreign aid reform.

Do you have a great idea for a new approach to the political, economic, and social empowerment of women and girls around the world?  On April 28^th, Secretary Clinton announced a new award, funded through the Rockefeller Foundation, to find and bring to scale the most innovative programs to empower women and girls.  Each awardee will receive a grant of up to $500,000 to implement their idea.

To apply, submit your concept paper to SGWIRFPInnovation@state.gov by June 1st, 2010.  A jury panel will select a group of applicants to submit a full proposal, and select awardees by the end of the year.

For more information about this award, see the State Department’s Office of Global Women’s Issues website, where there are instructions and an FAQ about the award.

Written By Lindsey Engh of Lumana

Microfinance has a variety of outcomes. There are huge, best-case scenario outcomes that microfinance experts usually preach: escape from poverty, empower yourself, send all your children to school, invest in your business, create jobs, and access quality healthcare. Then there are smaller outcomes, such as ONE rural villager sending their child to school, or ONE person being able to expand their business based on a micro-loan. The best way to talk about these outcomes is by story-telling, or using qualitative methods such as interviews and group meetings to find out how microfinance has made an impact in the lives of individual clients. This is a very important part of outcome analysis in microfinance.

However, microfinance also has more economic and quantitative outcomes to measure as well. These include measuring net impact, like how much a client’s income has actually increased since receiving a micro-loan, or how much they are putting away for savings each month. These outcomes are hard to measure by story-telling, but are equally important.

In the past six months, the first two extensive and rigorous evaluations of the impact of microfinance have been published. One was done in India, lead by Esther Duflo and Abhijit Bannerjee of J-PAL the other in the Philippines led by Dean Karlan and Jonathan Zinman of IPA. The main research questions for both are centered around the question, ‘does access to microcredit have a significant impact on household expenditures and welfare?’ Their findings included both economic data and some story-telling, through a case by case approach.

Their findings? That microfinance has a positive, but mostly small impact. For example, access to microcredit has an important effect on household expenditure patterns and the creation and expansion of businesses, but no effect on health, education, and women’s decision making in the short term – which are the main qualitative, story-telling outcomes that has made microfinance so popular in the first place.

I have been discussing how transparency is important in microfinance. If followers believe that microfinance can change a client’s life by directly benefitting their health, education, and decision making, but data and other studies (such as the two above) shows that in the short-term, microfinance only really impacts a client’s income, this is not transparent. It’s important to show advocates and followers exactly what a loan can do for clients. That’s why it’s so important that Lumana has integrated both qualitative story-telling AND quantitative changes, such as aggregate household expenditure, to fully outline our impact and outcomes.

This week, six major microfinance organizations issued a response to these two studies. Several other bloggers and microfinance advocates found this response wanting, because they felt the general idea of the response stated that despite the news from these two rigorous, academic evaluations, they are going to continue telling nice stories and operating exactly as they have been, continuing to say that microfinance directly impacts health, education, and women’s decision-making, among other major poverty indicators.

It’s important to be realistic about the impacts of microfinance, in order to further innovate and progress the field. At Lumana, we believe that microfinance is an enabler – this means that microfinance can open the door to basic financial services, which we believe are the building blocks for any one person to start saving money and raising their income. However, we also believe that poverty is a definition for many other problems, such as a lack of health and sanitation rules, clean water, and education. Poverty is a complex puzzle.

That’s why it is important to share information and data, because it takes a lot of different knowledge and work to create a sustainable difference in the lives of developing communities. If an academic source comes out with an evaluation saying that microfinance, in itself, can only have a certain number of outcomes for an individual, then that information should be used to bring in other services or products to a developing area that can deliver those health, education, and decision making outcomes.

At Lumana, we believe that although we can’t solve all of the problems in the villages in which we work, we can share our knowledge of the area and our clients with other organizations who can help to solve those problems.

Saying that microfinance delivers only small outcomes isn’t a negative, or defeated, outlook on microfinance at all. It is a realistic view from a different source, meaning that microfinance delivers the basic financial infrastructure that is important to an individual’s well-being. We need a cadre of charities, donors and policymakers who will look at rigorous evidence that shows small gains and celebrate, not lament—and then look at the data again to see how we can extend or expand those small benefits.

The global development blogosphere is abuzz with commentary on the leaked draft Presidential Study Directive (White House review of U.S. global development policy).  We are working on our own analysis of this document, but in the meantime, browse what the pundits are saying about “A New Way Forward on Global Development.”

First, the original article that started all this buzz, posted by Josh Rogin to Foreign Policy’s blog The Cable.

Read what devex, the development professional’s news source, has to say here.

The Center for Global Development’s blog gives us their quick take on the good, the bad, and the unknowable.

Three members of MFAN (the modernizing foreign assistance network) have contributed their original insights to the raging policy debate: read the summary here, or see the individual contributions by Jim Kolbe, Carol Peasley, and Jim Kunder.

The Stimson Center’s blog Budget Insight provides a deep analysis of the promise and pitfalls of this document, with a heavy emphasis on the pitfalls.

InterAction shares its thoughts on the paper in its blog here.

The USGLC applauds the document, and summarizes it here.

Bill Easterly’s blog AidWatchers is more skeptical about the effect this PSD would have if it were released as the final document.

George Mason professor Philip Auerswald writes about what it means to “elevate development” in his blog, “The Coming Prosperity.”

And of course, in case you missed it, we posted our own little piece about the PSD soon after it was leaked.

compiled by Eugenia Ho, Global Washington volunteer

New Timing for Strategic Reviews

The interim findings of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) were expected to be released in January.  After months of delay, it is likely that they will not be released at all.  However, the QDDR still expects to release its findings in September, which is when the discussion on the progress of the Millennium Department Goals will be held at the UN General Assembly meeting.

Discussion with USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah

 “Our time to change is now” according to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, at an event hosted by U.S. Global Leadership Coalition in Washington DC.  He rolled out the four overarching themes that will guide USAID reform:  recommitting to the Millennium Development Goals; investing more in country-led plans for growth; increasing the focus on science and technology to assist development; and improving implementation of development programs in conflict areas.  Shah also stressed a new commitment to transparency.  To watch the video of the event, please click here.

Despite billions wasted, more foreign aid needed: Oxfam

Oxfam International released a report coinciding with the gathering of international development ministers from the G8 nations last week, suggesting that foreign aid dollars have been wasted on corrupt and ineffective foreign-aid programs over the past several decades.  The report recommends that governments and donor agencies such as the UN should make aid funding more predictable, so recipient countries can plan better. The report also recommends strict transparency and accountability conditions for aid funding, requiring the money to be used to pay for public services.

Foreign Aid Reform: Spaghetti, Leaks and Hope

The National Security Council (NSC) has leaked a document which calls for the elevation of development as a central pillar of U.S. national security; it calls for a strengthened development agency (USAID) and independent development voice at the table when relevant policy is debated; and it calls for greater coherence in U.S. development policy through the framework of a quadrennial U.S. Global Development Strategy.  Although there are still many important issues to be debated and discussed, the vision outlined for the future has a lot to cheer for.  Click here  to view the full draft of the leaked NSC document.  Also see the Global Washington blog post about this document.

Hearing on Human Rights and Democracy Assistance:  Increasing the Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid

The House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on Human Rights and Democracy Assistance:  Increasing the Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid, on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 9:30am.  For more information (and to see the live webcast), please click here .

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill‏

While the disaster is continuing to materialize and the cause is still under investigation, the recent event of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig and the subsequent oil spill has led to discussions on its impact on U.S. energy policy, especially efforts to increase leasing acreage and oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).  Governors of California and Florida have already withdrawn their support for the idea of expanding offshore drilling, and some congressmen have warned that they can no longer support energy reform legislation if it includes such provisions.  In this article, Frank A. Verrastro, senior VP and Director of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. answers critical questions relating to the impact on U.S. energy policy.  Policy changes as a result of this oil spill may have direct and indirect implications for developing countries.

Book Review: Development and its Discontents

In her new book, “Missionaries, Mercenaries and Misfits,” Kenyan newspaper columnist Rasna Warah explores the root causes of poverty and inequality in Africa and the value of development.  She concludes that by treating poverty as a “problem” to be solved with technical expertise and outside assistance, “development” in the form of donor-inspired policies ignores, and even contributes to, the very issues that are at the heart of Africa’s underdevelopment.  This book is reminiscent of Dambisa Moyo’s popular book “Dead Aid,” and is critical of World Bank officials and global development activists alike.

Nigerian President Yar’Adua dies after long illness

Nigeria is one of the top 10 recipients of US Foreign Aid, according to 2008 USAID figures.  Although the Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan, has now sworn in as President, following the death of President Yar’Adua, there will not be an election in 2011.  Will instability in Nigeria change the level of US foreign aid to the country in the next couple of years?