CLAI NESA Roundtable Panel 3

Presentation at the roundtable discussion on

Trading Debt for Development:

National Endowments for Social Action (NESA) organized by IACD (OAS) and The Center for Latin American Issues (GW)

CLAI NESA Roundtable Panel 3

Notes by Mildred Callear

Introduction

Ø  In Panel 1, we had a full discussion of how to fund the NESA concept and have developed some innovative approaches and identified key issues

Ø  In Panel 2 we discussed how to make sure that all the relevant stakeholders participate and buy into the structure

Ø  Now, in Panel 3, the question is how can we insure that the final result of the funding and the participation is a “Quality” social action program and how will we recognize and measure that “quality”?

Panelists

We are fortunate to have with us today three panelists that will help us to answer these questions.

Daniel Erikson, Carolyn Karr and Raquel Artecona. Daniel is the director of Caribbean programs at the Inter-American Dialogue and he is going to give us the benefit of his experience in establishing criteria for social and humanitarian programs in a politically dynamic environment. He promises to do this in an interesting way by looking at the lessons learned from a program his organization conducted in Haiti.

Carolyn Karr is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Inter-American Foundation where she has had significant experience in promoting participatory citizenship. In particular she will offer her perspective on measuring success in the wide array of contexts in which her organization works—partnerships between individuals, communities, NGOs, grassroots organizations, businesses and local governments—all of whom may define success slightly differently.

And then finally, Raquel Artecona, the Regional Advisor at the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, will provide her perspective on issues such as local oversight, responsibility and transparency. She is going to use some examples from her experiences in promoting the economic and social development of the region through a variety of programs.

Thank you all for joining us today.

Issues

Let me lead off this session by saying that despite the fact that it is an incredibly long and difficult process to get the necessary funding to create the NESAs and despite the fact that major efforts are undertaken to insure full participation of the widest array of stakeholders and to adopt the most progressive framework and structure for governance, at the end of the day, the question will be “Has the program been successful—is it working? How do you know—how are you measuring and communicating that success? Is is a quality program?

I say this not because I believe that you can have success without the funding that makes the programs possible or that you can defend the program and maintain public support if you haven’t got proper governance and full participation. I think both are absolutely essential. BUT, I do know that we live in a world of “what have you done for me lately” and so before long the critics will forget about how innovative you were in creating funding for the program when it looked impossible or that you scaled a mountain of the highest elevation to arrive at the pinnacle of perfect legal structure and full participation. But pretty soon, these feats are taken for granted and become part of the accepted landscape. The question now is “What have you done with the funding and the structure and participation? Did you select the right programs to focus on, the right groups or individuals to deliver them and benefit from them and can you demonstrate their success? Are these quality programs that deserve to continue?

All key questions with no one right answer. As to the criteria for selecting programs, are you going to seek maximum impact on the largest number of people, the most needy people, the largest dollar volume, the biggest multiplier effect? Or will you instead focus on what can be done most quickly with the most meaningful demonstration effect? Are you going qualify delivery organizations based upon who has the best track record or are you going to go beyond the usual groups to try to broaden participation. And measuring success or performance—as we say, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and this is so often true when it comes to measuring success. Are we measuring volume or is it depth that is important? Is it sustainability or quick impact? Or is it the ripple effect that impresses those who measure our success? No one can argue with the need to assign responsibility but how does that really happen? And can transparency for all its virtues sometimes slow us down such that others question whether the success was worth the wait? I think each of our panelists will have thoughts to offer here and probably the only thing we will agree on is that one size may not fit all but that there are some core principles that are worth spending the time to get right.

SEAF’s Experience

Let me end my remarks by saying what I think my own organization has learned over the years. We are an NGO engaged in a commercial undertaking—trying to assist small entrepreneurs in developing countries around the globe to create and grow viable enterprises that can create jobs, pay taxes and build the middle class. We have learned that you need investment criteria that can withstand commercial scrutiny because ultimately only a commercially successful enterprise can sustain the jobs and continue to help the local economy grow. You need efficient delivery—economies of scale and a network—to support the many needs of SMEs and the synergies among them. You need to build trust—establish credibility--at all levels—between the entrepreneur and the investor, the employees and the local government. To achieve credibility and trust, you need transparency and accountability—you need the certainty of “rules of the game” that are fair and understandable. And you measure success by both the numbers and the faces and their stories. And both of them are critically important—just not always to the same people. And you have to communicate the story—about both the numbers and the faces—effectively. Because we all need an answer to “what have you done for me lately” that can be told in only a few minutes.

It is a daunting task, but necessary to achieve quality and the recognition of that quality. Because quality is the key to long-term sustainability.

Thanks and now let me turn to our panelists. First, to Daniel to talk about criteria and his experience at the Inter-American Dialogue.