Development Calling - Structural and Funding Base - and Conclusion (draft)
UNICEF (Obregon); The Communication Initiative (Feek)
Below is part of an overall paper called "Development Calling", which is the primary paper for consideration at the all-interested-parties meeting to be hosted by UNICEF on June 27th and 28th, 2017 in New York. The full Table of Contents is here.
Structural and funding base for the mechanism
By design, this paper has outlined some of the core options for consideration at the all-parties meeting on June 27th and 28th, 2017 at UNICEF in New York. By intent, the paper is focused on some of the core options and decisions to be made. It is not yet at a point where very detailed structural plans such as decision-making systems, hosting arrangements, staffing plans, funding and budget requirements, organisational charts, memoranda of understanding, location, and other very important decisions can be made. First, it is necessary to build the foundations on which those important specific elements will be built.
However, it is important to provide some initial options for 3 key areas that will be required to operationalise the options agreed on — in particular, structural base and funding. They are interconnected, of course.
There are some underlying principles that need to be considered before taking a position on the options below, including:
a. Timeframe: Whereas the priorities and structural options outlined above will have a long timeframe, it is suggested that the options below are considered for the next two years only – the start-up phase.
b. Not competing: It will be necessary to reflect on other mechanisms that have been implemented and profile the very agencies and organisations that set them up in the first place.
c. Size: The staffing and funding levels for any mechanism should remain very small. This is to ensure that the mechanism: services and supports the organisations and other agencies in this field, harnesses their capacities when required, and neither duplicates nor competes.
d. Overhead costs: It is vitally important to keep these as small as possible. Office costs and personnel overheads can add up very quickly.
The options for operationalising the options above include:
Structural Base:
Whether it is work to implement one of the external options above (for example, the Standing Committee) or to implement an option under full control (for example, the Council idea), there will need to be a structural base for that work. People will need to have defined roles, a place to work, and clear lines of accountability.
Structural Base Option A: Embed a small staff team within a major organisation in this field of work. Any staff would be part of that organisation’s personnel and administrative system.
Structural Base Option B: Establish a small virtual team who are all working from home wherever they may be and use online coordination tools. All staff would be on consultancy contracts, perhaps to different organisations in this field of work.
Structural Base Option C: Establish a new NGO with a small office in a key city. Being an NGO, it would require a constitution, Board of Directors, etc.
Structural Base Option D: There is no dedicated staff team. Organisations in this field that are centrally involved in this process agree on lead roles and either dedicate their own staff or assume responsibility for contracting people with relevant skills, knowledge, and/or contacts.
Funding Base:
No matter the options chosen above, funds will be required. Major decisions will need to be made about the guiding principles for how funds are raised and the source for those funds. Four possible options as the initial basis for that conversation and decision:
Funding Option A: That one organisation (bilateral, technical, NGO, UN, or foundation, for example) agrees to raise or provide new money to support a small 2-year funding arrangement for start-up purposes.
Funding Option B: That there is no core budget. The organisations that assume roles as outlined – for example, in Structural Option D above – fund financial requirements from their own resources related to the roles they assume.
Funding Option C: That one organisation (or multiple organisations with good coordination) agree to build the tasks required into their core work plan(s) with appropriate costs incorporated into their budget(s) for the first 2 years of operation.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to outline a systematic set of considerations and options for the development of a global mechanism to help advance the effectiveness and scale of the communication, media, social and behavior change community of work. The issues and considerations are not simple or straightforward, as is clear from the above. For that very reason, in the spirit of fruitful exchange of ideas, the discussions and possible decisions to emerge in late June will require the involvement of multiple stakeholders.
With many thanks for your invaluable engagement in this process.
Rafael Obregon (UNICEF)
Warren Feek (The Communication Initiative)
May 26th, 2017
***
The previous section in this paper is The Options - Operating Mechanisms.
Editor's note: Above is an excerpt from Rafael Obregon's and Warren Feek's 18-page paper "Development Calling".
The full table of contents for this paper follows:
Introduction, Purpose, Stimulus, Consultation
Worries, Opportunities, Priorities, and Core Question
The Options - Specific Problems on Which to Focus
Image credit: Huu Nhuan Nguyen/University of Queensland Centre for Communication and Social Change (CfCSC)
Comments
Comments on "Development Calling"
On the whole, a very readable, focused, clearly written document, identifying problems, offering solutions, and providing a choice of mechanisms. Congratulations. Excellent comments by Claire Hajaj.
Here are a few suggestions (informed by my thoughts presented way at the bottom):
Suggestions
On global mechanisms, option 3 is best—less top-down.
On problems, you have captured the important ones for the most part; some caveats:
· We need to recognize that while the set of problems identified in the document are certainly relevant to our field and solving them will benefit our own C4D/CFSBC work, they are also framed (and thus limited) by our need to gain visibility and funding.
· It appears that like many other fields of communication practice that do not have entry requirements, we are trying to “professionalize”, to standardize/routinize C4D/CFSBC practice. A good thing overall I think as long as we do not go into strict boundary maintenance. Is it possible to emphasize launching university level programs (at least at the master’s level), many of them, across the world, in your solutions? There are too few of them right now. I would also seriously consider an academic journal.
· As for compelling impact data, there are two issues to consider.
o One, change takes time, a very long time sometimes, and funding agencies need to be made to understand this. If we just take individual behavior change campaigns into consideration, not even corporate communications such as advertising and PR, with vastly more funds than C4D/CFSBC can dream of at this point for any one intervention, have limited impact. Corporations are happy with a very, very small percentage day-after-aided-recall, and they acknowledge that they do not know which 50 cents of their dollar they spent actually created the impact. Participatory social change would be even more complex in terms of time.
o Two, we need to define success in a multitude of ways and make those ways acceptable to funders rather than be driven by a narrow evidence set that is ethnocentric and straightjacketing.
On solutions, the timeframe may be somewhat overambitious unless you are able to garner a lot of resources to make them happen quickly, and naturally success in the allotted time is to some extent dependent on the mechanism that is finally selected. More specifically, solutions that focus on organizations (I am assuming these are international and national) and governments may reproduce the modernization paradigm; these also work against getting civil society engagement.
On structural base: Option B or C.
Funding: Option A, preferably a foundation.
General feedback/fears:
· Caution needed that this does not become another top-down system, propagating a one size fits all solution. Communication in C4D/CFSBC can be silent, interpersonal and mediated; it can be interactive or not; it can range from art to talk to video to what not. It is the local conditions that should determine which type or combination of types will be used. This flexibility must be maintained in the standards that are drafted. And we need to avoid from jumping on bandwagons when something new arrives; nothing is a panacea in and of itself, it is just part of the mix.
· Caution needed that this does not morph into or be hugely influenced by CFBC (individual behavior change). It is important to keep much of the focus on CFSC (community level social change). In many parts of the world, in most as a matter of fact, and even in subcommunities in the US, individuals do not have agency to change their behavior. Keeping communities and their cultures at the center of this exercise is critical.
Some thoughts
We do not have a grand theory of change because change happens in different ways, in various places, through a multitude of mechanisms, over short and long periods of time, at many levels (individual to community to ….), mediated through disparate influences, and so on. This is in fact the theory of change. And in this theory of change we need to recognize that sometimes change does not happen, and sometimes things regress. Change is difficult to bring about even when it is an organic initiative, rising from the community, and external agents are not involved.
The same can be said for a grand theory of communication for development/social change. Communication works in its own multitude of ways, with similar results.
So what does this mean for practice in the field, assuming we are not talking about grassroots initiatives of the communities themselves? Simply that we have to allow for a multiplicity of means and ways, that are fully locally grounded, use knowledge on the ground knowledge, and are participatory. And to temper our expectations for a grand change or C4D/CFSBC theory.
Structural and Funding Base - Social Marketing position
Structural Base
Structural Base Option A: Embed a small staff team within a major organisation in this field of work. Any staff would be part of that organisation’s personnel and administrative system.
In general, the iSMA and its member associations do not support this option unless there is a way for spreading the learning beyond that one major organization (e.g., create a ‘living university’).
Structural Base Option B: Establish a small virtual team who are all working from home wherever they may be and use online coordination tools. All staff would be on consultancy contracts, perhaps to different organisations in this field of work.
The iSMA and its member associations do support this option and recommend establishing a federated or network model in order to ensure that different perspectives will be acknowledged and shared.
Structural Base Option C: Establish a new NGO with a small office in a key city. Being an NGO, it would require a constitution, Board of Directors, etc.
The iSMA and its member associations do support this option as a supplement to Option B above.
Structural Base Option D: There is no dedicated staff team. Organisations in this field that are centrally involved in this process agree on lead roles and either dedicate their own staff or assume responsibility for contracting people with relevant skills, knowledge, and/or contacts.
The iSMA and its member associations do not support this option.
Funding Base:
Funding Option A: That one organisation (bilateral, technical, NGO, UN, or foundation, for example) agrees to raise or provide new money to support a small 2-year funding arrangement for start-up purposes.
The iSMA and most of its member associations do not support this option.
Funding Option B: That there is no core budget. The organisations that assume roles as outlined – for example, in Structural Option D above – fund financial requirements from their own resources related to the roles they assume.
The iSMA and most its member associations do not support this option. One member association does support it as a supplement to Option C, below.
Funding Option C: That one organisation (or multiple organisations with good coordination) agree to build the tasks required into their core work plan(s) with appropriate costs incorporated into their budget(s) for the first 2 years of operation.
The iSMA and most its member associations do not support this option. One member association does support it as a supplement to Option B, above.
Sesame - Overall thoughts
In general I think there are a lot of good ideas here but I personally think there needs to be a clearer and more specific ASK…what’s the two minute elevator pitch to a funder with a lot of money to spend on this? I’m really excited to be part of the conversation and offer helpful thoughts.
Rain Barrel - Main next steps?
c. What are the main steps that need to be taken to implement that mechanism and who is responsible and accountable for taking that action.
• Ideally, an academic institution offering certified degrees in development communication would be willing to host and coordinate such a mechanism. But we would love to hear various opinions and believe this is for further discussion at the meeting in NY at the end of June.
Jyotika on structural base and funding
On structural base: Option B or C.
Funding: Option A, preferably a foundation.
PCI Media IMpact - Main Steps?
Question 3: What are the main steps that need to be taken to implement that mechanism and who is responsible and accountable for taking that action?
We are in support of Option B. A virtual team will allow us to select from a larger pool of potential team members and is more inclusive. We can see the benefit of Option A of adding a small team within an existing organization by having already structures and systems in place, however, we feel the mechanism should be independent and not an add on to a major player in the field. Option C to create a new NGO seems to require a lot of additional resources to get off the ground. Option D is the least favorable with having volunteer members, as we are all super busy and this is a heavy lift that requires full-time hands on in order to be successful.
- Log in to post comments