The use of inter-sectoral partnerships (ISPs) as a development tool is expanding rapidly as the development community increasingly recognizes that--by working jointly--government, business, and civil society can take advantage of creative synergies and achieve outcomes impossible for any one of them to achieve independently. USAID's Research and Reference Services Project held an interactive roundtable discussion to facilitate information sharing and spur coordination among Washington-based colleagues. The objectives of this half-day seminar were to:

• Increase communication among the various organizations with interest in and experience with implementing partnerships across sectors;
• Share information about approaches used to implement and evaluate ISPs;
• Develop concrete steps to spur future collaborative efforts and bridge gaps in knowledge.

I. Welcome and Conceptual Overview

USAID and ISPs -- Norm Nicholson, USAID's Policy Bureau

In his introductory remarks, Norm Nicholson noted that while the international aid community knows a great deal about each of the sectors--markets, governments, and NGOs--involved in community development, gaps exist in our understanding of the relationships between these sectors.

The New Partnerships Initiative (NPI) at USAID aimed to fill these gaps. NPI identified two defining characteristics of inter-sectoral partnerships (ISPs). First, ISPs build necessary bridges. A combination of incentives is needed to engage the particular skills and values of each sector (voluntary, markets, and authorities). Second, it is necessary to think in terms of the production of collective goods. ISPs are a better framework for innovation in this regard, because they can overcome the individual failure of either the market or authorities.

Strategic objective (SO) performance management systems can cause severe "stovepiping" within USAID sectors. Boundary crossing ISPs are not handled well in this performance management structure. With this in mind, a framework for assessing ISP networks has been developed, and this seminar marks a beginning in discussing, refining, and disseminating not only the concepts of ISP but also a valuable method for assessment.

Nicholson concluded with two observations regarding the work remaining to institutionalize an ISP-based outlook regarding the production of collective goods. First, how do we change institutions? And second, what mechanisms for change shall we adapt? Nicholson felt that the key to both challenges is the ability to talk about ideas.

Conceptual Overview - Jennifer Brinkerhoff, Rutger's University

Jennifer Brinkerhoff, who is currently researching the roles and models of ISPs for an upcoming publication, prefaced her overview with several disclaimers. She noted that there is no one definition or practice of ISPs and that everyone working in this field has different views of partnerships. She also noted that from the practical to the theoretical, there is no agreement over whether partnerships are a means to an end or an end in themselves. Without this clarification, defining partnering "success" is difficult.

Brinkerhoff suggested a number of reasons to partner: to enhance effectiveness and efficiency; to provide multi-actor, integrated solutions; to help move from a no-win to a win-win situation; and to open the decision-making processes

She also posed a number of questions that should be raised when talking about partnerships:

• When does a relationship become a partnership?
• Is partnering an end or a means to an end?
• Is partnering a universal good?
• Are there situations where it may be inappropriate?
• What is the political dimension of the partnership?
• Is the power relationship equal? If it is not equal, is the partnership worth pursuing?

Brinkerhoff focused her comments on two dimensions that she believes provide the added value for partnering:

• Organizational Identity

• Mutuality

II. Approaches to Inter-Sectoral Partnering

Martin Hewitt -- USAID's Office of Private Voluntary Cooperation (PVC)

The PVC office works to build capacity through grant programs. Martin Hewitt provided several examples of socially responsible programs that partner for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Hewitt finds that nonprofits are in need of practical aid to partner with companies. Most for-profit companies are not new donors and know about relationships and comparative advantages. Mr. Hewitt also expressed that corporations do not enter partnerships to become fundraisers. They look at relationships as business development.

Some lessons to be taken forward from Hewitt's experience:

• Partnering should be institutionalized and made systematic. The high receptivity of organizations like USAID should be leveraged as an example to other institutions.
• Intermediary organizations should become more proactive in searching out issue areas where partnerships could build bridges. PVC often is called about new issue areas for partnerships, such as a potential relationship between Home Depot and environmental organizations.

Jane Covey -- Institute for Development Research (IDR)

Jane Covey offered lessons learned based on an IDR study in four countries, looking at 10 cases of partnership between local organizations and businesses. In particular, she felt that the power component was the most interesting aspect of the relationship--how are mutual agreements formed? How can one use these agreements to maximize development impact? How can partnerships strengthen civil society, and how can donors act to empower organizations to fulfill their potential?

Four lessons from IDR's experiences:

1. Partnerships can and should define (or redefine) fundamental structures to include civil society at deep levels. For example, a Brazilian business collaborated with a nonprofit to provide day care for their employees, and the NGO increased service to other members of the surrounding community. In this way the goals of both partners were accommodated.
2. Partnerships should choose a strategy of engagement. It may be difficult for some nonprofits to move from advocacy and confrontation to partnership. Nonprofits should be willing to pressure business into joining in partnership with them, and they should be able to use advocacy if business is not willing to join. As an example, Covey pointed to a housing developer in South Africa who was not allowed by law to evict squatters on the land it wished to develop. Working in partnership with local NGOs, the development corporation built affordable housing with amenities such as electricity and plumbing and, with the NGO, helped the squatters move into the new housing. In IDR's experience, some businesses are unlikely to collaborate in this way unless they face public pressure. If the business enters the partnership but is under no pressure to remain, the partnership may not be sustainable. NGOs can best use their resources to encourage the social pressure needed to keep business involved.
3. Partnerships can employ many options for collaboration design. Covey stressed that as long as the relationship is open it is all right for a nonprofit to approach a for-profit collaborator only for monetary resources. She felt that the impact and reach of these monetary relationships can be just as high as in a true partnership, and the appropriate approach depends on the situation. Many businesses may not realize the value of the NGO's non-monetary resources, and therefore a gradual development of the relationship may be more beneficial than jumping into mutuality at the outset.
4. Partnerships should use various approaches to ensure a civil society influence in joint projects and ventures. It can be natural for the more fast-paced partner (the business partner) to drive the relationship. Keep the directive, results-oriented, short-term focus from dominating the consultative, process-oriented, long-term focus. Since more systematic relationships tend to be more sustainable, create formal agreements to mitigate the effects of personnel turnover. Finally, establish joint learning mechanisms for shared control.

Covey also pointed to the substantial government role in most partnerships. She stated that, in general, civil society has had a weak voice in strategizing partnerships which may have led to business partners accruing benefits and the NGOs accruing the costs of partnering. Covey believes that NGOs face less risk if they insist on long-term partnering.

Chuck Gagel -- Procter and Gamble

Procter and Gamble have been involved in multi-sectoral projects--in sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition--for two decades. Chuck Gagel stated that the momentum from this involvement has led them into micro-nutrition research and development. He noted a number of questions that should be asked when forming a partnership:

1. Is there a fundamental problem?
2. Is there a call to action?
3. Have stakeholders been identified and invited to participate?
4. Have roles and responsibilities been defined?
5. Are heads of state ready and willing to act?
6. What does Procter and Gamble have to offer?

Gagel stressed that his organization has capacities beyond products, and that partnerships should take advantage of these institutional abilities. For-profit organizations in food development have science resources to offer that government and nonprofits do not have access to. Gagel noted that in the Sustainable Fortification Program, Procter and Gamble used its expertise to identify the problem and to create iron-, vitamin A-, and iodine-fortified products. Although a multinational corporation like Procter and Gamble is an expert at production, distribution, and marketing, tapping into the NGO sector's expertise in education and social marketing could increase the success of having people use the new products. How to collaborate with nonprofits to best utilize this capacity for development is the biggest step. Gagel stated that the divide between cultures (nonprofit and for-profit) can be frustrating. He noted that while for-profits want to get involved, the pathways are not always open or easy to follow.

Constance Kane -- PACT Partnership Project

PACT works in 21 countries and coordinates networks of donors, NGOs, and government collaboration. Constance Kane described programs in Indonesia, Peru, and Zimbabwe that are testing the theory of ISPs. Although admitting the implementation and evaluation of these ISPs is not rigorously scientific, Kane feels that they are undertaking a very practical examination of the way ISPs form, mature, and work.

Several lessons from the PACT experience are:

• Choose partners carefully. Having experienced in-country evaluators helps. Kane stressed that when thorough homework is done beforehand--identifying both the NGO and business partners, even in a non-systematic manner--the rest of the activities of developing partnerships go far more smoothly.
• Partnership training should be field-based and very practical. Real exchanges (rather than hypothetical problems) and variety are important to spark the interest of the participants.
• Links between business organizations (such as Chambers of Commerce) and local business schools are important. If partnerships are included in local business school curricula, it will strengthen the potential for successful ISPs.
• Buy-in at all levels is very important -- i.e., don't leave government out.

Shirley Buzzard -- Corporate Community Investment Service (CorCom)

Shirley Buzzard outlined the work of CorCom, a DC-area, for-profit consulting firm that acts as a partnership broker for business and nonprofits that are seeking collaborators. CorCom's goals are to:

• harness corporate philanthropy to strategize community investment
• work with PVOs to meet social objectives through partnering
• act as a clearinghouse for business and nonprofits
• stimulate business to use nonprofits
• increase access
• decrease confusion about how to get started

Discussion

Q: Do partnerships only work in middle-income countries?

A: No, the group felt that many countries have business opportunities for partnerships. Some felt, however, that business is restricted from involvement in the poorest countries because there is little market for them. It was noted that national poverty and poor business environments often are linked. If NGOs in the poorest countries want to partner with businesses, they may first need to advocate for more transparent business rules and good government practices to allow business to operate without intolerable risks.

Q: What happens when corporate roles are not as well-defined, or as well-articulated, as Procter and Gamble's?

A: The character and interest of the CEO/senior management is important to the relationship. The business must demonstrate commitment to corporate responsibility.

Q: Many corporations are used to moving quickly. How can this be reconciled with the slower pace of nonprofit/government projects?

A: Hewitt noted that this is a major challenge. It is important to get the PVOs and businesses out of their boxes and value the time scale of the other. Many others at the table agreed that the cultural differences can be a main sticking point. It was felt that an honest and experienced broker can help smooth the initial experience, reassuring both parties that the desire to work together really is mutual. A productive relationship takes a lot of work.

Q: Which comes first, corporations who want to partner or nonprofits who want to partner with them?

A: Hewitt noted that The World Bank has developed a template and protocol for partnerships and learning from ISPs.

Q: Do downsizing and other business changes jeopardize partnerships?

A: Gagel noted that is essential to clarify resources and focus on the goal to overcome any lack of continuity or personnel turnover.

Q: What is the best entry point for a PVO approaching a large for-profit? The country VP or the corporate headquarters?

A: Gagel replied that local contacts are always a good idea. The right people can send the right message up to the top. The community-based organization will need local business contacts and support. For multi-country concerns like micro-nutrition, the corporate headquarters would be the correct access point.

Comment: There was some debate over the advisability of training local NGOs or government officials as partnership brokers or matchmakers. On the one hand, many of the barriers to successful partnerships may lie with local/state/national officials (tax codes, import restrictions, etc.), but the government does not meet the mutuality role of partnerships.

Comment: Nonprofits should realize that for-profits actually do have fiscal responsibility to shareholders as well as social responsibility and should not always approach for-profits with such disdain.

III. Evaluation Methods

Chanya Charles & Stephanie McNulty -- USAID's Research and Reference Service

Chanya Charles and Stephanie McNulty noted that assessing the results of an inter-sectoral partnership can be challenging because many of the results are not easily quantifiable or objective. They also noted that some of the challenges of performance monitoring and assessment particular to USAID are compounded when looking at partnerships.

To help overcome these challenges, Charles and McNulty have developed the ISP Assessment Framework. In creating the framework, they identified important characteristics of ISPs and researched indicators that already existed to measure these characteristics, or at least could be adapted to assess them. The Framework takes a multi-dimensional approach that explores:

• The values and capacity of the ISP itself in terms of organizational capacities, organizational culture, and the external environment that impacts the partnership
• The processes used by partners to interact with one another and outsiders
• The impact the partnership has had on a particular activity, the partners themselves, and society as a whole.

The framework is intended to help members of a partnership monitor and evaluate their own success. Users of the framework should pick and choose categories and indicators that are most appropriate to their situation.

Charles and McNulty stressed that although the visual graphic may look daunting, the framework can actually simplify the process of selecting indicators to measure the success of an ISP. They also noted that the framework represents that first step in an on-going process to create a methodology to assist in assessing ISPs.

Emilia Rodriguez-Stein -- Inter-American Foundation

To close the session on evaluation, Emilia Rodriguez-Stein of the Inter-American Foundation presented the evaluation tool that was developed to assess the impact of IAF grants to partnerships in Latin America. The Grassroots Development Framework (GDF) measures both tangible and intangible results at the personal, organizational, and societal level. The tool includes over 40 indicators that can be used to measure impact at the three levels. Rodriquez-Stein discussed a few examples of partnerships that have effectively used the GDF to assess the impact of the grant at the local level. After her presentation, participants noted the compatibility of the USAID and IAF assessment tools.

IV. Next Steps

Although time was short, the group brainstormed on what actions are needed to help with implementing or assessing inter-sectoral partnering. Below is a list of action items that were identified:

Information sharing

What:

• gather case studies
• synthesis cases to provide successful examples of inter-sectoral partnering
• identify which procedures hinder or facilitate inter-sectoral partnering
• everyone needs to document the value-added when using a partnership approach
• create a structure for the private sector to come to discussions on ISPs

Who:

• The World Bank has done some research based on innovative task managers work
• USAID has documents, but they haven't been synthesized
• Where is the private sector in ISP discussions? How to tap into the Chamber of Commerce and the Conference Board

How:

• Web-based discussion

Evaluation

What:

• Is the purpose of the evaluation to report or to improve the state of the art? Set priorities and find the balance between the two.

Motivating Factors

• How do the partners find each other?
• What is motivating factor for corporations?
• Identify the role that disasters play in motivating partnerships
• How to create institutional commitment to this type of work?

Role of Donor

What:

• Clarify the role of the donor for inter-sectoral partnering
• Clarify USAID's policy regarding inter-sectoral partnering. There is a difference between the "idea" of doing it and the "reality" of doing it.
• Create systems and procedures for USAID.
• Businesses need to understand USAID's mission
• What about creating an enabling environment?

Who:

• The World Bank is creating a template for how to partner across sectors. This could be used as an example.