What Matters In Kosovo: Communities’ Own Measures of Aid Effectiveness

 

In this important transition moment for Kosovo — after nine years of undetermined status — the view from communities offers critical lessons for structuring effective policy and aid for continued stability and recovery.

Responding to an open-ended inquiry regarding the most significant changes in terms of stability and recovery since the active conflict in the late 1990s, Kosovans from 13 diverse communities identified the issues, actors and approaches that have had the greatest impact on these changes. With projected financial needs for Kosovo estimated at €1.25 billion for 2008-2010, local and international actors should heed Kosovan’s own measures of effectiveness.

The key findings of this report indicate that

• Stability and recovery is not primarily “politics”
• Stability and recovery is locally driven and owned
• Gaps exist between local priorities and policy initiatives
• Community leadership narrows the gaps
• Continued recovery requires a cross-sectoral, integrated approach

Since beginning work in Kosovo in 1993, Mercy Corps Kosovo’s focus has shifted from relief to recovery, to long-term development. Over a 15 year period, Mercy Corps Kosovo has implemented over 30 programs worth in excess of US$50 million and currently operates from a Head Office in Prishtinë / Priština, covering 27 Municipalities.

This research is part of The LEAPP Project (Learning for Effective Aid Practice and Policy), a two-year, multi-country study initiated by Mercy Corps to understand the impact of community-led programming in conflict and post-conflict transitional environments. Pilot research was conducted in Kosovo from May-June 2008.

Access “What Matters In Kosovo” here.

How do we learn in 2008?

The Masie Center’s Learning Consortium has just posted a report on a survey of over 6000 employees on how they learn and preferred methods. A summary is posted here and the full article which has interesting graphs in it is also available to download from the site. The survey discovered that most employees currently rely primarily on self learning and motivation and pick up new knowledge from reading, web searches and/or e-learning on line. A lot of people are using sources such as YouTube but are not necessarily using podcasts as they aren’t easily accessible from work. Only 48% of people are satisifed with the amount of time they have available to learn and I would be interested to know how this maps against our own organizations. We have invested time in creating placeholders for learning, but whether people are taking the opportunity to make this happen (or prioritizing over all the competing things we are asked to do) would be something to explore. Perhaps most interestingly for me, people seem to overwhelmingly want to have job stretch/rotation opportunities and yet don’t feel that these opportunities exist. I wonder if this would be the same finding if we just looked at the humanitarian world, where it seems as though there are numerous opportunities (maybe too many) to rotate through different jobs fairly rapidly. I also wonder if these are much more accessible to international than to national staff. Anyway the article gave me food for thought and is worth looking at.

Attempting to better define fragile states

The Brookings Institute has just published a report that presents an Index of State Weakness in the Developing World, measuring weakness in 141 developing countries (as defined by the World Bank) against four categories: economic, political, security and social welfare. Each category has four indicators and each country received a score for each indicator and a subsequent average. The complete, beautifully color-coded table can be downloaded and printed here. Somalia scores lowest across all four categories and ranks at the bottom of the charts. The 24-page report shows some interesting correlations and between the different data sets.  For example, not surprisingly, there is a strong correlation between poverty and overall weakness which means that most of the world’s weakest (and failed) states are also the world’s poorest. Also, states that are more successful at political governance also tend to provide better social welfare. The report is easily accessible and at only 24 pages is an interesting read. Download the full report here.

Counterpoint on the food-crisis

Thanks to our illustrious Tom Ewert, who writes to take issue with the analysis of the food crisis presented here, and wants to recommend an alternative view: He reading list includes ‘Starved for Science: How biotechnology is being kept out of Africa‘ by Robert Paarlberg - a Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College. Read the press release from Wellesley College here

The rise and fall of globalized industrial agriculture

The International Forum on Globalization went to press with their report The Rise and Predictable Fall of Globalized Industrial Agriculture last year, but the analysis they present is particularly pertinent as we try to understand the current global food crisis.

The surprisingly readable report first unpacks the massive shift in ownership of agricultural processes (from seeds and agricultural imports
to control of markets and food transport systems), and the role of global organizations and structures.

More importantly, it proposes a raft of alternative agricultural approaches that emphasize local production and food sovereignty, biodiversity and sustainable farming practices. It’s both an insightful read on the current issues, and a guide to potential paths out of the situation we’re in.

Measuring Your Mission - Is it Possible?

Any of us interested in the complexities, challenges and successes of macro-level measurement that tells us at an agency level whether we are making progress (or not) towards achieving our mission, should check out The Bridgespan Group. This non-profit consulting group helps agencies get closer to results measurement in a number of different ways. Although their focus is US domestic agencies, the papers that they have published are relevant to those of us in the international humanitarian field. In particular I liked a study entitled Great Valley Center: A Case Study in Measuring for Mission that talks about how they helped the Great Valley Center start to measure it’s results at the macro level. Interestingly, a recent study by the Independent Sector identified that nearly 60% of the nonprofits surveyed said that the results of at least some of their programs were too intangible to measure. Now that sounds familiar!!! Even if you aren’t interested in the specifics of the case, the generic challenges and potential solutions outlined are (I think) applicable to all of us.