Sept Eboardbook.docx 1

September 14, 2009

InterAction e-Board Book

Ssojourner 9/14/2009

Table of Contents Tab 1

RSVP List Agenda July 6, 2009 Minutes

Tab 2

Leadership Team Report

Tab 3

Discussion Papers Forging a New Relationship Concept Paper for Foreign Aid Reform Building a More Secure World Rationalizing Private Development Creating a Senior Advisory “Thought” Council

Tab 4

Finance Committee Report

Tab 5

Membership & Standards Committee Report

Tab 6

Employee Handbook

Tab 7

Goals

RSVP List as of September 3, 2009  = Attendence in-person expected  = Attendance by phone expected  = Unable to attend = Unable to commit  Jo Luck, Chair Heifer International  Tsehaye Teferra, Vice Chair Ethiopian Community Development Council  Kathy Spahn, Treasurer Helen Keller International  Sekyu Chang Korean American Sharing Movement  Julius Coles Africare 

Christopher Elias PATH  Anne Goddard ChildFund International

 Steve Mosley AED  Carol Peasley CEPDA  Dan Pellegrom Pathfinder International

 Jonathan Quick Management Sciences for Health  Robert Radtke Episcopal Relief and Development  Farshad Rastegar Relief International  Jonathan Reckford Habitat for Humanity  William S. Reese International Youth Foundation  Carter Roberts World Wildlife Fund

 Susan Hayes

Interplast  Benjamin Homan Food for the Hungry  Elizabeth Latham (late arrival) US Committee for UNDP  Melanie Macdonald World Neighbors  Mary Ellen McNish American Friends Service Committee

 Zainab Salbi Women for Women International  Ron Sconyers Physicians for Peace  Alison Smith InsideNGO  Richard Stearns World Vision

September 2009

Board of Directors Meeting September 14, 2009 InterAction Offices

Agenda

11:30am-12:30pm

Lunch - conference room D

12:30 – 1:00pm

Meet & Greet with Staff

1:00 1. 2. 3.

– 1:15pm Call to Order (Tab 1) Roll-call Review of Agenda Consideration for Approval of Board Meeting and Executive Committee minutes ACTION ITEM 4. Comments from the Chair - Jo Luck

1:15 – 2:15pm Leadership Team Report (Tabs 2, 3, 6) 1. Review of InterAction Leadership Team Report – Sam Worthington (Tab 2) 2. US NGO Partnership with the US Government Paper and White House Task Force Paper (discussion) - (Tab 3) 3. Foreign Assistance Act re-write and Administration Policy Initiatives (discussion) - (Tab 3) 4. Dialogue with Corporations (Tab 3) ACTION ITEM 5. Employee Handbook (discussion) - (Tab 6) 2:15 – 2:45pm Committee Reports (Tabs 4 & 5) 1. Finance Committee Report – Kathy Spahn and Peter Engebretson (Tab 4) 2. Membership & Standards Committee Report – Bill Reese and Barbara Wallace (Tab 5) 2:45 – 3:00 Break 3:00 - 4:30pm Roundtable Discussions (Handout)  Introduction (15 minutes)  Concept  External Environment  Move into small groups & (45minutes)  Topics  Transforming the US PVO Partnership with US Government  Relationship/Dialogue with Foundations (from policy direction to overhead)  Creating and InterAction Quality and Standards Seal  Aligning Member Public Messaging around the MDGs  Mapping US NGO Programs and Rationalizing Private Development Assistance  Report back (30 min) 4:30 – 5:00 Executive Session  will begin with Sam Worthington 5:00 Adjourn

Monday, July 6, 2009 1:00-5:00 p.m. Crystal Gateway Marriot 1700 Jefferson Davis Hwy Arlington, VA 22202

InterAction Board of Directors Meeting

DRAFT

Board Members in attendance: Charlie MacCormack, Chairman; Save the Children Amy Coen, Treasurer; Population Action International Neal Keny-Guyer, Mercy Corps Anne Lynam Goddard, Christian Children’s Fund Jo Luck, Heifer International Mary Ellen McNish, American Friends Service Committee Dan Pellegrom, Pathfinder International Linda Pfeiffer, INMED George Rupp, International Rescue Committee Ron Sconyers, Physicians for Peace Richard Stearns, World Vision Kathy Spahn, Helen Keller International Tsehaye Teferra, Ethiopian Community Development Council Ken Bacon, Refugees International Carter Roberts, World Wildlife Fund Sam Worthington, Ex-officio, InterAction President & CEO Board Members participating by phone: Carol Bellamy, World Learning Helene Gayle, CARE Board Members sending regrets: Ritu Sharma Fox, Vice Chair, Women Thrive David Beckmann, Bread for the World Helene Gayle, CARE Lee Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Elizabeth Latham, US Committee for UNDP Julius Coles, Africare John McCullough, Church World Service Rob Radke, Episcopal Relief and Development Zainab Salbi, Women for Women International Emily Untermeyer, Amigos de las Americas InterAction Staff: Allen Abtahi, CIO and Director of Technology Jim Bishop, Vice President, Humanitarian Policy and Practice Suzanne Kindervatter, Vice President, Strategic Impact Lindsay Coates, Vice President, External Relations (phone) Barbara Wallace, Vice President, Membership & Standards

Board Minutes July 6, 2009, Page 2

Peter Engebretson, CFO Todd Shelton, Sr. Director, Public Policy & External Relations Brian Greenberg, Director of Sustainable Development Devinder Jaitly, Accounting Manager Luisa Córdoba, Sr. Associate, Resource Development Laia Grino, Sr. Associate, Research Sabrina Sojourner, Executive Office Coordinator Sylvain Browa, Director for Partnership & Development Constance Warhol, Special Assistant to the President

Minutes

Supporting Documents: InterAction Board Book July 6, including Leadership Team Report; Audit report by Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman Presenter:

Charlie MacCormack

Agenda item Call to Order Board Meeting Minutes of 03.09.2009. See Tab 1 of Board book Executive Committee (ExCo)Minutes 04 .16.09 and 05.12.09. See Tab 1 of Board book Opening Remarks from the Chair Overview / Discussion:  The meeting was called to order by Charlie MacCormack, Board Chair, at 1:05 pm. 

The Chair asked the Board to approve Board Meeting minutes for 03.02.09. No changes or corrections were requested.



The Chair asked the Board to approve the Executive Committee Meeting minutes for 04.16.09 and 05.12.09. No changes or corrections were requested.



At this, his last Meeting as Chair of the Board, Charlie MacCormack remarked that it was a great pleasure to work with the Board and offered warm and sincere thanks for their support and leadership, especially to Ritu Sharma and Amy Coen. He reminisced about Julia Taft with affection and celebrated great memories. During this time of significant change for InterAction (IA), he felt reassured and confident in working with Sam Worthington for the past three years, and InterAction’ s staff. In particular, he thanked the staff that moved InterAction forward during hard times. He added: In our cause there are always challenges and opportunities. This is a moment of great opportunity and real difficulties. The new administration signals that they like and approve of what we do, but there is no clear strategy on how to proceed or partner with our community in a new era. InterAction should play a lead role in setting the structure, procedures and processes to enter this new era of relations with the U.S. Government. Also, private development assistance (PDA), at approximately US$32 billion is significant, and comes with significant expectations of impact and accountability. Certainly, PDA challenges our organizations and the whole world system to coordinate more effectively, defying the rugged individualism of NGOs. Charlie MacCormack closed his remarks by saying that InterAction and our movement is in the most influential spot vis-à-vis global development that he can remember and wished Sam Worthington, InterAction and the new Board all the best and offered his full support in new endeavors now that a

2

Board Minutes July 6, 2009, Page 3

new journey has begun with the swearing in of President Obama. Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:  The 03.02.2009 Board Meeting, and 04.16.09 and 05.12.09 ExCo minutes were unanimously accepted into the record. Presenter: Sam Worthington Agenda item Leadership Team Report. See Tab 2 of Board book Enhancing our relationship with the USG Opening a dialogue with Corporations Approval of InterAction’s new logo Overview / Discussion: The Leadership team report was presented by Sam Worthington. He began by noting that “our day has come.” The expectations of our organizations and accountability concerns about the use of our funds have increased, even as we position our community to face a highly changing environment. 

He talks about five areas that are affecting our community: 1. President Obama has listed his development priorities (education, climate change, health, food security and failed states), but none of them are explicitly linked to, or fall within an MDG-like framework, or any framework at all. The U.S. Government continues to have a dysfunctional approach to foreign assistant that makes it difficult for our community to partner with and shape the U.S. Government policy. There is a lack of clarity or understanding about what the administration means when it speaks of the “elevation of development in the government”: Is their goal to elevate development as a tool of foreign policy and diplomacy? Is it actually enhanced U.S. development policy capacity? If so, how? And finally, what role will USAID play? 2. Several concepts central to President Obama’s vision were clear in his speech at Cairo: transparency, partnership and engagement. Core to this is the belief, by the new administration, that partnering with civil society is a key element of its strategy, and this includes new ways of partnering and relationships with our community. To date, we do not know what type of partnership the administration want and current modes of operating remain. Will the new approach continue contractor-like models? It is evident there is a new interest in partnering with our members, but for our community it is not yet clear how or if this will unfold, and at what cost. 3. There is an ongoing encroachment into the space in which U.S. NGOs operate. The pending implementation of USAID’s proposed Partner Vetting System (PVS) remains a major preoccupation. Counter-terrorism norms from the last administration continue to be largely unquestioned by this administration as they retain strong support within parts of USAID. InterAction is working to establish the political space to change PVS and to push back on actions by nation states that hinder the ability of our members to function, such as in the recent expulsion of member organizations from Sudan. 4. The financial crisis. Our community is systematically dismantling its capacity: layoffs, closings, and furloughs have been a common theme for the last year. Our collective capacity to deliver programs is seriously threatened. What is the role of a broader partnership with the public, government, etc. in light of these events? Sam believes this decrease in capacity goes against what the interests and policies of this administration. 5. Our community has not yet told its collective impact story. Can we and how should we collectively do it?

Enhancing our relationship with the USG Sam Worthington invited the Board to discuss the ideal type of relationship they would welcome with the US Government, in concrete terms. If we were given the space to act, what would be our concrete 3

Board Minutes July 6, 2009, Page 4

ask(s)? Recurrent answers and suggestions included: 

Request for NGO representation in the most senior level strategic policy development office, and to be involved in setting goals rather than reacting. Involvement as an implementer and at the policy level as well. For example, what will be the relationship between the US Government and our community for food security?



Charlie MacCormack asked that we determine which are the 2 or 3 levers that need to be moved to push the issue of relationships with the US Government? Sam responded there are a number of places where we could significantly impact a broader shift, for example by providing concrete input into: o a national development strategy, o a rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, and o Redefining public-private partnerships with the Secretary of State. What is not clear is what/when/who will champion this at USAID.



In the long-term a Cabinet-level position to partner with the Departments of State and Defense is essential. We need to be more strident about this.



The last thing we want to do is to be perceived as another special interest. Our strengths are our common goals and voice. Aid is the way in which we will attain the goals. Sam Worthington agreed by noting that promoting a multilateral, multi-stakeholder approach that includes U.S. NGOs is what will work. For this we need to document our collective impact.



We need to compare the impact and value of what we do against the contractors. Perhaps the GAO could do that study? If not, who can do it?



We must remain bold. Increasingly we are looking at “health and development diplomacy” rather than a “development strategy. The content of a development approach is as important as any new structure.”



The time is right, interest exists, and our community has lots of personal connections with the new administration. Let’s be better at using them and leverage the multiple entryways. The sum of the whole is not coherent enough to produce the change we are looking for. Sam Worthington replied, “As InterAction, we’ll do the best we can to organize, promote sharing and lead our community.”

Opening a dialogue with Corporations An increasing number of corporations are interested in a collective dialogue with the U.S. NGO community, from different vantage points and areas of expertise. We lack a space where systematic and recorded, structured dialogue and space for learning can happen between commercial, industrial and non-governmental organizations. InterAction has been approached by major corporations with an interest in initiating such a dialogue. As the U.S. NGO community, we already have thousands of these types of relationships. InterAction would like to provide structure for the dialogue with Corporations. The Board had no objections to moving the initiative forward and requested updates. Sam Worthington offered to prepare a proposed way forward starting in 2010 for the September Board meeting. Approval of new logo Sam presented visuals of the new InterAction logo. He then explained the internal process and the finished “look,” noted the product had been legally reviewed, and requested reactions of the Board. The Board approved the new brand and liked the new look. 4

Board Minutes July 6, 2009, Page 5

Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:  New logo approved  New dialogue with corporations can move forward Presenter:

Barbara Wallace, VP for Membership and Standards Membership and Standards Committee Report. See Tab 3 of Board book Overview / Discussion: Membership & Standards Committee Report The Committee presented six prospective members for approval by the Board: Agenda item

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Americas Relief Team Development GATEWAY Intl. Center for Not-for-Profit Law Operation Blessing International Relief and Dev. Corporation Rural Development Institute Solidarity Center

Some concern and request for clarification was expressed regarding the application of Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation. Sam explained the evolution of the organization and that they now meet our standards. The Committee reiterated its unanimous recommendation of Operation Blessing International Relief and Dev. Corporation to the Board. The Board approved all proposed members. Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:  All prospective members were approved unanimously by the Board Presenters: Agenda item

Dan Pellegrom Amy Coen Peter Engebretson, IA VP, Finance and Administration, Andreas Alexandrou, CPA and guest Audit Committee Report by Andreas Alexandrou, CPA; Partner, Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman CPAs . See Tab 4 of Board book Finance Committee report. See Tab 4 of Board book Overview / Discussion: Audit Committee Report Dan Pellegrom opened by noting the Committee was pleased with the result of the clean audit. The only concern expressed by the committee was the timing of the report and failing to have sent it to the full board before the meeting on July 6, 2009. The auditor, Andreas Alexandrou, also offers his apology and begin his report: The Board received two letters: a required communications to those in charge of governance; the other about deficiencies, if any. The report indicates this is an independent auditors report and Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman CPAs gives InterAction an unqualified opinion – the best opinion an organization can receive. Mr. Alexandrou made a point to thoroughly explain the audit and answered various Board questions. 5

Board Minutes July 6, 2009, Page 6

The audit is clean. Under “Other Matters”, which are not significant and mostly for good housekeeping: 1. the InterAction accounting manual needs to be updated; and 2. an investment account in which the last CFO still had signature authority. The latter issue was resolved and closed. In the Auditor’s opinion, this very positive report speaks very highly of management. The Audit Committee recommended approval of the report. The Board approved. Finance Committee report Amy Coen began by acknowledging the work of Peter Engebretson in updating antiquated financial systems and ensuring an easier way to control spending and managing grants. Other Board members noted the clear, attractive, and useful presentation of the financial statements Sam Worthington initiated the dialogue by informing the Board he is presenting a revised budget that cuts expenses by $800K. The new budget reflects organizational growth of 50 percent from 2006 rather than the anticipated 70 percent. Factors leading to the revision are:  In 2009 InterAction will grow by $800K less than expected.  Funding from the Ford Foundation is delayed from July to November.  Foundations are pulling back. With the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, InterAction has discussed not hiring planned new staff in the grant’s 2010 and 2011 budgets. As part of the Gates Foundation grant, InterAction has designed a sustainability plan that was presented at the last Board Meeting (see minutes for March 2, 2009).  The Gates Foundation has granted the flexibility to move resources around to ensure better sustainability. Management also successfully applied for a Special Opportunities Fund, a category within the grant that allows for unanticipated expenditures approved by the Executive Committee. Sam Worthington explained that so far InterAction has avoided reducing benefits and personnel, but that the budget reduction has been a wrenching process. The revision was an effort across the whole organization to cut on non-personnel spending to meet the required level to be able to perform for the promised grants deliverables. He noted that the Leadership Team has been fantastic and cooperative. InterAction continues to raise resources. Sam congratulated Jim Bishop for renewing the relationship with OFDA. While the overall revised budget shows a decline, Sam noted that we are declining to the largest annual InterAction budget ever and he believes the organization should be able to maintain itself at $8M and stabilize itself at that funding level over the next two years. The new space is completely sub-leased on a year-to-year basis rather than multiyear to maintain flexibility. The 4 tenant organizations are comfortable with this arrangement. With regards to membership dues Sam noted that some small members are leaving, but he explained that the losses are offset by a solid flow of new larger members. Currently InterAction membership stands at 179 (up from 176 in at the start of 2009) with the number of larger members increasing at a time when some smaller members pulling out as they are hit by the crisis. The Board accepted the Audit Committee and Finance Committee reports Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:  The Board accepted the Audit Committee and Finance Committee reports and the revised budget. Presenter: Ken Bacon 6

Board Minutes July 6, 2009, Page 7

Agenda item Nominating Committee Report. See Tab 5 of Board book Overview / Discussion: Nominating Committee Report Mr. Ken Bacon recommended the following slate of Officers to the Board: Jo Luck, Heifer International – Chair Tsehaye Teferra, Ethiopian Community Development Council – Vice Chair Kathy Spahn, Hellen Keller International – Treasurer

Sam Worthington

For new Board members, the Committee recommended: Christopher Elias –PATH Susan Hayes – Interplast Benjamin Homan – Food for the Hungry Melanie MacDonald – World Neighbors Steve Moseley – Academy for Educational Development Jonathan Quick – Management Sciences for Health Farshad Rastegar – Relief international Jonathan Reckford – Habitat for Humanity William Reese – International Youth Foundation Alison Smith – InsideNGO Sam Worthington described the Bylaw process to the Board. The Board will vote to recommend the proposed slate of new Board members to the Members Meeting. At the annual Members Meeting, members will vote and establish the new board. He added that a lot of people are rolling off the board and with them goes a lot of experience, which is why some previous board members are part of the slate. The Board approved to recommend the proposed slate to the members at the membership meeting The Board approved the slate of officers by acclamation. Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:  The Board approved the slate of officers by acclamation.  The Board approved slate of new board members for vote at the members meeting on July 9, 2009by acclamation

7

INTERACTION LEADERSHIP TEAM REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 2009

LT Report, page 2 September 14, 2009

INTERACTION

LEADERSHIP TEAM REPORT September 14, 2009

Introduction InterAction is pleased to welcome eleven new member CEOs to its Board of Directors. Our new Board members reflect the broad diversity of the InterAction community and we look forward to working with this new class. We also fondly remember Ken Bacon the CEO of Refugees International who recently passed away. For many years Ken was an active InterAction Board member and an active leader whose vision helped shaped our community’s work with refugees and the humanitarian space for NGO. Ken will be missed. Significant financial challenges now confront much of our community and for many organizations this is a difficult time for both their leadership and staff. At the same time, as a community of U.S. NGOs we face unique opportunities to shape the overall direction of U.S. foreign assistance and the evolution of private development flows. InterAction is actively engaged in helping our members navigate these waters and we are involved in senior-level conversations to shape a policy environment that is supportive of community-based development efforts and the missions of our members. For the first time in a generation, the U.S. NGO community is shrinking and many organizations are dismantling or contemplating reducing their operational capacity. This pull back is affecting the world’s poorest peoples as U.S. NGOs have fewer private resources to spend on programs or need to reduce field operations. We do not know how many thousands of staffs are no longer employed to deliver programs, but it is clear that the private development flows, that fund around 70% of our community’s $8.7 billion in international expenses, have significantly slowed. The immediate impact of this shortfall, which runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars, is now directly felt as programs are cut in the world’s poorest countries. With fewer assets on the ground, and with far less unrestricted resources, the ability to match donors, maintain operational capacity, and leverage programs, it will take years for the U.S. NGO community to recover to its former level of program coverage. Forty percent of the surveyed members have had staff layoffs and another third are considering reducing their staff. Many U.S. NGOs are closing country offices or reducing funding for community development programs. Sadly, as parts of our community retrenches, more children will die, fewer girls will have access to education, family livelihoods will suffer, and more villages will be underequipped to adapt to the ravages of climate change. These trends and other data from InterAction’s survey on the impact of the financial crisis on member organizations are available to all members (see Appendix A). In order to help leverage resources, advance best practices and utilize the latest GIS mapping tools, InterAction is actively engaged in efforts that could both help rationalize and increase the flow of private development resources into our community and people centered development efforts. At the heart of this initiative is a mapping project that aims to link data on field projects across our community at the nation state level and, ultimately, to help inform donors. InterAction just received a grant from a UN agency (IFAD) to map our member’s food security work and thanks to USAID we have found a solid technical partner in Fortius One. At the same time, InterAction and its members have some of the biggest opportunities in decades to directly shape important foreign assistance policy. Congressman Berman, the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and his staff are rewriting the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), which hasn’t been successfully rewritten since its inception in 1961. Working with Congress, InterAction, through senior-

LT Report, page 3 September 14, 2009 staff and CEO-level Task Forces on Aid Reform, is actively helping frame the overall thinking of our community and its approach to a new Foreign Assistance Act. We will also work closely with the Administration’s co-chairs of the first U.S. State Department Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy Review (QDDR). Lastly, we were contacted this week by the White House informing InterAction that President Obama just signed a presidential study initiative on U.S. global development policy and that the National Security Council wants InterAction, and other key stakeholders, to provide input during a 120 day inter-agency process. As always, there is a tendency in Washington to defend the status quo as it pertains to individual interests. However, rarely has our community seen the potential to positively affect how U.S. foreign assistance is prioritized for decades to come as the opportunity promised by the current House Foreign Affairs Committee and Obama administration processes. We hope we are able to embrace consensus goals, which will be reflected in the new legislation and in the new policy documents. InterAction will be the primary voice to bring a collective U.S. NGO/PVO programmatic perspective to these policy efforts and the FAA rewrite. Each of these reforms could shape the direction of U.S. foreign assistance and the role parts of our community plays as a U.S. Government implementing partner. It is crucial that InterAction and its members are able to provide clear and effective input into these various policy and legislative initiatives. The door to engage with the administration and Congress is wide open and our biggest challenge is the ability of our community to reach a bold consensus that focuses on the reality, needs, and rights of world’s poor. A recent book, and other data, shows that the U.S. NGO community has become an increasingly small and minor partner of the multiple agencies involved in delivering U.S. Government’s foreign assistance. While this is not true for all members or in such areas as humanitarian assistance, since the mid 1990s, the delivery of U.S. aid has been largely based on a contractor rather than a partnership model. The 1961 Foreign Assistance Act talks about a U.S. foreign aid program that includes the U.S. Government building a common good with what we now call U.S. civil society. How this topic is approached, and the extent to which foreign assistance is focused on the poorer and more vulnerable populations of the world within the QDDR or re-write of the FAA, will have a lasting impact on our community and the populations we seek to serve. Assuming a new Foreign Assistance act is written, all of the collective advocacy capacity of our community will be needed to ensure bipartisan support. InterAction recently celebrated its 25th Anniversary at the Forum 2009 which brought together a total of 892 participants, with a collective representation of 276 organizations from across the United States and around the world. Among those who participated were 104 InterAction members and 172 nonmembers, including government agencies, the philanthropic community, corporate entities, educational institutions and think tanks. Forum 2009 focused on transforming our future and shaping the next 25 years of service to the world’s disadvantaged through a series of 37 thought provoking workshops involving a total of 129 speakers. Thank you for making our 2009 Forum such a success and I look forward to seeing you at our Forum 2010 on June 1-4! Below is a summary that highlights selected efforts to advance InterAction’s goals:

LT Report, page 4 September 14, 2009 Board Meeting Goal

Activities

I.

INTERACTION WILL PROMOTE A BOLD AGENDA

Advocacy Day: InterAction’s 17th annual Advocacy Day convened on the first full day of this year’s Forum. More than 130 member staff, Public Policy Committee members, and other Forum participants met with nearly 90 offices on Capitol Hill to highlight the importance of humanitarian relief and development, and to make specific requests of congressional staff. The efforts on Capitol Hill resulted in 12 new cosponsors for H.R. 2139, The Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009. Appropriations: Since the last report, staff has monitored and tracked the FY2010 appropriations bills, reporting on committee consideration of the State, Foreign Operations bill in the Senate and helping mobilize support for the House State Foreign Ops bill when it was considered on the floor. We alerted IA members to four amendments on the House floor proposing cuts in funding, urging calls to congressional offices opposing the amendments. Thanks to our efforts and those of others, the amendments were defeated and the bill passed without funding cuts. Foreign Assistance Reform: The House Foreign Affairs Committee staff shared a concept paper early in August that laid out a proposed structure for a new Foreign Assistance Act, which would replace the aging 625-page Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under which the U.S. government presently provides humanitarian and development assistance. InterAction staff collected and collated comments from the community and provided it to the committee staff. The InterAction Foreign Affairs Task Force has been re-engaged under new co-chair leadership and will begin to work on the reform agenda bringing to the fore, the NGO perspective to the debate. With new funding from Hewlett-Packard, InterAction is convening a CEO Task Force on Foreign Affairs Reform which will meet quarterly to marshal the strength, vision and power of our community on the reform agenda. Policy staff joined Roundtables hosted by HFAC to discuss specific sectors within foreign assistance reform. Topics included the environment, microenterprise, and gender. Climate Change: With the Copenhagen meetings coming in December and major domestic climate and energy legislation working its way through the Congress, our Climate Change Working Group (CC WG) has had a busy quarter. We continued advocacy in support of strong US leadership to limit emissions, as well as in providing adequate funding for clean technology cooperation, reduced deforestation and adaptation to climate impacts in vulnerable communities. Most legislative activity is currently concentrated in the Senate, so InterAction staff and CC WG members met with various Senate offices asking for robust increases in allocations over those proposed in the House bill. InterAction is also working with members and the US Climate Action Network on influencing the outcome of the G20 meetings in September that will focus on financial architecture for climate adaptation. With G20 Finance Ministers tasked with reporting progress on climate finance, CC WG members met with representatives of the Treasury Department to discuss policy planning for the meetings and to advocate for increased funding.

LT Report, page 5 September 14, 2009 Goal

Activities

II.

INTERACTION WILL PROMOTE A BOLD AGENDA

The CC WG also convened a workshop panel to discuss climate adaptation funding from an aid effectiveness perspective. The working group also hosted a presentation by Resources for the Future to discuss its ‘Adaptation Atlas’, an innovative web mapping and adaptation program resource to enable organizations to better match their program responses to country level needs. As part of a comprehensive InterAction effort to track administration responsiveness to priorities in the Foreign Assistance Briefing Book, the working group convened to assess and rate policy performance to date. Though expressing cautious optimism, our rating also reflected significant concern about insufficient or lagging leadership at both domestic and international levels to address the threat posed by climate change. Food Security and Agriculture: The Food Security and Agriculture Working Group (FS/Ag WG) has been actively supporting and shaping the Obama administration’s food security and agriculture initiative. On the legislative front, the working group collaborated with the Roadmap coalition to advocate on behalf of current legislative opportunities such as the Lugar-Casey, McCollum and the McGovern-Emerson bills. McCollum’s ‘Global Food Security Act’ included language suggested by InterAction’s FS/Ag WG. Within the press release that accompanied the bill’s introduction is a statement by Sam Worthington. Beyond supporting significantly increased funding for agricultural development, the FS/Ag WG has moved to shape the food security strategy and programs that would follow from it. Representatives of the working group, in cooperation with the Roadmap group and leading InterAction advocacy members such as Bread for the World, met with the InterAgency Task Force on Food Security and Agriculture and USAID staff to submit technical recommendations and provide feedback on the draft Food Security/Agriculture strategy. In addition to submitting a detailed response to the draft strategy to the Task Force, InterAction also provided technical papers on agricultural extension and technology to support its efforts. Along with other InterAction working groups, the FS/Ag WG convened to review and rate the administration’s effectiveness to date in addressing the food security priorities identified in the Foreign Assistance Briefing Book. Though InterAction signaled overall satisfaction with steps the administration has taken to date and with the increased funding proposed for agricultural development and food security, it also remains concerned about the absence of an administrator for USAID. G8: InterAction received media accreditation to attend the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy and we released two response statements to the outcomes of the Summit. G20: InterAction is preparing for a large member presence at the September G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. With tremendous help from Brother’s Brother Foundation, a local InterAction member, we are organizing a NGO hub near the convention center, allowing members access to workspace and a business center to aid their mobilization efforts in Pittsburgh. Leading up to the Summit, Sam Worthington is co-hosting an event with World Bank president Robert Zoellick to discuss their expectations of Summit outcomes on poverty related issues. InterAction developed a comprehensive communications plan for the Summit. Activities include a pre-event audio background briefing that will feature member policy directors, a pre-event audio press briefing with InterAction member CEOs, a special web page that will incorporate member papers, a joint calendar of activities and other key information in pursuit of earned media opportunities in the Pittsburgh area.

LT Report, page 6 September 14, 2009 Goal

Activities

I. INTERACTION WILL PROMOTE A BOLD AGENDA

Partner Vetting System: Between June and August, InterAction engaged in an active dialogue with representatives from both the State Department and USAID about our objections to the Partner Vetting System (PVS) as it is currently framed. While the final rule that allows the PVS to be implemented became effective on August 4th, senior officials at USAID have assured us that implementation of a pilot program will not begin until full consultations with NGOs have been conducted. InterAction expressed its willingness – both verbally and in writing – to engage in such consultations. InterAction staff has maintained an active discussion with interested parties on Capitol Hill and garnered explicit support on this issue: the Senate Appropriations Committee FY2010 State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill and report both contained language that would require USAID to undertake a comprehensive review of the PVS before taking any further action toward implementation. UN General Assembly: InterAction is in the process of planning a joint event with the Millennium Challenge Corp leadership to further promote the importance “country owned development” during the upcoming UN General Assembly. Poverty Week: Plans are underway for InterAction’s annual Progress Against Poverty Week, which will take place October 13-16. Three key aspects of global poverty will be featured on our website during the week and daily events are in the works. Media Outreach: Ongoing work continues to build and strengthen relationships with journalists who cover climate change, foreign aid reform and other topics on Capitol Hill. InterAction Senior staff recently met one-on-one with a key journalist from CQ/Roll Call to discuss the fall legislative agenda. Plans are underway to schedule similar discussions with journalists from other outlets. Implementation Mechanisms: InterAction was invited by a Senate appropriator to provide feedback on USAID’s increasing reliance on infinite quantity contracts (IQCs). To respond, InterAction convened a small group of its members who are active on USAID management reform issues and developed a recommendation on how to address this issue. Elements of this recommendation are reflected in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s FY2010 State, Foreign Operations report. InterAction will continue to convene interested members to explore and advance opportunities for further advocacy on this issue. Late in August, InterAction was invited to attend an off the record small meeting with the head of USAID’s Office of Acquisitions and Assistance, where various issues regarding grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, fee for contracts and other items were raised as agenda points for the next Partner’s Day meeting.

II. INTERACTION WILL DEMONSTRATE AND ENHANCE NGO ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPACT

LT Report, page 7 September 14, 2009 Goal

Activities

Best Practices: With funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) now confirmed, InterAction will launch the first phase of our Best Practices and Innovations (BPI) Initiative, which will focus on agriculture and rural livelihoods. The purpose of the initiative is to promote information sharing on effective program approaches, and to improve practice standards by boosting the efficiency and impacts of field programs. A subgroup of InterAction’s Food Security and Agriculture Working Group has helped to identify the focal activity areas and to develop selection criteria. The initiative will be formally launched this fall, and the first set of winners announced by January or February of 2010 (members and others were first introduced to this initiative during the July Forum, which included a session with IFPRI and IFAD on “How to Make ‘Best Practices’ Better”). Winners – ‘best practices and promising innovations’ – will be chosen by a Selection Committee composed of InterAction members and non-member experts, and be featured on InterAction’s new online “member project directory” (which will be developed concurrently). InterAction Member Project Mapping Directory: After engaging in various rounds of consultations with three highly recommended vendors, InterAction has identified Fortius One as a strategic partner for this effort. The map will feature InterAction member projects from around the world in a “member project atlas,” and include best practices and a social networking functionality. In preparation for launching the map in early 2010, InterAction staff will consult with key members on how they currently maintain their project data. The first phase of the map, which will be created with funding from IFAD, will focus on Food Security & Agriculture, but will also span across other sectors if feasible. Working Group Effectiveness: Guidelines for Effective Working Groups, a resource document, is in draft stages. The handbook will serve as a resource for InterAction staff that manage working groups, as well as co-chairs in their roles as working group facilitators. In September, all interested staff will be invited to discuss and finalize the guidelines and a final document will be available in October. PVO Standards Stakeholder meetings: The Membership and Standards Team hosted a workshop at the 2009 Forum to provide members with an opportunity to engage in discussion about InterAction's PVO Standards and the Self - Certification - Plus (SCP) evaluation and compliance reporting process. In this stakeholder meeting we shared the results of our 2006 and 2008 Self-Certification-Plus process and addressed the areas where member organizations indicated difficulty in either meeting the standards or evaluating clearly their compliance as well as offering recommendations for improvement of the process. We hope these discussions will lead to the formation of a stakeholder group to revamp and update the InterAction standards and the Self- Certification-Plus process. GIK: Another group of stakeholders met at the 2009 Forum to discuss InterAction's giftsin-kind and food aid standards with the aim of forming a GIK - Food Aid Standards working group that would look into updating and revising InterAction's GIK and Food Aid Standards. These discussions were very successful and resulted in a first planning meeting of InterAction Gifts-In-Kind (GIK) Working Group in August to gauge interest in the formation of such a group and drafting a scope of work for the GIK Working Group.

II. INTERACTION WILL DEMONSTRATE AND ENHANCE NGO ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPACT

LT Report, page 8 September 14, 2009 Goal

Activities

Gender Integration: InterAction through the Women, Faith, and Development Alliance (WFDA) secured funding from the United Nations (UNFPA) to develop a replication of WFDA approaches, building on the work already done in Australia and Liberia. WFDA is in the process of tracking the Commitments made in April 2008 and will release a report in Fall 2009 on the progress of the Commitments. A Gender Integration Working Group has been launched, offering a “special topics series” which began with a June meeting on IA’s Gender Equity Amendments. Two day-long Gender Audit workshops were offered this spring, and fall trainings are being planned. At the request of west coast members, we are exploring a possible winter 2010 Gender Audit session in the west. A redesign of the gender audit tool is in process. Evaluation and Program Effectiveness Working Group: The Evaluation and Program Effectiveness Working Group hosted multiple events at the InterAction Forum. The first was a workshop, which featured panelists who shared their experiences successfully measuring the impact of empowerment programs and using evidence to influence decision-makers. The second event was a private meeting that focused on strengthening InterAction’s new partnership with and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and the third was an open discussion between Forum participants and 3ie’s the Executive Director to learn more about and explore opportunities with 3ie. Database and Web Site Project: The new InterAction.org website had a soft launch on July 31, with additional content being added and new features coming online. The official launch will take place just prior to the September Board meeting. The database (CRM) aspects of the project began in mid-August.

IV. EMBRACE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND RAISE RESOURCES TO

III. INTERACTION WILL BE THE PRIME VOICE AND PRIME REPRESENTATIVE OF U.S. INTERNATIONAL NGOS

LT Report, page 9 September 14, 2009 Goal

Activities

International Forum of National NGO Platforms (IFP): InterAction and Coordination SUD co-hosted the first Facilitation Group meeting of the IFP in early July 2009 in Washington, DC. The IFP was founded in October 2008 in Paris, France at a meeting attended by over 100 national NGO platform representatives from 82 countries. The purpose of the IFP is to promote collaboration between national associations of NGOs around the world. The Facilitation Group has a two-year mandate with four major areas of work intended to provide the groundwork for IFP activities moving forward. The July meeting focused on the IFP’s terms of reference, a feasibility study to be conducted jointly with AFD (Agence Française de Développement) on long-term funding, and reviewed progress made on the on-line resource center: www.ong-ngo.org. Facilitation Group members are: ABONG (Brazil), ACCIÓN (Chile), CONGAD (Senegal), Coordination SUD (France), VANI (India), PIANGO (Oceania), InterAction (USA), Espace Associatif (Morocco), CNONGD (DRC), and SADC-NGO Council (Southern Africa). Open Forum on CSO Development Effectiveness: The Open Forum, an international CSOled process to develop a global framework on CSO development effectiveness and enabling conditions for CSO work, has submitted a funding proposal to a joint group of government donors. As one of the six lead institutions to implement the mandate of the Open Forum, InterAction is in the early stages of planning consultations with our members and other civil society representatives in the US. InterAction is also responsible for seeing that consultations are carried out in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific. Aid and Development Effectiveness: At the InterAction Forum, a panel was organized with the purpose of drawing lessons learned from field practice to inform policy in the aid reform process. The panel highlighted the importance of a focus on development effectiveness and the difficulty of translating field knowledge into well-formulated policy recommendations. InterAction also continues to actively participate as a member of the Better Aid Coordinating Group, an international grouping of CSOs that are looking critically at implementation of the Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda for Action, and the agenda of the 2011 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Fundraising: In August InterAction obtained an eleven month extension of its cooperative agreement with 0FDA for 2007-2009. This will allow InterAction to complete work which will not be finished by the original September 30 deadline due to unforeseen events in Darfur Chad and other emergency locations. The extension should allow InterAction to use approximately $500,000 which otherwise would have reverted to OFDA. InterAction also signed two grant for $200,000 each from the Hewlett Foundation and IFAD to support activities described in this report.

LT Report, page 10 September 14, 2009 The list below presents a brief description of our current working groups. Aid Effectiveness Chair: InterAction Focus: Represents the U.S. NGO community in the context of the Paris Declaration, as well as bridges the Paris Declaration context and issues with efforts around U.S. foreign assistance reform.

InterAction Working Groups

Afghanistan Reconstruction Working Group Co-Chairs: International Rescue Committee and Catholic Relief Services Focus: Humanitarian situation, the role of NGOs and other actors in Afghanistan, and advocacy efforts. Agriculture Working Group Co-hairs: Bread for the World & Winrock Focus: Provides members with a forum to support relevant policy reform, exchange best/ and innovative practices, and discuss areas of concern. Open to InterAction members and non-members. Avian & Human Pandemic Flu Working Group Chair:, InterAction Focus: National and international planning, NGO response to both animal and human flu, organizational preparedness and advocacy efforts. Open to the wider international relief and development community. Climate Change Working Group Chairs: ActionAid and World Wildlife Fund Focus: Explores the programmatic and policy nexus connecting climate change and the activities and issues associated with international development and humanitarian relief. Commission on the Advancement of Women Program Advisory Group Co-chairs: PACT and Women Thrive Worldwide Focus: An advisory group on gender and integration. Disaster Risk Reduction Working Group Co-chairs: Church World Service and Oxfam America Focus: Raise the profile of international disaster risk reduction policy and programming and encourage the quality of risk reduction practice by promoting endorsed standards and indicators. DRC Working Group Co-chairs: Food for the Hungry and Mercy Corps Focus: Raise awareness about continuing humanitarian needs in DRC, transition between relief and development, and advocacy efforts.

LT Report, page 11 September 14, 2009 Evaluation and Program Effectiveness Working Group (EPEWG) Co-Chairs: CARE & Church World Service Focus: Aims to build capacity of InterAction and its members to demonstrate greater effectiveness, and contribute to communications and advocacy initiatives to influence the U.S. and global aid effectiveness discourse. Open to InterAction members and nonmembers.

InterAction Working Groups

Foreign Assistance Reform Task Force Chair: Oxfam Focus: Raise the profile of international disaster risk reduction policy and programming and encourage the quality of risk reduction practice by promoting endorsed standards and indicators. Gendering of Foreign Assistance Reform (GOFAR) Task Force Co-chairs: ICRW and Women Thrive Focus: Meets to work on how to integrate gender more broadly into U.S. assistance within the context of InterAction’s ongoing advocacy. Gender Integration Chair: InterAction Focus: Sharing strategies, tools, and resources to integrate gender throughout member organizations’ programming and advocacy work. Gender Based Violence Sub-Working Group Co-chairs: International Rescue Committee and Women’s Refugee Commission Focus: Develops coordinated messages advocating for policies, funding and programming that address GBV needs and concerns with key policymakers, donors and implementing partners. The group will work to identify and disseminate information of best practices in prevention and response programming, building member capacity to respond to and prevent GBV and supporting improvements throughout the humanitarian community. Global Hunger Crisis Working Group Co-chairs: Save the Children and World Vision Focus: Information sharing among members responding to the global food crisis, advocacy relating to structural changes within the U.S. government to improve food security and food aid, engagement with the UN, IFIs, and U.S. government. G8 NGO Coordination Group Co-chairs: Basic Education Coalition; CARE; Global Health Council; US Climate Action Network; Water Advocates Focus: Comprised of members working in collaboration with European counterpart platforms and the Global Campaign for Action against Poverty (GCAP). This group guides InterAction’s involvement in annual G-8 summits. InterAction leverages this working group for its ongoing G-8 related advocacy in the U.S. and with NGO platforms in G-8 countries.

LT Report, page 12 September 14, 2009 Health in Relief and Development (HIRD) Working Group Co-chairs: Academy for Educational Development and American Refugee Committee Focus: Provides members with a forum to support relevant policy reform on various health-related issues with an emphasis on multi-sector approaches, share insights and exchange best practices, and discuss areas of concern. Open to InterAction members and non-members.

InterAction Working Groups

Humanitarian Partnerships Working Group Co-chairs: Christian Children’s Fund and International Medical Corps Focus: Providing members with a forum to discuss areas of concern and interest in their work with UN Agencies, including issues related to budgeting, governance initiatives, leadership, and collaboration with NGOs. Iraq Working Group Chair: International Rescue Committee Focus: Information sharing, inter-agency coordination, monitoring displacement and advocacy efforts. MCA (Millennium Challenge Account) Co-chairs: Women Thrive Worldwide and Bread for the World Focus: Monitoring the implementation of the MCA, coordination of advocacy activities with civil society organizations in eligible countries, and engaging with Congress and the MCC on behalf of the NGO community. Outreach/Communications Chair: InterAction Focus: Skills-building and information sharing forum for grassroots advocacy and public interest communications staff. Protection Working Group Co-chairs: World Vision and Christian Children's Fund Focus: Enhance protection for refugees, IDPs and civilians affected by conflict, increase capacity of international organizations, the US government and NGOs to incorporate protection into humanitarian programming. Public Policy Committee Co-chairs: CARE and Habitat for Humanity Focus: Comprised of representatives of more than forty member agencies, the group shares information and coordinate advocacy efforts. The PPC is the staff-level decisionmaking body on advocacy vis-à-vis U.S. foreign assistance and protection of NGO space. It also serves as a forum for information exchange on various other topics of general interest to member policy staff.

LT Report, page 13 September 14, 2009 Security Advisory Group Chair: Save the Children Focus: Issues of organizational security, international and NGO security coordination, and the influence of gender on security of humanitarian workers.

InterAction Working Groups

Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Sub-Working Group Co-chairs: Catholic Relief Services and International Rescue Committee Focus: Building internal capacity of member organizations to prevent and respond to sexual exploitation and abuse through sharing of information and resources between agencies. Sri Lanka Working Group Chair: Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children Focus: Information sharing and awareness raising. Sudan/Chad Working Group Co-chairs: Mercy Corps and Oxfam U.S. Focus: Operational and advocacy issues related to the Darfur conflict, including IDPs and refugees in Chad and implementation of the CPA. Transition, Conflict and Peace Working Group Co-chairs: IFES, Mercy Corps and National Association of Social Workers Focus: Exchange best practices and support relevant policy reform on issues of conflict prevention, actively forging closer relations with State/CRS and USAID/CMM. Open to the wider international relief and development community. Uganda Working Group Chair: (Vacant) Focus: Ensuring continuity of basic services in northern Uganda during the transition from relief to development, safe and voluntary returns, and advocacy efforts. USG Policy and Practice Co-chairs: (Vacant) Focus: Raise the profile of international disaster risk reduction policy and programming and encourage the quality of risk reduction practice by promoting endorsed standards and indicators. West Bank/Gaza Working Group Chairs: ANERA, Mercy Corps, and Catholic Relief Services Focus: Information sharing and raising awareness on immediate and long-term issues related to programs in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Appendix A InterAction Survey: Impact of the Financial Crisis on Member Organizations Background On May 29, InterAction sent its member CFOs a survey to capture the impacts of the financial crisis on members’ funding, operations and programs. As of July 2 we had received responses from 451 organizations of varying sizes, as the tables below demonstrate. Expenses Less than $1 million $1 million - $4.9 million $5 million - $9.9 million $10 million - $24.9 million $25 million - $49.9 million $50 million - $99.9 million $100 million - $499.9 million More than $500 million No response Total

3 6 3 6 11 4 6 3 3 45

Staff 1-10 11-50 51-100 101-500 501-1000 More than 1,000 Total

7 11 8 7 6 6 45

The pages that follow contain our analysis of the responses in sections dealing with the impact on members’ overall funding, trends in sources of funding, the impact of the financial crisis on member organizations and programs, and other comments provided by members.

1

We actually received 47 responses. However, one organization responded twice, and because the answers did not match, we decided to not include either of the organization’s responses in this analysis.

1

OVERALL FUNDING 1. How did your organization end FY 2008? Deficit Break-even Surplus No response

22 15 7 1

25

50.0% 34.1% 15.9% -

20 15 10

2. How does it expect to end FY 2009?* Deficit Break-even Surplus

21 19 4

5

47.7% 43.2% 9.1%

0 Deficit

*Does not include the one organization that did not answer question #1.

Break-Even FY08

To get a better sense of how individual organizations are faring, the table to the right provides a breakdown of how organizations ended FY08 compared to how they expect to end FY09. The table shows that almost half of the organizations surveyed expect to remain in deficit and/or experience a deterioration in their financial situation. Note that for the organizations that expect to remain in deficit, it is impossible to know whether their deficit will be better or worse in FY09 than in FY08.

End FY08 Surplus Break-even Deficit Break-even Surplus Deficit Break-even Surplus Total

Surplus

FY09

Expected FY09 Surplus Surplus Break-even Break-even Break-even Deficit Deficit Deficit

# 2 2 8 10 1 14 3 4 44

3. How did your funding in FY 2008 compare to your funding in FY 2007? How did your organization’s funding in January-April of 2009 compare to its funding in January-April 16 of 2008? About 55% of organizations reported that they received more or significantly more funding in FY08 than the previous year, compared to 24% that reported receiving less or significantly less funding. The situation was almost exactly the opposite in the first calendar quarter of FY09. While 24% of organizations reported that they received more or significantly more funding in the first quarter of FY09 compared to the same period last year, almost 49% reported that they had received less or significantly less funding.

14 12 10

8 6 4 2 0 Significantly Less funding About the less funding same 08 vs. 07

More funding

09 vs. 08

Significantly more funding

2

TRENDS IN SOURCES OF FUNDING The next three questions were aimed at ascertaining the impact of the financial crisis on giving by various sources of funding. Looking at the three in conjunction, a few conclusions can be drawn: 

While individuals may have been a reliable and generous source of funding in the past, the crisis has definitely affected their ability to give. While 21 organizations reported that individuals had given more in FY08 than in FY07, 27 organizations reported that they had received less from individuals in January-April of 2009 compared to the same period last year. At the same time, most organizations are seeking to increase funding from individuals.



Giving by foundations and corporations has also suffered during the crisis. Fewer organizations report that they are receiving more funding from these two sources, and more report that they are receiving less. That said, changes in foundation and corporate giving do not appear to be nearly as significant as changes in giving by individuals.



U.S. government funding appears to be relatively stable, although fewer organizations reported that they received more funding from the U.S. government in the first quarter of FY09 compared to FY08 than in FY08 compared to FY07. A similar trend is evident in international sources of funding. After individuals, many organizations are looking to the U.S. government and foundations for more funding, and six organizations reported that they intend to target the government as a new source of funding.

4. In FY 2008, how did your funding from the following sources compare to funding from those sources in FY 2007? 25 20 15 10 5 0 USG

Foundations Less

Less About the same More Not applicable Total responses

Corporations

About the same

USG 11 9 13 11 44

Foundations 10 13 16 5 44

Individuals More

Corporations 8 13 9 14 44

Intl Sources

Not applicable

Individuals 8 13 21 2 44

Intl Sources 3 9 11 21 44

3

5. During January-April 2009, how did your funding from the following sources compare to funding from those sources in the same period last year (January-April 2008)? 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 USG

Less

Less About the same More Not applicable Total responses

Foundations Corporations Individuals Intl Sources About the same More Not applicable

USG 11 12 9 11 43

Foundations 14 15 6 7 42

Corporations 12 15 3 13 43

Individuals 27 8 6 2 43

Intl Sources 4 11 8 17 40

6. In light of the financial crisis, is your organization seeking to increase funding from existing sources, or targeting new sources of funding? 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 USG

Foundations

Increase funding

Increase funding Target as new source Neither Not applicable Total responses

Corporations

Target as new source

USG 26 6 7 6 45

Foundations 25 11 6 1 43

Individuals Neither

Corporations 18 10 8 8 44

Intl Sources

Not applicable

Individuals 32 6 6 0 44

Intl Sources 16 5 5 15 41

4

7. If your organization implements programs that benefit both U.S. populations and populations overseas, how does funding for international programs compare to funding for domestic programs? In part, this question was meant to try to ascertain whether the financial crisis is leading donors to “abandon” international programs in favor of domestic ones. Based on the responses to our survey, and other reports, this does not appear to be the case. Funding for International vs. Domestic Programs Less funding for both international and domestic programs Less funding for international programs, more funding for domestic programs Funding levels steady for both international and domestic programs More funding for international programs, less funding for domestic programs More funding for both international and domestic programs Not applicable No response

# 7 2 2 6 5 18 5

% (n=40) 17.5% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 12.5% 45.0% -

IMPACT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS 8. Is your organization seriously CONSIDERING any of the following in light of the financial crisis? On average, organizations are considering taking more than two measures to address the impacts of the financial crisis. While some organizations reported that they are not considering taking any of these measures, others are considering as many as eight. The top three measures being considered are salary freezes, travel restrictions, and reducing or eliminating programs. Other measures organizations reported considering include: curtailing operational expenses, delaying or reducing expansion plans, and staff furloughs.

Measure 1. Salary freezes 2. Travel restrictions 3. Reducing or eliminating programs 4. Staff layoffs 5. Reducing staff benefits 6. Hiring freezes 7. Halting expansion plans 8. Salary reductions 9. Pooling resources with another org. 10. Merging with another organization 11. None/No response

# 23 21 16 15 14 11 11 9 5 3 7

% 51.1 46.7 35.6 33.3 31.1 24.4 24.4 20.0 11.1 6.7 15.6

9. Has your organization had to IMPLEMENT any of the following due to the financial crisis? On average, organizations have implemented nearly three measures to cope with the financial crisis. Some have implemented as many as seven. The top two measures implemented are travel restricitons and salary freezes, with hiring freezes and staff layoffs tied for third. As noted below (see Q10), 12 organizations also report that they have had to reduce or eliminate programs, which is also one of the top three measures being considered. These actual and potential cuts to field programs and staff – two measures that organizations take only as a

Measure 1. Travel restrictions 2. Salary freezes 3. Hiring freezes 4. Staff layoffs 5. Reducing staff benefits 6. Salary reductions 7. Halting expansion plans 8. Pooling resources with another org. 9. Merging with another organization 10. None/No response

# 27 26 18 18 17 12 9 3 0 8

% 60.0 57.8 40.0 40.0 38.6 26.7 20.0 6.7 0.0 17.8 5

last resort – demonstrate the extent of the financial crisis’ impacts on organizations’ core capacity, and portend a potentially long recovery for the NGO sector. One organization indicated that some of the measures they have taken so far are temporary, while another reported that salary freezes have only been applied for senior staff. Other measures organizations have taken include: no increases in the employer contribution to savings plan and delaying and lowering the percentage of salary increases. 10. Has your organization had to reduce or eliminate field programs because of the financial crisis? If so, please provide some examples. While the majority of organization have not (yet) had to take this step, 12 reported that they have had to reduce or eliminate field programs due to the financial crisis. Another indicated that reductions may be possible in the future. The following are some examples of how the financial crisis has affected InterAction member programs:  Cuts to training programs meant to improve the quality of high school education  Reduction in sponsorship programming  Closing of several country offices  Closing of long-standing country programs and a few individual programs not fully aligned with the organization’s methodology  Reduction in cash assistance to individuals by one-third  Elimination of a community development program in Central America  Reduction in funding for overseas programs in several countries 11. Is your organization shifting the regional or sectoral focus of its programs in response to the crisis? If so, toward which regions or sectors is your organization redirecting its efforts? Which regions or sectors is it shifting away from? While the vast majority of organizations reported that they are NOT shifting the regional or sectoral focus of their programs in response to the crisis, one organization reported that it is expanding its regional and sectoral focus to compete for new business and plans to begin implementing U.S. programs, and another that it will be focusing more on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Africa. 12. Please share anything else you would like about the challenges the financial crisis has posed for your organization and programs, how your organization is dealing with those challenges, how InterAction could help, or any other thoughts or concerns. Responses to this question ranged widely. Some organizations reported that they have taken steps to contain costs for the past few years and so are well-positioned to deal with the crisis, while another indicated that it is concerned about the next two years. Another noted that though their problems cannot be attributed to the financial crisis, the crisis is affecting their ability to recover. Other responses touched on: 

Financial Impacts: Despite “doing everything right,” some organizations are still struggling. There is clear concern about how individual giving will fare as the crisis continues, especially on the part of organizations that do not receive U.S. government funding. Similarly, organizations dependent on foundation funding are encountering problems, as their existing foundation donors decrease giving and others limit funding their giving to their current partners. A couple of respondents also noted other factors that will affect funding levels beyond those covered in this survey, such as the crisis’ impacts on organizations’ endowments, and the Obama administration’s proposals to reduce the tax deduction high-income taxpayers can take for charitable gifts and to increase the top personal income tax rate. 6



Impacts on Programs: For at least one organization, the financial crisis means that it cannot expand its highly effective programs – developed over many years – at what would have been a highly opportune time.



Other “Coping” Measures: In addition to the measures inquired about above, one organization reported that is has implemented a weekly financial reporting between its CEO and CFO, taken additional measures to improve donor retention; begun corresponding with donors via email instead of regular mail; reduced pension contributions; and scrutinized new hires with a focus on those that could help bring additional resources to the organization.



InterAction’s Role: In terms of how InterAction could be of assistance during this crisis, several organizations pointed to the need for help with funding, suggesting that InterAction could help by: providing educational webinars or sessions on how to access funding from the U.S. government and international sources of funding; identifying potential sources of funding and/or connecting members with those sources; and/or facilitating members’ collaborative funding proposals. Providing a platform for information-sharing between members on how they are dealing with the crisis is clearly another area where InterAction could be of service.



Need for Additional Information: One respondent posed additional questions he/she would like to see the answers to, some dealing with communication about the crisis with general staff. For example: How are others implementing certain cost-cutting measures, such as furloughs, budget cuts and staff reductions? How much information is shared with general staff, and how soon? How is our staff's morale? Are InterAction members starting to see any changes in the economic landscape?

7

Appendix: Survey Questions 1. In what state is your organization located? 2. What are your organization’s total operating expenses in your most recently completed fiscal year? 3. What is your organization’s fiscal year end date? (mm/dd) 4. How many paid, full-time equivalent employees currently work for your organization? 5. Organization Name (optional) 6. How did your funding in FY2008 compare to your funding in FY2007?  Significantly more funding [more than 10% increase]  More funding [3-10% increase]  About the same [+/- 3%]  Less funding [3-10% decrease]  Significantly less funding [more than 10% decrease] 7. In FY2008, how did your funding from the following sources compare to funding from those sources in FY2007?  U.S. Government: more, less, about the same, N/A  Foundations: more, less, about the same, N/A  Corporations: more, less, about the same, N/A  Individuals: more, less, about the same, N/A  International sources of funding (e.g. DFID, UN agencies, etc): more, less, about the same, N/A 8. How did your organization end FY2008?  With an operating surplus [revenue more than 2% greater than expenses]  With an operating deficit [revenue more than 2% less than expenses]  Break-even [revenue within +/- 2% of expenses] 9. How does your organization expect to end FY2009?  With an operating surplus [revenue more than 2% greater than expenses]  With an operating deficit [revenue more than 2% less than expenses]  Break-even [revenue within +/- 2% of expenses] 10. How did your organization’s funding in January-April of 2009 compare to its funding in January-April of 2008?  Significantly more funding [more than 10% increase]  More funding [3-10% increase]  About the same [+/- 3%]  Less funding [3-10% decrease]  Significantly less funding [more than 10% decrease] 11. During this period (January-April 2009), how did your funding from the following sources compare to funding from those sources in the same period last year (January-April 2008)?  U.S. Government: more, less, about the same, N/A  Foundations: more, less, about the same, N/A  Corporations: more, less, about the same, N/A  Individuals: more, less, about the same, N/A  International sources of funding (e.g. DFID, UN agencies, etc): more, less, about the same, N/A

8

12. In light of the financial crisis, is your organization seeking to increase funding from existing sources, or targeting new sources of funding?  U.S. government: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A  Foundations: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A  Corporations: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A  Individuals: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A  International sources of funding (e.g. DFID, UN agencies, etc.): increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A 13. Is your organization seriously considering any of the following in light of the financial crisis? NOTE: This question can be consolidated into the one above, or is there value in knowing what members have done versus what they are still just considering?.  Salary reductions  Travel restrictions  Salary freezes  Pooling resources or services with  Reduction of staff benefits another organization  Hiring freezes  Merger with another organization  Staff layoffs  Halted expansion plans  Reduction or elimination of programs  Other:__________________________ 14. Has your organization had to implement any of the following due to the financial crisis?  Salary reductions  Pool resources or services with another  Salary freezes organization  Reduction of staff benefits  Merger with another organization  Hiring freezes  Halted expansion plans  Staff layoffs  Other:__________________________  Travel restrictions 15. Has your organization had to reduce or eliminate field programs because of the financial crisis? If so, please provide some examples of such programs [For example: Where? In which sector(s)?].  Yes  No  Not applicable (do not implement field programs) 16. Is your organization shifting the regional or sectoral focus of its programs in response to the crisis? If so, toward which regions or sectors is your organization redirecting its efforts? Which regions or sectors is it shifting away from? 17. If your organization implements programs that benefit both U.S. populations and populations overseas, how does funding for international programs compare to funding for domestic programs?  More funding for both domestic and international causes  More funding for domestic causes, less funding for international causes  More funding for international causes, less funding for domestic causes  Less funding for both domestic and international causes  Funding levels steady for both domestic and international causes  Not applicable (do not implement programs aimed primarily at benefiting U.S. populations) 18. Please share anything else you would like about the challenges the financial crisis has posed for your organization and programs, how your organization is dealing with those challenges, how InterAction could help, or any other thoughts or concerns.

9

DISCUSSION PAPER

FORGING A NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NGO COMMUNITY AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT:

STRENGTHENING U.S. HUMANITARIAN AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE Executive Summary U.S. based non-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which implement international humanitarian and development programs seek a more balanced relationship with the U.S. government – one in which we as NGOs are not seen merely as service providers but as the major actors we already are – actors who leverage billions of dollars a year in private resources. The InterAction NGO community, which includes the broad diversity of different faith based organizations and non-profit efforts spanning the diversity of American, bring to the U.S. government skills, tools and knowledge that are often not accessed or consulted. We have decades of experience and relationships in countries all over the world where we fund programs separate from the U.S. government. These effective, successful private sector non-profit programs built and sustained over time by millions of Americans1 are routinely by-passed and disregarded in the current structure of U.S. foreign assistance.2 We are the direct public face of the American people overseas; we show America’s humanity and compassion when distributing food to an internally displaced family in an Angolan village; we personify American’s technical and financial know-how when a Macedonian man accesses critical microcredit financing to start-up his own business. The InterAction community works with the U.S. government both in Washington and throughout the world. But our members’ most enduring and strongest relationship is with the individual Americans who, through their private donations, support and sustain thousands programs across the globe. We are entrusted by millions of private donors3 to educate children, help families improve their livelihoods, and provide clean water to villages. Because this has been our work for decades, we have successful and proven methods of designing programs, building relationships and leveraging resources. NGOs fund significant programming separate from U.S. government efforts. With their privately-raised funds, U.S. nonprofit NGOs are exploring best practices, advancing crucial partnerships with local and international NGOs and with donor governments and local communities that are often not reached by official U.S. development assistance. We envision a future foreign policy that includes a greater engagement with and support of these civilian led efforts. The American people, our foreign policy and relationship to the world’s poor would

1

In 2006, 13.4 million donors contributed funds to InterAction members. These donors include schools, churches, civic groups, foundation and American citizens from all walks of life. 2 The InterAction community welcomes and appreciates its $2.8 billion relationship with the U.S. Government. Positive ongoing humanitarian funding relationships and other select USAID programs do achieve much together. This work with the U.S. Government is however dwarfed by both the amounts of private resources at $6 billion in 2006 that flow into our community and the total overall flows of U.S. foreign assistance that routinely bypass and rarely leverage our community’s assets. 3 With 106,000 staff in over 150 countries the US NGO community has a largely privately funded that could be significantly leveraged.

DRAFT

2

benefit from a new strategic engagement by the U.S. government with U.S. civil society engaged in sustainable development efforts. To ensure that development assistance is efficient, effective, and non-duplicative, we believe there needs to be greater flexibility in the U.S. government funding structure to partner with these programs, as well as to work with the NGOs to draw on and build upon critical best practices. A redefined relationship between U.S. NGOs and the U.S. government is essential. There currently are significant barriers to a genuine partnership between the U.S. government and U.S. non profits. These barriers place at risk the credibility and effectiveness of official assistance. This lack of a significant partnership between the U.S. government and the U.S. NGOs negatively impacts the aspirations of the underserved citizens of the developing world. And lastly, but most importantly, is the lack of achievement of the humanitarian and development missions of the U.S. NGO community and the expressed desire of the millions of Americans that support them. The capabilities and resources now invested in international development by the NGO community create positive changes and hope for millions of people. Linked through a new partnership model, the combined capabilities and assets of the government and non-governmental organizations can dramatically accelerate the development process. This vision cannot be realized without a fundamental transformation in the quality and scope of the engagement between U.S. NGOs and the U.S. government. We believe that a successful relationship between NGOs and the U.S. government will exist when U.S. NGOs, both large and small, are viewed and engaged by the U.S. government as essential participants in framing national strategies for global development and humanitarian assistance, and in designing programs that attract government support, mobilize resources, implement projects and assess their effectiveness. InterAction and its member organizations propose the following recommendations, which when taken together, would serve to enhance and transform the relationship between the U.S. government and the NGO community in a mutually beneficial way, and ultimately make development and humanitarian assistance stronger and more effective for people and nations we are working to help. Key Recommendations: 1. Within the overall direction and goals of the development agencies of the U.S. government, highlight the need for greater recognition and understanding of a strong and vibrant partnership with the NGO community (both U.S. and local) to achieve U.S. development goals. 2. Engage NGOs as mature policy actors through regular, consistent meetings and consultations. Consider developing long-standing joint working groups on top foreign policy development issues. Ensure there is a mechanism (or mechanisms) for policy input and discussion on program design or engagement on issues of monitoring & evaluation, logistics or other areas of mutual benefit and interest. 3. Examine the current practices of grant-making and contract awarding within the government to allow for greater flexibility and the ability to respond and provide support to privately funded NGO programs already in progress. Ensure that when competing for resources, the unique qualities that NGOs bring to the table are accounted for in the decision-making process. a. NGOs are already working in country. b. NGOS have developed relationships and expertise in certain areas. c. Many NGOs have multiple, successful, long-term programs being carried out in the field funded through private resources, often more than what could be obtained through government channels.

DRAFT

3

d. Smaller projects often ensure that resources do reach and impact the lives of the targeted populations, particularly the world’s poor. 4. Ensure that a mechanism to increase opportunities and access to the U.S. government exists and is strengthened, both financially and policy-wise, for small- and medium-sized NGOs to work with the U.S. government. 5. To ensure that the three pillars of foreign assistance – development, diplomacy and defense – are balanced, sufficiently fund the Department of State and USAID to guarantee those agencies are staffed and funded at a level needed to perform humanitarian and developments functions successfully. In doing so, the Department of Defense will be able to return to their core mission and core competencies. Way Forward: InterAction and our community believe that when these recommendations are taken into consideration and implemented, over time, the result will be a stronger, more effective partnership for both the development and humanitarian agencies of the U.S. government, and the U.S. NGO community. As shown in our broader paper, both past and current experiences have built a positive foundation and relationship which allows for input, conversation and open dialogue between the U.S. government and the NGO community. We seek to both learn from these experiences and build or improve upon them, and forge entirely new ways to evolve our relationship. InterAction is working with member policy staff and CEOs to discuss the evolving relationship our community has with the U.S. government, and the support of our community to U.S. foreign assistance in the Congress. We commit to engaging in regular meetings with the Obama administration’s leadership to evolve and grow our joint efforts to create a more prosperous, just, healthy and sustainable world. InterAction is pursuing meetings and conversations with top officials in the administration to discuss these recommendations and build further support in the expectation that the result will be better, more effective development and humanitarian assistance for those we serve in the field.

DRAFT

4

Background: Implementing Recommendations/Actions In recent years, a number of troubling trends have developed in the NGO relationship with the federal government. More prevalent use of contracting funding mechanisms and (WHAT)structures, the role of the military within the development provision environment, and the lack of consultations with the NGO leadership and experts are trends that have harmed the U.S. government-NGO relationship as broadly defined. Recommendation 1: Within the overall direction and goals of the development agencies of the U.S. government, highlight the need for greater recognition and understanding of a strong and vibrant partnership with the NGO community to achieve U.S. development goals. The vision of an enhanced and more efficient partnership between U.S. NGOs and the U.S. government cannot be realized without a fundamental transformation in the quality and scope of the engagement between the two. This must involve increased engagement on the broader policy level and a greater recognition in U.S. government directives of the importance of such an enhanced relationship. Actions: 1. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) needs to address and strengthen the U.S. government relationship with the NGO community. 2. Other U.S. federal agencies’ (the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, etc.) guiding strategic documents should recognize and outline this same understanding. Recommendation 2: Engage NGOs as mature policy conversants through regular, consistent meetings and consultations. Consider developing long-standing joint working groups on top foreign policy development issues. Ensure there is a mechanism (or mechanisms) for policy input and discussion on program design or engagement on issues of monitoring & evaluation, logistics or other areas of mutual benefit and interest. U.S. NGOs are seen as service providers and not necessarily as policy advisors or knowledge sharers. Despite having decades of experience in-country, NGOs are rarely consulted or given the opportunity to present that information when country strategies are being crafted, their expertise and knowledge not harvested for the wealth of knowledge and information that would strengthen the U.S. government’s strategic interventions. Actions: 1. Engage policy conversant NGO staff on a range of issues regarding specific countries and sectors both in Washington and in-country (if safe to do so). 2. Bring NGOs into policy discussions as organizations with experience working in countries that the U.S. government cannot operate in. 3. With the leadership of the Department of State and USAID, institute a monthly consultation, sector or country-specific, with the U.S. NGO community to elicit feedback, guidance, information and to provide experienced feedback and knowledge on U.S. government programs and interventions. a. In the field, the Chief of Mission, in all countries, should have a clear mandate to consult with multiple U.S. actors, including NGOs on a regular and ongoing dialogue. If the Chief of Mission does not already, they should regularly collaborate and communicate with those U.S.-based NGOs that are present in-country. Where USAID mission directors are not

DRAFT

5

already engaged in such meetings, they should conduct monthly meetings with NGO country directors, particularly in countries with high security concerns. 4. There are currently 86 countries with NGO national platforms, or coordinating mechanisms, around the globe. To strengthen the capacity of the national platforms, as well as the U.S. government’s capacity in country, USAID and the State Department should ensure that it has a developed and functioning structure to create a positive working relationship with the national NGO platforms in country. 5. USAID should appoint a PVO/faith-based organizations point-person at every AID mission to reach out to, and partner with organizations on the ground. Recommendation 3: Examine the current practices of grant-making and contract awarding within the government to allow for greater flexibility and the ability to respond to programs already in progress. Ensure that when competing contracts, the unique qualities that NGOs bring to the table are accounted for in the decision-making process. For some time now, NGOs have noted with concern USAID’s increasing reliance on contracting rather than grant mechanisms, and the blurring of the lines between contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. From FY05 to FY08, for example, funding through Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IQCs) grew by almost 121%, compared with 8.5% for grants and 34.6% for cooperative agreements. Congress has also expressed its concern over this trend, noting that the use of funding mechanisms such as IQCs narrows competition, inhibits the participation of smaller organizations with niche expertise, and “limits creative and innovative approaches to development.”4 Troublingly, the selection of funding mechanisms often seems driven by reasons of administrative convenience – partly due to inadequate staffing levels at USAID – rather than by careful consideration of which mechanism would optimize program effectiveness. In addition to the trend towards acquisition mechanisms within USAID, we are concerned by the larger impact on funding caused by the fragmentation of U.S. foreign assistance to other U.S. government agencies. The most troubling example of this is the Department of Defense, which now manages about 20 percent of U.S. official development assistance (ODA). Though the military’s involvement in development and humanitarian relief activities is highly problematic for reasons other than its effect on funding, the increasing share of U.S. foreign aid administered by DOD – which relies primarily on contractors – means there is less money available for NGOs. Actions: 1. Support an assessment and review of the contract-type mechanisms, which would lead to a revision of regulations and accounting structures at the Office of Management and Budget. 2. Compete grants and cooperative agreements, as well as contracts, but provide for additional qualifications in the RFP that would recognize the value that NGOs bring to programs – such as pre-existing community relationships and long-term presence in-country. 3. Build the U.S. government funding structure to include the flexibility in grant making to allow the government to build upon work already being done in-country by NGOs. 4. Umbrella grants should be PVO-based, and focus on organizations already working on the ground and partnering with local NGOs, rather than contractors receiving umbrella grants and then distributing funds to non-profit locals.

4

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2010, 37. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:hr187.111.pdf

DRAFT

6

5. U.S. government funding must include the flexibility in grant making to allow the government to build upon work already being done in-country by NGOs. Many NGOs have multiple, successful, long-term programs being carried out in the field funded through private resources. Focus on: Articulate Clear, Consistent NGO Partnership Standards and Mechanisms Across USAID USAID’s ADS manual sets out a decisive mandate for a much stronger, more effective partnership between NGOs and the Agency than currently exists. The ADS 200 principles for NGO-USAID engagement include areas such as consultation in developing and implementing policies, strategic frameworks, participatory mechanisms, and in implementation and evaluation of programs. The NGO community would be hard pressed to formulate a more compelling justification: “As implementers working in partnership with USAID, U.S. PVOs can bring great technical expertise in a given sector; people-to-people linkages with American institutions and know-how; financial and political support of the American people for the mission of foreign assistance; the ability to communicate effectively across cultures; and expertise in many of the institutional issues facing host-country NGOs (ADS 200 p. 7).” In light of the diversity, experience and technical strengths of the NGO community, its potential to advance USAID objectives is well established. The ADS is quite prescriptive in specifying that USAID ‘must’ maintain the relationship with NGOs because of the compelling justifications: USAID ‘must capitalize on the diverse backgrounds and experiences of PVOs, which enable them to provide practical solutions to difficult development and humanitarian problems.’ The ADS also states (200, p. 8) that USAID ‘must’ invest in strengthening U.S. PVOs when this will help them be more effective in working in USAID priority areas and in working with indigenous NGOs. Moreover, that the ADS stipulates that the Agency ‘must recognize’ the diverse size and structure of PVOs, and ‘must invest’ in strengthening their capacity when that is consistent with USAID priority areas. Yet the current status of the required consultative process (ADS 200 p. 10) on a wide variety of issues with USAID operational units is weak, incomplete or absent. The ADS guidance is both dated and in key instances, too vague in defining the operational relationship to adequately guide a redefined partnership. With the elimination of the Office of Policy Planning and Coordination, cross-agency adherence to ADS policies on NGO partnership has evaporated. Recommendations: 1. Review, update and strengthen the ADS manual with a clear accountability mechanism. 2. Re-emphasize the role of the ADS as an operational guide that comprehensively shapes the Agency’s activities. 3. Re-establish an office of Policy Planning and Coordination, or an office that would assume similar functions, to oversee adherence to the ADS and to ensure consistency of Agency policy with implementation mechanisms. 4. Re-establish mutually beneficial partnership models with NGOs to make the achievement of USAID development goals more likely.

Recommendation 4: Ensure that a mechanism to increase opportunities and access to the U.S. government exists and is strengthened, both financially and policy-wise, for small- and medium-sized NGOs to work with the U.S. government. Revitalize and Expand the Mission of the USAID Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation (USAID/PVC): In the revitalized PVC, the Development Grants Program and Capable Partners Initiatives have become important programs for building the capabilities of local NGO partners and small US NGOs. Yet in moving to direct support toward local NGOs and small U.S. NGOs with limited relationships with

DRAFT

7

USAID, PVC has now promoted considerably more restricted NGO relationships and development objectives. In a telling restriction of its NGO partnership model, the Office of Development Partners, in which PVC is located, is tasked with building alliances with the private sector, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and bilateral and multilateral development institutions. USAID lacks an office, overarching policies and program mechanisms that recognize and promote the contribution of the broad US NGO community to international development. It also lacks a way to tap the considerable resources of the NGO community on behalf of the Agency’s objectives. This outcome is counterproductive not only for USAID, but for NGOs whose mission is to promote international development. Actions: 1. Strengthen the partnership model in USAID’s Office of Development Partners/PVC to be an advocate for partnership relationships with the NGO community. 2. Re-establish a program like Matching Grants that leverages NGO resources on behalf of shared development priorities. 3. Relocate ACVFA in an office that enables it to engage NGOs on a full range of issues of mutual interest or concern. 4. Revise USAID policies across the Agency to promote not just cursory consultation, but active collaboration with the NGO community on behalf of shared development goals. Focus on: Learning from past successes AID and NGOs have had a long and fruitful history of engagement spanning the past four decades. Highlights of this engagement provide a useful guide for ways to establish a multifaceted and robust partnership with the U.S. government. For example, in the past, several USAID Missions in Asia have supported large PVO programs, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. This included numerous points of contact between NGOs and USAID with frequent consultations: Missions, Regional Bureaus, the Technical Bureau and offices. At that time, the PVC Office was a strong voice for NGOs within the agency. Its Matching Grants program provided resources that enabled many NGOs to develop new and innovative approaches – some of the pioneering work on microenterprise development was supported out of this office. From 1984-88, the PVC Office invested significant resources in Matching Grants to PVOs for building the capacity of local NGOs. A seminal evaluation of the program in the late 1980s was the focus of ACVFA deliberations on capacity building, learning from success of the past in an attempt to build upon them. Another success that could be examined and built upon now comes from the 1990s, when the USAID Administrator at that time initiated an extensive consultation process aimed at maximizing USAID-civil society engagement, bringing n the NGO community. A number of AID-NGO task forces were formed, each focusing on a different region or technical area; these task forces met every Friday for six months with participation of USAID staff required by the Administrator. Also during this period, AID supported efforts for service delivery organizations to broaden into democracy and governance work. Consultations also were convened around procurement issues; one concrete outcome was a simplification of the process for Cooperative Agreements. These efforts culminated in the adoption of the “USAID-PVO Partnership” in 1995, which was subsequently revised in 2002. This 15 page guidance within the ADS covers areas including consultation, participation, etc. See: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/200mau.pdf.

DRAFT

8

Recommendation 5: To ensure that the three pillars of foreign assistance – development, diplomacy and defense – are balanced, pull the military out of humanitarian relief efforts, and ensure that the agencies tasked with those programs – the Department of State, USAID, are staffed and funded at a level needed to perform those functions successfully. The military’s growing involvement in humanitarian and development assistance is a serious concern to NGOs. Its operations often blur the line between NGOs acting in accord with humanitarian principles, and the military’s pursuit of political and security objectives. In the development arena, differences in mandate and training make the military a poor substitute for civilian experts. The Congress and new Administration should ensure civilian agencies have the necessary mandates, funding and personnel to lead U.S. diplomatic, humanitarian and development efforts. The military should not take on development work to compensate for resource gaps in USAID and the Department of State. The currently expanding assistance programs of the Department of Defense should be thoroughly evaluated to ensure effectiveness in meeting its security objectives. U.S. military should, as a rule, be used in disaster relief as a last resort, in situations requiring an extraordinarily quick response or large lift capacity. The military response should be limited in geographic and programmatic scope, and should always be in support of civilian agencies. Actions: 1. Rebuild civilian personnel and resource capacities at the Department of State and a newly constituted, elevated independent development agency (see separate briefing paper) by providing robust support in the international affairs budget; 2. Rewrite and reauthorize the Foreign Assistance Act to promote and protect humanitarian and development priorities, including reinvigorating related expertise and resources; and 3. Conduct a full review of Department of Defense programs and regional combatant command activities relating to foreign assistance. Determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Department’s security, humanitarian and development aid programs and the extent to which they are redundant. Case Study: Humanitarian Assistance Currently, there is a strong and comprehensive relationship between AID and PVOs in the humanitarian area. USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) works closely with humanitarian PVOs both in the field and in Washington. Using its notwithstanding authority and Disaster Assistance Response Teams sent quickly to disaster sites, OFDA often is able to make grants to PVOs within several days of a sudden onset emergency. In Washington OFDA meets with PVOs responding to disasters abroad to exchange information about conditions on the ground as well as OFDA’s funding priorities. NGOs use their influence with Congress to advocate for adequate funding of the USG’s emergency accounts, including that which finances USAID’s humanitarian programs. OFDA also supports the humanitarian PVO sector as a whole in several ways. It funds InterAction to serve as a convener of its implementing partners and other disaster response PVOs to discuss not only responses to particular crises but developments in the evolution of the sector, such as the ongoing humanitarian reform process. OFDA funds programs which foster better practices, such as the Sphere Project’s Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, and also the course entitled Health in Complex Emergencies currently being offered by a consortium including the International Rescue Committee and Columbia University. The USAID office also has encouraged development and dissemination of good/ best practices through workshops it has financed on shelter, livelihoods, and public health threats.

DRAFT

9

OFDA has been particularly attentive to the growing threat to PVO security as their personnel have lost their immunity to become targets of criminals and political actors prone to pay more attention to opportunities for theft and intimidation than to respect for humanitarian law and principles. OFDA financed InterAction’s design of a NGO Security Course and currently funds a security cell at InterAction whose security professionals discuss the challenges they face, fly quickly to disaster sites to access local threats, and recommend defensive counter-measures. OFDA has given InterAction a grant to form a professional association of humanitarian safety and security officers. In addition to participating in many of the meetings held by PVO working groups to exchange information on particular crisis and thematic issues such a protection of displaced people, OFDA co-hosts a monthly meeting with PVOs for information exchanges on less urgent issues. It also hosts an annual meeting with NGO security officers to solicit their input on programs OFDA should support and a biannual meeting with all of its implementing partners to discuss mutual relations and future directions. The positive relationship developed between the humanitarian community and USAID and the State Department should serve as a case study to build upon and apply to other areas – including the development community.

Way Forward: InterAction and our community believe that when these recommendations are taken into consideration and implemented, over time, the result will be a stronger, more effective partnership for both the development and humanitarian agencies of the U.S. government, and the U.S. NGO community. As shown in our broader paper, both past and current experiences have built a positive foundation and relationship which allows for input, conversation and open dialogue between the U.S. government and the NGO community. We seek to both learn from these experiences and build or improve upon them, and forge entirely new ways to evolve our relationship. InterAction is working with member policy staff and CEOs to discuss the evolving relationship our community has with the U.S. government, and the support of our community to U.S. foreign assistance in the Congress. We commit to engaging in regular meetings with the Obama administration’s leadership to evolve and grow our joint efforts to create a more prosperous, just, healthy and sustainable world. InterAction is pursuing meetings and conversations with top officials in the administration to discuss these recommendations and build further support in the expectation that the result will be better, more effective development and humanitarian assistance for those we serve in the field.

CONCEPT PAPER FOR FOREIGN AID REFORM 7-23-09 An agile and effective foreign aid program is vital to U.S. national security. Military leaders agree that the fight against violent extremism requires a civilian capacity to support local initiatives for meeting basic human needs, to provide training and materials for preventing and resolving conflict, and to offer technical assistance for strengthening democratic movements, among other objectives. Yet U.S. foreign assistance laws, and the system that implements them, are significantly outdated and poorly suited to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. The cumbersome architecture designed for a twentieth-century world in which two superpowers competed for power and influence is no longer adequate in an age where transnational threats -- such as terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, fragile states and the spread of deadly disease -- demand broad cooperation. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 – the foundation of our foreign aid system -- articulates at least 140 goals and 400 specific directives for foreign assistance, but sets no clear priorities to guide decision-making. The agency created to administer our economic assistance and alleviate the worst physical manifestations of poverty has lost its vast cadre of technical experts and its ability to serve as a leading center for research, innovation and policy coordination. As a result, and further exacerbating the problem, foreign aid programs have become fragmented across 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and nearly 60 government offices, without a coherent and consistent strategy to unite them. Antiquated rules, tortuous procedures and excessive earmarks lock in funding levels more than a year in advance, with little flexibility to adapt to quickly changing situations on the ground. And because resource allocations are made without the benefit of quantitative program indicators and rigorous impact evaluations, there is little basis for determining which activities and approaches are most effective and where the needs are greatest. To address these problems, we propose a bill to do the following:

1. Repeal the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and replace it with a completely new act. We would also consider repealing other outdated foreign aid legislation, and folding related acts into the new one. 2. Structure the new Act according to seven broad purposes of assistance. The purposes would be: (1) Reducing Poverty and Alleviating Human Suffering (development and humanitarian aid); (2) Advancing Peace and Mitigating Crises (conflict prevention and resolution, stabilization and reconstruction, peacekeeping); (3) Supporting Human Rights and Democracy (including rule of law, administration of justice, good governance); (4) Building and Reinforcing Strategic Partnerships (ESF, FMF); (5) Combating Transnational Threats (counternarcotics, anti-terrorism, non-proliferation); (6) Sustaining the Global Environment (tropical forest and coral reef conservation, climate change activities); and (7) Expanding Prosperity through Trade and Investment (OPIC,

1

TDA). There would be five additional titles for regional provisions, reporting requirements, authorities and restrictions on aid, organizational reforms, and repeals. 3. Make “Reducing Poverty” the overall purpose of development assistance, with nine specific goals. The nine goals would be: (1) Expand livelihoods and incomes through private sector development; (2) Promote adequate and reliable nutrition; (3) Advance child survival and maternal health; (4) Strengthen education and training; (5) Improve delivery of basic health care; (6) Enhance access to safe water, sanitation and shelter; (7) Protect and restore the natural environment; (8) Foster equal opportunities for women; and (9) Increase the responsiveness of governments to the needs of their people. Each of these goals would incorporate specific objectives, and would be explained in its own subtitle. There would also be a list of general principles and cross-cutting themes covering all the subtitles. 4. Provide increased flexibility to the administration. This would be accomplished through broader waiver and transfer authorities; new contingency funds; simplified and streamlined notification and reporting requirements; and developing a consensus to reduce earmarks. 5. Provide greater accountability to Congress and the American public. This would require the identification of measurable indicators of success; better monitoring and evaluation systems; a detailed and searchable database of foreign aid programs in lieu of numerous reports; and a needs and performance-based allocation system for development resources (see below). 6. Establish a needs-based and performance-based system for allocating development resources. Currently development assistance is allocated on the basis of how much was spent the year before, which sector has the most powerful supporters, or where the most recent crisis has been reported. Under the new system, detailed indicators and measurements would be utilized so that development aid could be apportioned to where the needs are greatest and where the dollars are most effectively and efficiently spent. 7. Elevate and strengthen USAID. In order for USAID to exercise meaningful leadership for global development, it will need to have its own, robust policy and planning unit; authority to produce its own budgets; a seat on the National Security Council; responsibility for the coordination and direction of U.S. contributions to U.N. development agencies, in consultation with the State Department’s Bureau of International Organizations; the mandate to chair the Millennium Challenge Corporation Board; supervision of the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator; and the ability to convene inter-agency coordination panels. We would also address constraints on staffing and space in missions abroad, improvements in personnel training and development, workforce planning, contracting and procurement regulations, and the calculation of operating expenses.

2

8. Institutionalize a strategic planning and review process. As part of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the President would be required to develop a strategy for global development. Consistent with that overall development strategy, USAID would then create strategic plans for each of the nine “Reducing Poverty” goals. 9. Omit authorization of funds. The bill would establish the framework and basic authorities for assistance, but would not authorize funding levels or contain any ceilings or earmarks, even “such sums as may be necessary”. 10. Protection of strategic accounts. The bill would not alter the amounts or the way aid is provided to key friends and allies. 11. Additional reforms. We are also considering additional reforms, particularly in such areas as interagency coordination, the return to civilian control of humanitarian and development programs, division of responsibilities for reconstruction and stabilization activities, and human rights conditionality.

3

BUILDING A MORE SECURE WORLD WITH EFFECTIVE U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PRINCIPLES AND VALUES TO GUIDE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REFORM 1. Poverty reduction must be a primary objective of U.S. foreign assistance because it promotes stability. The members of InterAction believe there are both moral and strategic grounds for making the eradication of extreme poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals core elements of the U.S. foreign assistance portfolio, together with humanitarian relief and stabilization. History has shown that countries not able to meet basic needs and provide opportunities for their people often have come to require greater, and more urgent, engagement by the United States in later years. A people-centered development approach requires both long-term investments in the social sector, such as health and education, as well as trade, debt, and foreign investment policies that promote job creation and sustained economic growth. Progress toward democratic reforms by developing countries is important, and InterAction has welcomed the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s emphasis on human rights, the rule of law, and promotion of democratic practices. Gender equity should be an integral part of development practice and a key goal of development programs.

2. Achieving the long-term objectives of global prosperity and freedom depends upon sustainable development as a long-term process, which should not be sidetracked for any short-term political agenda. While U.S. foreign and security objectives will inevitably change to reflect new priorities in an evolving world, the achievement of long-term development goals requires a patient and steady approach. Balancing short-term political and economic calculations with the long-term nature of sustainable development approaches requires a proper mix of shortand long-term objectives. Given this interdependence, development assistance should be designed, managed and evaluated from the perspective of its long-term nature, not only its short-term political impact.

3. Cohesion and coherence, in place of current fragmentation, are necessary to achieve the effective use of foreign assistance resources. Since 1997, InterAction has, through the issuance of three papers, called for steps to address the multiplication of U.S. foreign assistance programs and its implications both for planning and funding in Washington and for delivery of assistance in the field. Despite a commitment to create a more coherent policy framework for foreign aid as an element of national security strategy, the responsibilities and resources for foreign assistance have been dispersed so widely that the delivery and impact of foreign aid may fall far short of expectations, including the expectations of the administration. A coherent structure for aid would be better equipped to plan for and assess the efficient use of aid resources.

4. Building local capacity promotes country ownership and leads to self-sufficiency. For development assistance to work, it must be directed toward efforts that its beneficiaries identify, design, and value. Country ownership, through the participation of a strong civil society and effective and transparent public institutions, is vital to building programs and investments that are sustainable for generations to come. Truly effective assistance must hold all stakeholders - donors, civil society, and government - in the development process accountable for achieving the defined results that lead to measurable impact and sustainable changes in well-being. 5. Harmonize priorities among the U.S. government agencies, multilateral institutions and recipient governments to assure the best use of resources. In order to achieve the greatest impact for each foreign assistance dollar, partnership, collaboration, and dialogue with other donors, both bilateral and multilateral, are critical. Such efforts allow humanitarian and development programs to build upon best practices and avoid wasteful duplication. Bilateral and multilateral efforts each have distinctive contributions and should be seen as complementary. Aid works best when donors work together, each using their comparative strengths to achieve agreed-upon goals to which both governments and citizens are committed. 6. Humanitarian assistance programs should continue to be a core part of foreign aid and be guided by the principle of impartiality to conform with international humanitarian law. The U.S. government has long been a leader in providing assistance to refugees and others affected by natural disasters and conflict. These programs should be a core part of U.S. foreign aid and continue to be guided by the humanitarian imperative, which dictates that help should be provided to all of those in dire need, regardless of politics and creed. Similarly, programs focused on global health threats such as HIV/AIDS and avian flu should benefit all of those exposed to risk of illness. 7. U.S. foreign assistance programs should be under civilian control and run by development professionals in order to be appropriate for the public abroad. Currently the Department of Defense has unprecedented influence over our nation’s largest and most visible development assistance programs: those in Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, there are recent indications that the Pentagon seeks an expanded role in foreign assistance activities traditionally undertaken by civilian components of the U.S. government and American non-governmental organizations. To remain consistent with American traditions and the image the U.S. wishes to project abroad, the military should be engaged in foreign assistance delivery only in exceptional circumstances when they have unique capabilities or responsibilities, e.g. during natural disasters when the logistical capabilities of the U.S. military may be crucial in providing life-saving assistance, or during conflict which precludes the presence of civilian aid workers. In any reorganization, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Program should be under civilian control. 2

RATIONALIZING PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE: A DIALOGUE WITH CORPORATIONS This concept paper outlines a proposal by InterAction to create a space and dialogue where U.S. corporations, corporate foundations and NGO leaders can regularly meet at an executive and/or technical level to discuss policy, the challenges and opportunities facing their organizations, and the nature and evolution of the relationship between NGOs and corporations as it relates to development, the environment and humanitarian affairs. Through an InterAction-Corporate Dialogue, attendees would build bridges across the two sectors where there is proven interest in increasing the well being, security, and rights of the communities in which each operates. The dialogue would include approaches to programs and associated policies that would help advance a coherent, collaborative and forward-looking U.S. global engagement. If deemed appropriate, a number of high-level meetings will be held each year on specific issues or themes, to advance a strategic conversation between our communities’ leadership and other relevant actors. InterAction will document these meetings in mostly web-based publications, recording interesting developments and breakthrough ideas to share with a limited public. The full design and implementation of the InterAction-Corporate Dialogue will cost an estimated $100,000 annually, which will cover the cost of personnel and necessary contracted services. Seed funds will be raised from an initial pool of interested corporations and corporate foundations. I.

Background

The overall architecture of international development assistance has evolved radically with an explosive growth of private development funding. Over the past decade, the international development community has witnessed a large increase in investments and contributions from corporations and corporate foundations interested in conducting better business while improving human well being around the world. Despite the decreases in corporate funds that resulted from the financial crisis of the past year(s), support and the durability of these relationships with InterAction members will remain important. Corporate funds will continue to invigorate a diverse array of programs (managed by members and non-members alike) but, without the benefits of high-level conversations to inform their overarching rationale and principles, frameworks, duplicitous or wasteful efforts, and, antagonistic or mutuallyreinforcing programs, no rationalization of private funding will ever occur. A multitude of successful, long-lasting partnerships between InterAction members and some corporations and corporate foundations prove that, despite operating with different business models and responding to stakeholders with seemingly – or evidently – unrelated visions, the corporate and international NGO sectors can actually form fruitful strategic alliances to best serve the communities where they conduct their business; and have:

Corporate Partnership Discussion Paper, page 2

  

facilitated sharing lessons learned in operational challenges, sponsored domestic and international campaigns and mobilized the public; increased impact by avoiding duplication and waste of staff, time and monetary resources; and formed a cohesive, even if short-lived, front to advance effective development goals.

One third of InterAction members already manage more than 1800 different types of international partnerships (i.e. gifts, grants, common projects, in-kind donations) 1 with the U.S. private sector, including corporations, and corporate & private foundations. These relationships cut across sectors and include, but are not limited to, healthcare, education, automotive, energy, technology and pharmaceuticals. The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and the Global Philanthropy Forum (GPF) are two prime examples of emerging, high-level private sector interests and investment in global health, poverty, and climate change, among other critical global issues on which our members have vast experience. However, both of their annual meetings are too large for private sector leaders, NGO CEOs, and other relevant key players to quietly discuss frameworks to rationalize these relationships, or to focus on the possibility of great impact. InterAction members are neither well represented at these venues nor is this coalition’s aggregated knowledge clearly informing corporate philanthropy decision-making processes. At their 2008 survey “The state of corporate philanthropy,” the McKinsey Quarterly found that for almost half of the 721 corporate executives interviewed, personal interest of the CEO and board members was the most defining factor in determining the focus of the corporation’s philanthropic programs, followed closely by employee interest and local community needs. The same survey showed that the CEOs “set the overall direction, make specific funding decisions, serve as the public face, and engage in external and internal communications.”2 As a learning organization and convener, InterAction wishes to host a uniquely fluid space for dialogue that will engage leaders and ultimately lead to strategic, long-term leveraging of each sector’s comparative advantages. InterAction aims to inform corporations 1) as they define their philanthropic programs, 2) as the country embarks in the reform of its foreign assistance architecture, and 3) to shape the nature and framework of the relationship between corporations and U.S. NGOs. II.

Strategy and Objectives

The structure of the InterAction-Corporate Dialogue will be more clearly defined with the funding partners. InterAction proposes to hold no less than four meetings in a 12-month period, including one session at the Annual Forum. After the first year, InterAction will evaluate the impact and sustainability of the project in future years. Each meeting could be shaped around:

1

From data found on member organizations websites and annual reports. McKinsey and Company, McKinsey Quarterly: “The state of corporate philanthropy: A McKinsey Survey,” January 2008. 2

Corporate Partnership Discussion Paper, page 3

   

a theme critical to the development community such as gender, community development, environment and climate change, health care, democracy and civil society, and education; management tools such as metrics and evaluation, best practices, training, staff care; preparation for major events such as the CGI, GPF and others; or educating corporations about the role the U.S. public (their employees and clients, and other constituents) play supporting people-centered development.

The outcomes of the full dialogue will be:   

 

New and strengthened relationships between the U.S corporate and NGO CEO and senior leadership community to advance sustainable development in the countries in which they operate. Discussion of critical hurdles and corporate approaches and policies affecting international development, environmental, and humanitarian issues Creation of multiple linkages—across sectors, stakeholders, and leaders in NGOs, business, the U.S government, and other philanthropists/donors. The resulting new relationships and the trust forged between actors will become a cornerstone on which future dialogue can be sustained. Every organization at the table contributes expertise and other resources to advance the conversation in future years. Link to InterAction’s NGO mapping initiative and to other NGO CEO-level conversations.

Even though InterAction currently does not have the resources to conduct a thorough vetting of corporations, we will not invite corporations whose products support warfare, killing, tobacco or other types of destructive actions. We will engage “brown” extractive industry leaders as an U.S. NGO dialogue with this community and the possible creation of principles and policy norms is important to the well-being of the world’s poor. We envision participants in an InterAction-Corporate Dialogue who will: 1. for business, non-profit mission, and other reasons, see the necessity of a conversation, 2. be interested in advancing , exchanging and increasing knowledge, and 3. explore corporate growth in a socially responsible manner. Sam Worthington and the Executive Committee will act as vetting “sounding board” to review corporate engagement in the dialogue both as participant and potential funders. InterAction’s Leadership Team will provide profiles that include member comments. III.

Resources

InterAction is interested in a relationship with corporate leaders that will evolve over time. To kick-off the design of the first series of meetings, two elements are needed on equal measure: the resources of interested corporations and/or corporate foundations, and the resources of InterAction in terms of its ability to administer the dialogue, and convene and mobilize these sector’s leaders. All contributing corporations would be included in the InterAction-Corporate Dialogue, but the participants would not be exclusively those who provide financial support.

Discussion Paper

Creating a Senior Advisory “Thought” Council In December, 2008, Sam Worthington proposed and the Board of Directors approved the creation of an informal Senior Advisory Council (Council) with the objective to: 1.

Facilitate InterAction’s engagement with prominent actors who shape U.S. private development assistance, and eventually help InterAction advance an MDG based framework; and

2.

Support InterAction’s convening and originator capacities, including our access to new funding sources.

3.

Guide the “NGO Gateway” which will map the footprint and collective impact of the U.S. international NGO community. This idea will be launched by InterAction and the Wolfensohn Center at the Brookings Institution.

This is an update on our thinking. Working with other interested institutions and individuals, InterAction will help create and informal “thought” Council with 25 or so domestic and foreign thought leaders – including elected InterAction member CEOs– which will meet in early 2010 to discuss ways to help rationalize and leverage private development assistance flows. The discussion will include best practices and programs that could be brought to scale. Working with interested organizations and individuals, InterAction will try to engage an informal group of ‘Principals,’ largely comprised of the leading philanthropists who shape U.S. private development assistance. Both the thought leaders Council and the Principals will provide an essential link to the rapidly changing private development funding external environment within which InterAction and its members operate. The thought Council will reinforce and complement the leveraging capacity that comes from InterAction’s Board and member CEOs, but it will not take on any of the policy authority of the InterAction Board, its committees, and working groups. It will be formed in partnership with Aspen, Brookings, CSIS, major foundations and other key individuals such as Jim Wolfensohn. This concept builds on the Board’s advice and feedback to the initial proposal, and outlines more explicitly the Council’s proposed structure, target participants, and the process and timeline to shape and render this new informal body completely functional by early 2010. Funding for an initial meeting will come from interested participants and organizations. Background InterAction member organizations now exist in an environment within which their voices, and that of the U.S. NGO community at large, are struggling to be heard. Among the changing factors, the rise of a development movement in the U.S.; a tripling of private resources to members in recent years; the ongoing elevation of development as an activity linked to broad U.S. national interests; a proliferation of new development actors; and a growing interest in development and humanitarian issues within the elite of U.S. society, have had the largest impact on InterAction members. InterAction wishes to shape the new tools to operate within this changing environment. While InterAction’s leadership is actively working within and responding to this new 21st century aid architecture, the creation of an informal Council is an important step to leverage the organization’s

Senior Advisory “Thought” Council, page 2

reach, to increase its capacity to influence new private funding streams, and to ensure the voice of U.S. NGOs is present in today’s broader development dialogue. Over the past two years, InterAction and its member’s leadership has created a momentum that has brought the coalition a clearer, and as a result, more forceful voice. Because of the momentum, a diverse group of individuals, from a former head of State, World Bank president, philanthropists, retired members of Congress and the cabinet, diplomats, former aid administrators, to other prominent persons, have engaged in diverse ways with InterAction to help advance its goals. Rather than solely relying on these individual relationships, InterAction believes the time has come, in partnership with other interested institutions, for this movement focused on private development assistance to become a more structured effort. Strategic Focus InterAction’s strategy for the creation of the thought Council rests on the following core assumptions and beliefs: 1. A rationalization (steering/ordering/coordination, etc) of U.S. private development assistance of the magnitude we seek will come only from sustained, effective high-level engagement and support from across the development and related communities 2. The need for clear focus and the capacity of the executive office to manage the Council is critical. 3. InterAction’s strategic goals align fundamentally to the purpose of the Council. 4. A strong and transparent link to member CEOs. 5. Individuals who could make up the thought Council must represent diverse backgrounds. 6. Currently, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the frame more commonly used to explain development within the U.S., bilateral and multilateral organizations. Following the intention of organization, upon the end of the MDGs in 2015, the Senior Advisory Council will play a substantial role in promoting a new/enhanced MDG-like framework. Timeline and Activities Internally, the Executive Office has established a capable team to support the initial groundwork and convening effort. Sam Worthington will be assisted by the Executive Coordinator, Sr. Associate for Development and Special Advisor. The Vice Presidents are fully vested in the Council, and their teams will also provide conceptual and administrative support as required. However, InterAction’s momentum has in many ways come from the willingness of individual Board members and member CEOs to put some of their own clout and organizational influence behind InterAction. For InterAction to thrive this engagement needs to continue. Assuming that they remain interested, Sam proposes that the Council will be co-chaired by Jim Wolfensohn, Director, Wolfensohn Group, and Charlie MacCormack, president and CEO, Save the Children USA. Over the past year, Charlie has actively promoted the idea of a though Council linked to the InterAction community and his and other CEO leadership will be essential in recruiting the Principals and thought leaders. They will actively coordinate the first meeting. InterAction’s Executive Office will provide any logistical or other support. On occasion members of the Council would meet with the InterAction Board and member CEOs. The Council is not a formal body and is primarily a vehicle for a senior level dialogue.

2

Senior Advisory “Thought” Council, page 3

During the last quarter of 2009, InterAction will prepare a bold, strategic convening/recruitment plan that will ensure key thought leaders and philanthropic resources movers are targeted. For the Council to evolve and engage in the intellectual and leadership space envisioned by InterAction, it will depend upon, from the initial stages, the interest and commitment from two distinct but interrelated types of individuals: Thought Leaders and Principal Movers. In their daily life, these two groups of individuals share many qualities and activities. However, for “project management purposes” it is necessary to create an operational distinction between them. Thought leaders These individuals will provide the fundamental conceptual backbone and leverage to advance selected issues. Shaping concepts and tools (such as best practices, mapping and MDG-like frameworks), a combination of Thought Leaders from across the spectrum of development, environmental, and humanitarian-related fields will define a holistic, global and ambitious dialogue focused on private development assistance. Some Thought Leaders could be, but are not limited to:       

Former members of Congress or Administration officials – Madeleine Albright (State Department,) Bill Frist (Senate), Tom Dashle (Senate), Henrietta Fore (USAID/F), etc.; Think tanks - Lael Brainard (Treasury and former Brooking), Homi Kharas (Brookings and former World Bank), Nancy Birdsall (Center for Global Development), Jane Wales (Aspen Institute), etc.; Academics - Jeff Sachs (Columbia), Larry Simon (Brandeis), William Easterly (Professor of Economics, New York University), Peter Singer (Princeton University) etc.; International leaders – Mary Robinson (Realizing Rights and former President of Ireland), Olivier Consolo (CONCORD), etc.; Media – Nicholas Kristof (New York Times), Michael Gerson (Washington Post), etc. Others – Patty Stonesifer (The Smithsonian Institute and Special Advisor to the Trustees of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), etc.; Faith community – Bill Vendley (Religions for Peace), etc. and other leaders as recommended by our members;

Movers The Movers (which unavoidably overlap as Thought leaders) will be the force that will advance the Council’s agenda by: linking it to global philanthropic initiatives (such as the Clinton Global initiative – CGI-, or the Global Philanthropy Forum, etc.), leveraging private resources, and linking the Council’s breakthroughs to domestic and international public movements or campaigns. Some Movers could be, but are not limited to: 



Philanthropists – Jim Wolfensohn (Director, Wolfensohn Group), Ray Chambers (founder of the malaria no more campaign), George Soros (Open Society Institute), Peter Ackerman (Int’l Center for Non-Violent Conflict); Steve Heintz (Rockefeller Brothers Fund), President Clinton, Melinda Gates, etc. Some celebrities

3

08.28.09 Page 1 of 4

Revenue and Expense January 1 - July 31, 2009

>>> All Funds <<< Actual 1/1/09 - 7/31/09

2009 Budget Mid-Yr Revision

$

$

Variance

Revenue Member Dues Other Unrestricted Income Restricted/Grant Income Total Revenue

1,771,715

2,200,000

$

428,285

355,298

681,775

326,477

3,217,334

5,170,632

1,953,298

$

5,344,347

$

8,052,407

$

2,708,060

$

2,938,921

$

4,987,141

$

2,048,220

Expense Personnel Other Operating Expense

2,284,957

3,065,266

780,309

Total Expense

$

5,223,878

$

8,052,407

$

2,828,529

Surplus/(Deficit)

$

120,469

$

-

$

120,469

Notes:

08.28.09 Page 2 of 4

Revenue and Expense January 1 - July 31, 2009

>>> Unrestricted Funds <<< Actual 1/1/09 - 7/31/09

2009 Budget Mid-Yr Revision

$

$

Variance

Revenue Member Dues Other Unrestricted Income Restricted/Grant Income Total Revenue

1,771,715

2,200,000

$

428,285

355,298

681,775

326,477

-

-

-

$

2,127,013

$

2,881,775

$

754,762

$

1,231,658

$

1,846,626

$

614,968

Expense Personnel Other Operating Expense

774,889

1,035,149

260,260

Total Expense

$

2,006,547

$

2,881,775

$

875,228

Surplus/(Deficit)

$

120,466

$

-

$

(120,466)

08.28.09 Page 3 of 4

Revenue and Expense January 1 - July 31, 2009

>>> Restricted/Grant Funds <<< Actual 1/1/09 - 7/31/09

2009 Budget Mid-Yr Revision

$

$

Variance

Revenue Member Dues Other Unrestricted Income Restricted/Grant Income Total Revenue

-

-

$

-

-

-

-

3,217,334

5,170,632

1,953,298

$

3,217,334

$

5,170,632

$

1,953,298

$

1,707,263

$

3,140,515

$

1,433,252

Expense Personnel Other Operating Expense

1,510,068

2,030,117

520,049

Total Expense

$

3,217,331

$

5,170,632

$

Surplus/(Deficit)

$

3

$

-

$

1,953,301 (3)

08.28.09 Page 4 of 4

Recap of Restricted/Grant Funds Mid-Year Revision

Update Since Mid-Yr Revision

Increase (Decrease)

1. OFDA 2007-2009 Personnel Operating Expense Total

476,928 786,300 1,263,228

476,928 786,300 1,263,228

-

2. OFDA 2009-2011 Personnel Operating Expense Total

174,783 119,265 294,048

174,783 119,265 294,048

-

3. OFDA NGO Security Personnel Operating Expense Total

68,485 182,128 250,613

68,485 182,128 250,613

-

4. OFDA Pandemic Prep Personnel

153,270

153,270

-

5. UN-OCHA Personnel

101,349

101,349

-

6. UN IFAD Personnel Operating Expense Total

18,150 15,160 33,310

18,150 15,160 33,310

-

7. Foundation/Hewlett Personnel Operating Expense Total

40,260 34,300 74,560

40,260 34,300 74,560

-

132,360

-

9. UNFPA Personnel Operating Expense Total

12,000 16,980 28,980

12,000 16,980 28,980

-

11. NGO Platforms/Aid Effectiveness Personnel

22,992

22,992

-

1,794,085 875,984 2,670,069

1,794,085 875,984 2,670,069

-

145,853

145,853

-

-

145,853

145,853

-

3,140,515 2,030,117 5,170,632

3,008,155 2,030,117 5,038,272

8. Ford Foundation Personnel

12. Gates Foundation Personnel Operating Expense Total 13. Gates Special Opportunity Fund Personnel Operating Expense Total Total: Restricted/Grant Funds Personnel Operating Expense Total

(132,360)

(132,360) (132,360)

$10,000

Other

$9,000

Carnegie

$8,000

Mellon

$7,000

Hewlett Gates

$6,000

Ford

$5,000

Other UN $4,000

State BPRM

$3,000

IASC

$2,000

USAID/Health

$1,000

USAID OFDA/other USAID CAW

$0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008 2009 to date

USAID ALPI

$9,000 $8,000 $7,000

($000)

$6,000

$5,908 $5,171

$5,000

$3,858

$4,000 $3,281 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000

$1,674 $468

$2,740 $3,540 $2,677

$2,370

$1,687 $673

$3,103 $2,849

$597

$462

$544

$693

$792

$477

$605

$697

$802

$682

$1,848 $2,104 $2,200 $2,200 $1,601 $1,556 $1,154 $1,166 $1,321 $1,377 $1,413 $1,402

$0

Membership Dues

Other Core Revenues

Grant Revenues

Memorandum To:

Board of Directors

From:

Membership and Standards Board Committee

Date:

September 14, 2009

Re:

Election of seven New Members

Briefing sheets follow this report for each of the seven prospective members for your consideration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Easter Seals Education Development Center (EDC), Project Concern International Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, USA ( Tzu Chi Foundation) Friends of ACTED Planet Aid Medical Emergency Relief International

As is our practice, information on these agencies has been vetted through the general membership via each Member CEO and the InterAction Staff. All seven applications have been reviewed and approved by the Membership and Standards Board Committee on September 1, 2009. The committee recommends all seven applicants for the approval of the Board. Financial information:

Organization

FY 09 budget

Projected Dues

Easter Seals

$ 124,150,591

$ 2,000.00

Education Development Center

$148,429,000

$40,000.00

Project Concern International

$37,171,067

$33,000.00

Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, USA

$ 20,311,738

$35,000

Membership and Standards Committee Report, page 2 $98,511

$ 2,000.00

Planet Aid

$ 38,572,871

$ 30,000.00

Medical Emergency Relief International, USA (Merlin)

$ 407,148.99

$ 2,000.00

Friends of ACTED

Easter Seals

President/CEO: James E. Williams Jr.

Easter Seals, Inc. 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606

Incorporated in: Ohio

Office of Public Affairs 1425 K Street, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Chicago: 312.726.6200 Washington: 202.347.3066

Recommended by: Habitat for Humanity, Mental Disability Rights International, International Youth Foundation

Main Contact(s): Randall Rutta [email protected]

FY 09 budget: $ 124,150,591

http://www.easterseals.com

Estimated dues: $ 2,000.00

Year Incorporated: 1919

Statement of organizational purpose: Easter Seals is the leading non-profit provider of services and advocacy for individuals with autism, developmental disabilities, physical and mental disabilities and other special needs. Easter Seals offers help, hope and answers to children and adults with disabilities and their families in the United States, Puerto Rico, Australia and Canada. Through therapy, education and support services, Easter Seals creates life-changing solutions so that people with disabilities can live, learn, work and play in their communities. Easter Seals, Inc. leads and supports a network of separately incorporated organizations that operate as Easter Seals’ affiliates and global partners to assure and enhance brand-consistent high-quality services, advocacy, and nonprofit governance and operations benefiting people with disabilities, their families, and their communities.

Program profile: Children and adults with disabilities and special needs find the highest-quality services designed to meet their individual needs when they come to Easter Seals. Teams of therapists, teachers and other health professionals help each person overcome obstacles to independence and reach his or her personal goals. Easter Seals also includes families as active members of any therapy program, and offers the support families need. Last year, Easter Seals served 1.3 million individuals in the United States, Australia, and Canada. The vast majority of Easter Seals services to individuals with disabilities and their families are provided locally by affiliates and global partners of Easter Seals, Inc. Services for and with people with disabilities that are managed by Easter Seals, Inc. generally occur under pilot projects to develop, refine, and replicate best practices, and through centrally-administered systems-change initiatives that offer training, technical assistance, and information resources to address program and policy issues affecting people with disabilities. For the past two years, Easter Seals. Inc. has collaborated with CONFE, the largest service provider and advocacy organization in Mexico for people with intellectual disabilities.

Easter Seals Briefing Sheet, page 2 Easter Seals has been actively engaged in activities with and concerning developing countries over the past few years. Some of these activities were one-time events and others are part of an ongoing conversations. Among those countries that have directly interacted with Easter Seals in some way on issues relating to disability are: China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iraq and Iraq/Autonomous region, Jordan, Morocco, Namibia, Peru, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. PVO, government officials, and private individuals participated in these activities.

Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Easter Seals, Inc. believes that membership in InterAction will provide headquarters staff and others across the organization with:  Access to current, strategic and otherwise unattainable/affordable stream of information, training and technical assistance;  Access to conferences, briefings, and meetings with international leaders, including policy decision-makers in Congress, US Department of State, USAID and other agencies;  Opportunities to network and partner with, learn from, and hopefully add value for major USbased humanitarian organizations operating abroad; and,  Opportunities to join disability-specific and other online communities, serve on committees, and engage in a two-way exchange of knowledge across the spectrum of international areas of emphasis and activity. Easter Seals associates anticipate being effective collaborators on those issues and initiatives where our experience and resources are most relevant and can make the greatest difference. Specifically, we anticipate and welcome engagement with InterAction and its members, and will participate responsibly and fully, accepting responsibilities and delivering high quality responses and deliverables. The designated contact for Easter Seals, Inc. will serve as the primary participant in meetings and other activities on behalf of the organization and recruit other team members, as appropriate. Easter Seals’ leaders are acutely aware that the organization, while having a legitimate and larger role to play internationally, is woefully disadvantaged by limited understanding and experience in the world of international humanitarian development. Easter Seals perceives enormous expertise in the InterAction organization and its membership that, if tapped, offers the most effective and efficient means of successfully helping people with disabilities and the civil society disability organizations abroad. Easter Seals, Inc. commends InterAction on the adoption of standards pertaining to disability that promote engagement of people with disabilities as employees, volunteers, and beneficiaries of humanitarian assistance. These standards align fully with Easter Seals’ mission and it is hoped that Easter Seals can play a role in helping advance InterAction member understanding and compliance with these standards within the US and globally.

Education Development Center

President/CEO: Luther S. Luedtke.

55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02458 -1060 Tel: 617 969 7100

Incorporated in: Delaware

Main Contact(s): Luther S. Luedtke.

Recommended by: International Youth Foundation, Save the Children, AED

www.edc.org

Year Incorporated: 1958

FY 09 budget: $148,429,000 Estimated dues: $40,000.00

Statement of organizational purpose: EDC is a global nonprofit organization that designs, delivers and evaluates innovative programs to address some of the world’s most urgent challenges in education, health, and economic opportunity. Working with public-sector and private partners, we harness the power of people and systems to improve education, health promotion and care, workforce preparation, communications technologies, and civic engagement. EDC conducts 350 projects in 35 countries around the world. Our services include research, training, educational materials and strategy, with activities ranging from seed projects to large-scale national and international initiatives. EDC enjoys a worldwide reputation for its excellence in program and fiscal management and for the impact of its work. EDC is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. Most fundamentally, this means that no profit accrues to any individual. Our work is supported through grants and contracts from a variety of sources, including U.S. and foreign government agencies, private foundations, nonprofit organizations, universities, and corporations. As a publicly supported, publicly accountable organization, we have a special obligation to carry out work of the highest quality and integrity. Program profile: EDC designs fresh approaches and innovative tools to improve teaching and learning worldwide for both in- and out-of-school populations of all ages. Their work combines local resources and expertise with the latest research to achieve concrete results. They partner with governments and local communities, international donors, churches, and international corporations, but learners are at the center of our programs. From rural Haiti to urban Indonesia, their projects promote listening, action, reflection, group interaction and even play. They work at the preschool, primary, and secondary levels; with adults and out-of-school learners; and with local and national governments. They build local, human capacity, ensuring that their partners own and can sustain the programs well beyond the life of any one project. Whether they are developing ESL radio lessons for primary school children in remote Pakistani villages, producing unbiased news programming for conflict-torn South Sudan, writing an HIV/AIDS curriculum in Zambia, or empowering young entrepreneurs in Macedonia, EDC is committed to incountry partnerships, deep respect for local knowledge and culture, and collaborative decisionmaking.

EDC Briefing Sheet, page 2 Reasons for applying to join InterAction: EDC is one of the oldest and largest institutions working in education in developing countries and among the most highly-regarded among our peers. We have focused on maintaining and improving the quality of our services to our immediate partners, clients and beneficiaries. We now feel that it is time to seek a greater role in influencing policy and practice in those areas that concern us among donors and a wider audience of partners and stakeholders. We believe that joining Interaction may provide the means to do that. We would expect to participate in the various interest groups currently organized by Interaction, but note that there may be certain areas (such as basic education, the application of information and communication technology, and youth) where we have technical expertise that is currently underrepresented within Interaction's membership and to which we might bring leadership within the community of NGOs. We understand that there are formal processes to be followed for participation in the leadership of Interaction, and would be interested in exploring ways to play such a role.

Project Concern International

President/CEO: George Guimaraes

5151 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 320, San Diego, CA 92123

Incorporated in: California Year Incorporated: 1961

Main Contact(s): George Guimaraes [email protected]

Recommended by: PATH, Minnesota International Health Volunteers, Save the Children FY 09 budget: $37,171,067 Estimated dues: $33,000.00

Statement of organizational purpose: Project Concern International's mission is to prevent disease, improve community health, and promote sustainable development. PCI envisions a world where abundant resources are shared, communities are able to provide for the health and well being of their members, and children and families can achieve lives of hope, good health, and self-sufficiency. Program profile: Project Concern International (PCI) works in disadvantaged and isolated communities to bring health and hope to those in greatest need by preventing disease, responding in emergency relief situations, and providing access to clean water, nutritious food, and economic opportunity. PCI reaches 4.5 million people annually with programs in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Based on our past experience as members of InterAction and attendance at Forum 2009, we’re confident that membership in InterAction will strengthen our partnerships and collaboration within the NGO community and, ultimately, our effectiveness. It will engage PCI more directly in discussion and action on the issues we all face and in the thought leadership of our sector. Finally, it will help connect us with public policymakers in Washington. PCI has made the commitment to invest in and build its presence in Washington and InterAction will support that. We anticipate active participation in relevant committee work and attendance at meetings throughout the year.

Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, U.S.A. (aka Tzu Chi Foundation)

President/CEO: William Keh Incorporated in: California Year Incorporated: 1984

1100 S Valley Center Ave., San Dimas, CA 91773 Tel: 626-487-4849 Main Contact: Debra Boudreaux [email protected]

Recommended by: Mercy Corps, American Red Cross, Operation USA FY 09 budget: $ 20,311,738 Estimated dues: $35,000

www.us.tzuchi.org Statement of organizational purpose: Serving with compassion and relief with joy! Tzu Chi’s missions focus on providing material aid to the needy and inspiring love and humanity to both donors and receivers. The foundation’s guiding principle is to “help the poor and educate the rich.” Program profile: Tzu Chi USA began its first international relief mission in Mexico in 1994. Since then, volunteers have provided humanitarian aid and medical services in Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Columbia, Guatemala, EI Salvador, Peru, Mexico, Haiti, and Afghanistan. In 2005, volunteer doctors traveled to Sri Lanka to provide free medical care for tsunami survivors. In 2007, Tzu Chi members from all over the country engaged in disaster relief efforts in Bolivia, Peru and Dominican Republic. The Tzu Chi International Medical Association (TIMA) is made up of more than 5,000 medical professionals worldwide who volunteer their expertise and time to provide quality medical services both in their own communities, whether urban or rural, and worldwide. TIMA USA has 21 chapters in the United States. TIMA chapters are also located in Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Paraguay and Brazil. During a major disaster, TIMA members from different parts of the world team up to provide medical service to those in need in an effective, respectful and compassionate manner. Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Tzu Chi has provided food, comfort and assistance to the disadvantaged people that suffered from natural, economic, and political calamities throughout the world. Tzu Chi has always found the ways to raise funds and goods to more than 46 countries for the needy and disadvantaged people. Through above efforts, Tzu Chi has found the needs to elicit the help of community efforts such as InterAction in crossing the international borders. Tzu Chi will actively join the InterAction conferences and contribute our experiences. We like to join InterAction’s efforts globally. Tzu Chi would like to work together with InterAction in various divisions. Tzu Chi will contribute to the work of InterAction and its subsidiary by doing the following:

Tzu Chi Briefing Sheet, page 2 a) Attend the annual InterAction conference meetings, so we will get involved and actively participate in the programs currently undertaken at InterAction; b) Coordinate with InterAction and its subsidiary in its efforts in administering its programs by targeting specific programs of needs, contributing volunteer workers, helping raise funds and goods for the InterAction programs; c) Send Tzu Chi delegates to get involved with the InterAction organizational works; d) Conduct information programs with respect to the programs at InterAction and its subsidiaries so that the members get involved. e) Collaborate and cooperate with InterAction Information Center/Service or other parts of InterAction in disseminating information with respect to the InterAction efforts so that TzuChi can be a partner in corporations. f) Get in touch with other NGOs and/or other InterAction system agencies to form networking activities to further the goals of InterAction; g) Report on and participate in research, meetings and publications of InterAction and its subsidiary bodies. h). Promoting social progress and development in partnership with InterAction agents, CBOs, FBOs, NGOs. -

Friends of ACTED

President/CEO: Lucien Lefcourt.

th

1400 16 Street, NW Suite 210 Washgington, DC 20036 Tel: 202 729 6798

Incorporated in: Delaware Year Incorporated: 2008

Main Contact(s): Cyril DU PRE. [email protected]

Recommended by: Handicap International, Action Against Hunger, Concern Worldwide

www.acted.org

FY 09 budget: $98,511 Estimated dues: $2,000.00

Statement of organizational purpose: ACTED's mission is to provide adapted responses in order to support vulnerable populations worldwide and to accompany them in building a better future. The programs implemented by ACTED, in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean, aim at addressing the needs of populations affected by wars, natural disasters and/or economic and social crises. Our interventions seek to cover the multiple aspects of humanitarian and development crises through a multidisciplinary approach which is both global and local, and adapted to each context. Our Vision is to guarantee the Link between Emergency, Rehabilitation and Development. Once basic needs have been covered, the population's living conditions remain critical as our areas of intervention are among the poorest in the world. For this reason, ACTED's axis of intervention lies in the link between Emergency, Rehabilitation, and Development. In other words, in order to guarantee the sustainability of interventions carried out during crises, only long-term support, through a continued pre4g/ce in the field after the emergency as well as the involvement of communities, enables us to break the poverty cycle and accompany populations on their way to development. Program profile: Friends of ACTED (FOA) supports ACTED programs worldwide. These programs aim at saving lives, assisting vulnerable people and bringing hope for a better future to those in need with a specific focus on emergency relief, food security, health promotion, education and training, economic development & livelihoods, advocacy, institutional support and regional dialogue, microfinance, and cultural promotion. ACTED is currently working in 25 countries, through its regional offices of Nairobi (Kenya) for Eastern Africa, Brazzaville (Republic of Congo) for Central Africa, Amman (Jordan) and its logistics hub in Dubai for the Middle East, and New Delhi (India) for Asia. More than 260 programs are implemented per year worldwide. Reasons for applying to join InterAction: The Friends of ACTED (FOA) hopes to become a member of Interaction, the largest coalition of U.S.-based international non-governmental organizations focused on helping the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. Membership is essential to FOA's future activities, as we are confident that it will allow our organization to: 

Strengthen our involvement in the humanitarian community through an active participation in existing coordination mechanisms. Through its field experience,

Friends of ACTED Briefing Sheet, page 2 FOA believes that it has an added value to provide to the humanitarian community in Washington by joining Interaction working groups related to its fields of expertise or the countries where the organization is working. In Europe, ACTED is an active member of notably VOICE, HAP and COORDINATION SUD 

Participate to events organized by the humanitarian community. For instance, the participation to the Interaction forum in July 2009 was a tremendous opportunity to network with partner organizations and attend working sessions related to key humanitarian topics. For the next 2010 forum, The Friends of ACTED is willing to exhibit in the forum's showcase and proposes to be panelist in one of the sessions



Offer opportunities to develop partnerships with other member organizations. In Europe for instance, ACTED is member of the Alliance 2015, which gathers 7 prominent NGOs and provides many opportunities to launch joint operations or establish complementary assistance projects during the last humanitarian crises. The Friends of ACTED would be keen to use this experience and build similar partnerships with member organizations from Interaction, so as to increase the efficiency, quality and rapidity of its response in the countries of operation, during current or future humanitarian crises



Help us develop our advocacy efforts by liaising with public policy makers in Washington. In this regard, FOA participated to the advocacy day organized by Interaction during the 2009 Forum. Through a strong link with ACTED field missions, FOA expects to participate to ACTED's worldwide organizational discussions on such topics as food security, local governance, lessons learnt from aid delivery and aid effectiveness to failing states, protection of humanitarian space, relations between civilian and military, etc., as well as exchange ideas with Interaction members and advocate amongst donors and policy maker on some of the aforementioned humanitarian topics.

Planet Aid 8919 McGaw Ct., Columbia, MD 21045 410-309-1002

President/CEO: Ester Neltrup [email protected] Incorporated in: Massachusetts

Main Contact: Ester Neltrup

Year Incorporated: 1997

www.planetaid.org

Recommended by: Africare, JAM, Plan USA FY 09 budget: $ 38,572,871 Estimated dues: $ 30,000.00

Statement of organizational purpose: Planet Aid is committed to helping poor and disadvantaged citizens of the Earth improve their lives and the lives of future generations. We support people and communities in some of the poorest regions of the world through projects addressing health, education, food production and income generation. Planet Aid is committed to peace and to humanity, and we care deeply about the Earth as the home we share with millions of other species. Reusing discarded items from the rich part of the world as a vehicle to increase income and improve lives in other parts is good for the Earth and thus benefits all of us. Through our actions Planet Aid seeks to inform and to promote cooperation and understanding between people across countries and continents. Program profile: Planet Aid supports organizations and communities in Southern Africa, Asia and Latin America. Over the years they have supported more than 40 different programs in 15 countries. Planet Aid works though local implementing partners. The programs areas are: HIV/AIDS education and prevention; support for people with HIV and AIDS orphans; child aid and community development; organization and training of small-scale farmers; education of primary school teachers; vocational training; programs for child laborers; environmental programs; malaria prevention; Food Aid and various in-kind donations (computers, books and the like). Planet Aid is the recipient of USDA Food for Progress grants in Malawi and Mozambique and a USAID grant in Zimbabwe. Clothing Collection and Habitat Protection Planet Aid collects and processes thousands of tons of used clothes, shoes and textile in some 20 states from Maine to California. Collecting unwanted clothes saves landfill space and reusing already manufactured clothing and other textile saves millions of gallons of water and reduce the use fertilizer and pesticides (in cotton production). In addition to the environmental benefits Planet Aid also derives income from processing the donated clothes, which in turn is used in the international development programs. International Exchange, Training and Education Planet Aid brings young people from development organizations in Africa and India to train in nonprofit management. Though this they gain valuable experience before returning to perform community work in their home countries. Planet Aid also prepares young Americans in the “Manager in Training Program” for a future in non-profit and international development. The program includes 3 months of project experience in Africa.

Planet Aid Briefing Sheet, page 2 Planet Aid conducts recycling and education programs in cooperation with public and private schools in several US states. Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Planet Aid would like to be part of InterAction for a number of reasons.  Share ideas and best practices with organizations with which we share a concern for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.  Contribute to and share in InterAction’s expertise and advocacy in the field of international development.  Develop cooperation and partnerships with other NGOs.  A source for information and interpretation in regards to current events and trends in the international arena Being a new member we expect to first and foremost to listen and learn, to participate in working groups of interest and where we have something to contribute, and to participate in the Annual Forum and other planned Interaction events.

Merlin USA 1600 K St NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20006 Direct: 202-449-6399 General Office: 202-449-6398

President/CEO: Lucy Dorick, Director [email protected] Incorporated in: Delaware Year Incorporated: 1998 Recommended by: Mercy Corps, Concern Worldwide, International Rescue Committee

Main Contact(s): Lucy Dorick, Director

FY 09 budget: $ 407,148.99

www.merlin-usa.org

Estimated dues: $2,000.00

Statement of organizational purpose: Merlin is an international nonprofit organization founded in the UK. Merlin USA's mission is to raise awareness, support and resources for Merlin programs throughout the world. Merlin specializes in health, saving lives in times of crisis and helping to rebuild shattered health services in fragile states including countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Merlin works within existing health systems to realize everyone’s right to accessible, appropriate, affordable health care. Merlin’s vision is of a world that provides basic health care to all, responds immediately to save lives in times of crisis, and looks beyond emergencies to safeguard long term health. Program profile: To date, Merlin has worked in 39 countries and responded to many of the most serious humanitarian emergencies in recent history, including the Rwandan genocide, Hurricane Mitch, the 2003 war in Iraq, the Indian Ocean tsunami, Darfur, and the Myanmar cyclone. Merlin country programs include delivering basic health care, training community midwives, emergency obstetric care, providing medical services to remote areas, and nutrition programs. Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Merlin has been working in humanitarian and disaster relief efforts for over 15 years in some of the most fragile areas of the world. Leaders in developing health policies for fragile states strengthen by a large active team of nationals. Merlin is one of the few NGOs that enter during a disaster and stay to rebuild shattered health systems. InterAction represents some of the world’s largest and most important humanitarian NGOs in the world. Merlin is active with a number of these organizations in the field where we have developed strong alliances. In addition, Merlin has an active US organization – Merlin USA – located in Washington, DC, whose mission is to raise visibly, support and networking opportunities for Merlin programs worldwide. InterAction membership would be an opportunity for Merlin USA and its associates to actively participate in major policy, funding and health system working groups and discussions. With strong support from USAID, Merlin is interested in engaging the international funding community in stronger dialogues about the policy and health needs of fragile states. It is Merlin's intention to continue to be active in the appropriate InterAction discussions, providing a unique perspective to members. InterAction is the only group that provides the scope of influence and breadth on these vital issues that are so important to Merlin USA and its associates.

EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK (formerly known as “Personnel Handbook”) Final Draft Updated and Effective as of October 2009

InterAction Employee Handbook (The companion volume to this Handbook is the Operations Manual)

Table of Contents Page Section 1 – Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3

Welcome ...............................................................................................................1 Purpose of this Handbook......................................................................................2 Equal Employment Opportunity.............................................................................2

Section 2 – Employment 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Employment Classification .....................................................................................3 Categories of Employment .....................................................................................3 Employment Procedures ........................................................................................5 Hours of Work and Pay Schedule............................................................................6 Payroll Week ..........................................................................................................7 Time Sheets............................................................................................................8 Compensation ........................................................................................................8

Section 3 – General Rules and Policies 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14

Confidential Information .......................................................................................8 Conflicts of Interest/Board Memberships ..............................................................9 Intellectual Property..............................................................................................9 Honoraria ............................................................................................................10 Computer, Internet, E-Mail, Software, and Equipment Usage..............................10 Harassment .........................................................................................................11 Personal Relationships ........................................................................................12 Employees with Disabilities .................................................................................12 Grievance Procedure ...........................................................................................13 Drugs and Alcohol ...............................................................................................14 Smoke-free Environment.....................................................................................14 Authorization of Binding Agreements and Proposals ...........................................15 References ..........................................................................................................17 Whistleblower Policy...............................................................................................

Section 4 – Employee Benefits 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Fringe Benefits Package.......................................................................................15 Vacation Policy ....................................................................................................17 Sick Leave............................................................................................................18 Family and Medical Leave ...................................................................................19 Personal and Summer Leave ...............................................................................23 i

4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14

Leave due to Government Service .......................................................................23 Paid Holidays.......................................................................................................23 Weather and Security Leave................................................................................23 Compensatory Leave ...........................................................................................24 Leave of Absence.................................................................................................24 Time off Without Pay ..........................................................................................24 Bereavement Leave.............................................................................................24 Jury Duty .............................................................................................................25 Voting .................................................................................................................25

Section 5 – Job Performance and Conduct as Employee 5.1 5.2

Performance Reviews.........................................................................................25 Employee Conduct .............................................................................................25

Section 6 – Separation from Employment 6.1 Corrective Action..................................................................................................27 6.2 Separation............................................................................................................27 APPENDIX A: Form acknowledging receipt of the handbook APPENDIX B: Guidelines for Computer, Internet, E-Mail, Software, and Equipment Usage

ii

INTERACTION HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY (THIS POLICY WAS APPROVED BY THE INTERACTION BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON APRIL 18, 2007) InterAction’s policy with respect to its Human Resources is to support the achievement of its mission and strategic goals, in accordance with its institutional values and the following guiding principles: 

Recruitment, promotion, development, compensation and retention practices are based primarily on merit, potential and performance, equity, and on diversity that reflects, across the workforce, the diverse nature of InterAction membership community.



InterAction is an equal-opportunity employer, and its Human Resources practices comply with applicable laws and regulations. With respect to employment, volunteer participation and provision of service, InterAction shall not discriminate any person on the basis of his/her race, color, creed, religion, national origin, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, disability or veteran’s status and shall cause InterAction to comply with all requirements of law and regulation affecting employees;



Human Resources policies and practices foster a learning environment.



Human Resources policies and practices foster a workplace where staff, management, members and donors are treated with respect and a grievance mechanism is in place.



Human Resources policies foster a better work-life balance.



Human Resources practices are such that InterAction is able to attract and retain highly qualified employees.



Employee relations and practices are implemented fairly. To this end:



o

Policies and practices are stated clearly and in writing and made available to all employees; and

o

An employee file that is accurate, confidential and up to date is maintained and accessible to the employee.

o

There will be a mechanism for staff input with their possible revision to the Employee Handbook sent to the CEO and Leadership team on an annual basis and timely notification to staff of any changes.

InterAction will meet the Human Resources related portions of the Self-Certification Plus process and standards.

InterAction’s CEO mandated the development of this Employee Handbook (based on the previous “Employee Handbook”), through a process in which all staff were able to participate. The Handbook is available for review and edits, as needed, by the Board on an annual basis to determine whether its content falls within this policy framework.

iii

INTERACTION EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK Effective October 1, 2009 1.0

INTRODUCTION

Welcome Welcome to InterAction! InterAction is the largest coalition of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) focused on the world’s poor and most vulnerable people. InterAction (the American Council for Voluntary International Action) is a nonprofit, charitable and educational organization which is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Collectively, InterAction’s members work in every developing country. Members meet people halfway in expanding opportunities and supporting gender equality in education, health care, agriculture, small business, and other areas. InterAction is greater than the sum of its parts, a force multiplier that gives each member the collective power of all members to speak and act on issues of common concern. InterAction convenes and coordinates its members so in unison they can influence policy and debate on issues affecting tens of millions of people worldwide and improve their own practices. Formed in 1984, and based in Washington, D.C., InterAction includes members headquartered in twenty-five states. Both faith-based and secular, these organizations foster economic and social development; provide relief to those affected by disaster and war; assist refugees and internally displaced persons; advance human rights; support gender equality; protect the environment; address population concerns; and press for more equitable, just, and effective public policies. InterAction members received almost $6 billion from private sources – including millions of individuals, foundations and corporations – in 2006. InterAction leverages the impact of this private support by advocating for the expansion of U.S. government investments and by insisting that policies and programs are responsive to the realities of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations. Neither InterAction nor its members bear lightly the responsibility of the trust the American people place in us. As such, members ascribe to InterAction’s Private Voluntary Organization Standards that help assure accountability in the critical areas of financial management, fund raising, governance, and program performance. InterAction is governed by a Board of Directors that establishes its mission and policies and hires the President and CEO to implement them. It is the President and CEO's responsibility to hire, supervise and make personnel decisions regarding all other employees, although the President and CEO may choose to delegate some of these responsibilities to other managerial staff within InterAction. Because of our charitable mission and our public support, we believe that InterAction's employees have a special responsibility to adhere to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism in representing InterAction and carrying out our mission. 1

1.2. Purpose of This Employee Handbook This Employee Handbook describes the basic personnel practices of InterAction. It is not intended to create and is not a contract of employment. This Handbook confers no contractual rights on the employee; its provisions shall not constitute contractual obligations enforceable against InterAction. The employees of InterAction are terminable-at-will, meaning that either the employee or InterAction may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. InterAction reserves the right to make changes, from time to time, with or without notice, in the practices described in this Handbook. Moreover, because it is impossible to anticipate every situation that may arise, InterAction reserves its right to address a situation in a manner different from that described herein if, in InterAction's discretion, the circumstances so warrant. Only the President and CEO is authorized to take any action which changes the presumption of at-will employment or to enter into verbal or written commitments or contracts on behalf of InterAction. This Handbook supersedes and replaces all prior manuals, policies and practices of InterAction and is effective as of October 1, 2009. If you have questions about the policies and procedures described in this Manual or suggestions for improvement, please see the VP for Finance and Administration or the VP for Strategic Impact. 1.3. Equal Employment Opportunity InterAction is committed to a policy of equal employment opportunity, and does not discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, physical or mental disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or otherwise as may be prohibited by applicable law. Any employee who believes that he or she or any other employee of InterAction has been discriminated against is strongly encouraged to report this concern promptly to the Vice President for Finance and Administration or the President and CEO. InterAction also has a policy prohibiting discriminatory harassment, including sexual harassment. This policy is described in Section 3.6, below. 2.0

EMPLOYMENT

2.1

Employment Classification

2.1.1 Exempt An exempt employee is one whose primary duties consist of executive, management, research or professional activities, which involve the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. Exempt employees are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and local law. 2.1.2 Non-exempt A non-exempt employee is one whose primary duties consist of secretarial, clerical, and administrative support activities, which are directed or closely monitored by a supervisor. Non-exempt employees are subject to the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and local law.

2

2.2

Categories of Employment

2.2.1 Regular Employees For the purpose of making clear which parts of this Employee Handbook apply to different categories of employees, throughout this manual the use of “regular employees” means those full-time and parttime staff regularly working 20 hours or more each week and have completed the introductory period. Other categories of workers, e.g. part-time employees working fewer than 20 hours, temporary employees, interns, etc. are not considered "regular" employees. 2.2.2 Full-Time Employees (exempt and non-exempt) Full-time staff are those regular employees who are employed on an annual basis for a minimum of 40 hours per week, excluding lunch breaks. All full-time staff members are eligible for the benefits package offered by InterAction, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of each benefit program. 2.2.3 Part-Time Employees (exempt and non-exempt) Part-time employees are employees who are employed on an annual basis for fewer than 40 hours per week. Part-time employees working 20 hours or more, but less than 40 hours per week are regular employees. They are eligible for vacation, personal and sick leave on a pro rata basis, based on the number of hours worked. InterAction pays the full cost of life insurance and disability insurance, and the full cost of health insurance for part-time employees working 80% time (32 hours a week) or more. Part-time employees who work between 50% and 79% time (20 to 31 hours per week) pay for a pro rata share of their health insurance. Part-time employment for fewer than 20 hours per week is discouraged and rarely made available. Part-time employees working fewer than 20 hours per week are not regular employees and are not eligible for InterAction’s benefits package other than benefits mandated by statute such as social security and workers compensation. Part-time employees are paid only for hours worked at an hourly rate determined at the time of hire. If such an employee later becomes eligible for InterAction's benefits package (due to an increase in working hours), benefits will become effective from the date of increase of hours, not from the date of initial employment. Part-time employees working less than 20 hours per week do not receive holiday pay. 2.2.4 Temporary Employees A temporary employee may be hired for either a stated or indefinite period of time. Temporary employees are not regular employees and are not eligible for InterAction’s benefits package except for benefits mandated by statute such as social security and workers compensation. Temporary employees are paid only for hours worked at an hourly rate determined at the time of hire. If a temporary employee later becomes eligible for InterAction's benefits package (due to becoming a regular employee), benefits will become effective from the date of becoming a regular employee, not from the date of initial employment. 2.2.5 Interns Interns work at InterAction for short periods of time (i.e. generally coinciding with school semesters) to perform research and administrative tasks. They are eligible for up to $50 for reimbursement of transportation costs per month.

3

2.2.6 Consultants and Independent Contractors A consultant or independent contractor is someone who is under contract to InterAction to perform a specified job at a stipulated rate of compensation for a limited period of time. Such a person is an independent contractor, not an InterAction employee, and is not eligible for any InterAction benefits; nor will InterAction withhold taxes from their compensation. A consultant is subject only to the provisions of his/her contract and is not subject to this Handbook except as they are specifically incorporated into the contract. Consultants and independent contractors agree to execute any documents necessary or advisable to ensure InterAction’s ownership of and/or registration of all intellectual property, and agree to take whatever steps are necessary to assist InterAction in asserting and perfecting such rights. InterAction consultants shall not be entitled to use any InterAction intellectual property except to the extent expressly agreed to in writing by InterAction. 2.3

Employment Procedures

2.3.1 Hiring and Supervision The Board of Directors is responsible for the selection and supervision of the President and CEO. The President and CEO is the appointing authority, responsible for employing, promoting or terminating all other employees, interns and consultants. Although this responsibility may be delegated to another employee, the President and CEO is ultimately responsible for the employment, promotion and termination of all InterAction personnel. The Vice President for Finance and Administration also serves as the Director of Human Resources. The recruitment and hiring process is guided by InterAction’s “Step by Step Guide to Recruitment and Hiring” (see Operations Manual). The President and CEO must approve all newly-created positions, job descriptions, and offers of employment, including rates of pay, before any commitment can be made to prospective employees, interns and consultants. A letter confirming employment will be provided to applicants being offered a full or part-time position and signed by the President and CEO. The confirmation letter shall include a copy of the Employee Handbook and shall state: a) the position, b) the starting date, and c) the starting salary. The letter may include additional information on direct supervisor, review period, or other specifics relevant to the position. InterAction announces job openings internally to employees and externally through Monday Developments and a standardized list of other recruitment postings. Qualified InterAction employees are encouraged to apply for all vacant positions. All employment decisions will be made based on jobrelated criteria. Written job descriptions are available for all positions; however, responsibilities may be changed or redefined from time to time as needs change. In accordance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, InterAction hires only United States citizens and aliens authorized to work in the United States. All new employees will be asked to provide documents which verify both identity and authorization to work in the United States. 2.3.3 Personnel File An individual personnel file will be maintained for each staff member in the Finance and Administration Office. The personnel file is treated as confidential to the extent possible. In order to protect the

4

security of InterAction’s employment records, all personnel files are kept in the finance department in a secured area. Access to the files is on a need-to-know basis. Employees may inspect their own personnel files. An employee wishing to review the contents of his or her file should make an appointment with the Vice President for Finance and Administration. Employees must report promptly in writing to the Finance and Administration Office any change of name, home address, home telephone number, marital status, number of dependents, or emergency contact information. 2.3.4 Introductory Period New employees are subject to a three month introductory period at the time of hire. The introductory period may be extended. Evaluation conferences may be held throughout the introductory period and will be held at the end of the introductory period. Although annual leave accrues during the introductory period, introductory employees are not eligible to take annual leave. Introductory employees whose employment terminates during or at the end of the introductory period are not entitled to payment for any annual leave or to any severance pay. Successful completion of the introductory period does not guarantee continuation of employment after the introductory period. This section should not be construed as altering InterAction’s at-will employment relationship with its employees. 2.4

Hours of Work and Pay Schedule

2.4.1 Basic Work Week InterAction’s office hours are Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Full-time employees are expected to work 40 hours per week, eight hours per day, excluding a one-hour lunch break. Each employee may negotiate with the employee's designated supervisor a specific daily schedule, so long as all employees work during core hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. InterAction attempts to allow employees to maintain a flexible schedule while ensuring that all necessary work is accomplished. Employees are expected to work the hours necessary to perform their jobs. It is expected that the majority of InterAction work is conducted at the InterAction offices. Employees are expected to be at their job location at the time their regular workday is scheduled to begin. Employees who are unable to be at work on time for any reason and have not received advance permission for the absence should call their supervisor before 8:30 a.m. to report their absence or lateness. Employees who are ill for a day or longer may be required to provide a physician’s note upon return. An employee who is absent for an extended period without notifying his/her supervisor may be considered to have abandoned his/her position and be subject to immediate termination as a voluntary quit. All employees are expected to attend weekly staff meetings on Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m. 2.4.2 Telecommuting: Telecommuting is an alternative work arrangement that allows an employee to work away from the office for part of the regular workweek with supervisor approval. Telecommuting is neither an entitlement nor a company-wide benefit. As such, InterAction has the right to refuse to make 5

telecommuting available to an employee and to terminate a telecommuting arrangement at any time. When appropriately applied, this work option benefits the company and the individual. Telecommuting can also support environmental protection by reducing commuting and fuel emissions. Telecommuters will work during InterAction’s regular business hours (see Section 2.4.1), according to a schedule agreed upon with supervisors, and be as accessible by phone and by email as nontelecommuters. Telecommuters must ensure there are no distractions or interruptions, which could inhibit normal voice communication. InterAction phone lines should be redirected to a home or mobile number when telecommuting the day before the telecommuting day. Telecommuters need supervisors’ approval for taking a vacation, personal, or sick day during telecommuting hours, just as they would if they were working in the office setting during regular office hours. Telecommuting is not designed to be an arrangement for dependent care. An individual employee's schedule may be modified to accommodate these care needs as per Section 2.4.1. To arrange to work during sick leave (for yourself or a family member) see Section 4.3. All positions at InterAction except the receptionist are potentially eligible for telecommuting, based on the guidelines presented in 1 and 2 below. Overall, the decision to approve a telecommuting arrangement will be based on factors including position and job duties, performance history, related work skills, and the impact on the organization. Employees should consult their supervisor to request participation in either an “occasional” or “regular” telecommuting arrangement. The focus of the telecommuting arrangement must remain on job performance and meeting business demands. A. Occasional Telecommuting Staff may request to work off-site on an occasional, short-term basis to perform a specific task such as writing, editing, or reviewing materials that requires minimizing distractions. InterAction encourages this form of telecommuting when it promotes greater work efficiency. The length of such occasional work at home will normally be part of a day or a day. In such cases, the employee must obtain the supervisor’s approval by COB the day before the proposed telecommuting day. (For working at home when sick, see Section 4.3.) B. Regular Telecommuting Staff may request to work at home on an ongoing regular basis, usually on the same day each week. Telecommuting schedules cannot be followed if they conflict with previously established mandatory meetings, such as weekly all staff meetings. Any organization wide meeting takes precedence. Due to the nature of InterAction as a membership and team-based organization, regular telecommuting arrangements are expected to be more limited than occasional telecommuting. To request a regular telecommuting arrangement, the employee must complete the “Approval Form: Regular Telecommuting” which includes:  An outline of the tasks the employee intends to perform, including how these tasks can be performed off-site and if working off-site will improve performance/productivity.  A schedule for working at home, i.e., hours and days of the week. This will require the employee to work closely with the immediate supervisor to develop agreed-upon deliverables and expectations. Regular telecommuting arrangements need to be approved by one’s supervisor and signed off on by the 6

VP for one’s own Team, as well as either the VP for Finance and Administration or the VP for Strategic Impact. This dual approval process recognizes that telecommuting arrangements may have an impact across the organization and ensures fairness across Teams. Approved regular telecommuting arrangements (see #2 above) will be for a one-month initial trial period. At the conclusion of the trial period, the employee and supervisor will each complete the “Assessment Form: Regular Telecommuting,” which concludes with recommendations for continuing, modifying, or ceasing the arrangement. If continued, these arrangements then will be reviewed and renewed every six months on an ongoing basis. Any arrangement may be discontinued, at will, at any time at the request of either the telecommuter or the supervisor. VPs, at their quarterly meetings, will also review the status of telecommuting arrangements. To be considered for regular telecommuting, an employee must have been employed at InterAction for at least 6 months and be performing currently at an overall satisfactory level or above in her/his position according to the guidelines in the annual appraisal process document. C. Liability InterAction is not liable for loss, repair, or replacement of an employee’s equipment nor for personal injury during a telecommuting arrangement, per the form all employees sign titled, “Waiver of Liability for Employees Working at Home.” 2.4.3 Pay Period InterAction has two pay periods per month – the 1st through the 15th, and the 16th through the last day of the month. Pay day for each pay period is the last day of that pay period; if pay day falls on a weekend or holiday, salaries will be paid on the last business day before the weekend/holiday. 2.4.4 Overtime Pay Non-exempt employees who work more than 40 hours in a regular work week will be paid overtime at one and one half times the hourly rate of the employee's salary. Overtime must be approved in advance in writing by the Team director. Non-exempt employees may not take compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay. 2.5 Payroll Week For overtime purposes, the work week begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. and ends Saturday at midnight. Only those hours that are actually worked by the employee will be considered "hours worked" in computing whether overtime is due and, if so, how much. Travel to and from work, scheduled and unscheduled absences and time off for holidays, vacation, sickness, jury duty, bereavement leave or military leave, or for other reasons, will not count as hours “worked” for purposes of computing whether overtime is due. 2.6 Timesheets All employees are required to complete semi-monthly timesheets in which all time is to be accounted for by account codes. Account codes are found on the time sheets and on the list of accounting codes which is available from the Finance and Administration office.

7

Timesheets should be maintained on a daily basis as work is performed to ensure accuracy. The timesheet will be emailed to all employees for them to fill out electronically. They should be printed out for signatures. Errors are to be crossed out and corrected with no erasures or white-outs; corrections should be explained. Timesheets are to be turned in to the Office Manager by COB two days after they are distributed by email. The Office Manager compiles timesheets for each Team and gives them to each VP for signature. The employee and the employee’s supervisor must sign the timesheet. Employees who do not submit timesheets on a timely basis two or more times may lose the option of being paid by automatic deposit. 2.7 Compensation The President and CEO will approve a starting salary for each job. Salaries will be set based on InterAction’s chart of job classifications and salary levels, resources available and the qualifications of the person in question. Salary adjustments are considered in the context of annual performance appraisals and the annual budget. Annual adjustments will be pro-rated for those employees who have not worked at InterAction for the entire prior year as follows:

 

Employees hired on or before September 30: adjustment will be prorated based on the number of months worked, including the month of initial employment. Employees hired between October 1 and December 31: will still be in their introductory period and are not eligible for a general salary adjustment until the end of the following calendar year.

Promotions are considered on a quarterly basis, based on recommendation from an employee’s direct supervisor and presented by a VP for approval by the other VPs and President/CEO. 3.0 GENERAL RULES AND POLICIES 3.1 Confidential Information While employed by InterAction, employees may have access to, receive, or become familiar with various trade secrets and other information relating to the business of InterAction which is not generally available to the public and is considered proprietary and confidential information of InterAction ("Confidential Information") including, but not limited to, procedures, fundraising information, strategic plans, contract terms, internal working documents, communications, and unpublicized financial information. Without the express prior written authorization by the President and CEO, employees shall not, either during or after employment with InterAction, disclose any confidential information, directly or indirectly to anyone or use Confidential Information in any way, except as required for employment. All files, papers, records, documents, drawings, and similar items and materials relating to the business of the InterAction (including electronic media) shall at all times remain the exclusive property of InterAction. 3.2 Conflicts of Interest/Board Memberships It is critical to InterAction’s work that the relationships of InterAction employees with other individuals and organizations be highly professional. Employment, consultation, or other activities outside of InterAction’s employment relationship must not be in conflict with InterAction’s mission or compromise the employee's capability to fully carry out the responsibilities of the employee's position.

8

Employees are not permitted to serve on the Board of Directors of an InterAction member organization. Any newly-hired employee who is on the Board of Directors of an InterAction member organization may complete the term he or she is serving when hired, but must recuse him or herself from voting on any decisions which affect InterAction. At the time of employment, new employees are asked to complete a form and present a list of outside employment, consulting contracts, board memberships, or other activities to identify potential conflicts with InterAction work. On or before January 15 of each calendar year, employees shall disclose in writing, using a form, to the President and CEO whether they are on the Board of Directors of any organization. Staff members should keep this list current and advise President and CEO of changes before engaging in any such additional activities. In general, outside activities are permissible if there is no likelihood that such activities would constitute a conflict of interest or have a negative impact on InterAction or its staff. If there is a possibility of a conflict, employees must obtain the permission of the President and CEO before engaging in the activity. Any employment or consulting arrangement with an InterAction member, director, or funding source, or board membership with an InterAction member, is considered a potential conflict of interest and requires the permission of the President and CEO. Provided there is no conflict of interest or negative impact, staff members may write or perform work on their own time and retain copyright and ownership of said works that do not arise out of InterAction employment. Employees may not solicit, accept, offer, or give anything of value in exchange for influencing or appearing to influence any action by InterAction or others. Employees must receive the express approval of the President and CEO before accepting any offers of gifts and preferential interests, regardless of value. 3.3 Intellectual Property Products resulting from an individual's work as an InterAction employee or consultant are the property of InterAction. This includes all works of authorship created by the employee or consultant, including but not limited to films, photographs, graphic works, video recordings, books, articles, writings, audio recordings and computer programs. InterAction employees and consultants agree to execute any documents necessary or advisable to ensure InterAction’s ownership of and/or registration of all intellectual property, and agree to take whatever steps are necessary to assist InterAction in asserting and perfecting such rights. InterAction employees and consultants shall not be entitled to use any of this work except to the extent expressly agreed to in writing by InterAction. 3.4 Honoraria Payments for speaking engagements and written materials related to the mission of InterAction or as part of a regular work assignment are to be turned over to InterAction. Determination of the workrelated nature of written materials and speaking engagements by staff shall be adjudicated by the President and CEO or a designee. 3.5 Computer, Internet, E-Mail, Software, and Equipment Usage To remain competitive, better serve our members and provide our employees with the best tools to do their jobs, InterAction makes available to our workforce access to one or more forms of electronic 9

media and services, including computers, e-mail, telephones, voicemail, fax machines, electronic Fax, external electronic bulletin boards, wire services, online services, intranet, mobile phones, Internet and the World Wide Web. InterAction encourages the use of these media and associated services because they can make communication more efficient and effective and because they are valuable sources of information about vendors, members, technology, and new products and services. However, all employees and everyone connected with the organization should remember that electronic equipment, media and services provided by the company are company property and their purpose is to facilitate and support company business. All users have the responsibility to use these resources in a professional, ethical, and lawful manner. To ensure that all employees are responsible, guidelines are included in the Appendix B for using e-mail and the Internet. No policy can lay down rules to cover every possible situation. Instead, it is designed to express InterAction’s philosophy and set forth general principles when using electronic media and services. 3.6 Harassment InterAction is committed to promoting an organizational culture that treats employees equally regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, physical or mental disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or otherwise as may be prohibited by applicable law. We are committed to our employees being able to work in an environment that is free from any form of discrimination or harassment based on these grounds or any other basis prohibited by law. Harassment includes, without limitation, verbal harassment (epithets, derogatory statements, slurs), physical harassment (assault, physical interference with normal work or involvement), visual harassment (posters, cartoons, drawings), and innuendo. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact and other verbal or physical conduct, or visual forms of harassment of a sexual nature when submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of employment, or is used as the basis for employment decisions, or when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. An employee cannot be forced to submit to harassing conduct as a basis for any employment decision, and InterAction prohibits any conduct which creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment for our employees based on their protected statuses. Any employee who believes that he or she has been harassed by a supervisor, co-worker, customer or member of InterAction has a responsibility to report the matter immediately to the attention of the Vice President for Finance and Administration, or to the President and CEO if the employee feels unable to raise the complaint with the Vice President for Finance and Administration. Complaints concerning the President and CEO should be made to the Chair of the Board of Directors.

10

Employees who become aware of harassment, whether or not it is directed at them, are required to report the conduct before it becomes severe or pervasive. InterAction will investigate all allegations of harassment as promptly and confidentially as possible. All employees should act responsibly and truthfully in making allegations, responding to allegations, and providing information in an investigation. Any employee who is determined, after an investigation, to have engaged in harassment in violation of this policy shall be subject to discipline, up to and including termination where warranted. InterAction will not retaliate against an employee for making a complaint under this policy in good faith or for participating in good faith in an investigation of a violation of this policy. 3.7 Personal Relationships InterAction is sensitive to the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when an individual directly or indirectly supervises another individual with whom he or she is in an intimate relationship. Therefore, if two employees who are in a supervisory chain are involved in such a relationship, they are required to notify the President and CEO, who is authorized to take appropriate action. InterAction reserves the right not to hire immediate family of an employee, including spouse, sibling, parent, child or domestic partner. 3.8 Employees with Disabilities InterAction is committed to complying with all applicable provisions of the laws prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It is InterAction’s policy not to discriminate against any qualified employee or applicant because of the individual’s disability or perceived disability, so long as the employee can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. InterAction will provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified individual with a disability who has made InterAction aware of his or her disability, as long as the accommodation does not constitute an undue hardship on InterAction. Employees with a disability who believe they need a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions of their job should contact their supervisor, the Vice President for Finance and Administration, or the President and CEO. 3.9 Grievance Procedure InterAction wishes to provide the best possible working conditions for all employees. As part of our commitment, we encourage an open and frank atmosphere in which problems, complaints, suggestions, or questions can be answered quickly and accurately by representatives of the organization. In addition, any employee who has a complaint or concern regarding disciplinary action, termination of employment, demotion, denial of promotion or merit increase, layoff, or discrimination based on a category (i.e. race, age, sex) recognized by federal or local civil rights laws, may file a grievance according to the procedures outlined below. Employees (other than temporary employees) who have been employed for at least twelve consecutive months and who are dismissed from employment may use the Grievance Procedure to challenge the 11

dismissal. However, InterAction is not required to keep such employees on the payroll or enrolled in any benefits pending completion of the grievance process. The grievance procedure is not intended to be utilized to challenge the substance of a personnel evaluation, program-related decisions, policy, or minor grievances. Step one. An employee with a problem, question or complaint is encouraged to discuss the matter with his or her immediate supervisor. The simplest, quickest, and most satisfactory solution will often be reached in this manner. Step two. If discussion between the employee and his or her immediate supervisor does not answer the question or resolve the matter to the employee’s satisfaction, the employee may present the situation in writing to the appropriate Team VP, with a copy provided to the Vice President for Finance and Administration. The written grievance must be filed within three months of the occurrence and should fully describe the problem and any previous efforts that the employee has taken to resolve it. The Team VP will take appropriate steps to resolve the grievance. Under normal circumstances (i.e., when not traveling or absent from work), it is expected that the VP will provide a written response to the grievance within twenty business days of receipt. If the employee’s grievance pertains to actions of the Team VP, the employee may satisfy this step of the grievance procedure by presenting the situation in writing to the VP for Finance and Administration or the VP for Strategic Impact, who will respond to it. Complaints concerning the President and CEO should be made to the VP for Finance and Administration. Step three. At this point, if the matter is still not resolved satisfactorily, either party may present the grievance in writing to InterAction’s President or the President’s designee. The grievance must be presented within 10 working days of receipt of the VP’s response. The President's response is InterAction’s final decision. 3.10 Drugs and Alcohol To help insure a safe, healthy, and productive work environment for our employees and others, to protect company property, to insure efficient operations, and to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act, InterAction has adopted a policy of maintaining a workplace free of drugs and alcohol. This policy applies to all employees and other individuals performing work for InterAction and all employees and other individuals must abide by this policy as a condition of employment. The unlawful or unauthorized use, abuse, solicitation, theft, possession, transfer, manufacture, purchase, sale or distribution of controlled substances or alcohol by an individual anywhere on organization premises, while on InterAction business or while representing InterAction, is strictly prohibited. Employees and other individuals working for InterAction also are prohibited from reporting to work or working when the employee uses any controlled substances, except when the use is pursuant to a licensed medical practitioner’s instructions. Employees are permitted to drink alcohol in moderation at InterAction-sponsored events, so long as they exercise sound judgment at all times. Employees who are convicted under any criminal drug statute are required to notify the President and CEO or the Vice President for Finance and Administration within five days of the conviction. A 12

conviction includes a finding of guilt, a plea of nolo contendre, and/or the imposition of a sentence by any judicial body responsible for determining violations of federal or state criminal drug statutes. Employees violating this policy shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination. InterAction may require an employee convicted of such criminal drug activities to participate in and satisfactorily complete a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program. 3.11 Smoke-free Environment Smoking is not allowed on the premises of InterAction. 3.12 Authorization for Binding Agreements and Proposals Only the President and CEO is authorized to make verbal or written commitments or enter into contracts or other binding agreements on behalf of InterAction. In addition, no funding proposals should be submitted without the President and CEO’s review and approval. Finally, all job announcements and all hiring decisions must be approved by the President and CEO. Any budgets, proposals, or contracts also require review by the Vice President for Finance and Administration. 3.13 References Any current or former employee or intern who wishes to authorize any InterAction employee to provide a full reference is required to sign an authorization form, which is given to employees and interns when they begin work at InterAction and when they leave. Authorization forms shall be maintained in individual personnel files and a general intern file. No InterAction employee may provide a full reference without ensuring that an authorization form is on file. All requests for employment-related information about employees, former employees, or interns for whom there is no authorization on file should be referred to the VP of Finance and Administration, who will provide a neutral reference. 3.14 Whistleblower Policy: Principles InterAction requires its employees to observe the highest standards of business and financial ethics and to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and InterAction policies. This Whistleblower Policy details the steps to take when you feel you have identified or observed conduct in the organization that contravenes these laws and policies. Responsibility for Reporting It is the responsibility of all employees to report violations or suspected violations in accordance with this Whistleblower Policy. This includes any suspected financial or accounting impropriety, or any illegal or unethical business behavior. No Retaliation and Confidentiality No employee who in good faith reports a violation or suspected violation shall suffer harassment, retaliation or adverse employment consequence. An employee who retaliates against someone who has reported a violation in good faith is subject to discipline up to and including termination of

13

employment. InterAction shall endeavor to assure confidentiality to employees desiring it under this circumstance. The Process for Reporting Violations InterAction supports an open door policy and suggests that employees share their questions, concerns, suggestions or complaints with someone who can address them properly. In most cases, an employee’s supervisor or Team Leader is in the best position to address an area of concern. However, if you are not comfortable speaking with these individuals or you are not satisfied with their response, you are encouraged to speak to the VP for Finance and Administration/Director of Human Resources or to the President and CEO. Supervisors and Team Leaders are required to report suspected violations to the Compliance Officer (VP for Finance and Administration) who will in turn notify the President/CEO. Suspected violations involving the Compliance Officer or by the President/CEO are to be reported to the Chair of the Board Audit Committee or to the Chair of the Board, as appropriate. All concerns raised under this policy will be dealt with promptly and will be treated seriously and sensitively. Your concerns will be discussed with you in order to help determine the precise action to be taken. It will be for the manager with whom you have raised the concern to decide whether or not to involve other parties. Whenever possible, resolution will be reached and the outcome known within 30 days of raising the concern. You will be informed of the action taken and the outcome. Compliance Officer The VP for Finance and Administration is designated as InterAction’s compliance officer and is responsible for investigating and resolving all reported complaints and allegations concerning violations. The compliance officer, at her/his discretion, shall advise the President/CEO and/or the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. Where there is an issue of potential fraud, a fraud investigation must be carried out and will engage the VP for Finance and Administration as appropriate. Accounting and Auditing Matters The Audit Committee of the board of directors shall address all reported concerns or complaints regarding corporate accounting practices, internal controls or auditing. The compliance officer shall immediately notify the audit committee and the VP for Finance and Administration of any such complaint and work with the committee until the matter is resolved. 4.0 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4.1 Fringe Benefits Package All regular full time and part-time employees may participate in InterAction’s benefits on the basis set forth in Section 2.2 above. Part-time employees receive only government-mandated benefits. Temporary employees receive only government-mandated benefits. Health, life, accidental death and dismemberment, and long-term disability insurance become effective for eligible employees on the first day of the first full month of employment. Other benefits, including retirement and annual and personal leave, become effective for eligible employees after the end of the introductory period. Brief descriptions of the fringe benefits provided are set forth below. However, please note that these descriptions do not represent or create a warranty of benefits, and InterAction may change or eliminate 14

benefits at any time in its sole discretion, except to the extent certain fringe benefits are required by law. The benefit descriptions also are general in nature. If you have specific questions about current benefit plans maintained by InterAction, refer to the actual plan documents and summary plan descriptions. Those documents are controlling. While InterAction offers various insurance benefits to employees, InterAction’s insurance carriers establishes the terms of coverage. Employees must meet these terms to receive coverage under InterAction’s insurance plans. 4.1.1

Health Insurance

InterAction provides a health insurance program for its regular employees, including those in the introductory period. InterAction currently pays 100% of the premium for regular full-time employees and part-time employees working at least 80% time (32 or more hours per week). Coverage includes both individual and dependent coverage. The cost of group health insurance for part-time employees working between 20 and 31 hours per week is prorated. Dependent care coverage is available to part-time employees working between 20 and 31 hours per week at the employee's entire expense. Employees working fewer than 20 hours per week are not eligible to participate in the health insurance plan. A complete description of InterAction's health plan is available from the Vice President for Finance and Administration. InterAction complies with federal law on health insurance continuation upon termination or resignation from InterAction (COBRA). Employees and dependents of employees are entitled to continue in InterAction’s group health insurance at their own expense upon the employee’s termination or resignation from InterAction. The terms of continuation are determined by federal law; employees receive notice of their COBRA rights upon termination of their employment with InterAction. 4.1.2 Life Insurance InterAction provides to each regular employee a life insurance/accidental death and dismemberment policy which is paid in full by InterAction. The benefit of this policy is equal to twice the employee’s annual salary, up to a maximum benefit of $350,000. Detailed information is available from the Vice President for Finance and Administration. 4.1.3 Travel, War Risk and Medevac Insurance InterAction provides travel insurance for employees who travel on InterAction business. The provisions of coverage may vary, including war risk and medevac coverage, depending on conditions in the country(ies)or area(s) the employee travels to and/or in. Some coverage may be purchased on a trip-bytrip basis, rather than through blanket year-round policies; for this reason, any employee travelling on InterAction business must so inform the Security Coordinator and the Vice President for Finance & Administration at least 10 working days prior to departure. Coverage may be limited or unavailable for some countries and/or areas. 4.1.4 Long-term Disability Insurance Each employee is eligible for long term disability insurance paid in full by InterAction. Detailed information is available from the Vice President for Finance and Administration.

15

4.1.4 Pension Plan: Group Retirement Annuity (GRA) InterAction sponsors a Pension Plan with TIAA-CREF under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a) for regular employees. No employee contribution or match is required. InterAction contributes to the Plan in the following amounts:   

Date of hire to End of 5th Year: Beginning of 6th Year to End of 7th Year: th Beginning of 8 year and beyond:

10% of employee’s gross pay 12% of employee’s gross pay 15% of employee’s gross pay

4.1.5 Tax-Deferred Annuity: Supplemental Retirement Annuity (SRA) In addition to the pension contributions made by InterAction, employees have the option of making their own contributions through a tax deferred annuity (403(b)) program. This program allows employees to allocate a percentage of their paychecks for retirement; these contributions are from pretax-dollars. Participation is voluntary and contributions are made through payroll deductions. Detailed information is available from the Vice President for Finance and Administration. 4.1.6 Transportation Benefits InterAction offers three transportation benefits on a voluntary basis as allowed by IRS regulations. These benefits enable an employee to pay certain transportation expenses with pre-tax payroll deductions, as follows:

  

Metro – All employees may have funds deducted and used to purchase Smartbenefits cards for use on the Metro system. Maximum allowable in 2009 is $230 per month. Parking – Employees using the parking lot in the InterAction building under a monthly parking contract may have funds deducted and used to pay their monthly parking fee. Maximum allowable in 2009 is $230 per month. Bicycle – An employee who “regularly uses [a] bicycle for a substantial portion of the travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment” during a “qualified bicycle commuting month” may have funds deducted and reimbursed to him/her for reasonable expenses incurred during the calendar year; reasonable expenses include “the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage.” Maximum allowable in 2009 is $20 per qualified bicycle commuting month. However, an employee may not receive the bicycle benefit in any month in which he/she receives the Metro and/or Parking benefit. Quoted language, limits, and restrictions are per IRS regulations.

4.1.7 Other Employees will receive Social Security, unemployment insurance and workers compensation benefits to the extent mandated by law. 4.1.8 Staff Development: InterAction includes a “staff development fund” in its annual budget. Staff is informed in January the amount that is available per staff member. Within Teams, staff can share resources amongst themselves (for example, if one staff member plans to spend more and another staff member needs less). The staff development approval form needs to be signed by the Team VP and turned in to the HR Associate in Finance and Administration.

16

4.2 Vacation Policy InterAction’s vacation policy is designed to reward length of service. All regular full-time and part-time employees are eligible for annual paid vacations after the introductory period. Part-time employees accrue vacation on a pro-rata basis. All employees are strongly encouraged to take vacation leave annually. 4.2.1 Method of Accrual Vacation accrues as follows:   

*Date of hire to End of 2nd Year: Beginning of 3rd Year to End of 5th Year: th Beginning of 6 Year and beyond:

15 days/year (5.00 hours/pay period) 20 days/year (6.67 hours/pay period) 25 days/year (8.33 hours/pay period)

*Note: Leave is accrued from the date of hire, but cannot be taken during the initial 3 month introductory period, unless special approval for a pre-existing commitment is made at the time of hiring. See Section 4.2.3. Leave will be made available for use in two stages: the first half of the annual amount will be available on January 1, the second half on July 1. For employees beginning or terminating employment, calculations pertaining to accruals and balances will be based on the accrual rates specified above. 4.2.2 Scheduling a Vacation All vacation requests should be approved by the direct supervisor on the Vacation Approval form at least two weeks in advance in order to deter potential work disruption within InterAction. Vacation may also be used on an unplanned basis for unexpected occurrences such as bad weather, or other personal emergencies. 4.2.3 Leave for New Employees New employees begin to earn vacation hours as of the first day of employment but are not eligible to take vacation days during the 3-month introductory period. The exception to this policy is when a new employee has leave already planned at the time of employment and discusses this with his/her new supervisor. Employees who are terminated or leave before the end of their introductory period are not entitled to any vacation pay. 4.2.4 Compensation Upon Termination Upon resignation or termination, an employee is entitled to receive payment for unused accrued vacation days as of the final work day. Compensation will be based on the employee's current salary level. 4.3 Sick Leave Employees are encouraged to take care of themselves and to stay at home when ill. When regular full-time employees are unable to work because of accident, illness, medical or dental appointments, pregnancy, parental leave, illness of a loved one, or there is risk of contagion to colleagues, they can draw on their allowance of paid sick days. Sick leave is granted each regular fulltime employee at the rate of one day per month (4 hours per pay period - 12 total days per calendar year); regular part-time employees receive sick leave on a prorated basis. Unused sick leave balances 17

may be carried over from year to year. Employees leaving InterAction are not paid for accumulated sick leave. Employees may take sick leave during their introductory period. If all sick leave has been used, then vacation time may be utilized to cover continued absence because of illness. If an employee exhausts all sick and annual leave, s/he may be eligible for long-term disability leave. Employees must call their supervisor to report that they are unable to work; if unable to do so, they should have someone else call at the start of the workday. If an employee is able to work for part of the time during sick leave (as defined in the first sentence above), s/he should get verbal approval to do so from the supervisor. At InterAction’s discretion, a supervisor may request that an employee who is ill for one or more day supply a physician's note about an absence or as certification that they may resume all of their duties before returning to work. For certain illnesses, InterAction's family and medical leave policies may also be applicable. InterAction's sick leave policy will be applied in conjunction with those policies. 4.4 Family and Medical Leave Employees who have been employed with InterAction for a minimum of one year without a break in service and who have worked a minimum of 1,000 hours during the 12 month period immediately preceding a leave request under this provision are eligible for Family and Medical Leave pursuant to the D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act, as set forth below. 4.4.1 Family Leave (a) According to Federal Law, an employee may take a total of 16 workweeks of unpaid family leave during any 24 month period for:    

The birth of a child of the employee; The placement of a child with an employee for adoption or foster care; The placement of a child with the employee for whom the employee permanently assumes and discharges parental responsibility, or The care of a family member of the employee who has a serious health condition.

(b) If the request for family leave is based on one of the first three reasons set forth above, InterAction provides six weeks of paid parental leave (at the employee's regular full or part-time salary), which employees may substitute for part of the unpaid leave to which they are entitled. An employee may also elect to substitute accrued vacation, personal or sick leave for unpaid family and medical leave provided under this section. Any parental, vacation, personal or sick leave used for family leave purposes, even if not specifically designated as such, will count against the total allowable leave available under this provision. (c) If the request for family leave is based on one of the first three reasons set forth above, the entitlement to leave expires twelve months after the birth or placement of the child.

18

(d) The term "family member" includes a person to whom the employee is related by blood, legal custody, or marriage; a foster child; a child who lives with an employee and for whom the employee permanently assumes and discharges parental responsibility; or a person with whom the employee shares or has shared, within the last year, a mutual residence and with whom the employee maintains a committed relationship. The term "committed relationship" means a familial relationship between two individuals demonstrated by such factors as, but not limited to, mutual economic interdependence including joint bank accounts, joint tenancy, shared lease, and joint and mutual financial obligations such as loans; domestic interdependence including close association, public presentment of the relationship, exclusiveness of the relationship; the length of the relationship; and the intent of the relationship as evidenced by a will or life insurance. (e) A serious health condition means a physical or mental illness, injury or impairment that involves either inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility or continuing treatment or supervision at home by a health care provider or other competent individual. A serious health condition includes illness or medical impairment due to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. (f) If leave is taken to care for a family member who has a serious health condition, the family leave may be taken intermittently when medically necessary. Otherwise, family leave may not be taken intermittently or on a reduced schedule unless agreed to by InterAction. (g) If two family members are employees of InterAction, InterAction may limit to 16 workweeks during a 24 month period the aggregate number of family leave workweeks to which the family members are entitled and may limit to 4 workweeks during a 24 month period the aggregate number of family leave workweeks which the family members are entitled to take simultaneously. 4.4.2 Medical Leave (a) An employee may take a total of 16 workweeks of unpaid medical leave during any 24 month period if the employee is unable to perform the functions of his/her position because of a serious health condition. The medical leave may be taken intermittently when medically necessary. (b) If an employee's serious health condition is covered under InterAction’s disability, workers compensation or other insurance policies, then such paid leave will be substituted for all or a portion of the unpaid leave available under this subsection. In addition, an employee may elect to substitute accrued paid vacation, personal, or sick leave for part of the unpaid leave to which they are entitled under this subsection. Any vacation, personal or sick leave used for medical leave purposes, even if not specifically designated as such, will count against the total allowable leave available under this section. (c) A serious health condition means a physical or mental illness, injury or impairment that involves either inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility or continuing treatment or supervision at home by a health care provider or other competent individual. A serious health condition includes illness or medical impairment due to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.

19

4.4.3 Family and Medical Leave -- Joint Provisions (a) Notice and Scheduling. If the necessity for leave under this section is foreseeable, the employee shall provide InterAction with reasonable prior notice of the expected dates when leave is needed. A minimum of thirty days advance notice should be provided unless not practicable. If the necessity for either family or medical leave associated with medical treatment is foreseeable based on planned medical treatment or supervision, the employee shall make a reasonable effort to schedule the medical treatment or supervision, subject to the approval of the health care provider, in a manner that does not disrupt unduly the operations of InterAction. (b) Medical Certification. Employees taking either family or medical leave associated with medical treatment may be required to provide InterAction with a certification issued by the health care provider. This certification shall state:    

The date on which the serious health condition commenced; The probable duration of the condition; The appropriate medical facts within the knowledge of the health care provider that would entitle the employee to take the leave provided in this section; and For purposes of the medical leave, a statement that the employee is unable to perform the functions of the employee’s position; or for purposes of the family leave, an estimate of the amount of time that the employee is needed to care for the family member.

InterAction may require additional information or certifications where appropriate and consistent with law. (c) Benefits. (i)

(ii)

(c)

An employee who takes family or medical leave under this provision shall not lose any employment benefit or seniority accrued before the date on which the family or medical leave commenced. During any period in which an employee takes unpaid family or medical leave under this section InterAction shall maintain health, life and disability insurance coverage for that employee under InterAction’s group plans for the duration of the family or medical leave at the same level and under the same conditions that the coverage would have been provided if the employee had not taken leave.

Return to Work. (i) Staff who take family or medical leave are expected to return to work, at a minimum for the length of their leave period. (ii)

Except for certain highly compensated employees described below, upon return from family or medical leave, an employee shall be restored to the same or an equivalent position of employment held by the employee when the family or medical leave commenced. An equivalent position includes a position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, seniority, and other terms and conditions of employment.

(iii)

InterAction may deny restoration of employment to an employee who is among the highest paid 10 percent of InterAction’s employees: 20



If necessary to prevent substantial economic injury to InterAction’s operations and the injury is not directly related to the leave taken under this section; or



If InterAction is under a contract to provide work or services and the absence of the employee prohibits InterAction from completing the contract in accordance with its terms; failure to complete the contract will cause substantial economic injury to InterAction and InterAction is unable to find a temporary replacement for the employee.

InterAction will notify employees to whom restoration will be denied once InterAction makes a determination to that effect. 4. 5 Personal and Summer Leave Regular full-time employees receive four days of personal leave annually, with one day made available at the beginning of each calendar quarter; unused personal days may be carried forward within the calendar year. Regular part-time employees receive personal leave on a pro-rated basis. Personal leave cannot be accumulated or carried over from year to year and employees are not paid for accrued, unused personal leave upon termination or resignation. Personal leave cannot be taken during the introductory period. In addition, several days of “summer leave” may be granted at the discretion of the President/CEO. 4.6 Leave due to Government Service InterAction complies with all legal obligations applicable to employees called up for National Guard, Military Reserve, or active duty service. 4.7 Paid Holidays InterAction provides the following 11 paid holidays for all regular employees: New Year's Day, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. If a holiday occurs on a weekend, it may be observed on the preceding Friday or succeeding Monday. InterAction may also be closed at the discretion of the President. 4.7.1 Religious Holidays Employees may use vacation or personal leave for religious holidays, so long as approved in advance by the supervisor. 4.8 Weather and Security Leave InterAction adheres to the policy of the Federal government with respect to absence due to inclement weather conditions and heightened security risks. In most cases, this means a "liberal or unscheduled leave policy," which permits employees to take vacation or personal leave if they do not wish to come to work because of adverse weather. If an employee plans to work from home (for a full day or part of a day) during this leave, s/he needs to inform the supervisor at the beginning of the day.

21

If the Federal Government closes because of inclement weather, heightened security risk, or the like, InterAction office will be closed and staff will be paid for the day. 4.9 Compensatory Leave Exempt employees are compensated for carrying out their designated responsibilities – they are not compensated based on the number of hours spent on the job; accordingly, as a matter of policy, exempt employees are not eligible for overtime pay or compensatory leave. It is understood that within Teams short-term flexible scheduling will be used to accommodate the fluctuating demands of regular work requirements. Notwithstanding the above, InterAction recognizes that there are circumstances in which it is to the benefit of both the employee and InterAction for the employee to receive compensatory leave. Compensatory leave may be granted in the following circumstances: a. The employee is on official business travel on a weekend or holiday or during the week outside of regular work hours (including time in transit). The employee may accrue 1 hour of compensatory leave for each hour in travel status. b. Special circumstances associated with an employee’s work responsibilities require substantial extra time on duty during a defined period of time. The employee may accrue 1 hour of compensatory leave for each hour worked above 50 hours in a week. Compensatory leave is subject to the following:



It must be approved in advance by the employee’s supervisor.



No more than an aggregate total of 12 days (96 hours) of compensatory leave may be accrued in a calendar year.



Compensatory leave granted must be used within 3 months of being accrued; if not used within this timeframe it will be forfeited.



Employees may not be paid for unused compensatory leave.

4.10

Leave of absence

Regular employees who have been employed at InterAction for at least two years are eligible for unpaid leaves of absence of up to eight weeks, with the expectation that a staff member will return to InterAction employment. Employees should request a leave of absence in writing, stating the reasons for the request, the anticipated length of leave and projected return-to-work date. A leave of absence can be taken only with approval of the President and CEO, who will consider requests on a case-by-case basis. Group health, life and disability insurance can continue during a leave of absence if the employee pays the premium before going on leave. During a leave of absence, no vacation, personal or sick leave accrues. Employees continue to accrue creditable service for purposes of the pension plan. 22

4.11 Time Off Without Pay With approval of the supervisor and President and CEO, regular employees who have used all of their vacation and personal leave and need additional time off (but do not qualify for FMLA), may take up to five days of leave without pay. 4.12 Bereavement Leave Regular employees may take up to three days of paid leave upon the death of a family member or a close loved one, as defined in the Family and Medical Leave policy, Section 4.4.1(d) above. Employees may also use sick, personal, or annual leave for additional bereavement leave. 4.13 Jury Duty An employee selected for jury duty is paid his/her regular salary by InterAction, as long as the employee attaches a copy of the jury notice to his or her time sheet. Employees must notify their supervisor of the jury duty immediately upon receipt of notice and keep the supervisor informed of the length of the jury service. 4.14 Voting Full-time employees who are unable to vote otherwise may receive up to two paid hours off in order to vote during working hours. 5.0

JOB PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT AS EMPLOYEE

5.1 Performance Reviews Generally, performance reviews of employees will be conducted on an annual basis, although new employees will generally be reviewed at the end of the first three months, as well. Performance reviews are intended to identify both those aspects of the job which are being performed well and those aspects that need attention. They are also a formal opportunity for you to express any concerns the employee might have about the job or about employment with InterAction. However, there is no need to wait until the next review to express concerns; supervisors are available throughout the year to meet with employees about issues, problems or questions related to employment. InterAction has prepared Performance Appraisal Guidelines which are available from the Vice President for Finance and Administration. 5.2 Employee Conduct InterAction’s Human Resources policy is based on the values of respect and fairness. Employees are expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and good judgment in all aspects of their work and working relationships, both within InterAction and externally and to comply with the procedures in this Employee Handbook. Employees must avoid any kind of action or behavior which would impair InterAction’s operations or reflect adversely upon InterAction or its activities. Staff also are expected to adhere to existing laws of the D.C. and Federal governments, and of other governments when traveling overseas.

23

6.0

SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT

6.1 Corrective Action When performance issues are identified with respect to an employee, when instances of unacceptable conduct occur, or when for any reason the employment relationship has become problematic from the point of view of InterAction, any of a variety of steps might be taken, up to and including termination. In some cases, the employee might be given an oral or written warning. In other cases, immediate probation, suspension (with or without pay), demotion, termination or other corrective action might take place. InterAction reserves its right in its sole discretion to determine what it believes is an appropriate response, and to implement it. Nothing in this section changes the presumption of at-will employment, meaning that either the employee or the InterAction may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. 6.2 Separation The following policies apply to employees separating from employment. 6.2.1 Notice InterAction asks employees to give at least two weeks notice of resignation; directors are asked to give four weeks notice. InterAction reserves the right to pay a resigning employee for the notice period, but to prohibit the employee from working for InterAction during that time. InterAction usually notifies regular staff two weeks prior to the effective date of termination. 6.2.2 Severance Pay Severance pay is not available to employees who are dismissed for cause or for reasons related to misconduct as an employee, including violations of InterAction's policies. Regular full-time employees who are separated involuntarily due to lay-off, loss of funds, reorganization or reduction in staff, receive one week's severance per full year of employment not to exceed twelve weeks (60 days) unless exception is approved by the Executive Committee. Severance is calculated based on full years of employment completed (no partial years), and is paid in a lump sum, minus applicable deductions. In order to receive severance, employee's must: (1)

continue to work until the last day scheduled for their employment, unless this requirement is expressly waived by President and CEO;

(2)

turn in all reports and paperwork required to be completed by them when due and no later than the last day of work;

(3)

return any files, documents, equipment, keys, software, computer or voicemail passwords, credit cards, or other property belonging to InterAction, and pay any money they owe to InterAction;

24

(4)

participate in an exit interview, upon the request of their supervisor; and,

(5)

agree to sign a release of employment-related claims against InterAction, upon the President and CEO's request.

Notwithstanding the above, employees who violate InterAction's policies or who demonstrate unacceptable conduct (including insufficient effort on the job) during the remainder of their employment following notice of the termination or lay-off may be denied severance pay and/or may be dismissed prior to the agreed-upon termination date, in the discretion of the President and CEO. 6.2.3 Pay Upon Termination Upon voluntary or involuntary termination of the employment relationship, regardless of the reason, the employee will be paid any wages earned but not yet paid (minus any amounts owed to the organization) and accrued but unused vacation pay. The employee will not be paid for accrued but unused sick leave, personal days or other paid leave. Severance pay will be paid only as authorized in Section 6.2.2 above. Before InterAction issues an employee’s final paycheck, the employee must provide the following items: •

Letter of resignation, if resigning

•

Repayment of outstanding pay or travel advances

•

Outstanding expense reports

•

Office key

•

Office card key

•

InterAction issued credit cards

•

Computer password

•

Voicemail password, or set voicemail password at default

•

Forwarding address

•

Papers, files, software, hardware, or other items belonging to InterAction

•

Reference Authorization Form (optional)

25

Appendix A ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have received a copy of the InterAction Employee Handbook, have reviewed it and had the opportunity to ask my supervisor questions about it. I understand the policies described in the Manual and agree to abide by them. I understand that this Manual does not represent a contract of employment, but rather serves as a guideline. I acknowledge that no representative of InterAction has promised me employment for any definite period of time, and that no one is authorized to make such promises to me unless they are in writing signed by the President and CEO. I understand that as an employee of InterAction, I am employed at will, meaning that either I or InterAction may terminate my employment at any time, with or without cause. I understand that this Employee Handbook, and the policies and benefits described in it, may be changed from time to time, with or without advance notice, in InterAction’s discretion. Signed __________________________________________________________ Please Print Name and Address ______________________________________ Date ____________________________________________________________

1

Appendix B GUIDELINES FOR EMAIL AND INTERNET USE 1. Prohibited Communications Electronic media cannot be used for knowingly transmitting, retrieving, or storing any communication that is: a. Discriminatory or harassing; b. Derogatory to any individual or group; c. Obscene, sexually explicit or pornographic; d. Defamatory or threatening; e. In violation of any license governing the use of software; or f.

Engaged in for any purpose that is illegal or contrary to InterAction policy or business interests.

2. Personal Use The computers, electronic media and services provided by InterAction are primarily for business use to assist employees in the performance of their jobs. Limited, occasional, or incidental use of electronic media (sending or receiving) for personal, non-business purposes is understandable and acceptable, and all such use should be done in a manner that does not negatively affect the systems' use for their business purposes. However, employees are expected to demonstrate a sense of responsibility and not abuse this privilege. 3. Access to Employee Communications A. Generally, electronic information created and/or communicated by an employee using e-mail, word processing, utility programs, spreadsheets, voicemail, telephones, Internet and bulletin board system access, and similar electronic media is not reviewed by the company. However, the following conditions should be noted: InterAction does routinely gather logs for most electronic activities or monitor employee communications directly, e.g., telephone numbers dialed, sites accessed, call length, and time at which calls are made, for the following purposes: 1. Cost analysis; 2. Resource allocation; 3. Optimum technical management of information resources; and 4. Detecting patterns of use that indicate employees are violating company policies or engaging in illegal activity. B. InterAction reserves the right, at the supervisor’s discretion, to collect and review any employee's 1

electronic files and messages to the extent necessary to ensure electronic media and services are being used in compliance with the law, this policy and other company policies. C. Employees should not assume electronic communications are completely private. Accordingly, if they have sensitive information to transmit, they should use other means. 4. Software To prevent computer viruses from being transmitted through the company's computer system, unauthorized downloading of any unauthorized software is strictly prohibited. Only software registered through InterAction may be downloaded. Employees should contact the MIS office if they have any questions. 5. Security/Appropriate Use A. Employees must respect the confidentiality of other individuals' electronic communications. Except in cases in which explicit authorization has been granted by company management, employees are prohibited from engaging in, or attempting to engage in: 1. Monitoring or intercepting the files or electronic communications of other employees or third parties; 2. Hacking or obtaining access to systems or accounts they are not authorized to use; 3. Using other people's log-ins or passwords; and 4. Breaching, testing, or monitoring computer or network security measures. B. No e-mail or other electronic communications can be sent that attempt to hide the identity of the sender or represent the sender as someone else. C. Electronic media and services should not be used in a manner that is likely to cause network congestion or significantly hamper the ability of other people to access and use the system. D. Anyone obtaining electronic access to other companies' or individuals' materials must respect all copyrights and cannot copy, retrieve, modify or forward copyrighted materials except as permitted by the copyright owner. 6. Encryption Employees can use encryption software supplied to them by the MIS office for purposes of safeguarding sensitive or confidential business information. Employees who use encryption on files stored on a company computer must provide their supervisor with a sealed hard copy record (to be retained in a secure location) of all of the passwords and/or encryption keys necessary to access the files. 7. Participation in Online Forums Employees should remember that any messages or information sent on company-provided facilities to one or more individuals via an electronic network—for example, Internet mailing lists, bulletin boards, and online services—are statements identifiable and attributable to InterAction.

2

8. Computer Equipment Used For Remote Access Employees must make sure that computers used for remote access are clean of viruses and malware when connected to InterAction’s internal network and contact the MIS office if uncertain. Users connected to the network are responsible for their file transactions and must use extreme care in handling their files and the shared files they have access to. Employees should also avoid using public computers for remote access at all times. InterAction is not liable for any damages to user’s personal equipment when used to connect remotely or locally to the network. 9. Violations Any employee who abuses the privilege of their access to e-mail or the Internet in violation of this policy will be subject to corrective action, including possible termination of employment, legal action, and criminal liability.

3

InterAction's 2009 Organization-Wide Plan Goal I.

Promote a bold agenda for enhancing U.S. development and humanitarian assistance so that it is focused on improving the conditions of the world’s poor and most vulnerable. Engage with the United States Government to advance poverty alleviation and humanitarian relief as major independent U.S. foreign assistance priorities. Advocate for the creation of a Cabinet-level U.S. Department of Development and Humanitarian Assistance.

Goal II.

Demonstrate and enhance NGO accountability and impact in development and humanitarian action.

Goal III.

Be the voice and prime representative of U.S. international NGOs in building alliances and common agendas with NGO networks around the world and with other strategic partners.

Goal IV.

Embrace effective management practices and raise resources to support full implementation of Goals 1-3.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 2009

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES FOR 2009 (Per Objective)

Goal I. InterAction will promote a bold agenda I/1. STRENGTHENING COALITION ADVOCACY AND CAPACITY: To deepen our, and our members’, engagement with Congress and the Executive branch to advance our policy goals by: A. Deepening and expanding our coalition’s ability to act jointly, as a coalition, to influence Congress and other policy makers; B. Cultivating congressional champions and strengthening relationships with key administration officials; (Gates Objective 1/Activity 1.1, and Objective 2/Activity 2.1) C. Increasing individual InterAction member organizations’ advocacy skills and their willingness to engage in advocacy

Senior Policy Directors of InterAction member organizations meet at least five times in 2009.

a.

New champions identified; relationships with current champions strengthened.

b.

Identify and meet with key Obama administration officials at the Department of State, USAID, National Security Council, and the Department of Defense.

c.

Outreach and communications working group meetings held at least bi-monthly, with an average of 20 participants each.

Formal training and opportunities for one-on-one skill building provided to members by InterAction staff.

1

a.

Maintain a strong and coordinated NGO Voice (advocacy) at the 2009/2010 G-8 Summits through such groups as IA’s G-8 Summit NGO Coordination Group, G-8 NGO Platform Network, the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) G-8 Working Group, and GCAP G-20 Working Group.

b.

Domestic and international efforts to make aid more effective are coordinated to reflect NGO experience and vision (alliances: Civil Society Organizations (CSO) Development Effectiveness; InterAction Aid Effectiveness Working Group; InterAction Task Force on Foreign Assistance Reform; Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN); etc.

c.

The space for humanitarian and development NGOs is safeguarded through coordination with groups such as the Civil-Military Working Group, Counter-Terrorism Military Working Group, Global Forum for NGO Platforms, and CSO Development Effectiveness.

d.

Efforts to advance women’s priorities in development and humanitarian actions are coordinated with groups such as the Women, Faith and Development Alliance (WFDA)– US, WFDA networks overseas, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations and the Gender E-Learning group.

e.

Strengthen domestic alliances (for example, with the ONE Campaign and Connect U.S. Fund) so that InterAction is better positioned to exploit domestic policy and advocacy opportunities.

a.

InterAction continued to build its brand as the “expert” source for international humanitarian and development issues.

b.

Increased level of message consistency between InterAction and its members.

c.

Increased awareness of InterAction public policy initiatives among media and other targeted publics.

d.

Robust media education program was developed.

a.

Full funding for the humanitarian accounts in the regular FY2010 budget request and regular appropriations bills; supplemental funding passed as needed.

b.

The 150 account level in the FY2010 congressional budget resolution was higher than the level in the FY2009 budget resolution.

c.

Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 302(b) Allocation for FY2010 higher than FY2009.

d.

FY2010 regular appropriations levels above FY2009 regular levels for all our accounts.

1/2. STRATEGIC ALLIANCES: To collectively influence governments, the United Nations, International Financial Institutions, and other international policy makers on development and humanitarian issues by forming and/or leveraging international and domestic alliances.

I/3. MEDIA AND OUTREACH: To advance InterAction’s programmatic and policy goals by strengthening relationships with the media, partners, and InterAction members. (Gates Objective 4/Activity 4.1)

I/4. APPROPRIATIONS: To increase regular appropriations for poverty-focused development and humanitarian accounts, ending dependence on supplementals to fund humanitarian response.

2

a.

Increased number of policymakers (both in Congress and the Obama administration) who are champions of InterAction’s goal of an effective foreign assistance program.

b.

Created and maintained a progress report to measure policymakers’ responsiveness to the recommendations of the Foreign Assistance Briefing Book.

I/5. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REFORM: To promote substantive reform and modernization of the laws, regulations, and policies that govern U.S. foreign assistance by: A. Engaging with Congress, the Executive branch, and key strategic partners and stakeholders to promote a bold foreign assistance agenda that is coherent, accountable to its beneficiaries and to Congress, puts poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance at its core, and clearly defines the nature of its partnership with civil society.

B. Continuing to work towards the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Development and Humanitarian Assistance. InterAction continues to believe that establishing such a department is the best way to elevate, integrate, strengthen, and coherent U.S. foreign assistance programs over the long term.

Increased number of policymakers (both in Congress and in the Executive branch) who are champions of establishing a cabinet-level department.

C. Elevating the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) -or a rebranded version- as an accepted framework for U.S. foreign assistance policy.

In consultation with United Nations Millennium Campaign, develop a plan for InterAction to organize the NGO community to hold the Obama administration accountable for its stated support of the MDGs as a framework for U.S. foreign assistance.

I/6. HUMANITARIAN FOREIGN POLICY: To influence congressional and administration foreign policy, the media and think tanks, as they affect USG and NGO humanitarian response.

I/7. NGO SPACE: To protect humanitarian and development NGO space from military and governmental restrictions and encroachment.

Key congressional and administration staff, the media, and think tanks are aware of InterAction’s working groups positions on foreign policy issues that affect humanitarian response, when working groups want them to be (i.e., when security concerns do not dictate otherwise). a.

Militarization of U.S. foreign aid activities are slowed, stopped or reversed.

b.

Support for the Brennan Center continued in its representation of IA et al. in prostitution pledge case.

c.

Proposed Partner Vetting System (PVS) and Treasury Voluntary Guidelines withdrawn and/or limited.

3

I/8. DEVELOPMENT POLICY: To influence Congress and the administration to adopt policies that will improve the effectiveness of U.S. povertyfocused development assistance.

Identified specific opportunities and targets in legislation and in USAID/State Department policies and procedures related to advancing IA working group priorities in gender integration, agricultural development, climate change, health, etc.

Goal II. InterAction will demonstrate & enhance NGO accountability & impact II/1. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: To increase InterAction's information gathering and sharing to inform our advocacy and to promote member engagement and collaboration. (Gates Objective 3 /Activity 3.2)

a.

Increased capacity to exchange information with staff, members and the greater public by implementing a new website/database and online operations policies.

b.

Have built out the communications/ publications infrastructure and outreach with additional IT equipment.

a.

Have implemented a standardized, electronic process to track and evaluate working group participation and levels of engagement.

b.

Have improved the functioning and effectiveness of InterAction working groups by:  addressing issues raised in the 2008 Annual Member Satisfaction Survey;  increasing outreach to less-active members and key stakeholders missing from the conversation;  implementing annual strategic planning and stocktaking meetings, preferably with outside facilitation;  developing and institutionalizing working group participation guidelines;  developing a system to share working group best practices throughout the organization;  instituting bi-annual meetings of all working group co-chairs; and  creating a list of all InterAction working groups for organization-wide and external constituent reference.

a.

Conducted evaluation and review of the 2008 results and identified necessary revisions and technical support for a training program for the 2010 SCP process.

b.

At least two stakeholder meetings held to discuss necessary improvements on the 2010 SCP process.

c.

Initiated a pilot external verification process (peer review) by pairing agencies to review each other’s assessments in fulfilling SCP.

a.

Established a flexible, evolving, and interactive InterAction mapping capacity on member projects and best practices related to the MDGs:  built data base of project information and best practices on food security and agriculture (MDG 1)  launched new mapping platform.

II/2. WORKING GROUP EFFECTIVENESS: To coordinate, support, and guide working groups (WORKING GROUP) in ways that will strengthen the effectiveness and collective impact of our community. (Gates Objective2 /Activity 2.1)

II/3. STANDARDS/SELF-CERTIFICATION PLUS (SCP): To advance membership standards and SCP compliance.

II/4. MAPPING: To map and make more broadly accessible InterAction member contributions in poverty reduction and humanitarian response using internationally agreed upon

4

frameworks that enhance our coordination efforts and effectiveness.

II/5. EVALUATION CAPACITY: To expand IA members’ capacity to undertake rigorous program design, monitoring and evaluations, in order to increase their accountability to beneficiaries and donors.

II/6. BEST PRACTICES: To create and implement a learning approach for compiling innovative program practices in the field.

II/7. TRAINING RESOURCE: To establish InterAction as a prime resource for trainings to build member capacity.

II/8.STAFF CARE: To improve InterAction member NGOs’ ability to recruit and retain personnel through improved staff care policies and services.

b.

Continued to map NGO programs that contribute to community preparedness or that could be leveraged in a pandemic situation.  improved data quality and user connectivity.

a.

Strengthened a new partnership with 3ie and continue to explore relationships that will expand monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity for members.

b.

Provided a series of meetings/ seminars/trainings/ workshops to IA member participants, led by outside experts and experienced members of the NGO community.

Developed and operationalized a Best Practices Methodology (BPM) to document InterAction member field program approaches.  BPM is developed and a pilot application for agriculture programs is in place and operational.  Sharing of BPM and findings is provided through InterAction’s website, seminars and workshops. a.

Reviewed available and planned cross-team trainings and posted an InterAction-wide calendar of trainings and upcoming events on InterAction website.

b.

Developed and distributed the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) e-learning tool on gender equality in humanitarian action in 2009 for the IASC Sub-working Group on Gender in Humanitarian Action.  United Nations and NGO humanitarian staff have started using the e-tool to mainstream gender in humanitarian response.

Using the Staff Care Working Group as the primary vehicle, InterAction has developed and piloted training modules on Stress and Self-Care Techniques, as well as on Managing Staff in High-Stress Environments.

Goal III: InterAction will be the prime voice and prime representative of U.S. international NGOs III/1. STRONGER COMMUNITY To strengthen relationships and understanding between and among InterAction, its current and future members and allies by:  Developing a common mission based on shared values and people centered program approaches;  Reaching out to diverse organizations and networks; and

a.

Strengthened relationship with members as evidenced by:  Increased numbers;  Increased member satisfaction (ref. survey);  Roll out of the newly approved Associate Membership category.

b.

NGOs’ unique role demonstrated through:  “People centered” approach to development (ref. alternative framework);  Common mission strategy (ref. branding for 2009; Mission for 2010);  Extent of leveraging working groups. 5

 Engaging new members, advisory groups and partners.

III/2. A CREDIBLE SOURCE: To increase InterAction’s credibility as a definitive source on international relief and development issues among members of the national and international media, InterAction partners, policy makers and other key stakeholders. This will be achieved by utilizing internal and member resources to raise the profile of IA and its members.

III/3. COMMON AGENDAS: To advance InterAction’s programmatic and policy priorities by increasing collaboration and leveraging relationships with, but not limited to:  Northern and southern networks & NGO platforms;  USG agencies & the foreign policy/assistance community; and Multilateral agencies.

III/4. U.S. AID REFORM: To advance a significant reform of US foreign assistance, through strategic partnerships, that promote community owned, people centered programs; use a framework of shared principles; and recognize the significant role of private resources. III/5. JOINT ACTIONS: To use InterAction’s annual forum, regional and other meetings to strengthen our sense of community, develop strategic partnerships, and foster collaboration on common issues and goals.

c.

InterAction community’s resources highlighted and leveraged:  InterAction Senior Advisory Council;  Estimated collective resources.

a.

New brand for InterAction.  Branding process completed

b.

Increased stature:  Key partnerships established or deepened;  Common messaging;  Media engagement/queries;  Increased high profile speaking and networking opportunities (members/IA leadership);  Production of quality “thought pieces”.

a.

InterAction’s priorities advanced with strategic partners, including: MFAN; IASC; the Brookings institute; United States Government (USG) leadership (USAID, State & others); G-8 NGO Platform Network; etc.  Articulated priorities;  Achievements of the partnerships.

b.

InterAction’s partnerships framed and harmonized.  Progress in framework development.

c.

Increased internal capacity to work with partners:  Articulated priorities;  Staff engaged;  Initiation and leadership by InterAction;  Increased staff knowledge of partnerships;  organization-wide strategic plan.

US foreign assistance reform process advanced in partnerships including: USG (e.g. Administration & Congress); MFAN; InterAction working groups/members; Think tanks & Universities; etc.  Achievements of the partnerships;  NGOs’ experience/vision reflected in reform.

InterAction-led joint events, including: Annual Forum; Security Forum; Regional Pandemic Preparedness Conferences; CEO/Women CEO Retreat; G-8 NGO Platform; Open Forum on Aid Effectiveness; Media Summit; Women, Faith and Development Alliance; etc.

6

Goal IV. InterAction will embrace effective management practices and raise resources a. A 5-year Sustainability Plan completed and submitted to Board for discussion and input. It was then submitted to the Gates Foundation. IV/1. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: Develop and implement a plan for financial sustainability.

b. Year 2 funding ($2,457,296) of the Gates award was received. c.

Organization-wide understanding and ownership of the components, implications, and requirements of the Sustainability Plan were achieved.

a. An action agenda set for each component of the board approved “Sustainability Plan.” IV/2. FUNDRAISING: Develop and implement a fundraising plan for 2009-2010 in order to sustain the operation of InterAction at the optimal level and with the appropriate mix of sources of revenue.

IV/3. BRANDING: Implement a branding process to position InterAction as a leading voice on U.S. foreign assistance, international development, and humanitarian response.

IV/4. INTERNAL COMMUNICATION: Ensure constructive, open, horizontal and vertical, internal communication between staff and enhance cross-team engagement and programming.

IV/5. INTERNAL SYSTEMS: Improve, enhance, and document the functioning of 5 key internal systems.

b. All of InterAction’s past, current and potential fundraising contacts and relationships homogenized and centralized in the new database and systematically managed. c.

New, general support multi-year support grants awarded to InterAction by the Ford and Hewlett Foundations.

d. USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) awarded InterAction a new multiyear Cooperative Agreement.

a. Particulars of a re-branding plan, including Style Guide, Branding Brief, and Messaging Materials implemented. b. Internal and external communications featuring success stories disseminated.

a. Three new approaches to internal information- sharing identified and road-tested. b. Protocols and standards for communicating internal information and decisions to external audiences developed and are in the process of being adopted organization-wide. Policy manuals and operating procedures have been assessed, updated, and documented for critical internal systems: Membership, Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources, and Fund Raising.

7