Community Integration and Development USP Conference May 2013

Session Objectives Unpack assumptions embedded within various theories of change about civic engagement Discuss lessons learned engaging beneficiaries with IRC’s Bhutanese Community Program. Identify program development strategies that strengthen engagement with beneficiaries/civil society

USP Program Framework: Community Integration & Development Works side by side with refugees to Strengthen resettlement communities Empower refugees to participate fully in American society Programs Build relationships among and between refugees, local leaders community stakeholders, and local organizations Foster social inclusion, equality, and client integration

Civic Engagement USP Conference May 2013

Governance and Rights Framework

Session Caveats and Disclaimers Terminology is general ‘Services’: Education, health, water, justice ‘Rights’: Moral or legal entitlement to have something or be treated with dignity ‘Policy’: Course of action to be taken Can be at local levels or higher Can refer to implementation or reform Lots of overlap between broad categories Of civil society groups, organizations and the role they play Between IRC programming elements

Civil Society within the GRU Framework

IRC’s traditional programming with civil society GRU: Supporting community groups through Community Driven Recovery methodology Supporting emergence of civil society by strengthening organizations in transitional contexts Other sectors: Supporting civil society organizations to deliver services Supporting community-based groups to manage and oversee delivery of services

Our former ‘theories of change’ Consulting with/ investing in civil society  ensures that citizens’ voices are heard and their interests represented Working with civil society  ensures sustainability of actions or approaches

Our former ‘theories of change’ Increasing capacities of civil society  emergence of a strong, vibrant civil society that can hold the government accountable Increasing technical capacities of civil society organizations better service delivery outcomes

New ‘theory of change’ If IRC supports representative civil society groups to engage in and influence the ways in which policies are created and services delivered  Then services and policies are more likely to be just, responsive, accountable and sustained

Unpacking our own assumptions Civil society’s role from consultation on/ participation in/ contributions to realizing projects  Meaningful engagement in decision making processes about issues that affect their lives People as beneficiary/ recipient/ ‘users’ entitled to services  Stakeholders/ ‘change agents’ entitled to give voice to their demands and participate in decision making that affects them

‘Roles’ of civil society in IRC programming Service users or clients/ Rights holders (Self) Providers of services/ (Self) Organizers of collective action Advocates for services and rights/ ‘Translators’ of information ‘Makers’ or ‘shapers’ of decisions and policy affecting services and rights “From Users and Choosers to Makers and Shapers” Andrea Cornwall and John Gaventa IDS Working Paper June 2001

Client/ ‘Service User’/ ‘Rights Holder’ Individuals are seen to have rights to which they’re entitled Users of social services are viewed as clients or consumers Challenges/ Limitations Limited involvement in service delivery processes that are often ‘one way’ or ‘top down’ INGO work with ‘user groups’ often focused on management, oversight, contributions to realization of individual projects ‘User groups’ not inherently inclusive, representative, accountable, etc.

Clients/ ‘Service User’/ ‘Rights Holder’ Individuals are seen to have rights to which they’re entitled Users of social services are viewed as clients or consumers Potential Programming Considerations Great potential for these committees in the ‘interface space’ Expand the role of ‘user groups’ to ensure ‘two way’ dialogue Enhance committees’ role in decision-making Seek opportunities for them to feedback/ input into/ monitor system Support development of non-technical capacities Strengthen linkages with providers/ duty bearers

‘Providers’/ ‘Organizers’ Formal or informal groups that ‘bridge the service delivery gap’ for their own or other communities Civil society that (self-) organizes for collective action to address own recovery and development needs Challenges/ Limitations Groups/ organizations may not represent community interests Technical and organizational capacity may be lacking May operate ‘in a vacuum’ or emerge as a parallel delivery system

‘Providers’/ ‘Organizers’ Formal or informal groups that ‘bridge the service delivery gap’ for their own or other communities Civil society that (self-) organizes for collective action to address own recovery and development needs Potential Programming Considerations Strengthen relevant technical, organizational, and management capacities to increase effectiveness and efficiency Support civil society efforts to work in a more participatory, accountable, responsive way Support/ strengthen linkages with relevant duty bearers

‘Translators’/ ‘Advocates’ Groups that actively disseminate and demystify information to others about rights, entitlements, and policies that affect them Social and advocacy movements through which groups advocate for social provisioning or protection from the state Challenges/ Limitations Focus on enforcement of existing laws and policies Rather than on changing or challenging laws/ policies Focus on peoples’ right to access services Rather than on reforming / influencing the ways in which services are delivered

‘Translators’/ ‘Advocates’ Groups that actively disseminate and demystify information to others about rights, entitlements, and policies that affect them Social and advocacy movements through which groups advocate for social provisioning or protection from the state Potential Programming Considerations Support capacities and initiatives of organizations/ coalitions/ networks to advocate collectively Support efforts to solicit community input and views to inform the ‘evidence base’ used in advocacy work Encourage the integration of social accountability tools or mechanisms into group processes

‘Shapers’ and ‘makers’ of policy Civil society directly engage with those who create and implement policy Engagement becomes a way of holding the state accountable and for influencing policy and negotiating reform Challenges/ Limitations Civil society not always aware of state-led opportunities for interface/ dialogue/ input Civic voice is not always valued in the ‘evidence-base’ used to create policy Groups/ organizations engaged in dialogue or interface may not be representative of community interests

‘Shapers’ and ‘makers’ of policy Civil society directly engage with those who create and implement policy Engagement becomes a way of holding the state accountable and for influencing policy and negotiating reform Potential Programming Considerations Strengthen civil society capacity to articulate community needs and to demand more responsive services or necessary policy reforms Support civil society to create or capitalize on emerging opportunities to engage in participatory planning or monitoring processes

Thank you!

BHUTANESE COMMUNITY PROGRAM (FY10-FY12) Program design and implementation in the age of limited community participation

New ‘theory of change’ If IRC supports representative civil society groups to engage in and influence the ways in which policies are created and services delivered  Then services and policies are more likely to be just, responsive, accountable and sustained

QUESTIONS How do you encourage client and community participation in program development? What kind of investments would you need to ensure civic engagement in program development?