Working with Official Development Assistance Agencies (Foundation Building Best Practice Study Excerpt)

This section provides Examples of ways in which foundations have worked with official development assistance agencies and governments.

Summary Points

The highest levels of an agency must be convinced in principle of the benefits to be gained from working with local foundations. Every development agency has its own rules and procedures for approving support. This will, at times, entail foundation staff and board to respond to questions and concerns of various actors. Both the Foundation for Community Development (FDC) and Esquel made key contacts with higher levels of the agency before developing detailed proposals. This did not guarantee their success but it ensured that they could count on some support from key decision makers.
Factoring in the costs of responding effectively to a government partner can save time and energy. As with other potential income sources, the work does not stop once the funding is raised. Government agencies are structured to relate with other government agencies. There is no reason why their relations with foundations cannot be effective, but planning for the costs associated with evaluation, reporting and maintaining communication will help to build both trust and a lasting relationship.
The support of the national government or national government agencies may be necessary. ODA agencies are an aspect of inter-governmental collaboration. They will, as such, be more likely to support efforts that have the support of the host government and would indeed, be involved with efforts that government does not support at their own risk. Both Esquel and FDC sought to consult with and include the appropriate government agencies.
A smaller effort to begin with can build the case for a larger, multiyear program. Both Esquel and FDC began working with ODA agencies by raising smaller grants for specific project initiatives. They found this experience useful because it enabled them to learn more about working with ODA agencies and established their reputations. In addition, they could identify particular areas that fit easily within the objectives of the agency.
An effort to endow a foundation through a mechanism, such as a debt swap, may go beyond an agency effort to a broader government-to-government agreement. In the case of the FSSI, the Swiss and Philippines government came to a unique agreement on the reduction of the Philippines debt. Both Swiss and Philippine civil society organizations played a major role in pressing for debt relief and shaping the agreement.

Example 1: A Request for Project Support
Foundation for Community Development (Mozambique)
Example 2: A Sectoral and Geographic Partnership
Esquel Ecuador Foundation
Example 3: Government-to-Government Agreement to Create an Endowment
Foundation for a Sustainable Society, Inc. (Philippines)

What Are Official Development Assistance Agencies?

Bilateral official development assistance (ODA) agencies are government agencies set up to channel assistance to other countries -- typically this assistance goes directly to the government. The largest agencies come from North America, Europe and Japan.

Some examples are the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), The Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The European Commission's ODA agencies are considered bilateral agencies in that they provide assistance to other countries, not to the EC's members. Sometimes foundations build relations with other agencies of foreign governments, for example with embassy staff who might not work directly for their government's main ODA agency.

Multilateral ODA agencies are composed of members governments that agree by international treaty or convention to establish them. These agencies have a wide variety of objectives and interests of which development assistance may or may not be one. Multilateral agencies providing official development assistance include many parts of the United Nations -- such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO) and others. Governance of these institutions follows the principal of one vote per country.

Although technically part of the United Nations System, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are governed in a different manner than other parts of the UN -- according to weighted shares held by member states. They are sometimes called the Bretton Woods institutions or, together with regional development banks (such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), African Development Bank, and Asian Development Bank) the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). While the World Bank and regional development banks provide loans and technical assistance for development purposes, the IMF is not directly involved in development -- rather its purpose is to promote international monetary cooperation.

Why Might These Agencies Support Grantmaking Foundations?

In general, ODA agencies work primarily with governments. A few support or are looking for ways to support civil society and civil society groups. The foundations in this section have convinced one or more of these agencies that working with a local grantmaking foundation is an effective approach to reaching non- governmental actors who share some of the agency's objectives. Agencies may see the foundation as one way to strengthen the democratic processes of a country by empowering voices that might not otherwise be heard. Another reason they might support local grantmaking foundations, as in the case of Foundation for a Sustainable Society, Inc. (FSSI), would be to respond to pressure or advocacy from interest groups in their own countries.

How Can These Agencies Provide Support to Foundations?

Foundations in this section note that bilateral agencies can be flexible in the types of support they give. They do not need to seek the same level of approval from a host government as a multilateral agency. On the other hand because few have clear structures for relating with local civil society organizations, they may impose difficult restrictions, require onerous amounts of paperwork or want to retain partial control of their funding.