Presentation on theme: "Bridging Research, Policy and Practice"— Presentation transcript:
1Bridging Research, Policy and Practice John Young: ODI, LondonSudarno Sumarto: SMERU, IndonesiaAddressing Poverty: Pro-Poor Growth and Financial Inclusion in Asia Pacific
2Overview Introduction to ODI, RAPID & SMERU Group work: Policy influence storiesSome theoryHow SMERU does itSome tools for researchersGroup work: Using the toolsTools for organisationsSources of further information.
3ODI, UK Development Think Tank 60 researchers Research / Advice / Public DebateRural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics / Policy ProcessesDFID, Parliament, WB, ECCivil SocietyFor more information see:
4RAPID GroupPromoting the use of research-based evidence in development policyResearch / Advice / Public Affairs & Capacity-buildingProgrammes:Research for PolicyProgressive PolicymakersParliamentariansSouthern Think Tanksfor further information see:
5SMERU, Indonesia Independent research and policy studies on the impact of government programs and policies,poverty, health, education, gender, labour, fuel costs labour market conditions etcdecentralization and impact on services etc.Publications and public affairs.NGO unit:provides research-based evidence to and facilitates NGO interactioncapacity building: research methodology.
6Civil Society Programme More use of research- based evidence for policy and practice through:A Network of Think Tanks.Capacity-development for the network and other CSOs.Research and learning from practical experience.Global and national action-research projects.for further information see:
7End of slide show, click to exit Group work: Stories of evidence and Policy Change
8Stories of evidence and policy Refresh your memory about your storyFind someone you don’t know and tell each other your storiesDon’t write anything down!2½ minutes each!Use the story templates to interview and write each others story downMake sure your images and messages are clear.5 minutes each!Tell your partner’s story to everyone else at your tableDiscuss among yourselves and identify 5 concrete actions emerging from these stories.How might you apply these?10 minutes!
9The theory and practice of bridging research and policy
10DefinitionsResearch: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge”Policy: a “purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors”Evidence: “the available information supporting or otherwise a belief or proposition”Evidence-based Policy: “public policy informed by rigorously established evidence”.
11Policy Processes Identify the problem Commission research Analyse the resultsChoose the best optionEstablish the policyImplement the policyEvaluation
12Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Implementation Policy ProcessesCabinetDonorsMonitoring and EvaluationAgendaSettingDecisionMakingPolicy ImplementationPolicy FormulationParliamentCivil SocietyMinistriesPrivate Sector
13Chronic Poverty in Uganda Kate Bird et al, Fracture Points in Social Policies for Chronic Poverty Reduction, ODI WP242, 2004 (http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp242.pdf)
14…in reality…“The whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through selected strategies 1”“Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa2”“Research is more often regarded as the opposite of action rather than a response to ignorance”31 Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy inAgricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London2 Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges,International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 213 Surr (2003), DFID Research Review
15But Policy makers are……practically incapable of using research-based evidence because of the 5 Ss…SpeedSuperficialitySpinSecrecyScientific IgnoranceVincent Cable – Lib. Democrat MP & Shadow Minister of FinanceMore at:
16Factors influencing policy making Experience & ExpertisePragmatics & ContingenciesJudgementEvidenceLobbyists & Pressure GroupsResourcesHabits & TraditionValues and Policy ContextSource: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005
17Different Notions of Evidence ‘Scientific’ (Context free)Proven empiricallyTheoretically drivenAs long as it takesCaveats and qualificationsResearchers’ EvidenceColloquial (Contextual)Anything that seems reasonablePolicy relevantTimelyClear MessagePolicy Makers’ EvidenceSource: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005
18Existing theory X Linear model Percolation model, Weiss Tipping point model, Gladwell‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODIPolicy narratives, RoeSystems model (NSI)External forces, Lindquist‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer‘Street level bureaucrats’, LipskyPolicy as social experiments, RondinelliPolicy Streams & Windows, KingdonDisjointed incrementalism, LindquistThe ‘tipping point’, GladwellCrisis model, Kuhn‘Framework of possible thought’, ChomskyVariables for Credibility, BeachThe source is as important as content, GladwellLinear model of communication, ShannonInteractive model,Simple and surprising stories, Communication TheoryProvide solutions, Marketing IFind the right packaging, Marketing IIElicit a response, KottlerTranslation of technology, VolkowEpistemic communitiesPolicy communitiesAdvocacy coalitions etc, ProssNegotiation through networks, SebattierShadow networks, KlickertChains of accountability, FineCommunication for social change, RockefellerWheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher
19Existing theory – a short list Policy narratives, RoeSystems of Innovation Model, (NSI)‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer‘Street level bureaucrats’, LipskyPolicy as social experiments, RondenePolicy streams and policy windows, KingdonDisjointed Incrementalism, LindblomSocial Epidemics, GladwellThe RAPID Framework
20An Analytical Framework External InfluencesSocio-economic and cultural influences,donor policies etcThe political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs radical change etc.The links between policyand research communities – networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge etc.The evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged etc
21Case Studies Detailed: Summary Sustainable Livelihoods Poverty Reductions Strategy ProcessesEthical Principles in Humanitarian AidAnimal Health Care in KenyaDairy Policy in KenyaPlant Genetic ResourcesSummaryGDN x 50CSPP x 20Good news case studies x 5Mental health in the UK
22Animal Healthcare in Kenya 1970s1980s1990s2000sProfessionalisation of Public Services.Structural Adjustment → collapse of services.Paravet projects emerge.ITDG projects.Privatisation.ITDG Paravet network.Rapid spread in North.KVB letter (January 1998).Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.Still not approved / passed!Professionalisation of Public Services.Structural AdjustmentPrivatisationITDG Paravet network and change of DVS.KVB letter (January 1998).Multistakeholder WSs → new policies.International ResearchITDG projects – collaborative research.The Hubl StudyDr KajumeShortly after setting up its first decentralised animal health projects, ITDG organised the first, of what were to become annual “vets workshops” which became the focus of a network of people involved in paravet projects. A conscious effort was made at the start to invite senior government veterinary staff to participate to convince them of the value of the approach. Many NGO and bilateral project staff who were already involved in, or wanted to start decentralised animal health projects, were keen to join the network, and it increasingly focused on practical issues. While this contributed to the rapid spread of the approach across northern Kenya, it neglected to involve senior government policy makers.Dr Kajume, then Provincial Head of Veterinary Services heard about one of these workshops by accident, checked with the Director of Veterinary Services in Nairobi, and was instructed to attend the workshop, tell the participants it was illegal, and close it down. But instead, he became convinced of the value of the approach and persuaded the Director to allow the projects to continue.So paravet projects continued to spread across northern Kenya, deliberately ignored by the Director of Veterinary Services, until the publication of the Kenya Vet Board letter brought matters to a head, and he was forced to do something about it. At which point, Dr Kajume, now Deputy Director of Veterinary Services persuaded him to support the process of multi stakeholder workshops and commission the Hubl study which led to the development of a new policy framework.
23A Practical Framework External Influences political context evidence Politics and PolicymakingCampaigning, LobbyingPolicy analysis, & researchMedia,Advocacy, NetworkingScientific information exchange & validationResearch, learning & thinkingevidencelinks
24What you need to know The external environment: Who are the key actors?What is their agenda?How do they influence the political context?The evidence:Is it there?Is it relevant?Is it practically useful?Are the concepts new?Does it need re-packaging?The political context:Is there political interest in change?Is there room for manoeuvre?How do they perceive the problem?Links:Who are the key actors?Are there existing networks?How best to transfer the information?The media?Campaigns?
25What you need to do What need to know What need to do How to do it Political Context:EvidenceLinksGet to know the policymakers.Identify friends and foes.Prepare for policy opportunities.Look out for policy windows.Work with them – seek commissionsStrategic opportunism – prepare for known events + resources for othersWho are the policymakers?Is there demand for ideas?What is the policy process?Establish credibilityProvide practical solutionsEstablish legitimacy.Present clear optionsUse familiar narratives.Build a reputationAction-researchPilot projects to generate legitimacyGood communicationWhat is the current theory?What are the narratives?How divergent is it?Get to know the othersWork through existing networks.Build coalitions.Build new policy networks.Build partnerships.Identify key networkers, mavens and salesmen.Use informal contactsWho are the stakeholders?What networks exist?Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen?
26Policy entrepreneurs Storytellers Networkers Engineers Fixers Doing all of these things requires a wide range of skills. Researchers who want to be good policy entrepreneurs also need to be:Storytellers: Practitioners, bureaucrats and policy-makers often articulate and make sense of complex realities through simple stories. Though sometimes profoundly misleading there is no doubt that narratives are incredibly powerful.Networkers: Policy-making usually takes place within communities of people who know each other and interact. If you want to influence policymakers, you need to join their networks.Engineers: There is often a huge gap between what politicians and policy-makers say they are doing and what actually happens on the ground. Researchers need to work not just with the senior level policy-makers, but also with the 'street-level bureaucrats'.Fixers: Policy making is essentially a political process. Although you don’t need to be a Rasputin or Machiavelli, successful policy entrepreneurs need to know how to operate in a political environment - when to make your pitch, to whom and how.Try ODI’s Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire to find out whether you tend to favour, or to avoid any of these activities. If so, you may need to develop new skills in these areas, or work with others who have these skills.
27Conclusions To influence policy you need: Clear intent A thorough understanding of the contextA strategic approachThe right incentives / cultureThe right skills in the teamTo engage, engage, engage
28End of slide show, click to exit How SMERU influences policy and practice
29The SMERU Research Institute CSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006 BRIDGING RESEARCH POLICY AND PRACTICE: SMERU’S EXPERIENCE A Case Study of Indonesia’s Unconditional Cash TransferSUDARNO SUMARTOThe SMERU Research InstituteJakarta, IndonesiaCSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006Canberra, Australia7 December 2006
30BackgroundSince the New Order era, domestic retail fuel price in Indonesia has been subsidized.The fuel subsidy is regressive as consumption of each energy category increases with income.The subsidy was not pro-poor because the poor benefited less from it, including the kerosene subsidy.Very high world price of oil in 2005 has made the subsidy balloon out of proportion.The SMERU Research Institute
31BackgroundTo ease the pressure on the state budget from the ballooning subsidy and to improve spending allocation, GOI has increased the fuel price twice in 2005:1 March, by an average of 30% “compensation” program: free education & healthcare, rice for the poor, rural infrastructure.1 October, by an average of 120% “compensation” program, among others, unconditional cash transfer (UCT) to poor households.The SMERU Research Institute
32Brief Description of the UCT Program The largest cash transfer program in the world, targeting more than 15 million households starting in October 2005.Transfer of Rp 300,000 per beneficiary household per quarter for 1 year.Eligibility was determined by a household census conducted by BPS using district-specific “proxy means testing” based on 14 indicators of poverty.Delivery of the UCT is conducted through the post office by way of direct payment.An additional 2.5 million households were added as eligible recipients after the first tranche.The SMERU Research Institute
33SMERU's Involvement in Evaluating UCT SMERU carried out simulations on the likely impact of fuel price increase on poverty (based on Susenas 2004 data):Baseline: poverty head count (P0) = 16.66%After oil price increase: P0 = 22.05%Compensation through cash transfer:100% correct targeting: P0 = 17.87%80% correct targeting: P0 = 18.73%50% correct targeting: P0 = 20.05%The SMERU Research Institute
34SMERU's Involvement in Evaluating UCT SMERU conducted a rapid appraisal in Jakarta at the end of October 2005.The results were then disseminated to policymakers through consultations and presentations of research findings.Bappenas commissioned SMERU to conduct a larger evaluation, funded by the World Bank.The larger evaluation was conducted in 5 districts across Indonesia.The SMERU Research Institute
35SMERU’s Policy InputsConvert the UCT to conditional cash transfers (CCT) on education, health, and nutritionImprove targeting by reformulating criteria, strengthening local cadre, and empowering locally-specific poverty assessmentsDevelop cash for work or guaranteed employment scheme to improve rural infrastructureStrengthen the supply sides of social services (health, nutrition, and education facilities)The SMERU Research Institute
36Results from SMERU's Inputs The government will pilot test CCT in 2007The government intensified its effort to increase the budget allocation for education and healthThe SMERU Research Institute
37What Worked?Stakeholders’ trusted SMERU’s credibility because of its evidence-based recommendationsSMERU’s approach with gov’t and top level officialsEffective linkages and networking with stakeholdersMaintenance of quality of researchImpartialitySuccessful presentation of findings through discussionsThe SMERU Research Institute
38Constraints Encountered Political leverageLack of tools to understand the political context of policy changeLack of lobbying skills & opportunitiesLack of resources (human and financial) and time to monitor and follow-up the policy decision-making processSMERU being associated with donorsThe SMERU Research Institute
39The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id Thank YouThe SMERU Research Institute
40End of slide show, click to exit Tools for bridging research and policy
41Introducing some tools Some simple tools for researchersRAPID FrameworkOutcome MappingProblem Situation Analysis (Tree Analysis)Policy Process MappingStakeholder AnalysisForce field analysisSWOT analysisSome examplesSome more complex tools (for donors)Some tools for policymakers
42A Practical Framework External Influences political context evidence Politics and PolicymakingCampaigning, LobbyingPolicy analysis, & researchMedia,Advocacy, NetworkingScientific information exchange & validationResearch, learning & thinkingevidencelinks
43Policy entrepreneurs Storytellers Networkers Engineers Fixers Doing all of these things requires a wide range of skills. Researchers who want to be good policy entrepreneurs also need to be:Storytellers: Practitioners, bureaucrats and policy-makers often articulate and make sense of complex realities through simple stories. Though sometimes profoundly misleading there is no doubt that narratives are incredibly powerful.Networkers: Policy-making usually takes place within communities of people who know each other and interact. If you want to influence policymakers, you need to join their networks.Engineers: There is often a huge gap between what politicians and policy-makers say they are doing and what actually happens on the ground. Researchers need to work not just with the senior level policy-makers, but also with the 'street-level bureaucrats'.Fixers: Policy making is essentially a political process. Although you don’t need to be a Rasputin or Machiavelli, successful policy entrepreneurs need to know how to operate in a political environment - when to make your pitch, to whom and how.Try ODI’s Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire to find out whether you tend to favour, or to avoid any of these activities. If so, you may need to develop new skills in these areas, or work with others who have these skills.
44Practical Tools Overarching Tools Context Assessment Tools - The RAPID Framework- Using the Framework- The Entrepreneurship QuestionnaireContext Assessment Tools- Stakeholder Analysis- Forcefield Analysis- Writeshops- Policy Mapping- Political Context MappingCommunication Tools- Communications Strategy- SWOT analysis- Message Design- Making use of the mediaResearch Tools- Case Studies- Episode Studies- Surveys- Bibliometric Analysis- Focus Group DiscussionPolicy Influence Tools- Influence Mapping & Power Mapping- Lobbying and Advocacy- Campaigning: A Simple Guide- Competency self-assessment
46Outcome MappingOUTCOME MAPPING: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs Sarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo
47Problem Tree AnalysisDiscuss and agree the problem or issue to be analysed.Identify the causes of the focal problem (roots) and then the consequences (branches)NB: The discussion is the most important thing: as issues are debated factors are arranged and re-arranged, often forming sub-dividing roots and branches
48Policy Process Mapping General Context issues – domestic and international.Specific Policy Issues (i.e. the policy cycle)Stakeholder analysisArena: government, parliament, civil society, judiciary, private sector.Level: local, national, internationalWhat is their Interest and Influence?Process matrix + political matrixPolitical and administrative feasibility assessment[Sources: M. Grindle / J. Court ]BACKGROUNDGood News – Evidence can matter (e.g. bednets vs malaria). Other cases around Room. DFID Research Policy Study.Bad News – But … often major gaps (e.g. HIV/AIDS). Resistance despite clear evidence.How to bridge the gap?Key Question: When does evidence matter? We still need a systematic understanding.ODI RAPID / GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project – 50 case studies.PAPER IN PRESS - Handout Exec Summary / Soon on webCHALLENGE – Massive amount of work into 15 minutes
49Policy Process Mapping FormulationImplementationPoliticiansCabinetGovernmentBureaucratsCivil SocietyInternationalIdentify key actors that influence SME policyCreate Matrix: Organizations and Key Steps of the Policy ProcessDescribe Organizations’ formal position in the policy processDescribe Organizations’ informal influence on the policy processGive a number rating (1=low; 5=high) for the influence each organization has on different parts of the policy process.Relative location of Research
50Stakeholder Analysis Why: Steps: To understand who gains or lose from a policy or project.To help Build Consensus.Steps:Identify StakeholdersAnalysis WorkshopDevelop StrategiesKeep SatisfiedEngage CloselyMonitor (minimum effort)Keep InformedHighPowerLowInterest
51Forcefield Analysis Identify what you want to achieve Identify forces for and against changeIdentify which are most importantDevelop strategies to reinforce those for and overcome those against
52SWOT AnalysisWhat type of policy influencing skills and capacities do we have?In what areas have our staff used them more effectively?Who are our strongest allies?When have they worked with us?Are there any windows of opportunity?What can affect our ability to influence policy?StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreatsSkills and abilitiesFunding linesCommitment to positionsContacts and PartnersExisting activitiesOther orgs relevant to the issueResources: financial, technical, humanPolitical and policy spaceOther groups or forces
53Communications strategy Identify the audience(s)Identify the message(s)PromotionEvaluate impact andchange as necessaryClear StrategyInteractiveMultiple formatsHow?Who?What?AudiencePromotionMessageIn terms of the communications, there are a set of issues which seem to come out most clearly and which make a big difference to whether research is taken up.Communication is crucial in both directions: in terms of researchers listening to policy-makers and in terms of engaging policy-makers in the research right from the beginning and of keeping them involved or in touch with that process.The first step is to identify who you want to influence – the audience. A key aspect of this is to identify what you want them to do differently. Assess their specific information needs, likes and channels (Official / unofficial & Personal / impersonal & empirical data vs stories.)The second step is to clarify your messages – brevity, clarity, what form, language.The third step is promotion – there are many ways, but interactive communications works best; seeing is believing; multiple formats / media are better than one.OSI has been working on Writing Effective Policy Papers – really useful bookThe policy community & The policy processStructural elements of a paper - Problem description / Policy option / ConclusionKey issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.
54Writing Policy Papers Providing a solution to a policy problem The policy communityThe policy processStructural elements of a paperProblem descriptionPolicy optionsConclusionKey issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.[Source: Young and Quinn, 2002]BACKGROUNDGood News – Evidence can matter (e.g. bednets vs malaria). Other cases around Room. DFID Research Policy Study.Bad News – But … often major gaps (e.g. HIV/AIDS). Resistance despite clear evidence.How to bridge the gap?Key Question: When does evidence matter? We still need a systematic understanding.ODI RAPID / GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project – 50 case studies.PAPER IN PRESS - Handout Exec Summary / Soon on webCHALLENGE – Massive amount of work into 15 minutes
55Groundwater in Indiato maximise impact of DFID forest/ ground water research project in IndiaResearchers, policy makers and activistsUsed framework to analyse factors in water sector in IndiaDeveloped strategy for final phase:Less researchMore communicationDeveloping champions in regional and national governmentLocal, Regional & National advocacy campaign
57Political Context Tools Civil Society Index (CIVICUS)Country Policy & Institutional Assessment (World Bank)Democracy and Governance Assessment (USAID)Drivers of Change (DFID)Governance Questionnaire (GTZ)Governance Matters (World Bank Institute)Power Analysis (Sida)World Governance AssessmentCivil Society Index (CIVICUS): Civil society's structure, impact, environment and valuesCountry Policy and Institutional Assessment (World Bank): Governance institutions, policies, economic managementDemocracy and Governance Assessment (USAID): Players, interests, resources, objectives, rules, institutional arenasDrivers of Change (DFID): Structure, agents, institutionsGovernance Questionnaire (GTZ): State-society relations, political system, political culture, politics and gender, economic policy and political framework of markets, international integrationGovernance Matters (World Bank Institute): Voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruptionPower Analysis (Sida): Power and its distributionWorld Governance Assessment: Participation, decency, fairness, accountability, transparency, efficiency
58Demand-side Tools Increasing the pull for evidence Require the publication of the evidence baseRequire spending bids to provide evidence baseSubmit government analysis to external expert scrutinyProvide open access to informationFacilitating better evidence useEncourage better collaboration across analytical servicesCo-locate policy makers and internal analystsIntegrate analytical staff at all stagesLink R&D strategies to departmental business plansCast external researchers more as partners than as contractorsSecond more university staff into governmentTrain staff in evidence useSource: Abstracted from PIU 2000, Bullock et al (2001)
59UK Government “Tools” Overview and Checklist 1. Impact Assessment and Appraisal: guidance checklist for policy makers.Strategy and Policy Evaluation2. Strategy Survival Guide3. Magenta Book: Guidance notes on Policy Evaluation4. Green Book: Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government5. Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)Ensuring Key Perspectives are Included6. Incorporating regional perspectives into policy making toolkit (Subnational)7. International Comparisons in Policy Making Toolkit8. Gender Impact Assessment: a framework for gender mainstreaming9. Managing risks to the public: Appraisal GuidanceTesting Policy Ideas10. Policy PilotsPublic-orientated Tools11. Concern Assessment Tool12. Community Engagement How to Guide13. Connecting with Users and CitizensGetting Better Advice and Evidence14. Expert Advisory Bodies for Policymakers15. Improving Standards of Qualitative Research
60End of slide show, click to exit Group work: Trying out some of the tools
61Trying the toolsWorking on one of the stories, try out one (or more) of the tools:RAPID Framework (Page 12)Stakeholder analysis (Page 24)Force-field analysis (page 20)Problem Tree (Page 22)SWOT (Page 28)
63The (changing) role of CSOs Is huge: Worth $12bn globally, reach 20% of world’s poor, provide 40% health & education services in Ghana, Zimbabwe & Kenya.Is changing: service provision → policy engagement.Can be very effective: Globally, eg Jubilee 2000; locally eg animal health in Kenya,Is uncomfortable:with governments: lack of trustwith donors: emphasis on GBS & policywith academics/policy advisers: weak evidencerepresentation (organisations that aggregate citizen voice)advocacy (organisations that lobby on particular issues)technical inputs (organisations that provide information and advice)capacity building (organisations that provide support to other CSOs, including funding)service delivery (organisations that implement development projects or provide services)social functions (organisations that foster collective recreational activities)
64Some examples AFREPREN: a network to promote pro-poor energy policies. CIPPEC: works on Education, Fiscal Policy, Health, Transparency and Justice an Argentina.Unnayan Onneshan: works on pro-poor agricultural and trade policies in Bangladesh.International Budget Project: works to promote budget transparency and accountabilitySMERU: provides reseach-based evidence to NGOs and other actora and promotes public debate
69Key problems and solutions ExternalDifficult Political ContextsCampaignsBoomerangsPolicy PilotsInternalWeak understanding of political contextsRigorous context assessmentsWeak engagementBetter strategies for engagement at all parts of the policy cycleInadequate use of evidenceCollecting the right evidence for each situation (qualitative vs quantitative etc)Weak communicationBetter communication: publications, events, face-to-faceIsolationCollaboration with other CSOs, donors and government agencies: NetworksCapacity constraints“Systemic” capacity-building: of organisations and networks within their contexts
70Organisational Capacity Knowledge, Attitudes & PracticePolicy entrepreneursTraining & mentoring etcOrganisational developmentFinance, admin & personnel systemsStrategic (action & business) planningFundraising & reportingBuilding an organisational profileCommunications, Public Affairs and the MediaStruyk, 2002, Local Governance Institute, Open Society Network, Budapest
71Learning & KM Learning before, during & after Collaboration Tools Peer AssistReflective InquiryAfter-Action ReviewCollaboration ToolsE-discussionsShared workspacesInformation management toolsIntelligent search enginesIncentives
72Policy Processes in DFID Looking at internal policy processes – what works in DFID.Small, informal workshop with 7 staff.Participatory pair-wise ranking of factors influencing the success of 8 policy processes.Worked quite well.In DFID - agendas and processes rather than documents are key
73End of slide show, click to exit How SMERU does it
74The SMERU Research Institute CSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006 SUDARNO SUMARTOThe SMERU Research InstituteJakarta, IndonesiaCSPP Partner’s Workshop 2006Canberra, Australia7 December 2006
75What is SMERU?SMERU is an independent research institute that undertakes research and policy studies on socio- economic, poverty, decentralization, and vulnerability issues considered most urgent and relevant for the welfare of the people of IndonesiaSMERU adopts both quantitative and qualitative research methods to carry out these studiesThe SMERU Research Institute
76What is SMERU? SMERU engages in policy dialogues and provides inputs SMERU enhances the capacity of NGOs through training and discussionsOrganizes workshops, seminars, and discussions as part of the sharing and networking processRegularly publishes papers, reports, and newsletters and maintains a website to disseminate research findingsThe SMERU Research Institute
77How and Why SMERU Was Set Up? In October 1998, SMERU (previously known as the Social Monitoring & Early Response Unit) was established with a mandate to carry out independent, reliable, real-time monitoring of the social impact of the crisis unfolding in IndonesiaIt was funded by AusAID, ASEM, and USAID, and with logistical and administrative support from the World Bank.SMERU's mandate from its stakeholders came to an end by December 2000The core group of staff and researchers continued SMERU's existence as an independent institution for research and policy studies under the name of The SMERU Research InstituteThe SMERU Research Institute
78Initial Sources of SMERU’s Core Funding (Year 2001) AusAIDThe Ford FoundationDFID (ended in 2005)Commissioned research projects and trainingOther Sources of FundingThe SMERU Research Institute
79How Does SMERU Operate? Planning Reporting Based on strategic planning and Vision 2010Administrative and financial matters: in consultation with its management and staff, and occasionally with the Board of GovernorsResearch matters: in consultation with designated research teamsReportingProject Consultative Committee Meetings and BOG meetings; quarterly and biannual reportsThe SMERU Research Institute
80Maintenance of Academic Credibility Peer review/refereed journalsLinkage with universities, research institutes, development organizationsParticipation in local and international seminars, conferences, and workshops through presentations of papers and attendance as participantsThe SMERU Research Institute
81Maintenance of Independence SMERU does not belong to any entityNo kickback – remains impartial, transparent and accountableThird party agreement – SMERU has the right to co-own the data and publish the research findingsResearch outcome is not influenced by political or religious and other entities, and is not being controlled by any entityNot driven by donors’ agendaThe SMERU Research Institute
82Engagement with Policy Processes Interacting, organizing seminars and workshops, disseminating SMERU’s publications, research findings and recommendations, sending memorandum/policy briefs to relevant high-ranking government officials, donors, and other stakeholders.Establishing networks and collaboration/coalition with CSOs, and lobbying with MPsThe SMERU Research Institute
83Engagement with Policy Processes Disseminating information/research findings towards forming better-informed CSOsProviding free access to all SMERU’s publications, reports, working papers, and NGO Database through the SMERU Website:Linking SMERU’s website to othersThe SMERU Research Institute
84CHALLENGES ……..Developing trust and credibility through better research qualityUnderstanding and dealing with other influencing contextual factors in bridging research to policyStriving to be financially sustainable by maintaining the research quality to win the trust of stakeholders and donorsBalancing consultancy work and SMERU’s own research agendaWidening networks and linkagesFacilitating linkages and cooperation among CSOs, enhancing capacity and promoting public accountabilityThe SMERU Research Institute
85The SMERU Research Institute www.smeru.or.id Thank YouThe SMERU Research Institute
86End of slide show, click to exit Conclusions and sources of more information
87ConclusionsIt is possible to improve the impact of research on policy if you:really, really want to do itunderstand the (esp. political) contextuse a strategic approachestablish the right incentives / culturedevelop the right skills in the teamengage, engage, engageThere are some good toolsThere are a growing number of organisations who can help