Reflections of 20 years of proving that what we do works

 1999 CSC position paper by Denise Grey-Felder (Rockerfeller) and James Deane (Panos Institute) after meetings in Bellagio (1997)and Cape Town (1998)  The document outlines the following SBBC principles:  To move away from people as the objects for change … and on to people and communities as the agents of their own change  ¨ Away from designing, testing and delivering messages…and on to supporting dialogue and debate on the key issues of concern

 ¨ Away from the conveying of information from technical experts… and on to sensitively placing that information into the dialogue and debate  ¨ Away from a focus on individual behaviors…and on to social norms, policies, culture and a supportive environment  ¨ Away from persuading people to do something …and on to negotiating the best way forward in a partnership process

Communication for Development Report of the 8 th UN Roundtable, Nicaragua 2001 “The long-term goals for communicators included improved inter-agency collaboration in areas such as education and communication in reproductive health for adolescents, the retention of prevention, care and mitigation of the impact of the epidemic high on participants’ agendas, and strengthened alliances between governments and civil societies to maintain progress on such themes as rights, gender equity and social equality and reproductive and sexual health.”

The Rome Consensus 2007 “Communication for Development is a social process based on dialogue using a broad range of tools and methods. It is also about seeking change at different levels including listening, building trust, sharing knowledge and skills, building policies, debating and learning for sustained and meaningful change. It is not public relations or corporate communication”

Rome Consensus shared body of evidence of the value for Communication for Development. Examples shared were:  India Radio Farm Forum from 1959  FGC in Senegal – reduction by 33% attributed to participatory communication  Dealing with corruption in Uganda resulting in a reduction of funds that do not deal reach local levels from 80% to 20%

 Individuals  Partners  Funders e.g DFID Funding for SBCC regional project

 SBCC as a professional field with professional courses offered at different institutions  Non- formal capacity building opportunities  Innovation  Creation of Brands  Governments support

 We recognised a long time ago that context matters for change to take place  We also recognised that while we use products and tools to communicate messages to influence, change behaviour, SBCC or C4D is about a social process of engagement, debate, reflection and practice.  Even when we use the ecological model, our practise defies what we say

 Most of what we do focuses on individual behaviour change and less so on the social part (the community norms and the broader socio-economic -political sphere)  For example, we do not question why women are at the bottom of the social strata and work with them to place their voice at the center, we develop tools to make them cope better with their situation  If we really believed in the social, we would have supported and strengthened social movements more than we have and in some instances created a social revolution

 We know that we need to evaluate our work and prove that it works  How can we do so if we continue to use RCT as the golden standard for evaluations?  There are very few studies that test the effectiveness of behavioural interventions to reduce risk using behavioural and biomedical endpoints  We never point to the limitations of the evaluation methods, rather to communications

 All reporting to 2 major funders around HIV is how many people did we reach with various packages  Focus on counting  Context and quality not taken into account  Blanket implementation in a community – rigid  Time lines very short  Assumption that change is a mechanical linear process  Qualitative assessment never included.

Soul City 4 Edutainment vehicle Partnership with NNVAW Community Community structures, organizations, institutions Community leaders and service providers Change in policy and practice Services Change in own awareness, attitudes Acknowledge and support Connect people to … Community action and events Collective efficacy Resonance, identification “People Talking” Perceive norms to change Interaction with community & service delivery More open communication Shapes, supplements reinforces health and development messages More caring service delivery, better understanding of issues Point of reference How is funding and supporting community based outcomes? - Qualitative impact assessment

 WHO ARE WE – CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS/IMPLEMENTERS?  Funders setting the agenda  Length of funding  Bilateral decisions with governments  NGO’s reduced to service providers  How we evaluate what we do  Who tells us what works/what does not work?

 Consistency of principles of partnerships and decision making – where does power really lie? Who controls the agenda?  What is the relationship here?  Where is the command center if we open country offices?  Capacity – by whose definition?  Money and governance issues  Local NGO’s as training grounds for big international organizations

 The media landscape is evolving  Social media as an important platform suggest that we can reach audiences on different platforms but we must also reach them differently.  The role of the expert with neat messages is also questioned – we are yet to harness this successfully  Let’s bring back the social into SBCC