1. Community Integration and Development USP Conference May 2013

2. 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

3. 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

4. Civic Engagement USP Conference May 2013

5. Governance and Rights Framework

6. 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

7. Civil Society within the GRU Framework

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. ‘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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. ‘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

17. ‘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

18. ‘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

19. ‘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

20. ‘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

21. ‘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

22. Thank you!

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

24. 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

25. 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?