Bangladesh - Belgium

Citizens’ Voice and Accountability Evaluation – Bangladesh Country Case Study
instead focus on measuring outcomes (as a means of evaluating the performance of
the movement/process). This is what GTZ says it is doing with its own thematic
programmes. But it could be applied to local organisations too. This mirrors the
approach adopted in several of the donor countries, where governments, conscious
of the need to have a strong civil society voice, subsidise organisations who are
accredited to a Charities Commission or other accreditation institution with almost “no
strings attached”; they are valued for existing and serving the purpose of a counter
balance to State. There has been much discussion in Bangladesh recently about
establishing such a commission/accreditation body (very different in function from the
NGO Bureau). If this could function then donors could be more confident of open
ended funding for accredited organisations. We feel it could be time to reflect more
critically on the “projectising” approach when dealing with long-term processes of
change prevalent in CVA interventions.
In the context of a shift to outcome-based monitoring and evaluation, donors should
find a "middle ground" of observable and measurable change between counting
participation and tracking MDGs. This means finding measurable outcome indicators
that move within a project cycle. These could include:
(i) process indicators such as perception scores of the responsiveness and
inclusiveness demonstrated by duty bearers in different contexts or
observable changes in the frequency of use of institutions, such as justice
systems, police and social services, that previously would not have been
used, either because they were inaccessible or because citizens didn't have
the level of agency to choose to use those services;
(ii) outcome indicators linked to improved quality and accessibility of services,
for example decreased water/sanitation-related illness or decreased school
drop out rate.
Donors’ apparent need to spend money is not always appropriate in promoting voice.
As mentioned above some of the most effective voices are resource light (e.g. MMC
Meet the People, GTZ brokered dialogue, BSSF’s voice raising). Furthermore,
money can choke voluntarism (e.g. MMC pays community teamleaders) and
encourage unnecessary investment in infrastructure which then becomes a burden to
maintain.
Donors should be more cognisant of the way they can distort programmes and
divert organisations away from their core competences. The demands to reach the
poorest, most marginalized, most remote (albeit altruistic) may not provide the best
conditions for piloting new approaches, getting media attention or nurturing a critical
mass of support. In short, satisfying such demands may not be the most strategic
(and efficient) way to promote voice interventions. Similarly, the demands to reduce
external risks and maximise impact by engaging in other activities – such as
promoting an enabling environment, getting involved in national level advocacy and
scaling up – can dilute the core focus of the programme.
Donors need to be agile to be able to mobilise funds opportunistically. The current
Caretaker Government situation opens windows of opportunity, particularly in respect
of operationalising guardianship institutions. These windows of opportunity can be
used only if donors will be able to make funds available in a very short time. The
team recommends that donors examine more efficient ways to mobilise resources
when contexts change unexpectedly. The current model of some donors to have
‘funds in waiting’ could be expanded.
Donors can consider ways to fund platforms rather than institutions themselves.
GTZ, for example, funds Round Tables, while MMC felt that funds to support only the
Meet the People programme would have been extremely valuable. Funding events
rather than the organisation should theoretically, limit manipulation of who
42