<%BANNER%>

Interorganizational cooperation in uncertain environments: the case of food aid management

University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

INTERORGANIZATIONAL COOPERATIO N IN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS: THE CASE OF FOOD AID MANAGEMENT By HAROLD D. GREEN, JR. A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Harold D. Green, Jr.

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge Cooperative for A ssistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) International, who funded this dissertation resear ch through their constitu ency-building budget. The generous support of Milo Stanojevich, B ob Bell, Eric Dupree-Walker, and Jeanne Downen made this project possible. I would also like to thank the staff Food Aid Management (FAM), (Mara Russell, Steve Zodrow and Trisha Schmir ler) for their assistance. Without their help I would never have been able to complete th is work. The FAM Steering Committee and all FAM member organization representatives endured my presence at many meetings where sensitive information was discussed; and graciously completed my questionnaire despite their busy schedules. I gratefully acknowledge their kind assistance. I would like to thank my Advisory Committee (Dr. H. Russell Bernard, Dr. Christopher McCarty, Dr. Della McMillan-Wilson and Dr. He nry Tosi) whose guidance on this project was indispensable. My colleagues at th e University of Florida Department of Anthropology and at the National Science Foundation Summer Institute fo r Research Design in Cultural Anthropology have also been very supportive. Their advice ensured that I could explain the rich tapestry of Title II food aid organizations in a way that was understandable, even if it was too verbose. My family and friends around the world al so deserve acknowledgement for their support over the past six years; particularly during my fieldwork in Washington DC. They kept me safe and sane while buildings were falling down around my ears.

PAGE 4

iv PREFACE THE GREENING OF GREEN Working in the international development co mmunity for the past year and a half has changed my anthropological perspective. At the beginning of this research, I was convinced that NGOs aroused such a strong individual commitmen t in their employees that all other concerns paled in comparison. After several months imme rsed in financial reports for these nonprofit organizations and learning that some of their budgets near the one-billion-dollar mark, my views on the way development organizations operate ha ve changed drastically. Ideology has been eclipsed by economy. I have come to realize that development organizations might have motivations other than a commitment to coll ectivism. I am not arguing that development organizations are identical to businesses. Nor am I arguing that development organizations are doing anything wrong. I am noting that the need to be financially viable and fiscally sound in the world economy accompanies their commitment to doing good works. An organization that wants to feed seven million people in Burkina Faso cannot do it by thinking good thoughts. An organization requires vast human, technical, financ ial, and commodity resources to complete that kind of project. It is necessary to understand my preconcei ved views and motivations to gauge their impact on my interpretation of interactions among the organizations that I studied. Working in an interorganizational collective gave me an interes ting perspective. In the context of collaboration, it is easy to see how differing organizational goals and philosophies affect how people interact. It is also easier to observe the diversity in i ndividual motivation among development workers. One colleague in the development world once explaine d to me that managing nonprofit collaboration was like herding cats. At first I thought the statement was just a humorous way to understand

PAGE 5

v organizational diversity. The more experience I had, the more I realized that the simile was much stronger than that. Like cats, nonprofits are incr edibly complex and come to cooperate for a number of reasons. Some may have an affinity fo r each other. Some may want to improve their capabilities in some area. Others may want to k eep an eye on the competition. Also like cats, nonprofits may suddenly choose not to cooperate. The number of re asons why these organizations cooperate or not is almost as large as the number of organizations that exist, perhaps even as large as the number of individuals working for those organizations. I now realize that cooperation and collaborati on are often motivated by pragmatism more than idealism. This is not to say that these or ganizations are cutthroat. I do not believe that these organizations want to eliminate all the comp etition and dominate the development industry. I simply mean that development organizations are mo re likely to cooperate if they can see a direct impact of that cooperation on their programming, their resource base, or their technical skills. Cooperation still exists. Cooperation still results in excellent products. Cooperation has likely been motivated by the same pragmatism for year s. I just did not realize it until I had the opportunity to live it. My research focuses on headquarters-level collaboration. My experience is with individuals working in offices in the US whose programs affect thousands of field programs around the world. While the individuals I interact ed with on a daily basis had extensive field experience, I had little experience with developm ent work in the field. What little I had was restricted to a few months interviewing devel opment workers in Port-au-Prince. My knowledge of field realities is too limited for me to even pretend to understand how they might differ from headquarters realities. My findings should not be considered applicable to field-level collaboration. By the same token, if you ask an y field-level employees they will agree that what happens at headquarters affects them and the way they conduct their business, whether that effect is for better or worse.

PAGE 6

vi A lot happened to me in a year. My belief that idealism motivated nonprofit activities was deeply affected by my research. In the place of my old perspective was a new, more complex understanding of the factors that might lead to organizational collaboration. I had to come to terms with this new perspective and how it a ffected my worldview. I am still committed to collective action. I still think that collaboration can often achieve better results than competition. I still believe that collectivism does exist in the worl d. I am just less inclined to try and force my experiences to fit that perspective, and infinite ly less inclined to assume that anyone else shares my motivations. No matter how objective social scientists aim to be, their footprints still show in the work they do. Careful reading of any research reveal s biases, interests, and assumptions that announce a scientist’s presence. My work is no different. When you read this document, you will find me in the pages. This dissertation is not just about how FAM and its member organizations have worked and changed in the past year. It is also about how I have worked and changed.

PAGE 7

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii PREFACE........................................................................................................................ ..iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................xi LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................xiii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................xiv ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................xvi i CHAPTER 1 COLLECTIVIST ORGANIZATION S: THE CASE OF FOOD AID MANAGEMENT.....................................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................2 Theoretical Significance..........................................................................................3 Social Network Significance....................................................................................6 Applied Significance................................................................................................8 Structure of the Dissertation....................................................................................9 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................10 Introduction............................................................................................................10 Theory of the Organization....................................................................................12 Rothschild-Whitt’s Collectivist Type....................................................................14 Collectivist Organi zational Analysis.....................................................................16 Structure...........................................................................................................18 Environment.....................................................................................................19 Institutional Values..........................................................................................19 Hypotheses.............................................................................................................20 Conclusion.............................................................................................................21

PAGE 8

viii 3 METHODS............................................................................................................23 Phase One...............................................................................................................23 Phase Two..............................................................................................................25 Analysis..................................................................................................................30 4 THE CONTEXT OF TITLE II FOOD AID PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION....33 Introduction............................................................................................................33 Background............................................................................................................33 International Food Aid Legislation and Policy......................................................38 National Food Aid Legislation and Policy.............................................................41 Stakeholders...........................................................................................................45 Organizational Environment..................................................................................50 Organizational Adaptations...................................................................................55 5 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON FOOD AID MANAGEMENT................61 Introduction............................................................................................................61 Background............................................................................................................62 Interactive Highlights.............................................................................................64 Document Highlights.............................................................................................68 Institutional Highlights..........................................................................................71 Conclusions............................................................................................................76 6 FOOD AID MANAGEMENT CONS TITUENCY-BUILDING AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITIES................................................................................80 Introduction............................................................................................................80 Steering Committee...............................................................................................81 Working Groups.....................................................................................................82 Meetings (Brown Bags and General Meetings)...............................................83 Products (Manuals and Toolkits).....................................................................84 Workshops.......................................................................................................85 Listservs.................................................................................................................86 Food Security Resource Center.............................................................................89 Acquisitions.....................................................................................................91 Requests...........................................................................................................93 Food Forum............................................................................................................95 Subscriptions....................................................................................................96 Contributions....................................................................................................99 Website................................................................................................................101 Visits..............................................................................................................102 Links..............................................................................................................103

PAGE 9

ix Interactions...........................................................................................................106 General Activities..........................................................................................108 Steering Committee Activities.......................................................................108 Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group..................................................109 Monetization Working Group........................................................................110 Local Capacity Building Working Group......................................................111 Environmental Working Group.....................................................................111 Advice, Formal and Inform al Ties, Non-Title II Ties...................................112 Evaluations...........................................................................................................117 Conclusions..........................................................................................................119 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..........................................................................126 Introduction..........................................................................................................126 Organizational Theory.........................................................................................127 Structure.........................................................................................................128 Environment...................................................................................................128 Individualism and Collectivism.....................................................................129 Hypothesis Tests............................................................................................131 Theoretical Discussion...................................................................................132 Implications for Social Network Analysis...........................................................135 Applications.........................................................................................................137 Environment...................................................................................................137 Individualism and Collectivism.....................................................................138 FAM Activities..............................................................................................139 Interactions.....................................................................................................140 Extension........................................................................................................141 Conclusion...........................................................................................................144 8 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................145 Introduction..........................................................................................................145 Food Aid Context.................................................................................................145 Historical Perspective..........................................................................................146 Food Aid Management Collectivist Activities....................................................148 Research Findings................................................................................................150 Theoretical.....................................................................................................150 Methodological..............................................................................................150 Practical..........................................................................................................151 Conclusion...........................................................................................................152

PAGE 10

x APPENDIX A FOOD AID MANAGEMENT MEMBER PROFILES.......................................154 Introduction..........................................................................................................154 Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunt eers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA)........................................................155 Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA).........................................156 Africare................................................................................................................158 American Red Cross International (ARC)...........................................................159 Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE)..............................162 Catholic Relief Services (CRS)...........................................................................163 Counterpart International (CNTPT).....................................................................165 Feed the Hungry International (FHI)...................................................................167 International Relief and Development (IRD)......................................................168 Mercy Corps (MC)...............................................................................................169 Opportunities Industrialization Centers International (OICI)..............................171 Project Concern In ternational (PCI)....................................................................173 Save the Children (SAVE)...................................................................................174 TechnoServe (TNS).............................................................................................175 World Vision (WV).............................................................................................177 World Self Help and Relief Exchange (SHARE)................................................178 B QUESTIONNAIRES AND RE SEARCH INSTRUMENTS..............................181 Questionnaire One: Title II Food Aid Context....................................................181 Questionnaire Two: FAM History.......................................................................181 Questionnaire Three: FAM Evaluations, Un certainty Scale, Collectivism Scales, and Network Elicitation................................................................................182 Basis for Questionnaires and Scales....................................................................186 C SCOPE OF WORK..............................................................................................188 FAM Background................................................................................................188 Building a Diverse Constituency Dedicated to Ending Poverty..........................189 Goal of the Study.................................................................................................191 Study Objectives and Methodology.....................................................................191 Time Schedule and Deliverables .........................................................................195 REFERENCES CITED....................................................................................................197 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................214

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Phase One methods summa ry and response rates.................................................................25 3-2 Phase Two methods summa ry and response rates................................................................30 4-1 Summary of domestic and interna tional food aid policy and legislation..............................44 5-1 Timeline of major FAM events............................................................................................7 5 6-1 Steering Committee membership during current ISA..........................................................82 6-2 Documents, manuals and toolkits.........................................................................................8 5 6-3 Listserv memberships for first quarter FY2002, increase from previous quarter.................88 6-4 Statistical analysis of listserv membership data...................................................................89 6-5 Recent acqui sitions for FSRC............................................................................................. ..91 6-6 Percentages fo r FSRC acquisitions.......................................................................................9 2 6-7 Chi-Squared values for FSRC acqui sitions by source and by format...................................92 6-8 Recent FSRC requests..................................................................................................... .....93 6-9 Categorical distribution of FSRC requests by frequency.....................................................94 6-10 Trends in FSRC requests since 1997 and associated p-values.............................................95 6-11 Governmental Food Forum subscriptions............................................................................97 6-12 International Food Forum subscriptions..............................................................................97 6-13 Categorical distribution of Food Forum subscription with frequencies and odds................97 6-14 Food Forum subscription rates and Z-scores for headquarters and field offices.................98 6-15 Categorical distribution of Food Forum contributions and associated Z-scores................100 6-16 Trends for popular pages................................................................................................. ...104 6-17 Z-scores for popular pages............................................................................................... ..104

PAGE 12

xii 6-18 Categorical distribution and odds ratios for online documents and links...........................105 6-19 Multiple regression sta tistics for centrality.........................................................................107 6-20 General interactions..................................................................................................... .......109 6-21 Steering Committee interactions.........................................................................................1 09 6-22 Monitoring and evaluation interactions..............................................................................110 6-23 Monetization interactions................................................................................................ ...110 6-24 Local Capacity Building Working Group interactions.......................................................112 6-25 Environmental Working Group interactions......................................................................112 6-26 Advice network interactions.............................................................................................. .113 6-27 Formal interactions...................................................................................................... .......113 6-28 Informal Title II interactions........................................................................................... ...114 6-29 Non-Title II interactions................................................................................................ .....114 6-30 Centralization measures and Z-scores based on sample mean...........................................116 6-31 Centralization d escriptive statistics.................................................................................... 116 6-32 Network correlations for similar networks.........................................................................117 6-33 Collaborative activity ratings and ranks.............................................................................118 7-1 Centrality d escriptive statistics........................................................................................ ....128 7-2 Uncertainty d escriptive statistics....................................................................................... ..128 7-3 Individualism/Collectivism scale ranks...............................................................................130 7-4 Wagner descriptive statistics............................................................................................ ...131 7-5 Earley descr iptive statistics............................................................................................ .....131 7-6 Parametric pairwise correlations......................................................................................... .131 7-7 Nonparametric me asures of association..............................................................................132 7-8 Correlation coefficients for QAP analyses of FAM interactions.........................................136 A-1 Organizational demographics.............................................................................................1 80

PAGE 13

xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 6-1 General FAM interaction network........................................................................................121 6-2 Steering Committee interaction network..............................................................................121 6-3 Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group interaction network ........................................122 6-4 Monetization Working Group interaction network ..............................................................122 6-5 Local Capacity Building Working Group interaction network ............................................123 6-6 Environmental Working Group interaction network............................................................123 6-7 Title II advice-seeking interaction network..........................................................................124 6-8 Formal Title II agreement interaction network.....................................................................124 6-9 Informal Title II interaction network....................................................................................125 6-10 Non-Title II interaction network.........................................................................................125

PAGE 14

xiv KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ACDI/VOCA Agriculture Cooperative Developm ent International/ Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency AED Academy for Educational Development AID Agency for International Development ARC American Red Cross International Services BHR Bureau of Humanitarian Response BWI Bread for the World Institute CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CCC Commodity Credit Corporation CFGB Canadian Food Grains Bank CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CNTPT Counterpart International COMM Commodity Listserv CRS Catholic Relief Services CS Cooperating Sponsor DAP Development Activity Proposal EDM Environmental Documentation Manual EWG Environmental Working Group EU European Union FAC Food Aid Convention FAFSPP Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper

PAGE 15

xv FAM Food Aid Management FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance FARM Food Aid Resource Materials FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FFP Food for Peace FHI Feed the Hungry, International FSRC Food Security Resource Center FY Fiscal Year GACAP Generally Accepted Commodity Accounting Principles GAO General Accounting Office GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade HQ Headquarters I/C Individualism/Collectivism IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IR Intermediate Result IRD International Relief and Development ISA Institutional Support Agreement ISG Institutional Support Grant LCB Local Capacity Building LDFIC Less Developed Food Importing Countries LIFDC Low Income Food Deficit Country M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MC Mercy Corps MMT Million Metric Tons MNTZ Monetization

PAGE 16

xvi NGO Non-Governmental Organization NUT Nutrition Listserv OICI Opportunities Industrialization Centers International OMB Office of Management and Budget PCI Project Concern International PEU Perceived Environmental Uncertainty PL480 Public Law 480 PVO Private Voluntary Organization SAVE Save the Children SC Steering Committee SHARE World Self Help and Resource Exchange SO Strategic Objective TII Title II TNS TechnoServe UN United Nations USG United States Government USDA United States Department of Agriculture WFP World Food Program WFS World Food Summit WTO World Trade Organization WG Working Group WV World Vision

PAGE 17

xvii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INTERORGANIZATIONAL COOPERATIO N IN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS THE CASE OF FOOD AID MANAGEMENT By Harold D. Green, Jr. May 2003 Chair: Dr. H. Russell Bernard Major Department: Anthropology Food Aid Management (FAM) is a collective of private voluntary organizations that receive American commodities for international development activities around the world. The member organizations cooperate to solve common problems associated with commodity management, commodity sales, monitoring, evaluation, and compliance with government regulations. Research suggests that FAM’s organi zational environment, structure, and culture may be understood from the theoretical perspec tive of the collectivist organizational type described by Rothschild-Whitt. During 2002, qualit ative and quantitative social research methods were used to gather information from FAM member organizations to test the collectivist model. Parametric, nonparametric, and Boolean analyses of the data provided no quantitative support for the model. Social network techniques revealed the structure of inter-organizational interactions in the FAM context. Further analysis suggests that network elicitation prompts significantly impact associated network structures. Research findings support the use of social network methods to monitor collaborative activity. Changes in organiza tional structure and behavior to realign FAM

PAGE 18

xviii with their collectivist mission and their collec tivist outlook are also recommended based on the findings of this research.

PAGE 19

1 CHAPTER 1 COLLECTIVIST ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF FOOD AID MANAGEMENT Private voluntary organizations and nongove rnmental organizations (PVOs and NGOs), are the primary organizations that make up the not-for-profit sector. These organizations play an increasingly important role in the delivery of services across the world—health care, shelter, schooling, food, and more. In 1977 nonprofits were estimated to employ more than 6% of the American workforce, about 6 million people (Mir vis and Hackett 1983). That number has grown at a rate of 5.1% annually; in 2000 an estimat ed 10.9 million individuals worked in 1.2 million nonprofit organizations in the United States (Indepe ndent Sector 2002). The number of people whose lives are affected by the work of nonprofits in the US and across the world probably runs to the tens of millions (Mirvis and Hackett 1983). Most current organizational research focuses on organizations with hierarchical structures based on legal authority and on maximizing profit—bureaucracies and market organizations. In nonprofit PVOs and NGOs, authority is thought to derive from commitment to a common value system rather than from commitment to legal rul es or the making of a profit. The relationships between organizational environments, social st ructure, and organizational values have been extensively investigated for economic organizati ons. Less is known about the interaction of these factors for nonprofits, particularly NGOs and PVOs. In this dissertation, I examine the relationships among organizational structure, environment, and organizational values for Food Aid Management (FAM), an interorganizational network of 16 PVOs. All FAM members are dedi cated to improving international development activities supported in part by Title II commodities provided by the United States

PAGE 20

2 Agency for International Development (USAID) office of Food for Peace (FFP) under the United States’ Public Law 480 (PL480). There are three primary goals of this research: To verify the collectivist model for in ternational development organizations. To explore the utility of social network t echniques for measuring collaborative capacity. To provide FAM with recommended ch anges to improve its activities. Background In 1989 five US PVOs created FAM to promot e the efficient and effective use of food aid resources to help alleviate hunger and contribute to food security. In September 1998, a five-year Institutional Support Agreement (ISA) between th e USAID office of FFP and the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), the gr ant holder, was awarded for FAM to continue coordinating and assisting PL480 Title II-funded Coop erating Sponsors (CSs) in their existing or planned institutional development activities. FA M was created to be a forum in which Title II PVOs could collaborate and exchange food aid an d food security program information. Sixteen American PVOs were FAM members in 2002. FAM works with these 16 CSs to achieve these three objectives: Facilitating and promoting the development of food aid standards. Promoting the food aid and food security kn owledge base of PVOs, USAID staff, and other collaborators through informa tion exchange and coordination. Facilitating collaboration between PVOs, US AID, and appropriate development and humanitarian professionals by organizing forums for discussion. As the coordinators of an interorganiza tional collective, the FAM staff work with member organizations to define activities and monitor member organizations’ achievement of agreed-upon goals. One of FAM’s activities is c oordinating working groups (WGs) for common topics that are programmatic priorities for members, namely, monitoring and evaluation (M&E WG), monetization (MNTZ WG), local capacity building (LCB WG), and the environment (E WG). FAM also manages the Food Security Res ource Center (FSRC), publishes the quarterly

PAGE 21

3 Food Forum bulletin, maintains an active website, and implements other food security information sharing activities including intero rganizational workshops and trainings. FAM does not implement PL480 Title II food programs; its CS members do. The objectives and activities of FAM support the US AID FFP office’s Strategic Objective 2: "Increased effectiveness of FFP’s Partners in carrying out Title II development activities with measurable results related to food security with a primary focus on household nutrition and agricultural productivity." FAM accomplishes its goals while focusing its efforts on activities that support the achievement of FFP’s Intermedia te Result 1: "Strengthened capabilities of PVOs, USAID Missions, and FFP to design, monitor, and support programs" (USAID/BHR/FFP 2001, USAID Office of Procurement 1998). As a nonimplementing, information-sharing, coordinating body, FAM’s efficiency depends on consistently monitoring activities dir ectly related to FAM objectives. In the case of the FAM workshops, publications, and website, FA M has mechanisms to track how information is being disseminated, used, and potentially re vised. By encouraging, managing and monitoring collaboration and information exchange am ong its 16 PVO members, FAM makes a unique contribution to Title II programming. The FAM members perceive the collective as a valuable means for exchanging new tools and best prac tices in an unstable resource environment. Theoretical Significance Marx (1973) stated that almost every aspect of modern life is affected by complex formal organizations. Government bureaus, churches, manufacturing firms, hospitals, schools, and restaurants are all examples of complex formal organizations that individuals come in contact with daily. The works of Etzioni (1961, 1964, 1968, 1972), Marx (1973, 1977, 1994, 2002), and Weber (1958, 1968), cornerstones of social science, were based on investigating how individuals form complex organizations and how t hose organizations affect human lives.

PAGE 22

4 One of the theoretical foundations of orga nizational science is Weber’s concept of organizational authority (Mouzelis, 1967; Scott 1998). Weber defined authority as the power to command. In his conceptualization, there are four kinds of authority: Charismatic, based on leadership of a strong personality. Traditional, based on leadership through historical or religious bases. Legal-rational, based on leadership under the legal contract. Value-rational, based on leadership through a shared belief system. Weber argued that these four kinds of authority give rise to four ideal organizational forms or types. The charismatic, traditional, and bureaucratic organizational forms have been the focus of most organizational science because they have been most prevalent in modern society (Rothschild-Whitt 1979, Satow 1975). The collectivis t, value-rational organizational type, based on a shared belief system, is investigated less often, likely because there have been so few. Indeed, the collectivist organizational type h as been dubbed Weber’s “missing type” (RothschildWhitt 1979, Satow 1975). Statistics show that the fre quency of collectivist organizations has been increasing in the United States and abroad, however leading to greater interest in studying collectivist organizations (Independent Sector 2002). The classic organizational type is the bureaucrac y, which has hierarchical social structure based on rules made by leaders who have legal -rational authority over subordinate workers. These rules are created to facilitate efficient production of outputs or completion of tasks. Organizations are part of a money economy in this line of reasoning (Scott, 1998). Most bureaucracies share other common characteristics including high levels of specialization, impersonal relationships among members of the or ganizations, recruitment of officials on the basis of ability and technical knowledge, and sep aration of private and official profits. One of Weber’s critics, Nicos Mouzelis (1967:39), noted that there is one “common, all pervasive element” that unites all the characteris tics of bureaucracies. It is “the existence of a system of control based on rational rules, rules which try to regulate the whole organizational structure and process on the basis of technical knowledge and with the aim of maximum

PAGE 23

5 efficiency.” Mouzelis also observed that while an organization may be based on legal-rational rules, there is no implication that it will yi eld maximum efficiency. This possibility for inefficiency, argues Mouzelis, is evidence of a weakness in Weber’s scheme of ideal types that opens the field for alternative organizational types that are equally efficient but based on principles other than maximizing economic profit. One of these new types, the collectivist organi zation, was most clearly defined by Joyce Rothschild-Whitt (1979). Rothschild -Whitt’s model of collectivist organizations differs from Weber’s model of bureaucratic organizations in several ways. First, the decisions of collective organizations are premised on the logic of substa ntive rationality rather than formal rationality. Thus, the sense of the law is followed, rather th an the letter of the law. Second, the collective organization has a value-rational basis of authority. The ability to command is derived from a collective decision. Third, the structure of coll ectivist organizations is less hierarchical or centralized than the structure of bureaucratic organizations. The underlying factor in this conceptualization of organizations is that a valu e-based (moral or ethical) belief system motivates authority and compliance and provides the basis for organizational goals and structure (Astley and Van de Ven, 1983). The collectivist model is useful for unders tanding social service organizations, charities, PVOs and NGOs (Astley and Van de Ven, 1983, DiMaggio and Anheier 1990, Goodman 1999, Hasenfeld and Gidron 1993, Satow 1975). Th e new analysis enabled by recognizing these alternative organizational types is not constr ained by the assumption that organizations are striving for improved economic efficiency or that organizations are hierarchically structured around legal-rational authority structures. The collectivist organizational model may better explain why nonprofit organizations survive in th e face of uncertainty in the organizational environment. Based on Rothschild-Whitt’s descr iption and on other organizational scientists’ work on collectivist organizations (Baker 1982, Goodman 1999, Hasenfe ld and Gidron 1993, Heydebrand 1989, Lois 1999, Schifflet and Zey 19 90, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Torrez et

PAGE 24

6 al. 1991, Waters 1993, Wells 1981), the idea arises th at those individuals who believe they work in an unstable environment are likely to have a particular commitment to collaboration and their organizations are likely to encourage decentra lized organizational and interorganizational activities, and to have a particular position within a network structure. Researchers have related organizational structure to noneconomic aspects of organizational life. Boje and Whetten (1981), Ib arra and Andrews (1993), and Krakhardt (1990) investigated the relationships between structur e and perceived power. Burns and Stalker (1994) and Strang and Tuma (1993) studied how structure affects diffusion of information. These studies measure perceptions in and the movement of information through organizations. The research I describe in this dissertation explores a group of relationships among environmental factors, interorganizational structures, and institutionalized values. I also explore the possible influence of those factors on perceptions of performance (b ased on work by Katz 1950, 1975, 1978, 1980), linking organization demographics to m easures of organizational performance. Limited international development resources in a climate of political, environmental and social instability should mean heightened comp etition and more aggressive measures to control scarce resources. It is true that these PVOs are often in competition for scarce development resources; however, FAM member organizations c ontinue to share information and resources. Because FAM organizations cooperate, they ma y not conform to traditional organizational models, particularly the bureaucratic mode l that is the foundation of most traditional organizational analysis. The collectivist mode l might be a better framework for understanding FAM organizations. Social Network Significance The Title II resource environment is volatile, with uncertain events making organizational flexibility very important. Emery and Trist (1965) call these organizational environments “turbulent fields” and suggest that organizations can survive these environmental conditions by relying on “values that have overriding significance for all members of the field” (1965:28). An

PAGE 25

7 organization, they argue, will attempt to change its activities, its values, or its structure to control environmental uncertainty and/or volatility. The environment, then, in addition to affecting organizational culture and organi zational behavior, also affects intraand interorganizational structure (Dill 1958, Emery and Trist 1965). Soci al network research shows that individuals use their networks for social support in unstable environments (Dershem and Gzirishvili 1998; Walker, Wasserman and Wellman 1994). Social networks often mitigate the effects and perceptions of that uncertain environment. A pe rson who has a strong network of social ties is less likely to feel the changes and turbulence of the environment and is more likely to be resilient to those changes. Other research has shown that a person’s positio n within a network affects that person’s perceptions of the environment (Boj e and Whetten 1981; Boster, Johnson and Weller 1987; Freeman 1978/1979; Walker, Wasserman and We llman 1994). I believe that this is also the case for organizations, particularly for organizati ons that cooperate in the face of uncertainty (Baker 1982, Barnett and Carroll 198 7, Heydebrand 1989, Lois 1999). My field research suggests that FAM was founded to help the member agencies gain control over an organizational environment that was changing as rapidly as USAID, the primary donor, was changing. The FAM network provided information about the activities of other organizations. Members shared information abou t the international development environment and, over time, made resources once only available to larger PVOs available to other member agencies. Collective action by the member agencies may have led to more political power and may have helped lessen some organizational str esses that member agencies faced when working independently. Collectivism also implies adheren ce to decentralized structures and activities, key for the success of this kind of organizational network. Organizational collaboration in this context is about developing relationships and making connections. In this research, I examine FA M’s primary activities and how those activities contribute to interorganizational network forma tion. I also investigate how FAM networks and their associated organizational interactions affect those primary activities. I use social network

PAGE 26

8 techniques here to determine the structure of orga nizational interactions in the context of FAM’s primary activities. These techniques provide estimates of how centralized and hierarchical each of the networks is. Because I investigated all of FAM collaborative activities, I incorporated ten different network elicitation questions. The res ponses to those questions led to ten different interorganizational network structures. The differe nces in structure highlight the importance of choosing the appropriate network elicitation question and the prudence of incorporating multiple questions into the network research as validity checks. Applied Significance This research was completed at the request of FAM. As their ISA came to a close, FAM administrators were interested in learning how successful they had been in encouraging collaborative activity in the Title II community. Th e goal of this study was to document, reflect on, and learn from FAM’s experience coordinating co llaborative activities both in the past and in the present, with an eye toward strengthening th ose activities in the future. Since FAM’s current funding would be ending, the output of this stud y informed the FAM’s strategic planning process for the next round of ISA funding proposals. FAM wanted qualitative information about how FAM had affected cooperation in the past and how FAM was currently affecting coopera tion. They wanted to know who they were serving and how often their services were being u sed. FAM also wanted quantitative support so that they could provide USAID with data that monitored and evaluated the impact of their collaborative activities. FAM’s framework for understanding th ese collaborative activities was called constituency building. By that, they mean increasi ng the depth and breadth of the constituency of individuals and organizations they are servi ng. I designed the research to answer FAM’s questions about constituency building while simu ltaneously investigating my theoretical and methodological questions. In doing that, my research moved out of the realm of theory and into the real world.

PAGE 27

9 Structure of the Dissertation The remainder of this dissertation reports findings from the two phases of the project. First I outline the organizational theory I used to frame my research. Then, I explain how I conceptualized this research in a short methods ch apter. In Chapter 4, I describe the Title II food aid environment, framing my description with the organizational theory concept of a turbulent field. In Chapter 5, I present a history of FA M’s collaborative activities to situate FAM in its operational and historical context. A profile of FAM’s current activities that incorporates representatives’ evaluations of FAM’s activities a nd describes organizational interactions using social network approaches follows in Chapter 6. Diagrams of the relevant FAM organizational networks are presented at the end of this chap ter. The seventh chapte r restates my original hypotheses and presents the results of hypothesis t ests. This chapter includes results from the modified Miles and Snow Perceived Environmen tal Uncertainty Scale and the results of the Wagner and Earley scales of Individualism and Co llectivism (Earley 1994, Miles and Snow 1978, Wagner 1995). The discussion sections of this chap ter also explain not only how the information gained from research with FAM informs organizatio nal theory but also how organizational theory was applied in the research context and led to specific recommendations for organizational change. Chapter 8 provides a concise su mmary of the major research findings.

PAGE 28

10 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Introduction In 1977, nonprofits employed over 6 million in dividuals in the American work force, a number that has steadily risen over time (Mir vis and Hackett 1983). More than 10.9 million Americans now work in the nonprofit sector (I ndependent Sector 2002). The growth of these organizations in the United States is parallele d by a worldwide proliferation of similar organizations (Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Rothschild-Wh itt 1979, Independent Sector 2002). With increasing globalization and internati onal activity, the number of people employed by or receiving the services of volunteer and nongovernmental organizations is much larger. Because they differ from market organizations a nd governmental agencies, these organizations are called the independent, third sector of th e economy (Mirvis and Hackett 1983, Lewis 1999). Third-sector organizations are less confined by traditional organizationa l parameters, allowing new approaches to organizational structure and be havior. Often in third sector organizations, new forms of organizational activity replace traditi onal forms. Cooperation may replace competition or collectivity may replace bureaucracy. Waters (1993) suggests that new organiza tional types are emerging in this “postWeberian” era and organizational scientists have developed theoretical frameworks to identify and explain new organizational forms (Heydebra nd 1989). The most divergent new organizations are network or virtual organizations, whose stru cture and operations exploit new niches in the ecology of the global economy. Whether they are groups of individuals or groups of organizations, network structures display strong form al and informal social relationships (Christie and Levary 1998, Voss 1996).

PAGE 29

11 Litwak and Hylton (1962) and Rothschild-Whitt (1979) present theories of a new organizational type related to network and virt ual organizations, similarly defined by strong formal and informal social relationships between employees: the collectivist organization. Some restaurant cooperatives, women’s groups, and medical service organizations are examples of collectivist organizations that have arisen in the recent past (Baker 1982, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Vanderslice 1988). Often volun teer and not-for-profit organizations are characterized as collectivist (Heydebrand 1989). Th e growth in number of collectivist, thirdsector organizations in the United States and ab road, and the increase in research focusing on these organizations is evidence of rising inte rest in these groups (Independent Sector 2002). Weber’s body of organizational theory cont ains a framework for understanding the basic types of organizational authority and the organiza tions that emerge from each type of authority. Each kind of organizational author ity that Weber presents is asso ciated with an organizational type except for value-rational authority, which is considered the base of power in collectivist organizations. Weber’s analysis of alternative organizational types (here, alternative means nonbureaucratic or non-market) has been calle d “fragmentary and unsystematic” leaving consideration of these forms to other organizati on scientists (Waters 1993). Critiques of Weber’s typology (particularly Mouzelis 1967 and Satow 1975) show that there is room for the incorporation of the collectivist type into orga nizational theory in ways that would supplement Weber’s existing typology. Mouzelis’s (1967) cr itique of Weber’s typology argues that the framework could be changed to incorporate th e new collectivist type. There are two outcomes from incorporating collectivist organizations into the framework: First, organizational theory will provide a set of organizations that have existe d for years a unique and less subordinate position in the arena of organizational theory. Second, organi zational theorists can begin to test the validity of theoretical constructs related to collec tivist organizations, bringing accepted methods and models to bear in new ways for theory and application.

PAGE 30

12 Organizational theorists generate and appl y typologies as a means to understand new organizational forms and behaviors (Doty a nd Glick 1994, Scherer 1988, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Waters 1993). These typologies or classification systems are often too abstract to be experimentally falsified. The theoretical cons tructions that strive to characterize third-sector organizational forms are no exception. Weick (1974) argues that theoretical organizational concepts should be related to sets of testable ass ertions to determine the utility and applicability of new organizational typologies and new organiza tional types. Organizational theories must be moved from the realm of theoretical discussion to the realm of quantitative analysis, pared down into groups of hypotheses and propositions that can be investigated using existing methods (Doty and Glick 1994, Weick 1974). Although observatio nal and empirical evidence support theoretical constructs related to collectiv ist organizations, some assertions remain to be empirically or experimentally tested using current statistical capabilities. This research is an attempt to do that in th e limited context of international development. In this chapter, I define the collectivist organi zation in relation to Weber’s bureaucratic ideal, use previous organizational research to develop a set of assertions that I believe must be tested to validate the theoretical construction of the co llectivist model, and briefly explain how I operationalize the concepts. Theory of the Organization Max Weber’s concept of the idealized bureau cracy informs much organizational theory (Mouzelis 1967, Weber 1958). One could cast all organizational theory either in agreement with the bureaucratic ideal or in reaction to that ideal. Weber defines bureaucratic organizations as hierarchical social structures organized around rules (usually written) made by leaders who have been given legal-rational authority over a number of subordinate workers. Th e rules are created to facilitate efficient production of outputs or comple tion of tasks and comprise classical or formal rationality. To Weber, bureaucratic and market organizations are paramount, with alternative types subordinate because their decision-making procedures are inferior.

PAGE 31

13 One of Weber’s strongest critics is Nicos Mouzelis. Mouzelis’s critique of Weber’s ideal bureaucratic type is important for two reasons. First, Mouzelis summarizes the characteristics of bureaucracy and presents a “common, all pervasive element” (1967: 39) that unites the characteristics. Briefly, the bureaucratic characteris tics relevant to Mouzelis are: a high degree of specialization, a hierarchical structure, impersonal relationships between members of the organization, recruitment of officials on the basis of ability and technical knowledge, and the separation of private and official profits. The co mmon factor is “the existence of a system of control based on rational rules, rules which try to regulate the whole organizational structure and process on the basis of technical knowledge and with the aim of maximum efficiency” (1967: 39). These characteristics summarize Weber’s bureaucratic type, and serve as points of comparison for other organizational types. Mouzelis’s second point concerns the extent to which an organizational theorist could construct an a priori model to generate the ma ximum degree of productive efficiency. Ketchen et al. (1993) use a similar approach in their configur ational analyses of the hospital industry. In the case of Weber, the a priori organization would be founded on the idea of technical or functional rationality, in which a series of well-defined actions is designed to lead to one and only one goal. Unfortunately, maximum efficiency is not always the outcome of an organization built from rational rules (Mannheim 1950). Mouzelis argues th at if more than one theoretical organization can be designed to yield maximum productive efficien cy or, if an organization can be created that fails to reach maximum efficiency, then Weber’s ideal bureaucratic type is weakened. This opens organizational analysis based on Weber’s typology to other organizational types that are equally efficient but whose efficiency is based on tenets other than technical rationality. This means that the collectivist type can be incorporated w ithout damaging the theoretical underpinnings of Weber’s typology or of the collectivist type.

PAGE 32

14 Rothschild-Whitt’s Collectivist Type Organizational theorists have characterized organizations based on rules other than technical rationality that yield maximum producti ve efficiency or that maximize some other measure of success (Lewis 1999, Litwak and Hy lton 1962, Mirvis and Hackett 1983, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Waters 1993). The most apparent of these new organizations are nonprofit and volunteer service organizations, including NGOs and PVOs. These service-based organizations are active in many areas of the economy from national and international development to consumer information servi ces and health care provision. Observations of service-based organizations, and in particular cooperative organizations led Rothschild-Whitt to characterize an organizational type for those thir d-sector organizations that compliments Weber’s seemingly incomplete and asymmetric taxonomy of organizations (Baker 1982, Waters 1993). Following Mouzelis’s critique, Rothschild-Whitt’s t ype may be better suited for use as the basis for micro-level organizational analysis of volunteer and not-for-profit organizations. Rothschild-Whitt’s model differs from Weber’s bureaucracy in several ways. First, the decisions of collective organizations are premised on the logic of substantive rationality rather than formal rationality defined in the previous section. Substantive rationality, also known as value-rationality, is marked by a “belief in the va lue for its own sake, independent of its prospects of success” (Weber 1968:24). In international development, this is surely the case, as organizations choose to provide relief and assistance or establish projects in areas where there is the highest need but often the least possibilit y for success. Second, the collective organization uses value-rationality as the basis of authority rather than technical or functional rationality. This is also true in international development orga nizations, where commitment to the cause is more likely to be considered the prime motivator th an salary or other, more formal motivators. The collectivist type, or at least an organi zational type with a value-rational basis of authority is considered Weber’s missing type a nd is being used increasingly in the analysis of social service organizations (Astley and Van de Ven 1983, Goodman 1999, Satow 1975,

PAGE 33

15 Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Waters 1993). The unde rlying factor in the conceptualization of collectivist organizations is that a value-based (m oral or ethical) belief system motivates authority and compliance and provides the basis for organiza tional goals and structure (Astley and Van de Ven, 1988, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986). My observations of international development NGOs corroborate the work of these organization scientists. The eight defining characteristics of the collectivist organization oppose the characteristics of the ideal bureaucratic model: Author ity rests in the collectiv ity rather than in an individual. There is a minimum of rational rul es. Social control is value and moral based. Relations are not minimized as in the bureaucra tic form. Employment is based on interest and dedication rather than on skill. Incentives for participation are normative and value based. The organization is egalitarian. There is a minimal di vision of labor. Mirvis and Hackett’s (1983) analysis of the 1977 Quality of Employment Su rvey supports Rothschild-Whitt’s collectivist organizational type, not just for volunteer ser vice organizations, but for most third sector organizations. My fieldwork with 16 internati onal development organizations and a number of international development collectives also supports this theoretical framework for defining the value-rational collectivist organization. Value-rational authority is the focus of st udies by Fernandez (1991), Vanderslice (1988), Srivastva and Cooperrider (1986), and Baker (1982). Fernandez (1991) finds that leadership, or authority, in organizations is associated with bot h formal and informal structural ties. The amount that leadership is based in the two kinds of ti es is related to the type of organization and to institutionalized values, which are both related to the changing organizational environment, as will be discussed later in the paper. Vandersli ce (1988), investigating the Moosewood collective, found that successful “leaderless” leadership depends on structure, environment and institutionalized values as well, though she belie ves that horizontal structure and collective rationality are less necessary than would be exp ected from Rothschild-Whitt’s schema. Srivastva and Cooperrider find that leadership in a “wor ld-renowned” medical practice is based on an

PAGE 34

16 authority analogous to value rationality that “transcends instrumental or techno-economic rationality as a basis for collective action” (1986: 683). The transcendent rationality is correlated with a collectivist organizational ideology and w ith the open, vertical structure of the group. Collective social movement groups, particularly the lesbian-feminist organizations studied by Baker (1982), seem to have a value rational basis fo r authority, but Baker believes that pressure to conform to organizational and cultural norms is more powerful than individual commitment in developing that authority. Each of these authors arrives at a different conclusion about the degree of value rationality in collective organizations. The authors also differ in opinion about the relationship between the development of value rationality and an individual’s commitment to institutional values, the organizational envi ronment and organizational structure. The differences of opinion lead me to be lieve that these theories may benefit from confirmatory research to verify theories ge nerated from exploratory observational studies. Organization scientists much generate grounded assertions as Weick (1974) suggested, to test hypotheses about the interrelation between environm ent, values and organizational structures (or positions within collective structures) simultaneously. Collectivist Organizational Analysis The collectivist organization enables a new kind of organizational analysis. The new analysis is not constrained by the assumption that organizations are striving for improved productive efficiency or that organizations are arranged hierarchically around legal-rational authority structures, theoretical assumptions th at may not resemble the reality for nonprofit organizations. The collectivist type may better e xplain why an organization can survive in the face of extreme economic distress. Economic or market success is not most important in these organizations, and dedication to the cause can lead to an organization’s survival in an unstable organizational environment that ma y not support other organizations. Mouzelis (1967) believes that the basis of organizational analysis should be developing ways to classify organizations according to how strongly they reflect the characteristics of an

PAGE 35

17 ideal type. The empirical framework for collectivist organizations I present here builds on Mouzelis’s comments. Rothschild-Whitt’s definition of the collectivist organization points out the intersection of environmental, structural and institutional factors for nonprofit organizations, particularly those where decentralization is pr esent or encouraged. There are several assumptions made about the interaction of these factors that must be accepted if one considers the collectivist organization a valid theoretical construction. The assumptions that underlie Rothschild-Whitt’s (1979) collectivist conceptualization, supported by Mirvis and Hackett (1983), Waters (1993), and others, are: An organizational environment that is highl y unstable or volatile in any way is best survived with a decentralized non-hierarchical structure. Commitment to a particular ideal, coupl ed with commitment to a collectivist organizational ideology will lead to a decentralized organizational structure. As the organizational environment becomes unstable, organizational participants will be pushed to rely on value-rationality as the basis for authority and motivation in the absence of economic rewards. These assertions were formulated from qualitativ e organizational fieldwork, and remain to be operationalized and empirically tested to determine their validity and their wider applicability. The assertions specify relationships between the three interconnected variables: an organization’s structure (and/or position within a decentralized collective), environmental instability, and institutionalized collectivist values1. The following section elucidates those interconnections more fully, summarizing resear ch relevant to the various assumptions and presenting testable hypotheses that emerge fro m these assertions. The theoretical discussion follows the arrangement of most organizational theo ry texts, beginning with structural variables considered in classical formal organizational an alysis. Then, environmental aspects studied in 1 Because competition, power broker ing, and information control ar e widespread in organizations, Rothschild-Whitt’s collectivist ideal may not exist in practice. The possibility for competition exists as a function of the organization or collective’s decentralized structure. Loose organizational structure may allow for too much divergence in organizational behavior and institutional belief. This divergence may lead to competition for resources, differential access to an d control of information, or differential power relationships between employees.

PAGE 36

18 organizational ecology are presented. Finally, ins titutional and social-psyc hological variables of individualism and collectivism, germane to open sy stems organizational research are incorporated into the discussion (Scott 1998). Structure Social network research shows that individuals form networks for social support in an unstable environment to mitigate environmental e ffects (Dershem and Gzirishvili 1998, Walker, Wasserman and Wellman 1994). A person who is more deeply embedded in a network of social ties is less likely to notice the changes and turbul ence of the environment and is more likely to be resilient to those changes. An individual’s position within a network affects his or her perceptions (Boje and Whetten 1981; Boster, Johnson, and Weller 1987; Freeman 1978/1979; Walker, Wasserman and Wellman 1994). Similarly, collectivis t organizations are more likely to cooperate in the face of uncertainty (Baker 1982, Barne tt and Carroll 1987, Heydeb rand 1989, Lois 1999). The collectivist organization described by Rothschild-Whitt (1979), Waters (1993), Mirvis and Hackett (1983), Heydebrand (1989) has a horizontal, non-hierarchical structure that correlates with its ascribed egalita rian ideology. Archival data and organizational charts can help determine how hierarchical an organization is (Bedeian 1980, Evan 1993, Scott 1998). Formal structure often exists in tandem with an inform al structure, particularly in new organizational forms (Heydebrand 1989, Voss 1996). Interviews, documents, and logs of communication can be used with social network analysis techniques to reconstruct formal and informal organizational structures (Freeman, White, and Romney 1989). In some cases, and particularly for the collectivist organization, the informal structure ma y be more important than the formal structure (Baker 1982). To determine the validity of the theo retical construction, I elucidated and compared both formal and informal structures in FAM analyses.

PAGE 37

19 Environment Barnett and Carroll (1987) have related competition and coope ration to the organizational environment using the case of early telephone industr ies. Working with an organizational ecology framework, they found that similar organizations in different geographic locations were in competition, while different but related organiza tions in similar geogra phic regions cooperated. Barnett and Carroll’s cases show that environmenta l conditions mediate organizational activities. Formal and informal structures in these new organi zations are also related to the organizational environment (Emery and Trist 1965). Litwak a nd Hylton (1962), support this position. They argue that agencies cooperate based on a number of characteristics including organizational interdependence and access to resources in the organizational environmen t. Hasenfeld and Gidron (1993) also point out that organizations coopera te or compete based on environmental factors, and Heydebrand argues that many new organizati onal forms result directly from “environmental turbulence, rapid change, increasing complexity and uncertainty” (1989:323). Usually, if the organizational environment is unstable, orga nizations cooperate (Emery and Trist 1965, Rothschild-Whitt 1979, Waters 1993). Unfortunately, individuals’ perceptions of the environment may differ from each other as well as from archiv al measures of environmental uncertainty (Boyd et al. 1993, Duncan 1972). However, individuals ’ current perceptions of the organizational environment are most likely to affect behaviors and attitudes. Thus, those perceptions are considered in later analyses. Institutional Values Dill (1958) and Haverman (1993) propose that the organizational environment affects individuals’ and organizations’ ad herence to institutionalized va lues. In this analysis, the institutionalized values of individualism and collectivism are most salient. The source of authority for these new organizations is hypot hesized to be value rationality, based on a collectivist ideal. Collectivism is strongly encour aged in many new organizations as a means to

PAGE 38

20 bolster formal authority or in lieu of rational or technical authority. Lois (1999) reports that new members of a volunteer search and rescue gr oup undergo a long socialization process to determine if they display collectivist ideals. Baker’s (1982) research with radical feminist groups corroborates Lois, and confirms that informal soci al ties and socialization to normative values encourages individuals with collectivist ideals to remain with the organizations. Both Lois and Baker’s research show that unstabl e environments (protests, natural disasters) are associated with collectivism and with horizontal social structur es as suggested by the collectivist construction. Collectivist individuals feel that their sense of self is connected to in-groups, their priorities are to reach group goals, their emphasis is on roles and nor ms to guide behavior and their relationships are maintained out of sense of connection and obligation (Grimm et al. 1999). For collectivist organizations, particularly intern ational development organizations roles and norms emerge from the social service value system th at the groups espouse (Waters 1993). Social research in anthropology and in organizational science has shown that cultures vary along a number of individualist/collectivis t vectors, as do different employment sectors and careers within those sectors. (Earley and Gibson 1998; Grimm et al. 1999; Hui 1988; Kim et al. 1994; Lois 1999; Triandis 1989, 1993, 1995; Tria ndis et al. 1993; Triandis and Singelis 1998; Wagner 1995) The result is that a very individualist man or woman may be employed in a collectivist career, and may evince collectivist id eals at work while holding very individualist personal views. Because it is rather abstract, this concept is difficult to quantify. Organizational researchers have been working to refine scale inst ruments to reflect the complexity and diversity of the concept (Earley 1994, Earley and Gibson 1998, Hui 1988, Wagner and Moch 1986, Wagner 1995). Hypotheses The relationships between environment, structure, and collectivism summarized in the above sections led me to the following hypotheses th at test the validity of the collectivist model:

PAGE 39

21 H1: Because perceptions of increasing environmental uncertainty are linked to increased commitment to cooperation and collectivism, measures of environmental uncertainty in individua ls will be positively correlated with measures of workplace collectivism in individuals. H2: Because perceptions of increasing environmental uncertainty have been associated with the development of soci al networks, and because perceptions of uncertainty are affected by position within a network, measures of environmental uncertainty will be negatively correlated with measures of centrality in the FAM organizational network. H3: Because commitment to cooperation is linked to structural measures that imply lower hierarchical organization, measures of individual workplace collectivism will be negatively correlate d with measures of centrality in an organizational network. Being located at the periphery of a network structure is associated with collectivism as a means to gain control in an uncertain environment. Being located at the hierarchical core of a network is associated with less reliance on collectivist ideals. Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued for a revisi on of Weber’s classic organizational typology, long used to understand questions of organi zational theory. Though the classic Weberian typology used as the basis for most organizationa l theory includes a discussion of value-rational authority on which collectivist organizations are b ased, there is no extension of that discussion to a particular organizational type. Contemporary or ganizational theorists and critics have suggested that this is a flaw that must be corrected; an organizational analysis scheme that is broad enough to include new organizational forms must be de veloped. That scheme must be developed from grounded, empirical research rather than from theoretical speculation. Nonprofit and collectivist organizations have proliferated since the end of World War II, and old schemes seem unprepared to consider these new organizational types. Rothschild-Whitt and others have developed a framework for understanding a new (or at least increasingly frequent) organizational form: collectivist organizations This organizational form should be incorporated into the overall or ganizational framework. Structural aspects, social psychological aspects and environmental instabilit y are all important in empirical research on collectivist organizations. In particular, research shows that structure is intercorrelated with

PAGE 40

22 individual and organizational commitment to co llectivist ideals and with uncertainty and instability in the organizational environment. Th is combination of organizational characteristics provides a framework that may help researcher s understand collectivist organizations better. A theory-based approach is important in th is organizational research for three reasons. First, organizational theory led to hypotheses that test the validity of the collectivist model. Second, I chose research methods and measure ment techniques based on my understanding of organizational theory and its application. Third, theory grounded my interpretation of quantitative results and made the recommendations that emerge d from those results more relevant. There is another important crosscutting benefit: Theory focused my gaze on aspects of organizational structure and behavior that may not have caught my attention otherwise. An understanding of theory gave me a different perspective on FAM activities and made me less a participant and more a participant-observer. Theory was relevant not only to the obvious theoretical aspects of this research, but also to the methodological and practical aspects.

PAGE 41

23 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Anthropological studies of organizations ar e usually based on ethnography, or on a combination of ethnography and limited survey data (Bate 1997, DiMaggio and Anheier 1990, Hamada 1999, Lewis 1999). I combine these methods with other structured interview tasks (including free lists, ratings and rankings), dir ect observation, archival research, and network analysis (Bernard 1995, Weller and Romney 1988). Bamberger (2000) argues that integrating qualitative and quantitative research in internationa l development projects improves their validity and increases the project’s chances for success. Th is research strategy supports practical applications of theory and methods. From Se ptember 2001 to September 2002, I worked as an independent consultant for FAM, supported by a grant from CARE’s constituency-building budget. The approved scope-of-work provides more detail and is included in Appendix C. Phase One Table 3-1 shows the primary tasks for Phase On e, along with response rates. Phase One of the project was exploratory, focused on ga thering information to understand FAM’s history and current activities and situate those activiti es in the international development context (Marshall 1999). I augmented my profile of FAM’s activities by reviewing literature on the political, economic, agro-industrial, and policy b ackground for Title II activities, bringing FAM’s uncertain and turbulent organizational environment into better focus. Archival research provided qualitative and quantitative data fo r ethnographic description of FAM’s activities and for later analyses. I reviewed archival documents incl uding ISA proposals, perfo rmance reports, detailed implementation plans, annual operating plan s, FAM’s website, FSRC documents, M&E data,

PAGE 42

24 website tracking reports, WG mee ting minutes, and other information that indicated or recorded organizations and on FAM from these sources. While working as an independent consultant to FAM, I attended working group meetings, Steering Committee (SC) meetings, FAM annual mee tings, and other genera l interest meetings. Participation in FAM activities provided me w ith first-hand knowledge of organizational activities and validated data gathered from archiv al sources. In addition, direct observation of current activities provided me with clues to how FAM’s activities have changed over time. Participation in workshops and seminars helped me understand FAM in light of food security projects and the larger context of internati onal development. Use of the FAM FSRC provided hands-on experience and helped me understand how organizations might gather technical information about Title II food aid. Open-ended interviews with Title II expert s provided information about FAM’s history and gave me the opportunity to collect backgr ound information about member organizations. The interviews also provided info rmation on current organizational activity within FAM and within FAM’s various members. The eleven Title II expe rts tapped for in-depth interviews in Phase One were determined by polling the FAM c onstituency, including FAM members, USAID representatives, university academics, consultants, and field staff. Members of the FAM constituency were asked to list those individuals they believed to be the most knowledgeable about FAM’s historical and current context and activities. More than half of FAM’s member organizations responded. From the aggregated responses, I identified the individuals I would interview. Almost 80% of Title II experts ca me from FAM organizations. Just over 70% of experts on FAM’s history came from FAM member organizations. The rest were once employees of FAM member organizations. Incorporating the input of those experts who have direct knowledge of Title II work improved the intern al validity and relevance of this research. Choosing key informants systematically limited subjectivity and made data collection more efficient and rigorous than, say, a snowball sample.

PAGE 43

25 Table 3-1: Phase One methods summary and response rates Qualitative Phase NGOs Contacted NGOs Responding Response Rate Time Frame Identify TII Experts 16 8 (14 indiv.) 0.50 1 week Interview TII Experts 9 6 0.66 2 weeks Identify FAM Experts 16 8 (14 indiv.) 0.50 1 week Interview FAM Experts 7 6 0.86 2 weeks Archival Research 1 1 1.00 3 months Annual Report Review 16 16 1.00 1 month Organizational Profiles 16 15 0.94 1 month Phase Two Semistructured interviews, implemented in the second half of the project, produced the majority of quantitative data in this project. Th ese interviews provided the opportunity to collect any demographic or organizational data that we re not evident in archival sources. Ratings, rankings, social network elicitati on, and other organizational beha vior tests generated data for statistical analyses. This portion of the research was designed to capture information about which organizations were considered more active, where organizations were situated in the organizational network relative to each other, and how member organizations’ representatives perceived FAM’s performance within this organi zational network. I also collected data on individuals’ adherence to individualism or collec tivism and on their perceptions of environmental uncertainty and volatility in the international development context. Individual FAM participants were profiled using questions drawn from Card 19 of the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey administered by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (See Appendix B). FAM member or ganizations were profiled in terms of age, size, and resource base diversity. I gathered da ta on these variables for the 16 organizations, treating each organization as a unit of analys is (Boje and Whetten 1981, Galaskiewicz 1979, Lincoln 1979, McNeil and Thompson 1971, Perro w 1967, and Pfeffer 1983 are all examples of research using demographic variables at the organization level.). Data on organizational structure, orga nizational value systems and perceived environmental uncertainty were collected using a standard questionnaire format composed of

PAGE 44

26 previously validated scale instruments, explained below and reprinted in Appendix B. My goal was to generate data to determin e how emergent network structure is related to perceptions of the environment and to organizational value systems a nd attitudes. That is, how social structure is related to the culture of the member organizati ons. Individual responses were aggregated to create organization-level measures for interaction, evaluation, collaboration and uncertainty scales. There are some experiment-wide assumptions. The first assumption is that variation across a number of different organizations will rev eal changes similar to those that the study of one organization over time would reveal. A second ass umption is that an individual’s perceptions of the various phenomena (like environmental un certainty) are reliable and, when aggregated, adequately represent reality (Weller and Romney 1988). Additional assumptions regarding the reliability of the various measures and statisti cal tests will be discussed in the relevant subsections. Environmental uncertainty. To understand which factors might be driving individuals’ perceptions of the Title II envir onment, I asked PVO respondents to reply to a perceived environmental uncertainty (PEU) scale modified from Miles and Snow’s previously developed scale (1978). The scale Miles and Snow developed, which remains one of the most widely used scales to measure this concept (B oyd et al. 1993, Buch ko 1994, Downey 1975, Williams 2000), was primarily for manufacturing firms, and had to be adjusted for organizations in the Title II food aid environment. The modi fications were based on experts’ responses to questions I asked in Phase One of the research. The new scale measures uncertainty across six primary subject areas: commodities, other PVOs, food aid recipients, funding, government policy, and the respondent’s own PVO. The scale reveals variation among the FAM member organizations with respect to their percep tions of the Title II food aid environment. Value system. FAM’s activities are based entirely on collaborative activity and information exchange. Therefore, FAM relies almo st completely on individuals who participate

PAGE 45

27 in collective activities for successful completion of tasks set in annual operating plans. Collective activities are seen pragmatically as a means to an e nd, rather than being merely the end itself. Organizational collaboration is a social tool designed to overcome environmental conditions. FAM participants expect collaborative activities to help improve Title II programming activities. FAM participants also believe that collaboration has larger, un-measurable impacts on the Title II environment as a whole. It follows that it would benefit FAM if those individuals who participate in FAM activities were committed to collective ac tivity and scored high on a collectivity scale. Social psychologists have done the majority of work on Individualism/Collectivism (I/C) dichotomy, and have de veloped a number of scales that can be administered to organizational employees to generate measures of collectivism. Grimm et al. (1999), Earley and Gibson (1998), and Hui (1988) all provide frameworks and methods for administering these scales in organizations. The most widely known scales of individualism and collectivism are the scales Wagner (1995) and Earley ( 1994) developed. Wagner’s scale deals primarily with actual collaboration in the workplace, while Earley’s scale seeks to measure an individual’s overall ideological tendency toward collectivity. Th ese scales have some items in common, so I presented them to respondents in one standard, ra ndomized questionnaire. After data collection, I differentiated the responses into the two scales and computed individuals’ scores. Individual scores were used to determine if there was any relationship between I/C, PEU, and position in the FAM constituency. Social structure. I used social network analysis techniques to visualize and analyze FAM’s network structure and determine the inte rorganizational relationships among members of the FAM constituency. Applied researchers often u se exploratory social network approaches in this capacity (Hasenfeld and Gidron 1993, Kwait et al. 2001, Litwak and Hylton 1962, Pennings 1981). The questions I asked to generate networ k structures affected the structures that are generated, so I developed the network questions based on inform ation gathered in Phase One. Formal and informal connections were investigat ed, along with organizational interaction outside

PAGE 46

28 of FAM but within the publicly funded Title II context. I presented each respondent with ten questions, and then asked them to mark whic h organizations their particular organization interacted with. Because an individual respondent acts as a representative of his or her organization, and because individual respondents are not always completely aware of all interactions, I aggregated individual r esponses into organizational responses. If any organizational representative noted an organizationa l interaction, I retained it in the dichotomous organization-by-organization matrix. To comp ensate for organizational response rates, I transformed the data with maximum symmetrizing algorithm (replace both values Xij and Xji with max[Xij, Xji]). This means that the mention of organization A by organization B signifies a tie from A to B and from B to A. I completed these data transformations, standard in network analyses where data is often sparse, for all ten raw interaction matrices (Marsden 1990). I generated measures and graphs of social structure for the FAM network with two programs, UCINET and Pajek, respectively. Measur es of social structure (particularly centrality scores, centralization, and core/periphery scores) reveal variation in the FAM network relative to interorganizational structure and position within a social support network. There are a few assumptions that accompany the use of social netw ork variables like centrality for these analyses. First, just as I aggregated organizational re presentatives’ responses to determine organizationlevel measures for responses earlier in this disser tation, here I ascribe organization-level measures of centrality to all relevant organizational representatives. For example, I ascribed all representatives from CARE the centrality score comput ed for that particular organization. I made this assumption because individuals are organizational agents and carry out different organizational activities just as hands and feet ca rry out different activities of the same body. Centrality measures, specifically closeness, reveal how tightly an organization is linked to other organizations within the network, indica ting how organizations perceive a particular set of social interactions. The most central organizations are perceived to be most important, powerful, effective, knowledgeable, or involved in a specified set of activities (Boje and Whetten

PAGE 47

29 1981; Boster, Johnson and Weller 1987; Ibarra a nd Andrews 1993, Michaelson and Contractor 1992; Mizruchi and Potts 1998; Yamagishi, Gilmore and Cook 1988). Core/periphery analysis is also based on the original interaction matrices. The rows and columns are rearranged while maintaining internal matrix structure to determine areas of most relationship density. The organizations with most relationship density are core organizations. The organizations with lower relationship density are peripheral organizations. Core organizations are usually older, more active, more experienced, more conservative, and house the majority of institutional memory within a network. Periphery or ganizations are smaller, younger, more likely to be innovative, and generally originate new ideas, procedures and policies within a network. (For more theoretical discussion of social netw ork methods and application, see Bonacich 1987, Burt 1992, Freeman 1978/1979, Freeman et al. 1979/1980, Mizruchi and Potts 1998, Scott 1991 and Wasserman and Faust 1994.) Core and periphery decisions are based on a suggested and somewhat arbitrary cutoff, and should not be interpreted as strict divisions between groups. Rather, a continuum exists along which the organizations are distributed. Core/p eriphery analyses are based on perceptions and serve only as indicators of relative position within a network at one point in time Networks are changing constantly and can be significantly a ffected by directed activity. However, these network analyses do indicate which organizations are likely to be expert in a particular area of interaction and indicate where an organization might like to target or concentrate improvements. For example, if an organization in the periphery chose to become more active or renowned within an area (perhaps by applying new creative ideas or practices), it might enter a mentoring agreement with a core organization or choose to take a leadership role in that realm of interaction. For the purposes of this study, centrality (and its dichotomous analog core/periphery) is a proxy for hierarchical embeddedness in an organi zational network structure. The more connected an organization is in the core of a network, the more constrained and conservative. If an

PAGE 48

30 organization actively pursues centrality and control in a network, then that organization is less inclined to be collectivist. Evaluation. I asked FAM participants to provide ratings of FAM’s success with respect to its various constituency-building activities (Bor uch 1997). I wanted to determine if there was any relationship between perceptions of the or ganizational environment, individual activity, position within the FAM constituency, persona l attributes, and measures of FAM’s success (Sciulli 1998). There is organizational research that investigates links between organizational demographic characteristics and perceptions of success (Pfeffer 1983) or position within a social network (Freeman 1978/1979 and Freeman et al. 1979/1980), but less research that links an organization’s emergent network attributes to perceptions of success (Katz 1950, 1975, 1978, 1980; Sciulli 1998) In this particular research I focused on the relationship between an organization’s emergent network position (cen trality and core/periphery status) and organizational representatives’ perceptions of FAM’s success in coordinating the interorganizational network. Table 3-2: Phase Two methods summary and response rates Quantitative Phase NGOs Contacted NGOs Responding Response Rate Individual Response Individual Response w/Turnover Time Frame FAM Evaluation 16 (79 indiv)13 (40 indiv)0.810.510.78 1 month Collectivity Scales 16 (79 indiv)13 (40 indiv)0.810.510.78 1 month Environmental Scales 16 (79 indiv)13 (40 indiv)0.810.510.78 1 month Interaction Questions 16 (79 indiv)13 (40 indiv)0.810.510.78 2 months The four primary tasks associated with th e quantitative phase of this research are presented in Table 3-2, along with their associat ed response rates. In this table I present two response rates, a raw rate and one that in corporates organizational turnover among the FAM organizations over the year of my research. Analysis My Initial analysis of the narrative and archival data was qualitative, providing background information, prompting additional quest ions and leading to systematic investigation

PAGE 49

31 of those questions. Qualitative analysis of this qua litative data also provided a basis for valid and reliable interpretation of quantitative results. Qu antitative analysis of qualitative data included evaluation of questionnaire responses and statistical analyses of nominal and categorical data, like ratings and rankings (Agresti 1996, Daniel 1990, Hair 1995, Hollander and Wolfe 1999). Because most sample sized were small, I used nonparame tric statistical tests along with univariate, multivariate and categorical data analysis to provi de the most power in determining results of the various quantitative tests. Analysis of social network data involved traditional matrix algebra approaches and multivariate statistics to determine both the structure and content of the networks. I used correlation analyses to determine whether the three measures—structure, uncertainty and collectivism—varied in the hypothesized directions. I also used Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to evaluate the theoretical hypotheses. A dditional information about analysis is presented in the sections that report specific quantita tive results in Chapters Six and Seven. Individual Respondent Profile I contacted individuals for Phase Two accordi ng to the following protocol: I reviewed all (paper and electronic) meeting minutes from th e time period covering FAM’s current ISA (19982003). I included minutes from all Steering Committee, Working Group, Workshop, and Brown Bag activities. I placed any indivi dual whose name was reported as a participant on a master list, along with the organization that he or she be longed to. This list represented the universe of individuals associated with FAM activities, and who would therefore be contacted. Since FAM’s collaborative activities are directed primarily at the member PVOs, government officials, consultants, and individuals who were not empl oyed by FAM member organizations were not included. The total number of individuals listed was 87. The number of FAM member participants was 79. Forty questionnaires were returned, for a 50% response rate. This is to be expected with the high turnover rate I observed for the FAM member PVOs. About 20% of PVO employees in the sample underwent some type of occupational ch ange during the year of this project, including

PAGE 50

32 11.5% who moved from one PVO to another or into a government position within the food aid environment. All of the individuals who cha nged jobs or positions were contacted but few returned questionnaires, likely the result of new job responsibilities taking precedence. Roughly 9.2% of individuals moved out of the food ai d environment and were unreachable. Among those who remained in the organization during this st udy, the response rate was 78%. These rates are summarized in Table 3-2. The typical respondent for this survey, based on aggregated character istics, is a female with graduate-level education who has been employed at a food aid PVO for 5.7 years. These individuals rate their participati on with FAM at (modal) 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, implying that their participation is high and therefore their responses are well informed and valid. The average age of respondents was 38, though many individuals felt ag e was not a relevant profile characteristic. The 1977 Quality of Employment survey reported that the typical PVO employee was female, with graduate education, and job tenure in th e range of 5 to 10 years (Mirvis and Hackett 1983; Quinn and Staines 2000). The correspondence be tween my sample and the survey assessment suggests that FAM respondents are representative of the nonprofit community as a whole.

PAGE 51

33 CHAPTER 4 THE CONTEXT OF TITLE II FOOD AID PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Introduction In this chapter, I examine the context in which CSs operate, focusing first on the international and domestic legisl ation that affects Title II food aid. Next, I outline the food aid system for distribution and monetization projects, noting the primary stakeholders, and pointing out instability and uncertainty in the system. Fina lly, I summarize ways in which instability in an organizational environment has been controlled in the past, drawing on research from organizational theory and from the current activ ities of FAM and FAM members. Information for this report is drawn primarily from review of inte rnational policy, domestic legislation, domestic policy and other relevant materials. Data gathered in interviews with food aid experts chosen by the FAM constituency validates documen tary data from archival research. Background People once believed that fighting hunger meant making sure that there was ample food produced and available for people around the worl d. If there were enough access to food, then people would not be hungry or malnourished; people would have food security. The 1974 World Food Summit codified that definition. Food security was considered “the physical availability of food supplies in the event of widespread crop failure” (Institute for Development Studies 1991). Food security experts now know that crop failures are only a partial explanation for widespread food shortages. Ecologists, taking a broader vi ew, predicted that population growth would outpace agricultural production and the earth w ould overreach its carrying capacity. As time passed, food aid professionals and agricultural specia lists (particularly those with the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank) realized that improvements in agricultural

PAGE 52

34 technology sharply reduced the possibility of a pr edicted global food shortage. However, local access to food was and would remain limite d in many places (USAID 2000). International development organizations and government agen cies around the world moved to add the concept of food access to the concept of availability in the definition of food security. Both of these primary concepts are incorporated into the Unite d Nations definition of food security, adopted by the majority of national and international food securi ty interests including the US (Sphere Project 1998). Definition of food aid. Food and resource economists learned that even when access to food is adequate, it is often not used in ways that combat hunger and undernourishment. The United States retooled its definition of food security in the 1990 Farm Bill USAID 1992a), and the definition has been further refined in US AID's Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper (USAID 1995), and the US Position Paper fo r the World Food Summit (World Food Summit 1996). The new definition incorporates nutritional policy aspects, particularly the appropriate utilization of food. While opinions may differ on technical aspects of food security programs, US specialists agree that food secur ity encompasses availability, access and appropriate utilization to decrease hunger and malnutrition (Clay and Stokke 2000a Institute for Development Studies 1991, USAID 1992a). This broad definition gu ides all US food security programs around the world. Extent of the problem. Ensuring household and individual food security is the primary concern for many organizations working in th e developing world. In 2000, there were approximately 828 million chroni cally undernourished people in the world, mostly women and children. A large majority of these undernourished people live in one of the 87 Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs). Forty-one of those LI FDCs are in sub-Saharan Africa, and most of the remainder are in South and East Asia (USA ID 2000). Ferguson argues that, “it is in the low income developing countries where rates of absolu te population growth are highest that the need to increase food production is greatest” (Ferguson 1990: 2). As local populations increase and

PAGE 53

35 regional food production is challenged to accommoda te those increases, the food security crisis in those areas will only become more acute. Causes of food insecurity. Research agencies like the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and other government al and nongovernmental interests seek to understand the reasons why indivi duals have limited access to food. The Bread for the World Institute (BWI 1994) has hypothesized seven causes of hunger, broad enough to encompass the diversity of unique local causes. Political powerlessn ess may lead to an in ability to gain necessary food resources. Violence, militarism or civil unrest may disrupt the supply chain or may lead to political, ethnic or religious groups being denied access to food (see also Kracht 2000, Shoham, et al. 2000). Inability to participate in the global economy may also lead to food shortages, if local agricultural production is less than local food needs. Increasing populations, more food consumption and environmental cha nges may also lead to hunger, particularly if environmental changes (like droughts) in areas of population in crease lead to decreased agricultural production (see also Buckland et al. 2000). Undercutting all of these areas, those with limited abilities (the very old or very young, for example) are often more likely to have less access to food no matter the circumstances (BWI 1994). In a position paper prepared for the World Fo od Summit in 1996, representatives of the US suggest that food insecurity has multiple cau ses, most of which are congruent with those suggested by BWI. The causes were divided into these broad categories: natural disasters, war and civil strife, inappropriate national polici es, poverty, barriers to trade, environmental degradation, excessive population growth, gende r inequality, poor health, and inadequate development, dissemination, adaptation, and a doption of agricultural and other research and technology (USGAO 1996). The causes of hunger will not be geographically constrained, but will deal the most crushing blows to countries where agricultural production has been low, and where economic purchasing power is not strong enough to combat the problems. This situation is predicted to become more of a dilemma for low-income countries as the Uruguay Round

PAGE 54

36 decisions and the World Trade Organization become operational and global trade is liberalized (Shaw and Singer 1995, Helmar 1994). There may be differences of opinion on how to classify the causes of food insecurity; and interpretation and determination of those causes ma y lead researchers to different theoretical conclusions. There is no question, however, that av ailability, access and, often, utilization of food supplies is problematic in many areas of the wo rld. Many people remain hungry or malnourished. Forecasters suggest that the world’s population will continue to increase, doubling in the next forty years. Per capita incomes will rise, and rural to urban migration will continue. These conditions will likely lead to food scarcity in some regions of the world (USAID 1992b). As mentioned before, many World Bank and FAO anal ysts believe that food production worldwide will continue to increase at a rate to provide food for all, but local supplies may not fare so well. In addition, emergency food needs are increasing at an alarming rate (likely to double in the next ten years) increasing overall worldwide food needs (USAID 2001). US food aid. In 1954, the US began providing international food relief to combat hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity. In the past, US food aid was considered a way to dispose of commodity surpluses that there was little or no de mand for in the United States. Surplus goods were transferred in addition to financial de velopment aid (Saran and Konandreas 1991). Changes in legislation have affected the kinds and amounts of food earmarked for international aid, but the US has remained the largest donor among the primary food aid contributors: the EU, Canada, Japan, and Australia (USAID 2000, 2001). Tighten ing world markets have led to declining commodity surpluses and questions about the longterm viability of food aid (Pillai 2000, Saran and Konandreas 1991). Nevertheless, agricultural commodities remain a dominant source of development program support worldwide, both for th e US and for other international donors, who consider food aid both economical and ethical. In fiscal year (FY) 2000 the US provided about ten million metric tons (MMT) of grains and othe r commodities, valued at more than 2.4 billion

PAGE 55

37 dollars, to meet food aid goals in 82 developi ng and reindustrializing countries around the world (USAID 2000). The five primary goals for U.S. food aid were first formulated in 1954’s Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act (PL480). They are: to combat hunger worldwide; to promote sustainable development, including ag ricultural development; to expand international trade; to develop and expand export markets for US agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage development of private enterprise and democratic partic ipation in developing countries. American food aid has a strong stra tegic component; humanitarian assistance is "tempered by the realization that such concern can be effectively expressed only by maintaining US strength and global leadership” (USAID 1998a). Modes of food aid. There are two primary modes of food aid: distribution, where food is delivered to targeted populations, and monetization, where food is sold in local markets and the cash generated is used for development projects. Food aid distribution projects run the gamut from maternal and child feeding programs in Ke nya (Teller and Owuor-Omondi 1991) to support for agricultural development projects in Guatemal a, where local farmers are provided with food to help them transition from local crops to more lucrative crops like spices (This CAREsupported project is reported in Garst and Barry 1990). Food aid monetization projects range from Agriculture Cooperative Development Inte rnational/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA) rural credit program s supporting food producers and processors in Russia (ACDI/VOCA annual report 2000) to Cath olic Relief Services’ primary education programs in India (CRS 2001). Through PVO CSs and the World Food Program (WFP), USAID manages the bulk of US food aid projects, which range from emergency re lief in countries damaged by war or natural disasters (Mercy Corps 1999, Cohen 2000) to de velopment assistance in countries struggling to privatize or diversify agricultural industries (Garst and Barry 1990). The majority of US food aid

PAGE 56

38 is funded through PL480 Title II programs that pr ovide commodities for distribution, emergency feeding, and monetization projects targeted at international development (Von Braun 1992). International Food Aid Legislation and Policy Food Aid Convention. The Food Aid Convention (FAC) provides a minimum operational framework for international food aid. At the 1995 convention, clear determinations were made as to what types of transfers coul d be considered food aid, what commodities were acceptable as food aid, and what minimum annual c ontributions would be for the ensuing years. The total minimum amount of food aid for donations from Argentina, Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the US was approxi mately 5.5 MMT, of which the US provided 2.5 MMT (UNFAC 1995). The 1999 FAC reset minimum annual contributions, decreasing the total to approximately 4.9 MMT. The decreases are primarily in the annual contributions of Australia and the EU, with Canada and Norway increasing their minimum annual contributions (UNFAC 1999). Analysts believe that these amount s are far below actual food needs in LIFDCs (Benson 2000). Fortunately, in the years since the 1995 FAC, donor contributions have been far above the minimum requirements and will proba bly remain so (Clay and Stokke 2000a). World Food Summit. The driving force in international food aid policy is the 1996 World Food Summit (Clay and Stokke 2000b). International representatives agreed to attempts to reduce by half the number of chronically malnourished by 2015 (USGAO 1996). At the summit, the first called by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) since 1974, heads of state committed to a broad range of measures to reduce hunger and increase food security. These include ensuring an enabling political, economic and social environment for eradicating poverty; implementing policies aimed at eradicating povert y; and pursuing participatory and sustainable development policies aimed at increasing food suppl ies and eradicating poverty. Heads of state further committed to meet emergency food needs caused by natural disasters and crises; combat poverty and food insecurity by supporting effectiv e and efficient use of public and private investments; and establish free trade policies th at foster food security. These commitments are

PAGE 57

39 elaborated in a plan of action to be implemen ted, monitored and reviewed by the international community (World Food Summit 1996). Uruguay Round. The Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was a series of world commodity trade decisions involving agricultural and governmental sectors in 117 nations. The goal w as to ensure that free trade policies and trade liberalization would increase world trade overall, while controlling variation for individual countries and particular commodities. Decision make rs believe that net trade increases will make the Uruguay Round decisions worthwhile for all involved. Unfortunately, income growth will offset higher world prices only in countries with industries that benefit from the Uruguay Round. The trade decisions may have a negative imp act on the balance of trade in the least developed countries, increasing imports and decreasing exports (Pandya-Lorch 2000). In the worst case scenario, those countries that do not benefit directly from the Uruguay Round may be unable to import necessary quantities of food leadin g to national-level food insecurity (Helmar 1994). Early research has shown that the Round has led to higher world market prices (Konandreas et al. 2000). There is the possibility that these higher world prices will affect price variability, local domestic prices, and food import b ills. All of these factors will hinder the ability of developing countries to secu re enough food to meet their needs and will leave those countries that benefit most from the GATT agreements faci ng some serious questions regarding support for the countries most impacted by the trade decisions (Shaw and Singer 1995). As a way to combat the negative effect on trade and on food availability in some countries, the Marrakech decision was included as pa rt of the Final Act of the trade negotiations (Konandreas et al. 2000). The Final Act explains the agreed upon response should the Uruguay Round have negative effects on trade for LIFDCs There are two major food aid provisions included in the Final Act: food aid levels will meet the needs of LIFDCs, and food aid will not be used to circumvent the GATT trade decisions (Shaw and Singer 1995). During a period of review focusing on the effects of the Uruguay Round, food aid donors will be called on to evaluate the

PAGE 58

40 aid levels determined under the FAC and establish ne w levels that are sufficient to meet the needs of the countries affected by the trade reforms. Decisions made regarding food aid will be reviewed by the WTO’s ministerial conference ever y two years, and may lead to increases in the level of food aid determined under the Food Aid Convention (FAC). The FAC will face problems of its own regarding food aid. Trade restrictions and adjustments that liberalize intern ational markets directly affect how food aid is considered on national and international tally sheets. Demand for food aid, both emergency and program aid, will increase, partly due to the effects of th e Uruguay Round and partly due to the continuing pressures of population growth, globalization, deve lopment, climatic change and environmental emergencies. Emergency food aid, in some respect s, has a higher profile in the world’s eye, is seen as a more ethical and, therefore, a more valid use of food aid commodities and may also lead to the preferential choice of emergency aid over program food aid. Because emergency and program food aid are not distinguished in the FAC documents, food aid will be dominated by demands for emergency food aid, leaving little room for program aid, which has the highest longterm likelihood of helping deve loping countries manage the effects of Uruguay Round trade liberalization. In addition, trade changes may decrease the amount of food available for donor countries to give as aid. Heightened restrictions on surplus disposal may limit food aid amounts even more. Importance of food aid. International agreements from the Cairns Group, the EU, and several other developing countries point out the importance of clarifying and reinforcing the international commitment to providing food aid for LIFDCs during the years following the implementation of Uruguay Round decisions. A ne w food aid regime should loosen restrictions on the kinds of food aid considered acceptable and allow for more multilateral food aid programs, which may follow the structure established by th e WFP (Shaw and Singer 1995). The presence of the WFP in the international food aid arena should not be downplayed. The WFP now implements the majority of emergency food aid programs, many of which have evolved into

PAGE 59

41 long-term humanitarian assistance projects with the general aim of providing a food safety net. As a result, WFP has access to a large share of US development dollars, increasingly spent on emergency relief over development project aid, which means fewer cash resources for other PVOs participating in international developm ent activities. Table 4-1 summarizes the major international policy documents relevant for food aid and food security programming. National Food Aid Legislation and Policy The shift in development dollars from pr ogram aid to emergency relief is a global phenomenon, reflected in internati onal agreements and therefore US food aid legislation. All food aid professionals interviewed for this project agree that United States food aid is driven not only by these international agreements but also by domestic legislation and, most strongly, by domestic policy. The United States has consiste ntly incorporated international decisions regarding operational and policy aspects of food aid into their domestic legislation. The original policy statements and guidelines were set forth in the 1954 Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, known as PL480. The first three titles of PL480 set the various ways in which US commodities can be used for international ai d. (Marine Overseas Services n.d., USDA 1996) PL480. Title I programs, which were once much larger, authorize the sale of commodities to governments and foreign interests wi th low-interest loans, effectively giving food to countries for payment at a later time. Title II, which covers the largest amount of food aid, provides for emergency and development assistance to countries in need with the cooperation of PVOs, NGOs and, increasingly, the WFP. The goals for Title II projects are to address famine or other extraordinary relief requirements, combat malnutrition, attempt to alleviate causes of hunger, promote economic and community developm ent, promote sound environmental practices, and carry out feeding programs. The organizations that implement these programs are often supported through Section 202(e) of PL480, which makes monies available for establishing new programs, meeting costs for program administra tion, and ensuring that commodities are used effectively and efficiently. Title III, originally mu ch larger but now the smallest of the US food

PAGE 60

42 aid programs, allows for government to governme nt donations, and is the most strongly linked to US foreign policy and strategy (FAM 1993). Sec tion 203 of PL480 allows for the sale of certain amounts of commodities to provide cash resources for transportation, storage, distribution and administration of Title II food aid programs, or to implement other community development programs that will combat the sources of hunger an d poverty. Sections 204 and 206 set minimum levels of assistance (in metric tons) and maximum levels of expenditures to support these projects (in dollars). Food aid shipments began in 1955, and tonna ges increased from 3.4 MMT in 1955 to 14 MMT in 1957, primarily as a means to support US farm incomes. In the 1966 Food for Peace Act, food aid policy perspectives moved away from considering food aid as surplus disposal and toward food aid as a planned response to predicted world food needs. The 1974 Foreign Assistance Act further strengthened the humanita rian emphasis of food aid programs, mandating that the majority of food aid be donated to count ries determined by the UN to be “most seriously affected” by food shortages. In 1975, strict lim itations were built into PL480 food aid, motivated primarily by the World Food Conference and predicted food shortages. By 1977, resource economists’ and agronomists ’ threats of serious food shortages were past, and the US directed food aid at promoti ng foreign policy concerns such as increasing human rights and meeting basic human needs. Minimum tonnages were increased, and the Title II budget was increased to $750 million. To minimize the di sincentive effects of large food aid shipments on local economies, the Bellmon Amendment was passed, requiring all Title II programs to provide an analysis of local storage capabilities and local market impact of food shipments (USAID/FFP/PVA 1985). Bellmon analyses are still a major part of any Title II program, required unequivocally for all programs whose food amounts approximate ten percent of local staple food consumption and for all projects that include monetizations (which is, in effect, all Title II programs worldwide). Critics of food aid argue that such large inflows of commodities depress local prices and lead to inadequate agri cultural policies in host countries. Those critics

PAGE 61

43 argue further that regardless of Bellmon Analysis results, US food undercuts local market prices and limits the ability of the local farmer or en trepreneur to participate (USAID/FFP/PVA 1985). To combat this problem, many monetizations ta rget the small-lot buyer, improving access to commodities and increasing market participation. In the Eighties, PL480 was maintained, comm odity amounts were increased according to US production, and emergency commodity stockp iles like the Wheat Reserve were created. The 1990 Farm Bill was the next major revision of PL 480, highlighting the five major directives for US food aid presented originally in 1954, and reorganizing US food aid under its six Titles (Marine Overseas Services, n.d.). This legislation is revised every five years; the most recent legislation that is supported by US policy is the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, referred to as the 1996 Farm Bill. Th e 2002 Farm Bill, while passed, has not been incorporated fully into US policy. A 1996 US Department of Agriculture (USDA 1996) Summary of the Farm Bill shows United States’ policy growing to accommodate in ternational policy. Title I commodity loan restrictions were lessened, allowing for loans to private entities rather than to government interests, and loan repayment options were br oadened. Title II food aid support (in dollars) was more than doubled to $28 million, and the Wo rld Food Program and other intergovernmental entities were deemed acceptable avenues for food aid. Monetization was further institutionalized in the legislation, and third-party monetiza tion was allowed. The minimum percentage of commodities to be sold in the local markets was increased, allowing organizations to recoup shipping, handling and administrative costs. T itle IV amendments br oadened the range of commodities available for programming under PL480 allowed for greater program flexibility, and provided support for improving operation and ad ministration of US food aid programs. Other amendments allowed Congress to reapportion av ailable commodities between the various PL480 titles, depending on the most urgent international need.

PAGE 62

44 The 1996 Farm Bill incorporates World Food Summit policy by establishing a procedure for emergency commodity release in the event of serious, unanticipated need. To provide commodities in case of such an emergency, food banks are established where grains will be stockpiled. Uruguay Round and GATT provisions are also incorporated into the 1996 Farm Bill, which provides for monitoring and evaluation of other GATT signatories and provides for Uruguay Round contingencies. Table 4-1: Summary of domestic and inte rnational food aid policy and legislation International Policy National Policy National Legislation Food Aid Convention Title 10 of GATT Uruguay Round of GATT, incl. Ministerial Decision on LIFDCs Current Department of Agriculture Platform on trade negotiations FAO surplus commodity disposal committee usual marketing requirement determinations UNWFP and its policies, specifically its agreement with US World Food Summit 1996 documentation USDA regulations for food aid programs 7CFR210 'Regulation 11' for AID programs 'Regulation 14' for shipping USDA policy/ guidelines USAID policy/guidelines incl. MNTZ manual, FY and DAP guidance FFP policy letters Other regulations in federal register Commodity reference guides FAFSPP ISA guidance OMB circulars PL480 Agricultural Trade and Development Assistance Act of 1954, as amended Section 416 of Agriculture Act 1949 CCC Charter Act Merchant Marine Act of 1936, cargo preference sections Section 110 of Food Security Act of 1985 (food for progress) Each FYs agriculture conference report and annual Appropriations reports Policy clauses that support international law exist alongside clauses that support US agricultural interests, US strategic objectives a nd US export and trade interests. The US has incorporated the international interests for a number of reasons. First, it is considered good foreign policy. Second, in many ways, providi ng commodities for international needs supports domestic agricultural production, US shipping inte rests, and US trade interests, which stimulates the US economy. Third, as mentioned before, inte rnational emergency and development relief is a highly visible activity that many US citizens consid er to be the ethical, humanitarian thing to do, improving the profile of the US government both domestically and internationally. Some food aid specialists believe that the levels set in in ternational congresses are too broad to be useful,

PAGE 63

45 allowing domestic legislation to be equally flexib le, and leaving the majority of programming and operational details to be determ ined through policy decisions and interpretations. This makes policy decisions the most important factors to consider when designing food aid programs. In 2002, the Congress passed a new Farm Bill, which affected food aid policy, strategy, and project implementation for the United Stat es. The Food Aid Consultative Group, which in 1996 was broadened to include agricultural and comm ercial interests, worked actively to ensure that the new bill satisfied all stakeholde rs. Debates centered on the importance and appropriateness of commodity monetization fo r development programming. A recent General Accounting Office paper suggested that the co sts of monetization outweighed the benefits, concluding that the 2002 Farm Bill should reduce a PVO’s ability to sell commodities for local currency (USOMB 2001:Section 13). Other food aid specialists believe that the impact of monetized commodities can be shown to be greater in assisting sustainable development than is simple food distribution (FAM 1999a). Whicheve r the case, as development dollars become increasingly scarce, and as more of those scarce do llars are allocated to emergency relief (through agencies such as the WFP), the percentage of P VO projects that must monetize for cash to run programs is increasing, making the monetization debate critical. The debate is ongoing, and contributes a large amount of uncertainty into the food aid arena, in the legislature, at the PVO headquarters level and at the field level where projects are implemented. Table 4-1 summarizes the important national policy and legislation for food aid activities. Stakeholders While Title I and Title III food aid programs are important, the focus for this report is Title II programs because they comprise the major ity of US food aid and focus on the types of projects that taxpayers see as US humanitarian ai d. They involve the US government, PVO CSs, local governments, local populations, American fa rmers, and many other stakeholders concerned with getting commodities from US farms to families in need in LIFDCs. Konandreas (1987) argues that food aid flows are influenced by a number of factors, including level of commodities

PAGE 64

46 in donor countries, world commodity prices, donor country commitments, development objectives for donor countries, and humanitarian cons iderations in donor countries. Underlying all of these factors are uncontrollable environmenta l concerns that introduce uncertainty into the world commodities market. The relative importa nce of these factors varies from country to country and from year to year. In this section, I outline how food aid distribution and monetization programs happen, elaborating a little on each major player. Title II, administered by USAID, is now generally seen as the flagship of food aid, managing the largest amount of commodities a nd dollars in cooperation with a number of American and International NGOs and PVOs (USAID 2000). The process by which commodities are moved from US farmers’ land to, for example, a maternal and child feeding program in Africa is, Konandreas argues, “an increasingly complex international food aid system…both in logistics and institutions involved” (1987: 91). Deliveri ng food assistance requires coordination among commodity suppliers, package manufacturers, domes tic transportation and ocean carriers, input from PVOs, the WFP (Faaland et al. 2000), C ooperating Sponsors and foreign governments (CCC 1996). Rather than describe the system in the traditional, top-down manner, I begin with the recipients, who are often considered last in a discussion of food aid project implementation (Doornbos 2000). Recipients. Food aid recipients are as varied as the organizations that administer the programs and the farmers that provide the commodities. They live in 82 countries around the world, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa, South and East Asia, Latin America and European and Newly Independent Countries. They may be women and infants, school age children, the elderly, political refugees, or survivors of natural disasters (CARE 2001, Mercy Corps 1999, PCI 2001). These individuals might be undernourished. The food provided will act directly to improve their diets is best considered nutritional support. Sometimes the food provided might be more effectively considered an income transfer, allo wing individuals to free household capital for other activities or for other necessities that the food itself could not provide. More often, recipients

PAGE 65

47 benefit from agriculture or health and nutrition projects completed with funds from monetized food aid, while enjoying lower market prices for commodities. Further, recipients of Title II programs in which commodities are totally monetized may see no direct benefits from their projects, particularly those targeting agricultura l change or public health campaigns, but may receive indirect benefits that improve overall quality of life. Host countries. In any project, PVOs attempt to meet the needs of an underserved area where a host government’s resources or a nation’ s economic activities have difficulty reaching. Usually these plans are built into the organizati on’s strategic objectives. In some cases, PVOs enter areas without invitation from host governments. In other cases, PVOs will only enter areas at the request of the host government or of th e local population. A targeted area’s needs are assessed and the site provides the impetus for the particular program to be designed. After the framework of the project is created, the rest of the details are negotiated with governmental interests, local community memb ers, and USAID missions. Often other multinational interests are consulted, and their input is considered in the design of the development activity. Each stakeholder has their own goals for the project, and the idea is to meet as many of those as possible with one project design. Project design, to o, must consider the technical expertise of the particular PVO and what technical activities must be contracted out to ensure success. It seems simple to design a project that meets the needs of an area with development resources, but when the desires of the stakeholders do not coinci de, the problems may overcome any activity, no matter how strong the desire on all parts to do good work. Balancing the interests of donors, programming organizations and local communities may prove too complex. Food aid organizations. There are thirty or more organizations that implement Title II programs in 56 countries and three regions around the world (USAID 2000). Each Title II organization must submit a Development Activity Proposal (DAP) for approval to USAID (USAID/BHR/FFP 2001). The majority of these organi zations are PVOs that work in cooperation with the US government and sometimes with the governments of recipient countries to transport,

PAGE 66

48 store, and distribute food aid. In addition, these organizations are charged with conducting baseline surveys, monitoring the progress of the pr ojects and evaluating them at their completion, to determine whether the programs affected th e targeted group. In many ways Cooperating Sponsor employees must be skilled in a number of tasks including commodities exchange, shipping and receiving, nutritional analysis, anthropometric data collection and analysis, social project implementation, agricultural and sma ll enterprise development, and often political lobbying (USAID Office of Procurem ent 1998; Checchi-Louis Berger 1999). US government. Food Aid programs revolve around what one food aid specialist calls an axis of “legislation, regulation, policy and pe rsonality.” Congress is responsible for setting US food aid policy, incorporating international po licy decisions and allocating monies earmarked yearly to buy US commodities for food aid. Title II organizations must remain aware of and lobby for appropriate developments in the legislat ure, primarily because legislation is the only part of the procedural axis that must be followed. After legislative concerns are past, Title II organizations must follow USAID and USDA polic y decisions about which commodities will be available for food aid. Title II organizations mu st submit proposals for their various development activities around the world, which are reviewed and approved by officers at FFP (USAID 2001). The FFP office is the most direct link between the government and the PVOs that oversee food aid programs.2 The FFP officers are responsible for handling increasing numbers of food aid proposals with decreasing numbers of employees (and fewer technical experts with less knowledge of field realities) and in an environment of drastic change (Checchi-Louis Berger 1999). FFP determines how many tons of commodities each organization receives for each country to be assisted, provides the appropriate d funds to the USDA for commodity purchases and manages Title II development projects for results, including review of monitoring and evaluation data from the projects to determine any measurable change. More than half of the PVO 2 As part of a larger re-engineering program for the federal government, FFP has been decreasing the number of employees and managing for results.

PAGE 67

49 representatives contacted agree that the five-year time frame built into development activities is too short to see any significant change. They al so agree that the management and monitoring burden on PVOs requires the expenditure of tim e and resources that should be dedicated to program strategy, implem entation and improvement. Distribution projects. In a distribution project, the US government buys commodities from large agro-industries such as Cargill, which likewise buys commodities from farmers across the United States. Marketing specialists with the USDA maintain purchase announcements and lists of vendors who provide food for humanitarian aid, and ensure competitive prices for food aid commodities. At this stage nutritional content, pack aging, and transport are considered to ensure that the commodities delivered meet local n eeds (both in quality and in quantity). The commodities purchased are not earmarked for export or for domestic use and are often subject to the changes brought about by vagaries in the gr owing season, changes in commercial uses, and the domestic and international market systems (Lee 1999). Generally the commodities used in Title II aid are rice, wheat, corn, soybeans, sunf lowers, beans, peas, and lentils (USAID 2000). When a PVO calls forward an allotment (called a tranche) of commodities, USDA specialists review the documentation and dete rmine the validity of the request. USAID is contacted to ensure that there are funds availabl e for the purchase. If the commodity is available, or can be procured, an invitation for bids is i ssued. This invitation outlines the specific needs of the PVO for the particular project, and result in sealed bids from the vendors. The bids are reviewed and contracting officers make decisions regarding who will be chosen to provide, process and transport the needed commodities. After the award has been made, vendors begin producing the commodities. This may include cleani ng, sorting, packing and shipping for items such as dried beans, and may also include milli ng and blending with pow dered milk or other enrichment additives for items such as corn-soy blend. After the commodities are processed and packaged, they are transferred to the port, loaded onto shipping vessels, shipped and received at the recipient port, unloaded into storage faciliti es, inspected, and protected from pests, vandals

PAGE 68

50 and thieves. For a distribution, the food will be tran sported to the target location and distributed to the appropriate section of the population. Monetization projects. Monetization is different. Acco rding to a Food Aid Management monetization workshop for PVO headquarters staff, selling American commodities in the markets of developing areas adds a numbe r of unique tasks to commodity management. The outcome of the procedure changes from making sure that food reaches the desired target s to making sure that the food is sold and the money collected is used for a particular project and that the project reaches the target population. Not only must the commodities be packed transported, loaded, shipped, offloaded, stored, and dispersed but the commodities must be put up for sale by tender or negotiation, the sales must be monitored, monies must be collected and handled in foreign currencies using foreign banks, legal sales cont racts must be written and signed, and bank transfers of money must be made. In additi on, monetization projects must satisfy USAID’s regulations for environmental impact and stor age capabilities, for monitoring and evaluation and commodity management, as well as for financial tr ansparency, cost recovery, benchmark policy, market impact and legality. The reporting require ments alone make a monetization project much more work intensive than a traditional distributi on, evidenced by the existence of both an USAID Monetization field manual (1998b) and a FAM M onetization manual (1999a) to provide guidance (not to mention monetization manuals for indi vidual organizations). Both in process and in outcome, a monetization project is an entirely diffe rent entity; both projects have their respective places in the food aid and food security context, requiring their own unique (and often mutually exclusive) skill sets. Organizational Environment In even the simplest system, uncertainty must be considered. In the complex system of Title II food aid, there is a large possibility for un certainty or at least for instability, volatility and change. This does not seem unusual, given the la rge number of system inputs, the number of stakeholders, the multiplicity of locations in whic h events take place, the amount of reporting,

PAGE 69

51 monitoring and evaluation that must occur, a nd the vast number of transactions involved, particularly in a project that includes monetizati on. Lee alludes to the complexity of the process (1999), as does the Commodity Credit Corporation (1996), Garst and Barry (1990), and Smelser (1997). Some experts interviewed consider th e food aid environment to be a punctuated equilibrium, with periods of stability interrupted at critical points by extreme volatility. However, this is only at the policy level. At the procedur al level, there is unanimous agreement among food aid experts that there is constant change. In this section, I review a few sources of that instability, looking later at ways in which Title II organizations may work to overcome them. I have limited my discussion of environmental uncertainty to those areas that I belie ve are most relevant to Title II organizations. While it is true that an unstable organizationa l and institutional environment affects government agencies, local governments and recipients, consider ation of all of the stakeholders is beyond the scope of this report. At the most basic level, the earth’s environment introduces a large amount of uncertainty. Climatic changes and natural disasters affect the amount of food available for food aid worldwide, as well as the amount of emergency food aid needed around the world (Buckland et al. 2000). Shortages in European countries may ch ange levels of American exports, leading to less available commodities for food aid. A par ticularly active hurricane season may drastically increase the emergency food aid needs of Latin American and Caribbean countries (Pandya-Lorch 2000). The same hurricane season may affect American harvests leading to a sharp decline in the amount of grains av ailable to send to needy countries. Since emergency food aid is considered most important, levels are adjusted accordingly. Therefore, in Title II programs where aid amounts are capped, project food aid to PVOs is decreased in times of larger emergency food aid need when most development dollars and commodities go to the WFP (Shaw and Singer 1995). In addition, American food aid levels are

PAGE 70

52 linked to the amount of commodities that the Eu ropean community can and will provide for food aid, likewise linked to economic and environmental factors (Thirion 2000). At the level of Title II recipients, the po ssibilities of civil unrest or war also affect emergency food aid needs (Kracht 2000). Frankenburge r argues that conflict, or general political instability, underlies most food insecurity because an unstable country or geographical area is unable to provide for other types of emergenci es. And just as environmental crises are often unpredictable, so are ethnic, religious, or political uprisings. There are some early warning systems, but the threat of uprising may remain stable for years and then suddenly change. In fact, any of the causes of hunger presented in the introduc tory section may affect food aid recipients, and, since many of them are unpredictable, they also contribute to an unstable food aid environment. Focusing on Title II organizations themselves, there are a number of reasons why the food environment is unstable. Nelson suggests that “the problems encountered in such operations can be truly enormous: for example, complicat ed negotiations and ordering, international transport lags and bottlenecks, pressures on lim ited domestic infrastructure capacity, and stock management difficulties” (1981: 6). These problems arise on the ground, where there are often limited possibilities for complete success. Most organizations feel satisfied with a limited statement of success, meaning sometimes that f ood was distributed and that there are some indicators of improved household nutrition, but there may not be statistically significant results (Smelser 1997). The limited possibility for unequi vocal success in these projects is related to a vast number of variables, many of which are unidentifiable at the inception of a Title II project, and many are unforeseeable, making many Title II projects very difficult tasks (Raikes 1988). Interviews with Title II area e xperts corroborate this opinion, many of them arguing that the operational demands alone are often far beyond the abilities of some organizations new to Title II programs. The existence of USAID’s Institutional Su pport Agreements also supports this position (USAID Office of Procurement 1998).

PAGE 71

53 Monetization leads to more concern over how projects are implemented on the ground. Monetization adds an entirely new set of proce dures to an already complex development activity, and those procedures must be completed successfu lly before the development program can begin at all. Since monetization is relatively new in the history of food aid and is growing in its relative frequency in international development activities, codified procedures continue to evolve and there is uncertainty introduced to the comp letion of development programs on the ground. As previously discussed, there are also debates over th e use of monetization as an end itself to assist in developing markets in particular areas. With the debates over the impact of monetization as heated as they are currently, additional uncerta inty exists for development programmers who must contend with monetization's uncertain futu re as an acceptable source for cash in food aid programming. At PVO headquarters’ offices, there are w hole new classes of problems associated with the implementation and backstopping of f ood aid projects. Many problems regarding administration and interaction with other organi zations and governmental agencies are dealt with at this level. One food aid specialist argues that the large majority of problems and uncertainties in food aid programs come from the diversity of tasks PVOs are expected to perform coupled with inefficiencies and lack of technical expert s on staff to guide strategy and implementation. Another specialist argues that the amount of mon itoring paperwork required in such a short time frame hinders food aid specialists from completing projects because time must be dedicated to completing necessary reports rather than to the project at hand. Delay resulting from lags in document review may lead to breaks in impl ementation and may have serious programmatic repercussions for PVOs. Even if the project is perfectly designed a nd has no possibility for failure, it may be that legislative whims or changes in commodity allo cations affect the project. A multiyear project may have its operating tonnages cut midproject as a result of decisions made at governmental or agency levels. There is precedent for this in th e drastic reduction in ai d tonnages in 1996/1997,

PAGE 72

54 which had a profound affect on the provision of fo od aid world wide and affected the ability of Title II organizations to execute their project s effectively. Issues regarding the sale of commodities in a monetization project, particularly relative to expected market price and actual market price, introduce uncertainty to headquarters operations. If commodity sales will not provide sufficient resources for a development program, headquarters offices must react quickly to remedy the situation. There are other problems with workload, tec hnical expertise, staff turnover, extensive travel, and problems of implementation that I have been unable to discuss in this section that only serve to exacerbate the instability of the envir onment. However, this summary of the ways in which the Title II organizational environment is uncertain, has been building to a point. Title II organizations (and probably many other PVOs working in food aid) must be flexible to accommodate changes, and must implement a number of measures to achieve th at flexibility. It is not unusual to find that coping with environmen tal uncertainty is necessary for organizational viability (Duncan 1972, Hirsch 1998). Most food aid experts would agree with the comment made by one senior headquarters employee: a vol atile work environment is the nature of the beast. What becomes problematic is determining the kind of environment in which an organization operates and what variables best act as parameters for that environment (Duncan, 1972). The problem intensifies for nonprofit organizat ions simply because much of the theoretical research that could be used to generate frame works for understanding (and thereby controlling) the environment fails to consider nonprofit-speci fic or service-based activities. Nevertheless, Duncan’s framework of factors and components th at comprise an organization’s internal and external environment including organizational pers onnel, organizational structure, organizational goals and objectives, technological concerns, customer concerns, supplier and competitor concerns, as well as the sociopolitical environment is useful (1972). Even the most cursory review of PVO Title II activities provides a curious observer with enough examples of

PAGE 73

55 uncertainty in each of these components to agr ee that the PVO environment is unstable. PVO experts have difficulty defining exactly which parameters within the environment are most volatile or unstable, though research has shown th at organizational environments have certain characteristics that are ‘drivers’ of organizati onal change (Boyd et al. 1993, Dill 1958, Downey 1975, Duncan 1972, Emery and Tr ist 1965, Lorenzi et al. 1981, Miles and Snow 1978, Milliken 1987, Williams 2000). What aspects are most unsta ble remain to be shown with quantitative measures. Emery and Trist (1965) would call the type of environment in which Title II PVOs work a “turbulent field.” Turbulent fields are dynamic and volatile environments where changes arise not only from within the organization but also from the environment. Dill (1958) argues that unstable environments and the ability of mana gers to gather information about those environments directly affect management beha viors. I believe that not only are management behaviors affected, but also organizational stru cture, institutional beliefs, and organizational behaviors. I also believe that the complexity of organizational environments and their link to organizational behaviors have only increased in the years since Dill’s paper was published. In the next section, I review relevant organizationa l literature and present characteristics common to organizations working in the presence of un certainty from many different sources. Organizational Adaptations Research focusing on nonpro fit, voluntary and collective organizations suggests that there may be organizational responses to uncer tain environments that help mitigate the circumstances. These responses might include conf ining organizational activities to a particular niche within an organizational environment, stru cturing organizations in ways that accommodate environmental change, encouraging employee fl exibility and role generalization within organizations, collaboration between similar organizations, and in some cases, resource sharing. In this section, I review some of the literature on this topic, incorporating examples of the various types of behavior from the activities of FAM and FAM members. The point here is to show how

PAGE 74

56 Title II CSs have responded to changes in the environment and how their responses compare and contrast with other organizational respon ses reported in the organizational literature. One way to confine environmental uncertainty is to limit operations to a very small, more controllable area. Similar to a biological speci es choosing a particular niche (such as nocturnal hunting), these behaviors move organizations fro m a generalist perspective into a specialist perspective. With less of the uncertain environmen t to handle, threats to organizational survival are limited, and organizational members can focu s on refining a limited number of skills, rather than collecting a large number of general skills Hannan and Freeman (1977) argue that even though generalist organizations are often optimal for uncertain environments, when environments change rapidly and drastically, specialist organizations are most successful, a point that is seconded by Heydebrand (1989). If a nonprofit organization chooses not to limit itself to a particular niche, one of the most important ways to address uncertainty is to structure organizations to accommodate changes easily. Basically, this means relying on organizational structures that are less hierarchical and/or that contain subunits that are somewhat indepe ndent. This allows for more ease in decisionmaking and shortens response times for changes th at must be dealt with quickly. Schiflett and Zey (1990) argue that many nonprofit organizations exhibit a decentralized distribution of power with multiple power bases and loosely coupled pr ocesses. Many Title II CSs adopt this structure at the ground level, where food is shipped, received, monetized and distributed. Others incorporate this strategy all the way through headquarters level. Moving from organizational structures to or ganizational behaviors that moderate the environment, the behavioral equivalent of se miautonomous, non-hierarchical structure is role generalization. Role generalization means that many different employees have the skills to perform a wide number of tasks that may arise in the course of a particular project. Employees have a number of skill sets that overlap, so th at if the occasion arises there are a number of individuals who may be able to handle a crisis or solve a ‘pop-up’ problem. Mirvis and Hackett

PAGE 75

57 argue that compared to government and fo r-profit employees, nonprofit employees feel “less fettered by centralization and controls, have more autonomy in doing their jobs” (1983, 8). Contact with the human resources departments of FAM member organizations supports this assertion, with many departments able to determine the number of employees working in a particular geographical area, but few able to determine those who work within a particular programmatic area. While this may not be the mo st efficient or rational way to structure a business or market organization, research has shown th is type of behavior to be very effective for organizations where things happen unexpectedly. Another way to limit risk in an uncertain e nvironment is to share resources with other organizations. Scarce resources still lead to comp etition, though there is institutional pressure toward cooperation in the nonprofit world, when it is appropriate. For many nonprofits sharing resources and dividing tasks means limited resources are used as effectively as possible for group success rather than indivi dual success. Often there are group goals that must be met in a particular area (such as the development of rigorous m onitoring and evaluation measures for Title II projects), and sharing of resources helps to meet the group goals more quickly. The new atmosphere of cooperation among Title II PVOs m eans that organizations have access to more technical information than ever before, as a result of increased communication between organizations at all levels, particularly between employees who have the same job. Organizational representatives interviewed for this report agreed that this was indeed evident in FAM activities and useful for development project implementation. Hasenfeld and Gidron (1993), studying self-help groups and human service organizations, found that if situ ations arise in which organiza tions depend on each other or a common third party (USAID) for resources and the organizations share similar domains, missions and structures, cooperation may arise in the form of coordinated action or coalition building. Here, resources are shared and collective action is chosen as a means to achieve organizational goals. This mode of action is the most collectivis t of all the organizational behaviors considered

PAGE 76

58 here and requires the largest amount of investme nt on the part of each of the organizations. Organizations agree not only to share resources but also employees and time to solve a problem of mutual concern. FAM’s activities fall into this category. The collaborative approach is often considered most risky because there may not be any direct or measurable improvement for an individual organization, though an increased m easure of environmental control may be the outcome. Collective action is highly uncertain and often is very political. Because the investment of time, resources and employees is not directly relate d, this type of response is the most likely to be cut if other situations arise. One way to ensure that collaboration continues is to create ways in which collaboration is formalized. Peter Holm argues that formalized cooperative agreements emerge as a way for organizations in unstable environments to “r econcile the inherent contradiction between individual and collective interests” (1998, 322) Many organizational collectives have been created to do just that, a point made by Litwak and Hylton in their analysis of coordinating agencies (1962). InterAction, for one, manages a collective of organizations that share a common outlook on operations (InterAction 1995). The CORE group is a similar collective of child survival organizations. And FAM, funded throu gh an ISA (formerly ISG) agreement, has been coordinating and supporting the collective activities of Title II organizations for more than twelve years (Mason 2001). When collective action is formalized, there are means to monitor and evaluate that collaboration, we ll-defined avenues for collaboration, and defined roles for each player in the collective. Until collaboration becom es systematic and institutionalized, this is the most successful means of ensuring cooperation, gi ven the high rate of turnover in the PVO community and the variability of personal commitment to collaboration. In development circles, Title II food aid is a very valuable resource that can be used to keep operating costs down for many PVOs, opera ting costs being defined as all of the costs associated with a development program, from headquarters administration to field-level distribution. Nonprofit organizations must consta ntly justify overhead expenses, and must find

PAGE 77

59 ways to make their operations effective and cost efficient. Food aid commodities can be a way for organizations to increase the total amount of income that the organization can use for its activities, leading to increased competition for food aid commodity resources. This competition often prohibited interaction and led to the doubli ng of efforts and the inefficient and ineffective use of resources provided for development proj ects. FAM activities introduce a cooperative spirit to the development organizational environment. This cooperative spirit is encouraged by activities that provide the structural and behavioral opportunity for organizations to work together on activities where positive change can occur, incr easing capacity to work together to solve common problems. As mentioned by a number of Title II experts, the process itself leads to the institutionalization of cooperative activity, while the products of the interactions improve FAM member organizations' ability to design and im plement food aid programming. FAM works to encourage friendly competition for resources while stressing the importance of collaborative action, since both build the capacity of member organizations. Coordinated action between orga nizations in a turbulent environment leads to a number of outcomes. One of the primary ones is the convergence of values and beliefs among organizations and organizational employees, leadi ng organizations to become even more similar than they were before (Emery and Trist 1965, Hasenfeld and Gidron 1993, Holm 1998, Pennings 1981). Interviews with organizational representative suggest that this may be true in terms of operational and policy activities but not in terms of organizational philosophies, which are often drastically different. Collective action also leads to organizational learning and consensus building in other areas of organizational activity and organizational behavi or (Kelleher 1996). For example, FAM member organizations have work ed together on creating a monetization handbook and providing subsequent training workshops us ing that handbook, which help to routinize a procedure that was once highly variable. Th e adoption of these new procedures by member organizations also makes them appear more similar to each other. These activities bring a measure of control into the environment and he lp stabilize the organizations (Emery and Trist

PAGE 78

60 1965). The organizations that participate in collective activities can also identify which organizations are similar to themselves, and wh ich organizations would be the best to start relationships with (CARE 2001). One food aid professional argues that without FAM’s influence over the years providing the coordination and the structure for collabor ation on common operational problems, any move toward that end would be merely talk. Larry Greiner (1972) argues in the Harvard Business Review that the history of an organization is im portant to consider as an organization grows and changes successfully. It is to FAM’s history that I turn next, focusing on how changes in the Title II environment have been confronted by FAM. Th e goal is to highlight important moments in FAM’s history paying special attention to how FAM has continued to support and encourage collective action and has stabilized an unstable environment.

PAGE 79

61 CHAPTER 5 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON FOOD AID MANAGEMENT Introduction This chapter outlines trends and accomplishments in FAM’s history to situate FAM in the context of Title II food aid programs. All of FAM’s accomplishments have been collaborative, their execution impossible without the involvement of each member organization. Some of these accomplishments relate to organizational inter action, like the four worldwide monetization workshops, or the cooperative child surviv al and nutrition workshop. Some of these accomplishments are material, like the Monetization Manual (1999a), the Generally Accepted Commodity Accounting Principles (1995a), and the Environmental Documentation Manual (1998, 1999b). These documents are the result of FAM’s collaborative activities. Others accomplishments are institutional, by which I me an collections of activities that have led to structural and behavioral changes in the Title II milieu that encourage cooperation in ways that might not have occurred without the presence of FAM. After a background section describing the circumst ances that led to FAM’s initial grant, I outline how FAM’s collaborative workshops led to the coalescence of opinion and policy on subjects germane to Title II activities like f ood aid standards and monetization. The second section notes key documentary products of intero rganizational collaboration, most of them directly or indirectly related to the works hops and other activities FAM has supported since 1989. The final section approaches FAM’s history from a broader perspective, explaining how FAM’s work has provided opportunities for collaborati on that were previously nonexistent and has encouraged collaboration spirit in the face of competition for increasingly scarce development resources. The last section stands as the mo st important, because ac tivities associated with

PAGE 80

62 creating an institutional environment of coopera tion are most relevant to understanding the development of a collective with a common outlook. I based this report on FAM archival materi als and interviews with those individuals identified by the FAM membership as expert in FAM’s history. I reviewed minutes from membership meetings and steering committee meetings, grant proposals, communications with USAID, FFP, midterm and final evaluations, a nd other relevant archival documents (FAM Archive Binders 1–4, FAM Archive Box 1, FA M Meeting Minutes Binders 1–3, Mason 2001). There are places in FAM's history where ar chival documentation is sparse, because of organizational changes or times when other activities took higher priority. I supplemented documentary accounts of these time periods with in terviews with FAM history experts. Editorial input from the FAM membership on early drafts of this report ensured that this history points out the events, documents and ongoing activities th at reflect the collective idea of FAM’s development. Major FAM events are summarized in Table 5-1. Background The mid-Eighties were volatile times for US-b ased international development activities. The famine in Ethiopia brought relief and deve lopment agencies into the spotlight. American development organizations were pushed to increase transparency and accountability in their programs while those programs increased in number and in complexity. The government began to stress monitoring and evaluation procedures to show the impact of development projects and food aid. Monetization activities were approved and implemented for the first time. Instead of maintaining large, long-standing agreements w ith a small number of aid organizations, USAID began entering into agreements with smaller and younger organizations. The proliferation of new organizations, activities, policies and mandates led to an environment of great change for the Title II community. USAID, particularly the office of FFP, recognized how complex the new requirements pressed on the community were and realized they would require a host of new

PAGE 81

63 activities. Members of USAID were also aware that many PVOs simply did not have the capacity to perform all of the new tasks effectively (FAM Archive Binder 1; FAM 1989). USAID proposed a series of grants to help Title II organizations improve project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Most of these grants were awarded to individual organizations. However, budget con cerns led to cutbacks in the resources available for capacity building grants. To increase the impact of limite d resources, USAID encouraged the formation of consortia of Title II food aid or ganizations. USAID could then su pport a consortium’s activities and thus support multiple organizations (FAM Archive Binder 1). USAID’s policy on Title II program activities encouraged collaboration a nd requested more streamlined standards, procedures, policies, and reporting for accountability reasons. The CSs at the time believed that there were topics of interest to the whole food aid community that could be best addressed thro ugh interactive and collaborative means, saving resources and reducing the duplication of efforts th at had become characteristic of many food aid activities. In the initial proposal (FAM Archive Binder 1, FAM 1989), Tom Zopf explained that food aid was “a complex undertaking with responsibilities shared among a number of governmental and private entities” (FAM 1989) revealing the need for a collaborative consortium to solve common problems. These b ecame the primary motivations behind FAM’s original USAID proposal in 1989 (FAM Archive Binder 1). FAM’s proposed activities would serve needs expressed by FAM members and USAID, focusing on the development of technical information and procedures specific to Title II organizations. In 1989, USAID granted five Title II PVOs support for collaborative activities aimed at systematizing and codifying knowledge, practice and policy relating to emergency food aid and development assistance. The grant provided the seed money for FAM, a consortium of organizations whose staff facilitates collabora tion and dissemination of information about management and operation of food aid programs.

PAGE 82

64 The founding members of FAM were the five largest food aid programmers at the time: CARE, Save the Children (SAVE), Adventist De velopment and Relief Agency (ADRA), World Vision (WV), and Catholic Relief Services (CRS ). The initial proposal explained that new accountability requirements led to confusion con cerning roles in establishing policies, guidelines and procedures. FAM could target and explore issues of mutual concern in a collaborative manner, helping PVOs gain experience with po licy, accountability and procedure development (FAM 1989). In 2002, FAM had 16 PVO members involved in Title II programming (FAM 2002). Experts in FAM’s history and current activ ity agree that through collaborative activities, this interorganizational cooperative has helped streamline food aid policy and procedure in an area where diversity management styles and organizational philosophies likely would have hindered positive change. Instead, FAM members contribute their time and expertise for the development of documents and procedures that conserve institutional memory in the Title II context. Interactive Highlights One of FAM’s primary functions is facil itating collaboration between Title II CSs on topics relevant to improving food aid activities. Activities vary from large, multi-organizational conferences to quarterly meetings and brow n bag talks, with subjects ranging from the development of common food aid standards to th e use of genetically modified commodities in food aid programs (FAM 2001a). These meetings serve a number of purposes. The first is the dissemination of technical information so that FAM members can work more efficiently and effectively. Rather than each organization locating, synthesizing and communicating new developments, the organizations work together through FAM to achieve this common goal. Food aid experts and FAM experts agree that these shar ed activities allow more relevant work to be done with fewer resources, important in a time of declining dollar support for development work. FAM meetings provide the opportunity fo r employees with the same position or job duties from different organizations to meet and interact. For example, monetization officers at

PAGE 83

65 Africare have the opportunity to interact with monetization officers at WV or ADRA. Individuals who do the same job in their respective organizati ons can share information and develop personal relationships. The impact of these opportunities fo r formal and informal interaction cannot be underestimated. They standardize the Title II e nvironment at the headquarters level. All FAM experts interviewed agreed that these interactions have led to a more casual atmosphere and to willingness for cooperation that was previously not apparent and that is now considered a great benefit to PVO employees. Originally, the FAM SC and the general me mbership were the same; each FAM meeting was a meeting of both bodies. Meetings covere d FAM’s administrative activities, management issues, work plan reviews and any other items relevant to FAM’s general operation. Then, attention turned to an agreed on topic for di scussion. The topical sessions focused on providing technical information on monetization, on the impact of the Farm Bill or on providing accountability information required by the Office of Management and B udget (OMB) circular 133 (FAM Meeting Minutes Binder 1–3). Usually, if Congress enacted any legislation regarding food aid or the food aid community, FAM provided a forum for the discussion of the new legislation. On many occasions this led FAM members to develop technical bibliographies or guidelines for dissemination to the member orga nizations. FAM’s first major activity, the accountability task force, came out of one such meeting during which it was decided that the food aid community should respond to increasing audit frequency and detail (FAM Archive Binder 1). During FAM’s early years, funds were also allocated for developing common food aid standards. Many of FAM’s primary objectives for th e first seven years are the result of a food aid conference held in Cairo in 1990, during which members of the food aid community discussed a the need for common food aid standards, policy and practices (FAM Archive Binder 1). This meeting was notable because members of the P VO community were present (both headquarters and field agents) along with governmental representatives from USAID, USDA, and other involved agencies. Participants’ initial respon se was very positive, based on the support for

PAGE 84

66 collaborative activity and the spirit of interacti on that was fostered. Recommendations charging USAID with the responsibility for developing food aid standards and policies, tempered USAID’s positive response somewhat, though their support for collaborative activity was still strong (FAM Archive Binder 1). FAM held other workshops on topics relevant to the current activities of its membership, like nutrition, environmental documentation, mone tization, and local capacity building. At these meetings, experts in the various fields presente d FAM members with state of the art technical information. When appropriate technical info rmation was not available, FAM spearheaded campaigns to gather, synthesize and disseminate information so member organizations could complete their food aid projects effectively. These workshops and the technical information that has grown out of them are considered FAM’s most important physical outputs and form the cornerstone of many Title II programming ac tivities for many FAM member organizations. In fact, all FAM and food aid experts interviewe d listed FAM products when asked which policy and procedure documents were integral to the design and implementation of a food aid program. In 1990, the Food Aid Resource Material (FARM) clearinghouse grew out of FAM’s information gathering and disseminating activities. The FARM clearinghouse is now called the FSRC, where FAM maintains a highly focused library of food aid and food security resources for its members and for individuals working in the food aid sector (FAM Archive Binder 1). FAM’s working groups are another result of workshops held in which appropriate, comprehensive documentation and tools were not available. FAM took responsibility for coordinating and supporting these groups. Informal working groups began in 1990, but the groups were reorganized and formally recognized in 1998 at the beginning of FAM’s current ISA the result of the FAM annual meeting at Coolfont in West Virginia (FAM Archive Binder 3–4, FAM Archive Box 1). These working groups remain one of the most important activities that FAM supports. Current working groups focus on local capacity building, monitoring and evaluation, monetization, and environmental compliance. Responding to needs in the PVO community,

PAGE 85

67 working groups in HIV/AIDS programming, child survival, nutrition, and commodity management have been proposed. In 1990, FAM also began briefing CSs on the state of food aid, highlighting legislation, policy and guidance from the various governmental agencies. These briefings grew into food aid orientations for organizations new to Title II ac tivities or interested in starting Title II activities (FAM Archive Binder 1). FAM was primary orga nization providing general information about the mechanics of food assistance managed throu gh USAID (and to some degree through USDA). The Purposes, Responsibilities and Obligations se minars are the most refined version of these introductory briefings, which continued throug h the mid-Nineties (FAM Archive Binder 1–2). FAM also acted as a means for CSs to inform each other about internal training classes and workshops open to other FAM member organi zations, reducing duplication and encouraging collaboration. An early example of this is FA M members’ participation in CARE’s commodity storage training program and the adoption of the commodity storage manual by FAM members in 1990 (FAM Archive Binder 1). A training calendar th at lists current events and activities remains a part of the FAM website (one of the mo st popular pages), evidence that FAM member organizations rely on FAM to provide this information (FAM 2001a). Gradually, the FAM membership grew. Gene ral membership continued through 1996, but SC meetings were held separately. Manageme nt, working group, and topical meetings were also held separately (FAM Meeting Minutes Bi nder 1–3). Topical meetings and SC meetings were held across the US, allowing PVOs that were not located on the east coast to participate. The SC began taking more responsibility for FAM’s activities, originally left to FAM’s director (FAM Archive Binder 1–2). Since 1997, FAM has come to rely on electronic communication for information exchange (FAM Archive Binder 2-3; Archive B ox 1). These listservs provi de an efficient and specialized means of disseminating information a nd questions to selected individuals in the FAM constituency. Unfortunately, FAM’ s midterm evaluation suggests that some groups did not use

PAGE 86

68 the listservs. New listserv management software was installed in 2001 to remedy the problem. Data collected since the installation show that listserv activity has increased (FAM 2000a, 2001b). The listservs are managed through the FA M website. The FAM website provides links to the websites of each member organizations and to relevant databases, commodity management sites and other technical assets used by the FAM members. The new FAM site has drawn together national and international resources in a more u sable interface, and links food aid professionals with food aid resources3. The entire FAM FSRC bibliographic database is online in a searchable format, allowing field and headquarters staff of FAM member organizations to do independent research and submit requests for information on an individual basis (FAM 2000a, 2001b, FAM Archive Binder 4). These electronic resources, t hough not interactive in the same way that working group meetings are, provide a virtual community for FAM members of FAM. Electronic technology capabilities extend FAM’s ability to coordinate collaborative activities. Document Highlights The goals of many FAM workshops, as me ntioned before, were creating documents useful to the FAM constituency and providing in formation to help Title II operations run more smoothly. Some workshops ended w ith final materials collected in to binders and disseminated to each organization. Other workshops ended with an acknowledgement that there was not enough information to be used effectively. FAM took responsibility for creating documents in those instances when adequate information did not exis t. FAM has taken this approach since 1989, and it remains a primary mode of operation (FAM Archive Box 1, FAM Archive Binder 1–4). This product-driven approach motivates FAM’s WGs, whose topical focuses vary, but whose work plans are similar (FAM Archive Binder 3, Archive Box 1). Some WGs have completed their initial tasks, while others conti nue to gather information and synthesize their products. WG-created documents are among the most useful in Title II programming. They 3 Some USAID employees use the FAM website to reach information on USAID web pages because navigating the USAID site is difficult. The UN also links to the FAM website.

PAGE 87

69 include FAM’s 1995 Generally Accepted Commodity Accounting Principles (GACAP), the FAM Monetization Manual (1999a), and the Nutrition and Agriculture Monitoring Toolkit (FAM 2001c). These documents are the result of collabor ation between organizations with a common cause. The documents themselves can disseminate information more easily to FAM members, leading to common schools of thought and common approaches to operational and policy issues. The first document FAM produced was the GAC AP, which is now accepted by the CSs, by USAID, and by the US General Accountab ility Office (FAM Archive Binder 1). The 1990 GACAP document (revised in 1995) is FAM’s first material product, and the procedure by which it was created remains in place. The FAM member ship identifies a need for documentation of procedures to improve food aid programs. Then FA M, as the coordinator, arranges for meetings during which the new topic is introduced and discussed. These meetings can be task forces, working groups, workshop sessions or brown bag talks. During th e discussion, individuals share experiences and technical knowledge and develop a pl an for making the information more widely available, usually in the form of a manual, guide book, or toolkit. A committee or consultant is chosen to gather information, later compiled and returned to the original committee for comments and review. After initial review, the WG presen ts the product to the entire FAM membership. Their input is solicited and their comments are incorporated into the final document4. (The above section is summarized from working group minutes ava ilable at the FAM website, participation in FAM processes, and review of FAM Archive Binder 1-4.) This procedure has been the genera l format for the creation of FAM’s PVO Perspective on USAID's Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper (1994), the Monetization Manual (1999a), the Nutrition and Agriculture Monitoring Toolkit (2001c), and the Environmental Documentation Manual (EDM) (1998, 1999b). Each document listed above has support from all FAM members and attention from other private interests, gove rnment agencies, and development policy and 4 FAM and FAM members bear the cost of disseminating new techni cal documents. Cost recovery programs have been established.

PAGE 88

70 research organizations including the Institute for Development Studies in Sussex, England (FAM Archive Binder 1). Each of these documents is the out come of a direct need, either legislated by the US Government (as in the GACAP and the EDM) or called for by developments in the implementation of food aid projects around the world (as in the Monetization Manual or any of the monitoring toolkits). FAM-supported or FA M CS-supported training workshops familiarize headquarters and field personnel with the ne w documents, increasing impact among member organizations (FAM 2001a). FAM encourages member PVOs to share their experiences through its journal, Food Forum which focuses on items of topical interest to those involved in Title II activities. FAM has published nearly sixty issues of Food Forum since late 1989, first bimonthly, now quarterly. At first, Food Forum was a newsletter, providing updates on FAM activities, calendars of events important to the food aid community, and presenting few field-experience reports. Over time, Food Forum began addressing topics of more immediate interest to the Title II community, incorporating more articles from FAM member organizations and fewer articles from external contributors. While the working groups were pr ovided forums for discussion of topics important over the long run, Food Forum introduced new topics. Food Forum also began presenting technical bibliographies on topics of interest to food aid managers, showcasing the resources available from the FSRC. In 2002, there were over a thousand subscribers to Food Forum Many individuals received electronic copies of Food Forum as an easier and faster mode of accessing information they need ( Food Forum Archives Binder 1–2). Many of FAM’s documents are available to download from FAM’s website. Electronic copies of these items allow field officers and headqua rters staff to retrieve important information at any time, and in any location. In addition to FAM documents, FAM’s electronic collection includes current DAP guidance, government fo rms, important USAID documents, and other relevant food aid and food security documents (FAM 2001a). Food aid professionals can access these documents through the FAM website and th rough the online FSRC bibliographic database

PAGE 89

71 mentioned before, which provides hyperlinks to documents housed electronically on FAM’s site. This library of electronic documents extends FA M’s ability to disseminate food aid information into the field and headquarters offices (FAM 2000a). Every food aid professional inte rviewed believes that FAM’s ability to provide access to technical information is increasingly important to PVO activities. Many of these experts argue that with staff turnover, and the loss of technical experts in the nonprofit and government sectors, FAM’s technical information clearinghouse capabilities are indispen sable as a means to storehouse institutional memory relevant to T itle II activities. One veteran food aid professional even argued that FAM was providing services that the PVOs were no longer able to provide themselves. This individual was referring to the development and dissemination of new technical information and toolkits, now beyond the reach and outside the realm of normal operation for many PVOs whose time is filled with meeting the daily needs of their programs. Another food aid professional agreed that the PVOs, as a result of increased monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements, have less time to commit to the development, improvement and dissemination of innovations in any of the technical areas that FAM serves. In short, FAM’s technical information development and dissemination activities are a service that PVOs need but are often unable to provide for themselves. Coordinated actions provide an economy of scale that permits these activ ities to continue even with minimal resource contributions from the CSs. Institutional Highlights FAM’s most important contribution is not in meetings, training courses, documentation, or information dissemination. It is fostering colla boration and facilitating that collaboration in the face of increasing pressure for competition. Before FAM, the Title II CSs worked independently, though there were numerous issues of mutual concern. FAM arose as a means to address those concerns through collaborative efforts. Collabora tion has now become the expected behavior

PAGE 90

72 when these issues arise, rather than the exception to the rule. FAM strengthened collaboration in two ways: creating structural opportunities for in teraction and institutionalizing collaboration. FAM provides the physical space for interaction to occur, and arranges meetings, projects, brown bags, and workshops that enc ourage interaction. These opportunities create the structural potential for sharing experiences and knowledge. As shown in the previous section, there are ample opportunities for organizations to interact. Through these meetings, FAM integrates the institutional memory of Title II organizations, compounding the years of experience that can be drawn on by an individual in n eed of technical assistance. FAM’s collaborative activities also mitigate loss of institutional memo ry for each of the member organizations, and for USAID, by archiving technical information and reports (FAM 201b). Cooperation and collaboration do not arise simply because the opportunity exists. In an environment where cooperation is not traditionally accepted, it takes work to encourage that kind of interaction. At the outset, FAM’s activities were seen as good, but the procedures by which collaborative work was completed were not in place. The creation of the GACAP was fraught with delay and concern for incorporating the inter ests of all the parties involved, but eventually the document was completed (FAM Archive Binder 1). During that time, it was the dedication of a few individuals who recognized the importance of consensus building that drove the work. From that initial project, each FAM member organi zation has built its capacity to work toward a common goal and reach consensus quickly. In FY2002, FAM was working on collaborative projects, issuing statements that expressed the opinions of the FAM membership, and standing as one of the major food aid consortia in the US (FAM 2002). The most striking examples of FAM’s cont ribution to institutionalizing cooperation can be seen in administrative matters. Every member of FAM has provided strong letters of support for FAM over the course of two five-year ISA grants (FAM Archive Binder 3, Archives Box 1). One individual with extensive FAM experience ar gues that the amount of resources committed by each organization should not be underestimated. Each FAM member organizations wrote letters

PAGE 91

73 of support for FAM to USAID, asking that FA M’s budget be removed from the available ISA funds before competition began. In a sense, the member organizations agreed to less support for their own organizations to support FAM. This coupled with the person hours required to complete FAM’s collaborative activities, is a sizeable resource commitment, even from the smallest organizations. Another FAM expert pointed to FAM’s value to member organizations, arguing that for a very small investment FAM member organizations (and USAID) receive a large amount of technical support, coordination and information. Member organizations recognize the impo rtance of FAM’s activities, which are inherently collaborative. Would there have b een such wholesale support for FAM in 1989? After major cuts to development spending and the restructuring of USAID led to increased accountability and new monitoring and evaluation re quirements, it would seem that organizations would prefer to focus on their own activities, conserving resources and employee hours for tasks of integral importance to their own organiza tions. But FAM gained more support after these organizational changes, possibly due to a realizati on that collaboration is useful, especially in an uncertain, resource-limited environment (FAM Ar chive Binder 3-4, Archive Box 1). I believe CSs came to understand the real impact of cooperation through FAM’s early activities. The passing years have reinforced those lessons. Perhaps the most important example of the institutionalizati on of cooperation and collaboration can be drawn from what might be considered FAM’s darkest days, the 1995 reorganization (FAM 1995b). Since 1989, FAM had been operating under the guidance of the director, whose activities were supervised by the SC but who was not managed directly. The original director set out a grand role for FAM, enlarging the scope of FAM’s activities to include participation in international food aid consortia and symposia, taking on larger and more policyrelated tasks. Concurrently, the US governme nt was pushing for more rigorous accounting, accountability, and monitoring in food aid programs This was accompanied by reductions in the amount of development funding available for the PVO community, making that funding much

PAGE 92

74 more valuable. In return for development funding, the government began expecting more justification that the money spent was being used effectively and efficiently. This led the PVOs to a similarly increased interest in accounting, accountability, and monitoring. FAM was not immune to these institutional changes; soon the Director’s actions and FAM’s activities in general came under scrutiny. Because the initial FAM work plan was unclear, monitoring and evaluating the activities of FAM employees were difficult. The SC, under the stress of more requirements and less resources, expected to see mo re results-oriented, fo cused work. When this did not appear, and when the Director argued that his management style was inconsistent with the new tenor of development activities, the FAM memb ership acted quickly and decisively to make structural and organizational changes to bri ng FAM back into line with the rest of the development community. (This analysis of the s ituation is based on reviews of FAM’s Archives, particularly Binder 1-2, FAM Meeting Minutes Bind er 1-3, and on interviews with FAM experts conducted in 2001.) The implications of this event should not be underestimated. Yes, it was a very difficult time in FAM’s history, leading to one of tw o 100% staff turnovers. However, the rapid and decisive move by the Steering Committee and th e FAM membership indicates the development of consensus that is exactly what FAM was ai ming to create in 1989. In the years between 1989 and 1995, FAM members developed an increased capacity to build consensus quickly and efficiently (FAM Archive Binder 1-2). The procedure surrounding the development of the GACAP, which took over a year, and the procedur e surrounding the FAM reorganization, which took a few months, are essentially the same. The di fference is that the reorganization process was more efficient because the system for reachi ng a consensus was standardized by FAM’s encouragement of interaction and communication between organizations. After the reorganization, FAM became some thing more than it had been. Many FAM experts believe that most of the important wo rk done by FAM has been completed since the reorganization and restructuring. Previously, FA M was considered something of a folly, an

PAGE 93

75 organization that served a nominal purpose. After the SC took control and the member organizations began to recognize their owners hip of FAM, FAM’s utility to the members increased.5 Table 5-1: Timeline of major FAM events Year Funding SourceOrganizational EventDocuments Produced 1989 ISG Food Forum begins 1990 WGs organized GACAP 1991 FSRC begins 1992 1993 Food Aid Lexicon 1994 FAFSPP response 1995 FAM reorganized 1996 1997 Listserv, website 1998 ISA WGs reorganized EDM 1999 Monetization Manual 2000 By-laws H/Nut. Baseline 2001 Website redesign Nut./Ag. Toolkit 2002 LCB indicators 2003 ISA proposal The only major change in operations since the 1995 reorganization relates to the activities of the SC and to how it is formed each year (FAM 2000b). Rather than the previous static committee, the new SC now consists of a rotati ng group of members from each of the member organizations. The only permanent member is CARE, which holds the grant for FAM; the remaining members cycle through yearly membersh ips to increase diversity and participation in FAM’s administration. These changes were voted into effect in FAM’s first set of by-laws at the November 2000 annual meeting (FAM Archive Bi nder 4). To increase organizational ownership of FAM and to increase the diversity of organiza tions participating in FAM decision making, the FAM SC wrote by-laws outlining FAM’s administrative procedures. This was to clarify that FAM was not merely comprised of those employees hi red to coordinate and support the activities, but of all member organizations. These new po licies and procedures remove FAM’s guidance from the hands of the original five members a nd allow the other eleven members to determine 5 Other than the original alliance of members in 1989, the largest influx of new members has occurred after

PAGE 94

76 FAM’s direction. All FAM experts interviewed agree that these activities allow FAM members to feel as if they owned the organization more, as if their suggestions, interests and priorities had more chance to be built into FAM activities. This is an important step for FAM. Conclusions This review of FAM’s historical documents re veals trends in FAM’s history, particularly regarding collaborative activities, pointing out rele vant examples of those trends. This is not an exhaustive accounting of each interaction and ev ery decision. The trajectory FAM has taken is the focus, rather than each individual stop al ong the way. To conclude, I present a few themes I identified through my review of FAM’s archives and my interviews with FAM history experts. Most of the topics I discuss are tangentially related to previous sections but did not entirely fit into any one of them. Some of them are more specific, such as FAM’s relationship with USAID. Some of them are broader, such as FAM’s opportunistic, organic growth. Dependence on USAID. FAM’s activities have been bounded over time by increasing accountability requirements from USAID. USAID’s guidance for ISA agreements leads FAM’s organizational activities to some degree. This is not likely to change while USAID is the primary source of funding for FAM. FAM must balance the interests of the government agency that provides funding against the interests of the me mber organizations that provide the ultimate reason for FAM’s existence. This puts FAM in a precarious situation because those interests often diverge and reconciling them can be difficult. Th is is not a new realization. Many FAM members and employees have argued that limited resour ces have hamstrung FAM and have only increased FAM’s aim to satisfy USAID’s interests. Less dependence on USAID resources would allow FAM to serve the needs of the membership more easily and would allow FAM to meet those needs without USAID approval. Steering Comm ittee discussions often center around ways to reduce FAM’s dependence on USAID, but through 2002, there was no commitment of resources the reorganization in 1995 (FAM Archive Binder 3–4).

PAGE 95

77 (through membership fees, cost recovery platforms, etc.) from FAM members to lessen FAM’s resource dependence on USAID (FAM Archive Binder 4, FAM Annual Report 2001). FAM’s reactive growth. The changing needs of the FAM membership and the evolving priorities for development activities at USAID have led to a very organic and event-driven evolution for FAM. One PVO representative argues that FAM’s growth was reactive, rather that proactive. FAM has merely been responding to current needs instead of developing its own agenda. In the short run, this may seem unf ocused and random, leading to a directional uncertainty with respect to FAM’ s future. In the long run, however, the organizational flexibility FAM enjoys allows for changes that meet me mbers’ needs more quickly. However, members must clearly state their desires and needs, b ecause FAM cannot direct its activities without the membership’s guidance and participation. Often, this need for participation leads to “meeting mania.” This overload of meetings is typical of many nonprofit sectors and is the result of a consensus-driven approach to management. It is one of the prices to pay for a consortium engaged in interorganizational work that must meet the needs of a number of stakeholders. Limited participation. Another problem that arises from the consensus approach to organizational activity is that some stakeholders take an active role in the decision making process, while others assume a passive role. This is not only a problem with FAM’s activities; it has been mentioned with respect to any number of situations in which Title II PVOs must interact. When it falls to the member organizations to keep abreast of the consortium’s activities, passive organizations often lose touch. This has been the case with USAID, whose officials have been provided with all of the same opportunities to interact with FAM, and whose staff members are provided with the same avenues to gain info rmation as the FAM members. This has led to a disconnect in the liaison between USAID and FAM. The work FAM has done to create an environment where the possibility for collabora tive development programs becomes greater has been overlooked (Mason 2001). Since USAID enc ourages PVOs to submit collaborative projects, it seems that FAM’s collaborative activities woul d be followed more actively, particularly

PAGE 96

78 because collective proposals from sev eral organizations would decrease the number of proposals to be reviewed, monitored, and evaluated, decreasing USAID/FFP staff workload (FAM Archive Binder 3-4). USAID and FAM continue attempting to increase the frequency and impact of communication and interaction. Evaluations of FAM, USAID and FFP point to staff turnover, organizational restructuring, loss of institu tional memory, increased workload, and decreased resources on both sides as root causes of the problem. The burden of reporting falls to FAM and the membership. Knowledge of FAM activities. During FAM’s earliest history, FAM activities enjoyed the unqualified support of USAID, whose delega tes attended meetings diligently (FAM Archive Binder 1–2). Over time, this relationship would experience stresses and strains as each side underwent changes, reorganizations, refocusing, and refinement. This is not unusual for partnerships of this type, particul arly for relationships that have lasted as long, and that have been as active. AID has come to depend on FAM to provide support services to the CSs, while FAM has come to depend totally on AID funding. For example, FAM organizes the ISA grant manager’s meetings, originally USAID’s res ponsibility (FAM Archive Binder 3–4). Many consider FAM a subunit of USAID, or a subun it of another USAID funded project, FANTA. While the three offices work cl osely together in an allied manner, they are independent organizations. Ignorance of FAM’s activities and impact is not restricted to AID. There are likely other upper-level PVO administrators who are unaware of the impact of FAM activities on their development and Title II programs. The bur den of communication falls to individual organizational representatives to report to their management what value their participation in FAM activities adds to their respective organizations. What is FAM’s value added over the past tw elve years? Are management and technical procedures for commodity-related development programs more systematic and streamlined? Are the systems more alike across organizations? Are monitoring and evaluation and accountability

PAGE 97

79 procedures improved? Is there an organizational environment in which these PVOs are more likely to collaborate on problems of mutual concern even in the face of competition for increasingly limited commodity and dollar resources? Are members of FAM more likely to call on the hundreds of years of shared development e xperience that are stored in FAM’s institutional memory (staff turnover and decreasing resources fo r activity notwithstanding)? All of the food aid and FAM experts interviewed agree that the answ er to each of these questions is yes. And that ‘yes’ implies that FAM has satisfied its primar y objective of addressing items of mutual concern for Title II organizations through collective action. The initial investment in FAM by USAID the member organizations has provided returns that ju stify its existence, not the least of which is building a collaborative constituency in an uncertain organizational environment. Prior to FAM, PVOs rarely cooperated and the headquarters level, though cooperation sometimes existed at the field level. The results of this were operational competitiveness, lack of common purpose (or lack of institutionalized belie fs), and redundancy of efforts that detracted from the effectiveness of food aid. Now the PVO community has a way to identify common operational standards to be applied, cooper ate in programming and management of food commodities, and facilitate open dialogue between PVOs.

PAGE 98

80 CHAPTER 6 FOOD AID MANAGEMENT CONSTITUENCY-BUILDING AND COLLECTIVE ACTIVITIES Introduction As a consortium, FAM works closely with its members to define activities and promote the progress of those activities to meet agreedupon goals. As mentioned before, these activities include the implementation of WGs (M&E, MNTZ, LCB, and EWG). FAM also manages the FSRC, publishes Food Forum maintains an active website and implements several other food security information sharing activities including in terorganizational workshops and listservs. The FAM members consider FAM, created largely as a forum in which Title II PVOs could collaborate and exchange food aid and food security program information, a valuable venue for exchange of new tools and best practices. However, FAM’s impact reaches beyond the borders of its member organizations to a number of other food security interests. In th is sense, FAM provides operational support services not only for the member organizations but also for the broader food aid and food security constituency that includes USAID, USDA, othe r NGOs, international government interests, university food security projects, and consultants. As the number of individua ls participating in or learning from FAM grows, FAM’s constituency grows. The profile presented in this chapter identif ies the ways FAM has built a constituency and explores the breadth and depth of that constitu ency. This report identifies those constituencybuilding activities that are confined to the member constituency as well as those that reach further abroad. This organizational profile also examin es the patterns of interaction within the FAM collective to understand the form and content of those interactions. Within each section, details regarding the rationale and methods used for an alyses are presented. FAM coordinates collective

PAGE 99

81 activities and information exchange. Some of th at information comes in from the FAM member constituency, while other information comes in from the broader constituency. Likewise, information flows out of FAM, some of it only to the FAM members, the rest to the broader constituency. Increasing the diversity of informati on flowing into and out of FAM and developing relationships associated with those information fl ows are integral to building a constituency that is both broad and deep. Here, increasing netw ork breadth means increasing the number of organizations involved with FAM activities. Increasing network depth means increasing the frequency of interactions among those organizati ons. Detailed information regarding FAM’s six primary activities is listed below, beginning w ith FAM’s member-focused activities and moving through those activities involving larger and la rger constituencies for input or outflow of information. Steering Committee Until 2001, the FAM SC, the governing administ rative board for FAM, consisted only of representatives from the five original FAM members: ADRA, CARE, CRS, SAVE and WV. New FAM by-laws, created and implemented in 2000, have changed that (FAM 2000b). Now, each year the available SC seats rotate among the si xteen members. The only permanent member on the committee is CARE, the project holder. The first of the new SCs (2001) had representation from Feed the Hungry International (FHI), CARE CRS, ADRA, Mercy Corps (MC), Counterpart (CNTPT), and ACDI/VOCA. The 2002 SC memb ers were from CARE, SAVE, Africare, WV, Opportunities Industrialization Centers Internati onal (OICI), TechnoServe (TNS), and Project Concern International (PCI). Table 6-1 summarizes this information. I collected SC membership data for the tw elve years that FAM operated between 1989 and 2001. However, until the FAM by-laws were ra tified there was no variation in membership. Only the five founding members had positions on the committee. Currently, other than the permanent seat that CARE retains, membership is chosen by lot; membership on the committee is random from year to year. Because of the method of assignment, statistical investigation of that

PAGE 100

82 data would be unlikely to reveal any significant trends. Additionally, with only two instances of unconstrained choice, it would be diffi cult to show any change over time. Table 6-1: Steering Committee membership during current ISA 1998-200020012002 CARE* CARE CARE ADRA ADRA Africare* CRS ACDI/VOCAOICI STC CRS PCI WVRD Counterpart STC FHI* TNS Mercy CorpsWVRD *=committee chair Steering Committee meetings bring together a subgroup of FAM member organizations to consider administrative and strategic pla nning for FAM. As a result, FAM members are afforded the opportunity to meet one-on-one in a ve ry intimate setting. Over the course of a year, relationships are built that may strengthen re lationships between member organizations themselves. The rotating membership and chai rmanship of the SC means organizational representatives the opportunity to develop l eadership skills, building individual and organizational capacity for FAM member PVOs. Steering Committee members must reach con sensus regarding the direction FAM will take during the decision making process. Differing views are expressed and agreement is developed during planning m eetings. Steering Committee activities often reach beyond FAM activities into the larger realm of food aid and food security issues. However, SC activities are limited to a few selected individuals each year, and have limited impact on the larger FAM member constituency and even less impact on the broader food security constituency. Working Groups FAM coordinates the activities of four WGs that provide the majority of input for developing food aid standards. Working gr oup meetings are open to all FAM members. Generally, WG members meet at least once a quarter to achieve the goals set in annual meetings

PAGE 101

83 and explained in their work plans. Working group chairs are volunteer representatives that manage the WGs activities and keep the groups on task. There are four working groups for the current ISA agreement: MNTZ, LCB, ENVT, and M&E. The MNTZ group identifies areas of collaborative action to strengthen the capacity of PVOs to design and carry out monetization ac tivities. The LCB WG reviews organizational approaches to local capacity building in food security programs, develops a common understanding of capacity building, develops best practices for capacity building and analyzes the methods, tools and indicators used to measure the impact of capacity building projects. The EWG is a forum where environmental compliance docum entation can be developed, training can be planned and executed in a collaborative manner, a nd PVOs can work together in initiatives that go beyond compliance. The M&E WG oversees the development of a set of robust tools to monitor and evaluate Title II programs and instruct s individuals on how to use those tools. The WGs have developed the subject matter for 10 wo rkshops, 19 brown bag talks, and 7 manuals that represent the common food aid standards FAM has developed in these four areas. Data on the activities and products of the four WGs were collected from archival sources and through direct participation in WG activiti es. Sparse meeting minutes and few participant rosters from early working group meetings makes examination of constituency building activities difficult. Caps on the number participants fro m each FAM member organization and caps on total number of participants for workshops also ma ke statistical arguments limited. However, discussion of documentary products and workshops held do provide some insight into the depth and breadth of FAM’s constituency. Meetings (Brown Bags and General Meetings) At meetings, FAM member representatives di scuss specific topics relevant to Title II food aid operations and procedures and reach con sensus regarding those issues. The entire FAM member constituency develops relationships a nd shares institutional knowledge through formal and informal interactions. Attendance is not limited; any organizational representative may

PAGE 102

84 attend. This broadens the scope and impact of these meetings. Topics range from the discussion of toolkits being develo ped to the logistics of planning a workshop to present the most recent toolkit developed to fo od aid professionals in a particular region (Southeast Asia) or in a particular group (headquarters staff). Working group members and other organizational representatives learn about issues of a more current topical interest at brown bag talk s. These meetings usually focus on recent changes in legislation, policy, or developments in the food security community re garding issues of mutual concern. FAM’s brown bags have covered a di versity of topics from genetically modified organisms to local capacity building activities among the FAM membership. Meetings of this type focus primarily on FAM members. Informa tion may come into the meetings from a number of sources in the broader food security constituency, but the target population is FAM members. FAM working group meetings and brown bags reach headquarters staff, with some participation from field staff if they happen to be in Washington. Online archives and documentary archives in the FAM offices provide mi nutes for a majority of meetings but not all, and some of those documents do not report indi viduals present, making it difficult to note PVO strength-of-presence at the meetings over time. One may conclude from an appraisal of the data that these working group meetings are primarily for FAM members and not the broader food security constituency. Products (Manuals and Toolkits) The goals of working group meetings are to e xplore an item of topical interest, gather the relevant information present in the food aid constituency (usually FAM members and governmental agencies), summarize the information co llected, identify gaps in information, find information to fill those gaps, determine what information is most relevant to FAM member organizations, synthesize that information, and present the final product for use in improving the design and implementation of food aid programs. Table 6-2 lists the seven products of this

PAGE 103

85 process through FY2002. Each FAM member organi zation is provided with copies of these FAM products to disseminate to their headquarters and field offices. These documents present the FAM member’s position on the best way to complete certain operational tasks. The members share these documents and thereby generate common ‘best practices’ and opinions related to those pr actices. This increases organizational similarity among Title II organizations. The broader food aid constituency, while not able to contribute to the creation of these documents, uses them freely and incorporates the products of FAM’s work into their own activities. FAM products have an impact in the broader food security constituency because they present solutions to common operational pr oblems and present agreed-upon standards for management. Though created for the FAM member ship, the US government and other PVOs recognize these documents as important touchstones for operations. The scope of this project did not allow for tracing the flow of documents thr ough the FAM member organizations and into the field, so depth of penetration is difficult to gauge Limited data on the use of these documents outside FAM makes breadth of penetration difficult to gauge as well, at least quantitatively. There is anecdotal evidence that organizations’ use of FAM products is growing, particularly in the UN and in USAID international mission offices (for the EDM, at least). Table 6-2: Documents, manuals, and toolkits Generally Accepted Commodity Accounting Principles FAM Food Aid Lexicon FAM Monetization Manual FAM Environmental Documentation Manual Health and Nutrition Baseline Research Methods Agricultural Project Baseline Research Methods Health and Agriculture Monitoring Toolkit Workshops There were ten FAM workshops through the end of FY2002. The workshops are designed to allow exploration and discussion of information contained in the toolkits by an even larger group within the FAM member constituency. In this case, more individuals, not more

PAGE 104

86 organizations, are invited to participate, ma king FAM’s impact deeper within the member constituency rather than broader. Usually, these workshops target particular geographic areas and attempt to achieve the participation of field sta ff from the member organizations. The rationale is that these workshops bring the new tools and id eas to the field more quickly and with less confusion than if they were to arrive via nor mal organizational lines of communication. Expert facilitators answer technical questions on the s pot and encourage the incorporation of new food aid standards and procedures at the field level. While previous FAM activities have been ope n primarily to headquarters staff, FAM workshops are most often open to field represen tatives. Holding the workshops internationally allows more field representatives to attend than if they were held in the US. To date, workshops have targeted environmental documentation, local capacity building, monetization, data analysis, sampling, monitoring of nutrition and child surv ival, and health and agriculture monitoring. These workshops have focused on headquarters staff in the US and field staff in Latin America, Asia, West and Central Africa, and East and S outhern Africa. Participation in workshops is limited to FAM member organizations and the numb er of participants is restricted. However, workshops notes and materials are available for members of FAM and the larger food aid constituency on the website. Listservs FAM’s seven listservs were designed to be rapid means of communicating and disseminating information for FAM members and ot hers interested in food aid programming, implementation and operations. Over time, the lis tservs grew to encompass topical areas not covered by any FAM WG. The creation of ne w listservs is one way FAM accommodates the changing needs of the membership and the broa der food aid constituency. As of FY2002, FAM, in a mentoring relationship with member orga nization FHI, managed seven listservs. One is restricted to FAM members and reports announcem ents and items of general interest for the members. The rest focused on specific topics: commodity management, environment, local

PAGE 105

87 capacity building, monetization, nutrition, and m onitoring and evaluation. Membership in these listservs has grown since their inception, some times drastically. Most listserv members are representatives from FAM’s member organizations. However, individuals from the larger constituency (particularly from USAID, FANTA, and USDA) participate. Listserv activity data and the analyses presented below show that for the most part, listservs are a limited means of communication between FAM organizational representatives. Messages consist of information regarding wo rking group activities or information regarding meetings and new documents of interest to those particular working groups. However, this is not always the case. The monitoring and evaluation list serv often responds to questions from the field for technical support regarding research methods. This type of exchange is what the listservs are best for. Limited participation from outside organi zations may be the result of this limited subject matter or lack of knowledge of the listservs. Though these listservs began well before FY 2001, listserv tracking began in the second quarter of 2001. Tracking data are complied quarterly, which means that there are only four data points available for membership and use over time. With this data, I investigated the depth and breadth of constituency with respect to the lis tservs. The limited amount of data made normal statistical tests unreliable. I used nonparametric tests because they return valid, reliable, and nondistribution-dependent results for small data set s. Membership in each listserv is considered independent of membership in any other listserv. I report data on listserv memberships for the first quarter of FY2002 in Table 6-3 below. Because there is only one variable used to di vide the membership (FAM/non-FAM), I computed the odds of an organization being a FAM member or not. I also computed Chi-squared tests of independence. I tested the data against the hypothesis of random assortment, meaning that members would be equally distributed between th e two categories. Most p-values were much less than 0.01 implying that there are significantly more FAM members than non-FAM members (or at lest more than would be expected if th e assortment was random). This was the case for all

PAGE 106

88 listservs except the Nutrition listserv, which was populated under special circumstances. The odds and p-values are presented in Table 6-4. These data provide insight into the breadth of the listserv constituency, which primarily serves the FAM membership. Data analysis suggests that listserv subscrip tions and use are increasing, at least for individuals in FAM member or ganizations. Limited data made generally accepted trend tests invalid (regression, etc.). A nonparametric test, the Cox-Stuart test, returned probabilities that trends in membership levels over time were approaching significance (p-value =0.25 for all listservs). The limited strength of this test is due primarily to a small data set even for nonparametric tests. Trends in listserv use over ti me were not investigated because missing data caused by technology problems in the first quart er of FY2002 made nonparametric tests invalid. I cannot determine whether or not the trends reported here are true of the listservs prior to tracking. Table 6-3: Listserv memberships for first quarter FY2002, increase from previous quarter Listserv FAM MembersBroader Constituency TotalGrowth Commodity Management 26 from 9 or gs. 5 (Undetermined Orgs.) 31 5 Environmental 45 from 12 orgs.15 (including AID, FANTA, WFP) 60 6 Local Capacity Building 41 from 16 orgs.15 (including AID, FANTA) 56 1 Monitoring and Evaluation 66 from 15 orgs.29 (including AID, FANTA, WFP, FAO) 95 15 Monetization 56 from 15 orgs.12 (including FANTA and USDA) 68 1 Nutrition 34 from 12 orgs.47 (including AED, AID, FANTA, WFP) 81 40 FAM Members 69 from 16 orgs.Not Applicable 69 N/A The largest number of messages sent in the fourth quarter of FY2001 (the most recent data available at the time data were being collected) was 42, from the Environmental listserv. The majority of the remaining listservs marked activity at or near that number. The implication is that the listservs, though incredibly powerful tools fo r rapid response to information and interaction needs, are underutilized in the FAM context, an opinion that FAM’s midterm review supports (Mason 2001). However, there are other opinions regarding the listservs. Some FAM members believe that limited listserv use is a function of the sensitive nature of information communicated, and a result of attempts to limit communication for which organizations might be held liable in

PAGE 107

89 certain situations. Some individuals active in the larger nonprofit world believe that FAM’s limited activity is a boon, reducing the amount of listserv messages received in the course of a day, which can sometimes be overwhelming. Table 6-4: Statistical analysis of listserv membership data Listserv Odds Chi-squared p-value Commodity Management 5.2 0.000162132 Environmental 3 0.000107511 Local Capacity Building 2.733333333 0.000512005 Monitoring and Evaluation2.275862069 0.000146978 Monetization 4.666666667 9.51327E-08 Nutrition 0.723404255 0.148614061 FAM Members N/A 9.84634E-17 Note : Odds represent the chance that a listserv member is from a FAM organization. Chi-squared p-values represent the significance of independent assortment tests. Listservs are a passive means for FAM to encourage constituency building, with the responsibility falling to the subscribers to make th ese listservs serve their particular needs. FAM provides the avenue for communication and interaction; individuals must incorporate those avenues for communication into their daily ac tivities for them to be successful. The seven listservs allow for information coming into FAM (primarily from the members, but also from the broader constituency) to move th rough the organization to pertin ent individuals. The depth of interaction with the FAM member constituency c ould increase if needs for technical information increased and the listservs were seen as an appropriate means for communication of that information. The breadth of listserv interac tion might also increase as knowledge of FAM’s activities grows due to improved communicati on technology and/or marketing initiatives. Food Security Resource Center The FSRC began in the early Nineties wh en the USDA Famine Mitigation Activity project ended and donated their considerable collection of resources to the FAM Food Aid Resource Materials (FARM) Clearinghouse. Sin ce that time, the FSRC has grown into a storehouse of resources and institutional knowledge covering a highly specific topical area. The FSRC collections incorporate books, monographs, tec hnical reports, tool kits, and food security

PAGE 108

90 and development journals. Resources are cataloged in an online database available to anyone. The FSRC acquires at least 200 materials each year, attempting to have many of those be electronic submissions available on the FAM website or fo r download. Backlog due to FAM staff vacancies have led the Technical Information Specialist to limit acquisitions until cataloging can catch up. FSRC resources are available to the FAM me mber constituency and the larger food security community, making FSRC a primary tool for increasing the depth and breadth of the FAM constituency. Paper documents are available on a cost recovery basis, and electronic copies of documents are available for download gratis. Future developments for the FSRC may include digitizing the entire library, reducing the space re quired to house the resources and making every item available for download. This would increase th e availability of resources for those unable to visit, and would allow FAM’s activities to reach further into the food aid community, particularly into the field where technical information is often needed most. Analysis of FSRC acquisitions and requests re veals who is putting information into FAM for constituency building activities (much like voicing an opinion in a working group meeting, only more passive) and about who that informati on is touching through requests satisfied (much like attending a brown bag, only more passive). Analysis of who is providing information to or requesting information from FAM provides insi ght into the depth and breadth of FAM’s constituency. In these activities, FAM can coordinate and control information flowing in and out; but, like the listservs, is unable to control how that information is used after it is incorporated into the FSRC or sent out to the food aid constituency. The FSRC has been monitoring requests fo r information since FY1997. Acquisitions have been monitored since the first quarter of FY 2001. This data set represents one of the largest and most detailed of all of FAM’s archival data sources. Each quarter, an average of 59% of documents came from an average of 19 organizati ons, 15 of those from the broader food security constituency. Requests came from outside organizati ons an average of 53% of the time, each

PAGE 109

91 quarter seeing an average of 14 outside requesters. Field requests made up 17% of quarterly requests, on average. Acquisitions There was no Technical Information Specialist (TIS) for the majority of fiscal year 2000. As a result, there was little acquisition of new mate rials. Periodical subscriptions were maintained and donations were accepted, tho ugh they added to a considerab le backlog for FSRC. Acquisition tracking data for FY2001 and the first quarter of FY2002 are summarized in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Recent acquisitions for FSRC Source FY01Q1 FY01Q2 FY01Q3 FY01Q4 FY02Q1 FAM Core 1461011 3 Other PVO 23284524 11 USAID 431716 7 Total Documents 41377251 21 Total Organizations 21 (4 FAM)13 (1 FAM)23 (4 FAM)28 (7 FAM) 9 (3 FAM) Note : Data are from the fiscal years noted. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of contributing FAM member organizations. Because FSRC acquisitions have been capped due to a backlog of materials that must be entered into the online bibliographic database, ch ange over time is limited and likely not to reveal any statistical increase. Investigating the type of organization that produced the documents, however, provides information about the contri butors’ demographics. Contributions were categorized as FAM, other PVOs, or USAID. Frequencies were computed to determine the likelihood of a document being from a particular s ource. The results show that on average, 59% of documents acquired since tracking began ca me from other PVOs rather than from FAM member organizations or USAID, though this numb er is variable (see Table 6-6). The frequency of electronic acquisitions is also presented, averaging about 3%. Chi square tests show that for the first th ree quarters in FY2001 the numbers in each category (organizational or format) differ signi ficantly from the numbers expected from equal, random assortment. However, for the last quart er of FY2001 and the first quarter of FY2002, assortment was not significantly different than w ould be expected. The p-values from those tests

PAGE 110

92 are presented in Table 6-7. Statistically si gnificant differences in document acquisition are primarily due to higher levels of outside PVO documents and lower leve ls of USAID documents. For all quarters investigated paper documents we re significantly more frequent than electronic documents, as shown by the p-values for those t ests. One should be careful in interpreting the results of these tests, because assuming random as sortment in these circum stances is suspect, as there is no reason to decide for or against it. Further tests of significance regarding FSRC acquisitions were considered unr eliable considering the small data set available for analysis. Table 6-6: Percentages for FSRC acquisitions Source FY01Q1 FY01Q2 FY01Q3 FY 01Q4 FY02Q1 Average FAM Core 0.34146341 0.16216220.1388890.2156860.142857 0.200212 Other PVO 0.56097561 0.75675680.625 0.4705880.52381 0.587426 USAID 0.09756098 0.08108110.2361110.3137250.333333 0.212362 Format Elec. Docs 0.04878049 0 0.0555560.0196080 0.024789 Paper docs 0.95121951 1 0.9444440.9803921 0.975211 Table 6-7: Chi-squared values for FSRC acquisitions by source and by format FY01Q1 FY01Q2 FY 01Q3 FY01Q4 FY02Q1 Source 0.001347162.746E-07 6.21E-07 0.079706 0.101701 Format 7.5401E-091.181E-09 4.61E-14 4.03E-21 4.59E-06 FSRC acquisitions show that FAM is activel y incorporating new and different voices from the larger food aid constituency. Food security interests outside the FAM core constituency published the large majority of new materials. By searching out the best research from a number of organizations, FAM is working to bring the best from the wider food security community to FAM. While the number of outside organizations contacted for materials remained stable, the particular organizations contacted did not. Tho se organizations included the FAO, the WFP, wellknown publishing houses, and smaller consultin g firms, allowing FAM to incorporate information that reflects the diversity of the larger food security constituency. Less stringent limitations on materials acceded would allow the FSRC to grow into a more formidable resource. As cataloging catch es up with acquisitions, the FSRC will likely raise the cap on acquisitions. This will allow a larger di versity of food security voices to be heard;

PAGE 111

93 FAM member organizations will be able to depos it more of their own materials into the FSRC. The FSRC represents the institutional memory for Title II and food security activities. The more materials housed there and the more the PVO community accesses those materials, the more consensus there will be regarding Title II operations and activities. Requests Requests for information from the FSRC were the earliest items monitored to track FAM’s progress. Information from the previous grant was less organized and not computerized, making analysis difficult; however, it is clear that re quests for FSRC resources have grown as the FSRC and its reputation have grown. For comparability, I considered requests rather than the number of documents included in each request for FY2001 and the first quarter of FY2002. Average numbers of requests was stable around 43, and average number of requests from outside organizations was stable around 14. Subject repor ts show that the diversity of organizations taking advantage of the FSRC has grown. Those outside organizations taking advantage of the FSRC are often different each quarter. US government requests dropped, however, leading to questions of FSRC presence in relevant government al agencies. This may be because government offices have inadequate knowledge of FSRC ac tivities or may be because government employees prefer not to pay cost recovery fees for FSRC resources. Nevertheless, FSRC request data show that FAM is providing a service that primarily meets the needs of the broader food security constituency for resources created by the FAM member constituency. These data are summarized in Table 6-8. Table 6-8: Recent FSRC requests Source FY01Q1 FY01Q2 FY01Q3 FY01Q4 FY02Q1 FAM Requests 18212316 10 US Government 7602 1 Outside Requests 19292522 17 Total Requests 46564840 28 No. Outside Orgs. 11131914 13 Field Requests 14944 6

PAGE 112

94 FSRC requests were limited to the sam e time periods for which FSRC acquisition monitoring was completed: the current grant period for FAM. Requests were also aggregated quarterly to maintain analogy with acquisition data. The resulting data set provides information regarding the number of requests from FAM members, the US government, outside PVOs, and field requests. The frequency of requests from the various sources are presented in Table 6-9, and show that generally, requests come from outside PVOs (52%) or from FAM members (40%), with requests from the field fluctuating around 17%. Table 6-9: Categorical distribution of FSRC requests by frequency Source FY01Q1FY01Q2FY01Q3FY01Q4FY02Q1 Average Percent FAM Requests 0.3913040.375 0.4791670.4 0.357143 0.400523 US Government 0.1521740.1071430.00 0.05 0.035714 0.069006 Outside Requests 0.4130430.5178570.5208330.55 0.607143 0.521775 Field Requests 0.3043480.1607140.0833330.1 0.214286 0.172536 Restricting the analysis to the current gran t provides us with only five time periods for trend analysis, limiting the reliability and valid ity of statistical investigations. I used nonparametric tests for trends in total requests. They revealed a decreasing trend in total requests though with low statistical significance shown (p-value = 0.25). It seems there is no trend in USAID requests over time, and a significant decrease in FAM member use of the FSRC (a significant decrease, consonant with increasing FSRC use by outside PVOs, for which there is marginal statistical significance). Field requests also show a marginal statistical increase over time. The p-values are presented in Table 6-10. These results are likely due to more online resources, allowing researchers the opportunity to conduct research on their own. Increased marketing presentations may affect this trend, as new employees at FAM member organizations learn about FAM’s resources. The new online bibliogr aphic database may also affect this trend, as online researchers find pertinent documents online that must be requested in paper format from the TIS.

PAGE 113

95 Table 6-10: Trends in FSRC requests since 1997 and associated p-values RequestsP-value Trend Total 0.172 Decrease USAID 0.623 None FAM 0.055 Decrease Other 0.377 Increase Field 0.377 Increase Food Forum Food Forum is FAM’s quarterly journal targeted at issues of interest to the FAM constituency. Originally this publication was bi monthly, but demands on the time of the FAM staff and increased printing and postage costs have reduced the frequency of issues. Food Forum issues have a guest editor chosen from the FAM membership and contain a number of short articles focusing on food secur ity issues. A topical bibliography showcasing FSRC resources or technical reports from FANTA may also be included. There have been 58 issues of Food Forum published, containing hundreds of articles. The in formation contained in those articles reaches scores of organizations and individuals around the world. As of second quarter 2002, there were just over 700 paper and electronic subscriptions. Analysis of subscriptions and contributions reveals how FAM facilitates the communication of ideas from a number of voices in the food security c onstituency out to others around the world. Basic subscription data are available only in a cr oss-sectional format, so changes in subscriptions over time are impossible to determine. However, one can easily determine that a Food Forum subscriber is equally likely to be a FAM member or a member of an organization in the broader food security constituency. This means that Food Forum is targeting both groups equally well. Contributions are nearly the same; a Food Forum article is only 1.7 times more likely to be from the broader food security constituency than from a FAM member organization. Food Forum provides a very economical way to reach the broad food security constituency. There a number of organizations represented as contributors. There are even more organizations represented as subscribers. This means that Food Forum while meeting the needs

PAGE 114

96 of the FAM membership, is also reaching deep in to the food security community for input and is disseminating that input to the broader food security constituency. Electronic submission and access increase FAM’s ability to reach a broade r audience, both in the United States and internationally. Further analyses of subscripti on and contribution data are presented below and summarized in Tables 6-11 through 6-15. Subscriptions There are 713 organizational and individual subscribers to Food Forum in paper or electronic format. Those subscribers are both dom estic and international. Large batches of Food Forum issues are sent to 16 organizations in the Un ited States. Seven of those organizations are FAM members or member affiliates and nine are part of the larger food security constituency, including IFPRI and the WFP. There are 263 domestic subscriptions that reach twenty organizations (see Table 6-14); the majority of these subscriptions are for FAM core members. These organizational subscriptions are sent on to their respective field offices through intraorganizational channels after they leav e the FAM offices. The remaining ten domestic subscriptions are for four smaller organizations concerned with food security programming or policy: Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (4), Feed The Children (1), IFPRI (3), and Sustain (2). There are also 48 additional subscr iptions to individuals and to other associated organizations, most receiving only one copy. Va rious government bureaus have 82 subscriptions to Food Forum Interestingly, FFP carries 15 of the 35 subscriptions that arrive at USAID Headquarters (see Table 6-11). The USDA has tw elve subscriptions in seven different departments. Internationally, 5 major organizations receive Food Forum (see Table 6-12). International subscriptions reach field offices, organizations and indivi duals in nearly 100 countries around the world. Email subscription capabilities ha ve broadened the impact of Food Forum even more. A number of FAM core constituency members choose to receive Food Forum electronically, in addition to a large number of individuals and or ganizations in the broader constituency. More

PAGE 115

97 than 47 organizational representatives and 25 individuals receive Food Forum electronically. The largest electronic subscribers are the Red Cross, CARE, ACDI/VOCA, FHI, USDA, and WFP. Table 6-11: Governmental Food Forum subscriptions Bureau HQ Field State Department 1 0 Senate Agriculture 1 0 USAID 35 30 USDA 12 0 Other 3 0 Total 52 30 Table 6-12: International Food Forum subscriptions International Organization Copies WFP 129 CFGB 4 CIDA 4 Emmanuel Int'l. 2 Gorogutu Ag. Dev. 2 Other 59 Total 200 FAM member organizations make up 51% of Food Forum subscriptions; USG subscriptions make up 14%, and other internati onal organizations and i ndividuals make up 35%. Because these data are not cross classified, the best way to understand them is via odds ratios. Subscribers are 1.05 times more likely to be FAM members rather than non-FAM members (government or otherwise), which implies an almost equal division. Of the non-FAM members, subscribers are 2.5 times more likely to be from ot her international organizations or interested individuals than they are to be USG employees. Total subscription numbers and odds ratios are presented in Table 6-13. Table 6-13: Categorical distribution of Food Forum subscription with frequencies and odds Subscriptions Total % Odds (FAM/non) FAM 3670.511.05476 Gov't Bureau 1000.14Odds (Int/Gov't) International Orgs 2470.352.47 Total 7131.00 Univariate data analyses of FAM member organization subscriptions reveal that the average number of headquarters paper subscripti ons is 4, and the average number of paper field subscriptions is 12. Electronic subscriptions for headquarters staff average 4 issues, with an average of 2 electronic subscriptions for the fi eld. Each FAM member organization receives an average of 23 issues. In summary, more paper c opies are sent to the field and more electronic

PAGE 116

98 copies reach headquarters offices. This is not unusual given the relevance of Food Forum articles for field staff coupled with the technological constraints of field offices. Table 6-14: Food Forum subscription rates and Z-scores for headquarters and field offices Organization HQ Z Field Z eHQZ eField Z TotalsZ ACDI/VOCA 5 0.21 1 -0.516 0.3652 0 14 -0.341 ADRA 4 0 25 0.6052 -0.3651 -0.43 32 0.3451 Africare 3 -0.2 14 0.0931 -0.5474 0.87 22 -0.036 ARC 1 -0.6 0 -0.5622 3.2856 1.73 29 0.2309 CARE 10 1.26 83 3.3026 0.3656 1.73 105 3.1261 CRS (12 Caritas)8 0.84 35 1.07 4 0 6 1.73 53 1.1451 Counterpart 0 -0.8 3 -0.421 -0.5470 -0.87 4 -0.722 FHI 0 -0.8 1 -0.5111 1.2771 -0.43 13 -0.379 IRD 0 -0.8 0 -0.560 -0.73 0 -0.87 0 -0.874 Mercy Corps 12 1.68 0 -0.561 -0.5470 -0.87 13 -0.379 OICI 1 -0.6 1 -0.514 0 3 0.43 9 -0.531 Project Concern 0 -0.8 4 -0.372 -0.3650 -0.87 6 -0.645 SAVE 2 -0.4 15 0.14 5 0.1822 0 24 0.0404 TechnoServe 2 -0.4 2 -0.471 -0.5470 -0.87 5 -0.683 World Vision 15 2.32 15 0.14 3 -0.1823 0.43 36 0.4975 World Share 1 -0.6 0 -0.561 -0.5470 -0.87 2 -0.798 Total 64 199 70 34 367 Note : An ‘e’ before the HQ or Field designation imp lies an electronic subscription. Z-scores with an absolute value greater than one are marginally significant, and with an absolute value greater than 2 are very significant. Further univariate analyses produce Z-scores that identify individual agencies receiving significantly more subscriptions in the various cat egories. These results are presented in Table 614. CARE receives significantly more paper issues at HQ than average. Subscription levels for Mercy Corps and World Vision are marginally greater than average. CARE also receives significantly more than the average number of fi eld paper subscriptions. CRS’s field subscription levels are marginally greater than average. El ectronic subscriptions to headquarters are a little different. American Red Cross International Serv ices (ARC) is the only organization to receive significantly more than average number of issu es this way, though FHI’s subscription rate is marginally greater than average. For electroni cally delivered field subscriptions, only CARE, CRS, and Counterpart’s subscription rates are marginally significant. In total, only CARE has subscription rates that are statistically above aver age. CRS’s subscription rate is marginally above average.

PAGE 117

99 The average number of paper subscriptions to USG domestic bureaus is 10.4; paper field subscriptions average 6; electronic headquarter s subscriptions average 3.4; electronic field subscriptions are negligible. The average number of paper copies for international organizations is 33; the average number of electronic copies is 8. I did not complete Z-score analyses for USG bureaus or for international organizations because the data sets were too small, the categories were not exclusive (i.e., all USG bureaus were not represented, and all inte rnational organizations were not represented). Statistical analysis a nd interpretation would produce dubious results. Food Forum’s list of subscribers is extensive and reaches hundreds of organizations within the food security constituency. Deepening th e contact between FAM and those member organizations may serve to strengthen ties, but I am unsure how the diversity of organizations or the penetration into the field could be any greater, though email subscriptions may help. Contributions Food Forum contributors have been and continue to be a very diverse group. In the early years of the journal, the director of FAM actively pursued contributions from food security interests throughout the broader constituency Since the FAM restructuring in 1995, Food Forum submissions have been solicited from the FAM member constituency and closely associated agencies including USAID, USDA, the Coalition fo r Food Aid, WFP, the UN, and IFPRI. Each FAM member organization has submitted at least one article for Food Forum The leading contributors are among the founding members of FA M, and are among the largest PVOs involved in Title II activities. CARE has submitted the la rgest number of articles, followed by CRS and closely by Save the Children, World Vision, a nd the Red Cross. ADRA, FHI, ACDI/VOCA, and TechnoServe are tied for sixth place according to submissions. These ranks often differ only by one submission, with the majority of FAM me mber organizations submitting articles during the history of Food Forum Surprisingly, FAM itself has submitted very few articles, focusing primarily on bibliographies. FAM’s role in Food Forum is bringing the experience of members and technical experts to light.

PAGE 118

100 There have been a total of 190 contributors to Food Forum since the first issue. The majority of submissions (119) have been from 59 outside organizations, the predominance of those in the early years of Food Forum The breadth of contributors is larger than most of FAM’s other activities. However, the depth of contributions is not very great. There is an average of 2 articles per outside organization. The largest contributors outside the FAM constituency are USAID (particularly the office of FFP), the UN (and its many subunits), the World Bank, the Coalition for Food Aid, FANTA, IFPRI, USDA, th e WFP, and InterAction. More recently the 16 FAM member organizations have contributed 71 ar ticles for publication, an average of 4 articles per member organization. Hence, it is 1.7 times more likely for an article chosen at random from the Food Forum archives to be written by a member of the larger food security constituency than to be written by a FAM member. Since the polic y regarding soliciting contributions has changed in recent years these odds are likely stabilize by the end of the current ISA grant. Univariate statistical analyses of contributions for each or ganization (presented in Table 6-15) show that some organizations have contributed significantly more than the average number of articles to Food Forum Specifically, CARE, CRS, the UN, USAID, FANTA, IFPRI, and marginally FAM, WVRD, WFP, USDA and the Coalition for Food Aid have all submitted more than average numbers of articles for publication. Table 6-15: Categorical distribution of Food Forum contributions and associated Z-scores Organization Articles Z-score CARE 154.186 CRS 133.512 UN 112.84 USAID 102.5 FANTA 81.83 IFPRI 81.83 SAVE 71.49 CFA 61.156 FAM 61.156 WFP 61.156 WV 61.15 USDA 50.82 Note : A Z-score of 2 or more implies statistical significance. A Z-score of 1 or more is marginally more than average.

PAGE 119

101 Food Forum provides an efficient means of comm unicating to a larger audience for both FAM and non-FAM organizations To strengthen constituency-building activities, FAM might actively pursue submissions from outside sources, particularly those with whom they have already had some contact. However, Food Forum’s contributors are already the most diverse constituency of all with respect to FAM’s activities. FAM might also pursue a broader subscription base. The large majority of issues are currently earmarked for member headquarters and field offices and for government headquarters and field offices. Universities and other food security projects may benefit from the contents of Food Forum which could be supplied on a cost recovery basis. Website The FAM website has been operational since th e mid-Nineties, but it was not until late in FY1999 that tracking software and an improved format made the site more efficient and effective ( www.foodaidmanagement.org ). The website enables rapid and continuous dissemination of information from the broader food security constituen cy out to the broadest constituency possible, including every individual with access to a comput er and the Internet. The website’s popularity has grown phenomenally in the past two years, w ith overall visits and tota l visits from developing countries increasing drastically. The FAM webs ite provides access to documents written by FAM, FAM member organizations, governmental agencies, and outside interests though 12 pages of links accessible from the FAM home page. Those pages also provide links to FAM member websites and to national and inte rnational organizations of the larger food security constituency. This is the most open of all FAM’s constituency building activities, allowing access to hundreds of resources and organizations for all in terested individuals and organizations. I aggregated tracking data over quarters to ma ke it analogous to other FAM monitoring data, though monthly reports exist and analysis of the monthly data may reveal more significant trends than the quarterly data. The FAM TIS collects mon itoring data on visits to the website, number of

PAGE 120

102 visitors from developing countries, visits to particular pages within the FAM website, and presence of links to documents or other organizations ’ websites. Each data set concerns either the outflow (visits, popular pages, etc.) or input of information (links and documents) via the site. Visits Monitoring data for website visits exists for 12 quarters of FAM’s history, between the second quarter of FY1999 and the first quarter of FY2002. Using nonparametric tests, I found significant increasing trends for both total vis its and actual visits, which is not unusual, considering that they are related variables (p -values = 0.016). These t ests reveal that FAM’s website is reaching more individuals and organiza tions each quarter that it exists. Trend tests for increases in the number of developing country domai ns to visit the site and the raw number of developing country visits are also significant, t hough less so than the total visits (p-value = 0.08 for both tests), likely the result of limited data caused by technical problems in FY2000. Visits to the FAM website have increased from 643 in the second quarter of 1999 to 5854 visits in the last quarter of 2001. It is not necess ary to do statistical analysis to understand this increase. Even eliminating those individuals that did not stay for more than a few seconds, we see an increase from 443 to 2783, still significant. Th is increase has been building slowly over time. It is likely the result of improved domestic and international communication technology coupled with increased knowledge of FAM and FAM’s info rmation clearinghouse activities. Visits from developing countries have remained constant, estimat ed at about five percent of total visits. Web tracking software capabilities make exact determ ination difficult, but extrapolating visits originating from known developing country doma ins provide a conservative estimate of visits from the field. If percentages have remained ar ound five percent, while total visits have increased, the real number of visits from the fiel d has increased by the same amount that total visits have increased by (a factor of 9, near ly an order of magnitude) in about two years. Turning to the most popular pages, the TIS h as collected data since the redesign of the FAM website in March 2001. The data for Ma rch 2001 through September 2002 which are used

PAGE 121

103 in the following analyses. I computed trend test s for increased visits over time for the various pages. Visits to the agricultur e, French, Spanish, the monitoring and evaluation, ‘What’s New’, and search pages revealed marginally significant increases in use over time. The p-values for all the trend tests are presented in Table 6-16. Crosssectional analyses reveal ed that the following pages exhibited significantly more total visits than average, using Z-scores: Food Aid/Security, Commodity Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and the Training Calendar. The members’, USAID, Monetization and FSRC pages showed margin ally more total visits than average. These pages showed more visits than average likely b ecause they link to FAM documents important in food aid operations, or they link to other importa nt documents or training dates. All working group pages (LCB, MNTZ, EWG, M&E) and the agriculture, periodicals and French pages showed marginally less visits than average, usi ng Z-scores. Interestingly, the agriculture page shows a significant increase in visits over time, but still has less total visits than average. This is likely due to its being added to the FAM site in June 2001, three months after the initial redesign. Z-scores are presented in Table 6-17. To summarize that table, visitors most often browsed the pages of links to USAID, to FAM members, to the FAM training calendar, to monitoring and evaluation links, to commodity management links and to general food aid/food security links. Links The FAM website provides information about FAM’s history and activities and links to documents and organizations that are relevant to the food security constituency. The 12 pages of links are interspersed with other pages on th e FAM site, but are accessible directly through the navigation bar that appears at the side of all pages in the FAM site. The primary categories of links are agriculture, commodity management environment, Spanish documents, French documents, food aid/security, local capacity buildi ng, monetization, mon itoring and evaluation, nutrition, other periodicals, and USAID. The only links that are not available there are links to the FAM members’ sites, accessible from the very top of all pages on the site. The number of documents and organizations outside the FAM memb er constituency that FAM maintains links to

PAGE 122

104 under these twelve major categories reveals who FAM relies on for information. No data regarding changes over time were available, but cr oss-sectional data reveal the breadth and depth of current linkages through the FAM site. Documents are categorized as FAM in-house documents, FAM member documents, USG documen ts or other PVO’s documents. Links are categorized as FAM member links, USG links, university links or other links. Table 6-16: Trends for popular pages Web Page p-value LCBWG 0.5 MTZNWG 0.875 MNEWG 0.5 Agriculture 0.125 EWG 0.875 French 0.125 Periodicals 0.5 Environment 0.5 Listservs 0.5 LCB 0.5 Spanish 0.125 Food Forum 0.875 Nutrition 0.5 Search 0.125 FSRC 0.875 Monetization 0.5 USAID 0.5 Members 0.5 Training Calendar 0.5 M&E 0.125 Commodity Mgmt 0.875 Food Aid/Security 0.5 What’s New 0.125 Table 6-17: Z-scores for popular pages Web Page Totals Z-score Food Aid/Security 844 1.894211 Commodity Mgmt 815 1.75601 M&E 778 1.579684 Training Calendar 730 1.350936 Members 604 0.750474 USAID 564 0.559851 Monetization 553 0.50743 FSRC 514 0.321573 Nutrition 505 0.278683 Search 494 0.226261 Spanish 480 0.159543 Food Forum 464 0.083294 Environment 378 -0.32655 LCB 362 -0.40279 New 345 -0.48381 Listservs 332 -0.54576 Periodicals 277 -0.80787 French 262 -0.87935 EWG 239 -0.98896 MNEWG 218 -1.08904 Agriculture 202 -1.16529 MTZNWG 158 -1.37497 LCBWG 152 -1.40356 The number of documents and organizations outside the FAM member constituency that FAM mainta ins links to under these twelve major categories reveals whom FAM relies on for information. All of these areas provide a total of 27 links to FAM documents, 36 links to member documents, 41 links to government documents and 83 links to documents written by other organizations. Ther e are links to 4 FAM member organization documents, 36 links to government agencies, 14 li nks to universities, and 153 links to other food

PAGE 123

105 security information sources including commodity quotes, food security libraries and translation services. Table 6-18 provides a breakdown according to the various categories. FAM emerges here as an organization that provides accessibl e and efficient connections to the larger constituency for food aid professionals, devel opment workers (HQ and field), and students. Table 6-18: Categorical distribution and odds ratios for online documents and links Section of FAM Website Online Document C ontributors Links to Other Organizations FAMMemberGov't OtherTotalMemberGov't Univ OtherTotal Members 00000170 0 017 Agriculture 11191201 2 912 Commodity management 3513120 17* 0 47**64 Environment 44361701 1 911 Spanish 2121600 0 12 French 2201510 0 44 Food aid/Security 150202623 7 40***52 local capacity 29261901 0 515 Monetization 51921708 1 04 M&E 685133200 0 1521 Nutrition 100222300 2 1724 Periodicals 0000010 0 61 USAID 001801805 0 00 Totals 27364183187436 14 153207 Odds 11.31.53.119 3.5 38.3 Note : ‘*’ includes 2 links to USAID and 15 links to USDA. ‘**’ includes links to commodity quotes. ‘***’ includes links to outside food security interests. Odds ratios are the best way to understand where FAM connects via the website. It is 3 times more likely for documents to be from other PVO sources, 1.5 times more likely for documents to be from USG sources, and 1.3 times more likely to be from FAM members than for documents to be FAM-generated. For links, it is 38 times more likely for a link to reach an outside PVO, 3.5 times more likely for a link to reach a university program, and 9 times more likely for a link to reach a USG site than to reach a member site. The total number of documents and links and the associated odds are presented in Table 6-18. Because the data set was sparse (there are few numbers and many zeros in cells ), I decided against a dditional Chi-squared and frequency tests. Their results would be dubious and difficult to interpret.

PAGE 124

106 Interactions Organizational demographers determine the organizational characteristics important for comparing organizations and predicting organiza tional success in a variety of organizational situations (Alexander et al. 1995, Carroll and Harrison 1998, O’Reilly et al. 1989, Perrow 1967, Pfeffer 1983, Wagner et al. 1984, Zenger and La wrence 1989). Determining the organizational characteristics that predict an organization’ s location in a network is useful from an organizational demographic standpoint because it can l ead to a general profile of more central or core organizations. Comparing individual organi zations and revealing which characteristics are determinants their involvement in FAM activities is slightly beyond the scope of this research, though I have made generalized s uggestions and observations for the seven types of interactions presented below. I based these analyses on organi zational profiles approved by representatives of each organization, which can be found in Appe ndix A. I compiled an organizational database from the quantitative data in those organizational profiles combined with the centrality scores for the ten networks I investigated. Because I wanted to determine the variabl es that predicted network centrality, but was unsure of exactly which of the six variables we re most important, I chose to use backward stepwise regression techniques. This technique is more exploratory than standard linear regressions but allowed me to include all six variables in each of the ten regressions. The regression procedure removed those variables that did not help predict network centrality, leaving me with ten simple regression functions that identified two or three key variables for each network. Those key variables are the predictors of centrality. I report the results of all ten regression analyses in Table 6-19. That table pr ovides the R-squared and adjusted R-squared values for the regression functions, the F-ratio and its associated p-value, and the p-values for the significant predictors of centra lity. R-squared values explain how much better an individual’s chances are of predicting centrality when using th e model than when not using the model. The adjusted R-squared value controls for the presence of multiple independent variables. The F-ratio

PAGE 125

107 is a comparison of the predictive power of the m odel verses the null model. This ratio, if above two, suggests good predictive power. Because F-ra tios vary from model to model, the p-value provides a more general indication of the significance of the regression model. The p-values reported for independent variables are associated wi th t-tests of the significance of each variable. I have only reported the p-values fo r those variables considered relevant to the regression models. Table 6-19: Multiple regression statistics for central ity (defined by FAM interaction type) against FAM member organization demographic variables Interaction Type Age TII Age HQ Staff Size TII Projects Govt. Funding Funds for TII RSquare Adjusted R-Square FRatio PValue FAM General N/A 0.079 0.053 N/A N/A N/A 0.750 0.704 16.4580.000 Steering Committee N/A N/A N/A 0.000 N/A N/A 0.892 0.884 115.230.000 Monitoring Evaluation N/A 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.791 0.774 45.4490.000 Monetization N/A 0.036 0.057 0.012 0.064 N/A 0.955 0.936 48.2690.000 Capacity Building 0.020 0.000 N/A N/A N/A 0.031 0.866 0.821 19.3420.000 Environment 0.021 0.000 N/A N/A N/A 0.011 0.928 0.903 38.4210.000 Advice Seeking N/A 0.002 N/A N/A 0.136 0.149 0.821 0.674 6.203 0.014 Formal Agreement N/A N/A N/A 0.025 N/A N/A 0.310 0.261 6.293 0.025 Informal Interaction 0.018 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.907 0.822 25.3560.000 Non-TII Interactions N/A N/A 0.021 0.000 0.326 N/A 0.796 0.740 14.2960.000 Note : ‘N/A’ implies the variable was not significant in the model. Values in variable columns are p-values from associated t-tests. R-square values represent the improved predictive power of the model. F-ratio values and p-values represent the significance of the model. For all FAM’s interactions taken as a group, all backwards stepwise regressions for network centrality suggest that less-central, peripheral organizations are likely unable to participate in FAM activities because of newness to Title II (a measure of PVO age), size of HQ staff, number of Title II projects, amount of govern ment funding, or amount of funds dedicated to Title II activities. (The distance between FAM hea dquarters and the particular PVO headquarters may also be important, but was not investigated in these regressions.) Because variation in the independent variables decreases the validity of th e regressions, I dichotomized the key variables

PAGE 126

108 along their respective sample means and included them in a Qualitative Case Analysis. That analysis reveals that with the exception of two cases, the core organizations are the biggest, oldest organizations in FAM, with respect to Title II activities. This is not unusual, given an understanding of FAM’s history. The two conf ounding cases are organizations that have a stronger commitment to a particular value system. This does not mean that periphery PVOs do no t contribute to FAM activities at all. Many organizations whose age, size or distance from FAM headquarters makes interaction difficult take advantage of FAM listservs, website online bibliographic resources and Food Forum as easier means to interact, share information and collaborat e with their peers. In the centrality ranking tables below, the organizations whose names are bold are those identified by analyses as core for that particular question. Diagrams of the te n networks follow the body of this chapter. General Activities With regard to general FAM activities, ther e is a very large core of organizations, including the five original members as well as a number of smaller, younger organizations (see Tables 6-19, 6-20 and Figure 6-1). Less central orga nizations are likely to be the youngest with respect to Title II programming or the smallest with respect to HQ staff, based on backwards stepwise multiple regression analysis. Interestingl y, FHI emerges as a highly central organization, likely because of their role as head of the SC, thei r leadership roles in th e WGs, their information services capabilities, their mentoring relationship wi th FAM, their hosting of FAM’s website, and their responsiveness to FAM-related concerns. The network centralization is 7.14%, which means the organizational ties are relatively dispersed acros s the network rather than being localized in one or two organizations. Steering Committee Activities Steering Committee activities, which were once c onfined to the five original members of FAM, are now open to other member organizations Here, the core includes the five original

PAGE 127

109 FAM organizations, together with the first two chai rs of the new SC (FHI and Africare). Three of the periphery organizations have not served on th e SC at this point in FAM’s grant period. Backwards stepwise regression suggests that the yo ungest Title II organizations with the fewest Title II programs fall into the periphery. Over time, as more organizations come to take leadership positions within the committee, this core group will likely grow to encompass all member organizations, creating a united FAM c onstituency. Network centralization is 16.14%, meaning that the organizational ties are more fo cused on a few organizations. This network is more centralized than the FAM general network, likely because of the work the SC does and the fact that a number of FAM organizations have not had the opportunity to serve on the SC (see Tables 6-19, 6-21 and Figure 6-2). Table 6-20: General interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CRS 100.000 1 CARE 100.000 1 WV 100.000 1 ADRA 88.235 4 FHI 88.235 4 SAVE 83.333 6 CNTPT 78.947 7 ARC 75.000 8 ACDI 75.000 8 AFRICARE 75.000 8 OICI 71.429 11 MC 65.217 12 TNS 65.217 12 PCI 62.500 14 SHARE 57.692 15 IRD 55.556 16 Table 6-21: Steering Committee interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CARE 100 1 CRS 100 1 WV 93.75 3 ADRA 75 4 AFRICARE 71.429 5 FHI 68.182 6 SAVE 68.182 6 TNS 65.217 8 OICI 62.5 9 PCI 62.5 9 CNTPT 60 11 MC 60 11 ACDI 57.692 13 ARC 55.556 14 IRD 55.556 14 SHARE 53.571 16 Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group Centrality analyses for the M&E WG (in Tables 6-19, 6-22, and Figure 6-3) suggest that the leaders of the group, and those organizations with the deepest institutionalized expertise are once again among the largest and oldest of the organizations, save FHI (multiple regression supports this finding). FHI’s position may be ensured because of strong leadership in the WG early on. Another reason FHI may appear in the core here is that an FHI employee was

PAGE 128

110 instrumental in developing one of the toolkits for the group, though acting in a consultant capacity. The organizations that appear in the core of the group are those that have the longest Title II history and have been most involved in collaboration and development of the various toolkits. CARE emerges as one of the most central organizations, likely because of CARE’s continued leadership role in these activities, and because of CARE’s demonstrated expertise in monitoring and evaluation topics. Network centraliz ation is 22.59%. This high level implies that there are a few organizations that took strong leadership roles and that most network ties run through those organizations. Table 6-22: Monitoring and Evaluation interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CARE 100 1 CRS 100 1 FHI 78.947 3 ADRA 75 4 WV 75 4 ACDI 68.182 6 ARC 68.182 6 AFRICARE65.217 8 SAVE 62.5 9 CNTPT 60 10 TNS 60 10 OICI 55.556 12 PCI 55.556 12 IRD 53.571 13 MC 53.571 13 SHARE 53.571 13 Table 6-23: Monetization interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CARE 100 1 CRS 100 1 WV 100 1 AFRICARE 88.235 4 ADRA 75 5 ACDI 65.217 6 FHI 62.5 7 OICI 62.5 7 SAVE 62.5 7 TNS 62.5 7 MC 60 11 ARC 57.692 12 CNTPT 57.692 12 IRD 57.692 12 PCI 55.556 15 SHARE 55.556 15 Monetization Working Group With respect to the MNTZ WG, the organi zations that emerge as central are the larger organizations that are most deeply involved with monetization matters. They are likely to have been most involved with deve loping FAM’s monetization manual and/or to have created monetization resour ces of their own. The smaller organizations or those that monetize less are in the periphe ry, as before. Backwards stepwi se regressions suggest that

PAGE 129

111 Title II age, size of headquarters staff, numb er of Title II programs and percentage of government funding are the significant predicto rs of core or periphery determination. Here, too, we see that the organizations that have taken leadership positions within the WG (Africare, CRS, and ADRA) are in the co re. The network centralization score for the MNTZ WG is 12.54%. This implies that there is an equitable dispersion of interorganizational ties am ong the organizations (see Tabl es 6-19, 6-23 and Figure 6-4). Local Capacity Building Working Group The LCB WG has a very small core, compos ed primarily of organizations who have taken leadership roles in the group (CRS, ADRA, CNTPT) and others who include capacity building in their programmatic activities. This in formation is shown in Tables 6-19, 6-24, and Figure 6-5. There are a number of reasons why this group may be small. Limited initial funding may have discouraged organizations from worki ng within this group. Limited organizational interest may also have led to lower participa tion. There is no generally accepted definition of capacity building, which leads to uncertainty about who the experts are, what the important and relevant tasks are, and who should take the initia tive. It may also be that since the donor has limited interest in LCB, and because Title II PVOs are often tied to donor policy, participation and interest are lower for this particular gr oup. Multiple regressions show that PVO age (both total and Title II) along with amount of funds dedi cated to Title II activities predict involvement in this group. Centralization in the LCB networ k is 31.8%, largely because a few organizations carry out most of the work and maintain most organizational ties. Environmental Working Group Though the EWG has not been officially recognized by USAID, the group’s collaborative activities and information exchange are im portant. The group developed environmental compliance guidelines for Title II CSs and organi zed training associated with those guidelines. Unlike other WGs, USAID participates in its activities, despite its l ack of official recognition. As

PAGE 130

112 shown in Tables 6-19 and 6-25 (and Figure 6-6), the core group is very small, probably because of lack of funding for this WG. Core organiza tions had significant interests in environmental issues or took leadership roles in the group. Mu ltiple regression analysis suggests that just as in the LCB WG, age and amount of funds dedicated to Title II activities predict WG centrality. Centralization is 25.97%, because a few or ganizations took leadership positions. Table 6-24: Local Capacity Building Working Group interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CARE 100 1 CRS 100 1 ADRA 68.182 3 ACDI 62.5 4 CNTPT 60 5 SAVE 60 5 AFRICARE57.692 7 ARC 57.692 7 FHI 57.692 7 MC 55.556 10 WV 55.556 10 IRD 53.571 12 OICI 53.571 12 PCI 53.571 12 TNS 53.571 12 SHARE 53.571 12 Table 6-25: Environmental Working Group interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CARE 100 1 CRS 100 1 WV 75 3 ADRA 71.429 4 AFRICARE 65.217 5 ACDI 62.5 6 FHI 60 7 SAVE 60 7 CNTPT 57.692 9 OICI 57.692 9 MC 55.556 11 PCI 55.556 11 TNS 55.556 11 SHARE 55.556 11 ARC 53.571 15 IRD 53.571 15 Advice, Formal and Informal Ties, Non-Title II Ties Outside the bounds of formal FAM groups, organizations contact each other for advice on Title II policy, procedure, reporting, or complia nce issues. Some organizations have formal or informal collaborative agreements with each othe r, and many interact with each other in the nonprofit world but outside of Title II activities. Ta ken together, the next four tables (Tables 6-26 through 6-29) present a snapshot of the environm ent of interactions between Title II PVOs. In effect, these tables reveal the core constituency of Title II CSs. Table 6-26 and Figure 6-7 show that nine of the sixteen FAM organizations appear in the core with respect to Title II advice interactions. Ce ntrality in this network is predicted by Title II age, percent of total budget is made up of gove rnment funds, and the amount of funds dedicated

PAGE 131

113 to Title II activities, based on multiple regressions (see Table 6-19). Netw ork centralization is 21.42%, implying that though there is a large core, the network has areas of concentrated organizational ties (i.e., there are some organiza tions that are more often contacted for advice than others.). Here, rank signifies a continuum of institutionalized experience and experts within particular organizations coupled with the lik elihood of availability to offer assistance. International Relief and Development (IRD) do es not appear in the table because it was disconnected from the network, and thus had little to no interaction with other organizations on Title II issues. This is likely to change as IR D begins Title II programming in coming years. The first conclusion is that the core or ganizations are the most knowledgeable and experienced with Title II issues. However, this is not the most important conclusion. The large core also implies that a significant and growing community of Title II organizations likely to develop common opinions, perspectives and proce dures. The large core group also indicates that, Title II PVOs have come to interact through formal and informal channels. This is not to say that interaction, information exchange, cooperation a nd collaboration did not exist before, or that currently they are perfect. However, interac tions are increasing over time and seem to be improving. Table 6-26: Advice network interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CARE 100 1 ACDI 82.353 2 AFRICARE 82.353 2 CRS 82.353 2 ADRA 77.778 5 WV 77.778 5 ARC 73.684 7 FHI 73.684 7 SAVE 73.684 7 CNTPT 63.636 10 MC 60.87 11 TNS 60.87 11 OICI 58.333 13 PCI 53.846 14 SHARE 53.846 14 Table 6-27: Formal interactions FAM org Closeness Rank ADRA 81.25 1 CARE 81.25 1 CRS 81.25 1 AFRICARE 76.471 4 WV 76.471 4 FHI 72.222 6 SAVE 68.421 7 TNS 68.421 7 ACDI 65 9 MC 59.091 10 OICI 54.167 11 ARC 46.429 12 PCI 46.429 12 SHARE 46.429 12

PAGE 132

114 Table 6-27 and Figure 6-8 show that with respect to formal interactions, there is a core similar in size to the informal advice network core. All organizations lis ted in the table have formal agreements, but those in the core are perc eived as more deeply involved in formal Title II interactions. Multiple regression analysis reveals that number of Title II projects is the most significant predictor of centrality in this networ k (Table 6-19). A low network centralization score (17.2%) implies that organizational interactions are more spread among all organizations, rather than concentrated among a few organizations. This analysis does not reveal the organizations involved in specific collaborative projects. It do es, however, suggest which organizations are likely to be more involved in formal, project-re lated interactive agreements. There are several monetization consortia that may ha ve provided the underlying structure for this set of measures. IRD and Counterpart do not appear in this list of rankings. These organizations have only just established Title II development programs, and are unlikely to have formal collaborative agreements with FAM organizations. Table 6-28: Informal Title II interactions FAM org Closeness Rank CARE 1001 CRS 1001 WV 88.2353 ACDI 83.3334 ARC 83.3334 ADRA 78.9476 FHI 78.9476 OICI 78.9476 AFRICARE 759 SAVE 759 TNS 68.18211 CNTPT 62.512 MC 62.512 PCI 62.512 SHARE 6015 IRD 55.55616 Table 6-29: Non-Title II interactions FAM org Closeness Rank AFRICARE 100 1 CARE 100 1 CRS 100 1 ACDI 83.333 4 FHI 83.333 4 ADRA 71.429 6 WV 68.182 7 SAVE 65.217 8 TNS 65.217 8 MC 62.5 10 CNTPT 60 11 PCI 60 11 ARC 57.692 13 IRD 57.692 13 OICI 57.692 13 SHARE 57.692 13 The ten member core that emerges from info rmation about informal interactions (see Table 6-28 and Figure 6-9) mirrors the nine member core shown for Title II advice. Here, age and

PAGE 133

115 years of Title II experience predict centrality. I in cluded this question to check data validity and to estimate the size and coherence of the Title II community. Ten of the sixteen FAM members are in the core, supporting conclusions about the growth of a stronger constituency over time. The network centralization 8.74%, implying that organizational interactions are dispersed and relatively homogeneous across the network, with a l ess concentrated central core than any of the WG networks. Table 6-29 and Figure 6-10 present the results of analyses regarding interactions outside of the general Title II arena. Here, si ze of HQ staff, number of Title II projects and amount of government funding predict centrality ( see Table 6-19). This core group is similar to the core group associated with SC interactions, though centralization is lower (only 10.48%). My interpretation is that those organizations that ta ke leadership positions in one area (like Title II) are likely to take leadership positions in other areas. Variation between the core groups for these four networks, particularly the positions of ACDI /VOCA and SAVE, is the result of the analysis protocol rather than of any real differences in the data. I report centralization scores for all ten FAM interaction networks along with associated Z-scores in Table 6-30. Centralization scores are network-wide measures of how hierarchical a network is. Z-scores were computed using the sample mean and sample variance and reveal which cases may be extreme. In an extreme case, all organizational ties would link individual organizations to one central organization and the centralization score would be 100%. This is not the case with FAM’s organizational networks. Gene ral FAM interactions, informal and non-Title II ties show lower centralization scores than the sa mple mean. This implies that the FAM network is decentralized, as would be expected with a collectivist group. LCB activities and EWG activities show higher centralization scores than the sample mean, implying that these activities are more likely to be dominated by one or a fe w key organizations. Univariate statistics for the Centralization measures are presented in Table 6-31.

PAGE 134

116 Table 6-30: Centralization measures and Z-scores based on sample mean NetworkCentralization Z-scores General 7.14 %-1.28275 SC 16.14 %-0.15775 M&E 22.59 %0.6485 MNTZ 12.54 %-0.60775 LCB 31.8 %1.79975 EWG 25.97 %1.071 Advice 21.42 %0.50225 Formal 17.2 %-0.02525 Informal 8.74 %-1.08275 Non TII 10.48 %-0.86525 Table 6-31: Centralization descriptive statistics Centralization Mean 17.402 Median 16.67 Std. Dev. 8.00901 Variance 64.14424 Range 24.66 Minimum7.14 Maximum31.8 A number of the final network elicitation ques tions were included to be crosschecks on each other. In particular, questions about FAM general activities, Title II advice, formal and informal Title II interactions and interactions out side the Title II environment should all generate similar organizational network diagrams. When considered together, the responses to these questions provide a picture of the organizational relationships between FAM members. Statistical analyses show that these matrices are only somewhat correlated with each other. Most correlation coefficients are around the 0.5 level, but vary be tween 0.4 and 0.6. Low correlation values are the result of comparing networks of the same size th at include disconnected organizations or that have different tie patterns and densities. Most FAM networks have 16 members represented, but others have only 14 or 15 members, because of ‘ outlier’ organizations with no ties to the rest of the network. Table 6-32 presents the results of a four pairs of correlations, computed using Quadratic Assignment Procedures (QAP) on the symmetrized matrices. All of these correlations are significant at much higher than the 0.01 level. Each of these organizational networks is

PAGE 135

117 somewhat similar to the others in structure and in patterns of ties, but not entirely the same. There are two implications for this research. First, significance measures sugg est that responses are consistent and reliable. Second, comparing the correlation coefficients reveals that the most correlated networks are those that represent FAM general activities and Title II advice-seeking behaviors. I chose to use the FAM general ac tivities network in later analyses because adviceseeking behavior was outside the realm of FAM activities and because interpreting and communicating the results based on the general network would be more straightforward. Table 6-32: Network correlati ons for similar networks Correlation (p-value) Title II Advice .625 (.000) Formal Ties .448 (.003) .607 (.000) Informal Ties .651 (.000) .596 (.000) .445 (.002) Non-TII Ties .462 (.003) .555 (.000) .505 (.000) .477 (.001) FAM GeneralTitle II AdviceFormal TiesInformal Ties Evaluations I asked representatives of FAM member organi zations to evaluate how successful FAM’s activities were in encouraging cooperative ac tion or information sharing and exchange. I presented each of FAM’s activities and asked responden ts to rate them using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most successful. The results ar e presented in Table 6-33. Overall, none of FAM’s activities earned a modal response below the midpoint score of 3. Information exchange activities, including the website and its associat ed content and links earned top modal responses of 5. The FSRC and information requests also earned high modal responses, as did Food Forum some of the working groups and a few listservs I also report rankings in Table 6-33. Small differences between modal rating and the rank shown arise because the ranks are based on average responses. The three major sets of interactions are the working groups, the listservs and the FSRC. Among the working groups, the monitoring and eval uation working group is considered the most successful in encouraging and utilizing collabor ative activity, followed by the monetization,

PAGE 136

118 environment and local capacity building working gro ups. Of the list serves, the most successful is the all-FAM list serve, followed by the environm ent list serve, monitoring and evaluation, local capacity building, monetization, nutrition and commodity management. Website content is considered the best means of information ex change, followed by website links, information requests and finally Food Forum Table 6-33: Collaborative activity ratings and ranks Activity Rating (modal)Rank (mean) Website content 5 1 Website in general 5 2 Website links 5 3 Information requests5 4 FSRC in general 4 5 M&E WG 4 6 MNTZ WG 4 7 FAM listserv 4 8 Food Forum 4 9 ENVT listserv 4 10 M&E listserv 4 11 Listservs in general 3 12 WGs 3 13 EWG 4 14 SC 3 15 LCB listserv 4 16 MNTZ listserv 3 16 NUT listserv 3 18 LCB WG 3 19 COMM listserv 3 20 I was my assumption that network position (indicated by network centrality) would be a predictor of FAM evaluation scores. Regression analysis of FAM member centrality scores against pertinent FAM evaluation scores reveal ed no significant relationships. Based on these data, a member organization’s position within FAM’s collaborative structures has no significant relationship to that organization’s evaluation of FAM activities. It could be that central FAM organizations are unhappy with the direction th at FAM’s collaborative activities are taking and are active (and central) as a means to change that direction. It may be that organizational demographic characteristics are better direct predictors of evaluation scores than structural

PAGE 137

119 measures are. These results suggest that an orga nization should use caution when attempting to measures of network position as a pr oxy measure of satisfaction. Conclusions This FAM profile explained the ways FAM activities build a constituency of organizations interested in food aid and food securi ty and revealed the structure of organizational ties associated with those collaborative activities. In this instance, there are two constituencies, the FAM members and the broader group of food aid and food security professionals. FAM’s activities, both active and passive, strengthened those constituencies by input of information or through output of information. Here, FAM’s activities vary along three different dimensions: member/periphery, active/passive, and input/out put. Some activities m eet the needs of the members more than the needs of the periphery. Some are more active on the part of FAM than are others; and some focus on outputs more so than inputs. Understanding where FAM’s activities lie will help FAM determine where activities should be focused to meet goals in the coming years. FAM Steering Committee activities involve a limited number of FAM member organizations and affect only FAM members, but have a stronger impact and more opportunity for individual and organizational capacity buildin g. FAM WG activities (meetings, products and workshops) involve the entire FAM membership a nd affect that same constituency. Individuals and organizations use these opportunities to de velop individual and organizational capacity. Working Group activities also reach a broader c onstituency, both member organizations’ field offices, other organizations, and individuals in the broader food security environment. FAM listservs, though possibly the fastest and most reliable means of communication within the food aid constituency, have been used primarily for communication of logistical and operational information. Listserv content coul d be improved over time, which may happen as individuals become more comfortable communicati ng via this channel. However, listserv utility in the food aid community remains to be proved; the listserv may not be a viable communication outlet. The FSRC is one of the oldest and mo st reliable means of coordinating information

PAGE 138

120 exchange. The number and diversity of contribut ors over time has increased, as has the number and diversity of requestors. This trend seems unlikely to change as the FSRC’s reputation as a strong food security resource grows, particularly for non-FAM organizati ons and individuals who are most likely to utilize this resource. As technology in the developing world grows to meet demand, the online FSRC database and digitized r esources will only serve to make this resource more important. Food Forum provides a space for the discussion of timely food security topics, and incorporates submissions from FAM members a nd the larger food aid community. Nearly a thousand issues of Food Forum reach food security organizations and professionals, though most reach FAM member organizations’ field offices. Subscribers and Contribut ors could be increased, though this remains the best means FAM has to disseminate food security information to a broad audience. The FAM website is the final way FA M builds and maintains a constituency of food security interests. By linking thousands of visitors to hundreds of food security documents and organizations, FAM provides the structural opport unity for continuous information exchange. Trends in website use imply that this site is growing in popularity not only at the headquarters level, but also at the field level. More links will improve this channel for constituency building. FAM has provided a return on USAID’s initial investment, a thought echoed by the food aid professionals interviewed. Not only is FAM me eting the needs of the membership, but it is meeting the needs of governmental agencies, organizational support programs, universities, consulting firms, students and ot her individuals who are or who will be members of the broader food security constituency. FAM’s primary activ ity, developing and promoting food aid standards, is likely most important for the member ship in the short run. However, in light of growing interest in collaborative capacity build ing for PVOs, information exchange activities may be the most important activities for th e food aid constituency in the long run.

PAGE 139

121 Figure 6-1. General FAM interaction network Figure 6-2. Steering Committee interaction network

PAGE 140

122 Figure 6-3. Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group interaction network Figure 6-4. Monetization Working Group interaction network

PAGE 141

123 Figure 6-5. Local Capacity Building Working Group interaction network Figure 6-6. Environmental Working Group interaction network

PAGE 142

124 Figure 6-7. Title II advice-seeking interaction network Figure 6-8. Formal Title II agreement interaction network

PAGE 143

125 Figure 6-9. Informal Title II interaction network Figure 6-10. Non-Title II interaction network

PAGE 144

126 CHAPTER 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction In the two chapters that preceded this one, I explained FAM’s collaborative activities in detail. I began with a historical perspective focused on how FAM has encouraged cooperation through group interaction, coordinated the deve lopment of technical documents that strengthen food aid standards, and institutionalized collabora tion in the food aid environment. I continued with a profile of FAM’s current activities that explains who is using FAM services and how they are using those services. I also presented an analys is of the interorganizational structures that are associated with FAM’s primary activities. My ethnographic understanding of those activities is grounded in the theory associated with collectivis t organizations. Without that theory, I would not have been able to frame those profiles as easily. Without those profiles, I would not have been able to understand the implications of my theoretical investigation. The overarching goals of this research were to verify the collectivist model for international development organization, to expl ore the utility of social network techniques for measuring collaborative capacity, and to provide FAM with recommendations for structural and behavioral changes to improve its activities. In th is chapter I present the results of my theoretical, methodological and practical investigation of FAM as a collectivist organization. I return to the collectivist model I explained in Chapter 3 and t est it using quantitative data collected during my research with FAM. I present statistical results of the parametric, nonparametric and Boolean analyses used to test the mode l. My discussion focuses on what the tests say about the model examined, explaining how my research can inform organizational theory. In the next section, I explain how social network theory impacted my research and explain what my investigation of

PAGE 145

127 multiple network structures implies for social netw ork theory. I conclude with a discussion of the practical aspects of this research, presenting recommended organizational changes that would allow the FAM network to function more effi ciently as a collective until cooperation and collaboration are institutionalized, explaining how I applied organizational theory to specific operational problems. Organizational Theory In Chapter 2 I developed a set of hypotheses about the interaction of environmental, structural and cultural factors in a collec tivist organizational model. My ethnographic understanding of FAM led me to believe that it w ould be an appropriate environment for testing that model. What I expected to occur was that as measures of PEU increased, measures of organizational collectivism would increase and structural measures of hierarchy and centralization would decrease. The hypotheses are: H1: Because perceptions of increasing environmental uncertainty are linked to increased commitment to cooperation and collectivism, measures of environmental uncertainty in individua ls will be positively correlated with measures of workplace collectivism in individuals. H2: Because perceptions of increasing environmental uncertainty have been associated with the development of soci al networks, and because perceptions of uncertainty are affected by position within a network, measures of environmental uncertainty will be negatively correlated with measures of centrality in the FAM organizational network. H3: Because commitment to cooperation is linked to structural measures that imply lower hierarchical organization, measures of individual workplace collectivism will be negatively correlate d with measures of centrality in an organizational network. Being located at the periphery of a network structure is associated with collectivism as a means to gain control in an uncertain environment. Being located at the hierarchical core of a network is associated with less reliance on collectivist ideals. As I explained in Chapter Three, social netw ork measures of centrality, measures of PEU, and measures of I/C must be integrated in this analysis. Because determining causality was not my intention I chose correlation analyses to test my hypotheses. To compensate for small sample sizes and limited analysis capabilities, I incorporat ed nonparametric and Boolean investigations.

PAGE 146

128 These three approaches provide three separate but re lated lines of evidence to use in testing the collectivist model. The remainder of this section presents the quantitative results and justification for using each of these three measures followed by the results for each of the three hypothesis tests I completed. It ends with a discussion of what my results imply for the collectivist model and organizational theory. Structure Social network analysis provided data on th e structure and content of FAM interactions. I chose to use network measures based on genera l FAM activities in these hypothesis tests because they incorporate formal and informal interactions and are not restricted to particular subsets of FAM activity (like working groups). Table 7-1 pr esents the descriptive sta tistics associated with those particular centrality measures. Neither fact or analysis nor reliability investigation with Chronbach’s alpha was appropriate for these non scale structural measures; however, descriptive statistics and QAP comparisons with other network measures generated for FAM activities suggest that these scores are appropriate for further analysis. Table 7-1: Centrality descriptive statistics Centrality Mean 82.96588 Standard Error 1.995182 Median 78.947 Mode 75 Standard Deviation 11.46145 Sample Variance 131.3648 Table 7-2: Uncertainty descriptive statistics Environmental Uncertainty Mean 79.92308 Standard Error 3.783333 Median 82 Mode 105 Standard Deviation 23.62691 Sample Variance 558.2308 Environment I measured PEU using the scale Miles and Snow developed (1978), but modified for the Title II environment. The average value of the response for the entire scale, adjusted to a 100 point standard for ease of presentation, was 49.9, implying that when asked specific questions about the environment there was only moderate pe rceived uncertainty. However, the six subscales reveal some variation. PVO representatives belie ve that availability of funding is unstable (significantly different from the median va lue), followed by the government’s actions,

PAGE 147

129 commodity-related activities, other PVOs, food aid recipients and their own PVOs on a continuum of increasing stability. This is not un usual, considering that many PVO activities are entirely related to the availability of funds. Because the government is the primary donor, uncertainty related to governmental activity, polic y and regulations is not unusual. Table 7-2 presents a basic univariate description of the scale as a whole. Though the small number of cases makes results dubious, I completed a factor analysis of the scale responses. That analysis and the associated scree plot reveal that six factors are most useful for pr oviding a framework for these re sponses, just as six factors were most useful in the original Miles and S now scale. Further analysis reveals that those factors explain 60.20% of variation in responses. Reliability analysis suggests that responses are robust enough to allow these measures to be in corporated into subsequent hypothesis tests; Chronbach’s alpha is 0.871. Individualism and Collectivism I asked organizational representatives to r espond to two scales of individualism and collectivism during Phase Two of this research. Those two scales were the Earley (1994) and Wagner (1995) scales. The Earley scale measures ideological commitment to collectivism. The average response to that scale, adjusted to a 100-point scale for comparability, was 53.12, just above the midpoint. This signifies that respondents fell into the middle of the continuum of individuality or collectivism with respect to thei r beliefs about individualism and collectivism in the workplace, which would not be unusual for i ndividuals living in the culturally diverse US. More to the point, those findings are not unusual for a group of individuals from varying cultures now living in the US, as is the case with the FA M respondents. Triandis (1995) showed that cultural diversity in the US leads to variation in personal commitment to collective action. Determining the nationality of respondents could help determin e if this holds for the FAM population, but was outside the scope of this r esearch. Factor analysis reveals three dominant

PAGE 148

130 factors here and a Chronbach’s alpha of 0.42. These three factors explain 59.36% of the total variance in responses. The average response to the Wagner scale which focuses on behaviors and practices in work activities was 70.85, significantly higher than the midpoint. These results imply that individuals within this particular PVO community consider collective action to be worth pursuing on the job. The contrast between attitudinal a nd behavioral collectivism scores suggests that personality will ultimately play a large part in the success of collective activities. If collective activities are pursued in the workplace but individu als’ attitudes toward collective activity vary widely, then the particular individual involved in the collective activity will make the difference. (This is where the ‘personality’ part of the food aid axis discussed previously comes into play.) Factor analysis suggests that there are six dom inant factors that explain 74.10% of the total variation in responses for this scale, as compared to five factors suggested in previous validations of the scale. Chronbach’s alpha is 0.730. Table 7-3: Individualism/Collectivism scale ranks FAM org Wagner RankFAM org Earley Rank TNS 1 ACDI 1 CARE 2 FHI 1 OICI 3 CARE 3 FHI 4 TNS 3 ADRA 5 ADRA 5 WV 6 CNTPT 5 AFRICARE7 SAVE 5 ACDI 8 ARC 8 CNTPT 8 OICI 9 ARC 10 CRS 10 SHARE 10 WV 11 CRS 12 AFRICARE12 SAVE 13 SHARE 12 Table 7-3 presents FAM member organizati ons’ ranks based on the Wagner scale and the Earley scale. First-ranked organizations were mo st collectivist, and same-ranked organizations were tied for a particular position. Because organi zational data are aggregated from individuals’ responses, the number of respondents per organization makes a significant impact on the

PAGE 149

131 organizational scores and ranks. However, hi gher individual participation reflects higher organizational commitment to collective activity and reveals differences between organizations. Comparison of Chronbach’s alpha measures suggests that responses to the Wagner scale are more reliable. Because workplace collective actions (and not attitudes) are most relevant to this research, I used the more reliable Wagner scale to test hypotheses. I present descriptive statistics for the Wagner and Earley scales in Tables 7-4 and 7-5. Table 7-4: Wagner descriptive statistics (Maximum score=100) Mean 70.84615 Standard Error 2.282226 Median 74 Mode 83 Standard Deviation 14.25249 Sample Variance 203.1336 Table 7-5: Earley descriptive statistics (Maximum score=50) Mean 26.58974 Standard Error 0.927695 Median 27 Mode 27 Standard Deviation 5.793453 Sample Variance 33.5641 Hypothesis Tests Factor analyses and reliability measures indicat e that each of the scales and measures is appropriate for inclusion in hypothesis tests for relationships between the variables. Correlation analyses provide a rough idea of how these variabl es are related to each other. Because sample size is small, reliability for parametric statisti cal analyses is low. As a solution, I completed additional nonparametric and Boolean tests of asso ciation that convert scale scores into ranks or into dichotomized variables for use in truth table analyses. Table 7-6: Parametric pairwise correlations Variable By Variable Correlation P-Value PEU Wagner 0.2550 0.1520 Centrality Wagner -0.0769 0.6706 Centrality PEU -0.0034 0.9850 I present the results of simultaneous analyses for correlation between the three pairs of variables under investigation in Table 7-6. Nonparame tric tests very nearly recapitulate the results of the parametric tests. For the purposes of this research, I computed Spearman’s Rho and Kendall’s Tau, the two most popular and widely accepted measures of association (Daniel 1990:

PAGE 150

132 373-374). The results are presented in Table 7-7. These correlation analyses provide no support for the theoretical model being tested. Table 7-7: Nonparametric measures of association Variable By Variable Spearman Rho Prob. > |Rho| PEU Wagner 0.1298 0.4714 Centrality Wagner 0.0373 0.8365 Centrality PEU -0.0132 0.9419 Kendall Tau b Prob.> |Tau b| PEU Wagner 0.0918 0.4643 Centrality Wagner 0.0368 0.7845 Centrality PEU -0.0299 0.8222 It is possible to determine the conditio ns for the existence of these collectivist organizations using Boolean analytic induction techniques. Ratliff (2002) and Smelser and Baltes (2001) present reviews of the procedures. This a pproach is an alternative to statistical or probabilistic analysis and helps researchers with small numbers of cases to draw findings from their qualitative research. The best examples of an alytic induction are Cressey’s (1953) study of embezzlers and Lindesmith’s study of Opia te addiction (1947, 1968). Ragin (1987, 1994) developed a set of Boolean procedures called Qu alitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) that systematizes the qualitative approaches. My categorical analyses of the results return findings identical to those of the correlation analyses. I dichotomized the structural, environmental and cultural variables using their respective sample means. QCA based on this da ta set did not return any prime implicants, meaning that there are no easily determined sets of sufficient conditions that support this theoretical model. Theoretical Discussion Three different systematic analyses show th at the data collected do not support the hypothesized collectivist organizational model. Co rrelation analyses reveal that trends may exist in the hypothesized directions, but the correlati on coefficients are so low and p-values so high that it would be unwise to trust the trends indicated. Boolean analysis using QCA also provides

PAGE 151

133 no support for the model. Wholesale rejection of th e collectivist organizational model is tempered by the qualitative research my research is based on and by my own ethnographic research presented in the FAM history and FAM profile chapters. Unfortunately, it seems that the quantitative data do not provide any support for th e theoretical model test ed. This may be because of improper variable operationalization, poor scale selection, small sample size, or inappropriate application of the theoretical model. The small number of cases make statistical and probabilistic analyses suspect. There was not enough data to ensure that the tests were reliable. Another likely reason for the lack of significance is that the data set is not robust enough to reveal the significance of these trends. Aggregating and disaggregating the data for differing levels of analysis may also have introduced error that affected the tests. The solution w ould be to increase the number of organizations participating in the study. One response would be to gather data from more individuals within this network of organizations, though 78% of all i ndividuals active in FAM activities participated. High turnover rates among international developm ent organizations are the most proximate cause for less than 100% response rates. Another remedy would be to gather information from a larger variety of nonprofit organizations or a group of for-profit and nonprofit organizations as a means to capture trends that were not readily apparent within this specialized group of organizations. The second problem is that the scales I chose to quantify and operationalize the collectivist model may not have been appropriate Centrality may not have been the best choice for measures of hierarchical organization and centralization. A more direct measure of structure based on organizational charts or archival data might have been a better choice. More objective measures of environmental uncertainty (perhaps linked to governmental activity and funding sources) might measure that concept better than the perceptual measure that I chose. More direct measures of collective activity might have been better than scales that measure ideological commitment and ideas about collective activity in the workplace. A more informed choice of measures might have returned better da ta to use in testing the model.

PAGE 152

134 The final problem is that the hypotheses may not have been formulated correctly. The relationships among these variables are more comp lex than originally suspected. Rather than simple linear relationships, there may be higher-order models that explain the relationships better. Qualitative data collected in interviews tend to support this view. A number of FAM participants, in conversation regarding the theoretical backgroun d of this research suggested that there might be critical levels associated with each of the measu res. It may be that within a particular median range of PEU there is commitment to workplace collectivism but that outside that range, collectivism collapses. Thus, collectivism might be a bounded phenomenon, only occurring within a particular kind of moderately un stable organizational environment. Perhaps organizational characteristics when interacting with structural position are more likely predictors of workplace collectivism. Perhaps those organizational demographic characteristics (such as those noted in the analysis of FAM interactions and FAM evaluations) act to encourage or deter cooperation unmediated by social structure. Hy potheses that take into account more complex interactions might provide better s upport for the collectivist model. Adjusting the sample size, the quantitative va riables, and the hypotheses of this research, however, is tantamount to completing an entirely different program of research. What does this mean for Roth schild-Whitt’s theory? Largely, this means that I have not provided any empirical support for the organizationa l theory that motivated this research, one of my primary goals. Conceptually, I believe that the variables are related. Previous qualitative and quantitative research on the relationships between th e pairs of variables supports my position. My experience in the international developmen t community also supports Rothschild-Whitt’s complex of characteristics, perhaps with a more pragmatic and less ideological consideration of cooperation. However, I believe that measuring th ese concepts exactly and revealing relationships are much more complex undertakings than any small, first-pass exploration might hope to accomplish. After completing this investigation, I believe that these factors may not be as easily

PAGE 153

135 detected among the immense number of factors associated with the operation of a collectivist organization in the international development community. Implications for Social Network Analysis It seems to be a forgone conclusion that a social network elicitation question has a strong effect on the social network that it returns. In my reading of social network theory literature, I found no explicit discussion of that assumption. In stead, research focuses on the structure of the networks themselves (Burt 1992), the determinants of structure (Freeman 1978/1979), the effect of structure on perceptions (Boje and Whette n 1981; Boster, Johnson, and Weller 1987; Walker, Wasserman and Wellman 1994) or any number of ot her topics germane to social networks. It seems almost as if social network research is built on an unstated, but very significant assumption. I know that after reading social network theory I understood that the choice of elicitation questions was important and would determine if formal or informal patterns of interaction were revealed. However, I was unsur e exactly why the question was said to affect network generation so strongly, or exactly how much a particular elicitation question might cause social networks to diverge. Based on the ethnographic data I collected in the first phase of my research, I realized that there were many different modes of in teraction among FAM member organizations. To create a more complete picture of FAM interacti ons, I elicited social networks based on the ten most important interactions. This is unusual fo r most social network research, which often only incorporate one network elicitation question. One goal of these multiple elicitation questions was to gather information for tests of the collectivis t model. Another goal was to gather data on the correlation of the various networks with each othe r to gauge the impact of elicitation questions on social structures. I compared the social networks to each other using a matrix algebra correlation test called QAP. This approach indicates how strongly these ma trices are related to each other in structure and content. The ten pairwise correlations and th eir associated p-values are presented below in

PAGE 154

136 Table 7-8. Most of the correlation coefficients suggest moderate but not strong relationships between the networks, varying between 0.40 and 0.66. The p-values were all significant as well below the 0.001 level, suggesting that these correla tions, while low, are statistically significant. Table 7-8: Correlation coefficients for QAP analyses of FAM interactions Quadratic Assignment Procedure Co rrelation Coefficient (p-value) SC 0.601 (0.000) M&E WG 0.661 (0.000) 0.535 (0.002) MNTZ WG 0.613 (0.000) 0.650 (0.000) 0.619 (0.000) LCB WG 0.509 (0.000) 0.510 (0.003) 0.664 (0.000) 0.568 (0.001) EWG 0.577 (0.000) 0.612 (0.000) 0.668 (0.000) 0.735 (0.000) 0.667 (0.001) TII Advice 0.625 (0.000) 0.417 (0.002) 0.584 (0.000) 0.567 (0.000) 0.486 (0.000) 0.524 (0.000) TII Ties 0.448 (0.003) 0.571 (0.000) 0.435 (0.000) 0.571 (0.000) 0.354 (0.009) 0.583 (0.000) 0.607 (0.000) Informal Ties 0.651 (0.000) 0.400 (0.000) 0.629 (0.000) 0.551 (0.000) 0.428 (0.001) 0.575 (0.000) 0.596 (0.000) 0.445 (0.002) Non-TII Ties 0.462 (0.003) 0.469 (0.007) 0.578 (0.000) 0.618 (0.000) 0.510 (0.004) 0.568 (0.000) 0.555 (0.000) 0.505 (0.000) 0.477 (0.001) FAM SC M&E WG MNTZ WG LCB WG EWG TII Advice TII Ties Informal Ties To my knowledge, this is the first empirical evidence that reveals how strongly network elicitation questions affect the resultant social network structures. This evidence reveals that a network elicitation question is ve ry important in determining social structure and must be considered even more carefully than before, par ticularly if the research will be based on a single elicitation question. Rather than being an unsta ted assumption in the beginning of any social network research, perhaps a discussion of how a pa rticular elicitation question was chosen should be explicit and accompany social network findings when they are presented. At the very least, these data seem to suggest that social network research would benefit from the incorporation of additional social network elicitation questi ons as tests of validity and reliability. Comparing social network diagrams and measures with my understanding of FAM activities shows that these methods do indeed reveal the structure of FAM organizational

PAGE 155

137 interactions. The results of these correlation anal yses only suggest the careful choice of elicitation questions for particular social networks. One set of elicitations will only provide interorganizational structure at one point in time. However, multiple network elicitations over time could be a very innovative way to reveal the patterns of collaboration among NGOs. With USAID encouraging more collaboration in development activities, this monitoring approach gains even more relevance. The second goal of my research was to explore the utility of soci al network techniques for measuring collaborative capacity. These techniques, when implemented wi sely and supplemented with ethnographic data, provide a very efficient means for measuring that capacity. Applications The final goal of this research was to use the findings to provide recommendations for improving FAM’s activities as a collectivist organization. Organizations with FAM's structure and collaborative activity levels have been incr easing in frequency. Organizational scientists are working to understand the reasons why these organi zations are arising, how they are structured, what the defining characteristics are, and how these organizations can ensure their success (Heydebrand 1989, Rothschild and Russell 1986, Rothschild-Whitt 1979, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Waters 1993). The comments belo w build on that research and fall within a previously suggested framework of behaviors reported as important for building collaborative capacity (Foster-Fishman 2001). Because FAM’s ac tivities are interactive, and the member organizations are essentially FAM, a number of these recommendations suggest ways member organizations can improve FAM’s activities. Environment The results of the PEU scale reveal that most organizational representatives feel the Title II food aid environment to be marginally unstabl e. Fortunately there is not an overwhelming belief that the environment is completely unpr edictable, but there is room for improving

PAGE 156

138 individuals’ perceptions of the environment. A more stable environment is more likely to support information sharing, collaboration and coopera tion. The area considered most unstable is availability and accessibility of funding, which is not unusual, given the realities of nonprofit development activities. However, suggesting means for individual PVOs or for FAM to work for improvements in that area is beyond the scope of this project. FAM and the member organizations have limited ability to affect gove rnment policy, process and legislation, though individuals are working in this area. Comm odity availability and other commodity-related concerns are best tackled by entities that alr eady have relationships developed with the commodity and agriculture industry representa tives, such as the Kansas City Commodity Organization. The remaining areas of uncertain ty are within and among PVOs. FAM, and the member organizations that make up FAM, can im prove the stability of their working environment by improving transparency, information sharing, and general knowledge of each other’s programs in the Title II environment and outside of it. Providing opportunities for interaction and information sharing while aiming to solve co mmon problems of procedure and compliance is likely one of the best means for achieving that goal. Individualism and Collectivism The results of the I/C scales reveal that there is large variation among PVO representatives with regard to commitment to co llective activity, despite generalized support from the donor and the PVO community for that collective activity. If FAM is to encourage interaction as suggested above, then FAM will have to overc ome the tension between a generalized support for collective action and individual support for collaboration. Until collaboration is institutionalized and encouraged by the donor (o r even linked to available development funds) there must be alternatives for encouraging interac tion. The easiest means for this is to formalize the collaborative relationships between FAM memb er organizations and FAM. The previous ISA was based on letters of support from each of th e member agencies, and this should be a cornerstone of any new funding proposal. To en sure more clarity, the Steering Committee, in

PAGE 157

139 preparing the new FAM proposal, should develop a set of minimum requirements for participation, taking into account variation am ong member PVOs with regard to size, age, location, and funding levels. The FAM by-laws should also be modified to reflect those changes. The minimum requirements should outline the roles that FAM member organizations can and should assume more clearly than they have been outlined previously. A well defined set of guidelines created by the Steering Committee and ag reed to by FAM member organizations in their support for change in FAM’s by-laws woul d make participation easier. Those guidelines, then, could be incorporated into each member organization’s own ISA funding proposal. This is not to increase the amount of work, reporti ng or responsibilities of the various member organizations. It is merely to formalize, systematize and build into the donor monitoring and evaluation system activities that these organizations are already completing. FAM member organizations, for the large part, already par ticipate in FAM activities over and above their responsibilities for the ISA and for their own or ganizations. Tracking those activities merely brings an organization’s increased participation and collaboration to the attention of the donor, who is likely interested in evidence of incr eased collaborative capacity when choosing among a set of well-qualified operational partners. FAM Activities The evaluation of FAM’s collaborative activ ities reveals that information exchange activities are considered most successful of the c onstituency-building activities. In the next years of grant funding, FAM should focus on improving collaboration among the PVOs with respect to the working groups and other interactive pursuits FAM only facilitates collaborative activities, so the member organizations must also commit to increasing the effectiveness of the working groups. The previously suggested minimum re quirements, which might include a minimum number of leadership positions taken would, by formalizing roles and responsibilities, encourage the organizations to participate more fully in the working groups. Additionally, flexible working groups that meet the changing needs of PVOs mi ght encourage greater participation, and would

PAGE 158

140 increase FAM’s success as coordinator and constituen cy builder. Greater flexibility would also allow the working groups to meet the more i mmediate policy and procedure needs of the FAM member organizations. The Steering Committee s hould develop guidelines for creating greater working group flexibility to be built into the upcoming ISA or other proposals for funding. Increased participation in the working groups and a larger reliance on electronic communication will also encourage use of the associated listser vs, improving those avenues for interaction and collaboration. This is important because the lis tservs represent an underutilized means by which PVOs that are not in the Washington area might become more involved with FAM’s activities. Interactions Constituency building is the primary focus of th is project and is the primary goal of FAM as an agency. The coordinating position that FAM serves is secondary to providing an environment in which a common base of knowledge is shared, common procedures can be developed and common goals can be achieved. In an environment of decreasing development funding (in dollars) it is likely that cooperation and collaboration will be encouraged and perhaps even linked to funding in the future. FAM’s activ ities, then, provide an opportunity for PVOs to improve their own capacities for collaborati on and cooperation and begin the process of institutionalizing those activities throughout their organizations. Experience in capacity building at the headquarters level will standardize existi ng vague ideas about what capacity building at the management level really means and will help program design experts create better tools for measuring capacity building in the field (Bolger 2000, Lavergne and Saxby 2001, Morgan 1997). The network evaluation of FAM-related inter actions reveals that a united constituency that can be mobilized to address common problems a nd arrive at solutions that are easy to comply to because the emerged from collective activity al ready exists. However, there are still a number of organizations that are not as involved as others To further encourage constituency building, or to develop a more united constituency, periphe ral organizations should be encouraged to

PAGE 159

141 participate more fully in FAM activities, either through leadership roles in FAM activities, or partnerships with core organizations alread y in leadership positions in FAM groups. The qualitative and quantitative phases of this research have shown that the Title II environment, though not completely stable, is stable enough to encourage cooperative and collaborative activity. Recent research suggest s that coordination among PVOs does improve programming effectiveness, though PVOs could do more to achieve even greater results (Owada et al. 1998). This indicates that circumstances are favorable for a push to encourage even more collective activity. Generalized support for co llaboration from the PVO community, and from the donor, provides more encouragement for colla borative activities than ever before. The large variation in individual commitm ent to collaboration and cooperation is a surmountable obstacle in FAM’s goal of building a Title II constituency. Building on the past successes and incorporating a few adjustments to an organization’s current trajectory is one of the best ways to encourage gradual growth and de velopment in an organization (Greiner 1972). Using that framework, FAM (and thus the FAM member organizations) has the opportunity to take an even larger role in the creation of a constituency united in its dedication to improving Title II programming through collaborative means. Extension There are other interorganizational networks that might benefit from the monitoring techniques used in this research. InterActi on, the CORE Group, the Food Aid Consultative Group, and the SPHERE project are all NGO networ ks with hundreds of organizational members that might find these approaches useful. There are three primary contributions to the monitoring and evaluation of NGO networks that my research provides. First, simple univariate statistics reveal a lot about who is taking advantage of ser vices. Second, social network approaches may be useful for monitoring the development of colla borative capacity. Third, and most importantly, any quantitative approach to monitoring must be accompanied by qualitative approaches.

PAGE 160

142 In creating my FAM profile, I struggled to find an easily understood way to present data that explained who contributed information and who took advantage of that information. Most approaches I found useful were simple categorical approaches. First, I determined the categories that would be most relevant in explaining u se, based on ethnographic information. (I asked FAM who they wanted to know about). Then, I divi ded the data according to those categories. To reduce the data to manageable levels, I computed odds ratios that revealed how likely each of the groups was to contribute to or take advantage of FAM activities. Each of these odds ratios was simple to compute, but when taken together th ey provide a very powerful explanation of FAM’s activities. Careful interpretation could provide th e basis for monitoring and evaluation of servicebased NGO activities similar to FAM. To determ ine the statistical significance of those odds ratios, I cross tabulated the data and computed Chi-squared tests. More specifically, I used nonparametric permutation tests based on Fisher’s Ex act Test to determine if any monitoring data were significantly different from expected. Most NGO professionals were disinterested in statistical significance tests but were very interest ed in the odds ratios. The ratios are an easily understandable way to communicate large amounts of data. Because FAM’s activities were cooperative, I wa nted to find some way to quantify that cooperation that went beyond the standard meas ures like ‘number of meetings attended’ or ‘number of organizations present.’ Those measures are too simple; they do not reveal the complexity involved with collaboration over time. Having individual respondents rank themselves on their collaborative activities would ha ve provided more information, but I felt it would be too subjective. Social network t echniques seemed to be the only choice. These techniques provide a more realistic, sophisticat ed, and objective way to quantify collaborative activity. As I mentioned before, they are sensitiv e to changes in elicitation questions, but that sensitivity is good when an evaluator want s to explore fine-scale interactions. Incorporating social network approaches to measure the development of collaborative capacity will be more difficult than incorporati ng univariate investigation of monitoring data.

PAGE 161

143 First, social network techniques require a certa in level of technical knowledge that many NGO employees may not have. Second, the information that social network analyses reveal can be sensitive. Because these measures in tegrate a large amount of data and summarize it in a very easily understood graphical format, some partic ipants may respond adversely. A particular organization may believe that it is very central wh en in fact others do not perceive it as central. The solution is to explain social network techniqu es very clearly and show that one elicitation is only germane for that interaction for one point in time. Multiple elicitations can be used to track changes over time, which are likely more re levant to the NGO community. Changing the perspective of those being monitored might also help. If participants realize that knowledge of one’s position within a network can be used to change one’s position in that network structure in subsequent elicitations, then the data beco me less proscriptive and more prescriptive. The last suggestion I have for monitoring and evaluating NGO collaborative activities is to use a two-phased approach. Every bit of quantitative data that I collected is only relevant in the context of international food aid activities. If I had not gained an understanding of that context through ethnographic interviews with key inform ants and through participant observation, my data would be meaningless. Because I was an active member of the group, respondents were more willing to participate in quantitative data coll ection tasks. If a consultant takes an interest in the activities they are studying and develops relati onships with those individuals who participate in those activities, that consultant is more likely to have good response rates on questionnaires and other time-consuming evaluation tasks. My first questionnaire had dismal response rates, largely because I was unknown to the community After I made my presence known at a few meetings, response rates increased. These suggestions are useful for applyi ng organizational theory and method in monitoring and evaluating organizational colla boration in the international development community. They have provided FAM and me with useful data. Those data led to specific recommendations for changes in FAM structure a nd behavior that will improve FAM’s activities

PAGE 162

144 for the next ISA period. Those data also led to general recommendations for incorporating my methods into other organizationa l situations where measuring collaboration might be useful. Conclusion In this chapter I explained how I met the three primary goals of my research: theoretical, methodological, and applied. With respect to th eory, my data do not support the collectivist organizational model as conceptua lized. I believe that small samp le size, poor operationalization, and hypotheses that suggested relationships that were too simple led to that lack of support. Methodological and practical results were mo re positive. Incorporating multiple elicitation questions provided empirical evidence that partic ular elicitation questions have a strong effect on the networks they reveal. My research suggests that at least one (if not more) additional elicitation question based on ethnographic investigation or previous research should be included as a validity check. Social network techniques see m to be well adapted for use in measuring collaborative capacity in an interorganizational setting, when used wisely. Simple nonparametric and categorical analyses also seem to hold promise for communicating large amounts of information to individuals who may not have strong statistical backgrounds. Of course, all quantitative applications must be combined with qualitative understanding of their context.

PAGE 163

145 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION Introduction In the previous chapter I presented result s from the quantitative phase of my study of FAM’s constituency-building and collectivist activiti es. Those results are only relevant in light of the year of ethnographic fieldwork that accompanied them. That year of fieldwork and research led to more qualitative and quantitative findings th an could be presented in one chapter. I communicated additional findings in the other chapte rs of this dissertation. In this chapter, I summarize major findings from all of my research activities. I outline the major aspects of the food aid context, point out important trends in FAM’s history, explain FAM’s current activities, and explain how the quantitative data I collected helped me achieve my stated research goals. Food Aid Context There has been international interest in food aid since the mid-Fifties, when a number of countries began providing assistance to developing na tions. That assistance took the form of cash and commodities used to support many different kinds of development activities. The US saw commodity supported development activities as a me ans to decrease agricu ltural surpluses caused by government subsidy while simultaneously su pporting strategic and philanthropic interests. Growing global interest in development on the pa rt of grantor and grantee led to international policy that clarified the definition of food in security, set appropriate resource levels, and marshaled development activities. United States food aid legislation and policy have consistently incorporated the guidance provided by international policy. The primary food aid legislation is The US Farm Bill in the many guises it has taken over the years, comm only referred to as PL480. The flagship of PL480

PAGE 164

146 food aid is Title II, which provides commod ities for emergency and development activities around the world. PL480 sets benchmarks for co mmodities to be granted to PVOs, outlines how those commodities can be used in development activ ities, and guides policy decisions that further regulate PVO development activities. Most Title II commodities are managed through the USAID Office of FFP. The USAID employees who control this office set national fo od aid policy, approve development proposals, monitor the progress of development activities a nd coordinate commodity-related activities. The FFP office must answer to the director of USAI D and to the President for the success of their programs. As a result, PVOs must provide conc rete, measurable results for their development activities. Variation in development activities is probably as diverse as the number of programs that exist at any point in time. A particular set of geographic, environmental, political, cultural and social factors leads to a unique development context for all programs. Each host country government, each PVO CS, and each target popula tion also contribute to making the context unique. Most target populations are very sensitive to any kind of change. Small changes in the political, environmental, social, or cultural climate can lead to devastating results. Because of the sensitive and time-constrained nature of deve lopment work, implementing these programs is highly complex. Managing the intricacies of pr ogram planning and implementation has led most food aid professionals to perceive their work environments as unstable. Historical Perspective International development agencies were pushed to increase development program transparency and accountability in the mid-Ei ghties. USAID recognized that development organizations did not have the capacity to ma ke such drastic changes in monitoring and evaluation without support and proposed a number of institutional support grants to facilitate that capacity development (USAID Offi ce of Procurement 1998). In 19 89, five Title II CSs proposed FAM to act as the coordinating body for thei r collaborative activities in developing food aid

PAGE 165

147 standards, exchanging information, and prom oting forums for discussion. Those CSs were ADRA, CARE, CRS, SAVE, and WV. USAID approve d that proposal and awarded FAM an ISA grant for support. Since then, FAM has continued to receive the support of USAID, and membership has grown to encompass 16 differe nt Title II implementing PVOs. FAM’s activities can be understood in light of three trends: incr easing opportunities for organizational interaction, increasing collaborative document creation, and increasing the institutionalization of collaboration in the food aid community. FAM encourages interaction via a number of different channels. Workshops, general meetings, brown bag meetings, wo rking group meetings and special topical meetings all provide organizational representatives the opportunity to meet employees with similar titles or roles in other organizations. The most important meeti ng opportunities are SC meetings, WG meetings, and training workshops. Improved information technology has made electronic communication important in disseminating information a bout relevant meetings and workshops. Most FAM meetings have the production of a document as a goal. That document improves food aid standards, increases the capacity of food aid organizations to implement their programs, and strengthens the relationships be tween the organizations involved in document production. The collaborative process by which FA M creates documents has not changed much since the GACAP document was written in 1990. Usually, a need is expressed, a committee is formed to address the need, and a document is crea ted that meets the need. This process has led to the creation of seven documentary products: GACAP, the Food Aid Lexicon the PVO Response to the Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper the Environmental Documentation Manual and Field Guide the Monetization Manual Health and Nutrition Baseline Monitoring Indicators and the Nutrition and Agriculture Monitoring Toolkit Every opportunity for organizational in teraction allows FAM to institutionalize collaboration in the food aid environment. Before FAM began there was limited PVO interaction. FAM activities provide a neutral forum for pe ople to meet and address common problems,

PAGE 166

148 making collaboration more the norm than it was be fore. Competition for resources still exists but is friendlier and more likely to lead to improved programmatic capacity than before. Food Aid Management Co llectivist Activities All FAM activities are aimed at improving collaboration and cooperation among Title II PVOs. Those activities fall into six categori es. The SC guides FAM’s activities. FAM’s WGs (M&E, MNTZ, LCB, and EWG) focus on creating documents and toolkits in areas of programmatic interest for FAM members. FAM listservs allow members to share information and answer specific questions quickly using elect ronic communication technology. The FSRC makes important technical information available to FAM members. Food Forum provides an avenue for communicating recent developments in Title II food aid quickly to a large number of subscribers. The FAM website links food aid professionals to the most recent and pertinent food security information from around the world. Briefly, the SC and WGs are responsible for most FAM work. These groups decide what FAM will do and how FAM will do it. Each WG is targeted at a member-determined topical area important for the successful implementation of food aid programs. Those working groups produce pertinent documents, develop training ma terials and plan workshops to disseminate current technical information. All SC and WG activities are completed by FAM members and primarily serve FAM members. Other food security professionals often make use of FAM documents, however. FAM has seven active listservs, focusing on FAM general activities, LCB, Environment, MNTZ, M&E, Commodity Management, and Nutriti on. The listservs were designed to be an easy, rapid means of communication between indivi duals with common interests and expertise. Most subscribers to the listserv are FAM member s, who seem unlikely to use them extensively for information exchange. FAM’s FSRC began in the early Nineties when the FARM Clearinghouse was donated to FAM. Since then, the FSRC has grown into one of the best food security resources in the US. The

PAGE 167

149 FSRC collections grow slowly each year and use remains relatively constant. A small decline in use recently by FAM members may be due to the new online bibliographic database system that allows any individual to search for importan t documents without the help of the TIS. Food Forum is FAM’s quarterly journal chronicli ng Title II activities. Careful inspection of subscription lists reveals that there are about 1000 copies of this journal reaching food aid professionals in the nonprofit community, go vernment agencies and universities around the world. Contributors are also very diverse, but most are heavily involved in Title II activities. Other than FAM members, USAID, WFP and IFPRI are primary contributors. FAM’s website may be one of its most va luable assets. Through the site FAM links hundreds of organizations with each other and w ith important technical documents without the constraints of time or geography. Since the FA M TIS redesigned the site in 1999 visits have increased dramatically. Most of those visits are from food aid professionals in the US, but about five percent are from food aid prof essionals in developing countries. These six areas of FAM activity, in the or der that I presented them, allow larger and larger communities of food aid professionals to contribute information to FAM. Those six areas also allow larger and larger communities of food aid professionals to access information from FAM. This was not the intended direction for FAM activities, but is an additional benefit of FAM services. Most FAM services are provided through interaction between representatives of FAM member organizations. In this study I investigat ed FAM general interac tions, SC interactions, M&E WG interactions, MNTZ WG interactions, LC B WG interactions, EWG interactions, Title II advice-seeking activities, formal Title II relati onships, informal Title II relationships, and interactions outside of Title II activities. Tho se interactions lead to specific organizational network structures that reveal patterns of activity. Social network analysis reveals that most FAM networks have low overall centrali zation and large cores. Individual organizations’ centrality vary

PAGE 168

150 according to which network is being investigated because centrality is an indicator of those organizations who are most directly involved in that particular activity. Research Findings The most relevant findings from this research are based on the three goals stated at the beginning of the project: to verify the coll ectivist model for international development organization, to explore the utility of social network techniques for measuring collaborative capacity, and to provide FAM with recommendations for structural and behavioral changes to improve its activities. Those goals can be consider ed theoretical, methodological and practical. In this section I explain the impact of my research for each of these three areas. Theoretical Collectivist organizational theory is the basis fo r most of this research. As part of this research, I developed a set of hypotheses that would test the validity of that model using quantitative data. Those data were collected using social network techniques, social psychology scales and organizational behavior instrument s. I analyzed the data with parametric, nonparametric, and Boolean procedures but none of these analyses supported the collectivist model. This lack of support might be due to the small number of cases considered, or to the improper operationalization of organizational theo ry concepts, or the choice of hypotheses that do not adequately reflect the complexity of collec tive organizational activity in the international development community. Methodological My ethnographic research with FAM helped me realize that I should incorporate multiple social network elicitation questions to understand FAM interactions. As a result, I was able to determine how correlated each of the FAM networks were with each other. These data revealed that even in the fairly constrained environmen t of cooperation among Title II PVOs to solve common operational problems, the elicitation prompt has a significant impact on the resulting

PAGE 169

151 social network structure. Those data suggest that it is important to make the choice of network elicitation prompts explicit in social network research. It might also be prudent to incorporate multiple prompts if the network being investig ated is likely to contain multiple types of relationship ties. Sensitivity to variation makes social network approaches useful for monitoring the development of collaborative capacity in interorg anizational networks. However, it is important to understand the skills required for appropriate implementation of social network techniques and interpretation of social network measures. These approaches must be combined with an understanding of their context based on ethnogr aphic research or participant observation. Practical FAM representatives were interested in how I might change the structure or behavior patterns of FAM member organizations to im prove FAM’s overall performance. Based on my qualitative and quantitative research, I developed a set of recommendations that would help FAM gain some control of the food aid environmen t, would adjust FAM activities to met member needs, and would formalize collaborative activiti es until a collaborative spirit is institutionalized among all Title II CSs. Briefly, those recommenda tions were to continue collaborative activities because the opportunity for information exchange th ey provide brings a measure of control into the uncertain environment. If collaborative ac tivities do continue, however, there should be clearly defined minimum requirements for particip ation that formalize roles and responsibilities. Those minimum requirements should be built into each FAM member’s monitoring and evaluation plan and into any proposals for governme nt support of Title II programmatic activities. To ensure that FAM activities are meeting the n eeds of all members, peripheral organizations should be encouraged to participate, either th rough leadership roles in FAM, through mentoring relationships with other FAM members, or th rough FAM’s electronic means of interaction (listservs and website).

PAGE 170

152 Other interorganizational networks might find the results of my research useful for three reasons. First, the simple categorical and no nparametric approaches I used for detailing how FAM’s activities were used and by which groups, pr ovide very efficient and effective means of communicating similar types of information for other groups in different contexts but with a similar service-delivery goal. Second, social ne twork approaches, if used wisely can be very useful in measuring changes in collaboration acr oss a network over time. This may become more important as USAID begins linking institutional support to evidence of collaborative capacity. Finally, an approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods and analyses (like QCA) is absolutely critical for a successful evaluation. Quantitative approaches and analyses often provide powerful data for describing activities. Qualitative approaches provide the context for understanding what those quantitative findings mean. Conclusion In this chapter I have summarized th e quantitative and qualitative findings that contributed to the achievement my three research goals. The lack of significance in my theoretical analyses would likely lead to my findings being unreported in the literature, the result of a p ublishing bias that favors theoretical results that achieve a p-value of .05 or smaller. Jacob Cohe n has been one of the most vocal opponents of establishing significance based on this often misinterpreted threshold, as it fails to report effect size, does not indicate confidence intervals and ofte n obscures the practical relevance of research findings (Cohen 1994, 1995). Cohen’s critics focu s less on his premise than on his mode of presentation and his proposed remedies (Bar il and Cannon 1995, Frick 1995, Hubbard 1995, McGraw 1995, Parker 1995, Svyantek and Ekberg 1995). The choice of the .05 threshold for determini ng statistical significance and the confusion of statistical significance with ‘real world’ signi ficance imply that findings such as those reported in this research would be lost to other indivi duals studying collectivist organizations, languishing in a ‘file drawer’ unavailable for comparison, rep lication or critique. Robert Rosenthal has argued

PAGE 171

153 that this bias limits the contribution that important but nonsignificant research can make which subsequently hinders the development of strong so cial science research findings (Rosenthal 1979, 1992). Though critics, particularly Scargle ( 2000), have argued with Rosenthal’s method of estimating the ‘file drawer effect’ and with Ro senthal’s suggestions for correcting the problem, there is general support for his basic assumption. Because theoretical findings are preferred over methodological and practical findings, and because statistical significance is preferred ove r ‘real-world’ significance, it is possible that my research will not be reported widely in the literature and my findings will languish in said ‘file drawer.’ However, I believe that my research findings resonate with most of the qualitative and formative research it is based on. My resear ch underlines the practical validity of that research and suggests further topics to be pursued, particularly for the application of theory and method in the monitoring and evaluation of coopera tive activity in the international development community.

PAGE 172

154 APPENDIX A FOOD AID MANAGEMENT MEMBER PROFILES Introduction The profiles in this appendix present inform ation on the sixteen PVO members of FAM. I chose the parameters to compare and contrast these organizations in these profiles from organizational demography research (Pfeffer 1983) These profiles provide information on the age, size, mission, and primary target areas for the member organizations. I also included information on funding sources, including what pe rcentage is government grants or Title II commodities. Where possible, I present summary statistics regarding human resources. I based these profiles on each organization’s FY2000 a nnual report, FY2000 financial statements, organizational websites, the USAID Internati onal Food Assistance Reports for FY2000 and FY2001, and queries directed to pertinent indi viduals in human resources, programming, and food for development divisions. Demographic pr ofiling has not been completed for any PVO working in Title II food aid before. When united with social network analyses, these profiles represent a significant first step toward unde rstanding patterns of PVO interaction. Though I made every attempt to collect the same information from each organization, some profiles are incomplete. FAM member organizations track resources and human capital differently. Drafts of each organizational profile were approved by the organizations themselves.

PAGE 173

155 Agriculture Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA) ACDI/VOCA is a private nonprofit organization that works to advance the pace of progress in emerging democracies and developing countri es (ACDI/VOCA 2001) through technical assistance services and strategies for farmers and other entrepreneurs. The primary focus is providing economic development assistance to sma ll and medium scale businesses, governmental agencies and others to "globalize the suc cess of American agriculture” (FAM 2001a). ACDI/VOCA formed in 1997 through the merg er of Agricultural Cooperative Development International, founded in 1963 and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance, founded in 1970 (ACDI/VOCA 2001). ACDI/VOCA's website re ports "the merger blended ACDI's longterm approach to development with VOCA's people-to-people volunteer activities” (2001). According to their website, ACDI/VOCA’ s projects are in 38 nations, managing 62 projects. There are 370 total employees: 83 headquarters staff, 273 field employees and 9 recruitment officers. ACDI/VOCA employees have worked with more than 6000 volunteers to complete more than 7700 assignments since 1970. Primary activities are in business consulting (particularly agribusiness production processing and marketing), support and strategy for private and public associations, grassroots economic devel opment, rural finance and natural resource management. ACDI/VOCA's primary projects focus on agricultural production, processing and marketing assistance and exist in 22 countr ies. Association and Cooperative development activities are also in those 22 countries and wo rldwide through the Farmer-to-Farmer program. There are 20 Business Development projects active worldwide, primarily in the same countries where agricultural development programs are ac tive. Financial services are provided in ten countries, and food aid is provided in five c ountries, all of which monetize to support market development and generate funds fo r a wide range of development efforts. The website shows that

PAGE 174

156 international partnerships are supported in 3 co untries and natural resource management support is provided in 14 countries. Volunteer services place approximately 600 individuals per year in these programs. Training services improve the skills of individual s in all of the countries that ACDI/VOCA serves. Volunteers worked on 34 different projects in 2001, located in the following 27 countries: Armenia, Azerbijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Bulgaria Croatia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrg yzstan, Macedonia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Thailand, Turkey, Uga nda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Yugoslavia. The majority of volunteers assisted in agriculture-re lated activities, primarily the Farmer-to-Farmer program (ACDI/VOCA 2001). Funding for ACDI/VOCA is primarily from USAID, estimated at 95% of the 2001 operating budget. In conversation with an ACDI /VOCA representative, I found that of the remaining 5%, the large majority is from USDA, the rest from private and in-kind donations. ACDI/VOCA monetizes commodities in five count ries: Cape Verde, Rwanda, Uganda, West Bank and Gaza, and Indonesia, which make up a bout 16% of the total operating budget and 128 staff members in the field and at headquarters. Title II support for ACDI/VOCA began in 19 92 with a project in Uganda. Currently, ACDI/VOCA has three Title II supported developmen t programs, in Cape Verde, Rwanda, and in Uganda (USAID 2001). Field offices are in 30 count ries: Armenia, Azerbijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Macedonia, Malawi, M ongolia, Mozambique, the Philippines, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, and Yugoslavia. Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) ADRA was established in 1984 to support communities in need through humanitarian and development activities. Development activiti es assist during emergencies, find long term

PAGE 175

157 solutions to ongoing problems, build the capacity of partner organizations, increase the profile of women in development activities and assist children reach their potential (ADRA 2001). Currently, ADRA’s activities focus on food security, economic development, primary health care, disaster preparedness and basic education. ADRA implements about 1500 development and emergency programs in 97 countries around the world, supported by 4197 field employees and reaching 14.7 million beneficiar ies (ADRA 2001). At the headquarters level, ADRA employee tenure averages 5 years, the average age is 45, and the ratio of men to women is nearly 1:1. ADRA has ten regional offices: Africa Indian region, Asian region, Eastern Africa region, Euro-Africa region, Euro-Asia region, Inter American region, North American region, South American region, South Pacific region, and the Trans-European region. ADRA’s website reports that supporting staff members in 25 coun tries (184 total) assist with international programs and with an additional 1100 emergency and development programs in the neediest areas of the developed world. Funding for ADRA’s activities is nearly even ly split between governmental development and emergency support and private donations. 50% of ADRA’s income comes from government sources, 40% from public gifts, 7% from the Seve nth-day Adventist Church, and 3% from other sources. Eighty-eight percent of ADRA’s income is expended on direct humanitarian services and another four percent is spent on supporting ser vices for humanitarian activities. The remaining 8% is spent on central office activities and administration (ADRA 2001). The International Food Assistance Repor t (USAID 2001) and ADRA organizational representatives note that ADRA has nine active N on-emergency Development Activity Proposals supported by USAID. These programs receive Title II commodities to support development activities in Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar Mozambique, Sudan, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Peru. ADRA also has a Title II emergency distribution program in Nicaragua. A representative of ADRA noted that eight of those programs incorporate monetization.

PAGE 176

158 Africare Founded in 1971, Africare has been provid ing development and emergency services in African countries for thirty years. The FAM website explains that Africare "works to improve the quality of life in rural Africa by responding to the requests of Africans working to help themselves. Africare forms partnerships with village groups, women's cooperatives, state agencies and rural enterprises” (2001). Africare is unique in that it only begins development programming in new countries at the request of st ate and local governments. The major areas of activity originally included food, water, the e nvironment, health, and emergency humanitarian aid. In the late 1980s, Africare initiated priv ate-sector development and governance activities (Africare 2001). Africare’s headquarters is in Washington DC, and there are 26 regional field offices in Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Africare’s presence is felt through more than 150 programs in 28 Afri can nations, where they implement development programs focusing on HIV/AIDS prevention and care (17 nations), democracy and civil development (14 nations), food security and agricultural development and environmental protection (21 nations), and primary health car e (21 nations). Often individual programs meet several of these goals (Africare 2001). Africare’s funding is primarily governmental with 68% of the year 2000’s assets coming from governmental sources. Private sector donations comprise 26% of Africare’s income, with the remaining 6% coming from investments and ot her sources. In dollar amounts, of the 34.7 million dollars income, 23.5 million came from the government in the form of commodities or grants; 9 million dollars came from private dona tions, and the remaining 2 million dollars from investments. Africare spent that income in th e following ways: 6.5 million for general programs (19% of total income), 3.9 million on relief a nd refugee assistance (11%), 6.8 million on health

PAGE 177

159 programs (20%), 326,000 on water resource deve lopment (1%), 6.5 million on agriculture and small scale irrigation (18.5%), and 3.9 million do llars on integrated rura l development (11%). Humanitarian assistance makes up 80.5 percent of Africare’s operating budget (30 million), with the remaining 19.5 percent (5 million) spen t on program support, ma nagement, and general fundraising (Africare 2001). Africare’s Title II programs began in Bu rkina Faso in 1973. Currently, Title II commodities are used to support development progr ams in Burkina Faso, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Mali, Mozambique, Niger and Uganda. Those Title II programs support activities in all five major program areas. The director of Africare’s Food for Development Unit notes that Africare leads or supports monetization in six of those nine (66%) countries to develop markets and provide cash for development projects in all nine countries. American Red Cross (ARC6) The American Red Cross works with a global network of Red Cross, Red Crescent and equivalent societies to restore hope and dignity to the world's vulnerable people. Through the International Red Cross Movement, ARC brings emergency relief to disaster victims, and improves basic living conditions of those in chronically deprived areas of the world. The American Red Cross (ARC) was founded in 1881 and chartered by Congress in 1905 as the only voluntary agency to carry out a system of national and international relief in time of peace, and apply that system in mitigating th e suffering caused by…great national calamities." As a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the ARC is part of the largest humanitarian network in the world. It provides relief to victims of disaster and helps people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. The ARC's primary activity is biomedical services, which account for 63% of their operating expenses. Other activities include health, safety and community services (13%), 6 This profile is compiled almost exclusively from A RC informational materials and should be considered a Red Cross document reprinted here with permission.

PAGE 178

160 disaster services (10%), armed forces emergenc y support (2%), and international services (2%). The remaining 10% of the operating budget is u sed for management and fund raising activities (ARC 2001). The operating budget of the ARC in FY2001 was $2.712 billion, with $172 million (6%) coming from investments and endowments, 1,808 million (66%) from Red Cross products, biomedical and health and safety services, and 763 million (29%) from contributions. Contributions to the ARC come from various sources. Monetary contributions for disaster relief, general operations and permanently restricted endowme nts totaled $507 million (66% of total contributions). Federated fund raising e fforts by the United Way and Combined Federal Campaign amounted to $206 million (27%). The remaining $50 million (7%) represents the value of contributed services and materials. Since 1997, ARC international program commi tments have tripled from $24.6 million in funding to approximately $72.8 million in FY01. In 1999, the ARC oversaw 30 international projects in 21 countries, with more than 115 ARC delegates in the field working directly with sister National Societies as well as the Interna tional Federation and the ICRC. Today, the ARC oversees over 90 international projects in 40 count ries. 90 international fi eld delegates and 90 full-time staff in the International Services depart ment located at national headquarters. American Red Cross investment in international programmi ng makes up 2% of its total activity budget, and commodities provided by the government make up a portion of income identified as donated services and materials. ARC has operations or national societies in the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Azerbijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mace donia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Russian Federation, Rwa nda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, St. Lucia, Sudan,

PAGE 179

161 Tanzania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbe kistan, United States, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yugoslavia (Serbia, Kosovo), Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Following a lengthy and detailed strategic planning process in 1997, the ARC made a decision to narrow its international programmati c to compete more effectively for available resources and maximize the impact of scarce resources on the reduction of vulnerability among targeted beneficiaries. As a result, ARC el ected to pursue a strategy with seven major components: 1. Emergency/disaster response. 2. Disaster planning and preparedness. 3. Primary health including water and sanitation and ps ychosocial health. 4. Food programming including food aid and food security. 5. Organizational development. 6. International tracing and messaging. 7. International humanitarian law. The ARC is committed to improving access to food by providing food aid and water/sanitation. It also focuses on expanding household/community knowledge and practices about childcare and feeding, and enhancing the capacity of other NSs to design food security projects and manage food aid and health program s. Since 1999, the ARC has assisted over 4.5 million people in 19 countries with food aid and food security interventions. ARC began food aid programming in the early 1990s with several USDA food programs in Central Asia worth $16.5 million. USAID Title II-supported programming began with an emergency response program in the Dominican Rep ublic from 1998 to 1999. To date, there have been three emergency response programs suppor ted with USAID Title II commodities: the Dominican Republic from 1998-1999, Macedonia from 1999-2000, and Albania from 1999-2001 (USAID 2001). At ARC headquarters, there is one fu ll-time position focused on food programming activities, including Title II. There is one full-time employee devoted to commodity management/procurement. Many more individua ls spend a portion of their time working on USAID programming (under ISA support). Each AR C food project has a specific monitoring and

PAGE 180

162 evaluation staff person. In the field, Head s of Programs managing food projects spend approximately 50% of their time on such activiti es. Each of the current ARC projects has one full-time food delegate with a number of local hi res in supporting roles. Local Red Cross and Red Crescent volunteers and staff perform distributions with supervision by independent ARC field monitors. Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) CARE has been operating to eliminate pove rty worldwide for 55 years, growing to include a diverse portfolio of development ac tivities. CARE’s headquarters are in Atlanta Georgia, with regional US offices in Washington DC, West Palm Beach, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, San Francisco and Seattle. These re gional offices coordinate CARE activities in agriculture and natural resources, basic education, food security, maternal and child health, water and sanitation, health services, and credit, savings and finance (CARE 2001). CARE’s operating budget for 2000 was 446.3 million dollars, coming from governmental sources, private donations, CARE international support, investments, and host country and multilateral donations. The US government provi ded 251.1 million dollars in support for CARE activities, amounting to 56.3% of their total fundi ng. Of that 251.1 million, 116.5 million (46.4%) was in commodity donations. Private donations to taled 63 million dollars, or 14.1%; and CARE International provided 67.7 million dollars in s upport (15.2%). The remaining 59.1 million dollars (13.2%) came from host country donations, multilateral and other donors. Ninety one percent of CARE’s income is spent on program activities, a nd the remaining 9% is allocated to support services and fundraising. Program activities are split 77% for development assistance, and 23% for emergency and rehabilitation (CARE 2001). CARE’s activities focus on agriculture and natural resources (33 countries), basic and girls education (20 countries), children’s health and reproductive health (23 countries), water and sanitation (31 countries), integrated and other health (26 countries) nutritional support (13 countries), infrastructure and small economic activity development (31 countries). Those

PAGE 181

163 activities are divided into emergency progra ms, rehabilitation programs, and development programs primarily in Africa and Asia. CARE’s has programs in 23 African countries with 92.8 million dollars in support. In Asia, CARE provides 18 nations with 167 milli on dollars in support. Nine European countries, primarily newly inde pendent states receive 32 million dollars, while 8 Latin American and Caribbean countries, includi ng Haiti, receive over 100 million dollars in support (CARE 2001). By sector, out of 409 million dollars, CARE provides 67 million dollars for agriculture and natural resource activities, 6 million for basic a nd girls’ education, 25.6 million for children’s health, 11.5 million for reproductive health ac tivities, 23.7 million for water and sanitation projects, 12.5 million for other health activities, 122.4 million for nutritional support, 27.7 million for infrastructure improvement projects, 15.2 million for small economic activity development and 97.7 million dollars for other projects that fall outside the bounds of the previously defined focus areas (CARE 2001). According to USAID’s International Food A ssistance Report 2001, CARE has 16 Title II emergency and development assistance grants. CARE ’s emergency activities are in Sierra Leone, Somalia, India, Indonesia and North Korea. CARE’s development activities are in Angola, India, Kenya, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Bo livia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Peru (USAID 2001). Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Established in 1943, CRS has been prov iding development and emergency support around the world with more than 4000 employees in 87 countries. It is the international humanitarian aid and development agency of th e United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, Inc., with headquarters in Baltimore MD. It is one of the largest and oldest PVOs in the United States, providing assistance in agriculture, hea lth, community development, and education to women, children, and families in need (CRS 2001).

PAGE 182

164 CRS’s activities are divided into regional areas in Africa, Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. African regional directors oversee activities for 37 countries in East Africa, Southern Africa and West Africa with 21 supporting field offices in Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, the Congo, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Senega l, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uga nda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The European regional director oversees work in 8 c ountries with field offices in Albania, Armenia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, a nd Yugoslavia. Three field offices in Egypt, Jerusalem/West Bank/Gaza and Morocco support programs in 6 Middle Eastern countries. The director for the Latin America and Caribbean ar ea manages projects in 15 countries, supported by 10 field offices in Brazil, Bolivia, Dominican Re public, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru. The directors for S outh Asia and Southeast Asia are supported by country directors in ten field offices in Cambodi a, East Timor, Calcutta, Delhi, Hyderabad, Mumbai (Bombay), Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, and Vietnam and oversee projects in 22 countries or states (CRS 2001, CRS 2002a). CRS maintains 319 staff members at their Baltimore headquarters, with another 338 expatriate staff working in field offices around the world. There are also 3500 national staff members working in these field offices. Average employee tenure is 5.3 years. CRS’s FY2000 budget was 373.2 million do llars, of which 91.6% was spent on programming. The remaining 8.4 percent was spent on support and fundraising. Of the total amount of income in 2000, 35.7% came in the form of commodities from the US government and other sources totaling $133.1 milli on. 31.6% came in the form of cash donations from the private sector (117.8 million), 21.7% were cash grants from the US government (81 million), and 11% came from other sources, including investments (41.3 million). The above financial information is reported in CRS’s a nnual report 2000 (CRS 2001). Primary activities include agriculture, educa tion, emergency services, small enterprise development, health, peace and justice, and we lfare programs. 40.9 % of expenditures were in

PAGE 183

165 emergency activities, 20.4 % for health programs, 11.6 % for agriculture projects, 5.4 % for small enterprise, 5.2 % for welfare, 4.4 % for peace build ing, and 3.6 % on education. The remainder is split between administration (3.5%) and fund ra ising (5.0%). Total expenditures were 371.6 million dollars (CRS 2001). Most commodities received by CRS for pr ogram activities are Title II commodities provided by the US government under PL 480. CRS began Title II programming when the first Farm Bill was passed in 1954, and has continued through today. USAID’s International Food Assistance Report 2000 (USAID 2001) shows th at commodities support 6 emergency and 17 development activities. Emergency activities are in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Indonesia, Albania and Serbia. Development activities are in Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, India, Peru, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras. CRS also carries out Title II development activities in Niger as a subrecipient of Africare. Conversations with food aid experts in CRS activities reveal that all development programs except India currently incorporate m onetization to provide cash resources for program activities. Counterpart International (CNTPT) Founded in 1965, Counterpart is a diverse, nonprofit, international development organization dedicated to helping people in need in areas of ci vil society, private enterp rise, environmental resource management, humanitarian relief and healthcare. It does this by building the capacity of local partners—nongovernmental organi zations, lenders, businesses, govern ments and other institutions— to solve their own, self-defined economic, ecological, political an d social problems sustainable, practical and independent ways. Corporations, individuals, foundations and governments support Counterpart International. It manages programs worldwide with a staff of nearly 300 (75 headquarters employees) and a FY2001 budget of mo re than $150 million. Affiliate organizations operate in 21 countries in North America, the Caribbean, Europe Asia, Africa and the South Pacific, enabling

PAGE 184

166 the transfer of skills and lessons learned acro ss borders and cultures. Programs are implemented through a network of 17 international program o ffices directly operated by Counterpart, including major operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in ev ery former Soviet republic with the exception of the Baltics. Countries where Counterpart is ope rationally based through its offices or affiliates include: Australia, Azerbijan, Belarus, Belgiu m, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Fiji, France, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kiri bati, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russia, Samoa, Solom on Islands, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Unite d Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Zimbabwe. Counterpart’s budget in FY2000 was $111 million dollars. Of that amount the largest portion of support and revenue (79.1%) came in the form of donated services and supplies rather than cash. USAID provided grants (of cash, commodities and in-kind donations) totaling approximately 98.8 million dollars (89% of th e FY2000 operating budget) to support Counterpart activities. Non-Federal grants amounted to 7. 2 million dollars (6.5%). Donor contributions, income from interest and other miscellaneous sour ces comprised the remainder of the Counterpart operating budget (Counterpart 2001). Counterpart’s operations are divided among its major activities as follows, based on total program expenses listed in FY2000 data: Relief activ ities make up 86.7% of Counterparts yearly program expenses (96.4 million). Institution buildin g makes up 9.7% of the budget (10.7 million). Business development and training make up 1.4% and natural resources and the environment 1.1%. Health, nutrition and micro-credit comb ined comprise 1.15%. The total amount of program-related expenses was $111.13 million, 99 .3% of all expenses totaling $111.9 million. Administrative activities were only 0.7% of tota l expenses, most for management and general expenses with the remainder for business devel opment and public information (Counterpart 2001). Counterpart is negotiating a host country agr eement to begin Title II activities in Senegal.

PAGE 185

167 Feed the Hungry International (FHI) For over 25 years, FHI has been working with the poor and food insecure through cooperative community development activities th at empower indigenous organizations. These activities are primarily in sustainable food production, child development, economic development, health, and water resource developm ent. With more than 1600 employees, of which 7.6 percent are expatriates living in the field, FHI reaches more than 1.1 million people in 38 countries (FHI 2001). FY2000 saw support and revenue of 40 million dollars, with 29.5 million in cash and 10.5 million in commodities and gifts in kind. Un ited States donations a nd grants of cash and commodities made up 44.5% of revenues and s upport (FHI 2001). Approximately 40% of FHI's budget was spent on Title II activities, split roughly between agriculture (65%) and health/nutrition programs (35%). The remainde r of the FHI budget falls into FHI's Child Development Program activities, according to an FHI representative. Donations and development programs are coordinated through a network of organizati ons in the United Stat es, Canada, Japan, Korea, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and the UK, according to the FHI website. Administrative and fundraising costs made up only 6.38% of operating expenses for FY2000; the remaining 93.62% ($37.7 million) was dedicated to international development activities (FHI 2001). Those revenues were spent in the following ways: FHI supports 27 projects and programs in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, China, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kenya, Laos, Mong olia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. The largest programs with respect to dollars spen t are those in Bolivia (which comprised 20.5% of FHI's expenses), Ethiopia (another 20.5%), Kenya (5.2%) and Mozambique (7.5%). The remaining 46.3% of funds were spent on devel opment activities in the remaining 23 countries (FHI 2001).

PAGE 186

168 FHI's Title II programs began in 1985 in Boliv ia and have been active since that time. The USAID International Food Assistance Re port for 2000 notes that Title II commodities support FHI development programs in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Bolivia (USAID 2001). All of these programs contain a monetization co mponent, though the proportion of commodities monetized varies for the four programs. The Bolivia program remains the largest with respect to number of field staff; 250 employees work on that program. Ethiopia is second with 220 employees; Kenya third with 120; and Mozambique fourth with 100. In sum, FHI employs nearly 700 individuals to work in these programs in the fi eld. At the headquarters level FHI maintains a five person Food Security Team concerned w ith Title II and other aspects of food security. International Relief and Development (IRD) Since 1998 IRD has been working “to reduce th e suffering of the world’s most vulnerable groups and provide the tools and resources needed to increase their self sufficiency” (IRD 2001). In time that IRD has been active, they have wo rked in Southeast Asia, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe to provide support for development activities in primary health care, food security, agriculture, micro-enterprise, community devel opment, capacity building and media training. A staff of over 80 employees in six different countries around the world works to complete IRD’s goal of implementing “cost-eff ective relief and development programs that improve the lives of the worlds most vulnerable gr oups.” At Headquarters, IRD employs 13 staff, 10 of which are female. There are 9 expatriate staff members in IRD field offices. Funding for FY2000 grew to 24 million do llars, coming from over 30 different donors and partners. Gifts-in-kind accounted for about 65% of the total budget. Private funding accounted for 6.78% of IRD’s cash budget. US gove rnment sources including the USDA, the US Department of State, and USAID provided 90% of the cash budget and additional commodities for development and relief activities. Title II co mmodities make up 1-2% of IRD’s total budget; Food for Progress makes up another 20%.

PAGE 187

169 IRD used resources for a number of relief and development activities, including the development of local Municipal Advisory Councils in Serbia that “act as decision-making bodies that collectively identify beneficiaries most in need of humanitarian aid” (IRD 2001). IRD’s presence in Serbia is extensive, focusing on community development, infrastructure repair projects, refugee relief for internally displaced persons, micro-enterpri se projects and household livelihood security programs. IRD programs in other nations focus on primary health care (Macedonia, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbijan), school feeding (Macedonia), agricultural development (Serbia, Macedonia), economic developm ent (Serbia, Indonesia) and targeted food distribution (Indonesia). Field Offices are located in the Republic of Azerbijan, the Republic of Georgia, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Ukraine, the Republic of Indonesia, the Republic of Macedonia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. IRD’s activities are divided among these areas in the fo llowing ways: 39% of activities are in the Balkans. 35% of activities are in the Caucasus ( 13% Azerbijan, 3% Armenia and 19% Georgia). The remaining 26% of activities are in Indonesia. Title II funding began for IRD in Sept 2001, to support a relief program in Serbia. This program distributed of 75 metric tons of comm odities to supplement already existing distribution programs. The program is for the “receipt, deliver y and distribution of a shelf-stable prepackaged food commodity (prepared, stockpiled, and made available by the Breedlove Dehydrated Foods Organization) to needy individuals in forei gn countries.” IRD employs 5 full time Title II specialists in the field, and one at headquarters. Mercy Corps (MC) For 22 years, Mercy Corps has alleviated suffering, poverty, and oppression by helping people build secure, productive, and just communities. With more than 1000 staff, volunteers, and partners worldwide, Mercy Corps has reached more than 5 million people in 29 regions and countries. A Mercy Corps human resources specialis t reports that 92 headquarters staff and 89

PAGE 188

170 expatriate staff are working in the field on projects. Mercy Corps’s activities focus on civil society, health, economic development and pr ivate enterprise, and emergency and disaster assistance (Mercy Corps 2001). The relative priority of these activities varies with events, issues, geography and time. Mercy Corps has offices in six regions: Africa, the Americas, the Balkans, Central and South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East/Caucasus. In Africa, there are programs in Eritrea, Ethiopia and Mozambique. In the Americas, programs exist in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the US, and Venezuela. In the Balkans, Al bania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia and Serbia have operating programs. Centra l and South Asian programs are in Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tajikista n, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Programs in China, Indonesia, Mongolia, North Korea and Russia fall under the East Asian region. In the Middle East, Mercy Corps supports programs in Azerbijan, Georgia, and Lebanon (Mercy Corps 2001). In FY2000, those programs were supported by a 128.6 million dollar global budget, 36% higher than FY1999. Mercy Corps itself had reve nues of 113.7 million, of which 41.8 million dollars (36.8%) came from the US government in cash or commodities. Eleven percent of Mercy Corps’s revenues came as grants from internati onal organizations or private grants. Private contributions and other revenue made up 6.4 million dollars, or 5.7%. The remainder of Mercy Corps’s revenues arrived as material aid valued at 52.9 million dollars, or 46.6% of income (Mercy Corps 2001). In FY2000, Mercy Corps spent 107.4 million dolla rs on project activities. That is 94.6% of Mercy Corps’s operating budget. Support services expenditures totaled only 6.2 million dollars, 5.4% of the operating expenditures, split between administrative support and resource development (Mercy Corps 2001). Mercy Corps's Title II activities began in 19 98 with an emergency program in Kosovo. USAID’s International Food Assistance Report s hows that in 2001 Mercy Corps received Title II

PAGE 189

171 commodity support for three emergency relief projects in Indonesia, North Korea and Yugoslavia (USAID 2001), none of which m onetized commodities. About six individuals are involved with this program, focusing on urban food for work and food distribution through maternal/child activities and neighborhood clinics. Mercy Corps re presentatives noted that the program in North Korea is currently inactive, and the program in Yugoslavia to support people in Kosovo was completed in spring 2001. Opportunities Industrialization Centers International (OICI) OICI was incorporated in Pennsylvania in 1970 to provide humanitarian services and "help people help themselves and improve their lives through the development of sustainable institutions that provide appropriate traini ng and services in developing countries around the world" (OICI 2001). OICI provides support fo r local NGOs to create and implement skills training programs for individuals in search of employment in developing countries. OICI's decentralized network of affiliates includes ove r 30 skills training centers in 18 countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. To complete its mission of creating sustainable training centers, OICI provides flexible, context-specific assistance to its affiliates (OICI 2001). This training could be in vocational skills, natural resource management agriculture, micro-enterprise development, micro-credit, or any number of other appropriate skills. There are eighteen OIC partners operating 46 programs in 18 countries (16 in Africa, 1 each in Europe and Asia): Cameroon, Central Afri ca, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Lesotho, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo and Zimbabwe. Most of these cente rs are self-sufficient; they receive no support from OICI's central accounts (OICI 2001). Those i ndependent centers receive support from "local communities, host governments, multilateral a nd bilateral agencies and a wide range of foundations and NGOs" (OICI 2001). Along with a number of field-based employees, a headquarters staff of over 20 (including 12 technical staff) links OICI's programs to each other. OIC local organizations employ over

PAGE 190

172 1200 local individuals to achieve their progra mmatic goals, focusing 100% on human resource development in a non-traditional, non-formal e ducation format. Activities focus on literacy and numeracy training, basic health and nutrition education, communication skills and conflict resolution training, career advising and counseli ng, apprenticeships and job placement, on-the-job training, and follow-up support. New technical and vocational training modules focus on agricultural development, health and nutriti on, natural resource management, small business development, war-trauma healing, peace edu cation and post-conflict reconstruction and reintegration. Over 50% of individuals taking a dvantage of OICI's programs are impoverished or socially and politically disadvantaged (OICI 2001). The majority of OICI's funding comes in the form of grants of cash and commodities from the US government. Revenues for FY2000 were $6.04 million, of which $5.11 million (84%) came from the government. Private sector grants and gifts in kind amounted to $762 thousand dollars (12.6%). Other income, from c ontract revenue, interest and unrealized gain amounted to only $166 thousand, about 2.75% of OICI's income. These funds were spent supporting OICI activities at their Headquarters in Philadelphia, as well as supporting activities in Liberia, Guinea, Ghana, Togo and Sierra Leone (OICI 2001). Most of OICI's expenditures supported pr ogrammatic activities ($5.69 million dollars, 96.44%). The largest proportion of resources suppor ted activities in Guinea, Togo and Ghana in descending order of resources allocated. The re maining $210 thousand (3 .56%) were spent on management/administration (3.3 6%) and fundraising (0.202%). In FY2002, OICI operated two Title II deve lopment programs in Ghana and Guinea. These programs receive $2.15 million dollars in co mmodities, which account for 36.5% of OICI's total income. OICI's activities in Ghana focused on post-harvest management, women’s microenterprise, and water and sanitation. Their activiti es in Guinea focused on su stainable agriculture and natural resource management. Both programs monetized to generate cash for development

PAGE 191

173 activities. In FY2002 OICI also operated four USDA Food for Progress programs in Togo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Chad. Project Concern International (PCI) Project Concern International is a 501( c)(3) nonprofit health and development organization that saves the lives of children a nd families by preventing disease and providing access to health care, clean water and nutritious fo od. Headquartered in San Diego, PCI has been serving people in need for the past 40 years. Each year PCI’s highly effective, low cost programs reach more than 3 million people. In FY2002, PCI operated in eleven countries on five continents (United States, Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, India, Mexi co, Nicaragua, Romania, Zambia and Ghana). There were approximately 500 employees worldwide, including 36 at the International Headquarters in San Diego, eight expatriate fiel d staff and three host country national directors. The FY2000 budget totaled $23.7 million with $10.9 million in US government cash support (46.1%) and $6.13 million in donated commodities (26%). Public contributions amounted to $3.68 million (15.6%) and foundation and corpor ate giving provided $1.2 million (4.9%). Inkind contributions valued at $1.06 million (4.5 %) and an additional $715.572 from investment income completes the revenue breakdown for FY2000. Health Access and Services projects were completed in nine of the ten countries (90%) PCI served in 2001. Nutritional programs were implemented in four countries (40%), water improvement and sanitation projects in five countri es (50%), and health education projects in ten countries (100%), often in association with comp lementary development activities (e.g., income generation, food security or basic construction projects). Program services were 89% of all expenditur es, while management and general operating expenses were 9% and fundraising amounted to 2% (PCI 2001). Project Concern has received the highest rating from the National Charities In formation Bureau (now the Better Business Bureau) for their quality programming.

PAGE 192

174 Title II Development programs began at Proj ect Concern in 1993 in Bolivia. Title II commodities were donated by USAID to support development activities in the Departments of Cochabamba and Potosi in Bolivia and four municipalities of Jinotega in Nicaragua (USAID 2001). Title II programs continued until the end of FY2002 in Bolivia and until 2006 in Nicaragua. PCI monetizes to provide cash support for activities in both countries. Save the Children (SAVE) Founded in 1932 as a nonprofit child assistance or ganization, Save the Children has been changing children’s lives in the United States and in 47 other countries for more than 70 years. SAVE’s development activities in health, educa tion, economic development and natural resource management are coupled with emergency assi stance to provide comprehensive support for children and their families. In 2001, SAVE employed 2975 individuals worldwide. Headquarters workers were 257 of those, and American field staff comprised another 42. The remaining 2,676 were overseas field staff. At the headquarters leve l, the average age of a full-time employee is 42 and the average tenure is 4 years. In addition to US management, there were four area directors for Asia, Africa, Latin American and the Caribbean, and the Middle East/N ewly Independent States/Eurasia. There were also 34 field offices in Albania, Angola, Armenia, Azerbijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia/Montenegro, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Himalaya, Honduras, Indonesia, Jordan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan/Afghani stan, Philippines, Sahel, Sudan, Tajikistan, Uganda, Vietnam and the West Bank/Gaza (SAVE 2001). The SAVE FY2000 budget totaled 140.3 milli on dollars. The US Government provided 51% of the funding through gran ts and contracts, about 71.3 million dollars. Private donations totaling 40.9 million dollars made up 29% of th e operating budget. Child sponsorship of 24.5 million dollars and other revenue of 3.6 million dollars make up the remaining 20% of SAVE’s revenues. Those revenues were divided among SAVE’s five primary activities as follows:

PAGE 193

175 Education programs made up 21% of the opera ting budget, amounting to 24.2 million dollars. Primary health care operations made up 24% of the budget, or 27.1 million dollars. Economic development comprised 8% of the operating budge t (8.5 million), and agriculture and natural resource management made up another 5% (5.2 m illion). The largest portion of the budget, 42%, was allocated for emergency, refugee and civil society projects, totaling 47.6 million dollars. All of these program expenses made up 83% of SAVE’s budget, with fundraising at 11% and management costs at 6% of total expenditures (SAVE 2001). SAVE works primarily in Africa, with 30% of funds allocated for that region. Second is the Middle East, with 20%, followed closely by the former Soviet states, with 16%. Latin America and the Caribbean area garnered 12% of SAVE’s support, and Asia another 10%. The United States and Europe were allocated onl y 9% and 3% of SAVE ’s FY2000 resources, respectively (SAVE 2001). SAVE's Title II activities began in 1991 and in FY2002 SAVE had 4 full time headquarters employees dedicated to Title II activities. SAVE received Title II commodities to support development activities in seven countri es: Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Guatemala and Nicaragua, Bolivia and Haiti. SAVE also receives Title II commodities for emergency programs in Afghanistan, Sudan and Georgia. SAVE monetizes in all countries to provide cash resources for programming (USAID 2001). TechnoServe (TNS) For more than thirty years TechnoServe, Inc. has supported the entrepreneurial aspirations of hundreds of thousands of poor sma ll-scale farmers, their families, and other rural citizens of Africa, Latin America and Central Europe. Serving as a trainer, a mentor and a catalyst, TechnoServe has helped people in twenty -one nations create and build hundreds of small and medium-scale rural businesses and advised them in their operation and management. With improved incomes and jobs, people can better house a nd clothe their families, improve their diets, pay school fees, and improve overall living standa rds. TechnoServe helps entrepreneurial men

PAGE 194

176 and women in poor rural areas of the developi ng world build businesses that create income, opportunity and economic growth for their families, their communities and their countries. TechnoServe focuses on broad-based rural ec onomic growth because they see private, sector-led rural development as an essential and driving component of overall economic development and social progress in the developi ng world. Because the problems of economic underdevelopment require long-term solutions, TechnoServe is program-focused, not projectbased. By maintaining a diversity of funding sources, they are able to develop and pursue program strategies and activities beyond the limiti ng confines of shorter-term project definition and funding. This long-term strategy enables them to deve lop stronger relations and partnerships with local institutions, businesses and other leading econo mic actors. TechnoServe has always worked with and through a variety of local agencies, both public and private, profit making and not-forprofit. They also leverage the pro bono services of world-class business leaders, some of America’s leading firms, who share their desire to make globalization inclusive. They apply leading-edge information technologies to the problem of rural poverty. TechnoServe, a 501(c)(3), is a membership corporation, registered in the State of New York. Its membership of 95 meets annually to elect and advise the Board of Directors. TechnoServe’s Board is made up of 24 indivi duals drawn primarily from the senior executive ranks of agribusiness, finance and advertising/ marketing, who share their vision and mission. TechnoServe has an international staff of 330 wo rking in ten Country Program offices, supported and supervised by a U.S.-based staff of 35 opera ting out of their Headquarters in Norwalk, CT, and a program office in Washington, DC. In 2001 total budget expenditures were $15.3 million. In FY2001, the US government, throug h USAID, FFP, the USDA and other subagreements provided 10.4 million dollars for TechnoServe, comprising 71.8% of TechnoServe’s revenues. Individual contributions of 1.7 million dollars made up another 12% of revenues, while contributions from foundations, corp orations and religious organizations made up

PAGE 195

177 8% at 1.2 million dollars. Income from multilate ral and bilateral institutions, host country institutions, other nonprofits, project fees, inter est and other sources account for another 8% at 1.2 million dollars as well. Program services account ed for 81% of the operating budget, with program support and fundraising making up the remaining 19% (TNS 2001). TechnoServe currently has program activities in 11 countries: El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, & Peru; Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, So uth Africa, Tanzania & Uganda; and Poland. Past countries of operation include Belize, Boliv ia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan and Zaire. T itle II activities began in 1997. Currently, the USAID International Food Assistance Report notes that TechnoServe receives Title II commodities for development programs in four countries: Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and Peru (USAID 2001). TechnoServe Monetizes in all c ountries to provide resources for development activities. World Vision (WV) World Vision is a Christian nonprofit organization that has been providing community based relief and development programs to help children. World Vision’s activities, often in conjunction with international partners, reach mo re than 1.7 million children, and even more adults in 89 countries (World Vision 2001). The World Vision FY2000 annual report notes th at contributions and revenue totaled 469.1 million dollars. Private contributions of 216.5 million dollars made up 46.1% of those revenues. Gifts-in-kind made up another 33.2%, valued at 155.6 million dollars. Public cash and commodity grants from US government agencies were 90.2 million dollars (19.2%), and other income from annuities and investments made up the remaining 1.5%, at 6.9 million dollars. 82.8% of expenditures ($388.4 million) were sp ent on program and ministry activities, 10.8% (50.9 million) on fund raising, 5.9% (27.6 million) on manageme nt, and 1.5% (7.1 million) on retirement of previously amassed debt (World Vision 2001).

PAGE 196

178 Ministry services and programs fell into the following categories: Child sponsorship, relief and rehabilitation, community development and Christian outr each and leadership projects, Gifts in kind, domestic programs, public awaren ess and education, sponsorship ministries and grants to other ministries. Child sponsorship ac tivities cost 78.4 million dollars, or 16.7% of total expenditures. Relief and rehabilitation, comm unity development, Christian outreach and leadership activities totaled 135.7 million dollars (28.9%). Gifts-in-kind were 34.8 million dollars, 7.4% of expenditures. Domestic progr ams made up 12% of expenditures, at 56 million dollars. Public education and sponsorship minist ries both made up 0.5% of expenditures at 2.3 and 2.2 million dollars, respectively. Grants to other ministries, totaling 79 million dollars made up the remaining 16.8% (World Vision 2001). Title II commodities supported World Vision in a number of international emergency and development activities. Sierra Leone, Sudan a nd Indonesia receive World Vision emergency support. Nine development programs are supporte d by Title II commodities: Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda Bangladesh, and Indonesia (USAID 2001). World Self Help and Relief Exchange (SHARE) The Food Aid Management website describes World SHARE as “a nonprofit social business serving a multinational network of orga nizations strengthening their communities by helping people to help themselves and others. As a social business, World SHARE generates revenue by and for the purpose of engaging people in self-help activities that improve their own lives, the lives of others and their community ” (FAM 2002). SHARE participates in food assistance, community development, economic deve lopment, and education activities here in the United States and abroad (World SHARE 2002). For 15 years, WorldSHARE has been providing development assistance internationally, helping individuals see themselves “as their own best resource” (World SHARE 2002). With eighteen headquarters employees and two field officers in Guatemala, WorldSHARE is one of the smaller international developm ent organizations. Domestically SHARE helps individuals and

PAGE 197

179 families exchange community service for discounted food, including fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats and staples. Internationally, using an Integrated Rural Development model, SHARE combats the root causes of poverty, improves fa mily health, nutrition and management and strengthens community structures that suppor t long-term improvements (World SHARE 2002). For fiscal year 2000, the operating budget w as 26.9 million dollars. Of that 26.9 million dollars, 4.8 million (17.7%) dollars came in the form of grants and commodities from the United States Government. SHARE representatives report that the annual budget is dedicated to domestic development work in the United States a nd to their project in Guatemala, where two field officers have been overseeing Title II mone tization and distribution activities for eleven years.

PAGE 198

180Table A-1: Organizational demographics Organization Age Title II Age Number of Employees HQ StaffDev. Workers Field Offices Field Staff Title II Projects Title II Staff % Gov't Funding Private Funding Other Funding % Funds for Dev Ratio: HQ to field ADRA 18 36 440020341979741979 50473880.048 Africare 31 29 269 6826680.5 ACDI/VOCA 29 10 3708327330453 12899101001.844 ARC 96 12 1758555903 7287220.944 CARE 55 48 12550275120005827516 561430901.000 CRS 49 48 415731935005233817 573211920.944 CNTPT 37 1 30075225172251 894.56.599.30.333 FHI 25 17 160033122271224 70544.555.5093.60.270 IRD 4 1 801358891 690731.444 Mercy Corps 22 4 10009218129893 737115294.61.034 OICI 32 120020201811802 8412.63.496.40.017 PCI 41 9 4953644982 1557220.57.5894.500 SAVE 70 11 2975257267634267610 4512920830.096 TNS 30 5 36535330113304 172208810.106 SHARE 15 11 20182121 2277301009.000 WVRD 12 19.246.134.799 Note: These data have been approved by each FAM member organization to be correct as of fiscal year 2002.

PAGE 199

181 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRES AND RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS Questionnaire One: Title II Food Aid Context 1. In your opinion, what pieces of legislation are most important in Title II work? What about international congresses or resolutions? For each of these listed, what makes them important? How do they affect the work that you do with your organization? 2. In your opinion, what are the major forces that you have to deal with in applying for, designing, coordinating, implementing, monito ring and evaluating a Title II project? Here, I am thinking of environmental forces, co mmodity amounts, governmental decisions, agriculture industry, and others. How do each of those forces affect your operations? 3. Could you briefly describe the process by which a project is designed, implemented and evaluated. Just sketch for me the basic part s and how they fit together, and what other stakeholders are involved in each phase. 4. With all the different factors that must be c onsidered in Title II work, how stable do you feel? On a scale of one to ten, with one being least unstable, and ten being most unstable, where would you rate the organizational environment in which you work? 5. Are there any ways in which your organization has tried to control some of the uncertainty that arises as a result of the political, economic, and other forces that it has to deal with? Questionnaire Two: FAM History 1. Could you briefly sketch for me the history of FAM as you know it? What are the crucial events in the establishment, developmen t, and continuing operations of FAM? 2. On a scale of one to ten, with one being least and ten being most, how affected by environmental uncertainty is FAM? In other words, how much is FAM’s history linked to external developments like changes in legisl ation, trends in food aid and development projects worldwide? How are the major events in FAM’s history linked to those major developments in food aid legislation, world trends in relief and development work, etc? 3. There seem to be two distinct FAM eras. What are the differences? What are the similarities? What themes have continued through the history? How has FAM encouraged collaboration, cooperation, and constituency building during its history? 4. 1997 was a big change year for FAM. What happened then? What led to the changes, the establishment of the Working Groups, Listservs, and other activities? 5. How did the recent organizational vacancies af fect FAM? What led to those vacancies?

PAGE 200

182 6. What place do you see FAM in at the end of the ISA. If FAM had a renewed ISA, what changes would take place, what different activities would they participate in? Questionnaire Three: FAM Evaluations, Un certainty Scale, Collectivism Scales and Network Elicitation This questionnaire supports the FAM/CARE C onstituency Building Project. It consists of a number of research instruments that provide qu antitative evidence to support or refute findings based on archival and interview data collected in Phase One of the project. This questionnaire includes some questions about your individual characteristics, some questions about your knowledge of organizational in teractions among FAM members, some questions about your position on group activities, and some questions about your perception of the food aid environment. These questions are to help me understand the positions of the FAM constituents; there are no right or wrong answers. However, you do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. Your individual res ponses will not be reported. Only aggregated responses from the constituency will be presented in any final report. Thank you very much for your time and attenti on. Your cooperation a nd participation will ensure the reliability and validity of these findi ngs for use by the Steering Committee and the FAM member organizations. 1. Individual characteristics a. What is your age? b. What is your gender? c. What is the highest academic degree you have earned? d. Which FAM member organization do you or did you work for? e. How long have you or did you work for that particular organization? f. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 least and 5 most to what extent do you participate in FAM activities? 2. FAM Evaluation The following questions refer to FAM's curre nt collaboration and information exchange activities. Using a scale of 1 to 5, please evaluate how well you believe that FAM is performing regarding the various activities liste d below. Is FAM meeting your needs and standards for developing, promoting and dist ributing technical information; facilitating forums for discussion and information sharing; and developing and promoting food aid standards? The number 1 means that FAM is doing poorly, 3 means that FAM's performance is average, and 5 is very good. Steering Committee 1 2 3 4 5 Working Groups in general 1 2 3 4 5 Environmental 1 2 3 4 5 Local Capacity Building 1 2 3 4 5 Monetization 1 2 3 4 5 Monitoring and Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 Listservs in general 1 2 3 4 5 All FAM 1 2 3 4 5 Commodity Management 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 201

183 Environmental 1 2 3 4 5 Local Capacity Building 1 2 3 4 5 Monetization 1 2 3 4 5 Monitoring and Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 Nutrition 1 2 3 4 5 FSRC in general 1 2 3 4 5 Specific Information Requests 1 2 3 4 5 Food Forum 1 2 3 4 5 Website in general 1 2 3 4 5 Information content and online resources 1 2 3 4 5 Links to other information sources 1 2 3 4 5 3. Questions about Collective Activity These questions are based on the Wagner (1995) and Earley (1994) scales of Individualism and Collectivism. They refer to your beliefs and activities about cooperation and collaboration. Please answer truthfully and to the best of your knowledge. Some of the questions refer to your perspective on cooperati on in general; others refer to your perspective on cooperation in the work environment. The responses are based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly disagree, and 5 means you strongly agree. Feel free to skip any question that you believe does not pertain to you. 1. Only those who depend on themselves get ahead in life. 1 2 3 4 5 2. To be superior, a person must stand alone. 1 2 3 4 5 3. If you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself. 1 2 3 4 5 4. What happens to me is my own doing. 1 2 3 4 5 5. In the long run, the only person you can count on is you. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel that winning is important in both work and games. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Success is the most important thing in life. 1 2 3 4 5 8. It annoys me when other people perform better than I do. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Doing your best isn't good enough; it is important to win. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Working with a group is better than working alone. 1 2 3 4 5 11. People should be made aware that if they are going to be part of a group then they are sometimes going to have to do things they don't want to do. 1 2 3 4 5 12. People in a group should realize that they sometimes are going to have to make sacrifices for the sake of the group as a whole. 1 2 3 4 5 13. People in a group should be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the group's wellbeing. 1 2 3 4 5 14. A group is more productive when members do what they want to rather than what the group wants them to. 1 2 3 4 5 15. A group is more efficient when members do what they think is best rather than what the group wants them to do. 1 2 3 4 5 16. A group is more productive when its memb ers follow their own interests and concerns. 1 2 3 4 5 17. If a group slows me down, it is better to leave it and work alone. 1 2 3 4 5 18. One does better work working alone than in a group. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I would rather struggle through a personal problem by myself than discuss it with my friends. 1 2 3 4 5 20. An employee should accept the group's deci sion even when personally he or she has a different opinion. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 202

184 21. Problem solving by groups gives better r esults than problem solving by individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 22. The needs of people close to me should take priority over my personal needs. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Questions about the food aid Environment This portion of the questionnaire is based on the Miles and Snow (1978) Perceived Environmental Uncertainty scale, though adapted for Title II activities. The following questions refer to your perceptions of the food aid environm ent, its volatility and its instability. The idea is to provide information regarding how well you understand changes in the food aid environment and how much you think those ch anges can be predicted. Once again, these questions are based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means very volatile, uncertain or unstable, and 5 means very certain or very stable. Answer to the best of your knowledge. 1. Suppliers of your raw materials and components (Title II commodities) a. Activities of agricultural commodities providers are 1 2 3 4 5 b. Raw or processed commodity quality is 1 2 3 4 5 c. Commodity management regulation changes are 1 2 3 4 5 d. Introduction of new materials or commodities is 1 2 3 4 5 2. Other PVOs a. The PVO community’s activities in general are 1 2 3 4 5 b. Changes in PVO programming quality are 1 2 3 4 5 c. PVO program design changes are 1 2 3 4 5 d. PVO growth (new activities or geographical are as) is 1 2 3 4 5 e. PVO community staff turnover is 1 2 3 4 5 3. Food Aid Recipients and/or commodity purchasers a. The recipient community in general are 1 2 3 4 5 b. their acceptance of current commodities is 1 2 3 4 5 c. their desire for new commodities is 1 2 3 4 5 4. The resource, donor, private funding market/finance a. availability of short-term funding is 1 2 3 4 5 b. availability of long-term funding is 1 2 3 4 5 c. changes in private funding sources are 1 2 3 4 5 d. changes in government funding sources are 1 2 3 4 5 e. changes in availability of commodity support are 1 2 3 4 5 5. Government regulatory agencies, changes in laws or agency policies (AID, USDA, etc) a. changes regarding commodity prices are 1 2 3 4 5 b. changes regarding commodity shipping are 1 2 3 4 5 c. changes regarding commodity benchmarks are 1 2 3 4 5 d. changes regarding product standards or quality are 1 2 3 4 5 e. changes regarding financial practices are 1 2 3 4 5 f. changes affecting marketing and distribution 1 2 3 4 5 g. changes regarding acceptable accounting procedures 1 2 3 4 5 h. changes regarding monetization are 1 2 3 4 5 i. changes regarding environmental compliance are 1 2 3 4 5 j. changes regarding monitoring and evaluation are 1 2 3 4 5 k. staff turnover at the government level is 1 2 3 4 5 6. Actions of your own PVO employee work force a. changes in wages, hours, and working conditions are 1 2 3 4 5 b. changes in employee security are 1 2 3 4 5 c. changes in HR procedures are 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 203

185 d. staff turnover within your organization is 1 2 3 4 5 5. Questions about Interorganizational Relationships You have been identified as an organizational representative who participates to some degree in the activities of Food Aid Management. As a result, I have contacted you to discuss your perceptions of organizational relationships among the FAM member organizations. The following questions will ask you to mark those organizations that you believe your organization interacts with both within the bounds of FAM activities and outside the bounds of FAM activities. Below the questions, you will find a list of the FAM memb er organizations. Some of these organizations you may interact with quite frequently; others you may not interact with much at all. Please answer the questions to the best of your abilities by placing a check in the space to the left of the organization's name. Please check as many organizations as may be appropriate. If there is only one organization that you interact with, only mark that organization. If there are several, check those several organizations. If you do not believe that your organization interacts with any of the organizations, then feel free not to check any. You are free not to answer any question that you prefer not to answer, and you may also mark N/A if the questions are not applicable to your organization. There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. Remember that these questions are about your perceptions of interaction, so work with your own knowledge. 1. Which of the following PVOs does your organization collaborate with on FAM activities in general? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 2. Which of the following PVOs does your orga nization collaborate with regarding Steering Committee activities? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 3. Which of the following PVOs does your organization collaborate with regarding the monitoring and evaluation working group? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 4. Which of the following PVOs does your organization collaborate with regarding the monetization working group? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD

PAGE 204

186 5. Which of the following PVOs does your organi zation collaborate with regarding the local capacity building working group? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 6. Which of the following PVOs does your organization collaborate with regarding the environmental working group? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 7. Which of the following PVOs would your organiza tion contact for advice or help with Title II issues? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 8. Which of the following PVOs does your organization have a written formal agreement to collaborate with on Title II activities outside the FAM context? This could be a group DAP, monetization consortium or a mentoring relationship through the ISA program. ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 9. Which of the following PVOs does your organization have informal ties with in the Title II context? ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD 10. Which of the following PVOs do you think that your organization may have a written formal agreement with to collaborate on any other activities outside Title II and FAM context? This can be any formal cooperative relationship that extends outsi de the bounds of the Title II context, including InterAction, or the Food Aid Coalition. ACDI/VOCA ADRA Africare ARC CARE Counterpart CRS FHI IRD Mercy Corps OICI PCI SAVE TNS SHARE WVRD Basis for Questionnaires and Scales The following previously validated and publishe d scales and methods were used whole or in part. Copies of the original research instru ments are not appended to conserve space.

PAGE 205

187 1. Individual Demographics Card 19 of the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey: Cross Section (study number 7689). Available to download from the Inter-Univer sity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Principal Investigators: Quinn and Staines. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/ ABSTRACTS/07689.xml?format=ICPSR 2. Individualism/Collectivism a. Wagner, John A. 1995. Studies of Individualis m/Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups. Academy of Manageme nt Journal 38(1):152-172. b. Earley, P. Christopher. 1994. The Individual and Collective Self: An Assessment of Selfefficacy and Training across Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly 39:89-117. 3. Perceived Environmental Uncertainty Scale Miles, Raymond E., and Snow, Charles C. 1978 Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw Hill. 4. Organizational Network Elicitation Questions a. Krackhardt, David. 2001. Organizational Network Elicitation Examples published on the World Wide Web at: http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~krack/academic/ Accessed September 15, 2001. b. Kwait, Jennafer, Valente, Thomas W., and Cele ntano, David D. 2001. Interorganizational Relationships Among HIV/AIDS Service Or ganizations in Baltimore: A Network Analysis. Journal of Urban Health, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 78(3): 468-487. September 2001.

PAGE 206

188 APPENDIX C: SCOPE OF WORK FOOD AID MANAGEMENT CONS TITUENCY BUILDING STUDY FAM Background In 1989 five U.S. private voluntary organi zations (PVOs) created Food Aid Management (FAM) to promote the efficient and effective u se of food aid resources to help alleviate hunger and contribute to food security. In Septembe r 1998, a five-year follow-on Institutional Support Assistance (ISA) agreement between USAID Offi ce of Food for Peace and CARE, the grant holder, was awarded to FAM to continue supporting P.L. 480 T itle II-funded Cooperating Sponsors (CSs) in their existing or planned activities. Eleven years later, while the goal of FAM remains the same, the FAM membership consortiu m has grown to include 17 U.S based PVOs. FAM works with these 17 CSs to achieve this goal by managing the following three objectives: Facilitate and promote the development of food aid standards. Promote the food aid and food security knowledge base of PVOs, USAID staff, and other collaborators through information exchange and coordination. Facilitate collaboration between PVOs, US AID, and appropriate development and humanitarian professionals by organizing forums for discussion. FAM does not implement P.L. 480 Title II food programs, its Cooperating Sponsor members do. FAM’s objectives and activities were designed to support the USAID Office of Food for Peace’s Strategic Objective 2 (SO2): Increased effectiveness of FFP’s Partners in carrying out Title II development activities with m easurable results related to food security with a primary focus on household nutrition and agricu ltural productivity. FAM accomplishes its goals while focusing its efforts on activities that suppor t the achievement of FFP’s Intermediate Result 1 (IR1): Strengthened capabilities of PVOs, USAI D Missions, and FFP to design, monitor, and support programs.

PAGE 207

189 As a consortium, FAM works closely with its members to define activities, and to actively promote the progress of activities to agreed-upon goals. These activities include the implementation of working groups collaborati ng on common themes, which are priorities for members, namely: Monitoring and Evaluation, Monetization, Local Capacity Building (LCB), and the Environment (EWG). FAM also manages the Food Security Resource Center (FSRC), publishes the Food Forum bulletin, maintains an active website and implements several other food security information sharing activities including interorganizational workshops. Measuring the links to how FAM activities directly or indirectly impact Title II food security programming is beyond the scope of FAM’s ISA objectives. As a nonimplementing, information sharing, coor dination body, FAM’s efficiency depends upon the consistent monitoring of activities directly related to FAM objectives. In the case of the FAM workshops, publications, and website FAM has set up mechanisms to track how the information is being dissemi nated, used, and potentially revised. By effectively managing and monitoring info rmation exchange, collaboration, improved food aid standards, and the other cap acity building activit ies by encouraging collaboration and information exchange among its 17 PVO members, FAM’s contribution to Title II programming through support of FFP’s Objective and Intermediate Result is unique. The FAM members have viewed and continue to perceive FAM, created largely as a forum in which Title II PVOs could collaborat e and exchange food aid/security program information, to be a uniquely va luable venue for exchange of new tools and best practices. Building a Diverse Constituency Dedicated to Ending Poverty Over the past few decades, the internationa l development community has come to better understand the factors that underlie and the means to end poverty. The development world has also become more of a community, in the sense of convergence around common goals.

PAGE 208

190 Consistent with CARE’s mission of serving individuals and families in the poorest communities in the world, CARE USA embraces the international development community’s 1996 target of reducing by half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. CARE has chosen to adopt this poverty reducti on target as the overarching goal of CARE USA’s FY2002-2006 Strategic Plan and become an active co ntributor to this global effort as they believe that poverty will be overcome only if all parts of the international community work together in concert toward that end. In assessing how to most effectively and mean ingfully contribute toward this overarching goal, CARE USA has chosen three strategic directions designed to put CARE USA on a path toward its vision of a world without poverty. The strategic directions: Adopt Rights-Based Approaches to Achieve Greater Impact on Pove rty and Social Justice, Build a Diverse Constituency Dedicated to Ending Poverty, and Increase Resources to End Poverty, are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. CARE’s strategic direction to Build a Diverse Constituency Dedicated to Ending Poverty seeks to leverage the influence, support, and mora l authority of a diverse constituency that will act as a global force within a worldwide movement to better advance the collective goal of ending poverty. For CARE, constituents are defined as indivi duals, institutions, corporations, donors, project participants, Board members, and others who share this common goal and can engage in addressing poverty and social injustice. Constitu ency building here means increasing not only the breadth of network relationships that CARE h as with like-minded organizations but also the depth of those relationships. The critical activities associated with this stra tegic direction include: learning from other organizations and movements that have used constituency building to advance a global cause; building an understanding of constituency build ing among CARE staff; facilitating practices,

PAGE 209

191 policies, and systems that encourage constituen cy building; targeting possible organizational allies; and, developing new relations hips and strengthening existing ones. Goal of the Study FAM’s program activities are necessarily coope rative ones, and as such, FAM has been active in constituency building for its entire twelve -year history. The goal of this study is to document, reflect on, and learn from FAM’s e xperience in constituency and alliance building activities both in the past and in the present, with an eye toward strengthening those activities in the future for both FAM and CARE. This goal arises directly from: the FAM FY 02-03 Annual Operation Plan Objective to contribute learni ng from FAM experience in constituency building; the CARE USA Program Analysis and Develo pment unit FY 02-03 Annual Operation Plan Objective to contribute to the organizational l earning about constituency building and consolidate existing collaborative relationships; and the previously mentioned CARE USA FY2002-2006 Strategic Plan, in which one of the primary strate gic directions is building a diverse constituency dedicated to ending poverty. Secondly, since FAM’s current funding will be e nding soon, the output of this study will be used to inform the FAM strategic planning process and subsequent funding decisions that the FAM Steering Committee will be coordinating in the near future. Study Objectives and Methodology Constituency building is about developing relationships, and a bout understanding the depth and breadth of those relati onships, which ultimately falls into the realm of organizational interaction and network formation. This project, then, is a holistic evaluation of FAM’s activities and how those activities encourage network forma tion and organizational interaction. The three primary FAM activities to be investigated are: the development, promotion, and distribution of technical information regarding Title II project s, facilitation of forums for discussion and information sharing by organizations active in Title II projects, and the development and promotion of food aid standards for Title II projects. These activities will be investigated using a

PAGE 210

192 combination of qualitative and qua ntitative data collection and analysis methods, creating an unique picture of FAM’s constituency building practices and processes while highlighting the challenges and achievements of their experience. While the following list is not exhaustive, rese arch focus and activities will likely include the following: A. Prepare an implementation plan for the research study in agreement with CARE representative and FAM Coordinator. Meet on a regular basis with CARE representative and FAM Coordinator to review implementation plan, research progress, and findings. Midpoint report will be presented to CARE and FAM staff for input and feedback. The final report will be presented to CARE and FAM for input and feedback. B. Review FAM's: ISA proposal document, Annual Performance Reports, Detailed Implementation (DIPs) and An nual Operating Plans (AOPs) website and Food Security Resource Center (FSRC) M&E-related plan and data, website use reports, working group and other meeting minutes, and other relevant information that indicate/record the status of FAM's activities and performance. C. Determine the historical and current context in which FAM operates, including the general atmosphere of international development as well as the specific context of Title II projects from archival and ethnographic sources. D. Distill and refine FAM’s history from archiv al sources and ethnographic interviews with member organization representatives and other primary informants. E. Chronicle FAM’s current activities through participation in working group and other meetings and ethnographic interviews wi th member organization representatives. F. Profile FAM using archival and ethnographic sour ces (including but not limited to age, size, funding sources, primary activities, diversity of activities, scope of activities). G. Profile member organizations using archiv al and ethnographic sources (see above). H. Visualize links between and among FAM and its member organizations (network breadth). I. Determine content and strength of interorganizational ties (network depth). J. Determine changes in network depth and breadth over time using archival sources and current activities. Nonparametric statistical tests will determine if trends are significant. K. Investigate associations between member organization characteristics and network characteristics (i.e. are larger organizations more central, or considered more central by other organizations). L. Determine the amount of interaction that me mber organizations have that are non-FAM related (Is FAM encouraging interactions outside of the FAM environment that will strengthen organizational ties in the larger co mmunity of organizations addressing poverty?).

PAGE 211

193 In categories I and J above, research will be subdivided by FAM’s major program objectives/activities: 1. The Development, Promotion, and Distribution of Technical Information. a. Determine number of unique contributors to FSRC and the FAM website, previous and current (breadth). b. Determine number of resources associated w ith each contributor to FSRC and the FAM website, previous and current (depth). c. Determine number of unique visitors to FSRC and the FAM website, previous and current (breadth). d. Determine frequency of repeat visits to FSRC and the FAM website, previous and current (depth). 2. Facilitation of Forums for Discussion and Information Sharing. a. Determine number of participants and organi zations for all forums organized by FAM, including the working group meetings. b. Track trends in organizational par ticipation in these forums over time. c. Determine member representatives’ opinions of the importance of the work groups and other forums, and whether that has changed over time. d. Determine member representatives’ an d Steering Committee ideas about which organizations are most active in each of th e work groups and other forums, and why. 3. The Development and Promotion of Food Aid Standards. a. Identify food aid standards developed by FAM. b. Determine the process by which food aid standa rds are created, focusing on the degree of collaboration involved among Title II organi zations. This includes determining which projects were cited during the development (and which organizations implemented those projects), as well as which organizations were active in creating the standards. c. Trace the promotion and implementation of FA M-created food aid standards within the Title II context and within the larger food aid context, including the number of Title II projects that incorporate those standards and th e number of organizations that incorporate those standards consistently. d. Determine member representatives’ and St eering Committee opinions of the success of FAM’s food aid standard development procedure, from the perspective of interorganizational collabora tion and consensus building.

PAGE 212

194 The data collection methods for this project will be both qualitative and quantitative. As the structure of the project develops, a more de tailed categorization of which methods are used for which objectives will emerge. For now, a brief lis ting will have to suffice. Archival research, primary observation, and open-ended ethnographic interviewing will be the primary qualitative data collection methods. Quantitative research met hods will include but will not be limited to systematic semistructured interview techniques, ratings, rankings, and pile sorts. Various methods from cognitive anthropology and social network anal ysis will be used for network visualization. Archival Research will provide qualitative and quantitative data for analyses and description of FAMs activities. This data will be compiled primarily from the archival sources listed in objective B above. Data will include but no t be limited to members present at meetings, feedback from the FAM Steering committee, involvement and activities of various member organizations in FAMs general activities as well as in each of the working groups and in the FSRC. Demographic data for the member organiza tions as well as for FAM will also be gathered from these sources. Primary Observation, including participation in working group, Steering Committee, FAM annual, and other general interest mee tings will provide fi rst hand knowledge of organizational activities and will re inforce data gathered from ar chival sources. In addition, observation of current activities will provide clu es as to how FAMs activities have changed over time. Participation in workshops and seminars will help to provide a context for the project with respect to food security and development research. Use of the FSRC will provide hands-on experience, leading to an understanding of how easily organizations may gather technical information about Title II food aid. Open-ended interviews will allow the researcher to learn about FAMs history, gain demographic information for member organizations and learn more about current organizational activity within FAM and FAMs members. This por tion of the research will provide the basis for a holistic understanding of FAMs activities in constituency building.

PAGE 213

195 Semistructured interviews, implemented in the second half of the project will allow for the collection of the majority of quantitative da ta. These interviews will provide the opportunity to collect any demographic or organizational da ta that was not evident in archival sources. Ratings, rankings, free lists, organi zational network generation tasks, and other simple tests will generate data for statistical analyses. Here the researcher will gain information on which organizations are considered more active, where organizations are situated in the organizational network relative to FAM and to each other, and how member orga nizations envision FAM within this organizational network. Data analysis methods for this project will also be both qualitative and quantitative. Initial analysis of qualitative data will be qualita tive, guiding the research toward additional questions and systematic investigation of those additional questions. Qualitative analysis of the qualitative data will also provide a basis for va lid and reliable interpretation of quantitative results. Quantitative analysis of qualitative data will in clude but not be limited to text analysis of interviews and questionnaire responses, statistical analyses of nominal and categorical data (like ratings and rankings). Nonparametric statistical tests will be used along with categorical data analysis to provide the most power in determ ining results of the various quantitative tests. Analysis of social network data will follow mo st traditional analyses, using matrix algebra approaches and multivariate statistics to determine both the structure and content of the networks. Time Schedule and Deliverables Period of Performance: 15-20 hours per week from August 1, 2001 through May 2002. Location: FAM headquarters in Washington D.C. No travel outside of the D.C. area planned. This study will have two primary products, an interim report that summarizes research to date on history and current activities and a final report that presents all findings and interprets

PAGE 214

196 them in light of the achievements and challenges of FAMs practices and processes of constituency building and cooperative activities.

PAGE 215

197 REFERENCES CITED Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) 2001 The Heart of Change: Annual Report 2000. Silver Spring, MD: ADRA. 26 pp. Africare 2001 Africare 2000 Annual Report. Washington DC: Africare. 40 pp. Agresti, Alan 1996 An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Agricultural Cooperative Development Intern ational/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA) 2001 Expanding Participation in Free Markets: ACDI/VOCA 2000 Annual Report. Washington DC: ACDI/VOCA. 28 pp. Alexander, Jeffrey, Beverly Nichols, Joan Bloom, and Shoou-Yih Lee. 1995 Organizational Demography and Turn over: An Examination of Multiform and Nonlinear Heterogeneity. Hu man Relations 48:1455-1480. Astley, W. Graham, and Andrew H. Van de Ven 1983 Central Perspectives and Debates in Or ganization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 28:245-273. Baker, Andrea J. 1982 The Problem of Authority in Radical Movement Groups: A Case Study of LesbianFeminist Organization. The Journal of A pplied Behavioral Science 18(3):323-341. Bamberger, Michael 2000 Integrating Quantitative and Qualitativ e Research in Development Projects. Washington DC: The World Bank. Baril, Galen L., and J. Timothy Cannon 1995 What is the Probability that Null H ypothesis Testing is Meaningless? American Psychologist 50(12):1098-1099. Barnett, William P., and Glenn R. Carroll 1987 Competition and Mutualism Among Earl y Telephone Companies. Administrative Science Quarterly 32:400-421. Bate, S. P. 1997 Whatever Happened to Organizational An thropology? A Review of the Field of Organizational Ethnography and Anthropologi cal Studies. Human Relations 50(9):11471175.

PAGE 216

198 Bedeian, Arthur G. 1980 Organizations: Theory and Analysis. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press. Benson, Charlotte 2000 The Food Aid Convention: An Effective Safety Net? In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward Clay and Olav Stokke, ed. Pp. 102-119. Portland: Frank Cass. Bernard, H. Russell 1995 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek: AltaMira. Boje, David M., and David A. Whetten 1981 Effects of Organizational Strategies an d Contextual Constraints on Centrality and Attributions of Influence in Interorgan izational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 26:378-395. Bolger, Joe 2000 Capacity Development: Why, What, an d How. Capacity Development Occasional Series 1(1):1-8. Bonacich, Philip 1987 Power and Centrality: A Family of M easures. American Journal of Sociology 92(5):1170-1182. Boruch, Robert F. 1997 Randomized Experiments for Planning a nd Evaluation. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 44. Thou sand Oaks: Sage Publications. Boster, James, Jeffrey C. Johnson, and Susan C. Weller 1987 Social Position and Shared Knowledge: Actors' Perceptions of Status, Role, and Social Strucutre. Social Networks 9:375-387. Boyd, Brian K., Gregory G. Dess and Abdul M. A. Rasheed 1993 Divergence Between Archival and Percep tual Measures of the Environment: Causes and Consequences. Academy of Ma nagement Review 18(2):204-226. Bread for the World Institute (BWI) 1994 Hunger 1995: Causes of Hunger. Silver Spring, MD: Bread for the World Institute. Buchko, Aaron A. 1994 Conceptualization and Measurement of Environmental Uncertainty: An Assessment of the Miles and Snow Perceived Enviro nmental Uncertainty Scale. Academy of Management Journal 37(2):410-425. Buckland, Roger, Graham Eele, and Reggie Mugwara 2000 Humanitarian Crises and Natural Disasters: An SADC Perspective. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward Clay and Olav Stokke, eds. Pp. 181-195. Portland: Frank Cass. Burns, Tom, and G. M. Stalker 1994 The Management of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 217

199 Burt, Ron 1992 Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Boston: Harvard University Press. Carroll, Glenn R., and J. Richard Harrison 1998 Organizational Demography and Culture: Insights from a Formal Model Simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly 43:637-667. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 2001 Catholic Relief Services 2000 Annual Report. Baltimore MD: CRS. 40 pp. Checchi-Louis Berger International 1999 Assessment of the Management of PL 480, Title II, Non-Emergency Resources Strategic Objective No. 2. Washington DC: USAID. Christie, P. M., and Robert Levary 1998 Virtual Corporations: Recipe for Success. Industrial Management 40:7-11. Clay, Edward, and Olav Stokke 2000a Introduction. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward Clay and Olav Stokke, eds. Pp. 1-12. Portland: Frank Cass. 2000b The Changing Role of Food Aid and Finance for Food. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward Clay and Olav Stokke, ed. Pp. 13-54. Portland: Frank Cass. Cohen, Jacob 1994 The Earth is Round (p<.05). American Psychologist 49(12):997-1003. 1995 The Earth is Round (p<.05): Rejoinde r. American Psychologist 50(12):1103; Cohen, Mark 2000 Food Aid and Food Security Trends. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 1996 Foreign Food Assistance Programs and The Commodity Credit Corporation's Role in Their Operations, Procurement, and Shipment of Commodities. Technical summary. Kansas City: Commodity Credit Corporation. Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) 2001 The CARE You Know: 2000 Annual Report. Atlanta GA: CARE. 53 pp. Counterpart International 2001 Counterpart International 2000 Annual Re port. Washington DC: Counterpart. 24 pp. Cressey, Donald R. 1953 Other People’s Money. Glencoe: Free Press Daniel, Wayne W. 1990 Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

PAGE 218

200 Dershem, Larry, and David Gzirishvili 1998 Informal Social Support Networks a nd Household Vulnerability: Empirical Findings from Georgia. World Development 26(10):1827-1838. Dill, William R. 1958 Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly 2:409-443. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Helmut K. Anheier 1990 The Sociology of Nonprofit Organiza tions and Sectors. Annual Review of Sociology 16:137-159. Doornbos, Martin 2000 Revisiting the Food Aid Debate: Taking a Closer Look at the Institutional Factor. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward and Olav Stokke Clay, ed. Pp. 351-362. Portland: Frank Cass. Doty, D. Harold, and William H. Glick 1994 Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling. Academy of Mana gement Review 19(2):230-251. Downey, H. Kirk 1975 Environmental Uncertainty: The Concept and Its Application. Administrative Science Quarterly 20:613-629. Duncan, Robert B. 1972 Characteristics of Organizational Envi ronments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly 17:313-327. Earley, P. Christopher 1994 The Individual and Collective Self: An Assessment of Self-Efficacy and Training across Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly 39:89-117. Earley, P. Christopher, and Cristina B. Gibson 1998 Taking Stock in Our Progress on Indivi dualism-Collectivism: One Hundred Years of Solidarity and Community. Jour nal of Management 24(3):265-304. Emery, Fred E., and E. L. Tryst 1965 The Causal Texture of Organizationa l Environments. Human Relations 18:21-32. Etzioni, Amitai 1961 A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. 1964 Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1968 The Active Society: A Theory of Soci etal and Political Processes. New York: Free Press. 1972 Workers’ Bureaucratic Predispositions and Job Requirements. New York: Center for Policy Research.

PAGE 219

201 Evan, William 1993 Organization Theory: Research and Design. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Faaland, Just, Diana McLean, and Ole David Kohtand-Norbye 2000 The World Food Programme and International Aid. In Food Aid and Human Development. Edward and Olav Stokke Clay, ed. Pp. 221-255. Portland: Frank Cass. Feed the Hungry International (FHI) 2001 Food for the Hungry, International 2000 Annual Report. Annual Report. Scottsdale AZ: FHI. 11 pp. Ferguson, Donald S. 1990 Building World Food Security: A New Paradigm for United States Programs of International Cooperation and Development. Technical Assistance Review Paper. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. 42 pp. Fernandez, Roberto M. 1991 Structural Bases of Leadership in Intr aorganizational Networks. Social Psychology Quarterly 54(1):36-53. Food Aid Management (FAM) Archival Grant Binder 1.1989-1993. Grant Number OTR-0704-G-55-9173-00 Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Archival Grant Binder 2. 1993-1998. Grant Number FAO-0801-A-00-3032-00. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Archival Grant Binder 3. 1999-2000. ISA Grant FY 1999-2003 (Blue). Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Archival Grant Binder 4. 2000-2002. ISA Grant FY 1999-2003 (Yellow). Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Archival Grant Box 1. 1996-1998. Grant Number FAO-0801-A-00-3032-00 Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Food Forum Archives Binder 1. 1989-1996. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Food Forum Archives Binder 2. 1996-2002. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Meeting Minutes Binder 1.1989-1991. Grant Number OTR-0704-G-55-9173-00 Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Meeting Minutes Binder 2. 1991-1993. Grant Number OTR-0704-G-55-9173-00 Washington DC: Food Aid Management. Meeting Minutes Binder 3. 1993-1995. Grant Number OTR-0704-G-55-9173-00. FAM Washington DC: Food Aid Management.

PAGE 220

202 1989 Food Aid Management Annual Report 1989. Annual Report. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 1993 An Essential Guide to Title II Food Ai d Legislation. Legislation outline. Washington DC, September. 1994 Food Aid and Food Security: A PVO Perspective. Summary pamphlet. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 1995a Generally Accepted Commodity Accoun ting Principles. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 1995b Reorientation and Restructuring of Food Aid Management. FAM Historical Archives, Box 1. Washington DC: Food Aid Management, July 1995. 1998 Environmental Documentation Manual. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 1999a Monetization Manual: A Guide for Title II Cooperating Sponsors. Washington DC, Food Aid Management, October. 1999b Environmental Documentation Manual. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 2000a Food Aid Management Annual Report 2000. Annual Report. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 2000b Food Aid Management Organizational By-Laws. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 2001a Food Aid Management Home Page 2001. http://www.foodaid.org 2001b Food Aid Management Annual Report 2001. Annual Report. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 2001c Nutrition and Agriculture Monitoring Toolkit. Washington DC: Food Aid Management. 2002 Food Aid Management Home Page 2002. http://www.foodaidmanagement.org January 1, 2002. Freeman, Linton C. 1978/1979 Centrality in Social Networks: Concep tual Clarification. Social Networks 1:215239. Freeman, Linton C., Douglas Roeder, and Robert R. Mulholland 1979/1980 Centrality in Social Networks II: E xperimental Results. Social Networks 2:119141. Freeman, Linton C., Douglas R. White, and A. Kimball Romney 1989 Research Methods in Social Network An alysis. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University Press.

PAGE 221

203 Frick, Robert W. 1995 A Problem with Confidence Intervals. American Psychologist 50(12):1102. Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Shelby L. Berkowitz David W. Lounsbury, Stephanie Jacobson, and Nicole A. Allen. 2001 Building Collaborative Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology 29(2):241-261. Galaskiewicz, Joseph 1979 The Structure of Community Organizational Networks. Social Forces 47(4):13461369. Garst, Rachel, and Tom Barry 1990 Feeding the Crisis: US Food Aid and Fa rm Policy in Central America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Goodman, Richard A. 1999 Modern Organizations and Emerging Conundrums: Exploring the Postindustrial Subculture of the Third Millennium. Lanham: Lexington Books. Greiner, Larry E. 1972 Evolution and Revolution as Organizati ons Grow. Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust 1972, 37-46. Grimm, Stephanie, A. Timothy Church, Marc ia S. Katigbak, and Jose Alberto S. Reyes 1999 Self-Described Traits, Values, and M oods Associated with Individualism and Collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30:466-500. Hair, Joseph F. 1995 Multivariate Data Analysis with R eadings. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hamada, Tomoko 1999 Practicing Anthropology in Business Or ganizations. Practicing Anthropology 21:24. Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman 1977 The Population Ecology of Organizations American Journal of Sociology 82:929964. Hasenfeld, Yeheskel and Benjamin Gidron 1993 Self-Help Groups and Human Service: An Interorganizational Perspective. Social Service Review, June 1993:217-236. Haverman, Heather A. 1993 Follow the Leader: Mimetic Isomorphism and Entry Into New Markets. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(4):593-615. Helmar, Michael 1994 Impacts of the Uruguay Round on Agricultural Commodity Markets. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Rural Development.

PAGE 222

204 Heydebrand, Wolf V. 1989 New Organizational Forms. Wo rk and Occupations 16:323-357. Hirsch, Paul M. 1998 Organizational Effectiveness and the Institutional Environment. In The Administrative Science Quarterly Series in Organization Theory and Behavior, Vol. 1. Qualitative Studies of Organizations. John Van Maanen, ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Hollander, Myles, and Douglas A. Wolfe 1999 Nonparametric Statistical Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Holm, Peter 1998 The Dynamics of Institutionalization. In The Administrative Science Quarterly Series in Organization Theory and Behavior, Vol. 1. Qualitative Studies of Organizations. John Van Maanen, ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Hubbard, Raymond 1995 The Earth is Highly Significantly Round (p,.0001). American Psychologist 50(12):1098. Hui, C. Harry 1988 Measurement of Individualism-Collectiv ism. Journal of Research in Personality 22:17-36. Ibarra, Herminia, and Steven B. Andrews 1993 Power, Social Influence, and Sense Making: Effects of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly 38:277-303. Independent Sector 2002 Nonprofit Almanac and Desk Reference. Washington DC: University Press of America. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) 1991 Food Security: Concepts and Definitions Brighton, Sussex: University of Sussex. InterAction 1995 InterAction PVO Standards. Washington DC: InterAction. International Relief and Development (IRD) 2001 IRD Annual Report 2001. Washington DC: IRD Katz, Daniel 1950 Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 1975 Bureaucratic Encounters: A Pilot Study in the Evaluation of Government Services. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 1978 The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

PAGE 223

205 1980 The Study of Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kelleher, David, Kate Mc Lauren, and Ronald Bisson 1996 Grabbing the Tiger by the Tail: NGOs L earning for Organizational Change. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council for International Cooperation. Ketchen, David J., James B. Thomas, and Charles C. Snow 1993 Organizational Configurations and Pe rformance: A Comparison of Theoretical Approaches. Academy of Manage ment Review 36(6):1278-1313. Kim, Uichol 1994 Individualism and Collectivism: Theory Method, and Applications. Cross Cultural Research and Methodology Series 18. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Konandreas, Panos 1987 Responsiveness of Food Aid in Cereals to Fluctuations in Supply in Donor and Recipient Countries. In Agriculture and Economic Instab ility. Margot Bellamy and Bruce Greenshields, eds. Pp. 90-94. Great Britain: International Association of Agricultural Economists. Konandreas, Panos, Ramesh Sharma, and Jim Greenfield 2000 The Uruguay Round, the Marrakech Decision and the Role of Food Aid. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward Clay and Olav Stokke, ed. Pp. 76-101. Portland: Frank Cass. Kracht, Uwe 2000 Humanitarian Crises: Food Security and Conflict Prevention. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward and Olav Stokke Cl ay, ed. Pp. 120-148. Portland: Frank Cass. Krakhardt, David 1990 Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure, Cognition, and Power in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 35:342-369. Kwait, Jennafer, Thomas W. Vale nte, and David D. Celentano 2001 Interorganizational Relationships among HIV/AIDS Service Organizations in Baltimore: A Network Analysis. Journal of Urban Health, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medecine 78(3):468-487. Lavergne, Real and John Saxby 2001 Capacity Development: Vision and Imp lications. Capacity Development Occasional Series 1(3):1-11. Lee, Rebecca A. 1999 The Procurement Puzzle. Food Forum, July-August 1999, 8-9. Lewis, David 1999 Revealing, Widening, Deepening? A Review of the Existing and Potential Contributions of Anthropological Appro aches to "Third-Sector" Research. Human Organization 58(1 Spring 1999):73-81.

PAGE 224

206 Lincoln, James R. 1979 Organizational Differentiation in Urba n Communities: A Study in Organizational Ecology. Social Forces 57(3):915-930. Lindesmith, Alfred R. 1947 Opiate Addiction. Bloomington: Principia Press. 1968 Addiction to Opiates. Chicago: Aldine. Litwak, Eugene and Lydia F. Hylton 1962 Interorganizational Analysis: A Hypothesis on Co-Ordinating Agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly 6:395-420. Lois, Jennifer 1999 Socialization to Heroism: Individualism and Collectivism in a Voluntary Search and Rescue Group. Social Psychology Quarterly 62(2):117-135. Lorenzi, Peter, Henry P. Sims, and John O. Slocum 1981 Perceived Environmental Uncertainty: An Individual or Environmental Attribute? Journal of Management 7(2):27-41. Mannheim, Karl 1950 Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruc tion. first published 1935. Edward Shils, trans. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Marine Overseas Services, Inc. n.d. Workshop on PL 480/1990 Farm Bill. Workshop outline. n.p., FAM Food Security Resource Center, Washington DC. Marsden, Peter 1990 Network Data and Measurement. A nnual Review of Soci ology 16:435-462. Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman 1999 Designing Qualitative Research. Thou sand Oaks: Sage Publications. Marx, Karl 1973 On Society and Social Change. Neil J. Smelser, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1977 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. New York: Vintage Books. 1994 Selected Writings. Lawrence H. Simon, ed. Indianapolis: Hackett. 2002 Marx on Religion. John Raines, ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Mason, John P. 2001 Mid-Term Evaluation for Food Aid Manage ment Institutional Support Assistance Program. Washington DC: U.S. A.I.D. office of Food For Peace. 39 pp. plus annexes.

PAGE 225

207 McGraw, Kenneth O. 1995 Determining False Alarm Rates in Nu ll Hypothesis Testing Research. American Psychologist 50(12):1099-1100. McNeil, Kenneth and James D. Thompson 1971 The Regeneration of Social Organiza tions. American Sociological Review 36:624637. Mercy Corps 2001 Mercy Corps 2000 Annual Report. Portland OR: Mercy Corps. 58 pp. Michaelson, Alaina and Noshir S. Contractor 1992 Structural Position and Perceived Similarity. Social Psychology Quarterly 55(3):300-310. Miles, Raymond E., and Charles C. Snow 1978 Organizational Strategy, Structur e, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Milliken, Frances J. 1987 Three Types of Perceived Uncertainty about the Environment: State, Effect, and Response Uncertainty. Academy of Management Review 12(1): 133-143. Mirvis, Philip H. and Edward J. Hackett 1983 Work and Workforce Characteristics in the Nonprofit Sector. Monthly Labor Review, April 1983:3-12. Mizruchi, Mark S. and Blyden B. Potts 1998 Centrality and Power Revisited: Acto r Success in Group Decision Making. Social Networks 20:353-387. Morgan, Peter 1997 The Design and Use of Capacity Development Indicators. Montreal: Policy Branch of the Canadian International Development Agency. Mouzelis, Nicos P. 1967 Organization and Bureaucracy: An Analysis of Modern Theories. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Nelson, G.O. 1981 Food Aid and Development. New Yo rk: Agricultural Development Council. Opportunities Industrialization Centers International (OICI) 2001 OICI Combined Financial Report FY2000. Philadelphia: OICI. O’Reilley, Charles A., David F. Caldwell, and William P. Barnett 1989 Work Group Demography, Social Integr ation and Turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly 34:21-37.

PAGE 226

208 Owada, Hishashi 1998 Donor Coordination and the Effectivene ss of Development Assistance. Transcript of High-Level Open Symposium on Developmen t Cooperation. Tokyo: UNU Headquarters. June 22. Pandya-Lorch, Rajul 2000 Food Prospects and Potential Imports of Low-Income Countries in the Twenty-First Century. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward Clay and Olav Stokke, eds. Pp. 5575. Portland: Frank Cass. Parker, Scott 1995 The “Difference of Means” May Not Be the “Effect Size.” American Psychologist 50(12):1101-1102. Pennings, Johannes M. 1981 Strategically Interdependent Organizations. In Handbook of Organizational Design, Paul C. Nystrom and William H. Starbuck, ed. Pp. 433-455. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perrow, Charles 1967 A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations. American Sociological Review 32:194-208. Pfeffer, Jeffrey 1983 Organizational Demography. Research in Organizational Behavior 5:299-357. Pillai, Nita 2000 Food Aid for Development: A Review of the Evidence. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward and Olav Stokke Clay, ed. Pp. 196-220. Portland: Frank Cass. Project Concern International (PCI) 2001 Project Concern International Annua l Report 2000. San Diego CA: PCI. 7 pp. Quinn, Robert, and Graham Staines 2000 Quality of Employment Survey, 1997: Cross-Section. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research Manuscript 7689. Ann Arbor, Michigan: ICPSR Ragin, Charles C. 1987 The Comparative Method: Moving Be yond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1994 Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Raikes, Philip 1988 Food Aid and Food Security. In Modernizing Hunger: Famine, Food Surplus and Farm Policy in the EEC and Africa. Philip Raikes, ed. Pp. 170-202. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann. Ratliff, Donald E. 2002 Analytic Induction as a Qualita tive Research Method of Analysis. http://don.ratliff.net/qual/analytic.html August 29, 2002.

PAGE 227

209 Rosenthal, Robert 1979 The “File-Drawer Problem” and Toleran ce for Null Results. Psychological Bulletin 86(3):638-641. 1992 Effect Size Estimation, Significance Testing, and the File-Drawer Problem. Journal of Parapsychology 56:57-58. Rothschild, Joyce, and Raymond Russell 1986 Alternatives to Bureaucracy: Democr atic Participation in the Economy. Annual Review of Sociology 12:307-328. Rothschild-Whitt, Joyce 1979 The Collectivist Organization: An Alte rnative to Rational-Bureaucratic Models. American Sociological Review 44:509-527. Saran, Ram, and Panos Konandreas 1991 An Additional Resource? A Global Pers pective on Food Aid Flows in Relation to Development Assistance. In Food Aid Reconsidered: Assessing the Impact on Third World Countries. Edward Clay and Olav St okke, eds. Pp. 37-65. London: Frank Cass. Satow, Roberta Lynn 1975 Value-Rational Authority and Profession al Organizations: Weber's Missing Type. Administrative Science Quarterly 20:526-531. Save the Children (SAVE) 2001 A Century of Concern...It Starts With Us: Save the Children 2000 Annual Report. Annual Report. Westport CT: SAVE. 50 pp. Scargle, Jeffrey D. 2000 Publication Bias: The “File-Drawer” Prob lem in Scientific Inference. Journal of Scientific Exploration 14(1):91-106. Scherer, Ross P. 1988 A New Typology for Organizations: Market, Bureaucracy, Clan and Mission, with Applications to American Denominations. J ournal for the Scientific Study of Religion 27(4):475-498. Schiflett, Kathy L., and Mary Zey 1990 Comparison of Characteristics of Priv ate Product Producing Organizations And Public Service Organizations. The Sociological Quarterly 31(4):569-583. Sciulli, Lisa M. 1998 How Organizational Structure Influences Success in Various Types of Organization. Journal of Retail Banking Serv ices 20(1 Spring 1998):13-18. Scott, John 1991 Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: Sage Publications. Scott, W. Richard 1998 Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 228

210 Shaw, John, and H. W. Singer 1995 A Future Food Aid Regime: Implicati ons of the Final Act of the GATT Uruguay Round. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Papers, Vol. 352. Brighton, England: Institute for Development Studies. Shoham, Jeremy, Fiona O'Re illey, and Jane Wallace 2000 Humanitarian Crisis and Conflict: Food Assistance and Nutritional Security Issues. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward and Olav Stokke Clay, ed. Pp. 149-180. Portland: Frank Cass. Smelser, Neil J. 1997 Social Dimensions of Economic Developmen t. Social Assessment Series, Vol. 048. Washington DC: The World Bank's Environment, Social Policy and Resettlement Division. Smelser Neil J., and Paul B. Baltes 2001 Analytic Induction. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, eds. New York: Elsevieier. Sphere Project 1998 Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Geneva: Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response. Srivastva, Suresh, and David L. Cooperrider 1986 The Emergence of the Egalitarian Orga nization. Human Relations 39(8):683-724. Strang, David, and Nancy B. Tuma 1993 Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in Diffusion. American Journal of Sociology 99(3):614-639. Syvantek, Daniel J., and Steven E. Ekberg 1995 The Earth is Round (So We Can Pr obably Get There from Here). American Psychologist 50(12):1101. TechnoServe 2001 Doing Business in the Developing World: TechnoServe 2000 Annual Report. Annual Report. Norwalk CT: TechnoServe. 24 pp. Teller, Charles H., and Lucas Owuor-Omondi 1991 Summary Report: A Systems Analysis a nd Baseline Study of the Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition Program. Kenya: CRS/AID/Pragma. Thirion, Marie-Cecile 2000 EU Food Aid and NGOs. In Food Aid and Human Security. Edward and Olav Stokke Clay, ed. Pp. 274-288. Portland: Frank Cass. Torres, Cruz, William A. McIntosh, and Mary Zey 1991 The Effects of Bureaucratization and Commitment on Resource Mobilization in Voluntary Organizations. Sociological Spectrum 11:19-44.

PAGE 229

211 Triandis, Harry C. 1989 Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualis m and Collectivism. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1989: 41-133. 1993 Collectivism and Individualism as Cultu ral Syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research 27(3/4):155-180. 1995 Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press. Triandis, Harry C., Christopher McCuskey, Hector Betancourt, and Sumiko Iwao. 1993 An Emic-Etic Analysis of Individualis m and Collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 24(3):366-383. Triandis, Harry C., and Theodore M. Singelis. 1998 Training to Recognize Individual Diffe rences in Collectivism and Individualism within Culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22(1):35-47. United Nations Food Aid Convention (UNFAC) 1995 Food Aid Convention, 1995. Publishe d Conference Proceedings. United Nations Food Aid Convention. Geneva: April 1, 1995. 1999 Food Aid Convention, 1999. Formal Convention Text. United Nations Food Aid Convention. London: April 13, 1999. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 1992a Definition of Food Security. PN-AAV-468. Washington DC: USAID. 1992b Food Security Discussion Paper. Topical discussion paper. Washington DC: Bureau for Food and Humanitarian Assistance Office of Program, Planning and Evaluation. 1995 Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper. Policy Statement. Washington, DC: USAID. 1998 Monetization Field Manual: PL 480 Title II Programs. Washington DC: Office of Food For Peace. October. 2000 US International Food Assistance Report 1999. Washington DC: USAID. 2001 US International Food Assistance Report 2000. Washington DC: USAID. USAID Bureau of Food for Peace and Privat e Voluntary Assistance (USAID/FFP/PVA) 1985 Background Paper and Guide to Addr essing Bellmon Amendment Concerns on Potential Food Aid Disincentives and Stor age. Technical Paper. Washington DC: USAID. USAID Bureau of Humanitarian Response Office of Food for Peace Development Program Team (USAID/BHR/FFP) 2001 PL 480 Title II Guidelines on FY2002 Development Activity Programs. Technical Support Document. Washington DC: USAID.

PAGE 230

212 USAID Office of Procurement 1998 Request for Applications (RFA): Title II Institutional Support Assistance Program (ISA). M/OP-98-372. Washington DC: USAID. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1996 The Federal Agriculture Improvement a nd Reform Act of 1996, Title by Title Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill. Washington DC: USDA. United States General Accounting Office (USGAO) 1996 Food Security: Preparations for the 1996 World Food Summit. Technical Review of the process and content of WRS preparati ons. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. United States Office of Management and Budget (USOMB) 2001 The President’s Management Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002. Washington DC: Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget. Vanderslice, Virginia J. 1988 Separating Leadership from Leaders: An Assessment of the Effect of Leader and Follower Roles in Organizations. Human Relations 41(9):677-696. Von Braun, Joachim Howarth Bouis 1992 Improving Food Security of the Poor. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Voss, Hanswerner 1996 Virtual Organizations: The Future is No w. Strategy and Leadership, July/August, 12-16. Wagner, John A. 1995 Studies of Individualism/Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups. Academy of Management Journal 38(1):152-172. Wagner, John A. and Michael K. Moch 1986 Individualism-Collectivism: Concept and Measure. Group and Organization Studies 11(3):280-304. Walker, Michael E., Stanley Wasserman and Barry Wellman 1993 Statistical Models for Social Support Networks. Sociological Methods and Research 22(1):71-98. Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust 1994 Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Waters, Malcolm 1993 Alternative Organizational Formations: A Neo-Weberian Typology of Polycratic Administrative Systems. The Sociological Review 41(1):55-83.

PAGE 231

213 Weber, Max 1958 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, trans. New York: Oxford University Press. 1968 Economy and Society. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, ed. New York: Bedminster Press. Weick, Karl E. 1974 Middle Range Theories of Social Systems. Behavioral Science 19:357-367. Weller, Susan C., and A. Kimball Romney 1988 Systematic Data Collection. Qualita tive Research Methods Series, Vol. 10. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Wells, Miriam J. 1981 Success In Whose Terms? Evaluations of a Cooperative Farm. Human Organization 40(3):239-246. Williams, Steve 2000 An Empirical Application of Transac tion-Costs Theory to Organizational Design Characteristics. The Journal of Psychology 134(1):81-92. World Food Summit (WFS) 1996 Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Final conference international agreement te xt. World Food Summit. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization, November 13-17, 1996. World Self Help and Relief Everywhere (SHARE) 2002 WorldSHARE Annual Report 2001. San Diego: WorldSHARE. World Vision 2001 Your Light Will Shine: World Visi on 2000 Annual Report. Federal Way WA: World Vision. 32 pp. Yamagishi, Toshio, Mary R. Gillmore, and Karen S. Cook 1988 Network Connections and the Distribu tion of Power in Exchange Networks. American Journal of Sociology 93(4 January 1988):833-851. Zenger, Todd R., and Barbara S. Lawrence 1989 Organizational Demography: The Differential Effects of Age and Tenure Distributions on Technical Communicati ons. Academy of Management Journal 32(2):353-376. Znaniecki, F. 1934 The Method of Sociology. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

PAGE 232

214 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Harold D. Green, Jr. (Hank) was born in Orangeburg, South Carolina, and raised in nearby Bamberg. In 1989, he left Bamberg for the South Carolina Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics (GSSM), a state-supported resi dential magnet school in Hartsville, South Carolina. Hank graduated from GSSM in 1991 w ith honors. He attended the University of Georgia with the support of a UGA Foundation Fello wship. As a Winship Nunnally fellow, Hank earned a BS/MS with high honors in botany, specializing in plant taxonomy and systematics. His master’s thesis was an investigation of the medi cinal plants used on the Sea Islands of South Carolina by the Gullah, an African Diaspora cultu re. As part of the project, he collected the medicinal plants that grow on St Helena Island, South Carolina, the current epicenter of Gullah culture. That collection is housed in the UGA Botany Department herbarium and in the UGA Anthropology Department Ethnoecology and Biodiversity Lab’s ethnobotany herbarium. In 1996, Hank enrolled in the University of Florida Department of Anthropology to study the African Diaspora culture of Haiti. Hank also began exploring some new interests: research design, research methods and scientific anthropolog y. With the assistance of a Title VI Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowship, Hank studied Haitian culture in Miami, Florida and in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Based on that experience, he wrote the “Port-au-Prince” entry in the 2002 Human Resource Area Files Encyclopedia of Urban Cultures In late 1998, Hank returned to the University to develop a research program focused on field-level cooperation in the international development context. Political unrest in Haiti made returning too risky, and in 2001, Hank chose to shift his focus to headquarters-level cooperation. He spent one and a half years studying cooperation in Washington DC, surviving bombings, anthrax threats, snipers and a completely Republican government, all the while wondering whether Haiti might have been a safer choice.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000689/00001

Material Information

Title: Interorganizational cooperation in uncertain environments: the case of food aid management
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Green, Harold D. ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000689:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000689/00001

Material Information

Title: Interorganizational cooperation in uncertain environments: the case of food aid management
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Green, Harold D. ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000689:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











INTERORGANIZATIONAL COOPERATION IN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS:
THE CASE OF FOOD AID MANAGEMENT













By

HAROLD D. GREEN, JR.


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003
































Copyright 2003

by

Harold D. Green, Jr.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE)

International, who funded this dissertation research through their constituency-building budget.

The generous support of Milo Stanojevich, Bob Bell, Eric Dupree-Walker, and Jeanne Downen

made this project possible. I would also like to thank the staff Food Aid Management (FAM),

(Mara Russell, Steve Zodrow and Trisha Schmirler) for their assistance. Without their help I

would never have been able to complete this work. The FAM Steering Committee and all FAM

member organization representatives endured my presence at many meetings where sensitive

information was discussed; and graciously completed my questionnaire despite their busy

schedules. I gratefully acknowledge their kind assistance.

I would like to thank my Advisory Committee (Dr. H. Russell Bernard, Dr. Christopher

McCarty, Dr. Della McMillan-Wilson and Dr. Henry Tosi) whose guidance on this project was

indispensable. My colleagues at the University of Florida Department of Anthropology and at the

National Science Foundation Summer Institute for Research Design in Cultural Anthropology

have also been very supportive. Their advice ensured that I could explain the rich tapestry of Title

II food aid organizations in a way that was understandable, even if it was too verbose.

My family and friends around the world also deserve acknowledgement for their support

over the past six years; particularly during my fieldwork in Washington DC. They kept me safe

and sane while buildings were falling down around my ears.
















PREFACE
THE GREENING OF GREEN

Working in the international development community for the past year and a half has

changed my anthropological perspective. At the beginning of this research, I was convinced that

NGOs aroused such a strong individual commitment in their employees that all other concerns

paled in comparison. After several months immersed in financial reports for these nonprofit

organizations and learning that some of their budgets near the one-billion-dollar mark, my views

on the way development organizations operate have changed drastically. Ideology has been

eclipsed by economy. I have come to realize that development organizations might have

motivations other than a commitment to collectivism. I am not arguing that development

organizations are identical to businesses. Nor am I arguing that development organizations are

doing anything wrong. I am noting that the need to be financially viable and fiscally sound in the

world economy accompanies their commitment to doing good works. An organization that wants

to feed seven million people in Burkina Faso cannot do it by thinking good thoughts. An

organization requires vast human, technical, financial, and commodity resources to complete that

kind of project.

It is necessary to understand my preconceived views and motivations to gauge their

impact on my interpretation of interactions among the organizations that I studied. Working in an

interorganizational collective gave me an interesting perspective. In the context of collaboration,

it is easy to see how differing organizational goals and philosophies affect how people interact. It

is also easier to observe the diversity in individual motivation among development workers. One

colleague in the development world once explained to me that managing nonprofit collaboration

was like herding cats. At first I thought the statement was just a humorous way to understand










organizational diversity. The more experience I had, the more I realized that the simile was much

stronger than that. Like cats, nonprofits are incredibly complex and come to cooperate for a

number of reasons. Some may have an affinity for each other. Some may want to improve their

capabilities in some area. Others may want to keep an eye on the competition. Also like cats,

nonprofits may suddenly choose not to cooperate. The number of reasons why these organizations

cooperate or not is almost as large as the number of organizations that exist, perhaps even as large

as the number of individuals working for those organizations.

I now realize that cooperation and collaboration are often motivated by pragmatism more

than idealism. This is not to say that these organizations are cutthroat. I do not believe that these

organizations want to eliminate all the competition and dominate the development industry. I

simply mean that development organizations are more likely to cooperate if they can see a direct

impact of that cooperation on their programming, their resource base, or their technical skills.

Cooperation still exists. Cooperation still results in excellent products. Cooperation has likely

been motivated by the same pragmatism for years. I just did not realize it until I had the

opportunity to live it.

My research focuses on headquarters-level collaboration. My experience is with

individuals working in offices in the US whose programs affect thousands of field programs

around the world. While the individuals I interacted with on a daily basis had extensive field

experience, I had little experience with development work in the field. What little I had was

restricted to a few months interviewing development workers in Port-au-Prince. My knowledge

of field realities is too limited for me to even pretend to understand how they might differ from

headquarters realities. My findings should not be considered applicable to field-level

collaboration. By the same token, if you ask any field-level employees they will agree that what

happens at headquarters affects them and the way they conduct their business, whether that effect

is for better or worse.










A lot happened to me in a year. My belief that idealism motivated nonprofit activities was

deeply affected by my research. In the place of my old perspective was a new, more complex

understanding of the factors that might lead to organizational collaboration. I had to come to

terms with this new perspective and how it affected my worldview. I am still committed to

collective action. I still think that collaboration can often achieve better results than competition. I

still believe that collectivism does exist in the world. I am just less inclined to try and force my

experiences to fit that perspective, and infinitely less inclined to assume that anyone else shares

my motivations.

No matter how objective social scientists aim to be, their footprints still show in the work

they do. Careful reading of any research reveals biases, interests, and assumptions that announce

a scientist's presence. My work is no different. When you read this document, you will find me in

the pages. This dissertation is not just about how FAM and its member organizations have

worked and changed in the past year. It is also about how I have worked and changed.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .............. iii
FACACK N OW LE D GM EN TS........ .......................................................................................... i


LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... ............ ....... ....... xi

L IST O F FIG U R E S .............. ............................ ............. ........... ... ........ xiii

K EY TO A BBREV IA TION S...................................................................... .............. xiv

ABSTRACT ....... ............. .............. .. ...... .......... .......... xvii

CHAPTER

1 COLLECTIVIST ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF FOOD AID
M ANAGEM EN T .................. ............................... ...... .............. ..

B ack g rou n d .................................................................. ............................. . 2
T heoretical Significance ........................................ .................................3
Social N etw ork Significance................................................................ ...............6
A applied Significance .................. .............................. ...... .. .. ........ ..
Structure of the D issertation .......................................................... ............. 9

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND............................................... ...............10

Introduction ..........................................................................................10
Theory of the O rganization......................................................... ............... 12
Rothschild-Whitt's Collectivist Type ...........................................................14
Collectivist Organizational Analysis ........................................ ............... 16
S tru ctu re ......................................................................................... 18
Environment .............. ...... ......... ..... .... ........ 19
Institutional V alues ........ .. .. ..... ....... ... ...... ......... ..... .. .......... 19
Hypotheses ...... ........................ .................. 20
C o n clu sio n ....................................................... 2 1










3 M E T H O D S ....................................................... 23

P h a se O n e ......................................................................................................... 2 3
Phase Two ..... ........... .. ......... ................... 25
A n a ly sis ............................................................................................................ 3 0

4 THE CONTEXT OF TITLE II FOOD AID PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION... .33

Introduction ...... ............... ......... .................. 33
Background .....................................33
International Food Aid Legislation and Policy ........................38
National Food Aid Legislation and Policy.............................. ........ .......41
S tak eh o ld ers ................. ................................................................................... 4 5
O organizational Environm ent ..................................... .... ..........................50
Organizational Adaptations ................. .................................55

5 A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON FOOD AID MANAGEMENT .............61

In tro d u ctio n .....................................................................................6 1
Background ............ .. ......... .......................62
Interactiv e H ig h lig hts....................................................................................... 64
D ocum ent H highlights ..................................68.............................
Institutional H highlights .............................................................. 71
Conclusions ......................................................................... .. ......... ........................76

6 FOOD AID MANAGEMENT CONSTITUENCY-BUILDING AND
C O LLEC TIV E A C TIV ITIE S .......................................................................... 80

Introduction ............................................................................................. ....... 80
S teerin g C o m m ittee ......................................................................................... 8 1
W working G roups.................. ....... ........... ... ................82
Meetings (Brown Bags and General Meetings) ................. ..................83
Products (Manuals and Toolkits) .........................................84
W o rk sh o p s ................................................................................................. 8 5
L istservs ......................................................................................................86
Food Security R source Center ....................................................... 89
A c q u isitio n s ............................................................................................... 9 1
R e q u e sts .................................................................. .................................9 3
Food Forum ...... ................ ...... ................ 95
Subscriptions ....................................................................... ......... ......... .......... 96
Contributions ....................................................................... ................................99
W e b site .......................................................................................................... 1 0 1
V isits .............................................................................................................. 1 0 2
L in k s .............................................................................................................. 1 0 3









In te ra ctio n s ..........................................................................................1 0 6
G general A activities ................................................... ................ ........... 108
Steering Committee Activities ............................................. ...............108
Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group ..............................................109
Monetization Working Group........ .................................................... 110
Local Capacity Building Working Group.................................. ................. 111
Environmental Working Group ...............................................................111
Advice, Formal and Informal Ties, Non-Title II Ties .................................112
E v alu atio n s.................................................. ................ 1 17
C on clu sion s ...................................... ............................................ 1 19

7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..............................126

Introdu action .................................................................................... 12 6
O rg anization al T h eory ............................................ ........................................ 12 7
Structure ............................................................... .. ... .. ..... 128
E nv ironm ent............................................................................ ...............12 8
Individualism and Collectivism .......................................... ..............129
H ypothesis T ests .......................................................... ................. .....13 1
T theoretical D discussion .............................. ......................................... 132
Implications for Social Network Analysis................................ ...............135
A applications ........................................................................................ ...... 137
E nvironm ent ............................................................................ ...............137
Individualism and Collectivism .......................................... ..............138
F A M A activities ........................ .................. ... ... ... ...............139
Interactions..................................... ..................... ...... .... ....... 140
E x ten sio n ................................................................................ ............... 14 1
C on clu sion ..................................................................................... ......... ... 144

8 C O N C L U SIO N ................... ................................................ ......... ...... 145

In tro du ctio n ................................................................................... 14 5
Food Aid Context.................. .. ......................... .......145
H historical Perspective ............................................................ ...... .. 146
Food Aid Management Collectivist Activities ............................................. 148
R research F findings .............................................................. ............... ... 150
T h eo retic al ...............................................................15 0
M ethodological ...................... ........ ............ ......................... 150
P ra c tic a l ..................................................................................................... 1 5 1
C conclusion ................................................................................................. ........ 152









APPENDIX

A FOOD AID MANAGEMENT MEMBER PROFILES ..................................... 154

In tro d u ctio n ................ ... .. .................................................................. 15 4
Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas
Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA)....................................................... 155
Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) ................ ................156
A fric are .................. ......... .... ................................................... ............... 15 8
Am erican Red Cross International (ARC) .........................................................159
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE)........................... 162
C atholic R elief Services (C R S) ................................................ ..................... 163
Counterpart International (CNTPT) ..........................................................165
Feed the Hungry International (FHI).............. .. ........................... ............... 167
International Relief and Development (IRD) ............................................... 168
M ercy C orps (M C ) ..................... .............................. ........ ....... .. ....... ....169
Opportunities Industrialization Centers International (OICI) .............................171
Project C concern International (PCI) ........................................ .....................173
Save the Children (SA VE) ........................................................ ............. 174
T echnoServe (TN S) ................................ ................ ................ ............. 175
W world V vision (W V ) ................... .. .............. .................... 177
World Self Help and Relief Exchange (SHARE)............................................... 178

B QUESTIONNAIRES AND RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ...........................181

Questionnaire One: Title II Food Aid Context ............................ .................... 181
Questionnaire Tw o: FAM H istory................... ........................................ .......... 181
Questionnaire Three: FAM Evaluations, Uncertainty Scale, Collectivism Scales,
and N etw ork E licitation .................................................................... ..... 182
B asis for Q questionnaires and Scales ........................................ .....................186

C SCOPE O F W ORK ........................................................................ .. 188

FAM B background ................ ........ .. ........ .. ...... ...................... ...... ...... 188
Building a Diverse Constituency Dedicated to Ending Poverty ..........................189
G oal of the Study ................ ............................................ .. .. .................... 19 1
Study Objectives and Methodology .............. ..............................................191
Tim e Schedule and D eliverables ........................................ ...... ............... 195

R E FE R E N C E S C IT E D .......................................................................... ....................197

BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ...................................................... 214
















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

3-1 Phase One methods summary and response rates...........................................................25

3-2 Phase Two methods summary and response rates.................................... ................ 30

4-1 Summary of domestic and international food aid policy and legislation.............................44

5-1 Tim line of m major FA M events ............................................... ....................... ............... 75

6-1 Steering Committee membership during current ISA ................................... ........ ... 82

6-2 D ocum ents, m anuals and toolkits ...................... ......................................... .. ................ 85

6-3 Listserv memberships for first quarter FY2002, increase from previous quarter................ 88

6-4 Statistical analysis of listserv membership data. .............................................................. 89

6-5 Recent acquisitions for FSRC......... .......... ............................................ ...................... 91

6-6 Percentages for FSRC acquisitions ................................................................. ................ .. 92

6-7 Chi-Squared values for FSRC acquisitions by source and by format................................ 92

6-8 R recent FSR C requests ............................................................................................ ......... 93

6-9 Categorical distribution of FSRC requests by frequency ..... ............. ..............94

6-10 Trends in FSRC requests since 1997 and associated p-values ............... .. ................ 95

6-11 Governmental Food Forum subscriptions ................ ...................................................... 97

6-12 International Food Forum subscriptions ........................................ ......................... 97

6-13 Categorical distribution of Food Forum subscription with frequencies and odds................ 97

6-14 Food Forum subscription rates and Z-scores for headquarters and field offices ................. 98

6-15 Categorical distribution of Food Forum contributions and associated Z-scores................ 100

6-16 T rends for popular pages ............................................. ................................................. 104

6-17 Z -scores for popular pages ......................................... .................................................. 104










6-18 Categorical distribution and odds ratios for online documents and links ......................... 105

6-19 M multiple regression statistics for centrality.............................. ................... 107

6-20 G general interactions ......................... ................................................. ...................... ...... 109

6-21 Steering Com m ittee interactions.................................................... ......................... 109

6-22 Monitoring and evaluation interactions.......................................................................... 110

6-23 M onetization interactions ........................................... .................................................. 110

6-24 Local Capacity Building Working Group interactions.................................. ................ 112

6-25 Environmental Working Group interactions ............................................................ 112

6-26 Advice network interactions ......... ........ ........ ........ ......................... 113

6-27 F orm al interaction s ...................... ...................................................... ......... ............... ...... 113

6-28 Inform al T title II interactions ............................................. ........................................... 114

6-29 Non-Title II interactions ................................ .................... 114

6-30 Centralization measures and Z-scores based on sample mean ......................................... 116

6-31 Centralization descriptive statistics ............... ........................................................... 116

6-32 N etw ork correlations for sim ilar netw orks........................................................................ 117

6-33 Collaborative activity ratings and ranks ................................ 118

7-1 C entrality descriptive statistics ...................................................................................... 128

7-2 U uncertainty descriptive statistics ................................................. ............................ 128

7-3 Individualism /Collectivism scale ranks........................................................ .................... 130

7-4 W agner descriptive statistics ........................................ ................................................. 131

7-5 E arley descriptive statistics ......................................... .................................................. 13 1

7-6 Param etric pairw ise correlations..................................................... ......................... 131

7-7 Nonparametric measures of association ................................. .................... 132

7-8 Correlation coefficients for QAP analyses of FAM interactions................................. 136

A-1 Organizational demographics ......... ............................... 180
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure p

6-1 General FA M interaction netw ork................................................ ............................ 121

6-2 Steering Committee interaction network ............................................................... 121

6-3 Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group interaction network ....................................... 122

6-4 Monetization Working Group interaction network .................................. ............... 122

6-5 Local Capacity Building Working Group interaction network ......................................... 123

6-6 Environmental Working Group interaction network ....... ............ ........................ 123

6-7 Title II advice-seeking interaction network .............................................. ................. 124

6-8 Formal Title II agreement interaction network............................... .............................. 124

6-9 Informal Title II interaction network.............................................. ....... ............... 125

6-10 N on-Title II interaction netw ork................................................. ............................ 125


















ACDI/VOCA


ADRA

AED

AID

ARC

BHR

BWI

CARE

CCC

CFGB

CIDA

CNTPT

COMM

CRS

CS

DAP

EDM

EWG

EU

FAC

FAFSPP


KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

Agriculture Cooperative Development International/ Volunteers in Overseas
Cooperative Assistance

Adventist Development and Relief Agency

Academy for Educational Development

Agency for International Development

American Red Cross International Services

Bureau of Humanitarian Response

Bread for the World Institute

Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

Commodity Credit Corporation

Canadian Food Grains Bank

Canadian International Development Agency

Counterpart International

Commodity Listserv

Catholic Relief Services

Cooperating Sponsor

Development Activity Proposal

Environmental Documentation Manual

Environmental Working Group

European Union

Food Aid Convention

Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper










FAM Food Aid Management

FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance

FARM Food Aid Resource Materials

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FFP Food for Peace

FHI Feed the Hungry, International

FSRC Food Security Resource Center

FY Fiscal Year

GACAP Generally Accepted Commodity Accounting Principles

GAO General Accounting Office

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

HQ Headquarters

I/C Individualism/Collectivism

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IR Intermediate Result

IRD International Relief and Development

ISA Institutional Support Agreement

ISG Institutional Support Grant

LCB Local Capacity Building

LDFIC Less Developed Food Importing Countries

LIFDC Low Income Food Deficit Country

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MC Mercy Corps

MMT Million Metric Tons

MNTZ Monetization










NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NUT Nutrition Listserv

OICI Opportunities Industrialization Centers International

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PCI Project Concern International

PEU Perceived Environmental Uncertainty

PL480 Public Law 480

PVO Private Voluntary Organization

SAVE Save the Children

SC Steering Committee

SHARE World Self Help and Resource Exchange

SO Strategic Objective

TII Title II

TNS TechnoServe

UN United Nations

USG United States Government

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WFP World Food Program

WFS World Food Summit

WTO World Trade Organization

WG Working Group

WV World Vision
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

INTERORGANIZATIONAL COOPERATION IN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS
THE CASE OF FOOD AID MANAGEMENT

By

Harold D. Green, Jr.

May 2003

Chair: Dr. H. Russell Bernard
Major Department: Anthropology

Food Aid Management (FAM) is a collective of private voluntary organizations that

receive American commodities for international development activities around the world. The

member organizations cooperate to solve common problems associated with commodity

management, commodity sales, monitoring, evaluation, and compliance with government

regulations. Research suggests that FAM's organizational environment, structure, and culture

may be understood from the theoretical perspective of the collectivist organizational type

described by Rothschild-Whitt. During 2002, qualitative and quantitative social research methods

were used to gather information from FAM member organizations to test the collectivist model.

Parametric, nonparametric, and Boolean analyses of the data provided no quantitative support for

the model. Social network techniques revealed the structure of inter-organizational interactions in

the FAM context. Further analysis suggests that network elicitation prompts significantly impact

associated network structures. Research findings support the use of social network methods to

monitor collaborative activity. Changes in organizational structure and behavior to realign FAM










with their collectivist mission and their collectivist outlook are also recommended based on the

findings of this research.


xviii
















CHAPTER 1
COLLECTIVIST ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF FOOD AID MANAGEMENT

Private voluntary organizations and nongovernmental organizations (PVOs and NGOs),

are the primary organizations that make up the not-for-profit sector. These organizations play an

increasingly important role in the delivery of services across the world-health care, shelter,

schooling, food, and more. In 1977 nonprofits were estimated to employ more than 6% of the

American workforce, about 6 million people (Mirvis and Hackett 1983). That number has grown

at a rate of 5.1% annually; in 2000 an estimated 10.9 million individuals worked in 1.2 million

nonprofit organizations in the United States (Independent Sector 2002). The number of people

whose lives are affected by the work of nonprofits in the US and across the world probably runs

to the tens of millions (Mirvis and Hackett 1983).

Most current organizational research focuses on organizations with hierarchical structures

based on legal authority and on maximizing profit-bureaucracies and market organizations. In

nonprofit PVOs and NGOs, authority is thought to derive from commitment to a common value

system rather than from commitment to legal rules or the making of a profit. The relationships

between organizational environments, social structure, and organizational values have been

extensively investigated for economic organizations. Less is known about the interaction of these

factors for nonprofits, particularly NGOs and PVOs.

In this dissertation, I examine the relationships among organizational structure,

environment, and organizational values for Food Aid Management (FAM), an interorganizational

network of 16 PVOs. All FAM members are dedicated to improving international development

activities supported in part by Title II commodities provided by the United States










Agency for International Development (USAID) office of Food for Peace (FFP) under the United

States' Public Law 480 (PL480). There are three primary goals of this research:

* To verify the collectivist model for international development organizations.
* To explore the utility of social network techniques for measuring collaborative capacity.
* To provide FAM with recommended changes to improve its activities.

Background

In 1989 five US PVOs created FAM to promote the efficient and effective use of food aid

resources to help alleviate hunger and contribute to food security. In September 1998, a five-year

Institutional Support Agreement (ISA) between the USAID office of FFP and the Cooperative for

Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), the grant holder, was awarded for FAM to continue

coordinating and assisting PL480 Title II-funded Cooperating Sponsors (CSs) in their existing or

planned institutional development activities. FAM was created to be a forum in which Title II

PVOs could collaborate and exchange food aid and food security program information. Sixteen

American PVOs were FAM members in 2002. FAM works with these 16 CSs to achieve these

three objectives:

* Facilitating and promoting the development of food aid standards.

* Promoting the food aid and food security knowledge base of PVOs, USAID staff, and
other collaborators through information exchange and coordination.

* Facilitating collaboration between PVOs, USAID, and appropriate development and
humanitarian professionals by organizing forums for discussion.

As the coordinators of an interorganizational collective, the FAM staff work with

member organizations to define activities and monitor member organizations' achievement of

agreed-upon goals. One of FAM's activities is coordinating working groups (WGs) for common

topics that are programmatic priorities for members, namely, monitoring and evaluation (M&E

WG), monetization (MNTZ WG), local capacity building (LCB WG), and the environment (E

WG). FAM also manages the Food Security Resource Center (FSRC), publishes the quarterly










Food Forum bulletin, maintains an active website, and implements other food security

information sharing activities including interorganizational workshops and training.

FAM does not implement PL480 Title II food programs; its CS members do. The

objectives and activities of FAM support the USAID FFP office's Strategic Objective 2:

"Increased effectiveness of FFP's Partners in carrying out Title II development activities with

measurable results related to food security with a primary focus on household nutrition and

agricultural productivity." FAM accomplishes its goals while focusing its efforts on activities

that support the achievement of FFP's Intermediate Result 1: "Strengthened capabilities of PVOs,

USAID Missions, and FFP to design, monitor, and support programs" (USAID/BHR/FFP 2001,

USAID Office of Procurement 1998).

As a nonimplementing, information-sharing, coordinating body, FAM's efficiency

depends on consistently monitoring activities directly related to FAM objectives. In the case of

the FAM workshops, publications, and website, FAM has mechanisms to track how information

is being disseminated, used, and potentially revised. By encouraging, managing and monitoring

collaboration and information exchange among its 16 PVO members, FAM makes a unique

contribution to Title II programming. The FAM members perceive the collective as a valuable

means for exchanging new tools and best practices in an unstable resource environment.

Theoretical Significance

Marx (1973) stated that almost every aspect of modem life is affected by complex formal

organizations. Government bureaus, churches, manufacturing firms, hospitals, schools, and

restaurants are all examples of complex formal organizations that individuals come in contact

with daily. The works of Etzioni (1961, 1964, 1968, 1972), Marx (1973, 1977, 1994, 2002), and

Weber (1958, 1968), cornerstones of social science, were based on investigating how individuals

form complex organizations and how those organizations affect human lives.










One of the theoretical foundations of organizational science is Weber's concept of

organizational authority (Mouzelis, 1967; Scott 1998). Weber defined authority as the power to

command. In his conceptualization, there are four kinds of authority:

* Charismatic, based on leadership of a strong personality.
* Traditional, based on leadership through historical or religious bases.
* Legal-rational, based on leadership under the legal contract.
* Value-rational, based on leadership through a shared belief system.

Weber argued that these four kinds of authority give rise to four ideal organizational forms or

types. The charismatic, traditional, and bureaucratic organizational forms have been the focus of

most organizational science because they have been most prevalent in modem society

(Rothschild-Whitt 1979, Satow 1975). The collectivist, value-rational organizational type, based

on a shared belief system, is investigated less often, likely because there have been so few.

Indeed, the collectivist organizational type has been dubbed Weber's "missing type" (Rothschild-

Whitt 1979, Satow 1975). Statistics show that the frequency of collectivist organizations has been

increasing in the United States and abroad, however, leading to greater interest in studying

collectivist organizations (Independent Sector 2002).

The classic organizational type is the bureaucracy, which has hierarchical social structure

based on rules made by leaders who have legal-rational authority over subordinate workers.

These rules are created to facilitate efficient production of outputs or completion of tasks.

Organizations are part of a money economy in this line of reasoning (Scott, 1998). Most

bureaucracies share other common characteristics including high levels of specialization,

impersonal relationships among members of the organizations, recruitment of officials on the

basis of ability and technical knowledge, and separation of private and official profits.

One of Weber's critics, Nicos Mouzelis (1967:39), noted that there is one "common, all

pervasive element" that unites all the characteristics of bureaucracies. It is "the existence of a

system of control based on rational rules, rules which try to regulate the whole organizational

structure and process on the basis of technical knowledge and with the aim of maximum










efficiency." Mouzelis also observed that while an organization may be based on legal-rational

rules, there is no implication that it will yield maximum efficiency. This possibility for

inefficiency, argues Mouzelis, is evidence of a weakness in Weber's scheme of ideal types that

opens the field for alternative organizational types that are equally efficient but based on

principles other than maximizing economic profit.

One of these new types, the collectivist organization, was most clearly defined by Joyce

Rothschild-Whitt (1979). Rothschild-Whitt's model of collectivist organizations differs from

Weber's model of bureaucratic organizations in several ways. First, the decisions of collective

organizations are premised on the logic of substantive rationality rather than formal rationality.

Thus, the sense of the law is followed, rather than the letter of the law. Second, the collective

organization has a value-rational basis of authority. The ability to command is derived from a

collective decision. Third, the structure of collectivist organizations is less hierarchical or

centralized than the structure of bureaucratic organizations. The underlying factor in this

conceptualization of organizations is that a value-based (moral or ethical) belief system motivates

authority and compliance and provides the basis for organizational goals and structure (Astley

and Van de Ven, 1983).

The collectivist model is useful for understanding social service organizations, charities,

PVOs and NGOs (Astley and Van de Ven, 1983, DiMaggio and Anheier 1990, Goodman 1999,

Hasenfeld and Gidron 1993, Satow 1975). The new analysis enabled by recognizing these

alternative organizational types is not constrained by the assumption that organizations are

striving for improved economic efficiency or that organizations are hierarchically structured

around legal-rational authority structures. The collectivist organizational model may better

explain why nonprofit organizations survive in the face of uncertainty in the organizational

environment. Based on Rothschild-Whitt's description and on other organizational scientists'

work on collectivist organizations (Baker 1982, Goodman 1999, Hasenfeld and Gidron 1993,

Heydebrand 1989, Lois 1999, Schifflet and Zey 1990, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Torrez et










al. 1991, Waters 1993, Wells 1981), the idea arises that those individuals who believe they work

in an unstable environment are likely to have a particular commitment to collaboration and their

organizations are likely to encourage decentralized organizational and interorganizational

activities, and to have a particular position within a network structure.

Researchers have related organizational structure to noneconomic aspects of

organizational life. Boje and Whetten (1981), Ibarra and Andrews (1993), and Krakhardt (1990)

investigated the relationships between structure and perceived power. Bums and Stalker (1994)

and Strang and Tuma (1993) studied how structure affects diffusion of information. These studies

measure perceptions in and the movement of information ;,/, i,,mgh organizations. The research I

describe in this dissertation explores a group of relationships among environmental factors,

interorganizational structures, and institutionalized values. I also explore the possible influence of

those factors on perceptions of performance (based on work by Katz 1950, 1975, 1978, 1980),

linking organization demographics to measures of organizational performance.

Limited international development resources in a climate of political, environmental and

social instability should mean heightened competition and more aggressive measures to control

scarce resources. It is true that these PVOs are often in competition for scarce development

resources; however, FAM member organizations continue to share information and resources.

Because FAM organizations cooperate, they may not conform to traditional organizational

models, particularly the bureaucratic model that is the foundation of most traditional

organizational analysis. The collectivist model might be a better framework for understanding

FAM organizations.

Social Network Significance

The Title II resource environment is volatile, with uncertain events making organizational

flexibility very important. Emery and Trist (1965) call these organizational environments

"turbulent fields" and suggest that organizations can survive these environmental conditions by

relying on "values that have overriding significance for all members of the field" (1965:28). An










organization, they argue, will attempt to change its activities, its values, or its structure to control

environmental uncertainty and/or volatility. The environment, then, in addition to affecting

organizational culture and organizational behavior, also affects intra- and interorganizational

structure (Dill 1958, Emery and Trist 1965). Social network research shows that individuals use

their networks for social support in unstable environments (Dershem and Gzirishvili 1998;

Walker, Wasserman and Wellman 1994). Social networks often mitigate the effects and

perceptions of that uncertain environment. A person who has a strong network of social ties is

less likely to feel the changes and turbulence of the environment and is more likely to be resilient

to those changes. Other research has shown that a person's position within a network affects that

person's perceptions of the environment (Boje and Whetten 1981; Boster, Johnson and Weller

1987; Freeman 1978/1979; Walker, Wasserman and Wellman 1994). I believe that this is also the

case for organizations, particularly for organizations that cooperate in the face of uncertainty

(Baker 1982, Barnett and Carroll 1987, Heydebrand 1989, Lois 1999).

My field research suggests that FAM was founded to help the member agencies gain

control over an organizational environment that was changing as rapidly as USAID, the primary

donor, was changing. The FAM network provided information about the activities of other

organizations. Members shared information about the international development environment

and, over time, made resources once only available to larger PVOs available to other member

agencies. Collective action by the member agencies may have led to more political power and

may have helped lessen some organizational stresses that member agencies faced when working

independently. Collectivism also implies adherence to decentralized structures and activities, key

for the success of this kind of organizational network.

Organizational collaboration in this context is about developing relationships and making

connections. In this research, I examine FAM's primary activities and how those activities

contribute to interorganizational network formation. I also investigate how FAM networks and

their associated organizational interactions affect those primary activities. I use social network










techniques here to determine the structure of organizational interactions in the context of FAM's

primary activities. These techniques provide estimates of how centralized and hierarchical each of

the networks is. Because I investigated all of FAM collaborative activities, I incorporated ten

different network elicitation questions. The responses to those questions led to ten different

interorganizational network structures. The differences in structure highlight the importance of

choosing the appropriate network elicitation question and the prudence of incorporating multiple

questions into the network research as validity checks.

Applied Significance

This research was completed at the request of FAM. As their ISA came to a close, FAM

administrators were interested in learning how successful they had been in encouraging

collaborative activity in the Title II community. The goal of this study was to document, reflect

on, and learn from FAM's experience coordinating collaborative activities both in the past and in

the present, with an eye toward strengthening those activities in the future. Since FAM's current

funding would be ending, the output of this study informed the FAM's strategic planning process

for the next round of ISA funding proposals.

FAM wanted qualitative information about how FAM had affected cooperation in the

past and how FAM was currently affecting cooperation. They wanted to know who they were

serving and how often their services were being used. FAM also wanted quantitative support so

that they could provide USAID with data that monitored and evaluated the impact of their

collaborative activities.

FAM's framework for understanding these collaborative activities was called

constituency building. By that, they mean increasing the depth and breadth of the constituency of

individuals and organizations they are serving. I designed the research to answer FAM's

questions about constituency building while simultaneously investigating my theoretical and

methodological questions. In doing that, my research moved out of the realm of theory and into

the real world.











Structure of the Dissertation

The remainder of this dissertation reports findings from the two phases of the project.

First I outline the organizational theory I used to frame my research. Then, I explain how I

conceptualized this research in a short methods chapter. In Chapter 4, I describe the Title II food

aid environment, framing my description with the organizational theory concept of a turbulent

field. In Chapter 5, I present a history of FAM's collaborative activities to situate FAM in its

operational and historical context. A profile of FAM's current activities that incorporates

representatives' evaluations of FAM's activities and describes organizational interactions using

social network approaches follows in Chapter 6. Diagrams of the relevant FAM organizational

networks are presented at the end of this chapter. The seventh chapter restates my original

hypotheses and presents the results of hypothesis tests. This chapter includes results from the

modified Miles and Snow Perceived Environmental Uncertainty Scale and the results of the

Wagner and Earley scales of Individualism and Collectivism (Earley 1994, Miles and Snow 1978,

Wagner 1995). The discussion sections of this chapter also explain not only how the information

gained from research with FAM informs organizational theory but also how organizational theory

was applied in the research context and led to specific recommendations for organizational

change. Chapter 8 provides a concise summary of the major research findings.

















CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Introduction

In 1977, nonprofits employed over 6 million individuals in the American work force, a

number that has steadily risen over time (Mirvis and Hackett 1983). More than 10.9 million

Americans now work in the nonprofit sector (Independent Sector 2002). The growth of these

organizations in the United States is paralleled by a worldwide proliferation of similar

organizations (Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Rothschild-Whitt 1979, Independent Sector

2002). With increasing globalization and international activity, the number of people employed

by or receiving the services of volunteer and nongovernmental organizations is much larger.

Because they differ from market organizations and governmental agencies, these organizations

are called the independent, third sector of the economy (Mirvis and Hackett 1983, Lewis 1999).

Third-sector organizations are less confined by traditional organizational parameters, allowing

new approaches to organizational structure and behavior. Often in third sector organizations, new

forms of organizational activity replace traditional forms. Cooperation may replace competition

or collectivity may replace bureaucracy.

Waters (1993) suggests that new organizational types are emerging in this "post-

Weberian" era and organizational scientists have developed theoretical frameworks to identify

and explain new organizational forms (Heydebrand 1989). The most divergent new organizations

are network or virtual organizations, whose structure and operations exploit new niches in the

ecology of the global economy. Whether they are groups of individuals or groups of

organizations, network structures display strong formal and informal social relationships (Christie

and Levary 1998, Voss 1996).










Litwak and Hylton (1962) and Rothschild-Whitt (1979) present theories of a new

organizational type related to network and virtual organizations, similarly defined by strong

formal and informal social relationships between employees: the collectivist organization. Some

restaurant cooperatives, women's groups, and medical service organizations are examples of

collectivist organizations that have arisen in the recent past (Baker 1982, Srivastva and

Cooperrider 1986, Vanderslice 1988). Often volunteer and not-for-profit organizations are

characterized as collectivist (Heydebrand 1989). The growth in number of collectivist, third-

sector organizations in the United States and abroad, and the increase in research focusing on

these organizations is evidence of rising interest in these groups (Independent Sector 2002).

Weber's body of organizational theory contains a framework for understanding the basic

types of organizational authority and the organizations that emerge from each type of authority.

Each kind of organizational authority that Weber presents is associated with an organizational

type except for value-rational authority, which is considered the base of power in collectivist

organizations. Weber's analysis of alternative organizational types (here, alternative means non-

bureaucratic or non-market) has been called "fragmentary and unsystematic" leaving

consideration of these forms to other organization scientists (Waters 1993). Critiques of Weber's

typology (particularly Mouzelis 1967 and Satow 1975) show that there is room for the

incorporation of the collectivist type into organizational theory in ways that would supplement

Weber's existing typology. Mouzelis's (1967) critique of Weber's typology argues that the

framework could be changed to incorporate the new collectivist type. There are two outcomes

from incorporating collectivist organizations into the framework: First, organizational theory will

provide a set of organizations that have existed for years a unique and less subordinate position in

the arena of organizational theory. Second, organizational theorists can begin to test the validity

of theoretical constructs related to collectivist organizations, bringing accepted methods and

models to bear in new ways for theory and application.










Organizational theorists generate and apply typologies as a means to understand new

organizational forms and behaviors (Doty and Glick 1994, Scherer 1988, Srivastva and

Cooperrider 1986, Waters 1993). These typologies or classification systems are often too abstract

to be experimentally falsified. The theoretical constructions that strive to characterize third-sector

organizational forms are no exception. Weick (1974) argues that theoretical organizational

concepts should be related to sets of testable assertions to determine the utility and applicability

of new organizational typologies and new organizational types. Organizational theories must be

moved from the realm of theoretical discussion to the realm of quantitative analysis, pared down

into groups of hypotheses and propositions that can be investigated using existing methods (Doty

and Glick 1994, Weick 1974). Although observational and empirical evidence support theoretical

constructs related to collectivist organizations, some assertions remain to be empirically or

experimentally tested using current statistical capabilities.

This research is an attempt to do that in the limited context of international development.

In this chapter, I define the collectivist organization in relation to Weber's bureaucratic ideal, use

previous organizational research to develop a set of assertions that I believe must be tested to

validate the theoretical construction of the collectivist model, and briefly explain how I

operationalize the concepts.

Theory of the Organization

Max Weber's concept of the idealized bureaucracy informs much organizational theory

(Mouzelis 1967, Weber 1958). One could cast all organizational theory either in agreement with

the bureaucratic ideal or in reaction to that ideal. Weber defines bureaucratic organizations as

hierarchical social structures organized around rules (usually written) made by leaders who have

been given legal-rational authority over a number of subordinate workers. The rules are created to

facilitate efficient production of outputs or completion of tasks and comprise classical or formal

rationality. To Weber, bureaucratic and market organizations are paramount, with alternative

types subordinate because their decision-making procedures are inferior.










One of Weber's strongest critics is Nicos Mouzelis. Mouzelis's critique of Weber's ideal

bureaucratic type is important for two reasons. First, Mouzelis summarizes the characteristics of

bureaucracy and presents a "common, all pervasive element" (1967: 39) that unites the

characteristics. Briefly, the bureaucratic characteristics relevant to Mouzelis are: a high degree of

specialization, a hierarchical structure, impersonal relationships between members of the

organization, recruitment of officials on the basis of ability and technical knowledge, and the

separation of private and official profits. The common factor is "the existence of a system of

control based on rational rules, rules which try to regulate the whole organizational structure and

process on the basis of technical knowledge and with the aim of maximum efficiency" (1967: 39).

These characteristics summarize Weber's bureaucratic type, and serve as points of comparison

for other organizational types.

Mouzelis's second point concerns the extent to which an organizational theorist could

construct an a prior model to generate the maximum degree of productive efficiency. Ketchen et

al. (1993) use a similar approach in their configurational analyses of the hospital industry. In the

case of Weber, the a prior organization would be founded on the idea of technical or functional

rationality, in which a series of well-defined actions is designed to lead to one and only one goal.

Unfortunately, maximum efficiency is not always the outcome of an organization built from

rational rules (Mannheim 1950). Mouzelis argues that if more than one theoretical organization

can be designed to yield maximum productive efficiency or, if an organization can be created that

fails to reach maximum efficiency, then Weber's ideal bureaucratic type is weakened. This opens

organizational analysis based on Weber's typology to other organizational types that are equally

efficient but whose efficiency is based on tenets other than technical rationality. This means that

the collectivist type can be incorporated without damaging the theoretical underpinnings of

Weber's typology or of the collectivist type.










Rothschild-Whitt's Collectivist Type

Organizational theorists have characterized organizations based on rules other than

technical rationality that yield maximum productive efficiency or that maximize some other

measure of success (Lewis 1999, Litwak and Hylton 1962, Mirvis and Hackett 1983, Srivastva

and Cooperrider 1986, Waters 1993). The most apparent of these new organizations are nonprofit

and volunteer service organizations, including NGOs and PVOs. These service-based

organizations are active in many areas of the economy from national and international

development to consumer information services and health care provision. Observations of

service-based organizations, and in particular cooperative organizations, led Rothschild-Whitt to

characterize an organizational type for those third-sector organizations that compliments Weber's

seemingly incomplete and asymmetric taxonomy of organizations (Baker 1982, Waters 1993).

Following Mouzelis's critique, Rothschild-Whitt's type may be better suited for use as the basis

for micro-level organizational analysis of volunteer and not-for-profit organizations.

Rothschild-Whitt's model differs from Weber's bureaucracy in several ways. First, the

decisions of collective organizations are premised on the logic of substantive rationality rather

than formal rationality defined in the previous section. Substantive rationality, also known as

value-rationality, is marked by a "belief in the value for its own sake, independent of its prospects

of success" (Weber 1968:24). In international development, this is surely the case, as

organizations choose to provide relief and assistance or establish projects in areas where there is

the highest need but often the least possibility for success. Second, the collective organization

uses value-rationality as the basis of authority rather than technical or functional rationality. This

is also true in international development organizations, where commitment to the cause is more

likely to be considered the prime motivator than salary or other, more formal motivators.

The collectivist type, or at least an organizational type with a value-rational basis of

authority is considered Weber's missing type and is being used increasingly in the analysis of

social service organizations (Astley and Van de Ven 1983, Goodman 1999, Satow 1975,










Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986, Waters 1993). The underlying factor in the conceptualization of

collectivist organizations is that a value-based (moral or ethical) belief system motivates authority

and compliance and provides the basis for organizational goals and structure (Astley and Van de

Ven, 1988, Srivastva and Cooperrider 1986). My observations of international development

NGOs corroborate the work of these organization scientists.

The eight defining characteristics of the collectivist organization oppose the

characteristics of the ideal bureaucratic model: Authority rests in the collectivity rather than in an

individual. There is a minimum of rational rules. Social control is value and moral based.

Relations are not minimized as in the bureaucratic form. Employment is based on interest and

dedication rather than on skill. Incentives for participation are normative and value based. The

organization is egalitarian. There is a minimal division of labor. Mirvis and Hackett's (1983)

analysis of the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey supports Rothschild-Whitt's collectivist

organizational type, not just for volunteer service organizations, but for most third sector

organizations. My fieldwork with 16 international development organizations and a number of

international development collectives also supports this theoretical framework for defining the

value-rational collectivist organization.

Value-rational authority is the focus of studies by Fernandez (1991), Vanderslice (1988),

Srivastva and Cooperrider (1986), and Baker (1982). Fernandez (1991) finds that leadership, or

authority, in organizations is associated with both formal and informal structural ties. The amount

that leadership is based in the two kinds of ties is related to the type of organization and to

institutionalized values, which are both related to the changing organizational environment, as

will be discussed later in the paper. Vanderslice (1988), investigating the Moosewood collective,

found that successful "leaderless" leadership depends on structure, environment and

institutionalized values as well, though she believes that horizontal structure and collective

rationality are less necessary than would be expected from Rothschild-Whitt's schema. Srivastva

and Cooperrider find that leadership in a "world-renowned" medical practice is based on an










authority analogous to value rationality that "transcends instrumental or techno-economic

rationality as a basis for collective action" (1986:683). The transcendent rationality is correlated

with a collectivist organizational ideology and with the open, vertical structure of the group.

Collective social movement groups, particularly the lesbian-feminist organizations studied by

Baker (1982), seem to have a value rational basis for authority, but Baker believes that pressure to

conform to organizational and cultural norms is more powerful than individual commitment in

developing that authority. Each of these authors arrives at a different conclusion about the degree

of value rationality in collective organizations. The authors also differ in opinion about the

relationship between the development of value rationality and an individual's commitment to

institutional values, the organizational environment and organizational structure.

The differences of opinion lead me to believe that these theories may benefit from

confirmatory research to verify theories generated from exploratory observational studies.

Organization scientists much generate grounded assertions as Weick (1974) suggested, to test

hypotheses about the interrelation between environment, values and organizational structures (or

positions within collective structures) simultaneously.

Collectivist Organizational Analysis

The collectivist organization enables a new kind of organizational analysis. The new

analysis is not constrained by the assumption that organizations are striving for improved

productive efficiency or that organizations are arranged hierarchically around legal-rational

authority structures, theoretical assumptions that may not resemble the reality for nonprofit

organizations. The collectivist type may better explain why an organization can survive in the

face of extreme economic distress. Economic or market success is not most important in these

organizations, and dedication to the cause can lead to an organization's survival in an unstable

organizational environment that may not support other organizations.

Mouzelis (1967) believes that the basis of organizational analysis should be developing

ways to classify organizations according to how strongly they reflect the characteristics of an










ideal type. The empirical framework for collectivist organizations I present here builds on

Mouzelis's comments. Rothschild-Whitt's definition of the collectivist organization points out the

intersection of environmental, structural and institutional factors for nonprofit organizations,

particularly those where decentralization is present or encouraged. There are several assumptions

made about the interaction of these factors that must be accepted if one considers the collectivist

organization a valid theoretical construction. The assumptions that underlie Rothschild-Whitt's

(1979) collectivist conceptualization, supported by Mirvis and Hackett (1983), Waters (1993),

and others, are:

* An organizational environment that is highly unstable or volatile in any way is best
survived with a decentralized, non-hierarchical structure.

* Commitment to a particular ideal, coupled with commitment to a collectivist
organizational ideology will lead to a decentralized organizational structure.

* As the organizational environment becomes unstable, organizational participants will
be pushed to rely on value-rationality as the basis for authority and motivation in the
absence of economic rewards.

These assertions were formulated from qualitative organizational fieldwork, and remain

to be operationalized and empirically tested to determine their validity and their wider

applicability. The assertions specify relationships between the three interconnected variables: an

organization's structure (and/or position within a decentralized collective), environmental

instability, and institutionalized collectivist values'. The following section elucidates those

interconnections more fully, summarizing research relevant to the various assumptions and

presenting testable hypotheses that emerge from these assertions. The theoretical discussion

follows the arrangement of most organizational theory texts, beginning with structural variables

considered in classical formal organizational analysis. Then, environmental aspects studied in



1 Because competition, power brokering, and information control are widespread in organizations,
Rothschild-Whitt's collectivist ideal may not exist in practice. The possibility for competition exists as a
function of the organization or collective's decentralized structure. Loose organizational structure may
allow for too much divergence in organizational behavior and institutional belief. This divergence may lead
to competition for resources, differential access to and control of information, or differential power
relationships between employees.









organizational ecology are presented. Finally, institutional and social-psychological variables of

individualism and collectivism, germane to open systems organizational research are incorporated

into the discussion (Scott 1998).

Structure

Social network research shows that individuals form networks for social support in an

unstable environment to mitigate environmental effects (Dershem and Gzirishvili 1998, Walker,

Wasserman and Wellman 1994). A person who is more deeply embedded in a network of social

ties is less likely to notice the changes and turbulence of the environment and is more likely to be

resilient to those changes. An individual's position within a network affects his or her perceptions

(Boje and Whetten 1981; Boster, Johnson, and Weller 1987; Freeman 1978/1979; Walker,

Wasserman and Wellman 1994). Similarly, collectivist organizations are more likely to cooperate

in the face of uncertainty (Baker 1982, Barnett and Carroll 1987, Heydebrand 1989, Lois 1999).

The collectivist organization described by Rothschild-Whitt (1979), Waters (1993),

Mirvis and Hackett (1983), Heydebrand (1989) has a horizontal, non-hierarchical structure that

correlates with its ascribed egalitarian ideology. Archival data and organizational charts can help

determine how hierarchical an organization is (Bedeian 1980, Evan 1993, Scott 1998). Formal

structure often exists in tandem with an informal structure, particularly in new organizational

forms (Heydebrand 1989, Voss 1996). Interviews, documents, and logs of communication can be

used with social network analysis techniques to reconstruct formal and informal organizational

structures (Freeman, White, and Romney 1989). In some cases, and particularly for the

collectivist organization, the informal structure may be more important than the formal structure

(Baker 1982). To determine the validity of the theoretical construction, I elucidated and compared

both formal and informal structures in FAM analyses.










Environment

Barnett and Carroll (1987) have related competition and cooperation to the organizational

environment using the case of early telephone industries. Working with an organizational ecology

framework, they found that similar organizations in different geographic locations were in

competition, while different but related organizations in similar geographic regions cooperated.

Barnett and Carroll's cases show that environmental conditions mediate organizational activities.

Formal and informal structures in these new organizations are also related to the organizational

environment (Emery and Trist 1965). Litwak and Hylton (1962), support this position. They

argue that agencies cooperate based on a number of characteristics including organizational

interdependence and access to resources in the organizational environment. Hasenfeld and Gidron

(1993) also point out that organizations cooperate or compete based on environmental factors,

and Heydebrand argues that many new organizational forms result directly from "environmental

turbulence, rapid change, increasing complexity and uncertainty" (1989:323). Usually, if the

organizational environment is unstable, organizations cooperate (Emery and Trist 1965,

Rothschild-Whitt 1979, Waters 1993). Unfortunately, individuals' perceptions of the environment

may differ from each other as well as from archival measures of environmental uncertainty (Boyd

et al. 1993, Duncan 1972). However, individuals' current perceptions of the organizational

environment are most likely to affect behaviors and attitudes. Thus, those perceptions are

considered in later analyses.

Institutional Values

Dill (1958) and Haverman (1993) propose that the organizational environment affects

individuals' and organizations' adherence to institutionalized values. In this analysis, the

institutionalized values of individualism and collectivism are most salient. The source of

authority for these new organizations is hypothesized to be value rationality, based on a

collectivist ideal. Collectivism is strongly encouraged in many new organizations as a means to










bolster formal authority or in lieu of rational or technical authority. Lois (1999) reports that new

members of a volunteer search and rescue group undergo a long socialization process to

determine if they display collectivist ideals. Baker's (1982) research with radical feminist groups

corroborates Lois, and confirms that informal social ties and socialization to normative values

encourages individuals with collectivist ideals to remain with the organizations. Both Lois and

Baker's research show that unstable environments (protests, natural disasters) are associated with

collectivism and with horizontal social structures as suggested by the collectivist construction.

Collectivist individuals feel that their sense of self is connected to in-groups, their priorities are to

reach group goals, their emphasis is on roles and norms to guide behavior and their relationships

are maintained out of sense of connection and obligation (Grimm et al. 1999). For collectivist

organizations, particularly international development organizations, roles and norms emerge from

the social service value system that the groups espouse (Waters 1993).

Social research in anthropology and in organizational science has shown that cultures

vary along a number of individualist/collectivist vectors, as do different employment sectors and

careers within those sectors. (Earley and Gibson 1998; Grimm et al. 1999; Hui 1988; Kim et al.

1994; Lois 1999; Triandis 1989, 1993, 1995; Triandis et al. 1993; Triandis and Singelis 1998;

Wagner 1995) The result is that a very individualist man or woman may be employed in a

collectivist career, and may evince collectivist ideals at work while holding very individualist

personal views. Because it is rather abstract, this concept is difficult to quantify. Organizational

researchers have been working to refine scale instruments to reflect the complexity and diversity

of the concept (Earley 1994, Earley and Gibson 1998, Hui 1988, Wagner and Moch 1986,

Wagner 1995).

Hypotheses

The relationships between environment, structure, and collectivism summarized in the

above sections led me to the following hypotheses that test the validity of the collectivist model:










H1: Because perceptions of increasing environmental uncertainty are linked to
increased commitment to cooperation and collectivism, measures of
environmental uncertainty in individuals will be positively correlated with
measures of workplace collectivism in individuals.

H2: Because perceptions of increasing environmental uncertainty have been
associated with the development of social networks, and because perceptions of
uncertainty are affected by position within a network, measures of environmental
uncertainty will be negatively correlated with measures of centrality in the FAM
organizational network.

H3: Because commitment to cooperation is linked to structural measures that
imply lower hierarchical organization, measures of individual workplace
collectivism will be negatively correlated with measures of centrality in an
organizational network. Being located at the periphery of a network structure is
associated with collectivism as a means to gain control in an uncertain
environment. Being located at the hierarchical core of a network is associated
with less reliance on collectivist ideals.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have argued for a revision of Weber's classic organizational typology,

long used to understand questions of organizational theory. Though the classic Weberian

typology used as the basis for most organizational theory includes a discussion of value-rational

authority on which collectivist organizations are based, there is no extension of that discussion to

a particular organizational type. Contemporary organizational theorists and critics have suggested

that this is a flaw that must be corrected; an organizational analysis scheme that is broad enough

to include new organizational forms must be developed. That scheme must be developed from

grounded, empirical research rather than from theoretical speculation. Nonprofit and collectivist

organizations have proliferated since the end of World War II, and old schemes seem unprepared

to consider these new organizational types.

Rothschild-Whitt and others have developed a framework for understanding a new (or at

least increasingly frequent) organizational form: collectivist organizations. This organizational

form should be incorporated into the overall organizational framework. Structural aspects, social

psychological aspects and environmental instability are all important in empirical research on

collectivist organizations. In particular, research shows that structure is intercorrelated with










individual and organizational commitment to collectivist ideals and with uncertainty and

instability in the organizational environment. This combination of organizational characteristics

provides a framework that may help researchers understand collectivist organizations better.

A theory-based approach is important in this organizational research for three reasons.

First, organizational theory led to hypotheses that test the validity of the collectivist model.

Second, I chose research methods and measurement techniques based on my understanding of

organizational theory and its application. Third, theory grounded my interpretation of quantitative

results and made the recommendations that emerged from those results more relevant. There is

another important crosscutting benefit: Theory focused my gaze on aspects of organizational

structure and behavior that may not have caught my attention otherwise. An understanding of

theory gave me a different perspective on FAM activities and made me less a participant and

more a participant-observer. Theory was relevant not only to the obvious theoretical aspects of

this research, but also to the methodological and practical aspects.

















CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Anthropological studies of organizations are usually based on ethnography, or on a

combination of ethnography and limited survey data (Bate 1997, DiMaggio and Anheier 1990,

Hamada 1999, Lewis 1999). I combine these methods with other structured interview tasks

(including free lists, ratings and rankings), direct observation, archival research, and network

analysis (Bernard 1995, Weller and Romney 1988). Bamberger (2000) argues that integrating

qualitative and quantitative research in international development projects improves their validity

and increases the project's chances for success. This research strategy supports practical

applications of theory and methods. From September 2001 to September 2002, I worked as an

independent consultant for FAM, supported by a grant from CARE's constituency-building

budget. The approved scope-of-work provides more detail and is included in Appendix C.

Phase One

Table 3-1 shows the primary tasks for Phase One, along with response rates. Phase One

of the project was exploratory, focused on gathering information to understand FAM's history

and current activities and situate those activities in the international development context

(Marshall 1999). I augmented my profile of FAM's activities by reviewing literature on the

political, economic, agro-industrial, and policy background for Title II activities, bringing FAM's

uncertain and turbulent organizational environment into better focus. Archival research provided

qualitative and quantitative data for ethnographic description of FAM's activities and for later

analyses. I reviewed archival documents including ISA proposals, performance reports, detailed

implementation plans, annual operating plans, FAM's website, FSRC documents, M&E data,










website tracking reports, WG meeting minutes, and other information that indicated or recorded

organizations and on FAM from these sources.

While working as an independent consultant to FAM, I attended working group meetings,

Steering Committee (SC) meetings, FAM annual meetings, and other general interest meetings.

Participation in FAM activities provided me with first-hand knowledge of organizational

activities and validated data gathered from archival sources. In addition, direct observation of

current activities provided me with clues to how FAM's activities have changed over time.

Participation in workshops and seminars helped me understand FAM in light of food security

projects and the larger context of international development. Use of the FAM FSRC provided

hands-on experience and helped me understand how organizations might gather technical

information about Title II food aid.

Open-ended interviews with Title II experts provided information about FAM's history

and gave me the opportunity to collect background information about member organizations. The

interviews also provided information on current organizational activity within FAM and within

FAM's various members. The eleven Title II experts tapped for in-depth interviews in Phase One

were determined by polling the FAM constituency, including FAM members, USAID

representatives, university academics, consultants, and field staff. Members of the FAM

constituency were asked to list those individuals they believed to be the most knowledgeable

about FAM's historical and current context and activities. More than half of FAM's member

organizations responded. From the aggregated responses, I identified the individuals I would

interview. Almost 80% of Title II experts came from FAM organizations. Just over 70% of

experts on FAM's history came from FAM member organizations. The rest were once employees

of FAM member organizations. Incorporating the input of those experts who have direct

knowledge of Title II work improved the internal validity and relevance of this research.

Choosing key informants systematically limited subjectivity and made data collection more

efficient and rigorous than, say, a snowball sample.










Table 3-1: Phase One methods summary and response rates
Qualitative Phase NGOs NGOs Response Time
Contacted Responding Rate Frame
Identify TII Experts 16 8 (14 indiv.) 0.50 1 week
Interview TII Experts 9 6 0.66 2 weeks
Identify FAM Experts 16 8 (14 indiv.) 0.50 1 week
Interview FAM Experts 7 6 0.86 2 weeks
Archival Research 1 1 1.00 3 months
Annual Report Review 16 16 1.00 1 month
Organizational Profiles 16 15 0.94 1 month

Phase Two

Semistructured interviews, implemented in the second half of the project, produced the

majority of quantitative data in this project. These interviews provided the opportunity to collect

any demographic or organizational data that were not evident in archival sources. Ratings,

rankings, social network elicitation, and other organizational behavior tests generated data for

statistical analyses. This portion of the research was designed to capture information about which

organizations were considered more active, where organizations were situated in the

organizational network relative to each other, and how member organizations' representatives

perceived FAM's performance within this organizational network. I also collected data on

individuals' adherence to individualism or collectivism and on their perceptions of environmental

uncertainty and volatility in the international development context.

Individual FAM participants were profiled using questions drawn from Card 19 of the

1977 Quality of Employment Survey administered by the University of Michigan Institute for

Social Research (See Appendix B). FAM member organizations were profiled in terms of age,

size, and resource base diversity. I gathered data on these variables for the 16 organizations,

treating each organization as a unit of analysis (Boje and Whetten 1981, Galaskiewicz 1979,

Lincoln 1979, McNeil and Thompson 1971, Perrow 1967, and Pfeffer 1983 are all examples of

research using demographic variables at the organization level.).

Data on organizational structure, organizational value systems and perceived

environmental uncertainty were collected using a standard questionnaire format composed of










previously validated scale instruments, explained below and reprinted in Appendix B. My goal

was to generate data to determine how emergent network structure is related to perceptions of the

environment and to organizational value systems and attitudes. That is, how social structure is

related to the culture of the member organizations. Individual responses were aggregated to create

organization-level measures for interaction, evaluation, collaboration and uncertainty scales.

There are some experiment-wide assumptions. The first assumption is that variation

across a number of different organizations will reveal changes similar to those that the study of

one organization over time would reveal. A second assumption is that an individual's perceptions

of the various phenomena (like environmental uncertainty) are reliable and, when aggregated,

adequately represent reality (Weller and Romney 1988). Additional assumptions regarding the

reliability of the various measures and statistical tests will be discussed in the relevant

subsections.

Environmental uncertainty. To understand which factors might be driving

individuals' perceptions of the Title II environment, I asked PVO respondents to reply to a

perceived environmental uncertainty (PEU) scale modified from Miles and Snow's previously

developed scale (1978). The scale Miles and Snow developed, which remains one of the most

widely used scales to measure this concept (Boyd et al. 1993, Buchko 1994, Downey 1975,

Williams 2000), was primarily for manufacturing firms, and had to be adjusted for organizations

in the Title II food aid environment. The modifications were based on experts' responses to

questions I asked in Phase One of the research. The new scale measures uncertainty across six

primary subject areas: commodities, other PVOs, food aid recipients, funding, government policy,

and the respondent's own PVO. The scale reveals variation among the FAM member

organizations with respect to their perceptions of the Title II food aid environment.

Value system. FAM's activities are based entirely on collaborative activity and

information exchange. Therefore, FAM relies almost completely on individuals who participate










in collective activities for successful completion of tasks set in annual operating plans. Collective

activities are seen pragmatically as a means to an end, rather than being merely the end itself.

Organizational collaboration is a social tool designed to overcome environmental conditions.

FAM participants expect collaborative activities to help improve Title II programming activities.

FAM participants also believe that collaboration has larger, un-measurable impacts on the Title II

environment as a whole. It follows that it would benefit FAM if those individuals who participate

in FAM activities were committed to collective activity and scored high on a collectivity scale.

Social psychologists have done the majority of work on Individualism/Collectivism (I/C)

dichotomy, and have developed a number of scales that can be administered to organizational

employees to generate measures of collectivism. Grimm et al. (1999), Earley and Gibson (1998),

and Hui (1988) all provide frameworks and methods for administering these scales in

organizations. The most widely known scales of individualism and collectivism are the scales

Wagner (1995) and Earley (1994) developed. Wagner's scale deals primarily with actual

collaboration in the workplace, while Earley's scale seeks to measure an individual's overall

ideological tendency toward collectivity. These scales have some items in common, so I

presented them to respondents in one standard, randomized questionnaire. After data collection, I

differentiated the responses into the two scales and computed individuals' scores. Individual

scores were used to determine if there was any relationship between I/C, PEU, and position in the

FAM constituency.

Social structure. I used social network analysis techniques to visualize and analyze

FAM's network structure and determine the interorganizational relationships among members of

the FAM constituency. Applied researchers often use exploratory social network approaches in

this capacity (Hasenfeld and Gidron 1993, Kwait et al. 2001, Litwak and Hylton 1962, Pennings

1981). The questions I asked to generate network structures affected the structures that are

generated, so I developed the network questions based on information gathered in Phase One.

Formal and informal connections were investigated, along with organizational interaction outside










of FAM but within the publicly funded Title II context. I presented each respondent with ten

questions, and then asked them to mark which organizations their particular organization

interacted with. Because an individual respondent acts as a representative of his or her

organization, and because individual respondents are not always completely aware of all

interactions, I aggregated individual responses into organizational responses. If any

organizational representative noted an organizational interaction, I retained it in the dichotomous

organization-by-organization matrix. To compensate for organizational response rates, I

transformed the data with maximum symmetrizing algorithm (replace both values X, and X, with

max[Xj, Xj,]). This means that the mention of organization A by organization B signifies a tie

from A to B and from B to A. I completed these data transformations, standard in network

analyses where data is often sparse, for all ten raw interaction matrices (Marsden 1990).

I generated measures and graphs of social structure for the FAM network with two

programs, UCINET and Pajek, respectively. Measures of social structure (particularly centrality

scores, centralization, and core/periphery scores) reveal variation in the FAM network relative to

interorganizational structure and position within a social support network. There are a few

assumptions that accompany the use of social network variables like centrality for these analyses.

First, just as I aggregated organizational representatives' responses to determine organization-

level measures for responses earlier in this dissertation, here I ascribe organization-level measures

of centrality to all relevant organizational representatives. For example, I ascribed all

representatives from CARE the centrality score computed for that particular organization. I made

this assumption because individuals are organizational agents and carry out different

organizational activities just as hands and feet carry out different activities of the same body.

Centrality measures, specifically closeness, reveal how tightly an organization is linked

to other organizations within the network, indicating how organizations perceive a particular set

of social interactions. The most central organizations are perceived to be most important,

powerful, effective, knowledgeable, or involved in a specified set of activities (Boje and Whetten










1981; Boster, Johnson and Weller 1987; Ibarra and Andrews 1993, Michaelson and Contractor

1992; Mizruchi and Potts 1998; Yamagishi, Gilmore and Cook 1988).

Core/periphery analysis is also based on the original interaction matrices. The rows and

columns are rearranged while maintaining internal matrix structure to determine areas of most

relationship density. The organizations with most relationship density are core organizations. The

organizations with lower relationship density are peripheral organizations. Core organizations are

usually older, more active, more experienced, more conservative, and house the majority of

institutional memory within a network. Periphery organizations are smaller, younger, more likely

to be innovative, and generally originate new ideas, procedures and policies within a network.

(For more theoretical discussion of social network methods and application, see Bonacich 1987,

Burt 1992, Freeman 1978/1979, Freeman et al. 1979/1980, Mizruchi and Potts 1998, Scott 1991

and Wasserman and Faust 1994.)

Core and periphery decisions are based on a suggested and somewhat arbitrary cutoff,

and should not be interpreted as strict divisions between groups. Rather, a continuum exists along

which the organizations are distributed. Core/periphery analyses are based on perceptions and

serve only as indicators of relative position within a network at one point in time. Networks are

changing constantly and can be significantly affected by directed activity. However, these

network analyses do indicate which organizations are likely to be expert in a particular area of

interaction and indicate where an organization might like to target or concentrate improvements.

For example, if an organization in the periphery chose to become more active or renowned within

an area (perhaps by applying new creative ideas or practices), it might enter a mentoring

agreement with a core organization or choose to take a leadership role in that realm of interaction.

For the purposes of this study, centrality (and its dichotomous analog core/periphery) is a

proxy for hierarchical embeddedness in an organizational network structure. The more connected

an organization is in the core of a network, the more constrained and conservative. If an










organization actively pursues centrality and control in a network, then that organization is less

inclined to be collectivist.

Evaluation. I asked FAM participants to provide ratings of FAM's success with respect

to its various constituency-building activities (Boruch 1997). I wanted to determine if there was

any relationship between perceptions of the organizational environment, individual activity,

position within the FAM constituency, personal attributes, and measures of FAM's success

(Sciulli 1998). There is organizational research that investigates links between organizational

demographic characteristics and perceptions of success (Pfeffer 1983) or position within a social

network (Freeman 1978/1979 and Freeman et al. 1979/1980), but less research that links an

organization's emergent network attributes to perceptions of success (Katz 1950, 1975, 1978,

1980; Sciulli 1998) In this particular research, I focused on the relationship between an

organization's emergent network position (centrality and core/periphery status) and

organizational representatives' perceptions of FAM's success in coordinating the

interorganizational network.

Table 3-2: Phase Two methods summary and response rates
Quantitative Phase NGOs NGOs Response Individual Individual Time
Contacted Responding Rate Response Response Frame
w/Turover
FAM Evaluation 16 (79 indiv) 13 (40 indiv) 0.81 0.51 0.78 1 month
Collectivity Scales 16 (79 indiv) 13 (40 indiv) 0.81 0.51 0.78 1 month
Environmental Scales 16 (79 indiv) 13 (40 indiv) 0.81 0.51 0.78 1 month
Interaction Questions 16 (79 indiv) 13 (40 indiv) 0.81 0.51 0.78 2 months

The four primary tasks associated with the quantitative phase of this research are

presented in Table 3-2, along with their associated response rates. In this table I present two

response rates, a raw rate and one that incorporates organizational turnover among the FAM

organizations over the year of my research.

Analysis

My Initial analysis of the narrative and archival data was qualitative, providing

background information, prompting additional questions and leading to systematic investigation









of those questions. Qualitative analysis of this qualitative data also provided a basis for valid and

reliable interpretation of quantitative results. Quantitative analysis of qualitative data included

evaluation of questionnaire responses and statistical analyses of nominal and categorical data, like

ratings and rankings (Agresti 1996, Daniel 1990, Hair 1995, Hollander and Wolfe 1999). Because

most sample sized were small, I used nonparametric statistical tests along with univariate,

multivariate and categorical data analysis to provide the most power in determining results of the

various quantitative tests. Analysis of social network data involved traditional matrix algebra

approaches and multivariate statistics to determine both the structure and content of the networks.

I used correlation analyses to determine whether the three measures-structure, uncertainty and

collectivism-varied in the hypothesized directions. I also used Qualitative Comparative Analysis

(QCA) to evaluate the theoretical hypotheses. Additional information about analysis is presented

in the sections that report specific quantitative results in Chapters Six and Seven.

Individual Respondent Profile

I contacted individuals for Phase Two according to the following protocol: I reviewed all

(paper and electronic) meeting minutes from the time period covering FAM's current ISA (1998-

2003). I included minutes from all Steering Committee, Working Group, Workshop, and Brown

Bag activities. I placed any individual whose name was reported as a participant on a master list,

along with the organization that he or she belonged to. This list represented the universe of

individuals associated with FAM activities, and who would therefore be contacted. Since FAM's

collaborative activities are directed primarily at the member PVOs, government officials,

consultants, and individuals who were not employed by FAM member organizations were not

included.

The total number of individuals listed was 87. The number of FAM member participants

was 79. Forty questionnaires were returned, for a 50% response rate. This is to be expected with

the high turnover rate I observed for the FAM member PVOs. About 20% of PVO employees in

the sample underwent some type of occupational change during the year of this project, including










11.5% who moved from one PVO to another or into a government position within the food aid

environment. All of the individuals who changed jobs or positions were contacted but few

returned questionnaires, likely the result of new job responsibilities taking precedence. Roughly

9.2% of individuals moved out of the food aid environment and were unreachable. Among those

who remained in the organization during this study, the response rate was 78%. These rates are

summarized in Table 3-2.

The typical respondent for this survey, based on aggregated characteristics, is a female

with graduate-level education who has been employed at a food aid PVO for 5.7 years. These

individuals rate their participation with FAM at (modal) 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, implying that their

participation is high and therefore their responses are well informed and valid. The average age of

respondents was 38, though many individuals felt age was not a relevant profile characteristic.

The 1977 Quality of Employment survey reported that the typical PVO employee was female,

with graduate education, and job tenure in the range of 5 to 10 years (Mirvis and Hackett 1983;

Quinn and Staines 2000). The correspondence between my sample and the survey assessment

suggests that FAM respondents are representative of the nonprofit community as a whole.
















CHAPTER 4
THE CONTEXT OF TITLE II FOOD AID PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Introduction

In this chapter, I examine the context in which CSs operate, focusing first on the

international and domestic legislation that affects Title II food aid. Next, I outline the food aid

system for distribution and monetization projects, noting the primary stakeholders, and pointing

out instability and uncertainty in the system. Finally, I summarize ways in which instability in an

organizational environment has been controlled in the past, drawing on research from

organizational theory and from the current activities of FAM and FAM members. Information for

this report is drawn primarily from review of international policy, domestic legislation, domestic

policy and other relevant materials. Data gathered in interviews with food aid experts chosen by

the FAM constituency validates documentary data from archival research.

Background

People once believed that fighting hunger meant making sure that there was ample food

produced and available for people around the world. If there were enough access to food, then

people would not be hungry or malnourished; people would have food security. The 1974 World

Food Summit codified that definition. Food security was considered "the physical availability of

food supplies in the event of widespread crop failure" (Institute for Development Studies 1991).

Food security experts now know that crop failures are only a partial explanation for widespread

food shortages. Ecologists, taking a broader view, predicted that population growth would

outpace agricultural production and the earth would overreach its carrying capacity. As time

passed, food aid professionals and agricultural specialists (particularly those with the Food and

Agriculture Organization and the World Bank) realized that improvements in agricultural










technology sharply reduced the possibility of a predicted global food shortage. However, local

access to food was and would remain limited in many places (USAID 2000). International

development organizations and government agencies around the world moved to add the concept

of food access to the concept of availability in the definition of food security. Both of these

primary concepts are incorporated into the United Nations definition of food security, adopted by

the majority of national and international food security interests including the US (Sphere Project

1998).

Definition of food aid. Food and resource economists learned that even when access to

food is adequate, it is often not used in ways that combat hunger and underourishment. The

United States retooled its definition of food security in the 1990 Farm Bill USAID 1992a), and

the definition has been further refined in USAID's Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper

(USAID 1995), and the US Position Paper for the World Food Summit (World Food Summit

1996). The new definition incorporates nutritional policy aspects, particularly the appropriate

utilization of food. While opinions may differ on technical aspects of food security programs, US

specialists agree that food security encompasses availability, access and appropriate utilization to

decrease hunger and malnutrition (Clay and Stokke 2000a, Institute for Development Studies

1991, USAID 1992a). This broad definition guides all US food security programs around the

world.

Extent of the problem. Ensuring household and individual food security is the primary

concern for many organizations working in the developing world. In 2000, there were

approximately 828 million chronically undernourished people in the world, mostly women and

children. A large majority of these undernourished people live in one of the 87 Low Income Food

Deficit Countries (LIFDCs). Forty-one of those LIFDCs are in sub-Saharan Africa, and most of

the remainder are in South and East Asia (USAID 2000). Ferguson argues that, "it is in the low

income developing countries where rates of absolute population growth are highest that the need

to increase food production is greatest" (Ferguson 1990: 2). As local populations increase and










regional food production is challenged to accommodate those increases, the food security crisis in

those areas will only become more acute.

Causes of food insecurity. Research agencies like the International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI) and other governmental and nongovernmental interests seek to

understand the reasons why individuals have limited access to food. The Bread for the World

Institute (BWI 1994) has hypothesized seven causes of hunger, broad enough to encompass the

diversity of unique local causes. Political powerlessness may lead to an inability to gain necessary

food resources. Violence, militarism or civil unrest may disrupt the supply chain or may lead to

political, ethnic or religious groups being denied access to food (see also Kracht 2000, Shoham, et

al. 2000). Inability to participate in the global economy may also lead to food shortages, if local

agricultural production is less than local food needs. Increasing populations, more food

consumption and environmental changes may also lead to hunger, particularly if environmental

changes (like droughts) in areas of population increase lead to decreased agricultural production

(see also Buckland et al. 2000). Undercutting all of these areas, those with limited abilities (the

very old or very young, for example) are often more likely to have less access to food no matter

the circumstances (BWI 1994).

In a position paper prepared for the World Food Summit in 1996, representatives of the

US suggest that food insecurity has multiple causes, most of which are congruent with those

suggested by BWI. The causes were divided into these broad categories: natural disasters, war

and civil strife, inappropriate national policies, poverty, barriers to trade, environmental

degradation, excessive population growth, gender inequality, poor health, and inadequate

development, dissemination, adaptation, and adoption of agricultural and other research and

technology (USGAO 1996). The causes of hunger will not be geographically constrained, but will

deal the most crushing blows to countries where agricultural production has been low, and where

economic purchasing power is not strong enough to combat the problems. This situation is

predicted to become more of a dilemma for low-income countries as the Uruguay Round










decisions and the World Trade Organization become operational and global trade is liberalized

(Shaw and Singer 1995, Helmar 1994).

There may be differences of opinion on how to classify the causes of food insecurity; and

interpretation and determination of those causes may lead researchers to different theoretical

conclusions. There is no question, however, that availability, access and, often, utilization of food

supplies is problematic in many areas of the world. Many people remain hungry or malnourished.

Forecasters suggest that the world's population will continue to increase, doubling in the next

forty years. Per capital incomes will rise, and rural to urban migration will continue. These

conditions will likely lead to food scarcity in some regions of the world (USAID 1992b). As

mentioned before, many World Bank and FAO analysts believe that food production worldwide

will continue to increase at a rate to provide food for all, but local supplies may not fare so well.

In addition, emergency food needs are increasing at an alarming rate (likely to double in the next

ten years) increasing overall worldwide food needs (USAID 2001).

US food aid. In 1954, the US began providing international food relief to combat hunger,

malnutrition and food insecurity. In the past, US food aid was considered a way to dispose of

commodity surpluses that there was little or no demand for in the United States. Surplus goods

were transferred in addition to financial development aid (Saran and Konandreas 1991). Changes

in legislation have affected the kinds and amounts of food earmarked for international aid, but the

US has remained the largest donor among the primary food aid contributors: the EU, Canada,

Japan, and Australia (USAID 2000, 2001). Tightening world markets have led to declining

commodity surpluses and questions about the long-term viability of food aid (Pillai 2000, Saran

and Konandreas 1991). Nevertheless, agricultural commodities remain a dominant source of

development program support worldwide, both for the US and for other international donors, who

consider food aid both economical and ethical. In fiscal year (FY) 2000 the US provided about

ten million metric tons (MMT) of grains and other commodities, valued at more than 2.4 billion









dollars, to meet food aid goals in 82 developing and reindustrializing countries around the world

(USAID 2000).

The five primary goals for U.S. food aid were first formulated in 1954's Agricultural

Trade Development and Assistance Act (PL480). They are: to combat hunger worldwide; to

promote sustainable development, including agricultural development; to expand international

trade; to develop and expand export markets for US agricultural commodities; and to foster and

encourage development of private enterprise and democratic participation in developing

countries. American food aid has a strong strategic component; humanitarian assistance is

"tempered by the realization that such concern can be effectively expressed only by maintaining

US strength and global leadership" (USAID 1998a).

Modes of food aid. There are two primary modes of food aid: distribution, where food is

delivered to targeted populations, and monetization, where food is sold in local markets and the

cash generated is used for development projects. Food aid distribution projects run the gamut

from maternal and child feeding programs in Kenya (Teller and Owuor-Omondi 1991) to support

for agricultural development projects in Guatemala, where local farmers are provided with food

to help them transition from local crops to more lucrative crops like spices (This CARE-

supported project is reported in Garst and Barry 1990). Food aid monetization projects range

from Agriculture Cooperative Development Interational/olunteers in Overseas Cooperative

Assistance (ACDI/OCA) rural credit programs supporting food producers and processors in

Russia (ACDI/OCA annual report 2000) to Catholic Relief Services' primary education

programs in India (CRS 2001).

Through PVO CSs and the World Food Program (WFP), USAID manages the bulk of US

food aid projects, which range from emergency relief in countries damaged by war or natural

disasters (Mercy Corps 1999, Cohen 2000) to development assistance in countries struggling to

privatize or diversify agricultural industries (Garst and Barry 1990). The majority of US food aid










is funded through PL480 Title II programs that provide commodities for distribution, emergency

feeding, and monetization projects targeted at international development (Von Braun 1992).

International Food Aid Legislation and Policy

Food Aid Convention. The Food Aid Convention (FAC) provides a minimum

operational framework for international food aid. At the 1995 convention, clear determinations

were made as to what types of transfers could be considered food aid, what commodities were

acceptable as food aid, and what minimum annual contributions would be for the ensuing years.

The total minimum amount of food aid for donations from Argentina, Australia, Canada, the EU,

Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the US was approximately 5.5 MMT, of which the US provided

2.5 MMT (UNFAC 1995). The 1999 FAC reset minimum annual contributions, decreasing the

total to approximately 4.9 MMT. The decreases are primarily in the annual contributions of

Australia and the EU, with Canada and Norway increasing their minimum annual contributions

(UNFAC 1999). Analysts believe that these amounts are far below actual food needs in LIFDCs

(Benson 2000). Fortunately, in the years since the 1995 FAC, donor contributions have been far

above the minimum requirements and will probably remain so (Clay and Stokke 2000a).

World Food Summit. The driving force in international food aid policy is the 1996

World Food Summit (Clay and Stokke 2000b). International representatives agreed to attempts to

reduce by half the number of chronically malnourished by 2015 (USGAO 1996). At the summit,

the first called by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) since 1974, heads of state

committed to a broad range of measures to reduce hunger and increase food security. These

include ensuring an enabling political, economic and social environment for eradicating poverty;

implementing policies aimed at eradicating poverty; and pursuing participatory and sustainable

development policies aimed at increasing food supplies and eradicating poverty. Heads of state

further committed to meet emergency food needs caused by natural disasters and crises; combat

poverty and food insecurity by supporting effective and efficient use of public and private

investments; and establish free trade policies that foster food security. These commitments are










elaborated in a plan of action to be implemented, monitored and reviewed by the international

community (World Food Summit 1996).

Uruguay Round. The Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was a series of world commodity trade decisions involving agricultural

and governmental sectors in 117 nations. The goal was to ensure that free trade policies and trade

liberalization would increase world trade overall, while controlling variation for individual

countries and particular commodities. Decision makers believe that net trade increases will make

the Uruguay Round decisions worthwhile for all involved. Unfortunately, income growth will

offset higher world prices only in countries with industries that benefit from the Uruguay Round.

The trade decisions may have a negative impact on the balance of trade in the least

developed countries, increasing imports and decreasing exports (Pandya-Lorch 2000). In the

worst case scenario, those countries that do not benefit directly from the Uruguay Round may be

unable to import necessary quantities of food leading to national-level food insecurity (Helmar

1994). Early research has shown that the Round has led to higher world market prices

(Konandreas et al. 2000). There is the possibility that these higher world prices will affect price

variability, local domestic prices, and food import bills. All of these factors will hinder the ability

of developing countries to secure enough food to meet their needs and will leave those countries

that benefit most from the GATT agreements facing some serious questions regarding support for

the countries most impacted by the trade decisions (Shaw and Singer 1995).

As a way to combat the negative effect on trade and on food availability in some

countries, the Marrakech decision was included as part of the Final Act of the trade negotiations

(Konandreas et al. 2000). The Final Act explains the agreed upon response should the Uruguay

Round have negative effects on trade for LIFDCs. There are two major food aid provisions

included in the Final Act: food aid levels will meet the needs of LIFDCs, and food aid will not be

used to circumvent the GATT trade decisions (Shaw and Singer 1995). During a period of review

focusing on the effects of the Uruguay Round, food aid donors will be called on to evaluate the










aid levels determined under the FAC and establish new levels that are sufficient to meet the needs

of the countries affected by the trade reforms. Decisions made regarding food aid will be

reviewed by the WTO's ministerial conference every two years, and may lead to increases in the

level of food aid determined under the Food Aid Convention (FAC).

The FAC will face problems of its own regarding food aid. Trade restrictions and

adjustments that liberalize international markets directly affect how food aid is considered on

national and international tally sheets. Demand for food aid, both emergency and program aid,

will increase, partly due to the effects of the Uruguay Round and partly due to the continuing

pressures of population growth, globalization, development, climatic change and environmental

emergencies. Emergency food aid, in some respects, has a higher profile in the world's eye, is

seen as a more ethical and, therefore, a more valid use of food aid commodities and may also lead

to the preferential choice of emergency aid over program food aid. Because emergency and

program food aid are not distinguished in the FAC documents, food aid will be dominated by

demands for emergency food aid, leaving little room for program aid, which has the highest long-

term likelihood of helping developing countries manage the effects of Uruguay Round trade

liberalization. In addition, trade changes may decrease the amount of food available for donor

countries to give as aid. Heightened restrictions on surplus disposal may limit food aid amounts

even more.

Importance of food aid. International agreements from the Cairns Group, the EU, and

several other developing countries point out the importance of clarifying and reinforcing the

international commitment to providing food aid for LIFDCs during the years following the

implementation of Uruguay Round decisions. A new food aid regime should loosen restrictions

on the kinds of food aid considered acceptable and allow for more multilateral food aid programs,

which may follow the structure established by the WFP (Shaw and Singer 1995). The presence of

the WFP in the international food aid arena should not be downplayed. The WFP now

implements the majority of emergency food aid programs, many of which have evolved into










long-term humanitarian assistance projects with the general aim of providing a food safety net.

As a result, WFP has access to a large share of US development dollars, increasingly spent on

emergency relief over development project aid, which means fewer cash resources for other

PVOs participating in international development activities. Table 4-1 summarizes the major

international policy documents relevant for food aid and food security programming.

National Food Aid Legislation and Policy

The shift in development dollars from program aid to emergency relief is a global

phenomenon, reflected in international agreements and therefore US food aid legislation. All food

aid professionals interviewed for this project agree that United States food aid is driven not only

by these international agreements but also by domestic legislation and, most strongly, by

domestic policy. The United States has consistently incorporated international decisions

regarding operational and policy aspects of food aid into their domestic legislation. The original

policy statements and guidelines were set forth in the 1954 Agricultural Trade Development and

Assistance Act, known as PL480. The first three titles of PL480 set the various ways in which US

commodities can be used for international aid. (Marine Overseas Services n.d., USDA 1996)

PL480. Title I programs, which were once much larger, authorize the sale of

commodities to governments and foreign interests with low-interest loans, effectively giving food

to countries for payment at a later time. Title II, which covers the largest amount of food aid,

provides for emergency and development assistance to countries in need with the cooperation of

PVOs, NGOs and, increasingly, the WFP. The goals for Title II projects are to address famine or

other extraordinary relief requirements, combat malnutrition, attempt to alleviate causes of

hunger, promote economic and community development, promote sound environmental practices,

and carry out feeding programs. The organizations that implement these programs are often

supported through Section 202(e) of PL480, which makes monies available for establishing new

programs, meeting costs for program administration, and ensuring that commodities are used

effectively and efficiently. Title III, originally much larger but now the smallest of the US food










aid programs, allows for government to government donations, and is the most strongly linked to

US foreign policy and strategy (FAM 1993). Section 203 of PL480 allows for the sale of certain

amounts of commodities to provide cash resources for transportation, storage, distribution and

administration of Title II food aid programs, or to implement other community development

programs that will combat the sources of hunger and poverty. Sections 204 and 206 set minimum

levels of assistance (in metric tons) and maximum levels of expenditures to support these projects

(in dollars).

Food aid shipments began in 1955, and tonnages increased from 3.4 MMT in 1955 to 14

MMT in 1957, primarily as a means to support US farm incomes. In the 1966 Food for Peace

Act, food aid policy perspectives moved away from considering food aid as surplus disposal and

toward food aid as a planned response to predicted world food needs. The 1974 Foreign

Assistance Act further strengthened the humanitarian emphasis of food aid programs, mandating

that the majority of food aid be donated to countries determined by the UN to be "most seriously

affected" by food shortages. In 1975, strict limitations were built into PL480 food aid, motivated

primarily by the World Food Conference and predicted food shortages.

By 1977, resource economists' and agronomists' threats of serious food shortages were

past, and the US directed food aid at promoting foreign policy concerns such as increasing human

rights and meeting basic human needs. Minimum tonnages were increased, and the Title II budget

was increased to $750 million. To minimize the disincentive effects of large food aid shipments

on local economies, the Bellmon Amendment was passed, requiring all Title II programs to

provide an analysis of local storage capabilities and local market impact of food shipments

(USAID/FFP/PVA 1985). Bellmon analyses are still a major part of any Title II program,

required unequivocally for all programs whose food amounts approximate ten percent of local

staple food consumption and for all projects that include monetizations (which is, in effect, all

Title II programs worldwide). Critics of food aid argue that such large inflows of commodities

depress local prices and lead to inadequate agricultural policies in host countries. Those critics










argue further that regardless of Bellmon Analysis results, US food undercuts local market prices

and limits the ability of the local farmer or entrepreneur to participate (USAID/FFP/PVA 1985).

To combat this problem, many monetizations target the small-lot buyer, improving access to

commodities and increasing market participation.

In the Eighties, PL480 was maintained, commodity amounts were increased according to

US production, and emergency commodity stockpiles like the Wheat Reserve were created. The

1990 Farm Bill was the next major revision of PL480, highlighting the five major directives for

US food aid presented originally in 1954, and reorganizing US food aid under its six Titles

(Marine Overseas Services, n.d.). This legislation is revised every five years; the most recent

legislation that is supported by US policy is the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform

Act, referred to as the 1996 Farm Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill, while passed, has not been

incorporated fully into US policy.

A 1996 US Department of Agriculture (USDA 1996) Summary of the Farm Bill shows

United States' policy growing to accommodate international policy. Title I commodity loan

restrictions were lessened, allowing for loans to private entities rather than to government

interests, and loan repayment options were broadened. Title II food aid support (in dollars) was

more than doubled to $28 million, and the World Food Program and other intergovernmental

entities were deemed acceptable avenues for food aid. Monetization was further institutionalized

in the legislation, and third-party monetization was allowed. The minimum percentage of

commodities to be sold in the local markets was increased, allowing organizations to recoup

shipping, handling and administrative costs. Title IV amendments broadened the range of

commodities available for programming under PL480, allowed for greater program flexibility,

and provided support for improving operation and administration of US food aid programs. Other

amendments allowed Congress to reapportion available commodities between the various PL480

titles, depending on the most urgent international need.










The 1996 Farm Bill incorporates World Food Summit policy by establishing a procedure

for emergency commodity release in the event of serious, unanticipated need. To provide

commodities in case of such an emergency, food banks are established where grains will be

stockpiled. Uruguay Round and GATT provisions are also incorporated into the 1996 Farm Bill,

which provides for monitoring and evaluation of other GATT signatories and provides for

Uruguay Round contingencies.

Table 4-1: Summary of domestic and international food aid policy and legislation
International Policy National Policy National Legislation
* Food Aid Convention USDA regulations for PL480
* Title 10 of GATT food aid programs Agricultural Trade and
* Uruguay Round of GATT, 7CFR210 Development Assistance
incl. Ministerial Decision 'Regulation 11' for AID Act of 1954, as amended
on LIFDCs programs Section 416 of Agriculture
* Current Department of 'Regulation 14' for Act 1949
Agriculture Platform on shipping CCC Charter Act
trade negotiations USDA policy/ guidelines Merchant Marine Act of
* FAO surplus commodity USAID policy/guidelines 1936, cargo preference
disposal committee usual incl. MNTZ manual, FY sections
marketing requirement and DAP guidance Section 110 of Food
determinations FFP policy letters Security Act of 1985 (food
* UNWFP and its policies, Other regulations in for progress)
specifically its agreement federal register Each FYs agriculture
with US Commodity reference conference report and
* World Food Summit 1996 guides annual Appropriations
documentation FAFSPP reports
ISA guidance
OMB circulars

Policy clauses that support international law exist alongside clauses that support US

agricultural interests, US strategic objectives and US export and trade interests. The US has

incorporated the international interests for a number of reasons. First, it is considered good

foreign policy. Second, in many ways, providing commodities for international needs supports

domestic agricultural production, US shipping interests, and US trade interests, which stimulates

the US economy. Third, as mentioned before, international emergency and development relief is a

highly visible activity that many US citizens consider to be the ethical, humanitarian thing to do,

improving the profile of the US government both domestically and internationally. Some food aid

specialists believe that the levels set in international congresses are too broad to be useful,










allowing domestic legislation to be equally flexible, and leaving the majority of programming and

operational details to be determined through policy decisions and interpretations. This makes

policy decisions the most important factors to consider when designing food aid programs.

In 2002, the Congress passed a new Farm Bill, which affected food aid policy, strategy,

and project implementation for the United States. The Food Aid Consultative Group, which in

1996 was broadened to include agricultural and commercial interests, worked actively to ensure

that the new bill satisfied all stakeholders. Debates centered on the importance and

appropriateness of commodity monetization for development programming. A recent General

Accounting Office paper suggested that the costs of monetization outweighed the benefits,

concluding that the 2002 Farm Bill should reduce a PVO's ability to sell commodities for local

currency (USOMB 2001:Section 13). Other food aid specialists believe that the impact of

monetized commodities can be shown to be greater in assisting sustainable development than is

simple food distribution (FAM 1999a). Whichever the case, as development dollars become

increasingly scarce, and as more of those scarce dollars are allocated to emergency relief (through

agencies such as the WFP), the percentage of PVO projects that must monetize for cash to run

programs is increasing, making the monetization debate critical. The debate is ongoing, and

contributes a large amount of uncertainty into the food aid arena, in the legislature, at the PVO

headquarters level and at the field level where projects are implemented. Table 4-1 summarizes

the important national policy and legislation for food aid activities.

Stakeholders

While Title I and Title III food aid programs are important, the focus for this report is

Title II programs because they comprise the majority of US food aid and focus on the types of

projects that taxpayers see as US humanitarian aid. They involve the US government, PVO CSs,

local governments, local populations, American farmers, and many other stakeholders concerned

with getting commodities from US farms to families in need in LIFDCs. Konandreas (1987)

argues that food aid flows are influenced by a number of factors, including level of commodities










in donor countries, world commodity prices, donor country commitments, development

objectives for donor countries, and humanitarian considerations in donor countries. Underlying

all of these factors are uncontrollable environmental concerns that introduce uncertainty into the

world commodities market. The relative importance of these factors varies from country to

country and from year to year. In this section, I outline how food aid distribution and

monetization programs happen, elaborating a little on each major player.

Title II, administered by USAID, is now generally seen as the flagship of food aid,

managing the largest amount of commodities and dollars in cooperation with a number of

American and International NGOs and PVOs (USAID 2000). The process by which commodities

are moved from US farmers' land to, for example, a maternal and child feeding program in Africa

is, Konandreas argues, "an increasingly complex international food aid system... both in logistics

and institutions involved" (1987: 91). Delivering food assistance requires coordination among

commodity suppliers, package manufacturers, domestic transportation and ocean carriers, input

from PVOs, the WFP (Faaland et al. 2000), Cooperating Sponsors and foreign governments

(CCC 1996). Rather than describe the system in the traditional, top-down manner, I begin with

the recipients, who are often considered last in a discussion of food aid project implementation

(Doornbos 2000).

Recipients. Food aid recipients are as varied as the organizations that administer the

programs and the farmers that provide the commodities. They live in 82 countries around the

world, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa, South and East Asia, Latin America and European and

Newly Independent Countries. They may be women and infants, school age children, the elderly,

political refugees, or survivors of natural disasters (CARE 2001, Mercy Corps 1999, PCI 2001).

These individuals might be undernourished. The food provided will act directly to improve their

diets is best considered nutritional support. Sometimes the food provided might be more

effectively considered an income transfer, allowing individuals to free household capital for other

activities or for other necessities that the food itself could not provide. More often, recipients










benefit from agriculture or health and nutrition projects completed with funds from monetized

food aid, while enjoying lower market prices for commodities. Further, recipients of Title II

programs in which commodities are totally monetized may see no direct benefits from their

projects, particularly those targeting agricultural change or public health campaigns, but may

receive indirect benefits that improve overall quality of life.

Host countries. In any project, PVOs attempt to meet the needs of an underserved area

where a host government's resources or a nation's economic activities have difficulty reaching.

Usually these plans are built into the organization's strategic objectives. In some cases, PVOs

enter areas without invitation from host governments. In other cases, PVOs will only enter areas

at the request of the host government or of the local population. A targeted area's needs are

assessed and the site provides the impetus for the particular program to be designed. After the

framework of the project is created, the rest of the details are negotiated with governmental

interests, local community members, and USAID missions. Often other multinational interests are

consulted, and their input is considered in the design of the development activity. Each

stakeholder has their own goals for the project, and the idea is to meet as many of those as

possible with one project design. Project design, too, must consider the technical expertise of the

particular PVO and what technical activities must be contracted out to ensure success. It seems

simple to design a project that meets the needs of an area with development resources, but when

the desires of the stakeholders do not coincide, the problems may overcome any activity, no

matter how strong the desire on all parts to do good work. Balancing the interests of donors,

programming organizations and local communities may prove too complex.

Food aid organizations. There are thirty or more organizations that implement Title II

programs in 56 countries and three regions around the world (USAID 2000). Each Title II

organization must submit a Development Activity Proposal (DAP) for approval to USAID

(USAID/BHR/FFP 2001). The majority of these organizations are PVOs that work in cooperation

with the US government and sometimes with the governments of recipient countries to transport,










store, and distribute food aid. In addition, these organizations are charged with conducting

baseline surveys, monitoring the progress of the projects and evaluating them at their completion,

to determine whether the programs affected the targeted group. In many ways Cooperating

Sponsor employees must be skilled in a number of tasks including commodities exchange,

shipping and receiving, nutritional analysis, anthropometric data collection and analysis, social

project implementation, agricultural and small enterprise development, and often political

lobbying (USAID Office of Procurement 1998; Checchi-Louis Berger 1999).

US government. Food Aid programs revolve around what one food aid specialist calls an

axis of "legislation, regulation, policy and personality." Congress is responsible for setting US

food aid policy, incorporating international policy decisions and allocating monies earmarked

yearly to buy US commodities for food aid. Title II organizations must remain aware of and

lobby for appropriate developments in the legislature, primarily because legislation is the only

part of the procedural axis that must be followed. After legislative concerns are past, Title II

organizations must follow USAID and USDA policy decisions about which commodities will be

available for food aid. Title II organizations must submit proposals for their various development

activities around the world, which are reviewed and approved by officers at FFP (USAID 2001).

The FFP office is the most direct link between the government and the PVOs that oversee

food aid programs.2 The FFP officers are responsible for handling increasing numbers of food aid

proposals with decreasing numbers of employees (and fewer technical experts with less

knowledge of field realities) and in an environment of drastic change (Checchi-Louis Berger

1999). FFP determines how many tons of commodities each organization receives for each

country to be assisted, provides the appropriated funds to the USDA for commodity purchases

and manages Title II development projects for results, including review of monitoring and

evaluation data from the projects to determine any measurable change. More than half of the PVO


2 As part of a larger re-engineering program for the federal government, FFP has been decreasing the
number of employees and managing for results.










representatives contacted agree that the five-year time frame built into development activities is

too short to see any significant change. They also agree that the management and monitoring

burden on PVOs requires the expenditure of time and resources that should be dedicated to

program strategy, implementation and improvement.

Distribution projects. In a distribution project, the US government buys commodities

from large agro-industries such as Cargill, which likewise buys commodities from farmers across

the United States. Marketing specialists with the USDA maintain purchase announcements and

lists of vendors who provide food for humanitarian aid, and ensure competitive prices for food aid

commodities. At this stage nutritional content, packaging, and transport are considered to ensure

that the commodities delivered meet local needs (both in quality and in quantity). The

commodities purchased are not earmarked for export or for domestic use and are often subject to

the changes brought about by vagaries in the growing season, changes in commercial uses, and

the domestic and international market systems (Lee 1999). Generally the commodities used in

Title II aid are rice, wheat, corn, soybeans, sunflowers, beans, peas, and lentils (USAID 2000).

When a PVO calls forward an allotment (called a tranche) of commodities, USDA

specialists review the documentation and determine the validity of the request. USAID is

contacted to ensure that there are funds available for the purchase. If the commodity is available,

or can be procured, an invitation for bids is issued. This invitation outlines the specific needs of

the PVO for the particular project, and result in sealed bids from the vendors. The bids are

reviewed and contracting officers make decisions regarding who will be chosen to provide,

process and transport the needed commodities. After the award has been made, vendors begin

producing the commodities. This may include cleaning, sorting, packing and shipping for items

such as dried beans, and may also include milling and blending with powdered milk or other

enrichment additives for items such as corn-soy blend. After the commodities are processed and

packaged, they are transferred to the port, loaded onto shipping vessels, shipped and received at

the recipient port, unloaded into storage facilities, inspected, and protected from pests, vandals









and thieves. For a distribution, the food will be transported to the target location and distributed to

the appropriate section of the population.

Monetization projects. Monetization is different. According to a Food Aid Management

monetization workshop for PVO headquarters staff, selling American commodities in the markets

of developing areas adds a number of unique tasks to commodity management. The outcome of

the procedure changes from making sure that food reaches the desired targets to making sure that

the food is sold and the money collected is used for a particular project and that the project

reaches the target population. Not only must the commodities be packed, transported, loaded,

shipped, offloaded, stored, and dispersed but the commodities must be put up for sale by tender or

negotiation, the sales must be monitored, monies must be collected and handled in foreign

currencies using foreign banks, legal sales contracts must be written and signed, and bank

transfers of money must be made. In addition, monetization projects must satisfy USAID's

regulations for environmental impact and storage capabilities, for monitoring and evaluation and

commodity management, as well as for financial transparency, cost recovery, benchmark policy,

market impact and legality. The reporting requirements alone make a monetization project much

more work intensive than a traditional distribution, evidenced by the existence of both an USAID

Monetization field manual (1998b) and a FAM Monetization manual (1999a) to provide guidance

(not to mention monetization manuals for individual organizations). Both in process and in

outcome, a monetization project is an entirely different entity; both projects have their respective

places in the food aid and food security context, requiring their own unique (and often mutually

exclusive) skill sets.

Organizational Environment

In even the simplest system, uncertainty must be considered. In the complex system of

Title II food aid, there is a large possibility for uncertainty or at least for instability, volatility and

change. This does not seem unusual, given the large number of system inputs, the number of

stakeholders, the multiplicity of locations in which events take place, the amount of reporting,










monitoring and evaluation that must occur, and the vast number of transactions involved,

particularly in a project that includes monetization. Lee alludes to the complexity of the process

(1999), as does the Commodity Credit Corporation (1996), Garst and Barry (1990), and Smelser

(1997). Some experts interviewed consider the food aid environment to be a punctuated

equilibrium, with periods of stability interrupted at critical points by extreme volatility. However,

this is only at the policy level. At the procedural level, there is unanimous agreement among food

aid experts that there is constant change.

In this section, I review a few sources of that instability, looking later at ways in which

Title II organizations may work to overcome them. I have limited my discussion of

environmental uncertainty to those areas that I believe are most relevant to Title II organizations.

While it is true that an unstable organizational and institutional environment affects government

agencies, local governments and recipients, consideration of all of the stakeholders is beyond the

scope of this report.

At the most basic level, the earth's environment introduces a large amount of uncertainty.

Climatic changes and natural disasters affect the amount of food available for food aid

worldwide, as well as the amount of emergency food aid needed around the world (Buckland et

al. 2000). Shortages in European countries may change levels of American exports, leading to

less available commodities for food aid. A particularly active hurricane season may drastically

increase the emergency food aid needs of Latin American and Caribbean countries

(Pandya-Lorch 2000). The same hurricane season may affect American harvests leading to a

sharp decline in the amount of grains available to send to needy countries.

Since emergency food aid is considered most important, levels are adjusted accordingly.

Therefore, in Title II programs where aid amounts are capped, project food aid to PVOs is

decreased in times of larger emergency food aid need when most development dollars and

commodities go to the WFP (Shaw and Singer 1995). In addition, American food aid levels are










linked to the amount of commodities that the European community can and will provide for food

aid, likewise linked to economic and environmental factors (Thirion 2000).

At the level of Title II recipients, the possibilities of civil unrest or war also affect

emergency food aid needs (Kracht 2000). Frankenburger argues that conflict, or general political

instability, underlies most food insecurity because an unstable country or geographical area is

unable to provide for other types of emergencies. And just as environmental crises are often

unpredictable, so are ethnic, religious, or political uprisings. There are some early warning

systems, but the threat of uprising may remain stable for years and then suddenly change. In fact,

any of the causes of hunger presented in the introductory section may affect food aid recipients,

and, since many of them are unpredictable, they also contribute to an unstable food aid

environment.

Focusing on Title II organizations themselves, there are a number of reasons why the

food environment is unstable. Nelson suggests that "the problems encountered in such operations

can be truly enormous: for example, complicated negotiations and ordering, international

transport lags and bottlenecks, pressures on limited domestic infrastructure capacity, and stock

management difficulties" (1981: 6). These problems arise on the ground, where there are often

limited possibilities for complete success. Most organizations feel satisfied with a limited

statement of success, meaning sometimes that food was distributed and that there are some

indicators of improved household nutrition, but there may not be statistically significant results

(Smelser 1997). The limited possibility for unequivocal success in these projects is related to a

vast number of variables, many of which are unidentifiable at the inception of a Title II project,

and many are unforeseeable, making many Title II projects very difficult tasks (Raikes 1988).

Interviews with Title II area experts corroborate this opinion, many of them arguing that the

operational demands alone are often far beyond the abilities of some organizations new to Title II

programs. The existence of USAID's Institutional Support Agreements also supports this position

(USAID Office of Procurement 1998).










Monetization leads to more concern over how projects are implemented on the ground.

Monetization adds an entirely new set of procedures to an already complex development activity,

and those procedures must be completed successfully before the development program can begin

at all. Since monetization is relatively new in the history of food aid and is growing in its relative

frequency in international development activities, codified procedures continue to evolve and

there is uncertainty introduced to the completion of development programs on the ground. As

previously discussed, there are also debates over the use of monetization as an end itself to assist

in developing markets in particular areas. With the debates over the impact of monetization as

heated as they are currently, additional uncertainty exists for development programmers who

must contend with monetization's uncertain future as an acceptable source for cash in food aid

programming.

At PVO headquarters' offices, there are whole new classes of problems associated with

the implementation and backstopping of food aid projects. Many problems regarding

administration and interaction with other organizations and governmental agencies are dealt with

at this level. One food aid specialist argues that the large majority of problems and uncertainties

in food aid programs come from the diversity of tasks PVOs are expected to perform coupled

with inefficiencies and lack of technical experts on staff to guide strategy and implementation.

Another specialist argues that the amount of monitoring paperwork required in such a short time

frame hinders food aid specialists from completing projects because time must be dedicated to

completing necessary reports rather than to the project at hand. Delay resulting from lags in

document review may lead to breaks in implementation and may have serious programmatic

repercussions for PVOs.

Even if the project is perfectly designed and has no possibility for failure, it may be that

legislative whims or changes in commodity allocations affect the project. A multiyear project

may have its operating tonnages cut midproject as a result of decisions made at governmental or

agency levels. There is precedent for this in the drastic reduction in aid tonnages in 1996/1997,










which had a profound affect on the provision of food aid world wide and affected the ability of

Title II organizations to execute their projects effectively. Issues regarding the sale of

commodities in a monetization project, particularly relative to expected market price and actual

market price, introduce uncertainty to headquarters operations. If commodity sales will not

provide sufficient resources for a development program, headquarters offices must react quickly

to remedy the situation.

There are other problems with workload, technical expertise, staff turnover, extensive

travel, and problems of implementation that I have been unable to discuss in this section that only

serve to exacerbate the instability of the environment. However, this summary of the ways in

which the Title II organizational environment is uncertain, has been building to a point. Title II

organizations (and probably many other PVOs working in food aid) must be flexible to

accommodate changes, and must implement a number of measures to achieve that flexibility. It is

not unusual to find that coping with environmental uncertainty is necessary for organizational

viability (Duncan 1972, Hirsch 1998). Most food aid experts would agree with the comment

made by one senior headquarters employee: a volatile work environment is the nature of the

beast.

What becomes problematic is determining the kind of environment in which an

organization operates and what variables best act as parameters for that environment (Duncan,

1972). The problem intensifies for nonprofit organizations simply because much of the theoretical

research that could be used to generate frameworks for understanding (and thereby controlling)

the environment fails to consider nonprofit-specific or service-based activities. Nevertheless,

Duncan's framework of factors and components that comprise an organization's internal and

external environment including organizational personnel, organizational structure, organizational

goals and objectives, technological concerns, customer concerns, supplier and competitor

concerns, as well as the sociopolitical environment is useful (1972). Even the most cursory

review of PVO Title II activities provides a curious observer with enough examples of










uncertainty in each of these components to agree that the PVO environment is unstable. PVO

experts have difficulty defining exactly which parameters within the environment are most

volatile or unstable, though research has shown that organizational environments have certain

characteristics that are 'drivers' of organizational change (Boyd et al. 1993, Dill 1958, Downey

1975, Duncan 1972, Emery and Trist 1965, Lorenzi et al. 1981, Miles and Snow 1978, Milliken

1987, Williams 2000). What aspects are most unstable remain to be shown with quantitative

measures.

Emery and Trist (1965) would call the type of environment in which Title II PVOs work

a "turbulent field." Turbulent fields are dynamic and volatile environments where changes arise

not only from within the organization but also from the environment. Dill (1958) argues that

unstable environments and the ability of managers to gather information about those

environments directly affect management behaviors. I believe that not only are management

behaviors affected, but also organizational structure, institutional beliefs, and organizational

behaviors. I also believe that the complexity of organizational environments and their link to

organizational behaviors have only increased in the years since Dill's paper was published. In the

next section, I review relevant organizational literature and present characteristics common to

organizations working in the presence of uncertainty from many different sources.

Organizational Adaptations

Research focusing on nonprofit, voluntary and collective organizations suggests that

there may be organizational responses to uncertain environments that help mitigate the

circumstances. These responses might include confining organizational activities to a particular

niche within an organizational environment, structuring organizations in ways that accommodate

environmental change, encouraging employee flexibility and role generalization within

organizations, collaboration between similar organizations, and in some cases, resource sharing.

In this section, I review some of the literature on this topic, incorporating examples of the various

types of behavior from the activities of FAM and FAM members. The point here is to show how










Title II CSs have responded to changes in the environment and how their responses compare and

contrast with other organizational responses reported in the organizational literature.

One way to confine environmental uncertainty is to limit operations to a very small, more

controllable area. Similar to a biological species choosing a particular niche (such as nocturnal

hunting), these behaviors move organizations from a generalist perspective into a specialist

perspective. With less of the uncertain environment to handle, threats to organizational survival

are limited, and organizational members can focus on refining a limited number of skills, rather

than collecting a large number of general skills. Hannan and Freeman (1977) argue that even

though generalist organizations are often optimal for uncertain environments, when environments

change rapidly and drastically, specialist organizations are most successful, a point that is

seconded by Heydebrand (1989).

If a nonprofit organization chooses not to limit itself to a particular niche, one of the most

important ways to address uncertainty is to structure organizations to accommodate changes

easily. Basically, this means relying on organizational structures that are less hierarchical and/or

that contain subunits that are somewhat independent. This allows for more ease in decision-

making and shortens response times for changes that must be dealt with quickly. Schiflett and

Zey (1990) argue that many nonprofit organizations exhibit a decentralized distribution of power

with multiple power bases and loosely coupled processes. Many Title II CSs adopt this structure

at the ground level, where food is shipped, received, monetized and distributed. Others

incorporate this strategy all the way through headquarters level.

Moving from organizational structures to organizational behaviors that moderate the

environment, the behavioral equivalent of semiautonomous, non-hierarchical structure is role

generalization. Role generalization means that many different employees have the skills to

perform a wide number of tasks that may arise in the course of a particular project. Employees

have a number of skill sets that overlap, so that if the occasion arises there are a number of

individuals who may be able to handle a crisis or solve a 'pop-up' problem. Mirvis and Hackett










argue that compared to government and for-profit employees, nonprofit employees feel "less

fettered by centralization and controls, have more autonomy in doing their jobs" (1983, 8).

Contact with the human resources departments of FAM member organizations supports this

assertion, with many departments able to determine the number of employees working in a

particular geographical area, but few able to determine those who work within a particular

programmatic area. While this may not be the most efficient or rational way to structure a

business or market organization, research has shown this type of behavior to be very effective for

organizations where things happen unexpectedly.

Another way to limit risk in an uncertain environment is to share resources with other

organizations. Scarce resources still lead to competition, though there is institutional pressure

toward cooperation in the nonprofit world, when it is appropriate. For many nonprofits sharing

resources and dividing tasks means limited resources are used as effectively as possible for group

success rather than individual success. Often there are group goals that must be met in a particular

area (such as the development of rigorous monitoring and evaluation measures for Title II

projects), and sharing of resources helps to meet the group goals more quickly. The new

atmosphere of cooperation among Title II PVOs means that organizations have access to more

technical information than ever before, as a result of increased communication between

organizations at all levels, particularly between employees who have the same job. Organizational

representatives interviewed for this report agreed that this was indeed evident in FAM activities

and useful for development project implementation.

Hasenfeld and Gidron (1993), studying self-help groups and human service

organizations, found that if situations arise in which organizations depend on each other or a

common third party (USAID) for resources and the organizations share similar domains, missions

and structures, cooperation may arise in the form of coordinated action or coalition building.

Here, resources are shared and collective action is chosen as a means to achieve organizational

goals. This mode of action is the most collectivist of all the organizational behaviors considered










here and requires the largest amount of investment on the part of each of the organizations.

Organizations agree not only to share resources but also employees and time to solve a problem

of mutual concern. FAM's activities fall into this category. The collaborative approach is often

considered most risky because there may not be any direct or measurable improvement for an

individual organization, though an increased measure of environmental control may be the

outcome. Collective action is highly uncertain and often is very political. Because the investment

of time, resources and employees is not directly related, this type of response is the most likely to

be cut if other situations arise.

One way to ensure that collaboration continues is to create ways in which collaboration is

formalized. Peter Holm argues that formalized cooperative agreements emerge as a way for

organizations in unstable environments to "reconcile the inherent contradiction between

individual and collective interests" (1998, 322). Many organizational collectives have been

created to do just that, a point made by Litwak and Hylton in their analysis of coordinating

agencies (1962). InterAction, for one, manages a collective of organizations that share a common

outlook on operations (InterAction 1995). The CORE group is a similar collective of child

survival organizations. And FAM, funded through an ISA (formerly ISG) agreement, has been

coordinating and supporting the collective activities of Title II organizations for more than twelve

years (Mason 2001). When collective action is formalized, there are means to monitor and

evaluate that collaboration, well-defined avenues for collaboration, and defined roles for each

player in the collective. Until collaboration becomes systematic and institutionalized, this is the

most successful means of ensuring cooperation, given the high rate of turnover in the PVO

community and the variability of personal commitment to collaboration.

In development circles, Title II food aid is a very valuable resource that can be used to

keep operating costs down for many PVOs, operating costs being defined as all of the costs

associated with a development program, from headquarters administration to field-level

distribution. Nonprofit organizations must constantly justify overhead expenses, and must find










ways to make their operations effective and cost efficient. Food aid commodities can be a way for

organizations to increase the total amount of income that the organization can use for its

activities, leading to increased competition for food aid commodity resources. This competition

often prohibited interaction and led to the doubling of efforts and the inefficient and ineffective

use of resources provided for development projects. FAM activities introduce a cooperative spirit

to the development organizational environment. This cooperative spirit is encouraged by

activities that provide the structural and behavioral opportunity for organizations to work together

on activities where positive change can occur, increasing capacity to work together to solve

common problems. As mentioned by a number of Title II experts, the process itself leads to the

institutionalization of cooperative activity, while the products of the interactions improve FAM

member organizations' ability to design and implement food aid programming. FAM works to

encourage friendly competition for resources while stressing the importance of collaborative

action, since both build the capacity of member organizations.

Coordinated action between organizations in a turbulent environment leads to a number

of outcomes. One of the primary ones is the convergence of values and beliefs among

organizations and organizational employees, leading organizations to become even more similar

than they were before (Emery and Trist 1965, Hasenfeld and Gidron 1993, Holm 1998, Pennings

1981). Interviews with organizational representative suggest that this may be true in terms of

operational and policy activities but not in terms of organizational philosophies, which are often

drastically different. Collective action also leads to organizational learning and consensus

building in other areas of organizational activity and organizational behavior (Kelleher 1996). For

example, FAM member organizations have worked together on creating a monetization handbook

and providing subsequent training workshops using that handbook, which help to routinize a

procedure that was once highly variable. The adoption of these new procedures by member

organizations also makes them appear more similar to each other. These activities bring a

measure of control into the environment and help stabilize the organizations (Emery and Trist










1965). The organizations that participate in collective activities can also identify which

organizations are similar to themselves, and which organizations would be the best to start

relationships with (CARE 2001).

One food aid professional argues that without FAM's influence over the years providing

the coordination and the structure for collaboration on common operational problems, any move

toward that end would be merely talk. Larry Greiner (1972) argues in the Harvard Business

Review that the history of an organization is important to consider as an organization grows and

changes successfully. It is to FAM's history that I turn next, focusing on how changes in the Title

II environment have been confronted by FAM. The goal is to highlight important moments in

FAM's history paying special attention to how FAM has continued to support and encourage

collective action and has stabilized an unstable environment.
















CHAPTER 5
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON FOOD AID MANAGEMENT

Introduction

This chapter outlines trends and accomplishments in FAM's history to situate FAM in the

context of Title II food aid programs. All of FAM's accomplishments have been collaborative,

their execution impossible without the involvement of each member organization. Some of these

accomplishments relate to organizational interaction, like the four worldwide monetization

workshops, or the cooperative child survival and nutrition workshop. Some of these

accomplishments are material, like the Monetization Manual (1999a), the Generally Accepted

Commodity Accounting Principles (1995a), and the Environmental Documentation Manual

(1998, 1999b). These documents are the result of FAM's collaborative activities. Others

accomplishments are institutional, by which I mean collections of activities that have led to

structural and behavioral changes in the Title II milieu that encourage cooperation in ways that

might not have occurred without the presence of FAM.

After a background section describing the circumstances that led to FAM's initial grant, I

outline how FAM's collaborative workshops led to the coalescence of opinion and policy on

subjects germane to Title II activities like food aid standards and monetization. The second

section notes key documentary products of interorganizational collaboration, most of them

directly or indirectly related to the workshops and other activities FAM has supported since 1989.

The final section approaches FAM's history from a broader perspective, explaining how FAM's

work has provided opportunities for collaboration that were previously nonexistent and has

encouraged collaboration spirit in the face of competition for increasingly scarce development

resources. The last section stands as the most important, because activities associated with










creating an institutional environment of cooperation are most relevant to understanding the

development of a collective with a common outlook.

I based this report on FAM archival materials and interviews with those individuals

identified by the FAM membership as expert in FAM's history. I reviewed minutes from

membership meetings and steering committee meetings, grant proposals, communications with

USAID, FFP, midterm and final evaluations, and other relevant archival documents (FAM

Archive Binders 1-4, FAM Archive Box 1, FAM Meeting Minutes Binders 1-3, Mason 2001).

There are places in FAM's history where archival documentation is sparse, because of

organizational changes or times when other activities took higher priority. I supplemented

documentary accounts of these time periods with interviews with FAM history experts. Editorial

input from the FAM membership on early drafts of this report ensured that this history points out

the events, documents and ongoing activities that reflect the collective idea of FAM's

development. Major FAM events are summarized in Table 5-1.

Background

The mid-Eighties were volatile times for US-based international development activities.

The famine in Ethiopia brought relief and development agencies into the spotlight. American

development organizations were pushed to increase transparency and accountability in their

programs while those programs increased in number and in complexity. The government began to

stress monitoring and evaluation procedures to show the impact of development projects and food

aid. Monetization activities were approved and implemented for the first time. Instead of

maintaining large, long-standing agreements with a small number of aid organizations, USAID

began entering into agreements with smaller and younger organizations. The proliferation of new

organizations, activities, policies and mandates led to an environment of great change for the Title

II community. USAID, particularly the office of FFP, recognized how complex the new

requirements pressed on the community were and realized they would require a host of new










activities. Members of USAID were also aware that many PVOs simply did not have the capacity

to perform all of the new tasks effectively (FAM Archive Binder 1; FAM 1989).

USAID proposed a series of grants to help Title II organizations improve project design,

implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Most of these grants were awarded to individual

organizations. However, budget concerns led to cutbacks in the resources available for capacity

building grants. To increase the impact of limited resources, USAID encouraged the formation of

consortia of Title II food aid organizations. USAID could then support a consortium's activities

and thus support multiple organizations (FAM Archive Binder 1). USAID's policy on Title II

program activities encouraged collaboration and requested more streamlined standards,

procedures, policies, and reporting for accountability reasons.

The CSs at the time believed that there were topics of interest to the whole food aid

community that could be best addressed through interactive and collaborative means, saving

resources and reducing the duplication of efforts that had become characteristic of many food aid

activities. In the initial proposal (FAM Archive Binder 1, FAM 1989), Tom Zopf explained that

food aid was "a complex undertaking with responsibilities shared among a number of

governmental and private entities" (FAM 1989), revealing the need for a collaborative

consortium to solve common problems. These became the primary motivations behind FAM's

original USAID proposal in 1989 (FAM Archive Binder 1). FAM's proposed activities would

serve needs expressed by FAM members and USAID, focusing on the development of technical

information and procedures specific to Title II organizations.

In 1989, USAID granted five Title II PVOs support for collaborative activities aimed at

systematizing and codifying knowledge, practice and policy relating to emergency food aid and

development assistance. The grant provided the seed money for FAM, a consortium of

organizations whose staff facilitates collaboration and dissemination of information about

management and operation of food aid programs.










The founding members of FAM were the five largest food aid programmers at the time:

CARE, Save the Children (SAVE), Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), World

Vision (WV), and Catholic Relief Services (CRS). The initial proposal explained that new

accountability requirements led to confusion concerning roles in establishing policies, guidelines

and procedures. FAM could target and explore issues of mutual concern in a collaborative

manner, helping PVOs gain experience with policy, accountability and procedure development

(FAM 1989). In 2002, FAM had 16 PVO members involved in Title II programming (FAM

2002). Experts in FAM's history and current activity agree that through collaborative activities,

this interorganizational cooperative has helped streamline food aid policy and procedure in an

area where diversity management styles and organizational philosophies likely would have

hindered positive change. Instead, FAM members contribute their time and expertise for the

development of documents and procedures that conserve institutional memory in the Title II

context.

Interactive Highlights

One of FAM's primary functions is facilitating collaboration between Title II CSs on

topics relevant to improving food aid activities. Activities vary from large, multi-organizational

conferences to quarterly meetings and brown bag talks, with subjects ranging from the

development of common food aid standards to the use of genetically modified commodities in

food aid programs (FAM 2001a). These meetings serve a number of purposes. The first is the

dissemination of technical information so that FAM members can work more efficiently and

effectively. Rather than each organization locating, synthesizing and communicating new

developments, the organizations work together through FAM to achieve this common goal. Food

aid experts and FAM experts agree that these shared activities allow more relevant work to be

done with fewer resources, important in a time of declining dollar support for development work.

FAM meetings provide the opportunity for employees with the same position orjob

duties from different organizations to meet and interact. For example, monetization officers at










Africare have the opportunity to interact with monetization officers at WV or ADRA. Individuals

who do the same job in their respective organizations can share information and develop personal

relationships. The impact of these opportunities for formal and informal interaction cannot be

underestimated. They standardize the Title II environment at the headquarters level. All FAM

experts interviewed agreed that these interactions have led to a more casual atmosphere and to

willingness for cooperation that was previously not apparent and that is now considered a great

benefit to PVO employees.

Originally, the FAM SC and the general membership were the same; each FAM meeting

was a meeting of both bodies. Meetings covered FAM's administrative activities, management

issues, work plan reviews and any other items relevant to FAM's general operation. Then,

attention turned to an agreed on topic for discussion. The topical sessions focused on providing

technical information on monetization, on the impact of the Farm Bill or on providing

accountability information required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular

133 (FAM Meeting Minutes Binder 1-3). Usually, if Congress enacted any legislation regarding

food aid or the food aid community, FAM provided a forum for the discussion of the new

legislation. On many occasions this led FAM members to develop technical bibliographies or

guidelines for dissemination to the member organizations. FAM's first major activity, the

accountability task force, came out of one such meeting during which it was decided that the food

aid community should respond to increasing audit frequency and detail (FAM Archive Binder 1).

During FAM's early years, funds were also allocated for developing common food aid

standards. Many of FAM's primary objectives for the first seven years are the result of a food aid

conference held in Cairo in 1990, during which members of the food aid community discussed a

the need for common food aid standards, policy and practices (FAM Archive Binder 1). This

meeting was notable because members of the PVO community were present (both headquarters

and field agents) along with governmental representatives from USAID, USDA, and other

involved agencies. Participants' initial response was very positive, based on the support for










collaborative activity and the spirit of interaction that was fostered. Recommendations charging

USAID with the responsibility for developing food aid standards and policies, tempered USAID's

positive response somewhat, though their support for collaborative activity was still strong (FAM

Archive Binder 1).

FAM held other workshops on topics relevant to the current activities of its membership,

like nutrition, environmental documentation, monetization, and local capacity building. At these

meetings, experts in the various fields presented FAM members with state of the art technical

information. When appropriate technical information was not available, FAM spearheaded

campaigns to gather, synthesize and disseminate information so member organizations could

complete their food aid projects effectively. These workshops and the technical information that

has grown out of them are considered FAM's most important physical outputs and form the

cornerstone of many Title II programming activities for many FAM member organizations. In

fact, all FAM and food aid experts interviewed listed FAM products when asked which policy

and procedure documents were integral to the design and implementation of a food aid program.

In 1990, the Food Aid Resource Material (FARM) clearinghouse grew out of FAM's information

gathering and disseminating activities. The FARM clearinghouse is now called the FSRC, where

FAM maintains a highly focused library of food aid and food security resources for its members

and for individuals working in the food aid sector (FAM Archive Binder 1).

FAM's working groups are another result of workshops held in which appropriate,

comprehensive documentation and tools were not available. FAM took responsibility for

coordinating and supporting these groups. Informal working groups began in 1990, but the groups

were reorganized and formally recognized in 1998 at the beginning of FAM's current ISA the

result of the FAM annual meeting at Coolfont in West Virginia (FAM Archive Binder 3-4, FAM

Archive Box 1). These working groups remain one of the most important activities that FAM

supports. Current working groups focus on local capacity building, monitoring and evaluation,

monetization, and environmental compliance. Responding to needs in the PVO community,










working groups in HIV/AIDS programming, child survival, nutrition, and commodity

management have been proposed.

In 1990, FAM also began briefing CSs on the state of food aid, highlighting legislation,

policy and guidance from the various governmental agencies. These briefings grew into food aid

orientations for organizations new to Title II activities or interested in starting Title II activities

(FAM Archive Binder 1). FAM was primary organization providing general information about

the mechanics of food assistance managed through USAID (and to some degree through USDA).

The Purposes, Responsibilities and Obligations seminars are the most refined version of these

introductory briefings, which continued through the mid-Nineties (FAM Archive Binder 1-2).

FAM also acted as a means for CSs to inform each other about internal training classes

and workshops open to other FAM member organizations, reducing duplication and encouraging

collaboration. An early example of this is FAM members' participation in CARE's commodity

storage training program and the adoption of the commodity storage manual by FAM members in

1990 (FAM Archive Binder 1). A training calendar that lists current events and activities remains

a part of the FAM website (one of the most popular pages), evidence that FAM member

organizations rely on FAM to provide this information (FAM 2001a).

Gradually, the FAM membership grew. General membership continued through 1996,

but SC meetings were held separately. Management, working group, and topical meetings were

also held separately (FAM Meeting Minutes Binder 1-3). Topical meetings and SC meetings

were held across the US, allowing PVOs that were not located on the east coast to participate.

The SC began taking more responsibility for FAM's activities, originally left to FAM's director

(FAM Archive Binder 1-2).

Since 1997, FAM has come to rely on electronic communication for information

exchange (FAM Archive Binder 2-3; Archive Box 1). These listservs provide an efficient and

specialized means of disseminating information and questions to selected individuals in the FAM

constituency. Unfortunately, FAM's midterm evaluation suggests that some groups did not use










the listservs. New listserv management software was installed in 2001 to remedy the problem.

Data collected since the installation show that listserv activity has increased (FAM 2000a,

200 lb). The listservs are managed through the FAM website. The FAM website provides links to

the websites of each member organizations and to relevant databases, commodity management

sites and other technical assets used by the FAM members. The new FAM site has drawn together

national and international resources in a more usable interface, and links food aid professionals

with food aid resources3. The entire FAM FSRC bibliographic database is online in a searchable

format, allowing field and headquarters staff of FAM member organizations to do independent

research and submit requests for information on an individual basis (FAM 2000a, 200 b, FAM

Archive Binder 4). These electronic resources, though not interactive in the same way that

working group meetings are, provide a virtual community for FAM members of FAM. Electronic

technology capabilities extend FAM's ability to coordinate collaborative activities.

Document Highlights

The goals of many FAM workshops, as mentioned before, were creating documents

useful to the FAM constituency and providing information to help Title II operations run more

smoothly. Some workshops ended with final materials collected into binders and disseminated to

each organization. Other workshops ended with an acknowledgement that there was not enough

information to be used effectively. FAM took responsibility for creating documents in those

instances when adequate information did not exist. FAM has taken this approach since 1989, and

it remains a primary mode of operation (FAM Archive Box 1, FAM Archive Binder 1-4).

This product-driven approach motivates FAM's WGs, whose topical focuses vary, but

whose work plans are similar (FAM Archive Binder 3, Archive Box 1). Some WGs have

completed their initial tasks, while others continue to gather information and synthesize their

products. WG-created documents are among the most useful in Title II programming. They


3 Some USAID employees use the FAM website to reach information on USAID web pages because
navigating the USAID site is difficult. The UN also links to the FAM website.










include FAM's 1995 Generally Accepted Commodity Accounting Principles (GACAP), the FAM

Monetization Manual (1999a), and the Nutrition and Agriculture Monitoring Toolkit (FAM

200 Ic). These documents are the result of collaboration between organizations with a common

cause. The documents themselves can disseminate information more easily to FAM members,

leading to common schools of thought and common approaches to operational and policy issues.

The first document FAM produced was the GACAP, which is now accepted by the CSs,

by USAID, and by the US General Accountability Office (FAM Archive Binder 1). The 1990

GACAP document (revised in 1995) is FAM's first material product, and the procedure by which

it was created remains in place. The FAM membership identifies a need for documentation of

procedures to improve food aid programs. Then FAM, as the coordinator, arranges for meetings

during which the new topic is introduced and discussed. These meetings can be task forces,

working groups, workshop sessions or brown bag talks. During the discussion, individuals share

experiences and technical knowledge and develop a plan for making the information more widely

available, usually in the form of a manual, guidebook, or toolkit. A committee or consultant is

chosen to gather information, later compiled and returned to the original committee for comments

and review. After initial review, the WG presents the product to the entire FAM membership.

Their input is solicited and their comments are incorporated into the final document4. (The above

section is summarized from working group minutes available at the FAM website, participation in

FAM processes, and review of FAM Archive Binder 1-4.)

This procedure has been the general format for the creation of FAM's PVO Perspective

on USAID's Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper (1994), the Monetization Manual (1999a),

the Nutrition and Agriculture Monitoring Toolkit (200 1c), and the Environmental Documentation

Manual (EDM) (1998, 1999b). Each document listed above has support from all FAM members

and attention from other private interests, government agencies, and development policy and


4 FAM and FAM members bear the cost of disseminating new technical documents. Cost recovery
programs have been established.










research organizations including the Institute for Development Studies in Sussex, England (FAM

Archive Binder 1). Each of these documents is the outcome of a direct need, either legislated by

the US Government (as in the GACAP and the EDM) or called for by developments in the

implementation of food aid projects around the world (as in the Monetization Manual or any of

the monitoring toolkits). FAM-supported or FAM CS-supported training workshops familiarize

headquarters and field personnel with the new documents, increasing impact among member

organizations (FAM 200 a).

FAM encourages member PVOs to share their experiences through its journal, Food

Forum, which focuses on items of topical interest to those involved in Title II activities. FAM has

published nearly sixty issues of Food Forum since late 1989, first bimonthly, now quarterly. At

first, Food Forum was a newsletter, providing updates on FAM activities, calendars of events

important to the food aid community, and presenting few field-experience reports. Over time,

Food Forum began addressing topics of more immediate interest to the Title II community,

incorporating more articles from FAM member organizations and fewer articles from external

contributors. While the working groups were provided forums for discussion of topics important

over the long run, Food Forum introduced new topics. Food Forum also began presenting

technical bibliographies on topics of interest to food aid managers, showcasing the resources

available from the FSRC. In 2002, there were over a thousand subscribers to Food Forum. Many

individuals received electronic copies of Food Forum as an easier and faster mode of accessing

information they need (Food Forum Archives Binder 1-2).

Many of FAM's documents are available to download from FAM's website. Electronic

copies of these items allow field officers and headquarters staff to retrieve important information

at any time, and in any location. In addition to FAM documents, FAM's electronic collection

includes current DAP guidance, government forms, important USAID documents, and other

relevant food aid and food security documents (FAM 2001a). Food aid professionals can access

these documents through the FAM website and through the online FSRC bibliographic database










mentioned before, which provides hyperlinks to documents housed electronically on FAM's site.

This library of electronic documents extends FAM's ability to disseminate food aid information

into the field and headquarters offices (FAM 2000a).

Every food aid professional interviewed believes that FAM's ability to provide access to

technical information is increasingly important to PVO activities. Many of these experts argue

that with staff turnover, and the loss of technical experts in the nonprofit and government sectors,

FAM's technical information clearinghouse capabilities are indispensable as a means to

storehouse institutional memory relevant to Title II activities. One veteran food aid professional

even argued that FAM was providing services that the PVOs were no longer able to provide

themselves. This individual was referring to the development and dissemination of new technical

information and toolkits, now beyond the reach and outside the realm of normal operation for

many PVOs whose time is filled with meeting the daily needs of their programs. Another food aid

professional agreed that the PVOs, as a result of increased monitoring, evaluation and reporting

requirements, have less time to commit to the development, improvement and dissemination of

innovations in any of the technical areas that FAM serves.

In short, FAM's technical information development and dissemination activities are a

service that PVOs need but are often unable to provide for themselves. Coordinated actions

provide an economy of scale that permits these activities to continue even with minimal resource

contributions from the CSs.

Institutional Highlights

FAM's most important contribution is not in meetings, training courses, documentation,

or information dissemination. It is fostering collaboration and facilitating that collaboration in the

face of increasing pressure for competition. Before FAM, the Title II CSs worked independently,

though there were numerous issues of mutual concern. FAM arose as a means to address those

concerns through collaborative efforts. Collaboration has now become the expected behavior










when these issues arise, rather than the exception to the rule. FAM strengthened collaboration in

two ways: creating structural opportunities for interaction and institutionalizing collaboration.

FAM provides the physical space for interaction to occur, and arranges meetings,

projects, brown bags, and workshops that encourage interaction. These opportunities create the

structural potential for sharing experiences and knowledge. As shown in the previous section,

there are ample opportunities for organizations to interact. Through these meetings, FAM

integrates the institutional memory of Title II organizations, compounding the years of experience

that can be drawn on by an individual in need of technical assistance. FAM's collaborative

activities also mitigate loss of institutional memory for each of the member organizations, and for

USAID, by archiving technical information and reports (FAM 201b).

Cooperation and collaboration do not arise simply because the opportunity exists. In an

environment where cooperation is not traditionally accepted, it takes work to encourage that kind

of interaction. At the outset, FAM's activities were seen as good, but the procedures by which

collaborative work was completed were not in place. The creation of the GACAP was fraught

with delay and concern for incorporating the interests of all the parties involved, but eventually

the document was completed (FAM Archive Binder 1). During that time, it was the dedication of

a few individuals who recognized the importance of consensus building that drove the work.

From that initial project, each FAM member organization has built its capacity to work toward a

common goal and reach consensus quickly. In FY2002, FAM was working on collaborative

projects, issuing statements that expressed the opinions of the FAM membership, and standing as

one of the major food aid consortia in the US (FAM 2002).

The most striking examples of FAM's contribution to institutionalizing cooperation can

be seen in administrative matters. Every member of FAM has provided strong letters of support

for FAM over the course of two five-year ISA grants (FAM Archive Binder 3, Archives Box 1).

One individual with extensive FAM experience argues that the amount of resources committed by

each organization should not be underestimated. Each FAM member organizations wrote letters










of support for FAM to USAID, asking that FAM's budget be removed from the available ISA

funds before competition began. In a sense, the member organizations agreed to less support for

their own organizations to support FAM. This, coupled with the person hours required to

complete FAM's collaborative activities, is a sizeable resource commitment, even from the

smallest organizations. Another FAM expert pointed to FAM's value to member organizations,

arguing that for a very small investment FAM member organizations (and USAID) receive a

large amount of technical support, coordination and information.

Member organizations recognize the importance of FAM's activities, which are

inherently collaborative. Would there have been such wholesale support for FAM in 1989? After

major cuts to development spending and the restructuring of USAID led to increased

accountability and new monitoring and evaluation requirements, it would seem that organizations

would prefer to focus on their own activities, conserving resources and employee hours for tasks

of integral importance to their own organizations. But FAM gained more support after these

organizational changes, possibly due to a realization that collaboration is useful, especially in an

uncertain, resource-limited environment (FAM Archive Binder 3-4, Archive Box 1). I believe

CSs came to understand the real impact of cooperation through FAM's early activities. The

passing years have reinforced those lessons.

Perhaps the most important example of the institutionalization of cooperation and

collaboration can be drawn from what might be considered FAM's darkest days, the 1995

reorganization (FAM 1995b). Since 1989, FAM had been operating under the guidance of the

director, whose activities were supervised by the SC but who was not managed directly. The

original director set out a grand role for FAM, enlarging the scope of FAM's activities to include

participation in international food aid consortia and symposia, taking on larger and more policy-

related tasks. Concurrently, the US government was pushing for more rigorous accounting,

accountability, and monitoring in food aid programs. This was accompanied by reductions in the

amount of development funding available for the PVO community, making that funding much










more valuable. In return for development funding, the government began expecting more

justification that the money spent was being used effectively and efficiently. This led the PVOs to

a similarly increased interest in accounting, accountability, and monitoring. FAM was not

immune to these institutional changes; soon the Director's actions and FAM's activities in

general came under scrutiny. Because the initial FAM work plan was unclear, monitoring and

evaluating the activities of FAM employees were difficult. The SC, under the stress of more

requirements and less resources, expected to see more results-oriented, focused work. When this

did not appear, and when the Director argued that his management style was inconsistent with the

new tenor of development activities, the FAM membership acted quickly and decisively to make

structural and organizational changes to bring FAM back into line with the rest of the

development community. (This analysis of the situation is based on reviews of FAM's Archives,

particularly Binder 1-2, FAM Meeting Minutes Binder 1-3, and on interviews with FAM experts

conducted in 2001.)

The implications of this event should not be underestimated. Yes, it was a very difficult

time in FAM's history, leading to one of two 100% staff turnovers. However, the rapid and

decisive move by the Steering Committee and the FAM membership indicates the development

of consensus that is exactly what FAM was aiming to create in 1989. In the years between 1989

and 1995, FAM members developed an increased capacity to build consensus quickly and

efficiently (FAM Archive Binder 1-2). The procedure surrounding the development of the

GACAP, which took over a year, and the procedure surrounding the FAM reorganization, which

took a few months, are essentially the same. The difference is that the reorganization process was

more efficient because the system for reaching a consensus was standardized by FAM's

encouragement of interaction and communication between organizations.

After the reorganization, FAM became something more than it had been. Many FAM

experts believe that most of the important work done by FAM has been completed since the

reorganization and restructuring. Previously, FAM was considered something of a folly, an










organization that served a nominal purpose. After the SC took control and the member

organizations began to recognize their ownership of FAM, FAM's utility to the members

increased.5

Table 5-1: Timeline of major FAM events
Year Funding Source Organizational Event Documents Produced
1989 ISG Food Forum begins
1990 WGs organized GACAP
1991 FSRC begins
1992
1993 Food Aid Lexicon
1994 FAFSPP response
1995 FAM reorganized
1996
1997 Listserv, website
1998 ISA WGs reorganized EDM
1999 Monetization Manual
2000 By-laws H/Nut. Baseline
2001 Website redesign Nut./Ag. Toolkit
2002 LCB indicators
2003 ISA proposal

The only major change in operations since the 1995 reorganization relates to the activities

of the SC and to how it is formed each year (FAM 2000b). Rather than the previous static

committee, the new SC now consists of a rotating group of members from each of the member

organizations. The only permanent member is CARE, which holds the grant for FAM; the

remaining members cycle through yearly memberships to increase diversity and participation in

FAM's administration. These changes were voted into effect in FAM's first set of by-laws at the

November 2000 annual meeting (FAM Archive Binder 4). To increase organizational ownership

of FAM and to increase the diversity of organizations participating in FAM decision making, the

FAM SC wrote by-laws outlining FAM's administrative procedures. This was to clarify that

FAM was not merely comprised of those employees hired to coordinate and support the activities,

but of all member organizations. These new policies and procedures remove FAM's guidance

from the hands of the original five members and allow the other eleven members to determine


5 Other than the original alliance of members in 1989, the largest influx of new members has occurred after










FAM's direction. All FAM experts interviewed agree that these activities allow FAM members to

feel as if they owned the organization more, as if their suggestions, interests and priorities had

more chance to be built into FAM activities. This is an important step for FAM.

Conclusions

This review of FAM's historical documents reveals trends in FAM's history, particularly

regarding collaborative activities, pointing out relevant examples of those trends. This is not an

exhaustive accounting of each interaction and every decision. The trajectory FAM has taken is

the focus, rather than each individual stop along the way. To conclude, I present a few themes I

identified through my review of FAM's archives and my interviews with FAM history experts.

Most of the topics I discuss are tangentially related to previous sections but did not entirely fit

into any one of them. Some of them are more specific, such as FAM's relationship with USAID.

Some of them are broader, such as FAM's opportunistic, organic growth.

Dependence on USAID. FAM's activities have been bounded over time by increasing

accountability requirements from USAID. USAID's guidance for ISA agreements leads FAM's

organizational activities to some degree. This is not likely to change while USAID is the primary

source of funding for FAM. FAM must balance the interests of the government agency that

provides funding against the interests of the member organizations that provide the ultimate

reason for FAM's existence. This puts FAM in a precarious situation because those interests often

diverge and reconciling them can be difficult. This is not a new realization. Many FAM members

and employees have argued that limited resources have hamstrung FAM and have only increased

FAM's aim to satisfy USAID's interests. Less dependence on USAID resources would allow

FAM to serve the needs of the membership more easily and would allow FAM to meet those

needs without USAID approval. Steering Committee discussions often center around ways to

reduce FAM's dependence on USAID, but through 2002, there was no commitment of resources


the reorganization in 1995 (FAM Archive Binder 3-4).










(through membership fees, cost recovery platforms, etc.) from FAM members to lessen FAM's

resource dependence on USAID (FAM Archive Binder 4, FAM Annual Report 2001).

FAM's reactive growth. The changing needs of the FAM membership and the evolving

priorities for development activities at USAID have led to a very organic and event-driven

evolution for FAM. One PVO representative argues that FAM's growth was reactive, rather that

proactive. FAM has merely been responding to current needs instead of developing its own

agenda. In the short run, this may seem unfocused and random, leading to a directional

uncertainty with respect to FAM's future. In the long run, however, the organizational flexibility

FAM enjoys allows for changes that meet members' needs more quickly. However, members

must clearly state their desires and needs, because FAM cannot direct its activities without the

membership's guidance and participation. Often, this need for participation leads to "meeting

mania." This overload of meetings is typical of many nonprofit sectors and is the result of a

consensus-driven approach to management. It is one of the prices to pay for a consortium

engaged in interorganizational work that must meet the needs of a number of stakeholders.

Limited participation. Another problem that arises from the consensus approach to

organizational activity is that some stakeholders take an active role in the decision making

process, while others assume a passive role. This is not only a problem with FAM's activities; it

has been mentioned with respect to any number of situations in which Title II PVOs must

interact. When it falls to the member organizations to keep abreast of the consortium's activities,

passive organizations often lose touch. This has been the case with USAID, whose officials have

been provided with all of the same opportunities to interact with FAM, and whose staff members

are provided with the same avenues to gain information as the FAM members. This has led to a

disconnect in the liaison between USAID and FAM. The work FAM has done to create an

environment where the possibility for collaborative development programs becomes greater has

been overlooked (Mason 2001). Since USAID encourages PVOs to submit collaborative projects,

it seems that FAM's collaborative activities would be followed more actively, particularly










because collective proposals from several organizations would decrease the number of proposals

to be reviewed, monitored, and evaluated, decreasing USAID/FFP staff workload (FAM Archive

Binder 3-4). USAID and FAM continue attempting to increase the frequency and impact of

communication and interaction. Evaluations of FAM, USAID and FFP point to staff turnover,

organizational restructuring, loss of institutional memory, increased workload, and decreased

resources on both sides as root causes of the problem. The burden of reporting falls to FAM and

the membership.

Knowledge of FAM activities. During FAM's earliest history, FAM activities enjoyed

the unqualified support of USAID, whose delegates attended meetings diligently (FAM Archive

Binder 1-2). Over time, this relationship would experience stresses and strains as each side

underwent changes, reorganizations, refocusing, and refinement. This is not unusual for

partnerships of this type, particularly for relationships that have lasted as long, and that have been

as active. AID has come to depend on FAM to provide support services to the CSs, while FAM

has come to depend totally on AID funding. For example, FAM organizes the ISA grant

manager's meetings, originally USAID's responsibility (FAM Archive Binder 3-4). Many

consider FAM a subunit of USAID, or a subunit of another USAID funded project, FANTA.

While the three offices work closely together in an allied manner, they are independent

organizations.

Ignorance of FAM's activities and impact is not restricted to AID. There are likely other

upper-level PVO administrators who are unaware of the impact of FAM activities on their

development and Title II programs. The burden of communication falls to individual

organizational representatives to report to their management what value their participation in

FAM activities adds to their respective organizations.

What is FAM's value added over the past twelve years? Are management and technical

procedures for commodity-related development programs more systematic and streamlined? Are

the systems more alike across organizations? Are monitoring and evaluation and accountability










procedures improved? Is there an organizational environment in which these PVOs are more

likely to collaborate on problems of mutual concern even in the face of competition for

increasingly limited commodity and dollar resources? Are members of FAM more likely to call

on the hundreds of years of shared development experience that are stored in FAM's institutional

memory (staff turnover and decreasing resources for activity notwithstanding)? All of the food

aid and FAM experts interviewed agree that the answer to each of these questions is yes. And that

'yes' implies that FAM has satisfied its primary objective of addressing items of mutual concern

for Title II organizations through collective action. The initial investment in FAM by USAID the

member organizations has provided returns that justify its existence, not the least of which is

building a collaborative constituency in an uncertain organizational environment.

Prior to FAM, PVOs rarely cooperated and the headquarters level, though cooperation

sometimes existed at the field level. The results of this were operational competitiveness, lack of

common purpose (or lack of institutionalized beliefs), and redundancy of efforts that detracted

from the effectiveness of food aid. Now the PVO community has a way to identify common

operational standards to be applied, cooperate in programming and management of food

commodities, and facilitate open dialogue between PVOs.
















CHAPTER 6
FOOD AID MANAGEMENT CONSTITUENCY-BUILDING AND COLLECTIVE
ACTIVITIES

Introduction

As a consortium, FAM works closely with its members to define activities and promote

the progress of those activities to meet agreed-upon goals. As mentioned before, these activities

include the implementation ofWGs (M&E, MNTZ, LCB, and EWG). FAM also manages the

FSRC, publishes Food Forum, maintains an active website and implements several other food

security information sharing activities including interorganizational workshops and listservs. The

FAM members consider FAM, created largely as a forum in which Title II PVOs could

collaborate and exchange food aid and food security program information, a valuable venue for

exchange of new tools and best practices.

However, FAM's impact reaches beyond the borders of its member organizations to a

number of other food security interests. In this sense, FAM provides operational support services

not only for the member organizations but also for the broader food aid and food security

constituency that includes USAID, USDA, other NGOs, international government interests,

university food security projects, and consultants. As the number of individuals participating in or

learning from FAM grows, FAM's constituency grows.

The profile presented in this chapter identifies the ways FAM has built a constituency and

explores the breadth and depth of that constituency. This report identifies those constituency-

building activities that are confined to the member constituency as well as those that reach further

abroad. This organizational profile also examines the patterns of interaction within the FAM

collective to understand the form and content of those interactions. Within each section, details

regarding the rationale and methods used for analyses are presented. FAM coordinates collective










activities and information exchange. Some of that information comes in from the FAM member

constituency, while other information comes in from the broader constituency. Likewise,

information flows out of FAM, some of it only to the FAM members, the rest to the broader

constituency. Increasing the diversity of information flowing into and out of FAM and developing

relationships associated with those information flows are integral to building a constituency that

is both broad and deep. Here, increasing network breadth means increasing the number of

organizations involved with FAM activities. Increasing network depth means increasing the

frequency of interactions among those organizations. Detailed information regarding FAM's six

primary activities is listed below, beginning with FAM's member-focused activities and moving

through those activities involving larger and larger constituencies for input or outflow of

information.

Steering Committee

Until 2001, the FAM SC, the governing administrative board for FAM, consisted only of

representatives from the five original FAM members: ADRA, CARE, CRS, SAVE and WV. New

FAM by-laws, created and implemented in 2000, have changed that (FAM 2000b). Now, each

year the available SC seats rotate among the sixteen members. The only permanent member on

the committee is CARE, the project holder. The first of the new SCs (2001) had representation

from Feed the Hungry International (FHI), CARE, CRS, ADRA, Mercy Corps (MC), Counterpart

(CNTPT), and ACDI/VOCA. The 2002 SC members were from CARE, SAVE, Africare, WV,

Opportunities Industrialization Centers International (OICI), TechnoServe (TNS), and Project

Concern International (PCI). Table 6-1 summarizes this information.

I collected SC membership data for the twelve years that FAM operated between 1989

and 2001. However, until the FAM by-laws were ratified there was no variation in membership.

Only the five founding members had positions on the committee. Currently, other than the

permanent seat that CARE retains, membership is chosen by lot; membership on the committee is

random from year to year. Because of the method of assignment, statistical investigation of that










data would be unlikely to reveal any significant trends. Additionally, with only two instances of

unconstrained choice, it would be difficult to show any change over time.

Table 6-1: Steering Committee membership during current ISA
1998-2000 2001 2002
CARE* CARE CARE
ADRA ADRA Africare*
CRS ACDI/OCA OICI
STC CRS PCI
WVRD Counterpart STC
FHI* TNS
Mercy Corps WVRD
*=committee chair

Steering Committee meetings bring together a subgroup of FAM member organizations

to consider administrative and strategic planning for FAM. As a result, FAM members are

afforded the opportunity to meet one-on-one in a very intimate setting. Over the course of a year,

relationships are built that may strengthen relationships between member organizations

themselves. The rotating membership and chairmanship of the SC means organizational

representatives the opportunity to develop leadership skills, building individual and

organizational capacity for FAM member PVOs.

Steering Committee members must reach consensus regarding the direction FAM will

take during the decision making process. Differing views are expressed and agreement is

developed during planning meetings. Steering Committee activities often reach beyond FAM

activities into the larger realm of food aid and food security issues. However, SC activities are

limited to a few selected individuals each year, and have limited impact on the larger FAM

member constituency and even less impact on the broader food security constituency.

Working Groups

FAM coordinates the activities of four WGs that provide the majority of input for

developing food aid standards. Working group meetings are open to all FAM members.

Generally, WG members meet at least once a quarter to achieve the goals set in annual meetings