This is the fourth of a five-part series of blog posts by Keith Johnston on the role of international board members in the governance of international NGOs.

By Keith Johnston

The central governance questions for any board are: What are we trying to become? Where are we going? These are the core questions for the board of an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) too but the international context may make them even harder to answer.

Burkhard Gnärig, Executive Director of the Berlin Civil Society Center, challenges global board members to answer the question: “what are the GLOBAL decisions my organisation has to take?” and then to make sure that these can be taken from a truly global perspective. The international board needs to be clear about what its INGO is there to do and what the board of the INGO needs to govern. What value is the international board seeking to add to the work of the whole INGO? What is its role and its reach?

Once you have a sense of these questions, you have to be sure you are doing the right work. Observers of board performance often point to boards spending too much time on reworking the past and responding to the present and challenge them to instead lift their focus to work on shaping the future. Different advisers suggest rules of thumb of between 60-80 per cent future-focused and 40-20 per cent on the past and present.

How would your board ratios compare? How would the ratio be for INGO boards if the ratios were recast to follow Burkhard’s prescription? What if we aimed for 70 per cent of the time of the INGO board being focused on the future global issues the board needed to address? And what if we added a performance measure that we were addressing these issues from truly global perspective?

There may be some stellar INGO boards already achieving this level of performance. Well done if you are. Care to share your secret? Email me on keiath@cultivatingleadership.co.nz. For most of us this is more a noble aspiration. But what might you need to do to achieve a performance like this in your board over the next three years?

At the international level it is one thing to put future-focused global issues on the table. It is another to have the board achieve a global perspective on those issues. Getting to global brings more factors into play: the scale of the issues gets much larger, there are more intersecting factors and thus greater complexity, and decisions are more removed from the actual implementation and necessarily involve more abstraction. Boards find it hard to think strategically about global issues and how the specific work of the INGO will shape and be shaped by these global factors. In part boards find this work hard because staff find it hard. If it is hard for staff to get their arms, and their heads, around these global issues and their implications, then it is hard for them to shape up the issues and options in ways that boards can discuss them and work the issues through to an effective resolution.

One of the constraints here is that we are light on ‘theories of change’ or the logics for why we intervene in the ways we do and why that might be the most effective way to respond. We often do things because that is the way we have done them in the past or we have observed others doing them with apparent success or our partners or supporters might have been keen on these initiatives.

It may be a struggle for the board and staff to identify actions that will have the greatest impact on the INGO’s mission and then making sure those actions are done well. Almost inevitably, these theories of change will start out being uncertain, incomplete, and experimental. The international view also may be that the theories cannot be worked up at the global level and the role for the international board may be to ensure this work is being done at whatever is the appropriate level – regional, country, thematic. The biggest wins come from the board and staff going through the process of trying to think more clearly about what needs to be achieved and what actions will be most effective.

A working paper I have prepared on this and related themes – “Acting Globally – Thinking Globally” – is available here.

Keith Johnston has served as Chair of Oxfam International since 2007 and is a partner at Cultivating Leadership.

This is the third of a five-part series of blog posts by Keith Johnston on the role of international board members in the governance of international NGOs.

By Keith Johnston

A consistent endeavour is for each organisation to be more representative of the whole world in which it is working and to be able to draw on a much more international range of thinking in its leadership. All the major INGOs are moving to be more diverse at multiple levels. Governance has been one of the slower areas of change. Here it no longer works to be just “male, pale, and stale” (Author’s disclosure: I am male, pale – although tending to pinkish – and trying hard to be more ripe than stale).

The drive to greater diversity brings its own challenges. First it is not always easy to achieve a practical working diversity given the current structures and locations. Different INGOs are taking different approaches. These include: establishing national affiliates in a wide range of countries, including all of the elements of the network in governance, or changing the makeup of boards and committees, or relocating key international offices to be more global.

Having changed the forms of the organisation to be more diverse, how does it work in practice? Often a central paradox arises. The INGO needs to be more diverse to be more global but including more diversity in the group means it is harder to achieve coherence and especially the coherence needed to take on the large global issues of eliminating poverty or injustice, advancing human rights, tackling climate change, and protecting the environment.

Also different forms of diversity bring differing challenges. How much are board members there to represent different constituencies? How might differences in money and power be dealt with? How are conflicts best addressed?

Having built in necessary diversity you want the spectrum of views to work for your alliance. This can often be very hard, and literally ‘disagreeable’, work. We pay lip service to diversity yet often underestimate the depth of the differences that exist in culture, values, experiences, and mindsets. To build a trusting and truly diverse board takes conscious and consistent efforts.

It is also the case that diversity is, in part, valuable because it increases the possibilities of conflict . The INGO needs to lift its game to use that conflict constructively. However, because INGOs tend to put less time into their governance than national NGOs (it is often harder to get people together) and the board members often know each other less well, they are less well equipped to create the trust and mutual understanding needed to achieve cohesion amid diversity. These practical difficulties and the pressures to take a representative approach can drive INGO boards to make lowest-common-denominator compromises. These are LCDs that do not light us up!

Managing these paradoxes will be central to the longer-term success of INGOs. Leaders need to be explicit in addressing these governance issues and also in equipping their board members, the new ones and the old hands, to take a whole-of-alliance view.

A working paper I have prepared on this and related themes – “Acting Globally – Thinking Globally” – is available here.

Keith Johnston has served as Chair of Oxfam International since 2007 and is a partner at Cultivating Leadership.

This is the second of a five-part series of blog posts by Keith Johnston on the role of international board members in the governance of international NGOs.

By Keith Johnston

Who are we? Where have we come from? How do we honour our roots while becoming more global and more effective? These are critical questions for the board of any INGO and they are useful starting points for a new board member. Ask around and see what range of responses you get.

One of the things I have learnt from the Vision Works discussions, an annual meeting of the chairs and executive directors of most of the international development, human rights, and environmental alliances, organised by the Berlin Civil Society Center, is that all our organisations are seeking a holy grail of being more effective in a much more global world. We tend to be reaching for the same organisational goals (although our missions may be quite different) but each is also both constrained and strengthened by its own history.

It helps to be really clear about where your organisation has come from, its history (or the histories of different affiliates), core values, and commitments. While most INGOs are relatively large organisations active in many countries, the origins of these groups are usually stories of committed individuals and small groups standing up for what they believed, often in the face of ridicule and abuse and sometimes in danger to their lives. Justly we can be proud of our pioneers and of people we have served with.

As we look back from our more institutional perspective it helps to see the ways that our histories shape who we are today. One of the reasons Oxfam International values its history as a confederation is because of the importance prior Oxfams have put on being community-based organisations grounded in their own countries. Amnesty International values its elective democracy partly because the organisation puts a priority on human and individual rights and the rights of democratic engagement. It suits Greenpeace International to operate as a federation, and seek to be a more fleet-of-foot federation, because of the emphasis the organisation places on acting decisively with unity, speed, and flexibility.

It helps to see the logic in each of these approaches. It also helps to see that this is not the whole story. Nor is it the only way to organise an international NGO. Others do it differently and for good reasons.

We want to understand and honour our histories but not be held in thrall to them. We seek to serve the current and future mission of our organisation – whether it is eliminating poverty, enhancing human rights, building civil society, or protecting the environment. We want to best serve the wider constituency that benefits from our mission. In contrast, while we understand and remember our forbears and learn from our past practices we are not here to serve these past or even current interests. Sometimes our discussions and decisions suggest we are not holding this distinction clearly enough.

A working paper I have prepared on this and related themes – “Acting Globally – Thinking Globally” – is available here.

Keith Johnston has served as Chair of Oxfam International since 2007 and is a partner at Cultivating Leadership.

This is the first of a five-part series of blog posts by Keith Johnston on the role of international board members in the governance of international NGOs.

By Keith Johnston

American folk icon Pete Seeger, when he encourages his audiences to sing along with him, often notes that by the time you have learnt the words of one of his songs you have got to the end. He says, “It’s like life really, isn’t it. But with a song you can sing it over again.” In my experience it is much like this being on the board of an international non-government organisation (INGO).

One friend, with a few years on an INGO board, says he wondered: “Should I speak from my heart first, before worrying about if that could be counter-productive? In a world of strangers, it’s always less risky to reserve frank opinions and try to establish some rapport first. But in the context of an INGO, there really is not much time for board members to establish rapport that is rooted in extensive and intensive interaction.”

On any board a new member’s challenge is always how to get to know the people and the issues fast enough to begin to engage effectively. For the person stepping up to the board of an INGO alliance these challenges are amplified in three ways.

• Firstly, the board is likely to meet less frequently (at least face-to-face) so it is harder to get to know your colleagues.
• Secondly, because the issues involved are global they are generally more challenging than those facing national boards.
• Thirdly, you may have less time overall because many INGO boards are made up of people who also serve on the boards of national bodies and by the time they make the international body they may have a limited term to serve.

Too often by the time we get clear about our role and start to develop a global perspective our term is up, people are saying nice words at our farewell, and another newbie is in our seat blinking at an alphabet soup of new abbreviations and acronyms and grappling to get a grip on what is expected of them.

This is tough on individuals and it is way less than ideal for INGO alliances. INGOs have expanded rapidly in the past 20 years. They are trying to become more global and diverse (and less ‘Northern’). They strive to be more influential in global debates. They face challenging issues about their roles and priorities, effectiveness and accountability, and how they can best organise themselves. The governance agenda has expanded dramatically.

I have been fortunate to be chair of Oxfam International, the confederation of 17 Oxfams who do humanitarian, development, and advocacy work in about 90 other countries and at many international fora. Like many other alliances we have been going through a period of rapid change. I am also lucky to get to share INGO leadership experiences with the chairs and executive directors of many of the other development, human rights, and environmental alliances when we meet at the annual Vision Works meeting organised by the Berlin Civil Society Center. From these discussion over that past four years I have thought a lot about how new board members might more easily make the step up from national to international boards.

In a recent working paper I have prepared on the topic “Acting Globally – Thinking Globally” I suggest new board members can take steps to prepare themselves in response to six questions:

1. Where have we come from?
2. Do we have the diversity we need to govern our alliance and how can we draw these diverse views into an effective whole?
3. What are we trying to become?
4. How do we work at a global scale?
5. What are we accountable for internationally and to whom?
6. What is my role and how might I grow in this role?

I will address some of these questions in more detail in subsequent blogs.

A copy of the working paper can be found here.

Keith Johnston has served as Chair of Oxfam International since 2007 and is a partner at Cultivating Leadership.

It was a pleasure to talk with Dr Carolyn Woo on her recent appointment as President and CEO of Catholic Relief Services (CRS). She discusses the way ‘everything in life has changed’ from her previous situation as Dean of the Mendoza School of Business  at the University of Notre Dame. Her background as a business education leader has taught her that integrity and success are not trade-offs, but success stems from integrity. From her perspective as a Catholic and a woman leader, she describes the challenges and hopes for her organization working in international relief and development in 100 countries in a fast-changing environment.

Interview with Carolyn Woo by Claire Szabo from Hauser Center at Harvard on Vimeo.

Claire Szabo is a student at the Harvard Kennedy School pursuing a mid-career master’s program in public administration.

In a talk on March 23, 2012 hosted by the Hauser Center, the newly appointed CEO of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Carolyn Woo, discussed her strategic vision for the NGO in the coming years. New partnerships, including corporate partnerships, were among the six strategic “buckets” she outlined to help the NGO achieve mission-guided success. At a time when several international humanitarian NGOs are looking to reshape their roles, this focus on private sector partnerships is a growing trend, and Carolyn and others realize that their organizations have a specific role to play in this sphere of international development. NGOs can provide value to private sector partners by building upon their existing micro-enterprise networks, leveraging local trust, and directly linking producers, processors, and consumers. These NGOs must also determine how partnerships can help NGOs fulfill their social missions. In her talk, Carolyn focused on the sustainability component of corporate partnerships: building long term access to funding and expertise in the areas CRS works requires the involvement of the private sector.

Translating a New CEO’s Leadership Vision into Action: The Case of Catholic Relief Services

Thursday, March 22, 3:30 – 5:00 pm

Speakers:
+ Carolyn Y. Woo, President and CEO, Catholic Relief Services
+ Peter Bell (Moderator), Senior Research Fellow, Hauser Center

Much of the present discourse addresses the primary strategic question of how NGOs can guide the formation of inclusive markets at the margin to integrate with and leverage long term supplychains. NGOs work in post-emergency settings and have the capacity to guide the transition from emergency relief to development. Their efforts to build market linkages must be carefully coordinated in order to avoid conflicting programs, and every market engagement strategy needs to also include sustainability planning.

These challenges involve well thought-out business plans, but there are also several key institutional issues, that, in my opinion, deserve equal attention. At a fundamental level, private sector and corporate partnerships require a shift in the way NGOs view themselves and the way individuals in their operating areas and partners view relief and development. Here are some of these more organizational questions that I continue to struggle with:

• How can NGOs effectively make the shift from shaming and blaming corporations to building strategic partnerships? From an organizational perspective, NGOs have historically led corporate watchdog activities, but increasingly, economic development objectives point to corporations as potential partners, not adversaries. These conflicting roles create institutional challenges for NGOs. They must continually assess the cohesive rationale for using carrots or sticks with corporations, building internal buy-in, andstrengthening external rapport with partners along the way.

• What strategies can NGOs employ to build upon existing, localized brand identities while also redefining their relationships with local populations? The relationships between client populations and NGOs are also changing as a result of private sector partnerships. There is a lot of valuable discourse on the power relationships between givers and receivers in international development, and many international NGOs have worked to empower the individuals they serve through the execution and evaluation of their programs. In many cases, private sector partnerships can further these efforts by shifting clients’ perspective of NGOs from providers to partners, but this also requires a shift in local perceptions.

• What types of skills do NGOs need in order to effectively communicate, manage, and claim value in private sector partnerships? Cross-sector partnerships are by no means a new concept in the sphere of international development, but in order to effectively attract and execute partnerships, the language that partners use must continue to evolve. It is easy for a private sector partner to come to the negotiating table speaking about social value while NGOs use the language of market opportunities. The challenge arises when these organizations must assert their own interests as the partnership moves through implementation.

Each of these challenges and questions present potential barriers to successful corporate partnerships, but I believe the opportunities for engagement are just as strong. While NGOs can be slow to make institutional changes, they are frequently more agile than governments in their ability to build and execute partnerships. Moreover, NGOs have sufficient localized capacity to execute partnerships in areas where they already work. Personally, I am excited to watch CRS move forward in their partnership strategies and respond to the changing landscape.

Alison Hemberger is a Master in Public Policy Student at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Until recently, branding was a dirty word in many nonprofit organizations. Not anymore.

Branding used to conjure up images of profit-driven marketing executives sitting in high-rise offices of the likes of Coca-Cola and MacDonald’s. The few nonprofits that adopted branding early on were suspected by others to compromise their ethical values and to loose track of their social mission.

That was yesterday. Today, an increasing number of nonprofit organizations are embracing the concept of branding. These organizations believe that a brand is not only a tool to enhance their fundraising and visibility but also a way to drive their mission and impact more broadly.

This is the conclusion of a newly released study by the Hauser Center on Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University. Based on an 18-month research project involving 73 interviews with practitioners and scholars in 41 organizations, the study analyses current attitudes and branding practices in the nonprofit sector. It proposes a valuable framework to think about the specific role that brands play for nonprofit organizations.

As Nathalie Kylander and Christopher Stone write in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, “the models and terminology used in the nonprofit sector to understand brand remain those imported from the for-profit sector to boost name recognition and raise revenue. Nonprofit leaders need new models that allow their brands to contribute to sustaining their social impact, serving their mission, and staying true to their organization’s values and culture”.

Kylander and Stone, in collaboration with colleagues at the Hauser Center, developed a conceptual framework designed to help nonprofit organizations do just that. The framework is called IDEA, which stands for Integrity, Democracy, Ethics and Affinity. In short, Brand Integrity means that the public image of the organization is aligned with its mission. Brand Democracy means that the organization trusts its constituencies to communicate the organization’s core identity, without the need of centralized control on how the brand is presented. Brand Ethics means that the brand reflects the core values and culture of the organization. Finally, Brand Affinity means that the brand promotes collective interests and attracts partners and collaborators.

The study should be commended for analyzing and framing the features of branding in a way that is palatable to the non-profit sector. It is a welcome and fresh look at branding, which will surely help drive the conversation forward.

However, as I was reading the various case studies, a number of questions arose, which are left unaddressed by the study:

1- The cases analyzed in the study look at large, Northern-based, well-resourced organizations, coalitions or campaigns (Amnesty International, WWF, Publish What You Pay, The Girl Effect). These are backed by tens of millions of dollars coming from public and private donors. It is crucial to expand the analysis to include the role of brand for groups based in the global south. Can any organization afford the efforts and expertise needed in developing an iconic brand? Are the benefits of a good brand equally important for all organizations, operating under widely different political, cultural and economic circumstances? Is it more important for international NGOs than for local, service-delivery type of organizations?

2- Another, related question is: Is it always worth the effort? Could it be counterproductive to have a strong brand, especially for organizations operating under authoritarian regimes? Operating under the radar – rather than building credibility with the government or donors – may be the key to the long-term survival and effectiveness of NGOs operating in adversarial legal environments. I am thinking of for instance groups working to promote women’s empowerment in Islamist countries.

3- One could argue that the organizations and campaigns described in the study have governance arrangements and financing mechanisms that are quite similar to those of for-profit corporate entities. Their top executives often come from the private sector. Corporate lawyers and investment bankers sit on their board. They are primarily concerned about the long-term sustainability of the organization’s finance and image. In this context, it makes sense for them to adopt a concept – branding – that was developed in the private sector. It is a language that speaks to them. But what about the hundreds of thousands of grassroots charitable organizations? What types of challenges may they face in convincing their staff, executives, board members, partners and constituencies of the necessity of adopting a strong brand? Is this framing useful at all to them?

4- Finally, more rigorous research needs to be undertaken on the impact of branding on an organization’s effectiveness. Under what conditions will a brand successfully foster the implementation of the organization’s mission? There is no internationally agreed standard against which to measure organizational effectiveness in the non-profit sector. However, it would be interesting to assess in more detail the extent to which good brands encourage organizational cohesion, public mobilization, member engagement, public recognition, movement building and sustainable social change.

Branding in the nonprofit sector is a work in progress. Eight years ago, I worked as a program officer at WWF. On a sunny afternoon in September, I boarded a private cruise boat in the Baltic Sea with our special donors and board members. We were all wearing life jackets with the emblematic panda and trying to spot an endangered species: porpoises. The purpose of the trip fitted well with the image most passengers had of WWF: on organization dedicated to species conservation. They were surprised to hear that my job entailed securing an international agreement at the International Maritime Organization in London for safer shipping on the Baltic Sea. The objective was to protect the marine ecosystem needed for the porpoises to survive. Yet the link wasn’t obvious to our most ardent supporters. The powerful brand of WWF – the panda – was failing to capture and communicate the evolution and the breadth of our work.

As the case study conducted by the Hauser Center shows, WWF has made some remarkable progress since then. And so have many other organizations. Much remains to be done though to align one’s internal identity with external image, values and mission. The challenge for WWF and others will be to convey increasingly complex socio-economic and political issues through a simple and compelling idea – the brand!

Elisa Peter is a mid-career fellow at the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. She is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Public Administration at the Harvard Kennedy School.

On February 24 2012 Bill Drayton (CEO and Founder, Ashoka) shared his views on social entrepreneurship during a talk at the Harvard JFK School of Government. It is clear that the concept entrepreneurship was established a long time ago and that the word social has brought the concept to a new dimension. But what defines the next generation of social entrepreneurship?

Bill Drayton talks about social entrepreneurs as “the change agents for society, in a world where everyone is a changemaker”. He refers to “individuals that have the freedom, confidence and societal support to address any social problem and change society for the better”. Social entrepreneurs must have a clear vision, they are ambitious, persistent and solve problems by changing the system, spreading solutions, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.

Like business entrepreneurs respond to business opportunities, social entrepreneurs respond to social challenges. I wonder if social entrepreneurs and business entrepreneurs are that different? They both are seeking for effective solutions to existing problems. Will the next generation of social entrepreneurship be defined by a narrowing gap between both sectors?

In both sectors there is an increasing demand for transparency and reporting to measure performance and maximize value. Social entrepreneurs can realize their vision by following a strategic model or value proposition that would link their own activities to the social results they like to achieve. These are measures of success that are most relevant for the organization and its stakeholders.

On the other hand, increasing practices in corporate social responsibility show that the industry is now also more focused on social challenges. Some leading corporations expanded their practices of mitigating negative impact by taking on the role of social changemakers. Driven by changed demands from stakeholders they aim to contribute to society, the environment, and the economy.

Furthermore, sharing knowledge between both sectors is of great importance and collaboration can contribute to achieving the desired outcomes.

With a masters in Sociology and work experience at an international company and NGO, Nicoline Blokzeijl is currently focussing on the challenges and opportunities that face corporate social responsibility at the Harvard Extension School.

The 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held December 2011 in Busan, South Korea, was a landmark event where civil society participated in negotiations on the new direction for international development cooperation on an equal basis with governments and donors, the first such time in the history of these OECD-led events.

It concluded with a compromise and mixed results for civil society organisations (CSOs) (1). One important gain is the acknowledgement in the outcome agreement of the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness, as a reference on best CSO practices and conditions required from governments and donors.

Accompanied by two Toolkits to help CSOs put it into practice, the International Framework is the outcome of a three year consultation process with thousands of CSOs across the globe and the first ever global statement from civil society on the effectiveness of its work in development. As such, it represents a legitimate reference for CSOs at national, regional and international levels.

But while putting the International Framework into practice is now a priority for civil society organisations across the globe, the enabling environment in which they operate continues to deteriorate in many countries.
Indeed, the issue of an enabling environment proved to be one of the stumbling blocks for civil society at the Busan forum. “By participating in high level negotiations on aid and development for the first time, people’s organisations can take credit for cementing democratic ownership and human rights in the Busan Outcome Document – but more work needs to be done on advancing favourable conditions for civil society,” said Open Forum co-chair Emele Duituturaga in response to the newly agreed Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation.

One of the key civil society expectations from Busan was a firm, clear and explicit commitment towards providing an enabling environment for civil society, in the face of a wave of restrictions and attacks on CSOs across a wide range of countries.

“The evidence was clear and compelling. Since 2008, although governments made explicit commitments to provide an enabling environment for civil society, civil society around the world has seen a regressive trend of shrinking space, and is facing various legal, policy and regulatory barriers as well as unwarranted harassment and persecution” explains Netsanet Belay, Policy and Research Director at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

After intense advocacy and lobbying by civil society, the Busan outcome document, in paragraph 22(a), made reference to agreed international rights as the basis for defining an enabling environment for civil society. CIVICUS applauded this move, but remains unconvinced about the likelihood of impact on the ground.
Evidence suggests that key principles of the aid effectiveness dialogue, including the principles of alignment, harmonisation and domestic ownership of aid are being used contrary to their intention by governments to justify restrictions on CSOs’ access to funding and their right to operate without unwarranted interference.
Belay explains, “We are dissatisfied about the lack of specific minimum standards on a civil society enabling environment in the Busan outcome document. We were also concerned about the overemphasis on governments’ understanding of development results during the negotiations.” Paragraph 11(b) of the Busan outcome document stipulates that all development actors, including CSOs, should ‘align their efforts with the priorities and policies set out by developing counties’. We hope this statement will not lead to governments encroaching upon the independence of CSOs, their role as watchdogs and their pursuit of innovation.”

When it comes to measuring the provision of an enabling environment by governments and donors, civil society also highlights the failure of Paragraph 22 to refer to compliance with internationally agreed rights ‘in law and in practice’, which can only hinder efforts to hold governments accountable to these commitments.
CSOs, as recognised development actors, have shown their commitment to improving their effectiveness in development through their constructive engagement in the Busan process, and must continue to be included in the dialogue. However, global partnerships and international negotiations will only be successful when the enabling environment for CSOs is fully respected.

Without guarantees for an enabling environment which respects the fundamental freedoms of civil society, CSOs are unable to play their full role as development actors.

(1) See civil society reactions to the Busan Partnership here.

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is a global civil society alliance dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society across the world.

Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness is a global fully participatory space run by and for civil society organizations to improve the impact of their development work and advocate for more favourable government policies and practices for CSOs according to the globally agreed International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness.