This version of the Report does not contain the original Executive Summary, Table of Contents, Acknowledgements, References or Appendices. To view Report in its entirety please download the PDF file.
Inter-Organisational Cooperation of Haitian NGOs in Education – A Haitian Perspective (54)
Report Author: Marike de Kloe
1. Aims and objectives
After the devastating earthquake in Haiti (January 2010), a lot of funding was pledged by different donors to build up the country. This is an enormous task, facing many challenges. Presently thousands of national and international civil society organisations are involved in different activities for humanitarian relief and development (USIP, 2010).
- One of the challenges in this process is the cooperation between all actors involved, such as government and non-governmental organisations, companies, international organisations, religious organisations and movements.
- Another challenge is the ownership of the Haitian community. This is for example addressed by a network organisation that is concerned about how decisions for reconstruction were taken: ‘We believe that the Haitian government and civil society must determine their own future and therefore should have a leading role in establishing the proper structures to make this happen’ (COE-H, February 2011).
In this project I want to address these two challenges, particularly for the development of the Haitian
education sector.
The aim of the project is to provide insight in aspects and factors that promote or hinder interorganisational cooperation for educational development in Haiti. This insight will be given, based on experiences and opinions from Haitian leaders, involved in the education sector.
Expected outcomes are:
- An overview with information about existing trajectories of inter-organisational cooperation for educational development in Haiti, including aspects and factors that strengthen or hinder cooperation between NGOs and NGOs with the government. This information can be used by civil society organisations (e.g. the Haiti Country Alliance) and donor organisations, in order to facilitate inter-organisational cooperation in Haiti and advocacy for relevant policies in education.
- Of particular interest for development management is the Haitian perspective about interorganisational cooperation, as this is scarcely available in present literature.
2. Introduction and background
This chapter provides an introduction and background information about Haiti, its education sector and the problem of inter-organisational cooperation that is addressed in this project.
2.1 Country situation of Haiti
Haiti is located in the Caribbean Sea and occupies the western third of the Island of Hispaniola (see figure 1).
Figure 1 Map Haiti
Source: CIA 2011 The World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/
Haiti was the first state in the world that proclaimed independence by defeating France in a slave rebellion in 1804. But according to Winters (2008), Haiti moved ‘to a society with a rigid class structure’ (p. 285). For decades the country has suffered from extreme poverty and inequality. Competition between elite groups generated social and political instability. Most Haitian political leaders did not serve out their full term (Schuller 2007, p.70), including Jean-Claude Duvalier and Aristide. Since 2004, UN mission MINUSTAH is present in Haiti to work with the national policy for overall security. A number of country key figures are provided in table 1.
Table 1. Key figures Haiti
Haiti was severely hit by an earthquake on January 12, 2010, leaving more than 200,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands homeless (government of Haiti PDNA, 2010). This earthquake has damaged an already extremely weak public system, including education and health sectors. A second disaster at the end of 2010 was a cholera outbreak, which has already affected more than 122,000 people from which at least 2,600 died (Oxfam, 2011). Haitian authorities lack capacity to provide sufficient services to its population.
An example of the resilience of Haitians is that ―despite the rubble and the ruin there was a timid sense of hope in the capacity of Haiti to overcome in the very first weeks after the quake (UNICEF, 2011). The way how Haitians deal with disasters is described by Nicolas, Schwartz & Pierre (2009). They stress that an understanding of the cultural strengths of Haiti (e.g. community connections and religion) is essential for organisations involved in service provision.
One year after the earthquake, Haiti is in a transition phase from relief activities towards structural development of the country. At present, there are critical concerns about the reconstruction process, for instance: ‘Many aid agencies continue to bypass local and national authorities in the delivery of assistance, while donors are not coordinating their actions or adequately consulting the Haitian people and key government ministries when taking decisions‘ (Oxfam 2011, p. 3). Also a perceived lack of consultation with Haitian civil society organisations by the Haitian government fed a sense of marginalization’ (Progression, 2010, p.8). This is a risk, as based on lessons learnt, participation of local civil society is necessary for an effective disaster response (ALNAP, 2009).
2.2 The education sector
Schools in Haiti are mainly operated by non-public organizations (around 90%, see figure in annex 1). Since the 1930s, the relative share of the public schools has declined (The World Bank, 2010). The number of non-public schools has grown and includes for-profit private schools run by entrepreneurs, schools run by churches and community schools. NGOs are involved in supporting different interventions in education at local and national levels (Wolff, 2008).
Data for education in Haiti have to be interpreted with caution, due to lack of reliable monitoring by the Ministry of Education. Table 2 provides a number of key figures in education.
Table 2. Key figures education in Haiti
Table 2 shows an increase of primary education enrolment in previous years. The low completion rates for primary education are partly due to high drop-out rates and the presence of a large number of students who are over the normal age for their grade (The World Bank, 2010).
Present most significant problems in education are related to enrolment (reconstruction of schools after the earthquake), teacher training, salaries and teacher’s status, weak school management, lack of information about quality standards, overall weak governance and low relevance (Woord en Daad, 2010). In a survey of the education sector, Mérisier (2010, p. 8) stresses the importance of improved information sharing and institutional development of organisations active in education.
Many problems in the education sector cannot be solved by individual schools that are dealing with the weak government capacity. But in general there are concerns about the coordination and cooperation between national and international NGOs and the government (e.g. by the prime minister, NPR, 2010). Michaëla Jean, special envoy for UNESCO (2011, p.4) states: At the present moment, there is an incredible number of scattered educational projects, but there is no coordination.‘Notwithstanding, initiatives for coordination and cooperation in education exist. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has set-up a coordination systems with clusters, after the earthquake. The Education Cluster includes about 200 organisations (UNICEF, 2011, p. 11). Also many of the non-public schools are part of one or more networks (Woord en Daad, 2010).
2.3 Problem description
From the description of the general context of Haiti and its education sector, it becomes clear that the situation is complex, with:
- A context of extreme poverty;
- Weak public and democratic structures;
- Many different organisations involved in education;
- A transition-phase from humanitarian relief activities to development programmes;
- Influence of international organisations in national policy decisions and implementation.
Messages about large budgets pledged by the international community for relief and development in Haiti are accompanied by:
- critics about the coordination of to be financed projects;
- concerns about the way of involvement and ownership of the Haitian community.
In this environment the project is addressing the problem of inter-organisational cooperation in the Haitian education sector. There is a need to get more insight in the existing trajectories and structures of cooperation, and in aspects and factors that influence cooperation and coordination, from a Haitian perspective. This could be relevant for policy makers and donors.
The project is in particular addressing a need of the Haiti Country Alliance, including four Haitian NGOs and one Dutch NGO (see also paragraph 4.3). Since November 2010, these organisations have started working as an alliance2 and decided to explore further opportunities for cooperation, internally as an alliance and externally with other actors. More insight in different types of cooperation could help these organisations to take the right steps on the way forward.
3. Nature of the problem
This chapter provides a description of inter-organisational cooperation for educational development from a theoretical perspective. This exploration leads to a number of research questions (paragraph 3.5) for the problem as addressed in this project..
3.1 Inter-organisational cooperation: why?
Why is inter-organisational cooperation in the education sector of Haiti desired? The ‘usual general aspiration’ for inter-organisational cooperation ‘is the achievement of some form of collaborative advantage’ (Vangen & Huxham, 2003, p.6).
A commonly used institutional framework makes a distinction between state, civil society and market (Robinson, Hewitt & Harriss, 2000, p.5). The actors of this framework can also be distinguished in the education sector in Haiti: the Ministry of Education, the civil society organisations in service delivery and advocacy, and the market, which includes the connection of graduates with the labour market and the ‘market for schools‘ (The World Bank, 2010). This institutional framework is often combined with three ways in which organisations relate to each other: the ideal types coordination, cooperation and competition (Robinson, et al., 2000). Nevertheless in reality all sort relationships seem to exist and ‘there are numerous situations in which different types of organizations are working together in various arrangements, to resolve collective problems‘ (ibid., p.5). In this regard it should be noted that division of responsibilities and funding between the government and civil society in Haiti is a sensitive political issue (see also Francois, 2011). A current global trend is that Education sector policies in almost every country now call for some form of partnership between government and these [civil society] organizations’ (UNESCO Global Monitoring Report 2008, p.173).
Hewitt (2000) mentions a non-exhaustive list of ‘reasons for setting up inter-organisational
relationships:
- Gains in scale and scope (in research, products, service delivery, etc.);
- Meeting flexibility of demand;
- Information sharing;
- Building complementary skills and resource synergy;
- Strengthening competitive position;
- Access to new technologies and/or new markets;
- Protecting an existing resource base against competition;
- Strengthening a group of organisations as a political lobby’ (p.53).
The key commodity is knowledge. Depending on the form and context ‘inter-organisational relationships offer advantages that transcend reliance on either the market or the hierarchy, or improve their functioning’ (ibid, p.54).
3.2 Inter-organisational cooperation: how?
How do organizations cooperate and which factors influence inter-organisational cooperation? A number of theories help to explain cooperative relationships. Hewitt (2000, p.60) listed:
a) Transaction cost economics: cooperation is motivated by transaction cost efficiency. Forms of governance are asset specificity, uncertainty and frequency of transactions.
b) Resource dependence view: cooperation is driven by strategic and social factors and focuses on needs and opportunities.
c) Inter-organizational relationships: collaboration has advantages for allocation and strategies to cope with imbalances and dependency in the environment.
d) Network theories: emphasis on access to and use of information, learning and social capital. Smith, Caroll & Ashford (1995) add: ‘Network theory explains cooperation in terms of the position of cooperating partners in a network of relationships’.
From each theoretical perspective, there is another emphasis on how cooperative trajectories are influenced or can be strengthened, such as:
a) Economic factors
b) Available specialised expertise
c) An unsure political environment
d) Obligations based on trust.
Generally, the importance of a shared vision for working in a collaborative partnership is mentioned by Penrose (2000, p. 255), based on lessons learnt.Brett (2000, p.20) explains that ‘peaceful interaction is only possible where each agency respects the right of all of the others and where viable institutions exist which embody and enforce the rules which allow them all to exchange scarce goods, services and payments on a secure and equitable basis’. He also emphasizes the importance of ‘a strong motivation rather than formal systems’ or certain skills or resources for organisational performance. Besides he mentions that effective results for development only can be produced if the theories about inter-organisational cooperation are ‘combined with a detailed knowledge of the local situation’ and ‘cultural expectations’ (ibid. p.48).
In their research programme Vangen & Huxham (2003) use a number of issues ‘that are repeatedly raised by practitioners as causing anxiety or reward in collaboration’:
- Aims and objectives
- Accountability
- Commitment and determination
- Compromise
- Appropriate working processes
- Communication
- Democracy and inclusiveness (membership)
- Trust
- Power
Ranade & Hudson (2003, p. 33) also suggest a list of ‘necessary conditions for success in co-evolving partnerships’ (adapted from Pratt et al., 1999).
- Building relationships : need of time to explore purpose
- Changing mental maps : people see themselves as a whole and stop shifting blame to other parts of the system
- Diversity : mix of people to enable new possibilities to emerge
- Expectations : not just money, but also passion and energy for change
- Iteration : try and try again
- Leadership : facilitate common ownership and responsibility for the whole
- Future: incentives which enlarge future possibilities
From this paragraph it is clear that a lot of different conditions (e.g. respect), means (e.g. communication) and external factors (e.g. institutional environment) play a role in inter-organisational cooperation. Specific research data from practitioners in the Haitian (education) context could not be obtained.
3.3 Interaction patterns in network cooperation
The previous paragraph provided different theoretical explanations for inter-organisational relationships. Within the network theories, Wielinga and Zaalmink (2008), have developed the ‘ecological perspective’ and FAN approach (Free Actors in Networks), with a focus on energy and connections to steer things along. According to the ecological perspective, ‘networks of people behave like ecosystems. They form complex structures which enable a division of tasks and specialisation. This enables benefits of scale, as long as the network participants are interconnected‘ (Wielinga & Zaalmink, 2008, p.9).
One of the tools in the FAN approach (used as inspiration) is the circle of coherence. This instrument focuses on two dimensions of interaction. The content dimension shows what we know and want, from differences to similarities. The relational dimension involves the relationship between me and we, from my interests, ability, influence, etc. to our interests, ability, influence, etc. These two dimensions provide four interaction patterns. Between the extremes is a vital space in which mutual trust develops (ibid., p.20).
Figure 3. Circle of Coherence
Source: MDF Consultancy (2011)
http://www.mdf.nl/page/MDF-SERVICES/Facilitating-Processes/Training-Courses/
Figure 3 shows the dimensions and quadrants:
1. Exchange: Will this network be worthwhile for me personally? Do the returns balance my
investment?
2. Challenge: Which position can I take in the network? Is my effort valued enough? Is it
challenging enough?
3. Structure: How do we organise ourselves? What is the best task division? How do we
maintain the structure?
4. Dialogue: What motivates the others? What lessons can we learn from each other?
Each of the four patterns requires attention for a healthy interaction. Normally the start is in quadrant 1, but after a while patterns alternate. When participants go outside the circle, they come into non-vital patterns, such as escape (quadrant 1), fight (quadrant 2), resignation (quadrant 3) or adaptation (quadrant 4). Interventions can be done to stimulate the vital patterns (ibid.).
This model could be useful when analysing interaction patterns in inter-organisational cooperation of NGOs for educational development in Haiti. It can also provide recommendations for improvement, as a facilitator (free actor) could intervene to break through barriers and recover connections.
3.4 Trust and inter-organisational cooperation
Previous paragraphs already mentioned the development of trust in a cooperation. This section explores two different categorizations from types of trust.
Harriss (2000), who also refers to other authors, states that cooperation and networking depends on the existence of trust. He distinguishes the following types of trust (Zucker 1986, in: Harriss, 2000, p.238):
1. Process based trust – associated with past or expected exchange
2. Characteristic-based (or ascribed) trust – associated with personal characteristics e.g. family
3. Institutional-based trust – associated with formal societal structures
With regard to cultural differences, Harriss (2000) concludes: ‘Trust relations can be built op, or
destroyed. These processes may be influenced by social values and norms which are part of the
culture of a society, but they are not absolutely determined culturally‘ (p.241).
Dietz, Gillespie & Chao (2010) wrote a chapter in a book about a cultural perspective on organizational trust. They work with a definition of trust from Rousseau et al. (1998, p.395): ‘a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another’ (ibid. p.10). Moreover:
- Trustworthiness beliefs inform the decision about trust. They are a set of beliefs that the trustor has about the other party.
- Propensity to trust is a person’s predisposition towards trusting other people in general. It is understood to be a facet of personality influenced by early developmental experiences, and by cultural background.
- Trusting behaviour in work contexts has two categories: reliance (relying on another party’s skills, knowledge, judgments or actions, including delegating and giving autonomy), and disclosure (sharing work-related or personal information of a sensitive nature with another party). Trusting behaviour is the likely outcome of trust, but not guaranteed as other contextual factors can influence trust behaviour.
Central for trust development is the quality of evidence gathered about the other party and the quality
of the interpretation of this evidence (ibid.).
In the same book, Bachmann (2010, p. 93) argues that the nature and quality of trust varies over different cultural and institutional environments. He distinguishes:
1. Interaction based trust – assumes frequent face-to-face meetings and developing some
familiarity.
2. Institution based trust – gives more emphasis to institutional regulation and generally
accepted rules and structures of a business community.
Normally both categories of trust play a role, but one is more dominant than the other, depending on the culture and context. For instance interaction based trust is prevalent in many UK business relationships, while institution based trust is stronger developed in German business relationships. Another example about cultural differences is that a formal contract in America tends to precede trust by underwriting it, while in China strong trust seems to be a pre-condition of signing (Dietz et all, 2010, p.21).
These theories and examples show that it is interesting to find out how specific aspects and conditions for cooperation and trust are perceived in the Haitian culture and context.
3.5 Research questions
The exploration in the previous paragraphs has addressed a number of aspects that are relevant for inter-organisational cooperation. These aspects are included in the following research questions that should be answered in the investigation.
1. Why do organisations enter and participate in inter-organisational cooperation trajectories for educational development?
a. What are (written) objectives for cooperative relationships?
b. How are the understanding and perception of objectives and interests and is this different from the written objectives?
2. How do organizations cooperate and which factors influence the inter-organisational cooperation for educational development?
a. What are conditions and criteria for inter-organisational cooperation?
b. What are interaction patterns and means for inter-organisational cooperation?
c. What are factors that promote and/or hinder cooperation?
d. What is the role of trust and trust building in cooperation?
Answers will also provide information for recommendations about how to strengthen effective and efficient inter-organisational cooperation for educational development in Haiti, between NGOs and with the government.
Definition:
Inter-organisational cooperation trajectories refer to the practice of NGOs (and other institutions) to work in common (e.g. in a network, consortium or alliance), with commonly agreed-upon goals and possibly methods, instead of working separately in isolation.
Note: in this project, ‘inter-organisational cooperation’ can include all different types of collaboration
between an NGO and another institution and does not necessarily exclude aspects of the ideal types of ‘coordination’ and ‘competition’.
4. Research methodology and design
This chapter provides a description of how the problem and research questions are investigated in the project. The sections describe the methodology and provide an overview of the participants and their organisations.
4.1 Methodology
The research questions as defined in paragraph 3.5 are about ‘why’ and ‘how’. For answers to these questions, semi-structured interviews can be used as a methodology of investigation (Potter and Subrahmanian, 2007). Collected data will not be used for quantitative generalisations, but gives insight in the variety of aspects and factors that play a role in inter-organisational cooperation for educational
development in Haiti.
For the interviews a semi-structured interview guide is constructed, see annex 2. The guide is based on the research questions, but also very open. For the data collection, a focus on practical knowledge from experiences of the respondents is desired (to avoid unrealistic ideas). Therefore the interview guide starts with an open question to explain about a cooperation trajectory in which the respondent is or was involved in. Based on this practical story, other questions can be added and related to practice. Also the questions about examples from respondents of ‘good’ and ‘weak’ cooperation give room for a lot of practical experiences. The sequence of the questions in the interview guide can be different per interview, depending on what is mentioned by respondents. In all cases, the interviews end with the same last question.
During the interviews, giving suggestions to the respondents about the content is to be avoided. For example, one of the research questions is about the role of trust in cooperation. But respondents are only asked about relevant ‘means and factors’ in cooperation trajectories. In case the word ‘trust’ is mentioned, an additional question can be asked to explain this aspect.
The selection of ‘key informants’ was done with the aim to collect a wide range of different viewpoints (Woodhouse, 2007, p. 164). I restricted my selection to ‘respondents with a Haitian nationality, related to NGOs that are part of an inter-organisational cooperation trajectory in education’. I could not talk to a representative of the government, due to the election period. I also did not select people who are not involved in inter-organisational cooperation trajectories, but probably the hindering factors for interorganisational cooperation were sufficiently known by the involved respondents. I included the rinciple of triangulation by involving more than one person (maximum three) per organisation. I have also chosen to talk to people from different ‘levels’, e.g. the director of the network and a member organisation.
17 interviews with respondents (3 female, 14 male) were organised and planned in a two-week visit to Haiti (February-March, 2011). I started with contacting the partner organisations I already knew from my professional network. They informed me about contact details of other related networks and organisations and were intermediaries in arranging appointments and office space.
The interview lengths vary from 30-40 minutes and they are audio recorded and transcribed. After the first interview I made some minor changes in the questions, mainly ‘wording’. In total 6,5 hours of interview data are collected. 12 interviews were in French and 5 in English, depending on the preferred language of the respondent.
Additionally from the organisations or networks involved in the interviews, documents (grey material) are collected about their objectives and activities.
By arranging and having the 17 interviews, similar challenges were experienced that are evident for cooperation trajectories, in the area of communication and logistics. Only 5 out of 17 interviews were exactly on the initially planned time and place. Other interviews were postponed, varying from an hour till some days. Transportation was not easy, due to situation of the roads and the traffic in Port au Prince.
I has been tried to contact three extra respondents per email, but there was no response, so their input
could not be included.
4.2 Respondents
The selected respondents were connected to 6 cases of inter-organisational cooperation trajectories that I knew from my professional experience. Details of the trajectories and numbers of respondents are provided in table 3.
Table 3. Inter-organisational cooperation trajectories and respondents
The respondents from the 6 different cooperation trajectories were also involved in other trajectories and these experiences were discussed in the interviews as well:
1. COSPE is member of the education cluster (strategic group) and related to FONHEP and FEPH.
2. CRECH is partner of the Haiti Country Alliance and related to COSPE and FEPH
3. The Education Cluster has COSPE en FONHEP and FEPH as members
4. FEPH is involved in FONHEP, COSPE, CRECH and the Education Cluster
5. FONHEP is related to COSPE, the Education Cluster, FEPH and satellite partner of the Haiti Country Alliance
6. One member of the Haiti Country Alliance is member of FEPH.
Table 6 in Annex 3 provides an overview of the number of interview fragments related to each cooperation trajectory.
Draft findings and conclusions (answers to the research questions, based on the data analysis) are
communicated per email with the respondents, to ensure that the information is correctly understood.
5. Analysis and findings
This chapter provides an overview of the findings from the data collection in Haiti.
5.1 Data features and analysis
Firstly information from the 17 transcribed interviews that was not relevant for responding the interview
questions was marked (estimation: less than 5%). The remaining text was divided into small fragments that could be categorized. After a try-out with 4 interviews, the labelling was reviewed and done for all interviews (with Microsoft Office Excel). In this process, some additional labels were added and at the end some categories could be combined and subsets made. The final categories with numbers of fragments (total 463) are included in Annex 3.
All interview fragments received 1-4 labels from the categories ‘goals and understanding’ (paragraph 5.2 and 5.3), ‘conditions and criteria’ (paragraph 5.4), ‘interaction patterns and means’ (paragraph 5.5) and ‘factors that hinder and promote’ (paragraph 5.6). Fragments have numbers (number respondent from table 4 + extra number), which are used for referencing in the respective paragraphs of findings. For the interpretation also subsets of information were made, about ‘good or weak cooperation’ and ‘hindering or promoting’, as mentioned by the respondents. Paragraph 5.7 and 5.8 describe other subsets about ‘trust’ en ‘international organisations’.
As response to the final interview question about an enabling environment for inter-organisational cooperation, people elaborated about positive conditions, means and factors that are included in the respective descriptions of findings.
The French interviews were analysed in French, but citations in this text are translated to English.
The collected data provides a wealth of information about perceptions and experiences with six
existing inter-organisational cooperation trajectories in the education sector in Haiti, from national level to school level. 76% of the respondents worked for the protestant sector (average 30-43% est., based on Salmi, 2000), the remaining 24% were Catholic or non-religious. Therefore the situation of the protestant sector is possibly somewhat more highlighted, but this is not very different from the other private schools.
5.2 Objectives
The inter-organisational cooperation trajectories COSPE, CRECH, Education Cluster, FEPH and FONHEP have written objectives:. The Haiti Country Alliance is working on this aspect (present objective is only general). Written objectives are an important step in the cooperation, according to respondents. Specific contents of objectives are already included in table 2 of paragraph 4.3
5.3 Perceptions and interests
Respondents shared perceptions about the six cooperation trajectories from their own perspectives. The described objectives are mostly known and clearly explained. Table 4 provides specific strengths and weaknesses as perceived by respondents.
Table 4. Perceptions per trajectory
A number of member organisations in the different cooperation trajectories have a strong focus on financial interests of the cooperation, while this is not the main objective of the networks (5.23). Perceptions are mainly linked to concrete results of a cooperation trajectory in practice and not to a certain structure or process. For partners with a strong financial interest, the perception is less positive if income from the cooperation trajectory is relatively low.
Working complementary to each other is a strongly desired goal and simultaneously a challenge of each cooperation trajectory. The added value of cooperation is clearer if partners are specialised in a certain domain (12.7).Only financial interest is not sufficient.
In the coordination objectives, the attention for community schools is lacking.
5.4 Conditions and criteria
Most prominent condition is a shared vision or initiative. This vision can be developed, but there needs to be a shared idea: ‘We basically agree that we want to work towards the quality of education‘ (11.6). The ‘vision’ can include a problem description (1.12), common goals (16.2) and shared (Christian) values (6.21).
There is a wish to have a strong vision for the development of Haiti (17.18). Then organizations could
work together within the framework of one vision.
Only with participation, forms of inter-organisational cooperation can continue. Organisations should be willing to participate in meetings (see also under time). Member organisations participate ‘by paying the annual fees, by giving suggestions, by praying for the organisation, by buying the products that are developed for your organisation‘ (6.10).
Transparency is another strongly emphasized condition. The Education Cluster is dealing with the challenge of increased transparency: ‘In [my organization] we do that, if we have been at a school, we say we have collected and we have spent X amount of money. We are accountable for the money we receive. (..) But not all the institutions, I don‘t know if there is a problem of security, sometimes they are reluctant‘(8.11).
Even though transparency is a essential, people always need to be respectful: ‗You cannot force him. If he has valued reasons not to share this information, you need to approach and they may tell you‘ (8.12).
Mutual respect for the own strategy of organisations, for religious differences and freedom to express your ideas (15.4) are important for respondents. In a respectful environment, people can talk easily with each other (17.22).
Ultimately cooperation is an issue of attitude and mindset. Egoism and ‘a spirit of division‘ (10.13) lead to concurrence and hinder cooperation. It is in our flag: Unity makes Strength [L'Union Fait la Force] (..) but it seems that everybody works for his personal benefit‘ (2.21). We should ‘be a least curious to trust each other so that we can try and see what we can make out of it‘ (11.17). A feeling of solidarity is positive for cooperation. Also the attitude of ‘don‘t care who gets the credit‘ (12.17) is beneficial.
Saying is doing is a condition for fruitful cooperation. A consequence is that goals should be realistic, otherwise expectations cannot be fulfilled (2.13). Four respondents explicitly mention the Ministry of Education as an obvious example from ‘saying is no doing‘. The Education Cluster has been criticized from outsiders for ‘more talking than doing‘ (9.24).
Availability of time and investments of human resources are necessary in an inter-organisational cooperation trajectory. ‘We sacrifice our time for going to invitations from other schools and other organizations.‘ (2.30) Moreover people need to create a momentum, to get better results (1.23). If you cooperate with other professional institutions, this can lead to a project. ‘Then money follows‘ (11.14).
Organisations and people need to have no fear and feel safe, to be able to share and exchange. This is the case if you can talk as freely in an office of a partner organization as you can do in your own office (17.21). The negative effect of fear is also addressed: ‘This issue, I could count at almost every meeting it would somehow come in. It‘s more like a sense of protection, an instinct‘ (12.15).
To cooperate without fear, the independency (or autonomy) of organizations needs to be accepted. Especially when there are big and small organizations in a partnership: ‗it could happen that the small organization disappears, loses its visibility and identity. It must be able to (..) have a good definition of the domain of cooperation‘ (13.21).
Legal requirements are also to be taken into consideration in certain circumstances. This can include recognition by the Ministry of Education (8.16).
One person mentioned language as reason for non-participation, as English was spoken in some (Education) Cluster meetings (instead of French or Creole), just after the earthquake (3.38).
5.5 Interaction patterns and means
Respondents indicated different types of communication and interaction as means for cooperation. It was possible to categorize these in the four patterns as distinguished by Wielinga & Zaalmink (2008): 1) exchange, 2) challenge, 3) structure, 4) dialogue (see paragraph 3.3).
Many respondents (82%) mention exchange as a first step in a cooperation: Sit down and share our ideas and share what we are doing now in our organization. This is number one‘ (15.16). Another respondent mentions the identification of shared problems (1.14). ‘One of the first factors that could hinder a good cooperation is the lack of understanding’ (2.22).
The importance of challenge was explained in an interview: ‗Your interests are not mine, even if we think we speak about the same thing. We all work for quality education. And then when we sit down to spell out what qualitative education is, we could end up fighting and screaming (…) We have to hush it out and then find a common ground (11.6). Good cooperation is a bumpy road‘ (11.10). This open way of discussing is addressed by 59% of the respondents. One person refers to the way people buy things in Haiti: they do not automatically accept things. ‘You must argue, explain and convince. And you will see soon in the dialogue what the real price is. It is 5 dollar, but they say 10 dollar. (…) Also our meetings have rich discussions.‘ (3.17). Ultimately you will come to consensus.
All respondents have mentioned the interaction pattern of structure in their interview. They mainly talked about:
- Meeting schedules and communication procedures;
- Organisational structures (consortium, alliance, network organisation, informal cooperation);
- Criteria for members or partnerships (including financial participation);
- Statutes and operational plans;
- Tasks of the different organisations involved.
If someone does not adapt to established standards for cooperation, this person has to quit (6.20). Three people explicitly point at the importance of signing for commitments: ‘for a good cooperation (…) you need signatures. With a document and signature there is much more chance that they will respect you’ (16.12).
In many cases, a dialogue (mentioned by 71% of the respondents) is understood as a desired phase in a cooperation trajectory, which is not yet realised in practice. Making use of the expertise of others is crucial. People want to motivate each other and to learn from each other. Dialogue needs a safe environment and it can be stimulated via a structured meeting schedule. Respondents regret the lack of vital platforms in Haiti for sharing, learning and coordination on community level, regional, national and international level.
Shared actions or activities for implementation of plans are very relevant in a cooperation trajectory. Actions will bring results, and make visible that saying is doing. They motivate people. Also if an organization has problems, in a cooperation trajectory you could help a bit, just very little, but this shows already that you understand the problem (1.26). For networks (e.g. CRECH or FEPH), the delivered services demonstrate to members if their participation is worthwhile or not (7.21; 10.14). Many people do not believe in institutions because they see it as people who seek personal interest: make collective benefits of actions visible (2.31) and communicate clearly about results.
Capacity building (of members) is also addressed as means for strengthening cooperation. These activities include for example training (6.3) and policy advice (9.12). It is also possible via modelling, e.g. ‘The General Assembly meeting of COSPE is a model for the member organisations‘(1.6). Two people mention the role of a facilitator, who can freely connect, either between people with innovative views or between different religious groups, for example when FONHEP started with a facilitator that brought the Catholics and Protestants together (10.2).
Budget is an important factor for the scale of activities and results in a cooperation trajectory. However, by the majority of the respondents financial means are not emphasized as a condition for cooperation, but as a relevant means when the cooperation is started and actions are planned. ‘The
budget part will come (…) that‘s what‘s going to be another level‘ (11.8). Within a cooperation trajectory, the question how to get funding can be addressed (4.21). In any case it is advisable to have
diversified funding, to spread risks (10.7).Network organizations prefer that donor organizations work through or with them, instead of directly to schools.
Specific attention was given to the importance of good leadership. Without leadership, the cooperation will remain weak (1.14). A number of networks have grown under good leadership. Moral values are very important in this regard.
All respondents talked about communication and interactions, but it was also explicitly emphasized that information via emails or a website is not sufficient. Personal contact, through visits and calls is important. ‘You should communicate a lot.(..) It is not the big, the email with a lot of tabs. (…) I depend a lot on the telephone. I write, and then I call: This is very important‘(1.17).
5.6 Factors that hinder and promote
Respondents mentioned 10 factors which hinder or promote inter-organisational cooperation.
a) Challenging institutional context
The lack of credibility of the government and civil society organisations hinders the interorganisational
cooperation (1.40). One respondent is complaining about the government: they don‘t hear, they don‘t see, they don‘t think’ (17.11). Also ‘communities are not very structured’ (5.17). Advocacy and lobby is difficult in this environment, but still necessary. A well-functioning Ministry of Planning is desired. The Ministry of Education should start-up working via l’Office National du Partenariat en Éducation (ONAPE) to strengthen the cooperation with the private education sector.
Moreover many organisations are weakly organised (1.3) and lack capacity (3.28). A focus on strengthening institutions is needed: national and regional networks, community structures, school associations and parent associations.
Specific in the private education sector it is difficult that there are schools with a ‘profit mentality‘, which cooperate ‘in a non-profit body’ (10.9).
b) Continuity
Cooperation takes time to bring results (1.42). Many projects are just financed for 3 months till 3
years. This period is often too short. Staff change positions, which hinders cooperation if this is mainly based on personal motivation. Policies should not only be linked to people (e.g. government leaders) and when a new person comes a completely new plan is made.
c) Available expertise
It promotes good cooperation if people are qualified and have sufficient knowledge about their profession (the education sector). Unfortunately baseline information from the Ministry of Education is often not available (1.36).
d) Education
The low level of education in the Haitian society could contribute to a weak culture of cooperation. Education can contribute to mindset change (17.12) and provide relevant skills.
e) Donor policies
Donor organisation can stimulate inter-organisational cooperation through funding strategies and guidelines for partners. Moreover they should promote co-funding of programmes. A negative influence from donors is visible when they prefer to implement their programs directly with schools instead of working via networks or associations (2.16).
f) Economy
Organisations have to deal with unexpected economic changes in the context and this influences also their cooperative actions.
g) Religion
Cooperation within groups with a similar religion (e.g. FEPH or CRECH) is mostly strong. It is possible, but more difficult to cooperate between organisations with different religious backgrounds.
h) Image
It is important for an organisation to have a good image. Then others want to cooperate with you and it is easier to obtain funding. Blame letters are a big risk.
i) Logistics
Lack of means for transportation and internet facilities are practical hindrances for communication.
j) History
One respondent was convinced that there are historical reasons for difficulties related to cooperation, coming from father Duvalier: the way he was leading the country, he tried to divide you, so he could rule better’ (15.3).
5.7 Role of trust
Two respondents explicitly elaborated on the role of a trust in cooperation as very important. Mutual trust means that you can ask a question to someone and you can expect that this person is going to help you if he has the capacity to do that – and also vice versa. Both of you do what you say (2.10). This shows that in the condition ‘saying is doing’ (see paragraph 5.4) could be labelled as an aspect of trust. To build trust ‘you have to have a thick skin, because you have to attempt many times‘ (11.29).
5.8 International organisations
There are good and bad experiences with cooperation between national organisations and international NGOs. International organisations do have much more funding available than Haitian organisations. Unfortunately international staffs do not always have sufficient knowledge about the context. Three people criticize the international officers in the (Education) Cluster(s): ‘All of them are suddenly experts on Haiti (…) but they should investigate what is already on the ground’ (10.18). Differences in vision about the role of the Ministry of Education also hinder fruitful coordination and cooperation. For the education sector it is a risk that the available expertise in Haiti is not fully used, when mainly young international staffs with humanitarian backgrounds are involved in the coordination.
6. Conclusions, implications and recommendations
In this chapter, based on the findings, answers are formulated to the research questions. These conclusions are further discussed in the paragraph about implications and lead to recommendations.
6.1 Conclusions
1. Why do organisations enter and participate in inter-organisational cooperation trajectories for educational development?
1 a) What are (written) objectives for cooperative relationships?
All organisations have an overall aim to work on improved quality and access to education. In general the cooperation trajectories as investigated in the interviews have the following specific objectives:
1. Improved coordination and avoiding duplication of activities in the education sector;
2. Increased effectiveness of interventions through experience and knowledge sharing;
3. Development and sharing of technical capacity in education and curricula for schools and training;
4. Strengthened processes of research and informed policy development;
5. Be a strong voice in advocacy towards the government (Ministry of Education);
6. Increased income from fundraising.
1 b) How are the understanding and perception of objectives and interests and is this different
from the written objectives?
Mostly staffs and stakeholders know about the contents of the objectives for cooperation trajectories. Table 5 gives an overview of perceptions per objective as mentioned above.
Table 5. Perceptions per objective
People’s perceptions are mainly based on concrete results. Especially as effects are on long-term, or not directly visible for each member (e.g. on national level), this is a challenge. The factor of religion (shared Christian values) is important for a positive perception.
In summary: it can be stated that there are no main difference between the written objectives and perceptions of people about these objectives. Only big differences in perception about financial gains should be avoided. In practice not all objectives have already led to clear results.
2. How do organizations cooperate and which factors influence the inter-organisational cooperation for educational development?
2 a) What are conditions and criteria for inter-organisational cooperation?
1. It is crucial that partners have a shared vision. In the beginning this is not always completely clear, but there need to be a common initiative from the beginning.
2. It is essential that there is a willingness and ability to participate. Therefore time and human resources need to be available.
3. Inter-organisational cooperation needs a positive attitude and often a change in mindset.
4. Saying is doing for each organisation. Moreover transparency is a condition for fruitful cooperation.
5. Organisations and people need to act in according to the value of respect towards each other, and towards the independency (or autonomy) of different organisations. Cooperation needs openness for sharing without fear.
6. Legal requirements need to be taken into account.
7. Lack of communication in the French or Creole language hinders cooperation.
2 b) What are interaction patterns and means for inter-organisational cooperation?
1. Four interaction patterns as distinguished by Wielinga & Zaalmink (2008) are addressed:
- Exchange is normally a first phase which asks for curiosity.
- Challenge is crucial: ‘cooperation is a bumpy road’. Without challenging each other, a cooperation trajectory will fail.
- Participants mostly mentioned the element of structure. Sometimes they give even more attention to structure and task division than to the other patterns.
- Dialogue is strongly related to learning. People see the advantage, but therefore cooperation needs to be somewhat mature already. Platforms for sharing and exchange do not always exist.
2. Shared actions are mentioned as objectives for the cooperation, but also as means to strengthen inter-organisational cooperation. Finally the results from actions count.
3. As a means in the cooperation trajectory, an organisation can give attention to capacity building of itself or other involved organisations. This is part of the process.
4. Shared implementation of programmes needs a certain budget. On the one hand the budget influences the scale of the cooperation activities; on the other hand the strength of the common vision and planning of the cooperation trajectory influences the possibilities for fundraising.
5. A cooperation trajectory can grow and bear fruits under good leadership.
6. People need personal contact for a smooth communication and cooperation.
2 c) What are factors that promote and/or hinder cooperation?
1. The institutional context in Haiti is challenging due to a lack of credibility for organisations and political instability. Developments in the history of Haiti have influenced this situation. At present institutional capacity strengthening and advocacy are recommended. Improvement of the ministry of Planning and the ONAPE office of the Ministry of Education is desired.
2. To show results from cooperation, a long time is needed. Often continuity is lacking due to financial constraints and personal changes in positions.
3. The available expertise in the country should be fully used and needs to be strengthened to promote cooperation. International organisations should also build on existing experience in Haiti.
4. With more education, people tend to develop a positive attitude and skills for cooperation.
5. Depending on the policies of donors, cooperation can be promoted (e.g. through donor criteria for proposals and donor-coordination) or hindered (e.g. preference for directly supporting schools instead of networks).
6. Economic developments can lead to difficulties in payments (of e.g. fees) or hinder the
implementation of shared projects in a cooperation trajectory.
7. Religion can both strengthen or hinder cooperation (shared religious values within a similar religious group, but there are bigger difference between religions).
8. A good or bad image of an organisation can promote or hinder cooperation.
9. Practical logistical constraints for transportation and communication can hinder interorganisational cooperation.
2 e) What is the role of trust and trust building in cooperation?
Trust and trust building is essential for cooperation, although the name of the concept is not always
mentioned explicitly.
Types of trust as distinguished by Harriss (2000):
- Example of process based trust: you work on a better cooperation if you are involved in shared actions with shared results.
- Example of characteristic based trust: preference for cooperation with people from the same religion
- Example of institution based trust: organisations should fulfil to certain legal requirements.
Respondents emphasize to build process based trust: show your results to the stakeholders and this will develop your cooperation.
The importance of personal contact in cooperation, the problem of continuity when people change positions and remarks about lacking credibility of institutions possibly indicate that interaction-based trust is stronger developed than institution-based trust in Haiti (see also Bachmann, 2010).
6.2 Implications
The aim of this project is to provide insight about aspects and factors that influence interorganisational
cooperation for educational development in Haiti. People and organisations active in Haiti can work on the improvement of inter-organisational cooperation by addressing the conditions, means and factors that influence cooperation as mentioned in the answers of both research questions. Some of these aspects are relatively simple to address, while especially some external factors cannot be changed easily. Aspects are related to each other. Possibly a focus on positive attitude change and shared values (incl. respect and transparency) will make other external factors less hindering.
From the conclusions it is clear that respondents have addressed a lot of relevant aspects from their experiences. An implication is that these Haitian people and organisations should be taken seriously and invited for active participation in the further development of policies for the country. Some recent publications about education in Haiti (e.g. The World Bank, 2010; McNulty 2011, UNESCO 2011) do not mention any inter-organisational cooperation trajectory in the education sector and reports from international NGOs mainly address the efforts of the international community. To overcome the problems in Haiti, more attention for the vision and insights from a Haitian perspective and existing cooperation trajectories in education is needed.
Conclusions are in line with outcomes of the sector analysis of Mérisier (2010) who also mentioned the importance of research, advocacy (and ONAPE) and institutional capacity building. Most elements of the theory in paragraph 3.1 and 3.2 are addressed as well. The elements of ‘power’ and ‘types of structures’ for inter-organisational structures have received less attention in the interview and this project.
In the findings, the categories from the Circle of Coherence (Wielinga & Zaalmink, 2008) were distinguished. It is possible to use this model for further development of healthy cooperation trajectories.
Conclusions about ‘trust’ are still in an initial phase. More analysis and research is needed to explore which and how elements of the conditions, means and factors can be related to the concept of trust and trust building.
The situation of the education sector and inter-organisational cooperation in Haiti is complicated and proposing oversimplified solutions will not work. A well functioning state apparatus is a major bottleneck which cannot be substituted by civil society. But on the contrary this can also not be substituted by the international community. This is to be taken into consideration for the recommendations.
6.3 Recommendations
For COSPE, CRECH, Education Cluster, FEPH, FONHEP, Haiti Country Alliance
1. Continue to build the 6 different inter-organisational cooperation trajectories and the process to (further) develop a shared vision. Moreover make your results from actions visible for the Haitian public, the Haitian government and international donors. This could increase credibility and chances for funding.
2. Focus more on the interaction patterns of ‘exchange’ and ‘challenge’ (Wielinga & Zaalmink, 2008) and avoid spending too much time and energy in ‘structure’.
General – for civil society organisations
3. Explicitly address the issue of mindset change and good leadership in interventions for education.
4. Be transparent and make others aware of the importance and advantages of transparency about activities, budgets and results.
5. Develop specialised expertise and look for cooperation trajectories that are complementary and have a specific added value. Only financial interest in an inter-organisational cooperation trajectory is not sufficient.
6. Make sure how advocacy and participation in policy development for education in Haiti is integrated in your strategies, directly or indirectly (e.g. via networks).
7. Explore how community schools could be integrated in network organisations and related to the Ministry of Education.
For the Haitian government
8. Improve the coordination of the Ministry of Education with the national and international NGOs involved in education and (via ONAPE) the private sector in education.
International donors
9. Strengthen initiatives for coordination and cooperation via donor criteria for proposals and provide
support to schools with involvement of associations and networks.
10. Be a model for inter-organisational cooperation through co-funding and harmonisation of donor efforts.
11. Make sure that ownership of the Haitian community is guaranteed in to be funded programmes.
Suggestions for further research
1. Action research of a specific cooperation trajectory, about the development of the trajectory and the interventions that can be used from the FAN approach of (Wielink & Zaalmink, 2008).
2. A broader quantitative research about the aspects and factors as distinguished in this qualitative
research, to find out specific priorities and be able to generalise findings.
3. In-depth research about the concept of trust in the Haitian culture.
Inter-Organisational Cooperation of Haitian NGOs in Education – A Haitian Perspective (54)
Tags: Americas, Civil Society, Education Development, Haiti, NGOs
[...] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } http://www.hiidunia.com – Today, 4:03 [...]