For our discussion, international grassroots collaboration projects are projects that involve collaboration between program leaders at grassroots organizations with similar missions or objectives in different countries.

We recognize that there are many conversations that have been had on collaboration between international development organizations, especially on how organizations in the north can and should work with organizations in the south where the development is actually taking place. There are also many publications on international exchange activities. These are interesting topics but the work we have done relates more to community based organizations accomplishing tangible results and creating mutually beneficial learning relationships across geographic and cultural lines.

Over the past ten years our staff has worked to facilitate grassroots collaborative projects between nonprofits in the U.S. and Japan. Our experience is summarized through case studies and commentary in our latest publication “Moving Beyond Exchange – Emerging Models and Best Practices in International Grassroots Collaboration.”

We still have no set formula for successful international grassroots collaboration projects as there are too many variables to factor in when working with social activist organizations and volunteers across boarders and at different levels of institutional development. However, the excellent program leaders in our organization have found various factors that repeatedly appear and need to be addressed when facilitating international collaborative efforts.

Some of these factors include:

• Differences in political, social and cultural contexts
• Potential language and cultural barriers
• Bi-directionality: a sense of balance in the costs and benefits to each organization
• Differences in purpose and self interest of participating organizations
• Access to resources and sufficient funds, staff, materials and time

Some of these are obvious and all are important to consider as we work towards the goal of building a foundation for open communication, flexibility, mutual understanding and trust between collaborating international partners.

There is however one finding from our work that stands out and makes us even more resolute in our commitment to facilitating international grassroots collaboration. We keep seeing that almost every social issue today has both local and global aspects that can’t be ignored and that community leaders who are sharing their concerns, ideas and solutions on these issues give people hope and inspiration to keep trying to find better solutions to these problems.

I have personally been involved with international exchange and project collaboration for over ten years first with the YMCAs of Japan and now with JUCEE, and I am convinced that there is both short term and long term value in international grassroots collaboration projects. I would argue that even though there is often significant travel and facilitation costs involved in developing these collaborative relationships, the effect on participants and exposure of organization leaders to diverse perspectives far out weighs the cost.

Japan – U.S. Community Education and Exchange (JUCEE) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that envisions a world where community-based movements and organizations work together to solve shared global issues. http://www.jucee.org

Conrad Asper - Apr 12, 2005 2:52 pm (#1 Total: 40)
Executive Director, JUCEE

 

Thanks for participating in this discussion on international grassroots collaboration. I look forward to discussing your ideas, comments and questions.  

 

As you can tell from my introduction, I'm a strong proponent of international grassroots collaboration projects and I think they are important on many levels.  To begin the conversation, I'd really like to learn more about the experiences you've had in international grassroots collaboration.

 

If you have participated in international grassroots collaboration projects what benefits for your organization have you seen? Was the project worthwhile or a distraction from your daily work?

 

Please let me know what you think!

 

 

Pamela McLean - Apr 12, 2005 4:01 pm (#2 Total: 40)


I am very interested to see how this discussion develops. This is because CawdNet. though small, is "international" (in that it is active beyond national boundaries) and very grassroots.

From its earliest days CawdNet has been active in Nigeria and in the UK. It has had to be heavily reliant on the Internet - so for the part of its work where it simply links to people with shared interests to exchange ideas it has little concern about their geographical location. The core members of CawdNet are tiny organisations - most in rural Nigeria, one in UK, so we routinely connect across thousands of miles to ensure we are working together supportively and appropriately or just to catch up on the general details of life.

To give you a flavour of our tiny internationalism. Last year I was in Nigeria running a Teachers Talking (about ICTs) course for teachers at the Fantsuam Foundation (FF) Community Learning Centre (CLC). The link gives details of the TT course including a photo of the participants with the children they taught http://teacherstalking.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TeachersTalkingCourse

Today I had a yahoo chat with David Mutua,CawdNet coordinator in Nigeria, who contacted me from the CLC (nothing unusual about that). The unexpected bonus was that two of the TT course participants had travelled to the CLC to try to arrange a follow up meeting there later this month. David showed them Skype and we were able to physically talk to each other. This was from an area with no telephone network - and until the teachers came on our course many had never seen a computer - so the impromptu Skpe chat today with the UK was a real unexpected bonus.

The link above explains how we set up a support group on yahoo before the TT course started. That was another example of our "natural internationalism". When I stopped to think about how the support group was growing I realised that soon after we hit double figures we were on four continents. Without checking the full list I know that we had members from Mexico, India, Canada, USA, UK, Italy, Germany, and of course Nigeria.

So that is our tiny side of "international" grassroots collaboration, and, of course, we welcome collaboration with any individuals or groups who are interested in issues regarding community development in rural Africa.

Common ground program - Apr 13, 2005 1:52 am (#3 Total: 40)

Dear Sir,

My name is Joshua Amwai Machinga, I am the coordinator of the Common Ground Program based in Kitale, Kenya. To learn about my work please visit www.villagevolunteers.org then click on program and go to Common Ground Program. I am interested in your program. Can you send me some more details.

Sincerely

Joshua

Conrad Asper - Apr 13, 2005 9:53 am (#4 Total: 40)
Executive Director, JUCEE

Hey Pamela:

Thanks for posting! Stories like this are inspiring and it's true that with the internet and further developments in IT, international grassroots collaboration or even just connecting and sharing of general information can be inexpensive and effective. The countries we have been working with particularly Japan have a good degree of technology infrastructure. Technology advances will surely continue to influence and shape international collaboration.

 

In 2003, JUCEE worked with two organizations testing videoconferencing technology as a means of international exchange and communication. As these tools become more accessible and less expensive they have potential to transform the way people connect and work together in an international context. We of course see this taking off in the business sector and as those of us working in civil society gain further access to technology, there are bound to be innovative projects that develop.

 

As my colleague Senoe wrote in our recent publication: "As globalization and technology continue to blur the lines between the local and the global, international grassroots collaboration provides a strategy for empowering communities and grassroots organizations to create positive, replicable change with potential for large-scale impact."

 

In working with a country like Japan where there is still a significant language barrier, I’m hopeful that we will soon see advances in technology that can help us overcome language barriers. 

Conrad Asper - Apr 13, 2005 10:16 am (#5 Total: 40)
Executive Director, JUCEE

Joshua:

Thanks for the link. I will take a look.

Japan - U.S. Community Education and Exchange (JUCEE) is a nonprofit organization that brings together grassroots activists and organizations in Japan and the U.S. to work together on issues of common concern. We conduct bilateral exchange and training programs and provide cross-cultural collaboration facilitation for community-based organizations. For more information on our work you can go to our website at www.jucee.org

 

annwrixon - Apr 13, 2005 12:41 pm (#6 Total: 40)
Institute of Computer Technology (ICT)

Hello Everyone,

I have worked and continue to work on a wide variety of international grassroots collaborations, but I would like to talk about the issue that continues to vex me and for which I have no solution.Language continues to be my most daunting barrier.

I know that English is most often used as an "international" language, and unfortunately, it is the only language I speak fluently (though I can speak a spattering of several languages--Japanese, Spanish, and French). In my experience what generally happens is that there are two or three people involved in the project who can all speak English and they end up taking on most of the collaborative work even if it doesn't make sense for them to be doing the work. Often the person with the most expertise is not fluent in English and therefore gets kind of cut out of the process because of the difficulty of translating everything.

Any ideas. Also, I think many, if not most, people will not be able to become fluent in anything except their first language (since I am nearing 50 and have not yet mastered a second language despite decades of study I fall into this category). Any ideas about possible work arounds?

Thanks, Ann

Kerrie Urosevich - Apr 13, 2005 1:59 pm (#7 Total: 40)

Aloha everyone,

     I'm looking forward to learning more about everyone's involvement in international collaborative efforts.  I first worked in grassroots collaboration while at Sister Cities International 10 years ago. Although the partnerships were initiated by mayors from the U.S. and Japan, partnerships developed between schools, businesses and grassroots organizations.  Years later, I worked for JUCEE for two years and faciliated exchanges between U.S. and Japan based organizations.  However, during our second year, we attempted to network beyond the bilateral relationship and were pleased with the vast interest of people from 25 plus countries interested in going to Japan.  We had participants from a wide range of countries.  With the proliferation of nonprofits worldwide, collaboration is essential for not only the organizations to survive (albeit they should be working to put themselves out of business....), but more importantly to create more effective and sustainable programming, particularly among international NGOs.  I found through JUCEE that local based organizations were interested in exchanges for the main purpose of learning alternative management, fundraising and PR techniques while international organizations were wanting to network and build relationships to share resources and collaborate "on the ground".  Many participants in my NPOP program desired to expand their programming into Asia and they hoped that Japanese organizations would be either conduits or actual partners in their efforts.      

I am currently working on my Ph.D. at the University of Hawai`i in Conflict Resolution and my research centers around international grassroots collaborations.  I'll be using one of JUCEE's partnerships as a case study, addressing the issues of language, utilization of IT, culture, north/south relations etc.  I facilitate collaborative efforts here in Hawai`i and often times the work involves organizations from around the Pacific Islands.  I'm finding that a common issue of concern is indigenious politics and environment, negotiating rights and the preservation of their lands.  Finding those common interests is critical, where the expected outcomes are similar and the playing fields symbiotic.  

     Regarding what Ann wrote about language, I personally think it is essential that the key players, even if they do not speak the common language well, need to be involved every step of the way, even if that means the collaboration flows at a slower pace.  Without their input, projects have a much less chance of sustaining.  Finding an interpreter within the organizations is essential, but I think it's important to keep the interpreter's job simply that- interpreting/translating.  Nonprofit staff are overworked and underpaid the way it is and interpreting and translating is grueling.  If someone can be hired simply for that, programming and collaboration will inevitably be smoother.  Of course this is in the event that you don't have bilingual staff.  Even with a bilingual staff like we had at JUCEE, the translating and interpreting took up a significant amount of time.  In working with countries other than Japan, I have actually found English to be the common language, right or wrong, but I sense it's because I've worked mostly with international orgs and English is a necessity for engagement.  Like Conrad said, I'll be curious to see how technology accomodates, hopefully in the near future.  Ann, in what capacity do you see language as being the most difficult?  Online exchange?  Documentation? Meetings?  Research?  In real time exchanges on the ground?  During NPOP, we were often asked to come and interpret for the participants from the U.S., but once they found someone within the organization with English skills, they were able to use that person throughout their exchange. 

I'll be on and off today.  Thank you for all of the thoughts.

Kerrie Urosevich

isao - Apr 13, 2005 4:10 pm (#8 Total: 40)


Hello everyone, Thanks for sharing your experiences and insights . We're talking about something very important here- it's about connecting people and groups that make up the third force that's shaping the world.The first force is vested in some 200 entities- the nations of the world with their power to tax,wage war or peace and determine who lives and who dies. The second force is a good l00 times larger in number- the multinational corporations whose loyalty is to the bottom line and unlike nations bound by geography ,ability to replicate itself all over the globe. Then there's rest of the world-organized into groups that are a l000 times more numerous than the MNCs-the non profits, community based organizations,citizen associations and entities bound by various identities-ethnic, cultural, place ,shared interests,world view,etc. It's this third force we're talking about and to zero in on how we can get better connected to accomplish common goals- many of them involving challenges to offset the destruction wrought by the power exercised by the first two forces. In addition to having the power that comes with authority and money, the first two have already figured out what we are talking about here-how to network,communicate,collaborate across geography, language and idealogy.Witness the much closer connection between the Bush family with the Saudi Royal families compared to how each is connected to the ordinary people in the towns and villages of their own countries or the makeup of any board of directors of a Multinational. These horizontal lines among the power elite worldwide are in stark contrast to the the vertical connections between the top and bottom of any nation or a corporation.In a broader context, what we are talking about is how do we more effectively connect the peoples of the world at the ground level , starting with examples from the experiences in Japan and the United States. Isao Fujimoto Davis, California

annwrixon - Apr 13, 2005 4:17 pm (#9 Total: 40)
Institute of Computer Technology (ICT)

Kerrie,

Thanks for your insight. I was also involved in JUCEE (after you). As part of the Fellows program I worked with JUCEE to set up SeniorNet Japan. Now I work for an organization with programs in a variety of countries, but it was my experience with SeniorNet Japan that really shaped my view on this subject.

In SeniorNet Japan I was working with a generation of Japanese in which VERY few were fluent in English, so often by default the person most fluent in English became the "leader." And I must admit we all got weary of the translating or interperting (during in person meetings) so we tended to let those fluent in English dominant. Fortunately, the groups tended toward being collaborative so I think that things got communicated to the entire group, but I don't think it was ideal. Finally, we even tried using translation software on line, but it worked so poorly and required so much human intervention to make it understandable that we gave up on that project as well.

I do think that translation software has real potential, but it is still in its infancy so it is not a practical tool yet.

Ann

isao - Apr 14, 2005 1:10 am (#10 Total: 40)

I'd like to add to Ann and Kerrie's thoughtful comments on language. i work with emerging immigrant organizations in California's Central Valley. This is the richest agricultural region in the world but also the locale of the poorest cities in the state. It's not just the agriculture that is diverse , so are its people. There are indigenous groups(Mixtec, Zapotec,Mixe, Triqui, Chatino)for whom Spanish is a second language, Moslems from Vietnam(the Cham) and people from the mountains of Laos who do not identify themselves as Laotians but as Mien, Khmu, Lahu, Hmong. In the Central Valley Partnership for Citizenship's work supporting civic participation , we use simultaneous translation devices.Next to English, Spanish is most used, followed by Hmong. To cut down on the cost of professional interpreters  and not to exhaust people away from  participation, we draw on bilingual attendees to sign up for l-2 hour limits  as English-Spanish and English-Hmong interpreters. Visual aids, plenaries mixed with small group sessions and regular breaks on the hour allows  people not to get frozen in one spot and connect with different people throughout the day. Even if people do not speak a common language, there is plenty  that gets communicated: disdain, impatience, arrogance,boredom,disinterest as well as kindess, caring and attentiveness. Conversely,just because people speak the language is no guarantee that people are communicating. No doubt we've all been witnesses to gathering of academics with community folks, establishment reps talking to low income minority groups or even interactions of professionals  of different disciplines using words that go over instead of into each other's heads. It's useful to remind ourselves that language is not synonymous but only one part of communication. This comes  home to me every time I teach a course on Community in Kyoto during the summer to non Japanese speaking University of California students.I reassure them that even with minimal command of the language  they'll be able to communicate with a positive attitude, sensitivity, patience  and genuine interest in people they encounter.They can also benefit from the fact that almost every  Japanese they meet will have studied English for 6 to l0 years. Though this may not show in their speaking,their command of grammar, reading and writing English is quite good.This opens the way to take advantage of an underutilzied tool for communicating between foreigners and Japanese in Japan: note writing .This is another reminder that language is only a part of communicating and speaking only one demonstration  of  language command.  Language is valuable in communicating information but in cross national  and cross cultural exchanges  recognizing the many ways people pick up messages and signals about each other , regardless of the language used -through tone and volume of voice, body language, facial expressions-are relevant to  our discussion  about effectively connecting people at the people to people and grassroots level.

annwrixon - Apr 14, 2005 9:09 am (#11 Total: 40)
Institute of Computer Technology (ICT)

Isao,

Your comments are so great! You are right there is so much more to communication than language. The item I particularly wanted to pick up on though was your note about the use of visual aids. I have found that visual (non-text) communication works really well and is often a nice break from text heavy powerpoint presentation.

Recently I was in Japan visiting a nonprofit recycling center. The Center Director knew no English, but he developed a presentation in powerpoint that was entirely in diagrams and pictures. Although I had an interperter with me they did not need to translate a single word. Using my rudimentary Japanese and the diagrams and pictures I was able to understand everything the Director explained, and even repeated it back in Japanese after the presentation to make sure I was correct. I was, and I can assure you it was not because of my great command of Japanese. It was entirely the result of the Center Director's ability to communicate and teach despite the language barrier.

I feel like you have just given me a great inisight about types of communication. I don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner (like after the presentation at the recycling plant). I also think I am going to use this much more in my presentations. I am in love with words, but they can be so boring and can be so enhanced with visual aides.

Thanks, Ann

Conrad Asper - Apr 14, 2005 9:28 am (#12 Total: 40)
Executive Director, JUCEE

Ann - ya if anyone out there knows a good translation software vendor forward them the link to this discussion and get'em involved. Like Isao said the corporate world and the world governments seem to be overcoming the language barriers. Is it just a matter of throwing money at it?  If so then we really need to get communication facilitation paid for by grants or pro bono work.

 

I think that translation and interpretation really can make or break the collaboration project. At JUCEE we do find that some funders want to skimp on funding translation and suggest that volunteers can do it. I think what Isao suggests is an interesting approach (group members and participants sharing the translating duties) and depending on the project that could be time consuming but effective in group bonding as well as language communication.  I am still hopeful that technology can lead us to a low cost solution for accurate translation but as Ann says its probably not quite there yet.

 

Kerrie - thanks for your thoughts too. It's great to have you in the conversation. I'd be interested to explore the relationship between international grassroots collaboration and conflict resolution.  Also, JUCEE put out a survey last year that you might find interesting.

http://www.jucee.org/downloads/JUCEEReport_SurveyProject2004.pdf

 

The survey has a lot in it. If folks take a minute to look through the survey it might be interesting to explore this too.

howardrose - Apr 14, 2005 12:25 pm (#13 Total: 40)


Greetings. I’d like to chime in here with a few quick comments.

First, by way of introduction I work with a Seattle based educational non-profit called Pacific Village Institute (www.pacificvillage.org). PVI runs study abroad programs for high school students to a number of Asian countries including China, India and Vietnam. I joined PVI to develop a Japan program, and the focus I have chosen is study of visual media, art and culture. In a nutshell, the program will include study of old and new media as both a reflection of culture and an expression of culture.

The segway from my work to this conversation relates to Ann’s comments about the limitations of language in communication. From my experience working in Japan and in international relations I have felt many of the same barriers and struggles around language. I agree that we can accomplish a lot if we take a broader view of what communication means outside of verbal and written language. Given Ann’s example of the non-verbal visual presentation she experienced in Japan, my thought was it’s interesting that Ann and her presenter can actually communicate so effectively via these common symbols. Thanks here to a pretty common syntax we all seem to absorb from the media.

We all know the power of pictures and video to convey a message at a deeper level than language. Try watching Japanese or any other TV with the sound turned off and it’s apparent how much of the message still comes across. There is some great literature on semiotics and symbol systems that might be helpful. I will try to dig up some of those resources and share them.

Hideyuki Inoue - Apr 14, 2005 2:24 pm (#14 Total: 40)
ETIC. Social Venture Center (Tokyo)


Hello, this is Hideyuki, working at ETIC Social Venture Center,Tokyo, enhancing social entrepreneurship of young generation in Japan, such as through Japans first Social Enterprise Business Plan Contest etc. (http://style.nice2meet.us/en/top.html)

Currently, I am in Seattle, working in Social Venture Partners International, as a fellow of the Japan Foundation for six months (http://www.cgp.org/index.php?option=article&task=default&articleid=248& id=14). This fellowship has a mission to bridge Japan-US nonprofits (wao!) and for my case I am launching a similar type of organizaiton in Tokyo as SVP. Of course, there are so many difference in social background including tax system etc., I am learning so much things in practice. At least this experience give me so much inspiration to see my community (Japan) in different angle.

As for the discussion below (very interesting!), I agree with the difficulties in international communication in the same local community.

But for my case, communicating with other nations organizations gives me so much thing. In developing a community giving circle/ investment organization, the other examples are not only inspiring but also giving a hint of different kind of framework, and some common essential things for human nature. This is something more than benchmarking.

In the Social Venture Competition, which has been held since 2001, we are seeking possibility to expand internatioanl colaboration. Last year, we made a live on-line streaming service for the final presentation, in addition to the web link with the Global Social Venture Competition by UC Berkely.

Woops, it become long comment! I mean, in my experience, at least young genearion are very inspired by international communication with people from the other countries, through multi-angled view point for society and stroies of the innovative practices. Because in many cases, some communities are closed and hopeless.

Conrad Asper - Apr 14, 2005 6:02 pm (#15 Total: 40)
Executive Director, JUCEE

Hideyuki:

Thanks for your comment and for getting involved in the discussion. It's great to get input from our international partners. I'm sure folks would be interested to hear more about the work you are doing in trying to bring the SVP model to Tokyo and the international collaboration efforts of your organization (ETIC) with their Social Venture Competition. I know you are really involved in the Japan Social Venture Community.

smcneil - Apr 14, 2005 8:04 pm (#16 Total: 40)
AFSC

Good evening.  I am Stephen McNeil with American Friends Service Committee (www.afsc.org), and, through JUCEE, we have been involved in a collaboration with Shanti Volunteer Association (www.sva.or.jp) in Tokyo since 1999.   We have focused on some relief activities as well as conflict resolution trainings (experiential learning format).

Monday I was reminded of one of the first elements of colloboration: disclosure.  I was at a Montessori School in El Sobrante, CA to thank and pick up a collection of change from the kids for AFSC work in Indonesia for those hit by the Asian Tsunami.  As I waited for the children to filter into the school, one future leader repeatedly pointed out that, despite my white beard and ampleness,  I was not Santa.  I admitted it.

In our two organizations' attempts to learn from one another, as well as in carrying out activities, we have acknowledged up front our self-interests: both as organizations and as individuals who have invested time, funds, and resources in the efforts to build an alliance.  These disclosures were important in building the foundation for future trust and risks.  They ranged from learning how US groups do conflict resolution trainings to enjoying international travel.

Reciprocity is a more difficult challenge, especially for those of us in the U.S. who assume that our civil society -- or at least its tradition of voluntary activity -- is more rooted or accepted than that in Japan.  This attitude is often reenforced by the Japanese practice of agreeing that they have much more to learn from US nonprofits and efforts, and then their going about studying and learning from us intensely.  I have found that focusing in each situation on what is different, what is part of an inherent Japanese way of conceiving things, and how support is garnered has led me to a greater appreciation for what it is we can learn from the Japanese civil society movement and practices. And, of course, it is the presence of the volunteer spirit that motivates the best in both societies.

Murikami, in the not-to-be-missed NYC Japan Society exhibition "Little Boy," states that some Japanese "seek catharsis through volunteerism...."  Chris Hedges makes a similar point in the title of his most recent  book/essay "War is a force that gives us meaning" (http://www.afsc.org/resources/audio.htm).  Lasting collaborations should  lead us to examine both why and what is we are about as societies.

Amie Latterman - Apr 14, 2005 10:28 pm (#17 Total: 40)

Hello All,

I am a former JUCEE employee, now working with Child Family Health International (www.cfhi.org) promoting sustainable healthcare for underserved communities worldwide through global service-learning programs, direct healthcare projects and salvaging of medical supplies for needy communities. CFHI is a 13-year-old grassroots organization.

CFHI's work creates what is primarily an exchange between the global South and global North. The exchange is inherently unequal because of an under-current of deference that we often encounter in our partners from developing countries. Despite the organization's efforts to promote a sense of equality within our communication and exchanges, we cannot seem to really acheive a sense of mutual and equal exchange. I resonate with the frustration in Ann's comments about how choice of language for communication can unintentionally shape the heirarchy of a relationship. I would love to hear of ideas how to overcome this imbalance of exchange which really seems to permeate all of the areas of exchange (whether it be individuals, financial, or resource exchange) that we do.

Amie

Pamela McLean - Apr 15, 2005 6:31 am (#18 Total: 40)


CawdNet is active in SW Nigeria where the local language is Yoruba, and in North Central Nigeria where the predominant language is Hausa, but other local languages are also spoken.

In Nigeria the official language for education is English. This has benefits and disadvantages. The obvious disadvantage is that many people who were taught to read and write in English never used English in their lives outside of school and became illiterate adults. The benefit is that the teachers share a common language.

Teachers play a leading role in community affairs in rural areas. They are active on community committees. They help other adults with tasks that involve the use of English or the written word. Their salaries help to support extended families. They hold down additional jobs such as farming, and small buinesses. This means that they are very much part of their communities, understanding the needs of their families and neighbours, rather than being restricted to any kind of professional clique.

In our experience of getting feedback from women's groups and farmer's groups, the groups' meetings are conducted in the local language. However, within the group there will be people who, although they belong in the group, are also teachers, able to act as spokespeople to report in English on the discussions in the meeting. The link points to a short videoclip showing an example. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pam.mclean/womenfarmteach.wmv

Eva - Apr 15, 2005 12:24 pm (#19 Total: 40)


Hello, this is Eva Heintzelman from the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership (CGP, http://www.cgp.org/). CGP is a semi-governmental Japanese foundation simultaneously committed to strengthening ties between the US and Japan and supporting collaboration on areas of common concern.

Since 1991, CGP has supported a number of exchanges bringing together nonprofits across the Pacific through the Grassroots Exchange Program (http://www.cgp.org/index.php?option=section&id=5). Our grantees have experienced many of the same challenges that have been brought up in this discussion—communication and reciprocity, in particular.

Related to the reciprocity issue is just the attitude of participants in an exchange. Even if a collaborative project has more concrete benefits for one side, it is important to get past the typical roles of learning for the Japan side and teaching for the US side. When this happens, both sides lose out. Many of our grantees wish they had spent more time in the beginning of a project for just understanding the environment in each other’s countries. We’ve found that academics can be great resources for providing basic background information so that participants can “teach” and “learn” in context.

Sarajean - Apr 15, 2005 9:27 pm (#20 Total: 40)


Thanks everyone for your comments and on your works - all so interesting.

I have been in Japan for almost 11 years years now and have been involved in a wide array of community based groups. I previously worked with the Tokyo YMCA and Nichibei Community Exchange (JUCEE) in Tokyo. I coordinated an exchange program at JUCEE for three years - we brought community based US nonprofit professionals to work with counterparts in Japan. although people from the US often think that the US is so far advanced in the various professional skills glorified there - they are usually struck by the passion with which people work here in Japan.

Based on that experience and my work in Florida last Fall in the Get Out The Vote campaign,I have shifted my focus to activists skills development. I realised the necessity of not only getting every person involved but also came to understand how much the lack of skills often hinders involvement. the focus on local activist skills rather than office or management skills is because the plethora of NPO management types is just stifling proactive social action - not just the US, not just Japan.

Right now I am focusing on skills development for (any) people working at the grassroots and community based level. I am coordinating a forum next weekend (www.skillsbuild.org) and hope to have follow up events in June and September. Local exchange is often underestimated I think.

Besides this, I am basically an NGO/Nonprofit consultant working on projects with the Tokyo English Lifeline, The International Movement Against All forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) and I also teach about NGOs in an American University here.

Conrad Asper - Apr 16, 2005 3:21 pm (#21 Total: 40)
Executive Director, JUCEE

Sarajean:

 

Thanks for logging on and letting folks in the community know what you are doing. It’s great to get a perspective from someone in Japan.

 

I agree the spirit of activism should be considered when developing international grassroots collaboration projects and part of the value of collaboration projects with folks outside your “normal” work circles is that it can give us new perspectives. Sometimes getting enthusiastic view points from new colleagues in different countries can revitalize our own passion for the work that we see needs to be done. We truly are all in this together.

 

I’m not sure how the development of nonprofit management skills relates to the stifling proactive social action. Maybe you can explain this further?

 

Great to have you in the discussion!

Conrad Asper - Apr 16, 2005 3:31 pm (#22 Total: 40)
Executive Director, JUCEE

Amy:

 

I think you make a good point on the goal of bi-directional benefit and sometimes real lack of perceived bi-directional benefit in some international grassroots collaborative relationships. Mutual and equal exchange is tuff to measure. We can measure concrete outcomes of a project from the activities we carrying out but what participants see as valuable for themselves in the project depends on what the individuals involved want to get out of the experience.  I think that is what Stephen is getting at as well and it is indeed important in building trust in a relationship to be upfront about our self-interest for participating in a collaborative project.

 

I think through international collaborative projects and exchanges we can find valuable staff development opportunities.

 

A point to consider - Grassroots organizations often find it difficult to allocate time and resources toward professional development. International collaboration creates opportunities for staff to develop new skills and knowledge, travel to other places and build new networks, and reflect on their own vision for their work.

 

Past participants in collaborative projects that JUCEE has facilitated frequently identify personal and professional growth they experienced as a significant outcome of the collaboration.

 

I think in general, international grassroots collaboration projects can build capacity in the sector by motivating and inspiring our nonprofit professional staff and by building their ability to function in diverse and sometimes very foreign environments with folks who have perhaps very different perspectives. Sometimes this diversity makes carrying out actual activities more difficult but I think learning and personal growth can spontaneously come from this.

 

Sarajean - Apr 18, 2005 2:17 am (#23 Total: 40)


I think JUCEE has done a good job with connecting local people working on local issues - which are actually never as local or unique as people think.

My recent contact with two former JUCEE host organizations in Japan highlights this:

An alternative education center here in Tokyo is working with similar groups in NYC, Moscow and Seoul but a recent trip to Israel seemed to have a deep impact - everyone feeling that we all have a place to play in peace. to resolve conflict and create a real peace movement all types of people need to have their voices heard.

another group working with community groups in South Asian Tsunami reconstruction has had to field calls about the new imperialisation of northern NGOs (the new SUVs and offices when locals have been without a place to live or decent food for 3+ months etc.) and their lack of interest in working with people on the ground. Many international organizations are going in with little background and lots of money. collaboration with local community based groups may take time - to develop trust and understand the needs better - but it also means deeper and longer lasting affect.

Such stories reinforce the idea that if we are to assist in the bringing about of real social change - whether it peace or poverty relief - the people affected need to be involved. We need to not be in the field but we also need to have our ears to the ground.

Community based exchange can lead to social change - we do need to be patient however...

isao - Apr 18, 2005 11:21 am (#24 Total: 40)

Hello  Everyone,

The discussion  about language, communications and management directs attention to a very basic identity question: Are the organizations we're working with the grassroots, the grasstips or the perennials? This is not meant as a semantic exercise but one that can make us much more alert to alleviating some of the difficulties mentioned. We can sort out who is who on a number of criteria. I'll just mention three: money, management and language.

Grassroot groups really don't have much money but what they can muster up for themselves through  donations and the cultural equivalent of bake and rummage sales .

Grass tips know about sources outside of their own group. They tap into the foundation world, have people who know how to write proposals, may even have  people on staff called development personnel.

Perennials have the power and resources to mount mass appeals ,have endowments ,etc -For the sake of brevity , I'll pass on further comments on this category.

 

Language used by grass roots are local or indigenous and oftentimes not even from the legacy of conquest by military might or culture.

Grass tips groups utilize  universal languages and also expect someone in the grassroots groups  to also understand that language  and perhaps serve as intermediaries. Languages become dominant not just by the sheer number of users. Through military , science, media and cultural pervasiveness , it comes as no surprise that English is taking over the world.

 

In terms of staffing, Grassroots groups are lucky to have someone volunteer considerable  time to keep things going. Offices and equipment to go with it may be problematic.

Grass tips generally have  paid staff and have a Board of Directors to boot. Grass tips  have stationery, logos, newsletters, internet connections and listings in the phone book. In America they have 50lc3 or comparable tax status.

I think it's safe to say that most of us are associated with grass tips more than with grass roots and recognizing this difference can be helpful in understanding some of the concerns being expressed. How we come across to each other - with other grass tips , as well as to grass roots, does make a difference. As we all recognize, communications and understanding how we relate to each other is critical , especially when there is a gulf such as between the grass roots and grass tips described here. Grasstips groups intending to convey good will and mutual assistance with grassroots groups can just as easily demonstrate superority, impatience and arrogance by the attitudes and trappings we bring or expect.

Wendy Brawer - Apr 18, 2005 12:00 pm (#25 Total: 40)


Very interesting posts, and so nice to see many old friends here!

Wanted to point out the univeral icons created by Green Map System's global network. You can download a PDF poster in several different languages at http://greenmap.org/home/downpost.html - in use in 45 countries so far, the Green Map Icons highlight ecological and cultural resources on locally created maps of hometown environments. Both the process and the outcomes motivate broad cross sections of the public, while the Icons assist in the transfer of sustainable initiatives.

Both JUCEE and Japan Foundation CGP have supported the Green Map Atlas, a multimedia anthology of "behind the map" stories found online in English & Japanese at GreenAtlas.org, lots of insights on how grassroots involvement is catalized & shepherded. It's been downloaded over 100,000 times in 13 months, helping us impact distant communities -- actually, today, we are welcoming our 290th project, Stirling Scotland, where the project leader found us through the Green Map Atlas.

JUCEE also helped the GreenMap Japan network take off, and we have shared some of this at webpage http://greenmap.org/howto/japanhub.html - though specific to GMS's regional support "hubs" here are a few of the lessons learned:

Attachments:

web_fife.jpg (11 KB)

Kerrie Urosevich - Apr 18, 2005 1:12 pm (#26 Total: 40)

Aloha again from Hawaii,

Conrad, thanks a lot for the survey results- they are indeed insightful. 

I wanted to speak (type) to Eva's remarks about the importance of the "attitude of participants" going into a collaboration/exchange and her point about "understanding the environment in each other's countries".  I'll first use U.S.-Japan examples.  Six years ago when we were training the first group of U.S. nonprofit professionals to work in a Japanese nonprofit, we stressed over and over again, or rather reframed for them, the teach/learn dynamic, highlighting the uniqueness of each sector, given historical contexts and current environments.  I think this initial training 1) helped shape attitudes going in and shied them away from serving as the "teachers" and 2) put Japanese volunteerism, civil society and dissidence in a context they weren't used to hearing. We reminded them that contrary to pop literature on the Japanese nonprofit sector which suggests that civil society was shaped solely by a) post WWII efforts and b) the 1998 NPO Law, Japanese civil society and activism has been alive and well for over a century.  Examples include the peasant uprisings in the latter half of the Tokugawa period, rice riots after WWI, labor disputes and strikes after WWII, nation wide student movement in 1960 against the security treaty with the United States, citizens and environmental movements in the 1970s. Takeshi Ishida highlights the communist movement which emerged  in the 1920s "explicitly challenged the emperor systems for the first time in Japanese history" and offers a plethora of other examples such as the instituted Labor Law Act of 1945, the Spring Offensive of 1955, growing agricultural cooperatives between farmers and government over increasing the price of rice, citizen movements traced back to the 1960s when massive demonstrations emerged against the Kishi Cabinet's undemocratic way of passing the revised U.S.-Japan security treaty in the Diet and the formation of organizations such as Koenaki Koe no Kai (Association of the Voiceless Voice),  and Behiren (Peace in Vietnam Citizen's Committee) which openly protested the Vietnam War.  [i].  I think it's really important to look at the historical trends of civil societies and how they meshed or bumped up against other sectors and powers at the time in order to gain a better understanding of how civil societies have been shaped.  In the case of Japan, I feel volunteerims is an inherent element of the culture and has been for centuries.  Civil disobedience less so, but I think what we're seeing now is an institutionalization of a sector more than a birthing of volunteerism or activism or dissidence per se.  The Japanese organizations we worked with would often say, "We need to learn so much from the American organizations......" and we would try to remind them of their unique positioning with their government, their unique influence in the Asian community, the inherent attitudes toward volunteerism etc. to point to areas where they need to teach the international nonprofit community.  When I started a nonprofit in Japan in 1995, I wrote to 75 different companies, seeking funding.  I received over 50 letters of decline.  I didn't get it.  One of my Japanese colleagues said, "let's go to the Prefectural government" and sure enough after two visits we received $15,000 right there.  Just a reminder of how "different", not "behind", sectors may be and how they are situated in unique contexts.  Albeit, the sector needs more resources, but  I don't think that's unique to Japan. 

The North/South dichotomy is challenging and I think the most important element to remember and someone mentioned this earlier is that for sustainability, the people working locally, need to have the skills necessary to organize and run an organization themselves.  This will only empower them, sustain the programs, and ultimately shift the power dynamic because once they get going, they will be the resource to turn to, they will have the language, the local contacts an the ability to work with other international organizations in a more even playing field.  The problem we ran into the second year at JUCEE when we were recruiting internationally was that many organizations from India and East Africa were only interested in networking with donor agencies in the U.S. and Japan and not really interested in the actual exchange. At that time, JUCEE wasn't really the venue for this type of service and we were trying to explain that by participating, their host organization could be the first step to reaching those donor agencies, but that it wasn't guaranteed.  This goes back to Stephen's comment about self-interest and how important it is to be honest from the getgo.  It will also enable organizations to identify areas of collaboration that will benefit both groups.  So ultimately, I need to highlight Eva's comments again and the importance of reframing, to more accurately evaluate the unique environments in which we are all working.  

Here in Hawaii, Native Hawaiians mock many of the large mainland nonprofits who profess to be "serving the Native Hawaiians" and building communities because they feel they serve one another as they have been raised in communal settings on homesteads throughout the state.  One Native Hawaiian activist said to me, "It seems that mainlanders have to seek and build community, advertise what the Federal government is up to, mobilize through PR campaigns to get volunteers.....Hawaiians have community, have always known what the Feds are up to and could get volunteers by making a few phone calls, this is our culture!"  Institutionalization and seeking financial resources I think are the greatest differences.

Two questions I have for everyone:

1) With the unbelievable rise in nonprofits worldwide who are all vying for similar resources, are you finding that grassroots organizations are having to slide underneath umbrellas of much larger bureaucratic organizations to survive?  Are they still able to meet the needs of the local communities or do their missions change as a result of their affiliations with larger orgs?

2)  Nonprofits are quite dependent on the Internet for the mobilization of causes, recruiting, political motives, collaboration etc.  For those who work in "southern" (I identify "south" merely by direction.....) organizations, in poorer communities, do organizations who could benefit from collaboration have access to the Internet?  It's been a few years since I've been to those areas and although I know Internet cafes are popping up, I wasn't sure if nonprofits had access.  While at JUCEE, I did most of my international recruiting through listservs, fully aware that I wasn't reaching individuals who would be very interested in an opportunity like this. 

Thanks to all for your insightful comments and discussion.  This type of exchange is so important! 

Pineapples and fair trade Kona coffee,

Kerrie Urosevich

target=_blank

maggie_k - Apr 18, 2005 3:23 pm (#27 Total: 40)

International Child Resource Institute (ICRI) http://www.icrichild.org, is a US based international organization whose mission is to improve the lives of children and families around the world, enabling them to survive and to succeed.

 

The challenges that I see in developing partnerships, particularly in our work in Africa and Asia, between grassroots organizations and international organizations have been mentioned in other discussions, but some that I feel I should add to this very important discussion include the following:

• Many grassroots organizations often focus on the provision of the most basic services, such as food, shelter and clothing. When international organizations visit grassroots organizations, there is an assumption that the programs are not meeting the needs of the children being served due to the poor conditions of the facilities, the lack of resources and inadequate staff. This sometimes may create tension and lack of trust on both sides.
• Some cultural practices are in direct conflict with western practices, such as spanking children, raising voices at young children, lack of open affection to children, strong emphasis on academic training and discipline, etc. International organizations need to make a concerted effort to understand the culture of the community. It is important the international organizations question their taken for granted assumptions about how things ought be done
• The more educated, well established  "elite" individuals working in the urban areas in developing countries sometimes become the spokespeople for the rural-based grassroots organizations. While they may help to overcome language and cultural barriers, they may sometimes be disconnected to the issues happening at the grassroots. International organizations should make a concerted effort to identify key individuals in each country who they can truly trust and work closely with.
• Most international organizations seem to find their partners through word of mouth or through the internet. Those groups that are truly grassroots and that have no real access to the internet continue to get marginalized.

 Kerrie Urosevich, you raise a very important question, “With the unbelievable rise in nonprofits worldwide who are all vying for similar resources, are you finding that grassroots organizations are having to slide underneath umbrellas of much larger bureaucratic organizations to survive?  Are they still able to meet the needs of the local communities or do their missions change as a result of their affiliations with larger orgs?” This is becoming a trend in many parts of the world. You will find a lot of mega-NGOs that have partnered with grassroots organizations. These NGOs are referred to as Consortiums, Alliances, Collaboratives, etc. Are the grassroots organizations benefiting from these types of partnerships, is the development money trickling to grassroots organizations?

Senoe - Apr 18, 2005 5:45 pm (#28 Total: 40)

Hello friends,

I think the issue raised by Kerrie and Maggie about larger NGOs and multilaterals partnering with grassroots organizations is a very interesting one. 

With the increase in the number of new organizations every year, coupled with the funding crunch in the U.S. and around the world, there has been increasing pressure for organizations to consolidate, for both good and bad reasons.  In one sense, joining two organizations can be considered the ultimate collaboration.  But oftentimes it can play out as a little organization being "consumed" by the larger organization and oftentimes losing its driving vision, integrity, and impact. 

In any partnership, there are inevitably trade-offs - or compromises - that have to be made.  The JUCEE approach stresses the importance of organizations taking full inventory of several key factors before entering into a partnership: each partner's self-interests and goals, organizational priorities, core competencies (strengths) and challenge areas, and available resources.  These points have all been raised throughout this great discussion. 

I think it's critical for grassroots organizations to identify and articulate their unique assets: it's more than likely that they have some key competencies or knowledge that the larger organization lacks - for example, knowledge and/or relationships within the local community, or an effective local delivery method for information and services, etc.  Acknowledging this can not only give smaller organizations something quite concrete to bring to the negotiating table, but can also be empowering psychologically and help in addressing some of the power dynamics that often arise in these types of partnerships. 

Recognizing their own resources can help organizations assess what types of compromises they are willing to make: is the promise of funds valuable enough that the organization is willing to deal with a lot of bureaucracy or give up some independence in decision-making?  For some the answer may be yes, for others, no.  Of course, oftentimes we can't anticipate the compromises we will later be asked to make until we are in the thick of things.  This is why it's so important, as Eva and Kerrie pointed out, to structure in some initial information-sharing about each other's organizations and a framework of reciprocity.  This process will be facilitated by organizations being clear about the strengths and needs each brings to the partnership.  The JUCEE approach also suggests setting up clear benchmarks throughout the partnership to create natural "assessment points" where partners can each take stock, and adjust their goals/engagement as necessary in consultation with each other.

There are never any clear answers, especially since each partnership is unique.  Also, there is the frank reality that in our world, money has a lot of power that cannot be entirely offset by nice words or intentions.  But these dialogues help remind us that information - and especially the sharing of information, as we are doing here - is also power, and can be used to create widespread benefits for everyone.

I've really enjoyed following this discussion this week! 

Senoe Torgerson

Sarajean - Apr 18, 2005 5:51 pm (#29 Total: 40)


thanks Maggie for raising very important questions:

"Are the grassroots organizations benefiting from these types of partnerships, is the development money trickling to grassroots organizations?"

the answer is both YES and NO. in some places we do see aid getting to people on the ground - but as long we understand real power dynamics on the ground we know that aid will not get to many marginalised populations such as the underclasses - namely the Dalits, Roma or indigenous peoples. Not step back too much in the discussion but I think the working terms of the partnerships is a key determinate.

this also raises many more questions. it is easy to point to both successful and unsuccessful examples in the short term but are we seeing long term positive effects/benefits?

think another important related question is WHO and HOW can what beneficial mean? sure, many international orgs believe what they are doing is beneficial, but do people on the ground see this either in terms of the change they see/feel or in terms of the way change is brought about?

even when it trickles down, how does it serve to simply support the northern/western power base?

how do NGOs trends and power relationships- such as the new wealth and missionary bent of many conservative christian and US based orgs - affect people in ways which might be contrary to their real needs? yes, people need medical services and nutrition but the coupling with religious zeal is counter-productive from my standpoint.

am interested in hearing/reading what other trends people are seeing in their corners of the world. not about what is happening now but in what the future holds? how will the aid, trade, INGO/PO dynamics evolve? As more POs refuse to take northern/western money as part of an insistence of not being bought off - how will this affect other international organizations and leadership development in the south?

I guess am coming to a point where I only believe in supporting community based organizations directly or those INGOs which really partner - meaning equal relationships with org on the ground. I feel that many large northern/western based NGOs/CSOs/INGOs do not really work in equal partnership but in a client/patron relationships. The more I see and hear, the more I believe in people organizations, despite their faults and despite their lack of "professionalism" or business-like capacity.

the number of organizations is indeed increasing year by year and some will inevitably die off - which survive may also be a key determinate to answer the question whether trickle down works or if the system is evolving into something else.

kenhaig - Apr 18, 2005 7:38 pm (#30 Total: 40)


Hi everyone,

Sorry I'm chiming in so late here. I echo all of the praise for the points made above. A good discussion thus far.

Aside from language skills, there are other imbalances in material as well as non-material resources between cooperating organizations that we need to look at. In my experience with U.S. and Japanese NPOs/NGOs, the difference that sticks out the most in my mind is the fact that Japanese organizations--to a much greater degree than their American counterparts--are "staffed" by volunteers. Many Japanese grassroots organizations are lucky to have any money to pay "part-time" workers (many of whom in reality work full time) after accounting for their basic operating costs.

To be sure, most U.S. grassroots organizations have little enough money as well, but I believe that on par one would find more salaried workers at U.S. organizations. This at least makes it a little easier for those working at U.S. NPOs/NGOs to focus on the work their organizations needs from them. Many of those I have spoken with at Japanese organizations either need to rely entirely on their spouse's income to raise a family, or work another part-time job in addition to their de facto full-time NGO/NPO job.

I don't know if there is any quick fix to the problem of underpaid or non-paid workers at Japanese OR American NPOs/NGOs (how can we change the economics of our respective societies to reward businesses for the highest degree of "public good" achieved, rather than simply higher profits?), but I just thought this was another dimension of imbalance worth considering when it comes to thinking about overseas collaborative ventures.

Cheers, Ken Haig

KeizainoKaihatsu - Apr 18, 2005 11:08 pm (#31 Total: 40)

Hi Everyone,

It looks like I might be the last one to post here, but as a relative newcomer to this topic, I'd like to throw out a couple of more items for your consideration and see what everyone thinks. 

Although I think that larger organizations can sometimes have the luxury of using international exchange as a learning tool, and smaller organizations can execute individual projects of real value, I believe the most practical and long lasting value of international collaboration will be found in small, grassroots organizations coming together to solve the same problem that affects both of their constituencies.

Coming from a social justice standpoint, one of the most pragmatic, yet far reaching goals of international collaboration would be to solidify opposition along class lines against government/multinational exploitation. Community organizations, focused on worker's rights in America, engaging in strategic partnerships with NGOs in China in an effort to counter the employment practices of large companies like Wal-mart, for example, would have both immediate and long term value in both of their home regions.  This and other economic, sexual, and racial issues seem like  truly promising areas of international collaboration. 

On a different topic, but connected in terms of shared situations, I have often wondered why there is not more deeper and regular collaborations occuring between organizations on both sides of the Atlantic.  Given the health of the non-profit sectors in Europe and English-speaking North America, a strong push to create international movements in various parts of the sector seem well within the realm of possibility, if not in fact over due.  Alliances of NGOs dealing with labor, the environment, political accountability, independent press, even the performing arts could use strong international bonds to not only take on truly international problems, but to also raise support and increase their political muscle, both worldwide and with their home governments.  Although this has already happened in certain cases, the protests against WTO and G-8 are limited activities but good examples, I haven't seen it on a broader scale.  Any idea why?

That's my two cents. As someone relatively new to the field, I would appreciate any comments and whatever enlightenment you can offer. This was a great discussion thread, and my hat's off to all of you for the incredible work you are doing in the field of international collaboration!

-Douglas MacLean, Oakland 

Ana-Marie Jones - Apr 19, 2005 12:37 am (#32 Total: 40)
Executive Director, CARD - Collaborating Agencies Responding to Disasters