drc diaspora program – mid term evaluation july 2014€¦ · DRC DIASPORA PROGRAM – MID TERM EVALUATION JULY 2014 6 1. Projects Component: Diaspora initiatives have contributed

Mid-Term Evaluation

DIASPORA PROGRAM

Diaspora driven relief, rehabilitation and development

Funded by DANIDA, Implemented by the Danish Refugee Council

Dr. Valeria Saggiomo (Team Leader)

Dr. Anna Ferro

Final, 16 July 2014

DRC DIASPORA PROGRAM – MID TERM EVALUATION JULY 2014

2

Acknowledgements

The evaluators wish to thank DRC staff for their invaluable support in the evaluation process.

In particular, Mingo Heiduk for her passion and dedication to the program; Annette Smedemark

Christensen for the time spent organising meetings with Diaspora Organizations in Denmark;

Omer Osman Miigane for having been our guide in Somaliland, for his professionalism, gentle

manner, sense of humour even in difficult circumstances and for having being so patient with us

in sorting out all kinds of problems and providing useful insight into the Diaspora Program

implementation stage. Without you all, and without Omer, this report would have never been

written.

Above all, we wish to thank all the people we met during the research period, for the time spent

together, for the discussions and for so many meals shared with us. We really appreciated all

this as human capital that we had the opportunity to collect and that will remain with us beyond

the evaluation exercise.


3

Content

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4

2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5

Basic concepts: Co-development and Diasporas as development actors ........................................ 6

3. Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 8

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 10

4. Evaluation Results .............................................................................................................. 10

Perceptions on the role of the diaspora for the development of the origin country ......................... 10

Importance of the role of the Diaspora for the local development ............................................... 11

The different contributions of the diaspora in the country/community of origin ............................ 13

Relevance of the Diaspora Program (Program design) ................................................................. 14

Program design .......................................................................................................................... 14

Impact ........................................................................................................................................... 17

The impact of the Diaspora Program on the Diaspora Community (Impact in Denmark) ............ 17

The impact of Diaspora-led projects on the local communities (impact in Somalia/land-

Afghanistan) ............................................................................................................................... 25

Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 28

5. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Strategy and processes ............................... 30

Diaspora/local partner engagement modalities .............................................................................. 30

Risks, Opportunities and behavioural indications for DRC .......................................................... 32

Program design and DRC structure for the management of the Diaspora Program ....................... 35

Program design .......................................................................................................................... 35

Capacity Building ........................................................................................................................ 36

Projects component (criteria for projects selection) .................................................................... 37

Diaspora own operational modalities ............................................................................................. 38

Project Co-funding Contribution .................................................................................................. 39

Annexes:

1. Project Evaluation Files

2. List of evaluated projects

3. List of people interviewed

4. Pictures of fieldwork interviews in Denmark and interviews/project visits in Somaliland


4

1. Executive Summary

The Mid-term Evaluation of the DRC Diaspora Program (DP) was aimed at investigating the

extent to which the program design is optimal to strengthen Diaspora-led development

initiatives; at assessing the impact of DRC funded Diaspora-led initiatives in their countries of

origin; and at getting a clearer description of Diaspora role in development.

With regard to the first objective, the evaluation concludes that the DP has been very much

appreciated by Diaspora Organizations for its opportunity to fund development initiatives in the

countries of origin. However, more attention should be devoted in future to balancing the

activities for strengthening Diaspora organizations in Denmark and the activities to promote

diaspora-led development initiatives in the countries of origin (Somalia/land and Afghanistan).

With regard to the impact and the sustainability of Diaspora-led initiatives in their countries of

origin, the evaluation ascertained that the majority of projects funded under the DP have a

visible impact or show likely evidence of future impact for the beneficiary communities. This is

particularly true for projects where needs have been expressed by local communities to their

Diaspora network abroad (see the family partnership model) and for projects where the

proposed activities are innovative compared to the traditional practices adopted in the

beneficiary country. Therefore, the two successful elements for ensuring impact seem to be a

high local project-ownership level and a high level of technical/cultural innovation. Local

ownership is also a key element ensuring the most likely sustainability of Diaspora-led projects.

Unexpectedly, also innovative projects prove to be sustainable in the long term. This is

explained by the high value that these two categories of projects have for the beneficiary

communities themselves, who, after having experienced the advantages of the innovation, are

eager to mobilise local financial resources and to eventually link with local authorities for the

necessary institutional support. On a different note, some Diaspora-led initiatives, that produced

a very positive impact on the beneficiary communities, unintentionally encourage a dependency

attitude by the local community towards diaspora organizations. This dependency attitude is

detrimental for the projects’ sustainability. These projects are most likely to be the ones

promoted by the marriage partnership model, where Diaspora organizations and local partners

have a stable relationship based on either long-term mutual knowledge or a temporarily

professional relationship.

The Diaspora is perceived as an extremely important actor for the development of countries of

origin. This perception is mostly expressed by the beneficiary communities and local partners.

The evaluation results confirm that there is an added-value in Diaspora funded initiatives

compared to other international donors (INGOs, International Organizations) because the

Diaspora knows the needs of local communities thanks to the common origins that donors and

beneficiaries share. Another important advantage in Diaspora funded projects from the

beneficiaries’ perspective is that the ownership of the projects belongs to the beneficiary

communities, who generally have an active primarily role in the project implementation. From the

beneficiaries' perspective however, Diaspora is valued first and foremost for its technical

contribution (innovative competences, advanced skills and capacities), secondarily for its

monetary contribution and social/cultural remittances.


5

2. Introduction

The Somali diaspora contributes to the economy of their country of origin with an estimated $ 1.3

billion to $ 2 billion per year. Research estimates that about 10% ($ 130-200 million) of this

amount is provided for humanitarian relief and development assistance (Hammond, 2011).

According to existing research, the diaspora contribution to development is mainly channelled

through funding local NGOs who primarily act to the benefit of education and health facilities,

water sector and assistance to orphans.

The Afghan emigrants represent 8.1% of the homeland population (2.348.7 thousands)1 (WB,

2011) with high rates of emigration for highly skilled people2. Afghanistan does not report data

on remittances, though the World Bank estimates that 15% of rural households in Afghanistan

receive remittances from abroad, covering around 20% of the family’s daily expenditure. A report

released by the International Fund for Agricultural Development in 20073 estimates remittances

to Afghanistan in 2006 at $ 2.5 billion, accounting for 29.6% of Afghanistan’s total GDP at that

time. In 2008, € 79.664 in remittances was sent to Afghanistan from the Netherlands, and in

2004 € 22 million from Germany4.

Not all Diaspora individuals can however make the same contribution to the development of their

countries of origin. The link between integration level into the host country and capacity to

become actively engaged in the development of the country of origin has been confirmed by

many studies. On one side, the Diaspora is generally willing to be involved in the development

process of their countries of origin, on the other the Diaspora can truly and effectively support

development only if well-integrated in the host country.

Based on this, policymakers in some of the Diaspora main host countries started funding

programs that target Diasporas with the aim of strengthening them as a development actor.

This is the case of the Diaspora Program funded by the Danish Development Cooperation

Agency DANIDA and implemented by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) in Somalia/land and

Afghanistan.

The Diaspora Programme (DP) started in December 2012 as a continuation of the Diaspora

Fund Pilot Phase (2010-2012). Funded by DANIDA, the programme is being implemented

exclusively with the Afghan and Somali diaspora in Denmark. The overall goal of the DP is to

improve the impact of relief, rehabilitation and development activities by strengthening the role of

diasporas as development agents. The programme consists of two components, pursuing two

main objectives:

1 The World Bank Factbook 2011 - Migration And Remittances, second edition (2011).

2 Emigration rate of tertiary-educated population is 23.3% and it is 9.1% for physicians trained in the country

(Bhargava, Docquier, and Moullan; Modeling the Effects of Physician Emigration on Human Development,

Economics and Human Biology, Vol. 9, pp. 172-183, 2011 ). 3 The following Information is reported in Debating Development - A conversational blog from researchers at the

Oxford Department of International Development, University of Oxford, 2013 (http://blog.qeh.ox.ac.uk/?p=147) 4 The mentioned figures are all estimates due to a lack of concrete data. Most prominent way to send remittances

are hawala dealers, traditional financial service providers who enable remittance transfer through a trust-based

network of agents


6

1. Projects Component: Diaspora initiatives have contributed effectively towards relief, rehabilitation and development of their target groups.

At the time of writing, the DP has implemented three application cycles and has granted

a total of 5 million DKK to 23 projects in Somalia/land and in Afghanistan.

2. Learning and mobilisation component: Evidence of the comparative value of diaspora engagement in development has been enhanced and disseminated to inform the design of future projects and humanitarian programming.

Currently, under the Learning Component, the DP has been involved in a collaborative

Master Thesis on the Somali diaspora in Denmark and their identification as development

actor, and has contributed to the organisation of and actively participated in seminars and

conferences on the subject of Migration and Development. In addition, the DP is

collaborating with other organisations in order to qualify the Program’s approach and

insight: the DP has been in close consultation with the Danish organisation CISU on

overall programmatic issues and fund structures, and is in the process of establishing an

experience exchange network in collaboration with organisations in the UK, Sweden and

Germany that conduct similar work in grant making specific towards diaspora

associations as development agents.

The mid-term evaluation is itself an output under the Program’s Learning Component, but

focusses on evaluating the Project Component.

The evaluation has investigated the extent to which the Diaspora Program design is optimal to

strengthen Diaspora-led development initiatives. It has conducted research to get a clearer

description of the Diaspora role in development and it has collected data and information on best

practices of Diaspora financial support to local communities.

Analysis and research under this evaluation exercise are aimed at producing strategic

recommendations to guide the development of the DP in the remaining period of implementation

and especially in the future programs that DRC will implement as a follow up of the current

Diaspora Program.

Basic concepts: Co-development and Diasporas as development actors

Migrants have always been helping their families and communities of origin as a spontaneous

expression of their relational linkages. However, the role and the amount of monetary

remittances as contribution to the development of the origin country have become visible only in

recent times5. It is important to mention that, besides the monetary remittances, economic,

social, cultural, political and technical remittances are part of the migrants’ experience

transferred to the homeland.

5 The most recent World Bank Prospect (11

th April 2014) highlights that international migrants from developing

countries are expected to send $436 billion in remittances to their home countries in 2014, largely exceeding ODAs

(Official Development Aid) (www.worldbank.org).


7

The modern social and sociological phenomenon of transnationalism (Schiller, Basch and Blanc-

Szanton, 1996)6 has emerged as a theoretical framework to interpret the Migration &

Development link. This means considering migrations as transitional process where migrants are

able to maintain multiple linkages with the places of origin and with the host country.

Relationships and connections are facilitated by technology, so important in terms of easier and

cheaper communication (i.e. telephones; internet; skype; airplanes; mail/shipping; money

transfer operators and financial services) and by a general increased and more accessible

mobility between nations and continents7.

Within this scenario, the Migration & Development link turned into a recognized approach in

development studies, sustained by an optimistic general consensus on the potential of migration

in stimulating development dynamics in countries of origin8.

In this sense, the concept of co-development based on the active role of migrants between origin

and destination country9 finally became a model of international cooperation. Although the term

itself had been originally employed in France in the 1970s to refer to a policy of incentive return

migration, the concept now has an enriched significance based on the positive impacts (win-win-

win situation) on the migrants themselves, the origin country and the destination country (UN,

2006)10.

Moreover the assimilation/integration process of migrants in the host country and transnational

linkages towards the origin country are not mutually exclusive. The relationships with the

homeland can last over time and are usually strengthened while migrants advance with their

integration process abroad.

Given this, migrants started being referred to as diasporas. Differently from the traditional

definition related to forced migrations, the concept today is quite extensive and refers to all

contacts, relationships and forms of engagement of migrants towards the homeland. Migrant

organizations11 are seen to be a key actor as they can play a double role, being engaged and

motivated over time towards the homeland, but also often assisting their members/community

abroad during the integration process (including for instance social/cultural/working//housing

aspects). According to the current co-development approach, the more integrated migrants are

6 From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration, Anthropological Quarterly, 68:1

(1995:January), p.48. 7 Although the question of the rights of migrants to circulate and the political control over cross border mobility is

still a debated argument. 8 From the WWII on, the Migration & Development link had been alternatively considered with optimism and

pessimism, with a today resurgence of general positive view (de Haas, Engaging Diasporas: How governments and

development agencies can support diaspora involvement in the development of origin countries, International

Migration Institute - a study for Oxfam Novib, 2006: June) 9 This concept has been assumed today at different level, in particular being recognized by international

organizations and institutional actors (namely the UN, the EU, IFAD, IOM etc.). 10

International migration and development, Report of the Secretary-General, A/6y0/871, 18 May

http://www.un.org/esa/population/migration/hld/Text/Report%20of%20the%20SG%28June%2006%29_English.pdf 11

Migrant organizations can be very diversified in their nature, for instance: hometown associations linked to a

specific village/region of origin; associations gathering co-nationals living in the same city/region/country abroad;

religious associations; professional associations bringing migrants together according to their competences/skills;

grouping migrants according to the ethnic origin/the gender identity/the age etc.


8

in the destination country, the more their development initiatives in the homeland can be

potentially proficient and effective.

For this reason, policy makers dealing with Diasporas in the host countries are increasingly

starting to recognise migrants as potential development agents and incorporating Diaspora

initiatives in the development strategies of their countries of origin. Recognition by local

institutions is often linked to activities aimed at favouring integration processes as a way to

strengthen Diaspora groups and organizations.

3. Research Methodology

The first part of the evaluation mandate was aimed at “assessing how and to what degree the

programmatic design and structure of implementation of the DP is optimal to its overall objective

of strengthening diaspora-led development activities”.

In order to investigate this question the methodological approach included desk analysis of

DRC – Diaspora Program documents (ie. project narrative and budgetary documentation;

minutes of meetings and exchanges fieldwork etc.) and qualitative research in Denmark and in

Somaliland.

In-depth interviews were conducted with key informants from selected Diaspora Projects

(including Diaspora Organization (DO) representatives and Local partners); with diaspora

members of Advisory Board (representing the Somali and Afghani groups) and with DRC-

Diaspora Program Officers (in Denmark and Somaliland). Methodological instruments were

interview guides (for Advisory Board Members; Diaspora Organizations and DRC Officers). The

evaluation attended a discussion meeting on the Diaspora Program with DRC Staff in Denmark

to kick off fieldwork activities in June 2014.

In addition, the evaluation analysed beneficiaries’ perception of diasporas as development

agents, with a view to enhancing knowledge of how beneficiary perception affects the

comparative value of diasporas as development agents.

Methodological instruments were developed to gather information on opinions and perceptions

of Diaspora representatives, Local Partners and Beneficiaries on the role of Diaspora as

development agents and on the impacts on the DRC – Diaspora Program. In particular, starting

from the theoretical framework of “diaspora engagement”, three questionnaires were developed.

In order to collect information on the “perceptions” of interviewees, we selected an appropriate

response scale of measurement based on 5 levels of agreement/disagreement with specific

statements12.

The survey addressed a sample composed of three groups of respondents in Denmark and in

Somalia/Somaliland: Diaspora Organizations (DO) from Somalia/land and Afghanistan (that

participated in the DRC-Diaspora Program), their Local Partners (in Somalia/Somaliland) and

12 An example of statement is the following: “The diaspora is an important actor for the local development”. Indicate

how much you agree with it: I completely agree; I moderately agree; Neutral; I moderately disagree; I totally

disagree.


9

the final Beneficiaries (in Somaliland). The sample is not representative of Somalis/Afghani

communities in Denmark, and has been selected according to the availability to meet the

evaluators and participate in the evaluation research.

All questionnaires presented a set of analogous items/questions13 referred to the “recognition of

the diaspora as development actor”. In this way, it has been possible to comparatively analyse to

what extent the diaspora is differently or similarly perceived (and self-perceived) by the actors

involved in the survey.

For each type of actor we included some tailor-made questions directed to: understanding the

motives behind some responses, usually dissatisfied ones; understanding the level of

participation/inclusion in the project design and implementation; assessing the impact of the DP

on the different actors/activities and its capacity to achieve its goals.

Interviews and meetings in Denmark with DO representatives were organized with DRC support

in May 2014 and 10 interviews/ 11 questionnaires from Diaspora Organization representatives14

were conducted.

During the fieldwork in Denmark, the evaluators also interviewed two representatives of the

Afghani association “Katib Cultural Association”. The association had two projects financed by

DRC-DP (in Round 1 and Round 2). The interviewees did not provide sufficient information on

the projects in Afghanistan; therefore it was not possible to compile a valuable synthetic table of

the project. Nevertheless, the DO respondents did fill out the perception questionnaires.

Fieldwork in Somaliland was organized through the support of DRC Local Officer in June 2014;

8 projects implemented in Somaliland/Puntland were visited. All local partners of these projects

were met, with 22 questionnaires compiled, and when possible (in 5 cases) focus groups were

conducted with local beneficiaries.

In total the evaluators gathered 48 compiled questionnaires from local beneficiaries15. The focus

group discussions with beneficiaries actually involved higher numbers of participants, although,

due to the high illiteracy rate of most beneficiaries in rural areas, we collected a lower number of

compiled questionnaires.

During field visits a local professional translator was recruited to allow all interviewees to express

themselves in the local language and to feel free in answering questions (DRC Local Officer did

not participate in meetings with local beneficiaries).

13 a) Is the diaspora locally perceived as an important actor of development?; b) What are the main spheres of

contribution of the diaspora for development? 14

Compiled both in Denmark and in Somaliland. In Somaliland we interviewed a DO representative that did not

filled the questionnaire and we had email exchanges and clarifications with a DO representative based in DK – who

we could not interview during the fieldwork in Denmark, but we visited the project in Somaliland. 15

Through the DRC – Local Officer in Hargeisa all LP in Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland have been contacted via

email and invited to fill and return the perception questionnaire to the evaluators. Unfortunately we collected only 1

questionnaire from a Local Partner/Project.


10

Data Analysis

In terms of data analysis, the questionnaire responses were processed considering their

distribution for each item/question. For instance, considering the statement “the diaspora is an

important actor for development”, the analysis reports how many persons completely agreed16

with this statement, in percentage of the total of respondents. This information – together with its

graphic representation – has been particularly used for single items/questions and for single

groups or respondents (i.e. is the Diaspora Program well designed? Elaboration of the different

answers only for the Local Partners.).

In order to allow the comparison of perceptions of the different groups of respondents, the data

processing included the elaboration of an index of analysis and an indicator of appreciation.

The index of analysis was used to compact and reduce each item/question in a unity

index/number assessing and measuring all together the different answers of

agreement/disagreement expressed. The scale of the index of analysis varies from 1 to 5 –

where 1 means that the general agreement has been very low (all respondents answered to the

question: “I completely disagree”), and 5 means that the general agreement has been very high

(all respondents answered to the question: “I completely agree”). For instance, when the index is

above “4” it refers to a general positive perception. This index has been employed in most

graphic representation in the report.

The advantage of this index is that it makes it possible to compare answers from different

respondent groups and to summarize the level of appreciation in a “unit value”. On the other

side, this index has the disadvantage of losing some information expressed in the variety of

answers. For instance, when two respondents say they “moderately agree” and 4 respondents

state that they “completely disagree” with the same item/question, it is important to preserve the

information that the “discontent answers” are more numerous and more “relevant” for their

negative appraisal. For this reason we employed an indicator of appreciation built through the

relationship between the number of “positive/agreement” answers and “negative/disagreement”

answers. The scale of the index of appreciation considers 1 as the sufficiency (meaning that the

positive responses are the same as negative responses). Any number superior to 1 means that

there are more positive answers than negative ones (i.e. 3 = the positive answers are 3 times

the negatives; 20= the positive answers are 20 times the negatives, therefore they are really

pleased with their approval; 0.7 = the positive answers are less than the negative answers).

Information on the indicator of appreciation is normally reported in notes.

4. Evaluation Results

Perceptions on the role of the diaspora for the development of the origin country

One of the specific objectives of the Mid-term evaluation of the DP was to conduct a qualitative

“analysis of the beneficiaries’ perception of diasporas as development agents, with a view to

16 And also how many persons moderately agreed; are neutral; moderately disagree; completely disagree.


11

enhancing knowledge on how beneficiary perception affects the comparative value of diasporas

as development agents”.

The following section presents the results of the analysis on responses from Diaspora

Organization representatives (mainly in Denmark), Local Partner representatives (in Somalia,

Somaliland, Puntland) and local beneficiaries (in Somaliland).

The analysis is focused on how migrants see and consider themselves as agents of

development and the way the local counterparts and beneficiaries see and consider the diaspora

as an important participative and democratic actor of development.

The analysis on perceptions also took into consideration whether/to what extent the DP boosted

the diaspora in its development role in Denmark and in the homeland; offered appreciated

instruments of capacity building and a participatory approach; concretely improved the life of

beneficiaries. Some of the responses and results related to this part of the qualitative analysis

can be found in separate boxes within the main text.

Importance of the role of the Diaspora for the local development

The three groups interviewed (Diaspora Organizations, Local Partners and Beneficiaries) were

asked to express their perception on the Diaspora as agent of development for the

country/community of origin – agreeing or disagreeing on the importance of the diaspora role. All

the three groups agreed in recognizing that the diaspora has a significant role for the local

development. While local partners and beneficiaries similarly converged towards the highest

levels of recognition of the diaspora17 (see graph below), diaspora organizations were more

moderate in their auto-perception.

Figure 1: Importance of the role of the Diaspora for local development according to the perceptions of DO; LP; B.

Representation of the index of analysis where 1 means that the general agreement has been very low and 5 means

that the general agreement has been very high.

The diaspora is obviously conscious of its local importance, but comments to the questionnaires

also mentioned the difficulties faced by migrants in combining their solidarity interventions in

their country of origin with their own difficulties and needs in the host country. Auto-perception of

the Diaspora also tells of a self-awareness that migrants are the most important development

actor in the country of origin, because often they are the only external actor.

17 This is particularly evident when considering the “index of positive appreciation”- Local Partners: 17;

Beneficiaries: 14; Diaspora Organizations: 2.

3,8 4,7 4,6

1,02,03,04,05,0

DiasporaOrganization

Local Partner Beneficiaries


12

During the discussions - before and after the questionnaire - we verified the level of trust and

compliance between local community and diaspora. Literature tells us that migrants – besides

their projects for the origin country/villages – can also go through conflicts with the locals; their

approaches could sometimes be disturbing, not participatory or contrary to local

religious/traditional authorities. In contrast to this element, all the responses we collected

confirmed the fully positive and collaborative relationship between Diaspora Organizations and

local community, as shown in the following questionnaire results.

The diaspora knows very well the important needs of the local community (based on the

perception of the different groups interviewed: Local Partners and Beneficiaries).

Beneficiaries and mostly Local Partners18 positively confirmed that Diaspora Organizations are

conscious and attentive to the local needs. Reportedly, the Diaspora knows better than anyone

else (namely INGOs and international organizations) what are the real needs in the territories of

origin. This is because migrants know these territories from direct knowledge, being born there,

and because they are in constant contact with friends/family in the homeland and are aware and

updated on local life conditions.

Figure 2: The diaspora knows very well the important needs of the local community based on the perceptions of LP;

B. Representation of the index of analysis where 1 means that the general agreement has been very low and 5 means

that the general agreement has been very high.

Involvement and participation of Local Partners and Beneficiaries in identifying the needs of the

community

With this question, we intended to explore the inner democratic governance of Diaspora projects

and verify the real participation of local partners and beneficiaries in the identification of the

community needs and therefore in addressing the Diaspora projects to such needs/requests.

Beneficiaries and above all Local Partners19 confirm the consultative and participatory aspect of

Diaspora projects, asserting that the general iter of projects starts within the local community,

expressing its problems and making requests directly to the Diaspora.

18 The index of appreciation is in fact 21.7 for Local Partners.

19 The index of appreciation for Local Partners is in fact 14.

4,6 4,2



13

Figure 3: Involvement and participation of Local Partners and Beneficiaries in identifying the needs of the

community, based on the perceptions of LP; B. Representation of the index of analysis where 1 means that the

general agreement has been very low and 5 means that the general agreement has been very high.

The different contributions of the diaspora in the country/community of origin

The three respondent groups (Diaspora Organizations, Local Partners and Local Beneficiaries)

were asked to list in order of importance (1st; 2nd; 3rd) different resources that are transferred

from the Diaspora to the country/community of origin. In particular: monetary remittances (in

terms of finances transferred by migrants to their families, but also by diaspora organizations to

their collectivities in the homeland)20; technical remittances, referring to the competences, skills

and capacities of the diaspora that are employed and valued locally (brain gain); social/cultural

remittances referring to those social, cultural, political, relational aspects that are part of the

migratory experience and exchange.

The results of the questionnaire point out a self-perception of Diaspora members that highlights

their main contribution – and main local appreciation – for the monetary supply (38.9% of

respondents) – quite comparable to their technical contribution (36%). Local partners also give

equal significance to the monetary and technical contribution of the diaspora. Differently, local

beneficiaries express their foremost recognition and appreciation of the diaspora for its technical

contribution (45.6%). Although third in ranking, the social/cultural contribution of the diaspora

receives a similar adequate recognition (25/27%) by all respondent groups.

In general terms, we can assume that the monetary remittances are the main direct, visible and

demanded contribution from locals (partners and beneficiaries), being perceived as the most

important means through which migrants help their family/community. Diaspora organizations

and Local Partners equally consider monetary and technical remittances, in recognition of the

fact that the commitment of migrants for their homeland includes “money”, but also

communication, relational and networking capacities, technical skills, project making and

fundraising abilities. In few cases/projects the diaspora contribution is specifically appreciated for

the technical competences and professional knowledge – thanks to the engagement of some

highly skilled migrants

20 It is worth mentioning that many Diaspora organizations implement or sustain activities in the country of origin

independently from external actors’ donations. Systems of money collection and redistribution follow different

patterns from direct support to family members to religious donations to identified groups of beneficiaries, as it is the

case for donations during Ramadan (Zakat al Fitr) or religious charitable giving (Sadaqa).

4,7 4,2

1

2

3

4

5



14

It is interesting to note that local beneficiaries largely indicate the technical competences of the

diaspora in the first position. This answer is not actually in line with the general feeling of

migrants and with the general evidence of projects – that migrant remittances/funds into

community services and interventions are more likely and more easily channelled

(building/reinforcing schools, libraries and hospitals; improve the access to water; train health

workers; facilitate school access etc.). The majority of these interventions valued above all

migrants’ financial resources and very rarely migrants’ competences and skills.

During focus-groups with the local beneficiaries we investigated the significance of “technical

competences” and we realized a basic misconception where “building a school” or “supporting

children's schooling” can be considered a transfer of educational competences – confusing the

object of the intervention with the individual capacities of the diaspora. Also, discussion showed

that respondents considered not just the importance of diaspora for what migrants concretely do

for the country/community of origin, but also for their potentials and their acquired competences

abroad.

Figure 4: Order of importance of the Diaspora contributions (choosing between monetary; technical; social/cultural

contributions) for the development of the origin country, according to the three respondent groups (DO; LP; B).

Values reported in % for each group of respondents.

Relevance of the Diaspora Program (Program design)

This section considers to what extent the set-up of the Diaspora Program is relevant to its

objectives. We recall that the overall objective of the Diaspora Program is to improve the impact

of relief, rehabilitation and development activities (in Somalia/land and Afghanistan) by

strengthening the role of diasporas as development agents.

Program design

The Diaspora Program is composed of two components: projects and learning/mobilisation. The

projects component is a way to engage Diaspora organizations through a dedicated fund to

support Diaspora interventions in the country of origin. The second component is focused on

research and evidence-based knowledge on the Diaspora in international development with the

aim to inform and guide future programming.

Recent theories on Diaspora engagement in development (co-development approach) stress the

importance of focusing on the diaspora role in the country of origin as well as in the host country.

38,9 36,7

45,6

36,1 35,8 28,5

25,0 27,5 25,9

Diaspora Organizations Local Partners Beneficiaries

Monetary contribution Technical contribution/ competences

Social/ cultural contribution


15

The evaluation found that the set-up of the Diaspora Program, its design and its structure is

generally relevant in order to achieve its overall objective. This is also confirmed by the opinions

of the program beneficiaries, namely the Diaspora organizations and their local partners, as

shown in the following graph21.

Figure 5: Appreciation of the design of the Diaspora Program, based on the perceptions of LP. Values reported in %

for each group of respondents.

However, in line with the co-development approach described in the introduction, the complex

dual nature/identity/behaviour of Diasporas (between country of origin and destination) indicates

that Programs designed to support them as development agents need to be further

strengthened.

The evaluation research revealed that the Diaspora Program proves to be more focused on

Diaspora initiatives in the countries of origin and less on strengthening and supporting migrant

groups in Denmark. As mentioned in the introduction, the “migration and development” model

shows that the transnational nature of migrant associations and initiatives should include a

component in the country of residence, where migrants need more support in being recognized

as citizens and as development agents.

This is also confirmed by the perception of Diaspora members collected in Denmark during the

first part of the fieldwork, as shown in the following box.

21 Responses that mentioned difficulties in the DP structure mainly referred to unclear communication triangulations

between Diaspora Organizations, DRC DK/Somaliland and Local Partners, and too demanding procedures

(especially related to procurements).

73

20 7

0 0

Yes, verymuch

Fair So and so Not much Not at all


16

According to interviews during the questionnaires, unhappy responses are related to the

absence in the DP of specific activities (and of possibilities of expenditure) in Denmark, besides

the trainings.

In line with recent migration and development theories and findings, it is suggested that future

design of the Diaspora program should more equally address the role of the Diaspora

Organizations in the country of origin and the role of the Diaspora in the host country so as to

reflect the dual identity of Diasporas i.e. their role in the host country and their role in the country

of origin.

It should be mentioned that the Diaspora Team in Copenhagen detected this shortcoming of the

program design well before this evaluation study. Consequently, some of the measures that this

evaluation will propose are already in the process of being tested and implemented.

22 This is confirmed by considering the index of appreciation that is “negative” (0.7 < 1, where 1 means the

sufficiency). 42% of respondents declare to be satisfied with the “reciprocity aspect”, but 58% are not.

Box 1: Reciprocity: the DP supported the diaspora in the homeland and in the host

country (according to the perceptions of Diaspora Organizations)

“Reciprocity” refers to the balance between activities in the country or origin (to sustain and

emphasize the role of the diaspora as development agent), and in the host country, Denmark,

where diaspora groups live and try to integrate.

Diaspora members positively appreciated the Diaspora Program for being an excellent

opportunity to support migrant groups with public funds. However, the program has been

considered quite weak in terms of activities dedicated to Diaspora in Denmark22.

Figure 6: Reciprocity: the DP supported the diaspora in the homeland and in the host country, based on the

perceptions of the DO. Values reported in % for each group of respondents.

17

25 25 25

8

Yes, very much Fair So and so Not much Not at all


17

This is the case, for instance, of the synergies with the Integration Department of DRC23. The

Integration Department works mainly with municipalities, who are responsible for the integration

of refugees and immigrants in Denmark. Other stakeholders include public employment

services, schools, institutions, hospitals and private enterprises. All these institutional actors are

crucial in the daily life of many Diaspora Organizations as they are the first ones responsible for

integration purposes. The Integration Department covers almost all aspects of the integration

process and may provide a useful backup to the Diaspora Program.

The Diaspora Program has the potential to represent a bridge between the International

Department and the Integration Department and to constitute a fundamental pillar in the future

identity of the Danish Refugee Council itself. In this sense, the Diaspora Program also impacted

on DRC itself, whereas a new professional unit dealing with the Diaspora has been established,

with genuine enthusiasm and commitment to the potential contribution that this new cooperation

modality can offer to development practices.

Impact

The evaluation analysed the impact of:

a) The Diaspora Program on the Diaspora Community (impact in Denmark) b) The Diaspora-led projects on the local communities. (impact in Somalia/land-Afghanistan

The impact of the Diaspora Program on the Diaspora Community (Impact in Denmark)

The original program design was characterized by a slight imbalance between a focus on

Diaspora role in Somalia/land-Afghanistan and in Denmark. Nonetheless, the evaluation

recognises that a part of the Diaspora program was correctly devoted to strengthening diaspora

organizations in the host country.

In Denmark, Diaspora organizations have received training on Project Cycle Management

(PCM), they have been encouraged to establish governance modalities (participation in the

Advisory Board) for contributing to the development of the Diaspora Program, and have been

empowered with funds to implement their project ideas, based on a competitive competition

managed by DRC. The following paragraphs will describe the initial impact of these three

activities on the Diaspora Community in Denmark, namely training, governance and projects,

bearing in mind that the Diaspora Program is still in its implementation phase.

Training

The Diaspora program included a capacity-building component for Diaspora Organizations in

Denmark. So far, the capacity building component has consisted in a pre-application capacity

building cycle (2 days in Aarhus and Copenhagen) open to all potential applicants and based on

project design and management. The pre-application capacity building included an individual

23 The aim of the DRC Immigration Department is to support refugees and immigrants in assuming greater

responsibility for their own lives and support Danish society in its capacity to involve and make use of the resources

of refugees and immigrants


18

coaching system based upon request by Diaspora Organizations. The aim of these activities

was the improvement of the organizations’ capacities to develop sound and sustainable projects.

After the results of the selection process, a second post-application capacity building cycle was

foreseen. This again included training on PCM (1 day), training on Financial Guidelines (1 day),

and a Coaching system.

The Diaspora Program chose a very experienced Somali trainer who was therefore able to

speak in the Somali language and who was positively welcomed as a skilled “migrant” who had

succeeded. The choice proved to be effective as a sort of role-model dynamic was traced by the

evaluators. The trainees valued the quality of the trainer and were open to receive additional

inputs, advice and suggestions on how to improve their project proposal. The perception of the

beneficiaries of the training was however not completely positive. As shown by the survey

results, a diversification in the training offer considering the different starting level of trainees

would have been appreciated by trainees (basic and advanced level of PCM). In addition to this,

a more articulated needs’ analysis of migrant groups would have highlighted that not only do

Diaspora Organizations need to be reinforced in their projecting skills, but they also require an

institutional reinforcement as voluntary associations.

24 The appreciation index for the “reinforcement of capacities through DP” is 1.4 for Diaspora Organizations and 3

for Local Partners. The appreciation index for the “quality of the training through DP” is 3 for Diaspora

Organizations and 1.3 for Local Partners.

Box 2: Satisfaction of training and improvement of capacities and competences through DP

(for Diaspora Organizations and Local Partners)

The evaluation team asked training beneficiaries about their satisfaction with the training received

by DRC.

All respondents appreciated that the DP offered an opportunity to reinforce their skills and

capacities, but their satisfaction with the training received and the impact on their capacities was

fairly modest (compared to other items/issues that received more encouraging and convinced

answers)24.

In particular, 55% of Diaspora Organization respondents in Denmark confirm that the DP positively

reinforced their capacities. However, 42% of respondents are only satisfied with the DP capacity

building activities. The majority of Local Partners is very pleased with the training, although 25% is

not.

As far as the quality of the training is concerned, the answers are not homogeneous for both Local

Partners and Diaspora Organizations, with groups of respondents quite content, but also with

respondents rather dissatisfied.

During interviews we collected comments on these questions: Overall training and capacity

building activities are very much appreciated by Diaspora Organizations, but they were too time-

limited and concentrated only in a weekend (for the Project Cycle Management). Respondents


19

Based on these controversial data on the appreciation of the training component, the evaluation

decided to investigate more on the effectiveness of the DP training on its beneficiaries. The

documentation available on the project selection process was therefore analysed. DRC DP

offered in fact pre-application training and a coaching system to help DO to successfully present

would have preferred a training offered for a longer and more diluted period.

Moreover, more differentiated sessions (i.e. basic projecting and advanced projecting) would have

been of benefit for those Diaspora members that have different levels of education and

experiences in this area.

Most respondents commented on the DP “capacity building activities” saying that “more would

have been better”.

Figure 7: The capacities and competences were reinforced trough the DP, based on the perceptions of DO; LP. Values

reported in % for each group of respondents.

Figure 8: The quality of training and assistance provided by the DP has been satisfactory, based on the perceptions of

DO; LP. Values reported in % for each group of respondents.

25 33

25 17

0

75

0 12,5 12,5

0

Yes, verymuch


Diaspora Organization Local Partner

25

50

25

0 0

57

0

29

14

0

Yes, verymuch




20

their project proposals. The relationship between the number of projects presented and project

approved over the three Rounds25 was also assessed26.

In all Rounds, between 55-60% of projects were rejected. We can argue that the Pre-Application

training was only relatively effective, as 55-60% of participating organizations did not pass the

preliminary selection phase in all rounds; also in Round 3 the percentage of rejected projects

was about 60%27.

Among those pre-approved projects that benefitted by the pre-application training, 80%

succeeded in the first Round and 60% succeeded in the second Round28. While in the first

Round a higher percentage of trained DO succeeded in having their project approved, in the

second Round the percentage is lower (see graph below). We can therefore note that the post

application training and probably the coaching system were more effective in Round 1 compared

to Round 2.

It is also interesting to underline that 6 organizations tried their chance in more than one Round.

For instance, the organization AYAD tried to approach the Diaspora Program many times. They

presented one project in Round 1, three projects in Round 2 and again 2 projects in Round 3.

None of the 6 projects presented to the Diaspora Program was successful. Also DSN presented

a project in Round 1 and then a project in Round 2; neither of the two projects was approved. In

Round 2 DRC offered DSN the opportunity to receive individual training sessions for future

applications (in Round 3). However the proposal was rejected again. Rebuild Aid organization is

another case where the organization has presented projects in Round 1, 2 and 3, but none of

the three were approved.

These examples bring up the question of whether/to what extent the main obstacle of these

associations had been an “internal problem” (for instance: the project content/objective; the

nature of the local partner; the monetary contribution etc.) or the effectiveness of the training that

did not effectively support these associations in succeeding in the DP application process.

The quality of the training was assessed by the evaluators on the basis of the training materials.

The evaluation team considers the level/quality of the training material very high, but has doubts

about its adequacy to the level/needs/capacities of Diaspora Organizations. Probably, also the

modality to deliver the training (one or two day sessions) was not appropriate to the level of

knowledge of the beneficiaries. Experience suggests that subjects like the PCM need prolonged

25 All documents shared by DRC with the evaluators on dropbox have been analyzed. In particular the evaluation

team considered the rejection rate of projects after following the training sessions offered by DRC. This exercise

could not include information directly 26

The analysis did not include meetings and interviews with all DOs that participated in the training (either finally

succeeding or not). Therefore, information on the reasons why certain migrant groups were finally rejected, even

after receiving the training were deducted by the rejection letters. 27

This information needs to be complemented with information on the level and quality of preparedness of applicant

Diaspora Organizations. Unfortunately, this information is not available and the mentioned data can be considered

only “indicatively”, not objectively. 28

In Round 1 out of the 25 projects presented, 10 were pre-approved and finally 8 were financed. In Round 2, out of

22 projects presented, 10 were pre-approved and 6 were financed.


21

training sessions plus practice (with a learning by doing approach). A coaching system is also

appropriate in those cases where the ground knowledge of the subject is low.

Many of the beneficiaries approached the PCM cycle for the first time and this could partly

explain the modest result of the training activity.

Governance: The Advisory Board

Diaspora Organizations are involved in the governance of the Diaspora Program through the

Advisory Board. The evaluation finds that the involvement of Diaspora Organizations in the

governance of the Diaspora Program is very positive in terms of strengthening the role of

Diasporas in the host country as it entails recognition and legitimacy to act as development

actor. In this sense, the evaluation found the participation of Danish Authorities to the AB

general meeting of great significance for Diaspora groups.

There is an additional value of the Advisory Board role in strengthening the Diaspora

Organizations. Being a governance tool, the dynamics of the Advisory Board reproduce

governance mechanism that can be traced within organizations and in relationship with a wider

political context referred to the country of origin and the Danish society. Diaspora Organizations,

especially the Somali ones, are eager to participate in politics and need to practice democratic

governance mechanisms to acquire experience and eventually transfer it as cultural remittances.

In this sense, the election system of the Advisory Board, whether contested by the Diaspora

members or openly appreciated, represents an opportunity to experiment with new forms of

political representation, based on criteria that gradually evolve from the traditional dynamics of

clan/geographical constituencies to professionalism.

The evaluation found that, for the Somali Diaspora, clan/geographical constituency is the

dominant element in the election system of the Advisory Board. However, interviews

demonstrated there are clear and spontaneous instances for moving to more professional

representation criteria. This is a positive unintended impact of the Diaspora Program on

Diaspora Organizations. For example, some members of the Advisory Board suggested defining

admission criteria such as education level and professional status for candidates of the Advisory

Board.

Some other members, discouraged by the difficulty of challenging traditional representation

systems, suggested giving DRC the power to select the AB membership, thus delegating this

responsibility. This suggestion however is not shared by the evaluation team, who finds the

opportunity to practice democracy a difficult but significant exercise for Diaspora Organizations.

If considering that the current government in Somalia/land is mostly composed by diaspora

members, this kind of “training by practice” in democratic governance systems can potentially

have a great (and unintended) impact on the stability of the country of origin and consequently

on its development.

The evaluation highly values the potential contribution of the Advisory Board mechanism to the

benefit of the Diaspora community and, indirectly, to the benefit of the country of origin and

strongly encourages DRC to continue supporting, investing and improving this kind of activity.


22

Perceptions of Diaspora organizations on the Advisory Board are however not fully in line with

the evaluation opinion on this subject, as is detailed in the following box.

Projects

Funding Diaspora Organizations to implement development projects in their country of origin is

DRC strategy to engage the Diaspora and support it as development actors. The evaluation

team therefore believes that the projects component has a critical impact firstly on the Diaspora

Organizations themselves, as an empowerment tool, and secondly on the local populations in

migrants’ countries of origin. The impact of DRC funding on the strengthening of Diaspora

29 This is confirmed when considering the mode and when considering the relationship between “approval” and

“disapproval” answers. The “index of appreciation” results in fact non-sufficient (0.5 < 1, where 1 stands for

sufficiency

Box 3: Appreciation of the participatory and democratic governance ensured by the DP

Within the research among Diaspora Organizations in Denmark, we investigated to what extent

the DP had been perceived as an initiative ensuring a participatory and democratic governance. In

particular with the term “governance” we referred to the presence and functioning of the Advisory

Board and to all mechanisms employed by DRC to dialogue through a participatory approach with

the Diaspora.

In general, the presence of the AB had been positively recognized and welcomed as it gives voice

to the Diaspora opinion towards the DP project selection. However, the analysis shows only a

moderately positive perception of Diaspora representatives; most respondents are not particularly

keen on the governance of the DP, which is considered only sufficiently “democratic and

participatory”29.

Figure 9: Appreciation of the participatory and democratic governance ensured by the DP by Diaspora Organizations,

based on the perceptions of the DO. Values reported in % for each group of respondents.

Interviews with the respondents revealed the motives behind this negative attitude towards the

Advisory board. Some Diaspora Organizations do not feel that their contribution to the Advisory

Board is valued by DRC (problem of recognition) because their advice has been often

disregarded, as reported by respondents. Members of the Advisory board would like to have more

power that is decisional on the approval/rejection of the project proposals.

2 2

7

1 0

High Fair Neutral Low Very low


23

organizations is analysed in this paragraph, starting with the perception of Diaspora

Organizations, and local partners on this issue.

Box 4: DP contribution to sustain the engagement of DO towards the homeland

Diaspora Organizations and Local Partners were asked whether the Diaspora commitment

towards the development of their countries of origin has improved thanks to the DRC-Diaspora

Program. The majority of both groups of respondents recognize the importance of the DP for the

Diaspora engagement.

Figure 10: The DP helped and sustained the engagement of DO towards the homeland, based on the perceptions of

DO; LP. Representation of the index of analysis where 1 means that the general agreement has been very low and 5

means that the general agreement has been very high.

In particular, Local Partners consider the impact of DP on Diaspora capacity to help the homeland

“very high”30. Differently, Diaspora Organizations are more moderate and cautious in their opinion.

In fact 73% of Diaspora respondents positively consider the DP sustain (33% considers it “high”

and 42% considers it “fair”); 25% of respondents are restrained in their evaluation of the DP (17%

considers it “in neutral terms” and 8% considers it “quite negatively”).

Interviews on the motives for such a perception reveal that Diaspora Organizations do not

consider the DP as a means to boost their engagement towards the homeland – as their

commitment is considered as spontaneous, assured and basically detached from external

circumstances. The engagement of Diaspora Organizations exists regardless of the presence of

the DP. Additionally, the DP is sometimes perceived as highly demanding in terms of

administrative requirements that represent a workload for Diaspora Organizations.

Figure 11: The DP helped and sustained the engagement of DO towards the homeland, based on the perception of DO;

LP. Values reported in % for each group of respondents.

30 82% of Local Partner respondents say the DP sustained “very much” the Diaspora Engagement in the homeland.

4 4,8


33 42

17 8

82

12 6 0

Very much Fair So and so Not much Not at all

Diaspora Organizations Local Partners


24

Data collected through questionnaires and interviews reveal that many Diaspora organizations

implement or sustain activities in the country of origin independently from external actors’

donations. Systems of money collection and redistribution follow different patterns from direct

support to family members to religious donations to identified groups of beneficiaries, as is the

case for donations during Ramadan (Zakat al Fitr) or religious charitable giving (Sadaqa).

In a way, DRC strategy for providing funds for development projects in the diaspora countries of

origin was undoubtedly an effective engagement strategy as it builds on what already exists. The

question is, to what extent has the Diaspora Program added to what would have been done

anyway?

After data analysis, the evaluation team believes that DRC-DP added-value in funding diaspora-

led projects in Somalia/land – Afghanistan is based on three main elements: the recognition of

Diaspora Organizations as Development actors in the Danish society; the scouting of new

organizations; the technical assistance to project implementation provided also by DRC field

staff in Somalia/land-Afghanistan.

Recognition means that a fair number of Diaspora Organizations feels empowered by the DP to

act as development actor. This is true especially for small or newly born organizations, and for

all the Afghan organizations. Some of the Somali organizations already enjoyed a high degree of

“political” exposure both by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark and by media.

By scouting this evaluation means the explicit support to new, small and/or inexperienced

Diaspora organizations. Organizations that were new to development activities in the country of

origin are in this sense considered new organizations and are included in this group. This is the

case of Somali Mothers Community that is not a new organization as it was established in 2000,

but never approached development activities in Somalia before the Diaspora Program. The

Diaspora Program projects component gave new organizations a possibility that they never

experienced before and this exposed them to a challenge that proved to be highly rewarding in

terms of strengthened capacity to act as development actors. It is also the case of the Afghan

Organization DAFF that received funds to explore the possibility to start projects in Afghanistan.

A study mission was organized, contacts and networks were built; a project was agreed among

the young members and eventually funded with private donations.

In these two cases, the Somali and Afghan Diaspora organizations were empowered in a way

that probably would have never happened differently. This kind of organization gained most

from the Diaspora Program objective to strengthen Diaspora as development actors.

The evaluation suggests that DRC should identify those new organizations that successfully

grew up in terms of capacity thanks to the DP and continue following up their training and

capacity building through a dedicated funding line for new organizations. In this way, the added

value of the Diaspora Program will be maximised and made visible to external actors.

The third element that contributes to building the value of the DP in the projects component,

compared to what is done within the traditional Diaspora aid model, is related to the technical

assistance the Diaspora Program provides to the Diaspora-led projects. Diaspora Program staff

in Denmark and in Somalia/land and Afghanistan has greatly contributed to bringing


25

professionalism and technical guidance to traditional Diaspora aid modalities. In Denmark and in

the field DRC staff emphasis on administrative aspects of the project management has been

sometimes perceived by the Diaspora organizations and local partners as a burden to fulfil in

order to receive funds from institutional sources. While this is understandable, this evaluation

believes that administrative requirements ultimately serve the purpose of transparency, a non-

negotiable aspect when managing public funds. In addition to this, constant monitoring by DRC

staff helped to discover obstacles for the projects’ start up and contributed to solving problems

that were not initially identified, as in the case of the quality of water in Kalabaid village

(Somaliland); in other cases constant monitoring by DRC facilitated the kick-off arrangements of

the project start, as in the case of the delays in the implementation of the project in Salahley

(Somaliland). In Denmark proposal screenings and evaluation rounds represent obstacles to get

through for organizations who want to upgrade their current capacity. The seriousness and

professionalism of DRC staff is believed to represent a model for those organizations who wish

to reach the same level of accountability and the same operational capacity.

These three elements, recognition, scouting and technical capacity, are the areas where the

added-value of DRC in providing funds to diaspora organizations is more evident and tangible.

The evaluation encourages DRC to mainstream these three aspects both in the future

programming of Diaspora support initiatives and in the remaining period of the current Diaspora

Program.

The impact of Diaspora-led projects on the local communities (impact in

Somalia/land-Afghanistan)

This paragraph describes the impact of DP-funded projects on local communities in

Somalia/land and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. All the projects visited in the field had a

positive impact on the beneficiary communities, except one that had no reasonable impact (for

details see the evaluation files, annex 1). Also the perceptions of the beneficiaries are very

positive, as shown in the following box.


26

In general, among the projects analysed by the evaluation team, some are showing the most

visible impact or the most likely evidence of future impact. These projects are the ones where:

needs have been expressed by local communities to their Diaspora network abroad (high local

ownership level); the proposed activities are innovative compared to the traditional practices

adopted in the beneficiary country (high level of technical/cultural innovation)32.

In the first case (high local ownership level), what usually happens is the following: local

communities keep contacts with their clan members in the Diaspora (see the family partnership

model); the Diaspora represents a source of external aid during emergencies and for daily life;

some members donate money on a monthly basis to cover the necessities of their communities

in the country, usually in education and health sectors. When the community needs external aid

they contact clan affiliates in the Diaspora and express their request. If the Diaspora agrees and

money is available, the request turns into a concrete realization33; if not, the request from the

local community is put on hold until resources are available34.

31 This is confirmed when considering the mode and when considering the relationship between “approval” and

“disapproval” answers. The “index of appreciation” results highly satisfactory (6.7 < 1 for local beneficiaries - where

1 stands for sufficiency, and 14 > 1 for local partners). 32

For a detailed description of the impact of single projects see the Diaspora-led Projects Evaluation Files in annex 1 33

This was the case of the maternity hospital near Salahley that was funded (out of DRC Diaspora Program) after a

woman died in childbirth. 34

This was the case of the secondary school in Dherialey village in Somaliland that is on hold since two years.

Box 5: The life of beneficiaries changed/improved thanks to the project proposed by the

Diaspora through the Diaspora Program

The results of the inquiry show that both Local Partners and Beneficiaries express full satisfaction

and appreciation for the Diaspora project sustained by the DP. The majority of respondents affirm

that the Diaspora initiative brought positive improvements and changes for the local community31.

Local Partners are particularly aware that Diaspora projects carried important benefits for the local

recipients, being aware that migrants are often the only actor available and able to help in

improving the life of their compatriots.

Figure 12: The life of beneficiaries changed/improved thanks to the project proposed by the Diaspora through the

Diaspora Program., based on the perceptions of LP; B. Representation of the index of analysis where 1 means that the

general agreement has been very low and 5 means that the general agreement has been very high.

4,8 4,5

1

2

3

4

5

Local partner Beneficiaries


27

The key for success of these projects in terms of impact for local communities is a high degree

of local ownership. Local communities genuinely express their needs; when needs are fulfilled, a

positive change in their daily life occurs and their lives improve. In these cases, the impact of

Diaspora led projects is high.

The other case (high level of technical/cultural innovation) is when projects are promoted by

particularly skilled diaspora members, usually professionals. Doctors, engineers, intellectuals in

the Diaspora sometimes decide to contribute to the development of their countries of origin

exploiting their knowledge, and they often start mobilizing funds and resources for this objective.

These individuals can easily conceive projects with innovative aspects compared to the culture

and practices of the local communities in the countries of origin. Differently from projects with

high ownership level, these projects are not necessarily based on needs directly expressed by

the communities, but more likely on the competent assessments of these “skilled migrants”. In

some cases, communities are suspicious of innovations and reluctant to support new project

ideas. In other cases, they value the technical remittances that skilled diaspora members can

offer. Innovation turns into a source of benefit for local communities once they start using it or

appreciating its impacts. This is the case of the telemedical system in Mandhaye Hospital in

Burao, where psychiatric sessions are held online with Somali doctors residing in Sweden. The

evaluators personally witnessed a session in the Mandhaye Hospital and registered positive

feedback from the patients using this system. This is also the case of the Cultural Centre in

Allingar, Afghanistan, where the local community was initially reluctant to have a library for

students and computers connected to the web. Opinions changed as soon as a massive

improvement became visible in the examination results of students attending the cultural centre

(see evaluation file for DAFF Diaspora Organization annex 1).

If DRC is interested in maximising the impact of the Diaspora program on the beneficiary

communities in the Diaspora countries of origin, the evaluation suggests to streamline support to

these two categories of projects, i.e. projects characterized by high level of local ownership,

usually promoted by the “family” partnership model, and the projects characterized by high level

of technical/cultural innovation, usually promoted by the “single” partnership model.

Training for local partners

Training on administration guidelines and tools was also given to local partners of the Diaspora

Organizations by DRC DP staff in Somalia/land and Afghanistan. Training introduced the DP in

general and reporting procedures and formats in particular.

While local partners undoubtedly need training on many subjects, including the PCM, the

evaluation believes that DRC should give secondary priority to training activities for Local

Partners, given the focus on Diaspora organizations. DRC can however encourage Diaspora

Organizations to transfer the knowledge acquired during DRC training to the Local Partner if

needed. Training to Local Partners by Diaspora Organizations may receive the necessary

financial support in the Diaspora proposals budget. The possibility to train local partners should

be mentioned in the proposals guidelines.


28

Sustainability

This evaluation considers the sustainability criteria of Diaspora projects in relation to the

involvement of external actors35 in the pre and post implementation phases, and to the level of

ownership36.

Usually it is taken for granted that the Diaspora continues to support local initiatives with

financial aid, especially in the education and health sectors, also after the project termination.

This assumption is used to confirm the long-term sustainability of projects. The evaluation team

is however sceptical with regard to always associating Diaspora commitment to a sustainability

guarantee. The continuity of the Diaspora support to local development or humanitarian

initiatives should not be taken for granted. Diaspora can be very diverse and changing and new

generations may feel less affection and responsibilities for the country of origin. External or

internal factors can change and projects might not be able to rely on diaspora.37 On the contrary,

local involvement of business community or institutional actors represents an important element

of sustainability because resources are locally generated, in a self-sustaining system.

To provide some examples, innovative projects like those related to Mandhaye hospital in Burao

managed to gain in popularity thanks to the unquestionable benefit for the entire local

community. Running costs of the tele-medical system are affordable and are covered by the

local business community in Burao; part of the expenses of the Hospital is provided by the

Ministry of Health and this ensures the sustainability of this Diaspora initiative.

Moreover, projects with a high level of local ownership, usually promoted by the “family”

partnership model, are likely to be sustainable. This is the case of Guryasamo Diaspora

Organization that fulfilled the long-standing request of the local community in Dherialey village to

build a fence wall for the security of their primary school. The evaluation team visited the school

and saw the wall in excellent condition, constantly maintained by the community years after its

construction. In addition, it is worth noting that in Dherialey there is one of the schools supported

by the Ministry of Education with teacher’s salaries and provision of books.

On a different note, there are also projects that unintentionally encourage a dependency attitude

by the local community towards Diaspora Organizations. This is the case of the Diaspora

Organization SDO and its local partner HAERDO that are making considerable efforts to support

teachers’ salaries in Salahley and schools renovation and upgrading. This is perceived as a

mission and a moral obligation to fulfil. In the short term, SDO/HAERDO commitment positively

impacts on the life of children, their families and on the teachers in Salahley. In the long term

however, this assistance creates a dependency syndrome that discourages local self-sustaining

attitudes. In fact, the future of the education sector in Somalia should not depend on

35 External actors are actors “others” than the Diaspora, like for instance local institutional actors, business

community, local community who does not directly benefit from the project. 36

This evaluation detected a direct relationship between the level of ownership and the partnership model (see the

paragraph lessons learned). 37

It is also true that literature on this issue generally confirms Diaspora long-term engagement in their countries of

origin, despite financial and economic crises. This is confirmed by studies on migrants’ remittances during the post

2008 financial crises. Remittances in fact tended to be constant and similar in their volume.


29

individual/migrants good-will, but on governmental efforts. The Somaliland’s Education Sector

Strategic Plan 2012-2016 foresees covering school personnel costs at 67% in 2012 and

DANIDA contributed to this commitment by donating 9.2 million38. Moreover, the Government is

committed to the policy of “One child One book”39 and it would be important for both SDO and

HAERDO to start approaching the Government of Somaliland and demand these facilities in

Salahley. The evaluation team believes that both organizations are mature and strong enough to

start building a long-term vision that goes beyond the current paternalistic approach, in order to

build the basis for integrating Salahley in the nascent Education System in Somaliland. Diaspora

contributions could then serve other more pressing needs of the local population, once

education has been delegated to the State.

Also the case of the project proposed by the Diaspora Organization Kaalmo and the local

partner Social Relief Organization in Las Anood raises doubts on future sustainability. The two

organizations aim at reducing maternal mortality by training midwives. The impact in the project

area has been high, during the project period. According to interviews, skilled midwives now

assist 30-40 deliveries per village every month on average. Though midwives do not operate in a

hospital or in a proper health facility, they have been equipped with tools to ensure a minimum

standard to avoid infections and transmission of diseases to the mother and to the baby. It is

highly likely that this has saved lives in the project target area.

However, many factors hinder the sustainability of the project: first, the provision of delivery kits

to the newly trained midwives is dependent on external donations from Australia. Second, the

midwives will not be recruited within a proper health facility as these do not exist in the villages.

Third, local communities will be asked to pay the salary of the midwives and it is likely that this

will happen on a service-base performance. Fourth, the training midwives received during the

project is not in line with National Standards that require two years training instead of the one

offered by Kaalmo/SRO. This means that at the end of the Diaspora-led project, midwives will

not have any official qualification to perform their duties professionally. The good results of this

project should be consolidated by another year of training and compelled by a proper exit

strategy to ensure sustainability of results.

Both the described projects are implemented by organizations that can be associated to the

“marriage” partnership model (see lessons learned chapter). The first case (SDO/HAERDO) is

the “love marriage”, the second (Kaalmo/SRO) is the “marriage of convenience” as SRO is a

professional local NGO and this was the reason behind the choice of the local partner, according

to interviews.

Evidence collected by the evaluation team suggests that projects promoted by the “marriage”

partnership model are likely to generate considerable positive impact on local communities, but

also sustainability weaknesses.

38 Somaliland’s Education Sector Strategic Plan 2012-2016, page. 14.

39 Ibid. page 37


30

DRC is encouraged to strengthen the capacity of the Diaspora/Local Partner organizations

under the “marriage” partnership model with training on sustainability and coaching on exit

strategies formulation.

5. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Strategy and processes

Based on the fieldwork results, this evaluation provides lessons learned and suggestions on the

following delicate issues:

Diaspora/local partner engagement modalities

Program design and DRC structure for the management of Diaspora Program

Projects component (criteria for projects selection)

Diaspora/local partner engagement modalities

So far, DRC approached Diaspora Organizations and their local partners in a

professional/standardized way. Within the DP DRC is actually a “donor” for the diaspora

organizations in the Diaspora Program, but, in line with a co-development approach, DRC also

plays a further role of subject that accompanies, sustains and encourages DO and Diaspora

projects. In this sense, DRC is not completely a “partner”, but it is “more” than a regular donor. In

view of this, DRC should bear in mind that the Diaspora/local partner or local communities

relationship is often pre-existent and characterized by specific dynamics. DRC represents an

external actor in the Diaspora-Local community partnership. This triangular relationship among

Diaspora-Local community and DRC should be structured case by case in order to avoid

disruption of existing well-functioning working relationships and in order to support in the most

appropriate way the strengthening of both Diaspora and local communities as development

actors.

The first step in this direction is for DRC to be aware of the kind of partnership model that

Diaspora organization is adopting, either with the local partner organization or with the local

community directly.

After observing the various dynamics between the Diaspora Organizations who received funds

through the DRC Diaspora Program and the local partner, this evaluation identified four different

partnership models that the Diaspora adopts to relate to local communities in the country of

origin, being it Somalia/land or Afghanistan.

For the sake of clarity, the partnerships between the Diaspora Organizations and the local

organizations or communities are associated to the metaphor of a “love affair/relationship”

between a man and a woman – although biased by a “western approach” to sentimental

coupling. DRC is a third/external actor in this relationship and should generally act as a mediator

to facilitate the good feeling and being between the two partners.

a) The fiancé model. In the fiancé model partners are still looking for one another. They

meet, they get to know each other, and maybe they like each other, maybe not. Often

they start a relationship; they may fight and separate after a few months. Sometimes the

fiancé model evolves into a marriage. It is a young relationship characterized by


31

instability, possible turbulence, misunderstandings, but possibly also enthusiasm, joy and

energy in building a common path40.

b) The marriage model. This model can be further detailed as follows:

Love marriage. Sometimes the relationship between the Diaspora Organization

and the Local Partner is like a love marriage. Love marriage is considered the

ideal partnership as it has many positive aspects that can guarantee the success

of the partners’ projects. The characteristics of the love marriage model are: a

pre-existing and long term relationship, continuity in the relationship with a sort of

marital fidelity, clear division of roles in the “couple”, stability41.

Marriage of convenience. The Marriage of convenience model is a partnership

based on mutual interest. Both partners gain something out of the relationship.

Generally, the relationship goes on for as long as an objective interest exists but,

as soon as the “binding element” disappears, the relationship ceases, possibly

without fighting or tears. A partnership based on the Marriage of convenience

model is stable during the project duration, but usually finishes after the project

termination. Typically, the local partner is offering clear advantages like being a

professional NGO, being conversant with the international cooperation world,

being able to manage bureaucratic procedures and standards. Each member of

the partnership needs to get its “profit” out of the project42.

c) The family model. According to the literature, typical diaspora-local community

relationships develop along the territorial belonging or a clan line. The entire clan (at sub-

sub-clan level) or the regional community is tied by strong linkages of common belonging

(related to the clan/family or the territory). The “family abroad” (Diaspora) maintains

constant contacts with the “relatives in-country” (local communities) who express their

needs according to their priorities. For instance, often during Ramadan, or simply

occasionally during the year, the “family” abroad sends money to meet local needs. The

project funded by the Diaspora under the family model has its own traditional sectors of

intervention (education and health) and consolidated implementation modalities. Usually,

the Diaspora can choose a focal point/local counterpart-sister association at local level

that is responsible for the implementation of the project, including its monitoring. Photos,

videos, constant telephone calls ensure the Diaspora that the project is implemented and

successfully terminated. After that, the ownership and the management of the newly built

structure pass into the hands of the local community43.

d) The single model. It can happen that somebody feels strong and capable to be able to

“build a family” alone. This self-sufficient individual does not find any advantage in the

marriage; s/he feels able to fulfil all requirements to achieve the desired objective without

any partner, and usually this is true! The ‘single’ partnership model is characterized by

40 The fiancé model may apply to SMC and SDC/Gardo.

41 The love marriage model may apply to SDO/HAERDO

42 The marriage of convenience may apply to Kaalmo/SRO

43 The family model may apply to Guriasamo organization.


32

Recommendation for DRC: Monitor the relationship between the two new partners, give

advice and offer training to both the partners so that they feel engaged with one another; let

them meet and help them to get to know and appreciate each other.

the presence of a strong personality, often with high education level or professional

specialization (doctors, engineers, intellectuals). These individuals may create their own

organizations with the aim to establish a network of persons who will work to achieve an

objective. Sometimes they prefer to engage with collaborators for the project

implementation rather than with other organizations. Singles are skilled persons,

committed to transferring their knowledge and competences in the country of origin and

are directly involved in the project they intend to realize44. Projects promoted by singles

have the potential to be innovative, but they can also meet initial resistance by the

community and they normally have very little impact in the host country (Denmark), from

a co-development perspective.

Risks, Opportunities and behavioral indications for DRC

There are risks and opportunities associated with each partnership model and DRC needs to be

aware of that in order to best handle its role and relationship.

The fiancé model. Being a young relationship characterized by potential instability, this

partnership model needs to be closely supported by DRC. The Diaspora organization may need

extra time to develop the relationship with the partner and DRC should support this. In other

words, when recognizing and facing the fiancé model, part of the project should be explicitly

devoted to building and reinforcing this partnership. DRC should be more flexible with timing,

support travels of the DO to Somalia to start up the project and also to build the relationship, and

without excluding the likelihood of failure. On a positive note, in the fiancé model DRC is really

supporting the establishment of something that did not exist before. When such a model occurs,

the impact on strengthening the diaspora organization is impressively high, as was the case of

Somali Mothers Community in the Diaspora Program.

The marriage model. Both love and convenience marriages are solid and stable during the

project duration. These two positive conditions usually ensure success in the objectives of the

‘couple’. The risk in the marriage model is that partners may tend to be self-referral and too

close to outside inputs. Typically, this kind of partnership does not have contacts with other

development partners in the field and this limits the potential impact of their development

contribution in the long run and may affect the sustainability of the interventions. For example,

SDO and HAERDO think they will sustain teacher salaries in Salahley for ever. “Our support will

never stop!” they say proudly. But this is detrimental to the sustainability of the education sector

in Somaliland that is being taken care of by the Government progressively, as it happens in the

case of Dherialey village supported by Guryasamo.

44 The single model may apply to MHIS


33

Recommendations for DRC: In general, this kind of relationship model should not receive

interference from outside. DRC is advised to limit its activities to the project monitoring. In order

to avoid confusion, choose interaction models with one partner only, usually the ‘strongest’ or

the most appropriate to dialogue with an external subject. Since DRC program aims at

strengthening the Diaspora, DRC may choose to have contacts with the Diaspora Organization

only. The DO will discuss with the Local partner, agree, and afterwards give a consolidated

vision to DRC. This is the way DRC gives “recognition” to the Diaspora Organization and

recognition ultimately strengthens the role of the DO vis-à-vis the local partner and local

beneficiaries. DRC may encourage the formalisation of the marriage through a Memorandum

of Understanding if DRC feels this is useful to consolidate the ‘couple’. In this case, it is always

important to ask the two partners what they feel like before promoting a change in their

relationship. In order to reinforce the Diaspora Organization DRC should, for instance, provide

training on sustainability models of Diaspora assistance in Somalia, and on advocacy capacity.

Encourage the Diaspora Organizations to contact other development actors in the area, and

the line-Ministry to discuss ways of making a progressive hand over to the Government.

Projects promoted by the marriage model of partnership should contain a local awareness and

dialogue component with local authorities. DRC may encourage the Diaspora Organization to

promote self-reliance at local level.

The family model. Usually there is a strong motivation behind the initiation of a project and the

expression of a real local need that motivates the Diaspora to fund the initiative. Projects under

the family model achieve their objectives as they respond to a local need and also because a

large part of the local community tends to be involved. The implementation modalities are

consolidated and efficient, but they normally pay little attention to bureaucratic procedures

(procurements, written monitoring reports, etc.) that are typical of the NGO-style projects.

The needs are mostly expressed by local communities who are generally dependent on their

families abroad. One example is the Dherialey village that has been waiting for two years for the

Diaspora contribution to build their secondary school; every semester they ask and are told to

wait. This partnership model potentially creates and encourages a certain dependency. Local

communities perceive the Diaspora as a crucial actor, especially for their health and education

sector, but they also know that they are dependent on external help and this creates a sense of

frustration.


34

Recommendations for DRC: DRC is strongly encouraged not to turn a family model

relationship into a professional NGO-style relationship. Forcing both the Diaspora Organization

and the local community into a relationship that does not belong to them may encounter

reluctance of both parties, or may even turn into a fake partnership model. (For instance, this is

the case of Gyryasamo and Havyoko. Havyoko had a very limited role in the project

implementation of Guryasamo people. Havyoko was however formally selected as formal local

partner, mainly due to DP requirement).

What DRC can do to strengthen the Family model Diaspora is to help both partners for

instance by strengthening the Diaspora (and local community) capacity to fundraise their own

contributions. The DP training should serve to reinforce the fundraising capacity but not (yet) to

the implementation capacity (via PCM training). DRC can focus on the empowerment of

Diaspora Organization in Denmark, if needed, bearing in mind that the family model

organizations can often be managed by individuals with high expertise in managing large

amounts of money (ie. former bank directors, accountants of large companies etc). Also this

group of Diaspora organizations could be trained in advocacy and sustainability of local

development projects so to avoid dependence by local community.

The ‘single’ model. The main opportunity of the ‘single’ partnership model is that the proposed

projects more easily bring innovation into the country of origin. Innovation is the result of the

expertise brought by the Diaspora individual/organization, who tend to present a high profile in

terms of education and practical experience. (MHIS and psychiatry in Burao and AKF and the

Cultural Centre in Allingar are examples). Innovation is linked to the exposure to practices and

knowledge in the host country; as reported in the perception questionnaire analysis,45 this is very

much valued by local communities. By supporting skilled individuals (or organizations revolving

around skilled individuals) DRC can sustain an impressive positive impact in the Diaspora’s

countries of origin, with often reduced financial contribution. On a less positive note, DRC should

be aware that, if the individual decides to interrupt his/her contribution for any particular reason,

the entire project ceases. The risk of project failure is high as it depends on one-person will only.

But also the advantage that the project potentially brings in the country of origin is high.

It is worth noting that the presence of single skilled migrants, devoted to development causes, is

less widespread compared to larger migrant associations.

45 See in particular “Perceptions and considerations on the role of the diaspora for the development of the origin

country”, the item related to the appreciation of the different Diasporas’ contributions.


35

Recommendation for DRC: DRC should keep close relations with the ‘single’ in order to avoid

that external inputs/conditions create dissatisfaction and ultimately lead the individual to abandon

the project. Support to the ‘single’ may come in terms of mediation roles in case of conflicts with

the beneficiaries. Training on leadership models and capacities may help singles to understand

their role in the community (enlarging the base of support) and can motivate them to give

continuity to their efforts. In terms of the impact in Denmark, public recognition of the role of the

‘Single’ (meetings with Danish authorities, media resonance) can be part of the strengthening

strategies adopted by DRC.

Program design and DRC structure for the management of the Diaspora Program

Program design

The evaluation research revealed that the Diaspora Program is more focused on Diaspora

initiatives in the countries of origin and less on strengthening and supporting migrant groups in

Denmark.

In line with recent migration and development theories and findings, it is suggested that future

design of the Diaspora Program should address the role of Diaspora Organizations in the

country of origin (projects component) and the role of the Diaspora in the host country

(organization strengthening component).

The program can be structured along two components: the Diaspora led- projects Component,

that follows the current Projects component faithfully, and the Diaspora Organizations

Strengthening Component, that is focused on activities devoted to Diaspora organizations in

Denmark. The current Learning and mobilization component should become a cross cutting

component, mainly focused on research.

Diaspora Led-projects

Component

Diaspora Organizations strengthening

component

Research

Component


36

Recommendation for DRC: devote more focus (funds and time) to the capacity building

package under the Diaspora Program.

Reformulate the capacity building package for Diaspora organizations in a way that is tailored

to each organization's needs. Based on the assumption that the strength of a Diaspora

Organization resides in its membership (and in the competences and commitment that the

membership can express) and in the external network that the organization manages to

mobilise, both in other Diaspora host countries and in the countries of origin, design a capacity

building package around these three axes:

1) Institutional reinforcement: help Diaspora Organizations to reinforce themselves as

“associations” – sustain their structuring according to a clear identity and mandate/objective

(mission; vocation); help them in their organizational structuring/chart and functioning.

2) Network: many Diaspora Organizations are part of local, national or international (formal or

informal) networks (of co—national organizations). These relations are extremely important

also for their potential in development or lobbying terms. In addition, many DO miss

exchanges with other associations and with development or integration actors, both in the

homeland and in the host country. These actors represent important potential partners of

activities (for instance DO could invite/involve Danish NGOs to work in the health sector in

the regions/areas where migrants already work). Furthermore, migrant associations often

lack institutional relations with local authorities (especially in the host country, but often also

in the origin countries) and also at a higher level (Regional/Ministers/Government). Making

Diasporas more aware of these themes and reinforcing their capacities in creating or

enlarging their network can be a very valuable and rewarding area of intervention.

3) Reinforcement of technical competences: DO often move large amounts of money. Aspects

to be reinforced include for instance fund raising; internal or external communication skills;

event organization and management; administrative issues etc.). DRC structure for the

management of the Diaspora Program

Capacity Building

The capacity-building package promoted so far by DRC under the Diaspora Program proved to

be very qualitative but relatively effective.

The Diaspora Program is different from traditional DRC development/humanitarian programs for

various reasons: it is extremely widespread in its geographical coverage and it is atypical in the

sense that DRC is an indirect donor, it is not the implementing party, but it is also engaged in the

running of projects. Therefore, it requires an ad hoc staff structure to be implemented most

effectively. The following suggestions derive from observation and from discussion with Diaspora

Program staff in Somalia/land.


37

Projects component (criteria for projects selection)

So far, under the Projects component, the Diaspora Program has funded a variety of Diaspora

Organizations initiatives in Somalia/land and in Afghanistan. This approach had the advantage

of offering an opportunity to all the Diaspora Organizations that were willing to promote

development initiatives in their countries of origin. For the remaining part of the Program, or

better for future programming of the second phase of the Diaspora Program, this evaluation

suggests to continue funding Diaspora Organizations as before and eventually streamline

opportunities for young organizations and for innovative initiatives with two dedicated funds.

DRC can choose to dedicate one round to the usual call for proposals, one round for innovative

projects and one round for young organizations. Alternatively, DRC can dedicate a percentage

of the budget to these three categories in each round, for instance 40% to normal projects, 30%

to innovative projects and 30% to projects promoted by young organizations. Or DRC can

introduce an additional extra scoring in the selection process for the above mentioned

categories.

Young organizations46

Young organizations with strong motivations and capability are extremely worth supporting.

Notably, II generation migrants are an important bridge between the Danish society and their

parents’ country of origin. With a relatively small investment, the results can be very high both in

the origin and in the host country.

46 By young organizations we mean organizations that are characterized by young motivated membership (like the

case of DAFF, or Diaspora organizations that are new to development projects in the country of origin (like the case

of SMC).

Suggestion for DRC: In Somalia/land, due to long distances and to the current political situation,

DRC needs a person/antenna in each of the three locations, namely Somaliland, Puntland and

South-Central. Since the staff is devoted to monitoring functions only, instead of employing three

persons full time dedicated to the Diaspora Program, DRC can recruit one person (based in

Somaliland, where there are the majority of Diaspora-led initiatives) who is the DP manager, and

insert a share of time dedicated to the Diaspora Program (for example 15% of time) in the ToRs of

the existing Monitoring and Evaluation officers in Puntland and in South Central. DRC should

clarify that the two M&E officers should report to the DP manager and establish hierarchy lines with

area managers in Somalia/land. The following reporting lines chart should be known to all DRC

staff so to be aware of the roles and competences regarding the Diaspora Program.

The same approach can be applied for technical staff (engineers, water experts, education experts)

already recruited by DRC under other programs. This staff may make available, if necessary, part

of their time to the DP upon request by the Program Manager. In this case, the involvement can

occur on a consultancy-based modality, whereas a given budget of the Diaspora Program is

devoted to technical support to Diaspora-led projects.


38

Innovative projects47

Diaspora professionals have the potential to bring innovation and high level contributions to the

development of Somalia, often with a limited amount of money. For this reason it is undoubtedly

worth it for DRC to “invest” in them, with a dedicated section of the Diaspora Program that can

be named Innovating Fund.

Professional Local Partners

When a local partner is chosen on the basis of professional experience, there is not much

difference between diaspora-led initiatives and initiatives promoted by International NGOs as

confirmed by various (professional) local partners during the evaluation fieldwork. Here, the

added-value of having the Diaspora as development actor instead of a normal NGO is not

visible. On one hand, having a professional local partner increases the likelihood that the project

is professionally implemented (this is the case of SSPDO and SOCDA with the training center in

Mogadishu). On the other hand, the ownership of the project by the local community is often

very low and its sustainability is at stake as is often the case for normal NGO promoted

development projects (this is the case of Kaalo and PAS).

Diaspora own operational modalities

Sometimes diaspora organizations have a consolidated operational modality for the

implementation of development projects. This operational modality can easily refer to the

presence of a local focal point appointed by the diaspora organization in charge of supervising

the project implementation and of reporting to the diaspora group. According to field visits, this

implementation method is effective and efficient and reflects the way many diaspora

organizations work in Somalia.

47 By innovative projects we mean those projects that bring new technical/cultural inputs into the practices of the

beneficiary country, like it was the case of Peaceware in Mandhaye hospital in Burao (Somaliland) and the case of

AKF in Allingar (Afghanistan).

Recommendation for DRC: Establish a program line for young organizations with strong

motivation and a degree of capacity (higher level of education, strong leadership). DRC can

name this program line Scouting Fund. Support should be continuous until the organization is

grown up to the level of approaching other donors autonomously.

Recommendation for DRC: If a Diaspora organization chooses a local partner for its

professional credentials (this means there is no clan affiliation, no pre-existent ties of the DO

with local beneficiary community), insist on evidence of project ownership and sustainability

strategies of the Diaspora-led initiative and focus monitoring activities on these two elements.

Recommendation for DRC: if existing, respect Diaspora operational modalities, especially in

the case of a “family” style partnership model, even if they are not perfectly in line with DRC DP

requirements.


39

Project Co-funding Contribution

When the project has no contribution in cash from the local community, the local partner or the

Diaspora organization, the ownership of the project is weak and/or its sustainability unlikely. This

is the case of Puntland Aid Service and Kaalo. Some Diaspora organizations reported difficulties

in gathering the co-funding contribution. This evaluation however believes that: a) Diaspora

Organizations should be encouraged to work according to their realistic capacity; this includes

the collection of projects co-funding. b) Commitment is expressed also through co-funding

mechanisms; co-funding therefore “measures” the level of commitment of the DO.

The report has been presented to DRC on July 11, 2014 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Recommendations for DRC: Maintain the co-funding requirement in the projects presentation

guidelines. Co-funding levels by the Diaspora Organization, in collaboration with the local

partner can be variable and include a mandatory cash contribution and a contribution in kind

(for instance, an own-contribution requirement of minimum 20 % could be structured as

minimum 10 % in-cash, maximum 10 % in-kind. ). In addition, DRC could consider including a

fixed overhead for the Diaspora Organisation in the grant budgets (e.g. 5 % of the budget).

Documents

drc diaspora program – mid term evaluation july 2014€¦ · DRC DIASPORA PROGRAM – MID TERM EVALUATION JULY 2014 6 1. Projects Component: Diaspora initiatives have contributed