The document summarizes the findings of a survey of 158 Canadian civil society organizations regarding their experience with Partnerships with Canadians Branch's (PWCB) new call-for-proposal funding mechanism. Key findings include: 1) Over 70% of respondents applied to calls but success rates were low, negatively impacting organizations; 2) The process reduced credibility, required changing priorities and partnerships, and cost significant resources; 3) Losing CIDA funding jeopardizes organizations' work and development results. Recommendations focus on improving transparency, engagement, responsiveness and inclusiveness in the funding process.

1. Putting Partnership back at the
Heart of Development:
Canadian Civil Society
Experience with CIDA’s Call‐
for‐Proposal Mechanism,
Partnerships with Canadians
Branch

2. Survey Backgrounder
In July 2010, the Minister of International Cooperation, the Hon.
Beverley J. Oda, established new funding mechanisms for Canadian civil
society organizations (CSOs) through Partnerships with Canadians
Branch (PWCB), moving from responsive programming to a competitive
process.
In January 2012, the Canadian Council for International Co‐operation
(CCIC) and the Inter‐Council Network of Provincial/Regional Councils for
International Cooperation (ICN) undertook a detailed survey to assess
the experience of CSOs with six call‐for‐proposal competitions and to
evaluate the impacts on the sector.

3. Survey Backgrounder (con’t)
The survey had five goals:
• Map the outcomes of the various calls‐for‐proposals and share these
with our constituencies;
• Assess both the positive and negative aspects of the new process,
including the outcomes from the new mechanism;
• Draw concrete recommendations that can be presented to CIDA and
other key decision makers to improve the competitive mechanism or
to re‐evaluate the use of the competitive process;
• Use the findings to develop a collective response for the sector to
the current challenges faced by organizations with this new system;
and,
• Identify a network of organizations that would be willing to share
their lessons learned with others on their submissions.

4. The Respondents
This report is based on the responses
of the 158 organizations that
participated in the survey.
109 proposals (52.4%) out of 208
presented to the Under and Over $2
million competitions are included in
the survey. This makes it a significant
sample of those most directly involved
in and affected by the calls‐for‐
proposals mechanism.

5. The Respondents (Con’t)
60
70
50 60
40 50
40
30
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
No 1‐2 3‐5 6‐15 More
Paid than
Staff 16
Number of Respondents by Staff Size Number of Respondents by Income Scale

6. Outcomes of the Call for Proposals
• Close to 25% of the 158
respondents had not applied to
any of the competitions, either • More than 70% of the sample
because they already had an applied to one or more of the six
active contribution agreement PWCB competitions.
with CIDA or because they were
planning to do so in the future. • Organizations that applied to more
than one competition were notably
• A smaller number (11,7%) of more successful than those that
organizations that didn’t apply applied to only one.
say they no longer plan to seek
funding from CIDA or found the • Both the staff size and total income
new funding of an organization also correlate with
mechanism success.
too much work
for the • Fifteen organizations reported that
expected
they had submitted proposals as a
outcome.
consortium and of these, only two
were successful.

7. Outcomes of the Over/Under 2 M Calls
• For the “Under $2 million”
competition there was a much
• For the “Under $2 million”
larger number and proportion of
competition, size and income scale
unsuccessful proposals
are less correlated to success.
• The analysis of the “Over $2
• Almost all the proposals in both
million” and “Under $2 million”
competitions had a very high
results highlights the importance
concentration in CIDA’s thematic
of staff size and income scale,
priorities but less in the countries of
particularly for the former
focus
competition.

8. Impacts of the Call for Proposal System
The vast majority of respondents raised serious concerns over a range of significant
and negative impacts of the new call‐for‐proposals mechanism, including:
Reduced credibility of the Pressure to change the A heavy investment in
organization with partners organization’s priorities in proposal development,
and volunteers because of order to meet criteria and including consultants,
the delays in funding the need for an overseas consultations,
announcements, lack of “acceptable” proposal, with no assurance of any
success, very significant including restructuring positive outcome
funding disruptions and a overseas partnerships;
reduced ability of the
organization to program
effectively;

9. Impacts of the Call for Proposal System
More emphasis on Need to restructure the Reduction or end to long‐
fundraising in a difficult organization, including standing partnerships
environment, with 18% of reduction in staff and (reported by 22
respondents having no idea overseas activities, due to organizations) abroad
yet how they will make up an unsuccessful proposal. which are at the center of
the loss of revenue from civil society’s approach and
CIDA; unique contribution to
development;

10. Impacts of the Call for Proposal System
Cuts to public engagement A chill on advocacy
(PE) work, with 64% of activities as a result of the
respondents indicating that widely shared perception
they would not or could that CIDA looks unfavorably
not replace previous CIDA on organizations that do
funding for PE with their policy and advocacy work.
own resources; and

11. Key Conclusions
A system that requires much improvement
The implementation of the new PWCB funding mechanism has been a difficult and
challenging experience for most Canadian CSOs involved in international development
Putting organizations, partnerships and development
results in jeopardy
The sudden and drastic reduction of funds coming from CIDA – compounded by long
delays in announcing funding decisions and the large number of organizations that were
unsuccessful in seeing their proposals approved‐ has meant that dozens of Canadian
organizations now have to reduce or end partnerships with local organizations in
developing countries.

12. Key Conclusions (con’t)
Canadian public awareness of and active engagement in
global poverty issues is at risk
The sudden elimination of the 10% of budget previously allowable for public engagement work
in the PWCB contribution agreement, and of long‐standing responsive public engagement
funding mechanisms will have significant and adverse effects on many Canadian
international development organizations and their efforts to build awareness and sustain
meaningful engagement with Canadian citizens on global poverty issues.
Recognizing the role of CSOs – development actors in their
own right?
Civil society organizations contribute to development in very unique, innovative and essential
ways.

13. Key Conclusions (con’t)
The domino effect of losing CIDA funding
The loss of CIDA funding by so many organizations doesn’t just impact a percentage of an
Organization’s budget: it will most likely have a knock‐on effect in terms of the amount of
funds that organizations can subsequently leverage from other donors: multilateral,
provincial, individuals, etc..
Hitting smaller organizations harder: level playing field?
Smaller organizations are being hardest hit by the new funding mechanism. The survey
clearly shows that organizations that have fewer staff, lower budgets and limited capacity
for producing proposals, are less successful with the new PWCB mechanism.

14. Key Conclusions (con’t)
Learning from what works
It seems that the specialized calls for proposals (Haiti, Muskoka) have worked better in terms of
turn‐around‐time and improving the system as it goes. We are hoping that the same happens
for the next round of calls for proposals for the Under and Over 2 Million projects.
What happened to partnerships?
In the new call for proposals mechanism, not enough value is put on trust and on pre‐existing
relationships between CIDA and Canadian civil society organizations, nor on existing
partnerships between Canadian organizations and developing countries organizations.

15. Main Recommendations
# 1 Produce clear and predictable annual timetables
# 2 Create a two‐tiered process
# 3 Make sure that the calls for proposals are more inclusive
# 4 Increase opportunities to engage with CIDA

16. Main Recommendations
# 5 Establish a regular and formal mechanism for ongoing
dialogue
# 6 Engage in a national consultation with CIDA CSO partners
on Public Engagement mechanisms
# 7 Re‐establishing some responsive programming
# 8 Improve the proposal guidelines

17. Main Recommendations
# 9 Create greater transparency prior to and during the
assessment process
# 10
CIDA should organize capacity‐building training programs on
the calls for proposals mechanism and competitive
processes more generally
# 11 Develop a CIDA policy on CSOs and development, both in
Canada and abroad
# 12 Undertake a full evaluation of the impact of the call‐for‐
proposals mechanism

18. How can CCIC and the Provincial/Regional
Councils be Helpful?
• Advocacy ‐ Respondents felt that the Councils are well‐positioned to represent the
voices of smaller CSOs and their southern partners to CIDA.
• Training ‐ Respondents wanted the Councils to provide training or education,
particularly on proposal‐writing and navigating CIDA processes.
• Communication ‐ Respondents wanted the Councils to communicate with members
and keep them updated on developments in the granting process and on what
is happening with CIDA.
• Information and Analysis ‐ Further surveys and analysis by the Councils in order to
collect aggregate information on behalf of the sector.

19. THANK-YOU!