|
CAGE Learning
|
For a more detailed overview of CAGE’s learning, please download “Building Peace through Knowledge: Reflections from CAGE” by Richard Smith and “The Conflict and Governance Facility: A View from the Grant Maker” by Charmaine Estment
CAGE has undergone two independent reviews over 2006/71.
These aimed to evaluate the model of CAGE as a grant-maker that funds research and studies in the field of conflict and governance.
They also served as tools to document the learning over the three year project period, particularly from the perspectives of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders. The outcomes of these studies have been useful for CAGE to reflect on the project – specifically on the relevance of its mandate and the effectiveness of its strategies, operations and implementation.
The following key themes arose from the two reviews:
|
|
| 1. |
The relevance of CAGE
CAGE has been operating in a complex environment, with its identity straddling the government and policy-making world and the research and NGO arena. The understanding of CAGE’s relevance has varied depending on its particular identity. For the research institutes, CAGE has been seen as ‘a safer place’, allowing for independent and original research on critical policy issues relating to governance. In terms of creating an interface with government, the institutes did not necessarily see CAGE playing this particular role – with many having their own existing direct access to government departments.
The grants themselves have been seen as important contributors to the research environment, but it has perhaps been the smaller, donor-dependent NGOs who have found them most valuable.
|
| 2. |
High quality research and potential to influence policy
CAGE has been in a position to fund research of a high quality. This is demonstrated by engagement with institutes that maintain rigorous methods of working, have teams of highly regarded researchers in their chosen field, and have impressive research dissemination capacities. The knowledge gained by grantees during the research process was seen to be useful in terms of learning strategies to engage with governments, not just in South Africa but across the SADC region. Research-generated knowledge has actively contributed to policy dialogues – one such example being the citing of CAGE funded research in the President’s State of the Nation address of 20062.
|
| 3. |
Participatory and supportive methods of working
The value of CAGE’s participatory approach to grant-making has been well documented. This has been particularly evident in the Call for Proposals stage of the process, where CAGE consistently undertook a very broad consultation of stakeholders. This has included workshops and roundtables to ascertain research themes as well as a web-based and national public call for policy priorities. Throughout the grant-making process, CAGE has been seen as having a supportive and non-prescriptive management style and grantees report good working relationships with the organisation right the way through the process.
The question of ‘power’ in the relationship between CAGE and its grantees provided some interesting responses. Some grantees felt that unequal power relations were evident due to the dynamics around donor aid /Official Development Assistance and EU regulations. Other grantees agreed with this, but felt that CAGE’s open door policy and willingness to engage at all times were useful qualities to assist power relations.
|
| 4. |
Engaging with a broader spectrum of institutes
One of the Mid-Term Review’s recommendations was to try to engage beyond the more established institutes and to work more closely with community-based and activist organisations. CAGE actively responded to this suggestion, through capacity building, encouraging the, twinning model between emerging and higher profile institutes as well as activating an opportunity for grants of low amounts for between € 5,000 and € 10,000.
|
| 5. |
Going beyond funding: building capacity and deepening collaboration
In addition to its primary funding aim, CAGE focused on building the capacity of NGOs, especially community-based and grassroots organisations. This included basic research training workshops, which provided the first opportunity to learn these skills for many of the participants. The twinning model also assisted in the transfer of skills with research capacity being enhanced as teams of researchers with varying experience worked closely together.
The ‘CAGE Community’ initiative intended to enhance learning between grantees. Although the initiative did not become properly established owing to CAGE’s own lifespan running out, some grantees did feel that the learning group was a useful platform for networking and collaboration with others in the research field.
|
| 6. |
Monitoring and Reporting
As part of CAGE’s obligation to EU monitoring requirements, grantees were required to report on a quarterly basis. Grantees appreciated the information sessions that CAGE held on the reporting requirements and templates, and noted that it was fairly unusual for donors to interact with its grantees in this way. Grantees found it especially useful to understand the regulations and requirements of the EU. However, many found the reporting requirements and formats burdensome and some noted the rather distorted ratio of funds to paperwork in comparison to other donors. The fact that grantees had to report quarterly caused a number of objections – it was felt that reporting at such frequent intervals was inappropriate for more long-term research projects where reporting became more about activities rather than results. CAGE’s approachability around the reporting went some way to tempering these rigorous requirements.
|
| 7. |
The CAGE Secretariat - a high performance team
The reviews confirm that CAGE has been an efficient grant-making body. Although a small four-person team, the organisation has managed to successfully implement three Calls for Proposals, often finding innovative ways to deal with complex situations. The reality of a small team contingent did present unfortunate situations at some stages – for example CAGE was unable to attend all review meetings that grantees invited them to. CAGE did however endeavour to submit detailed written comments where possible, and this was welcomed by grantees.
|
| 8. |
Positive feedback from grantees
“…CAGE forced us into translating our research into real world agendas, and asked how we were going to engage policy makers and engage stakeholders at other levels and in different ways. Utilising the research in a way the can cultivate a national intellect and culture of debate.”
(Adam Habib, HSRC)
“The IBI team looks back on our working relationship with CAGE as a very worthwhile, if not a deeply satisfying experience.”
(Dani Venter, IBI)
“CAGE has really tried to develop research capacities for people traditionally excluded from this high up research world.”
(Representative from emerging organisation at CAGE-sponsored workshop)
“I think the most important innovation from their (CAGE’s) side was the engagement with all aspects of the team working on the project.”
(Neuma Grobbelaar, South African Institute of International Affairs)
|
|
|
1Herman, A and Mbokota G. 2006. Conflict and Governance Fund Mid-Term Review and;
Smith, R. 2007. Building Peace through Knowledge and Learning: Reflections from the ‘CAGE Community’
2Bhorat H, Naidoo, P and van der Westhuizen, C. 2006. Shifts in Non-Income Welfare in South Africa: 1993-2004
|
|
 |
|
|
|