Sept Eboardbook - Docx 1

September 14,
2009
InterAction
e-Board Book
Ssojourner
9/14/2009
Table of Contents
Tab 1 RSVP List

Agenda
July 6, 2009 Minutes
Tab 2 Leadership Team Report
Tab 3 Discussion Papers

Forging a New Relationship
Concept Paper for Foreign Aid Reform
Building a More Secure World
Rationalizing Private Development
Creating a Senior Advisory “Thought” Council
Tab 4 Finance Committee Report
Tab 5 Membership & Standards Committee Report
Tab 6 Employee Handbook
Tab 7 Goals
RSVP List as of September 3, 2009
 = Attendence in-person expected  Steve Mosley

 = Attendance by phone expected AED
 = Unable to attend
= Unable to commit  Carol Peasley
CEPDA
 Jo Luck, Chair
Heifer International  Dan Pellegrom
Pathfinder International
 Tsehaye Teferra, Vice Chair
Ethiopian Community Development Council  Jonathan Quick
Management Sciences for Health
 Kathy Spahn, Treasurer
Helen Keller International  Robert Radtke
Episcopal Relief and Development
 Sekyu Chang
Korean American Sharing Movement  Farshad Rastegar
Relief International
 Julius Coles
Africare  Jonathan Reckford
Habitat for Humanity
 Christopher Elias
PATH  William S. Reese
International Youth Foundation
 Anne Goddard
ChildFund International  Carter Roberts
World Wildlife Fund
 Susan Hayes
Interplast
 Zainab Salbi
 Benjamin Homan Women for Women International
Food for the Hungry  Ron Sconyers
 Elizabeth Latham (late arrival) Physicians for Peace
US Committee for UNDP
 Alison Smith
 Melanie Macdonald InsideNGO
World Neighbors
 Richard Stearns
 Mary Ellen McNish
World Vision
American Friends Service Committee
September 2009
Board of Directors Meeting
September 14, 2009
InterAction Offices
Agenda
11:30am-12:30pm Lunch - conference room D
12:30 – 1:00pm Meet & Greet with Staff
1:00 – 1:15pm Call to Order (Tab 1)

1. Roll-call
2. Review of Agenda
3. Consideration for Approval of Board Meeting and Executive Committee minutes ACTION
ITEM
4. Comments from the Chair - Jo Luck
1:15 – 2:15pm Leadership Team Report (Tabs 2, 3, 6)

1. Review of InterAction Leadership Team Report – Sam Worthington (Tab 2)
2. US NGO Partnership with the US Government Paper and White House Task Force Paper
(discussion) - (Tab 3)
3. Foreign Assistance Act re-write and Administration Policy Initiatives (discussion) - (Tab 3)
4. Dialogue with Corporations (Tab 3) ACTION ITEM
5. Employee Handbook (discussion) - (Tab 6)
2:15 – 2:45pm Committee Reports (Tabs 4 & 5)

1. Finance Committee Report – Kathy Spahn and Peter Engebretson (Tab 4)
2. Membership & Standards Committee Report – Bill Reese and Barbara Wallace (Tab
5)
2:45 – 3:00 Break
3:00 - 4:30pm Roundtable Discussions (Handout)

 Introduction (15 minutes)
 Concept
 External Environment
 Move into small groups & (45minutes)
 Topics
 Transforming the US PVO Partnership with US Government
 Relationship/Dialogue with Foundations (from policy direction to
overhead)
 Creating and InterAction Quality and Standards Seal
 Aligning Member Public Messaging around the MDGs
 Mapping US NGO Programs and Rationalizing Private Development
Assistance
 Report back (30 min)
4:30 – 5:00 Executive Session

 will begin with Sam Worthington
5:00 Adjourn
Monday, July 6, 2009
1:00-5:00 p.m.
Crystal Gateway Marriot
1700 Jefferson Davis Hwy
Arlington, VA 22202
InterAction Board of Directors Meeting DRAFT

Board Members in attendance:
Charlie MacCormack, Chairman; Save the Children
Amy Coen, Treasurer; Population Action International
Neal Keny-Guyer, Mercy Corps
Anne Lynam Goddard, Christian Children’s Fund
Jo Luck, Heifer International
Mary Ellen McNish, American Friends Service Committee
Dan Pellegrom, Pathfinder International
Linda Pfeiffer, INMED
George Rupp, International Rescue Committee
Ron Sconyers, Physicians for Peace
Richard Stearns, World Vision
Kathy Spahn, Helen Keller International
Tsehaye Teferra, Ethiopian Community Development Council
Ken Bacon, Refugees International
Carter Roberts, World Wildlife Fund
Sam Worthington, Ex-officio, InterAction President & CEO
Board Members participating by phone:

Carol Bellamy, World Learning
Helene Gayle, CARE
Board Members sending regrets:

Ritu Sharma Fox, Vice Chair, Women Thrive
David Beckmann, Bread for the World
Helene Gayle, CARE
Lee Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Elizabeth Latham, US Committee for UNDP
Julius Coles, Africare
John McCullough, Church World Service
Rob Radke, Episcopal Relief and Development
Zainab Salbi, Women for Women International
Emily Untermeyer, Amigos de las Americas
InterAction Staff:
Allen Abtahi, CIO and Director of Technology
Jim Bishop, Vice President, Humanitarian Policy and Practice
Suzanne Kindervatter, Vice President, Strategic Impact
Lindsay Coates, Vice President, External Relations (phone)
Barbara Wallace, Vice President, Membership & Standards
Board Minutes July 6, 2009, Page 2
Peter Engebretson, CFO

Todd Shelton, Sr. Director, Public Policy & External Relations
Brian Greenberg, Director of Sustainable Development
Devinder Jaitly, Accounting Manager
Luisa Córdoba, Sr. Associate, Resource Development
Laia Grino, Sr. Associate, Research
Sabrina Sojourner, Executive Office Coordinator
Sylvain Browa, Director for Partnership & Development
Constance Warhol, Special Assistant to the President
Minutes
Supporting Documents:
InterAction Board Book July 6, including Leadership Team Report;
Audit report by Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman
Presenter: Charlie MacCormack

Agenda item
Call to Order
Board Meeting Minutes of 03.09.2009. See Tab 1 of Board book
Executive Committee (ExCo)Minutes 04 .16.09 and 05.12.09. See Tab 1 of Board book
Opening Remarks from the Chair
Overview / Discussion:
 The meeting was called to order by Charlie MacCormack, Board Chair, at 1:05 pm.
 The Chair asked the Board to approve Board Meeting minutes for 03.02.09. No changes or
corrections were requested.
 The Chair asked the Board to approve the Executive Committee Meeting minutes for 04.16.09 and
05.12.09. No changes or corrections were requested.
 At this, his last Meeting as Chair of the Board, Charlie MacCormack remarked that it was a great
pleasure to work with the Board and offered warm and sincere thanks for their support and
leadership, especially to Ritu Sharma and Amy Coen. He reminisced about Julia Taft with affection
and celebrated great memories. During this time of significant change for InterAction (IA), he felt
reassured and confident in working with Sam Worthington for the past three years, and InterAction’
s staff. In particular, he thanked the staff that moved InterAction forward during hard times.
He added: In our cause there are always challenges and opportunities. This is a moment of great
opportunity and real difficulties. The new administration signals that they like and approve of what
we do, but there is no clear strategy on how to proceed or partner with our community in a new
era. InterAction should play a lead role in setting the structure, procedures and processes to enter
this new era of relations with the U.S. Government. Also, private development assistance (PDA), at
approximately US$32 billion is significant, and comes with significant expectations of impact and
accountability. Certainly, PDA challenges our organizations and the whole world system to
coordinate more effectively, defying the rugged individualism of NGOs.
Charlie MacCormack closed his remarks by saying that InterAction and our movement is in the most
influential spot vis-à-vis global development that he can remember and wished Sam Worthington,
InterAction and the new Board all the best and offered his full support in new endeavors now that a
2
new journey has begun with the swearing in of President Obama.
Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:

 The 03.02.2009 Board Meeting, and 04.16.09 and 05.12.09 ExCo minutes were unanimously
accepted into the record.
Presenter: Sam Worthington
Agenda item
Leadership Team Report. See Tab 2 of Board book
Enhancing our relationship with the USG
Opening a dialogue with Corporations
Approval of InterAction’s new logo
The Leadership team report was presented by Sam Worthington. He began by noting that “our day has
come.” The expectations of our organizations and accountability concerns about the use of our funds
have increased, even as we position our community to face a highly changing environment.
 He talks about five areas that are affecting our community:
1. President Obama has listed his development priorities (education, climate change, health, food
security and failed states), but none of them are explicitly linked to, or fall within an MDG-like
framework, or any framework at all. The U.S. Government continues to have a dysfunctional
approach to foreign assistant that makes it difficult for our community to partner with and
shape the U.S. Government policy. There is a lack of clarity or understanding about what the
administration means when it speaks of the “elevation of development in the government”: Is
their goal to elevate development as a tool of foreign policy and diplomacy? Is it actually
enhanced U.S. development policy capacity? If so, how? And finally, what role will USAID play?
2. Several concepts central to President Obama’s vision were clear in his speech at Cairo:
transparency, partnership and engagement. Core to this is the belief, by the new administration,
that partnering with civil society is a key element of its strategy, and this includes new ways of
partnering and relationships with our community. To date, we do not know what type of
partnership the administration want and current modes of operating remain. Will the new
approach continue contractor-like models? It is evident there is a new interest in partnering
with our members, but for our community it is not yet clear how or if this will unfold, and at
what cost.
3. There is an ongoing encroachment into the space in which U.S. NGOs operate. The pending
implementation of USAID’s proposed Partner Vetting System (PVS) remains a major
preoccupation. Counter-terrorism norms from the last administration continue to be largely
unquestioned by this administration as they retain strong support within parts of USAID.
InterAction is working to establish the political space to change PVS and to push back on actions
by nation states that hinder the ability of our members to function, such as in the recent
expulsion of member organizations from Sudan.
4. The financial crisis. Our community is systematically dismantling its capacity: layoffs, closings,
and furloughs have been a common theme for the last year. Our collective capacity to deliver
programs is seriously threatened. What is the role of a broader partnership with the public,
government, etc. in light of these events? Sam believes this decrease in capacity goes against
what the interests and policies of this administration.
5. Our community has not yet told its collective impact story. Can we and how should we
collectively do it?
Enhancing our relationship with the USG

Sam Worthington invited the Board to discuss the ideal type of relationship they would welcome with
the US Government, in concrete terms. If we were given the space to act, what would be our concrete
3
ask(s)?
Recurrent answers and suggestions included:

 Request for NGO representation in the most senior level strategic policy development office, and to
be involved in setting goals rather than reacting. Involvement as an implementer and at the policy
level as well. For example, what will be the relationship between the US Government and our
community for food security?
 Charlie MacCormack asked that we determine which are the 2 or 3 levers that need to be moved to
push the issue of relationships with the US Government? Sam responded there are a number of
places where we could significantly impact a broader shift, for example by providing concrete input
into:
o a national development strategy,
o a rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, and
o Redefining public-private partnerships with the Secretary of State. What is not clear is
what/when/who will champion this at USAID.
 In the long-term a Cabinet-level position to partner with the Departments of State and Defense is
essential. We need to be more strident about this.
 The last thing we want to do is to be perceived as another special interest. Our strengths are our
common goals and voice. Aid is the way in which we will attain the goals. Sam Worthington agreed
by noting that promoting a multilateral, multi-stakeholder approach that includes U.S. NGOs is what
will work. For this we need to document our collective impact.
 We need to compare the impact and value of what we do against the contractors. Perhaps the GAO
could do that study? If not, who can do it?
 We must remain bold. Increasingly we are looking at “health and development diplomacy” rather
than a “development strategy. The content of a development approach is as important as any new
structure.”
 The time is right, interest exists, and our community has lots of personal connections with the new
administration. Let’s be better at using them and leverage the multiple entryways. The sum of the
whole is not coherent enough to produce the change we are looking for. Sam Worthington replied,
“As InterAction, we’ll do the best we can to organize, promote sharing and lead our community.”
Opening a dialogue with Corporations

An increasing number of corporations are interested in a collective dialogue with the U.S. NGO
community, from different vantage points and areas of expertise. We lack a space where systematic and
recorded, structured dialogue and space for learning can happen between commercial, industrial and
non-governmental organizations. InterAction has been approached by major corporations with an
interest in initiating such a dialogue. As the U.S. NGO community, we already have thousands of these
types of relationships. InterAction would like to provide structure for the dialogue with Corporations.
The Board had no objections to moving the initiative forward and requested updates. Sam Worthington
offered to prepare a proposed way forward starting in 2010 for the September Board meeting.
Approval of new logo

Sam presented visuals of the new InterAction logo. He then explained the internal process and the
finished “look,” noted the product had been legally reviewed, and requested reactions of the Board.
The Board approved the new brand and liked the new look.
4
 New logo approved
 New dialogue with corporations can move forward
Presenter:
Barbara Wallace, VP for
Agenda item Membership and
Standards
Membership and Standards Committee Report. See Tab 3 of Board book
Membership & Standards Committee Report
The Committee presented six prospective members for approval by the Board:
1. Americas Relief Team

2. Development GATEWAY
3. Intl. Center for Not-for-Profit Law
4. Operation Blessing International Relief and Dev. Corporation
5. Rural Development Institute
6. Solidarity Center
Some concern and request for clarification was expressed regarding the application of Operation
Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation. Sam explained the evolution of the
organization and that they now meet our standards. The Committee reiterated its unanimous
recommendation of Operation Blessing International Relief and Dev. Corporation to the Board.
The Board approved all proposed members.

 All prospective members were approved unanimously by the Board
Presenters: Dan Pellegrom
Agenda item Amy Coen
Peter Engebretson, IA
VP, Finance and
Administration, Andreas
Alexandrou, CPA and
guest
Audit Committee Report by Andreas Alexandrou, CPA; Partner, Gelman, Rosenberg &
Freedman CPAs . See Tab 4 of Board book
Finance Committee report. See Tab 4 of Board book
Audit Committee Report
Dan Pellegrom opened by noting the Committee was pleased with the result of the clean audit. The only
concern expressed by the committee was the timing of the report and failing to have sent it to the full
board before the meeting on July 6, 2009.
The auditor, Andreas Alexandrou, also offers his apology and begin his report:
The Board received two letters: a required communications to those in charge of governance; the other
about deficiencies, if any. The report indicates this is an independent auditors report and Gelman,
Rosenberg & Freedman CPAs gives InterAction an unqualified opinion – the best opinion an organization
can receive.
Mr. Alexandrou made a point to thoroughly explain the audit and answered various Board questions.
5
The audit is clean. Under “Other Matters”, which are not significant and mostly for good housekeeping:
1. the InterAction accounting manual needs to be updated; and 2. an investment account in which the
last CFO still had signature authority. The latter issue was resolved and closed.
In the Auditor’s opinion, this very positive report speaks very highly of management.
The Audit Committee recommended approval of the report. The Board approved.
Finance Committee report

Amy Coen began by acknowledging the work of Peter Engebretson in updating antiquated financial
systems and ensuring an easier way to control spending and managing grants. Other Board members
noted the clear, attractive, and useful presentation of the financial statements
Sam Worthington initiated the dialogue by informing the Board he is presenting a revised budget that
cuts expenses by $800K. The new budget reflects organizational growth of 50 percent from 2006 rather
than the anticipated 70 percent.
Factors leading to the revision are:

 In 2009 InterAction will grow by $800K less than expected.
 Funding from the Ford Foundation is delayed from July to November.
 Foundations are pulling back. With the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, InterAction has
discussed not hiring planned new staff in the grant’s 2010 and 2011 budgets. As part of the
Gates Foundation grant, InterAction has designed a sustainability plan that was presented at the
last Board Meeting (see minutes for March 2, 2009).
 The Gates Foundation has granted the flexibility to move resources around to ensure better
sustainability. Management also successfully applied for a Special Opportunities Fund, a
category within the grant that allows for unanticipated expenditures approved by the Executive
Committee.
Sam Worthington explained that so far InterAction has avoided reducing benefits and personnel, but
that the budget reduction has been a wrenching process. The revision was an effort across the whole
organization to cut on non-personnel spending to meet the required level to be able to perform for the
promised grants deliverables. He noted that the Leadership Team has been fantastic and cooperative.
InterAction continues to raise resources. Sam congratulated Jim Bishop for renewing the relationship
with OFDA. While the overall revised budget shows a decline, Sam noted that we are declining to the
largest annual InterAction budget ever and he believes the organization should be able to maintain itself
at $8M and stabilize itself at that funding level over the next two years.
The new space is completely sub-leased on a year-to-year basis rather than multiyear to maintain
flexibility. The 4 tenant organizations are comfortable with this arrangement.
With regards to membership dues Sam noted that some small members are leaving, but he explained
that the losses are offset by a solid flow of new larger members. Currently InterAction membership
stands at 179 (up from 176 in at the start of 2009) with the number of larger members increasing at a
time when some smaller members pulling out as they are hit by the crisis.
The Board accepted the Audit Committee and Finance Committee reports

 The Board accepted the Audit Committee and Finance Committee reports and the revised budget.
Presenter: Ken Bacon
6
Agenda item Sam Worthington
Nominating Committee Report. See Tab 5 of Board book
Nominating Committee Report
Mr. Ken Bacon recommended the following slate of Officers to the Board:
Jo Luck, Heifer International – Chair
Tsehaye Teferra, Ethiopian Community Development Council – Vice Chair
Kathy Spahn, Hellen Keller International – Treasurer
For new Board members, the Committee recommended:

Christopher Elias –PATH
Susan Hayes – Interplast
Benjamin Homan – Food for the Hungry
Melanie MacDonald – World Neighbors
Steve Moseley – Academy for Educational Development
Jonathan Quick – Management Sciences for Health
Farshad Rastegar – Relief international
Jonathan Reckford – Habitat for Humanity
William Reese – International Youth Foundation
Alison Smith – InsideNGO
Sam Worthington described the Bylaw process to the Board. The Board will vote to recommend the
proposed slate of new Board members to the Members Meeting. At the annual Members Meeting,
members will vote and establish the new board. He added that a lot of people are rolling off the board
and with them goes a lot of experience, which is why some previous board members are part of the
slate.
The Board approved to recommend the proposed slate to the members at the membership meeting
The Board approved the slate of officers by acclamation.

 The Board approved the slate of officers by acclamation.
 The Board approved slate of new board members for vote at the members meeting on July 9,
2009by acclamation
7
INTERACTION
LEADERSHIP TEAM REPORT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
LT Report, page 2
September 14, 2009
INTERACTION
LEADERSHIP TEAM REPORT
September 14, 2009
Introduction
InterAction is pleased to welcome eleven new member CEOs to its Board of Directors. Our new Board
members reflect the broad diversity of the InterAction community and we look forward to working with
this new class. We also fondly remember Ken Bacon the CEO of Refugees International who recently
passed away. For many years Ken was an active InterAction Board member and an active leader whose
vision helped shaped our community’s work with refugees and the humanitarian space for NGO. Ken will
be missed.
Significant financial challenges now confront much of our community and for many organizations this is
a difficult time for both their leadership and staff. At the same time, as a community of U.S. NGOs we
face unique opportunities to shape the overall direction of U.S. foreign assistance and the evolution of
private development flows. InterAction is actively engaged in helping our members navigate these
waters and we are involved in senior-level conversations to shape a policy environment that is
supportive of community-based development efforts and the missions of our members.
For the first time in a generation, the U.S. NGO community is shrinking and many organizations are
dismantling or contemplating reducing their operational capacity. This pull back is affecting the world’s
poorest peoples as U.S. NGOs have fewer private resources to spend on programs or need to reduce
field operations. We do not know how many thousands of staffs are no longer employed to deliver
programs, but it is clear that the private development flows, that fund around 70% of our community’s
$8.7 billion in international expenses, have significantly slowed.
The immediate impact of this shortfall, which runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars, is now directly
felt as programs are cut in the world’s poorest countries. With fewer assets on the ground, and with far
less unrestricted resources, the ability to match donors, maintain operational capacity, and leverage
programs, it will take years for the U.S. NGO community to recover to its former level of program
coverage. Forty percent of the surveyed members have had staff layoffs and another third are
considering reducing their staff. Many U.S. NGOs are closing country offices or reducing funding for
community development programs. Sadly, as parts of our community retrenches, more children will die,
fewer girls will have access to education, family livelihoods will suffer, and more villages will be
underequipped to adapt to the ravages of climate change. These trends and other data from
InterAction’s survey on the impact of the financial crisis on member organizations are available to all
members (see Appendix A).
In order to help leverage resources, advance best practices and utilize the latest GIS mapping tools,
InterAction is actively engaged in efforts that could both help rationalize and increase the flow of private
development resources into our community and people centered development efforts. At the heart of
this initiative is a mapping project that aims to link data on field projects across our community at the
nation state level and, ultimately, to help inform donors. InterAction just received a grant from a UN
agency (IFAD) to map our member’s food security work and thanks to USAID we have found a solid
technical partner in Fortius One.
At the same time, InterAction and its members have some of the biggest opportunities in decades to
directly shape important foreign assistance policy. Congressman Berman, the Chair of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and his staff are rewriting the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), which hasn’t been
successfully rewritten since its inception in 1961. Working with Congress, InterAction, through senior-
LT Report, page 3
September 14, 2009
staff and CEO-level Task Forces on Aid Reform, is actively helping frame the overall thinking of our
community and its approach to a new Foreign Assistance Act. We will also work closely with the
Administration’s co-chairs of the first U.S. State Department Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy
Review (QDDR). Lastly, we were contacted this week by the White House informing InterAction that
President Obama just signed a presidential study initiative on U.S. global development policy and that
the National Security Council wants InterAction, and other key stakeholders, to provide input during a
120 day inter-agency process.
As always, there is a tendency in Washington to defend the status quo as it pertains to individual
interests. However, rarely has our community seen the potential to positively affect how U.S. foreign
assistance is prioritized for decades to come as the opportunity promised by the current House Foreign
Affairs Committee and Obama administration processes. We hope we are able to embrace consensus
goals, which will be reflected in the new legislation and in the new policy documents. InterAction will be
the primary voice to bring a collective U.S. NGO/PVO programmatic perspective to these policy efforts
and the FAA rewrite.
Each of these reforms could shape the direction of U.S. foreign assistance and the role parts of our
community plays as a U.S. Government implementing partner. It is crucial that InterAction and its
members are able to provide clear and effective input into these various policy and legislative initiatives.
The door to engage with the administration and Congress is wide open and our biggest challenge is the
ability of our community to reach a bold consensus that focuses on the reality, needs, and rights of
world’s poor.
A recent book, and other data, shows that the U.S. NGO community has become an increasingly small
and minor partner of the multiple agencies involved in delivering U.S. Government’s foreign assistance.
While this is not true for all members or in such areas as humanitarian assistance, since the mid 1990s,
the delivery of U.S. aid has been largely based on a contractor rather than a partnership model. The
1961 Foreign Assistance Act talks about a U.S. foreign aid program that includes the U.S. Government
building a common good with what we now call U.S. civil society. How this topic is approached, and the
extent to which foreign assistance is focused on the poorer and more vulnerable populations of the
world within the QDDR or re-write of the FAA, will have a lasting impact on our community and the
populations we seek to serve. Assuming a new Foreign Assistance act is written, all of the collective
advocacy capacity of our community will be needed to ensure bipartisan support.
InterAction recently celebrated its 25th Anniversary at the Forum 2009 which brought together a total of
892 participants, with a collective representation of 276 organizations from across the United States and
around the world. Among those who participated were 104 InterAction members and 172 non-
members, including government agencies, the philanthropic community, corporate entities, educational
institutions and think tanks. Forum 2009 focused on transforming our future and shaping the next 25
years of service to the world’s disadvantaged through a series of 37 thought provoking workshops
involving a total of 129 speakers. Thank you for making our 2009 Forum such a success and I look
forward to seeing you at our Forum 2010 on June 1-4!
Below is a summary that highlights selected efforts to advance InterAction’s goals:

LT Report, page 4
September 14, 2009 Board Meeting
Goal Activities
Advocacy Day: InterAction’s 17th annual Advocacy Day convened on the first full day of
this year’s Forum. More than 130 member staff, Public Policy Committee members, and
other Forum participants met with nearly 90 offices on Capitol Hill to highlight the
importance of humanitarian relief and development, and to make specific requests of
congressional staff. The efforts on Capitol Hill resulted in 12 new cosponsors for H.R. 2139,
The Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009.
Appropriations: Since the last report, staff has monitored and tracked the FY2010
appropriations bills, reporting on committee consideration of the State, Foreign
Operations bill in the Senate and helping mobilize support for the House State Foreign Ops
bill when it was considered on the floor. We alerted IA members to four amendments on
the House floor proposing cuts in funding, urging calls to congressional offices opposing
INTERACTION WILL PROMOTE A BOLD AGENDA
the amendments. Thanks to our efforts and those of others, the amendments were
defeated and the bill passed without funding cuts.
Foreign Assistance Reform: The House Foreign Affairs Committee staff shared a concept
paper early in August that laid out a proposed structure for a new Foreign Assistance Act,
which would replace the aging 625-page Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under which the
U.S. government presently provides humanitarian and development assistance.
InterAction staff collected and collated comments from the community and provided it to
the committee staff.
The InterAction Foreign Affairs Task Force has been re-engaged under new co-chair
leadership and will begin to work on the reform agenda bringing to the fore, the NGO
perspective to the debate. With new funding from Hewlett-Packard, InterAction is
convening a CEO Task Force on Foreign Affairs Reform which will meet quarterly to
marshal the strength, vision and power of our community on the reform agenda. Policy
staff joined Roundtables hosted by HFAC to discuss specific sectors within foreign
assistance reform. Topics included the environment, microenterprise, and gender.
Climate Change: With the Copenhagen meetings coming in December and major
domestic climate and energy legislation working its way through the Congress, our Climate
Change Working Group (CC WG) has had a busy quarter. We continued advocacy in
support of strong US leadership to limit emissions, as well as in providing adequate
funding for clean technology cooperation, reduced deforestation and adaptation to
climate impacts in vulnerable communities. Most legislative activity is currently
concentrated in the Senate, so InterAction staff and CC WG members met with various
I.
Senate offices asking for robust increases in allocations over those proposed in the House
bill.
InterAction is also working with members and the US Climate Action Network on
influencing the outcome of the G20 meetings in September that will focus on financial
architecture for climate adaptation. With G20 Finance Ministers tasked with reporting
progress on climate finance, CC WG members met with representatives of the Treasury
Department to discuss policy planning for the meetings and to advocate for increased
funding.
LT Report, page 5
September 14, 2009
Goal Activities
The CC WG also convened a workshop panel to discuss climate adaptation funding from
an aid effectiveness perspective. The working group also hosted a presentation by
Resources for the Future to discuss its ‘Adaptation Atlas’, an innovative web mapping and
adaptation program resource to enable organizations to better match their program
responses to country level needs. As part of a comprehensive InterAction effort to track
administration responsiveness to priorities in the Foreign Assistance Briefing Book, the
working group convened to assess and rate policy performance to date. Though
expressing cautious optimism, our rating also reflected significant concern about
insufficient or lagging leadership at both domestic and international levels to address the
threat posed by climate change.
Food Security and Agriculture: The Food Security and Agriculture Working Group (FS/Ag
WG) has been actively supporting and shaping the Obama administration’s food security
INTERACTION WILL PROMOTE A BOLD AGENDA
and agriculture initiative. On the legislative front, the working group collaborated with the
Roadmap coalition to advocate on behalf of current legislative opportunities such as the
Lugar-Casey, McCollum and the McGovern-Emerson bills. McCollum’s ‘Global Food
Security Act’ included language suggested by InterAction’s FS/Ag WG. Within the press
release that accompanied the bill’s introduction is a statement by Sam Worthington.
Beyond supporting significantly increased funding for agricultural development, the FS/Ag
WG has moved to shape the food security strategy and programs that would follow from
it. Representatives of the working group, in cooperation with the Roadmap group and
leading InterAction advocacy members such as Bread for the World, met with the Inter-
Agency Task Force on Food Security and Agriculture and USAID staff to submit technical
recommendations and provide feedback on the draft Food Security/Agriculture strategy.
In addition to submitting a detailed response to the draft strategy to the Task Force,
InterAction also provided technical papers on agricultural extension and technology to
support its efforts.
Along with other InterAction working groups, the FS/Ag WG convened to review and rate
the administration’s effectiveness to date in addressing the food security priorities
identified in the Foreign Assistance Briefing Book. Though InterAction signaled overall
satisfaction with steps the administration has taken to date and with the increased
funding proposed for agricultural development and food security, it also remains
concerned about the absence of an administrator for USAID.
G8: InterAction received media accreditation to attend the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy
and we released two response statements to the outcomes of the Summit.
II.
G20: InterAction is preparing for a large member presence at the September G20 Summit
in Pittsburgh. With tremendous help from Brother’s Brother Foundation, a local
InterAction member, we are organizing a NGO hub near the convention center, allowing
members access to workspace and a business center to aid their mobilization efforts in
Pittsburgh. Leading up to the Summit, Sam Worthington is co-hosting an event with World
Bank president Robert Zoellick to discuss their expectations of Summit outcomes on
poverty related issues.
InterAction developed a comprehensive communications plan for the Summit. Activities
include a pre-event audio background briefing that will feature member policy directors, a
pre-event audio press briefing with InterAction member CEOs, a special web page that will
incorporate member papers, a joint calendar of activities and other key information in
pursuit of earned media opportunities in the Pittsburgh area.
LT Report, page 6
September 14, 2009
Goal Activities
Partner Vetting System: Between June and August, InterAction engaged in an active
dialogue with representatives from both the State Department and USAID about our
objections to the Partner Vetting System (PVS) as it is currently framed. While the final
rule that allows the PVS to be implemented became effective on August 4th, senior officials
at USAID have assured us that implementation of a pilot program will not begin until full
consultations with NGOs have been conducted. InterAction expressed its willingness –
both verbally and in writing – to engage in such consultations. InterAction staff has
maintained an active discussion with interested parties on Capitol Hill and garnered
explicit support on this issue: the Senate Appropriations Committee FY2010 State, Foreign
Operations appropriations bill and report both contained language that would require
USAID to undertake a comprehensive review of the PVS before taking any further action
toward implementation.
I. INTERACTION WILL PROMOTE A BOLD AGENDA
UN General Assembly: InterAction is in the process of planning a joint event with the
Millennium Challenge Corp leadership to further promote the importance “country owned
development” during the upcoming UN General Assembly.
Poverty Week: Plans are underway for InterAction’s annual Progress Against Poverty
Week, which will take place October 13-16. Three key aspects of global poverty will be
featured on our website during the week and daily events are in the works.
Media Outreach: Ongoing work continues to build and strengthen relationships with
journalists who cover climate change, foreign aid reform and other topics on Capitol Hill.
InterAction Senior staff recently met one-on-one with a key journalist from CQ/Roll Call to
discuss the fall legislative agenda. Plans are underway to schedule similar discussions with
journalists from other outlets.
Implementation Mechanisms: InterAction was invited by a Senate appropriator to provide

feedback on USAID’s increasing reliance on infinite quantity contracts (IQCs). To respond,
InterAction convened a small group of its members who are active on USAID management
reform issues and developed a recommendation on how to address this issue. Elements of
this recommendation are reflected in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s FY2010
State, Foreign Operations report. InterAction will continue to convene interested
members to explore and advance opportunities for further advocacy on this issue. Late in
August, InterAction was invited to attend an off the record small meeting with the head of
USAID’s Office of Acquisitions and Assistance, where various issues regarding grants,
cooperative agreements, contracts, fee for contracts and other items were raised as
agenda points for the next Partner’s Day meeting.
LT Report, page 7
September 14, 2009
Goal Activities
Best Practices: With funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD) now confirmed, InterAction will launch the first phase of our Best Practices and
Innovations (BPI) Initiative, which will focus on agriculture and rural livelihoods. The
purpose of the initiative is to promote information sharing on effective program
II. INTERACTION WILL DEMONSTRATE AND ENHANCE NGO ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPACT
approaches, and to improve practice standards by boosting the efficiency and impacts of
field programs. A subgroup of InterAction’s Food Security and Agriculture Working Group
has helped to identify the focal activity areas and to develop selection criteria. The
initiative will be formally launched this fall, and the first set of winners announced by
January or February of 2010 (members and others were first introduced to this initiative
during the July Forum, which included a session with IFPRI and IFAD on “How to Make
‘Best Practices’ Better”). Winners – ‘best practices and promising innovations’ – will be
chosen by a Selection Committee composed of InterAction members and non-member
experts, and be featured on InterAction’s new online “member project directory” (which
will be developed concurrently).
InterAction Member Project Mapping Directory: After engaging in various rounds of

consultations with three highly recommended vendors, InterAction has identified Fortius
One as a strategic partner for this effort. The map will feature InterAction member
projects from around the world in a “member project atlas,” and include best practices
and a social networking functionality. In preparation for launching the map in early 2010,
InterAction staff will consult with key members on how they currently maintain their
project data. The first phase of the map, which will be created with funding from IFAD, will
focus on Food Security & Agriculture, but will also span across other sectors if feasible.
Working Group Effectiveness: Guidelines for Effective Working Groups, a resource

document, is in draft stages. The handbook will serve as a resource for InterAction staff
that manage working groups, as well as co-chairs in their roles as working group
facilitators. In September, all interested staff will be invited to discuss and finalize the
guidelines and a final document will be available in October.
PVO Standards Stakeholder meetings: The Membership and Standards Team hosted a
workshop at the 2009 Forum to provide members with an opportunity to engage in
discussion about InterAction's PVO Standards and the Self - Certification - Plus (SCP)
evaluation and compliance reporting process. In this stakeholder meeting we shared the
results of our 2006 and 2008 Self-Certification-Plus process and addressed the areas
where member organizations indicated difficulty in either meeting the standards or
evaluating clearly their compliance as well as offering recommendations for improvement
of the process. We hope these discussions will lead to the formation of a stakeholder
group to revamp and update the InterAction standards and the Self- Certification-Plus
process.
GIK: Another group of stakeholders met at the 2009 Forum to discuss InterAction's gifts-
in-kind and food aid standards with the aim of forming a GIK - Food Aid Standards
working group that would look into updating and revising InterAction's GIK and Food Aid
Standards. These discussions were very successful and resulted in a first planning meeting
of InterAction Gifts-In-Kind (GIK) Working Group in August to gauge interest in the
formation of such a group and drafting a scope of work for the GIK Working Group.
LT Report, page 8
September 14, 2009
Goal Activities
Gender Integration: InterAction through the Women, Faith, and Development Alliance
(WFDA) secured funding from the United Nations (UNFPA) to develop a replication of
WFDA approaches, building on the work already done in Australia and Liberia. WFDA is in
the process of tracking the Commitments made in April 2008 and will release a report in
Fall 2009 on the progress of the Commitments. A Gender Integration Working Group has
been launched, offering a “special topics series” which began with a June meeting on IA’s
II. INTERACTION WILL DEMONSTRATE AND ENHANCE NGO ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPACT
Gender Equity Amendments. Two day-long Gender Audit workshops were offered this
spring, and fall trainings are being planned. At the request of west coast members, we are
exploring a possible winter 2010 Gender Audit session in the west. A redesign of the
gender audit tool is in process.
Evaluation and Program Effectiveness Working Group: The Evaluation and Program
Effectiveness Working Group hosted multiple events at the InterAction Forum. The first
was a workshop, which featured panelists who shared their experiences successfully
measuring the impact of empowerment programs and using evidence to influence
decision-makers. The second event was a private meeting that focused on strengthening
InterAction’s new partnership with and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation
(3ie), and the third was an open discussion between Forum participants and 3ie’s the
Executive Director to learn more about and explore opportunities with 3ie.
Database and Web Site Project: The new InterAction.org website had a soft launch on July
31, with additional content being added and new features coming online. The official
launch will take place just prior to the September Board meeting. The database (CRM)
aspects of the project began in mid-August.
LT Report, page 9
September 14, 2009
Goal Activities
International Forum of National NGO Platforms (IFP): InterAction and Coordination SUD
co-hosted the first Facilitation Group meeting of the IFP in early July 2009 in Washington,
DC. The IFP was founded in October 2008 in Paris, France at a meeting attended by over
III. INTERACTION WILL BE THE PRIME VOICE AND PRIME
100 national NGO platform representatives from 82 countries. The purpose of the IFP is to
promote collaboration between national associations of NGOs around the world. The
REPRESENTATIVE OF U.S. INTERNATIONAL NGOS
Facilitation Group has a two-year mandate with four major areas of work intended to
provide the groundwork for IFP activities moving forward. The July meeting focused on
the IFP’s terms of reference, a feasibility study to be conducted jointly with AFD (Agence
Française de Développement) on long-term funding, and reviewed progress made on the
on-line resource center: www.ong-ngo.org. Facilitation Group members are: ABONG
(Brazil), ACCIÓN (Chile), CONGAD (Senegal), Coordination SUD (France), VANI (India),
PIANGO (Oceania), InterAction (USA), Espace Associatif (Morocco), CNONGD (DRC), and
SADC-NGO Council (Southern Africa).
Open Forum on CSO Development Effectiveness: The Open Forum, an international CSO-
led process to develop a global framework on CSO development effectiveness and
enabling conditions for CSO work, has submitted a funding proposal to a joint group of
government donors. As one of the six lead institutions to implement the mandate of the
Open Forum, InterAction is in the early stages of planning consultations with our members
and other civil society representatives in the US. InterAction is also responsible for seeing
that consultations are carried out in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the South
Pacific.
Aid and Development Effectiveness: At the InterAction Forum, a panel was organized with
the purpose of drawing lessons learned from field practice to inform policy in the aid
reform process. The panel highlighted the importance of a focus on development
effectiveness and the difficulty of translating field knowledge into well-formulated policy
recommendations. InterAction also continues to actively participate as a member of the
Better Aid Coordinating Group, an international grouping of CSOs that are looking critically
at implementation of the Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda for Action, and the agenda
of the 2011 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness.
Fundraising: In August InterAction obtained an eleven month extension of its cooperative
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
AND RAISE RESOURCES TO
agreement with 0FDA for 2007-2009. This will allow InterAction to complete work which
IV. EMBRACE EFFECTIVE
will not be finished by the original September 30 deadline due to unforeseen events in
Darfur Chad and other emergency locations. The extension should allow InterAction to use
approximately $500,000 which otherwise would have reverted to OFDA. InterAction also
signed two grant for $200,000 each from the Hewlett Foundation and IFAD to support
activities described in this report.
LT Report, page 10
September 14, 2009
The list below presents a brief description of our current working groups.
Aid Effectiveness
Chair: InterAction
Focus: Represents the U.S. NGO community in the context of the Paris Declaration, as well
as bridges the Paris Declaration context and issues with efforts around U.S. foreign
assistance reform.
Afghanistan Reconstruction Working Group

Co-Chairs: International Rescue Committee and Catholic Relief Services
Focus: Humanitarian situation, the role of NGOs and other actors in Afghanistan, and
advocacy efforts.
Agriculture Working Group

Co-hairs: Bread for the World & Winrock
InterAction Working Groups
Focus: Provides members with a forum to support relevant policy reform, exchange best/
and innovative practices, and discuss areas of concern. Open to InterAction members and
non-members.
Avian & Human Pandemic Flu Working Group

Chair:, InterAction
Focus: National and international planning, NGO response to both animal and human flu,
organizational preparedness and advocacy efforts. Open to the wider international relief
and development community.
Climate Change Working Group

Chairs: ActionAid and World Wildlife Fund
Focus: Explores the programmatic and policy nexus connecting climate change and the
activities and issues associated with international development and humanitarian relief.
Commission on the Advancement of Women Program Advisory Group

Co-chairs: PACT and Women Thrive Worldwide
Focus: An advisory group on gender and integration.
Disaster Risk Reduction Working Group

Co-chairs: Church World Service and Oxfam America
Focus: Raise the profile of international disaster risk reduction policy and programming
and encourage the quality of risk reduction practice by promoting endorsed standards and
indicators.
DRC Working Group

Co-chairs: Food for the Hungry and Mercy Corps
Focus: Raise awareness about continuing humanitarian needs in DRC, transition between
relief and development, and advocacy efforts.
LT Report, page 11
September 14, 2009
Evaluation and Program Effectiveness Working Group (EPEWG)
Co-Chairs: CARE & Church World Service
Focus: Aims to build capacity of InterAction and its members to demonstrate greater
effectiveness, and contribute to communications and advocacy initiatives to influence the
U.S. and global aid effectiveness discourse. Open to InterAction members and non-
members.
Foreign Assistance Reform Task Force

Chair: Oxfam
indicators.
Gendering of Foreign Assistance Reform (GOFAR) Task Force

Co-chairs: ICRW and Women Thrive
Focus: Meets to work on how to integrate gender more broadly into U.S. assistance within
the context of InterAction’s ongoing advocacy.
Gender Integration
Chair: InterAction
Focus: Sharing strategies, tools, and resources to integrate gender throughout member
organizations’ programming and advocacy work.
Gender Based Violence Sub-Working Group

Co-chairs: International Rescue Committee and Women’s Refugee Commission
Focus: Develops coordinated messages advocating for policies, funding and programming
that address GBV needs and concerns with key policymakers, donors and implementing
partners. The group will work to identify and disseminate information of best practices in
prevention and response programming, building member capacity to respond to and
prevent GBV and supporting improvements throughout the humanitarian community.
Global Hunger Crisis Working Group

Co-chairs: Save the Children and World Vision
Focus: Information sharing among members responding to the global food crisis, advocacy
relating to structural changes within the U.S. government to improve food security and
food aid, engagement with the UN, IFIs, and U.S. government.
G8 NGO Coordination Group

Co-chairs: Basic Education Coalition; CARE; Global Health Council; US Climate Action
Network; Water Advocates
Focus: Comprised of members working in collaboration with European counterpart
platforms and the Global Campaign for Action against Poverty (GCAP). This group guides
InterAction’s involvement in annual G-8 summits. InterAction leverages this working group
for its ongoing G-8 related advocacy in the U.S. and with NGO platforms in G-8 countries.
LT Report, page 12
September 14, 2009
Health in Relief and Development (HIRD) Working Group
Co-chairs: Academy for Educational Development and American Refugee Committee
Focus: Provides members with a forum to support relevant policy reform on various
health-related issues with an emphasis on multi-sector approaches, share insights and
exchange best practices, and discuss areas of concern. Open to InterAction members and
non-members.
Humanitarian Partnerships Working Group

Co-chairs: Christian Children’s Fund and International Medical Corps
Focus: Providing members with a forum to discuss areas of concern and interest in their
work with UN Agencies, including issues related to budgeting, governance initiatives,
leadership, and collaboration with NGOs.
Iraq Working Group

Chair: International Rescue Committee

Focus: Information sharing, inter-agency coordination, monitoring displacement and
advocacy efforts.
MCA (Millennium Challenge Account)

Co-chairs: Women Thrive Worldwide and Bread for the World
Focus: Monitoring the implementation of the MCA, coordination of advocacy activities
with civil society organizations in eligible countries, and engaging with Congress and the
MCC on behalf of the NGO community.
Outreach/Communications
Chair: InterAction
Focus: Skills-building and information sharing forum for grassroots advocacy and public
interest communications staff.
Protection Working Group

Co-chairs: World Vision and Christian Children's Fund
Focus: Enhance protection for refugees, IDPs and civilians affected by conflict, increase
capacity of international organizations, the US government and NGOs to incorporate
protection into humanitarian programming.
Public Policy Committee

Co-chairs: CARE and Habitat for Humanity
Focus: Comprised of representatives of more than forty member agencies, the group
shares information and coordinate advocacy efforts. The PPC is the staff-level decision-
making body on advocacy vis-à-vis U.S. foreign assistance and protection of NGO space. It
also serves as a forum for information exchange on various other topics of general interest
to member policy staff.
LT Report, page 13
September 14, 2009
Security Advisory Group
Chair: Save the Children
Focus: Issues of organizational security, international and NGO security coordination, and
the influence of gender on security of humanitarian workers.
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Sub-Working Group

Co-chairs: Catholic Relief Services and International Rescue Committee
Focus: Building internal capacity of member organizations to prevent and respond to
sexual exploitation and abuse through sharing of information and resources between
agencies.
Sri Lanka Working Group

Chair: Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children
Focus: Information sharing and awareness raising.
Sudan/Chad Working Group

Co-chairs: Mercy Corps and Oxfam U.S.
Focus: Operational and advocacy issues related to the Darfur conflict, including IDPs and
refugees in Chad and implementation of the CPA.
Transition, Conflict and Peace Working Group

Co-chairs: IFES, Mercy Corps and National Association of Social Workers
Focus: Exchange best practices and support relevant policy reform on issues of conflict
prevention, actively forging closer relations with State/CRS and USAID/CMM. Open to the
wider international relief and development community.
Uganda Working Group

Chair: (Vacant)
Focus: Ensuring continuity of basic services in northern Uganda during the transition from
relief to development, safe and voluntary returns, and advocacy efforts.
USG Policy and Practice

Co-chairs: (Vacant)
indicators.
West Bank/Gaza Working Group

Chairs: ANERA, Mercy Corps, and Catholic Relief Services
Focus: Information sharing and raising awareness on immediate and long-term issues
related to programs in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Appendix A
InterAction Survey:
Impact of the Financial Crisis on Member Organizations
Background
On May 29, InterAction sent its member CFOs a survey to capture the impacts of the financial crisis on
members’ funding, operations and programs. As of July 2 we had received responses from 451
organizations of varying sizes, as the tables below demonstrate.
Expenses Staff
Less than $1 million 3 1-10 7
$1 million - $4.9 million 6 11-50 11
$5 million - $9.9 million 3 51-100 8
$10 million - $24.9 million 6 101-500 7
$25 million - $49.9 million 11 501-1000 6
$50 million - $99.9 million 4 More than 1,000 6
$100 million - $499.9 million 6 Total 45
More than $500 million 3
No response 3
Total 45
The pages that follow contain our analysis of the responses in sections dealing with the impact on
members’ overall funding, trends in sources of funding, the impact of the financial crisis on member
organizations and programs, and other comments provided by members.
1
We actually received 47 responses. However, one organization responded twice, and because the answers did
not match, we decided to not include either of the organization’s responses in this analysis.
1
OVERALL FUNDING
1. How did your organization end FY 2008? 25

Deficit 22 50.0%
Break-even 15 34.1% 20
Surplus 7 15.9%
15
No response 1 -
10
2. How does it expect to end FY 2009?*
5
Deficit 21 47.7%
Break-even 19 43.2% 0
Surplus 4 9.1% Deficit Break-Even Surplus
*Does not include the one organization that did not
answer question #1. FY08 FY09
To get a better sense of how individual organizations are End FY08 Expected FY09 #
faring, the table to the right provides a breakdown of how Surplus Surplus 2
organizations ended FY08 compared to how they expect to
Break-even Surplus 2
end FY09.
Deficit Break-even 8
The table shows that almost half of the organizations Break-even Break-even 10
surveyed expect to remain in deficit and/or experience a Surplus Break-even 1
deterioration in their financial situation. Note that for the Deficit Deficit 14
organizations that expect to remain in deficit, it is Break-even Deficit 3
impossible to know whether their deficit will be better or Surplus Deficit 4
worse in FY09 than in FY08.
Total 44
3. How did your funding in FY 2008 compare to your funding in FY 2007? How did your organization’s
funding in January-April of 2009
compare to its funding in January-April 16
of 2008?
14
About 55% of organizations reported
that they received more or significantly 12
more funding in FY08 than the previous
year, compared to 24% that reported 10
receiving less or significantly less
8
funding.
The situation was almost exactly the 6
opposite in the first calendar quarter of 4
FY09. While 24% of organizations
reported that they received more or 2
significantly more funding in the first
quarter of FY09 compared to the same 0
period last year, almost 49% reported Significantly Less funding About the More Significantly
that they had received less or less funding same funding more
significantly less funding. 08 vs. 07 09 vs. 08 funding
2
TRENDS IN SOURCES OF FUNDING
The next three questions were aimed at ascertaining the impact of the financial crisis on giving by
various sources of funding. Looking at the three in conjunction, a few conclusions can be drawn:
 While individuals may have been a reliable and generous source of funding in the past, the crisis has
definitely affected their ability to give. While 21 organizations reported that individuals had given
more in FY08 than in FY07, 27 organizations reported that they had received less from individuals in
January-April of 2009 compared to the same period last year. At the same time, most organizations
are seeking to increase funding from individuals.
 Giving by foundations and corporations has also suffered during the crisis. Fewer organizations
report that they are receiving more funding from these two sources, and more report that they are
receiving less. That said, changes in foundation and corporate giving do not appear to be nearly as
significant as changes in giving by individuals.
 U.S. government funding appears to be relatively stable, although fewer organizations reported
that they received more funding from the U.S. government in the first quarter of FY09 compared to
FY08 than in FY08 compared to FY07. A similar trend is evident in international sources of funding.
After individuals, many organizations are looking to the U.S. government and foundations for more
funding, and six organizations reported that they intend to target the government as a new source
of funding.
4. In FY 2008, how did your funding from the following sources compare to funding from those
sources in FY 2007?
25
20
15
10
0
USG Foundations Corporations Individuals Intl Sources
Less About the same More Not applicable

Less 11 10 8 8 3
About the same 9 13 13 13 9
More 13 16 9 21 11
Not applicable 11 5 14 2 21
Total responses 44 44 44 44 44
3
5. During January-April 2009, how did your funding from the following sources compare to funding
from those sources in the same period last year (January-April 2008)?
30
25
20
15
10
0
Less About the same More Not applicable

Less 11 14 12 27 4
About the same 12 15 15 8 11
More 9 6 3 6 8
6. In light of the financial crisis, is your organization seeking to increase funding from existing sources,
or targeting new sources of funding?
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Increase funding Target as new source Neither Not applicable

Increase funding 26 25 18 32 16
Target as new source 6 11 10 6 5
Neither 7 6 8 6 5
4
7. If your organization implements programs that benefit both U.S. populations and populations
overseas, how does funding for international programs compare to funding for domestic programs?
In part, this question was meant to try to ascertain whether the financial crisis is leading donors to
“abandon” international programs in favor of domestic ones. Based on the responses to our survey, and
other reports, this does not appear to be the case.
Funding for International vs. Domestic Programs # % (n=40)

Less funding for both international and domestic programs 7 17.5%
Less funding for international programs, more funding for domestic programs 2 5.0%
Funding levels steady for both international and domestic programs 2 5.0%
More funding for international programs, less funding for domestic programs 6 15.0%
More funding for both international and domestic programs 5 12.5%
Not applicable 18 45.0%
No response 5 -
IMPACT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
8. Is your organization seriously CONSIDERING any of the following in light of the financial crisis?
On average, organizations are considering Measure # %
taking more than two measures to address 1. Salary freezes 23 51.1
the impacts of the financial crisis. While
2. Travel restrictions 21 46.7
some organizations reported that they are
not considering taking any of these 3. Reducing or eliminating programs 16 35.6
measures, others are considering as many as 4. Staff layoffs 15 33.3
eight. The top three measures being 5. Reducing staff benefits 14 31.1
considered are salary freezes, travel 6. Hiring freezes 11 24.4
restrictions, and reducing or eliminating 7. Halting expansion plans 11 24.4
programs. 8. Salary reductions 9 20.0
Other measures organizations reported 9. Pooling resources with another org. 5 11.1
considering include: curtailing operational 10. Merging with another organization 3 6.7
expenses, delaying or reducing expansion 11. None/No response 7 15.6
plans, and staff furloughs.
9. Has your organization had to IMPLEMENT any of the following due to the financial crisis?
On average, organizations have implemented Measure # %
nearly three measures to cope with the 1. Travel restrictions 27 60.0
financial crisis. Some have implemented as
2. Salary freezes 26 57.8
many as seven. The top two measures
implemented are travel restricitons and 3. Hiring freezes 18 40.0
salary freezes, with hiring freezes and staff 4. Staff layoffs 18 40.0
layoffs tied for third. As noted below (see 5. Reducing staff benefits 17 38.6
Q10), 12 organizations also report that they 6. Salary reductions 12 26.7
have had to reduce or eliminate programs, 7. Halting expansion plans 9 20.0
which is also one of the top three measures 8. Pooling resources with another org. 3 6.7
being considered. These actual and potential
9. Merging with another organization 0 0.0
cuts to field programs and staff – two
measures that organizations take only as a 10. None/No response 8 17.8
5
last resort – demonstrate the extent of the financial crisis’ impacts on organizations’ core capacity, and
portend a potentially long recovery for the NGO sector.
One organization indicated that some of the measures they have taken so far are temporary, while
another reported that salary freezes have only been applied for senior staff. Other measures
organizations have taken include: no increases in the employer contribution to savings plan and delaying
and lowering the percentage of salary increases.
10. Has your organization had to reduce or eliminate field programs because of the financial crisis? If
so, please provide some examples.
While the majority of organization have not (yet) had to take this step, 12 reported that they have had
to reduce or eliminate field programs due to the financial crisis. Another indicated that reductions may
be possible in the future. The following are some examples of how the financial crisis has affected
InterAction member programs:
 Cuts to training programs meant to improve the quality of high school education
 Reduction in sponsorship programming
 Closing of several country offices
 Closing of long-standing country programs and a few individual programs not fully aligned with
the organization’s methodology
 Reduction in cash assistance to individuals by one-third
 Elimination of a community development program in Central America
 Reduction in funding for overseas programs in several countries
11. Is your organization shifting the regional or sectoral focus of its programs in response to the crisis?
If so, toward which regions or sectors is your organization redirecting its efforts? Which regions or
sectors is it shifting away from?
While the vast majority of organizations reported that they are NOT shifting the regional or sectoral
focus of their programs in response to the crisis, one organization reported that it is expanding its
regional and sectoral focus to compete for new business and plans to begin implementing U.S.
programs, and another that it will be focusing more on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Africa.
12. Please share anything else you would like about the challenges the financial crisis has posed for
your organization and programs, how your organization is dealing with those challenges, how
InterAction could help, or any other thoughts or concerns.
Responses to this question ranged widely. Some organizations reported that they have taken steps to
contain costs for the past few years and so are well-positioned to deal with the crisis, while another
indicated that it is concerned about the next two years. Another noted that though their problems
cannot be attributed to the financial crisis, the crisis is affecting their ability to recover.
Other responses touched on:
 Financial Impacts: Despite “doing everything right,” some organizations are still struggling. There is
clear concern about how individual giving will fare as the crisis continues, especially on the part of
organizations that do not receive U.S. government funding. Similarly, organizations dependent on
foundation funding are encountering problems, as their existing foundation donors decrease giving
and others limit funding their giving to their current partners. A couple of respondents also noted
other factors that will affect funding levels beyond those covered in this survey, such as the crisis’
impacts on organizations’ endowments, and the Obama administration’s proposals to reduce the tax
deduction high-income taxpayers can take for charitable gifts and to increase the top personal
income tax rate.
6
 Impacts on Programs: For at least one organization, the financial crisis means that it cannot expand
its highly effective programs – developed over many years – at what would have been a highly
opportune time.
 Other “Coping” Measures: In addition to the measures inquired about above, one organization
reported that is has implemented a weekly financial reporting between its CEO and CFO, taken
additional measures to improve donor retention; begun corresponding with donors via email
instead of regular mail; reduced pension contributions; and scrutinized new hires with a focus on
those that could help bring additional resources to the organization.
 InterAction’s Role: In terms of how InterAction could be of assistance during this crisis, several
organizations pointed to the need for help with funding, suggesting that InterAction could help by:
providing educational webinars or sessions on how to access funding from the U.S. government and
international sources of funding; identifying potential sources of funding and/or connecting
members with those sources; and/or facilitating members’ collaborative funding proposals.
Providing a platform for information-sharing between members on how they are dealing with the
crisis is clearly another area where InterAction could be of service.
 Need for Additional Information: One respondent posed additional questions he/she would like to
see the answers to, some dealing with communication about the crisis with general staff. For
example: How are others implementing certain cost-cutting measures, such as furloughs, budget
cuts and staff reductions? How much information is shared with general staff, and how soon? How
is our staff's morale? Are InterAction members starting to see any changes in the economic
landscape?
7
Appendix: Survey Questions
1. In what state is your organization located?

2. What are your organization’s total operating expenses in your most recently completed fiscal year?
3. What is your organization’s fiscal year end date? (mm/dd)
4. How many paid, full-time equivalent employees currently work for your organization?
5. Organization Name (optional)
6. How did your funding in FY2008 compare to your funding in FY2007?
 Significantly more funding [more than 10% increase]
 More funding [3-10% increase]
 About the same [+/- 3%]
 Less funding [3-10% decrease]
 Significantly less funding [more than 10% decrease]
7. In FY2008, how did your funding from the following sources compare to funding from those sources in
FY2007?
 U.S. Government: more, less, about the same, N/A
 Foundations: more, less, about the same, N/A
 Corporations: more, less, about the same, N/A
 Individuals: more, less, about the same, N/A
 International sources of funding (e.g. DFID, UN agencies, etc): more, less, about the same, N/A
8. How did your organization end FY2008?

 With an operating surplus [revenue more than 2% greater than expenses]
 With an operating deficit [revenue more than 2% less than expenses]
 Break-even [revenue within +/- 2% of expenses]
9. How does your organization expect to end FY2009?

 With an operating surplus [revenue more than 2% greater than expenses]
 With an operating deficit [revenue more than 2% less than expenses]
 Break-even [revenue within +/- 2% of expenses]
10. How did your organization’s funding in January-April of 2009 compare to its funding in January-April
of 2008?
 Significantly more funding [more than 10% increase]
 More funding [3-10% increase]
 About the same [+/- 3%]
 Less funding [3-10% decrease]
 Significantly less funding [more than 10% decrease]
11. During this period (January-April 2009), how did your funding from the following sources compare to
funding from those sources in the same period last year (January-April 2008)?
 U.S. Government: more, less, about the same, N/A
 Foundations: more, less, about the same, N/A
 Corporations: more, less, about the same, N/A
 Individuals: more, less, about the same, N/A
 International sources of funding (e.g. DFID, UN agencies, etc): more, less, about the same, N/A
8
12. In light of the financial crisis, is your organization seeking to increase funding from existing sources,
or targeting new sources of funding?
 U.S. government: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A
 Foundations: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A
 Corporations: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A
 Individuals: increase funding, targeting as new source, neither, N/A
 International sources of funding (e.g. DFID, UN agencies, etc.): increase funding, targeting as
new source, neither, N/A
13. Is your organization seriously considering any of the following in light of the financial crisis?
NOTE: This question can be consolidated into the one above, or is there value in knowing what members
have done versus what they are still just considering?.
 Salary reductions  Travel restrictions
 Salary freezes  Pooling resources or services with
 Reduction of staff benefits another organization
 Hiring freezes  Merger with another organization
 Staff layoffs  Halted expansion plans
 Reduction or elimination of programs  Other:__________________________
14. Has your organization had to implement any of the following due to the financial crisis?
 Salary reductions  Pool resources or services with another
 Salary freezes organization
 Reduction of staff benefits  Merger with another organization
 Hiring freezes  Halted expansion plans
 Staff layoffs  Other:__________________________
 Travel restrictions
15. Has your organization had to reduce or eliminate field programs because of the financial crisis? If so,
please provide some examples of such programs [For example: Where? In which sector(s)?].
 Yes
 No
 Not applicable (do not implement field programs)
16. Is your organization shifting the regional or sectoral focus of its programs in response to the crisis? If
so, toward which regions or sectors is your organization redirecting its efforts? Which regions or sectors
is it shifting away from?
17. If your organization implements programs that benefit both U.S. populations and populations
overseas, how does funding for international programs compare to funding for domestic programs?
 More funding for both domestic and international causes
 More funding for domestic causes, less funding for international causes
 More funding for international causes, less funding for domestic causes
 Less funding for both domestic and international causes
 Funding levels steady for both domestic and international causes
 Not applicable (do not implement programs aimed primarily at benefiting U.S. populations)
18. Please share anything else you would like about the challenges the financial crisis has posed for your
organization and programs, how your organization is dealing with those challenges, how InterAction
could help, or any other thoughts or concerns.
9
DISCUSSION PAPER
FORGING A NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
NGO COMMUNITY AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT:
STRENGTHENING U.S. HUMANITARIAN AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Executive Summary
U.S. based non-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which implement international
humanitarian and development programs seek a more balanced relationship with the U.S. government –
one in which we as NGOs are not seen merely as service providers but as the major actors we already
are – actors who leverage billions of dollars a year in private resources. The InterAction NGO
community, which includes the broad diversity of different faith based organizations and non-profit
efforts spanning the diversity of American, bring to the U.S. government skills, tools and knowledge that
are often not accessed or consulted. We have decades of experience and relationships in countries all
over the world where we fund programs separate from the U.S. government. These effective, successful
private sector non-profit programs built and sustained over time by millions of Americans1 are routinely
by-passed and disregarded in the current structure of U.S. foreign assistance.2
We are the direct public face of the American people overseas; we show America’s humanity and
compassion when distributing food to an internally displaced family in an Angolan village; we personify
American’s technical and financial know-how when a Macedonian man accesses critical microcredit
financing to start-up his own business. The InterAction community works with the U.S. government
both in Washington and throughout the world. But our members’ most enduring and strongest
relationship is with the individual Americans who, through their private donations, support and sustain
thousands programs across the globe. We are entrusted by millions of private donors3 to educate
children, help families improve their livelihoods, and provide clean water to villages.
Because this has been our work for decades, we have successful and proven methods of designing
programs, building relationships and leveraging resources. NGOs fund significant programming separate
from U.S. government efforts. With their privately-raised funds, U.S. nonprofit NGOs are exploring best
practices, advancing crucial partnerships with local and international NGOs and with donor governments
and local communities that are often not reached by official U.S. development assistance.
We envision a future foreign policy that includes a greater engagement with and support of these
civilian led efforts. The American people, our foreign policy and relationship to the world’s poor would
1
In 2006, 13.4 million donors contributed funds to InterAction members. These donors include schools, churches,
civic groups, foundation and American citizens from all walks of life.
2
The InterAction community welcomes and appreciates its $2.8 billion relationship with the U.S. Government.
Positive ongoing humanitarian funding relationships and other select USAID programs do achieve much together.
This work with the U.S. Government is however dwarfed by both the amounts of private resources at $6 billion in
2006 that flow into our community and the total overall flows of U.S. foreign assistance that routinely bypass and
rarely leverage our community’s assets.
3
With 106,000 staff in over 150 countries the US NGO community has a largely privately funded that could be
significantly leveraged.
2
DRAFT
benefit from a new strategic engagement by the U.S. government with U.S. civil society engaged in
sustainable development efforts.
To ensure that development assistance is efficient, effective, and non-duplicative, we believe there
needs to be greater flexibility in the U.S. government funding structure to partner with these programs,
as well as to work with the NGOs to draw on and build upon critical best practices.
A redefined relationship between U.S. NGOs and the U.S. government is essential. There currently are
significant barriers to a genuine partnership between the U.S. government and U.S. non profits. These
barriers place at risk the credibility and effectiveness of official assistance. This lack of a significant
partnership between the U.S. government and the U.S. NGOs negatively impacts the aspirations of the
underserved citizens of the developing world. And lastly, but most importantly, is the lack of
achievement of the humanitarian and development missions of the U.S. NGO community and the
expressed desire of the millions of Americans that support them. The capabilities and resources now
invested in international development by the NGO community create positive changes and hope for
millions of people. Linked through a new partnership model, the combined capabilities and assets of the
government and non-governmental organizations can dramatically accelerate the development process.
This vision cannot be realized without a fundamental transformation in the quality and scope of the
engagement between U.S. NGOs and the U.S. government. We believe that a successful relationship
between NGOs and the U.S. government will exist when U.S. NGOs, both large and small, are viewed
and engaged by the U.S. government as essential participants in framing national strategies for global
development and humanitarian assistance, and in designing programs that attract government support,
mobilize resources, implement projects and assess their effectiveness.
InterAction and its member organizations propose the following recommendations, which when taken
together, would serve to enhance and transform the relationship between the U.S. government and the
NGO community in a mutually beneficial way, and ultimately make development and humanitarian
assistance stronger and more effective for people and nations we are working to help.
Key Recommendations:
1. Within the overall direction and goals of the development agencies of the U.S. government,
highlight the need for greater recognition and understanding of a strong and vibrant partnership
with the NGO community (both U.S. and local) to achieve U.S. development goals.
2. Engage NGOs as mature policy actors through regular, consistent meetings and consultations.
Consider developing long-standing joint working groups on top foreign policy development
issues. Ensure there is a mechanism (or mechanisms) for policy input and discussion on program
design or engagement on issues of monitoring & evaluation, logistics or other areas of mutual
benefit and interest.
3. Examine the current practices of grant-making and contract awarding within the government to
allow for greater flexibility and the ability to respond and provide support to privately funded
NGO programs already in progress. Ensure that when competing for resources, the unique
qualities that NGOs bring to the table are accounted for in the decision-making process.
a. NGOs are already working in country.
b. NGOS have developed relationships and expertise in certain areas.
c. Many NGOs have multiple, successful, long-term programs being carried out in the field
funded through private resources, often more than what could be obtained through
government channels.
3
DRAFT
d. Smaller projects often ensure that resources do reach and impact the lives of the
targeted populations, particularly the world’s poor.
4. Ensure that a mechanism to increase opportunities and access to the U.S. government exists and
is strengthened, both financially and policy-wise, for small- and medium-sized NGOs to work with
the U.S. government.
5. To ensure that the three pillars of foreign assistance – development, diplomacy and defense –
are balanced, sufficiently fund the Department of State and USAID to guarantee those agencies
are staffed and funded at a level needed to perform humanitarian and developments functions
successfully. In doing so, the Department of Defense will be able to return to their core mission
and core competencies.
Way Forward:
InterAction and our community believe that when these recommendations are taken into consideration
and implemented, over time, the result will be a stronger, more effective partnership for both the
development and humanitarian agencies of the U.S. government, and the U.S. NGO community. As
shown in our broader paper, both past and current experiences have built a positive foundation and
relationship which allows for input, conversation and open dialogue between the U.S. government and
the NGO community. We seek to both learn from these experiences and build or improve upon them,
and forge entirely new ways to evolve our relationship.
InterAction is working with member policy staff and CEOs to discuss the evolving relationship our
community has with the U.S. government, and the support of our community to U.S. foreign assistance
in the Congress. We commit to engaging in regular meetings with the Obama administration’s
leadership to evolve and grow our joint efforts to create a more prosperous, just, healthy and
sustainable world. InterAction is pursuing meetings and conversations with top officials in the
administration to discuss these recommendations and build further support in the expectation that the
result will be better, more effective development and humanitarian assistance for those we serve in the
field.
4
DRAFT
Background: Implementing Recommendations/Actions

In recent years, a number of troubling trends have developed in the NGO relationship with the federal
government. More prevalent use of contracting funding mechanisms and (WHAT)structures, the role of
the military within the development provision environment, and the lack of consultations with the NGO
leadership and experts are trends that have harmed the U.S. government-NGO relationship as broadly
defined.
Recommendation 1: Within the overall direction and goals of the development agencies of the U.S.
government, highlight the need for greater recognition and understanding of a strong and vibrant
partnership with the NGO community to achieve U.S. development goals.
The vision of an enhanced and more efficient partnership between U.S. NGOs and the U.S. government
cannot be realized without a fundamental transformation in the quality and scope of the engagement
between the two. This must involve increased engagement on the broader policy level and a greater
recognition in U.S. government directives of the importance of such an enhanced relationship.
Actions:
1. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) needs to address and strengthen
the U.S. government relationship with the NGO community.
2. Other U.S. federal agencies’ (the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, etc.)
guiding strategic documents should recognize and outline this same understanding.
Recommendation 2: Engage NGOs as mature policy conversants through regular, consistent meetings
and consultations. Consider developing long-standing joint working groups on top foreign policy
development issues. Ensure there is a mechanism (or mechanisms) for policy input and discussion on
program design or engagement on issues of monitoring & evaluation, logistics or other areas of mutual
benefit and interest.
U.S. NGOs are seen as service providers and not necessarily as policy advisors or knowledge sharers.
Despite having decades of experience in-country, NGOs are rarely consulted or given the opportunity to
present that information when country strategies are being crafted, their expertise and knowledge not
harvested for the wealth of knowledge and information that would strengthen the U.S. government’s
strategic interventions.
Actions:
1. Engage policy conversant NGO staff on a range of issues regarding specific countries and sectors
both in Washington and in-country (if safe to do so).
2. Bring NGOs into policy discussions as organizations with experience working in countries that
the U.S. government cannot operate in.
3. With the leadership of the Department of State and USAID, institute a monthly consultation,
sector or country-specific, with the U.S. NGO community to elicit feedback, guidance,
information and to provide experienced feedback and knowledge on U.S. government programs
and interventions.
a. In the field, the Chief of Mission, in all countries, should have a clear mandate to consult
with multiple U.S. actors, including NGOs on a regular and ongoing dialogue. If the Chief of
Mission does not already, they should regularly collaborate and communicate with those
U.S.-based NGOs that are present in-country. Where USAID mission directors are not
5
DRAFT
already engaged in such meetings, they should conduct monthly meetings with NGO
country directors, particularly in countries with high security concerns.
4. There are currently 86 countries with NGO national platforms, or coordinating mechanisms,
around the globe. To strengthen the capacity of the national platforms, as well as the U.S.
government’s capacity in country, USAID and the State Department should ensure that it has a
developed and functioning structure to create a positive working relationship with the national
NGO platforms in country.
5. USAID should appoint a PVO/faith-based organizations point-person at every AID mission to
reach out to, and partner with organizations on the ground.
Recommendation 3: Examine the current practices of grant-making and contract awarding within the
government to allow for greater flexibility and the ability to respond to programs already in progress.
Ensure that when competing contracts, the unique qualities that NGOs bring to the table are accounted
for in the decision-making process.
For some time now, NGOs have noted with concern USAID’s increasing reliance on contracting rather
than grant mechanisms, and the blurring of the lines between contracts, grants and cooperative
agreements. From FY05 to FY08, for example, funding through Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IQCs) grew
by almost 121%, compared with 8.5% for grants and 34.6% for cooperative agreements. Congress has
also expressed its concern over this trend, noting that the use of funding mechanisms such as IQCs
narrows competition, inhibits the participation of smaller organizations with niche expertise, and “limits
creative and innovative approaches to development.”4 Troublingly, the selection of funding mechanisms
often seems driven by reasons of administrative convenience – partly due to inadequate staffing levels
at USAID – rather than by careful consideration of which mechanism would optimize program
effectiveness.
In addition to the trend towards acquisition mechanisms within USAID, we are concerned by the larger
impact on funding caused by the fragmentation of U.S. foreign assistance to other U.S. government
agencies. The most troubling example of this is the Department of Defense, which now manages about
20 percent of U.S. official development assistance (ODA). Though the military’s involvement in
development and humanitarian relief activities is highly problematic for reasons other than its effect on
funding, the increasing share of U.S. foreign aid administered by DOD – which relies primarily on
contractors – means there is less money available for NGOs.
Actions:
1. Support an assessment and review of the contract-type mechanisms, which would lead to a
revision of regulations and accounting structures at the Office of Management and Budget.
2. Compete grants and cooperative agreements, as well as contracts, but provide for additional
qualifications in the RFP that would recognize the value that NGOs bring to programs – such as
pre-existing community relationships and long-term presence in-country.
3. Build the U.S. government funding structure to include the flexibility in grant making to allow
the government to build upon work already being done in-country by NGOs.
4. Umbrella grants should be PVO-based, and focus on organizations already working on the
ground and partnering with local NGOs, rather than contractors receiving umbrella grants and
then distributing funds to non-profit locals.
4
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2010, 37.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:hr187.111.pdf
6
DRAFT
5. U.S. government funding must include the flexibility in grant making to allow the government to
build upon work already being done in-country by NGOs. Many NGOs have multiple, successful,
long-term programs being carried out in the field funded through private resources.
Focus on:
Articulate Clear, Consistent NGO Partnership Standards and Mechanisms Across USAID
USAID’s ADS manual sets out a decisive mandate for a much stronger, more effective partnership
between NGOs and the Agency than currently exists. The ADS 200 principles for NGO-USAID engagement
include areas such as consultation in developing and implementing policies, strategic frameworks,
participatory mechanisms, and in implementation and evaluation of programs. The NGO community
would be hard pressed to formulate a more compelling justification: “As implementers working in
partnership with USAID, U.S. PVOs can bring great technical expertise in a given sector; people-to-people
linkages with American institutions and know-how; financial and political support of the American people
for the mission of foreign assistance; the ability to communicate effectively across cultures; and expertise
in many of the institutional issues facing host-country NGOs (ADS 200 p. 7).”
In light of the diversity, experience and technical strengths of the NGO community, its potential to
advance USAID objectives is well established. The ADS is quite prescriptive in specifying that USAID ‘must’
maintain the relationship with NGOs because of the compelling justifications: USAID ‘must capitalize on
the diverse backgrounds and experiences of PVOs, which enable them to provide practical solutions to
difficult development and humanitarian problems.’ The ADS also states (200, p. 8) that USAID ‘must’
invest in strengthening U.S. PVOs when this will help them be more effective in working in USAID priority
areas and in working with indigenous NGOs. Moreover, that the ADS stipulates that the Agency ‘must
recognize’ the diverse size and structure of PVOs, and ‘must invest’ in strengthening their capacity when
that is consistent with USAID priority areas.
Yet the current status of the required consultative process (ADS 200 p. 10) on a wide variety of issues with
USAID operational units is weak, incomplete or absent. The ADS guidance is both dated and in key
instances, too vague in defining the operational relationship to adequately guide a redefined partnership.
With the elimination of the Office of Policy Planning and Coordination, cross-agency adherence to ADS
policies on NGO partnership has evaporated.
Recommendations:
1. Review, update and strengthen the ADS manual with a clear accountability mechanism.
2. Re-emphasize the role of the ADS as an operational guide that comprehensively shapes the
Agency’s activities.
3. Re-establish an office of Policy Planning and Coordination, or an office that would assume similar
functions, to oversee adherence to the ADS and to ensure consistency of Agency policy with
implementation mechanisms.
4. Re-establish mutually beneficial partnership models with NGOs to make the achievement of USAID
development goals more likely.
Recommendation 4: Ensure that a mechanism to increase opportunities and access to the U.S.
government exists and is strengthened, both financially and policy-wise, for small- and medium-sized
NGOs to work with the U.S. government.
Revitalize and Expand the Mission of the USAID Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation
(USAID/PVC): In the revitalized PVC, the Development Grants Program and Capable Partners Initiatives
have become important programs for building the capabilities of local NGO partners and small US NGOs.
Yet in moving to direct support toward local NGOs and small U.S. NGOs with limited relationships with
7
DRAFT
USAID, PVC has now promoted considerably more restricted NGO relationships and development
objectives.
In a telling restriction of its NGO partnership model, the Office of Development Partners, in which PVC is
located, is tasked with building alliances with the private sector, the Millennium Challenge Corporation,
and bilateral and multilateral development institutions. USAID lacks an office, overarching policies and
program mechanisms that recognize and promote the contribution of the broad US NGO community to
international development. It also lacks a way to tap the considerable resources of the NGO community
on behalf of the Agency’s objectives. This outcome is counterproductive not only for USAID, but for
NGOs whose mission is to promote international development.
Actions:
1. Strengthen the partnership model in USAID’s Office of Development Partners/PVC to be an
advocate for partnership relationships with the NGO community.
2. Re-establish a program like Matching Grants that leverages NGO resources on behalf of shared
development priorities.
3. Relocate ACVFA in an office that enables it to engage NGOs on a full range of issues of mutual
interest or concern.
4. Revise USAID policies across the Agency to promote not just cursory consultation, but active
collaboration with the NGO community on behalf of shared development goals.
Focus on:
Learning from past successes
AID and NGOs have had a long and fruitful history of engagement spanning the past four decades.
Highlights of this engagement provide a useful guide for ways to establish a multifaceted and robust
partnership with the U.S. government.
For example, in the past, several USAID Missions in Asia have supported large PVO programs, particularly
in the 1970s and 1980s. This included numerous points of contact between NGOs and USAID with
frequent consultations: Missions, Regional Bureaus, the Technical Bureau and offices. At that time, the
PVC Office was a strong voice for NGOs within the agency. Its Matching Grants program provided
resources that enabled many NGOs to develop new and innovative approaches – some of the pioneering
work on microenterprise development was supported out of this office. From 1984-88, the PVC Office
invested significant resources in Matching Grants to PVOs for building the capacity of local NGOs. A
seminal evaluation of the program in the late 1980s was the focus of ACVFA deliberations on capacity
building, learning from success of the past in an attempt to build upon them.
Another success that could be examined and built upon now comes from the 1990s, when the USAID
Administrator at that time initiated an extensive consultation process aimed at maximizing USAID-civil
society engagement, bringing n the NGO community. A number of AID-NGO task forces were formed,
each focusing on a different region or technical area; these task forces met every Friday for six months
with participation of USAID staff required by the Administrator. Also during this period, AID supported
efforts for service delivery organizations to broaden into democracy and governance work. Consultations
also were convened around procurement issues; one concrete outcome was a simplification of the process
for Cooperative Agreements.
These efforts culminated in the adoption of the “USAID-PVO Partnership” in 1995, which was
subsequently revised in 2002. This 15 page guidance within the ADS covers areas including consultation,
participation, etc. See: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/200mau.pdf.
8
DRAFT
Recommendation 5: To ensure that the three pillars of foreign assistance – development, diplomacy and
defense – are balanced, pull the military out of humanitarian relief efforts, and ensure that the agencies
tasked with those programs – the Department of State, USAID, are staffed and funded at a level needed
to perform those functions successfully.
The military’s growing involvement in humanitarian and development assistance is a serious concern to
NGOs. Its operations often blur the line between NGOs acting in accord with humanitarian principles,
and the military’s pursuit of political and security objectives. In the development arena, differences in
mandate and training make the military a poor substitute for civilian experts.
The Congress and new Administration should ensure civilian agencies have the necessary mandates,
funding and personnel to lead U.S. diplomatic, humanitarian and development efforts. The military
should not take on development work to compensate for resource gaps in USAID and the Department of
State. The currently expanding assistance programs of the Department of Defense should be thoroughly
evaluated to ensure effectiveness in meeting its security objectives. U.S. military should, as a rule, be
used in disaster relief as a last resort, in situations requiring an extraordinarily quick response or large
lift capacity. The military response should be limited in geographic and programmatic scope, and should
always be in support of civilian agencies.
Actions:
1. Rebuild civilian personnel and resource capacities at the Department of State and a newly
constituted, elevated independent development agency (see separate briefing paper) by
providing robust support in the international affairs budget;
2. Rewrite and reauthorize the Foreign Assistance Act to promote and protect humanitarian and
development priorities, including reinvigorating related expertise and resources; and
3. Conduct a full review of Department of Defense programs and regional combatant command
activities relating to foreign assistance. Determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of the
Department’s security, humanitarian and development aid programs and the extent to which
they are redundant.
Case Study:
Humanitarian Assistance
Currently, there is a strong and comprehensive relationship between AID and PVOs in the humanitarian area.
USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) works closely with humanitarian PVOs both in the field
and in Washington. Using its notwithstanding authority and Disaster Assistance Response Teams sent quickly
to disaster sites, OFDA often is able to make grants to PVOs within several days of a sudden onset emergency.
In Washington OFDA meets with PVOs responding to disasters abroad to exchange information about
conditions on the ground as well as OFDA’s funding priorities. NGOs use their influence with Congress to
advocate for adequate funding of the USG’s emergency accounts, including that which finances USAID’s
humanitarian programs.
OFDA also supports the humanitarian PVO sector as a whole in several ways. It funds InterAction to serve as a
convener of its implementing partners and other disaster response PVOs to discuss not only responses to
particular crises but developments in the evolution of the sector, such as the ongoing humanitarian reform
process. OFDA funds programs which foster better practices, such as the Sphere Project’s Humanitarian
Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, and also the course entitled Health in Complex
Emergencies currently being offered by a consortium including the International Rescue Committee and
Columbia University. The USAID office also has encouraged development and dissemination of good/ best
practices through workshops it has financed on shelter, livelihoods, and public health threats.
9
DRAFT
OFDA has been particularly attentive to the growing threat to PVO security as their personnel have lost their
immunity to become targets of criminals and political actors prone to pay more attention to opportunities for
theft and intimidation than to respect for humanitarian law and principles. OFDA financed InterAction’s
design of a NGO Security Course and currently funds a security cell at InterAction whose security professionals
discuss the challenges they face, fly quickly to disaster sites to access local threats, and recommend defensive
counter-measures. OFDA has given InterAction a grant to form a professional association of humanitarian
safety and security officers.
In addition to participating in many of the meetings held by PVO working groups to exchange information on
particular crisis and thematic issues such a protection of displaced people, OFDA co-hosts a monthly meeting
with PVOs for information exchanges on less urgent issues. It also hosts an annual meeting with NGO security
officers to solicit their input on programs OFDA should support and a biannual meeting with all of its
implementing partners to discuss mutual relations and future directions.
The positive relationship developed between the humanitarian community and USAID and the State
Department should serve as a case study to build upon and apply to other areas – including the development
community.
Way Forward:
InterAction and our community believe that when these recommendations are taken into consideration
and implemented, over time, the result will be a stronger, more effective partnership for both the
development and humanitarian agencies of the U.S. government, and the U.S. NGO community. As
shown in our broader paper, both past and current experiences have built a positive foundation and
relationship which allows for input, conversation and open dialogue between the U.S. government and
the NGO community. We seek to both learn from these experiences and build or improve upon them,
and forge entirely new ways to evolve our relationship.
InterAction is working with member policy staff and CEOs to discuss the evolving relationship our
community has with the U.S. government, and the support of our community to U.S. foreign assistance
in the Congress. We commit to engaging in regular meetings with the Obama administration’s
leadership to evolve and grow our joint efforts to create a more prosperous, just, healthy and
sustainable world. InterAction is pursuing meetings and conversations with top officials in the
administration to discuss these recommendations and build further support in the expectation that the
result will be better, more effective development and humanitarian assistance for those we serve in the
field.
CONCEPT PAPER FOR FOREIGN AID REFORM
7-23-09
An agile and effective foreign aid program is vital to U.S. national security. Military
leaders agree that the fight against violent extremism requires a civilian capacity to
support local initiatives for meeting basic human needs, to provide training and materials
for preventing and resolving conflict, and to offer technical assistance for strengthening
democratic movements, among other objectives.
Yet U.S. foreign assistance laws, and the system that implements them, are significantly
outdated and poorly suited to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. The
cumbersome architecture designed for a twentieth-century world in which two
superpowers competed for power and influence is no longer adequate in an age where
transnational threats -- such as terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, fragile
states and the spread of deadly disease -- demand broad cooperation. The Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 – the foundation of our foreign aid system -- articulates at least
140 goals and 400 specific directives for foreign assistance, but sets no clear priorities to
guide decision-making. The agency created to administer our economic assistance and
alleviate the worst physical manifestations of poverty has lost its vast cadre of technical
experts and its ability to serve as a leading center for research, innovation and policy
coordination. As a result, and further exacerbating the problem, foreign aid programs
have become fragmented across 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and nearly 60
government offices, without a coherent and consistent strategy to unite them. Antiquated
rules, tortuous procedures and excessive earmarks lock in funding levels more than a year
in advance, with little flexibility to adapt to quickly changing situations on the ground.
And because resource allocations are made without the benefit of quantitative program
indicators and rigorous impact evaluations, there is little basis for determining which
activities and approaches are most effective and where the needs are greatest.
To address these problems, we propose a bill to do the following:
1. Repeal the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and replace it with a completely new
act. We would also consider repealing other outdated foreign aid legislation, and
folding related acts into the new one.
2. Structure the new Act according to seven broad purposes of assistance. The
purposes would be: (1) Reducing Poverty and Alleviating Human Suffering
(development and humanitarian aid); (2) Advancing Peace and Mitigating Crises
(conflict prevention and resolution, stabilization and reconstruction,
peacekeeping); (3) Supporting Human Rights and Democracy (including rule of
law, administration of justice, good governance); (4) Building and Reinforcing
Strategic Partnerships (ESF, FMF); (5) Combating Transnational Threats
(counternarcotics, anti-terrorism, non-proliferation); (6) Sustaining the Global
Environment (tropical forest and coral reef conservation, climate change
activities); and (7) Expanding Prosperity through Trade and Investment (OPIC,
1
TDA). There would be five additional titles for regional provisions, reporting
requirements, authorities and restrictions on aid, organizational reforms, and
repeals.
3. Make “Reducing Poverty” the overall purpose of development assistance, with

nine specific goals. The nine goals would be: (1) Expand livelihoods and incomes
through private sector development; (2) Promote adequate and reliable nutrition;
(3) Advance child survival and maternal health; (4) Strengthen education and
training; (5) Improve delivery of basic health care; (6) Enhance access to safe
water, sanitation and shelter; (7) Protect and restore the natural environment; (8)
Foster equal opportunities for women; and (9) Increase the responsiveness of
governments to the needs of their people. Each of these goals would incorporate
specific objectives, and would be explained in its own subtitle. There would also
be a list of general principles and cross-cutting themes covering all the subtitles.
4. Provide increased flexibility to the administration. This would be accomplished

through broader waiver and transfer authorities; new contingency funds;
simplified and streamlined notification and reporting requirements; and
developing a consensus to reduce earmarks.
5. Provide greater accountability to Congress and the American public. This would
require the identification of measurable indicators of success; better monitoring
and evaluation systems; a detailed and searchable database of foreign aid
programs in lieu of numerous reports; and a needs and performance-based
allocation system for development resources (see below).
6. Establish a needs-based and performance-based system for allocating

development resources. Currently development assistance is allocated on the
basis of how much was spent the year before, which sector has the most powerful
supporters, or where the most recent crisis has been reported. Under the new
system, detailed indicators and measurements would be utilized so that
development aid could be apportioned to where the needs are greatest and where
the dollars are most effectively and efficiently spent.
7. Elevate and strengthen USAID. In order for USAID to exercise meaningful

leadership for global development, it will need to have its own, robust policy and
planning unit; authority to produce its own budgets; a seat on the National
Security Council; responsibility for the coordination and direction of U.S.
contributions to U.N. development agencies, in consultation with the State
Department’s Bureau of International Organizations; the mandate to chair the
Millennium Challenge Corporation Board; supervision of the Office of the Global
AIDS Coordinator; and the ability to convene inter-agency coordination panels.
We would also address constraints on staffing and space in missions abroad,
improvements in personnel training and development, workforce planning,
contracting and procurement regulations, and the calculation of operating
expenses.
2
8. Institutionalize a strategic planning and review process. As part of the
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the President would be
required to develop a strategy for global development. Consistent with that
overall development strategy, USAID would then create strategic plans for each
of the nine “Reducing Poverty” goals.
9. Omit authorization of funds. The bill would establish the framework and basic
authorities for assistance, but would not authorize funding levels or contain any
ceilings or earmarks, even “such sums as may be necessary”.
10. Protection of strategic accounts. The bill would not alter the amounts or the way
aid is provided to key friends and allies.
11. Additional reforms. We are also considering additional reforms, particularly in

such areas as interagency coordination, the return to civilian control of
humanitarian and development programs, division of responsibilities for
reconstruction and stabilization activities, and human rights conditionality.
3
BUILDING A MORE SECURE WORLD WITH EFFECTIVE
U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
PRINCIPLES AND VALUES TO GUIDE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REFORM
1. Poverty reduction must be a primary objective of U.S. foreign assistance because it

promotes stability.
The members of InterAction believe there are both moral and strategic grounds for
making the eradication of extreme poverty and the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals core elements of the U.S. foreign assistance portfolio, together with
humanitarian relief and stabilization. History has shown that countries not able to meet
basic needs and provide opportunities for their people often have come to require greater,
and more urgent, engagement by the United States in later years. A people-centered
development approach requires both long-term investments in the social sector, such as
health and education, as well as trade, debt, and foreign investment policies that promote
job creation and sustained economic growth. Progress toward democratic reforms by
developing countries is important, and InterAction has welcomed the Millennium
Challenge Corporation’s emphasis on human rights, the rule of law, and promotion of
democratic practices. Gender equity should be an integral part of development practice
and a key goal of development programs.
2. Achieving the long-term objectives of global prosperity and freedom depends upon
sustainable development as a long-term process, which should not be sidetracked for any
short-term political agenda.
While U.S. foreign and security objectives will inevitably change to reflect new priorities
in an evolving world, the achievement of long-term development goals requires a patient
and steady approach. Balancing short-term political and economic calculations with the
long-term nature of sustainable development approaches requires a proper mix of short-
and long-term objectives. Given this interdependence, development assistance should be
designed, managed and evaluated from the perspective of its long-term nature, not only
its short-term political impact.
3. Cohesion and coherence, in place of current fragmentation, are necessary to achieve the
effective use of foreign assistance resources.
Since 1997, InterAction has, through the issuance of three papers, called for steps to
address the multiplication of U.S. foreign assistance programs and its implications both
for planning and funding in Washington and for delivery of assistance in the field.
Despite a commitment to create a more coherent policy framework for foreign aid as an
element of national security strategy, the responsibilities and resources for foreign
assistance have been dispersed so widely that the delivery and impact of foreign aid may
fall far short of expectations, including the expectations of the administration. A
coherent structure for aid would be better equipped to plan for and assess the efficient use
of aid resources.
4. Building local capacity promotes country ownership and leads to self-sufficiency.
For development assistance to work, it must be directed toward efforts that its
beneficiaries identify, design, and value. Country ownership, through the participation of
a strong civil society and effective and transparent public institutions, is vital to building
programs and investments that are sustainable for generations to come. Truly effective
assistance must hold all stakeholders - donors, civil society, and government - in the
development process accountable for achieving the defined results that lead to
measurable impact and sustainable changes in well-being.
5. Harmonize priorities among the U.S. government agencies, multilateral institutions and
recipient governments to assure the best use of resources.
In order to achieve the greatest impact for each foreign assistance dollar, partnership,
collaboration, and dialogue with other donors, both bilateral and multilateral, are critical.
Such efforts allow humanitarian and development programs to build upon best practices
and avoid wasteful duplication. Bilateral and multilateral efforts each have distinctive
contributions and should be seen as complementary. Aid works best when donors work
together, each using their comparative strengths to achieve agreed-upon goals to which
both governments and citizens are committed.
6. Humanitarian assistance programs should continue to be a core part of foreign aid and be
guided by the principle of impartiality to conform with international humanitarian law.
The U.S. government has long been a leader in providing assistance to refugees and
others affected by natural disasters and conflict. These programs should be a core part of
U.S. foreign aid and continue to be guided by the humanitarian imperative, which dictates
that help should be provided to all of those in dire need, regardless of politics and creed.
Similarly, programs focused on global health threats such as HIV/AIDS and avian flu
should benefit all of those exposed to risk of illness.
7. U.S. foreign assistance programs should be under civilian control and run by development
professionals in order to be appropriate for the public abroad.
Currently the Department of Defense has unprecedented influence over our nation’s
largest and most visible development assistance programs: those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Additionally, there are recent indications that the Pentagon seeks an expanded role in
foreign assistance activities traditionally undertaken by civilian components of the U.S.
government and American non-governmental organizations. To remain consistent with
American traditions and the image the U.S. wishes to project abroad, the military should
be engaged in foreign assistance delivery only in exceptional circumstances when they
have unique capabilities or responsibilities, e.g. during natural disasters when the
logistical capabilities of the U.S. military may be crucial in providing life-saving
assistance, or during conflict which precludes the presence of civilian aid workers. In
any reorganization, the U.S. Foreign Assistance Program should be under civilian
control.
2
RATIONALIZING PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANCE: A DIALOGUE WITH CORPORATIONS
This concept paper outlines a proposal by InterAction to create a space and dialogue where U.S.
corporations, corporate foundations and NGO leaders can regularly meet at an executive
and/or technical level to discuss policy, the challenges and opportunities facing their
organizations, and the nature and evolution of the relationship between NGOs and
corporations as it relates to development, the environment and humanitarian affairs. Through
an InterAction-Corporate Dialogue, attendees would build bridges across the two sectors where
there is proven interest in increasing the well being, security, and rights of the communities in
which each operates. The dialogue would include approaches to programs and associated
policies that would help advance a coherent, collaborative and forward-looking U.S. global
engagement.
If deemed appropriate, a number of high-level meetings will be held each year on specific
issues or themes, to advance a strategic conversation between our communities’ leadership
and other relevant actors. InterAction will document these meetings in mostly web-based
publications, recording interesting developments and breakthrough ideas to share with a
limited public. The full design and implementation of the InterAction-Corporate Dialogue will
cost an estimated $100,000 annually, which will cover the cost of personnel and necessary
contracted services. Seed funds will be raised from an initial pool of interested corporations and
corporate foundations.
I. Background
The overall architecture of international development assistance has evolved radically with an
explosive growth of private development funding. Over the past decade, the international
development community has witnessed a large increase in investments and contributions from
corporations and corporate foundations interested in conducting better business while
improving human well being around the world. Despite the decreases in corporate funds that
resulted from the financial crisis of the past year(s), support and the durability of these
relationships with InterAction members will remain important. Corporate funds will continue to
invigorate a diverse array of programs (managed by members and non-members alike) but,
without the benefits of high-level conversations to inform their overarching rationale and
principles, frameworks, duplicitous or wasteful efforts, and, antagonistic or mutually-
reinforcing programs, no rationalization of private funding will ever occur.
A multitude of successful, long-lasting partnerships between InterAction members and some
corporations and corporate foundations prove that, despite operating with different business
models and responding to stakeholders with seemingly – or evidently – unrelated visions, the
corporate and international NGO sectors can actually form fruitful strategic alliances to best
serve the communities where they conduct their business; and have:
Corporate Partnership Discussion Paper, page 2
 facilitated sharing lessons learned in operational challenges, sponsored domestic and

international campaigns and mobilized the public;
 increased impact by avoiding duplication and waste of staff, time and monetary
resources; and
 formed a cohesive, even if short-lived, front to advance effective development goals.
One third of InterAction members already manage more than 1800 different types of
international partnerships (i.e. gifts, grants, common projects, in-kind donations) 1 with the U.S.
private sector, including corporations, and corporate & private foundations. These relationships
cut across sectors and include, but are not limited to, healthcare, education, automotive,
energy, technology and pharmaceuticals. The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and the Global
Philanthropy Forum (GPF) are two prime examples of emerging, high-level private sector
interests and investment in global health, poverty, and climate change, among other critical
global issues on which our members have vast experience. However, both of their annual
meetings are too large for private sector leaders, NGO CEOs, and other relevant key players to
quietly discuss frameworks to rationalize these relationships, or to focus on the possibility of
great impact. InterAction members are neither well represented at these venues nor is this
coalition’s aggregated knowledge clearly informing corporate philanthropy decision-making
processes.
At their 2008 survey “The state of corporate philanthropy,” the McKinsey Quarterly found that
for almost half of the 721 corporate executives interviewed, personal interest of the CEO and
board members was the most defining factor in determining the focus of the corporation’s
philanthropic programs, followed closely by employee interest and local community needs. The
same survey showed that the CEOs “set the overall direction, make specific funding decisions,
serve as the public face, and engage in external and internal communications.”2
As a learning organization and convener, InterAction wishes to host a uniquely fluid space for
dialogue that will engage leaders and ultimately lead to strategic, long-term leveraging of each
sector’s comparative advantages. InterAction aims to inform corporations 1) as they define
their philanthropic programs, 2) as the country embarks in the reform of its foreign assistance
architecture, and 3) to shape the nature and framework of the relationship between
corporations and U.S. NGOs.
II. Strategy and Objectives
The structure of the InterAction-Corporate Dialogue will be more clearly defined with the
funding partners. InterAction proposes to hold no less than four meetings in a 12-month
period, including one session at the Annual Forum. After the first year, InterAction will evaluate
the impact and sustainability of the project in future years. Each meeting could be shaped
around:
1
From data found on member organizations websites and annual reports.
2
McKinsey and Company, McKinsey Quarterly: “The state of corporate philanthropy: A
McKinsey Survey,” January 2008.
Corporate Partnership Discussion Paper, page 3
 a theme critical to the development community such as gender, community

development, environment and climate change, health care, democracy and civil
society, and education;
 management tools such as metrics and evaluation, best practices, training, staff care;
 preparation for major events such as the CGI, GPF and others; or
 educating corporations about the role the U.S. public (their employees and clients, and
other constituents) play supporting people-centered development.
The outcomes of the full dialogue will be:

 New and strengthened relationships between the U.S corporate and NGO CEO and
senior leadership community to advance sustainable development in the countries in
which they operate.
 Discussion of critical hurdles and corporate approaches and policies affecting
international development, environmental, and humanitarian issues
 Creation of multiple linkages—across sectors, stakeholders, and leaders in NGOs,
business, the U.S government, and other philanthropists/donors. The resulting new
relationships and the trust forged between actors will become a cornerstone on which
future dialogue can be sustained.
 Every organization at the table contributes expertise and other resources to advance the
conversation in future years.
 Link to InterAction’s NGO mapping initiative and to other NGO CEO-level conversations.
Even though InterAction currently does not have the resources to conduct a thorough vetting of
corporations, we will not invite corporations whose products support warfare, killing, tobacco
or other types of destructive actions. We will engage “brown” extractive industry leaders as an
U.S. NGO dialogue with this community and the possible creation of principles and policy norms
is important to the well-being of the world’s poor.
We envision participants in an InterAction-Corporate Dialogue who will:

1. for business, non-profit mission, and other reasons, see the necessity of a conversation,
2. be interested in advancing , exchanging and increasing knowledge, and
3. explore corporate growth in a socially responsible manner.
Sam Worthington and the Executive Committee will act as vetting “sounding board” to review
corporate engagement in the dialogue both as participant and potential funders. InterAction’s
Leadership Team will provide profiles that include member comments.
III. Resources
InterAction is interested in a relationship with corporate leaders that will evolve over time. To
kick-off the design of the first series of meetings, two elements are needed on equal measure:
the resources of interested corporations and/or corporate foundations, and the resources of
InterAction in terms of its ability to administer the dialogue, and convene and mobilize these
sector’s leaders. All contributing corporations would be included in the InterAction-Corporate
Dialogue, but the participants would not be exclusively those who provide financial support.
Discussion Paper
Creating a Senior Advisory “Thought” Council
In December, 2008, Sam Worthington proposed and the Board of Directors approved the creation of an
informal Senior Advisory Council (Council) with the objective to:
1. Facilitate InterAction’s engagement with prominent actors who shape U.S. private development
assistance, and eventually help InterAction advance an MDG based framework; and
2. Support InterAction’s convening and originator capacities, including our access to new funding
sources.
3. Guide the “NGO Gateway” which will map the footprint and collective impact of the U.S.
international NGO community. This idea will be launched by InterAction and the Wolfensohn
Center at the Brookings Institution.
This is an update on our thinking. Working with other interested institutions and individuals, InterAction
will help create and informal “thought” Council with 25 or so domestic and foreign thought leaders –
including elected InterAction member CEOs– which will meet in early 2010 to discuss ways to help
rationalize and leverage private development assistance flows. The discussion will include best practices
and programs that could be brought to scale. Working with interested organizations and individuals,
InterAction will try to engage an informal group of ‘Principals,’ largely comprised of the leading
philanthropists who shape U.S. private development assistance. Both the thought leaders Council and
the Principals will provide an essential link to the rapidly changing private development funding external
environment within which InterAction and its members operate.
The thought Council will reinforce and complement the leveraging capacity that comes from
InterAction’s Board and member CEOs, but it will not take on any of the policy authority of the
InterAction Board, its committees, and working groups. It will be formed in partnership with Aspen,
Brookings, CSIS, major foundations and other key individuals such as Jim Wolfensohn.
This concept builds on the Board’s advice and feedback to the initial proposal, and outlines more
explicitly the Council’s proposed structure, target participants, and the process and timeline to shape
and render this new informal body completely functional by early 2010. Funding for an initial meeting
will come from interested participants and organizations.
Background
InterAction member organizations now exist in an environment within which their voices, and that of
the U.S. NGO community at large, are struggling to be heard. Among the changing factors, the rise of a
development movement in the U.S.; a tripling of private resources to members in recent years; the
ongoing elevation of development as an activity linked to broad U.S. national interests; a proliferation of
new development actors; and a growing interest in development and humanitarian issues within the
elite of U.S. society, have had the largest impact on InterAction members.
InterAction wishes to shape the new tools to operate within this changing environment. While
InterAction’s leadership is actively working within and responding to this new 21st century aid
architecture, the creation of an informal Council is an important step to leverage the organization’s
Senior Advisory “Thought” Council, page 2
reach, to increase its capacity to influence new private funding streams, and to ensure the voice of U.S.
NGOs is present in today’s broader development dialogue.
Over the past two years, InterAction and its member’s leadership has created a momentum that has
brought the coalition a clearer, and as a result, more forceful voice. Because of the momentum, a
diverse group of individuals, from a former head of State, World Bank president, philanthropists, retired
members of Congress and the cabinet, diplomats, former aid administrators, to other prominent
persons, have engaged in diverse ways with InterAction to help advance its goals. Rather than solely
relying on these individual relationships, InterAction believes the time has come, in partnership with
other interested institutions, for this movement focused on private development assistance to become
a more structured effort.
Strategic Focus
InterAction’s strategy for the creation of the thought Council rests on the following core assumptions
and beliefs:
1. A rationalization (steering/ordering/coordination, etc) of U.S. private development assistance of

the magnitude we seek will come only from sustained, effective high-level engagement and
support from across the development and related communities
2. The need for clear focus and the capacity of the executive office to manage the Council is
critical.
3. InterAction’s strategic goals align fundamentally to the purpose of the Council.
4. A strong and transparent link to member CEOs.
5. Individuals who could make up the thought Council must represent diverse backgrounds.
6. Currently, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the frame more commonly used to
explain development within the U.S., bilateral and multilateral organizations. Following the
intention of organization, upon the end of the MDGs in 2015, the Senior Advisory Council will
play a substantial role in promoting a new/enhanced MDG-like framework.
Timeline and Activities
Internally, the Executive Office has established a capable team to support the initial groundwork and
convening effort. Sam Worthington will be assisted by the Executive Coordinator, Sr. Associate for
Development and Special Advisor. The Vice Presidents are fully vested in the Council, and their teams
will also provide conceptual and administrative support as required. However, InterAction’s momentum
has in many ways come from the willingness of individual Board members and member CEOs to put
some of their own clout and organizational influence behind InterAction. For InterAction to thrive this
engagement needs to continue.
Assuming that they remain interested, Sam proposes that the Council will be co-chaired by Jim
Wolfensohn, Director, Wolfensohn Group, and Charlie MacCormack, president and CEO, Save the
Children USA. Over the past year, Charlie has actively promoted the idea of a though Council linked to
the InterAction community and his and other CEO leadership will be essential in recruiting the Principals
and thought leaders. They will actively coordinate the first meeting. InterAction’s Executive Office will
provide any logistical or other support. On occasion members of the Council would meet with the
InterAction Board and member CEOs. The Council is not a formal body and is primarily a vehicle for a
senior level dialogue.
2
Senior Advisory “Thought” Council, page 3
During the last quarter of 2009, InterAction will prepare a bold, strategic convening/recruitment plan
that will ensure key thought leaders and philanthropic resources movers are targeted.
For the Council to evolve and engage in the intellectual and leadership space envisioned by InterAction,
it will depend upon, from the initial stages, the interest and commitment from two distinct but
interrelated types of individuals: Thought Leaders and Principal Movers. In their daily life, these two
groups of individuals share many qualities and activities. However, for “project management purposes”
it is necessary to create an operational distinction between them.
Thought leaders
These individuals will provide the fundamental conceptual backbone and leverage to advance selected
issues. Shaping concepts and tools (such as best practices, mapping and MDG-like frameworks), a
combination of Thought Leaders from across the spectrum of development, environmental, and
humanitarian-related fields will define a holistic, global and ambitious dialogue focused on private
development assistance.
Some Thought Leaders could be, but are not limited to:
 Former members of Congress or Administration officials – Madeleine Albright (State

Department,) Bill Frist (Senate), Tom Dashle (Senate), Henrietta Fore (USAID/F), etc.;
 Think tanks - Lael Brainard (Treasury and former Brooking), Homi Kharas (Brookings and former
World Bank), Nancy Birdsall (Center for Global Development), Jane Wales (Aspen Institute), etc.;
 Academics - Jeff Sachs (Columbia), Larry Simon (Brandeis), William Easterly (Professor of
Economics, New York University), Peter Singer (Princeton University) etc.;
 International leaders – Mary Robinson (Realizing Rights and former President of Ireland), Olivier
Consolo (CONCORD), etc.;
 Media – Nicholas Kristof (New York Times), Michael Gerson (Washington Post), etc.
 Others – Patty Stonesifer (The Smithsonian Institute and Special Advisor to the Trustees of the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), etc.;
 Faith community – Bill Vendley (Religions for Peace), etc. and other leaders as recommended by
our members;
Movers
The Movers (which unavoidably overlap as Thought leaders) will be the force that will advance the
Council’s agenda by: linking it to global philanthropic initiatives (such as the Clinton Global initiative –
CGI-, or the Global Philanthropy Forum, etc.), leveraging private resources, and linking the Council’s
breakthroughs to domestic and international public movements or campaigns.
Some Movers could be, but are not limited to:
 Philanthropists – Jim Wolfensohn (Director, Wolfensohn Group), Ray Chambers (founder of the
malaria no more campaign), George Soros (Open Society Institute), Peter Ackerman (Int’l Center
for Non-Violent Conflict); Steve Heintz (Rockefeller Brothers Fund), President Clinton, Melinda
Gates, etc.
 Some celebrities
3
08.28.09 Page 1 of 4
Revenue and Expense
January 1 - July 31, 2009
>>> All Funds <<<
Actual 2009 Budget

Variance
1/1/09 - 7/31/09 Mid-Yr Revision
Revenue
Member Dues $ 1,771,715 $ 2,200,000 $ 428,285
Other Unrestricted Income 355,298 681,775 326,477
Restricted/Grant Income 3,217,334 5,170,632 1,953,298
Total Revenue $ 5,344,347 $ 8,052,407 $ 2,708,060
Expense
Personnel $ 2,938,921 $ 4,987,141 $ 2,048,220
Other Operating Expense 2,284,957 3,065,266 780,309
Total Expense $ 5,223,878 $ 8,052,407 $ 2,828,529
Surplus/(Deficit) $ 120,469 $ - $ 120,469
Notes:
08.28.09 Page 2 of 4
Revenue and Expense
>>> Unrestricted Funds <<<
Actual 2009 Budget

Variance
Revenue
Member Dues $ 1,771,715 $ 2,200,000 $ 428,285
Other Unrestricted Income 355,298 681,775 326,477
Restricted/Grant Income - - -
Total Revenue $ 2,127,013 $ 2,881,775 $ 754,762
Expense
Personnel $ 1,231,658 $ 1,846,626 $ 614,968
Other Operating Expense 774,889 1,035,149 260,260
Total Expense $ 2,006,547 $ 2,881,775 $ 875,228
Surplus/(Deficit) $ 120,466 $ - $ (120,466)

08.28.09 Page 3 of 4
Revenue and Expense
>>> Restricted/Grant Funds <<<
Actual 2009 Budget

Variance
Revenue
Member Dues $ - $ - $ -
Other Unrestricted Income - - -
Restricted/Grant Income 3,217,334 5,170,632 1,953,298
Total Revenue $ 3,217,334 $ 5,170,632 $ 1,953,298
Expense
Personnel $ 1,707,263 $ 3,140,515 $ 1,433,252
Other Operating Expense 1,510,068 2,030,117 520,049
Total Expense $ 3,217,331 $ 5,170,632 $ 1,953,301
Surplus/(Deficit) $ 3 $ - $ (3)
08.28.09 Page 4 of 4
Recap of Restricted/Grant Funds
Mid-Year Update Since Increase

Revision Mid-Yr Revision (Decrease)
1. OFDA 2007-2009
Personnel 476,928 476,928 -
Operating Expense 786,300 786,300 -
Total 1,263,228 1,263,228 -
2. OFDA 2009-2011
Personnel 174,783 174,783 -
Total 294,048 294,048 -
3. OFDA NGO Security

Personnel 68,485 68,485 -
Total 250,613 250,613 -
4. OFDA Pandemic Prep

Personnel 153,270 153,270 -
5. UN-OCHA
Personnel 101,349 101,349 -
6. UN IFAD
Personnel 18,150 18,150 -
Total 33,310 33,310 -
7. Foundation/Hewlett
Personnel 40,260 40,260 -
Total 74,560 74,560 -
8. Ford Foundation
Personnel 132,360 - (132,360)
9. UNFPA
Personnel 12,000 12,000 -
Total 28,980 28,980 -
11. NGO Platforms/Aid Effectiveness

Personnel 22,992 22,992 -
12. Gates Foundation

Personnel 1,794,085 1,794,085 -
Total 2,670,069 2,670,069 -
13. Gates Special Opportunity Fund

Personnel 145,853 145,853 -
Operating Expense - - -
Total 145,853 145,853 -
Total: Restricted/Grant Funds

Personnel 3,140,515 3,008,155 (132,360)
Operating Expense 2,030,117 2,030,117 -
Total 5,170,632 5,038,272 (132,360)
$10,000 Other
$9,000 Carnegie
$8,000 Mellon
$7,000 Hewlett
Gates
$6,000
Ford
$5,000
Other UN
$4,000
State BPRM
$3,000
IASC
$2,000
USAID/Health
$1,000 USAID OFDA/other
$0 USAID CAW
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 to
USAID ALPI
date
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000 $5,908
$5,171
$5,000
($000)
$3,858
$4,000
$2,740 $3,540 $2,677
$3,281 $3,103 $2,849
$3,000 $2,370
$1,687 $802 $682
$1,674 $697
$2,000 $792 $605
$597 $462 $544 $693 $477
$468 $673
$1,000
$1,601 $1,556 $1,848 $2,104 $2,200 $2,200
$1,154 $1,166 $1,321 $1,377 $1,413 $1,402
$0
Membership Dues Other Core Revenues Grant Revenues

Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: Membership and Standards Board Committee
Date: September 14, 2009
Re: Election of seven New Members
Briefing sheets follow this report for each of the seven prospective members for your
consideration:
1. Easter Seals
2. Education Development Center (EDC),
3. Project Concern International
4. Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, USA ( Tzu Chi Foundation)
5. Friends of ACTED
6. Planet Aid
7. Medical Emergency Relief International
As is our practice, information on these agencies has been vetted through the general
membership via each Member CEO and the InterAction Staff. All seven applications have been
reviewed and approved by the Membership and Standards Board Committee on September 1,
2009. The committee recommends all seven applicants for the approval of the Board.
Financial information:
Organization FY 09 budget Projected Dues
Easter Seals $ 124,150,591 $ 2,000.00
Education Development Center $148,429,000 $40,000.00
Project Concern International $37,171,067 $33,000.00
Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, USA $ 20,311,738 $35,000

Membership and Standards Committee Report, page 2
$98,511 $ 2,000.00
Friends of ACTED
Planet Aid $ 38,572,871 $ 30,000.00

Medical Emergency Relief International, USA
(Merlin) $ 407,148.99 $ 2,000.00
Easter Seals President/CEO: James E. Williams Jr.
Easter Seals, Inc.
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400 Incorporated in: Ohio
Chicago, IL 60606
Year Incorporated: 1919
Office of Public Affairs
1425 K Street, Suite 200 Recommended by: Habitat for Humanity, Mental
Washington, DC 20005 Disability Rights International, International
Chicago: 312.726.6200 Youth Foundation
Washington: 202.347.3066
Main Contact(s): Randall Rutta

rrutta@easterseals.com FY 09 budget: $ 124,150,591
http://www.easterseals.com Estimated dues: $ 2,000.00
Statement of organizational purpose: Easter Seals is the leading non-profit provider of

services and advocacy for individuals with autism, developmental disabilities, physical and mental
disabilities and other special needs. Easter Seals offers help, hope and answers to children and adults
with disabilities and their families in the United States, Puerto Rico, Australia and Canada. Through
therapy, education and support services, Easter Seals creates life-changing solutions so that people
with disabilities can live, learn, work and play in their communities.
Easter Seals, Inc. leads and supports a network of separately incorporated organizations that operate
as Easter Seals’ affiliates and global partners to assure and enhance brand-consistent high-quality
services, advocacy, and nonprofit governance and operations benefiting people with disabilities, their
families, and their communities.
Program profile: Children and adults with disabilities and special needs find the highest-quality
services designed to meet their individual needs when they come to Easter Seals. Teams of
therapists, teachers and other health professionals help each person overcome obstacles to
independence and reach his or her personal goals. Easter Seals also includes families as active
members of any therapy program, and offers the support families need.
Last year, Easter Seals served 1.3 million individuals in the United States, Australia, and Canada. The
vast majority of Easter Seals services to individuals with disabilities and their families are provided
locally by affiliates and global partners of Easter Seals, Inc. Services for and with people with
disabilities that are managed by Easter Seals, Inc. generally occur under pilot projects to develop,
refine, and replicate best practices, and through centrally-administered systems-change initiatives
that offer training, technical assistance, and information resources to address program and policy
issues affecting people with disabilities.
For the past two years, Easter Seals. Inc. has collaborated with CONFE, the largest service provider
and advocacy organization in Mexico for people with intellectual disabilities.
Easter Seals Briefing Sheet, page 2
Easter Seals has been actively engaged in activities with and concerning developing countries over
the past few years. Some of these activities were one-time events and others are part of an ongoing
conversations. Among those countries that have directly interacted with Easter Seals in some way on
issues relating to disability are: China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iraq and Iraq/Autonomous region,
Jordan, Morocco, Namibia, Peru, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. PVO, government officials, and private
individuals participated in these activities.
Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Easter Seals, Inc. believes that membership in
InterAction will provide headquarters staff and others across the organization with:
 Access to current, strategic and otherwise unattainable/affordable stream of information,
training and technical assistance;
 Access to conferences, briefings, and meetings with international leaders, including policy
decision-makers in Congress, US Department of State, USAID and other agencies;
 Opportunities to network and partner with, learn from, and hopefully add value for major US-
based humanitarian organizations operating abroad; and,
 Opportunities to join disability-specific and other online communities, serve on committees, and
engage in a two-way exchange of knowledge across the spectrum of international areas of
emphasis and activity.
Easter Seals associates anticipate being effective collaborators on those issues and initiatives where
our experience and resources are most relevant and can make the greatest difference. Specifically,
we anticipate and welcome engagement with InterAction and its members, and will participate
responsibly and fully, accepting responsibilities and delivering high quality responses and
deliverables. The designated contact for Easter Seals, Inc. will serve as the primary participant in
meetings and other activities on behalf of the organization and recruit other team members, as
appropriate.
Easter Seals’ leaders are acutely aware that the organization, while having a legitimate and larger role
to play internationally, is woefully disadvantaged by limited understanding and experience in the
world of international humanitarian development. Easter Seals perceives enormous expertise in the
InterAction organization and its membership that, if tapped, offers the most effective and efficient
means of successfully helping people with disabilities and the civil society disability organizations
abroad.
Easter Seals, Inc. commends InterAction on the adoption of standards pertaining to disability that
promote engagement of people with disabilities as employees, volunteers, and beneficiaries of
humanitarian assistance. These standards align fully with Easter Seals’ mission and it is hoped that
Easter Seals can play a role in helping advance InterAction member understanding and compliance
with these standards within the US and globally.
Education Development Center President/CEO: Luther S. Luedtke.
55 Chapel Street,
Newton, MA 02458 -1060 Incorporated in: Delaware
Tel: 617 969 7100
Main Contact(s): Luther S. Luedtke. Recommended by: International Youth

Foundation, Save the Children, AED
www.edc.org
FY 09 budget: $148,429,000
Estimated dues: $40,000.00
Statement of organizational purpose: EDC is a global nonprofit organization that designs, delivers
and evaluates innovative programs to address some of the world’s most urgent challenges in
education, health, and economic opportunity. Working with public-sector and private partners, we
harness the power of people and systems to improve education, health promotion and care,
workforce preparation, communications technologies, and civic engagement. EDC conducts 350
projects in 35 countries around the world.
Our services include research, training, educational materials and strategy, with activities ranging
from seed projects to large-scale national and international initiatives. EDC enjoys a worldwide
reputation for its excellence in program and fiscal management and for the impact of its work.
EDC is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. Most fundamentally, this means that no
profit accrues to any individual. Our work is supported through grants and contracts from a variety of
sources, including U.S. and foreign government agencies, private foundations, nonprofit
organizations, universities, and corporations. As a publicly supported, publicly accountable
organization, we have a special obligation to carry out work of the highest quality and integrity.
Program profile: EDC designs fresh approaches and innovative tools to improve teaching and
learning worldwide for both in- and out-of-school populations of all ages. Their work combines local
resources and expertise with the latest research to achieve concrete results.
They partner with governments and local communities, international donors, churches, and
international corporations, but learners are at the center of our programs. From rural Haiti to urban
Indonesia, their projects promote listening, action, reflection, group interaction and even play. They
work at the preschool, primary, and secondary levels; with adults and out-of-school learners; and
with local and national governments. They build local, human capacity, ensuring that their partners
own and can sustain the programs well beyond the life of any one project.
Whether they are developing ESL radio lessons for primary school children in remote Pakistani
villages, producing unbiased news programming for conflict-torn South Sudan, writing an HIV/AIDS
curriculum in Zambia, or empowering young entrepreneurs in Macedonia, EDC is committed to in-
country partnerships, deep respect for local knowledge and culture, and collaborative decision-
making.
EDC Briefing Sheet, page 2
Reasons for applying to join InterAction: EDC is one of the oldest and largest institutions working
in education in developing countries and among the most highly-regarded among our peers. We
have focused on maintaining and improving the quality of our services to our immediate partners,
clients and beneficiaries. We now feel that it is time to seek a greater role in influencing policy and
practice in those areas that concern us among donors and a wider audience of partners and
stakeholders. We believe that joining Interaction may provide the means to do that.
We would expect to participate in the various interest groups currently organized by Interaction, but
note that there may be certain areas (such as basic education, the application of information and
communication technology, and youth) where we have technical expertise that is currently under-
represented within Interaction's membership and to which we might bring leadership within the
community of NGOs.
We understand that there are formal processes to be followed for participation in the leadership
of Interaction, and would be interested in exploring ways to play such a role.
Project Concern International President/CEO: George Guimaraes
5151 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 320,
San Diego, CA 92123 Incorporated in: California

Main Contact(s):
George Guimaraes Recommended by: PATH, Minnesota
gguimaraes@projectconcern.org International Health Volunteers, Save the
Children
FY 09 budget: $37,171,067
Statement of organizational purpose: Project Concern International's mission is to prevent disease,

improve community health, and promote sustainable development. PCI envisions a world where
abundant resources are shared, communities are able to provide for the health and well being of
their members, and children and families can achieve lives of hope, good health, and self-sufficiency.
Program profile: Project Concern International (PCI) works in disadvantaged and isolated
communities to bring health and hope to those in greatest need by preventing disease, responding in
emergency relief situations, and providing access to clean water, nutritious food, and economic
opportunity. PCI reaches 4.5 million people annually with programs in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Based on our past experience as members of InterAction
and attendance at Forum 2009, we’re confident that membership in InterAction will strengthen our
partnerships and collaboration within the NGO community and, ultimately, our effectiveness. It will
engage PCI more directly in discussion and action on the issues we all face and in the thought
leadership of our sector. Finally, it will help connect us with public policymakers in Washington. PCI
has made the commitment to invest in and build its presence in Washington and InterAction will
support that. We anticipate active participation in relevant committee work and attendance at
meetings throughout the year.
Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi President/CEO: William Keh
Foundation, U.S.A. (aka Tzu Chi Incorporated in: California
Foundation)
1100 S Valley Center Ave.,
San Dimas, CA 91773 Recommended by: Mercy Corps, American Red
Tel: 626-487-4849 Cross, Operation USA
Main Contact: Debra Boudreaux FY 09 budget: $ 20,311,738

tzehuei@us.tzuchi.org
Estimated dues: $35,000
www.us.tzuchi.org
Statement of organizational purpose: Serving with compassion and relief with joy! Tzu Chi’s
missions focus on providing material aid to the needy and inspiring love and humanity to both donors
and receivers. The foundation’s guiding principle is to “help the poor and educate the rich.”
Program profile: Tzu Chi USA began its first international relief mission in Mexico in 1994. Since then,
volunteers have provided humanitarian aid and medical services in Honduras, the Dominican
Republic, Columbia, Guatemala, EI Salvador, Peru, Mexico, Haiti, and Afghanistan. In 2005, volunteer
doctors traveled to Sri Lanka to provide free medical care for tsunami survivors. In 2007, Tzu Chi
members from all over the country engaged in disaster relief efforts in Bolivia, Peru and Dominican
Republic.
The Tzu Chi International Medical Association (TIMA) is made up of more than 5,000 medical
professionals worldwide who volunteer their expertise and time to provide quality medical services
both in their own communities, whether urban or rural, and worldwide. TIMA USA has 21 chapters in
the United States. TIMA chapters are also located in Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Vietnam, the Philippines, Paraguay and Brazil. During a major disaster, TIMA members from different
parts of the world team up to provide medical service to those in need in an effective, respectful and
compassionate manner.
Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Tzu Chi has provided food, comfort and assistance to the
disadvantaged people that suffered from natural, economic, and political calamities throughout the
world. Tzu Chi has always found the ways to raise funds and goods to more than 46 countries for the
needy and disadvantaged people. Through above efforts, Tzu Chi has found the needs to elicit the
help of community efforts such as InterAction in crossing the international borders.
Tzu Chi will actively join the InterAction conferences and contribute our experiences. We like to join
InterAction’s efforts globally. Tzu Chi would like to work together with InterAction in various
divisions.
Tzu Chi will contribute to the work of InterAction and its subsidiary by doing the
following:
Tzu Chi Briefing Sheet, page 2
a) Attend the annual InterAction conference meetings, so we will get involved and actively participate
in the programs currently undertaken at InterAction;
b) Coordinate with InterAction and its subsidiary in its efforts in administering its programs by
targeting specific programs of needs, contributing volunteer workers, helping raise funds and goods
for the InterAction programs;
c) Send Tzu Chi delegates to get involved with the InterAction organizational works;
d) Conduct information programs with respect to the programs at InterAction and its subsidiaries so
that the members get involved.
e) Collaborate and cooperate with InterAction Information Center/Service or other parts of
InterAction in disseminating information with respect to the InterAction efforts so that TzuChi can be
a partner in corporations.
f) Get in touch with other NGOs and/or other InterAction system agencies to form networking
activities to further the goals of InterAction;
g) Report on and participate in research, meetings and publications of InterAction and its subsidiary
bodies.
h). Promoting social progress and development in partnership with InterAction agents, CBOs, FBOs,
NGOs.
-
Friends of ACTED President/CEO: Lucien Lefcourt.
th
1400 16 Street, NW
Suite 210 Incorporated in: Delaware
Washgington, DC 20036
Tel: 202 729 6798 Year Incorporated: 2008
Main Contact(s): Cyril DU PRE. Recommended by: Handicap International,

Cyril.dupre@acted.org Action Against Hunger, Concern Worldwide
www.acted.org FY 09 budget: $98,511
Statement of organizational purpose: ACTED's mission is to provide adapted responses in order to

support vulnerable populations worldwide and to accompany them in building a better future. The
programs implemented by ACTED, in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean,
aim at addressing the needs of populations affected by wars, natural disasters and/or economic and
social crises. Our interventions seek to cover the multiple aspects of humanitarian and
development crises through a multidisciplinary approach which is both global and local, and adapted to
each context.
Our Vision is to guarantee the Link between Emergency, Rehabilitation and Development. Once basic
needs have been covered, the population's living conditions remain critical as our areas of intervention
are among the poorest in the world. For this reason, ACTED's axis of intervention lies in the link
between Emergency, Rehabilitation, and Development. In other words, in order to guarantee the
sustainability of interventions carried out during crises, only long-term support, through a continued
pre4g/ce in the field after the emergency as well as the involvement of communities, enables us to
break the poverty cycle and accompany populations on their way to development.
Program profile: Friends of ACTED (FOA) supports ACTED programs worldwide. These programs aim at
saving lives, assisting vulnerable people and bringing hope for a better future to those in need with a
specific focus on emergency relief, food security, health promotion, education and training, economic
development & livelihoods, advocacy, institutional support and regional dialogue, microfinance, and
cultural promotion. ACTED is currently working in 25 countries, through its regional offices of Nairobi
(Kenya) for Eastern Africa, Brazzaville (Republic of Congo) for Central Africa, Amman (Jordan) and its
logistics hub in Dubai for the Middle East, and New Delhi (India) for Asia. More than 260 programs are
implemented per year worldwide.
Reasons for applying to join InterAction: The Friends of ACTED (FOA) hopes to become a member of
Interaction, the largest coalition of U.S.-based international non-governmental organizations
focused on helping the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. Membership is essential to
FOA's future activities, as we are confident that it will allow our organization to:
 Strengthen our involvement in the humanitarian community through an active

participation in existing coordination mechanisms. Through its field experience,
Friends of ACTED Briefing Sheet, page 2
FOA believes that it has an added value to provide to the humanitarian
community in Washington by joining Interaction working groups related to its
fields of expertise or the countries where the organization is working. In Europe,
ACTED is an active member of notably VOICE, HAP and COORDINATION SUD
 Participate to events organized by the humanitarian community. For instance, the
participation to the Interaction forum in July 2009 was a tremendous opportunity
to network with partner organizations and attend working sessions related to key
humanitarian topics. For the next 2010 forum, The Friends of ACTED is willing to
exhibit in the forum's showcase and proposes to be panelist in one of the
sessions
 Offer opportunities to develop partnerships with other member organizations. In
Europe for instance, ACTED is member of the Alliance 2015, which gathers 7
prominent NGOs and provides many opportunities to launch joint operations or
establish complementary assistance projects during the last humanitarian crises.
The Friends of ACTED would be keen to use this experience and build similar
partnerships with member organizations from Interaction, so as to increase the
efficiency, quality and rapidity of its response in the countries of operation,
during current or future humanitarian crises
 Help us develop our advocacy efforts by liaising with public policy makers in
Washington. In this regard, FOA participated to the advocacy day organized by
Interaction during the 2009 Forum. Through a strong link with ACTED field
missions, FOA expects to participate to ACTED's worldwide organizational discussions
on such topics as food security, local governance, lessons learnt from aid delivery
and aid effectiveness to failing states, protection of humanitarian space,
relations between civilian and military, etc., as well as exchange ideas with
Interaction members and advocate amongst donors and policy maker on some
of the aforementioned humanitarian topics.
Planet Aid President/CEO: Ester Neltrup
8919 McGaw Ct., eneltrup@planetaid.org
Columbia, MD 21045
410-309-1002 Incorporated in: Massachusetts
Main Contact: Ester Neltrup Year Incorporated: 1997
www.planetaid.org Recommended by: Africare, JAM, Plan USA
FY 09 budget: $ 38,572,871
Estimated dues: $ 30,000.00
Statement of organizational purpose: Planet Aid is committed to helping poor and disadvantaged
citizens of the Earth improve their lives and the lives of future generations. We support people and
communities in some of the poorest regions of the world through projects addressing health,
education, food production and income generation.
Planet Aid is committed to peace and to humanity, and we care deeply about the Earth as the home
we share with millions of other species. Reusing discarded items from the rich part of the world as a
vehicle to increase income and improve lives in other parts is good for the Earth and thus benefits all
of us. Through our actions Planet Aid seeks to inform and to promote cooperation and understanding
between people across countries and continents.
Program profile: Planet Aid supports organizations and communities in Southern Africa, Asia and
Latin America. Over the years they have supported more than 40 different programs in 15 countries.
Planet Aid works though local implementing partners. The programs areas are: HIV/AIDS education
and prevention; support for people with HIV and AIDS orphans; child aid and community
development; organization and training of small-scale farmers; education of primary school teachers;
vocational training; programs for child laborers; environmental programs; malaria prevention; Food
Aid and various in-kind donations (computers, books and the like). Planet Aid is the recipient of USDA
Food for Progress grants in Malawi and Mozambique and a USAID grant in Zimbabwe.
Clothing Collection and Habitat Protection

Planet Aid collects and processes thousands of tons of used clothes, shoes and textile in some 20
states from Maine to California. Collecting unwanted clothes saves landfill space and reusing already
manufactured clothing and other textile saves millions of gallons of water and reduce the use
fertilizer and pesticides (in cotton production). In addition to the environmental benefits Planet Aid
also derives income from processing the donated clothes, which in turn is used in the international
development programs.
International Exchange, Training and Education

Planet Aid brings young people from development organizations in Africa and India to train in non-
profit management. Though this they gain valuable experience before returning to perform
community work in their home countries. Planet Aid also prepares young Americans in the “Manager
in Training Program” for a future in non-profit and international development. The program includes
3 months of project experience in Africa.
Planet Aid Briefing Sheet, page 2
Planet Aid conducts recycling and education programs in cooperation with public and private schools
in several US states.
Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Planet Aid would like to be part of InterAction for a number
of reasons.
 Share ideas and best practices with organizations with which we share a concern for the
world’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
 Contribute to and share in InterAction’s expertise and advocacy in the field of international
development.
 Develop cooperation and partnerships with other NGOs.
 A source for information and interpretation in regards to current events and trends in the
international arena
Being a new member we expect to first and foremost to listen and learn, to participate in working
groups of interest and where we have something to contribute, and to participate in the Annual
Forum and other planned Interaction events.
Merlin USA President/CEO: Lucy Dorick, Director
1600 K St NW Lucy.dorick@merlin-usa.org
Suite 450
Washington, DC Incorporated in: Delaware
20006
Direct: 202-449-6399
General Office: 202-449-6398 Recommended by: Mercy Corps, Concern
Worldwide, International Rescue Committee
Main Contact(s): Lucy Dorick, Director FY 09 budget: $ 407,148.99
www.merlin-usa.org Estimated dues: $2,000.00
Statement of organizational purpose: Merlin is an international nonprofit organization founded in

the UK. Merlin USA's mission is to raise awareness, support and resources for Merlin programs
throughout the world. Merlin specializes in health, saving lives in times of crisis and helping to rebuild
shattered health services in fragile states including countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East. Merlin works within existing health systems to realize everyone’s right to
accessible, appropriate, affordable health care.
Merlin’s vision is of a world that provides basic health care to all, responds immediately to save lives
in times of crisis, and looks beyond emergencies to safeguard long term health.
Program profile: To date, Merlin has worked in 39 countries and responded to many of the most
serious humanitarian emergencies in recent history, including the Rwandan genocide, Hurricane
Mitch, the 2003 war in Iraq, the Indian Ocean tsunami, Darfur, and the Myanmar cyclone. Merlin
country programs include delivering basic health care, training community midwives, emergency
obstetric care, providing medical services to remote areas, and nutrition programs.
Reasons for applying to join InterAction: Merlin has been working in humanitarian and disaster relief
efforts for over 15 years in some of the most fragile areas of the world. Leaders in developing health
policies for fragile states strengthen by a large active team of nationals. Merlin is one of the few
NGOs that enter during a disaster and stay to rebuild shattered health systems. InterAction
represents some of the world’s largest and most important humanitarian NGOs in the world. Merlin
is active with a number of these organizations in the field where we have developed strong alliances.
In addition, Merlin has an active US organization – Merlin USA – located in Washington, DC, whose
mission is to raise visibly, support and networking opportunities for Merlin programs worldwide.
InterAction membership would be an opportunity for Merlin USA and its associates to actively
participate in major policy, funding and health system working groups and discussions. With strong
support from USAID, Merlin is interested in engaging the international funding community in stronger
dialogues about the policy and health needs of fragile states. It is Merlin's intention to continue to be
active in the appropriate InterAction discussions, providing a unique perspective to members.
InterAction is the only group that provides the scope of influence and breadth on these vital issues
that are so important to Merlin USA and its associates.
EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
(formerly known as “Personnel Handbook”)
Final Draft
Updated and Effective as of October 2009
InterAction Employee Handbook
(The companion volume to this Handbook is the Operations Manual)
Table of Contents
Page
Section 1 – Introduction
1.1 Welcome ...............................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose of this Handbook......................................................................................2
1.3 Equal Employment Opportunity.............................................................................2
Section 2 – Employment
2.1 Employment Classification .....................................................................................3

2.2 Categories of Employment .....................................................................................3
2.3 Employment Procedures ........................................................................................5
2.4 Hours of Work and Pay Schedule............................................................................6
2.5 Payroll Week ..........................................................................................................7
2.6 Time Sheets............................................................................................................8
2.7 Compensation ........................................................................................................8
Section 3 – General Rules and Policies
3.1 Confidential Information .......................................................................................8

3.2 Conflicts of Interest/Board Memberships ..............................................................9
3.3 Intellectual Property..............................................................................................9
3.4 Honoraria ............................................................................................................10
3.5 Computer, Internet, E-Mail, Software, and Equipment Usage..............................10
3.6 Harassment .........................................................................................................11
3.7 Personal Relationships ........................................................................................12
3.8 Employees with Disabilities .................................................................................12
3.9 Grievance Procedure ...........................................................................................13
3.10 Drugs and Alcohol ...............................................................................................14
3.11 Smoke-free Environment.....................................................................................14
3.12 Authorization of Binding Agreements and Proposals ...........................................15
3.13 References ..........................................................................................................17
3.14 Whistleblower Policy...............................................................................................
Section 4 – Employee Benefits
4.1 Fringe Benefits Package.......................................................................................15

4.2 Vacation Policy ....................................................................................................17
4.3 Sick Leave............................................................................................................18
4.4 Family and Medical Leave ...................................................................................19
4.5 Personal and Summer Leave ...............................................................................23
i
4.6 Leave due to Government Service .......................................................................23
4.7 Paid Holidays.......................................................................................................23
4.8 Weather and Security Leave................................................................................23
4.9 Compensatory Leave ...........................................................................................24
4.10 Leave of Absence.................................................................................................24
4.11 Time off Without Pay ..........................................................................................24
4.12 Bereavement Leave.............................................................................................24
4.13 Jury Duty .............................................................................................................25
4.14 Voting .................................................................................................................25
Section 5 – Job Performance and Conduct as Employee
5.1 Performance Reviews.........................................................................................25

5.2 Employee Conduct .............................................................................................25
Section 6 – Separation from Employment
6.1 Corrective Action..................................................................................................27

6.2 Separation............................................................................................................27
APPENDIX A: Form acknowledging receipt of the handbook
APPENDIX B: Guidelines for Computer, Internet, E-Mail, Software, and Equipment Usage
ii
INTERACTION HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY
(THIS POLICY WAS APPROVED BY THE INTERACTION BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON APRIL 18, 2007)
InterAction’s policy with respect to its Human Resources is to support the achievement of its
mission and strategic goals, in accordance with its institutional values and the following guiding
principles:
 Recruitment, promotion, development, compensation and retention practices are based
primarily on merit, potential and performance, equity, and on diversity that reflects,
across the workforce, the diverse nature of InterAction membership community.
 InterAction is an equal-opportunity employer, and its Human Resources practices
comply with applicable laws and regulations. With respect to employment, volunteer
participation and provision of service, InterAction shall not discriminate any person on
the basis of his/her race, color, creed, religion, national origin, nationality, gender,
sexual preference, age, disability or veteran’s status and shall cause InterAction to
comply with all requirements of law and regulation affecting employees;
 Human Resources policies and practices foster a learning environment.
 Human Resources policies and practices foster a workplace where staff, management,
members and donors are treated with respect and a grievance mechanism is in place.
 Human Resources policies foster a better work-life balance.
 Human Resources practices are such that InterAction is able to attract and retain highly
qualified employees.
 Employee relations and practices are implemented fairly. To this end:
o Policies and practices are stated clearly and in writing and made available to all
employees; and
o An employee file that is accurate, confidential and up to date is maintained and
accessible to the employee.
o There will be a mechanism for staff input with their possible revision to the
Employee Handbook sent to the CEO and Leadership team on an annual basis
and timely notification to staff of any changes.
 InterAction will meet the Human Resources related portions of the Self-Certification Plus
process and standards.
InterAction’s CEO mandated the development of this Employee Handbook (based on the
previous “Employee Handbook”), through a process in which all staff were able to
participate. The Handbook is available for review and edits, as needed, by the Board on an
annual basis to determine whether its content falls within this policy framework.
iii
INTERACTION EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
Effective October 1, 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Welcome
Welcome to InterAction!
InterAction is the largest coalition of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

focused on the world’s poor and most vulnerable people. InterAction (the American Council for
Voluntary International Action) is a nonprofit, charitable and educational organization which is exempt
from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Collectively, InterAction’s members work in every developing country. Members meet people halfway
in expanding opportunities and supporting gender equality in education, health care, agriculture, small
business, and other areas.
InterAction is greater than the sum of its parts, a force multiplier that gives each member the collective
power of all members to speak and act on issues of common concern. InterAction convenes and
coordinates its members so in unison they can influence policy and debate on issues affecting tens of
millions of people worldwide and improve their own practices.
Formed in 1984, and based in Washington, D.C., InterAction includes members headquartered in
twenty-five states. Both faith-based and secular, these organizations foster economic and social
development; provide relief to those affected by disaster and war; assist refugees and internally
displaced persons; advance human rights; support gender equality; protect the environment; address
population concerns; and press for more equitable, just, and effective public policies.
InterAction members received almost $6 billion from private sources – including millions of individuals,
foundations and corporations – in 2006. InterAction leverages the impact of this private support by
advocating for the expansion of U.S. government investments and by insisting that policies and
programs are responsive to the realities of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations.
Neither InterAction nor its members bear lightly the responsibility of the trust the American people
place in us. As such, members ascribe to InterAction’s Private Voluntary Organization Standards that
help assure accountability in the critical areas of financial management, fund raising, governance, and
program performance.
InterAction is governed by a Board of Directors that establishes its mission and policies and hires the
President and CEO to implement them. It is the President and CEO's responsibility to hire, supervise and
make personnel decisions regarding all other employees, although the President and CEO may choose
to delegate some of these responsibilities to other managerial staff within InterAction.
Because of our charitable mission and our public support, we believe that InterAction's employees have
a special responsibility to adhere to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism in representing
InterAction and carrying out our mission.
1
1.2. Purpose of This Employee Handbook
This Employee Handbook describes the basic personnel practices of InterAction. It is not intended to
create and is not a contract of employment. This Handbook confers no contractual rights on the
employee; its provisions shall not constitute contractual obligations enforceable against InterAction.
The employees of InterAction are terminable-at-will, meaning that either the employee or InterAction
may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause.
InterAction reserves the right to make changes, from time to time, with or without notice, in the
practices described in this Handbook. Moreover, because it is impossible to anticipate every situation
that may arise, InterAction reserves its right to address a situation in a manner different from that
described herein if, in InterAction's discretion, the circumstances so warrant. Only the President and
CEO is authorized to take any action which changes the presumption of at-will employment or to enter
into verbal or written commitments or contracts on behalf of InterAction. This Handbook supersedes
and replaces all prior manuals, policies and practices of InterAction and is effective as of October 1,
2009.
If you have questions about the policies and procedures described in this Manual or suggestions for
improvement, please see the VP for Finance and Administration or the VP for Strategic Impact.
1.3. Equal Employment Opportunity

InterAction is committed to a policy of equal employment opportunity, and does not discriminate in the
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, physical or mental
disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or otherwise as may be prohibited by applicable law.
Any employee who believes that he or she or any other employee of InterAction has been discriminated
against is strongly encouraged to report this concern promptly to the Vice President for Finance and
Administration or the President and CEO.
InterAction also has a policy prohibiting discriminatory harassment, including sexual harassment. This
policy is described in Section 3.6, below.
2.0 EMPLOYMENT
2.1 Employment Classification
2.1.1 Exempt
An exempt employee is one whose primary duties consist of executive, management, research or
professional activities, which involve the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. Exempt
employees are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and local law.
2.1.2 Non-exempt
A non-exempt employee is one whose primary duties consist of secretarial, clerical, and administrative
support activities, which are directed or closely monitored by a supervisor. Non-exempt employees are
subject to the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and local law.
2
2.2 Categories of Employment
2.2.1 Regular Employees

For the purpose of making clear which parts of this Employee Handbook apply to different categories of
employees, throughout this manual the use of “regular employees” means those full-time and part-
time staff regularly working 20 hours or more each week and have completed the introductory period.
Other categories of workers, e.g. part-time employees working fewer than 20 hours, temporary
employees, interns, etc. are not considered "regular" employees.
2.2.2 Full-Time Employees (exempt and non-exempt)

Full-time staff are those regular employees who are employed on an annual basis for a minimum of 40
hours per week, excluding lunch breaks. All full-time staff members are eligible for the benefits package
offered by InterAction, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of each benefit program.
2.2.3 Part-Time Employees (exempt and non-exempt)

Part-time employees are employees who are employed on an annual basis for fewer than 40 hours per
week. Part-time employees working 20 hours or more, but less than 40 hours per week are regular
employees. They are eligible for vacation, personal and sick leave on a pro rata basis, based on the
number of hours worked. InterAction pays the full cost of life insurance and disability insurance, and
the full cost of health insurance for part-time employees working 80% time (32 hours a week) or more.
Part-time employees who work between 50% and 79% time (20 to 31 hours per week) pay for a pro
rata share of their health insurance.
Part-time employment for fewer than 20 hours per week is discouraged and rarely made available.
Part-time employees working fewer than 20 hours per week are not regular employees and are not
eligible for InterAction’s benefits package other than benefits mandated by statute such as social
security and workers compensation. Part-time employees are paid only for hours worked at an hourly
rate determined at the time of hire. If such an employee later becomes eligible for InterAction's
benefits package (due to an increase in working hours), benefits will become effective from the date of
increase of hours, not from the date of initial employment. Part-time employees working less than 20
hours per week do not receive holiday pay.
2.2.4 Temporary Employees

A temporary employee may be hired for either a stated or indefinite period of time. Temporary
employees are not regular employees and are not eligible for InterAction’s benefits package except for
benefits mandated by statute such as social security and workers compensation. Temporary employees
are paid only for hours worked at an hourly rate determined at the time of hire. If a temporary
employee later becomes eligible for InterAction's benefits package (due to becoming a regular
employee), benefits will become effective from the date of becoming a regular employee, not from the
date of initial employment.
2.2.5 Interns
Interns work at InterAction for short periods of time (i.e. generally coinciding with school semesters) to
perform research and administrative tasks. They are eligible for up to $50 for reimbursement of
transportation costs per month.
3
2.2.6 Consultants and Independent Contractors
A consultant or independent contractor is someone who is under contract to InterAction to perform a
specified job at a stipulated rate of compensation for a limited period of time. Such a person is an
independent contractor, not an InterAction employee, and is not eligible for any InterAction benefits;
nor will InterAction withhold taxes from their compensation. A consultant is subject only to the
provisions of his/her contract and is not subject to this Handbook except as they are specifically
incorporated into the contract. Consultants and independent contractors agree to execute any
documents necessary or advisable to ensure InterAction’s ownership of and/or registration of all
intellectual property, and agree to take whatever steps are necessary to assist InterAction in asserting
and perfecting such rights. InterAction consultants shall not be entitled to use any InterAction
intellectual property except to the extent expressly agreed to in writing by InterAction.
2.3 Employment Procedures
2.3.1 Hiring and Supervision

The Board of Directors is responsible for the selection and supervision of the President and CEO. The
President and CEO is the appointing authority, responsible for employing, promoting or terminating all
other employees, interns and consultants. Although this responsibility may be delegated to another
employee, the President and CEO is ultimately responsible for the employment, promotion and
termination of all InterAction personnel. The Vice President for Finance and Administration also serves
as the Director of Human Resources.
The recruitment and hiring process is guided by InterAction’s “Step by Step Guide to Recruitment and
Hiring” (see Operations Manual). The President and CEO must approve all newly-created positions, job
descriptions, and offers of employment, including rates of pay, before any commitment can be made to
prospective employees, interns and consultants. A letter confirming employment will be provided to
applicants being offered a full or part-time position and signed by the President and CEO. The
confirmation letter shall include a copy of the Employee Handbook and shall state: a) the position, b)
the starting date, and c) the starting salary. The letter may include additional information on direct
supervisor, review period, or other specifics relevant to the position.
InterAction announces job openings internally to employees and externally through Monday
Developments and a standardized list of other recruitment postings. Qualified InterAction employees
are encouraged to apply for all vacant positions. All employment decisions will be made based on job-
related criteria.
Written job descriptions are available for all positions; however, responsibilities may be changed or
redefined from time to time as needs change.
In accordance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, InterAction hires only United
States citizens and aliens authorized to work in the United States. All new employees will be asked to
provide documents which verify both identity and authorization to work in the United States.
2.3.3 Personnel File

An individual personnel file will be maintained for each staff member in the Finance and Administration
Office. The personnel file is treated as confidential to the extent possible. In order to protect the
4
security of InterAction’s employment records, all personnel files are kept in the finance department in a
secured area. Access to the files is on a need-to-know basis.
Employees may inspect their own personnel files. An employee wishing to review the contents of his or
her file should make an appointment with the Vice President for Finance and Administration.
Employees must report promptly in writing to the Finance and Administration Office any change of
name, home address, home telephone number, marital status, number of dependents, or emergency
contact information.
2.3.4 Introductory Period

New employees are subject to a three month introductory period at the time of hire. The introductory
period may be extended. Evaluation conferences may be held throughout the introductory period and
will be held at the end of the introductory period. Although annual leave accrues during the
introductory period, introductory employees are not eligible to take annual leave. Introductory
employees whose employment terminates during or at the end of the introductory period are not
entitled to payment for any annual leave or to any severance pay.
Successful completion of the introductory period does not guarantee continuation of employment after
the introductory period. This section should not be construed as altering InterAction’s at-will
employment relationship with its employees.
2.4 Hours of Work and Pay Schedule
2.4.1 Basic Work Week

InterAction’s office hours are Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Full-time employees
are expected to work 40 hours per week, eight hours per day, excluding a one-hour lunch break. Each
employee may negotiate with the employee's designated supervisor a specific daily schedule, so long as
all employees work during core hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. InterAction attempts to allow
employees to maintain a flexible schedule while ensuring that all necessary work is accomplished.
Employees are expected to work the hours necessary to perform their jobs. It is expected that the
majority of InterAction work is conducted at the InterAction offices.
Employees are expected to be at their job location at the time their regular workday is scheduled to
begin. Employees who are unable to be at work on time for any reason and have not received advance
permission for the absence should call their supervisor before 8:30 a.m. to report their absence or
lateness. Employees who are ill for a day or longer may be required to provide a physician’s note upon
return. An employee who is absent for an extended period without notifying his/her supervisor may be
considered to have abandoned his/her position and be subject to immediate termination as a voluntary
quit.
All employees are expected to attend weekly staff meetings on Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m.
2.4.2 Telecommuting:
Telecommuting is an alternative work arrangement that allows an employee to work away from the
office for part of the regular workweek with supervisor approval. Telecommuting is neither an
entitlement nor a company-wide benefit. As such, InterAction has the right to refuse to make
5
telecommuting available to an employee and to terminate a telecommuting arrangement at any time.
When appropriately applied, this work option benefits the company and the individual. Telecommuting
can also support environmental protection by reducing commuting and fuel emissions.
Telecommuters will work during InterAction’s regular business hours (see Section 2.4.1), according to a
schedule agreed upon with supervisors, and be as accessible by phone and by email as non-
telecommuters. Telecommuters must ensure there are no distractions or interruptions, which could
inhibit normal voice communication. InterAction phone lines should be redirected to a home or mobile
number when telecommuting the day before the telecommuting day. Telecommuters need supervisors’
approval for taking a vacation, personal, or sick day during telecommuting hours, just as they would if
they were working in the office setting during regular office hours.
Telecommuting is not designed to be an arrangement for dependent care. An individual employee's

schedule may be modified to accommodate these care needs as per Section 2.4.1. To arrange to work
during sick leave (for yourself or a family member) see Section 4.3.
All positions at InterAction except the receptionist are potentially eligible for telecommuting, based on
the guidelines presented in 1 and 2 below. Overall, the decision to approve a telecommuting
arrangement will be based on factors including position and job duties, performance history, related
work skills, and the impact on the organization. Employees should consult their supervisor to request
participation in either an “occasional” or “regular” telecommuting arrangement. The focus of the
telecommuting arrangement must remain on job performance and meeting business demands.
A. Occasional Telecommuting
Staff may request to work off-site on an occasional, short-term basis to perform a specific task such as
writing, editing, or reviewing materials that requires minimizing distractions. InterAction encourages
this form of telecommuting when it promotes greater work efficiency. The length of such occasional
work at home will normally be part of a day or a day. In such cases, the employee must obtain the
supervisor’s approval by COB the day before the proposed telecommuting day. (For working at home
when sick, see Section 4.3.)
B. Regular Telecommuting
Staff may request to work at home on an ongoing regular basis, usually on the same day each week.
Telecommuting schedules cannot be followed if they conflict with previously established mandatory
meetings, such as weekly all staff meetings. Any organization wide meeting takes precedence. Due to
the nature of InterAction as a membership and team-based organization, regular telecommuting
arrangements are expected to be more limited than occasional telecommuting.
To request a regular telecommuting arrangement, the employee must complete the “Approval Form:
Regular Telecommuting” which includes:
 An outline of the tasks the employee intends to perform, including how these tasks can be
performed off-site and if working off-site will improve performance/productivity.
 A schedule for working at home, i.e., hours and days of the week. This will require the
employee to work closely with the immediate supervisor to develop agreed-upon deliverables
and expectations.
Regular telecommuting arrangements need to be approved by one’s supervisor and signed off on by the
6
VP for one’s own Team, as well as either the VP for Finance and Administration or the VP for Strategic
Impact. This dual approval process recognizes that telecommuting arrangements may have an impact
across the organization and ensures fairness across Teams.
Approved regular telecommuting arrangements (see #2 above) will be for a one-month initial trial
period. At the conclusion of the trial period, the employee and supervisor will each complete the
“Assessment Form: Regular Telecommuting,” which concludes with recommendations for continuing,
modifying, or ceasing the arrangement. If continued, these arrangements then will be reviewed and
renewed every six months on an ongoing basis. Any arrangement may be discontinued, at will, at any
time at the request of either the telecommuter or the supervisor.
VPs, at their quarterly meetings, will also review the status of telecommuting arrangements.
To be considered for regular telecommuting, an employee must have been employed at InterAction for
at least 6 months and be performing currently at an overall satisfactory level or above in her/his
position according to the guidelines in the annual appraisal process document.
C. Liability
InterAction is not liable for loss, repair, or replacement of an employee’s equipment nor for personal
injury during a telecommuting arrangement, per the form all employees sign titled, “Waiver of Liability
for Employees Working at Home.”
2.4.3 Pay Period

InterAction has two pay periods per month – the 1st through the 15th, and the 16th through the last day
of the month. Pay day for each pay period is the last day of that pay period; if pay day falls on a
weekend or holiday, salaries will be paid on the last business day before the weekend/holiday.
2.4.4 Overtime Pay

Non-exempt employees who work more than 40 hours in a regular work week will be paid overtime at
one and one half times the hourly rate of the employee's salary. Overtime must be approved in advance
in writing by the Team director. Non-exempt employees may not take compensatory time in lieu of
overtime pay.
2.5 Payroll Week

For overtime purposes, the work week begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. and ends Saturday at midnight.
Only those hours that are actually worked by the employee will be considered "hours worked" in
computing whether overtime is due and, if so, how much. Travel to and from work, scheduled and
unscheduled absences and time off for holidays, vacation, sickness, jury duty, bereavement leave or
military leave, or for other reasons, will not count as hours “worked” for purposes of computing
whether overtime is due.
2.6 Timesheets
All employees are required to complete semi-monthly timesheets in which all time is to be accounted
for by account codes. Account codes are found on the time sheets and on the list of accounting codes
which is available from the Finance and Administration office.
7
Timesheets should be maintained on a daily basis as work is performed to ensure accuracy. The
timesheet will be emailed to all employees for them to fill out electronically. They should be printed
out for signatures. Errors are to be crossed out and corrected with no erasures or white-outs;
corrections should be explained. Timesheets are to be turned in to the Office Manager by COB two days
after they are distributed by email. The Office Manager compiles timesheets for each Team and gives
them to each VP for signature. The employee and the employee’s supervisor must sign the timesheet.
Employees who do not submit timesheets on a timely basis two or more times may lose the option of
being paid by automatic deposit.
2.7 Compensation
The President and CEO will approve a starting salary for each job. Salaries will be set based on
InterAction’s chart of job classifications and salary levels, resources available and the qualifications of
the person in question. Salary adjustments are considered in the context of annual performance
appraisals and the annual budget.
Annual adjustments will be pro-rated for those employees who have not worked at InterAction for the
entire prior year as follows:
 Employees hired on or before September 30: adjustment will be prorated based on the number
of months worked, including the month of initial employment.
 Employees hired between October 1 and December 31: will still be in their introductory period
and are not eligible for a general salary adjustment until the end of the following calendar year.
Promotions are considered on a quarterly basis, based on recommendation from an employee’s direct
supervisor and presented by a VP for approval by the other VPs and President/CEO.
3.0 GENERAL RULES AND POLICIES
3.1 Confidential Information

While employed by InterAction, employees may have access to, receive, or become familiar with
various trade secrets and other information relating to the business of InterAction which is not
generally available to the public and is considered proprietary and confidential information of
InterAction ("Confidential Information") including, but not limited to, procedures, fundraising
information, strategic plans, contract terms, internal working documents, communications, and
unpublicized financial information. Without the express prior written authorization by the President
and CEO, employees shall not, either during or after employment with InterAction, disclose any
confidential information, directly or indirectly to anyone or use Confidential Information in any way,
except as required for employment. All files, papers, records, documents, drawings, and similar items
and materials relating to the business of the InterAction (including electronic media) shall at all times
remain the exclusive property of InterAction.
3.2 Conflicts of Interest/Board Memberships

It is critical to InterAction’s work that the relationships of InterAction employees with other individuals
and organizations be highly professional. Employment, consultation, or other activities outside of
InterAction’s employment relationship must not be in conflict with InterAction’s mission or compromise
the employee's capability to fully carry out the responsibilities of the employee's position.
8
Employees are not permitted to serve on the Board of Directors of an InterAction member organization.
Any newly-hired employee who is on the Board of Directors of an InterAction member organization may
complete the term he or she is serving when hired, but must recuse him or herself from voting on any
decisions which affect InterAction.
At the time of employment, new employees are asked to complete a form and present a list of outside
employment, consulting contracts, board memberships, or other activities to identify potential conflicts
with InterAction work. On or before January 15 of each calendar year, employees shall disclose in
writing, using a form, to the President and CEO whether they are on the Board of Directors of any
organization. Staff members should keep this list current and advise President and CEO of changes
before engaging in any such additional activities.
In general, outside activities are permissible if there is no likelihood that such activities would
constitute a conflict of interest or have a negative impact on InterAction or its staff. If there is a
possibility of a conflict, employees must obtain the permission of the President and CEO before
engaging in the activity. Any employment or consulting arrangement with an InterAction member,
director, or funding source, or board membership with an InterAction member, is considered a
potential conflict of interest and requires the permission of the President and CEO.
Provided there is no conflict of interest or negative impact, staff members may write or perform work
on their own time and retain copyright and ownership of said works that do not arise out of InterAction
employment.
Employees may not solicit, accept, offer, or give anything of value in exchange for influencing or
appearing to influence any action by InterAction or others. Employees must receive the express
approval of the President and CEO before accepting any offers of gifts and preferential interests,
regardless of value.
3.3 Intellectual Property

Products resulting from an individual's work as an InterAction employee or consultant are the property
of InterAction. This includes all works of authorship created by the employee or consultant, including
but not limited to films, photographs, graphic works, video recordings, books, articles, writings, audio
recordings and computer programs. InterAction employees and consultants agree to execute any
documents necessary or advisable to ensure InterAction’s ownership of and/or registration of all
intellectual property, and agree to take whatever steps are necessary to assist InterAction in asserting
and perfecting such rights. InterAction employees and consultants shall not be entitled to use any of
this work except to the extent expressly agreed to in writing by InterAction.
3.4 Honoraria
Payments for speaking engagements and written materials related to the mission of InterAction or as
part of a regular work assignment are to be turned over to InterAction. Determination of the work-
related nature of written materials and speaking engagements by staff shall be adjudicated by the
President and CEO or a designee.
3.5 Computer, Internet, E-Mail, Software, and Equipment Usage

To remain competitive, better serve our members and provide our employees with the best tools to do
their jobs, InterAction makes available to our workforce access to one or more forms of electronic
9
media and services, including computers, e-mail, telephones, voicemail, fax machines, electronic Fax,
external electronic bulletin boards, wire services, online services, intranet, mobile phones, Internet and
the World Wide Web.
InterAction encourages the use of these media and associated services because they can make
communication more efficient and effective and because they are valuable sources of information
about vendors, members, technology, and new products and services. However, all employees and
everyone connected with the organization should remember that electronic equipment, media and
services provided by the company are company property and their purpose is to facilitate and support
company business. All users have the responsibility to use these resources in a professional, ethical, and
lawful manner.
To ensure that all employees are responsible, guidelines are included in the Appendix B for using e-mail
and the Internet. No policy can lay down rules to cover every possible situation. Instead, it is designed
to express InterAction’s philosophy and set forth general principles when using electronic media and
services.
3.6 Harassment
InterAction is committed to promoting an organizational culture that treats employees equally
regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual
orientation, family responsibilities, physical or mental disability, matriculation, political affiliation, or
otherwise as may be prohibited by applicable law. We are committed to our employees being able to
work in an environment that is free from any form of discrimination or harassment based on these
grounds or any other basis prohibited by law.
Harassment includes, without limitation, verbal harassment (epithets, derogatory statements, slurs),
physical harassment (assault, physical interference with normal work or involvement), visual
harassment (posters, cartoons, drawings), and innuendo.
Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated
physical contact and other verbal or physical conduct, or visual forms of harassment of a sexual nature
when submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of
employment, or is used as the basis for employment decisions, or when such conduct has the purpose
or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive work environment.
An employee cannot be forced to submit to harassing conduct as a basis for any employment decision,
and InterAction prohibits any conduct which creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
environment for our employees based on their protected statuses.
Any employee who believes that he or she has been harassed by a supervisor, co-worker, customer or
member of InterAction has a responsibility to report the matter immediately to the attention of the
Vice President for Finance and Administration, or to the President and CEO if the employee feels unable
to raise the complaint with the Vice President for Finance and Administration. Complaints concerning
the President and CEO should be made to the Chair of the Board of Directors.
10
Employees who become aware of harassment, whether or not it is directed at them, are required to
report the conduct before it becomes severe or pervasive.
InterAction will investigate all allegations of harassment as promptly and confidentially as possible. All
employees should act responsibly and truthfully in making allegations, responding to allegations, and
providing information in an investigation. Any employee who is determined, after an investigation, to
have engaged in harassment in violation of this policy shall be subject to discipline, up to and including
termination where warranted.
InterAction will not retaliate against an employee for making a complaint under this policy in good faith
or for participating in good faith in an investigation of a violation of this policy.
3.7 Personal Relationships

InterAction is sensitive to the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when an individual directly or
indirectly supervises another individual with whom he or she is in an intimate relationship. Therefore, if
two employees who are in a supervisory chain are involved in such a relationship, they are required to
notify the President and CEO, who is authorized to take appropriate action.
InterAction reserves the right not to hire immediate family of an employee, including spouse, sibling,
parent, child or domestic partner.
3.8 Employees with Disabilities

InterAction is committed to complying with all applicable provisions of the laws prohibiting
discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It is InterAction’s policy not to discriminate against
any qualified employee or applicant because of the individual’s disability or perceived disability, so long
as the employee can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable
accommodation. InterAction will provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified individual with a
disability who has made InterAction aware of his or her disability, as long as the accommodation does
not constitute an undue hardship on InterAction.
Employees with a disability who believe they need a reasonable accommodation to perform the
essential functions of their job should contact their supervisor, the Vice President for Finance and
Administration, or the President and CEO.
3.9 Grievance Procedure

InterAction wishes to provide the best possible working conditions for all employees. As part of our
commitment, we encourage an open and frank atmosphere in which problems, complaints,
suggestions, or questions can be answered quickly and accurately by representatives of the
organization.
In addition, any employee who has a complaint or concern regarding disciplinary action, termination of
employment, demotion, denial of promotion or merit increase, layoff, or discrimination based on a
category (i.e. race, age, sex) recognized by federal or local civil rights laws, may file a grievance
according to the procedures outlined below.
Employees (other than temporary employees) who have been employed for at least twelve consecutive
months and who are dismissed from employment may use the Grievance Procedure to challenge the
11
dismissal. However, InterAction is not required to keep such employees on the payroll or enrolled in
any benefits pending completion of the grievance process.
The grievance procedure is not intended to be utilized to challenge the substance of a personnel
evaluation, program-related decisions, policy, or minor grievances.
Step one. An employee with a problem, question or complaint is encouraged to discuss the matter with
his or her immediate supervisor. The simplest, quickest, and most satisfactory solution will often be
reached in this manner.
Step two. If discussion between the employee and his or her immediate supervisor does not answer
the question or resolve the matter to the employee’s satisfaction, the employee may present the
situation in writing to the appropriate Team VP, with a copy provided to the Vice President for Finance
and Administration. The written grievance must be filed within three months of the occurrence and
should fully describe the problem and any previous efforts that the employee has taken to resolve it.
The Team VP will take appropriate steps to resolve the grievance. Under normal circumstances (i.e.,
when not traveling or absent from work), it is expected that the VP will provide a written response to
the grievance within twenty business days of receipt. If the employee’s grievance pertains to actions of
the Team VP, the employee may satisfy this step of the grievance procedure by presenting the situation
in writing to the VP for Finance and Administration or the VP for Strategic Impact, who will respond to
it. Complaints concerning the President and CEO should be made to the VP for Finance and
Administration.
Step three. At this point, if the matter is still not resolved satisfactorily, either party may present the
grievance in writing to InterAction’s President or the President’s designee. The grievance must be
presented within 10 working days of receipt of the VP’s response. The President's response is
InterAction’s final decision.
3.10 Drugs and Alcohol

To help insure a safe, healthy, and productive work environment for our employees and others, to
protect company property, to insure efficient operations, and to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace
Act, InterAction has adopted a policy of maintaining a workplace free of drugs and alcohol. This policy
applies to all employees and other individuals performing work for InterAction and all employees and
other individuals must abide by this policy as a condition of employment.
The unlawful or unauthorized use, abuse, solicitation, theft, possession, transfer, manufacture,
purchase, sale or distribution of controlled substances or alcohol by an individual anywhere on
organization premises, while on InterAction business or while representing InterAction, is strictly
prohibited. Employees and other individuals working for InterAction also are prohibited from reporting
to work or working when the employee uses any controlled substances, except when the use is
pursuant to a licensed medical practitioner’s instructions.
Employees are permitted to drink alcohol in moderation at InterAction-sponsored events, so long as

they exercise sound judgment at all times.
Employees who are convicted under any criminal drug statute are required to notify the President and
CEO or the Vice President for Finance and Administration within five days of the conviction. A
12
conviction includes a finding of guilt, a plea of nolo contendre, and/or the imposition of a sentence by
any judicial body responsible for determining violations of federal or state criminal drug statutes.
Employees violating this policy shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action up to and including
termination. InterAction may require an employee convicted of such criminal drug activities to
participate in and satisfactorily complete a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program.
3.11 Smoke-free Environment

Smoking is not allowed on the premises of InterAction.
3.12 Authorization for Binding Agreements and Proposals

Only the President and CEO is authorized to make verbal or written commitments or enter into
contracts or other binding agreements on behalf of InterAction. In addition, no funding proposals
should be submitted without the President and CEO’s review and approval. Finally, all job
announcements and all hiring decisions must be approved by the President and CEO. Any budgets,
proposals, or contracts also require review by the Vice President for Finance and Administration.
3.13 References
Any current or former employee or intern who wishes to authorize any InterAction employee to provide
a full reference is required to sign an authorization form, which is given to employees and interns when
they begin work at InterAction and when they leave.
Authorization forms shall be maintained in individual personnel files and a general intern file. No
InterAction employee may provide a full reference without ensuring that an authorization form is on
file.
All requests for employment-related information about employees, former employees, or interns for
whom there is no authorization on file should be referred to the VP of Finance and Administration, who
will provide a neutral reference.
3.14 Whistleblower Policy:

Principles
InterAction requires its employees to observe the highest standards of business and financial ethics and
to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and InterAction policies. This Whistleblower Policy details
the steps to take when you feel you have identified or observed conduct in the organization that
contravenes these laws and policies.
Responsibility for Reporting

It is the responsibility of all employees to report violations or suspected violations in accordance with
this Whistleblower Policy. This includes any suspected financial or accounting impropriety, or any illegal
or unethical business behavior.
No Retaliation and Confidentiality

No employee who in good faith reports a violation or suspected violation shall suffer harassment,
retaliation or adverse employment consequence. An employee who retaliates against someone who
has reported a violation in good faith is subject to discipline up to and including termination of
13
employment. InterAction shall endeavor to assure confidentiality to employees desiring it under this
circumstance.
The Process for Reporting Violations

InterAction supports an open door policy and suggests that employees share their questions, concerns,
suggestions or complaints with someone who can address them properly. In most cases, an employee’s
supervisor or Team Leader is in the best position to address an area of concern. However, if you are not
comfortable speaking with these individuals or you are not satisfied with their response, you are
encouraged to speak to the VP for Finance and Administration/Director of Human Resources or to the
President and CEO. Supervisors and Team Leaders are required to report suspected violations to the
Compliance Officer (VP for Finance and Administration) who will in turn notify the President/CEO.
Suspected violations involving the Compliance Officer or by the President/CEO are to be reported to the
Chair of the Board Audit Committee or to the Chair of the Board, as appropriate.
All concerns raised under this policy will be dealt with promptly and will be treated seriously and
sensitively. Your concerns will be discussed with you in order to help determine the precise action to be
taken. It will be for the manager with whom you have raised the concern to decide whether or not to
involve other parties. Whenever possible, resolution will be reached and the outcome known within 30
days of raising the concern. You will be informed of the action taken and the outcome.
Compliance Officer
The VP for Finance and Administration is designated as InterAction’s compliance officer and is
responsible for investigating and resolving all reported complaints and allegations concerning
violations. The compliance officer, at her/his discretion, shall advise the President/CEO and/or the Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors. Where there is an issue of potential fraud, a fraud investigation
must be carried out and will engage the VP for Finance and Administration as appropriate.
Accounting and Auditing Matters

The Audit Committee of the board of directors shall address all reported concerns or complaints
regarding corporate accounting practices, internal controls or auditing. The compliance officer shall
immediately notify the audit committee and the VP for Finance and Administration of any such
complaint and work with the committee until the matter is resolved.
4.0 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
4.1 Fringe Benefits Package

All regular full time and part-time employees may participate in InterAction’s benefits on the basis set
forth in Section 2.2 above. Part-time employees receive only government-mandated benefits.
Temporary employees receive only government-mandated benefits.
Health, life, accidental death and dismemberment, and long-term disability insurance become effective
for eligible employees on the first day of the first full month of employment. Other benefits, including
retirement and annual and personal leave, become effective for eligible employees after the end of the
introductory period.
Brief descriptions of the fringe benefits provided are set forth below. However, please note that these
descriptions do not represent or create a warranty of benefits, and InterAction may change or eliminate
14
benefits at any time in its sole discretion, except to the extent certain fringe benefits are required by
law. The benefit descriptions also are general in nature. If you have specific questions about current
benefit plans maintained by InterAction, refer to the actual plan documents and summary plan
descriptions. Those documents are controlling. While InterAction offers various insurance benefits to
employees, InterAction’s insurance carriers establishes the terms of coverage. Employees must meet
these terms to receive coverage under InterAction’s insurance plans.
4.1.1 Health Insurance
InterAction provides a health insurance program for its regular employees, including those in the
introductory period. InterAction currently pays 100% of the premium for regular full-time employees
and part-time employees working at least 80% time (32 or more hours per week). Coverage includes
both individual and dependent coverage.
The cost of group health insurance for part-time employees working between 20 and 31 hours per week
is prorated. Dependent care coverage is available to part-time employees working between 20 and 31
hours per week at the employee's entire expense. Employees working fewer than 20 hours per week
are not eligible to participate in the health insurance plan.
A complete description of InterAction's health plan is available from the Vice President for Finance and
Administration.
InterAction complies with federal law on health insurance continuation upon termination or resignation
from InterAction (COBRA). Employees and dependents of employees are entitled to continue in
InterAction’s group health insurance at their own expense upon the employee’s termination or
resignation from InterAction. The terms of continuation are determined by federal law; employees
receive notice of their COBRA rights upon termination of their employment with InterAction.
4.1.2 Life Insurance

InterAction provides to each regular employee a life insurance/accidental death and dismemberment
policy which is paid in full by InterAction. The benefit of this policy is equal to twice the employee’s
annual salary, up to a maximum benefit of $350,000. Detailed information is available from the Vice
President for Finance and Administration.
4.1.3 Travel, War Risk and Medevac Insurance

InterAction provides travel insurance for employees who travel on InterAction business. The provisions
of coverage may vary, including war risk and medevac coverage, depending on conditions in the
country(ies)or area(s) the employee travels to and/or in. Some coverage may be purchased on a trip-by-
trip basis, rather than through blanket year-round policies; for this reason, any employee travelling on
InterAction business must so inform the Security Coordinator and the Vice President for Finance &
Administration at least 10 working days prior to departure. Coverage may be limited or unavailable for
some countries and/or areas.
4.1.4 Long-term Disability Insurance

Each employee is eligible for long term disability insurance paid in full by InterAction. Detailed
information is available from the Vice President for Finance and Administration.
15
4.1.4 Pension Plan: Group Retirement Annuity (GRA)
InterAction sponsors a Pension Plan with TIAA-CREF under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a) for
regular employees. No employee contribution or match is required. InterAction contributes to the Plan
in the following amounts:
 Date of hire to End of 5th Year: 10% of employee’s gross pay

 Beginning of 6th Year to End of 7th Year: 12% of employee’s gross pay
th
 Beginning of 8 year and beyond: 15% of employee’s gross pay
4.1.5 Tax-Deferred Annuity: Supplemental Retirement Annuity (SRA)

In addition to the pension contributions made by InterAction, employees have the option of making
their own contributions through a tax deferred annuity (403(b)) program. This program allows
employees to allocate a percentage of their paychecks for retirement; these contributions are from pre-
tax-dollars. Participation is voluntary and contributions are made through payroll deductions. Detailed
information is available from the Vice President for Finance and Administration.
4.1.6 Transportation Benefits

InterAction offers three transportation benefits on a voluntary basis as allowed by IRS regulations.
These benefits enable an employee to pay certain transportation expenses with pre-tax payroll
deductions, as follows:
 Metro – All employees may have funds deducted and used to purchase Smartbenefits cards for
use on the Metro system. Maximum allowable in 2009 is $230 per month.
 Parking – Employees using the parking lot in the InterAction building under a monthly parking
contract may have funds deducted and used to pay their monthly parking fee. Maximum
allowable in 2009 is $230 per month.
 Bicycle – An employee who “regularly uses [a] bicycle for a substantial portion of the travel
between the employee’s residence and place of employment” during a “qualified bicycle
commuting month” may have funds deducted and reimbursed to him/her for reasonable
expenses incurred during the calendar year; reasonable expenses include “the purchase of a
bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage.” Maximum allowable in 2009 is $20 per
qualified bicycle commuting month. However, an employee may not receive the bicycle benefit
in any month in which he/she receives the Metro and/or Parking benefit. Quoted language,
limits, and restrictions are per IRS regulations.
4.1.7 Other
Employees will receive Social Security, unemployment insurance and workers compensation benefits to
the extent mandated by law.
4.1.8 Staff Development:

InterAction includes a “staff development fund” in its annual budget. Staff is informed in January the
amount that is available per staff member. Within Teams, staff can share resources amongst
themselves (for example, if one staff member plans to spend more and another staff member needs
less). The staff development approval form needs to be signed by the Team VP and turned in to the HR
Associate in Finance and Administration.
16
4.2 Vacation Policy
InterAction’s vacation policy is designed to reward length of service. All regular full-time and part-time
employees are eligible for annual paid vacations after the introductory period. Part-time employees
accrue vacation on a pro-rata basis. All employees are strongly encouraged to take vacation leave
annually.
4.2.1 Method of Accrual

Vacation accrues as follows:
 *Date of hire to End of 2nd Year: 15 days/year (5.00 hours/pay period)

 Beginning of 3rd Year to End of 5th Year: 20 days/year (6.67 hours/pay period)
th
 Beginning of 6 Year and beyond: 25 days/year (8.33 hours/pay period)
*Note: Leave is accrued from the date of hire, but cannot be taken during the initial 3 month
introductory period, unless special approval for a pre-existing commitment is made at the time of
hiring. See Section 4.2.3.
Leave will be made available for use in two stages: the first half of the annual amount will be available
on January 1, the second half on July 1. For employees beginning or terminating employment,
calculations pertaining to accruals and balances will be based on the accrual rates specified above.
4.2.2 Scheduling a Vacation

All vacation requests should be approved by the direct supervisor on the Vacation Approval form at
least two weeks in advance in order to deter potential work disruption within InterAction. Vacation may
also be used on an unplanned basis for unexpected occurrences such as bad weather, or other personal
emergencies.
4.2.3 Leave for New Employees

New employees begin to earn vacation hours as of the first day of employment but are not eligible to
take vacation days during the 3-month introductory period. The exception to this policy is when a new
employee has leave already planned at the time of employment and discusses this with his/her new
supervisor. Employees who are terminated or leave before the end of their introductory period are not
entitled to any vacation pay.
4.2.4 Compensation Upon Termination

Upon resignation or termination, an employee is entitled to receive payment for unused accrued
vacation days as of the final work day. Compensation will be based on the employee's current salary
level.
4.3 Sick Leave

Employees are encouraged to take care of themselves and to stay at home when ill.
When regular full-time employees are unable to work because of accident, illness, medical or dental
appointments, pregnancy, parental leave, illness of a loved one, or there is risk of contagion to
colleagues, they can draw on their allowance of paid sick days. Sick leave is granted each regular full-
time employee at the rate of one day per month (4 hours per pay period - 12 total days per calendar
year); regular part-time employees receive sick leave on a prorated basis. Unused sick leave balances
17
may be carried over from year to year. Employees leaving InterAction are not paid for accumulated sick
leave. Employees may take sick leave during their introductory period.
If all sick leave has been used, then vacation time may be utilized to cover continued absence because
of illness. If an employee exhausts all sick and annual leave, s/he may be eligible for long-term
disability leave.
Employees must call their supervisor to report that they are unable to work; if unable to do so, they
should have someone else call at the start of the workday. If an employee is able to work for part of the
time during sick leave (as defined in the first sentence above), s/he should get verbal approval to do so
from the supervisor.
At InterAction’s discretion, a supervisor may request that an employee who is ill for one or more day
supply a physician's note about an absence or as certification that they may resume all of their duties
before returning to work.
For certain illnesses, InterAction's family and medical leave policies may also be applicable.
InterAction's sick leave policy will be applied in conjunction with those policies.
4.4 Family and Medical Leave

Employees who have been employed with InterAction for a minimum of one year without a break in
service and who have worked a minimum of 1,000 hours during the 12 month period immediately
preceding a leave request under this provision are eligible for Family and Medical Leave pursuant to the
D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act, as set forth below.
4.4.1 Family Leave

(a) According to Federal Law, an employee may take a total of 16 workweeks of unpaid family leave
during any 24 month period for:
 The birth of a child of the employee;

 The placement of a child with an employee for adoption or foster care;
 The placement of a child with the employee for whom the employee permanently assumes
and discharges parental responsibility, or
 The care of a family member of the employee who has a serious health condition.
(b) If the request for family leave is based on one of the first three reasons set forth above, InterAction
provides six weeks of paid parental leave (at the employee's regular full or part-time salary), which
employees may substitute for part of the unpaid leave to which they are entitled. An employee
may also elect to substitute accrued vacation, personal or sick leave for unpaid family and medical
leave provided under this section. Any parental, vacation, personal or sick leave used for family
leave purposes, even if not specifically designated as such, will count against the total allowable
leave available under this provision.
(c) If the request for family leave is based on one of the first three reasons set forth above, the
entitlement to leave expires twelve months after the birth or placement of the child.
18
(d) The term "family member" includes a person to whom the employee is related by blood, legal
custody, or marriage; a foster child; a child who lives with an employee and for whom the
employee permanently assumes and discharges parental responsibility; or a person with whom the
employee shares or has shared, within the last year, a mutual residence and with whom the
employee maintains a committed relationship. The term "committed relationship" means a familial
relationship between two individuals demonstrated by such factors as, but not limited to, mutual
economic interdependence including joint bank accounts, joint tenancy, shared lease, and joint and
mutual financial obligations such as loans; domestic interdependence including close association,
public presentment of the relationship, exclusiveness of the relationship; the length of the
relationship; and the intent of the relationship as evidenced by a will or life insurance.
(e) A serious health condition means a physical or mental illness, injury or impairment that involves
either inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility or continuing
treatment or supervision at home by a health care provider or other competent individual. A
serious health condition includes illness or medical impairment due to pregnancy, childbirth, and
related medical conditions.
(f) If leave is taken to care for a family member who has a serious health condition, the family leave
may be taken intermittently when medically necessary. Otherwise, family leave may not be taken
intermittently or on a reduced schedule unless agreed to by InterAction.
(g) If two family members are employees of InterAction, InterAction may limit to 16 workweeks during
a 24 month period the aggregate number of family leave workweeks to which the family members
are entitled and may limit to 4 workweeks during a 24 month period the aggregate number of
family leave workweeks which the family members are entitled to take simultaneously.
4.4.2 Medical Leave

(a) An employee may take a total of 16 workweeks of unpaid medical leave during any 24 month
period if the employee is unable to perform the functions of his/her position because of a serious
health condition. The medical leave may be taken intermittently when medically necessary.
(b) If an employee's serious health condition is covered under InterAction’s disability, workers
compensation or other insurance policies, then such paid leave will be substituted for all or a
portion of the unpaid leave available under this subsection. In addition, an employee may elect to
substitute accrued paid vacation, personal, or sick leave for part of the unpaid leave to which they
are entitled under this subsection. Any vacation, personal or sick leave used for medical leave
purposes, even if not specifically designated as such, will count against the total allowable leave
available under this section.
(c) A serious health condition means a physical or mental illness, injury or impairment that involves
either inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility or continuing
treatment or supervision at home by a health care provider or other competent individual. A
serious health condition includes illness or medical impairment due to pregnancy, childbirth, and
related medical conditions.
19
4.4.3 Family and Medical Leave -- Joint Provisions
(a) Notice and Scheduling. If the necessity for leave under this section is foreseeable, the employee
shall provide InterAction with reasonable prior notice of the expected dates when leave is needed.
A minimum of thirty days advance notice should be provided unless not practicable. If the
necessity for either family or medical leave associated with medical treatment is foreseeable
based on planned medical treatment or supervision, the employee shall make a reasonable effort
to schedule the medical treatment or supervision, subject to the approval of the health care
provider, in a manner that does not disrupt unduly the operations of InterAction.
(b) Medical Certification. Employees taking either family or medical leave associated with medical
treatment may be required to provide InterAction with a certification issued by the health care
provider. This certification shall state:
 The date on which the serious health condition commenced;

 The probable duration of the condition;
 The appropriate medical facts within the knowledge of the health care provider that would
entitle the employee to take the leave provided in this section; and
 For purposes of the medical leave, a statement that the employee is unable to perform the
functions of the employee’s position; or for purposes of the family leave, an estimate of the
amount of time that the employee is needed to care for the family member.
InterAction may require additional information or certifications where appropriate and consistent with
law.
(c) Benefits.
(i) An employee who takes family or medical leave under this provision shall not lose any
employment benefit or seniority accrued before the date on which the family or
medical leave commenced.
(ii) During any period in which an employee takes unpaid family or medical leave under
this section InterAction shall maintain health, life and disability insurance coverage for
that employee under InterAction’s group plans for the duration of the family or medical
leave at the same level and under the same conditions that the coverage would have
been provided if the employee had not taken leave.
(c) Return to Work.

(i) Staff who take family or medical leave are expected to return to work, at a minimum
for the length of their leave period.
(ii) Except for certain highly compensated employees described below, upon return from
family or medical leave, an employee shall be restored to the same or an equivalent
position of employment held by the employee when the family or medical leave
commenced. An equivalent position includes a position with equivalent employment
benefits, pay, seniority, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(iii) InterAction may deny restoration of employment to an employee who is among the
highest paid 10 percent of InterAction’s employees:
20
 If necessary to prevent substantial economic injury to InterAction’s operations and
the injury is not directly related to the leave taken under this section; or
 If InterAction is under a contract to provide work or services and the absence of the
employee prohibits InterAction from completing the contract in accordance with its
terms; failure to complete the contract will cause substantial economic injury to
InterAction and InterAction is unable to find a temporary replacement for the
employee.
InterAction will notify employees to whom restoration will be denied once InterAction makes a
determination to that effect.
4. 5 Personal and Summer Leave

Regular full-time employees receive four days of personal leave annually, with one day made available
at the beginning of each calendar quarter; unused personal days may be carried forward within the
calendar year. Regular part-time employees receive personal leave on a pro-rated basis. Personal leave
cannot be accumulated or carried over from year to year and employees are not paid for accrued,
unused personal leave upon termination or resignation. Personal leave cannot be taken during the
introductory period.
In addition, several days of “summer leave” may be granted at the discretion of the President/CEO.
4.6 Leave due to Government Service

InterAction complies with all legal obligations applicable to employees called up for National Guard,
Military Reserve, or active duty service.
4.7 Paid Holidays

InterAction provides the following 11 paid holidays for all regular employees: New Year's Day, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus
Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. If a holiday occurs
on a weekend, it may be observed on the preceding Friday or succeeding Monday.
InterAction may also be closed at the discretion of the President.
4.7.1 Religious Holidays

Employees may use vacation or personal leave for religious holidays, so long as approved in advance by
the supervisor.
4.8 Weather and Security Leave

InterAction adheres to the policy of the Federal government with respect to absence due to inclement
weather conditions and heightened security risks. In most cases, this means a "liberal or unscheduled
leave policy," which permits employees to take vacation or personal leave if they do not wish to come
to work because of adverse weather. If an employee plans to work from home (for a full day or part of a
day) during this leave, s/he needs to inform the supervisor at the beginning of the day.
21
If the Federal Government closes because of inclement weather, heightened security risk, or the like,
InterAction office will be closed and staff will be paid for the day.
4.9 Compensatory Leave

Exempt employees are compensated for carrying out their designated responsibilities – they are not
compensated based on the number of hours spent on the job; accordingly, as a matter of policy,
exempt employees are not eligible for overtime pay or compensatory leave. It is understood that
within Teams short-term flexible scheduling will be used to accommodate the fluctuating demands of
regular work requirements.
Notwithstanding the above, InterAction recognizes that there are circumstances in which it is to the
benefit of both the employee and InterAction for the employee to receive compensatory leave.
Compensatory leave may be granted in the following circumstances:
a. The employee is on official business travel on a weekend or holiday or during the
week outside of regular work hours (including time in transit). The employee may
accrue 1 hour of compensatory leave for each hour in travel status.
b. Special circumstances associated with an employee’s work responsibilities
require substantial extra time on duty during a defined period of time. The
employee may accrue 1 hour of compensatory leave for each hour worked above
50 hours in a week.
Compensatory leave is subject to the following:
 It must be approved in advance by the employee’s supervisor.
 No more than an aggregate total of 12 days (96 hours) of compensatory leave

may be accrued in a calendar year.
 Compensatory leave granted must be used within 3 months of being accrued; if

not used within this timeframe it will be forfeited.
 Employees may not be paid for unused compensatory leave.
4.10 Leave of absence
Regular employees who have been employed at InterAction for at least two years are eligible for unpaid
leaves of absence of up to eight weeks, with the expectation that a staff member will return to
InterAction employment.
Employees should request a leave of absence in writing, stating the reasons for the request, the
anticipated length of leave and projected return-to-work date. A leave of absence can be taken only
with approval of the President and CEO, who will consider requests on a case-by-case basis.
Group health, life and disability insurance can continue during a leave of absence if the employee pays
the premium before going on leave.
During a leave of absence, no vacation, personal or sick leave accrues. Employees continue to accrue
creditable service for purposes of the pension plan.
22
4.11 Time Off Without Pay
With approval of the supervisor and President and CEO, regular employees who have used all of their
vacation and personal leave and need additional time off (but do not qualify for FMLA), may take up to
five days of leave without pay.
4.12 Bereavement Leave

Regular employees may take up to three days of paid leave upon the death of a family member or a
close loved one, as defined in the Family and Medical Leave policy, Section 4.4.1(d) above. Employees
may also use sick, personal, or annual leave for additional bereavement leave.
4.13 Jury Duty

An employee selected for jury duty is paid his/her regular salary by InterAction, as long as the employee
attaches a copy of the jury notice to his or her time sheet. Employees must notify their supervisor of the
jury duty immediately upon receipt of notice and keep the supervisor informed of the length of the jury
service.
4.14 Voting
Full-time employees who are unable to vote otherwise may receive up to two paid hours off in order to
vote during working hours.
5.0 JOB PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT AS EMPLOYEE
5.1 Performance Reviews

Generally, performance reviews of employees will be conducted on an annual basis, although new
employees will generally be reviewed at the end of the first three months, as well. Performance
reviews are intended to identify both those aspects of the job which are being performed well and
those aspects that need attention. They are also a formal opportunity for you to express any concerns
the employee might have about the job or about employment with InterAction. However, there is no
need to wait until the next review to express concerns; supervisors are available throughout the year to
meet with employees about issues, problems or questions related to employment.
InterAction has prepared Performance Appraisal Guidelines which are available from the Vice President
for Finance and Administration.
5.2 Employee Conduct

InterAction’s Human Resources policy is based on the values of respect and fairness. Employees are
expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and good judgment in all aspects of
their work and working relationships, both within InterAction and externally and to comply with the
procedures in this Employee Handbook. Employees must avoid any kind of action or behavior which
would impair InterAction’s operations or reflect adversely upon InterAction or its activities. Staff also
are expected to adhere to existing laws of the D.C. and Federal governments, and of other governments
when traveling overseas.
23
6.0 SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT
6.1 Corrective Action

When performance issues are identified with respect to an employee, when instances of unacceptable
conduct occur, or when for any reason the employment relationship has become problematic from the
point of view of InterAction, any of a variety of steps might be taken, up to and including termination.
In some cases, the employee might be given an oral or written warning. In other cases, immediate
probation, suspension (with or without pay), demotion, termination or other corrective action might
take place. InterAction reserves its right in its sole discretion to determine what it believes is an
appropriate response, and to implement it.
Nothing in this section changes the presumption of at-will employment, meaning that either the
employee or the InterAction may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without
cause.
6.2 Separation
The following policies apply to employees separating from employment.
6.2.1 Notice
InterAction asks employees to give at least two weeks notice of resignation; directors are asked to give
four weeks notice. InterAction reserves the right to pay a resigning employee for the notice period, but
to prohibit the employee from working for InterAction during that time. InterAction usually notifies
regular staff two weeks prior to the effective date of termination.
6.2.2 Severance Pay

Severance pay is not available to employees who are dismissed for cause or for reasons related to
misconduct as an employee, including violations of InterAction's policies.
Regular full-time employees who are separated involuntarily due to lay-off, loss of funds, reorganization
or reduction in staff, receive one week's severance per full year of employment not to exceed twelve
weeks (60 days) unless exception is approved by the Executive Committee.
Severance is calculated based on full years of employment completed (no partial years), and is paid in a
lump sum, minus applicable deductions.
In order to receive severance, employee's must:
(1) continue to work until the last day scheduled for their employment, unless this requirement is
expressly waived by President and CEO;
(2) turn in all reports and paperwork required to be completed by them when due and no later
than the last day of work;
(3) return any files, documents, equipment, keys, software, computer or voicemail passwords,
credit cards, or other property belonging to InterAction, and pay any money they owe to
InterAction;
24
(4) participate in an exit interview, upon the request of their supervisor; and,
(5) agree to sign a release of employment-related claims against InterAction, upon the President
and CEO's request.
Notwithstanding the above, employees who violate InterAction's policies or who demonstrate
unacceptable conduct (including insufficient effort on the job) during the remainder of their
employment following notice of the termination or lay-off may be denied severance pay and/or may be
dismissed prior to the agreed-upon termination date, in the discretion of the President and CEO.
6.2.3 Pay Upon Termination

Upon voluntary or involuntary termination of the employment relationship, regardless of the reason,
the employee will be paid any wages earned but not yet paid (minus any amounts owed to the
organization) and accrued but unused vacation pay. The employee will not be paid for accrued but
unused sick leave, personal days or other paid leave. Severance pay will be paid only as authorized in
Section 6.2.2 above.
Before InterAction issues an employee’s final paycheck, the employee must provide the following
items:
• Letter of resignation, if resigning
• Repayment of outstanding pay or travel advances
• Outstanding expense reports
• Office key
• Office card key
• InterAction issued credit cards
• Computer password
• Voicemail password, or set voicemail password at default
• Forwarding address
• Papers, files, software, hardware, or other items belonging to InterAction
• Reference Authorization Form (optional)
25
Appendix A
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have received a copy of the InterAction Employee Handbook, have reviewed it and had the
opportunity to ask my supervisor questions about it. I understand the policies described in the Manual
and agree to abide by them.
I understand that this Manual does not represent a contract of employment, but rather serves as a
guideline.
I acknowledge that no representative of InterAction has promised me employment for any definite
period of time, and that no one is authorized to make such promises to me unless they are in writing
signed by the President and CEO. I understand that as an employee of InterAction, I am employed at
will, meaning that either I or InterAction may terminate my employment at any time, with or without
cause.
I understand that this Employee Handbook, and the policies and benefits described in it, may be
changed from time to time, with or without advance notice, in InterAction’s discretion.
Signed __________________________________________________________
Please Print Name and Address ______________________________________
Date ____________________________________________________________
1
Appendix B
GUIDELINES FOR EMAIL AND INTERNET USE
1. Prohibited Communications
Electronic media cannot be used for knowingly transmitting, retrieving, or storing any communication
that is:
a. Discriminatory or harassing;
b. Derogatory to any individual or group;
c. Obscene, sexually explicit or pornographic;
d. Defamatory or threatening;
e. In violation of any license governing the use of software; or
f. Engaged in for any purpose that is illegal or contrary to InterAction policy or business interests.
2. Personal Use
The computers, electronic media and services provided by InterAction are primarily for business use to
assist employees in the performance of their jobs. Limited, occasional, or incidental use of electronic
media (sending or receiving) for personal, non-business purposes is understandable and acceptable, and
all such use should be done in a manner that does not negatively affect the systems' use for their
business purposes. However, employees are expected to demonstrate a sense of responsibility and not
abuse this privilege.
3. Access to Employee Communications

A. Generally, electronic information created and/or communicated by an employee using e-mail, word
processing, utility programs, spreadsheets, voicemail, telephones, Internet and bulletin board system
access, and similar electronic media is not reviewed by the company. However, the following
conditions should be noted:
InterAction does routinely gather logs for most electronic activities or monitor employee
communications directly, e.g., telephone numbers dialed, sites accessed, call length, and time at which
calls are made, for the following purposes:
1. Cost analysis;
2. Resource allocation;
3. Optimum technical management of information resources; and
4. Detecting patterns of use that indicate employees are violating company policies or engaging in
illegal activity.
B. InterAction reserves the right, at the supervisor’s discretion, to collect and review any employee's
1
electronic files and messages to the extent necessary to ensure electronic media and services are being
used in compliance with the law, this policy and other company policies.
C. Employees should not assume electronic communications are completely private. Accordingly, if they
have sensitive information to transmit, they should use other means.
4. Software
To prevent computer viruses from being transmitted through the company's computer system,
unauthorized downloading of any unauthorized software is strictly prohibited. Only software registered
through InterAction may be downloaded. Employees should contact the MIS office if they have any
questions.
5. Security/Appropriate Use
A. Employees must respect the confidentiality of other individuals' electronic communications. Except
in cases in which explicit authorization has been granted by company management, employees are
prohibited from engaging in, or attempting to engage in:
1. Monitoring or intercepting the files or electronic communications of other employees or third

parties;
2. Hacking or obtaining access to systems or accounts they are not authorized to use;
3. Using other people's log-ins or passwords; and
4. Breaching, testing, or monitoring computer or network security measures.
B. No e-mail or other electronic communications can be sent that attempt to hide the identity of the
sender or represent the sender as someone else.
C. Electronic media and services should not be used in a manner that is likely to cause network
congestion or significantly hamper the ability of other people to access and use the system.
D. Anyone obtaining electronic access to other companies' or individuals' materials must respect all
copyrights and cannot copy, retrieve, modify or forward copyrighted materials except as permitted by
the copyright owner.
6. Encryption
Employees can use encryption software supplied to them by the MIS office for purposes of safeguarding
sensitive or confidential business information. Employees who use encryption on files stored on a
company computer must provide their supervisor with a sealed hard copy record (to be retained in a
secure location) of all of the passwords and/or encryption keys necessary to access the files.
7. Participation in Online Forums

Employees should remember that any messages or information sent on company-provided facilities to
one or more individuals via an electronic network—for example, Internet mailing lists, bulletin boards,
and online services—are statements identifiable and attributable to InterAction.
2
8. Computer Equipment Used For Remote Access
Employees must make sure that computers used for remote access are clean of viruses and malware
when connected to InterAction’s internal network and contact the MIS office if uncertain. Users
connected to the network are responsible for their file transactions and must use extreme care in
handling their files and the shared files they have access to.
Employees should also avoid using public computers for remote access at all times. InterAction is not
liable for any damages to user’s personal equipment when used to connect remotely or locally to the
network.
9. Violations
Any employee who abuses the privilege of their access to e-mail or the Internet in violation of this
policy will be subject to corrective action, including possible termination of employment, legal action,
and criminal liability.
3
InterAction's 2009 Organization-Wide Plan
Goal I. Promote a bold agenda for enhancing U.S. development and humanitarian assistance so that it is focused on
improving the conditions of the world’s poor and most vulnerable. Engage with the United States Government to
advance poverty alleviation and humanitarian relief as major independent U.S. foreign assistance priorities.
Advocate for the creation of a Cabinet-level U.S. Department of Development and Humanitarian Assistance.
Goal II. Demonstrate and enhance NGO accountability and impact in development and humanitarian action.
Goal III. Be the voice and prime representative of U.S. international NGOs in building alliances and common agendas
with NGO networks around the world and with other strategic partners.
Goal IV. Embrace effective management practices and raise resources to support full implementation of Goals 1-3.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 2009 OUTCOMES AND MEASURES FOR 2009 (Per Objective)
Goal I. InterAction will promote a bold agenda
I/1. STRENGTHENING COALITION ADVOCACY AND

CAPACITY:
To deepen our, and our members’, engagement with
Congress and the Executive branch to advance our policy
goals by:
A. Deepening and expanding our coalition’s ability to Senior Policy Directors of InterAction member organizations meet at least five times in 2009.
act jointly, as a coalition, to influence Congress
and other policy makers;
a. New champions identified; relationships with current champions strengthened.
B. Cultivating congressional champions and
strengthening relationships with key b. Identify and meet with key Obama administration officials at the Department of State,
administration officials; USAID, National Security Council, and the Department of Defense.
(Gates Objective 1/Activity 1.1, and Objective 2/Activity c. Outreach and communications working group meetings held at least bi-monthly, with an
2.1) average of 20 participants each.
C. Increasing individual InterAction member Formal training and opportunities for one-on-one skill building provided to members by
organizations’ advocacy skills and their InterAction staff.
willingness to engage in advocacy
1
a. Maintain a strong and coordinated NGO Voice (advocacy) at the 2009/2010 G-8 Summits
through such groups as IA’s G-8 Summit NGO Coordination Group, G-8 NGO Platform
Network, the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) G-8 Working Group, and
GCAP G-20 Working Group.
b. Domestic and international efforts to make aid more effective are coordinated to reflect
NGO experience and vision (alliances: Civil Society Organizations (CSO) Development
1/2. STRATEGIC ALLIANCES: Effectiveness; InterAction Aid Effectiveness Working Group; InterAction Task Force on
Foreign Assistance Reform; Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN); etc.
To collectively influence governments, the United Nations,
International Financial Institutions, and other international c. The space for humanitarian and development NGOs is safeguarded through coordination
policy makers on development and humanitarian issues with groups such as the Civil-Military Working Group, Counter-Terrorism Military Working
by forming and/or leveraging international and domestic Group, Global Forum for NGO Platforms, and CSO Development Effectiveness.
alliances.
d. Efforts to advance women’s priorities in development and humanitarian actions are
coordinated with groups such as the Women, Faith and Development Alliance (WFDA)–
US, WFDA networks overseas, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations and the
Gender E-Learning group.
e. Strengthen domestic alliances (for example, with the ONE Campaign and Connect U.S.
Fund) so that InterAction is better positioned to exploit domestic policy and advocacy
opportunities.
a. InterAction continued to build its brand as the “expert” source for international
I/3. MEDIA AND OUTREACH: humanitarian and development issues.
To advance InterAction’s programmatic and policy goals b. Increased level of message consistency between InterAction and its members.
by strengthening relationships with the media, partners,
and InterAction members. c. Increased awareness of InterAction public policy initiatives among media and other
(Gates Objective 4/Activity 4.1) targeted publics.
d. Robust media education program was developed.
a. Full funding for the humanitarian accounts in the regular FY2010 budget request and
regular appropriations bills; supplemental funding passed as needed.
I/4. APPROPRIATIONS: b. The 150 account level in the FY2010 congressional budget resolution was higher than
To increase regular appropriations for poverty-focused the level in the FY2009 budget resolution.
development and humanitarian accounts, ending
dependence on supplementals to fund humanitarian c. Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 302(b)
response. Allocation for FY2010 higher than FY2009.
d. FY2010 regular appropriations levels above FY2009 regular levels for all our accounts.
2
a. Increased number of policymakers (both in Congress and the Obama administration) who
I/5. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE REFORM: are champions of InterAction’s goal of an effective foreign assistance program.
To promote substantive reform and modernization of the b. Created and maintained a progress report to measure policymakers’ responsiveness to
laws, regulations, and policies that govern U.S. foreign the recommendations of the Foreign Assistance Briefing Book.
assistance by:
A. Engaging with Congress, the Executive branch,

and key strategic partners and stakeholders to
promote a bold foreign assistance agenda that
is coherent, accountable to its beneficiaries and
to Congress, puts poverty-focused
development and humanitarian assistance at its
core, and clearly defines the nature of its
partnership with civil society.
B. Continuing to work towards the creation of a Increased number of policymakers (both in Congress and in the Executive branch) who are
cabinet-level Department of Development and champions of establishing a cabinet-level department.
Humanitarian Assistance. InterAction continues
to believe that establishing such a department
is the best way to elevate, integrate,
strengthen, and coherent U.S. foreign
assistance programs over the long term.
C. Elevating the Millennium Development Goals In consultation with United Nations Millennium Campaign, develop a plan for InterAction to
(MDGs) -or a rebranded version- as an organize the NGO community to hold the Obama administration accountable for its stated
accepted framework for U.S. foreign assistance support of the MDGs as a framework for U.S. foreign assistance.
policy.
I/6. HUMANITARIAN FOREIGN POLICY: Key congressional and administration staff, the media, and think tanks are aware of
To influence congressional and administration foreign InterAction’s working groups positions on foreign policy issues that affect humanitarian
policy, the media and think tanks, as they affect USG and response, when working groups want them to be (i.e., when security concerns do not dictate
NGO humanitarian response. otherwise).
a. Militarization of U.S. foreign aid activities are slowed, stopped or reversed.

I/7. NGO SPACE:
To protect humanitarian and development NGO space b. Support for the Brennan Center continued in its representation of IA et al. in prostitution
from military and governmental restrictions and pledge case.
encroachment.
c. Proposed Partner Vetting System (PVS) and Treasury Voluntary Guidelines withdrawn
and/or limited.
3
I/8. DEVELOPMENT POLICY:
To influence Congress and the administration to adopt Identified specific opportunities and targets in legislation and in USAID/State Department
policies that will improve the effectiveness of U.S. poverty- policies and procedures related to advancing IA working group priorities in gender integration,
focused development assistance. agricultural development, climate change, health, etc.
Goal II. InterAction will demonstrate & enhance NGO accountability & impact
II/1. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: a. Increased capacity to exchange information with staff, members and the greater public by
To increase InterAction's information gathering and implementing a new website/database and online operations policies.
sharing to inform our advocacy and to promote member
engagement and collaboration. b. Have built out the communications/ publications infrastructure and outreach with
(Gates Objective 3 /Activity 3.2) additional IT equipment.
a. Have implemented a standardized, electronic process to track and evaluate working

group participation and levels of engagement.
b. Have improved the functioning and effectiveness of InterAction working groups by:
II/2. WORKING GROUP EFFECTIVENESS:  addressing issues raised in the 2008 Annual Member Satisfaction Survey;
To coordinate, support, and guide working groups  increasing outreach to less-active members and key stakeholders missing from the
(WORKING GROUP) in ways that will strengthen the conversation;
effectiveness and collective impact of our community.  implementing annual strategic planning and stocktaking meetings, preferably with
(Gates Objective2 /Activity 2.1) outside facilitation;
 developing and institutionalizing working group participation guidelines;
 developing a system to share working group best practices throughout the
organization;
 instituting bi-annual meetings of all working group co-chairs; and
 creating a list of all InterAction working groups for organization-wide and external
constituent reference.
a. Conducted evaluation and review of the 2008 results and identified necessary revisions
and technical support for a training program for the 2010 SCP process.
II/3. STANDARDS/SELF-CERTIFICATION PLUS (SCP): b. At least two stakeholder meetings held to discuss necessary improvements on the 2010
To advance membership standards and SCP compliance. SCP process.
c. Initiated a pilot external verification process (peer review) by pairing agencies to review
each other’s assessments in fulfilling SCP.
II/4. MAPPING: a. Established a flexible, evolving, and interactive InterAction mapping capacity on member
projects and best practices related to the MDGs:
To map and make more broadly accessible InterAction  built data base of project information and best practices on food security and
member contributions in poverty reduction and agriculture (MDG 1)
humanitarian response using internationally agreed upon  launched new mapping platform.
4
frameworks that enhance our coordination efforts and b. Continued to map NGO programs that contribute to community preparedness or that
effectiveness. could be leveraged in a pandemic situation.
 improved data quality and user connectivity.
a. Strengthened a new partnership with 3ie and continue to explore relationships that will
II/5. EVALUATION CAPACITY: expand monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity for members.
To expand IA members’ capacity to undertake rigorous
program design, monitoring and evaluations, in order to b. Provided a series of meetings/ seminars/trainings/ workshops to IA member participants,
increase their accountability to beneficiaries and donors. led by outside experts and experienced members of the NGO community.
Developed and operationalized a Best Practices Methodology (BPM) to document InterAction

II/6. BEST PRACTICES: member field program approaches.
To create and implement a learning approach for  BPM is developed and a pilot application for agriculture programs is in place and
compiling innovative program practices in the field. operational.
 Sharing of BPM and findings is provided through InterAction’s website, seminars and
workshops.
a. Reviewed available and planned cross-team trainings and posted an InterAction-wide

II/7. TRAINING RESOURCE: calendar of trainings and upcoming events on InterAction website.
To establish InterAction as a prime resource for trainings
to build member capacity. b. Developed and distributed the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) e-learning tool
on gender equality in humanitarian action in 2009 for the IASC Sub-working Group on
Gender in Humanitarian Action.
 United Nations and NGO humanitarian staff have started using the e-tool to
mainstream gender in humanitarian response.
II/8.STAFF CARE: Using the Staff Care Working Group as the primary vehicle, InterAction has developed and
To improve InterAction member NGOs’ ability to recruit piloted training modules on Stress and Self-Care Techniques, as well as on Managing Staff in
and retain personnel through improved staff care policies High-Stress Environments.
and services.
Goal III: InterAction will be the prime voice and prime representative of U.S. international NGOs
a. Strengthened relationship with members as evidenced by:

III/1. STRONGER COMMUNITY  Increased numbers;
To strengthen relationships and understanding between  Increased member satisfaction (ref. survey);
and among InterAction, its current and future members  Roll out of the newly approved Associate Membership category.
and allies by:
 Developing a common mission based on shared b. NGOs’ unique role demonstrated through:
values and people centered program approaches;  “People centered” approach to development (ref. alternative framework);
 Reaching out to diverse organizations and  Common mission strategy (ref. branding for 2009; Mission for 2010);
networks; and  Extent of leveraging working groups.
5
 Engaging new members, advisory groups and c. InterAction community’s resources highlighted and leveraged:
partners.  InterAction Senior Advisory Council;
 Estimated collective resources.
a. New brand for InterAction.

III/2. A CREDIBLE SOURCE:  Branding process completed
To increase InterAction’s credibility as a definitive source
on international relief and development issues among b. Increased stature:
members of the national and international media,  Key partnerships established or deepened;
InterAction partners, policy makers and other key  Common messaging;
stakeholders. This will be achieved by utilizing internal and  Media engagement/queries;
member resources to raise the profile of IA and its  Increased high profile speaking and networking opportunities (members/IA
members. leadership);
 Production of quality “thought pieces”.
a. InterAction’s priorities advanced with strategic partners, including: MFAN; IASC; the
Brookings institute; United States Government (USG) leadership (USAID, State &
others); G-8 NGO Platform Network; etc.
III/3. COMMON AGENDAS:  Articulated priorities;
To advance InterAction’s programmatic and policy  Achievements of the partnerships.
priorities by increasing collaboration and leveraging
relationships with, but not limited to: b. InterAction’s partnerships framed and harmonized.
 Northern and southern networks & NGO  Progress in framework development.
platforms;
 USG agencies & the foreign policy/assistance c. Increased internal capacity to work with partners:
community; and Multilateral agencies.  Articulated priorities;
 Staff engaged;
 Initiation and leadership by InterAction;
 Increased staff knowledge of partnerships;
 organization-wide strategic plan.
III/4. U.S. AID REFORM: US foreign assistance reform process advanced in partnerships including: USG (e.g.
To advance a significant reform of US foreign assistance, Administration & Congress); MFAN; InterAction working groups/members; Think tanks &
through strategic partnerships, that promote community Universities; etc.
owned, people centered programs; use a framework of  Achievements of the partnerships;
shared principles; and recognize the significant role of  NGOs’ experience/vision reflected in reform.
private resources.
III/5. JOINT ACTIONS:

To use InterAction’s annual forum, regional and other InterAction-led joint events, including: Annual Forum; Security Forum; Regional Pandemic
meetings to strengthen our sense of community, develop Preparedness Conferences; CEO/Women CEO Retreat; G-8 NGO Platform; Open Forum on
strategic partnerships, and foster collaboration on Aid Effectiveness; Media Summit; Women, Faith and Development Alliance; etc.
common issues and goals.
6
Goal IV. InterAction will embrace effective management practices and raise resources
a. A 5-year Sustainability Plan completed and submitted to Board for discussion and input.
It was then submitted to the Gates Foundation.
IV/1. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY:
Develop and implement a plan for financial sustainability. b. Year 2 funding ($2,457,296) of the Gates award was received.
c. Organization-wide understanding and ownership of the components, implications, and
requirements of the Sustainability Plan were achieved.
a. An action agenda set for each component of the board approved “Sustainability Plan.”
IV/2. FUNDRAISING: b. All of InterAction’s past, current and potential fundraising contacts and relationships
Develop and implement a fundraising plan for 2009-2010 homogenized and centralized in the new database and systematically managed.
in order to sustain the operation of InterAction at the c. New, general support multi-year support grants awarded to InterAction by the Ford and
optimal level and with the appropriate mix of sources of Hewlett Foundations.
revenue.
d. USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) awarded InterAction a new multi-
year Cooperative Agreement.
IV/3. BRANDING:
Implement a branding process to position InterAction as a a. Particulars of a re-branding plan, including Style Guide, Branding Brief, and Messaging
leading voice on U.S. foreign assistance, international Materials implemented.
development, and humanitarian response. b. Internal and external communications featuring success stories disseminated.
IV/4. INTERNAL COMMUNICATION:

Ensure constructive, open, horizontal and vertical, internal a. Three new approaches to internal information- sharing identified and road-tested.
communication between staff and enhance cross-team b. Protocols and standards for communicating internal information and decisions to external
engagement and programming. audiences developed and are in the process of being adopted organization-wide.
IV/5. INTERNAL SYSTEMS: Policy manuals and operating procedures have been assessed, updated, and documented for
Improve, enhance, and document the functioning of 5 key critical internal systems: Membership, Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources,
internal systems. and Fund Raising.

Sept Eboardbook - Docx 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sept Eboardbook - Docx 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

September 14,

Tab 1 RSVP List

Tab 2 Leadership Team Report

Tab 3 Discussion Papers

Tab 4 Finance Committee Report

Tab 5 Membership & Standards Committee Report

Tab 6 Employee Handbook

 = Attendence in-person expected  Steve Mosley

12:30 – 1:00pm Meet & Greet with Staff

1:00 – 1:15pm Call to Order (Tab 1)

1:15 – 2:15pm Leadership Team Report (Tabs 2, 3, 6)

2:15 – 2:45pm Committee Reports (Tabs 4 & 5)

2:45 – 3:00 Break

3:00 - 4:30pm Roundtable Discussions (Handout)

4:30 – 5:00 Executive Session

InterAction Board of Directors Meeting DRAFT

Board Members participating by phone:

Board Members sending regrets:

Peter Engebretson, CFO

Presenter: Charlie MacCormack

Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:

Enhancing our relationship with the USG

Recurrent answers and suggestions included:

Opening a dialogue with Corporations

Approval of new logo

1. Americas Relief Team

The Board approved all proposed members.

Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:

Finance Committee report

Factors leading to the revision are:

Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:

For new Board members, the Committee recommended:

Conclusions/Actions Taken/ Follow-up agreed to:

Below is a summary that highlights selected efforts to advance InterAction’s goals:

Implementation Mechanisms: InterAction was invited by a Senate appropriator to provide

InterAction Member Project Mapping Directory: After engaging in various rounds of

Working Group Effectiveness: Guidelines for Effective Working Groups, a resource

Afghanistan Reconstruction Working Group

Agriculture Working Group

Avian & Human Pandemic Flu Working Group

Climate Change Working Group

Commission on the Advancement of Women Program Advisory Group

Disaster Risk Reduction Working Group

DRC Working Group

Foreign Assistance Reform Task Force

Gendering of Foreign Assistance Reform (GOFAR) Task Force

Gender Based Violence Sub-Working Group

Global Hunger Crisis Working Group

G8 NGO Coordination Group

Humanitarian Partnerships Working Group

Iraq Working Group

Chair: International Rescue Committee

MCA (Millennium Challenge Account)

Protection Working Group

Public Policy Committee

Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Sub-Working Group

Sri Lanka Working Group

Focus: Information sharing and awareness raising.

Sudan/Chad Working Group

Transition, Conflict and Peace Working Group

Uganda Working Group

USG Policy and Practice