An Analysis of the
Institute for Multi-Track
Diplomacy
Brittany Carroll, Stephen Ellis, Emily Kaiser, Victor Ramos
April 26, 2015 | American University, SIS Issues in Nonprofit Management Practicum
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, we would like to thank our helpful and patient professor and mentor, Mr.
Charles Dambach, Woodrow Wilson Visiting Fellow. Mr. Dambach’s guidance and expertise
were indispensable throughout the course of this investigation. We are also incredibly grateful
for the opportunity to work with the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy. We are particularly
grateful for Karen Dickman, Executive Director of the organization, whose support was integral
to our research process.
Our Team is Also indebted to the following individuals:
Ambassador John W. McDonald, Chairman of Board and CEO, IMTD
Adam Zeemans, IMTD
Dr. Eric Wolterstorff, Sovereignty First
Vikas Vohra, IMTD
Raj Das, IMTD
Amit Kumar, IMTD
Blair Sapp, IMTD
Stacy Coefield, IMTD
Cindy Collins, American University
1|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................7
Nonprofit Organizational Structure ......................................................................................................................7
Evolution of Fee-For-Service in Nonprofit Organizations...................................................................................8
Fiscal Sponsorship ...................................................................................................................................................9
Monitoring & Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 11
RESEARCH FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................... 14
IMTD Organization .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Structure, Board, Mission, Programs ............................................................................................................. 14
Financial Position, Budget ................................................................................................................................ 14
SWOT Assessment Report ............................................................................................................................... 15
Survey Report ................................................................................................................................................... 15
IMTD Projects ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Monitoring & Evaluation Clinics .................................................................................................................... 16
Mediation Program........................................................................................................................................... 17
Indian Peacebuilding Projects ......................................................................................................................... 18
I.N.C.A.A. .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Competitive Analysis............................................................................................................................................. 20
Alliance for Peacebuilding ............................................................................................................................... 20
Patrir .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Search for Common Ground ........................................................................................................................... 23
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Organizational Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 24
Financial Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 25
Programmatic Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 26
M&E Clinic Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 27
Potential Business Plan for M&E Clinics ....................................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................................................. 35
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................................. 38
APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................................................. 39
APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................................................. 41
2|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A team of four graduate students from the Issues in Nonprofit Management Practicum at
American University consulted for the nonprofit organization, Institute for Multi-Track
Diplomacy (IMTD). The purpose of this project was to assess the structure of the organization,
financial position, and programs to provide recommendations to improve efficiency within the
organization, assist in building sustainable funding via fee-for-service programs, identify the
most viable fee-for-service project, and proposing a business plan for the identified service
considering current organizational resources and networks.
Primary research revealed key foundational areas for further research. The team
investigated these in a literature review. Major topics include:
1. Nonprofit Organizational Structure
2. Fee-for-service in Nonprofit Organizations
3. Fiscal Sponsorship
4. Monitoring & Evaluation
Considering all that was discovered through the literature review, the team
conducted an analysis of the organization and a competitive analysis. Several challenges were
revealed; this case study aims to address some of these challenges. These gaps include austere
organizational structure, unsystematic financial tracking, and disparate program focus.
Recommendations for organizational improvement include diversifying board
members, create a manager position to closely monitor both revenue and non-revenue generating
projects, transition to a fiscal sponsor model to act as a platform for executing projects, formalize
an internal process for monitoring and evaluating projects, and creating a succession plan
focused on securing the legacy of the organization well into the future.
Recommendations concerning the financial position of IMTD include developing an
overarching budget for the organization supplemented with project-specific budgets. Having a
clear snapshot of this will be reassuring to donors and potential organizational partners.
Programmatic recommendations include narrowing programs to eliminate weak or
dormant projects. IMTD must take steps to assert its position as being a trusted expert within the
field of peacebuilding and build and reinforce relationships with other expert organizations.
3|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
Finally, the Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Clinics are identified as the most viable
fee-for-service program. This report identifies opportunities and challenges for this program and
provides specific recommendations for creating an unprecedented M&E program to serve the
needs of the field. The reports culminates with a business plan and a sample scenario for
strategically continuing to develop the M&E Clinic Program.
4|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
INTRODUCTION
The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) is an international peacebuilding
organization based in Arlington, Virginia. IMTD was founded in 1992 by Ambassador John W.
McDonald and Dr. Louise Diamond. The Institute is a nonprofit organization (501(c)(3)) with
four full-time staff members supported by program managers and interns. Since its founding,
over 265 interns from 56 countries have worked at the Institute.
IMTD’s mission is guided by the principles of “Multi-Track-Diplomacy,” which is a
conceptual way to view the process of international peacemaking as a living system. This
approach considers the web of interconnected activities, individuals, institutions, and
communities that operate together for peace as a common goal. The organization operates under
twelve guiding principles, which include: relationships, long term commitment, cultural synergy,
partnership, multiple technologies, facilitation, empowerment, action research, invitation, trust,
engagement, and transformation.
Since its inception, the organization has relied upon individual contributions and grants to
cover operating expenses and fund programs. However, the landscape of non-governmental
organizations has evolved. IMTD has begun the process of investigating ways in which it can
diversify its income to maintain sustainability. Fee-for-service revenue has been identified as
having the greatest potential to generate revenue outside of traditional fundraising.
This report further investigates the challenges and opportunities IMTD faces in creating a
sustainable future for the organization. First, research methodology will be discussed, followed
by a literature review of key concepts. Next, the research findings will be presented. Finally, this
report will present recommendations, as well as a proposed business plan for the program that is
identified as most compatible with the fee-for-service model.
METHODOLOGY
In order to effectively serve IMTD and address the issues at hand, we utilized
quantitative and qualitative research strategies, including: informal interviews, a SWOT analysis,
survey methodology, literature review, creative analysis, documentary research, and a business
plan.
Informal Interviews
We conducted a series of informational interviews via phone, Skype, e-mail, and in person.
5|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
SWOT Analysis
We conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) assessment activity
with current staff and interns of IMTD.
Survey Methodology
After the SWOT process, we created a supplementary survey to send to all staff members. The
purpose of this survey was to get a better sense of how the staff members felt about the future of
the organization, particularly in terms of its mission and legacy. In addition, we wanted to learn
more about the number of projects that are being worked on, as well as how these projects are
monitored and evaluated. The survey consisted of seven questions, which were sent out to the ten
staff members. The participants were given approximately ten days to complete the online
survey. Responses were completely anonymous. Please see Appendix A for a complete list of the
questions and potential answers.
Literature Review
We conducted literature reviews of topics related to nonprofit management such as: nonprofit
organizational structure, the evolution of fee-for-service for nonprofit organization, monitoring
& evaluation, and fiscal sponsorship.
Competitive Analysis
Based on the information collected through the SWOT analysis and informal discussions with
IMTD, organizations identified as competitors and/or collaborators were investigated. We
researched these organization and analyzed findings to better understand the competitive
landscape.
Document Research
We conducted document research of IRS 990/990EZ forms of IMTD as well as the competitive
organizations in order to gain further insight to financial backgrounds.
Business Plan
The team used an online platform called, Strategyzer to map out the proposed M&E Clinic
project. This online platform is used by prominent international companies such as Microsoft,
Intuit, Deloitte, and Xerox. The business model canvas is a strategic management and
entrepreneurial tool that allows an organization to describe, design, challenge, invent, and pivot
their prospective business model. The business model canvas is broken down into nine sections
6|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
to further organize the business model. The team applied this canvas to offer means for further
developing the IMTD M&E Clinic Program.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Nonprofit Organizational Structure
Nonprofit organizations rely on the idea that they have a reason to exist beyond financial
incentive, and this idea is validated in support garnered from donors and tax subsidies. However,
a trend for diversifying revenue streams from solely relying upon charitable contributions has
emerged. This gives the organization the opportunity to collect user fees and, in a way, measure
the value of its services. (Moore, 185-186). However, ultimately the measure of a nonprofit
organization lies with its ability to deliver value in relation to a mission and social metrics rather
than financial terms. (Moore, 189).
Moore proposes a Public Value Paradigm for Strategy Development that rests on
focusing managerial attention to the value proposition guiding the organization, garnering
legitimacy and support, and addressing internal capacity to deliver value by identifying strengths
and addressing or eliminating weaknesses. (197-198).
Increasing competition and shrinking governmental funding has shifted the nonprofit
organization to operate more like a for-profit organization requiring innovation to achieve
competitive advantage. Aligning fiscal health and mission has become the standard within
strategic planning. (McDonald, 256).
McDonald set out to understand the relationship between mission and innovation in the
context of nonprofit organizations. This research found that a clear organizational mission can
assist in generating and efficiently evaluating innovative ideas conducive to the mission for
optimal time and resource investment. Focusing on innovations in line with the mission creates
an opportunity for more efficient implementation and develops an environment that fosters
mission-oriented innovation. (McDonald, 271). Therefore, managers must focus a great deal on
creating a clear and precise mission in order to maximize relevant innovation. The mission must
be reiterated to all employees and inherent in employee recruiting and retention. (McDonald,
275).
Brown cites the link between board and organizational performance can be understood
using a few theories, including agency theory and resource dependency theory. Keeping
7|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
nonprofit organizational structure in mind, agency theory posits that board members whose
motivation is aligned with the mission and legal responsibility to ensure the organization fulfills
its public responsibility but also lack internal ties to the organization are incentivized to be
vigilant in their duties with regard to making decisions beneficial to the organization. Resource
dependency theory pegs boards as a fountain of resources from network connections to technical
expertise. Brown Cites Green and Griesinger’s findings that boards who engage directly with
providing resources are associated with better performance and contribute to the long-term
strategic direction of the organization. (323). Brown also discovers that larger boards support
resource dependency theory in that they better monitor and provide relevant resources. (Brown,
329). Board engagement with strategic planning was also positively correlated with higher
financial performance. (Brown, 330).
Evolution of Fee-For-Service in Nonprofit Organizations
If we are to assume that that nonprofit exist for the sole purpose of not making profit but,
instead rely on donations as a source of income, it would be sustainable as long as there are
limitations on the amounts of nonprofits that exist. Hansmann argued that the evolution of the
nonprofit sector in the United States would start around the early 2000s as little to no nonprofits
focused on “commercial” aspects (91). No longer do we have the traditional nonprofit sectors,
but rather there are two forms. The philanthropic nonprofit sector is comprised of “donatively
supported organizations such as charities for relief of the poor and distressed, cultural
organizations such as museums and performing arts groups, and institutions dedicated to
research and higher education”(Hansmann, 91). The “commercial” nonprofit sector features
organizations “that receive virtually all of their income from the sale of services rather than from
donations and that frequently compete directly with for-profit firms” (Hansmann, 91). The feefor-service tactic which nonprofits can utilize exist with the commercial nonprofit sector.
Chetkovich & Frumkin discuss the domain of nonprofit competition, and clarify that
unlike for-profit organizations “nonprofits may compete either for donors to support charitable
activities or customers in fee-supported programs” (567). The Compassion Capital Fund (CCF)
reinforces this argument through explaining that constant fluctuations in the economy presents a
constant challenge to the sustainability of nonprofits; thus there is no obvious time period where
fee-for-service was utilized. However, the evolution today shows that the model of fee-for8|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
services for nonprofits is represented in three ways: “mandatory fees”, “voluntary donations and
requested fees”, and “membership programs” (4).
The model of mandatory fees is relatively straightforward; the nonprofit would charge a
predetermined price or fixed fee based on a specific set of criteria. However, CCF noted that the
fixed fee must be below the “market rate” in order to adhere to legal and IRS considerations (4).
This may change or become a challenge in the future. Hansmann explains, since “many of the
new commercial nonprofits appear so clearly to be providing services that are no different from
those offered by for-profit firms [and] continued tax exemption is conspicuously difficult to
rationalize” (95). Arguably, nonprofits that have a commercial output could be treated as forprofit organizations and forced to relinquish tax exemptions. Public universities, national and
state parks, hospitals, nonprofit/public health clubs are amongst the examples of nonprofit
organizations that operate under the mandatory fee model.
Note that an organization that traditionally did not charge fees may encounter some
resistance once it begins to do so. With the voluntary donations and requested fees model “an
organization informs clients of any costs and requests a contribution, but it does not mandate
payment” (CCF, 4). What this means is that a fee for service can appear to be voluntary by
offering a service free of cost but requesting a donation that would be used to cover some of the
costs incurred. Using this method is a good tactic to alleviating some of the initial resistance
between clients and an organization that is trying to tap into financial support. Chetkovich and
Frumkin further the argument by explaining that “the prospective donor must be aware of the
organization’s effort and the need to support it” in order to be influenced to volunteer their
donations. (587). Similarly, requesting a fee is a more direct approach that includes publicizing
the variety of the services along with their costs and requesting, but not requiring, a fee to cover
those costs.
Fiscal Sponsorship
This nonprofit organizational structure enables a lot of individuals or groups to access
funding and tax-exempt status to provide social value without the process of having to fully
incorporate as a nonprofit. These sponsorships are innovative, conducive to disparate projects
relative to an umbrella mission, and are inherently diverse. The host organization provides
specific services from human resources to mentoring to grant writing for unincorporated groups
9|Page
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
for an administrative fee. Unincorporated groups operate in silos without association with other
groups under the same fiscal sponsor umbrella. This type of arrangement is attractive to
emerging groups, groups advocating for emerging issues not widely recognized. This approach
allows an umbrella organization to be innovative and agile in its approaches to addressing its
mission. However, the umbrella does assume legal and financial responsibility for shortfalls
made by sponsored groups. (Spack, 23).
A variety of individual grant seekers can benefit from fiscal sponsorship, particularly
those seeking to do work in foreign countries. Fiscal sponsorship by a legitimate relevant
organization can lend credibility to the grant seeker and their project. The benefit of an
organizational sponsorship is the decreased administrative costs which is enticing to a granter or
foundation allowing more dollars dedicated to the project. (foundationcenter.org).
There are a variety of models for facilitating a fiscal sponsorship. Colvin outlines six
models. First is the Direct Project Model in which the sponsor takes ownership of the project, has
a fair amount of control over the project, and project administrators are assumed as employees or
volunteers of the organization for the duration of the project. The sponsor is also the owner of
project assets and assumes financial liability. Agreements regarding the terms of separation
should be set in advance of the sponsorship. (605). Second, the Independent Contractor Project
Model is similar in that the sponsor owns the project assets and liabilities, but it contracts out the
operation of the project to a non-staff individual or entity that has its own legal and tax standing.
(Colvin, 607). Third, the Pre-approved Grant Relationship is essentially a two-tiered grant
relationship. The grant seeker applies for a grant on behalf of a sponsor, the money is disbursed
to the sponsor and then disbursed to the grant seeker. Terms of this agreement must be carefully
laid out and agreed upon by both parties as the sponsor can be reprimanded by the IRS for
allocating funds to a non-section 501(c)(3). These relationships and the projects need to be
closely evaluated by the board of the sponsoring organization and a formal legal agreement
detailing the terms and conditions are required to protect both parties. In this model grant money
is recognized by the sponsor as income and disbursed as a grant to the grant seeker according to
the terms of the agreement. Ownership and liability are placed on the grantee. (Colvin, 607-609).
Fourth, The Group Exemption Model is best for a project that is short-term in which the
challenge to incorporating a nonprofit outweigh the benefits for a singular project. A tax-exempt
sponsor organization can designate organizations that are not tax exempt by adding them as
10 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
subordinates in a group exemption letter. These sponsorships are subject to satisfying IRS
affiliation requirements. (Colvin, 609-610). Fifth, The Supporting Organization Model allows for
a project to benefit from status as a public charity or 509(a)(3) by maintaining a relationship with
an organization that has status as a public charity. (Colvin, 609-610). Sixth, the Technical
Assistance Model in which an organization that already maintains 501(c)(3) status opts in to an
agreement with another 501(c)(3) organization to share and fulfill practical administrative needs
such as office administration, accounting, development resources etc. (Colvin, 610).
Monitoring & Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has been a growing practice in the arena of projectbased international development aid that became popularized in the 1970s and 1980s. (Crawford
and Bryce, 366). M&E planning is now, generally, a standard requirement in developing a
project budget, particularly as part of a request for funding from most major foundations and
government grants. The concept of systematic monitoring and evaluation serves to suss out
underperforming projects, demonstrate accountability, and facilitate organizational learning as a
means to inform the creation of future projects. Many times projects seeking aid have intended
outcomes that are difficult to measure by conventional means, therefore, various methods of
M&E have been developed to help measure the impact on human development or social
transformation. (Crawford and Bryce, 364).
With the rise of the International Non-Governmental Organization a trend towards a
multi-stakeholder approach to funding and implementing aid projects has emerged. Combining
intermediary organizations, multiple governments, various interests, and an unpredictable
operating environment the level of accountability has increased. When aid is offered on a
project-by-project basis by multiple stakeholders, competing interests influence the importance
of effectiveness and efficiency with the former being more valued by the strategic players
(donors and planners) on the project and efficiency being more valued by the operational team
(field staff). (Crawford and Bryce, 364-367).
Crawford and Bryce map a hierarchy of needs for a successful NGO. If accountability
and performance are required for funding success, then transparency, efficiency, and
effectiveness must exist within the organization, and these things require documentation,
11 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
communication, informed management decisions, control, and organizational learning. Each of
these streams is enabled by an M&E System. (Crawford and Bryce, 363-364).
The Logical Framework Approach (LFA) to M&E is the most widely used and is near an
industry standard in the realm of aid. It was developed in 1969 by Practical Concepts, Inc. for
use by USAID. It is a five row, four column matrix tool for the analysis and presentation of
projects via the project goals, outcomes, outputs, activities, inputs in relation to subsequent
objectively verifiable indicators, means of verification, and assumptions. (Crawford and Bryce,
365).
Crawford and Bryce draw issue with the effectiveness of this long-used method by first
citing Casley and Kumar, who bemoaned the use of the terms Monitoring and Evaluation as a
single term implying it is a single function, when in fact they are two separate and independent
functions. (366). Further, they question the legitimacy of LFA as an effective M&E tool. They
argue that LFA is primarily a project design framework that is relied upon heavily to earn
funding, but is then disregarded as soon as financing is acquired. Four issues are cited that inhibit
LFA from being a dynamic resource. First, the matrix does not include a consideration for
timeframe, and projects are generally structured to occur within a particular schedule. This limits
the ability of the LFA to continue to contribute through the lifecycle of the project. Second,
objectively verifiable indicators must be selected at the onset of a project. However, real-time
indicators are subject to variance that may present valuable lessons, but these lessons can easily
be dismissed if monitoring is strictly tied to the initial objectively verifiable indicators. Third, the
selection of the means of verification is too simplistic at the outset, and consideration for the
actual collection of verification data is frequently not fully formed. These arguments poke holes
in the effectiveness of the widely accepted standard method of M&E. (Crawford and Bryce,
368).
Sustaining a M&E system within an organization can be a challenge. Kusek and Rist
identify six key challenges needing continuous attention when building sustainable results-based
M&E system. First, the demand for M&E can be ad hoc which is disruptive to maintaining
consistency. The roles, responsibilities, and chains of authority must be clearly defined when
implementing M&E and results must be applicable at every level from the local to the
international. There cannot be a link in the chain that has no vested interest in the results. If there
is no incentive at each level of the process then this creates opportunity for disengagement and
12 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
poor data. Credibility within the M&E report is at the heart of the entire concept, and data must
reflect this in delivering independently verifiable information that is both good and bad.
Similarly, accountability within an organization to reward strengths and address weaknesses in
implementing a project is important. Should a weakness become apparent the capacity to fulfill
that weakness should be remedied with strategic planning. Continuity and institutional memory
are essential to sustaining and growing M&E expertise. (Kusek and Rist, 151-154).
Significant challenges to sustainable M&E programs rest within the arena of human
resources. Organizations face challenges in recruiting and keeping staff with the appropriate skill
set for innovating and implementing. The first iteration of hires for M&E are traditionally change
instigators weathering the challenges that accompany structural change. Retaining and training
new M&E professionals is also of concern. (Kusek and Rist, 159).
We contacted Cindy Collins, adjunct instructor at American University and a long-time
practitioner in program design, monitoring, and evaluation, for a knowledgeable discussion of
the practical application for design, monitoring, and evaluation. She also shared her evaluation of
the landscape of existing M&E capacity building organizations and gaps within the framework.
She emphasized that the need for M&E professionals with practical skills and hands-on
experience is vast. She described the chain organizations that channel grant money to the
affected community. She explained that a series of request for proposals begins with a large
international actor like USAID. A large international NGO designs a project, submits a grant
proposal, receives the grant money, and then turns the project into a contract with an indigenous
NGO. In this role the larger NGO acts as a fiscal sponsor to the local NGO and the terms of the
contract determine the onus of implementation, monitoring, and evaluating. However, there are
many disconnects between the origin of the grant to the fiscal sponsor to the local organization
on cultural, training, trust, and oversight levels.
Considering these shortcomings, Collins suggests a course of capacity building within
these local indigenous organizations by embedding a group of three or four people with the
organization for a period of time. These people must have extensive M&E training and a
contextual knowledge of the region and culture. She emphasizes the need for teaching and
training these indigenous populations for meaningful long-term benefit.
13 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
RESEARCH FINDINGS
IMTD Organization
Structure, Board, Mission, Programs
The current structure of IMTD is highly compromised of interns, also known as project
staff, whom are responsible managing projects of their own or in conjunction with IMTD’s
current programs. Currently the organizational breakdown outlines Ambassador John W.
McDonald (also the Chairman of the board) as the CEO and Dr. Brian Polkinghorn as President
of the organization, followed by Karen Dickman as the Executive Director (also known as the
COO) and the Director of Training currently vacant. The next level shows the Program
Coordinator, Development Coordinator, Marketing Coordinator; all currently vacant, and the
Office Manager Tadios Tekeste. The Program Managers again made up of interns as well as
Program Associates report to the Program Coordinator, which at this time is the Executive
Director.
IMTD’s board is currently made of the Chairman: Ambassador John W. McDonald,
President: Dr. Brian Polkinghorn, as well as Dr. Andrea Bartoli, Nat Coletta, Tom Colosi,
Ambassador Claudia Fritsche, Dr. John Fuller, Mike Godfrey, Dr. Rukudzo Joseph Murapa, John
Oldfield, and Susan Shearhouse. Additionally IMTD has an International Advisory Council to
aid them in accomplishing their mission.
As of 2013 some of the programs services IMTD operates include: Global Water Project,
Nigerian Delta, National Action Plan, Tibet Peacebuilding, Indian Peacebuilding, and mediation.
Some current programs are “INCAA” (Inclusive-Nationalism Country Assessment and Action
process) and the “Northern Ireland Dialogues.”
Financial Position, Budget
As of December 31, 2013, Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) had assets
totaling $33,287 in use for the purpose of generating a return for the stakeholders. IMTD
partially funded those assets with 11% of the total asset value. The remaining portion (88%) of
the assets was funded by IMTD’s shareholders.
14 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
After reviewing IMTD’s current budgets and financial documents, we were unable to
come up with the overall annual budget. As the organization grows, this document is important
for prospective donors, as they would most likely want to review this information.
SWOT Assessment Report
The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats assessment activity took place on
March 3, 2015 at the IMTD office and included most of the current staff and interns. In
attendance was Karen Dickman, Vikas Vohra, Raj Das, Amit Kumar, and Blair Sapp. IMTD
staff identified people-to-people connections as their greatest organizational strength.
Ambassador John W. McDonald lends credibility to the organization, and staff and interns draw
from various local educational institutions and broaden the organizational network. IMTD staff
prides itself on targeting hard realities in regions of interest rather than catering to low-hanging
practical issues. However, this presents an ethical obstacle to pursuing funds in balance with the
mission.
Self-identified weaknesses include negative perceptions among potential partners due to
misconceptions about organizational alliances and partners due to the broad variety of projects
and many regions in which IMTD works. This is particularly hazardous when trust is necessary
for the peacebuilding process.
Funding is cited as a major challenge as peace and conflict are difficult concepts to
quantify. Additionally, the projects the organization pursues are very diverse geographically and
topically. Currently, none of the programs are fully funded, and most funding usually occurs
sporadically through grants or more commonly, board donations. The staff struggles to identify
and acquire grants. An ideological conflict exists among some staff and management as some
prioritize mission over funding and vice versa.
Self-identified competitive threats include the Center for Strategic International Studies,
The Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, Alliance for Peacebuilding, Search for Common
Ground, and Patrir. (Observation, March 3, 2015).
Survey Report
As a follow-up to the SWOT analysis, the staff were sent an online survey comprised of
seven questions. The topic of the questions ranged from organizational outlook, to projects and
15 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
M&E requirements. Participants were free to input as much or as little explanation as they
desired.
Out of the ten staff members surveyed seven responded. When asked about the five-year
outlook of the organization, responses were generally positive. Many of the participants
envisaged the growth of the organization, both financially and in terms of scope of work; several
respondents mentioned the importance of strategic partnerships with other organizations; while
others noted that projects should be more focused. Despite the generally positive responses,
several respondents noted that the organization must improve its funding model in order to be
effective. Similarly, in terms of IMTD’s legacy; many of the respondents noted the importance
of multi-track diplomacy in the organization’s peacebuilding work. However, several
respondents cautioned that the organization’s role must be more clearly defined—particularly in
regards to projects—in order to leave a lasting legacy.
The number of projects that are worked on by each staff member ranged from one to four
at any given time. Responses to how projects are evaluated were varied. Two respondents
answered that their projects were self-evaluated, while another three participants said they were
evaluated through a combination of self-evaluation and director evaluation. In terms of the
percentage of projects that have evaluation requirements, four respondents said that less than
25% of their projects had evaluation requirements, while one respondent each responded
affirmatively for 25-49%, 50-75%, and greater than 75%, respectively.
The average amount of time of a project spent on monitoring and evaluation was 40.7%.
In terms of the percentage of project budget that is devoted to monitoring and evaluation, the
average amount of funding devoted was approximately 16%.
IMTD Projects
Monitoring & Evaluation Clinics
A phone interview was conducted on March 24, 2015 with Adam R. Zemans, J.D. to gain
a better understanding of the proposed monitoring and evaluation fee-for-service project—John
W. McDonald Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Clinic (DM&E Clinic). Zemans has
experience working abroad in clinical education and peace building projects. He conceived this
program drawing on extensive research into IMTD, personal experiences as a founder of a NGO
in Bolivia, and experiences as a lawyer-participant in Georgetown Law Center’s Clinical
16 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
Programming. In partnering with IMTD to develop and implement this program he hopes to
create a legacy project for the organization as well as generate a valuable service to diversify the
organization’s revenue streams. Specifically, “The mission of the DM&E Clinic is to teach
peacebuilding in a way that provides a holistic bridge between graduate students, professors,
NGO practitioners, and funders in order to promote more effective and efficient conflict
prevention and transformation.” (Zemans, 1). As proposed, the DM&E Clinic is a two-semester
course that equips students with theoretical frameworks and earns students practical experience
implementing an evaluation for a real-world project or program within an NGO. A host
educational institution would serve as a partner, geographic training ground, and beneficiary.
Prospective client NGOs are small- to mid-sized organizations seeking assistance in meeting
grant evaluation requirements. The clinic will offer student services at a reduced rate.
Presently, the project has no formal funding stream. In order to launch the program, a
legacy John W. McDonald capital campaign is proposed. Long-term financial sustainability
would be garnered from participating student tuition and fees and consulting fees from client
NGOs. Further down the road with traction and proven credibility the program may evolve to
offer diverse services and some professional consultant services.
Basic preliminary research into potential competitors was performed by an intern with
findings revealing no immediate obvious competitors operating a clinic model. George Mason
University’s School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution has been identified as a potential
institutional partner.
Currently this project is staffed part-time by Zemans and one intern. Additional staffing
and hours need to be dedicated to this program and are not readily available. A M&E expert is
necessary for curriculum and a business consultant to develop the finance and management
structure.
Mediation Program
A phone interview was conducted with Stacy Coefield on March 28, 2015 in order to
gain a better understanding of the mediation program. The program is currently in the process of
being set up in Finland. Under the terms of this fiscal sponsorship (verbal contract), Ms. Coefield
will serve as program manager of Mediation and also utilize the affiliation with IMTD for her
independent consulting business. In exchange for utilizing the affiliation, IMTD will receive a
10% management fee for every client serviced through her business.
17 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
In terms of current projects, the primary focus is still primarily on setting up the program.
However, Ms. Coefield has also begun the process of searching for potential clients. In
particular, she has reached out to the Finnish Red Cross, which interacts with a lot of Eastern
European immigrants to Finland. Ms. Coefield has offered her services to help with any social
issues the immigrants may face in adapting to a new culture. Other potential clients include
language schools which focus on teaching English to the working population.
In terms of funding for the program, the plan is to employ a fee-for-service. Ms. Coefield
plans to offer mediation as a “product.” She is building a website, and plans to offer “packages”
of instructions for basic skills in mediation. For example, one package could be an instruction
manual as a guide for managers to mediate and diffuse potential tensions with new employees
from different ethnic groups. In addition, Ms. Coefield plans to offer in-person mediation
services, should potential clients be interested. Finally, Ms. Coefield also plans to offer in-person
counselling on an hourly rate, as well as preventative training and mediation.
Monitoring and evaluation will be conducted based on social work-based interventions.
Through research into evidence-based practice, Ms. Coefield will explore social work
interventions that have proven to be effective, as well as research techniques that have proven
successful in the field of mediation. These interventions and research techniques will in turn be
used to assess the effectiveness of and improve upon the interventions in her practice. These
methods, along with positive and negative feedback from clients, will form the basis of a selfevaluation of the programs methods. In addition to self-evaluation, the programs will also be
evaluated by the executive director of IMTD.
Indian Peacebuilding Projects
On March 3rd, 2015, a meeting with the current staff at IMTD was held to gain insight on
the structure of the organization and understand the current projects and programs. Several of the
projects discussed during the meeting were the Indian Peacebuilding projects staffed by Raj Das,
Amit Kumar, and Vikas Vohra. Raj is the administrative personnel and program manager for the
Kashmir Project. Through his affiliation with the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
(SCAR) at George Mason University, he was able to research IMTD and eventually work for the
organization. Amit Kumar is the Project Manager for the Indian programs within IMTD. He
practiced litigation and advocacy in India and is interested in diplomacy and peace-building
within the region. Currently he is working on a project within the peace corridor between India
18 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
and Pakistan, specifically establishing a peace corridor between Sikh shrines across the Indo-Pak
border and being actively involved in solving the Kashmir conflict. His duties include talking
Indian officials. Vikas previously served with the United Nations on peacekeeping issues in
India. He also taken coursework on dialogue and problem solving and has attended simulations
on Kurdish, Cyprus and Palestine issues. Raj, Vikas and another IMTD staff member collaborate
on projects that are related to South Asia.
Additional projects include an environmental project with Pakistan and India in the
Saichen area. IMTD is working to collaborate with Sandia Industries to work on the
environmental degradation the area. IMTD has talked with representatives in the area and put
together a project proposal. In the past, IMTD has submitted a proposal for training for nondiscrimination between the India-Pakistan border areas. They received a response, but have to
receive State Department funding. From this meeting, it is understood that IMTD has a great
working relationship with the communities they are serving in the India-Pakistan border area and
diaspora communities in the DC area, New Jersey, and California but they lack the funding get
the projects fully implemented. They’ve relied several times on applying to government grants
for seed funding, but have yet to explore other alternatives to finance their projects.
I.N.C.A.A.
After a meeting with Karen Dickman and Dr. Eric Wolterstorff, on February 19, 2015 we
gained insight on the INCAA (Inclusive-Nationalism Country Assessment and Action) process.
Developed by Dr. Wolterstorff, INCAA is a process to help social and political communities at
the local to international level secure sovereignty so that they can have control over
infrastructure and socio-economic development. The program is operated under the idea of
inclusive-nationalism that “generates a shared national self-assessment, national coalitions, and
the planning and implementation of a national development initiative” (Sovereignty First). This
is possible through a five-step process which in general includes:
1. Assessment: a seven-round national dialogue that results in a national self-assessment
that is comprehensive, developmental, and shared. When members of different subgroups
people assess an aspect of a country differently, their disagreement is shared with each
other, and with other stakeholders. The discussion goes back and forth until their
positions come close together.
19 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
2. Choice: a series of negotiations to choose what aspect of the country should be focus of a
national development initiative. This indicates which national development initiatives
will create the greatest positive impact on the development of a country, and which are
most politically and logistically possible at this time.
3. Preparation: strategic planning and the aggregation of the resources necessary to
implement the plan that are achievable in 5-20 years.
4. Structure: create clear chain of command that will enable decisive leadership and
effective implementation. However, the organization needs to be properly resourced to
carry out its mandate, with permissions, authorities, and adequate capital.
5. Implementation: the leader and organization responsible for implementation will require
ongoing support, operate transparently, and be held accountable according to standards
set by the board (the small group of representatives from influential, interested subgroups
who choose and prepare the national development initiative in Step 3). Implementation of
this program can either be funded through grants or as a fee-for-service.
All five steps have been put into practice separately, however it has not had a full run-through to
demonstrate that the entire process works as one. Additionally, Dickman and Dr. Wolterstorff
expressed possible pilot locations: SOCOM, Western Sahara, and Kurdistan, but INCAA would
need to be tested internationally first in order to prove its worth.
Competitive Analysis
Alliance for Peacebuilding
The Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP) was founded in 1999 and existed only as a group of
conflict resolution practitioners. With their mission for advancing sustainable peace and security
worldwide AfP is now comprised of over 15,000 individuals that are active in 153 countries.
Through their programs AfP aims to innovate, influence, and connect many peace initiatives on
an international level.
Some of AfP’s programs that address innovation include: “Peacebuilding Evaluation,”
“Peacebuilding Mapping,” and “Effective Prevention Initiative Systems Approaches to
Peacebuilding.” Through innovation, AfP works as a “thought leader for the peacebuilding field,
linking theory and practice across multiple sectors and practice areas.” (AfP). AfP utilizes
programs of influence including: “Policymaker Engagement,” “Strategic Communications,” and
20 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
“3P Human Security.” Working closely with communities AfP can link civil society with foreign
policy, and to create new frames for human security. The “Inter-Religious Action in
Peacebuilding” program and the AfP Annual Conference are used to enhance the connection that
AfP facilitate among peacebuilders and other related sectors, in order to gain more “effective and
integrated solutions to complex global problems.”
Foundation grants are largely the source of AfP’s revenue, however the Annual
Conference is becoming a successful fee-for-service program for generating additional revenue.
The Annual Conference serves a dynamic space for “members to network with the broader peace
and security community, including funders, policymakers, members of the military, and
professionals from a broad range of related disciplines, such as development, human rights, and
environmental protection” (AfP). The price of the Annual Conference is $360 for non-members
and $340 for members. From repression of civil society in Russia, to the protests over Ferguson
here at home, the conference will highlight the impact of social movements on peace and
democracy.”
The current M&E provided by AfP is through their Peacebuilding Evaluation program,
which exists because in the past two decades the peacebuilding community no longer considers
impact and progress in conflict-affected settings as difficult to measure. “Much of this progress
has been made in individual, isolated organizations, and as a result, substantial field-wide
challenges still exist” as highlighted below in the current state of the peacebuilding evaluation
system (AfP).
21 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
AfP argues that “the root causes of current challenges in peacebuilding evaluation are so
complex and convoluted that no one organization can change these dynamics on its own.”
Patrir
Founded in 2001, the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (Patrir)
is a non-governmental, nonprofit, politically independent organization based in Cluj, Romania
Patrir’s mission is to “To transform the way the world deals with conflicts, working from the
local to the global levels—in partnership with communities, countries, and national and
international organizations—to make peacebuilding and the constructive transformation of
conflicts the basis for sustainable peace.”
Patrir currently has two departments that conduct projects and programs that generate
revenue for the organization. The Department of Peace Operations (DPO) works upon request
from conflict parties and local, national and international organizations and agencies to support
violence prevention, peacebuilding, mediation, and post-war recovery. The department has five
operational programs: Mediation, Peacemaking and Peace Process Support, Process
Development, Design and Implementation, Mentoring and Accompaniment, Capacity Building
and Consultations, and Consultancies. The DPO also provides extended consultations and
organization and policy development support for governments and national and international
organizations to improve their effectiveness and impact for peacebuilding and conflict
transformation.
Next, the mission of the International Peace and Development Training Center (IPDTC)
is to be part of the peace adult education field which generates improved quality, impact and
effectiveness of peacebuilding, conflict transformation, violence prevention and post-war
recovery. The training programs developed in the frame of IPDTC are central to the Institute’s
support for the peacebuilding and conflict transformation field. Designed specifically for
practitioners and policy makers, they are developed drawing upon best practices and lessons
learned in the field to support individuals and agencies actively engaged in peacebuilding in their
own communities, countries and around the world. Participants include both those actively
working in peacebuilding and conflict transformation or working to deal with the conflicts in
their communities and countries, and those working in related fields: human rights, development,
humanitarian relief, and governance.
22 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
The programs by the IPDTC are delivered under three overarching development pillars:
Commissioned Training Programs; Training Programs upon Own Initiative; Training Programs
in support of Peacebuilding Processes. In addition, the programs have been codified under three
major lines: Improving Peacebuilding Practices (IPP); Executive Leadership Programs (ELP);
Advanced Certificate Programs (ACP). Within these program lines, the IPDTC offers the
following training programs. The cost of these programs can be found in Appendix B.
IPP: Integrating Early Warning & Comprehensive Prevention; Introduction to
Peacebuilding: Training for Peaceworkers; Conflict Analysis and Strategic Conflict Assessments
ELP: Systemic Peacebuilding; Transformative Mediation; Conflict Intelligence and
Strategic Planning; Enhancing Effectiveness of Peacebuilding Programmes; Scenario
Development in Mediation and Peace Processes; Early Warning, Crisis Preparedness and
Prevention of Armed Conflicts
ACP: Peacebuilding, Conflict Transformation & Post-War Recovery, Reconciliation and
Healing; Advanced Mediation and Peacemaking; Designing Peacebuilding Programmes;
Integrating Gender and Peacebuilding Action; Training of Trainers in Peacebuilding and Conflict
Transformation; Training for Deployment: Field Preparation for Civilian Peace Teams
Search for Common Ground
Search for Common Ground (SCG), employs the Institutional Learning Team (ILT) to
help their staff and partners monitor and evaluate their work. This team is critical for ensuring
that they learn what works and what doesn’t work in their projects. This type of learning informs
the design of future projects. Created in 2004, ILT is a leader in the peacebuilding field. Their
approach is based on effectiveness, accountability, and learning.
ILT supports quality, innovative, and effective projects by providing technical support in
Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DM&E), conflict sensitivity and analysis, including
children & youth and gender perspectives into projects, and capturing information across all their
country programs. ILT promotes approaches that are participatory and inclusive of the
communities they serve. They also strengthen their staff’s ability to measure and speak about the
results of our work bolstering accountability. ILT is a leader in DM&E theory and practice both
within their organization and across the peacebuilding field. To foster learning, they create and
share innovative peace-building tools and resources, such as their widely-used DM&E for Peace
website (dmeforpeace.org), and regularly present their latest research in peacebuilding and
23 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
evaluation forums worldwide. ILT also provides technical support and guidance on monitoring
and evaluation to national and international partners, such as DFID and UNICEF.
The Design, Monitoring and Evaluation segment within Search for Common Ground was
created to provide professionals with a platform to share tools, methodologies and findings
amongst the community to help them identify and demonstrate which programs and projects
work and which do not work. They do this by providing hundreds of resources in the form of
webinars, evaluations reports, how-to guides, templates, and tools on designing, monitoring and
evaluating peace-building. Some of the key services that their Design, Monitoring and
Evaluation team provides are training modules for M&E with regards to peace-building. On the
website, the organization is transparent in posting reports on their projects as well as documents
that outline their M&E process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Below are the following recommendations that we advise IMTD to consider in order to
enhance the sustainability of the organization.
Organizational Recommendations
● Relying solely on Ambassador McDonald’s contacts and board members as a source of
funding and/or access to the peacebuilding environment is unsustainable. We recommend
broadening the scope of the organizational fundraising contacts and revenue streams.
This could be done through:
○ Conversation between CEO and COO (Executive Director) about expanding the
board.
○ Additionally, a conversation about a succession plan to preserve both the future of
the organization, and the legacy of Ambassador John McDonald including an
assessment of who the CEO envisions running the organization over the next few
years and begin the hiring process within six months to a year;
○ Establishing contacts through the existing contacts/board in order to widen scope
of the organization for conflict resolution on peacebuilding.
● Invest time and resources into fee-for-service programs such as the Design, Monitoring,
& Evaluation Clinics, INCAA, and Mediation. In addition, eliminate weak or dormant
services such as the Professional Development program. Currently, the programs are
24 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
broad and thin. Reducing the number of programs will allow for the reallocation of
resources to further expand upon fee-for-service projects. A clear and concise offering of
services will lend credibility and focus to the organization.
● Create a project manager position that will be responsible for managing, monitoring, and
evaluating IMTD projects.
● Formalize internal monitoring and evaluation process for all projects. This will increase
the legitimacy of the organization, and build capacity towards becoming an authority on
M&E
● Explore transitioning to a fiscal sponsor model as a formal way to collaborate with
professionals to execute various projects
○ Solicit independent audit to certify credibility, and determine an administrative
overhead rate for IMTD should the organization consider acting as a Fiscal
Sponsor
○ Develop a process for formalizing all organizational agreements. This includes
fiscal sponsorships, partnerships with other institutions etc.
● Strategically plan for the future of the board to correlate with programmatic shift towards
fiscal sponsorship and fee-for-service. Current board members should be informed and
engaged in the growth of the organization to ensure a stable transition and assist in
garnering resources for programs.
Financial Recommendations
● An overall organizational budget needs to be created that includes operational and
programmatic costs which considers projection for the year.
○ A format which may useful to follow your budget behavior would be a combined
“Budget vs Actual” (See Appendix C for an example) included on the
organizations Statement of Financial Position Form.
● A financial advisor should be utilized so that IMTD can have and review a cash flow
projection, monthly profit & loss report, and a balance sheet. A financial advisor should
be able to set these up quickly and easily at minimal cost.
25 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
● The overall unified budget for the year should be reviewed and approved by the Board of
Directors, which they should reference in quarterly financial reports in order to monitor
the financial behavior of IMTD.
● Based the financial comparisons of IMTD versus selected competitors (See Appendix D)
IMTD should consider options beyond fee-for-service; these are further explored in the
next few sections.
Programmatic Recommendations
● Delineate between revenue generating programs and non-revenue programs; and manage
each separately
● IMTD must pursue recognition for the organization and position itself as the expert in the
chosen fields on a local, national, and international level.
○ In order to do this we recommend three options to consider:
i.
Influence those at the national/state level with a fully-developed fee-forservice product (i.e. M&E Clinics) in order to help introduce the
organization’s programs to the international market.
ii.
Apply to attend, participate, and/or display at existing conferences (such
as Alliance for Peacebuilding) and use the conferences as platforms for
explaining the organization’s champion programs
● A book and/or conference presentation are ways to add stature to
the peacebuilding environment for programs such as M&E Clinics
and INCAA;
iii.
Partner with another small nonprofit organization to co-host a conference
in order to bring other organizations with similar and different interests
than IMTD, (e.g. international education professionals, international
development) into the fold to understand the new product(s) the
organization is offering.
○ IMTD needs to become directly involved with and collaborate with organizations
like Alliance for Peacebuilding (which is an umbrella organization that has many
member-peacebuilding organizations) in order to enhance their capacity for
peacebuilding.
26 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
M&E Clinic Recommendations
Considering information gathered from the literature review and informational interviews
challenges and assets to the proposed M&E Clinic program became apparent:
Challenges for the M&E Clinics include funder dictated evaluation deadlines that can be
short after the completion of a project. Additionally, students at various universities offering
courses and workshops dedicated to project design, monitoring and evaluation tend to
incorporate a student project evaluation for an operational organization for free. Other NGOs and
government organizations offer M&E training materials and certifications online for free.
Internally, within IMTD this project lacks sufficient dedicated staff time and resources to launch
the program in a timeline that is sustainable for the organization.
Conversely, the program possesses unique assets including curriculum offering intensive
holistic training in both theory and application for students. This is not currently available in
other programs. This strengthens the quality of education for students seeking careers in the
growing M&E profession.
Given these challenges and assets we recommend the following in moving forward with
this program:
● The most unique opportunity this program has potential to offer is the opportunity for
students to gain a combination of theory and hands-on experience. In order to offer an
unprecedented educational experience the second semester of the clinic should be tied to
a study abroad program in which students embed with an indigenous NGO. Students will
have the opportunity to experience real-world field work, apply theory, obtain job skills,
build intercultural skills, and gain international work experience. Students should be
familiar with the culture in which they are embedding,
● Clinic students should perform monitoring and evaluation on behalf of the organization to
gain hands-on experience but also train counterpart professionals at the NGO to align
with IMTD’s 12 principles.
● Perform more in-depth competitive analysis of threats offering free M&E training
materials and certificates, e.g. Pact International, Relief Web, Bruener Foundation,
Betterevaluation.org, and other University M&E courses.
27 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
● The program should innovate on existing M&E methods and benchmarks. This could
include iterating on the traditional log framework to offer something that makes it more
efficient or effective over the life of the project.
● M&E Clinic should be positioned as a tool for developing a competent workforce for the
evolving M&E profession. Research should be conducted to better understand the career
path and salary expectations and trajectory to use as a tool for negotiating with partner
institutions and prospective students.
Potential Business Plan for M&E Clinics
Key Partnerships: The key partners for the M&E clinics would be the host educational
institutions in the Washington D.C. area, inclusive of pre-existing partnerships with universities
such as George Mason University and American University. Additional key partners would be
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that would serve as the students’ clients during the twosemester course. Other partners would include Ambassador McDonald, the board of directors for
IMTD, and M&E professional and academic experts.
Key Activities: The M&E Clinic is a two-semester six-credit course that equips students with
theoretical frameworks and earns them practical experience by practicing implementations of
evaluations for real-world projects or programs within an NGO. A host educational institution
would serve as a partner, geographic training ground, and beneficiary. Prospective client NGOs
that are small- to mid-sized organizations seeking assistance in meeting grant evaluation
requirements, but also operating on a thin budget, would receive the services from the students in
this M&E practical course. The clinic would offer NGOs student services at a reduced rate.
Through maintained relations with host educational institutions, revenue would be garnered from
participating student tuition and consulting fees from client NGOs.
Key Resources: Key resources for this business model would be trained professional in the field
of M&E who would develop and teach curriculum, manage program staff, and guide
development. IMTD would employ this M&E program manager to produce a curriculum and
training materials, proctor the course and secure other client NGOs for M&E services. Other
resources needed would be a fully implemented capital campaign levering Ambassador
McDonald’s reputation through this legacy program. This funding could potentially be started
through a capital campaign with the support and backing of Ambassador McDonald. Other
28 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
resources for this particular program would be garnered through connections and networks with
higher educational institutions. These connections could look like possible relationships with
peacebuilding and conflict resolution professors within higher institutions. IMTD would need to
attend academic and professional conferences to secure these particular connections. Physical
resources would come in the form of course materials for the program.
Customer Segments: IMTD would be creating value primarily for students and NGOs in the
field of peacebuilding and conflict resolution. Other benefactors would include contracted M&E
practitioners.
Customer Relationships: IMTD could utilize listservs, internships, conferences, and repeat
courses to attract students to this program. For NGOS, conferences, existing relations and local
contacts in this particular area of interest, word of mouth, and publications would attract NGOs
to the M&E program. The costs incurred for maintaining these relationships would be in-house
training, hiring of M&E experts, materials, conference networking, materials and transportation.
Channels: Our customer segments could potentially utilize conferences and lectures at
participating higher education institutions to make connections with professors and students in
the field. Although IMTD does not necessarily have the funds to put together their own
conference, they could participate as guest panelists or lecturers for professional and academic
conferences. They also need to have open-source dialogue and an understanding of the M&E
clinics, as most of the consumers are contracted practitioners and/or novices of the field. IMTD
already has an extensive network of potential client NGOs worldwide that they could partner
with for this particular program. They should capitalize on their existing networks to produce a
viable list of NGOs that could participate in this M&E program.
Value Propositions:
Students and Graduate Programs: Students would receive a real-world practical experience
that will teach them the theoretical framework of implementing an evaluation for a project or
program within an NGO. Peacebuilding and conflict resolution graduate programs would be able
to provide practical coursework that would allow students to gain real-world skills useful in the
29 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
field. This course could be a substantive alternative for students in need of experiences that teach
them real skillsets that could benefit their careers. The partnership with IMTD as well as the
client NGOs also provide a wider network for students looking for career opportunities.
NGOs: Small- to mid-size NGOs with a limited budget, but in need of assistance in grant
evaluation requirements would be offered a reduced rate with this particular service. This is a
reduced rate compared to other M&E clinics that are offered by other much larger legal clinics or
nonprofit organizations. Smaller NGOs would also gain more exposure through the partnership
with IMTD and host educational institutions. Depending on the quality of the grant evaluation
reports, this partnership could further secure additional funds for the organization regarding
future projects and programs.
Cost Structure: The most important costs inherent to this business model would be the salaries
for the part-time staff, M&E expert, and business consultant for the finances and management of
the program. Additional costs would be class and marketing materials, transportation,
networking, and conference presentation costs. The key activities that will be the most expensive
would be payouts to staff and any costs generated in setting up the curriculum and structure of
the M&E clinics. IMTD would also probably have to pay a 15-30% out of the tuition fees for the
program which is in partnership with higher education institutions.
Revenue Streams: Customers would be graduate students in the field of peacebuilding and
conflict resolution. IMTD would receive a revenue stream from a percentage of the tuition costs
for the program. Revenue from university students would account for about 70-85% of the
tuition costs. Additional revenue would come from consulting fees for the client NGOs.
Illustrative Scenario: Working partnership with University X
Offer: Six-credit course that fulfills internship and practicum requirements for a graduate
student in a Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution program.
Number of students enrolled: 10 students
30 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
Tuition costs per credit (2015-2016): $1,526
Total tuition received from 10 students enrolled (60 credits/6 credits per 10 students): $91,560
Revenue from Tuition (30% remains with the institution, 70% goes to IMTD): $64,092
Standard Consulting Fees for Client NGO: $350/day (USAID current rate); 5 days worth of
consulting= $1,750
Miscellaneous (Materials for Curriculum, etc.): $2,000
Salary of IMTD’s M&E expert to teach the course/ act as program manager: $60,000; spending
⅓ of the time teaching the course ⅔ for materials, networking, providing M&E services to other
NGO organizations: ($20,000 teaching only)
Potential Net Revenue: $43,852
CONCLUSIONS
The team is very impressed with the body of work IMTD has produced since its
inception. Building upon this strong foundation, IMTD has the prospect of a bright and
productive future. For more than two decades IMTD has been an integral player in peacebuilding
and effecting positive changes around the world through its innovative principles of multi-track
diplomacy. However, in order to evolve and grow the organization must strengthen its operating
structure and financial systems and begin to diversify its funding portfolio, particularly into a
fee-for-service. This is not only vital for the future sustainability of the organization, but also to
secure the impressive legacy of Ambassador John W. McDonald.
This analysis concludes that the program which is the strongest candidate for a transition
to a fee-for-service model is the Monitoring and Evaluation Clinic. This is due to the fact that the
program offers a unique intensive, holistic training in both theory and application; and fulfills
demand in the growing market for M&E professionals. IMTD is in the unique position to offer
an important service to train in-demand professionals should the organization take concrete
action to fully develop the M&E Clinic Program.
This analysis proposes a business plan, a potential road-map outlining some of the goals
31 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
and details of how to achieve this transition.
32 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP). “Annual Conference”. Alliance for Peacebuilding. Alliance
for Peacebuilding, 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP). “Mission and Programs”. Alliance for Peacebuilding. Alliance
for Peacebuilding, 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP). “Peacebuilding Evaluation”. Alliance for Peacebuilding.
Alliance for Peacebuilding, 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Brown, William A. “Exploring the Association Between Board and Organizational
Performance in Nonprofit Organizations.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership. Spring
2005. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
Coefield, Stacy. Personal Interview. March 28, 2015.
Collins, Cindy. Personal Interview. 25 Mar. 2015.
Colvin, Gregory L. “Fiscal Sponsorship: Six Ways to do it Right.” The Exempt Organization
Tax Review. April 1993. PDF File. 4 Apr. 2015.
Crawford, Paul; Bryce, Paul. “Project Monitoring and Evaluation: A Method for Enhancing
the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Aid Project Implementation.” Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Sage Journals. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
DM&E for Peace. “Training Modules for Design, Monitoring and Evaluation for Peacebuilding”.
DM&E for Peace. DM&E for Peace, 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
The Foundation Center. “Guide to Fiscal Sponsorship“ Web. 4 Apr. 2015.
www.foundationcenter.org.
Kusek, Jody Zall; Rist, Ray C. “Ten Steps to a Resutls-Based Monitoring and Evaluation
System.” World Bank Publications, 2004. Ebook.
McDonald, Robert E. “An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: The Role
of Organizational Mission” International Journal of Project Management. 203. Science
Direct. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
Moore, Mark. “Managing for Value: Organizational Strategy in For-Profit, Nonprofit, and
Governmental Organizations.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Sage Journals.
Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
"Peace Action Training and Research Institute of Romania." Home. PATRIR, 1 Jan. 2015. Web.
22 Apr. 2015. <http://www.patrir.ro/>.
33 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
"Peace Action Training and Research Institute of Romania." Consultancies. PATRIR, 1 Jan.
2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2015. <http://www.patrir.ro/en/consultancies>.
"Peace Action Training and Research Institute of Romania." International Training Programmes.
PATRIR, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.patrir.ro/en/international-training-programmes>.
Spack, Jonathan. “How Fiscal Sponsorship Nurtures Nonprofits.” Communities and Banking.
Fall 2005. Ideas. Web. 4 Apr. 2015.
Sovereignty First. “The Tool: INCAA”. Sovereignty First. Sovereignty First, 2015. Web. 9 Apr.
2015.
USAID. “Evaluation Learning from Experience: USAID Evaluation Policy.” USAID,
January 2011. PDF file.
Zemans, Adam. Personal Interview. 24 Mar. 2015.
Zemans, Adam. “John W. McDonald Design, Monitoring and Evaluation (DM&E) Clinic The
Untold Story.” December 2014. PowerPoint presentation.
34 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
APPENDIX A
Survey Questions & Possible Responses:
1. Where do you see IMTD in five years?
a. Free Response
2. What do you think IMTD's Legacy will be?
a. Free Response
3. How many projects do you work on at any given time?
a. 0
b. 1-2
c. 3-4
d. 5-6
e. 7+
4. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your projects?
a. Self-Evaluation
b. Direct Evaluation
c. Both
d. Neither
e. Other (Please Specify)
5. On average, what percentage of your projects have evaluation requirements?
a. <25%
b. 25-49%
c. 50-75%
d. >75%
6. Of the total time spent on a project, what percentage of time is devoted to monitoring and
evaluation?
a. Free Response
7. What percentage of the project budget is typically devoted to monitoring and evaluation?
a. Free Response
35 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
Survey Responses
Respondents
R1.
Q1
I see IMTD transformed into
an economically sustainable
link between academia and
NGOs on the ground around
the world. Please note--due
to the lack of active projects
for IMTD, your questions
below do not make sense
for us. We are primarily in
pre-project phase.
Additionally, my particular
project is all about DM&E.
Therefore, the numbers are
distorted below.
R2.
Fully funded organization
that is carrying out
peacebuilding work.
R3.
I really don't know. Without
a funding model to sustain
IMTD's projects. I do not
see a bright future.
Questions
Q2
Q3
That will depend
3-4
on how much
work will be put
into the next few
years and who is
in the leadership.
IMTD is yet to be
fully defined for
the future.
Regardless, the
basic idea that
diplomacy is more
than official stateto-state
interaction and is
systems based will
be credited in part
to Ambassador
John W.
McDonald.
Currently, we
frankly are not
producing much.
But we have a lot
of potential.
One of the
3-4
premier
institutions that is
utilizing the
systems based
approach to
multi-track
diplomacy.
Developing the
1-2
concept of multitrack approach to
conflict resolution
and
peacebuilding.
Successfully using
the multi-track
approach to
develop
interventions that
contribute to
peacebuilding
around the world.
Being nonpartisan
Q4
Both
Q5
>75%
Q6
75%
Q7
75%
Other –
Some of them
can't be
evaluated for
effectiveness.
<25%
0
0
Self-Evaluation
<25%
30%
10%
36 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
R4.
R5.
R6.
R7.
A more powerful and
present organization;
growing and having more
marketing, promotion and
exposure from alignments
with more strategic
affiliations and
partnerships, such as
partnering with more nonprofits (sharing similar
mission as IMTD) and
universities in the
Delaware, Maryland and
Virginia area; still a nonprofit org; fundraising
projects; sales staff to
increase donor support;
consider partnerships with
United Way, Delaware
Alliance of Non-profit
Advancement, Maryland
Non-profits,
GreatNonprofits of
Delaware, and
GreatNonprofits of Virginia;
increasing national and
international work
With a more focused set of
projects.
I see IMTD more involved
and active with the
communities across the
globe in peaceful resolution
of their differences and
conflicts.
Improving as a Non-Profit
professionally and
economically.
within the
American polity.
Peacebuilding and
facilitation of
resolutions of
social conflict
between groups,
communities,
organizations, and
governments in
the US and
abroad.
3-4
Other- selfevaluation,
executive
director and
director
evaluation,
using evidencebased
methodologies
<25%
80%
0%
Increasing the
emphasis on
multi-track
diplomacy.
Question Skipped
3-4
Both
5075%
25%
25%
1-2
Both
2549%
50%
20%
Contributing the
multi-track
systems of
diplomacy to the
world.
1-2
Self-Evaluation
<25%
25
0
37 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
APPENDIX B
38 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
APPENDIX C
39 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
40 | P a g e
An Analysis of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy
APPENDIX D
41 | P a g e