So, welcome to the Improving Development Evaluation
Podcast. I'm your host, David Wand, and in this
episode, we're going to feature again the Global
Community Engagement Resilience Fund, GSERF,
G -C -E -R -F. You can find out more about this
organization at their website at GSERF, G -C
-E -R -F .org. In this one, we're going to talk
about 1 .1 million U .S. dollars that the G -Surf
received from the Canadian taxpayer. Being a
fund, I featured them before on another episode
for $5 million that they spent with the United
States government. This is for the Canadian government.
And what they do as being a fund is they then
develop either one single grant project or several
sub... projects or sub grants out of this 1 .1
million then they give it to a variety of organizations
in developing countries and then hope that they
deliver services based on that money to achieve
a series of outcomes now the good news is g -surf
has done a lot of work to tell you in advance
what if you give them money what they expect
to achieve with that money when they deliver
services in developing countries. So just to
repeat, if you haven't seen the other episode,
heard the other episode, there are four outcomes
they expect to achieve if this money is effective.
The first one is increased social cohesion. Number
two, increased ability to mobilize, organize.
represent their own interests. That's what they
call agency. Outcome number three, increased
knowledge, skills, as well as subsequent increases
in income, access to livelihoods. Outcome number
four, increased confidence, critical thinking,
life skills, self -worth, and resilience, what
they refer to as sense of purpose. So that's
on their website, in their strategy documents.
They basically are very clear, which is good.
You give us the money. We'll deliver services.
And in the short term and in the long term, we're
going to achieve any one of these four possible
outcomes. So that's pretty clear. They also mentioned
on their website, very clearly, that although
they're a fund, they are still responsible for,
and I quote, at the grant level, each project
is guided by a theory of change and a results
framework with outcome and output indicators.
requiring grantees to collect baseline data,
report quarterly, and conduct final assessments.
So it's pretty clear that even though they're
a fund, they're still responsible for making
sure the organizations they give the money to
are achieving any one of those four outcomes.
So you would expect in their reporting they would
have some outcome indicators on how they measure
social cohesion, how they measure agency, how
they measure increased knowledge, how they measure
access to livelihoods, i .e. increases income,
and how they measure sense of purpose, increased
confidence, critical thinking, life skills, self
-worth. So it's pretty clear from that point.
So given that, I'm going to give you a bit of
history here because it gets a bit complicated.
In September of 2024, over a year ago, I made
the request to Global Affairs Canada through
an access to information request for the performance
measurement frameworks for the sub grants that
GSURF would produce or projects out of this 1
.1 million US dollars that you as a Canadian
taxpayer has given to GSURF who then turn around
and produce and create. these grants in these
developing countries to achieve any one of these
four outcomes. October 2024, Global Affairs Canada
replied, no performance measurement frameworks
exist for these sub -grants. So I submitted a
complaint to the Information Commission of Canada
and I said, if there's no PMFs, give me something,
give me anything that can show that they're actually
measuring using outcome indicators that any one
of these four outcomes are actually being achieved.
And they came back in February of 2025 and they
said, well, you're right. They don't have any
PMFs. They're not required. But there are, quote,
quarterly reports linked to this 1 .1 million
U .S. dollars. And I said, great. So then in
July 2025, I made a request for these quarterly
reports, attaching this email from Information
Commission of Canada, confirming that these quarterly
reports actually did exist. And I said, again,
give me the outcome indicators for these funds
out of these quarterly reports. And in August,
Global Affairs Canada came back to me and said
they needed a time extension on my request, even
though these quarterly reports were produced
way back in 2024 because the money was coming
out of 2023. So even despite the fact the report's
sitting on a shelf for over a year, they needed
an extension. So I said, all right, waited for
the extension. October of 2025, I finally received
a five -page report dated from GSURF in June
of 2024 from a board meeting where they talk
about the so -called results or outcomes that
I had requested. Now, before we get into the
critique of that five -page report and its insufficiencies,
I would like to digress a bit here and talk to
you about the fact that we have made a few changes
to the podcast in the sense that I'm advocating.
for proper evaluation, but I'd like the listeners
to send an email. So in the notes, I'll give
you the email addresses and the names of the
members of parliament responsible for the NDP
and conservative shadow critics on international
development, as well as the secretary of state
for the liberal government for international
development, so that you can recommend that they
do proper evaluation. And until they do, they
should suspend funding to these organizations.
So in this case, And also, as usual, I will be
prepared to reply to any email. You can email
me at evaluatecanadaid at gmail .com if you want
a copy of any of my critiques of any of the performance
measurement frameworks from any of the previous
episodes and, of course, the critique for this
episode. And you can also make a donation. There's
a donation button where you can buy me a coffee.
because I need $5 to ask for more performance
measurement frameworks. And despite the fact
that they're produced years ago and money's already
been spent, there's incredible delays in producing
them for this podcast. Some journalists have
suggested that's because it's a political stalling
tactic. I don't know, but it's unfortunate that
I have to wait for these PMFs or their equivalent
before I can do an episode. And I have noticed
in the last 14 days that there's people in Saudi
Arabia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, and Brazil
that are listening to this podcast. So given
that and the fact that Canadians and Americans
in international development do go to the Global
South, I will again promote the three products
that you need to go to the Global South, usually
when it's hot and humid. Of course, there's a
rainy season at times, but you need a good sun
hat. You need good sunglasses, and of course,
you need some good sun -sensitive clothing. So
starting with sun hats, you should check out
ericjavits .com, E -R -I -C -J -A -V -I -T -S
.com for some excellent hats to protect you from
the sun, travel friendly and protected from the
sun. You get a 20 % discount off any product,
and you can use the promo code WANDCOOLT -SHIRTS.
Just click on the link in the episode notes,
my deals, and it'll go straight to that. I get
a 20 % commission of the total purchase you make.
How protective from the sun? Well, ultraviolet
protection factor with a 50 plus UPF rating blocks
98 % of UVA and UVB radiation. Travel friendly,
easy to pack, but retains its shape when you
visit your international development project
located in the global south. That's ericjavits
.com. The second product, of course, is sunglasses.
You can find out more at Aquila, A -K -I -L -A
dot L -A. Or you just click on the My Deals link
in the episode notes. Prescription lenses, also
available, all made from 50 % recycled material.
You get a 10 % discount if you use my code WANDCOOLT
-SHIRTS. And I get a 15 % commission when you
purchase any product using my promo code. So
you have your hat and your sunglasses to protect
you from the sun in the global south, but you
need the right clothes to be comfortable in that
hot and humid climate. How about some men's polos
or tees at hypernaturalstyle .com? Hypernaturalstyle
.com. You get 20 % off any product when you use
my promo code, WANCOOLT -SHIRTS. And I get a
20 % commission of the total purchase you make
when you use my promo code, WANCOOLT -SHIRTS.
So what is so cool about these Hypernatural t
-shirts? They have a patent pending Hypercool
Jade technology that when it's hot, it lowers
your body temperature by three to five degrees.
They are also breathable. thanks to cotton. And
they are sold in premium retailers like Nordstrom.
Supina cotton, that is. And were voted the best
men's polo shirts in 2024 in Men's Journal, Forbes,
and Esquire. So there you have some sales, interesting,
relevant products to your work in the global
south. Now what we're going to do is get into
details about the five -page report. that was
provided to me in response to my request for
outcome indicators. Because that's critical,
right? And the first problem with this five -page
report is that they make these claims, but there's
no outcome indicators. Most of them are output
indicators. Talking about... what they've actually
delivered in terms of services, but they don't
talk about the next step, which is once you deliver
the services, what expected outcomes of the four
that we mentioned previously, did they achieve?
So for example, on page one of this document,
they say, G -SURF funded projects continue, for
example, to educate and create livelihood opportunities,
build critical thinking skills, rehabilitate
and reintegrate former combatants and their families.
and often claim with, quote, remarkable efficiency
and cost effectiveness. The problem is there's
no measures of effectiveness, which is a Development
Assistance Committee criteria. There's no outcome
indicator. So I'm going to read for the record
verbatim from the results that they do provide
in my request for outcome indicators. Quote,
a selection of results to date. which illustrate
the diversity of these efforts include 358 local
partners funded in 22 countries, 27 new grants
signed and 59 grants in total with 44 under active
implementation in 2023. Nearly 20 million indirect
beneficiaries reached in addition to 3 .8 million
reached directly. You notice heavy emphasis on
reach, but not what happens after they reach
them with these services. So let's get to the
more specific ones. More than 35 ,000 religious
leaders engaged in conflict resolution, but did
it resolve the conflict? No measurement. Peace
advocacy? We don't know if they have ability
to advocate. Critical thinking? No measures of
critical thinking. Leadership skills, no measures
of leadership skills. More than 57 ,000 individuals
reached with livelihood and employability related
interventions. Again, no measures in the report
of indicators, outcome indicators to measure
income or vocational skill acquisition. And here's
the big one. More than 400 ,000 participants
reached with cultural and sports activities to,
quote, build social cohesion. and prevent violent
extremism. There's no measures of social cohesion
in the report, nothing. And as I mentioned on
my previous episode with GSERF for the 5 million
in the United States, I'll say it again here,
for $40 you can get the University of California
Irvine Net, UC Net, social networking software
that will measure levels of social cohesion.
before, during, and after a sports activity.
For example, G -Surf has held a soccer football
game between religious madrasa students and public
non -religious students to see if that would
build social cohesion. But there's no measure
of that before, during, and after. And you could
do it very easily, measuring something called
reciprocity as a measure of social cohesion.
That's an example. And Marco Rubio on a YouTube
video has shown testifying that he's proud of
taking away a $14 million project in Mali that
was building social cohesion. And he said, quote,
whatever the hell that is. Well, here's an example
where you could show him this is how you measure
and build social cohesion. And that may, maybe
not, convince him, oh, okay, I see what you mean
now. Let's go ahead and continue the funding.
But if you don't do that, obviously people will
use that, as this example shows, where they have
scrapped the funding. There could be other reasons,
of course, for why the funding was suspended,
but that's a major one. So this is the problem
with this response. to my request for outcome
indicators. There's none in this report. To be
fair to GSERF, the government of Canada, when
they provided this funding to GSERF, may not
have required it. We still don't know. So I've
issued a complaint to the Office of the Information
Commissioner of Canada to go to the next level
and say, I did receive a response, but once again,
I didn't get any outcome indicators. So I would
like to know if they do exist, and if they do
exist, can we see them? But currently, here was
an opportunity for GSERF to provide some outcome
indicators, and they did not. So I would go ahead
and recommend that funding be suspended for GSERF
until they start properly evaluating their projects.
They can't just say, because we're a fund, we're
not responsible. Because as I have said earlier,
It's clear on their website that they are responsible
for grantees in developing outcome indicators
and measuring them to make sure that any one
of those four indicators, social cohesion, agency,
or increased knowledge or increases in income
or sense of purpose are being achieved. So that
is not the case right now. So when it comes to
rehabilitation and reintegration of former combatants,
There is a plethora of outcome indicators you
can use in the field of psychology to measure
levels of reintegration and levels of rehabilitation.
And there's no mention of that in this report.
They have an opportunity to hire a consultant,
a psychologist, to develop some of these measuring
instruments, or not even develop them, but get
them from the literature. The other one that's
a big stretch that I've mentioned before is this
claim that if they achieve these four outcomes,
those in turn will contribute to a reduction
or prevention of violent extremism. And just
to quote again from the report, more than 400
,000 participants reached with cultural and sports
activities to build social cohesion and prevent
violent extremism. There's no evidence in the
report. of any outcome indicator showing that
social cohesion has actually been increased.
And there's absolutely no evidence provided in
this report that shows that that in turn, or
for that matter, any of the outcomes that they
expect to achieve have contributed to a prevention
of violent extremism. Now, it is possible to
show that link. One way to do that is to develop
a multiple regression statistical model, which
you could do. And again, you could hire a statistician
to do it and say, here are some outcome indicators
for the four expected outcomes you have. Here's
how they would look in a multiple regression
equation. And then on the dependent variable
side, we could have a measure of whether or not
violent extremism has been reduced or prevented,
as this report is claiming with absolutely no
empirical evidence at all. So that's why we can't
fund GSERF until they start producing outcome
indicators with the related data that shows these
expected outcomes have been achieved. And I would
give them a break and I would say, look, that's
good enough. If you can show that you've achieved
any of these four outcomes, increase social cohesion,
especially outcome number three, which is very
easy to do. I did it in Kano, Nigeria. With Adam
Smith International, they were training adolescent
female women who were vulnerable to violent extremism
and human trafficking, becoming suicide bombers.
So they were training them in vocational skills.
You can measure those skills to see if they actually
become, through a certification test, a certified
seamstress. And then from that, you can track
to see if they actually made income from that
new acquired skill. That would be sufficient.
To make the link from there to preventing violent
extremism statistically would be a little bit
more complicated. But at least they could try
to show through the social cohesion example I
gave of an outcome indicator and a measuring
instrument called UCNet software. And of course,
vocational skills and followed by subsequent
increases in income. Those would be pretty easy
to show that the... organizations that g -surf
has funded with your 1 .1 million dollars has
actually been quote effective but right now there's
no evidence that any of this money has been effective
certainly not cost effective as this five -page
report claims so we'll leave it at that and i'll
keep you up to date on whether the investigation
from the independent Office of the Information
Commissioner of Canada goes back to Global Affairs
Canada and goes back to GSERF and says, where
are these outcome indicators? Because we still
don't see them. Thank you for listening and bye
for now.