The Role of Humanitarians in Government: Perspectives on Advocacy and Impact

Eric P. Schwartz
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Brookings Institute

Washington, DC

November 4, 2009

Thank you, Elizabeth. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to offer some initial reflections on the role of humanitarians in government. And allow me to caveat what I am going to say by saying that obviously there is a much larger U.S. Government humanitarian effort going on than what I – or the Bureau I head – provide. Let there be no doubt: USAID is an important and fundamental partner – and I extremely value their coordination with us and complementarity of effort. But I thought it important to provide, more specifically, my thoughts on my Bureau’s and the Department’s role.

Whatever their rhetoric, national security policy-makers have often viewed humanitarian response as marginal to the international community’s involvement in issues of war and peace. However, the reality is that humanitarian situations have long affected political and security issues. In Pakistan, for example, after conflict in the Swat Valley fueled large scale civilian flight, assistance and support for voluntary return quickly became a political imperative for the government of Pakistan, the United States, and the international donor community. So how do humanitarians operate effectively in complex policy environments? How do humanitarians ensure basic principles, such as protection of civilians, access to populations in need, the security of humanitarian workers, and the effectiveness and impartiality of aid?

I start from the proposition that protection of the most vulnerable must be at the center of policy-making. As I said when I was sworn in many weeks ago, and as I suspect I’ll repeat in many presentations during my tenure, there are several reasons why this should be a guiding principle of policy. First, there is moral imperative – and the simple policy goal of saving lives: the people of the United States, Members of Congress, and successive Administrations have demonstrated unequivocal support for generous efforts to alleviate human suffering. We have a profound responsibility to make good use of the resources they have provided.

Second, the U.S. Government has the strongest interest in sustaining U.S. leadership, the policy benefits of which include enabling us to determine or drive the development of international humanitarian law, programs, and policy like no other government in the world, and to leverage critical support from others.

Third, it is crucial that we build sustainable partnerships with key friends and allies and their populations, as well as the populations of our adversaries, where – although it should never be the only reason why we provide humanitarian assistance – the generous provision of humanitarian aid can break down negative stereotypes and images of the United States and communicate U.S. support for responsible overseas engagement.

And finally, we have the key goal of promoting reconciliation, security, and well-being in circumstances where despair and misery not only threaten stability, but also critical national security interests of the United States.

So if those are our goals, how do humanitarians go about pursuing them effectively – how do we promote and sustain a deep concern about victims of conflict, and put them at the center of policy-making? What strategies make the most sense, and what tactics should we be seeking to implement in pursuing them effectively?

First, let me state the obvious. If you want humanitarian perspectives to influence foreign policy-making, make very sure that the Cabinet officials responsible for foreign policy are receiving ongoing, frank, and up to date information about the humanitarian dimensions of man-made crises. And, similarly, make sure that, at the working level, humanitarian considerations are being embedded into the work of the State Department’s regional bureaus – from Africa to East and South Asia, to the Middle East, to the Americas. My Bureau, Population, Refugees, and Migration, is well-positioned to serve these objectives, as we serve as the principal humanitarian advisors in the State Department, and we owe it to the Secretary and to our mandate to aspire to a broad role in policy formulation and policy implementation on issues involving complex emergencies.

If the Administration succeeds in this effort, we will increase the likelihood that policy-makers will recognize potential humanitarian crises early on, and take preventative measures that may alleviate suffering – not to mention safeguard U.S. national interests. And our engagement increases the chance that strategies designed to deal with man-made crises take adequate account of basic protection concerns, including preservation of humanitarian space critical to the effective functioning of assistance providers.

So if that is the goal – a robust voice in the policy debate – how do humanitarians achieve it? Let me answer this question by offering and explaining seven basic propositions on which I find myself relying as I begin this new adventure as Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, widely known as PRM.

First, humanitarians must define our mandate broadly, with a willingness to break apart traditional issue silos. I just returned from a trip to Africa, which included the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the DRC, my focus was the effectiveness of protection efforts in the east – where an ongoing humanitarian crisis has had devastating effects on the civilian population, more than 1.5 million of whom are displaced in the region. Solving these daunting problems will require integrated approaches that go far beyond traditional issue area and bureaucratic boundaries. We in PRM will certainly work closely with our main partner organization, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, to enhance its performance in providing basic services to displaced populations. But that will not be enough. We must promote action, within an inter-agency process, on a range of other fronts. In particular, we must 1) promote enhanced coordination and effectiveness among the many players on the ground involved in civilian protection, from UN agencies to MONUC to NGOs; 2) encourage MONUC and DRC authorities to more effectively promote FDLR disarmament; 3) work to end impunity for human rights abuses and establish accountability in the DRC, especially for the grievous crimes committed against women and children; and 4) strongly support complementary and more effective efforts by MONUC and UN agencies at civilian protection, including efforts to combat gender-based violence and child recruitment. And we will also continue to look for areas where additional targeted efforts might make a difference – even when they are somewhat outside my bureau’s traditional issue areas – such as increased support to MONUC’s Joint Protection Teams, which identify vulnerable populations in need of protection. In short, humanitarians must be part of integrated strategies that also address root causes, and we must be prepared to drive those strategies if necessary.

Second, humanitarians must not shy away from engagement on political, law enforcement and security issues that may affect the humanitarian agenda. In fact, we should engage deeply in such issues and even be prepared to take the lead on policy development when that is feasible and appropriate. During the Clinton Administration, when I served at the National Security Council, I was asked to manage the alien smuggling portfolio. I took on the challenge – not because I had significant background and experience in law enforcement – but rather because the issue was compelling to policy-makers and the portfolio involved key protection concerns. I had not taken the humanitarian job at the NSC expecting that I would be helping to devise strategies to protect our borders from unauthorized migration, but so long as I acquitted myself on the enforcement side, policy-makers were prepared to defer to my judgment on many protection issues. Of course, we didn’t win every protection battle, but I did feel that protection equities – whether it involved Cubans, Haitians or Chinese – were always part of the discussion.

Similarly, during my recent visit to Africa, I traveled to Kenya to promote agreement on the building of a fourth camp for Somali refugees in the Dadaab area, where the camps built for 90,000 are now holding more than three times that number. To encourage Government of Kenya agreement on a fourth camp, UNHCR has already offered them a package that includes assistance for security management in the camps, host community development projects, better registration procedures for asylum seekers and some limited movement from Dadaab to the Kakuma Camp across the country. During my meetings in Kenya, Kenyan officials seemed prepared to move forward, subject to additional assistance on border management issues. The Kenyan interest is obviously driven by security concerns. But we humanitarians have a deep interest in engaging in this discussion, both to promote the humanitarian alternative of a new camp and to ensure that any additional assistance on border management issues retains basic principles of protection.

Third, our protection strategies must include active humanitarian diplomacy and robust humanitarian advocacy. For years, some experts have referred to a conflict between the imperative of human rights advocacy and imperative of humanitarian access. The notion was that groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International could criticize governments for denying their citizens basic rights, but humanitarian organizations – no matter what they might witness – needed to stay silent to preserve their ability to operate, feed and clothe people and save lives.

But, in fact, the reality is not that simple, and silence by donor governments in the face of humanitarian deprivation not only risks implicating the donor in abuses, but often represents a missed opportunity to promote positive change. In addition, governments that reject out of hand the complaints of human rights advocates may well have a harder time doing so when it is the humanitarian organizations that are providing critical resources. As the work of Medicins Sans Frontieres has so clearly demonstrated over the years, there is no necessary conflict between engaging in advocacy and securing critical access. And sometimes continued access simply isn’t worth the cost of staying quiet, but requires a far more sophisticated dialogue.

In short, if pressing the case with governments, the media, and civil society can impact the situations of vulnerable populations, then we have an obligation to press. In Sri Lanka, for example, nearly 250,000 Tamils remain in camps in the north, and the government has thus far failed to meet the majority of its stated targets for permitting them to have the freedom of movement, which is their right under international law. At the same time, we have in recent weeks seen that the pace of releases has picked up considerably. Whether this will continue remains to be seen, but there is no question in my mind that the government’s recent more positive actions have been influenced by the strong expressions of concern from the United States and other donor governments.

Finally, humanitarian advocacy keeps faith with the victims of these conflicts, and keeps news of their suffering in the public eye. For example, in Burma, a recent regime offensive has caused large scale displacement of civilians, but information on their plight has not captured significant world attention. Humanitarians can play an important role in bringing forgotten or neglected crises to light and helping to craft solutions.

Fourth, humanitarians in government must raise the profile of our work – among our colleagues in government, within the Congress, and among civil society and the public at large. Public awareness of our issues is a critical pre-requisite to political support for international humanitarian objectives. We must engage in more vigorous public affairs and public diplomacy, information-sharing with Congress and the NGO community, and travel to regions of the world where key humanitarian issues are implicated. Over the past four months, my senior colleagues and I will have traveled to Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the DRC, Rwanda, Kenya, Thailand, Laos, Iraq, and Colombia, and each of these visits has substantially enhanced our capacity to engage credibly in humanitarian policy debates in Washington.

Fifth, we must strengthen the human resource capacity of humanitarians in government, so they can effectively play a strong policy role. Even as the extraordinary PRM staff is engaged in policy initiatives and debates involving Kenya, Somalia, Congo, Sudan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, refugee admissions policy, and on and on and on, they have been expected to manage an increase in assistance to refugees and conflict victims of nearly 60% over the past few years. In 2009, our Bureau will have programmed nearly $1.8 billion dollars, which requires that enormous human resources be devoted to management, to monitoring, and to evaluation. Even for those as talented and committed as the team that serves at PRM, augmenting efforts on policy engagement is a great challenge and we are now actively engaged in considering how we need to strengthen our institutional capacity to do the job.

Sixth, and related to the prior point I just made, we must sustain the high quality, effectiveness and magnitude of the assistance. While I am very eager for our Bureau to play a key role in critical policy debates, I am well aware that PRM’s credibility and effectiveness as a policy advocate comes very much from the program expertise of PRM staff and the effectiveness of PRM funded programs. That expertise “credentials” the Bureau in the policy discussion, and our ability to bring resources to bear helps to guarantee us a seat at the policy-making table. Policy without resources to implement it rings hollow.

Seventh and finally, and perhaps most challenging, we will not be effective in the policy debate if we advocate for everything – we must choose priorities. To be sure, PRM is a bureau with global reach – if there is a complex humanitarian crisis anywhere in the world, chances are that the resources of our bureau will be engaged in efforts to alleviate suffering. But that does not free us from identifying some key areas of focus. I’ve worked closely with my colleagues in PRM to identify priorities based on several factors, including the magnitude of the humanitarian challenge, the stakes for U.S. national interests defined broadly, and the degree to which responsibility and accountability for effective response lies primarily with the United States. While our priority-setting process is not quite complete, it is clear that areas of greatest regional focus will have to include Central Africa, the Horn of Africa and Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Palestinian refugees. Our functional priorities will have to include enhanced protection through more effectively addressing protracted refugee situations, improving our refugee admissions program, and highlighting the problem of statelessness.

We are attempting to define tangible progress in each of these areas, and put in place dedicated processes that will help us monitor our performance and accomplish our objectives. I look forward to working with you all in the months and years ahead, as we seek to use the tools at our disposal to promote a brighter future for the world’s most vulnerable citizens.

Thank you.

FY 2010 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs Benefiting Returning Refugees in Afghanistan

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Funding Opportunity Announcement

October 30, 2009

Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-ECA-10-CA-SA-10302009-AFGHAN

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 19.519 - Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Near East and South Asia

Announcement issuance date: Friday, October 30, 2009

Proposal submission deadline: Monday, November 30, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) EST. Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

ADVISORY: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volume of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address difficulties that may arise due to system delays.


Proposed Program Start Dates: December 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010.

Duration of Activity: No more than 12 months.
Applicants with multi-year programs must continue to re-compete for PRM funding each year. Furthermore, in funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities.

Current Funding Priorities for Returning Refugees in Afghanistan:
PRM will prioritize currently available funding for proposed non-governmental organization (NGO) activities that best meet the Bureau’s priorities in Afghanistan as identified below:

Since 2002, more than five million Afghans have returned to Afghanistan. With the large number of refugee returns to Afghanistan, the Bureau will increase its focus on supporting the durable resettlement and reintegration of returnees through promoting sustainable livelihoods and economic development in the Balkh, Baghlan, Kunduz, Nangarhar, and Parwan provinces of northern and eastern Afghanistan. These programs should address needs not covered by UNHCR or other IOs.

PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above mentioned sectors, although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

· a working relationship with UNHCR, current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities and/or overall country program (this letter should highlight the gap in services the proposed program is designed to address);

· a proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location;

· evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where applicable – local authorities;

· a concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and at least one outcome or impact indicator per objective;

· A budget that is appropriate for meeting the objectives and demonstrates co-funding by non-US government sources;

· Appropriate targeting of beneficiaries in coordination with UNHCR and other relevant organizations.

· Adherence to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See FY2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards.

Country Specific Instructions:

In FY10, PRM’s funding priority is to support communities of significant refugee return, including those at the Afghan government’s Land Allocation Sites (LAS). Activities should help anchor returnees in Afghanistan and enable communities to support returnees while building capacity to support future returnees. Within communities of return, consideration should also be given to program elements that address the needs of extremely vulnerable groups, such as widows and female-headed households. All projects should seek to address the particular needs of women and girls.

In the Balkh, Baghlan, Kunduz, Nangarhar and Parwan provinces, the following activities are priority areas for PRM in FY10:

a. Income-generating activities targeted to market opportunities available in return communities.
b. Vocational training in marketable skills and, as necessary, provide the required tool set for the profession (standalone vocational training not linked to income-generating activities will not be considered for funding in FY10)
c. Provision or improved access to basic health services, including maternal/child health care.
d. Provision or improved access to primary education.

IOs/NGOs are encouraged to propose programs that are multisectoral. PRM will consider a broad range of activities, but priority will be given to programs that include one or more of the elements from the above categories.

International Organizations (IOs) that are engaged in programs relevant to the assistance addressed by this PRM funding announcement should ensure that these programs are made known to PRM on or before the closing date of this funding announcement so that PRM can evaluate all IO and NGO programs for funding consideration.

Funding Limits:

PRM will consider projects submitted with budgets in the range of $250,000 to $1,500,000.

As stated in the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines, PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

See “How to Apply” (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements, and note the following highlights:

· Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the November 30, 2009 deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the Central Contract Registry (CCR) which can take weeks and sometimes months. See “Applicant FAQs” section on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/help/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) for complete details on registering.

· Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Applicants who have done so in the past and experienced technical difficulties were not able to meet the deadline. Please note: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volumes of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to avoid submission delays. We recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.

· If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem(s) to the Grants.gov help desk and received a case number and had a service request opened to research the problem(s), should contact PRM Program Officer Linda Muncy at (202) 663-1019 or MuncyLH@state.gov to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.

· Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.

· NGOs that have not received PRM funding prior to the U.S. Government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. Government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) non-profit tax status under IRS 501 (c)(3), 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number.

Proposal Content, Formatting and Template:

Please refer to the “Proposal Submission and Review Process” section in the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines. PRM strongly encourages organizations applying for PRM funding to use the PRM recommended proposal and budget templates. Templates can be requested by sending an email to PRM's NGO Coordinator. You must type “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to receive an automated reply containing the template.

PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE PRM’s FY2010 NGO GUIDELINES:

This announcement is designed to accompany the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities and that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line, to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

· Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding.

· Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project.

· To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries. Any project involving the building or maintenance of physical infrastructure must include coordinates of site locations (place name, P-Code, latitude and longitude coordinates).

· Budget must include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization (where applicable). PRM strongly encourages multi-lateral support for humanitarian programs.

· Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2009 [previous year funding] for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report.

Reports and Reporting Requirements:

Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement.

For more details regarding PRM’s reporting requirements please see FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines.

Proposal Review Process:

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

In order to provide NGOs with timely feedback, PRM will inform applicants of the panel’s decision to recommend or not recommend funding proposed activities, and may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will follow up with formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management.

PRM Points of Contact:

Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.):

PRM Program Officer Linda Muncy (MuncyLH@state.gov; 202-663-1019), Washington, D.C.

Kabul Regional Refugee Coordinator Martha Amlin (AmlinMP@state.gov), U.S. Embassy, Refugee and Migration Affairs, Kabul, Afghanistan.

FY 2010 PRM Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs in Sudan Benefiting Southern Sudanese Refugee Returnees and Receiving Communities

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Funding Opportunity Announcement

October 27, 2009

Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-AFR-10-CA-AF-102709-SUDAN

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 19.517

Announcement issuance date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Proposal submission deadline: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) (EDT).

Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

ADVISORY: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volume of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address difficulties that may arise due to system delays.

Proposed Program Start Dates: February 1, 2010 – September 15, 2010

Duration of Activity: No more than 12 months.

Applicants with multi-year programs must continue to re-compete for PRM funding each year. Furthermore, in funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities if pursuing a multi-year strategy of reintegration and transition to early recovery support.

Current Funding Priorities:

(a) Proposed activities should attract and/or support the return and reintegration of Sudanese refugees via programs in return communities in southern Sudan.

(b) Proposals should comment on the point of refuge (i.e., refugee camps in Uganda, Kenya, or Ethiopia or elsewhere) of targeted returnee beneficiaries, and can target refugees who have returned to southern Sudan in 2009 or previous years (if proposed activities are to make reintegration more sustainable), as well as those returning in 2010.

(c) Proposed activities may also target areas of potential return, with the inclusion of an analysis of the reasonable prospect for returns to the targeted geographic area. Priority will be given to Eastern Equatoria, Upper Nile, and Jonglei States.

(d) Proposals must focus on the following sectors: Health, Water and Sanitation, Primary Education and/or Livelihoods.

(e) Because of PRM's mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, PRM only considers funding projects that include a target direct beneficiary base of at least 50% refugee returnees.

(f) Proposals should focus on activities that can produce sustainable results on reintegration within a 12-month period that is expected to include implementation of the final steps in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

(g) PRM will accept proposals from any NGO that is able to satisfy these guidelines although, given our budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

• a working relationship with UNHCR, current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities and/or overall country program;
• a proven track record in providing assistance to Sudanese refugee returnees in both the sector(s) and specified location(s) covered in the submission;
• evidence of coordination with and support from local authorities for the proposed project (please note that for any NGO project that PRM funds, PRM will share budget and project activity information with appropriate ministries and local authorities in Sudan and with other USG entities involved with reconstruction efforts);
• evidence of coordination with International Organizations (IOs) and other NGOs and development organizations in the proposed region or sector of work, a well-developed transition strategy, and sustainability after the conclusion of 12 months of programming;
• A budget that is appropriate for meeting the objectives and evidence of cost-sharing efforts and a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization;
• appropriate targeting of beneficiaries in coordination with UNHCR and other relevant organizations supporting reintegration;
• a concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and at least one outcome indicator per objective; and
• appropriate consideration in the implementation plan of programmatic limitations due to the rainy season (approximately May – October).

International Organizations (IOs) that are engaged in programs relevant to the assistance addressed by this PRM funding announcement should ensure that these programs are made known to PRM on or before the closing date of this funding announcement so that PRM can evaluate all IO and NGO programs for funding consideration.

Funding Limits:

PRM will consider projects with funding requested from PRM in the range of $100,000 to $2,000,000; any submissions over this amount will automatically be disqualified. Please note that PRM does not expect to be able to maintain recent year funding levels for return and reintegration activities.

As stated in the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines, PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

See “How to Apply” (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements, and note the following highlights:

• Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the December 1, 2009 deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the Central Contract Registry (CCR) which can take weeks and sometimes months. See “Applicant FAQs” section on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/help/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) for complete details on registering.
• Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Applicants who have done so in the past and experienced technical difficulties were not able to meet the deadline. Please note: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volumes of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to avoid submission delays. We recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.
• If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem(s) to the Grants.gov help desk and received a case number and had a service request opened to research the problem(s), should contact PRM Program Officer Brennan Gilmore at (202) 663-1712 or gilmorebm@state.gov to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.
• Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.
• NGOs that have not received PRM funding prior to the U.S. Government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. Government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) non-profit tax status under IRS 501 (c)(3), 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number.

Proposal Content, Formatting and Template:

Please refer to the “Proposal Submission and Review Process” section in the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines. PRM strongly encourages organizations applying for PRM funding to use the PRM recommended proposal and budget templates. Templates can be requested by sending an email to PRM's NGO Coordinator. You must type “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to receive an automated reply containing the template.

PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE PRM’s FY2010 NGO GUIDELINES:

This announcement is designed to accompany the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities and that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line, to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

• Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding.
• Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. PRM will not fund reintegration projects that require a period of time at the beginning of the project for community assessments or establishment of baselines. These activities must already have occurred and be incorporated into proposed indicators; and baselines should be provided to the greatest extent possible.
• To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries. Any project involving the building or maintenance of physical infrastructure must include coordinates of site locations (place name, P-Code, latitude and longitude coordinates).
• Budget must include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization (where applicable). PRM strongly encourages multi-lateral support for humanitarian programs.
• Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2008 or FY 2009 for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report.

Reports and Reporting Requirements:

Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement.

For more details regarding PRM’s reporting requirements please see FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines.

Proposal Review Process:

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

In order to provide NGOs with timely feedback, PRM will inform applicants of the panel’s decision to recommend or not recommend funding proposed activities, and may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will follow up with formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management.

PRM Points of Contact:

Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.):

PRM Program Officer Brennan Gilmore (GilmoreBM@state.gov or 202-663-1712) in Washington, DC; or

Regional Refugee Coordinator for the Horn of Africa Inga Heemink (heeminki@state.gov) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; or

Deputy Office Director Mary Lange (LangeMM@state.gov or 202-663-1041) in Washington, DC

Briefing on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom

Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Washington, DC

[Editor's Note: Secretary Clinton introduced Assistant Secretary Posner at the conclusion of her remarks on the release of the 2009 International Religious Freedom Report.]

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Thank you, Madame Secretary, for your remarks and for your leadership on this issue of religious freedom. I have recently been confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In this position, I’m charged with leading the bureau in which the Office of International Religious Freedom is a part.

Prior to joining the State Department, I spent 30 years with Human Rights First, a nongovernmental organization dedicated to building respect for human rights, including religious freedom, through the rule of law. Now it’s my job as a State Department official to integrate concerns for human rights, including religious freedom, into our foreign policy.

Our government’s promotion of religious freedom is grounded in our national experience and it supports our broader human rights and national security interests. Fortunately, many governments understand the importance of these issues, yet we’re fully aware that even in countries with robust legal safeguards, including the United States, we’re not immune from acts of intolerance. We mourn the death, for example, of Marwa Ali El Sherbini, a young Muslim woman who was brutally stabbed in July in Germany in a courtroom by a man filled with hatred for Muslims. And in this city, in Washington in June, a man with a history of extreme anti-Semitic sentiments shot and killed a security guard, Stephen Johns, at the Holocaust Museum.

This annual report is a massive undertaking. Its publication is a culmination of months of hard work both here and in embassies around the world. In releasing the report, we don’t position ourselves as the world’s arbiter on religious freedom, but rather as a member of a community of nations that have committed ourselves to upholding international human rights standards.

With that short comment, I want to open up for questions. Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I ask – the Secretary was quite strong in her comments about the defamation laws that – U.S. opposition to – well, perhaps not defamation laws, but I think this refers to something at the Human Rights Council. Is that – that’s correct? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And I thought it was sufficiently watered down or defeated that – and that that met your concerns.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: There are really two separate issues that have been raised and sometimes conflated at the United Nations. I was part of the delegation last month at the Human Rights Council, where we actually joined with Egypt in promoting a resolution on freedom of expression that did, in fact, meet our concerns. There was a debate in the context of that about how to deal with issues of defamation, and we agreed after much negotiation, much discussion, that there is a legitimate subject as to whether or not an individual, an individual of any particular faith, can be defamed and whether that kind of harassment or discrimination is to be condemned. It clearly is.

There’s a second resolution that was promoted – that’s been promoted by the Islamic Conference at the UN, which is a broader defamation of religion resolution. It’s being debated, in fact, in one form right now. And it goes, we think, too far in restricting free speech – the notion that a religion can be defamed and that any comments that are negative about that religion can constitute a violation of human rights, to us, violates the core principle of free speech which is so central to us in our own system.

QUESTION: Okay. And so that’s still alive and kicking, as it were?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: There is an ongoing discussion. There is a technical meeting going on now. I think this will be raised, in all likelihood, again at the General Assembly and again at the Human Rights Council. So we’re trying to keep the two issues separate, to be clear that free expression doesn't – that there are limits to free expression, and there are certainly concerns about people targeting individuals because of their religious belief or their race or their ethnicity. But at the same time, we’re also clear that a resolution broadly speaking that talks about the defamation of a religion is a violation of free speech.

Yes.

QUESTION: There have been clashes on Friday –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: It will help me, just so I get to know you, if you’d say your name and where you’re from.

QUESTION: Sure. Nadia Bilbassy with Embassy Television Middle East Broadcasting Center. There have been clashes on Friday between Israeli military and a Palestinian worshiper in the Aqsa mosque. And very often, these clashes lead to much wider violence. But they always circle on the fact that the worshipers don’t have access to the mosque. Is this something that concerned the State Department, something that you raise with the Israelis on a regular basis, because this been continuation for the last 30 years, more or less?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I think this issue of access to religious institutions and shrines and religious houses of worship is something that we see all over the world. We do raise it. We raise it as a matter of principle, saying obviously states have a right and an obligation to protect security; but at the same time, to the extent possible and consistent with that obligation, they ought to do whatever they can to make religious shrines, religious institutions, available for people to worship.

Yes. Tell me your name, please.

QUESTION: My name is (inaudible) from Syrian media. Secretary Clinton just indicated to the importance of the role of the governments in order to discourage the defamation of religions. Now what we see in Israel is a government that is hardline, a very hardline government that is allowing the settlers and also the military moves to be on holy grounds of the Muslims in the area. It’s not a matter of security, as you have just said, with all my respect to you, but this is actually an event that is stirring a great amount of anger across the world among one billion – one and a half billion Muslims. This is a situation where I see here a lot of objectivity in this report, and I hope that these words in this report will be actually matched by certain action and wonderful role of this Administration that would also match President Obama’s speeches to the Muslim worlds.

How would you describe your plan to deal with this situation in Jerusalem where the Palestinians have been so very oppressed religiously and in human rights arena?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: A couple of reactions to that. One is I think if you look at the report, there is a full section on Israel and the territories which deals with a whole range of subjects involving Muslims, Christians, other religious groups.

The broader response I would have is that the Obama Administration is absolutely committed to a peace process which is aimed at dealing with the larger political-social questions that you raise. And the faster we can get the parties to the table to find a common ground and to find a peaceful path, that’s the best way to address the issue you’re raising.

QUESTION: But Mr. Netanyahu’s government is encouraging these settlers by accompanying them to go into the religious worshiping ground. This is a role of government supporting settlers and violators of the laws. Is this something that the United States finds itself in a position to advise and it’s ally and friend Israel to refrain from while the peace process is on a track where everybody is hoping that it will succeed?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Again, the subject of this report is religious freedom, and we deal at great length with a range of ways in which we would encourage the Government of Israel, as we encourage every government, to ensure that multiple religious faiths who live in that place are entitled to freedom to worship, et cetera. I think our broader – the broader discussion that you’re raising is really something you ought to take up with Senator Mitchell and with the parties. There is a bigger political discussion going on that the Obama Administration is really trying to jumpstart. And the faster we get to that, I think we’re going to be more successful in dealing with some of those underlying issues.

Yes.

QUESTION: There’s something about – on this subject?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- in perhaps a little less Human Rights Council-ish way, which is these most recent events fall outside the scope of this report; isn’t that correct?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yeah. This report goes through June of 2009. Yes.

QUESTION: What is new in this report? We didn’t have a chance to read it. What’s different from the last report?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I think there’s some interesting trends, both pro and con. We note in the report in various sections various interfaith initiatives, initiated by the Jordanians, by Qatar, by Spain and others. There really is a sense of a growing recognition that there needs to be more dialogue and more effort across faiths to figure out where our common – where’s common ground, where are differences, how do we mitigate those differences.

The second thing I would say – and again, it falls outside the timeframe of this report, but it is interesting going back to the first question – it is interesting that the U.S. and Egypt, who have been at loggerheads on a lot of the UN human rights issues, found a way not only to cooperate, but to co-sponsor a resolution on free expression which was adopted by consensus. That was in the context of a UN setting where these issues have been very polarizing. It was not lost on people that the U.S. and Egypt were, in fact, trying to take that forward-looking common approach that seeks to emphasize where we are alike as opposed to – at maximizing our differences.

On the negative side, there are plenty of individual incidents that are mentioned throughout the report. Some of the trends I see relate to blasphemy laws, tremendous interfaith tensions in many societies, more – in many places, more restrictions by government ministries on the right of religious groups to register, to receive funds, et cetera. We see that in a lot of the Central Asian republics, for example; more greater control by government officials prohibiting free expression of religion, and particularly for non-majority religions. So there’s a lot going on, the report’s very long, there’s a lot of details, but I think it’s a mixed picture. I can’t say that it all heads in one direction.

Yes, and your name?

QUESTION: Michael. Over the last number of months --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Are you Michael or am I Michael?

QUESTION: You’re Michael.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Tell me your name and where you’re from.

QUESTION: Joel Wishengrad, World Media Reports, WMR News.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Okay, thanks.

QUESTION: You’ve mentioned country by country, but specifically, the Islamic World – I’m not condemning all countries – seem to berate women. There’s some locations such as in Africa and Asia where they’ve beaten, intimidated, they consider them second class, won’t let them get an education, and it’s just – even a spillover here into the States where a gentleman ran over his daughter in an automobile, obviously wanting to kill her because she stepped from those particular, quote-un-quote, “quadrants” that they expect as parents.

Has this gone too far? You mentioned human rights abuses, but are religions themselves fomenting this and spreading it beyond control?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: No, I reject that. I think the major religions of the world are all predicated based on assumptions of humanity and ethical behavior. The fact that people take a kind of extreme view and interpret religions in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, I think, is an aberration. That’s part of the purpose of this report. I think we are all mindful of the fact that people of deep faith throughout the world are driven by and motivated by their religious beliefs. We want to encourage that. And we want to discourage people who misuse that faith in a way that’s going to undermine basic human rights.

I would say also – and I’m very mindful of this, and this ties back to the defamation of religion debate at the UN – I think there is a very deeply felt feeling in large parts of the Muslim world that we in the West – in the U.S., Europe in particular – have not been as attentive as we need to be in cases like that of the German – of the Egyptian woman I mentioned in my opening statement who was stabbed in a German courtroom. It isn’t to say that governments perpetuated that or caused it to happen, but I think we need to be very attentive to the reality in which people of the Muslim faith find themselves in many of our countries in the West, and the kinds of discrimination that they face.

So I think this report is a very universal, ecumenical report. It’s in the spirit of President Obama’s Cairo speech that we really are reaching out. We’re looking for partnerships. We value religion. We value the ability of people to express their faith. But we want to distinguish that from discriminatory and violent extremists who basically misuse faith.

Yes, tell me your name again.

QUESTION: Yes, Diana Molineaux, Radio Marti. You referred to Cuba here and it says that various religious groups report that few restrictions on politically and so on. Do you see a real improvement, something that you can attribute to the change in leadership in Cuba, or it’s just coincidental? What – how do you see it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: What I would say as a starting point, and this is true of many of the reports, this report takes a slice of a bigger picture. The overall human rights situation in Cuba remains poor. There is still a great deal of repression and difficulty for human rights advocates and others to express their views, to participate publicly. It’s a closed society. There may be marginal change going on, but the overall picture is really grim.

This piece of that larger description says that basically, there has been a gradual softening in terms of the ability of Christian, Catholic and other religious groups to operate in Cuba. But it’s against that larger backdrop of a society that still denies human rights on a daily basis.

QUESTION: So you do not see other improvements in the human rights scene?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: That’s really – again, we will come out with – if you pay attention, in February, you can come back and ask me that question when we do the Human Rights Report.

QUESTION: Okay.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yes.

QUESTION: Andrew from Reuters. I see China’s still on the list of Countries of Particular Concern, and obviously, President Obama will be traveling there next month. I’m wondering if you could, for us, sum up in a nutshell your views of the current state of religious freedom in China, and what you either think or hope this report might do in informing how the White House approaches the Chinese on this issue. Are we to – do you think we can expect to see religion featuring – religious freedom featuring sort of openly in the dialogue between the President and the Chinese leadership?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Well, I think it will be a part of the U.S.-Chinese dialogue for a long time to come. It is a – there are a range of issues, and it’s, again, a mixed picture, but it’s still a picture where there is – there are a number of very troubling developments. I would say uppermost in my mind are the treatment of Buddhist religious leaders in Tibet.

The government tends to conflate religion and religious belief and practice with broader issues of autonomy and political independence. Buddhist priests that – and monks that raise human rights issues are targeted. And the same thing is true in the Uighur Autonomous Region with Muslim clerics and others. The government has cracked down very severely since the violence there some months ago against religious leaders and others of the Muslim faith. So those are, to me, two very serious issues that are going to continue to be on the bilateral agenda. They’re tough issues. They’re, for sure, among the most difficult.

I think there’s another issue which is the treatment of the so-called house churches. There is a growing – one of the encouraging things to me in China is that there is a growing – rapidly growing Christian community. A percentage, but not a majority, are in recognized – churches recognized by the state. But somewhere between 50 and 90 million people practice Christianity in unrecognized churches that are not registered in many cases.

And so what we’re trying to do is encourage the Chinese Government to recognize and allow people of faith, of various faiths, to practice. That’s also part of the dialogue as far as I’m concerned.

QUESTION: Can I get one more thing clarified?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Sure.

QUESTION: Sorry, I’m Matt Lee with AP. This doesn’t actually – this is not the designation of Countries of Particular Concern; correct? When is that – that’s done? When --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: So there is a – in a way, a two-part process or multipart process. This report will inform our judgments about Countries of Particular Concern, and the Secretary will make those judgments. Last year, Secretary Rice made that judgment in January. We’re going to begin that process right now and do it as expeditiously as we can.

QUESTION: Yeah, she actually did it on the – like, as she was walking out the door of the building.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yeah, that may be. You may be right about that.

QUESTION: It was the last working day of the – but when --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: But we’re eager to at least get it done by January, and I’d like to say sooner. In the next couple months, we’re going to undertake that. But I should say, and I think there’s been some misunderstanding about this, there is not a day where you can do this. We have the ability throughout the year to make designations or remove countries from being that designation.

QUESTION: So a country that is in this report is – that you describe as a CPC could, in fact, be taken off?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yeah. We have not in – this report has not made judgments about Countries of specific – of Particular Concern. We’re going to use the information we’ve now gathered and disseminated to help inform our next judgment, and that, as I say, is coming in the next few months.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) with Turkish daily Hurriyet. Regarding Turkey here and the executive summary, it says authorities continue their broad ban on wearing Islamic religious headscarves in government offices, as well as in public schools. So what are you saying? Are you saying that the ban on headscarves should be lifted in Turkey?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: We’re saying that this is one of the issues of how people express their religious identity, and I think as a general matter, our intention, our hope would be that societies would find a way to allow people to express their religious attitude, their religious belief in nonviolent ways. I don’t know that we’ve got a government position on headscarves, but it – I think raising that in the report suggests that we are trying to encourage, in a general way, governments to find – look, revisit questions about symbolic representations of religion that are nonviolent, and to the extent possible, encourage people or allow people to make those decisions for themselves.

Yes. Tell me your name.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Secretary Clinton and other senior government officials have continuously praised King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for championing religious dialogue. At the same time, the State Department, you know, put them on the CPC list, and the religious freedom situation in Saudi Arabia is getting worse, especially in the past few weeks where the official ban on Shia mosques have been – and has been revealed. And do you see that as counterproductive? You’re doing – you’re saying one thing and at the same time the situation is getting worse, not better.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Well, I think we do distinguish between King Abdullah’s intentions and his personal initiative, which we support and encourage; but at the same time, if you read this report, as you say, the broad state of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia remains a subject of great concern. People aren’t allowed to openly practice their religion if they’re not Muslim. There is still a religious police that interrupts people even in private settings. And there is a sense that – and we have still the concerns about the textbooks which continue to be disseminated not only in Saudi Arabia but around the world – the madrasas, for example, which still contain things that we consider beyond the pale.

So yes, we believe and we support and we encourage the intention of King Abdullah; but at the same time, if you read this report, there is ample reason for very serious concern about the state of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: On the issue of the textbooks, for eight years the Bush Administration failed to make any progress. Our organization have been on the lead on the textbooks issue, and there hasn’t been a single change for eight years. Do you have a plan or timetable for effecting change? The textbooks of Saudi Arabia, it includes annihilation of the Jewish people and the Jewish faith. So I mean, is that going to be a priority for this Administration and for yourself?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I don’t consider myself an expert on this, but I understand there have been some changes made, and I would be glad to talk to you afterward to get chapter and verse on that. This is a high priority for us. We’re going to continue to push. We’re not satisfied that enough’s been done. So to the extent you can help inform me and others about the particulars, this is something we’re going to really be very diligent about.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: This is Lalit Jha from Press Trust of India. Coming to South Asia, two countries are not mentioned doesn’t reflect in this, Sri Lanka and Nepal. In Sri Lanka, there have been ethnic conflict and there has been reports about religious intolerance from that country, Tamils and ethnic Sinhalese.

And on India, the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, which was the congressionally mandated report, in this report earlier this year, a couple of months ago said that India – it expressed concern about religious freedom in India, but your report doesn't mention about that. In fact, it gives generally respected category to India, which is one of your higher categories. And you mentioned about the progress that India has made about religious freedom. So do you differ from those reports?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yeah. Are you looking at a summary? What --

QUESTION: Yes. It’s --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yeah. Because the report is like this thick, so I think you’ll find references to the countries you mentioned, but we just didn’t put it in that statement.

I think on India what I would say is, again, it’s a mixed picture. The government at a central level is quite committed and it’s also, as you know, a very diverse – religiously diverse society, where, in fact, a lot of religions were born and nurtured. I think at a local level we have some concerns, and there are some specific instances mentioned in the report. The response to violence, for example, in one case where a Hindu religious leader was killed and there was a spate of violence that affected mainly a Christian population – 40-some people killed. So we are very mindful that there are still inner religious tensions within the society, and I think our focus would be on the lack of response at a local level rather than a national – the national policy is good. It’s a question of how it’s implemented at a local level.

If there are no more questions, thank you. One last question and we’ll stop.

QUESTION: Just in order to introduce, I’m Hussein from Saudi Information Agency. I just ask you about the discrimination of religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia and give you two case, the case of the Turkish (inaudible) that were freed by only a phone call between Saudi Arabia and Turkish government, and about (inaudible) his name is (inaudible), who he still now in the jail for 17 years and he is facing the death at any time. So do you have any (inaudible) about this case?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I don’t know those cases. I’d love to get more information. For all I know, there may be some reference in the report. I can’t – I don’t remember them offhand. But if you just give me the information, I’m glad to follow up.

Thank you all for being here.

# # #

Remarks on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

October 26, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hello, everybody. How are you? Am I up?

MR. KELLY: Yes, you are.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, there’s no like, opening band or anything? (Laughter.) Hello, Matt.

QUESTION: Hello.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon, everyone. I feel honored to be here today to announce the publication of the State Department’s 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom. The right to profess, practice, and promote one’s religious beliefs is a founding principle of our nation. In fact, many of our earliest settlers came because they wanted the freedom to practice their own religion without a state interfering or oppressing that practice. It is the first liberty mentioned in our Bill of Rights, and it is a freedom guaranteed to all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I want to underscore that, because this is not just an American value. This was agreed to be a universal value. Religious freedom provides a cornerstone for every healthy society. It empowers faith-based service. It fosters tolerance and respect among different communities. And it allows nations that uphold it to become more stable, secure and prosperous. As President Obama said in Cairo, freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. These facts underlie our commitment to the cause of religious freedom. That’s why we make the issue of religious freedom a priority in our diplomacy, and this annual report is the centerpiece of our efforts.

Every year, the staff of our office of International Religious Freedom works with our embassies overseas and experts here in Washington to produce the world’s most comprehensive survey of religious freedom. This report examines how governments in 198 countries and territories are protecting or failing to protect religious freedom. It shines a spotlight on abuses by states and societies, and it draws attention to positive steps by many countries and organizations to promote freedom and interreligious harmony.

The President has emphasized that faith should bring us together, and this year’s report has a special focus on efforts to promote interfaith dialogue and tolerance. We commend, for example, the Philippines leadership in the Tripartite Forum on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace at the United Nations. We commend Jordan’s role in initiating the common word dialogue and many other international and domestic initiatives. The United States is also expanding programs that work to bridge the divide between religious groups. These important efforts build on the shared values and common concerns of faith communities to sow the seeds of lasting peace.

I obviously believe that our country has been strengthened by its long tradition of religious pluralism. From the largest denominations to the very smallest congregations, American religious bodies and faith-based organizations have helped to create a more just and compassionate society. Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.

So it is our hope that the International Religious Freedom Report will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world and promote dialogue among governments and within societies on how best to accommodate religious communities and protect each individual’s right to believe or not believe, as that individual sees fit.

I would now like to welcome Assistant Secretary Michael Posner to elaborate further on the report and to answer any questions you might have. Michael.

# # #

Special Press Briefing and Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom - October 26, 2009 (revised)

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

October 25, 2009

Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton will deliver opening remarks on the release of the State Department’s 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom on Monday, October 26, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. The report outlines abuses of religious freedom and progress towards greater religious freedom in 198 countries and territories around the world. Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner will speak following the Secretary, and will respond to reporters’ questions. This event is on camera and on the record and will be held in the State Department’s press briefing room (Room 2209).

The full text of the report will be available for downloading from the State Department web site at: www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf following the briefing on October 26.

Media representatives may attend this event upon presentation of one of the following: (1) A U.S. Government-issued identification card (Department of State, White House, Congress, Department of Defense or Foreign Press Center), (2) a media-issued photo identification card, or (3) a letter from their employer on letterhead verifying their employment as a journalist, accompanied by an official photo identification card (driver's license, passport). Press should allow adequate time to process through security and to be in the briefing room 10 minutes prior to the briefing.

Advance Copies of the Embargoed Report

Embargoed copies of the report will be available on disks at the Department's Press office on October 26 at 11:45 a.m. In addition copies will be available on a password-protected website. Contact Alexander McLaren (McLarenAJ@state.gov) for the URL and passwords. The entire report is EMBARGOED until the end of the press briefing, approximately 3:30 p.m.

Press Contacts

Office of Press Relations
U.S. Department of State
(202) 647-2492

Alexander McLaren (McLarenAJ@state.gov)
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor – Office of International Religious Freedom
(202) 647-1219

FY 2010 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in Rwanda and Tanzania

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Funding Opportunity Announcement

October 22, 2009

Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-AFR-10-CA-AF-102109-GREATLAKES.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number:
19.517 - Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Africa

Announcement issuance date: Thursday, October 22, 2009

Proposal submission deadline: Friday, November 20, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) EST. Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

Advisory: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volume of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal several days early to allow time to address difficulties that may arise due to system delays.


Proposed Program Start Dates: January 1 - 31, 2010

Duration of Activity: No more than 12 months. Applicants with multi-year programs must continue to re-compete for PRM funding each year. Furthermore, in funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities.

Current Funding Priorities for refugees in Tanzania and Rwanda:
PRM will prioritize funding for proposed NGO activities that best meet the Bureau’s priorities in Tanzania and Rwanda as identified below:

Country Specific Instructions:

(1) Tanzania

• Proposals should focus exclusively on refugee camps in western Tanzania (Nyaragusu, Mtabila, and Lugufu). Proposals should address life-saving basic assistance (health, nutrition, water, and sanitation) and protection (child protection, primary education, and gender based violence prevention and response).

(2) Rwanda

• Proposals should focus exclusively on refugee camps in Rwanda (Gihembe, Kiziba, and Nyabiheke). Proposals should address life-saving basic assistance (health, nutrition, water, sanitation, shelter and camp infrastructure) and protection (child protection, education, and gender based violence prevention and response)

General Instructions

PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above mentioned sectors although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

• A working relationship with UNHCR, current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities and/or overall country program (this letter should highlight the gap in services the proposed program is designed to address);
• A proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location;
• Evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where possible – local authorities;
• A concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and at least one outcome indicator per objective;
• A budget that is appropriate for meeting the objectives and demonstrates co-funding by non-US government sources;
• Appropriate targeting of beneficiaries in coordination with UNHCR and other relevant organizations. Because of PRM's mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, PRM only considers funding projects that include a target beneficiary base of at least 50% refugees.
• Adherence to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See FY2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards.

International Organizations (IOs) that are engaged in programs relevant to the assistance addressed by this PRM funding announcement should ensure that these programs are made known to PRM on or before the closing date of this funding announcement so that PRM can evaluate all IO and NGO programs for funding consideration.

Funding Limits:

In FY 2009, PRM funded $2,100,000 in NGO programs assisting refugees in Tanzania and Rwanda with funding amounts ranging from $350,000 to $1.2 million. In FY 2010, PRM has roughly $2 million available for these two countries. As stated in the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines, PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

See “How to Apply” (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements, and note the following highlights:

• Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the November 20, 2009 deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the Central Contract Registry (CCR) which can take weeks and sometimes months. See “Applicant FAQs” section on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/help/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) for complete details on registering.
• Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Applicants who have done so in the past and experienced technical difficulties were not able to meet the deadline. Please note: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volumes of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal several days early to avoid submission delays. We recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.
• If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem(s) to the Grants.gov help desk and received a case number and had a service request opened to research the problem(s), should contact PRM Program Officer Wendy Henning at (202) 663-1030 or henningwl@state.gov to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.
• Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.
• NGOs that have not received PRM funding prior to the U.S. Government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. Government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) non-profit tax status under IRS 501 (c)(3), 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number.

Proposal Content, Formatting and Template:

Please refer to the “Proposal Submission and Review Process” section in the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines. PRM strongly encourages organizations applying for PRM funding to use the PRM recommended proposal and budget templates. Templates can be requested by sending an email to PRM's NGO Coordinator. You must type “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to receive an automated reply containing the template.

PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE PRM’s FY2010 NGO GUIDELINES:

• This announcement is designed to accompany the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities and that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line, to PRM's NGO Coordinator.
• Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded project could potentially endanger the lives of the beneficiaries and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization's motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.
• Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project.
• To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries. Any project involving the building or maintenance of physical infrastructure must include coordinates of site locations (place name, P-Code, latitude and longitude coordinates).
• Budget must include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization (where applicable). PRM strongly encourages multi-lateral support for humanitarian programs.
• Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2009 [previous year funding] for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report.

Reports and Reporting Requirements:

Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement.

For more details regarding PRM’s reporting requirements please see FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines.

Proposal Review Process:

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

In order to provide NGOs with timely feedback, PRM will inform applicants of the panel’s decision to recommend or not recommend funding proposed activities, and may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will follow up with formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management.

PRM Points of Contact:

Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.):

PRM Program Officer Wendy Henning (henningwl@state.gov; 202-663-1030; Washington, D.C.

Great Lakes Regional Refugee Coordinator Megan Larson-Kone (larsonkoneme@state.gov); Embassy Kampala.

FY 2010 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in Kenya

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Funding Opportunity Announcement

October 20, 2009

Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-AFR-10-CA-AF-10202009-HORN
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 19.517 - Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Africa

Proposal submission deadline: Monday, November 23, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) EDT. Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

ADVISORY: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volume of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address difficulties that may arise due to system delays.

Proposed Program Start Dates: January 1 – March 1, 2010
Duration of Activity: No more than 12 months.

Applicants with multi-year programs must continue to re-compete for PRM funding each year. Furthermore, in funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities.

Current Funding Priorities for Kenya:
Programs will benefit refugees in Kenya. While PRM encourages activities that include the local host population, NGOs should concentrate on care/maintenance activities for refugees in a camp environment. At least 50% of beneficiaries must be refugees. Proposals may focus on protection, health (including support for disabled persons), water, sanitation, shelter, community services, psychosocial support, prevention of and response to gender-based violence, and livelihoods development (including education) and training.

PRM will give priority to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

• a working relationship with UNHCR, current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities and/or overall country program (this letter should highlight the gap in services the proposed program is designed to address);
• a proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in Kenya and in the sector;
• evidence of coordination with the host government, international organizations (IOs) and NGOs working in the same area or sector. [Note: PRM will share budget and project activity information with appropriate ministries, local officials, and other USG entities];
• a concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and at least one outcome indicator per objective;
• A budget that is appropriate for meeting the objectives and demonstrates co-funding by non-U.S. government sources;
• Appropriate targeting of beneficiaries in coordination with UNHCR and other relevant organizations. Because of PRM's mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, PRM only considers funding projects that include a target beneficiary base of at least 50% refugees.
• Adherence to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See FY2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines at http://www.state.gov/g/prm/c27111.htm for a complete list of sector-specific standards.

International Organizations (IOs) that are engaged in programs relevant to the assistance addressed by this PRM funding announcement should ensure that these programs are made known to PRM on or before the closing date of this funding announcement so that PRM can evaluate all IO and NGO programs for funding consideration.

As stated in the FY2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines (http://www.state.gov/g/prm/c27111.htm), PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization.

Proposal Submission Requirements:

See “How do I apply for a grant” (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements, and note the following highlights:

• Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the November 23, 2009 deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the Central Contract Registry (CCR) which can take weeks and sometimes months. See “Applicant FAQs” section on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/help/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) for complete details on registering.
• Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Applicants who have done so in the past and experienced technical difficulties were not able to meet the deadline. Please note: Grants.gov is expected to experience continued high volumes of activity in the near future. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to avoid submission delays. We recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.
• If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or call 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem(s) to the Grants.gov help desk and received a case number and had a service request opened to research the problem(s), should contact PRM Program Officer Janet Deutsch at (202) 663-1031 or deutschje@state.gov to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.
• Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.
• NGOs that have not received PRM funding prior to the U.S. Government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. Government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) non-profit tax status under IRS 501 (c)(3), 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number.

Proposal Content, Formatting and Template:

Please refer to the “Proposal Submission and Review Process” section in the FY2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines. PRM strongly encourages organizations applying for PRM funding to use the PRM recommended proposal and budget templates. Templates can be requested by sending an email to PRM's NGO Coordinator. You must type “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to receive an automated reply containing the template.

PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE PRM’s FY2010 NGO GUIDELINES:

This announcement is designed to accompany the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the FY 2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities and that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line, to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

• Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded project could potentially endanger the lives of the beneficiaries and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization's motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.
• Focus on outcome indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project.
• To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries. Any project involving the building or maintenance of physical infrastructure must include coordinates of site locations (place name, P-Code, latitude and longitude coordinates).
• Budgets must include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization (where applicable). PRM strongly encourages multi-lateral support for humanitarian programs.
• Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2009 [previous year funding] for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report.
  

Reports and Reporting Requirements:

Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement.

For more details regarding PRM’s reporting requirements please see FY2010 General PRM NGO Guidelines (http://www.state.gov/g/prm/ c27111.htm).

Proposal Review Process:

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

In order to provide NGOs with timely feedback, PRM will inform applicants of the panel’s decision to recommend or not recommend funding proposed activities, and may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will follow up with formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management.

PRM Points of Contact:

Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.):

PRM Program Officer Janet Deutsch (deutschje@state.gov; 202-663-1031), Washington, D.C.

Regional Refugee Coordinator for the Horn of Africa Inga Heemink (heeminki@state.gov), U.S. Embassy Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.