Center for Citizen Initiatives
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
Origins
.png?lang=en)
The Center for Citizen Initiatives (or CCI) is the brainchild of Sharon Tennison, who founded the nonprofit organization under a different name (the Center for U.S.-U.S.S.R. Initiatives) in 1983.
What originally started as a cultural exchange organization, gradually morphed into a vocational-training institution, encapsulated in CCI's spearhead program the "Productivity Enhancement Program" (or PEP). Ms. Tennison refers to her own company as 'perhaps the most important "open door"' between Russia and America today.[1]
People
San Francisco Office PEP Staff:[2]
PEP – Program Management (See 19 May Presidential Report for Director shift)
- Ashley Owen, Program Co-Director
- Michael Messmer, Program Co-Director
- Courtenay Carr, Deputy Director
PEP – Community Outreach
- Christina Weber, Senior Program Officer
- Beth Gelfand, Program Officer
- Lisa Susan, Program Officer
- Ellen Augustine - Program Officer
PEP – Delegation Coordination
- Tiffany Jalalon Sprague, Acting Program Manager
- Patrick Taylor, Program Officer
- Peter Bertero, Program Officer
- Paul Fuller, Program Officer
PEP – Russian Operations
- Olga MacGowan-Pitman, Program Officer/Travel Coordinator
- Renat Deushev, Program Officer
PEP-Cross Cultural Communications (CCC)
- Heather Mizenin Seaman, Program Manager
Funding
PEP's predecessor, the Economic Development Program, was born in 1989. The U.S. federal government, in its post-Soviet, decade-long excitement, funded the majority of CCI's activities from 1993 until May 2006 (CCI summarizes its state funding on its website.) Russian delegates themselves now pay the lion-share of the program's expenses.
Revision & Harsh New Realities
Since the end of subsidization, PEP fees have risen exponentially and the target entrepreneur clientele has shifted from small and medium-sized businesses to large and already-successful companies.
This change in pricing and marketing has been accompanied by a revision to the organization's philosophy: namely, that the 'engine of economic growth' now rests with larger-sized businesses, rather than smaller companies (as was previously pontificated).
In raw numbers, post-grant delegate fees are rising from somewhere in the area of 1-2 thousand dollars to 4½-to-7 thousand dollars. In her 'President's Report' in November of 2005, Sharon Tennison stated:
'Our PEP transition to "full sustainability," where Russian entrepreneurs pay the full cost of their training, is hitting the halfway mark. In January, PEP delegates will pay $3,500 each to participate. This price will continue until end of 2006, at which time the cost will rise to $4,500.'[3]
In late 2005, CCI launched a redesigned version of its Travel Program [4], the "Russia Connection" program, which offers Americans guided tours of Russia. Many of the participants are former PEP home-hosts, visiting the Russians they previously invited into their homes. The program, however, is not limited to PEP participants. Many travelers are also simply travel enthusiasts with disposable income.
It is yet to be seen if CCI's activities are sustainable in a non-subsidized market.
Motivations of Russian Delegates
It is suspected that many, if not most, of the Russian participants have no interest in the vocational training offered by PEP. In the greatest likelihood, these businesspeople are in search of: (a) a slightly cheaper means of traveling to the United States, (b) an opportunity to network among the competition, or (c) a vehicle to get them past the American visa bureaucracy.
Two factors influencing this phenomenon could be:
- The natural development of the Russian business class (i.e., the likely ineffectiveness of sending already-successful businesspeople on brief tours of businesses).
- The intrinsic differences between the Russian and American economies (i.e., the likely uselessness of applying American entrepreneurial lessons to business practices in Russia).
Politics
President Sharon Tennison is a self-described pragmatist, favoring the rapprochement of U.S.-Russia relations at the expense of debate on issues ranging from human rights and political freedom to the Chechen War. (Sharon Tennison defends the Putin Administration) Essentially, Ms. Tennsion's camp assumes that only Russia itself can develop its institutions and Western nations are best served by the pursuit of economic and international security (independent of humanitarian goals).
Bundled with this philosophy is a deep skepticism of the Western media's coverage of Russia-related news.
Common among such thinkers is the concept of Russian democratic peculiarity and, flowing from this idea, the unfairness of the West's expectation that it will materialize as its own did. Though hesistant to draw comparisons, this school often promotes the idea that contemporary Russia is analogous to the robber baron period of American capitalism.
A deservedly more pragmatic interpretation of Ms. Tennison's beliefs is the fact that foreign NGOs in Russia today are in danger of being banned if they threaten to manipulate the Russian political system. In this light, Ms. Tennison's assertions about the proper role of the West in Russia appear suspiciously self-serving.