Building The Capacities of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Towards A Value-Based, Strategic and Adaptive Management Approach by Roberto A.O. Nebrida

BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS (CSOs) TO
RESPOND TO HIV&AIDS: TOWARDS A VALUE-BASED, STRATEGIC

AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH
A Major Paper Submitted to the Examinations Board of the Lancaster University Management
School in Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Master of Arts in Practicing Management
By
Roberto A.O. Nebrida, IMPM 12
Philippine NGO Support Program, Inc.
Quezon City, Philippines
Adviser
Prof. Oliver Westall, PhD
(MBA Course Director)
Lancaster University Management School
Lancaster, United Kingdom
Not only do you (civil society organizations) bring to life the concept of We, the Peoples, in whose name our
Charter was written; you bring to us the promise that people power can make the Charter
work for all the worlds peoples in the twenty-first century.
--- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General (1997-2006) at the Millennium Summit 2000
13 October 2009
Contents
INTRODUCTION
ACRONYMS
1
2
PART 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
PART 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
PART 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
PART 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
PART 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
THE HIV&AIDS CHALLENGE: A RAPIDLY EVOLVING, COMPLEX EPIDEMIC

Status of the Epidemic
Making the Money Work
Involving Infected and Affected Communities
Promoting Indigenous Leadership and Commitment at All Levels
Summary and Implications
CAPACITY BUILDING: WHAT, WHY AND FOR WHAT ENDS?
Technical Support, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building: Are They One
and the Same?
Understanding the Basic Concept and Focus of Capacity Building
Capacity Building for What?
CSOs: THE COG OF THE HIV RESPONSE?
What are CSOs and Why Are They Important?
Challenges Faced by CSOs
Issues Against CSOs
Capacity Building Needs of CSOs
NGO Technical Support Framework
NGO Management Terrain Framework
The Reproductive Health Management Framework
CSO CAPACITY BUILDING: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
Community Development Theory: The Anchor of Capacity Building
The Imperative of a Change Theory
Managing Change: Some Considerations
Putting Theories to Work for Capacity Building
Into the Real World: The Practice of CSO Capacity Building
Current Issues: Providers Perspective
Current Issues: Clients Perspective
Modalities of Capacity Building
MANAGING CAPACITY BUILDING: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND RESULTS
The CSO Capacity Building Journey
Managing the Journey
Concluding Remarks
REFERENCES
Building the Capacity of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to Respond to HIV&AIDS: Towards a Value-based,
Strategic and Adaptive Management Approach
3
5
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
12
13
13
13
15
16
18
18
20
21
21
22
22
23
25
27
29
29
30
31
33
34
34
35
36
37
Acronyms
AIDS
ARV
CBO or CBOs
CSO or CSOs
EAF
EEF
GFATM
GIPA
HIV
HNN
IHAA
IMPM
INGOs
ITAD
LUMS
MDGs
NGO or NGOs
NNGOs
OD
OECD
PESTLE
PHANSuP
PLHIV
PR or PRs
RNA
SNGOs
TA
TB
TC
TOR
TS
UN
UNAIDS
UNDP
UNGASS
UNITAR
USA
USAID
USD
WPF
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

Antiretroviral
Community-Based Organization/s
Civil Society Organization/s
East Asia Foundation
East Europe Foundation
Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
Greater Involvement of People with AIDS
Human Immunodefficiency Virus
HIV NGOs Network
International HIV/AIDS Alliance
International Masters in Practicing Management
International NGOs
Information Training and Agricultural Development
Lancaster University Management School
Millennium Development Goals
Non-government Organization/s
Northern NGOs
Organization Development
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Ecological
Philippine NGO Support Program, Inc.
People Living with HIV
Principal Recipient/s
Ribonucleic Acid
Southern NGOs
Technical Assistance
Tuberculosis
Technical Cooperation
Terms of Reference
Technical Support
United Nations
United Nations Joint Programme on AIDS
United Nations Development Program
United Nations General Assembly Special Session
United Nations Institute for Training and Research
United States of America
United States Agency for International Development
United States Dollar
West Pacific Foundation
INTRODUCTION
Controlling the HIV epidemic will likely be the greatest challenge to public health in the 21st century.
HIV is a miniscule bit of RNA, but this viral event causes a profoundly human phenomenon modifying
intimate experiences, changing established social relationships, and challenging global inequalities
(Berkman, et al., 2005, p. 1171). Hence, the HIV epidemic is considered not just a medical or public
health problem but a complex socio-economic problem as well (Calderon, et al, 1997; UNAIDS and
UNITAR, 2005). More than two decades after the discovery of the HIV we are still grappling on how to
effectively respond to the epidemic it caused.
Over the past eight years, the total annual funding for HIV had risen dramatically from USD 1.6 billion in
2001 to USD 15.6 billion in 2008 (Poates, et al., 2009, p. 10), with contributions coming from
multilateral, bilateral and private donors. Of this amount, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
(GFATM) contributed USD 1.7 billion, equivalent to 79% of total assistance provided by multilateral
agencies. Created in 2002, GFATM is a unique global public-private partnership of governments, civil
society, the private sector and affected communities dedicated to attracting and disbursing resources
for HIV, TB and malaria (GFATM website, 2009).
While the HIV sector enjoyed an increased spending, an amount that is still considered inadequate or
sub-optimal vis-a-vis the required total of USD 22.1 billion per year, the current global economic
downturn is expected to significantly lower this level of investment in the coming years. Already, the
Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) was unable to fund all the approved proposals under
its 2009 funding cycle (i.e., round 8) threatening the continuity of much-needed resources to support
field programmes. New HIV infections and deaths have peaked or stabilized, but 33 million people are
still living with HIV (UN, 2009, p. 32). The face of the epidemic is also shifting, with more men having sex
with men and injecting drug users getting infected with HIV (Wilson and Halperin, 2008, pp 424; and
Merson, et al, 2007, p. 8). This is not to mention the increasing prevalence of co-infection with other
equally devastating diseases such as TB and Hepatitis C.
Successful responses have addressed sensitive social factors surrounding HIV prevention but such kinds
of responses have been few and far between. The world now requires an urgent and revitalized global
movement for HIV prevention that supports a combination of behavioral, structural, and biomedical
approaches and is based on scientifically derived evidence and the wisdom and ownership of
communities (Merson, et al., 2007, p. 7).
Civil society organizations (CSOs) figured prominently from the early years of the epidemic until today.
In mid 1980s, hundreds of community groups had been established, not only in urban USA, but also in
disparate places as Brazil, Senegal, Uganda, and the Philippines, to provide care and support, invent and
promote prevention strategies, and advocate for more action from scientists, doctors and politicians.
In those same years, foundations and international NGOs together with donor agencies launched
initiatives to address HIV&AIDS focusing on developing countries (Merson, et al., 2007, p. 11-13). In a
span of almost three decades, CSO responses are increasingly recognized as critical in tackling the HIV
pandemic (Cornman, et al., 2005, p.1).
In this paper we define CSOs based on the concept of civil society in the context of HIV work (UNAIDS,
1999a, p. 8). CSOs or civil society organizations refer to organizations or groups of people living with or
affected by HIV (also known as community-based organizations or CBOs); local NGOs currently or
potentially working on HIV&AIDS issues, religious or faith-based organizations; and international NGOs
3
(INGOs, also known as Northern NGOs or NNGOs) in fields such as development, human rights,
education and health -- that are contributing, or could contribute, to preventing HIV infection and
reducing or mitigating the adverse impact of the epidemic on individuals, families and communities.
The key in this definition is the shared value or principles related to HIV&AIDS work. It should be
noted, however, that when I use the phrase building the capacity of CSOs I actually refer to CSOs in the
developing world or, at the country level, CSOs operating in local communities -- both are referred to as
Southern NGOs (SNGOs) in some literature. This is so because most of those providing capacity building
interventions to SNGOs are actually INGOs/NNGOs.
In practice, CSOs basically take two roles: as providers of services or as advocates of certain policies or
positions deemed crucial in the response. Some CSOs take both roles all at the same time. With a fast
evolving, complex epidemic how are CSOs performing in their critical roles as partners in the fight
against HIV&AIDS?
CSOs around the world have demonstrated their capacity to mobilize communities and to act as
intermediaries for a wide variety of population groups. They are often far more efficient and effective at
providing services than state agencies. As advocates for specific causes and concerns, they have shown
an important ability to organize people and resources (Cornman, et al., 2005, p.1). However, it is also
recognized that capacity gaps are preventing civil society from delivering on its potential impact on
achieving the universal access goals set by the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on
HIV/AIDS (UNGASS). Capacity challenges do exist among civil society organizations, including
inadequate human resources, systems and structural difficulties, inadequate and short-term funding
and weak planning and management capacities, among others (IHAA, 2007, p.5).
Building the capacity of CSOs has been an integral part of major development programmes not only in
the global response to HIV&AIDS but also in initiatives addressing other development concerns such as
poverty, climate change, etc. If capacity building is indeed a critical component of any development
effort then what is the best way to do it? What are the key considerations in designing, implementing
and sustaining capacity building initiatives that are particularly directed at CSOs in developing countries
working in the HIV&AIDS sector?
With this as backdrop, the purpose of my paper is thus two-fold: to explore the field of CSO capacity
building in the HIV&AIDS sector; and, using the insights from this, propose a management framework or
approach that is strategic, engaging and adaptive. Such framework or approach is hoped to contribute
to the practice of managing capacity building in the sector.
This paper posits that a capacity building approach targeting particularly CSOs in the HIV&AIDS sector
has to fit with the unique dynamics and requirements of the epidemic. It also necessarily requires an
understanding of what exactly CSOs in the South (i.e., developing countries)are and how they can
perform their strategic roles in an effective, efficient and sustainable manner in the context of a rapidly
evolving, complex epidemic.
Part 1 presents a brief overview of the HIV epidemic key facts and figures, progress being made,
challenges being encountered, and the basic principles that underpin the response particularly those
that relate to CSOs and capacity building.
Part 2 tackles the basic concept of capacity building, its various forms as well as the attendant issues
being raised. It also tackles the object as well as the desired outcomes of a successful capacity building
effort.
Part 3 presents CSOs in more detail -- their nature, their contribution to the HIV response, the key
challenges they face, as well as the issues being raised against them. The specific capacity building
needs of CSOs working in the HIV&AIDS sector will likewise be presented.
Part 4 focuses on the theory and practice of capacity building. It presents the theories of development
and of change as well as the existing and emergent considerations, methodologies and tools to pursue
change in the context of CSO development in the HIV sector. Three mini-cases are presented to
illustrate current capacity building modalities in various HIV&AIDS contexts.
Part 5 summarizes and synthesizes the key points and insights in the previous parts of the paper then
presents the proposed framework in managing CSO capacity building in the HIV&AIDS sector.
I prepared this paper using searchable online literature, and materials available at the International
HIV/AIDS Alliance (IHAA or Alliance) and at the Philippine NGO Support Program, Inc. (PHANSuP), my
organization. The mini-cases, which are all based on real situations, were all disguised to protect the
identity of those concerned.
My special interest in capacity building stems from my work at PHANSuP an organization whose
mission is to engage communities for health and development. PHANSuP is the linking organization in
the Philippines of the UK-based Alliance since 1993. The Alliance was created by a consortium of donor
agencies to support community action on AIDS in developing countries. Likewise, this interest in
capacity building is borne out by my experience in this kind of work in varied personal contexts as a
government worker, as a freelance consultant, and now as an NGO executive in the HIV&AIDS sector in
particular and in the health and development industry in general. In this paper for the Master of Arts in
Practicing Management at the Lancaster University Management School (LUMS), I hope to draw insights
from my experience and to widen my understanding of the practice of capacity building as reported in
available literature. In so doing, I endeavor to synthesize my learning into a management framework
for capacity building practitioners in the HIV&AIDS sector. This paper links with the series of reflection
papers I wrote based on my experience of trying to build the capacity of my own organization while
undergoing the IMPM certificate program that culminated at the INSEAD Business School.
PART 1 - THE HIV&AIDS CHALLENGE: A RAPIDLY EVOLVING, DYNAMIC AND COMPLEX EPIDEMIC
1.1 Status of the Epidemic
The latest official statistics (UNAIDS, 2008) show that globally, there were an estimated 33 million
people living with HIV in 2007. It was reported that the epidemic is stabilizing but at an unacceptably
high level. The rate of infection has fallen in several countries but this favorable trend is partially offset
in new infections in other countries. Recent reports indicate that the face of the epidemic is also
changing with more of the so-called hidden population e.g., men having sex with men and injecting
drug users -- becoming more vulnerable to infection. There is also a growing number of cases of coinfection with other dreaded diseases like TB and Hepatitis C. Funding is also becoming more
constrained as a result of the global economic downturn. The epidemic continues to inflict significant
5
damage on affected households, with particularly harmful effects on women, young people and children
(Berkman, et al, 2005, p. 1162).
The availability of anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs has helped reduce deaths but there is a sobering
realization that for every person enrolled on ARV treatment, many more become newly infected. There
is also a growing recognition that there is no single global HIV epidemic, but rather a multitude of
diverse epidemics with different strains of the virus spreading in various socio-cultural and economic
contexts. With a varied and rapidly evolving epidemic, the era of standard global prevention guidance
is over (Wilson and Halperin, 2008, p. 423).
Horton and Das (2008, p. 421) claim that the mix of interventions has been wrong. Leadership and
management of programs to deliver these interventions have been weak. They add: it is fair to say
that, despite greatly increased resources, the state of the response to AIDS is currently at a vulnerable
moment.
According to Merson, et al (2007, p. 16), despite mounting evidence that available behavioral strategies
are effective, the sad truth is that global prevention efforts remain woefully insufficient, as reflected by
the fact that key prevention services currently reach less than 10% of individuals at risk worldwide. The
hope to contain the epidemic lies in what these authors call combination prevention, which they
describe as follows:
Combination prevention i.e., a combination of behavioral, structural, and biomedical
prevention paradigms and approaches adapted and prioritized to specific contexts and based on
scientifically derived evidence and bottom-up wisdom and ownership of local communities
offers the best hope for success in prevention. To achieve this will involve building synergies
between prevention, care, and treatment. Treatment programmes, by increasing demand for
HIV testing, can enhance prevention, provided such measures minimize the high-risk sexual
behavior that can result from the availability of antiretroviral drugs. Combination prevention
also requires sound management principles to be applied to the delivery of prevention
programmes, which has only been given due attention since the start of the Global Fund.
They further emphasize that together with the strengthening of health systems, a key lesson to
be learnt from successful responses to HIV&AIDS is the need to strengthen community systems
that will address the intertwined issues of HIV&AIDS and other development issues. Community
structures with a new cadre of community workers whose education is rooted in community
development, gender equity, human rights, and public health are needed to lead the response
in the frontlines.
Another ray of hope is the recently announced success of an experimental HIV vaccine tested in
Thailand, which reportedly reduced the rate of infection by about 30%. This is indeed a major step
forward in the search for a vaccine but scientists agree that a commercial product would be years
away (Fox, 2009).
But even with a vaccine it is likely that HIV will remain a formidable challenge similar to other diseases
whose vaccines have long been developed and made available to the public. Given its medical,
economic and socio-cultural dimensions, it is expected that the HIV epidemic becomes even more
complex in the years to come.
1.2 Making the Money Work

The UNAIDS (undated) admits that despite the significant increases in financial investments in recent
years, there is a clear dissonance between resources made available and the progress being made in
halting and reversing the epidemic. This ironical situation is giving rise to an implementation crisis at
country level as countries struggle to make the money work. It further says that countries often
encounter difficulties implementing responses effectively, experiencing bottlenecks or more deep
rooted systemic obstacles exacerbated by conflicting and uncoordinated demands on national
planning and implementation and increasingly complex accountability mechanisms from a multiplicity of
actors. Hence, in its latest report, the UNAIDS (2008) enjoins all stakeholders to prioritize
strengthening the quality, flexibility, timeliness and effectiveness of technical support to expedite
programme scale-up.
Pfeiffer (2002) recommends several measures to improve the work of NGOs: i) the development of an
industry-wide international code of conduct for NGO activities in the health sector; ii) technical
assistance priorities should be determined by the recipients; iii) project cycles should be longer to
provide sufficient time for the establishment of trusting relationships, adequate transfer of skills,
routinize project activities, and test for sustainability. He revealed that based on interviews, aid was
most productive when trusting and respectful personal relationships based on commitments to equity
were developed between foreign worker, national counterpart and local communities.
The primacy of a money-driven solution, however, has been the subject of much debate. The
Constellation for AIDS Competence (2004) states in its membership charter that it is restless with the
notion that programs providing a mix of technology would suffice to solve the issue of HIV&AIDS. It
argues that among the many countries that are basing their response solely on these programs, none
has stemmed the tide. No technical program works unless people face up to the fact that AIDS concerns
them as individuals, and as members of families and communities. It emphasizes that community
ownership of the issue and the solution is a common characteristic of a few countries that can claim
success in responding to the epidemic.
It is indeed important to emphasize community ownership and equity in any development effort where
people all take the initiative to pursue their own health outcomes. But this still requires substantial
amount of investment as the Constellation operations show. The organization is able to undertake
community health mobilization programs because it has funding provided by donors.
1.3 Involving Infected and Affected Communities
It has been long recognized that the involvement of affected or infected communities and their
organizations is one of the pillars of an effective development program whether it is about health or not.
On HIV, the Commission on AIDS in Asia (2008) declares, among others, that community organizations
have a special role to play in (addressing the disease) , but their involvement in AIDS programmes is
minimal and often tokenistic. It notes that the current participation of communities in HIV responses
is held back by a lack of capacity and recognition of these organizations. In line with this, the Global
Fund has included community systems strengthening as one of its funding thrusts starting a few years
ago.
The Commission recommends the genuine involvement of affected communities in planning and
implementation of HIV programmes. Support should thus be given to community-based organizations
7
or CBOs (i.e., a shift from NGOs) that are run and managed by members of groups who are most-at-risk
(such as sex workers, drug users, men who have sex with men and transgender and HIV positive people)
so that they can effectively and efficiently act as the main provider of appropriate services directly to
their members. But de-emphasizing the role of NGOs in the response would disturb the existing
ecosystem of support to infected and affected individuals. NGOs and CBOs can play mutually
reinforcing or symbiotic roles. For instance, CBOs may focus on the provision of services to its members
while NGOs can do community organizing and mobilization as well as policy advocacy, or they can putup and operate counseling and treatment centers where CBOs can refer or send their members.
One of the key development agenda of technical support may be gleaned from the principle of the
greater or genuine involvement of people living with AIDS or GIPA. This is illustrated by a ladder-like
progression in the involvement of PLHIV from target audiences to contributors to speakers to
implementers to experts and, ultimately, to decision makers (UNAIDS, 1999). Here, technical support
directed at infected individuals is expected to help them take greater responsibilities in the HIV
response. The idea of involvement should however be taken higher towards meaningful engagement.
For instance, in the GIPA pyramid, the highest level is for the PLHIV as decision makers in policy
development processes. Under meaningful engagement, these same PLHIV can also implement,
monitor and evaluate (and amend as the need arises) these same policies that they themselves helped
promulgate.
While HIV NGOs fully subscribe to the GIPA principle, quite a number have expressed concern with the
entitlement attitude of some people living with the disease. In some occasions, PLHIV think and
behave as if they should only be the groups whose voice must count or matter. This is a concern since it
undermines democratic processes to the detriment of other groups of people with other types of
diseases or even their own members in different circumstances. Efforts to empower community groups
should therefore strike the balance between rights and responsibility while emphasizing leadership and
stewardship.
1.4 Promoting Indigenous Leadership and Commitment at All Levels
The Commission likewise declares that the emergence of broad-based, multi-sectoral responses
underlines a need for effective national coordination but such cannot be achieved without effective
leadership and commitment to the HIV response. The Global HIV Prevention Working Group (2008)
underscores the extreme importance of community leadership, such that communities genuinely own
the response themselves, as one of the key factors that contribute to the effectiveness of programs. It
highlights that in countries throughout the world, some of the most important prevention successes
have been achieved by communities themselves, often working without external funding, institutional
support, or partnership with researchers. It stresses that community engagement is critical to creating
broad-based demand for HIV prevention services and laments the fact that the indigenous community
dynamics that promote leadership and innovation in HIV prevention are poorly understood. One of the
requisites of genuine community engagement is the ability of community stakeholders to perform
specific functions that contribute to the response. This requires a coordinated, well-resourced plan to
develop their capacities.
Summary and Implications:
a) With its medical, economic and socio-cultural dimensions, the HIV epidemic poses enormous,
complex challenge not only to public health but to the entire fabric of sustainable development.
8
With no vaccine in sight in the immediate future, the number of infections will continue to rise,
and even assuming that this tide can be stemmed by effective prevention, the magnitude of
work required to handle the burden of the disease and mitigate its adverse impact will continue
to strain the capacity of health and development institutions. This means that attempts to
respond to the epidemic must be holistic and integrated, which require a comprehensive set of
individual and organizational competencies in well-functioning community systems; and must
be rapidly scaled-up to cover all those in need. Additionally, appropriate institutional measures
(at the local, national and global levels) that will encourage such kind of response must be set in
place.
b) Money is needed in the response. But to make the money work there is a need to
meaningfully engage communities, especially those infected and affected, while ensuring that
engagement will not be abused and degenerate into a sense of entitlement rather than a
sense of empowerment. Community leadership and stewardship should be emphasized. This is
easier said than done as infected and affected people suffer the consequence of the disease in
unimaginable proportions stigma and discrimination, loss of livelihood and physical and
psychological suffering. A dependable, trusted and capable support system composed of a
network of individuals and organizations that understand and adhere to the principles of
genuine community development must be set in place.
c) Community engagement is a core principle of the Alma Ata Declaration on primary health care
made in 1978. It is anchored on the principle of empowerment that communities have the
inherent power, means and assets in their hands, which can serve as their equity in a
meaningful development process. These indigenous resources in communities can be
strengthened, enhanced or leveraged by those working with them, to address community
health concerns. Capacity building programs must therefore be built on the principles of equity,
empowerment and engagement.
d) The emergent shift of assistance from NGOs to community-based organizations and other
sectors poses a risk to NGOs thereby causing the fragmentation and weakening of civil society.
The symbiotic relationship between NGOs and CBOs with their complementary roles must be
nurtured to allow an ecosystem of value-based organizations to flourish vis--vis the
government and business sectors. Civil society capacity building should take a systems view
that will take into account the complementary role/s of each stakeholder in the HIV sector.
PART 2 - CAPACITY BUILDING: WHAT, WHY AND FOR WHAT ENDS?

2.1 Technical Support, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building: Are They One and the Same?
Technical support (TS) appears to be a recent coinage that is preferably used in the HIV&AIDS sector in
place of the phrase technical assistance (TA) or capacity building. In an international forum among
treatment and prevention advocates in the Netherlands in March 2005, I highlighted capacity building as
a support strategy to sustainable treatment and prevention, but one participant (a technical advisor of a
popular INGO) pointed out that that is already in the agenda in the form of technical support. That was
a surprise to me since my understanding of technical support is the transfer of technical know-how,
which is just one of the ways to build capacity. Indeed there is confusion among HIV&AIDS workers
between technical support and capacity building.
9
The UNAIDS (in its website) describes technical support as sharing knowledge, skills, systems and
backup with the aim of helping countries to manage their programmes better themselves. This
website description comes with the image of a lady on the phone ostensibly giving advice to a caller.
The UNAIDS concept of technical support follows the original concept of technical assistance for
international development when it was formally invented, along with the United Nations, after World
War II (Wilson, 2007). Technical assistance was conceived as furnishing expert advice to member
nations which require assistance. Today, technical support is a common phrase in the information
technology industry something that clients can avail of from vendors as an after-sales service.
Wilson (2007) describes the early history of technical assistance as that from optimism to criticism. In
the early days, TA crystallized around three components: exploratory research work and pilot surveys
through expert missions to underdeveloped countries, training and the dissemination of information.
He cited David Owen, the head of the then UN Economic Affairs Department, who wrote in his 1950
paper that the program of technical assistance is a scheme which will teach people at a low level of
technical culture some of the elements which will have to be mastered if great economic problems are
to be solved. In short, technical assistance was to be essentially a programme of linear knowledge
transfer from the developed to the underdeveloped world. Criticisms on TA included the danger of a
one-sided approach to the technical problems presented, the danger of taking a short-term view, and
the problem of finding the right experts.
In terms of the recent history of TA, Wilson (2007) describes the transition of TA to technical
cooperation to capacity building. Citing several authors, he explains that within TA the value of
participatory approach was recognized in the 1970s initially as a means to engaging both outsiders and
insiders in a collaborative manner to find out the local context and later in the 1990s as a mechanism
for recipient countries to take ownership of their priorities. The language of collaboration and
participation, and their extension to ownership led to a change of nomenclature at UNDP from technical
assistance to technical cooperation (TC), denoting a more claimed equal relationship between the
provider and the recipient.
The need for underdeveloped countries to identify their problems combined with participation-forownership into a generalized critique of TA/TC within UNDP in the 1990s. This critique that sought to
rethink TA/TC was informed by another development trend that of capacity building. Thus a 1997
UNDP report claimed that capacity development for self-management was becoming the central
purpose of TC in that period. Then, between 2001 and 2003, the UNDP highlighted capacity building as
a central theme of its TC, which eventually led to the so-called Capacity 2015 initiative, where UNDP
engages in partnerships to build local capacities to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The half-a-century evolution of the concept of technical assistance shows the belief that development
happens only when capacities are present, which then can be built through technical cooperation or
technical assistance/support. UNDP (1997) says that a broader, more complex view of capacity
building is emerging one that goes far beyond training or systems and structural improvements of
formal organizations.
2.2 Understanding the Basic Concept and Focus of Capacity Building
The term capacity building (or capacity development) became popular in the early 1990s among
international development organizations. A number of authors have derided the term as analytically
10
and practically useless and that it risks becoming a slogan rather than a meaningful concept. It is
indistinguishable from a common understanding of development and it appears at face value to add
nothing to the approach to development problems (Schacter, 2000). Ann Philbin, as cited by Light and
Hubbard (2002), observed that within the field of capacity building, there is a striking lack of a shared
definition, its features and essential elements. There is indeed a need to clarify.
First, what is capacity? Capacity is defined as the power or ability of individuals, organizations or
systems to perform appropriate functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably (Milen, 2001 and
UNDP, 1998). This definition of capacity is tightly linked to performance, which in turn should
contribute to the achievement of strategic objectives. It also delineates where capacity can be seen, i.e.,
at the level of the individual, of the organization, or of a bigger system. These levels are the focus of any
change effort.
Second, if capacity is about individual or collective ability then what is capacity building or capacity
development? The UNDP (1997) defines it as the process by which individuals, organizations,
institutions and societies develop abilities (individually and collectively) to perform functions, solve
problems and set and achieve objectives (UNDP, 1997). The OECD, as cited by Milen (2001), added to
this definition the ability to understand and deal with their development needs in a broad context and
in a sustainable manner. According to this definition, the core competencies consist of: analyzing the
situation, indentifying needs and key issues, formulating strategies, implementing actions, monitoring
performance, ensuring performance, adjusting courses of action to meet objectives and acquiring new
knowledge and skills to meet evolving challenges. This current thinking in capacity building emphasizes
its close link to strategic management.
This broadened definition captures the dynamic, complex and evolving nature of developmental
situations or contexts. However, it is also not surprisingly problem-oriented a bias that may be traced
back to the origins and initial intent of technical assistance.
The UNDP definition has three cornerstones , i.e., capacity development a) is a continuing learning and
changing process; b) emphasizes better use and empowerment of individuals and organizations; and c)
requires that systematic approaches be considered in devising capacity development strategies and
programmes.
UNDP (1997) developed a framework to help better understand the needs, problems and wider
contextual issues before a programme is initiated. The framework proposes four interrelated
dimensions for sustainable capacity development:
11
Individual. Education, on-the-job training, and formal and informal skills development to
accomplish tasks and solve problems are core requirements. Individuals must be able to
participate in decisions and have a clear understanding of their role and function. They must
also have adequate incentives, salary structures and accountability. Values, expectations
and power relations need to be recognized. But this is no guarantee that the person will be
productive or effective. Other things are necessary.
Entity. A well-trained, productive person needs access to finance, information, technology,
infrastructure and other resources. This often means working within (or related to) an entity
that has an organisational structure with a clear mission, and clear goals, functions, systems
and resources (such as a public body, a private business, an NGO or community-based
group). Some of these entities may be informal groups working at the community level.
Interrelationships between entities. Organisations and groups interact with others for a
common purpose. These can often be seen as a system. For example, a microcredit system
for women could include a credit institution, relevant line ministries,
cooperative/business/marketing NGOs, small businesses and womens community-based
groups. Themes, sections, institutions and geographic divisions comprise one or more
systems where entities interact for a common purpose.
Enabling environment. Sustainable capacities for individuals, entities and systems require a
positive enabling environment for addressing cross-sectoral issues relevant to all parts of
societythe state, civil society and the private sector. In devising such an enabling
environment, four interrelated issues need to be taken into account: institutional
development policies and plans, legal frameworks, ability and willingness to reform,
distribution of institutional responsibilities, public sector and human resource policies,
incentives, and so on.
There are eight core essential elements of effective capacity building. Citing a study made on capacity
building programs initiated or operated by foundations, Backer (2001) says that effective capacity
building programs are comprehensive, customized, competency-based, timely, peer-connected,
assessment-based, readiness-based, and contextualized.
Calderon (1997) notes the shift in emphasis (that) occurred from identifying program impact solely in
terms of health outcomes to measuring impact in terms of both health outcomes and the increased
capacity of local organizations, highlighting the emergent notion that capacity building is both a means
and an end in itself.
2.3 Capacity Building for What?
Successful capacity building will lead to sustainability (Calderon, 1997 and ITAD, 2006). Calderon (1997)
relates that for many donors, organizational sustainability is a key outcome of capacity building efforts.
For instance, the AIDS Alliance (ITAD, 2006) pursues capacity building towards sustainability in three
dimensions: a) organizational sustainability, i.e., the organization can maintain the necessary financial
and administrative systems to manage its staff and resources effectively and account for funds; b)
programmatic sustainability, i.e., the organization can identify and support appropriate partners and
programs; and c) institutional sustainability, i.e., the organization is able to collaborate, coordinate and
advocate effectively with other stakeholders, and to mobilize funds.
Also, sustainability in the early 1980s was defined in terms of the continuity of project activities and
benefits in the absence of external funding. But such thinking about sustainability has already evolved
over the last two decades. Calderon (1997) proposes a capacity building evaluation model for
HIV&AIDS projects that describes organizational sustainability as having four components: technical or
service delivery sustainability, management sustainability, financial sustainability, and political
sustainability. But he also stresses that focusing solely on organizational sustainability is not sufficient
to prepare organizations to adapt to the changing epidemic and demands of stakeholders. Hence, his
model also defines the sustainability of benefits, or impact sustainability, as the ultimate goal. He
asserts that regardless of the long-term survival of specific organizations, capacity building efforts that
strengthen institutions can result in the sustained impact of program benefits through the creation of
new organizations, the consolidation of diverse groups, or a shift in social norms. His evaluation model
attempts to capture the complex nature and results of capacity building at the output, outcome and
impact levels.
12
In terms of community capacity building in the context of civil society, eight outcomes are expected:
expanding, diverse and inclusive citizen participation; expanding leadership base; strengthened
individual skills; widely shared understanding and vision; strategic community agenda; consistent,
tangible progress towards goals; more effective community organizations and institutions; and better
resource utilization by the community (The Aspen Institute, 1996)
a) Capacity building is essentially the process of enhancing the ability of individuals, organizations,
institutions and societies in a given development context to pursue their aspirations in a
sustainable manner. It happens at various levels (i.e., individual to society) and has three
cornerstones: continuous learning and changing process, better use and empowerment of
individuals and organizations, and systematic approaches. It is both a means and an end in
itself. This definition depicts capacity building as akin to a spiral moving and growing continually
outwards as the entity being developed takes on greater challenges and opportunities, which
drive the entire development process. Without challenges and opportunities organizational
stagnation ensues. Hence, the key to CSO capacity building is helping organizations see and act
on the challenges and opportunities facing them by themselves.
b) The purpose of CSO capacity building is to make organizations fully functional in a sustainable
manner in three aspects: organizational (i.e., administrative and financial systems);
programmatic (i.e., service delivery systems); and institutional (i.e., environmental and resource
support systems). Capable CSOs in the HIV sector should be comprised of a new cadre of
community workers whose education is rooted in community development, gender equity,
human rights and public health (Merson, et al., ibid). These CSOs should then pursue the eight
outcomes outlined by The Aspen Institute (ibid.): expanding, diverse and inclusive citizen
participation; expanding leadership base; strengthened individual skills; widely shared
understanding and vision; strategic community agenda; consistent, tangible progress towards
goals; more effective community organizations and institutions; and better resource utilization
by the community.
PART 3 - CSOs: THE COG OF THE HIV RESPONSE?

3.1 What are CSOs and Why are They Important?
To understand CSOs we need to look first at what the phrase civil society means. Edwards (2005)
explains that:
Civil society is essentially collective action in associations, across society and through the
public sphere and as such it provides an essential counterweight to individualism; as creative
action, civil society provides a much-needed antidote to the cynicism that infects so much of
contemporary politics; and as values-based action, civil society provides a balance to the
otherwise-overbearing influence of state authority and the temptations and incentives of the
market, even if those values are contested, as they often are. Warts and all, the idea of civil
society remains compelling but not because it provides the tidiest of explanations or the most
coherent of political theories it doesnt and probably never will. It remains compelling because
13
it speaks to the best in us the collective, creative and values-driven core of the active citizen calling on the best in us to respond in kind to create societies that are just, true and free.
Based on the above description of civil society, CSOs, in the context of this paper, therefore refer to
private organizations that share the same principles (e.g., empowerment, human rights, etc.) and
aspirations and are committed, first and foremost, to pursue value-based, creative and collective action
to address the challenges of HIV&AIDS. These CSOs may be in the form of organizations of people
infected and affected by HIV (i.e., community-based organizations), local NGOs currently or potentially
working on HIV&AIDS issues, religious or faith-based organizations, and international NGOs (INGOs, also
known as Northern NGOs or NNGOs) in fields such as development, human rights, education and health
-- that are contributing, or could contribute, to preventing HIV infection and reducing or mitigating the
adverse impact of the epidemic on individuals, families and communities. Private organizations (such as
consulting firms) that undertake HIV&AIDS work primarily for profit or personal gain are excluded in this
definition. CSOs belong to the so-called third sector that exists between market (business) and state
(LSE, 2009).
How important are CSOs in the response? Berkman, et al (2005, p. 1170), in their analysis of the
Brazilian response, emphasize that civil society involvement is one of the essential elements of a
successful HIV response. They argue that NGOs helped the government of Brazil shape a preventive
program that reaches many of the most vulnerable groups that would not have been reached by the
government on its own. Clarke (1998, p.41) say that NGOs have been occupying center stage in
international development work for a number of decades. In the Philippines and India, for instance,
NGOs help fill an institutional vacuum caused by the weakness of political parties and trade unions.
CSOs are indeed acknowledged widely as having made significant contributions to the response since
the discovery of the virus in the early 80s. Today, CSOs has increasingly proven their capacity to manage
the funds from large funding mechanisms. For instance, CSOs are successful implementers of large
funding: 83% of civil society PRs of Global Fund funding were A or B1-rated. Donors that are providing
funds directly to CSOs have significantly supported scale up of access to services at national level.
PEPFAR funding, of which 83% has been allocated to CSOs, has had a significant impact on access to
treatment and prevention services in its 15 focus countries (IHAA, 2007, pp. 2-4).
CSOs may take the role of either a service provider or policy advocate or both. As service providers,
CSOs are important stakeholders in effective responses to the HIV epidemic. They have greater access
to key populations (KPs: sex workers, men-having-sex-with-men or MSMs, injecting drug users, client of
sex workers, etc.), and greater expertise in understanding and responding to their needs. At-risk KPs,
often difficult to reach and track, have high rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
and thus it is crucial that they access HIV treatment and care services, and benefit from HIV prevention
interventions (IHAA , 2007, p. 6).
As policy advocates, CSOs do research and policy papers, and normally form or join alliances or networks
to push for specific policy reforms or certain innovations. According to UNAIDS (2002), as cited by
Seckinelgin (2004, p. 299) the activism embedded in the presence of nongovernmental and community
organizations around AIDS is seen as a global force influencing policymakers. Dozens of AIDS strategies
were introduced by NGOs through which local organizations that are playing pioneering role were
brought into partnerships. NGOs can be seen as sources of new and alternative development theory
and practice, (and the) new pragmatism by governments faced with large-scale problems such as the
growth of HIV&AIDS and environmental issues and the sense that government cannot alone deal with
14
the issues without the support of a wide range of institutional actors (Lewis, 2003, pp. 326-27) are
giving NGOs significant arenas to make a contribution to development.
3.2 Challenges Faced by CSOs
CSOs face a range of key challenges in their involvement in the response. Resources, although
increasing, are inadequate in several regions, including Eastern and Southern Africa, CSOs are still
representing only a small proportion of recipients of Global Fund funding. In addition, funding is often
concentrated among large international NGOs (INGOs) and local organizations are less likely to be direct
recipients of PEPFAR funding. There is also a raging debate with AIDS exceptionalism and vertical
funding or disease-specific funding on one side and health sector wide approach or horizontal funding
covering several diseases and health issues on the other. The objections raised against vertical funding
poses risks to CSOs dedicated to HIV alone in their programming. Moreover, studies showed that
funding is not always tailored to suit the needs of CSOs such as core costs and capacity building
assistance (IHAA, 2007, p. 5). Many CSOs struggle to sustain their operations due to lack of funds to
cover the usual overhead costs (such as office rental and staff salaries and other development activities
of non-project staff) as more and more funders prefer to fund only direct project costs. The inability of
CSOs to offer long-term employment and attractive remuneration package to their staff also result to
very high staff turn-over rates.
According to Lewis (2003, p. 326-341), CSO management is a complex, diverse field where CSOs face
distinctive management challenges. More and more is being asked of NGOs by citizens, governments
and donors straining their very limited capacity. Korten (1987), as cited by Lewis (2003, p 330), say that
there are many organizations within the wider community of development NGOs who increasingly
recognize that the complexities of the development task, and the pressures of organizational growth
and expansion which may follow small-scale or local success, may require more of their organizational
systems and staff than merely the common practice of muddling through.
Moreover, Edwards, et al (1999, p. 117-129) argues that global trends are creating unprecedented
opportunities for civic action at local, national and international levels. They identified three
interconnected trends: economic and cultural globalization, and the inequality and insecurity they
breed; the increasing complexity of humanitarian action in response to ethnic conflict and intrastate
violence; and the reform of international cooperation to deal with the problems these create. In the
case of NGOs acting as intermediaries for CBOs, these require changes in NGO roles, relationships,
capacities and accountabilities. The authors enumerate challenges as a result of the above trends as
follows:
a) A gradual shift in roles away from direct implementation or delivery of aid-funded projects and
services towards capacity building, learning-for-leverage and other measures intended to
support local or community organizations.
b) The need to build constituencies for long-term international or national cooperation.
Constituency-building is about creating an agenda for concern using diffuse channels in the longterm.
c) The need to invest in strengthening credibility and legitimacy by becoming more knowledgeable
and transparent.
Finally, Fowler (1997), as cited by Lewis (2003, p. 336), argues that a key challenge for development
NGOs is the struggle to link vision, mission and role clearly. Reflection and learning is necessary for
15
ensuring the effectiveness of NGOs, but such processes can often be subordinated by the dominance of
culture of action. This may be particularly true for SNGOs faced with the challenge of needing to
manage crises, dealing with donors and continuing to carry out work on the ground.
3.3 Issues Against CSOs
Similar to business sector entities, CSOs are also criticized for several issues that arose out of ignorance,
negligence, force of circumstance or outright malpractice.
Edwards, et al (1999, pp. 130-133) enumerate key issues against development NGOs in general, with
recommendations, in four areas:
AREA OF
CONCERN
Roles
Relationships
ISSUES
AGAINST NGOs
some Northern NGOs continue to be operational on
the ground, and even when they work through
partners, many tend to dictate the scope and pace of
work through their control over funding and
procedures; some Southern NGOs have developed a
strong and independent funding base, but remain
dependent on external resources their roles are
determined as much by donor fashion and demands;
confusion about identity part market institution
providing a cost-effective service against alternative
providers and part social actor pushing for more
fundamental change
participatory approaches are often used as a tool to
push NGO-driven agendas; although NGOs talk
constantly of partnerships, control over funds and
decision- making remain highly unequal; in lobbying,
conflicts of interest and the need for profile to beef up
their image have retarted structural innovations (e.g.,
Northern NGOs still prefer to go to international fora
themselves to present the case for change on behalf
of others
Capacities
focus on narrow management issues (borrowed

uncritically from the corporate sector), acquiring skills
valued by donors, and traditional concepts of lobbying
Legitimacy and
Accountability
tradition of hiding controversial issues behind closed

doors; self-serving (i.e., profile-enhancing) and donoror contract-driven advocacies in behalf of local
constituencies; lack of community representation in
NGO governing boards; lack of transparency on how
NGOs operate; failure to convert NGO rhetoric about
equity and participatory management into institutional
practice
16
RECOMMENDED
ACTION
build outwards from concrete innovations at
grassroots levels to connect with the forces that
influence patterns of poverty, prejudice and violence;
look for better ways of building constituency at every
level, of working together through strategic
partnerships, and of identifying barriers to change and
points of leverage; clarify who they are and what they
want to do in a distinctive manner.
relate to each other in different and healthier ways

alliances among equals, genuine partnerships, and
synergistic networks; generate order out of chaos
through non-authoritarian relationships between
people genuinely interested in helping one another to
develop new learning and capacities; develop new
ways of talking and relating to different sections of the
public ; loosen or manage the relationship between
NGOs and donors so that the piper/s do not call an
inappropriate tune for organizations that claim to
respond to the voices of the people they serve
develop a range of new skills and competencies in
learning, bridging, mediation, dialogue, and
influencing; develop a broader base of capacities
which include a) the ability to listen to, learn from and
work with others at both local and global levels and
outside the development sector, b) the ability to have a
more strategic understanding of how and where global
issues bite on the NGO agenda, and c) the ability to
adapt and respond to new demands and the entry of
new players such as corporations and churches
learn to stand aside, make space for others, and
share resources and access to power in more
democratic networks; learn to walk the talk; develop
rootedness in own society/community and engage
with them in a genuine manner
These criticisms, made a decade ago, still resonate to this day though a number of these practices have
been modified or mitigated. For instance, on roles, some INGOs have adopted the strategy of
incorporating their local operations using the same name or brand of the parent organization and
maintain the same relationship and reporting requirements. The Alliance, however, has a different
practice as far as role is concerned it spins off its country offices and makes them fully independent in
terms of governance and even in the choice of corporate name. It does this not because of changes in
its operating environment but because it is the basic intent of the organization to set up a network of
independent nationally-based and driven linking organizations.
It has been said that NGOs have weak governance and accountability mechanisms (Edwards, et al, 1999,
p. 123). Lack of accountability may be brought about by the failure of CSO boards to institute
mechanisms to ensure that commitments to both donors and community partners are honored and
properly monitored. Fragmented accountability may happen when a CSO has no clear and systematic
responsibility areas, reporting requirements and transparency mechanisms that detect or prevent the
occurrence of fraud or, if it happens, will readily institute corrective measures. This problem normally
occurs in the mishandling of funds. For example, the Global Fund recently suspended its USD 195M
grant to the Philippines when its audit found out that the grantee, a large and well-connected local
foundation, had disbursed about USD 1M in unauthorized expenses (Global Fund, 2009). This same
problem also happened in several countries since the Global Fund was established in 2002. The
occurrence of this fraud in spite of several layers of mandatory oversight functions is a good case to
illustrate that no amount of control can prevent a fraud when there is a weak ethical base of an
organization or when those mandated to do the oversight renege on their duty or when people connive
with each other.
The recommended actions enumerated by Edwards, et al (ibid.) proposes a more value-based and
engaging arrangement for NGOs wanting to improve their operations and whose missions are directed
towards the empowerment and development of smaller organizations. For instance, NGOs assisting
others can actually model the desired levels of accountability and legitimacy that they espouse for
adoption by other NGOs, thereby walking the talk.
On the impact of their work, there is a feeling among NGOs themselves that the current response is not
accomplishing enough. For instance, in Africa, Seckinelgin (2004, p. 295) reports that NGOs admit they
got it wrong and trying to correct their mistakes. These NGOs argue that the HIV&AIDS campaign have
suffered from targeting, design and delivery problems. Interventions are done in a blanket manner
without understanding the peculiarities of the target clientele groups. In most cases interventions are
produced in an uncoordinated manner with either misleading or contradictory information, which
creates a certain HIV&AIDS fatigue among the people.
Finally, Seckinelgin (2004, p. 301) concludes that without doubt there are interesting and effective
interventions implemented by NGOs. However, in many of these instances these interventions are
based on immediate relief and are not able to engage with long-term issues. Furthermore, they are
conditioned by changing international funding interests and frames. Therefore, while it is clear that
relief is an important issue, at present these NGOs are providing fragmented relief with a short-term
vision based on the international governance of the disease that is not able to engage with the sociocultural conditions of the disease.
Some INGO practices are also deemed harmful. Pfeiffer (2002, p. 725) asserts that in Mozambique,
deluge of NGOs and their expatriate workers over the last decade has fragmented the local health
17
system, undermined local control of health programs, and contributed to growing local social inequality.
Since national health system salaries plummeted over the same period as a result of structural
adjustment, health workers became vulnerable to financial favors offered by NGOs seeking to promote
their projects in turf struggles with other agencies. He further notes that the Mozambique experience
is certainly replicated in many other developing nations. In more specific terms, he lists various issues
against INGOs as follows:
a) Inappropriate housing or living amenities to their staff that sharply contrasted with local living
conditions thereby highlighting the social divide.
b) The deployment of aid cowboys and aid mercenaries. Aid cowboys is often used to
describe the aid worker who derived a thrill from working in dangerous conditions while aid
mercenaries are those whose motivation is only for the money and experience for career
advancement. These workers are engaged from contract to contract over a short period of 1-2
years, which limits their ability to immerse with and understand the local culture.
c) Harmful organizational practices that puts premium to immediate results thereby promoting
short-term thinking and short-cuts. For instance, the practice of conducting off-site seminars
with per diems pulled workers away from crucial duties and encouraged a culture where
workers prefer to go to trainings that offer higher financial incentives.
d) Brain drain as the result of public health personnel moving from the government to join NGOs
with better pay and incentives.
3.4 Capacity Building Needs of CSOs
There are three key frames to look at the needs of CSOs: using the Alliances NGO technical support
framework (IHAA, 2009); using the NGO management terrain framework recommended by Lewis
(2003, pp. 330-36); and using the Reproductive health management framework (Nebrida, 2006, pp. 1215).
3.4.1 NGO Technical Support Framework
The NGO technical support framework is divided into two parts: organizational development and
HIV&AIDS themes.
Organizational development covers governance and strategy, management and structure, policies and
procedures, resource mobilization and information and knowledge management. These elements are
explained as follows:
a) On governance and strategy: An effective and committed governing body can be vital, not only
to provide legal accountability, but to make sure an organization keeps working to its vision,
remains accountable to the community and sustains its mission in the long term. While
strategic vision and mission may be completely new terms to some CBOs, more established
NGOs may still need help in re-formulating or revising their strategic plan. Changes in the
external environment, or increases in funding, often force some NGOs to re-design their internal
strategy in order to expand and grow.
b) On management and structure: Every organization needs good management if it is to fulfill its
mission, effectively implement its strategy, minimize risks to the organization, and develop
sustainable long-term programmes. Good management depends on both the personal and
18
professional skills and experience of the managers of the NGO or CBO, and also a proper
organizational culture. Everyone in the organization should know and understand: who is
responsible for decision-making and leadership at all levels; how the activities of the
organization are planned; how tasks are allocated to staff and volunteers, and how they are
given the resources they need to carry out their work; how implementation is recorded, and
progress monitored; and how standard and routing functions of the organization should be
carried out.
c) On policies and procedures: These are used to document routine and frequent processes
involved in the day-today running of an organization. For most NGOs and CBOs, these processes
evolve over time, but by having them documented and well understood by all staff and
volunteers, the organization is likely to function more efficiently and within the local legal
context. If documented, they also provide and easy reference for existing staff as well as a
training resource to induct new members. The key administrative policies and procedures
should cover procurement, travel, use of resources, facilities and supplies, and IT.
d) On resource mobilization: Every organization needs to ensure that it can cover its current
operational costs and planned projects, not only in the immediate future but also in the long
term. This depends on accurate and detailed forecasting and budgeting of costs, and
identification of the most appropriate sources of funding for different kinds of costs.
e) On information and knowledge management: Proper management of information and
knowledge provides the basis for effective innovation and also ensures that existing best
practice is properly understood and can be replicated and disseminated. It is especially relevant
to NGOs and CBOs responding to HIV&AIDS because understanding about the nature of the
epidemic and approaches to responding to it are constantly evolving, while much of the stigma
that surrounds the disease means that NGOs and CBOs must constantly battle against
misinformation and prejudice. Maximizing good use of knowledge and information is about
managing three different types of flows of information: how to pull learning into the
organization which is reliable, relevant and useful; how to share inter-departmental or interpersonal learning across the organization as a whole; and how to push learning out of the
organization into a public arena where it can be most useful in supporting the organizations
mission.
HIV&AIDS themes are in the areas of prevention, care, impact alleviation, working with vulnerable
groups and communities, and methodologies. These are:
a) On prevention: epidemiology and vulnerable groups, realities and misconceptions about
transmission and prevention, obstacles to the adoption of HIV prevention methods, and sexually
transmitted infections management.
b) On care: access to treatment, linking HIV with other locally relevant aspects of the healthcare
system; and community care and support.
c) On impact alleviation: orphans and vulnerable children; and responding to stigma and
discrimination.
19
d) On vulnerable groups and communities: sex work; harm reduction for drug users; sensitivity to
gender, sexuality and the specific needs of women and girls; and men who have sex with men.
e) On methodologies: working with marginalized and hard-to-reach groups; achieving community
participation; peer education and other methodologies; materials development; the
engagement of PLHIV; and behavior change communication.
The organization development elements may be applied to any CSO while the HIV themes are specific,
and mandatory, for any CSO wanting to make a difference in the HIV sector. Note, however, that the
Alliance framework is basically oriented to the internal factors affecting CSOs.
3.4.2 NGO Management Terrain Framework
Lewis (2003, pp. 330-36) proposes a framework that looks into the larger management terrain of NGOs
to understand how these can be managed in a more strategic manner. This same framework may be
used to also understand the needs of CSOs. He says there are two aspects context and development
tasks and describes these as follows:
First, the context (or environment) of NGOs includes a situation where they work in unstable,
risky and conflict-prone areas or operate alongside predatory or failing states which may view
their presence with suspicion. The context also includes the cultural dimensions of management,
since many operational NGOs work with communities very different from themselves and may
increasingly combine staff from a wide range of different backgrounds. The NGO context also
includes the aid industry and its changing practices, as well as the often precarious political and
geographical environments in which development NGOs operate. Second, it is necessary to
examine the development tasks that are to be managed. These can be broken down into three
inter-related areas of management: a) the activities which the development NGO is undertaking;
b) the relationships it seeks to maintain; and c) the internal structures and processes of the
organization itself.
This framework resonates with the UNDP capacity building framework that proposes four interrelated
dimensions for effective capacity development, i.e., individual, entity, interrelationships between
entities, and enabling environment.
On the context or environment, Lewis (ibid.) mentions, among others, the administrative demands of
contracting work of NGOs, high level of vulnerability to changing donor fashions including possible cooptation, and one-sided relationships with northern partners. He recommends that NGOs need to
balance their room for maneuver as risk-takers and innovators in order to generate alternatives and
independent thinking, with the need to ensure access to resources to carry out activities on the
ground.
On activities, Lewis (ibid.) identified the main overlapping sets of activities and roles, i.e.,
implementation, partnership and catalysis. Each role is not necessarily confined to a single
organization, an NGO may engage in all three groups of activities at once, or it may shift its emphasis
from one to the other over time or as contexts and opportunities change. The implementer role
involves the mobilization of resources to provide goods and services either as part of the NGOs own
project or that of a government or donor agency through contracting. The catalyst role requires the
NGOs ability to inspire, facilitate or contribute to developmental change among other actors at the
organizational or individual level (i.e., grassroots organizing, lobbying and advocacy, model building,
20
etc.). The partner role encompasses the growing trend for NGOs to work with others on joint activities
such as in convergence projects that focuses on one specific area that is either thematic, sectoral or
geographic. The need therefore is for NGOs to sharpen their strategic focus so that they can perform
more effectively consistent with their values, vision and mission.
On relationships, Lewis (ibid.) says that NGOs are not closed entities within clear boundaries but are part
of open systems, which makes them highly dependent on events and resources in their environment,
but also gives them the potential to influence that environment. The need here is for NGOs to build
meaningful partnership relationships and avoid dependency, co-optation and goal displacement.
Finally, on organization structure and processes, Lewis (ibid.) laments the lack of leadership among
NGOs, problems in governance, internal communication problems, etc. Fowler (1997) highlights the
need for an effective management that is able to combine the participatory and the instrumental
dimensions of management, pointing out that decision making must be consultative enough for shared
ownership of the outcomes and directive enough to be timely.
3.4.3 The Reproductive Health Management Framework
Nebrida (2006, ibid.) proposes a six-point management framework to manage reproductive health, to
include HIV&AIDS, for community development. The framework covers six functional areas: a) setting
directions, keeping our bearings and staying the course (to focus on governance, accountability, policy,
ethics, and standards); b) developing competencies and capabilities (to focus on organization and
human resource management and development); c) building and maximizing our intangible assets (to
focus on knowledge management); d) delivering our commitment and satisfying our stakeholders (to
focus on service delivery and operations management); e) enlarging our capacities to transform (to
focus on resource mobilization, partnerships and alliance building); and f) doing good, doing well and
making things sustainable (to focus on institutionalization, sustainability, and social entrepreneurship
and enterprise development).
a) CSOs are private organizations that share similar development principles (e.g., empowerment,
human rights, etc) and aspirations and are committed to pursue value-based, creative and
collective action to address the challenge of HIV&AIDS. They are one of the essential elements
of the response and may take the role of either as service providers or policy advocates or both.
Understanding these basic characteristics of CSOs serves as the starting point in designing a
capacity building program for them.
b) The key challenges facing NGOs, whether they are from the North or from the South, is changing
donor policies, preferences and approaches and their hesitance to provide funding to cover core
costs for administration and staffing; growing expectations from various publics and
stakeholders; the rapid pace of globalization that requires a re-definition of their roles, the
rebuilding of constituencies and the strengthening of credibility and legitimacy; and the
constant push for action and results at the ground level. These externalities form part of the
overall context of CSOs that must be fully understood in efforts to capacitate them.
c) On the internal environment of CSOs, issues revolve around roles, relationships, capacities, and
legitimacy and accountability. NGO roles are increasingly influenced by their desire to secure
21
funding from donors, many of whom prefer to fund direct service delivery projects rather than
political advocacy to effect fundamental change. NGO relationships with donors, government
and partners are influenced or dictated upon by their contracts as service providers.
Intervention capacities, especially those in the HIV sector, are based more on relief rather than
on long-term issues. Legitimacy and accountability issues include the lack of community
representation and weak fraud prevention measures. These internal issues highlight the
weaknesses of CSOs that must be addressed through capacity building.
d) There are three frameworks that can be used to identify the specific needs of CSOs: the Alliance
technical support framework; the NGO management terrain framework; and the reproductive
health management framework. The Alliance framework focuses on the elements of
organization development (OD), and on the thematic areas of HIV work. The OD elements
include governance and strategy, management and structure, policies and procedures, resource
mobilization, and information and knowledge management. The HIV thematic areas are
prevention, care and treatment, impact alleviation, vulnerable groups and communities, and
development methodologies. The NGO management framework looks at two aspects: context
and development tasks. The context or environment refers to the socio-cultural, political,
geographical and economic situation. Mainstream or business strategic planning literature calls
these factors PESTLE: political, economic, social, technological, legal and ecological.
Development tasks cover activities, relationships, and internal structures and processes. The
reproductive health management framework emphasizes the six functional areas to make
reproductive health including HIV&AIDS a significant driver of community development. These
three frameworks should be combined to analyze both the external and internal factors
affecting the performance of a CSO dedicated to HIV work.
PART 4 - CSO CAPACITY BUILDING: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

4.1 Community Development Theory: The Anchor of Capacity Building
It is commonly held that community development theory essentially rests on two development drivers:
needs and assets. Peoples needs impel them to find ways to satisfy these and thus will lead to
development. Likewise, the assets available in a community serve as the impetus to pursue
development. Based on these premises, Haines (2009, p. 38) outlines two basic approaches in
community development: the need-based or deficit-based approach and the asset-based approach. On
one hand, the need-based approach involves the identification of the needs, issues and problems of a
community and then the underlying causes of these as basis for action. On the other hand, the assetbased approach identifies community assets as basis to build capacity within a community. Haines
argues that by focusing on the causes of the problem communities may end up wringing their hands or
giving up because of the overwhelming causes of the problem. Such approach can create
unreasonable expectations that may lead to disappointment and failure over time. It can also lead to so
many problems and people may be overwhelmed and thus nothing is done. For this reason, she
recommends concentrating on community assets as the focus of a development effort thereby creating
a snowball effect that will influence other areas in the community such as problems and needs. She
further emphasizes that the asset-based approach does not ignore the problems in the community but
focuses first on its strengths and triumphs in order to provide a positive perspective of the community
rather than a discouraging one.
22
The above explanations show that the basic driver of development is indeed need and not asset.
The asset-based approach actually focuses on need while emphasizing what is available (i.e, asset) as
the take-off point.
In recent years, another development theory has emerged the complexity theory, otherwise referred
to as complex adaptive systems. Fryer (2009) explains that complexity theory is based on relationships,
emergence, patterns and iterations (one) that maintains that the universe is full of systems that are
complex and constantly adapting to their environment, hence, (the term) complex adaptive systems.
The properties of complex adaptive systems are: emergence, co-evolution, sub-optimal, requisite
variety, connectivity, simple rules, iteration, self-organizing, edge of chaos, and nested systems. A good
example of a complex adaptive system is a termite colony.
The complexity theory is actually not in contradiction with the need- and asset-based community
development theories it in fact provides a larger perspective to the development that may happen at
various levels in an interconnected ecosystem.
Mintzbergs (1987, pp. 68-72) concept of organizational strategy formulation and execution apparently
applies the complexity theory. He asserts that strategies need not be deliberate they can also
emerge. His research has uncovered that some of the most successful strategies combined
deliberation and control with flexibility and organizational learning. This shows that organizational
development is an iterative process of planning, doing and learning while allowing chance to also
influence it.
4.2 The Imperative of a Change Theory
There is an increasing recognition that some of the most innovative capacity building programs are
theory driven (Backer, 2001). Such theory of change informs and guides the development of the entire
capacity building strategy, the selection of which should fit with the overall development philosophy of
the capacity building programme implementer or technical support provider.
There are two widely known theories that apply to organizations: Lewins Three-Step Change Theory,
and Lippitts Phases of Change Theory.
The Lewins Three-Step Change Theory is a three-step change model: unfreeze, movement,and
refreezing. Kritsonis (2005, pp. 1-7), describes the model as follows:
The first step in the process of changing behavior is to unfreeze the existing situation or status
quo. The status quo is considered the equilibrium state. Unfreezing is necessary to overcome the
strains of individual resistance and group conformity. Unfreezing can be achieved by the use of
three methods. First, increase the driving forces that direct behavior away from the existing
situation or status quo. Second, decrease the restraining forces that negatively affect the
movement from the existing equilibrium. Third, find a combination of the two methods listed
above. Some activities that can assist in the unfreezing step include: motivate participants by
preparing them for change, build trust and recognition for the need to change, and actively
participate in recognizing problems and brainstorming solutions within a group.
Lewins second step in the process of changing behavior is movement. In this step, it is necessary
to move the target system to a new level of equilibrium. Three actions that can assist in the
23
movement step include: persuading employees to agree that the status quo is not beneficial to
them and encouraging them to view the problem from a fresh perspective, work together on a
quest for new, relevant information, and connect the views of the group to well-respected,
powerful leaders that also support the change
The third step of Lewins three-step change model is refreezing. This step needs to take place
after the change has been implemented in order for it to be sustained or stick over time. It is
highly likely that the change will be short lived and the employees will revert to their old
equilibrium (behaviors) if this step is not taken. It is the actual integration of the new values into
the community values and traditions. The purpose of refreezing is to stabilize the new
equilibrium resulting from the change by balancing both the driving and restraining forces. One
action that can be used to implement Lewins third step is to reinforce new patterns and
institutionalize them through formal and informal mechanisms including policies and procedures.
Therefore, Lewins model illustrates the effects of forces that either promote or inhibit change.
Specifically, driving forces promote change while restraining forces oppose change. Hence,
change will occur when the combined strength of one force is greater than the combined
strength of the opposing set of forces.
Lippitt, Watson, and Westley (1958), as cited by Kritsonis (ibid.) extend Lewins Three-Step Change
Theory. They created a seven-step theory that focuses more on the role and responsibility of the
change agent than on the evolution of the change itself. Information is continuously exchanged
throughout the process. The seven steps are: 1) Diagnose the problem. 2) Assess the motivation and
capacity for change. 3) Assess the resources and motivation of the change agent. This includes the
change agents commitment to change, power, and stamina. 4) Choose progressive change objects. In
this step, action plans are developed and strategies are established. 5) The role of the change agents
should be selected and clearly understood by all parties so that expectations are clear. Examples of roles
are: cheerleader, facilitator, and expert. 6) Maintain the change. Communication, feedback, and group
coordination are essential elements in this step of the change process. 7) Gradually terminate from the
helping relationship. The change agent should gradually withdraw from their role over time. This will
occur when the change becomes part of the organizational culture. They point out that changes are
more likely to be stable if they spread to neighboring systems or to subparts of the system immediately
affected.
Kritsonis (ibid.) concludes that Lewin's model is very rational, goal and plan oriented. The change looks
good on paper, as it makes rational sense, but when implemented the lack of considering human
feelings and experiences can have negative consequences. There may be occasions when employees get
so excited about a new change, that they bypass the feelings, attitudes, past input or experience of
other employees. Consequently, they find themselves facing either resistance or little enthusiasm.
There is no right or wrong theory to change management. It is not an exact science.
The above change theories are anchored more on the deficit- or need-based approach to community
development. With the advent of complexity theory another organization change theory (so-called as
the third generation theory) has emerged.
Abadesco (2009) explains that the last four decades starting at the end of World War II encompassed
the birth, adolescence and maturation of classical organization development (OD) composed of first and
second generations that basically follow the Newtonian or machine model. The practice of OD in the
fifties and sixties (first generation) highlighted personal awareness and group dynamics while in the
24
seventies and eighties (second generation) the emphasis was integrating personal and group awareness
with productivity. In the nineties up to the present, third generation OD has emerged that is anchored
on complexity theory. Interestingly, this evolution appears to have influenced the thinking on technical
assistance and capacity building described above. The comparison between the machine and
complexity science models is shown below.
NEWTONIAN (MACHINE) MODEL
Predictable
Linear
Role of change agent as driver
Orderly
Controlling
Designed
Abadesco, 2009.
COMPLEXITY (LIVING ORGANISM) MODEL

Surprising
Cause and effect separated by time
Role of change agent as farmer
Chaotic but patterned
Adapting
Emergent
The third generation OD has an array of highly-participative tools (i.e., appreciative inquiry, future
search, open space technology and world caf) whose objective is to raise awareness and generate
new possibilities and social agreements, which in turn, can lead to change. Emphasis is therefore placed
on conversations which promoted total system awareness and self organization (Abadesco, 2009). Its
basic assumptions that show a paradigm shift from classical OD are shown below.
CLASSICAL OD ASSUMPTIONS
Reality is a single, objective fact
Truth is discoverable through analysis

Collecting data and diagnosis lead to
change; problem solving is key process
Focus of action: behavioral change
Premise of predictable, managed change
Change agents plan and manage change
THIRD GEN OD ASSUMPTIONS

Reality is a social construct; there are
multiple realities and meaning is
negotiated
Reality is what people agree on
Raising awareness and collective inquiry
lead to change; conversation is a key
process
Focus of action: mindset change
Change is not linear, is ongoing and
systems are self organizing
Change agent role is to create conditions
for facilitating change
Abadesco, 2009.
4.3 Managing Change: Conundrums and Considerations
Shapiro (2005) asserts that there are two sets of dichotomies in change management: reformation
versus transformation, and changing structures versus changing people. Change interventions differ in
whether they view change as reformation or adaptation of basically effective systems, or as the
transformation of an existing system into something very different. They also seem to differ in whether
they believe the starting point for change is with individual attitudes and behaviors, or with social
structures such as laws and policies. While there is general consensus that both individuals and social
structures are needed and there is a reciprocal relationship, change interventions tend to target
25
different starting points. UNDP (1998) however states that entry points are often made at the systems
level then zoomed-in to the entity or organization then to the individual.
Moreover, Shapiro (2005) explains that interventions are also subject to a host of practical and
contextual factors that variably shapes theories of change. Hence, most programs take a pragmatic
approach to intervention design, focusing on what works rather than aligning themselves with any one
particular theory of change. Because real-world interventions usually do not represent a pure form of
any theoretical model, and strategies are often eclectic, overlapping, and evolving, it can be difficult to
capture true programmatic differences and compare efforts across interventions. These assertions
support the theory of complex adaptive systems.
In the business sector, Kotter and Cohen (2002, p.7) outline an eight-step process for successful largescale change: increase urgency, build the guiding team, get the vision right, communicate for buy-in,
empower action, create short-term wins, do not let up, and make change stick. This process follows the
need-based development framework described above; and also closely resembles the usual strategic
management process except that it did not explicitly mention goals and strategy in addition to the
vision.
Another business development concept that is increasingly becoming popular is the blue ocean
strategy. Kim and Mauborgne (2005) argue that tomorrows leading companies will succeed not by
battling competitors, but by creating blue oceans of uncontested market space ripe for growth. They
propose the four actions framework to reconstruct buyer value elements in crafting a new value
curve. This is done by asking four fundamental questions: Which of the factors that the industry takes
for granted should be eliminated? Which factors should be reduced well below the industrys standard?
Which factors should be raised well above the industrys standard? (And) which factors should be
created that the industry has never offered? They cite several industries that have successfully applied
this concept such as the automobile industry, the computer industry, and the movie theater industry.
The application of the concept to civil society work remains to be seen.
While NGOs may do well to keep abreast of business management tools, Lewis (2003, p. 339) warns that
there are pitfalls for the unwary. For instance, Muhare (1999) as cited by Lewis (2003) mentions that
strategic planning has been taken up by the third sector organizations in the USA, but research suggests
for US organizations this interest was merely part of a new orthodoxy which sent a message of
professionalization to influential stakeholders, but did little in practice to improve effectiveness in terms
of services provided to users. Likewise, Pascale et al. (2000, p.23) cites another popular business
development tool, the 7-S framework, which identifies the key levers that must fit with each other to
ensure organizational performance. The 7-Ss are strategy, structure, systems, style, staff, shared values
and skills. They argue that excessive imposition of fit meant that it was impossible to change any
single element of the system without changing every other element. This situation will lead to
equilibrium that will then cause the organization to stagnate and eventually die.
CSOs are apparently trying to avoid such situations. Lewis (2003) cites that in a process which is more
akin to an improvised performance than the straightforward application of a set of management ideas
and techniques, development NGOs are themselves adapting and developing new ideas and approaches
all the time but such innovations frequently go undocumented This observation corroborates the
findings of Mintzberg (ibid.) in his research involving business organizations. Indeed, the most effective
way to increase capacity is through practice (Cornman, et al., 2005) and by adapting to changing
contexts.
26
Merson, H., et al (2007, p. 14) say that both the top-down USAID approach and the bottom-up
approach of many donors had successes and limitations: top-down approaches proved adept of
packaging and branding replicable strategies like behavior change communication and social marketing,
while bottom-up approaches supported more local innovation and ownership.
Morisky D., et al (2004), in their study conducted in the Philippines over a 3-year period, illustrates that
the use of the participatory action research methodology is appropriate in promoting and sustaining
positive behavior change. However, Wilson and Halperin (2008, p. 424) cautions that participatory
approaches that emphasize putative, largely unproven underlying structural or other social, economic,
or political factors can deflect emphasis from the major immediate cause of infection
In a study of three NGO projects in South Asia, Edwards (1999, p. 12) concludes that there is no such
thing as a universally appropriate strategy among NGOs across such different contexts. Equally, some
responses are more effective than others in the same or similar contexts; and even where the context is
more difficult, NGOs can still increase the opportunities for effective work and improve the context in
the process by using the right strategies in the right combinations. He outlines four key factors as
follow:
a) Clarity in long-term direction, and a determination not to be distracted along the way;
b) A balance between advances in hard technology and soft technology (i.e, social and
organizational development) right from the very start of the project;
c) Strong and active linkages vertically and horizontally to draw in resources and act as a conduit
for influencing wider structures; and
d) The multiplier effect of strengthening local institutions to take on more responsibly for
management and decision-making.
He explains that achieving the above rests on two further sets of factors: a particular set of
organizational characteristics (e.g. values, operating approach, etc.), not standardization and hierarchy,
and a supportive relationship with resource providers The lesson to be learned, even in more difficult
contexts, is that NGO networking, constructive engagement with different levels of state, and building
demand among poor people for improvements in services and governance, can improve the legal and
regulatory framework, and change donor practice, in ways which are crucial for sustainable
development on the ground. Hence, the conclusion is clear: do not sacrifice the slow and messy
process of institutional development for quick material results; the results will come, and will last, if the
institutional fabric supports them. The author is, of course, describing a change process in a context
where people have the luxury of time and not in an emergency situation.
4.4 Putting Theories to Work for CSO Capacity Building
UNDP (1997) recommends a six-fold approach to capacity development as follows: it needs to be based
on clear vision and goals; it should look into the potential of all in society; it makes better use of people
and organizations; it is about change; it requires new approaches by donors; and it requires a
comprehensive and integrated approach towards sustainability.
Setting clear vision and goals requires consensus involving stakeholders. The ability of stakeholders to
articulate their vision, define their goals and devise strategies to achieve them will determine their
ownership and support. Harnessing the potential of all in society requires a strategic partnership among
27
government, civil society and private sector. Change management involves institutionalizing
participation and learning and requires understanding interrelationships. Change requires resources
and, most of all, leadership and commitment. UNDP says that based on its experience, capacity
development is most sustainable when programmes are responsive, participatory, transparent,
equitable, accountable, consensus-oriented, effective and efficient, and strategic.
Several factors are seen to be critical to the success of a capacity assessment and development
initiative (UNDP, 1998). These are: visible leadership, organization-wide and participatory, open and
transparent, awareness and understanding, general buy-in and acceptance, appropriate methodologies,
clear set of objectives and priorities, clear management accountabilities, and sufficient time and
resources.
Likewise, Light and Hubbard (2002) proposes a capacity building engagement model comprised of four
dynamic, non-sequential key components that play a significant role in determining the size, shape and
ultimate success of the engagement: the desired outcome or defining goal, the change strategy to help
realize that goal, the champions guiding the efforts, and resources time, energy and money invested
in the process. They explain that capacity builders make implicit or explicit choices when it comes to
implementing capacity building engagements. It s therefore important to understand the typology of
design choices based on the key components of capacity building: 1) desired outcomes
straightforward to complex; 2) change strategy selective to comprehensive; 3) champions internally
to externally directed; and 4) resources low to high.
From an aid agencys perspective, Light and Hubbard (2002) further highlight that there are two
interdependent paths to approaching capacity building. One focuses on field-oriented techniques that
may be integrated into the agencys work. The other focuses on the aid agency itself, looking at the
systems by which it makes its own decisions about delivery and management of assistance and by which
it monitors, measures and motivates performance at various levels. On the first path, there already
exists a growing and valuable body of knowledge and best practice related to these and other capacity
building techniques. Of equal concern are those in the second path that involves the systems, rules
and norms within aid agencies that have an impact on their effectiveness as partners in capacity
building. They enumerate five areas where aid agencies can make adjustments to make their
organizations capacity-building friendly:
a) The control question. The process of preparing a development project or program is one of the
most important capacity-building tools. The agency should then give up its control over this
process and give the aid recipient greater involvement and decision making power.
b) Refining basic concepts. The concepts of results, speed and quality must be refined. Results
should be understood not in terms of projects approved and funds transferred but rather in
terms of contribution to the recipients capacity to plan, implement and evaluate their own
development project. Speed should be understood not in terms of the pace at which the
development agency can process the financing of new projects, but rather in terms of
developing the recipients need for capacity. Quality should not be understood solely in terms of
the degree to which project documents and analysis are prepared to the customary standards of
the agency, but rather in terms of the degree to which the project is owned by the recipient
and is built upon solid local commitment.
c) Rethinking the project. There should be a shift from the strictly time-bound, linear project
cycle approach that is applicable to infrastructure projects to a flexible approach where project
stakeholders can learn by doing.
28
d) Changing the incentive environment for staff. There is a need to manage and measure the
performance of staff in ways that recognize those who focus on building capacity
e) Recruitment and training. Adjust recruitment practices to attract and select new personnel
who understand problems and approaches related to capacity building.
Capacity building strategies include: technical skill building, management skill building, management
systems development, resource diversification, network building, organization cross-fertilization, and
multisectoral collaboration (Calderon, 1997).
Mechanisms or modalities for providing technical support for capacity building may be in the form of
one-to-one support by advisers/consultants/resource persons, twinning arrangements, training
programs, workshops/meetings/conferences/summer schools, exchanges and study tours, centers of
excellence such as institutes, schools without walls, networks, research, scholarships or fellowships and
internships, resource centers or libraries, equipment and infrastructure, and developing resource such
as toolkits and publications (Gosh, 2008 and Alliance webpages at www.ngosupport.net). Each of these
modalities has strengths and weaknesses and thus they should be selected on the basis of cost, context
and capacity of the provider and recipient, and the type/kind of themes and issues to be addressed.
4.5 Into the Real World: The Practice of CSO Capacity Building
4.5.1 Current Issues: The Providers Perspective
The provision of technical support to CSOs is done mostly by both national and international NGOs. The
International HIV/AIDS Alliance or AIDS Alliance, one of the leading HIV&AIDS networks in the world,
commissioned an independent group (ITAD Ltd) in 2006 to evaluate its organizational performance. The
Alliance uses the linking organization model involving a network of nationally-based organizations to
support community action on AIDS in developing countries.
The ITAD report (2006) echoes the challenges and issues in providing technical support identified in one
of the internal reviews of the Alliance:
a) The need to identify capacity needs in a more standardized way.
b) The process of planning and designing technical support is not clearly understood between and
among departments within the Alliance.
c) Sometimes whole project is needed. Not just specific technical assistance.
d) Sometimes technical assistance is brought from top-down as a mechanism for solving problems
as opposed to capacity building.
e) Over-reliance on the parachuting in of technical support workshops with little follow-up;
capacity building gets perceived as a single event rather than a continual process.
f) The need to increase opportunities for joint planning in technical support provision.
g) The need to promote south-to-south technical support provision.
ITAD concludes that while clients on the whole are very positive about the technical support they have
received the model for technical support provision has been more problematic. Tensions between
teams within the Alliance have undermined the effectiveness with which it has been planned and
designed. The recent re-structuring of the Alliance seeks to correct this deficiency by regionalizing
technical support provision but it is still too early to report on any progress or success. ITAD also noted
that while there is no explicit corporate definition of sustainability within the context of the linking
29
organization model, sustainability elements are prominent in the way in which the Alliance conceives its
support to its linking organizations and country offices. The Alliance pursues capacity building towards
sustainability in three dimensions: a) organizational sustainability, i.e., the organization can maintain the
necessary financial and administrative systems to manage its staff and resources effectively and account
for funds; b) programmatic sustainability, i.e., the organization can identify and support appropriate
partners and programs; and c) institutional sustainability, i.e., the organization is able to collaborate,
coordinate and advocate effectively with other stakeholders, and to mobilize funds.
The issues identified in the ITAD report generally echo the same issues identified in the foregoing
sections of this paper. There are two items, however, that needs to be looked into in a different light.
One is on the identification of capacity building needs in a more standardized way. The Alliance has
already a toolkit developed several years back for capacity building assessment that guides needs
assessment. Yet in spite of this the need to standardize is still an issue. This means that efforts to
standardize may not at all be possible given the diversity of organizations and contexts in which these
organizations operate.
Another is the emphasis on south-to-south learning. This approach is done to encourage or motivate
others to adopt a certain successful practice or interventions from a context similar to their own.
However, relying on this approach alone will deprive them of looking at what others are doing in
different contexts thereby limiting diversity and missing the opportunity for learning and innovation.
For instance, NGO leaders in the south can learn cutting-edge IT solutions from the north. Over-reliance
on this approach may also lead to inbreeding.
4.5.2 Current Issues: The Clients Perspective
Below is a message posted by John Pierre Montilla (2009) in a list-serve (Pinoy-UNGASS@dgroups.org)
to illustrate the sentiments of a community-based organization on the current practice of technical
support provision made by consultants deployed by a national NGO handling Global Fund projects in
the Philippines.
I am really bothered of consultants. Who are they? And why do they speak in behalf of
communities? And receive Global Fund money? In fact two years after we signed our contracts,
we never knew these people, but they talk too much about our project which is to tell you a
mismatch of what we have laid down.
They NEVER visited our communities and made a social analysis/participatory risk and
vulnerability analysis or whatever they call it. And alas here comes the as if they know better
than communities they serve. I wondered how did they identify the problem, described the
target population, drafted programme components, set short-term, mid-term and long-term
goals of the project.
Who are they? They are from where? How much do they get? Are their fees (subject to tax)?
To whom are they accountable to? What are their TORs? Who told them to act in behalf of us?
Can we see and read the CVs and also have our say? Do they have HIV&AIDS program
development proficiency not just knowing to spell HIV and ARV and the title attached to their
names? Will the next principal recipient (of Global Fund) get them again by virtue of being a
Doctor? Without consultation with the community stake(holders)?
Last workshop (I attended we were told) that consultants are facilitators of internal and
external knowledge that develop capacities of communities to take action building from an
30
already inherent but left unharnessed capacities. A consultant is a knowledge manager and a
learner who facilitates in the process of identifying, selecting, capturing, creating, disseminating
and using knowledge that resides in people and organizations (note: resides in people and
organizations, not in the consultant). This knowledge just remains in the person or organization
unless extracted, documented and codified and SHARED this is the consultants work!
I cannot see them in our work in our Global Fund-supported projects. They just leave us as they
found us, they just go as if all things are the same they are paid for the come-and-go and for
what they can bring and invest for our use.
This message posted in the internet is by no means representative of the entire group of communitybased organizations but it confirms a number of issues already shown by current literature on capacity
building. For instance, this lamentation reinforces the assertion made by Pisani (2009) that the current
practice of consultants who practically sell themselves to the highest bidder, with their ready-made
cookbooks in hand, contributes to the failure to effectively curb the epidemic.
4.5.3 Modalities of Capacity Building
So how is capacity building successfully done in practice in the HIV&AIDS sector? To illustrate, I will
present three mini cases depicting CSO capacity building work at a national scale in three country
contexts using three different modalities: joint project implementation, subcontracting and
bridging. The identities of the organizations and the countries where they operate are disguised. All
these organizations belong to the grant-dependent, donor-driven HIV industry.
The organization providing capacity building support is a northern NGO (NNGO) headquartered in one of
the leading donor countries. Referred to here as the HIV NGOs Network (HNN), the organization was
formed to provide support, through a network of national organizations across the globe, so that
communities infected and affected by HIV can effectively, efficiently and sustainably respond to the
epidemic in their respective countries. HNNs central strategy in countries where it has no presence is
two-pronged: a)set up a project or country office and eventually spin this off as an independent
organizations that will then become part of its membership network; or b) identify a existing local,
independent organization that can be invited to become a member of the network after complying to
certain minimum criteria. The organization has a core set of development values or principles that it
adheres to wherever it operates. HNN provides three key services: direct financial and technical
support, as well as policy development and advocacy support at the global level.
4.5.3.1 Joint Project Implementation Modality: The Case of East Africa Foundation (EAF)
EAF was put up as a subsidiary of HNN in compliance with the regulations of the host country
disallowing foreign entities to run projects or set-up country offices with no local registration. As a
subsidiary, EAF has its own governing board composed of local individuals and with one or two expat
members representing HNN in the board. The country has one of the fastest growing HIV concentrated
epidemics (affecting primarily injecting drug users) in the world and HNN felt that setting-up a
subsidiary, in the absence of a qualified local organization, is the best way to respond to the problem.
HNN was able to get two big grants from two sophisticated donors and implemented these in the
country through its subsidiary, EAF. HNN, the grants holder, maintained a project management team
and a pool of technical experts at its head office that supported the in-country team of EAF. The chief
executive officer of EAF, a local citizen, functioned as the chief-of-party of these grant projects. The
31
head office-based project management team and technical advisers visit EAF on a regular basis.
Additionally, trainings were also given to key personnel of EEF for them to enhance their competencies.
The joint management arrangement effectively and successfully managed the two multi-million-dollar
grants to the satisfaction of the donors. The impact of these projects to HNN is tremendous. EEFs staff
complement grew from two persons to about a hundred. Internal administrative, financial and
procurement system were also set in place. The successful project implementation enhanced the
reputation of EAF as a strong local organization attracting new grants from funders. Because of this
demonstrated capacity, EAF was spun-off recently as one of the newest nationally-based, locallymanaged and independent members of HNN. EAF rapid growth in a span of just five years clearly shows
that it benefited from the reputation and expertise of HNN that paved the way for the awarding and
successful implementation of the grants.
4.5.3.2 Sub-contracting Modality: The Case of East Asia Foundation (EAF)
EAF started as a project of HNN and later incorporated as an independent organization in the late 1990s.
After more than a decade the countrys epidemic is now declining though it is becoming more
generalized (i.e., affecting the general population). This situation has attracted a number of bilateral
donors such as the USAID to pour in funds directly into the country. This funding opportunity requires
greater absorptive and implementation capacity from local organizations, which are already having
substantial amount of funding. For instance, EAF has an annual budget of about USD 4 million a year a
huge amount for a single NGO in a small developing country context.
To take advantage of such opportunity and to address organizational capacity gaps, EAF has sought the
services of HNN from project proposal development to implementation. Unlike EEF, EAF in this case is
the direct recipient of grants. HNN responded by entering into sub-contracting arrangements with EAF
and deployed its personnel full-time to assist EAF under clearly defined terms of reference (TOR).
Recently, HNN helped EAF develop and package a 5-year project proposal that successfully got another
USD 13 million funding from a key bilateral donor. Key to this success is a shared set of purpose and
values that enable HNN and EAF to easily come to an understanding and work together to deliver the
desired results. HNNs expertise on HIV as well as its effective advocacy work in the donors country
came in handy. By outsourcing services from HNN, EAF was able to address its own capacity gaps and
thus scale-up its operations to reach more people living with and affected by HIV.
4.5.3.3 Bridging Modality: The Case of West Pacific Foundation (WPF)
WPF is one of the pioneer members of the HNN family that has been in operation for more than a
decade. WPF operates in a low-middle income country with a very low HIV prevalence. This socioeconomic situation has made donors to prioritize other developing countries in greater need. With
dwindling donor funds, competition for funding among the countries numerous NGOs has increased.
The organization has enjoyed a substantial stream of funding until one of its funders phased-out its
operations in the country and concentrated its funding in South Asia. Another bilateral funder also
decided to channel more of its funding to the government rather than to NGOs. Local funders, who are
very few, are keen only in providing micro grants with no provision for overhead costs.
Faced with a funding crisis, WPF lobbied for support from HNN to stay afloat. HNN responded by
providing small strategic grants to support fund raising initiatives including project proposal
32
development and the launching of a development consultancy outfit. It also provided technical advice
in resource mobilization and networking while allowing some of WPFs key staff to join its training and
competency development programs together with other HNN members. The assistance package has
enabled WPF to bridge its financial and operational gaps for more than two years already. This
arrangement materialized through a shared understanding and optimism that the operating context
offers some opportunities.
a) There are basically three community development theories that can be used to anchor any
capacity building effort. These are i) need- or deficit-based theory; ii) strength- or asset-based
theory; and iii) relationships-based or complex adaptive systems theory. These theories do not
actually contradict each other since they differ only in terms of emphasis. Such emphasis rests
on the perspective of the one managing the change process, which in turn is most likely shaped
by the dynamic development context where he or she operates.
b) Organizational change theories (i.e., Lewins three-step; Lippitt et al seven-step; and third
generation organization development model) that are essentially based on the development
theories described above are useful guides in the design of a CSO capacity building program. It
makes the change manager aware of all the elements that should be taken into consideration.
The design of the capacity building program itself must however be given flexibility since
organizations are indeed living organisms that are dynamic and complex. Note that theorydriven does not mean theory-dictated.
c) Capacity building is essentially about change. And managing change has conundrums that the
change or capacity building manager has to contend with. Shall we use the deficit theory or the
relationship theory? Is it reformation or transformation? Shall we start at the individual or at
the structural or system level? Shall we impose what we want or allow people to decide for
themselves? Shall we stick to a rigid plan or shall we operate on the fly? Shall we adopt
business approaches or stick to social development approaches? Of course, there are no fixed
answers to these. The answer depends on a lot of things: the values, mandate and purpose of
the one implementing the capacity building program; the aspirations of the end-clients and
other stakeholders; and the overall context of the capacity building effort. One thing that is
non- negotiable in CSO capacity building is getting the consent of those who will be affected by
the change process. Consent may range from passive acceptance to active engagement.
Hence, the capacity builder has to work with the object of change (in this case the organization
and the individuals in it) and strive for balance (i.e., the yin and yang) in his/her approach
without being necessarily stuck in a state of equilibrium where things stagnate and eventually
cease to exist.
d) How will development theories work for capacity building of CSOs? It will depend on six
factors: the capacity builder, the CSO to be capacitated, the desired results or outcomes, the
context, the resources available, and the tools and processes to be used. These factors are
interrelated and mutually reinforcing. The role of the capacity builder, as the development
facilitator, is crucial to the success of the entire capacity building effort. Tinkering with
individuals and organizations is indeed a serious business.
33
e) CSO capacity building issues at the supply and demand sides highlight the disjointed approaches
in providing technical support and the apparent weaknesses of capacity builders.
Commercialization, poor methodologies and lack of accountability are key complaints from
clients. This points to the need to also capacitate the capacity builders, which can be done
through collaborative learning activities, among others.
f)
There are three key modalities of capacity building for CSOs in the HIV&AIDS sector: i) joint
project implementation; ii) sub-contracting; and iii) bridging modalities. These modalities may
actually be employed alone or in combination depending on the situation. At the heart of these
different modalities is a set of shared values, development principles, and organizational
purpose that tie things up even in varied situations in terms of HIV epidemiology, geographic
setting, and scale of engagement. Other unique features of the modalities presented in the mini
cases are the long-term relationship of the provider and its clients, as well as the preeminence
of a global perspective rooted in local communities that allows the capacity builder and its
clients to jointly see emergent issues and opportunities relevant to both their collective (as a
network of organizations) and individual organizational causes. This implies that successful
capacity building efforts are not one-shot-deal, short-term engagements, but a mutually
beneficial journey nurtured by symbiotic yet purpose- driven and value-based relationships.
PART 5 - MANAGING CAPACITY BUILDING: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND RESULTS

5.1 The CSO Capacity Building Journey
DESIRED
RESULTS
SHARED VALUES/PRINCIPLES
DEVELOPMENT THEORIES
NEED-BASED?
RELATIONSHIPBASED?
ASSET-BASED?
CONUNDRUMS & CONSIDERATIONS
JOINT IMPLE
SUB-CON
BRIDGING
CAPACITY
BUILDER
(supply side)
TOOLS & PROCESSES
RESOURCES
CONTEXT
CSO
CLIENT
(demand side)
ENGAGEMENT MODALITIES
Building the capacity of CSOs covers the entire process of developing or enhancing the internal elements
of organizations, strengthening the competencies of people who work in them, and improving the larger
system that influence their existence. The capacity building journey is depicted below.
THE CAPACITY BUILDING JOURNEY
34
The overall context is that of an evolving, dynamic and complex epidemic in an ever-changing global
environment at the macro level. At the meso level is the national or regional health sector in which the
CSO capacity building effort hopes to contribute to. The immediate locale of the CSO (e.g., a village or a
cluster of villages or towns or cities and provinces) constitutes the micro context. This is the community
health systems arena where the CSO plays a significant role. Of course, these hierarchical contextual
levels may change depending on the scale or magnitude of operations of the CSO to be capacitated.
Capacity building responses require adherence to a common or shared set of values or principles,
referred to here as the 3E principles: engagement (not just involvement), equity (not entitlement) and
empowerment (neither discrimination nor special treatment).
The success indicator of a well-managed capacity building program is fully functional and sustainable
CSOs run by a cadre of community workers rooted in community development, gender equity,
human rights, and public health. Functionality and sustainability happen in three interdependent
domains: organizational (i.e., administrative and financial systems), programmatic (i.e., service delivery
systems), and institutional (i.e., environmental and resource support systems). These CSOs share a
common cause to pursue value-based, creative and collective action to address the challenge of
HIV&AIDS. These CSOs may take the role of a service provider, an advocate, or both.
The ultimate outcome of the work of fully functional, effective and sustainable CSOs is a peoplecentered development characterized by: an expanding, diverse and inclusive citizen participation; an
expanding leadership base; strengthened individual skills; a widely shared understanding and vision; a
strategic community agenda; a consistent, tangible progress towards goals; more effective community
organizations and institutions; and better resource utilization by the community.
These desired results at the CSO and community levels are the object of the capacity building process.
As illustrated above, the results must be consistent with the shared values and principles; and, in turn,
will serve as the impetus for the community to progress to the next level thereby influencing and
eventually altering the overall context, which will then trigger another journey. This makes the journey
and the destination one and the same -- and rolls like a snowball. Indeed, capacity building is both a
means and an end a long, continuous journey that will transform both the object of the effort (e.g.,
CSOs), the capacity builder and the context in which they both operate.
The capacity building journey requires the careful choice of a development theory or approach that suits
the context and flexible enough to adjust to changing situations, an understanding of the various
conundrums and considerations inherent in change management, and adoption of an appropriate
modality of engagement between the CSO client and the capacity builder. The journey is fueled by
resources of both sides (i.e., people, funds and technology) and facilitated by appropriate change
management tools and processes.
5.2 Managing the Journey
Capacity building is a long-term process that requires a long-term relationship as shown in the mini
cases presented. This must not be mistaken as some sort of dependency since the relationship is
mutually reinforcing and beneficial. Managing the entire process is thus necessary for this kind of
relationship to flourish.
35
From the illustration of the journey above, there are six essential factors to consider in managing CSO
capacity building: 1) shared values and principles; 2) CSO context and development imperatives; 3)
desired results; 4) approach, process and tools; 5) modalities of engagement; and 6) resources required.
These six factors constitute what is referred to in this paper as the star CSO capacity building
management framework.
Shared values and principles serve as the underlying factor of the management framework. This is the
circle in the 5-point star. This is the base or the foundation of the capacity building process. It is also
the glue that holds everything together. The capacity builder and the CSO client must share the same
values and principles for them to successfully navigate the journey together.
The CSO context and development imperatives may best be understood by using the analytical matrix
that covers both the external and internal dimensions of the organization. On one hand, the external
dimension has two levels: macro and meso environments. The macro environment refers to the
political, economic, social, technological, legal and ecological elements. The meso environment refers to
epidemiology, donors, PLHIV community, civil society, government, and support systems. On the other
hand, the internal dimension has organizational and thematic aspects. The organizational aspects
include the elements of governance and strategy, management and structure, policies and procedures,
resource mobilization, and information and knowledge management. The thematic aspects include the
elements of prevention, treatment and care, impact alleviation, vulnerable groups, and intervention
methodologies. The parameters under each element mentioned must be analyzed in terms of
relevance, importance and magnitude.
The desired results should capture the output, outcome and impact of interventions at the individual,
organizational and community levels. Result indicators may either be qualitative or quantitative.
Approach, processes and tools refer to the array of techniques to pursue a strategy, undertake activities,
perform tasks, monitor and evaluate results, etc.
The modalities of engagement are joint implementation, contracting or bridging. A single or a
combination of modalities may be used based on the clients context, capacity and needs. The nature of
the epidemic strongly influences the type of modality. For instance, in high prevalence countries the
need for immediate relief plus the availability of abundant resources may call for a more direct type of
engagement in the form of joint implementation or sub-contracting.
Resources are in the form of funds, people or technology. These may be under the control of the client,
the capacity builder or an external agency. The availability of resources is necessary to carry out
capacity building.
5.3 Concluding Remarks
Capacity building is a life-long journey for organizations. It is not a one-shot-deal, mercenary type of
work. As such, it requires a long-term commitment from those who attempt to influence, engage and
nurture organizations to become fully functional, more effective, and sustainable in their chosen causes
and missions. It also requires the capacity builder to realize that by attempting to change the other
party it will, in turn, necessitate change on itself. That is why it is important that they both share and
embrace the same values or principles.
36
The journey is for both parties the one being capacitated and the one providing the capacity building
services. Change will happen in many areas within and outside the organizations (and their
stakeholders) involved though not simultaneously or sequentially but in an iterative process following
a grand flow that may not be discernible at close range and short time intervals. The individuals leading
the journey both take the three-pronged roles of change champions, change agents and change
recipients.
Indeed, like everything in this life, there is no magic, one-size-fits-all formula in capacity building. Rigid
or structured approaches may work at one moment then a no-action or status quo approach may work
in another moment. It all depends on a lot of things. To navigate the journey three key things must be
kept in mind: choose a set of values or principles to live by, act strategically, and be ready to adapt to
the changing context. As Henry Mintzberg, the world-renowned management guru, says:
management (yes, especially in CSO capacity building) is a combination of art, craft and science.
REFERENCES
Attawell, K., et al (2007). An independent assessment of progress on the implementation of the Global
Task Team recommendations in support of national AIDS responses. HLSP and UNAIDS, May 2007.
Abadesco, E. (2009). Third generation OD tools. AIM Alumni Leadership Magazine, Volume 4 Issue 1.
Asian Institute of Management, First Quarter 2009.
Backer, T. (2001). Strengthening nonprofits: foundation initiatives for nonprofit organizations. In:
Building capacity in nonprofit organizations, edited by De Vita C. and Fleming C. The Urban Institute,
April 2001.
Berkman, A., Garcia, J., Munoz-Laboy, M., Paiva, V., and Parker, R. (2005). A critical analysis of the
Brazilian response to HIV/AIDS: lessons learned for controlling and mitigating the epidemic in developing
countries. Public Health Matters, American Journal of Public Health, 95 (7), pp. 1162-72.
Calderon, R., et al (1997). Capacity building. The HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Synopsis Series.
AIDSCAP Project, FHI-USAID, December 1997.
Clarke, G. (1998). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and politics in the developing world.
Political Studies, XLVI, pp. 36-52.
Constellation for AIDS Competence, 2004. The organizaiton charter.
http://www.aidscompetence.org/content/documents/Constellation%20Charter.pdf . (Accessed 18
August 2009).
Commission on AIDS in Asia, 2008. Redefining AIDS in Asia.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2008/20080326_report_commission_aids_en.pdf . (Accessed 18
August 2009).
Cooperrider, D. and Whitney, D. (2009). What is appreciative inquiry? Appreciative Inquiry Commons
website (www.appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm). Accessed 18 August 2009.
37
Cornman, H., Grimm, C., and Rana, S., 2005. Engaging local Non-govenmental Organizations in the
response to HIV/AIDS. (internet) Washington DC: Pact, Inc. (Published July 2005). Available at
www.pactworld.org/galleries/resource-center/engaging_web.pdf (Accessed 25 September 2009).
Edwards, M. (2005) 'Civil society', the encyclopedia of informal education,
www.infed.org/association/civil_society.htm. (Accessed 27 September 2009).
Edwards, M., Hulme, D. and Wallace, T. (1999). NGOs in a global future: marrying local delivery to
worldwide leverage. Public Administration and Development, 19, pp. 117-136.
Ekoko, F. and Benn, D. (2002). South-south cooperation and capacity development. Development
Policy Journal, Volume 2, December 2002. United Nations Development Programme.
Fox, M./ Yahoo News, 2009. AIDS vaccine protects people, shocks researchers. (Online) (24 September
2009) Available at www.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090924/hl_nm/us_aids_vaccine_9 (Accessed 24
September 2009).
Fryer, P. (2009). What are complex adaptive systems.
www.trojanmice.com/articles/complexadaptivesystems.htm Accessed 18 August 2009.
Ghosh, S. (2008). Generating knowledge collaboratively: conceptual issues for Pepal. An IMPM
reflection paper No. 4.
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, 2009. Global Fund suspends grants to Philippines foundation.
Available at: www.theglobalfund.org/en/pressreleases/?pr=pr_090924 (Accessed 27 September 2009).
Global HIV Prevention Working Group (2008). Behavior change and HIV prevention: (re)considerations
for the 21st century. www.globalprevention.org
Global HIV Prevention Working Group (2008). Behavior change and HIV prevention: (re)considerations
for the 21st century. www.globalprevention.org
Global Implementation Support Team (2008). Review of ongoing and recently completed evaluations
and studies of technical support to AIDS programme implementation. UNAIDS, November 2008.
Global Implementation Support Team (2008). Review of ongoing and recently completed evaluations
and studies of technical support to AIDS programme implementation. UNAIDS, November 2008.
Haines, A (2009). Asset-based community development In: An introduction to community development.
Edited by Rhonda Philipps and Robert H. Pittman. Routledge New York USA. pp 38-50
Horton, R. and Das, P. (2008). Putting prevention at the forefront of HIV/AIDS. The Lancet, (Online) vol.
372, pp. 421-22. Available at: www.thelancet.com. (Accessed: 8 September 2009).
Hurley, T. and Green, C. (2005). Knowledge management and the non-profit industry: a within and
between approach. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, January 2005.
38
IHAA (International HIV/AIDS Alliance) webpages on technical support. www.ngosupport.net (Accessed

23 August 2009).
IHAA (International HIV/AIDS Alliance), 2008. Meeting on civil society, HIV/AIDS and Africa: capacity,
sustainability, partnerships building African NGO Capacity for large scale HIV/AIDS programmes.
Johannesburg, South Africa 5-7 December 2007. IHAA: Brighton UK.
IHAA (International HIV/AIDS Alliance), 2007. Supporting civil society organizations to reach key
populations in the Latin American and Caribbean regions. IHAA: Brighton UK.
IHAA (International HIV/AIDS Alliance), 2009. NGO support toolkit. Available at:
www.ngosupport.net/sw16302.asp and www.ngosupport.net/sw16446.asp (Accessed 22 August 2009).
IHAA (International HIV/AIDS Alliance) webpages on technical support. www.ngosupport.net (Accessed
23 August 2009).
Kim, W. and Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA,
USA.
Kinney, T. (1998). Knowledge management, intellectual capital and adult learning Adult Learning, 10 (2),
pp. 2-5.
Kotter, J., and Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA, USA.
Kritzonis, A. (2005). Comparison of change theories. International Journal of Scholarly Academic
Intellectual Diversity, 8(1), pp. 1-7.
Lee, G. and Cole, R. (2003). From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: the
case of the Linux kernel development.
Lewis, D. (2003). Theorizing the organization and management of Non-governmental Organizations.
Public Management Review, 5 (3), pp. 326-44.
Light, P. and Hubbard, E. (2002). The capacity building challenge.
www.brookings.edu/gs/cps/capacitybuildingchalenge.pdf (Accessed 22 August 2009)
LSE/London School of Economics, 2009. What is civil society. Available at
www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm (Accessed 5 September 2009).
Merson, H., OMalley , J., Serwadda, D., and Apisuk, C. (2007). The history and challenge of HIV
prevention. The Lancet, (Online). Available at: www.thelancet.com. (Accessed: 8 September 2009).
Milen, Anneli (2001). What do we know about capacity building? An overview of existing knowledge
and good practice. Department of Health Service Provision, WHO, June 2001.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review, No. 87407, pp 66-75. President and
Fellows of Harvard College.
39
Montilla, J. (2009). Email post in list-serve Pinoy-UNGASS@dgroups.org. (Accessed and used with
permission, 12 October 2009).
Morgan, P. (2002). Technical assistance: correcting the precedents. In: Development Policy Journal,
volume 2, December 2002, edited by Browne, S. United Nations Development Program.
Morisky, D., et al. (2004). A model HIV?AIDS risk reduction program in the Philippines: a comprehensive
community-based approach through participatory action research. Health Promotion International, 19
(1), pp. 69-76.
Nebrida, R. (2006). The untold story of reproductive health management. RHealth, volume 1 number 2.
Philippine NGO Support Program, Inc. Manila, Philippines.
Pascale, R., Millemann, M., and Gioja, L. (2000). Surfing the edge of chaos: the laws of nature and the
new laws of business. Crown Business, New York, NY, USA.
Pfeiffer, J. (2002). International NGOs and primary health care in Mozambique: the need for a new
model of collaboration. Social Science and Medicine, 56 (2003), pp. 725-38.
Pisani, E. (2008). The wisdom of whores. Granta Publications. London.
Poate, D., Balogun, P., and Attawell, K. (2009). UNAIDS second independent evaluation 2002-2008.
ITAD and HLSP. September 2009.
Schacter, M. (2000). Capacity building: a new way of doing business for development organizations.
Institute of Governance Policy Brief No. 6, January 2000.
Seckinelgin, H. (2004). Who can help prople with HIV/AIDS in Africa? Governance of HIV/AIDS and civil
society. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15 (3), pp. 287-304.
Shapiro, I. (2005). Theories of Change. www.beyondintractability.org/essay/theories_of_change/
(Accessed 23 August 2009).
The Aspen Institute (1996). Measuring community capacity building: a workbook in-progress for rural
communities, version 3/96. The Aspen Institute/Rural Economic Policy Program.
The Commission on AIDS in Asia (2008). Redefining AIDS in Asia. UNAIDS.
The Constellation for AIDS Competence (2004). Connecting local responses around the world (an
organizational charter). www.aidscompetence.org. (Accessed 23 August 2009).
United Nations/UN, (2009). The Millennium Development Goals report 2009. (Online) United Nations,
New York. Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_Report_2009_ENG.pdf
(Accessed 22 September 2009).
UNAIDS (1999). From principle to practice: greater involvement of people living with or affected by
HIV/AIDS (GIPA). UNAIDS Best Practice Collection. Geneva: UNAIDS.
40
UNAIDS (2008). Report on the global AIDS epidemic. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV&AIDS.
UNAIDS (undated). Making the money work: UNAIDS technical support to countries. www.unaids.org.
(Accessed 23 August 2009).
UNAIDS and UNITAR (2005). Evaluation of the UNAIDS/UNITAR AIDS Competence Programme. June
2005.
UNDP (1997). Capacity development. Management Development and Governance Division Technical
Advisory Paper 2, July 1997.
UNDP (1998). Capacity assessment and development. Technical Advisory Paper No. 3. Management
Development and Governance Division, Bureau of Development Policy. UNDP, January 1998.
Voyle, R. (2009). The appreciative inquiry 5D spiral development. www.clergyleadership.com.
Accessed 23 August 2009.
Wilson, D. and Halperin, D. (2008). Know your epidemic, know your response: a useful approach, if
we get it right. The Lancet, (Online), vol. 372, pp 423-26. Available at: www.thelancet.com. (Accessed:
8 September 2009).
Wilson, G. (2007). Knowledge, innovation and fe-inventing technical assistance for development.
Progress in Development Studies 7, 3 (2007) pp. 183-99. SAGE Publications.
41

Building The Capacities of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Towards A Value-Based, Strategic and Adaptive Management Approach by Roberto A.O. Nebrida

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Building The Capacities of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Towards A Value-Based, Strategic and Adaptive Management Approach by Roberto A.O. Nebrida

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS (CSOs) TO

RESPOND TO HIV&AIDS: TOWARDS A VALUE-BASED, STRATEGIC

THE HIV&AIDS CHALLENGE: A RAPIDLY EVOLVING, COMPLEX EPIDEMIC

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

1.2 Making the Money Work

PART 2 - CAPACITY BUILDING: WHAT, WHY AND FOR WHAT ENDS?

PART 3 - CSOs: THE COG OF THE HIV RESPONSE?

focus on narrow management issues (borrowed

tradition of hiding controversial issues behind closed

relate to each other in different and healthier ways

PART 4 - CSO CAPACITY BUILDING: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

COMPLEXITY (LIVING ORGANISM) MODEL

Truth is discoverable through analysis

THIRD GEN OD ASSUMPTIONS

PART 5 - MANAGING CAPACITY BUILDING: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND RESULTS

CONUNDRUMS & CONSIDERATIONS

TOOLS & PROCESSES

THE CAPACITY BUILDING JOURNEY

IHAA (International HIV/AIDS Alliance) webpages on technical support. www.ngosupport.net (Accessed

Potrebbero piacerti anche