Download Las Redes de ONGs como Actores Políticos en Defensa de Derechos

Key Questions in Evaluation of
Governance Issues in Advocacy
Coalitions: Insights from a Study
of NGO Advocacy Networks in
Latin America
Bonnie L. Shepard, Social Sectors
Development Strategies
American Evaluation Association
Conference
Denver , November 2008
Reflections on Network Governance



Networks entangle us, but they have opened many
doors
We don’t have a responsive system to respond to
breaking events
To what extent should we democratize, without
becoming so democratic that we cannot take action?
2
Benefits of the Networks/Coalitions




Coordinated action of a large number of NGOs
Increased visibility and legitimacy for the issue and
the members
Capacity development: Access to information,
education, training, conferences
Connections:




with international & regional movements,
among orgs. in provinces and capital
Interchange with similar organizations
Access to funds for activities, campaigns
3
Why are governance issues important in
evaluating NGO advocacy coalitions?

In coalitions, tensions are inevitable

If governance mechanisms cannot help resolve
tensions, or if they give rise to them, inaction and
dysfunction follow
4
What tensions arise in NGO
advocacy coalitions ?

Strategic tensions



Distribution of benefits, e.g. sub-grants, travel to
conferences, visibility & representation opportunities,


outsider vs. insider strategies, with political and financial risks
for outsider strategies
Extent of focus on controversial issues, which also entail
political and financial risks
Transparent mechanisms needed
Democracy issues: lack of internal democracy &
leadership rotation mechanisms
Other tensions: level of participation

Unequal levels of participation






Often related to financial stresses of members, whose staff
become overburdened
Participation varies according to how closely the coalition's
focus matches the mission of the member
Participation falls when tensions are not handled well and
meetings are conflictual
Some leaders are overly domineering, leading to passivity of
the rest
Geographical and cost barriers to participation
Whatever the reason, those left doing the bulk of the
work can become resentful, giving rise to tensions
Governance issues: Institutional
Development

Legal status
Some networks that work well have no legal status,
but have a name, recognized identity, and members
 Lack of legal status means no legal by-laws, but
could still have agreed unofficial bylaws
 Presence of external oversight besides the donor(s):
External Boards of Directors or Advisory Boards


Membership

Informal vs. formal systems, dues or other mandated
contribution, definitions of benefits or membership
Governance issues: Are there clear authority
structures with democratic mechanisms?





Who has final decision-making authority? Members’ assembly?
[expensive] Other democratic means of member input?
Do those attending meetings have decision-making power from
their organizations, or do they need to consult?
Delegation of authority to elected steering committees who are
able to communicate regularly? This arrangement essential for
large networks.
Paid coordinators: played a crucial function, delegation of
authority in many cases
Is there election of leadership, and mechanisms for
leadership/authority rotation?

Lack of such mechanisms leads to entrenched interests, lower
participation
Governance Issues: Decision-making
Rules


Move from consensus decisionmaking to
decision rules in process of institutional
development
How do decision rules facilitate or pose
barriers to decision-making?
Consensus or informal rules can work with noncontroversial issues
 Statements of principles are helpful and enable
delegation of communications


But they are not sufficient
9
Institutional Development Issues:
Financial Status


Where is network on the range from all volunteer
and self-supported to having diverse sources of
income and paid staff ?
When members struggle financially, networks suffer


All members’ first priority is their own organization.
For global South advocacy organizations, source of
support is usually foreign donors




National philanthropy supports services, not advocacy
Some govt contracts for services or consultancies
No tradition of individual dues and financial support
NGO members funded to serve grassroots; staff fail to
activate middle- and upper-class sources of support. 10
Representation Issues


Which organizations are the public face of the
network, & do they represent the network’s
composition?
Who does the network really represent?
Is there meaningful participation from marginalized
or disadvantaged groups? [Cost implications]
 Do funding levels affect representation?


When a national network loses funding, it becomes less
representative, especially where few have access to
computers or are computer literate
Symptom of Inadequate
Governance: low response capacity

Writing letters and public declarations from an
NGO Network is complicated when an issue is
controversial.


Many took public stands on violence against women, but
could not reach consensus on public statements on abortion.
When organizational members (not just the
representatives at a meeting) need to approve a
text, the result is a lack of capacity to respond to
breaking events.
12
Financial Stresses and Tensions



Financial stress can lead to conflicts between
network interests and members’ interests
Advocacy demands time, which is in short supply in
financially-struggling NGOs
Financially-struggling NGOs are less able to take
political risks. Risks include:
•
•
•
Division among network members
Division within the organization of a member
Alienation of potential allies and donors
13
Conflicts between member and
network interests
Members and network compete for the
same funders, unless NGO members
include network activities in core funding
proposals.
 Loss of visibility for members: Network
achievements cannot be attributed to any
one member, leading to members’
difficulty in showing results to donors.

14
Cohesion vs. Diversity & Expansion

Some networks working on controversial
issues limit expansion to enable unity and
rapid responses.


Incorporating grassroots organizations led to less
internal consensus on controversial issues
But coalitions need to expand and diversify
the base of support for a cause

Complementary roles of lobbying and
membership associations in advocacy
15
Possible responses to these challenges

Ad-hoc networks formed on the basis of a broad call to
action have worked better in some instances.



Ad-hoc networks have fewer decisionmaking problems than
long-established coalitions, because the organizations calling
for adherents have made the decisions on strategies and
public stance
Joining broader coalitions with related goals can reduce
political risks
Building closer connections with financial and political
elites to build a culture of support for advocacy
16