Back to Index

Lessons from Capacity Development in HIV and AIDS communication
Health Communication
April 01, 2003

http://www.healthcomms.org/comms/capacity/cy03.html

Introduction
This discussion looked at lessons from capacity development in HIV and AIDS communication. A presentation of the experience of Family Aids Caring Trust (FACT) in Zimbabwe by David Musendo was followed by discussion of a number of issues: how capacity development outcomes are conceived and measured; ownership of capacity development efforts; and how longer term processes can be supported when projects emphasise short term results.

The Key points from David Musendo's presentation and a number of questions posed by participants are summarised below.

Feedback from Discussion
Small discussion groups focused on the three issues:

1. Whose responsibility is community or organisation capacity development?
2. How are outcomes conceived and how are they measured?
3. How are longer-term processes supported if shorter-term results are wanted?

1. Whose responsibility is community or organisation capacity development?
A range of issues were raised, related to the two levels to the question – the community and organisational level:

• Responsibility and initiative work at a number of different levels in an ongoing way.
• Who defines the need, perceived need and how are they articulated? Different people define needs: donors, NGOs, community, CBOs, local orgs. One need is articulated in parliament, another in a kitchen at home.
• Capacity development aims at ‘empowerment’ and this needs ownership, responsibility and motivation.
• Importance of long-term relations and dialogue across groups to get ‘buy-in’ from all stakeholders.
• There is a tension between wanting to promote existing best practice, but also to make sure there is appropriate consultation.
• Another is around the motivation for any particular capacity development effort. When resources are ‘dangled’ in front of people, ‘needs’ can be made to fit the resources
• A ‘Community’ is not homogenous – there are power struggles and hierarchies in existing structures – even as there is a need to tap into these existing structures: they can be used to work more effectively, but they may also be biased and perpetuate negative process.

2. How are outcomes conceived and how are they measured?

• Who is the measurement for (Organisation or project?) and how is it assessed? Different levels include the: organisation, programme, project, ‘beneficiary’/ community, donor. All have own right to measure outcomes, all negotiated, all should participate.
• It is important to establish a baseline and indicators, for example; what attitudes and behaviours does it take to do a job like VCT – and how does it get better? Indicators are needed - qualitative and quantitative as both have value. Also need a balance between short and long-term.

3. How are longer-term processes supported if shorter-term results are wanted?

• The premise of this question is that short-term goals are bad, and long-term good, but this is not always the case. A long-term vision is needed to sustain any long-term process, and short-term results can be positive if they are also steps to long-term realisation of the vision. Many are familiar with the pressure for short-term results, a tension that may be externally or internally generated - the former being harder to address. NGOs need to analyse the situation in those terms.
• Responsibility and ownership are vital, and this links to Question 1. The key is with local organisations and linking capacity development to local needs, this is more likely to meet the longer term goals.

Key Points from presentation
David noted that capacity development was a preferable term to capacity buildingt, since the latter tended to give the impression that there was not much there to start with. Recognising the elastic nature of the term, David defined capacity development as:

"a process that involves value added instruction, the training of trainers, activities with multiplier effects, and networking. It involves both institutional capacity-development, as well as human capacity-development"

FACT developed from implementing HIV prevention and training programmes to a facilitation and capacity development role. Supported by PACT in an assessment of it’s organisational capacity, FACT moved to institutionalise organisational development processes, and eventually was able to facilitate such processes for other NGOs and community groups. In 2000 FACT co-hosted a conference with the International HIV/AIDS Alliance for intermediary NGOs, in order to better define indicators and capacity development processes.

Capacity development is important in order to enhance the response to HIV and AIDS, to increase strategic partnerships and to enhance the capacity of CBOs and NGOs. The effect of supporting organisations to develop themselves is highlighted in the Chinese proverb: ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime’.

FACT’s programmes aim to transfer practical skills and improve the technical and organisational capacity of CBOs and NGOs. This enhances sustainability and promotes the documentation and sharing of lessons. Training courses form one component in capacity development. Participatory methods and experiential learning are promoted - learning by seeing and doing. Support visits and mentoring with partners follow, which reinforce the training and help provide tailored support. Other elements of the approach include:

• exchange visits between NGOs, sometimes facilitated by travel grants. The visits have proved mutually beneficial
• field visits to programmes
• staff development sessions
• co-facilitation of workshops
• linking NGOs with other local, national and regional organisations
• providing materials in local languages
• participation in evaluations, reviews and strategic plans.

Challenges to FACT’s work

• There is a lack of communication infrastructure - rural areas have poor roads and don't have telephones, let alone e-mail
• Some partners don't value communication and may have expectations that FACT will provide everything, mistaking them for a donor.
• Staff experience work overload. Capacity development is not a programme on its own at FACT, so staff undertake capacity development on top of their existing responsibilities.
• NGOs have little incentive to scale up activities - support and resources from resource-sharing organisations are not guaranteed.
• There is a lack of literature on good practices in capacity development, and little access to existing literature for SNGOs.
• Capacity development is a time consuming process.
• Partners fail to recognise their own needs for capacity development.

Lessons learned

• Trust and effective inclusive communication and participation are key to bonding with partners and ‘bridging social capital’.
• Flexibility around conflict and change is needed on both sides.
• Capacity development programmes need to be tailored to organisational needs, which need to be defined jointly (even if though this is difficult).
• The relationship should not hinge on funding – a separation of technical support and funding is advisable.
• Where possible, power issues should be made explicit and managed.
• A meaningful ‘weaning’ process should be planned at the outset to avoid the creation of dependency. (It should also be clear that the programme will come to an end.)
• Strongly committed individuals or organisations play an essential role in the success of capacity development programmes.
• Links with a range of other institutions are a key source of growth and support.

Questions and answers

Can you explain the context for FACT’s work?
David - FACT work in a context of 17 Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and civil society both rural and urban, based in Mutare and Mandikaland in Zimbabwe. Some of the organisations have grown as part of FACT programmes - sites in their urban programme for example. As they grow, they link up and can become integrated. Other organisations come to them for support relating to specific areas of work, including other NGOs in Zimbabwe. They also have a big programme in Mozambique, in a context of low literacy and where many NGOs are emerging that are good on the ground but lack in the area of organisational development (OD). In South Africa FACT work with other networks and NGOs in a regional training programme.

Is your role one of technical support, since there are other methods for OD such as mainstreaming it into programme development? Funding would be one example, or working jointly on other programmes.
David - Its not just OD, for programmes we work with partners across a range of areas to do programme development support, mainly with HIV and AIDS organisations.

Given communications difficulties, how do people know you are there? Are you proactive?
David – we do have a number of networking fora in Zimbabwe – and we also make time for regular networking meetings. We also use our website and other means of communicating.

What are the constraints?
David - Loss of staff is one constraint, due to a mixture of incentives from bigger NGOs pulling people away and some deaths due to AIDS. FACT use the ‘GIPPA’ principle and try to involve people living with HIV, and they do initiate some of the activities. However, when they work as coordinators this can be quite stressful and this can have a health impact on them.

How does loss of staff impact on longer-term changes?
David – it does have an impact because it is often individuals who make things work, even when you try to be system centred. But the programme has to continue even with a flux of staff.

Do you deliberately avoid grant-making work? You could mix small grants with institutional support.
David – That’s exactly what we do, some small inputs with support and some training at the same time, perhaps some support for workshops.

Evaluation of the discussion
Participants greatly enjoyed the concise presentation: the interesting points it raised; the experience from a ‘Southern’ perspective; and the focused questions for discussion. The range of experience of participants was also appreciated. Time was short, but this meant that people could justify participating. A range of topics for future presentations were suggested.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP