1995_1_lessons in building a national aids network

Lessons in building a National AIDS Community Action Network

Karen Anderson, Tim Frasca and Luis Gauthier

Representatives of health, religious, women, gay and human rights groups in Chile formed the AIDS Community Action Network (ACAN) in 1991. After working together for several years, ACAN analysed the tensions which underly coalition building as shown by their own experience. Their evaluation pinpoints problems which may arise in coordination efforts while the lessons they learned suggest how these may be addressed.

Background

In 1991, many groups in Chile working around AIDS began to create spaces to share information and resources. Some just beginning AIDS-related work started meeting monthly to discuss educational approaches. Others linked to the religious sector organized the First National Ecumenical Pastoral Conference on AIDS. These initiatives led to calls for some kind of coordinating body as the urgency and complexity of AIDS was more than any one organization could handle.

As a result of two seminars organized to discuss joint efforts around HIV-related prevention and care, ACAN was born. After initial difficulties - inexperience, distrust, lack of adequate skills, an overly ambitious organizational structure - the network evolved into a monthly assembly of interested groups with a three-person elected coordinating committee and ad hoc commissions for special events.

Confidence in the network was built by encouraging members to participate in each other's AIDS-related events and by developing a collective platform of guiding principles. Joint activities included World AIDS Day events, a Candlelight Memorial, and a three-day national seminar, which led to formation of the first local AIDS network with municipal funding and support (in the capital city).

Over time, some of ACAN's founding members dropped out. Currently, 24 organizations, including associations of people living with HIV/AIDS, are members. Some organizations were created specifically to respond to AIDS while the others are NGOs with extensive experience in community development. ACAN does not receive on-going funding. Day-to-day operations are financed through membership dues based on a sliding scale and major events are funded through specific project grants.

Self-interest versus altruism

The first tension confronted in sustaining a coalition around AIDS arose from acknowledging that ACAN members come together in response to different motivations. Some organizations joined as a way to further their own institutional agendas; they value collective efforts to the degree to which they respond to and advance their own goals. Other organizations invest their time, energy and skills in the network because they see it as a critical vehicle for furthering overall HIV/AIDS-related prevention and influencing governmental policies and actions.

From the perspective of long-term coalition building, these motivations can be labelled "self-interested" and "altruistic". To avoid a "free-rider situation", in which some network members always work harder than others, ACAN established a four-point contract of participation. Members oblige themselves to:

regular participation in monthly assemblies (meetings dealing with operational details, workplans, discussions on topics of interest, etc.)
payment of monthly dues
adherence to ACAN's Declaration of Principles
commitment to fulfill whatever tasks are taken on: "do what you said you'd do."

Organizational needs versus coalition building

ACAN members obviously value the possibility of increasing their impact through coordination. Nonetheless, the demands of working together can be very taxing on small organizations. For example, some ACAN leaders also head their own organizations; their network participation necessarily means abandoning some responsibilities in their own NGOs.

The anonymous nature of much ACAN work exacerbates this tension. When it comes to recognition for work done, the accolades go to the network rather than individual members. This can be a problem of survival because organizations are accountable to their funders and beneficiaries for their own workplans. A prerequisite for long-term inter-group cooperation is therefore balancing the demands and rewards of working together.

A broad social movement versus institutional effectiveness

Without full-time staff and a clear procedure for delegating responsibility for acting in the network's name, difficulties arose in providing leadership. The main ACAN activists are sometimes stretched to the limit in supporting community efforts, writing and presenting position papers which reflect collective analysis and simply maintaining network activities such as sending out minutes of meetings.

The loose ACAN structure has limits but members are also wary of the danger of institutionalizing and becoming a "super NGO" instead of an evolving social movement comprising many different groups and leaders. As a solution, ACAN institutionalized the network's administrative functions by hiring a part-time secretary and renting office space while maintaining all other aspects of its work as voluntary and coordinated.

Relationship to the gay rights movement

In Chile, homosexual behaviour is penalized and homosexuals are discriminated. Yet it was gay groups who were in the forefront of AIDS work in the country and they have increasingly become politically active. Their legitimate goal of defending gay rights through political action, sometimes in a confrontational way, has sometimes clashed with ACAN's need to wield a more "pedagogical" discourse about AIDS and homosexuality.

The relationship between ACAN and the emergent gay rights movement is part of an open-ended and on-going process. ACAN believes that the relationship must hinge on an analysis combining a human rights perspective with a broad vision of human sexuality.

Relationship to the state: dependence versus autonomy

ACAN considers itself a part of civil society and a vehicle through which the marginalized can voice their concerns and formulate their demands. Those concerns and demands must be presented to the State so that appropriate political action, resources and legislation can be implemented.

On the other hand, NGOs competing for ever-diminishing international funds must apply for State funding grants or resort to small-scale, local fundraising. Economic dependence often means sacrificing political autonomy. Critical ACAN postures may be perceived by the government as threatening or be discredited rather than welcomed as a necessary ingredient in a democracy.

Given the government's role and dominance in developing HIV/AIDS-related policies and programmes, ACAN is establishing a working relationship in which NGOs can have input and participate in the government's programme without losing autonomy or accountability to those they serve and/or represent.

Pro-network discourse versus funding practices

International donors frequently stress the importance of pooling efforts in coordinating networks to avoid duplication and turf fights and to promote a strong community role in policy formulation, defence of patients' rights and other issues. Yet they have few concrete funding policies which benefit those organizations which work together.

While funders may support collectively organized activities, they often overlook the fact that a strong network relies on strong and diverse members; this requires funding of the individual organizations making up the network. Funders need to go beyond discourse to establish concrete guidelines and policies which recognize and support networking efforts. This includes examining the overall context in which organizations work so that decisions to fund an organization evaluate whether their practices are contributing to coordinated efforts or not. Networks which represent a wide range of organizations should be considered valid sources of information regarding funding needs and should be consulted along with government regarding funding decisions.

Lessons learned

Our experience teaches us that a successful coalition needs to continually negotiate situations which arise from a series of underlying tensions. Important lessons which we have learned so far are:

Networking not only enriches the knowledge and vision of each individual organization working in varied settings and with different populations but also is a means to optimize overall resources.

Joint action and cooperation is not only an effective strategy for dealing with complex problems but also can be a rich learning experience for the different organizations involved.

Coalitions need constant maintenance as well as mutually agreed-upon operating principles. Effective coordinating efforts must be built around shared goals and expectations. Organizations must know what they can expect from others and what they are expected to contribute in the networking process.

An adequate balance between public activities and internal coalition building initiatives is crucial for strengthening coordinating efforts.

Democratic leadership and transparency in proceedings are central to building trust among network members.

Specific interest groups that arise in the context of networking need to be willing to insert themselves into a broader framework and organizational structure. It is important that the people most affected by HIV/AIDS play a leadership role.

NGO network members need to develop skills for challenging and working with govermental Ministries more effectively so that they can establish working relationships without losing their identity.

Donor agencies need to develop criteria for evaluating the networking track records of the organizations they support. They must consciously build mechanisms for supporting cooperative efforts and the actors who make those efforts possible.

Karen Anderson, Educación Popular en Salud (EPES); Tim Frasca, Corporación Chilena de Prevención del SIDA (CChPS); Luis Gauthier, Centro Lambda Chile and Centro de Estudios Sexuales; ACAN, Casilla 14.167, Correo 21, Santiago, Chile; Tel. (c/o CChPS): 56-2-222-5255; fax: 56-2-209-3816.