Key Questions in Evaluation of Governance Issues in Advocacy Coalitions: Insights from a Study of NGO Advocacy Networks

1. 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

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. What tensions arise in NGO advocacy coalitions ? • Strategic tensions • 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 • Distribution of benefits, e.g. sub-grants, travel to conferences, visibility & representation opportunities, • Transparent mechanisms needed • Democracy issues: lack of internal democracy & leadership rotation mechanisms

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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 non- controversial issues Statements of principles are helpful and enable delegation of communications But they are not sufficient

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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