Background
In the last quarter of the year 2004, the Organization Capacity Building program of Ibis (OCB) received and accepted a proposal from the Ibis’ Public Participation in Local Governance program (PPLG) to support the PPLG program in its implementation of a Danida-funded Good Governance and Human Rights program.
The PPLG program had been contracted by DANIDA to be an implementer of the said program, which was intended to strengthen the capacity of community-based organizations (CBO’s) to carry out Good Governance and/or Human Rights program at the grass root level.
Seventy-eight CBO’s/CSO’s from 5 regions in Ghana (Upper West region, Upper East Region, Northern region, Brong Ahafo region, Central region, Volta region) were selected by the PPLG program, to be beneficiaries of the GGHR program and thus these organizations became the target group for the OCB program’s OD and capacity building support.
Scope of the OD and Capacity-building support
The OCB program designed a process for providing the said support, which involved carrying out the following activities over the period November 2004 to June 2005:
Composition of a pool of resource persons
A total of 10 facilitators were pooled together in November 2004 by the OCB program to carry out the field work that was envisaged for this program. These 8 persons comprised 4 facilitators from the PPLG program, 3 trainees from an on-going OCB training program (The Organization Development Practitioner Formation program), 1 facilitator from an Ibis partner organization in Northern Ghana, and 2 facilitators from the OCB program.
These facilitators each had proven competencies in various aspects of development work, spanning local governance, gender, human rights and training. Their level of practice in OD was less pronounced. As such the OCB program made a deliberate effort to provide them with a basic working knowledge and orientation towards the OD approach to development work and capacity-building.
This effort was carried out through:
| i. |
An initial re-orientation program for the resource pool; |
| ii. |
Involving the resource pool in the design of each of the processes that the OCB program had planned in terms of field work/implementation; |
| iii. |
Deliberately provoking discussions around past and present development paradigms in the above forums; |
| iv. |
Jointly grappling with the resource pool, with the dilemmas of the above paradigms vis-à-vis the OD approach to capacity-building. |
Orientation program for the resource pool
This was a two-day refresher program that was facilitated by 2 seasoned development practitioners based in the Northern region of Ghana. This orientation provided the pool with some orientation into the Context of CBO’s in Northern Ghana and the Content of an OD approach to capacity building. This program took place on the 9th and 10th of December 2004.
Training in Rights Based Advocacy for CBO/CSO beneficiaries & Review of Proposals
This activity took place over the period December 15 to 19, 2004, where three separate 2-day workshops were carried out in the Central Region, Volta Region and Northern Region, and then from 19th to 22nd January 2005, where a 2-day workshop was carried out in the Brong Ahafo Region.
On the first day of each workshop, an experienced trainer in the Rights Based Approach to development delivered a training program for key representatives of the beneficiary CBOs/CSO’s.
The process was designed to enable the participants unearth their questions about the rights-based approach vis-à-vis their proposed projects/activities, and to carry these questions into the second day’s session.
On the second day, the resource pool facilitated a process by which the participants reviewed their initial proposals in the light of the previous day’s training program and their insights into what constituted a rights based program. This was designed as a peer-review process, which gave opportunity for participants to critique and support the amendment of each other’s proposals. Several participants recognized that their initial project proposals were not rights-based projects. They thus re-wrote their proposals and re-sent them for final approval for funding from the GGHR program.
One-on-one visits to each beneficiary CBO/CSO
The next step in the OCB program’s planned process of capacity building was to carry out an institutional mapping process by which to build awareness and further development of regional linkages and networks among the GGHR organizations. It would also have been a needs assessment opportunity within which specific areas of organization capacity needs would be unearthed.
However, this step was re-scheduled and instead, an intervention, involving one-on-one visits to each of the 78 beneficiary CBO’s/CSO’s was planned for, designed and carried out over the period February to June 2005.
This intervention came about as follows:
The OCB program’s own understanding of the GGHR program developed with the processes it was designing and carrying out. Early in February 2005, the program gained a fuller picture of the overall GGHR program. The program came to the understanding that there was to be a selection process carried by the GGHR Management Board after the first 6 months of the GGHR program.
The fact that there was to be a selection process meant that it was conceivable that not all the 78 organizations would receive the longer term funding and capacity building support after the initial 6 month program. This fact presented the OCB program with a number of dilemmas:
| 1. |
What would be the effect of carrying out an intervention (the institutional mapping exercise) that would deliberately set in motion a networking process and raise expectations of further support across the original 78 organizations, only to drop a number of them out after the selection process? |
| 2. |
Several of the proposed activities of the beneficiary organizations were of sensitization and awareness-creation workshops. Thus the above-mentioned selection process would be based upon the organizations’ execution of these activities. |
| 3. |
It was conceivable the selection would focus on the organizations’ exhibition of effectiveness, efficiency and accountable execution of these activities. While evidence of effectiveness, efficiency and accountability in the implementation of an activity is of value those factors of themselves do not signal an organization’s ownership of, and commitment to the principles underlying GG & HR as an approach to development. |
| 4. |
Could there be a way in which the focus of the selection process could be moved beyond the organizations’ effectiveness in proposing and implementing a single project onto the organization’s potential to sustain the principles of GG&HR within its own organization culture and organizational programs? |
The program therefore discussed this issue with the Management of the GGHR program in Ibis, and received the go-ahead to carry out one-on-one visits to meet each of the 78 organizations at their various locations in the regions and hold conversations with them. The focus of these meetings would not be to gather information on the activities they had carried out with the GGHR funding, but to gather information on their existing programs, their organizational structuring and internal culture.
Aim of the Organization visits
The organization visits were therefore designed to provide information from the above perspective, which would be offered to the selection body in the forma of recommendations to support their selection processes.
The visits were thus specifically to achieve the following aims:
| 5. |
To unearth indications of the likelihood of sustainability of the GG&HR approach within the funded organizations. |
| 6. |
To achieve this by answering the question: “Does this CSO/CBO’s overall organizational programs and organizational structuring reflect (the potential for) harmony with the principles of GG & HR?” |
The resource pool were thus taken through a planning and design process which at the same time as it provided them with a methodology for carrying out the organization visits/conversations, also gave them an orientation into the assessment of organizations. They were then paired up and each pair allocated a region to visit.
Focal Areas of Organization Visits
Questions and exercises were designed to unearth information around the following 3 key areas of organizational functioning.
Focal Area One: External Adaptation and Survival of the Organization
| 1. |
To establish the level of importance that the organization leader places on the entire organization owning the core elements of the organization’s vision, mission, strategy objectives; |
| 2. |
To establish the extent to which core elements of the organization are understood and owned across the organization |
| 3. |
To establish leader’s approach to gaining consensus across the organization when faced with changes in organization’s core elements |
Focal Area Two: Internal Integration
| 1. |
To identify the values and basic assumptions at play in the organization |
| 2. |
To establish extent to which the above empower staff to influence organization programs and future/direction |
| 3. |
To distinguish organization’s espoused values from its true values |
Focal Area Three: Program Activities
| 1. |
To establish level of harmony between organization’s existing programs and the principles of the RBA to development |
| 2. |
To deduce the likelihood that the organization’s rights-based project/programs will outlive the Ibis/Danida GGHR program. |
The visits and processes were challenging and time-consuming due to the scattered locations and grass root nature of the organizations. They were however turned out to be of immense value to both the resource pool and the organizations in terms of gaining insights into their programs and internal functioning.
Report-back and Recommendation process
A total of 71 organizations were visited over the period February to mid-June 2005. Two report-back meetings were then carried out, during which the resource pool achieved the following outputs:
1. Shared information gathered from organization visits
2. Developed and agreed criteria for recommendations
3. Recommended the organizations from their regional visits for further support under the GGHR program
Their recommendations were grounded in a keen sense of awareness of the challenges of CBO’s/CSO’s in Ghana today. They were also grounded in the desire that the GGHR support should be offered to organizations that were Credible, Competent and Committed to run GG & HR programs.
Criteria for Recommendations
The following criteria were developed through the report-back process, and were applied in making the recommendations that are presented below.
CBO/CSO is Organized or structured, its size and resources notwithstanding
a. There are distinguishable roles being carried out by distinguishable persons, whether full-time or volunteers
CBO/CSO has Focus
b. It is organized around a clear issue or number of issues
c. The issue is clear to the organization members
Ownership of the organization’s program exists
d. Organization members can speak of their programs just as clearly and passionately as the leader
e. Staff are well-informed about the organization
Commitment to the organization exists
f. A strong and committed group of staff or volunteers
g. Strong internal “glue” - members committed to each other and to a common interest
Programs/activities’ have an empowering element in their approach and design
h. Community empowerment
i. Economic empowerment
j. Women’s empowerment
k. Promoting women’s participation in elections
l. Has potential to champion rights
m. Has previous experience in rights-based activities
CBO/CSO has a strong constituency/mandate/recognition of the community
Credibility of the CSO/CBO
n. Survival motives, while present, are not the driving force of the organization’s programs
o. It is not based on an individual’s self-interest
p. Not a one-man-show
q. Programs exist on the ground and not just on paper or in flyers
r. CBO/CSO can be located
There have been instances where the CBO/CSO has influenced policy of district authorities
Strong linkage with district assembly exists
s. Interacts with district assembly
t. Relationship may be of a supportive or challenging nature
u. Proactive in holding district assembly accountable
CBO/CSO shows potential for financial self-sustainability
v. Has been operating with minimum or no external funding
w. A diversified funding portfolio
x. Has attracted funding from other sources outside of the GGHR program
y. Has its own income-generating system/sources
Strong but not dominant leader
z. Growing other leaders
aa. A role model
bb. Staff members are confident and proactive
CBO/CSO walks its talk
cc. E.g. A professing women’s CBO has women at the helm of affairs and is well represented by women
dd. Lives out core values of transparency and accountability
Has networks/alliances with key groupings/organizations
Programs have an express linkage to rights, which can be developed
CBO/CSO shows willingness to learn from its experiences
For more information contact….dorcas@ibisghana.com; Dzifa@ibisghana.com
|
