21257 IPS text - Center for Civil Society Studies
Transkript
21257 IPS text - Center for Civil Society Studies
Building the Organizational Infrastructure of Civil Society For additional copies of this statement, please contact: Center for Civil Society Studies Publications Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies 3400 N. Charles Street/Wyman Park Building Baltimore, MD 21218 USA Fax: 410-516-7818 Phone: 410-516-4617; e-mail: ccss@jhu.edu Web site: www.jhu.edu/~ccss Institute for Policy Studies Baltimore, Maryland USA BUILDING THE ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF CIVIL SOCIETY Statement of the Fourteenth Annual Johns Hopkins International Fellows in Philanthropy Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, July 1–3, 2002 PREAMBLE Nonprofit, or civil society, organizations play vital roles in societies throughout the world. These organizations deliver important human services, meet unmet needs, generate new approaches to solving societal problems, provide avenues of expression, offer mechanisms through which to advocate for improved policies, and foster norms of reciprocity and habits of cooperation. While these organizations can accomplish much on their own, they can often accomplish even more when they work collaboratively. Like organizations in the business and government sectors, nonprofit organizations can gain in strength and effectiveness from working with institutions that serve their common interests. Too often, however, the need to build such “infrastructure organizations”1 is not sufficiently recognized, or is put off while attention focuses on the immediate challenges facing individual organizations. When this occurs, important synergies and opportunities for long-term development can be lost. To avoid this, the participants in the Fourteenth Annual Johns Hopkins International Fellows in Philanthropy Conference made the topic of nonprofit infrastructure a special focus of their attention. The present Statement reflects the results of their deliberations. It represents the work of over 120 conference participants from Turkey and 26 _________________________ 1 The term “infrastructure organization” is used here to refer to organizations that serve the general needs of a group of organizations. Other terms that could also be used are: “support organization,” “intermediary organization,” “representative body,” “coalition,” “network,” or “forum.” The term infrastructure is generally used here because it suggests the function that such organizations perform—i.e., providing basic support to a broader set of institutions much as the infrastructure of a building supports the rest of the building’s structure. other countries throughout the world. Conference participants took part in the discussions that led to this Statement in their individual capacities, and the conclusions or opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the organizations represented, their boards or members, or those who may have supported their work. I. WHY DO WE NEED NONPROFIT INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATIONS? The need for nonprofit infrastructure organizations springs from a number of common challenges facing nonprofit organizations in a wide variety of fields. Six of these challenges seem especially significant: 1) Networking and Information Sharing Nonprofit organizations often operate in isolation from each other. Indeed, they are sometimes even in competition with each other for resources and recognition. As a consequence, opportunities for information-sharing and collaboration are often overlooked. In addition, tensions often exist between grantmakers and grantseekers because of the power imbalance and lack of opportunities for interaction that often exist between the two. Infrastructure organizations can help overcome these problems by bringing different kinds of civil society organizations together in a way that promotes mutual awareness, understanding, and opportunities for cooperation and collaboration. They can reduce the competition that might otherwise exist among these organizations. More particularly, infrastructure organizations can: • Connect organizations in different fields in order to foster a common understanding of the nonprofit sector, its values, and its needs; • Link large and small organizations for mutual learning opportunities and potential cooperation; • Foster dialogue between grantmakers and grantseekers to make the grantmaking process more transparent and less mysterious for grantseekers and to help make both grantors and grantees aware of their common purposes and interests; • Promote coordination of activities and partnerships among civil society organizations by providing an arena through which different parties can get to know each other. 2) Visibility and Information Generation The nonprofit sector has long been the hidden continent on the social landscape of modern life, largely invisible to policymakers, the press, the academic community, and the public at large. Research on this set of institutions is still in its infancy in many places, and much of the research that has been done is not easily accessible to the organizations that need it. As a consequence, the sector’s visibility is limited. This reduces its legitimacy and limits organizational learning and development. Sector support organizations can help fill these gaps by encouraging the development and effective dissemination of information on nonprofit organizations and by educating the public about the role and functions of civil society organizations. This can take many different forms: • Conducting, or encouraging the conduct of, research about the scope, size, and activities of the nonprofit and philanthropic sector, and disseminating the results; • Encouraging academic institutions to bring the study of the nonprofit sector into their curricula; • Pulling together and disseminating research on the nonprofit sector and philanthropy and creating forums and mechanisms for circulating the results of research to practitioners; • Identifying “best practices” and circulating information about them throughout the sector; • Assembling data bases on organizations and on technical assistance and training resources; • Working with responsible media to publicize the sector’s activities and values in order to increase public understanding and build public trust; • Strengthening sector solidarity by identifying more explicitly the commonalities among nonprofit institutions and promoting trust among organizations; • Performing a “radar” function by tracking important legal, social, and related developments that may affect the sector’s future development and thus enable nonprofit organizations to cope with these developments; • Mobilizing public opinion on pressing issues; • Encouraging funders to provide support for research on the civil society sector; It is increasingly clear that good intentions are not enough in nonprofit work. It is also important to demonstrate results. This requires investments in organizational capacity. Capacity-building is a continuous process. It cannot start one day and be finished the next. • Enhancing the sector’s credibility by helping to keep pressing societal concerns in the forefront of public awareness. 3) Advocacy and Representation Although they are fundamentally private in character, nonprofit organizations are heavily affected by public policies. Some policies relate to particular areas and are rightly handled by individual nonprofit organizations or infrastructure organizations in particular fields, such as health, environment, child welfare, or housing. Other policies affect the nonprofit sector as a whole. Included here are basic enabling laws defining the permissible types of civil society organizations and the conditions for establishing them; laws governing the reporting and other requirements under which these organizations must operate; laws affecting the tax treatment of the organizations and of donations to them; and laws and regulations affecting government subsidization of nonprofit organizations either generally or in particular program areas. Nonprofit infrastructure organizations can be immensely important in providing a “voice” for nonprofit organizations in the enactment and revision of such laws and regulations. They make it possible for nonprofit organizations to increase their effectiveness by dealing with government as a sector. Such “advocacy” work can take a variety of different forms: • Making civil society organizations more aware of policy issues affecting them and encouraging them to educate policymakers on key issues; • Convening the sector, or segments of it, to prepare common approaches on important policy issues facing them; • Directly informing or influencing legislative and executive leaders. 4) Training and Capacity-Building While each organization must ultimately take responsibility for its own development, infrastructure and “support organizations” can contribute importantly. In particular, they can: • Create processes through which various affected parties—e.g., nonprofit leaders, trainers, and academic institutions—can participate in defining priority training needs in a country; • Assemble and disseminate information on available training and technical assistance resources and opportunities; • Help organize training opportunities where they do not presently exist; • Facilitate the formation of information exchanges and collaborations among nonprofits working in the same field to improve management and organizational effectiveness; • Promote the spread of new technologies, such as Web-based tools, and help organizations establish communication mechanisms through which they can access information on best practices and effective management; • Promote the development and dissemination of information on “best practices” in nonprofit management and help highlight and encourage effective nonprofit management; • Encourage funders to support capacity-building and management improvement among civil society organizations. 5) Codes of Conduct Nonprofit organizations are expected to be trustworthy and transparent in their operations. To assure this, it is often useful to formulate codes of conduct to guide nonprofit behavior on such matters as disclosure, transparency, and conflict of interest. Such codes can often forestall more cumbersome legal regulations, avoid unnecessary state influence over the operations of civil society organizations, and help promote public trust in the sector’s organizations. Infrastructure organizations can often be helpful in forging such codes of conduct. They can do so: • By assembling codes developed by their member organizations or by organizations in other countries and making these available to others in the sector; • By establishing processes through which to develop their own principles of good conduct; and • By creating processes for monitoring adherence to such codes of conduct. 6) Services In addition to training and information resources, infrastructure organizations can also be helpful by organizing other types of services needed by nonprofit organizations. By doing so they can take advantage of the purchasing power that comes from pooling the resources of affiliated agencies and thereby achieve economies that would not be available to individual organizations. In addition, they can often carry out joint research on key products and services on behalf of their members and thus save individual agencies from the search costs often involved in purchasing complex equipment or services. Among the items that infrastructure organizations can offer in this way are the following: • Insurance coverage, including directors’ insurance, unemployment insurance, and health insurance; • Office technology; • Computer software and desktop publishing capabilities; • Office supplies. II. OBSTACLES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE INSTITUTIONS Despite the important role they can play and the contributions they can make to strengthening the nonprofit sector, infrastructure organizations, for a variety of reasons, are often difficult to form and to support. 1) Tunnel Vision Individual organizations often lack a general overview of the sector, its diversity, and needs and have too little time to stand back and think about the larger context of the civil society sector as a whole. In addition, there is often a lack of common terminology to explain the commonalities among the organizations of the sector. Some organizations remain unconvinced there is value added in committing time, money, and other resources to an infrastructure organization, and others are resistant to change or to working in a new or different way. 2) Divergent Agendas and Perspectives Civil society organizations often lack consensus on priorities and direction for infrastructure organizations and have different agendas and perspectives. Therefore, it is often difficult for infrastructure organizations to harmonize. Individual organizations may fear that their association with an infrastructure organization will require them to be associated with actions or positions with which they disagree, or with organizations on the other side of a political or cultural divide. Beyond this, grant-making foundations sometimes find it uncomfortable to associate with grant seekers in common organizations for fear that the organizational sessions will become venues for grant-seeking pressures. 3) Potential Loss of Diversity or Isolation from the Grassroots Some people fear that the creation of infrastructure organizations will cause the civil society field to become too homogenized and conformist, that these organizations might impose an agenda on their members or serve as a vehicle for state or business control, thereby stifling innovation and responsiveness. There are also fears that infrastructure organizations may lose touch with their members and take on a life of their own, serving their own needs rather than those of their constituent organizations. 4) Costs and Free Rider Problems Infrastructure organizations entail real costs to individual civil society organizations both financially and in terms of staff time. These costs must be weighed against the benefits they offer. Some organizations simply lack the resources to participate. Others realize that they can reap many of the rewards that infrastructure organizations produce without paying any of the costs. Such “free rider” behavior can severely weaken efforts to sustain such organizations. 5) Start-Up Challenges Infrastructure organizations sometimes lack the staff or capabilities during their start-up periods to rally the needed support among potential member organizations. Lack of information can often exacerbate this, making it difficult to create the critical mass necessary to launch and support such organizations. The creation and staffing of infrastructure organizations often involves vision and a “leap of faith” on the part of member organizations, and it is often difficult to find enough organizations at the outset to make such a leap. III. RECOMMENDATIONS 1) A Fundamental Need Despite their drawbacks, infrastructure organizations can play an important role in the development of a strong and effective civil society sector. Such organizations are critically needed to: • Encourage networking that helps create and build upon the common values, common ground, and common interests of different components of the civil society sector; • Promote the public image and public recognition of the sector; • Create or improve the enabling environment for nonprofit organizations, including the legal environment and the broader relationships between the sector and both the government and business sectors; • Stimulate partnerships both within the sector and across sectors; • Increase the operational capacity of the sector, both professionally and in terms of the development of codes of good conduct; • Help foster a broader culture of participatory citizenship, tolerance, and understanding. 2) One Organization or Many? Although there is a critical need for infrastructure organizations in the nonprofit field, this does not necessarily mean that this need must be met by a single organization. Rather, different types of organizations can be formed for different functions—e.g., capacity-building, promotion of research, advocacy, and public representation. In addition, general sector-wide organizations can be supplemented by organizations serving particular sub-fields such as health, child welfare, and the environment; particular types of organizations such as foundations and associations;2 or particular geographic regions. Such pluralism can reduce fears that one super organization will impose its will on the sector as a whole or provide an avenue for outside government or business control. 3) Getting from Here to There Given the sensitivities that infrastructure organizations frequently encounter, it may be wise to proceed in a gradual manner in creating them. This can be done by starting with informal arrangements among participating organizations and only formalizing the arrangements over time, as experience with cooperative action develops and organizations become accustomed to cooperating with each other. _________________________ 2 The term “foundation” has widely different meanings in different countries. In some places, the differences between foundations and associations are limited and in others they are fundamental. In addition, efforts should be made to ground infrastructure organizations in the realities of local civil society sectors so that they grow organically out of these realities rather than being imposed from the outside. At the same time, external catalysts and external encouragement are sometimes necessary in the early days of such organizations to overcome the tensions and anxieties that often exist on the local scene. Even in these circumstances, however, infrastructure organizations should not be imposed from outside but encouraged to build local roots and connect to the local civil society scene. 4) Representativeness and Responsiveness To be effective, infrastructure organizations need to take special care to define their roles clearly; to operate in a transparent, accountable, and equitable manner; to make clear whom they represent; to function democratically; to be inclusive in their membership policies; to avoid domination by the largest organizations; and to conduct regular “legitimacy checks” to ensure that they are serving as the authentic voice of the entities they are seeking to represent. IV. CONCLUSION Forging and operating effective “infrastructure organizations” is one of the most delicate tasks civil society organizations can confront, but also one of the most important. Despite the obstacles and dangers that such infrastructure organizations often confront, they can play a critically important role in fostering a coherent image for the sector and overcoming widespread popular misperceptions or ignorance. They can also contribute to the sector’s development more directly—by promoting a favorable legal and tax climate; by fostering training, capacity-building, and basic research; and by strengthening the sector’s organizations and voice. Building civil society’s organizational infrastructure has thus become as critical a priority as building its constituent organizations. Indeed, the two are mutually reinforcing. Adopted on July 4, 2002, in Istanbul, Turkey SIGNATORIES The following individuals took part in the deliberations that led to the development of this Statement and generally concur with its observations and conclusions. They do so, however, in their individual capacities and not as the representatives of any organizations with which they may be associated or that may have supported their work: Argentina Candelaria Garay, CEDES Australia Neilma Gantner, Myer Family Philanthropy Genevieve Timmons, Genevieve Timmons & Associates Helen Morris, The Sidney Myer Fund Canada Blake Bromley, Blake Bromley Consulting Inc. Brad Henderson, Habitat for Humanity International-Chile Egypt Nabil Morcos, CARE-Egypt France Frits Hondius, The Europhil Trust Georgia Nikolos Oakley, The Horizonti Foundation Nino Saakashvili, The Horizonti Foundation India Alay Barah, Rashtriya Gramin Vikas Nidhi Swapan Garain, SP Jain Institute of Management and Research Pankaja Kulabkar, Researcher Gopa Kumar, Charities Aid Foundation India Bhargavi Nagaraja, India Civil Society Collective Israel Paula Kabalo, Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute and Research Center Italy Elena De Palma, ISTAT: National Institute of Statistics Japan Hiroko Shimizu-Desrochers, Osaka School of International Public Policy Takafumi Tanaka, Tokyo Gakugei University Kenya Faith Kisinga, UFADHILI-Centre for Philanthropy and Social Responsibility Richard Wamai, University of Helsinki Kazakhstan Maiya Tsyganenko, Consultant Mexico Luz Paula Parra-Rosales, Fundacion Ford – Mexico Rosa Maria Fernandez Rodriguez, Walmart Foundation Moldova Igor Nedera, Soros Foundation Moldova Netherlands Wino J.M. van Veen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Theo Zeldenrust, Juliana Fund for Social Welfare Tymen van der Ploeg, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Nigeria Ada Okoye, The Nigerian Law School, Enugu Campus Norway Maria Dahle, Human Rights House Foundation Philippines Oliva Domingo, University of the Philippines Poland Leslaw Werpachowski, Marshal Office of the Province of Silesia Romania Mihai Lisetchi, The Agency for Information and Development of Non-governmental Organizations (AID-ONG) Russia Nina Belyeava, International Public Foundation “Interlegal” Oleg Kazakov, Nonprofit Sector Research Laboratory (LINKS) Marina Nikitina, International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX) Maria Tysiachniouk, Center for Independent Social Research Tanzania Olive Luena, Tanzania Gatsby Trust Turkey Derya Akalin, ACEV Sengul Akcar, Kadin Emegini Degerlendirme Vakfi Cetin Akdag, Konrad Adenauer Alev Alemdar, ABD Konsoloslugu Ibrahim Altan, Deniz Feneri Yardim Dernegi Hakan Altinay, Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation Cumhur Amasyali, TEGV Ebru Anse, CYDD Necla Arat, IU Kadin Arastirmalari Merkezi Yilmaz Arguden, KALDER Ayse Arkis, International Republic Institute Inal Avci, Turk Lions Vakfi Davut Aydin, Anadolu Univ. Oguz Baburoglu, Arama Danismanlik Suat Ballar, Bogazici Univ. Deniz Banoglu, CYDD Gun Han Basik, Fevziye Mektepleri Vakfi Ahmet Baysal, Izzet Baysal Vakfi Fusun Baysan, TEGV Bulent Berkarda, ABD I.U Platformu Filiz Bikmen, TUSEV Mehves Bingollu, Kadinin Insan Haklan Projesi Yeni Cozumler Vakfi Nese Can Hurturk, Sokak Cocuklari Dernegi (IZMIR) Zeynep Can Hurturk, Sokak Cocuklari Dernegi (IZMIR) Namik Ceylanoglu, TUSEV Murat Cizakca, Fatih Universitesi Rose Cohen, International Democratic Institute Muge Demirkesen, Ari Hareketi Hasan Deniz, TEGV Akil Dizdaroglu, Turkiye Spastik Cocuklar Vakfi Beste Dolunay, Ozel Sektor Gonulluleri Dernegi Faruk Eczacibasi, Dr. Nejat Eczacibasi Vakfi Pinar Eczacibasi, Genc Yonetici ve Isadamlari Dernegi Altan Ediz, Erol Kerim Aksoy Vakfi Basak Ekim, OSIAF Hayriye Elibol, Ankara Fen Liselileri Vakfi (AFLIVA) Cenk Emre, CITIBANK Oya Ercil, Vakiflar Genel Mudurlugu Ustun Erguder, TUSEV Timur Erk, Turk Bobrek Vakfi Yesim Erkan, TEMA Resit Mehmet Erol, Alarko Egitim ve Kultur Vakfi Coskun Ertekin, TUSIEV-TED Karadeniz Eregli Dilek Ertukel, ECOM Danismanlik Ali Riza Eskazan, DOSA Denetim Danismanlik Ahmet Evin, Sabanci Universitesi Sulun Falay, YORET Cihan Faydali, Turkiye Kizilay Dernegi Candan Fetvaci, Bogazici Universitesi Vakfi Tanzar Gezer, Umut Onurlu Onderler Yetistirme Vakfi Ayla Goksel, ACEV Ertan Gonen, Turkiye Kizilay Dernegi Aysen Gucler, HASVAK Basak Guclu, Ozel Sektor Gonulluleri Dernegi Dilhan Gungor, Turkiye Spastik Cocuklar Vakfi Fethi Gungor, Turkiye Gonullu Tesekkuller Vakfi Ipek Gurkaynak, Umut Vakfi Mehmet Gurkaynak, Umut Vakfi Akile Gursoy, Celal Bayar Vakfi Oya Havsa, ACEV Nevin Ilhan, ACEV Halide Incekara, Gokkusagi Istanbul Kadin Platformu Ahmet Isfendiyar, Turk Egitim Dernegi Berna Karadag, Vakiflar Genel Mudurlugu Halil Karademir, TUSEV Filiz Katman, Insan Kaynagini Gelistirme Vakfi Recep Kocak, Deniz Feneri Yardim Dernegi Yusuf Kulca, Umut Cocuk Vakfi Yoruk Kurtaran, STK Proje Uzmani Nedret Kusculu, Felakette Acil Yardim Dernegi Etyen Mahcupyan, TESEV Nur Mardin, KA-DER Arzum Meleksoy, Alis Bagis Stephanie Morris, ECOM Pervin Olgun, CYDD Alpaslan Onay, Darusafaka Cemiyeti Ender Onoz, Yildiz Teknik Universitesi Vakfi Kamil Cetin Oraler, KASEV Pinyale Ozdogan Citil, Hanimlar Egitim ve Kultur Vakfi Meric Ozgunes, Avrupa Komisyonu Turkiye Temsilciligi Mustafa Ozkaya, Turkiye Gonullu Tesekkuller Vakfi Ibrahim Ozkus, Haydarpasa Lisesi Vakfi Ergun Ozsunay, IU Hukuk Fakultesi Murat Ozsunay, Avrupa Insan Haklari Mahkemesi Engin Ozturk, HASVAK Aysen Ozyegin, ACEV Sevket Pamuk, Bogazici Universitesi Vakfi Necmi Sadikoglu, Turkiye Gonullu Tesekkuller Vakfi Yaprak Sagdic, Turkiye Gucsuzler ve Kimsesizlere Yardim Vakfi Necdet Saglam, Anadolu Universitesi Gulsun Saglamer, ITU Vakfi Elif Saka, ECOM Birgul Sarioglu, TEGV Sibel Savaci Turkan Saylan, Cagdas Yasami Destekleme Dernegi Yuksel Selek, Kadinlarla Dayanisma Vakfi Feza Sengel, TEGV Suha Sevuk, TEGV Orhan Silier, Tarih Vakfi Unal Somuncu, Turk Egitim Vakfi Lutfu Sunar, Deniz Feneri Yardim Dernegi Zeynep Tansal, Bogazici Universitesi Gunseli Tarhan, TEGV Tinaz Titiz, Beyaz Nokta Vakfi Fikret Toksoz, Marmara Belediyeler Birl. Huseyin Topa, Anadolu Egitim ve Sosyal Yardim Vakfi Revnak Tuna, TUSEV Zeynep Uluer, Ozel Sektor Gonulluleri Dernegi Canan Unlu, Turk Kadinlar Konseyi Mustafa Unsay, Turk Egitim Dernegi Semra Yasal, Vakiflar Gen. Mud.Huku Musaviri Kamil Yazici, Anadolu Saglik Egitim Vakfi Erdal Yildirim, Vehbi Koc Vakfi Fatih Yildiz, Turkiyem Vakfi Sezen Yilmaz, KA-DER Aybike Yurtsever, TOCEV Uganda Adela Barungi, Water AID United Kingdom Anna Bowman, ABA Consultancy Norman Johnson, University of Portsmouth, School of Health and Social Care Tony and Frances Myer, The Myer Foundation United States Robert Buchanan, Council on Foundations Barbara D. Finberg, MEM Associates Peter Goldberg, Alliance for Children and Families Joyce Moody, Johns Hopkins University Lester Salamon, Johns Hopkins University Carol Wessner, Johns Hopkins University Uzbekistan Victoria Alexeevskaya, Samarkand Women’s Information and Counseling Center