ERROR MSGConnecting the Grassroots Discussion Document #1

1. Initial Findings
2. Analysis
3. Potential Mechanisms
4. Questions/Next steps

Over the last few months GAAN has spoken to many groups on how collaborations between US and Southern ASOs could be enhanced. This document presents the initial findings from these meetings and advances specific ideas on designing mechanisms to enhance collaboration.

 

1. Initial Findings

1. 1. International ASO Collaboration is Already Widespread, Very Diverse, and Expanding Rapidly

One of the major findings of this project is that international collaboration between northern and southern ASOs is more widespread than initially thought and expanding rapidly. For example:

alberghi b&b Sinaia -The Canadian government has supported the establishment of dozens of international ASO collaborations, apparently the only northern nation besides the US to do so. This was discussed in great detail at a 2-day conference in December that included many Canadian groups and some of their southern partners. Despite small amounts of funding (C$50,000) and very limited time commitments (one year) many successful collaborations were achieved. The Canadian government is currently supporting a second round of projects, which will be18 months in duration.

-A plethora of US advocacy groups have sprung up around the Global Fund, many working in informal collaboration with southern partners. These activities continue to build.

-Ongoing efforts to connect US groups to southern groups have been proposed or are underway via African Services Committee and AIDSETI among others. These groups are moving to meet perceived need, but are having difficulty in obtaining sufficient support.

-Many other groups inform us of expanding efforts to collaborate formally and informally. For example, multiple US treatment advocacy groups are working in a network with southern colleagues, identifying needs and moving to address them. This collaboration is substantial, although the process by which it is undertaken is loosely structured.

Conclusion: Mechanisms to enhance US/Southern ASO collaboration will need to take into account the rapidly expanding number of involved groups, the diversity of activities being undertaken and the involvement of the AIDS communities of other northern nations.

1.2. No Support Mechanisms Are Cited by Already Involved Groups

Our effort to ascertain how pioneering groups establish and maintain their collaborations confirmed that virtually no mechanisms exist to enhance international ASO collaboration.

When asked how southern and US groups found each other the most frequent answer was though informal contacts including friends and family. When pressed many groups mentioned that they made contact at international meetings. Most groups mentioned the International AIDS conferences themselves, but some mentioned regional conferences and issue specific meetings.

All groups used the Internet to maintain their collaborations, but none found their partners via the Internet. Further, with one notable exception, no single Internet resource was cited by multiple participants. That exception is the Break-the-Silence Listserve, which many groups found valuable, particularly those working on policy issues.

Many groups saw personal meetings as essential pieces of their international collaboration. The two most frequently cited means of personal contact was at international meetings and informal travel involving agency staff and families.

Conclusion: Mechanisms to enhance collaboration should support both Internet and face-to-face meetings. Enhancing the opportunities presented at international conferences is an obvious beginning point for both establishing and supporting collaborations.

1.3. Quite Different Approaches to Collaboration Appear to Be Successful

luxury hotels in GroningenThe CDC/USAID approach to collaboration has been to provide substantial funding (over $100,000 per year) to each US/South partnerships for a period of years. This was seen as necessary to allow groups to participate without financial burden as well as making the project sustainable. The US also sought to formally incorporate 2-way partnerships with clear benefit to the US groups.

However other models seem successful as well. For example, the Canadian groups were offered approximately 1/3 the US amount of funds for a one-year activity. Many groups agreed to these terms and carried out their projects successfully. This required substantial in-kind donation from the ASOs to make the project work, which was apparently acceptable to participants. (It appears that benefit was largely seen as flowing to the southern partner, so this may have allowed some cost savings.)

Another successful approach is demonstrated by Essential Action, which has created over 100 US/South collaborations around tobacco cessation campaigns. This was done with only $100,000 per year (total) by asking local groups around the world to volunteer for such projects. Groups that volunteer are then matched with like groups and supported via conference calls, newsletters, etc. No group is actually provided funds to support the work itself, nor are US participants expected to subsidize southern partners. These collaborations are highly directed and informal, but have clearly been successful in establishing and sustaining hundreds of groups in international collaboration.

Conclusion: The assumption that groups must receive complete (or any) funding to be able to undertake international work is clearly incorrect. Mechanisms need to allow groups that do not require additional funding to become involved. In addition, some groups may not prefer a great deal of freedom in selecting partners, etc., but rather want highly directed activities.

1.4. Few Needed New Mechanisms Easily Identified

Although all groups agreed that new mechanisms to enhance US/South collaboration are needed, only a few specific needs were identified. Among these were:

-Databases of groups in the US and in Southern nations that are seeking to collaborate are needed. The question of how to screen groups and structure such a database was not addressed.

-"One stop" entry points for groups to make contact via the Internet are needed. The structure of such a mechanism was not detailed, except that it might be largely a referral page to more specific resources.

Given the immense diversity of international ASO collaborations GAAN is not surprised that only a few generic ideas have been advanced. We view these as suggestions only, that require further discussion. (See #3, GAAN suggested mechanisms below)

2. Analysis

For discussion purposes it might be useful to try to divide the potential universe of US/South ASO collaborations into a few broad categories. One categorization using the scale and structure of projects might be:

1. Groups Engaged in Informal Communication and Collaboration

These are groups communicating on general areas of interest, not working on specific projects. The purpose of these collaborations is primarily for education and solidarity between like groups. These informal relationships however, are an essential means of learning and making contact before entering into more substantial relationships.

2. Groups in Substantial Collaborations on Specific Projects or Issues, But Without Project Funding

These groups are committed to collaborations on specific issues or projects either with a specific partner or with a group of ASOs. Policy advocacy groups and country specific collaborations are examples. These relationships are not contractual however, but voluntary and are self-funded.

3. Collaborations that are Specifically Funded and Involve Contractual Agreements

These are ASO relationships that have obtained funding specifically to support their collaboration or project. This almost always includes some form of contractual agreement. The CDC/USAID projects as well as the Canadian projects are example of this category.

ERROR MSGAnother way to categorize collaborations is by intent or the purpose of relationship. Again three type of project emerge:

A. For Purposes of Solidarity and Education with Like-Groups

This is the most general form of relationship and often is specific to groups with apparent affinity (i.e.-PWA to PWA, women to women) and by cultural affinity (i.e. Haitian-American with Haiti, Cambodian-American with Cambodia). These projects are generic, not seeking to accomplish a specific task, but provide overall support.

1. To Exchange Technical Expertise or Other Forms of Support (Drugs, Funds, Supplies)

These collaborations are actively working to address specific issues by providing skills or material resources. Sharing technical assistance on treatment or prevention is an example of these projects, as are drug exchange programs.

2. To Advocate on Issues of Mutual Concern

These collaborations relate to advocacy and educational efforts around specific issues such as treatment access, global debt or human rights. Examples are advocacy around the GFATM and the Jubilee 2000 campaigns.

A grid created by overlaying these two categories would encompass nearly all US/South ASO collaborations.

Grid of Potential Universe of ASO Collaborations

	Purpose Solidarity	Purpose TA or direct support	Purpose Advocacy by issue
Scale Informal
Scale Substantial but no funding
Scale Funded colaboration

 

3. Specific Needs and Potential Mechanisms to Address Them

If this is indeed the universe of potential collaborations, what mechanisms need to be created to enhance this work? Building on the first thoughts advanced in discussions so far GAAN makes the following suggestions.

3.1. Need: Entry Points for Groups Wanting to Initiate International Collaboration

Suggestion 1: Internet sites designed to provide general information and referral to more specific sites for ASOs interested in international collaboration. Ideally this would be both US and southern controlled websites. For example, a site could be run by ASO in LAC to help US groups (and, we assume, others) collaborate in that region. A US site could reciprocate to provide assistance to groups from LAC (and elsewhere) collaborate with groups in the US.

Question: What would such sites do beyond referral?

Suggestion 2: Meetings at regional AIDS conferences specifically focused on collaboration. Thus the US conference on AIDS might develop a workshop or satellite meeting on international collaborations and invite southern groups. Likewise regional conferences in the south would hold similar activities at their regional conferences.

Suggestion 3: Creation of a mechanism to connect and support groups that volunteer to work with counterparts on specific projects, but provides no funding. Modeled after the Essential Action, this mechanism would accept applicants, match them with like-groups and support their efforts, but provide no funding.

3. 2. Need to Connect Expertise/Resources with Groups Seeking Specific Assistance

Suggestion 4: Listserves and websites that are designed to facilitate international dialog on specific areas of expertise. These would be designed so groups could gather needed information from peer groups working on similar issues.

Suggestion 5: Creation of databases of ASOs interested in international collaboration with specific sets of skills. Some form of screening (registration?) would need to be established. For example, a group seeking to work with sex workers might seek to communicate with a group that has such expertise and is interested in international collaboration.

Question: How are groups chosen or screened?

3. 3. Need to Connect Groups Advocating on Specific Issues

Suggestion 6: Listserves and websites that are designed to facilitate international dialog on specific issues. These already exist for a few issues, notable the GFATM.

Suggestion 7: Creation of databases of ASOs interested in international collaboration on specific issues such as drug access, etc. Some form of screening might be needed.

4. Questions for Next Steps

Obviously this discussion document is providing initial findings and analysis as well as making preliminary suggestions. The essence of this project, designing in as much detail as possible mechanisms to enhance US/South ASO collaboration lies before us. The questions that underlie this discussion are:

1. ERROR MSGAre we thinking broad enough to encompass the diversity of collaborations that now exist? (Does GAAN’s analysis and grid capture the universe of US/Southern ASO collaborations for purposes of our discussions or does it need to be expanded/altered?)
2. Are the suggested mechanisms viable and what other ones can we identify?
3. How would we design (structure, cost, location) those mechanisms that are needed and viable?
4. Of the many potential mechanisms, which are priorities and need to come into existence most quickly?
5. How could these varied mechanisms be coordinated to make them most effective and efficient?

Please let us know your thoughts.