21257 IPS text - Center for Civil Society Studies

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: [email protected]
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