Challenges of the Funding Environment for a Global Network for Social Justice

While ICW is now relatively successful at bringing in ‘project’ funding, we face difficulties with ongoing funding for the work of the network secretariat. Without ongoing financial support, we can not exist. Please contact ICW if you can help.

ICW is our members – individual HIV positive women around the world who share a vision and work to seek social justice and change in their own contexts and globally.

We can achieve a lot on a small amount. With a small staff team and countless active members working tirelessly as volunteers, ICW has a significant impact on people and on policies.

Many members do not have access to international communications, information, or even other positive women locally. ICW membership is free for all positive women, and provides a bond of solidarity, ensuring that information is shared among members about the support, awareness-raising, advocacy, campaigning and lobbying work carried out by women in different countries. This is important in increasing mutual solidarity and understanding among positive women everywhere of their rights. ICW also ensures that the visions and priorities of positive women around the world are conveyed to policy makers, and works to influence the development of international, regional and national policies to respond to the experiences of positive women.

The main costs of the network are:

· Keeping members in touch with each other, and fully involved in the work of the network.
· Maintaining up to date records of members, including their priorities and visions – so that ICW can promote these in our advocacy messages globally, and to facilitate linking of women with particular areas of interest with specific policy processes.
· Responding to the requests from policy committees and institutions for ICW to comment on their documents and strategies, to send a representative to their meetings, to send a speaker to their conferences.
· Producing information for members in the form of a regular newsletter and other publications.
· Producing briefings and publications to present positive women’s views and recommendations to policy makers.
· Supporting peer training, mentoring, and capacity building for positive women all over the world.

ICW’s small staff of 4 full time and 4 part time in the UK, plus 3 full time internationally, is key to ensuring that members are linked and networked, and supported in their work, and that their advocacy messages are conveyed internationally. Staff are also vital for increasing accountability, participation, dynamism of the network.

Some elements of the work are easier to fundraise for than others. Training workshops attract interest. Publications provide opportunities for donor branding. But the vital work of supporting the work of our members, keeping in touch with members and members in touch with each other in many languages, and of ensuring ICW’s survival as a movement, and not as a collection of individuals – these are not easily packaged and squeezed into the formats required by many donors.
Some information about our funding picture:

· ICW has multiple donors: by October 2004 we had 26 institutional donors for 2004-2005, making up a total income of just over £400,000, with grant amounts ranging from US$2,000 to US$115,000 – all requiring substantial time investments in formatting proposals and reporting, regardless of the size of the grant.
· For 2005-2006, we have no guaranteed core income – and little guaranteed grant or project income as yet. So far we have commitments from 3 donors.
· We are often told that a donor can not pay salary costs because they are a ‘core’ cost.
· Or we are told that only salaries directly corresponding to support for the project in question may be included.
· Donors are especially reluctant to fund salary costs corresponding to time spent developing projects, ensuring democratic, inclusive and accountable working within the network, meeting our legal obligations, reporting to donors, running our office (which also serves as a warehouse for our publications). Each paid employee is funded by up to 6 donors, with a small percentage from each and the remainder scratched together from our occasional one-off donations.
· Policy makers and donor agencies want us to exist – ICW can provide legitimacy and tick the “GIPA” (involve positive people) box, but many of our current funders will only fund “project” work, and not “core costs”. This does not sit easily with our network approach.

In 2004 ICW employed its first fundraising officer. We now have a funding strategy, which includes bidding for longer-term and more substantial grants than ICW has received in the past. We have the capacity to manage these grants, as long as they are in line with the priorities of the ICW International Strategic Plan 2003-2007. We are now actively approaching new institutional donors, and meeting the reporting requirements of our many grant donors. However, changing donor priorities and funding agendas which do not match ICW’s approach cause extra work and often mean difficult decisions.

We also want to build up income from individual donors. So far this is proving challenging. Why? We lack the staff time for the systematic development of potential individual supporters. Our secretariat costs are primarily in the UK rather than the overseas expenditure which is more appealing to many potential supporters. We can not offer goats for Christmas, or show people the school or the well their money has bought. We can not even give the full picture of what ICW has done or achieved in our advocacy work – because as a network, this is carried out by members all over the world under our core value of “self-determination and commitment to advocacy”. We are now working on a number of pilot schemes, but we know it will take time for these to bear fruit.

Yet ICW is much needed – by members, who feel strengthened by the support and contact with positive women all over the world; by women and men in many countries who want ICW to continue to advocate for the rights of positive women; by UN agencies; and by other NGOs, who depend on ICW to provide the positive people’s perspective that they lack.

Without ongoing financial support, we can not exist. Please contact ICW if you can help. To fund ICW’s work please contact Corinne Miele, ICW Fundraising Officer:Email: corinne@icw.org Phone: +44 20 7704 0606 - Fax: + 44 20 7704 8070Address: International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (ICW)Unit 6, Building 1, Canonbury Yard, 190a New North Road, London, N1 7BJ, United KingdomTel: +44 (0) 20 7704 0606, fax: +44 (0) 20 7704 8070, email: info@icw.org, URL: www.icw.org

Background to ICW’s funding challenges

While ICW is now relatively successful at bringing in ‘project’ funding, we face difficulties with ongoing funding for the work of the network secretariat. These difficulties are linked to:

· The legacy of a serious crisis involving financial and staff turnover problems faced by ICW in 2001-2002.
· Changes last year to IAS funding arrangements for International AIDS Conferences, which means that neither ICW nor GNP+ will be receiving any share of the surplus from the Bangkok Conference. This is in contrast to previous years, where both the networks had received a proportion of the conference surplus.
· The core funding challenges common to most small to medium NGOs, and specifically to networks.

All ICW staff are involved in support work for the various projects, and in work to sustain and increase communications and contact between and among members. But we have similar problems to other small and medium sized organisations in ensuring we can cover the costs which are not in a donor-approved project budget. That includes the work on specific, donor-funded projects that is not covered by the project budget – something that happens frequently because budgets are often cut in donor negotiations while deliverables agreed under the contract with the donor stay the same or are increased, or because the project leaves us with ongoing responsibilities to HIV positive women members which fall outside the funding.

Because we are mainly dependent on donor funding, which is usually tied to specific work, it is generally the case that each salary is made up of a percentage each from a number of donors. (In 2004, contributions from up to six donors contributed to any one salary.) This often leaves gaps, which we have to find from elsewhere – and last year that “elsewhere” was our general fund, which also had to cover our Governance Costs (ie the costs of meeting the legal requirements of operating as a charity), as well as any other expenditure incurred which was not within a project budget, for whatever reason.

Getting a grant application approved does not automatically solve our ongoing funding issues. Our grant funding is usually linked to very specific activities as defined by the project contract, and for expenditure within a budget fixed at the outset.

We are very much aware of our legal and moral obligation to avoid ending up with double funding. At the same time, we need to ensure that we have the funding to cover the ongoing salaries of staff posts. This can leave us in a difficult position when we are waiting to hear from a potential donor, and unable to approach other donors for the same expenditure - and this is once more an example of where core funding (or funding for implementation of ICW’s International Strategic Plan) is vital, giving us the ability to cover the gaps, the financial security to allow us to be consistent in our funding approaches so we do not submit proposals to multiple donors to cover the same costs, and the knowledge that we can provide staff with some (at least short term) job security.

ICW’s problems are similar to those of many small to medium NGOs

We are not alone in having these problems –they are part and parcel of being a small to medium sized organisation, with limited scope for public fundraising.

There is a growing body of research which confirms that ICW is not different, or less capable, than other similar NGOs, but is subject to a funding environment driven by strict donor agendas which leave little space for participatory agenda-setting. This research includes the DfID-funded NGO Practices research, which has found the following trends in the UK (which reflect international trends):

· Funding for NGO’s own agendas has dropped. Increasingly funding is agreed in line with each donor’s priorities, strategies, principles, criteria & guidelines rather than NGO independence being given value. However donor priorities constantly shift.
· Trend of larger grants to large & very large NGOs with less money available for medium & small NGOs.Increasing amounts of money available for large NGOs through contracts to directly implement donor strategies – these carry tight contractual conditions.
· In DfID & EU a move from a project focus to a programme focus for larger NGOs. These programmes are tied to strategic plans that fit DfID’s agenda.
· A lot of funding remains project based especially for small and medium sized NGOs.
· Declining funds available from Foundations and small donor trust funds, which are often more flexible and responsive to NGO requests and more prepared to take risks, because of the slow down of economic growth and declining stock market values. However, this still remains a real lifeline to small and medium NGOs hit hard by changing focus and priorities of the EU and DFID.
· Less money is allotted (except by the Community Fund and Comic Relief and one or two trusts) for institutional support, long term organisational development, core costs or administration, making the running of NGOs increasingly difficult.
· There are unrealistic expectations of high impact from very short- term small projects or pieces of work in a complex situation of great need.
· Very few UK NGOs are entirely independent of institutional and other donors. For many it is a significant source of funding - these are very vulnerable to shifts in donor priorities.

(“Overview of funding trends in UK and donor-UK NGOs relations; some headline findings and implications for UK NGOs” Overheads from seminar - UK Perspectives on the Management of NGO Aid: Changes in Practice and Implications for Development, 24th March 2004, Nuffield, London. Jennifer Chapman)

The additional challenges for international networks

The challenges are compounded by the nature of ICW as a global network – an added difficulty which is now recognised by some donors, as the boundaries between “project” and “core” work are not the same as the boundaries in other types of NGO. Research on networks by Madeline Church et al suggests that :

Networks primarily fulfil a process role. The maximum benefit at minimum cost comes when the members work separately but together, pursuing institutional objectives which are affected by the joint strategic thinking of the network, and can put to the service of the network’s shared understanding and analysis. The members do the work, using the capacity of the co-ordinator/facilitator to foster creative thinking, share ideas, support one another’s lead activities when they can.

Thus the real financial resource requirements of a network are what’s needed to enable the facilitation and relationship building function to happen…Networks and their secretariats or coordinators must enhance their competence in network processes in order to find, join and participate fully in the activities of the network.

This process activity should be complemented by funds which allow for flexible emergency response, and for renewing and rethinking the direction the network is taking faced with complex and rapidly changing contexts.

Costs start to rise when the ‘secretariat’ or institutionalised function becomes synonymous with the network, and the secretariat begins to become more and more ‘operational’, doing more of the work itself. ..There are networks which are minimally institutionalised, to allow for maximum commitment and participation by members at minimal cost. This works well, and it needs long-term, basic core funding…. Unfortunately, in a general climate of core funds being reduced, and process activities disguised amongst activities budgets, the network has a real dilemma.

(Participation, Relationships and Dynamic Change : New thinking on evaluating the work of international networks, Madeline Church et al, Development Planning Unit, UCL, Working Paper Number 121, 2002)

The study quoted above focuses on networks of organisations, which each have their resources and capacity to contribute to the network. For ICW, the points above hold true, but we have the added peculiarity of being a network not of organisations, but of individuals who often lack the basics to allow them to contribute to or make the most of the network, which makes the network’s responsibilities towards members particularly weighty, and secretariat accountability to members perhaps even more important than in other kind of networks, though in some ways more difficult to accomplish. Nevertheless, the ‘dilemmas’ we face, in having to support the true functions of the network by scraping off management and admininstration fees from ‘project’ grants are a real issue.

The Nairobi Fair View Declaration

In June 2004, representatives of 13 global networks met and agreed the following :

· Networks are highly diverse in terms of goals, constituencies, structures and ways of working.
· They are intermediate forms of coordination somewhere on a continuum between looser ‘social movements’ and more tightly defined organisations.
· They are valued and sustained for the way they can create synergies, strength and new possibilities for diverse members.
· They have different ways of working from organisations. They need to be encouraged to plan and operate in ways that allow for initiatives, creativity, flexibility and responsiveness to members and constituencies and changing circumstances.
· As catalysts or facilitators of social change, global networks need to be able to function over the long periods needed for change to filter through from the bottom to the top and the top to the bottom. We all want change NOW but we shouldn’t be assessed as if this was readily achievable.
· Webs of causality are complex. Seeing the immediate effects of international advocacy may be relatively easy but discerning how these filter down to national and local levels is hard. There are compelling reasons why networks or their secretariats do not claim results that are the joint outcome of their members and constituencies and wider social forces.
· More needs to be done to convert the gains made at the international level into changes at national and local levels.
· Strategic planning, monitoring and self-assessment, and evaluations can all be useful for networks, especially – or at least – if they are done in participatory ways. They should not be prescriptive or predetermined but should accept flexibility, responsiveness to members and changing circumstances. Plans need to provide guidance for effective work and not act as straitjackets that limit creativity.
· Donors need to be sensitive and discerning in dealing with networks and, especially, they need to encourage secretariat accountability to members more than secretariat accountability to donors.
· External evaluations work better and are most useful for networks if they are planned for and preceded by internal assessments. They need time to get to grip with the complex processes with which networks grapple. They need to be inclusive. Special efforts are needed to ensure that they reach constituents, beneficiaries and members, and even local communities though remote.
· Networks are defined as two-way or multiple-way processes but accomplishing this linking is not easy. Especially global networks working often at the international level find it hard to link shared activities to the day-to-day realities and needs of members, whoever they are.
· Social, cultural and linguistic diversity present major challenges: time, resources and money need to be allocated to overcome these.
· Communications and media work are central to effective global networks. Donors must find ways of funding this work and not treat it as an unacceptable overhead or inappropriate project cost.
· Making networks, networkers, secretariats and coordinators more mutually accountable, transparent and inclusive is generally desired but there are heavy costs to over-formalizing all decision-making, not just financial ones but in terms of network responsiveness and agility.
· There is no ‘one size fits all’ prescription for network governance.
· More democratic and inclusive processes and governance norms within networks may be especially important to level the playing field between North and South, richer and poorer groups, big and little groups, and between central and marginal actors.
· There are close connections between network governance structures, their systems of communication and network effectiveness. Inappropriate structures may impede information flow and thus hinder effective actions.
· The emergence of social movements and bottom up networks creates new challenges of representation and legitimacy, both internally and for other civil society networks.

ICW is grateful for the financial support we receive, and keen to continue to develop our relationships with donors. But our strong preference is for working to identify ways that this support give ICW the opportunity to develop according to the priorities of HIV positive women worldwide - rather than following the current agenda of donor agencies.

Some recent comments on ICW

A donor’s perspective “From our point of view grants like this – with an essentially UK spend – are often hard to fund. Reading your report, I feel that the decision in this case was an excellent one. Comic Relief’s funds have clearly been put to excellent use and you’ve been able to utilise the space created by the core funding to really get on top of a range of issues and build foundations that should result in sustainability. I have no doubt that this has been achieved with some exceedingly hard work and difficult decisions…” Comic Relief. 17th November 2004Comic Relief granted ICW £200,000 to save us from having to close in spring 2003.

Politicians’ perspective“We have been greatly impressed by the work being done by organisations such as the International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS in forcing their perspectives onto the policy agenda and demonstrating the importance of not tackling HIV/AIDS within a narrow treatment of infectious disease framework.” All Party Parliamentary Group on Population Development and Reproductive Health, report of hearings held in April 2004 at the Houses of Parliament, London UK, to investigate integration of sexual health and HIV services. Forthcoming.

UN perspective “We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable input from the International Community of Women living with HIV/AIDS.” WHO/UNAIDS Policy Statement: “Ensuring Equitable Access to Anti-Retroviral? Treatment for Women “ published by the Department of Gender, Women and Health, November 2004“The testimonial which we heard yesterday afternoon was, for me, worth more than 100 journal articles.” Dr Kevin O’Reilly, HIV Department, WHO at the 1st Strategic and Technical Advisory Committee for HIV/AIDS meeting, 9th November 2004

ICW Member perspectives“The workshop completely changed my vision of what I could do and increased my self-esteem, my security. In the past we sometimes became fearful if we thought we were being judged.” ICW member attending a recent ICW workshop for young HIV positive women in Africa, April 2004“This conference has provided me with leadership skills… we must be involved in all progammes and at all levels in implementing programmes.” ICW member attending a recent AIDS conference “I met 15 women living with HIV. The women commented that it was the first time to be visited by other people living with HIV; all their visitors tend to be people who only read about the virus in books. They said my visit symbolizes hope.” ICW Southern Africa Regional Coordinator on her visit to HIV positive women’s group on Zanzibar Tanzania, August 2004

Mary Robinson, ICW Patron‘I am honored to become a Patron of ICW, and in this way to strengthen the bonds of friendship that have been developing between us. I was so proud of those I heard telling their personal stories in Bangkok about combating stigma and discrimination and exercising leadership at local level. In a time when women and girls around the world are being infected and affected by HIV/AIDS in alarming numbers, while access to prevention, treatment and care remains limited, ICW’s voice in the HIV/AIDS discourse is integral to overcoming the pandemic.’ Mary Robinson, ICW Patron