Supporting Civil Society Networks - FHI 360 · Supporting Civil Society Networks IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Edition 1 Darcy Ashman with Chanya Charles, Ana Maria Cuenca,

Supporting Civil Society Networks I N I NTE R N AT ION A L DEVE LOPM E NT PRO G RAMS

H U M A N R I G H T S

F R E E A N D FA I R E L E C T I O N S

NGO C APACIT Y B U I LDI NGC O L L E C T I V E L E A D E R S H I P

D I V E R S E N E T W O R K M O D E L S

S O C I A L C A P I TA L

I N T E R D E P E N D E N C E

T E C H N I C A L E X P E R T I S E

R E P R E S E N TAT I V E G O V E R N A N C E

D E M O C R AT I C O R G A N I Z AT I O N S

Founded in 1961, the Academy for Educational Development is an

independent, nonprofit organization committed to solving critical social

problems and building the capacity of individuals, communities, and

institutions to become self-sufficient. AED works in all the major areas

of human development, with a focus on improving education, health,

and economic opportunities for the least advantaged people in the

United States and developing countries throughout the world.

Cover PhotosLeft: Bangladesh Human Rights ProjectCenter: Kastav Association, CroatiaRight: Red de Organizaciones de Ometepe, Nicaragua

Supporting Civil Society Networks I N I NTE R N AT ION A L DEVE LOPM E NT PRO G RA MS

Edition 1

Darcy Ashman

with Chanya Char les , Ana Mar ia Cuenca,

Carmen Luca, Barney Singer, and Mar ty Schmith

Translated into Spanish by: Gorky A. Cruz

AE D Center for C iv i l Soc iety and Governance

December 2005

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 5

II. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 7

a. What is a civil society network?

b. What is the difference between networking, network organizations and networks?

c. Why support civil society networks?

d. What are some common challenges of supporting and working in civil society networks?

e. Aren’t there enough resources on networks already available?

III. Supporting Civil Society Networks: Essential Knowledge for Practice 11

a. Civil society networks: Democratic forms of organization

b. Common characteristics of effective civil society networks

c. Diverse civil society networks: A typology of five network models

d. Key issues in network design and capacity strengthening

IV. Key Priorities in Program Planning 19

a. Clarify the purpose(s) and role(s) of civil society networks in programs and projects

b. Align the shared purpose(s) of network members with appropriate network structure(s)

c. Gear expectations for network success

V. Conclusion 22

In practice, however, providing effective supportto civil society networks can prove quite chal-lenging, producing frustration and disappoint-ment rather than satisfying and significantresults. “Networking means not working,” as oneNepali NGO leader sighed recently. There is awidespread need for better understanding of theunique features of civil society networks andhow to work in and with them successfully.

Purpose and Organization of the Guide

AED’s Center for Civil Society and Governance(CCSG) has created this guide to assist staff andprogram partners in civil society and donorcommunities to collaborate with civil societynetworks more effectively.1 Whether our com-mon goals are to strengthen civil society anddemocratic societies, mitigate conflict and buildconditions for peace or contribute to sustainablesocial development, effective networks of civilsociety groups and organizations are often cen-tral to achieving successful results.

This is the first edition of a practical guide for usein all phases of program development, implemen-tation and evaluation where civil society networksare involved. The guide should be useful whenwriting proposals, planning project start-uparrangements and designing monitoring and eval-uation frameworks.

SUPPORTING CIVIL SOCIETY NETWORKS IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 5

I. Introduction

Civil society groups and organizations form networks to pursue aspirations forsustainable development and democratic governance that they cannot achievealone. Networks can enhance the power and influence of citizen voice in advocat-ing for policies and improving governance. Networks also can link service-providers to exchange information and resources or to develop coordinated deliv-ery systems. Civil society networks have become partners of choice for manyinternational development agencies seeking to maximize the reach, scale andimpacts of their programs.

Photo: Uttaran, Bangladesh

1. CCSG gratefully acknowledges financial support from several USAID funded projects, including the South Asia Regional Initiative for Equity(SARI-Equity), the Bangladesh Human Rights Advocacy Project (BHRAP), and the Capable Partners Program (CAP), as well as from the AEDSocial Change Group.

This edition of the guide provides a conceptualframework for understanding civil society net-works and how to address key issues that arisewhen involving networks in international devel-opment programs. Section II addresses several‘frequently asked questions’ about civil societynetworks. Section III discusses essential knowl-edge for practice, distilled from the authors’international experience, action research withcivil society networks and other scholarship onnetworks. Section IV provides several suggestionsfor how to apply this essential information in

planning and implementing international devel-opment programs. For those interested in furtherreading on civil society networks, the conclusionprovides references to several web-basedresources. It also includes contact information forthe authors at CCSG so that readers can send uscomments and suggestions for the next edition.We also are currently developing and testing sev-eral more practical tools with staff and partnersglobally for designing training workshops andproviding technical assistance to strengthen capac-ities of civil society networks.

6 SUPPORTING CIVIL SOCIETY NETWORKS IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) i What is a civil society network?i What is the difference between networking,

network organizations and networks?i Why support civil society networks?i What are some common challenges of sup-

porting and working in civil society networks?i Aren’t there enough resources on networks

already available?

What is a civil society network?

Civil society networks may be defined as civilsociety groups, organizations and sometimes,individuals that come together voluntarily topursue shared purposes of social development ordemocratic governance. These purposes mayinclude exchanging resources, addressing com-mon social goals or expressing their identities ascommunity or social group.

In civil society networks, member groups andorganizations retain their basic autonomy, withtheir own identity, mission, and governance.

Networks can be composed of informal socialrelationships or formal bodies that are legallyregistered and institutionalized. Civil society net-works may be known by many different names,including coalition, alliance, apex body, associa-tion, movement, federation, etc. Networks oftenchoose their names based on their own identity,context and language. For the purposes of thisguide, all of these examples are considered kindsof civil society networks.

Organizational arrangements often mistaken fornetworks include:

i Groups of less than 3 organizations, whichare better described as partnerships; and

i Organizations with a single governancebody/structure, even when they include manyoffices/units or were formerly independentorganizations. Examples include a merger oftwo or more organizations, a network thathas become a single agency or a franchise.

International NGOs must be aware that notevery civil society network operating in a given

II. Frequently Asked Questions

Networks may be one of the oldest forms of social organization, pre-dating governments, churches, businesses and nonprofit or nongovernmental organizations. Almost everyone has had some experience in social networks,whether among extended family and friends, like-minded circles of activists orformal associations of professionals. Networks of civil society groups and organizations, however, are characterized by some distinctive organizational principles and properties.


country is considered a local network. Networksmust be an integral part of local or national civilsociety to be considered local networks. Someindicators include being governed by a signifi-cant majority of local organizations, havingmeaningful ties to local stakeholders and beingseen locally as legitimate networks. Where inter-national NGOs and their field offices are mem-bers of local networks, they remain in the back-ground and guide their decisions based on theinterests of the local context.

What is the difference, if any, between networking, networks and networkorganizations?

These commonly used terms can be confusing.Networking (a verb) can be understood as the actof inter-relating among people or organizations,such as to exchange information and otherresources. Networks and network organizations(nouns), in contrast, usually refer to the arrange-ment of inter-linked people or organizations. Anetwork organization is one kind of network thathas become relatively formal, institutionalized andlegally registered. See section III c. below, DiverseCivil Society Networks for further discussion ofdifferent types of networks.

Why support civil society networks?

A shared premise of many civil society programsand projects is that effective civil society organi-zations are essential backbones of thriving com-munities and countries. They make vital contri-butions to citizens’ democratic rights and well-being by giving voice to citizen interests andproviding services where they are needed. Civilsociety organizations are recognized globally fortheir success in shaping public policy, keepinggovernment accountable, transforming conflictand promoting peace, defending human rightsand ensuring that citizens have access to basicservices.

Networks of civil society organizations, whensuccessful, enable citizens to amplify their voices

and achieve greater influence and impacts inpolicy, democratic governance and social change.In striving for results like building more peacefuland just societies or preventing vulnerable citi-zens from abuses of human rights, civil societynetworks can provide:

i Forums for people to share experiences,express identities, discuss and debate neededchanges and craft strategies for action;

i Protection for those who are otherwise vul-nerable to exploitation, abuse or retributionfor speaking out;

i Jointly-governed bodies for coordinatingcampaigns and other kinds of joint action;

i Legitimacy with policy makers and otherinstitutional leaders in democratic contexts,due to the numbers and social identities ofthose seeking change.

Effective networks can enable service-providingcivil society groups and organizations toincrease their social development impacts byextending their reach to poor and marginalizedgroups, expanding the scale of their programsor improving the quality of services. Such net-works can provide:

i Linkages to facilitate communication andlearning among groups and organizationswith similar programs;

i Platforms to coordinate programs, activitiesand resources of multiple groups and organi-zations to achieve shared policy or programgoals;

i Legitimacy with government and donors asaccountable and cost-effective vehicles forimplementing social development policiesand programs that reach the poorest, mostisolated or marginalized communities;

i Jointly-governed bodies for managing coordi-nated program implementation, monitoringand evaluation.

Finally, civil society networks also provide benefitsto democratizing societies over the longer term intheir capacities as democratic forms of organization.Since networks are based on interdependent rela-tionships among autonomous groups, they usual-


ly involve members in some form of joint com-munication, decision-making and governance.

i As forums, linkages and convening spaces,networks can be opportunities for buildingsocial capital among like-minded individualsand groups or among diverse groups thatshare common goals and aspirations. Whileany given forum or campaign alliance maybe temporary, satisfying personal and institu-tional relationships characterized by mutualtrust and shared norms for working togethertend to endure and become resources forfuture action.

i As jointly-governed committees or institution-al bodies, networks can be schools for nurtur-ing democratic citizenship. To produce effectiveresults, leaders must develop skills in demo-cratic practices like building consensus, facili-tating dialogue, and following democraticprocedures for decision-making. Networkmembers must develop skills in communica-tion, coordination and legitimate decentral-ized decision-making.

What are some of the common challenges of supporting and working in civil society networks?

Although many civil society networks haveachieved successful and even spectacular results

in advocacy and other kinds of social change,many others have fallen short or even failedmiserably. As a Vietnamese manager of ahealth program said, “The idea of networking is good. We can do more when we work together.We can make a big difference because we havemore power. But it’s a big challenge — how towork together?”

Challenges frequently experienced by civil society networks, donors and internationalNGOs include:

i Implementation results that don’t live up toexpectations of reach, scale or impact;

i Frustrating experiences with attempts atcooperation that lead to reluctance to join orsupport networks; and

i Networks that function primarily as fundingarrangements and fail to sustain their pro-gram effectiveness after donor support ends.

Some of these challenges are due to the basic fea-tures of networks as relatively complex forms oforganization. Because they involve autonomousorganizations, each with its own mission, gover-nance body and set of stakeholders to which itmust respond, it can be difficult for members toalign themselves in common arrangements forlong. Networks often involve coordinatingmany levels of organization and interaction,from technical sharing to governance and issue-based action.

Networks are not only complex forms oforganization; they are also paradoxical. Someof their features turn out to be both strengthsand weaknesses; they must be coped with sincethey are impossible to avoid. Three such fea-tures include their diversity, their financialresources and their degree of formal institutional-ization.

Diversity. Diverse missions, values, ideology, sec-tor, nationality, etc. can strengthen a network byincreasing the breadth of available ideas, stake-holders, reach, etc. Yet such diversity can lead topervasive conflict and weak decision-making if


Photo: Koalisi Perempuan Indonesia untuk Keadilan dan Demokrasi

the value of the particular kinds of diversity rep-resented in the network is not apparent to mem-bers and there is little mutual knowledge or trust.

Financial resources. Civil society networks, likeindividual organizations, find it difficult toachieve their aspirations without sufficient finan-cial resources. Yet external funding is a weak kindof ‘glue’ for networks. If it is the primary motiva-tion for creating or joining a network, membersdrop out when funding inevitably declines orends. Money is a zero-sum resource; it breedscompetition unless very strong alternative socialnorms and bonds exist. Networks that are clearabout their visions and goals, mobilize availableresources from members and engage donors toprovide needed funding through collaborativerelationships are more likely to succeed.

Degree of institutionalization. Some networksbegin as informal cooperation among groups oforganizations and then evolve into more formalinstitutions. Others begin as formal networkinstitutions. Institutionalization can bring valu-able assets to a network, such as enhancedlegitimacy, a legal identity, more effective coor-dination and the capacity to receive grantsdirectly. Yet there are several drawbacks. It isnot uncommon for the process of institutional-ization to change the quality of the networkexperience for members. Some active membersmay lament the change and even drop outbecause they valued a more informal and spon-taneous network. New formal positions cancreate incentives for internal competition andweaken collaborative relationships.

Finally, administrative aspects of formal institu-tions, such as meetings, record-keeping, andfinancial management, can balloon to theextent that the network comes to feel like abureaucracy and stifles the very initiative itneeds to make it effective.

Aren’t there enough resources on networksalready available?

There are many interesting and useful resourceson civil society networks available globally.Some of these have been created for specific sectors by sector-based resource institutes or networks based on their own experience, such as the International HIV/AIDS Council andSmall Enterprise Education and Promotion(SEEP) in microfinance. Others are compara-tive analysis and syntheses of global case studiesand surveys, like that by the InternationalForum on Capacity-Building (IFCB). Still oth-ers attempt to adapt principles of organization-al development to network development. Theseresources and others can be accessed throughthe websites listed in the conclusion.

Other network guides and assessment toolshave made excellent attempts to provide tech-nical resources to assist networks to achievetheir full potential. However, recent experi-ences with a range of networks in a variety ofcountry settings suggest several important lim-itations in the extent to which current tools fitthe diverse realities of networks and theirdevelopmental needs. Some of these limita-tions include:

i Many successful networks seek to remaininformal or hosted by a single group ororganization, yet the tools assume they are—or should become—separate formallegally registered institutions;

i Many networks evolve through a cycle of‘ups and downs,’ yet many tools embodythe notion that networks evolve through alinear sequence of phases;

i Some networks form to address a criticalsocial issue and then disband, yet tools seemto expect all networks to become permanentinstitutions; and

i Although we encounter diverse types of net-works, most tools are constructed on the basis of a single model, ignoring the capacity needsand potential of other network models.


Supporting Civil Society Networks:Critical Knowledge for Practice

i Civil society networks: Democratic forms oforganization

i Common characteristics of effective civilsociety networks

i Diverse civil society networks: A typology offive network models

i Key issues in network design and capacitystrengthening

Civil Society Networks: Democratic Forms of Organization

Networks are democratic forms of organization2

in that they are self-governing groups ofautonomous organizations. Networks are com-posed of interdependent relationships amongmember organizations. Interdependent rela-tionships among organizations fall betweenindependent relationships, like in market-basedexchanges, and dependent relationships, like inhierarchies. The level of interdependence in anygiven network is a primary way to distinguishamong different models of networks, as dis-cussed below. Interdependent relationshipsmean that networks, like partnerships, work

best when they are collaborative. Networksmay involve different levels of seniority, respon-sibilities and decision-making, but since thefundamental nature of a network is the volun-tary interaction of autonomous organizations,collaborative attitudes and practices are keys tosuccessful results.

Common Characteristics of Effective Civil Society Networks

Effective civil society networks often share similarcharacteristics. They can be grouped in threebroad areas: (1) history and external environ-ment; (2) social aims and technical expertise; and(3) leadership, governance and management. Noone of these areas can be ignored when design-ing, assessing or building successful networks.

(1) History and external environment

Successful networks are not created overnight,nor do they operate in isolation from their envi-ronments. New networks should consider thelevel of social capital existing among membersand the extent to which the environment can beconsidered ‘enabling’ for the network’s aims andprospective activities.


III. Supporting Civil Society Networks: Essential Knowledge for Practice

An effective network, by definition, is successful in achieving its goals andimpacts, satisfying its members and raising the resources needed to continueits work. The effectiveness of any given network can be assessed by the extentto which it accomplishes these three criteria.

2. ‘Democratic’ is broadly defined to include all kinds of self-governance by autonomous individuals, organizations, sub-regions or countries. It doesnot denote any one system of democratic political governance, e.g. parliamentary, two-party, direct, etc.

Pre-existing social capital. Relationships of mutu-al understanding, trust and norms of coopera-tion among network leaders and members areoften found in successful networks. These rela-tionships are among individuals and sometimesgeneralized to organizations. Networks foundedon pre-existing social capital (among themselvesand with key stakeholders) are more likely toorganize themselves and produce satisfyingresults quickly.

Enabling environment (social, legal, political).Societies with long traditions of social networkingand civil society seem to provide inherent knowl-edge and skills that participants bring to net-works. Participants in other societies, character-ized by more hierarchical and independent socialrelations, need more time to develop such compe-tencies (e.g., Thailand or The Philippines versusVietnam or Egypt). The existing political andlegal environment is also extremely important. Insome cases, governments prohibit meetings orotherwise restrict the rights of citizens to organizethemselves. Laws also may restrict the fund-rais-ing methods available to civil society networks.

(2) Social aims and technical expertise

Civil society organizations and networks takeup many deserving causes. However, successappears to be most likely when issues gain high

levels of attention and support from manyconstituencies. It is very useful to assess theextent to which networks’ aims are valued bythe societies in which they operate. It is alsouseful to ensure that networks not only haveaccess to necessary technical expertise, butshare common views of what constitutesexpertise and high quality approaches to theirjoint actions.

Socially-valued aims and impacts. Successfulnetworks are able to mobilize broad socialaction when they address issues that are veryimportant to the societies in which they exist.Networks that address issues important only toa few local groups or primarily internationalstakeholders often fail to garner needed partic-ipation and support. They may become shells,continuing to exist, but unable to achievemuch or win local recognition and respect.

Sound technical expertise to address social goalsand achieve impacts. Even the most collaborativenetwork will fail if it does not have a soundtechnical program strategy and the expertise toachieve its desired social impacts. Technicalexpertise may include a wide range of knowl-edge, skills and other resources, from legal ormedia expertise to social mobilization and legiti-macy. Failure to reconcile different ideas aboutstrategy and quality are often a source of tension


“Networks are democratic forms of organization in that they are

self-governing groups of autonomous organizations.”

Photo: SAATHI Nepal

and conflict among alliances and networkswhich can lead to the emergence of factions.

(3) Leadership, governance and management

As democratic forms of organization, networkswork best when leadership, governance andmanagement are relatively collaborative, relyingon collective leadership, representative governanceand coordinating management rather than therelatively directive and hierarchical approachescommon in single organizations. Collaborativesystems for governance and management func-tions like record-keeping, communication andfund-raising/financial management are alsoimportant to network success, especially inlarger, more institutionalized networks thatmust account to many members and donors.

Of course, in practice, collaboration is often anelusive quality. Leadership may be a matter ofstriving for a dynamic on-going balancebetween direction and consultation. Networksneed direction and, in some cases, hierarchicallevels of organization to divide responsibilitiesand coordinate activities. But in general, thetheme of collaborative or shared directionshould be kept in the forefront.

Collective leadership. Leaders hold the vision ofcollective as well as their individual organiza-tional interests. Leadership requires skills ofbuilding consensus, resolving conflict, facilitat-ing joint action, etc. ‘Egos’ are transcendedfor the good of the whole.

Representative governance (e.g. policy-making,ultimate authority and responsibility for the net-work). Governance must include all members, ifnot directly than in a representative model.Informal networks are usually governed andmanaged by an informal group of committedleaders. Where networks are more formalizedand have a governance body, representativenorms are often built into the legal code andsocial traditions. These can be adapted andstrengthened for particular networks.

Coordinating management (e.g., operational deci-sion-making and task accomplishment). Networkactivities usually get accomplished by the volun-tary contributions of members, so those respon-sible for managing network actions must relatemore as peers than as employers-employees. Ininformal networks, one agency may offer to per-form the coordinating functions. The costs ofthe coordinating function should be recognizedand, if possible, compensated. Finally, good net-work management involves collaborative rela-tionships and systems.

Similar to good partnership relationships,mutual understanding, trust and shared normsof working together are vital. Since networkmembers are autonomous, their participationis essentially voluntary. Members will be morelikely to participate when they feel that theirpurposes for joining a network are being metand when they are satisfied with the experienceof being part of a network. Active participa-tion is crucial because it is the primary meansthrough which networks achieve their sharedpurposes.

Minimal but functional systems for record-keeping and communication among membersmust be established. Shared information pro-motes the sense of collaboration and trans-parency essential to building mutual trust andconfidence. When external stakeholders havecontributed funds or other resources, systemsfor external reporting are also important.

Fund-raising and financial management. Theseare such important issues for networks thatthey deserve special consideration. Failing tounderstand the ways in which financialresources can affect network success is one ofthe key reasons why so many networks do notlive up to their potential. There are three keyways in which successful networks deal withfinancial resources:

(1)The most valuable resources are contributed bymembers. Networks should always prioritize


their most valuable resources as the in-kind andfinancial contributions by members. This helpsto keep them meaningful and accountable tomembers and members’ primary constituencies.

(2)The networks have developed collaborativerelationships with donors. Difficulties in rela-tionships with financial donors are often citedas major challenges to effectiveness in civil soci-ety networks. A global study of successful civilsociety alliances by the IFCB in 2001 foundthat they were not part of international devel-opment projects. They did not receive majorfunding from donor agencies. Instead, theyhad received quick and specific funds for thingssuch as convening meetings, publishing cam-paign materials, etc. International donors hadalso played important roles in raising publicopinion and mobilizing support for the alliancecauses in their home countries. Shared agendasand flexibility in reporting seem to be hall-marks of collaborative relationships betweendonors and successful alliances.

Donors and civil society networks do sharecommon goals, so mutually satisfying ways ofcollaborating can be developed. Although therewill be compliance obligations for donor fund-ing, it is most helpful when they can beembedded within a larger collaborative rela-tionships. Establishing such a relationship isthe responsibility of all parties, including thedonor, the network and its members.

(3)Financial resources for the network as a wholeare managed transparently. When informationabout the receipt and allocation of financialresources is not shared openly within a net-work, suspicion and resentment can easilygrow and damage relations. Once the fundingarrangements and expectations have beennegotiated jointly among the network andwith any donors, ongoing financial manage-ment should be communicated frequently. Ifthere are costs associated with financial man-agement, they should be compensated andexplicitly factored into the budget.

Diverse Civil Society Networks: A Typology of Five Network Models3

The previous section emphasized the commonfeatures of all networks as relatively democraticforms of organization. It noted that networks arecomposed of interdependent relationshipsamong autonomous members. Interdependentrelationships tend to work best when they arecollaborative, with members working towardsshared goals. The section highlighted a numberof characteristics of successful networks, catego-rized in three broad areas including history andexternal environment, social aims and technicalexpertise, and collaborative leadership, gover-nance and management.

Beyond these common principles and character-istics, there are several important ways in whichcivil society networks differ from one another.This section offers a new approach to distin-guishing among types of civil society networks,especially those involved in international devel-opment programs and projects.

Currently civil society networks are expected toadopt similar structures, build similar capacitiesand strive for similar indicators of success and sus-tainability—even when these structures, capacitiesand indicators do not fit well with their specificrealities. New networks often are encouraged tocreate relatively formal and complex structures tocoordinate themselves (e.g., Secretariats, ExecutiveCommittees, etc.) when relatively simple informalstructures would be much easier to manage. Thiscan lead to problems like excessive hierarchy orusing resources inefficiently.

One very useful way to distinguish among typesof networks is according to their shared purposeand the associated level of interdependence neededto pursue it. Most civil society networks adoptone or more of five main types of shared purpose.Each of these types of shared purpose is associatedwith a level of interdependence from low to high.Table 1 below illustrates five different models ofnetwork that can be observed with this typology.


3. With the support of a research grant from USAID’s Office for Private Voluntary Cooperation-American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (PVC-ASHA), CCSG is conducting research to explore and examine this typology with field offices and networks in four regions. The final research reportwill be completed by late 2006 and integrated into the next edition of this guide.

The first column of Table 1 identifies five typesof shared purposes for networks often foundamong NGOs in international development.They include:

1. To exchange information and learn fromone another, e.g., to learn more about crisesand what each organization is doing, toshare program approaches and identify bestpractices or to hear about innovativeapproaches to addressing common problems.

2. To coordinate policies, programs or otheractivities, e.g., to address issues such asduplication or gaps or to maximize use ofresources for common purposes.

3. To obtain common funding for members,e.g., to augment the resources of each indi-vidual member or to allocate program fundsin a given sector or theme to a range ofindividual organizations.

4. To create new social value, e.g., to carryout an advocacy campaign for policy orsocial change or to develop joint programsfor service delivery.

5. To strengthen members’ common identi-ties and interests over the long-term, e.g.,to build sector standards or enact legislationto create an enabling environment.

The second column shows the level of interde-pendence associated with each of the five kinds of shared purpose, ranked from low to high

from top to bottom. The third and fourthcolumns show the changes in organizationalautonomy that correspond to each level of interdependence.

When a network’s level of interdependence is onthe low end of the continuum (as shown in thetop rows of Table 1), its members retain maxi-mum autonomy and will require few changes todecision-making and governance. Conversely,when networks involve a relatively high degree ofinterdependence (as shown in the bottom rows),significant changes in formal decision-making andgovernance procedures are required.

Finally, the fifth column shows the types ofnetwork structures that are most appropriatefor each type of shared purpose and level ofinterdependence. Networks adopt organiza-tional structures to manage their interdepen-dencies. Appropriate network structures enablenetworks to coordinate joint decision-makingand governance as simply as possible.Network structures can range from beingembedded in informal relationships to takingthe form of complex bureaucracies with bothelected and hired roles. Not every networkstructure is formal or complex. In fact, thereare distinct advantages to light and lean net-work structures that can facilitate rapid coordi-nation and joint action.


“Successful networks enable civil society groups and

organizations to amplify their voicesand achieve greater influence and

impacts in policy, democratic gover-nance and social change.”

Photo: International Women’s Day, Bangladesh

Key Issues in Network Design and Capacity Building

This typology of five network models makes itvery clear that there is no single design or set ofcapacities to which every civil society networkshould aspire. Other things being equal4, net-works are more likely to be efficient and effec-tive when they align their shared purposes witha network structure that is best suited to theirlevel of interdependence.

There is nothing intrinsically better or moreeffective about a formal institutionalized net-work as compared to an informal one. Networksare an expensive organizational arrangementunless they are needed to achieve shared aims.The critical issue in network development,

therefore, is to create the type of coordinatingprocess and structure to fit the particular network, its collaborative aims, and its context.

Each of these five models has different purposesand structures. They will exhibit differentbehaviors and produce different kinds of results.A network to exchange information and fosterlearning will look and act differently than a net-work to advocate for policy change.

Even similar network models can exhibit verydifferent behaviors and characteristics.Although policy-change coalitions and service-providing networks are both types of the fourthmodel, ‘creating new social value,’ in practicethey look and act quite differently, as the fol-lowing box highlights.


Shared Purpose Level ofInterdependence

Change in decision-making

Change in ownership of governance

Types of network structure

(1) Exchange informa-tion, learn from oneanother

Low Little joint decision-making

None Informal relationships; Single agency convenes mtg(s);Responsibility of member ass’n.to convene members

(2) Coordinate policies,programs, or activities

Medium-low Limited joint decision-making by executivesor delegates

Requires formal orinformal agreement

Group or committee of author-ized representatives

(3) Obtain commonfunding

Medium Some joint decision-making, focused onfinance

Requires formal agree-ment & often legalorganization

Project management unit, host-ed by one member or jointlycreated

(4) Create new jointsocial value, e.g. advocacy cam-paigns, servicedelivery

Medium-high Some joint decision-making, focused on program action & finance

Requires formal orinformal agreement;may involve new coor-dinating organization

Coalition, alliance, servicedelivery network. Coordinatingorganization may be hosted byone member or jointly created.

(5) Strengthen mem-bers’ long- termcommon identities& interests, e.g.policy, legislation,reputation, etc.

High Permanent joint deci-sion-making by repre-sentation of executiveor senior delegate

Requires formal legalorganization, bylaws,etc. as provided bylegal code and socialnorms/practices

Member association, apexbody, federation, etc. Usuallyinvolves a general membership,elected board, and a hired staffwho work in a coordinating unitor secretariat.

Table 1: Five Network Models

4. Such as technical or financial resources, an enabling environment, etc.

Coalitions and alliances seeking policy andsocial change tend to be more dynamic,more flexible and have looser boundaries formembership. They may desire a greaterdegree of decentralized decision-making toenable local actors to organize locally mean-ingful actions within the context of a nation-al campaign or movement. Ideological dif-ferences can be very hard to bridge, especiallyfor longer periods of time.

Associations, federations and service-provid-ing networks tend to develop more stableand bureaucratic systems. These systemsenable them to provide more predictableservices and handle administrative responsi-bilities such as staffing, financial manage-ment, reporting, etc.

Three related issues are critical to keep in mindwhen designing new networks and planning tobuild network capacities. They are:

i Any given network may involve several kindsof shared purposes and a combination of col-laborative structures;

i Not all collaborative network structuresinvolve formal legal organizations; and

i Over time, networks may or may not evolve toforms with higher levels of interdependence.

Any given network may involve several kinds ofshared purposes and a combination of collaborativestructures. For example, member associations oftencombine several kinds of shared purpose. One oftheir roles is to convene members to exchangeinformation and learn from one another, as shownin the top row of Table 1. Although the associa-tion may have a relatively complex structure, itdoes not need to involve the entire structure (e.g.,board, staff and members) in organizing the meet-ings. Instead, associations often create what couldbe considered a ‘sub-structure,’ such as creating aunit or hiring staff members whose responsibilityis to convene and support the meetings.

Not all collaborative network structures involveformal legal organizations. The potential advan-tages of many networks are often found in theflexibility and speed they allow members to actjointly. Some alternatives to creating new for-mal institutions include:

i Making agreements to meet regularly andshare information through social relationships, according to shared norms of collaboration, rather than through legal contracts;

i Appointing individuals whose job it is tocoordinate member organizations. Superviseand reward for building mutual understand-ing, trust and confidence; and

i One agency volunteering to host coordinat-ing staff or financial management responsi-bilities. Such effort and responsibilitiesshould be transparent to all members andcompensated if possible.

Over time, networks may or may not evolve toforms with higher levels of interdependence. Amore interdependent network, with its associat-ed formal network structure, is not necessarilystronger or more developed than one that isless interdependent. Some research suggeststhat networks can evolve to take on new kindsof shared purposes which involve greater levelsof joint decision-making and governance asmembers develop mutual trust and achieve suc-cessful impacts together. Yet not all networks


Photo: Signature Campaign, Bante Sheka, Bangladesh

need to become more interdependent if theirshared purposes do not change.

Successful network initiatives are often foundto have been led by individuals and organiza-tions with a history of cooperating together(social capital). Formal institutional identitiesoften are adopted after years of operating infor-mally. Yet there does not seem to be evidencethat effective networks follow a linear develop-mental path towards more interdependence orformal institutions. Consider:

i To achieve effectiveness, networks that start-ed up as more interdependent formal insti-tutions have needed to create more informal

mechanisms to foster networking when theinstitutions are overly time-consuming orbureaucratic.

i Some networks start up collaborativeactions to address a social crisis and disbandwhen the crisis has been resolved.

Civil society organizations can benefit fromparticipating in a variety of networks at differ-ent times and for different purposes. Networkscan (and do) come into being, achieve theirshared purposes, and then become less active oreven disband until a new situation which war-rants a network arises.



Clarify the purpose(s) and role(s) of civilsociety networks in programs and projects

Each of the agencies and individuals involved indesigning and starting up programs and projectswith civil society networks brings its own set ofgoals and expectations for the purpose and roleof the network(s) in the program or project.Programs and projects seem to work best whenideas about purposes and roles are communicat-ed clearly and openly with all those involved. Itis not uncommon for different stakeholders—international NGO, donor, and network mem-bers—to have not only different, but divergentexpectations of the basic purposes and roles ofthe network in the program. This can lead tomany operational challenges and undermine suc-cess, so it is essential to make time to discussand clarify purposes and roles.

In preparing for such discussions, review themajor types of shared purposes for networks dis-cussed above. Also consider whether the follow-

ing common reasons why donors and interna-tional NGOs involve civil society networks inprograms and projects are relevant:

i Social impact, e.g., carrying out advocacycampaigns to influence policies and changesocial norms or practices;

i Program management, e.g., coordinatingfunding to minimize costs of reaching num-bers of civil society organizations and com-munities for similar program goals andimpacts or to influence a sector;

i Building institutional capacity, e.g., strength-ening networks’ abilities to serve their mem-bers and build civil society as a social institu-tion or sector; and

i Developing technical quality, e.g., linkingpractitioners to share lessons learned andidentify best practices.

For international agencies, it is important toselect networks that not only share their pro-gram goals, but also can demonstrate a trackrecord and evidence of commitment to the

IV. Key Priorities in Program Planning

This section is designed to assist development practitioners to apply the information presented above in new and existing programs. There are at leastthree major priorities that should be considered:

i Clarify the purpose(s) and role(s) of civil society networks in programs and projects;

i Align the shared purpose(s) of network members with appropriate network structure(s); and

i Gear expectations for network success.

issues. When scanning the environment to iden-tify potential networks, remember that somemay be dormant. Since networks often emergeto address a need and then become relativelyinactive once the need has been addressed, it iseasy to miss potential networks of social capitalthat could be reactivated for new programs.

Once in dialogue with potential program part-ner networks, an environment for good commu-nication needs to be established, so that eachparticipant in the discussions can voice its ownideas about purpose(s) and role(s) and listen tothose of others. Once sufficient agreement hasbeen reached, the next priority is to ensure thatnetwork members have the opportunity to clari-fy the shared purposes of the network and toestablish an appropriate network structure.

Align the shared purpose(s) of networkmembers with appropriate network structure(s)

Table 1, Five Network Models, and the relateddiscussion of it should be very useful in think-ing through and designing the network struc-ture for new networks or those in need ofrenewal and capacity strengthening. This canhelp to avoid the problems caused by too manyor competing purposes for a network or byadopting a formal and complex network coordi-

nating body before the network is ready for it.Of course, the table is not a blueprint for net-work design; at this stage it is intended to spurthinking and inform discussions. Final decisionsabout specific network purpose statements andstructures will reflect many considerations, suchas agency policies and local regulations.

Gear expectations for network success

Since we are in a relatively early stage of involving networks in international develop-ment programs, it is difficult to know what can be expected realistically in terms of out-comes and impacts in a given timeframe.Three considerations are suggested:

i Previous experience and level of success;i Network-building and social change

outcomes; andi Sustainability.

Previous experience and level of success. The levelof success of any given network is often largelyinfluenced by the previous experience of itsmembers in working together. Therefore, assessthe history and external environment of the net-work, as suggested above:

i If the members have little previous experiencetogether, build in time to develop relationsand learn to work together, e.g. build the net-work as short-term/intermediate outcomes.


“Align the shared purpose(s) of networkmembers with appropriate structure(s)”

Photo: Bangladesh Human Rights Project

i If they are relatively well-known to each otherand have a successful track record, the chancesare better that they are capable of a rapidstart-up and achieving large-scale results.

Network-building and social change outcomes. It iseasy to confuse and conflate two very differentkinds of outcomes: those for building the capacityof networks to be effective in their shared purpos-es and roles and those for actually achievingchanges in the societies of which networks are apart. Again, it is useful to clarify the extent towhich one or both kinds of outcomes are desiredand to sequence program and project activitiesappropriately. If significant capacity building isneeded in order to achieve social change out-comes, it should be provided early in the programand the network should be assisted to integrateand apply the new capacity effectively.

Sustainability. Finally, goals and expectations forthe sustainability of a network should be reviewedand clarified. A sustainable formal network insti-tution may or may not be desirable. As discussedabove, it usually takes some time before a networkhas developed the experience, social capital andrecognition that warrants a formal institution.Such institutions require a good deal of resourcesto maintain. Once a network achieves success inchanging an unjust policy or practice, there maybe no more need for it to exist.

However, effective networks are a great resourcefor any civil society, for all the reasons notedabove in the introductory sections. Although itmay not be wise to sustain—if even to create—formal institutional networks, it would often bestrategic to focus on sustaining the relationships,contacts and mutual knowledge that are devel-oped by working together. Sustaining the socialcapital and related resources inherent in sharedexperience is overlooked all too often as a signifi-cant positive outcome of programs and projectsinvolving civil society networks.


Photo: Bangladesh Human Rights Project


We hope this first edition of the guide has pro-vided some useful information, insights andsuggestions for supporting civil society net-works in international development programs.We expect the next edition to include anupdated typology, based on our research find-ings, as well as a new section with more toolsfor practical use, such as sample trainingdesigns for workshops, questionnaires forassessing network capacity and suggested indi-cators and scales for monitoring and evaluatingnetwork development and performance.

In the meantime, those who wish to consultadditional references on networks may wish tovisit our website, NGOConnect.net, whichincludes sections with resource on networks as

well as many other topics of interest concern-ing NGOs. An excellent guide for setting upand strengthening networks also can be foundon the website of the International Council ofAIDS Service Organizations, www.icaso.org.

Finally, we expect this guide to be a living doc-ument that changes with new experience,research and feedback.

Please send any comments or suggestions to usat the following email addresses:

[email protected]@[email protected]

V. Conclusion

Photo: Koalisi Perempuan Indonesia untuk Keadilan dan Demokrasi

1875 Connecticut Avenue,Washington D.C. 20009 • 202-884-8000

FHI 360 is a nonprofit human development organization dedicated to improving lives in lasting ways by advancing integrated, locally driven solutions. Our staff includes experts in health, education, nutrition, environment, economic development, civil society, gender, youth, research and technology – creating a unique mix of capabilities to address today’s interrelated development challenges. FHI 360 serves more than 60 countries, all 50 U.S. states and all U.S. territories.

Visit us at www.fhi360.org.

In July 2011, FHI 360 acquired the programs, expertise and assets of AED.

Supporting Civil Society Networks - FHI 360 · Supporting Civil Society Networks IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Edition 1 Darcy Ashman with Chanya Charles, Ana Maria Cuenca,

Documents