Page | 1

Capacity Development for Effective and Efficient

Disabled Peoples Organisations in Pacific Island Countries:

A Literature Survey

June 2011

Prepared By:

Deborah Rhodes

For Pacific Disability Forum and Australia Pacific Islands Disability

Support

Phone: +61 3 5428 1211

Email: deborah.rhodes@bigpond.com

Page | 2

Contents

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 3  

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 4  

1.   Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8  

2.   Definition of terms ..................................................................................................... 9  

2.1   Disability ................................................................................................................... 9  

2.2   DPOs ......................................................................................................................... 9  

2.3   Capacity .................................................................................................................. 10  

2.4   Capacity Development ....................................................................................... 10  

3.   Roles of DPOs ............................................................................................................ 13  

3.1   Advocacy ................................................................................................................ 14  

3.2   Representation ..................................................................................................... 16  

3.3   Service delivery .................................................................................................... 17  

3.4   Partner perceptions of DPO roles .................................................................. 17  

3.5   Implications of roles for DPO capacity .......................................................... 18  

4.   Capacity of DPOs .................................................................................................... 19  

5.   Capacity development processes and topics relevant to DPOs ......... 22  

6.   Current approaches to capacity development in CSOs ......................... 27  

6.1   Definition of capacity .......................................................................................... 28  

6.2   Understanding the influence of cultural values on capacity development ..................................................................................................................... 28  

6.3   Ownership and leadership of change ........................................................... 29  

6.4   Strengths-based approaches ........................................................................... 29  

6.5   Selection of approaches, methods and tools .............................................. 30  

7.   Partnerships to support DPO capacity development ............................... 32  

8.   Implications for this research ............................................................................. 33  

Annex 1:   References ........................................................................................... 34  

Page | 3

Abbreviations

APIDS Australia Pacific Islands Disability Support

AusAID Australian Aid for International Development

CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CSOs Civil Society Organisations or Community Sector Organisations

DFID Department for International Development, UK

DPO Disabled People’s Organization

ICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

INTRAC International NGO Training and Research Centre

NGOs Non Government Organisations

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PDF Pacific Disability Forum

Page | 4

Executive Summary

“Capacity-building is a risky, murky, messy business, with unpredictable and unquantifiable outcomes, uncertain methodologies, contested objectives, many unintended consequences, little credit to champions and long time lags” (Morgan 1998)

The Pacific Disability Forum (PDF) was established in 2002 with the purpose of working “towards inclusive, barrier-free, socially just, and gender equitable societies that recognize the human rights, citizenship, contribution and potential of people with disabilities in Pacific Countries and territories”. One of PDF’s key strategies to achieve these aims is to support the strengthening of Disabled Peoples Organisations (DPOs) in Pacific member countries. During 2009, PDF identified the opportunity to develop a sound research base for a wide range of current and potential capacity development efforts with Pacific DPOs. PDF chose to work in partnership with Australia Pacific Islands Disability Support (APIDS), drawing on the respective strengths of both organisations, to undertake the research. A research proposal was developed in 2009-10, and funding was provided in January 2011 by the Disability Inclusive Development section of the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID).

The research project is called “Capacity Development for Effective and Efficient Disabled Persons Organisation in Pacific Island Countries.” PDF and APIDS established a small Research Advisory Group (RAG) to provide expert guidance to the research process: this version of the Literature Survey has benefited from the RAG’s contribution. This literature survey is the first stage of the research process. As a research method, it is intended to identify and critique existing relevant reports and literature. This will help to inform the rest of the process and identify the contribution that this particular research is expected to make. This first version of the literature survey is being made available to interested parties as the research process is in its early stages. Once the research process is completed, the survey will be updated, linked with a description of the methodology and findings. The literature survey uses a strengths based approach as its “lens” to survey existing material. This means the survey seeks to identify materials that are relevant to the sector and could add positive value to the research, and seeks to find materials that describe the strengths of DPOs. DPOs in Pacific countries are currently experiencing rapid and significant changes. They are achieving higher levels of recognition than ever before

Page | 5

and their advocacy and rights-awareness work is increasingly contributing to changes in the lives of people with disabilities in their respective countries and in the region. The changes have included: increasing numbers of organised events at community level; greater participation in national and international partnerships; increased funding for in-country organisational development and community-based activities; increased interaction between DPOs in the region; some greater outreach work at sub-national levels; as well as greater interaction with national government agencies particularly in respect of the formulation of national rights-based policy statements on disability. There are now more externally-supported and funded activities which aim to contribute towards capacity development of DPOs. This reflects widespread recognition that DPOs have a critical role in ensuring the rights of people are understood, protected and met, and in contributing towards barrier-free Pacific societies.

Some DPOs have existed in the Pacific for a few decades, while others are recently established. Most have been small in size, voluntary in nature and held relatively low profiles in their own countries and in the development cooperation context, until recently. Internationally, some DPOs have existed for much longer than Pacific DPOs, and some have had greater profiles. Global groups such as Disabled Persons International (DPI) and Inclusion International (II) have similar objectives to many national DPOs with the added objective of coordinating efforts across countries. In other regions of the world, such as Africa, Caribbean, Latin and South America, Eastern Europe and Asia, the numbers of DPOs have been increasing and the nature and extent of their work has been gradually expanding, often in cooperation with a variety of partners. The nature and extent of collaboration between DPOs and their respective partners has varied, and is a potential source of information for the Pacific context. A survey of the literature on this topic has revealed little formal documentation however.

Pacific Island people with disability have often tried to strengthen their own organisations, sometimes with very little support from within their countries or outside, but in recent years, considerably greater support is being provided. While some partnerships are directed to specific activities, such as raising awareness of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), other support is intended to “develop the capacity of DPOs”. The concept of “capacity” is highly complex, so it stands to reason that any processes of strengthening, building or developing1 capacity are also complex. While people and organisations are ultimately responsible for their own capacity and for their own processes of increasing capacity, development partners are highly focused on contributing to the process. There is a

1 These  terms  are  often  used  interchangeably  but  are  understood  in  a  variety  of  ways  by  people  from  different  perspectives.

Page | 6

plethora of literature on concepts of capacity and capacity development generally, which can assist DPOs and their partners, although a dearth on DPO capacity specifically.

Despite the lack of directly related literature on capacity development of DPOs, this literature survey provides some basis for the upcoming research, identifying some themes and frameworks to guide the processes of engaging with DPOs in the Pacific region. Two key broad areas of focus in the literature survey are:

• The roles of DPOs, their existing capacity and pathways to increasing capacity in order to more effectively and efficiently undertake their roles and achieve their objectives

• The concepts of capacity and capacity development of civil society organisations in the Pacific region

While little is available in the Pacific to date, there is some literature from other countries on efforts by partner organisations to contribute towards capacity development of DPOs. There is a great deal of literature on capacity development of civil society organisations globally, but again, relatively little from the Pacific. There is a massive quantity of literature on the concepts of capacity and capacity development globally, which can contribute lessons of relevance to Pacific DPOs. This survey synthesises key aspects of literature in the public domain and suggests the following implications for the proposed research:

• There is value in finding out what is important to DPOs in different countries as determinants in and elements of DPO capacity, rather than assuming any external model for a “perfect” or “standard” organisation

• There is value in providing opportunities for DPOs themselves to assess their own capacity and identify their own priorities towards continual improvements over time

• It is important to emphasise that a DPO’s capacity is only likely to be strengthened if there is leadership and ownership within the DPO for that change to take place – “no-one can build someone else’s capacity”

• There is value in emphasising the idea that Pacific DPOs can identify how their own organisations’ capacity is developed and can influence donors on this matter

• There is a need to recognise that most literature focuses on “gaps” in DPO capacity. Based on this “problem-based approach” many capacity development methods can potentially create disincentives and undermine existing capacity.

Page | 7

The selection of a strengths based approach to understanding capacity development issues relevant to DPOs has been made because of its usefulness in identifying what has worked well to date and why, and in understanding how successful approaches can be replicated. The proposed research process will use a strengths based approach, and thus it also is used as a lens through which existing literature is surveyed in this document.

Page | 8

1. Introduction This literature survey aims to provide a context for the research project “Capacity Development for Effective and Efficient Disabled Persons Organisation in Pacific Island Countries” (hereafter referred to as “the research project”) undertaken jointly by Pacific Disability Forum (PDF) and Australia Pacicfic Islands Disability Support (APIDS), in 2011-12. The survey draws on material from international and Pacific sources (see Annex 1). Overall, the objectives of the research project are to:

1. Synthesise relevant existing research and reports on lessons learned from previous capacity development activities in the Pacific context, including with DPOs

2. Provide opportunities for learning and reflection among DPOs about the concepts of capacity, capacity development, effectiveness and efficiency in their own contexts

3. Identify key issues affecting the capacity of DPOs and their capacity development pathways

4. Develop suggested principles and themes relevant to capacity development for DPOs in the Pacific region, based on DPO perspectives, including themes about leadership, organizational governance and administration

5. Identify the range of preferred and appropriate approaches and tools for development partners to contribute to strengthening the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of Pacific DPOs

After defining key terms (Section 2 below), this paper summarises findings from an analysis of current relevant literature and identifies key themes on the following topics:

• Roles of DPOs (Section 3) • Capacity of DPOs (Section 4) • Capacity development processes relevant to DPOs (Section 5) • Current approaches to capacity issues and capacity development

processes relevant to civil society organisations more broadly (Section 6)

• Current approaches to capacity development processes in Pacific island countries (Section 7)

• Partnerships and approaches which effectively support DPO capacity development (Section 8)

The paper finishes with a set of implications for this research project, based on analysis of the literature. (Section 9)

Page | 9

2. Definition of terms

2.1 Disability

There are diverse understandings related to “disability” which make some kinds of research in this area challenging. For the sake of this research, the definition is not central, since the issues are more focused on organisational entities, which are made up of people who define themselves as members because of their self-determination of their status as people with disabilities. The research recognises the paradigm shift which defined disability in purely medical or impairment terms, to one which recognises the variety of biological, psychological and social factors contributing to the status of people with disabilities (Eide & Loeb, 2005 and WHO, 2002). It is now widely accepted that disability extends beyond physical impairments and also involves a complex interaction with social and environmental components. The social model of disability is reinforced in the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which defines a person with disabilities as:

“those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”(UN CRPD, p. 5)

2.2 DPOs Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) are a category of civil society (or non-government) organisation with a specific membership – people with disabilities, although in some cases, DPOs are established and run by carers and/or family members of people with disability. As civil society organisations, DPOs are diverse in scope, size, nature, degree of formality and capacity. DPOs operate at local (town, city, district or province/state), national, regional and international levels. DPOs may be inclusive of all people with disabilities or focus on people with particular impairments. DPO histories often reflect the efforts of one or a few individuals, and a set of circumstances unique to each country or context, but are increasingly linked with similar organisations in other settings, including internationally. Since the adoption of the CRPD in 2006, a substantial majority of DPOs now use it to determine their focus. Prior to this, a number of other factors contributed to DPOs’ purposes, focus, priorities, memberships and scope, such as members’ or carers’ agendas, national constitutions or legislation and other agreements such as the Biwako Millenium Framework. Section 3 below considers the roles of DPOs in more detail.

Page | 10

2.3 Capacity

The term “capacity” has multiple meanings in English language and rarely translates into other languages with the same set of meanings. In the discipline of development cooperation, capacity has come to be used in many different ways and this often leads to confusion. It is widely understood that individuals, groups/organisations, networks/sectors and countries have capacity (Bolger 2000) and that in these different dimensions, capacity can be defined differently. For the purpose of this research, which focuses on the capacity of one type of organisations, the definition of capacity is proposed as follows:

“that emergent combination of attributes that enables a human system to create developmental value2” (Morgan 2006).

This definition incorporates the ideas that there are many attributes that make up an organisation (a human system). According to Baser and Morgan (2008), following a long-term international research program carried out by the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), capacity of organisations is made up of the following 5 elements:

• Capability to commit and engage

• Capability to carry out technical, service delivery and logistical tasks

• Capability to relate and attract resources

• Capability to adapt and self-renew

• Capability to balance diversity and coherence

This is clearly one of many varied models for understanding capacity of organisations. The selection of the ECDPM model to underpin this research project is based on the research team’s understanding of: its value in including key elements of organisational capacity; the fact that the examples used in the research were from developing rather than developed countries; and the fact that multiple donor agencies, including AusAID now use this model in their work.

2.4 Capacity Development

As is the case with the concept of “capacity” itself, the term “capacity development” has myriad meanings, is widely used for different purposes and is often confusing. There is considerable literature on the topic, written in the last 2 decades, particularly in the area of development cooperation. Despite the substantial literature, James (2007) notes:

2  The  Concept  of  Capacity  

Page | 11

“Capacity building is a mystery. Despite all the attention given to capacity building over the last decade, we are left with nagging doubts and unanswered questions. We are not sure what works and why. Some are not convinced that capacity building makes any positive difference at all.”

Almost all literature on capacity development has been written by “donor” countries, both at Government and community levels, but there is now increasing opportunities for voices to be heard from developing countries who have been the “subject” of capacity development. For example:

“Over the past two years, a small partnership of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the professional learning network LenCD and a nascent Southern political advocacy group “CD Alliance” have worked with many other partners to move the capacity development (CD) agenda from the donor-donor discussion that has characterized it for the last 50 years, to one with greater Southern voice, even leadership. Key to this partnership has been Dr. Talaat Abdel-Malek, currently senior advisor to the Egyptian Minister of International Development, co-chair of the CD Alliance and, …. co-chair of the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness (WP-EFF)…” (Hradsky 2011).

From the vast selection of capacity development material, using the strengths-based approach, this literature survey has selected the following mix of ideas to provide a basis for the Pacific research on DPO capacity:

• Capacity exists in every person, group or organisation and that capacity changes in any of these over time through a multiplicity of internal and external processes

• Changes in capacity over time represent complex, human processes and are predominantly driven by the holder of that capacity – no-one can build someone else’s capacity

• Most people and organisations are continually building their capacity in one form or another, although the process varies significantly in nature and pace, and is subject to vast numbers of influences, which are not necessarily predictable

• Capacity development involves changes in relationship between elements of open-systems and involves shifts in power and identity (James 2007 p93)

• From an external donor or partner perspective, capacity development, while being a process and not a finite state, can still be an end in itself, in the sense that an organisation can reach a point where it no longer seeks explicit assistance from outside to be able to undertake its full

Page | 12

range of objectives and can continue its own process independently – on the other hand, capacity development is clearly an ongoing process, in the sense that every organisation will change over time and will need to grow and adapt to some extent.

There is also substantial literature on the wide range of capacity development ideas relevant to civil society organisations/ community sector organisations (CSOs) or non-government organisations (NGOs). Within a context of complex definitions of and diversity among CSOs or NGOs (Eade 2000), there is a body of work on capacity development in and for them, separate from more generic capacity development literature. Rick James is prolific in this area, having produced many articles and books under the International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC). His work is founded on the concept that civil society organisations are focused on making a “genuine difference to the poor” and that since “the poor cannot afford the luxury of costly and confused aid programmes” (James 2007 p5), there needs to be concerted effort to ensure capacity development processes in these organisations are effective. He points out the lack of agreement on the role and purpose of capacity development within CSOs, with roles ranging from “to enhance ability to deliver services or programs” to “develop greater solidarity in the community and mobilise action” (p14). He concludes that “organisational capacity building can be seen as conscious and holistic interventions designed to improve an organisation’s effectiveness and sustainability in relation to its mission and context” (p93).

James argues in summary that capacity development in NGOs should be:

• Client- and people-centred

• Promoting local ownership

• Empowering individuals or groups of people

• Energising communities and organisations

• Releasing latent human ability and promoting mutual learning and trust

• Engaging with and, where appropriate, changing centres of informal and formal power (p94)

Vast literature exists on the tools which can facilitate capacity development through partnerships and funding from outside. AusAID for example recently commissioned a list of alternative approaches to the placement of long-term technical advisory personnel, which exceeded 50 different tools. James (2007 p 95) summarises the tools available to facilitate such processes in NGOs as follows:

• Changing personal attitudes

Page | 13

• Building competencies and skills

• Training

• Shadowing, mentoring, coaching

• Organisational development such as restructuring, change management

The selection of tools and approaches is critical, as each context has a different starting point in terms of capacity and experience of capacity development processes, as well as set of priorities and influences on its pathway towards being a stronger organisation. Importantly, there are strong connections between cultural values in any setting and the ways in which capacity exists and develops over time. For example, leadership styles differ between cultures, so if leadership development is a key element in a capacity development program, then it needs to be culturally relevant to the particular setting.

NGO commentators are increasingly identifying that capacity development is not about developing the capacity of separate institutions but about investing in and accumulating social capital. Relationships between organisations can bring about significant social and economic change, such as relationships between mining companies and communities, or between like-minded organisations in different cultural settings, sharing their different experiences.

3. Roles of DPOs Literature on DPOs confirms that the purposes and roles of DPOs around the world vary, but most aim to represent and advocate for their members. Factors such as the aspirations of the original group of people who established the organisation in each country context, and the influence of emerging priorities and external partners since their initial establishment, shape the current purposes and roles of DPOs in various contexts. Some DPOs are explicitly focused on improving the rights of people with disability at representational, strategic or systemic levels, while others are more focused on individual advocacy, and others focus on service delivery such as coordination of community based rehabilitation services. Reports about the roles of DPOs describe some with multiple purposes at multiple levels, in any formulation of the above. If DPOs are defined as organisations run by people with disabilities to represent their prorities and advocate for their rights, then these aims are generally expected to assist them in participating fully in their communities and to achieve a variety of changes in relation to public policy, programs and services (including information, education, employment etc.). Thus, according

Page | 14

to this definition of DPOs, their primary purpose is “advocacy.” Advocacy can include:

• Representing an individual in seeking changes or improvements in their life

• Representing a number of people’s views on a particular issue • Seeking to bring about systemic changes at organisational, community,

attitutdinal, policy and national levels

As representational organisations, a key element of DPOs’ roles is being able to accurately and fairly synthesise and communicate the voices of many members. DPOs may also include a variety of service delivery activities in their roles, such as employment services, skills training, community based rehabilitation programs and provision of medical equipment. References in literature on the roles of DPOs mentioned above (advocacy, representation of members and service delivery) are described in more detail below.

3.1 Advocacy

Literature on the role of civil society organizations more generally in advocacy and development is extensive (for example, Eade 2000, James 2001 and 2002, Howell and Pearce 2001, Bebbington et al 2008). Driven by the need to find effective solutions to the problems of poverty and injustice, recent thinking about civil society has begun placing a greater emphasis on advocacy. There is a growing expectation that civil society organisations (CSOs) should be conducting advocacy, engaging with and influencing key policies and decision makers to complement their service delivery role. To facilitate the shift, considerable effort has been invested in capacity building for advocacy. Stalker and Sandberg (2011) identify current practice, experiences, lessons learned and theoretical approaches related to supporting the roles of CSOs in advocacy generally. Dominant themes include:

• the need for practitioners to be aware of the complex nature of advocacy and of various models of achieving social and political change

• the value of following a strategic, diagnostic approach, which grows from an understanding of contextual, socio-historical factors while bearing in mind the tenuous relationships between capacity and effectiveness

• the current limited availability of strategic implementation guidance or systematic evaluation of advocacy capacity building activities.

Page | 15

In the case of DPOs’ advocacy role, there is widespread agreement in the literature that they have a critical role in the promotion and protection of the rights of people with disability. People with disability working collaboratively at international, national and local levels to address rights issues share this perspective. While some DPOs may not explicitly identify “rights” in their purpose, most use elements of rights-based thinking and practices in their work. A key tool in this context is now the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in December 2006. This Convention identifies internationally agreed rights of people with disabilities, expressed in a set of articles on a variety of issues relevant to the respective roles and responsibilities of governments. The terms “representative organisations” or “organisations of people with disabilities” are mentioned in the following four CRPD articles. These articles state or imply the following roles for DPOs: Figure 1: References to DPO roles in CRPD Reference Content Stated/implied DPO

role Article 4, para 3

In the development and implementation of legislation and policies to implement the present Convention, and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities, States Parties shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations.

To provide mechanisms for Governments to listen to the voices and opinions of people with disabilities on legislation and policies related to disability.

Article 29, para b

States Parties will: b) Promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in the conduct of public affairs, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and encourage their participation in public affairs, including: • ... • Forming and joining organizations

of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at international, national, regional and

To represent persons with disabilities at international, national, regional and local levels.

Page | 16

local levels. Article 32 States Parties recognize the importance

of international cooperation and its promotion, in support of national efforts for the realization of the purpose and objectives of the present Convention, and will undertake appropriate and effective measures in this regard, between and among States and, as appropriate, in partnership with relevant international and regional organizations and civil society, in particular organizations of persons with disabilities.

To work in partnership with donor countries to facilitate implementation of the Convention at national level.

Article 33, para 3.

Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process.

To be involved in and participate fully in monitoring progress of national implementation of CRPD.

3.2 Representation

Literature on the roles of CSOs generally and DPOs in particular highlights their role in representing the views of members on priority issues. Sometimes these views may be focussed on systemic advocacy (as noted above), and other occasions, representation may be of members’ experiences of a particular issue or perspectives. With increasing interest shown in disability issues by donor agencies, international partners, governments and other organisations in recent decades, the role of DPOs in representing their members as well as the views of people with disability more broadly is increasingly important. This role implies the importance of DPOs being effective and efficient organisations in terms of their capacity to govern themselves, facilitate meetings, document and communicate information, manage programs and finances etc. In the Pacific, the role of churches is important in all aspects of community life, so DPOs relationships with churches and engagement in spiritual aspects of disability may arise as a theme, although nothing is found in literature in the public domain on this topic.

Page | 17

3.3 Service delivery

Many DPOs were established with the inclusion of a purpose to provide services for groups of people with disability, such as wheelchairs, white canes, braille machines or books, sign language training classes and community based rehabilitation. Service delivery remains an element of many contemporary DPOs and has been incorporated within a rights based approach where DPOs have adopted it in recent years, i.e. identifying that people who have a vision impairment for example, have the right to access information in a format which is accessible to them. The skills involved in organising service delivery activities differ from advocacy skills in nature, but the experience of listening and responding to members stories and priorities can provide “content” for advocacy agendas. Skills required for service delivery can range from fundraising and maintaining links with commercial or other donors, logistics, financial management, proposal writing, monitoring and reporting. 3.4 Partner perceptions of DPO roles International donor agencies and partner organisations with interest in supporting development processes and inclusive societies are becoming increasingly aware of the critical role of DPOs. Examples include:

• The Government of Australia, in its strategy Development For All: Towards a disability-inclusive Australian aid program (2008), identified the key role of DPOs in “working towards inclusive, barrier-free and gender-equitable societies that recognise the rights, citizenship, participation and contributions of people with disability. They play an essential role in giving a voice to people with disability and influencing national decision making in development”. (p19)

• USAID’s Disability Assessment Tool/Guide, which enables country programs to understand disability issues in each country, includes DPOs as the primary stakeholder under the section “Stakeholder Assessment and Overview”

• The European Community identifies the roles of DPOs as: o Represent the interests of persons with disabilities o Advocate and lobby for the rights of persons with disabilities o Ensure that the government and service providers are

responsive to rights of persons with disabilities o Some DPOs also provide information and other services to their

members3

3 http://www.inclusive-development.org/cbmtools/part1/stakeholders.htm

Page | 18

o A European Commission project in the western Balkans noted

“creating and strengthening local and national cross-disability umbrella bodies in Western Balkans countries is ...a necessary step to create a new environment in which NGOs can successfully promote the rights and interests of people with disabilities”. (European Disability Forum)

• In Holland, in late 2004, the Dutch Coalition on Disability and Development organised an international symposium, focused on “Disability, Self-organisation and Aid” which produced a report focussed on “how donor organisations can work on capacity building of disabled people’s organisations.”

• A report to the Swedish International Development Agency recommended that, inter alia, SIDA should “strengthen the capacity of DPOs so that they can become vibrant and influential civil society actors” (Melander Schnell Consultants 2009 p1)

• The New Zealand Aid Program has funded some training for DPO leaders as part of broader Pacific NGO leadership training and other capacity development activities, supported by UNDP.

In summary, available reports from donors suggest these agencies consider that DPOs are generally needing to strengthen their capacity so they can play the variety of expected roles. There is no reference to the existing capacity strengths of DPOs and their own priorities for strengthening themselves. Thus the proposed research will be able to contribute to an understanding of the existing capacity strengths of DPOs, DPOs’ own perceptions of their capacity and how their organisations can strengthen their own capacity, and how DPOs envisage that partners can contribute to these processes.

3.5 Implications of roles for DPO capacity

The various roles of DPOs (in advocacy, in representation and in service delivery) have implications for the kinds of capacity that DPOs would be expected to have as organisations. Literature on the nature of organisations confirms there is not a universal model for a “perfect” or standard organisation, with a set amount or type of “capacity” elements that each should have, but rather a variety of understandings and interpretations, influenced by many factors, including cultural values in each context. For example, Land et al, 2005, identify two distinct perceptions the nature of organisations – e.g. either as machine-like structures with standardised elements (reflecting technocratic and rational perspectives); or complex adaptive systems (reflecting the idea that organisations are more like living

Page | 19

organisms). Land’s paper suggests that there are a variety of ways of understanding what DPOs might look like in terms of their capacity. The diverse literature on organisations, organisational change and development, makes it hard to make a judgement about whether there are some elements of capacity relevant to all organisations, regardless of their particular function or orientation. By far the majority of literature on organisational change and development is written about “western” organisations from the perspective of people with “western” values about society. As noted above, perspectives from developing countries are being increasingly recorded and communicated. The substantial literature on the capacity of civil society organisations in particular is also largely written by “western” authors (e.g. James 2001, 2002; Eade 2000; Howell 2001; Bebbington 2008) although increasing articles are emerging from authors from Asia, Africa and Latin America (e.g. OECD 2009). There is also some literature of organisational capacity issues in different cultural contexts (e.g. Hofstede and Hofstede 2005; House 2004). The next section describes themes in the literature on the link between roles of DPOs and DPO capacity.

4. Capacity of DPOs As noted in sections 2 and 3 above, “capacity” can mean many different things to different people and there are few internationally agreed definitions, models and frameworks or approaches. Understandings about what constitutes effective organisations vary substantially between cultures (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005) and according to different philosophical understandings. For example, some cultures prefer organisations which have leaders who make all decisions, other cultures prefer organisations which have very strict and rigid structures, while other cultures prefer organisations that resemble family dynamics. Authors such as James (2001) confirm that the cultural context in which organisations operate is extremely influential on the nature and practices of organisations, and this of course, also applies to DPOs. Land (2009) adds to this diversity of understandings with his argument that organisations are “complex adaptive systems” more like living organisms than machines with fixed components. This research will help to identify any commonalities and differences among Pacific DPOs about their respective understandings and perceptions of existing and desired capacity for effective and efficient organisations. There is currently no literature about capacity issues in Pacific DPOs in the public

Page | 20

domain, but other sources of information about capacity issues for CSOs, NGOs and Pacific organisations more generally and for DPOs internationally will help to guide the research process. Documents on DPO capacity from sources outside the Pacific region almost universally focus on their “lack” of capacity. Particularly from a donor perspective, DPO capacity is largely referred to in the negative rather (e.g. this organisation lacks capacity, therefore we should support it or fill the gaps) than in the positive (e.g. this organisation has capacity strengths and we should support their development so that the organisation can better achieve its objectives). For example, AusAID’s Disability Strategy noted “Throughout the consultation the lack of capacity in DPOs was raised as a major obstacle to empowering people with disability and building their capacity to raise awareness and advocate effectively.” It is understandable that people from countries where organizations have particular features, describe organizations that do not share those features as “lacking capacity”. It is certainly understandable that organizations of people who are likely to have been excluded from education and employment opportunities more broadly, would have little experience that could inform the quality of their organizations and thus may be portrayed as lacking the elements seen in organizations run by people who have had educational and employment opportunities. However, a relatively strong strand of literature on strengths-based approaches, particularly the use of Appreciative Inquiry tool (Cooperrider 2000; Whitney and Shau 1998; and Australian Appreciative Inquiry Network) is based on the belief that in every context there are strengths/assets and resources on which to build future activity. This increasing body of literature suggests that by identifying existing strengths (i.e. in an organization or group’s capacity), there is a greater likelihood that motivation to achieve the next set of objectives will be unleashed, and thus capacity developed. Many reports explain reasons for this perception of lack of capacity. For example:

• a report of meeting giving recommendations to SIDA suggested “persons with disabilities are often not ready to organise until they have developed a self esteem situation and level of independence in terms of moving that allows them to participat in activities and social life outside the family” page 4)

• a 2005 report on “Capacity building of disabled people’s organisations in Mozambique” noted

o “the prevalent lack of education available to, and poverty among the leaders and members” of DPOs

Page | 21

o The ability to organise and influence policy makers and other key players assertively needs to be strengthened. The gap between policy makers and disabled people is huge, and effectively keeps disabled people down and out as a result of gaps in knowledge, skills and language.

o A dominant image of disabled people as beggars militates against their ability to assert themselves as advocates of their cause, and to be taken seriously as such.

o There are difficulties in traversing the bridge from welfare to development. The ‘charity’ ethic is said to run deep among disabled people in Mozambique, as in other poor developing countries”.

• A Dutch workshop of 150 DPO representatives and others from 17 countries in 2004 identified that “donors need to take into account that the current education system in many countries is grounded in a system that segratees disabled popeple....thus very few disabled people gain access to higher education. Leadership and management of DPOs is therefore an issue that requires specific attention.” (p2)

A DPO representative from Swaziland in Africa noted that in his experience, donor agencies tended to “allocate resources to organisations that are already empowered and forget about those that still need capacity building” pointing to the issue that those organisations which could most benefit from support may be excluded because of their lack of capacity, which may well be a result of their general exclusion in the first place. Overall, the key capacity themes that emerge from the existing literature include the importance of DPOs having capacity in:

• Empowering their members and people with disability generally • Representating their members’ priorities • Organising either individual/group services (e.g. income

generating skills development) • Advocating for long-term systemic and policy changes related to

the rights of people with disabilties in society overall • Planning and organisation of meetings and events • Planning and management of projects, finances, offices, staff and

volunteers • Networking and partnerships with Government, other civil society

organisations and external partners

Page | 22

There are certainly major omissions in reports on DPO capacity. In particular, there are negligible references to existing capacity strengths in DPOs; on chosen capacity deveopment pathways by DPOs themselves; on prospects for building on existing capacity; and on the full range of factors that influence existing and potential capacity. There is therefore considerable scope for research in this area.

5. Capacity development processes and topics relevant to DPOs The relatively sparse literature on capacity development in DPOs (all outside the Pacific) to date provides a mix of perspectives on capacity development processes and almost all literature focuses on the capacity development inputs provided by external partners, rather than the capacity development processes undertaken within DPOs internally. The three sources of perspectives captured in reports include:

• The voice of DPOs themselves which seek particular kinds of support from partners and donors

• The donors’ perspectives, which identify particular kinds of perceived capacity development inputs required by them

• Findings of a British evaluator of Scandinavian DPOs’ support for capacity development of “southern” DPOs.

While there is a notable absence of documentation about how DPOs develop their own capacity internally and what factors influence their own pathways towards organisational strengthening, some reports do refer to the priority capacity “needs” of DPOs in relation to advocacy skills, leadership development and accountability. A study by James (2001) identified a number of capacity priorities for a range of civil society organisations more broadly (see below). There are increasing numbers of articles capturing “voices from the south” on capacity development in CSOs more broadly (e.g. James 2001, OECD) but the majority focus on ways in which they want donors to contribute rather than on ways they wish to strengthen their capacity from within. James’ 2001 study among NGOs from Africa, Asia and Latin America and from donor countries identified a range of capacity development priorities, and some interesting differences between them. The following topics were identified under 4 headings, among the “top-10” capacity building priorities (with items in bold deemed to be in the top 3 by NGOs from at least one regional grouping of developing countries):

Page | 23

• Individual: Leadership development, staff development and gender sensitivity

• Organisational: Planning and strategic management; organisation renewal and development; program design and management; monitoring and evaluaiton; financial systems; information access, storage, dissemination; research, documenting and perspective-building

• Resources: fund-raising; local resource mobilisation; core funding for NGOs

• External relations: policy research, analysis and advocacy; networking with NGOs; Collaboration with government or business; clarifying NGO roles and identieids; improving governance and accountability; improving relations with donor agencies.

James concludes that there was no universal agreement on most capacity development priorities among southern NGOs and noted that while northern NGO partners agreed with some priorities, they added others that they considered from their own perspective, were priorities (e.g. monitoring and evaluation and inter-sectoral relations). The implication of this experience is that “appropriate capacity-building programmes may require extensive negotiation and joint discussion to adapt to local, national and regional needs, and to responde o the concerns of diverse recipients as well as the interests of those who deliver capacity-building services.” (p23) Whereas early literature on capacity development envisaged it as a process driven by outsiders to improve organisations in developing countries, more recent reports are beginning to recognise that organisations are primarily responsible for their own capacity development: “no-one can develop someone else’s capacity” (Morgan 2005). External groups and individuals can contribute a variety of support, ideas, technical advice and funding, but in the end, every organisation itself needs to determine what it does with those contributions and whether they will make a sustainable difference to the organisation’s future. If organisations are led to believe that the only source of “capacity development” is external to themselves, then there is a significant risk that their future is out of their control and certainly not consistent with their true priorities, either in the short term (in terms of individual or group objectives) or long term (in terms of systematic, social change). If civil society organisations are also led to believe that there is a “right” and “wrong” model of a successful organisation, then this may also limit their own emerging potential and their own process of self-empowerment

Page | 24

Land’s (2005) paper about the idea that organisations are complex adaptive systems rather than machine-like structures, points to a number of implications for capacity development work in organisations such as DPOs. He writes that capacity development “may be seen as a process that is part and parcel of the life cycle of any organisation” and that “capacity emerges from the complex interactions among all actors in the system and produce characteristics not found in any of the elements of the system”. He suggested, along this line, that capacity development process is “not driven by purposeful intervention and therefore cannot be managed in a conventional sense. Nor can it be marshalled and adopted as a technique. However, it can be understood and influenced. The power and influence of emergence grows as complexity and uncertainty increase.” He goes on to argue that “by focusing on processes, interrelationships, emergence and self-organisation, complex adaptive systems can help us to understand the more unpredictable and disorderly aspects of capacity development” and “by changing the way we look at cause-and-effect relationships, emphasising possibilities and probabilities rather than predictable results, it also challenges many assumptions about the need for planning, detailed design and control.” The view that organisations are actually complex human systems is confirmed by James (2002) who writes: “capacity building is usually viewed as a neutral, innocuous and impersonal process. Organisations are treated as if they were machines. A bit of adjustment here and input here and there and, logically, their capacity will be built and they will function more efficiently. We have de-personalised capacity building and ignored the human dimension to organisational change.” By far the majority of reports available on the topic of capacity development within DPOs, focus on the kinds of contributions to capacity development processes made by external partners and therefore to some extent reflect different cultural perceptions of what an “effective and efficient” DPO should look like. The material below highlights key messages from three sources:

• a Mozambican research process on DPO capacity building (Ncube 2005)

• a study of Scandinavian DPOs’ support for “southern” DPOs (Albert 200

• a meeting of DPOs convened by a Dutch Consortium (DCDD 2005) Mozambican DPOs which participated in a research activity in 2005 supported by Finnish and British partner NGOs, provided some differing perspectives on capacity development from their partners. From the perspective of the Mozambican DPOs, capacity building involves: building the internal

Page | 25

institutional capacity of an organisation (the internal environment); and using that internal institutional capacity to service an organisation’s membership (the extent of its ability to influence the external environment through acquired competencies)4. The following excerpt from the report describes their perspectives:

“The Mozambican DPOs consulted for this project were emphatic on one level that capacity building activities should aim to free the organisation, enabling it to become increasingly able to pursue autonomous actions, based on competencies that derive from within itself. One DPO described this activity as “creating legs with which to walk”. These competencies include the ability to identify the support an organisation needs, and to seek and enlist the relevant support from development partners. There is recognition that the achievement of such capacity is a lengthy process, and that member associations of the umbrella organisation are at different levels on the scale of such capacity. Put differently, the DPOs were clear that the internal institutional capacity (based on its access to needed human, material and financial resources) has to be linked to the use to which the organisation puts such resources in the service of the members. The question that the DPOs suggest needs to be raised continually is: “How are we using the resources and capacity to benefit the membership?” So, the strength of an organization has to be seen to relate to its ability to address the needs of its constituency – the members. At the one-day workshop held as part of this project, DPOs expressed an overwhelming concern that some development partners understand capacity building only in the context of “endless” training inputs (about which DPOs claimed to have little say or choice) without this being accompanied with the means to kick-start practical organisational activities. The lack of institutional support (including cover of some basic operational costs) of the organisation is seen as limiting a DPO’s ability to put into practice the new knowledge and skills, which DPOs understood as a lost opportunity, and leads to frustrations and eventual loss of the knowledge that may have been acquired. It appears that there is a need to follow up training activities with well-thought-out follow-up support that taps into the knowledge and skills acquired, leading to the development of a range of programmes that make use of the skills and other resources available to a DPO. Training that is not followed up to enable its practical utilisation was described roundly as “training for nothing”. Capacity building is intended to enable the provision of necessary resources to allow the efficient and effective operation of an organisation. Participants were firm that capacity

4 Ncube 2005 p 11

Page | 26

building should include training and skills-building inputs, as well as the institutional resources (including core costs cover) that give the organisation the means to practice and learn from the experience of (planning and managing its activities and money, among other things). The Mozambican DPOs felt that Northern NGOs could be more supportive of this process since the DPOs’ needs shape this demand.

The Evaluation of Scandinavian DPOs’ support for “southern” DPOs only included consultations with Scandinavian DPOs themselves, although it was critical of their lack of understanding of DPOs context and the lack of thorough and coherent efforts to support capacity develoment. Scandinavian DPOs are the conduits for the substantial official development assistance in the disability sector. The Evaluation noted that a substantial proportion of funding for capacity development was provided directly to “southern” DPOs, in the form of small, short-term grants, without significant technical assistance or monitoring by “northern” partners (which are predominantly Scandinavian DPOs). This meant in theory that the capacity development priorities and agendas of DPOs in developing countries were prioritised. However, the author considered that in practice, DPOs proposals were written to comply with donor criteria and this skewed their real priorities, and the lack of genuine partnership based on good development principles and practice, beyond the shared solidarity associated with being disabled, limited the value of effectiveness in terms of DPO capacity development. The study referred to several other sources of information about the link between southern and northern DPOs in relation to capacity development, e.g.:

• A Bangladeshi report on DPO contributions from international DPO partners which noted: “Short term funding, the dominance of Northern priorities and a lack of understanding of local conditions were all mentioned as significant shortcomings. The lesson drawn from the discussion was that the “… potential for greater solidarity does not necessarily mean any greater levels of patience, tolerance and understanding.”

• A South African workshop5 which reached “similarly harsh conclusions. It was reported that although engagement was positive with many Nordic DPOs, genuine partnership and collaboration was lacking and there was little mutual understanding. Furthermore, it was claimed that INGOs are often more knowledgeable about Southern DPOs than their Northern comrades” (p18).

5        SAFOD,  Capacity  Building  of  Southern  Disabled  People’s  Organisation,  Cape  Town,  4th  June  –  5  June  2007,  mss.  

Page | 27

The DPO representatives from 17 countries (mainly Africa and Europe) who met at a Dutch workshop in 2005 again largely focused on the role that development partners played in their capacity development rather than their own strengths and their own role/responsibilities to develop capacity in relation to their own priorities. They agreed with the idea that “more resources need to be made available for the capacity building of organisations of disabled people in developing countries”(p2) and that the focus of this work should be on “promoting advocacy activities”. They sought more consistent and long-term programs supported by donors, and activities that are better followed-up rather than frequently changed in their direction and focus. They also noted that donors should “avoid over-funding” and “should not always draw on the same faces.” It was also noted that “the keyword is collaboration, use strengths from both sides” and the DPO representatives at the meeting identified that capacity development approaches by donors should include “more work on empowerment of people with disabilities... and help for DPOs to better advocate access to human rights for disabled people throughout their region or country” (p3). It is worth noting, that particularly in the Pacific, the lack of focus in the literature on existing capacity strengths and thus the emphasis on the “lack of capacity” in Pacific DPOs, is not unique to DPOs. A “deficit-based” model is also dominant in descriptions of Government agencies and other civil society orgasisations in the region. Like any organisations, DPOs have a variety of ways to develop their own capacity, to articulate their own capacity priorities and to determine their own capacity development pathways. There is a dearth of literature relevant to DPOs specifically, but significant literature for organisations more generally on these issues. The next session summarises this literature.  

6. Current approaches to capacity development in CSOs

This section focuses on five selected themes from the vast literature on capacity development issues for civil society/community sector organisations:

• The influence on the definition of capacity on capacity development processes

• The influence of cultural values and other contextual issues on capacity development

• The importance of ownership and leadership of capacity changes • The emerging emphasis on strengths-based approaches in capacity

develoment processes • The selection of approaches, methods and tools which are intended to

contribute to capacity development

Page | 28

6.1 Definition of capacity

As noted in Section 3 above, there is no universally agreed definition of organisational capacity. This means that if capacity is to be “developed”, there needs to be negotation between the respective stakeholders about:

• which elements of capacity are already there (see strengths-based approaches below)

• whose vision of organisational capacity, effectiveness and efficiency is being followed (see ownership and leadership below)

• which pathways best suit the achievement of increased capacity, and how might the responsibilities be allocated between the organisation and its supporting partners.

Without this kind of thinking among stakeholders, the literature suggests that external donors and partners will dominate the determination of “desired” capacity development outcomes as well as the nature and extent of capacity development processes. For DPOs, whose focus is universally agreed as the rights of its members, it seems critical for them to be the dominant stakeholder in determining their own pathways and objectives in relation to capacity.

6.2 Understanding the influence of cultural values on capacity development

One key theme in contemporary approaches to capacity develoment is the need to ensure the local context and its influence on individual, organisational and sectoral behaviour are well understood by all stakeholders. For example, the qualities of a good leader vary from culture to culture, so if “improved leadership” is deemed to be an important capacity development pathway, attention needs to be paid to the particular elements of leadership that exist and that require strengthening in each specific context. Also, people in different cultures and also within cultures, learn in different ways, so that a leadership development program which is theoretical and didactic may suit some cultures, but one which is experiential and practical may suit others. James (2001) summarises this with his comment “no one-size” for capacity bulding will “fit all” southern NGOs”. (p23) According to James (2002), “Capacity-building is about changing people’s behaviour in organisations. The way people behave is heavily influenced by the culture and context within which they live and work”. (p49). Thus the lived experiences of people with disabilities will influence the nature of DPOs, as well as the diverse cultural values which are found in different country or community contexts. The implication of this is that DPOs’ capacity

Page | 29

develoment pathways may differ from one organisation and from one place/country to another. They should not be given to believe there is only one “right” way to capacity development.

6.3 Ownership and leadership of change

James also points out that “for a major change process to be effective, it must be owned by the people, and in particular the leadership, to such an extent that they are prepared to go through the discomfort and pain of change at a personal level, which such organisational change may require” (p44). Thus, in the case of DPOs, the changes required for successful capacity strengthening must be determined by the DPO itself and understood as the DPO’s responsibility, and therefore cannot be imposed by others from outside the context. James identifies three critical elements which are relevant to capacity development:

• Ownership of change must exist in the organisation • Leaders have to be leaders of change • The change process must be to promote ownership, deal with power

and address personal change (p45-46)

Having confirmed that dealing with and managing change is a critical theme in capacity development processes, James raises the question “where does the need for change come from?” A changing environment is one of the key sources, alongside others, so therefore, any contribution to changes in capacity need to take account of the particular context in which the organisation operates. He concludes “in seeking to improve our capacity-building we must therefore embed our programs within the very specific cultures and also contexts in which they operate.” (p47) The idea that leadership of a change process is fundamental for capacity development to take place is not incongruent with the idea that organisations may seek to strengthen leadership skills. The latter can be valuable as both a source of inspiration to leaders who then realise the scope for developing the capcity of their organisations, or it can be the logical extension of the idea that for orgasnisations to change, they may wish to strengthen existing leadership skills through training or other methods.

6.4 Strengths-based approaches

Another emerging theme in contemporary capacity development literature is the use of strengths-based approaches. A definition of strenths-based approaches is that they are “a philosophy and set of approaches which concentrate on the inherent strengths of individuals, organisations, communities, groups, sectors or networks as the basis for identifying, connecting and mobilising them, for planning to achieve development or

Page | 30

change and for working in partnerships”. The development of these approaches was a clear reaction against the problem-based approaches (or gap or weakness-based approaches) which were the basis for many disciplines, including international aid. The reaction reflected the idea that problem-based approaches are fundamentally disempowering, demotivating, disrespectful and incompatible with the kinds of respect-based partnerships which research has consistently shown are critical to the achievement of sustainable change. The idea behind strengths-based approaches is that in every context, there is a strength or asset and resource, the identification of which will lead to motivation towards positive change – if one focuses on positive change, then this is the path which one will follow; whereas if one focuses on challenges, gaps, weaknesses, problems and negatives, then this is all one will see, and the result will be paralysis and lack of action based on a sense of powerlessness, uselessness and weakness.

Strengths-based thinking is highly compatible with broader disability philosophies which encourage the focus on people’s abilities (rather than their disabilities), and focus on the promotion of rights-based and barrier-free societies.

Implications of strengths-based thinking for the capacity development of DPOs is potentially significant, in that its use will give greater respect to the existing diverse abilities of DPO officials and members as well as contribute to mobilisation of effort and motivation towards achievement of shared objectives. Literature on the value of strengths-based thinking is emerging globally, at all levels, and there are many examples of its use and positive results in development programs supported by Australia in Asian and Pacific countries (see Rhodes and Dureau 2011).

6.5 Selection of approaches, methods and tools

There is a great deal of interest, at least from the donor and partner perspectives, on the selection of the most appropriate approaches, methods and tools to contribute to capacity development of organisations generally. Most of this debate is held within the paradigm or belief framework that “capacity building is something that one organisation or individual does to another” and the assumption that “the north has much to teach the south” (Roland and Omar 2001, p66), so the focus is usually on tools associated with one-way teaching. Roland and Omar’s case study of a “mutual capacity-building” activity found that “relations between such organisations, unpolluted by the inherent power dynamics which arise through control over resources, tend to be more equal and offer greater opportunities for learning both in the south and the north.” (p66)

Page | 31

Increased documentation of voices from the south (e.g. OECD 2009) suggests that there is much greater likelihood of mutual learning approaches being used in future, but despite plenty of evidence that one-way teaching/training programs rarely meet their expectations, this is still a dominant practice in capacity development thinking. Dominant themes in capacity development literature are sadly patronising in that they focus on the ways that external interventions can best ensure that people in developing countries will learn how to do things differently. There is a sense that “[training] programs can be effective when done under favourable conditions and when country demand, motivation and ownership are high” but this is not always assessed prior to training delivery, and such approaches do not tend to recognise the value of mutual-learning, the value of building on existing knowledge, the challenges of applying new knowledge to practice in isolation from other factors which influence practice.

Many guidelines have been produced for aid workers on how to best “do” capacity development work (e.g. UNDP 2004, OECD 2006) and a plethora of case studies have been written in myriad books aimed at aid workers. Few materials have been produced for the public domain on Pacific case studies, beyond the Asian Development Bank series on capacity development: “Pacific Choice: Learning from Success” (ADB 2008), and this series focuses predominantly on Government cases rather than civil society organisations. The following themes from the generic literature on capacity development processes may be relevant to practices which contribute to DPO capacity development:

• A mix of methods is more likely to contribute to sustainable benefits than a single method

• A solid understanding of the local context (e.g. cultural values, political economy, sources of informal power) is essential before selecting appropriate approaches/tools etc to support changes in capacity

• A sound understanding of existing capacity strengths is essential to inform any planned support process and to select appropriate tools

• Ownership of change processes and the selection of tools is essential, which means local leadership, relevance of the process and consistency of the process with the vision for the organisation held by the people in the organisation

• Pacific partners need to be making informed choices about: o the strategic/policy level issues involved in each activity (e.g.

whether they want to take a rights-based approach; whether they want to focus on systemic changes or local, individual

Page | 32

advocacy) and the key content of capacity development processes

o the methods/tools used for communications – e.g. training, experiential learning, action-learning, exchanges etc.

• Pacific partners must be full participants in capacity development processes, not seen as “beneficiaries” or “recipients” of benevolent assistance

• Capacity development processes are best facilitated by people who speak the same language as participants or at minimum have an excellent understanding of the link between local cultural values and organisational behaviour, so their methods are culturally and linguistically appropriate and relevant

• Capacity development tools which value existing capacity strengths will reduce the risks of confusing participants, undermining existing strengths, and de-motivating people by focussing on “gaps, weaknesses and problems”

• Tools which provide opportunities for sharing experiences between like-minded or similar organisations operating within common cultural values (e.g. south-to-south exchanges), is more likely to be effective than exposing people to ways of working in fundamentally different cultural contexts.

7. Partnerships to support DPO capacity development James (2001) points to “10 core ingredients of organisation development” (page 45-49) and some implications for partner organisations supporting capacity development workers (p61-64). Many other reports propose checklists of ideas which are considered important in effective partnerships. Issues range from the development of trust and mutual respect based on cross-cultural understanding through to transparent collaborative planning and financial management. Clearly, the development of effective partnerships is critical to the delivery of any program which aims to bring about sustainable change. These ideas are incorporated in all levels of aid effectiveness agendas, from the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness to agreements between NGOs and partners across at local levels. The implications of these ideas are interpreted widely in the world of capcity development, depending on dominant paradigms and political and social contexts. While there is vast range of methods used within partnerships to support capacity develoment generically, there is little literature on which methods may best suit DPOs in particular. Maybe, the same good practice principles

Page | 33

apply as would apply in any other context, particularly in relation to working on the development of trust and respect, and the collaborative negotiation of shared objectives and agreed processes.

8. Implications for this research

The literature survey has revealed a diverse range of material on capacity issues, including capacity development processes relevant to advocacy, civil society organisations and Pacific contexts. It has identified not only some practical issues, but a range of ideas, concepts and paradigms relevant to the capacity development of Pacific DPOs. However, there is clearly a lack of publicly-available literature on the specific capacity issues and capacity development pathways of Pacific DPOs.

The implications of the survey for this research in 2011-12 include:

• This research should recognise the complexity of the concept of “capacity” and the processes involved as well as diversity of perspectives within different cultural contexts

• There is value in finding out what is important to DPOs in different countries as determinants in and elements of DPO capacity, rather than assuming any external model for a “perfect” or “standard” organisation

• There is value in providing opportunities for DPOs themselves to assess their own capacity and identify their own priorities towards continual improvements over time

• The need to emphasise that a DPOs capacity is only likely to be strengthened if there is leadership and ownership within the DPO for that change to take place – “no-one can build someone else’s capacity”

• The value in emphasising the idea that Pacific DPOs can identify how their own organisations’ capacity is developed and can influence donors on this matter, as well as play a key role in understanding (monitoring and evaluation) changes in capacity over time

• The need to recognise that most literature focuses on “gaps” in DPO capacity and therefore many approaches can potentially undermine existing capacity, so a strengths based approach should be followed, which focuses on: o what has worked well to date and why o how successful approaches can be replicated within an agreed

framework and against agreed objectives (both immediate and long-term policy and organisational objectives)

o monitoring of positive changes in capacity, using locally determined measures.

Page | 34

Annex 1: References

Albert, Bill, 2007 Capacity Building of Disabled People’s Organisations in the South: The Scandinavian Model, International Disability Equality Agency, UK Asian Development Bank, 2006 Pacific Choice: Learning from Success, ADB Capacity Development Series Australian Appreciative Inquiry Network at http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/aidev/ Baser, H and Morgan, P, 2008, Capacity, Change and Performance, ECDPM Bebbington, Anthony J. 2008 Can NGOs Make a Difference? Zed books Bolger, Joe, 2000, Capacity Development: Why, What and How, CIDA Cooperrider, D. L. (2000). Positive Image, Positive Action: The Affirmative Basis of Organizing. Appreciative Inquiry: Rethinking Human Organization Toward a Positive Theory of Change

Dutch Coalition on Disability and Development, Empowerment and disability: a challenging combination for donor organisations. http://www.dcdd.nl/default.asp?2414

Eade, Deborah (ed), 2000, Development, NGOs and Civil Society, Oxfam GB

Eide, A.H. and M.E. Loeb, Data and statistics on disability in developing countries. 2005, Disability KAR.

European Union, Guidance Note on Disability and Development, 2004 http://ec.europa.eu/development/body/publications/docs/Disability_en.pdf

European Disability Forum, Capacity Building of Disabled People’s Organisations in the Western Balkans (CARDS Project) http://www.edf-eph.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=13373 Harknett, S et al, 2005 “Developing participatory rural appraisal approaches with disabled people: A pilot project by Disability Development Services Pursat (DDSP) in Pursat province, Cambodia” Disability Knowledge and Research Hofstede, G and Hofstede, G 2005, Cultures and Organisations, McGraw Hill

House, Robert et al, 2004 Culture, Leadership and Organizations, Sage

Howell, Jude and Pearce, Jenny, 2001, Civil Society and Development: A critical Exploration, Reiner

Page | 35

Hradsky, J, 2011, “The road to Busan: How does capacity development fit into the coming aid effectiveness debates?” (http://www.capacity.org/capacity/opencms/en/blog/article_0010.html.html)

INTRAC: Series of INTRAC Praxis Papers on Capacity Building (available at www.intrac.org) James, Rick, 2001, Power and Partnership? Experiences of NGO Capacity-Building, INTRAC Management and Policy Series No. 12

James, Rick, 2002 People and Change: Exploring Capacity Building in NGOs, INTRAC NGO Management and Policy Series No. 15

Land, T., Hauck, V. and H. Baser. 2009. Capacity Change and Performance: Capacity development: between planned interventions and emergent processes Implications for development cooperation. (Policy Management Brief No. 22). Maastricht: ECDPM Melander Schnell Consultants, 2009, Human Rights Based Approach and the rights of persons with disabilities (report to Swedish International Development Agency SIDA) at http://www.msc.st/BriefDisibilityRights.html Morgan, P. 2005 The Concept of Capacity, ECDPM

Ncube, Jabulani M, 2005, Capacity building of disabled people’s organisations in Mozambique http://hpod.pmhclients.com/pdf/CapacityBuilding.pdf (also available at http://www.healthlink.org.uk/PDFs/Small-scale%20research_mozambique.pdf)

OECD, 2006, The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working towards good practice, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/36/36326495.pdf)

OECD, 2009 “Southern Perspectives on Capacity Development: A Time to Act and Learn”, Issues Brief 6, (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/23/44386394.pdf)

Rhodes, D and Dureau, C 2011 “Submission to Aid Effectiveness Review on Strength-Based Approaches” (http://www.aidreview.gov.au/submissions/submissions-received.html)

Roland, R.J and Omar, R 2001 “Case Study of a North-South Partnership” Chapter 4 in James (2001)

Stalker, Chris and Sandberg, Dale, January 2011, Capacity Building for Advocacy, INTRAC – Praxis Paper 25

United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. 2006. UNDP, 2004 Taking default positions for capacity development

Page | 36

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Government of Spain, and Fundación ONCE, 2007, “Making it work - Civil society participation in the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Recommendations from the Expert Group to Civil Society” USAID, Disability Assessment Tool/Guide (http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/disability/disassessment_guide.pdf) Whitney, Diana and Schau, Carol 1998 “Appreciative Inquiry: An Innovative Process for Organization Change” Employment Relations Today. Spring, pp 11-21. World Health Organisation, Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF, WHO, Editor. 2002, WHO: Geneva. Yeo, R. and K. Moore, Including disabled people in poverty reduction work: "Nothing about us, without us". World Development, 2003. 31(3): p. 571-590.