NGO support toolkit (English)  >  NGO Support Programmes  >  Types 

Government-led NSPs

In recent years there has been an increase in government bodies, donors, parastatals and co-ordinating bodies taking on a variety of NGO support functions, either through direct provision of services or subcontracting to other organisations that provide NGO/CBO support. This clearly reflects the increased recognition by governments and donors of the importance of community responses to HIV/AIDS as well as the ongoing need for more support services in response to the growing epidemic.

Government and other non-NGO support providers also operate at multiple levels and through a variety of mechanisms. For example, the Government of Brazil in its Brazil II programme provides grants to NGOs nationwide through its NGO fund, and Guatemala has a government-run NGO support programme. In India, NGO support via the government occurs at both national and state level through a complex mechanism involving the National AIDS Control Organisation, the State AIDS Control Societies and Technical Resource Groups (see diagram). This is complemented by technical support funded by other international donors and NSPs. There are also multilateral NSP functions such as the UNAIDS Accelerated Programmes Funds and donor/government collaborations such as the Philippines Ministry of Health/European Union NGO Support Programme.

Issues to consider

• To be effective, government bodies taking on support functions need to build up their capacity in both staff and skills to work with civil society. Government staff working to provide support need to develop an in-depth understanding of NGOs and CBOs: their organisational structure, how they work, their strengths and weaknesses and their relationships with communities.
• All NGO support providers have important roles to play in the HIV/AIDS response. Neither is necessarily more effective than the other in terms of providing adequate NGO/CBO support provision, and it is often better to have both working together constructively and learning from each other, than to only have one system mobilised.
• Many NGOs and CBOs work with populations who are marginalised and vulnerable such as injecting drug users, men who have sex with men and sex workers. Often these groups of individuals engage in activities that are illegal or not recognised under the law. Support for these populations risks being excluded if all funding is controlled through government-based NGO support programmes.
• The autonomy and functionality of NGOs must be recognised by the government body. While accountability is a must, flexibility should be built into the programme to allow NGOs to find innovative ways to avoid being merely sub-contractors delivering government services.
• Civil society has traditionally provided a ‘voice of opposition’ to government. When NGOs and CBOs are supported by the government there is a danger that their voice will become muted and credibility within their communities weakened – they become ‘co-opted’. Governments need to value the contribution that a healthy civil society can make to the national HIV/AIDS response, and try to preserve their autonomy.
• As with any dependent donor relationship, there is a danger of the government leading the civil society agenda if NGO support is provided solely by government. This reinforces the importance of having a broad funding base to prevent dependence on any one donor – whether or not it is government.

• Send to a friend
• Printer-friendly