1

Building Institutional Capacity in Faith-based Organizations (FBOs) in

Jamaica: Towards a Post-2015 Framework

Akhil Malaki and Garth Minott1

Introduction

Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) have been working in the Caribbean generally and in Jamaica

in particular for a long time. In Jamaica, FBOs have been instrumental in education and social

justice advocacy and interventions. Since the 1950s FBOs have been working with a common

platform for Christian groups beginning with the Jamaica Council of Churches (JCC). Other

Christian groups have been formed since with a view to consolidating interventions such as

disaster relief and responses to the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Despite numerous opportunities for

collaboration, especially among Christian groups, there is still a gap in terms of FBOs working

together from a common platform. One contributory factor is the legacy of colonialism. One

feature of the latter is the principle of divide and rule. The state, along with private interest

groups and the owners of capital, created an environment of suspicion and fragmentation among

the various religious and especially Christian groupings. Though some amount of suspicion still

remains there are signs that religious groups are more open to collaborating on common goals

and interests.

The recent formation of the umbrella group of Churches as well as the coalition of Churches and

civil society groups represent steps to forge new directions in religious groups participating in

national development. The Interfaith Council of Jamaica is yet another step to consolidate

cooperation among religious groups. The traditional top-down form of governance has made the

CSOs as mere rubber stamp as the recent discussions relating to the signing of a deal with the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) shows. The consultation with FBOs only took place after the

government struck a deal with the fund and were asked to approve it. Here, it is clear that an

FBO platform would have ensured FBO engagement in negotiations with all stakeholders as

representatives of most vulnerable in society impacted most by structural adjustment programs.

Such a common platform would have also served to facilitate FBO negotiation with government

while keeping the development of the most vulnerable at the forefront.

1 Akhil Malaki is Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Government, University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica. Garth

Minott is Deputy President and Lecturer, United Theological College of the West Indies, Jamaica.

2

There is actually little documented information about the nature and scope of faith-based

organizations (FBOs) in Jamaica. While there is no doubt that individual FBOs and other civil

society organizations (CSOs) are active and providing critical services to the needy in the

country, data about their outreach activities or program areas are lacking. While some FBOs are

financially self-sufficient in their activities, some others are dependent on external funds either

from the government or international donors. In both cases, the scope for these FBOs to expand

and grow in their outreach is rather restricted because they act as individual entities and the

present form of governance adds to this problem. What is missing in Jamaica is a coordinating

mechanism or a FBO platform that will facilitate this process to the benefit of all FBOs in the

country. The advantage of such a platform is that it will facilitate partnership and networking.

We argue that there is another way of doing things in Jamaica that can yield better results than

the traditional way.

The idea of a common platform for the first time emerged in the recent FBO initiative in the area

of HIV/AIDS: Building Institutional Capacity in HIV & AIDS in Faith-based Organisations

(FBOs) in Jamaica. The authors of this paper have played key roles in conceptualizing, planning

and implementing this initiative. Between October 2012 and February 2013 two consultations

were held to have an open FBO dialogue on the issue of stigma and discrimination against

people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHV). The first General Consultation involved three main

groups: civil society/Most at risk persons (MARPs), Church leaders and social workers. The

second Inter-faith Consultation brought together faith leaders to have an open dialogue on issues

raised in the first consultation and what the respective faith response should be. The proceedings

of these consultations are documented as a consolidated report. The report, for the first time, also

provides insights on how various FBOs in the country perceive of themselves and also the issue

of HIV/AIDS, especially in the area of stigma and discrimination, and how they can address this

problem (see Malaki 2013).

This paper analyzes and develops on the outcomes of the two consultations that for the first time

provide a Jamaican FBO perspective. One of the important project outcomes was a demand from

FBOs to network effectively. The question is will the supply follow? Can FBOs in Jamaica

network to create an enabling environment to address serious health and development issues in

the country? This paper examines the FBOs in general and the definition of FBOs in Jamaica in

particular. The definition emerged from the inter-faith consultation and the core principles and

3

values on which the FBOs converge were also identified. These common principles constitute

the foundation for consolidating capacity building and networking platform of Jamaican FBOs.

We examine global partnership approaches and develop an ‘inclusive’ approach based on the

definition of FBOs in Jamaica. Partnership is perceived here as building a ‘common inclusive

FBO platform’ in Jamaica based on horizontal networking, and the platform as a ‘facilitator’ for

capacity building to address critical health and development issues in general, and in the specific

case of HIV/AIDS. The partnership is also perceived as building strategic alliances with other

national, regional and global partners. The definition and partnership model developed in this

paper is something that is of the FBOs, by the FBOs and for the FBOs in Jamaica. It reflects

Jamaican FBO needs, reflection, priorities and perception about themselves and the work they

do. Interestingly enough, the emerging consensus among the FBOs in the country seems to be

consistent with the changing forms of post-2015 global governance and public-private

partnerships that we discuss below. Finally, we provide a roadmap for taking this process

towards that goal. However, it needs mention that the process of FBO capacity building is both a

domestic and international interface in the critical issue of governance. It is also an interface

between the public and the private domains. Hence, the starting point of analysis is to understand

this interface and cast it against the Jamaican FBO realities.

Addressing the Governance Deficit: Role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

The ongoing Post-2015 MDG discussions acknowledge that weak governance is one of the

factors why the benefits of development are neither equally shared nor sustainable over time.

The emerging post-2015 framework will be recognizing the common but differentiated

responsibilities of government and non-government actors for progress shared by all. The idea of

‘just governance’ of this framework is to ensure the inclusion and participation of most

marginalized people and is very clear on the issue of ‘inclusiveness’ (Beyond 2015; UNDP 2013;

Fejerskov & Keijzer 2013:18-19; UNFPA, Hulme & Wilkinson 2012). There is now the

recognition and empirical evidence that governance remains one of the foremost missing links

(or deficit) in achieving the MDGs: “Lack of people’s voices in policy design, implementation

and monitoring along the whole line of accountability from the global to the national to the local

levels, coupled with poor coordination across sectors, within and between governments, has

constrained progress” (Beyond 2015 2013:4).

4

We draw our departure point from this post-2015 discussion and John G. Ruggie who rightly

observes that there is a historic development of newly emerging ‘global public domain’ or

‘global civil society’ constituted by interactions among non-state actors as well as states. This

has in many ways altered the traditional public-private relationship that one needs to understand

in a wider context. The emerging public domain “permits the direct expression and pursuit of a

variety of human interests, not merely those mediated – filtered, interpreted, promoted – by

states”. This new global domain of civil society organizations (CSOs) does not seek to replace

the state but seeks “to embed systems of governance in broader global frameworks of social

capacity and agency that did not previously exist” (Ruggie 2004:32-33). The recognition and

upsurge of civil society actors has in fact created a fertile environment for a new type of

governance based on public-private partnerships and networking. What is unique and new is that

private civil society actors are serving or delivering essentially public goods that were hitherto

under the scope of national governments (Salamon et al 2003:1). Even the very idea of public

goods is now undergoing conceptual changes as it becomes ‘public in consumption’.2

The public-private divide has become all too blurred now. Public authorities and governance

systems are realizing that in order to successfully address emerging challenges like epidemics

non-state actors and entities need to be necessarily engaged. These non-state actors have for long

been active “in the trenches” with greater success than the state. In addition, the process of

globalization and revolution in information and communication technologies are beginning to

converge on the non-state actors sharing common norms and expectations, and networking

within and across state borders.

CSOs are an array of organizations whose diverse activities fall outside institutional structures of

state governance. They are usually voluntary, non-profit organizations, and embrace religious as

well as secular organizations consisting of: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are

large or small private organizations working outside the direct control of governments whose

activities can be local, national or international; community-based organizations (CBOs) which

draw their membership from the local communities they serve and are often self-help groups

based on collective response to locally shared problems; faith-based organizations (FBOs) whose

2 The recent debate on Global Public Goods (GPG) has now entered into the discourse on governance which clearly

demonstrates the narrowing of the public-private divide, and is likely to be included in the post-2015 Agenda of the

UN Millennium Development Goals. See Kaul 2013.

5

work ethos is drawn from a particular faith or religious belief and may work through local

centers of faith, such as churches, mosques, or temples; voluntary health organizations (VHOs)

which are specialized and technical patient advocacy organizations, often focused on a single

disease or syndrome that promote research and participation in trials, treatment access, and aid

for those affected by disease; and finally network which comprises of individuals and/or all of

the above CSOs converging around common issues (Bhan et al 2007).

CSOs are active in promoting public good, encouraging empowerment and participation, and

seek to address the structural roots of social problems. Unlike most government agencies, CSOs

typically work closely at the local grassroots level and have a more profound understanding of

the socioeconomic dynamic there. What they actually do is provide a variety of human services,

from health care and education to social services and community development (Salamon et al

2003:7,20). They may be registered or not, are predominantly non-profit private voluntary

organizations, and self-governing (Salamon,et al. 2003; Desse 2012)

CSOs have always existed and have been making valuable contribution in the grassroots. The

reason they are becoming more conspicuous today is because of global trends where the global

donor consortium has shifted focus from national government to directly deal with these

organizations. The particular case of the spread of HIV/AIDS and related problems in many

countries across the world clearly illustrate how private actors like FBOs are increasingly

incorporated into the new forms of governance structures.

Globally, FBOs have become an integral part of the civil society organizations in many areas of

social outreach, especially in HIV & AIDS related issues (Ruggie 2004). These non-profit

organizations constitute a potent force as critical enablers or social capacity builders in areas of

work that neither the state nor any other private entity is able to penetrate. Traditional donor-

government partnership is now becoming obsolete as it has serious ‘governance deficit’ and

government failure in implementation. CSOs have become critical in redefining national and

global stakeholder partnerships in critical areas of social intervention generating ‘best practices’

to avoid mission drift and donor distortions – e.g. in microfinance, HIV & AIDS. Secular

organizations and FBOs are bringing issues based on reports from their constituents to the

international policy agenda. This new form of governance (global, national and local) is in the

6

hybrid public-private partnerships wherein the civil society organizations (of which FBOs are an

integral part) are emerging as the ‘agenda setters’.

In summing up, non-state CSOs are now being encouraged to participate in the emerging post-

2015 forms of governance. This is because these CSOs are directly linked to the grassroots and

have a better understanding of realities there. The penetration and outreach of these CSOs is a

unique characteristic. Secondly, the CSOs are filling in the public-private gap in the national

governance deficit. Thirdly, partnerships and networking seem to be the characteristics of this

new form of governance.

Defining Faith-based Organizations (FBOs) in Jamaica

We have already noted that FBOs are an integral part of the CSOs and the emerging governance

structures everywhere. Here we would like to focus more on the definition of FBOs in Jamaica.

The definition of FBOs depends on the kind of people or groups defining it. A gathering of

church leaders may adopt a definition that gives more weight to the tenets of respective

faith/religion. A CBO may define itself as based on religious and/or service to community. A

NGO may define itself along secular lines emphasizing on certain human values. FBOs and their

secular counterparts share some common features and are influenced by the same

socioeconomic, political and cultural contexts in which they exist. While the principle of

neutrality may become a point of contention between the two, there are two distinct

characteristics of FBOs that set them apart from secular organizations: FBOs are motivated by

their faith and they have a constituency which is broader than humanitarian concerns. FBOs have

the capability to mobilize people (volunteers) and resources and outreach into areas that other

organizations cannot. The bigger FBOs have better infrastructure and organizational capacity

(Green 2003). Faith often becomes a powerful motivational tool for humanitarian action. Even

within FBOs there are the mainstream traditional FBOs (Catholic and Protestant) and

Evangelicals. The latter are criticized by the traditional FBOs for not respecting the religious

beliefs of people in their mission work (Ferris 2005:316-317).

7

Our definition of FBOs in Jamaica is generated by the inter-faith consultation.3 This consultation

consisted of religious heads from different faiths: Islam, Rastafari, Hindu and Christian

(Protestant and Roman Catholic). The inter-faith leaders were asked to identify common

theological and ethical principles that can guide a faith-based response to the HIV epidemic in

Jamaica born out of mutual respect and shared responsibilities. This inter-faith consultation

generated three definitions of FBOs:

1. Faith is a community of persons sharing the same belief. It is based on theological and ethical

principles of faith that shape our world view and guide our action.

2. FBO is any organization which is religious in nature (organized or unorganized), which

caters to the social, cultural, spiritual and economic welfare of the society.

3. FBOs can be defined as a collaboration of different faiths and religious groups. FBOs can

also be defined as collaboration of different religious bodies and groups to address specific

needs of the society which includes CBOs, NGOs and individuals.

The definition that has been formally accepted by the inter-faith leaders is the third one as it

constitutes the most inclusive and dynamic definition capable of adapting to changing ground

realities in the country and in the CSO sector. Furthermore, the inter-faith panel and floor

dialogue also identified the following ethical values principles shared by all the faiths:

Love and compassion

See God in every human being

Service and outreach

Equal opportunity

Respect for human beings

Healthy lifestyle based on respective faith tenets

Non-discrimination

There are a few interesting consistencies that emerged from the inter-faith dialogue. (1) “Faith-

based” implies not just belief in respective faith tenets, but also belief in common values and

principles, which, interestingly enough, are not exclusive to faith organizations but also

constitute the core values of various CBOs, NGOs etc. (2) Consequently, the definition of FBOs

3

This inter-faith consultation consisted of faith leaders from the parishes of Kingston & St. Andrew and

Manchester. However, these faith leaders also represented their respective faith organizations across the island and

therefore we believe the definition generated can be considered as a national definition of FBOs. Repeating these

consultations in other parishes of Jamaica is most likely to provide the same definition as it would involve the same

faith leaders.

8

in Jamaica is inclusive as it encompasses the whole CSO sector. (3) The demand for a FBO

networking platform in Jamaica is also consistent with the emerging global civil society and

global public domain discussed in the beginning of this paper.

The inter-faith consultation has been extremely successful in identifying certain “common

grounds” and an inclusive definition of FBOs which lends support to the definition of FBOs in

Jamaica that is envisaged in the partnership model developed in this paper. It now becomes clear

that we have a starting point for consolidating a FBO platform as a way of moving ahead in a

collaborative/partnership approach. This is something new and a historic landmark in the

Jamaican context.

Partnership Approaches

Against the background of the new public domain discussed earlier, it is not surprising that

various types of private-public partnership models have emerged depending on country contexts.

Partnerships also exist among CSOs, and, as Wade Clark Roof notes, the current realities need to

understand the ways in which NGOs are connecting with religious values and beliefs, which

demonstrates that FBOs and NGOs are now beginning to share space in national and global civil

society (Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies, 2009). It is now recognized that there

is greater need for CSO coordination and building local capacity and coordination mechanisms

(Ferris 2005:325).

A recent trend in civil society partnerships is based on the idea of a ‘cluster approach’: “Clusters

are groups of humanitarian organizations (UN and non-UN) working in the main sectors of

humanitarian action, e.g. shelter and health. They are created when clear humanitarian needs

exist within a sector, when there are numerous actors within sectors and when national

authorities need coordination support… Clusters create partnerships between international

humanitarian actors, national and local authorities, and civil society” (UNOCHA).4

The Global Compact is another prominent partnership of the new millennium between the

United Nations (UN) Secretariat, businesses, and other interested agencies and stakeholders for

the diffusion of environmental, social, and human rights norms embedded in UN documents.

4 Elsewhere there are also efforts to build Cluster Munition Coalitions to coordinate the work of civil society

organizations. See Coordinating Global Civil Society Action to Promote the Convention on Cluster Munitions, CMC

Annual Report 2009.

9

Global Fund’s Manual prefers the creation of a Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) as yet

another type of partnership that goes even further in this partnership approach where CCM

involves local stakeholders, local ownership and participatory decision-making. The stakeholders

are representatives from public and private sectors, multilateral and bilateral agencies, CSOs,

academics and PLHV. It is a broader coalition that is responsible for securing funding, program

implementation and monitoring according global best practices (Global Fund).

Using a network theory and social network analysis, Danielle Varda et al use ‘connectivity’ as a

measure of progress in the area of public health collaborations. They define connectivity as the

“measured interactions between partners in a collaborative such as the amount and quality of

interactions and how these relationships might change over time” (Varda et al. 2008). Another

newer trend is research partnership between academics, researchers and CSOs (Brown 2008),

wherein partnership now encompasses community-based partnership research (CBPR) to ensure

community participation in research. Intervention in complex health issues like HIV/AIDS

involves multiple perspectives of community members, organizational representatives and

academic researchers. CBPR focuses on co-learning, mutual and reciprocal transfer of expertise

and knowledge, and sharing of decision-making among the main partners involved (Rhodes et al.

2010:173–183). Establishing a national faith-based health research network provides opportunity

to create an evaluative infrastructure and generate new research on health programs and their

effectiveness in FBO settings (Asomugha et al. 2011).

The UNAIDS strategic framework defines partnership as involving the PLHV in designing,

programming, implementation, monitoring, research and evaluation of programs and policies

affecting their lives. The focus of partnerships must be on supporting national ownership,

country-led approaches and accountability. Partnerships must result in institutional and systems

strengthening (systems include both health systems and community systems) - i.e. there must be

commitment to strengthen the capacities of national institutions to provide leadership and

coordination in order to achieve universal access targets (UNAIDS 2009).

Partnership it is about networking horizontally among CSOs as well as vertically with other

national, regional and global partners and transnational networks. Networks are based on the idea

of solidarity and responsibility to the communities in which they exist and serve. One can treat

networking as a collaboration of private organizations serving public purposes where the

10

governments have failed to deliver on the public good (Salamon et al. 2003, Foster-Fishman

200:251-252).

What is evident from the brief discussion above is that partnership and networking among CSOs

seem to have emerged as an important form of governance. The earlier model of global resources

channeled through government ministries toward development goals is now fading for the simple

reason that CSOs are mobilizing partnerships and networks. The types of partnership and

networking are quite interesting involving greater intra-CSO partnerships, clusters, and between

CSOs and medical and social researcher and community participation. The single outstanding

character in the emerging partnership and networking is ‘inclusiveness’ which is consistent with

the emerging forms of governance discussed earlier.

The Partnership Approach for FBOs in Jamaica

As already noted, Jamaica lacks a national FBO platform and this idea we are developing in this

article is historically the first of its kind for the country. The Jamaican approach to partnership

builds on the definition of FBOs that emerged out of the two consultations. However, the post-

2015 partnership and network platform we are thinking of is much broader and not restricted

only to HIV/AIDS, but to include any other social and development issues that need to be

addressed. We are looking at one national FBO platform that can partner and network on

multiple issues like epidemics, disaster relief, child education etc. The idea is that this platform

will become a ‘facilitator’ in FBO capacity building or the ‘critical enabler’5 to promote and

consolidate national partnership and networking among Jamaica’s FBOs in any area of social

and development intervention.

Who are the partners? Initially when the two consultations were organized to address the issue of

stigma and discrimination related to HIV/AIDS, we adopted the UNAIDS definition of FBO

partners, which include religion-based organizations, community-based organizations, civil

society NGOs and most at risk persons (MARPs). But our definition of partnership was extended

to involve other critical enablers, namely the Social Workers and also interested individuals from

the broader civil society, especially the grassroots. We see the necessity to adopt a partnership

5 This term is borrowed from UNAIDS. There are two types of ‘critical enablers’: social enablers that create

environments conducive to rational responses, and program enablers that create demand for programs and improve

their performance (UNAIDS 2011:4).

11

that is inclusive and open to any FBO seeking to be included like VHOs and even research

communities. In this way the definition makes the model dynamic, inclusive, and flexible enough

to adapt the changing ground realities.

The social worker group is a critical actor within and outside the CSOs. They also work “in the

trenches” and have tremendous knowledge and experience in ground realities. For instance,

social workers are sources of support in issues like HIV/AIDS (Surface 2007). Their role in

providing services in the area of AIDS is commendable which includes counseling, mentoring,

individualized medical plans, adherence to medical treatment and coordinating a range of other

activities (Tomaszewski 2012; Nakazibwe 2008).

An important outcome of the two consultations has been the pivotal and critical role of religious

leaders or heads of faith, especially in fighting HIV/AIDS. A study in Trinidad and Tobago by

Gillian Genrich and Brader Brathwaite concludes that religious leaders play a pivotal role in

fighting HIV/AIDS transmission, dismantling myths about transmission of the virus and fight

stigma and discrimination (Genrich & Brathwaite 2005). It has also been observed that FBOs are

part of the problem and solution relating to stigma and discrimination. Their role in responding

to stigma and discrimination, promoting awareness and behavioral change is now an established

fact. They have influence over their respective faith organizations and congregations. In addition,

they are also heads of organizational structures. All these facts make faith leaders as natural

partners (Surur & Kaba 2000; Krakauer & Newbery, 2007; Muturi 2008). The outcome of the

inter-faith consultation lend full support to this claim. Not only that, the leaders of the religious

faiths in Jamaica represented in this consultation expressed solidarity and willingness to

cooperate in areas of networking and education.

A recent report notes that the post-2015 framework for CSOs needs to be participatory, inclusive

and responsive to voices of those directly affected by poverty and injustice (Fejerskov & Keijzer

2013:18-19). Accordingly, the approach or model of a ‘bottom-up’ partnership is presented in

Figure 1. In this model, FBOs in Jamaica, as per our definition, constitute the ‘core’ within

which the primary goal is to foster and consolidate a platform for horizontal networking among

FBOs. Foster-Fisher et al (2001:251) note that collaboration often requires both broader

relational networks and new ways of interacting with current contacts. Most coalitions are faced

with the task of needing to build both positive internal (i.e., relationships across participating

12

members and organizations) and external relationships. Secondly, the FBO platform with an

organizational and institutional structure becomes the ‘facilitator’ for intra-FBO networking.

Thirdly, the model envisages clustering or pooling of FBO resources and competencies to jointly

address national social, medical and development needs in the grassroots. Fourthly, the model is

‘inclusive’ and open to access for other FBOs desiring to join in the network. After achieving

this, the final goal is to build strategic partnerships upwards or vertically toward other national,

regional and global partners.

The outcome of this partnership is to primarily build FBO capacity to jointly work together in a

coordinated way as one FBO platform built on the identified common values/principles. Such a

platform will enable FBOs to engage in constant open dialogue, grow and expand in the social

outreach work, share information and each other’s competencies, and identify strengths and

weaknesses of FBOs. Once the FBOs consolidate this platform they can then approach

appropriate national and global partners for appropriate targeted assistance and intervention

where they are found lacking.

We provide the following examples in our vision on the working of the FBO platform: (1) The

United Theological College of the West Indies (UTC) trains final year students in voluntary

counseling and testing (VCT). This is also a certification program in basic counseling skills give

to the police force, the army, social workers, members of the church and wider society. Through

the platform, the program can be administered to other FBO network partners. (2) The Seventh

Day Adventist Church through its ADORA program has the nationwide organizational capacity

for emergency and disaster relief. Through the platform we can source this competence out to

other FBO constituents who may require the skills and expertise. One can think of more such

link-ups (or facilitation) in other areas like education, childcare, healthcare etc. In this way the

FBOs can complement each other with their respective skills and competence that in the long-run

will contribute to collective capacity and solidarity.

There are several advantages in this FBO approach developed here. (1) A single FBO platform

can facilitate many program areas. (2) The platform will become a national repository of

information and data on FBOs. (3) Intra-FBO and strategic partnerships with national, regional

and global stakeholders is easily coordinated and facilitated. (4) The platform will serve as

research and documentation center for best practices and information sharing/updating to the

13

network. (5) The platform will become a national facilitator for education and training. (6) The

platform will be inclusive and also flexible to adapt to changing grassroots and global realities.

(7) The platform will become the national critical enabler in delivering public goods to the

targeted groups in the grassroots through its network. (8) The platform will also serve as

repository of data and documentation on FBOs in Jamaica and can collaborate with research and

academic communities. (9) The platform will also become a facilitator for easier access and

flow of funds (internal and external) to targeted programs and FBOs.

Major national and local problems can be addressed by FBOs themselves through the network

platform that will facilitate the process of building capacity. Apart from consolidating

networking among FBOs, the platform will also facilitate confidence building process among

FBOs. The platform will also facilitate the mobilization and disbursement of external resources

to those FBOs that are in need. This, in turn, facilitates continuity in FBO outreach and

penetration. Another way in which this platform can become a critical enabler is in providing the

FBO sector with current information, best practices and cutting edge technologies, which

normally are very difficult to access. In areas of deficiencies, the platform can through its

strategic partnership approach national, regional and global stakeholders to intervene and assist.

The FBO platform will play the key role as the critical and program enabler in this whole

process. Many diverse issues can now be efficiently and expediently addressed. Also the

neutrality and inclusiveness of the platform will ensure that the individual FBO’s mission

integrity and goals are respected and not threatened in any way.

Building FBO Capacity: Towards a Post-2015 Framework for Jamaica

A qualitative study of building capacity among community organizations to develop an

integrated partnership framework defines collaborative capacity as conditions needed for

coalitions to promote effective collaboration and build sustainable community change. These

conditions, the authors note, are related to agency (or the ability) to bring about change: dynamic

and focus, adjustability to ground realities, transfer or exchange of information and experience,

attitude towards partnership and networking (Foster-Fishman et al 2001:242)6

. Does the

6 This is a good study that provides some guidelines for developing a partnership framework that can be adopted by

FBOs in Jamaica..

14

proposed FBO platform satisfy these conditions? To answer this we once again draw on the

outcomes of the two consultations (Malaki 2013):

1. Dynamic and focus. The definition of the FBOs and the partnership approach (see above)

clearly provide the mission goals – i.e. the platform as a critical enabler and the facilitator based

on shared values and principles identified by the inter-faith dialogue. The main focus is capacity

building.

2. Adjustability to ground realities. The partnership model (Figure 1) which emerged out of the

two consultations clearly demonstrates flexibility and ‘inclusiveness’ to adapt the changing

ground realities.

3. Exchange of information and experience. The ‘openness’ of dialogue among the various

stakeholders in the two consultations resulted in exchange of experiences and information that

has already generated a ‘joint agenda’ especially in the area HIV/AIDS. For example, the church

leaders, civil society/MARPS, social workers and the faith leaders all agreed upon the need for

national education in fighting the epidemic. The program details can be developed once the

platform is established.

4. Attitude towards partnership and networking. All the stakeholders in both consultations have

expressed willingness to cooperate and network through a common platform with shared values

and principles. In fact, this is a demand from the stakeholders and there is eager anticipation.

The conditions for a FBO networking platform in Jamaica are already satisfied. How do we

move the process forward? The partnership model (Figure 1) identifies three stages in taking this

process forward. The first stage is establishing an organizational structure based on the

platform’s mission, goals and shared values and principles. This stage involves registration of a

non-profit organization. A board of directors will be responsible for directing all activities

(budget & finance, fundraising, information, documentation & research and recruitment)7. A

critical factor in all this is financial and operational sustainability. Initially it may seek external

funds to establish but for long-term sustainability, the organization must seek domestic financial

7 The details of the organizational structure and functions and responsibilities of various units of the organization are

beyond the scope of this paper. However, we do recognize that a more detailed plan must be in place before

registration of company.

15

resources which will minimize external dependency. Organizational capacity and sustainability

will require strong leadership and good governance structures.

With the organization in place, the process will move into the second stage which is networking.

This stage can be treated as consolidating of horizontal networking of FBOs through joint

programs like education, training etc. in different areas of development. Like stage one, the focus

of this second stage is on FBOs and involving grassroots communities, because the central

function of the platform is to foster new relations among FBOs and local communities where

members interact in expanded and improved ways – i.e. creating a positive internal working

environment based on inclusiveness (Foster-Fishman et al 2001:251-252). Stage two will

indicate the weaknesses of the platform which will necessarily require external assistance.

The third stage of the FBO partnership model involves creating positive external relationships

with national, regional and global stakeholders. These vertical strategic partnerships will expand

the network structure to access resources like funds, technical information and best practices. It

will also facilitate in improving FBO programs and delivery. Through the FBO platform,

members will be able to access external training in related areas to improve/update skills,

knowledge and technical capacities. This stage will also provide continuous external learning,

feedback and data evaluation which can be translated by adapting to changing contextual

conditions, fostering dialogue with external stakeholders and also seeking external information

and expertise (Foster-Fishman et al 2001:255-257). All this will improve program capacity of the

platform and the FBO sector at large.

Conclusion

The central argument is that there is another more effective way for FBOs to collaborate and

network in Jamaica. We provide an alternative to the traditional donor-government-individual

FBO model that is becoming obsolete as it has not been effective in delivering the public goods.

This paper took its departure point in the shifting paradigm in global governance recognizing

new forms of public-private partnerships in the emerging post-2015 agenda. Critical in this

process is the role of CSOs of which FBOs are an important integral component. It also

recognized the ‘governance deficit’ in states and the role of private CSOs in filling this gap. The

proposal that is developed in this paper is that of a national FBO platform with multiple program

16

areas. The two consultations related to HIV/AIDS have been critical in exposing the deficiencies

in the Jamaican FBO sector. These consultations have generated (i) a definition of Jamaican

FBOs, (ii) shared values and principles, (iii) future action programs, and (iv) a demand for

national FBO platform for networking. Based on the Jamaican ground realities, we have

developed a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘inclusive’ partnership approach that focuses FBO capacity

building in enhancing competencies and skills in various areas of community development that

can be shared within a common national platform. This platform once established will play a

critical role in the future of the country. This paper has shown a roadmap of how the supply can

meet the demand in a sustainable way based on mutual respect and shared values and principles

embodied in a national FBO networking platform. It is also a roadmap for moving Jamaican

FBOs towards a post-2015 millennium development goals.

17

GLOBAL

•Donor consortiums

•Transnational FBO networks

• UN agencies

NATIONAL

•MOH

•UWICM

• CCM

•UTC

•Hospitals

•Clinics

REGIONAL

• PANCAP

• CCC

• Regional FBO networks

FBO PLATFORM

FBOs CBOs Social

workers

Wor

NGOs VHOs

GRASSROOTS COMMUNITIES

PARTICIPATION

Stage 2 - Consolidating horizontal networking Stage 1 – Forming a FBO platform

Stage 3 – Vertical strategic

partnerships

Figure 1 - PARTNERSHIP APPROACH FOR FBOs IN JAMAICA: BUILDING CAPACITY

18

References

Adam Moe Fejerskov and Niels Keijzer, Practice Makes Perfect? The European Union’s Engagement in

Negotiations on a Post-2015 Framework for Development. DIIS Report 2013:04.

Asomugha, Chisara N, Derose, Kathryn Pitkin and Lurie, Nicole, ‘Faith-Based Organizations, Science,

and the Pursuit of Health’. In Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, Vol. 22, No. 1,

February 2011, pp. 50-55.

Beyond 2015, Just Governance: A critical cornerstone for an equitable and human rights-centered

sustainable development agenda post-2015, February 2013. (http://www.cesr.org/article.php?id=1450 )

(Accessed March 8, 2013)

Bhan, Anant et al, ‘Grand Challenges in Global Health: Engaging Civil Society Organizations in

Biomedical Research in Developing Countries’. In PLoS Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 9, September 2007.

Brown, Douglas et al, ‘Research in Partnership with Faith-Based NGOs: A Symposium’. In Faith &

Economics, Number 52, Fall 2008, pp. 11–65.

Cluster Munition Coalition, Coordinating Global Civil Society Action to Promote the Convention on

Cluster Munitions, CMC Annual Report 2009. (http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/wp/wp-

content/uploads/2012/10/cmc-annual-report-2009.pdf) (Accessed February 19, 2013).

Desse, Fabrice, The Role and Structure of Civil Society Organizations in National and Global

Governance Evolution and outlook between now and 2030. AUGUR , Challenges for Europe in the

world in 2030, Working Paper 6, June 2012.

Ferris, Elizabeth, ‘Faith-based and secular humanitarian organizations’. In International Review of the

Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 858, June 2005, pp. 311-325.

Foster-Fishman, Pennie G et al., ‘Building Collaborative Capacity in community Coalitions: A

Review and Integrative Framework. In American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 29,

No. 2, 2001, pp. 241-261.

Global Fund, Faith-based Organizations and the Global Fund: Working Together to Save Lives. Friends

of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

(www.theglobalfight.org/view/resources/.../FBOManual_vFINAL.pdf) (Accessed March 8, 2013)

Global Fund web page: (http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/performancebasedfunding/actors/3/) (Accessed

February 2, 2013).

Green, Edward C, Faith-based Organizations: Contributions to HIV Prevention. USAID, September

2003.

Hulme, David and Wilkinson, Rorden , ‘Brave new world: global development goals after 2015’, BWPI

Working Paper 168, May 2012. Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester.

Kaul, Inge, Global Public Goods: A Concept for Framing the Post – 2015 Agenda. Discussion Paper

2/2013, German Development Institute, 2013.

Krakauer, Mark & Newbery, Jodie, ‘Churches’ Response to HIV/AIDS in Two South African

Communities’. In Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (JIAPAC March

2007) vol. 6 no. 1, pp. 27-35.

19

Muturi, Nancy, ‘Faith-Based initiatives in Response to HIV/AIDS in Jamaica’. In International Journal

of Communication, Vol. 2 (2008), pp. 108-131.

Nakazibwe, Faustine, ‘Lessons and Challenges of Social Work Practice: Reflections from Managing

Complex HIV/AIDS Cases in Uganda’. Centre for Socio-Economic Research and Training Uganda.

(http://jcsw.no/local/media/jcsw/docs/jcsw_issue_2008_1_5_studentwork.pdf) (Accessed: December 20,

2012)

Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies, Religion in Global Civil Society. University of

California, Santa Barbara, May 2009.

(http://www.global.ucsb.edu/orfaleacenter/luce/publications/pdf/luce09publication.pdf) (Accessed:

February 2, 2013)

Parker, Warren and Birdsall, Karen, HIV/AIDS, Stigma and Faith-based organizations: A review,

DFID/Futures Group MSP, 2005.

Rhodes, Scott D, Malow, Robert M. and Jolly, Christine Jolly, Community-based participatory research

(CBPR): A new and not-so-new approach to HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment’. In AIDS Educ

Prev. 2010 June ; 22(3): 173–183.

Ruggie, John G, ‘Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: Issues, Actors and Practices’. JFK School of

Government, Harvard University. Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP04-031, July 2004, pp.

24-31.

Salamon, Lester, Sokolowski, Wojceich and List, Regina, Global Civil Society: An Overview. Center for

Civil Society Studies, Institute for Policy Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, 2003.

Surface, David, ‘HIV/AIDS Medication Compliance: How Social Support Works’. In Social Work Today,

Vol. 7 No. 5 p. 20, Sept/Oct 2007. (http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/septoct2007p20.shtml)

(accessed December 20, 2012)

Surur, Feiruz & Kaba, Mirgissa, The Role of Religious Leaders in HIV/AIDS Prevention, Control, and

Patient Care and Support: A Pilot Project in Jimma Zone. In Northeast African Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2,

2000, pp. 59-79.

Tomaszewski, Evelyn P., ‘Understanding HIV/AIDS Stigma and Discrimination’. In Human Rights

Update, National Association of Social Workers, Human Rights and International Affairs Division,

March 2012.

UNAIDS, New Investment Framework for the Global HIV Response, UNAIDS Issues Brief (October

2011).

UNAIDS, Partnership with Faith-based Organizations. UNAIDS Strategic Framework, UNAIDS

(December 2009).

UNDP, Global Consultation on Governance and the Post-2015 Framework: Concept Note

(http://www.worldwewant2015.org/node/277876) (Accessed March 8, 2013)

UNFPA, ‘Building Bridges among Faith-Based Organizations and Secular Development Practitioners’

(http://www.unfpa.org/culture/fbo.html) (Accessed January 12, 2013)

UNFPA, ‘United Nations – FBO Consultation on the MDGs Post 2015.

(http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/news/2012/UN-

FBO%20Roundtable%20MDGs%20Beyond%202015%20Report%202.pdf) (Accessed January 12, 2013)

20

UNOCHA, (http://www.unocha.org/what-we-do/coordination-tools/cluster-coordination) (Accessed:

February 2, 2013).

Varda, Danielle, Chandra, Anita, Stern, Stefanie & Lurie, Nicole, ‘Core Dimensions of Connectivity in

Public Health Collaboratives’. In Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, Vol.14, No.5

(Sept/Oct 2008), pp. E1-E7.

World Bank, Strengthening the Education Sector Response to HIV&AIDS in the Caribbean. World Bank

Working Paper # 137, 2008.