GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR THE RIGHTS OF OLDER PEOPLE (GAROP)

CONSULTANCY

TO ESTABLISH A SECRETARIAT AND CAMPAIGN STRATEGY

REPORT

SECRETARIAT, GOVERNANCE, MEMBER ENGAGEMENT & RESOURCING

Richard Bennett & Belinda Calaguas

June 2016

CONTENTS

Summary of recommendations 3

  1. Introduction 4
  2. Background 4
  3. This consultancy 4
  4. Terms of reference
  5. Methodology
  6. Limitations of this consultancy
  7. Context for the decision to create a resourced Secretariat 7
  8. The case for a Secretariat 7
  9. Would a resourced Secretariat be sufficient to make a difference? 8
  10. Is a GAROP Secretariat the best use of limited resources? 9
  11. Potential, risks and cautions in setting up a Secretariat10
  12. Governance and member engagement11

3.1 Members as governors; members as implementors12

3.2 Governing body13

3.3 Working groups13

  1. Responsibilities and shape of the Secretariat15
  2. Hosting17
  3. Resourcing18

6.1 Grant funding18

6.2 Public fundraising18

6.3 Members providing the resources19

  1. Conclusion22

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Larger organisations in the sector should weigh up the potential opportunities and risks of investing at this time in GAROP, and make a determined commitment either to fund GAROP for the next two years and direct, encourage and support their advocacy personnel to invest time and energy in a collective drive for the Convention, or to decide that the risks in investing in GAROP do not justify this. If they decide on the latter course, they should be prepared to explore the best alternative configuration of the sector’s efforts at collaboration, and commit to ensuring that the current extraordinary opportunities for influence are not missed.

GAROP’s governing body should be made up of regional representatives, a small number of senior personnel from members making significant financial contributions, and – ex officio – a representative of HelpAge International as host. It should focus on strategy approval, and financial and HR governance oversight, avoiding the temptation to get involved in operational or tactical matters.

A Working Group should be formed to work with the Secretariat on operational and tactical planning and execution. This group should be inclusive, with the option of a small steering group to enable speed and efficiency when needed.

GAROP should aim to employ a Secretariat of three people, developing job descriptions that broadly follow the outline provided in this report. Recognising that it may be challenging to find sufficient resources for this, at a minimum GAROP should employ a General Secretary, one of whose responsibilities would be raising resources for the remaining posts; in this event, GAROP should recognise that the Secretariat’s capacity to coordinate a campaign would be minimal.

A Memorandum of Understanding between GAROP and HelpAge International should be drawn up, covering at least the areas of the hosting relationship outlined in this report.

Larger organisations should engage in a conversation that draws together the recommendation in section 2 with a discussion of the contribution requirement outlined here (£40,000-140,000 per year, for at least 2 years), and reach a conclusion about their collective willingness to support renewed momentum for the Convention campaign through establishment of a GAROP Secretariat.

If larger organisations are willing to make an adequate commitment of resources, the rest of the membership should then be approached to make suggested contributions.

It should be recognised that these contributions would be needed for probably the first two years of the Secretariat’s existence; beyond this, it is reasonable to expect that either grants or crowdsourcing or some combination of the two would contribute significantly to covering GAROP’s costs.

  1. INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

The Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People (GAROP) is an informal network of over 115 civil society organisations from around the world who have joined forces to coordinate their efforts and campaign together, in order to strengthen and promote the rights of older people at global level.

Specifically, the mission of GAROP is to support and enhance civil society’s engagement at national, regional and international levels on the need for a new international instrument on the rights of older persons.

Set up in 2011 by nine founder members, GAROP has expanded substantially. In August 2014, a meeting in New York concluded that in order for GAROP to more effectively achieve its mission, it was necessary to establish a Secretariat of paid staff responsible for coordinating the implementation of a global campaign to build support for a new convention[1].

In August 2015 HelpAge International agreed to house the GAROP Secretariat in its offices in London.

1.2This consultancy

To assist GAROP and HelpAge International to determine the framework within which a Secretariat should be appointed, a call for tenders was issued in late 2015 for a consultancy. Consultants were appointed in December 2015 and began work in January 2016.

1.2.1 Terms of reference

The objective of the consultancy is to determine the key elements necessary to establish a GAROP Secretariat. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to:

  • Getting clarification from GAROP members on what they want to achieve through a new campaign
  • Developing a campaign strategy based on GAROP members’ feedback
  • Defining the role and function of Secretariat staff
  • Developing a fundraising strategy to pay for the Secretariat staff and campaign and other activities
  • Developing an appropriate governance and management structure.

1.2.2 Methodology

The consultants undertook the following phases of work:

  • Desk research & process finalisation: Familiarisation with existing GAROP documents; existing resolutions, decisions and report on older people from UN mechanisms; engagement with HelpAge International as hosts and contractors: deepening understanding of the alliance and finalising methodology in agreement with HelpAge International and the GAROP Steering Group (SG).
  • Survey of members: A survey circulated to all members (31 responses), soliciting perspectives on governance and management, key functions of the Secretariat, potential resourcing and key components of a campaign.
  • Semi-structured interviews with a sample of members and external informants: 20 interviews conducted, to deepen understanding of members’ perspectives, adding qualitative depth to the analysis of the survey.
  • Discussion papers: Two papers were produced, one covering a framework for a campaign strategy and the other reviewing potential governance and member engagement structures, potential Secretariat structure, role and function, implications of hosting, and potential resourcing options.
  • E-mail consultation with members: The discussion papers were circulated to all members, requesting responses to questions posed in the papers.
  • Workshop with selected members in New York: A meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, attended by a number of GAROP members, provided an opportunity for face-to-face exploration of key aspects of the potential campaign strategy, and some feedback and idea-generation for governance, Secretariat and resourcing.
  • Further consultations with selected members, HelpAge International and the Steering Group: The New York workshop and e-mail consultation provided the basis for further skype meetings and interviews, to close gaps in the analysis, and for consultation with HelpAge International personnel and the Steering Group to refine options.
  • Production of final consultancy papers: This paper, and the accompanying Campaign Strategy document, represent the final analysis and recommendations of the consultancy.

1.2.3 Limitations of this consultancy

While most of the methodology was conducted as expected, the consultants experienced some challenges that necessarily affect the final outputs.

Survey responses were satisfactory, at about 20% of the membership, particularly considering the relatively low levels of engagement that many members had had with the alliance prior to the consultancy work. However, the discussion papers – sent to all members – received only four responses, all of them brief. This gives the consultants a very limited feel for the mood and perspectives of the membership at large on the directions being explored in the discussion papers.

The result is that the extent to which the recommendations in these papers have resonance for the members, and therefore whether they will generate engagement and action, is very unclear to the consultants.

The New York face-to-face workshop provided a useful opportunity for one of the consultants to engage directly with members; this was the only such opportunity during the consultancy, so was important. However, those present largely represented the members with an active presence in New York, with an unsurprisingly strong US contingent. While there are evidently strong organisations elsewhere, most of these were not present. So – particularly alongside the low response rate to the discussion papers – the conclusions of this workshop, while useful, represented only a small range of the perspectives amongst members.

The original intended methodology included a workshop with the Steering Group, after consultations on the discussion papers, to explore in detail the potential directions for the campaign and alliance structures; this proved not to be feasible, and a skype meeting with three of the four SG members, while useful in several ways, did not allow for the depth of exploration that had been anticipated.

This reflected a hiatus in alliance steering that was evident during the consultancy. Changes in leadership would probably have taken place if a consultancy had not been planned, and were postponed until the consultants’ recommendations were available. In the meantime, steering of the alliance was effectively suspended, leaving – apart from regular interaction with HelpAge International – something of a vacuum for the consultants, in checking back with the alliance on matters of direction and detail.

  1. Context for the Decision to Create a Resourced Secretariat

The decision to create a resourced Secretariat was taken in August 2014. This report is being written almost 2 years after that decision; both the external world and the internal status of the alliance and its members have moved on over that time. This affects the current validity of the decision, and the potential added value of a GAROP Secretariat. This section reviews the current status of the alliance and its external context, to reach a view on the prospects for creating and then making productive use of a resourced Secretariat.

2.1 The Case for a Secretariat

The starting point for this consultancy was a belief amongst key members that the creation of a paid Secretariat would help GAROP to break through constraints that had prevented the alliance from delivering as effective as possible a campaign to date. In interviews and survey responses, there was overwhelming support for this view. Reasons varied in tone, but were tightly similar:

  • Activity in New York and Geneva has not been matched by work to influence national governments. The case for a Convention cannot be won without active engagement by a sufficient number of governments, and the persuasion of those governments inclined against a convention to be silent on the matter. This requires tight coordination between the knowledge of UN dynamics held by activists in New York and those able to influence governments in capital cities. A Secretariat is required to create those linkages and communication channels.
  • Core members, either based in New York or Geneva, or regular attenders at the meetings of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG), have contributed significantly to the progress towards a Convention to date, but have not been as coordinated as they might have been. A Secretariat is needed to tighten liaison at key influencing moments.
  • Members believe in the need for a Convention, but need to be ‘driven’, ‘mobilised’, or ‘excited’. Having a Secretariat dedicated to work on the Convention, with the leadership skills to create this excitement, is a necessity to build up the energy and drive needed for a campaign to be successful.
  • Every member of GAROP wants a Convention, but beyond this the basis of unity is not yet tight. To be effective in a campaign, GAROP needs much closer common agreement on the potential content of a Convention, and work towards this closer unity needs focused facilitation; only a Secretariat could provide this.
  • There are several pressing priorities for leading members of GAROP; not only is there the potential for a Convention, but also the agreement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) means there is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create monitoring mechanisms that disaggregate by age and focus governments’ attentions on older people. Wider issues of ageism – for which a Convention may be a key part of the solution – preoccupy many members, with both international and national work requiring focused attention. No member, and almost no individual within the members, has an exclusive focus on the Convention, so attention and energy is distracted. GAROP needs people whose sole responsibility is the Convention, and only staff of a Secretariat can deliver this.

This is a cogent set of arguments for a Secretariat. All of these constraints are real, and – given current dynamics in the alliance – it is unlikely that they could be reversed without dedicated staff time from a Secretariat.

Two questions remain, however. Firstly, there is little doubt that a Secretariat is necessary to turn around the alliance; the question is whether it would besufficient to do so. And secondly, given difficult resource situations for individual member organisations and the range of demands on their influencing energy, is investing in a GAROP Secretariat the best way to make progress on the call for a Convention?

2.2 Would a Resourced Secretariat be Sufficient to Make the Difference?

This consultancy concludes that there is a significant risk that investing in a resourced Secretariat would not be sufficient to generate the energy needed for a successful campaigning alliance. There are several reasons for this conclusion, related directly to each of the cases for employing a Secretariat:

  • Outside of OEWG sessions and other opportunities in central UN events, there has not yet been an effort to mobilise the wider membership of GAROP. This means that the potential for activism amongst the wider membership is untested, and in particular the link to national-level lobbying or campaigning is as yet untried. There is little evidence for or against a belief that national-level organisations would invest the time, or have the skills, to influence selected national governments. A Secretariat putting time and effort into mobilising members may be either richly rewarded or deeply frustrated by the attempt; and may find that it needs to invest significantly in capacity building or other support for particular members in critical countries.
  • Coordination of core members in New York or Geneva requires a level of mutual trust, on the basis of which inside intelligence is shared willingly. On the basis of the limited experience of this consultancy, this trust requires a substantial amount of work. If the Secretariat is unable to engender a significant change in levels of mutual trust, there is a risk that investment in closer coordination will not bear fruit.
  • Members perceive that ‘drive’ is needed to mobilise them. The evidence from this consultancy is that energy levels for GAROP are very low at present, and this need is therefore very substantial if sufficient energy is to be mobilised. There is a significant risk that, even with a leadership that ‘drives’, members are not sufficiently excited or energised to make the critical difference to campaign momentum.
  • The basis of unity of the alliance is a common desire for a Convention. The extent to which unity can be forged around proposals on the content of a Convention is as yet untested. The main organisations working on ageing and the rights of older people work closely together across a range of issues and topics and know each other’s different approaches well; this should give them the strength of resolve to find agreement on Convention content; but there remains a (relatively small) risk that this would prove not to be feasible.
  • The competing demands on limited policy and campaigns resources amongst member organisations are real. The SDGs cannot be ignored; the wider concerns about ageism are currently gaining momentum as a focus for campaigning. There is a genuine possibility that, regardless of motivating leadership, organisations will simply not have the human resources to devote to the work on the Convention with sufficient intensity to create the necessary campaign momentum.

So, for every reason for needing a Secretariat, there is a level of risk that, even with adequate staffing in the Secretariat, the Convention campaign would not gain the traction it needs to pay off the investment.

2.3 Is a GAROP Secretariat the Best Use of Limited Resources?

Section 6 of this report finds that, for at least the first two years of the Secretariat’s existence, it would need to be resourced by members. In practice, this would mean a substantial proportion of resources coming from GAROP’s larger members. One of the recommendations is that, to stimulate this, a meeting or call between senior personnel of those organisations should be held to explore the potential for them to commit mutually to providing those resources.

In discussions with key people, the consultants have encouraged that meeting or call to take place immediately, and there has been considerable hesitation in setting it up. There have been two reasons for this: some concern expressed about some of the risks outlined in section 2.2; and a view that, with difficult resourcing situations themselves and the prospect of reducing their own staffing levels, few of the larger organisations would be willing to invest in a GAROP Secretariat at this time.

There is an unfortunate confluence of external events and pressures here. A moment of huge influencing potential – the SDGs being simultaneous with the prospects of progress on a Convention – has coincided with a period of intense financial pressure on larger organisations working for the rights of older people. If these hugely significant advocacy moments are missed, the consequences for the goals of these organisations will be enormous; but investing in them at a time of serious economic pressure is extremely difficult.

This is, of course, not just about GAROP. For individual organisations, wider strategic questions about the balance between programmes and advocacy come into play. For the sector as a whole, the effectiveness and efficiency of the overall configuration for collaboration amongst organisations is an urgent matter.

So the topic for discussion – if it happens – between senior personnel is potentially deeper than whether they are prepared to resource GAROP. But it is urgent; these wider challenges, affecting thepotential to resource GAROP,need a common approach.