Norads evaluation of umbrella organizations
Atlas-alliansen mener at evalueringen er svært generell i både analyser og konklusjoner. Det den legger vekt på gjelder gjennomgående for alle organisasjoner som er engasjert i utviklingssamarbeid, og vi får ikke en utfyllende og anvendbar analyse av paraplyenes egenart og særlige utfordringer. Dessuten mener vi at både kildebruk og tolkningen av disse er dårlig i flere konkrete sammenhenger. Vi har derfor laget et eget vedlegg som er publisert med rapporten på Norads nettside. Les mer her:
I følge Norad var formålet med evalueringen å vurdere endringsteorien og strategiene som ligger til grunn for norsk støtte gjennom og til paraplyorganisasjonene, og å vurdere effektivitet og merverdi ved denne typen støtte basert på casestudier i Nepal og Tanzania. Teamet var også bedt om å sammenligne støtte gjennom paraplyorganisasjonene med alternative måter å kanalisere støtte til sivilsamfunnenes utviklingsarbeid. Evalueringen har sett på paraply- og nettverksorganisasjoner som en modell, og har ikke hatt som mål å vurdere hver enkelt organisasjon.
Nedenfor følger Morten Eriksens kommentar til rapporten som han ga under lanseringen:
There are obviously many important issues in the report, both related to umbrella and network organisations (UNOs) in general, monitoring and evaluation, use of funds, relations to partners and their expressed and unexpressed needs. And of course: About our added value. But these are all challenges that are common for all civil society organisations (CSO). They are not umbrella specific, but we all work seriously to make progress.
But what is specific for us? Are we mere umbrellas that administer Norad funds more or less efficient? Or are we something else – and more?
Our reason for being is not taken into account
Our purpose and reason for being is to promote the global disability movement and human rights for all people, including social and political rights and also including the meeting of needs of end beneficiaries. This is an agenda not shared by all. The main limits in the report are the narrow power analysis and scope, and the lack of understanding of the disability movement which we represent and work to promote and of their fight against oppression and marginalization that they meet every day.
Power analysis to short
The report reflects only the North – South partners and the power issues in that relationship. These are important and will have to be addressed. However, the report does not acknowledge the systematic oppression and marginalization of disabled people and DPOs that are going on at this very moment – on a global as well as local level. There is more fighting for scarce resources and positions in the countries we work than here. There is less support for human rights for all, for equality and for social and economic justice.
Recommendation to support CSOs directly
People with disabilities all over the world are marginalized, and they are not included in education, health, public life and policies. Also in the CSO world, where it is suggested our partners should receive their funding, people with disabilities are not included and provided with their human rights. Where are deaf-blind people acknowledged and treated like equals? Where do you find that children with intellectual disabilities have their spokespersons and enjoy full rights? Who are working for people with psycho-social disabilities or blind or deaf women? What access do they have to funds and advocacy competence?
All though the organisation level among people with disabilities is increasing also in developing countries, we are miles away from gaining the same position and respect as other stakeholders. The Atlas Alliance fear that direct funding to large Civil Society Organisations in the South as suggested will make the road to equality and social inclusion for disabled people and their organisations even longer.