Network of organizations throughout the world Dedicated to combating the spread and the effects of HIV/AIDS This case

talks about:
   

How Alliance developed The issues it faces The challenges that lie ahead The choices it has to make to develop its future strategy

Central : Council of Trustees 32 Linking Organizations(LO) support local communities Presence in 37 countries LOs are independent not-for-profit organizations but of different sizes and different levels of sophistication and development. Grassroots community actions are supported technically, materially and financially at national level by Alliance LOs.

Central : Council of Trustees Council: Ultimate Decision-making body Decisions are usually influenced by both donors and by LOs Annually, Directors of LOs meet what should be done in with prevalent HIV/AIDS scenario By 2009, LOs started pushing to have more say in Governance

Unclear Responsibilities of Central Council

 Responsible for overall strategy?  Responsible for funds that is coming from centre?  Unclear demarcation of services from centre and Hub

Central and LOs coordination Accreditation committees doesn t have representation from LOs LOs quality Control Uniformity and Information gap. Lack of Managers and better monitors

Changing Environment
 Donor s perspective for AIDS/HIV as special disease.  Focus is shifting to broader Health Issues  Funding getting diverted

Bases of Funding changing

 Changing from unrestricted to restricted(more

controlled)  Diversity of Expectation from donors.

LOs are less accountable

 Problem as funding coming now directly to LOs

Building country level capacity to deliver technical support.

 Education programs  Organizing Condom Distribution  Having Robust accounting and financial system Monitoring and Reporting system Good governance Good quality Programming

Similar Organization like RED are not solely dependent on donors. They sell merchandise which helps:
 More awareness spreading  Small Amount but widespread donors.

Most of the similar organizations have Centralized management and Government support

HIV lens with broader scope option is the best option for the company.
 Current Model, Health Lens and Human Right lens

are too narrow in their definition  Companies Focus should always be broad so that they have the scope of increasing their activities in future.

Category 3 is Best Changing the Alliance Model through Expansions and Mergers
 It will broaden the focus of Alliance as Donor s expectations are

broadening  It will provide new areas of work, New Funders and expanded supporter base.  Best way to make a global appeal

Category 2 model of adapting to fit available resource will be a very shortsighted vision and will give only temporary relief of problems. Category 1will not be sustainable because it will need
 Increased lobbying  Changing Donor s preferences

Increase the number of countries supported by alliance National Policy because

 Is in sync with our focus of moving to broader scope  Most key policies issues are local and national level

Not Global Policy because

 It will be costly

No Regional Policy because

 Governance will be a problem  Against our view of broadening scope and vision

The current Model because

 It will be having flexibility to mobilize resources

through in-family, though consultants on ad-hoc or regular basis

Developing different partnership packages to meet different expectation of Alliances because

 In sync with our proposed merger and Expansion

Proposal  In sync with our broadening the scope proposal  Win-win situation for Alliance as well as its partners

Philadelphia Movie Compare with TELETHON(Association of Handicapped)

Thank You