Discrimination of NGOs and Positive Networks providing Care and Support for PLHAs

[Guest guest]

Dear Institutional heads of Care and Support NGOs and forum members,

I write in context with the latest directive from NACO (Mr. Suresh Kumar –

Director Finance) issues vide their letter dated 20th September 2007. This

letter was sent to all SACS. This letter was in turn forwarded to us by

Karnataka SACS.

The states that there has been an evaluation done by ORG Marg to evaluate and

grade (A, B, & C) all community based care and support centers in India.

Many of the leading (if not all) organizations providing quality care and

support for PLHAs over the years, being funded by the respective SACS have

mysteriously been graded in the so called B category and relatively new and

rather small care and support interventions have been categorized as A; a few

have been categorized as C and have been disqualified without any intimation.

The letter states that all organisations in the ‘A’ category will have receive

ongoing funding as per the revised NACP 3 guidelines.

Organisations listed as ‘B’ would basically have to apply and compete as and

when advertisements are released for new care and support units in the uncovered

districts. Organisations listed as ‘C’ grade have been left out from the over

all scheme of things.

It has been brought to our notice that the above was the result of a so called

evaluation process supposedly conducted by ORG Marg of all low cost community

based care and support centers in India.

While we all appreciate a transparent process of evaluation and grading with

clear terms of reference, the reports that we have received from the Managers

and coordinators of the various care and support units of Freedom Foundation

supported till late by the respective SACS, clearly state that there have been

gross violations of the so called evaluation.

We have also had the privilege of hearing similar concerns from many of the

other NGOs and Institutional heads in the country whose organizations are listed

as A, B, & C in the rather infamous list.

Even care and support centers run by various positive networks in various states

and districts have been listed as ‘B’

Further to the above mentioned subject, it must be noted that the initial NACO

guidelines on Low cost community care and support center were derived from the

first Freedom Foundations care and support center at Bangalore.

In 1998 Sahara’s ’s care home Delhi and Freedom Foundation’s care and

support unit at Hennur, Bangalore, were the first two centers supported by NACO

directly. Michel’s care home was supposed to cater to the needs of the North and

Freedom Foundation was to cater to the needs of the south.

Freedom Foundation has been providing a plethora of services in the Substance

Abuse / HIV/AIDS sector for more than 15 years in India. Today the foundation

functions out of 46 physical units in India; and is also operational in Nigeria

and soon in Botswana under contract with the respective governments. Freedom

Foundation is the recipient of many national and international awards for its

comprehensive care and support model. The FF model has been documented as a

UNAIDS “Best practice and center of Excellence”

I state the above only to expose the contradictions and vagaries of the

directive from NACO. I am aware and acknowledge the scope of excellence may of

you have demonstrated in the work that you do, which has been acknowledged with

similar if not more accolades.

The undersigned did try and discuss this issue with DG NACO Ms. Rao and Dr.

Bachani, but was told that it was not possible to repeat this exercise and that

the said directive was final.

As of today none of the Freedom Foundation’s care and support units in the

states of Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, & Goa have received any official

intimation of such an evaluation exercise, nor have we got any evaluation

report.

Freedom Foundation refuses to accept this so called evaluation and grading

system.

We request NACO not to disturb the existing financial support to all the

existing community based care and support units until an amicable solution is

found. It must be noted that scores of dedicated and committed NGOs will be

forced to close down causing untold suffering to PLHAs and their families.

We request NACO to officially discard the said evaluation and to have a fresh

process with very clear guidelines and objectives and adequate participation of

all stakeholders.

We further request NACO to contract a competent agency to undertake the

evaluation.

Points for consideration and reference regard the recent evaluation.

INTENT OF EVALUATION:

What the purpose of the evaluation; was it communicated to the respective

respondents, if so, at that point of time?

Were the respondents made aware of the intended outcome?

Was the evaluation intended to eliminate rather than evaluate existing centers

in terms of strengths and weaknesses?

Were opportunities elicited regards respective centers captured through the

evaluation?

Did the evaluation capture the track record of the respective centers?

SCOPE OF EVALUATION:

Have any of the centers received the scope of evaluation?

Were the criteria made known?

What were the reference guidelines for care and support?

Was it NACP III or the earlier NACO guidelines for Low cost community based care

and support?

What are the tools used for the evaluation?

What are the predetermined scores for grading and the process of arriving at the

grades?

Were the selected agencies briefed regards the scope and were they competent to

conduct the same?

PROCESS OF EVALUATION:

What were the processes followed at the respective centers?

What were the aids used namely audio?

List the documents review process.

List the FGD/SGD process with the key respondents and their position in the care

center

What was the focus in the one on one interview and the client interviews?

Was there any enticement, pressure or threats?

COMPETENCY OF INTERVIEWERS:

Were the interviewer’s competent and informed regards the subject?

Were they fluent in the regional language?

What were their levels of understanding regards HIV/AIDS & care and support?

Yours Sincerley

With Regards

Dr.Ashok Rau

Executive Trustee/CEO

Freedom Foundation-India, Nigeria, and Botswana

(Centers of Excellence- Substance Abuse & HIV/AIDS)

Head Office: 180, Hennur Cross, Bangalore - 560043, India

Senior Research Fellow, The Terry Sanford Institute of Public Health, Duke

University (USA)

Visiting Faculty, Yale University (USA)

Phone (O) +91 80 25440134, 25449766, 25430611

Fax (O) +91 80 25440134

email:freedom@..., <ashokrau@...>