What is the Added Value for ACP in response to HIV/AIDS in Kenya

[Meble Birengo]

As part of our reflections during the parnters meeting in the Kenya competence process, we asked a reflective question on 'What do we think is the added value for ACP in the response to HIV/AIDS in Kenya.

We heard several reflection but this is an opportunity for us to reflect again on this forum.

Looking foward to your continued reflections.

Meble

[Gaston]

Hi Meble. In general I have experienced the following added values of ACP:
- It's a strength-based approach (SALT/ appreciation). Like Phil states: ‘ Seriously revolutionary, even in the private sector’
- It's a clear and simply process. Some processes for community responses can be complicated or vague. I think the combination with the Knowledge Management tools, the experience and testing in many countries, and every day learning, our process is becoming even more simple. People grasp the process rather quickly. From my experience, I see that the Way of Thinking/ Working (SALT) can take longer than grasping the steps of the process.
- The approach is scalable. Like Ausaid’s community mobilization person in Papua New Guinea said last November: “We tested COMATTA, Stepping Stones and Community Conversations, but ACP brings by far the best results, is cheapest on the ground, has a simple process and the potential to go to scale”. I am not saying it's easy, but people have proven that it's possible to go country wide.

I am not that experienced with Kenya, but these are my general reflections on the added value. Hope this helps.

Regards, Gaston

[Rituu B. Nanda]

Dear Meble,

Hope you are doing well.

We i.e Gaston, Bobby and me recently compiled an India-specific concept note for ACP. Grateful to Rafique and Meera for their valuable inputs. I would like to share a section of this note to shed light on ways in which ACP can compliment the existing HIV work in India. The implementing agenices in India including the government bodies, donors,NGOs, CBOs(Community-based organisations) and FBOs (Faith-based organisations) target interventions to most at risk and vulnerable populations. The comparison below while highlighting the differences between the Targeted Intervetion (TI)approach and ACP, also relays how ACP can mobilize the communities to take charge and thereby, facilitate the National AIDS Control Programme (NACP-III).

1. Focus area
TI- HIV Interventions are targeted at High Risk Behaviour (HRB) Groups and People Living with HIV (PLHIV).
ACP- The Community in a geographical area draws on community resources to influence community behaviour towards HIV prevention and treatment.

2. Structure and culture
In TI, collectivizing for advocacy and policy leads to introduction of new structures and cultures in the community
ACP- Uses existing structures and cultures in the Community. Facilitators work from existing cultural and community strengths. For.eg. Salvation army uses church groups and youth groups in Mizoram to mobilize the communities.

3. Urban/rural areas
TI has been applied so far amongst HRB groups mostly in urban setting with relatively the highest HIV prevalence.
In India ACP is practiced among general population in rural areas with lower risks and prevalence. The approach is being explored in urban and high prevalent situations too.

4. Top-down/bottoms-up approach
TI- Approach is top-down with implementing Agencies executing pre-determined activities to achieve targets set in their plans.
ACP is bottom-up approach with community animators facilitating community leaders and volunteers who take responsibility to accomplish the Community’s response to HIV.

5. Focus on specific groups/ geographical community
TI mobilizes the target group without collectivizing them but demarcating the high risk groups or PLHIV thus loosing confidentiality and singling them out for stigma and discrimination.
In ACP, no heterogeneity introduced in the Community, confidentiality remains intact longer and at the most is only shared, and therefore members with high risk behaviour are not prone for stigma and discrimination

6. Targets and indicators
In TIs, implementing Agencies fix the targets without consulting the target groups. Revisions of targets or course correction in project strategies have to be approved by those higher in the hierarchy, often causing delays. Pressure to achieve targets felt by implementing agencies.
In ACP, communities develop their own indicators through self-measurement of change. They fix their own targets in discussion with their peers which leads to greater ownership.

7. Resources
TIs interventions are heavily dependent on financial and technical support from funding and capacity building agencies.
ACP uses as far as possible community resources, while the cost involved is that of the facilitator only. Hence, per rupee coverage is high.

Would love to hear your experiences in Kenya.

Warm regards,

Rituu