# **Box 2: Examples of how organizations and structures involved in community responses have been categorized**

The DFID‐funded program Strengthening the HIV/AIDS Response in Zambia, which has supported civil society participation in the national response, categorizes organizations as (1) grassroots and community organizations; (2) national and international non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), faith‐based organizations (FBOs), and other more formalized civil society structures; (3) civil society networks, umbrella bodies, and associations; and (4) civil society platforms and forums. Around 75 percent of civil society organizations fall into the first two categories; over 22 percent have a religious affiliation (Collins, Simwanza and Mumbi 2009).

An analysis of the National HIV/AIDS Database in South Africa found that 162 of the 1,582 entries identified themselves as FBOs, which were categorised as (1) networks or coalitions (associations of churches or FBOs that facilitate coordination and communication among members); (2) national or provincial structures (for example, dioceses); (3) social services agencies (welfare and charitable wings); (4) faith‐based NGOs (NGOs with a religious orientation); (5) congregations; and (6) projects (initiatives such as children’s homes) (Birdsall 2005).

A large number of different typologies and nomenclature have been used in the literature to describe _types_ of civil society organizations and initiatives. The _type_ of entity often informs the basis for research and evaluation processes – and has resulted in a varied body of information that makes cross‐analysis and comparison difficult. Differing classifications of type thus remains a challenge to any systematic analysis of community response which seeks to be inclusive of both formal organizational response (such as that by non‐governmental organizations who are named in national databases), as well as informal community _initiatives_ which might not have any organizational (or physical) structure and be significantly more fluid in nature.

A first useful distinction can therefore be made between _informal_ and informal community initiatives, as described in box 3.

# **Box 3: Distinguishing between formal and informal community‐based initiatives**

**_Informal community initiatives:_** usually have no organizational infrastructure, might not have an actual facility, often rely on voluntary effort, and operate without external support. However, they may have social support structures and systems.  For example, grassroots or indigenous community initiatives and self‐help groups.

**_Formal community initiatives:_** usually have some form of institutional infrastructure and status that might include a facility, legal registration, a bank account, a management committee, defined responsibilities, paid staff, strategic plans, and they may receive external support.  Others may have all the characteristics of institutional status but may be denied legal registration because of the stigma attached to their work and/or the people they represent. For example, community‐based organizations (CBOs), non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), faith‐based organizations (FBOs).

9