The problem is that many CSO’s are severely under funded, are often quasi funded by government that is lacking in funds or controls funds and/or direction or become tied to international NGO’s, many of which are funded by developed country organizations or government agencies.
Often the economics from external sources through outside NGO’s dominate. Similarly as other studies have shown, many of the efforts from external funders or outside NGO’s are staffed with “well meaning” and inexperienced (but thinking they are experienced or doing “good”) volunteers inadequately supervised and often short term participants working on long term problems. This is true for those in the field as well as those sitting behind computer screens and spreadsheets in government and NGO’s from the developed world. Too much money and too little experience working with locals who also lack skills which, if lucky, they will learn on the job
Here’s an impact measurement we should put more effort into—the ability of funders to operate in a responsive manner to local needs and priorities. If there’s any capacity to be built, perhaps it’s that of the donors in developed countries. In a rapidly changing world, I agree that it’s high time for international actors to focus on honing their own skills, practices, and institutional processes to accompany and support local leadership and local systems, rather than overpower or co-opt them.
Luckily there is a growing number of small NGOs and foundations that specialize in offering direct funding to grassroots leaders and small, often “informal” movements. They create broad guidelines, focus areas, and selection criteria to respond to what local stakeholders view as important. I’ve found that these international small grantmakers are adept at keeping their minds (and perhaps more importantly their hearts) open to the possibility of results when organizations build upon and unleash the common good in unimagined and unanticipated ways.
When compared with “old-school” donor-controlled, large-scale, risk-averse project-based international aid funding, these small grants mechanisms can exhibit a profound shift in attitude and practice in working with impoverished and marginalized communities – from being passive recipients to active leaders of their own development.
As the events of the Arab Spring reminded us that lasting change must come from within and that grassroots initiatives are key drivers of social change, international small grantmakers’ experience are an untapped resource that has increasing relevance for the international aid and philanthropic sectors as a whole. When grassroots groups in the developing world are the setters of priorities and the controllers of resources, they can become the drivers of development.
I would be curious to read your thoughts on how the ideas you present apply domestically within the United States. There seems to be a similar disconnect with the people.
It is easy to forget that “civil society” is much more than registered NGOs, grants, projects, and “capacity building”- it is a web of ties between people that enables and supports community development, problem-solving, leadership development, and social support. These ties can be expressed in very different ways in different cultures and political contexts.
When one avenue of civil society organization closes (for example, a government forbids foreign funding to NGOs, or just shuts down NGOs completely), you can bet people in the context will adjust and find ways to organize and pursue their community needs.
International funders and big NGOs sometimes get so caught up in our preferred technical format for civil society support that they (or we) fail to respect the unique ways that grassroots groups have adapted the idea of civil society to suit their needs. We would all benefit from a richer understanding of democracy, governance, and civil society if we paid more attention to these locally emergent models.
I don’t think the answer lies with “small NGOs and small foundations that specialize in offering funding to grassroots leaders,” nor with broadening our technical formats to accommodate different kinds of civil society groups. The point we tried to make in the article is that civil society (however defined) will only be successful in its mission (however defined) if it succeeds in building a domestic base of support, and that often donor funding obviates the need for civil society groups to build these domestic constituencies. This is, obviously, a generalization, and also ignores the very real predicament of human rights organizations working to change local mores (e.g. LGBT groups in countries like Egypt, Nigeria and Uganda).
Still, just because there are exceptions doesn’t obviate the rule. I find that there’s a tremendous amount of “where you sit is where you stand” when it comes to the transformative power of small NGOs and small foundations contra international funders and big NGOs. If you work for the former, you think that they’re special; if you work for the latter, you think that the smaller players are insignificant. Both views (or strawmen, as it were), IMHO, are of course incorrect.
But no matter whether you work for a small funder or a large funder, the fact is that the money still flows in one direction - and no amount of rhetoric can cloak the power dynamic that’s inherent in one group of people giving money to another group, no matter how much we speak of partnerships and the like.
@Michael I certainly agree that it’s futile to divide efforts into “good” and “bad.” Supporting local efforts should not replace policy efforts, economic reforms, or programs targeted at other stakeholders still needed to bring about structural change at national and international levels. Exploring polarities of scale, however, helps us to acknowledge and challenge the policies and practices that marginalize and demotivate people on the receiving end of aid. Without building a base of committed stakeholders at all levels, change runs the risk of being inconsequential in the lives of everyday people.
Donor funding mechanisms/priorities impact civil society’s relationship to its constituencies tremendously. This is exactly why I care about creating a smoother funding flows to effective, indigenous, community-level initiatives. It’s something that deserves more recognition, thought, and investment in our sector. This requires development practitioners, including donors, to pay more attention to the concept of organization itself and the practice of facilitating the development of authentic and sovereign local and social movements.
I am at a loss:
a) The cell phone is ubiquitous, mobile money is more common. Grade school kids have OLPC computers and elsewhere snowmobiles exist alongside native housing and satellite TV
The cultural walls have been breached, globally, and just a few NGO’s seem desperate to “preserve” local cultures while members seek antibiotics and goods from abroad
b) Government-to-Government bilateral agreements bring sports stadiums, infrastructure and trade agreements. School programs promote English and STEM
c) bright and energetic individuals with minimal development exposure are “fly-in’s” whether a few weeks or a couple of years carrying their smart phones and MacBook Air’s and spreadsheets from their most recent course readings and lectures
d) Social media is ubiquitous, globally and all parties from the left, right, international agencies and governments.
I see no thinking that takes into account that the world is wired. Even in Canada, for example, The Metis are a recent creation from the mating of the Europeans and aborigines.
How to work in this emergent world where relationships are volatile and dynamic, moved by political and economic whimsy?
COMMENTS
BY tom abeles
ON December 11, 2014 01:27 PM
The problem is that many CSO’s are severely under funded, are often quasi funded by government that is lacking in funds or controls funds and/or direction or become tied to international NGO’s, many of which are funded by developed country organizations or government agencies.
Often the economics from external sources through outside NGO’s dominate. Similarly as other studies have shown, many of the efforts from external funders or outside NGO’s are staffed with “well meaning” and inexperienced (but thinking they are experienced or doing “good”) volunteers inadequately supervised and often short term participants working on long term problems. This is true for those in the field as well as those sitting behind computer screens and spreadsheets in government and NGO’s from the developed world. Too much money and too little experience working with locals who also lack skills which, if lucky, they will learn on the job
BY Jennifer Lentfer
ON December 12, 2014 03:57 AM
Here’s an impact measurement we should put more effort into—the ability of funders to operate in a responsive manner to local needs and priorities. If there’s any capacity to be built, perhaps it’s that of the donors in developed countries. In a rapidly changing world, I agree that it’s high time for international actors to focus on honing their own skills, practices, and institutional processes to accompany and support local leadership and local systems, rather than overpower or co-opt them.
Luckily there is a growing number of small NGOs and foundations that specialize in offering direct funding to grassroots leaders and small, often “informal” movements. They create broad guidelines, focus areas, and selection criteria to respond to what local stakeholders view as important. I’ve found that these international small grantmakers are adept at keeping their minds (and perhaps more importantly their hearts) open to the possibility of results when organizations build upon and unleash the common good in unimagined and unanticipated ways.
When compared with “old-school” donor-controlled, large-scale, risk-averse project-based international aid funding, these small grants mechanisms can exhibit a profound shift in attitude and practice in working with impoverished and marginalized communities – from being passive recipients to active leaders of their own development.
As the events of the Arab Spring reminded us that lasting change must come from within and that grassroots initiatives are key drivers of social change, international small grantmakers’ experience are an untapped resource that has increasing relevance for the international aid and philanthropic sectors as a whole. When grassroots groups in the developing world are the setters of priorities and the controllers of resources, they can become the drivers of development.
BY Howard Cavner
ON December 12, 2014 11:51 AM
I would be curious to read your thoughts on how the ideas you present apply domestically within the United States. There seems to be a similar disconnect with the people.
BY Laina Reynolds Levy
ON December 18, 2014 10:03 AM
It is easy to forget that “civil society” is much more than registered NGOs, grants, projects, and “capacity building”- it is a web of ties between people that enables and supports community development, problem-solving, leadership development, and social support. These ties can be expressed in very different ways in different cultures and political contexts.
When one avenue of civil society organization closes (for example, a government forbids foreign funding to NGOs, or just shuts down NGOs completely), you can bet people in the context will adjust and find ways to organize and pursue their community needs.
International funders and big NGOs sometimes get so caught up in our preferred technical format for civil society support that they (or we) fail to respect the unique ways that grassroots groups have adapted the idea of civil society to suit their needs. We would all benefit from a richer understanding of democracy, governance, and civil society if we paid more attention to these locally emergent models.
BY Michael Kleinman
ON January 12, 2015 05:06 PM
I don’t think the answer lies with “small NGOs and small foundations that specialize in offering funding to grassroots leaders,” nor with broadening our technical formats to accommodate different kinds of civil society groups. The point we tried to make in the article is that civil society (however defined) will only be successful in its mission (however defined) if it succeeds in building a domestic base of support, and that often donor funding obviates the need for civil society groups to build these domestic constituencies. This is, obviously, a generalization, and also ignores the very real predicament of human rights organizations working to change local mores (e.g. LGBT groups in countries like Egypt, Nigeria and Uganda).
Still, just because there are exceptions doesn’t obviate the rule. I find that there’s a tremendous amount of “where you sit is where you stand” when it comes to the transformative power of small NGOs and small foundations contra international funders and big NGOs. If you work for the former, you think that they’re special; if you work for the latter, you think that the smaller players are insignificant. Both views (or strawmen, as it were), IMHO, are of course incorrect.
But no matter whether you work for a small funder or a large funder, the fact is that the money still flows in one direction - and no amount of rhetoric can cloak the power dynamic that’s inherent in one group of people giving money to another group, no matter how much we speak of partnerships and the like.
BY Jennifer Lentfer
ON January 14, 2015 02:27 PM
@Michael I certainly agree that it’s futile to divide efforts into “good” and “bad.” Supporting local efforts should not replace policy efforts, economic reforms, or programs targeted at other stakeholders still needed to bring about structural change at national and international levels. Exploring polarities of scale, however, helps us to acknowledge and challenge the policies and practices that marginalize and demotivate people on the receiving end of aid. Without building a base of committed stakeholders at all levels, change runs the risk of being inconsequential in the lives of everyday people.
Donor funding mechanisms/priorities impact civil society’s relationship to its constituencies tremendously. This is exactly why I care about creating a smoother funding flows to effective, indigenous, community-level initiatives. It’s something that deserves more recognition, thought, and investment in our sector. This requires development practitioners, including donors, to pay more attention to the concept of organization itself and the practice of facilitating the development of authentic and sovereign local and social movements.
BY Tom abeles
ON January 14, 2015 03:39 PM
I am at a loss:
a) The cell phone is ubiquitous, mobile money is more common. Grade school kids have OLPC computers and elsewhere snowmobiles exist alongside native housing and satellite TV
The cultural walls have been breached, globally, and just a few NGO’s seem desperate to “preserve” local cultures while members seek antibiotics and goods from abroad
b) Government-to-Government bilateral agreements bring sports stadiums, infrastructure and trade agreements. School programs promote English and STEM
c) bright and energetic individuals with minimal development exposure are “fly-in’s” whether a few weeks or a couple of years carrying their smart phones and MacBook Air’s and spreadsheets from their most recent course readings and lectures
d) Social media is ubiquitous, globally and all parties from the left, right, international agencies and governments.
I see no thinking that takes into account that the world is wired. Even in Canada, for example, The Metis are a recent creation from the mating of the Europeans and aborigines.
How to work in this emergent world where relationships are volatile and dynamic, moved by political and economic whimsy?