What is a nonprofit organization?
• PROVIDE USEFUL GOODS AND SERVICES
• ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISTRIBUTE PROFITS TO INDIVIDUALS
• ARE VOLUNTARY, CREATED, MAINTAINED AND TERMINATED BY MEMBERS OR BOARD
• EXHIBIT VALUE RATIONALITY OFTEN BASED ON STRONG IDEOLOGICAL COMPONENTS
Ways of Categorizing NGOs• By constituency
– Member-based (MBOs– Member support (MSOs)– Service delivery organizations– Support networks– Grassroots Organizations
• By geography– Local, national, international, multinational
• By purpose– Economic support and development– Social service delivery– Advocacy – Networking and umbrella
Classic INGO Dilemmas• Funding
– Competition– Contract-based funding versus grants– Competitive tendering: RFPs, short-term funding– Competition with for-profit providers
• Accountability– To donors– To beneficiaries– To partners– To boards – who is the “owner” of a nonprofit?
• Value-based programming– Nature of relationships with partners matters
• Advocacy v. service delivery
* In this new era of globalization new kinds of problems flow across
national boundaries at an astonishing pace
* THE AIDS PANDEMIC
* GLOBAL WARMING + POLLUTION
* THE ASIAN FINANCIAL COLLAPSE
* LARGE SCALE REFUGEE MOVEMENTS
* TRANSNATIONAL TERROR
The Challenge
Growing Global Population, Poverty,Inequity, Environmental Degradation,
Continued Conflicts, Expanding Numbers of Refugees and Internally Displaced People, Changing Role of the
State, Opportunities of New Technology
Insufficient Global Resources, Interest andAlliances to Meaningfully Address These Problems
?
THE TRANSFORMATION AGENDA
NGO INTERNAL RESPONSES
REEXAMINING VALUES + CREATING A NEW VISION AND MISSION
REDESIGNING RELIEF + DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
TRANSFORMING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE + SYSTEMS
INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY
BUILDING GLOBAL NETWORKS
LIVELIHOOD SECURITY AND APPROPRIATE PROGRAMS
RELIEFFamilies Have No Access
to Essential Services, Resources or Means
REHABILITATIONFamilies Meet Many BasicNeeds But Require Some
Outside Assistance
DEVELOPMENT Families More Than
Meet Basic Needs WithNo Outside Assistance
PROVISIONING PROTECTION PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT
EMERGENCY
POPULATION
EDUCATION
FOOD MONETIZATION
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE/WATER
THE CONSEQUENCES OF INEFFECTIVE RESPONSEWILL PUT BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE
GENERATIONS AT SERIOUS RISK
YET
* Most of us were brought up to think within our national and local boundaries
* We have few clear solutions for border jumping problems
* Multilateral institutions designed in the post WWII period are outdated and ineffective as well
* National governments were never set up to attack such problems
The Goal of Emergency response
helping innocentpeople stay alive in times of
conflict as well as natural disaster
and
promoting effectivetransitions to more peaceful and
productive lives
The New World of Complex Emergencies
NEW PROBLEMS
Structural-- (Internally Displaced PeopleSafety and Security)
Ethical-- (Unwittingly Supporting War Economy)
Operational-- (Financing , Capacity Building, Peace Building)
The World of Old Emergencies
POST COLD WAR Conflict Within Nations
NEW POST COLD WARConflict Between Nations
and Transnational Non State Actors
COLD WARConflict Between Nations
The New World of Complex Emergencies
AN EXAMPLE OF A STRUCTURAL PROBLEM-- Who Has Responsibility for IDPs
COLD WARConflict Between Nations
POST COLD WAR Conflict Within Nations
Comparative Forced Displacement: IDPs and Refugees, 1965-1999
0
510
15
20
2530
35
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Mil
lio
n
Refugees
IDPs
3 OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS IN GLOBAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE
1. PERVERSE GLOBAL DYNAMICSMAKE FUNDING REFUGEE OPERATIONS
VERY DIFFICULT
2. FINDING AND RETAINING STAFF ANDSTRENGTHENING LOCAL AND NATIONAL
RESPONSE CAPACITY
3. PREVENTING WARS AND PROMOTINGEFFECTIVE POST CONFLICT WORK
1. PERVERSE FINANCIAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS(Emergency Response As A Global Public Good)
OLIGOPOLISTICPUBLIC RESOURCESUPPLIERS
• USAID• European Union
• Just in Time Funding
• And Only For Operations
• No Current Way ToAnticipate and Fund Global Needs on an Annual Basis
NON PROFIT SERVICEDELIVERY ORGANIZATIONS
• Red Cross• CARE• Doctors Without Borders
• Loss Of Response Capacity In Non Crisis Periods
• Little Large Scale Rapid Response Capacity (Staff, $$$, Supplies)
LITTLE FUNDING
• Forgotten Wars
• Post War Social and Physical Recovery
• Conflict Prevention and Peace Building
THE CYCLIC NATURE OF HUMANITARIAN AND NATURAL DISASTERS
2. LOW LEVELS OF EMERGENCY STAFF PREPARATIONAND RETENTION IN EXISTING ORGANIZATION
THE PEOPLE
• Young IndependentValue Driven
• TechnicallySkilled
• No PreviousExperience
• High LevelsOf Student Loans
• View It As An ExperienceNot As A Career
THE SETTINGS
• Increasingly Dangerous
• Unpredictable
• Highly Stressful
• Traumatic
• Temporary in Nature
THE CONSEQUENCES
• High Annual Staff Turnover
** Red Cross 25% ** CARE 35% ** MSF (2 Yr Limit) 50% ** NW Medical
400%
• Repeating The Same Operational Mistakes Repeatedly
• Waste Of Training Resources
FIGURE 5.2
MODELS OF NORTHERN RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT NGO STRUCTURES
MSF PLAN INT OXFAM INT WORLD VISION 1950 HABITAT CARE CARE
1980’s 1950 SAVE SAVE 1930 1975 1993 1997
Independent Independent Confederations Federations Unitary Organizations + Organizations Corporate w/ Weak Umbrella Coordination
ALLIANCES AND NETWORKS
Partners
EvolutionOf Affiliates
NorthernBased
Confederations
NorthernBased
FederationsGlobalBumble
Bee
NorthernBased
Independents
SouthernFederations andConfederations
SouthernLooseNetworks &Alliances
EMERGING GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE AND DEVELOPMENT NETWORKS
MOST FREQUENT SOURCES OF AFFILIATE CONFLICT
ImageMedia
and Advocacyin a
Member country
Fund Raising
in a MemberCountry
Program Geography
and Coordinationof In Country
Operations
CommonSystems
and Structures
CommonPrinciples
NormsBrand
Partnership• Networking
• Cooperation/
alliance
• Partnership
• Coalition
• Collaboration
Loose, flexible link
Coordinate to reduce duplication
Formalize links, share resources
Joint decision making, share some governance
Interdependent system
•Decreased autonomy
• Increased cooperation
•Mutual benefit?
N-S Partnership
• Contracting• Franchise• Spin-off• Visionary patronage
• Collaboration
• Mutual governance
Package of services
Field office function
Shared vision, NGO is implementer
Share decision-making and planning
Influence over each others policies and practices
•Decreased autonomy
• Increased cooperation
•Mutual benefit?
THE PARTNERSHIP ARCH*
InequivalentHands On
InequivalentHands Off
Equivalent Equivalent
ORGANIZATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
INSTITUTIONAL
PARTNERING
* Karen Casper
DirectService
Delivery
ProjectReplication
ByOthers
Institut-ional
CapacityBuilding
InstitutionalSustainability
FullPartnership Institut-
ionalizedPartnership
FormalNet-
working
SubContract-
ing
DirectFunding
or Grantee
NGO “Scramble”
• Competitive tendering and renewable contracting:– Produce dysfunctional outcomes– That are rational response to incentives
• Transnational environment pushing INGOs towards competition
Examples of Collective Action Problems in Assistance
• Kyrgyz Republic & Technical Assistance Programs– Donors ask beneficiaries of aid whether a contractor’s
grant should be renewed, removing incentive for contractor to limit beneficiary discretion
– Competition generates multiple proposals, increasing donor confusion over what the best reform might bt
• Goma, Zaire (Dem Repub of Congo)– “Contract fever”– Major relief contracts required demonstrating significant
field presence – No incentive to examine by-products of their activities– Collective action problem:
• Withdrawal an empty gesture – others organizations will fill in
Top Related