Running an NGO is not your escape route from your current job...

What I am finding is that the best NGO leaders do tend to have some private/business experience before entering civil society. The difference between the good NGO leaders and the mediocre/bad ones, is that the good ones are extremely good. They were not just skilled bankers, financiers, etc., they were likely near the top of whatever organization they were at before. This makes sense – running an NGO is much harder than most private business. Not only does the NGO head have to be the organizations visionary and force it to stay consistent to its goals, he or she is often called on to give advice in everyday problems. As a result, he or she needs to manage macro and micro problems. He or she needs to be a macro-level manager, while providing micro-level input. And if the NGO is really successful, he or she will likely be called on by other NGOs to help solve their problems – which, given how much all of the NGOs need each other to tackle larger issues, means he or she can’t say no to any requests for help. If this wasn’t enough, often that NGO leader will be the only one in his or her organization that is even remotely capable to taking on this much responsibility. So, my point is that just because a person is a successful student or businessperson, does not mean he or she will be a successful NGO manager…to be one you probably need to have been an exceptional student and a phenomenal businessperson.

Business Schools in India

I’ve had several discussions with people writing articles on “new philanthropy’s” focus on bringing market ideas to NGOs and civil society in general. While I agree with many of those ideas – like transparency, disclosure of risks and key information, public reports – I am wary that emphasizing market concepts can thwart younger groups from going through the “inefficient” nascent stages of their development.

It is particularly important that people start voicing these types of concerns in India because the larger business culture is very strong here. The day that CAT (business school exam) was administered in India, it was the top story in all the papers and magazines and on TV. In fact, it was the top story for several days. That combined with this idolization of business icons, the prestige attached to conspicuous consumption, and generally all things market and growth oriented could be very dangerous. Not only are the problems I mentioned above a concern, but as NGOs do operate more like businesses and their public/annual reports more closely resemble capital market disclosures, there is a possibility that donors will grow to think that because they have significant business experience it will be valuable for them to opine about the day to day practices of the NGOs they support. While active interest is crucial, I think it is important to remember that the organizations will more often than not know what’s best.

I’ve heard some anecdotal evidence to support this but will track it during the donor-engagement stages to see if it is true – especially for Indian donors.

Cost of Living

The overall theme of our portfolio seems to slowly be coming together – education and care for those children that fall outside India’s prosperity bubble. While India is experiencing a booming economy, it is not filtering to everyone. It is exaggerating the disparity in income and makes the gap larger and larger. What is worse is that in the cities experiencing the most economic growth – Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Chennai, Chandigarh, and Kolkata – the growth hurts those that don’t benefit even more. This was striking in Bangalore, where the IT boom has pushed housing, transportation, food, entertainment, and just about every other cost significantly up. While people making Western salaries and inflated Indian salaries can cope with this, the majority – who do not benefit from this boom at all – are left much worse off because now they have to pay much higher costs with the same salary they had years ago – before the boom. As a result, the fall further and further down the leader and are unlikely to come up – all of which exaggerates the disparity even more.

In our group of NGOs, we have several education and care charities for children who are not able to participate in the elite or better Indian private school. So we have groups trying to reform the public school, creating private schools for slum children, schooling and training disabled children, working with street children, providing care for the orphaned and abused. There are some more that fall outside this group but for the pilot this seems to be the unifying theme.

Audits in India

We have met with a couple of NGOs that have already gone through their own audits before meeting with us. As would be expected some are more useful than others. Most audits are hybrids, but roughly, there seem to be three general types of audits in India.

The first – and most common -- type of audit is a “Financial Audit”. It aims to see that resources are properly accounted for and are used accurately. If the NGO has a limited number of accounts, these generally tend to be good. But if the NGO has multiple accounts and multiple ledgers – as many tend to have – the audits are too superficial to be meaningful. There needs to be a more thorough effort in many of these audits to compare expenditures and revenues across the accounts to ensure that there are not abuses (such as debiting one expense several times or paying salaries multiple times).

The second type is an “Organizational Review” – it tends to summarize what the NGO does and then tries to categories that information into categories so that the NGO can best see how to proceed, use resources, and what activities to more actively pursue. The primary use of this model is that it helps give context to a complicated organization’s operations. It does little, however, to help the NGO reflect on why it is doing something or how it fits into its overall objectives.

The third type is the “Strategic Review.” This audit tries to capture a mission statement and then look at what the group does and project a three or five year plan. While some effort is made at trying to identify the overall outcome the NGO wishes to achieve, it is not usually captured in terms of what is generally achievable. It is often too lofty. As a result, the three and five year plans sound great but are more often over ambitious proclamations than real strategies. They also tend to focus on scaling up without true thought on whether this it is in the organization’s best interest (or if it is, then if scaling up is done in an appropriate time frame or scope) and on increasing fundraising. In fact, almost every one of these “Strategic Reviews” has a sizeable section on increased fundraising.

What I think is the benefit of our process is that it offers very little in terms of advice on what changes need to be made or how to make necessary changes. Instead, it works as an organizational tool by helping NGOs see exactly what they want to achieve and what they will have to do to reach that (practically achievable) result.

This is supplemented by the reporting template Alex and I are developing. The report forces NGOs to identify their main activities, how successful these activities are and the evidence for these results, their overall strategy are following. This helps the NGO see what activities might not fit into their overall goals and where to focus resources. Further, by making sure that the NGOs clarify the overall environment and context in which they are operating, they are forced to make sure there activities are practical. Additionally, we require NGOs to explain and examine their finances more clearly. This works in combination with the organizational reporting sections to make NGOs consider whether they are using resources adequately. Once the report is completed, the NGO not only has a roadmap of how to achieve results it wishes to achieve, but also can see whether its current activities are helping it to reach those results. While we function as a sounding board, we leave the ultimate decision on how to make necessary changes in practices or strategy to the NGO (which best understands how to solve the problem). By doing so, we also avoid some of the really ridiculous solutions we have seen proposed by some outside auditors.

Interesting Article on Non-Profit Marketplaces

This is an interesting article on social investment marketplaces.

http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7283&s_oo=pOCReJ0tTPleBINxFyKyOw..

Second Workshop Observations

The second workshop differed from the first in that there were two NGOs instead of three and one representative came from each NGO instead of several. It started as an informal conversation. The NGOs explained what they do and what they would like to do. They then discussed the problems that they had with donors and engaging with them. It was a lot more open than the previous session, possibly because the representatives each were the only ones from their organization and therefore didn’t have to worry about being accountable to someone else they worked with or feel inhibited. It is a different dynamic but both seem worthwhile. This format yield more honest discussion. The other more intense debate about the organization and with more people it is more likely that the group of representatives will be able to explain the framework to the entire NGO.

Specific Observations

1. Jargon. As we saw on the first day, the NGOs frequently will use jargon to communicate their thoughts and have to be instructed to clarify what they actually mean.

2. Defining Success. The NGOs seem to really enjoy the epitaph exercise and see the benefit in being forced to define themselves in terms of achievement as opposed to what they do. The one stumbling block is that they seem inevitably to phrase their initial view of success at least in part as what they do. We try to force them out of it and develop a statement without stating what they do. But it seems that if one is going to write an epitaph that it would include what one does. And this seems to frustrate the NGOs a bit. It means we either change the exercise from writing an epitaph or we just let them write it and then edit it out ourselves. Maybe we could put their epitaph on a board and physically remove all references to things they do and change verbs from the past tense to the present. This might even be more dramatic.

3. Do we need eco-mapping to be its own step? Currently, we start with a statement of success (Step 1), then determine outcomes necessary for success (the vision of success), then map out the ecosystem, and finally come back to determine the prerequisite conditions. It seems that by placing the ecosystem exercise where it is we break up the NGOs thinking on its theory of change. While it is important to map out the ecosystem, we seem to be doing it when we are developing the vision of success (Step 2). We ask the NGOs to state what the conditions, attitudes, behavior, and relationships would look like in a world where they had achieved success and make them phrase these in terms of outcomes. This step requires them to consider all the actors that they would have to interact with (positively and negatively). We could make this clearer by saying that they should first list all the people/relationships that are crucial to them achieving success and then list all the conditions, attitudes, and behavior changes that will have to exist for them to have success. That way we can move from them developing outcome statements to listing the prerequisites for those conditions. I think that would allow them to see how they have developed a theory of change and then how each prerequisite (Step 3) logically leads to an outcome and that those outcomes lead to success. It might also help see each prerequisite as something to measure, to be measured against, and to validate. It also would be a good breaking point, so that when we come back together we could discuss how to measure, report, and validate success (and failure) in terms of that map of the theory of change. (Step 4 (Reporting) and Step 5 (Validation).)

A possible new sequence could look like this:

4. Do we need to be more flexible with prerequisites? We are finding that when the NGOs define the prerequisite conditions they also mix in strategy. On one hand it is good to make them distinguish between the two. But seeing as there will be a lot of overlap, it may make sense to list all of them and then narrow them down into things that are not redundant and then from there see if some collapse into each other.

5. We need to be more clearly explain reporting. Right now we give them a few suggestions and say it is really up to them. This seems to confuse them and they lose a bit of the trust in us that we had secured up that point. What we can do is move from preconditions/strategy section to working with them to develop a way to report all of these preconditions. By that point we would have explained that the preconditions also function as performance indicators. We could then show them how some of those could be measured quantitatively (e.g. teachers hired, students enrolled) and others need to be measured qualitatively (e.g. children’s increased feeling of security or increased participation). It would also help to show why beneficiary and other constituent voice is necessary to measure qualitative things. After all this, I believe that we would more easily be able explain how we could incorporate all this information into a report to donors that provides both traditional necessary information (organization’s profile, financials, governance) as well as information on how the NGO is helping to make sustainable change.

6. This framework may be too rigid to work for all groups. We already acknowledge that this framework does not really help relief type organizations – like natural disaster relief. We are aimed at sustainable development and process change. But some groups fall in between. For example, if you are working on learning disabilities you may do a few things to change overall society – like lobbying, trying to support curriculum change – but you may be just as happy to partner with another group and leave that part of the solution to them and instead focus on educating children. These groups are no less involved in the process of change; they just don’t have the resources or whatever to take a more global approach. I think we can still help them, but we need to tailor some of the scope of the framework to allow for more input-output thinking for them.

Other Observations

1. Multiple Accounts. It is really clear that when we examine the NGOs financials we have to do more than ask for required filings or see that expenses add up. Because of statutory requirements (for example the need to separately account for foreign funds) and donor conditions (their grants be tracked in separate accounts with separate ledgers), NGOs often have multiple accounts. It is not uncommon to have 5 or 10 different accounts. While this makes tracking easier in some sense, it makes abuse also possible. Funds can be transferred from one project to another. Expenses can be debited to multiple accounts. Salaries can be paid multiple times. The point is that misdeeds or untruths can easily be hidden if one does not do more than see that the numbers add up.

2. Donors need to understand that they are funding a process not a project. I think that if we get donors that understand the problems NGOs face in terms of budgeting or if we get donors who want to fund a process, some of the NGO practices that see them playing a shell game with funds could go away. That is not to say that NGOs are lying about money. With the NGOs we’ve seen the opposite is true. They are all very transparent with their accounting. I refer more to what we’ve heard anecdotally or what seems to be a donor fear. If funds are going to a process and less to a project, then maybe the NGO will feel comfortable telling the donor that it needs to reroute the funds. Then the two can have an honest discussion.

3. At least we aren’t . . . . One of the NGOs told us that they were working with some outside help from a group of US business students who were studying in India. After completing their in depth study of the NGO – which focused on children with learning disabilities – the group suggested to the NGO’s board that the organization should refocus its efforts toward helping HIV+ children. Ugh. At least we are better than that.

First Workshop Observations

Our first workshop consisted of three NGOs. One came three representatives; one came with two representatives; and one came with one representative. It seemed to help to have multiple representatives from an organization so that when we broke apart in groups, they could discuss things with their colleagues. We paired the NGO with one representative with the group with two representatives and had them focus on discussing issues for the NGO with two representatives. Of course, the solo NGO seemed annoyed at first (in fairness to us they were told to bring at least two representatives), but the NGO with two representatives accommodated that NGO so in the end they discussed issues for both groups. We also floated in to help the solo NGO discuss issues. It showed the importance of our pre-workshop diligence, without which it would not have been possible to help that NGO. In the future, we either need to be equally prepared or more forceful in requiring the solo groups to work in combination. As a side note, it also seemed to please the NGOs that we were putting Give through the same exercise. It may be worth doing that for each initial group or having prepared answers for what Give would say.

Initial Feedback as to Motivation

The bad news…I was wrong.....the donor hook was important in getting NGOs interested in the program.

The good news….almost from the beginning, the NGOs understood the value of this reporting framework and were very excited to start seeing things in terms of outcomes and achievement. They were even more excited that donors increasingly want to be part of sustainable and long term change and that there is a growing body of donors who want more than a two page proposal and would prefer to have a continuing and active dialogue. While they still had some concern as to what information donors wanted, by the end they were willing to accept that donors could be convinced that open and honest discussion between all those interested in the issue was to their advantage and something they would want.

The really good news…the NGOs are excited to get things going and are asking to set up follow-up meetings as soon as possible. They are also looking to work with other staff to prepare for the follow-ups. All these are great signs and hopefully suggest that we might be successful in getting NGOs to implement these steps.

Specific Observations

1. It’s what you want to achieve, not what you do. At first, NGOs framed things almost exclusively in terms of what they did (we care for kids, we educate kids, we feed kids) rather than what they want to achieve. This is something we expected. It took a few exercises (through the mapping of the vision of success) for the NGOs to understand how they could frame things in terms of achievement. We need to do a better job of explaining to them why this is important and not just semantics. I think that saying the “looking from the clouds” example worked well (“If I was looking down from the clouds at the organizations, what would I see?”).

2. Strategy vs. Prerequisite Condition: NGOs had a difficult time figuring out what was a precondition to achieving the outcomes it mapped out as necessary to achieving success and what was a strategy to make those preconditions come about. Again, we need to do a better job of explaining why this isn’t semantics and should clarify that it often is a blurry line.

3. Prerequisite Conditions as Success Indicators. We need to explain how the NGOs can qualitatively measure success (as well as quantitatively where appropriate) by looking at the preconditions they listed. We should also work them through the logical steps – (if the preconditions are correct and are satisfied, then the outcome should come about. And if the various outcomes come about, then success should be achieved.)

4. Planners vs. Searchers and Process vs. Project: The NGOs not only got this, but seemed to get very excited by it. It was as if someone finally verbalized what they were thinking. They view themselves as searchers engaged in a process of change. And they are most interested in (and excited by) donors who see themselves similarly – as searchers looking to support a process (rather than planners who sit back – lawyer jokes work well here! – and think of some strategy implemented through a series of preconceived projects).

Areas We Need to Improvement and Clarify

1. We need to make the process more linear. This does not mean we should go back to input-output type thinking, but more that we need to somehow use each step to build for the next one. We are trying to do that, but we are losing the groups at some point. I think it tends to be at the constituent voice consideration point. They often express confusion as to where this fits into the process and how it is different from mapping their ecosystem. It could also be that the eco-mapping exercise should be moved after the preconditions because it seems to stop the progress we are making up to that point. One possible revisions could be this: (1) epitaph exercise – aimed at a defining success; (2) map out the vision of success (all in terms of outcomes) – who is involved; how are they involved; how must their views change? what larger changes must happen; (3) breakdown the perquisite conditions that must occur to make those outcomes happen; (4) who or what could have an effect (positive and negative) on the achievement of those outcomes (this is the ecosystem); and (5) how can we measure success (including who to ask, what to ask, and how to record it).

2. We need to provide NGOs with a deeper understanding of what new philanthropy seeks and why these donors are willing to engage in a long term dialogue. This might be solved by providing or summarizing articles and surveys, as well as providing additional anecdotal support.

Other Observations

1. Sustainable development takes time and time to understand. It takes until the vision of success is mapped to get most NGOs to think about sustainable development instead of specific projects or development that is not sustainable.

2. Paternalism: Some NGOs view themselves believe that they may know solutions to the problems better than there beneficiaries. I don’t know if that is true or not (it could be sometimes) but that sort of paternal attitude without a willingness to engage in an active dialogue with beneficiaries could be dangerous.

3. Indian Companies are a huge resource. I am not sure if this is true for all companies, but I have know met with several Indian companies who are really excited by the Keystone framework and the idea of incorporating it into their grant making. These companies have not previously expressed interest in funding projects or organizations but the idea of being part of a process excites them. We should be able to partner them with some great NGOs.