Annual Reports Are Useless

Most of the annual reports of the organizations we have looked at offer very little material that is not available on the website. The information on the website is usually easier to access is more current. The annual report's only real benefit seems to be to consolidate information in one place and provide easier access to financials. However, for the better performing groups, the website provides all the same information, if not more, so the only advantage seems to be the financial information. But because financial disclosures are limited to the statutory minimum, they provide little depth as to actual expenditures, whether expenses were double counted, etc. problems we have already found. As such, I am bound to think that they are a total waste of time, more meant as marketing material without much meet. They are useful to get some information or a quick idea of what the organization does or wants to do, but one is better off going to the website. That is not to say that they are all bad.

A few prospective donors have said that they would like to see annual reports to make funding decisions. I think this is mostly from corporate practice and not because anyone actually finds a great deal of value in them.

To be more useful, it would be nice to get more information into the reports regarding strategic planning aims, progress against performance measures, beneficiary voice, and overall strategy. Essentially…less what they are doing and more what they hope to achieve and how they are progressing on that.

Mumbai is in trouble!

Alex and I attended a conference with high level officials from Mumbai and London, including London Mayor Ken Livingston. We concluded that Mumbai leadership has an unrealistic view about what is happening here and has satisfied themselves by hiring advisers to support their belief that as long as Mumbai keeps on its current path, it will be the greatest city in the world.

There seems to be no plan on how to tackle the problems that are apparent to everyone. In fact, I don’t think they recognize half the problems that there are. And a lot of this, I think comes from a lack of thinking about what they want to ultimately achieve. This is in strong contrast to what the London officials had to say. They saw a financially robust city economy as their vision and made development happen to accommodate that.

Article on Giving

I read an article by Alex Hatton (“Guilt by Association,” Charity Times, Jan-Feb 2007. http://www.charitytimes.com/pages/ct_features/jan-feb07/text_features/ct_janfeb07_supfeature3_guilt_by_association.htm.) It is an interesting discussion of how its is significantly more expensive to secure new donors than existing donors and that guilt-based appeals discourage new donors. New donors require more information about how their money is being used and how it is making an impact. They also appreciate open discussions on aims and accomplishments and a focus on hope and progress instead of despair.

Social Exchanges

I’ve read a couple recent articles from Mohammed Yunnis, in which he is calling on the development of social stock exchanges. He supports both the creation of platforms for companies that are spending resources on charitable pursuits, as well as listing civil society organizations that do “good.”

Thankfully, people have created many such social investment exchanges. In addition to GiveIndia, there are several online social investment exchanges. These groups do a phenomenal job and work longer hours than many bankers and lawyers I know to help civil society organizations. So if you are inclined to give, these are all reliable.

1. Bring Light www.bringlight.com

2. CanadaHelps: www.canadahelps.org

3. Changing the Present : www.changingthepresent.org

4. Charity Aid Foundation: www.cafonline.org

5. Conexion Colombia: www.conexioncolombia.com

6. DonorEdge www.donoredge.org

7. DonorsChoose: www.donorschoose.org

8. Give2Asia: www.give2asia.org

9. Give India: www.giveindia.org

10. GlobalGiving: www.globalgiving.com

11. Greater Good South Africa: www.greatergoodsa.co.za

12. Help Argentina: www.helpargentina.org

13. Just Give: www.justgive.org

14. Just Giving: www.justgiving.com

15. Kiva: www.kiva.org

16. Microplace: www.microplace.com

17. Modest Needs: www.modestneeds.com

18. Network for Good: www.networkforgood.org

19. Social Investment Exchange: www.sasix.co.za

20. Social Stock Exchange: www.bovespasocial.com.br

In case you didn't already distrust MPs...

It turns out that of the 425 MPs, 360 of them list social work as their primary occupation – just giving credence to the belief that many Indian NGOs are just channels to funnel political money or launder graft.

Of course, this is not true for most NGOs, but it is a concern that requires some diligence and gives support to the Credibility Alliance/GiveIndia idea that political affiliation needs to be examined thoroughly.

Beneficiary Surveys as Enforcement Mechanism

One of the problems with viewing civil society as a marketplace is that it suggests that social exchanges are like stock exchanges and encourages discussion of returns. I thinking focusing on social returns is a good idea and is a good way of explaining what "new philanthropy" is seeking. The problem is that it isn't exactly like a market because there is no enforcement mechanism. There is no penalty if you aren't listening to voices (like your beneficiaries) and it is hard for donors to know whether an NGO is listening to its beneficiary. A third party monitor is impractical and expensive. What we are toying around with is trying to put beneficiary survey information into reports and then educating donors why this information is important. If donors hold NGOs responsible for having high beneficiary feedback "scores", then there is the possibility for cheap self-regulation.

Pros and Cons of Government Involvement for Sustainable Development

Indian law requires certain types of aid to pass through the government instead of private organizations. This is most apparent when one looks at UNICEF or World Bank funding, especially for education/child care. I’ve been struggling to determine whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

On one hand you have a completely different model in Bangladesh. There the majority of funds pass through to private groups. The result is that private development organizations are extremely powerful in Bangladesh and do not have to be reliant on government as much. I’ve read conflicting stories on whether this lessens the sting of corruption, but one could see how it does.

Also, in a country where the government would not otherwise get involved and does not develop some sort of expertise, it is probably better to turn to private organizations.

But in India, where the government has taken the time to care about addressing social issues and has developed a certain amount of expertise (though many would dispute this), the partnership with government is probably very helpful – especially for sustainable development. Lots of the problems that India faces are not regional. They occur throughout the country. But most of the groups tend to focus on regional concerns and try to solve issues regionally before expanding outwards. In such a case, the government has an important role in sharing information and providing a platform to discuss issues. Also, where large scale problems are being tackled – education, trafficking, poverty – without government involvement it is virtually impossible to make large scale meaningful change.

What I need to find out now is what portion of aid is lost in overhead costs by going through the government and what benefit is gained by having the government involved. If the overall waste is large then I may rethink my position, but as it stands now, I think that it is probably a very good thing that the government is actively involved.