Project Specific Reports

Three of the NGOs we are working have mentioned to us that they are contemplating leaving the Credibility Alliance over issues with giving project specific reports. Their major complaint is that the reports, especially to the Credibility Alliance or Give, require a lot of time and are virtually useless. They are forced to account for how every cent of a donation is used, but it is difficult to track because funds are often combined in a project, which makes saying exactly what each cent was used for difficult. As a result, NGOs are often forced to make reports that stretch the truth.

NGO-Donor Tension

We have heard from several of our groups that they dislike the project oriented demands that donors are putting on them. Donors will sponsor a given project or sub-project and then demand a certain type of report on effectiveness, use of money, and future plans. And it seems that almost each donor (or at least the HNI, corporate, or granting agency donors) requires a different report. Not only does this make completing any individual report difficult and tax the NGOs resources, but it seems to create resentment in the NGO. This in turn effects the relationship with the donor and strains continuing support.

A little self-referencial but....

Here is a link to Alliance magazine, which we want to encourage people to read. The article by David Bonbright is especially worth your time (and not just because David calls attention to the blog).

http://www.alliancemagazine.org/free/

http://www.alliancemagazine.org/free/html/dec07e.html

http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/node/149

NGO Comments

Here are three comments we have heard from some of the NGOs:

1) What if our theory of change is too broad and when donors see it they start questioning us as to why we are not tackling more issues, especially when we don’t have the resources to tackle all these issues?

2) Sometimes you lead the discussion too much and need to let groups share their ideas.

3) There are people who would like to communicate but cannot because of language barriers or confidence in using English.

Recommendations from NGOs

Here are two suggestions we received from two of the NGOs we are working with:

In the maps, identify the percentage of the NGOs work that is devoted to the necessary outcomes.

The map needs to by more dynamic to capture all the activities that the NGO is doing or there is a fear that the donor will not understand the environment in which the NGO is acting and why it makes certain strategic decisions.

The Methodology Does Not Work with Mid-Level Staff and Large Groups

We have tried several permutations of the presentation now, and most recently tried to meet with a large group (approximately 10 people), most of whom were middle-level coordinators. What we found is that it was extremely difficult to move beyond even the vision statement because people disagreed so much. This disagreement often lead to arguments about relatively innocuous word choices and ultimately a muddled theory of change. The presentation seems to work best with a smaller group of key/core coordinators and advisors. We should leave it to them to share ideas with a larger group and then collect that information and give it to us. But when we meet with the group, it is best to have smaller numbers (about 2-5).

Of course some of the problems we are seeing come from groups that have no idea what they want to achieve or have over extended themselves. The framework really does expose these flaws and, if the group takes the exercises seriously, seems to refocus their efforts.

Mapping Vision Sometimes Requires Current Activities

The vision statements in the maps of the theory of change are supposed to be focused entirely on what future world you would like to create. It is not supposed to have aspects of what you are “doing now.” This, however, seems a little tortured for groups that do focus on creating change by delivering a service. Not only that, it seems like it could hurt them by encouraging them to grow in areas where they probably should not.

I am working on a school that seeks to give children from slums an excellent education and then through family and community outreach programs, help transform the slum communities. The school is essential to that. They start with the school and work from there. So, if one was to phrase their vision like, “Group X seeks to provide exceptional education to impoverished, abandoned, and orphaned children so that they can break the cycle of poverty for themselves, their families, and communities,” it would seem as though they may someday move beyond using the school to do so. The school is not just a strategy or how they will make this happen, it is essential to their identity. In such cases, I think the vision needs to have some element of what the group is “doing now”.