Indian Donor Preferences

I have met with a couple of corporate representatives from banks in India and they suggested that we might have a problem in India. We have noted that the middle class here seems to resent efforts to help the lower middle class or poor that do not also in some way help them. I am sure this is not unique to India. What is troubling though is the banks seems to fear what the public might think of what they do and say they will shy away from certain activities. They are much more like to sponsor activities that support supplemental schooling through sports activities, dramas, food, etc. that would help a group but not be seen as providing resources that their customers would also want. I am not sure if this is a widespread belief but the people I discussed this with did represent major banks and do donate large sums (especially under Indian standards). I also fear that if this is the case, then getting funding domestically for sustainable development might also be tricky.

Convincing Donors to Use the Framework

This is more of a note to remind us that we need to tie the donors into this project, as well. We are definitely focused on how to get NGOs to use the maps that they are creating and to seek feedback and input, but haven’t made a lot of plans for how to get the donor’s to use these maps. One way might be in the MOU to say that donors will also provide a response to the NGOs feedback reports. The problem is I am worried that donors will just not do this or sign anything. It may have to be based on trust. If we show them good groups and these groups provide good feedback then they will expect that from then on from other groups. In that case, we need to be educating donors as to why this information is the right information.

Any background information that anyone has on this topic would be greatly appreciated. (I know there is a lot, but what I am hoping for is to create a list for donors with a short summary so that they can do some reading if they are interested.)

Is the trust in us or is it in the system we are creating?

We have now been approached by other donors and people within Give and it seems that it is actually the CMI that people trust and the diligence that we provide. This is understandable. We expected that both NGOs and donors would initially use this framework because they trusted us or Give and our personal connections. We must remember to move from this by educating both why they need to seek certain types of information and report certain things. So long as we push this, I think both will come to appreciate the new and open communication they will share and increased effectiveness of the group and the donor’s money.

Domestic Support for CMI's Reports

As many know, Give supports the Mumbai Marathon and helps connect runners to charities to raise a great deal of money. One of the runners looking to donate substantial funding has come to us for advice and we instructed him on the Keystone framework. He passed this on to another runner and now we have our first two sizeable donations.

What is important is what we learned about the reports. We tried a modified memo and then the report we will provide for each group. As we suspected, our report is much more valuable and donors seem to appreciate the diligence and advice it reflects. They see the benefit of the Keystone methodology, but only after we explain it to them and show them why it is meaningful and more useful then other things available.

We will track donor engagement and use of these metrics to see if they truly appreciate the method or rather are more interested in the diligence we provide.

Need for Central Forums

Some of the groups we have met with have noted the desire to create central forums so that they can discuss what they are doing and learning with similar groups throughout India Some areas have this – certain types of education, child labor (essentially the hot topics). But many specialized groups could benefit from this. This would allow for not only a sharing of ideas, but also create ways to exchange people between organizations, foster community outreaches, and many other things. Importantly, it would also serve as a way to centralize facts and statistics, which vary greatly in almost every field in which the NGOS we have visited work. This would allow for better planning and donor confidence and just about everything else that goes with reliable information. Of course, the government should be doing a lot of this, but as with many third sector obligations, it doesn’t happen in India.

Step by Step Growth

We are working with an HNI who is contemplating a large donation to help an organization that works on rural education to expand nationally. I’d like to point out this group’s model because it is relatively simple but allows them to maximize their resources. They start by implementing proposed projects in schools and centers near them. That way they can be directly involved to the extent necessary, travel to the sites, and gain the school’s (teachers, students, and children) confidence. After monitoring the success of those programs for 3 to 5 years, they will scale them up to take them to other areas of the state. They partner up with various groups to teach them how to do these types of activities. They are now contemplating expanding certain programs nationally and this where the donor’s money and connections will help.

I like this model because it allows for careful reflection, study, and constant input at a manageable level for 3 to 5 years and then slowly grows. Each step allows for discussion with the relevant stakeholders, requires reevaluation of goals and aims and strategic planning.

Statistics Given by NGOs

As I am filling out some reports for various NGOs it becomes increasingly clear that NGOs – at least the ones we are working with and have met – do not have accurate records of the numbers of people they have helped or with whom they are working. The numbers they give will vary each time they are asked to provide the information and will vary significantly based on how the questions/requests are framed. This is problematic not only for putting reports together, but also raises questions about how responsive these NGOs are to their beneficiaries when they are not sure how many of them there are. Of course, I am slightly overstating the concern, but it is something NGOs need to track better so that they can make more accurate self-evaluations.