Based on this fear we are rethinking what it exactly means to get unrestricted funds. If we take these fears seriously, then purely unrestricted funds are unlikely to work or encourage the type of interactions and dynamics that we would like to see.
Our current thinking is that there will have to be strict timelines and reporting obligations, all of which are clearly outlined in a MOU signed by the NGO and donor and use an intermediary (like Give) to facilitate some of the exchanges.
The key will be doing so while giving the flexibility to use funds as may be needed. Clear project guidelines with clear timelines are easier to monitor but they handcuff the NGO and we believe are not the best for meaningful, sustainable development. While we would ideally encourage active donor-NGO engagement so that the donor takes up some of the monitoring and the NGO is responsible for frequent reporting, it is impractical because the donor is unlikely to have the time. Therefore, it is likely that initially the funding will have to be loosely restricted and as trust builds, the funding will become more unrestricted.
1 comment:
Absolutely - continuing access to RELATIVELY unrestricted funding must be contingent on the NGO meeting standards of accountability and reporting. But these standards should not be of the top down enforced accountability - they must also require downward accountability and the voices of beneficaries is important in assessing whether the org meets these standards
Post a Comment