Sustainable Development and NGOs

Sustainable Organizations – NGO Program/Project Assessements and Sustainability

There are a lot of NGOs and non-profits in the world. Many do incredible work in really tough places, with limited budgets. For those of us that work in the NGO world, particularly those who work in areas related to program development/assessments etc, we usually have a pretty good sense of which organizations are doing really well and which might be struggling.

However, donors, naturally, don’t have the same sets of checklists/criterion that people like myself use – and therefore are at a deficit when it comes to determining how best to distribute their (often limited) donation dollars.

I want all donors to feel good about the organizations that they are supporting – and to have the tools to make an informed decision about their donation, whether that is in time or money. I also want to do my part to ensure that the best organizations (those with solid programs, and financial accountability etc) get the support to continue the amazing work that they are doing.

On this page, I will be putting a template/list of resources/checklist to help donors determine where best to put their resources. It will evolve over time (so check back often to see what has been added or changed). The list will definitely not be exhaustive, especially at the beginning. 🙂

What to Look for/ Avoid in an NGO/Program
If there are significant gaps in any organization that you are considering supporting, all of these negatives are red flags. Seriously consider giving your resources somewhere else.

Priority Setting

This one comes first, because it comes before everything else. If an organization and/or individual staff are wasting precious time on items that are not urgent or important (eg inbox full of social media notification, or whatever else is filling up time) while important and urgent items are not being dealt with, that’s a red flag that serious prioritizing work needs to be done. Urgent/important gaps, particularly in smaller orgs, may include, among others:

• critical emails are going unanswered
• donor relationships are weaker than they should be/donor base is smaller than needed to support operations/goals/expansion desires
• strategic planning is weak/many years behind the present
• accountability/transparency gaps are evident: no annual report, insufficient communications to donors, budget weak and/or not publicly available etc,
• unable to answer basic questions regarding operations
  • eg If I ask an org to fill in this sentence, for example, what will I get? “You are trying to raise some money in this project/fundraiser. Please fill in the blanks: We are trying to raise $xxx by xxx (date). We have xxx (number of donors) who are each giving xxx (average/donor and total donations per month). If we continue at our current rate, we will have $xxx by our goal date, which is $xxx more/less or exactly equal to what our target goal is.”
  • Answer could look like this, simplified: “We are trying to raise $100 in $100 days. We currently have 10 donors and they are giving a combined total (average) of $5 every 10 days. If we continue at this rate, we will raise $50 in 100 days, which is only half of our 100 day goal.” Therefore, significant changes are needed (reduce the goal, wait twice as long to raise the $, double the donor base, find one or more large donors to cover the gap etc)
  • If the answer is nothing (ie no proper response to the email) or evasive (“We don’t know the exact numbers, but we’re sure that everything will work out, because it always has in the past…”) that’s an indicator that the important and urgent pieces are being neglected.
• failure to seek expertise where needed.

It’s an easy temptation for orgs to think “We know best. This is our org and we know what we are doing. It’s always worked this way in the past, so we don’t need to seek outside expertise.” (I’ve heard a lot of variations on that… :)) And yet, most small orgs (and some bigger ones), don’t see their own gaps, and need outside expertise.

• FINANCES
• Strong Financial Practices
  • In the past, financial accountability was much looser in many places (ie how funds were processed and dispersed etc etc). However, legal requirements, as well as best practices, have meant that this has needed to be tightened up significantly in recent years. Solid programs will keep up with these requirements and be able to demonstrate that to the public.

• Improper Financial Practices
  • This could include a variety of things, including, but not limited to:
    • Accepting cash donations personally and then carrying them out of country to be delivered to the program (all operating solely on trust).
    • Failure to post regular financial updates on the website (or other place) eg annual budget etc..

• COMMUNICATIONS
• Strong Communications
  • Budget and other transparency on website
  • Regular communication on key issues
  • Programming and other communications based on data and direct information – you are investing in the program and the organization, not the CEO or other key leadership personelle.
• Weak Communications
  • Infrequent or Irregular communications
  • Website or other sites updated infrequently
  • Limited info given in communications (eg newsletters etc).
  • Focus on superficial items with little substance related to actual programming, budgets, accountability/transparency or other critical items

Leadership

• STRONG/DIVERSE LEADERSHIP TEAM
  • One indicator that is used to assess the stability and sustainability of an organization or project is related to leadership. If the CEO (or other key, senior leadership) were to leave the organization on short notice, how would the organization carry on without them? What does this look like in reality? A variety of things, including:
    • Has the CEO been there for many years? (More than 10?) Is the CEO also the founder? (That makes the transition even harder, so the transition should, in my opinion, be sooner rather than later – definitely within the first 15 years of the organization’s life.)
    • Is there strong senior leadership team and board or does the CEO/Exec Director control all major decisions?
    • Are all key pieces of the organization’s work documented? Can they easily be picked up by another person without direction from the current leadership team, if needed?
  • If an organization has a founder/CEO/ED who has been there for 10-15 years or more, (and likely plans to be there indefinitely), especially with a weak board/senior leadership team, that is a major red flag. Seriously consider whether to support them or not.

Open to Change/Adaptable/Flexible

Not much to say here – it’s pretty self-explanatory. Resistance to change is a huge problem for many organizations. If they can’t see the full extent to which they are limiting themselves, they will never achieve their full potential. Save your donations for orgs which are fully open to learning, growing and changing.

Links for Further Reading:

• Nonprofits Fail – Here’s Seven Reasons Why (NANOE)

Reason #1: Empty Optimism – or Pie in the Sky Dreams (without the proper ingredients to bake a pie)
I’ve seen some of the best, most needed (in my view), and earnest efforts falter and fail because the leaders simply did not accurately calculate the amount of support that would be available and the alliances and partnerships that they would need to support their humble beginnings. In other words – they lacked a sound business plan upon which to build a platform for success. The old saying ‘to fail to plan is to plan to fail’ is so very, very true. (Bold mine).

NANOE

• Why 96 Percent of Businesses Fail Within 10 Years – inc.com
  • Related to for-profits, so the reasons for success or failure are somewhat different, but the reality of the financial challenges (and how many orgs will not make it) is very real, regardless of whether the org is for-profit or not-for-profit

• The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle: Funders must take the lead in breaking a vicious cycle that is leaving nonprofits so hungry for decent infrastructure that they can barely function as organizations—let alone serve their beneficiaries. SSIR
• How to Start a Successful NGO: Link
  • Hint: Start by Working at an Existing NGO before launching into starting something new

If You’re Signed Up For A Short-Term Trip This Summer, Please Just Don’t Go. Failed Missionary

Short-term missions trips are often touted for the impact they have on their participants. I struggle with this suggestion for so many reasons, the biggest being that it fails to recognize the negative impact short-term missions can have on the local communities. The physical labor the teams did could have been done by locals who likely would have benefited greatly from the pay for their work. Our short visit to an orphanage turned the kids that resided there into an exhibit, and a token for the Americans to place their sadness upon.

You’ll often hear people promote overseas missions trips because of the impact they can have on the lives of the participants. What this ultimately suggests is that the supposed opportunities for personal growth of the visiting Americans [or others] is more important than the lasting damage inflicted upon those receiving the ‘help.’ And unfortunately, there is a complete lack of evidence that these short term trips actually change people.

I often wonder what kind of impact could be made by the millions of dollars spent on short-term missions each year. Would that money even be raised if there wasn’t the promise of an exotic trip to a foreign land?

(Bold mine and brackets, above, are mine)

Link

…………………….

While this amazing quote from Brene Brown is speaking to our individual lives and our own, individual capacity, I see it as being applicable in the NGO world, as well, in two different ways.

1. People who choose to work in the NGO world tend to be highly dedicated and committed, while also working in a field with lots of work, and not enough funding. That means it’s really easy for people to end up over-worked, even when they don’t want it. It also means that, if someone wants to be overworked, being in the NGO world is a really easy way to do it.
2. Particularly in small NGOs, there is a lot of work to do, and it is often done by people without expertise in the area they are working on. Furthermore, priority setting and strategic planning often gets missed, which means that to-do lists are endlessly long – and staff are “crazy busy” but the highest priority items are frequently getting missed. Personal numbness – or a sense of being overwhelmed – turns into an organization that is overwhelmed and not moving forward effectively. Simple, immediate (low priority) tasks (such as social media or other basic items) routinely take over, and take time away from working on complex items, systems and important tasks (such as strategic planning, goal setting, prioritization etc). (See matrix, above).

Taking control of our organizations, and focusing on the important pieces is not just good for our own mental health – it’s also better for our organizations. 🙂

……………………