What is a nonprofit organization?

• PROVIDE USEFUL GOODS AND SERVICES

• ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISTRIBUTE PROFITS TO INDIVIDUALS

• ARE VOLUNTARY, CREATED, MAINTAINED AND TERMINATED BY MEMBERS OR BOARD

• EXHIBIT VALUE RATIONALITY OFTEN BASED ON STRONG IDEOLOGICAL COMPONENTS

Ways of Categorizing NGOs• By constituency

– Member-based (MBOs– Member support (MSOs)– Service delivery organizations– Support networks– Grassroots Organizations

• By geography– Local, national, international, multinational

• By purpose– Economic support and development– Social service delivery– Advocacy – Networking and umbrella

Classic INGO Dilemmas• Funding

– Competition– Contract-based funding versus grants– Competitive tendering: RFPs, short-term funding– Competition with for-profit providers

• Accountability– To donors– To beneficiaries– To partners– To boards – who is the “owner” of a nonprofit?

• Value-based programming– Nature of relationships with partners matters

• Advocacy v. service delivery

* In this new era of globalization new kinds of problems flow across

national boundaries at an astonishing pace

* THE AIDS PANDEMIC

* GLOBAL WARMING + POLLUTION

* THE ASIAN FINANCIAL COLLAPSE

* LARGE SCALE REFUGEE MOVEMENTS

* TRANSNATIONAL TERROR

The Challenge

Growing Global Population, Poverty,Inequity, Environmental Degradation,

Continued Conflicts, Expanding Numbers of Refugees and Internally Displaced People, Changing Role of the

State, Opportunities of New Technology

Insufficient Global Resources, Interest andAlliances to Meaningfully Address These Problems

?

THE TRANSFORMATION AGENDA

NGO INTERNAL RESPONSES

REEXAMINING VALUES + CREATING A NEW VISION AND MISSION

REDESIGNING RELIEF + DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

TRANSFORMING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE + SYSTEMS

INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY

BUILDING GLOBAL NETWORKS

LIVELIHOOD SECURITY AND APPROPRIATE PROGRAMS

RELIEFFamilies Have No Access

to Essential Services, Resources or Means

REHABILITATIONFamilies Meet Many BasicNeeds But Require Some

Outside Assistance

DEVELOPMENT Families More Than

Meet Basic Needs WithNo Outside Assistance

PROVISIONING PROTECTION PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT

EMERGENCY

POPULATION

EDUCATION

FOOD MONETIZATION

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE/WATER

THE CONSEQUENCES OF INEFFECTIVE RESPONSEWILL PUT BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE

GENERATIONS AT SERIOUS RISK

YET

* Most of us were brought up to think within our national and local boundaries

* We have few clear solutions for border jumping problems

* Multilateral institutions designed in the post WWII period are outdated and ineffective as well

* National governments were never set up to attack such problems

The Goal of Emergency response

helping innocentpeople stay alive in times of

conflict as well as natural disaster

and

promoting effectivetransitions to more peaceful and

productive lives

The New World of Complex Emergencies

NEW PROBLEMS

Structural-- (Internally Displaced PeopleSafety and Security)

Ethical-- (Unwittingly Supporting War Economy)

Operational-- (Financing , Capacity Building, Peace Building)

The World of Old Emergencies

POST COLD WAR Conflict Within Nations

NEW POST COLD WARConflict Between Nations

and Transnational Non State Actors

COLD WARConflict Between Nations

The New World of Complex Emergencies

AN EXAMPLE OF A STRUCTURAL PROBLEM-- Who Has Responsibility for IDPs

COLD WARConflict Between Nations

POST COLD WAR Conflict Within Nations

Comparative Forced Displacement: IDPs and Refugees, 1965-1999

0

510

15

20

2530

35

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999

Year

Mil

lio

n

Refugees

IDPs

3 OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS IN GLOBAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE

1. PERVERSE GLOBAL DYNAMICSMAKE FUNDING REFUGEE OPERATIONS

VERY DIFFICULT

2. FINDING AND RETAINING STAFF ANDSTRENGTHENING LOCAL AND NATIONAL

RESPONSE CAPACITY

3. PREVENTING WARS AND PROMOTINGEFFECTIVE POST CONFLICT WORK

1. PERVERSE FINANCIAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS(Emergency Response As A Global Public Good)

OLIGOPOLISTICPUBLIC RESOURCESUPPLIERS

• USAID• European Union

• Just in Time Funding

• And Only For Operations

• No Current Way ToAnticipate and Fund Global Needs on an Annual Basis

NON PROFIT SERVICEDELIVERY ORGANIZATIONS

• Red Cross• CARE• Doctors Without Borders

• Loss Of Response Capacity In Non Crisis Periods

• Little Large Scale Rapid Response Capacity (Staff, $$$, Supplies)

LITTLE FUNDING

• Forgotten Wars

• Post War Social and Physical Recovery

• Conflict Prevention and Peace Building

THE CYCLIC NATURE OF HUMANITARIAN AND NATURAL DISASTERS

2. LOW LEVELS OF EMERGENCY STAFF PREPARATIONAND RETENTION IN EXISTING ORGANIZATION

THE PEOPLE

• Young IndependentValue Driven

• TechnicallySkilled

• No PreviousExperience

• High LevelsOf Student Loans

• View It As An ExperienceNot As A Career

THE SETTINGS

• Increasingly Dangerous

• Unpredictable

• Highly Stressful

• Traumatic

• Temporary in Nature

THE CONSEQUENCES

• High Annual Staff Turnover

** Red Cross 25% ** CARE 35% ** MSF (2 Yr Limit) 50% ** NW Medical

400%

• Repeating The Same Operational Mistakes Repeatedly

• Waste Of Training Resources

FIGURE 5.2

MODELS OF NORTHERN RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT NGO STRUCTURES

MSF PLAN INT OXFAM INT WORLD VISION 1950 HABITAT CARE CARE

1980’s 1950 SAVE SAVE 1930 1975 1993 1997

Independent Independent Confederations Federations Unitary Organizations + Organizations Corporate w/ Weak Umbrella Coordination

ALLIANCES AND NETWORKS

Partners

EvolutionOf Affiliates

NorthernBased

Confederations

NorthernBased

FederationsGlobalBumble

Bee

NorthernBased

Independents

SouthernFederations andConfederations

SouthernLooseNetworks &Alliances

EMERGING GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE AND DEVELOPMENT NETWORKS

MOST FREQUENT SOURCES OF AFFILIATE CONFLICT

ImageMedia

and Advocacyin a

Member country

Fund Raising

in a MemberCountry

Program Geography

and Coordinationof In Country

Operations

CommonSystems

and Structures

CommonPrinciples

NormsBrand

Partnership• Networking

• Cooperation/

alliance

• Partnership

• Coalition

• Collaboration

Loose, flexible link

Coordinate to reduce duplication

Formalize links, share resources

Joint decision making, share some governance

Interdependent system

•Decreased autonomy

• Increased cooperation

•Mutual benefit?

N-S Partnership

• Contracting• Franchise• Spin-off• Visionary patronage

• Collaboration

• Mutual governance

Package of services

Field office function

Shared vision, NGO is implementer

Share decision-making and planning

Influence over each others policies and practices

•Decreased autonomy

• Increased cooperation

•Mutual benefit?

THE PARTNERSHIP ARCH*

InequivalentHands On

InequivalentHands Off

Equivalent Equivalent

ORGANIZATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

INSTITUTIONAL

PARTNERING

* Karen Casper

DirectService

Delivery

ProjectReplication

ByOthers

Institut-ional

CapacityBuilding

InstitutionalSustainability

FullPartnership Institut-

ionalizedPartnership

FormalNet-

working

SubContract-

ing

DirectFunding

or Grantee

NGO “Scramble”

• Competitive tendering and renewable contracting:– Produce dysfunctional outcomes– That are rational response to incentives

• Transnational environment pushing INGOs towards competition

Examples of Collective Action Problems in Assistance

• Kyrgyz Republic & Technical Assistance Programs– Donors ask beneficiaries of aid whether a contractor’s

grant should be renewed, removing incentive for contractor to limit beneficiary discretion

– Competition generates multiple proposals, increasing donor confusion over what the best reform might bt

• Goma, Zaire (Dem Repub of Congo)– “Contract fever”– Major relief contracts required demonstrating significant

field presence – No incentive to examine by-products of their activities– Collective action problem:

• Withdrawal an empty gesture – others organizations will fill in