Comments on: Needed from major funders: more great organizations

by: Beth Steinberg

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:07:17 +0000

Hear, hear for expressing this sentiment. I would add that what also bothers me is this focus on ‘contests’ for dollars. I co-founded and run a small program in Jerusalem, Israel. Inclusion programs - informal education - for kids and teens with special needs. I think what we’re doing could be ground breaking in the long run but running the program takes up marketing energy and as for contests? I just think that dilutes the message of Shutaf - creating social change through quality programs in an atmosphere of acceptance of inclusion.

We work hard for our fundraising dollars and are proud that we continue to be supported by mostly smaller donors, who like what we’re doing and believe that it’s special. Yes, we need capacity building funds and more but I just feel that it will come when we’re ready and when we’ve done the groundwork we needed to do.

by: Holden

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:16:55 +0000

Alexander, I wouldn’t go that far. I think accountability, clarity about activities/priorities, and meaningful self-evaluation are paramount for large organizations. These things may be easier to produce when scope is narrower, but I’m open to recommending any organization that can produce them.

by: Chris Wardle

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:53:54 +0000

My impression of working in several offices of large INGO is that the desired organisational cohesiveness Holden looks for is frustrated one step down, with departments within separate offices themselves acting as loose coalitions.

To take Jennifer’s idea a little further, I’d like to see supporters of social change not only embrace organisations of all sizes, but hold large INGOs to account in ensuring that their interactions with small NGOs are empowering and meaningful. Too often I see the INGO/NGO relationship as tokenistic. Call it what you will: master/servant, primary-recipient/sub-grantee, technical-adviser/implementing-partner, but donors seem to easily overlook (or accept) INGO ’spin’ when it comes to the lack of community consultation and local NGO voice in programme design.

by: Alexander

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:58:45 +0000

I was wondering about for-profit analogues of the problems you describe, so I did some cursory research. Turns out that corporate mergers generally decrease shareholder value, rarely achieving the synergies they hope for. This seems relevant because part of what you’re saying seems to be that many large nonprofits lack beneficial synergies across projects; too many large nonprofits take an internal “portfolio” view.

I’m wondering why this is, and I have two hypotheses but no evidence. First, most mission statements by large nonprofits are sufficiently broad that almost anything could fit within them. If you think you’re good at fulfilling your mission, and you face an expansion opportunity that falls within it, it might seem like a good idea to take advantage of it. Second, I suspect that nonprofits may share one of the failures of for-profit corporations that merge, which is a lack of clarity about core competencies. This seems to be a distinguishing feature of a number of the charities GiveWell recommends - VillageReach and TFA come to mind, for instance - which are all very clear about what they do and how they do it. But when you think of UNICEF or Oxfam, it’s much harder to distinguish specifically what they do really well.

This second hypothesis might also get at why funders seem to ignore organizations in favor of projects and people. If organizations lack a coherent and overarching core competency, it’s easy to see why the organizations are ignored in favor of their component parts.

Does this mean that there should not be large nonprofits that run diverse portfolios?

by: Jennifer Lentfer

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:01:31 +0000

My heart rose as I ready, “As long as major funders treat organizations as contractors to carry out their projects of choice, organizations will remain loose coalitions; successful projects will be isolated events. We’ll see none of the gains that come with organization-level culture, knowledge and training built around core competencies.” Yes, a million times, yes.

I’ve worked with over 300 grassroots organizations in east and southern Africa in my career. In the context of AIDS and poverty, deeper understanding of organizational development within the context of local organizations serving vulnerable children and families in Africa is key to unleashing the impact and potential of these efforts.

I believe a new set of fundamental skills is necessary for those working in philanthropy and development, especially internationally. The ability and penchant to understand and work with organizations of any size or type can and should become a core capacity of donors, governments, and all key stakeholders working on behalf of social change.