The midlife crises of NGOs

By Ria Brouwers

It’s a midlife crisis. This conclusion about the current condition of the NGOs strikes my mind after reading the think-piece by Michael Edwards for the debate on the future role of NGOs. Just look at the symptoms mentioned: i) a crisis of identity, with a perceived gap between what one wants to be and what one is (thick problems and thin solutions), and ii) the existential questions about the meaning of life: what have I achieved, will I ever be able to achieve anything at all?

The identity crisis

The identity crisis comes after a shining career. At the end of the  20th century, NGOs broke out in big numbers. Celebrated as champions of  the poor and cuddled by bilateral and multilateral agencies which  increasingly channeled aid money through the NGOs, the sector got wings.  Not only were NGOs considered to be closer to the people and better  able than governments to reach the poor, they were also expected to be a  countervailing power to the state, a watchdog for corrupt governments, a promoter of democracy. Many NGOs have come to believe that the reason  for their existence is to bring justice and prosperity where others  fail. Innovative, alternative and fit to fundamentally change political  and economic systems, has become the NGO trademark.

Even in the heydays of the NGOs there were warnings against the  heated aspirations. Critics expressed doubts about the shift from  service delivery to policy advocacy and political engagement, about the  prospects and claims of people’s participation, and about the legitimacy  of organizations to speak and act on behalf of the poor. The criticism has been growing over the past twenty years, but as long as the money  kept flowing to the NGO-sector and the widespread faith in their special  features continued, the urgency to respond was low. Now the tide has  turned. NGOs have become subject to austerity measures and their  performance is being questioned. They have to take up the gauntlet, and  the current debate is one of the responses.

Existential questions

As in any midlife crisis there is the existential question about  the meaning of life itself: why are NGOs on this earth? Edwards speaks  critical about the thin solutions of the NGOs, but at the same time he  feeds the megalomania by suggesting that they can be transformers of  societies, politics and cultures, natural bridges between societies and  institutions, intermediaries. He even imagines NGOs to become the  transformation agencies of the future, for thick transformations similar  to those led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Is it any wonder that  faced with such formulas, NGOs end up in a midlife crisis?

Not that I don’t allow NGOs a vision and dreams, on the contrary,  but my concern with such a presentation of the future role of the NGOs  is that it is as much built on quicksand as the many sweeping statements  of the past. Instead of fantasizing about their future role, NGOs  better start showing their actual achievements so far. Many organizations have conducted creative programmes, Hivos for example with  microfinance, art and culture, ICT and media. Why not proudly show the  differences these programmes have made in the lives of their  beneficiaries? Why not take these achievements as the starting point of  the discussion about the future roles? Clear facts and figures will be  beneficial to address the existential questions of a midlife crisis:  what have I achieved and will I ever be able to achieve anything at all.

Let the results speak

NGOs have been challenged to show results for at least twenty  years. A study of the Dutch NGOs of 1991 already concluded that the  objectives of a program were not clearly formulated, that data about the  effects were lacking, so that the impact of the support was difficult  to determine. Commenting on the NGOs’ propaganda, the report called for  modesty: “NGOs are not a third sector between the state and citizens and  one can doubt if they will ever become so”.^[i]

Especially since 2000, there have been many comments on the lack of  results-orientation of the Dutch NGOs and the poor quality of their  evaluation studies.^[ii]   Subsequent agreements for improvement made between the Dutch  government and the NGOs are slow in bearing fruit. It’s not so much the  quantity of evaluations that is problematic (there are many, and  recently they also try to mention results attained), but the quality.  Evaluations are rather a narrative of goals and activities than an analytical study of how the intervention contributes to solving problems  and improving lives. They often lack firm data, apply a loose  methodology of collecting views and perceptions, and end in unsupported  claims of success. Apart from weaknesses in individual evaluation  studies, there is no synthesis of how the different experiences add up,  of the balanced outcome of the combined efforts. While I share Edwards’  concern about the current audit culture and the “metrics mania”, I  disagree with his suggestion that evaluation can be an area for NGOs to  phase out. The search for better evaluation methods controlled by the  NGOs themselves requires investing in the development of suitable  evaluation methods for the sector, and in meta-analyses to identify  overall results.

A healthy starting point for this is a more realistic perception of  the nature of the NGO and its potential. Perhaps Huey-Tsyh Chen’s  distinction between desirable goals and plausible 

goals^[iii]  can be of help. Desirable goals are the official goals of a program or  organization, including goals to please various stakeholders or for  political purposes. They are for window-dressing, not really meant to be  implemented as such. Plausible goals are of the realistic kind, the  ones that prevail in practice. NGOs have always been strong in putting  up desirable goals for various audiences, but weak in plausible  outcomes. To assess the difference between the two, Chen suggests i) to  make an analysis of the resources allocated for the goals and ii) to  assess the logic behind the activities meant to attain the goals on the  basis of current knowledge of the problem. Identifying the plausible  goals should not stop NGOs from having broad visions and ideals, but it  can help to detect the small steps towards any big change and it can  keep them down-to-earth.

Retirement, replacement or rejuvenation?

Which way forward is the question in this debate: retirement,  replacement or rejuvenation? For Hivos, the initiator of this debate, I  find retirement no option. It is only 43 years old, not even in Italy  can one retire at that age. Rejuvenation in a midlife crisis can easily  become preposterous, thus not a good idea. That leaves replacement, but  the big question is: with what? I have argued that the future is calling  for more sobriety and for a sturdy systematic review of achievements,  identifying what NGOs can and cannot be and do. Let’s continue the  discussion on the basis of plausible outcomes instead of desirable  goals.

---

[i] Stuurgroep Impactstudie Medefinancieringsprogramma (1991), Betekenis van het medefinancieringsprogramma, een verkenning (Libertas Utrecht).

[ii] The comments can be found in reports like: Advies van de Commissie  Medefinancieringsprogramma-breed inzake toetreding en toewijzing  2003-2006 (2002)  Breed uitgemeten, (“Commissie Box”); Buitenlandse Zaken, Dick van der Hoek (2006) De Kwaliteit van de Programma evaluaties in het Medefinancieringsprogramma, 2003-2006, IOB Werkdocumenten; Buitenlandse Zaken (2006) Terugkoppeling in het Medefinancieringsprogramma, IOB Werkdocumenten; IOB (2009), Maatgesneden Monitoring ‘Het verhaal achter de cijfers’, Beperkte beleidsdoorlichting Medefinancieringsstelsel 2007-2010, Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en Beleidsevaluatie, no 321.

[iii] Chen, Huey-Tsyh (1990), Theory-driven evaluations, Sage Publications.