The actions of most donors are driven significantly by their beliefs about change in people, communities, systems and societies. This is natural and understandable. These beliefs form the basis of their beliefs about what kind of interventions, programs or efforts are worth supporting. This in turn directly affects the priorities and actions of civil society organizations (CSOs), whose work is funded by these donations. These perceptions are more pronounced among corporate social responsibility (CSR) donors than among philanthropic donors, and have become a major problem in the CSO ecosystem.
This is the third in a series of columns about donors—what they should be wary of, given the profound role their actions play in shaping the CSO landscape. Everything I write is based on our own experience and mistakes as a large donor, as well as what we see of other donors’ behavior and its effects on CSOs—a term that includes nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). , Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and other types of non-profit organizations working for social betterment and helping vulnerable people.
How can donors’ perception of change in individuals and society cause significant problems in the CSO ecosystem? For all their good intentions and often genuine efforts to engage CSOs in the dialogue, many (not all) donors’ perceptions are untrue.
What are these assumptions and how does this phenomenon work? Three types of ‘unreality’ prevail among donors.
First, donors want to see predictable and certain outcomes when, in reality, the causes and pathways of change in people, systems and societies are prone to uncertainty, unpredictability and unintended consequences. If they consider themselves, or the neighborhood, or the organization where they work, donors must acknowledge that it is difficult to ascertain what changes, how change occurs, and when, among individuals or people. in groups of Communities and social systems are infinitely more complex. But when it comes to funding programs or interventions in these communities and systems, they want to see predictability and certainty. Even those who understand the matter intellectually have difficulty accepting it in action.
The second kind of surrealism is intertwined with and amplifies the first; It has to do with deadlines. Donors almost always expect a shorter time frame for change than is practical or feasible – and that in itself is dependent on a number of factors.
The third apocalypse is about the impermanence of change. Any change in a community, system or society is not permanent or sustainable in itself. Energy, struggle, and support are constantly needed to sustain any change. But donors believe their CSO partners must achieve ‘permanent change’ once and for all, and then exit.
Of the many reasons why no change is permanent, two are fundamental. One, even if change is achieved, it is within a microcosm of the overall system or society, and is influential enough to push back the rest of the system/society. For example, Dalits achieving equality in many villages does not mean that the surrounding places will not affect those villages. Two, there are always other forces and dynamics at work in society that can purposefully or accidentally undo all progress. Do we need any greater example than the collapse of democracy in many countries? Indeed, ‘eternal vigilance is the price of liberty’, a piece of wisdom often wrongly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, and a crackdown that is equally true—eternal struggle is the price of the good and the just.
Some donors deny having problems with these assumptions in principle when confronted with them. But equally rare is the donor who can avoid these in practice and act on the basis of what is necessary. Perhaps it is a function of money being their means of change that distances them from reality. In final decisions, it is weighed as ‘what do we get for what we pay? What problems is it creating in the CSO ecosystem?
Interventions and programs are becoming superficial, narrow and small. Adequate interventions do not attempt to address the core issues, and certainly not the complex issues. Donors want certainty, predictability and speed – this is what they fund. And so CSOs design and operate; That’s where the money is. CSOs are also complicit in this erosion of the meaning of their jobs. Too many, too often, are willing to conform their actions to what the donor wants – while knowing full well that compromise undermines their work and its true efficacy.
Overall, it is undermining the real contribution of civil society in India. The rise of CSR donors has exacerbated these problems.
The solution is conceptually simple but difficult to implement. Because it is about people changing themselves. CSOs should develop more courage to stand up for what is right. While much of the burden is on the donors; A large dose of humility would be a good start for us in striving for knowledge.
Anurag Behar is the CEO of the Azim Premji Foundation.
catch all business News, market news, today’s fresh news events and Breaking News Update on Live Mint. download mint news app To get daily market updates.