I need the following question answered:
Question
- Discuss the Challenges and Constraints in the transformation of NGOs.
Due to Changes (both challenges & Opportunities), NGO leaders know that they are expected to provide more services with lesser resources; fill in for declining state capacities and respond to unpredictable emergencies. They also need to reposition their organizations to achieve more results, to be more accountable to wider publics, and to decide whether to get involved in advocacy as well as how they will relate to NGOs around the globe. Globalization - shifting patterns of poverty/ insecurity, within and between countries call for new international responses. NGOs - help create a counter processes that exploit and exclude people by re-distributing assets/opportunities, injecting social values into market processes, and holding institutions accountable. This represents most NGO work today. We will evaluate what is happening in this area and discuss some new directions for future. As foreign aid declines, new forms of cooperation is emerging to meet realities of changing world. NGOs have an important role to play in ensuring that the regimes of the future will benefit poor people and poor countries - by building strong domestic constituencies for international cooperation, forging transnational alliances, and enhancing the capacity of civic groups. This change is work is still in its infancy, but enough is happening to take stock of experience and identify the common lessons. Intra-state conflict is characteristic of the post- Cold War disorder and the insecurity that global inequalities breed. Caught between the scale of human suffering and the international community's unwillingness to tackle the politics of humanitarian intervention, NGOs have been drawn more deeply into a tangled web of tensions and dilemmas. An unprecedented period of self-examination, and a radical re-assessment by NGOs. Underlying these trends is the need for new forms of solidarity - between citizens and authorities at different levels of the world system. These new relationships - expressed through partnerships, alliances and other forms of co- operation - that provide the framework for NGO innovations, but they also require major changes in NGOs as organizations: new relationships with other NGOs, corporations, elements of states, the military, international institutions and other NGOs and groups in civil society. When relationships and interests become more complex and diffuse, clear accountability procedures are paramount. If they are not to be marginalized as components of a global welfare state, NGOs must demonstrate that they have the right to be treated as major actors in emerging international civil society. To respond to changes (Challenges/Opportunities), NGOs know that they are expected to: Provide more services with lesser resources; Fill in for declining state capacities, and Respond to unpredictable global emergencies. Also, to reposition their organizations to: achieve more results, be more accountable to wider population, and decide whether to get involved in advocacy as well as how they will relate to global NGOs. This is reflected in the strategic statement by Oxfam America : “A journey of a thousand miles starts where the feet are...” “....a world in which all people shall one day know freedom – freedom to achieve their fullest potential and to life secure from the dangers of hunger, deprivation and oppression – through the creation of a global movement for economic and social justice”…. Critical changes due to conflict between high expectations and multiple external pressures, are: Mission Statements Network-wide agreements on guiding principles Reorganizing Restructuring Mergers, or Multiple incremental changes – in partnerships, in programming processes, or in organizing decision making. It is easy to say “all of the above” are equally important, but there has to be a priority list. This is the challenge of managing transformation. Diverse NGO Family Networks and the Culture of Change Diversity within and among multicultural global family networks affects their approaches to organizational transformation. There are differences within various NGOs and due to these differences, it is inevitable that relief and development NGOs vary greatly in their approaches to transformation. NGOs like MSF, with deep roots in French philosophical tradition - find their way through intense discussions about fundamental principles and core values and their implications for their future mode of operations. PLAN, Save the Children and World Vision - comfortable with refining their mission/values. Much more deeply focused on reorganizing and streamlining systems and structures. Others like CARE and Oxfam - engaged in a more comprehensive and ongoing multi-year review and integral transformation of their missions, values, strategies, structures, and systems. Alternative Approaches to Change Within these transformations - variation in the processes for mobilizing change. Each organization has made different decisions about whom to involve in discussions, and whether to guide change with the help of outside consultants, or with internal staff. Oxfam GB: Major stakeholders reviews that included donors in 14 different countries. Oxfam America: transforming internal culture and maximizing internal participation by striving to become a ‘learning organization’. In private corporate world: Response to globalization - frequent mergers. (Local – Williams in Tulsa) Some like Nokia – reverse by striping away less profitable activities that drain strength. Some NGOs are exploring mergers; Others creating a special niche for themselves with a competitive advantage over other NGOs. General variable in Managing Transformations. Framework and the continuum of approaches employed by NGOs. Strategic Change Choices from the Perspective of NGO Members in an International Family. The role of learning transfer from one NGO to another has been great and such transfer takes place in following two important ways: Accelerated when senior staff move from one NGOs to another (Ready made!). Retreats/workshops sponsored by InterAction (an NGO umbrella), Bellagio/Seattle conferences - Important sources of inter-NGO learning. Despite different approaches to transformation, R&D NGOs share the goal of enhancing the quality of their work and making a difference because Quality impacts their credibility. Snapshots of the Change Process Early 1990’s:CARE and Oxfam GB started transformation much earlier than other R&D NGOs. Mid/late 1990:Major transformations started at Oxfam America, World Vision, PLAN with recruiting new CEOs. By 2000:All had conducted exercises to redefine their missions and identify their core values. Many NGOs involved their stakeholders (program recipients; organizational partners; donors) to learn about outside perceptions. Most used outside consulting groups and/or internal staff for their reengineering efforts. 1945 - Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe 1949 - entered South, launching programs in the Philippines and projects in India, Pakistan and Mexico. 1959 - With a broadened geographic focus and in order to reflect these new broader aims, changed the meaning of its acronym a second time, becoming the "Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere". 1993 - to reflect its international organizational structure, adopted its current name the "Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere". 2000s: Expanded the confederation to 12 members with CARE Netherlands joining in 2001 and CARE Thailand joining in 2003, (first CARE National Member in a developing country). Name “Oxfam” comes from the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, founded in Britain in 1942. Oxfam International - 1995 by a group of NGOs. Today, it is a confederation of 17 organizations based in: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Ireland, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Quebec, Spain and the United States. The Oxfam International Secretariat is based in Oxford, UK and runs advocacy in Brussels, Geneva, New York, Washington DC and Brasilia. 1950:World Vision was born and child sponsorship program began three years later in response to the needs of orphans at the end of the Korean War. Next several decades - expanded throughout Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. In the 1970s: started a broader community development model and established an emergency relief division. 21st century:Started strengthening its advocacy efforts, particularly on issues related to child survival. It became more active in working with governments, businesses and other organizations in addressing issues such as child labor, children in armed conflict and the sexual exploitation of women and children. 1937 - "Foster Parents Plan for Children in Spain." 1940s - World War II, "Foster Parents Plan for War Children" 1950s - Plan gradually opened new programs in less developed countries. It became "Foster Parents Plan Inc.“ 1960s - Expanded its work to South America and Asia. 1970s - In 1974, it became Plan International. 1980s - Belgium, Germany, Japan and the UK joined Canada, the US, Australia and the Netherlands as donors. 1990s - opened in France, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Republic of Korea. 2000s - Plan International evolved to simply be "Plan" and a unified global identity was created to help make the organization more easily recognized around the world. Progress and Challenges Areas that have resulted in the most progress and areas that have been difficult to mobilize change within relief & development NGOs.. Mission and Values Relief and Development Programming Service and Support Systems National Boards & Global Family Governance Partnerships beyond Family Mission and Values Prior to 1990, very few NGOs gave extensive attention to their core values. Today, most have a prepared statement of values. Discussions of mission and core values - very important in creating excitement among staffers and other stakeholders. Redefinition of mission and values - easier to gain involvement and interest and also facilitate organizational transformation. Relief and Development Programming Approach to emergency response has been redefined and redesigned in an era of intrastate conflict and in response to new ethical, operational, and strategic dilemmas. Greater attention is now given to the interrelated nature of relief, rehabilitation, and development work. Development work has moved from separate, fragmented, sectoral activities to a more comprehensive household- community- based approaches. Staff and resources moved from middle-income countries to countries/regions with greater poverty. Some NGOs have introduced benchmarking, quality circles, and best practices reviews into their efforts in program improvement. Relief and Development Programming Greatest program changes – emergency response, and in more integral programming. It is more difficult – reorient global portfolios towards areas of greater need. Participatory approaches to program analysis and design are based on best practice have proven more lasting than those involving only external evaluators or HQ staff. Some techniques used in private sector – benchmarking and portfolio analysis – not easy for nonprofits to adopt. Value-centered staff feel very conflicted when asked to assume a more businesslike approach. Service and Support Systems Transformation of mission and programs – exciting and motivating. Service & support systems transformation - slower & difficult. Important changes in the use of most basic forms of IT hardware/software. Most offices connected globally through email and internet. Human resource management and marketing operations – most difficult to transform. Basic management information & financial management– quicker transformation. Less progress in moving beyond basic IT to deeper & more indicator based performance measures and information systems. National Boards & Global Family Governance Part of the process of ‘becoming global’ – establishment of international network offices. Increasing collaboration among national offices Each international unit functions differently but have a common goal as with other offices. Power still resides national units but this varies. Management by – persuasion, innovation, or inspiration if joint tasks is to be accomplished. Partnerships beyond Family What kind of agreement should govern partnerships? Many partners want to be equal players at the table, Some developing country partners require that developing country partner become equal player only when are financially independent. Sometimes even as ‘equal’ partners, old habits persist Competitiveness & not cooperation is the norm among NGOs. Many North-South partnerships but no full cooperation – mostly due to growing pressures and identity crisis of Southern NGOs. Political transitions in the South add pressure Some evidence of innovation in development of unusual public, private, and nonprofit partnerships. Limitations on Transformations Transformation within NGOs is happening but it may not be visible from outside. Change is slow and even hard work leverages only little movement. Some of the constrains are: Middle Managers Structures of NGO Families Donor Pressures Unpredictable External Environment Staff Motivation and Organizational Culture Middle Managers Middle managers have only a partial view of how their work fits into the whole picture. Far fewer incentives for driving change. Some presidents stay on in adifferent role – carries implications for navigating change. MSF assemblies elect presidents who remain on board. CARE, World Vision – national international search for CEOs. Structures of NGO Families Most developed country NGOs exist as horizontal network with least hierarchy. Some networks moved away from loosely linked confederations to more centralized relationships but backed up and move towards loosely configured relationship. Donor Pressures Development assistance for NGOs in the developed world - growing from individual donors but declining from public sector, particularly in the US. Budget cuts lead to staff reduction in bilateral agencies like USAID leading to more contracts going out to NGOs. Downside –