Bilal Naqeeb
The situation demands the attention of key stakeholders including the government, funding agencies, NGOs and research organisations to learn the new dynamics of the corporatised voluntary sector and sort it out for the survival of voluntarism.
Unlike other countries in the South Asian region, the NGO sector in Pakistan has seen rapid changes in the development context. A mushroom growth of voluntary organisations took place during the Zia regime, when the sector was being fed USAID funding in return for Pakistan’s support in the Afghan War. Back then this sector was active in the areas of education, health and community infrastructure, with the exception of the Women’s Action Forum (WAF), which challenged the discriminatory Hudood Ordinance. This trend continued until 1999 due to the wrapping up of local bodies institutions by elected governments in the 1990s. It then switched to strengthening local governance systems (LGS) in 2001 when Pervez MusharrafÂ’s government introduced the Devolution of Power Plan for the reform of the local government system. Most of the programmes of large and medium scale organisations were aligned with LGS in a variety of ways. Parallel to the implementation of the two phases of the system, the political scenario due to the occurrence of 9/11 was drastically changed. Since then, militant forces are threatening peace and development in Pakistan.
The driving force that changed the direction of NGOs were funding agencies that signed agreements with federal governments for the provision of funds in selected areas of interest, without considering the needs of sustainability for ongoing programmes.
Growth and expansion is a positive sign in the development of institutions. Aligarh institutions in British India, Orangi Pilot Project in Pakistan and BRAC in Bangladesh are examples of successful, replicable models that were initiated by individuals and adopted by several organisations. During the last decade, apart from national organisations/programmes mostly established by the government or international donors and the traditional philanthropists, there are a large number of organisations striving to expand their local programmes on a wider geographic scale. The motivational factor is rarely to achieve multiplier effects of the successful implementation of pilot projects, but to have extended financial portfolios that can proportionally justify the infrastructural and human resource costs of the organisation. The geographic scale of work is largely associated with the management capacities of NGOs, which are ideally at par with the corporate sector.
Due to a lack of unbiased and sincere efforts for legislation by numerous governments, the growth of voluntary sector organisations could not be achieved. This is one of the major reasons that registration laws (except SECP) merely provide control for accountability purposes. On the other hand, funding agencies, through their own assessment criteria, are encouraging corporate culture management in social sector organisations.
The prime condition for building partnerships is a legal status that can be acquired by registering under any of the four registration Acts, including the Societies Act 1860, Trust Act 1882, Social Welfare Department 1961, and under section 42 of the Companies Ordinance 1984. Practically, there is no major difference on ground in the implementation of any law in terms of setting up objectives, determining the scope of work, geographical coverage, scale of programmes and budgetary limitations. In most cases, the organisation is conceptualised by an individual who gathers the people to form the governance structure as per the requirements of the selected registration Act. In the process of adopting parents for an organisation, understanding the responsibilities of governing bodies and competencies was often compromised, resulting in poor governance.
Any organisation that wants to enter the bidding process is supposed to demonstrate efficient systems including financial management, internal audit, corporate legal assistance, HR management, programme quality controls, property management, internal and external communication, IT infrastructure, etc., at par with a corporate entity. On the basis of data collected, the estimated costs of the development, installation and orientation of new systems, policies and procedures approximately ranges from Rs 800,000 to Rs 2,000,000 for medium to large scale organisations. A project of a limited time span can leave behind a liability to maintain a costly structure beyond the project, for survival in the business of development. An estimated cost of bearing a corporatised organisation with 10 to 15 staff members ends up with a liability of no less than Rs 6 million per year in the post-project period.
In order to generate sufficient funds to maintain the organisation, minimum funding under different projects is needed, five times more than its operational costs because of capping the costs of salaries and operations at 20 percent of the total budget.
For the achievement of sustainability, organisations are advised to make their programmes saleable so that they can generate resources to maintain staff costs and operations. In these circumstances, only service delivery organisations in the areas of education and health can mobilise indigenous resources. Organisations that promote rights-based advocacy or carrying out capacity development can rarely survive until and unless funding agencies allow and support an endowment fund, which is regretted by most of the funding agencies due to various reasons.
The situation demands the attention of key stakeholders including the government, funding agencies, NGOs and research organisations to learn the new dynamics of the corporatised voluntary sector and sort it out for the survival of voluntarism.
There is a clear need for the classification of NGOs and the establishment of effective monitoring mechanisms that must be mandatory. The Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy developed, proposed and advocated a legal framework in 2002 that aimed to address most of the above-mentioned issues but, due to mistrust between NGOs and the government based on past experiences, it could not be formalised. If it could be sorted out, it might have had a significant impact on the sector. Most quality control mechanisms and services such as impact assessments, programme evaluations, development and installation of standard operating procedures, etc., could be provided through selected agencies instead of being housed in each organisation and sourcing out heavy consultancies for the development of information systems, etc.
Organisations engaged in offering packages for Organisational Development (OD) to growing community based organisations must take into account that the OD process must not be limited to the development of standard operating procedures and for the compliance with assessment criteria of the donors, but to achieve a greater degree of transparency and accountability.
Bilal Naqeeb is a development practitioner, working in the areas of social sector programme planning and management. He can be reached at [email protected]
Source: Daily Times
Date:2/8/2010
