Opinion: CSO vs. INGO — the battle for funding explained

When Stella Duque read a funding call from the EU that directly related to her organization’s core experience, she was excited. However, as the proposal needed a fairly high financial contribution, Taller de Vida, which she founded in Columbia in 1994, couldn’t apply alone. Duque, whose civil society organization supports children and families affected by violence, including former child soldiers, decided to find an international NGO partner. She thought everything was going well until the partner gave her organization a presentation explaining that due to their own costs, only 10% of project funds would land with Taller de Vida. Duque, a clinical psychologist with decades of front-line experience, had to walk away. For Jonathan Kojo Anderson, the fundraising manager at Challenging Heights, a Ghanaian CSO, this story sounds very familiar. In 2015, his organization, which rescues and rehabilitates children from modern slavery in the fishing industry, failed to secure assistance as a partner in the Child Protection Compact. The U.S.-Ghana CPC partnership was a five-year plan aimed at bolstering efforts of the Ghanaian government and civil society to address forced child labor and child sex trafficking within the country. In the end, a consortium of NGOs, which included U.S. organizations, was successful. Challenging Heights had declined the opportunity to tender as part of the winning consortium because as the most experienced single organization in Ghana, they had hoped to win the grant single-handedly. Following the loss, Challenging Heights learned that joining forces with an organization from the grant-giving country may be necessary — yet far from ideal, given the high risk that the local CSO be relegated to a minor partner, as would have happened with Taller de Vida. As members of the Family For Every Child global alliance of CSOs, we’ve pooled numerous examples of how we’ve struggled to engage with donors because of the small, locally grown nature of our organizations. Each of our organizations struggles because of our status as local CSO. Some years back, Farm Orphans Support Trust, or FOST, in Zimbabwe was assessed by one potential funder as “high risk” because our staffing structure did not meet their expectations, particularly in terms of segregation of duties. The donor could have taken this as an opportunity to support the organization to put staff in place to strengthen its systems, which they did not do. In Liberia, we've seen a decrease in INGOs publishing calls for proposals for local CSOs to apply. These calls used to be published in newspapers and on the website of the Executive Mansion, which serves as both the president's residence and workplace. The decrease has led to some individuals in government and INGOs supporting and working directly with local organizations without any competitive bidding. In Kenya, at the Undugu Society, we have found that poor due diligence on the part of donors has hindered our work. Some international donors rely on government agencies, such as the Kenyan ministry of interior, for input on which CSOs they should partner with. This can be detrimental, especially when governments don’t appreciate the work of NGOs that question or criticize them. So why is it so difficult for CSOs to compete against international nongovernmental organizations for funds? The challenges for CSOs to access funding CSOs usually have limited financial capacity to recruit specialized personnel. Often, the same person is working concurrently on monitoring and evaluation, advocacy, fundraising, and fieldwork. This obviously affects organizations’ ability to fundraise effectively and competitively. INGOs, meanwhile, typically have fully fleshed M&E and fundraising departments, with highly experienced and specialized staff. “The challenges faced by local CSOs around the globe in securing funding reflect systemic issues within the global development sector.” --— Another issue is that donors tend to put a cap on the financial capacities of an institution, based on what they have achieved to date. This threshold of eligibility leaves behind many excellent local organizations with good ideas and innovations that have yet to be lucky enough to handle considerable sums of money. Securing funding also often appears to be hitched on relationships. Since most INGOs are headquartered in the countries where the calls for proposals are coming from, they have better insights into what the proposals require and usually are made aware of the calls before they are even in the public domain. This gives them more time to prepare. Sometimes they may be given first preference because of existing relationships. In the end, in order to secure funding, CSOs often have no choice but to partner with intermediaries, which can result in less funding and a dilution of expertise. Making funding more accessible to CSOs The challenges faced by local CSOs around the globe in securing funding reflect systemic issues within the global development sector. The recent move by donors to localize funding for CSOs is good news. However, we have noted with great concern that this localization is often not genuine. INGOs are sometimes registering locally to obtain the right status, and in turn, compete for scarce resources with genuinely local CSOs. For localization to be effective, significant mindset shifts are called for within donor organizations. The will to further localization by supporting real local CSOs is needed. So how could foundations, trusts, and donor institutions make the application process more accessible for CSOs? Below are five areas for action. 1. Calls for proposals: A commitment to consistently publishing open calls for proposals will create a space for fairer competitive bidding. Applications should focus on different thematic areas, which will give CSOs the leverage to apply based on their experiences and capacities. 2. Ease of reporting: Simplified reporting templates and due diligence processes would help CSOs struggling with capacity issues 3. English as a foreign language: Call guidelines should be published in clear, simple language so applicants with first languages other than English can read and understand them. 4. Beyond English: Allowing applications to be written in other, local languages would make a big difference. Offering greater flexibility with the acceptable format for a proposal would also help, for example accepting filmed content and case studies. 5. Prequalification of a partner: Using a system such as an expression of interest from a CSO to work with a funder for a specified time frame could build competitive capacity. This should reduce guesswork when responding to requests for application of the particular donor agency. Despite the expert and more cost-effective role CSOs play in addressing local needs, financial constraints, capacity issues, and unequal competition with INGOs hinder their ability to serve local communities. By fostering equitable partnerships and offering capacity-building support, donors can enable CSOs to play a more active and impactful role in development. The path forward requires a commitment to truly supporting the local organizations that are best placed to address the challenges faced by their communities.