What is the future of the INGO?

For the last three years, a group of organizations in South Sudan has been calling the shots. They came together nearly five years after the Grand Bargain of 2016: a promise made by donors, organizations, and governments that more humanitarian funding would be steered toward local groups. At the time the organizations linked up, it still felt like that ambition was decades away — so the Local Response Pooled Fund was created to speed things up. “We decided to organize our house as national NGOs because the song has always been that we don’t have capacity, or the right systems, or the proper mechanisms,” said Rombek Rombek, the chairperson of LRPF. “So, we came together to discuss exactly what we need to do, as local NGOs, to meet international standards.” And more importantly, he added, to get funding to those closest to South Sudan’s problems. Today, nearly 200 South Sudanese organizations are part of the network, which has funded 25 locally-driven programs throughout its lifespan. LPRF has funneled money toward Global Community Aid South Sudan, which gave former refugees seeds, tools, and training to return to farming; the Community Support Initiative, which provided dozens of girls with psychosocial support after trauma; and to the Emergency Response and Development Initiative, which rehabilitated boreholes to increase access to clean drinking water. Still, LPRF didn’t do it alone. After struggling to get funding from major donors early on, the group asked Save the Children to step in to help. It soon began providing technical, fundraising, and other types of support to LPRF. And While the group receives guidance — and 35% of its funding — from Save the Children, the international nongovernmental organization was never meant to become a mainstay. “It was clear on day one,” said Rombek, who is also the director of Global Aim South Sudan, a national nonprofit. “[Save the Children said] we are going to introduce you how to fly, and we are going to introduce you who to fly to. But we won’t keep on flying you there.” By next year, Save the Children plans to be on its way out. “Our involvement was kind of a stop-gap, and the plan was always that we would step away so the LPRF could exist on its own,” said William von Schrader, Save the Children’s senior director of localization. “Our role is really just focused on supporting the capacity, expertise, and leadership that is already there through fundraising and extending technical and operational assistance where needed.” Save the Children is no outlier. Nearly every INGO seems to be rethinking their role in the aid sector, and debating how, when, and if they should continue showing up. Increasingly, that’s meant leaning into the role of a sidekick and swerving away from the direct service delivery that for decades, was the bread-and-butter of the INGO approach. “Today’s Western INGO was built on a model from the 70s and 80s,” said Tim McCully, the executive vice president of impact and partnerships at Corus International, an INGO based in the United States. “The world doesn’t work that way anymore.” It’s part of a wider drive towards localization — a movement to put money and decision-making power in the hands of local leaders. Even so, INGOs across the sector seem to agree: Localization doesn’t necessarily mean they need to erase themselves. Instead, it means rebalancing the equation between INGOs and local groups, and reformulating the roles both entities play across the world. “For me, localization is not a zero-sum, either-or proposition,” said McCully. “There is plenty of space for collaboration based on complementary strengths and assets, and it just has to be reconfigured in a way that is a little bit more equitable, and frankly, a little bit more reflective of the importance of context, local community rootedness, and knowledge.” An inescapable push Localization is nothing new to the aid sector. Year after year, organizations, governments, and donors have agreed on the importance of funding local groups — and year after year, there have been new pledges to push localization forward. But today, the approach seems to have taken on new prominence. There was the rise of local entities during COVID-19, and the recognition that the smallest organizations were often the first to respond. The growing voices of those in the global south, with many demanding it was time for a change. And the racial reckoning of 2020, and how the deaths of George Floyd — among several others — caused organizations to rethink racism, colonialism, and power. In 2021, the U.S. Agency for International Development committed to one of its most ambitious targets yet: in just four years, USAID would shift a quarter of its eligible funding toward local organizations. By the end of the decade, it would ensure half of its programming was “locally led” — and while USAID has made slow progress toward that goal, the push toward localization has continued to stick. “It’s becoming center stage in ways that maybe it wasn’t in the past,” said Save the Children’s von Schrader. “With that comes a necessary rethinking of: What is our role in this space?” For many, the answer to that question is complicated. There will be a fundamental shift, but not necessarily a bad one. A role reversal, with local organizations calling the shots. INGOs will still have a role in the aid sector — but that role could change based on the context. And depending on who you ask, that could be a cause for celebration or a cause for concern. “It can be scary for INGOs, in all honesty,” said Ben Chase, a program officer at Project HOPE, an INGO based in Washington, D.C. “There’s this almost gut reaction of: Oh god, are we working ourselves out of a job? And then the flip side of that is: Shouldn’t we be working ourselves out of a job?” Last year, nearly half of INGO executives surveyed by InterAction, an alliance of U.S.-based INGOs, strongly agreed that localization was a priority for their organization. Just one of the 100 executives said localization was not a priority whatsoever. Nearly every international organization seems eager to broadcast their support for the shift, despite the impact it will have on their own operations. That’s not to say it isn’t without some level of fear. There’s a difference between talk in the boardroom and chatter after hours. What actually happens if we restructure the sector? Can local organizations really respond to the world’s multiplying crises? What about neutrality and protection, especially in humanitarian settings? And on top of all of that, what does localization mean for INGO funding? It’s these types of questions that seem to be swirling in the background, even as most organizations acknowledge that development is — and should be — changing. “The thing we have to understand is, this isn’t about us. It’s about the people bearing the brunt of these crises everywhere.” --— Deepmala Mahla, chief humanitarian officer, CARE “There’s a lot of existential angst in the sector right now,” said Dylan Mathews, the chief executive officer of Peace Direct, an INGO based in the United Kingdom. “But we were never meant to be here in perpetuity — at least, not in the same ways.” Reimagining INGOs In recent years, the thinking around localization — and how INGOs can fit into the shift — has picked up speed. Peace Direct, which centers on supporting local partners, defined nine roles it felt INGOs could play in the future, from serving as a connector for civil society organizations to being an advocate for a local partner to being a sidekick to a grassroots group. All nine of those roles are focused on providing support to organizations without stepping into the driver’s seat. “We’re imagining a world where no INGO implements,” said Mathews. “At least half of these roles are temporary, and they’re designed to plug holes and gaps. But there are other roles which, in 20 years time, I think INGOs will still be playing, because that’s what local organizations feel is valuable.” The Transforming INGO Models for Equality, or TIME, initiative, convened 18 international groups around the same question — and despite their focus on sexual and reproductive health, the collective came away with strikingly similar results. The group predicted that in the future, INGOs will be less likely to serve as a direct implementer or a service provider, and more likely play an intermediary role between donors and local organizations. “It’s a different role for us, and certainly it means INGOs will be smaller,” Mathews added. “We can't continue to maintain a dominance in the sector and maintain a dominance in the funding. For us, that’s untenable, both morally and practically.” For CARE — an INGO headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia — that’s meant working through “humanitarian partnership platforms,” where the INGO serves as a convener, supporter, and facilitator for local partners providing humanitarian response, explained Deepmala Mahla, CARE’s chief humanitarian officer. In the Philippines, the platform has helped coordinate local partners’ response to 32 different emergencies, the organization reported, and supported 2.2 million people in 2022 alone. As a result, more than three-quarters of CARE’s in-country funding went to local partners. “It’s been the best way to help communities faster,” said Mahla. “The thing we have to understand is, this isn’t about us. It’s about the people bearing the brunt of these crises everywhere. That should be the starting point.” INGOs are experimenting with other roles, too. Save the Children is continuing its work with local response pooled funds, supporting networks in Sudan, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Somalia, von Schrader said. Peace Direct has granted nearly 700 small grants to organizations in Afghanistan, Mali, the Central African Republic, and beyond, working with key local partners to design the grants, identify the winners, and provide mentoring to local groups. And FHI 360 is leaning on its experience in research, explained the INGO’s CEO, Tessie San Martin, focusing more heavily on advancing knowledge, evidence, and expertise. “Leaving business models that have served us well for decades to embrace the new is going to be anxiety-inducing for all of us,” San Martin told Devex in an email. “But let’s also remember that INGOs are organizations that have been bringing change and new ways of thinking worldwide for decades. Change might be uncomfortable. But INGOs understand (perhaps better than most) that change is necessary.” Seven years ago, Project HOPE received a grant from USAID, one that aimed to support young people living with HIV in Addis Ababa. The INGO was the prime awardee while five local organizations were the subs, Project HOPE’s Jed Meline explained — and throughout the grant, the INGO prepared the local partners to lead most of the work. When a follow-up grant came around, four of the five organizations won USAID grants of their own. “That was an eight-year process overall,” said Meline, the director of policy and advocacy at Project HOPE. “And though it takes time, it is a totally perfect example of what can happen.” Still, not all INGOs — or local organizations, for that matter — agree on the ways international agencies are approaching localization. Some argue that creating spin-offs, where a country office becomes an independent entity, is a prime example of localization. Others say it’s exactly the opposite. On top of that, for many local organizations, the push toward capacity-building is a tired one. “If you keep saying people don’t have capacity, and you don’t give them money to strengthen their systems, until when will they strengthen those systems?” said Rombek. “If you give us money — say, $5,000 to buy and install QuickBooks — we’ll be able to install QuickBooks. And that’s because you’ve given us the money to install financial systems.” In a recent report backed by Peace Direct, less than one-tenth of official development assistance funneled to civil society goes toward organizations in the global south. Instead, more than 60% went toward countries’ own civil society organizations. “Rhetorically, there is a lot of acknowledgment that the sector needs to change,” said Mathews. “Once you start to operationalize it, you start to have real problems.” Balancing the equilibrium Still, there are caveats. Both INGOs and local organizations told Devex that there are some roles local organizations may struggle to fill, especially in complex humanitarian or political situations. Hassan Naji, the program manager at Moroccan nonprofit the Ennakhil Association, said there are many issues local groups find hard to touch: from abortion and reproductive health to LGBTQ+ rights. “At times, [INGOs] have more freedom to develop projects — and to go after some thematic areas — with more courage,” said Naji. “We don’t want to stop international organizations, because we need them. We just need more of an equilibrium.” There’s also the issue of protection. In some contexts, Catholic Relief Services’ Bill O’Keefe explained, INGOs have become part of the safety structure for local civil society. O’Keefe, who now serves as the INGO’s executive vice president for mission, mobilization, and advocacy, described an experience he had more than three decades ago in South Sudan. It was 1990, and O’Keefe — then 28 — had just witnessed a town being blown up by bombings. Thirteen people had died, and soon after, O’Keefe found himself on an airstrip. “A young Sudanese guy walked up to me and said, I’m so glad you’re here,” O’Keefe told Devex. “On the inside, I was thinking, oh my god. This has been the most horrible experience of my life. But I asked why. And he said, ‘If you weren’t here, no one would know this had happened.’” CARE’s Mahla agreed, noting her staff in some countries, such as Afghanistan, had voiced the importance of “protection by presence.” “That global presence somehow brings global eyes and ears to the ground, and the idea that there are other people here watching,” Mahla explained. “It is seen, it can be documented, it can be covered, and it can be raised on bigger platforms, too. It doesn’t work in every context, but it works in many contexts, and I’ve heard it many times.” For most INGOs Devex spoke to, it’s these caveats that ensure localization won’t happen with a blanket approach. Instead, it will be about context, and about ensuring INGOs and local organizations work together to figure out which group is best placed for what purpose. “People realize that our role is shifting. It has been shifting, and it’s continuing to shift,” said O’Keefe. “There’s no running away from change, and we have to figure out how to help here in a way that adds value and moves our partners forward.” The road ahead Every one of the six INGOs Devex spoke with said they felt confident about their slice of the sector going forward, and with the way their organization (and their counterparts) could shift to a more localized normal. Still, for Kim Kucinskas — the technical director of organizational transformation at Humentum, which provides training for development organizations — the sector is still in the “messy middle” when it comes to thinking about its future. “It’s really easy to say this is what we believe. And if it was easy to do, it would have been done by now,” Kucinskas told Devex. “There are cultural barriers, there are change management barriers, there are structural barriers, and there are resource barriers that are all kind of getting intertwined. That is, right now, where organizations are — and I think it will be like that for a while.” Update, July 25, 2024: This article was updated to clarify that the TIME initiative implemented the project looking at the future of the INGO.