Non-Governmental Organization - the United States Agency for International Development - Case Study Example

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS by Student Name Course Tutor Institution Affiliation City/State Date Introduction Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focusing on the development have increased their profiles at local and international levels for the last twenty years. NGOs are recognized as significant actors on the landscape of development. For example, efforts of restoration in countries such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia and India after the 2004 Tsunami disaster were attributable to NGOs. NGOs have also led international campaigns for trade and reforms (Hilhorst, 2003). They are known for undertaking various activities that include delivery of basic services to vulnerable people and initiating policy advocacy and public campaigns for change. They have become active in various roles such as environmental activism, building of democracy, emergency response, resolution of conflicts and work on human rights. Other roles include cultural preservation, policy analysis, and research and information provision. NGOs emerge from small-scale origins and grow into large and more complex organizations. It takes an individual or a group of people with similar ideas to come together and discover a solution to an existing humanitarian problem. In the initial stages, the most urgent priority of an NGO was to provide immediate needs by undertaking relief and welfare work. In the second generation (Clarke & Thomas, 2006), NGOs focus on the objectives of establishing small-scale, self-reliant development objectives at the local level as they acquire relative experience and build better knowledge. A stronger focus on sustainability emerges in the third generation. There is a stronger interest in influencing institutional and policy context through advocacy (Hilhorst 2003). NGOs have become closely linked to social movements in the fourth generation. They combine local activities with programs at a global and national level that aim at realizing a lasting structural change. Literature Review There exist numerous NGOs in the world. No comprehensive or reliable statistics has indicated the approximate number of NGOs. However, the NGOs differ in capacity due to funding and the scope of their mandate. The United Nations reports that there are approximately 35000 large established NGOs (Hilhorst, 2003). These NGOs receive international aid. $US 23billion of the total monetary assistance came from non-governmental organizations. The challenge of understanding the phenomenon of NGOs is difficult even though the presence of NGOs seems everywhere. This is because NGOs are diverse groups of organizations. They play varied roles and take different shapes and forms within the country contexts (Mudacumura, 2004). In most literature, an NGO is characterized as an independent organization that is neither driven by profit motive nor run by the government. However, some NGOs possess some characteristics of bureaucracies and receive high levels of government funding. Others resemble professionalized private organizations with corporate identities. The question on what NGOs do can be encapsulated in three sets of activities that they undertake. These activities can be defined in three roles as implementers, catalysts and partners. The implementer’s role concerns gathering of resources provide people with goods and services when they urgently require them. This role embodies a wide range of activities carried out by NGOs in diverse fields as Medicare, extensions in agriculture, relief aid, microfinance and human rights (Clark, 1995). Delivery of services has increased since governments and donors have seemingly contracted NGOs within the last twenty years of privatization to carry out activities in anticipation of monetary reward. It is currently popular because increasing focus has been put on the role of NGOs responding to human-made emergencies within the framework of humanitarian action. The role of a catalyst is to bring about change. The catalyst role is the ability of the NGO to facilitate, inspire or contribute to progressive thinking and action to support change. It may be focused on individuals and groups that exist in local communities. It may also be focused on other actors including government, business or donors. This role includes organization and formation of groups at the grassroots; gender empowerment and work, undertaking and disseminating research, lobbying and advocacy work. It seeks to influence the course of policy through innovation and policy entrepreneurship (Mudacumura, 2004). NGOs also play the role of partners. They involve other stakeholders in working together and sharing the risk or benefits from a joint venture. The partners usually include government, donors and the private sector. They focus on joint activities such as offering various efforts within a wider spectrum of the multi-agency program. It includes activities that take place among NGOs and within communities such as capacity-building work that seeks to develop and strengthen capabilities (Turner & Hulme, 1997). The policy rhetoric of partnership usually poses a challenge for NGOs to develop mutually beneficial relationships that are responsive, non-dependant and effective. An NGO can engage in the three roles above at once by shifting its emphasis over time, depending on opportunities and contexts. NGOs and Development NGOs appealed to different sections of the development community when they began attracting attention in the 1980s. Some Western donors had been frustrated by bureaucratic and ineffective government-government project-based aid that was in vogue at that time. NGOs offered an alternative and more flexible funding channel that guaranteed a higher chance of local-level implementation and grassroots participation. NGOs supported a philosophical principle that acknowledged the necessity of people in the developmental policies. They were seen as fostering local participation because there were more locally rooted organizations. They were closer to the people in marginalized areas than officials were. Existing public services bypassed poor people since government agencies faced shortage of resources, and their decision-making processes were captured by elites. NGOs operated at lower cost due to their utilization of voluntary community input (Mudacumura, 2004). They were also seen as possessing to experiment alternative ideas and approaches to development. Some NGOs brought a set of new and progressive development agendas of gender, environment, participation and empowerment that captured the imagination of many development activists at that time. They were seen as efficient and cost-conscious alternative that can guarantee service delivery to the public sector. Critiques of NGOs NGOs have been subjected to fierce criticism in some quarters. The idea that NGOs undermine the centrality of the state in developing countries has not been well-received in some countries. A shift from a focus on state institutions towards a more privatized form of development intervention has been witnessed (Clarke & Thomas, 2006). Such critics believe that NGOs facilitate neoliberal policy change through their participation their de facto privatization. This participation involves contracting out of services that are geared towards the public or clearing up the baggage that Structural Adjustments Programs left and which significantly affected the poor. Strong critiques centre on accountability problems of NGOs. For example, in Bangladesh, key services were delegated to local NGOs without accountability to citizens. The massive relief effort by NGOs after the Asian Tsunami in 2004 testified the skills and power of many NGOs. It heightened concerns regarding opportunities for misuse of humanitarian funds. There were protests in Sri Lanka within months against corrupt aid distribution and questions about the government’s will to address this challenge (Turner & Hulme, 1997). Police in Indonesia arrested the coordinator of an NGO that was tasked with challenging corruption in the relief aid in an event that raised doubts about NGO and law enforcement authorities. Prior to the Tsunami, there had been cases of scandals that involved charitable organizations in the US and elsewhere around the world. Ethical failures of such organizations were published in major Newspapers in the US including Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Another paper, The New York Times indicated the fat salaries of top executives, expenses for travel, office and other perks (Szporluk, 2009). Additionally, they highlighted conflict of interest, deliberate failure to stick to the mission of the organization, lack of transparency and questionable fundraising practices. Poll studies indicate that despite higher levels of trust in non-governmental organizations compared to business and government, the level of trust is on the decline. NGOs are perceived as covers for organized crimes in Russia (Caroll, 2006). They are seen as fronts for fundamentalist causes in Bangladesh and Pakistan while they serve as platforms for failed politicians in Asia. In light of the above criticisms, there have been defensive reactions from NGOs to accusations of unethical behavior and lack of accountability. The question of organizational accountability is regarded as a bureaucratic hurdle test and a threat to achieving the aims of NGOs. Some NGOs fear that toughening of accountability can result in an overbearing influence from the funders and governments (Turner & Hulme, 1997). This influence might lead to a deflection of the original purpose or lead to the stymieing of innovation and reducing NGOs’ diversity. Studies reveal that accountability is often seen as an administrative duty, with concepts such as responsibility, effectiveness and values in occasions when NGOs hold debates about improving their management. THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) The United States has established an extensive body of relief assistance over the past 25 years. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the main sponsor of such aid. USAID has been making positive contributions to the global future of democracy. It contributes to the reform and strengthening of institutions such as the judiciary, the police, the legislature, local governments, human rights, electoral bodies, political institutions, independent and authoritative media and human rights activities. Others include election monitors, labor unions, business associations, independent media, anticorruption commissions, citizen advocacy groups and reform-oriented think tanks in over 100 countries. Such assistance does not drive political events, but offers help that facilitates various initiatives of political parties and systems improve themselves. USAID undertook narrow political development assistance five decades ago, but the origins of its current goal date back to the 1980s. The former President, Ronald Reagan emphasized on the promotion of democracy. He developed a forceful policy to counter the Soviet Union. Both the congress and administration endorsed the creation of foreign aid efforts that were related to growth democracy beyond the borders of America. The Reagan push set up a separate office for that was meant to spur democracy assistance in the bureau. The office was created in for Latin America and the Caribbean. Democracy was programmed in Latin America and Asia. However, in Asia, only small-scale programming was carried out. With time, a narrow stream enlarged and spread to Eastern and Central Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, former Soviet Union and Asia. The government of Bill Clinton furthered USAID’s concept of democracy (Szporluk, 2009). In 1993, Brian Atwood became the head of USAID and undertook various measures aimed at fostering political aid at the expense of social and economic development that USAID seemed to favor. He achieved these steps by: Creating a centre for democracy and governance that served as a centre of authority on democracy inside USAID Incorporating support for governance and democracy as a major cornerstone of official pillars Creating specialist officers on the work of governance and democracy, Commissioning studies to find out learned lessons on the subject of democracy programming. Establishing a program office to offer immediate aid in dynamic political transitions (Hilhorst, 2003). Spending on democracy and governance programs by USAID ballooned between 1991 and 1999. The allocation of USAID resources was concentrated where USAID had presence. However, the government of former president George W. Bush developed cold feet on USAID’s concept on democracy and governance. There was increased spending in Iraq that affected funding on other parts of the world (Szporluk, 2009). The institutionalization of such assistance within USAID languished and created a wider negative drift of the agency. In 2002, USAID experienced major reorganization. The previously existing centre of democracy and governance was scrapped and a small office was created. Downgrading of the centre to an office embodied a lack of deeper commitment to fostering USAID’s democracy agenda. The relocation of the office to a separate bureau under which it was dwarfed by humanitarian assistance further justified the limited commitment towards democracy. Its weight of bureaucracy consequently reduced. Currently, USAID’s work on democracy and governance encompasses a gamut of activities. It organizes its aid into the following categories: The first category is the Rule of law: involves growing authority in legal jurisdictions, providing justice as a service and guaranteeing rights and democratic process The second category is the Civil Society: involves gathering constituencies for reform, media development, cementing a culture of political democracy, enabling legal environments for the development of civil society. Governance: promote democratic governance of the security sector, promoting anticorruption, decentralization, better public sector performance and strengthened legislative functioning (Caroll, 2006). USAID’s governance and democracy aid reflects the wider distribution paradigm of U.S foreign aid. War-torn countries receive the lion’s share of USAID’s resources. Such countries include Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. Others are Pakistan and Egypt. (Clark, 1995). A greater part of USAID’s work on governance and democracy is managed in the fields and not from the central headquarter in Washington. Funds are channeled by missions to organizations. The organizations are responsible for designing, implementing and evaluating projects on governance and democracy. Failures of USAID It is impossible to reject the notion that USAID’s image is mixed in the public domain. Many people working in the domain recognize its centrality in democracy and governance. However, they also view USAID negatively. The criticisms ignore the programs of USAID that relate to democracy and governance. Instead, they center on its basic organizational methods and institutional culture. USAID’s democracy and governance: Is slow, mechanistic and overly bureaucratic, Suffers badly from rigidity and inflexibility, Conforms more to Washington demands than the realities at the local level, Are deficient of innovation, Are centered in countries that swim in relative wealth yet are hardly felt in countries that are starved (Milton et al, 2007). The causes of the USAID troubled performance are due to the devastating institutional shortfalls that bedevil USAID. The USAID has sunk to a low state over the last two decades. It has become demoralized internally, lacks local and international respect, marginalized within the US government and dysfunctional in fundamental ways. The drop in performance is due to a series of ills that include: Unease relationship with the State Department: The relationship is usually tense both in the field and in Washington since 2006 when USAID was reorganized and put under the direction of State Department Unyielding ties with Congress: this involves unnecessary allocation of monetary resources, periodic interests, onerous reporting practices and deep-seated mutual distrust Frequent bouts of weak leadership Lack of a stable development mandate Worn-out legislative framework governing aid distribution: The existing law is forty-eight years old and it is overlaid with multiple and overlapping amendments A long-running pattern of outsourcing USAID’s work to bidders. This pattern reduces its technical capacities. Consequently, an organization that is more involved in management and administration than the substance of development work is realized, Requirements of tying aid that inflate costs, lessen the impact and undercut local ownership Custodian of key aid networks that exists between US and key security partners that do not regard assistance as a major engagement in development. Instead, it is considered a reward of strategic loyalty. Rigid and insensitive Human Resource (HR) practices that significantly depleted the agency’s human capital (Korten 1990). These maladies hurt the agency’s democracy and governance work in many ways. For example, the congressional earmarking of USAID’s budget by the Congress favor certain socioeconomic issues such as education and child health. It results in limited unallocated funds from which democracy and governance programs can draw. Tensions between the USAID and state departments result in blockages clear direction. Bureaucracy in USAID The major causes of inflexible patterns, limited innovation and cumbersomeness of USAID are its basic operating procedures. These procedures underpin the agency’s programming and hobble much of its work on democracy and governance (Caroll, 2006). They constitute the agency’s dysfunctional bureaucratization. They are attached while reacting to particular incidences but are they never detached with time. The operating procedures are intrusive and constraining. They symbolize decades of utilizing much funds on aid programs that are executed in foreign settings under consistent fear. Each step of programming is characterized by the pervasive nature of the basic operating procedures of USAID. The process of preparing the request for proposals as well as making aid requests and finishing up of contracts is troublesome. It derails the growth of other programs and promotes the use of cookie-cutter methods that exist in the procurement conundrum (Clarke & Thomas, 2006). It reduces the size and gamut of organizations/companies that participate and compete in the aid programs. The program implementation procedures are also bothersome. The implementing partners of USAID do not criticize about the entire process of distributing aid. Instead, they describe as petty, the role of USAID officers that oversee their programs. These officers are accused of attempting to micromanage implementing partners and creating procedural complexities that make simple actions slow and difficult. The sluggish process of implementing USAID’s plans is further attributable to the performance management plans (PMPs) required by USAID for its programs. The purpose of these systems is to establish various performance indicators that implementing organizations are required to uphold throughout the life of the project (Clark, 1995). USAID saddled its programs with quantifiable, mechanistic and reductionistic indicators. The indicators count outputs rather than assessing outcomes. They create special problems for programs on democracy and governance. Partner organizations that expressed dissatisfaction regarding the indicators and their application to democracy and governance programs forced USAID to retreat. Because of this development, it used qualitative performance monitoring indicators that were more nuanced. The establishment of F Process in 2006 set the situation back considerably. It involved instituting a budget tracking system for US aid (Caroll, 2006). The F process enforces a clearly defined set of quantifiable indicators on aid programs. In addition, it embodies the most basic types of output counting. The last phase of the programming (the evaluation phase) is affected by the problematic procedures. The agency follows flawed procedures in evaluating its assistance programs. It contracts consulting companies whose purpose is to design and implement assistant programs, thus, creating conflicts of interest. Competing firms end up evaluating rival firm’s work (Ebrahim, 2003). During the process of evaluation, such firms feel motivated to develop evaluations that would impress the agency’s officer that commissioned the evaluation. They do so to attract their favor and remain hopeful of seeking future contracts with the agency. Methodology This paper discussed the negative side of NGOs. It attempted to present the flipside of the positive impacts of NGOs in solving humanitarian problems. The first part of this paper briefly looked at the evolution of NGOs by outlining the various generations in the evolution process. The role of NGOs also featured in the first part. The second stage was literature review section. This section dissected various criticisms of NGOs in respect of internal and external management, funding and accountability. Emphasis was placed on USAID owing to its many years of existence and extensive presence in many parts of the world. Relationship between the NGO and its stakeholders was looked assessed. The paper utilized secondary sources that were provided for its development. Findings The study found out that organizations and people that benefit from USAID funds react with a remarkable intensity and consistency regarding the poor organizational culture and high level of distrust in USAID. These shortfalls are the result of underperformances on the ground leading to insignificant impact among the people it intends to assist. They develop programs that are fundamentally out of touch with local processes that can necessitate change. Due to the inflexibility of the programs, they fail to adapt to changing circumstances. In many cases, the USAID programs are replicated from one national context to another without taking regard of underlying issues that may hamper their effective implementation. Critics have also acknowledged the impressive performance by USAID. They assert that in many situations, USAID focused on good areas. Because of this focus, it had its programs flowing in an orderly manner and ultimately embraced the important ingredients in the process of democratization. The relationship between USAID and partner organizations has not been cordial, owing to the bureaucratic juggernaut that stand on the way of the implementation of programs. Proposals take too long to materialize which fundamentally slows down progress of programs. Conclusion Despite USAID, giant international network, there still exist pertinent challenges that threaten its existence. The management of USAID should move with speed to clear the bureaucracy in its operations and increase the efficiency of service delivery. Transparency and accountability should be enhanced within all ranks of USAID to increase public trust and confidence in its mission around the globe. References List Caroll, T. 2006. 'Civil Society and Development: Normative, Theoretical and Practical Considerations', in Huque and Zafarullah (eds). International Development Governance. 237-251 Clark, J. 1995. Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations. Earthscan, Chaps. 3-4. Clarke, G. and Thomas, A. 2006. ‘non-governmental Organisations, Civil Society, and Development Governance’, in Huque, A.S. and Zafarullah, H. (eds) International Development Governance. Chap. 23. Ebrahim, A. 2003: Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World development, 31(5) Hilhorst, 2003. The Real World of Non-Governmental Organizations, Zed Books. Korten, D.C. 1990. Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and Global Agenda, Kumarian Press, Chap. 1-2 Milton, D. et al. 2007. ‘Reclaiming Development? NGOs and Challenge of Alternatives’, World Development, (35(10): 1699-1720 Mudacumura, G.M. 2004. 'The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in Rural Development,' in Mudacumura and Haque (eds.). Handbook of Development Policy. 357-369 Szporluk, M. 2009. A Framework for Understanding Accountability of International NGOs and Global Good Governance, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 16(1) Turner, M. and Hulme, D. 1997. Governance, Administration and Development chap. 9 Read More