Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
NPO PerformanceInitially well-run, in regulated environment, then heavily funded from abroad with weak auditing, with little investment in institutional capacity, loss of talent and diversion of money since 1994
Donor ExpectationsInitially naïve, trusting NPO’s will deliver; impose few reporting and proof requirements. Sullivan Code made CSI cosmetic; no investment in “back-office” design, funding field-office delivery instead. Increasing donor
frustration and NGO anxiety at cross-over
Falling NGO performance
Rising donor expectations
Rising social needs
Falling NGO capacity
70’s 80’s 90’s 00’s
Key trends in development ….(1) Donor Fatigue Donor expectations rising when NPO performance is falling
3
Key trends in development ….(2) Downspend Donors hold back when NGO’s can’t deliver
NPO PerformanceInitially well-run, in regulated environment, then heavily funded from abroad with weak auditing, with little investment in institutional capacity, loss of talent and diversion of money since 1994
Richer NGO’sHave the resources to market themselves and maintain relationships with donors.
Donors struggle to see visibility and impact for their funds
Poorer NGO’s market themselves poorly
Richer NGO’s market themselves well
Income
Number
4
Key trends in development ….(3) Flight to Quality Donors prefer NGO’s who promise visibility and show impact
NPO PerformanceInitially well-run, in regulated environment, then heavily funded from abroad with weak auditing, with little investment in institutional capacity, loss of talent and diversion of money since 1994
Richer NGO’sHave the resources to market themselves and maintain relationships with donors.
Donors shift to richer NGO’s
Poorer NGO’s market themselves poorly
Richer NGO’s market themselves well
Income
Number
