Insights from Qorras’ institutional partnerships with (I)NGOs (2019–2023)
Read the open letter here.
Executive summary
Based on Qorras’ experiences over the past four years, the open letter re-examines the conditions under which partnerships between local groups and (I)NGOs could be beneficial. We share insights from this process of self-assessment hoping to benefit other locally-based, community-driven, grassroots and non-grassroots, groups and organizations of different structures and scales, who may face similar questions or situations as they carry out their work. At the same time, the text addresses institutions looking to localize, include, partner or collaborate with local grassroots groups, and those who support and resource such approaches, with the aim to move towards healthier dynamics and mutually beneficial relationships.
The first section examines factors that impact the relationships between (I)NGOs and local groups before their beginning, highlighting some of the consequences of donors seeking to localize projects by imposing that (I)NGOs partner with local groups in order to access funding. In it we discuss the frame of mind with which partnerships are apprehended, which partner is seen to benefit from them, the boundaries of capacity building, and the need for compromise in working towards relationships of mutual trust and accountability. The second section addresses issues in the implementation of the project. Here, we focus on how organizational hierarchies and individual positionalities result in different conceptions and attitudes towards risk, and discuss some of the effects of corporate practices on community dynamics. In the third and final section, we lay out how accountability is understood and practiced within partnerships between (I)NGOs and local groups in the absence of the state. We discuss how procedural requirements are at times an instrument for oppressing the local partner, and at other times trivialized by the (I)NGO, when they could constitute dynamic and transparent tools for diagnosing and improving the relationship.
To conclude, and as an invitation to engage and collaborate, we share preliminary thoughts on ways to move forward. Hereafter, we have compiled the main points made in the text in the form of recommendations addressing (I)NGOs, donors/funders, and local groups.
Recommendations
To (I)NGOs:
- Ask yourself if you are ready to partner with a local/grassroots group and what this could imply on your own ways of work, internal policies and staff.
- Engage in conversations with local groups outside of projects and evaluations: work to understand your potential partners’ language, values and ways of working for what they are; work to understand what mutually beneficial, accountable partnerships should be.
- Don’t be a quasi-donor, as you don’t have institutional donor processes. Don’t be an activist, as you are too reliant on development funds. Position yourself clearly and communicate your position clearly.
- Be transparent about the sources of and reasons for requirements.
- Work to take on the burden of reporting and administration, as you take on the largest portion of funds too. Do not trivialize reporting, use it to listen to your partners’ feedback and use it to improve the partnership as it unfolds.
- Give your partner the benefit of the doubt and propose proactive solutions to obstacles.
- Trust your partner’s risk assessments and mitigation measures for safeguarding the community.
- Mitigate high staff turnover by finding ways to ensure continuity and institutional memory across the different phases of the partnership.
- In evaluations and community consultation, prioritize quality (in-depth long-term relationships with committed and engaged partners) over quantity (large focus groups and public questionnaires).
- Capacity building needs to be self determined by those receiving it.
To donors:
- Rethink conditional funding and how its current setup tips the balance of power even further in favor of (I)NGOs at the expense of local/grassroots partners
- In your evaluations, make efforts to hear from local groups. Be more hands-on with sub-grantees more generally during implementation, but also outside of grantmaking and pitching.
- Adapt your requirements to the context of implementation and to the structures of organizations. To effectively include local groups, make provisions for their ways of work and ensure these provisions are transmitted to the (I)NGO partner.
- Continue to support and increase your core, flexible support to local groups. Subgrants and partnerships might make local groups’ annual budgets seem larger, but they allow us to do very little, in very little time and with large burdens on our team members. Sufficient core funding would allow greater autonomy, efficacy and flexibility for local groups.
- Support your grantees in accessing core funds from other donors through facilitating donor-activist spaces.
To local groups:
- Trust your instincts and speak out when something isn’t working in the partnership. Take reporting as an opportunity to document all aspects of the partnership and to voice concerns.
- When in doubt, the community’s safety and wellbeing comes first. You have the right to refuse.
- Conduct your own assessments and evaluations of partnerships.
- Build more intentional and intersectional solidarity with each other. Strategize together on fundraising and long-term planning to undo some of the competitiveness created between us by funding structures.
