Opinion Learning to ask

First,the term itself. If we refer to NGOs as a type of registration,let’s remember that this includes both large think-tanks that place their accounts before parliament and as the voluntary worker in a remote village. Giving total numbers of NGOs and total funding flows to the sector is entirely meaningless without disaggregation by size,location,type of activity. We need to distinguish between NGOs created by the government or the World Bank to implement development programmes — which do indeed receive millions of rupees — and truly autonomous,small and local initiatives. We,therefore,need to think of multiple ways,not a single way,of ensuring accountability; what we recommend for a large established NGO is likely to be very different from what we recommend for a newly-formed village group.

Second,it is not entirely correct to say that “we know very little about them” — or at least it poses the question of who the “we” is . Ask the funding agencies that make grants to small NGOs in remote parts of the country,ask the government or the World Bank. Ask the officers of the government posted in places where there are functioning NGOs. Ask people.

Third,it is suggested that we should know about their “structure,activities,sources of funding,and … how accountable they are to the people they represent”. On structure: most NGOs,the smaller ones that is,have no defined structure and it would be foolish to force them into one. NGOs are usually started by motivated people who are joined by a band of similarly motivated followers; there is little separation of roles or functions,there is little separation between work/ life,and it is precisely this messy structure that draws out the best in people. As the NGO grows in size — if it grows in size — structure develops and then,very often,the “NGO spirit” gets replaced by good managerial “organisation”. So: we have to find an umbrella for all of these stages.

On activities: well this is certainly known to the people who are doing them. But if NGOs depend on project funding,which comes for 2-3 years at a time,if donors keep redefining their “strategic goals” and their “organisational priorities”,it is hardly surprising that activities change accordingly,whether at the margin or substantially. Again,we have to find a way of documenting this constantly changing scenario. For government-funded NGOs,the activities,amounts,numbers to be targeted,are all specified in advance and cannot be easily changed. Sources of funding: again,always known,but let’s also recognise that there is a learning process involved in formal account-keeping and a tremendous shortage of accountants.

Finally the question of how accountable they are — why not ask people? Ordinary people generally know who is corrupt,whether it an NGO or an individual,but “we” seem to have no way to get the views of the ordinary citizen. It is also suggested that there should be “staff directories”. This is a hard one. Is it acceptable to say “there are 2-3 people who will stay with the organisation,others come and go?” In the absence of any core funding,or institutional support,NGOs have no option but to let people go when a project ends. Given the insecurities,barring those who find self-esteem and satisfaction in the work,others will leave for better-paid opportunities (usually with other NGOs or government programmes and missions). There is also a class of urban volunteers,often making very substantive contributions,who are truly passing through.

By all means,let us find ways of putting more information into the public domain,and figure out accountability systems that would work. In this debate,we need the views of funders,including the government; of a range of NGOs in different parts of the country; and,if possible,of people whose lives are touched by the work of NGOs.

The writer is the director of the Institute of Social Studies Trust,New Delhi. Views are personal