If donors are very honest with themselves, they will acknowledge that their desire for credit may be greater than that for impact. Otherwise, they would not be competing with their implementing partners for publicity. They would be satisfied with the success of their implementing partner as being their success too, by implication. I have seen these all too familiar dynamics between donors and in-country implementing partners.
The story often unfolds something like this:
A donor will award an implementing partner with a grant and budget heavily for branded assets like office equipment, pull-up and teardrop banners, and cars, and a good amount of money will be allocated to communication campaigns to broadcast the project such as TVCs (television commercials) and media features. The project name will be catchy, usually a word or phrase in the local dialect. It is usually hard to reconcile the brand of the growing implementing partner with that of the highly publicized project they are coordinating. In no time, the organization starts being referred to as “those *insert project name* people.”
At the time when things are still sweet and money is still coming in, this does not seem problematic. Besides, the implementing partner is grateful for the recognition and respect, however, it is presented. They may even decide to milk it. They also feel the need to please the very demanding donor, to whom they feel greatly indebted. All hands are needed on deck to implement this project, compile reports, and participate in the back-and-forth correspondences on the recommended edits.
At this point, the project is the organization. They have no time and frankly, no motivation, to keep the other projects running. Towards the end of the project, the organization’s leadership starts to panic. They wonder what should be done next. They hope the donor agency will have another grant for a new project but also look for other grants elsewhere. Big grants. Nothing less than what they have grown accustomed to. They have bigger operational costs now. They were catapulted so far up, that it is hard to settle for anything less without feeling disgraced. Once the project ends and project assets are disposed of, they lose identity.
This blog is part of CDA’s From Where I Stand series, designed to listen to people most affected by aid as they explore and amplify their leadership experiences, stories, and lessons for the aid sector.
You must be logged in in order to leave a comment