What Would Happen if All International Nongovernmental Organizations Disappeared Tomorrow?
Author: Kim Kucinskas
Don’t ask a question you aren’t ready to hear the answer to.
In May 2024, after two years of immersing myself in the world of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), engaging with international nongovernmental organization (INGO) leaders on how they should and could transform their organizations to be more equitable, relevant, and legitimate through the TIME initiative, it was time to ask the question: “What would happen if all INGOs disappeared tomorrow?”
Transforming INGO Models for Equity for SRHR (TIME) is a case study in action of shifting power. It provides a much-needed space for INGOs, civil society organizations (CSOs), and funders working in SRHR to explore – by assessing, preparing, and testing – how they might operate differently, together. TIME’s role is to document, connect the dots, and elevate opportunities for collective action.
More than 300 people from local and international organizations interested in reimagining the role of CSOS and INGOs in the SRHR ecosystem registered for the discussions, which were held in English with Spanish and French translation available.
The goal was to share the body of work that 18 INGO orgs had spent 12 months co-creating and invite feedback through polling questions asked during the discussions. Was our thinking sound? Would our findings resonate? Were the tools practical enough?
What we learned
Language matters. INGOs can’t grapple with the big ideas required for transformative change if the words we use are not clear. Some words in today’s discourse are used interchangeably, inconsistently, and as shorthand for complex and nuanced concepts, leading to miscommunication and misunderstanding.
40.8% of participants indicated that the term they use the most is locally-led development (LLD).
This aligned with the results of a TIME working group on language, which looked at five terms that are often used interchangeably and determined that LLD should be the primary term used as shorthand to mean a need to design program/research with local experts and stakeholders. While the working group determined that a term like localization is a USAID-specific policy concept and power shift is best used when talking about broad systemic shifts, locally led development can be used when discussing aspirational goals for how best to work within current systems to shift power, AND as aspirational goals for transforming our sector and changing systems.
INGOs will need to change their structures.
There was consensus amongst the INGO executives that convened in 2023 on this point, and those in the consultation calls agreed. 88.6% of those polled said that INGOs need to change their structures.
But how should they change?
We asked the question and received insightful responses that largely aligned with the in-depth discussions INGO leaders had held during their working group meetings on reimagining the INGO.
- INGOs need new alliances and ways of working with local partners. This includes who they partner with and how they collaborate.
- INGOs need to take an ecosystem approach. This may mean reducing INGO footprints by increasing the ability of local partners to take up more space.
- INGOs need to engage in institutional change. This means paying attention to the process, being reflective and deliberate in daily practices, and institutional changes. It means being honest about possibly having to make some tough decisions. It means making meaningful steps to decentralize budgetary and decision-making authority, including rethinking where leadership sits.
- INGOs need to work on changing their mindsets. This includes listening more and asking the hard questions. It also means understanding and respecting local contexts, and shifting prevailing mindsets that assume that “technical expertise” only comes from the ”global north.”
- INGOs will require funding to make substantive changes.
INGOs still have a role to play.
Our final question was “What would happen if all SRHR INGOs sunsetted [closed]?”
In general, the responses we received aligned with role changes that INGO executives had anticipated during multiple working group sessions in 2023.
Participant responses indicated that if SRHR INGOs closed, there would be these results:
- Less coordination, cross-sharing, connections, and learning. (TIME has predicted that INGO roles as critical connectors will have increased relevance.)
- Donor paralysis or a requirement that funding mechanisms change. (TIME has predicted that INGO roles as Intermediaries will have increased relevance, at least in the short term.)
- Less SRHR funding. (TIME has predicted that INGO roles as resource mobilizers will have continued relevance.)
- A gap in necessary global advocacy for SRHR and more unmet SRHR needs. (TIME has predicted that INGO roles as advocates will have continued relevance)
On the other hand, some participants indicated that there wouldn’t be much difference in the absence of INGOs. There might even be increased local autonomy and stronger programming.
In the end, it all depends on how INGOs transform their roles and structures in the sector. If done right – if mechanisms are put in place for local and national actors to work with funders and shape agendas, if formal and informal networks are rebuilt, if sustainable transfers of resources and relationships are made – then programming would continue and local NGOs would fill in the roles. If not done right, as one participant put it, there will be a “total collapse of gains made.”
Join us on the journey. Sign up for quarterly newsletters and updates on TIME (make sure to select the TIME newsletter in humentum’s signup form).