Measuring impacts of nongovernment organizations’ work in communities: Individual vs. family beneficiaries
Several years ago, I had a conversation with a former long-time leader of an association of families and beneficiaries of a foreign nongovernment organization (NGO) in a barangay in Bicol.
The foreign NGO implemented sectoral projects on education, health and nutrition, livelihood, environmental sanitation, and community development. I was one of the NGO’s technical staff in the mid-’80s and ’90s. It was in another development era, which was a mix of dole-out and welfare approaches. Climate change, human rights, food security, etc., were unheard of. The same with digitalization, artificial intelligence, etc. Attendance and participation were interchangeable, which was how I characterized that period.
I immediately posted the salient points of that conversation on Facebook. The succeeding paragraphs, most of which are cautionary tales, are drawn from that FB post with a little tweaking for context, clarity, and emphasis.
A beneficiary is expected to benefit from the short- and long-term results of a development program, project, and policy. In making both ends meet, a beneficiary is better than a nonbeneficiary, but not for a long time. Not long after the NGO’s departure, the beneficiaries are virtually back to their default survival mode. In the end, a beneficiary and a nonbeneficiary are in the same boat, especially in times of financial shock because of calamities, etc. This is the case even if a beneficiary was provided a new house, a small business grant, training, etc.
But family beneficiaries are not back to square one. They can better understand local and national issues, and how their lives are affected. Women, especially mothers, have increased their knowledge of proper health and nutrition practices. Parents put a premium on the education of their children, and go to great lengths to finance their schooling. They know how to coordinate with the government to access resources and services. They have the capacity for collective actions. And they have easy access to schools, health clinics, etc. Several families have escaped from poverty even before the NGO’s phase-out. The children with adequate education have become overseas workers, government or private employees, small business owners, et al.
The foreign NGO provided scholarships for a college degree or a vocational course. They are thankful to the foreign NGO for helping to change their lives for the better. This suggests that educational assistance is the most beneficial because its impact is not only sustainable, but also life-changing.
And yet the rural poor have become poorer. This is regardless of whether they are former beneficiaries of an NGO or the government. Many of the children who have their own families are no better than their parents and forebears. The small landholdings they inherited have become less economically viable. And most of them have sold or pawned their farm lots and other inherited assets. Some have moved to cities, particularly to Metro Manila. But without a college education, they have no full-time jobs and live in squatter areas.
There must be “redevelopment” to sustain development gains after the phase-out of an NGO, or the efforts go down the drain. A second time around, say after five years, would be a good time to apply relevant lessons learned and good practices for sustainability reasons. This must be a key feature of the strategic directions of an NGO. At the outset, an NGO must know where to work, with whom, how, for how long and for whom, and why. Plus, how does one measure long-term results or impact? Skip individual beneficiaries and go for family beneficiaries. When a family member makes good in life because of a development intervention by an NGO, the whole family, in fact, becomes the beneficiary.
Nono Felix,
[email protected]
