(1) Donor fatigue is occurring as donor expectations rise while NGO performance is falling. Initially, donors had naive and trusting expectations but now impose more reporting and proof requirements. (2) Donors are holding back funds when NGOs cannot demonstrate visibility and impact of past funds. Richer NGOs market themselves better to maintain donor relationships. (3) Donors now prefer NGOs that can promise visibility and show impact, so funding is shifting to richer NGOs that can better market themselves.
2. Key trends in development .
(1) Donor Fatigue Donor expectations rising when NPO performance is falling
Donor Expectations
Falling NGO Rising donor
Initially na誰ve,
capacity expectations
trusting NPOs will deliver;
impose few reporting and
proof requirements.
Sullivan Code made CSI
cosmetic; no investment in
back-office design, funding
Increasing donor field-office delivery instead.
frustration and
NPO Performance
NGO anxiety at
Initially well-run,
cross-over
in regulated environment,
then heavily funded from
abroad with weak auditing,
with little investment in
institutional capacity,
loss of talent and diversion
Rising social Falling NGO of money since 1994
needs performance
70s 80s 90s 00s
2
3. Key trends in development .
(2) Downspend Donors hold back when NGOs cant deliver
Richer NGOs
Richer NGOs
Have the resources to
market
market themselves and
themselves well
maintain relationships with
donors.
Income Donors struggle to
see visibility and NPO Performance
impact for their Initially well-run,
funds in regulated environment,
then heavily funded from
abroad with weak auditing,
with little investment in
institutional capacity,
loss of talent and diversion
Poorer NGOs market of money since 1994
themselves poorly
Number 3
4. Key trends in development .
(3) Flight to Quality Donors prefer NGOs who promise visibility and show impact
Richer NGOs
Richer NGOs
Have the resources to
market
market themselves and
themselves well
maintain relationships with
donors.
Income Donors shift to
richer NGOs NPO Performance
Initially well-run,
in regulated environment,
then heavily funded from
abroad with weak auditing,
with little investment in
institutional capacity,
loss of talent and diversion
Poorer NGOs market of money since 1994
themselves poorly
Number 4