🔍 Honey, I shrunk the NGO

I had the fortune to speak alongside Rakesh at this year’s On Think Tanks conference (on how to get policy unstuck, of course). His contributions were a conference highlight. Anyone who stands up in front of a room full of think tankers and tells them to stop thinking (!) is worth hearing out.

The three things I took away from his Policy Unstuck interview:

1. Fuzzy goals are not just a sign of poor management, but a failure of moral responsibility.

2. Policy is a means to an end. Make sure you are clear on the end you are striving for, and critically assess whether policy is the right instrument to realise it.

3. Unrestricted funding is the reward of strategic coherence, not its cause.

Let me know what you think.

Tom

Policy is not the be all and end all

Getting the policy right is really important, but it's maybe 10% of the work. Getting the implementation and execution right is 90%.

Implementation is not about just following the blueprint. It is a complex, intellectual challenge. Getting to things like a shared clarity of purpose, aligning incentives, establishing trust and relational accountability is hard. The design of execution, well beyond policy, really matters.

When we become members of the fundamentalist church of policy, we fall into the trap of thinking “good stuff is not happening because we do not have the right policy”. We make the assumption that the lack of a good policy is the core problem, when the core problem may be something else, like why the issue is not politically salient.

The importance of people-level outcomes

If we make policy reform the end goal, then we can bang on endlessly at something that may not be ultimately effective, and we have no way of checking ourselves. 

The right thing to focus on is a meaningful or measurable difference in people’s lives. That allows us to test whether our assumptions and actions on what needs to be done are correct, and adjust as we go along. For example, if children in care are being abused, new policies may not help if the true problem is under-resourced institutions, corrupt leadership, or demotivated staff. 

So make the outcome–in this case that all children in care settings are safe–our goal. And then work backwards from that goal to devise and prioritise our actions, of which policy reform may or may not be a critical part.

The folly of fuzzy ambition

If we have fuzzy goals, the likelihood is that we'll do fuzzy things and not deploy our talent and energy and resources in the most effective way. 

Defining clear outcomes is not about being finicky. It is first and foremost a moral responsibility, because how we frame the goal will shape what we prioritise and do, and how we measure progress. Clear outcomes help us be accountable. 

For example, we could succeed at a goal of “kids should be in school” and still fail the kids. They could all be in school and still not learn to read and count, or experience violence and bullying. A better goal would be something like “all children in third grade should be able to read and count, and be safe”.

To have this level of strategic clarity and focus, we need to safeguard our independence. That means no longer begging for support from donors. No longer twisting ourselves into pretzels to fit their whims, but instead persuade them to fit our goals. 

Unrestricted funding is earned 

First, make our work of really high quality. Focus on tangible human-level impact with clear outcomes and an evidence-informed approach. Explain how we are going to measure and adapt. Have clear governance and accountability mechanisms. Getting this right is deep work, but it is worth it because it is more likely to produce work that commands respect.

Second, less is more. One cannot do deep work on too many things. When we do too much, we become beholden to continuous fundraising and maintaining staffing, rather than focusing on impact. We must step back, reflect on the outcomes that matters most, and pare down. The quality of attention one can bring to a task is probably the most underrated quality of success. 

Third, develop Board-approved policies and practices for funder relations. This should cover how and why we will:

• only raise funds for work that is consistent with our values, mission and strategy;

• define contract and reporting terms;

• avoid dependence on single donors–and not have too many small donors;

• and set boundaries on board seats, site visits, and the like.

These policies provide a backbone to navigate power relations, and far too many NGOs do not have anything of the sort.

Beware the self-fulfilling prophecy

I’ve had colleagues hear this advice about setting boundaries with funders, smile, and shake their heads. Many think tank and NGO leaders do not believe that they can set the funding agenda. They feel the power dynamic is fixed.

If we believe it can never happen, it won’t. There was a time when people believed that women would never have the vote, or that gay people would never be able to get married. Things are impossible until they are not, and the difference is people working to make it happen despite the odds.

Shrinking to grow

One of the healthiest things we can do is to turn down money that doesn’t align with our values or approach. Yes, it may mean needing to cut activities and let go of staff.

Part of the journey is recognising that we might need to get smaller to achieve the strategic coherence that is necessary for focus and impact. The point is not the size of our organisation or budget, but the clarity of our purpose and the meaningfulness of our impact. 

Turning down money from a donor on principle can set the foundation for long-term success. It can signal to donors that we stand for something, that we care more about the necessary conditions for impact over the quantum of funding, that we are not desperate or ‘money-hungry’, that we expect to be treated as equal partners, that we have integrity. Our reputation goes up. 

And, besides, when we deal with funders with this posture, it can feel delicious.

Thank you to the 81 Policy Unstuck readers who have referred a friend or colleague.