NGO_Funds_for

The main problem of discussing NGO funding comes form the fact that it is so diverse, and it is not possible to paint all with the same brush. While overall a larger part of the NGOs are very genuine, and really make a lot of effort, there will always be many rotten apples, which will spoil the name of all concerned. But here will not talk about these rotten apples.

Those whom we call donor NGOs are actually money raisers, who raise money from the people. In most cases they get matching or proportionate grants from their respective governments (which is again peoples’ money). While there is a large number of such donor NGOs, they have been some consolidation among them, and there are a few who become fairly large. While most of these are denominational entities like World Vision, Or Maa Amritamaya, other non-church formations like Oxfam, Action Aid also.

Administration and incidental expenditure is supposed to be at a certain level, but these are often mis-classified. Further, if for some reason future installments are suspended, the administration and incidental expenditure usually continues at the same absolute level, thereby increasing the percentage on administrative and incidental expenses.

The method of disbursal and decision making is basically, local NGOs, or local offices of the Donor NGOs submit project proposals and budgets. While these generally follow the overall plan or direction of the Donor, there is lots of scope for innovation, and alternatives, particularly at a local level.

The Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) the umbrella group of 12 aid agencies, said that. Over £350 million was donated to the DEC Tsunami Earthquake Appeal, while a further £50 million was donated direct to members.

In Mid 2006, the trustees of the DEC noted that DEC Appeal expenditure for the first six months of 2006 was behind budget.[i]

BRITISH charities admitted that they would struggle to spend the vast sums of money donated by the public to victims of the Asian tsunami. More than £365 million has been raised in individual donations to tsunami relief.[ii]

Millions of dollars in public donations to Asian tsunami victims will not be delivered for up to 10 years as Australian aid agencies shift from emergency relief to long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction of the devastated region. An Age survey of Australia's top six non-government aid agencies has also found their combined administrative costs on the tsunami appeal will soak up $21.2 million - or almost 9 per cent of their total funds raised. .[iii]

Actual expenditure of Action Aid in response to Tsunami for January to December 2005 is £10,849,749, which is 76% of the budget for the period. The budget for January to December 2005 was £14,237,997. [iv] By the end of March 2006, ActionAid had spent £7.1 million in India on tsunami projects.[v] Actual expenditure for January to October 2006 is £7,567,629, which is 61% of the budget for the period.[vi] This means even NGOs are unable to utilize money to the full extend. Planned expenditure for years 2005 - 2007 is £35,204,519 in total.[vii]

Many of us would tend to argue that NGOs are using private money and therefore we do not have as much of a right to determine how they use that money, as we have from Government funds. Over a period of time, NGO intervention has become institutionalized and central to the Recovery effort, that it is almost considered a part of the “public effort”. That is why we have a right to determine not just whether money has been mis-appropriated or mis-utilized but also the program and direction of the effort.

In fact NGOs, at least on paper give a lot f importance to transparency, community participation, and peoples’ involvement. It is therefore left to us to increase the level of participation.

There is another reason what we could consider NGO funds, as our own and our right. It comes from the understanding of humanity as a herd, which looks after its own. Thus in a pack of 6.7 billion human beings (June 2007) if 16,54130 people were affected by the Tsunami, 6.79 billion people were not, and their outpouring or contribution is a recognition of this fact.

There is also no mechanism to actually test whether the proposal and budgets, itself are appropriate and serve the function of long term reconstruction. This is mainly because agencies tend to go for quick fix, or definable projects. In the case of the Tsunami, the Tamil Nadu government acted quickly and issued guidelines at least as far as certain aspects of construction of permanent housing. So there is some kind of standardization of benefits in terms of area, and construction type. However there are tremendous problems in terms of infrastructure, like sanitation, water, community facilities. This was because it was generally understood that the State government would take care of it. The interface between the housing and the infrastructure however has not been worked out.