Skip to main content

INTRAC’s Experience of Working with International NGOs on Aid Withdrawal and Exit Strategies from 2011 to 2016

This article has been updated

Abstract

In recent years, the international development sector has been affected by major new dynamics in the global political economy, with significant shifts in the aid policies of many donor agencies and changes in funding patterns for recipient countries. This article offers insights into what researchers at INTRAC—a not-for-profit organisation which provides capacity building support to different types of civil society organisation around the world—have learned about the interests, priorities and strategies of international NGOs (INGOs) in relation to aid withdrawal and exit processes based on its experiences of promoting debate and supporting organisations over several years. We identify gaps in the evidence base, including the experience of partners, and changes needed in the policy and practice of INGOs to ensure that responsible exit planning becomes the norm rather than an exception.

Résumé

Le secteur du développement international est depuis quelques années influencé par les nouvelles dynamiques de l’économie politique mondiale, entraînant d’importantes modifications des politiques d’aide de plusieurs organismes donateurs et des modèles de financement des pays bénéficiaires. Le présent article donne un aperçu de ce que les chercheurs d’INTRAC — un organisme sans but lucratif offrant du soutien en matière de développement des capacités à divers types d’organismes de société civile dans le monde — ont appris à propos des intérêts, priorités et stratégies des ONG internationales (ONGI) relativement aux processus de retrait d’aide et de sortie, le tout appuyé sur son expérience en tant que militant de nombreux organismes au fil des ans. Nous identifions des manques à gagner dans les données de base, dont l’expérience des partenaires et les changements requis en matière de politiques et de pratiques des ONGI pour assurer que la planification responsable des retraits devienne une norme plutôt qu’une exception.

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten Jahren war der internationale Entwicklungssektor von großen neuen Kräften in der globalen politischen Wirtschaft betroffen, wobei bedeutende Veränderungen in der Hilfspolitik zahlreicher Geberinstitutionen und Änderungen in den Finanzierungsmustern für Empfängerländer zu sehen sind. Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Einblick darüber, was die Forscher bei INTRAC — einer gemeinnützigen Organisation, die verschiedenen Arten von Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen in der ganzen Welt Unterstützung bei der Kapazitätsentwicklung anbietet — in ihren langjährigen Erfahrungen in der Dialogförderung und der Unterstützung von Organisationen über die Interessen, Prioritäten und Strategien internationaler NROs bezüglich der Einstellung von Hilfeleistungen und der Exit-Prozesse gelernt haben. Wir identifizieren Lücken in der Evidenzgrundlage, einschließlich der Erfahrung der Partner, sowie notwendige Änderungen in den Richtlinien und Praktiken der internationalen NROs, die sicherstellen, dass eine verantwortliche Exit-Planung grundsätzlich und nicht nur in Ausnahmefällen stattfindet.

Resumen

En años recientes, el sector internacional de desarrollo se ha visto afectado por nuevas dinámicas importantes en la economía política mundial, con cambios significativos en las políticas de ayuda de muchas agencias donantes y cambios en los patrones de financiación para los países receptores. El presente artículo ofrece percepciones sobre lo que los investigadores de INTRAC – una organización sin ánimo de lucro que proporciona soporte para la creación de capacidad a diferentes tipos de organizaciones de la sociedad civil en todo el mundo – han aprendido sobre los intereses, prioridades y estrategias de las ONG internacionales (INGO, por sus siglas en inglés) en relación con la retirada de la ayuda y los procesos de salida basados en sus experiencias de promoción del debate y de apoyo a las organizaciones a lo largo de varios años. Identificamos brechas en la base empírica, incluida la experiencia de los socios, y los cambios necesarios en la política y la práctica de las INGO para garantizar que una planificación de salida responsable se convierta en la norma en lugar de en una excepción.

Chinese

近些年来,国际发展领域受到了全球政治经济新动态的影响,且许多捐助机构的援助政策发生了巨大的变化,接受援助的国家的融资模式也在发生变化。本文详述了为全球各类民间社会组织提供能力建设支持的非营利组织INTRAC的研究人员基于多年来推动辩论和支持组织的经验,针对取消和退出援助机制,对国际非政府组织(INGO)利益、关切和战略的见解。我们识别证据基础的差异,其中包括,合作伙伴的经历以及国际非政府组织政策与实践所需的变化,旨在确保合格的退出计划成为一种规范,而非一种特例。

Arabic

في السنوات الأخيرة، تأثر قطاع التنمية الدولية بالديناميكيات الجديدة الرئيسية في الإقتصاد السياسي العالمي، مع حدوث تحولات كبيرة في سياسات المعونة في العديد من الوكالات المانحة والتغيرات في أنماط التمويل للبلدان المتلقية. تقدم هذه المقالة نظرة عميقة حول ما قام به الباحثون في (INTRAC) - منظمة غير هادفة للربح والتي تقدم الدعم لبناء القدرات لأنواع مختلفة من منظمات المجتمع المدني حول العالم - تعلمت عن مصالح المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs) الدولية(INGOs) ، أولوياتها وإستراتيجياتها فيما يتعلق للمساعدة في عمليات إنسحاب المساعدة والخروج إستنادا” إلى تجاربها في تشجيع النقاش ودعم المنظمات على مدى عدة سنوات. نحن نحدد الثغرات في قاعدة الأدلة، بما في ذلك خبرة الشركاء، والتغييرات المطلوبة في سياسة وممارسات المنظمات الغير حكومية الدولية (INGOs) لضمان أن يصبح التخطيط المسؤول للخروج هو القاعدة وليس الإستثناء.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Change history

  • 10 May 2018

    The PDF version of this article was reformatted to a larger trim size.

Notes

  1. In 2011, INTRAC’s NGO Research Programme included the following organisations: Christian Aid, Cordaid, DanChurchAid, ICCO, Norwegian Church Aid and Save the Children Denmark.

  2. WWF-UK is an independent conservation organisation (see: http://www.wwf.org.uk/).

  3. Action Learning Sets (ALS) are a widely used method under Action Learning that help individuals to develop critical reflection. By jointly engaging in cycles of planning, acting, reflecting and learning, researchers and practitioners learn from their actions and experiences and implement changes to organisational and individual practices based on this learning (see Djamankulova et al. 2010).

References

  • Abong. (2014). Como as Organizações da Sociedade Civil sustentam suas atividades -e porque isso é fundamental para o Brasil. Sao Paolo: Observatorio da Sociedade Civil and Abong.

    Google Scholar 

  • AbouAssi, K. (2014). Get money get involved? NGO’s reactions to donor funding and their potential involvement in the public policy processes. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 968–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, J. A., Glennie, J., & Sumner, A. (2014). Recipients and contributors: Middle income countries and the future of development cooperation. DESA Working Paper No. 135. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

  • Alter, K., Shoemaker, P., Tuan, M., & Emerson, J. (2001). When is it time to say goodbye? Exit strategies and venture philanthropy funds. Virtue Ventures, Social Venture Partners and The Roberts Foundation.

  • American Red Cross. (2010). Sustainability and exit planning: Guidance and lessons learned. Tsunami recovery programme. Washington, DC: American Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arhin, A. (2016). Advancing post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals in a changing development landscape: Challenges of NGOs in Ghana. Development in Practice, 26, 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arhin, A., Adam, M.-A. S., & Akanbasiam, A. C. (2015). The state of civil society sustainability in Ghana: Striving, surviving or thriving? Accra: WACSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, N., & Hulme, D. (2012). The role of NGOs and civil society in development and poverty reduction. BWPI Working Paper 171. Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute.

  • Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development, 66, 707–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baobab. (2015). Civil society aid trends. Baobab Briefing No 3, January 2015. http://www.baobab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BBAidTrends2015.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2016.

  • Beauclerk, J., Pratt, B., & Judge, R. (2010). Civil society in action: Global case studies in a practice-based framework. Oxford: INTRAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond. (2015). Fast forward: The changing role of UK-based INGOs. London: Bond.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, V., Harris-Curtis, E., Padrao, L., & Tanner, M. (2004). Autonomy or dependence: Case studies of North-South NGO partnerships. Oxford: INTRAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cekan, J. (2016). What happens after the project ends? Lessons from post-project sustained impact evaluations (Part 1). Valuing Voices, 13 February 2016. http://valuingvoices.com/what-happens-after-the-project-ends-lessons-from-post-project-sustained-impact-evaluations-part-1/. Accessed October 12, 2016.

  • Cekan, J., & Zivetz, L. (2016). Participation by all: The key to sustainability of CRS/Niger’s food security project. Valuing Voices, 13 April 2016. http://valuingvoices.com/blog/. Accessed October 13, 2016.

  • CIVICUS. (2016). State of Civil Society Report 2016. Johannesburg: CIVICUS.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIVICUS and the International Civil Society Centre. (2014). Partnership principles for cooperation between local, national and international civil society organisations. Berlin: International Civil Society Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2016). Understanding sustainability: A post-closure evaluation of VSO’s work in Sri Lanka. ONTRAC No. 61. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Clark, J., & Kuma, A. (2016). Post closure evaluation of VSO’s work in Cameroon. Evaluation report. London: VSO.

  • CONCORD. (2016). AidWatch report 2016. Brussels: CONCORD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, N., & Sankar, M. (2006). A practice review of UNESCO’s exit and transition strategies. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djamankulova, K., Temirova, N., & Sobirdjonova, M. (2010). Using Action Learning Sets methodology in an NGO capacity building programme. Praxis Note No. 53. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Edwards, M. (2016). What’s to be done with Oxfam?, openDemocracy, 01 August 2016. https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/michael-edwards/what-s-to-be-done-with-oxfam. Accessed August 26, 2016.

  • Elbers, W. (2012). The partnership paradox: Principles and practice in North-South NGO relationships. Ph.D. thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University.

  • Fowler, A. (2000a). Partnerships—Negotiating relationships: A resource for non-governmental development organisations. Occasional Paper Series No. 32. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Fowler, A. (2000b). Beyond partnership: Getting real about NGO relationships in the aid system. IDS Bulletin, 31, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, A. (2016). Non-governmental development organisations’ sustainability, partnership, and resourcing: Futuristic reflection on a problematic trialogue. Development in Practice, 26, 569–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A., Greenblott, K., & Joubert, E. (2005). What we know about exit strategies: Practical guidance for developing exit strategies in the field. A product of the C-SAFE regional learning spaces initiative. Gauteng, South Africa.

  • GrantCraft. (2007). The effective exit: Managing the end of a funding relationship. New York: The Foundation Centre and the European Foundation Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayman, R. (2012). Aid withdrawal, partnership and CSO sustainability in a time of global economic change. Workshop conclusions and moving forward. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Hayman, R. (2015). NGOs, aid withdrawal and exit strategies. Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik, 31, 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayman, R. (2016). Unpacking civil society sustainability: Looking back, broader, deeper, forward. Development in Practice, 26, 670–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayman, R., James, R., Popplewell, R., & Lewis, S. (2016). Exit and sustainability: Lessons for practitioners. Special Series Paper No. 1. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Holloway, R. (1997). Exit strategies: Transitioning from international to local NGO leadership. Washington, DC: Pact Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iles, K. (2015). Sri Lanka post-closure evaluation report. London: VSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • INTRAC. (1992). INTRAC 1st Annual Report. Oxford: INTRAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • INTRAC. (2011). Civil society at a new frontier: Challenges and opportunities presented by economic growth. INTRAC 20th Anniversary Conference. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • INTRAC. (2016). Post-closure evaluation: An indulgence or a valuable exercise? ONTRAC No. 61. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • James, R. (1994). Strengthening the capacity of Southern NGO partners. Occasional Paper Series No. 5. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • James, R. (2014). Strategic funerals in capacity building, INTRAC, 11 August 2014. https://www.intrac.org/strategic-funerals-capacity-building/. Accessed August 26, 2016.

  • James, R., Popplewell, R., & Bartlett, J. (2015). Ending well. Longitudinal evaluation of EveryChild’s responsible exit process. Phase 1 interim report. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • James, R., Popplewell, R., Lewis, S., & Bartlett, J. (2016). Ending well. Longitudinal evaluation of EveryChild’s responsible exit process. Synthesis report. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Kepa. (2016). Annual report 2015. Helsinki: Kepa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khieng, S., & Dahles, H. (2014). Resource dependence and effects of funding diversification strategies among NGOs in Cambodia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 1412–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsbergen, S., Plaisier, C. (2016) Trust, courage and genuine curiosity: Conducting a post-closure sustainability study. ONTRAC No. 61. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Keystone Accountability. (2011). Keystone performance surveys. NGO partner survey 2010. Public report. London: Keystone Accountability.

  • Levinger, B., & McLeod, J. (2002). Hello, I must be going: Ensuring quality services and sustainable benefits through well-designed exit strategies. Newton: Education Development Center Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (2007). The management of non-governmental development organisations. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. (2016a). Developing a timeline for exit strategies: Experiences from an Action Learning Set with the British Red Cross, EveryChild, Oxfam GB, Sightsavers and WWF-UK. Praxis Paper 31. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Lewis, S. (2016b). Exploring the world of post-closure evaluation. ONTRAC No. 61. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Lewis, S., Boateng, A.-A., & Hayman, R. (2015). Building sustainability of civil society: Debates, challenges and moving forward. Oxford: INTRAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S., Buttner, G., Selliah, A., Edussuriya, K., Raharimanana, H., & Orengo, Y. (2017). What’s it like to be on the receiving end of exit? A partner and country office view. London: Bond.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, L. (2015). Working at the sharp end of programme closure: EveryChild’s responsible exit principles. Praxis Note 70. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • OECD. (2015). Development aid stability in 2014 but flows to poorest countries still falling. Detailed summary. Paris: OECD.

  • Popplewell, R., James, R., & Lewis, S. (2016). What remains: Programming for sustainability. Praxis Series Paper No. 1. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Pousadela, I. M., & Cruz, A. (2016). The sustainability of Latin American CSOs: Historical patterns and new funding sources. Development in Practice, 26, 606–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, B. (2009). How will the global recessions affect development? ONTRAC No. 43. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Pratt, B. (2010). Strategic issues facing NGOs into the foreseeable future. In A. Fowler & C. Malunga (Eds.), NGO management: The Earthscan companion. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, B. (2016). Special issue overview: Civil society sustainability. Development in Practice, 26, 527–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRIA, CDRA, PSO, INTRAC, EASUN, and ICD. (2012). Civil Society @ Crossroads: Shifts, challenges, options? Delhi: PRIA and Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Proscio, T. (2010). Winding down the Atlantic Philanthropies. The first eight years: 2001–2008. Durham, NC: Duke University.

  • Rogers, B. L., & Macias, K. E. (2004a). Program graduation and exit strategies: Title II program experiences and related research. Washington: FANTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, B. L., & Macias, K. E. (2004b). Program graduation and exit strategies: A focus on Title II food aid development programs. FANTA Technical Note No. 9. Washington: FANTA.

  • Rönngren, J. (2011). Making achievements last: Learning from exit experiences. Johanneshov: The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowsi, S. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: reconceptualising the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1515–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slob, A., & Jerve, A. M. (2008). Managing aid exit and transformation. Lessons from Bostwana, Eritrea, India, Malawi and South Africa. Synthesis report. Joint Donor Evaluation. Stockholm: Sida.

  • Squire, C. (2012). Partnerships and capacity building: A guide for small and diaspora NGOs. The peer learning programme for small and diaspora organisations. Oxford: INTRAC.

  • Tandon, R., & Brown, D. L. (2013). Civil societies at crossroads: Eruptions, initiatives, and evolution in citizen activism. Development in Practice, 23, 601–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. (2003). The partnering toolbook: An essential guide to cross-sector partnering. Oxford: The Partnering Initiative (IBLF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. (2005). The brokering guidebook: Navigating effective sustainable development partnerships. Oxford: The Partnering Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, O. E., Davies, T., Thrandardottir, E., & Keating, V. C. (2016). Understanding contemporary challenges to INGO legitimacy: Integrating top-down and bottom-up perspectives. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2764–2786.

  • WFP. (2003). Exit strategies for school feeding: WFP’s experience. Rome: WFP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggers, R. (2016). Action for children: A model for stimulating local fundraising in low- and middle-income countries. Development in Practice, 26, 619–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. (2016). Unintended consequences: DAC governments and shrinking civil society space in Kenya. Development in Practice, 26, 532–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF-UK. (2014). The role, development and delivery of successful exit strategies. Main report. Woking: WWF-UK.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the organisations and individuals whose experiences and reflections have contributed to and shaped INTRAC’s exploration of aid withdrawal to date. Thanks also to Christopher Pallas and Susan Appe for valuable comments on early versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Hayman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayman, R., Lewis, S. INTRAC’s Experience of Working with International NGOs on Aid Withdrawal and Exit Strategies from 2011 to 2016. Voluntas 29, 361–372 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9901-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9901-x

Keywords

  • Aid withdrawal
  • Civil society
  • Exit
  • International NGOs
  • Sustainability