work. Dedicated and effective grassroots organizations have trouble differentiating themselves from superficial, media-savvy operations. Fraud and corruption abound, including sham projects receiving prestigious awards and multimillion-dollar grants. ² In theory, the vetting and monitoring process should be similar to what takes place in the corporate world, where investors and prospective shareholders regularly assess the financial performance of companies. Even this highly resourced and regulated relationship has experienced notable failures of oversight. For social investing, ensuring due diligence is made even more difficult by limited NGO resources and capacity and by the fact that there are many different ways of defining, measuring, and demonstrating impact.

The vision and mission of any given NGO usually emanates from its leadership, often dedicated professionals with strong ties to the community. Many NGOs face significant constraints in terms of technical expertise and management capacity, particularly beyond that leadership. Still, no matter how charismatic the head man or woman might be, the field staff is the glue that binds the NGO to the community. Field staff members are recruited from villages and have a thorough understanding of the local culture and context. This is not to say their jobs are easy, anything but. Field staff must travel from village to village using unreliable public transportation or walking, even as they build and maintain relationships with local residents.

NGOs are usually organized around a specific development purpose and infused with optimism, idealism, and institutional legitimacy, making them effective change agents. On the other hand, local people may be struggling just to make ends meet. One of the field staff’s many tasks is to translate the organization’s mission into community terms and encourage its participation. Fostering strong communication with the community is essential for ensuring that projects make progress and address real needs.

 

system Requirements The basic requirements for NGO information systems are similar to those for other organizations. Field staff mem-

technologies as
simple as a digital
camera have been
found effective
for ensuring
accountability.

bers collect data using paper forms and PCs or other computing devices. This data is aggregated in a database or manual paper file. From there, it is processed by either a computer or human to generate reports useful for communicating with management, staff, beneficiaries, outside parties, and funding sources. To fulfill their objectives, NGOs must address a number of information and communication needs:

Operations. They must coordinate the operations associated with their activities. As an example, for an agricultural cooperative, quality control, procurement, processing, and delivery must all be part of their systems and processes. For those NGOs working in microfinance, loan payments must be collected, documented, and deposited in a bank. Even if a CBO is nominally in charge of these processes, unless it has sufficient scale and capacity, it often needs the assistance of a supporting NGO and its field staff;

Training and monitoring staff. NGO field staff members operate in far-flung areas with limited supervision from management. They often assist and even manage CBO operations. They are the source of feedback from the community, including problems, needs, and results of ongoing efforts. Field staff must be trained to execute these responsibilities and monitored to ensure they do not cheat, shirk, or introduce bias. Given their low pay and limited training, the difficulty of traveling in rural areas, and opportunities to leverage their NGO affiliation, this is not easily done. However, technologies as simple as a digital camera have been found effective for ensuring accountability ;

5

Documenting results. Most staff data-collection activity is for documenting the results of NGO activities. The data could be used for internal monitoring and learning but is more often motivated by the reporting demands of funders. Traditionally, the funders request quantitative indicators (such as increased income, loan repayment rate, or number of people treated or vaccinated). Because these indicators favor preordained and externally determined metrics of success, more community-driven ways of measuring results have also been developed. One such method asks beneficiaries to report the “most significant change” associated with an