Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sometimes disagree with their funders’ accountability requirements; however, their dependence on the funders’ resources makes it difficult to express their disagreement. This dilemma for NGOs may keep funders from substantively holding NGOs to account and cause mission drift for the NGOs. This paper analyzes an in-depth case study of an understudied scenario: how a newly founded NGO engages with multiple funders with varying competence in accountability practices. By analyzing a Chinese NGO’s accountability relationships with its funders, we found that the NGO’s responses varied according to its organizational interests and how it perceived the funders’ competence. Better trust meant better compliance. Therefore, to secure compliance, it is important to enhance NGOs’ trust in funders’ competence. Based on the findings, we suggest that funders be more aware of NGOs’ agency, be ready to engage in ongoing collaborative learning with NGOs and align NGOs’ interests with the accountability requirements.

Nonprofit and voluntary associations have a long history of defending the rights of their members, clients, and the public. Despite a burgeoning literature on advocacy by nonprofit organizations, few studies attempt to answer a central question: what factors influence nonprofit success in achieving the changes they aim to affect? Using original data from nearly 400 US nonprofits, we examine the extent to which they were involved in changing public policy, the nature of this engagement, and advocacy activities, organizational characteristics and relationships with others associated with reported policy change. More than three quarters of respondents reported having enacted, stopped, or modified policy. Nonprofits more often reported proactively changing policy when working in partnership and reactively stopping or modifying policy when facing opposition groups. Providing expertise and attending meetings was associated with reported policy change, whereas placing opinion ads was not.

This paper examines the effects of shifts in “development discourse” on the behavior of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Drawing upon detailed case histories of two well-established NGOs in western India, it is demonstrated that (1) the case NGOs have been profoundly influenced by discourses prevailing during their initial, formative stages; (2) NGO behavior is subject to changes in global development discourses that are transmitted to them via a range of mechanisms including consultants, conditions of funding, and reporting requirements; and (3) these NGOs have been able to challenge and adapt certain discourses to suit their own needs and circumstances, sometimes even sparking wider structural change.

This article examines the sustainability strategy for local NGOs in Indonesia through empowering the urban middle class. Based on qualitative research in Makassar, the largest city in Eastern Indonesia, our study reveals that the decision to empower the urban middle class was made by leveraging collective consciousness and contextual mobilization. We argue that by targeting the urban middle class, local NGOs increase their sustainability by mobilizing internal funds from communities and gaining human resources that can continue their membership. This article reinforces the claim that NGOs that can choose issues aligned with their target groups’ interests tend to be more sustainable.

International advocacy strategies devised for the political environment in which World Bank policy is decided are often not suitable for advocacy on broader financial policy and trade issues. Advocacy in these “new” agendas challenges prevailing models, which depict NGOs as mobilizing powerful governments and international organizations to influence a government’s behavior. The patterns of international NGO political activity are diverse, sometimes restraining the power of international rules and authorities over individual governments, and require a new or broader model.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) experience financial challenges that hinder efforts to promote social change and development. Revenue diversification is one adaptive response to these challenges, yet there is a lack of evidence concerning the relationship between revenue diversification and financial vulnerability among NGOs in SSA. Using data from an online survey of NGOs (N = 170), we hypothesized that a greater number of revenue sources is associated with lower probability of financial vulnerability, while a greater level of dependence on international funding is associated with higher probability of financial vulnerability. Results from probit regression models controlling for organizational characteristics indicated partial support for hypotheses. Having four or more types of revenue was associated with 87% lower probability of financial vulnerability compared to having one type of revenue (p < 0.001). Also, NGOs with up to half of their budgets covered by international sources had 17% lower probability of financial vulnerability compared to NGOs with no international funding (p < 0.05). Implications for future research to further explore these relationships are discussed.

As many NGOs find themselves responding to the same crises, they have realized the potential benefits of coordinating their information and communication technology (ICT) activities—sharing satellite communications and internet access, sharing disaster assessment information—and have created cross-organizational coordination bodies. Coordination at the headquarters level across organizations has proven to be insufficient, and some bodies are now engaging ICT personnel in their field offices in coordination efforts. This case study presents the findings of one body’s field office coordination efforts among its ICT workers, where trust building through collaborative activities is revealed to be essential elements in successful coordination across organizations.

Drawing on the institutional sociology framework of coercive isomorphism, the study explores the effects of upward hierarchical accountability on the program outcomes of NGOs in Bangladesh. The study uses a qualitative case study method involving two NGOs. The findings from the case studies suggest that NGOs which depend on foreign funding spend more time and resources in fulfilling their upward hierarchical accountabilities compared to NGOs which are funded from their own sources. As a result, the accountability obligations of foreign-funded NGOs are not met as effectively as NGOs which are funded from their own sources.

Ample survey research and content analysis has established that NGO internet presence is qualitatively weak and characterized by the dominance of asymmetrical communication. We argue that the emergent communicative and social paradigm of on-line interaction forms what could be defined as a wicked problem. NGOs, seen as a ‘sender’ of information, may well face a crisis of accountability determined by the very nature of the media; whereas the NGOs’ ‘information receivers’ often are deprived of the very possibility of stakeholder relatedness. In the internet-based/on-screen ‘universe’, information and electronic flow are assumed to be continual, which supersedes the entity logic crucial to NGO accountability and legitimacy. In designing their social media presence, NGOs may, therefore, face an impossible challenge.

Informed by Stéphane Vial’s analysis of the nature of on-line interactive media, we evaluate these conundrums. Then, inspired by Lucas Introna and Fernando Ilharco, we question the dialogic potential to ‘screen-being’. While the shift from an ‘actor-centric’ to ‘flow-oriented’ paradigm of ‘screen-being’ is inherent to digital communication, it destabilizes the entity-grounded accountability of NGO legitimacy. Hence, we end with explicating the risks to dialogic relatedness of ‘sceen being’ for NGOs. By so doing, we challenge the oft vocalized perspective that NGOs ‘just’ have to increase their digital communications in order to improve their relations with various stakeholders.

Scholars have used varying terminology for describing non-state entities seeking to influence public policy or work with the EU’s institutions. This paper argues that the use of this terminology is not and should not be random, as different ‘frames’ come with different normative visions about the role(s) of these entities in EU democracy. A novel bibliometric analysis of 780 academic publications between 1992 and 2020 reveals that three frames stand out: The interest group frame, the NGO frame, as well as the civil society organisation frame; a number of publications also use multiple frames. This article reveals the specific democratic visions contained in these frames, including a pluralist view for interest groups; a governance view for NGOs as ‘third sector’ organisations, and participatory and deliberative democracy contributions for civil society organisations. The use of these frames has dynamically changed over time, with ‘interest groups’ on the rise. The results demonstrate the shifting focus of studies on non-state actors in the EU and consolidation within the sub-field; the original visions of European policy-makers emerging from the 2001 White Paper on governance may only partially come true.

Voluntary sector and non-profit studies require theoretical frameworks facilitating better understandings of what occurs on the ground. Following Lipsky’s (Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public service, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1980) formulation of street-level bureaucracies, scholars have emphasized workplace hierarchies, reproducing dichotomous ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ conceptualizations of practice which can obscure the full complexity of practitioners’ workplace relationships. In this paper, we offer a thematic model of (collective) action that centres the ‘division of labour’ across, and relations between, professional niches that are differentiated by their ‘helping’ orientations, workplace tasks, and responsibilities to service users rather than their organizational status or salaries. We mobilize qualitative research undertaken in the penal voluntary sectors of Canada and England to highlight the mutually constitutive efforts of frontline and management work with criminalized service users. Drawing on and extending Alinsky’s ‘river dilemma’, we conceptualize practice in the (penal) voluntary sector as organized according to the differing choices practitioners make about whom to ‘help’ and how to intervene, which have consequences for social policy, service delivery, and advocacy work.

This paper considers dangers and pitfalls associated with a range of oversight options and scenarios, including self-regulation, government regulation, donor monitoring and community participation. The paper outlines the blind spots and sources of potential bias associated with each of these oversight mechanisms. Examining the Ugandan case study we find that perceptions of corruption and ineffectiveness tarnished the reputation of the sector, but at this stage the proposed peer review mechanism and stricter government regulation are unlikely to improve NGO sector outcomes. Government regulation is anticipated to be ineffectual due to poor design and insufficient resource allocation, but both of these factors may be attributable to the underlying political motivations. Similarly, not much is expected from the peer review mechanism because participation is voluntary, offers few benefits and the list of guidelines is too long and contains too many vague and intangible quality standards. The paper argues for more empirical research to inform the design of oversight mechanisms and to monitor the impact of self-regulation and government regulation on the NGO sector. This may also help to expose and limit opportunistic interventions by government, often thinly concealed under the conceptual cloak of accountability and oversight.

NGOs are recognized as active participants in the policy process. There is general agreement that they are agenda setters and important actors in the framing of public issues. They are well-recognized providers of social services on behalf of, or in partnership with, private and public actors. Previous research demonstrates that the institutional context accounts for the extent of NGOs’ access to and influence over public policy making. Nonetheless, we know less about why there are important differences in the way they approach the policy process. Comparing the organizational evolution of two Spanish NGOs, both active in the field of humanitarian aid and poverty alleviation over a period of more than 50 years, this article contributes to our understanding of the relevance of organizational structure in NGOs as a determining factor in their role in public policy. Drawing on institutional organizational analysis, a theoretical framework is developed to assess the importance of organizational structure in explaining why NGOs take on different roles in the policy process, even when sharing the same institutional context. NGOs are driven by pre-existing institutions and legacy that affect the way they resolve conflict and engage in internal bargaining.

Effective programmes introduced by NGOs in developing countries have the potential to benefit a large number of people if they are scaled up, but instances of successful scaling-up are relatively rare. This paper uses a case study of an Indian educational NGO that has scaled up rapidly and effectively in order to explore the reasons for choice of scaling-up strategy, the particular barriers to scaling-up in the education sector, and how these barriers can be overcome. It finds that, while a high-functioning NGO can successfully overcome many of the internal organisational challenges posed by scaling-up, external barriers such as the difficulty of building relationships with key stakeholders like government officials and school teachers pose significant challenges. While these difficulties could in principle be mitigated by moving from an expansion-based to collaboration-based model of scaling-up, low accountability and governance of the NGO sector make it difficult to detect the quality of potential partners. The case also shows that India’s recent law mandating CSR has increased funding availability for scaling-up, but its requirement for corporate donors to preferentially support local projects has also created some challenges by constraining NGO ability to harness economies of scale during scaling.

The groups deliberately formed by nongovernmental organizations to organize the poor for their development are often subgrouped for better performance. In this connection, the study investigates the extent subgroups contribute to group performance, the mechanisms that lead to the contribution of subgroups to group performance, and changes in the contribution of subgroups to the performance of a group. Altogether 239 Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee groups, i.e., village organizations (VOs), with and without subgroups were investigated. The VOs with subgroups performed better than those without subgroups. The performance of the VOs with subgroups, however, declined over time. One of the reasons why effectiveness of VOs with subgroups declined was the belief that pursuing subgroup responsibilities would not bring any personal gain for members.

This paper represents the first systematic attempt at an analysis of religious nongovernmental organizations (RNGOs). Largely ignored as an organizational field, RNGOs constitute a new breed of religious actors shaping global policy-—an organizational hybrid of religious beliefs and social activism at local, national, and international levels. This paper proposes a definition of RNGOs, traces the emergence of RNGOs from an historical perspective, and situates them in their current religious and sociopolitical contexts. Drawing on interviews and documentary data from a sample of 263 United Nations-affiliated RNGOs, the author proposes an analytical framework to examine the religious, organizational, strategic, and service dimensions of these organizations. Religious nongovernmental organizations’ unique contributions to the redefinition of a just society as well as the sociopolitical challenges arising from their religious identity are discussed.

External ratings of organizations have proliferated in the last few decades, impacting not only the behavior of consumers but also of the organizations being rated. This phenomenon has been widely studied in regards to the U.S. News and World Reports ratings of universities and law schools. This article strives to understand how third party ratings impact the behavior of nonprofits using the financial data the nonprofits provide in their IRS Forms 990. The results show that such ratings are, in fact, having an effect on how nonprofits report financial information on the IRS Form 990.

This study addresses issues related to inequality formation and reproduction, especially in regard to gender dynamics operating in a non-western society. Grounded in a post-colonial understanding of urban educated upper and middle class women NGO volunteers in contemporary India, it analyzes how they negotiate new approaches to challenge existing traditional gender roles, yet in critical ways contribute to their reproduction, particularly the traditional concept of ideal Indian womanhood. Employing structural ritualization theory we examine how ritualized symbolic practices related to the traditional concepts of caretaking, sacrifice, and the concept of natural sexual differences continue to be emphasized in a generation confronted with conflicting expectations about modern women’s roles. Twenty-one testimonies provide the major source of evidence along with data gathered through participant observation. This research enhances our understanding of the power of rituals and how they can continue to shape the cognitions and activities of actors.

In recent years, INGO legitimacy has been subject to growing scrutiny from analysts and practitioners alike. Critics have highlighted a backlash against INGOs in the Global South, a growing mismatch between INGO capacities and contemporary global challenges, and diminishing support for norms such as democracy and human rights that underpin INGOs’ work. Although these problems have attracted significant attention within the academic literature, this article argues that existing explorations of INGO legitimacy have broadly conformed either to a top-down approach focused on global norms and institutions or a bottom-up approach focused on the local dynamics surrounding states and populations in the Global South. We suggest that this divide is unhelpful for understanding the current predicament and propose a new approach, which pays closer attention to the interaction between bottom-up and top-down dimensions, and to historical context. This new approach can provide important insights into current debates about the future roles and internal structures of INGOs.