Last week I read an article by Jordan Levy about the Ubuntu Education Fund, and how that instead of rushing to outcomes for the sake of results and funding, that we as a sector should acknowledge that positive and lasting change comes gradually. He states:
Our success stems from this comprehensive approach. We strive to address every facet of poverty, helping 2,000 children attain financial independence and lead healthy lives. Our commitment to children ‘from cradle to career’ gives us the courage to push back against the ‘bigger, faster, and cheaper’ mantra, to acknowledge that progress often comes incrementally, that real change requires sustained and sometimes expensive services. And, most importantly, it lets us redefine success as outcomes rather than single interventions. Who’s with us?
My organization works in the United States and also in one other small country (in less than 10 schools). Especially with our international programs, finding sustainable funding has been extremely difficult. I have no doubt in my mind it is because of the relatively micro nature of our programs. It has been suggested to us numerous times that we should expand into other countries. Sometimes, I feel that, if my organization got a dollar for every time we were asked why we didn’t expand into a multinational organization, we might have the funding we needed to sustain ourselves.
We need to monitor and evaluate ourselves in order to produce the best programs that we can. However, why are the organizations with the largest metrics applauded? Sometimes without looking at the quality of the program? Personally, I have found that working on a ‘micro’ level has helped my organization hone our mission and pay attention to quality; I know for certain that expanding into multiple countries would diminish our work. I’m not saying that large groups shirk on quality, but we need to change the definition of success equating to X amount of people attended or fed, with the highest number receiving the most funding.
Sustainable change rarely comes from cheap, quick, and easy fixes or actions. In my experience, however, those are the type of projects that get the money. Funders want to see quick results, and they want digestible numbers to pass onto their backers. We as a sector NEED to continue to work, piece by piece toward sustainable goals, and remember that we are working with and for people and communities. We can do more than single interventions. We have the capacity and ability to be more than nice looking numbers.
When we work toward our mission in a comprehensive and responsible way, the true impact will speak for itself.
Who’s with us?