Strengths and Weaknesses

We also asked interviewees what they saw as the greatest strengths and weaknesses of their NGOs, allowing them to list up to five. We found no previous research that addresses this topic systematically, although there is much evidence that shortages of funds are a prominent problem for NGOs across Africa (see chapter 7).

The responses, summarized in Table 6.3, divided themselves into three clusters. The most commonly cited strengths, by far, involved the NGOs’ human resources. Over half of the organizations mentioned their strong technical or management capacity as a strength. Common responses characterized the staff as well educated and well trained, as experts with deep technical knowledge in their specialties, or as well acquainted with local terrain, ecosystems, and populations. Several NGOs emphasized that

Table 6.3 Reported strengths ofNGOs by NGO type

N = 52.

their staff had been trained by outside experts or government ministries and had ongoing access to these experts, while others proudly reported having provided technical training to other groups. These claims must be interpreted cautiously, though. Our observations suggest that many staff members have academic degrees but lack experience and technical or management expertise, as NGO jobs sometimes attract recently minted graduates in search of experience in a difficult job market.

Almost as many interviewees (46 percent) pointed out other positive qualities of their staff. Motivation, dedication, commitment, hard work, energy, and perseverance were all frequently cited, sometimes in connection with willingness to work without pay when necessary. Others emphasized good relations and successful teamwork among staff members. Positive characteristics of volunteers, by contrast, were infrequently mentioned.

A second cluster involved good relationships with other NGOs, government, and local communities. These characteristics were cited much less frequently; only 15, 17, and 19 percent of the NGOs, respectively, mentioned these relationships. These and related results are discussed in more detail in chapters 8-10.

The final cluster of items, only one of which was mentioned by more than 15 percent of interviewees, identified positive characteristics of the organization itself. The most frequently mentioned of these was the NGO’s successes in reaching goals and completing projects, which was mentioned by 19 percent. One interviewee, for example, proudly cited the success of a project to teach urban women about composting; another spoke of his NGO’s success in attracting ecotourists, while a third proudly recounted his NGO’s victories in combatting the trade in bush meat. Other interviewees emphasized that their NGOs focused on important issues, such as creating less polluted cities or preserving biodiversity, had years of experience, or enjoyed a good reputation. One interviewee noted how widely known and respected his NGO was, while another went so far as to claim a nationwide reputation for his organization. Finally, about a third of the interviewees mentioned at least one “other” strength; however, these included only a few common themes, such as having a shared vision and good relationships with various stakeholders.

The profile of strengths cited by the leaders of the international NGOs was noticeably different from the one provided by the Cameroonian NGOs, although the small number of international NGOs requires cautious interpretation. Perhaps not surprisingly, given their greater financial resources and expertise, the international NGOs were more apt to claim to be focusing on key issues and mounting successful efforts. They resembled the Cameroonian NGOs, especially the Type I NGOs, in claiming that they had high management and technical capacity.

There were also noteworthy differences between the strengths reported by Type I and Type II Cameroonian NGOs. Although some of the differences were small, Type I NGOs were more likely to report strengths in eight of the eleven categories, with the largest differences occurring for technical and management capacity and relationships with local communities. The former is probably attributable to their larger budgets and staff sizes and greater technical expertise, and this may help to explain the overall pattern as well. Type II NGOs, on the other hand, were more likely to report the diligent work of their staff and a focus on key issues as strengths, but the differences were quite small.

The question about the greatest weaknesses of the NGO, which again limited interviewees to a maximum of five responses,⁴ produced a striking and clear pattern of findings (see Table 6.4).

Lack of funding was, by far, the most commonly cited weakness, mentioned by almost three-fourths of the NGOs. Moreover, many of the other weaknesses mentioned by our interviewees could be traced back, at least in part, to lack of funds. A third mentioned their staff’s lack of specific knowledge, expertise, or training; about three in ten said that they had inadequate means to accomplish their work, including lack of materials or equipment, and 20 percent mentioned shortages of permanent staff. Twelve percent also mentioned staff turnover, which may be, in part, a consequence of low pay and intermittent funding. Not surprisingly, the international NGOs hardly reported these weaknesses. Most of the contrasts between Type I and Type II NGOs were also predictable, with the Type II NGOs complaining significantly more often about

Table 6.4 Reported weaknesses ofNGOs by NGO type

N = 51.

funding shortages, lack of staff, and lack of material resources. Somewhat surprisingly, however, they were slightly less likely to say that their staff was under-qualified or under-trained. Possibly, this is because they have chosen projects that require less expertise. Because of the problem’s key importance, the next chapter is devoted entirely to funding issues.

Other weaknesses paled in comparison to those related to funding. Only 12 percent of our interviewees cited difficulties with government and problems with local communities in which they worked. International NGOs were more apt to mention problems with government as a weakness, quite likely because reaching their goals requires government cooperation. We discuss the NGOs’ relationships with government and with local communities in chapters 8 and 9, respectively. A few NGOs, all Type I, also mentioned being committed to too many projects. The weaknesses classified as “other” covered a wide range, including lack of an adequate staff training program, lack of a web page, and lack of volunteers and public support.