In the first post in this series, I took a look at some of the successes the IHF model has achieved in its first five years. I’d like to turn now to an important question for any organization - new or old, large or small - namely, “what can we do better?”
When looking back at our first five years, two major areas of improvement jump out.
Working with an all volunteer staff presents some apparent challenges, most immediately for the IHF’s capacity. Our volunteers work incredibly hard, and the work they do is invariably of high quality. But there are limits to what a group of volunteers can accomplish – at least if they want to sleep at night! At various points over the past five years we have had to pass on opportunities to benefit our partners due to a lack of capacity. At certain points, some of our volunteers have had to make unfair sacrifices to meet our obligations to our partners. Over the past year, we have increasingly felt the pinch of how many hours our volunteers can work as we have grown. We have been lucky to increase the number of volunteers. And we have been very lucky to benefit from the leadership of our Executive Director Heidi Jutsum, who is able to dedicate an amazing amount of time to making sure all the IHF’s volunteers are working in the right direction. This oversight is particularly important to our student volunteers – both to their growth, and to ensuring that they make meaningful contributions to our partners. But the IHF is at a point where full time staff are needed to effectively manage our volunteers and fulfill our obligations to partners.
This leads to the next significant challenge facing the organization - unrestricted fundraising to support our capacity growth. We have traditionally spent less than 2% of revenue on administration and overhead. We have not focused on raising funds to cover administration or overhead in the past. As stated above, focusing donations on the needs of our partners is one of the IHF’s central tenets. We have thought very deeply about whether we want to commit ourselves to funding a staff position.
But a full time staff position would roughly double the hours spent on IHF management and administration. More importantly, it would give this person the freedom to focus entirely on meeting our partner’s goals and fostering our volunteers’ growth. It would both expand our capacity and improve the quality of our work. With a relatively small investment, the IHF could take on new partners, work with more students and better support all our stakeholders achieving their goals.
We exist for our partners. We believe an investment in a full time staff person is consistent with our mission and model. It will present challenges, but also opportunities – and it is essential to the ongoing success of the IHF and the work we do with our partners and volunteers.
I’ll be following up next week with the last post in this series. Keep an eye out…
The IHF was founded more than five years ago to make a difference – but to do it differently. We saw ourselves as different in three ways:
- Focused on communities’ goals: we feel that putting communities in the lead on setting goals and executing projects would increase the sustainability of the IHF’s projects.
- Minimizing administration: we send donations directly to our partners abroad, and with volunteers contributing the vast majority of our labor, our administrative fees are lower than two cents per dollar – which means more resources for those who can best use them.
- Creating new leaders: by giving college students and young professionals experience with grassroots approaches to development, and giving them leadership opportunities within the IHF.
All of this sounded good on paper when the IHF got started. And it still sounds pretty good today. But how has this approach worked out on the ground?
What have we done well?
Reaching its fifth birthday is significant for any organization, but particularly for one that takes an innovative approach. The IHF’s continuous growth has been driven by three factors. First, all that we have accomplished is driven by the incredible hard work of our volunteers in the US and abroad. Second, our ability to learn and execute well has supported our ability to carry out an increasing number of increasingly complex projects. And throughout this, adherence to our model – what makes us different – has led to success on the ground.
Some numbers begin to tell this story – 300 families who don’t have to worry about indoor air pollution in India, two dozen Guatemalan kids who can attend school, a clinic in Costa Rica and dozens of graduates with exposure to grassroots development work. Working with the IHF has been genuinely life changing for many student volunteers who have gone on to focus on public health and economic development. We continue to influence students to take on the challenges of development in partnership with local communities through our work at Dartmouth and Haverford, and now at Brown.
So, there is much that we have done well. But where can we improve? More on that at the end of the week…
I’d like to start by welcoming you to the new IHF blog. Please check back often as we discuss some of the most pressing global issues we face and, more importantly, some successes the IHF (and some other groups) have had in addressing them.
Recently, I’ve had the opportunity to evaluate a number of technologies aimed at solving the problems of the developing world. These range from our very own smokeless stove program to complex water purification, to laptops for children, to pharmaceutical safety, to micro-enterprise initiatives. All of this talk of technology got me thinking.
We’ve found that technical solutions abound (if you look hard enough). This may sound odd as most global homes don’t have electricity or even access to clean water not to mention the internet or a phone line. But the engineering solutions to these measures of ‘development’ exist. Many organizations have solutions for solar power, for village-level grids, for water purification, and information distribution. So why are we still faced with the immense burden of disease posed by indoor air pollution and dirty water?
In my opinion, the deployment of technologies is where the innovation is needed. We’ve already spent countless dollars and hours developing solutions – well, partial solutions. But what good is a life-changing stove if it isn’t installed in a village home? Collaborative development, community-based implementation, and grass-roots ownership are key not only to the design of novel solutions, but also to the use, adoption, acceptance, and maintenance of long-term changes. Its time to move technologies out of the labs. I think we need far less effort spent on innovating and far more spent on innovative deployment. What do you think?
RSS
