Donelson, Angela. “The role of NGOs and NGO networks in meeting the needs of US colonias.” Community Development Journal, Vol.39, No. 4 (October 2004): pp. 332-344.
Based on her own experience in US colonias and academic research, Donelson analyzes the differences between local NGOs and NGO networks and their respective impact upon US colonias. She claims that NGO networks began “responding” to colonias in the 1980s, when professional organizers began working with church leaders to recruit primarily female community members. These networks created “spin-off” NGOs to resolve local disputes and policy problems, to foster community leadership, and to provide basic services, community centers and affordable housing. However, Donelson does state that local residents were also responsible for seeking the assistance of “intermediary” NGO networks. She claims that these networks have allowed colonias organizations to gain more political leverage and awareness.
In comparison to NGO networks, Donelson looks at local NGOs within the colonias, which she claims are rarely successful. For a variety of reasons, these NGOs “lack administrative staff, legal incorporation and clearly defined missions” (336). Not only do they lack the technical expertise and resource availability, but they are also prone to self-serving community leaders. Furthermore, these smaller NGOS only focus on service provision. In addition to the constraints imposed by federal funding (which earmarks funding to be used for service provision), colonias residents are also reluctant to engage in more political activities that do not provide immediate improvements.
Unlike local NGOs, Donelson claims that NGO networks focus on structural problems and political organization. The advantages offered by these networks, which she examines in greater detail, include negotiating with “centres of power;” the development of local NGOs; and solidarity among multiple, heterogeneous colonias. However the goals of NGO networks can also conflict with those of local NGOS. Furthermore, local NGOS risk losing their autonomy as well as their accountability with local residents.
In order to create a balance between community mobilization and service provision, NGO networks must work carefully with local NGOs. While they do offer access to greater resources and the means to increase political leverage, networks can often leave community residents feeling mis-represented or simply ignored. In order to effectively to transform colonias into “mutual aid communities of hope” (342), NGO networks must work to clearly express their goals and philosophies. They must also “help small NGOs maintain accountability by encouraging them to preserve their ‘smallness’” (342). Finally, networks must constantly work towards leader-development and self-sufficiency of colonias. Donelson’s recommendations are certainly useful in terms of thinking about the relationship – and differences – between NGOs within the colonias. However, I would like to examine the negative aspects of NGOs networks further. It might be helpful to look at how NGO networks as well as local NGOs are structured administratively, how they receive funding, etc.
Tags: Colonias, community development, NGOs
