The depth of the problem

I had a wonderful conversation with a friend recently who used to work in the same organization where I volutneered.

After catching up on each others’ lives, the conversation inevitably slipped into discussing about the non profit sector and comparing the differences in Canada and India. While we discussed on the difference in funding models, work cultures, stakeholder management and strategic planning, one interesting thought that came up was defining of the problem or Case for Support by the non profits.

The organisation that we worked with had a clear and precise definition of the problem and the programs of the organization were streamlined to tackle the root causes of the problem or be a part of the solution. In Canada, we could hardly find an organization that has spent resources in defining the problem to the depth to which the Indian organizations have.

Say, homelessness is an issue in India, the organization would identify the core drivers of homelessness and try to tackle those issues rather than simply trying to eradicate homelessness by providing housing. In Canada, there must be an organization that is working on the core drivers but most of them provide services to the homeless community that are merely Band-Aids to the problem.

They are definitely being a part of the solution but they are treating the symptoms and not the disease. In India, the non profits treat the core drivers (the disease) instead of the symptoms and hope the symptoms would go away in the process. The organization that we worked for identified the cycle and systems of core drivers and developed programs to tackle them.

If its homelessness, non profits in India would provide services for the homeless community along the lines of mental health support, substance abuse, legal literacy and financial literacy, education and other factors that contribute to homelessness and create a system of solutions to tackle the system of core drivers.

In our observations, we realised the concept of breaking the cycle of the social problems is more visible and effective in India than Canada. Clearly, interms of resources, Canada is wealthier than India and the impact of non profits are stronger for India. The problem is of 2 levels: the funding for innovation and the freedom of trial and error is more in India than Canada probably because of lack of transparency. This freedom leads to interventions that otherwise would be regulated or denied.

The second reason is the red tape for drivers of social intervention. There is a need for volunteers to have Police Clearance Certificate, First Aid and CPR or other professional certifications to do intervention work in Canada. Whereas in India, these are preferred but not mandatory. The volunteer is given essential training by the certified professional but not made to go through the whole certification process. The red tape is less in India than in Canada. But this has its own pros and cons.

The red tape ensures a baseline of quality of intervention. The services received by the beneficiaries will be standardized and ensured. The lack of redtape can make interventions unstandardized and hence affect the desired outcome in the long run. The regulation of funds ensure accountability and results that are effective. The lack of regulation may increase innovation and experimental programs but can also lead to zero desired outcome. Lack of red tape also encourages the youth to step up and lead interventions where they take responsibility and learn much more then their peers who are not engaged in the work. They are mentored and moulded to lead the next generation as passionately as they once were.

The question of which is better is problem specific and bit philosophical. I do not have the data, experience nor the in depth knowledge to further analyze this thought. Would you rather help a 100 people live fully or would you rather help 1000 people survive and let them have the quality of life that they can achieve?

The organizational structure, the funding models, the donor culture and a whole lot other factors influence the level of intervention or the depth of the problem that non profits can go for. All I can say is there is good and bad in both from my experience.