Ghanaian civil society: West Africa’s ‘shining democratic star?’

Posted on July 17, 2020 by Andy Ware

In 2018, the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy released the Global Philanthropy Environment Index, the world’s largest and most comprehensive effort to document the state of global philanthropy and the factors that enhance or inhibit its success.

Now, we are highlighting countries on the blog that did not originally appear in the 2018 Index. Follow along as experts discuss Ethiopia, Iran, Guatemala, Liberia, and Ghana.

By Kelly Ann Krawczyk, MPA, Ph.D., associate professor, Auburn University Department of Political Science

Ghana is often called West Africa’s “shining democratic star,” and the third sector also supports this designation. Ghanaian civil society is vibrant, with thousands of registered civil society organizations (CSOs).

While a complete database of registered CSOs is not available, there is data that indicates over 33,000 organizations registered between 2000 and 2012, with steady increases in the number of CSOs registering in each of those years. However, CSOs are not evenly distributed across the 10 regions of Ghana. About half of the total CSOs that registered from 2000-2012 are located in the capital of Accra, and there are significantly fewer CSOs in the more rural, and northern regions of Ghana.

This geographic distribution is not unusual. We know that African CSOs often gravitate to urban areas with access to infrastructure such as electricity, phone, and internet. But CSOs also “go where they are needed.” The pressing economic, social, and health challenges in Ghana’s northern regions helps explain why many community-based organizations (CBOs) and grassroots organizations, often unregistered, are located in these rural areas of Ghana.

Ghanaian CSOs work in four main categories: service delivery, advocacy, in watchdog roles, and as collaborative partners with government, engaged in research and planning related to national development (GIZ 2013). There is also an emerging fifth CSO classification known as partisan CSOs or political pressure groups, which are informal extensions of political parties and interests, and which have proven to be controversial.

Ghanaian CSOs have been especially successful in the research and advocacy space, particularly when it comes to constitutional, legislative, and judicial reform, government effectiveness, voice and accountability, and anti-corruption. Ghanaian CSOs have actively participated in and supported the legislative process by producing draft bills, and conducting research on and reviews of pending bills. Legislation proposed and drafted by CSOs has in some cases been adopted and passed into law.

The environment for civil society in Ghana

The capacity of the Ghanaian third sector is significantly higher than in many other African environments, yet the sector still deals with serious challenges. First and foremost, Ghanaian civil society faces a disabling environment due to a lack of human, financial, and technological resources. CSOs generally have poor resource mobilization skills, and lack diversification of funding sources. Financial resources are limited and heavily dependent on foreign funding. There is also a lack of financial transparency and internal democracy in the management structures and systems of CSOs.

The overall environment for civil society in Ghana is free and open. There are no barriers to the formation of civil society organizations, and CSOs suffer from no real state interference or harassment. In fact, the relationship between Ghanaian CSOs and government has evolved from limited interaction and conflict in the 1990s, to increasing engagement and cooperation over the past two decades.

Three major laws govern civil society operations in Ghana. The majority of civil society organizations register and operate under the Companies Code Act 179 of 1963.14. The two other statutes under which civil society groups register are the Trustees (Incorporation) Act of 1962 and the Professional Bodies Registration Decree (NRCD 143) of 1976.15. While it is relatively easy to register as a CSO in Ghana, it is not inexpensive, and the centralized registration process and annual renewal requirement create real barriers for CSOs based outside Accra.

There is currently a campaign for a bill to regulate the third sector, but the draft bill has not yet been passed. Despite the overall vibrancy of Ghanaian civil society, the lack of effective regulatory mechanisms and the absence of a current database of CSO leaves the sector largely uncoordinated.

Pressing issues facing the Ghanaian third sector

Challenges to long-term sustainability

My own forthcoming research sheds light on important issues and challenges currently facing the sector. The biggest challenge is sustainability. There is not a culture of formal philanthropic giving in Ghana, and the majority of funding for civil society comes from external donors. These donors tend to fund short-term projects in program areas that align with their goals, versus the mission of the CSOs.

Ghana’s recent relationship with donors has taken several recent new turns. After Ghana was reclassified as a lower-middle-income country by the World Bank in 2010, foreign donors began to shift their financial support to countries with greater need. In addition, Ghana’s government has recently promoted “Ghana Beyond Aid,” an effort to become independent of foreign aid.

This has created sustainability challenges for Ghanaian civil society organizations, since CSOs tend to rely heavily on foreign funding as an income stream. Over the past 10 years, donor funding for civil society has declined. CSOs find themselves scrambling to find enough local financial resources to continue operating.

To address these concerns, there is a push for CSOs to diversify funding by incorporating fee-based services and income-generating components into their programs. There is also a focus on building coalitions and partnerships with other CSOs in order to share costs.

Increasing professionalization of the sector

Increasingly, there is an emphasis on formal, professionalized CSOs, coupled with a de-emphasis on and decline of grassroots, informal CBOs. This is in part due to donors’ conception of civil society, which is narrow and includes mainly professional, urban CSOs. In contrast, community-based organizations (CBOs) are typically rural.

The distinction between these two types of organizations is vague, and the two labels are utilized by INGOs, donors, and government to make decisions about programs and funding. This over-emphasis on professionalized urban CSOs can result in civil society acting as a kind of technical consultant for the government, offering policy and practical recommendations to help the government achieve its stated goals, versus engaging in the kinds of advocacy and mobilization activities that represent the needs of marginalized groups.

The growth of “partisan CSOs”

Although the majority of civil society strives to be non-partisan, there is a growing perception that some CSOs are political, especially those CSOs working in anti-corruption and governance. While there are instances of the government closing down CSOs in this area, often the restriction of the civil society space is subtler. By scrutinizing civil society and monitoring their activities, government can indirectly restrict their actions. Increasingly, CSOs are founded by the spouses of political actors for the sole purpose of soliciting funds and support for political purposes.

The potential for shrinking civic space

Another concern is citizens’ growing tolerance for government constraint of the civic space in Africa. There is a “significant willingness to trade freedom for security,” especially in regions of sub-Saharan Africa that have experienced a rising threat from extremist groups.

Many Africans are less willing to demand their freedom than they would have been a few years ago. In fact, only 48 percent of Ghanaians currently support free association, which is a decline of 9 percent. Whether this is out of fear of extremist groups or just apathy is unclear.

The Freedom in the World report also finds that while 87 percent of Ghanaians feel free to speak their minds, 69 percent feel that they must “often” or “always” be cautious about what they say regarding politics. This raises concerns about the possibility of shrinking civic space in Ghana.

While civil society is Ghana is vibrant, and has a higher capacity than many other countries on the continent, the sector also faces serious challenges that it must resolve in order to maintain its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Tax Day and its effects on philanthropy

Posted on July 15, 2020 by Abby Rolland

July 15 is the revised Tax Day in the U.S. While Tax Day was originally scheduled for April 15, the U.S. government and multiple states changed the day some state and all federal taxes were due as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

How is giving affected by taxes? What role does the economy play in driving philanthropic decisions? How and in what ways is philanthropy impacted in any given year by changes in macroeconomic trends and tax policies?

To answer these questions, Patrick Rooney, executive associate dean of academic programs and professor of economics and philanthropic studies at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, shared his expertise and research on macroeconomics and how taxes affect charitable giving.

“People give for a number of reasons,” Rooney said. “Some give simply to give back. Some pay it forward. Others may feel a religious obligation or a desire to properly steward and share the resources that they have been given.

“If you think of philanthropy as helping friends or neighbors (what we consider as informal philanthropy), everyone is most likely a philanthropist in some sense.”

While there are many motivations or mechanisms for giving beyond economic or tax implications, we wanted to take a deep dive into which factors can and do drive some charitable giving.

Individual giving (including bequests)

When conducting research on individual giving, the S&P 500 Index is used as a summary of household wealth.

“It’s not a perfect summation, but it is a good indicator of trends in household wealth. As the S&P 500 goes up, people tend to give more,” Rooney said.

“We also use personal income as a predictor of household giving and GDP as a basis for growth of personal income. As personal income increases, individuals tend to give more.”

Bequests are more difficult to correlate with the economy, as they are unable to be timed with economic trends.

“If people do pass when the economy is better and they leave a percentage of their estate to charity/charities, then charitable bequest numbers will increase,” Rooney said.

Foundation giving

Rooney explained that the economy can cause foundation grantmaking to go up for two reasons.

The Portfolio Effect

“If the foundation’s dollar value of assets increase in value, then the foundation has more money to give,” he said. “Foundations have to give five percent of their asset base. They might base it off of last year’s asset base, or they might use a three-to-five-year moving average, but regardless, they have to give five percent away.

“If the portfolio effect is positive, then the stock market rises in value and foundations are going to give more away. If the stock market is falling, foundations’ asset bases are declining. However, because they often use a moving average, the decline in the stock market has a less steep effect on foundation grantmaking than it does on household giving. The effect is still visible, though.”

The Economic Effect

“When people are doing better financially and their personal portfolio is continuing to increase, they may give more money to their foundation,” Rooney said. “So, the foundation asset base grows and it has to grant out more money the following year and years after that.”

Corporate giving

Rooney explained that corporate giving tends to be driven by corporate profits in the last year, and to a lesser degree, prior years. GDP tends to drive corporate profits. However, other factors, such as corporate income tax rates, do as well.

“Corporate giving happens for a number of reasons besides profitability,” Rooney said. “For example, profitability may decrease 10 percent and corporate giving may go down as a result, but corporate giving may not decrease that full 10 percent.”

In addition, some corporations match what their employees give to charity, and thus employees may drive corporate giving. Corporations can also “co-brand” with charities on an issue that they (the corporation) may want to align with.

Rooney also noted that corporations give to big disasters, and that observationally, these donations are on top of what they budgeted otherwise for philanthropy.

However, it remains to be seen how the COVID-19 pandemic will affect corporate giving.

Day-to-day information vs. longer-term trends

So, with this knowledge, should nonprofit practitioners follow day-to-day economic trends, or are longer-term trends more helpful to understand?

Rooney advises that nonprofits should follow both:

“On the one hand, it makes sense to follow day-to-day trends because that’s generally how we obtain news. It’s easier to follow those trends and be aware of what’s happening. That knowledge can inform your conversations with donors and prospective donors, since the economy can affect giving a great deal.

“However, we’ve conducted research into whether the day-to-day variation of the stock market matters in giving, or if giving is more likely to reflect year over year trends. It’s difficult to test, but our best assessment is that the day-to-day variation of the stock market doesn’t predict changes in giving; it is more year end to year end.”

He pointed out, though, that longer-term trends matter too.

“If you make money in the market in one year, two years, three years, and more, you’re going to feel more comfortable making big philanthropic investments or giving appreciated assets,” Rooney said.

“If your assets are diminished but you have more income, you also might give more aggressively out of your income. It can go both ways.”

Taxes

Tax benefits may be one motivation for giving, but Rooney cautioned that they aren’t the only reason:

“If you care about yourself and only about yourself, you’ll always be better off not giving than taking the after-tax deduction. Even with the tax deduction, philanthropy is an altruistic act.

“However, the empirical research suggests that people who itemize their taxes give statistically significantly more than people who are non-itemizers, even when both groups are in the same income levels. You’re also more likely to give in general if you’re an itemizer than if you’re a non-itemizer.

“If you look at the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, the law increased the standard deduction. Before, about 30 percent of households were itemizers. Now, we believe that it’s less than 10 percent who are eligible to itemize. So, if you’re a former itemizer, the price of giving increased by about two-thirds. It costs more after taxes to give now than before. So unless I sacrifice something else, then by accounting definition, if I were running a balanced budget, my philanthropy will decrease.

“While not everyone is ultra-rational in that way, if incentives for certain choices are taken away, they may be less likely to give as much as they would have otherwise.”

As a result, some donors may try to bundle their gifts in certain years in order to be able to claim and itemize the deduction. Rooney explained that many people created new donor-advised funds at the end of the year in 2017, possibly because they knew that they would become non-itemizers under the new tax regime. So, they wanted to earn a tax deduction at that point in time (which DAFs allow them to do).

Advice

Bearing all of this in mind, in addition to a global pandemic, a health crisis, and the ensuing economic shock and downturn, Rooney encourages fundraisers not to stop fundraising.

“For the most part, people don’t give unless they are asked,” he said. “So don’t be afraid to ask your donors to support your organization, especially as you meet increased need in the community. However, be empathetic to the current labor market conditions. The capacity to give now may not be as strong, but you can still continue to share your message and mission during this time.”

Learn more from Rooney about fundraising during disasters and fundraising during economic recessions in podcasts from The Fund Raising School.

Highlights from a conversation with David Rubenstein

Posted on July 10, 2020 by Andy Ware

By Kelly R. Young

Last month, IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy hosted a conversation with David Rubenstein, co-founder and co-executive chairman, The Carlyle Group. The recorded webinar is a part of the school’s “Perspectives on Philanthropy Discussion Series,” monthly discussions with leaders who share their perspectives on how philanthropy influences our civic life now and into the future.

Rubenstein, 68, is a financier and philanthropist. He founded The Carlyle Group in 1987, an international private equity firm that he grew to manage $224 billion from 32 offices around the world. Today he is one of the wealthiest people and the largest philanthropists in the world.

Several themes stood out to me as I watched the video, themes I felt were important enough to highlight and share.

Philanthropy is for everyone

Rubenstein references that, in the Greek tradition, the word philanthropy comes from the words “love” and “humanity,” yet today, we think of it as just writing checks. He views philanthropy as giving of your time, energy, and ideas. He shared his own experiences of growing up in a blue-collar family where philanthropy was not part of his upbringing, to now where philanthropy is an integral part of his life.

“Giving away money, time, and ideas in a way that makes other people’s lives better is obviously the most fulfilling thing somebody can do on the face of the earth,” Rubenstein said.

Patriotic philanthropy

While it doesn’t equate to his greatest amount of giving, Rubenstein has become known for his patriotic philanthropy. He has purchased three landmark historical documents, including copies of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation. All are on permanent loan to the U.S. government and available for public viewing in the National Archives Building in Washington D.C. Rubenstein shares his insights into what it means to give back to better our country, as well as his theory on the importance of knowing our country’s history–the good and the bad.

“In a sense, all philanthropy is really patriotic because you’re doing something for your country, more or less,” he said. “But in the sense that I’ve used the phrase ‘patriotic philanthropy,’ I mean giving back to the country in certain visible ways to remind people of the history and the heritage.”

COVID-19 crater and concentration of power

Rubenstein offered his insights into world events amidst COVID-19, including inequalities, social mobility, the wealth gap, and the transformation of the economy. He believes it’s worse than a recession, but not quite a depression.

“There’s no doubt that life is going to change,” he said. “It is famously said by Sir John Templeton that to say ‘this time is different’ is a big mistake because things just repeat themselves. But in truth, this time is different. It’s not a recession; it’s a recession with a pandemic, and people are going to change the way they live and conduct their lives.”

The Giving Pledge and the next generation

The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to giving back. Rubenstein believes the impact is enormous. Even more inspiring was his belief that we can all give, no matter the amount of our net worth, as well as his optimism about philanthropy as it relates to emerging generations.

“I want to encourage people to feel that philanthropy can be an important part of their life, not just to help other people, but to help themselves, because they will view themselves as being happier with their lives as they do things to help other people,” Rubenstein said.

If your interest is piqued about the full conversation, you can hear all of Rubenstein’s insights on the school’s website. Then, mark your calendar for the next Perspectives on Philanthropy Discussion Series on Monday, July 13, featuring Derrick Feldmann discussing how causes and companies can drive public interest for social issues.

Kelly Young, president of Baise Communications, is an award-winning public relations counselor with 25+ years of experience in working with nonprofit and small businesses. She has worked in nearly every capacity of public relations throughout her career and has a proven track record of success in media relations, social media, brand management, communications planning, and community relations. She has built a strong reputation within the community and is sought after for her industry expertise and thought leadership. Kelly is a natural storyteller and an enthusiastic advocate for causes.

Charity livestreams and their impact

Posted on July 6, 2020 by Andy Ware

By Tori Hawkins

Charity livestreams have become an increasingly popular way for online creators to give back to their communities.

A charity livestream is an event where an online creator hosts a live video to raise funds for a nonprofit organization, while online creators are individuals who create and upload content to the internet. This content can vary from streaming gaming sessions, makeup tutorials, video blogs (known as vlogging), and more. With this wide array of content available, it is not surprising to find that there is a large audience interested in online content.

As online creators have grown their audiences, some have chosen to mobilize their fanbases into vehicles of giving through the creation of charity livestreams. Through charity livestreams, online creators have raised funds for a variety of nonprofit organizations. Understanding charity livestreams and what makes them successful can help nonprofit organizations develop meaningful partnerships with the right online creator.

YouTube giving

YouTube creators have been some of the most prominent online creators involved with charity livestreams. Typically, online creators will set “mile marker” goals for their audience to try to hit during the stream. These could be simple goals like dying or shaving their hair, or giving away prizes. These livestreams are also used as a way for the creator to directly engage with his or her audience by responding to comments on air.

In late 2018, YouTube released a suite of tools for its creators so that they can raise funds for their favorite nonprofit organizations through the platform itself. GTLive, a YouTube channel ran by Matthew and Stephanie Patrick, helped kick off YouTube’s Charity Week with a nine-hour stream dedicated to raising funds for the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation. Ultimately, they raised just over $192,000 for the organization.

The following year, the GTLive team partnered with St. Jude’s and raised over $1.3 million on another charity livestream. However, the Patricks are not the only YouTube creators involved with charity livestreams. Mark Fischbach, a popular gaming personality known online as Markiplier, has run several charity livestreams since as early as 2012. He has collectively raised over $2.6 million over the course of his career and has mentioned that he regularly donates privately to nonprofit organizations as well.

#HopeFromHome

One of the best and most recent examples of a charity livestream that is making a difference is the #HopeFromHome campaign. Sean McLaughlin, also known by his channel name JackSepticEye, saw what was happening because of the COVID-19 pandemic and decided he had to do something to help. As he is no stranger to running livestreams, he decided to host one dedicated to raising funds for nonprofits fighting the pandemic, as well as organizations supporting people affected by it. When he reached out to Tiltify, a popular crowdfunding site, he found that they were already speaking with nonprofit organizations about creating a fundraising event.

Together, they launched the #HopeFromHome campaign. This campaign is the first of its kind, as it involves multiple online platforms and is open to all online creators to join in. The funds raised will be evenly distributed to three different nonprofit organizations, including the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, United Way, and Red Nose Day. The campaign kicked off on April 7 when McLaughlin hosted an 11-hour livestream. Over the course of his stream, he raised $678,020. Overall, the campaign has raised just over $1.9 million.

Are charity livestreams legitimate?

Since charity livestreams have become an increasingly popular mode of philanthropy for online creators, some may wonder if they are a legitimate fundraising tool since they are so new. However, charity livestreams are not an entirely new concept.

It could be argued that they are the modern-day equivalent to telethons of years past. They both broadcast live to an audience with the express purpose of raising money for a nonprofit organization. The only true differences are where the events are held and the cost of each event.

Telethons were broadcast on TV, whereas charity livestreams are broadcast over the internet. The cost of a telethon versus a charity livestream can also vary. A telethon requires the cooperation of a television network, paid staff or volunteers, lighting, and more. However, at its core, all an aspiring charity live streamer needs is a laptop and an internet connection. Between the two, the start-up costs can be significantly lower for a charity live streamer.

A concern some may have is if the funds raised are going directly to a nonprofit organization. This depends on the platform used to collect the donations. Tiltify is a popular option, as it provides an easy-to-use platform for creators to use and viewers to donate. One-hundred percent of the proceeds are passed through third-party payment processors, like Paypal, and subject to any processing fees that they have. The payment process is secure, and the donor receives confirmation that his, her, or their donation has been processed. Then, one can see how much has been raised.

Charity livestreams have become a popular mode for YouTube creators to give back to causes they care about. Depending on the platform used, it can be easy to accept donations and track progress toward the fundraising goal. These livestreams are an easy way for anyone to raise funds for a cause they care about.

Tori Hawkins is a junior in the philanthropic studies program at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

The essential characteristics of Liberian civil society

Posted on July 1, 2020 by Andy Ware

Now, we are highlighting countries on the blog that did not originally appear in the 2018 Index. Follow along as experts discuss Ethiopia, Iran, Guatemala, Liberia, and Ghana.

By Kelly Ann Krawczyk, MPA, Ph.D., associate professor, Auburn University

My first visit to Liberia was in 2011, eight years after the end of Liberia’s brutal civil war. The country still displayed many scars from the prolonged fighting that spanned from 1989-2003, during which 250,000 people lost their lives, and a million more were displaced.

During that first visit, I saw countless abandoned homes and buildings riddled with bullet holes lining the streets of the capital city of Monrovia. I saw people engaged in street selling and wheelbarrow carrying, due to high levels of unemployment and a lack of any real formal employment opportunities.

I also met some of the strongest, most resilient people I have ever encountered, who were committed to rebuilding their country, and improving their lives. Today, some 17 years after the signing of the Accra Peace Agreement that ended the Liberian civil war, the country looks somewhat different.

Buildings have been repaired, and several new ones have even appeared. The capital city of Monrovia now boasts a single traffic light. I can still vividly recall how excited I was when I arrived in 2014 and saw that light, which was touted as a symbol of development. As Liberians continue to work towards peaceful economic, social, and political development, civil society is a vital partner in helping to reach this goal.

For almost a decade now, I have been working with civil society organizations (CSOs) in Liberia. My work is varied; sometimes I engage in my own field research, collecting survey, interview, or focus group data on the role of Liberian civil society in strengthening democracy and development. Other times, I develop and execute training workshops or impact evaluations for organizations such as the U.S. Department of State and the World Bank.

My favorite activity, though, is engaging directly with members of civil society organizations in Liberia, through outreach work that helps them to build stronger organizations, and create a more vibrant and effective third sector. Through my work in Liberia, I have observed several essential characteristics of Liberian civil society, which we can refer to as the “four Rs”: the sector is incredibly resource-poor, overly reliant on donor funding, yet also resilient and resourceful.

Lack of resources

Liberia still struggles tremendously with post-war poverty and development challenges. In 2018, Liberia ranked 176 out of 189 countries on the UN Human Development Index. Liberian civil society also grapples with a severe shortage of resources: human, technological, infrastructural, and financial. Only about half of the population can read and write, and the literacy rate is even lower for females.

Sixty-five percent of children in Liberia of primary school age (6-11) are out of school. This leads to difficulty in finding qualified people to run CSOs. There is a serious lack of public infrastructure, including roads, electricity, and WASH. Information and technology challenges include limited mobile networks, especially outside of the capital, and countrywide internet penetration of only 5 percent. Finally, CSOs are sorely underfunded, and have no tangible revenue sources other than international donor funding.

All civil society organizations face these challenges, whether they are located in the capital of Monrovia, or in rural, less accessible counties. But there are also variations in capacity, reflected in the stark disparities between CSOs based in and around the capital of Monrovia, and those based in the outlying, rural areas of Liberia. CSOs in Montserrado County, where the capital is located, have higher access to skilled staff, and to financial and technological resources, resulting in more robust capacity.

Reliance on donor funding

Most CSOs in Liberia depend on a single donor for intermittent, project-based funding. CSOs with funding from more than one donor tend to receive it sequentially; that is, one project finishes, and the next is funded by a different donor. This means organizations may be “finding money wherever they can” without being strategic or mission-oriented.

My own research suggests that civil society’s reliance on international donor funding creates an uncertain environment for Liberian CSOs, resulting in a nascent sector that is susceptible to mission drift and upward, supply-side accountability to donors. One way Liberian CSOs have tried to address this donor dependence is to start engaging in earned income activities, such as business activities and fee-for-service models that involve agricultural activities, as well as small-scale production of goods.

Resilience and resourcefulness

The Liberian civil society sector remains small; only about 1,350 registered organizations at last count, although this probably underestimates the sector, as it leaves out unregistered, informal grassroots organizations. While NGOs in Liberia can register and operate freely, some of the registration and accreditation requirements are cumbersome, resulting in a large number of unregistered NGOs.

For example, an NGO must have the primary goal of “enhancing the social, educational, professional, scientific, athletic, cultural, and economic well-being of communities.” The NGO must also have a mission statement with clearly defined objectives, target beneficiaries, sector of operation, and have a constitution and by-laws. Registered NGOs are subject to annual reporting requirements in order to maintain their status.

To complete the registration and accreditation process, an NGO first obtains articles of incorporation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by submitting a letter of request, completed application form, and required documentation. After the NGO obtains articles of incorporation, a Certificate of Accreditation is obtained from the Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs, which is good for three years.

Additional requirements include: having an office space with visible signboard, an organizational bank account, at least three full-time staff, and a board of directors. In a country faced with low formal employment, and where only 36 percent of the population aged 15 or older has an account at a financial institution or mobile money provider, these requirements are formidable.

The sector also faces serious challenges when it comes to human, technological, and financial resources, but it is resilient and resourceful. Perhaps the most recent example of this was during the 2014-2016 Ebola crisis, when civil society faced dangerous conditions and lacked resources, yet still contributed in vital ways to help stop the spread of the disease.

Civil society engaged in grassroots mobilization, and was involved in activities such as contact tracing and disseminating information about, and acceptance of, health and burial practices that helped stopped the spread of the disease. Civil society was involved in other forms of service delivery as well, such as providing patient and family support services, and meeting material and immediate needs such as providing new homes and belongings to Ebola survivors, and caring for Ebola orphans.

Liberian civil society organizations successfully functioned as “civic intermediaries” between citizens and government, because they have the trust of local citizens, and because they possess the local relationships, networks, and skills to mobilize citizens to action.

Ultimately, my research from 2014 found that Liberia’s battle against Ebola was won at the community level, due to the efforts of civil society organizations that participated in wide-scale, collaborative, grassroots mobilization efforts designed to combat rumors and distrust, and that encouraged citizens to abide by heath precautions and burial practices.

As evidenced by the recent Ebola crisis, government is increasingly open to, and reliant on, engagement and collaboration with civil society. In fact, post-Ebola, the Government of Liberia (GoL) and Civil Society Organizations Accord was signed in 2016.

The Accord aims to create a new framework for partnership between the GoL and civil society by facilitating an enabling environment for civil society, strengthening the technical capacity of the sector, broadening the opportunities for civil society to participate in governance, and engaging civil society as development partners to meet these needs (GoL-CSO Accord 2016). The Accord also acknowledges the role of civil society in service delivery.

With international donor funding waning, particularly in the post-Ebola environment, Liberian civil society will have to embrace new ways of finding the resources it needs to survive and thrive, potentially by increasing its ability to generate earned income. In addition, by strengthening its capacity and increasingly its voice in governance, the Liberian civil society sector can make a tangible contribution to the country’s continued development.

Further suggested reading

Banks, N., Hulme, D., Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: still too close for comfort? World Development, 66, 707–718.

Dr. Krawczyk is an associate professor and the Ph.D. program director in Auburn University’s Department of Political Science. Her research focuses on the relationship between civil society and democratic governance. She is specifically interested in how civil society impacts political behavior. Her research has been published in journals of public administration and civil society, including Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, and International Review of Administrative Sciences. She has also authored book chapters, as well as governmental and professional publications for the Governance Commission of Liberia and the World Bank. She is a founding committee member of the Strengthening Research on Civil Society in West Africa project, an initiative of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), funded by the Ford Foundation. She is also a Democracy & Development Fellow at the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana).

Learn more about her research and work at kellykrawczyk.com, or reach out to her at kak0037@auburn.edu.