The effectiveness of rural versus urban nonprofit organisations in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Abstract

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a country with high natural resources, but it has suffered from decades of civil wars and social turmoil, being heavily aid-dependent. In the DRC, several Nonprofit Organisations (NPOs) are major players in fighting poverty and enhancing welfare. This research aims to analyse the effectiveness of small NPOs in improving poor peoples’ lives through health, education, and economic activities. Two NPOs working in the DRC, one in a rural and the other in an urban area, are compared by researching the aid sites and surveying 201 households (aid beneficiaries). Our case observations and the survey results facilitate analysing the mission accomplishment, effectiveness, and accountability of the NPOs although we admit that the DRC conditions make exact measurements difficult. Multivariate analyses are used to study the differences in aid impacts. There are significant differences in the beneficiaries’ perception of the NPO effectiveness in improving health while no significant differences in education impact were found. This is probably because both case NPOs have succeeded in getting a large proportion of the children of their area registered in the education centres created by the NPOs. Differences were observed in the accountability and reporting style of the NPOs.

Keywords:

• NPO
• DRC
• impact
• mission accomplishment
• health and education
• effectiveness
• accountability

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Ms. Alejandra Encinas Fuentes for her valuable work in designing and updating the survey and the database. We would also like to thank the XVII and XX Workshop on Accounting and Management Control Raymond Konopka for the valuable comments received. Also we would like to thank Dr. Flavien Muzumanga an Dr. Cibaka Cikongo for their kind collaboration in collecting the data.

Notes

1. Shapiro and Tambashe, “Gender, Poverty, Family Structure,” 360–1.

2. Omona and Mukuye, “Problems of Credibility of NGOs,” 315–6.

3. Janus, Klingebiel, and Paulo, “Beyond Aid,” 158–9.

4. Meyer, “A Step Back as Donors,” 1118; Sollis, “Multilateral Agencies, NGOs and Policy Reforms,” 167–70; Vivian, “NGOs and Sustainability,” 187–90.

5. World Bank, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/556251468128407787/pdf/359990WDR0complete.pdf; Lehman, “The Accountability of NGOs.”

6. Lehman, “The Accountability of NGOs,” 650–3; Jones and Mucha, “Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for Nonprofit Organisations,” 1485–8; Read, Taithe, and Mac Ginty, “Data Hubris?” 1320.

7. Cheru, “Developing Countries and the Right to Development,” 1278.

8. Banks, Hulme, and Edwards, “NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited,” 708–9.

9. Arndt, Jones, and Tarp, “Assessing Foreign Aid´s Long-run Contribution,” 15; Ceriani and Verme, “The Income Lever and the Allocation of Aid,” 1520.

10. Valeau, “Stages and Pathways of Development,” 1910–12.

11. Olson, Humphrey, and Guthrie, “Caught in an Evaluatory Trap,” 505, 506.

12. James et al., “Realities of Change.”

13. Mgamassi, Maitland, and Tapia, “Humanitarian Interorganizational Information Exchange Network,” 1500–2; and see note 2 above.

14. Iwu et al., “Determinants of Sustainability and Organisational Effectiveness,” 9563–4.

15. Latour, Science in Action, 232; Robson, “Accounting Numbers as ‘Inscription,’” 685, 690.

16. Ibid.

17. See note 15 above; Quattrone and Hopper, “A ‘Time–Space Odyssey,’” 735; Reheul and Van Caneghem, “Financial Reporting Lags in the Non-profit Sector,” 373–4.

18. Hulme and Edwards, “Too Close for Comfort?” 979–80; Gray and Bebbington, “Environmental Accounting, Managerialism and Sustainability,” 38–9.

19. Alnoor, “Accountability in Practice,” 816–18.

20. McGann and Johnstone, “Power Shift and NGO Credibility Crisis.”

21. Tongia, Subrahmanian, and Arunachalam, Information and Communication Technology.

22. Helmig, Ingerfurth, and Pinz, “Success and Failure of Nonprofit Organisations,” 1528-32.

23. Besel and Andreescun, “Role of County-based Funders,” 262–4.

24. Quattrone and Hopper, “A ‘Time–Space Odyssey,’” 736.

25. See Yin, Case Study Research, 19.

26. See note 2 above.

27. Tongia, Subrahmanian, and Arunachalam, Information and Communications Technology.

28. See note 10 above.

29. See notes 2 and 13 above.

30. See note 2 above.

31. See note 15 above.

32. See note 12 above.

33. See note 11 above.