Three guiding principles for impactful government partnerships

Over the last decade, for many education NGOs, working with governments has emerged as a critical lever to achieve sustainable change at scale. Several NGOs who continue to engage with governments have also realized that it requires a different kind of leadership. A lot of our work at Leadership for Equity (LFE) with school (Grades 1-8) systems from 2016, and CLR’s (Centre for Learning Resources) work with ICDS (Anganwadis) systems from 2013, has centred around improving government systems and consciously building the capacity of system functionaries. Moving forward, as much as we at LFE avidly delved into solving systemic problems in education with systemic solutions, more challenges of partnering with government systems became apparent.

While governmental bodies are now more receptive to collaborative partnerships, there were no standard processes or acceptance of framing such partnerships 10 years ago. A wide range of problems, ranging from complex application processes, to indefinite timelines, to incalculable agreements, probed us into adopting a more cohesive and tactical approach.

In our journey over the last 7-8 years, we have worked with many governmental systems spread across the district, state, and national levels. Due to the absence of any standard processes for formulating such strategic partnerships, we were left to come up with our own coping mechanisms to navigate the complexity of the processes. In no way is this article an expert view. However, this is a view coming from years of failures, challenges, and successes of our field teams, who continue to strive to improve children’s learning outcomes.

So, here are three principles we have found helpful, while working with governments for educational change.

Principle 1: Understand the governmental structure and decide the level at which one seeks to engage

The government is not a monolith. It comprises of individuals, systems, and processes at multiple levels of governance. These play out with diverse power dimensions. One must keep three vantage points in mind while working with government systems: levels, government institutions, and people.

The top-down hierarchy of the government consists of the Central Government at the top, followed by the state governments. Then there are local government entities like those at the levels of the district and the village, with intermediate bodies at the block, and cluster levels. The degree of autonomy each of these levels exercises varies depending on the responsibilities assigned to them. It is also a function of the specific constitutional and legislative frameworks in place. Governmental bodies across each level are composed of people (i.e., government officials) responsible for executing these leading bodies’ functions and responsibilities.

After identifying the three major levels of governmental systems, it is also important for non-profits to understand the information flow in this top-down hierarchy. A perceptive and detailed understanding of the information flow will allow the organization to independently discern the pain points and take the necessary precautionary measures while moving forward. At LFE, we did have our fair share of experience in getting stuck at the state-level educational bodies.

We had a fantastic run with state-level bodies in Maharashtra during the period 2015-2019. However, this was followed by political shifts and changes in the administrative leadership. As a result, there were times when we were struggling to get our programs launched. This led to significant delays in program commitments and delivery.

However, we do have a collective awareness of the district-level decision-making bodies. Approaching them in a timely manner worked in our favour to proceed with our work at the local level. Lastly, being aware of the levels of the governmental structure helps non-profit organizations plan proposals in a way the government would be receptive to.

Once one has understood the structural levels, one must evaluate one’s programs and growth aspirations. Then one should decide from the onset, after careful deliberation, which level of the government one needs to engage with. The level of the government you engage with depends on the nature of interventions, intended beneficiaries, and the capacity in which the government bodies and officials will be approached.

During its early stages of conception, LFE was quick to recognize that no single actor would have a solution to address the problem with a systemic lens. As a result, we adopted a parallel ground-up and top-down approach. This flowed from a decision to try and exist in the hierarchical government ecosystem methodically.

In our experience, district-level bodies are typically the most receptive, because they are closest to the end beneficiary. They have specific responsibilities and understand what is required in their geography. They are also in a position to make decisions.

However, they are often flooded with priorities set by ministries at the state and national levels. As a result, districtlevel bodies often seek assistance with program implementation. They are also open to accepting support from nonprofit organizations. As one ascends to higher levels of the government, decision-making becomes more complex. This is often due to political interventions and considerations.

Principle 2: Avoid building parallel structures and interventions

The urge to build parallel structures and interventions to leverage existing systems’ potential must be resisted. It is acknowledged that what exists may not be good enough to serve the needs of the beneficiaries. NGOs may also have access to seasoned experts who can come up with better models. However, one must see how this expertise can be integrated with existing governmental initiatives, rather than building standalone solutions.

A structural solution directly parallel to what the government is doing results in fragmentation. It also complicates the ecosystem. There is a risk of such solutions not being scalable as well. For instance, the State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT) is responsible for training teachers in government schools. However, many nonprofits invest significantly in developing modules for training teachers, which they approach the government with.

Rather than extending a helping hand to the teachers, this confuses the teachers and students. This is due to information overload on the same topic from multiple sources. This attempt to replace the existing system, rather than complement the government’s efforts, leaves the objective unfulfilled.

The solutions that nonprofits outline should instead be based on a need analysis. This must complement the gaps in the system. By integrating their interventions into existing government programs, nonprofits can build stronger, sustainable, impactful, and more strategic partnerships.

In our experience, government bodies are efficient at strategizing and operationalizing a plan. However, they grapple with the problems of planning and implementing monitoring structures at a larger scale. We believe that a nonprofit can be a valuable partner to a government body by assisting them with breaking up a program goal into milestones, and setting up monitoring structures for each milestone. This is of course, additional to the support in educational, technical, and pedagogical expertise that the nonprofit sector brings in.

Principle 3: Adopt a tactful and empathetic approach while working with government officials

To identify the person who will champion their cause within the system, nonprofits need to establish an in-depth understanding of the numerous roles and responsibilities of government officials. Leadership positions within government bodies are occupied by either political or administrative heads depending on the functions these are responsible for executing.

Political heads are typically in charge of big-picture tasks such as setting up the vision. It is the administrative heads who ensure the implementation of the government’s vision through well-planned policies and programs.

Let us understand this with an example from the education sector. The Minister of Education is at the hierarchy’s top. The minister leads the vision and communication of the ministry. However, the implementation at the state-level is carried out by a secretary or an official above the level of an IAS officer. Most departments follow the same structural systems.

Even at the ground-level of districts and blocks, this is so. Although closer to the field, it is more a matter of integration of several departmental priorities and not just one. In our experience over the last several years, a district administration (Zilla Parishad), is a classic sizable unit of change. There is enough power, influence and resources at this level to be able to drive change at the scale of the district.

If a nonprofit is working on policy interventions, it is more likely to work with officials in leadership positions. One would work with the Principal Secretary and Education Commissioner at the state level. If a nonprofit seeks to work on strategic implementation, it is recommended to work with district and block level officials. These administrators oversee the implementation of programs within the communities. However, even when a nonprofit is working at a policy level, it needs to be aware of the conditions on the ground, and offer adequately rooted suggestions.

For nonprofit organizations, it is imperative not to assume an authoritative stance. This may come across as presumptuous, if they are perceived as suggesting that they can instruct the government on how to operate. The preconceived notion of public departments as slow, lazy, and ineffective must be obliterated. This is necessary to work efficiently and impact the educational ecosystem effectively. It is often systemic uncertainties such as delays in fund disbursement, changes in political and bureaucratic leadership, and extremely tight deadlines that result in the inconsistent performance of these departments.

Moreover, government officials working at the ground-level have developed deep insights into the communities under their charge, and how they can be helped, due to their extensive work experience. However, they need more resources to drive change in these communities.

Therefore, while attempting to work with government officials, it is important to be sensitive to the various challenges they have experienced while working on the ground in a close capacity with the communities. Their expertise, ideas, and a strong sense of autonomy can be leveraged to benefit all the stakeholders involved.

No formal regulations restrict nonprofits from approaching government bodies for collaborative initiatives. However, the attitudes of the officials leading these bodies significantly influence the acceptance of any proposals. Some may welcome collaboration. Whereas others may perceive the proposal of alternate solutions as a threat to their work. Recognizing their apprehensions and finding ways to alleviate these fears respectfully and empathetically can go a long way in setting successful and sustainable partnerships.

In the end, the success, or failure, of forging such strategic partnerships with governments depends upon a complex interplay of a variety of factors. Government hierarchies, levels, diversity, and officials’ attitudes are multifaceted and highly sensitive to deal with. However, such complexities can be navigated with proactive and tactful strategies combined with mindfulness.

Keeping in mind the three workable principles outlined above, you can tip the odds in your favor. This would help foster a more productive and harmonious working relationship.