Czech Republic: Romea.cz asks NGOs if they still want to change the world or just raise money?

Are nonprofits still able and willing to contest majority thinking and those in power? Or are they unable to risk such conflict because they might lose their grants from individual donors and state institutions?

Are NGOs and nonprofits increasingly co-opting themselves by running catchy advertising campaigns? These questions have been repeatedly discussed by those in the NGO world.

Tomáš Tožička recently raised them again on news server Romea.cz in a commentary. With respect to some nonprofits, he writes: "This is a trap into which many

movements have fallen during the past decade. Accountants and PR staff have convinced the leadership of many organizations that in order to increase their incomes and

enhance the respect the organization enjoys, it is better to work with positive news. This is a time-tested technique for so-called product placement, but for

campaigning this approach has proven fatal. While our organizations are are successfully getting bigger and we find their representatives hobnobbing with the

economic and political establishment, they become completely incompetent and toothless when it is time to follow through."

We consider this an essential topic, because the world of nonprofits should basically contribute toward increasing respect for both minority groups and minority opinions and positions, respect for the diversity of society. We have, therefore, asked the representatives of several development, environmental and social nonprofits the following questions:

1. Are nonprofits now changing into organizations mainly focused on fundraising and their own survival, are they resigning from campaigns aiming to change things?

Do nonprofits face such a risk?

2. Does using the techniques of marketing and PR pose a risk to nonprofits?

3. Because they need to reach out to a continually growing number of donors, are nonprofits failing to confront majority values ?

4. Isn’t there a contradiction between nonprofits attempting to reach as many people as possible on the basis of shared values while simultaneously wanting to change those values, whether that has to do with society’s relationship toward civic activism, environmental protection, minorities, racism or xenophobia?

The following organizations answered as follows: 

Míra Brož, Konexe:  The tendency to paint a rosy picture predominates. Some institutions and organizations, such as the Czech Government Agency for Social Inclusion

and the big nonprofit corporations, intentionally create the impression through their PR that the integration of Romani people in the Czech Republic is succeeding,

that everything is on the right path, that it’s just one success after another. They shouldn’t lie. Romani social integration policy in the Czech Republic over the past 20 years has

completely failed, hundreds of millions of crowns have been wasted and still are being wasted in projects that do not contribute to achieving change. Reality is

avoided and falsified in the final reports of these integration projects. In the Czech Republic many hundreds of these have been implemented, perhaps as many as

several thousand. Each of them has published a final report that discusses its 100 % success, when in reality most of them have not brought about any

change. The organizations’ aims are usually to fulfill the project indicators and to show on paper that everything is in order, not to aid people.

Zdeněk Ryšavý, ROMEA:  We at the ROMEA organization are practically constantly discussing whether to be positive in the sense of suppressing negative news or the kind

of information that could spark a negative response from readers. We mainly focus on media activity and our most visible such activity is the Romea.cz news server,

so this is of course specific to us. The position of news server Romea.cz is very unique in this respect, and it is clear that not all of our readers thank us for

it, whether they are Czech or Romani. Our aim must be high-quality journalism that will be created independently of surrounding pressures. That naturally includes

raising money for high-quality, independent journalism. Our situation is perhaps even more complicated than it is for other organizations that do, for

example, social work. The basic question for us is how to do fundraising and preserve the option of criticizing, when warranted, the Czech Government, the EU, the

ministries and other nonprofits involved in Romani issues here. Sometimes we find ourselves in a schizophrenic position where, for example, on the one hand we are

publishing articles critical of the Education Ministry on our news server and on the other hand we are requesting a subsidy from them for our activities in the

schools. We can only ever guess whether it was our withering criticism of former Education Minister Dobeš and his economic adviser Ladislav Bátora that resulted in our

not receiving a subsidy from the ministry the following year. Was our project not good enough? Was it worse than it had been the year before? Or was the decision

not to fund us revenge for our criticism? No one will ever give us an answer to these questions, we can only speculate as to the reasons. Generally it can be said

that the situation in the sector of pro-Romani nonprofits is very complex. I do not know a single organization that would be able to operate using the financing it

receives just from small donors or even from larger firms. The Romani topic is so unpopular in society that while small donors do exist, and while there are businesses that do donate, the number interested in this topic is negligible. The basic funding resources for pro-Romani organizations are Czech Government subsidies, some embassies (the American Embassy), the

European Union, foundations abroad (Open Society Fund) and the Norwegian Funds. When I recently spoke with the director of the "Cesta domů" (The Way Home)

organization, Marek Uhlíř, I could only quietly envy how much financing for their activities they receive from"small" donors. That organization

provides professional care to people who are dying and their loved ones, and that is a topic that one day will concern us all. Resources for organizations involved in the

Romani issue are limited and organizations compete with one another for them, which unfortunately can often prevent their collaborating. Naturally there do exist

some positive exceptions to that rule (e.g., ROMEA’s collaboration with the organization Slovo 21). The result is that we are not succeeding in creating a broad platform

of collaborating organizations whose activities complement each other, who are capable of joining forces at certain moments to take joint action against

some of the negative phenomena in society. When I look back on the 15 years in which I have been active in this field, it is getting worse year by year.

Martina Pařízková, Amnesty International:  At Amnesty, naturally, we sometimes address these questions – the possible clash of aims between activism, campaigns,

fundraising and PR. Generally, however, it can be said that our work is based on independent research and we address dozens of topics worldwide, some of which are

less popular than others. Of course, it logically follows from our position as international human rights defenders that we do our best to approach everything

responsibly and to take a clear stand even when something is unpopular in society (discrimination against Roma in the Czech Republic, against Muslims in Europe, etc.).

There is no risk that Amnesty will undergo the kind of devaluation you mention. Radicalism mostly works best with small organizations – they can find a market of

supporters in their niche and function well. The more the organization grows, the more income it needs, so it must reach out to more potential people and must begin

communicating differently, less radically, so as to reach more activists, donors, people in general and supporters. This seems logical to me and I do not believe that nonprofits in the Czech Republic have currently lost any influence or strength because of it. In my view, it always depends on how balanced the situation is, the aims

an organization works toward, and on the kind of people working there.

Jiří Koželouh, Hnutí Duha (Friends of the Earth Czech Republic): – I think that in and of itself the use of marketing and PR techniques – or rather, the effort to

inspire instead of intimidate – does not endanger nonprofits, but is really more of an opportunity for them to follow through on their aims. Theoretically, one could imagine

a situation in which a nonprofit is drowning in PR, or being hollowed out by campaigning, but I see the current problem as being that nonprofits (and I mean in particular

development ones, environmental ones, and human rights ones – I don’t have much experience with various social ones) do not take enough advantage of either an inspirational approach or marketing techniques, which means their campaigns just preach to the choir. Currently I see more of a problem with nonprofits that don’t concentrate that much

on fundraising among ordinary people and are therefore more dependent on grants and subsidy programs. In that case nonprofits are being transformed into organizations focused on

grant administration. Hnutí DUHA, for example, has put a lot of effort into increasing the number of individual donors contributing to us. This is the only way we can

be independent and conduct campaigns about the problems we consider the most serious in a way that we consider the most effective. Naturally that means thinking, when

planning a campaign, about whether we are getting people’s attention, whether what we offer will solve their problems, and whether they will understand us. Those, in my

opinion, are the conditions both for a successful campaign and for success in reaching out to potential donors. This doesn’t mean that we have to be positive at any cost.

People are bothered by various things (e.g., the threat of a garbage incinerator in their neighborhood) which we simply criticize and strive to make sure don’t happen,

and we give examples of positive alternatives (e.g., recycling waste). However, it is a fact that, for example, when it comes to global problems, the experience of

nonprofits and research has shown that they need to tone down the "catastrophes" and turn up the "inspiration" in order to succeed with the majority society. We will

get more people to favor protecting biodiversity by showing them the beauties of nature around us than by showing them the devastation of ancient forests.

Marek Čaněk, Multikulturní centrum Praha (Multicultural Center Prague):  I view this matter from the perspective of the "migration" NGOs. Many of them have PR staffers,

but I am not able to evaluate whether they succumb to "positivism" in the sense of Tomáš Tožička. Certainly it is still, to a certain degree, in vogue to present

migrants and refugees to the public through their "ethnic" food, music, or through images of immigrant women with their children. The main campaigns that exist in the

Czech Republic, however, fortunately also politicize the topic of migration. Specifically, I have in mind mainly the campaign for health insurance for migrants,

which criticizes the fact that several tens of thousands of foreigners have no access to the system of public health insurance here. Resistance to change in this area is

significant, primarily because of the commercial interests of the other insurance companies, and also because of xenophobia. That does not alter the fact that NGOs are not

self-critical enough in the area of migration, for example.

Jana Smiggles-Kavková, Fórum 50%:  I definitely would not tar all nonprofits with the same brush. It is true that many of them adapt their work greatly in an effort

to raise money. Either they change their activities to conform to a grant call, or they stop taking a critical approach toward the state out of concern that it will anger

their donors. I call this "project prostitution". I can give a concrete example:  Almost all of the organizations involved here in gender equality have begun to focus on

the question of work-life balance, influenced by the narrow focus of the resources available from the European Social Fund. For other topics, practically speaking, it

used to be impossible to raise money. Now that the Norwegian Funds are running it is possible to focus on other topics, so now

there are many good, interesting projects running that focus on actual systemic change (e.g., pressure to reform birthing in the Czech Republic, the question of

sexism in the media, etc.). I think most nonprofits continue to play their role as the watchdogs (and watchbitches) of democracy and when there is a need, they speak up

and are not afraid to be critical. In addition to criticism, however, I consider it important that these groups get actively involved in the

design of state concepts and policies and contribute their experience from the field to them. I think both roles are important and also compatible. Fórum 50%, for

example, is active on Government advisory bodies, but also convenes protest "happenings" and writes protest letters when it is appropriate.

Tomáš Urban, Člověk v tísni (People in Need) – To answer the first question, it is naturally up to each nonprofit how to deal with such matters and set priorities.

Because of our work in impoverished enclaves in the Czech Republic, for example, we are regularly rejected by donors or we lose them, and we are repeatedly convinced that

irrational prejudice against Romani people occurs across this society irrespective of educational attainment, income level or political conviction. Most nonprofits avoid this

dilemma by specializing in a certain topic with which their donors also identify. People in Need has various ongoing collections – some people want to support

educational activities here at home, others want to support them in developing countries. Whoever identifies with our values overall contributes to our Club of Friends. As

for the second question, marketing and PR techniques are just tools, so it depends on how they are used, but it is true that these tools are not neutral and involve

ethically problematic aspects. Today, for example, it is common for PR firms to follow how journalists read their e-mails, and according to that information they then alter

their communications with them. We consider this unfair behavior because many journalists are unaware of it and an information asymmetry arises. We are constantly

addressing such dilemmas. Priming, framing, personalization, the exploitation of information from Facebook and Google and selling it to advertisers, all of these are

powerful tools that can be abused. I am proud that we discuss such things at People in Need and keep an eye on the limits of the freedom and privacy of the people we

reach out to. We are also addressing the ethics of how we depict those who receive our aid, because we don’t want to play to majority stereotypes. An emaciated African

child covered in flies would not be used by us as a visual, even though it probably works and for some organizations is a reality their staffers encounter. We don’t

want to moralize. As for the third question, I think that it would be very hard to reproach People in Need with conformism given the topics we are involved in. Some

people consider us socialist Pioneers, others consider us neoconservatives, some say were are too political, others that we are not political enough, but we bring together

under one roof the topics of development cooperation and human rights, and I believe that makes sense, even though it is rather unique in the nonprofit sector. I like

our campaigns and I do not think they sell out in order to conform to majority tastes. Every organization has its own aesthetics and establishes its own

ethical boundaries, but on the other hand, this money is not just being collected for the hell of it, and from the perspective of humanitarian crises, the debates about aesthetics and co-optation are a bit academic. It is important to choose resources that will help specific people. On the last question of a contradiction between

outreach and attempting change, this can be faced by diversifying the organization’s portfolio, as I mentioned above. People who don’t want to help political dissidents

somewhere can instead support the building of schools in Ethiopia through us. It is everyone’s free choice whether to support a specific cause or not, but naturally this depends on an

organization’s overall credit, and People in Need’s credit is its ability to work cost-effectively, its experience and its expertise. I would say we have a strong

track record of results (even though most of them are not visible) in the fight for equal education, against unfair practices in the lending industry, in support of

specific human rights activists, innovation in development cooperation, etc. However, it is a fact that we want to be more active in the public sphere, to spark

debate, to name the important transformations and undercurrents influencing us now, to defend the vulnerable against xenophobic policies.

Dan Petrucha, Liga lidských práv (League of Human Rights):  To briefly answer your first question, I do not believe this is the case, at least not from our

organization’s perspective. Naturally we also appeal to individual donors, but I don’t believe this influences our activity as a human rights watchdog organization.

Compared to Greenpeace, for example, in our case such donations comprise just a few percent of our total budget, the vast majority of which is comprised of public

tenders we have won and grants for specific projects. In those projects we draw attention to human rights violations and we address strategic cases before the courts

at home and in Europe, and we advocate for systemic change in Czech legislation. It is true that, for example, on the question of inclusive education we prefer to use

positive examples in our communication with the public, and we express appreciation for schools that have learned how to educate all children together – we want to show

that it really can work. However, when it is not possible to reach agreement any other way, we do file anti-discrimination lawsuits and handle matters in court. The

"positivism" you mention in the nonprofit sector has more than one cause, in my opinion – people with a clear vision of a "better" world work in nonprofits, the

public is overwhelmed by the negative news spewing from the newspapers and from our screens, and nonprofit organizations are doing their best to be

constructive critics who provide examples of good practice from elsewhere in addition to pointing out deficiencies.

Magda Faltová, Sdružení pro integraci a migraci (Association for Integration and Migration): – I consider this discussion very important and relevant and I think that

the quagmire of collaboration with the state and other entities, fundraising, and project management is one of the biggest problems the Czech nonprofit sector grapples

with (or at least our organization). I see a bit of a difference between the NGOs and nonprofits that have broad donor support (e.g., Caritas, Greenpeace, People in

Need) and organizations like us, where the percentage of income from individual donors is minimal and the broader public’s opinion, therefore, does not play a role in our decision-making. Naturally this means we are financed from grants and dependent on grant calls, etc. I believe the discussion is not just about activism "yes or no" or nonprofits "yes or no". In my view, both are needed for civic society and the solving of social problems. In recent years we have experienced collaborations with activists where we organized demonstrations and "happenings" in common and this has worked excellently. I am convinced that there must be a plurality of opinions within a nonprofit, as

well as agreement on the basic principles and values the organization is striving to embody. That agreement means the organization will not back away from its values

(I firmly hope) and will not compromise them, even if it means losing financing and going out of business. That is the principle SIMI is based on. I think it is

important for our activism that we are constantly aware of the danger of becoming the establishment. I believe it is key to hold this debate and that

NGOs and nonprofits must always be aware of the risk of co-optation. Generally I agree that it is not possible to only debate positives, because that

approach has proven dysfunctional in many cases.

Greenpeace Czech Republic – In the nonprofit sector, financing frequently represents a genuinely enormous challenge. Greenpeace is a campaign organization that accepts

gifts from individual donors, never from corporations, firms or governments. Not only does this guarantee our independence, it makes us responsible to the 13 000 people

in the Czech Republic (and the three million people worldwide) who financially support our work. Naturally we reach out to new donors and do our best to do so in an

entertaining way, but we never back away from our obligations and priorities. We regularly inform our donors and the general public about our activities. We publish

positive news about what has succeeded as well as negative news. We point out problems, but we also do our best to offer solutions to them and to present evidence that

our solutions work. Being solutions-oriented is not the same thing as the "positivism" the author of the article refers to. Jitka Nesrstová, our director of

fundraising says that "Good marketing and PR can significantly aid a campaign (and bad marketing can harm it). From our experience we know that we most easily acquire

new donors when we succeed in pushing through our aims and are able to brag about a success: A big firm abandoning a harmful practice, a new agreement protecting what

remains of the rain forest or overfished oceans, getting the support of the EU and UN Secretary-General to create a nature preserve in the Arctic. That is the best

marketing. The more people we succeed in reaching about a problem, involving them in a campaign, and ultimately showing them that their participation made sense, the greater the

chance that they will get involved next time. We believe that gradually, their experiences and perhaps even their values will shift in a ‘greener’ direction and that

they will place greater faith in the idea that change is possible."

Robert Basch, Open Society Fund Prague:  On the first question, nonprofits do face the risk of transforming into organizations focused on their own survival, not on their mission. There

are many organizations that regularly adjust their activities depending on the kind of funding tenders on the horizon. They alter them so they can fit the categories

outlined by the donors. If this is done exceptionally or temporarily, it does not necessarily pose a risk to the organization. However, if this happens long-term, it can

become a problem, although not in every area of nonprofit activity. For example, it can be logical for organizations providing social services to adapt to their

donors’ demands (e.g., if the public administration is funding them), but for watchdog organizations it represents a fatal risk. I understand this behavior even

though I disagree with it. Many organizations are pushed into such behavior by a lack of financing, a sense of responsibility to save the organization and the jobs it

provides, by not wanting to be the one who puts the organization down, as it were, at a moment when it has "a chance of raising money and keeping the

organization alive even at the price of deviating from its mission." I don’t believe the problem is entrenched in questions of marketing and PR. Rather, I much more

see it as a problem with strategic decision-making on where the organization is heading, and it is also a question of its integrity. With respect to succumbing

to majority values, that can’t be generalized to all nonprofits, but I do perceive this as a risk. It is a component of the problem I have discussed above. Ultimately

even among nonprofits we will certainly find ones for whom the priority is just survival, and therefore they will have no problem selling themselves to the mainstream.

That path may be paved with good intentions, the representatives of the organization may be existentially convinced of their irreplaceability and

uniqueness, and therefore they will do anything they can to keep running. As for the final question about a conflict between appealing to people and getting them to

change, I don’t believe it has been posed in entirely the best way, it’s very broad. I don’t necessarily see a conflict there. You can share basic values with someone,

but your attitudes based on those values can be different, as can the paths leading to fulfilling those values. Your effort can be to change attitudes.