What 12 Years in Uganda Taught Me About Local Knowledge, Donor Accountability, and True Impact

Twelve years ago, I first travelled to Uganda, full of energy, enthusiasm, curiosity, and assumptions. Without being aware of it, I thought I knew the “right” way to solve problems. After all, being a Canadian, I came from a place where systems are often more advanced and resources are more abundant. I believed that my experience gave me the answers.

Over time, I realized how wrong I was, and how much I needed to relearn everything about development, leadership, and impact.

The Core Lesson: Local Knowledge is Not Optional

In the West, we often equate “advanced systems” with better solutions. But in development, this mindset rarely works. Solutions imposed from the outside, no matter how well-intentioned, often fail to stick. Real, lasting impact comes from listening, observing, and learning from the people who live the challenges every day.

This is the essence of locally led development (LLD). But here’s the catch: while everyone talks about it, the structures, incentives, and funding systems of major donors often make it very difficult to fully realize.

Does Locally Led Development Work?

This is where the debate gets interesting. Much of the push for LLD is ethical: power should shift to local actors, not just because they can deliver programs but because it’s the right thing to do. But is there evidence that local leadership actually improves outcomes?

• Mixed but promising evidence: A 2024 review by FHI 360 found that empirical support for LLD improving efficiency or effectiveness is limited. Outcomes are context-dependent, and “locally led” looks very different in different programs. (FHI 360, 2024)

• Sustainability advantage: Brookings’ analysis of PEPFAR programs showed that local implementers can meet or exceed program targets. While they are not always more effective than international NGOs, programs led by local actors are often more resilient and sustainable over time. (Brookings, 2022)

• Humanitarian contexts: Studies show that when local actors lead humanitarian responses, legitimacy and long-term adaptive capacity improve, but systemic donor barriers often prevent full power transfer. (ScienceDirect, 2022)

In short: LLD can work — especially in building sustainable, resilient programs — but it requires real structural change, not just lip service.

My Personal Relearning Journey

When I first began working in Uganda, I leaned on Western-style “solutions.” I wrote proposals, led programs, and assumed I knew what communities needed. However, the programs initially developed under Canada-Uganda Sport & Exercise Medicine (CUSEM) failed to take root, not because those I was working with didn’t care or see the benefit of the program, but because the solutions weren’t theirs or weren’t effectively integrated into their systems.

Over the years, I had to relearn:

• From designing to listening: Real solutions emerge when local voices are at the center.

• From rigid plans to adaptive approaches: Context is not a constraint; it is a source of innovation.

• From formal authority to trust in relationships: Local leaders, networks, and grassroots groups often understand constraints and opportunities far better than I ever could.

This shift, from knowing to listening, from imposing to enabling, has stayed with me in every role since: volunteering, running a nonprofit, and while supporting the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Why This Matters

1. Ethics and impact are intertwined: Localization is not just about fairness; when done right, it strengthens sustainability, relevance, and legitimacy.

2. Systemic barriers are real: Donor requirements, reporting frameworks, and funding mechanisms often make real local ownership difficult.

3. Evidence generation is key: For localization to succeed, local actors need not only to implement but also to generate evidence and make decisions based on it.

   A question for reflection:

   How often do we examine whether our frameworks for “impact” actually align with local priorities — rather than just donor metrics? And what would development look like if local actors truly led the way?

Mission Matters. But So Does Management: Why Non-Profits Must Run Like Businesses Without Losing Their Values

Did you know that about 30% of non-profits will fail within 10 years unless they strengthen their operational and financial practices? That’s not because they lack passion or purpose, it’s because they lack the systems and discipline to sustain them. (Source: Pactman Consulting, “A Comprehensive Guide to Nonprofit Management in the U.S.,” 2024.)

I’ve spent much of my career building and leading programs in the health and non-profit sector and now, through Afya Consulting, supporting others to do the same. One of the most important lessons I’ve learned is this: mission alone isn’t enough.

Running a non-profit like a business is not about abandoning values; it’s about protecting them. It’s how you ensure your mission can endure, adapt, and continue meeting the needs of those you serve.

There’s often real resistance to this idea, and the resistance can come from Executive Directors, Boards or staff.

• EDs sometimes feel that time spent on financial planning, systems, or data takes away from “the real work.”

• Boards may lack the information they need to govern strategically and default to operational details instead.

• Funders often reinforce the tension by preferring program spending over investments in capacity, infrastructure, and evaluation.

This creates a persistent gap between mission and management. Of course the intention is good (to stay focused on service and values), but without financial discipline and data, even the best intentions can become unsustainable.

When I was building and directing programs, I learned early on that passion wasn’t enough to keep them running, let alone see them grow. Passion and values, I would say were the fertile ground on which everything else was based, but alone it just isn't enough. Programs were most effective when designed and operated with the same rigor and at times "arms length, objective distance" expected in any business environment. Which can be difficult when one feels a strong personal and emotional connection to the project or organization.

We tracked outcomes, not just activities. We reviewed budgets alongside program results. We used data not only to report to funders but to improve delivery, refine approaches, and ensure we were genuinely meeting community needs.

The combination of purpose and discipline is what secured continued funding, strengthened stakeholder confidence, and ultimately made the programs sustainable.

I often remind teams: Funders don’t just invest in your mission; they invest in your management.

Why Data Matters Beyond Finances

Too often, data in the non-profit sector is viewed purely as a financial management tool. But in reality, it’s also a learning and adaptation tool.

Good data facilitates:

• Understanding of whether programs are achieving meaningful outcomes.

• Identifying which interventions are most effective and which need to change.

• Demonstrating value and credibility to funders and partners.

• Responding to emerging needs in real time rather than waiting for the next reporting cycle.

Data turns good intentions into evidence-based impact. non-profits that collect, analyze, and act on data are more agile, more accountable, and better aligned with the communities they serve.

When Boards Don’t Have Data, Strategy Suffers

Boards play a critical role in setting direction and ensuring sustainability. But they can only do that effectively if they have the right information in front of them.

I’ve seen well-intentioned boards make decisions based on assumptions or anecdotes because they didn’t have clear financials, performance metrics, or impact data. Without that foundation, strategic discussions quickly collapse into operational debates, not because boards don’t care, but because they’re flying blind.

When boards have robust data, everything changes.

• They can focus on foresight, not firefighting.

• They can weigh risks and opportunities objectively.

• They can align resources with impact and make confident, informed decisions.

In short: data empowers boards to lead strategically, not administratively.

What It Really Means to Run Like a Business

“Running like a business” doesn’t mean thinking like a corporation. It means applying the same level of rigor, planning, and accountability that strong businesses use, all in service of your mission.

That includes:

• Tracking financial health through clear metrics like program expense ratio, operating margin, and cash flow.

• Diversifying revenue sources to reduce vulnerability to single funders.

• Investing in people and systems the often-overlooked “infrastructure” that allows programs to function effectively.

• Embedding performance measurement into everyday operations, not as a reporting exercise but as a leadership tool.

When done well, business discipline strengthens your ability to deliver on your values. It ensures that your mission isn’t just inspiring, it’s viable.

There’s a misconception that values and business thinking are opposing forces. In truth, they’re mutually reinforcing. Values tell us why we do what we do. Business discipline ensures we have the capacity to keep doing it.

When a non-profit collapses because of weak financial management or poor planning, the harm extends beyond the organization. Communities lose services. Staff lose jobs. Funders lose trust. The mission and the people it serves suffer.

That’s why financial and operational discipline are not distractions from the mission; they are acts of stewardship.

The Role of Consulting in Building Sustainable Non-Profits

At Afya Consulting, we often work with organizations that are at this crossroads: deeply committed to their mission, but struggling with systems, sustainability, or measurement.

Our approach is simple: we help non-profits balance mission and management. That means strengthening their strategy, improving their internal processes, and building capacity to collect and use data effectively.

Because when organizations are managed well, they can serve better. And when impact is measured, adaptation and growth with purpose happens.

It’s time to move past the false divide between mission and management.

Instead of asking, “Should non-profits run like businesses?”, the real question is: “How can we adopt business discipline in a way that strengthens our mission and values?”

When we bring together the heart of a non-profit and the mind of a business, we create organizations that are not only compassionate but capable, able to respond, adapt, and endure.

Reflection Questions for Leaders and Boards

If you’re leading or governing a non-profit, consider asking:

• Do we have the data we need to make informed, strategic decisions?

• Are we investing in systems that strengthen our mission long-term?

• What one business practice could we adopt to make our impact more sustainable?

The Avoidable Conflict at the Intersection of Project Management & Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Practical Strategies for Alignment and Decision Making.

Clarify Decision-Making Up Front: Map all partners (funders, implementing partners, government, communities) and explicitly define: Who decides on budget, timelines, and scope changes; Which decisions require consensus vs. advisory input; How disagreements will be resolved.

• Done By Whom: Project Management and MELA team.

• Why it matters: Misunderstandings about decision-making are often at the root of conflicts between PM and M&E. Experienced PMs call this the “RACI for conflict avoidance.”

• Example: In a multi-country education program, agreeing on decision rights upfront prevented three months of delays when a mid-project funding shortfall occurred.

Negotiate the SOW and KPIs Before Execution: Treat the Statement of Work (SOW) as negotiable until the first payment is made. Identify non-negotiable vs. flexible KPIs; Build contingency plans for missing or delayed data; Agree on what constitutes success for all parties.

• Done by Whom: Project & MELA Director

• Why it matters: Conflicts often arise when monitoring and evaluation expectations are misaligned with the project plan or among partners. Locking key performance indicators (KPIs) in too early can lead to chasing unachievable metrics.

• Example: A health program revised KPIs after an initial field assessment, aligning expectations with on-the-ground realities.

• Pro tip: This isn’t always easy! Factors influencing implementation often change during the procurement process. But spending time upfront to align the PM team, MEL team, and partners on expectations and deliverables significantly reduces confusion and sets the project up for success.

Segment M&E Into “Must-Have” vs. “Nice-to-Have”: Focus on metrics that matter most for accountability and learning: Essential: Required by funders or key decisions Optional: Useful for internal learning, but not critical

• Why it matters: Trying to monitor everything creates friction with project management — teams spend more time reporting than implementing.

• Example: A youth empowerment project cut optional survey questions by 60%, resulting in faster reporting and more meaningful learning.

Bottom Line: The tension between project management and M&E doesn’t have to derail your program. By clarifying decision-making, negotiating KPIs, and focusing on what truly matters in monitoring, you can navigate the intersection successfully and set your project up for real impact.