Pros
Pros Low internal politics: Compared to many international NGOs, the working environment was relatively free from excessive bureaucracy and office politics. This allowed staff to focus more on actual program delivery. High level of autonomy: Field staff were trusted to manage their responsibilities, make decisions, and adapt interventions to local realities without constant micromanagement. Strong field exposure: Working in Somaliland provided meaningful hands-on experience, particularly in community engagement and program implementation. Supportive local teams: National staff were committed, knowledgeable, and collaborative, which made day-to-day work efficient and rewarding. Flexibility in operations: There was room to innovate and adjust approaches based on context rather than rigid headquarters-driven rules.
Cons
Cons Limited funding base: Programs were often constrained by insufficient or short-term funding, which affected continuity and scale of interventions. Weak resource mobilization capacity: Proposal development and donor engagement were not consistently strong, leading to missed funding opportunities. Dependence on a narrow donor pool: Heavy reliance on a small number of donors increased vulnerability when funding cycles ended. Impact on staff morale and planning: Funding uncertainty sometimes created pressure on teams and made long-term planning difficult.