Case Study

Curbing Mission Creep Despite temptations to broaden its focus, the Rural Development Institute has remained single-mindedly devoted to its mission. As a result, the organization has helped 400 million poor farmers around the world take ownership of some 270 million acres of land – all on a modest budget.

By Kim Jonker & William F. Meehan III

Stanford Social Innovation Review Winter 2008

Stanford Social Innovation Review 518 Memorial Way, Stanford, CA 94305-5015 Ph: 650-725-5399. Fax: 650-723-0516 Email: [email protected], www.ssireview.com

Copyright © 2007 by Leland Stanford Jr. University All Rights Reserved

Stanford Social Innovation Review 518 Memorial Way, Stanford, CA 94305-5015 Ph: 650-725-5399. Fax: 650-723-0516 Email: [email protected], www.ssireview.com CASE STUDY

Curbing Mission Creep DESPITE TEMPTATIONS TO BROADEN ITS FOCUS, THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT Institute has remained single-mindedly devoted to its mission. As a result, the organization has helped 400 million poor farmers around the world take ownership of some 270 million acres

of land – all on a modest budget. by KIM JONKER & WILLIAM F. MEEHAN III

THROUGHOUT THE WORLD’S working with governments to design By the end of 2006, RDI had worked countrysides, the difference between land rights reform laws, policies, and in 40 countries and helped poor rural poverty and prosperity often lies under programs; 3) convincing governments, dwellers take ownership of some 270 people’s feet: land. When poor farmers donor agencies, and foreign aid organi- million acres – roughly 7 percent of the come to own the land on which they world’s arable land. The organization’s work, their newfound pride, commit- success invites temptations: to expand ment, and long-term outlook dramati- How can nonprofits avoid into new areas, to aid new populations, cally increase their productivity. As a to adopt new methods. But by hewing result, landownership not only helps mission creep? closely to its mission, RDI has increased families generate more income and its impact on a relatively small annual wealth, it also leads them to enjoy bet- budget of just over $2 million. ter nutrition, health, self-esteem, and What can nonprofits “We have avoided mission creep and community status. gain from sticking to have focused on what we do best,” says As several revolutions have shown, Roy Prosterman, RDI’s founder and however, transferring land from those their mission? chairman emeritus. who have it to those who don’t is no easy Mission creep plagues the nonprofit task. Yet a small Seattle-based nonprofit sector. In the private sector, pencil man- has managed to turn 400 million of the What are the elements ufacturers, for example, rarely dive into world’s poorest people into landowners. of an effective the bakery business or into human The nonprofit, the Rural Development resources consulting. Yet nonprofits rou- Institute (RDI), is a group of attorneys, mission statement? tinely do the equivalent, expanding their economists, and public policy experts programs far beyond their organiza- who help the rural poor around the globe tions’ original scope, skills, and core obtain the legal right to own land. zations to help the rural poor own land; competencies – often in response to RDI pursues its mission through four and 4) implementing land rights reforms, funding opportunities or staff mem- major activities: 1) researching both the which includes making the rural poor bers’ interests. land needs of the rural poor and the aware of their rights and monitoring This creeping can stretch organiza- best practices in land rights reform; 2) land transfers. tions so thin and so far that they can no

60 STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW / winter 2008 www.ssireview.org CASE STUDY

A farmer plows his field in rural India. Although land is the primary source of income, wealth, credit access, and status for rural Indians, some 62 million households have either few or no landownership rights. The Rural Development Institute is working to change that.

longer effectively apply their resources Knowing When to Say “No” Vietnamese government, with financial toward their goals. RDI was born in 1967, in the midst of the help from the U.S. government, bought RDI’s greatest weapon in fighting . Prosterman had finished land from large landlords for two and a mission creep is its well-defined mission a Harvard law degree and a stint on half times the value of the land’s crops, statement: “RDI is an international non- Wall Street, and was teaching at the Uni- and then redistributed the plots to ten- profit organization working to secure versity of Washington School of Law. ant farmers. Between 1970 and 1973, land rights for the world’s poorest peo- Watching as the Viet Cong recruited the program gave land rights to 1 million ple, those 3.4 billion chiefly rural people thousands of impoverished rural farm- tenant farmers, increased rice production who live on less than $2 a day.” This ers, he became convinced that redis- by 30 percent, and cut Viet Cong recruit- mission clearly states whom the orga- tributing land to poor tenant farmers ment by 80 percent. A 1970 editorial in nization serves – the world’s poorest and paying reasonable compensation to called the program people – and what it aims to do – get landlords would address some of the “probably the most ambitious and pro- them land rights. (See “Making Mis- social and economic causes of the war. gressive non-Communist land rights sions That Won’t Creep” on p. 64 for He published his ideas about democra- reform of the 20th century.” more on effective mission statements.) tic land reform in the Washington Law Unlike the Marxist variety, RDI’s Using this mission statement, RDI Review. The dean of the University of democratic land rights reforms ensure can wisely decide which projects to Washington School of Law then passed that governments lawfully and nonvio- accept and which to decline, as well as the article on to a friend at USAID. lently give private landowners fair com- which ongoing projects to exit. In so Impressed with Prosterman’s ideas, pensation for their land. Land recipi- doing, the organization has become a USAID invited him to be a land law con- ents, in turn, are free to choose how leading expert on rural land issues for the sultant in South Vietnam. Before he they will farm. Nearly all choose family World Bank, the U.S. Agency for Inter- knew it, Prosterman was standing in a farming, rather than forming collectives national Development (USAID), and rice paddy, drafting legislation for the or cooperatives. During its early years, the United Nations Development Pro- Land to the Tiller program. “My instruc- RDI developed its mission statement. gramme. And Prosterman received the tions had been to find facts, not make rec- “There was so much enthusiasm and inaugural Henry R. Kravis Prize in Lead- ommendations,” he says. “But I ignored interest in all of the new opportunities ership, which is administered by Clare- those instructions.” and different directions that we could mont McKenna College.1 Through the program, the South take,” Prosterman explains. “I needed a PHOTOGRAPHS COURTESY OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

www.ssireview.org winter 2008 / STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW 61 tool with which to herd the cats and to agement team weighed the pros and make sure that everyone was on the cons of expanding the organization’s same page about our fundamental goal.” operations into India. India has the Over time, RDI has slightly altered the largest number of poor people on the wording of its mission statement, but its planet. It also has the greatest concen- substance has remained the same. tration of rural households that are land- RDI uses its mission statement to less or nearly landless – a total of 62 mil- know when to say “no” to new projects. lion households. A 1997 World Bank In 1998, for example, a USAID contrac- report showed that landlessness – even tor approached RDI with the opportu- more than caste or illiteracy – was by far nity to work on a fully funded urban land the greatest predictor of poverty in rights reform project in the former Soviet India.2 For these reasons, Prosterman Union. Though not targeted specifically Roy Prosterman conducts fieldwork in and Hanstad found the possibility of to the poor, the subcontracting offer , where RDI has helped give land entering India extremely attractive. “It was quite alluring: RDI was already rights to more than 75 million families. was the kind of opportunity that makes working in the former Soviet Union on nonprofit leaders who aspire to make a a grant that was about to expire. This sion, says Hanstad. The organization difference absolutely starry-eyed,” new subcontracting opportunity would eventually found other ways to earn explains Hanstad. give RDI a new, stable source of fund- money, such as charging fees to help Yet this high-reward opportunity ing. It would also take advantage of with farm privatization in Moldova and was also high risk. RDI usually only RDI’s rich expertise in Russian land law. Ukraine. This income allowed the orga- enters countries whose politicians are Despite these economies and syn- nization to focus on its mission and to willing to develop and implement the ergies, RDI would still have to devote develop “a strong presence in the former organization’s recommended initiatives. much time and energy to understanding Soviet Union within our niche of rural “We always ask ourselves, do the polit- urban, as opposed to rural, land rights land rights reform,” says Hanstad. By the ical forces appear to be aligned, or at least reform. The management team was end of 2006, RDI had helped govern- not strongly opposed?” explains concerned that accepting an urban pro- ments reallocate more than 34 million Hanstad. “The conventional wisdom in ject would lead the organization away acres of land in Russia, 2.9 million acres the 1980s and 1990s was that India had from its niche of promoting land rights in Moldova, and nearly 69 million acres insufficient political will for land rights for the rural poor, who represented the in Ukraine – the great majority of it to reform.” And understandably so: In the largest population in need of RDI’s ser- impoverished rural families. 1960s and 1970s, reformers had vices. “There was so much work to be attempted to redistribute full-size farms done in the rural setting,” says Tim Taking on Risky “Yeses” to landless peasants by seizing the farms Hanstad, RDI’s president and CEO. “In A well-focused mission statement can and then paying landowners far below the end, we turned down the urban give organizations the motivation and market rates. opportunity because we felt that it was clear decision-making criteria they need In addition, RDI did not have any outside of our mission. And we felt very to step up to difficult assignments. funding earmarked for new operations strongly that on principle we shouldn’t Indeed, sticking to its mission has led in India. The organization anticipated chase after funding.” RDI to take on outsized challenges. that India would be an especially expen- It turned out to be the right deci- In 1999, for instance, RDI’s man- sive and challenging place to work. Rather than just one central decision maker, India has 28 states with 28 dif- KIM JONKER is a consultant to nonprofits and foundations on issues of strategy, board ferent sets of land tenure rules and governance, and organizational effectiveness. She also serves as director of the Henry R. reforms. With its funding already Kravis Prize in Leadership. stretched thin, RDI would have to estab- WILLIAM F. MEEHAN III is a lecturer in strategic management at the Stanford Graduate lish an office in India to coordinate work School of Business, and is a regular writer and speaker on nonprofit and philanthropic top- in multiple and frequently remote ics. He is also a senior director at McKinsey and Company. locales. Moreover, some staff members did not support expanding into India. RDI

62 STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW / winter 2008 www.ssireview.org CASE STUDY

had never established an in-country office market. Yet if each nonlandowning fam- Securing microplots for India’s entire with its own funding, and many RDI staff ily in India received a two-acre lot, landless population would require less members feared that the diversion of reformers would have to redistribute 20 than 1 percent of the country’s total funds to India would endanger their to 40 percent of the country’s land. This arable land.3 jobs. At the same time, staff knew that was impossible. RDI would have to serve RDI determined that the govern- focusing RDI’s scarce resources in less fewer people, decrease the plot size per ment could carve some of the microplots costly regions would give them more job family, or redesign its program in some from public lands, and then the gov- security. For example, a great deal of other way. ernment could purchase the remainder easy money lay in the former Soviet After much deliberation, the man- from landowners at full market price. countries, where RDI had already devel- agement team decided to enter India. This strategy would involve land costs oped a strong presence. “It would have Discussions about the various pros and of less than $100 per family, whereas a been a no-brainer to forget about India cons always came back to the organiza- full-size two-acre plot would cost roughly and stay in the former Soviet Union tion’s mission. “Our mission is to secure $2,000 per family (if paying market except for one major factor: We had land rights for the world’s rural poor,” price). It would also allow RDI to already reached a point of diminishing explains Prosterman. “The sheer num- increase its reach and scale because the returns in the former Soviet Union,” bers of landless rural poor living in India organization would not have to recom- says Hanstad. “India, on the other hand, meant that we simply could not avoid the mend capping the number of families that the program could serve. Additionally, RDI’s microplot pro- gram would give titles either just to women or to women and their hus- bands. Ownership of the title gives women more control over their new asset, more say in their families, and more status in their communities. To date, the governments of four Indian states – Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, and Orissa – have accepted and begun implementing RDI’s microplot ownership recommendations. The program has the potential to reach some 2 million poor rural households in these states alone, and several other states are waiting to begin similar pro- In a rural Indian village, a formerly landless mother and son plant a tree on their new grams. Moreover, the new microplot microplot – a one-tenth-acre parcel that can help lift them out of poverty. approach gave RDI a new way to pursue its mission in settings where govern- was a vast, totally untapped market full country while staying true to our mission ments have given up on distributing tra- of incredible potential.” and our aspirations for impact.” ditional, full-size farms. For example, To tap that potential, however, RDI To address the unique circumstances Mali and ’s most populous would need to adapt its approach dra- in India, RDI reinvented its model. After province, Punjab, have already accepted matically. India had more landless peo- conducting extensive research in vil- similar landownership programs partly ple than did any of the other countries lages, the organization discovered that developed by RDI staff attorneys. in which RDI had worked. In these coun- owning a one-tenth-acre “microplot” tries, RDI had aimed to allocate two to of land gave a family a large portion of Knowing When to Leave three acres to each needy farming fam- its nutritional needs, extra income, a RDI uses its mission statement not only ily. The organization’s research had place for a house, bargaining power in to choose which projects to take and shown that two to three acres was the labor market, access to affordable which to leave on the table, but also enough for families both to feed them- credit, a cushion against small disasters, which programs to exit. In 1992, RDI selves and to sell their surplus on the and increased status in the community. began conducting fieldwork in Kyr-

www.ssireview.org winter 2008 / STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW 63 CASE STUDY

Making Missions That Won’t Creep Successful nonprofit mission statements have the following seven characteristics:

They are focused other organizations. Both Teach for customers, governmental agencies, A widely accepted axiom of America and Responsible Wealth, for and the public at large. A great mission corporate strategy is that more example, are fighting social inequal- reflects those stakeholders’ interests, focused strategies generally ities. But they take very different paths sometimes balancing them, sometimes 1outperform less focused ones. The to this same end, as reflected in their choosing some interests over others. same principle applies to nonprofits. mission statements. Teach for Amer- As a result, the mission statement is Nevertheless, in an attempt to be ica very clearly states that it aims “to inspiring to them. inspiring or to appear grand, many enlist our nation’s most promising nonprofit missions are too broad and future leaders in the movement to unfocused. As a result, many organi- eliminate educational inequality.” They anticipate change zations promise to end global poverty, Responsible Wealth, in contrast, strives The best mission statements bring about world peace, and feed “to speak out publicly about a grow- are timeless. Of course, all the hungry people in the world ing set of rules tilted in favor of large- almost everything changes when in fact they have resources only asset owners at the expense of all oth- 6over time, and nonprofits need to to grant a few hundred small busi- ers in society.” regain their stakeholders’ under- ness loans, to teach a few thousand standing and commitment to their children about nonviolent communi- mission every three to five years. But cation, or to feed a few thousand peo- They guide trade-offs nonprofits should alter their funda- ple in one county. Like RDI, almost every non- mental mission only in truly excep- profit must make critical tional situations. decisions between seemingly They solve unmet 4equal alternatives. Mission statements public needs can help nonprofit leaders decide They stick in memory Nonprofits are accorded spe- which options to pursue and which The simple fact is that most cial status, starting with their to abandon. Nonprofits should say stakeholders for most non- special2 tax status. Their purpose is to “no” to attractive funding opportu- profits – particularly external address needs that markets and gov- nities or compelling programs that 7stakeholders such as donors – rely ernments can’t or won’t. Their mis- are not aligned with their missions. heavily on a nonprofit’s mission state- sions, therefore, should attend to They should say “yes,” however, to ment to guide their actions. And so public – not private – needs that cor- challenges that take their mission to stakeholders should be able to remem- porations, governments, and other the next level, even when doing so ber the statement without effort. Most nonprofits wouldn’t otherwise meet. appears harder than taking on an memorable are short, concrete mis- incremental, less focused activity. sion statements, such as that of Spring- board: “to offer education on the wise They leverage use of credit.” Kiva also has a pithy mis- unique skills They inspire and sion: “to connect people, through People come to the nonprofit are inspired by lending, to alleviate poverty.” sector with passion and high stakeholders 3aspirations. But these are not enough Nonprofits almost always There are great nonprofits whose mis- to make organizations have impact. 5have multiple stakeholders, often with sion is not well reflected in their mis- Nonprofits need specific skills and conflicting interests. These stake- sion statement. But that is not one of capabilities that distinguish them from holders include board, staff, clients or their great aspects. –W.F.M.

64 STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW / winter 2008 www.ssireview.org CASE STUDY

gyzstan, a newly independent former Soviet nation. RDI presented its findings to Askar Akayev, the first president of Kyrgyzstan. RDI’s major recommenda- tion was to break up collective farms and give Kyrgyzstan’s farmers long-term land rights, and RDI provided a detailed plan with which to do so. The president adopted RDI’s suggested reforms over the next several years. By 1999, RDI had been working in Kyrgyzstan for seven years and had com- pleted the first three of its main activi- ties: research, reform design, and policy advocacy. Implementation was also well under way. The time had come to com- plete the reforms, which entailed over- seeing the remaining land allocation, making sure that beneficiaries met the criterion of being poor rural dwellers, and monitoring the overall development A farmer in China’s Hunan Province fertilizes his field. When farmers own their land, they of Kyrgyzstan’s land market. Focused on invest more in it and adopt more sustainable practices. maximizing impact in securing land rights for the world’s poor, RDI’s senior Minding Your Mission altered?” “If so, what do you believe the management team decided unani- A mission statement is not just inspiring mission should be?” mously to hand over the remaining language for fundraising materials and RDI recently conducted a survey of implementation to other aid agencies, the “About Us” section of a Web site. It this kind just as Prosterman was scaling both public and private. is also a tool for weeding out, embrac- back his involvement and Hanstad was “RDI typically gets the most bang for ing, or withdrawing from programs. assuming the role of CEO. The results its buck in the first three of RDI’s four When nonprofits wield this tool well, revealed that staff agreed what the RDI activities [research, reform design, and they can achieve deep and far-reaching mission is, that RDI is staying focused on policy advocacy], and this is especially impact with limited resources. this mission, and that no one wants to true in a small country,” notes Hanstad. Although a clear, focused mission alter the mission. “The fourth activity, implementation, statement is necessary for avoiding mis- “The organizational focus and is extremely important but offers RDI rel- sion creep, it is not sufficient. Everyone momentum around the mission state- atively less opportunity for impact, not closely involved with running the non- ment helped make our leadership tran- least because many others are qualified profit should live and breathe the mission sition smooth,” says Hanstad. “I took the to do the implementation for us.” In statement. They should use it to evalu- reins knowing exactly what we as an Kyrgyzstan, many well-qualified aid ate every opportunity and program area. organization want to accomplish. We agencies were poised to oversee the land “Does this new opportunity align with believe that we can transform lives, coun- redistribution, and the government had our mission?” is a frequent question at tries, and even the world by securing a clear track record of success and com- RDI staff and board meetings. land rights for the rural poor.” mitment. “It was great to be able to Another good way to see if an orga- leave a country because of success rather nization is living by its mission is to ask 1 This prize was established by Henry Kravis, found- ing partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., and than failure,” Prosterman says. staff members and other stakeholders. Marie-Josée Kravis, economist and Hudson Institute Implementation of the program fin- Surveys about mission can include ques- senior fellow. ished in 2002. As RDI had recommended, tions such as “What is the organiza- 2 The World Bank. “India: Achievements and Chal- lenges in Reducing Poverty” (1997). the Kyrgyzstan government successfully tion’s mission?” “Do you think the orga- 3 Rural Development Institute. “Opportunity for distributed 2.5 million acres to more nization is staying focused on this Change: Making the Case for Homestead Plots.” than 232,000 beneficiary families. mission?” “Should the mission be

www.ssireview.org winter 2008 / STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW 65