Rethinking Power and Partnership in the SRHR Sector: Lessons From the TIME Initiative

This blog is the third in our series on centering youth in local development. Access other blogs in the series here.

How can a sector like foreign aid transform entrenched power dynamics?

This is a question the TIME Initiative (Transforming INGO Models for Equity) sought to answer when it launched in 2022 with the goal of reimagining the global health and development aid sector. As the field evolves, international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs)—including those focused on advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)—must adapt to remain relevant. The TIME Initiative, also referred to as TIME or TIME for SRHR, represents a collective effort to challenge the existing system by transforming how INGOs operate.

TIME’s work focuses on seeking answers to five key questions: 1) What are the defining characteristics of INGO and civil society organization (CSO) relationships? 2) What are the power dynamics at play in these relationships? 3) What is the role of language in building trust and influence behavior change between these organizations? 4) How are the roles of INGOs in the SRHR space evolving, and what does this evolution mean for their operational frameworks? 5) What broader transformations must INGOs undertake to remain effective in the changing landscape of international development aid?

By addressing these complex issues, TIME seeks to drive significant changes in collaboration, communication, and leadership across the sector.

PRB has been actively involved in TIME since its inception, which has given me the opportunity to participate in this practical reflection on how a sector can collectively evolve to transform power dynamics. For instance, the TIME Initiative’s Working Out Loud Learning Collection highlights and shares the efforts and outcomes from its work. It also creates space for activities like 18 INGOs participating in three working groups in 2023 that collectively explored the question, “How will SRHR INGOs need to evolve, transform, and transition our operating models to be more equitable, sustainable, relevant, and legitimate?”

Thanks to such efforts, I have learned a great deal from my colleagues and found significant inspiration in the tools we have developed together.

The insights gained from the TIME Initiative have been invaluable in rethinking our roles as INGOs and revisiting our partnership mechanisms.

During my involvement with TIME, I have advocated for addressing the questions raised within a focused circle of INGOs, even as the general trend leans toward immediately involving our “local” partners. I believe that effective dialogue and real transformation can only emerge if each stakeholder begins with honest introspection, clearly defining what they are willing to bring to the table in full transparency.

Power shifting is no longer about “elevating the voices” of our partners—an approach that, in practice, is often constrained by the frameworks and dialogue formats set by international organizations. It is about ensuring true equity in access to relevant dialogue spaces.

As INGOs, we must first put our own house in order before inviting partners to join conversations where we seek their support to advance claims we dare not make alone.

Faced with the dynamics of localization and power shifting, those of us at INGOs often find ourselves in a position of vulnerability. Change, by nature, is unsettling. The current global context has often led to the guilt-tripping of international actors in development aid.

In some global programs, funders now require that 70% or more of project funds go directly to local partners. While this is a welcome step toward equity, INGOs that previously managed full project cycles now struggle to redefine their roles. Some staff fear losing relevance or jobs—not because they disagree with localization, but because they weren’t prepared or supported to transition. This uncertainty creates vulnerability, not ill intent.

In the past, INGOs might have designed programs and invited local partners to implement them. Now, power-shifting means stepping back and letting local actors lead from the outset. But in some contexts, INGOs face accusations of overreach even when trying to offer technical assistance only when asked. The fear of “doing too much” or “doing too little” paralyzes action. Again, not a matter of guilt, but of learning how to move differently.

However, I remain convinced that that successful localization is not about labeling good or bad actors. It is not a matter of blame or guilt—it is a matter of courage, honesty, and shared purpose.

Localization and power shifting will only succeed if they become a collective transition, driven by people passionate about their work and convinced that, together, we can transform the future for the better.

These aspirations can only be realized if they are aligned with the complex mechanisms of the development aid sector. It is in this delicate balance between ideals and structural realities that the true success of this transition lies.

The TIME Initiative’s work has shown that if INGOs genuinely wish to improve their contributions to localization and power redistribution processes, it is crucial to ensure that “local actors” have their own space for discussion. Too often, INGOs alone retain the means, time, and latitude to reflect on concepts they define themselves and use to speak on behalf of others.

By funding a meeting in Senegal on these concepts, the TIME Initiative has begun a sectoral shift away from international organizations’ dominance. This meeting proved to be a turning point in my own understanding of the transformative potential of local dialogue spaces.

Read Part 2: “In Dakar, a New Generation Steps Forward to Lead Their Countries’ Development.”