From Evangelism to Enterprise: Lessons for Liberian NGOs in the Shift from Aid to Trade.
Jimmy Suah Shilue Aug 15, 2025
With donor funding shrinking and development and humanitarian work fighting for survival, Liberia’s NGOs must urgently rethink their dependence on grants, taking lessons from traditional churches that began with simple evangelical missions, yet now own some of the nation’s most prestigious schools, universities, hospitals, real estate, radio stations, and thriving businesses. The future demands a new playbook, one already written by traditional churches.
For over 175 years, faith-based institutions, including the American Colonization Society (ACS), have shaped Liberia’s political, social, educational, and healthcare systems. Arriving to settle freed slaves from the United States and evangelize traditional Africans, groups such as the Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopal, Pentecostal, and the Eternal Love Winning Africa (ELWA) embedded deeply in Liberian society as spiritual beacons. Granted land and properties, often for free, these institutions became pillars of community life. Over time, they evolved from purely evangelical missions into diversified enterprises that generate steady revenue streams while still serving their core spiritual and humanitarian missions.
Today, these same groups operate some of the country’s most reputable private institutions-often making steady revenue that support their primary missions. In contrast, most contemporary NGOs operate on short-term, donor-driven grants, with little financial diversification. Liberian NGOs can’t ignore this lesson. With USAID suspending aid and global donors moving from “aid” to “trade,” the days of relying solely on grants are numbered. A country ranking on the HDI 177 out of 193 countries, shows just how fragile our recovery is, even 21 years after the war ended. If we don’t adapt, many NGOs will simply disappear when the next funding crisis hits.
While the shift in donor priorities from traditional aid to trade isexacerbated by USAID’s aid suspension and global geopolitical volatility, NGOs have failed to critically look inwardly and learn from these faith-based models to ensure survival and relevance. Faith-based groups adapted early. They understood that preaching alone doesn’t pay the bills and diversified accordingly. The Catholic Church runs top-tier hospitals like Catholic Hospital in Monrovia, educational institutions like Stella Maris Polytechnic, and guest houses whose income supports humanitarian programs. The Methodist Church, Presbyterian missions, Baptists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, and ELWA followed similar models, investing in income-generating activities while maintaining their spiritual mandate.
This reflects the shifting dynamics of traditional faith-based groups and strides made to sustain their initiatives. This clearly isn’t about selling out. Instead, it’s about survival. Churches in Liberia have sustained their mission for over a century because they understood that preaching alone doesn’t pay the bills.
As NGOs work to bridge the financial abyss, the opportunities to transition from aid to trade requires collective collaboration, oneness of purpose and love for Liberia. For instance, when faith-based groups started exploring the shores of Liberia, they had one mission and that was and still remains to perform humanitarian activities and evangelize. Fast forward to today, these same institutions are complementing their mission with enterprises- running some of the country’s best private schools, universities, hospitals, guest houses, and even real estate ventures. Nevertheless, they are still preaching the Word, but they are also earning income to sustain their work no matter how donors shift their priorities. In other words, faith-based organizations embedded self-reliance mechanisms into their mission work. NGOs can do the same through social enterprise ventures that generate income without abandoning core values.
The starting point for contemporary NGOs is to engage into realistic and transparent discussion with any partner that is funding NGOs activities. Discussion needs to focus on ways to modify existing agreements- allowing reasonable flexibility to enable NGOs to explore ways of acquiring assets and investment into infrastructure. Rather than the usual trajectory where activities are sanctioned, implemented and reported without any allocation for after donor’s funding cycle ends, it’s important to revisit the mission statement and introduce social enterprises survival and sustainability measures.
The challenges NGOs face are enormous. Unlike faith-based groups that got almost everything on silver platter, most NGOs depend heavily on donor grants, leaving them vulnerable to funding freezes. Also, contemporary NGOs operate on thematic issues, such as (governance, human rights, climate change, etc) and inflexible donors’ conditions, leaving them with fewer direct revenue-generating opportunities, thereby making it difficult to diversify resources, invest in other sectors and adapt to current contexts and realities. Moreover, the notion that NGOs are community watch dogs and ‘non for profit’ entities restrict or limit NGOs from expanding into social enterprise.
But global examples abound. BRAC (Bangladesh) funds 75% of its programs through social enterprises like dairy, retail, and education services. Shining Hope for Communities (Kenya) sustains water kiosks, clinics, and schools with a fee-based model. Sarvodaya (Sri Lanka) combines microfinance, agriculture, and vocational training to sustain operations.
Thus, moving from Aid to Trade, Liberian NGOs will have to collaborate withprivate sector actors and government ministries to co-implement projects (e.g., NGOs partnering with agri-business firms for youth employment programs, providing technical expertise in community development projects, designing and developing programs that ensure human rights protection, including curbing gender based violence and abuses). This is not to suggest that NGOs should be coopted by government but to work together for the betterment of Liberia. Where the government is not doing well, NGOs can provide solutions in a way that is neither adversarial nor confrontational.
There is also a need to build alliances with diaspora investment groups for capital and technical support. Liberian Diaspora are interested in contributing to the development of their Mother’s land. However, they are often misconstrued or ripped off by family members, friends and people that they entrusted their resources to. With the current shrinking donor landscape, new conversation between credible NGOs and the Diaspora can be a win – win situation.
Meanwhile, rather than looking into one direction, NGOs need to adapt and align their mission statements. Example, environmental NGOs should consider venturing into eco-tourism lodges, waste recycling businesses and working with EPA and other groups involved with Climate Change activities. These NGOs will not only take on paid for services but can also bring their expertise and build capacity within governmental institutions and even implement projects. Similar engagement can be forged with Educational NGOs by providing vocational skills, civic education, climate change awareness, etc. For Human rights NGOs, it can be anything from consultancy services in civic education or legal aid to preventing FGM, etc. At the end, NGOs will leverage resources and be able to re-invest for social returns.
But for these initiatives to succeed, ‘local ownership’ is critical and must be prioritized. True sustainability requires local ownership. When communities see an NGO as theirs, they actively defend and support it. Incorporating the concept of local ownership is one of the most decisive factors for ensuring sustainability for local NGOs because it shifts development from an externally driven process to one that is locally led, contextually relevant, and community anchored. Accordingly,involving local communities as co-owners of projects can ensure sustainability. While donor funds are very important for projects implementation, in most instances, they sometimes tend to overshadow grassroots initiatives. Community-based knowledge rarely influences high-level decision-making, despite global rhetoric about “local ownership.” So, NGOs must reverse this trend, by intentionally involving local actors in leadership, decision-making, and accountability.
The survival of Liberian NGO sector depends not only on revenue diversification but also on unity of purpose. Unfortunately, too often, NGOs undermine each other in competition for scarce donor resources. This weakens the sector and erodes public trust. Also, the few NGOs that engage in social enterprises, these businesses are not for the staff but in most instances the overall boss.
Faith-based institutions thrived because they worked collectively under a shared mission before branching into diverse enterprises. Liberian NGOs must adopt the same ethos, forming alliances, co-investing in ventures, building local ownership and pooling expertise to achieve shared goals.
Conclusion and Thinking forward
The message is simple- learn from the churches. Move from aid to trade. In a volatile world, sustainability is the new salvation. Even NGOs with fixed funding for the next 3–5 years must consider their post-grant future. The volatile geopolitical climate,from donor fatigue to shifting trade priorities, demands early preparation. Moving from aid to trade is not a betrayal of mission, but an affirmation of survival and resilience.
Faith-based institutions in Liberia proved that deep roots, diversified income, and mission-aligned enterprises can sustain impact for generations. Contemporary NGOs that embrace this trajectory can not only weather funding storms but also expand their reach and influence once they ensure and prioritize ‘local ownership’.
While this shift will create new opportunities for self-reliance in the NGOs landscape, the need for international financing cannot be entirely negated. Liberia, like many African countries, still lack the infrastructure required to fully capitalize on trade opportunities, particularly those in the earlier phases of development that have not yet established a securities exchange. But this is a start that will bring forth change. The choice is stark: adapt or fade.
