The answer will likely come without hesitation: the person, the individual, the family, the target group.

If we ask any social work practitioner: Who is the beneficiary of your services?

This article is based on a knowledge paper by Professor Mohammed Sahari titled "The Problematic of Social Work Methodologies", while preserving all literary rights of the author and the original source of publication.

This answer is correct, but it is no longer sufficient.

Is it permissible to continue using the same old methodologies, as if the only beneficiary is the individual, while an increasing part of the effort and resources is directed towards developing organizations?

Here, Professor Mohammed Sahari raises a fundamental question in his paper on "The Problematic of Social Work Methodologies":

With the significant transformations occurring in the nonprofit sector in the Kingdom, institutions, associations, and centers that do not provide direct services to individuals have started to emerge, but instead focus on developing the associations themselves: governance, capacity building, automation, financial sustainability, and developing work and impact models.

This article attempts to provide an expanded positive reading of this idea, viewing it as an opportunity rather than a crisis: an opportunity to redefine social work methodologies in a way that reflects the maturity of the Saudi sector today.

The classic legacy: the human at the center... but the picture is incomplete

From here, theories and tools, such as change theory, participatory planning, and human-centered design, have been formulated to answer almost one question:

Global methodologies in social work arose in contexts that focused on clear issues: poverty, illiteracy, disease, marginalization.

How can this person's life improve?

The idea of the "beneficiary" in this literature has been very clear:

  • A student learns.
  • A patient receives treatment.
  • A family receives support.
  • A young person acquires job skills.

Everything that does not directly touch the individual's life is automatically pushed to the margins of "administrative support" or "operational support": important, but not at the core of social work.

Over time, this vision has shifted from a methodology to a dogma that goes unquestioned, even as the structure, tools, and roles of the sector change.

What has changed in the Kingdom?

With the launch of Vision Saudi Arabia 2030, and the subsequent regulations, the nonprofit sector began to shift from the "service association" model to a developmental system model:

  • Clear governance regulations.
  • Performance indicators and accountability.
  • Funds and grants that require plans and strategies.
  • Encouragement of integration, partnership building, and social investment.

In this context, new entities have emerged or existing entities have developed:

  • Associations specializing in building the capacity of other associations.
  • Research centers and studies serving the sector.
  • Digital platforms enabling organizations to manage their donations and programs more efficiently.
  • Initiatives focusing on governance, digital transformation, and leadership development.

These entities do not necessarily provide direct services to individuals; their direct beneficiaries are the "association" or "institution", but their work ultimately impacts the individual and the community.

Can governance and capacity building programs be considered "social work" in the full sense of the word, or are they merely a superficial structure?

Is the association receiving development services a "beneficiary" or merely a "medium"?

At this point, classical social work methodologies become incapable of describing the new reality:

Three circles of beneficiaries: rearranging the scene

The paper suggests, and can be built upon, viewing the beneficiary within three interconnected circles:

Instead of limiting the question to: who is the beneficiary?

  1. One is the individual or community that the impact reaches at the end of the value chain:

    The ultimate beneficiary:

    • A less vulnerable family.
    • A young person more ready for the labor market.
    • A patient receiving better health services.

  2. These are the nonprofit associations and institutions that receive developmental services:

    The direct institutional beneficiary:

    • Training the board of directors in governance.
    • Redesigning the organizational structure.

    • Building a system for managing volunteers or managing grants.

      This association is not just a channel; it is an entity that changes and strengthens, and its performance and sustainability can be measured.

  3. These are the cadres and workers in the sector:

    The professional beneficiary:

    • Program managers.
    • Resource development officers.

    • Financial and administrative teams.

      Developing their skills and knowledge is not a luxury; it is part of investing in the sector’s infrastructure.

Thus, it becomes: How do these three circles integrate to create a deeper and more sustainable impact?

With this perspective, the question is no longer: who is the beneficiary?

When institutional development becomes authentic social work

Governance, capacity building, and digital transformation programs are not "administrative costs" that should be reduced; they represent a different kind of social work.

One of the most important positive messages that can be drawn from this paper is:

For a strong, governed, financially sustainable, and well-structured association, it can:

  • Provide better services to the ultimate beneficiaries.
  • Maintain its impact over the years instead of fading quickly.
  • Use resources more efficiently, achieving "greater impact per Riyal".

Redefining the beneficiary in this way justifies donor and grant fund investments in:

  • Developing financial models for associations.
  • Building information, monitoring, and evaluation systems.
  • Developing leadership and internal capacities.

Not as an "exception" or "special case", but as an authentic path within social work.

What does this shift mean for decision-makers in the sector?

Redefining the beneficiary is not a linguistic game but has practical implications on three main fronts:

1. Designing programs and initiatives

Capacity building programs are no longer an "appendix" on the margin, but they can be:

  • Main programs in the strategy.
  • With clear objectives and a defined impact at the association level.
  • Linked to indicators such as: financial sustainability, diversification of income sources, strength of governance, quality of reports and data.

2. Grant and funding policies

When we see the association itself as a beneficiary:

  • Funding for indirect costs (overhead) becomes part of creating impact, not a burden on it.
  • Grants can be designed to raise the readiness of associations in certain areas or fields (digital transformation, governance, resource development).
  • The definition of "success" in the grant is redefined to include what happens within the association, not just the number of benefiting families.

3. Measuring impact and reporting

Expanding the concept of the beneficiary necessitates an expansion of measurement tools:

  • Indicators are not only the number of ultimate beneficiaries or their satisfaction.

  • But also:

    • Improvement in revenue structure.
    • Decrease in reliance on a single source of funding.
    • Development of governance policies and adherence to them.
    • Increased capacity of the association to plan, implement, and learn.

In this sense, annual reports and impact reports become deeper and more honest; they tell the story of an entire association’s transformation, not just a narration of scattered achievements.

A Saudi opportunity to shape a new global model

The ongoing transformation in the Saudi nonprofit sector is not only relevant to the Kingdom; it is part of a broader global shift towards:

  • Investing in organizational infrastructure.
  • Viewing the nonprofit sector as an "economic-social partner" rather than just a provider of charitable services.

What distinguishes the Saudi case is that this transformation is happening under:

  • A clear national vision.
  • An organizational and regulatory framework that is nearing completion.
  • Accelerated growth in the number of specialized associations, including development and capacity-building associations.

From here, the ideas proposed by Professor Mohammed Sahari can transform into A Saudi contribution to developing social work methodologies globally, not merely an internal adjustment in the language of models and plans.

Towards a broader horizon: when the human and the association come together in a single equation

Redefining the beneficiary does not mean displacing the human from the center; it means expanding the circle to see the human and the association together in a single equation:

  • A human deserving a decent life and appropriate services.
  • An association deserving to be treated as an entity needing real development, so it can serve this human.

The human as the ultimate beneficiary, and the association as the institutional beneficiary, transition from a logic of "temporary assistance" to a logic of cumulative impact building.

When we invest in both organizations together:

From commentary to application

The ideas raised in this paper are not merely theoretical discussions; they can be transformed into practical practices within every nonprofit organization in the Kingdom through steps such as:

  • Reviewing the definition of the beneficiary in the organization's documents and its theory of change.
  • Incorporating clear institutional development objectives in strategic plans.
  • Negotiating with donors for funding that builds the association's capacities, not just its programs.
  • Developing impact measurement tools that capture what happens within the association, not just outside it.

In this sense, the "problematic of social work methodologies" is no longer a title for a new confusion, but a starting point for a more mature phase in the journey of the Saudi nonprofit sector, where both the human and the association are treated together as essential parties in the impact equation.