CSO Sustainability: Ethiopia

1. Legal Environment• Overall Score 6.6 USAID Score 5.6

– Registration law favorable to CSOs? 7.0• No! Very restrictive Charities and Societies Act (CSA)

– CSA law: no unwarranted state control? 7.0• Govt regulation close, closure threat real

– Administrative impediments/harassment? 7.0• Free expression tightly limited by authoritarian rule

– Local legal capacity? 6.0• Capacity exists but limited and subject to official harassment

– Favorable tax status? ??• Pay VAT or equivalent, contributions deductible?

– Earned income opportunities? 6.0• No govt contracts, limited to mission as gov’t defines it

– Overall: Authoritarian environment underlying tight CSA restrictions and controls intensifies negative effects on CSO sustainability

2.Organizational Capacity• Overall Score 6.2 USAID Score 6.5

– Constituency Building 6.0• Do CSOs actively build constituencies?

– Very limited—function less of capacity and commitment than authoritarian environment, incidence of econ. development

– Strategic Planning 6.0• CSOs adhere to clearly defined missions, strategic plans?

– CSA requirement used to constrain, not empower CSOs– CSA financial, operational restrictions further impedes

– Internal Management Structure 7.0• Clearly defined, operational management structure?

– Generally not, oppressiveness of CSA operational and financial restraints more responsible than lack of commitment or capacity

– CSO Staffing 6.0• Reliance on paid staff? Recruitment of volunteers?

– Paid staff more than volunteers, missing “culture of volunteerism” attributable largely to CSA restrictiveness and authoritarian climate

– Technical Advance 6.0• Modern office equipment?

– Generally, but incidence of economic development an important factor, CSA limits on operational costs

3. Financial Viability• Overall Score 6.6 USAID Score 6.1

– Local Support 7.0• CSOs draw on volunteers, local funding?

– Most depend on a single source—incidence of economic CSA constraints on fundraising, authoritarian climate hurts

– Diversification 7.0• Diverse sources of funding?

– Same as above– Financial Management Systems 5.0

• Sound management? Transparency? Published Reports?– Generally sound management, few reports, transparency hard to gauge CSA operational limits, authoritarian climate may inhibit publications

– Fundraising 7.0• Loyal financial supporters? Outreach? Philanthropy development?

– Local financial constituencies limited fof CSA operating constraints, incidence of economic development, authoritarian environment inhibit building public profiles

– Earned Income 7.0• Revenues from services, products, rents, assets?

– CSA limits on fundraising, can’t fundraise if foreign funding used

4. Advocacy• Overall Score 6.8 USAID Score 6.1

– Cooperation with governments 7.0• Lines of communication?

– Largely adversarial except where in support of govt policy– Policy advocacy initiatives 7.0

• Advocacy coalition campaigns?– CSA and authoritarian climate all but preclude

– Lobby efforts 7.0• Mechanisms and relationships for lobbying

– Same as above– Local legal reform advocacy 6.0

• CSO awareness/efforts to promote favorable legal reforms– CSA constraints, authoritarian climate all but preclude, though awareness of its merits within CSO community likely significant

5.Service Provision• Overall Score 5.7 USAID Score 4.9

– Range of goods and services 5.5• diverse range of goods/services across sectors

– Yes but heavily constrained in democracy, justice, rights governance, and conflict resolution areas

– Community responsiveness 5.0• services provided meet constituent needs?

– Yes, subject to credit accounts of gov’t politicization– Constituencies and clienteles 6.0

• goods and services beyond own constituents– CSA tight restrictions obstruct that very objective

– Cost recovery 6.0• cost recovery?

– Generally not, incidence of lack of economic on constituents a serious constraint to doing so. Government recognition/support

– Government recognition and support 6.0• Government recognition, support and grants?

– in 2010-2015 development yes but badly undercut by CSA constraints and climate of authoritarian rule

6.Infrastructure• Overall score 6.4 USAID Score 5.5

– Intermediate support organizations(ISOs) 7.0• ISOs to meet the needs of CSOs?

– blocked from grantmaking to local organizations, foreign funding for ISOs blocked, can’t run programs

– Local grant-making organizations 7.0• grant making?

– same as above – CSO coalitions 6.0

• coalitions share information, promote common interests?– CSA restrictions effectively block their functions though several try

– Training 6.0• training programs available?

– very few– Intersectoral partnerships 6.0

• partnerships with businesses, governments, awareness of advantages?– only possible to extent ISOs, CSOs support government activities

7. Public Image• Overall Score 6.8 USAID Score 5.1

– Media coverage 7.0• Media provide positive coverage?

– Tight media control/harassment preclude this– Public Perception of CSOs 7.0

• Positive public perception of CSOs?– authoritarian environment prohibits formation of a

distinct formation and identification of a “public”– Government/business perception of CSOs 7.0

• Business /government positive perception of CSOs?– no business support of CSOs, positive gov’t perception in 2010-2015 perception undercut by letter/spirit of CSA law,authoritarian environ.

– Public relations 7.0• Public relations activities, positive media coverage?

– out of the question given the above– Self-regulation 6. 0

• CSOs have codes of ethics, try to demonstrate transparent operations?– intent probably there, authoritarian atmosphere runs counter and inhibits such initiatives

Summary

Overall Score USAID ScoreLegal Environment 6.6 5.6Organizational capacity 6.2 6.5Financial viability 6.6 6.1Advocacy 6.8 6.1Service provision 5.7 4.9Infrastructure 6.4 5.5Public Image 6.8 5.1Total 6.4 5.6