Organisational capacity assessment
An introduction to a tool
mwiya mundia (2009)
kepan taustaselvitykset n:o 26 kepa’s working papers n:o 26
kepa’s working papers 26, 2009
ISSN 1796-6469 ISBN 978-952-200-122-1 (pdf)
layout: aapeli lahtinen
kehitysyhteistyön palvelukeskus kepa töölöntorinkatu 2 a 00260 helsinki, finland
tel +358-9-584-233 fax+358-9-584-23-200 [email protected] www.kepa.fi
supported by official development aid by the ministry for foreign affairs of finland. opinions presented herein are personal and may not represent the official position of kepa.
mwiya mundia has a Master’s in Development Studies (MDS). He has been involved in organisational development and institutional strengthening for more than ten years, working closely with CBOs and NGOs that are engaged in the prevention and mitigation of HIV and AIDS in the Southern African region. His experience in the OCA process spans from developing the OCA tool (with International HIV/AIDS Alliance Zambia and Pact Zambia) to the actual facilitation of the OCA processes as well as action planning for capacity strengthening. He has also facilitated several capacity-strengthening sessions. He can be contacted on [email protected].
�
Contents
ForewordList of abbreviations
Introduction to organisational capacity assessment
OCA processSTEP 1: Defining need and objectives for OCASTEP 2: Planning of OCA process: resources and toolsSTEP 3: Defining capacity areas of the organisationSTEP 4: Defining indicators for each capacity areaSTEP 5: Preparation of assessment tools and methodsSTEP 6: Defining the organisation’s stages of growth
From assessment to action
Case study: Pact’s Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool
Reflections on OCA and capacity building
References
Annex I: Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT)Annex II: Stages of growth of an organisation based on the OCA tool (OCAT)
�
Foreword
One of the central issues in the current development practice is the strengthening of Southern civil societies. One part of civil society is formed by formal non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the support of which has become an important aspect in NGO development co-operation. NGOs’ develop-ment projects increasingly include activities for the organisational development and capacity-build-ing of Southern NGOs. Capacity-building aims at smooth internal functioning of organisations, ef-ficient performance in order to reach organisational objectives and well-organised networking with other actors.
How do we know if we have been succesful in capacity building? How can we assess organisations and their development? This paper introduces some ideas for Organisational Capacity Assessment (OCA) tools. OCAs enable the assessment of what stage an organisation is at and of the types of needs it has in order to plan suitable capacity-building interventions.
The tools introduced in this KEPA Working Paper give examples of ways to assess organisations. Each organisation and situation is unique. Therefore the tools should be taken as a source of inspira-tion when tailoring the individual assessment tools. In addition to being a tool for assessment, the OCA tool provides a method of communicating the basic elements of an organisation as we under-stand them in the North. We should also remember in the context of capacity-building efforts that many organisations in the South face major challenges in becoming modern and mature organisa-tions with well-functioning financial management and democratic decision-making systems.
This working paper is based on training provided by Zambian expert Mwiya Mundia at KEPA Helsinki in September 2007. The material presented is compiled on the basis of the work of many organisations, especially Pact (www.pactworld.org), an international organisation specialised in or-ganisational development. The training and this working paper are examples of how tools and shared expertise can be recycled globally, from the USA to Zambia and from Zambia to Finland.
This paper focuses on assessment and describes six basic steps in organisational analysis from defining the need to identifying the organisation’s stage of development. What is most important, however, is what kinds of development and capacity-building efforts will follow once the analysis is completed.
Tiina KontinenTraining coordinator, KepaAugust 2009
�
List of abbreviations
CBO Community-Based OrganisationDOSA Discussion-Oriented Self-AssessmentHIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus / Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationOCA Organisational Capacity AssessmentOCAT Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool (created by Pact Zambia)OD Organisational Development SAT Southern African AIDS Trust SOCAT SAT Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool USAID United States Agency for International Development
�
Introduction to organisational capacity assessment (OCA)
Organisational capacity can be seen as a func-tion of many different factors that exist within an organisation. Individual capabilities, ways of organising, cultural norms and physical assets all combine to enable an organisation to work to-wards its mission. It refers to the ability of the or-ganisation to effectively manage its programmes to achieve the stated goals and objectives with minimum external assistance.
An Organisational Capacity Assessment (OCA) process encompasses a set of methods and tools that are designed to measure the capacity of an organisation or a specific unit of the organi-sation. Although there are variations of the indi-vidual tools used and varying approaches used in administering the OCA processes, all OCA proc-esses are similar with respect to their focus: the focus is on the internal components of an organi-sation although service delivery and external re-lations might also be dealt with.
Organisational capacity assessments can be externally driven by Northern organisations to back up funding decisions, plan capacity-build-ing activities or serve as tools for monitoring and evaluation. Internally driven OCAs are conduct-ed by organisations who realise that ongoing self-assessment is an integral part in remaining a healthy organisation. Organisational Develop-ment (OD) practitioners and capacity-building agents use capacity assessment for evaluating organisational growth over time.
This paper has been written from the point of view of a Southern non-governmental organi-sation (NGO) and therefore focuses more on the internally driven OCA processes. From the self-assessment perspective, the main purpose of ca-pacity assessment is to identify the root causes, not the symptoms, of issues that affect the per-formance of an organisation. Organisations, donors and consultants who conduct OCA regu-larly, have developed variations of OCA to suit their own needs, so there is a number of different toolkits developed for OCA. In this paper, the OCA tool of one organisation, Pact Zambia, is taken as
a case study. The process is followed from the be-ginning till the end to help visualise the different steps that are included in the assessment proc-ess.
Organisational capacity is a complex and context-specific issue. Strengthening of capac-ity takes time and needs a long-term strategy. Capacity assessment merely measures the sta-tus quo of an organisation’s capacity and as such does not strengthen organisational capacity. Ca-pacity assessment should therefore be followed by the creation of a strategy and a detailed work plan outlining the capacity-strengthening activi-ties and be used to monitor the organisation’s ca-pacity development over time. But, interestingly, the mere process of organisational assessment is enough to stimulate capacity development indi-rectly. Organisations involved in an OCA process are already engaged in organisational learning by bringing members from diverse areas of the organisation together for a facilitated discussion on key organisational capacities of the organisa-tion. Assessment leads the organisation to pay attention to strategically important capacity ar-eas that it might have ignored in the past.
Most OCA tools use participatory approaches in collecting capacity-related data in order to get the clearest possible picture of the organisation as a whole or the specific unit in question. There are also other methods for collecting useful data, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups and direct observation. A combination of methods is usually the best way to obtain robust data that provides diverse perspectives for full analysis of performance issues.
Some kind of ranking is used in all OCA proc-esses to place an organisation at a certain specific stage of growth. The scores help users visualise the stage of the organisation and identify areas where change efforts are most likely to succeed.
�
OCA process
An organisational analysis always meets some needs and has to be planned and implemented according to the needs and situation. The OCA process can be divided into six basic steps:
defining the need and objectives;planning the OCA process;defining the capacity areas of the organisa-tion;defining indicators for each capacity area;preparing the assessment tools and methods;defining the organisation’s stages of growth.
The contents and action points for each step will be described in the following sections. The case example from Pact Zambia will illustrate step by step how OCAT can be employed in practice.
STEP 1: Defining need and objectives for OCAOCA is a tool for measuring the capacity of an or-ganisation. There are a number of different rea-sons to measure the capacity of an organisation, depending on the client and preferred outcome of the assessment. The first step in the OCA proc-ess is therefore to determine the specific objec-tives of the assessment. With clear objectives set in the first stage, the whole assessment can be modified to bring the most valuable outcome for the defined need.
The reasons behind OCA being conducted vary. For a funding agency, OCA can serve as a baseline. In this case periodic assessments are later conducted to monitor the progress being made with respect to capacity-building efforts. OCA can also be conducted for the purpose of identifying the specific capacity-building needs of an organisation, with a view of strengthening any weak capacities. Sometimes OCA is conduct-ed to assist the decision whether a partner or-ganisation should be excluded from the partner portfolio, i.e. to determine if the capacity is high enough or not developing enough.
In the last case, OCA is conducted to select the organisations to support. This works in both directions; some funding agencies prefer to sup-port organisations that have reached at least a certain minimum level of capacity, while others
1.2.3.
4.5.6.
use capacity assessment to pick the organisa-tions with the lowest capacity for strengthening. It should be noted here, however, that OCA is not well suited as an intake assessment tool; other, cruder tools like the rapid assessment tool could and should be used instead.
On the other hand, OCAs can be used for self-assessment within an organisation. Such OCAs are conducted for the purpose of learning. This is considered to be a healthy thing to do occasion-ally, so that any weaknesses can be addressed. In this case the need for capacity assessment is internally generated. OCA can be conducted to identify the organisation’s strengths and weak-nesses, to prioritise the areas of improvement and to identify concrete steps that could be taken to help the organisation to mature. The organisa-tion can conduct a self-assessment to serve as a baseline, with the information used to examine capacity improvement over time.
STEP 2: Planning of OCA process: resources and toolsAs with all work, planning is crucial for the suc-cess of the assessment process. The successful completion of OCA requires commitment and adequeate resources from every sector of the or-ganisation. Moreover, emphasis should be put on the selection of suitable tools.
Ensuring commitment
Once the objectives for the assessment are clear, the organisation has to be convinced that there is a real advantage to conducting OCA. The or-ganisation, especially the senior management, has to be committed to go through the process and follow its recommendations. Otherwise OCA has no real value. This should be taken into con-sideration, particularly when OCA is conducted to serve the needs of an external client (donor). To strengthen commitment, the management of the organisation should be involved in develop-ing the tool from the beginning.
Selecting a facilitator
Every organisational capacity assessment needs a facilitator. Often the facilitator is an external consultant but could also be an employee of the organisation or the client’s representative.
�
The facilitator needs to understand that each organisation should be treated individually and that the OCA process should be tailored to suit the organisation. The facilitator makes sure that the assessment runs in its course, while involv-ing members of the organisation in planning as much as possible.
Resource analysis and continuity
To make the OCA realistic, a resource analysis is needed: how much time and money does the organisation have available for the assessment? Especially in case of self-assessment it should be noted that the assessment should not be a one-off activity but rather part of an ongoing proc-ess of capacity building, and resources should be allocated accordingly. If the assessment will be repeated later to measure the organisation’s capacity development over time, the assessment tool should be planned in such a way that it will not need to be altered later as changes in the tool will alter the score and make time comparisons impossible.
Selecting the right OCA tool
Depending on the objectives of and resources for the assessment, the facilitator helps the organi-sation choose a suitable OCA tool. There is a large number of different tools used and constantly de-veloped by consultants and organisations but, in general, the tools have a lot of similarities. They might differ in terms and approaches used but the core composition and underlying principles are the same.
The case study in this paper follows the OCAT method used in Pact Zambia, which is a rather heavy and time-consuming assessment process. It is, however, a good case study since it gives a glimpse into the details of an organisation’s structures and helps the reader understand the depth of the analysis if performed thoroughly. For a quick assessment, the Octagon method, also used by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), is quite suitable.
Selecting the OCA group
Organisational capacity assessment is usually conducted using participatory methods, i.e. in-
volving as many parts of the organisation as pos-sible. When planning the assessment, it is im-portant that the selection of participants to the OCA group ensures that the group comprises of a cross-section of the organisation’s bodies, such as board members, volunteers and secretariat. The ideal group has 8 to 15 members, with repre-sentatives from all the departments and all the structures of the organisation.
Each organisation should be treated individ-ually while deciding on the composition of the OCA group. If the facilitator notices that combin-ing employees from several hierarchical levels in one session would be explosive and suppressive for the organisation and would hinder the out-come of the assessment, then separate sessions for different groupings should be organised.
STEP 3: Defining capacity areas of the organisationOnce the need, resources and assessment tool for OCA have been identified, it is time to define the components of the organisation and, out of these components, define the capacity areas that are important for the specific organisation. An organisation can be defined in general as a com-plex of people and/or groups that, according to commonly agreed rules and procedures, strive to realise one or more pre-set objectives. In order to understand the complex nature of organisations, a simplified model, referred to as the Integrated Organisational Model (IOM), can be used. The IOM model distinguishes seven internal compo-nents and five external components of an organi-sation.
Seven internal components of an organisation:Strategy – a long-term plan of action or the most important goals in the coming years Structure – division of tasks and responsibili-ties, departments and units and coordination of activitiesSystems – the way things are done, flows of main activities, processes, procedures, ap-proaches and methodologiesManagement style – behaviour of the man-agement and decision-making systemHuman resources – incentive systems, staff satisfaction, staff development, sanctions and bonusesCulture – a set of shared values and norms Finances
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.7.
�
Five external components of an organisation:
FactorsActorsMissionOutputInput
Defining the organisation’s capacity areasDepending on the preferred outcome of the OCA, the organisation’s capacity areas might vary but a common division is to distinguish six capacity areas:
strategic focus (vision, mission etc.);management practices;human resources (employment policies, training etc.);financial component (funding, self-funding, assets etc.);target group relations (service delivery); and external relations (stakeholders).
If, due to a lack of resources (money and/or time), an organisation cannot assessed as a whole, one or two capacity areas that are regarded as prob-lematic can be assessed instead, with the aim being to come up with specific capacity develop-ment actions for those areas. For small NGOs and CBOs it is better to conduct the whole OCA be-cause several capacity areas are in development stages and need to be assessed and strengthened along the way.
STEP 4: Defining indicators for each capacity areaOnce the organisation’s capacity areas have been defined, it is time to examine what constitutes each capacity area within the organisation. To do this, the sub-sections within each capacity area need to be defined. These can be formulated by the facilitator and the senior management of the organisation or by a bigger group. They can be general or problem-oriented, listed in bullet points or worked into a narrative. The main point is to define the characteristics of the assessed or-ganisation’s capacity areas, the processes and qualities that affect the particular capacity area.
1.2.3.4.5.
1.2.3.
4.
5.6.
The table below is an extract from the DOSA (Discussion Oriented Self-Assessment) tool’s chart for capacity areas:
Table 1. DOSA capacity area chart
Capacity Area Sub-sections
Organisational Learning
Horizontal and vertical flow of information: quantity, quality and timeliness. Utility of shared information: the degree to which information is used a) to improve organisational performance, b) to support effective teamwork. Participatory management prac-tices and staff meeting practices.
What is an indicator?
Indicators are used to measure current capacity and track the progress of an organisation, capac-ity area or sub-section. Working upwards from sub-section level to capacity area level and fi-nally to overall organisational level, it is possible to define the stages of organisational growth for the organisation as a whole.
More important than the indicators them-selves is the process of developing the indicators. The developing process teaches the organisation a lot about the status quo of each capacity area and helps the organisation identify areas which might have been neglected completely so far. It should also be noted that indicators are bound by time and place and cannot be replicated without risk. This is another reason to spend enough ef-fort on developing the indicators separately for each organisation. While developing indicators, it is essential to bear in mind the objectives of the assessment.
In self-assessment, indicators are best devel-oped with participants from all levels of the or-ganisation, assisted by a consultant if needed.
Developing indicators for capacity assessmentOnce the sub-sections within each capacity area have been defined, the next step is to create the above-described indicators that help specify the desired state of the focus points and see the dis-tance between the status quo and the desired lev-
�
el. Indicators are formed, depending on the tool used, in the form of statements or questions.
Using the above example of DOSA chart as an example, the desired state for sub-section ‘Quan-tity, quality and timeliness of vertical informa-tion’ could be described through the following indicators (here in the form of statements):
Statement 1: The management passes on suffi-cient information to staff.
Statement 2: The information shared by the man-agement is relevant to staff members.
Statement 3: The management gives clear in-structions for the use of information.
Statement 4: The management passes on infor-mation without unnecessary delay.
Statement 5: Staff is given sufficient time to re-act to information passed on by the manage-ment.
As in the DOSA example, there can be several statements or questions within each sub-section of each capacity area.
Qualitative and quantitative indicatorsAll statements in the DOSA example above are “qualitative indicators”: instead of being meas-urable, they are results of subjective assessment. Qualitative indicators are therefore reliable only if the statements are formed carefully and analysis and interpretation take place in an open process. That is why participation of a larger group is very important for the actual assessment workshop.
Quantitative indicators, on the other hand, are measurable and more or less non-negotiable. For example: At least 70% of staff attend weekly office meetings. This can be numerically verified with attendance lists.
Rating scalesEach OCA tool uses a slightly different rating sys-tem created for the particular OCA tool. In the above DOSA example the following rating sys-tem is used:
1 Strongly disagree2 Disagree3 Neutral4 Agree5 Strongly agree
STEP 5: Preparation of assessment tools and methodsBy Step 5, the organisation and its functions will have been divided up into fairly small units: sub-sections within each capacity area of the or-ganisation. Up to this point all steps have been preparation for the actual assessment work that begins now.
Participatory approach
Until this step, the assessment preparations might have been conducted by a smaller group consisting of senior management, some key em-ployees and a facilitator who often is a consultant. But for the actual assessment part – measuring the organisation’s capacity – the participation of a cross-section of the organisation is compulsory. The ideal number of participants is between 8 and 15 people. See STEP 2 for more details on the selection of participants to OCA.
Practical setup for the assessment
On average, an OCA process can take between five and eight hours to finish: the bigger the group, the slower the process. The assessment session is followed by three to five hours of ac-tion planning.
If there are noticeable divisions within the organisation, it is better to divide the organisa-tion into homogenous groups, with these groups brought together later on to share their outputs and debate as groups in order to eliminate the in-dividualisation.
Participants should be free to express them-selves and listen to different views attentively. The most vocal persons should be controlled (us-ing participatory ways) in order to give room for those less vocal to be heard as well.
The external facilitator should create a safe environment for those participating in the self-assessment. This could include off-site assess-ment, discussion of ground rules that emphasise mutual respect, a commitment to confidentiality and so on.
Assessment workshop
The OCA workshop starts with an introductory session explaining the following points to the participants:
10
Motives: Why the organisational capacity as-sessment is being conducted – for self-devel-opment, for targeted capacity building or for measuring built capacity over time.Timeline: The assessment aims to measure current capacity rather than that of the past.Assessment process: Explaining the practi-calities and the ranking system. Reminding the participants that low scoring is not bad: it just illustrates areas which need support and should be focused on in the future.Follow up: What will happen after the as-sessment; explaining the process of develop-ing and finalising the report and work plan. Rules: There is a need for participants to be as honest and as realistic as possible and bear in mind that this is a baseline assessment and there is commitment to build on strengths and strengthen weak areas.
Implementation of the tool
After the introduction, the participants’ version of the assessment tool should be handed out to all. Depending on the chosen tool (or method), the participants are given handouts that contain several positive (desirable characteristics) state-ments or – alternatively – questions about the desired level for each capacity area (see Annex I).
In the following, three different methods of undertaking the assessment are described in brief.
a) Group consensus through scores and flat percentage calculations
Statements in this tool are put in a positive de-sirable end point. The process begins by reading the first statement under the first sub-section. Participants are requested to hold up the scoring card with the appropriate symbol (e.g. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5), with everyone showing their score at the same time. The co-facilitator writes the individu-al scores where everyone can see them, and the facilitator then asks the participants to discuss and agree on a group score for the statement. The facilitator writes down the main points of the discussions in a notebook.
Next, the second statement under the sub-section is read and the process is repeated all over. This process is repeated for all the sub-sec-tions and then an overall cumulative score is giv-en for the section. This is then repeated for all the sections in the handout.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The participants are not involved in deciding the overall score of the capacity areas. The level of each specific capacity is arrived at by using a flat percentage calculation. The maximum score for each statement is 5, and the total scores for each section is therefore 5 multiplied by the to-tal number of statements. The actual scores for the particular section are added up to get the per-centage based on the total score.
This tool was developed by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, Zambia Country Office, a ca-pacity-building organisation for organisations involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
b) Group consensus through questions and discussion
The statements for this tool are presented as questions. Several questions are asked for each capacity area regarding the desirable end point. For example, under the capacity area of human resources, one of the questions is ‘Does the or-ganisation conduct performance appraisals at least annually?’
The group is allowed to discuss and eventu-ally reach consensus on the score for the ques-tion, choosing from the following: Yes, Yes Needs Improvement or No. This is repeated for all the questions under that capacity area. Finally, the group is facilitated to agree on the capacity level for that particular capacity: emerging, estab-lished or mature. In this case there are no math-ematical calculations. The process is repeated for all capacity areas.
This is a method used by Southern African AIDS Trust (SAT), a regional NGO focusing on fi-nancial and capacity development assistance to CBOs and NGOs that are engaged in the preven-tion and mitigation of HIV/AIDS in Southern Af-rica. The tool is known as the SAT Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool (SOCAT).
c) Octagon - visualising an organisation’s capacity
Eight variables form an octagon. A self-assess-ment workshop begins with the presentation of the Octagon’s eight variables. Next, the par-ticipants individually apply the Octagon to their own organisation and rate the eight variables. Each dimension is ranked by assessment of two statements on a seven-point scale. When all the variables have been analysed and ranked, the average points are transferred to an Excel docu-
11
ment that produces the organisation’s develop-ment profile. The rating process is used as an aid for a group discussion on the organisation’s cur-rent strengths and weaknesses, and changes that will be necessary in the future.
This method is used by the Swedish Inter-national Development Agency (SIDA). As can be seen from the examples above, there are vari-
ous methods for placing a capacity area at one of the stages of growth. For some capacity areas or organisations a subjective consensus brings the best results, while others might profit from a more mathematical method where percent-ages are used to pinpoint the stage. The method or mixture of methods employed should always suit what is being measured.
Stage 1: IncipientIn the initial stage a group of persons starts to organise itself around a common purpose out of necessity, personal initiative or visionary motives. The organisational structure tends to be under-developed, and the activities are loosely structured around some ideas on what should be done and how resources could be mobilised. Direction is normally lacking and functions and roles unclear. Administrative issues are normally dealt with in a personal and ad-hoc manner. The organisation is founded but it is not yet clear in which direction it is going to develop. Most incipient organisations are short-lived and never develop to the second stage.
Stage 2: EmergingAt this level the organisation has somewhat risen above the surface and developed into a more structured body that still operates within the setup of volunteer work but is beginning to put a number of organisational systems in place. The organisation also develops more focused organi-sational objectives and facilitates development processes on a small scale. The organisation ad-ministers planned activities, develops a system with outlined roles and starts following a certain direction. The main challenge at this stage is to develop proper organisational structures as well as a planning and administration system that allows the organisation to build up a set of development activities that are more or less focused and successful, although on a small scale. Organisational capacity-building normally covers clarifying the vision and objectives of the organisation, helping itself to organise itself and manage a set of activities on a small but significant scale and mobilise staff and resources properly for this purpose.
Stage 3: MaturingFew of the emerging organisations will graduate to this level. At this stage the organisation consoli-dates into an organisation that can expand its coverage and become a major agent in its own sector of specialisation. The organisation is able to plan its activities on a wider scale, attract more profes-sional full-time staff and make strategic plans for the future. It is at this stage that visualisation of the outputs of the organisation begins to gain a paramount role in organisational management. The organisation starts to become more output- than input-oriented. This implies that the organisa-tion starts rethinking about their service delivery processes in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, putting more sophisticated operational planning tools in place and attempting to attract donors on the basis of achievements rather than intentions. In terms of personnel, there will be an influx of staff and a professionalisation of employees at the outlet level, while management procedures tend to become more formalised. The other major change that takes place at this stage is that the organisation becomes more aware of its target group and will introduce consultation structures and procedures that give the target groups the possibility to influence the organisation’s policy direction and decision-making. The main challenge is to make the shift from a volunteer organisation to a more professional organisation that takes strategic decisions and is responsive to end users. Capac-ity-building normally covers the areas of strategic organisational planning, performance-oriented project cycle management, adequate information systems, human resources management and improving efficiency at outlet level.
Table 2. Stages of Growth of a typical Southern NGO
continues on page 12
1�
Stage 4: MatureThis level comprises of organisations that have developed from maturing organisations. An organi-sation at the mature stage is responsive to its end users and organises its activities in such a way that the recipients of its services are satisfied, things are done in an efficient way and management decisions are made strategically. The organisation’s relationship with the target groups is becoming mature and the organisation is putting measures in place for sustainability of its operations at the end user level. The organisation is becoming a reputable development agent with a stable financial background consisting of a mix of long-term sponsors and internal resource mobilisation endeav-our. Human resource management styles are more oriented to motivating and supervising work-ing teams of experts. The main challenge now is to maintain the organisation in the market and develop sufficient new skills and knowledge to adequately continue to serve the clients and to make the shift to a client-oriented management style through the steering of flexible professional teams. Capacity-building for these organisations focuses on creating specific innovative fields and putting professional management systems in place.
Stage 5: Self–sustainedThis is the ultimate goal for all organisations. A self-sustained organisation has developed from a mature one into a self-sustained professional body that can defend itself as a development agent without requiring any external technical assistance or, in case technical assistance is needed, the organisation is able to hire expertise using its own resources. The organisation can reasonably be expected to survive on its own and can therefore be weaned from capacity-building services.
STEP 6: Defining the organisation’s stages of growthThe assessment workshop that has, by this step, been conducted using participatory methods has produced a lot of data about the state of the or-ganisation. Whichever the assessment tool used, the results are similar: it is easy to see how each capacity area relates to one another, i.e. which ar-eas have the organisation’s strengths and which are weaker than average.
This analysis of capacities can be used to de-fine the stage of growth of the capacity areas and, finally, the organisation as a whole. Growth patterns commonly define five stages of growth although there may be slight differences in the terms used. These stages are incipient (or embry-onic), emerging, maturing (or growing), mature (or well-developed) and self-sustained (or mature).
The example in Table 2 refers to a typical growth pattern of a Southern NGO. See Annex II for a detailed example of the stages for each ca-pacity area.
By placing each capacity in its respective stage of growth, it is possible to see which capaci-ties lag behind others and focus capacity-building efforts on those areas that need strengthening.
The tree analogy of an organisation
The Southern African AIDS Trust (SAT), a Zam-bian NGO, has developed a useful tool for turning the negative tone of assessment into positive. Instead of referring to an organisation as being poor in governance, the organisation is described as being emerging in governance capacity. Called the tree analogy, the tool associates the stages in the growth of an organisation with the growth of a tree as described in Table 3 below.
Table 5. Definitions of capacity areas
Stage State
1 EmbryonicThe tree is a vulnerable seed trying to penetrate the soil.
� Emerging
The seed has penetrated the soil to benefit from sunlight but is still vulnerable, with the roots not yet deep enough.
� GrowingThe tree is becoming stronger and developing deeper roots.
�Well- developed
The roots are now strong and deep, with fruit production beginning and the tree able to withstand most threats.
� Mature
The tree continually bears lar-ge quantities of fruit and has become a viable and perma-nent part of the landscape.
1�
From assessment to action
Capacity assessment is of little use if the infor-mation it produces is not worked into an action plan for capacity-building activities. Capacity building can be understood as an explicit effort to improve an organisation’s performance in relation to its purpose, context, resources and sustainability. The aim is to develop a more ef-fective, viable, autonomous and legitimate local organisation by creating the conditions in which change can take place from within the group or organisation.
Organisational capacity assessment is just one step in the ongoing process of organisational capacity building that includes, besides capac-ity assessment sessions, components related to organisational learning, benchmarking, action planning and continuous organisational im-provement.
Capacity-building programmes are intended to strengthen an organisation’s ability to provide quality and effective services while being viable as an institution:
Supporting an organisation so that it can be programmatically sustainable (providing needed and effective services),and organisationally sustainable (with strong leadership and having the necessary man-agement systems and procedures),while ensuring that it has sufficient resources (human, financial, and material) that are uti-lised well. Finally, capacity-building activities must help the organisation understand the exter-nal environment (political, economic, and social) it operates in and to develop a rela-tionship with it that is sufficiently stable and predictable.
Action planning is a formal method for deter-mining how and when the OD interventions will be implemented. To create a useful action plan, facilitators must work closely with the organi-sation’s decision-makers and intervention par-ticipants. Facilitators need to make sure there is clear agreement about the goals of the selected interventions. A question to be asked is: What
•
•
•
•
do we want to see accomplished at the comple-tion of the interventions? Answers to this ques-tion will not only be helpful for action planning — they will also prove useful for the monitoring and evaluating the interventions. Other issues to consider are:
clarifying the roles and responsibilities;establishing timelines for interventions and monitoring procedures;determining necessary resources.
Assessment report as a baseline
At the end of the assessment process, an as-sessment report is produced, normally by the facilitating team. The assessment report should capture the main organisational strengths and weaknesses identified during the assessment process. The assessment report is meant for the organisation as a reference document for plan-ning of future capacity-building activities and as a baseline for monitoring progress.
The results of the assessment, which can be presented in different forms (graphs, charts or narratives), should be shared with the members of the organisation that participated in the as-sessment process and the senior staff of the or-ganisation for comments and validation.
Prioritising change targets
With help of the OCA it is relatively easy to spot areas that should be prioritised when planning capacity-building activities. The data and feed-back collected during the assessment phase can be used to select appropriate interventions for change targets (e.g. capacity areas, processes, learning needs, organisational culture issues or organisational behavioural patterns).
Planning organisational development interventionsIn the planning stage, the OCA facilitator collabo-rates with decision-makers and relevant person-nel to design comprehensive and detailed plans for implementing, monitoring and evaluating the chosen organisational development (OD) in-terventions.
••
•
1�
The skill of an organisational development specialist (OCA facilitator) lies in helping an or-ganisation correctly identify what combination of systems, structures, styles or environmental factors is limiting the organisation’s perform-ance, and helping the organisation to select the right mix of tools, methods and strategies to bring about the required changes. Further, the OCA fa-cilitator will assist the organisation to learn from the experiences of the assessment so that it may become more self-regulating in future.
Five general forms of capacity-building can be identified: training, expert consulting, pair-of-hands consulting, collaborative consulting and funding. Organisational development is often thought to equal only training and human re-source development, which is a very limited way of understanding the organisational capacity is-sue. Training and human resource development can merely tackle a limited number of systems in just one type of way: through the knowledge and skills of individuals and groups. As can be seen in Table 4, the other forms of capacity building are equally important for organisational devel-opment.
Underlying principles for effective capacity buildingAll outside interventions have an impact on the capacity of an organisation. Capacity build-ing should not be a set of discrete activities but a process designed to influence complex human and organisational systems.
Capacity-building interventions are designed to improve the services and sustainability of the client organisation, not to achieve some out-side concept of an “ideal” organisation. Capacity building respects the organisational independ-ence of the client organisation receiving assist-ance. The client organisation is responsible for its own development. It is solely responsible for deciding on, implementing or participating in capacity building activities. Managerial preroga-tives for projects, programmes and the organisa-tion rest solely with the client organisation. Ca-pacity-building providers cannot force clients to adopt strategies, tactics, managerial systems or financial systems.
The role of the consulting organisation (do-nor, Northern NGO) is to help the client organi-sation (NGO) more effectively achieve its own
mission and vision, not the mission/vision of the consulting organisation.
Capacity building is a collaborative process between an external helper (OCA facilitator/con-sultant) and an organisation asking for help (cli-ent) designed to help the client organisation im-prove its performance in relation to its mission, context, resources, and sustainability. Interven-tions can be regarded as capacity building only when both parties, the consultant and client, freely enter into an agreement with the purpose of improving the client’s services and sustain-ability.
Capacity building is a collaborative process based on feedback and action research. Here ac-tion research is defined as a research process which integrates members of the system under study into the research team. The consulting and client organisations work collaboratively (50/50) to define the problem, collect data, analyse the data and develop possible solutions. The client organisation (NGO) then takes full responsibility for implementing the solutions chosen.
Evaluation of the impacts of capacity build-ing should focus on results that demonstrate an improvement of the client’s ability to fulfil its mission and provide the services it says it provides as well as results which demonstrate increased survivability (or sustainability) of the organisation.
All information collected during capacity building assessments belong to the client, which has the right to keep the information private or publicise it as it sees fit. In particular, donors have no a priori rights to that information.
Recommendations to make capacity building effectiveIf capacity building efforts are to be made effec-tive for strengthening Southern NGOs, the fol-lowing issues must be observed and addressed:
Capacity building should be an ongoing proc-ess that employs different approaches de-pending on the situation and capacity area that needs strengthening.Capacity assessment should be the begin-ning of capacity building, in fact the assess-ment itself is capacity building.Peer mentoring should be supported as a form of capacity building as much as possible.
•
•
•
1�
Funding alone is not a very effective form of capacity building; it should be accompanied by other forms of capacity building.Capacity building should not only focus on people (skills and knowledge), it should focus on other aspects of organisation such as cul-ture, processes and systems, depending on which have come up as priority areas.
•
•
Table 4. Ways to improve the capacity of an organisation
NGO provides improved services to customers and stronger influence
with stakeholders
Improved capacity
Skills
trainingExpert
consulting (expert tells)
Funding (give money)
Pair-of-hands consulting (client tells)
Collaborative consulting (decide
together)What
Technical skills
Manage-ment skills
Traditional evaluations & technical
advisors
Interns, vo-lunteers &
consultants
Action Research based OD (con-sultant & client
define problems & solutions together)
Grants
Need for capacity building
Capacity building imposed by funder
Capacity building requested by organisation
How
1�
Case study: Pact’s Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT)
STEP 1: Defining objectives for the assessmentOrganisation x, a Southern NGO has realised the need for capacity strengthening in the area of or-ganisational development. The NGO has grown rapidly as an organisation and its projects are growing in size. To avoid a situation where the or-ganisation’s project management needs outgrow its capacity to run the projects, the organisation applies to Pact Zambia for financial support to con-duct an organisational capacity assessment and subsequent capacity-development activities. The NGO contracts a consultant to conduct the OCA. The consultant, who uses Pact’s Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT), has called a preparatory meeting with the senior manage-ment (board members and/or members of secre-tariat) of the organisation. During the preparato-ry meeting, the consultant helps the organisation define the objectives of the assessment.
In the long run the Organisational Capacity Assessment is aimed at strengthening the capac-ity of the organisation to be able to deliver bet-ter services to its target groups efficiently and effectively. Specifically, the assessment aims to achieve the following objectives:
To identify the main capacity-building needs of the organisation, and how these needs can be fulfilled.To develop a detailed work plan that ad-dresses the above needs (time and resources needed, i.e. human, technical, financial).
STEP 2: Planning of OCA processThe initiative for the assessment came from the organisation itself. This sign for real commit-ment of the senior management of the NGO for
1.
2.
the process is further strengthened in in-depth discussions during the prepatory meeting. The consultant will adopt the role of a facilitator. In a process meeting with the same senior manage-ment, the participants nail down the resources available for the assessment and formulate a ten-tative timetable. Since the organisation is ready to invest time in the assessment, the consult-ant decides to use the OCA tool (Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool, or OCAT), which is commonly used to diagnose existing abilities for efficiency and effective service delivery of an or-ganisation.
The OCAT is designed to be a process that includes a number of interventions such as a two-day workshop and a following session for creating an action plan for capacity-building ac-tivities. Key board members or executive com-mittee members, some staff members from the secretariat and representatives of beneficiaries and volunteers attend a two-day workshop to use the tool and to discuss the organisational strengths and weaknesses. Input from key exter-nal stakeholders can be included through sepa-rate interviews to triangulate and validate cer-tain information. This is useful in order to reflect the external perception that the stakeholders have with regard to the capacities of the organi-sation.
Based on a facilitated process of self-assess-ment, the OCAT serves to determine a score for a range of capacity areas. The results of the as-sessment lay the foundation for a targeted action plan for provision of capacity-building activities for the organisation.
The tool has the following features:The tool measures core organisational capac-ity.The tool is flexible enough to allow partici-pants to focus on areas which are most rel-evant to them.The tool generates a composite score of ca-pacity which can be used for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) purposes both for the or-ganisation itself as well as those supporting it in capacity building.The scoring system is deliberately non-judg-mental concerning the need for future capac-ity building — it simply calls for a judgment of the current situation.
•
•
•
•
1�
STEPS 3 AND 4: Defining capacity areas and indicatorsThe facilitator of the OCA process calls in a meet-ing with the senior management of the organi-sation. They discuss the organisation’s internal components and areas that would need special attention during the assessment. It is decided that the following organisational capacity areas will be assessed using the OCAT:
GovernanceManagementHuman ResourcesFinancial systemsService deliveryExternal relationsSustainability
Since the objective of the assessment is to find out the organisation’s ability for effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery, special emphasis is put on that particular area. Sustainability is in-cluded as a separate capacity area to give special visibility to factors that distinguish the organisa-tion’s ability to face the challenges of the future.
Once the capacity areas have been defined, the components of each capacity area are listed:
Table 5. Definitions of capacity areas
Capacity Area Sub-section
GovernanceBoard, mission/goal, constituency, leadership, legal status
Management practices
Organisational structure, informa-tion management, administration procedures, personnel, planning, programme development, pro-gramme reporting
Financial resources
Accounting, budgeting, finan-cial/inventory controls, financial reporting
Human resources
Human resources development, staff roles, work organisation, diversity issues, supervisory practi-ces, salary and benefits
Service deli-very
Sectoral expertise, constituency, impact assessment
External relations
Constituency relations, inter-NGO collaboration, public relations, local resources, media
Sustainability
Programme/benefit sustainabili-ty, organisational sustainability, financial sustainability, resource base sustainability
•••••••
For each sub-section, indicators are created in the form of statements. Here we take the capacity area Service Delivery as an example:
Capacity Area: Service delivery
Sub-section 1: Sectoral expertise
Statement a: The organisation has the experi-ence necessary to accomplish its mission.
Statement b: Relevant expertise exists within the organisation.
Statement c: Expertise is recognised by all stake-holders.
Statement d: The organisation is capable of adapting programmes and service delivery to changing needs of stakeholders and/or target groups.
Sub-section 2: Constituency through stakeholder commitment and ownership
Statement a: Programme priorities are based on actual needs of target groups.
Statement b: Programme priorities and services are defined in collaboration with stakeholders.
Statement c: Programmes are efficient, adequate, cost-effective and timely.
Sub-section 3: Impact assessment through monitoring and evaluation systems
Statement a: A clearly documented monitoring and evaluation system exists.
Statement b: Project implementation is moni-tored against benchmarks.
Statement c: Indicators have been identified for each programme objective.
Statement d: Baseline and impact data are col-lected and analysed regularly.
Statement e: Results of evaluations are used to make adjustments to the programme.
Rating scale:
0 Not applicable or information not avail-able to assess the element
1 Needs urgent and immediate attention2 Needs major improvement3 Needs improvement in limited aspects4 Statement true, room for some improve-
ment5 Statement true, needs maintaining
1�
STEP 5: Assessment tools and methodsThe actual assessment workshop using the OCA tool mixes capacity score and consensus scoring systems. The session begins with several partici-patory exercises to elicit discussion around each particular capacity area. After discussion, the fa-cilitator of the exercise:
gives each participant six scoring cards with the following numbers on them: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; explains the rating and underlines that if some statements are not applicable, they should be left unrated; introduces all capacity areas that are to be assessed by the exercise; begins by reading the first statement under the first sub-section;asks the participants to rank the statement by holding up the scoring cards with the number that reflects their score for that statement (they should all do this at the same time);asks the co-facilitator to write the individual scores on a flip chart for everyone to see;asks the participants to discuss and agree on one group score for that statement. The group score, or consensus score, reflects the level of agreement on capacity perceptions among assessment team members by meas-uring how closely their capacity scores clus-ter together;writes the main points of the discussions down in a notebook;repeats the process for all statements under the same sub-section and similarly for other sections;collects all participants’ handouts containing the individual scores and summarises the scores for the following day’s session.
The facilitator analyses the collected information by averaging all the responses in each capacity area and then summing them up. Next, the raw scores are standardised for each capacity area so that they can be compared across capacity areas, regardless of the number of items contributing to the raw score. Finally, the scores are indexed on a scale of 100 so that they can be conveniently displayed and graphed. A computer program is used to generate the analysis.
Let’s take an example: There are six partici-pants in the case study assessment workshop: two representatives of senior management, two
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
persons from the project office, one from the field office and one volunteer.
The following questions are asked to gener-ate discussion about Constituency through stake-holder commitment and ownership (sub-section 2 of the Service delivery capacity area).
Which three projects are representative in our current programme portfolio and who are the stakeholders in these projects?For the three projects identified, what are some concrete examples of stakeholder in-volvement in each of the processes listed be-low?
Once the discussion is finished and the exercise setting clear, the facilitator reads the first state-ment:
Statement a: Programme priorities are based on actual needs of target groups.
Rating scale:0 Not applicable or information not avail-
able to assess the element1 Needs urgent and immediate attention2 Needs major improvement3 Needs improvement in limited aspects4 Statement true, room for some improve-
ment5 Statement true, needs maintaining
The six participants give the following scores:
Participant 1: 3Participant 2: 3Participant 3: 2Participant 4: 4Participant 5: 2Participant 6: 1
The total score for the statement a is 17, which di-vided by 6 gives the average of 2.83.
The total score for statement b (Programme priorities and services are defined in collabora-tion with stakeholders) gives the average of 2.23 and for statement c (Programmes are efficient, adequate, cost effective and timely) the average is 3.09.
By taking the sum of the three averages (2.83 + 2.23 + 3.09) and then dividing the sum by 3, the average score for sub-section 2 Constituency through stakeholder commitment and owner-ship is 2.72.
1.
2.
1�
Before this detailed calculation is done, how-ever, the individual scores are written down on a whiteboard and a consensus score is decided upon by discussion. The consensus score, 3, is slightly above the numerical score, which could indicate that persons with a less rosy picture of participation felt uneasy about expressing their dissatisfaction in open discussion with middle management present.
The same process is applied to each capacity area until all the statements have been covered.
STEP 6: Defining an organisation’s stages of growth and planning capacity-building activitiesThe first day of the OCA exercise was spent by producing data for analysis. The second day is spent on analysing the data and, based on the analysis, prioritising the capacities that need urgent strengthening and developing capacity-building action plans.
The assessment report, which serves as a baseline for capacity building activity planning, includes the following elements:
background to the assessment and overview of the findings;description of the prioritised capacity-build-ing areas;detailed summary of findings for each capac-ity area;the OCA tool with scores (as annex);list of participants by name and position (as annex).
A graph capturing the self-assessment results for each of the seven capacities will be plotted as shown below.
1.
2.
3.
4.5.
Table 6. Case study OCA results in a graph form (OCAT method)
1 2 3 4 5
Governance
Management Practices
Human Rsources
Financial Management
Service Delivery
External Relations
Sustainability
Incipient Emerging Expanding Mature
�0
Reflections on OCA and capacity building
Strengths and weaknesses of OCA
The mere process of going through the organi-sational capacity assessment is in a way capac-ity-building of the organisation. In many cases organisations are made to realise that certain is-sues that they may not have even thought about are needed and important for their organisation to grow. The findings of a single assessment can be used for a variety of purposes including as a baseline for measuring organisational develop-ment over time, as a basis for selecting areas that need to be developed or as a tool for donors to se-lect candidates for project funding.
Organisational capacity assessment does also have its weaknesses. The scoring in all the tools can be very subjective. Personal perspec-tives rather than the actual situation may influ-ence the scoring. It should be noted that the OCA methodology relies on organisational self-assess-ment. Findings are valid only to the degree that team members are objective, candid and knowl-edgeable about their organisation.
Using numbers to represent capacity can be helpful when recognised as relative and not abso-lute measures. Many tools for measuring organi-sational capacity rely on ordinal scales. Ordinal scales are scales in which values can be ranked from high to low or more to less in relation to each other. They are useful for ordering by rank along a continuum but they can also be mislead-ing. Despite the use of scoring criteria and guide-lines, one person’s 3 may be someone else’s 4. In addition, ordinal scales do not indicate how far apart one score is from another. (For example, is the distance between ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ the same as the distance between ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’?) Qualitative descriptions of an organisation’s capacity level are a good com-plement to ordinal scales.
Critique of current capacity-building practices of many Northern NGOs
A lot of Southern NGOs and CBOs benefit from the support they receive from the Northern NGO in the form of capacity building or other ways. This is a very valuable input and contributes to the Southern NGOs’ sustainability and growth. However, certain practices render themselves in-effective in accelerating organisational growth in many Southern NGOs. Some of these condi-tions and practices are discussed below.
Capacity strengthening is a complex and long-term process that involves client organisa-tion participation in the interventions. However, Northern donors tend to have short-term sup-port and simplistic training approaches. Most Northern capacity-building organisations tend to focus on quantity instead of quality in capac-ity building. Much of the capacity building takes place through mass training with limited budg-ets. Many organisations are included but only one representative from each organisation is in-vited. This may not be very effective as the indi-viduals do not have the support of the organisa-tion to put into practice what they learnt during the training.
Much of the support given to client NGOs tends to be hardware, meaning tangible things like office equipment as opposed to software-type of support that includes support for changes in organisational culture, values etc. The same goes for recipient NGOs that tend to value the “fish” more than the “fishing net”. Southern NGOs also tend to see hardware more appealing than sup-port for organisational change.
Some experiences of OCA-based capacity building of Southern NGOs
The following are some of the observations and lessons learned from capacity building of South-ern NGOs.
Some organisations go through the process mechanically, “as long as the donor says so”. This might lead to a situation where some organisa-tions have been trained in the same “capacity area” yet they are not developing in that capac-ity.
�1
Training that targets single representatives from organisations is not very useful. The trans-fer and sharing of the knowledge gained with the rest of the staff and members of the organisation is not very effective or does not even take place in many cases.
Most organisations have a simplistic attitude of “we don’t have money, that’s why we’re not growing” without really looking at themselves straight in the eye.
Mentoring by a relatively similar organisa-tion is far more effective in strengthening capac-ity than the other forms of capacity building.
��
References
Human Sciences Research Council (1���) A guide for the assessment of organisational Capacity. http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/sourcebook/usgov/orgcap.pdf
International HIV/AIDS Alliance (�00�) CBO capacity analysis toolkit. http://www.aidsalliance.org/cus-tom_asp/publications/view.asp?publication_id=11�&language=en
National Environmental Education Advancement Project (�00�) Organisational Assessment Tool. http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/neeap/publications/oat/oatintro.htm
NGO Manager (�00�) Organisational Assessment Tool. http://www.ngomanager.org/tools.htmNGO Manager (�00�) Organisational Development: Organisational Assessment. http://www.ngoman-
ager.org/dcd/�_Organisational_Development/Organisational_Assessment/Reflect and Learn (�00�) Organisational Assessment Tools. http://reflectlearn.org/tools.phpThe DOSA page (�001) New directions in Organisational Capacity Building. http://www.edc.org/GLG/Cap-
Dev/dosapage.htmUNDP (�00�) Participatory Organisational Evaluation Tool. http://www.comminit.com/pdf/POET_Users-
Manual.pdf
��
Annex I: Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT)
Scoring system
0Not applicable or information not available to assess the element
1 Needs urgent and immediate attention� Needs major improvement� Needs improvement in limited aspects� Statement true, room for some improvement� Statement true, needs maintaining
A. GOVERNANCE
1. Boarda. The board or executive committee (this governing structure will be referred to as the board throug-
hout this assessment) provides overall policy direction and oversight.b. The board provides accountability and credibility.c. The board is capable of carrying out key roles such as policy formulation (for the organisation),
fundraising, public relations, financial oversight and lobbying.d. The board is composed of committed members who represent the varied interests of the stakehol-
ders.e. At least �0% of board members attend all meetings.f. The board has clearly documented terms of reference and tenure of office.
2. Mission/Goals a. The organisation has clearly articulated mission/goalsb. All the stakeholders understand the organisation’s mission.c. The development of the mission, goals and objectives are based on research and analysis of the
external and internal environment.d. The organisation has performance indicators to measure progress towards the achievement of the
goals and objectives.e. The organisation has a written strategic plan with a clear timeframe.f. Implementation plans are jointly developed by all the appropriate stakeholders.
3. Stakeholdersa. The organisation is able to identify key stakeholders.b. The results of stakeholder needs assessments are integrated into the planning process.c. Stakeholders are involved in the review of the organisation’s mission and strategies.
4. Leadership and organisational culturea. The board leadership has a clear vision of the organisation’s mission.b. Every board member knows the organisation’s values, vision and mission.
��
c. The leadership style is participatory.d. The management has the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles effectively.e. The management is accountable to key stakeholders.f. The management encourages mutual respect among the staff/volunteers.g. Information is shared freely among the members.
B. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
1. Organisational structure a. The organisation has an organisational structure with clearly defined lines of authority and respon-
sibilities.b. The organisation has an organisational structure which is well-designed and relevant to the missi-
on/goal.c. The positions within the organisational structure are filled.d. Systems are in place to ensure appropriate involvement of all levels of volunteers in decision-ma-
king.e. Regular assessments of the organisational structure are carried out and relevant updates made.
2. Planninga. Inputs from appropriate stakeholders are taken into account during planning.b. Implementation plans reflect a strategic plan.c. Implementation plans are reviewed regularly and updated when necessary.d. Resources are planned for and allocated properly.e. Flexibility exists to adjust plans as a result of the monitoring process.
3. Programme developmenta. Stakeholders and staff/volunteers are involved in programme design, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation.b. Programme design incorporates monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities.c. Programme modifications reflect the use of monitoring, evaluation and reporting findings.
4. Administrative proceduresa. The organisation is registered according to relevant legislation.b. Administrative procedure manual exist.c. Administrative procedures are adhered to.d. Procedures and operating manuals are updated.e. The organisation conforms to standard tax and labour regulations and requirements.
5. Risk managementa. Systems are in place to minimise organisational abuses.b. Regular audits of inventory are conducted.c. Annual external audit reports include a review of management practices.d. Recommendations of management practices in external annual audit reports are implemented.6. Information systemsa. Systems exist to collect, analyse and report data and information.b. Trained personnel are in place to analyse data.c. Systems are used to process, disseminate and solicit feedback of information.
��
7. Programme reportinga. The organisation has the ability to produce appropriate reports.b. The organisation regularly prepares activity reports.c. The organisation regularly prepares evaluation reports.d. The organisation publishes and disseminates information on its operations to appropriate stakehol-
ders.C. HUMAN RESOURCES
1. Human resources developmenta. A human resource development plan is in place.b. Staff/volunteer training is based on capacity needs and strategic objectives.c. Opportunities exist to integrate skills acquired in training into the work environment.d. Job performance appraisals are held periodically.e. Job promotions are based on performance.
2. Human resources managementa. Selection criteria for volunteers are in place.b. Recruitment process for staff is clearly defined, transparent and competitive.c. Job descriptions are clearly defined, adhered to and updated.d. Staff/board board meetings are held regularly.e. A simple and accessible Human Resource Manual exists and is followed (including procedures for
the board, volunteers and staff).f. Work of staff/volunteers is regularly internally monitored and evaluated and feedback given.g. Grievances and conflict resolution procedures are documented well.h. Grievances and conflict resolution procedures are understood well by the staff/volunteers and are
used when necessary.i. The workplace environment is appropriate in terms of health and safety.
3. Salaries and benefitsa. Salaries/benefits are clearly structured and competitive.b. A benefits policy is documented, disseminated and implemented, clearly stating the benefits for the
board, staff and volunteers.D. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
1. Accountinga. Financial procedures and reporting systems are in place.b. Account categories exist to separate project funds.2. Budgetinga. Budgeting is part of the annual implementation plan development process.b. Responsibilities for the preparation, management and implementation of the annual budget plans
are clearly defined.c. Actual expenses are regularly monitored against the budget and variances are investigated.
3. Financial/inventory controlsa. Stock control systems exist.b. Stock controls are followed.c. Procurement systems are in place.
��
d. Procurement systems are being used.e. Internal audits are conducted on a regular basis.f. Annual external audits are conducted and include reviews of management practice.g. Recommendations made in audits are implemented.
4. Financial reportinga. Financial reporting is timely.b. Reports include a balance sheetc. All financial transactions are recorded with relevant supporting documentation.d. Reports are reviewed by the financial committee of the board.E. SERVICE DELIVERY
1. Sectoral expertisea. The organisation has the experience necessary to accomplish its mission.b. Relevant expertise exists within the organisationc. The expertise is recognised by the full range of stakeholders.d. The organisation is capable of adapting programme and service delivery to stakeholder/target
groups’ changing needs.
2. Stakeholder commitment/ownershipa. Programme priorities are based on the actual needs of target groups.b. Programme priorities and services are defined in collaboration with stakeholders.c. Programmes are efficient, adequate, cost-effective and timely.
3. Monitoring and evaluation systemsa. A clearly documented monitoring and evaluation system exists.b. Project implementation is monitored against benchmarks.c. Indicators have been identified for each programme objectived. Baseline and impact data are collected and analysed regularly.e. Results of evaluation are used to make adjustments to the programme.F. EXTERNAL RELATIONS
1. Stakeholder relationsa. The organisation is seen as credible by the stakeholders.b. The organisation is seen as a valuable resource by the stakeholdersc. The organisation regards its stakeholders as full partners.d. The organisation has relations with the private sector for technical expertise, material and human
resources.2. Inter-organisational collaborationa. The organisation networks and shares resources with national and international organisations.b. The organisation plays a role in promoting coalitions/networks.c. The organisation participates in advocacy activities.
3. Government collaborationa. The organisation has mechanisms in place to influence relevant government policies.b. The organisation has contacts with government decision-makers.c. The organisation is able to engage policy-makers in dialogue.
��
d. Exchange of resources occurs between the Organisation and government.e. The organisation’s activities and recommendations are integrated into government development
plans.
4. Donor collaborationa. The organisation has practices and procedures for recognising donors.b. The organisation has diversified contacts within the funding community.c. The organisation is seen as credible by funders.d. The organisation is seen as a valuable resource by funders.
5. Public relationsa. The organisation engages in public relations.b. The organisation’s objectives and goals are understood by the stakeholders.c. The organisation has a positive image among the stakeholders.
6. Media relationsa. The organisation maintains diverse contacts with media outlets.b. The organisation has a strategy to work with the media.c. The media consults the organisation on relevant issues.G. SUSTAINABILITY
1. Programme/benefit sustainability a. Programmes are supported by those being served.b. There is sense of ownership of benefits by the beneficiaries.c. The organisation ensures that local level skills transfer takes place.
2. Organisational sustainabilitya. The organisation has a shared vision of its role in society.b. The organisation is a member of key NGO networksc. The organisation reviews its structures in response to organisational development needs.d. The organisation has linkages with international NGOs, educational institutions, government enti-
ties, research institutes, civil institutions and the private sector.3. Financial sustainabilitya. The organisation has the ability to access diversified resources to contribute to its activities.b. The organisation has more than one funder.c. Funds for short-term expenses are available.d. The organisation has a long-term business/funding/resource development plan for the needed
finances.e. The organisation has an immediate fundraising strategy.f. The organisation has the capacity to implement the fundraising strategy.g. Local fundraising opportunities have been identified.h. The organisation has the capacity to write proposals and win tenders.
��
Annex II: Stages of growth of an organisation based on the OCA tool (OCAT)
OCA
T ca
tego
ries a
nd st
ages
of o
rgan
isatio
nal d
evel
opm
ent
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsGO
VERN
ANCE
Boar
dN
o bo
ard
or in
depe
nden
t bod
y ex
ists t
o pr
ovid
e po
licy d
irect
ion
or o
vers
ight
.
The
boar
d do
es n
ot d
iffer
entia
te
betw
een
over
sight
and
man
age-
men
t rol
es.
If th
e bo
ard
is be
ginn
ing
to p
rovi
-de
ove
rsig
ht, it
may
not
repr
esen
t th
e va
ried
inte
rest
s of s
take
hol-
ders
.
The
boar
d is
not a
ssist
ing
man
a-ge
men
t to
iden
tify l
egisl
ator
s, in
fluen
ce p
ublic
opi
nion
or r
aise
fu
nds.
Boar
d m
embe
rs se
em to
lack
co
mm
itmen
t.
Mem
bers
of t
he b
oard
or
inde
pend
ent b
ody h
ave
been
id
entifi
ed b
ut h
ave
not y
et
assu
med
a le
ader
ship
role
.
The
boar
d is
atte
mpt
ing
to
mic
ro-m
anag
e ra
ther
than
pr
ovid
e ov
ersig
ht.
The
boar
d is
not i
nflue
ncin
g pu
blic
opi
nion
or l
egisl
ator
s.
The
boar
d is
not a
war
e of
the
need
s of s
take
hold
ers o
r the
ro
le th
ey co
uld
play
.
The
boar
d’s m
embe
rshi
p is
st
able
and
func
tioni
ng.
The
boar
d is
able
to d
iffer
en-
tiate
bet
wee
n its
role
and
th
at o
f man
agem
ent.
The
boar
d ha
s som
e m
em-
bers
who
are
lead
ers i
n re
leva
nt fi
elds
but
it la
cks
broa
der r
epre
sent
atio
n.
The
boar
d is
awar
e of
its
resp
onsib
ility
to p
rovi
de
over
sight
and
repr
esen
t the
in
tere
sts o
f sta
keho
lder
s but
is
not c
onsis
tent
ly d
oing
so.
Mec
hani
sms f
or o
btai
ning
in
put f
rom
stak
ehol
ders
are
in
pla
ce b
ut n
ot b
eing
use
d co
nsist
ently
.
The
boar
d pr
ovid
es o
vera
ll po
li-cy
dire
ctio
n an
d ov
ersig
ht.
The
boar
d pr
ovid
es a
ccou
ntab
i-lit
y and
cred
ibili
ty.
The
boar
d’s c
ompo
sitio
n in
clud
es le
ader
s in
the
field
of
the
NGO
’ s m
issio
n w
ho a
re ca
-pa
ble
of ca
rryi
ng o
ut su
ch ro
les
as p
olic
y dire
ctio
n, fu
ndra
ising
, pu
blic
rela
tions
, fina
ncia
l ove
r-sig
ht a
nd lo
bbyi
ng.
The
boar
d is
com
pose
d of
com
-m
itted
mem
bers
who
repr
e-se
nt th
e va
ried
inte
rest
s of t
he
stak
ehol
ders
.M
echa
nism
s are
in p
lace
to
obta
in a
ppro
pria
te in
put f
rom
st
akeh
olde
rs.
The
boar
d ex
ecut
es it
s rol
e of
ad
voca
te fo
r the
com
mun
ity.
Miss
ion/
goal
The
NGO
has
a v
ague
idea
of i
ts
miss
ion
and
the
cont
ribut
ion
it is
atte
mpt
ing
to m
ake.
The
miss
ion
is un
ders
tood
by
only
one
or a
few
mem
bers
of t
he
boar
d or
seni
or m
anag
emen
t.Th
e ac
tiviti
es ca
rrie
d ou
t by s
take
-ho
lder
s may
hav
e lit
tle re
latio
n-sh
ip to
the
miss
ion
of th
e N
GO.
Impl
emen
tatio
n pl
ans a
re d
e-ve
lope
d by
seni
or m
anag
emen
t w
ithou
t inp
ut fr
om st
aff o
r sta
ke-
hold
ers.
The
miss
ion
may
be
clar
ified
in
tern
ally
but
it is
not
wid
ely
unde
rsto
od b
y the
pub
lic.
The
miss
ion
is no
t refl
ecte
d in
pl
anni
ng o
r job
func
tions
.
Plan
ning
is d
one
by se
nior
man
agem
ent w
ith li
ttle
inpu
t fr
om st
aff a
nd st
akeh
olde
rs.
The
visio
n an
d m
issio
n ar
e cl
ear t
o st
aff,
stak
ehol
ders
an
d ou
tsid
ers.
Stra
tegi
es a
nd o
bjec
tives
are
al
igne
d w
ith th
e m
issio
n.
Impl
emen
tatio
n pl
anni
ng
may
be
cond
ucte
d by
seni
or
man
agem
ent a
nd li
nked
to
the
budg
etin
g pr
oces
s with
so
me
inpu
t fro
m st
aff o
r st
akeh
olde
rs.
The
NGO
has
clea
rly a
rtic
ulat
ed
miss
ion/
goal
s whi
ch a
re u
nder
-st
ood
by a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs.
Stra
tegi
es a
re a
ligne
d w
ith th
e m
issio
n, re
alist
ic a
nd ta
ke th
e fo
rm o
f cle
ar o
bjec
tive
stat
e-m
ents
as t
o ho
w th
ey ca
n be
ac
hiev
ed.
Impl
emen
tatio
n pl
ans a
re
join
tly d
evel
oped
by s
enio
r m
anag
emen
t, st
aff a
nd o
ther
ap
prop
riate
stak
ehol
ders
.
��
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsLe
gal s
tatu
sTh
e N
GO m
ay o
r may
not
be
le-
gally
regi
ster
ed a
ccor
ding
to lo
cal
regu
latio
ns.
The
NGO
doe
s not
ben
efit f
rom
w
hate
ver fi
duci
ary a
nd ta
xatio
n st
atus
is p
erm
issib
le u
nder
loca
l la
w.
The
NGO
is re
gist
ered
but
has
no
t yet
inte
grat
ed fi
nanc
ial
and
lega
l adv
ice
into
pla
nnin
g an
d m
anag
emen
t dec
ision
s.
The
NGO
is n
ot in
com
plia
nce
with
som
e lo
cal r
epor
ting
and
labo
ur re
quire
men
ts.
The
NGO
has
inte
grat
ed a
p-pr
opria
te e
xper
t adv
ice
into
pl
anni
ng a
nd m
anag
emen
t sy
stem
s.
The
NGO
is g
ener
ally
in
com
plia
nce
with
loca
l rep
or-
ting,
tax
and
labo
ur re
quire
-m
ents
.
The
NGO
is p
rope
rly re
gist
ered
ac
cord
ing
to lo
cal r
egul
atio
ns.
The
NGO
ben
efits
from
the
finan
cial
and
lega
l sta
tus p
er-
miss
ible
und
er lo
cal l
aw.
Stak
ehol
ders
The
NGO
’s lin
ks w
ith th
e st
akeh
ol-
ders
are
wea
k.
The
NGO
vie
ws i
ts co
mm
unity
as
pass
ive
bene
ficia
ries r
athe
r tha
n po
tent
ial p
artn
ers.
The
NGO
doe
s not
serv
e as
an
advo
cate
for t
he co
mm
unity
.
The
NGO
is u
nabl
e to
iden
tify k
ey
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
’s ou
trea
ch to
stak
e-ho
lder
s is i
mpr
ovin
g.
Cert
ain
influ
entia
l mem
-be
rs o
f the
com
mun
ity m
ay
be co
nsul
ted
or in
vite
d to
pa
rtic
ipat
e in
som
e de
cisio
ns
beca
use
they
are
seen
to h
ave
a st
ake
in th
e ou
tcom
e.
Som
e aw
aren
ess e
xist
s of t
he
poss
ible
role
of t
he N
GO a
s an
advo
cate
for t
he co
mm
unity
.
The
NGO
’s st
akeh
olde
rs a
re
defin
ed w
ell a
nd th
eir n
eeds
an
d vi
ews a
re co
nsid
ered
in
plan
ning
and
dec
ision
-ma-
king
.Th
e N
GO is
invo
lved
in
lobb
ying
and
oth
er a
dvoc
acy
func
tions
on
beha
lf of
the
com
mun
ity.
The
NGO
is co
min
g to
vie
w
the
com
mun
ity a
nd o
ther
st
akeh
olde
rs a
s par
tner
s.
The
NGO
’s st
akeh
olde
rs a
re
defin
ed w
ell.
The
NGO
reco
gnise
s the
com
-m
unity
and
oth
er st
akeh
olde
rs
as p
artn
ers.
Resu
lts o
f com
mun
ity n
eeds
as
sess
men
ts a
re in
tegr
ated
into
th
e pl
anni
ng p
roce
ss.
The
NGO
’s m
issio
n an
d st
rate
-gi
es a
re re
view
ed b
y sta
keho
l-de
rs.
Lead
ersh
ipTh
ere
is an
indi
vidu
al o
r a fe
w in
-di
vidu
als i
n th
e N
GO w
ho co
ntro
l m
ost f
unct
ions
.
Man
agem
ent s
tyle
is d
irect
ive
and
staf
f mem
bers
or v
olun
teer
s pr
imar
ily p
rovi
de te
chni
cal i
nput
.
Man
agem
ent d
oes n
ot a
rtic
ulat
e th
e N
GO’s
purp
ose
to st
aff c
lear
ly.
The
boar
d an
d se
nior
man
age-
men
t lac
k a
clea
r und
erst
andi
ng
of th
eir r
espe
ctiv
e ro
les.
Mem
bers
of l
eade
rshi
p la
ck u
n-de
rsta
ndin
g of
thei
r res
pons
ibili
ty
to st
akeh
olde
rs.
Mos
t dec
ision
s are
mad
e by
th
e bo
ard,
som
etim
es w
ith
inpu
t fro
m o
ne o
r tw
o st
aff
mem
bers
.St
aff h
as li
ttle
und
erst
andi
ng
of h
ow m
anag
emen
t mak
es
deci
sions
.Le
ader
ship
is st
ill se
en p
rima-
rily a
s dire
ctiv
e an
d co
ntro
l-lin
g, ra
ther
than
ena
blin
g se
lf-di
rect
ion
to e
mpl
oyee
s an
d m
onito
ring
thei
r per
for-
man
ce.
Mem
bers
of l
eade
rshi
p ar
e aw
are
of st
akeh
olde
rs b
ut d
o no
t mak
e th
emse
lves
ava
i-la
ble.
Seni
or m
anag
emen
t’s re
la-
tions
hip
to st
aff i
s mor
e co
n-su
ltativ
e an
d m
anag
emen
t de
cisio
ns a
re d
eleg
ated
.
Staf
f inc
reas
ingl
y und
erst
and
deci
sion-
mak
ing
but a
re n
ot
syst
emat
ical
ly in
volv
ed in
it.
Mem
bers
of l
eade
rshi
p un
ders
tand
that
one
of t
heir
prim
ary r
oles
is to
pro
vide
ov
eral
l dire
ctio
n an
d m
oni-
tor p
erfo
rman
ce b
ut a
re st
ill
conc
erne
d w
ith co
ntro
l.
Mor
e ef
fort
is m
ade
by
lead
ersh
ip to
cont
act a
nd
invo
lve
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
boar
d an
d se
nior
man
age-
men
t hav
e a
clea
r und
erst
an-
ding
of t
heir
role
s and
resp
on-
sibili
ties a
s pro
vide
rs o
f ove
rall
dire
ctio
n.
The
lead
ersh
ip st
yle
of se
nior
m
anag
emen
t is p
artic
ipat
ory.
Seni
or m
anag
emen
t is r
espo
n-sib
le to
all
stak
ehol
ders
.
Mem
bers
of l
eade
rshi
p ar
e ac
cess
ible
to a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs.
�0
MAN
AGEM
ENT
PRAC
TICE
SO
rgan
i-sa
tiona
l st
ruct
ure
and
cultu
re
The
NGO
has
no
clea
rly d
efine
d or
gani
satio
nal s
truc
ture
, and
line
s of
aut
horit
y and
resp
onsib
ility
are
no
t cle
arly
defi
ned.
The
NGO
has
no
man
agem
ent
polic
ies.
The
NGO
has
no
syst
ems t
o m
e-as
ure
cong
ruen
ce b
etw
een
stat
ed
miss
ion
and
oper
atio
nal c
ultu
re.
The
NGO
has
no
syst
em to
ens
ure
appr
opria
te in
volv
emen
t of s
taff
in
dec
ision
-mak
ing.
The
NGO
has
no
oper
atio
nal
syst
ems t
o en
sure
mut
ual a
ccou
n-ta
bilit
y.
The
NGO
has
a d
efine
d or
ga-
nisa
tiona
l str
uctu
re b
ut li
nes
of a
utho
rity r
emai
n un
clea
r an
d au
thor
ity te
nds t
o be
ex
erci
sed
by a
n in
divi
dual
or a
fe
w in
divi
dual
s.
The
NGO
has
dev
elop
ed sy
s-te
ms a
nd p
olic
ies b
ut th
ey a
re
not i
mpl
emen
ted,
regu
larly
fo
llow
ed o
r rev
iew
ed.
The
NGO
has
a d
efine
d or
gani
satio
nal s
truc
ture
with
cl
ear l
ines
of a
utho
rity a
nd
resp
onsib
ility
.Th
e N
GO’s
adm
inist
ratio
n pl
aces
em
phas
is on
the
area
s of
resp
onsib
ility
but
doe
s not
co
nfer
the
nece
ssar
y aut
ho-
rity o
n in
divi
dual
s to
perm
it th
em to
ope
rate
eff
ectiv
ely.
The
NGO
is n
ot e
ffec
tivel
y in
corp
orat
ing
the
orga
nisa
-tio
nal s
truc
ture
into
ass
igne
d ta
sks o
r usin
g it
to a
sses
s or
gani
satio
nal d
evel
opm
ent
or e
nsur
e ac
coun
tabi
lity.
Man
agem
ent p
olic
ies e
nsur
e re
gula
r aud
its o
f org
anisa
tio-
nal d
evel
opm
ent.
The
NGO
has
a d
efine
d or
ga-
nisa
tiona
l str
uctu
re w
ith cl
ear
lines
of a
utho
rity a
nd re
spon
-sib
ility
.
Man
agem
ent p
olic
ies t
o en
sure
re
gula
r aud
its o
f org
anisa
tiona
l de
velo
pmen
t are
in p
lace
.
Syst
ems a
re in
pla
ce to
re-
gula
rly m
easu
re co
ngru
ence
be
twee
n st
ated
miss
ion
and
oper
atin
g cu
lture
.
Syst
ems a
re in
pla
ce to
ens
ure
appr
opria
te in
volv
emen
t of a
ll le
vels
of st
aff i
n de
cisio
n-m
a-ki
ng.
The
NGO
has
ope
ratio
nal s
ys-
tem
s to
ensu
re m
utua
l acc
oun-
tabi
lity.
Plan
ning
The
NGO
carr
ies o
ut so
me
plan
-ni
ng b
ut w
ith li
ttle
or n
o in
put
from
staf
f and
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
mak
es d
ecisi
ons a
nd
plan
s act
iviti
es w
ithou
t ref
eren
ce
to th
e ag
reed
stra
tegi
es to
ach
ieve
th
e m
issio
n.
Ther
e is
little
ass
essm
ent o
f the
re
sour
ces r
equi
red
to u
nder
take
ac
tiviti
es.
Plan
s, on
ce im
plem
ente
d, a
re n
eit-
her r
evie
wed
nor
mod
ified
.
Reso
urce
s are
not
pla
nned
for o
r al
loca
ted
prop
erly
.
Annu
al o
pera
ting
plan
s are
de
velo
ped
and
revi
ewed
pri-
mar
ily b
y sen
ior s
taff
with
out
refe
renc
e to
the
prev
ious
ye
ar’s
plan
ning
, ana
lysis
of
reso
urce
ava
ilabi
lity o
r oth
er
fact
ors w
hich
coul
d af
fect
im
plem
enta
tion.
Annu
al p
lans
are
dev
elop
ed
with
lim
ited
inpu
t fro
m st
ake-
hold
ers o
r sta
ff.
Mon
itorin
g is
not t
akin
g pl
ace
and
plan
s, on
ce im
plem
ente
d,
are
not b
eing
revi
sed.
Plan
ning
cont
inue
s to
be
shor
t-te
rm a
nd is
bas
ed o
n av
aila
ble
reso
urce
s.
Stra
tegi
c and
shor
t-te
rm
plan
ning
is co
nduc
ted
prim
a-ril
y by s
enio
r man
agem
ent.
Staf
f and
stak
ehol
ders
may
ha
ve so
me
inpu
t in
the
plan
-ni
ng b
ut th
ey a
re n
ot in
vol-
ved
in d
ecisi
on-m
akin
g.
Ther
e ar
e oc
casio
nal r
evie
ws
and
revi
sions
of i
mpl
emen
ta-
tion
plan
s.
Som
e at
tem
pt is
bei
ng m
ade
to id
entif
y and
allo
cate
add
i-tio
nal r
esou
rces
.
Inpu
ts fr
om a
ppro
pria
te st
ake-
hold
ers a
re ta
ken
into
acc
ount
du
ring
plan
ning
.
Impl
emen
tatio
n pl
ans r
eflec
t a
stra
tegi
c pla
n.
Impl
emen
tatio
n pl
ans a
re
upda
ted.
Reso
urce
s are
pla
nned
for a
nd
allo
cate
d pr
oper
ly.
Flex
ibili
ty e
xist
s to
adju
st p
lans
as
a re
sult
of th
e m
onito
ring
proc
ess.
�1
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsPe
rson
nel
Ther
e ar
e no
form
al p
erso
nnel
pr
oced
ures
to a
dmin
ister
sala
ries
and
bene
fits o
r to
reco
rd p
erso
n-ne
l dat
a.
Form
al e
mpl
oym
ent p
roce
dure
s do
not
exi
st.
Recr
uitm
ent p
roce
sses
are
not
de-
fined
, tra
nspa
rent
or c
ompe
titiv
e.
Man
agem
ent d
oes n
ot a
ctiv
ely
enco
urag
e m
utua
l res
pect
am
ong
staf
f.
Reco
urse
pro
cedu
res d
o no
t exi
st.
Basic
per
sonn
el a
dmin
istra
ti-on
syst
ems e
xist
but
info
r-m
al e
mpl
oym
ent p
ract
ices
co
ntin
ue.
Posit
ions
are
not
adv
ertis
ed
exte
rnal
ly a
nd th
ere
are
no
com
mon
pro
cedu
res f
or
dete
rmin
ing
qual
ifica
tions
fo
r em
ploy
men
t, re
crui
tmen
t, hi
ring
and
term
inat
ion.
Reco
urse
pro
cedu
res a
nd
mut
ual r
espe
ct h
ave
not y
et
been
inte
grat
ed in
to th
e or
ga-
nisa
tiona
l cul
ture
.
The
stra
tegi
c val
ue o
f hum
an
reso
urce
s and
the
need
to
inte
grat
e pe
rson
nel p
ract
ices
in
to th
e st
rate
gic p
lann
ing
proc
ess a
re n
ot fu
lly u
nder
-st
ood.
All n
eces
sary
per
sonn
el
syst
ems a
re fo
rmal
ised
and
impl
emen
ted
alth
ough
in-
form
al m
echa
nism
s are
use
d oc
casio
nally
.
Reco
urse
pro
cedu
res a
nd
mut
ual r
espe
ct h
ave
been
in
tegr
ated
into
the
orga
nisa
-tio
nal c
ultu
re.
Sele
ctio
n cr
iteria
for s
taff
are
in
plac
e.
The
recr
uitm
ent p
roce
ss is
cl
early
defi
ned.
Recr
uitm
ent p
roce
sses
are
tran
-sp
aren
t and
com
petit
ive.
Job
desc
riptio
ns a
re cl
early
de
fined
.
Staf
f is d
eplo
yed
acco
rdin
g to
jo
b de
scrip
tions
.
Man
agem
ent e
ncou
rage
s mu-
tual
resp
ect a
mon
g st
aff.
Staf
f are
aw
are
that
reco
urse
pr
oced
ures
for s
taff
exi
st.
Prog
ram
me
deve
lopm
ent
Prog
ram
me
deve
lopm
ent i
s lar
ge-
ly fu
nder
or s
taff
-driv
en, w
ith li
ttle
in
put f
rom
stak
ehol
ders
, and
is
man
aged
on
a pr
ojec
t-by
-pro
ject
ba
sis.
Prog
ram
me
desig
n, im
plem
enta
-tio
n, m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n,
if do
ne, a
re ca
rrie
d ou
t bas
ed o
n fu
nder
requ
irem
ents
.
Oft
en th
e fu
nder
’s sy
stem
is n
ot
unde
rsto
od w
ell a
nd is
poo
rly
impl
emen
ted
and
badl
y man
aged
.
Mon
itorin
g, e
valu
atio
n an
d re
por-
ting
activ
ities
are
not
incl
uded
in
prog
ram
me
desig
n.
Indi
vidu
al p
roje
cts a
re d
evel
o-pe
d w
ithin
an
over
all p
ro-
gram
mat
ic fr
amew
ork.
Occ
asio
nal e
valu
atio
ns
cond
ucte
d at
the
requ
est o
f fu
nder
s are
und
erta
ken
by
outs
ider
s.
Stak
ehol
ders
are
invo
lved
on
ly a
s pro
gram
me
reci
pien
ts.
No
com
preh
ensiv
e sy
stem
ex
ists f
or d
eter
min
ing
the
purp
ose
and
obje
ctiv
es o
f pr
ogra
mm
es/p
roje
cts o
r for
m
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n.
A co
mpr
ehen
sive
syst
em
exist
s for
pro
gram
me
deve
-lo
pmen
t and
impl
emen
ta-
tion.
This
syst
em is
som
etim
es o
ne
impo
sed
by a
fund
er o
r may
ha
ve b
een
deve
lope
d by
the
NGO
itse
lf.
Eith
er sy
stem
can
prov
ide
the
info
rmat
ion
requ
ired
by th
e fu
nder
and
allo
ws f
or m
oni-
torin
g an
d ev
alua
tion
to b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t by t
he st
aff.
Stak
ehol
ders
are
cons
ulte
d on
pro
gram
me
desig
n an
d in
volv
ed in
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d ev
alua
tion.
Stak
ehol
ders
and
staf
f are
in
volv
ed in
pro
gram
me
desig
n,
impl
emen
tatio
n, m
onito
ring,
an
d ev
alua
tion.
Prog
ram
me
desig
n in
corp
ora-
tes m
onito
ring,
eva
luat
ion,
and
re
port
ing
activ
ities
.
Prog
ram
me
mod
ifica
tions
ref-
lect
mon
itorin
g, e
valu
atio
n, a
nd
repo
rtin
g fin
ding
s.
��
Adm
in-
istra
tive
pr
oced
ures
No
adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
or
man
uals
exist
.
Adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
are
in
form
al a
nd N
GO st
aff l
ack
a co
mm
on u
nder
stan
ding
of t
hem
.
Adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
are
in
crea
singl
y for
mal
ised.
Adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
are
no
t bei
ng fu
lly u
tilise
d.
No
adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
or
man
uals
exist
.
Adm
inist
rativ
e sy
stem
s are
fo
rmal
ised
and
func
tioni
ng.
Adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
an
d m
anua
ls ex
ist b
ut a
re
not r
efer
red
to re
gula
rly.
Adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
and
m
anua
ls ex
ist.
Adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ures
are
ad
here
d to
.
Proc
edur
es a
nd o
pera
ting
ma-
nual
s are
upd
ated
regu
larly
.Ri
sk
man
agem
ent
No
syst
ems e
xist
to p
rote
ct th
e N
GO a
gain
st o
rgan
isatio
nal
abus
es.
Audi
ts a
nd st
ock-
taki
ng, if
con-
duct
ed, a
re ir
regu
lar.
No
exte
rnal
aud
its a
re ca
rrie
d ou
t.
Syst
ems a
re in
pla
ce to
pro
-te
ct a
gain
st o
rgan
isatio
nal
abus
es b
ut h
ave
not b
een
impl
emen
ted.
Audi
ts a
nd st
ock-
taki
ng co
nti-
nue
to b
e sp
orad
ic.
Exte
rnal
aud
its ca
rrie
d ou
t at
fund
ers’
requ
est.
Syst
ems a
re in
pla
ce b
ut
cont
inue
to b
e us
ed o
n an
irr
egul
ar b
asis.
Audi
ts a
nd st
ock-
taki
ng a
re
now
inte
grat
ed in
to p
lan-
ning
.
Exte
rnal
aud
its a
re ca
rrie
d ou
t ann
ually
.
Syst
ems a
re in
pla
ce to
min
imi-
se o
rgan
isatio
nal a
buse
s.
Regu
lar a
udits
of i
nven
tory
are
co
nduc
ted.
Annu
al e
xter
nal a
udit
repo
rts
incl
ude
a re
view
of m
anag
e-m
ent p
ract
ices
.
Reco
mm
enda
tions
on
man
a-ge
men
t pra
ctic
es in
ann
ual
exte
rnal
aud
it re
port
s are
im
plem
ente
d.In
form
atio
n sy
stem
sN
o sy
stem
exi
sts w
ithin
the
NGO
to
colle
ct, a
naly
se o
r diss
emin
ate
data
.
Info
rmat
ion
is co
llect
ed ra
ndom
ly
and
man
ually
.
Info
rmat
ion
is no
t sha
red
amon
g st
akeh
olde
rs.
Data
util
isatio
n po
tent
ial i
s no
t und
erst
ood.
A ru
dim
enta
ry e
lect
roni
c in
form
atio
n sy
stem
is in
pla
ce
but i
s not
acc
essib
le to
all
staf
f.
Com
pute
rs a
re u
sed
prim
a-ril
y for
wor
d-pr
oces
sing
and
book
keep
ing.
An in
form
atio
n sy
stem
is
oper
atio
nal a
nd m
ost s
taff
ha
ve a
cces
s to
it.
The
info
rmat
ion
syst
em is
st
ill p
rimar
ily u
sed
for w
ord-
proc
essin
g an
d bo
okke
epin
g bu
t ind
ivid
ual s
taff
und
er-
stan
ds a
nd u
se d
ata
on a
n ad
ho
c bas
is.
Ther
e is
no m
echa
nism
for
inte
grat
ing
info
rmat
ion
from
th
e sy
stem
into
the
NGO
’s pl
anni
ng p
roce
ss.
Ther
e is
no m
echa
nism
to
diss
emin
ate
or so
licit
feed
-ba
ck.
Syst
ems e
xist
to co
llect
, ana
ly-
se, a
nd re
port
dat
a an
d in
for-
mat
ion.
Trai
ned
pers
onne
l are
in p
lace
to
man
age
info
rmat
ion
sys-
tem
s.
Syst
ems a
re u
sed
to p
roce
ss,
diss
emin
ate,
and
solic
it fe
ed-
back
of i
nfor
mat
ion.
��
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsPr
ogra
mm
e re
port
ing
The
NGO
doe
s not
repo
rt o
n th
e re
sults
of a
ctiv
ities
or e
valu
atio
ns
to st
akeh
olde
rs.
The
NGO
is n
ot sh
arin
g in
form
ati-
on b
ased
on
less
ons l
earn
ed fr
om
activ
ities
and
eva
luat
ions
.
The
NGO
doe
s not
hav
e th
e ab
ility
to
pre
pare
regu
lar a
ctiv
ity o
r eva
-lu
atio
n re
port
s.
The
NGO
pro
vide
s inf
orm
a-tio
n on
act
iviti
es a
nd e
valu
a-tio
ns o
nly w
hen
requ
este
d or
re
quire
d by
a fu
nder
.
The
NGO
shar
es in
form
atio
n on
act
iviti
es o
nly a
s req
uire
d.
Repo
rt fo
rmat
s refl
ect f
unde
r ne
eds.
The
NGO
doe
s not
yet h
ave
an e
ffec
tive
syst
em th
roug
h w
hich
to sh
are
info
rmat
ion
on le
sson
s lea
rned
from
its
expe
rienc
e.
The
NGO
occ
asio
nally
pub
lis-
hes t
he re
sults
of i
ts a
ctiv
ities
an
d ev
alua
tions
but
it d
oes
not h
ave
a st
rate
gy fo
r diss
e-m
inat
ion.
The
NGO
has
dev
elop
ed
som
e fle
xibl
e re
port
form
ats
to re
flect
the
need
s of d
iffe-
rent
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
has
the
abili
ty to
pro
-du
ce a
ppro
pria
te re
port
s.
The
NGO
regu
larly
pre
pare
s ac
tivity
repo
rts.
The
NGO
regu
larly
pre
pare
s ev
alua
tion
repo
rts.
The
NGO
pub
lishe
s and
dis-
sem
inat
es in
form
atio
n on
its
oper
atio
ns.
Repo
rtin
g fo
rmat
s are
flex
ible
, va
ried
and
resp
ond
to st
akeh
ol-
der i
nfor
mat
ion
requ
irem
ents
.
HU
MAN
RES
OU
RCES
Hum
an
reso
urce
s de
velo
pmen
t
The
NGO
doe
s not
cond
uct
syst
emat
ic a
ppra
isals
of st
aff
perf
orm
ance
on
whi
ch to
pla
n fo
r ch
ange
s or i
mpr
ovem
ents
.
The
NGO
is u
nabl
e to
pla
n fo
r ch
ange
to im
prov
e th
e pe
rfor
man
-ce
of i
ndiv
idua
ls th
roug
h be
tter
w
ork
plan
ning
, tra
inin
g, d
evel
op-
men
t and
pro
mot
ion.
Ther
e is
little
or n
o un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n st
aff
perf
orm
ance
and
the
achi
eve-
men
t of N
GO o
bjec
tives
.
Ther
e is
a go
od m
atch
bet
-w
een
staf
f res
pons
ibili
ties
and
skill
requ
irem
ents
.
A st
aff a
ppra
isal s
yste
m m
ay
exist
but
it is
not
nec
essa
rily
base
d on
job
perf
orm
ance
.
The
NGO
has
iden
tified
re
sour
ces w
ith w
hich
to co
n-du
ct a
d ho
c tra
inin
g of
staf
f.
Pers
onne
l pol
icie
s are
not
de
fined
.
The
NGO
has
a p
erfo
rman
-ce
-bas
ed a
ppra
isal s
yste
m
in p
lace
, but
it is
not
alw
ays
appl
ied
or e
quita
ble.
Staf
f are
som
etim
es a
ssig
ned
and
prom
oted
acc
ordi
ng to
th
eir j
ob p
erfo
rman
ce.
Staf
f dev
elop
men
t nee
ds a
re
asse
ssed
and
use
d to
dev
elop
tr
aini
ng p
lans
.
A hu
man
reso
urce
s dev
elop
-m
ent p
lan
is in
pla
ce.
Staf
f tra
inin
g is
base
d on
capa
-ci
ty, n
eeds
and
obj
ectiv
es.
Opp
ortu
nitie
s exi
st to
inte
grat
e sk
ills a
cqui
red
in tr
aini
ng in
to
the
wor
k en
viro
nmen
t.
Job
appr
aisa
ls an
d pr
omot
ions
ar
e pe
rfor
man
ce-b
ased
and
eq
uita
ble.
��
Hum
an
reso
urce
s m
anag
emen
t
The
NGO
has
no
part
icul
ar p
roce
ss
to d
eter
min
e th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
t-w
een
hum
an re
sour
ce n
eeds
and
pr
ogra
mm
e ob
ject
ives
.Th
e ro
les a
nd jo
b re
spon
sibili
ties
of e
xist
ing
staf
f are
unc
lear
and
ch
ange
able
.Th
e lim
ited
staf
f are
exp
ecte
d to
ca
rry o
ut re
spon
sibili
ties b
eyon
d th
eir e
xper
tise
and
som
e es
sent
ial
task
s are
not
don
e by
any
one.
Job
desc
riptio
ns a
nd w
ork
resp
on-
sibili
ties a
re n
ot d
ocum
ente
d.Jo
b pe
rfor
man
ce is
not
ass
esse
d an
d th
ere
is no
pla
n to
impr
ove
staf
f per
form
ance
.Th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n st
aff
perf
orm
ance
and
the
achi
eve-
men
t of N
GO p
rogr
amm
e ob
ject
i-ve
s is n
ot u
nder
stoo
d.Sa
larie
s are
not
com
petit
ive
and
bene
fits d
o no
t exi
st.
Stan
dard
tax
and
labo
ur re
gula
-tio
ns a
re n
ot b
eing
resp
ecte
d.N
o m
echa
nism
s exi
st fo
r grie
van-
ce o
r con
flict
reso
lutio
n.
The
NGO
has
no
proc
ess t
o an
alys
e or
to id
entif
y wor
k re
-qu
irem
ents
and
job
func
tions
.Th
ere
is th
e be
ginn
ing
of a
lin
k be
twee
n se
nior
staf
f res
-po
nsib
ilitie
s and
exp
ertis
e bu
t so
me
gaps
cont
inue
to e
xist
in
skill
requ
irem
ents
.Jo
b de
scrip
tions
do
exist
, ba
sed
on a
supe
rviso
r’s id
ea
of th
e w
ork
to b
e ac
com
plis-
hed.
A jo
b pe
rfor
man
ce sy
stem
m
ay e
xist
but
it is
not
nec
es-
saril
y bas
ed o
n pe
rfor
man
ce
as d
efine
d in
a jo
b de
scrip
tion.
The
NGO
has
iden
tified
som
e re
sour
ces f
or a
d ho
c tra
inin
g of
staf
f.So
me
bene
fits e
xist
but
sala
-rie
s are
not
com
petit
ive.
The
NGO
resp
ects
som
e ex
is-tin
g ta
x an
d la
bour
regu
la-
tions
.Pr
oced
ures
for g
rieva
nce
or
confl
ict r
esol
utio
n ar
e in
pla
ce
but n
ot u
tilise
d.
Jobs
are
wel
l-defi
ned
and
do-
cum
ente
d in
job
desc
riptio
ns
and
wor
k as
signm
ents
.Al
l cor
e sk
ills r
equi
red
to
perf
orm
job
func
tions
exi
st
with
in th
e N
GO.
A pe
rfor
man
ce-b
ased
ap
prai
sal s
yste
m is
in p
lace
an
d st
aff a
re a
ssig
ned
and
prom
oted
acc
ordi
ng to
per
-fo
rman
ce.
Som
e hu
man
reso
urce
pla
n-ni
ng d
oes t
ake
plac
e bu
t is
still
not
inte
grat
ed w
ith jo
b pe
rfor
man
ce o
r the
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng p
roce
ss.
A tr
aini
ng p
lan
exist
s and
is
base
d on
an
asse
ssm
ent o
f st
aff d
evel
opm
ent n
eeds
.Sa
larie
s and
ben
efits
are
st
ruct
ured
but
not
fully
com
-pe
titiv
e.Ta
x an
d la
bour
regu
latio
ns
and
requ
irem
ents
are
gen
e-ra
lly re
spec
ted.
Grie
vanc
e an
d co
nflic
t pr
oced
ures
are
rand
omly
fo
llow
ed.
Job
desc
riptio
ns a
re d
ocu-
men
ted
and
upda
ted.
Job
desc
riptio
ns a
re re
spec
ted.
Clea
rly e
stab
lishe
d lin
ks e
xist
be
twee
n st
aff c
apac
ity a
nd th
e N
GO m
issio
n.Sa
larie
s are
clea
rly st
ruct
ured
an
d co
mpe
titiv
e.Th
e be
nefit
s pol
icy i
s doc
u-m
ente
d an
d im
plem
ente
d.Th
e N
GO co
nfor
ms t
o st
anda
rd
tax
and
labo
ur re
gula
tions
and
re
quire
men
ts.
Supe
rvisi
on o
ccur
s on
a re
gula
r ba
sis.
Grie
vanc
e an
d co
nflic
t res
olu-
tion
proc
edur
es a
re u
sed
whe
n ne
cess
ary.
A he
alth
and
safe
ty p
olic
y is i
n pl
ace
Dive
rsity
The
staf
f and
boa
rd d
o no
t rep
re-
sent
the
dive
rsity
of t
he co
mm
uni-
ty o
r the
inte
rest
s of s
take
hold
ers.
No
polic
y exi
sts b
ut a
mon
g so
me
leve
ls of
the
NGO
ther
e is
som
e aw
aren
ess o
f and
in
tere
st in
the
valu
e an
d ne
ed fo
r rep
rese
ntat
ion
from
th
e va
rious
mem
bers
of t
he
com
mun
ity.
Polic
ies e
xist
to d
iver
sify t
he
boar
d an
d st
aff b
ut th
eir
com
posit
ion
does
not
yet
fully
refle
ct th
at o
f the
com
-m
unity
.
The
dive
rsity
of t
he co
mm
unity
is
refle
cted
in th
e co
mpo
sitio
n of
the
boar
d an
d st
aff.
��
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsW
ork
orga
nisa
tion
Ther
e is
little
und
erst
andi
ng o
f th
e ne
ed to
org
anise
wor
k be
yond
iss
uing
dire
ctiv
es.
No
mec
hani
sms a
re in
pla
ce to
co
ordi
nate
wor
k ac
tiviti
es o
f diff
e-re
nt st
aff.
Ther
e is
little
und
erst
andi
ng o
f w
hat i
t mea
ns to
wor
k as
a te
am.
Mee
tings
are
irre
gula
r, do
not
ha
ve a
pre
-det
erm
ined
pur
pose
an
d ag
enda
, are
dom
inat
ed b
y in-
tere
sts o
f a fe
w, a
nd d
o no
t rea
ch
conc
rete
conc
lusio
ns.
Staf
f pro
vide
tech
nica
l inp
ut o
nly
and
are
not i
nvol
ved
in o
r inf
or-
med
of d
ecisi
ons.
No
form
ally
reco
gnise
d lin
es o
r m
echa
nism
s exi
st fo
r int
ra-N
GO
com
mun
icat
ion.
Wor
k is
orga
nise
d by
supe
r-vi
sors
.
Little
att
entio
n is
paid
to w
ork
flow
or t
o co
nsci
ously
org
ani-
sing
wor
k be
yond
wor
k pl
ans.
Indi
vidu
al, u
nit o
r pro
ject
w
ork
plan
s are
dev
elop
ed b
ut
thes
e pl
ans a
re n
ot co
coor
di-
nate
d ac
ross
func
tions
.
Regu
lar m
eetin
gs o
f sta
ff
are
cond
ucte
d ac
cord
ing
to
know
n pr
oced
ures
.
Sele
cted
staf
f are
cons
ulte
d on
som
e de
cisio
ns.
Intr
a-N
GO co
mm
unic
atio
n is
cond
ucte
d on
an
info
rmal
ba
sis.
Cons
ciou
snes
s is d
evel
opin
g on
the
part
of s
taff
and
man
a-ge
men
t tha
t com
mun
icat
ion
brea
kdow
ns a
nd o
verla
ps
occu
r.
A to
p-do
wn
men
talit
y con
ti-nu
es to
dom
inat
e an
d se
nior
m
anag
emen
t mak
e m
ost
maj
or d
ecisi
ons.
A va
riety
of w
ork
met
hods
ar
e ut
ilise
d.
Staf
f are
reco
gnise
d as
bei
ng
able
to m
ake
usef
ul su
gges
-tio
ns a
bout
how
thei
r ow
n w
ork
shou
ld b
e or
gani
sed.
Team
wor
k is
enco
urag
ed
and
wor
k pl
ans a
re sh
ared
ac
ross
uni
ts a
nd w
ork
sites
.
Com
mun
icat
ion
is op
en a
nd
inte
r-hie
rarc
hica
l and
link
s or
gani
satio
nal u
nit/
proj
ect
stru
ctur
es.
Staf
f kno
w h
ow to
par
ticip
a-te
in m
eetin
gs a
nd a
re a
war
e of
how
dec
ision
s are
mad
e.
Staf
f mee
tings
are
hel
d re
gu-
larly
.
Staf
f par
ticip
ate
in m
anag
e-m
ent d
ecisi
ons.
Team
wor
k is
enco
urag
ed.
Info
rmat
ion
is sh
ared
free
ly
amon
g al
l sta
ff m
embe
rs.
Staf
f tea
ms a
re e
ncou
rage
d to
ta
ke in
itiat
ive
and
be se
lf-m
o-tiv
ated
.
FIN
ANCI
AL R
ESO
URC
ESAc
coun
ting
The
NGO
’s fin
anci
al p
roce
dure
s ar
e in
com
plet
e.
The
NGO
’s ac
coun
ts a
re n
ot ye
t se
t up
for i
ndiv
idua
l pro
ject
s, an
d op
erat
ing
fund
s are
not
sepa
ra-
ted.
Basic
fina
ncia
l rec
ordi
ng sy
s-te
ms a
re in
pla
ce.
Acco
unt c
ateg
orie
s exi
st a
nd
proj
ect f
unds
are
sepa
rate
d bu
t som
e cr
oss-
proj
ect f
un-
ding
take
s pla
ce.
Mos
t of t
he N
GO’s
fund
s are
se
para
ted
and
it ge
nera
lly
trie
s to
avoi
d cr
oss-
pro
ject
fu
ndin
g.
Fina
ncia
l pro
cedu
res a
nd re
-po
rtin
g sy
stem
s are
in p
lace
an
d fu
nctio
n pa
rtia
lly.
Fina
ncia
l pro
cedu
res a
nd
repo
rtin
g sy
stem
s are
in p
lace
an
d fu
nctio
n fu
lly.
Acco
unt c
ateg
orie
s exi
st fo
r se
para
ting
proj
ect f
unds
.
��
Budg
etin
gBu
dget
s are
inad
equa
te a
nd if
th
ey d
o ex
ist a
re p
rodu
ced
due
to
fund
er re
quire
men
ts.
The
use
of b
udge
ts a
s a m
anag
e-m
ent t
ool i
s not
und
erst
ood
and
the
relia
bilit
y of p
roje
ctio
ns is
qu
estio
nabl
e.
The
NGO
has
no
budg
et co
ntro
ls in
pla
ce.
The
NGO
has
no
finan
cial
uni
t to
prep
are
and
man
age
budg
ets.
Budg
ets a
re d
evel
oped
for
proj
ect a
ctiv
ities
but
are
oft
en
over
- or u
nder
-spe
nt.
The
exec
utiv
e di
rect
or o
r ac
coun
tant
is th
e on
ly st
aff
mem
ber w
ho k
now
s and
un
ders
tand
s bud
get i
nfor
ma-
tion.
Budg
et co
ntro
ls ar
e no
t in
plac
e.
Tota
l exp
endi
ture
s oft
en
dive
rge
from
bud
get p
roje
c-tio
ns.
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd o
rgan
isatio
-na
l uni
t hea
ds a
re co
nsul
ted
by fi
nanc
ial m
anag
er(s
) ab
out b
udge
t pla
nnin
g an
d ex
pend
iture
s.
The
budg
et re
flect
s pro
gram
-m
e pl
ans.
The
budg
et is
cont
rolle
d on
an
ong
oing
bas
is.
The
budg
etin
g pr
oces
s is i
nteg
-ra
ted
into
ann
ual i
mpl
emen
ta-
tion
plan
s.
A fin
anci
al u
nit r
espo
nsib
le fo
r th
e pr
epar
atio
n, m
anag
emen
t an
d im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e an
nual
bud
get e
xist
s.
Annu
al fi
nanc
ial p
roje
ctio
ns a
re
mad
e.
The
annu
al b
udge
t is i
mpl
e-m
ente
d.
The
budg
et is
cont
rolle
d on
an
ongo
ing
basis
.St
ock
cont
rols/
au
dit
The
NGO
has
no
clea
r pro
cedu
res
for h
andl
ing
paya
bles
and
rece
i-va
bles
, and
pro
cure
men
t or s
tock
co
ntro
ls do
not
exi
st.
No
audi
ts o
r ext
erna
l fina
ncia
l re
view
s are
per
form
ed.
The
NGO
has
est
ablis
hed
finan
cial
cont
rols
but h
as n
ot
yet i
mpl
emen
ted
proc
edur
es.
Inde
pend
ent a
udits
or e
xter
-na
l fina
ncia
l rev
iew
s are
rare
-ly
per
form
ed a
nd th
en o
nly a
t th
e re
ques
t of a
fund
er.
Stoc
k co
ntro
ls ha
ve n
ot b
een
esta
blish
ed n
or im
plem
ente
d.
The
NGO
has
ade
quat
e fin
anci
al a
nd st
ock
cont
rol
syst
ems.
Inde
pend
ent a
udits
or e
x-te
rnal
fina
ncia
l rev
iew
s are
pe
rfor
med
per
iodi
cally
at
fund
er’s
requ
est.
Inte
rnal
aud
its a
re co
nduc
ted
on a
n ad
hoc
bas
is.
Stoc
k co
ntro
l sys
tem
s exi
st.
Stoc
k co
ntro
ls ar
e fo
llow
ed.
Proc
urem
ent s
yste
ms a
re in
pl
ace.
Proc
urem
ent s
yste
ms a
re u
sed.
Inte
rnal
aud
its a
re co
nduc
ted
on a
regu
lar b
asis.
Exte
rnal
aud
its a
re co
nduc
ted
on a
regu
lar b
asis.
Expe
nses
are
cont
rolle
d by
pr
ojec
t allo
catio
ns.
Fina
ncia
l re
port
ing
The
NGO
has
no
syst
em fo
r rep
or-
ting
on it
s fina
ncia
l sta
tus.
If fin
anci
al re
port
s are
pro
duce
d,
they
are
don
or-d
riven
.Fi
nanc
ial r
epor
ts a
re in
accu
ra-
te, in
com
plet
e an
d di
fficu
lt to
un
ders
tand
and
not
pro
duce
d in
a
timel
y fas
hion
.If
finan
cial
repo
rts e
xist
, the
y are
no
t use
d fo
r pla
nnin
g or
revi
ew
purp
oses
.
The
NGO
has
a sy
stem
in p
la-
ce to
pro
duce
fina
ncia
l rep
orts
bu
t the
se a
re st
ill p
rodu
ced
in
resp
onse
to fu
nder
dem
and.
Fina
ncia
l rep
orts
are
not
tim
e-ly
or c
ompl
ete
enou
gh to
be
used
in lo
ng-t
erm
pla
nnin
g.
Fina
ncia
l rep
orts
are
not
re
view
ed b
y the
fisc
al co
m-
mitt
ee o
f the
boa
rd.
The
NGO
occ
asio
nally
pro
du-
ces a
ccur
ate
and
com
plet
e fin
anci
al re
port
s whi
ch it
m
akes
ava
ilabl
e to
the
boar
d an
d m
anag
emen
t.
The
NGO
use
s fina
ncia
l re
port
s, w
hen
avai
labl
e, in
lo
ng-t
erm
pla
nnin
g.
Annu
al fi
nanc
ial r
epor
ts a
re
prep
ared
by e
xter
nal a
udito
rs
and
diss
emin
ated
.
Annu
al fi
nanc
ial r
epor
ts a
re
prep
ared
by a
regi
ster
ed fi
rm
of a
udito
rs a
nd p
ublis
hed
and
diss
emin
ated
.
Repo
rts i
nclu
de b
alan
ce sh
eet
and
atta
chm
ents
.
Repo
rts a
re re
view
ed b
y the
fis
cal c
omm
ittee
of t
he b
oard
.
Repo
rts a
re u
sed
for p
lann
ing
and
revi
ew p
urpo
ses.
��
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsDi
vers
ifica
tion
of in
com
e ba
se
The
NGO
is d
epen
dent
on
one
fund
ing
sour
ce.
The
NGO
lack
s cap
acity
to d
iver
si-fy
the
fund
ing
base
or t
ende
r for
co
ntra
cts.
The
NGO
has
no
cost
reco
very
or
inco
me
gene
ratio
n ac
tiviti
es.
The
NGO
is a
war
e of
the
need
to
div
ersif
y its
fund
ing
base
bu
t has
not
yet d
evel
oped
a
plan
or s
trat
egy t
o do
so.
The
NGO
has
not
yet d
evel
o-pe
d th
e ca
paci
ty to
tend
er fo
r co
ntra
cts.
The
NGO
has
iden
tified
m
ore
than
one
inte
rnat
iona
l fu
nder
but
has
yet t
o de
velo
p lo
cal c
onta
cts.
The
NGO
has
dev
elop
ed a
pl
an fo
r cos
t-re
cove
ry a
nd
inco
me
gene
ratin
g ac
tiviti
es
but h
as ye
t to
impl
emen
t ac
tiviti
es.
The
NGO
has
skill
s to
tend
er
for c
ontr
acts
but
has
yet t
o w
in a
ny b
ids.
The
NGO
has
mul
tiple
fund
ers.
A co
st-re
cove
ry/in
com
e ge
nera
-tio
n pl
an is
in p
lace
.
The
NGO
has
the
abili
ty to
ten-
der f
or, a
nd h
as w
on, c
ontr
acts
.
The
NGO
has
a st
rate
gy to
di
vers
ify fu
ndin
g so
urce
s.
SERV
ICE
DELIV
ERY
Sect
oral
ex
pert
iseTh
e N
GO h
as so
me
good
idea
s ab
out h
ow to
mee
t the
nee
ds o
f its
targ
et g
roup
s.
The
NGO
has
litt
le o
pera
tiona
l or
prog
ram
me
expe
rienc
e.
The
NGO
has
no
sect
oral
exp
ertis
e or
trac
k re
cord
.
The
NGO
has
incr
easin
g ex
pert
ise in
a ta
rget
ed se
ctor
bu
t is n
ot ye
t rec
ogni
sed
as a
n ex
pert
.
The
NGO
has
the
capa
city
to
acce
ss a
dditi
onal
exp
ertis
e as
re
quire
d in
a ta
rget
ed se
ctor
.
The
NGO
cont
inue
s to
deliv
er
serv
ices
whi
ch d
o no
t alw
ays
refle
ct th
e ch
angi
ng n
eeds
of
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
is re
cogn
ised
as
havi
ng si
gnifi
cant
exp
ertis
e in
its t
arge
ted
sect
or a
nd is
be
ing
invi
ted
to co
ntrib
ute
to
sect
oral
disc
ussio
ns.
The
NGO
is a
ble
to d
eliv
er
effe
ctiv
e an
d ap
prop
riate
se
rvic
es to
stak
ehol
ders
.Th
e N
GO is
beg
inni
ng to
bu
ild se
rvic
e fe
es a
nd o
ther
co
st re
cove
ry m
echa
nism
s in
to it
s ser
vice
del
iver
y.
The
NGO
has
rele
vant
sect
oral
ex
pert
ise.
Its e
xper
tise
is re
cogn
ised
by
the
full
rang
e of
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
is ca
pabl
e of
ada
ptin
g pr
ogra
mm
e an
d se
rvic
e de
liver
y to
the
evol
ving
nee
ds o
f sta
ke-
hold
ers.
��
Stak
ehol
der
com
mitm
ent/
owne
rshi
p
The
NGO
’s se
rvic
es a
re d
efine
d by
fund
ers o
r man
ager
s with
no
invo
lvem
ent f
rom
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
’s pr
ogra
mm
es (s
ince
th
ey d
o no
t refl
ect a
ctua
l nee
ds)
are
not e
ffici
ent,
adeq
uate
, cos
t-ef
fect
ive
nor t
imel
y.
The
NGO
is n
ot p
rovi
ding
capa
-ci
ty-b
uild
ing
trai
ning
/tec
hnic
al
assis
tanc
e to
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
seek
s sta
keho
lder
in
put i
nto
defin
ing
serv
i-ce
s but
doe
s not
do
so in
a
syst
emat
ic o
r com
preh
ensiv
e m
anne
r.Th
e N
GO h
as id
entifi
ed
reso
urce
s for
ad
hoc t
rain
ing
of st
akeh
olde
rs in
pro
gram
me
and
tech
nica
l are
as.
The
NGO
’s pr
ogra
mm
es a
re
not e
ffici
ent,
adeq
uate
, cos
t-ef
fect
ive
or ti
mel
y.Th
e N
GO h
as n
ot id
entifi
ed
reso
urce
s to
supp
ort t
he o
rga-
nisa
tiona
l cap
acity
-bui
ldin
g of
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
has
mec
hani
sms i
n pl
ace
to in
volv
e its
stak
ehol
-de
rs in
pro
ject
pla
nnin
g an
d im
plem
enta
tion
and
mon
ito-
ring
and
eval
uatio
n.
The
NGO
has
pla
ns to
tran
s-fe
r man
agem
ent r
espo
n-sib
ilitie
s to
stak
ehol
ders
an
d to
pro
vide
trai
ning
and
or
gani
satio
nal d
evel
opm
ent
supp
ort t
o bu
ild it
s cap
acity
.
Prog
ram
mes
are
bec
omin
g m
ore
effic
ient
, ade
quat
e,
cost
-eff
ectiv
e an
d tim
ely.
Prog
ram
me
prio
ritie
s are
bas
ed
on a
ctua
l nee
d.
Prog
ram
me
prio
ritie
s and
serv
i-ce
s are
defi
ned
in co
llabo
ratio
n w
ith st
akeh
olde
rs.
Prog
ram
mes
are
effi
cien
t, ad
e-qu
ate,
cost
-eff
ectiv
e an
d tim
ely.
Asse
ssm
ent
The
NGO
doe
s not
hav
e a
syst
em
to m
onito
r and
eva
luat
e its
pro
-gr
amm
e/pr
ojec
t ach
ieve
men
ts.
The
NGO
has
no
mec
hani
sm
with
whi
ch to
det
erm
ine
impa
ct
indi
cato
rs, e
stab
lish
base
line
mea
sure
s or a
sses
s the
impa
ct o
f its
act
iviti
es
The
NGO
is a
ble
to a
sses
s in
divi
dual
pro
ject
s to
dete
r-m
ine
if pr
ojec
ted
activ
ities
to
ok p
lace
as p
lann
ed a
nd
if sp
ecifi
c pro
ject
obj
ectiv
es
wer
e ac
hiev
ed, b
ut th
e re
sults
ar
e no
t use
d fo
r pro
gram
me
adju
stm
ent.
The
NGO
has
no
base
line
data
or s
yste
m to
mon
itor i
ts
activ
ities
.
Resu
lts a
nd in
dica
tors
wer
e de
velo
ped
at th
e re
ques
t of
fund
ers.
The
NGO
has
iden
tified
indi
-ca
tors
with
out s
take
hold
er
invo
lvem
ent a
nd co
llect
ed
base
line
data
with
whi
ch to
m
onito
r pro
ject
act
iviti
es,
but i
s not
usin
g th
e co
llect
ed
data
for p
roje
ct m
odifi
catio
n.
The
NGO
is a
war
e of
the
need
to d
evel
op a
sses
smen
t ca
paci
ty to
mea
sure
impa
ct
but h
as n
ot e
stab
lishe
d a
syst
em.
Colla
bora
tive
deve
lopm
ent o
f in
dica
tors
.
Indi
cato
rs h
ave
been
iden
tified
fo
r eac
h pr
ogra
mm
e ob
ject
ive.
Base
line
and
impa
ct d
ata
are
anal
ysed
regu
larly
.
Resu
lts o
f im
pact
eva
luat
ions
ar
e us
ed to
mak
e ad
just
men
ts
to th
e pr
ogra
mm
e.
Resu
lts a
re d
issem
inat
ed a
s ap
prop
riate
/rel
evan
t.
Mar
ketin
g an
d aw
aren
ess
build
ing
The
NGO
mak
es n
o ef
fort
to m
ar-
ket p
rogr
amm
es to
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
doe
s not
edu
cate
or
build
aw
aren
ess a
mon
g st
akeh
ol-
ders
.
The
NGO
has
no
awar
enes
s of
the
need
to m
arke
t pro
gram
-m
es.
The
NGO
is e
duca
ting
and
build
ing
awar
enes
s on
an a
d ho
c bas
is ba
sed
on a
vaila
ble
reso
urce
s, no
t sta
keho
lder
ne
ed.
The
NGO
has
und
erta
ken
mar
ketin
g ac
tiviti
es b
ut st
ill
lack
s a st
rate
gy.
The
NGO
has
a p
lan
to b
uild
aw
aren
ess a
nd e
duca
te st
a-ke
hold
ers.
Prog
ram
mes
are
act
ivel
y mar
-ke
ted
to st
akeh
olde
rs.
The
NGO
act
ivel
y edu
cate
s an
d bu
ilds a
war
enes
s am
ong
stak
ehol
ders
.
��
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsEX
TERN
AL R
ELAT
ION
SSt
akeh
olde
r re
latio
nsTh
e N
GO’s
agen
da is
larg
ely
fund
er-a
nd m
anag
emen
t-dr
iven
, w
ith li
ttle
or n
o in
put f
rom
stak
e-ho
lder
s.
The
NGO
is lo
cate
d in
an
urba
n ce
ntre
and
its h
eadq
uart
ers a
re
a lo
ng d
istan
ce fr
om w
here
it
carr
ies o
ut a
ctiv
ities
, mak
ing
it
diffi
cult
to in
volv
e st
akeh
olde
rs
effe
ctiv
ely.
The
NGO
dev
elop
s sys
tem
s and
pr
ogra
mm
es in
a to
p-do
wn
man
-ne
r.
The
NGO
’s w
ork
is fo
cuse
d in
th
e fie
ld a
nd it
is v
iew
ed a
s an
ally
by s
take
hold
ers.
The
NGO
has
gro
win
g cr
edi-
bilit
y with
its t
arge
t sta
keho
l-de
rs a
nd w
ith fu
nder
s int
ere-
sted
in th
e sa
me
prog
ram
me
sect
ors.
The
NGO
is n
ot ye
t vie
wed
as
a pa
rtne
r by s
take
hold
ers.
The
NGO
ope
rate
s fro
m a
fie
ld p
roje
ct si
te.
The
NGO
invo
lves
stak
ehol
-de
rs in
dec
ision
-mak
ing.
The
NGO
vie
ws s
take
hold
ers
as b
eing
resp
onsib
le fo
r pro
-vi
ding
coun
terp
art r
esou
rces
.
The
NGO
pro
vide
s res
ourc
es
to e
nabl
e ta
rget
com
mun
i-tie
s to
deve
lop
orga
nisa
tiona
l ca
paci
ty.
The
NGO
is se
en a
s cre
dibl
e by
st
akeh
olde
rs.
The
NGO
is se
en a
s a v
alua
ble
reso
urce
by s
take
hold
ers.
The
NGO
-sta
keho
lder
rela
tion-
ship
is o
ne o
f par
tner
ship
for a
co
mm
on p
urpo
se.
Inte
r-NGO
co
llabo
ratio
nTh
e N
GO d
oes n
ot h
ave
expe
rien-
ce in
wor
king
with
oth
er N
GOs,
eith
er lo
cal o
r int
erna
tiona
l.Th
e N
GO is
not
kno
wn
or tr
uste
d by
the
NGO
com
mun
ity.
The
NGO
has
no
plan
s to
wor
k in
co
llabo
ratio
n w
ith o
ther
NGO
s ac
tive
in th
e sa
me
regi
on o
r sam
e se
ctor
.Th
e N
GO h
as li
ttle
und
erst
andi
ng
of it
s rol
e in
adv
ocac
y or d
evel
op-
men
t of p
ublic
pol
icy.
The
NGO
is in
crea
singl
y kn
own
and
trus
ted
by o
ther
s in
the
NGO
com
mun
ity b
ut
as ye
t has
litt
le e
xper
ienc
e in
w
orki
ng co
llabo
rativ
ely w
ith
othe
rs.
The
NGO
wor
ks w
ith in
tern
a-tio
nal o
r oth
er lo
cal N
GOs.
The
NGO
par
ticip
ates
in a
nd
supp
orts
NGO
net
wor
ks,
but a
s yet
doe
s not
pla
y a
lead
ersh
ip ro
le in
any
NGO
co
aliti
ons.
The
NGO
has
und
erta
ken
rand
om a
dvoc
acy a
ctiv
ities
.
The
NGO
net
wor
ks a
nd sh
ares
re
sour
ces w
ith n
atio
nal a
nd
inte
rnat
iona
l NGO
s.
The
NGO
pla
ys a
role
in p
rom
o-tin
g co
aliti
ons/
netw
orks
.
The
NGO
par
ticip
ates
in a
dvo-
cacy
act
iviti
es.
Gove
rnm
ent
colla
bora
tion
The
NGO
doe
s not
colla
bora
te
with
gov
ernm
ent a
genc
ies w
or-
king
in th
e sa
me
sect
or o
r geo
-gr
aphi
cal a
rea.
The
NGO
’s re
latio
nshi
p w
ith th
e go
vern
men
t is a
dver
saria
l.
The
NGO
has
iden
tified
com
-m
on in
tere
sts w
hich
it sh
ares
w
ith th
e go
vern
men
t and
re
latio
ns a
re fr
iend
ly.
The
NGO
colla
bora
tes w
ith
diff
eren
t gov
ernm
ent a
gen-
cies
or r
epre
sent
ativ
es o
n iss
ues o
r act
iviti
es in
spec
ific
sect
ors.
The
NGO
’s re
latio
nshi
p w
ith
the
gove
rnm
ent i
s frie
ndly
an
d of
ten
info
rmal
.
The
NGO
is so
met
imes
calle
d up
on b
y the
gov
ernm
ent t
o ca
rry o
ut sp
ecifi
c pro
ject
s or
colla
bora
te o
n se
ctor
al is
sues
.
The
NGO
has
cont
acts
with
de
cisio
n-m
aker
s.Th
e N
GO is
abl
e to
eng
age
in
dial
ogue
with
pol
icy-
mak
ers.
The
NGO
and
the
gove
rnm
ent
exch
ange
reso
urce
s.Th
e N
GO’s
activ
ities
and
reco
m-
men
datio
ns a
re in
tegr
ated
into
th
e go
vern
men
t’ s d
evel
opm
ent
plan
s.
�0
Fund
er
colla
bora
tion
The
NGO
sees
fund
ers a
s a re
sour
-ce
to fi
nanc
e ac
tiviti
es a
nd h
as
not y
et d
evel
oped
a re
latio
nshi
p or
mad
e co
ntrib
utio
ns to
fund
er
foru
ms o
r age
ndas
.
The
NGO
has
rece
ived
fun-
ding
but
has
yet t
o es
tabl
ish
a tr
ack
reco
rd o
r to
acqu
ire
suffi
cien
t cre
dibi
lity t
o be
invi
-te
d to
par
ticip
ate
in fu
nder
fo
rum
s.
The
NGO
has
a p
rove
n tr
ack
reco
rd, h
as e
stab
lishe
d its
cr
edib
ility
and
is in
vite
d by
fu
nder
s to
cont
ribut
e to
dis-
cuss
ions
on
sect
oral
issu
es.
The
NGO
has
div
ersifi
ed
cont
acts
with
in th
e fu
ndin
g co
mm
unity
.
The
NGO
is se
en a
s a cr
edib
le
and
valu
able
reso
urce
by f
un-
ders
.
The
NGO
has
opp
ortu
nity
to
enga
ge in
ope
n an
d fr
ank
dial
o-gu
e w
ith fu
nder
s.Pu
blic
re
latio
nsTh
e N
GO is
not
wel
l kno
wn
out-
side
the
rang
e of
its a
ctiv
ities
or
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
has
no
clea
r im
age
whi
ch it
art
icul
ates
or p
rese
nts t
o th
e pu
blic
.
The
NGO
has
not
pre
pare
d a
docu
men
t for
diss
emin
atio
n th
at
prov
ides
info
rmat
ion
abou
t its
ob
ject
ives
or a
ctiv
ities
.
The
NGO
is k
now
n in
its o
wn
com
mun
ity, b
ut d
oes l
ittle
to
pro
mot
e its
act
iviti
es w
ith
the
publ
ic o
r with
key
gov
ern-
men
tal d
ecisi
on-m
aker
s.
The
NGO
und
erst
ands
that
pu
blic
rela
tions
are
impo
rtan
t bu
t has
no
abili
ty to
carr
y out
PR
act
iviti
es.
The
NGO
has
lim
ited
cont
act
with
key
dec
ision
-mak
ers a
nd
has l
imite
d lin
es o
f com
mu-
nica
tion
with
the
publ
ic.
The
NGO
has
clea
r ide
as o
n iss
ues b
ut h
as ye
t to
deve
lop
them
into
a p
olic
y pla
tfor
m.
The
NGO
eng
ages
in p
ublic
re-
latio
ns a
nd h
as a
pos
itive
imag
e am
ong
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
’s ob
ject
ives
and
goa
ls
are
unde
rsto
od b
y sta
keho
lder
s.
Info
rmat
ion
is di
ssem
inat
ed o
n th
e N
GO’s
activ
ities
.
Loca
l re
sour
ces
The
NGO
tend
s to
view
the
priv
ate
busin
ess s
ecto
r with
susp
icio
n an
d di
stru
st.
The
NGO
doe
s not
wor
k in
coop
e-ra
tion
with
any
par
t of t
he p
rivat
e se
ctor
to d
raw
on
reso
urce
s, te
chni
cal e
xper
tise
or in
fluen
ce.
The
NGO
’s pr
ogra
mm
es a
re n
ot
base
d on
loca
l res
ourc
e av
aila
bi-
lity.
The
NGO
is n
ot a
n ac
tive
part
ici-
pant
in ci
vil s
ocie
ty a
ctiv
ities
.
The
NGO
has
beg
un to
iden
-tif
y loc
al su
ppor
t in
addi
tion
to th
at w
hich
it re
ceiv
es fr
om
stak
ehol
ders
.
The
NGO
seek
s tec
hnic
al
assis
tanc
e fr
om so
me
priv
ate
sect
or a
nd g
over
nmen
t re
sour
ces.
The
NGO
pur
chas
es g
oods
an
d se
rvic
es fr
om th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
a.
The
NGO
dra
ws s
uppo
rt fr
om
the
loca
l priv
ate
sect
or a
nd
gove
rnm
ent a
genc
ies b
ut
proj
ects
still
dep
end
on co
n-tin
ued
supp
ort f
rom
ext
erna
l fu
nder
s.
The
NGO
has
recr
uite
d in
divi
dual
s fro
m th
e pr
ivat
e bu
sines
s sec
tor t
o se
rve
on it
s bo
ard
or a
s tec
hnic
al a
dvi-
sors
.
The
NGO
is a
ctiv
ely e
ngag
ed
with
oth
er ci
vil s
ocie
ty o
rga-
nisa
tions
.
The
NGO
has
rela
tions
with
the
priv
ate
sect
or fo
r tec
hnic
al e
x-pe
rtise
, mat
eria
l and
/or h
uman
re
sour
ces.
The
NGO
par
ticip
ates
in co
m-
mun
ity p
artn
ersh
ips.
The
NGO
has
stru
ctur
es in
pla
ce
to fa
cilit
ate
wor
king
rela
tions
w
ith ci
vil s
ocie
ty.
�1
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsM
edia
The
NGO
has
no
rela
tions
hip
with
th
e m
edia
, and
its w
ork
is no
t kn
own
to th
em.
The
NGO
’s ac
tiviti
es a
re n
ot
know
n ou
tsid
e of
its c
omm
u-ni
ty. T
he N
GO d
oes n
ot ye
t kn
ow h
ow to
acc
ess o
r use
m
edia
to in
form
the
publ
ic
abou
t its
wor
k.
The
NGO
has
cont
acts
in th
e m
edia
whi
ch it
use
s whe
n it
wish
es to
info
rm th
e pu
blic
ab
out a
n im
port
ant i
ssue
.
The
NGO
has
rece
ived
som
e at
tent
ion
and
has b
een
cons
ulte
d by
the
med
ia o
n re
leva
nt is
sues
.
The
NGO
has
a st
rate
gy to
wor
k w
ith th
e m
edia
.
The
NGO
has
rece
ived
pos
itive
m
edia
att
entio
n.
The
med
ia co
nsul
ts w
ith th
e N
GO o
n re
leva
nt is
sues
.
SUST
AIN
ABILI
TYPr
ogra
mm
e/
bene
fit
sust
aina
bilit
y
The
NGO
stak
ehol
ders
do
not
see
or fe
el th
at th
ey b
enefi
t fro
m
serv
ices
or p
rogr
amm
es.
The
NGO
has
no
unde
rsta
ndin
g or
pl
an fo
r con
tinui
ty.
The
NGO
is n
ot w
orki
ng w
ith lo
cal
inst
itutio
ns.
The
NGO
is n
ot in
volv
ed in
skill
s-tr
ansf
er a
ctiv
ities
.
The
NGO
stak
ehol
ders
re
cogn
ise th
e be
nefit
s fro
m
serv
ices
and
pro
gram
mes
but
do
not
yet h
ave
the
mea
ns to
co
ntin
ue th
em w
ithou
t ass
is-ta
nce
from
the
NGO
.
The
NGO
has
yet t
o de
velo
p re
latio
nshi
ps w
ith, a
nd is
not
pr
ovid
ing
capa
city
bui
ldin
g as
sista
nce
to, lo
cal o
rgan
isa-
tions
.
The
NGO
stak
ehol
ders
reco
g-ni
se th
e be
nefit
s of,
and
are
invo
lved
in, d
ecisi
on-m
akin
g fo
r ser
vice
s and
pro
gram
mes
bu
t con
tinue
to re
ly o
n as
sis-
tanc
e fr
om th
e N
GO.
The
NGO
has
dev
elop
ed
rela
tions
hips
with
loca
l or
gani
satio
ns a
nd is
pro
vi-
ding
trai
ning
and
tech
nica
l as
sista
nce
to b
uild
capa
city
bu
t as y
et h
as n
o ph
asin
g-ou
t st
rate
gies
.
The
NGO
’s pr
ogra
mm
es a
re
supp
orte
d by
thos
e be
ing
serv
ed.
Ther
e is
a se
nse
of o
wne
rshi
p of
be
nefit
s by t
he co
mm
unity
.
The
NGO
has
dev
elop
ed
syst
ems f
or th
e co
ntin
uatio
n of
its p
rogr
amm
e ac
tiviti
es in
ac
cord
ance
with
chan
ges i
n th
e co
mm
unity
.
The
NGO
has
dev
elop
ed sy
s-te
ms f
or co
ntin
uatio
n of
its
prog
ram
me
in th
e m
ediu
m a
nd
long
term
.
The
NGO
has
dev
elop
ed
prog
ram
mat
ic p
hasin
g-ou
t st
rate
gies
.
The
NGO
ens
ures
that
loca
l-le-
vel s
kills
tran
sfer
take
s pla
ce.
��
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsO
rgan
i-sa
tiona
l su
stai
nabi
lity
The
NGO
lack
s a sh
ared
visi
on a
nd
skill
s to
inte
ract
with
oth
er d
eve-
lopm
ent p
artn
ers i
n ci
vil s
ocie
ty
The
NGO
has
no
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
its r
ole
as a
par
tner
in d
evel
op-
men
t.
The
NGO
is n
ot in
volv
ed in
coal
i-tio
ns a
nd n
etw
orks
.
The
NGO
has
a sh
ared
visi
on
but a
s yet
lack
s the
und
er-
stan
ding
and
skill
s to
inte
ract
w
ith o
ther
dev
elop
men
t pa
rtne
rs.
The
NGO
is a
mem
ber o
f co
aliti
ons a
nd n
etw
orks
but
is
not y
et a
ble
to p
rovi
de
lead
ersh
ip.
The
NGO
has
a cl
ear v
ision
of
its ro
le a
nd th
e sk
ills n
eces
sa-
ry to
par
ticip
ate
in d
evel
op-
men
t act
iviti
es.
The
NGO
par
ticip
ates
in N
GO
netw
orks
and
coal
ition
s but
is
not y
et p
layi
ng a
lead
ersh
ip
role
in th
e N
GO co
mm
unity
.
The
NGO
is a
ckno
wle
dged
to
have
exp
ertis
e in
a se
ctor
but
is
not r
ecog
nise
d as
a le
ader
or
cons
ulte
d by
fund
ers o
r go
vern
men
t.
The
NGO
has
a sh
ared
visi
on o
f its
role
in so
ciet
y.
The
NGO
is a
mem
ber o
f key
N
GO n
etw
orks
.
The
NGO
shar
es in
form
atio
n in
a
proa
ctiv
e m
anne
r.
The
NGO
is a
par
ticip
ant i
n a
dyna
mic
dev
elop
men
t are
na.
The
NGO
has
link
ages
with
in
tern
atio
nal N
GOs,
educ
ati-
on in
stitu
tions
, gov
ernm
ent
entit
ies,
rese
arch
inst
itute
s, pa
rast
atal
s, ci
vic i
nstit
utio
ns
and
the
priv
ate
sect
or.
The
NGO
has
capa
city
to re
view
its
stru
ctur
es in
resp
onse
to
orga
nisa
tiona
l dev
elop
men
t ne
eds.
The
NGO
is a
war
e of
legi
slatio
n af
fect
ing
the
NGO
sect
or.
The
NGO
cont
ribut
es to
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f an
enab
ling
en-
viro
nmen
t for
the
deve
lopm
ent
of th
e N
GO se
ctor
.
��
Nas
cent
org
anisa
tions
Emer
ging
org
anisa
tions
Expa
ndin
g or
gani
satio
nsM
atur
e or
gani
satio
nsFi
nanc
ial
sust
aina
bilit
yTh
e N
GO h
as li
mite
d ca
paci
ty
to a
cces
s fun
ding
and
doe
s not
re
cogn
ise th
e ne
ed to
div
ersif
y its
re
sour
ce b
ase.
The
NGO
has
lim
ited
capa
city
to
deve
lop
proj
ect f
undi
ng p
ropo
sals
or re
spon
d to
tend
ers.
The
NGO
has
not
dev
elop
ed
cont
acts
or r
elat
ions
hips
with
the
loca
l res
ourc
e ba
se.
The
NGO
has
beg
un to
un-
ders
tand
the
need
to d
evel
op
alte
rnat
ive
reso
urce
s but
has
no
conc
rete
dire
ctio
n or
pla
n.
The
NGO
has
no
rela
tions
w
ith lo
cal g
over
nmen
t or
priv
ate
busin
ess s
ecto
r org
a-ni
satio
ns.
The
NGO
is a
ble
to d
evel
op
proj
ect f
undi
ng p
ropo
sals
but
does
not
hav
e re
ady a
cces
s to
the
fund
er co
mm
unity
.
The
NGO
doe
s not
hav
e th
e sk
ills r
equi
red
to te
nder
.
The
NGO
has
beg
un to
ex
plor
e al
tern
ativ
e re
sour
ces
thro
ugh
deve
lopi
ng re
latio
n-sh
ips w
ith th
e go
vern
men
t an
d th
e pr
ivat
e bu
sines
s se
ctor
.Th
e N
GO h
as se
cure
d al
tern
ativ
e re
sour
ces s
uch
as in
-kin
d an
d co
mm
oditi
es
dona
tions
and
mem
bers
hip
fees
.Th
e N
GO h
as b
egun
to
dive
rsify
its f
undi
ng b
ase
and
to d
evel
op co
st-re
cove
ry
mec
hani
sms a
nd p
rogr
am-
mes
.Th
e N
GO h
as te
nder
ed fo
r co
ntra
cts b
ut h
as w
on v
ery
few
bid
s.
The
NGO
has
, whe
re a
p-pr
opria
te, f
ee-fo
r-ser
vice
an
d/or
oth
er co
st re
cove
ry
mec
hani
sms b
uilt
into
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
The
NGO
has
a fu
ndra
ising
st
rate
gy a
nd h
as th
e ca
paci
ty to
im
plem
ent t
his s
trat
egy.
Loca
l fun
drai
sing
oppo
rtun
ities
ha
ve b
een
iden
tified
.
The
NGO
has
capa
city
to d
eve-
lop
prop
osal
s and
resp
ond
to
tend
ers a
nd w
ins m
any b
ids.
Reso
urce
bas
e su
stai
nabi
lity
The
NGO
’s op
erat
ing
fund
s com
e fr
om o
nly o
ne so
urce
and
are
ra
ised
for o
ne sh
ort-
term
pro
ject
at
a ti
me.
The
NGO
has
litt
le u
nder
stan
ding
of
the
need
to e
vent
ually
bec
ome
self-
supp
ortin
g an
d ha
s not
yet
atte
mpt
ed to
iden
tify l
ocal
reso
ur-
ces.
The
NGO
’s fu
ndin
g is
insu
ffici
ent
to m
eet p
lans
or t
o pr
ovid
e pr
ojec
t se
rvic
es.
The
NGO
has
fund
ing
to co
ver
shor
t-te
rm p
roje
ct co
sts a
nd
over
head
cost
s.
The
NGO
can
prep
are
a m
ulti-
year
pro
gram
me
budg
et b
ut
is st
ill d
epen
dent
on
a sin
gle
fund
er.
The
NGO
is b
egin
ning
to b
e-co
me
awar
e of
loca
l res
ourc
e ge
nera
tion
poss
ibili
ties b
ut
has n
ot ye
t ide
ntifi
ed o
r mob
i-lis
ed th
em.
The
NGO
has
fund
s for
shor
t-te
rm e
xpen
ses b
ut h
as a
lso
deve
lope
d a
med
ium
-ter
m
fund
ing
plan
and
stra
tegi
es.
The
NGO
is n
ot d
epen
dent
ei
ther
for o
verh
ead
or fo
r pr
ogra
mm
e ex
pens
es o
n a
singl
e fu
nder
.Th
e N
GO is
abl
e to
reco
ver
a pe
rcen
tage
of c
ore
cost
s th
roug
h lo
cally
gen
erat
ed
reso
urce
s mem
bers
hip
dues
, fe
e-fo
r-ser
vice
s, re
gula
r fu
ndra
ising
, etc
.).Th
e N
GO h
as id
entifi
ed a
nd
acce
sses
loca
l res
ourc
es fr
om
the
gove
rnm
ent a
nd th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
.
The
NGO
has
iden
tified
a lo
cal
reso
urce
bas
e.
The
NGO
has
impl
emen
ted
a re
sour
ce d
iver
sifica
tion
plan
.
The
NGO
has
pla
ns to
acc
ess
addi
tiona
l res
ourc
es to
fina
nce
exist
ing
activ
ities
.
��
��
Organisational capacity assessmentAn introduction to a tool
One of the central issues in the current development practice is the strengthening of Southern civil societies. NGOs’ development projects increasingly include activi-ties for the organisational development and capacity-building of Southern NGOs. Capacity building aims at smooth internal functioning of the organisations, effi-cient performance in order to reach organisational objectives and well-organised networking with other actors.
This KEPA Working Paper focuses on the assessment of organisational capacity and describes six basic steps in organisational analysis from defining the need to iden-tifying the organisation’s stage of development. What is most important, however, is what kinds of development and capacity-building efforts will follow once the analysis is completed.
KEPA’s Working PapersKEPA’s Working Papers series offers information on development issues. Studies, seminar memos, and articles produced or commissioned by KEPA are published in the series. The papers cover e.g. topics of Southern civil societies, development work and political advocacy work of civil society organisations, development cooperation, impact assesment and international trade issues. The papers will be published in several languages.
The papers are available at KEPA’s web site: http://www.kepa.fi/taustaselvitykset