Assessing NGOs for community service delivery

1
Assessing NGOs for community service delivery

• AFSAs experience
• Vhumani Magezi
• 23-24 October 2008
• Ac3 NGO CONFERENCE 2008

2
The purpose of the presentation.

• NOT to present a lecture on organisational (NGO)
  assessment
• but as colleagues in the NGO sector in SA
• to share experiences - particularly -
  challenges by some NGOs funded by AFSA.
• . the experiences were revealed by AFSAs
  assessment of the Swedish International
  Development and Co-operation Agency (SIDA) funded
  organisations (22)
• 12 Northern Cape
• 10 Eastern Cape

3
Background informationNGOs a booming sector

• It is important to note that NGOs are an
  important sector in every country.
• According to data compiled by researchers at
  Johns Hopkins University from the civil society
  of 36 countries, it represented US1.3 trillion
  industry.
• If it were a separate national economy it would
  be the seventh largest economy slightly smaller
  than France but bigger than Italy in GDP.
• Organizations of civil society employ 45.5
  million people (one in 20 employable people in
  the world).
• Therefore, we should note that NGOs are a
  significant part of countries economies.
• http//www.rbf.org/usr_doc/The_Role_of_NGOs_in_Mod
  ern_Societies_and_Increasingly_Interdependent_Worl
  d.pdf
• The Role of NGOs in Modern Societies and an
  Increasingly Interdependent World. Stephen
  Heintz President
• Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Annual Conference of
  the Institute for Civil Society, Zhongshan
  University, Guangzhou, China.

4
NGOs in SA..1

• At least 2500 registered NGOs Prodder has
  information on more than 2 500 South African NGOs
  and development organizations.
• At least 3600 NPO Prodders intention is to
  expand to incorporate the NPO directory from the
  National Department of Social Development, which
  consists of 36 000 organizations.
• Conclusion there are 6100 NGOs
• Prodder is a comprehensive directory of NGOs and
  development organisations in South Africa.
  Compiled by SANGONeT, it covers strategic
  development stakeholders such as non-governmental
  organisations (NGOs), community-based
  organisations (CBOs), academic institutions,
  donor agencies, CSI programmes, development
  consultants and parastatals.
• http//www.cio.de/news/cio_worldnews/812176/ and
• http//www.prodder.org.za/about-prodder

5
NGOs in SA2

• womens issues
• HIV/AIDS
• adult basic education
• rural issues
• early child development
• disability
• environment
• gender
• land
• Science and Technology
• Voter education issues (Zhang 20058).

6
NGOsmajor player in implementing NSP1
7
NGOsmajor player in implementing NSP2
8
Reasons for the rapid development of NGOs

• The reasons for the rapid development of NGOs
  are
• international donors losing confidence in
  governments due to their failure to deliver
  services, which NGOs tend to do better
• NGOs ability to mobilize communities
• NGOs have ability to advocate and influence
  governments. NGOs comparative advantage in
  promoting micro development over public and
  private institutions lies in their ability to
  touch base at grassroots level and their freedom
  in organizing themselves (Brown and Korten
  19891).

9
Observations in the SA NGO sector

• The number and size of NGOs has increased and
  continues to increase dramatically.
• The increase is not always accompanied by an
  improvement in services or performance.
• In fact, there are indications that overall the
  sector may be weakening as many organizations
  have been established by people with limited or
  no experience of the voluntary sector.
  http//www.childhope.org.uk/resources/oadp-part1.p
  df
• This is limiting NGOs to
• Access donor funding due to poor ability
  demonstrate accountability and competence.
• Fulfill programme implementation timetables,
  frameworks and budget processes.
• Implement effective community programmes and even
  account for their work.
• These challenges require effective and efficient
  NGO structures and systems.
• Therefore, there is need to assess organizational
  capacity of NGOs.

10
What is organizational assessment?...

• An Organizational Assessment (OA) is an
  evaluation of an organization's capacity and
  performance. It is an essential first stage in a
  capacity building process that aims to develop
  healthy and resilient organisations that can
  effectively achieve their objectives.
• It covers the organization's internal
  performance, relations and image performance in
  achieving its objectives, internal functioning,
  resources, role, strategy i.e. its an attempt to
  determine an organization's overall strengths,
  weaknesses and development needs.
• http//www.rapidbi.com/created/NGO-organisational
  -assessment-diagnosis.html

11
Assessment critical to organization's performance

• Notwithstanding the various assessment
  methodologies, research has shown that
  organizational assessments are significantly
  contributing to a growing realization that poor
  NGO performance is often related to
  organizational capacity.
• There is no single or right way to conduct an
  organisational assessment (OA), or to devise a
  plan for organisational development (OD).
• There are several methodologies that could be
  employed include
• 1. Organizational Assessment Framework
  9. Organizational Effectiveness
• 
  
  Questionnaire
• 2. Checklist for Organizational Assessment
  10. Discussion Orientated Self
• Assessment
• 3. Open Systems Analysis 11. Participatory
  Organizational Analysis Process
• 4. 7-S Study 12.
  Culture Audit
• 5. Organizational Elements Model
  13. SWOT Analysis
• 6. Burke Litwin Model
  14. PESTLE Analysis
• 7. EFQM Excellence Model 15. Stakeholder
  Analysis
• 8. Capacity Assessment Guide 16. Change
  Plan Development

12
Assessment focal areas (KPA)

• The organizational capacity areas that are
  generally assessed are
• Governance, service delivery / programme,
  financial resources, human resources, management
  practices and external relations (MTOMU, VISAHUJA
  and MKUTU http//www2.ilo.org/dyn/empent/docs/F18
  43278473/Assesment20of20capacities20CBOs.pdf
• Representative membership, effective
  leadership and management, identification of
  organisational needs, vision and strategy
  development, advocacy, visible public support and
  visibility
• http//www.google.co.za/search?hlenqSTRENGTHEN
  INGMIDWIVES27ASSOCIATIONSPROJECTbtnGGoogleS
  earchmeta
• Factors that often guarantee organizational
  effectiveness and programme success clearly
  defined goals and strategies to achieve them,
  strong visionary leadership, a strong
  well-organised staff, a sound resource, good
  systems for management and decision making,
  appropriate mechanisms for monitoring
  performance, good relationships with key external
  organizations especially partners, value system
  which emphasises performance, mutual support,
  creativity and flexibility, ability to respond
  fast to opportunities and threats (ChildHope
  Organisational Assessment For Development
  Planning Tool Kit)
• (http//www.childhope.org.uk/resources/oadp
  -part1.pdf)

13
Assessment at AFSA

• AFSAs assessment focuses on the following
  organizational capacity areas
• OD areas
• Operational systems particularly work plans
• Organisational systems - constitutions,
  registration status and policies
• Governance structures roles of management
  Board/committees, organograms, and
  decision-making processes
• Knowledge and skills (professional skills)
  staff skills and knowledge to perform tasks
• Financial management bank accounts, basic book
  keeping, budgets and audited books
• Resources personnel and financial base
• Programme implementation areas
• Programme implementation (PMEL) activities,
  monitoring and evaluation tools, existing
  learning opportunities, networking and
  collaboration with other stakeholders,
  data-capturing techniques, community development
  processes and coverage (number of beneficiaries)
  
• Programme sustainability exit strategies,
  fundraising and community sustainability
  structures
• CBOs environment level of poverty, basic
  service provision (medical facilities, number of
  social workers, number of nursing staff, access
  to water and roads), HIV statistics, level of
  HIV knowledge or beliefs and the impact of HIV.

14
Assessmentvarying focal areas but same objective

• Despite somewhat different focal assessment areas
  the basic objective of assessment is the same
• To ascertain organizational capacity (strengths
  and weaknesses) in order to provide
  recommendations for organizational development.
• Observation Many Organizational assessments (OA)
  only focus on NGO leadership and financial
  aspects in their assessments. But AFSA in
  addition to the above areas assesses programme
  implementation aspects as well.
• AFSAs Approach
• AFSA views target communities and populations as
  participants in addressing their needs rather
  than objects of charity.
• AFSA therefore treats (or at least strives to
  treat) CBOs and NGOs as true partners due to
  their close proximity and access to vulnerable
  households and groups at higher risk of
  infection.
• AFSA does not directly render services to end
  users at local and household level. Instead AFSA
  equips organizations working in communities with
  the resources and skills to implement projects
  and deliver services directly to beneficiaries.
  AFSA does this by
• Providing financial grants to selected NGOs
  CBOs, over a multiple year period, for project
  implementation and core costs
• Building the organizational capacity and skills
  of the target NGOs CBOs through quarterly
  monitoring site visits and a structured training
  and mentoring programme.

15
AFSAs Assessments

• At AFSA therefore we conduct assessment to
• To diagnose and draw pertinent information from a
  potential programme implementation partner
  organisation to establish its existing systems
  and structures. The assessment seeks to determine
  the organisations financial, technical and
  operational systems legal status convergence of
  activities between AFSA and potential partner
  CBO and resources of the CBO among other things.
  
• Purpose of assessment at AFSA
• Upon obtaining the information an informed
  decision is made to proceed or terminate the
  prospects of collaboration or partnership. This
  information becomes the basis for programme
  planning and implementation while in some
  instances is followed by an extensive baseline
  study for a deeper understanding.

16
AFSA programme SIDA funded organizations

• South Africa has one of the most severe HIV and
  AIDS epidemics in the world.
• 5.7 million South Africans were living with HIV
  at the end 2007(UNAIDS report 200840).
• Although data from antenatal clinics reported by
  the Department of Health 2007 suggests that the
  epidemic might be stabilising, there is no
  evidence yet of major changes in HIV-related
  behaviour.
• The high level of HIV prevalence is not matched
  by relevant behaviour change which reveals the
  depth of the challenge posed by the epidemic.

17
AFSAs contributory bite..HIVAIDS response

• To address the situation, AFSA was awarded a
  grant by the Swedish International Development
  Cooperation Agency to support 15 community
  organisations in the Northern Cape and Eastern
  Cape provinces (from 1 July 2004 to June 2007).
  The grant was renewed and increased
• To cover additional 7 organisations 22
  organisations (for the period of 1st July 2007 to
  30th June 2010)
• Expand support to organisations beyond the
  present districts, particularly in the Northern
  Cape and
• Deepen PME and capacity building interventions
  to assist its partner CBOs to take a more formal
  approach to community development.

18
Purpose of assessment

• The purpose of the assessment to determine and
  gain insight the overall picture of the
  SIDA-funded CBOs organisational structures and
  systems, programmes and activities, and their
  capacity. The following aspects of the CBOs
  wiere assessed
• Operational systems particularly work plans
• Organisational systems - constitutions,
  registration status and policies
• Governance structures roles of management
  Board/committees, organograms, and
  decision-making processes
• Knowledge and skills (professional skills)
  staff skills and knowledge to perform tasks
• Resources personnel and financial base
• Financial management bank accounts, basic book
  keeping, budgets and audited books
• Programme implementation (PMEL) activities,
  monitoring and evaluation tools, existing
  learning opportunities, networking and
  collaboration with other stakeholders,
  data-capturing techniques, community development
  processes and coverage (number of beneficiaries)
  
• Programme sustainability exit strategies,
  fundraising and community sustainability
  structures and
• CBOs environment level of poverty, basic
  service provision (medical facilities, number of
  social workers, number of nursing staff, access
  to water and roads), HIV statistics, level of
  HIV knowledge or beliefs and the impact of HIV.

19
Assessment methodology
20
Data (assessment) analysis1 - framework

• The data analysis and presentation was in two
  parts
• Individual CBOs rating, followed by a detailed
  matrix giving a brief description of each key
  performance area and identifying corresponding
  weaknesses, and recommendations.
• The analysis deliberately ignored the
  organisational strengths and concentrated on the
  weaknesses. This approach was based on the view
  that organisations learn and improve more by
  focusing on improving weaknesses than by
  celebrating strengths this is particularly so
  with regard to emerging organisations such as
  those targeted by this programme.

21
Data (assessment) analysis2 - framework
22
Findings1 NC organizations
23
Findings 2 NC organizations within AFSA typology
24
Findings3 EC organizations
25
Findings 4 EC organizations within AFSA typology
26
Consolidated ratings for the 22 organizations1
27
Consolidated ratings for the 22 organizations1
28
Consolidated organizations (22) within AFSA
typology framework
29
Observations and comments SA CBOs weaknesses
and strengths

• Despite their location their weakest areas seem
  to be
• Long term (or strategic) planning in most cases
  there is no long planning and long term
  strategies for the organizations survival. They
  just exist living on from hand to mouth. In
  short they lack sustainability.
• Governance lack of roles of management,
  board/committees, organograms, and
  decision-making processes.
• Resource mobilization -limited or no ability to
  broaden their support (funding) base leading to
  overdependence on one donor e.g. AFSA.
• Financial management lack of basic book keeping
  and budgeting skills resulting in unaudited books
  i.e. poor financial management.
• Despite their location their strongest areas seem
  to be
• Networking External Relations ability to link
  with other structures within their communities
  though the links in most times result in funding
  relationships.
• Information Management (ME) they seem to
  demonstrate a fair degree of ability to assess
  and track their progress though they dont always
  document it in technical terminology such as
  PMEL.
• Human Resources as CBO in communities,
  considering unemployment in South Africa there
  are always people prepared to work in the CBOs
  though significant number of these people are
  driven by careerism.
• NB There are organizational capacity parallels
  (similarities) between CBOs in the NC and EC on
  these weak and strong areas.

30
Correlation- CBO leadership literacy
management performance

• There is correlation between literacy level of
  CBOs leadership and performance of
  organizational management Leadership EC 40
  and NC 67). Highly literate CBO leaders often
  times stir the CBO to health situation though
  sometimes leads to abuse of systems and resources
  by some of these leaders. In EC the majority of
  the leaders have low literacy level while their
  counterparts in NC are more literate, which
  clearly reflected in the assessment.
• Therefore CBOs comprising lowly literate
  leadership should be coached differently.

31
General concluding observations probing
questions

• There is general lack of focus on developing the
  skills of CBOs to be able to implement their
  programmes but an overemphasis on finance. Should
  this be the main focus for CBOs effectiveness???
• The assessment frameworks and tools seem top-down
  (though there is talk of participatory
  approaches). Some concepts are totally foreign
  and unfamiliar to CBOs particularly those in
  rural areas e.g. the distinction between
  management and governing board (or board of
  directors). This corporate practice being
  imported to CBOs seems not to be working and
  confusing CBOs. Could there be a different model
  more suitable to CBOs that ensures
  accountability without imposing these top down
  practices may be stokvel model???
• What about the popular notion in development
  discourse dont give a person fish but give him
  a rod and teach him to fish! What do you do when
  there are no dams and there is no fish in the
  dams or rivers? There are some organizations that
  have limited growth/development potential. They
  will forever not be able to write a proposal that
  will be considered by EU and USAID neither will
  they be able to report on the funds.
• There will always be a need for organizations to
  work with some CBO and NGOs but there is need to
  develop effective ways to assess these
  organizations in order to provide them with
  relevant assistance.

32
Acknowledgements

• Special thanks to all the following
• Swedish International Development Cooperation
  Agency (SIDA) for funding these partner
  organisations and making a budget provision for
  the study.
• All interviewees who sacrificed their time to
  spend long hours of discussion with fieldwork
  teams Board members staff managers and
  beneficiaries of the Projects that were visited
  in the various parts of the Northern Cape and
  Eastern Cape Provinces.
• AFSAs Administration team for assisting with
  logistics.
• Research team for their hard work particularly
  putting long hours into this project. These
  include Precious Greehy, AFSA Research Support
  Officer, UKZN Research Interns and others who
  participated in this project.
• Full reports (part 1 and part 2) accessible at
  http//www.aids.org.za/research_internal.html