Workshop outputs
Figure
Funding agency group
|
Assessment points
|
Reasons
|
Issues/Gaps
|
Lessons
|
|
Cost and effectiveness
|
- Scarcity of resources
- Program quality (focus and
impact)
|
Lack of standards to measure effectiveness
|
- There are experiences on reducing cost without sacrificing
quality
- Lack of sharing of database
|
|
Reach of the program
|
For magnitude of impact
|
|
|
|
Self-governing organization
|
|
Relationship among partners
|
- Self centered/lack of building of strategic
alliance
|
|
- Vision, Mission, Goal (VMG) realization
|
Defines reason for being
|
- Difficult to measure
- Over-projected goals
-
Accountability and shared values
|
|
|
- Environment should be catalyzing
|
|
|
|
|
- Continuity of livelihood program beneficiary
|
Creation of more opportunities
|
|
There is minimal application of knowledge and skills learned from
training
|
|
- Relevance to the prevailing situation
|
Sustenance of basic needs
|
|
|
|
Program sustainability
|
|
Prioritization of program alternatives
|
No shared understanding of monitoring and evaluation system (donor
and beneficiaries)
|
|
- Tenurial security for wise management of resources
|
To create self-governing organization
|
Non-implementation of sanctions regarding funding is
inadequate
|
Ability to say no to organization
|
|
- Capability building of partner organizations
|
To replicate the program
|
|
|
|
Improvement of the quality of life (Minimum basic needs
standards)
|
Because beneficiaries are poor communities
|
Program expectation not congruent with beneficiary
capability
|
Lack of systematic analysis to determine
congruence
|
NGO support group
|
Assessment points
|
Indicators
|
Reasons
|
Issues/Gaps
|
Lessons
|
|
Sustainability
|
- Business profitability
|
|
Funding agency driven or internally driven performance
assessment?
|
Movement/ stakeholders development
|
|
- Financial self sufficiency
|
|
|
|
|
Organization
|
- Leadership (developing second liners, openness, risk taking
foresight)
- Active Board of Directors
- Movement building (not for
profit)
- Clear movement/phase out of senior staff
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity in vision, mission, goals; development agenda; values;
philosophy; paradigm
|
- Clearly defined, vision, mission, goals
- Ownership of
vision, mission, goals
|
|
Documentation is generally lacking on organizational history.
Often this is left with individuals
|
Documentation of the process of evolution/development to avoid
reinventing the wheel. Uphold importance of documentation.
|
|
Staff capacity/ human resource development and
commitment
|
- Willingness to take responsibility and risks
- Development of
second liners
- Knowledge, skills and attitude level versus job demands
-
Staff competence versus needs or partners
|
|
Transparency regarding financial standing
|
|
|
- Program
|
- Efficiency service
- Maximization or resources
|
|
|
|
|
Service delivery
|
Target versus outputs
|
|
Compensating individual staff for contributing to organizational
performance
|
Include proposals a budget to cover for increase in
compensation.
|
|
Responding to needs/service creation
|
|
|
Performance assessment seen as threatening
|
Performance assessment feedbacking
|
|
Management systems
|
Mechanism for learning in place
|
|
Balancing professionalism and volunteerism
|
|
|
- Human resources
|
- Desire to learn exist
|
|
|
|
|
- Financial
|
- Desire to be more efficient
|
|
|
|
|
- Integration / learning
|
- Ability to look back at one self as an organization
|
|
|
|
|
Governance (of Board of Trustees)
|
Active participation of Board of Trustees/ Board of
Directors' development
|
|
|
|
|
- Relevance vis-a-vis external and historical context
|
- Evolving needs of partners
|
|
- Changes in external environment affecting
performance
|
- Responding to people's needs/ demands even when there is no
budget for it in terms of time and other resources
|
|
- Willingness of partners to
collaborate/
participate
|
- External constraints/ situation - Nodal points in one's
organizational history
|
|
- Efficiency versus effectiveness
|
|
|
Availability of inputs
|
Funds, frameworks, tools, curriculum, (timeliness,
adequency)
|
|
|
|
|
Effects/outcomes of services rendered
|
- Extent of utilization of learning by partners
|
|
- Effects/ outcomes level assessments need human, material, and
financial inputs thus performance assessment generally focussed on outputs and
immediate effects
|
- Give adequate inputs to guage effects/outcomes
|
|
- Cooperative graduating to higher level of organization
development
|
|
- General: lack of/no clarity on institutional/ organization level
assessment points and indicators
|
- Unify on the use of measure for
performance
|
Operating NGOs group
|
Assessments points
|
Indicators
|
Reasons
|
Issues/Gaps
|
Lessons
|
|
Strategy soundness
|
Participative SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat)
process
|
Reflects out institutional values
|
Balance between output and process
|
Understand/ appreciate personal struggles/ process of staff-value
alignment
|
|
Efficiency of resource allocation/ generation
|
Adequency of resource based on project/ program
requirements
|
Credibility as an organization reflects trust for future funding
and long-term relations with funders
|
Balance between care for the staff and caring for the poor/
community
|
|
|
Management capacity/ development of human resources
|
Equip staff with knowledge, skills, attitude/ commitment. Provide
appropriate caring/ compensation
|
Sustainability and relevance as an NGO
|
- Difficulty in using/ developing qualitative criteria/
indicators
- Addressing macro policies which are contradictory to micro
objectives of the organization
|
Staff/community participation is key to the success of the
strategy goals set
|
|
Values - consistency organizational values and individual
values
|
- Staff lifestyle/ performance
- People/ community
lifestyle
|
Maintains membership in network and ensures expansion
|
|
|
|
Achievement of targets
|
Modified minimum basic needs
|
|
|
|
|
Recognition of other GOs/ NGOs of your work
|
Invitation of other GOs and NGOs and resource
|
|
|
|
The assessment points most commonly identified by all groups were:
· cost-effectiveness
· use of resources
· efficiency
· allocation and generation of resources
· management capacity
· program effectiveness
· achievement of qualitative (e.g., improvement of quality
of life) and quantitative (e.g., reach) program targets
The following were identified by both the funding agency and
technical support groups:
· identifying a mission with external and
historical contexts
· self governance
· capability building of
partners
The funding agency group additionally identified the continuity of
livelihood projects and sustainability of programs as an important performance
indicator. This group went on to say that tenurial security and wise resource
management determine the chances for sustainability of community management
programs.
The operating group gave further performance indicators as:
· consistency of internalization of values
between organization and staff
· the organization's human resource
development program
· recognition of work by other development
organizations
· a sound strategy and organizing process
Finally, the technical support group added that willingness of
beneficiaries to collaborate and participate also indicate program and
organizational performance.
The participants categorized the performance indicators into three
groups. These were those affecting:
1. the network
2. individual organization
3.
program/project levels
It was also pointed out that organizational or network performance
cannot be taken in isolation of its programs/projects and the beneficiaries they
serve. The bottomline of NGDO work should ultimately be measured against what it
has done for its
beneficiaries.
