APPENDIX 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Senior...

Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective

269

APPENDIX 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Senior Management Professionals who were kind enough to extend their expertise in evaluation and rating

1 KINI MG DIRECTOR, TITANIUM INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD 2 MAHALINGAM CEO, T S M & SONS AND CITI SHELTERS 3 MENON K V RETD CHAIRMAN, MADRAS FERTILISERS LTD 4 MURALI EX CEO AND CURRENTLY PROF OF MANAGEMENT 5 PADMANABHAN V RETD DIRECTOR HRD, INDIAN AIRLINES 6 PARTHASARATHY N S RETD CEO AND CONSULTANT FAO (UN) 7 PARTHASARATHY V K RETD CEO, SANMAR INVESTMENT CO 8 PRAVIN SENIOR HRD CONSULTANT 9 SHANTA RAGHAVAN RETD G M STATE BANK OF INDIA 10 SUHAS TAPASWI NGO EXPERT & CONSULTANT 11 SIDHARTHA R DIRECTOR, POWER CENTRE P LTD, IT CO 12 SIVADASS PROMOTER & CEO, SCOPE E-KNOWLEDGE CENTER 13 SREEDHAR M R RETD G M MARKETING OF TVS SUZUKI 14 SRINIVASAN R SENIOR REFINERY CONSULTANT 15 THOBIAS RETD DIRECTOR, CASTROL INDIA 16 VENKATESH CEO, SVANISHTA, STRATEGIC HR ADVISORY & EXECUTIVE SEARCH17 VENKATESH S SENIOR MARKETING CONSULTANT18 VIJAYA MURTHY WELL KNOWN EDUCATIONIST 19 VINITA SIDHARTHA PROGRAM CONSULTANT, MULTI NATIONAL NGO 20 VISHAK RAMAN HEAD OF ASIA REGION OF FORTINET

Senior members of the Academia who were kind enough to extend their expertise in evaluation and rating

1 DEEPAK R. 2 PADMALATHA N.A.3 BASU 4 VISWANATH5 GUNDU RAO 6 VITHAL P. 7 KELKAR M. 8 SUBRAMANYAM MJ 9 PRASAD BENJAMIN 10 BADI NV11 RAMADAS KL 12 ASHVINI JAYARAM 13 UDUPA J 14 NEWSOME 15 SUMUKH HUNGUND 16 PADMINI RAO17 SHASHIDHARA 18 ASHOK GUPTA 19 PRABHUDEV V. 20 SRIDHAR M.K.


270

APPENDIX 1 (CONTD)

Other Professionals and Experts from the Voluntary Sector who kindly shared information and their expert insights

(in order of contact)

1. S Venkatesh, Senior Marketing Consultant, Bangalore 2. Sanghamitra Iyengar, (Ms), Director, Samraksha (Samuha), Bangalore 3. Kshithij Urs, Regional Manager, Actionaid, Bangalore 4. Ms Jayalakshmi and Venugopal, Women’s Liberation and Rehabilitation Society,

Madhugiri 5. Dr. Saraswathi Sankaran, Executive Director, Deepam Educational Society for

Health, Chennai 6. N. Navin Kumar, Senior Manager, Operations, Deepam Educational Society for

Health, Chennai 7. Ms. J. P. Saulina Arnold, Executive Director, Tamil Nadu Voluntary Health

Association, Chennai 8. Rev. Fr. P. B. Martin, Social Action Movement, Mamandur (Chennai) 9. R Bhakter Solomon, CEO, Development Promotion Group, Chennai 10. Reynold Washington, Samastha, Bangalore 11. S. Shankar Narayanan Population Services International, Bangalore 12. Ms Florence David, International Services Association, Bangalore 13. Ms Malini Sridhar, Parivarthan Counselling, Bangalore 14. Ms Jayanthi Rajagopalan, Consultant, Hyderabad 15. Ms Dipa Nag Chowdury, McArthur Foundation, New Delhi


271

APPENDIX 2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Agha, S et al, “When Donor Support Ends: The Fate of Social Marketing”, Paper in Global Research Brief, US AID, PSP-One, Bethesda USA, 2005. 2. Agha Sohail, “Performance Monitoring Plan”, Global Research Brief, US AID, PSP-One, Bethesda USA, 2005. Full text of paper 3. Alsop, Ronald, “M.B.A. Track: Recruiters Seek M.B.A.s Trained In Responsibility”, Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), New York, N.Y., December 2005. pg. B.6. 4. Andreasen, Alan R and Kotler, Philip, “Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations”, Pearson Education in South Asia, Pratapganj, New Delhi, 2006. 5. Andreasen, Alan R, “Intersector Transfer of Marketing Knowledge”, Working Paper, Social Marketing Institute, Connecticut Avenue, Washington D. C., 2000. 6. Andreasen, Alan R and Drumwright M E, “Alliances and Ethics in Social Marketing”, Working Paper, Social Marketing Institute, Connecticut Avenue, Washington D. C., 2000. 7. Anonymous, “The Six Ps of Social Marketing: Companies can Better Society While Boosting Profits”, Marketing Magazine,Toronto, Vol. 101, No. 34, September 1996. pg. 14 8. Asiaweek Editorials: “Joint Venture: Governments and NGOs should be Partners, not Adversaries”, Asiaweek., Hong Kong, December issue ,1996. 9. Atkissan, Alan , “Accelerating Corporate Sustainability in Asia”, article in The Natural Advantage of Nations, EA Books, Australia, Fall 2004. 10. Avina, Jeffrey, “The Evolutionary Life-cycles of Non-governmental Development Organizations”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 11. Barot, Nafisa , Paper presented at the All India Conference on the Role of Voluntary Associations in National Development, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, 2002. Full proceedings. 12. Bellamy, Hilary et al, “Social Marketing Resource Manual: A Guide for State Nutrition Education Networks”, Prepared for the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Alexandria, VA, USA, 1997. 13. Bendell, Jim, “Debating NGO Accountability”, Published by UN Non-Governmental Liaison (NGLS), Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. 14. Bloom, Evan and Levinger, Beryl, “Guided Reflections for Institutional Development”, New Directions in Organizational Capacity Building, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 1997. 15. Bloom, Paul N and Novelli, William D, “Problems and Challenges in Social Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1981.


272

16. Brown, David L and Moore, Mark H , “Accountability, Strategy and International Non-governmental Organizations”,The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 7, 2001. 17. Brown, David L et al, “Globalization, NGOs and Multi-Sectoral Relations”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 1, 2000. 18. Cahill, John et al, “Social Marketing – A Resource Guide”, Social Marketing National Excellence Collaborative, NY Turning Point Initiative, NYS Department of Health, Albany, NY, year?. 19. Cannon, Lisa, “ Defining Sustainability”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 20. Carroll, Thomas et al, “Participation and Intermediary NGOs”, Abstract from Book by authors, World Bank Participation Source Book, Abstract reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1996. 21. Chandran Johnson S et al, “Community Based Social Marketing in India”, paper at International Conference on AIDS July 2000. 22. Chetkovich, Carol and Frumkin, Peter , “Balancing Margin and Mission: Non-Profit Competition from Charitable versus Fee-Based Programs”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper no. 11, 2002. 23. Clark, John, “The Relationship Between the State and the Voluntary Sector”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 1993. 24. Cohen, D A et al, “Implementation of Condom Social Marketing in Louisiana 1993-96”, American Journal of Public Health, Washington, Vol. 89 No. 2, 1999. pp. 204-208. 25. Collings, Simon , “Fundraising in Emerging Markets: Challenges and Opportunities”, Fundraising Success, Target Marketing, Philadelphia, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 2008.pp. 38-40. 26. Council for People’s Action and Rural Technology, “Nodal NGOs – A Tool for Development”, Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), New Delhi, 2008. 27. Co-sponsored by Social Marketing Institute et al, Conference Report, Report of the Non-Profit Marketing Summit Conference, Tampa, Florida, March 2000. 28. Cousins, William , "Non-Governmental Initiatives in ADB, the Urban Poor and Basic Infrastructure Services in Asia and the Pacific". Asian Development Bank, Manila, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1991. 29. Cousins, William , “NGOs: Advantages and Disadvantages”, abstracted from Non-Governmental Initiatives in ADB, Asian Development Bank, Manila and reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1991.


273

30. Cousins, William , “Roles of NGOs”, abstracted from Non-Governmental Initiatives" in ADB, The Urban Poor and Basic Infrastructure Services in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank, Manila, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC). 1991. 31. Cousins, William, “Types of NGOs: By Orientation and Level of Operation”, Abstracted from Non-Governmental Initiatives in ADB, Asian Development Bank, Manila and reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1991. 32. Da Cunha, Gerson , “Social Marketing in Development”, Paper presented at the Symposium on The Changing Market Place, New Delhi, source: Gerson Da Cunha, UNICEF, Brasilia, 2001. 33. Das-Gupta, Indira and Marshall, Jenny, “Heading South”, Third Sector, London: No. 437, July 2006. pp. 26- 28. 34. Dash, Anup, “Emancipation through Micro-credit”, Appropriate Technology, Hemel Hempstead: Vol. 32, No.1; pp. 12-13. Mar 2005. 35. Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Policy on Grant Assistance to Non-Governmental Organisations, F. No. 1/30/2003-PMU dated 4 January 2005. 36. Directory of Top NGOs and NPOs in India, J B A Publishers, D B Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 015. 2009. 37. Dombrowski Kathryn (2006), “Overview of Accountability Initiatives”, One World Trust, 3 Whitehall Court, London, Working Paper no 100. 2006. 38. Domegan, Christine, “The Use of Social Marketing for Science Outreach Activities in Ireland”, Irish Journal of Management. Dublin, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2007. pp. 103 - 125. 39. Drucker, Peter, “Managing the Non-Profit Organization”, Harper Collins Publishers, 1990. 40. Duke, Allison and Long, Charla, “Trade from the Ground Up; A Case Study of a Grassroots NGO Using Agricultural Programs to Generate Economic Viability in Developing Countries”, Management Decision. London, Vol. 45, No. 8, 2007. pg. 1320. 41. Ebrahim, Alnoor , “NGO Behavior and Development Discourse: Cases From Western India”, Voluntas, Manchester, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2001. pg. 79. 42. Ebrahim, Alnoor, “Rethinking Capacity Building”, Article in the Guest Column of Capacity.Org, UNDP, Issue 34, August 2008. 43. Edwards, Michael, “Organizational Learning in Non-governmental Organizations: What Have We Learned?”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 44. Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David, “Beyond the Magic Bullet? Lessons and Conclusions”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 45. Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David, “Making a Difference: Scaling up the Development Impact of NGOs – Concepts and Experiences”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007.


274

46. Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David, “NGO Performance and Accountability: Introduction and Overview”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 47. Edwards, Michael and Sen, Gita, “NGOs, Social Change and the Transformation of Human Relationships: A 21st Century Civic Agenda”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 48. Eighth V Year Plan Chapter 6, NGOs and their networks, Planning Commission, Government of India. 49. Foreign Contribution Management and Control Bill 2006, Planning Commission Website File: FCMC Act. 50. Fowler, Alan , “An NGDO Strategy: Learning for Leverage”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 51. Fowler, Alan, “Assessing NGO Performance: Difficulties, Dilemmas and a Way Ahead”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 52. Fowler, Alan, “Beyond Partnership: Getting Real about NGO Relationships in the Aid System”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, New Delhi, 2007. 53. Fowler, Alan, “Human Resource Management”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 54. Fowler, Alan, “NGO Performance: What Breeds Success? New Evidence from South Asia”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 55. Fowler, Alan, “Options, Strategies and Trade-offs in Resource Mobilization”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 56. Fowler, Alan, “The Role of Gender in NGDOs”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 57. Fowler, Alan, “NGO Futures – Beyond Aid: NGO Values and the Fourth Position”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 58. Fowler, Alan, “Organizing Non-profits for Development”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 59. Fox, Michael P, “Condom Social Marketing: Select Case Studies”, Prepared for the Department of Policy, Strategy and Research, UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.


275

60. Frumkin, Peter and Kim, Mark T, “Strategic Positioning and Financing of Non-Profit Organizations: Is Efficiency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace?”,The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 2, 2000. 61. Goetz, Anne Marie, “Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 62. Grossman, Allen and Kasturirangan V, “The Challenge of the Multi-site Non-profit”, HBS Working Knowledge, June 2003. 63. Guha, Rajat and McClatchy, “NRI Funds for NGOs to Come Under Stringent Check System”, Tribune Business News, Washington: Jan 18, 2008. 64. Hempstead, Hemel, “Appropriate Technology”, Vol. 30, No. 3, September 2003.pg. 20. 65. Health Systems Resource Centre, “Review of DFID Approach to Social Marketing”, Appendix 7, Policies of Partner Organisations, Report prepared for Department of International Development (DFID), Government of UK, 2003. 66. Hoffman, Jeffrey, “Do we have a Water Problem?: The Use of Social Marketing as a Problem Solver”, American Water Works Association Journal, Denver, Vol. 98, No. 8, August 2006. pp. 34-36. 67. Holcombe, Susan H et al, “Managing Development: NGO Perspectives”, International Public Management Journal, Stamford, Vol. 7, No.2, 2004. pp. 187-205. 68. Hudson, Laurel and Anderson, Ann, “The Relative Weighting of Attitude and Social Situation within a Social Marketing Context”, Arizona State University, 1982. 69. Idea Research Paper Series, “Marketing Strategies Used by NGOs”, SIES College of Management Studies. Paper no. 01/06, 2006. 70. Jagannathan (2000), “The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations in Primary Education: A Study of Six NGOs in India”, European Commission, Delegation to India, Bhutan, Nepal, and the Maldives, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2530, November 2000. 71. Jalali, Rita, “International Funding of NGOs in India”, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington DC, 2006. 72. James McGann, and Johnstone, Mary, “The Power Shift and the NGO Credibility Crisis”, International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, reproduced by Global Policy Forum, NY 10117 USA. January 2006 73. JANANI, Indian NGO, Progress Report 2004-05. 74. Japanese NGOs in India, NGO-JICA Desk India, website: jicaindiaoofice.org 75. Jha, Mithileshwar, “ A Manual for Culturally Adapted Social Marketing”, Editor Epstein, Scarlett T, Sage Publishers, London, 1999 .pp. 31-41.


276

76. Jordan, Lisa and Van Tuijl, Peter, “Political Responsibility in Transnational Advocacy”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 77. Jose, Sunny and Kannan K P, “NGOs and the Welfare of Marginalized Social Groups: a Case Study of Fishing Community in Kerala, India”, Paper at International Society for Third-Sector Research, Sixth International Conference, Toronto Canada, July 11-14, 2004. 78. Kaplan, Allan, “Leadership and Management”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 79. Kasturi Rangan, V, “Lofty Missions, Down‐to‐Earth Plans”, Harvard Business Review, Boston, March 2004. 80. Keating, Elizabeth K and Frumkin, Peter , “Reengineering Non-Profit Financial Accountability: Toward a More Reliable Foundation for Regulation”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 4, 2000. 81. Kirschbaum, Marco, “NGO Manager Organizational Assessment Tool”, NGO School of Management, Switzerland, NGO Manager: E Library – Management Tools and Information for Non-Profits Worldwide at website: ngomanager.org 2004. 82. Kotler, Philip, “Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Non-Profit Organizations”, Journal of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, Vol, 33, 1979. Pp37-44. 83. Kudva, Neema, “Uneasy Relations, NGOs and the State”, Paper presented at the Karnataka Conference ISEC/Cornell University/The World Bank, 2005. 84. Leringer, Beryl and Bloom, Evan, “A Simple Capacity Assessment Tool”, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 85. MacFadyen, Lynn (1999), “A Synopsis of Social Marketing”, Health Affairs, Bethesda, MD, 1999.. 86. Maitland, Alison (2002), “Coping with a More Influential Role: Non‐governmental Organisations: The higher profile of pressure groups is demanding greater accountability”, London edition, Financial Times. London, February 13, 2002. pg. 13. 87. Mayanja, Meddie, “Rethinking Telecenter Sustainability: How to Implement a Social Enterprise Approach”, Lessons from India and Africa, The Journal of Community Informatics, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2006. 88. Michael, Sarah, “The Role of NGOs in Human Security”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 12, 2002 89. Minutes of the First Meeting of the Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-07) - Steering Committee, on "Voluntary Sector", Government of India, Planning Commission, March 16, 2001. 90. Misra, Rajeeb, “Voluntary Sector and Rural Development”, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 2008.


277

91. Moore Mark H, “The Simple Analytics of Accountability”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations, Harvard University. Working Paper no. 33.9, 2006. 92. Moore, Mark H, “The Public Value Scorecard: A Rejoinder and an Alternative to Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Profit Organizations by Robert Kaplan”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper no. 18, 2003. 93. Murray Culshaw Advisory Services (Compilers) “Profile 500 – Selected Voluntary Organisations in India”, Published by Center for Advancement of Philanthropy, Mumbai, 2003. 94. Nair, Sudeepa, “Marketing: A Social Welfare Tool”. Article in boloji.com. 2005 95. National Policy on Voluntary Sector, Voluntary Action Cell, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2007. 96. NGO/Civil Society Survey Report, (2005), Conference in Tunisia on “For a People Centred, Developed Oriented, Knowledgeable Information Society for All”, UNEDSA, April 2005. 97. Notes from the NGO Workshop organized at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, October 17-21, 1988, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC). 98. O’Sullivan, Gael et al, “Moving Towards Sustainability: Transition Strategies for Social Marketing Programs”, ABT Associates and USAID, 2007. 99. Omana, Julius, “Civil Society in a Conflict Environment: a case of Gulu District in Northern Uganda and Policy Implications for Social Service Delivery”, Anaka Foundation, Post Box 868, Gulu, Uganda, 2005. 100. “Study on Enhancement of NGO Participation”, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Vienna, Austria, 1995. 101. O’Shaughnessey, Nicholas, “Social Propaganda and Social Marketing: A Critical Difference”, European Journal of Marketing. Bradford, Vol. 30, No. 10/11, 2006. pp. 62-77. 102. Ovasdi, J M, “Management of Non-governmental Organizations: Trend towards Developed Civil Society”, MacMillan (India) Ltd., 2006 103. Pancholi, Jatin and Modi, Ashwin, “Accounting System of an NGO: A Case of Jagrut Grahak Mandal”, The Business Review, Cambridge. Hollywood: Vol. 5 No. 1, Sep 2006. pp. 184-189. 104. Planning Commission, Approach Paper to the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007), Planning Commission, Government of India. 105. Poteete Amy R, “The Implications of Social Capital for Community Development”, World Bank website: worldbank.org, 2003. 106. Powell, Jane et al, “Social Marketing in Action – geo-demographics, alcoholic liver disease and heavy episodic drinking in Great Britain”, International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, London, Vol. 12, No. 3, August 2007. pp. 177-187.


278

107. Prathap, Puthra D, “Participation of Farmers in Credit Management Groups by an NGO (MYRADA), Annamalai University, 1994 108. Press Report, “Corruption, a serious threat to growth”, Business Line, Chennai, January 17, 2008. 109. Press Report, “The Business of Social Responsibility”, Business Line. Chennai, December 14, 2005. pg. . 110. Press Report, “Confederation of NGOs for Rural India launched”, Business Line, Chennai, October 23, 2005. pg. 1. 111. Press Report, “NGOs worried over new Bill on foreign contributions”, Business Line, Chennai, September 14, 2005. pg. 1. 112. Press Report, “Planning with NGOs”, Business Lline. Chennai, February 13, 2003. pg. 1. 113. Press Report, “Andhra Bank against NGOs turning Financial Intermediaries”, Business Line, Chennai, December 13, 2002. pg. 1. 114. Press Report, “NGOs Take up Wasteland Regeneration”, Business Line, Chennai, March 16, 2002. pg. 1. 115. Press Report, “India: Go, NGOs, Go!”, Business Line. Chennai, August 23, 2000. pg. 1. 116. Press Report, “India: Bigger Roles to Play”, Business Line, Chennai, July 31, 2000. pg. 1. 117. Press Report, “Vitalising NGOs”, Business Line, Chennai, December 30, 1998. pg. 1. 118. Press Report, “India: 248 NGOs blacklisted by CAPART”, Business Line, Chennai, July 3, 1998. pg. 1. 119. Press Report, “Micro credit: Can NGOs Do Better than Banks?”, Business Line, Chennai, June 10, 1998. pg. 1. 120. Prout, Jerry, “Corporate Responsibility in the Global Economy: a Business Case”, Society and Business Review. Bradford, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2006. pg. 184. 121. Psp-One, “Sustainable Social Marketing Self Assessment Tool”, US AID, 2007. 122. Rajasekhar D, “Poverty Alleviation Strategies of NGOs”, Project Report, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore. 2003. 123. Rajasekhar D, “Micro Finance and Poverty Alleviation Issues Relating to NGO Programmes in South India”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No.146, 2004. 124. Rajasekhar, D and Biradar R R (Editors), “Reluctant Partners Coming Together? Interface Between People, Government and NGOs”, Concept Publishing Company, 2004


279

125. Rajasekhar, D, “Micro-Finance, Poverty Alleviation and Empowerment of Women : A Study of two NGOs from Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, Social and Economic Change Monographs”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 2004. 126. Rajasekhar, D, “Non-Governmental Organizations in India : Opportunities and Challenges”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No. 66, 2000. 127. Rajasekhar, D. and Biradar R R, “People, Government and the NGOs”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper 114, 2000 128. Ram, Pavani Kalluri et al, “Bringing Safe Water to Remote Populations: An Evaluation of a Portable Point-of-Use Intervention in Rural Madagascar”, American Journal of Public Health, Washington, Vol. 97, No. 3, March 2007. pp. 398-400. 129. Ramanathan, Ramesh, “Bill Gates and Indian NGOs”, Article posted on website of livemint.com (The Wall Street Journal), July 2008 130. Rao, V M, “Towards Effective Poverty Reduction: A Global Perspective”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No. 155, 2004. 131. Raval, Dinker et al, “Application of the Relationship Paradigm to Social Marketing”, Competition Forum. Indiana, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007. pp. 1- 8. 132. Redmond, Elizabeth C and Griffith, Christopher J, “A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of a Social Marketing-based Consumer Food Safety Initiative Using Observation”, British Food Journal, Bradford, Vol. 108, No. 9, 2006. pg. 753. 133. Report of the Steering Committee on Voluntary Sector for the Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-07), Planning Commission, Government of India. 134. Ritchey-Vance, Marion , “Social Capital, Sustainability and Working Democracy: New Yardsticks for Grassroots Development”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 135. Robinson, Les, “On Making Social Change”, Social Indicators and Citizenship Manual, The Victorian Council of Social Service, 2001. 136. Robinson, Les, “The 7-door Model for Designing and Evaluating Behavior Change Programs”, Social Change Media, Canada, 2004. 137. Sawhney, N and Premi, M K, “Role of NGOs, Private Sector and Social Marketing in Promoting Family Welfare Programme in Uttar Pradesh”, POPLINE Document Number 102266, 1993. 138. Schneider, Barbara and Cheslock , Nicole, “Measuring Results”, Report of the Co-evolution Institute, San Francisco, USA, 2003. 139. Sekher, Madhushree, “Local Organizations and Participatory CPR Management : Some Reflections”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No. 61, 2000. 140. Sen, Siddhartha, “Globalization and the Status of Current Research on the Indian Nonprofit Sector”, Voluntas, Manchester, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1999. pg. 113.


280

141. Shah, Parmesh and Shah, Meera, “Participatory Methods for Increasing NGO Accountability – A Case Study from India”, Chapter 17 of NGOs: Performance and Accountability Beyond the Magic Bullet, Publishers: Earthscan, Dunstan House, London, 1995.pg. 183. 142. Sivramakrishna, Shashi and Panigrahi, Ramakrishna, “An Economic Model of Self‐Help Groups: Policy Implications for Banks and NGO Initiatives”, Journal of International Development, Chichester, Vol. 13, No. 8, November 2001. p. 1119. 143. Smith, William , “Social Marketing An Overview”, The Center for Global Health Communication and Marketing, Connecticut Ave., Washington D C, 2006. 144. Sprenger, Ellen, “Organizational Gender Diagnosis”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 145. Srinivas, Hari, “Fund Raising Realities and Strategies: Lessons Learnt at the NGO Café”, GDRC Special Feature Website: gdrc.org., 2007. 146. Srinivas, Hari, “NGO Partnerships for Sustainable Urban Development”, Abstract reproduced in the website of Global Development Research Center, website: gdrc.org., year? 147. Srinivas, Hari, “Key Words and Concepts Associated with NGOs”, Abstract reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), year? 148. Srinivas, Nidhi, “NGO Advocacy and Marketing: Handloom Weavers in India”, Paper presented at the Milano Wednesday series, New School of Management and Urban Policy, New York, 2006. 149. Srinivas, M. N., “Social Change in Modern India”, Orient Longman, Hyderabad,2000. 150. Sriram, M S and Upadhyayula, Rajesh S, “The Transformation of the Microfinance Sector in India”, Journal of Microfinance. Provo, Vol. 6, No. 2, Winter 2004. pp. 89-212. 151. “Stagnation and Decline: Symptoms and Treatment”, The National Non-profit Leadership and Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, January/February 2000. 152. Stead, Martine et al, “Research to Inform the development of a Social Marketing Strategy for Health Improvement in Scotland”, Final Report for NHS Health Scotland and the Scottish Executive, University of Stirling, Institute of Social Marketing, Scotland, 2007. 153. Syracuse, Amy, “Social Marketing for a Cause”, Target Marketing, Philadelphia, Vol. 30, No. 7, July 2007. pg. 13. 154. Tandon, Rajesh, “Board Games: Governance and Accountability in NGOs”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 155. Tandon, Rajesh , Paper presented at the All India Conference on the Role of Voluntary Associations in National Development, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, 2002.


281

156. Taylor, James, “On the Road to Becoming a Learning Organization”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 157. Taylor, Lawrence et al, “Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)”, Training Notes for British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND), Networking for International Development, London, 2003. 158. Tewari D. N., Paper presented at the All India Conference on the Role of Voluntary Associations in National Development, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, 2002. 159. Thaw, Divine, “Stepping into the River of Change”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 160. The ALNAP Quality Proforma, by The Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, an international interagency forum, website: www.alnap.org 2005 161. The World Bank Participation Source Book, Working Paper Summaries, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 1996 162. Tierney, Thoma J, “The Non-Profit Sector’s Leadership Deficit”, Bridgespan Group, USA. 2006 163. Toulmin, Stephen, “The Role of Transnational NGOs in Global Affairs”, Center for Multiethnic and Transnational Studies, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA, 1990 164. Townsend, Janet G et al, “The Role of the Transnational Community of Non-government Organizations: Governance or Poverty Reduction?”, Journal of International Development. Chichester: Aug 2002. Vol. 14, No. 6, August 2002. p. 829. 165. Townsend, Janet Gabriel, “Are Non-governmental Organizations Working in Development of a Transnational Community?”, Journal of International Development. Chichester, Vol. 11, No. 4, June 1999. pg. 613. 166. USAID, “Summary of Sustainability Strategies for Social Marketing Programs”, Private Sector Partnerships – One, Bethesda MD. Year not mentioned. 167. USAID TIPS, “Performance Monitoring and Evaluation: Selecting Performance Indicators”, USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation, website: ictdevlibrary.org. 1996 168. Vaidyanathan, R, “NGOs: To Whom are they Accountable?”, Business Line April 21, 2005. 169. Valadez, Joseph and Bamberger, Michael, “Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in Developing Countries”, Economic Development Institute of the World Bank, EDI Development Series, 1994. 170. VanSant, Jerry, “A Composite Framework for Assessing the Capacity of Development Organizations”, A Paper prepared for USAID, http://www.g‐rap.org/docs/ICB/USAid, 2000.


282

171. Veeramatha, C, “Role of NGOs in the Prevention of HIV/Aids – A Study in Karnataka, Project 2001”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 2001. 172. Voluntarism and Government – Policy Program and Assistance, Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), Malaviyanagar, New Delhi. 173. Walsh, D. C. et al, “Social Marketing for Public Health”, Health Affairs, Project Hope, Bethesda, MD, Vol. 12, No.2, 1993. 174. Ward, Steven and Aleksandra Lewandowska. (2008), “Is the Marketing Concept Always Necessary? The Effectiveness of Customer, Competitor and Societal Strategies in Business Environment Types”, European Journal of Marketing. Bradford, Vol. 42 No. 1/1, 2008. pg. 222. 175. Website: http://www.ngosindia.com for data on Indian NGOs, methods of registration, related legislation, tracer for NGOs and Funding agencies, development focus. 176. Weinrich, Nedra Klein, “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social Marketing Research”, 1996 Issue of the Social Marketing Quarterly, Washington D C, 1996. 177. Weinrich, Nedra Klein, “Research in the Social Marketing Process”, Weinreich Communications, Issue of the Social Marketing Quarterly, Connecticut Ave., Washington D C, 1992. 178. Weinrich, Nedra Klein, “What is Social Marketing?” Weinreich Communications, Issue of the Social Marketing Quarterly, Connecticut Ave., Washington D C. 179. Weinreich, Nedra Klein, “Hands-on Social Marketing – A Step-by-Step Guide”, Publishers: SAGE. 1999. 180. White, Mark, “Three Organizational Types: Evolving from Static and Dynamic to Adaptive”, Reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC), 2001. 181. Wiebe G D, “Can Brotherhood be Sold Like Soap?”, Publishers Brian Cugelman, 1952. 182. Williams, Francis, “Audit Culture Learns from Corporations”, Financial Times, London, May 5, 2005. pg. 3. 183. Workshop Report, “The Future of Civil Society Accountability”, Workshop held at the World Social Forum, at Porto Alegre, Brazil, organized by Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations, January 30, 2005. 184. World Bank, “Working with NGOs: A Practical Guide to Operational Collaboration between the World Bank and Non-Government al Organizations”, Operations Policy Department, World Bank, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1995.pp 7-9. 185. World Bank Dissemination Note No. 22, date not known, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 186. World Bank India, “Lessons Learnt from NGOs Working on Bank Operations”, Representatives of Civil Society Organizations Dialogue, New Delhi, September 3, 2007. 187. World Bank Operating Manual, “Involving Non-Governmental Organizations in World Bank Supported Activities”, Abstracted and reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC), 1989.


283

188. World Bank, “Working with NGOs A Practical Guide to Operational Collaboration between the World Bank and Non-Governmental Organizations”, Operations Policy Department, World Bank, 1995. pg.29. 189. World NGO Conference, “NGO Development: Focal Issues, Research” Report of the First Preparatory Meeting Held at UNU Headquarters, Tokyo, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC), 23-24 September 1996. 190. Yeshodara K, “Role of NGOs in Promoting Non-Formal Environment Education: A Case Study in Bangalore District”, Project Report, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 2004. 191. Zadek, Simon and Raynard, Peter, “Accounting for Change: The Practice of Social Auditing”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 192. Zaidi, S Akbar, “NGO Failure and the Need to Bring Back the State”, Journal of International Development, Chichester, Vol. 11, No. 2, March/April 1999. pg. 259.


284

APPENDIX 3 WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://www.aiuweb.org

2. http://www.capart.nic.in

3. http://www.foundation.novartis.com

4. http://www.gdrc.org

5. http://www.globalpolicy.org

6. http:///www.g‐rap.org

7. http://www.hausercenter.org

8. http://www.hlfppt.org

9. http://www.interventions.org

10. http://www.isec.ac.in

11. http://www.karmayog.com

12. http://www.managementhelp.org

13. http://www.marketing.strath.ac.uk

14. http://www.media.socialchange.net.au

15. http://www.mkt4change.com

16. http://www.ngosindia.com

17. http://www.planningcommission.nic.in

18. http://www.proquest.com

19. http://www.psp‐one.com

20. http://www.social‐marketing.com


285

21. http://www.social‐marketing.org

22. http://www.tafva.org

23. http://www.toolsofchange.com

24. http://www.un‐ngls.org

25. http://www.worldbank.org

26. http://www.actionindia.org

27. http://www.akshayapatra.org

28. http://www.awake‐india.org

29. http://www.frlht‐india.org

30. http://www.ihdua.org

31. http://www.jeevika‐free.org

32. http://[email protected]

33. http://www.vhai.org

34. http://www.adats.com

35. http://www.amefound.org

36. http://www.greenconserv.com

37. http://www.samuha.org

38. http://www.myrada.org

39. http://www.actionaidindia.org

40. http://www.asadev.com

41. http://www.aidindia.org

42. http://www.absngo.org

43. http://www.craftscouncilindia.org

44. http://www.ektamadurai.com


286

45. http://www.foodindia.org.in

46. http://www.gandhigram.org

47. http://www.ashanet.org 48. http://www.socialactionmovement.com

49. http://www.socialactionmovement.com

50. http://www.addictionindia.org

51. http://www.tribalhealth.org

52. http://www.vcdsindia.org

53. http://www.tnvha.org

54. http://www.womenscollective.net

55. http://www.yssa.org

56. http://www.anawimtrust.org

57. http://www.cdstheni.org

58. http://www.dpgsulo.com

59. http://www.deshhealth.org

60. http://www.credindia.org


287

APPENDIX 4 (para ref: 17.17) QUESTIONNAIRE SPECIMEN FOR INTERVIEWS WITH NGOs

(for Vimala Parthasarathy’s research for PhD program under Manipal University) This survey may help a better understanding of the effective practices of the voluntary sector in socio economic development. Kindly extend your cooperation. Information gathered by this survey will be used for an overall appreciation. Information furnished in response to this Questionnaire will not be used in any manner that is prejudicial to your interest. Thank you for agreeing to give your time and effort A. GENERAL INFORMATIONA1 Date/s and Place

of Interview: A2 Name of Interviewer: A3 Name of NGO: A4 Phone and website: A5 Whom interviewed?

Name & designation: A6 Geographical coverage of activities:

A7 Deal directly with target Communities or

indirectly through Other NGOs/partners: (tick) Directly / Through NGOs or partners

A8 Approximate amount of annual expenditure: Rs Lakhs

Rs.

A9 Full time staff: In the office: In the field:

A10 Part time staff/volunteers: In the office: In the field:

A11 Under which Act of Government are you registered?

A12 Which year was your organization established?

B1. Which of the following are covered by your activities? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Social service like care of aged, disadvantaged, street children, destitute women, orphans etc (b) Running hospitals, schools, other types of educational institutions (c) Empowerment of dalits, women, tribals, other disadvantaged segments

thru income generating activities, SHGs

(d) Work among HIV affected segments (e) Creating awareness of right sexual habits and of other health related issues (f) Promoting community management of common resources (g) Promoting conservation of natural resources and environment (h) Delivery of special products or services for community health improvement (i) Promoting change of habits and behavior relating to social, health or environment al concerns (j) Helping any section/s of society to articulate their needs (advocacy) (k) Any other (specify below) C1. Do you have measureable objectives? That is, objectives those are quantified and compared periodically with progress

Check only ONE of the following

(a) Yes (b) No

C2. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, please name 2 objectives, in a few words. Answer: 1.


288

2. C3. Do you have a formal statement of mission and objectives?


(a) Yes (b) No C4. If the answer to the above question is yes, can you give a copy please? D1. Who influences the CHOICE of theme for your major projects? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Government state/central (b) Local body of the government (c) Community leaders (d) General Community (e) Donors (f) Mother NGO (g) Your internal management, including field staff (h) Any other (specify below)

D2. Which of the following are involved in DESIGNING your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Government state/central (b) Local body of the government (c) Community leaders (d) General Community (e) Donors (f) Mother NGO (g) Your internal management, including field staff (h) Any other (specify below)

D3. Which of the following are involved in IMPLEMENTATION of your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Government state/central (b) Local body of the government (c) Community leaders (d) General Community (e) Donors (f) Mother NGO (g) Your internal management, including field staff (h) Any other (specify below)

D4. If the answer to the above questions is (c) and/or (d) indicate how often you are in touch with the target community.


(a) Once in a month (b) Once in 3 months (c) Once in 6 months (d) Once a year (e) Once in more than a year (f) Rarely in touch


289

D5. What in your view is the most innovative feature of your programs? State in a line or two. Answer: D6. This question is only for Apex NGOs What types of services do you provide your member NGOs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Training their field staff (b) Training their supervisors/managers (c) Extending assistance in fund raising (d) Extending assistance in preparation of their plans and proposals (e) Supplying promotional material (f) Extending financial assistance for infra structure / equipment (g) Any other (specify below)

D7. How many programs have been successfully completed in the last three years? Answer: Number of programs - D8. How many programs are currently in progress? Answer: Number of programs -

E1. Do you measure the success of your activities?


(a) Yes (b) No E2. If the answer to the above question is yes, how? - list main criteria used Criteria 1. 2. 3. E3. Give one or more examples of effectiveness of one of your programs Answer: E4. Do you get feedback on your program methods?


(a) Yes (b) No E5. If the answer to the above question is yes, how?


(a) Feedback is spontaneous (b) You seek feedback E6. From whom do you get the feedback? Check as many as applicable to your situation


290

(a) Actual beneficiaries at community level (b) Beneficiary NGOs (if applicable) (c) Community leaders (d) Donors (e) Your field staff (f) Any other (specify below)

E7. Can you please indicate what percentage of total expenditure, approximately, is your annual administration expense? (expenses on staff and office expenses form administrative expenses)


(a) 10-20% (b) 21-40% (c) 41-50% (d) 51-60% (e) Over 60% E8. Over the last 3 years, what is the trend of your administration expenses?


(a) Increasing (b) Decreasing (c) More or less constant F1. It is believed by experts that NGO activity in socio economic development has large similarities with marketing of products and services in the commercial world. With your experience, do you agree with this statement? In other words, how applicable do you think are marketing practices in your programs?


(a) Not at all applicable (b) Rarely applicable (c) Occasionally applicable (d) Largely applicable (e) Very much applicable F2. If the answer to the above is (a), (b) or (c), can you say why? – in one or two sentences Answer: F3. If the answer to the above is (d) or (e), are marketing practices of the commercial sphere applicable as they are or applicable with changes to suit socio-economic activities?


(a) Commercial marketing practices are applicable in our activity as they are and without any major changes

(b) Commercial marketing practices are applicable in our activity ONLY with suitable changes

F4. If the answer is (b), what aspects of commercial marketing practices have to be adapted? Can you name please one or two examples from your practices Answer: (in one or two sentences)


291

F5. In NGO type of activity, unlike in commercial marketing, there could be some differences. Which of the following do you think are critical aspects in your experience? Check as many as applicable (a) Target audience resists change (b) Benefit may be delayed to the target community (c) Benefit may not be direct to the target community (d) Benefit may be invisible and not felt but present (e) Impact of program may not last, once withdrawn (f) Any other (specify below)

F6. Do you use any of following methods in designing and delivering your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Studying the needs of the community before designing the Program (b) Dividing the market into groups based on needs (c) Developing services for specific groups (d) Developing a system for delivery of services (e) Informing target groups about the program features (f) Developing a plan of action for a given period of say, one year (g) Assessing the effect of your program on the target group(h) Any other (specify below)

F7. Name three steps in selecting your target audience- Answer: 1. 2. 3. F8. Do you adopt any special strategies or practices to ensure the success of you activities? State briefly in two or three lines. Answer: F9. By what means do you communicate to your target group about your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Local newspapers/magazines (b) Printed leaflets (c) Propaganda vans (d) Group meetings (e) Using opinion leaders (f) Posters (g) Audio visuals (h) Radio (i) Word of mouth (j) Any Other (specify below)

F10. Approximately what percentage of your expenditure is used for communication? Answer: % F11. Are there any measures to further increase your program effectiveness, other than what you are already using?


(a) Yes (b) No


292

F12. If the answer to the above question is yes, can you name one or two factors that could help to increase program effectiveness? Answer: 1. 2. F13. How important are social and cultural features of your target community in affecting your programs?


(a) Least important (b) Not very important (c) Somewhat important (d) Important (e) Extremely important F14. If the answer to the above is (d) or (e), please name 2 examples of how your program design or other practices had to be changed to suit the social and cultural needs of the community. Answer: 1. 2. G1. Are you in touch with the government at any level?


(a) Yes (b) No G2. If the answer to the above question is yes, how often do you interact with them?


(a) Once in a month (b) Once in 3 months (c) Once in 6 months (d) Once a year (e) Once in more than a year (f) Rarely in touch G3. At which level of govt. are you in touch with? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) State govt. (b) District authorities (c) Local govt bodies at community level (d) Any other govt body (specify below)

G4. How would you describe your interaction/relationship with the government?


(a) Co-operative (supporting each other mutually) (b) Antagonistic (relationship of conflict) (c) Passive (govt. is non-interfering) (d) Facilitative (where NGO assists govt. through advice, training etc.) (e) Any other (specify below)


293

G5. Can you rank the following in the order of their importance to your operations as stakeholders? RANK IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE, THE MOST IMPORTANT AS 1 Rank(a) Government (b) Donors (c) Local bodies (d) Target community (e) General public (f) Community opinion leaders (g) Partners (h) Community based organizations (i) Any Other (specify below)

G6. Do you have any alliances or strategic partnerships?


(a) Yes (b) No G7. If the answer to the above question is yes, with whom? Answer (name of alliance partner): G8. What is the main purpose of the partnership? Answer: G9. Approximately how often do you interact with your funding benefactors?


(a) Once in a month (b) Once in 3 months (c) Once in 6 months (d) Once a year (e) Once in more than a year (f) Rarely in touch G10. Which of the following describes the nature of your relationship with neighboring NGOs operating in the same activity/area?


(a) Not interfering with each other (b) Conflicting (c) Mutual adjustment to resolve conflicts (d) Active cooperation towards common goals (e) Any Other (specify below) H1. Estimate the importance of the image of your organization in the Table below


(a) Least important (b) Not very important (c) Somewhat important (d) Important (e) Extremely important


294

H2. If your answer to the above is (d) or (e), do you have specific methods to project the image of your organization to your stakeholders?


(a) Yes, we do vigorously (b) Yes, but not much (c) Not at present H3. If your answer to the first question above is (a), how do you project it? Name three steps. Answer: 1. 2. 3. H4. Name two outstanding features of your organization of which you are proud - in three or four words each. Answer: 1. 2. I1. What are the different departments of your organization? Answer: I2. Who do your field staff report to? And who does that person in turn report to? (Give only designations and not names). Answer: I3. Can you name one most important factor against each of the following as relevant to your organization?

Please respond to all 4

Name One against each (a) Your organization’s strength (b) Your organisation’s weakness (c) What major opportunity for expansion do you see? (d) What one threat do you see for your growth/survival? I4. Do you engage outside expert for special assignments?


(a) Yes (b) No I5. If the answer to the above question is yes, for what kind of assistance? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Training field staff (b) Training supervisors/managers (c) Assistance in fund raising (d) Preparation of their plans, proposals (e) Marketing training (f) Progress monitoring (g) Designing Reporting systems (h) Management audit (i) Participatory methods (j) Leadership training (k) Any Other (specify below)


295

J1. How are your field staff able to handle their responsibilities? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) They have learnt by experience (b) They are periodically trained internally (c) They are periodically trained by external agencies (d) A few of them have marketing diplomas/degrees (e) Many of them have marketing diplomas/degrees(f) Any other (specify below)

J2. If your answer to the above is (c), which agency gives the training for the field staff? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Donor (b) Apex or mother NGO (c) Outside expert/consultant (g) Any other (specify below)

J3. Which are areas in which you intend to take outside support for designing and implementing your programs? Check only those that you intend to use (a) Formulation of marketing strategies (b) Field and supervisory staff training (c) Fund raising strategies (d) Program impact measurement (e) Communication methodologies (f) Monitoring progress (g) Any other (specify below)

J4. This question is only for Apex NGOs Do you undertake capacity building of your member NGOs?


(a) Yes (b) No J5. This question is only for Apex NGOs If the answer to the above question is yes, what types of assistance are provided by you? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Training their field staff (b) Training their supervisors/managers (c) Extending assistance in fund raising (d) Extending assistance in preparation of their plans and proposals (e) Supplying promotional material (f) Extending financial assistance for infra structure / equipment (g) Marketing training (h) Progress monitoring (i) Reporting systems (j) Relationship building (k) Participatory methods (l) Leadership training (m) Any Other (specify below)


296

K1. Which are your main funding sources? Please indicate app. percentage of funds from each source in Table below – Fill as many as applicable to your situation Mark zero if any source is not relevant to your situation Source %(a) Domestic - Government – State (b) Domestic – Government – Central (c) Domestic – Institutions (d) Domestic – General Public (e) Overseas – Institutions and Individuals (f) Your own generated surplus (g) Any other (specify below) 100% K2. How much time do you spend on activities relating to fund raising?


(a) Continuously throughout the year (b) On and off throughout the year © On and off over 6 months in a year (d) On and off over 3 months in a year (e) Over 1 month in a year K3. Do any of the following factors affect your fund raising capacity? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Lack of necessary contacts (b) Lack of knowledge of fund raising methods (c) Want of information regarding sources (d) Differences between expectations of donor and your

methods/approaches

(e) Lack of legal status to create confidence in donors (f) Any other (specify below)

(g) None – our fund raising capacity not affected K4. Do you have any income generating programs?


(a) Yes (b) No K5. If the answer to the above question is yes, approximately how much income is generated per year? Answer: Rs.

L1. When you are satisfied that a sustainable impact has been achieved in a chosen area/segment, do you move the program and resources to another area/segment?


(a) Yes (b) No L2. If the answer to the above question is yes, how long does it take to create the desired impact permanently and move to the next area? Check only ONE of the following (a) Up to 2 years (b) 3-4 years (c) 5-6 years (d) Longer than 6 years


297

L3. If no, what is the main reason?


(a) Program discontinued (b) Lack of funds (c) No approval from Donor (d) Any other (specify below)

L4. Is the created impact sustained after you have moved out?


(a) Yes (b) No L5. If the answer to the above question is yes, please name 2 key factors that have sustained the impact without any continued major support from you. Answer: L6. How is the post-program impact measured and known? Answer in two sentences:

L7. Which factors are the most critical for your organization’s successful operation? Rank the following factors in the order of importance.

Check ANY THREE you consider most important – RANK as 1, 2, 3 (a) Continuity of funds (b) Trained staff (c) Leadership and effective Management (d) Knowledge of marketing strategies (e) Program implementation (f) Contact with community (g) Clarity of Objectives (h) Infra structure & equipment (i) Employing marketing practices (j) Any other (specify below)

L8. Do you generate a surplus of income over expenditure?


(a) Yes (b) No L9. If the answer to the above question is yes, what percentage of total income is this surplus?

Answer: % M1. Who do you report to or keep informed regarding your organization’s performance and results? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Board of trustees/Board of Management


298

(b) Your staff (c) Main funding agencies (d) Government /local bodies (e) Local community leaders (f) Mother NGO (g) Any other (specify below)

M2. Can you describe, in 2-3 lines, the procedure you have for the above – i.e. reporting/informing? Answer:


299

APPENDIX 5 (para ref: 17.18)

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DONORS / EXPERTS (for Vimala Parthasarathy’s research for PhD program)

I would appreciate the benefit of your experience and knowledge of the NGO sector to help study the activities of this rapidly growing sector. No information furnished will be used to the disadvantage of any of the interviewees/ organizations. To minimize your inconvenience, answers can be provided in short form or in a couple of sentences as appropriate to each question. Further elaboration is at your discretion and convenience. -----------------------------------------------

1. Are marketing practices - such as those applied to consumer goods and consumer durables - also

relevant to socio-economic development activities (examples: change in sexual habits to protect against AIDS, natural resource conservation, saving and investment habits through self help groups etc) of the NGO sector?

2. If the answer is “no”, what are factors that prevent the application of marketing practices by NGOs?

3. If the answer is “yes”, which of the following practices would be feasible and useful for the NGO sector in successfully designing and delivering programs?

Check as many as applicable (a) Studying the needs of the community before designing the program (b) Dividing the market into groups based on needs (c) Developing services for specific groups (d) Developing a system for delivery of services (e) Informing target groups about the program features (f) Developing a plan of action for a given period of say, one year (g) Assessing the effect of program on the target group (h) Monitoring progress (i) Communication methodologies (j) Any other (specify below)

4. If relationship management is important for the NGO sector, who are the stakeholders with whom they should build relationships – in order of priority?

5. What main measures would you recommend to build such relationships?

6. Does the current legislative framework give NGOs, engaged in socio economic activity, a distinguishing legal identity with appropriate reporting requirements? Kindly explain briefly

7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the present legislative framework from a donor

viewpoint?

8. Please name three important traits that donors had considered in selecting NGOs who are their current

fund / assistance recipients.


300

9. What suggestions would you make to NGOs for demonstrating their accountability to stakeholders? 10. Can you offer one or two simple practical formulae to assess performance effectiveness in an NGO?

11. In your opinion, what is a reasonable % for administration expenses out of total expenditure (including program expenditure) to be considered efficient?

12. Please rank the following factors for NGOs’ successful operation, in the descending order of importance.

(a) Continuity of funds (b) Trained staff (c) Leadership and effective management (d) Knowledge and practice of marketing strategies(e) Cost effective program implementation (f) Contact with community (g) Clarity of objectives (h) Infra structure & equipment (i) Any other (specify below)

13. Based on your knowledge of NGO managements, can you rate NGOs in general, with respect to each

of the following aspects? Check appropriate column against each factor listed

1 2 3 4 5

PRACTICALLY ABSENT (Non existent)

YES, BUT SCRAPPY AND NOT SYSTEMATIC

SYSTEMS EXIST BUT NOT PURSUED AS PART OF MANAGEMENT PROCESS

REASONABLE & SATISFACTORY (Satisfactory)

OF HIGH ORDER

(a) Effective use of resources

(b) Regular measurement of impact of programs

(c) Periodic comparison of progress against goals

(d) Efforts and systems to ensure operations are cost effective

(e) Availability of a systematic tracking mechanism for above

(f) Any other aspects you would like to add (specify)

NAME DESIGNATION ORGANIZATION DFID :


301


ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR DONORS / EXPERTS FOR DEPTH INTERVIEWS Thank you for responding specifically to the questionnaire. Please give me a few minutes to get the benefit of your insights into the NGO sector to ask you a few open-ended questions. I expect that this part of the session will take about 20 minutes. I very much appreciate your patience, help and cooperation.

1. “NGOs applying marketing methods, with suitable adjustments, to the development sector are

more effective and attract more committed assistance than those that lag behind in this aspect.” Would you or disagree with this hypothesis, based on a general overview of this sector? Kindly explain your reaction.

2. What is your mental model of an “ideal” NGO under Indian conditions? You may wish to put it in the form of Your Own Prescription of 5 Do’s and 5 Don’ts – based on a spontaneous top-of-the mind recall basis.

3. Can you describe in your experience, a major event with respect to any NGO, which could be positive or negative in nature? Examples of such events are – a) Total collapse of an NGO or project of an NGO b) Major restructuring of an NGO due to fraud or corruption or mismanagement and c) Resounding success beyond expectations/targets of an NGO or NGO project.


302


OBSERVATION FORMAT SUMMARY OF SCORES NO. QUALITATIVE ASPECT R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R1/A/38 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 M21/A/P142 M17/A/1447 M20/A/P27 M1/F/32 M12/F/1053 AVERAGE

1 Appointment process

3 2 3 1 2 5 5 5 1 5 3.2

2 Attitude towards interview

5 1 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4.1

3 Degree of focus at interview

3 3 3 4 2 5 5 5 5 2 3.7

4 Transparency at the functional level

4 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.2

5 Quality of info provided

4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4.4

6 Quality of articulation

5 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.3

7 Technical knowledge esp of marketing

3 3 3 3 2 4 5 3 5 4 3.5

8 Understanding of Objectives & Mission

5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9

9 Level of Sharing Information

5 1 2 4 2 5 5 5 4 5 3.8

10 Inhibition to reveal or express

5 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.5

11 Rapport with superiors / members

0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0.5

12 Connectivity below the hierarchy

0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5

13 Connectivity across organisations

5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.7

14 Functional awareness

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0

15 Knowledge State

5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.8

16 Skill Level

0 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 0 4 3.2

17 Knowledge of Markets

4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.6

18 Type of Leadership

0 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 4 2.9

TOTAL 61 51 62 68 59 83 78 73 62 71 66.8KT AND TN NGO AVERAGE 60 73

IMPORTANT: ZERO VALUE INDICATES THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS AVAILABLE FOR ASSESSMENT


303

APPENDIX 8

OBJECTIVE RATING FOR NGO SAMPLE SELECTION

(para ref: 17.10) (5 TABLES 8A TO 8E)


304

NGO RATING CRITERIA ‐ WEIGHTAGES FOR SELECT CRITERIA AS ASSESSED BY EXPERTS ‐ APPENDIX 8A (1‐20 BY MANAGEMENT EXPERTS AND 21‐40 BY PROFESSORS)SUMMARY SHEET BASED ON 100 ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT EXPERTS NO ASSESSOR DESIGNATION FUNDS ORGN

EXPERIENCE OBJECTIVES PROG EXP GEOG

COVERAGE ORGN SUPPORT

PERF. EFF. TOTAL

1 KINI MG DIRECTOR, TITANIUM INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD 16.36 10.91 12.73 12.73 14.55 16.36 16.36 100

2 MAHALINGAM CEO, T S M & SONS AND CITI SHELTERS 14.14 10.10 18.18 12.12 12.12 15.15 18.18 100

3 MENON K V RETD CHAIRMAN, MADRAS FERTILISERS LTD 10.71 16.67 19.05 10.71 13.10 11.90 17.86 100

4 MURALI EX CEO AND CURRENTLY PROF OF MANAGEMENT 10.00 10.00 25.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 100

5 PADMANABHAN RETD DIRECTOR HRD, INDIAN AIRLINES 10.00 5.00 15.00 35.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 100

6 PARTHASARATHY N S RETD CEO OF INDIAN Cos AND CONSULTANT FAO (UN) 25.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 100

7 PARTHASARATHY V K RETD CEO, SANMAR INVESTMENT CO 12.50 16.67 20.83 12.50 10.42 10.42 16.67 100

8 PRAVIN SENIOR HRD CONSULTANT 15.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 20.00 30.00 100

9 SHANTA RAGHAVAN RETD G M STATE BANK OF INDIA 11.13 11.13 18.37 13.91 9.28 17.63 18.55 100

10 SUHAS TAPASWI NGO EXPERT & CONSULTANT 15.38 12.82 25.64 7.69 0.00 12.82 25.64 100

11 SIDHARTHA DIRECTOR, POWER CENTRE P LTD, IT CO 13.16 14.04 15.79 15.79 10.53 13.16 17.54 100

12 SIVADASS PROMOTER & CEO, SCOPE E‐KNOWLEDGE CENTER 25.00 10.00 20.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 100

13 SREEDHAR RTED G M MARKETING OF TVS SUZUKI 15.09 14.15 16.98 14.15 9.43 15.09 15.09 100 14 SRINIVASAN SENIOR REFINERY CONSULTANT 19.28 12.05 19.28 12.05 6.02 14.46 16.87 100

15 THOBIAS RETD DIRECTOR, CASTROL INDIA 25.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 10.00 5.00 15.00 100

16 VENKATESH CEO, SVANISHTA, STRATEGIC HR ADVISORY & EXECUTIVE SEARCH 40.00 15.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 100

17 VENKATESH (VENKY) SENIOR MARKETING CONSULTANT 15.69 11.76 17.65 13.73 9.80 15.69 15.69 100

18 VIJAYA MURTHY WELL KNOWN EDUCATIONIST 14.00 12.00 20.00 16.00 12.00 14.00 12.00 100

19 VINITA SIDHARTHA PROGRAM CONSULTANT, MULTI NATIONAL NGO 10.31 14.43 17.53 10.31 14.43 14.43 18.56 100

20 VISHAK RAMAN HEAD OF ASIA REGION OF FORTINET 30.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 8.00 10.00 20.00 100

21 DEEPAK R. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 16 11 17 16 5 17 17 100

22 PADMALATHA FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 13 11 13 16 15 17 14 100

23 BASU FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 10 13 16 16 15 15 16 100

24 VISWANATH FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 8 10 17 21 13 10 21 100

25 GUNDU RAO FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 15 15 10 5 10 10 35 100

26 VITHAL P. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 20 15 10 10 20 5 20 100

27 KELKAR M. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 25 35 10 5 7 8 10 100

28 SUBRAMANYAM MJ FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 17 8 25 17 8 8 17 100

29 PRASAD BENJAMIN FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 35 5 20 12 8 3 17 100

30 BADI NV FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 18 13 10 19 10 13 18 100

31 RAMADAS KL FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 19 19 19 16 13 16 0 100

32 ASHVINI JAYARAM FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 20 11 13 11 11 16 20 100

33 UDUPA J FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 16 11 20 16 11 11 16 100

34 NEWSOME FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 17 14 16 13 9 15 16 100

35 SUMUKH HUNGUND FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 15 10 13 15 18 15 12 100

36 PADMINI RAO FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 14 12 15 14 12 15 16 100

37 SHASHIDHARA FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 15 14 13 13 15 14 16 100


305

38 ASHOK GUPTA FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 16 14 16 16 8 14 16 100

39 PRABHUDEV V. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 30 10 15 20 8 8 10 100

40 SRIDHAR M.K. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 13 19 19 9 6 16 19 100

AVERAGE 17.47 12.68 16.24 13.73 9.87 12.56 17.50 100.00

STANDARD DEVIATION 7.04 4.69 4.52 5.17 3.98 3.82 5.46

CORRECTION FACTOR FOR STANDARD DEVIATION 60 63 72 62 60 70 69

CORRECTED AVERAGE 10.43 7.99 11.72 8.55 5.89 8.75 12.05 65.39

CORRECTED AVERAGE ADJUSTED TO 100 15.95 12.22 17.93 13.08 9.01 13.38 18.42 100.00

CV 40.29 36.97 27.82 37.69 40.30 30.37 31.18


306

CLASSIFICATION RATING SCALE AND CRITERIA APPENDIX 8B

NO CRITERION RATING SCALE

1 2 3 4 51 FUNDING

1A Sources* No info Single main source Two main sources Three main sources More than three sources

1B Dependence No Info More on overseas institutional than domestic

Balanced dependence More on domestic than overseas institutional

Almost entirely domestic

1C Continuity No Info Interruption frequent ‐ almost every year

Interruption once in about two years

Interruption once in about three years

No major interruption

2 ORGANISATIONAL EXPERIENCE

2A Experience No info 5 years or less 6‐10 years 10‐20 years over 20 years

2B Spread of activities/ target groups No info Single focus Two focus areas ‐ target groups 3‐4 areas / target groups Multi focus

2C Contact with community ‐ directness No info More indirect than direct Balanced More direct than indirect Mostly direct

2D Contact with community ‐ degree of formality No info More formal than informal Both formal and informal More informal than formal Mostly informal

3 OBJECTIVES

3A Clarity and match with mission No info Absence of vision/mission/ objectives or objectives poorly matched with mission

Objectives partly matching mission Objectives largely matching mission

Objectives and mission well matched

3B Specificity No info Too general Parts specific Largely specific Mostly specific

4 PROGRAM EXPENDITURE

4A Information availability No info Scrappy information Partial information Reasonable information Full information and transparent

4B Availability of details No info Scrappy details Partial availability of details Details largely available Full details available

4C Annual expenditure level No info 5 laks or less 6‐10 lakhs 10‐20 lakhs More than 20 lakhs


307

5 GEOGRAPHICAL COVER

5A Shifting of area of operation upon completion of objective

No info Continuous activity in one area Shifted to second area Shifted to third area Shifted several times

5B Geographical spread No info Cluster of villages One district Several districts of one state

Beyond one state

5 ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY

6A Staff training No info Internally trained More internal than formal external training

More formal external than internal training

Mostly formal external training

6B Infrastructure No info Poorly equipped Basic equipment Above average infra structure Well equipped and advanced

7 PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS

7A Effectiveness and recognitions No info Information available not enough to judge effectiveness

Information re awards / other recognitions

Enough information on effectiveness

Both as under 3 and 4 available

*SOURCES ARE CALSSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: OVERSEAS, INSTITUTIONAL OR INDIVIDUAL, DOMESTIC CENTRAL/STATE, DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONAL, DOMESTIC GENERAL PUBLIC, DOMESTIC SELF GENERATED


308

NGO CLASSIFICATION KARNATAKA ‐ APPENDIX 8 C ‐ RATING ON 1 TO 5 SCALE

ID NO.

CRITERIA

FUNDING ORGN EXPERIENCE

OBJECTIVES PROG EXPENDITURE GEOGRAPHICAL

SPREAD ORGN CAPACITY

PERF EFF

GROSS TOTAL/ AVERAGE TOTAL/

WEIGHTED TOTAL SCORE

SOURCES DEPENDENCE CONTINUITY YEARS SPREAD COMMUNITY CONTACT ‐ DIRECTNESS

COMMUNITY CONTACT ‐ FORMALITY

CLARITY SPECIFICITY ADEQUACY OF INFO

BREAK UP

DETAILS

AMOUNT OF EXP

AREA SHIFT

SIZE TRAINING INFRASTRUCTURE

R1/A/38 3 4 1 5 5 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 1 5 2 5 4 58

AVERAGE 2.7 3.5 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 23.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 141.02 80.58 201.46 120.87 141.02 161.17 954

R2/A/X 2 4 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 5 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 54

AVERAGE 2.3 2.5 1.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 23.3

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 94.01 100.73 40.29 201.46 141.02 161.17 201.46 940

R3/A/259 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 5 34

AVERAGE 1.7 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 15.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 100.73 40.29 40.29 100.73 80.58 201.46 631

R4/F/371 3 1 1 4 5 4 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 39

AVERAGE 1.7 4.3 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 14.9

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 171.24 100.73 40.29 100.73 40.29 80.58 601

R5/F/389 3 4 1 5 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 41

AVERAGE 2.7 4.5 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 14.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 181.31 40.29 40.29 100.73 80.58 40.29 591

R5/F/389 3 1 1 4 2 4 4 5 3 1 1 1 2 5 5 5 5 52

AVERAGE 1.7 3.5 4.0 1.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 23.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 141.02 161.17 40.29 141.02 201.46 201.46 954

R7/F/678 4 4 1 4 2 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 5 46

AVERAGE 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.7 1.5 1.5 5.0 18.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 120.87 161.17 40.29 107.44 60.44 60.44 201.46 752

R8/A/746 3 4 1 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 1 5 1 4 1 5 2 58

AVERAGE 2.7 4.3 5.0 3.3 2.5 3.0 2.0 22.8

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 171.24 201.46 134.31 100.73 120.87 80.58 917

R9/F/780 4 1 1 4 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 35

AVERAGE 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 13.0

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 80.58 161.17 80.58 40.29 40.29 40.29 80.58 524


309

R10/A/1450 2 4 1 5 2 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 5 44

AVERAGE 2.3 2.8 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 20.1

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 94.01 110.80 201.46 40.29 120.87 40.29 201.46 809

R11/F/1477 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 4 60

AVERAGE 3.3 5.0 3.5 2.7 2.0 3.5 4.0 24.0

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 201.46 141.02 107.44 80.58 141.02 161.17 967

R12/F/1545 3 2 5 5 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 2 44

AVERAGE 3.3 4.0 1.0 2.3 2.5 1.0 2.0 16.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 161.17 40.29 94.01 100.73 40.29 80.58 651

R13/F/P22 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 1 5 4 69

AVERAGE 3.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 27.3

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 201.46 201.46 201.46 80.58 120.87 161.17 1101

R14/A/P23 3 2 5 4 5 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 5 4 52

AVERAGE 3.3 3.3 5.0 1.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 22.6

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 130.95 201.46 40.29 100.73 141.02 161.17 910

R15/F/P28 3 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 1 4 1 1 5 60

AVERAGE 3.3 4.0 4.5 4.3 2.5 1.0 5.0 24.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 161.17 181.31 174.60 100.73 40.29 201.46 994

R16/F/P31 3 1 1 4 1 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 4 1 3 4 43

AVERAGE 1.7 3.8 1.0 2.7 2.5 2.0 4.0 17.6

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 151.09 40.29 107.44 100.73 80.58 161.17 708

R17/A/P33 3 2 5 5 2 3 3 5 5 3 3 5 1 4 3 5 4 61

AVERAGE 3.3 3.3 5.0 3.7 2.5 4.0 4.0 25.8

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 130.95 201.46 147.74 100.73 161.17 161.17 1038

R18/A/P9 3 2 5 5 5 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 3 5 5 68

AVERAGE 3.3 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 28.8

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 141.02 201.46 201.46 120.87 161.17 201.46 1162

R19/A/X 1 1 1 5 5 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 2 5 4 47

AVERAGE 1.0 3.5 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 21.0

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 40.29 141.02 201.46 40.29 120.87 141.02 161.17 846


310

NGO CLASSIFICATION TAMILNADU – APPENDIX 8D ‐ RATING ON 1 TO 5 SCALE

ID NO

CRITERIA

FUNDING ORGN EXPERIENCE

OBJECTIVES PROG EXPENDITURE GEOGRAPHICAL

SPREAD ORGN CAPACITY

PERF EFF

GROSS TOTAL/ AVERAGE TOTAL/

WEIGHTED TOTAL SCORE

SOURCES DEPENDENCE CONTINUITY YEARS SPREAD COMMUNITY CONTACT – DIRECTNESS

COMMUNITY CONTACT ‐ FORMALITY

CLARITY SPECIFICITY ADEQUACY OF INFO

BREAK UP DETAILS

AMOUNT OF EXP

AREA SHIFT

SIZE TRG INFRA

STRUCTURE

M1/F/32 1 4 5 5 2 5 5 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 4 54

AVERAGE 3.3 4.3 4.5 1.0 1.5 4.0 4.0 22.6

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 134.31 171.24 181.31 40.29 60.44 161.17 161.17 910

M2/F/50 3 1 1 5 5 5 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 47

AVERAGE 1.7 5.0 4.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 17.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 201.46 161.17 40.29 100.73 100.73 40.29 712

M3/A/128 2 2 1 5 5 3 3 1 1 5 5 5 1 4 1 5 2 51

AVERAGE 1.7 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 19.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 161.17 40.29 201.46 100.73 120.87 80.58 772

M4/F/244 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 34

AVERAGE 1.7 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 13.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 120.87 161.17 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 531

M5/F/289 1 4 1 4 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 41

AVERAGE 2.0 4.3 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 15.3

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 80.58 171.24 80.58 40.29 100.73 100.73 40.29 614

M6/F/455 3 1 1 5 2 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 5 1 48

AVERAGE 1.7 4.3 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 18.9

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 171.24 201.46 40.29 120.87 120.87 40.29 762

M7/F/522 3 2 1 4 5 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 41

AVERAGE 2.0 4.8 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 14.8

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 80.58 191.39 80.58 40.29 80.58 80.58 40.29 594

M8/F/543 3 1 1 4 5 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 3 1 42

AVERAGE 1.7 4.8 1.0 2.7 1.5 2.0 1.0 14.6

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 191.39 40.29 107.44 60.44 80.58 40.29 588

M9/F/589 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 49

AVERAGE 2.7 5.0 1.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 1.0 17.5

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 201.46 40.29 94.01 100.73 120.87 40.29 705


311

M10/F/956 2 5 1 5 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 40

AVERAGE 2.7 4.3 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 14.4

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 107.44 171.24 80.58 40.29 60.44 80.58 40.29 581

M11/F/1004 3 1 1 4 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 36

AVERAGE 1.7 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 13.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 161.17 80.58 40.29 60.44 80.58 40.29 531

M12/F/1053 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 54

AVERAGE 2.7 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 22.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 201.46 201.46 40.29 80.58 80.58 201.46 913

M13/F/1074 2 5 1 5 3 5 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 43

AVERAGE 2.7 4.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 16.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 181.31 100.73 40.29 100.73 40.29 80.58 651

M14/F/1278 3 1 1 4 2 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 34

AVERAGE 1.7 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 13.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 161.17 40.29 40.29 60.44 40.29 120.87 531

M15/F/1355 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 44

AVERAGE 2.7 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 16.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 201.46 120.87 40.29 60.44 40.29 80.58 651

M16/F/1360 2 5 1 5 3 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 41

AVERAGE 2.7 4.5 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 14.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 181.31 80.58 40.29 60.44 80.58 40.29 591

M17/A/1447 2 1 5 5 3 2 2 5 5 1 1 5 1 5 5 5 5 58

AVERAGE 2.7 3.0 5.0 2.3 3.0 5.0 5.0 26.0

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 120.87 201.46 94.01 120.87 201.46 201.46 1048

M18/F/P24 3 1 1 4 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 39

AVERAGE 1.7 3.8 5.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 14.9

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 67.15 151.09 201.46 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 601

M19/F/P26 2 5 1 1 1 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 33

AVERAGE 2.7 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 12.2

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 120.87 80.58 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 490

M20/A/P27 4 2 1 5 5 2 2 5 5 3 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 51

AVERAGE 2.3 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 20.8

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 94.01 141.02 201.46 120.87 120.87 40.29 120.87 839

M21/A/P142 5 2 1 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 2 5 5 64

AVERAGE 2.7 3.3 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 27.4

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29


312

SCORE 107.44 130.95 201.46 201.46 120.87 141.02 201.46 1105

M22/F/X 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 42

2.7 5.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 14.7

WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29

SCORE 107.44 201.46 100.73 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 591


313

NGO OBJECTIVE RATING VALUES – APPENDIX 8 E

KARNATAKA TAMIL NADU

ID NO SCORE RANK ACC TO SCORE

C V RANK ACC TO CV

SCORE+CV RANK SCORE

ID NO SCORE RANK ACC TO SCORE

C V RANK ACC TO CV

SCORE+CV RANK SCORE

R17/A/P33 385 3 20.13 1 4 M21/A/P142 405 1 25.26 1 2

R18/A/P9 410 1 24.94 3 4 M17/A/1447 378 2 32.94 2 4

R13/F/P22 389 2 28.89 4 6 M1/F/32 344 3 45.55 4 7

R11/F/1477 342 6 24.56 2 8 M20/A/P27 299 5 40.44 3 8

R15/F/P28 366 4 39.23 8 12 M3/A/128 253 7 49.40 7 14

R1/A/38 326 9 30.29 5 14 M12/F/1053 328 4 51.42 11 15

R14/A/P23 333 8 38.62 7 15 M9/F/589 229 11 47.61 5 16

R8/A/746 325 10 32.26 6 16 M13/F/1074 230 10 51.61 12 22

R2/A/X 336 7 42.47 9 16 M2/F/50 235 8 54.63 14 22

R6/F/569 347 5 45.21 11 16 M5/F/289 209 13 50.77 10 23

R16/F/P31 249 14 43.10 10 24 M7/F/522 194 17 50.00 8 25

R19/A/X 300 12 50.00 14 26 M6/F/455 272 6 60.83 19 25

R10/A/1450 310 11 56.04 15 26 M15/F/1355 232 9 58.82 17 26

R12/F/1545 229 16 48.31 12 28 M19/F/P26 176 22 48.22 6 28

R7/F/678 287 13 57.60 16 29 M11/F/1004 180 21 50.72 9 30

R4/F/371 206 18 49.86 13 31 M10/F/956 204 15 55.12 15 30

R3/A/259 241 15 60.85 17 32 M16/F/1360 207 14 58.07 16 30

R5/F/389 207 17 66.62 18 35 M8/F/573 190 19 53.88 13 32

R9/F/780 199 19 67.52 19 38 M18/F/P24 220 12 75.76 22 34

M22/F/X 200 16 61.62 20 36

M14/F/1278 187 20 59.60 18 38

M4/F/244 191 18 62.39 21 39


314

APPENDIX 9 MATRIX FOR NGO QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

(para ref: 17.17)

(11 TABLES 9A TO 9K)


315

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES – BASIC INFORMATION – APPENXIX 9 A

BASIC INFORMATION C 1 C 2 C 3 C4

ID NO GEOG COVERAGE EXPERIENCE EXP

LACS STAFF

NO ROLE a-b or c-i or other

HAVE MEASBL

OBJ? NAME 2

HAVE FORMAL

STT? GIVE

R17/A/P33 6 DISTRICTS 2006 160 >160 BOTH Y REDUCE SPREAD OF HIV, REDUCE IMPACT OF AFFECTED Y Y R1/A/38 STATE 1973 250-300 13? BOTH Y NO OF ACRES, OF HOUSES FOR TRIBALS, REDN OF DISCRIM PRACTICES Y Y R11/F/1477 6 DISTRICTS 1985 15-20 48 BOTH Y NO OF SHGs FORMED, NO OF WOMEN FOR AWRENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP Y Y

R18/A/P9 7 DISTRICTS 1968 1800 225 ONLY SM Y SHG EMPOWERMENT IN TERMS OF NO OF LOANS RECD, EXTENT OF LAND TREATED FOR WATER SHED MGT Y Y

R13/F/P22 5 TALUKS 1977 NA 64 BOTH Y ENSURE CHILDREN OF 6 YRS GO TO SCHOOL, ENSURE COLLY FAMILIES GET GOV BENEFITS Y Y

M21/A/P142 3 DISTRICTS 1991 64 (TN) 20 BOTH Y NO OF TRG W/SHOPS, NO OF TARGET GROUPS IDENTIFIED Y Y M17/A/1447 STATE 1971 117 38 BOTH Y NO OF ORGS TRAINED, MEMBERSHIP GROWTH Y Y

M12/F/1053 5 DISTRICTS 1985 50 80 BOTH Y NO OF CHILD WORKERS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, TARGET NO OF CHILDREN IN PREP SCHOOLS FOR TRIBALS Y

WILL SEND

M20/A/P27 10 DISTRICTS 1986 300 47 BOTH Y INCREASE OF FAMILY INCOME OVER 4 YRS, NO OF KIDS 6 TO 14 TO BE IN SCHOOL Y Y

M1/F/32 1 DISTRICT 1986 100 65 SM Y EST VILLAGE VOL TEAMS IN ALL 200 VILLAGES, ENSURE LDRS ELECTED TO VILLAGE SANGHAM IN ALL 200 VILLAGES Y Y

a-b = SERVICE c-j + SM


316

MATRIX FOR RECORDING QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES – PROGRAM – APPENDIX 9 B D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 FOR APEX D7 D8

ID NO THEME CHOICE WHO? DESIGN WHO? IMPLTN WHO?

IF COMM, CONTACT

FREQ? INNOVATIVE FEATURE SERVICES GIVEN

# SUCCESSFUL

PROGS

# PROGS IN

PROGRESS

R17/A/P33 c d g h(

TRUSTEES) a b e g a b c d e g MONTHLY OWNERSHIP BUILDING OF HIV

& BEYOND NA 6 11

R1/A/38 c d c g h(OPINION LDRS) c d g h(NGOs

Academic instns) MONTHLY RIGHTS BASED, COM LED

INITIATIVE a b c e f 15 15

R11/F/1477 a b c d e g a b c d g h(outside tech

consultant) d MONTHLY+ COMMUNITY RUNNING

PROJECT WITHOUT HELP NA 7 4

R18/A/P9 d e g g d g MONTHLY+ DEMAND DRIVEN, FOCUSED

ON RECIPIENT NEEDS a b c d e f 100+ 40

R13/F/P22 d g f g d g MONTHLY+ CARBON DEVICE MECHANISM

NA 2 6

M21/A/P142 a b c d e f g a b c d e f g a b c d e f g MONTHLY

SOCIAL HEALTH ED, MENTAL VACCINATION (VS LECTURE

METHOD) a b d f 10 8

M17/A/1447 e h (members, WHO, UNICEF)

a e g h (members, WHO, UNICEF)

g h (members, WHO, UNICEF) NA

PROGRAMS REPLICABLE, PILOT PROJECTS WHICH ARE

MODEL FOR GOVT b d e g (linkage with funding

sources) 5-6 4

M12/F/1053 c g (mostly g) g b c g h (volunteers

frm abroad) QTRLY

PUBLIC HEARING METHOD WITH MEDIA INVOLVEMENT

FOR CHILD WKRS NA ONGOING ONGOING

M20/A/P27 c d g c d f g c d f g h (CBOs) MONTHLY FORMING CBOS AND CAP

BLDG a b c d e f g (creating linkages

with fin instns.) 3 2

M1/F/32 c g c g c g MONTHLY

TEAM MEMBERS FRM ADIVASI COMMUNITY, DECISIONS TAKEN & IMPL BY THEM NA 3 4


317

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - PROG EFFECTIVENESS – APPENDIX 9 C E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8

ID NO MEASURE SUCCESS? 3 CRITERIA EXAMPLES OF EFF

FEEDBACK ON

METHODS? SEEK OR

SPONTANEOUS? FB FROM WHOM?

ADM EXP AS % OF TOTAL

3 YR TREND OF ADM

EXP +, -, =

R17/A/P33 Y QUALITATIVE, QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS,

SUSTAINABILITY THRU MIS CREATED DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE FOR

TESTING & COUNSELLING Y SEEK a c d e f (DT AUTHORITIES) 10-20 =

R1/A/38 Y APPRECIATIVE ENQUIRY, QTTV MSMT, SOCIAL

CHANGE SLUM CIRCULAR WITHDRAWAL Y SEEK a b c e f(ALPS) 21-40 -

R11/F/1477 Y

INVOLVEMENT IN INCOME GENERATION, IF SO PROFIT, USAGE OF FACILITIES PROVIDED,

ACHMT OF PROJECT OBJ SHGs RUN THEMSELVES WITHOUT SUPPORT

Y SPONTANEOUS a c d e 10-20 =

R18/A/P9 Y

QTTV -NO OF HECTARES COVERED, NO OF PEOPLE COVERED, QLTV - CONCURRENT

ASSESMT, FIN ACTG - III PARTY AUDIT

GULBARGA FARMERS TOOR DHALL MKTG PROJECT GOAL ACHD Y SPONTANEOUS a e 10-20 =

R13/F/P22 Y ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL,

LOGBOOK FOR USE OF BIOGAS GREATER INTEREST IN BIO GAS USAGE Y SPONTANEOUS a e 40471.00 =

M21/A/P142 Y

(EXTERNAL EVALN) INFO AWARENESS BEFORE & AFTER, BEHVR CHANGE AFTER,

INVOLVEMENT IN ACTIVITES BEF & AFTER

GOOD FEEDBACK ON TRG, FUNDING AGENCIES APPN OF MASTER HEALTH CHECK

UP, CONDOM PROMOTION STAREGY A MODEL Y SEEK

a b c d e f (trainees) 41-50 +

M17/A/1447 Y

ARE NUMBERS REACHED, ARE TARGET GROUPS REACHED

80% OF RURAL YOUTH TRAINED & CONTD EDUCN OR GOT JOBS, RCH MORE HYGIENE

AWARENESS Y SEEK (part of project

mechanism) a b c d e f (govt) 10-20 (donors

norm) -

M12/F/1053 Y

NO OF CHILD WKRS IDENTIFIED, NO PLACED IN SCHOOL, NO OF BONDED LABOURERS

IDENTIFIED, RELEASED & REHAB

NO OF CHILD WKRS REDUCED IN 10 YRS, NO OF WOMENS BANKS INCREASED IN 10 YRS Y SPONTANEOUS a 21-40 +

M20/A/P27 Y SCHOOL ENROLMENT, INCREASE IN INCOME,

PROCUREMENT OF ADDL ASSETS INCREASE IN SAVINGS LEVEL OF SHGS,

INCREASE IN LEVEL OF BANK LOANS RECD Y SPONTANEOUS a b c e 21-40 -

M1/F/32 Y

NO IDENTIFIED & TRAINED TO BECOME VOLUNTEERS, NO OF FAMILIES BENEFITED, NO

OF PLANTS, BLDGS PROVIDED

ADIVASI LDRS TAKE RESP FOR OWN DEVPT, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HIGHLIGHTED

BY COMM, RIGHTS PROTECTED BY VOL Y SEEK c e 10-20 = a Community a 10-20

b Beneficiary NGOs b 21-40

c Comm. leaders c 41-50 d Donors d 51-60 e Field staff e >60 f Others


318

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - SOCIAL MARKETING – APPENDIX 9D F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14

ID NO ARE MKT

PRACTICES APPLICABLE?

WHY? WITH OR WITHOUT

CHANGES?

CHNAGES OF WHICH

ASPECTS? EG.

HOW SM IS DIFFERENT

FRM CM METHODS USED

3 STEPS IN AUDIENCE SELECTION

YR SPL STRATEGIES /

PRACTICES

COMMN MEDIUM

WITH TARGET

% OF COMMN EXP OF TOTAL

EXP

ANY STEPS TO INCREASE

EFF?

NAME 1 OR 2 IMP OF SOCIO

CULTL FACTORS

2 EXAMPLES OF PROG DESIGN / PRACTICES

R17/A/P33

OCCASIONALLY TOOLS &

CONCEPT ARE USEFUL

ONLY WITH

MORE OF CREATING

OWNERSHIP THAN

MONETARY INCENTIVES AS

IN CM

b c d a b c d e f g

situational need assmt,

ethnographic study, nat and reg statistics

motivate team, space for reflection

b d e f g h I 5 Y

DEVELOP SOCIAL

CHANGE INDICATORS

EXTREMELY IMP

Raichur vs coast, permissive vs conservative, entry level diff,

open vs subtle, non lit vs lit, oral vs print

R1/A/38

RARELY

DOES NOT BELIEVE IN

COMMDFN OF ENTITLEMENTS

NA

NA c a d e f g socially

marginalised, ec poor, voiceless

SOCIAL MOBLSN, COMM

PARTCPN/LDRSHIP b d f g I j(PUBLIC CONLTN) 5 Y

DIFF INTERESTS

COMING TOGETHER

TO CRITICISE, STRENGTHEN

FUNDING

EXTREMELY IMP ANSWER NOT RELEVANT

R11/F/1477

NOT AT ALL NO SCOPE

NA

NA a b c d a b c d e f g h(FOLLOW-

UP,MONITORING, DOCTN)

BPL, literacy, lack of

infrastructure

CAPACITY BLDG, ACTION PLAN& IMPLTN, COMMI NVOLVEMENT

b c d e f g I (wall

writing) 1 Y

NETWORKING WITH OTHER

NGOS, CREATING

AWARENESS OF PROJECT

EXTREMELY IMP

ONE ON ONE MEETING WITH WOMEN ON SENSITIVE ISSUES, TALKING TO

OPINION LDRS ON CASTE ISSUES

R18/A/P9

OCCASIONALLY SOME CASES

CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SIMILAR

NA

NA

b f (non qtfble but

tangible eg given)

a e f g

based on database - own or existing (eg

given)

TRANSPARENT SYSTEM, LT COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT d i

small but staff exp is

commn

DID NOT ANSWER NA EXTREMELY

IMP

DESIGN ACC TO SEX ORIENTATION, LARGE VS

SMALL FARMERS

R13/F/P22

LARGELY APPLICABLE NA

WITH CHANGES

STAFF ARE FROM THE VILLAGES,

DIRECT MEETINGS

f (belief in NGO)

a e f g h (problem tree & objective tree for every

prog)

village meetings, cluster meetings of village health

wkrs, exec meetings

MEETINGS FOR DETECT

PROBLEMS, d i 10% N

NA IMPORTANT SEPARATE MEETINGS FOR MEN & WOMEN ON GENDER

SPECIFIC ISSUES

M21/A/P142

OCCASIONALLY APPROACH IS DIFFERENT

NA

NA a b c d e a b c d e f g

community needs, donor

choice (eg street children), we see a social

phenomenon

TRG PARTICIPATORY,

USE CASE STUDIES

a b d e f g h i 25% Y

INTERACTION WITH OTHER MOTHER NGO OR TRAINERS,

LEARNIG NEWER

TECHNIQUES OF TRG

IMPORTANT

IN FESTIVAL SEASON NO TRG SCHEDULED, FOR RCH

APPROACH TAILORED - USE STREET THEATRE, AGENDA

SELECTION ACC TO SENSITIVITY

M17/A/1447

VERY MUCH APPLICABLE

(ALSO SELLING HEALTH

PRODUCTS)

NA

ONLY WITH

SELLING TECHNIQUE SD BE ADAPTED IN

REVERSE ORDER, TELL

CONSEQUENCE OF NOT

COMPLYING VS TELLING

BENEFITS

a b d e a b c d e f g

member NGOs selected by

scrutiny committee acc to criteria see

Annual rep

MONITORING, REVIEW,

INTERNAL ASSESSMT

j(circulars, newsletters,

tele) 10-15% N

NA IMPORTANT

RCH - PROG TAILORED SEPARATELY FOR MEN &

WOMEN, MOTHERS & DAUGHTERS, VISUALS ARE

SENSITIVE

M12/F/1053

LARGELY APPLICABLE NA

ONLY WITH

NO EG GIVEN b d a c e f g rural, socially

marginalised, ec poor

PUBLIC HEARING, SOLVE PROBLEMS

THRU WIDER MEDIA

b d e f g i 40% Y

GREATER USE OF PRESS

MEDIA, UNDERSTAND

NEEDS OF YOUNGSTERS

IN THE COMMUNITY

EXTREMELY IMP

TRG PROG ADAPTED TO TRIBAL CULTURE, DHOBIS TO

POWER LAUNDERING WITHOUT IDENTITY LOSS


319

M20/A/P27

RARELY APPLICABLE

CM PROVIDES EC BENEFITS, SM

SOCIAL BENEFITS, CM IS

PROFIT ORIENETED NA

NA b a d e f g

focus group discussion with community, field survey, village

meeting

VILLAGE MONITORING

GROUP WITH REP FOR TARGET

GROUP b e g i 10% Y

COMMUNITY RADIO &

NEWSPAPER, PROP VAN

SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NA

M1/F/32

NOT AT ALL JUSTICE MORE IMP IN SM

NA

NA f (community

vs Co is beneficiary)

A always adivasi community in

Gudalur

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

d e f 30% Y

INVOLVEMENT OF MORE

COMM LDRS & LITERATE

VOLUNTEERS FRM

COMMUNITY

EXTREMELY IMP

ALL COMMNCN IS ORAL TO SUIT ELDERS, LOCAL USE OF

ADIVASI LANGUAGE

a No a Resistance to change a study comm needs

a local papers a Least

b Rarely b Delayed benefit b grouping acc to needs

b Print material b Not very

c Occasionally c Benefit not direct

c services for specific groups c Prop van c Somewhat

d Largely

d Benefit invisible not felt but present d system for delivery

d Group meetings d Imp

e Very much e Impact may not last

e prog features to target groups e Using opinion ldrs e Extremely imp

f Other f plan of action for a yr f Posters

g assessing effect g Audio visuals

h Other h Radio

I Word of mouth

j Other


320

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - RELATIONSHIPS - APPENDIX 9 E G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

ID NO ARE YOU IN TOUCH

WITH GOVT?

HOW OFTEN?

WHICH LEVEL/S OF

GOVT? TYPE OF

RELATIONSHIP RANK

STAKEHOLDERS ANY

ALLIANCES? WITH WHOM? PURPOSE OF ALLIANCE

HOW OFTEN IN CONTACT

WITH FUNDERS?

TYPE OF REL WITH PEER

NGOS

R17/A/P33 Y ONCE A MONTH

a b c d (NAT BODY) e (DEPENDS) d h b a f e cg Y

SARVAJANA, IPACHA ADVOCACY

ONCE A MONTH ACTIVE COOP

R1/A/38 Y ONCE A MONTH

a b c d (national level)

e(building pressure on

govt) d h f e c a g b Y

NGOS, MASS ORGNS, COMM GOUPS

POLITICAL MOBLSN

ONCE QUARTER

MUTUAL ADJTS RES CONFLICTS

R11/F/1477 Y ONCE A MONTH a b c a d h f e c b/g a Y

GOVT DIFFERENT DEPTS RURAL DEV

ONCE QUARTER ACTIVE COOP

R18/A/P9 Y ONCE A MONTH a b c a d a/b h c e g f N NA NA

HALF YEARLY

MUTUAL ADJTS RES CONFLICTS

R13/F/P22 Y ONCE A MONTH

a b c d (central gov) a

d b h c f&I (ngos) a g e N NA NA

ONCE A MONTH

NO INTERFERENCE

M21/A/P142 Y ONCE A MONTH

a b c d (central govt) a a b d e f g h c Y

FIELD NGO PARTNERS

WE ARE A MOTHER NGO


M17/A/1447 Y ONCE IN 2 MONTHS

a b c d (central govt) d d a b , rest NA Y

SPAD, PWN (POSITIVE WOMEN NETWORK)

TO REACH OUT TO HIV POS WOMEN

ONCE IN 6 MONTHS NA

M12/F/1053 Y ONCE A

MONTH + a b c a d c g a b e h f Y

HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, PEOPLE'S WATCH

FILL IN OUR DEFICIENCIES

ONCE A QUARTER ACTIVE COOP

M20/A/P27 Y ONCE A MONTH b c a d h f b c rest Y FRONTLINE NGOS

FOR FIELD LEVEL IMPLTN


M1/F/32 Y ONCE A MONTH b c

depending on issues & officials

a b or d d f b a h e g c N NA NA ONCE

QUARTER NO

INTERFERENCE

a monthly a State a Cooperative a Govt a monthly a No interfer with each other

b qtr b District b Antagonistic b Donors b qtr b conflicting

c once in 6 months c Local c Passive c Local bodies

c once in 6 months

c Mutual adjt resolving conflicts

d once a yr d Other govt bodies d Facilitative d Community d once a yr

d Active coop for common goals

e once in > yr e Other e Genl public e once in > yr e Other

f Rarely f Comm opinion ldrs f Rarely

g Partners h CBOs I Other


321

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - INSTITUTIONAL IMAGE – APPENDIX 9 F H1 H2 H3 H4

ID NO HOW IMP? IF IMP, DO YOU

HAVE METHODS?

METHODS 2 PROUD ORG FEATURES

R17/A/P33 IMP NOT

PRESENTLY NA COMMUNITY CENTRED, ETHICAL

R1/A/38 IMP YES BUT NOT

MUCH NA RIGHTS BASED, DO NOT IMPOSE

THOUGH BEING A FUNDING ORGN

R11/F/1477 EXTREMELY IMP YES BUT NOT

MUCH NA FORMATION OF SHG, SELF DEPENDENCE

OF SHG

R18/A/P9 EXTREMELY IMP YES WE DO

VIGOROUSLY THRU PERFORMANCE ?? TRANSPARENCY, SINCERETY

R13/F/P22 EXTREMELY IMP YES WE DO

VIGOROUSLY

HIGHLIGHTING RESULTS, DAILY FIELD VISITS,

COMMN WITH COOLY MEMBERS

MASS MEMBERSHIP, CONTROL OVER GRAM PANCHAYATS, ACCESS TO GOV

FUNDS

M21/A/P142 EXTREMELY IMP YES BUT NOT

MUCH NA RESULT ORIENTED, TRANSPARENT

M17/A/1447 IMP YES BUT NOT

MUCH NA STRONG NETWORK OF MEMBER NGOS, GOOD RESOURCE CENTRE FOR HEALTH

M12/F/1053 EXTREMELY IMP YES WE DO

VIGOROUSLY

CONSTANTLY BEING IN THE MEDIA, POSTERS,

PUBLIC MEETINGS, CULTURAL PROG

WORK WITH MARGINALISED GROUPS TRIBALS, DALITS, 90% OF STAFF FRM THESE GROUPS TRAINED BY THEM

M20/A/P27 SOMEWHAT IMP NA NA

TRANSFER OF POWER & FINANCE TO PEOPLE THRU CBOs, NETWKG WITH

FRONTLINE NGOs

M1/F/32 SOMEWHAT IMP NA NA

COMMUNITY CENTRED APPROACH, STRONG CULTURAL ROOTS INVOLVING

ADIVASI TEAMS a Least a Yes, vigorously

b Not very b Yes but not much

c Somewhat c Not presently d Imp e Extremely imp


322

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - MANAGEMENT – APPENDIX 9 G I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5

ID NO DEPTS REPORTING 2 LEVELS SWOT ENGAGE EXT EXP?

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE?

R17/A/P33

PROG, ADM, ACCTS (NOT CLEARLY DEMARCATED - PV)

FIELD STAFF TO TEAM LDR AND HE TO DT COORDINATOR

S-PEOPLE, W-NOT ENOUGH ORG IMAGE BLD, O- BLDG COM COHESION, T-COMMLN OF SOCIAL SECTOR

Y a b h j k (FIN AUDIT)

R1/A/38

PROG, FUND RAISING, SPONSORSHIP, SUPPORT

DEPTS, HR, COMMN, ORGN EFFECTIVENESS

FIELD STAFF TO REG MANAGER, RM TO PROG

DIRECTOR

S-RIGHTS BASED, W-NOT WELL KNOWN, O-CAN EVOVE INTO THINK TANK OR WATCHDOG, T-STATE

Y

a b f g I k(upgrading knowledge on specific

issues)

R11/F/1477 PROJECT, TRAINING,

ACCTS/ADMIN FIELD STAFF TO TEAM LDR,

TEAM LDRS TO DIST OFFICIAL S-STAFF, W-LACK OF MOBILITY, O-NOT ANSWERED, T-

NONE Y h j k(CUSTOMISED TRG)

R18/A/P9 ACCTS &ADM, PROG, TRG &

CAP BLDG FIELD STAFF TO PROG OFFICER, HE TO EX DIR

S- PEOPLE W-LACK OF STAFF, O - NEW INTERVENTIONS, T – NONE Y g h

R13/F/P22 PROG, ADM, FIELD STAFF,

ACCTG FIELD STAFF TO EXT WORKER,

HE TO PROJ DIRECTOR S - MASS MEMBERSHIP, W-FLUCTUATION IN

MEMBERSHIP, O- CDM IMPLETN, T- NONE Y a b d e f g h I j

M21/A/P142

ADM, ACCTS, INFO & RESOURCES, OPERATIONS

FIELD STAFF TO MGR OP, HE TO EX DIR

S - ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALISE, PIONEER IN MANY AREAS, W - MKTG OF CONCEPT IS WEAK, O - DEV AS

MASTER TRAINER, T - STAFF TURNOVER ABSORBED BY INT ORGNS Y a b c d f g I j

M17/A/1447 PROG, ADM

FIELD STAFF TO PROG COORDINATOR, SHE TO EX

DIRECTOR

S - MEMBER NW W - LESS FUNDS, O- NONE, T - GOVT POLICIES ON NGOS Y

b f h I j k (spl health issues, HIV, children

etc)

M12/F/1053 ADM, PROG

FIELD STAFF TO CHIEF COORDINATOR, HE TO

PROJECT OFFICER

S-GOOD RELATIONS WITH PANCHAYAT LDRS W - NOT MOVED BEYOND THESE GROUPS O - DON’T WANT TO

EXPAND T – NONE Y

a h j k (for spl reports to media, prof film

makers)

M20/A/P27 PROG, FIN

FIELD STAFF TO FIELD COORDINATOR, HE TO PROG

OFFICER, HE TO PROJECT DIR

S - STAFF W - EXPECTATIONS PITCHED TOO HIGH O - NONE SEEN T - LESS FUNDING Y d f g h I j

M1/F/32 FIELD TEAM, ADMIN TEAM REPORT TO EACH OTHER AS

TEAMS

S- ADIVASI FOCUS, W-DEMAND OF DONORS FOR FREQUENT DOCUMENTN, O-NEW PROBLEMS FACING

COMMUNITY, T-NIL N NA a Orgn strength a Trg staff

b Orgn's weakness b Trg supervisory

c Opp for expansion c Fund raising

d Threat for survival/growth d Prep plans, proposals

e Mktg trg

f Progress monitoring

g Designing reporting systems

h Mgtaudit

I Participatory methods

j Ldrship trg

k Other


323

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - CAPACITY BUILDING – APPENDIX 9 H

J1 J2 J3 J4 ONLY FOR

APEX J5 ONLY FOR APEX

ID NO HOW ARE FIELD

STAFF ENABLED?

IF EXT AGENCY, WHICH AGENCY?

WHICH AREAS NEED OUTSIDE

SUPPORT?

DO YOU CAPBIULD MEMBER

NGOS? TYPES OF CAP

BLDG

R17/A/P33 a b c a c d e f NA NA

R1/A/38 b f (same as a?) NA e g (clarity on issues

to be taken up) Y a b e f h I j k

R11/F/1477 a b c d f(use expert

knowledge) a c b d e f NA NA R18/A/P9 a b NA none Y a b c d e f h I k l R13/F/P22 a b NA a NA NA

M21/A/P142 a b c a b c b c d e f Y a b e (IEC material) k

l

M17/A/1447 a b c c d (resource / trg

agencies) c Y a b d e h I k l m (sp.

Health issues) M12/F/1053 a b c a c NA NA NA M20/A/P27 b c b c c d Y a b d h I k l M1/F/32 a b NA NONE NA NA

a By experience a Donor a Formln of mktg strategies a Trg staff

b Periodically trained internally b Mother NGO

b Field, supervisory staff trg b Trg supervisory

c Periodically trained externally

c Outside expert/consultant

c Fund raising strategies c Fund raising

d Few have mktg degree/dip d Other d Impact msmnt

d Prep plans, proposals

e Many have mktg degree/dip e Communication methodologies

e Supplying promo material

f Other f Monitoring progress f Fin asst for infra, eqpt

g Other g Mktg trg

h Progress monitoring

I Reporting systems j Rel ldg

k Participatory methods

l Ldrship trg m Other


324

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - FUNDING – APPENDIX 9 I K1 K2 K3 K4 K5

ID NO FUNDING SOURCES & %

TIME SPENT ON FUND RAISING

FACTORS AFFECTING FUND RAISING CAP.

ANY INCOME GENERATING

PROGS?

APP. HOW MUCH? RS

PA

R17/A/P33 a c e EQUALLY MAY

BE? CONTSLY THRU YR a c d N NA

R1/A/38 c d e 5, 5, 90% CONTSLY THRU YR f (lack strong will, for local

capacity) N NA

R11/F/1477 a 100% ON & OFF THRU

YEAR g N NA

R18/A/P9 a & b 25%, e 55%, f

20% ON & OFF THRU

YEAR g N? NA

R13/F/P22 e 80% f 20% CONTSLY THRU YR g Y(membership fees

and savings) 2.5 lacs pa

M21/A/P142 a 57%, b 32% c 9% e

2% CONTSLY THRU YR g N NA

M17/A/1447 a 15% b 10% c 10% e

25% f 40% CONTSLY THRU YR a f (change in govt & donor

policies in funding TN) Y (sponsors, ads,

sale of books) 4 lacs

M12/F/1053 a & b 20% c 10% e

65% ONE MONTH A YR g N NA M20/A/P27 a 10% e 85%, d+g 5% NIL a b N NA

M1/F/32 d 75% e 25% ON & OFF THRU

YEAR d Y 10 lacs a Domestic - govt state a Contsly thru yr a Lack of contacts

b Domestic - govt central b On & off thru yr b Lack of knowhow

c Domestic - instns c On & off over 6 m a yr c Want of info n sources d Domestic - genl public d On & off thru 3 m a yr d Diff bet donor and own methods/approaches

e Overseas - instns, individuals e over 1 m a yr e Lack of legal status

f Own generated surplus f Other

g Other g None fund raising cap not affected


325

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - SUSTAINABILITY – APPENDIX 9 J

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9

ID NO MOVE FRM ONE AREA

TO ANOTHER?

IF SO,HOW LONG TO CREATE IMPACT?

IF NO, REASON?

IS IMPACT SUSTAINED

AFTER MOVING

OUT?

IF YES, 2 KEY FACTORS OF HOW HOW IMPACT MEASURED?

RANK FACTORS CRITICAL

FOR SUCCESS?

ANY SURPLUS

OF INCOME /

EXP?

IF YES, % OF

SURPLUS / INCOME

R17/A/P33 Y 5-6 YRS NA Y VOLUNTEER DEV, OWNERSHIP

BLDG IMPACT EVALN,

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA c b f a N NA

R1/A/38 Y 5-6 YRS NA Y ENABLIN GPOLICIES,

COMMLDRSHIP & MOBLSN APPRECIATIVE

ENQUIRYTECHNIQUE f g c N NA

R11/F/1477 Y 5-6 YRS NA Y

PROJ DESIGNING, COMM ACCEPTANCE, MONITORING

INCOME LEVEL, SOCIAL CHANGE (EG. DECISION

MAKING) a c f N NA

R18/A/P9 N? NA a Y STRONG INITIAL SUPPORT FOR

SHG WELCOME GIVEN BY

COMM? g e f N NA

R13/F/P22 N NA

d (want to focus on 5

taluks) Y

CREATED FUNCTIONAL UNITY AMONG VILLAGERS ACROSS

CASTE ETC

DATA COLLECTION, MEETINGS FOR ASSESSMENT e a I N NA

M21/A/P142 Y 2 YRS NA Y

COMM HEALTH WKRS & VOL TRAINED BY US CARRY ON, TRAIN

TRAINERS AMONG SHGs

THRU OWN STAFF OR EXT EXPERTS a b c Y 8-10%

M17/A/1447 NA NA NA Y

DISTRICT STRUCTURE CREATED SUSTAINS, LINK WITH LOCAL

HEALTH BODIES

SURVEY, MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS c g e N NA

M12/F/1053 Y >6 YRS NA Y

PEOPLE ARE TRAINED TO BE SELF RELIANT, MONETRARY HELP

GIVEN

BENEFICIARY PARTICPATION BEFORE &

AFTER PROG c f g N NA

M20/A/P27 Y >6 YRS NA Y

GOVT SUPPORT, CONTD PRESENCE OF CBOs & SHGs

GENERATING FUNDS

VISIT TO WITHDRAWN AREAS ONCE A YR FOR 3 YRS, TALKING TO CBOs b g a N NA

M1/F/32 N NA

d (not prog but community focused) NA

NA THRU CONTINUOUS &

VERY CLOSE CONTACT WITH COMMUNITY f g N NA

b 3-4 yrs b Trained staff

c 5-6 yrs c Ldrship & eff mgt

d > 6 yrs d Knowledge of mktg strategies

e Prog impltn

f Contact with community

g Obj clarity h Infra & eqpt I Employing mktg practices


326

MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - ACCOUNTABILITY – APPENDIX 9 K

M1 M2

ID NO WHO DOES YR ORGN REPORT TO? WHAT KIND OF REPORTING?

R17/A/P33 a b c d a c d - periodic reports, b - staff meeting,

mostly reports

R1/A/38 a d e d (Home Ministry)

g(partner NGO) periodic reports, meetings, presentations,

articles

R11/F/1477 a (Board of Society), c

(State govt) Board meeting qtrly, report R18/A/P9 a b c qtly prog rev report R13/F/P22 a b c reg meetings, MIS

M21/A/P142 a b c d MIS, donor format, annual & qtly reports, AGM,

monthly staff rev to identify gaps

M17/A/1447

a c d g (registrar of societies)

reports to Board of Mgt and info updates, qtly rep to funding agencies, project or issues

report to govt

M12/F/1053 a b c d reports to funding agency on completed

activity, annual report, case studies

M20/A/P27 a c d

Board meetings once 3-4 months where CEO gives a report, CEO gets reports from prog

staff, every 6 m report to donors, annual rep

M1/F/32 b c e

oral meetings, periodic progress reports in formats given by donors, summary of activities in Fortnightly meetings with comm ldrs & teams

a Brd of Trustees / Mgt b Own staff c Main funding agencies d Govt / local bodies e Comm ldrs f Mother NGO g Other


327

APPENDIX 10 MATRIX FOR DONOR / EXPERT QUESTIONNAIRE

RESPONSES (para ref: 17.18)


328

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

NO NAME ORGANISATION CATEGORY IS MKG PRACTICE APPLICABLE

IF NO, WHY

IF YES, WHAT PRACTICES

RANK STAKEHOLDERS HOW TO BUILD

REL'SHIP

IS THERE A DISTNGSHG

LEGAL IDENTITY

ADV/DISADV OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK

3 TRAITS EXPECTED BY DONORS

SUGGESTIONS FOR ACCTBLTY

1

MS MALINI SRIDHAR

PARIVARTHAN COUNSELLING

EXPERT

Y, those of

marketing of services

NA

a to j (offering high quality

staff, client, mgt, target, vendors, public

see Q

no, no national licensg authority,

disadv ‐ subject to several legal reqts

workg with popn where need is visible

ngos with good publicity, credibility

open abt source & use of funds compliance with stat reqts

2

MS JAYANTI RAJAGOPALAN

CONSULTANT, NGO

EXPERT

Y

NA

a to I

beneficiary, power structures in target group), local adm

govt, NGO in related fields, (donor integral to

prog)

active coordn, jt activity

keeping them informed

not sure

min period of being in FCRA a

deterrent for new NGOs

experience in the rel field/target group track record of fund use, good team

proper record of progress proper accounts, stakeholder

involvmt info/learning sharing with gov

3

SHANKAR NARAYANAN

POPULATION SERVICES INTL

EXPERT

Y

NA

a to j document learning & disseminate

HRD policies to encourage mgt

ldrship

Donors & policy makers, influencers of funders internal employees, target group, other NGOs/partners

media, faith based orgns, youth/gender

clubs

make one resp for rel,

define what st'holders want to

know

yes

adv ‐ avoids duplication of funds disadv ‐ bureaucratic delays, corruption

programmatic acctblty, financial integrity, ability to align well with govt

3rd party audit of effectiveness, cost effectiveness be seen and heard

4

REYNOLD WASHINGTON

SAMASTHA

EXPERT

Y

NA

a to j(understanding community's

perceptions and practices)

govt, pvt sector, donors,

meeting them showcasing the

work, get them into the

field, doctn. Get others to talk on your behalf

yes

adv ‐ to get funds, financial reporting prescribed. Disadv ‐ weak monitoring for

compliance

track record of managing large

funds transparency &

integrity, technical competence, team

strength

transparent record keeping, having website, annual report of progress

and challenges, meeting st'holders

5

MS FLORENCE DAVID

INTL SERVICES ASSN

EXPERT

Y

NA

a to j (plan for sustainability)

team, stakeholders (who, not mentioned)

team bldg

yes

keeps norms to global standards

transparency, integrity, statutory

compliances

transparency, do not transgress line item budgets,

6

MS DIPA NAG CHOWDHURY

McARTHUR FOUNDATION

DONOR

Y

NA

a to i

community incl family, village adm structures, NGO intermediaries

group & 1 on 1 meetings, reports

films

‐

‐

credibility, tech competence, innovative

honour contractual obligations, provide monitoring data with

reports


329

7

MS.LENI CHAUDHURI

NAROTAM SAKSARIA FOUNDATION

DONOR

Y

NA

a, b to i

community, govt agencies, media, donors

informal exchanges,

structured fora, website,

exchange of briefs, info sharing

support in crisis, cap bldg

No. not treated as equal partner NGOs on some

statutory committees

which is good sign

all NGOs don’t have same level of credibility

& acctbty, State sd act as regulatory

body no mech for f/back frm civil society

program quality, strong governance & acctbty systems,

strong component of sustainability

transparent systems, publish docts &

annual reports, review system, sharing orgnl info

8

P J LUKOSE

CARITAS INDIA

DONOR

Y

NA

a to i

primary st'holders and delivery mechanisms

participatory planning and mgt

process

yes, Planning Commn has brought

out guidelines

gives opportunity in public‐private partnership

red‐tapism retards progress

experience, commitment, reliability

transparency of finance, participative

decision making

9

AASHTI ZAIDI HAI

DFID

DONOR

Y

NA

a to i

beneficiaries, policy makers, network partners, media

commncn strategy focusing on beneficiiaries publications,

annual reports, participation in confces, social networking

did not answer

did not answer

clarity of vision, coherent

measureable obj, strength of M&E, budgeting to be transparent,

accountable, cost‐eff, realistic

qtrly reports, regular commn, field visits

10

DR RAJANNA

DEPT OF WATERSHED DEV, KTK

DONOR

Y

NA

a to I j(netwkg among NGOs)

community, govt local, community ldrs

bldg trust, bldg confidence by achvg what is expected,

showing expertise on issues we are dealing with

no relevant response

no relevant response

relevant experience, trained staff, basic infrastructure,

action plans, timely implmntn, taking

feedback frm beneficiaries

11

AJAYA SAHU

NABARD

DONOR

Y

NA

a c e f g h I j(participatory approach)

grassroot/community, donors, line depts for

convergence

transparency, commitment, coordination

there sd be unique ID no across states

for NGOs, track record sd be available

for review and ref

no response

experience, integrity, presence

keeping time commitment, achvg proj obj,

12

MS DHANISHTA TIWARI

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST

DONOR

Y

NA

a c d e f g h i

target community, govt., civil society orgns

Liaisoning, transparency, networking

yes, to some extent

accountability to govt., successful

models can be replicated by

govt., disadv: processes are

intangible

rapport with community, expertise, resources,

management, orgn structure

transparency and quality essential for

for bldg relationship with st'holders

a study comm


330

needs

b grouping acc to needs

c services for specific groups

d system for delivery

e prog features to target groups

f plan of action for a yr

g assessing effect

h monitoring progress

I commn methodologies

j any other


331

CONTD.

10 11 12 13 a 13b 13c 13d 13e 13f

NO NAME ORGANISATION CATEGORY 1 OR 2 FORMULAE FOR PERF ASSMT

% FOR ADM/TOTAL

EXP

RANK SUCCESS FACTORS

EFF USE OF RES. REGLR MSMT OF

IMPACT REG COMPARISON PROG VS GOALS

EFFORTS, SYSTEMS FOR COST EFF.

TRACKING MECHANISM FOR

COST EFF

ANY OTHER

1 MS MALINI SRIDHAR PARIVARTHAN COUNSELLING EXPERT

feedback 30% g c b e a f h d 2 3 1 3 1 1

2

MS JAYANTI RAJAGOPALAN

CONSULTANT, NGO

EXPERT

not only input activity

but outcome & impact

not answered

c g b f a d h e

3

3

2

2

2

‐

3

SHANKAR NARAYANAN

POPULATION SERVICES INTL

EXPERT

assess adm & fin policies

get stakeholders' feedback

8‐11%

c g a b d e f h

2

3

4

3

3

‐

4

REYNOLD WASHINGTON

SAMASTHA

EXPERT

achievement of obj within

cost & time 15‐20%

c f g d e b a h

4

4

4

3

3

‐

5 MS FLORENCE DAVID INTL SERVICES ASSN EXPERT periodic appraisal

14‐15% c b e g h a d f 3 2 4 4 4 ‐

6

MS DIPA NAG CHOWDHURY

McARTHUR FOUNDATION

DONOR

assess quality of monitoring data site visits, is NGO member of imp network, is it a model for others

15%

b c f g e/d h a

2

3

4

2

2

‐

7

MS.LENI CHAUDHURI

NAROTAM SAKSARIA FOUNDATION

DONOR

Logframe analysis, st'holder & gender

analysis Participatory rural

appraisal beneficiary assessment

15 to 20%

c g a f b e d h

3

2

3

3

3

‐

8 P J LUKOSE CARITAS INDIA DONOR

result based mgt, good Mgt & Evln

system 7% f c b g d h e a 3 2 3 4 3 ‐

9

AASHTI ZAIDI HAI

DFID

DONOR

impact evaln with a base line, mid‐line

and end‐line

did not answer

a/c, g b e d/f/h

2

3

2 mostly anecdotal

2 effort yes, system

no 1

‐


332

10

DR RAJANNA

DEPT OF WATERSHED DEV, KTK

DONOR

third party monitoring & evaln

4‐5% for watershed genl 9‐10%

f c b d a g h e

4

5

5

4

5

‐

11

AJAYA SAHU

NABARD

DONOR

break up physical prog into smaller

parts review same weekly average 10%

c f g b a d e h i(mutual trust,

coordn with other NGOs and govt)

4

3

2

3

2

‐

12 MS DHANISHTA TIWARI SIR RATAN TATA TRUST DONOR

answer does not address the question 10‐20% g f c a b d e h 3 4 4 4 3 ‐

TOTAL 35 37 38 37 32

AVERAGE RATING 2.92 3.08 3.17 3.08 2.67

a Conty of funds 1 practically absent

b Trained staff 2 yes but scrappy, not systematic

c Ldrship & eff mgt3 systems exist, not pursued

d Knowledge of mktg strategies

4 reasonable and satisfactory

e Prog impltn 5 Of high order

f Contact with community

g Obj clarity

h Infra & eqpt

I other


333

APPENDIX 11 BENCHMARK EVALUATION MATRIX

(para ref: 17.30)

(16 TABLES – 11A TO 11O - 11 P IS SUMMARY)

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TABLES

Sources of Data/info used for evaluation: Q = Item number in Questionnaire, PIN = Post Interview Notes, OBS = Observation Chart recording observations of interviewer on the interview

Method of Evaluation: HML = High, Moderate, Low compliance carrying 3, 2, 1 points respectively, DICH = Dichotomous questions carrying 1, 0 points for Yes and NO respectively, MOQ = Multiple Option Questions carrying as many points as the number of options chosen


334

BENCHMARK TRAITS – MARKETING CONCEPT – APPENDIX 11 A

No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln

Evaln Method

MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %

SCORE STD DEV C V

1 Aware of concept Q F 2,4 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 2 2 1.4 47 0.84 60

2 Recognizes applicability in NGO activity Q F 1 HML 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 3 1 1 2 1.3 43 0.82 63

3 Recognises differences between SM & CM Q F 5 MOQ 6 3 2 0 4 1 5 4 1 1 2 2.3 38 1.64 71

4 Recognises need for adaptation Q F 3 DICH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.4 40 NA NA

5 Recognises need for cultural adaptation Q F 13, 14 HML 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2.2 73 0.63 29

6 Actually applies SM practices Q F 6 MOQ 8 7 4 5 8 5 7 7 1 5 5 5.4 68 2.01 37

TOTAL 16 10 11 16 10 14 21 8 10 14 13 MAX

POSSIBLE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

PERCENTAGE 67 42 46 67 42 58 88 33 42 58 54

Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one


335

BENCHMARK TRAITS – MARKETING ANALYSIS – APPENDIX 11 B

No. Sub‐Traits Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE % SCORE STD DEV C V

1 Conducts research to identify needs DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA

2 Effective selection of target audience HML 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2.3 77 0.95 41

3 Targets the appropriate segment with suitable services DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.5 50 NA NA

TOTAL 5 2 2 5 4 3 5 3 3 5 3.7

MAX POSSIBLE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

PERCENTAGE 100 40 40 100 80 60 100 60 60 100 74



336

BENCHMARK TRAITS – MARKETING PLANNING – APPENDIX 11 C

No. Sub‐Traits Source for

Evaln

Evaln Method


SCORE STD DEV

C V

1 Formally spells out Vision, Mission and Objectives Q C3,4 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA

2 Has a Marketing Plan Q F 6f DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA

3 Objectives are clear, consistent with Mission, practical, focused PIN MOQ 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 4 4 1 4 3.2 80 1.14 35

4 Objectives are measurable Q C1, 2 HML 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2.8 93 0.42 15

TOTAL 8 9 7 7 8 8 9 8 6 9 7.9 MAX

POSSIBLE 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

PERCENTAGE 89 100 78 78 89 89 100 89 67 100 88



337

BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – PROGRAM DESIGN (PRODUCTS) – APPENDIX 11 D


Evaln Method


SCORE STD DEV

C V

1 Involves stakeholders in theme selection Q D1 MOQ 8 4 3 2 6 2 7 2 2 3 2 3.3 41 1.83 55

2 Involves stakeholders in program design Q D2 MOQ 8 6 1 2 6 3 7 4 2 4 1 3.6 45 2.17 60

3 Adapts program design to suit local cultural needs and aptitudes Q F14 HML 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1.9 63 0.99 52

4 Innovative features into program design Q D5 HML 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1.8 60 1.03 57

5 Innovative strategies Q F 8 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1.6 53 0.97 60

TOTAL 17 7 11 15 8 20 13 11 12 8 12.2 MAX

POSSIBLE 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

PERCENTAGE 68 28 44 60 32 80 52 44 48 32 49



338

BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – MARKETING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES (PROMOTION) – APPENDIX 11 E


Evaln Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE % SCORE STD DEV C V

1 Has in place communication strategies Q F6e DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA

2

Has a budget for communication – <5%, 6‐10%, >10% Q F10 HML 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 67 0.94 47

3

Adapts communication message and media to suit local cultural needs and aptitudes Q F14 HML 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1.4 47 0.70 50

4

Innovates special strategies/practices for better impact Q F8 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1.4 47 0.84 60

TOTAL 5 4 6 4 4 7 7 7 6 8 5.8 MAX

POSSIBLE 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

PERCENTAGE 50 40 60 40 40 70 70 70 60 80 58



339

BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – DELIVERY SYSTEM (PLACE) – APPENDIX 11 F


Evaln Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE

% SCORE

STD DEV C V

1 Has a delivery system in place Q F6d DICH 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0.6 60 NA NA

2 Adapts delivery methods to suit local cultural needs and aptitudes Q F14 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.8 27 0.42 53

3 Adopts innovative distribution practices Q F8 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.9 30 0.32 35

TOTAL 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 2.3 MAX

POSSIBLE 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

PERCENTAGE 43 29 29 43 43 14 43 29 29 29 33



340

BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT (POLICY) – APPENDIX 11 G


Evaln Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE

% SCORE

STD DEV

C V

1 Interacts with govt. Q G1 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA

2 Interacts with govt. Often Q G 2 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2.9 97 0.32 11

3 Develops relations with government bodies at more than one level Q G3 MOQ 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 3.3 83 0.82 25

4 Has cooperative relations with govt. Q G4 HML 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2.7 90 0.48 18

TOTAL 9 9 10 9 9 10 9 7 8 9 8.9 MAX

POSSIBLE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

PERCENTAGE 82 82 91 82 82 91 82 64 73 82 81



341

BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – STAKEHOLDERS (PUBLICS) – APPENDIX 11 H


Evaln Method

MAX POINTS R17/A/P

33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38

M21/A/P142

M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P

27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE

% SCORE

STD DEV

C V

1 Meeting stakeholders “constantly” Q D4 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2.8 93 0.42 15

2 Coordinating actively Q D4, G4, 9, 10 MOQ 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 4 3 3.1 78 0.74 24

3 Keeping them informed of program aspects Q M1 MOQ 7 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 51 0.52 14

TOTAL 10 9 10 10 9 11 9 8 10 9 9.5 MAX

POSSIBLE 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

PERCENTAGE 71 64 71 71 64 79 64 57 71 64 68



342

BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – FUNDS (PURSE) – APPENDIX 11 I


Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %

SCORE STD DEV

C V

1 Is in regular contact with donor Q G9 HML 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2.4 80 0.52 22

2 Spends significant time on fund raising Q K2 HML 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 2.4 80 0.97 40

3 Fund raising capacity has minimal obstacles Q K3 HML 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2.5 83 0.53 21

4 Accountable to stakeholders Q M1 MOQ 7 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 51 0.52 14

5 Has experience in related field or target group PIN HML 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.8 93 0.63 23

6 Projects image of organization and its capabilities Q H2,3 HML 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 1.6 53 0.97 60

TOTAL 14 16 18 14 16 18 16 13 12 16 15.3 MAX

POSSIBLE 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

PERCENTAGE 64 73 82 64 73 82 73 59 55 73 70



343

BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – RELATIONSHIP (PARTNERSHIP) – APPENDIX 11 J


Evaln Method MAX

POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE

% SCORE

STD DEV

C V

1 Has network /alliances Q G6,7 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0.6 60 NA NA

2 The network aims at marketing effectiveness Q G 8 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.4 40 NA NA

3 Has a relationship of active cooperation with NGOs, network partners, alliances Q G10 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.5 50 NA NA

4 Uses participatory approach – works with community Q D4 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2.8 93 0.42 15

Participatory Indicators are as follows (World Bank)

5 Flat management structure Q I2 HML 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1.8 60 0.63 35

6 Formulates Plan iteratively with community Q D1, 2 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA

TOTAL 7 6 6 8 6 7 5 7 7 5 6.4 MAX

POSSIBLE 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

PERCENTAGE 70 60 60 80 60 70 50 70 70 50 64



344

BENCHMARK TRAITS – INSTITUTIONAL IMAGE – APPENDIX 11 K


Evaln Method


SCORE STD DEV

C V

1 Is aware of the importance of institutional credibility and image Q H1 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2.8 93 0.42 15

2 Takes steps to project as a credible efficient institution Q H2,3 HML 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 1.6 53 0.97 60

3 Institution has special features for projecting its image Q H4 HML 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 2.4 80 0.70 29

TOTAL 6 7 8 7 8 6 8 5 5 8 6.8 MAX

POSSIBLE 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

PERCENTAGE 67 78 89 78 89 67 89 56 56 89 76



345

BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ MARKETING CAPACITY BUILDING – APPENDIX 11 L


Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %

SCORE STD DEV

C V

1 Trains staff in marketing and related skills and technical competence Q I5 MOQ 8 2 2 7 1 6 6 4 0 4 2 3.4 43 2.37 70

2 Field staff capacity built Q J 1 HML 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.6 53 0.52 32

3 Employ outside agencies for capacity building Q J 2 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.6 60 NA NA

4 Plan for capacity building with outside support Q J 3 MOQ 6 3 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 1 0 1.4 23 1.65 118

TOTAL 8 3 9 8 8 13 7 1 8 5 7 MAX

POSSIBLE 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

PERCENTAGE 44 17 50 44 44 72 39 6 44 28 39



346

BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ MARKETING, EVALUATION, MONITORING & CONTROL – APPENDIX 11 M


Evaln

Evaln Method

MAX POINTS

R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %

SCORE STD DEV C V

1 Clarity on project measurability Q E 2,3 HML 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 2.4 80 0.84 35

2 Projects are measured Q E1 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA

3 Evaluates program achievement with reference to goals Q E2,3 HML 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 83 0.85 34

4 Evaluates Output for Performance measurement (cost effectiveness) Q E2,3 DICH 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.4 40 NA NA

5 Evaluates Outcome for Performance measurement (impact) Q E2,3 DICH 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA

6 Post‐program impact measures methodically Q L 6 HML 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.3 43 0.32 35

7 Is looking for improvements Q F11 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.7 70 NA NA

8 Has ideas of directions for improvement Q F 12 HML 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 1 1 1.7 57 0.48 69

9 Has a system for feedback in place Q E 5 DICH 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 50 NA NA

10 Receives feedback from more than one source Q E6 MOQ 7 5 2 2 4 5 6 6 2 4 1 3.7 53 0.53 105

11 Has won recognitions or has been cited as model PIN DICH 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.4 40 NA NA

TOTAL 16 9 11 17 15 22 18 17 16 14 15.5 MAX

POSSIBLE 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

PERCENTAGE 64 36 44 68 60 88 72 68 64 56 62


347

BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ SUSTAINABILITY – APPENDIX 11 N


Evaln Method


SCORE STD DEV

C V

1 Has not had any major difficulties in fund flow (Financial Sustainability) Q K3 HML 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 80 0.70 29

2 Is not dependent on one or very few donors Q K1 MOQ 7 3 6 1.5 1 1 1 5 1.5 1 2 2.3 33 1.81 79

3 Is able to generate a minimum of own funds, say, at least 10% Q K1f DICH 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.4 40 NA NA

4 Ensuring adequate infra structure (equipment, space, vehicles, computers etc) PIN HML 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1.9 63 0.57 30

5 Engages outside specialists to install/improve internal systems and controls Q I4,5 PIN MOQ 7 4 5 5 2 3 5 4 0 4 3 3.5 50 1.58 45

TOTAL 10 17 11.5 7 8 12 14 6.5 9 10 10.5 MAX

POSSIBLE 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

PERCENTAGE 48 81 55 33 38 57 67 31 43 48 50



348

BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP – APPENDIX O


Evaln Method


SCORE STD DEV

C V

1 Leadership: Has grasp of institution’s strengths and weaknesses and environment’s opportunities and threats Q I3 HML 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 2.1 70 0.74 35

2 Leadership: Clarity and Direction

OBS CHART ‐ 8,14 HML 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.9 97 0.32 11

3 Leadership: Transparency

OBS CHART ‐4,5 HML 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2.5 83 0.53 21

4 Leadership: Articulation and communication OBS CHART ‐ 6 HML 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2.4 80 0.52 22

5 Leadership: Marketing approach OBS CHART ‐ 7 HML 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2.1 70 0.57 27

6 Has equipped field staff to handle responsibilities Q J1 HML 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.6 53 0.52 32

7 Has clearly demarcated functional departments Q I1 HML 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2.1 70 0.32 15

8 Has kept administrative expenses (overheads) within reasonable limits (say, 8‐20%) Q E7,8 HML 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2.6 87 0.52 20

9 Reports to donors, Managing Board and government at frequent intervals (upward accountability) Q M1 MOQ 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 2.5 63 0.71 28

10 Reports to media and public about progress (Lateral Accountability) Q M1 MOQ 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.2 10 0.42 211

11 Interacts regularly with staff and beneficiaries (Downward Accountability) Q M1 MOQ 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0.9 30 0.74 82

12 Makes transparent Reports disclosing practices, fund use, PIN HML 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1.9 63 0.99 52

13 Websites available, static, informative& kept up, info incl financials PIN MOQ 4 1 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2.4 60 0.84 35

14 Regular meetings with stakeholders Q D4, G2, 9 HML 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2.4 80 0.52 22

15 3rd party audit of program and cost effectiveness Q I 5 PIN MOQ 4 2 4 3 1 2 1 2 0 3 1 1.9 48 1.20 63

TOTAL 31 33 32 24 30 33 34 28 33 27 30.5 MAX

POSSIBLE 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47

PERCENTAGE 66 70 68 51 64 70 72 60 70 57 65 Note: S. nos 1 to 5 refer to the Leader and remaining relate to the orgn. STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one


349

BENCHMARK TRAITS – SUMMARY – APPENDIX 11 P

TRAIT R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE STD DEV. COEEF OF VARIATION

MARKETING CONCEPT 67 42 46 67 42 58 88 33 42 58 54 16 30

MARKETING ANALYSIS 100 40 40 100 80 60 100 60 60 100 74 25 34

MARKETING PLANNING 89 100 78 78 89 89 100 89 67 100 88 11 13

MARKETING STARTEGY – PROGRAM 68 28 44 60 32 80 52 44 48 32 49 17 34

MARKETING STRATEGY – PROMOTION 50 40 60 40 40 70 70 70 60 80 58 15 25

MARKETING STRATEGY ‐ DELIVERY OF SERVICES 43 29 29 43 43 14 43 29 29 29 33 10 29

MARKETING STRATEGY – POLICY 82 82 91 82 82 91 82 64 73 82 81 8 10

MARKETING STARTEGY – PUBLICS 71 64 71 71 64 79 64 57 71 64 68 6 9

MARKETING STRATEGY – FUNDING 64 73 82 64 73 82 73 59 55 73 70 9 13

MARKETING STARTEGY – NETWORKING 70 60 60 80 60 70 50 70 70 50 64 10 15

INSTITUTIONAL IMAGE 67 78 89 78 89 67 89 56 56 89 76 14 18

MARKETING CAPACITY BUILDING 44 17 50 44 44 72 39 6 44 28 39 19 48

MARKETING EVALUATION, MONITORING, CONTROL 64 36 44 68 60 88 72 68 64 56 62 15 23

SUSTAINABILITY 48 81 55 33 38 57 67 31 43 48 50 15 31

MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP 66 70 68 51 64 70 72 60 70 57 65 7 11

TOTAL 992 839 906 959 900 1047 1060 794 851 945 929 88 9

MAX POSSIBLE 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

OVERALL SCORE PERCENTAGE 66 56 60 64 60 70 71 53 57 63 62

AVERAGE 66 56 60 64 60 70 71 53 57 63

STD DEV. 16 25 19 19 19 19 19 21 13 24

COEFF, OF VARIATION 24 44 31 29 32 27 27 40 23 38


350

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doannhan
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Senior...

Documents