Presentation: Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets, by Tina Divjak

This project is funded by the European Union.

Wrap up session 1

Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets

TACSO Regional Office Potoklinica 16 71 000 Sarajevo t: +387 33 532 757 f: +387 33 532 757 e-mail: info@tacso.org

Project Implemented by Consortium led by FCG SIPU International AB Sweden


Wrap up

• All proposals reviewed (notes, flipchart)

• Some changes proposed, some questions still opened

• Still a lot of confusion between benchmark and target. Benchmark:

That which is attainable under ideal conditions, optimum situation.

Target: national targets represent a step towards achieving the benchmark and are set to 2020.

• We can lower the benchmark, if you think that the numbers are demotivating. However, since now they are based on EU average and optimum situation, in the case of decreasing the numbers the question is – what does the number represent?



Main changes

• Additional explanations will be added as to how we measure some of the targets (e.g. 1.1.a, 1.1.b, 2.4.a, …)

• Additional target „Accurate data is available on the annual level“ will be added at the indicators, for which most countries are lacking data

(e.g. 1.2.b, 2.2.a)

• Q1: for which indicators an additional target measuring the availability of data should be added?


Result 1, objective 1, benchmark 1.1.a

• „assessment“ will be deleted from the indicator (as well as in 2.1.b) – the content will not change, just the wording will be more correct

• Standards (reference point to identify the gaps in legislation) will be pondered (probably in 3 groups), you will be able to prioritise




Result 1, objective 1, benchmark 1.1.b

• Problems with measuring the implementation gap (What is an implementation gap? How will government and CSOs agree on definition, as well as on when to say that an implementation gap was solved, e.g. is police intervention at a protest a gap and when we can say that this does not happen anymore)

• Q2: how to measure implementation of the basic rights legislation?





• Benchmark and target changed to be more clear what are we measuring - Benchmark: 6 % of all employed is employed in the CSO sector, NT: ___ % of all employed is employed in CSO sector

• As indicators says the numbers includes permanent and part-time employees. The quality of the employment is important, but how to measure that, since the surveys give us only partial picture (except with the change in annual reports).





• Target on the availability of the data added

• Target about having a law on volunteers will not be added, but you can add it as a specific national target

• Q3: what to measure: number of volunteers OR number of voluntary hours?





• „receive financial support“ will not be deleted from the definition of the grass-roots in the benchmark




• Target on the availability of the data added

• Benchmark divided into two separate benchmarks (if tax incentives for one of these groups do not exist yet, you will simply not measure it, the target to have incentives is already included under the first benchmark):

- 60 % of corporations use tax incentives when donating to CSOs

- 60 % of individual tax payers use tax incentives when donating to

CSOs (target changed since we are measuring stimulating tax legislation and not the level of donations)

• For NT you decide on the %

• Since we have with the first benchmark define, what is stimulating tax legislation, there is no need to measure the perception of people about it






• Indicator changed: Increase of public funding for CSOs; Benchmark:

Public funding for CSOs is increased for __ % (need to do some research to define the benchmark)

• No contradiction with the last indicator anymore

• Instead of „tender“ the term „open calls“ will be used

• Note: Public sources are sources of the national, regional and local government





• Benchmark and target changed to measure contact points on the local level as well

• Benchmark: Mechanisms for dialogue are clear, open, accessible and efficient (issues are resolved in timely manner) on state and local governmental and ministerial level

• Target: There is a designated body, institution or contact point for dialogue on state government level, at least __ % of local

governments has such body, institution or contact point and at least

__ % of ministries has such a contact point with continuous and constructive cooperation





• Benchmark and target narrowed to CSOs that have an online presence

• Benchmark: 80 % of CSOs, that have an online presence, regularly publish and updates their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.), NT: __ % of CSOs, that have an online presence, regularly publish and updates their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)



Open dilemma for indicators 4.4.a, 5.1.a,

6.1.a

• Some comments mentioned that with narrowing the scope of measured CSOs we are not including grass-roots, other proposals were to focus on professional CSOs that have at least 2 employees only

• In these indicators we are talking about monitoring & evaluation, strategic plans and strategic fundrasing = signs of developed, professional CSOs

• Q4: should we measure all CSOs in these indicators (4.4.a, 5.1.a,

6.1.a) OR only professional CSOs with at least 2 employees



• Benchmark will be changed to correspond to your decision under the

Q4

• In any case „in order to attract and retain talent“ will be deleted from the text





• Proposal to measure perception, since the reality can not be measured

• Benchmark: 80 % of CSOs involved in advocacy state that they use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals,

NT: __ % of CSOs involved in advocacy state that they use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals





• Proposal to measure perception, since the reality can not be measured

• Benchmark: 80 % of CSOs that have a strategic plan state that they mainly collect funds in line with their strategic plan, NT: __ % of CSOs that have a strategic plan state that they mainly collect funds in line with their strategic plan

• Benchmark: 80 % of CSOs state that they are able to fundraise at least 70 % of their strtegic plan




• Benchmark and target as proposed yesterday

• 9 th group of financial source added: own economic activity





Questions for you to answer

• Q1: for which indicators an additional target measuring the availability of data should be added?

• Q2: how to measure implementation of the basic rights legislation

(1.1.b)?

• Q3: what to measure: number of volunteers OR number of voluntary hours (1.2.b)?

• Q4: should we measure all CSOs in these indicators (4.4.a, 5.1.a,

6.1.a) OR only professional CSOs with at least 2 employees?



Presentation: Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets, by Tina Divjak

Wrap up session 1

Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets

Related documents

Products

Support

Presentation: Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets, by Tina Divjak

Wrap up session 1

Additional modifications to benchmarks and targets

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib