GLOBAL GIVERS GIVING LOCALLY:
A Fresh Perspective on Accountability
Michael Acton
Gerald Cook
Christine Ryann Illanes
Kara Wevers
The George Washington University
Elliott School of International Affairs
International Development Studies Capstone Project
May 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................3
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................4
Objectives........................................................................................................................................5
GlobalGiving’s Approach to Accountability and Funding ..................................................6
Accountability Pyramid .........................................................................................................8
Primary Objective ................................................................................................................10
Secondary Objectives...........................................................................................................11
Survey Design and Implementation ...........................................................................................12
Survey Observations and Recommendations ............................................................................12
Successes: What Worked .....................................................................................................13
Challenges: What Did Not Work .........................................................................................14
Organizational Recommendations .............................................................................................17
Focus on Community Based Organizations ..................................................................... 18
Recognition of Partner Challenges ......................................................................................20
Develop Partner Skills & Capacities....................................................................................23
Develop Efficient Information Exchange ............................................................................27
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................31
Appendices
33Executive Summary
GlobalGiving is pioneering new methods of funding non-governmental organizations and
ensuring accountability to beneficiaries and donors. GlobalGiving contracted our capstone
team to visit numerous partner organizations in Kenya to test multiple dimensions of
GlobalGiving’s monitoring and evaluation system. The projects in Kenya were located in both
2
rural and urban locations and covered a broad range of projects, including education, sports,
health, and technology.
GlobalGiving is passionate about innovate approaches to development and nontraditional forms of funding, transparency, and accountability. GlobalGiving sees project leaders
as most accountable to their project participants and donors, while GlobalGiving sees itself as
most accountable to the donors who use their website. GlobalGiving is creating a feedback
loop involving input from project leaders, beneficiaries, project visitors, donors, and other
community members. They are experimenting with a variety of ways to measure impact,
promote trust, and ensure legitimacy. This is conceptualized with their Accountability
Pyramid, which includes project updates, project “postcards,” surveys, and professional audits.
The capstone team's primary objective was to create and test a survey focused on project
outputs applicable across a broad spectrum of projects. The group's secondary objectives were
to test a beneficiary survey, a community impact survey, and project postcards, which allow
visitors to comment on their experiences with projects. There are many strengths and
weaknesses to the survey designed and implemented by the capstone team.
Qualitative
questions were the most successful aspects of the survey testing. Output-specific (quantitative)
questions, the expansive scope of the output survey, differentiating between project and
organizational goals, and the design of the beneficiary survey were the largest challenges the
field research.
While in the field, the capstone team realized that the interaction between GlobalGiving
and the partner organizations could be improved. The capstone team recommends that
GlobalGiving (1) focus on Community Based Organizations; (2) continue to recognize partner
challenges including the paradox of funds and fundraising, infrastructure pressures, and cultural
issues; (3) develop partner skills and capacities by providing relevant skills training, improving
partner understanding of GlobalGiving, providing assistance with project pages, and promoting
the value of project updates; and (4) develop efficient information exchange by continuing to
focus on communication technology, using local partner knowledge, and developing partner
organization networks.
This research brings about several implications for future study including new cost
effective ways to improve project interaction with donors, differences in experiences between
rural and urban project, organizational networks, and differing technological capacities. A
marketplace-based system will profoundly affect donors, NGOs, and beneficiaries, as
development funding moves from a vertical system to an interactive web.
3
Introduction
GlobalGiving is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that provides an online
marketplace allowing donors to find and fund grassroots projects.
Over 1,300 projects have
received funding to date from over 41,500 individual donors. It offers projects in more than 100
countries, with a wide variety of themes. GlobalGiving was founded by two former World
Bank executives based on the success of the 1997 World Bank Development Marketplace.
Despite only having 20 employees, it has raised over $17 million in donations since 2002.
GlobalGiving's mission and vision are based on the idea of empowering everybody involved in
development assistance to make a positive difference through using a marketplace concept.1
GlobalGiving is pioneering new ways of connecting community based organizations with
private donors, from individuals to corporate sponsors. It is also exploring inexpensive methods
of multi-level monitoring and evaluation, involving a wide range of potential evaluators.
GlobalGiving hosts websites where visitors can learn about the project, see updates from the
field, and donate money to the project. These websites are where fundraising activities and
project reports are located. The partner organizations create and distribute content about their
organization's work directly from the field. Donors are alerted via e-mail to the posting of reports
and updates, whether they come from the organization or a third-party.
GlobalGiving contracted the capstone team to numerous partner organizations in Kenya
in order to test multiple dimensions of GlobalGiving’s monitoring and evaluation system. The
projects in Kenya covered a broad range of programming including education, sports, health, and
technology. The projects were located in both rural and urban locations, and beneficiaries came
from many tribal backgrounds.
4
This paper is divided into five sections. The first section will explain GlobalGiving’s
accountability system, look at the team's objectives, and examine how those objectives fit into
and support that system.
The second section will explore the design and implementation of the
survey that was created by the team. The third section will look at the success and failures of the
surveys and recommendations for their improvement. The fourth section will outline
organizational recommendations based on the team’s experiences working with GlobalGiving’s
Washington, DC based office and NGOs in Kenya that receive assistance through GlobalGiving.
These suggestions are made in order to improve GlobalGiving’s service provision to partner
organizations. The paper's conclusion brings together these recommendations and explores ideas
for further research.
Objectives
This section will examine the approach that GlobalGiving takes to the idea of
accountability. Specific methods used to put that approach into practice will be explored, as well
as how the field research enhanced and correlated with these methods and this approach. The
paper will then focus on the specific objectives targeted by our team.
1
http://www.globalgiving.com/aboutus/
5
GlobalGiving’s Approach to Accountability and Funding
The founders of GlobalGiving, Dennis Whittle and Mari Kuraishi, have not only been
passionate about innovative approaches to development; they have also carried this fresh
perspective to developing non-traditional forms of funding, transparency, and accountability. 2
GlobalGiving sees project leaders as most accountable to their project participants and
beneficiaries, while GlobalGiving sees itself as most accountable to the donors who use their
website.3 The graphic shows just one relationship of accountability from the donor's point of
view. Because donations are coming from small donors versus large organizations or taxpayer
funded bilateral development agencies, GlobalGiving highlights the direct relationship between
the donor and the project. While the basic relationship of funder and organization is not very
different, the marketplace aspect of the funding changes the organization’s degree of
accountability. Projects must convince the donors that it is making a positive impact in order to
get repeat funding. Compare this to a traditional grant based funding structure where local NGOs
are less likely to lose funding if impact is not shown.
2
3
GlobalGiving. GlobalGiving Survey and Audit Handbook. Unpublished.
http://www.globalgiving.com/guaranteed; http://www.globalgiving.com/aboutus/partners.html
6
GlobalGiving wants to change not only the methods of monitoring and evaluation, but
also the perceptions that hinder their effectiveness. Genuine transparency is beneficial for project
implementation.4
GlobalGiving believes that accountability, especially to beneficiaries, will
only make each project more effective, particularly when monitoring structures are targeted at
helping projects improve. As argued by William Easterly, a well-respected scholar, writer, and
thinker of today, as well as an avid fan of GlobalGiving, the bottom-up approach to development
– and evaluating developmental impacts – is far superior to the more common top-down
approach.5
He claims that most instances of sustainable development come from “poor people
taking initiative without experts telling them what to do.”6
This is what GlobalGiving seeks to
do, by encouraging and supporting grassroots projects and allowing beneficiaries to speak for
themselves.
Instead of taking the role of an institutional evaluator making judgments as to the
success or failure of a project – as many NGOs do,7 GlobalGiving seeks to be a partner assisting
partner organizations. This allows grassroots organizations to be independent, while still helping
them to build trust by being accountable and transparent throughout the process. While the
consensus is that “systematic, rigorous and independent evaluations, even of aid projects, remain
rare,” 8 GlobalGiving does not fit this statement.
By building a multi-level accountability
system that relies on several third party sources (including beneficiaries, visitors, and
professional auditors), GlobalGiving is attempting to create an independent and systematic
feedback loop that will minimize exaggerated and false statements of impact, while also
supporting a bottom-up approach to development.
4
5
6
7
8
Riddell, R. 2007. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford University Press. 186.
Easterly, W. 2008. Institutions: Top Down or Bottom Up? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 10.
Easterly, W. 2009. The Poor Man’s Burden. Foreign Policy. January/February.
Riddell, op. cit., 186.
Ibid. 187.
7
Accountability Pyramid
As noted above, GlobalGiving is working to create an innovative feedback loop
involving input from beneficiaries, other community members, project leaders, donors, project
visitors, and auditors.9
To increase involvement at all levels, GlobalGiving is experimenting
with various ways to measure impact, promote trust, and ensure legitimacy, as shown in the
Accountability Pyramid below.
1. Self-Reported Project Updates: Every GlobalGiving project leader must write project
updates that are posted on the website and donors are alerted to their posting.
GlobalGiving recommends that project leaders post updates at least quarterly.
However, project leaders decide for themselves how often they post and what they will
9
Kilby, P. 2006. Accountability for empowerment: dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World
Development 34 (6): 951.
8
include in their updates. To add to this level of the accountability structure, GlobalGiving
is currently exploring the role of SMS and Twitter in helping to empower both
beneficiaries and project leaders to share their stories with potential donors.
This
creates a feedback loop that would encompass the voice of project participants and the
project staff.
It also fosters an ongoing dialogue between staff, donors, and other project
leaders. Since reports from this level are created from how the project leader views
organizational impact, it is also important to have input from third parties which leads us
to the other steps of the pyramid.
2. Project Postcards: A smaller number of projects receive visitors who visit project sites
and write about their experiences. The stories and reports that they write are called
“postcards.” These visitors can be the donors, tourists, neighbors, friends, or anyone who
wants to see the project and visit beneficiaries.
By writing about their experiences, they
can legitimize the project or raise red flags about it. These “postcards” are submitted
and posted to the website. The postcards sent from the team quadrupled the number in the
system. GlobalGiving's philosophy is that a free flow of information is required to ensure
that their funding marketplace works properly and donors will be able to make the best
decisions with their funds.
3. Surveys: An even smaller number of projects are given surveys to measure
accountability.
Impact, output, and beneficiary surveys all give valuable information
about each project’s strengths and weaknesses. GlobalGiving is currently working on
bolstering this section of the Accountability Pyramid. This was the main objective of our
capstone partnership.
9
4. Professional Audits: Independent audits are at the pyramid’s top. Only a small
percentage of projects are audited each year. Some of these projects are randomly chosen.
Others are flagged for auditing based upon the other levels of the pyramid, for example
not posting updates, not accepting visitors, or strange responses to a survey.
Primary Objective
Our main objective in working with GlobalGiving was to design and test a survey
focused on project outputs. The hypothesis was that outputs could help identify potentially
fraudulent organizations while also providing a framework for comparing impact between
projects. This survey was to have several components including verification of impact, testing
the level of organizational knowledge about GlobalGiving, learning how they internally monitor
and evaluate their organizations, and exploring how beneficiaries fit in with the internal M&E
processes. The capstone group was given a wide range of topics to cover in this survey which
brought its own set of challenges.
The results of the survey were intended to be used in a myriad of ways that could help
both local organizations and GlobalGiving. By learning how the organizations interact with and
understand GlobalGiving, the survey could reveal challenges that need to be resolved.
Information about the role of beneficiaries in the organizations could help GlobalGiving learn of
new opportunities to incorporate and promote their input in the organizational process. This
survey would fit into the third level of the Accountability Pyramid.
10
Secondary Objectives
The capstone team also had a set of secondary objectives while in the field to test other
evaluation methods, which could eventually be added to the Accountability Pyramid to
strengthen it.
These included:
1.
Beneficiary Surveys:
Surveys designed and implemented to measure beneficiary
knowledge of and experience with local NGOs.
2.
(See Appendix A.)
Community Impact Surveys: Three simply phrased, but broad-based, questions
asked of random community members, developed by GlobalGiving.
These
questions brought about their own challenges regarding community knowledge of
local NGO's. These three questions were:
3.
1.
Who is doing good work?
2.
What about these projects? (Regarding local GlobalGiving projects)
3.
What is your biggest need?
Postcards: Stories and feedback written by team members about each organization
that was visited.
These stories and feedback became GlobalGiving postcards, which
were uploaded to the corresponding project sites and also sent out to donors.
4.
Partner Dialogue: From the output surveys and casual discussions, the capstone
team gathered valuable information about the strengths and weaknesses of partnering
with GlobalGiving from the perspective of the in-field staff and project leaders.
11
Survey Design & Implementation
The capstone team spent a month designing the survey in consultation with Marc
Maxson, GlobalGiving’s Manager of Performance Analytics. Early drafts of the survey
attempted to find broad outputs that could be used to measure impact. The group brainstormed a
broad array of questions looking at impact, output, and legitimacy. Throughout the process many
of the output questions were found to be unworkable and the focus changed towards impact and
legitimacy. GlobalGiving envisioned our group visiting forty organizations during our visit to
Kenya, due to a low response from the partner organizations, the team planned on visiting
fourteen. Due to the support from local project staff, the team was able to visit twenty-one past,
current, and potential project partners.
Many project leaders were excited to have the opportunity to meet with the capstone team
and offered vital logistical support. This support allowed the team to see more organizations than
originally expected and to spend more time with some of the organizations. Organizations that
offered assistance greatly affected the group's ability to efficiently meet with the organizations.
The group was able to see more organizations, including those that did not provide logistical
support. The team members were able to spend more time with project leaders and beneficiaries
and got a better understanding of the organizations.
Survey Observations and Recommendations
This section will report on the strengths and weaknesses of the survey's design and how it
was administered by the capstone team.
It will also comment on various observations from the
field and give recommendations for future groups working with Global Giving. Our capstone
team believes that the qualitative questions were the most successful aspect of the survey design.
12
The logistical help from field organizations ensured that the capstone group was able to
administer the survey to nearly all of the organizations they met.
The capstone group found
that working with local organizations to help facilitate survey testing was a useful approach that
allowed the group to better understand these organizations’ capacity. The questions which
focused on quantitative aspects of output were unsuccessful due to the variety in size, structure,
and focus of the organizations that the group surveyed. The beneficiary survey did not provide
reliable and independent information; as such, the team was unable to successfully administer it.
Successes: What Worked
Qualitative Questions
The qualitative questions were the most successful aspect of the survey.
They gave the
interviewer the opportunity to learn about the level of commitment and enthusiasm of the
interviewed employees.
For example, in response to a question about why he started his
community based organization, George told his story of being an orphan who worked hard to be
a businessman. He wanted to give other orphans the opportunities that he never had and so
started up a school for orphans. For the team, the responses to these qualitative questions,
coupled with meeting beneficiaries and seeing field sites, translated into an understanding of the
legitimacy and the impact that the organizations have in the community. Additionally, the
qualitative questions provided exceptional feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of
partnering with GlobalGiving (discussed in the next section). The answers to these questions
will prove invaluable to GlobalGiving and their staff.
Qualitative questions allowed the interviewers to better understand the organizations and
how they worked in the field.
For example, the question, “What’s the most significant change
that has happened as a result of your project?” examined the issue of impact by making the
13
project leader talk about it without using traditional monitoring and evaluation language. “What
challenges has your organization faced, and what have you done to overcome those challenges?”
examined how organizations monitor themselves and use the results to improve their impact.
Additionally, there were questions about how the project leaders interact with their beneficiaries
like, “What do you think is the best way for organizations to ensure accountability to their
beneficiaries?” This particular question brought fantastic responses such as clearly stating values
and mission statements to the community, having a beneficiary on their governance committee,
and directly interacting with beneficiaries.
Challenges: What Did Not Work
Output-Specific (Quantitative) Questions
The original focus of our survey was on creating output specific questions that could be
transferable across projects.
These questions did not work out as hoped for a variety of reasons.
To successfully use output specific questions, the following must be taken into account.
Ideally, output specific (quantitative) questions need to be tailored to each project
individually, not towards an area of work or an entire organization.
With the diversity of
organizations that GlobalGiving supports worldwide, it is necessary to look at each project
individually.
For some organizations, the project is the entire organization.
Other
organizations are quite large and simultaneously run a variety of projects. Therefore, the project
supported by GlobalGiving donors may be a small portion of what the organization does. To
correctly quantify outputs, projects must be understood and specified before the survey is
administered.
Output specific questions aren’t applicable across organizations, and cannot be rationally
standardized.
GlobalGiving supports a diversity of organizations facing their own unique set of
14
challenges. With the amount of investment GlobalGiving is planning for evaluation, it is
impossible to standardize answers for the purpose of the website, or for any other purpose. For
example, the amount of mechanic’s oil collected to use as payment for micro-lending is not
comparable with the number of classes or beds offered to vulnerable, young, refugee girls at
another organization. Nor can the number of loans given out for collection of oil accurately be
compared to the number of loans given out by other micro-lending organizations whose sole
purpose is micro-lending. Even if two organizations were providing the exact same service, the
scope of the organization, location of the project, and individual circumstances would impede
accurate standardization. GlobalGiving would need to build and maintain an unwieldy database
to standardize the results.
Finally, outputs do not necessarily show impact. Measuring outputs ignores other factors
which may affect results. For example, if two organizations provide five computers to different
schools and only one of the schools has staff that can use them, then only one organization is
having a positive impact despite having the exact same output. Quantifiable measurements also
do not measure if beneficiaries are receiving the outputs that they need, such as receiving
inappropriate seedlings in a desert area.
If output specific questions are added to subsequent
versions of the survey, the purpose of adding these questions should be clearly decided upon
beforehand and the aforementioned points taken into account.10
Project Versus Organizational Goals
A necessary challenge when dealing with organizations that are working with
GlobalGiving is differentiating between projects and organizations. While some organizations
10
Zall Kusek, J. and R.C. Rist. 2004. Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system: a handbook
for development practitioners. World Bank. 163
15
only focus on one project, others are quite large and can have many projects on GlobalGiving’s
website. The team was often unable to distinguish whether the project leader was answering
about their project or about the entire organization. Thus, when designing questions or
administering the survey, special care must be taken to distinguish between what an organization
does writ large, and what it is doing in terms of the specific project listed on GlobalGiving’s
website.
Survey Scope
The purpose and the scope of future surveys should be clearly defined.
The scope of
our survey was ill-defined and overly broad. The team originally thought that combining
legitimacy and impact in one survey would be a natural fit. GlobalGiving did not appear to know
exactly what they wanted from the survey. During the process we discussed adding questions
about legitimacy, impact, technological capability, organizational capacity, and interaction
between GlobalGiving and their partner organizations. The team’s survey ended up measuring
legitimacy and impact without having these terms properly defined by GlobalGiving. Future
surveys should focus on one well-defined purpose, such as testing impact, legitimacy, or
capacity. Too many vague topics will dilute the information produced.
The Beneficiary Survey
The beneficiary survey also proved difficult as there was not an opportunity to interview
beneficiaries without the presence of the project leaders. There were times when the project
leaders were translating the beneficiaries’ responses. Obviously it is difficult to ask questions
about a project, and receive honest answers, when the project leader is the person translating.
16
To properly administer a beneficiary survey, an interviewer must be able to either speak the local
language, or have an independent translator, and ask the questions without the presence of a
representative of the organization.
Broad Range of Secondary Tasks
Other than those mentioned above, there are further suggestions for both future capstone
teams and for GlobalGiving. Other than testing surveys, the capstone team was given many tasks
to complete while in the field including impact surveys, photos and video of the projects,
reporting from the field via blogs and Twitter, and meeting with people who were not originally
scheduled. While the addition of unplanned tasks to the assignment gave the team a broad view
of the monitoring process, it also seemed to have diluted the team’s focus on the primary
objective.
Organizational Recommendations
While administrating the survey to partner organizations, the capstone team realized that
the interaction between GlobalGiving and the partner organizations could be improved. This
created much discussion as the team traveled around Kenya and after returning to the United
States. It appeared that the partner organizations which would most benefit from interacting with
a global funding marketplace were community based organizations (CBOs) that also appeared to
have the most difficulty in raising funds through this marketplace. While the recommendations in
this section are primarily of benefit to CBOs, the larger and more successful organizations would
also benefit from these recommendations.
17
This section will begin by explaining why it is important for GlobalGiving to focus on
smaller and more rural organizations. While CBOs do not inherently have a greater project
impact than larger and better funded organizations, their development is essential for sustainable
community development. The second section will outline the challenges that are beyond the
control of GlobalGiving and their partners. While some of the issues were unique to Kenya, most
of them are either directly applicable or similar to issues in all developing nations. The next part
will look at how GlobalGiving can provide trainings to improve the skills and capacities of its
partners. The fourth section will focus on improving the exchange of information between
GlobalGiving, the partner organizations, beneficiaries and the funders. Communication should
take place between all parties in order to increase the viability of the global funding marketplace
concept, despite the underlying power dynamics in all of these relationships. Some of these
recommendations will target specific actions while others will be areas for further research.
Focus on Community Based Organizations
GlobalGiving’s marketplace approach to philanthropy is useful for both large and
established organizations and community based organizations. There are many reasons why
GlobalGiving should focus on funding CBOs, though, including local ownership, building
capacity within civil society, and access to international funding streams. GlobalGiving has a
unique opportunity to support the development of small and rural organizations through its
innovative funding process. By supporting these organizations, GlobalGiving empowers the local
communities to decide what projects best suit their needs.
While large international non-governmental and bilateral organizations may be able to
efficiently direct funding and implement development projects in the field, reliance on these
organizations can leave communities with little ownership in projects and minimal ability to
18
utilize outputs.
This reliance can also undermine local capacity.
Building upon existing
community based organizations accesses local understanding of the needs of their communities,
ensures community ownership, and works to build local capacity. Locals know the greatest
challenges affecting their communities, the community members who should be involved for
successful implementation, and how to navigate the local government and community structures.
Ultimately the community must be involved to ensure the sustainability, ownership, and success
of any project, and working with CBOs incorporates these aspects of development.
There are many large and well structured organizations, like Sadili Oval and Equality
Now Kenya, who use GlobalGiving as an additional funding source. While focusing on bringing
in larger organizations may not require as much investment from GlobalGiving, it would fail to
recognize one of the greatest benefits of a funding marketplace. The GlobalGiving marketplace
gives CBOs access to funding from a broad international base that they could not otherwise
reach. Organizations with small staff, like Best Buddies Kenya, which has a staff of one, use
GlobalGiving as a major source of funding to gain a foothold while learning how to apply for
international grants.
Recognition of Partner Challenges
Nearly all NGOs in the developing world have challenges that affect their ability to
deliver services. Those which partner with GlobalGiving are no exception. Small grassroots
organizations may find these challenges insurmountable and not be able to receive enough
benefit from the GlobalGiving marketplace for the cost of time and resources spent. Many of
these challenges are outside of GlobalGiving's circle of influence. Nevertheless, GlobalGiving,
the partner organizations, and the funders must recognize the issues that may keep them from
using GlobalGiving optimally.
19
Paradox of Funds and Fundraising
Some of the organizations that use GlobalGiving are unable to completely fund their
needs. This lack of funding not only impedes implementation of the programs; it also hinders
their ability to raise funds through GlobalGiving. Since funding sources within developing
countries are often minimal, most of the organizations must rely on donations from abroad.
Those organizations that have access to the most funds are able to use that money to find more
funding.
For example, Vincent from Brothers without Borders has difficulty raising money since
internet costs are high for rural organizations.11 The amount of time spent on the internet costs
money. In-country and international mobile phone calls and text messages cost money.
Transportation to and from internet cafes also costs money. With a scarcity of funds,
organizations must often decide between using money to fund programs or to investing in
obtaining future donations, resulting in a choice between fundraising and services for
beneficiaries.
Infrastructure Pressures
The second challenge is that the infrastructure in Kenya is quite poor outside of Nairobi.
Roads are often full of potholes or completely under construction; the capstone team experienced
several delays due to poor road conditions and construction. Most of the paved roads are in poor
condition while most rural roads and those in slum areas are dirt roads that are easily affected by
weather and wear. The time spent traveling to visit beneficiaries and the damage to vehicles slow
11
Capstone Team. 2009. Interview with Vincent from Brothers without Borders. Interviewed on March 23.
20
service delivery whether the organization has a dedicated vehicle, travels by public
transportation, or by foot12.
Internet and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure has both success stories
and continuing challenges. The greatest success is in the mobile phone sector. There are
approximately 16 million subscribers 13 . There will be recommendations regarding this
technology later, but the following examples will show its amazing penetration into the general
population. At the end of 2004 there were only 3.4 million subscribers14. There was a 41%
growth in mobile phone subscribers in 2007 alone. On the other hand, Internet use in Kenya is
only at about 7.9% due to poor broadband connectivity and expense15. It can take more than 2
minutes to load a high quality web-page such as Google Mail or Facebook. Many project leaders
in Kenya mentioned that it often takes 15 minutes or much longer to upload or e-mail project
updates and the due diligence documents needed to join GlobalGiving. Often the project leaders
do not even know if their e-mail was delivered16. There is good news on the horizon as the
private company Seacom plans on connecting Kenya to India with an underwater broadband
cable, with more organizations to follow. The cable is expected to be operational in June and is
certain to bring down costs, although those in the rural west may see little benefit17.
GlobalGiving, like other organizations that concentrate on providing services in
developing countries, are heavily reliant on new media and communication technologies. It
12
B. Fox, W. F., and S. Porca. 2001. Investing in rural infrastructure. International Regional Science Review 24, (1): 103.
13
Kwama, K. MTN seeks to buy Econet’s stake in yu. in The Standard. Nairobi, Kenya, 2009 [cited 04/20 2009]. Available
from http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1144010264&cid=457.
14
Arunga, J. and B Kahora. 2007. The cell phone revolution in Kenya. International Policy Press: 10.
15
Kenya internet usage and marketing report. in Internet World Stats. 2008 [cited 05/01 2009]. Available from
http://www.internetworldstats.com/af/ke.htm.
16
Capstone Team. 2009 Interview with Enouche from Best Buddies Kenya. Interviewed on March 17.
17
Makeni, J. Will africa join broadband revolution? in BBC. 2009 [cited 04/30 2009]. Available from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7987812.stm.
21
views these technologies as ways to empower populations living in disadvantaged communities.
One major drawback of this approach lies in the lack of consistent ICT infrastructure within
Kenya and throughout the developing world. This weighs heaviest on the CBO'S and those who
are located in rural areas without the funds available to participate in a new media community.
Cultural Issues
Cultural limitations are often ignored when looking at organizational impact. While many
recognize that corruption is a major problem in Kenya, fewer realize that non-governmental
issues like tribalism hinder the ability for organizations to work. Kenya's post-election violence
emerged from long-standing grudges based on land rights and power dynamics from the colonial
past.
Some project leaders are unwilling to listen to the ideas of project leaders from other
tribes, according to a GlobalGiving representative. While GlobalGiving and their partner
organizations are unable to directly change the increasing rigidity of ethnic identity it must
understand what, if any, consequences it has for projects and how to mitigate any negative
outcomes of these consequences.
These challenges bring up many questions for development practitioners. How much
focus should be given to trying to fix the underlying challenges versus assisting local
organizations to work within that framework? Can these solutions be transplanted to other
regions and countries? How many of these solutions must be developed by local communities?
Are there some organizations that will not be able to master these challenges, regardless of
assistance? Despite the lack of power GlobalGiving has over these challenges, it can still assist
22
partner organizations to overcome the challenges. 18 The next section will focus on how
GlobalGiving can improve the skills and capacities of their partner organizations.
Develop Partner Skills & Capacities
Unfortunately, many CBO's lack the skills necessary to properly report project impact.
This has prevented organizations and projects that make a fantastic difference in the field from
being able to show the difference to potential donors. Without the ability to prove impact in a
way that appeals to donors it is impossible to receive enough funding.
Beyond the lack of
organizational skills and capacities, it was surprising to learn what the organizations knew about
GlobalGiving and what they didn't.
look for in project pages.
Partner organizations primarily need to know what donors
GlobalGiving can do several things to assist their partners, depending
on the resources they are willing to expend.
Provide Relevant Skills Training
GlobalGiving can start by providing trainings for organizations. Many of the
organizations shared with the capstone team their desire to learn general skills like NGO
management, financial management, marketing, donor communication, the Internet, and
telecommunications skills. By giving partner organizations more professional skills, they will be
less likely to waste resources in management and fundraising19. The largest obstacle to putting
together these trainings is the question of their funding and whether costs are low enough and the
18
19
Mansuri, G. and V. Rao. 2004. Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. The World Bank Research
Observer 19, (1): 1
McCourt, W., and N. Sola. 1999. Using training to promote civil service reform: A Tanzanian local government case study.
Public Administration and Development 19, (1): 63-7; Frederickson, P. and R. London. 2000. Disconnect in the hollow state:
The pivotal role of organizational capacity in community-based development organizations. Public Administration Review
60, (3): 230-39
23
returns high enough for GlobalGiving to subsidize CBOs' skill development.
question about where the trainers can be found.
There is also a
These issues must be carefully studied before
beginning a training regimen for selected projects.
GlobalGiving can also partner with outside NGOs who are already providing trainings
and capacity building for local CBOs through bilateral aid agency projects (e.g. USAID, DFID).
The benefits and costs of such a partnership are great. The benefit is that the training
infrastructure has already been created or could be based on previous iterations. GlobalGiving
can use its fundraising capacities to fund the project. The major cost is that this partnership
would force GlobalGiving, and possibly its partners, into more stringent reporting and funding
requirements. Instead of decentralizing funding and projects, it will centralize them within the
very structures that GlobalGiving is trying to escape. By including a project like this on the
project pages, GlobalGiving will also be in direct competition with all of the organizations it is
attempting to assist with funding.
Improve Partner Understanding of GlobalGiving
GlobalGiving also needs to help organizations understand how GlobalGiving works from
the initial application process to creating successful project pages and donor communication
skills. GlobalGiving provided the team with one page handouts, discussing successful projects
and updates, to deliver to organizations it visited. This was an excellent first step. Unfortunately,
some CBO's have neither a dedicated computer nor the communications knowledge to translate
those suggestions into a successful project page. These organizations use trial and error to
present their project in the best light without understanding what will sell in countries that they
24
have never visited. This wastes the resources of the CBOs and jeopardizes their placement on
GlobalGiving.
Provide Assistance with Project Pages
There were several problems with the project pages of the organizations that the capstone
team visited. Some of the pages had incomplete or old contact information. While many
organizations knew that donors like to see project updates, some did not have recent project
updates. They did not understand how GlobalGiving gives preferential ranking to projects with
recent updates. They also did not realize that regular donor communication would lead to more
donors and a supply of guaranteed project funding.
There are several things that GlobalGiving can do to help. It can provide a "training
ground" for new organizations with practice project pages where they can get input from donors
and other organizations, as with the Ashoka Changemakers Challenge.20 If GlobalGiving lacks
the capacity for a training ground, it can either create example project pages or designate
successful projects to show how a successful project page is designed. GlobalGiving must be
clear in describing to the organizations what is successful about these pages, so they understand
what is transferable to their projects and what is not. GlobalGiving should also facilitate the
transfer of repeat funders to organizations' new projects from completed ones.
The improvement of project pages is where a mentorship program between successful
and newer organizations can have a great impact. Successful organizations would be able to
guide their mentee organization through the development and implementation of their project
pages in order to reduce the time wasted on developing pages that do not speak to potential
funders. Through the mentorship, the mentoring organization will be able to offer technical
25
assistance, but also it would understand the mentee's organization's situation in a way that
GlobalGiving would not. Mentorships, their benefits, and potential problems will be looked in
greater depth when examining how GlobalGiving can utilize local partner knowledge.
Promote the Value of Project Updates
Consistent and well written project updates are one of the most important tools for
growing a regular donor base and for increasing accountability. GlobalGiving should increase its
recommendation about the regularity of project updates from once per quarter to at least once per
month. It can also broaden the definition of a project update in order to lower the perceived
intrusion factor of these communications. A photograph from a project site sent via SMS with a
couple sentences or even a short description of the project's progress could also count. The
current practice of promoting Twitter among project leaders is good, but either a link to a
project's Twitter feed or integration to the project updates would increase Twitter's utility.
Getting project leaders to request comments and respond to the comments could have a major
impact on increasing donor commitment to a project.
Local capacity and donor communication are major challenges in the International
Development community.21 By trying to fix the apparent problems in developing countries there
is always a danger of cultural domination. By supporting outside methods and philosophies,
indigenous knowledge and methods often become lost in the change. Partner organizations may
already know how to earn funding from communities with similar backgrounds that wouldn't
work with western donors. Some cultures may be drawn to calls of need and support while others
need to understand an organization's impact before supporting it.
20
http://www.ashoka.org/changemakers
26
Develop Efficient Information Exchange
One of the greatest limitations in a global marketplace model is the difficulty in
communicating with CBOs in developing countries, especially those that work in rural areas with
low technology penetration. Like the organizations it works with, GlobalGiving has limited
resources and is unable and unwilling to have an office in each country where partner
organizations are located. Beyond the limitations of communication infrastructure, issues like
time differences and traveling to Internet cafes slow the exchange of information. GlobalGiving
must rely both on the burgeoning communication industries and local partners to develop an
efficient way to exchange information with partner organizations.
Continue Focusing on Communication Technology
Communications is a dynamic industry in Africa with the explosive growth of mobile
phone technology. This gives GlobalGiving some innovative ways to send and receive
information to small grassroots organizations. Sending and receiving text messages is an
innovative way to communicate, as all the organizations the capstone team visited used mobile
phones as the primary means of communications. The costs for sending international text
messages may be prohibitive for CBOs outside of emergency or high priority communications.
GlobalGiving can use tools such as FrontlineSMS to send mass text messages to project leaders
in the field.
21
Frederickson, P. and R. London. 2000. Disconnect in the hollow state: The pivotal role of organizational capacity in
community-based development organizations. Public Administration Review 60, (3): 230-239
27
Use Local Partner Knowledge
One of the most important ways that GlobalGiving can improve communication is to
focus on a knowledge base that already exists in many countries: those organizations which
successfully use GlobalGiving's services. There are several ways that CBOs can access the
knowledge from successful partners. These recommendations can either be put into action
separately or in tandem. One way is to have successful organizations mentor new organizations
or those with less capacity. The second way is to contract two or three project leaders as
technical and organizational support. Another is to create a countrywide or regional network.
Each of these methods has benefits and challenges. The benefits for all of these options
are that organizations would share the same time zone, neither organization needs to pay
international fees for communication, it may promote cooperation on projects, and it gives an
incentive for organizations to use the increasingly convenient mobile technology. The challenges
for all of them is the view that other organizations are competing for funding, successful
organizations may not see benefits for their involvement, and cultural limitations like tribalism in
Kenya may have unforeseen consequences.
Mentorships are very attractive because they give CBO's and startup organizations access
to someone who understands GlobalGiving and its processes. They know the challenges of
application forms, local country's policies, and how to create successful project pages and
updates. Mentorship programs, though, have many potential pitfalls in their development and
implementation. The largest issue that must be examined is the issue of competition, direct and
indirect. The mentors and mentees will be in direct completion for funding via their project
pages.
28
There are different ways to combat this negative incentive. One would be to have the
mentor and mentee work in two different topics, such as partnering an organization that focuses
on health with an organization that focuses on education. The benefit of this arrangement is that
the two organizations would have different potential donors and could be more likely to assist
each other. The downsides are that the organizations' projects may bleed into similar areas
bringing them into direct competition or that having the organizations in different fields may
render the mentors advice as irrelevant to the mentee organization. Another option is to provide a
financial benefit to the mentors, either through a direct influx of funding or by adding a marginal
bonus (5-20%) to donations received on the mentors’ project page.
Aside from competition, a mentorship program would pull resources away from the
mentoring organization's project goals in order to assist the mentee project. Considering that
some of the project leaders work without a salary and other organizations have few paid
employees, the organizations may be unable to allow an employee to work on a project for
another organization. This leads to the next option, GlobalGiving funding the time spent by
project leaders on other organizations' projects.
In countries with many projects, GlobalGiving may want to hire or appoint two or three
project leaders to share in the duties as on-call technical assistance or immediate troubleshooters.
This would give the party seeking assistance the ability for a quick and knowledgeable response
for individual issues. The biggest drawback is that organizations that need long term support will
only have minor assistance which will not fill their long term needs. Another major drawback is
that it will take project leaders' time away from their own project; an option to solve this issue is
to hire a local contractor paid by the amount of assistance they provide instead of using project
29
leaders. Either way, there would be a question of who would pay the costs and whether it is
affordable.
Develop Partner Organization Networks
Creating a network of organizations can have many benefits. Organizations that are
already in networks often have the capacity to successfully implement projects. Their
corresponding projects are well developed because they had to meet requirements join the
network. A network can be as loose as just sharing contact information of nearby project leaders
so they can decide how much contact they have. It can also be a full service network including
regular meetings, a website to share information, and an internal governance structure. There are
many challenges in creating a network ranging from individual organizations' desire to get the
maximum benefit with a minimum investment to the time and money needed to create and
maintain the network.
GlobalGiving's desire to increase organizational accountability to beneficiaries is difficult
to achieve. All the options currently available are imperfect, but still can be used to influence
project implementation and donors' choices in projects to fund. Twitter can be used to broadcast
beneficiary experiences from their phones, but it has several limitations: costs for international
text messages, inability to receive responses, and the sheer volume of Twitter users diluting the
chance they will be heard. GlobalGiving's Ideas website gives anybody the ability to share their
needs and voice concerns about local organizations, but it is only available to beneficiaries and
staff members who know it exists and have access to the internet. GlobalGiving can connect
beneficiaries with organizations that teach technical and communications skills, but it would be
cost prohibitive and out of GlobalGiving's scope to provide trainings for beneficiaries.
30
Conclusion
GlobalGiving's pioneering vision of connecting donors with grassroots organizations
provides many opportunities for improving localized service delivery to a broad range of
beneficiaries worldwide. With unique and inexpensive monitoring and evaluation methods,
including project updates, the ideas website, and "project postcards," GlobalGiving allows for a
multi-party system to assess the impact of their diverse partner organizations.
These new methods bring about several implications for future research. In order to
improve on its targeted approach to marketplace funding and bottom-up development,
GlobalGiving will need to look at ways to improve project interaction with donors and with
beneficiaries in a cost effective way that demonstrates real, positive results. The project updates
and social communications (e.g. Twitter) are the most promising methods of increasing
interaction between projects, donors, and possibly even beneficiaries, particularly because they
encompass the multi-party, bottom-up approach to development for which GlobalGiving is a
strong proponent.
31
Opportunities for further research are abundant. GlobalGiving might find it helpful to
examine, among other issues, the difference in experiences between rural and urban project
leaders; the best type of content for beneficiary surveys; the possibility of partnering with other
volunteer programs to encourage more project postcards; the impact of organizational networks
on organizational capacity; and the technological capacity of both beneficiaries and project
leaders. This final area of research is of particular importance because if beneficiaries and
project leaders are unable to access methods of communication, their voices and their stories will
remain unheard, and both GlobalGiving’s funding and feedback structures will suffer.
Until further research can be done, GlobalGiving would do well to focus its improvement
efforts on small, community based organizations by recognizing the local challenges faced by
partner organizations, developing partner skills and capacities, and working toward efficient
information exchange. These organizations are crucial for developing sustainable local capacity
Steps toward implementing these recommendations would result in bolstering the effectiveness
of their bottom-up, marketplace approach to development.
As development funding and evaluation methods move from a vertical system to an
interactive web of donors, NGOs, and beneficiaries, a marketplace-based system will affect all of
the actors profoundly. Donors will have to find how to fund projects effectively despite a
plethora of choices about who will get their dollars. NGOs will have many funding sources
available, but will have to compete with even more organizations to get the funds. Beneficiaries
will have to force accountability from NGOs and donors through new ways of communication,
or risk continued voiceless dependency. For organizations like GlobalGiving, how all three
negotiate this fractious environment will determine overall effectiveness in helping those in
need.
32
Appendix A- Revised Beneficiary Survey
Introduction and Instructions
Instructions
This survey provides simple questions that an interviewer can ask a beneficiary in order to receive a
good understanding of the impact an organization is having on the ground. It is also intended to
provide quotations for GlobalGiving’s website. In order to receive honest feedback, the
interviewer must ask these questions in the local language or with help from an independent
translator. Also, the interview should take place when staff workers from the organization are not
present in order to insure impartiality. Whenever possible, answers should be written down
immediately; and re-visited later that day in order to correct any problems with handwriting or other
mistakes.
Introduction
Hello, I’m _______________ (INSERT NAME), from _______________ (INSERT
ORGANIZATION). On behalf of GlobalGiving, we are conducting a survey in order to help
GlobalGiving better serve your needs. Your answers to this survey will be read by donors,
beneficiaries, and GlobalGiving staff. We want to help PROJECT to improve and better serve
your needs.
(IF APPLICABLE) May I have your permission to record the interview?______
Does GlobalGiving have your permission to use quotes from your answers? ______
have a question, we can begin the survey now.
Unless you
Beneficiary Survey
1. What has PROJECT done for you?
2. Why is this a good organization?
3. Do you get help from any other organizations?
4. How can PROJECT improve its services to you and the community?
5. Have you recommended PROJECT to anyone?
6. How do you tell PROJECT what you need?
33
Appendix B- Original Beneficiary Survey
Beneficiary Survey
1. What has PROJECT done for you?
2. How did you learn about PROJECT?
3. What do you know about PROJECT?
4. Why is this a good organization?
5. Do you get help from anyone else?
6. How can PROJECT be better?
7. How do you tell PROJECT what you need?
8. Have you recommended PROJECT to people?
34
Appendix C- Revised Project / Organization Survey
Global Giving
Kenya Survey
Introduction and Instructions
Introduction
Hello, I’m _______________ (INSERT NAME), from _______________ (INSERT ORGANIZATION). On behalf of
Global Giving, we are conducting a survey in order to help Global Giving better serve your needs and understand your
project. The survey results will be read by donors, beneficiaries, and Global Giving. We want to help PROJECT to
improve and better partner with Global Giving. Your cooperation is voluntary.
Instructions
There are no correct answers, and neither you nor PROJECT will lose its partnership with Global Giving for any
answers that you give. Global Giving views you as most accountable to your beneficiaries. This interview is not an
evaluation of the work you do, but an attempt to learn how Global Giving can best help your organization and others
like it. Let me know if we come to a question that you do not understand or you do not want to answer. May I have
your permission to record the interview?______ Does Global Giving have your permission to use quotes from your
answers? ______ Unless you have a question, we can begin the survey now.
Demographics
We would like to know a little about you and your organization.
1. What is your organization's name/ project's name? _________________________
2. What is your name?
_______________________________
3. What is your position in the project/ organization, or what is your job title?
Manages the organization
Manages the project
Manages Finances
Other
4.
How long have you been working for this project/ organization? ________________
5.
How often do you, personally, interact with beneficiaries?
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Variable/ Changeable
Other
6. What does a typical day of work look like for you? ______________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
7. Why did you choose to work for this project/ organization? _______________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
8. Who founded the project/ organization? _______________________________
9. What is the primary problem your project/ organization is addressing? _____________________
10. How did he/she/you decide that this was a problem? Did you talk to the community? __________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Organizational Structure and Capacity
Global Giving is trying to understand how best to provide their services to you. In order to do so, they would
like to know about how your organization/ project is structured and its resources.
11. How many people are on staff? ______________________________
12. How many volunteers do you have? _____________________________
13.
Who benefits directly from your work? Who benefits indirectly from your work?
14. How are beneficiaries chosen or how do they find your project/ organization?
Identified by Community
Identified by Staff/ Volunteers/ Partners
Identified by Local Authorities (Provincial
Announcements on Local Radio, T.V., Internet or
Administration, Chiefs, School Teachers/ Staff)
Newsletters
Identified/ Referred by Beneficiaries
Referred by outside organizations
Other
15. What types of information do you share with your beneficiaries?
Organizational Operations (mission statement,
Finances/ Sources of Money/ Donors
organization structure)
Program/ Project Activities/ Goals
Contact Information
Evaluation Results
Other
16. How do you share this information?
Staff/Volunteers’ interaction w/ beneficiaries
Newsletters/ Banners
Internet (website, e-mail)
Media (radio, tv)
Beneficiary Meetings
Other
17. Who do you receive funding from?
GlobalGiving
Money Making Activities/ Membership Fees
Non-Governmental Organizations
Local People/ Community/ Businesses
Local Government
Other
18. How does your organization/ project track its income and expenses?
Tracked Externally by Independent Auditor
Tracked Internally by Staff Accountant(s)
Tracked Internally by Board of Directors/ Staff (i.e.
Other
petty cash vouchers, reciept books, for small
organizations with little cash to track)
Evaluating the Project/ Organization
Next we would like to understand how your organization works on a daily basis, and how your organization/
project assesses the quality of services it provides, measures impact, sets goals, and keeps track of its
activities.
19. What are your project’s/ organization’s short-term (i.e. weekly or monthly) goals? ____________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
20. How does your project/ organization set project goals?
Goals are set by outside source (i.e. Foreign HQ)
Through Meetings/ Discussion with Beneficiaries/
Community
Through Meetings/ Discussion with Staff/ Volunteers
Other
21. How do you track progress towards those goals?
Internal Evaluations/ Progress Reports
External/ Independent Evaluations/ Progress Reports
Staff Feedback
Beneficiary Interview/ Survey/ Questions
Site Visits/ Visually
Other
22. What’s the most significant change that has happened as a result of your project/ organization? __
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
23. What challenges has your project/ organization faced? __________________________________
24. What have you done to overcome those challenges? ____________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
25. What types of evaluation activities does your project/ organization do?
Internal Evaluation/ Audit
External Evaluation/ Audit
Beneficiary Survey/ Questionnaire/ Evaluation/
Consistent Meeting of Stakeholders Staff,
Feedback
Beneficiaries, etc.)
Staff Reports/ Meetings/ Evaluations
Sets Benchmarks/ Targets/ Baseline Evaluation
Other
26. How have you used the information from your evaluation?
Improved Project/ Adjusted Project Based on
Planned for Future Projects/ Activities
Findings
Identified Best Practices/ Institutional Strengths and
Other
Weaknesses
27. What challenges has your organization/ project faced doing evaluations?
Lack of money
Lack of time
Lack of Evaluation Expertise/ Training
Other
28. What do you think is the best way for organizations/ projects to ensure accountability to their beneficiaries?
Community/ Beneficiary Feedback
Transparency
Financial/ Professional Accounting or Audit
Community Involvement/ Ownership
Community Representation on Board/ Community
Office/ Staff Contact with Beneficiaries
Needs Articulated at Highest Level
Annual Reports/ Reporting
Have Clear Objectives/Mission Statement
Other
29. Besides money, what would be the #1 thing that would help you improve your organization/ project?
Staff Training/ Increased Staff Capacity
More Volunteers
More Staff
Organizational Facilities
Other
30. If you could get training on one thing to help you improve, what would that be?
Marketing/ Fundraising
NGO/ Project Management
Technology
Other
Other Information
We would like to ask you a few questions about other organizations in Kenya that you are aware of.
31. Do you belong to a social or development network or have partners? If so, which ones?
32. Which other nearby organizations in your field do good work? ___________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
33. Do you have regular (once or more per month) contact with other organizations in Kenya?
Yes
No
34. Have you ever heard of (INSERT A GG ORGANIZATION THAT OPERATES NEARBY)? ____
______________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Global Giving
Now we would like to ask you a few questions about Global Giving and how you use their services.
35. How often do you post updates from the field?
Weekly
Monthly
Every 2-5 Months
N/A
Twice a year/ Every 6 months
Once a Year/ Yearly
Variable/ Changeable
Other
36. Why do you post updates from the field?
Encourage More Donations
Make Accountable to Donors
So Donors see the impact/ progress
Other
Prove Not Fraudulent/ Wasting Money
Share Information
N/A (Someone Else’s Job)
37. Where exactly are your projects located? _____________________________________________
38. What do you find most helpful about Global Giving?
Access to a Large/ World Network/ People
Organization Couldn’t Otherwise Reach
International Exposure to Donors
Lack of Restrictions from Global Giving about Project
Categories/ Doesn’t Limit Project Options
Gives Legitimacy/ Trustworthiness to Organization
Easy to Use/ Work With
Increased Visibility of Project/ Publicity
Source of Donations/ Funding
Gives Project/ Organization Website/ Internet
Presence
Networking Capacity/ Interaction with other
organizations
Other
39. What about working with Global Giving is most difficult?
Communication with GlobalGiving
Lack of Technological Capacity/ Slow Internet
E-mail Focused/ Lack of Face-to-Face Interaction
Donor Anonymity/ Can’t Thank Donors
Global Giving Challenge Targets
Communication with Donors
N/A / Someone else works with
Other
40. How can Global Giving help you be more effective?
Communication about Things Other than Project
Help with Marketing to Donors (what kind of photos,
how to write updates, catch phrases, dos and don’ts)
More project exposure
Volunteer Program
More networking opportunities with other
organizations
Other
41. Was there anything missing from this survey or any questions you thought were difficult to answer?
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Interviewer: Organization HQ/Field Office Questions
1. Describe the office: (atmosphere, temperature, light, noise level, activity level, size, location, adequacy, etc.)
2. How many...
1. ___ Work stations? Describe: (Desk, tools, supplies, etc.)
2. ___ Phones? Cell Phones? Describe:
3. ___ Computers? Describe:
4. ___ People working? Describe:
Interviewer Feedback
The following questions are to be answered by the interviewer after the interview has taken place.
1. Was there anything missing or difficult about this survey?
2. What would you recommend to improve the survey?
3. Did you meet any beneficiaries?
How many beneficiaries? ___
4. Describe your interaction with beneficiaries.
5. Were you invited out to the field site?
6. Describe the field site. What did you see?
7. Do you think this organization provides an important service to the community?
8. What does this organization do well?
9. Are there any major weaknesses to this organization?
10. Do you think this organization should be audited?
11. (IF YES), Why should it be audited?
12. Any other comments?
Appendix D- Original Project / Organization Survey
Global Giving
Kenya Survey
Introduction and Instructions
Introduction
Hello, I’m _______________ (INSERT NAME), from _______________ (INSERT ORGANIZATION). On behalf of
Global Giving, we are conducting a survey in order to help Global Giving better serve your needs and understand
your project. The survey results will be read by donors, beneficiaries, and Global Giving. We want to help
PROJECT to improve and better partner with Global Giving. Your cooperation is voluntary.
Instructions
There are no correct answers, and neither you nor PROJECT will lose its partnership with Global Giving for any
answers that you give. Global Giving views you as most accountable to your beneficiaries, this interview is not an
evaluation of the work you do, but an attempt to learn how Global Giving can best help your organization and others
like it. Let me know if we come to a question that you do not understand or you do not want to answer. May I have
your permission to record the interview?______ Does Global Giving have your permission to use quotes from your
answers? ______ Unless you have a question, we can begin the survey now.
Demographics
We would like to know a little about you and your organization.
 What is your name?
(INTERVIEWER INSERTS): Their age?
(INTERVIEWER INSERTS): Their gender?
 What is your position in the organization, or what is your job title?
 What does a typical day of work look like for you?
4. How long have you been working for PROJECT?

How often do you, personally, interact with beneficiaries?
Organizational Structure and Capacity
Global Giving is trying to understand how best to provide their services to you. The following questions
address the realities on the ground in Kenya and how best to provide those services.
 How many people are on staff?

Who do you receive funding from? Do you know the percentages from each?
 Do you share information with beneficiaries? What information do you share? How do you share this
information?
Project Set Up
Global Giving would like to know a little about the history of the organization.
 Who designed the project?
 What is the problem your project is addressing?
 How did he/she/you decide that this was a problem? Did you talk to the community?
 Why did you choose this project to address it? Did you talk to the community?
 Why did you choose to work for PROJECT in order to combat this problem? (NON-FOUNDERS)
Implementing the Project
Next we would like to understand how your organization works on a daily basis.
 How does PROJECT set project goals?
 How do you track progress towards those goals? ($, outcomes, etc)
 Does your organization track its income and expenses? (If not answered in previous Q)
 How do you track that money? (If not answered in previous Q)
 Who benefits directly from your work?
 Who benefits indirectly from your work (i.e. the families or communities where PROJECT works)?
 How are beneficiaries chosen or how do they find PROJECT?
 Does PROJECT follow-up with beneficiaries after they’re done with the project? If so, how?
 How many people has PROJECT reached since it began? In the past year alone?
 How much/many INSERT (vaccines, training, clean water,classes, etc.) do you believe was/were available
here for your beneficiaries before this project started?
 How much/many INSERT (vaccines, training, clean water, class etc.) have you provided to your
beneficiaries since this project started? In the past year alone?
 What’s the most significant change that has happened as a result of your project?
 What have you changed about your project since starting?
Evaluating the Project
The following questions address how your organization assesses the quality of services it provides,
measures impact, sets goals, and keeps track of its activities.
 What types of evaluation activities does PROJECT do? (OPEN END WITH PRE-CODES)
We have no formal evaluation process. SKIP to 31.
We have identified measurable goals and objectives.
We systematically collect data on program activities and outputs
We systematically measure program outcomes.
We have staff with specific expertise in evaluation.
We use (have used) third-party evaluators to evaluate some of our programs as needed.
We use third-party evaluators on an ongoing basis for the evaluation of our programs.
Other:
 Do you feel that the evaluation produced information that was useful to PROJECT? (If YES, SKIP TO 30)
 (IF NO) If not, what are the reasons that the evaluation did not produce information that was useful for your
project? (OPEN END WITH PRE-CODES)
Lack of money
Lack of evaluation expertise
Lack of cooperation by community partners
Staff turnover
Staff resources were unavailable (for data collection and/or entry)
The scale of evaluation needed was excessive for our modest program
Other barriers:
 How have you used the information from your evaluation? (OPEN END WITH PRE-CODES)
To improve services
To support replication of the program
To obtain funding
To market services or the organization
To advocate for our service population
To promote policy change
Other:
 What do you think is the best way for organizations to ensure accountability to their beneficiaries?
 Besides money, what would be the #1 thing that would help you improve your project?
More staff
Better training
Improved technology
Better community partnerships
Other:
 How would (ANSWER TO 32) help you?
 If you could get training on one thing to help you improve, what would that be?
Other Information
We would like to ask you a few questions about other organizations in Kenya that you are aware of.
 Which other nearby organizations in your field do good work?
 Do you have regular (once or more per month) contact with other organizations in Kenya?
 What work do they do?
 Have you ever heard of (INSERT A GG ORGANIZATION THAT OPERATES NEARBY)?
Global Giving
Now we would like to ask you a few questions about Global Giving and how you use their services.
 Do you use the fundraiser tool provided by Global Giving?
 How often do you post updates from the field?
 Why do you post updates from the field?
 Where exactly are your projects located?
 What do you find most helpful about Global Giving?
 What about working with Global Giving is most difficult? (OPEN END WITH PRE-CODES)
Lack of Tech Skills
Lack of Tech Capacity
Lack of understanding of tools available
Communication with GG
Website
Global Giving's Requirements
 How can Global Giving help you be more effective? (OPEN END WITH PRE-CODES)
Improve Tech Skills
Make easier for low bandwidth orgs
New tool kits
More funding
Improved publicity
Partnerships with other GG orgs/outside companies
More Communication with GG
Improved Website
Easier requirements to join GG
 Was there anything missing from this survey or any questions you thought were difficult to answer?
Interviewer: Organization HQ/Field Office Questions
1.
etc.)
Describe the office: (atmosphere, temperature, light, noise level, activity level, size, location, adequacy,
2. How many...
1. ___ Work stations? Describe: (Desk, tools, supplies, etc.)
2. ___ Phones? Cell Phones? Describe:
3. ___ Computers? Describe:
4. ___ People working? Describe:
Interviewer Feedback
The following questions are to be answered by the interviewer after the interview has taken place.
1. Was there anything missing or difficult about this survey?
2. What would you recommend to improve the survey?
3. Did you meet any beneficiaries?
How many beneficiaries? ___
4. Describe your interaction with beneficiaries.
5. Were you invited out to the field site?
6. Describe the field site. What did you see?
7. Do you think this organization provides an important service to the community?
8. What does this organization do well?
9. Are there any major weaknesses to this organization?
10. Do you think this organization should be audited?
11. (IF YES), Why should it be audited?
Any other comments?Appendix E- GlobalGiving Partner Organizations Contacted/Interviewed
Organization
Contact Name/ Person
Interviewed
Alive & Kicking
Joel Kinuthia
Sadili Oval
Liz Odera
Kenya Water
Constance Hunt
EPS Program
Collins Apuoyo
Capital Area Soccer
Nancy Njeri
Equality Now
Caroline Muriithi
Best Buddies
Enouce Ndeche
Heshima Kenya
Talyn Good
AfriAfya
Sara Kinagwi
GEMINI
Stella Amojong
TYSA
Gichuki Francis
Brothers Self Help
Vincent Washika
SACRENA
Wycliffe Mboya
Rafode
Erick Ndenga
Bread Without Borders
George Okanga
Carolina For Kibera
Salim
TechnoServe
Pauline Mwangi
Africa Conservation Trust
Stacy Harris
Kenya Disabled
Fredrick Ouko
Jehudi
Eliud Akanga
Appendix F - Organizations Contacted for Capstone
Project Location
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Eldoret, Kneya
Kitale, Kenya
Munami, Kenya
Kisumu, Kenya
Kisumu, Kenya
Kisumu, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Kitale, Kenya
Donna Stewart
Country Representative, Bishkek
Kipp Efinger
Program Officer, Washington DC
Ailea Sneller
Program Associate
Barney Singer
Vice President and CAP Director
Lindsey Jones
dstewart@pacthq.org
World Learning
Maziar Sassanpour
Vandy Kanyako
msassanpour@acdivoca.org
vandy.kanyako@worldlearning.org
World Learning
Steffen Krüger
Steffen.Krueger@worldlearning.org
PACT
AED
ACDI/VOCA
ACDI/VOCA
kefinger@pacthq.org
asneller@aed.org
bsinger@aed.org
ljones@acdivoca.org.
Appendix G - Works Referenced
Abrahamsen, Rita. Disciplining democracy: development discourse and good governance in Africa. London: Zed Books,
2000.
Aristotle. The Politics. ed. by Steven Everson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Arunga, J. and B Kahora. 2007. The cell phone revolution in Kenya. International Policy Press: 10.
B. Fox, W. F., and S. Porca.. Investing in rural infrastructure. International Regional Science Review. 24.1 (2001): 103
Baker, Bruce. "Can Democracy in Africa be Sustained?" Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 38.3 (2000): 9.
Bradley, Matthew Todd. "“The Other”: Precursory African Conceptions of Democracy." International Studies Review 7.3
(2005): 407-31.
Bratton, Michael, and Eric C. C. Chang. "State Building and Democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Forwards, Backwards,
Or Together?" Comparative Political Studies 39.9 (2006): 1059.
Bratton, Michael and Van de Walle, Nicolas. Democratic experiments in Africa: Regime transitions in comparative
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Brown, Stephen, and Paul Kaiser. "Democratisations in Africa: Attempts, Hindrances and Prospects." Third World Quarterly
28.6 (2007): 1131-49.
Cammack, Diana. “The Logic of African Neopatrimonialism: What Role for Donors?”
(2007): 599-614.
Development Policy Review 25.5
De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. ed. J.P. Mayer. New York: Anchor Books, 1969.
Easterly, William. Institutions: Top Down or Bottom Up? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008.
---. The Poor Man’s Burden.
Foreign Policy. January/February, 2009.
Eberly, Don. “The Meaning, Origins, and Applications of Civil Society.” The Essential Civil Society Reader. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
---.
The Rise of Global Civil Society: Building Communities and Nations from the Bottom Up. New York: Encounter Books,
2008.
Englebert, Pierre. State legitimacy and development in Africa.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000.
Edwards, Michael. Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005.
Frederickson, P. and R. London. 2000. Disconnect in the hollow state: The pivotal role of organizational capacity in
community-based development organizations. Public Administration Review 60, (3): 230-239
Fukuyama, Francis. State Building: Governance and World order in the 21 st Century.
University, 2004.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell
Gyimah-Boadi, Emmanuel. “Civil Society and Democratic Development.” Democratic Reform in Africa: the Quality of
Progress. Ed. Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004. 99-120.
Hearn, Julie. “The 'Uses and Abuses' of Civil Society in Africa.”
---.
“Aiding Democracy? Donors and Civil Society in South Africa.”
Ishkanian, Armine.
Keane, John.
---.
Review of African Political Economy 28.87 (2001): 43-53.
Third World Quarterly. 21.5 (2000): 815-813.
“Democracy Promotion and Civil Society” Global Civil Society.
Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.
Global Civil Society? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Civil Society.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Kew, Darren. “Building Democracy in 21st Century Africa: Two Africas, One Solution.” The Whitehead Journal of
Diplomacy and International Relations International Law Winter/Spring (2005): 149-161.
Kilby, P. 2006. Accountability for empowerment: dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World Development
34.6 (2006): 951.
Lewis, David. “Civil Society in African Contexts: Reflections on the Usefulness of a Concept.” Development and Change
33.4 (2002): 569-586.
Lo, Mbaye. “Re-conceptualizing Civil Society: The Debate Continues With Specific Reference to Contemporary Senegal.”
African and Asian Studies. 3.1 (2006): 91-118.
Mansuri, G. and V. Rao. Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. The World Bank Research Observer
19.1 (2004): 1
McCourt, W., and N. Sola. Using training to promote civil service reform: A Tanzanian local government case study. Public
Administration and Development 19.1 (1999): 63-7
Ndegwa, Stephen N.
“A Decade of Democracy in Africa.”
Journal of Asian and African Studies 36.1 (2001): 1-16.
Ndulo, Muna. "The Democratization Process and Structural Adjustment in Africa." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies
10.1 (2003): 315.
Nzimande, Blade and Mpumelelo Sikhosana. “'Civil Society': A Theoretical Survey and Critique of Some South African
Conceptions”. Democracy, Civil Society and the State: Social Movements in Southern Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe:
Natprint Ltd. (1995): 20-46
Orvis, Stephen.
38.
“Civil Society in Africa or African Civil Society?”
Journal of Asian and African Studies 36.1 (2001): 17-
Osaghae, Eghosa E. “Colonialism and Civil Society in Africa: The Perspective of Ekeh’s Two Publics.” Voluntas 17
(2006): 233-245.
Ottaway, Marina. “Social Movements, Professionalization of Reform, and Democracy in Africa.”
Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion. Eds. Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers.
D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2000. 77-104.
Washington,
Ottaway, Marina and Carothers, Thomas. “Toward Civil Society Realism.” Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and
Democracy Promotion. Eds. Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, 2000. 293-310.
Powell, Frederick. The Politics of Civil Society: Neoliberalism or Social Left? Briston, UK: The Policy Press, 2007.
Putnam, Robert. D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press,
1993
Riddell, Roger. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Robinson, James A. “Economic Development and Democracy.” Annual Revue of Political Science 9 (2006): 503-27.
Robinson, Mark and Steven Friedman. “Civil Society, Democratization, and Foreign Aid: Civic Engagement and Public
Policy in South Africa and Uganda.” Democratization 14.4 (2007): 643-668.
Sachikonye, Lloyd. “Democracy, Civil Society, and Social Movements.” Democracy, Civil Socety and the State: Social
Movements in Southern Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe: Natprint Ltd. 1995. pp.1-19
Stacey, Simon and Sada Aksartova. “The Foundations of Democracy: U.S. Foundation Support for Civil Society in South
Africa, 1998-96.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 12.4 (2002): 373397.
Takirambudde, Peter and Fletcher, Kate. “Civil Society in Governance and Poverty Alleviation: A Human Rights
Perspective.” Democratic Reform in Africa: its Impact on Governance & Poverty Alleviation. Ed. Muna Ndulo.
Athens: Ohio University Press, 2006. 68-78.
Walzer, Michael. “A Better Vision: The Idea of Civil Society.” Dissent. Spring (1991): 296-304.
Whitehead, Laurence. Democratization: theory and experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Wiarda, Howard J.
Comparative democracy and democratization.
---. Civil society: the American model and Third World development.
Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers, 2002.
Boulder, Colo: Westview Press, 2003.
Van de Walle, Nicolas. Overcoming Stagnation in Aid-Dependent Countries. Washington DC: Center for Global
Development, 2005.
Zall Kusek, J. and R.C. Rist.. Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system: a handbook for development
practitioners. World Bank. 2004. 163