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