How We Measure Capacity Building of NGOs in Georgia

Photo: Simon Taylor/Mercy Corps

Under the East Georgia Community Mobilization Initiative (E-GCMI), Mercy Corps provides grants and capacity building to local non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This capacity building happens though a combination of training, exchanges and sharing. At the start of the project Mercy Corps had an agreement with a local training organization to provide the capacity building.

Later in the program, NGOs were given the opportunity to select training courses themselves based on their individual needs, though it was decided to make one course mandatory (Civil Society and Role of NGOs) for all NGOs.

MC provides them with information about local training providers and NGOs propose the courses they need. To increase the sense of ownership among NGOs a training line-item was added to their grant budgets, under which they can request money after MC has approved the training course. This change in approach has increased their interest in various training courses. In several cases we have supported NGOs attendance at international conferences in their respective sectors, which helped them establish contacts, bring information and disseminate it to others working in the same area.

Periodically MC organizes cross-regional visits for sub-grantees. They are grouped on the bases of sectors they work in. The aim is to give them the opportunity to visit other NGOs, share experiences and lessons learned as well as establish linkages across the regions. NGOs are also given the opportunity to obtain individual consultations on specific issues.

Finally, one of the most important factors for NGOs from regions with limited experience is the knowledge they gain during the process of project implementation itself, since MC maintains close contacts with NGOs and provides hands-on assistance in their activities.
Several mechanisms are used for evaluating the impact of capacity building:

1. An organizational assessment form, which is filled out by MC Grants Officers at the beginning of the NGO project implementation, and at the end of the project or after six months, whichever is later. The assessment form is developed so that both survey results are kept on the same page. This allows Grants Officers to easily see and compare the results. The filled forms are kept in individual project files. Periodically, respective Grants Officers summarize the major changes they come across most often and write a short report on the main points. This helps to identify the weakest points for NGOs in order to assist them to correctly select training programs, and in a more general sense, to modify capacity building program to better meet NGOs' needs.

2. A separate "impact evaluation" survey was recently implemented using a questionnaire to survey the sample group of NGOs and to generalize the impact of MC's provision of community services, training and technical assistance through sub-grants to local NGOs/CBOs. During this process the impact was evaluated against success indicators, one of which was: Improved capacity of NGOs to implement projects. The form is rather simple, concentrating on major issues, i.e. organizational structure, administrative/financial/procurement systems; and program management, external relations and community participation.

Major points of the results received through the above mentions mechanisms include:

NGOs that had never before received grants reported that although each had done some previous activities, only through the project did they realized their role as an NGO. It will be too much to say that all of them now are “strong” organizations, although now they do pay more attention to organizational issues. Filing systems have significantly improved and they have a better understanding of monitoring. Often though, many NGOs still do not have enough staff or a clear strategy for the future (or at least it is not easy for them to talk about their strategy clearly).
NGOs reported that they became more focused in their activities, especially realistically considering their abilities and experience. Increased attention is paid to external relations (working with government, other NGOs, etc.) and increase of quality of services/products. One NGO, for example, reported they became more focused on women's and gender issues.

Many NGOs’ find MC’s grant becomes a good “visit card” for them in relations with other international and donor organizations. There have been many cases when former MC grantees received funding from other donors working in Georgia, i.e. World Bank, Eurasia Foundation, etc.

All of the organizations surveyed confirmed improvement in their financial systems. Even those for whom MC’s grant was not the first stated that MC’s financial reporting mechanism and assistance in financial issues was especially helpful. This helped them with financial reporting with other donors and some even used these forms for reporting to other donors.

One significant change noticed in most of the cases was increased community participation in NGO projects. Each RFA issued by MC required community participation. Initially this was one reason for including this point in all the NGO projects, but later community support became viewed as one of the factors of sustainability of project activities.

Eventually this had a dual effect: NGOs’ activities become more transparent and the community becomes more involved as well as united around the issue. NGOs’ images have improved and they obtained trust among their communities. Very often communities come to them asking assistance in various issues. If communities participate, they also become more responsible for preserving achieved results.