k e y ston e p e r for m a n c e s u r v eys Development Partnerships Survey 2013
Partner Feedback Report: ACTEC
www.KeystoneAccountability.org
Contents Introduction 3 Survey process 3 Benchmarks and indexes 4 Respondents 5 The Net Promoter Analysis 6 Reading the charts 7 Next steps 8 Performance summary 9 Section 1: Partnership profile 12 Section 2: Financial support 16 Section 3: Non-financial support 19 Section 4: Effects of the partnership on partners’ work 26 Section 5: Administration 29 Section 6: Relationship and communications 37 Section 7: Understanding and learning 44 Section 8: Overall satisfaction 46 Section 9: ACTEC’s tailored questions 48
2
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Introduction Since 2010, Keystone has been conducting benchmark surveys of partners of Northern non-governmental organisations (NGOs). 62 NGOs have since taken part in these surveys, with 58 qualifying to be included in the comparative data set. In the survey, partners are asked to rate and comment on different aspects of a Northern NGO’s performance. The surveys are conducted anonymously by Keystone as an independent third party: the respondents know that the Northern NGO will not be able to identify who said what about them. ACTEC joined a cohort of 1 Luxembourg and 11 Belgian NGOs who took part in this process together, under the umbrella of ACODEV. This report presents what the partners of ACTEC said about the NGO compared to benchmarks reflecting partner ratings from 58 of the Northern NGOs in our data set, as well as with the 12 NGOs comprising the ACODEV cohort. It provides credible data on how well ACTEC carries out its role in the partnership, as seen from the partner perspective. ●● Annex 1 is the questionnaire that was used for the survey. ●● Annex 2 includes the raw quantitative data as well as all the responses given to the open-ended questions of the survey. These have been edited to protect the anonymity of respondents. ●● Annex 3 contains a list of ACTEC’s partners that have expressed their willingness to take part in follow-up interviews, which ACTEC can conduct should they wish.
Survey process The survey process was managed by Keystone Accountability. The questionnaire was administered to ACTEC’s partners in French and Spanish, from 25 February to 15 April 2013. Regular reminders were sent to encourage a high response rate. The questionnaire was administered as an interactive PDF form. It was distributed by Keystone directly to partners by email. Partners completed it off-line (they did not need stable internet access to complete it) and then emailed their responses back to Keystone. The survey was limited to partners who had a basic level of Internet access. We believe this did not make the data significantly less representative. Keystone emphasised to partners that their participation was voluntary and anonymous.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
3
Introduction Benchmarks and indexes Throughout the report, ACTEC’s results are compared to the 58 northern NGOs listed below. The other ACODEV cohort NGOs are highlighted. ACTEC Mensen met een Missie ASF-Belgium Mercy Corps US CAFOD Methodist Relief and Development Fund CARE UK Minority Rights Group CARE USA Netherlands Institute for Multipart Democracy Caritas Belgium Oxfam Canada Caritas Luxembourg Oxfam Novib Catholic Relief Services Peace Direct Christian Aid Practical Action Church World Service Progressio UK Concern Red een Kind Cordaid Save the Children UK DISOP Save the Children US Ecosystems Alliance Schorer Entraide et Fraternité Self Help Africa Free a Girl Skillshare Free Press Unlimited Solidarité Socialiste Handicap International Belgium SOS Faim Helvetas SPARK Hivos Tear Netherlands IDS/MK4D programme Tearfund IKV Pax Christi Terre des Hommes Netherlands International Rescue Committee Trias International Service Trocaire Investing in Children and their Societies UMCOR US Kinderpostzegels V.S.O International Liliane Fonds/Strategic Partner, NCT Vredeseilanden Lutheran World Relief VSF-Belgium Mennonite Central Committee Wereldkinderen The Northern NGOs in the cohort operate in different ways and places, providing a variety of support including funding, training, moral support, joint advocacy and volunteers. While the NGOs have different goals and structures, they all share a common purpose and operating model: they aim to tackle poverty, injustice and suffering in developing countries by working in partnership with organisations. This commonality provides the basis for useful comparison through benchmarks. The benchmarks enable NGOs to understand their partner ratings in relation to how partners rate other NGOs and see what kind of performance ratings are possible. However, the data needs to be interpreted with care, in light of ACTEC’s specific context, goals and activities. It is unlikely that any organisation would aim to be ‘best in class’ across all performance areas. The benchmarks are calculated as the average ratings of the 58 NGOs and the 12 ACODEV member NGOs respectively, not the average of all survey respondents. This reduces the chance that data is skewed by larger NGOs with larger respondent numbers. The ACODEV cohort added some specific questions, which are also benchmarked against the ACODEV average. These are marked with an asterisk (*). No benchmarks are available for ACTEC’s unique questions.
4
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Introduction The performance summary (Figure 3) consists of seven performance indexes. Each index was calculated by combining the results from 4 – 10 specific questions in the survey. Most indexes correspond to one of the sections of the report. Where questions from one section are more relevant to another index they have been included there to increase accuracy.
Respondents Table 1: Response rate ACTEC
Cohort
ACODEV cohort
No. of partners invited to respond
15
8,091
506
No. of responses received
13
2,779
320
87%
48%
66%
Response rate
The figures in the table above show the total number of complete and partial responses. Some respondents did not answer all questions. The response rate varies between questions. 5 responses were received in French and 8 in Spanish. For those partners that responded to the survey, the following people were involved in completing the questionnaire: Table 2: Respondents by staff category ACTEC (%)
Cohort Benchmark (%)
ACODEV Benchmark (%)
Head of the organisation
92
73
81
Other senior leadership
92
65
70
Manager
23
34
27
Operational staff / field staff
23
49
58
Others
15
12
14
The figures add to more than 100% as several members of staff were often involved in completing each questionnaire. ●● The big majority of ACTEC’s respondents (85%) declared themselves as male, while only one was female and one preferred not to say (cohort benchmarks: 62%, 34% and 5%; ACODEV cohort benchmarks: 68%, 28% and 3%). ●● 90% of ACTEC’s respondents rated the survey process as useful or very useful (cohort benchmark: 81%; ACODEV benchmark: 90%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
5
Introduction The Net Promoter Analysis Keystone uses a technique of feedback data analysis increasingly common in the customer satisfaction industry known as Net Promoter Analysis (NPA)1 to distinguish between three profiles of constituents. As ACTEC considers how to improve in light of the survey findings it is extremely important to develop distinct strategies to work with each of these constituent profiles. The “Promoters” are constituents that rate ACTEC as 9 and 10 on the 0-10 point scale used in the survey. These are ACTEC’s champions. They are highly likely to be wholehearted participants in activities and consistently recommend ACTEC to their friends and colleagues. The “Passives” are those who give ratings of 7 and 8. They do not have major concerns, but they are not particularly enthusiastic about or loyal to ACTEC. With the right encouragement, they could well become Promoters. Those who provide ratings from 0-6 are categorized as “Detractors”. They have fairly negative perceptions of the partnership with ACTEC and common developmental objectives are likely to be negatively affected as a result. Many organizations find it useful to track their ‘Net Promoter score’ (commonly referred to as NP score). To get an NP score, one subtracts the proportion of detractors from the proportion of promoters. It is not uncommon to have negative NP scores. The most successful organizations generally have high NP scores. Data from thousands of companies show a clear correlation between high Net Promoter scores and corporate growth and profitability.2 Keystone believes that the customer satisfaction approach is even more relevant to development and social change than it is to business. This is so because those who are meant to benefit from the intended change are key to bringing it about. In this survey context, the practices and policies of Northern partners can profoundly affect the performance of their southern partners. Surveys such as this provide Southern partners with a safe space to express what they honestly feel about their Northern partners, and enable more open, data-driven dialogue for improving performance by both. NPA also provides an effective way to interpret survey response rates. A growing number of organizations include non-responses to surveys as Detractors. Keystone did not take that approach in this report. The data reported here is only for actual responses. All data was analysed to look for trends across demographic and other variables. This includes an analysis in relation to the intensity of the partnership, a specific variable introduced for the ACODEV cohort. However, due to the small number of ACTEC’s partners, comparisons based on the location of partners are not reported, as they are likely to compromise the anonymity of respondents. Significant results that emerge from comparisons across different demographics and do not compromise the anonymity of respondents are included in the report. Occasionally in this report, next to the NP analysis, we provide an analysis of the mean ratings given by respondents, as it helps further understanding of the distribution of perceptions and comparisons with the other NGOs in the cohort.
1 Net Promoter” is a registered trademark of Fred Reichheld, Bain & Company and Satmetrix. For more see: www.netpromotersystem.com, as well as the open source net promoter community at www.netpromoter.com. 2 You can see typical NP scores for a range of industries at www.netpromoter.com.
6
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Introduction Reading the charts The chart above shows how a specific NGO (‘NGO X’) is rated across four areas: phasing, changes, core costs and explanation. This chart is composed of the following elements: ●● The bars show the range from the lowest to the highest NP score within the cohort of NGOs. In this case, for ‘phasing’, scores range from -35 to 100 for the cohort (grey bar) and -35 to 67 for the ACODEV group (black bar). ●● The data labels on the bars show the average NP score for the cohort of NGOs and the ACODEV group, and NGO X’s specific NP score for the survey. For ‘phasing’ these are 31, 30 and 52 respectively. ●● The percentages in circles on either side of the chart show the total percentages of NGO X’s respondents that can be seen as ‘promoters’ on the right (i.e. gave a rating of 9 or 10) and ‘detractors’ on the left (i.e. gave a rating from 0 to 6). The chart does not show benchmarks for these figures.
Figure 1
Sample Graph
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % NGO X
Phasing
14
Changes
45
Core costs
30
Explanations
29
66
52
NGO X
34 -11
NGO X
46 16
NGO X
60 31
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-40
-20
NGO X NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements: 1
‘The payments are made in appropriate phases so we can easily manage our cash flow.’
2
‘NGO X allows us to make any changes that we need to about how we spend funds.’
3
‘NGO X makes an appropriate contribution to general / core costs.’
4
‘NGO X clearly explains any conditions imposed by the original donors who provide the funds.’
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
7
Introduction Next steps Some next steps are suggested below, which may be useful for ACTEC to consider. a Discuss the report at board level. b Discuss the main findings with your own staff and southern partners to verify and deepen the analysis and demonstrate that feedback is taken seriously. For this you can organise follow-up interviews with respondents included in Annex 3. The discussion should focus on two main issues: (i) the areas where ACTEC needs improvement and (ii) questions arising from the findings that need more interpretation to understand. c Identify opportunities and constraints and then identify specific actions for making improvements, in dialogue with partners. d Identify ways of ensuring that feedback is collected on an ongoing basis and that agreed performance quality and objectives are maintained. e Consider separately the three categories of partners – promoters, passives and detractors – and elaborate specific strategies of engagement with each one of them. f Strengthen a culture of continual improvement, mutual respect and open dialogue with southern partners. g Discuss whether southern partners could collect similar benchmarked feedback from their constituents and use it to report performance. Partners may be able to develop internal benchmarks within their work. h Consider developing some common approaches and facilitating learning between partners. i Collaborate with other northern NGOs that are tackling similar issues, including those in the ACODEV cohort, to share best practice and drive up standards in the sector. j Repeat the survey in 12 to 24 months to monitor progress. k Ask non-responders one simple question about why they did not answer the survey. l Consider publishing similar feedback reports in the future, potentially coordinated with other ACODEV members. Step (l) has the potential to develop a new norm in NGO reporting, similar to the new norm among US foundations of publishing grantee feedback reports. It can strengthen the links between performance, reporting and funding decisions, creating powerful incentives for improvement. A growing number of the organizations in the benchmark data set in this report have published their Keystone partner survey reports.3
3
8
Links to these reports can be found here: http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/services/surveys/ngos
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Performance summary Figure 2
Overall satisfaction: NP scores for All NGOs
1 2 ACTEC 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
-50
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
-40
-30
-20
-10
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
0
10
20
30
40
50
ACTEC is rated 3rd out of 58 in the cohort, and 1st in the ACODEV cohort in terms of ‘overall satisfaction’ (this is based on an index of scores when respondents where asked to compare the performance of ACTEC across seven key areas against other NGOs and funders). Other ACODEV NGOs have been highlighted. The picture that emerges from the survey is of an organisation that maintains respectful relationships with its partners and brings real added value to them. Respondents express high satisfaction with the financial support they receive from ACTEC. They particularly appreciate that ACTEC gives clear explanations about back-donor requirements and that funds are disbursed in appropriate phases. However, they say that ACTEC does not always allow them to make the changes they need to in spending funds. Respondents give relatively high ratings for most of the types of capacity building support that they receive from ACTEC. This is not the case for most NGOs. Partners express particular satisfaction with support received in the areas of monitoring & evaluation and for improving their strategies and practical approaches. There is room for improvement in the areas of advocacy & campaigning and participatory approaches. ACTEC was rated above the average for the ACODEV cohort for most types of other non-financial support it provides to partners. Respondents particularly appreciate the insight and advice provided by ACTEC about their sectors and work, as well as support for achieving shared program goals. There is significant room for improvement in helping partners protect themselves from threats and for achieving shared advocacy and campaigning goals. Respondents express high levels of satisfaction with the agreement process. They are particularly satisfied with the support received in order to finalize the agreement and with the amount of support, which is well matched
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
9
Performance summary Figure 3
Performance summary: ACTEC
ne t pr om ote r scor e s ACTEC
Financial support 34
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
80
100
60
80
100
60
80
100
60
80
100
ACTEC
Capacity building support 6
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0 ACTEC
Other non-financial support -3
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
ACTEC
Administration 44
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
ACTEC
Relationships 59
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40 ACTEC
Understanding & learning 42
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
10
-80
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-60
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Performance summary
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
to their needs. ACTEC is not seen as demanding more information than other funders or NGOs during the agreement process. ACTEC can improve on the length of support it provides to partners. Respondents value interactions with ACTEC’s staff for monitoring purposes. They give however low ratings to the independent monitoring by ACTEC and consider that ACTEC does not encourage them to review their work with their stakeholders. Reporting formats are easy to understand and use, ACTEC provides useful comments to reports submitted by partners and the monitoring process is generally perceived as useful. Respondents feel however, that collecting information and writing reports for ACTEC is burdensome. A large portion of respondents feels that the amount of contact they have with ACTEC is excessive. They are however very satisfied with most other aspects of their relationship and communications with ACTEC. They feel that they can easily raise concerns with ACTEC and they appreciate the attitude of ACTEC’s staff. They feel that ACTEC is a reliable partner, who is transparent about its exit strategy and the use of funds. ACTEC is seen as having a good reading of the context in which partners operate. Respondents feel that ACTEC can improve on involving partners in shaping strategy, in further promoting partners’ work publicly and in putting in place a complaints procedure. ACTEC, like many other NGOs in the cohort, receives negative NP scores in various areas. It is important to address negative NP scores, even in those cases where these are common among other organizations. A negative NP score should never leave an organization indifferent as it means that in that area there are more detractors than promoters.
Looking ahead, as is the case for most NGOs in the cohort, respondents would like to receive more support in accessing other sources of funding. They would also like to receive more support for strengthening their Board/ governance, their technical abilities and for improving their strategies and practical approaches. Furthermore, they ask ACTEC to facilitate more experience exchanges among organisations working on similar issues and to put in place monitoring and reporting systems that adjust better to the needs of the partners and their constituencies, as well as to provide more resources for this purpose. They believe that relationships with ACTEC could be improved by promoting partners’ work more, involving them in the development of joint strategies and by setting-up local offices.
Table 3: Priorities for the future: ACTEC respondents Non-financial support 1. Board/governance; Technical abilities to deliver services; Strategies & practical approache 2. Accessing other sources of funds Monitoring and reporting 1. Share lessons and experiences among organisations working on the same issues 2. Help partners monitor and report in ways that are useful for them and the people they work with; Provide more resources to monitor and report on their work Relationships 1. Promote partners’ work 2. Develop joint strategies with partners; set up local offices
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
11
Section 1: Partnership profile Figure 4
Location of partners
West Africa East Africa Central Africa Southern Africa North Africa Middle East Central Asia East Asia South Asia Central America & Caribbean &Mexico South America Australia/ Pacific North America East Europe West Europe South East Europe
0
10 ACTEC
●●
●●
●●
20 Global Cohort
30
40
60 %
50
ACODEV Cohort
69% of ACTEC’s respondents are located in Latin America (global cohort benchmark: 18%; ACODEV cohort: 30%), about a quarter (23%) in Central Africa (cohort benchmark: 6%; ACODEV cohort: 11%) and 1 respondent is in the Middle East (global cohort benchmark: 4%; ACODEV cohort: 3%). About half of respondents (46%) describe themselves as ‘non-governmental organisations’: 23% as ‘microfinance institutions’ and 1 respondent as a ‘faith-based organisation’. Other options provided by respondents included ‘foundation’ and ‘development support association’. ACTEC’s respondents describe themselves as predominantly providing ‘services directly to poor people and communities (food, healthcare, education, training etc)’.
Table 4: Predominant activities Means on a scale of 0=Never to 10=All of our work
ACTEC
All NGOs
ACODEV cohort
Provide services directly to poor people and communities
9.0
6.7
7.2
Support economic and productive enterprises that benefit poor people
4.1
4.3
5.3
Influence how government & other powerful organisations work (i.e. ‘advocacy’)
2.3
5.2
5.3
Conduct and publish research
1.8
3.5
3.3
Support and strengthen civil society organisations
4.0
5.2
5.8
Help people claim their human rights
2.2
5.8
5.4
Support collective action by our members
2.5
6.3
6.3
Fund individuals
2.6
1.6
2.2
Help build peace and reconciliation
3.6
5.1
5.0
12
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Partnership profile Figure 5
Partner annual budget
Less than 10,000 USD 10,000 - 49,999 USD 50,000 - 199,999 USD 200,000 - 499,999 USD 500,000 - 999,999 USD 1million - 4,999,999 USD More than 5million USD
0
5
ACTEC
●●
●●
10
Global Cohort
15
20
25
30
35 %
ACODEV Cohort
39% of ACTEC’s respondents have an annual budget of under US$500,000 (global cohort benchmark: 66%; ACODEV cohort: 60%), 30% have a budget between US$500,000 and 5 million (global cohort benchmark: 28%; ACODEV cohort: 33%) and 31% have a budget of over US$ 5 million (global cohort benchmark: 6%; ACODEV cohort: 7%). 58% of ACTEC’s respondents receive funds and other support from 1 to 4 different organisations (global cohort benchmark: 52%; ACODEV cohort: 56%) and 42% from 5 or more different organisations (global cohort benchmark: 46%; ACODEV cohort: 42%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
13
Partnership profile Figure 6
Length of the relationship
One year or less
1-2 years
3-4 years
5-6 years
More than 6 years
0
10
ACTEC
●●
●●
14
20
Global Cohort
30
40
50
60 %
ACODEV Cohort
About half of respondents (46%) have received support for up to 6 years (global cohort benchmark: 65%; ACODEV cohort: 50%); and the other half (54%) have received support for more than 6 years (global cohort benchmark: 35%; ACODEV cohort: 50%). The most important reasons why respondents choose to work with ACTEC are to ‘achieve shared goals’ and ‘strengthen our skills and organisational capacity´. These are also the most important reasons across the global and the ACODEV cohorts.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Partnership profile Figure 7
Intensity of the partnership
n o n - fi nanc i al su ppor t
fi n a n ci a l sup p or t
Increase
15
Increase
55
Much support
Some support
15
●●
38
Much support
Some support
15
Decrease
●●
8
54
Decrease
When asked about the intensity of their partnership with ACTEC in terms of non-financial support, more than half of respondents (54%) say that they have received much support from ACTEC and that they are optimistic about this support not decreasing in the future (ACODEV benchmark: 25%). This result is quite different from the trend for the other NGOs in the ACODEV cohort, for which the most popular option chosen by respondents was ‘some support received but it will increase in the future’ (48%). Regarding financial support, respondents feel that they have received much support, however they believe that this support will decrease in the future (54% chose this option; ACODEV benchmark: 25%).. Here again the general trend for the ACODEV cohort is different with ‘some support received but it will increase in the future’ being the most popular answer (43%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
15
Section 2: Financial support Figure 8
Grant size and Grant length
1-25,000 USD
0-6 months
25,001-50,000 USD 7-18 months 50,001-100,000 USD
100,001-200,000 USD
19-30 months
200,001-500,000 USD More than 30 months
more than 500,001 USD 0
ACTEC
●●
●●
●●
16
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
Global Cohort
20
40
60
80
100 %
ACODEV Cohort
100% of ACTEC’s respondents said they currently receive or have recently received funds from ACTEC (global cohort benchmark: 91%; ACODEV: 94%). For the particular respondents to the survey, the size of ACTEC’s grants ranges from US$14,000 to US$600,000, with 78% of them receiving grants of under US$500,000 (global cohort benchmark: 90%; ACODEV: 85%). The average size of grant received from ACTEC is US$364,500 (cohort benchmark: US$208,500; ACODEV: US$317,000). The average period covered by the grant from ACTEC is 35 months (global cohort benchmark: 22; ACODEV: 28). The overwhelming majority of respondents (92%) receive grants for a period of over 30 months (global cohort benchmark: 32%; ACODEV: 52%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Financial support Figure 9
Quality of financial support
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % ACTEC
Phasing
8
Changes
58
Core costs
15
Explanations
0
62
54
ACTEC
25 -33
ACTEC
38
23
ACTEC
92
92
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements: 1
‘The payments are made in appropriate phases so we can easily manage our cash flow.’
2
‘ACTEC allows us to make any changes that we need to about how we spend funds.’
3
‘ACTEC makes an appropriate contribution to general / core costs.’
4
‘ACTEC clearly explains any conditions imposed by the original donors who provide the funds.’
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
ACTEC receives NP scores that are above the average for the cohort of NGOs and the ACODEV cohort in all four areas for its financial support. All NGOs, including ACTEC, are rated quite low for allowing respondents to make changes to specific conditions of the grant, such as the changes they allow respondents to make in spending funds. The average NP score both for the global cohort of NGOs and for ACODEV is -34, corresponding to a mean rating of 5.8 and 5.4 out of 10 respectively. ACTEC’s mean rating is 6.2. Those respondents that identify themselves as managers or operational staff give significantly lower ratings in relation to those that are heads and/or other senior staff of the partner organisation (3.2 vs. 7.7 out of 10). ACTEC received a high NP score for making payments in appropriate phases with 62% of respondents sitting in the promoters’ category (global cohort benchmark: 51%; ACODEV: 49%). ACTEC´s ratings for making contributions to core costs are also above average (average rating of: 8.1; global cohort benchmark: 6.7; ACODEV: 7). ACTEC receives its best NP score (and the highest in the global cohort of NGOs) for providing clear explanations of donors’ conditions with 92% of respondents sitting in the promoters’ category (global cohort benchmark: 49%; ACODEV: 70%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
17
Financial support ●●
Indicative comments include: “We are satisfied with the funding scheme.” “ACTEC is very punctual and organized regarding funds disbursement”. “The 20% of local participation demanded by ACTEC in order to fund a project is very difficult to find for us, inhabitants of the South”.
18
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Section 3: Non-financial support Figure 10
Percentage of respondents who received capacity building support
ACTEC
Board/governance 77 ACTEC
Management & leadership 85 ACTEC
Financial management 77 ACTEC
Technical abilities to deliver services 92 ACTEC
Advocacy & campaigning 54 ACTEC
Participatory approaches 69 ACTEC
Monitoring and evaluation 100 ACTEC
Long-term planning/financial viability 85 ACTEC
Strategies & practical approaches 100 ACTEC
Strengthening our entrepreneurial/business skills*
85
0 Global Cohort Range
10
ACODEV Cohort Range
20 ACTEC Score
30
40
50 Global Cohort Score
60
70
80
90
100 %
ACODEV Cohort Score
* this option was only included for the ACODEV Cohort
●●
●●
This chart shows the percentage of ACTEC’s respondents who said they received capacity building support in each area. ACTEC seems to provide equal or greater capacity building support to respondents than most other NGOs in both the wider cohort and among the ACODEV cohort, except in the areas of ‘advocacy & campaigning’ and ‘participatory approaches’.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
19
Non-financial support Figure 11
Value of capacity-building support
DET %
PRO %
ACTEC
Board/ governance
40
Management & leadership
36
Financial management
30
Technical abilities to deliver services
33
Advocacy & campaigning
43
Participatory approaches
56
Monitoring and evaluation
15
Long-term planning /financial viability
36
Strategies & practical approaches
31
Strengthening our entrepreneurial/ business skills*
NET PROMOTER SCORES
30 -10 ACTEC
55
18 ACTEC
40 10 ACTEC
42 8 ACTEC
14 -29 ACTEC
22 -33 ACTEC
62
46 ACTEC
55
18 ACTEC
54 23 ACTEC
27
45 -18
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
* this option was only included for the ACODEV Cohort
20
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Non-financial support ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
The chart shows how useful the respondents who received capacity building support found it. The NP scores for ACTEC’s respondents are shown in relation to the global cohort of NGOs and the ACODEV cohort. In 8 out of 9 areas ACTEC receives NP scores that are above the average both for the ACODEV group as well as the general cohort. ACTEC receives negative NP scores in 4 areas (many NGOs receive negative NP scores for certain parts of this section). The most appreciated areas for ACTEC are support for ‘strengthening partners’ monitoring and evaluation skills’ and for ‘improving partners’ strategies and practical approaches’ (7.8 and 7.2 out of 10 respectively). The global cohort benchmarks are 7 and 6.9 while the ACODEV benchmarks are 7 and 6.8 respectively. ACTEC receives its lowest scores for its capacity building support in the areas of ‘advocacy & campaigning’ and ‘participatory approaches’ (which are also the areas where, according to respondents, least support is provided). In these areas 43% and 56% sit in the detractors category (global cohort benchmarks: 48% and 37%; ACODEV benchmarks: 53% and 46%). Respondents who report having received only ‘some’ non-financial support give significantly lower ratings to support regarding ‘participatory approaches’ than those who report having received ‘much’ support (mean rating of 1.7 out of 10 vs. 7). Comments include: “ACTEC’s support has always helped and ‘obliged’ [organization] to have a long term strategic view, beyond one-off programs and projects.” “(We appreciate) project monitoring missions every year in order to refit project implementation and polish strategy. These field missions allow ACTEC to be up to date with realities on the ground.”
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
21
Non-financial support Figure 12
Percentage of respondents who received other non-financial support
ACTEC Shared advocacy
46 ACTEC Shared program goals
92 ACTEC Strengthening presence at national/international levels
85 ACTEC
Communicating & publicising our work
85 ACTEC Accessing other funds
92 ACTEC Introductions to other organisations/people/networks
100 ACTEC
Insight and advice about sector(s) and work
100 ACTEC
Protection from threats
69
0 Global Cohort Range
●● ●●
●●
22
ACODEV Cohort Range
10
20 ACTEC Score
30
40
50 Global Cohort Score
60
70
80
90
100 %
ACODEV Cohort Score
The chart shows the percentage of ACTEC’s respondents who said they received support in each area. ACTEC generally provides almost equal or more other non-financial support to its partners than other NGOs. Respondents feel that ACTEC provides much support through introductions to other organisations/people/ networks and through insight and advice about the partners’ sectors and work (100% for both aspects; global cohort average: 85%; ACODEV: 93%). ACTEC is seen as providing little support for ‘achieving shared advocacy or campaigning goals’ with partners (46%; global cohort average: 70%; ACODEV: 80%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Non-financial support Figure 13
Value of other non-financial support
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES ACTEC
Shared advocacy
50
Shared programme goals
25
Strengthening presence at nat./int. levels
45
Communicating & publicising our work
64
Accessing other funds
42
Introductions to other organizations /people/networks
38
17 -33 ACTEC
58 33 ACTEC
45 0 ACTEC
36 -27 ACTEC
42 0 ACTEC
ACTEC
Insight and advice about sector(s) and work
23
Protection from threats
56
●● ●●
●●
●●
62
38 ACTEC
Global Cohort NP Score Range
●●
38
0
22
-33
-100
●●
PRO %
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how useful the respondents found the other forms of non-financial support they received. The NP scores of ACTEC’s respondents are shown in relation to the global cohort of NGOs and the ACODEV cohort. In 6 out of 8 areas, ACTEC receives scores that are above the ACODEV average. ACTEC receives negative NP scores in 3 areas (which is also the case for most NGOs in the cohort). The areas that receive the highest NP scores for ACTEC are providing ‘insight and advice about partners’ sectors and work’ (corresponding to a mean rating of 8.2 out of 10) and achieving ‘shared program goals’ (7.3). The global cohort benchmarks are 6.7 and 6.9 respectively, while the ACODEV benchmarks are 6.7 and 7.6. The two lowest rated areas are ‘achieving shared advocacy or campaigning goals’ and ‘protection from threats’ (detractors: 50% and 56% respectively; global cohort benchmark: 50% and 57%; ACODEV: 56% and 70%). In the areas of ‘shared advocacy’, ‘shared program goals’ and ‘accessing other funds’ respondents who report having received only ‘some’ non-financial support give significantly lower ratings than those who report having received ‘much’ support.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
23
Non-financial support Figure 14
Requests for non-financial support in the future: capacity building
Board/governance Management & leadership Financial management Technical abilities to deliver services Advocacy & campaigning Participatory approaches Monitoring and evaluation Long-term planning/financial viability Strategies & practical approaches Strengthening our entrepreneurial /business skills*
0
2
4
ACTEC
Figure 15
Global Cohort
6
8
10
12 %
ACODEV Cohort
Requests for non-financial support in the future: other areas
Shared advocacy
Shared programme goals Strengthening presence at national/international levels Communicating & publicising our work
Accessing other funds Introductions to other organizations/people/networks Insight and advice about sector(s) and work
Protection from threats
0
ACTEC
24
5
10
15
Global Cohort
ACODEV Cohort
20 %
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Non-financial support ●●
●●
●●
Respondents were each asked to identify up to two areas where they would most like to receive support from ACTEC in the future. Regarding capacity building support, responses are quite spread. There are three areas where respondents would like to receive support: ‘board/governance’, ‘technical abilities to deliver services’ and ‘strategies & practical approaches’. Regarding other non-financial support, they would like to receive more support in accessing other sources of funds. This is the first choice for most partners of the other Northern NGOs.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
25
Section 4: Effects of the partnership on partners’ work Figure 16
Results of partnership on organisation’s capacities*
DET %
PRO %
ACTEC
The clarity of our role in the society
46
The energy our organisation deploys to assume this role
54
The way we manage our organisation
NET PROMOTER SCORES
38 -8 ACTEC
38
-15 ACTEC
31
50 -23 ACTEC
The way we achieve results
50
Our legitimacy and the respect of the society
67
Our financial autonomy
54
Our influence on our direct environment
50
The way we work with other organisations
50
Our responsiveness to change
50
Our strategic planning
31
Our internal coherence
38
33 -17 ACTEC
25 -42 ACTEC
31 -23 ACTEC
33
-17 ACTEC
33
-17 ACTEC
42 -8 ACTEC
38 8 ACTEC
38
0
-100
-80
-60
-40
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-20 ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
* this question was only included for the ACODEV Cohort
26
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Effects of the partnership on partners’ work ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
Partners were asked to indicate whether their partnership with ACTEC has changed their organization in each of the domains listed above on a scale of ‘0 - No change, but it is needed’ to ‘10 - major change’. An option ‘Not needed’ was also made available. Respondents generally feel that change is needed in all of the domains above (responses of ‘Not needed’ ranged from 0% to 8%). Changes that have occurred in these domains, however, have been moderate, both for ACTEC’s partners as for the ACODEV cohort in total. In 9 out of 11 areas, ACTEC is given a negative NP score and in four occasions its ratings are below the cohort average. The highest score is given for influencing change in partners’ strategic planning (38% are promoters; ACODEV benchmark: 33%). ACTEC receives its lowest score for influencing change in partners’ legitimacy and respect of the society (67% are detractors; ACODEV benchmark: 33%). Partners’ responsiveness to change seems to have been more influenced for those partners who received ‘much’ non-financial support from ACTEC, than for those who received ‘some’ support (mean rating of 8.1 vs. 4).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
27
Effects of the partnership on partners’ work Figure 17
Results of partnership on development processes and approaches*
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO %
ACTEC
The identification of actions
33
The type of actions we do / services we deliver
25
The type of beneficiaries
50
The sustainability of our actions / services
33
The monitoring of results
25
The evaluation of impact
25
The attention to gender issues
58
The attention to environmental issues
58
The empowerment of beneficiaries in our actions
25
The search of complementarities or synergies with other organisations
42
33 0 ACTEC
58
33 ACTEC
33 -17 ACTEC
50 17 ACTEC
58 33 ACTEC
67 42 ACTEC
25
-33 ACTEC
25
-33 ACTEC
42 17 ACTEC
25 -17
-100
-80
-60
-40
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-20 ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
* this question was only included for the ACODEV Cohort
●●
●●
●●
●●
28
Partners were asked to state to what extent their partnership with ACTEC has led to improvements in various aspects of their work listed above on a scale of ‘0 - Not at all’ to ‘10 - a major improvement’. ACTEC receives above average NP scores in 6 out of 10 areas. The highest ratings are given to improvements produced in partners’ work on evaluation of impact (67% are promoters; ACODEV benchmark: 27%), followed by the monitoring of results (promoters: 58%; ACODEV benchmark: 30%) and the type of actions partners do/ services they deliver (promoters: 58%; ACODEV benchmark: 34%). The lowest NP scores are given for influencing improvements in attention to gender and environmental issues (detractors: 58% for both; ACODEV benchmarks: 43% and 48% respectively). These two areas were rated low for most NGOs in the ACODEV cohort. Regarding the areas of ‘sustainability of partners’ actions/services’, ‘monitoring of results’, ‘evaluation of impact’ and ‘empowerment of beneficiaries’, respondents partners who received ‘much’ non-financial support from ACTEC give higher ratings than for those who received ‘some’ support.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Section 5: Administration Figure 18
Time taken to receive support
Less than 1 month
1-3 months
4-6 months
7-12 months
More than 12 months
Don't know
0
10 ACTEC
â—?â—?
20 Global Cohort
30
40
50 %
ACODEV Cohort
50% respondents report that more than 6 months passed from the date that they first discussed support with ACTEC and the date when they first received support (global cohort benchmark: 26%; ACODEV: 37%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
29
Administration Figure 19
The agreement process
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % ACTEC
8
Time passed
62 54 ACTEC
15
Amount
77 62 ACTEC
23
Length
54 31 ACTEC
More information
46
23 -22 ACTEC
15
Pressure
62 46 ACTEC
Flexible
15
62
46 ACTEC
Support
8
83
75 ACTEC
Strengthened organization
15
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
69
54
-80
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-60
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
60
Global Cohort Average NP Score
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements: 1
‘The time that passed from starting discussions to receiving support was reasonable.’
2
‘The amount of support from ACTEC is well matched to our needs.’
3
‘The length of support from ACTEC is well matched to our needs.’
4
‘ACTEC asks for more information during the agreement process than other NGOs/funders.’ 4
5
‘During the agreement process, we did not feel pressured by ACTEC to change our priorities.’
6
‘ACTEC is flexible and is willing to adapt the terms of its support to meet out needs.’
7
‘ACTEC gave us enough support to help us finalize the agreement.’
8
‘The process of finalizing the agreement helped strengthen our organization.’
4 Low scores on this variable do not necessarily indicate dissatisfaction of respondents.
30
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Administration ●●
●●
●●
●●
ACTEC receives NP scores above the cohort and the ACODEV average in all aspects of finalising partnership agreements listed above. In 3 aspects it receives the highest score in the general cohort and in 2 other aspects the highest score in the ACODEV cohort. The highest scores are for ‘giving enough support to help partners finalize the agreement’ and for the ‘amount of support’. ACTEC receives its lowest scores for ‘asking for more information than other funders’ and for the ‘length of support’. For both these aspects its NP scores are however well above average. Three comments were provided by respondents in this section (2 positive and 1 suggestion): “Our perception is that ACTEC wants to establish long term alliances, therefore we found that the time taken for the approval process was moderate (…)” “We believe they do it very well” “They could take more into consideration our proposals for salaries and operating costs on the basis of local realities, rather than on the basis of reference standards or averages from other projects. A concrete example is about banking costs which are much higher in [country] than they are in Latin America or Europe.”
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
31
Administration Figure 20
Monitoring and reporting activities
Staff visit in person Discuss progress by email/phone Submit regular reports Audited financial reports Monitor endeavour together Monitor us independently Encourages us to review work with stakeholders Encourages us to make changes Systematic feedback from beneficiaries
40
50
ACTEC
●● ●●
32
60
Global Cohort
70
80
90
100 %
ACODEV Cohort
This chart shows the percentage of ACTEC’s respondents who received each monitoring and reporting activity. ACTEC conducts 3 out of 9 monitoring and reporting activities with an equal or higher number of its respondents than the ACODEV cohort average (5 out of 9 for the global NGO cohort).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Administration Figure 21
Value of monitoring and reporting activities
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % ACTEC
Staff visit in person
0
Discuss progress by email/phone
0
Submit regular reports
0
100
100
ACTEC
100 100 ACTEC
75 75 ACTEC
Audited financial reports
10
80
70 ACTEC
Monitor endeavour together
8
83 75
67
ACTEC
Monitor us independently
20
Encourages us to review work with stakeholders
44
Encourages us to make changes
27
Systematic feedback from beneficiaries
44
20 0 ACTEC
44
0 ACTEC
55 27 ACTEC
56 11
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
●●
●●
●●
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
This chart shows the NP scores for respondents who said that each activity applies to them. It excludes those who said that the activity does not apply. ACTEC receives above average scores (for both the global cohort and ACODEV) for eight out of the nine aspects. It receives its highest scores for interactions with ACTEC’s staff in person or by email/phone. For these 2 aspects 100% of respondents sit in the promoters’ category (global cohort benchmarks: 53% and 50% respectively; ACODEV benchmarks: 59% and 52%). It receives its lowest scores for ‘monitoring partners’ work independently’ and for ‘encouraging partners to review their work with stakeholders’ (detractors: 20% and 44%; global cohort benchmarks: 45% and 32%; ACODEV benchmarks: 46% and 37%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
33
Administration Figure 22
Monitoring and reporting process
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % ACTEC
0
Formats are easy
69 69 ACTEC
9
Comments
91 82 ACTEC
8
Helps us improve
69 62 ACTEC
Identify ways together
15
Quick and easy
54
62 46 ACTEC
28 -15 ACTEC
Important issues
33
50
17 ACTEC
How info is used
25
50
25 ACTEC
Support
25
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
58
33
-80
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-60
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
60
Global Cohort Average NP Score
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements:
34
1
‘Reporting formats provided by ACTEC are easy to understand and use.’
2
‘ACTEC gives us useful comments about the reports we send them.’
3
‘The monitoring and reporting we do for/with ACTEC helps us improve what we do.’
4
‘We work with ACTEC to identify useful and relevant ways of monitoring our impact.’
5
‘It is quick and easy for us to collect information and write reports for ACTEC.’
6
‘ACTEC makes us report on what is important, rather than details.’
7
‘We understand how ACTEC uses the information we provide.’
8
‘ACTEC provides enough funds and support for us to monitor and report on our work.’
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Administration ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
ACTEC receives NP scores above the average of the global cohort of NGOs and the ACODEV cohort in 7 out of 8 aspects of monitoring and reporting. In 3 areas it receives the highest scores in the cohort. 92% of ACTEC’s respondents report that ACTEC provides them with reporting formats to use (global cohort benchmark: 81%; ACODEV: 83%). Respondents give an average rating of 9.2 out of 10 regarding how easy these formats are to use (global cohort benchmark: 7.6; ACODEV: 7.7). ACTEC receives its highest NP score and average rating for giving ‘useful comments on the reports partners send them’ (average rating of 9.5 out of 10; global cohort benchmark: 7.6; ACODEV: 8). Collecting information and writing reports is perceived as burdensome by ACTEC’s respondents (54% sit in the detractors’ category; global cohort benchmark: 33%; ACODEV: 37%). Respondents who have been partners of ACTEC for more than 6 years feel significantly more that ACTEC provides them with enough funds and support for monitoring and reporting than those that have been with ACTEC for less time (average rating of 10 out of 10 vs. 7). Of the three comments received in this section, 2 express satisfaction with ACTEC and 1 makes a suggestion: “We are very satisfied with ACTEC’s services on this issue” “Things are fine as they are” “They could make things easier for us by looking up themselves certain pieces of information, for example on the internet: the population of a certain province, historical or political events in the country, etc.”
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
35
Administration Figure 23
Improving monitoring and reporting
Accept reports in different format Visit us more often Simplify the monitoring and reporting process Involve us in deciding how to monitor and report progress Undertake more monitoring with us Draw more on our expertise in developing ways to monitor progress Help us monitor and report in ways that are useful for us and the people we work with Share lessons and experiences among organisations working on the same issues Focus more attention on long term social changes Ask for more feedback from local communities Respond and discuss our reports with us Provide more resources to monitor and report on our work
0
20
ACTEC
●●
●●
40
Global Cohort
60
80
100%
ACODEV Cohort
Respondents were asked to identify two options from this list that they would most like ACTEC to do to improve its monitoring and reporting in the future. In the future, respondents would most like ACTEC to improve its monitoring and reporting by facilitating the sharing of lessons and experiences among organisations working on the same issues. The second choice is split between helping partners monitor and report in ways that are useful for them and providing more resources for monitoring and reporting. These were also the most popular options for respondents in the global cohort of NGOs and for the ACODEV cohort.
36
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Section 6: Relationship and communications Figure 24
Amount of contact
%
too li ttle
too much
%
ACTEC
Amount of contact
0
85 6
-10
●●
●●
●●
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
The chart shows responses to the question: ‘How would you rate the amount of contact you have had with ACTEC during your current or most recent agreement?’ 15% of ACTEC’s respondents feel that the amount of contact they have with ACTEC is about right. The average for the global cohort of NGOs is 43%, and the average for ACODEV is 39%. 85% of ACTEC’s respondents would like to have less contact with it (cohort benchmark: 46%; ACODEV: 53%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
37
Relationship and communications Figure 25
How ACTEC works with respondents
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % ACTEC
Support on time
8
85
77 ACTEC
Understands strategy
8
62 54 ACTEC
Understands context
15
69 54 ACTEC
Promotion
42
42
0 ACTEC
Explained exit
9
64
55
28
67
ACTEC
Their plans
8
62
54 ACTEC
Shaping strategy
46
23 -23 ACTEC
Transparent about funds
18
Complaints procedure
50
73
55 ACTEC
50 0
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
-80
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-60
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements:
38
1
‘Support (including funding) arrives when ACTEC says it will.’
2
‘ACTEC understands our strategy.’
3
‘ACTEC understands our working environment and cultural context.’
4
‘ACTEC promotes our organization in the media and elsewhere.’
5
‘ACTEC has explained when it expects to stop working with us.’
6
‘We understand ACTEC’s plans and strategies.’
7
‘ACTEC involves us in shaping its strategy.’
8
‘ACTEC is transparent about how it uses its funds.’
9
‘ACTEC has a complaints procedure we could use if we had to.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Relationship and communications ●●
●●
●●
In eight out of the nine aspects listed above, ACTEC receives NP scores above the average of the cohort of NGOs and the ACODEV cohort. In 5 aspects it receives the highest ratings in the ACODEV group. ACTEC is rated particularly high in three aspects: (a) support arriving when ACTEC says it will (85% are promoters; global cohort benchmark: 45%; ACODEV: 51%), (b) explaining its exit strategy (64% promoters; global cohort benchmark: 29%; ACODEV: 37%) and (c) being transparent about how it uses its funds (73% promoters; global cohort benchmark: 32%; ACODEV: 47%). ACTEC gets its lowest marks for involving partners in shaping its strategy (46% are detractors; global cohort benchmark: 47%; ACODEV: 47%); for publicly promoting its partners’ organisations (42% detractors; global cohort benchmark: 54%; ACODEV: 46%) and for making a complaints procedure available to partners (50% detractors; global cohort benchmark: 53%; ACODEV: 57%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
39
Relationship and communications Figure 26
Respondents' interactions with ACTEC DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % ACTEC
1 Raising concerns
8
2 Questioning
8
92 85 ACTEC
77 69 ACTEC
3 Listens & responds
8
4 Asks our advice
38
5 Staff attitude
0
69 62 ACTEC
38 0 ACTEC
77 77 ACTEC
6 Demands on time
8
83
75 ACTEC
7 Equitable treatment
17
83
67 ACTEC
8 Added value of local office/rep*
50
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
38
-13
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
* this option was only included for the ACODEV Cohort
The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements: 1
‘We feel comfortable approaching ACTEC to discuss any problems we are having.’
2
‘We feel comfortable questioning ACTEC’s understanding or actions if we disagree with them.’
40
3
‘ACTEC listens and responds appropriately to our questions and concerns.’
4
‘Staff from ACTEC ask us for our advice and guidance.’
5
‘ACTEC’s staff are respectful, helpful and capable.’
6
‘ACTEC does not make demands on our time to support their work.’
7
‘ACTEC treats all partners the same way.’
8
‘ACTEC’s local office / representative brings an added value to the partnership’*
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Relationship and communications ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
In seven out of eight aspects listed above, ACTEC is rated above the average for the cohort of NGOs and for the ACODEV group. For 3 aspects it receives the highest scores in the cohort of NGOs and for 2 it receives the highest scores for the ACODEV group. ACTEC receives its highest average ratings for how comfortable respondents feel approaching ACTEC to discuss problems and for the attitude of its staff (9.5 out of 10 for both). Ratings for these two questions were relatively high for all NGOs (global cohort benchmarks: 8.7 and 8.6; ACODEV: 8.8 and 8.6 respectively). ACTEC is given a negative, below average score for the added value that their local offices or representatives bring to the partnership (50% are detractors; ACODEV benchmark: 33%). However this finding might not be relevant for ACTEC as they do not have local offices. ACTEC gets its second lowest rating for asking for advice and guidance from partners with an NP score equal to 0 (mean rating of 7.3 out of 10; global cohort benchmark: 6.7; ACODEV: 6.7). Out of 4 comments received in this section, 3 were positive and 1 made a suggestion: “ACTEC understands truly our relationship as PARTNERS and does not see us as ‘local operators’ or ‘funds recipients’ (…)” “Capitalise the experience and knowledge products generated by its projects in order to ensure their dissemination and replication in other regions and countries. Support scaling up processes and knowledge dissemination that permit the strengthening and diversification of its partners”.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
41
Relationship and communications Figure 27
Accountability* DET %
Access to information on NGO's identity and strategy Understand how NGO makes decisions about partnership NGO involves us in decisions about the partnership
Accountability to partners is a priority for the NGO
NET PROMOTER SCORES ACTEC
38
ACTEC
38
54 15
ACTEC
15
54
38
ACTEC
36
64
27
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
●●
38
0
-100
●●
PRO %
-40
-20 ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
For the ACODEV cohort we asked partners to give their perceptions on the NGO’s accountability to partners. In all four aspects, ACTEC receives NP scores higher than the average for the ACODEV cohort. It receives its highest NP score (and the highest in the cohort) for involving partners in decision-making about the partnership (54% are promoters; ACODEV benchmark: 37%).
42
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Relationship and communications Figure 28
Improving relationships
Provide support on time Be more flexible about the support Discuss their strategy and plans Develop a joint strategy with us Understand our strategy & context Promote our work Take more time to listen Be more respectful Be more approachable Be more fair Set up or reinforce a local office* Be more transparent with us* Be more attentive to learn from mistakes* Provide a complaints procedure* None of the above
0
10 ACTEC
20
30
Global Cohort
40
50
60
70
80 %
ACODEV Cohort
* these options were only included for the ACODEV Cohort
●●
●●
Respondents were asked to select the two options they would most like ACTEC to do to improve its relationship with them. In the future, most respondents would like ACTEC to improve its relationships with them by promoting partners’ work. Their second choice is split between developing a joint strategy with partners and setting up a local office.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
43
Section 7: Understanding and learning Figure 29
Understanding and Learning
DET %
NET PROMOTER SCORES
PRO % ACTEC
Understands sector
8
Leader
25
Contribution
15
Learning
17
69
62
ACTEC
50 25
ACTEC
69 54
ACTEC
50 33
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
-80
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-60
-40
-20
0
ACTEC NP Score
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements:
●●
●●
●●
44
1
‘ACTEC understands the sector(s) we work in.’
2
‘ACTEC is a leader in the sector(s) we work in.’
3
‘ACTEC has made a major contribution to the sector(s) we work in.’
4
‘ACTEC learns from its mistakes and makes improvements to how it works
In all four aspects listed above, ACTEC receives NP scores above the average for the cohort of NGOs and ACODEV cohort. ACTEC receives particularly high ratings for understanding the sector partners’ work in (9.1 out of 10; global cohort benchmark: 8.7; ACODEV: 8.9). 25% of respondents do not consider ACTEC to be a leader in their field of work (global cohort benchmark: 42%; ACODEV: 39%).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Understanding and learning Figure 30
Making improvements
DET % Making improvements
ne t pr om ote r scor e s ACTEC
25
50 25
-100
Global Cohort NP Score Range
●●
●● ●●
PRO %
-80
-60
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
Respondents were asked to rate how likely they think it is that ACTEC will make changes as a result of their answers to this survey. The average rating of ACTEC’s respondents was 8.2out of 10 (global cohort benchmark: 7.4; ACODEV: 7.7). One suggestion provided by a respondent was: “(Hold) a meeting in order to talk about strategy and maybe get to know and exchange more with other partners of ACTEC”.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
45
Section 8: Overall satisfaction Figure 31
Satisfaction compared to other NGOs/funders
DET % Quantity and type of funding
ACTEC
46 8 ACTEC
23
Finalising the agreement
30
54 31 ACTEC
50 20 ACTEC
Monitoring & reporting
17
Respect shown to us
15
Knowledge & influence
38
58 42 ACTEC
54 38 ACTEC
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
46
38
0 ACTEC
0
67
67
-100 Global Cohort NP Score Range
PRO %
38
Non-financial support
Overall value added
NET PROMOTER SCORES
-80
ACODEV Cohort NP Score Range
-60
-40
-20
ACTEC NP Score
0
20
40
Global Cohort Average NP Score
60
80
100
ACODEV Cohort Average NP Score
The chart shows how respondents compare ACTEC to other NGOs/funders they receive support from, across each of the areas listed. In all seven aspects listed above, ACTEC receives NP scores above the average of the cohort of NGOs and in six above the average of the ACODEV cohort. ACTEC receives its highest ratings for the overall value added to its partners’ work (9; global cohort benchmark: 7.8; ACODEV: 7.9) and for its monitoring and reporting processes and requirements (8.6; global cohort benchmark: 7.3; ACODEV: 7.6). ACTEC receives its lowest rating for the knowledge and influence it has in the sector partners’ work in (38% are detractors; cohort benchmark: 29%; ACODEV: 30%). Respondents who receive funds from more than 5 different funders, feel that ACTEC does not compare so well to other funders regarding the finalisation of the agreement (average rating of 6.3 vs. 9.2 for respondents with 1-4 funders). Respondents who believe that the financial support they receive from ACTEC will increase in the future give significantly higher ratings than those who believe that support will decrease in the areas of ‘quantity and type of funding’, ‘respect shown to partners’ and ‘overall value added’.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
Overall satisfaction Figure 32
ACTEC can be described as …
ACTEC 10%
Benchmark
ACODEV
10% 10%
21%
26%
30%
2%
20% 2%
19%
12%
50%
●●
11%
13% 17%
●●
28%
19%
Priest
Teacher
Management expert
Absent father
Rich uncle
Bank manager
Wise aunt
Caring sister
Other
The most popular description respondents assigned to ACTEC is ‘teacher’, followed by ‘management expert’. The options ‘bank manager’, ‘rich uncle’, ‘absent father’, ‘school bully’, ‘police officer’ and ‘politician’ were not chosen by any of the respondents. Other qualifiers given by respondents included: ‘strategic partner’ and ‘open hearted, sensible and generous’.
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
47
Section 9: ACTEC’s tailored questions Figure 33
Order of importance of ACTEC’s contributions to partners
Project funding
Support for carrying out activities
Support for project management
Reflection on partner's strategic development Institutional strengthening
Sharing of experiences with ACTEC and/or other partners
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Current order of importance
●●
●●
●●
48
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Desirable order of importance
This section presents findings from the tailored questions that ACTEC asked us to administer to their partners. The questions were not asked to any other Northern or ACODEV NGO’s partners, hence no benchmarks are available. Partners were asked to put in order of importance (1=most important to 6=least important) the different areas in which their partnership with ACTEC makes contributions. Currently, the most important area of contribution for partners is project funding (50% chose it as the most important area). This is also partners’ first choice for the future (75% chose it as the most important area). Currently, the least important area of contribution as seen by respondents is the sharing of experiences with ACTEC and/or other ACTEC partners. For the future, the least important area for respondents is receiving support from ACTEC for the institutional strengthening of their association (staff training, coaching, etc).
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
ACTEC’s tailored questions ●●
When asked to state a strong point of their partnership with ACTEC, some responses were: “Respecting the partner and therefore taking into consideration their points of view” “Fluid communication (…)” “Understanding and collaboration” Asked about weak points in the partnership, some responses were: “Difficulty to take into account local constraints (…)” “Promoting our actions internationally” “Lack of a joint strategy for the future and post-project period (…)” Last, partners were asked to provide suggestions about how to improve the partnership. Some suggestions were: “Continue with exchanges and carrying out longer field missions (10-15 days); it might also be useful to have a representative on site” “(…) all communications are about the project, its results and execution; maybe knowing more about ACTEC’s work would improve the relationship” “Maybe holding strategic planning meetings with partners to look beyond current projects. A joint strategy.”
Pa r t n e r F e e d b a c k R e p o r t : A C T E C
49