|
Some thoughts on the rating issue for NGOs – 1. If there is some kind of professional rating of NGOs, it would help both donors and NGOs. Donors, because they would feel more reassured about where their efforts and money are going and also how they are being leveraged. So, if I feel that NGO x is making my amount go a longer way than NGO y, I would be more confident in putting it in NGO y and would be more open to helping them out. From the NGOs point of view too, ratings are good because they force them to become more accountable and professional, apart from drawing in more resources. Hence ratings would help donating become less of ‘charity’ and more of ‘support’. 2. The issue of criteria is a little more tricky. The kind of constraints NGOs are operating under need to be a part of this.So, to my mind, we could look at leveraging resources(both financial and non-financial), growth in reach, qualitative growth(which could include the quality of inputs being offered to the community, new ideas, etc), overcoming constraints(what were the kind of odds and how were they dealt with), transparency,and what I would call professionalism(how do they deal with problems, do they learn on the job, are they in touch with what others are doing / learning from it, how actively do they seek out new inputs, how much are they communicating with different stakeholders, etc). In my mind, NGOs have to be evaluated on a combination of criteria, to be fair to the environment they operate in, and yet they need to be encouraged to move towards greater efficiency and accountability. 3. Who should rate them? Tough one. Maybe a panel of multiple stakeholders, like business, government, citizens, communities, organisations like Karmayog? This panel could be formed with a combination of passionate, committed, recognised individuals with a proven track-record from each of these sets, and they can put together the criteria for evaluation in a final form. For larger NGOs, feedback can also be taken from a larger base of stakeholders and inputted in the evaluation process. Also, the process of evaluation should be crisp and not too long-drawn because people would not like to spend a lot of time in going thru the nitty-gritties. If there was a group which first collected the data based on questions/ input points, and then the panel would come together and examine it for evaluation, maybe request more details/ clarity in some cases, and do the evaluation. In case some NGO felt they had not been assessed rightly, there should be a provision for them putting their case to the panel. Also, the panel could keep getting refreshed with new faces regularly, to prevent jadedness and biases. 4. I would not like to comment since I do not know all the NGOs in Mumbai. However, in my opinion, Sunbeam is doing very committed, good work in the field of interim education. The way they find solutions to routine setbacks and keep connecting with their supporters is commendable.
Alka Puri
Alka Puri |