In recent years, numerous NGOs have been established in Greece with activities in various sectors ranging from the promotion of human rights and the fight against poverty to the preservation of Cultural Heritage and environmental protection.
As in other European countries, the development of the sector has not been accompanied by a systematic horizontal evaluation.
This project aims to evaluate the Greek NGO ecosystem. The aim of this evaluation is not to “punish” organizations, but to highlight best practices. NGO evaluations in some countries abroad (especially Great Britain and the USA) have led to an improvement in the efficiency of the ecosystem, an increase in resource flows to NGOs and ultimately to an enhancement of the sector’s public image and the protection of its reputation from sporadic cases of mismanagement.
Following the thorough examination of corresponding NGO evaluation practices in other countries and the necessary adaptation of the relevant criteria and procedures to the Greek milieu, the Research Team ended up with the following Methodological Guide.
It is noted that the whole process includes a public consultation on the evaluation criteria with both Greek NGOs and donors active in Greece, in the context of the promotion of the main objective of the evaluation: to be a tool for improving and strengthening the ecosystem.
An exhaustive assessment must be based on a combination of both quantitative and qualitative criteria.
An important point is that the evaluation should result in a rating/categorisation of organizations that participate. Thus, each organization will receive a number of stars from one (1) to four (4) (best possible performance).
The evaluation will produce thematic lists of evaluated NGOs based on their key areas of activity, as stated by them and confirmed by the activities they have implemented over a certain period.
Non-profit organizations, foundations and associations with charitable work, which have a legal identity, organizational autonomy and administrative structures, are active in a time period of more than two finanacial years and have a significant number of beneficiaries (non-members), while their activities are geographically wider than those of a small community (i.e. a neighbourhood or a village).
Overall, the final score of each organization will be the weighted as a sum of the scores in three (3) categories of criteria:
Effectiveness
proposed weight: 45%
Organizational structure
proposed weight: 20%
Transparency
proposed weight: 35%
Each group of criteria will have a maximum score of one hundred (100) and the total final sum of each organization will be given on the 1-100 scale. The rating will show how many stars each organization will receive based on the following scale:
| Stars: | ★★★★ | ★★★ | ★★ | ★ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Final Score: |
≥ 80 |
60 - 79 | 40 - 59 |
≤ 39 |
Group A refers to the effectiveness of each NGO during the last three (3) years. It is noted that in case of special factors that distort the real image of an NGO, data from up to the last five (5) years may be requested. It is recalled that the meaning of 'effectiveness' in the present research does not refer to qualitative criteria but is purely measured in quantitative terms. The real disadvantage deriving from this option is partly minimized by the fact that the evaluation is sectoral (ratings refer to NGOs belonging to a specific sector). The following criteria/indicators are included in this category:
A.1 Economic effectiveness
Percentage of operating expenses in terms of total turnover (1-20):
The smaller the higher the score
Average operating expenses over three years (new organizations: two years):
Difference from sectoral benchmark
A.2 Economic Stability
Financial mix (1-15):
The lesser the dependency on a source the higher the score.
Individual donations (1-10):
The higher the rate of funding from individuals and NGO members compared to the sectoral benchmark, the higher the rating.
Changes in the financial mix (1-5):
The smaller the change (excluding state funding) the higher the score
Budget Fluctuations (1-5):
Budget percentage change, the smaller the higher the score
A.3 operational effectiveness (based on declared projects)
Average cost per (direct) beneficiary (1-10):
Difference from sectoral benchmark
Average number of staff per (direct) beneficiary (1-5):
Difference from sectoral benchmark
Average number of volunteers per (direct) beneficiary (1-5):
Difference from sectoral benchmark
A.4 Comparative Analysis
Percentage of Group A criteria with a rating higher than the sectoral benchmark (1-15):
≤ 30% = 5 points, ≤ 60% = 10 points, ≥ 61% = 15 points
Group B refers to the organizational structures of each NGO as well as its organizational performance in the last three (3) years. It is noted that in case of special factors that distort the real image of an NGO, data from up to five (5) years may be requested. The following criteria/indicators are included in this category:
B.1 Internal Organization
Distinction between Board of Directors and Management Team (0-20) (excluding organizations that have closed less than three (3) economic uses):
<25% 0 points, 25-50% 10 points, >50% 20 points
Distinction of tasks (0-10) (excluding organizations that have closed less than three (3) financial years):
No= 0 points, Yes=10 points
Frequency of meetings of the Board of Directors (0-5):
< of the sectoral benchmark = 0 points, ≥ the sectoral benchmark = 5 points
Two ends are created, reduced score if you have very rare or very frequent meetings.
Existence of an updated volunteer registry (0-5):
No= 0 points, Yes= 5 points
B.2 Organizational effectiveness
Total turnover/number of staff (1-15):
Comparison with sectoral benchmark. > benchmark = 1-4 points, = benchmark (+-10%) = 5, < benchmark = 6-10.
Total turnover/number of volunteers (1-15):
Comparison with sectoral benchmark. > benchmark = 1-4 points, = benchmark (+-10%) = 5, < benchmark = 6-10.
Fluctuations in the number of volunteers (1-10):
Percentage change in the number of volunteers. The lesser the higher the score.
B.3 Comparative Analysis
Percentage of Group B criteria with a score above the sectoral benchmark (1-20):
≤ 25% = 5 points, > 25% & ≤ 50% = 10 points, > 50% & ≤ 75% = 15 points, > 75% = 20 points.
Group C refers to the degree of transparency which characterizes (defines) the operation of each NGO. The following criteria/indicators are included in this category:
C.1 Information
Existence of a Web page (0-15):
No = 0 points, yes-updated every > quarter = 8 points, yes-updated every < quarter = 15 points
Official statutes of the NGO uploaded & accessible (0-15):
No= 0 points, Yes = 15 points
Balance sheets at least of the two (2) last years uploaded and accessible (0-15):
No= 0 points, Yes = 15 points
Audit of annual balance sheets by certified auditors (0-5):
No= 0 points, Yes = 15 points
Published names of members of the Board of Directors (0-10):
No= 0 points, Yes = 10 points
Published names of the management team (0-10):
No= 0 points, Yes = 10 points
Published Annual reports of the organization (0-20):
No = 0 points, yes-limited details = 10 points, yes-detailed = 20 points
C.2 Comparative Analysis
Percentage of Group C criteria with a score above the sectoral benchmark (0-10):
≤ 30% = 0 points, ≤ 60% = 5 points, ≥ 61% = 10 points
The evaluation process is divided into four (4) distinct stages:
A. Consultation and conclusion of the evaluation methodology: During this stage the research team will set on public consultation the methodological text of the evaluation and, following the inclusion of proposals from "stakeholders", will complete and publish the final methodological text.
B. Information and Preparation: At this stage, organizations are informed of the final evaluation process and a time period is being provided for any potential improvements.
C. Interviews implementation/data collection: During this stage the members of the research team:
Ask via telephone and by email specific NGOs, on the basis of NGO lists created, for their intention to be included in the evaluation process. [Please note that each organization will receive up to two (2) relevant notices].
If the request is accepted, the relevant link of the platform is sent to the Organization and:
In the case of NGOs not included in the 1st assessment (Thales I) a meeting/interview date is set at the premises of the organization where any queries are resolved.
In the case of NGOs that were included in the 1st assessment (Thales I) then access to the platform is given to the person responsible for the organization.
D. Data processing and creation of sectoral credibility indexes: During this last stage, the project team will proceed with processing the data collected and the creation of the sectoral credibility indexes, including all the organizations which have been notified to participate in the evaluation process. Both the sectoral credibility indexes and detailed data on the results of the evaluation process will be presented in a relevant event that will be organized, while they will be constantly available through the platform/website that will be created.
|
Number of Stars |
Qualitative Categorisation |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| ★★★★ |
Excellent |
Exceeds the average level of the sector/operates more efficiently than the average. Makes use of best practices that could be disseminated in the sector |
| ★★★ |
Good |
Exceeds or reaches the average level of the sector/operates equally efficiently or more effectively than the average |
| ★★ |
Needs Improvements |
Close to the average level of the sector/operates less effectively than the average and there is significant potential for progress |
| ★ |
Poor Performance |
It is located slightly lower than the average level of the sector/operates significantly less effectively than the average and there are many possibilities for progress. |