Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

Transcription

1 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results Introduction Partos has organized a joint Partner Feedback survey 2012 together with Keystone. Since 2010, Keystone has been conducting benchmark surveys of partners of northern non-governmental organisations (NGOs). A total of 46 northern NGOs have been qualified to be included in the comparative data set. The Dutch cohort consists of 16 NGOs. 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. The survey process was managed by Keystone Accountability. The questionnaire was administered to Cordaid s partners in English, Spanish and French, from 15 November to 19 December Regular reminders were sent to encourage a high response rate. The response rate for Cordaid has been 33% (227 of the 694), which is below the cohort average of 43%, but still provides quality data and gives a reasonable idea about the performance of Cordaid. The former partner satisfaction survey of Cordaid in 2008 had a response of 30%. This report presents what the partners of Cordaid said about the NGO compared to benchmarks reflecting partner ratings from 46 of the northern NGOs in the data set, as well as with 16 Dutch NGOs comprising the Dutch cohort. Keystone uses a technique of feedback data analysis increasingly common in the customer satisfaction industry known as Net Promoter Analysis (NPA) to distinguish between three profiles of constituents. The Promoters are constituents that rate Cordaid as 9 and 10 on the 0-10 point scale used in the survey. These are Cordaid s champions. They are highly likely to be wholehearted participants in activities and consistently recommend Cordaid 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 Cordaid. 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 Cordaid and common developmental objectives are likely to be negatively affected as a result. The scores on the questions are presented with bars that show the range from the lowest to the highest NP score within the cohort of NGOs. Data labels on the bars show the average NP score for the total cohort of NGOs, the Dutch NGO group, and Cordaid s specific NP score. The percentages in circles on either side of the chart show the total percentages of NGO X s respondents that can be 1 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

2 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. The survey consists of the following 9 sections: 1. Partnership profile 2. Financial support 3. Non-financial support 4. Administration 5. Relationship and communication 6. Understanding and learning 7. Overall satisfaction 8. Dutch cohort questions 9. Cordaid specific questions The performance summery is based on section 1 7. The two Dutch cohort questions relate to changes that may have affected the organization, and to the support for lobby and advocacy. These questions don t give significant findings. The results of the Cordaid specific questions are presented in annex 1. Annex 2 gives an overview of some comments given by partners on the Cordaid performance. Cordaid s performance summary (from Keystone report, with additional comments in italics) General Cordaid is rated 6th out of 46 in the total NGO cohort and 4 th in the Dutch NGO cohort in terms of overall satisfaction. Financial support Respondents express significant satisfaction with the financial support they receive from Cordaid. They particularly appreciate that funds are disbursed in appropriate phases and that Cordaid gives clear explanations about back-donor requirements. However, they say that Cordaid does not always allow them to make the changes they need to in spending funds. Non-financial support: capacity building Respondents give relatively low ratings to most of the types of capacity building support that they receive from Cordaid, as is the case for most NGOs. There is room for improvement in the areas of board/governance and advocacy and campaigning. Cordaid respondents expressed satisfaction with the financial management aspect of support. o Compared with the other Dutch NGOs the scores are not too bad, Cordaid outperforms the Dutch cohort average in 8 out of ten areas, only management and leadership score is same as Dutch average. o It is very clear that the consistent and well-structured support for capacity building on financial management is recognized and appreciated by partner organisations. Other non-financial support Other non-financial support areas need to be greatly improved, especially those related to protection from threats and strengthening news and information production. Cordaid was rated slightly below the average for the Dutch cohort of NGOs for other non-financial support. Help with accessing other funds also received a low rating, although this area is 2 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

3 rated consistently low across most NGOs. The areas with highest NP scores for Cordaid are shared common program goals and introductions to other organizations/networks. The lowest rated areas for Cordaid are protection from threats and accessing other funds. o The highest scores of Cordaid are in line with the cohort benchmarks, but they all have negative net promoter scores. o Cordaid partners would like to receive more support in accessing other sources of funds, and capacity building support in participatory approaches. Administration: agreement process During the agreement process Cordaid is perceived as not putting pressure on partners to change their priorities and for being flexible and willing to adapt the terms of its support to meet partners needs. It is not seen as demanding more information than other funders or NGOs during the agreement process. The length of support is perceived as not being well matched to partners needs. Cordaid receives its highest scores for not putting pressure on partners to change their priorities and for being flexible and willing to adapt the terms of its support to meet partners needs. The scores outweigh the Global and Dutch cohort averages. In three other areas Cordaid scores are above average: time passed from starting discussions to receiving support was reasonable, amount of support well matched to needs, and enough support to help finalize the agreement. Administration: monitoring and reporting Respondents value the reporting and auditing processes in their relationship with Cordaid. While they give low ratings to the independent monitoring by Cordaid and to how information is fed back from beneficiaries, they do however seem to consider monitoring and reporting important for helping them improve their work. Cordaid receives high scores for audited financial reports and submit regular reports, and also the score for encourages to review work with stakeholders scores above average, with a positive NPS. o Systematic feedback from beneficiaries scores above the Dutch average, but below Global average. There is certainly room for improvement. o Cordaid s formats are considered easy to use, and Cordaid receives high scores for helping NGOs to improve through monitoring and reporting. o Cordaid partners would most like Cordaid 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 to provide more resources to assist in monitoring and reporting. Relationship and communications A large portion of respondents feel that the amount of contact they have with Cordaid is about right. They feel that they can easily raise concerns with Cordaid and that Cordaid is responsive to their concerns. They very much appreciate the attitude of Cordaid s staff. Cordaid is rated particularly high in: (a) support arriving when Cordaid says it will, (b) understanding respondents strategies and (c) understanding respondents working environment and cultural context. Cordaid gets lower marks for explaining its shaping strategy and for publicly promoting its partners organisations. Concerning the interactions, Cordaid receives its highest ratings for how comfortable respondents feel approaching Cordaid and for the attitude of its staff. Cordaid gets its lowest rating for asking for advice and guidance from partners. o Respondents feel that Cordaid can improve on involving partners in shaping strategy and in further promoting partners work publicly. Understanding and learning In all four aspects of understanding and learning, Cordaid receives NP scores above average of both Global and Dutch cohort. Cordaid receives particularly high ratings for understanding 3 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

4 the sector partners work in. Cordaid is not perceived by a large portion of partners to be a leader in their field of work, but Cordaid score is still higher than the two cohorts. Overall satisfaction In six out of the seven aspects, Cordaid receives NP scores above the average of the cohort of NGOs and the Dutch cohort of NGOs. CORDAID receives its highest ratings for the respect it shows partners and for the overall value added to its partners work. Cordaid receives its lowest rating for the non-financial support it provides partners. Respondents that have a longer relationship with Cordaid express higher levels of satisfaction in various areas of the survey. Central and Southern American respondents tend to be less satisfied overall. Cordaid, as 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 organisations. A negative NP score should never leave an organisation indifferent as it means that in that area there are more detractors than promoters. Dutch cohort questions Two questions: mean impact of organizational change and value of lobby and advocacy support. For the first question Cordaid receives mean scores above the Dutch cohort average in 2 of the 6 aspects (on communication about budget restriction and decentralization). Cordaid received its lowest score for the impact of budget reductions (3.5 out of 10). For lobby and advocacy Cordaid receives a mean rating of 7.2 out of 10, which coincides with the Dutch average. Cordaid specific questions Two questions: on transformation into social enterprise and on knowledge development. More than half of the respondents (52%) know about the transformation, 22% is happy with that, 44% is concerned. Of the respondents 77% participated in knowledge development initiatives, with a mean satisfaction rate of 5.7 (out of 7). Of these, 40% is very satisfied with these initiatives. 72% of the respondents is interested in more interaction through website/knowledge platform. o It is remarkable that more than 50% of the partners know about the transformation into a social enterprise. o It is also interesting (and somewhat contradicting the non-financial support outcomes) that 77% of the partners participates in knowledge development initiatives, and is quite satisfied with these! Future 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 in learning about, and applying participatory approaches in their work. Furthermore, they are asking Cordaid to facilitate more experience exchanges among organisations working on similar issues and to focus more attention on long-term social changes. They believe that relationships with Cordaid could be improved by promoting partners work more and involving them in the development of joint strategies. 4 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

5 Follow-up Cordaid will take the following steps as a follow-up of the results of the survey: Share the report with partner organisations and discuss the results during field visits. Ask non-respondents why they didn t answer the survey. Discuss priorities for support indicated by Cordaid respondents and define strategies and activities for partner support. Discuss whether partners could collect similar benchmarked feedback from their constituents and use it to report performance. Develop more systematic approaches for capacity development and other non-financial support with partners. Support partners to access other sources of funding, including innovative approaches such as crowd funding. Discuss with partners Cordaid s transformation into a social entrepreneur. Repeat the survey in Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

6 Annex 1: Questions specific to Cordaid Are you aware of the fact that Cordaid is transforming into a social enterprise with business units? Are you aware that Cordaid is transforming into a social enterprise? 48% 52% Yes No This chart only refers to those partners who responded to the question. How do you feel about this transformation? How do you feel about this transformation? 50% 44% 40% 30% 20% 10% 6% 22% 18% 10% 0% Not happy Happy Concerned No feeling Other This chart shows the % of respondents who are either not happy, happy, concerned, have no feeling regarding the transformation or who feel something other to the options specified. 6 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

7 Knowledge development is an increasingly important part of the work of Cordaid. The purpose is to encourage the exchange and development of knowledge and to offer opportunities for partners to learn from one another. Do you take part in, or have you taken part in knowledge development initiatives (i.e., research, conferences, learning trajectories)? Do you/have you taken part in knowledge development initiatives? 23% 77% Yes No This chart only refers to those partners who responded to the question. (If yes) How satisfied are you about the knowledge development initiatives you took part in? 7 6 Mean satisfaction re. knowledge development initiatives 5, Mean Satisfaction This chart ranges on a scale from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). 7 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

8 Profile of respondent satisfaction 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1% 1% 6% 8% 24% 20% 40% This chart shows how many respondents (in %) selected each available option. What knowledge development activities would you like to be involved in? None 0% Research 67% Conferences 62% Learning trajectories 68% Others 14% This table shows how many respondents per activity indicated that they would like to be involved. The table therefore sums to more than 100%. 8 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results

9 Would you be interested in more interaction with Cordaid and other partners through a new website/knowledge platform? Interested in more interaction through new website/knowledge platform? 6% 0,4% 22% 72% Yes No Maybe Depends on contents This chart only refers to those partners who responded to the question. 9 Summary Partner feedback survey Keystone 2012 Cordaid results