Rural Management Systems Series

ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED INSTITUTIONS
(A Theoretical Framework and a Participatory Methodology)

Aloysius P. Fernandez
January 2000

Summary:

To what extent do Community Based Institutions (CBIs) – whether they be Panchayats created by the Government, Self Help Groups (SHGs) formed by NGOs or Solidarity Groups that emerge on their own – exhibit characteristics that distinguish them as institutions as against a collection of individuals?

This paper attempts to:

i. Outline the six critical distinguishing characteristics of a functioning institution.
ii. Elaborate on a process through which CBIs can be assessed against the above characteristics.
iii. Stress that this process of assessment is not to grade or rate the CBIs but to enhance the CBIs own skills of assessment and understanding of the need to periodically assess itself so that every decision it takes is viewed from the perspective of its organisational learning, health and sustainability.

PART 1

Assessment of Community Based Institutions has drawn the attention of development practitioners in recent times. Several approaches are being tested and different methods used. Among the latter, those that have drawn most attention are methods, which have focused on participatory methods of CBI assessment, even though the hurdle of quantifying the data has not been satisfactorily overcome.

The focus on assessment of CBIs arose from the increasing importance given to the objective of sustainability of impact and empowerment. The underlying assumption is that people’s institutions at the base contribute significantly to sustainability of impact of interventions as well as to the strength of civil society within the broader framework of promoting self help, self reliance and democracy. This assumption has been tested by several studies undertaken by International, National and Local Organisations and found to be valid. There is adequate evidence that institutions of the poor when facilitated to evolve into vibrant institutions play a critical role in fostering empowerment of the poor and marginalised in a sustainable manner.

This paper describes a participatory method to assess village institutions; it does not claim to be comprehensive, neither does it have any pretensions of being the best. It is part of an on-going search. It does not offer any method to quantify data, though this can be attempted. It presents a "friendly tool" that can and has been used by extension staff with experience in promoting participatory strategies in development. Given that MYRADA and other NGOs have formed thousands of CBIs, assessment of CBIs need to be made rapidly and by a large number of staff. I have called this approach Rapid Appraisal of Institutions (RAI).

Though this paper is primarily intended to help staff assess the CBIs, it must be pointed out that CBIs, like living organisms, are constantly changing. Assessing them in a one shot manner is useful but not adequate. The ultimate objective is to increase the capacity of the CBI to assess itself so that every decision it takes is viewed from the perspective of its organisational health and sustainability. The capacity for self-assessment is, indeed, one indicator of the CBIs strengths. The questions listed below, therefore, are also intended to build up the capacity of the CBI to assess itself. These questions must not (repeat not) be handled by the staff in the traditional interview mode even though it may be participatory – namely within a focus group. These are not questions, which require answers immediately from the group, but should be used to guide the discussion. Each question, therefore, should be strategically presented and not necessarily in the order given below. The objective is to enable the CBI to assess itself very broadly at the end of each set of questions. Briefly, the very exercise of assessment, even though led by outsiders, must be handled in such a way that it helps to train the members of the CBIs to assess their own institution. The assessment must be carried out in a participatory manner. This requires that the facilitators, staff and people (members of CBI) be involved at every stage beginning with the planning required for the exercise. There are several reasons for promoting this level of participation; one of them is that participatory methods have emerged as the most appropriate instruments of communicating skills – in this case the skills of assessment – to the members of the CBIs.

How To Conduct This Exercise:

The CBI should be broken down into two or three small groups and each sub-group "interviewed" by two or three staff members.

The staff who handle this exercise need to have experience in working with group’s. At least 3 to 4 years of experience is required to handle this exercise. The assessments of each sub-group can then be discussed in a general meeting where the entire CBI is present as well as a few other concerned invitees from the village. Triangulation, where views are divergent, can be attempted. Consensus can then be reached where possible, and where not, clearly documented.

· CBI to divide itself into small groups of 5 to 8 members.
· Each sub-group to debate on all questions listed in the following pages. If possible, provide one or two facilitators for each sub-group who have understood and can clearly explain each question.
· Each small group makes a presentation of its responses to the key questions.
· Similar and dissimilar responses to be noted

– where views differ, if they cannot be reconciled, they should atleast be probed.

· Others who know the CBI can also be asked to contribute their own assessments.
· Record the process and the outputs where they can periodically be accessed and reviewed by the CBI.

The staff who are involved with the assessment exercise as well as others who have interacted with these CBIs can, on their own, assess the CBIs. The output of the two assessments can be compared or deeper insights to emerge. It is accep ed that all assessments will have underly ng subjective biases. Efforts to identify and share them openly are required. It is a so possible to quantify the output though there are limitations to this endeavour. This paper will not cover the attempts to quantify the output. The need for quantification and how to go about it can be discussed in the preliminary workshops that must be held at the beginning of the assessment.

Theoretical Framework:

This paper suggests that the CBIs assess themselves or be assessed against two sets of indicators:

1. One set covers the six organisational features, which are normally identified as critical to the structure and functioning of any organisation or institution. This paper and the exercise it offers refer only to this first set of indicators.

2. The second set of indicators helps in assessing whether these CBIs are implementing the objectives of the Project. While in a well managed project, the CBIs will be supported to develop their own Vision and Mission, they also need to share the major features of the Projects Vision/Mission since at the field level they take the initiative to plan, implement and manage the Project’s interventions. For example, the Project may seek to strengthen all or some of the concerns related to sustainable development, namely, a) maintaining an explicit pro-poor focus; b) promoting affirmative action to address gender injustices and inequities; c) assuring responsive, accountable and transparent governance; d) securing environmentally sustainable development, and e) generating sustainable sources of income in the non-farm sector. The second exercise suggested could enquire whether the CBIs fostered by the NGO are promoting these objectives of the Project. This facet has not been explored in this paper.

PART 2

The first set of indicators against which the CBI is assessed comprises the six organisational features, which are accepted commonly as critical to the health of any organisation.

MAJOR FEATURES OF AN ORGANISATION

1. Vision:

Vision is a mental picture of the institution and its potential impact in the future. It is what an institution hopes will happen both to itself and to its members if its dreams are realised. A set of values forms the basis and guiding norms of an institution’s vision. Beliefs and values produce and sustain institutions; this set of values drives the institution to intervene strategically in order to fulfil its vision; it also ensures that the interests of the institution are kept above those of its individual members. This is particularly true of an institution, which sees itself as a change agent in society. True the interests of the institution and those of its members are closely inter-linked, but in an institution devoted to change, the interests of its members cannot override those of the institution. It must be noted that an institution is based both on a system of beliefs and values, as well as systems that support its functions and programmes.

Every institution needs to develop a vision of its own it is to be an institution in its own right in keeping with its name. Vision building is not a one-shot exercise; it requires time and involves a series of exposures and modules; vision is a critical feature of all types of CBIs and particularly of CBIs, which have social objectives like the ones fostered by MYRADA. It is also built on people’s strengths, which can be directed towards fulfilling their livelihood needs as well as their social needs like reduction of work and drudgery, better transport, health and drinking water. It grows as people’s confidence increases and as people’s sense of ownership extends beyond their immediate assets like a house and fields and local institutions to include natural resources related with the environment and other institutions. It is nurtured by and in turn nurtures certain core values, which help to reinforce the vision when periodically recalled and reflected on.

The questions related to vision building which form the framework for focus group discussions on the basis of which the members of a CBI can assess themselves and in turn be assessed are the following: (Group = Community Based Institution.)

1. Why did the members join the group? (individual motivation of 3 or 4 for taking group membership)

2. Why are they continuing to be members?
3. Can they describe one achievement of the group of which they are proud?
4. How dothey think the group was able to achieve this? List the strengths of the group in this context.
5. In five years time what would they like their group to be? (Ensure that the answers do not list activities – or what to do.)
6. How do they want to see this village or community in 10 years time? (Ensure that the output is not a list of activities; once again it is what they would like the community/village to be, not to do.)
7. What are the present activities of the group to achieve the vision of the group and the vision they have of the village?
8. What are their future plans to achieve the vision of their group and the vision of their village?
9. When the public (other villagers) talks about their group, what do they expect the public to say the group stands for? (Guide the discussion towards eliciting the core values of the group – or atleast those values subscribed to by most members. (Would they like people to see their group as one which supports the poor, women, children’s education, environment, water/sanitation, self help and progress, women’s issues?)
10. What is the members’ self-assessment in terms of the CBIs and Village vision, and in terms of the strategy to implement this vision? Has the vision influenced their thinking, discussions and actions? Can they give examples? (Scale: excellent, good, not so good, weak). The group should agree on 3 indicators to back up its assessment and list them.