Evaluation of Institutional Strengthening of Friends of Lanka

Background

In the year 2000, FOL withdrew from the Centre for Human Development (CfHD) with the understanding that they were to function independently. The required institutional support was provided by the Development Fund (DF) of Norway with the objective of strengthening the young organization of FOL as an independent institution capable of serving the disadvantaged communities in their areas of operation. It was expected that FOL would develop into a formal Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and implement the institutional development project supported by the DF. It was envisaged that over a period of three years (2001-2003) FOL would become institutionally and financially sustainable and more independent. Funding for the year 2001 had been channeled through CfHD. The direct funding support to FOL from the DF was in the year 2002, which led to the recognition of FOL as an independent organization functioning as a partner of DF.

The Development Fund of Norway has supported the institutional strengthening of FOL as an independent organization in its first phase of operation.

Purpose/objective

DF commissioned this evaluation to "assess the effectiveness of the institutional strengthening phase of FOL" and to "assist the decision making regarding the second phase support". In general, the overall objective focuses on the effectiveness of assistance extended.

Methodology

This study covered the period of the initial 3 years between 2001 to mid 2003, where DF supported FOL for Institutional Strengthening. Therefore, the methodology used in this study was based on: Secondary information from documented sources available with FOL and Member Organizations; Primary information obtained from the communities of the 5 locations visited; Stakeholder consultation workshops - two workshops were held, firstly with Member Organization Coordinators of the FOL as an entry exercise and secondly with the participation of Member Organization Coordinators, Field Coordinators and Chairpersons of the MOs for sharing of findings of the Evaluation.

The package of participatory tools/ techniques applied during the process of evaluation consisted of the following, covering one or more aspects stated above. Participatory methodology including adapted versions of PRA type of tools was used with communities, field coordinators and program coordinators, depending on the line of inquiry.

Key findings

Strengths:
-Organizational strength was increased with capacity to plan and access a diverse resource base
-An office with basic facilities (computer, photo copier, internet & e-mail etc)
-Activities of the member organizations increased
-Linked with external/ international agencies
-The organization tends to work independently, and there is development of organizational management
-Having members with over 10 years experience in the same field and availability of trainers on different disciplines at village level (eg. Mushroom cultivation, bee keeping, bio-gas etc.)
-Obtained knowledge & skills development through training programmes
-The ability of conducting/ implementing proper field programmes
-The widespread publicity of FOL in the Kegalle area

Weaknesses:
-No permanent office building/ training centre/ lack of transport facilities
-No organizational brochure and no proper marketing programme for FOL
-No proper documentation of the minutes of meetings and project progress reports, and no Sinhalese reports on FOL activities and the knowledge of the staff members is not adequate
-Not working together to obtain projects as FOL
-Insufficient dialogue/ coordination between staff and community representatives
-Inadequate presenting of project proposals to other donor agencies
-Not yet registered under the National NGO Secretariat Office
-Higher number of outsiders in the FOL's Board of Directors and the poor participation of them in meetings
-No initial investment funds for projects as MOUs with Government operates on reimbursement basis

Recommendations

-A further push during the second phase in consolidating the capacities developed during phase one will go a long way towards sustaining a new and young organization with a sense of ownership and commitment.
-For the purpose of transparency and accountability it is recommended that there should be representation from the community which is observed up to a point in the organizational structure namely MO level.
-The operational implications experienced during this short period should be taken into consideration in revising the composition of the Board of Directors who need to be meeting regularly for the purpose of decision making and monitoring the activities of FOL and MOs.
-To ensure professionalism and relevant advice, it is recommended that an Advisory Board be set up to support the Board of Directors, who could be accessed when required.
-It is recommended that project related assistance should be focused on agriculture-based activities catering to the poorer sector of the communities concerned and environment related activities in general. It is also recommended that the communities themselves should decide the type of activities most relevant to them in relation to sustainable agriculture.
-Creating awareness on the availability of options should form part of the training programmes. However, to allow and enable decision making at the local level, the funding should be made flexible to address identified needs and not necessarily the pre-defined project activities.
-In light of these observations it could be recommended that FOL should be further supported with technical inputs until FOL develops the capacity to clearly define its long-term directions and consolidate its strategy. At this stage by concentrating on developing their special niche in community development could form the foundation on which to build their long-term strategy.

Comments from the organisation

Any evaluation is produced within a very limited framework with regards to the composition of the evaluation team, its time available, its access to information and how it analyses the information received. Furthermore, any social reality can be analyzed and presented in many different ways, among which an evaluation represents only one. Hence while this evaluation report may be useful as a tool for general learning, it has limited value as a source of information about the particular projects and partners in question. We urge any reader to consult the partners involved or Development Fund before applying this information in a way that may affect the partners and the project.