Partner Feedback Report: Tearfund/media/Files/Main Site/About us/Tearfund... · funding, training, moral support, joint advocacy and volunteers. While the NGOs have different goals

www.KeystoneAccountability.org

keystone performance surveys

Development Partnerships Survey 2013

Partner Feedback Report: Tearfund

2 Pa r tn e r F e e d ba c k R e p o r t : Te a r f und

Contents

Introduction 3Survey process 3Benchmarks and indexes 4Respondents 5The Net Promoter Analysis 6Reading the charts 7Next steps 8

Performance summary 9Section 1: Partnership profile 12Section 2: Financial support 15Section 3: Non-financial support 18Section 4: Administration 25Section 5: Relationship and communications 33Section 6: Understanding and learning 39Section 7: Overall satisfaction 41Section 8: Tearfund’s tailored questions 43Section 9: Illustrative comments from respondents 46

Par tn e r F e e d ba c k R e p o r t : Te a r f un d 3

Introduction

Since 2010, Keystone has been conducting benchmark surveys of partners of Northern non-governmental

organisations (NGOs). 66 NGOs have since taken part in these surveys, with 62 qualifying to be included in the

comparative data set.

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.

Tearfund took part in the process in 2010, when its partners in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam were surveyed.

In 2013, Tearfund decided to repeat the process, this time for all its South and East Asian partners. This report

presents what the partners of Tearfund said about the NGO compared to benchmarks reflecting partner ratings

from the whole group of the 62 northern NGOs in our data set. It provides credible data on how well Tearfund

carries out its role in the partnership, as seen from the partner perspective.

●● Annex 1 is the questionnaire that was used for the survey.

●● Annex 2 includes the raw quantitative data as well as all the responses given to the open-ended questions of

the survey. These have been edited to protect the anonymity of respondents.

●● Annex 3 contains a list of Tearfund’s partners that have expressed their willingness to take part in follow-up

interviews, which Tearfund can conduct should they wish. 100% of respondents expressed an interest in seeing

the results from the survey.

Survey process The survey process was managed by Keystone Accountability. The questionnaire was administered to Tearfund’s

partners in English from 25 April to 7 June 2013. Regular reminders were sent to encourage a high response rate.

The questionnaire was administered as an interactive PDF form. It was distributed by Keystone directly to

partners by email. Partners completed it off-line (they did not need stable internet access to complete it) and then

emailed their responses back to Keystone. The survey was limited to partners who had a basic level of Internet

access. We believe this did not make the data significantly less representative. Keystone emphasised to partners

that their participation was voluntary and anonymous.


Introduction

Benchmarks and indexesThroughout the report, Tearfund’s results are compared to the 62 northern NGOs listed below.

ACTEC Mensen met een Missie

ASF-Belgium Mercy Corps US

CAFOD Methodist Relief and Development Fund

CARE UK Minority Rights Group

CARE USA Netherlands Institute for Multipart Democracy

Caritas Belgium Oxfam Canada

Caritas Luxembourg Oxfam Novib

Catholic Relief Services Peace Direct

ChildFund International Plan International

Christian Aid Practical Action

Church World Service Progressio UK

Concern Red een Kind

Cordaid Save the Children International

DISOP Save the Children UK

Ecosystems Alliance Save the Children US

Entraide et Fraternité Schorer

Free a Girl Self Help Africa

Free Press Unlimited Skillshare

Handicap International Belgium Solidarité Socialiste

Helen Keller International SOS Faim

Helvetas SPARK

Hivos Tear Netherlands

IDS/MK4D programme Tearfund

IKV Pax Christi Terre des Hommes Netherlands

International Rescue Committee Trias

International Service Trocaire

Investing in Children and their Societies UMCOR US

Kinderpostzegels V.S.O International

Liliane Fonds/Strategic Partner, National Coordination Team Vredeseilanden

Lutheran World Relief VSF-Belgium

Mennonite Central Committee Wereldkinderen

The Northern NGOs in the cohort operate in different ways and places, providing a variety of support including

funding, training, moral support, joint advocacy and volunteers. While the NGOs have different goals and

structures, they all share a common purpose and operating model: they aim to tackle poverty, injustice and

suffering in developing countries by working in partnership with organisations. This commonality provides the basis

for useful comparisons through benchmarks. The benchmarks enable NGOs to understand their partner ratings in

relation to how partners rate other NGOs and see what kind of performance ratings are possible. However, the

data needs to be interpreted with care, in light of Tearfund’s specific context, goals and activities. It is unlikely that

any organisation would aim to be ‘best in class’ across all performance areas.

The benchmarks are calculated as the average ratings of the 62 NGOs, not the average of all survey

respondents. This reduces the chance that data is skewed by larger NGOs with larger respondent numbers.

The performance summary (Figure 3) consists of seven performance indexes. Each index was calculated by

combining the results from 4 – 10 specific questions in the survey. Most indexes correspond to one of the sections

of the report. Where questions from one section are more relevant to another index they have been included there

to increase accuracy.


Introduction

Respondents

Table 1: Response rate

Tearfund 2013 Cohort

No. of partners invited to respond 48 10,137

No. of responses received 40 3,125

Response rate 83% 45%

The figures in the table above show the total number of complete and partial responses. Some respondents did

not answer all questions. The response rate varies between questions.

For those partners that responded to the survey, the following people were involved in completing the

questionnaire:

Table 2: Respondents by staff category

Tearfund 2013 Cohort Benchmark (%)

Head of the organisation 90 74

Other senior leadership 70 65

Manager 40 34

Operational staff / field staff 33 50

Others 8 10

The figures add to more than 100% as several members of staff were often involved in completing each

questionnaire. A considerably high proportion of heads of organization were involved in completing the

questionnaire.

●● 18% of Tearfund’s respondents declared themselves as female and 80% as male, while 2% preferred not to

say (benchmarks: 33%, 63% and 4%).

●● 78% of Tearfund’s respondents rated the survey process as useful or very useful (benchmark: 81%).


Introduction

The Net Promoter AnalysisKeystone uses a technique of feedback data analysis increasingly common in the customer satisfaction industry

known as Net Promoter Analysis (NPA)1 to distinguish between three profiles of constituents. As Tearfund considers

how to improve in light of the survey findings it is extremely important to develop distinct strategies to work with

each of these constituent profiles.

The “Promoters” are constituents that rate Tearfund as 9 and 10 on the 0-10 point scale used in the survey.

These are Tearfund’ champions. They are highly likely to be wholehearted participants in activities and consistently

recommend Tearfund 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, Tearfund. 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 Tearfund and common developmental objectives are likely to be negatively affected as a

result.

Many organizations find it useful to track their ‘Net Promoter score’ (commonly referred to as NP score). To get

an NP score, one subtracts the proportion of detractors from the proportion of promoters. It is not uncommon to

have negative NP scores. The most successful organizations generally have high NP scores. Data from thousands of

companies show a clear correlation between high Net Promoter scores and corporate growth and profitability.

Keystone believes that the customer satisfaction approach is even more relevant to development and social

change than it is to business. This is so because those who are meant to benefit from the intended change are key

to bringing it about. In this survey context, the practices and policies of Northern partners can profoundly affect

the performance of their Southern partners. Surveys such as this provide Southern partners with a safe space to

express what they honestly feel about their Northern partners, and enable more open, data-driven dialogue for

improving performance by both.

NPA also provides an effective way to interpret survey response rates. A growing number of organizations

include non-responses to surveys as Detractors. Keystone did not take that approach in this report. The data

reported here is only for actual responses.

All data was analysed to look for trends across demographic and other variables. Unless otherwise stated, no

significant trends were observed. Only significant results have been included in the report.

Occasionally in this report, next to the NP analysis, we provide an analysis of the mean ratings given by

respondents, as it helps further understand the distribution of perceptions and comparisons with the other NGOs in

the cohort.

1 ‘Net Promoter’ is a registered trademark of Fred Reichheld, Bain & Company and Satmetrix. For more see: www.netpromotersystem.com, as well as the open source net promoter community at www.netpromoter.com.


Introduction

Reading the chartsThe chart below shows how a specific NGO (‘NGO X’) is rated across four areas: phasing, changes, core costs and

explanation. This chart is composed of the following elements:

●● The bars show the range from the lowest to the highest NP score within the cohort of NGOs. In this case, for

‘phasing’, NP scores range from -15 to 85.

●● The data labels on the bars show the average NP score for the cohort of NGOs and NGO X’s specific NP score for

the survey. For ‘phasing’ these are 28 and 31 respectively.

●● The percentages in circles on either side of the chart show the total percentages of NGO X’s respondents that

can be 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.

DET % PRO %NET PROMOTOR SCORES

Figure 1 Sample Graph

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Explanations

Core costs

Changes

Phasing

The chart shows how much respondents agree with the statements:

1 ‘The payments are made in appropriate phases so we can easily manage our cash flow.’

2 ‘NGO X allows us to make any changes that we need to about how we spend funds.’

3 ‘NGO X makes an appropriate contribution to general / core costs.’

4 ‘NGO X clearly explains any conditions imposed by the original donors who

provide the funds.’

NGO X 2013 NP Score

Global Cohort Average NP Score

Global Cohort NP Score Range

31

NGO X 2013

-30

NGO X 2013

-9

NGO X 2013

40

NGO X 2013

30

33

40

22

70

42

10

53


Next steps Some next steps are suggested below, which may be useful for Tearfund to consider.

a Discuss the report at board level.

b Discuss the main findings with your own staff and southern partners to verify and deepen the analysis and

demonstrate that feedback is taken seriously. For this you can organise follow up interviews with respondents

included in Annex 3. The discussion should focus on two main issues: (i) the areas where Tearfund needs

improvement and (ii) questions arising from the findings that need more interpretation to understand.

c Identify opportunities and constraints and then identify specific actions for making improvements, in dialogue

with partners.

d Identify ways of ensuring that feedback is collected on an ongoing basis and that agreed performance quality

and objectives are maintained.

e Consider separately the three categories of partners – promoters, passives and detractors – and elaborate

specific strategies of engagement with each one of them.

f Strengthen a culture of continual improvement, mutual respect and open dialogue with southern partners.

g Discuss whether southern partners could collect similar benchmarked feedback from their constituents and use

it to report performance. Partners may be able to develop internal benchmarks within their work.

h Consider developing some common approaches and facilitating learning between partners.

i Collaborate with other northern NGOs that are tackling similar issues, including those in this cohort, to share

best practice and drive up standards in the sector.

j Repeat the survey in 12 to 24 months to monitor progress.

k Ask non-responders one simple question about why they did not answer the survey.

l Consider publishing this feedback report and similar such reports in the future. This can strengthen the links

between performance, reporting and funding decisions, creating powerful incentives for improvement. A

growing number of the organizations in the benchmark dataset have published their Keystone partner survey

reports.2

Keystone would be happy to discuss these next steps with you and offer advice and guidance about how to

implement them.

2 Links to these reports can be found here: http://www.keystoneaccountability.org/services/surveys/ngos

Introduction

●● Tearfund is rated 13th out of 62 in the cohort in terms of ‘overall satisfaction’ (this is based on an index of

scores when respondents where asked to compare the performance of Tearfund across seven key areas against

other NGOs and funders). Its overall satisfaction NP score is 16, above the average for the cohort of NGOs.

The picture that emerges from the survey is of an organisation that maintains respectful relationships with its

partners and brings real added value to them.

●● In three out of six areas of performance, Tearfund receives overall scores that are above the average for the

cohort of NGOs.

●● Respondents express high satisfaction with the financial support received by Tearfund, especially for making

payments in appropriate phases and for providing clear explanations on back-donor requirements.

●● All types of capacity building support provided by Tearfund are rated below average. There is room for

improvement in all areas, especially in building partners’ capacities in the areas of strategies and practical

approaches and long-term planning/financial viability.

●● Other non-financial support provided by Tearfund is also rated below average. This is the lowest rated area of

performance for Tearfund. Respondents give particularly low ratings to support for protecting themselves from

threats and for achieving shared advocacy goals.

●● During the agreement process, time passing from starting discussions to receiving support is considered by

respondents to be reasonable. Respondents consider that Tearfund provides them with enough support for

finalizing the agreement and do not feel pressured to change their priorities during this process.

●● Respondents find value in submitting audited financials and regular narrative and financial reports to Tearfund

and appreciate the feedback that Tearfund gives on the reports they submit. They also appreciate the support

that Tearfund provides them with for monitoring and reporting purposes. They find little value in the monitoring

that they carry out jointly with Tearfund as well as in any independent monitoring of their work undertaken by

Tearfund. They consider that collecting information and writing reports for Tearfund is burdensome and that the

reporting format provided by Tearfund could be simplified. They also seem not to have a clear understanding of

the use that Tearfund gives to the information they provide.

62

61

60

59

58

35

34

Benchmark

33

32

15

14

Tearfund

12

11

5

4

3

2

1

HighestNP Scores

LowestNP Scores

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 2 Overall satisfaction: NP scores for All NGOs

Score = 16

Score = 1

Performance summary


1 0 Pa r tn e r F e e d ba c k R e p o r t : Te a r f und

Figure 3 Performance summary: Tearfund

net promoter scores

Tearfund 2013 NP Score



-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Financial support

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Capacity building support

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Other non-financial support

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Administration

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Relationships

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Understanding & learning

32

Tearfund

-31

Tearfund

-44

Tearfund

4

Tearfund

34

Tearfund

28

Tearfund

Performance summary

Par tn e r F e e d ba c k R e p o r t : Te a r f un d 1 1

Performance summary

●● Overall, relationships and communications between Tearfund and partners are rated above the average for the

cohort of NGOs. Respondents are satisfied with the attitude of Tearfund’s staff and they feel that they can easily

raise concerns with them. They consider Tearfund to be a reliable partner who respects their vision, values and

aspirations.

●● Respondents feel that Tearfund can improve in asking more for their advice and guidance and in involving them

in shaping its strategies. They don’t always consider that it treats all partners equitably nor that it sufficiently

promotes their work publicly.

●● Tearfund receives high ratings for its understanding of the sectors in which partners’ work. It is not seen

however as being a leader in these sectors or as making a very important contribution to it. Tearfund is

considered to be a ‘learning organization’ that will put in good use the findings of the present survey.

●● Throughout the survey, respondents who have a longer relationship with Tearfund (over 6 years) tend to be

more satisfied with various aspects of the relationship than respondents whose relationship with Tearfund is

shorter.

●● Tearfund, 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 organizations. A

negative NP score should never leave an organization indifferent as it means that in that area there are more

detractors than promoters.

Looking ahead, as is the case for most NGOs in the cohort, respondents would like to receive more capacity

building in participatory approaches. They would also like to receive more support in accessing other sources of

funding. Furthermore, they are asking Tearfund to to facilitate more experience exchanges among organisations

working on similar issues. Their second option regarding monitoring and reporting is for Tearfund to enable

monitoring and reporting systems that adjust better to their needs and those of their constituencies and. They

believe that relationships with Tearfund could be further improved by promoting more the work of partners and by

involving them in the development of joint strategies.

Table 3: Priorities for the future: Tearfund respondents

Non-financial support

1. Participatory approaches

2. Accessing other sources of funds

Monitoring and reporting

1. Share lessons and experiences among organisations working on the same issues

2. Help partners monitor and report in ways that are useful for them and the people they work with

Relationships

1. Promote partners’ work

2. Develop joint strategies with partners


Section 1: Partnership profile

●● 63% Tearfund’s respondents are located in South Asia (benchmark: 19%) and 33% in East Asia (benchmark:

6%).

●● 53% of respondents describe themselves as ‘non-governmental organizations’ and 45% as ‘faith-based

organizations’ (benchmarks: 70% and 10%).

●● Tearfund’s respondents describe themselves as predominantly ‘providing services directly to poor people

and communities’ and ‘supporting collective action by their members’. These are also the most common

predominant activities for respondents across the cohort of NGOs.

Table 4: Predominant activities

Means on a scale of 0=Never to 10=All of our work Tearfund 2013 All NGOs

Provide services directly to poor people and communities 7.9 6.9

Support economic and productive enterprises that benefit poor people 4.8 4.5

Influence how government & other powerful organisations work (i.e. ‘advocacy’) 5.0 5.4

Conduct and publish research 2.6 3.6

Support and strengthen civil society organisations 5.3 5.4

Help people claim their human rights 5.7 5.9

Support collective action by our members 5.9 6.3

Fund individuals 2.2 1.7

Help build peace and reconciliation 5.6 5.2

Figure 4 Location of partners

%

Tearfund 2013 Global Cohort

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

South East Europe

West Europe

East Europe

North America

Australia / Pacific

South America

Central America & Mexico & Caribbean

South Asia

East Asia

Central Asia

Middle East

North Africa

Southern Africa

Central Africa

East Africa

West Africa


Partnership profile

●● 58% of Tearfund’s respondents have an annual budget of under US$ 500,000 (benchmark: 65%).

●● 55% of Tearfund’s respondents receive funds and other support from 1 to 6 different organisations (benchmark:

70%).

Figure 5 Partner annual budget

%


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

More than 5million USD

1million - 4,999,999 USD

500,000 - 999,999 USD

200,000 - 499,999 USD

50,000 - 199,999 USD

10,000 - 49,999 USD

Less than 10,000 USD


Partnership profile

●● The majority of respondents (73%) have received support for more than 6 years from Tearfund (benchmark:

36%).

●● Similar to most NGOs in the cohort, the most important reason why respondents choose to work with Tearfund

is to ‘achieve shared goals’. It is followed by ‘to fund our work’.

Figure 6 Length of the relationship

%


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

More than 6 years

5-6 years

3-4 years

1-2 years

One year or less


Section 2: Financial support

●● 98% of respondents said they currently receive or have recently received funds from Tearfund (benchmark:

92%).

●● For the particular respondents to the survey, the average size of Tearfund’s grants is US$ 181,000 (benchmark:

229,000). 55% of respondents report receiving grants for quantities over US$ 100,000 (benchmark: 48%).

●● In terms of grant length, Tearfund’s respondents fall into two categories: 62% receive short-term grants for a

period up to 18 months and 38% receive long-term grants for periods exceeding 30 months (benchmarks: 58%

and 31%).

Figure 7 Grant size and Grant length

% %


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

more than 500,001 USD

200,001-500,000 USD

100,001-200,000 USD

50,001-100,000 USD

25,001-50,000 USD

1-25,000 USD

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

More than30 months

19-30 months

7-18 months

0-6 months


Financial support


Figure 8 Quality of financial support

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Explanations

Core costs

Changes

Phasing


1 ‘The payments are made in appropriate phases so we can easily manage our cash flow.’

2 ‘Tearfund allows us to make any changes that we need to about how we spend funds.’

3 ‘Tearfund makes an appropriate contribution to general / core costs.’

4 ‘Tearfund clearly explains any conditions imposed by the original donors who

provide the funds.’

Tearfund 2013

Global Cohort Average

Global Cohort Range

64

Tearfund

5

Tearfund

23

Tearfund

36

Tearfund

25

23

28

8

61

46

33

72

●● Tearfund receives NP scores that are above the average for the cohort of NGOs in all four areas for its financial

support.

●● Tearfund receives its best NP scores for making payments in appropriate phases. For this aspect, 72% of

respondents give a rating of either 9 or 10 out 10, i.e. are promoters (benchmark: 47%).

●● Respondents appreciate the explanations provided by Tearfund regarding the requirements of back donors

giving a mean rating of 8.4 out of 10 (benchmark: 8).

●● Most NGOs are rated quite low for allowing respondents to make changes to specific conditions of the grant,

such as the changes they allow respondents to make in spending funds and for the contributions they make to

partners’ core costs. Tearfund, however, is given positive NP scores for both these aspects.

●● Respondents who receive longer term grants from Tearfund (for a period over 30 months) report that Tearfund

allows them more to make changes in the allocation of funds than respondents receiving shorter term grants

(mean ratings of 8.8 vs. 6.3 out of 10).


86% of comments received regarding Tearfund’s financial support express respondents’ satisfaction. They include:

“It is very helpful for us in planning as Tearfund provides us with indicative figures for our programmes for

future years when we ask them. We have an understanding that those are not final figures but it helps us

in our programme design and planning.”

“They strictly follow their funding process and it is very good practice. Further they have strong mechanism

of checking and controlling of partners’ accounting and management system to ensure that funding they

support is properly used as agreed.”

Financial support


Section 3: Non-financial support

●● This chart shows the percentage of Tearfund’s respondents who said they received capacity building support in

each area.

●● In all nine areas, Tearfund provides capacity building support to a higher proportion of respondents than most

other northern NGOs in the cohort.

●● 90% of respondents report receiving capacity building support in monitoring and evaluation and in for

strengthening their strategies and practical approaches.

●● As is the case for most NGOs, the area where they seem to have received least support is for strengthening

their board and governance structures.

Figure 9 Percentage of respondents who received capacity building support

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strategies & practical approaches

Long-term planning/financial viability

Monitoring and evaluation

Participatory approaches

Advocacy & campaigning

Technical abilities to deliver services

Financial management

Management & leadership

Board/governance

%

Tearfund 2013


Global Cohort Range

66

Tearfund

88

Tearfund

80

Tearfund

88

Tearfund

78

Tearfund

88

Tearfund

90

Tearfund

80

Tearfund

90

Tearfund



●● The chart shows how useful the respondents who received capacity building support found it. The NP scores for

Tearfund’s respondents are shown in relation to the cohort of NGOs.

●● Tearfund’s NP scores are below the average of the cohort for its capacity building support in all nine areas. As is

the case for most NGOs in the cohort, Tearfund is given negative NP scores throughout.

●● The most appreciated area is support for building partners’ technical abilities to deliver services. The mean

rating given by respondents is 6.8 on a scale of 0 to 10 (benchmark: 6.9).

●● Respondents least appreciate support in the areas of strategies and practical approaches and long-term

planning/financial viability. For these two areas 61% and 59% sit in the detractors’ category (benchmarks: 39%

and 45%).

●● Capacity building in financial management and strategies and practical approaches is significantly less

appreciated by respondents from larger organizations (with annual budgets over US$ 500,000).


Figure 10 Value of capacity building support




-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strategies & practicalapproaches


Monitoring andevaluation

Participatoryapproaches

Advocacy &campaigning

Technical abilitiesto deliver services

Financialmanagement

Management& leadership

Board/governance-36

Tearfund

-26

Tearfund

-28

Tearfund

-17

Tearfund

-26

Tearfund

-37

Tearfund

-28

Tearfund

-41

Tearfund

-44

Tearfund

28

61

59

54

53

45

46

50

46

52

67

17

19

25

17

19

29

22

20

16


46% of comments received in this section are positive and 38% make suggestions for improvement. They include:

“Enhanced our effectiveness in project management and strategic planning.”

“[…]Tearfund itself should design and apply need based non-financial support to its supporting partners to

strengthen their organizational capability. It is good to have a separate Organizational Development (OD)

Unit for this.”



●● The chart shows the percentage of Tearfund’s respondents who said they received support in each area.

●● Tearfund is above the cohort average for the number of respondents in all eight areas.

●● Tearfund provides most non-financial support to respondents by facilitating introductions to other actors.

●● As for most NGOs in the cohort, the least support is provided for helping partners protect themselves from

threats.


Tearfund 2013


Global Cohort Range

Figure 11 Percentage of respondents who received other non-financial support

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Protection from threats

Insight and advice aboutsector(s) and work

Introductions to otherorganizations/people/networks

Accessing other funds

Communicating &publicising our work

Strengthening presenceat national/international levels

Shared program goals

Shared advocacy

%

82

Tearfund

92

Tearfund

85

Tearfund

85

Tearfund

85

Tearfund

98

Tearfund

93

Tearfund

67

Tearfund



●● The chart shows how useful the respondents found the other forms of non-financial support they received. The

NP scores of Tearfund’s respondents are shown in relation to the cohort of NGOs.

●● In all eight areas, Tearfund receives NP scores that are below the average for the cohort of NGOs.

●● Tearfund receives negative NP scores in all areas. This is common among the NGOs in the cohort.

●● The area that receives the highest ratings is support provided for achieving shared program goals (mean rating

of 6.9; benchmark: 7.1).

●● The lowest rated area is also the area where respondents receive the least support: protection from threats.

77% of Tearfund’s respondents sit in the detractors’ category (benchmark: 61%).

●● Support for achieving shared advocacy goals is the second lowest rated area with 66% of respondents sitting in

the detractors’ category (benchmark: 51%).

Figure 12 Value of other non-financial support





-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

-59

Tearfund

-14

Tearfund

-39

Tearfund

-41

Tearfund

-50

Tearfund

-31

Tearfund

-46

Tearfund

-69

Tearfund


Insight and adviceabout sector(s)

and work

Introductions to otherorganizations/people/

networks


Communicating &publicising our work

Strengthening presenceat national/

international levels

Shared program goals

Shared advocacy

77

54

44

65

62

58

36

66

8

8

13

15

21

18

22

6



Figure 13 Requests for non-financial support in the future: capacity building


Strategies & practical approaches


Monitoring and evaluation

Participatory approaches

Advocacy & campaigning

Technical abilities to deliver services

Financial management

Management & leadership

Board/governance

%0 5 10 15 20

Figure 14 Requests for non-financial support in the future: other areas


%

Strengthening our news and information production

Other forms of organisational or institutional development


Insight and advice about sector(s) and work

Introductions to other organisations/people/networks


Communicating & publicising our work

Strengthening presence at national/international levels

Shared programme goals

Shared advocacy

0 5 10 15 20



●● Respondents were each asked to identify up to two areas where they would most like to receive support from

Tearfund in the future.

●● As a first choice, they would like to receive capacity building in participatory approaches.

●● Their second choice is to receive more support in accessing other sources of funds.

●● Both options are among the top requests made by respondents across the cohort of NGOs.


Section 4: Administration

●● 70% respondents report that less than 6 months passed from the date that they first discussed support with

Tearfund and the date when they first received support (benchmark: 64%).

●● As can be seen in the next graph, respondents tend to consider that the amount of time passing for receiving

support is reasonable, giving it an NP score of 43 (benchmark: 10).

Figure 15 Time taken to receive support

%


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Don't know

More than 12 months

7-12 months

4-6 months

1-3 months

Less than 1 month


Administration

Figure 16 The agreement process






1 ‘The time that passed from starting discussions to receiving support was reasonable.’

2 ‘The amount of support from Tearfund is well matched to our needs.’

3 ‘The length of support from Tearfund is well matched to our needs.’

4 ‘During the agreement process, we did not feel pressured by Tearfund to change

our priorities.’

5 ‘Tearfund is flexible and is willing to adapt the terms of its support to meet out needs.’

6 ‘Tearfund gave us enough support to help us finalize the agreement.’

7 ‘The process of finalizing the agreement helped strengthen our organization.’

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strengthened organization

Support

Flexible

Pressure

Length

Amount

Time passed

43

Tearfund

-5

Tearfund

13

Tearfund

26

Tearfund

15

Tearfund

54

Tearfund

21

Tearfund

26

8

30

21

25

35

20

46

62

45

46

38

30

63


●● Tearfund receives NP scores above average in all seven aspects of finalising partnership agreements listed

above.

●● 62% of respondents report receiving enough support from Tearfund for finalising the agreement and 46% not

feeling any pressure to change their priorities during this process (benchmarks: 45% and 48%).

●● Respondents who have had a relationship with Tearfund for over 6 years feel significantly less pressure to

change their priorities than those whose relationship is shorter (mean rating of 8.4 vs. 7.1 out of 10).

●● However, respondents are divided about whether the amount and the length of the support provided by

Tearfund is well-suited to their needs. 35% and 25% of respondents sit in the detractors’ category for these

two aspects (benchmarks: 45% and 43%).

●● 51% of respondents consider that Tearfund does not ask for more information than other funders during the

agreement process (benchmark: 59%).

75% of comments received regarding the agreement process express respondents’ satisfaction. They included:

“The process of finalizing the agreement was systematic and constructive.”

“All organizations vary in agenda and priorities - we appreciated that we were able to be transparent with

Tearfund to understand each other during the agreement process.”

Administration


●● Tearfund conducts eight out of nine monitoring and reporting activities with an equal or higher number of its

respondents than the average of the NGOs in the cohort.

Administration

Figure 17 Monitoring and reporting activities conducted

%


40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Systematic feedback from beneficiaries

Encourages us to make changes

Encourages us to reviewwork with stakeholders

Monitor us independently

Monitor endeavour together

Audited financial reports

Submit regular reports

Discuss progress by email/phone

Staff visit in person


Administration

●● This chart shows the NP scores for respondents who said that each activity applies to them. It excludes those

who said that the activity does not apply.

●● Tearfund receives above average scores for six out of nine monitoring and reporting activities it carries out with

partners.

●● Following the general trend in the cohort of NGOs, respondents find high value in submitting their audited

financials as well as regular narrative and financial reports to Tearfund, with 74% and 65% of respondents

respectively sitting in the promoters’ category (benchmarks: 62% and 67%).

●● Respondents who have had a relationship with Tearfund for over 6 years find more value in submitting regular

reports than respondents whose relationship with Tearfund is shorter (mean rating of 9.2 vs. 7.9 out of 10).

●● Respondents tend to find little value both in monitoring their endeavour together with Tearfund and in any

independent monitoring undertaken by Tearfund. For these two monitoring modalities negative NP scores are

given with 42% and 41% of respondents sitting in the detractors’ category (benchmarks: 27% and 46%).


Figure 18 Value of monitoring and reporting activities




-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Systematic feedbackfrom beneficiaries

Encourages usto make changes

Encourages us to reviewwork with stakeholders

Monitor usindependently

Monitor endeavourtogether

Audited financialreports

Submit regularreports

Discuss progressby email/phone

Staff visitin person 30

Tearfund

41

Tearfund

58

Tearfund

67

Tearfund

-11

Tearfund

-15

Tearfund

11

Tearfund

13

Tearfund

0

Tearfund

28

27

20

24

41

42

8

8

10

20

67

27

33

34

26

31

74

65

51

50


Administration


Figure 19 Monitoring and reporting process





1 ‘Reporting formats provided by Tearfund are easy to understand and use.’

2 ‘Tearfund gives us useful comments about the reports we send them.’

3 ‘The monitoring and reporting we do for/with Tearfund helps us improve what we do.’

4 ‘We work with Tearfund to identify useful and relevant ways of monitoring our impact.’

5 ‘It is quick and easy for us to collect information and write reports for Tearfund.’

6 ‘Tearfund makes us report on what is important, rather than details.’

7 ‘We understand how Tearfund uses the information we provide.’

8 ‘Tearfund provides enough funds and support for us to monitor and report on our work.’

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Support

How info is used

Important issues

Quick and easy

Identify waystogether

Helps us improve

Comments

Formats are easy-5

Tearfund

20

Tearfund

15

Tearfund

-3

Tearfund

-30

Tearfund

-8

Tearfund

-14

Tearfund

18

Tearfund

18

37

35

53

26

25

37

3323

35

23

28

23

24

40

43

28


Administration

●● Tearfund receives NP scores below the average of the cohort of NGOs in five out of eight aspects of the

monitoring and reporting process.

●● 98% of Tearfund’s respondents report that Tearfund provides them with reporting formats to use (benchmark:

82%). Respondents give an average rating of 7 out of 10 regarding how easy to use these formats are

(benchmark: 7.6).

●● Respondents appreciate the feedback provided by Tearfund on the reports they submit and, unlike for most

NGOs in the cohort, consider that Tearfund provides them with enough support for monitoring and reporting on

their work. Mean ratings for these two aspects are 7.8 and 7.9 out of 10 (benchmarks: 7.6 and 6.4).

●● Similar to the trend in the cohort, they tend to feel however that the monitoring and reporting they do for

Tearfund is burdensome and that they don’t have a clear understanding of the use that Tearfund gives to the

information they provide. For these two aspects 53% and 37% of respondents sit in the detractors’ category

(benchmarks: 35% and 46%).

60% of comments regarding the monitoring and reporting process make suggestions for improvement, 45% are

positive and 25% can be qualified as negative. They include:

“Sector standards should be considered with ground level realities to develop practical and useful tools that

define baselines and changes through project. Country level partners input [could be] most helpful here.”

“Tearfund uses the Micah format which is used by most, if not all, of our other donors. This is helpful for us

not to repeat the same report in different formats.”

“The additional beneficiary list that Tearfund has (in addition to the Micah format) is quite complicated and

sometimes difficult to report. The numbers can become very ambiguous.”


Administration

●● Respondents were asked to identify two options from this list that they would most like Tearfund to do to

improve its monitoring and reporting in the future.

●● In the future, respondents would most like Tearfund to improve its monitoring and reporting by facilitating the

sharing of learning among organizations working on similar issues.

●● Their second choice is to put in place systems that help them monitor and report in ways that are useful to

them and their constituencies.

●● These are also the two most popular choices across the cohort of NGOs.

Figure 20 Improving monitoring and reporting

%


0 10 20 30 40 50

Provide more resources to monitorand report on our work

Respond and discuss our reports with us

Ask for more feedback from local communities

Focus more attention on long term social changes

Share lessons and experiences amongorganisations working on the same issues

Help us monitor and report in ways that are usefulfor us and the people we work with

Draw more on our expertise indeveloping ways to monitor progress

Undertake more monitoring with us

Involve us in deciding how tomonitor and report progress

Simplify the monitoring and reporting process

Visit us more often

Accept reports in different format


Section 5: Relationship and communications

●● The chart shows responses to the question: ‘How would you rate the amount of contact you have had with

Tearfund during your current or most recent agreement?’

●● 50% of Tearfund’s respondents feel that the amount of contact they have with Tearfund is about right. The

average for the cohort of NGOs is 41%.

●● 48% would like to have less contact with it (benchmark: 49%).

Figure 21 Amount of contact

too little too much% %



-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Amount of contact2.0

Tearfund

3 48


Relationship and communications

3 This was an additional variable in the 2013 survey. Benchmarks are only available for the group of 13 NGOs who took part in the survey in April-June 2013.

Figure 22 How Tearfund works with respondents






1 ‘Support (including funding) arrives when Tearfund says it will.’

2 ‘Tearfund understands our strategy.’

3 ‘Tearfund understands our working environment and cultural context.’

4 ‘Tearfund promotes our organization in the media and elsewhere.’

5 ‘Tearfund has explained when it expects to stop working with us.’

6 ‘We understand Tearfund’s plans and strategies.’

7 ‘Tearfund involves us in shaping its strategy.’

8 ‘Tearfund is transparent about how it uses its funds.’

9 ‘Tearfund has a complaints procedure we could use if we had to.

10 ‘Tearfund understands and respects our own vision, values and aspirations.’ 3

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

63

Tearfund

53

Tearfund

48

Tearfund

-39

Tearfund

-17

Tearfund

-3

Tearfund

-24

Tearfund

11

Tearfund

-11

Tearfund

68

TearfundRespects vision & values

Complaints procedure

Transparent about funds

Shaping strategy

Their plans

Explained exit

Promotion

Understands context

Understands strategy

Support on time

5

41

31

43

23

58

43

8

8

8

73

32

16

42

21

19

26

55

60

70



●● In eight out of ten aspects listed above, Tearfund receives NP scores above the average of the cohort of NGOs.

●● Tearfund is rated highly for respecting the vision, values and aspirations of its partners and for the reliability

of its support. For these two aspects of the relationship 73% and 70% of respondents sit in the promoters’

category (benchmarks: 55% and 47%).

●● Respondents who have had a relationship with Tearfund for over 6 years feel more that Tearfund respects their

vision than respondents whose relationship with Tearfund is shorter (mean rating of 9.3 vs. 8.6).

●● Respondents tend to feel that Tearfund does not promote their work publicly and elsewhere and that they are

not sufficiently involved in shaping Tearfund’s strategy. For these two aspects 58% and 41% of respondents are

detractors (benchmarks: 53% and 51%).

●● Respondents from faith-based organizations, as well as those from smaller organizations (with annual budgets

under US$ 500,000) feel that Tearfund promotes their work less. Respondents from smaller organizations also

feel that they are less involved in shaping Tearfund’s strategies.




Figure 23 Respondents' interactions with Tearfund





1 ‘We feel comfortable approaching Tearfund to discuss any problems we are having.’

2 ‘We feel comfortable questioning Tearfund’s understanding or actions if we

disagree with them.’

3 ‘Tearfund listens and responds appropriately to our questions and concerns.’

4 ‘Staff from Tearfund ask us for our advice and guidance.’

5 ‘Tearfund’s staff are respectful, helpful and capable.’

6 ‘Tearfund does not make demands on our time to support their work.’

7 ‘Tearfund treats all partners the same way.’

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Equitable treatment

Demands on time

Staff attitude

Asks our advice

Listens & responds

Questioning

Raising concerns70

Tearfund

45

Tearfund

73

Tearfund

10

Tearfund

70

Tearfund

45

Tearfund

22

Tearfund

31

15

5

26

3

10

3

53

60

75

36

75

55

73



●● In all seven aspects listed above, Tearfund is rated well above the average for the cohort of NGOs.

●● Tearfund is rated particularly high for how comfortable respondents feel in raising concerns with it and for

the attitude of its staff. 73% and 75% of respondents sit in the promoters’ category for these two aspects

(benchmarks: 62% and 59%).

●● While still giving well above average ratings, respondents tend to feel however that Tearfund’s staff can

improve in asking more for their advice and guidance and in treating all partners equitably. Mean ratings given

for these two aspects are 7.4 and 8 out of 10 (benchmarks: 6.7 and 7.3).

●● Respondents who receive longer-term grants from Tearfund (for a period over 30 months) feel that Tearfund

asks significantly more for their advice and guidance (mean rating of 8.6 vs. 6.7 for respondents receiving

short-term grants).

81% of comments received in this section express respondents’ satisfaction about their relationship with Tearfund.

Illustrative examples are:

“We have a very good relationship and there is an established and practised channel of communication. We

do not have any difficulties in communication and relationship with Tearfund.”

“There are no relationship and communication barriers. We can share our every concerns/issues at anytime

and those issues are timely addressed.”



●● Respondents were asked to select the two options they would most like Tearfund to do to improve its

relationship with them.

●● In the future, most respondents would like Tearfund to improve its relationships with them by putting more

effort in promoting publicly their work.

●● Their second choice is for Tearfund to develop joint strategies with partners.

●● Both choices are also the most preferred options for respondents across the cohort of NGOs.

Figure 24 Improving relationships


%0 10 20 30 40 50

None of the above

Be more fair

Be more approachable

Be more respectful

Take more time to listen

Promote our work

Understand our strategy & context

Develop a joint strategy with us

Discuss their strategy and plans

Be more flexible about the support

Provide support on time


Section 7: Understanding and learning

●● In two out of four aspects listed above, Tearfund receives NP scores above the average for the cohort of NGOs.

●● As is the case for most NGOs, Tearfund receives high ratings for understanding the sector partners work in (8.9

out of 10; benchmark: 8.7).

●● It is also rated above average for being a ‘learning organization’ (7.5; benchmark: 7.2).

●● 56% of respondents do not consider Tearfund to be a leader in their sector of work (benchmark: 40%).


Figure 25 Understanding and Learning




-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Learning

Contribution

Leader

Understands sector


1 ‘Tearfund understands the sector(s) we work in.’

2 ‘Tearfund is a leader in the sector(s) we work in.’

3 ‘Tearfund has made a major contribution to the sector(s) we work in.’

4 ‘Tearfund learns from its mistakes and makes improvements to how it works

63

Tearfund

-28

Tearfund

5

Tearfund

12

Tearfund

26

24

56

5

38

29

28

68


Understanding and learning

●● Respondents were asked to rate how likely they think it is that Tearfund will make changes as a result of their

answers to this survey.

●● The average rating of Tearfund’s respondents was 8 out of 10 (benchmark: 7.5).

Comments regarding the survey were:

“We find the survey very interesting and would provide some potential findings that Tearfund should look at

to improve its quality of work with its partners.”

“This survey process helped us to think through staff issues versus organisational issues. That is important as

we think about the future.”

Figure 26 Making improvements

net promoter scoresDET % PRO %




-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Makingimprovements

21

Tearfund

21 42


Section 8: Overall satisfaction

●● The chart shows how respondents compare Tearfund to other NGOs/funders they receive support from, across

each of the areas listed.

●● In six out of seven aspects listed above, Tearfund receives NP scores above the average of the cohort of NGOs.

●● Tearfund receives its highest ratings for the respect it shows to partners and to the overall value it ads to their

work. For these two aspects 60% and 50% of respondents are promoters (benchmarks: 45% and 39%).

●● Respondents who have been with Tearfund for more than 6 years consider that it brings significantly more

overall value to their work, than respondents whose relationship with Tearfund is shorter (mean rating of 8.7

vs. 7.4 out of 10).

●● Respondents give the lowest ratings to how Tearfund’s non-financial support and monitoring and reporting

compare to that of other funders. They give mean ratings of 7.3 and 7.5 out of 10 respectively (benchmarks:

6.8 and 7.3).


Figure 27 Satisfaction compared to other NGOs/funders




-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Overall value added

Knowledge & influence

Respect shown to us

Monitoring & reporting

Finalising the agreement


Quantity and type of funding

8

Tearfund

-5

Tearfund

23

Tearfund

-3

Tearfund

45

Tearfund

5

Tearfund

38

Tearfund

13

26

15

30

18

30

23

50

31

60

28

41

25

30


Overall satisfaction

Figure 28 Tearfund can be described as …

Management expertWise auntCaring sister

PriestTeacher Politician

Other

BenchmarkTearfund

49 22

13

43

3

33

2824

30

12

18

12

●● The most popular description assigned to Tearfund by respondents is ‘caring sister’. This is the most popular

option for respondents across the cohort of NGOs.

●● The second most chosen description is ‘wise aunt’.

●● The options ‘bank manager’, ‘rich uncle’, ‘absent father’, ‘school bully’ and ‘police officer’ were not chosen by

any of the respondents.

●● Other options provided by respondents included: ‘good friend’, ‘supportive partner’, ‘caring steward’,

‘colleague’, ‘advisor’, ‘facilitator’ and ‘fellow traveller’.


Section 8: Tearfund’s tailored questions

●● This section presents findings from the tailored questions that Tearfund asked us to administer to their partners.

The questions were not asked to any other northern NGO’s partners.

●● Respondents consider Tearfund to be highly responsive to their concerns giving a mean rating of 8.1 out of 10.

Figure 29 How responsive is Tearfund to challenges that you face and the issues that you raise?


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Makingimprovements

25

Tearfund

13 38


Tearfund’s tailored questions

How does Tearfund add value to your work beyond the disbursement of grants? Illustrative comments given by respondents are:

By providing organizational capacity building training.

Tearfund’s feedback/suggestions on our proposals and reports strengthen the technical design of our

programmes. They have also provided support to us to access USA Foundations in the past.

Creating a name in the communities.

TF involves us in sharing our experiences with other partners.

Building the capacity of staff members, making us aware of new issues and trends especially in the sector

of DRR, Climate Change and Advocacy. Some questions raised help us to re-think and refine our proposals.

By sharing the various resources like: documents, CDs, journals, magazine and organizing training on new

issues like child protection policy and climate change.

Actually TF is our favourite donor; they get personally involved in the work, build friendships with staff and

I guess we can say we are on the same wavelength spiritually. They also have a wealth of resources and

skilled people to give advice. We are very thankful to have partnered with them in different areas of work

for many years.

Tearfund staff pray for us as individuals and as an organisation. This is the greatest thing!


Tearfund’s tailored questions

●● For all three aspects, respondents give high ratings to Tearfund. Mean ratings given are: 9.1, 8.3 and 8.7 on a

scale of 0 to 10.

Figure 30 Christian values, transparency and improving




-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

To what extent do Tearfund staff display the values you expect

from a Christian organisation?

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

How transparent has Tearfund been in

communicating its decision-making

processes with you?

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

To what extent has Tearfund staff been

interested in improving the quality, effectiveness

and impact of your work?

67

Tearfund

30

Tearfund

50

Tearfund

3 70

13 43

10 60


Section 2: Financial support

We find Tearfund to be understanding if we are able to explain why there is a variance between what we

had budgeted and the actual amount spent at the end of the year. We also find them to be generous.

Good practice: Timely managed funding; Comments: It would be good to send agreed fund in local currency

[…] so that we don’t have to bare loss due to the exchange rate. […]

Happy with the existing arrangements, would love to have capital cost increased.

Cash flow is very good and Tearfund always appreciates new initiatives. Most of the time, [they] agree to

funding.

Funding is so limited that could not sufficiently meet the needs of the community […]

As Tearfund seeks more bi and multilateral funding sources for its partners, we need to be involved in

communications and training to ensure we understand all requirements for compliance from various

donors such as DFID, EU, ECHO, etc. We also wish to be supported by Tearfund to directly approach these

institutional donors when Tearfund may reach funding ceilings.

Section 3: Non-financial support

Organizational capacity building support from Tearfund has been great!

Tearfund provides us with very helpful suggestions and feedback on the proposals and reports we send

which help us sharpen our programme design and also to strengthen our monitoring processes.

Whenever there are new issues in the development or disaster and other related sectors Tearfund has built

our skills on that which has been beneficial and highly appreciated.

We have been receiving significant non-financial support from Tearfund. Sharing of learning and resource

materials whether in the area of disaster preparedness and management or community development or

church community mobilisation or in other broader areas. Similarly sharing learning from monitoring and

evaluation has been very helpful. We have not come across with bad practices. We hope this will be even

more useful as Tearfund is now in the process of registration in the country.

It would helpful if Tearfund can link us to other resources based upon understanding of our needs that holes

can be filled.

Capacity building through training in different areas in our country context is very helpful. We appreciate

that they conduct a good need assessment before any capacity building training.

Getting advices and guides from the country coordinator and the capacity building advisor could effectively

help our organization much more effective on project management.

Section 9: Comments provided by respondents


Comments provided by respondents

Section 4: Administration

We are quite happy with the process of finalising our agreement with Tearfund.

We did feel pressure but we understand that type of pressure because every organisation has its priorities.

Our priorities are fairly close to those of Tearfund but sometimes we need to bend a bit to match their

priorities. That is not a bad thing, it is part of partnership.

The policy of Tearfund being changed from being just a funding agency to becoming partners have created

better relationship.

We have not had difficulties in finalising the agreement with Tearfund. However, our organisation is diverse,

working in many different technical and geographical areas so the amount of support does not quite match

with our needs. We are grateful to Tearfund for what we have been receiving financially and non financially.

We are happy to accept the process of the agreement with Tearfund. Because it gives us enough time to

adjust the information in our proposal.

The funding period should be extended from 3 years to 5 years to ensure the sustainability factor. At the

same time, the budget limitation should be extended depending on the needs of the project.

Monitoring and reporting

Some sections in the report format are overlapping.

1. The reporting formats and project proposal documents are very challenging for non-native English

speakers and they are quite detailed. 2. Staff become discouraged when they try to respond to all the

questions and send their responses in, and then still more questions come back. That is very de-motivating

- like their work is not quite good enough no matter how hard they try.3. It would be very interesting to

have some non-Tearfund staff also make comments on our work.

Logical Framework and the lessons learnt has been a very useful tool in understanding the project and in

reporting.

As a partner organisation we have a good relationship and understanding in relation to monitoring

and evaluation of the projects Tearfund supports. It would be even better if we could share lessons and

experiences among organisations through monitoring and evaluation.

6 months and 1 year reporting is good but the format provided requires mostly an activity report, it will be

good to include an overall impact and how that result to transformation. Transformation is slow but that

transformation is our final goal.

Working in a non-English speaking country it is difficult to get the staff involved in the monitoring and

evaluating process. It would be really useful for Tearfund to help get their forms and methods translated

(there are enough partners in this country to make it worthwhile to do it in [local language]) so staff can all

be more involved.


Comments provided by respondents

Section 5: Relationship & communications

Tearfund staff are polite and respectful. Communicates very well.

Tearfund often sent us information about proposal calls from other funding agencies. Tearfund listened to

our needs and tried to find ways to help us.

Although there is generally good consultation on issues, the decisions made about de-centralisation and

the opening of an in-country office by Tearfund did not involve any discussions, and we got the impression

that this decision was made centrally within Tearfund without any consideration or understanding of specific

context. We hope that in future such strategic decisions will involve consultation with relevant partners

whose voice and opinion will be listened to.

1. We would like to make the suggestion to have a partners meeting once a year.

2. We appreciate the country office’s cordial relationship and suggestions for improvement.

Tearfund staff visit us regularly and it is a good way to communicate. Apart from that they have a staff

in country who we communicate regularly with in our native language which helps communication with

Tearfund even better since he can directly hear voices from the field which we think is an important aspect

to disclose the sincerity of our works.

Tearfund is a trustworthy partner and they always try to support its partner in different aspects. They are

so flexible on receiving ideas and discussions on different issues. We always feel comfortable working with

them.

Documents

Partner Feedback Report: Tearfund/media/Files/Main Site/About us/Tearfund... · funding, training, moral support, joint advocacy and volunteers. While the NGOs have different goals