Minutes
Structure working group #1
3 September 2010
Attended:
Sofia Garavito
Andres Gomez de le Torre
Sunanda Mavillapalli
Sue Turrell
Zia Choudhury
Vanessa Henegan
Deaf Child Worldwide
EveryChild
Leonard Cheshire Disability
Womankind
Bond
Bond
1.
Key action points and next steps going forward
2.
Theories of change
3.
Potential problems
4.
The cost of effectiveness
5.
Ideas for the framework structure and template
Key action points and next steps going forward

BEP to send framework structure to members of the structure and levers working groups.

Levers group to meet on Mon 13 September.

BEP to compile a list of web design companies from suggestions from the structure working
group, Christian Aid and other NGOs.

BEP to design a tender to send to prospective companies.

BEP to send TOR/ tender to structure working group.
-
System should be off the shelf, not bespoke, and be flexible enough to allow for regular
updates.
-
Bond should pay a fixed fee for the system and avoid having to pay for changes as and
when they are required.
-
Could use pro bono work to contribute to creating the tool.
Structure working group #1
3 September 2010
1
-
System needs to be owned by Bond.

BEP to send concept note on consultancy on “the cost of effectiveness”

BEP to coordinate dates and venue for joint meeting between the structure and levers group
during the first two weeks of October.

BEP to invite Alex Jacobs to share the theories of change idea at the joint meeting and write
up the idea for circulation.

Following the joint meeting between the structure and levers groups, BEP to organise
meeting for web design companies to present their work and ideas for the web based
framework.

BEP to consider including an update from the funding working group as part of the 23
September quarterly working meeting. What is the Donor view on Effectiveness?

BEP to make sure the members signed up to the levers working group have the relevant
expertise on specific levers. If not, then WG members can ask their colleagues for supper.

General advice for EF- Principles section should include a non negotiable component; EF
should be geared for Group work rather than single user; perhaps include a section on
marking your agency against others (anonymously), so you can see how you are doing
against peers, and also to allow Bond to gather data; Include FAQ, Forum, Advisory section;
we envisage that a full time person will have to manage the website; will not be static, but
regularly updated.
Theories of change
 Used in impact measurement to measure the main change.
 One method of measuring development effectiveness.
 Could go under resources.
 Problem: every organisation understands theory of change differently.
Potential problems
 There are many members and we all implement our work differently.
 It may be harder for NGOs to prove their effectiveness when partners are implementing the
work.
 NGOs and their partners may interpret the framework differently.
 The endorsement working group need to come up with a definition of effectiveness.
The cost of effectiveness
 Being effective costs money.
 DFID need to realise that their value for money argument may be undermined by the fact
that they want spending in the UK to be more efficient and are not willing to fund NGOs to
work on their effectiveness.
Structure working group #1
3 September 2010
2

Private companies spend between 10-15% as a minimum on impact assessment. Could this
be explored as part of the 23 Sep BEP quarterly meeting?
Ideas for the framework structure
Structure working group #1
3 September 2010
3
Principles:













How to:
tools with info
questions to answer
and scores provided
How to get better:
steps in a ladder?
The management centre have a good example of a similar assessment system.
In order to measure how effective you are in comparison to other organisations, results from
the assessment questions could be entered into the system and averages calculated so that
after completing the online assessment questions, you could be given a score that rates you
in comparison with the averages.
Results would be private.
RH column (see One World Trust draft, page 21, access from the Bond website
www.bond.org.uk/pages/the-latest-updates.html) needs to separate into functions and sector
specialistation.
“Organisational functions” (or theories of change?)
methods used to (how to) carry out the work
common to all organisations (fundraising, governance etc.)
Where to incorporate theories of change depends what you are using them for.
“Sector specialisation”
more member lead, could involve sharing best practice among coalitions of peer
organisations (children, disability etc.)
Need to separate principles and demonstrating effectiveness.
Forum idea/ “Resources section” could contain:
case studies
info on the cost of being effective
Framework must have a glossary.
“beneficiary focus” and participation of service users could be part of the tools section or
have it’s own lever or principle?
Structure working group #1
3 September 2010
4
DRAFT structure template
Principles:




…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Organisational:
 E.g. governance
 …………………………..
 …………………………..
 …………………………..
 …………………………..
Methods/ functions:
 E.g. work via partners
 …………………………...
 ……………………………
 ……………………………
 ……………………………
Sector specialisation:
 E.g. microfinance
 ……………………………
 ……………………………
 ……………………………
 ……………………………
Tools/ how to:





E.g. Sphere standard
……………………………
……………………………
……………………………
……………………………
Interactive space (chat/ email):
 E.g. Chat room
 ……………………………
 ……………………………
 ……………………………
Resources:




E.g. Glossary
Case studies
……………………………
……………………………
Structure working group #1
3 September 2010
5
Structure working group #1
3 September 2010
6