Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
269
APPENDIX 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Senior Management Professionals who were kind enough to extend their expertise in evaluation and rating
1 KINI MG DIRECTOR, TITANIUM INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD 2 MAHALINGAM CEO, T S M & SONS AND CITI SHELTERS 3 MENON K V RETD CHAIRMAN, MADRAS FERTILISERS LTD 4 MURALI EX CEO AND CURRENTLY PROF OF MANAGEMENT 5 PADMANABHAN V RETD DIRECTOR HRD, INDIAN AIRLINES 6 PARTHASARATHY N S RETD CEO AND CONSULTANT FAO (UN) 7 PARTHASARATHY V K RETD CEO, SANMAR INVESTMENT CO 8 PRAVIN SENIOR HRD CONSULTANT 9 SHANTA RAGHAVAN RETD G M STATE BANK OF INDIA 10 SUHAS TAPASWI NGO EXPERT & CONSULTANT 11 SIDHARTHA R DIRECTOR, POWER CENTRE P LTD, IT CO 12 SIVADASS PROMOTER & CEO, SCOPE E-KNOWLEDGE CENTER 13 SREEDHAR M R RETD G M MARKETING OF TVS SUZUKI 14 SRINIVASAN R SENIOR REFINERY CONSULTANT 15 THOBIAS RETD DIRECTOR, CASTROL INDIA 16 VENKATESH CEO, SVANISHTA, STRATEGIC HR ADVISORY & EXECUTIVE SEARCH17 VENKATESH S SENIOR MARKETING CONSULTANT18 VIJAYA MURTHY WELL KNOWN EDUCATIONIST 19 VINITA SIDHARTHA PROGRAM CONSULTANT, MULTI NATIONAL NGO 20 VISHAK RAMAN HEAD OF ASIA REGION OF FORTINET
Senior members of the Academia who were kind enough to extend their expertise in evaluation and rating
1 DEEPAK R. 2 PADMALATHA N.A.3 BASU 4 VISWANATH5 GUNDU RAO 6 VITHAL P. 7 KELKAR M. 8 SUBRAMANYAM MJ 9 PRASAD BENJAMIN 10 BADI NV11 RAMADAS KL 12 ASHVINI JAYARAM 13 UDUPA J 14 NEWSOME 15 SUMUKH HUNGUND 16 PADMINI RAO17 SHASHIDHARA 18 ASHOK GUPTA 19 PRABHUDEV V. 20 SRIDHAR M.K.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
270
APPENDIX 1 (CONTD)
Other Professionals and Experts from the Voluntary Sector who kindly shared information and their expert insights
(in order of contact)
1. S Venkatesh, Senior Marketing Consultant, Bangalore 2. Sanghamitra Iyengar, (Ms), Director, Samraksha (Samuha), Bangalore 3. Kshithij Urs, Regional Manager, Actionaid, Bangalore 4. Ms Jayalakshmi and Venugopal, Women’s Liberation and Rehabilitation Society,
Madhugiri 5. Dr. Saraswathi Sankaran, Executive Director, Deepam Educational Society for
Health, Chennai 6. N. Navin Kumar, Senior Manager, Operations, Deepam Educational Society for
Health, Chennai 7. Ms. J. P. Saulina Arnold, Executive Director, Tamil Nadu Voluntary Health
Association, Chennai 8. Rev. Fr. P. B. Martin, Social Action Movement, Mamandur (Chennai) 9. R Bhakter Solomon, CEO, Development Promotion Group, Chennai 10. Reynold Washington, Samastha, Bangalore 11. S. Shankar Narayanan Population Services International, Bangalore 12. Ms Florence David, International Services Association, Bangalore 13. Ms Malini Sridhar, Parivarthan Counselling, Bangalore 14. Ms Jayanthi Rajagopalan, Consultant, Hyderabad 15. Ms Dipa Nag Chowdury, McArthur Foundation, New Delhi
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
271
APPENDIX 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Agha, S et al, “When Donor Support Ends: The Fate of Social Marketing”, Paper in Global Research Brief, US AID, PSP-One, Bethesda USA, 2005. 2. Agha Sohail, “Performance Monitoring Plan”, Global Research Brief, US AID, PSP-One, Bethesda USA, 2005. Full text of paper 3. Alsop, Ronald, “M.B.A. Track: Recruiters Seek M.B.A.s Trained In Responsibility”, Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), New York, N.Y., December 2005. pg. B.6. 4. Andreasen, Alan R and Kotler, Philip, “Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations”, Pearson Education in South Asia, Pratapganj, New Delhi, 2006. 5. Andreasen, Alan R, “Intersector Transfer of Marketing Knowledge”, Working Paper, Social Marketing Institute, Connecticut Avenue, Washington D. C., 2000. 6. Andreasen, Alan R and Drumwright M E, “Alliances and Ethics in Social Marketing”, Working Paper, Social Marketing Institute, Connecticut Avenue, Washington D. C., 2000. 7. Anonymous, “The Six Ps of Social Marketing: Companies can Better Society While Boosting Profits”, Marketing Magazine,Toronto, Vol. 101, No. 34, September 1996. pg. 14 8. Asiaweek Editorials: “Joint Venture: Governments and NGOs should be Partners, not Adversaries”, Asiaweek., Hong Kong, December issue ,1996. 9. Atkissan, Alan , “Accelerating Corporate Sustainability in Asia”, article in The Natural Advantage of Nations, EA Books, Australia, Fall 2004. 10. Avina, Jeffrey, “The Evolutionary Life-cycles of Non-governmental Development Organizations”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 11. Barot, Nafisa , Paper presented at the All India Conference on the Role of Voluntary Associations in National Development, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, 2002. Full proceedings. 12. Bellamy, Hilary et al, “Social Marketing Resource Manual: A Guide for State Nutrition Education Networks”, Prepared for the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Alexandria, VA, USA, 1997. 13. Bendell, Jim, “Debating NGO Accountability”, Published by UN Non-Governmental Liaison (NGLS), Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. 14. Bloom, Evan and Levinger, Beryl, “Guided Reflections for Institutional Development”, New Directions in Organizational Capacity Building, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 1997. 15. Bloom, Paul N and Novelli, William D, “Problems and Challenges in Social Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1981.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
272
16. Brown, David L and Moore, Mark H , “Accountability, Strategy and International Non-governmental Organizations”,The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 7, 2001. 17. Brown, David L et al, “Globalization, NGOs and Multi-Sectoral Relations”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 1, 2000. 18. Cahill, John et al, “Social Marketing – A Resource Guide”, Social Marketing National Excellence Collaborative, NY Turning Point Initiative, NYS Department of Health, Albany, NY, year?. 19. Cannon, Lisa, “ Defining Sustainability”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 20. Carroll, Thomas et al, “Participation and Intermediary NGOs”, Abstract from Book by authors, World Bank Participation Source Book, Abstract reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1996. 21. Chandran Johnson S et al, “Community Based Social Marketing in India”, paper at International Conference on AIDS July 2000. 22. Chetkovich, Carol and Frumkin, Peter , “Balancing Margin and Mission: Non-Profit Competition from Charitable versus Fee-Based Programs”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper no. 11, 2002. 23. Clark, John, “The Relationship Between the State and the Voluntary Sector”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 1993. 24. Cohen, D A et al, “Implementation of Condom Social Marketing in Louisiana 1993-96”, American Journal of Public Health, Washington, Vol. 89 No. 2, 1999. pp. 204-208. 25. Collings, Simon , “Fundraising in Emerging Markets: Challenges and Opportunities”, Fundraising Success, Target Marketing, Philadelphia, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 2008.pp. 38-40. 26. Council for People’s Action and Rural Technology, “Nodal NGOs – A Tool for Development”, Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), New Delhi, 2008. 27. Co-sponsored by Social Marketing Institute et al, Conference Report, Report of the Non-Profit Marketing Summit Conference, Tampa, Florida, March 2000. 28. Cousins, William , "Non-Governmental Initiatives in ADB, the Urban Poor and Basic Infrastructure Services in Asia and the Pacific". Asian Development Bank, Manila, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1991. 29. Cousins, William , “NGOs: Advantages and Disadvantages”, abstracted from Non-Governmental Initiatives in ADB, Asian Development Bank, Manila and reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1991.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
273
30. Cousins, William , “Roles of NGOs”, abstracted from Non-Governmental Initiatives" in ADB, The Urban Poor and Basic Infrastructure Services in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank, Manila, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC). 1991. 31. Cousins, William, “Types of NGOs: By Orientation and Level of Operation”, Abstracted from Non-Governmental Initiatives in ADB, Asian Development Bank, Manila and reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1991. 32. Da Cunha, Gerson , “Social Marketing in Development”, Paper presented at the Symposium on The Changing Market Place, New Delhi, source: Gerson Da Cunha, UNICEF, Brasilia, 2001. 33. Das-Gupta, Indira and Marshall, Jenny, “Heading South”, Third Sector, London: No. 437, July 2006. pp. 26- 28. 34. Dash, Anup, “Emancipation through Micro-credit”, Appropriate Technology, Hemel Hempstead: Vol. 32, No.1; pp. 12-13. Mar 2005. 35. Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Policy on Grant Assistance to Non-Governmental Organisations, F. No. 1/30/2003-PMU dated 4 January 2005. 36. Directory of Top NGOs and NPOs in India, J B A Publishers, D B Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 015. 2009. 37. Dombrowski Kathryn (2006), “Overview of Accountability Initiatives”, One World Trust, 3 Whitehall Court, London, Working Paper no 100. 2006. 38. Domegan, Christine, “The Use of Social Marketing for Science Outreach Activities in Ireland”, Irish Journal of Management. Dublin, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2007. pp. 103 - 125. 39. Drucker, Peter, “Managing the Non-Profit Organization”, Harper Collins Publishers, 1990. 40. Duke, Allison and Long, Charla, “Trade from the Ground Up; A Case Study of a Grassroots NGO Using Agricultural Programs to Generate Economic Viability in Developing Countries”, Management Decision. London, Vol. 45, No. 8, 2007. pg. 1320. 41. Ebrahim, Alnoor , “NGO Behavior and Development Discourse: Cases From Western India”, Voluntas, Manchester, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2001. pg. 79. 42. Ebrahim, Alnoor, “Rethinking Capacity Building”, Article in the Guest Column of Capacity.Org, UNDP, Issue 34, August 2008. 43. Edwards, Michael, “Organizational Learning in Non-governmental Organizations: What Have We Learned?”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 44. Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David, “Beyond the Magic Bullet? Lessons and Conclusions”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 45. Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David, “Making a Difference: Scaling up the Development Impact of NGOs – Concepts and Experiences”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
274
46. Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David, “NGO Performance and Accountability: Introduction and Overview”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 47. Edwards, Michael and Sen, Gita, “NGOs, Social Change and the Transformation of Human Relationships: A 21st Century Civic Agenda”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 48. Eighth V Year Plan Chapter 6, NGOs and their networks, Planning Commission, Government of India. 49. Foreign Contribution Management and Control Bill 2006, Planning Commission Website File: FCMC Act. 50. Fowler, Alan , “An NGDO Strategy: Learning for Leverage”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 51. Fowler, Alan, “Assessing NGO Performance: Difficulties, Dilemmas and a Way Ahead”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 52. Fowler, Alan, “Beyond Partnership: Getting Real about NGO Relationships in the Aid System”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, New Delhi, 2007. 53. Fowler, Alan, “Human Resource Management”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 54. Fowler, Alan, “NGO Performance: What Breeds Success? New Evidence from South Asia”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 55. Fowler, Alan, “Options, Strategies and Trade-offs in Resource Mobilization”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 56. Fowler, Alan, “The Role of Gender in NGDOs”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 57. Fowler, Alan, “NGO Futures – Beyond Aid: NGO Values and the Fourth Position”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 58. Fowler, Alan, “Organizing Non-profits for Development”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 59. Fox, Michael P, “Condom Social Marketing: Select Case Studies”, Prepared for the Department of Policy, Strategy and Research, UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
275
60. Frumkin, Peter and Kim, Mark T, “Strategic Positioning and Financing of Non-Profit Organizations: Is Efficiency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace?”,The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 2, 2000. 61. Goetz, Anne Marie, “Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 62. Grossman, Allen and Kasturirangan V, “The Challenge of the Multi-site Non-profit”, HBS Working Knowledge, June 2003. 63. Guha, Rajat and McClatchy, “NRI Funds for NGOs to Come Under Stringent Check System”, Tribune Business News, Washington: Jan 18, 2008. 64. Hempstead, Hemel, “Appropriate Technology”, Vol. 30, No. 3, September 2003.pg. 20. 65. Health Systems Resource Centre, “Review of DFID Approach to Social Marketing”, Appendix 7, Policies of Partner Organisations, Report prepared for Department of International Development (DFID), Government of UK, 2003. 66. Hoffman, Jeffrey, “Do we have a Water Problem?: The Use of Social Marketing as a Problem Solver”, American Water Works Association Journal, Denver, Vol. 98, No. 8, August 2006. pp. 34-36. 67. Holcombe, Susan H et al, “Managing Development: NGO Perspectives”, International Public Management Journal, Stamford, Vol. 7, No.2, 2004. pp. 187-205. 68. Hudson, Laurel and Anderson, Ann, “The Relative Weighting of Attitude and Social Situation within a Social Marketing Context”, Arizona State University, 1982. 69. Idea Research Paper Series, “Marketing Strategies Used by NGOs”, SIES College of Management Studies. Paper no. 01/06, 2006. 70. Jagannathan (2000), “The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations in Primary Education: A Study of Six NGOs in India”, European Commission, Delegation to India, Bhutan, Nepal, and the Maldives, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2530, November 2000. 71. Jalali, Rita, “International Funding of NGOs in India”, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington DC, 2006. 72. James McGann, and Johnstone, Mary, “The Power Shift and the NGO Credibility Crisis”, International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, reproduced by Global Policy Forum, NY 10117 USA. January 2006 73. JANANI, Indian NGO, Progress Report 2004-05. 74. Japanese NGOs in India, NGO-JICA Desk India, website: jicaindiaoofice.org 75. Jha, Mithileshwar, “ A Manual for Culturally Adapted Social Marketing”, Editor Epstein, Scarlett T, Sage Publishers, London, 1999 .pp. 31-41.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
276
76. Jordan, Lisa and Van Tuijl, Peter, “Political Responsibility in Transnational Advocacy”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 77. Jose, Sunny and Kannan K P, “NGOs and the Welfare of Marginalized Social Groups: a Case Study of Fishing Community in Kerala, India”, Paper at International Society for Third-Sector Research, Sixth International Conference, Toronto Canada, July 11-14, 2004. 78. Kaplan, Allan, “Leadership and Management”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 79. Kasturi Rangan, V, “Lofty Missions, Down‐to‐Earth Plans”, Harvard Business Review, Boston, March 2004. 80. Keating, Elizabeth K and Frumkin, Peter , “Reengineering Non-Profit Financial Accountability: Toward a More Reliable Foundation for Regulation”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 4, 2000. 81. Kirschbaum, Marco, “NGO Manager Organizational Assessment Tool”, NGO School of Management, Switzerland, NGO Manager: E Library – Management Tools and Information for Non-Profits Worldwide at website: ngomanager.org 2004. 82. Kotler, Philip, “Strategies for Introducing Marketing into Non-Profit Organizations”, Journal of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, Vol, 33, 1979. Pp37-44. 83. Kudva, Neema, “Uneasy Relations, NGOs and the State”, Paper presented at the Karnataka Conference ISEC/Cornell University/The World Bank, 2005. 84. Leringer, Beryl and Bloom, Evan, “A Simple Capacity Assessment Tool”, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 85. MacFadyen, Lynn (1999), “A Synopsis of Social Marketing”, Health Affairs, Bethesda, MD, 1999.. 86. Maitland, Alison (2002), “Coping with a More Influential Role: Non‐governmental Organisations: The higher profile of pressure groups is demanding greater accountability”, London edition, Financial Times. London, February 13, 2002. pg. 13. 87. Mayanja, Meddie, “Rethinking Telecenter Sustainability: How to Implement a Social Enterprise Approach”, Lessons from India and Africa, The Journal of Community Informatics, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2006. 88. Michael, Sarah, “The Role of NGOs in Human Security”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper No. 12, 2002 89. Minutes of the First Meeting of the Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-07) - Steering Committee, on "Voluntary Sector", Government of India, Planning Commission, March 16, 2001. 90. Misra, Rajeeb, “Voluntary Sector and Rural Development”, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 2008.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
277
91. Moore Mark H, “The Simple Analytics of Accountability”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations, Harvard University. Working Paper no. 33.9, 2006. 92. Moore, Mark H, “The Public Value Scorecard: A Rejoinder and an Alternative to Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Profit Organizations by Robert Kaplan”, The Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Working Paper no. 18, 2003. 93. Murray Culshaw Advisory Services (Compilers) “Profile 500 – Selected Voluntary Organisations in India”, Published by Center for Advancement of Philanthropy, Mumbai, 2003. 94. Nair, Sudeepa, “Marketing: A Social Welfare Tool”. Article in boloji.com. 2005 95. National Policy on Voluntary Sector, Voluntary Action Cell, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2007. 96. NGO/Civil Society Survey Report, (2005), Conference in Tunisia on “For a People Centred, Developed Oriented, Knowledgeable Information Society for All”, UNEDSA, April 2005. 97. Notes from the NGO Workshop organized at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, October 17-21, 1988, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC). 98. O’Sullivan, Gael et al, “Moving Towards Sustainability: Transition Strategies for Social Marketing Programs”, ABT Associates and USAID, 2007. 99. Omana, Julius, “Civil Society in a Conflict Environment: a case of Gulu District in Northern Uganda and Policy Implications for Social Service Delivery”, Anaka Foundation, Post Box 868, Gulu, Uganda, 2005. 100. “Study on Enhancement of NGO Participation”, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Vienna, Austria, 1995. 101. O’Shaughnessey, Nicholas, “Social Propaganda and Social Marketing: A Critical Difference”, European Journal of Marketing. Bradford, Vol. 30, No. 10/11, 2006. pp. 62-77. 102. Ovasdi, J M, “Management of Non-governmental Organizations: Trend towards Developed Civil Society”, MacMillan (India) Ltd., 2006 103. Pancholi, Jatin and Modi, Ashwin, “Accounting System of an NGO: A Case of Jagrut Grahak Mandal”, The Business Review, Cambridge. Hollywood: Vol. 5 No. 1, Sep 2006. pp. 184-189. 104. Planning Commission, Approach Paper to the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007), Planning Commission, Government of India. 105. Poteete Amy R, “The Implications of Social Capital for Community Development”, World Bank website: worldbank.org, 2003. 106. Powell, Jane et al, “Social Marketing in Action – geo-demographics, alcoholic liver disease and heavy episodic drinking in Great Britain”, International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, London, Vol. 12, No. 3, August 2007. pp. 177-187.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
278
107. Prathap, Puthra D, “Participation of Farmers in Credit Management Groups by an NGO (MYRADA), Annamalai University, 1994 108. Press Report, “Corruption, a serious threat to growth”, Business Line, Chennai, January 17, 2008. 109. Press Report, “The Business of Social Responsibility”, Business Line. Chennai, December 14, 2005. pg. . 110. Press Report, “Confederation of NGOs for Rural India launched”, Business Line, Chennai, October 23, 2005. pg. 1. 111. Press Report, “NGOs worried over new Bill on foreign contributions”, Business Line, Chennai, September 14, 2005. pg. 1. 112. Press Report, “Planning with NGOs”, Business Lline. Chennai, February 13, 2003. pg. 1. 113. Press Report, “Andhra Bank against NGOs turning Financial Intermediaries”, Business Line, Chennai, December 13, 2002. pg. 1. 114. Press Report, “NGOs Take up Wasteland Regeneration”, Business Line, Chennai, March 16, 2002. pg. 1. 115. Press Report, “India: Go, NGOs, Go!”, Business Line. Chennai, August 23, 2000. pg. 1. 116. Press Report, “India: Bigger Roles to Play”, Business Line, Chennai, July 31, 2000. pg. 1. 117. Press Report, “Vitalising NGOs”, Business Line, Chennai, December 30, 1998. pg. 1. 118. Press Report, “India: 248 NGOs blacklisted by CAPART”, Business Line, Chennai, July 3, 1998. pg. 1. 119. Press Report, “Micro credit: Can NGOs Do Better than Banks?”, Business Line, Chennai, June 10, 1998. pg. 1. 120. Prout, Jerry, “Corporate Responsibility in the Global Economy: a Business Case”, Society and Business Review. Bradford, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2006. pg. 184. 121. Psp-One, “Sustainable Social Marketing Self Assessment Tool”, US AID, 2007. 122. Rajasekhar D, “Poverty Alleviation Strategies of NGOs”, Project Report, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore. 2003. 123. Rajasekhar D, “Micro Finance and Poverty Alleviation Issues Relating to NGO Programmes in South India”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No.146, 2004. 124. Rajasekhar, D and Biradar R R (Editors), “Reluctant Partners Coming Together? Interface Between People, Government and NGOs”, Concept Publishing Company, 2004
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
279
125. Rajasekhar, D, “Micro-Finance, Poverty Alleviation and Empowerment of Women : A Study of two NGOs from Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, Social and Economic Change Monographs”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 2004. 126. Rajasekhar, D, “Non-Governmental Organizations in India : Opportunities and Challenges”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No. 66, 2000. 127. Rajasekhar, D. and Biradar R R, “People, Government and the NGOs”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper 114, 2000 128. Ram, Pavani Kalluri et al, “Bringing Safe Water to Remote Populations: An Evaluation of a Portable Point-of-Use Intervention in Rural Madagascar”, American Journal of Public Health, Washington, Vol. 97, No. 3, March 2007. pp. 398-400. 129. Ramanathan, Ramesh, “Bill Gates and Indian NGOs”, Article posted on website of livemint.com (The Wall Street Journal), July 2008 130. Rao, V M, “Towards Effective Poverty Reduction: A Global Perspective”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No. 155, 2004. 131. Raval, Dinker et al, “Application of the Relationship Paradigm to Social Marketing”, Competition Forum. Indiana, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007. pp. 1- 8. 132. Redmond, Elizabeth C and Griffith, Christopher J, “A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of a Social Marketing-based Consumer Food Safety Initiative Using Observation”, British Food Journal, Bradford, Vol. 108, No. 9, 2006. pg. 753. 133. Report of the Steering Committee on Voluntary Sector for the Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-07), Planning Commission, Government of India. 134. Ritchey-Vance, Marion , “Social Capital, Sustainability and Working Democracy: New Yardsticks for Grassroots Development”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 135. Robinson, Les, “On Making Social Change”, Social Indicators and Citizenship Manual, The Victorian Council of Social Service, 2001. 136. Robinson, Les, “The 7-door Model for Designing and Evaluating Behavior Change Programs”, Social Change Media, Canada, 2004. 137. Sawhney, N and Premi, M K, “Role of NGOs, Private Sector and Social Marketing in Promoting Family Welfare Programme in Uttar Pradesh”, POPLINE Document Number 102266, 1993. 138. Schneider, Barbara and Cheslock , Nicole, “Measuring Results”, Report of the Co-evolution Institute, San Francisco, USA, 2003. 139. Sekher, Madhushree, “Local Organizations and Participatory CPR Management : Some Reflections”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Working Paper No. 61, 2000. 140. Sen, Siddhartha, “Globalization and the Status of Current Research on the Indian Nonprofit Sector”, Voluntas, Manchester, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1999. pg. 113.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
280
141. Shah, Parmesh and Shah, Meera, “Participatory Methods for Increasing NGO Accountability – A Case Study from India”, Chapter 17 of NGOs: Performance and Accountability Beyond the Magic Bullet, Publishers: Earthscan, Dunstan House, London, 1995.pg. 183. 142. Sivramakrishna, Shashi and Panigrahi, Ramakrishna, “An Economic Model of Self‐Help Groups: Policy Implications for Banks and NGO Initiatives”, Journal of International Development, Chichester, Vol. 13, No. 8, November 2001. p. 1119. 143. Smith, William , “Social Marketing An Overview”, The Center for Global Health Communication and Marketing, Connecticut Ave., Washington D C, 2006. 144. Sprenger, Ellen, “Organizational Gender Diagnosis”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 145. Srinivas, Hari, “Fund Raising Realities and Strategies: Lessons Learnt at the NGO Café”, GDRC Special Feature Website: gdrc.org., 2007. 146. Srinivas, Hari, “NGO Partnerships for Sustainable Urban Development”, Abstract reproduced in the website of Global Development Research Center, website: gdrc.org., year? 147. Srinivas, Hari, “Key Words and Concepts Associated with NGOs”, Abstract reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), year? 148. Srinivas, Nidhi, “NGO Advocacy and Marketing: Handloom Weavers in India”, Paper presented at the Milano Wednesday series, New School of Management and Urban Policy, New York, 2006. 149. Srinivas, M. N., “Social Change in Modern India”, Orient Longman, Hyderabad,2000. 150. Sriram, M S and Upadhyayula, Rajesh S, “The Transformation of the Microfinance Sector in India”, Journal of Microfinance. Provo, Vol. 6, No. 2, Winter 2004. pp. 89-212. 151. “Stagnation and Decline: Symptoms and Treatment”, The National Non-profit Leadership and Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, January/February 2000. 152. Stead, Martine et al, “Research to Inform the development of a Social Marketing Strategy for Health Improvement in Scotland”, Final Report for NHS Health Scotland and the Scottish Executive, University of Stirling, Institute of Social Marketing, Scotland, 2007. 153. Syracuse, Amy, “Social Marketing for a Cause”, Target Marketing, Philadelphia, Vol. 30, No. 7, July 2007. pg. 13. 154. Tandon, Rajesh, “Board Games: Governance and Accountability in NGOs”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 155. Tandon, Rajesh , Paper presented at the All India Conference on the Role of Voluntary Associations in National Development, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, 2002.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
281
156. Taylor, James, “On the Road to Becoming a Learning Organization”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 157. Taylor, Lawrence et al, “Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)”, Training Notes for British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND), Networking for International Development, London, 2003. 158. Tewari D. N., Paper presented at the All India Conference on the Role of Voluntary Associations in National Development, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, 2002. 159. Thaw, Divine, “Stepping into the River of Change”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 160. The ALNAP Quality Proforma, by The Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, an international interagency forum, website: www.alnap.org 2005 161. The World Bank Participation Source Book, Working Paper Summaries, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 1996 162. Tierney, Thoma J, “The Non-Profit Sector’s Leadership Deficit”, Bridgespan Group, USA. 2006 163. Toulmin, Stephen, “The Role of Transnational NGOs in Global Affairs”, Center for Multiethnic and Transnational Studies, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA, 1990 164. Townsend, Janet G et al, “The Role of the Transnational Community of Non-government Organizations: Governance or Poverty Reduction?”, Journal of International Development. Chichester: Aug 2002. Vol. 14, No. 6, August 2002. p. 829. 165. Townsend, Janet Gabriel, “Are Non-governmental Organizations Working in Development of a Transnational Community?”, Journal of International Development. Chichester, Vol. 11, No. 4, June 1999. pg. 613. 166. USAID, “Summary of Sustainability Strategies for Social Marketing Programs”, Private Sector Partnerships – One, Bethesda MD. Year not mentioned. 167. USAID TIPS, “Performance Monitoring and Evaluation: Selecting Performance Indicators”, USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation, website: ictdevlibrary.org. 1996 168. Vaidyanathan, R, “NGOs: To Whom are they Accountable?”, Business Line April 21, 2005. 169. Valadez, Joseph and Bamberger, Michael, “Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in Developing Countries”, Economic Development Institute of the World Bank, EDI Development Series, 1994. 170. VanSant, Jerry, “A Composite Framework for Assessing the Capacity of Development Organizations”, A Paper prepared for USAID, http://www.g‐rap.org/docs/ICB/USAid, 2000.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
282
171. Veeramatha, C, “Role of NGOs in the Prevention of HIV/Aids – A Study in Karnataka, Project 2001”, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 2001. 172. Voluntarism and Government – Policy Program and Assistance, Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), Malaviyanagar, New Delhi. 173. Walsh, D. C. et al, “Social Marketing for Public Health”, Health Affairs, Project Hope, Bethesda, MD, Vol. 12, No.2, 1993. 174. Ward, Steven and Aleksandra Lewandowska. (2008), “Is the Marketing Concept Always Necessary? The Effectiveness of Customer, Competitor and Societal Strategies in Business Environment Types”, European Journal of Marketing. Bradford, Vol. 42 No. 1/1, 2008. pg. 222. 175. Website: http://www.ngosindia.com for data on Indian NGOs, methods of registration, related legislation, tracer for NGOs and Funding agencies, development focus. 176. Weinrich, Nedra Klein, “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social Marketing Research”, 1996 Issue of the Social Marketing Quarterly, Washington D C, 1996. 177. Weinrich, Nedra Klein, “Research in the Social Marketing Process”, Weinreich Communications, Issue of the Social Marketing Quarterly, Connecticut Ave., Washington D C, 1992. 178. Weinrich, Nedra Klein, “What is Social Marketing?” Weinreich Communications, Issue of the Social Marketing Quarterly, Connecticut Ave., Washington D C. 179. Weinreich, Nedra Klein, “Hands-on Social Marketing – A Step-by-Step Guide”, Publishers: SAGE. 1999. 180. White, Mark, “Three Organizational Types: Evolving from Static and Dynamic to Adaptive”, Reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC), 2001. 181. Wiebe G D, “Can Brotherhood be Sold Like Soap?”, Publishers Brian Cugelman, 1952. 182. Williams, Francis, “Audit Culture Learns from Corporations”, Financial Times, London, May 5, 2005. pg. 3. 183. Workshop Report, “The Future of Civil Society Accountability”, Workshop held at the World Social Forum, at Porto Alegre, Brazil, organized by Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations, January 30, 2005. 184. World Bank, “Working with NGOs: A Practical Guide to Operational Collaboration between the World Bank and Non-Government al Organizations”, Operations Policy Department, World Bank, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Research Center (GDRC), 1995.pp 7-9. 185. World Bank Dissemination Note No. 22, date not known, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC). 186. World Bank India, “Lessons Learnt from NGOs Working on Bank Operations”, Representatives of Civil Society Organizations Dialogue, New Delhi, September 3, 2007. 187. World Bank Operating Manual, “Involving Non-Governmental Organizations in World Bank Supported Activities”, Abstracted and reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC), 1989.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
283
188. World Bank, “Working with NGOs A Practical Guide to Operational Collaboration between the World Bank and Non-Governmental Organizations”, Operations Policy Department, World Bank, 1995. pg.29. 189. World NGO Conference, “NGO Development: Focal Issues, Research” Report of the First Preparatory Meeting Held at UNU Headquarters, Tokyo, reproduced in the website of The Global Development Center (GDRC), 23-24 September 1996. 190. Yeshodara K, “Role of NGOs in Promoting Non-Formal Environment Education: A Case Study in Bangalore District”, Project Report, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 2004. 191. Zadek, Simon and Raynard, Peter, “Accounting for Change: The Practice of Social Auditing”, The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, Edited by Michael Edwards and Alan Fowler, Earthscan India, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2007. 192. Zaidi, S Akbar, “NGO Failure and the Need to Bring Back the State”, Journal of International Development, Chichester, Vol. 11, No. 2, March/April 1999. pg. 259.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
284
APPENDIX 3 WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://www.aiuweb.org
2. http://www.capart.nic.in
3. http://www.foundation.novartis.com
4. http://www.gdrc.org
5. http://www.globalpolicy.org
6. http:///www.g‐rap.org
7. http://www.hausercenter.org
8. http://www.hlfppt.org
9. http://www.interventions.org
10. http://www.isec.ac.in
11. http://www.karmayog.com
12. http://www.managementhelp.org
13. http://www.marketing.strath.ac.uk
14. http://www.media.socialchange.net.au
15. http://www.mkt4change.com
16. http://www.ngosindia.com
17. http://www.planningcommission.nic.in
18. http://www.proquest.com
19. http://www.psp‐one.com
20. http://www.social‐marketing.com
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
285
21. http://www.social‐marketing.org
22. http://www.tafva.org
23. http://www.toolsofchange.com
24. http://www.un‐ngls.org
25. http://www.worldbank.org
26. http://www.actionindia.org
27. http://www.akshayapatra.org
28. http://www.awake‐india.org
29. http://www.frlht‐india.org
30. http://www.ihdua.org
31. http://www.jeevika‐free.org
32. http://[email protected]
33. http://www.vhai.org
34. http://www.adats.com
35. http://www.amefound.org
36. http://www.greenconserv.com
37. http://www.samuha.org
38. http://www.myrada.org
39. http://www.actionaidindia.org
40. http://www.asadev.com
41. http://www.aidindia.org
42. http://www.absngo.org
43. http://www.craftscouncilindia.org
44. http://www.ektamadurai.com
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
286
45. http://www.foodindia.org.in
46. http://www.gandhigram.org
47. http://www.ashanet.org 48. http://www.socialactionmovement.com
49. http://www.socialactionmovement.com
50. http://www.addictionindia.org
51. http://www.tribalhealth.org
52. http://www.vcdsindia.org
53. http://www.tnvha.org
54. http://www.womenscollective.net
55. http://www.yssa.org
56. http://www.anawimtrust.org
57. http://www.cdstheni.org
58. http://www.dpgsulo.com
59. http://www.deshhealth.org
60. http://www.credindia.org
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
287
APPENDIX 4 (para ref: 17.17) QUESTIONNAIRE SPECIMEN FOR INTERVIEWS WITH NGOs
(for Vimala Parthasarathy’s research for PhD program under Manipal University) This survey may help a better understanding of the effective practices of the voluntary sector in socio economic development. Kindly extend your cooperation. Information gathered by this survey will be used for an overall appreciation. Information furnished in response to this Questionnaire will not be used in any manner that is prejudicial to your interest. Thank you for agreeing to give your time and effort A. GENERAL INFORMATIONA1 Date/s and Place
of Interview: A2 Name of Interviewer: A3 Name of NGO: A4 Phone and website: A5 Whom interviewed?
Name & designation: A6 Geographical coverage of activities:
A7 Deal directly with target Communities or
indirectly through Other NGOs/partners: (tick) Directly / Through NGOs or partners
A8 Approximate amount of annual expenditure: Rs Lakhs
Rs.
A9 Full time staff: In the office: In the field:
A10 Part time staff/volunteers: In the office: In the field:
A11 Under which Act of Government are you registered?
A12 Which year was your organization established?
B1. Which of the following are covered by your activities? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Social service like care of aged, disadvantaged, street children, destitute women, orphans etc (b) Running hospitals, schools, other types of educational institutions (c) Empowerment of dalits, women, tribals, other disadvantaged segments
thru income generating activities, SHGs
(d) Work among HIV affected segments (e) Creating awareness of right sexual habits and of other health related issues (f) Promoting community management of common resources (g) Promoting conservation of natural resources and environment (h) Delivery of special products or services for community health improvement (i) Promoting change of habits and behavior relating to social, health or environment al concerns (j) Helping any section/s of society to articulate their needs (advocacy) (k) Any other (specify below) C1. Do you have measureable objectives? That is, objectives those are quantified and compared periodically with progress
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No
C2. If the answer to the above question is “yes”, please name 2 objectives, in a few words. Answer: 1.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
288
2. C3. Do you have a formal statement of mission and objectives?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No C4. If the answer to the above question is yes, can you give a copy please? D1. Who influences the CHOICE of theme for your major projects? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Government state/central (b) Local body of the government (c) Community leaders (d) General Community (e) Donors (f) Mother NGO (g) Your internal management, including field staff (h) Any other (specify below)
D2. Which of the following are involved in DESIGNING your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Government state/central (b) Local body of the government (c) Community leaders (d) General Community (e) Donors (f) Mother NGO (g) Your internal management, including field staff (h) Any other (specify below)
D3. Which of the following are involved in IMPLEMENTATION of your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Government state/central (b) Local body of the government (c) Community leaders (d) General Community (e) Donors (f) Mother NGO (g) Your internal management, including field staff (h) Any other (specify below)
D4. If the answer to the above questions is (c) and/or (d) indicate how often you are in touch with the target community.
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Once in a month (b) Once in 3 months (c) Once in 6 months (d) Once a year (e) Once in more than a year (f) Rarely in touch
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
289
D5. What in your view is the most innovative feature of your programs? State in a line or two. Answer: D6. This question is only for Apex NGOs What types of services do you provide your member NGOs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Training their field staff (b) Training their supervisors/managers (c) Extending assistance in fund raising (d) Extending assistance in preparation of their plans and proposals (e) Supplying promotional material (f) Extending financial assistance for infra structure / equipment (g) Any other (specify below)
D7. How many programs have been successfully completed in the last three years? Answer: Number of programs - D8. How many programs are currently in progress? Answer: Number of programs -
E1. Do you measure the success of your activities?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No E2. If the answer to the above question is yes, how? - list main criteria used Criteria 1. 2. 3. E3. Give one or more examples of effectiveness of one of your programs Answer: E4. Do you get feedback on your program methods?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No E5. If the answer to the above question is yes, how?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Feedback is spontaneous (b) You seek feedback E6. From whom do you get the feedback? Check as many as applicable to your situation
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
290
(a) Actual beneficiaries at community level (b) Beneficiary NGOs (if applicable) (c) Community leaders (d) Donors (e) Your field staff (f) Any other (specify below)
E7. Can you please indicate what percentage of total expenditure, approximately, is your annual administration expense? (expenses on staff and office expenses form administrative expenses)
Check only ONE of the following
(a) 10-20% (b) 21-40% (c) 41-50% (d) 51-60% (e) Over 60% E8. Over the last 3 years, what is the trend of your administration expenses?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Increasing (b) Decreasing (c) More or less constant F1. It is believed by experts that NGO activity in socio economic development has large similarities with marketing of products and services in the commercial world. With your experience, do you agree with this statement? In other words, how applicable do you think are marketing practices in your programs?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Not at all applicable (b) Rarely applicable (c) Occasionally applicable (d) Largely applicable (e) Very much applicable F2. If the answer to the above is (a), (b) or (c), can you say why? – in one or two sentences Answer: F3. If the answer to the above is (d) or (e), are marketing practices of the commercial sphere applicable as they are or applicable with changes to suit socio-economic activities?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Commercial marketing practices are applicable in our activity as they are and without any major changes
(b) Commercial marketing practices are applicable in our activity ONLY with suitable changes
F4. If the answer is (b), what aspects of commercial marketing practices have to be adapted? Can you name please one or two examples from your practices Answer: (in one or two sentences)
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
291
F5. In NGO type of activity, unlike in commercial marketing, there could be some differences. Which of the following do you think are critical aspects in your experience? Check as many as applicable (a) Target audience resists change (b) Benefit may be delayed to the target community (c) Benefit may not be direct to the target community (d) Benefit may be invisible and not felt but present (e) Impact of program may not last, once withdrawn (f) Any other (specify below)
F6. Do you use any of following methods in designing and delivering your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Studying the needs of the community before designing the Program (b) Dividing the market into groups based on needs (c) Developing services for specific groups (d) Developing a system for delivery of services (e) Informing target groups about the program features (f) Developing a plan of action for a given period of say, one year (g) Assessing the effect of your program on the target group(h) Any other (specify below)
F7. Name three steps in selecting your target audience- Answer: 1. 2. 3. F8. Do you adopt any special strategies or practices to ensure the success of you activities? State briefly in two or three lines. Answer: F9. By what means do you communicate to your target group about your programs? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Local newspapers/magazines (b) Printed leaflets (c) Propaganda vans (d) Group meetings (e) Using opinion leaders (f) Posters (g) Audio visuals (h) Radio (i) Word of mouth (j) Any Other (specify below)
F10. Approximately what percentage of your expenditure is used for communication? Answer: % F11. Are there any measures to further increase your program effectiveness, other than what you are already using?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
292
F12. If the answer to the above question is yes, can you name one or two factors that could help to increase program effectiveness? Answer: 1. 2. F13. How important are social and cultural features of your target community in affecting your programs?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Least important (b) Not very important (c) Somewhat important (d) Important (e) Extremely important F14. If the answer to the above is (d) or (e), please name 2 examples of how your program design or other practices had to be changed to suit the social and cultural needs of the community. Answer: 1. 2. G1. Are you in touch with the government at any level?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No G2. If the answer to the above question is yes, how often do you interact with them?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Once in a month (b) Once in 3 months (c) Once in 6 months (d) Once a year (e) Once in more than a year (f) Rarely in touch G3. At which level of govt. are you in touch with? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) State govt. (b) District authorities (c) Local govt bodies at community level (d) Any other govt body (specify below)
G4. How would you describe your interaction/relationship with the government?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Co-operative (supporting each other mutually) (b) Antagonistic (relationship of conflict) (c) Passive (govt. is non-interfering) (d) Facilitative (where NGO assists govt. through advice, training etc.) (e) Any other (specify below)
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
293
G5. Can you rank the following in the order of their importance to your operations as stakeholders? RANK IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE, THE MOST IMPORTANT AS 1 Rank(a) Government (b) Donors (c) Local bodies (d) Target community (e) General public (f) Community opinion leaders (g) Partners (h) Community based organizations (i) Any Other (specify below)
G6. Do you have any alliances or strategic partnerships?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No G7. If the answer to the above question is yes, with whom? Answer (name of alliance partner): G8. What is the main purpose of the partnership? Answer: G9. Approximately how often do you interact with your funding benefactors?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Once in a month (b) Once in 3 months (c) Once in 6 months (d) Once a year (e) Once in more than a year (f) Rarely in touch G10. Which of the following describes the nature of your relationship with neighboring NGOs operating in the same activity/area?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Not interfering with each other (b) Conflicting (c) Mutual adjustment to resolve conflicts (d) Active cooperation towards common goals (e) Any Other (specify below) H1. Estimate the importance of the image of your organization in the Table below
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Least important (b) Not very important (c) Somewhat important (d) Important (e) Extremely important
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
294
H2. If your answer to the above is (d) or (e), do you have specific methods to project the image of your organization to your stakeholders?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes, we do vigorously (b) Yes, but not much (c) Not at present H3. If your answer to the first question above is (a), how do you project it? Name three steps. Answer: 1. 2. 3. H4. Name two outstanding features of your organization of which you are proud - in three or four words each. Answer: 1. 2. I1. What are the different departments of your organization? Answer: I2. Who do your field staff report to? And who does that person in turn report to? (Give only designations and not names). Answer: I3. Can you name one most important factor against each of the following as relevant to your organization?
Please respond to all 4
Name One against each (a) Your organization’s strength (b) Your organisation’s weakness (c) What major opportunity for expansion do you see? (d) What one threat do you see for your growth/survival? I4. Do you engage outside expert for special assignments?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No I5. If the answer to the above question is yes, for what kind of assistance? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Training field staff (b) Training supervisors/managers (c) Assistance in fund raising (d) Preparation of their plans, proposals (e) Marketing training (f) Progress monitoring (g) Designing Reporting systems (h) Management audit (i) Participatory methods (j) Leadership training (k) Any Other (specify below)
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
295
J1. How are your field staff able to handle their responsibilities? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) They have learnt by experience (b) They are periodically trained internally (c) They are periodically trained by external agencies (d) A few of them have marketing diplomas/degrees (e) Many of them have marketing diplomas/degrees(f) Any other (specify below)
J2. If your answer to the above is (c), which agency gives the training for the field staff? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Donor (b) Apex or mother NGO (c) Outside expert/consultant (g) Any other (specify below)
J3. Which are areas in which you intend to take outside support for designing and implementing your programs? Check only those that you intend to use (a) Formulation of marketing strategies (b) Field and supervisory staff training (c) Fund raising strategies (d) Program impact measurement (e) Communication methodologies (f) Monitoring progress (g) Any other (specify below)
J4. This question is only for Apex NGOs Do you undertake capacity building of your member NGOs?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No J5. This question is only for Apex NGOs If the answer to the above question is yes, what types of assistance are provided by you? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Training their field staff (b) Training their supervisors/managers (c) Extending assistance in fund raising (d) Extending assistance in preparation of their plans and proposals (e) Supplying promotional material (f) Extending financial assistance for infra structure / equipment (g) Marketing training (h) Progress monitoring (i) Reporting systems (j) Relationship building (k) Participatory methods (l) Leadership training (m) Any Other (specify below)
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
296
K1. Which are your main funding sources? Please indicate app. percentage of funds from each source in Table below – Fill as many as applicable to your situation Mark zero if any source is not relevant to your situation Source %(a) Domestic - Government – State (b) Domestic – Government – Central (c) Domestic – Institutions (d) Domestic – General Public (e) Overseas – Institutions and Individuals (f) Your own generated surplus (g) Any other (specify below) 100% K2. How much time do you spend on activities relating to fund raising?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Continuously throughout the year (b) On and off throughout the year © On and off over 6 months in a year (d) On and off over 3 months in a year (e) Over 1 month in a year K3. Do any of the following factors affect your fund raising capacity? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Lack of necessary contacts (b) Lack of knowledge of fund raising methods (c) Want of information regarding sources (d) Differences between expectations of donor and your
methods/approaches
(e) Lack of legal status to create confidence in donors (f) Any other (specify below)
(g) None – our fund raising capacity not affected K4. Do you have any income generating programs?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No K5. If the answer to the above question is yes, approximately how much income is generated per year? Answer: Rs.
L1. When you are satisfied that a sustainable impact has been achieved in a chosen area/segment, do you move the program and resources to another area/segment?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No L2. If the answer to the above question is yes, how long does it take to create the desired impact permanently and move to the next area? Check only ONE of the following (a) Up to 2 years (b) 3-4 years (c) 5-6 years (d) Longer than 6 years
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
297
L3. If no, what is the main reason?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Program discontinued (b) Lack of funds (c) No approval from Donor (d) Any other (specify below)
L4. Is the created impact sustained after you have moved out?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No L5. If the answer to the above question is yes, please name 2 key factors that have sustained the impact without any continued major support from you. Answer: L6. How is the post-program impact measured and known? Answer in two sentences:
L7. Which factors are the most critical for your organization’s successful operation? Rank the following factors in the order of importance.
Check ANY THREE you consider most important – RANK as 1, 2, 3 (a) Continuity of funds (b) Trained staff (c) Leadership and effective Management (d) Knowledge of marketing strategies (e) Program implementation (f) Contact with community (g) Clarity of Objectives (h) Infra structure & equipment (i) Employing marketing practices (j) Any other (specify below)
L8. Do you generate a surplus of income over expenditure?
Check only ONE of the following
(a) Yes (b) No L9. If the answer to the above question is yes, what percentage of total income is this surplus?
Answer: % M1. Who do you report to or keep informed regarding your organization’s performance and results? Check as many as applicable to your situation (a) Board of trustees/Board of Management
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
298
(b) Your staff (c) Main funding agencies (d) Government /local bodies (e) Local community leaders (f) Mother NGO (g) Any other (specify below)
M2. Can you describe, in 2-3 lines, the procedure you have for the above – i.e. reporting/informing? Answer:
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
299
APPENDIX 5 (para ref: 17.18)
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DONORS / EXPERTS (for Vimala Parthasarathy’s research for PhD program)
I would appreciate the benefit of your experience and knowledge of the NGO sector to help study the activities of this rapidly growing sector. No information furnished will be used to the disadvantage of any of the interviewees/ organizations. To minimize your inconvenience, answers can be provided in short form or in a couple of sentences as appropriate to each question. Further elaboration is at your discretion and convenience. -----------------------------------------------
1. Are marketing practices - such as those applied to consumer goods and consumer durables - also
relevant to socio-economic development activities (examples: change in sexual habits to protect against AIDS, natural resource conservation, saving and investment habits through self help groups etc) of the NGO sector?
2. If the answer is “no”, what are factors that prevent the application of marketing practices by NGOs?
3. If the answer is “yes”, which of the following practices would be feasible and useful for the NGO sector in successfully designing and delivering programs?
Check as many as applicable (a) Studying the needs of the community before designing the program (b) Dividing the market into groups based on needs (c) Developing services for specific groups (d) Developing a system for delivery of services (e) Informing target groups about the program features (f) Developing a plan of action for a given period of say, one year (g) Assessing the effect of program on the target group (h) Monitoring progress (i) Communication methodologies (j) Any other (specify below)
4. If relationship management is important for the NGO sector, who are the stakeholders with whom they should build relationships – in order of priority?
5. What main measures would you recommend to build such relationships?
6. Does the current legislative framework give NGOs, engaged in socio economic activity, a distinguishing legal identity with appropriate reporting requirements? Kindly explain briefly
7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the present legislative framework from a donor
viewpoint?
8. Please name three important traits that donors had considered in selecting NGOs who are their current
fund / assistance recipients.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
300
9. What suggestions would you make to NGOs for demonstrating their accountability to stakeholders? 10. Can you offer one or two simple practical formulae to assess performance effectiveness in an NGO?
11. In your opinion, what is a reasonable % for administration expenses out of total expenditure (including program expenditure) to be considered efficient?
12. Please rank the following factors for NGOs’ successful operation, in the descending order of importance.
(a) Continuity of funds (b) Trained staff (c) Leadership and effective management (d) Knowledge and practice of marketing strategies(e) Cost effective program implementation (f) Contact with community (g) Clarity of objectives (h) Infra structure & equipment (i) Any other (specify below)
13. Based on your knowledge of NGO managements, can you rate NGOs in general, with respect to each
of the following aspects? Check appropriate column against each factor listed
1 2 3 4 5
PRACTICALLY ABSENT (Non existent)
YES, BUT SCRAPPY AND NOT SYSTEMATIC
SYSTEMS EXIST BUT NOT PURSUED AS PART OF MANAGEMENT PROCESS
REASONABLE & SATISFACTORY (Satisfactory)
OF HIGH ORDER
(a) Effective use of resources
(b) Regular measurement of impact of programs
(c) Periodic comparison of progress against goals
(d) Efforts and systems to ensure operations are cost effective
(e) Availability of a systematic tracking mechanism for above
(f) Any other aspects you would like to add (specify)
NAME DESIGNATION ORGANIZATION DFID :
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
301
APPENDIX 6 (para ref: 17.21)
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR DONORS / EXPERTS FOR DEPTH INTERVIEWS Thank you for responding specifically to the questionnaire. Please give me a few minutes to get the benefit of your insights into the NGO sector to ask you a few open-ended questions. I expect that this part of the session will take about 20 minutes. I very much appreciate your patience, help and cooperation.
1. “NGOs applying marketing methods, with suitable adjustments, to the development sector are
more effective and attract more committed assistance than those that lag behind in this aspect.” Would you or disagree with this hypothesis, based on a general overview of this sector? Kindly explain your reaction.
2. What is your mental model of an “ideal” NGO under Indian conditions? You may wish to put it in the form of Your Own Prescription of 5 Do’s and 5 Don’ts – based on a spontaneous top-of-the mind recall basis.
3. Can you describe in your experience, a major event with respect to any NGO, which could be positive or negative in nature? Examples of such events are – a) Total collapse of an NGO or project of an NGO b) Major restructuring of an NGO due to fraud or corruption or mismanagement and c) Resounding success beyond expectations/targets of an NGO or NGO project.
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
302
APPENDIX 7 (para ref: 17.20)
OBSERVATION FORMAT SUMMARY OF SCORES NO. QUALITATIVE ASPECT R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R1/A/38 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 M21/A/P142 M17/A/1447 M20/A/P27 M1/F/32 M12/F/1053 AVERAGE
1 Appointment process
3 2 3 1 2 5 5 5 1 5 3.2
2 Attitude towards interview
5 1 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4.1
3 Degree of focus at interview
3 3 3 4 2 5 5 5 5 2 3.7
4 Transparency at the functional level
4 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.2
5 Quality of info provided
4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4.4
6 Quality of articulation
5 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.3
7 Technical knowledge esp of marketing
3 3 3 3 2 4 5 3 5 4 3.5
8 Understanding of Objectives & Mission
5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9
9 Level of Sharing Information
5 1 2 4 2 5 5 5 4 5 3.8
10 Inhibition to reveal or express
5 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.5
11 Rapport with superiors / members
0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0.5
12 Connectivity below the hierarchy
0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5
13 Connectivity across organisations
5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.7
14 Functional awareness
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0
15 Knowledge State
5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.8
16 Skill Level
0 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 0 4 3.2
17 Knowledge of Markets
4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.6
18 Type of Leadership
0 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 4 2.9
TOTAL 61 51 62 68 59 83 78 73 62 71 66.8KT AND TN NGO AVERAGE 60 73
IMPORTANT: ZERO VALUE INDICATES THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS AVAILABLE FOR ASSESSMENT
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
303
APPENDIX 8
OBJECTIVE RATING FOR NGO SAMPLE SELECTION
(para ref: 17.10) (5 TABLES 8A TO 8E)
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
304
NGO RATING CRITERIA ‐ WEIGHTAGES FOR SELECT CRITERIA AS ASSESSED BY EXPERTS ‐ APPENDIX 8A (1‐20 BY MANAGEMENT EXPERTS AND 21‐40 BY PROFESSORS)SUMMARY SHEET BASED ON 100 ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT EXPERTS NO ASSESSOR DESIGNATION FUNDS ORGN
EXPERIENCE OBJECTIVES PROG EXP GEOG
COVERAGE ORGN SUPPORT
PERF. EFF. TOTAL
1 KINI MG DIRECTOR, TITANIUM INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD 16.36 10.91 12.73 12.73 14.55 16.36 16.36 100
2 MAHALINGAM CEO, T S M & SONS AND CITI SHELTERS 14.14 10.10 18.18 12.12 12.12 15.15 18.18 100
3 MENON K V RETD CHAIRMAN, MADRAS FERTILISERS LTD 10.71 16.67 19.05 10.71 13.10 11.90 17.86 100
4 MURALI EX CEO AND CURRENTLY PROF OF MANAGEMENT 10.00 10.00 25.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 100
5 PADMANABHAN RETD DIRECTOR HRD, INDIAN AIRLINES 10.00 5.00 15.00 35.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 100
6 PARTHASARATHY N S RETD CEO OF INDIAN Cos AND CONSULTANT FAO (UN) 25.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 100
7 PARTHASARATHY V K RETD CEO, SANMAR INVESTMENT CO 12.50 16.67 20.83 12.50 10.42 10.42 16.67 100
8 PRAVIN SENIOR HRD CONSULTANT 15.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 20.00 30.00 100
9 SHANTA RAGHAVAN RETD G M STATE BANK OF INDIA 11.13 11.13 18.37 13.91 9.28 17.63 18.55 100
10 SUHAS TAPASWI NGO EXPERT & CONSULTANT 15.38 12.82 25.64 7.69 0.00 12.82 25.64 100
11 SIDHARTHA DIRECTOR, POWER CENTRE P LTD, IT CO 13.16 14.04 15.79 15.79 10.53 13.16 17.54 100
12 SIVADASS PROMOTER & CEO, SCOPE E‐KNOWLEDGE CENTER 25.00 10.00 20.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 100
13 SREEDHAR RTED G M MARKETING OF TVS SUZUKI 15.09 14.15 16.98 14.15 9.43 15.09 15.09 100 14 SRINIVASAN SENIOR REFINERY CONSULTANT 19.28 12.05 19.28 12.05 6.02 14.46 16.87 100
15 THOBIAS RETD DIRECTOR, CASTROL INDIA 25.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 10.00 5.00 15.00 100
16 VENKATESH CEO, SVANISHTA, STRATEGIC HR ADVISORY & EXECUTIVE SEARCH 40.00 15.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 20.00 100
17 VENKATESH (VENKY) SENIOR MARKETING CONSULTANT 15.69 11.76 17.65 13.73 9.80 15.69 15.69 100
18 VIJAYA MURTHY WELL KNOWN EDUCATIONIST 14.00 12.00 20.00 16.00 12.00 14.00 12.00 100
19 VINITA SIDHARTHA PROGRAM CONSULTANT, MULTI NATIONAL NGO 10.31 14.43 17.53 10.31 14.43 14.43 18.56 100
20 VISHAK RAMAN HEAD OF ASIA REGION OF FORTINET 30.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 8.00 10.00 20.00 100
21 DEEPAK R. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 16 11 17 16 5 17 17 100
22 PADMALATHA FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 13 11 13 16 15 17 14 100
23 BASU FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 10 13 16 16 15 15 16 100
24 VISWANATH FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 8 10 17 21 13 10 21 100
25 GUNDU RAO FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 15 15 10 5 10 10 35 100
26 VITHAL P. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 20 15 10 10 20 5 20 100
27 KELKAR M. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 25 35 10 5 7 8 10 100
28 SUBRAMANYAM MJ FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 17 8 25 17 8 8 17 100
29 PRASAD BENJAMIN FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 35 5 20 12 8 3 17 100
30 BADI NV FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 18 13 10 19 10 13 18 100
31 RAMADAS KL FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 19 19 19 16 13 16 0 100
32 ASHVINI JAYARAM FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 20 11 13 11 11 16 20 100
33 UDUPA J FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 16 11 20 16 11 11 16 100
34 NEWSOME FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 17 14 16 13 9 15 16 100
35 SUMUKH HUNGUND FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 15 10 13 15 18 15 12 100
36 PADMINI RAO FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 14 12 15 14 12 15 16 100
37 SHASHIDHARA FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 15 14 13 13 15 14 16 100
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
305
38 ASHOK GUPTA FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 16 14 16 16 8 14 16 100
39 PRABHUDEV V. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 30 10 15 20 8 8 10 100
40 SRIDHAR M.K. FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 13 19 19 9 6 16 19 100
AVERAGE 17.47 12.68 16.24 13.73 9.87 12.56 17.50 100.00
STANDARD DEVIATION 7.04 4.69 4.52 5.17 3.98 3.82 5.46
CORRECTION FACTOR FOR STANDARD DEVIATION 60 63 72 62 60 70 69
CORRECTED AVERAGE 10.43 7.99 11.72 8.55 5.89 8.75 12.05 65.39
CORRECTED AVERAGE ADJUSTED TO 100 15.95 12.22 17.93 13.08 9.01 13.38 18.42 100.00
CV 40.29 36.97 27.82 37.69 40.30 30.37 31.18
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
306
CLASSIFICATION RATING SCALE AND CRITERIA APPENDIX 8B
NO CRITERION RATING SCALE
1 2 3 4 51 FUNDING
1A Sources* No info Single main source Two main sources Three main sources More than three sources
1B Dependence No Info More on overseas institutional than domestic
Balanced dependence More on domestic than overseas institutional
Almost entirely domestic
1C Continuity No Info Interruption frequent ‐ almost every year
Interruption once in about two years
Interruption once in about three years
No major interruption
2 ORGANISATIONAL EXPERIENCE
2A Experience No info 5 years or less 6‐10 years 10‐20 years over 20 years
2B Spread of activities/ target groups No info Single focus Two focus areas ‐ target groups 3‐4 areas / target groups Multi focus
2C Contact with community ‐ directness No info More indirect than direct Balanced More direct than indirect Mostly direct
2D Contact with community ‐ degree of formality No info More formal than informal Both formal and informal More informal than formal Mostly informal
3 OBJECTIVES
3A Clarity and match with mission No info Absence of vision/mission/ objectives or objectives poorly matched with mission
Objectives partly matching mission Objectives largely matching mission
Objectives and mission well matched
3B Specificity No info Too general Parts specific Largely specific Mostly specific
4 PROGRAM EXPENDITURE
4A Information availability No info Scrappy information Partial information Reasonable information Full information and transparent
4B Availability of details No info Scrappy details Partial availability of details Details largely available Full details available
4C Annual expenditure level No info 5 laks or less 6‐10 lakhs 10‐20 lakhs More than 20 lakhs
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
307
5 GEOGRAPHICAL COVER
5A Shifting of area of operation upon completion of objective
No info Continuous activity in one area Shifted to second area Shifted to third area Shifted several times
5B Geographical spread No info Cluster of villages One district Several districts of one state
Beyond one state
5 ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY
6A Staff training No info Internally trained More internal than formal external training
More formal external than internal training
Mostly formal external training
6B Infrastructure No info Poorly equipped Basic equipment Above average infra structure Well equipped and advanced
7 PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS
7A Effectiveness and recognitions No info Information available not enough to judge effectiveness
Information re awards / other recognitions
Enough information on effectiveness
Both as under 3 and 4 available
*SOURCES ARE CALSSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: OVERSEAS, INSTITUTIONAL OR INDIVIDUAL, DOMESTIC CENTRAL/STATE, DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONAL, DOMESTIC GENERAL PUBLIC, DOMESTIC SELF GENERATED
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
308
NGO CLASSIFICATION KARNATAKA ‐ APPENDIX 8 C ‐ RATING ON 1 TO 5 SCALE
ID NO.
CRITERIA
FUNDING ORGN EXPERIENCE
OBJECTIVES PROG EXPENDITURE GEOGRAPHICAL
SPREAD ORGN CAPACITY
PERF EFF
GROSS TOTAL/ AVERAGE TOTAL/
WEIGHTED TOTAL SCORE
SOURCES DEPENDENCE CONTINUITY YEARS SPREAD COMMUNITY CONTACT ‐ DIRECTNESS
COMMUNITY CONTACT ‐ FORMALITY
CLARITY SPECIFICITY ADEQUACY OF INFO
BREAK UP
DETAILS
AMOUNT OF EXP
AREA SHIFT
SIZE TRAINING INFRASTRUCTURE
R1/A/38 3 4 1 5 5 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 1 5 2 5 4 58
AVERAGE 2.7 3.5 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 23.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 141.02 80.58 201.46 120.87 141.02 161.17 954
R2/A/X 2 4 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 5 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 54
AVERAGE 2.3 2.5 1.0 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 23.3
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 94.01 100.73 40.29 201.46 141.02 161.17 201.46 940
R3/A/259 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 5 34
AVERAGE 1.7 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 15.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 100.73 40.29 40.29 100.73 80.58 201.46 631
R4/F/371 3 1 1 4 5 4 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 39
AVERAGE 1.7 4.3 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 14.9
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 171.24 100.73 40.29 100.73 40.29 80.58 601
R5/F/389 3 4 1 5 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 41
AVERAGE 2.7 4.5 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 14.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 181.31 40.29 40.29 100.73 80.58 40.29 591
R5/F/389 3 1 1 4 2 4 4 5 3 1 1 1 2 5 5 5 5 52
AVERAGE 1.7 3.5 4.0 1.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 23.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 141.02 161.17 40.29 141.02 201.46 201.46 954
R7/F/678 4 4 1 4 2 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 5 46
AVERAGE 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.7 1.5 1.5 5.0 18.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 120.87 161.17 40.29 107.44 60.44 60.44 201.46 752
R8/A/746 3 4 1 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 1 5 1 4 1 5 2 58
AVERAGE 2.7 4.3 5.0 3.3 2.5 3.0 2.0 22.8
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 171.24 201.46 134.31 100.73 120.87 80.58 917
R9/F/780 4 1 1 4 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 35
AVERAGE 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 13.0
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 80.58 161.17 80.58 40.29 40.29 40.29 80.58 524
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
309
R10/A/1450 2 4 1 5 2 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 5 44
AVERAGE 2.3 2.8 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 20.1
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 94.01 110.80 201.46 40.29 120.87 40.29 201.46 809
R11/F/1477 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 2 1 5 1 3 2 5 4 60
AVERAGE 3.3 5.0 3.5 2.7 2.0 3.5 4.0 24.0
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 201.46 141.02 107.44 80.58 141.02 161.17 967
R12/F/1545 3 2 5 5 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 2 44
AVERAGE 3.3 4.0 1.0 2.3 2.5 1.0 2.0 16.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 161.17 40.29 94.01 100.73 40.29 80.58 651
R13/F/P22 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 1 5 4 69
AVERAGE 3.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 27.3
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 201.46 201.46 201.46 80.58 120.87 161.17 1101
R14/A/P23 3 2 5 4 5 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 5 4 52
AVERAGE 3.3 3.3 5.0 1.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 22.6
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 130.95 201.46 40.29 100.73 141.02 161.17 910
R15/F/P28 3 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 1 4 1 1 5 60
AVERAGE 3.3 4.0 4.5 4.3 2.5 1.0 5.0 24.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 161.17 181.31 174.60 100.73 40.29 201.46 994
R16/F/P31 3 1 1 4 1 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 4 1 3 4 43
AVERAGE 1.7 3.8 1.0 2.7 2.5 2.0 4.0 17.6
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 151.09 40.29 107.44 100.73 80.58 161.17 708
R17/A/P33 3 2 5 5 2 3 3 5 5 3 3 5 1 4 3 5 4 61
AVERAGE 3.3 3.3 5.0 3.7 2.5 4.0 4.0 25.8
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 130.95 201.46 147.74 100.73 161.17 161.17 1038
R18/A/P9 3 2 5 5 5 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 3 5 5 68
AVERAGE 3.3 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 28.8
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 141.02 201.46 201.46 120.87 161.17 201.46 1162
R19/A/X 1 1 1 5 5 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 2 5 4 47
AVERAGE 1.0 3.5 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 21.0
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 40.29 141.02 201.46 40.29 120.87 141.02 161.17 846
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
310
NGO CLASSIFICATION TAMILNADU – APPENDIX 8D ‐ RATING ON 1 TO 5 SCALE
ID NO
CRITERIA
FUNDING ORGN EXPERIENCE
OBJECTIVES PROG EXPENDITURE GEOGRAPHICAL
SPREAD ORGN CAPACITY
PERF EFF
GROSS TOTAL/ AVERAGE TOTAL/
WEIGHTED TOTAL SCORE
SOURCES DEPENDENCE CONTINUITY YEARS SPREAD COMMUNITY CONTACT – DIRECTNESS
COMMUNITY CONTACT ‐ FORMALITY
CLARITY SPECIFICITY ADEQUACY OF INFO
BREAK UP DETAILS
AMOUNT OF EXP
AREA SHIFT
SIZE TRG INFRA
STRUCTURE
M1/F/32 1 4 5 5 2 5 5 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 4 54
AVERAGE 3.3 4.3 4.5 1.0 1.5 4.0 4.0 22.6
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 134.31 171.24 181.31 40.29 60.44 161.17 161.17 910
M2/F/50 3 1 1 5 5 5 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 47
AVERAGE 1.7 5.0 4.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 17.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 201.46 161.17 40.29 100.73 100.73 40.29 712
M3/A/128 2 2 1 5 5 3 3 1 1 5 5 5 1 4 1 5 2 51
AVERAGE 1.7 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 19.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 161.17 40.29 201.46 100.73 120.87 80.58 772
M4/F/244 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 34
AVERAGE 1.7 3.0 4.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 13.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 120.87 161.17 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 531
M5/F/289 1 4 1 4 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 41
AVERAGE 2.0 4.3 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 15.3
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 80.58 171.24 80.58 40.29 100.73 100.73 40.29 614
M6/F/455 3 1 1 5 2 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 5 1 48
AVERAGE 1.7 4.3 5.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 18.9
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 171.24 201.46 40.29 120.87 120.87 40.29 762
M7/F/522 3 2 1 4 5 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 41
AVERAGE 2.0 4.8 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 14.8
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 80.58 191.39 80.58 40.29 80.58 80.58 40.29 594
M8/F/543 3 1 1 4 5 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 3 1 42
AVERAGE 1.7 4.8 1.0 2.7 1.5 2.0 1.0 14.6
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 191.39 40.29 107.44 60.44 80.58 40.29 588
M9/F/589 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 49
AVERAGE 2.7 5.0 1.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 1.0 17.5
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 201.46 40.29 94.01 100.73 120.87 40.29 705
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
311
M10/F/956 2 5 1 5 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 40
AVERAGE 2.7 4.3 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 14.4
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 107.44 171.24 80.58 40.29 60.44 80.58 40.29 581
M11/F/1004 3 1 1 4 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 36
AVERAGE 1.7 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 13.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 161.17 80.58 40.29 60.44 80.58 40.29 531
M12/F/1053 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 54
AVERAGE 2.7 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 22.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 201.46 201.46 40.29 80.58 80.58 201.46 913
M13/F/1074 2 5 1 5 3 5 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 43
AVERAGE 2.7 4.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 16.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 181.31 100.73 40.29 100.73 40.29 80.58 651
M14/F/1278 3 1 1 4 2 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 34
AVERAGE 1.7 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 13.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 161.17 40.29 40.29 60.44 40.29 120.87 531
M15/F/1355 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 44
AVERAGE 2.7 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 16.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 201.46 120.87 40.29 60.44 40.29 80.58 651
M16/F/1360 2 5 1 5 3 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 41
AVERAGE 2.7 4.5 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 14.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 181.31 80.58 40.29 60.44 80.58 40.29 591
M17/A/1447 2 1 5 5 3 2 2 5 5 1 1 5 1 5 5 5 5 58
AVERAGE 2.7 3.0 5.0 2.3 3.0 5.0 5.0 26.0
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 120.87 201.46 94.01 120.87 201.46 201.46 1048
M18/F/P24 3 1 1 4 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 39
AVERAGE 1.7 3.8 5.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 14.9
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 67.15 151.09 201.46 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 601
M19/F/P26 2 5 1 1 1 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 33
AVERAGE 2.7 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 12.2
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 120.87 80.58 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 490
M20/A/P27 4 2 1 5 5 2 2 5 5 3 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 51
AVERAGE 2.3 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 20.8
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 94.01 141.02 201.46 120.87 120.87 40.29 120.87 839
M21/A/P142 5 2 1 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 2 5 5 64
AVERAGE 2.7 3.3 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 5.0 27.4
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
312
SCORE 107.44 130.95 201.46 201.46 120.87 141.02 201.46 1105
M22/F/X 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 42
2.7 5.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 14.7
WEIGHTAGE 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29 40.29
SCORE 107.44 201.46 100.73 40.29 60.44 40.29 40.29 591
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
313
NGO OBJECTIVE RATING VALUES – APPENDIX 8 E
KARNATAKA TAMIL NADU
ID NO SCORE RANK ACC TO SCORE
C V RANK ACC TO CV
SCORE+CV RANK SCORE
ID NO SCORE RANK ACC TO SCORE
C V RANK ACC TO CV
SCORE+CV RANK SCORE
R17/A/P33 385 3 20.13 1 4 M21/A/P142 405 1 25.26 1 2
R18/A/P9 410 1 24.94 3 4 M17/A/1447 378 2 32.94 2 4
R13/F/P22 389 2 28.89 4 6 M1/F/32 344 3 45.55 4 7
R11/F/1477 342 6 24.56 2 8 M20/A/P27 299 5 40.44 3 8
R15/F/P28 366 4 39.23 8 12 M3/A/128 253 7 49.40 7 14
R1/A/38 326 9 30.29 5 14 M12/F/1053 328 4 51.42 11 15
R14/A/P23 333 8 38.62 7 15 M9/F/589 229 11 47.61 5 16
R8/A/746 325 10 32.26 6 16 M13/F/1074 230 10 51.61 12 22
R2/A/X 336 7 42.47 9 16 M2/F/50 235 8 54.63 14 22
R6/F/569 347 5 45.21 11 16 M5/F/289 209 13 50.77 10 23
R16/F/P31 249 14 43.10 10 24 M7/F/522 194 17 50.00 8 25
R19/A/X 300 12 50.00 14 26 M6/F/455 272 6 60.83 19 25
R10/A/1450 310 11 56.04 15 26 M15/F/1355 232 9 58.82 17 26
R12/F/1545 229 16 48.31 12 28 M19/F/P26 176 22 48.22 6 28
R7/F/678 287 13 57.60 16 29 M11/F/1004 180 21 50.72 9 30
R4/F/371 206 18 49.86 13 31 M10/F/956 204 15 55.12 15 30
R3/A/259 241 15 60.85 17 32 M16/F/1360 207 14 58.07 16 30
R5/F/389 207 17 66.62 18 35 M8/F/573 190 19 53.88 13 32
R9/F/780 199 19 67.52 19 38 M18/F/P24 220 12 75.76 22 34
M22/F/X 200 16 61.62 20 36
M14/F/1278 187 20 59.60 18 38
M4/F/244 191 18 62.39 21 39
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
314
APPENDIX 9 MATRIX FOR NGO QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
(para ref: 17.17)
(11 TABLES 9A TO 9K)
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
315
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES – BASIC INFORMATION – APPENXIX 9 A
BASIC INFORMATION C 1 C 2 C 3 C4
ID NO GEOG COVERAGE EXPERIENCE EXP
LACS STAFF
NO ROLE a-b or c-i or other
HAVE MEASBL
OBJ? NAME 2
HAVE FORMAL
STT? GIVE
R17/A/P33 6 DISTRICTS 2006 160 >160 BOTH Y REDUCE SPREAD OF HIV, REDUCE IMPACT OF AFFECTED Y Y R1/A/38 STATE 1973 250-300 13? BOTH Y NO OF ACRES, OF HOUSES FOR TRIBALS, REDN OF DISCRIM PRACTICES Y Y R11/F/1477 6 DISTRICTS 1985 15-20 48 BOTH Y NO OF SHGs FORMED, NO OF WOMEN FOR AWRENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP Y Y
R18/A/P9 7 DISTRICTS 1968 1800 225 ONLY SM Y SHG EMPOWERMENT IN TERMS OF NO OF LOANS RECD, EXTENT OF LAND TREATED FOR WATER SHED MGT Y Y
R13/F/P22 5 TALUKS 1977 NA 64 BOTH Y ENSURE CHILDREN OF 6 YRS GO TO SCHOOL, ENSURE COLLY FAMILIES GET GOV BENEFITS Y Y
M21/A/P142 3 DISTRICTS 1991 64 (TN) 20 BOTH Y NO OF TRG W/SHOPS, NO OF TARGET GROUPS IDENTIFIED Y Y M17/A/1447 STATE 1971 117 38 BOTH Y NO OF ORGS TRAINED, MEMBERSHIP GROWTH Y Y
M12/F/1053 5 DISTRICTS 1985 50 80 BOTH Y NO OF CHILD WORKERS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, TARGET NO OF CHILDREN IN PREP SCHOOLS FOR TRIBALS Y
WILL SEND
M20/A/P27 10 DISTRICTS 1986 300 47 BOTH Y INCREASE OF FAMILY INCOME OVER 4 YRS, NO OF KIDS 6 TO 14 TO BE IN SCHOOL Y Y
M1/F/32 1 DISTRICT 1986 100 65 SM Y EST VILLAGE VOL TEAMS IN ALL 200 VILLAGES, ENSURE LDRS ELECTED TO VILLAGE SANGHAM IN ALL 200 VILLAGES Y Y
a-b = SERVICE c-j + SM
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
316
MATRIX FOR RECORDING QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES – PROGRAM – APPENDIX 9 B D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 FOR APEX D7 D8
ID NO THEME CHOICE WHO? DESIGN WHO? IMPLTN WHO?
IF COMM, CONTACT
FREQ? INNOVATIVE FEATURE SERVICES GIVEN
# SUCCESSFUL
PROGS
# PROGS IN
PROGRESS
R17/A/P33 c d g h(
TRUSTEES) a b e g a b c d e g MONTHLY OWNERSHIP BUILDING OF HIV
& BEYOND NA 6 11
R1/A/38 c d c g h(OPINION LDRS) c d g h(NGOs
Academic instns) MONTHLY RIGHTS BASED, COM LED
INITIATIVE a b c e f 15 15
R11/F/1477 a b c d e g a b c d g h(outside tech
consultant) d MONTHLY+ COMMUNITY RUNNING
PROJECT WITHOUT HELP NA 7 4
R18/A/P9 d e g g d g MONTHLY+ DEMAND DRIVEN, FOCUSED
ON RECIPIENT NEEDS a b c d e f 100+ 40
R13/F/P22 d g f g d g MONTHLY+ CARBON DEVICE MECHANISM
NA 2 6
M21/A/P142 a b c d e f g a b c d e f g a b c d e f g MONTHLY
SOCIAL HEALTH ED, MENTAL VACCINATION (VS LECTURE
METHOD) a b d f 10 8
M17/A/1447 e h (members, WHO, UNICEF)
a e g h (members, WHO, UNICEF)
g h (members, WHO, UNICEF) NA
PROGRAMS REPLICABLE, PILOT PROJECTS WHICH ARE
MODEL FOR GOVT b d e g (linkage with funding
sources) 5-6 4
M12/F/1053 c g (mostly g) g b c g h (volunteers
frm abroad) QTRLY
PUBLIC HEARING METHOD WITH MEDIA INVOLVEMENT
FOR CHILD WKRS NA ONGOING ONGOING
M20/A/P27 c d g c d f g c d f g h (CBOs) MONTHLY FORMING CBOS AND CAP
BLDG a b c d e f g (creating linkages
with fin instns.) 3 2
M1/F/32 c g c g c g MONTHLY
TEAM MEMBERS FRM ADIVASI COMMUNITY, DECISIONS TAKEN & IMPL BY THEM NA 3 4
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
317
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - PROG EFFECTIVENESS – APPENDIX 9 C E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8
ID NO MEASURE SUCCESS? 3 CRITERIA EXAMPLES OF EFF
FEEDBACK ON
METHODS? SEEK OR
SPONTANEOUS? FB FROM WHOM?
ADM EXP AS % OF TOTAL
3 YR TREND OF ADM
EXP +, -, =
R17/A/P33 Y QUALITATIVE, QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS,
SUSTAINABILITY THRU MIS CREATED DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE FOR
TESTING & COUNSELLING Y SEEK a c d e f (DT AUTHORITIES) 10-20 =
R1/A/38 Y APPRECIATIVE ENQUIRY, QTTV MSMT, SOCIAL
CHANGE SLUM CIRCULAR WITHDRAWAL Y SEEK a b c e f(ALPS) 21-40 -
R11/F/1477 Y
INVOLVEMENT IN INCOME GENERATION, IF SO PROFIT, USAGE OF FACILITIES PROVIDED,
ACHMT OF PROJECT OBJ SHGs RUN THEMSELVES WITHOUT SUPPORT
Y SPONTANEOUS a c d e 10-20 =
R18/A/P9 Y
QTTV -NO OF HECTARES COVERED, NO OF PEOPLE COVERED, QLTV - CONCURRENT
ASSESMT, FIN ACTG - III PARTY AUDIT
GULBARGA FARMERS TOOR DHALL MKTG PROJECT GOAL ACHD Y SPONTANEOUS a e 10-20 =
R13/F/P22 Y ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL,
LOGBOOK FOR USE OF BIOGAS GREATER INTEREST IN BIO GAS USAGE Y SPONTANEOUS a e 40471.00 =
M21/A/P142 Y
(EXTERNAL EVALN) INFO AWARENESS BEFORE & AFTER, BEHVR CHANGE AFTER,
INVOLVEMENT IN ACTIVITES BEF & AFTER
GOOD FEEDBACK ON TRG, FUNDING AGENCIES APPN OF MASTER HEALTH CHECK
UP, CONDOM PROMOTION STAREGY A MODEL Y SEEK
a b c d e f (trainees) 41-50 +
M17/A/1447 Y
ARE NUMBERS REACHED, ARE TARGET GROUPS REACHED
80% OF RURAL YOUTH TRAINED & CONTD EDUCN OR GOT JOBS, RCH MORE HYGIENE
AWARENESS Y SEEK (part of project
mechanism) a b c d e f (govt) 10-20 (donors
norm) -
M12/F/1053 Y
NO OF CHILD WKRS IDENTIFIED, NO PLACED IN SCHOOL, NO OF BONDED LABOURERS
IDENTIFIED, RELEASED & REHAB
NO OF CHILD WKRS REDUCED IN 10 YRS, NO OF WOMENS BANKS INCREASED IN 10 YRS Y SPONTANEOUS a 21-40 +
M20/A/P27 Y SCHOOL ENROLMENT, INCREASE IN INCOME,
PROCUREMENT OF ADDL ASSETS INCREASE IN SAVINGS LEVEL OF SHGS,
INCREASE IN LEVEL OF BANK LOANS RECD Y SPONTANEOUS a b c e 21-40 -
M1/F/32 Y
NO IDENTIFIED & TRAINED TO BECOME VOLUNTEERS, NO OF FAMILIES BENEFITED, NO
OF PLANTS, BLDGS PROVIDED
ADIVASI LDRS TAKE RESP FOR OWN DEVPT, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HIGHLIGHTED
BY COMM, RIGHTS PROTECTED BY VOL Y SEEK c e 10-20 = a Community a 10-20
b Beneficiary NGOs b 21-40
c Comm. leaders c 41-50 d Donors d 51-60 e Field staff e >60 f Others
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
318
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - SOCIAL MARKETING – APPENDIX 9D F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14
ID NO ARE MKT
PRACTICES APPLICABLE?
WHY? WITH OR WITHOUT
CHANGES?
CHNAGES OF WHICH
ASPECTS? EG.
HOW SM IS DIFFERENT
FRM CM METHODS USED
3 STEPS IN AUDIENCE SELECTION
YR SPL STRATEGIES /
PRACTICES
COMMN MEDIUM
WITH TARGET
% OF COMMN EXP OF TOTAL
EXP
ANY STEPS TO INCREASE
EFF?
NAME 1 OR 2 IMP OF SOCIO
CULTL FACTORS
2 EXAMPLES OF PROG DESIGN / PRACTICES
R17/A/P33
OCCASIONALLY TOOLS &
CONCEPT ARE USEFUL
ONLY WITH
MORE OF CREATING
OWNERSHIP THAN
MONETARY INCENTIVES AS
IN CM
b c d a b c d e f g
situational need assmt,
ethnographic study, nat and reg statistics
motivate team, space for reflection
b d e f g h I 5 Y
DEVELOP SOCIAL
CHANGE INDICATORS
EXTREMELY IMP
Raichur vs coast, permissive vs conservative, entry level diff,
open vs subtle, non lit vs lit, oral vs print
R1/A/38
RARELY
DOES NOT BELIEVE IN
COMMDFN OF ENTITLEMENTS
NA
NA c a d e f g socially
marginalised, ec poor, voiceless
SOCIAL MOBLSN, COMM
PARTCPN/LDRSHIP b d f g I j(PUBLIC CONLTN) 5 Y
DIFF INTERESTS
COMING TOGETHER
TO CRITICISE, STRENGTHEN
FUNDING
EXTREMELY IMP ANSWER NOT RELEVANT
R11/F/1477
NOT AT ALL NO SCOPE
NA
NA a b c d a b c d e f g h(FOLLOW-
UP,MONITORING, DOCTN)
BPL, literacy, lack of
infrastructure
CAPACITY BLDG, ACTION PLAN& IMPLTN, COMMI NVOLVEMENT
b c d e f g I (wall
writing) 1 Y
NETWORKING WITH OTHER
NGOS, CREATING
AWARENESS OF PROJECT
EXTREMELY IMP
ONE ON ONE MEETING WITH WOMEN ON SENSITIVE ISSUES, TALKING TO
OPINION LDRS ON CASTE ISSUES
R18/A/P9
OCCASIONALLY SOME CASES
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SIMILAR
NA
NA
b f (non qtfble but
tangible eg given)
a e f g
based on database - own or existing (eg
given)
TRANSPARENT SYSTEM, LT COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT d i
small but staff exp is
commn
DID NOT ANSWER NA EXTREMELY
IMP
DESIGN ACC TO SEX ORIENTATION, LARGE VS
SMALL FARMERS
R13/F/P22
LARGELY APPLICABLE NA
WITH CHANGES
STAFF ARE FROM THE VILLAGES,
DIRECT MEETINGS
f (belief in NGO)
a e f g h (problem tree & objective tree for every
prog)
village meetings, cluster meetings of village health
wkrs, exec meetings
MEETINGS FOR DETECT
PROBLEMS, d i 10% N
NA IMPORTANT SEPARATE MEETINGS FOR MEN & WOMEN ON GENDER
SPECIFIC ISSUES
M21/A/P142
OCCASIONALLY APPROACH IS DIFFERENT
NA
NA a b c d e a b c d e f g
community needs, donor
choice (eg street children), we see a social
phenomenon
TRG PARTICIPATORY,
USE CASE STUDIES
a b d e f g h i 25% Y
INTERACTION WITH OTHER MOTHER NGO OR TRAINERS,
LEARNIG NEWER
TECHNIQUES OF TRG
IMPORTANT
IN FESTIVAL SEASON NO TRG SCHEDULED, FOR RCH
APPROACH TAILORED - USE STREET THEATRE, AGENDA
SELECTION ACC TO SENSITIVITY
M17/A/1447
VERY MUCH APPLICABLE
(ALSO SELLING HEALTH
PRODUCTS)
NA
ONLY WITH
SELLING TECHNIQUE SD BE ADAPTED IN
REVERSE ORDER, TELL
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT
COMPLYING VS TELLING
BENEFITS
a b d e a b c d e f g
member NGOs selected by
scrutiny committee acc to criteria see
Annual rep
MONITORING, REVIEW,
INTERNAL ASSESSMT
j(circulars, newsletters,
tele) 10-15% N
NA IMPORTANT
RCH - PROG TAILORED SEPARATELY FOR MEN &
WOMEN, MOTHERS & DAUGHTERS, VISUALS ARE
SENSITIVE
M12/F/1053
LARGELY APPLICABLE NA
ONLY WITH
NO EG GIVEN b d a c e f g rural, socially
marginalised, ec poor
PUBLIC HEARING, SOLVE PROBLEMS
THRU WIDER MEDIA
b d e f g i 40% Y
GREATER USE OF PRESS
MEDIA, UNDERSTAND
NEEDS OF YOUNGSTERS
IN THE COMMUNITY
EXTREMELY IMP
TRG PROG ADAPTED TO TRIBAL CULTURE, DHOBIS TO
POWER LAUNDERING WITHOUT IDENTITY LOSS
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
319
M20/A/P27
RARELY APPLICABLE
CM PROVIDES EC BENEFITS, SM
SOCIAL BENEFITS, CM IS
PROFIT ORIENETED NA
NA b a d e f g
focus group discussion with community, field survey, village
meeting
VILLAGE MONITORING
GROUP WITH REP FOR TARGET
GROUP b e g i 10% Y
COMMUNITY RADIO &
NEWSPAPER, PROP VAN
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT NA
M1/F/32
NOT AT ALL JUSTICE MORE IMP IN SM
NA
NA f (community
vs Co is beneficiary)
A always adivasi community in
Gudalur
PARTICIPATORY APPROACH
d e f 30% Y
INVOLVEMENT OF MORE
COMM LDRS & LITERATE
VOLUNTEERS FRM
COMMUNITY
EXTREMELY IMP
ALL COMMNCN IS ORAL TO SUIT ELDERS, LOCAL USE OF
ADIVASI LANGUAGE
a No a Resistance to change a study comm needs
a local papers a Least
b Rarely b Delayed benefit b grouping acc to needs
b Print material b Not very
c Occasionally c Benefit not direct
c services for specific groups c Prop van c Somewhat
d Largely
d Benefit invisible not felt but present d system for delivery
d Group meetings d Imp
e Very much e Impact may not last
e prog features to target groups e Using opinion ldrs e Extremely imp
f Other f plan of action for a yr f Posters
g assessing effect g Audio visuals
h Other h Radio
I Word of mouth
j Other
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
320
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - RELATIONSHIPS - APPENDIX 9 E G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
ID NO ARE YOU IN TOUCH
WITH GOVT?
HOW OFTEN?
WHICH LEVEL/S OF
GOVT? TYPE OF
RELATIONSHIP RANK
STAKEHOLDERS ANY
ALLIANCES? WITH WHOM? PURPOSE OF ALLIANCE
HOW OFTEN IN CONTACT
WITH FUNDERS?
TYPE OF REL WITH PEER
NGOS
R17/A/P33 Y ONCE A MONTH
a b c d (NAT BODY) e (DEPENDS) d h b a f e cg Y
SARVAJANA, IPACHA ADVOCACY
ONCE A MONTH ACTIVE COOP
R1/A/38 Y ONCE A MONTH
a b c d (national level)
e(building pressure on
govt) d h f e c a g b Y
NGOS, MASS ORGNS, COMM GOUPS
POLITICAL MOBLSN
ONCE QUARTER
MUTUAL ADJTS RES CONFLICTS
R11/F/1477 Y ONCE A MONTH a b c a d h f e c b/g a Y
GOVT DIFFERENT DEPTS RURAL DEV
ONCE QUARTER ACTIVE COOP
R18/A/P9 Y ONCE A MONTH a b c a d a/b h c e g f N NA NA
HALF YEARLY
MUTUAL ADJTS RES CONFLICTS
R13/F/P22 Y ONCE A MONTH
a b c d (central gov) a
d b h c f&I (ngos) a g e N NA NA
ONCE A MONTH
NO INTERFERENCE
M21/A/P142 Y ONCE A MONTH
a b c d (central govt) a a b d e f g h c Y
FIELD NGO PARTNERS
WE ARE A MOTHER NGO
ONCE A MONTH ACTIVE COOP
M17/A/1447 Y ONCE IN 2 MONTHS
a b c d (central govt) d d a b , rest NA Y
SPAD, PWN (POSITIVE WOMEN NETWORK)
TO REACH OUT TO HIV POS WOMEN
ONCE IN 6 MONTHS NA
M12/F/1053 Y ONCE A
MONTH + a b c a d c g a b e h f Y
HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, PEOPLE'S WATCH
FILL IN OUR DEFICIENCIES
ONCE A QUARTER ACTIVE COOP
M20/A/P27 Y ONCE A MONTH b c a d h f b c rest Y FRONTLINE NGOS
FOR FIELD LEVEL IMPLTN
ONCE A MONTH ACTIVE COOP
M1/F/32 Y ONCE A MONTH b c
depending on issues & officials
a b or d d f b a h e g c N NA NA ONCE
QUARTER NO
INTERFERENCE
a monthly a State a Cooperative a Govt a monthly a No interfer with each other
b qtr b District b Antagonistic b Donors b qtr b conflicting
c once in 6 months c Local c Passive c Local bodies
c once in 6 months
c Mutual adjt resolving conflicts
d once a yr d Other govt bodies d Facilitative d Community d once a yr
d Active coop for common goals
e once in > yr e Other e Genl public e once in > yr e Other
f Rarely f Comm opinion ldrs f Rarely
g Partners h CBOs I Other
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
321
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - INSTITUTIONAL IMAGE – APPENDIX 9 F H1 H2 H3 H4
ID NO HOW IMP? IF IMP, DO YOU
HAVE METHODS?
METHODS 2 PROUD ORG FEATURES
R17/A/P33 IMP NOT
PRESENTLY NA COMMUNITY CENTRED, ETHICAL
R1/A/38 IMP YES BUT NOT
MUCH NA RIGHTS BASED, DO NOT IMPOSE
THOUGH BEING A FUNDING ORGN
R11/F/1477 EXTREMELY IMP YES BUT NOT
MUCH NA FORMATION OF SHG, SELF DEPENDENCE
OF SHG
R18/A/P9 EXTREMELY IMP YES WE DO
VIGOROUSLY THRU PERFORMANCE ?? TRANSPARENCY, SINCERETY
R13/F/P22 EXTREMELY IMP YES WE DO
VIGOROUSLY
HIGHLIGHTING RESULTS, DAILY FIELD VISITS,
COMMN WITH COOLY MEMBERS
MASS MEMBERSHIP, CONTROL OVER GRAM PANCHAYATS, ACCESS TO GOV
FUNDS
M21/A/P142 EXTREMELY IMP YES BUT NOT
MUCH NA RESULT ORIENTED, TRANSPARENT
M17/A/1447 IMP YES BUT NOT
MUCH NA STRONG NETWORK OF MEMBER NGOS, GOOD RESOURCE CENTRE FOR HEALTH
M12/F/1053 EXTREMELY IMP YES WE DO
VIGOROUSLY
CONSTANTLY BEING IN THE MEDIA, POSTERS,
PUBLIC MEETINGS, CULTURAL PROG
WORK WITH MARGINALISED GROUPS TRIBALS, DALITS, 90% OF STAFF FRM THESE GROUPS TRAINED BY THEM
M20/A/P27 SOMEWHAT IMP NA NA
TRANSFER OF POWER & FINANCE TO PEOPLE THRU CBOs, NETWKG WITH
FRONTLINE NGOs
M1/F/32 SOMEWHAT IMP NA NA
COMMUNITY CENTRED APPROACH, STRONG CULTURAL ROOTS INVOLVING
ADIVASI TEAMS a Least a Yes, vigorously
b Not very b Yes but not much
c Somewhat c Not presently d Imp e Extremely imp
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
322
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - MANAGEMENT – APPENDIX 9 G I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5
ID NO DEPTS REPORTING 2 LEVELS SWOT ENGAGE EXT EXP?
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE?
R17/A/P33
PROG, ADM, ACCTS (NOT CLEARLY DEMARCATED - PV)
FIELD STAFF TO TEAM LDR AND HE TO DT COORDINATOR
S-PEOPLE, W-NOT ENOUGH ORG IMAGE BLD, O- BLDG COM COHESION, T-COMMLN OF SOCIAL SECTOR
Y a b h j k (FIN AUDIT)
R1/A/38
PROG, FUND RAISING, SPONSORSHIP, SUPPORT
DEPTS, HR, COMMN, ORGN EFFECTIVENESS
FIELD STAFF TO REG MANAGER, RM TO PROG
DIRECTOR
S-RIGHTS BASED, W-NOT WELL KNOWN, O-CAN EVOVE INTO THINK TANK OR WATCHDOG, T-STATE
Y
a b f g I k(upgrading knowledge on specific
issues)
R11/F/1477 PROJECT, TRAINING,
ACCTS/ADMIN FIELD STAFF TO TEAM LDR,
TEAM LDRS TO DIST OFFICIAL S-STAFF, W-LACK OF MOBILITY, O-NOT ANSWERED, T-
NONE Y h j k(CUSTOMISED TRG)
R18/A/P9 ACCTS &ADM, PROG, TRG &
CAP BLDG FIELD STAFF TO PROG OFFICER, HE TO EX DIR
S- PEOPLE W-LACK OF STAFF, O - NEW INTERVENTIONS, T – NONE Y g h
R13/F/P22 PROG, ADM, FIELD STAFF,
ACCTG FIELD STAFF TO EXT WORKER,
HE TO PROJ DIRECTOR S - MASS MEMBERSHIP, W-FLUCTUATION IN
MEMBERSHIP, O- CDM IMPLETN, T- NONE Y a b d e f g h I j
M21/A/P142
ADM, ACCTS, INFO & RESOURCES, OPERATIONS
FIELD STAFF TO MGR OP, HE TO EX DIR
S - ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALISE, PIONEER IN MANY AREAS, W - MKTG OF CONCEPT IS WEAK, O - DEV AS
MASTER TRAINER, T - STAFF TURNOVER ABSORBED BY INT ORGNS Y a b c d f g I j
M17/A/1447 PROG, ADM
FIELD STAFF TO PROG COORDINATOR, SHE TO EX
DIRECTOR
S - MEMBER NW W - LESS FUNDS, O- NONE, T - GOVT POLICIES ON NGOS Y
b f h I j k (spl health issues, HIV, children
etc)
M12/F/1053 ADM, PROG
FIELD STAFF TO CHIEF COORDINATOR, HE TO
PROJECT OFFICER
S-GOOD RELATIONS WITH PANCHAYAT LDRS W - NOT MOVED BEYOND THESE GROUPS O - DON’T WANT TO
EXPAND T – NONE Y
a h j k (for spl reports to media, prof film
makers)
M20/A/P27 PROG, FIN
FIELD STAFF TO FIELD COORDINATOR, HE TO PROG
OFFICER, HE TO PROJECT DIR
S - STAFF W - EXPECTATIONS PITCHED TOO HIGH O - NONE SEEN T - LESS FUNDING Y d f g h I j
M1/F/32 FIELD TEAM, ADMIN TEAM REPORT TO EACH OTHER AS
TEAMS
S- ADIVASI FOCUS, W-DEMAND OF DONORS FOR FREQUENT DOCUMENTN, O-NEW PROBLEMS FACING
COMMUNITY, T-NIL N NA a Orgn strength a Trg staff
b Orgn's weakness b Trg supervisory
c Opp for expansion c Fund raising
d Threat for survival/growth d Prep plans, proposals
e Mktg trg
f Progress monitoring
g Designing reporting systems
h Mgtaudit
I Participatory methods
j Ldrship trg
k Other
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
323
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - CAPACITY BUILDING – APPENDIX 9 H
J1 J2 J3 J4 ONLY FOR
APEX J5 ONLY FOR APEX
ID NO HOW ARE FIELD
STAFF ENABLED?
IF EXT AGENCY, WHICH AGENCY?
WHICH AREAS NEED OUTSIDE
SUPPORT?
DO YOU CAPBIULD MEMBER
NGOS? TYPES OF CAP
BLDG
R17/A/P33 a b c a c d e f NA NA
R1/A/38 b f (same as a?) NA e g (clarity on issues
to be taken up) Y a b e f h I j k
R11/F/1477 a b c d f(use expert
knowledge) a c b d e f NA NA R18/A/P9 a b NA none Y a b c d e f h I k l R13/F/P22 a b NA a NA NA
M21/A/P142 a b c a b c b c d e f Y a b e (IEC material) k
l
M17/A/1447 a b c c d (resource / trg
agencies) c Y a b d e h I k l m (sp.
Health issues) M12/F/1053 a b c a c NA NA NA M20/A/P27 b c b c c d Y a b d h I k l M1/F/32 a b NA NONE NA NA
a By experience a Donor a Formln of mktg strategies a Trg staff
b Periodically trained internally b Mother NGO
b Field, supervisory staff trg b Trg supervisory
c Periodically trained externally
c Outside expert/consultant
c Fund raising strategies c Fund raising
d Few have mktg degree/dip d Other d Impact msmnt
d Prep plans, proposals
e Many have mktg degree/dip e Communication methodologies
e Supplying promo material
f Other f Monitoring progress f Fin asst for infra, eqpt
g Other g Mktg trg
h Progress monitoring
I Reporting systems j Rel ldg
k Participatory methods
l Ldrship trg m Other
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
324
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - FUNDING – APPENDIX 9 I K1 K2 K3 K4 K5
ID NO FUNDING SOURCES & %
TIME SPENT ON FUND RAISING
FACTORS AFFECTING FUND RAISING CAP.
ANY INCOME GENERATING
PROGS?
APP. HOW MUCH? RS
PA
R17/A/P33 a c e EQUALLY MAY
BE? CONTSLY THRU YR a c d N NA
R1/A/38 c d e 5, 5, 90% CONTSLY THRU YR f (lack strong will, for local
capacity) N NA
R11/F/1477 a 100% ON & OFF THRU
YEAR g N NA
R18/A/P9 a & b 25%, e 55%, f
20% ON & OFF THRU
YEAR g N? NA
R13/F/P22 e 80% f 20% CONTSLY THRU YR g Y(membership fees
and savings) 2.5 lacs pa
M21/A/P142 a 57%, b 32% c 9% e
2% CONTSLY THRU YR g N NA
M17/A/1447 a 15% b 10% c 10% e
25% f 40% CONTSLY THRU YR a f (change in govt & donor
policies in funding TN) Y (sponsors, ads,
sale of books) 4 lacs
M12/F/1053 a & b 20% c 10% e
65% ONE MONTH A YR g N NA M20/A/P27 a 10% e 85%, d+g 5% NIL a b N NA
M1/F/32 d 75% e 25% ON & OFF THRU
YEAR d Y 10 lacs a Domestic - govt state a Contsly thru yr a Lack of contacts
b Domestic - govt central b On & off thru yr b Lack of knowhow
c Domestic - instns c On & off over 6 m a yr c Want of info n sources d Domestic - genl public d On & off thru 3 m a yr d Diff bet donor and own methods/approaches
e Overseas - instns, individuals e over 1 m a yr e Lack of legal status
f Own generated surplus f Other
g Other g None fund raising cap not affected
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
325
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - SUSTAINABILITY – APPENDIX 9 J
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
ID NO MOVE FRM ONE AREA
TO ANOTHER?
IF SO,HOW LONG TO CREATE IMPACT?
IF NO, REASON?
IS IMPACT SUSTAINED
AFTER MOVING
OUT?
IF YES, 2 KEY FACTORS OF HOW HOW IMPACT MEASURED?
RANK FACTORS CRITICAL
FOR SUCCESS?
ANY SURPLUS
OF INCOME /
EXP?
IF YES, % OF
SURPLUS / INCOME
R17/A/P33 Y 5-6 YRS NA Y VOLUNTEER DEV, OWNERSHIP
BLDG IMPACT EVALN,
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA c b f a N NA
R1/A/38 Y 5-6 YRS NA Y ENABLIN GPOLICIES,
COMMLDRSHIP & MOBLSN APPRECIATIVE
ENQUIRYTECHNIQUE f g c N NA
R11/F/1477 Y 5-6 YRS NA Y
PROJ DESIGNING, COMM ACCEPTANCE, MONITORING
INCOME LEVEL, SOCIAL CHANGE (EG. DECISION
MAKING) a c f N NA
R18/A/P9 N? NA a Y STRONG INITIAL SUPPORT FOR
SHG WELCOME GIVEN BY
COMM? g e f N NA
R13/F/P22 N NA
d (want to focus on 5
taluks) Y
CREATED FUNCTIONAL UNITY AMONG VILLAGERS ACROSS
CASTE ETC
DATA COLLECTION, MEETINGS FOR ASSESSMENT e a I N NA
M21/A/P142 Y 2 YRS NA Y
COMM HEALTH WKRS & VOL TRAINED BY US CARRY ON, TRAIN
TRAINERS AMONG SHGs
THRU OWN STAFF OR EXT EXPERTS a b c Y 8-10%
M17/A/1447 NA NA NA Y
DISTRICT STRUCTURE CREATED SUSTAINS, LINK WITH LOCAL
HEALTH BODIES
SURVEY, MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS c g e N NA
M12/F/1053 Y >6 YRS NA Y
PEOPLE ARE TRAINED TO BE SELF RELIANT, MONETRARY HELP
GIVEN
BENEFICIARY PARTICPATION BEFORE &
AFTER PROG c f g N NA
M20/A/P27 Y >6 YRS NA Y
GOVT SUPPORT, CONTD PRESENCE OF CBOs & SHGs
GENERATING FUNDS
VISIT TO WITHDRAWN AREAS ONCE A YR FOR 3 YRS, TALKING TO CBOs b g a N NA
M1/F/32 N NA
d (not prog but community focused) NA
NA THRU CONTINUOUS &
VERY CLOSE CONTACT WITH COMMUNITY f g N NA
b 3-4 yrs b Trained staff
c 5-6 yrs c Ldrship & eff mgt
d > 6 yrs d Knowledge of mktg strategies
e Prog impltn
f Contact with community
g Obj clarity h Infra & eqpt I Employing mktg practices
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
326
MATRIX FOR RECORDING INTERVIEW RESPONSES - ACCOUNTABILITY – APPENDIX 9 K
M1 M2
ID NO WHO DOES YR ORGN REPORT TO? WHAT KIND OF REPORTING?
R17/A/P33 a b c d a c d - periodic reports, b - staff meeting,
mostly reports
R1/A/38 a d e d (Home Ministry)
g(partner NGO) periodic reports, meetings, presentations,
articles
R11/F/1477 a (Board of Society), c
(State govt) Board meeting qtrly, report R18/A/P9 a b c qtly prog rev report R13/F/P22 a b c reg meetings, MIS
M21/A/P142 a b c d MIS, donor format, annual & qtly reports, AGM,
monthly staff rev to identify gaps
M17/A/1447
a c d g (registrar of societies)
reports to Board of Mgt and info updates, qtly rep to funding agencies, project or issues
report to govt
M12/F/1053 a b c d reports to funding agency on completed
activity, annual report, case studies
M20/A/P27 a c d
Board meetings once 3-4 months where CEO gives a report, CEO gets reports from prog
staff, every 6 m report to donors, annual rep
M1/F/32 b c e
oral meetings, periodic progress reports in formats given by donors, summary of activities in Fortnightly meetings with comm ldrs & teams
a Brd of Trustees / Mgt b Own staff c Main funding agencies d Govt / local bodies e Comm ldrs f Mother NGO g Other
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
327
APPENDIX 10 MATRIX FOR DONOR / EXPERT QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONSES (para ref: 17.18)
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
328
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
NO NAME ORGANISATION CATEGORY IS MKG PRACTICE APPLICABLE
IF NO, WHY
IF YES, WHAT PRACTICES
RANK STAKEHOLDERS HOW TO BUILD
REL'SHIP
IS THERE A DISTNGSHG
LEGAL IDENTITY
ADV/DISADV OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK
3 TRAITS EXPECTED BY DONORS
SUGGESTIONS FOR ACCTBLTY
1
MS MALINI SRIDHAR
PARIVARTHAN COUNSELLING
EXPERT
Y, those of
marketing of services
NA
a to j (offering high quality
staff, client, mgt, target, vendors, public
see Q
no, no national licensg authority,
disadv ‐ subject to several legal reqts
workg with popn where need is visible
ngos with good publicity, credibility
open abt source & use of funds compliance with stat reqts
2
MS JAYANTI RAJAGOPALAN
CONSULTANT, NGO
EXPERT
Y
NA
a to I
beneficiary, power structures in target group), local adm
govt, NGO in related fields, (donor integral to
prog)
active coordn, jt activity
keeping them informed
not sure
min period of being in FCRA a
deterrent for new NGOs
experience in the rel field/target group track record of fund use, good team
proper record of progress proper accounts, stakeholder
involvmt info/learning sharing with gov
3
SHANKAR NARAYANAN
POPULATION SERVICES INTL
EXPERT
Y
NA
a to j document learning & disseminate
HRD policies to encourage mgt
ldrship
Donors & policy makers, influencers of funders internal employees, target group, other NGOs/partners
media, faith based orgns, youth/gender
clubs
make one resp for rel,
define what st'holders want to
know
yes
adv ‐ avoids duplication of funds disadv ‐ bureaucratic delays, corruption
programmatic acctblty, financial integrity, ability to align well with govt
3rd party audit of effectiveness, cost effectiveness be seen and heard
4
REYNOLD WASHINGTON
SAMASTHA
EXPERT
Y
NA
a to j(understanding community's
perceptions and practices)
govt, pvt sector, donors,
meeting them showcasing the
work, get them into the
field, doctn. Get others to talk on your behalf
yes
adv ‐ to get funds, financial reporting prescribed. Disadv ‐ weak monitoring for
compliance
track record of managing large
funds transparency &
integrity, technical competence, team
strength
transparent record keeping, having website, annual report of progress
and challenges, meeting st'holders
5
MS FLORENCE DAVID
INTL SERVICES ASSN
EXPERT
Y
NA
a to j (plan for sustainability)
team, stakeholders (who, not mentioned)
team bldg
yes
keeps norms to global standards
transparency, integrity, statutory
compliances
transparency, do not transgress line item budgets,
6
MS DIPA NAG CHOWDHURY
McARTHUR FOUNDATION
DONOR
Y
NA
a to i
community incl family, village adm structures, NGO intermediaries
group & 1 on 1 meetings, reports
films
‐
‐
credibility, tech competence, innovative
honour contractual obligations, provide monitoring data with
reports
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
329
7
MS.LENI CHAUDHURI
NAROTAM SAKSARIA FOUNDATION
DONOR
Y
NA
a, b to i
community, govt agencies, media, donors
informal exchanges,
structured fora, website,
exchange of briefs, info sharing
support in crisis, cap bldg
No. not treated as equal partner NGOs on some
statutory committees
which is good sign
all NGOs don’t have same level of credibility
& acctbty, State sd act as regulatory
body no mech for f/back frm civil society
program quality, strong governance & acctbty systems,
strong component of sustainability
transparent systems, publish docts &
annual reports, review system, sharing orgnl info
8
P J LUKOSE
CARITAS INDIA
DONOR
Y
NA
a to i
primary st'holders and delivery mechanisms
participatory planning and mgt
process
yes, Planning Commn has brought
out guidelines
gives opportunity in public‐private partnership
red‐tapism retards progress
experience, commitment, reliability
transparency of finance, participative
decision making
9
AASHTI ZAIDI HAI
DFID
DONOR
Y
NA
a to i
beneficiaries, policy makers, network partners, media
commncn strategy focusing on beneficiiaries publications,
annual reports, participation in confces, social networking
did not answer
did not answer
clarity of vision, coherent
measureable obj, strength of M&E, budgeting to be transparent,
accountable, cost‐eff, realistic
qtrly reports, regular commn, field visits
10
DR RAJANNA
DEPT OF WATERSHED DEV, KTK
DONOR
Y
NA
a to I j(netwkg among NGOs)
community, govt local, community ldrs
bldg trust, bldg confidence by achvg what is expected,
showing expertise on issues we are dealing with
no relevant response
no relevant response
relevant experience, trained staff, basic infrastructure,
action plans, timely implmntn, taking
feedback frm beneficiaries
11
AJAYA SAHU
NABARD
DONOR
Y
NA
a c e f g h I j(participatory approach)
grassroot/community, donors, line depts for
convergence
transparency, commitment, coordination
there sd be unique ID no across states
for NGOs, track record sd be available
for review and ref
no response
experience, integrity, presence
keeping time commitment, achvg proj obj,
12
MS DHANISHTA TIWARI
SIR RATAN TATA TRUST
DONOR
Y
NA
a c d e f g h i
target community, govt., civil society orgns
Liaisoning, transparency, networking
yes, to some extent
accountability to govt., successful
models can be replicated by
govt., disadv: processes are
intangible
rapport with community, expertise, resources,
management, orgn structure
transparency and quality essential for
for bldg relationship with st'holders
a study comm
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
330
needs
b grouping acc to needs
c services for specific groups
d system for delivery
e prog features to target groups
f plan of action for a yr
g assessing effect
h monitoring progress
I commn methodologies
j any other
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
331
CONTD.
10 11 12 13 a 13b 13c 13d 13e 13f
NO NAME ORGANISATION CATEGORY 1 OR 2 FORMULAE FOR PERF ASSMT
% FOR ADM/TOTAL
EXP
RANK SUCCESS FACTORS
EFF USE OF RES. REGLR MSMT OF
IMPACT REG COMPARISON PROG VS GOALS
EFFORTS, SYSTEMS FOR COST EFF.
TRACKING MECHANISM FOR
COST EFF
ANY OTHER
1 MS MALINI SRIDHAR PARIVARTHAN COUNSELLING EXPERT
feedback 30% g c b e a f h d 2 3 1 3 1 1
2
MS JAYANTI RAJAGOPALAN
CONSULTANT, NGO
EXPERT
not only input activity
but outcome & impact
not answered
c g b f a d h e
3
3
2
2
2
‐
3
SHANKAR NARAYANAN
POPULATION SERVICES INTL
EXPERT
assess adm & fin policies
get stakeholders' feedback
8‐11%
c g a b d e f h
2
3
4
3
3
‐
4
REYNOLD WASHINGTON
SAMASTHA
EXPERT
achievement of obj within
cost & time 15‐20%
c f g d e b a h
4
4
4
3
3
‐
5 MS FLORENCE DAVID INTL SERVICES ASSN EXPERT periodic appraisal
14‐15% c b e g h a d f 3 2 4 4 4 ‐
6
MS DIPA NAG CHOWDHURY
McARTHUR FOUNDATION
DONOR
assess quality of monitoring data site visits, is NGO member of imp network, is it a model for others
15%
b c f g e/d h a
2
3
4
2
2
‐
7
MS.LENI CHAUDHURI
NAROTAM SAKSARIA FOUNDATION
DONOR
Logframe analysis, st'holder & gender
analysis Participatory rural
appraisal beneficiary assessment
15 to 20%
c g a f b e d h
3
2
3
3
3
‐
8 P J LUKOSE CARITAS INDIA DONOR
result based mgt, good Mgt & Evln
system 7% f c b g d h e a 3 2 3 4 3 ‐
9
AASHTI ZAIDI HAI
DFID
DONOR
impact evaln with a base line, mid‐line
and end‐line
did not answer
a/c, g b e d/f/h
2
3
2 mostly anecdotal
2 effort yes, system
no 1
‐
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
332
10
DR RAJANNA
DEPT OF WATERSHED DEV, KTK
DONOR
third party monitoring & evaln
4‐5% for watershed genl 9‐10%
f c b d a g h e
4
5
5
4
5
‐
11
AJAYA SAHU
NABARD
DONOR
break up physical prog into smaller
parts review same weekly average 10%
c f g b a d e h i(mutual trust,
coordn with other NGOs and govt)
4
3
2
3
2
‐
12 MS DHANISHTA TIWARI SIR RATAN TATA TRUST DONOR
answer does not address the question 10‐20% g f c a b d e h 3 4 4 4 3 ‐
TOTAL 35 37 38 37 32
AVERAGE RATING 2.92 3.08 3.17 3.08 2.67
a Conty of funds 1 practically absent
b Trained staff 2 yes but scrappy, not systematic
c Ldrship & eff mgt3 systems exist, not pursued
d Knowledge of mktg strategies
4 reasonable and satisfactory
e Prog impltn 5 Of high order
f Contact with community
g Obj clarity
h Infra & eqpt
I other
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
333
APPENDIX 11 BENCHMARK EVALUATION MATRIX
(para ref: 17.30)
(16 TABLES – 11A TO 11O - 11 P IS SUMMARY)
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TABLES
Sources of Data/info used for evaluation: Q = Item number in Questionnaire, PIN = Post Interview Notes, OBS = Observation Chart recording observations of interviewer on the interview
Method of Evaluation: HML = High, Moderate, Low compliance carrying 3, 2, 1 points respectively, DICH = Dichotomous questions carrying 1, 0 points for Yes and NO respectively, MOQ = Multiple Option Questions carrying as many points as the number of options chosen
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
334
BENCHMARK TRAITS – MARKETING CONCEPT – APPENDIX 11 A
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV C V
1 Aware of concept Q F 2,4 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 2 2 1.4 47 0.84 60
2 Recognizes applicability in NGO activity Q F 1 HML 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 3 1 1 2 1.3 43 0.82 63
3 Recognises differences between SM & CM Q F 5 MOQ 6 3 2 0 4 1 5 4 1 1 2 2.3 38 1.64 71
4 Recognises need for adaptation Q F 3 DICH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.4 40 NA NA
5 Recognises need for cultural adaptation Q F 13, 14 HML 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2.2 73 0.63 29
6 Actually applies SM practices Q F 6 MOQ 8 7 4 5 8 5 7 7 1 5 5 5.4 68 2.01 37
TOTAL 16 10 11 16 10 14 21 8 10 14 13 MAX
POSSIBLE 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
PERCENTAGE 67 42 46 67 42 58 88 33 42 58 54
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
335
BENCHMARK TRAITS – MARKETING ANALYSIS – APPENDIX 11 B
No. Sub‐Traits Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE % SCORE STD DEV C V
1 Conducts research to identify needs DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA
2 Effective selection of target audience HML 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 2.3 77 0.95 41
3 Targets the appropriate segment with suitable services DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.5 50 NA NA
TOTAL 5 2 2 5 4 3 5 3 3 5 3.7
MAX POSSIBLE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
PERCENTAGE 100 40 40 100 80 60 100 60 60 100 74
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
336
BENCHMARK TRAITS – MARKETING PLANNING – APPENDIX 11 C
No. Sub‐Traits Source for
Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV
C V
1 Formally spells out Vision, Mission and Objectives Q C3,4 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA
2 Has a Marketing Plan Q F 6f DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA
3 Objectives are clear, consistent with Mission, practical, focused PIN MOQ 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 4 4 1 4 3.2 80 1.14 35
4 Objectives are measurable Q C1, 2 HML 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2.8 93 0.42 15
TOTAL 8 9 7 7 8 8 9 8 6 9 7.9 MAX
POSSIBLE 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
PERCENTAGE 89 100 78 78 89 89 100 89 67 100 88
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
337
BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – PROGRAM DESIGN (PRODUCTS) – APPENDIX 11 D
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV
C V
1 Involves stakeholders in theme selection Q D1 MOQ 8 4 3 2 6 2 7 2 2 3 2 3.3 41 1.83 55
2 Involves stakeholders in program design Q D2 MOQ 8 6 1 2 6 3 7 4 2 4 1 3.6 45 2.17 60
3 Adapts program design to suit local cultural needs and aptitudes Q F14 HML 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1.9 63 0.99 52
4 Innovative features into program design Q D5 HML 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1.8 60 1.03 57
5 Innovative strategies Q F 8 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1.6 53 0.97 60
TOTAL 17 7 11 15 8 20 13 11 12 8 12.2 MAX
POSSIBLE 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
PERCENTAGE 68 28 44 60 32 80 52 44 48 32 49
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
338
BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – MARKETING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES (PROMOTION) – APPENDIX 11 E
No. Sub‐Traits Source for
Evaln Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE % SCORE STD DEV C V
1 Has in place communication strategies Q F6e DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA
2
Has a budget for communication – <5%, 6‐10%, >10% Q F10 HML 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 67 0.94 47
3
Adapts communication message and media to suit local cultural needs and aptitudes Q F14 HML 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1.4 47 0.70 50
4
Innovates special strategies/practices for better impact Q F8 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1.4 47 0.84 60
TOTAL 5 4 6 4 4 7 7 7 6 8 5.8 MAX
POSSIBLE 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
PERCENTAGE 50 40 60 40 40 70 70 70 60 80 58
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
339
BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – DELIVERY SYSTEM (PLACE) – APPENDIX 11 F
No. Sub‐Traits Source for
Evaln Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE
% SCORE
STD DEV C V
1 Has a delivery system in place Q F6d DICH 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0.6 60 NA NA
2 Adapts delivery methods to suit local cultural needs and aptitudes Q F14 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.8 27 0.42 53
3 Adopts innovative distribution practices Q F8 HML 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.9 30 0.32 35
TOTAL 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 2.3 MAX
POSSIBLE 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
PERCENTAGE 43 29 29 43 43 14 43 29 29 29 33
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
340
BENCHMARK TRAITS – Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT (POLICY) – APPENDIX 11 G
No. Sub‐Traits Source for
Evaln Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE
% SCORE
STD DEV
C V
1 Interacts with govt. Q G1 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA
2 Interacts with govt. Often Q G 2 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2.9 97 0.32 11
3 Develops relations with government bodies at more than one level Q G3 MOQ 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 3.3 83 0.82 25
4 Has cooperative relations with govt. Q G4 HML 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2.7 90 0.48 18
TOTAL 9 9 10 9 9 10 9 7 8 9 8.9 MAX
POSSIBLE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
PERCENTAGE 82 82 91 82 82 91 82 64 73 82 81
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
341
BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – STAKEHOLDERS (PUBLICS) – APPENDIX 11 H
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS R17/A/P
33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38
M21/A/P142
M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P
27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE
% SCORE
STD DEV
C V
1 Meeting stakeholders “constantly” Q D4 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2.8 93 0.42 15
2 Coordinating actively Q D4, G4, 9, 10 MOQ 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 4 3 3.1 78 0.74 24
3 Keeping them informed of program aspects Q M1 MOQ 7 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 51 0.52 14
TOTAL 10 9 10 10 9 11 9 8 10 9 9.5 MAX
POSSIBLE 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
PERCENTAGE 71 64 71 71 64 79 64 57 71 64 68
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
342
BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – FUNDS (PURSE) – APPENDIX 11 I
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV
C V
1 Is in regular contact with donor Q G9 HML 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2.4 80 0.52 22
2 Spends significant time on fund raising Q K2 HML 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 2.4 80 0.97 40
3 Fund raising capacity has minimal obstacles Q K3 HML 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2.5 83 0.53 21
4 Accountable to stakeholders Q M1 MOQ 7 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 51 0.52 14
5 Has experience in related field or target group PIN HML 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.8 93 0.63 23
6 Projects image of organization and its capabilities Q H2,3 HML 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 1.6 53 0.97 60
TOTAL 14 16 18 14 16 18 16 13 12 16 15.3 MAX
POSSIBLE 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
PERCENTAGE 64 73 82 64 73 82 73 59 55 73 70
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
343
BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ Ps OF SOCIAL MARKETING STRATEGY – RELATIONSHIP (PARTNERSHIP) – APPENDIX 11 J
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method MAX
POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE
% SCORE
STD DEV
C V
1 Has network /alliances Q G6,7 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0.6 60 NA NA
2 The network aims at marketing effectiveness Q G 8 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.4 40 NA NA
3 Has a relationship of active cooperation with NGOs, network partners, alliances Q G10 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.5 50 NA NA
4 Uses participatory approach – works with community Q D4 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2.8 93 0.42 15
Participatory Indicators are as follows (World Bank)
5 Flat management structure Q I2 HML 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1.8 60 0.63 35
6 Formulates Plan iteratively with community Q D1, 2 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA
TOTAL 7 6 6 8 6 7 5 7 7 5 6.4 MAX
POSSIBLE 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
PERCENTAGE 70 60 60 80 60 70 50 70 70 50 64
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
344
BENCHMARK TRAITS – INSTITUTIONAL IMAGE – APPENDIX 11 K
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV
C V
1 Is aware of the importance of institutional credibility and image Q H1 HML 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2.8 93 0.42 15
2 Takes steps to project as a credible efficient institution Q H2,3 HML 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 1.6 53 0.97 60
3 Institution has special features for projecting its image Q H4 HML 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 2.4 80 0.70 29
TOTAL 6 7 8 7 8 6 8 5 5 8 6.8 MAX
POSSIBLE 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
PERCENTAGE 67 78 89 78 89 67 89 56 56 89 76
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
345
BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ MARKETING CAPACITY BUILDING – APPENDIX 11 L
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV
C V
1 Trains staff in marketing and related skills and technical competence Q I5 MOQ 8 2 2 7 1 6 6 4 0 4 2 3.4 43 2.37 70
2 Field staff capacity built Q J 1 HML 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.6 53 0.52 32
3 Employ outside agencies for capacity building Q J 2 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.6 60 NA NA
4 Plan for capacity building with outside support Q J 3 MOQ 6 3 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 1 0 1.4 23 1.65 118
TOTAL 8 3 9 8 8 13 7 1 8 5 7 MAX
POSSIBLE 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
PERCENTAGE 44 17 50 44 44 72 39 6 44 28 39
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
346
BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ MARKETING, EVALUATION, MONITORING & CONTROL – APPENDIX 11 M
No. Sub‐Traits Source for
Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS
R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV C V
1 Clarity on project measurability Q E 2,3 HML 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 2.4 80 0.84 35
2 Projects are measured Q E1 DICH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 NA NA
3 Evaluates program achievement with reference to goals Q E2,3 HML 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 83 0.85 34
4 Evaluates Output for Performance measurement (cost effectiveness) Q E2,3 DICH 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.4 40 NA NA
5 Evaluates Outcome for Performance measurement (impact) Q E2,3 DICH 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 90 NA NA
6 Post‐program impact measures methodically Q L 6 HML 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.3 43 0.32 35
7 Is looking for improvements Q F11 DICH 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.7 70 NA NA
8 Has ideas of directions for improvement Q F 12 HML 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 1 1 1.7 57 0.48 69
9 Has a system for feedback in place Q E 5 DICH 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0.5 50 NA NA
10 Receives feedback from more than one source Q E6 MOQ 7 5 2 2 4 5 6 6 2 4 1 3.7 53 0.53 105
11 Has won recognitions or has been cited as model PIN DICH 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.4 40 NA NA
TOTAL 16 9 11 17 15 22 18 17 16 14 15.5 MAX
POSSIBLE 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
PERCENTAGE 64 36 44 68 60 88 72 68 64 56 62
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
347
BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ SUSTAINABILITY – APPENDIX 11 N
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV
C V
1 Has not had any major difficulties in fund flow (Financial Sustainability) Q K3 HML 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 80 0.70 29
2 Is not dependent on one or very few donors Q K1 MOQ 7 3 6 1.5 1 1 1 5 1.5 1 2 2.3 33 1.81 79
3 Is able to generate a minimum of own funds, say, at least 10% Q K1f DICH 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.4 40 NA NA
4 Ensuring adequate infra structure (equipment, space, vehicles, computers etc) PIN HML 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1.9 63 0.57 30
5 Engages outside specialists to install/improve internal systems and controls Q I4,5 PIN MOQ 7 4 5 5 2 3 5 4 0 4 3 3.5 50 1.58 45
TOTAL 10 17 11.5 7 8 12 14 6.5 9 10 10.5 MAX
POSSIBLE 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
PERCENTAGE 48 81 55 33 38 57 67 31 43 48 50
Note: STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
348
BENCHMARK TRAITS ‐ MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP – APPENDIX O
No. Sub‐Traits Source for Evaln
Evaln Method
MAX POINTS R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE %
SCORE STD DEV
C V
1 Leadership: Has grasp of institution’s strengths and weaknesses and environment’s opportunities and threats Q I3 HML 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 2.1 70 0.74 35
2 Leadership: Clarity and Direction
OBS CHART ‐ 8,14 HML 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.9 97 0.32 11
3 Leadership: Transparency
OBS CHART ‐4,5 HML 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2.5 83 0.53 21
4 Leadership: Articulation and communication OBS CHART ‐ 6 HML 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2.4 80 0.52 22
5 Leadership: Marketing approach OBS CHART ‐ 7 HML 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2.1 70 0.57 27
6 Has equipped field staff to handle responsibilities Q J1 HML 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.6 53 0.52 32
7 Has clearly demarcated functional departments Q I1 HML 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2.1 70 0.32 15
8 Has kept administrative expenses (overheads) within reasonable limits (say, 8‐20%) Q E7,8 HML 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2.6 87 0.52 20
9 Reports to donors, Managing Board and government at frequent intervals (upward accountability) Q M1 MOQ 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 2.5 63 0.71 28
10 Reports to media and public about progress (Lateral Accountability) Q M1 MOQ 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.2 10 0.42 211
11 Interacts regularly with staff and beneficiaries (Downward Accountability) Q M1 MOQ 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0.9 30 0.74 82
12 Makes transparent Reports disclosing practices, fund use, PIN HML 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1.9 63 0.99 52
13 Websites available, static, informative& kept up, info incl financials PIN MOQ 4 1 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2.4 60 0.84 35
14 Regular meetings with stakeholders Q D4, G2, 9 HML 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2.4 80 0.52 22
15 3rd party audit of program and cost effectiveness Q I 5 PIN MOQ 4 2 4 3 1 2 1 2 0 3 1 1.9 48 1.20 63
TOTAL 31 33 32 24 30 33 34 28 33 27 30.5 MAX
POSSIBLE 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
PERCENTAGE 66 70 68 51 64 70 72 60 70 57 65 Note: S. nos 1 to 5 refer to the Leader and remaining relate to the orgn. STD and CV not calculated for dichotomous questions for which the value assigned is zero or one
Vimala Parthasarathy – PhD Thesis – Manipal University – Septamber 2012 Social Marketing Strategies & Traits of Successful NGOs – A Strategic Perspective
349
BENCHMARK TRAITS – SUMMARY – APPENDIX 11 P
TRAIT R17/A/P33 R18/A/P9 R13/F/P22 R11/F/1477 R1/A/38 M21/A/P142 M17A/1447 M1/F/32 M20/A/P27 M12F/1053 AVERAGE STD DEV. COEEF OF VARIATION
MARKETING CONCEPT 67 42 46 67 42 58 88 33 42 58 54 16 30
MARKETING ANALYSIS 100 40 40 100 80 60 100 60 60 100 74 25 34
MARKETING PLANNING 89 100 78 78 89 89 100 89 67 100 88 11 13
MARKETING STARTEGY – PROGRAM 68 28 44 60 32 80 52 44 48 32 49 17 34
MARKETING STRATEGY – PROMOTION 50 40 60 40 40 70 70 70 60 80 58 15 25
MARKETING STRATEGY ‐ DELIVERY OF SERVICES 43 29 29 43 43 14 43 29 29 29 33 10 29
MARKETING STRATEGY – POLICY 82 82 91 82 82 91 82 64 73 82 81 8 10
MARKETING STARTEGY – PUBLICS 71 64 71 71 64 79 64 57 71 64 68 6 9
MARKETING STRATEGY – FUNDING 64 73 82 64 73 82 73 59 55 73 70 9 13
MARKETING STARTEGY – NETWORKING 70 60 60 80 60 70 50 70 70 50 64 10 15
INSTITUTIONAL IMAGE 67 78 89 78 89 67 89 56 56 89 76 14 18
MARKETING CAPACITY BUILDING 44 17 50 44 44 72 39 6 44 28 39 19 48
MARKETING EVALUATION, MONITORING, CONTROL 64 36 44 68 60 88 72 68 64 56 62 15 23
SUSTAINABILITY 48 81 55 33 38 57 67 31 43 48 50 15 31
MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP 66 70 68 51 64 70 72 60 70 57 65 7 11
TOTAL 992 839 906 959 900 1047 1060 794 851 945 929 88 9
MAX POSSIBLE 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
OVERALL SCORE PERCENTAGE 66 56 60 64 60 70 71 53 57 63 62
AVERAGE 66 56 60 64 60 70 71 53 57 63
STD DEV. 16 25 19 19 19 19 19 21 13 24
COEFF, OF VARIATION 24 44 31 29 32 27 27 40 23 38
Top Related