organizational assessment of education network

Proceeding Book of 1st International Conference on Educational Assessment and Policy - Volume 2

ICEAP 2018 1

Organizational Assessment of Education Network, Philippines, Inc.

Using Organizational Capacity Development Tool (OCD)

Rebecca S. Gaddi, Ph. D1 and Flora C. Arellano2 1University of the Philippines, School of Labor and Industrial Relations.

2Faculty of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines

[email protected]

Abstract. Education assessment and evaluation of a country is technically done led by a government team,

most often the Department or Ministry of Education. Brief history of education assessment in the

Philippines (by Magno) shows the trends of how Philippine educational formal system has been assessed

and evaluated correspondingly. This paper will focus on the experiences of non-government activities to

advocate for reforms in the educational system in the Philippines. Through the efforts of Education

Network, Philippines (E-Net), recent organizational assessment and evaluation efforts, with support from

Save the Children Fund, will be shared.

Keywords: Philippine education history, alternative learning system, non-formal education, education

reform advocacy

INTRODUCTION

A Brief Timeline of Education Assessment in the

Philippines Education in the Philippines cannot be viewed as

something monolithic. Hence, assessing it cannot

be done in one-way form either. Composed of more

than 7,000 islands, the Philippines is the second

largest archipelago, next to Indonesia. The

Philippines is also the world’s 12th most-populous

country with more than 103 million people as of

2016. Majority are Christians (roughly 80%) having

been colonised by Spain for more than three

centuries. After Spain, the United States occupied

the Philippines (1898) for five decades and became

independent in 1946. U.S. colonialism had a great

impact on the Philippine educational system - the

use of the English language, the politico-legal

system, and how the economy runs (Macha,

Mackie & Magaziner, 2018).

Very recently (2013), the Philippine education

system was expanded from 10 years to 12 years, to

include broadening and substantiating its contents

to fortify Filipino endogenous character and

prepare for global challenges. Looking back to the

1920s while the Philippines was still under the U.S.

rule, a Monroe Survey of 1926 was conducted to

assess the educational status of Filipinos under an

American educational system. Briefly, results

showed, the Filipino students were at par with their

American counterpart in Sciences and

Mathematics; that materials should be adapted to

Philippine life; secondary education did not prepare

for life and recommended training in agriculture,

commerce and industry; that higher education

should be concentrated in Manila; English should

be the medium of instruction, but local dialect in

teaching character education; almost all teachers

(95%) were not professionally trained for teaching;

and private schools except under the religious

groups were found unsatisfactory (Magno, 2010).

Several other assessments followed: Economic

Survey (studied the economic condition of the

Philippines); Prosser Survey (on vocational

education); other government-commissioned

surveys (on the quality of education); UNESCO

Survey (looked at educational situation to set as

guide to planners). The more recent are: the

EDCOM report of 1991 (marked high school drop

outs showing level of mastery in certain

competencies); the Philippine Education Sector

Study (PESS-1999) which recommended a more

targeted program of college and university

scholarships; the Fund for Assistance to Private

Education (FAPE) which initiated the testing and

guidance programs; the Center for Educational

Measurement (CEM) to improve quality of formal

education and effectiveness for teaching and

student guidance; the Asian Psychological Services

and Assessment Corporation (APSA) which

committed to the delivery of excellent and focused

testing technologies and competence-development

programs to academe and industry (Magno, 2010).

This paper shows the role of civil society

organizations in influencing government policies to

reform education and participate in assessment to

make effective its participation in governance, using

organizational capacity development tool.


ICEAP 2018 2

METHODOLOGY

Methodology used is qualitative research. This

is secondary data gathering of historical assessment

and evaluation of Philippine educational system. I

am zooming in on alternative learning system as a

form of non-formal education, particularly

experiences of the Education Network Philippines

(E-Net). E-Net is a non-government organization

composed of around 80 member organizations

around the Philippines doing advocacy work for

education reform. Particularly, E-Net focuses on

education financing and active participation of local

communities in increasing budget for education,

changing curricula, and open data for access to

people.

The Education Network, Philippines Inc. and Its

Accomplished Activities Education Network Philippines, Inc. (E-Net) is

a network of 150 civil society organizations (CSOs)

which coalesced in 1999 to advocate for education

reforms in the Philippines. The Dakar Framework

for Action 2000 became the take-off point of E-Net

to pursue the track towards initiating changes in

education policies, financing, curriculum change,

teachers’ development and other related concerns

surrounding education. E-Net’s primary concerns

are: Early Childhood Care and Development

(ECCD), Formal Education and Alternative

Learning System. Cutting across these broad

concerns are: Gender in Education and

Governance and Financing in Education. Among

the strategies used are budget advocacy and

partnerships for education.

Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI)

Through E-Net’s Alternative Budget Initiative

(ABI), education national budget increased almost

triple across ten years since 2007.

These increases were the result of national

advocacy participated in by E-Net. At the local

level, E-Net’s member organizations engaged in

calling for education financing through the Local

School Board (LSB) and Local Development

Council (LDC). The goal in engaging the local

government is to make sure the special education

fund levied from 1% of the real property tax is

appropriately used for education purposes only. It is

also a way to remind the local government units of

their shared responsibility with the national

government in financing education priorities.

Partnership for EFA (Education for All) “Education for All, All for Education” is the

catchphrase slogan introduced by E-Net to mobilize

different sectors – government agencies, private

sector and civil society organizations – to join in the

EFA movement across the country. There were

three layers of partnerships launched. First,

‘internal partnership’ where E-Net member

organizations were enjoined to conduct researches,

agenda building, capacity enhancing activities, and

information dissemination. Second, is the ‘external

partnership’ which is working with government

agencies and institutions. The best practice

mechanism is where E-Net sits as co-chair of the

Department of Education in the national

implementation of EFA National Plan of Action in

the country. Third, is E-Net’s global partnership for

EFA through technical assistance from other

international organizations helping support its

national agenda for education reform and seek

accountability from the government.

Important Education Milestone Over the years, the improvement in Philippine

education situation can be partially attributed to the

efforts of the civil society groups and the private

sector. The Philippine government acknowledges

this. The E-Net has been religious in its advocacy to

reform education as sampled by some significant

achievements.

The enhanced basic education program or K-12

which is now being implemented for five years

already. Related to this is the passage of the

Kindergarten Act, expansion of the Alternative

Learning System to Abot-Alam program, multi-

lingual-based education, indigenous people’s

education, madrasah education, and the child

protection policy which directly benefits the

marginalized, excluded and vulnerable members of

our society. In essence, E-Net realized, in its 15

years of existence, that to succeed in its advocacies,

efforts should focus on engaging the government

using the mechanisms and spaces accessible to civil

society. Very crucial is to sustain organized groups

towards building critical mass es through

campaigns, influencing policies relevant to

education reform, lobbying, monitoring

government actions to ensure efficient allocation

and use of budget for education, specially for the

marginalized and unreached.


ICEAP 2018 3

Alternative Learning System (ALS) One important aspect of the Philippine

educational system is the Alternative Learning

System (ALS). The Department of Education has

made this a established part of the System making it

the ‘pathway’ to a “second chance” to

strengthening human capital out of the school drop

outs, adults and out of school children and youth

(OSCY). The ALS enrollees take accreditation and

equivalency (A & E) examinations after which

when passed, they receive certificates, synonymous

with government credentials giving them access to

higher education, vocational training and better

employment prospects.

The number of out-of-school youth in the

Philippines is one of the highest in ASEAN

countries, according to an ILO and ADB report in

2014 (E-Net, 2018). In 2013, the Philippine

Statistics Authority released its data on the number

of students aged 5-17, not attending school reached

3.249 million. It is like 1 in every 10 Filipinos aged

6-24 are out of school. As studied, poverty is one of

the top reasons why students are dropping out.

Sadly, more boys are leaving schools than girls.

Out of the 17 regions in the Philippines, the

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

(ARMM) has the highest incidence of school drop

outs due to the conflict situation and natural

disasters happening. The National Capital Region

(NCR) drop out rate has increased by 77% in years

2012 – 2013 (E-Net, 2018).

Across the country, 53% of the OSCYs are from

families whose income is at the bottom 30% based

on per capita income (Table 3). The last column of

Table 3 shows the cumulative number of OSCYs in

the lowest income bracket (First, Second, Third

decile).

The Annual Poverty Indicators Survey 2016

(Figure 1 APIS 2016) revealed that the topmost

reasons among OSCYs for not attending school

were marriage or family matters (42.3%), high cost

of education or financial concerns (20.2%), and lack

of personal interest (19.7%). Sex-disaggregating

them, 59.3% females’ main reason was marriage

and family matters; while 36.5% males said lack of

personal interest was their main reason. It is

unfortunate to note that since 2008, the number of

OSCYs increased from 2.7 to 3.8 million (2016

APIS, PSA).

Nationwide, about 53% of OSCYs belong to families whose income fall at the bottom 30% based on their per capita income.

Drop-outs are especially high in the poorest regions. Department of Education (DepEd) data showed that among the country’s 17 regions, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), with one of the highest rate of poverty incidence, also has the highest drop-out rate which increased by 76% comparing SY 2002-2003 and 2012-2013. Even in the National Capital Region (NCR), comparing the same school years, drop-out rate increased by 77%. Additional factors such as natural disasters and conflict situations further aggravate the situation.

Context

The Out-of-School Phenomenon

According to the National Youth Commission (NYC), Out-of-School Children and Youth (OSCY) refers to 7 to 14 years old and not enrolled in any formal or vocational school and 15-24 years old and not enrolled in any formal or vocational school, not formally employed, and not a tertiary level graduate. The Philippines ranks high as one of the countries with a sizable number of OSCY. In a co-publication of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) released in 2014, the Philippines ranked the highest in number in 2012 among 8 ASEAN countries. Even higher than that of Indonesia with a population double than the Philippines.

OSCY numbers continue to grow and drop-out rates have even increased especially in poorer regions of the country. In 2013, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reported that the number of 5-17 years old not attending school was estimated at 3.249M. The recent number, according to PSA’s Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) is 3.8 million or 10 percent of the 39 million Filipinos with age range 6 to 24 years old or 1 in every 10 Filipinos aged 6 to 24 who are out of school. Poverty is the overriding reason for dropping-out as the direct and indirect cost of education continues to grow, even though education is supposed to be free.

Alternative Learning System (ALS) for the Marginalized, Excluded and Vulnerable Sectors (MEVS),

ALS for Lifelong Learning

September 2018 Issue 1

Policy Brief Mezzanine. Casal Bldg.,

15 Anonas St., Project 3,

Quezon City 1102 Philippines

Tel/Fax +632 962 4058

[email protected]

Website: www.enetphil.ph

The Out-of-School phenomenon reflects the over-all socio-economic situation of the country including poverty,

regional inequalities, rapid population growth rate, sluggish economic growth and low absorption of the labor force.

Table 3. Percent Distribution of OSCY by Per Capita Income Decile and Sex:

Philippines, 2016

Decile Male Female Both Sexes Both Sexes

Number of

OSCYs (in '000) 1,184 2,623 3,807

First Decile 23.5 20.2 21.2 21.2

Second Decile 14.7 17.5 16.6 37.9

Third Decile 15.2 14.6 14.8 52.7

Fourth Decile 11.9 11.8 11.9 64.5

Fifth Decile 9.1 12.6 11.5 76.0

Sixth Decile 7.4 10.3 9.4 85.4

Seventh Decile 5.4 6.9 6.4 91.8

Eight Decile 7.9 3.6 5.0 96.8

Ninth Decile 2.8 1.9 2.2 98.9

Tenth Decile 2.2 0.6 1.1 100.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Philippine Statistics Authority, APIS 2016

According to the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS), the most common reasons among OSCYs for not attending school were marriage or family matters (42.3%), high cost of education or financial concerns (20.2%), and lack of personal interest (19.7%). Marriage or family matters were the main reason among women OSY with 59.3%; while among males, it was lack of personal interest with 36.5%.

Even government interventions such as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) which requires beneficiaries to send their children to school, barely made a dent in addressing the OSCY phenomenon. The number of OSCY had in fact increased since 4Ps started in 2008, from around 2.7 to 3.8 million. (2016 APIS, PSA)

Government Program to Educate the Out-of-School: Non-Formal Education (NFE) and the Alternative Learning System (ALS)

outs to return to formal schooling or obtain an equivalency certificate, which in turn opens opportunities for further education and decent work.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the OSCY are not being reached thru the current program. The total number of beneficiaries is only at less than half a million per year or around 300,000. The program is severely under-resourced and account for less than 1% of the education budget.

Compared to the allocation for every pupil in the formal system, the task of providing education to out of school youth should be equally given priority since lack of access to education is caused mainly by poverty and further deprivation of education perpetuates the cycle of poverty both in urban and rural areas. This can only be addressed by sufficient financing for ALS with at least Php 5,000 per learner inclusive of the modules and funds to increase the number of mobile teachers, learning centers and allowance for instructional managers (IMs). BALS only got an average of 0.19% from the national budget for education, thus inadequate to fully implement its program. Recently, the functions of the former BALS was subsumed in the different bureaus. This further poses a challenge to the effective implementation of ALS programs nationwide.

The Non-Formal Education (NFE) is one of government’s programs to address the education of the out-of-school. Although Non-Formal Education started way back even before the Commonwealth era, it was thru the Governance of Education Act 2001 or R.A. 9155 that the Alternative Learning System (ALS) was recognized as “a parallel learning system to provide a viable alternative to the existing formal education instruction, encompassing both the non-formal and informal sources of knowledge and skills” (Sec. 12.1 Rules XII). The Bureau of Alternative Learning System (BALS) was established to “address the learning needs of the marginalized groups of the population including the deprived, depressed, and underserved citizens”(Sec. 2). Among its goals is to provide an alternative learning system for out of school youth and adults and help improve their socio-economic status by enhancing their basic educational capability through functional education and literacy and continuing education programs.

ALS learners are given learning modules. Equivalency certificates are awarded to those who successfully complete the achievement test at the end of the learning module. The NFE Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E) holds considerable potential for OSCY and school drop-

Page 2 Policy Brief

The government’s response to this increasing

dilemma is the Non-Formal Education and the

ALS. The program covers both non-formal and

informal education to address the learning needs of

those who are deprived and underserved of formal

schooling. The goals of the program include:

(1) to provide alternative learning for out of

school youth and adults; (2) to improve socio-

economic status to enhance their basic educational

capability through functional literacy and

continuing education.


ICEAP 2018 4

4 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH

A Second Chance to Develop the Human Capital of Out-of-School Youth and Adults:

The Philippines Alternat ive Learning System

ALS Target Population

Figure 1: Major ALS Components

Figure 2: Age Distribution of ALS Enrollees

ALS learners use their own learning modules

designed appropriately. Examinations are given

and equivalency certificates are issued when

learners passed them. These certificates give way

for the learners to get to higher education and get

more decent jobs. However, ALS faces problems

like lack of financing. This is where E-Net makes its

intervention. One of its advocacies is to push for the

continuing increase in education budget.

Other concerns are not enough teachers,

coordinators and facilitators; overloading (70

learners assigned per teacher); lack of community

learning centers; lack of facilities and low quality of

learning environment; low percentage of completers

and passers; the need to assess, update and monitor

the ALS modules to ensure relevance to the labor

market and widen learners’ opportunity for further

formal education (World Bank Group, 2018).

Assessing E-Net’s Organizational Capacity After 15 years, it is timely for E-Net to look back

and take stock of its accomplishments and

capacities as a national civil society group. In June

23-24, 2016, E-Net management decided to call for

some of its members to conduct an assessment

workshop. The assessment workshop was done

using the Organizational Capacity Development

(OCD) tool, led by Save the Children Fund (SCF).

Why OCD? Working with international civil

society funders is one engagement E-Net tries to do

to broaden its network, knowledge and skills in

international solidarity work. Save the Children

Sweden (SCS), as part of its overarching objective

to strengthen other CSOs, partners with them

towards this strengthening endeavor. SCS see

OCD as a way to understand deeply other groups

working on similar causes. OCD is a ‘structured

and deliberate’ way to gauge a network’s strength

in many aspects. It is only one approach but its

fitness can be easily displayed through the

following steps: assessment, prioritization,

planning, implementation and evaluation.

Conceptually, OCD is different from Capacity

strengthening; Individual capacity development;

Institutional support. Save the Children Sweden’s

purview of OCD is that: capacity strengthening

process is owned by the organization; the starting

point of the OCD process is a holistic analysis of

the organization with well documentation; and

there is a clear plan to address results of OCD.

Hence, OCD was agreed upon to be the tool with

support and attendance from E-Net’s management,

staff and member organizations.

There are different ways to build capacities

through civil society’s programs and partnerships.

They are: peer networking and exchange of

experiences; targeted trainings and capacity

strengthening activities provided by Save the

Children (as partner); partnership dialogues,

consultations, feedback among partners; joint

evaluation and learning exercises; and learning by

doing. The OCD is apart from the abovementioned

modes which specifically is a targeted approach to

capacity development cum planning and

implementation.

As implemented, there was an initial discussion

with E-Net and member organizations about the

upcoming OCD workshop. Participants to the

workshop were identified and informed. The areas

for capacity assessment were : connectivity (basis of

unity, terms of membership, basic structure);

leadership & management (set of rules and

procedures, decision-making processes, coalition

staffing, managing participation, division of roles);

technical capacities (policy/advocacy expertise,

communication skills, tangible non-human

resources, resource development skills, etc.);

adaptability (ability to monitor the advocacy policy

environment, planning mechanisms, monitoring

and evaluation, etc.). The other two areas for

capacity assessment are: child participation and

thematic child rights.


ICEAP 2018 5

To be able to deepen understanding of the areas

of capacity assessment, there were sets of questions

listed and answered during the workshop. See

Annex 1.

RESULTS OF THE OCA

The Self- Assessment Score for E-Net as a

coalition shows Connectivity with the highest score

3.0 (average); followed by Leadership/

Management and Technical Capacities 2.8

(average); Adaptability 2.6 (average); Child

Participation 2.0 (average); Child-Rights1.0

(average).

The high score for Connectivity reflects the

coalition’s strength in linkaging and networking

which was really the focus in the more recent years,

specially, engaging the Department of Education in

its ‘education reform’ advocacy, ‘education

financing’ and ‘increase education budget’ projects.

Targeted score for Connectivity, as shown, is ‘5’

indicating the highest priority for E-Net.

As a coalition, E-Net was successful in bringing

in people together – individual advocates, people’s

organizations, local and national NGOs,

International NGOs, teachers’ unions and

academicians. The common element amongst them

is education forall, education reforms and human

rights. It is also strong in knowledge sharing and

capacity-building.

E-Net though, has yet to improve in efficient

documentation, internal networking among its

members, a more functional work coordination,

communication and information system and

feedback. Organizational principles and VMG

(vision, mission, goals) are not well-articulated

amongst its member organizations. Rules and

policies are not as encompassing, hence, there is a

need to review.

As a coalition, E-Net has limited financial

resources limiting also its projects and activities. It

is also lacking in information database about other

civil society groups.

Leadership/Management and Technical

Capacities show the next highest score 2.8

(average). There is lack of inclusivity in decision-

making, specially the coalition members. Decisions

were communicated but not consulted. The

coalition structure does not respond well to the

needs of the member organizations, in the sense

that, the existing working committee by issues and

concerns emanate from the secretariat at the

national level, but does not encompass local

concerns of some member organizations. As a

result, member organizations in the provinces were

not well mobilized.

In terms of Technical Capacities, which also got

a score of 2.8 (average), E-Net was found to be

weak in children’s rights, lacking specifically in

programs related to it. As assessed, E-Net focused

more on national issues concerning education

reform; engaging the Philippine Senate and House

of Representatives for education financing. E-Net

has certain degree of expertise in research, writing,

and facilitating fora and workshops. However, the

member organizations’ skills on these aspects were

not as developed. Part of technical capacities is

being adept with certain important issues of

indigenous peoples in the Philippines, like,

providing schools for the lumads (an indigenous

group found in Mindanao).

Adaptability got a score of 2.6 (average).

Member organizations expect E-Net to be more

responsive in quick action processes to issues being

launched by the local organizations. Scores for

Child Participation is 2 (below average) and 1 (low)

for Thematic-child rights, respectively. More work

has to be done on these aspects.


ICEAP 2018 6

The E-Net Strategic Plan

Setting the priorities, E-Net needs to have

deeper discussions and clarity on advocacies to

surface and how to address them. There seems to

be hindering blocks because of the

comprehensiveness of the concerns E-Net is trying

to cover – from formal education, non-formal,

informal, and the MEVs (marginalized, excluded,

vulnerable). Part of the suggestions is to relate

future work to the SDG4 target which is about

‘quality education’ for all worldwide. Be more

specific and operational, but in the context of E-Net

being a national advocacy group, not service

provider.

Emanating from E-Net’s OCD plan, it

highlights Child Rights Advocacy through training

and IEC (information, education, campaigns) on

issues facing Filipino children, e.g., bullying in

schools and outside the school; corporal

punishment; and promoting positive discipline.

Another approach is the ‘learning by doing’

where youth will be organized so they can actually

participate in activities using local schools and

community mechanisms to promote children’s

rights.

Part of the plan is to advocate for increased

child investment and accountability; strengthened

child rights programming amongst E-Net member

organizations; and established partnerships with

local government units (LGUs) and private sector

in the promotion of children’s rights, development

education and financing.

EPILOGUE When E-Net conducted the Organizational

Capacity Development, it was clear to its leaders

that there are constraints. One dominant constraint

is the number of member organizations who can

join in the assessment. Second, is the focus of

existing programs and projects undertaken by the

individual E-Net member. This aspect resulted in

diverse ways of looking at the coalition’s capacities

as a national organization (structures, values,

overall vision and goals), rather than at the

individual organizational level.

*****

REFERENCES

Education Network Philippines, Inc. Alternative

Learning System (ALS) for the

Marginalized, Excluded and Vulnerable

Sectors (MEVS), ALS for Lifelong Learning.

Policy Brief, Issue I, September 2018.

Igarashi, Takiko. 2018. A second chance to develop the

human capital of out-of-school youth and adults :

the Philippines alternative learning system

(English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank

Group.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/e

n/539131530792186404/A-second-chance-

to-develop-the-human-capital-of-out-of-

school-youth-and-adults-the-Philippines-

alternative-learning-system

Macha, W., Mackie, C. and Magaziner, J. (2018).

Education in the Philippines. World

Education News and Reviews. Published

March 6, 2018. Retrieved from:

https://wenr.wes.org/2018/03/education-

in-the-philippines

World Bank Group. A Second Chance to Develop

the Human Capital of Out-of-School Youth

and Adults: The Philippines Alternative

Learning System. Education Policy Note.

No. 1, May 2018.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/539131530792186404/A-second-chance-to-develop-the-human-capital-of-out-of-school-youth-and-adults-the-Philippines-alternative-learning-system





https://wenr.wes.org/2018/03/education-in-the-philippines

https://wenr.wes.org/2018/03/education-in-the-philippines


ICEAP 2018 7

ANNEX 1

THE ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT (OCA)

QUESTIONNAIRE

AREAS OF

CAPACITY

ASSESSMENT

NO

.

LEAD QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS IF THE

ANSWER IS ‘YES’ / OR THINGS

TO CONSIDER FOR SCORING

CONNECTIVITY

1 Do all members share a

common purpose for the

network?

Is there a clear goal? Is it written? Can

the coalition articulate why it is the

appropriate vehicle for addressing the

goal (as opposed to another coalition or

working individually)? Is it well

communicated? Is it used to direct

actions and set priorities? Is it regularly

reviewed and updated? What levels of

work are required to meet this goal (e.g.

local, national, international)? Is the

coalition already engaging in all these

levels?

2 Does the coalition have

clear terms of

membership?

What are the backgrounds and

experiences of the members? Are there

any criteria for membership? Who is not

connected but should be? Is there a

membership application process? Can

the members strategically help achieve

coalition goals (including time,

resources, influence, trust, etc.)

3 Does the coalition have a

functioning structure?

What are the different structures in place

(e.g. organigram, committee system,

etc.) What is the basis of this structure

and what flows through it? Are they

efficiently meeting the needs of the

coalition? Are they regularly adjusted to

meet the changing needs and priorities?

4 Is there a distinct culture

or way of working within

the coalition?

What are the coalition’s core principles

and/ or values? In what ways are these

manifested? Are these pervasive across

the coalition membership? How are

these values facilitating or hindering the

work of the coalition?

LEADERSHIP

AND

MANAGEMENT

5 Does the coalition adopt

a set of internal rules and

procedures?

What are the existing internal rules and

procedures? In what form is it

documented? Is it well communicated?

Is it strictly enforced? Is it regularly

reviewed and updated?

6 Is there a system of

decision-making?

Who are involved in the decision-making

process? Is the process institutionalized? Is there a process of consultation? Are the decisions communicated?


convening body or

designated individuals

responsible for

coordination?

How are they identified/ designated?

What is the composition? Do they have

written functions and responsibilities?

Are there terms and conditions of their

engagement in the coalition? Are there

mechanisms in place to assess/evaluate

their performance?


ICEAP 2018 8

8 Is membership

participation managed

well?

What are the various venues and spaces

where the members can participate? Are

they involved in decision-making? What

role/s do they take in implementing

activities of the coalition? How do they

provide feedback?

9 Is there a clear system for

delegating roles and

responsibilities?

How are they delegated? Are tasks fairly

divided among members and staff? Is the

coalition’s work continuously and

efficiently delivered because of division

of roles?

ADAPTABILITY

10

Does the coalition adapt

to the changing policy

environment related to

its basis of unity?

Is the coalition constantly monitoring the

policy/ advocacy environment? How? Has the coalition ever made strategic decisions related to shifting priorities and emerging

trends in the past? Please cite examples.

11 Does the coalition adapt

a system of planning?

In what cases does the coalition conduct

planning? How frequent? What kind of data and information are used? Does it have a strategic plan (or equivalent)?

12 Is there a systematic way

of evaluating the

coalition’s performance

and its members?

Are there clear indicators of progress/ interim outcomes for the network and are

they understood and measured by members? How are they measured? Does

the coalition evaluate me mbers, taking into consideration their skills, commitment, contribution and

effectiveness? Are there mechanisms where members can create knowledge and insights together?

TECHNICAL

CAPACITIES

13 Does the coalition have

advocacy expertise?

What kind of advocacy work is the

coalition engaged in (e.g. influencing

policy development, influencing policy implementation)? How is it being

undertaken? Is advocacy part of the planning process of the coalition? Is there a person/ committee/ member responsible

for it? Are there resources allocated for it? Are there materials produced to support the coalition’s advocacy? Do the members

have the capacity to undertake advocacy work in their levels of work (e.g. local,

national, international)?


defined set of technical

expertise required to

undertake its core work?

What are these? Is there a system/

mechanism in place to assess the level of the coalition’s and members’ capacities in

terms of these expertise? Are there

capacity-building initiatives intended for the members and staff? If yes, who provides them and how are the recipients/

participants selected? How frequent are capacity-building activities done?

15 Does the coalition adopt

internal and external

communication strategy?

Are there internal communication lines that complement the coalition’s structure?

How are important information shared among members? Is inter-member communication promoted? How? Can the

coalition attract stakeholders to publicize/ promote its work and draw attention to its advocacy?


ICEAP 2018 9


necessary resources to

sustain itself?

What types of resources does the

coalition have (e.g. human, material/

physical, financial, social, etc.)? How

diverse and stable are they? How are

members contributing resources to the

coalition? Is there a focal person/

committee assigned to manage the

coalition’s resources? Is there a resource

development plan adapted to the

coalition’s context?


system to manage its

financial resources?

Is there a financial management system

in place for internal control,

documentation and reporting? Please

provide details and descriptions.

THEMATIC –

CHILD RIGHTS

18 Does the coalition carry

out child rights

programming?

Are there any staff trained and well

versed about Child Rights

Programming? Is a situational analysis

being carried out to identify children’s

rights violations? Are the results used in

defining programs and strategies? Are

there tools. Modules and guidance

documents developed to build capacity

on CRP? What is the organization’s

commitment to child rights? How are

children viewed within the organization?

CHILD

PARTICIPATION

19 Does the coalition

support the participation

of children in its

programming?

Is child participation incorporated in the

organization’s program designs? Is it

budgeted? Are there any staff trained

and well versed about child

participation? Are there tools, modules

and guidance documents developed to

build capacity on child participation?

Are there children involved in key

phases of program cycle?

organizational assessment of education network

Documents