Global Leadership

Method of Calculation: Partnerships
Indicator MIN. No attainment 1. Informal activity only 2. Start of formal activity 3. Some/fair progress 4. Good progress 5. Excellent progress MAX. Complete attainment Source
Relations with government entities Organization has no meetings or relations with government agencies, in particular the Ministry of Health. There is little or no knowledge of relevant government policies or service plans. Organization has some knowledge of relevant government health policies and plans. Managers sometimes informally discuss these matters and how the organization should work within these parameters, but there have been no discussions with the relevant government entities. Organization has knowledge of relevant government health policies and plans. Managers discuss these matters and how the organization should work within these parameters. Once in the last two years someone has met with a relevant government entity to discuss plans and/or policies. Organization met at least once in the last two years with national government for advocacy and information exchange and/or meets but not regularly with local Ministry of Health to exchange information. Organization meets but not regularly with national Ministry of Health for information exchange and advocacy and/or meets at least twice a year with local Ministry of Health to coordinate actions. Organization usually has regular meetings with relevant government agency and knowledge of its plans/policies. Also meets at least quarterly with local Ministry of Health officials to exchange information and/or jointly plan. Organization has regular (at least twice a year) meetings with relevant government agency. Has detailed knowledge of its plans and policies. Has done joint planning and/or evidence-based advocacy with it at least once in last two years. Also meets at least quarterly with local Ministry of Health officials to exchange information and/or jointly plan. 2
Relations with technical agencies Organization has no contacts or knowledge of the activities or competencies of technical agencies in the country. Organization has some knowledge about technical competencies of some agencies, but it is not sure who it would contact if help was needed in a technical area such as doing a baseline survey. Organization has contact, but not on a regular basis, with technical agencies. Has some knowledge of where to find assistance on technical topics in which it needs help, but either depends on an outside donor to make the contact or has experienced problems getting the required assistance more often than not. Organization has contacts at technical agencies and technical staff attend events at least several times a year either for information exchange or training. Managers also are aware of the technical agencies. But there is either usually dependence on an outside donor for contact or there have been problems in acquiring needed quality assistance on their own. Organization has contacts at technical agencies and technical staff attends events at least several times a year either for information exchange or training. Managers also are aware of the technical agencies. The organization shares responsibility for getting assistance with outside donors. Organization usually knows where it can turn to for outside assistance but no ongoing formal relationship with outside technical agencies (such as a local university or a UN agency). Organization has ongoing relationship or partnership with at least one technical agency, preferably local (e.g., national university) for needed technical assistance. For any type of technical assistance (e.g., baseline study, research analysis, or training for specialized area), the organization knows specific organizations and individuals it can consult. 2
Relations with other nongovernmental implementers Organization works in isolation. There is no knowledge of the strategies or work of other organizations. There is knowledge of other organizations' work and informal internal discussions, mainly when planning projects and with an eye not to duplicate services. There is knowledge of other organizations' work and efforts not to duplicate programming. Additionally, there have been discussions at least once in the last two years with another organization about collaboration of some kind. There is sometimes consultation with the management of other organizations in the area, especially in the planning stages. There may sometimes be joint activities. When planning projects there is sometimes internal discussion as well as consultation with others to ensure no duplication, and there has been at least one instance in last two years of joint activities with another organization. When planning projects there is always internal discussion as well as consultation with others to ensure no duplication, and activities are often done jointly with other organizations. Has effective partnerships working together, sharing resources, or referring clients to other nongovern-mental, private, or community organizations. 2
Relations with potential donors Organization has no contacts or knowledge of the plans or funding priorities of potential donors with activities in the country. Organization has some knowledge of relevant contacts and/or plans of at least some key donor agencies, but no meetings or relations with them. Organization has some knowledge of relevant contacts and/or plans of at least some key donor agencies, and has had at least one meeting or activity with them. Organization has contacts with some key donors. There is some planning for regular meetings with them, but for whatever reason these meetings seldom occur (no formal meetings in last year with any major donor). Organization has contacts with some key donors. There is planning for regular meetings with them. These meetings occur but not as often as ideal (some donors with formal meetings in last year, but not others). Organization has regular contact with most if not all prioritized donors. There is knowledge of these donors' plans. Organization also on the lookout for new donors. But still not completely systematic. Organization has prioritized current/potential donors and has regular contact with them (at least one formal meeting in last year with all prioritized donors). There is knowledge of these donors' plans. Organization is also open to and on the lookout for any new donors. 2
Method of Calculation: Leadership
Indicator MIN. No attainment 1. Informal activity only 2. Start of formal activity 3. Some/fair progress 4. Good progress 5. Excellent progress MAX. Complete attainment Source
Leadership development There is no development of new leadership, and no change of leadership has occurred in the organization within the last five years. There is a stable lower tier of leaders, but there is no plan for or clear path for advancement in the organization. There has been no change in leaders for at least five years. There is a plan for development of leaders and/or some clear path for advancement within the organization. It is still recent (within the last year) and there has not been enough time to assess if it is effective. The current leaders follow active steps to promote and advance new leaders, but there is not a regular change of leadership. There is a formal process for changing leaders. It is usually but not always followed. There are periodic elections for new leadership. There are rules limiting the consecutive no. of terms that one person can have. But within the last five years there has been at least one problem (e.g., rules not followed for timing of elections or transition of leadership). There are periodic elections for new leadership. There are rules limiting the consecutive no. of terms that one person can have. Transitions have occurred and have always been smooth. 2
Accountability of leadership There is no mechanism for widely circulating in a timely manner the important decisions made by leaders. There are no plans for instituting measures to change this situation. Although there is no formal process for informing staff and volunteers of important decisions, important decisions are discussed informally and people generally feel informed about them. There is some process or forum in which important decisions can be discussed. This forum is occasionally used this way, but only occasionally. Leaders sometimes report on tasks and bringing issues forward for discussion through appropriate and open forums (staff meetings, status reports, etc.). But more than half the time the appropriate dissemination of decisions does not occur. There are written guidelines/rules of accountability and transparency, governing how decisions taken should be discussed and disseminated. The rules are usually (but not always) followed. There is a formal and regular (at least quarterly) process in which leaders discuss decisions taken. However, at least once in the last year, this process was not properly followed and/or there is no process for corrective action to be taken if this process is not followed. There is a formal and regular (at least quarterly) process in which leaders discuss decisions taken. If the rules for discussion and dissemination are not followed there is some sort of corrective action taken. 2
Participation in decision-making The top leader(s) make all important decisions on their own and without consulting others. They are not open to new ideas. There is an informal process of consultation by top leadership for important decisions with a few trusted colleagues, and/or some delegation of important decision-making occurs. But this consultation or delegation is not systematic and occurs at the whim of the top leader. Leaders make decisions in consultation with one or two other persons, but delegation of important decision-making does not occur. Although there is a formal process of consultation and/or a formal structure for delegation of important decisions, this process is only followed about half the time. There is a formal process of consultation but it is not always followed and/or there is a formal structure for delegation of important decisions. This process is followed about half the time. There is a formal process of consultation but it is not always followed and/or there is a formal structure for delegation of important decisions. This process has usually but not always been followed in the last year. A formal process for consultation and/or a formal delegation process is always followed. 2