This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by EnCompass LLC for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in Senegal (Contract No. 720OAA20D00011 / Task Order No. 72068522F00003). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING IN SENEGAL June 2023 i | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORTUSAID.GOV CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS ...........................................................................................................................................II ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................................III ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ V INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................................3 1. Profile of Local Organizations.................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Donors Working With Local Organizations.......................................................................................................... 8 3. Level of Experience With Donor Funds................................................................................................................10 4. Challenges.....................................................................................................................................................................13 5. Competencies and Strengths....................................................................................................................................15 6. Barriers to Competing for USAID Awards..........................................................................................................17 7. Capacity Building Resources.....................................................................................................................................22 8. Nontraditional Partners.............................................................................................................................................23 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................24 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................25 Communications and Visibility .....................................................................................................................................25 Technical and Financial Eligibility Criteria..................................................................................................................25 Program Formulation, Funding, and Implementation Mechanisms......................................................................26 Identification and Selection of Local Organizations.................................................................................................26 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................27 Annex A: Research Methodology................................................................................................................................27 Annex B: Summary of Data Sources...........................................................................................................................31 Annex C: Data Collection Tools.................................................................................................................................32 Annex D: Case Studies...................................................................................................................................................80 Annex E: Additional Data Tables.................................................................................................................................82 Annex F: Indicative List of Capacity Building Organizations.................................................................................98 ii | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORTUSAID.GOV LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Categorization of local organizations by annual budget and/or revenue........................................... 3 Exhibit 2: The majority of CSOs and PSOs are small............................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 3: Less formally structured associations and MBOs tend to be smaller than NGOs and private enterprises........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 4: NGOs, especially large NGOs, have more employees on average than associations.................... 5 Exhibit 5: PSOs are primarily concentrated in economic growth, especially in agriculture............................ 5 Exhibit 6: CSOs are diversified across a variety of sectors..................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 7: CSO operations and management procedures, by type and size........................................................ 7 Exhibit 8: PSO Operations and management procedures, by type and size ....................................................... 7 Exhibit 9: Women and youth presence in local organizations................................................................................ 8 Exhibit 10: The majority of CSOs and PSOs have collaborated with donor over the past five years.......... 9 Exhibit 11: Top sources of information for CSOs and PSOs................................................................................10 Exhibit 12: CSO and PSO familiarity with donor criteria by type .......................................................................15 Exhibit 13: PSO and CSO perceptions of donor and USAID criteria.................................................................18 Exhibit 14: Smaller CSOs are least likely to aware of partnership opportunities with USAID....................18 Exhibit 15: PSO and CSO priority capacity building needs...................................................................................21 Exhibit 16: CSO and PSO areas for building capacity of other organizations...................................................22 Exhibit 17: Key informant interviews..........................................................................................................................28 Exhibit 18: Summary of interviews and surveys with CSOs and PSOs, by region...........................................31 Exhibit 19: Summary of key informant interviews with stakeholders.................................................................31 iii | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ABSTRACT The Localization Landscape Analysis (LLA) used a mixed-methods approach to provide the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with a systematic and holistic analysis of the local organization ecosystem in Senegal, including their characteristics, competencies, and experiences. The LLA is both a mapping of local organizations and a roadmap for USAID to increase its engagement with these organizations. The report describes the characteristics and market segmentation of both civil society organizations (CSOs) and private sector organizations (PSOs), the challenges they face, their strengths and weaknesses, and their perspectives on donor funding, donor requirements, and USAID requirements. The report offers six broad recommendations on how USAID can effectively increase its budget allocation to local organizations. Recommendations for USAID include: (1) increase its visibility and communication with local organizations to raise awareness on funding opportunities and requirements; (2) unbundle larger programs and adapt existing procedures to help local organizations successfully compete for awards as direct recipients; (3) establish positive quotas to increase local organizations’ share of resources and ensure they have a voice in design and implementation when part of international consortia; (4) ensure local organizations can access capacity strengthening resources whether as a direct recipient of funds or as a subrecipient; (5) adapt its partnership and spending policies to allow local organizations more implementation flexibility and faster reimbursement; and (6) continuously update its mapping of local organizations to expand the pool of organizations that have the capacity to deliver and report results. iv | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABK AM BE KOUN Solidarité AFD Agence Français de Développement, French Development Agency AfDB African Development Bank APIX Agence pour la promotion des investissements et grands travaux, Agency for the Promotion of Investment and Public Works CONGAD Conseil des Organisations Non Gouvernementales d’Appui au Développement, Council of Non-Governmental Development Support Organizations CSO Civil society organization DAIS Data Analysis, Integration and Synthesis DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DRGP Democracy, Human Rights, Governance, and Peace EU European Union FAFS Federation of Women’s Associations of Senegal FONGS Federation of Senegalese NGOs G2G Government-to-Government GIE Groupement d’interêt économique, economic interest group GIZ German Development Agency GoS Government of Senegal IP Implementing partner JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency KII Key informant interview LLA Localization Landscape Analysis M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MBO Membership-based organization MCF Mastercard Foundation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning NGO Nongovernmental organization OSIWA Open Society Initiative for West Africa PSE Plan Sénégal Emergent PSO Private sector organization SMES Senior Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist UNCCIAS Union des Chambres de Commerce, d’Industrie et d'Agriculture du Sénégal, Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture of Senegal USAID United States Agency for International Development USOFORAL The Regional Solidarity Committee of Women for Peace in Casamance WAEMU Regional Consular Chamber of the West African Economic and Monetary Union WIC Women’s Investment Club v | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORTUSAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Localization Landscape Analysis (LLA) used a mixed-methods approach to provide the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with a systematic and holistic understanding of local organizations in Senegal. The study provides the Mission with a deep analysis of the local organization ecosystem, including their characteristics, competencies, and experiences. The LLA is both a mapping of local organizations and a roadmap for USAID to increase its engagement with these organizations. Data collection took place from September 28–October 12, 2022, and involved four main activities: a document review to identify organizations and review select activity reports; a quantitative survey of 341 local organizations (183 CSOs and 158 PSOs); semi-structured interviews with 91 local organizations, including 54 civil society organizations (CSOs) and 37 private sector organizations (PSOs). The research team organized listening sessions on November 7 and 8, 2022, with 20 local organizations to collaboratively interpret and deepen the preliminary findings. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Highlights of the research questions are presented below. CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS The CSOs surveyed included both formally structured nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and associations. The PSOs surveyed included both private enterprises as well as membership-based organizations (MBOs), which include associations, cooperatives, and economic interest groups (groupement d’intérêt économique, GIE). NGOs and private enterprises face higher legal requirements and thus are more formally structured than MBOs. Most of the local organizations surveyed are small, with self-reported annual revenues of less than 100 million CFA (about $160,000). Nearly one-third are medium-sized, with annual revenues ranging from 100 million to 1 billion CFA. Only a handful of organizations surveyed have annual revenues exceeding 1 billion CFA (about $1,600,000). The size of these organizations has implications on the amount of funding that USAID can reasonably expect them to manage and the management burden on USAID for a direct award. A wide variety of organizations are interested in working with USAID, both from civil society and the private sector. The study found that CSOs are diversified across several sectors of interest to USAID, whereas PSOs are concentrated in economic growth, primarily agriculture. The study nonetheless found PSOs working in health and education. Local organizations’ sectoral expertise has direct implications for USAID’s technical offices and their efforts to expand their pool of direct recipients. The study revealed that larger, more formally structured NGOs and private enterprises, have the types of attributes that position them to manage USAID programs. They are also more aware of USAID and donor opportunities. They may be better-positioned to implement USAID programs because they are more likely to have the operational and management procedures necessary to account for funds received. They are also more likely to have governance structures, such as a board of directors or advisory board, that may give them greater legitimacy in the eyes of the community in which they work. Funding partners, including USAID, may find all of these attributes desirable in that they demonstrate local organizations’ transparency and accountability, both to the community and the funding partner. vi | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER DONORS Most CSOs and a majority of PSOs have collaborated with donors over the past five years. They cite a wide variety of bilateral and multilateral partners. Outside USAID, CSOs cited collaboration with 29 other donors, while PSOs cited collaboration with 22 donors. CSOs most frequently cited the European Union (EU), the French Development Agency (AFD), and the German Development Agency (GIZ). PSOs cited GIZ, EU, and the World Bank most often. CSOs engage with donors and cite sources of information much more frequently than PSOs. MANAGING DONOR-FUNDING PROGRAMS Although half of CSOs surveyed reported that they have had independent evaluations of their programs, many organizations spoke about the results they achieved either generally or in terms of renewed partnerships or partners who had expressed satisfaction with their work. CSOs, especially NGOs and large organizations, are much more likely to publish annual reports than PSOs. Reporting on program activities is seen as common; a few organizations noted reporting innovations they had introduced. Few organizations offered detailed insight into the outcomes they have achieved. CHALLENGES Challenges local organizations face in attracting funding include limited staffing, inadequate administrative and financial systems, and limited communications activities. CSOs are more familiar with donor eligibility criteria than PSOs but find them difficult to meet more so than PSOs. NGOs are more familiar with eligibility criteria than associations, while MBOs are more familiar with the eligibility criteria than private enterprises. Working with USAID’s IPs can help local organizations develop their procedural and reporting capacity, but without insufficient institutional support, organizations may find that meeting donor expectations is challenging. When sufficiently funded, most of the medium and large local CSOs and PSOs can mobilize highly qualified staff and harness their experience to successfully manage complex programs. COMPETENCIES AND STRENGTHS Local organizations see their greatest strength as their understanding of the local context, needs, and key actors, which allows them to operate more effectively and ultimately achieve better outcomes. Whatever their sector, they see the ability to contribute to better development outcomes as their greatest competency. Knowledge of the local environment and actors contributes to their overall effectiveness. They argue that their understanding of the local context and their proximity to local actors shortens the time to launch activities, speeds implementation, and costs less than international organizations. BARRIERS Local organizations want to work with USAID but lack information on activities and opportunities and find the technical and financial eligibility and evaluation criteria difficult to meet, especially compared to other donors. Among those aware of USAID criteria, most organizations found them difficult to meet. Local organizations need more information about USAID’s eligibility requirements and partnership opportunities to increase their participation in USAID’s programs. Many local organizations would like vii | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV USAID to make themselves more accessible, which includes communicating in French, the official language in Senegal. Local organizations highlighted capacity strengthening needs in management (financial, human resources, and project) and the resources required to respond to opportunities from donors. Based on the barriers they cited, both CSOs and PSOs highlighted capacity development needs in resource mobilization, financial management, human resources management, project management, and responding to funding opportunities. CSOs also cited the need to develop their monitoring and evaluation capacities. There is asymmetry of opportunity between local organizations and international IPs when it comes to competing for funding, mainly due to limited and late information for local organizations, eligibility criteria seemingly designed to exclude local organizations, and language barriers limiting the possibility for local organizations to compete with international IPs. Though not explicitly stated by any local organization, few are large enough to implement the multi-million programs that USAID designs and issues for tender. Large- and medium-sized organizations can implement larger portions of these multi￾million programs than they currently do. Over time, these organizations could take on larger programs as their expertise and capacities increase. RECOMMENDATIONS The report makes six broad recommendations that give USAID a roadmap on how it in can increase the funding allocated to local organizations, including the interim steps necessary to enhance local organizations’ access to USAID and encourage more meaningful partnerships between international and local IPs on USAID programs. 1. Increase its visibility and communication with local organizations to raise awareness on funding opportunities and requirements. There are several options USAID may wish to consider. The first is to organize regular in-person and virtual information sessions that are accessible to local organizations throughout Senegal. A second option is to disseminate information and training through existing umbrella organizations and federations. USAID should consider opening an information desk that is accessible to local organizations by email, phone, and for in-person meetings. Related to increasing access, USAID should increase the visibility and mandate of its regional focal points to serve as conduits of information to organizations based in their specific regions. 2. Unbundle larger programs and adapt existing procedures to help local organizations successfully compete for awards as direct recipients. To make more of its programming accessible to local organizations, USAID should unbundle large programs to create more opportunities for local organizations to compete for and directly implement USAID programs. Allowing local organizations to submit proposals in French and/or organize co￾creation sessions to jointly develop programs with USAID will lessen the burden of writing proposals in English while drawing out the most creative ideas. Funding opportunities should include provisions that encourage local organizations to budget for their own organizational and institutional capacity development. 3. Establish positive quotas to increase local organizations’ share of resources and ensure they have a voice in implementation when part of large consortia. Funding opportunities should include criteria that encourage the establishment of consortiums of local organizations and encourage partnerships between traditional international IPs and local viii | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV partners such that local organizations have a voice in the project’s design and implementation and a meaningful share of the resources. When part of a consortium, the award should include adequate support for both technical and administrative capacity development, so that local organizations can successful implement, manage, and report on activities. 4. Adapt its partnership and spending policies to allow local organizations more implementation flexibility. Local organizations suggested that USAID budgets allow them to cover fixed administrative and management costs (i.e., overhead). Using a fixed price, milestone model would streamline disbursement processes for small- and medium-sized local organizations, allowing them pre-finance activities or rapidly obtain payment for activities implemented. Increasing funding timelines to five or more years would allow organizations to develop more procedures and systems to ensure their sustainability. Using base and option years would give USAID an offramp for activities that are not achieving the expected results or are otherwise not being implementation as expected. 5. Expand capacity strengthening resources for local organizations to ensure they can effectively manage, implement, and report on USAID programming. USAID should consider a separate program to strengthen the administrative and management capacities of local organizations who are potential beneficiaries of direct or sub awards. The advantage of this approach is that USAID can gradually expand the pool of organizations that can effectively manage funds while simultaneously working to increase the size of the budgets they can manage. The strategy complements measures to include capacity strengthening resources within their direct or sub awards. 6. Continuously update its mapping of local organizations to expand the pool of organizations that have the capacity to deliver and report results. This mapping of local organizations is a starting point for understanding the presence of local organizations throughout Senegal. USAID should further collaborate with other donors, umbrella organizations, municipalities, local administrative authorities, and decentralized technical services to continuously identify local organizations working in areas relevant to USAID’s strategic objectives in Senegal. This could include regular mapping exercises, using the outreach mechanisms described above. 1 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV INTRODUCTION The Localization Landscape Analysis (LLA) is both a mapping of local organizations in Senegal and a roadmap for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to increase its engagement with local organizations based on the characteristics of these organizations, challenges, strengths, and perspectives on collaboration with USAID. BACKGROUND USAID has long emphasized the importance of working with and through local organizations. USAID Forward and the New Partnership Initiative are only two relatively recent examples. Though well￾received, none have substantially broadened its partner base. Administrator Power has identified localization as a priority and set a benchmark of providing at least a quarter of all USAID funds directly to local partners within the course of the next four years. USAID/Senegal’s funding to four local partners and its Government-to-Government (G2G) program accounts for 2.6 percent and 10 percent, respectively, of its bilateral program budget. PURPOSE USAID tasked its Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) in Senegal Platform to conduct the LLA, which serves as market research to increase Mission awareness of the Senegalese ecosystem of local organizations. It will help USAID/Senegal to better understand which organizations exist, as well as their characteristics, competencies, and experiences. USAID identified eight research questions, which the team has reordered for better flow. These are included below: 1. What are the main categories or segments of local organizations in Senegal (including the private sector) and what characteristics do they share? 2. Are other donors working with local partners? What are they doing to attract local organizations? What support do they provide? Where do they advertise opportunities for local partners? 3. What is the level of experience local organizations (organizational categories of low, medium, and high) have in managing donor funds? Delivering results? Reporting? Perhaps a few brief case studies within the landscape analysis could assist in providing better understanding of the level of local organization experience. 4. What kind of challenges do local organizations face attracting funding and carrying out activities? 5. What competencies and strengths do local organizations bring to the table? 6. What barriers exist that prevent local organizations from competing for USAID awards (e.g., submitting proposals in English)? 7. What local organizations exist that focus on building organizational capacity, such as vision, financials, personnel issues, etc.? 8. Are there nontraditional partners/organizations in Senegal that USAID does not work with that could be effective implementers? 2 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV METHODOLOGY The LLA is a mixed-methods study that blended quantitative and qualitative data collection to provide a broad perspective on general trends within the local organization landscape alongside a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of a select sample. A detailed methodology is included in Annex A: Research Methodology. Research Team. The research team included a Team Leader, NGO specialist, NGO resource person, a private sector specialist, and ten enumerators who conducted interviews and administered surveys. The Platform’s Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist (SMES) supervised their work, supported by two MEL Managers. Methods and Sources. The research team applied a mixed-methods research design with document review; key informant interviews (KII), listening sessions, and surveys of local organizations; and KIIs with donors, ministry officials, international and Senegalese implementing partners (IPs), and local authorities. A summary of data sources is included in Annex B: Summary of Data Sources. Sampling. The team applied a snowball approach to identify local organizations active in USAID’s focus areas and created a sampling frame of 913 organizations. The team then developed a stratified random sample of 293 organizations though later adapted to a purposive approach due to field-level challenges. For the KIIs, the team applied purposive sampling of local organizations to align with the quantitative sample. The LLA covers six regions that reflect Senegal’s geographic diversity and areas where USAID activities are concentrated: Dakar, Kaolack, Kolda, Saint-Louis, Tambacounda, and Ziguinchor. Data Collection. The team trained enumerators on the research methodology and data collection tools and conducted pilot interviews to test the instruments, refining the tools and providing additional training as needed. Fieldwork took place from September 28–October 12, 2022. The team conducted 116 KIIs with local organizations and stakeholders and surveyed 293 local organizations on their characteristics, engagement with USAID and other donors, challenges, and competencies. On November 7–8, the team organized two listening sessions in Dakar with local organizations from the six regions to refine findings and develop recommendations. Data collection tools are included in Annex C: Data Collection Tools. Case studies that explore four organizations’ specific attributes are included in Annex D: Case Studies. Annex E: Additional Data Tables contains additional details on organizations characteristics. Data Analysis and Report. The team transcribed audio recordings, created a codebook, trained data coders, and coded transcripts using Dedoose, running a pilot test to ensure consistency. The team used participatory methods to analyze data, applying a signature EnCompass approach, Data Analysis Integration and Synthesis (DAIS), to generate findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Limitations and Mitigations. Given the absence of a complete database of local organizations active in the USAID intervention areas, the team collected and consolidated lists from several sources. Data collection efforts revealed that information was outdated, a circumstance that the COVID-19 pandemic amplified, and the team needed to rely upon convenience sampling of some organizations to complete the sample. While quantitative findings may not be fully representative of all local organizations in Senegal, study results will provide insights that may apply to the broader population. The research team also encountered scheduling challenges when contacting government ministry officials as fieldwork took place shortly after the installation of a new government. Nonetheless, the two ministries (health and education) that work most closely with USAID met with the research team, mitigating the lack of 3 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV response from other ministries. Donor organizations were slow to respond, but the research team was able to gather considerable insights on donor efforts through its interviews with local organizations. FINDINGS The report presents the findings by research question, as indicated above. 1. PROFILE OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS What are the main categories or segments of local organizations in Senegal (including the private sector) and what characteristics do they share? The sample of local organizations included 183 civil society organizations (CSOs) and 158 private sector organizations (PSOs). CSOs include both nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and associations. PSOs included both private enterprises and membership-based organizations (MBOs), which include cooperatives and groupement d’interet economique (economic interest groups, GIE) and associations that advocate for private sector interests. NGOs and private enterprises are more formally structured and face more legal requirements than associations and MBOs. Less formally structured associations and MBOs each constituted a majority of the sample. CATEGORIES OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS The research team surveyed organizations on their revenue and operating budgets, creating categories for analysis (see Exhibit 1). Most local organizations sampled (both PSOs and CSOs) are small, both in terms of revenue and number of employees (Exhibit 2). Small PSOs constitute 69 percent of the sample, whereas small CSOs constitute 55 percent of the sample. Only ten CSOs (5 percent) and 12 PSOs (8 percent) have an average annual revenue of more than 1 billion CFA (about $1.5M USD). Large CSOs were found only in Dakar, Tambacounda, Ziguinchor, and Kolda. Exhibit 1: Categorization of local organizations by annual budget and/or revenue SIZE ANNUAL BUDGET/REVENUE CFA ANNUAL BUDGET/REVENUE USD Small Below 100 million CFA Below $150,000 USD Medium Between 100 million and 1 billion CFA Between $150,000 and $1.5 million USD Large Above 1 billion CFA Above $1.5 million USD The team used existing legal definitions for private enterprises, applying them to CSOs for consistency. The team condensed these into three categories to improve the potential for disaggregation of survey results by size. An approximate USD value is included, using an exchange rate of 650 CFA = $1 USD, rounding as needed to give a notional sense. 4 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 2: The majority of CSOs and PSOs are small Finding 1: More formally structured NGOs and private enterprises tend to have higher annual revenues and budgets than either associations or MBOs, as well as more staff. NGOs and private enterprises, which are inherently more formally structured, tend to have higher annual revenues and budgets than either associations or MBOs1 . Significantly more associations and MBOs have lower annual budgets and revenues generated from donor-supported activities. See Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4. Exhibit 3: Less formally structured associations and MBOs tend to be smaller than NGOs and private enterprises Staff. PSOs have 40 full-time employees on average, compared to 24 for CSOs. Both CSOs and PSOs with larger budgets have more staff, which is logical. NGOs tend to have more staff than associations, especially large NGOs. Large NGOs have significantly more full-time employees than large associations, 96 compared to 63. Private enterprises also have more staff than MBOs, 43 for private enterprises compared to 38 for MBOs. 1 As noted in the limitations section, while quantitative findings are not generalizable to the larger population of local organizations in Senegal, they provide insights that may be applicable to many local organizations. Within the report, references to organizations within the findings section refer to the many organizations within the sample. Majority of CSOs are small (n=173) Large Majority of PSOs are small (n=143) 5 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 4: NGOs, especially large NGOs, have more employees on average than associations MARKET SEGMENTATION Finding 2: CSOs are diversified across several sectors of interest to USAID, whereas PSOs are concentrated in economic growth, primarily agriculture. CSOs are diversified across sectors of interest to USAID, whereas PSOs are concentrated within the economic growth sector, especially agriculture. Large PSOs are even more concentrated in economic growth, whereas the large CSOs are roughly evenly distributed in education; economic growth; democracy, human rights, governance, and peace (DRGP); health; and environment. See Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. Of the 12 PSOs with an annual revenue higher than 1B CFA, eight are in agriculture, and the rest are in fishing, industry, construction and public works, and consulting. Of the ten CSOs with an annual budget higher than 1B CFA, three work in economic growth, three are in DRGP, two are in health, and two are in environment. The larger CSOs work in health, DRGP, economic growth, and environment. But generally, there are more CSOs working in DRGP, education, and health. Exhibit 5: PSOs are primarily concentrated in economic growth, especially in agriculture NGOs, especially large NGOs, have more employees on average than assocations 6 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 6: CSOs are diversified across a variety of sectors MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Finding 3: Larger, more formally structured NGOs and private enterprises are more likely to have established operational and management procedures than either associations or MBOs. Donors may examine an organization’s operational and management procedures prior to making a funding decision, to ensure the recipient can manage funds provided. Operational and management procedures contribute to accountability; such mechanisms reassure donors that recipients can adequately track expenses so that they are allowable, allocable, and reasonable. In addition to financial management, operational and management procedures also contribute to transparency and good internal governance, which contribute to an organization’s legitimacy in the communities in which it works and its overall smooth functioning. NGOs and private enterprises, which face more stringent registration requirements and are more formally structured, are more likely to establish operational and management procedures than either associations or MBOs. Large CSOs tend to have more operational and management procedures than medium-sized CSOs, which have more operational and management procedures than small CSOs. Most private enterprises have more operational and management structures than MBOs, apart from publishing annual reports. The trend is less clear by size, with large CSOs typically having more management and operational structures and procedures, though medium-sized organizations more often had some type of governing body, external or independent activity evaluations, and published annual reports. Small organizations held at least quarterly meetings of their governing body more often than either medium or large organizations. See Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8. In addition: ● A large majority of local CSOs have strategic plans, annual work plans, manual of administrative and financial procedures, and annual budgets. ● A large majority of medium-sized and large CSOs conduct external evaluations and have their financial statements certified. ● A majority of the PSOs have organizational charts, annual work plans, and accounting software, but few have external evaluations of their activities or publish annual reports. 7 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● Around one-third of the PSOs have certified financial assessments and conduct external evaluations. Exhibit 7: CSO operations and management procedures, by type and size CSO OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES ASSOCIATIONS NGOS TOTAL SMALL MEDIUM LARGE Organizational chart 71% 93% 71% 72% 98% 100% Job descriptions 58% 87% 72% 61% 92% 100% Salary grid 24% 67% 56% 31% 65% 80% Presence of a board of directors 55% 74% 64% 53% 81% 100% Quarterly, semiannual, or annual board meetings 59% 64% 64% 53% 74% 100% Strategic plan 52% 87% 68% 55% 87% 100% Annual work plan 66% 86% 75% 65% 89% 90% Annual certified financial statements 28% 65% 46% 33% 65% 80% External evaluation of activities 33% 73% 51% 36% 74% 90% Published annual reports 47% 75% 61% 51% 74% 90% Regular annual budget 54% 78% 64% 55% 79% 100% Administrative procedures manual 57% 86% 70% 56% 92% 100% Accounting software 54% 89% 70% 54% 94% 100% Exhibit 8: PSO Operations and management procedures, by type and size PSO OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES MBOS PRIVATE ENTERPRISES TOTAL SMALL MEDIUM LARGE Organizational chart 61% 70% 64% 58% 78% 83% Job descriptions 37% 60% 45% 36% 66% 67% Salary grid 23% 50% 33% 22% 53% 67% Board of directors 53% 34% 46% 40% 56% 42% Quarterly, semiannual, or annual board meetings 59% 55% 58% 61% 57% 60% Strategic plan 41% 56% 46% 37% 63% 75% Annual work plan 53% 53% 53% 49% 63% 58% Annual certified financial statements 21% 71% 39% 24% 69% 83% External evaluation of activities 18% 23% 20% 15% 34% 17% Published annual reports 24% 21% 23% 20% 34% 17% Annual budgeting 42% 63% 75% Administrative procedures manual 38% 44% 40% 33% 53% 58% Accounting software 41% 77% 55% 43% 72% 92% 8 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Finding 4: PSOs tend to have more women in senior management positions, but CSOs tend to have more staff with a post-secondary education as well as female and youth staff. Staff with post-secondary education. CSOs have on average 18 staff with post-secondary education, including part-time employees, with post-secondary education per organization. Associations reported having a higher number than NGOs: 19 as compared to 13. PSOs have on average seven staff with post-secondary education, with little variation by type. MBOs report a slightly smaller number (six) than the private enterprises (seven). Women’s leadership. CSOs have more youth and women employees than PSOs. More PSOs have women leaders than CSOs. PSOs have on average four women in management positions. Medium and small CSOs had roughly twice the average number than large organizations, which constituted a majority of their management positions. See Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9: Women and youth presence in local organizations 2. DONORS WORKING WITH LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Are other donors working with local partners? What are they doing to attract local organizations? What support do they provide? Where do they advertise opportunities for local partners? Finding 5: Most organizations have collaborated with donors, only a few of whom are cited more frequently than others. CSOs engage with donors and cite sources of information much more frequently than PSOs. DONOR FUNDING FOR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Most organizations surveyed have worked with donors over the past five years—77 percent of NGOs and 55 percent of PSOs. See Exhibit 10 below. Outside USAID, CSOs cited collaboration with 29 other donors, while PSOs cited 22 donors. Donors may be bilateral or multilateral and include foundations. CSOs that had partnered with donors in the past five years cited the European Union (EU, 17 percent), French Development Agency (AFD) (10 percent), and German Development Agency (GIZ, 9 percent) 9 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV most often. PSOs cited GIZ (16 percent), EU (6 percent), and World Bank (6 percent) most often. Of CSOs surveyed, 77 percent have worked with donors in the past five years compared to 55 percent of PSOs. More NGOs (85 percent) are working with donors than associations (69 percent). Exhibit 10: The majority of CSOs and PSOs have collaborated with donor over the past five years CSOs and PSOs that had partnered with donors in the past five years reported that most of the partnership budgets were below 100 million CFA (48 percent for CSOs and 72 percent for PSOs). They cited GIZ, UNICEF, and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) most frequently. Thirty￾nine percent of CSOs received funding of 100–500 million, citing the EU, AFD, and the Open Society Initiative of West Africa (OSIWA) most frequently. PSOs receiving funding over 2 billion cited the EU most frequently followed by AFD, the EU, GIZ, World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). DONOR STRATEGIES TO ATTRACT LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Interviews with donors and local organizations showed that donors do not have specific strategies to attract local organizations. One donor noted that “each project organizes its partnerships individually.” They use different techniques, including open and restricted RFP and tenders, direct awards to organizations working in specific areas, and cascading grants to select their local partners. A key informant noted that “in the education sector, the EU contacted us directly to implement [its] program in Kolda.” Providing small and medium size grants and awards are a way to attract local organizations because they do not require a high level of experience and capacity that local organizations don’t have. Also, few international organizations compete for these types of tenders given the high operating costs they incur. CSOs cited sources of information on donor opportunities more often than PSOs. CSOs get information about funding opportunities mostly from the internet (33 percent from donors’ websites and 32 percent from specialized websites) and umbrella organizations while PSOs are informed mostly (38 percent) from umbrella organizations. See Exhibit 11. As one organization in Dakar noted, “we often go to donor websites to see what financing available, and what tenders they are posting.” NGOs and MBOs seem to have more sources of information on funding opportunities than the others. A few donors organize information meetings with local organizations to share and advertise their partnership 10 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV opportunities. Local organizations highlighted the EU as a donor that often consults to discuss their strategy in Senegal and to share their partnership opportunities. Exhibit 11: Top sources of information for CSOs and PSOs TOP SOURCES OF INFORMATION CSOS (N=183) PSOS (N=143) Network of organizations 54% 21% Donor websites 39% 10% Websites for funding opportunities 38% 9% Donors send us opportunities 33% 10% We aren’t informed 9% 15% TYPES OF DONOR SUPPORT TO LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS Key informants highlighted institutional support, technical support, and financial support as the main types of support local organizations received from other donors. More than 50 organizations surveyed cited examples of donor support provided to local organizations. All benefited from financial support, which at times included material support such as equipment. CSOs cited program implementation as the common type of partnership with donors, funded by the EU, AFD, GIZ, and OSIWA most frequently for program implementation. As the second most common type of partnership, CSOs cited capacity building programs, funded by the EU and UNICEF. In terms of the partnership with donors, 47 percent of PSOs cited funding to implement a project, 40 percent cited funding for capacity building, and 33 percent cited direct grants. Besides USAID, PSOs most frequently mention GIZ (cited 18 times), followed by JICA (cited seven times), the World Bank, the EU (cited six times each), and AFD (cited five times). Based on the survey administered to local organizations, the World Bank, IFAD, and the EU had the highest total value of partnerships: 17 billion CFA, 13.6 billion CFA, and 7.4 billion CFA respectively. PSOs had the longest average length of partnerships with IFAD, the World Bank, and the AfDB: 108 months, 102 months, and 91 months, respectively. 3. LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE WITH DONOR FUNDS What is the level of experience local organizations (organizational categories of low, medium, and high) have in managing donor funds? Delivering results? Reporting? Perhaps a few brief case studies within the landscape analysis could assist in providing better understanding of the level of local organization experience. 11 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Finding 6: Overall, CSOs have more experience managing donor funds than PSOs. NGOs have more experience managing donor funds than associations, but MBOs have more experience funds than private enterprises. EXPERIENCE IN MANAGING DONOR FUNDS CSOs have more experience with donor programs than PSOs, in that 77 percent of CSOs have collaborated with donors in the past five years, compared to 55 percent of PSOs. Larger organizations tend to be more experienced with donors than smaller organizations. Among CSOs, NGOs (85 percent) have more experience with donors than associations (69 percent). CSOs are more likely to have worked with donors over the past five years in Ziguinchor (88 percent), Kolda (85 percent), and Dakar (85 percent). PSOs are more likely to have worked with donors over the past five years in Kolda (71 percent), Dakar (67 percent), and Kaolack (65 percent). Among PSOs, the average value of the collaboration is about 619 million CFA Francs (about $952,000 USD) over the last five years. The average duration of each collaboration is 33 months. PSOs on average work with two donors. Almost all the local organizations that cited USAID have worked with the Agency indirectly, through IPs. Local organizations acknowledge the need to establish procedures. Two quotes below provide illustration: Local organizations surveyed reported high levels of satisfaction about their partnerships with donors: 93 percent of CSOs and 83 percent of PSOs reported satisfaction (very satisfied and satisfied combined). Only 4 percent of PSOs and 1 percent of CSOs said they were not satisfied with their partnerships. Through indirect partnerships, some local organizations reported having proven their competencies in delivering results and having developed experience in managing funds and reporting according to USAID norms and standards. CSO key informants indicated that the renewal of any project depends on good implementation, quality reporting, and satisfaction of donors’ criteria. That’s how they won the trust of their partners. For some, it’s the partners who look for them because they have heard about their good work or a third party (e.g., another partner or local authorities) has recommended them because of their expertise. Resources Managed by Local Organizations “The maximum that we have managed over a year…is 200,000 Euros. And so, to be able to do this, we had to put in place fairly specific procedures in terms of financial management, etc. That doesn't mean that's our limit; it just means that when we had to go from, on average, 30,000 per actor to 200,000 per actor. We were able to do it because we put procedures in place. So, today we have deals that we are negotiating, which are beyond these amounts.” (PSO representative, KII) "In terms of financial management, as I said, when you add up all the funds managed by [NGO]…I dare not tell you with certainty, but I can't think of a local organization that managed $22 million from USAID. Maybe we're one of the few local organizations that manages that much money with a congratulatory letter." (NGO representative, KII) 12 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV EXPERIENCE IN DELIVERING RESULTS Finding 7: Although half of CSOs surveyed reported that they have had independent evaluations of their programs, many organizations spoke about the results they achieved either generally or in terms of renewed partnerships or partners who had expressed satisfaction with their work. Large-sized CSOs in general and NGOs in particular are more likely to have independent and verifiable data and evidence on their results than PSOs. About half (51 percent) of the surveyed CSOs claim to conduct external and independent evaluations of their activities and results, compared to only 20 percent of PSOs. Key informants from these organizations were rarely able to describe the results in specific or quantifiable terms. In some cases, they referenced a change that had been observed but did not have data to indicate the specifics of the change observed. Large-sized CSOs, especially NGOs, are more likely to have independent and verifiable data and evidence on their results than PSOs. NGOs were more than twice as likely to conduct external and independent evaluations: 73 percent for NGOs vs. 33 percent for associations. Moreover, the larger the size of the CSO, the more likely it is to have had external or independent evaluations of their activities. Independent and verifiable data and evidence on the results of the interventions of local PSOs is seldom available as 80 percent of those surveyed do not conduct external and independent evaluations of their activities. Medium-sized PSOs are more likely to have had an external or independent evaluation than either large (17 percent) or small PSOs (15 percent). Key informants from organizations that worked as subgrantees on USAID programs also mentioned that they produced results because they know the context better and have systems to implement activities in communities. Some cited letters of congratulations that USAID sent to them confirmed the quality of their work. Many other organizations listed several achievements (outputs and outcomes) from their partnerships with donors while mentioning the renewed partnerships is evidence that donors continued to trust them in producing the expected results; otherwise, the partnerships would not have been renewed. Staff from the ministries of health and education further confirmed that local organizations made a great contribution to development and sector-specific indicators. Results Achieved "We were able to achieve very, very good results, so that the partner himself returned to the community…three months before we intervened, they visited a community and afterwards they came back when we started the interventions… they said ‘Is this the same community in which we were? How is it possible that things are changing so quickly?’ ‘… Ah well, it is the result of the work of young people…’” (Association in Ziguinchor) “We currently have more than 1,400 women with whom we work, whom we have enlisted, geolocated, and to whom we distribute vegetables every morning. These women, we take their order the day before via digital applications and behind each morning they are delivered to their stalls. Previously, it was women who got up every day at 4 a.m. to go to the Castor market to stock up. Today, we deliver them on site, they also benefit from health insurance [from us], and we deliver the products to them every day. That's an example.” (PSO in Dakar) 13 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV EXPERIENCE IN REPORTING Finding 8: CSOs, especially NGOs and large organizations, are much more likely to publish annual reports than PSOs. Reporting on program activities is seen as common; a few noted innovations they had introduced. Local organizations that developed partnerships with donors in program implementation had experience in reporting even if the requirement level varies by donors. Organizations that have worked as subgrantees in USAID programs mentioned that IPs trained them to report according to USAID requirements. One USAID IP, for example, confirmed that its subgrantees reported on their activities. One CSO mentioned having put in place a robust MEL system with baseline and endline randomized control groups and ENDA ECOPOP insisted on its experimentation approach that required documenting and reporting results and learnings. A PSO explained how its digitalization facilitates reporting: “We have digitized a lot. So, that means we have control of both physical and financial flows, and which allow us to quickly do our reports despite our twenty thousand points of sale…we know, have we achieved our objectives or not?” (PSO in Dakar) 4. CHALLENGES What kind of challenges do local organizations face attracting funding and carrying out activities? MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES Survey and interview data revealed two principal types of challenges that local organizations face when working with donors: management issues and difficulties responding to donor criteria. Finding 9: Challenges local organizations face in attracting funding include limited staffing, inadequate administrative and financial systems, and limited communications activities. Staffing. Limited staffing within local organizations reduces their chances of forming partnerships and obliges them to recruit qualified personnel on an ad hoc basis to help with tenders. Key informants argued that the recruitment and availability of qualified staff are major challenges for local organizations and that forces some of them to use consultants to develop their technical applications provided they have financial resources to do so. Quotes from both CSOs and PSOs illustrate their challenges: 14 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Key informants cited several reasons. They noted that one obstacle to recruiting and retaining staff is that short-term and small funding-size programs do not allow local organizations to hire full-time qualified staff who prefer more secure longer-term engagement. Many organizations mentioned that donors or their IPs often hire their most qualified staff because they can offer a better salary. As one PSO noted, “donors often poach local organizations’ best employees.” Other CSOs mentioned that the main reason explaining their challenge in recruitment and maintaining their staff is limited institutional capacity. They believe that many donors focus more on activities and restrict fees dedicated to personnel, especially administrative or financial personnel. Large CSOs that can access large funding may have a qualified fundraising staff team that can write project proposals and who are familiar with donors’ procedures and can compete for large grants. As one organization observed, “for the technical approach, we have a well-versed team…so we are quite experienced in developing a request.” Administrative and financial management. Key informants from local organizations reported they need capacity building in specific areas including financial management, resource mobilization techniques and strategies, etc., to attract more donor funding. A key informant in a mayor’s office concurred but noted that “Local organizations (1) lack financial resources, (2) have a problem of governance/renewal of bodies, and (3) have only a minority of working members.” Communications. PSOs acknowledge that they need to communicate better to convince donors that they have both technical and management capacities. They have objectives, implement activities, and achieve results that they aren’t necessarily able to convey adequately, especially those outside of Dakar who may not have easy access to donors. Some cited a linguistic barrier for those working in a different language, which adds additional costs. Several quotes from PSOs illustrate these barriers: ● “PSOs need to communicate and convince on the ability to (1) respect their commitments, (2) align themselves with the administrative and financial management procedures of the donors, and (3) be agile to readjust the implementation if necessary.” ● “Local PSOs must make their objectives, activities, results, and needs better known.” ● “Need to network with donors who are not available outside Dakar.” ● “PSOs must be more dynamic in meeting and dialogue with donors.” ● “English language barrier creates inequalities and additional costs.” Challenges Writing Proposals “You know, writing isn't easy, we even recently ran [a] program, we were in a consortium, USAID funded it for three years, it was a consultant who wrote it for us. Because the offer was too hard…and asked a lot of things around the theory of change, we took a consultant and often, they are the ones who write, because the questions are questions tight, which means that if we don't accompany people, it will be difficult.” (Association in Kolda) “For example, as you said earlier, you see the newspapers, see the calls for tenders, look on the sites for calls for tenders and all that. Unfortunately, perhaps, we have a fairly small team that does not allow us to do all that, it's true that it's fixed costs that are there, we can't recruit people and then go and look for contracts knowing that it is not easy. So maybe the fact that the team is a reduced team, that may be a cause.” (PSO in Dakar) 15 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV DONOR ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Finding 10: CSOs are more familiar with donor eligibility criteria than PSOs but find them difficult to meet much more so than PSOs. NGOs are more familiar with eligibility criteria than associations, while MBOs are more familiar with the eligibility criteria than private enterprises. Selection and eligibility criteria. The majority of local organizations interviewed indicated that donors’ tenders and procedures are rigid and difficult to follow, and that donors need to be more flexible to adapt to local realities. The survey showed that 59 percent of CSOS and 56 percent of PSOs that know donors’ selection criteria found them either difficult or very difficult to meet. Among CSOs, NGOs and associations found donor criteria equally challenging. Associations were less familiar with the criteria than NGOs, but NGOs were more likely to find them easy or very easy to meet. Among PSOs, private enterprises and MBOs found donor criteria equally challenging. Private enterprises were less familiar with the evaluation criteria than MBOs, but MBOs were more likely to find them easy or very easy to meet. Key informants nuance these findings, talking about challenges offering more insights on the various challenges. To bid for certain calls for tenders from donors, some local organizations are obliged to recruit bilingual staff to circumvent the language barrier, which entails additional costs. Exhibit 12: CSO and PSO familiarity with donor criteria by type 5. COMPETENCIES AND STRENGTHS What competencies and strengths do local organizations bring to the table? 16 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Finding 11: Local organizations see their greatest strength as their understanding of the local context, needs, and key actors, which allows them to operate more effectively and ultimately achieve better outcomes. Whatever their sector, they see the ability to contribute to better development outcomes as their greatest competency. Competencies that key informants from local organizations highlighted include a staff committed to development causes and deep knowledge of the local context as one of their main strengths, which donors also acknowledged. Key informants from local organizations argued that their biggest assets are their community roots and proximity to communities. Key informants from PSOs argued they have a better knowledge and mastery of the local environment with its constraints, bottlenecks and realities, a good knowledge of the specific needs of each region of Senegal, and a mastery of the national ecosystem, mentalities, and ways of doing things. These key informants from PSOs further elaborated that their understanding of the environment is their ability to communicate with and convince local actors, existing partnerships, greater capacity to mobilize local actors and human resources, knowledge of the capacity and credibility of local actors, as well as good relations with local authorities and established players in the ecosystem. Knowledge of the environment and actors contributes to their overall effectiveness. As one PSO noted, “a better knowledge of the context and local issues and proximity to local actors allow (1) less time for impregnation, (2) more speed in the execution of projects, (3) lower costs, (4) a depth of analysis, and (5) more specific recommendations.” A few groups highlighted specific benefits of working through local organizations. For example, one PSO representative noted it more easily collected data because it had already established relationships of trust with local organizations. Some noted that their community roots allowed them to continue to conduct activities during COVID-19 restrictions or to react rapidly in situations where conflicts arise. Some local organizations stated that they have competencies and predispositions to ensure the sustainability of interventions as it is their mandate in communities. For them, that is what differentiate them from international organizations that leave at the end of their programs. They expressed this in different ways, as excerpts from interviews indicate: ● “They are involved for the long term and more committed to sustainability.” ● “The sustainability of the effects of the interventions after the project ends.” ● “The implementation of programs by local organizations allows more sustainability with an experience that remains in the country and that can be replicated.” ● “The implementation of programs by local organizations makes it possible to strengthen their capacities and their sustainability.” 17 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Some local organizations consider the flexibility and adaptability to carry out activities in a short time frame as a strength. They mentioned that they have an operational system they can activate easily to conduct activities with less resources and even in an emergency context. Many mentioned organizational capacities such as good management structure (organization chart, executive committees, etc.) and strategic plans that serve as guidelines for partnership. For the umbrella organizations, having a network of local organizations working in specific areas and with different expertise throughout the country is a major strength. Umbrella organizations interviewed consider that their being recognized by state bodies and their involvement in the implementation of public policies are a major asset. The Council of Non-Governmental Development Support Organizations (CONGAD) and the Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture of Senegal (UNCCIAS), for example, are both recognized by the state as umbrella organizations that represent and work with member CSOs and PSOs, respectively. Both cite this characteristic as an asset. 6. BARRIERS TO COMPETING FOR USAID AWARDS What barriers exist that prevent local organizations from competing for USAID awards? Finding 12: Local organizations want to work with USAID but lack information on activities and opportunities and find the eligibility criteria difficult to meet, especially compared to other donors. This section will explore the key barriers of access, meeting donor criteria, technical barriers, and challenges to partnering with international organizations in depth. Almost all (99 percent) CSOs and PSOs surveyed are interested in collaboration with USAID. Few have worked directly with USAID, though a majority have been part of USAID-funded programs as subawards. They don’t always differentiate direct awards from subawards. In addition to the four current Senegalese IPs, two others reported having worked directly with USAID. Exhibit 14 summarizes the perceptions that CSOs and PSOs have of donor eligibility criteria as compared to USAID eligibility criteria. Local organizations, especially PSOs, were less familiar with USAID’s eligibility criteria than other donors, but those familiar found other donors’ criteria easier to meet. Twenty-eight percent of PSOs and 37 percent of CSOs find donor criteria either “very easy,” “easy,” or “somewhat easy” to meet. In contrast, only 16 percent of PSOs and 15 percent of CSOs had the same view of USAID criteria. PSOs are less familiar than CSOs with donor criteria, especially USAID. As a result, smaller percentages of PSOs and CSOs find them difficult to meet, though CSOs find them more difficult than PSOs. Staffing and Networks “We have the staff, we have the headquarters, the logistics, so that's already something. For the staff, there is the executive secretariat, the program managers, the orientation council, the coordination of the projects, the facilitators, the relays, there is a whole staff that is there. At the grassroots level we have our unions, our federations, women's groups with whom we work.” (NGO in Kolda) 18 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 13: PSO and CSO perceptions of donor and USAID criteria DONOR CRITERIA PSO CSO USAID CRITERIA PSO CSO Very easy to meet 2% 2% Very easy to meet 0% 2% Easy to meet 11% 14% Easy to meet 6% 3% More or less easy to meet 15% 21% More or less easy to meet 10% 11% Difficult to meet 22% 32% Difficult to meet 9% 22% Very difficult to meet 15% 20% Very difficult to meet 14% 16% Don’t know the criteria 35% 10% Don’t know the criteria 61% 46% ACCESS BARRIERS Lack of information is the most cited obstacle that prevents local organizations from competing for USAID funding. Overall, 49 percent of CSOs and 58 percent of PSOs reported not being informed of opportunities. CSO and PSO awareness of USAID opportunities varies more by size than by type. Small and medium PSOs were more aware of opportunities than larger PSOs. The opposite was true for CSOs. Large CSOs are much more likely to be aware of USAID opportunities than medium-sized CSOs, followed by small CSOs. MBOs were much more likely to cite lack of information as an obstacle than private enterprises. Otherwise, the obstacles they cited followed no distinct pattern. Most of the local organizations interviewed cited lack of or delayed information as a major barrier to partnership with USAID. For them, local organizations in Senegal receive information about RFPs or NOFOs very late, compared to American or international organizations and thus, don’t have enough time to develop quality proposals. Local organizations in regions face more challenges than those in Dakar. Local organizations mentioned that USAID is not accessible to them when they need information and they are not necessarily aware of USAID field offices, especially if they are not from the region where the office is located. Some of the respondents mentioned that it is easier for them to approach other donors. Some that apply for USAID awards mentioned not getting information on the outcome of their application. The limited information on USAID and its partnership opportunities makes many local organizations believe that only American or international organizations can be primes when competing for USAID funding. Frustrations in getting feedback “We can apply but afterward, to get feedback is quite a problem, you call all the time, you send emails, they don't answer you, sometimes they tell you the person is not there, he left, or the person went on a trip so what we can do is write, send a letter or email to apply and apart from that there is no other way.” (Local CSO) Exhibit 14: Smaller CSOs are least likely to aware of partnership opportunities with USAID 19 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Limited resources, both financial and human, are often mentioned as a reason for not responding to tenders as many local organizations must hire consultants to develop their technical proposals. Instead, some organizations are joining forces to respond to tenders as a consortium. Many local organizations interviewed cited language barriers as an obstacle, but only 1 percent mentioned it as a capacity building need in the survey. One PSO noted the inequalities linked to language, noting “you come as a partner to help a structure, but you have to understand, so, as you are the one who has the means to do it, it would be necessary to translate so that their documents are readable and accessible to all the world.” ELIGIBILITY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Finding 13: PSOs are less familiar with USAID eligibility criteria than CSOs. Small organizations are less familiar with the criteria than larger organizations. Among those aware of USAID criteria, most found USAID’s technical and financial eligibility criteria difficult to meet. Smaller organizations were the least likely to be familiar with USAID criteria. The trend was particularly pronounced for small CSOs, in that 50 percent were not familiar with USAID criteria. Of PSOs familiar with USAID criteria, 68 percent found them more either difficult or very difficult to fulfill, compared to 47 percent for medium-sized and 33 percent large PSOs. CSOs (21 percent) cited more frequently USAID’s eligibility and evaluation criteria as an obstacle than PSOs (10 percent). The technical proposal was the most cited about the application requirements. Organizations find the USAID proposal template/outline very technical. It requires a lot of time, expertise, and experience with USAID for local organizations to develop a complete technical application. PSOs were less familiar with the eligibility criteria than CSOs—61 percent of PSOs as opposed to 46 percent of CSOs. CSOs found USAID criteria more difficult than PSOs. Of CSOs that know the USAID criteria, 70 percent find them either difficult or very difficult to meet, compared to 58 percent of PSOs. Among CSOs, associations and NGOs found USAID criteria equally difficult, whereas MBOs found them more challenging than private enterprises. Seventy percent of associations and 69 percent of NGOs found them either difficult or very difficult to meet while 61 percent of MBOs found them either difficult or very difficult to meet, as compared to 54 percent of private enterprises. 20 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Compared to donors in general, local organizations find USAID criteria more difficult to fulfill. Of CSOs familiar with the criteria (n=99), 70 percent find USAID criteria either difficult or very difficult to meet against 59 percent for those of other donors (n=161). PSOs familiar with the criteria (n=62) find the USAID (58 percent) criteria slightly more difficult than those (n=103) of other donors (56 percent). In some cases, local organizations perceived that the criteria were so high that they were designed to exclude local partners. As noted by one local organization, “the other difficulty in responding to calls for tenders is sometimes the requirements. Some partners have requirements that override all local organizations.” Required experience "...The terms of reference require amounts or diversities of experience and lots of things that show that it will ultimately take an international structure to execute it" (PSO, Dakar) "The amounts they were asking for in terms of financial capacities were really enormous because if the project specifies that the budget was 10 million dollars and it was necessary to have a minimum of, something greater than 1 million dollars or even 2 million dollars. So for organizations like us we are more excluded" (PSO, Dakar) Paperwork "....we benefited from a Small Grant if I can say so from USAID but the amount of the GRANT that they gave us the procedures that they put in place at the end we even said to ourselves is it that it's so worth it that there are in quotes too many requirements if we can say so. And sometimes it's not encouraging. It is rare to work with the English language, good for us as I said it is not a problem but not everyone can communicate permanently in English" (CSO, Dakar) "Sometimes in terms of criteria, in terms of the paperwork that must be provided, etc., it is very, very difficult for us, for us Senegalese NGOs. Because we have to provide a lot of documents (CSO, Dakar). Language criterion "All of their submissions are in English, which means that organizations that don't have the staff to work in English are left out. No matter how good your project is, they won't even read if it's in French." (CSO Dakar) Finance criterion "... it's mostly at the financial level that it's a problem in general. Sometimes they ask you for the last three financial statements, the certification made by an external auditor.... The certification of accounts sometimes requires a lot of money. So it is a bit difficult..." (CSO, Kaolack) “Recently, we were asked if we had ever managed a project with a single contract worth more than 1.5 billion CFA. These are the types of requirements that show that they clearly want firms that have a high capacity. But unfortunately, these requirements eliminate many local organizations that can do more than a billion but not necessarily on an individual contract with a large donor.” (PSO, Dakar) "The first complexity is the fact that we have to pre-finance purchases and activities and then follow the reimbursement procedures" (PSO, Dakar) 21 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TECHNICAL BARRIERS Finding 14: Local organizations highlighted capacity needs in management (financial, human resources, and project) as well as the resources required to respond to opportunities from donors. To better exploit partnership opportunities with USAID, local organizations reported needing capacity building in resource mobilization (41 percent for CSOs and 46 percent for PSOs), financial management (29 percent for CSOs and 48 percent for PSOs), and technical application development for CSOs (29 percent) and HR management for PSOs (35 percent). Associations and MBOs reported these capacity development needs more frequently than NGOs and private enterprises, respectively. Exhibit 15: PSO and CSO priority capacity building needs PSO PRIORITIES CSO PRIORITIES MBO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION NGO Resource mobilization Financial management Resource mobilization Resource mobilization Financial management Resource mobilization Project management Human resource management Human resource management Tender response Financial management Tender response Project management Project management Human resource management Monitoring & evaluation PARTNERING WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Some of the local organizations that have served as subgrantees to international IPs mentioned that international organizations propose them to be part of a consortium as subgrantees to respond to tenders/NOFO/RFP but when they win, international organizations give them little responsibility without even an overhead or institutional support rate. As one NGO noted, “often when you go in consortium with large organizations, you are almost an executing agency. You are on the field, you do your best, but there are many things that the organization cannot give you.” Most local organizations that have worked with USAID’s IPs described their procedures as sometimes quite complex and cumbersome. They also mentioned difficulties understanding USAID’s internal procedures, applying USAID’s policies in the local context, and reporting in English. This was a sentiment shared by many participants in the listening session who had not worked with USAID, who deplored the lack of visibility and complexity of the procedures. Language barriers “For example, I was told for a long time about USAID. I find that it's too complicated, it's too heavy, there are a lot of things, we don't necessarily speak English, everyone does not speak English. Information is not accessible to the average entrepreneur who is there and who does [not] want to spend hours in front of his computer screen to find someone who is supposed to help us. I think they should come to us and make it easier for us and not the other way around if they just have the ambition to help.” (PSO key informant) 22 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 7. CAPACITY BUILDING RESOURCES What local organizations exist which focus on building organizational capacity, such as vision, financials, personnel issues, etc.? Finding 15: A significant majority of local organizations indicated they can build the capacity of other organizations, in both program and operations management. HIGHLY EXPERIENCED NGOS Ninety percent of CSOs reported having the capacity to help other organizations build their capacity, compared to 77 percent of PSOs. Exhibit 16 summarizes the areas in which they report they can provide support. CSOs and PSOs tend to have different areas of capacity building. PSOs cited program management, financial management, program design, and strategic planning more than other types. Private enterprises cited program development most frequently, whereas MBOs cited financial management more than others. CSOs cited human resources management, program management, program design, and financial management. Large- and medium-sized CSOs cited monitoring and evaluation (M&E) most frequently, which small CSOs rarely cited. The research team did not seek to verify these capacities. Highly experienced local organizations like ENDA ECOPOP provide capacity building to their local partners in areas like strategic planning, financial management, and M&E using their network of experts and their senior staff. Exhibit 16: CSO and PSO areas for building capacity of other organizations SIZE CSOS AREAS FOR BUILDING CAPACITY PSO AREAS OF BUILDING CAPACITY Large M&E, human resources management, program management, strategic planning No specific trend Medium M&E, responding to solicitations, human resource management Program management, strategic planning, financial management Small Human resource management, financial management, program management Program management, program design, financial management Local organizations rarely cited English, donor reporting, and fundraising as areas in which they could provide support. PRIVATE CONSULTING FIRMS Both key informants and the research team identified private consulting firms who provide capacity building as a service. Key informants cited several organizations and others participated in the research as respondents. Consulting firms like Cabinet Sahel, Fouladou Consulting, Haske Conseil, MSA, Max Consulting, and BECIS consulting provide a variety of services ranging from administrative and financial management training, entrepreneurship support, audit and financial certification, to strategic planning and business development. Other donors also hire them to provide these services to their local partners. 23 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Smaller organizations cited mostly individual consultants as their resources for capacity development. They are often cheaper and closer to where local organizations are based than the larger firms. UMBRELLA ORGANIZATIONS Key informants mentioned umbrella organizations like CONGAD, the Federation of Senegalese NGOs (FONGS), the Federation of Women’s Associations of Senegal (FAFS), and private sector associations as organizations specialized in providing capacity building for their members. Interviews with these umbrella organizations confirmed that their main mission is to support their members in their development. Interviews also showed that most of the umbrella organizations are working or have worked in the past with donors to build the capacity of local organizations. Even if umbrella organizations have the capacity to mobilize the expertise of their members, most of them raised the lack of enough funding to respond to the needs of local organizations. The membership-based quasi-public organizations such as the chambers of commerce, the chambers of crafts (chambres des métiers), and UNCCIAS also provide capacity building to their members. The private sector manages the organizations under the funding and supervision of their sector ministries. Donors like JICA and GIZ work with these quasi-public organizations in their private sector development programs. 8. NONTRADITIONAL PARTNERS Are there nontraditional partners/organizations in Senegal that USAID does not work with that could be effective implementers? Finding 16: Two types of nontraditional partners stand out for USAID’s consideration: Quasi-public, umbrella organizations and PSOs, especially private enterprises, which are largely untapped by USAID. Umbrella organizations and federations serve as sources of information on donor opportunities and provide capacity building support to their members. Civil society umbrella organizations include CONGAD, FONGS, and FAFS. Private sector umbrella organizations, the Chamber of Commerce or Chamber of Crafts (des métiers) have a nationwide reach and have begun to collaborate with donors on specific initiatives related to private sector development. A case study on the Chamber of Commerce explores this in more detail. Employers’ organizations may also make good partners as they can mobilize many PSOs. All have the potential to broaden USAID’s reach, both sectorally and geographically. As noted above, PSOs are less engaged than CSOs in development programming, but remain intensely interested in participating with USAID. Half of the PSO survey respondents (n=158) have responded to or participated in responses to USAID solicitations in the last three years. Of those who have participated, 73 percent have been successful (n=77). There is untapped potential among PSOs who did not participate. 24 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV CONCLUSIONS Findings point to several key conclusions about how USAID may best approach its commitment to greater localization. Larger, more formally structured organizations, including NGOs and private enterprises, have the types of attributes that position them to manage USAID programs. They are also more aware of USAID and donor opportunities. They are well-positioned to implement USAID programs because they are more likely to have the operational and management procedures necessary to account for funds received, regardless of the amount. They are also more likely to have the internal governance structures that give them legitimacy in the eyes of the community in which they work and their funding partners. Within the PSO group, MBOs have less technical and organizational capacity compared to private enterprises, but their work is more focused on development, and they tend to make more impact on communities. They have more experience with donor programs than private enterprises, perhaps because of the nature of their activities and the collective interest to achieve a common goal. Local organizations have developed competencies, experiences, and networks that allow them to put in place implementation mechanisms to reduce the time and cost of implementing development programs while sustaining interventions over the long term. Working with USAID’s IPs can help local organizations develop their procedural and reporting capacity, but without insufficient institutional support, organizations may find themselves challenged to meet expectations. When sufficiently funded, most of the medium and large local CSOs and PSOs can mobilize highly qualified staff and harness their experience to successfully manage complex programs. Local organizations need more information about USAID’s eligibility requirements and partnership opportunities to increase their participation in USAID’s programs. Many local organizations would like USAID to make themselves more accessible by being easy to approach and communicating in French, the official language in Senegal. There is asymmetry of opportunity between local organizations and international IPs when it comes to competing for funding mainly due to limited and late information for local organizations, eligibility criteria seemingly designed to exclude local organizations, and language barriers limiting the possibility for local organizations to compete with international IPs. Though not explicitly stated by any local organization, very few are large enough to implement the multi-million programs that USAID designs and issues for tender. Large- and medium-sized organizations can implement larger portions of these multi-million programs than they currently do. Over time, these organizations could take on larger programs as their expertise and capacities increase. Employer organizations and consular chambers could successfully implement programs and deliver development results because of their capacity to mobilize resources, expertise, access to private sector stakeholders, and their experience with other donors and the GoS. Private consulting firms and umbrella organizations provide capacity building services to donors and local organizations. Umbrella organizations tend to ensure higher sustainability levels as they can easily mobilize the competencies of their members, but their capacity to leverage funding from donors is limited. 25 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATIONS Four key categories of recommendations emerge from this research. COMMUNICATIONS AND VISIBILITY 1. To raise awareness of USAID’s opportunities for local organizations and requirements for collaboration, USAID should improve its visibility and communication. To do so, USAID should: ● Organize regular in-person and virtual information sessions accessible for local organizations in urban and rural areas of all the regions. ● Use umbrella organizations (Plateforme des Acteurs Non-Etatiques, CONGAD, FONGS, CNES, CNP, MEDES, UFCE, UNCCIAS, etc.), quasi-public organizations (chambers of commerce, chambres de métiers, etc.), and GoS technical agencies (Agence Régionale de Développement, Inspection d’Académie, Régions Médicales, etc.) as partners to disseminate information and training. ● Open a USAID information desk that is accessible to local organizations by email, phone, and in￾person meetings, and increase the visibility and mandate of USAID focal points in the regions outside of Dakar to serve as conduits of information. ● Further involve local organizations including umbrella organizations, municipalities, local administrative authorities, and decentralized technical services in the design, implementation, and M&E of programs. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 2. USAID should develop a strategy to steadily increase local partners’ share of resources, both as direct recipients and as subrecipients. This involves introducing new requirements and adapting existing requirements such that local organizations can successfully compete for and implement USAID awards. ● Funding opportunities should include criteria that encourage the establishment of consortiums of local organizations and/or encourage partnerships with traditional international IPs such that local organizations have a voice in the project’s design and implementation, as well as a meaningful share of the resources. ● Establish and reinforce quotas/positive discrimination measures to allocate a minimum percentage of tenders or program value to eligible local organizations. ● Unbundle large programs to create more opportunities for local organizations to compete for and directly implement USAID programs. ● Allow local organizations to submit proposals in French and/or organize co-creation sessions to jointly develop programs to lessen the burden of writing proposals in English. ● Include provisions in funding opportunities that encourage local organizations to budget for their own organizational and institutional capacity development. ● Leverage the organizational capabilities of credible umbrella organizations to act as fiduciary agents to manage funding of smaller organizations. 26 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● Develop and implement dedicated capacity building programs with local providers, with a focus on financial management systems, M&E, operational management, fundraising, business modeling, and strategic planning, etc. PROGRAM FORMULATION, FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS 3. USAID should adapt its policies and procedures to meet the unique challenges that local organizations face: ● Develop a model that allows organizations to cover its administrative and management costs (i.e., overhead) that directly affect its ability to deliver good programs, report results, and account for expenditures. As organizations grow, these costs may shrink as a percentage of overall revenues. ● Streamline disbursement processes for small- and medium-sized local organizations to pre￾finance activities. ● Ensure that awards with international IPs include adequate support for local organizations’ capacity development. IPs are expected to deliver program results within budget and in compliance with all award terms. Support for local organizations’ capacity development may not be the highest priority and thus merits explicit encouragement from USAID. ● Providing more medium- to long-term funding (five years and more) to allow organizations to develop more procedures and systems to ensure their sustainability. To minimize its risk, USAID may consider offering awards with option years with benchmarks for continued funding. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS 4. To identify and select organizations that have the capacity to deliver and report results, USAID should: ● Further collaborate with other donors, umbrella organizations, municipalities, local administrative authorities, and decentralized technical services to identify relevant local PSOs and CSOs. ● Support civil society, private sector, and quasi-public umbrella organizations to develop a mapping of local organizations, strengths, and weaknesses. 27 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEXES ANNEX A: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The LLA is a mixed-methods study that blended document review with simultaneous quantitative and qualitative data collection to provide a broad perspective on general trends within the local organization landscape alongside a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of a select sample. During a later stage of data collection, listening sessions drew together representatives from various local organizations to provide feedback on preliminary results and further refine answers to research questions. The section below provides additional details of each method. RESEARCH METHODS The team applied a mixed-methods research design relying on the strategies described below. Data collection took place in six regions: in Dakar, Kolda, Kaolack, Saint-Louis, Tambacounda, and Ziguinchor. (See the sampling section for more information on how the team selected the regions and sampled organizations.) QUALITATIVE METHODS Various qualitative methods joined together to support the LLA: Document Review. Document review informed multiple stages of the research process, including the research design and as a complement to the other research strands. Initially, the team compiled a preliminary list of relevant local organizations from the private sector and civil society from a variety of sources, including registries from the Chamber of Commerce, the Consortium of Development NGOs, and lists of USAID IPs and donor organizations. During field work, the team gathered documents from the organizations interviewed for later analysis. Key Informant Interviews. The team conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants in the six regions identified above. Participant types included local organizations, government ministries and agencies, umbrella associations, and USAID IPs (both international and local). Interview guides for each type of stakeholder, included in Annex C: Data Collection Tools, provided direction for the discussions. Listening Sessions. Following the fieldwork, the team organized two listening sessions as a participatory activity to deepen, clarify, and validate preliminary findings. The sessions allowed stakeholders to collectively discuss challenges, opportunities, and develop recommendations. Each session included 20 representatives from organizations interviewed or surveyed during the field research in the six regions identified above. To better nuance the challenges, opportunities, and recommendations, the first session included those who have worked with USAID-funded programs while the second session included those who have not. Case Studies. The research team developed four case studies of local organizations, including two from the private sector and two from civil society. The case studies were designed to highlight specific examples of both existing and potential partnerships that are innovative. The case studies elaborate 28 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV further on the challenges and opportunities these organizations face. The case studies are included in Annex D: Case Studies. QUANTITATIVE METHODS The team collected quantitative information through in-person surveys of local organizations, both private sector organizations (PSOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). The team prepared two distinct survey tools for PSOs and CSOs that compiled relevant information on their characteristics, market segmentation, management structure and processes, challenges, barriers, and strengths. Like the interviews, the team conducted surveys in six regions. SAMPLING The Research Team applied a snowball approach to identify local PSOs and CSOs that are active in USAID’s four focus areas: Economic Growth, Health, Education, and Democracy, Human Rights, Governance and Peace (DRGP). USAID and the Platform also contacted USAID implementing partners (IPs), donors, umbrella associations, and government authorities to request their input and help develop a list of organizations that would serve as the sampling frame. Through these efforts the Platform identified more than 8,000 organizations. Next, the sampling strategies considered the research questions and the research team’s contextual knowledge of both USAID Senegal’s intervention areas of and the landscape of existing local organizations. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE The LLA covers six regions that reflect Senegal’s geographic diversity and areas where USAID activities are concentrated. The selected regions incorporate the country’s four geographical zones: Dakar (West), Kaolack and Tambacounda (Central), Saint-Louis (North), and Kolda and Ziguinchor (Southern). QUALITATIVE SAMPLE The qualitative sample was purposive in nature. The team conducted a total of 116 key informant interview (KIIs) with various stakeholders at the national and regional level. Among these, the team conducted qualitative interviews with 91 local organizations and eight local authorities. The team diversified the selection of organizations in both categories (PSO, CSO) and intervention areas while ensuring all the relevant characteristics are represented. In addition, the team met with government ministries and agencies, umbrella organizations, and donors. Exhibit 17 below shows the distribution of interviews by stakeholder type. Exhibit 17: Key informant interviews TYPE NUMBER CSOs 54 PSOs 37 Umbrella Organizations 6 Donors 4 USAID International IPs 2 USAID Local IPs 2 Government Ministries and Agencies 3 29 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TYPE NUMBER Local government 8 Total 116 QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE Using the sampling frame of the dataset of 915 relevant organizations, the team drew a stratified random sample by organization category (CSO, PSO) in six regions. The sample calculation, based on the number of organizations in the dataset, resulted in 293 organizations (174 CSOs and 119 PSOs). Once in the field, the team encountered challenges due to the organization list having outdated information which was also further compounded by COVID-19 pandemic challenges that led some organizations to close during that time period. As a result, the team relied upon convenience sampling to complete the sample, often using a snowball approach. See Annex B: Summary of Data Sources for a regional breakdown of organizations sampled. RESEARCH TEAM The research team included a Team Leader, NGO specialist, NGO resource person, a private sector specialist, ten enumerators who conducted interviews and administered surveys. The Platform’s SMES supervised their work, supported by two Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Managers. DATA COLLECTION The team trained enumerators on the research methodology and data collection tools and conducted pilot interviews to test the instruments, refining the tools and providing additional training as needed. Fieldwork took place from September 28–October 12, 2022. On November 7–8, the team organized two listening sessions in Dakar with local organizations from the six regions to refine findings and develop recommendations. Data collection tools are included in Annex C: Data Collection Tools. Case studies that explore four organizations’ specific attributes are included in Annex D: Case Studies. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING The team applied rigorous methods to analyze the qualitative and quantitative data, as described below. Qualitative. Data analysis relied on research questions to help guide interpretation of findings and subsequent conclusions. The team analyzes qualitative data collected via semi-structured KIIs and listening sessions using a three-phase process of content, pattern, and thematic analysis. The team developed a codebook based upon inductive and deductive analysis and proceeded to code the data using the Dedoose qualitative analysis software. Ongoing iterative conversations among the team also informed analysis. Quantitative. Data analysis used descriptive methods to examine trends among various organizational characteristics (type of organization, revenue, experience with donors, capacity, female representation, etc.). The team analyzed the data using SPSS and Excel. Report-writing. Report-writing was an ongoing process that built upon feedback from discussions of preliminary data with USAID, and results from the two listening sessions. Various team members input 30 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV into the report building upon previous analysis stages to arrive at the findings and develop conclusions. It was also at this stage that the team developed case studies. LIMITATIONS Like all research studies, several conditions serve as limitations for consideration when interpreting study results. Amorphous local organization landscape. Organizations within Senegal vary immensely (e.g., type, affiliation, purpose, operations) and do not form a cohesive group. There is no complete database of local organizations active in the USAID intervention areas and the team collected and consolidated lists from several sources to develop the sampling frame. Additionally, challenges that the team encountered during data collection confirmed that the organization list was outdated, and it was necessary to follow a purposive approach to sampling that relied upon convenience strategies. For both these reasons, while both quantitative and qualitative samples are sufficiently large that findings provide a good understanding of organizational characteristics, their challenges and opportunities, the results may not be generalizable to all organizations in Senegal. The team has accounted for this limitation during analysis and writing. Key informant availability and selection bias. Data collection happened shortly after a new government was named and staff were deeply engaged in the transition leaving little time to participate in other activities. As a result, the team interviewed fewer government ministry staff than planned. Nonetheless, the two ministries (health and education) that work most closely with USAID met with the research team, mitigating the lack of response from other ministries. In addition, the team interviewed fewer donors than anticipated because they did not respond to interview requests. The team accounted for this lack of donor input by triangulating data about donors among organizational data. For both government partners and donors, individuals who participated in data collection were genuinely engaged in working with local organizations, though this may result in selection bias as results presented here may not fully reflect viewpoints of people less interested in working with local organizations. 31 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX B: SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES The LLA research methodology included both qualitative and quantitative data collection with CSOs and PSOs. The team conducted 91 qualitative key informant interviews (KIIs) and administered 341 quantitative surveys with representatives of local organizations in six regions. Exhibit 18: Summary of interviews and surveys with CSOs and PSOs, by region summarizes the number of interviews and surveys per region. Exhibit 18: Summary of interviews and surveys with CSOs and PSOs, by region REGION CSO PSO QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE Dakar 15 63 10 27 Kaolack 5 21 5 17 Kolda 10 20 4 17 Saint Louis 6 33 12 55 Tambacounda 8 21 3 17 Ziguinchor 10 25 3 25 Total 54 183 37 158 The LLA research methodology also included KIIs with stakeholders, including umbrella organizations, government ministries, bilateral and multilateral donors working in Senegal, USAID IPs (both local and international), and local authorities in the six regions where data collection took place. These are summarized in Exhibit 19: Summary of key informant interviews with stakeholders. Exhibit 19: Summary of key informant interviews with stakeholders TYPE LOCATION NUMBER Umbrella organizations Dakar region 6 Government ministries and agencies Dakar 3 Donors (bilateral or multilateral) Dakar 4 USAID International IPs Dakar, Kolda 2 USAID local IPs Dakar, Ziguinchor 2 Local government Dakar, Kaolack, Kolda, Saint-Louis, Tambacounda, Ziguinchor 8 Total 25 The team also organized two listening sessions for 20 organizations from the six regions, separating them into two different workshops. The first was for those who had worked with USAID and the second was for those who had not. Separating them in this manner allowed for a frank discussion on the barriers to working with USAID. 32 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX C: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ENQUÊTES AUPRÈS DES ORGANISATIONS DE LA SOCIÉTÉ CIVILE (OSC) Introduction / Consentement Je suis……………, enquêteur de EnCompass dans le cadre de la cartographie des organisations locales au Sénégal. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Cette cartographie concerne aussi bien les organisations qui sont (ou ayant été) en partenariat avec l’USAID que les organisations qui n’ont jamais été en partenariat avec l’USAID. C’est dans ce cadre que le Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par EnCompass LLC, est charge de mettre en œuvre cette cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel. La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation et non-pas des informations personnelles. Personne en dehors de l’équipe de recherche ne verra les réponses. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire et que tout participant a le droit de mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Vous pouvez aussi ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID à mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. N’hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef de l’étude au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ? o Oui 33 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que je note vos réponses dans la tablette ? o Oui o Non Si l’enquêté accepte, poursuivez l’enquête. Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l’entretien. 34 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV QUESTIONNAIRE Numéro du questionnaire : ……………….. Région : …………………………………………………………… Département : ……………………………………………………, Arrondissement : Commune …………………………………………………………… Date de l’Interview : (Jour/mois/année) :.......……/…………/…………. Nom de l’enquêteur : …………………………………………………………… N° Téléphone de l’enquêteur :……………………………………………………………………………… Identification et caractérisation 1. Quel est le statut juridique de votre organisation ? o Association o Organisation Non Gouvernementale (ONG) o Fondation o Réseau o Autres à préciser 2. Quel est votre domaine d’activité principal ? o Croissance économique o Sécurité alimentaire o Santé o Education o Hydraulique o Environnement et développement durable o Gouvernance, démocratie et droits humains o Autres à préciser ……. 3. Quel est votre domaine d’activité secondaire ? o Croissance économique o Sécurité alimentaire o Santé o Education o Hydraulique o Environnement et développement durable 35 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Gouvernance, démocratie et droits humains o Autres à préciser ……. 4. Quels sont les services que votre organisation fournit ? (Question à choix multiple) o Appuis Conseils o Gestion de projet/Mise en œuvre d’interventions o Mise en relation (courtage) o Audit, Evaluation, Recherche o Formation/Renforcement de capacités o Financement o Plaidoyer o Autres à préciser ………. 5. Depuis combien d’années votre organisation est-elle en activité ? ………………(nombre) 6. Quelles sont les zones d’intervention que votre organisation couvre habituellement ? Indiquer la ou les région(s) où intervient votre organisation : (Prévoir les zones ou organisations qui ne couvrent pas une région mais peut-être juste un département ? Leur cocher région serait surestimer leurs capacités et cela pourrait induire en erreur l’USAID). Nous devrons être le plus concis possible dans le recueil de certaines informations sur les capacités ou le potentiel des organisations. o Dakar o Diourbel o Fatick o Kaffrine o Kaolack o Kédougou o Kolda o Louga o Matam o Saint Louis o Sédhiou o Tambacounda o Thiès o Ziguinchor 36 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 7. Quel est le nombre total d’employés de votre organisation ? …….. (nombre) [passer à Q15 si la réponse est 0] 8. Quel est le nombre de femmes employées dans votre organisation ? …….. (nombre) 9. Quel est le nombre de jeunes (personnes de moins de 35 ans) employés dans votre organisation ? …….. (nombre) 10. Combien d’employés de l’organisation vivent avec un handicap ? ….. (nombre) 11. Quel est le nombre de personnes dans vos organes de direction/décision ? …….. (nombre) 12. Combien de femmes sont dans vos organes de direction/décision ? …….. (nombre) 13. Combien de jeunes (personnes de moins de 35 ans) sont dans vos organes de direction/décision ? …….. (nombre) 14. Combien de personnes vivant avec un handicap sont dans vos organes de direction/décision ? …….. (nombre) B- RESSOURCES DE L’ORGANISATION 15. Quel est le niveau de budget annuel moyen de votre organisation (en FCFA) au cours des 3 dernières années ? o Moins de 1 million o 1 million à 5 million o +5 million à 10 million o + 10 millions à 50 million o + 50 millions à 100 million o + 100 millions à 500 million o + 500 millions à 1 milliard o + 1 milliard à 2 milliards o Plus de 2 milliards 16. De quels types de locaux votre organisation dispose-t-elle ? o Ses propres locaux o Bureaux en location 37 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Bureaux mis à disposition par une tierce organisation o Pas de locaux abritant nos bureaux o Autres à préciser 17. Quel est le nombre de cadres supérieurs au sein de l’organisation ? ……………(nombre) 18. Quel est le nombre de femmes cadres supérieures ……………(nombre) 19. Quel est le nombre de diplômés de l’enseignement supérieur (Universités, Instituts publics ou privés) au sein de l’organisation ? ……………(nombre) 20. Quel en est le nombre de femmes ……………(nombre) 21. Quel est le nombre de bénévoles ? ……………(nombre) 22. Quel est le nombre de femmes parmi ces bénévoles ……………(nombre) 23. Quel est le nombre de jeunes parmi ces bénévoles ……………(nombre) 24. Quel est le nombre de personnes vivant avec un handicap parmi ces bénévoles ? ……………(nombre) C- GESTION ET GOUVERNANCE DE L’ORGANISATION 25. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un organigramme écrit ? o Oui o Non 26. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle de fiches de poste écrites pour chaque poste ? o Oui o Non 27. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’une grille salariale écrite qui est appliquée ? o Oui o Non 38 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 28. Quels sont les organes de gouvernance/supervision de votre organisation o Un Conseil d’Administration (CA) o Un Comité Directeur (CD) o Un Bureau Exécutif o Un Conseil Consultatif o Aucun o Autres à préciser 29. Quelle est la fréquence des réunions de votre organe de gouvernance/supervision ? o Annuellement o Trimestriellement o Mensuellement o Régulièrement o Irrégulièrement o Rarement 30. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un plan stratégique qu’elle utilise/applique ? o Oui o Non 31. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un plan de travail annuel qu’elle applique ? o Oui o Non 32. Les états financiers annuels de votre organisation (pour les 3 derniers exercices ou moins si l’organisation existe depuis moins de trois ans) sont-ils certifiés par un commissaire aux comptes externe attitré ? o Oui o Non 33. Votre organisation fait-elle des évaluations externes et indépendantes (ex ante, en cours ou finales) de ses activités et résultats ? o Oui o Non 34. Votre organisation publie-t-elle des rapports d’activité annuels ? o Oui 39 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Non 35. Votre organisation procède-t-elle à une budgétisation annuelle ? o Jamais o Rarement o Quelque fois o Régulièrement o Toujours 36. Votre budget est-il -un budget classique ou un budget sensible au genre (BSG) ? o Oui o Non 37. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un manuel des procédures administratives et financières validé et appliqué ? o Oui o Non 38. Votre organisation utilise-t-elle un logiciel de gestion financière ou de comptabilité ? o Oui o Non D- RELATIONS AVEC LES BAILLEURS 39. Votre organisation collabore-t-elle actuellement ou a-t-elle eu à collaborer récemment (au cours des 5 dernières années) avec des bailleurs de fonds (bailleurs bilatéraux, bailleurs multilatéraux, Fondations, ONG et autres… ? o Oui o Non (Si 38 = Non, passer Q 52) 40. Quels sont les bailleurs de fonds avec lesquels votre organisation collabore-telle actuellement ou a eu à collaborer récemment (au cours des 5 dernières années) ? (Faire en sorte que pour chaque bailleur on puisse avoir réponses aux Q 37, 38, 39 et 40) o BM-Banque mondiale o ONUDI o PNUD o ONU-FEMMES 40 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o UE-Union européenne o BAD- Banque Africaine de Développement o AFD o JICA o ENABEL /CTB o USAID o KOICA o OSIWA o Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation o Ford Foundation o Mastercard Foundation o Autres à préciser …………… 41. Quelle est ou a été la nature de la collaboration entre votre organisation et le(s) bailleur(s) de fonds ? o Partenariat pour la mise en œuvre d’un projet ou programme o Prestation de service dans le cadre de déploiement d’activités d’un projet o Bénéficiaire de programme de renforcement de capacités o Bénéficiaire de subvention directe pour le renforcement de l’organisation (achat de biens ou services, recrutement ou paiement de personnel, prise en charge frais de fonctionnement……) o Appui institutionnel o Autres à préciser o Quelle est ou a été la valeur monétaire/montant de la collaboration (en FCFA) : ……………… (nombre) 42. Quelle est la durée prévue ou quelle a été la durée de la collaboration (en mois) ……………… (nombre) 43. Comment évaluez- vous cette collaboration ? o Excellente / Très satisfaisante o Satisfaisante o Moyenne (ni satisfaisante / ni insatisfaisante) o Insatisfaisante o Très insatisfaisante 44. Comment votre organisation est-elle informée des opportunités de partenariat avec les bailleurs de fonds ? 41 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Le bailleur nous envoie des opportunités o Consultation de publications sur le site web du bailleur o Consultation de sites web dédiés à la recherche financement o A travers la presse nationale o A travers notre réseau d’organisations o A travers des amis o De bouche à oreilles o Nous ne sommes pas informées o Autres à préciser 45. Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences des bailleurs de fonds en matière de partenariat ? o Très faciles à remplir o Faciles à remplir o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir o Difficiles à remplir o Très difficiles à remplir o Ne connait pas les critères 46. Votre organisation est-elle au courant des opportunités de partenariat avec l’USAID ? o Oui o Non 47. Comment votre organisation est-elle informée des opportunités de partenariat avec l’USAID ? o USAID nous envoie des opportunités o Consultation du site web de l’USAID o Consultation de sites webs dédiés à la recherche financement o A travers la presse nationale o A travers notre réseau d’organisations o A travers des amis o Nous ne sommes pas informés o Autres à préciser 48. Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection de l’USAID en matière de partenariat ? o Très faciles à remplir o Faciles à remplir 42 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir o Difficiles à remplir o Très difficiles à remplir o Ne connaît pas les critères 49. Quels sont les principaux obstacles qui limitent votre partenariat avec l’USAID ? o Manque d’information sur les opportunités o Les délais de soumission des offres o Le profil du personnel clé demandé o La publication des appels à proposition en anglais o Les exigences de soumission des offres en anglais o Les exigences de reporting en anglais o La complexité des exigences de l’offre technique o La complexité des exigences de l’offre financière o La contribution/contrepartie financière demandée o Le traitement préférentiel accordé aux entreprises américaines o Le manque d’expérience internationale o Aucun obstacle o Autres à préciser……………. 50. Dans quelle mesure votre organisation est-elle intéressée à développer des partenariats avec l’USAID ? o Pas du tout intéressée o Pas intéressée o Plus ou moins intéressée o Intéressée o Très intéressée 51. Quels sont les domaines dans lesquels votre organisation aurait besoin d’un renforcement de capacités pour mieux exploiter les opportunités de collaboration avec l’USAID ? (Top 3) o Fundraising / Mobilisation de ressources financières o Gestion financière o Planification stratégique o Préparation de dossiers de réponses aux appels d’offres o Gestion de projets et programmes de développement o Conception de projets et programmes de développement 43 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Suivi et évaluation o Gestion des ressources humaines o Communication et relations publiques o Marketing digital o Préparation de rapports/ Rapportage aux bailleurs o Anglais o TIC / Habilité numérique o Autre (Préciser) : 52. Votre organisation dispose-telle des capacités pour fournir des services de renforcement de capacités à d’autres organisations ? o Non o Oui (si Q 55 = Non, passer à Q 57) 53. Quels sont les domaines dans lesquels votre organisation peut fournir des services de renforcement de capacités à d’autres organisations ? o Fundraising / Mobilisation de ressources financières o Gestion financière o Planification stratégique o Préparation de dossiers de réponses aux appels d’offres o Gestion de projets et programmes de développement o Conception de projets et programmes de développement o Suivi et évaluation o Gestion des ressources humaines o Communication et relations publiques o Marketing digital o Préparation de rapports/ Rapportage aux bailleurs o Anglais o TIC / Habilité numérique o Autre (Préciser) : 54. Quelle est l’adresse de votre organisation ? Région……………………… Département……………. Ville ou Commune…………………. Quartier……………………. 44 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Rue……………………………. Code postal……………………… 55. Qui est la personne à contacter de votre organisation ? Prénom……………………………… Nom……………………………………. Fonction………………………………. Téléphone bureau…………………. Portable………………………………. Email :………………………………….. Message de fin Merci d’avoir participé à cette enquête. Vous aurez grandement contribué à la réussite de notre étude. 45 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ENQUÊTES AUPRÈS DES ORGANISATIONS DU SECTEUR PRIVE (OSP) Introduction / Consentement Je suis……………, enquêteur de EnCompass dans le cadre de la cartographie des organisations locales au Sénégal. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Cette cartographie concerne aussi bien les organisations qui sont (ou ayant été) en partenariat avec l’USAID que les organisations qui n’ont jamais été en partenariat avec l’USAID. C’est dans ce cadre que le Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par EnCompass LLC, est chargé de mettre en œuvre cette cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation et non-pas des informations personnelles. Personne en dehors de l’équipe de recherche ne verra les réponses. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire et que tout participant a le droit de mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Vous pouvez aussi ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID a mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. N’hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef du projet au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ? o Oui o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que je note vos réponses dans la tablette ? 46 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Oui o Non Si l’enquêté accepte, poursuivez l’enquête. Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l’entretien. 47 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV QUESTIONNAIRE Numéro du questionnaire : ……………….. Région : …………………………………………………………… Département : ……………………………………………………, Arrondissement : …………………………………………………………… Date de l’Interview : (Jour/mois/année) : .......……/…………/…………. Nom de l’enquêteur : …………………………………………………………… N° Téléphone de l’enquêteur :…………………………………………………………………………… D- Identification et caractérisation 1. Quel est le statut juridique de votre organisation ? o Entreprise Individuelle o Société par Actions Simplifiée Unipersonnelle (SASU) o Société Unipersonnelle à Responsabilité Limité (SUARL) o Société à Responsabilité Limité (SARL) o Société Anonyme (SA) o Société par Actions Simplifiée (SAS) o Groupement d’Intérêt Economique (GIE) o Société en Nom Collectif (SNC) o Société en Commandite Simple (SCS) 2. Quel est votre domaine d’activité principal ? o Agriculture o Elevage o Pêche o Santé o Education o Industrie o Transport o Commerce o Communication o Conseils o TIC (Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication) 48 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Environnement o Autres à préciser ……. 3. Quel est votre domaine d’activité secondaire ? o Agriculture o Elevage o Pêche o Santé o Education o Industrie o Transport o Commerce o Communication o Conseil o Tourisme o TIC (Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication) o Environnement o Autres à préciser ………. 4. Quels sont les services que votre organisation fournit ? (Question à choix multiple) o Production o Appuis Conseils et renforcement de capacité o Financement o Recherche o Gestion de projet o Recherche o Autres à préciser ………. 5. Votre organisation est en activité depuis combien d’années ? …….. (nombre) 6. Quelle est votre couverture géographique ? Indiquer la ou les région(s) où intervient votre organisation : o Dakar 49 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Diourbel o Fatick o Kaffrine o Kaolack o Kédougou o Kolda o Louga o Matam o Saint Louis o Sédhiou o Tambacounda o Thiès o Ziguinchor 7. Votre organisation a-t-elle déjà participé ou participe-t-elle actuellement à la mise en œuvre de programmes ou de projets de développement social et/ou économique ? o Oui o Non 8. Quel est le nombre total d’employés de votre organisation ? …….. (nombre) [passer à Q17 si la réponse est 0] 9. Quel est le nombre de femmes employées dans votre organisation ? …….. (nombre) 10. Quel est le nombre de jeunes (personnes de moins de 35 ans) employés dans votre organisation ? …….. (nombre) 11. Combien d’employés de l’organisation vivent avec un handicap ? …….. (nombre) 12. Quel est le nombre de personnes dans vos organes de direction/décision ? …….. (nombre) 13. Combien de femmes sont dans vos organes de direction/décision ? …….. (nombre) 14. Combien de jeunes (personnes de moins de 35 ans) sont dans vos organes de direction/décision ? 50 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV …….. (nombre) 15. Combien de personnes vivant avec un handicap sont dans vos organes de direction/décision …….. (nombre) B- RESSOURCES DE L’ORGANISATION 16. Quel est le niveau de chiffre d’affaires annuel moyen de votre organisation (en FCFA) au cours des 3 dernières années ? o Moins de 1 million o 1 million à 5 millions o +5 millions à 10 millions o + 10 millions à 50 millions o + 50 millions à 100 millions o + 100 millions à 500 millions o + 500 millions à 1 milliard o + 1 milliard à 2 milliards o Plus de 2 milliards 17. Quel est le montant annuel moyen de votre budget d’investissement (en CFA) …….. (nombre) 18. Quel est le montant annuel moyen de votre budget de fonctionnement (en CFA) …….. (nombre) 19. De quels types de locaux votre organisation dispose-t-elle ? o Ses propres locaux o Bureaux en location o Bureaux mis à disposition par une tierce organisation entité o Pas de locaux abritant nos bureaux o Autres à préciser 20. Quelle est la valeur totale de vos actifs/immobilisations (en CFA) …….. (nombre) 21. Quel est le nombre de cadres supérieurs au sein de l’organisation ? …………….(nombre) 51 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 22. Quel est le nombre de diplômés de l’enseignement supérieur (Universités, Instituts publics ou privés) au sein de l’organisation ? …………….(nombre) 23. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle de certification produit, service, processus, management ou autre : o Oui o Non 24. Si oui, lesquelles : o QHSE o ISO 9001 o ISO 14001 o Autre ISO o Ecocert o Autre à préciser……….. C- GESTION ET GOUVERNANCE DE L’ORGANISATION 25. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un organigramme écrit ? o Oui o Non 26. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle de fiches de poste écrites pour chaque poste ? o Oui o Non 27. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’une grille salariale écrite qui est appliquée ? o Oui o Non 28. Quel est l’organe de gouvernance/supervision de votre organisation o Un Conseil d’Administration (CA) o Un Comité Directeur (CD) o Un Bureau Exécutif o Un Conseil Consultatif o Autres à préciser 29. Quelle est la fréquence des réunions de votre organe de gouvernance/supervision ? o Annuellement 52 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Trimestriellement o Mensuellement o Irrégulièrement o Rarement 30. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un plan stratégique ou d’un plan d’affaires qu’elle utilise/applique ? o Oui o Non 31. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un plan de travail annuel qu’elle applique ? o Oui o Non 32. Les états financiers annuels de votre organisation (pour les 3 derniers exercices ou moins si l’organisation existe depuis moins de trois ans) sont-ils certifiés par un commissaire aux comptes ? o Oui o Non 33. Votre organisation mène-t-elle des évaluations externes et indépendantes de ses activités et résultats ? o Oui o Non 34. Votre organisation publie-t-elle des rapports d’activité annuels ? o Oui o Non 35. Votre organisation procède-t-elle à une budgétisation annuelle ? o Jamais o Rarement o Quelque fois o Régulièrement o Toujours 36. Votre organisation dispose-t-elle d’un manuel des procédures administratives et financières validé et appliqué ? o Oui 53 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Non 37. Votre organisation utilise-t-elle un logiciel de gestion financière ou de comptabilité ? o Oui o Non D- RELATIONS AVEC LES BAILLEURS 38. Votre organisation collabore-t-elle actuellement ou a-t-elle eu à collaborer récemment (au cours des 5 dernières années) avec des bailleurs de fonds (bailleurs bilatéraux, bailleurs multilatéraux, Fondations internationales ? o Oui o Non (Si 37 = Non passer à Q 43) 39. Quels sont les bailleurs de fonds avec lesquels votre organisation collabore-telle actuellement ou a eu à collaborer récemment (au cours des 5 dernières années) ? (Faire en sorte que pour chaque bailleur on puisse avoir réponses aux Q 37, 38, 39 et 40) o BM-Banque mondiale o ONUDI o PNUD o ONU-FEMMES o UE-Union européenne o BAD- Banque Africaine de Développement o AFD o JICA o ENABEL /CTB o USAID o KOICA o OSIWA o Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation o Ford Foundation o Mastercard Foundation o Autres à préciser …………… 40. Quelle est ou a été la nature de la collaboration entre votre organisation et le(s) bailleur(s) de fonds ? o Partenariat pour la mise en œuvre d’un projet ou programme o Prestation de services dans le cadre de déploiement d’activités d’un projet 54 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Bénéficiaire de programme de renforcement de capacités o Bénéficiaire de subvention directe pour le renforcement de l’organisation (achat de biens ou services, recrutement ou paiement de personnel, prise en charge frais de fonctionnement……) o Autres à préciser 41. Quelle est ou a été la valeur monétaire/montant de la collaboration (en FCFA) ………… (nombre) 42. Quelle est la durée prévue ou quelle a été la durée de la collaboration (en mois) ………… (nombre) 43. Comment évaluez- vous cette collaboration ? o Excellente / Très satisfaisante o Satisfaisante o Moyenne (ni satisfaisante / ni insatisfaisante) o Insatisfaisante o Très insatisfaisante 44. Comment votre organisation est-elle informée des opportunités de partenariat avec les bailleurs de fonds ? o Le bailleur nous envoie des opportunités o Consultation de publications sur le site web du bailleur o Consultation de sites webs dédiés à la recherche financement o A travers la presse nationale o A travers notre réseau d’organisations o A travers des amis o Nous ne sommes pas informées o Autres à préciser 45. Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences des bailleurs de fonds en matière de partenariat ? o Très faciles à remplir o Faciles à remplir o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir o Difficiles à remplir o Très difficiles à remplir o Ne connait pas les critères 46. Comment votre organisation est-elle informée des opportunités de partenariat avec l’USAID ? 55 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o USAID nous envoie des opportunités o Consultation du site web de l’USAID o Consultation de sites webs dédiés à la recherche financement o A travers la presse nationale o A travers notre réseau d’organisations o A travers des amis o Nous ne sommes pas informés o Autres à préciser 47. Comment trouver-vous les critères de sélection de l’USAID en matière de partenariat ? o Très faciles à remplir o Faciles à remplir o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir o Difficiles à remplir o Très difficiles à remplir o Ne connaît pas les critères 48. Quels sont les principaux obstacles qui limitent votre partenariat avec l’USAID ? o Manque d’information sur les opportunités o Les délais de soumission des offres o Le profil du personnel clé demandé o La publication des appels à proposition en anglais o Les exigences de soumission des offres en anglais o Les exigences de rapportage en anglais o La complexité des exigences de l’offre technique o La complexité des exigences de l’offre financière o La contribution/contrepartie financière demandée o Le traitement préférentiel accordé aux entreprises américaines o Le manque d’expérience internationale o Aucun obstacle o Autres à préciser…………….. 49. Dans quelle mesure votre organisation est-elle intéressée à développer des partenariats avec l’USAID ? o Pas du tout intéressée o Pas intéressée 56 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Plus ou moins intéressée o Intéressée o Très intéressée 50. Quels sont les principaux domaines dans lesquels votre organisation aurait besoin d’un renforcement de capacités pour mieux exploiter les opportunités de collaboration avec l’USAID ? (les top 5) o Fundraising / Mobilisation de ressources financières o Gestion financière o Planification stratégique o Préparation de dossiers de réponses aux appels d’offres o Gestion de projets et programmes de développement o Conception de projets et programmes de développement o Suivi et évaluation o Gestion des ressources humaines o Communication et relations publiques o Marketing digital o Préparation de rapports/Rapportage aux bailleurs o Anglais o TIC / Habilité numérique o Autre (Préciser) : 51. Votre organisation dispose-t-telle des capacités et du mandat pour fournir des services de renforcement de capacités à d’autres organisations ? o O Non o O OUI (Si 51 = Non, passer à Q 53) 52. Quels sont les domaines dans lesquels votre organisation peut fournir des services de renforcement de capacités à d’autres organisations ? o Fundraising / Mobilisation de ressources financières o Gestion financière o Planification stratégique o Préparation de dossiers de réponses aux appels d’offres o Gestion de projets et programmes de développement o Conception de projets et programmes de développement o Suivi et évaluation 57 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Gestion des ressources humaines o Communication et relations publiques o Marketing digital o Préparation de rapports/ Rapportage aux bailleurs o Anglais o TIC / Habilité numérique o Autre (Préciser) : 53. Quelle est l’adresse de votre organisation ? Région……………………… Département……………. Ville ou Commune…………………. Quartier…………………….. Rue……………………………. 54. Qui est la personne à contacter de votre organisation ? Prénom……………………………… Nom……………………………………. Fonction……………………………….. Téléphone bureau…………………. Portable……………………………….. Email :………………………………….. Message de fin Merci d’avoir participé à cette enquête. Vous aurez grandement contribué à la réussite de notre étude. 58 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN ORGANISATIONS LOCALES DU SECTEUR PRIVÉ Introduction par l’enquêteur Je suis……………, enquêteur de EnCompass dans le cadre de la cartographie des organisations locales au Sénégal. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Ici, nous vous demandons de participer à un entretien car nous aimerions couvrir votre organisation dans la cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel. La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation. Nous ne nous cherchons pas à recueillir des informations personnelles. Les informations que vous partagez seront gardées confidentielles. L’équipe de recherche combinera les informations que vous fournirez avec celles des autres répondants et les documents examinés. Nous les présenterons dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec l’USAID. À terme, ce rapport pourra être téléchargé sur l’internet. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire. Si vous acceptez d’y participer, vous pouvez choisir d’arrêter à tout moment ou d’ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Le choix de ne pas participer à cette étude n’affectera pas votre relation avec l’USAID ou toute autre partie prenante. Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID à mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Nous aimerions enregistrer l’entretien. Ceci afin que nous puissions élaborer une transcription précise de ce que vous dites qui nous aidera à analyser les données. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef de l’étude si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Nous vous laissons avec cette fiche qui comprend ses coordonnées. Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? 59 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ? o Oui o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l’audio de cet entretien ? o Oui o Non Si la réponse non : Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l’aise de poursuivre l’entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n’enregistrais pas notre conversation ? o Oui o Non Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien. Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l’entretien. 60 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Expérience de l’organisation en matière de partenariat ● Parlez-nous de vos expériences en matière de mise en œuvre d’activités de développement socio-économique avec des partenaires ? ● Quels sont les mécanismes et/ou stratégies que vous mettez en place pour développer des partenariats avec les bailleurs de fonds ? [Documenter ces stratégies et amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis, comment, quand, où] (les succès et les limites de ces mécanismes / stratégies) ● Quelles sont les expériences que votre organisation a eues avec l’USAID ? ● Parlez-nous de vos expériences en matière de mise en œuvre d’activités ? Appréciation du potentiel et des forces de l’organisation ● Que pensez-vous de la capacité des organisations privées locales en général et de votre organisation en particulier en matière de o Conduite des activités de développement socio-économique ? o Mise en place de partenariats avec des bailleurs internationaux ? o Gestion de fonds de bailleurs internationaux ? [Amener le répondant à donner spontanément son avis sur la capacité des OL] ● A votre avis, quels sont les avantages / atouts et forces des entreprises locales en général et de votre entreprise en particulier dans la mise en œuvre de programme et de projets de développement financés par des bailleurs ? Appréciation des opportunités, défis et obstacles de l’organisation ● Que pensez-vous des possibilités pour votre organisation de s’impliquer dans la mise en œuvre de programmes de développement des bailleurs ? [Relancez et amener le répondant à donner des exemples concrets sur les possibilités perçues et les raisons de cette perception] ● A votre avis, quels sont les principaux obstacles à une plus grande participation des organisations privées locales comme la vôtre aux appels d’offres / appels à projet des bailleurs pour la mise en œuvre de projets de développement socio-économiques ? [Amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis] ● Parlez-nous de vos expériences en matière de mise en œuvre d’activités ? ● A votre avis, quelles sont les compétences que votre organisation peut mettre sur la table quand il s’agit de partenariat avec les bailleurs ? [Lister ces atouts et approfondir avec des illustrations concrètes] ● Dans quelle mesure votre organisation ou d’autres organisations locales mènent-elles des activités de renforcement de capacités ? Suggestions de solutions et recommandations ● Quels sont les facteurs clés de succès des partenariats entre organisations privés locales et bailleurs internationaux pour une bonne mise en œuvre de programmes et projets de développement socio-économique ? 61 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● Quels canaux devraient, à votre avis, utiliser les bailleurs pour mieux communiquer sur les opportunités de partenariats et de sous-traitance avec les organisations privées locales ? [Documentez en donnant des exemples précis] ● Quelles sont les appuis/facilités que les bailleurs de fonds pourraient apporter à votre organisation pour lui permettre de mieux bénéficier de leurs financements ? Ces appuis répondent-ils aux besoins de votre organisation/des organisations locales ? ● Collaborez-vous avec des organisations locales spécialisées dans les activités de renforcement de capacités des organisations ? Si oui, lesquelles et quels sont leurs domaines de spécialité ? ● Quelles seraient vos recommandations pour renforcer le partenariat entre les bailleurs et les OL sénégalaises ? [Corriger les insuffisances/faiblesses, renforcer les acquis et succès ?] ● Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discussion ? Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous répondre et de participer à cet entretien. 62 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN ORGANISATIONS LOCALE DE LA SOCIETE CIVILE (ONG, Associations. Fédérations) Je suis……………, enquêteur du Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par EnCompass LLC. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Ici, nous vous demandons de participer à un entretien car nous aimerions couvrir votre organisation dans la cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel. La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation. Nous ne nous cherchons pas à recueillir des informations personnelles. Les informations que vous partagez seront gardées confidentielles. L’équipe de recherche combinera les informations que vous fournirez avec celles des autres répondants et les documents examinés. Nous les présenterons dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec l’USAID. À terme, ce rapport pourra être téléchargé sur l’internet. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire. Si vous acceptez d’y participer, vous pouvez choisir d’arrêter à tout moment ou d’ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Le choix de ne pas participer à cette étude n’affectera pas votre relation avec l’USAID ou toute autre partie prenante. Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID à mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Nous aimerions enregistrer l’entretien. Ceci afin que nous puissions élaborer une transcription précise de ce que vous dites qui nous aidera à analyser les données. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef de l’étude si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Nous vous laissons avec cette fiche qui comprend ses coordonnées. Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? 63 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ? o Oui o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l’audio de cet entretien ? o Oui o Non [Si la réponse non : ] Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l’aise de poursuivre l’entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n’enregistrais pas notre conversation ? o Oui o Non [Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.] [Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l’entretien.] Expérience de l’organisation en matière de partenariat ● Est-ce que votre organisation collabore-t-elle avec d’autres organisations nationales ou internationales dans la mise en œuvre des activités de développement ? (Lesquelles) ● Quels sont les mécanismes et/ou stratégies que vous mettez en place pour développer des partenariats avec les bailleurs de fonds ? [Documenter ces stratégies et amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis, comment, quand, où, avec qui ?] (Les succès et les limites de ces mécanismes / stratégies) ● Quels sont les canaux que vous utilisez pour vous informer des opportunités de partenariat avec les bailleurs de fonds [documentez en donnant des exemples précis] ● Quelles sont les difficultés que votre organisation rencontre pour répondre aux appels d’offres / appels à projet ? [Amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis] ● Que pensez-vous des critères d’éligibilité et d’évaluation mis en place par les bailleurs pour bénéficier de leurs financements ? [Relancez et amener le répondant à donner des exemples concrets sur les critères et les difficultés/barrières] ● Quelles sont les expériences que votre organisation a eues avec l’USAID ? Les réussites et les difficultés ? ● Quels sont les facteurs qui limitent les possibilités de partenariat de votre organisation avec l’USAID ? Appréciation de la qualité des partenariats ● Comment appréciez-vous les opportunités/expériences de collaboration avec les bailleurs de fonds ? [Relancez sur les points ci-dessous s’ils ne sont pas abordés par le répondant] ● Succès et réussites ● Points faibles 64 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● Que pensez-vous de la qualité et des niveaux d’expérience de votre organisation en matière de mobilisation des financements, de renforcement des capacités et de conduite des activités ? [Amener le répondant à donner spontanément son avis sur la capacité des OL à gérer les fonds issus des donateurs] ● Parlez-nous de vos expériences en matière de mise en œuvre d’activités de développement ? ● Quelles sont les compétences que votre organisation peut mettre sur la table quand il s’agit de partenariat avec les bailleurs ? [Lister ces atouts et approfondir avec des illustrations concrètes] ● Quelles sont les appuis/facilités que les bailleurs de fonds apportent à votre organisation pour lui permettre de mieux bénéficier de leurs financements ? Ces appuis répondent-ils aux besoins de votre organisation/ ? ● Dans quelle mesure votre organisation ou d’autres organisations locales mènent-elle des activités de renforcement de capacités ? Solutions et recommandations ● Quels types d’appuis les bailleurs accordent-ils à votre organisation ? [Amenez le répondant à apprécier les appuis/soutiens en donnant des exemples concrets] ● Collaborez-vous avec des organisations locales spécialisées dans les activités de renforcement de capacités des organisations ? Si oui, lesquelles et quels sont leurs domaines de spécialité ? ● Quelles seraient vos recommandations pour renforcer le partenariat entre les bailleurs et les OL sénégalaises (Associations, ONG, Fédérations Réseaux ? [Corriger les insuffisances/faiblesses, renforcer les acquis et succès ?] ● Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discussion ? ● Avez-vous d’autres suggestions/recommandations à formuler à l’endroit de l’USAID ? 65 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN ORGANISATIONS FAITIÈRES Je suis……………, enquêteur du Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par EnCompass LLC. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Ici, nous vous demandons de participer à un entretien car nous aimerions couvrir votre organisation dans la cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel. La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation. Nous ne nous cherchons pas à recueillir des informations personnelles. Les informations que vous partagez seront gardées confidentielles. L’équipe de recherche combinera les informations que vous fournirez avec celles des autres répondants et les documents examinés. Nous les présenterons dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec l’USAID. À terme, ce rapport pourra être téléchargé sur l’internet. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire. Si vous acceptez d’y participer, vous pouvez choisir d’arrêter à tout moment ou d’ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Le choix de ne pas participer à cette étude n’affectera pas votre relation avec l’USAID ou toute autre partie prenante. Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID à mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Nous aimerions enregistrer l’entretien. Ceci afin que nous puissions élaborer une transcription précise de ce que vous dites qui nous aidera à analyser les données. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef de l’étude si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Nous vous laissons avec cette fiche qui comprend ses coordonnées. Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ? 66 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Oui o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l’audio de cet entretien ? o Oui o Non [Si la réponse non : ] Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l’aise de poursuivre l’entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n’enregistrais pas notre conversation ? o Oui o Non [Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.] [Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l’entretien.] 67 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Partenariat/collaboration avec les organisations locales, contraintes/barrières et facteurs de succès ● Dans quelle mesure votre structure collabore-t-elle avec des organisations locales (société civile), membres ou non de votre organisation, organisations faîtières et non faîtières ? [Précisez les organisations, décrire, expliciter la nature et le niveau de collaboration avec chaque organisation] ● Quels sont les types d’organisations avec lesquelles vous collaborez le plus ? Pourquoi ? ● Quels sont les, démarches, mécanismes et/ou stratégies que vous développez pour susciter l’intérêt des organisations locales membres et non membres à répondre à vos appels (d’offres ou à projets) au Sénégal ? [Documenter ces informations stratégies et amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis, comment, quand, où, avec qui ?] ● Quels sont les canaux et les lieux de publication des opportunités de partenariat avec les organisations locales [documentez en donnant des exemples précis] ● Quels sont les critères d’éligibilité pour bénéficier de vos financements et appuis (techniques, institutionnels, logistiques) selon qu’on est membre ou non de votre structure ? [Relancez et amener le répondant à donner des exemples concrets sur les critères et les difficultés/barrières] ● A votre avis, quelles sont les difficultés et/ou blocages auxquels font face les organisations locales, membres ou non membres pour concourir à vos appels d’offres / appels à projets ? [Amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis]. ● Avez-vous des réseaux thématiques ou des commissions/groupes de travail spécialisés ● Votre organisation est-elle membre d’une autre organisation faîtière ou réseau ? ● Avec quels ministères vous collaborez et dans quels domaines ? ● Quels sont les principaux domaines d’intervention de vos membres ? ● Quels sont vos avantages comparatifs par rapport à vos membres ? Appréciation de la qualité des partenariats ● Comment appréciez-vous la qualité de vos partenariats avec les organisations locales, membres et non membres ? [Relancez sur les points ci-dessous s’ils ne sont pas abordés par le répondant] o Meilleurs succès et réussites dans les partenariats la collaboration avec les organisation locales membres ou non ? (Citez des exemples) o Points faibles de la collaboration ? (Citez des exemples) ● Que pensez-vous de la qualité, et des niveaux d’expérience et d’expertise des organisations locales (OSC) membres ou non de votre structure en matière de mobilisation des financements et de conduite des activités ? [Amener le répondant à donner spontanément son avis sur la capacité des OL à gérer les fonds issus des donateurs] ● A votre avis, quels sont les atouts et/ou forces des organisations locales membres ou non avec lesquelles vous travaillez ? [Lister ces atouts et approfondir avec des illustrations concrètes] Solutions et recommandations ● Quels types d’appuis votre structure accorde-t-elle aux organisations locales membres ou non pour leur permettre d’avoir les capacités requises pour exécuter vos projets ? [Amenez le répondant à apprécier les appuis/soutiens en donnant des exemples concrets] 68 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● Collaborez-vous avec des organisations locales membres ou non spécialisées dans les activités de renforcement de capacités des organisations ? Si oui, lesquels et quels sont leurs domaines de spécialité et leurs régions et zones d’intervention ? ● Quelles seraient vos recommandations pour renforcer le partenariat entre les bailleurs de fonds et les OL sénégalaises, membres ou non de votre structure ? [Corriger les insuffisances/faiblesses, renforcer les acquis et succès ?] ● Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discussion ? ● Auriez-vous d’autres suggestions et recommandations à formuler à l’endroit de l’USAID ? Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de répondre à nos questions et de participer à cet entretien. 69 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN PTF Je suis……………, enquêteur du Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par EnCompass LLC. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Ici, nous vous demandons de participer à un entretien car nous aimerions couvrir votre organisation dans la cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel. La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation. Nous ne nous cherchons pas à recueillir des informations personnelles. Les informations que vous partagez seront gardées confidentielles. L’équipe de recherche combinera les informations que vous fournirez avec celles des autres répondants et les documents examinés. Nous les présenterons dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec l’USAID. À terme, ce rapport pourra être téléchargé sur l’internet. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire. Si vous acceptez d’y participer, vous pouvez choisir d’arrêter à tout moment ou d’ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Le choix de ne pas participer à cette étude n’affectera pas votre relation avec l’USAID ou toute autre partie prenante. Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID à mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Nous aimerions enregistrer l’entretien. Ceci afin que nous puissions élaborer une transcription précise de ce que vous dites qui nous aidera à analyser les données. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef de l’étude si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Nous vous laissons avec cette fiche qui comprend ses coordonnées. Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ? 70 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Oui o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l’audio de cet entretien ? o Oui o Non [Si la réponse non :] Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l’aise de poursuivre l’entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n’enregistrais pas notre conversation ? o Oui o Non [Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.] [Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l’entretien.] 71 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Partenariat/collaboration avec les organisations locales, contraintes/barrières et facteurs de succès ● Dans quelle mesure votre structure collabore-t-elle avec des organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé) ? [Précisez les organisations, décrire, expliciter la nature et le niveau de collaboration avec chaque organisation] ● Quels sont les types d’organisations avec lesquelles vous collaborez le plus ? Pourquoi ? ● Quels sont les, démarches, mécanismes et/ou stratégies que vous développez pour susciter l’intérêt des organisations locales à répondre à vos appels (d’offre ou à projets) au Sénégal ? [Documenter ces informations et amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis, comment, quand, où, avec qui ?] ● Quels sont les canaux et les lieux de publication des opportunités de partenariat avec les organisations locales [documentez en donnant des exemples précis] ● Quels sont les critères d’éligibilité pour bénéficier de vos financements et appuis (techniques, institutionnels, logistiques ? [Relancez et amener le répondant à donner des exemples concrets sur les critères et les difficultés/barrières] ● A votre avis, quelles sont les difficultés et/ou blocages auxquels font face les organisations locales pour concourir à vos appels d’offres / appels à projets ? [Amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis] Appréciation de la qualité des partenariats ● Comment appréciez-vous la qualité de vos partenariats avec le (s) organisations locales ? [Relancez sur les points ci-dessous s’ils ne sont pas abordés par le répondant] ● Meilleurs succès et réussites dans les partenariats avec les organisations locales ? (Citez des exemples) ● Points faibles de la collaboration ? (Citez des exemples) ● Que pensez-vous de la qualité, et des niveaux d’expérience et d’expertise des organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé) en matière de mobilisation des financements et de conduite des activités ? [Amener le répondant à donner spontanément son avis sur la capacité des OL à gérer les fonds issus des donateurs] ● A votre avis, quels sont les atouts et/ou forces des organisations locales avec lesquelles vous travaillez ? [Lister ces atouts et approfondir avec des illustrations concrètes] Solutions et recommandations ● Quels types d’appuis votre structure accorde-t-elle aux organisations locales pour leur permettre d’avoir les capacités requises pour exécuter vos projets ? [Amenez le répondant à apprécier les appuis/soutiens en donnant des exemples concrets] ● Collaborez-vous avec des organisations locales spécialisées dans les activités de renforcement de capacités des organisations ? Si oui, lesquelles et quels sont leurs domaines de spécialité ? ● Quelles seraient vos recommandations pour renforcer le partenariat entre les bailleurs de fonds et les OL sénégalaises ? [Corriger les insuffisances/faiblesses, renforcer les acquis et succès ?] ● Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discussion ? ● Auriez-vous d’autres suggestions et recommandations à formuler à l’endroit de l’USAID ? 72 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous répondre et de participer à cet entretien. 73 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN MINISTÈRES Je suis……………, enquêteur du Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par EnCompass LLC. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Ici, nous vous demandons de participer à un entretien car nous aimerions couvrir votre organisation dans la cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel. La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation. Nous ne nous cherchons pas à recueillir des informations personnelles. Les informations que vous partagez seront gardées confidentielles. L’équipe de recherche combinera les informations que vous fournirez avec celles des autres répondants et les documents examinés. Nous les présenterons dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec l’USAID. À terme, ce rapport pourra être téléchargé sur l’internet. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire. Si vous acceptez d’y participer, vous pouvez choisir d’arrêter à tout moment ou d’ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Le choix de ne pas participer à cette étude n’affectera pas votre relation avec l’USAID ou toute autre partie prenante. Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID à mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Nous aimerions enregistrer l’entretien. Ceci afin que nous puissions élaborer une transcription précise de ce que vous dites qui nous aidera à analyser les données. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef de l’étude si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Nous vous laissons avec cette fiche qui comprend ses coordonnées. Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ? Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ? 74 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV o Oui o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l’audio de cet entretien ? o Oui o Non [Si la réponse non : ] Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l’aise de poursuivre l’entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n’enregistrais pas notre conversation ? o Oui o Non [Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.] [Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l’entretien.] 75 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Présentation du répondant€ ● Pouvez-vous vous présenter brièvement ● S xe : ● Présentez-nous votre Ministère, ses missions et domaines de compétence ● Quels sont vos rôles et responsabilités au sein du ministère Partenariat/collaboration avec les organisations locales, contraintes/barrières et facteurs de succès ● Dans quelle mesure votre ministère collabore-t-il avec des organisations locales (société civile et secteur pri é) ? [Précisez les organisations, décrire, expliciter la nature et le niveau de collaboration avec chaque organisation] ● Quels sont les types d’organisations locales avec lesquelles votre ministère collabore le p us ? Pourq oi ? ● Quelles sont les organisations les plus actives avec lesquelles vous travail ez ? (Demandez au répondant de les lister et de donner leur zone de couverture) ● Quels sont les démarches, mécanismes et/ou stratégies que développe votre ministère pour susciter l’intérêt des organisations locales à répondre a vos appels (d’offre ou à projets) au Séné al ? [Documenter ces informations stratégies et amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis, comment, quand, où, avec ui ?] Appréciation de la qualité des partenariats ● Comment appréciez-vous la qualité des partenariats de votre ministère avec les organisations loca es ? [Relancez sur les points ci-dessous s’ils ne sont pas abordés par le répondant] ● Meilleurs succès et réussites dans les partenariats/collaboration avec les organisations loca es ? (Citez des exemples) ● Points faibles de la collaborat on ? (Citez des exemples) ● Que pensez-vous de la qualité, et des niveaux d’expérience et d’expertise des organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé) en matière de mobilisation des financements et de conduite des activi és ? [Amener le répondant à donner spontanément son avis sur la capacité des OL à gérer les fonds issus des donateurs] ● A votre avis, quels sont les atouts et/ou forces des organisations locales avec lesquelles travaille votre minist re ? [Lister ces atouts et approfondir avec des illustrations concrètes] Solutions et recommandations ● Quels types d’appuis votre ministère accorde-t-il aux organisations locales pour leur permettre d’avoir les capacités requises pour exécuter vos proj ts ? [Amenez le répondant à apprécier les appuis/soutiens en donnant des exemples concrets] ● Collaborez-vous avec des organisations locales spécialisées dans les activités de renforcement de capacités des organisati ns ? Si oui, lesquelles et quels sont leurs domaines de spécial té ? ● Quelles seraient vos recommandations pour renforcer le partenariat entre les bailleurs de fonds et les OL sénégalai es ? [Corriger les insuffisances/faiblesses, renforcer les acquis et suc ès ?] ● Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette discuss on ? 76 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● Auriez-vous d’autres suggestions et recommandations à formuler à l’endroit de l’US ID ? Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de répondre à nos questions et de participer à cet entretien. GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN PARTENAIRES D’EXÉCUTION DE L’USAID Je suis……………, enquêteur du Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par EnCompass LLC. Dans le cadre du soutien au Gouvernement du Sénégal dans ses interventions de développement, l’USAID/Sénégal, soucieux de la nécessité d’étendre et de renforcer le partenariat avec les organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé local), envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes innovants pouvant permettre une meilleure participation des organisations locales dans la mise en œuvre de ses interventions dans les différents secteurs. Dans cette perspective, l’USAID a commandité cette étude cartographique des organisations locales dont l’objectif consiste à dresser l’état des lieux de l’écosystème des organisations locales et d’identifier les potentialités existantes et à développer pour favoriser un renforcement du partenariat avec les structures locales au Sénégal. Ici, nous vous demandons de participer à un entretien car nous aimerions couvrir votre organisation dans la cartographie. Nous vous avons choisi parce que votre organisation correspond au profil des organisations qui peuvent être un partenaire potentiel. La discussion prendra environ 1 heure. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre organisation. Nous ne nous cherchons pas à recueillir des informations personnelles. Les informations que vous partagez seront gardées confidentielles’ L'équipe de recherche combinera les informations que vous fournirez avec celles des autres répondants et les documents examinés. Nous les présenterons dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec l’USAID. À terme, ce rapport pourra être téléchargé su’ l'internet. En plus de l’analyse qui sera faite des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les organisations locales ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l’USAID. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire. Si vous accepte’ d'y participer, vous pouvez choisi’ d'arrêter à tout moment o’ d'ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne souhaitez pas répondre. Le choix de ne pas participer à cette étud’ n'affectera pas votre relation avec l’USAID ou toute autre partie prenante. Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation. Toutefois, vos réponses seront très utiles pour aider l’USAID à mieux connaitre l’environnement des organisations locales au Sénégal ainsi que leurs caractéristiques et leurs expertises et compétences. Nous pensons que votre participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Nous aimerions enregistrer l’entretien. Ceci afin que nous puissions élaborer une transcription précise de ce que vous dites qui nous aidera à analyser les données. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le chef de l’étude si vous avez des questions ou complaintes. Nous vous laissons avec cette fiche qui comprend ses coordonnées. 77 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commen er ? Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questi ns ? o Oui o Non (si la réponse est Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant) Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistron’ l'audio de cet entret en ? o Oui o Non [Si la réponse on : ] Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous ’ l'aise de poursuivr’ l'entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites e’ n'enregistrais pas notre conversat on ? o Oui o Non [Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.] [Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin ’ l'entretien.] Présentation du répond€(e) ● Pouvez-vous vous présenter brièvement ● Sexe: ● Présentez-nous votre structure, ses missions et domaines de compétence ● Parlez-nous de vos expériences de collaboration avec l’USAID (dans quels secteurs ou domaines, zones, régions etc..), pour quelles act vités ? ● Quels sont vos rôles et responsabilités au sein de votre structure ● Quels ont été vos rôles et responsabilités dans le cadre de la collaboration avec l USAID ? Partenariat/collaboration avec les organisations locales, contraintes/barrières et facteurs de succès ● Dans quelle mesure votre organisation collabore-t-elle avec des organisations locales (société civile et secteur rivé) ? [Précisez les organisations, décrire, expliciter la nature et le niveau de collaboration avec chaque organisation] ● Quels sont les types d’organisations locales avec lesquelles votre organisation collabore l plus ? Po rquoi ? ● Quelles sont les organisations les plus actives avec lesquelles vous trav illez ? (Demandez au répondant de les lister et de donner leur zone de couverture) ● Quels sont les, démarches, mécanismes et/ou stratégies que développe votre organisation pour susciter l’intérêt des organisations locales à répondre à vos appels (d’offre ou à projets) au S négal ? [Documenter ces informations stratégies et amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis, comment, quand, où, av c qui ?] 78 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● A votre avis, quelles sont les difficultés et/ou blocages auxquels font face les organisations locales pour concourir aux appels d’offres / appels à projets de votre organi ation ? [Amener le répondant à donner des exemples précis] Appréciation de la qualité des partenariats ● Comment appréciez-vous la qualité des partenariats de votre organisation avec les organisations l cales ? [Relancez sur les points ci-dessous s’ils ne sont pas abordés par le répondant] ● Meilleurs succès et réussites dans les partenariats/collaborations avec les organisations l cales ? (Citez des exemples) ● Points faibles de la collabo ation ? (Citez des exemples) ● Que pensez-vous de la qualité, et des niveaux d’expérience et d’expertise des organisations locales (société civile et secteur privé) en matière de mobilisation des financements et de conduite des act vités ? [Amener le répondant à donner spontanément son avis sur la capacité des OL à gérer les fonds issus des donateurs] ● A votre avis, quels sont les atouts et/ou forces des organisations locales avec lesquelles travaille votre organi ation ? [Lister ces atouts et approfondir avec des illustrations concrètes] Solutions et recommandations ● Quels types d’appuis votre organisation accorde-t-elle aux organisations locales pour leur permettre d’avoir les capacités requises pour exécuter vos p ojets ? [Amenez le répondant à apprécier les appuis/soutiens en donnant des exemples concrets] ● Les organisations locales vous fournissent-elles des ppuis ? Si oui, dans quels do aines ? ● Collaborez-vous avec des organisations locales spécialisées dans les activités de renforcement de capacités des organis tions ? Si oui, lesquelles et quels sont leurs domaines de spéc alité ? ● Quelles seraient vos recommandations pour renforcer le partenariat entre les bailleurs de fonds et les OL sénéga aises ? [Corriger les insuffisances/faiblesses, renforcer les acquis et uccès ?] ● Aimeriez-vous ajouter quelque chose qui vous semble important que nous n’aurions pas abordé dans cette disc ssion ? ● Auriez-vous d’autres suggestions et recommandations à formuler à l’endroit de l USAID ? Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de répondre à nos questions et de participer à cet entretien. 79 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Consentement verbale pour les sessions d'écoute [L'animateur inclura cet aperçu du consentement au début des séa’ces d'écoute] Nous vous remercions tous de vous être joints à nous a’jourd'hui pour la ses’ion d'écoute. Nous tenons à vous rappeler que les sess’ons d'écoute font pa’tie d'une étude plus large sur les organisations au Sénégal. Beau’oup d'entre vous ont déjà participé soit à des enquêtes, soit à des entretiens avec notre équipe. A’jourd'hui, nous allons poursuivre nos discussions à travers une s’rie d'échanges. Nous tenons à vous rappeler que nous prendrons des notes sur les points saillants soulevés dans ces discussions tout au long de la séance. Nous ne citerons pas les noms des personnes. Certains de ces points seront intégrés dans le rapport fina’ de l'étude. Il pourra être ultérieurement téléchargé et hébergé sur Internet. Vous pouvez décider de ne pas participer et/ou de partir à tout moment. En continuant à participer au cours de la séance, vous donnez votre accord pour faire partie de ce processus. Si vous avez des questions ou des préoccupations, veuillez rencontrer Souleymane Barry, notre chef de projet ou un autre membr’ de l'équipe de recherche. 80 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX D: CASE STUDIES REGIONAL SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE OF WOMEN FOR PEACE IN CASAMANCE (USOFORAL) A nonprofit association created in 1999 by women. The Regional Solidarity Committee of Women for Peace in Casamance (USOFORAL) is a key player in the peace process in Casamance and is recognized as a strong community-based actor in Ziguinchor. USOFORAL works to better involve women in building lasting peace for a prosperous and egalitarian society. It develops with women in particular projects aimed at ensuring them a better social and economic status. The organization is led by women who have demonstrated strong leadership. That’s why they want to promote female leadership and to improve the social and economic situation of women in a peaceful and prosperous Senegal. Their programs focus on strengthening peace potentials in Casamance, female leadership and citizenship, and sustainable development. USOFORAL has 15,000 members throughout the regions of Ziguinchor and Sédhiou. These members are grouped in Federations in nine municipalities. It has secretariat with 47 staff. For the past three years, they had annual budgets broken down as follows: ● 2020: 632 485 342 FCFA ● 2021: 979 489 372 FCFA ● 2022: 632 945 748 FCFA TOTAL: 2 235 920 462 FCFA For their operations, they charge 17 percent to project budgets for institutional support, which allows them to meet staff and administrative costs. They negotiate this in advance with partners. They have worked with USAID IPs in Casamance. One their partners is the Spanish Cooperation Agency for Peace, which provided funding for a project called “Development and equipment of the Gardening blocks” implemented in the village of Agnack Petit (Municipality of Adeane) for a budget of 41 000 000 FCFA in 2010. USOFORAL has many Spanish partners, and the Spanish Cooperation Agency for Peace helps them access funding from the Spanish Government or Municipalities through the Spanish Cooperation Agency. With Spanish NGOs, they apply for joint funding, and then they share operational costs. About 75 percent of their funding is through the Spanish Cooperation. Every year they hold a Partners’ Meeting to develop or review the projects to put in place. The minimum funding is between 300 000 000 FCFA and 400 000 000 FCFA per year, and there is room for institutional support. The Foundation for a Just Society is a U.S.-based Foundation that provides them with project support (on women empowerment) as well as institutional support for capacity building and USOFORAL’s visibility. They provide them with flexible financial support of no less than 250 000 000 FCFA per year. Through RTI, they were provided funding to be among the local IPs of the project name “Feed the Future – Naatal Mbay,” a USAID funded project. They were also awarded the “Rainfed Rice 81 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Development Project” to be implemented in the municipalities of Nyassia, Enampore, and Oulampane for a budget of 15 000 000 FCFA. Though small, USOFORAL reported that they learned a lot about project management from RTI CHALLENGES ● Projects are often very short (one year of less), limiting sustainability. ● USOFORAL may not have the capacity to apply or to report properly in the donor’s official language. In these cases, they need a foreign partner to be the prime because of reporting requirements. ● For every partner they work with, they need to learn their procedures and financial requirements and make the necessary adaptations in their existing systems. HASKÈ CONSEIL Haskè Conseil (formerly Dalberg Senegal) is a strategy advisory and initiative-building firm founded in 2008 under the name FocusAfrica by Ms. Madjiguene Sock, a Senegalese professional with over 25 years of experience implementing and managing projects in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and the United States. The organization is a single-member public limited company headquartered in Dakar and fully owned by a Senegalese woman. Between 2010 and 2021, FocusAfrica was part of an international consultancy group, Dalberg Advisors. In 2022, the company separated from Dalberg Advisors and changed its name with the same core leadership: The Founder, Madjiguene Sock, and the former Country co-lead of Dalberg Senegal, Modou Fall, respectively became the President and CEO of Haskè Conseil. The organization designs and implements socio-economic development solutions for private companies, governments, public national and regional institutions, bilateral and multilateral donors, and philanthropies throughout Africa in key sectors and areas such as: agriculture, industrialization, trade, access to finance, digital transformation, education and skills development, sanitation, and health. The organization has worked in throughout Senegal, other parts of Africa (both francophone and anglophone), and Haiti. As of 2021, Haskè Conseil had an average annual turnover of about 3 billion CFA Francs (about $5 million USD). The organization also designs, incubates, and implements initiatives to support entrepreneurs and the private sector while accelerating development impact. Haskè Conseil currently has 25 full time staff, including 60 percent of women and over 90 percent of youth, from Senegal, Mozambique, Lebanon, Benin, and France. Three quarters of its management team are women and are below 35 years old. Haskè Conseil describes itself as an innovative learning organization that co-creates initiatives such as the Women’s Investment Club (WIC) Senegal in 2016, which gave birth to WIC Capital in 2019, the first investment fund dedicated to women-led businesses in the Francophone West African region. WIC started out as a local angel network of mainly affluent and successful women who co-invested about $10,000 USD each and established a $500,000 USD commercially oriented investment platform where women reinforce their knowledge of the financial markets, develop their capacity to invest, support women-led businesses, and serve as role models for other women. WIC started its investments through an existing mutual fund, engaged the services of CGF Bourse as a fund manager, increased their 82 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV membership, mobilized the savings of over 90 women, and co-developed their vision and objectives. WIC successfully raised additional funding from the Government of Senegal’s “Délégation Générale à l’Entrepreneuriat Rapide des Femmes et des Jeunes,” the Dutch entrepreneurial development bank, USAID, the MasterCard Foundation (MCF) and Lawson Human Resources. Today, WIC Capital is an open-ended investment fund with a budget of over $20 million USD that invests in early-stage women￾led businesses in Senegal and Cote d’Ivoire, through a mix of equity and quasi equity with tickets ranging from $50,000 USD to $500,000 USD. The fund has already invested $1.9 million USD in five women-led businesses that created 683 jobs and employed between 20 percent to 50 percent of women. Haskè Conseil has been incubating The Alliance for Advancing Recycling, Awareness and Livelihoods in Plastics, a multi-stakeholder alliance to address environmental and socio-economic issues, for the development of the circular economy in Senegal through (1) a voluntary agreement, including companies and private organizations, in collaboration with public and associative actors; and (2) an exchange platform that promotes the sharing of solutions and the implementation of collaborative actions. The organization has a robust organizational management system including a clearly defined and applied strategic plan, annual work plans, organizational chart, job descriptions, and a salary grid. Moreover, Haskè Conseil (1) has a financial and administrative management handbook validated by a certified public accountant, (2) certifies its annual financial statements, (3) is putting in place a board of directors, and (4) shares, to partners on-demand, its internal annual activity reports. Haskè Conseil has designed and delivered a wide variety of projects ranging from short-term assignments over a few months with budgets of up to $100,000 USD to multi-annual projects of several million USD. Its partners include the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, the Rockefeller Foundation, the MCF, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development, and Luxdev. The organization wants to work directly with USAID but believes that: ● USAID IPs have established costly organizational structures including financial management, M&E, and reporting systems exclusively to meet the requirements of USAID, and are aware of the issuance of calls for proposals before the local organizations and end up having more time to prepare their technical offers, secure local partnerships, and recruit the most competent local human resources. ● USAID’s eligibility criteria are generally harder to meet than the ones of other donors especially in terms of experience required concerning the amounts of funds managed. ● The requirements of USAID’s technical and financial offers are too complex in terms of components and formatting, which require more time and resources to complete than offers to other donors. ● Donors and their international IPs very often poach the best employees of local organizations. ● A new model is emerging, such as the Tony Blair Institute, which provides secured budgets and offer ‘free’ services, especially to government. ● Local organizations lack access to timely information on the various opportunities and modalities of collaboration with some donors. ● Donors tend to offer local organizations lower budgets for the same work executed by international IPs. 83 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV The organization believes it has the organizational capabilities and experience to advance USAID’s objectives and address the needs of USAID as: ● A thought partner in the design of strategies and programs in the areas of economic growth, education and skills development, and health and sanitation ● A partner to test the relevance of initiatives or adapt initiatives to the local context ● A facilitator in the identification of local IPs ● An IP in the roll-out of development programs in the climate change, economic growth, education, health, and youth entrepreneurship sectors ● A provider of capacity building services to local organizations for (1) the design and management of development projects/programs and (2) the preparation and implementation of strategic plans ● A co-investor in the establishment of innovative solutions Haskè Conseil is growing rapidly and plans to increase its team to about 50 staff in 2023, with extensive recruitment underway. This includes additional talent to serve on new initiatives that are longer term such as an industrialization accelerator and a market-shaping initiative for innovative sanitation. AM BE KOUN (ABK) SOLIDARITÉ AM BE KOUN (ABK) Solidarité is an indigenous youth community-based organization in Tambacounda that is well known. It was established in 2010 and has a staff of 44, including 26 women and 18 men. Its main areas of intervention are agriculture, rural entrepreneurship, and hydraulics. The activities concern mostly the development of sustainable agriculture through market gardening and agroforestry areas as well as family farms. ABK has a board of directors and all required admin and financial procedures in place. In addition to that, they adapt easily to every partner’s project procedure and instrument. It has received important funding from its traditional partner and conducts annual audits but also monthly project activity reports to all partners as well as quarterly and annual financial statements for each program, based on partnership agreement. They have an administrative and financial manual of procedures. Since its inception in 2010, ABK Solidarité has managed about 3M Euros, but for the past five years, it has managed about 2M Euros from different donors. It has about a dozen international and national or regional partners with whom they have been collaborating in a certain number of projects. They follow each partner’s reporting requirements. Every year, they organize a round table of partners to agree on strategic directions and evaluate past projects and those that will be implemented in the current year and plans for future projects. This strategy has helped minimize conflicts as each partner knows what every partner funding is and/or how they can co-fund a project or provide matching grant. Among these partners, a few can be cited for the size of their funding. ABK’s main technical partner is ICD-Afrique, an international NGO, which helped set up ABK Solidarité in 2010. ICD-Afrique helps ABK build new partnership relationships and also match grants when developing a project. They also provide ABK with technical support and financial assistance. Other partners and programs include: 84 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● The German Development Agency (GIZ) grant of 59 955 000 FCFA to develop six gardening perimeters in Goudiry and Bakel with a possibility of extension to Kedougou. ● Three grants from the French Development Agency (AFD) valued at 250 000 000 FCFA each. This is a matching grant through ICD for rural micro gardening projects, funded by ULB Cooperation. ● Action Aid funding for Bala Community Development Program and the Annual Action Plan: Human Rights, Childhood (in progress). Since 2018, Action Aid has funded 111 457 140 FCFA in support of ABK’s development work through a call for proposal. ABK offered examples of its accomplishments: ● ABK installed market garden funded by ULB Cooperation with the co-funding from AFD and ICD-Afrique. ABK received approval from the municipal councils for the perimeters, infrastructure, and operating equipment. They trained women on production and management techniques and agreed on organization and management principles. The efforts resulted in the availability of healthy and varied products and environmental protection of the site. The impact is visible with the improvement of household food, the sustainable income generation, and the improvement of living conditions thanks to the enhancement of income. ● ABK helped establish management of establish village savings and credit associations (AVECs) to receive financial contributions. In addition to the savings activities, they purchased equipment to be rented at a lower cost to AVEC members. They believed the results contributed to the financial autonomy of the communities, the realization of investments for community use: a storage warehouse, refurbishment of classrooms, water supply piping for the village, equipment for the mosque, etc. AVEC member incomes have increased and the AVEC continues to generate capital for future loans as each member repays its loan with interest. The only challenge they mentioned is the insufficiency of funding. Many partners want great results but don’t provide enough funding to achieve those results. They have not benefited from USAID funding in the past, but they have demonstrated strong managerial capacity that they could be good local partners of USAID. NATIONAL UNION OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE OF SENEGAL (UNCCIAS) The National Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture of Senegal (Union Nationale des Chambres de Commerce, d’Industrie et d’Agriculture du Sénégal/UNCCIAS) is an umbrella organization that regroups all the 14 Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (CCIA) of each of the regions of Senegal. The CCIAs have a total of about 20,000 member private sector organizations (PSOs), including mainly economic interest groups (Groupements d’Interet Economique, GIE), formal and informal individual enterprises/sole proprietorships (entreprises individuelles), limited liability companies (Sociétés à Responsabilité Limitée, SARL), sole proprietorships with limited liability (Sociétés Unipersonnelles à Responsabilité Limitée, SUARL), and more recently, to a lesser extent, cooperatives (sociétés cooperatives). These PSOs are mostly active in agriculture (including livestock and fishing), light industries, trade, and other services. UNCCIAS is a quasi-public organization, a “public establishment of a professional nature,” (Etablissement public à caractère professionnel) operated and managed exclusively by the private sector and regrouping the CCIAs in all 14 regions. 85 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV The UNCCIAS aims to develop and further the interests, capacity, and performances of the private sector in Senegal while supporting the development of all the regional CCIAs. The organization was established by a ministerial decree, started its operations in 2003, and currently has eight full-time employees composed of one Secretary General, one communications manager, two program managers, one manager of economic events and trade fairs, one head of projects and partnerships, one administrative assistant, and an accountant. UNCCIAS is headed by a female Secretary General and two-thirds of its team members are women. Its annual budget of about 70 to 100 million CFA Francs ($110,000 to $160,000 USD) comes from subsidies/grants from the Government of Senegal, the organization of national, regional, and international economic events and trade fairs, membership fees from the CCIA of the regions, and funding from development partners. UNCCIAS’s governance structure is composed of a board of directors that meets at least twice a year, with a President, a Secretary General, a Treasurer, and the presidents of all the CCIA of each of the 14 regions of Senegal. Moreover, the organization has an administrative and financial management procedures handbook, and its financials are under the supervision of the national treasury. The UNCCIAS was created by ministerial decree and has the legitimacy and mandate to: ● Work with all of the CCIAs in the 14 regions of the country. Through these chambers, it has access to a large database of 20,000 private sector organizations. ● Represent the Senegalese private sector in regional and international bodies like (1) the Regional Consular Chamber of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), (2) the Federation of West African Chambers of Commerce and Industry, (3) the Permanent Conference of African and Francophone Consular Chambers, and (4) the Islamic Chamber of Commerce Industry and Agriculture. PROGRAMS WAEMU. For the last three years, UNCCIAS has established a partnership with the WAEMU with grants totaling 83 million CFA Francs (about $130,000 USD) for the organization of national competitions/challenges of start-ups, financing of the contest winners, and technical support to the contest winners for the development of their enterprises and their access to markets. In the first year, the UNCCIAS successfully organized the competition and established an independent jury composed of various representatives of key organizations who selected ten candidates who went on to compete at the regional level with the selected candidates of the other WAEMU countries. A selected candidate went on to win a grant of 10 million CFA Francs (about $16,000 USD). During the second year, three candidates were selected at the regional competition who went on to receive grants totaling 36 million CFA Francs (about $57,000 USD). These competitions boosted the confidence of the selected candidates, improved their visibility, enabled them to acquire the equipment necessary to increase their production capabilities, reinforced their eligibility for additional funding from financial institutions, and facilitated their access to new markets and distribution in other regions of Senegal and in the WAEMU. 86 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV To mitigate some of the organizational management and marketing challenges, WAEMU has recently agreed to provide the UNCCIAS a grant of 12 million CFA Francs (about $19,000 USD) in 2023. This grant is expected to enable the three-month technical support of 20 contest participants of the first and second editions of the previous years to further boost their management skills and facilitate their access to additional markets. GIZ. UNCCIAS has a partnership with GIZ and the Agency for the Development and Training of Small and Medium Enterprises (ADEPME) for a total of 195 million CFA Francs (about $308,000 USD) that was launched in September 2021 with the institutional diagnosis of UNCCIAS and six targeted regional chambers, followed by institutional capacity support and support for 140 youth in small and medium enterprises in six regions. KEY CHALLENGES & OBSTACLES Since 2017, the UNCCIAS has increased its visibility, but it is still struggling to (1) raise substantial funding from development partners, (2) recover the annual membership fees of 1 million CFA Francs (about $1,600 USD) from each of the member CCIAs of the regions, and (3) diversify its revenue stream. This is mainly because: ● The organization is not well known by many donors. ● Some donors are hesitant because of its affiliation with the Government of Senegal. ● There is a redundancy of private sector support organizations, which also implement the types of organizations that they implement. ● Most funding from donors goes to large national agencies like ADEPME, DER, and ASEPEX. ● Most of the CCIAs in the regions are underfunded, but they also establish direct partnerships with donors. Moreover, the limited budget and funding available to UNCCIAS have made it challenging to (1) attract, recruit, motivate, and retain the needed talent and (2) to document and demonstrate the outcomes and impacts of its interventions. PERSPECTIVES UNCCIAS plans to hire at least three new team members including one M&E manager and two additional program managers. Moreover, the organization will externalize its financial management with a dedicated certified financial management company. UNCCIAS believes it is well positioned to be a nontraditional partner of USAID and support its Economic Growth Office in the design, implementation, and monitoring of: ● Youth and women entrepreneurship and employment development programs ● Programs to support the professionalization and formalization of economic units nationwide ● Programs to support the industrialization of the private sector ● Private sector capacity building programs nationwide ● Policy and private sector development reform programs 87 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ● Programs to develop export markets for Senegalese products, particularly in the WAEMU and the African Continental Free Trade Area ● Policy and business environment reform programs Moreover, UNCCIAS believes it could provide value-added support to USAID in: ● The identification and assessment of local IPs nationwide ● The digitalization of support services and the establishment of databases in the CCIAs in the 14 regions of Senegal ● The development of continuous learning programs for employees of small and medium enterprises nationwide ● The development of healthcare access services to small and medium enterprises nationwide ● The scaling of successful USAID initiatives nationwide 82 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX E: ADDITIONAL DATA TABLES Figure 1: Number of CSOs by type and region........................................................................................................83 Figure 2: Number of PSOs by type and region.........................................................................................................83 Figure 3: Number of CSOs by region and annual budget over the past 3 years..............................................84 Figure 4: Number of PSOs by region and annual budget over the past 3 years..............................................84 Figure 5: CSO sectors by region..................................................................................................................................85 Figure 6: PSO sectors by region...................................................................................................................................86 Figure 7: CSO sectors by size.......................................................................................................................................86 Figure 8: PSO sectors by size .......................................................................................................................................87 Figure 9: Number of CSOs with operational and management procedures by region..................................88 Figure 10: Number of PSOs with operational and management procedures...................................................88 Figure 11: CSOs’ average number of full-time staff by size and by region.........................................................89 Figure 12: PSOs’ average number of full-time staff by size and by region..........................................................89 Figure 13: Value of current CSO partnerships, by region and annual budget over the past 3 years..........90 Figure 14: CSOs’ total number of partnerships, by region and annual budget over the past 3 years........91 Figure 15: Value of CSO partnerships by region .....................................................................................................92 Figure 16: Number of CSO partnerships by region and number of CSO partnerships by annual budget…..92 Figure 17: Value of PSO partnerships by region and annual budget from donor support over the past 3 years…...93 Figure 18: PSOs number of partnerships by region and annual budget over the past 3 years.....................93 Figure 19: Value of PSO partnerships by region ......................................................................................................94 Figure 20: Number of PSO partnerships by region and number of PSO partnerships by annual budget……94 Figure 21: Number of CSOs receiving specific types of donor support............................................................95 Figure 22: Number of PSOs receiving specific types of donor support.............................................................95 Figure 23: Number of CSOs and PSOs that have collaborated with donors in the past 5 years by region….96 Figure 24: Number of PSOs that responded to opportunities and number that were successful by region…96 Figure 25: Number of CSOs and PSOs who are aware of USAID opportunities by region.........................97 83 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 1: Number of CSOs by type and region ROW LABELS DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL Association 19 10 13 22 14 17 95 NGO 42 11 7 10 7 8 85 Network 2 1 3 Total 63 21 20 33 21 25 183 Figure 2: Number of PSOs by type and region TYPE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT￾LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL MBOs 11 11 13 33 13 18 99 Association 5 2 4 8 3 4 26 Cooperative 3 4 4 6 2 5 24 Economic Interest Group (GIE) 3 5 5 19 8 9 49 Private enterprise 16 6 4 22 4 7 59 Individual enterprise 1 2 7 1 1 12 Société à Responsabilité Limité (SARL) 6 1 3 7 4 21 Société Anonyme (SA) 2 1 3 2 1 9 Société par Actions Simplifiée (SAS) 4 2 1 7 Société par Actions Simplifiée Unipersonnelle (SASU) 1 1 Société Unipersonnelle à Responsabilité Limité (SUARL) 2 2 1 3 1 9 Total 27 17 17 55 17 25 158 84 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 3: Number of CSOs by region and annual budget over the past 3 years BUDGET SIZE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL BY BUDGET SIZE Large 5 1 2 2 10 Above 2B CFA 4 1 5 1B – 2B CFA 1 1 1 2 5 Medium 30 5 7 5 3 12 62 500M – 1B CFA 12 3 3 2 1 3 24 100M – 500M CFA 18 2 4 3 2 9 38 Small 26 16 12 23 13 11 101 50M – 100M CFA 8 4 5 6 3 3 29 10M – 50M CFA 13 5 6 2 5 31 5M – 10M CFA 1 1 2 1 2 7 1M – 5M CFA 1 2 3 4 5 2 17 Less than 1M CFA 3 4 2 6 1 1 17 Total by region 61 21 20 28 18 25 173 Figure 4: Number of PSOs by region and annual budget over the past 3 years BUDGET SIZE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL Large 5 1 2 2 10 Above 2B CFA 4 1 5 1B – 2B CFA 1 1 1 2 5 Medium 30 5 7 5 3 12 62 500M – 1B CFA 12 3 3 2 1 3 24 100M – 500M CFA 18 2 4 3 2 9 38 85 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV BUDGET SIZE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL Small 26 16 12 23 13 11 101 50M – 100M CFA 8 4 5 6 3 3 29 10M – 50M CFA 13 5 6 2 5 31 5M – 10M CFA 1 1 2 1 2 7 1M – 5M CFA 1 2 3 4 5 2 17 Less than 1M CFA 3 4 2 6 1 1 17 Don’t know 2 5 3 10 Don’t know 2 5 3 10 Figure 5: CSO sectors by region SECTORS DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL Hydraulics 1 1 Environment and sustainable development 6 2 2 2 1 4 17 Other 6 5 4 2 17 Food Security 3 2 5 4 2 1 17 Health 12 3 1 5 2 23 Economic Growth 8 1 5 5 3 5 27 Democracy, human rights, and governance 14 2 4 3 7 8 38 Education 13 6 3 10 6 5 43 Total 63 21 20 33 21 25 183 86 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 6: PSO sectors by region SECTORS DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL Agriculture 9 6 13 37 10 19 94 BTP 1 1 2 Commerce 1 1 1 3 2 8 Communication 1 1 1 3 Consulting 7 2 9 Crafts 2 2 Education 1 2 3 Environment and sustainable development 1 1 2 Finance 1 1 Fishing 1 4 5 Health 2 1 1 4 Industry 3 3 6 12 Livestock 2 1 4 3 2 12 Research and Training 1 1 Total 27 17 17 55 17 25 158 Figure 7: CSO sectors by size SECTOR DON'T KNOW LARGE MEDIUM SMALL TOTAL Hydraulics 1 1 Environment and sustainable development 2 6 9 17 Other 5 12 17 Food Security 11 6 17 87 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV SECTOR DON'T KNOW LARGE MEDIUM SMALL TOTAL Health 2 2 9 10 23 Economic Growth 1 3 7 16 27 Democracy, human rights, and governance 3 3 8 24 38 Education 4 15 24 43 Total 10 10 62 101 183 Figure 8: PSO sectors by size SECTOR DON'T KNOW LARGE MEDIUM SMALL TOTAL Agriculture 9 7 16 62 94 BTP 1 1 2 Commerce 2 6 8 Communication 2 1 3 Consulting 1 1 3 4 9 Crafts 1 1 2 Education 1 2 3 Environment and sustainable development 2 2 Finance 1 1 Fishing 1 1 3 5 Health 1 3 4 Industry 2 2 8 12 Livestock 1 3 8 12 Research and Training 1 1 Total 15 12 32 99 158 88 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 9: Number of CSOs with operational and management procedures by region REGION STRATEGIC PLAN ANNUAL WORKPLAN CERTIFIED FINANCIAL STATEMENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION PUBLISH ANNUAL REPORT ADMIN & FINANCE MANUAL Dakar 55 55 40 40 45 54 Kaolack 14 15 9 12 10 14 Kolda 11 16 5 7 14 12 Saint-Louis 14 19 11 12 12 15 Tambacounda 12 14 8 10 10 13 Ziguinchor 19 18 12 13 20 21 Total 125 137 85 94 111 129 Figure 10: Number of PSOs with operational and management procedures REGION STRATEGIC PLAN ANNUAL WORKPLAN CERTIFIED FINANCIAL STATEMENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION PUBLISHED ANNUAL REPORT ADMIN & FINANCE MANUAL Dakar 17 18 18 7 6 16 Kaolack 7 10 4 2 4 4 Kolda 7 9 6 4 8 9 Saint-Louis 25 24 23 15 6 19 Tambacounda 7 9 3 1 4 4 Ziguinchor 9 15 4 1 7 9 Total 72 85 58 30 35 61 89 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 11: CSOs’ average number of full-time staff by size and by region ANNUAL BUDGET DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL BY SIZE Large 117 18 139 9 90 Above 2B CFA 121 80 113 1B – 2B CFA 100 18 197 9 66 Medium 29 52 30 15 42 18 28 500M – 1B CFA 35 54 42 7 33 37 36 100M – 500M CFA 25 49 18 21 47 11 23 Small 9 9 8 12 10 9 10 50M – 100M CFA 11 14 9 15 15 10 12 10M – 50M CFA 8 9 11 10 11 9 5M – 10M CFA 7 6 4 8 6 1M – 5M CFA 6 3 5 1 4 Less than 1M CFA 6 6 Don’t know 27 4 10 Don’t know 27 4 10 Total by Region 30 23 19 12 46 14 24 Figure 12: PSOs’ average number of full-time staff by size and by region ANNUAL BUDGET DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL BY SIZE Large 117 18 139 9 90 Above 2B CFA 121 80 113 1B – 2B CFA 100 18 197 9 66 Medium 29 52 30 15 42 18 28 90 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ANNUAL BUDGET DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL BY SIZE 500M – 1B CFA 35 54 42 7 33 37 36 100M – 500M CFA 25 49 18 21 47 11 23 Small 9 9 8 12 10 9 10 50M – 100M CFA 11 14 9 15 15 10 12 10M – 50M CFA 8 9 11 10 11 9 5M – 10M CFA 7 6 4 8 6 1M – 5M CFA 6 3 5 1 4 Less than 1M CFA 6 6 Don’t know 27 4 10 Don’t know 27 4 10 Total by Region 30 23 19 12 46 14 24 Figure 13: Value of current CSO partnerships, by region and annual budget over the past 3 years CSO BUDGET RANGE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT￾LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL More than 2B CFA 3,584,750,000 340,000,000 3,924,750,000 1B – 2B CFA 634,606,000 211,155,000 356,981,100 1,202,742,100 500M – 1B CFA 4,641,738,998 285,925,000 102,000,000 100,745,000,0 00 113,935,500 1,009,212,270 106,897,811,768 100M – 500M CFA 7,191,682,703 174,000,000 46,962,500,00 0 780,450,000 259,000,000 11,359,989,758 66,727,622,461 50M – 100M CFA 1,554,023,053 24,000,000 800,000,000 6,293,852,876 112,000,000 3,388,950,000 12,172,825,929 10M – 50M CFA 4,340,224,668 5,341,562,200 2,505,013,236 8,000,000 1,567,317,848 13,762,117,952 5M – 10M CFA 13,775,000 232,305,400 246,080,400 1M – 5M CFA 475,245,910 350,000,000 460,000,000 359,000,000 51,000,000 1,695,245,910 91 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV CSO BUDGET RANGE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT￾LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL Don’t know 510,000,000 510,000,000 Total 22,422,271,33 2 5,825,487,20 0 48,214,500,0 00 111,308,091, 112 1,635,395,900 17,733,450,97 6 207,139,196,52 0 Figure 13 shows the value of all awards that CSOs report currently having, categorized by region and by annual budget. This may mean that they have more awards over a longer period of time, even if their annual budget is lower. The budget is also for the past three years, whereas the awards are current, and may include the past as well as the future. Note that some interviewed did not know their annual budget. CSOs in Saint￾Louis have the highest value of awards with donors. CSOs with annual revenues in the 500M – 1B CFA range have the highest value of awards. Figure 14: CSOs’ total number of partnerships, by region and annual budget over the past 3 years CSO BUDGET RANGE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL More than 2B CFA 8 2 10 1B – 2B CFA 3 4 7 14 500M – 1B CFA 20 4 1 5 3 9 42 100M – 500M CFA 31 3 8 5 2 24 73 50M – 100M CFA 2 3 2 19 3 9 38 10M – 50M CFA 23 7 18 1 8 57 5M – 10M CFA 1 4 5 1M – 5M CFA 2 1 2 3 1 9 Don’t know 3 3 Total 89 17 12 53 22 58 251 Figure 14 shows the number of current partnerships CSOs report having, organized by region and by annual budget. CSOs in Dakar have the highest total number of partners. CSOs with annual budgets in the 100M – 500M CFA range have the highest total number of partners. This suggests that medium-sized CSOs have a variety of partners that support their activities. CSOs in Saint-Louis have the highest value of awards, and the third highest number of partnerships, suggesting they have fewer awards that are larger in size. Dakar-based CSOs have more awards that are smaller in value. Some interviewed did not know their organization’s annual budget. 92 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 15: Value of CSO partnerships by region Figure 16: Number of CSO partnerships by region and number of CSO partnerships by annual budget 93 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 17: Value of PSO partnerships by region and annual budget from donor support over the past 3 years PSO BUDGET RANGE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT-LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL More than 2B CFA 3,277,500,000 92,000,000 3,369,500,000 1B – 2B CFA 5,000,000,000 90,000,000 4,500,000,000 9,590,000,000 500M – 1B CFA 42,425,008,885 1,322,879,659 258,000,000 34,000,000 44,039,888,544 100M – 500M CFA 179,000,000 52,880,000 212,000,000 60,200,000 36,000,000 540,080,000 50M – 100M CFA 845,000,000 357,000,000 229,500,000 77,000,000 37,000,000 50,000,000 1,595,500,000 10M – 50M CFA 10,800,000 6,500,000 10,000,000 74,500,000 54,000,000 155,800,000 5M – 10M CFA 24,000,000 17,000,000 4,560,000 2,100,000 43,000,000 90,660,000 1M – 5M CFA 900,000 900,000 Don’t know 7,000,000 46,000,000 53,000,000 Total 51,737,308,885 1,763,759,659 511,000,000 565,560,000 4,674,700,000 183,000,000 59,435,328,544 Figure 17 shows that PSOs in Dakar have the highest value of partnerships by far, especially those with annual budgets of 500M – 1B CFA. These are in the medium-sized category, suggesting they have significant potential for growth. Some interviewed did not know their organization’s annual budget. Figure 18 shows that PSOs in Dakar also have the highest number of partnerships, especially those with annual budgets of 500M – 1B CFA. Figure 18: PSOs number of partnerships by region and annual budget over the past 3 years PSO BUDGET RANGE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT￾LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL More than 2B CFA 2 4 1 7 1B – 2B CFA 3 3 6 4 3 1 20 500M – 1B CFA 30 11 4 7 52 100M – 500M CFA 8 3 5 2 2 20 50M – 100M CFA 2 3 3 1 2 11 94 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV PSO BUDGET RANGE DAKAR KAOLACK KOLDA SAINT￾LOUIS TAMBACOUNDA ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL 10M – 50M CFA 2 1 2 2 4 11 5M – 10M CFA 1 1 1 3 1M – 5M CFA 3 3 6 Total 48 21 16 30 12 9 130 Figure 19: Value of PSO partnerships by region Figure 20: Number of PSO partnerships by region and number of PSO partnerships by annual budget 95 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 21: Number of CSOs receiving specific types of donor support REGION OTHER INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT GRANTEE CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICE PROVISION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Dakar 4 6 10 16 10 65 Kaolack 0 0 1 2 2 14 Kolda 0 0 3 3 4 7 Saint-Louis 1 5 6 13 7 41 Tambacounda 0 2 1 7 4 14 Ziguinchor 1 4 13 19 5 46 Total 6 17 34 60 32 187 Figure 22: Number of PSOs receiving specific types of donor support REGION OTHER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION GRANTEE CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICE PROVISION Dakar 7 24 10 10 14 Kaolack 3 9 9 12 5 Kolda 10 5 2 1 Saint-Louis 1 10 6 21 4 Tambacounda 6 8 5 5 Ziguinchor 4 6 4 0 Total 11 63 44 54 29 96 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 23: Number of CSOs and PSOs that have collaborated with donors in the past 5 years by region CSO PSO REGION NO YES TOTAL DON’T KNOW NO YES TOTAL Dakar 11 52 63 1 8 18 27 Kaolack 7 14 21 6 11 17 Kolda 3 17 20 5 12 17 Saint-Louis 13 20 33 33 22 55 Tambacounda 6 15 21 8 9 17 Ziguinchor 3 22 25 13 12 25 Total 43 140 183 1 73 84 158 Figure 24: Number of PSOs that responded to opportunities and number that were successful by region REGION NUMBER OF PSOS WHO RESPONDED NUMBER OF PSOS WHO WERE SUCCESSFUL Dakar 19 12 Kaolack 8 7 Kolda 11 9 Saint-Louis 19 16 Tambacounda 7 5 Ziguinchor 13 7 Total 77 56 97 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV Figure 25: Number of CSOs and PSOs who are aware of USAID opportunities by region CSO PSO REGION DON’T KNOW NO YES TOTAL DON’T KNOW NO YES TOTAL Dakar 3 27 33 63 1 14 12 27 Kaolack 13 8 21 1 9 7 17 Kolda 9 11 20 2 7 8 17 Saint-Louis 2 19 12 33 3 31 21 55 Tambacounda 13 8 21 14 3 17 Ziguinchor 9 16 25 16 9 25 Total 5 90 88 183 7 91 60 158 98 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX F: INDICATIVE LIST OF CAPACITY BUILDING ORGANIZATIONS ORGANIZATION NAME HEAD OFFICE REGION CONTACT LEGAL STATUS MAIN CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES INTERVENTION ZONE / COVERAGE DONOR EXPERIENCE USAID SECTOR Association nationale des handicapés moteurs du Sénégal (ANHMS) Dakar Banda DIEYE 76 474 51 85 77 438 22 90 Umbrella NGO Capacity building of its member organizations on Advocacy, Special Education, Employment, Health National Handicap International, USAID, EU Education, DRG Economic Growth Heath Association in Research and Education for Development (ARED) Dakar Mamadou Amadou Ly Phone: 338257119 / 777403048 Email: mamadouly@ared￾edu.org NGO Developing training manuals in local languages (Pular, Wolof etc.) Training of trainers in local languages and support to the Ministry of Literacy. National USAID (LPT), KFW, Hewlett Foundation, European Union, USDA, AFD, World Bank Education Bureau d'Etudes de Conseils et d'Ingénierie Sociale (BECIS) Kaolack Mr. Mohamed WADE Managing Director Tel: (+221) 33 941 22 72 Tel: (+221) 77 875 98 37 SARL Training, coaching and advisory services in business planning and modeling, financial management, human resources management, organizational management and personal development to aspiring entrepreneurs, start￾ups and well-established SMEs. Advisory and support services to local organizations and authorities in program design, implementation, management, monitoring and evaluation Kaolack Kedougou Kolda Matam Sedhiou Tambacounda Ziguinchor African Development Bank Islamic Development Bank USAID World Bank Economic Growth Governance Health Cabinet d'Etude et de Conseil Juridique et Fiscal Kaolack Maitre Pape Ibra LO Tel: (+221)77 645 67 41 Individual Enterprise Legal, accounting and tax advisory services to small, medium and large enterprises Kaolack Economic Growth Education Governance Health 99 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ORGANIZATION NAME HEAD OFFICE REGION CONTACT LEGAL STATUS MAIN CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES INTERVENTION ZONE / COVERAGE DONOR EXPERIENCE USAID SECTOR Caper Saint Louis Mr. Ahmad DIOUF Financial and Administrative Manager Tel: (+221) 77 514 12 14 Tel: (+221) 33 961 99 31 SAS Training, coaching and advisory services to small-scale entrepreneurs, SMEs and agricultural professional organizations in business planning and modeling, financial management, bookkeeping, sales, marketing, tax, business registration, human resources management, and fundraising. Supports also local authorities, financial institutions and donors through studies, independent evaluations Saint Louis Matam Louga IFC Mastercard Foundation Economic Growth Governance Health Education Centre de Gestion et d'Economie Rurale (CGER) Saint Louis Mr. Malick NDIAYE Managing Director Tel: (+221) 77 534 15 18 Association Training, coaching and advisory services to entrepreneurs and small and medium scale producers through their agricultural professional organizations in bookkeeping, accounting, tax, management, financial management, organizational management, fundraising Saint Louis Dagana Matam Richard Toll Ndioum GIZ AFD USAID Economic Growth Chambre de Commerce Industrie et Agriculture de Kaolack (CCIAK) Kaolack Mr. Abdoulaye THIAM Secretary General Tel: (+221) 941 20 52 Quasi-Public (“Etablissement public à caractère professionnel”) Training, coaching and advisory services to formal and informal SMEs for business registration, business planning, financial management, accounting, Kaolack GIZ Economic Growth 100 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ORGANIZATION NAME HEAD OFFICE REGION CONTACT LEGAL STATUS MAIN CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES INTERVENTION ZONE / COVERAGE DONOR EXPERIENCE USAID SECTOR CONAFE (Network of over 100 NGOs and associations working on Child protection) Dakar Mrs. Justine LAISON Tel: 77 574 39 21 E-mail: conafesenegal@yah oo.fr Umbrella NGO Provide training for its member organizations on Children’s right, Organizational Development, Technical & Financial Development National Ministry of Family and Childhood UNICEF Save the Children World Vision UN Commission of Children’s Rights ActionAid Plan International CSO Forum Child Rights Connect Carrefour International Suede Sverige DRG (Children’s rights) Education Health Concree Dakar Mr. Babacar BIRANE Partner, Managing Director Tel: (+221) 33 867 80 43 Tel: (+221) 77 651 60 88 Email: babacar.birane@co ncree.com SAS Training, coaching and advisory services to aspiring entrepreneurs, start-ups and SMEs on business planning and modeling, financial management, organizational management, sales and marketing National GIZ Enabel JICA SNV UNDP Economic Growth Health Conseil des ONG d’Appui au Développement (CONGAD) Dakar Mr. Ibrahima Kane Phone: 77 5382571 /338245594 Email: iboukane5@hayoo.f r NGO (Umbrella) Capacity building (strategic planning, Program management, Financial management, MEL) and policy advocacy National USAID European Union, AFD Members work in all development sectors Development Consulting Engineering Group (DCEG) Dakar Mr. Hadi SIDIBE Deputy Managing Director Tel: (+221) 33 860 30 41 Tel: (+221) 77 458 62 63 Email: dceg@dceg.sn h.sidibe@dceg.sn SARL Advisory and coaching services to SMEs and large enterprises in organizational management, strategic planning and engineering Dakar GIZ World Bank UNCDF ADB EU JICA Education Governance Economic Growth 101 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ORGANIZATION NAME HEAD OFFICE REGION CONTACT LEGAL STATUS MAIN CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES INTERVENTION ZONE / COVERAGE DONOR EXPERIENCE USAID SECTOR ENDA ECOPOP Dakar El Bachir Kanouté Phone: 775727720 / 338596411 Email: bachirkanoute@end aecope.org NGO Technical support to local governments, municipalities and CSOs in the areas of sustainable development, human rights and good governance in general) National USAID (GOLD), European Union, AFD, Green Climate Fund, LuxDev, UN system Economic Growth, DRG Fédération des Associations Féminines au Sénégal (FAFS) Dakar MRS. Absa Sylla Seck Phone 775430774 Email: absasylla@ymail.co m NGO (Umbrella) Training / capacity building / technical support / financing National USAID (GOLD), UNICEF, UN Women. European Union, AFD Economic Growth, DRG Forum pour le Développement Durable Endogène (FODDE) Kolda Seydou WANE 77 639 10 44 National NGO Building the capacity of rural organizations, Municipalities, local CBOs and NGOs Kolda, Ziguinchor USAID, Spanish International Cooperation Agency, ChildFund, UNFPA Belgium Cooperation Economic Growth DRG Fouladou Consulting Kolda Mr. Amadou BALDE Marketing & Communications Manager Tel : (+221) 773072914 SARL Training, coaching and advisory in entrepreneurship, organizational management, business planning and management, access to financing, personal development, business registration and financial management to entrepreneurs, SMEs, and local organizations Kolda Ziguinchor Sedhiou Kaffrine Dakar GIZ International Organization for Migration (IOM) Economic Growth Global Business Consulting (GBC) Tamba counda Mr. Benjamin FAYE Tel: (+221) 77 251 47 70 SUARL Training, coaching and advisory services to small and medium enterprises in accounting bookkeeping, business planning, tax, digital Tambacounda GIZ Economic Growth 102 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ORGANIZATION NAME HEAD OFFICE REGION CONTACT LEGAL STATUS MAIN CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES INTERVENTION ZONE / COVERAGE DONOR EXPERIENCE USAID SECTOR marketing and graphics design. Groupement d’action pour le développement communautaire (GADEC) Tambaco unda Alassane GUISSE 77 504 86 22 National NGO Building the organizational and technical capacity of rural organizations Tambacounda, Kedougou UNICEF IOM CRS/USAID LWR World Education Reseau SADIO GRDR Terre Nouvelle SAFRA Economic Growth DRG Haske Conseil Dakar Ms. Madjiguène SOCK President Tel: (+221) 76 529 72 01 Tel : +221 76 623 02 80 Email: info@haskeconseil.c om madji.sock@haskec onseil.com SAU Advisory, coaching and training services to medium and large enterprises in strategic planning, business modeling, financial management, organizational management and fundraising/access to financing National African Development Bank Abu Dhabi Fund for Development GAVI USAID Mastercard Foundation Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Economic Growth Health Education Institut Supérieur d'Etude Technologique Appliquées (ISETA) Tamba counda Mr Mamadou Boye DIALLO President and Managing Director Tel: (+221) 77 703 23 01 Tel: (+221) 33 981 22 20 SA Training of entrepreneurs and SMEs in agriculture, animal production, construction, hospitality management and communications, photography, financial management, National GIZ AFD Tcheque Embassy Economic Growth Education Performances Group Dakar Mr. Medoune THIAM Partner, Managing Director Tel: (+221) 33 849 90 90 Tel: (+221) 77 545 58 55 Email: info@performances group.com SA Advisory and coaching services to medium and large enterprises on organizational management and for the preparation, implementation and monitoring of strategic development plans, growth plans and continuity plans National UNDP IFC AFD African Union Commission ECOWAS GIZ UNIDO WAEMU Education Health Economic Growth 103 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ORGANIZATION NAME HEAD OFFICE REGION CONTACT LEGAL STATUS MAIN CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES INTERVENTION ZONE / COVERAGE DONOR EXPERIENCE USAID SECTOR mthiam@performan cesgroup.com West African Development Bank World Bank Réseau Siggil Jiggen (Network of 18 Women Organizations) Dakar Mme TURPIN Tel: 77 656 41 31 Umbrella NGO Capacity building of member organizations and local authorities on Women’s Rights and gender sensitive budgets, on Reproductive Health and Good Governance National USAID, Plan International, Global Fund, Canadian, Italian & Spanish Cooperation, African Women Development Fund, Women Delivery, IntraHealth, Advanced Family Planning, Equal Measures, Voix et leadership des femmes Health, DRG, Economic Growth Réseau Population et Développement au Sénégal (RESOPOPDEV) (Network of 27 NGOs) Dakar Mr Maguette THIANDOUM Tel: 77 650 42 50 Umbrella NGO Capacity building of its member organizations on: Good Governance, Reproductive Health, Leadership, Gender, Human Rights, Young Girls’ Education, Environment National USAID UNFPA Nutrition International Positive Planet International, CRDI Canada EU, Secours Islamique Health, Education DRG Sunu Sante Consulting Thies Mr. Sylla THIAM Managing Director Tel: (+221) 77-810- 03-18 Email: contact@sunusante consulting.com syllat@sunusanteco nsulting.com syllat@gmail.com SUARL Advisory, training and coaching services to health professionals and institutions in strategic planning, organizational management, leadership development, change management, fundraising and governance National World Health Organization Health Women Investment Club Dakar Mrs. Mame Seynabou NDIAYE Tel: (+221) 78 615 62 70 Tel: (+221) 77 740 Association Advisory, training, coaching, mentoring and networking services to women entrepreneurs and National USAID AFD Embassy of Canada Embassy of France Economic Growth 104 | LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS - DRAFT REPORT USAID.GOV ORGANIZATION NAME HEAD OFFICE REGION CONTACT LEGAL STATUS MAIN CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES INTERVENTION ZONE / COVERAGE DONOR EXPERIENCE USAID SECTOR 25 42 Email: sndiaye@wic￾capital.net women-led SMEs through WIC Academy in the areas of accounting, financial management, business registration, strategic planning, human resources management, business planning and modeling management of tax and legal affairs, and sales and marketing Embassy of the United Kingdom UN Women African Union WAEMU ECOWAS Global Affairs Canada