SANDEEP
Final 
Evaluation 
Report 
Final Evaluation of Strengthening the NGO Sector in Nepal 
(SNSN) Project
September 01, 2008 
By 
Mohan M. Thapa, Team Leader 
Kedar P. Badu, Team Member 
Shanker R. Pandey, Technical Advisor 
 
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The Save the Children US (SCUS) has been implementing the five year long the Strengthening the 
NGO Sector in Nepal (SNSN) project, locally known as SANDEEP (Sanstaghat Diego Pariwartan – 
Sustainable Organizational Change) since November 2003. The SANDEEP project aimed to 
strengthen the capacity of local non-government organizations (NGOs) to improve delivery of health, 
education, and economic services in the conflict affected regions of Nepal by strengthening their 
operational and financial capabilities and expanding linkages with and enhancing program learning and 
sharing among NGOs, government and private sector institutions. SANDEEP did this through a 
standard set of modular training and coaching support to 5 Intermediary Support Organizations 
(ISOs): who in turn, applied their expertise within their own organizations and provided similar 
support to 35 local district partner NGOs (PNGOs)1. 
The evaluation assessed whether the project achieved its objectives and the net impact of changes in 
the capacity of Intermediary Support Organizations (ISOs) and PNGOs in terms of service delivery 
and linkages with and effects on key stakeholders. It identified how the conflict situation in Nepal 
affected ISOs and PNGOs and also evaluated the viability of sustaining the capacities developed 
within SC/US and partners. Besides, the evaluation assessed unintended results and identified 
challenges, lessons learned and specific organizational development (OD) issues and needs of 
PNGOs. Finally, the evaluation made appropriate recommendations with regards to replication and 
improvement of prevailing OD practices applied by SANDEEP and also suggested advocacy measures 
targeting potential donor agencies which can support SANDEEP’s second phase design and 
implementation. 
The evaluation, which was guided by a detailed ToR, employed both secondary data compiled by the 
Project Management Team (PMT) and primary data collected by the Final Evaluation (FTE) team 
during the field visits. Out of 5 ISOs and 30 PNGOs supported by the project at the time of the final 
evaluation, 3 ISOs and 7 PNGOs, spread in the eastern, mid western and far western development 
regions, were selected as samples for in-depth interactions after consultation with the SANDEEP’s
PMT. Relevant project documents, Organizational Assessment (OA) data from the Institutional 
Development Framework (IDF) collected by the PMT and interactions and interviews with executive 
committee (EC) members, staffs (senior and field level), Organizational Capacity Building Officers 
 
1 Though 35 PNGOs were selected at the outset, the project phased out 5 PNGOs. These PNGOs 
were unable to comply with primary selection criteria i.e. role separation of EC and staff and 
unavailability of even a single project. 
ii
(OCBOs/As) and Financial Organizational Capacity Building Officers (FOCBOs), district level 
stakeholders, community people, SANDEEP PMT staff, SCUS directors and representatives of USAID 
and AIN and donors supporting the ISOs and PNGOs were the key sources of data.
The implementation of the project has largely followed the planning matrix. Based on the available 
OA and IDF data compiled by the PMT, the project was successful in achieving its strategic objective 
of developing “capable NGOs”. It has met or exceeded the target against the Planning Matrix with 
respect to majority of the indicators of the three intermediate results of the project. The pre-award 
survey, training, mentoring and coaching activities and OA exercises using the IDF tool led to ISOs 
and PNGOs initiating actions (such as action plans, road maps and long term strategic plans) to 
address their gaps in capacity (human resources development, effective management systems, 
external linkages and resource mobilization). 
The project’s hypothesis of “enhancement of NGOs capacity to work in current conflict situation” 
was relevant and the project’s approach and interventions supported this aspect of the organization’s 
capacity. Improved organizational capability enabled ISOs and PNGOs to develop coping strategy to 
work in conflict situation. All the ISOs and majority of the PNGOs were able to sustain development 
interventions while many of them were even able to grow during these times. 
There is positive correlation between NGOs capacity enhancement to "improvements in the delivery 
of health, education and economic services". However, it was difficult to establish the extent of its 
influence on service delivery as it is one among several that influences service delivery in terms of 
quality and coverage. Though the extent of the project’s link to "mitigate the effects of conflict and 
poverty" cannot be ascertained, project inputs helped to mitigate the effects of the conflict at the 
micro level by emphasizing on transparency, accountability and participation of community people in 
planning, implementation and monitoring of projects. 
The significant positive impact of the project on management efficiency was one of the major 
achievements of the project. Changes were more visible in smaller PNGOs which had fewer systems 
already in place and thus were more receptive to SANDEEP’s inputs in comparison to ISOs, and 
larger NGOs with established structure, system and mind set. 
 
ISOs and PNGOs were aware about the fundamental elements and characteristics of a NGO as an 
organization and were also equally concerned about strengthening organizational management 
through policy formulation and reform, strategic planning and clear delineation and separation of 
roles and responsibilities. SANDEEP inputs had increased the professional capacity and self-confidence 
iii
level of staff and EC members enabling them to contribute to management efficiency. The project 
facilitated in-depth discussion on OD issues by OD teams which supported the EC to take timely 
decisions. As a consequence, coordination with stakeholders improved while organizational issues 
were being addressed through timely decisions and better understanding. Overall, the organizational 
public image of ISOs and PNGOs was enhanced because of higher level of transparency and 
accountability in their functioning. 
ISOs and PNGOs improved their organizational structure by defining clear roles and responsibilities 
and enhancing reporting channels. Strategic plans provided a distinct direction to their actions and 
increased motivation of staff and EC to fulfill organizational objectives. Strategic plans were 
increasingly used as an analytical tool to assess gaps between strategic objectives and operational 
plans as well as for developing new programs to address these gaps. Owing to SANDEEP’s financial 
management training, financial recording and reporting improved significantly in the ISOs and 
PNGOs. The ISOs and PNGOs developed, revised and implemented a set of financial and personnel 
policies. Donors and stakeholders appreciated the financial and administrative systems of SANDEEP
affiliated NGOs. 
Another significant achievement of SANDEEP intervention was the realization among ISOs and 
PNGOs that resources can be accessed from local sources and private institutions in addition to 
existing funding agencies. ISOs and PNGOs diversified their funding portfolio that now includes the 
private sector. Resource management team has been formed and had started taking fund raising 
responsibilities. Despite these positive changes, linkages with private sector at the district level were 
modest and smaller PNGOs still face difficulties in accessing donor resources. 
ISOs and PNGOs leaders have adopted participatory approaches in the program cycle, particularly in 
participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation and delegation of authority. They have started 
planning interventions with increased community participation in project development and review. 
Monthly work plans and clear cut guidelines for delegation of authority improved staff performance 
and facilitated prompt decisions that led to more efficient service delivery. Coordination with other 
NGOs, stakeholders, government agencies and community had improved in recent times which had 
helped in reducing duplication and overlap. 
The practice of social audit by ISOs and PNGOs increased transparency and accountability leading to 
an increase in communities’ and stakeholders’ trust of the project partners. Social audits were being 
replicated across many NGOs in the respective regions. Donors had begun to allocate more funds in 
iv
NGO program budgets to cover the costs of social audits while the Social Welfare Council (SWC) is 
contemplating on making the social audits mandatory in the new NGO Act.
ISOs and PNGOs refined their administrative and personnel policies to incorporate new learning 
from the Human Resource Management (HRM) Module. Fair, transparent and practical policies and 
systems not only enabled SANDEEP’’s partners to better manage available human resources but also 
infused higher levels of confidence in the staff and EC members motivating them to improve their 
performance. 
The project approach of working through ISOs using modular training was effective and the contents 
of the modules were highly appreciated by the ISOs and PNGOs. ISOs were mostly dependent on 
OCBO/As and FOCBOs for SANDEEP’s project activities. The Detailed Implementation and 
Monitoring Plan (DIMP) and review and reflection processes were effective to monitor project 
progress and develop action plans. The development of the IDF tool with the five training modules 
and administration of the first four modules took up the most of the project time. The HRM module 
had less time compared to other modules. As the designated ISO staff (OCBO and FOCBO) had to 
begin administrating the modules to the PNGOs immediately after receiving their training, the uptake 
time was not adequate for them to add value while transferring the knowledge gained became a 
challenge at the initial stage. 
SANDEEP processes and changes are being institutionalized by ISOs and PNGOs who have benefited 
from the implementation of their new policies and systems. With fully functional OD teams, ISOs and 
PNGOs developed a roadmap for sustaining the SANDEEP processes and changes. Conducive 
environment for replication of SANDEEP learning across the NGO sector has been promoted by 
sharing of SANDEEP learning with Association of INGOs in Nepal (AIN) and SWC. Despite retention 
of OCBOs and Organizational Development Facilitators (ODFs) posing problems to ISOs and 
PNGOs due to financial constraints, 9 out the 12 OCBOs/FOCBOs in ISOs and 22 out of the 33 
ODF in PNGOs have been retained in their respective organization. Besides being assigned other 
organizational responsibilities, they will also partially continue their organization capacity building 
function. 
The sustainability of SANDEEP will, primarily, be contingent on the availability of projects to practice 
SANDEEP’s learning and processes, especially in the case of small PNGOs whose major concern is 
how they can tap donor and local resources. Another major concern regarding further replication of 
SANDEEP’s learning is the depth of ISOs’ commitment to perform their role as OD facilitators. 
v
The recommendations for SANDEEP/SCUS to consider are as follows: 
• There is a need for continued support to the ISOs and PNGOs in terms of information, follow￾up and linkage for at least two years after the project phase-out to make sure that SANDEEP 
learning is institutionalized. The support should be in the form of: i) biannual review and 
reflection sessions and reporting; ii) follow up and monitoring of the Road Map; iii) linkage to SC 
Alliance and AIN members; and iv) provision of adequate annual budget for the implementation 
of these activities through the respective ISOs. 
• A Second Phase SANDEEP project, in collaboration with the SC Alliance, AIN and the SWC, 
should be developed and implemented. 
• SANDEEP learning and experience should be extensively disseminated through appropriate 
sharing forums targeting donors, NGO networks, relevant government agencies, private sector 
and OD experts at the national and regional level. 
• Advocacy strategy for policy change in INGOs and bilateral and multilateral development 
agencies in favor of support to OD processes in civil society organization and funding specific 
OD focused projects should be formulated and implemented. 
• The SC Alliance, which has many SANDEEP affiliated NGOs as partners, should be lobbied for a 
joint initiative to specifically monitor service delivery in projects implemented by SANDEEP
partners for a period of three years. The findings should be used to support advocacy efforts for 
OD focused initiatives in the future. 
• Potential donors should be consulted and lobbied for imparting full or partial course on SANDEEP
to train their partners for a period ranging from one to two years. 
• SANDEEP modules should be supplemented with sections on social mobilization and proposal 
development. 
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 
INTRODUCTION 3 
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT 5 
2. HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY OF INTERVENTION 6 
3. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 7 
4. PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS 8 
4.1 ASSESSMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT OF PLANNING MATRIX 9 
4.2 EVALUATION OF THE NET CHANGE 14 
4.3 IMPROVEMENTS IN SERVICE DELIVERY OF ISOs AND PNGOs 25 
4.4 IMPLEMENTATION AND CHALLENGES 27 
ƒ Projects approaches and interventions 
ƒ Contribution of ISO approach to achieve strategic objective 
ƒ OD team approach 
ƒ Addressing the variation in the nature and size of PNGOs 
ƒ Effectiveness of OCBOs, FOCBOs and ODFs 
ƒ Suggestions for alternative approaches / interventions 
ƒ Ability of ISO and PMT to convey the modules 
ƒ Comment on support chain: PMT-CBPO-OCBO-ODF 
ƒ Mechanisms for reporting, feedback and decision making 
5. EVALUATION OF USAID PMP INDICATORS 31
 
6. ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINKAGES 33 
7. IMPROVING CAPACITY TO DELIVER SERVICES IN CONFLICT 34 
8. SUSTAINABILITY OF SANDEEP 35 
9. ADDRESSING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 37 
10. CONCLUSIONS 37 
11. RECOMMENDATIONS 40 
12. LESSONS LEARNED AND CHALLENGES 41 
ANNEXES 
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR FINAL EVALUATION 44 
ANNEX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 50 
ANNEX 3: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERACTED 71 
ANNEX 4: PLANNING MATRIX – ACHIEVEMENT 76 
ANNEX 5: PMP CHART DEVELOPMENT EXPLANATION 82 
ANNEX 6: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 84 
ANNEX 7: LIST OF SANDEEP ACTIVITIES 85 
ANNEX 8: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 88 
ANNEX 9: LIST OF ISOs AND PNGOs 112 
ANNEX 10: LIST OF SAMPLE ISOs AND PNGOs 114 
2
ABBREVIATIONS 
AGM Annual General Meeting 
AIN Association of International NGOs 
Bandh General Shutdown of transport, strike 
BASE Backward Society for Education (Dang) 
CBM Capacity building manager 
CBPO Capacity Building Program Officer 
DDC District Development Committee 
DEO District Education Office 
DIMP Detailed Implementation and Monitoring Plan 
DPHO District Public Health Office 
EC Executive Committee/ Governing Board of NGO 
ED Executive Director 
EOP End of the Project 
FCBO Finance Capacity Building Officer (SCUS RO staff member) 
FNCCI Federation of Nepali Chambers of Commerce and Industries 
FOCBO Finance Organizational Capacity Building Officer (ISO staff member) 
FWR Far Western Region 
HR Human resource 
HRD Human Resource Development 
IDF Institutional Development Framework 
INGO International Non Government Organization 
IR Intermediate Result 
ISO Intermediary Support Organization 
JD Job description 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
MTE Mid-Term Evaluation 
MWR Mid Western Region 
NFN NGO Federation of Nepal 
NGO Non Government Organization 
NICAT NGO Internal Capacity Assessment Tool 
NNSWA Nepal National Social Welfare Association 
NRCS Nepal Red Cross Society 
OA Organization Assessment 
OCB Organizational Capacity Building 
OCBA Organizational Capacity Building Assistant (ISO staff member) 
OCBO Organizational Capacity Building Officer (ISO staff member) 
OD Organizational Development 
ODF Organization Development Facilitator (PNGO staff member) 
ODS Organizational Development Specialist 
OM Operation Management 
PD Project Director 
PMT Project Management Team 
PNGO Partner NGO 
PPME Participatory Project Monitoring & Evaluation 
R&R Review & Reflection 
RO Regional Office 
RPM Regional Program Manager 
SAC Social Awareness Centre (Surkhet) 
SANDEEP Sansthagat Deego Pariwartan (Sustainable Organizational Change) 
SCUS Save the Children-US 
SNSN Strengthening the NGO Sector in Nepal 
SWC Social Welfare Council, Government coordinating body for I/NGOs in Nepal 
Terai Fertile plains that lie across southern part of the country 
TOR Term of Reference 
ToT Training of Trainers 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
VDC Village Development Committee 
VMGO Vision Mission Goal and Objectives 
WRO Western Regional Office 
3
INTRODUCTION 
The Strengthening the NGO Sector in Nepal (SNSN) project, locally known as SANDEEP (Sanstaghat 
Diego Pariwartan – Sustainable Organizational Change), was a 5-year USAID-funded project 
implemented by Save the Children Federation, Inc. (SCUS). SANDEEP, initiated in November 2003, 
aimed to strengthen the capacity of local non-government organizations (NGOs) to improve the 
delivery of health, education, and economic services, especially for women, children and 
disadvantaged groups in the conflict-affected regions of Nepal. SANDEEP envisaged accomplishing 
this through the following three objectives: 
1. Strengthen the operational and financial capabilities of individual partner NGOs (PNGOs) and 
intermediary support organizations (ISOs); 
2. Expand the linkages among and/or between PNGOs and government and private sector 
institutions; 
3. Enhance the program learning and sharing among and/or between NGOs, government and 
private sector intuitions. 
The project’s philosophy is based on the hypothesis that “Strengthening the capability of the NGOs 
in terms of improved operational and financial systems, expanded linkages and increased learning and 
sharing will strengthen their governance and leadership, human and financial resource management 
systems, and program development and monitoring and evaluation capabilities. As a consequence, 
NGOs will increase their effectiveness in program delivery, and thus, achieve desired impacts in the 
communities they serve.” 
SANDEEP works with 35 NGOs (initially 40) comprised of 5 ISOs and 30 PNGOs (initially 35) in 17 
districts in the Mid and Far Western Regions and parts of the Central and Eastern Regions. The list 
Program Mgt Team 
NGO & ( Sectoral ) 
Networks
 
 
 
 
 
Community members, 
especially women,
children & other
disadvantaged people, in 
conflict affected areas
CBO 
Networks 
Local Government 
Agencies & Local 
Institutions
 
 
35 Partner NGOs 
(PNGOs) in 17 districts
5 Intermediary 
Support 
Organisations
(ISO)
Program Outreach to NGOs and Communities
4
of NGOs and their location is available in Annex 10. 
The program model is based on providing support to 5 ISOs through SANDEEP’s Program 
Management Team (PMT) and to develop them as organizational development and capacity building 
support organizations. The ISOs, in turn, apply their increased expertise within their own 
organizations while supporting 30 local district PNGOs to strengthen internal organizational 
capacities and thereby improve services to target communities. 
The project uses a standard set of modules to facilitate training and technical support to the ISOs 
and the PNGOs. At the outset, the PMT staff members are oriented in the modules, then the PMT 
eastern and western regional offices staff, Capacity Building Program Officers (CBPOs) and Finance 
Capacity Building Officers (FCBOs) provide training of trainers (TOT) training to the ISOs’ SANDEEP 
staff, the Organizational Capacity Building Officers (OCBOs) and the Organizational Capacity 
Building Assistants (OCBAs). Next, the ISOs’ staff conduct training within their ISOs with the 
support from the CBPOs and FCBOs and finally to their respective PNGOs. Upon completion of the 
training, the organizational development (OD) team of ISOs and PNGOs, which was made up of 
representatives from executive committees, management and SANDEEP ISO staff facilitated the 
SANDEEP interventions and built an internal capacity building action plan drawing on the knowledge 
gained form the module trainings. 
SANDEEP’s major activities from November 2003 through July 2008 consisted of two major phases: i) 
set-up (November 2003 to February 2005) and ii) “project -set interventions" with ISOs and PNGOs 
(February 2005 onwards). The major accomplishments dueing the set-up phase were the Selection of 
ISOs (completed in March 2004), completion of the initial baseline cum needs assessment (completed 
in April 2004), finalization of the Detailed Implementation and Monitoring Plan (DIMP) (completed in 
September 2004 after the workshop held with 5 ISOs in May 2004), selection of 35 partner NGOs 
(completed in two phases in July/August 2004 and May 2005), organizational development workshops 
with 5 ISOs (completed in August/ September 2004), strategic planning for ISOs (completed in 
December 2004) and in-service training and orientation of PNGOs. "Project -set interventions" 
commenced on February 2005 with the application of the IDF in 5 ISOs, which was subsequently 
applied in the 35 PNGOs. 
At the outset, the organizational assessment tool was the basis for NGOs to assess their 
organizations. The DIMP followed an "organizational development" issue based approach with the 
organizational assessment tool forming the basis for PNGOs to self-assess their organizations and 
formulate activity plans. However, this was constrained by the PNGOs lack of adequate knowledge 
on how to address the issues they identified. Further, the approach was also constrained by the need 
for the project to have consistent activities across the PNGOs to ensure that common indicators in 
the planning matrix were addressed and that the PMT manage the range of intervention activities 
required. Thus, in the fiscal year 2005, the PMT in collaboration with ISOs revised the project 
approach and identified a new tool, the Institutional Development Framework (IDF), to more 
effectively help PNGOs assess their current status and future ambitions. 
A set of major modular training interventions were identified and initiated based on the IDF 
assessment. These modular trainings included: Governance and Leadership (including strategic 
planning and management); Operational Management; Human Resource Management; Financial 
Management; and Resource Mobilization. In addition to the internal strengthening of NGOs, the 
project also addressed NGO linkages with other stakeholders and the sharing of learning about 
organizational strengthening, which was integrated into the Resource Mobilization module. 
The major activities of SANDEEP in relation to its three intended results (objectives) were: 
• IR 1: The major activities under IR 1 included the organizational assessment (OA) exercises 
(baseline, mid-term and final) using the Institutional Development Framework (IDF) and modular 
5
trainings on governance and leadership, financial management, resource management and 
operational management (social audit). A strategic planning exercise, involving the development 
of strategic plans, was also introduced to supplement the governance module. These activities 
included all 5 ISOs and 30 PNGOs. Pertinent organization development issues were identified 
and action plans were developed to address capacity gaps. The development and practice of 
compliance guidelines by SCUS was another important activity under IR 1.
• IR 2: The major activities under IR 2 included the development of a resource directory, a study 
on linkages with the private sector and orientation for ISO leaders on private sector linkages, 
initiation of dialogues with the NGO Federation in the eastern and far western regions, dialogue 
with AIN and the formation of a capacity building task force, dialogue with SC alliance on 
common partnership guidelines, coordination with ISO donors and PNGOs at the national level 
and collaboration with SWC to disseminate the governance and leadership module to NGOs in 
the mid-western region. 
• IR 3: The major activities under IR 3 included review and reflection sessions, discussions with 
AIN (including taskforce formation) on AIN partnership guidelines development, meeting of ISO 
leaders and the PMT, ISO exposure visit to India and the collection of case studies from 
ISO/PNGOs, disseminating effective practices through NFN in the east and far west regions and 
sharing SANDEEP learning at the SCUS regional office in Bangkok and Bhutan. (For details of the 
major activities and timeframe, please refer to Annex – 7) 
1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT 
Nepal has witnessed rapid and unprecedented political changes in recent times. The April 2006 pro￾democratic movement ended the King’s direct rule and reinstated the dissolved house of parliament. 
This was followed by the comprehensive peace treaty between the Government and the Communist 
Party of Nepal - Maoists (CPN (M)), formation of the interim government with the participation of 
the CPN (M), promulgation of the interim constitution, elections for the constituent assembly and 
the end of the 240 year old monarchy with the formal declaration of Nepal as a federal republic on 
28 May 2008 by the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. Owing to these political changes, the 
conflict situation in Nepal has subsided and undergone major changes in past two years, resulting in 
increased access and mobility of the government, non-governmental organizations and civil society 
groups to most of the areas area that were most affected by the conflict. 
Despite these positive changes, access to certain areas of the eastern and central terai region 
(especially areas that lie south of the East – West Highway) is still hindered due to the presence of 
more than a dozen armed groups and the deteriorating law and order situation. Structural causes of 
poverty and injustice, such as entrenched social exclusion, under-representation of certain groups in 
the development mainstream, lack of proper access to justice, uneven geographical development, 
caste- and gender-based discrimination and poor governance still persist. Human rights abuses in the 
form of threats to human life, abduction, extortion and arbitrary physical actions still continue. The 
peace and reconciliation process is also still fragile due to political uncertainty. Civil strife and 
protests accompanied by frequent bandhs (closures) and violence are still common feature as various 
groups, often based on ethnic and geographical identities, demand recognition and inclusion of their 
agendas in the new constitution. 
The problem statement of the SNSN program that “the conflict situation of Nepal resulted in 
deteriorated government mechanisms for service delivery on health, education and economic 
empowerment” is still partially valid. The NGO sector is in a position to complement the efforts of 
the government in terms of service delivery as implementation of Government programs are being 
revived with increasing vigor in conflict affected areas. Government service delivery in rural areas in 
partnership with NGOs, which was largely unheard of before the conflict, has now gained acceptance 
following the crucial role played by NGOs in delivering services in conflict affected rural areas that 
were largely inaccessible to the State’s development interventions. As a consequence, district based 
6
civil society organizations are now increasingly viewed by Government agencies as partners for the 
implementation of development interventions. 
The crucial role played by NGOs in the past decade in providing services to the community is 
acknowledged by the Government and international development agencies. The Interim Plan of the 
Government stresses effective mobilization of NGOs and strengthening collaborative works and 
coordination of the government and NGOs for the overall economic and social development of the 
country. The Interim Plan also states that it is necessary for NGOs to own the beliefs of 
transparency, accountability, participation and inclusive development and translate them into practice. 
Good governance in NGOs has been gaining significance as NGOs have been criticized for lacking 
sound organizational, financial and managerial systems, especially as related to transparency and 
accountability. It has been commonly assumed that improved internal organizational capacity will lead 
to more effective service delivery. Thus, many development agencies supporting NGOs have 
emphasized strengthening the internal organizational capacity of NGOs to deliver effective services. 
The majorities of local NGOs rely heavily on donors for funds and are usually implementing “donor 
led” programs, having a low capacity for resource mobilization, which results in competition for 
limited external funds. NGOs have inadequate linkages to the private sector where opportunities to 
avail support for health, education and economic activities exist. As NGOs, operating without proper 
administrative, financial and operational polices and systems, find it very difficult to deliver quality 
services, the challenge facing all stakeholders is to improve and institutionalize good governance 
systems and enhance coordination, linkages and networking among local NGOs and promote better 
coordination among NGOs, donors, the private sector and the Government. 
 
2.0 HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY OF INTERVENTION 
The SNSN project aimed to test the hypothesis that "Enhancing the organizational capacity of NGOs 
and sharing this experience across the NGO sector will lead to improvements in the delivery of 
health, education and economic services. It will also increase the NGOs’ capability to work in the 
conflict situation in Nepal and also help mitigate the effects of the conflict and poverty.” 
Hypothes is
E nhancing the 
organizational 
capacity of 
NGOs, and 
sharing this 
experience 
across the 
NGO S ector
Will lead to 
improvements in 
the delivery of 
health, education 
and economic 
services
And increas e the 
NGOs’ capability 
to work in the 
current conflict 
situation in 
Nepal
Will help 
mitigate the 
effects of 
the conflict 
& poverty
The findings, with regards to the project’s hypothesis, are as follows: 
• The hypothesis is relevant in terms of the “enhancement of NGOs’ capacity to work in current 
conflict situation” as the project’s approach and interventions support this aspect of the 
organization’s capacity. ISOs and PNGOs stated that improved organizational capability enabled 
them to develop coping strategies to work within the conflict situation. All the ISOs and a 
majority of the PNGOs were able to sustain development interventions while many of them 
were even able to grow during these times. 
• The direct link of NGO capacity enhancement to "improvements in the delivery of health, 
education and economic services" is difficult to establish. The direct beneficiaries of services 
7
delivered by the ISOs and PNGOS were not able to validate this. To validate this linkage, the 
project relied on feedback (a questionnaire survey) from donors who were supporting the ISOs 
and PNGO. About 47% of the donor sample reported improvement in service delivery due to 
capacity enhancement of the NGOs. Strengthening organizations’ internal capacity can play a 
significant role in the improvement of service delivery, but it is one of several aspects of an 
organization that influences service delivery in terms of quality and coverage. 
• The extent of the project’s link to "mitigate the effects of conflict and poverty" is difficult to 
ascertain as the project’s design, approach and interventions did not clearly define and establish 
the linkage in term of processes and outputs. What is noticeable is that the project inputs 
contributed towards enhancing ISOs and PNGOs capacity to work within the conflict situation 
and also helped to mitigate the effects of the conflict at the micro level by emphasizing 
transparency, accountability and the participation of community members in the planning, 
implementation and monitoring of projects.
3.0 EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLGY 
The FTE assessed whether the program achieved the three intermediary objectives which lead to the 
strategic objectives, the successes and failures of the project, as well as the project's influence in 
NGO capacity building. In addition, the FTE assessed the impact of capacity building on service 
delivery, evaluated how the project mitigated the conflict through capacity building interventions and 
made recommendations to the development community on the value of conducting and supporting 
OD amongst NGOs in Nepal. (The ToR for the Final Evaluation is available in Annex – 1) 
The key objectives and expected answers of the Final Evaluation were to: 
1. Evaluate whether the project achieved its planning matrix including PMP and whether the project 
achieved its strategic objectives. 
2. Determine 'if' and 'why' the project's objectives were achieved fully, partially or not at all 
3. Evaluate net impact (net change between the baseline, midterm, and end of project) regarding 
the status of project interventions, capacity of NGOs to deliver development services in the 
areas involved and expanded linkage among NGOs, networks and public and private sector 
organization 
4. Identify whether there are indications that these changes are resulting in improvements in the 
ISOs and PNGOs' service delivery 
5. Identify what effect and impact the project has had on the other stakeholders (other NGOs, 
NGO networks, donors, AIN and other government organizations which were not direct 
beneficiaries of the project) 
6. Identify how the conflict situation in Nepal affected ISOs and PNGOs, and whether the project 
responded appropriately to mitigate these effects. 
7. Evaluate the viability of sustaining the capacities developed within SC/US and partners 
8. Assess the unintended results of the project 
9. Identify the challenges/lessons learned during the project period 
10. Identify specific OD issues and needs of PNGOs in the health, education and livelihood sectors 
and make appropriate recommendations for replication and improvement of prevailing OD 
practices applied by SANDEEP as well as other donor agencies for effective service delivery by 
their respective partner organizations working in these sectors. 
11. Recommend specific advocacy measures targeting potential donor agencies who can support 
SANDEEP’s second phase design and implementation 
The FTE adopted a pragmatic approach targeting ISO and PNGO executive committee members, staff 
and beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders (DDC NGO desk, NGO networks and relevant line 
agencies) along with donor agencies for the purpose of primary information collection. The FTE team 
had regular consultations with SANDEEP PMT team in Kathmandu prior to the finalization of the 
evaluation objectives, processes, tools and methods. 
8
Sources of Data
Sampling: Purposive sampling method was employed to select sample NGOs. Out of 5 ISOs and 30 
PNGOs supported by the project, with 3 ISOs and 7 PNGOs selected as targets for field visits. Visits 
were also made to the remaining 2 ISOs for a half hay interaction program with executive committee 
members and staff. (The list of sample ISOs and PNGOs, OA and final evaluation dates are available 
in Annex – 10.) 
The sample of PNGOs, which was discussed with and agreed by the SANDEEP PMT, took into 
consideration the following variables: 
• Location of PNGO (whether it is accessible location or a more remote and heavily conflict 
affected location, type of service delivery in geographic locations – hill and terai) 
• Composition of PNGO board and staff by ethnicity and gender 
• Size of the PNGO (mainly determined by the staff number) 
• Number of years the PNGO had been in operation 
• ISOs or PNGOs selected for measuring PMP 
The FTE employed both secondary data compiled by the PMT and primary data collected by the FTE 
team during the field visits. The secondary data was primarily comprised of data collected by the 
PMT for monitoring purpose. The data were collected from the following sources: 
Project Documents: Relevant project documents, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) manuals, 
annual progress reports and donor questionnaires were key sources of data. (The list of documents 
reviewed is available in Annex - 6.) 
IDF Scoring Data: The baseline, mid-term and final term OA (Organization Assessment) data from 
IDF collected by the PMT were used for comparison and analysis of change. 
ISOs and PNGOs: Executive committee members, staff (senior and field level), OCBOs/As and 
Finance Organizational Capacity Building Officers (FOCBOs) and relevant project documents were 
the key sources of data.
District Level Stakeholders of ISOs and PNGOs: District level stakeholders of the sample 
ISOs/PNGOs, mainly representatives of District Education Offices, District Health Offices, District 
Development Committee/Planning Sections and Women Development Offices/Child Sections, were 
interviewed to collect information on changes they perceived and their impression on the NGOs’ 
performance. 
Beneficiaries of ISOs and PNGOs: The community level beneficiaries were the main sources of 
data to identify and assess changes in service delivery of the ISOs/PNGOs. 
Monitoring Donors of ISOs and PNGOs: The representatives of donors supporting SANDEEP’s
ISOs and PNGOs were the main source of data in assessing the organizational changes taking place 
within ISOs and PNGOs and the subsequent effects on service delivery. 
SANDEEP PMT Staff Members in Kathmandu and Regional Offices, SCUS directors and 
representative of USAID and AIN were also interviewed. 
Data collection methods and tools 
Review of relevant documents, development of checklists and instruments, focus group discussions 
(FGDs), interviews/interactions, observations, data analysis and presentations of evaluation findings 
were the key methods applied in the FTE. 
The details of methodologies employed are presented below. 
Review of key documents and records: The FTE reviewed relevant documents and records to 
further the evaluation in order to accomplish its objectives. 
Data collection at field level: FGDs were conducted for data collection from executive 
committee members and staff of ISOs and PNGOs while individual and group interviews were 
employed to collect data/information from OCBOs/As, FOCBOs, ODFs, PMT staff, and district and 
Kathmandu based stakeholders and donors. Observation as an additional verification tool was 
employed throughout the information collection process. (List of stakeholders interviewed and 
9
questionnaire guidelines and checklists, developed for individual and/or group interviews and FGDs 
are available in Annex – 3 and Annex – 2 respectively). 
Review of ISO and PNGO Organizational Assessments using IDF: During the evaluation 
ISOs and PNGOs conducted organizational assessments with the PMT to assess changes taking place 
within their organizations and service delivery quality. This information was used by the FTE to assess 
changes and progress across ISOs and PNGOs. 
Sharing of preliminary findings and validation: The data collected by the FTE team and OA by 
PMT Kathmandu were analyzed. The preliminary findings were shared in 2 presentations with a) 
PMT, SCUS Senior Staff, USAID representative and members of the SC Alliance in Kathmandu and b) 
a Reflection and Review sharing session in Chitawan participated by ISOs’ executive committee and 
staff members, PMT and Regional Office staff, SCUS directors and a representative of USAID. The 
feedback and discussions from the presentations clarified and to a large extent validated the data 
collected. SANDEEP periodic reports and OA outcomes also validated the data collected. 
Data Analysis, report write-up and feedback/comments: The data was further analyzed 
following the FTE ToR and the feedback received from the sharing presentations. The draft report 
was shared with PMT Kathmandu and Regional Offices and SCUS directors and representative of 
USAID for feedback and comments, which were incorporated prior to final report submission. 
4.0 PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS 
4.1 Assessment of achievement of Planning Matrix 
The assessment of achievement against the Planning Matrix has been mostly moving in the right 
direction. A majority of project targets and indicators of the three intermediate results were either 
met of exceeded.. The results indicated that the pre-award survey, training, mentoring and coaching 
activities and OA exercises using the IDF tool had led to ISOs and PNGOs initiating actions (specific 
actions such as action plans, road maps and long term strategic plans) to address the various capacity 
gaps (human resources development, effective management systems, external linkages and resource 
mobilization). 
4.1.1 Strategic objective: Enhance the capacity of the NGO Sector to improve the 
delivery of health, education and economic services, especially for women and children 
and disadvantaged groups, in the conflict affected Mid, Far Western, and parts of 
Central and Eastern Regions 
The project was successful in achieving its strategic objective on the basis of its Planning Matrix 
indicators. (Planning Matrix and EOP Achievements are available in Annex – 4 and Annex - 5) The 
indicators and targets, presented in the form of charts, are as follows: 
Enhance Capacity of NGO
20
00
20
00
40 40
13
80
40 34
80
90
47
0
20
40
60
80
100
% of ISO % of PNGOs % of PNGOs who receive
Positive impact 
Assessment Score
Baseline MTE Target MTE Achievement FTE Target FTE Achievement
10
The project achieved or exceeded the targets for developing “capable NGOs”2 at the end of the 
project (EOP) period as it shows 80% of ISOs (4 /5) and 90% of PNGOs (27/30) have become 
"capable NGOs". Likewise, in comparison to the target of 34% set by the PMT, 47% of the PNGOs 
(14 out of the 30) received positive impact evaluations of their health, education or economic 
opportunities programs by their respective donors. These donors identified the positive impact to be 
as a result of SANDEEP’s intervention. Donors were of the opinion that there is a positive correlation 
between service delivery and improvement of internal organizational culture and systems (policies 
and practices, expanded linkages and increased learning and sharing) resulting in effectively run 
programs. However, the donors also pointed out that it would be difficult to ascertain to what 
extent the SANDEEP intervention had actually contributed in the enhancement of service delivery 
without a detailed assessment of the correlation after the conclusion of the OD intervention due to 
the fact that SANDEEP’s focus on internal organizational capacity strengthening, though very 
important, is one among several factors that influence result achievement at the service delivery 
level. 
4.1.2 Differential Progress in ISOs and PNGOs on indicators related to Intermediate 
Results (IRs) 
IR 1: Strengthen operational and financial capabilities of individual PNGOs and ISOs. 
Project experience and learning indicated that it was easier to initiate changes in smaller and newly 
formed NGOs in comparison to larger and older ISO/NGOs whose operational and financial policies 
and practice have been in place for a longer period of time. This was validated by speedier and more 
effective changes experienced in new and smaller PNGOs and ISO in comparison to the four larger 
ISOs. The FTE team also observed that the IDF revealed changes but does not indicate whether such 
changes have really been consolidated or reinforced and subsequently developed into institutional 
systems. 
ISO level progress: Progress was made in ISOs on the different capacity areas related to IR 1 
during the project period. The EOP targets were met in terms of effective management, planning, 
monitoring and evaluation and financial management systems along with the establishment of an 
internal system and usage for measuring quality of service with beneficiaries’ participation. The target 
related to good governance and leadership and practice of participatory human resource 
management fell short in case of one ISO.3 
 
2 The project’s M&E Manual defines “capable NGOs” as ISOs and PNGOs that are able to reach the 
”Expansion/Consolidation” stage in the IDF tool for the following areas: Oversight/Vision, Participatory 
Management, Human Resource Management and Financial Management and are able to reach the 
development stage for the area of “External Relations”. 
 
3 SANDEEP Project defines: 
i) “Good Governance & Leadership” as those ISOs and PNGOs who achieve the”Expansion & 
Consolidation” stage of the IDF tool when combining the scores of the following components: 
Board, Mission and Leadership Style. 
ii) ISOs and PNGOs that have an “Effective Management System” achieve the “Expansion & 
Consolidation” stage of the IDF tool when combining the scores of the following components: 
Participatory Management and Management Systems. 
iii) ISOs and PNGOs that include a “Participatory Human Resource Management System” as those 
who achieve the ”Expansion & Consolidation” stage of the IDF tool when combining the scores of 
the following components: Staff Development & Organizational Diversity. 
iv) ISOs and PNGOs that have an “Effective Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation System” as those 
who achieve the ”Expansion & Consolidation” stage of the IDF tool when combining the scores of 
the following components: Planning, Community Participation and M & E. 
11
Strengthen Operational & Financial Capabilities of 
ISOs
40
20
40 40 40
0
60 60
40
60
80
0
40
60
40 40 40
0
100 100 100 100 100
60
80
100
80
100 100
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Good
Governance &
Leadership
Effective
Management
System
Participatory HR
Management
Effective
Planning & ME
System
 Financial
Management
System.
System for
Measuring
Quality of
Service
Score in %
Baseline MTE Target MTE Achievement FTE Target FTE Achievement
PNGO level progress: The progress of PNGOs, a majority of which did not have systematic 
operational and financial policies and practices in the initial stage, was visible in all indicators related 
to IR 1 though interventions in PNGOs started later. In the case of PNGOs, the project has been 
able to achieve the targets relative to all indicators. 
. 
Strengthen Operational & Financial Capabilities of 
PNGOs
000000 3 6 0 9 11
0
20 14
60
11 17
0
89 97
71 80 77
48
100 97 90 100 100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Good
Governance &
Leadership
Effective
Management
System
Participatory HR
Management
Effective
Planning & ME
System
 Financial
Management
System.
System for
Measuring
Quality of
Service
Score in %
Baseline MTE Target MTE Achievement FTE Target FTE Achievement
IR 2: Expand linkages among and/or between PNGOs and government and private 
sector institutions. 
The PMT has prepared a guideline for developing linkages between the private sector and NGOs 
with the purpose of improving NGOs’ access to support (funds, technical expertise, moral support) 
from the private sector, raising awareness of private sector opportunities for market expansion 
through contribution to the alleviation of poverty in Nepal and enhancing relations between NGOs 
and the private sector leading to joint actions to alleviate poverty. Workshops on private sector 
linkages, facilitated by an external consultant, were also conducted for all the ISOs. The evaluation 
team observed that at the central level, the PMT has had some success in soliciting private sector 
support4 but this was reported, by ISOs and PNGOs, to be modest at the district level. 
The FTE team felt that the conflict environment was not conducive for the expansion of linkages 
between NGOs and the private sector. The private sector, which was adversely affected by the 
 
v) ISOs and PNGOs that have an “Internal System for Measuring the Quality of Service with 
Beneficiaries Participation” as those who achieve the ”Expansion & Consolidation” stage of the 
IDF tool based on the criteria “Beneficiary Participation”. 
4 “Own a School” targeting commercial banks and dialogue targeting large corporate houses 
12
conflict in the form of frequent bandhs (closures), labor unrest, extortions, abductions, threats to life 
and arbitrary actions, faced the most challenging and difficult time for sustaining their operations. As 
a result many business enterprises had to either close or scale down their operations. Despite the 
official end of the Maoists insurgency and their election to the Constituent Assembly, the security 
situation in recent times has not significantly improved in some parts of the country. The central and 
eastern terai region still experience armed conflict while closures, protests and an environment of 
impunity continue to prevail in some parts of the country. Further, inculcation of corporate social 
responsibility and its ensuing benefit is yet to find a firm foothold in the business community of 
Nepal. NGOs have also not been able to convince the private sector that linkages with NGOs and 
their support for social justice will enhance their public image and ultimately benefit them in 
product/services marketing and acceptability. Thus, initiation of linkages with the private sector by 
some ISOs and PNGOs, in spite of the difficult environment under which they operated, can be 
considered to be a significant, though modest, achievement. 
ISO level progress: The ISOs have achieved targeted progress in all capacity areas related to IR 2 
during the project period in accordance with the Planning Matrix. The level of progress in different 
stages of the project is presented in the graph below. 
Expansion of Linkages of ISOs
0
20
0
20
60
0
60
80
100
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
 Received not more than 40% of Funds from
One Source. 
Received Consultancy Service & Private
Sector Support
Score in 
%
Baseline MTE Target MTE Achievement FTE Target FTE Achievement
In alignment with the project target all ISOs are receiving a maximum of 40% of funding from one 
source and 80% of the ISOs (4 out of 5) have received mentoring or pro-bono consultancy services 
or in kind donations from the private sector to expand their delivery of services to communities in 
need. 
 
PNGO level progress: The progress of PNGOs in respect to indicators related to IR 2 has 
progressed well with achievements beyond project targets for all indicators. The level of progress in 
different stages of the project is presented in the graph below. 
13
Expansion of Linkages of PNGOs
00
11
0
23
3
11
0
100
57
46
0
57
66
46
70
100
70
43
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Initiation of Meeting with other
PNGO
Received not more than 60% of
Funds from One Source
Received Consultancy Service &
Private Sector Support
Participation in Yearly
Training/Workshop/Learning Fora
Score in %
Baseline MTE Target MTE Achievement FTE Target FTE Achievement
Executive Directors or EC members of all PNGOs (100%) are initiating meetings with other PNGOs 
to develop standards in management practices. Likewise, 70% of PNGOs are receiving a maximum of 
40% of funds from one source while 43% of them received mentoring or pro-bono consultancy 
services or in-kind donations from the private sector to expand the delivery of services to 
communities in need. All the PNGOs (100%) are participating in learning fora with other NGOs. 
The FTE team felt that progress based on the relatively few indicators employed by the PMT cannot 
be conclusive for judging the actual expansion of linkages with the private sector and government. 
This was due to the absence of indicators related to linkages with government line agencies and the 
modest private sector funding support for projects implemented by the ISOs and PNGOs. 
IR 3: Enhance the program learning and sharing among and/or between NGOs, 
government and private sector institutions. 
ISO level progress: The ISOs have achieved or exceeded targeted progress in all capacity areas 
related to IR 3 during the project period. The level of progress in different stages of the project is 
presented in the graph below: 
Enhancement in Programme Learning and Sharing of ISOs
00
40
00 0
80 80
100
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
 Publications on Effective Organizational
Practices
Replicating Effective Organizational Practices 
Score in 
%
Baseline MTE Target MTE Achievement FTE Target FTE Achievem
In alignment with the project target, all ISOs (100%) are producing publications on effective 
organizational practices that help to build service delivery capacity in health, education, and economic 
opportunity programs. In addition, 4 out of the 5 ISOs (80%) are replicating effective organizational 
practices, which resulted from participation in learning fora with other ISOs and PNGOs in order to 
build their service delivery capacity in health, education, and economic opportunity programs. 
14
PNGO level progress: There has been partial achievement of PNGOs in respect to indicators 
related to IR 3. The level of progress in different stages of the project is presented in the graph 
below: 
Enhancement in Programme Learning and Sharing of PNGOs
00 00 00
50 50
23
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
 Publications on Effective Organizational
Practices
Replicating Effective Organizational Practices 
Score in %
Baseline MTE Target MTE Achievement FTE Target FTE Achievement
Though 50% of the PNGOs were targeted to produce publications on effective organizational 
practices that help to build service delivery capacity in health, education, and economic opportunity 
programs, only 23% (7 out of 30) of the PNGOs have produced such publications. However, while 
50% of the PNGOs were targeted to replicate effective organizational practices resulting from 
participation in learning fora with other ISOs and PNGOs in order to build their service delivery 
capacity in health, education, and economic opportunity programs, in fact all the PNGOs (100%) 
were replicating effective organizational practices by the end of the project. 
4.2 Evaluation of the net change: The status of project interventions, capacity of 
NGOs to deliver development services in the areas involved and expanded linkages 
among NGOs, networks and public and private sector organization. 
Based on the situation analysis of the NGO sector in the Mid and Far Western Regions (2003) and 
the Baseline Study (2004), the SANDEEP project identified 5 key areas of organizational development 
support for ISOs and PNGOs. These key areas were (i) Governance and Leadership, (ii) Financial 
Management, (iii) Human Resource Management, (iv) Resource Mobilization and (v) Operational 
Management. The project developed related Institutional Development Framework (IDF) tool and 
training modules on each of these thematic areas. The training modules were administered by the 
PMT staff to the selected five ISOs, who in turn provided similar training to the selected PNGOs 
under their portfolio. The achievements of the project through these interventions were as follows: 
4.2.1 One of the major achievements of the project was the significant impact it generated towards 
the management of an organization. Besides becoming aware of the fundamental elements and 
characteristics of an NGO as an organization, the ISOs and PNGOs reported that they were also 
equally concerned about organizational management, particularly in reference to the sustainability of 
activities and programs. Consequently, the organizational assessment (OA) workshop, using the OA 
tool (IDF), was highly effective. First of all, the workshop assisted ISOs and PNGOs to discover and 
appreciate the vital ingredients of an organization, and secondly, it helped the participants to see the 
organization beyond the project on a path of sustainability. 
“OA exercises helped us to realize the importance of division of role and responsibility and the 
value of individual contribution and participation to achieve the goals of the organization. This 
realization led to the practice of regular joint meetings between staff and EC members and inter￾project “synergy” meetings to discuss and address organizational and program issues in a 
coordinated manner.” 
Often repeated view of EC members and staff of ISOs and PNGOs interacted 
15
It is notable to mention here that one of the ISOs had even initiated a two day annual retreat (with 
EC, staff and life members as the participants) for team building exercises as a follow-up on the OA 
workshop. According to the ISOs and PNGOs, there has been an increase in staff and EC 
participation in management and program decisions within the organizations. The overall 
commitment of EC members also increased, as evidenced by the fact that EC members were 
spending more time on organizational matters. Owing to the IDF’s emphasis on inclusion and 
diversity, the composition of the EC and staff also became more inclusive in terms of gender and 
caste. 
It was observed that the project successfully instilled in the ISOs and PNGOs a need to have 
standardized filing, proper documentation, transparent bookkeeping and proper store management. 
Though some of these systems were present in some of the ISOs prior to SANDEEP, these were not 
comprehensive and were not systematically implemented. During the interaction with the FTE team, 
ISOs and PNGOs reported that SANDEEP inputs had increased the self-confidence level of staff and 
EC members enabling them to clearly express their opinions and ideas to relevant stakeholders. 
Stakeholders, donors and line agencies, reported that the quality of reports submitted to them had 
improved in recent times. ISOs and PNGOs had published and distributed brochures and annual 
reports to disseminate information about their organization to stakeholders. The staff and ECs stated 
that meetings are now more focused on the agenda, which are now communicated to the 
participants prior to the meetings. As a consequence of these activities and changes, coordination 
with stakeholders has improved while organizational issues are being addressed through timely 
decisions and better understanding. 
There was consensus among the staff and EC members that the IDF tool was instrumental in helping 
them to make a realistic assessment of their organizational capacity through participatory review and 
reflection process. However, what needs to be understood is that the IDF tool, which reveals 
organizational capacity at a particular time, does not necessarily reflect the depth and sustainability 
of changes in ISOs and PNGOs in terms of whether such changes were just introduced and applied 
recently or have been developed into habits. Given the limited resources of the project, a standard 
approach with common indicators and compliance was used for all sizes of NGOs. A more flexible 
approach would have required more staff with higher qualifications and technical skills in specific 
sectors (education, health etc.) and more staff training – all of which was beyond the project budget. 
However, the ISOs and PNGOs were able to apply some degree of flexibility by following their own 
action plans that allowed them to adjust the modular approach to address their specific needs. 
During their interaction with the FTE team, the OCBOs, FOCBOs and ODFs suggested that some 
indicators (such as formation of various committees, use of charts of accounts, use of FAMAS 
software, integrated reporting and filing systems) need revisiting to align them to the size of NGOs 
and taking into consideration their practical application. 
Case Study - 1
PNGO Reflects on SANDEEP Experience 
“Our donor helped us to become established and gave us project, but did not give us skills on how 
to run an organization” says Sitaram Chaudhary, President of KPUS, a PNGO in Kailali. “If you 
don’t know how to run an organization, how can your programs be effective?” Kamaiya System 
Eradication Society (KPUS) was established a decade ago by federating Kamaya groups in 12 VDCs 
of Kailali district. 
Sitaram says that SANDEEP taught them what good governance is and helped revise their 
constitution and policies, helped separate dual roles and established finance systems in their 
organization. “Due to SANDEEP learning we have now delegated responsibilities to the VDC level 
committees and clarified their roles and responsibilities” says Sitaram, “now these committees have 
started taking independent initiatives and have started visiting VDCs with their own plans”. He says 
that staff and EC need to work jointly to improve the programs. “Just having constitution is not 
16
enough, we equally need guidelines to check the practice of ad-hoc decision-making” argues 
Sitaram. 
With SANDEEP’s help, KPUS conducted a social audit and received feedback from Kamaya groups 
and stakeholders for improvement. Before SANDEEP, they used to have top down type of planning 
system. KPUS has now started making action plans against audit report recommendations. Sitaram 
says that all planning before SANDEEP was done by donors, but now after strategic planning 
exercise, they are able to develop annual plans independently. 
Sitaram believes that SANDEEP helped them to improve their quality of service. SANDEEP training 
helped them to understand how to facilitate community groups and planning. They have also been 
able to link the VDC-level committees to VDCs and have encouraged them to participate in the 
VDC planning process. Some of the committees have successful obtained resources from VDCs to 
build schools in their community. 
Sitaram believes that SANDEEP has changed the behavior of both the NGO and the donor. “Our 
donor did not like SANDEEP in the beginning, because they thought SANDEEP training only diverted 
our attention from project implementation. But, now, our donor is satisfied with SANDEEP, 
because our organization has become much more systematic in terms of planning, accounting and 
reporting etc.” says Sitaram. 
Regarding the changes in his own attitude, Sitaram says “before SANDEEP I used to think that 
organization’s internal affairs should be kept a secret, but now, after SANDEEP, I know that we 
need to be as transparent as possible. This is the effect of the OA exercise”. 
4.2.2 The governance module was instrumental in enabling the EC and staff to understand their roles 
and responsibilities. As a result, JDs provided to the staff and the EC members eliminated dual roles 
and increased individual accountability. OD teams, comprising key staff and board members, had 
been formed in all ISOs and PNGOs. The OD Team, which generally meets once a month to discuss 
organizational issues, was highly valued by the EC and staff as it has been instrumental in facilitating 
faster decision making processes within the EC. 
ISOs and PNGOs reported that they had revised their personnel policies to reflect separation of 
roles within the organization and delegation of operational responsibilities/authority to staff, which 
expedited the decision making process. Subsequently, most ISOs and PNGOs “enshrined” the 
separation of dual roles in their “Constitution”. Training on the governance module also led to the 
formation and/or review of the composition of sub-committees for purchasing, staff recruitment, and 
resource mobilization etc. in these organizations along with the development of related guidelines for 
the sub-committees. Some PNGOs also developed EC member selection criteria, EC members’ 
performance evaluation tools and organizational codes of conduct as suggested by the module. ISOs 
and PNGOs took major steps to reduce the practice of nepotism by appropriate changes in their 
recruitment policies making these more transparent. This training module was reported to have been 
particularly effective in PNGOs as these, unlike in ISOs, did not have any resistance to change 
created by the organizational structure and organizational culture. 
The FTE assessed that the governance module increased the technical skills of staff and EC members 
to formulate and revise various policies. General members of the organizations have also started to 
actively participate in different sub-committees. Both ISOs and PNGOs conveyed that administrative 
work became more efficient after the formulation of organizational policies. The policies were also 
revised in accordance with organizational needs thus suggesting the application of some sort of an 
evaluation process to assess the policies from time-to-time. 
There are other positive impacts that the Governance module had on the ISOs and PNGOs. Despite 
initial fears, ISO and PNGOs pointed out that clearly defined roles and responsibilities of staff and EC 
17
members contributed towards management efficiency owing to the division of workloads in a 
transparent and accountable manner. In PNGOs, the ECs were reorganized to make them gender 
and caste inclusive. Development of various policies also helped ISOs and PNGOs to better 
negotiate with donors. Overall, the public image of the participating organizations was reported to 
have been enhanced because of the higher level of transparency in the functioning of ISOs and 
PNGOs. 
Case Study - 2
INGO Reflects on SANDEEP Impact 
“SANDEEP’s partner NGO (PNGO) is most responsive to our comments and feedback about their 
organization and performance whereas many NGOs take our feedback with skepticism” says the 
chief executive (CE) of one of the INGOs working in Nepal. The PNGO, which works in the terai 
of central development region, was a small organization in 2002 when the INGO started 
supporting it with an education project targeting conflict affected children. “Donors only commit 
short term (generally one year) projects with such small NGOs, which is a bottleneck for their 
growth and sustainability. As projects supported by other donors had just been completed, we 
were the only donor of this NGO.” he recalled. 
In 2005, the SANDEEP project selected this PNGO and provided training on OD and good 
governance. This training was effective in persuading the Chairperson, who was also working as the 
executive director, and other EC members, to end dual roles in the organization. Attitudes within 
the organization started changing. The staff and the EC members became clear about their roles, 
strategies were formulated and the PNGO was able to build rapport with district stakeholders. 
Impressed by the social audit conducted by the PNGO, the CE stressed the need for all NGOs to 
institutionalize social audits. The CE shared: “OD support has definitely contributed to the 
improvement in the quality of services provided by the PNGO but it is very difficult to ascertain 
how much of this is due to such an intervention. In recent times, the PNGO has improved the 
quality of its reports. It has increased its interaction and rapport with community members and 
district stakeholders and it has been able to mobilize community structures more effectively. The 
PNGO also received a new project from the ILO. We don’t have funds for dedicated OD support 
to NGO partners, but in the future, we can mobilize the NGOs that have become capable due to 
SANDEEP’s support”.
4.2.3 Prior to the implementation of SANDEEP, the strategic plans of ISOs were largely donor driven 
and in many instances unable to address the socio-economic needs of the people, particularly those 
in conflict affected districts. Under the governance module, SANDEEP, through its strategic planning 
workshops, provided an opportunity for the ISOs and PNGOs to align organizational elements 
(structure, culture, program, policies and human resources) and develop a shared vision of the 
organization. ISOs and PNGOs reported that the strategic plans developed in the workshops 
identified resource gaps to meet the agreed organizational goals. As a result, many of them improved 
their organizational structure by defining clear roles and responsibilities. Internal communication was 
greatly enhanced with reporting channels clearly delineated. The new structure facilitated ISOs and 
PNGOs to make timely decisions. Strategic plans also supported their resource mobilization efforts. 
Some of the ISOs and PNGOs expanded geographical coverage, while others were using their 
strategic plan to internalize processes, and align programs with their structures. 
The strategic management module helped the ISOs and PNGOs become more inclined towards their 
target groups/working areas and organizational initiatives rather than being guided entirely by donor 
requirements. According to the ISO and PNGOs, they now give more emphasis to consultation with 
targeted communities to planning, project design, implementation and monitoring programs. Context 
analysis and needs assessments were regularly employed during the project planning and design stage. 
ISOs and PNGOs also made planning and review systems more systematic by having daily, quarterly 
18
and annual plans in line with their strategic plans. There was a general agreement among ISOs and 
PNGOs that strategic plans provided a distinct direction to their actions and increased the 
motivation of staff and the EC to fulfill organizational objectives. The most important achievement of 
the strategic management module was that the ISOs and PNGOs started to see the value of strategic 
plans as an analytical tool to assess gaps between their strategic objectives and operational plans as 
well as develop new programs to address these gaps. 
4.2.4 Following the pre-award surveys and organizational assessment workshops, financial 
management training was identified as a major intervention for building the organizational capacity of 
ISOs and especially PNGOs. The majority of PNGOs had absolutely no systems or policies for 
financial and store management before the SANDEEP project. ISOs, on the other hand, reported that 
they had financial policies and systems before the SANDEEP project, but these systems were neither 
comprehensive nor consistently followed. The ISOs and PNGOs informed the FTE team that prior 
to the project they were unable to manage financial resources even when they had willing donors to 
fund their activities for lack of financial policies and systems. 
As a result of the financial management training, financial recording and reporting greatly improved. 
The EC and staff members of all the ISOs and PNGOs consulted during the FTE pointed out that 
they had developed, revised and implemented a set of financial and personnel policies. The 
organizations developed the practice of using separate ledgers and reporting systems for each project 
they undertook. Procurement guidelines were developed and implemented. Unlike in the past, when 
most of the transactions were done in cash without adequate control, a system of handling cash 
through a “petty cash” system was developed and practiced. The ISOs and PNGOs developed 
financial and administrative formats for the control of advances, travel of staff (timesheets), and leave 
records. A system of annual physical verification was developed, and for the first time, physical 
verification of materials in the store was done. All ISOs and PNGOs prepared detailed terms of 
reference for external auditors. 
It was reported by the ISOs and PNGOs that their organizational budgets are now being reviewed 
semi-annually and meetings between finance and program staff are being held on a regular basis. They 
now also have specialized sub-committees for auditing and procurement. Systems including a log 
book for telephone and motorbike use, among others, are now in place and monitored on an on￾going basis. Both ISOs and PNGOs stated they were strictly following the policy provision on the 
clearance of advances with appropriate supporting documents before settlement of such advances. 
Cash transactions have been greatly reduced. 
Donors and stakeholders also appreciated the financial and administrative systems of SANDEEP￾affiliated NGOs. Community leaders, donors and district based stakeholders pointed out that the 
ISOs and PNGOs were now more transparent and accountable, which increased the trust of donors, 
beneficiaries and other stakeholders. 
Case Study – 3
CECI/Sahakarya Reflects on SANDEEP Experience 
Among the 21 partner NGOs of CECI’s Sahakarya Program, 10 are SANDEEP partners. These 
PNGOs partners were selected during the conflict period because working through NGOs was 
the best strategy at the time. “Many NGOs in Nepal have received donor funding, but they lack 
management and delivery capacity. We understood that the SANDEEP project was initiated to fill 
this gap – to develop the capacity of NGOs (i.e. help them to establish systems, policies and 
guidelines) so that they could improve the quality of services provided to the target 
communities” says Pawan Karki, regional coordinator of CECI/Sahakarya project based in 
Surkhet. 
19
Pawan saw notable changes in SANDEEP partner NGOs. “Before, these NGOs did not have 
much work (projects). They did not have administrative or financial policies and systems and 
their ECs met rarely. There was no system of vouchers and the leaders of the NGOs used to 
spend project funds like they spend money at home. Now all these practices have changed. 
PNGOs have developed systems and policies. Their EC has become active and motivated. They 
have developed good financial systems and all payments are made through bank cheques. 
“Before, we used to return their financial report 5-6 times, but now their reporting has 
improved. They have become transparent and don’t hide problems and issues from us” says 
Pawan. 
CECI/Sahakarya officers have also observed some improvement in the quality of service. “All the 
staff and EC members have been provided with JDs, which have clarified the duty of every 
person. Social audits are conducted regularly due to which the community is clear about the 
budgets of the projects. Before SANDEEP, only the Chairperson of the NGO could give 
information about the projects, but now these PNGOs look like real organizations.” 
Pawan believes that SANDEEP project’s impact can also be evaluated by comparing the 
performance of SANDEEP PNGOs with other NGOs they work with. In SANDEEP partners, dual 
roles have ended, operational guidelines are developed and followed, a system of vouchers has 
been established, selection of staff is done through public advertisement and decisions are made 
through collective meetings. “We don’t see such elements in other NGOs we work with. 
Therefore, we have imparted training to other NGOs using resource persons developed by 
SANDEEP” says Pawan. 
In order to measure the quality of program delivery, CECI uses some key indicators: a) delivery 
in time, b) transparency at the user group level at all stages of the project cycle, c) community 
capacity for transparency and accountability (transfer of these skills from NGO to CBO) and d) 
community capacity in project monitoring. “SANDEEP partners have fulfilled these criteria during 
project implementation. They also take CECI’s feedback very positively and act on them.” 
Pawan has also observed some areas for improvement in SANDEEP partner NGOs: “a) they 
have not been able to fully implement their policies, and b) advertisements are published during 
staff selection, but in some cases, we have seen manipulation, and financial settlement is slow in 
some cases. The NGOs have been capacitated, but due to a lack of adequate programs, they 
have not had the opportunity to fully implement/ practice their learning. As CECI and SANDEEP
programs phase out around the same period, the PNGOs may have no projects.” Therefore, 
Pawan believes that SANDEEP needs to assist in resource linkages as well. Another important 
area of improvement is that the EC needs to be further strengthened. 
“Many donors and stakeholders just want to see the results, but they don’t see the actors and 
processes from beginning to end. SANDEEP has done a good work in building the foundation for 
this process. We want to give the following suggestions for the possible II phase of SANDEEP: 
™ Provide continuous follow-up on implementation 
™ Help develop programs and link them to potential donors 
™ Help transfer the systems from PNGO to CBOs (PPME, OM) 
™ Establish innovation funds to support those NGOs who have innovative ideas 
SANDEEP needs to a link rights based approach with OD” says Pawan Karki, Regional 
coordinator, CECI in Surkhet.” 
4.2.5 One of the major capacity building needs of ISOs and PNGOs identified during the baseline 
was on enhancing .organizational skills on resource mobilization amidst conflict. INGOs in these 
districts were adopting a position of “wait and see”, forcing some of the NGOs to close their offices 
20
and programs. To cope with the situation, most of the project partners felt the need to diversify 
their funding sources to include government, the private sector and local institutions. To address this 
need, the PMT developed a training module on resource mobilization and conducted trainings for 
ISOs and PNGOs in different phases. According to the ISOs and PNGOs consulted, the training was 
an eye opener. They were able to understand the importance of persuading donors with not only 
their sincerity but by making innovations in program design and implementation along with greater 
transparency in their functioning, which improved their organizational image. They also learned that 
PNGOs should proactively identify and access resources rather than waiting for visits from donors. 
Another significant achievement of the module was the realization among ISOs and PNGOs that 
resources can be accessed from local sources, like VDCs, DDCs, and from private individuals in the 
community in addition to existing funding agencies. The participating organizations now have an 
understanding that their voluntary contribution of time and effort could be translated into local 
resources generated from within the organization. The module also helped to identify the resource 
gaps between the strategies and goals of all project partners. Based on the identified gaps, the 
resource mobilization plans were prepared and implemented. 
Case Study – 4
UNESCO Club Banke: Initiates Collaboration with Private Sector 
The UNESCO Club, located in Nepalgunj of Banke district, is a SANDEEP PNGO supported by 
the ISO, BASE. This PNGO has recently initiated a joint collaboration with Jaffer Carpet 
Company in Kathmandu which is providing on the job carpet weaving training to the first batch of 
11 persons (6 muslims and 5 kamiayas). The training will then be extended to additional batches. 
All the trainees are to be brought back to Nepalgunj to work in a joint venture carpet factory to 
be established in Nepalgunj by some UNESCO EC members and the Kathmandu based Jaffer 
Carpet Company. An understanding to allocate 25% of the net profit of the factory has been 
made for UNESCO social activities. The legal agreement for the establishment of the factory is to 
be formalized after the completion of the training of the first batch towards the end of September 
2008
The evaluation found that ISOs and PNGOs were trying to contact donors by short listing them 
according to their mission using the Resource Directory developed by the project. They diversified 
their funding portfolio so that it now includes the private sector. A resource management team was 
formed and started taking responsibility for fundraising. ISOs are taking the initiative to link PNGOs 
to donors. Some ISOs and PNGOs reported that they have submitted joint proposals thereby taking 
their partnership to a new level. All the ISOs and PNGOs visited by the FTE team indicated that that 
they had received new projects enabling them to increase coverage of their overall program. 
4.2.6. During the final year of the SANDEEP Project (2007-8), the remaining two modules were 
implemented, namely, operational management and human resource management. The operational 
management training was important for sensitizing ISOs and PNGOs leaders on the program cycle, 
particularly in participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation and the delegation of authority. Since 
NGOs were implementing programs in partnership with donors, they therefore had less control 
over program decisions. However, given the fact that there is an increasing demand from 
communities, government and donors for sustainable impacts of project activities, these NGOs' 
leaders and staff members need to involve stakeholders, including beneficiary communities, in 
program management, specifically in planning, monitoring and evaluation and thereby contributing to 
a greater degree of transparency in their activities. 
As a result of the training and the implementation of the action plans, ISOs and PNGOs stated they 
had prepared monthly work plans and developed guidelines for the delegation of authority. This was 
reported to have improved staff performance, facilitated prompt decisions and led to more efficient 
service delivery. District based stakeholders (related line agencies, donors, NFN and community 
leaders) pointed out that SANDEEP ISOs’ and PNGOs coordination with other NGOs, stakeholders, 
21
government agencies and communities had improved in recent times which had helped in reducing 
duplication and overlap. ISO and PNGOs also reported that their donors have acknowledged and 
begun to accept the recently developed participatory M & E procedure and guidelines. Another 
significant area of improvement as a result of this training was that the EC members were sensitized 
and had started visiting communities for monitoring and feedback. 
Another major impact of the module was the replication of social audits across many NGOs in the 
respective regions. Some donors said that they had begun to allocate more funds in NGO program 
budgets to cover the costs of social audits. Appreciating the added value of social audits as 
demonstrated by SANDEEP, SWC is currently contemplating on making the social audits mandatory 
in the new NGO Act. 
Case Study – 5
SIMI-OVC Evaluates SANDEEP Impact 
Small Irrigation Market Initiative (SIMI) is implementing Other Vulnerable Children (OVC) project 
in Surkhet with support from USAID. SIMI has also been working with one of the SANDEEP
PNGOs over the past year on a program related to child health, education and nutrition. 
“We have understood that SANDEEP is about building staff capacity, sharing learning and supporting 
institutional development of NGOs. In a very short period of time, we saw some remarkable 
results from SANDEEP PNGO. The PNGO is totally different from other NGOs!” says Kabita 
Shrestha, Project Coordinator of SIMI-OVC in Surkhet District. Due to PNGO’s performance, 
Surkhet district program was evaluated as the best by SIMI head-office in comparison to similar 
programs in Banke and Bardiya. Kabita believes that the credit goes to the PNGO and ultimately to 
the SANDEEP process. The PNGO completed the project on time and provided timely reports. 
SIMI monitored their activities in the field and found that they have properly used project 
resources practicing full transparency with user groups. SIMI also provided training to some of their 
staff and they immediately conducted sharing training for their rest of the staff team in their office. 
“We have learnt that for improvement in quality of service, two things are important: value chain 
and capacity of partners!” says Kabita. SIMI has a positive impression of SANDEEP due to the 
performance of this PNGO. If this PNGO will be able to deliver good results as it has done so far, 
SIMI will continue its partnership with the PNGO in the future as well. Kabita thinks that in order 
to improve performance further, PNGO needs some physical support as well. “They need a 
computer and printer. They don’t have even a bicycle and spend lot of time on traveling by foot. 
Such kinds of support save time.” says Kabita. 
4.2.7. The Human Resource Management (HRM) Module was the sixth and final capacity building 
intervention of the SANDEEP project. The module covered the overview of human resource 
management, HR planning, recruitment and selection, HR orientation, performance management 
systems, performance planning and performance evaluations, performance support systems, HRD 
and HR empowerment. As the module was recently implemented (Dec. 2007 – Jan. 2008), the ISOs 
and PNGOs are in the process of implementing the action plans. ISOs and PNGOs, which revised 
their policies immediately after the governance module, felt the need to further refine their 
administrative and personnel policies to incorporate new learning from the HRM Module. The senior 
staff and OCBOs of ISOs suggested that the HRM Module should have been sequenced immediately 
after the governance and strategic management training. 
4.2.8. Changes in ISOs and PNGOs ability 
Donors, district stakeholders, staff and EC members of the ISOs and PNGOs acknowledged that that 
there was significant improvement in the overall functioning of the SANDEEP affiliated NGOs. The 
organizations now have sufficient capacity to conceptualize and develop and review administrative, 
22
financial and program policies, systems and guidelines. Employees in collaboration with the EC 
members were able to develop strategic plans identifying the gaps between the goals of their 
organization and their operational plans. The ISOs and PNGOs developed and implemented effective 
and transparent financial systems. As part of the M & E process, these organizations institutionalized 
social audits for greater transparency and accountability. As part of a long-term sustainability plan 
these organizations also developed resource persons who conduct OA workshops for their 
organization and for other NGOs. Overall, at the end of the project, the HR capacity in these ISOs 
and PNGOs had increased to a point where they can now effectively dialogue with stakeholders 
(GO, INGO and district stakeholders) for resource sharing and advocate for good governance and 
management practices within the NGO sector in various district level forums.
4.2.9 ‘System approach’ to service delivery: 
Out of the five modules developed by SANDEEP, there are two modules that are directly related to a 
systems approach to service delivery - namely, the strategic management and operational 
management. The strategic management module gave the ISOs and PNGOs a greater sense of their 
mission through an increased focus their programs on target groups. The operational management 
module gave skills to ISOs and PNGOs to better manage the project cycle and PPME. The evaluation 
found that both ISOs and PNGOs were occupied in developing internal systems and policies and did 
not have sufficient time to reflect on how to use these systems and policies systematically to improve 
service delivery. Some improvement in service delivery is observed due to the participation of staff in 
decision making and the delegation of authority as well as increased participation of community in the 
project cycle and improved coordination with other stakeholders. 
4.2.10 Changes in relations between ISOs and PNGOs 
There were occasional contacts between ISO and PNGOs before SANDEEP. At the outset, the ISOs 
and PNGOs were hesitant to talk to each other and share their organizational shortcomings. 
Facilitated and capacitated by the SANDEEP modules, they are now openly discussing issues and 
sharing experiences. PNGOs have started viewing ISOs as an ally that helps them in times of need by 
giving them relevant information and advice. ISOs, for their part, have begun to feel that they have 
some kind of responsibility in initiating PNGOs’ linkages to donors. Some ISOs and PNGOs have 
even started submitting joint proposals, which donors are encouraging. Some ISOs and PNGOs have 
also jointly conducted trainings on modules to other NGOs and networks, which were greatly 
appreciated. These activities demonstrate the level of capacity development as a result of the 
SANDEEP initiative. 
Though the collaborative approach was picking up between the ISOs and PNGOs, there also existed, 
in some instances, an environment of competition between ISOs and the larger established PNGOs 
that work within the same district. The evaluation team observed that PNGOs that work in very 
remote areas had more trust in ISOs as these ISOs are, sometimes, the primary channel for obtaining 
information and support. It was also noted that the political inclination of the ISOs and PNGOs also 
determined the strength of their relationships. 
4.2.11 Influence on NGO sector and donors 
The SANDEEP approach appeared more “ecological”5 as all modules and interventions gave top 
priority to dialogue with stakeholders as a basis for resource sharing and organizational sustainability. 
The modules on OA, governance, strategic management, resource management and operational 
management were particularly useful in building the capacity of ISOs and PNGOs to link with other 
NGOs, networks, donors and government stakeholders. Because of the SANDEEP intervention ISOs 
and PNGOs conducted social audits with the participation of donors, district stakeholders and 
 
5 Mutual learning and sharing process 
23
beneficiary groups. These audits established a framework for stakeholder consultation on one hand 
and on the other hand provided valuable impact-based feedback for improvement in implementation.6
This pressured other non-SANDEEP NGOs to follow suit and be transparent.7 Donors have also now 
started emphasizing good governance practices in NGOs.8 
Staff and EC members of ISOs and NGOs stated that the SANDEEP modules helped reduce conflict 
within organizations and helped create a conducive environment for tapping resources from different 
donors. Therefore, other organizations, seeing positive changes in SANDEEP partners, have 
demanded coaching from them on modules, especially the governance and policy development ones.9
One general overall impact of SANDEEP modules is that contacts of ISOs and PNGOs with other 
related NGOs, donors and GO line agencies have increased. For example, they have started working 
in collaboration with government agencies on issues like polio eradication, school enrollment and 
child labor (CFWA, SAC, NNSWA, BASE). However, collaboration with the private sector at the 
ISO and PNGO levels is still nominal because ISOs and PNGOs still need to give more time to 
establishing internal systems and could not give sufficient effort to dialogue with the private sector. 
NGO partners have started sharing project learning with other NGOs through FEDEN and NFN. An 
ID forum has been facilitated by ISOs as a mechanism for sharing among district NGOs (e.g. by ISO 
NNSWA in Kanchanpur). These forums were organized on a rotating basis by leading district NGOs, 
including ISOs, on quarterly basis with the goal of sharing SANDEEP learning. However, ISOs have not 
been able to give continuity to these sharing forums due to political divisions within the district NGO 
networks in Nepal (NFN and FEDEN) among party lines. 
Though sharing of SANDEEP experiences and best practices was taking place with other NGOs, 
sometimes in an organized way, most of it was done spontaneously and on a more personal and 
individual basis. Diverse attitudes and practices of donors have been assessed as a bottleneck as ISOs 
and PNGOs have reported that some donors appreciate the practice of dual roles on the ground, 
which in their opinion makes project implementation faster, while a number of other donors have no 
trust in the policies and systems of ISOs and PNGOs. They use SANDEEP partners only for social 
mobilization and purchase project related hardware and equipment by themselves. Donors like Save 
the Children Norway, CARE, and CECI, however, have shown more interest in SANDEEP learning. 
Therefore, there is a need to continue the initiative of the PMT to organize interactions between 
SANDEEP partners and INGOs/ donors through AIN and other forums to sensitize these donors on 
best practices and lessons learnt. 
At various district level stakeholders’ meetings, SANDEEP partners have highlighted their best 
practices in respect to issues on dual roles, the need for second line leadership and ending nepotism 
in the NGO sector. ISOs reported that these public discussions have helped district NGOs to 
improve their staff hiring procedures. 
Collaboration between SANDEEP partners and other organizations have evolved in a multi-facet 
dimension. SANDEEP partners share their annual reports with VDC, NGOs, DDC and donors. 
Other NGOs have begun to visit ISOs and PNGOs to either obtain a copy of organizational policies, 
or to learn about their filing systems or to get some insights into the operational modalities of their 
 
6 One of the SANDEEP PNGOs that is implementing education program for children of poor families 
received feedback during social audit that the NGO needs to provide livelihood projects together with 
education support. The community argued that, as the children go to school, the parents have to make 
additional expenses for clothing and stationery and also lose working hands. Therefore, in order to 
continue sending the children to school, the NGO needs to support the families IG programs for 
generating more income, not just the education program. 
7 See stakeholder interviews, Annex--8, 
8 E.g. SC Japan, SC Norway, PAF, CECI. For more see stakeholder interviews, Annex-8, 
9 Stakeholder interviews (Annex-8) 
24
programs. They also ask for different formats, copies of constitutions and operational guidelines. 
Another notable point is that ISOs’ and PNGOs’ participation in networks has increased since 
SANDEEP interventions were initiated (RHCC, District Development Fund). 
One of the staff of a SANDEEP partner organization in Darchula highlighted the changed context as 
“The attitude of stakeholders towards us has changed after the success of our electrification project 
that gave light to 110 households. We send monthly reports to DDC, and now they have started to 
call us for meetings. However, they still feel that they are the boss, they still do not see us as 
partners working hand in hand.” 
SANDEEP partner organizations conducted joint training with PAF, World vision and CECI partners 
on governance, strategic planning and policy development, and these entities have replicated these 
modules in their implementation modality. Training was also conducted with SWC. SWC, which has 
appreciated the SANDEEP modules, have shown an interest in publishing these modules jointly. There 
is also the possibility of incorporating the SANDEEP learning and best practices in the upcoming new 
NGO Act. 
Sharing of the social audit modules has also taken place within the Save the Children Alliance. 
Currently, discussions are ongoing on creating an OD cell to institutionalize learning within the 
alliance. SANDEEP learning is also shared with the SCUS regional office and headquarters, which have 
exhibited interest in the project outcomes for replication among its country programs. SCUS has 
already incorporated partner OD as an important strategic focus in their new strategic plans (2007-
12). 
Similarly, SANDEEP worked with AIN on uniformity of partnership policies. In the course of this 
association, AIN has also taken note of the good governance practices propagated by SANDEEP and 
has formed a task force to study SANDEEP learning. The task force has developed a common 
partnership policy for 80 INGOs affiliated with AIN and has been advocating the AIN members to 
implement the policy. Drawing on the experience of SANDEEP, the AIN has assisted NFN in the 
formulation of Good Governance Act of NGOs. The task force is also working with bilateral donors 
to change their grant policies in line with SANDEEP learning.10
 
4.2.12 Demand from NGO sector for OD 
All ISOs and PNGOs reported that the demand for OD support by the NGO sector in the districts 
and regions has increased significantly. Although the issues of separation of dual roles and nepotism 
have been a taboo for the NGO sector, many district level NGOs requested ISOs and PNGOs to 
facilitate training on good governance, resource management, strategic planning and coaching support 
to develop policies and systems. However, only a few of such demands were actually met by the 
project partners due to lack of staff time as the ISOs and PNGOs were mostly engaged in developing 
and practicing their own systems and policies. 
4.2.13 Value added by SANDEEP 
There have been several valuable additions through the SANDEEP interventions. First and foremost, 
the development of the training modules itself is significant. The support provided to train and coach 
the PNGOs through ISOs is noteworthy. The project ensured the development of various 
organizational policies and guidelines.. The project helped open up immense opportunities to the 
partner organizations to tap into new program areas and funding sources. SANDEEP introduced a 
very sophisticated concept of OD in a very simplified manner to ensure sustainability of programs 
 
10 Currently bi-lateral donors have a policy that doesn’t require separation of dual roles for grants less 
than 100,000 USD. 
25
and organizations. The project created a pool of local community based experts to undertake such 
assignments, and this may yet be another milestone that the project has been successful in creating. 
Other valuable additions can be grouped as influences it has generated to outside organizations and 
governing institutions. SWC has shown a positive inclination to incorporate the elements related to 
governance in national policies. Discussions are already underway in and among the NGO/donor 
community on issues brought to the forefront by SANDEEP, including transparency, accountability, 
ending dual roles, social auditing etc. 
Finally, SANDEEP contributed to the overall development of the SC alliance in particular and AIN in 
general as many of the best practices and lessons learnt are finding space in organizational policies 
and programs. 
4.3 Improvements in the ISOs’ and PNGOs' service delivery: To identify whether there 
are indications that these changes are resulting in improvements in the ISOs and 
PNGOs' service delivery 
The evaluation did not find a direct link between SANDEEP interventions and improvement in service 
delivery. The evaluation team is of the opinion that more time will be needed to see the tangible 
impact of SANDEEP intervention on service delivery of NGO to communities. However, there are 
indirect signs (links) that SANDEEP has definitely contributed in the improvement of service delivery. 
First and foremost, the ISOs’ and PNGOs programs started taking place in a planned way as many 
PNGOs did not have periodic action plans before the SANDEEP intervention. Project partners 
started developing plans and implemented them with the participation of communities and 
stakeholders. Through the process of OA, ISOs and PNGOs now understand the significance of 
participation within their organization and therefore are encouraging community participation to 
ensure community ownership of programs. Second, the ISOs and PNGOs have given high priority to 
coordination with relevant stakeholders and share information with them for improved coordination 
and monitoring of projects. They have become more transparent and accountable through social 
audits and have started incorporating feedback of community and stakeholders to improve programs. 
Third, ISOs and PNGOs have developed continuous contacts with communities even project 
completion because they have realized that continuity of support is one of the important indicators 
for quality of service. The policies and systems developed by ISOs and PNGOs have increased trust 
by donors resulting in many of them have expanding their coverage in terms of geography and 
population. It was also observed that ISOs and PNGOs have become more serious in the selection of 
target groups through community participation. 
Fourth, some of the ISOs and PNGOs have started transferring some of their management and 
technical skills to CBOs, including book keeping skills, how to organise meetings, how to develop 
CBO policies and constitutions, clarity of roles within CBOs, participatory monitoring and reporting, 
among others. Community demands for projects were followed up with further interactions to 
clarify issues and ensure community participation and contribution. Apart from regular technical 
monitoring by staff, EC members also now make periodic monitoring visits to communities and 
provide feedback to staff for improvement while stakeholders are also involved in monitoring of 
ISO/PNGO projects. Participation of communities has increased due to inclusion provisions (for 
dalits, women and other disadvantaged groups) in NGO policies and program guidelines. Community 
trust has increased due to increased transparency of programs and budgets. Regular review and 
reflection within ISOs and PNGOs has helped to identify program issues and then address them in 
time to improve program effectiveness. 
26
Due to delegation of responsibilities within the organization, plans are implemented on time and the 
budgets are effectively used, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of budgets being 
returned to donors. Inter-sectoral meetings within the ISOs and PNGOs have increased 
coordination and monitoring of programs. Improved financial systems (obtaining price quotes, 
providing quality goods to communities) has also helped improve the overall quality of service. The 
practice of transferring funds from one project to another has stopped, increasing the percentages of 
work that is completed on time. Owing to increased trust of communities and transparency of 
NGOs, VDCs, (excluding Project areas in the eastern Terai) have started funding NGO projects.
Case Study – 6
DPHO in Dhanusha Reflects on PNGO’s Quality of Service 
“SANDEEP PNGO CFWA has improved coordination with us in recent years. We have participated 
in many of their health related activities. They have applied their capacity, knowledge and skills to 
improve their programs. CFWA is actively participating in district level health networks like RHCC, 
DACC and DICC. They monitor our immunization programs and give reports to us. CFWA recently 
developed a musical cassette with songs and drama in local language. This helped to increase our 
coverage for immunization. It has also conducted social audits due to which stakeholders are 
informed about their activities. 
It’s very difficult to pinpoint how much SANDEEP contributed to improvements in service delivery of 
PNGOs. But there is definitely improvement in the quality of service. DPHO has provided health￾related technical trainings to CFWA and SANDEEP provided management training. As both of these 
activities contributed to the improvement of program delivery, it’s very difficult to segregate the 
share of these programs on improving service delivery. 
CFWA has improved their capacity, now they need projects related to the health sector, which is 
their organizational mission. There are many issues and opportunities in health related programs, 
such as awareness on potential bird flu epidemic and reproductive health (RH), in which CFWA 
could play a leading role. CFWA could collaborate with UNFPA to work on these issues in the 
future. HIV infection in this area. We have realized that HIV patients also need care similar to DoTs 
procedure. This is also an opportunity for the CFWA. If SANDEEP can help in linking CFWA to 
donors, the PNGO definitely could be a leading organization in health sector in the district”. 
~ Bijay Kumar Jha, District Public Health Officer, Janakpur, Dhanusha. 
The evaluation team found that the communities are not in a position to indicate the specific 
improvements in service delivery as SANDEEP is not a direct service delivery project.11 Some of the 
indicators of service delivery commonly raised by key stakeholders (targeted communities, ISOs, 
PNGOs, NGOs, line agencies and donors) are presented in the box below. 
Consolidated Findings of Indicators of Quality 
Quality in relation to achieving program goals: 
• Setting achievable goals and their realization within a scheduled timeframe. (done through strategic and 
annual planning) 
• Reviewing and resetting intermediate goals after review (done through periodic program review) 
 
11 School teachers in Suda VDC in Kanchanpur said that the PNGO with whom they work on 
education project has become highly committed to the needs of the communities. They said: “this 
NGO is quite different from others, they are much more serious to our needs and concerns and works 
with the target groups in an impartial way”. 
27
• Performing and measuring up to set criteria (partly done through social audit, but this is area for 
improvement for both donor and NGO) 
Quality in relation to program impact: 
• Ability of target groups (community people) to dialogue with wider audiences and decision makers at the 
district level (more work is required) 
• Realization by decision and policy makers of the actual reality at the grassroots level. (Policy dialogue with 
AIN and donors has started, but the NGO sector is still struggling to make a meaningful dialogue with 
government) 
• Improved access of target groups (community people) to resources (NGOs need to work more in this 
indicator, as generally target groups don’t access resources meant for them) 
• Improvement in livelihood status of target groups (community people) (partly done, NGOs and donors 
need to work more on PPME) 
• Ability of target groups (community people) to plan, implement and manage programs that affect their 
lives. (NGOs need to work more, they have not fully practiced OM module) 
• Strong institutional structure of community based organizations (How to sustain community organization 
after the project is still a challenge for ISOs and PNGOs. Need to work more on this) 
• Positive changes in the attitude of donors towards target group issues and problems. (How do donors 
identify community needs when their interface with communities is low? A major area of improvement 
on donor behavior) 
Quality as based on process: 
• Work culture that carries the ideology of social justice and not monetary gain (It takes time for NGOs to 
become fully Mission-oriented) 
• In-depth understanding of the fundamental issues, context and the intensity of the local problems before 
actual planning of the program intervention. (In-depth baseline survey) (More inputs needed to make 
NGOs capable to assess community issues) 
• Formulation of program plans with intensive and wide scale participation of targeted groups enabling 
them to identify programs most beneficial to them. (partially through upgraded participatory planning 
processes but need to work more on this) 
• Ensuring transparency and accountability. (done through social audits and policies / systems) 
• Ensuring the participation of target groups (community people) and that they are involved in every phase 
of the program cycle. (regular community meetings and social audit) 
• Ensuring quick dissemination of relevant information from the top to the bottom and vice versa. (there is 
a gap here, strategies and action plans need to take this seriously) 
• Cost effective approach (This is a complex issue that needs specific and clear indicators but tenders, 
quotations and timely completion of activities have made ISOs and PNGOs activities more cost effective) 
• Learning from each other, building on the programmes strengths and correcting weaknesses. (ID forums 
have not been regular. NGOs need marketing skills to sell OD) 
• Good and factual documentation of actual experiences (this is being practiced but needs to be upgraded) 
• Bottom up partnership approach (This is an interesting idea to implement through the OM module, but 
needs a paradigm shift in the attitude of donors, NGOs and government. 
• Ensuring micro and macro linkages (multi-stakeholder dialogue at different levels) 
• Autonomy of the NGO sector (remember the link dependence – independence – interdependence). 
4.4 Implementation and Challenges: To assess whether the project's current program 
approach is appropriate to achieve the project's strategic objective and effectiveness 
of the interventions within that approach. 
4.4.1 Projects approaches and interventions 
The ISO approach and the intervention modules have been effective in achieving the strategic goals of 
the project. According to the project strategy, the ISOs received training first and later they provided 
the same training to PNGOs. This strategy created a condition where the ISOs had to be a role 
model for PNGOs, for which ISOs had to introduce the changes (walk the talk) before they 
28
recommended such changes in PNGOs. The change process was more challenging in ISOs as they 
already had a deep-set organizational culture and hierarchy whereas PNGOs were at the initial stage 
of their growth. Therefore, the change process in PNGOs was faster than in ISOs. However, the 
time gap between the training for ISOs and PNGOs was very small with the result that ISOs did not 
get sufficient time to digest the modules and then facilitate the PNGOs based on their own 
experience. Instead, the change process in ISOs and PNGOs occurred simultaneously, and 
sometimes the PNGOs changed first, putting ISOs under tremendous pressure to change, especially 
on the issues of nepotism and dual roles. 
However, many PNGOs think that PMT’s direct support to them might have been effective as it 
takes time to reach PNGOs through ISOs. This feeling may be due to the intention of PNGOs to 
have direct contacts with the donor (SCUS) so that these contacts could result in project funding in 
the future. Other issues raised by PNGOs were that there was not enough institutional sharing 
between ISOs and PNGOs as there was no provision in the project strategy on inter EC sharing and 
ISOs mostly depended on the ability and initiative of OCBO/FOCBOs. 
in sum, most of the PNGOs think that the ISO approach had both positive and negative aspects. 
Without ISOs, some PNGOs assumed that they could have received more direct funding and training 
from the PMT, which would have resulted in better comprehension of the modules, but others 
opined that if trainers came from the national level (instead of ISOs, which were locally based), these 
trainers might not have understood the local context as the ISO did (knowledge of local language and 
culture), making it more difficult for them to comprehend the modules. 
4.4.2 Contribution of ISO approach to achieve strategic objective 
Five ISOs have successfully built the capacity of 30 PNGOs. These ISOs and PNGOs have improved 
their management efficiency through systems and policies. They have become more accountable to 
the community and more serious in identifying the real target groups. However, the project duration 
was too short to see real and tangible improvement in the delivery of health, education and 
livelihoods of the target communities. Therefore, the evaluation concludes that the project has 
partially achieved the strategic objective. 
4.4.3 OD team approach 
After the training on the governance module, the ISOs and PNGOs formed OD teams with 
participation of key staff and EC members. ED, OCBO, the president, secretary and one EC member 
participated in OD team meetings that met once a month to discuss the implementation of action 
plans on the modules. Both ISOs and PNGOs have realized the importance of continuation of OD 
teams upon project completion, as it helps to discuss OD issues in-depth and provides 
recommendations to the EC for timely decisions. However, in PNGOs, as they generally have a small 
number of staff and too many subcommittees in the beginning, the same individual had to participate 
in various committees, including the OD team. Therefore, in order to make the OD team more 
effective, some PNGOs decided to merge the OD team with the resource management sub￾committee so that internal and external resources could be effectively mobilized. It was also 
observed that OD team members are actively participating in the meetings, which is reflected in the 
fact that they bring OD agendas for discussion in the meetings. All ISOs and PNGOs have given 
priority to continue the OD team in the future as reflected in their SANDEEP phase-out Roadmap. 
4.4.5 Addressing the variation in the nature and size of PNGOs 
SANDEEP partners felt that the modules were better suited/ tailored to meet the needs of ISOs than 
PNGOs as the latter are generally small organizations with a small staff contingent and small sized 
programs. Therefore, the OCBOs had to modify some of demands of IDF indicators and help the 
PNGOs make action plans suited to the nature and size of PNGOs. The EC members of some of the 
29
PNGOs don’t have much in terms of educational qualification and the ODF and OCBOs had to give 
extra time to make them understand the contents of the module. 
4.4.6 Effectiveness of OCBOs/As, FOCBOs and ODFs 
In the beginning, the OCBOs/As and ODF did not have much knowledge about OD and were not 
confident in their ability to facilitate PNGOs through the process. Another challenge was that the 
OCBOs had to convince ISO’s EC (actually their bosses) to develop action plans and then get true 
cooperation from senior members of the organization in their implementation. Due to these 
challenges, some OCBOs left SANDEEP in the early stages. However, constant coaching from CBPOs 
and PMT staff as well as rehearsal of the modules (ToT) prior to the workshops at ISOs and PNGOs 
greatly enhanced the knowledge, skills and confidence of OCBOs. Now OCBOs have become 
confident in their ability to facilitate workshops not only within their own organization, but also with 
organizations in the districts. The increased capacity of OCBOs and ODF is reflected in the fact that 
some of them are now working as ED or team leader in their own organization. Those OCBOs who 
have left the organizations have also continued working as OD professionals with other donors. 
All ISOs/PNGOs appreciated the critical role of OCBOs/As and FOCBOs in supporting the OD 
process in their organizations. OCBOs/As and FOCBOs were observed to be highly motivated and 
took up their roles seriously. ISOs reported that OCBOs/As and FOCBOs have increased their 
conceptual knowledge, presentation and facilitation skills as well as coordination skills. The CBPOs 
and FCBPOs provided intensive coaching to this group in developing understanding, clarifying issues 
and also monitoring progress. After the MTE, CBPOs were placed at ISOs to provide more 
consultation and advice on the implement the action plans. 
OCBOs, with multi-dimensional responsibilities, faced more challenges than the FOCBOs whose jobs 
are more technical and confined to a specific area. Time management appears to be their major 
challenge as they usually support the ISOs’ regular project works in addition to writing SANDEEP
reports and conducting ToT for ODF, mentoring and coaching PNGOs and facilitating SANDEEP’s
activities with the ISOs. The ODF also appeared to be involved in all aspects of the PNGO work, 
including writing proposals. As internalization of SANDEEP’s concepts and modules took some time, 
OCBOs, FOCBOs and the ODF reported that it was a case of “learning by doing and enhancing skills 
through experience” for them. 
4.4.7 Suggestions for alternative approaches / interventions 
SANDEEP, implemented as an independent project, was not integrated with specific service delivery 
programs and project-specific indicators for monitoring ongoing projects were not incorporated. An 
alternative approach would be tying OD elements to ongoing projects and assessing the impact of 
OD on the quality of service delivery through OA, review and reflection and monitoring and 
evaluation processes. OD interventions require close coordination with targeted communities and 
donors to assess their impact on service delivery so that there is synergy between programs and 
OD. Thus, there is a need for specific indicators in projects for measuring quality of services and 
more coordination within different sectors within SC/US and with ISOs and PNGOs program 
donors. 
Regarding future capacity building needs/modules/interventions, the ISOs and PNGOs expressed that 
they need support in resource linkages, proposal development, community research, social 
mobilization and on some specific technical aspects based on their missions (health, education or 
livelihoods). Therefore, preparing new modules on grant proposal writing, community research and 
social mobilization might be useful for ISOs and PNGOs. ISOs and PNGOs also feel that advisory 
30
support would also be useful in some technical aspects where both the ISOs and PNGOs lack 
sufficient expertise on that specific theme (e.g. SNV Ilam capacity building approach).12
4.4.8 Willingness of partners to play ISO role 
ISOs expressed a commitment to support the PNGOs under their portfolio in the future. However, 
the evaluation team is of the opinion that the attitude of “Let’s focus on accessing easy money for 
implementing donor projects instead of entering uncharted waters of OD consultancy” has a high 
probability of prevailing despite great potential for ISOs to play this role for the NGO sector. 
However, if opportunities arise for donor funded OD projects, ISOs will readily take them up. 
4.4.9 Ability of ISO and PMT to convey the modules 
Both the ISOs and PNGOs expressed a high level of satisfaction on the delivery of the training 
modules and coaching they received from PMT and ISOs. They were also highly satisfied with the 
content of the modules and they believe that if the content is fully implemented, the organisations 
will become more sustainable. However, ISOs realized that delivering the same module to the 
PNGOs is very challenging because of the size of the PNGOs. Some PNGOs argued that ISOs got 
more intensive training (9 days) then PNGOs and the time provided to them was not sufficient. They 
also felt that ISOs only conveyed the modules without adding much value to the content. 
4.4.10 Comment on support chain: PMT-CBPO-OCBO-ODF 
The project had a core team of three persons, a Project Manager, a Monitoring and Evaluation 
Officer and an Organization Development Specialist in the Kathmandu office of PMT, who were 
responsible for overall management and the provision of technical support to ROs for Project 
implementation, program development, production of modules, and training of CBPOs/FOCBO and 
OCBOs/FOCBOs through TOTs, The PMT was also responsible for providing coaching and 
backstopping support and field level monitoring and reporting and developing linkages and 
coordination with national and international NGOs / INGOs/Donors and SWC/GO. Development of 
modules was outsourced. The entire process of understanding the SANDEEP hypothesis and the 
development and internalization of modules took about 1.5 years. The PMT had to then give more 
time to develop modules, organize research, develop strategies, and monitoring and reporting, 
resulting in less time being available to link PNGOs with donors at the national level. 
SCUS's ROs provided coordination and administrative support such as: signing agreements (MOUs) 
with ISOs, transferring budgets, providing feedback on the effectiveness of the project, supporting 
training on financial management, establishing finance and store systems and installing financial 
management software in ISOs. At the RO level, three CBPOs in western region and one in eastern 
region were responsible for providing training and coaching to OCBOs. After the MTE, one CBPO 
was placed for each ISO for intensive consultation, coaching and support. One FOCBO was also 
placed in each RO to provide financial training and coaching to FOCBOs. They also helped the PMT 
design and deliver trainings to ISOs, and improve regional level coordination. They also provided 
follow-up, and monitoring and reporting. The CBPOs received technical support from the PMT on 
concepts/ modules and in solving critical issues raised by ISOs. 
The EC members of ISOs and PNGOs acknowledged the vital role played by the OCBOs and ODFs 
in the formulation and revision of policies. The OCBOs and ODFs conveyed that they lack resource 
tapping skills. There was uncertainty about their role extension after SANDEEP phase-out due to lack 
of resources. 
 
12 SNV has a capacity building project in Ilam, where they have seconded technical advisors to the 
partners to support them on specific technical aspects like support to develop programs and grant 
proposals. 
31
4.4.11 Mechanisms for reporting, feedback and decision making 
The planning matrix, DIMP and the M&E manual were developed as the basis for monitoring project 
progress and reporting. The M&E manual provided various tools and formats as well as the indicators 
for monitoring. The IDF tool provided indicators that helped measure changes in ISOs and PNGOs 
in the key capacity development areas. 
 
ISOs and PNGOs received continuous orientation on monitoring and evaluation through the DIMP 
process. Review and reflection workshops at thr ISO and PNGO levels were found to be effective 
for assessing project progress and identifying learning. The workshops provided mutual feedback 
between PMT-ISO-PNGO. Modules were shared with ISOs before finalization, to incorporate their 
experience and promote ownership. 
Project related documentations were well maintained by the PMT. The modules were published in 
both Nepali and English for better comprehension by ISOs, PNGOs, PMT and other stakeholders. 
However, the modules were not published in adequate quantity to meet the demand from the NGO 
sector. All the mechanisms for reporting, feedback and documentation helped ISOs and PNGOs to 
improve their planning and reporting skills. Many donors appreciated this improvement in ISOs and 
PNGOs. 
 
Constant changes in reporting formats created challenges. Uneven understanding of the formats 
among the PNGOs occasionally led to delays in reporting. The reporting process initiated from the 
ODF who reported to the OCBOs. The CBOs then reported to CBPOs who in turn reported to 
PMT. ISOs and PNGOs felt that the planning process was more of a top down process (PMT first 
made its action plan, then the ISOs and finally the PNGOs) and their demand for activities were not 
always accepted. 
 
5. USAID PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PLAN INDICATORS 
The USAID Performance Measurement Plan (PMP) Indicators, which have been administered annually 
since 2004, are based on direct answers to a set of questions by the target group of NGO partners, 
ISOs and networks identified by SANDEEP. The PMP comprises three indicators, which are internal 
operations, external relations and financial resources. (The detail analysis and summary of all the 
indicators generated are available in Annex - 6.) 
Analysis of PMP Indicators reveals mixed results within the sample NGOs during the project period 
(2004 – 2008). Though it is difficult to establish a clear trend owing to inconsistent results during the 
initial three years, the improvement in internal and external operations does appear visible in the 
final two years of the project period in all the samples except for SAC which recorded a progressive 
decline in the fourth and fifth years with regards to improvement in external operations indicator. 
Likewise, a similar result was also apparent with regards to the improvement in financial resources 
indicator with the initial three years showing inconsistent trends and improvement in the final two 
years for the entire sample NGOs except TWOF which showed the same result for all the five 
years. The graphs generated for the three indicators are presented below. 
32
Improvement in internal operation
34 32
29
37
30 30 31 33 32 33 34
29
32 34 34
31
38
33 35
31
34 36 36 38
33 35 36 36 37 38 40
37 37 36
33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
SAC BASE NRC- Kailali NNSWA TCDF TWUC TWOF
Assessment Score
YR 2004 YR 2005 YR 2006 YR 2007 YR 2008
Improvement in external operation
21
28
16
23
14
25
13
23
25
20
24
17
23
21
26
23
21
18
25
27
22 23
26
22
20
25
27
21 20
29
24
26 27 27
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
SAC BASE NRC￾Kailali
NNSWA TCDF TWUC TWOF
Assessment Score
YR 2004 YR 2005 YR 2006 YR 2007 YR 2008
Improvement in financial resources
17
19
22
19
16 16 16 17
21 20 20
18
20
16
20 21 21
19
17 17 16
19 20
22 22
17 17 16
22 23 22 23
20 21
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAC BASE NRC￾Kailali
NNSWA TCDF TWUC TWOF
Assessment Score
YR 2004 YR 2005 YR 2006 YR 2007 YR 2008 
The aggregate of all indicators shows also indicates mixed results. While ISOs show mixed results in 
first four years with improvement in the final year, PNGOs demonstrate steady improvement from 
the first year onwards. When the three indicators are further aggregated across all the samples (ISO 
and PNGOs), the trend of steady improvement from the first year onwards is visible. 
33
Consolidated Improvement
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SAC
BASE
NRC- Kailali
NNSWA
TCDF
TWUC
TWOF
Aggregate
Acheivement 
Assessment Score
YR 2004 YR 2005 YR 2006 YR 2007 YR 2008
6. ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LINKAGES 
Other NGOs in SANDEEP districts have realized that developing systems and policies are important 
to avoid conflict within the organization and to win the trust of donors. They have also understood 
the importance of separating dual roles, but they believe that this should be given adequate time to 
materialize as changing ingrained attitudes and human behavior takes time to alter. Advocacy work of 
ISOs and PNGOs to reduce dual roles, nepotism and increase transparency and similar demands 
from AIN has put tremendous pressure on other NGOs to improve governance. District based 
NGOs, having realized that the public image of PNGOs has increased within a short period of time 
due to SANDEEP support, have been attracted towards these PNGOs to learn about their systems 
and policies. 
District NGOs have requested ISOs and PNGOs to provide training on governance, resource 
mobilization, strategic management and OA. They have also requested ISOs and PNGOs to provide 
them templates of policies, guidelines and other administrative formats to improve their systems and 
policies. The NGO Federation of Nepal has also conducted governance workshops for its members 
in the Eastern and Mid Western regions jointly with ISOs and have developed guidelines for NGOs 
incorporating SANDEEP learning. 
After the resource management workshops, the ISOs and PNGOs started identifying local resources 
and have increased contacts with local stakeholders (VDC, DDC and line agencies). This has led to 
the increased participation of local stakeholders in the planning and monitoring and coordination of 
programs implemented by ISOs and PNGOs. ISOs and PNGOs now also submit periodic progress 
reports and invite the stakeholders to take part in social audits. The ISOs and PNGOs have become 
role models for the stakeholders who refer them to other NGOs as organizations that are based on 
policies and systems rather than the individual discretion of NGO leaders. This has led to increased 
trust of local stakeholders. For example in Darchula, the government handed over a rural 
electrification project to SANDEEP PNGO because the other NGO could not implement it. 
The practice of social audits developed by SANDEEP has now been widely replicated by other NGOs 
and donors. PMT in Kathmandu have been able to sensitize the AIN members on the need for OD of 
partner NGOs and have formed a task force to implement the common partnership guidelines. 
Common partnership guidelines have also been developed for the SC alliance with SANDEEP
facilitation. The PMT also organized interactions between AIN members and ISOs for the sharing of 
learning. The SC alliance also organized interfaces between ISOs and other NGOs for mutual 
learning. The net impact is that there is growing interest among both INGOs, government (SWC) 
and NGOs on SANDEEP learning. As the ISOs and PNGOs have started developing systems and 
guidelines, some INGOs have also started reviewing their systems. 
34
In short, the SANDEEP project has brought a paradigm shift in INGO - NGO relations. In the past 
OD of partners was a non-issue for many INGOs but they have now slowly started to realize the 
importance of OD for partners as well as for their own organizations. INGOs have started to realize 
that they need to understand the process of OD to improve the quality of service and sustainability 
of their interventions. 
7. IMPROVING CAPACITY TO DELIVER SERVICES IN CONFLICT 
The SANDEEP project supported ISOs and PNGOs to continue working within the conflict 
environment of Nepal. The conflict demanded more transparency and accountability from NGOs and 
the SANDEEP modules provided relevant conceptual and technical skills to become transparent and 
accountable to communities and the stakeholders. The project provided training on conflict 
management based on the “Do no harm” principles to the ISOs and PNGOs selected in the first 
phase, which gave them tools and the confidence to dialogue with stakeholders, including the rebels. 
In the course of their interaction with the FTE team, ISOs and PNGOs revealed that though they 
were denied access to communities at the beginning, they were allowed to work in conflict affected 
areas later on when they shared their fact sheets, budgets, programs, policies and guidelines to the 
communities and stakeholders. At a later stage, social audits also helped increase the trust of 
stakeholders of the ISOs and PNGOs and helped to mitigate the conflict. 
It was also reported that project activities had to be rescheduled due to frequent bandhs (closures), 
with NGO workers at times intimidated by both sides to the conflict. They were asked to seek 
permission from the local Maoists leadership to conduct their activities, register their NGOs with 
the Maoists’ “People’s Government” and pay taxes to them. This reduced their presence in the rural 
areas and many field offices had to be relocated to the central office though projects were not closed 
down and implementation continued through local staff. 
ISOs and PNGOs reported that they coped with these challenges by introducing changes in the way 
they managed and implemented their projects. They emphasized dialogue with the conflicting parties 
and clarified their expectations. Meetings were conducted behind closed doors during bandhs. Local 
staffs, familiar with the local context, were hired. Transparency in every aspect of the project was 
emphasized while orienting communities about their programs. To promote community ownership, 
MOUs with beneficiaries groups were signed. NGOs kept a very low profile (such as using bicycles 
instead of vehicles and not carrying laptops to the field). VDCs near army barracks were generally 
not selected. 
NGO solidarity and joint press releases to declare schools and health posts as ‘Zones of Peace’ 
helped to reduce tensions in communities. The communities were encouraged to be united in the 
face of intimidation. Sources of project funds were kept a secret and maintenance of neutrality was 
strictly adhered to. On many occasions, CBO leaders had to come all the way to the district 
headquarters to attend planning meetings while monitoring responsibilities was primarily with the 
field staff as the frequency of office staff visits to the field was reduced. ISOs and PNGOs also started 
to delegate planning and monitoring functions to local clubs and committees. 
The EC and staff members of the ISOs and PNGOs reported that the timing and the relevancy of the 
Governance Module helped them face the many challenges during the conflict period. Besides helping 
them to become transparent; the Module helped them to prepare codes of conduct, communication 
strategies and an overall strategy for working within the conflict situation. Fact sheets and policy 
documents were shared with stakeholders. Establishing computer backups and using pen-drives were 
other coping strategies. Some NGOs organized meetings with the participation of staff, EC, 
stakeholders and Maoists to share project information, which helped reduce the conflict. The most 
important learning is that during conflict, NGOs need to centralize their structure and provide 
information through a “one door” system. Some NGOs issued ID cards for security of staff. Sharing 
35
of experiences for working in conflict during the review and reflection workshop also helped the 
project partners develop strategies more effectively. 
ISOs and PNGOs learnt that the root cause of conflict were exclusion and marginalization of 
communities. They have also learnt that conflict can be reduced by ensuring large scale participation 
of communities in all phases of the project cycle. SANDEEP contributed to the reduction of conflict 
by building strong civil society organizations that function on improved systems/processes. After the 
comprehensive peace accord in 2007, national level political conflict subsided in many parts of the 
country. However, conflicts still prevail in the terai region while extortion, intimidation and 
kidnapping are still a common occurrence. Despite these challenges, ISOs and PNGOs have been 
continuing their operations by being accountable to the communities and transparent to the 
stakeholders. 
8. SUSTAINABILITY 
The SNSN project proposal envisaged that over time the key to NGO sector sustainability would be 
learning, adaptability and performance. It was believed that the Project’s initiatives would increase the 
NGOs’ sustainability and impact as they would develop a reputation for technical expertise that 
would attract support from government, external agencies, and the private sector that are interested 
in a particular sector or sub-sector. Some NGOs were expected to graduate to ISO status during 
the project period. Collaborating with other agencies and linking with networks was considered as 
one of the major ways in which the grassroots experience and best practices of SNSN Program 
would be shared. 
All the ISOs/PNGOs visited by the FTE appreciated and acknowledged the significance and benefits 
derived from the practical application of SANDEEP’s intervention. Realizing the need to sustain the 
process, they expressed a firm commitment and enthusiasm for continued application of the 
established OD policies, systems and processes. However, as this is contingent on availability of 
projects, smaller PNGOs were of the opinion that it would be difficult to sustain SANDEEP’s learning 
and experience as they face a lot of difficulty in getting new projects owing to inadequate linkages 
with donors and nominal access to local resources, especially the private sector. Smaller PNGOs 
expressed that they have not been able to adequately practice many of the policies and systems due 
to the short time span. They stressed on need for follow up support to reinforce new practice into 
habits. . 
As SANDEEP has been streamlined in the recently amended partnership and compliance guidelines of 
SCUS, it has benefited both SCUS and its partners. For SCUS, partnership will now be based on firm 
commitments of its partners towards good governance systems and practices in alignment with 
SANDEEP’s values. This can also be expected to contribute to improvement in planning, 
implementation and monitoring of projects supported by SCUS. Further, SCUS now has a country 
wide network of capacitated district based NGOs it can rely on to implement its programs and 
effectively serve its targeted communities. For the partners, SANDEEP’s learning and sharing 
processes, both with and without SCUS, along with advocacy efforts targeting AIN members, provide 
them opportunities to enhance their governance systems and processes. A more positive and 
favorable attitude towards OD components in project funding has been created in SCUS and the SC 
alliance in particular and AIN members in general, though this may take some time to produce 
tangible results. In the long run, partners who have VMGO focused approaches and have developed 
good governance systems, improved the capacity of their human resource systems and processes, 
adopted transparent and accountable financial systems and practices and strived for enhanced 
linkages will be in a more advantageous position to compete for donor funded projects and mobilize 
local resources. 
The sustainability of SANDEEP is also supported by the internal review and implementation system 
initiated and established by the project. ISOs and the PNGOs demonstrated strong commitment and 
36
practices for the continuation of OD Team along with Organizational Assessment and Strategic 
Planning and Management Processes. A road map was also prepared and implemented to sustain 
project initiatives. The ISOs were confident that they would retain the OCBOs and FOCBOs in a 
suitable position in their organization despite financial constraints. The scenario was different in the 
case of PNGOs despite the commitment to, and realization of, the benefit of retaining the ODFs as 
financial constraints make this primarily contingent on the receipt of new projects. However, 
sustainability should not be judged in terms of retention of the OCBOs, FOCBOs and ODF. What is 
important is that the OD Team and OA and Strategic Planning processes are being institutionalized 
in the SANDEEP network of NGOs. Further, a pool of OD-based human resource, who are confident 
enough to continue independently with OD or a career in a related field and are in demand in the 
NGO sector, have been developed to carry on the SANDEEP learning and experiences. 
SANDEEP emphasized sharing its learning and experience with key stakeholders at the district and 
national levels, which among others includes members of district based chapters of the NGO 
Federation, donors, AIN members and the Social Welfare Council (SWC). The SWC, which 
collaborated with SANDEEP in disseminating the Governance Module to NGOs through a training 
program, can be a potential partner in imparting SANDEEP’s modules to a wider audience at the 
national level. Besides sharing of its learning and experience among AIN members, SANDEEP has also 
contributed to the development of AIN’s INGO - NGO Partnership Guidelines and is working with 
AIN to implement this by building the capacity of NGOs. These collaborative efforts are strong 
advocacy measures that can produce wider results for sustainability of SANDEEP’s initiatives as they 
emphasize the need for Government, INGOs and donors to take more responsibility for motivating 
and supporting NGOs to improve governance and management systems. Furthermore, to mitigate 
the effects of the conflict, AIN and bilateral donors are stressing the achievement of high standards of 
accountability and transparency. As this is contingent on NGOs improving their management and 
governance systems, intensive OD focused interventions could gain in significance. 
 
The OD team of ISOs and PNGOs has strong support and involvement of EC members. Knowledge 
transfers from SANDEEP staff to senior management staff appear more effective than to EC members 
as many EC members, especially new ones inducted to accommodate mandatory SANDEEP 
provisions (inclusion and avoidance of dual role) still lack OD knowledge and appear to be placed in 
the EC to complete formalities. Another area of concern is the ability and willingness in terms of 
availability of time, resources and commitment by EC members who have to work voluntarily 
without direct financial benefit. 
 
Though the approach of "facilitating organizational capacity building of PNGOs by ISOs" is 
appreciated, the sharing and interaction between the ISOs and PNGOs at the organization level is 
primarily limited to the PNGO and ISO SANDEEP team, informal sharing over the telephone, 
attendance of common meetings/forums and submission of a few joint proposals to donors that have 
not materialized. The initiation of networks such as internal discussion for a (IDF) Fora (by 
NNSWA) and SDN (by BASE) for sharing/learning was a move in the right direction for sustaining 
SANDEEP interventions. However, these have lately become inactive owing to a lack of initiative by 
the ISOs and supportive inputs by the project. Institutionalization of the SANDEEP network of NGOs 
is yet to be seen. The phase out of the project has been initiated through the road maps developed 
by all ISOs and PNGOs. 
Sustainability of SANDEEP initiatives will primarily depend on the level of change in the attitude of 
NGO leaders to positively adapt and accept changes in their organization, which the project has been 
able to achieve to an appreciable extent. It will also depend on funding awards being made to the 
NGOs. The major concern in this regard affects smaller PNGOs who worry that they may not be 
able to convince donors to support them despite their efforts. 
More changes were apparent in PNGOs than in ISOs. Among ISOs too, new partners showed more 
commitment towards institutionalization of SANDEEP in comparison to SCUS’s traditional partners. 
37
Thus, changing the partnership approach to induct new partners and focusing on alliances of NGOs 
rather than on continuing partnership with individual traditional isolated partners could be a move in 
the right direction. 
9. ADDRESSING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENSES 
During the evaluation, the FTE team came across some specific outcomes/consequences that were 
unintended as a result of the project intervention. The project’s approved budget for the fifth year 
was significantly reduced by USAID which affected the planned activities related to the HRM and OM 
modules. During their interaction with the FTE team, ISO and PNGOs reported that much of the 
project timeframe was taken up by the development of the IDF tool with the five Training Modules 
and administration of the first three modules (especially the Good Governance Module). As a 
consequence, they felt that administration of HRM and OM modules was rather rushed and fell short 
of the required level of inputs, which would have further contributed to the effectiveness of these 
modules. 
Some of the smaller PNGOs felt assured that just being SANDEEP’s beneficiary would by itself open 
up linkages to donor agencies and give them an immediate competitive edge over other NGOs. 
However, in reality many donors still rely on their network of established partners and give limited 
priority to induct new partners. In such an environment, smaller SANDEEP PNGOs in remote 
districts can be de-motivated as they have experienced losing out to other NGOs they consider less 
endowed in terms of SANDEEP’s IDF indicators. 
In a majority of the ISOs and many PNGOs, the separation of roles (doing away with dual roles of 
EC members) met stiff resistance and changing the mindset of EC members (primarily founding 
chairpersons and active EC members) became the most challenging proposition for SANDEEP. Thus, 
many fresh EC members without adequate experience and qualifications were inducted as EC 
members in many ISO/PNGOs while active EC leaders became senior staff members to 
accommodate SANDEEP’s requirements. New EC members, a majority of whom have not been 
exposed to the project’s inputs, are primarily passive contributors while the control of the previous 
leadership (especially in most ISOs and larger PNGOs) remains intact. However, what is positive is 
that in recent times even in organizations where a single person’s control was visible and apparent, 
there has been slow but noticeable shift towards development of second line of command and 
delegation of authority. 
10. CONCLUSIONS 
10.1 Hypothesis and theory 
The capacity of NGOs has been enhanced in terms of their ability to work within the conflict 
situation. There is a positive correlation between NGOs’ capacity enhancement to "improvements in 
the delivery of health, education and economic services". It is difficult to establish the extent of its 
influence on service delivery as it is one among several that influences service delivery in terms of 
quality and coverage. Though the extent of the project’s links to "mitigate the effects of conflict and 
poverty" cannot be ascertained, project inputs, besides contributing towards enhancing ISOs and 
PNGOs capacity to work within the conflict situation, helped to mitigate the effects of the conflict at 
the micro level by emphasizing transparency, accountability and participation of community people in 
planning, implementation and monitoring of projects. 
10.2 Achievements: 
The implementation of project activities has largely followed the plan though many of the activities 
were cancelled and staff out placed due to a sudden reduction in project budget from USAID in the 
last year of the project period. Precise measurement of project contributions at the strategic level 
38
was difficult as indicators had not been set to assess improvement in the quality of services in the 
health, education and economic opportunities sectors. 
Though no direct link between OD of NGOs and quality of delivery has been observed, there are 
indirect indications which show that SANDEEP interventions have contributed to the improvement in 
service delivery capacity of ISOs and PNGOs. The project partners have become more transparent 
to stakeholders (through their policies, systems and social audits). They have started planning 
interventions with community input (action plans are prepared before implementation) and 
community participation has increased in project development and review (social audit). Likewise, 
owing to improvements in the monitoring system (EC visiting communities, regular review meeting 
with staff and EC members), program related problems and issues have been addressed in a timely 
manner. Utilization of project budgets has improved while coverage has also increased. 
ISO and NGO relationships with communities and CBOs are generally project guided and primarily 
dependant on the availability of donor funded projects. CBO continuity after project phase-out is 
vulnerable as ISOs and PNGOs have not been able to adequately transfer SANDEEP’s learning to the 
community level. ISOs and PNGOs (especially the smaller ones) are compelled to accept diverse 
sectoral projects as coping strategies to retain their staff despite focused VMGO and an inclination 
towards specialization with a focused sectoral approach. ISOs and PNGOs have not been able to 
mobilize adequate resources to fulfill community needs. In many instances, donors have not 
supported system based NGOs that follow participatory planning processes. 
Significant progress has been made to meet the IR level (planning matrix) targets. Both ISOs and 
PNGOs have separated roles of EC and Staff, administrative, financial and program policies and 
guidelines have been established, project partners now have a clear sense of their mission with clear 
VMGO and strategies, organizational structure is clear with clarity in roles and responsibilities 
through JDs. This has led to the EC being active in policy making and oversight. The established 
systems and policies have also led to delegation of authority which has made decision making more 
efficient (timely). Participation of staff has increased in decision making process due to regular 
sectoral and inter-sectoral review meetings. 
Similarly, ISOs and PNGOs have been able to increase coordination with and participation of district 
level stakeholders in their projects’ activities. ISOs and PNGOs are actively participating in district 
level networks and are accessing resources that benefit the targeted communities. The practice of 
social audits by ISOs and PNGOs has increased transparency and accountability and this has led to 
increases trust from project partners. Due to this, many ISOs and PNGOs have been able to tap 
donor resources to expand their program coverage. However, linkages with the private sector at the 
district level are nominal. ISOs have expanded their linkages with donors at the national level but 
PNGOs have limited national level linkages resulting in difficulty accessing donor resources. Due to a 
lack of projects, some PNGOs are also unable to practice various policies and systems. Professional 
capacity as related to HR has improved. Establishment of fair, transparent and practical policies and 
systems to better manage available HR has created a higher level of confidence in staff and EC 
members (particularly in terms of organizational support and impartiality) motivating them to 
improve their performance. 
There have been several value additions through the SANDEEP interventions. First and foremost, 
the development of the training modules itself is significant. The project has also created a pool of 
local community based experts to undertake such assignments, and this may yet be another 
milestone that the project has been successful in creating. Discussions are already underway in and 
among the NGO/Donor community on issues brought to the forefront by SANDEEP—the issues of 
transparency, accountability, ending dual roles, and social auditing, etc. Due to the interest of other 
funding agencies, the project has also started to share best practices and assist in replicating the work 
elsewhere. Finally, SANDEEP has contributed to the overall development of the SC Alliance in 
particular and AIN in general as many of the best practices and lessons learnt are finding space in 
39
these organizational policies and programs. Although the issues of separation of dual roles and 
nepotism have been a taboo for the NGO sector, many district level NGOs are interested on 
availing training programs on good governance, resource management, strategic planning and 
coaching support to develop policies and systems.
Changes were more visible in PNGOs which started afresh. These originations were more receptive 
to SANDEEP’s inputs owing to the absence of entrenched policies and systems. In the case of ISOs, 
which had established hierarchies and mindsets combined with underdeveloped systems and policies, 
it took a longer time to achieve the required level of changes. 
10.2 Program approach and interventions: 
Given the number of ISOs and PNGOs and the extent of project coverage, the project approach 
(working through ISOs and interventions through modular training) was effective. The ISOs and 
PNGOs were satisfied with the level of facilitation and support from the PMT and ISOs, while the 
contents of the modules were highly appreciated. After the MTE, the project provided intensive 
coaching and advice to ISOs and PNGOs by using CBPOs, OCBO/As at the ISOs and PNGOs which 
provided timely support to partners to implement the action plans they had developed. Institutional 
dialogue between ISOs and PNGOs was found to be nominal and the ISOs were mostly dependent 
on OCBO/As and FOCBOs for SANDEEP’s project activities. OD teams have been established and 
are functioning effectively, which has facilitated in-depth discussions on OD issues, which has 
supported ECs in making timely decisions. The DIMP and review and reflection processes have also 
been effective for monitoring project progress and developing action plans. Social audits have been 
widely used by ISOs and PNGOs. 
Much of the project timeframe was taken up by the development of the IDF tool with the five 
training modules and administration of the first four modules (especially the Good Governance 
Module). As a consequence, the administration of the HRM module, implemented in the last year, 
was rather rushed and fell short of the required level of inputs for maximum module effectiveness. 
As it took some time for the designated ISO staff to understand and internalize the SANDEEP
concept and modules, providing training immediately after the completion of their ToT was a 
challenge initially. Due to this, ISOs could not add much value and just conveyed the module to the 
PNGOs 
10.3 PMT management systems and processes: 
The conceptual and technical support/coaching from the PMT to CBPOs and from CBPOs to ISOs 
was adequate. ISOs and PNGOs participated in project planning and monitoring (bi annual and annual 
reviews and reflection workshops). Adequate monitoring systems were established with formats and 
reporting requirements at different levels. However, assessments of the contributions of the output 
level changes to the strategic objective were left to the donors without any assessment by the 
project itself. The project did not incorporate any internal mechanisms to monitor the quality of 
service delivery at the field level through specific indicators, but relied entirely on donors’ feedback 
for judging improvements in service delivery. 
10.4 Sustainability: 
ISOs and PNGOs are already benefiting from the implementation of their new policies and systems 
(increased participation, reduced workloads, increased delegation and efficiency in decision making, 
increased trust from communities and stakeholders). OD teams have become fully functional and 
have developed a roadmap for sustaining the SANDEEP processes and changes (such as commitment 
to continue OA, social audits, reviews of policies and systems, coordination with stakeholders and 
strategies reviews). EC members and staff are empowered owing to clear roles and responsibilities 
40
and established policies and systems. These changes, along with SANDEEP partners image as system 
guided NGOs, will make it easy to sustain the institutional changes initiated by SANDEEP. Further, 
sharing of SANDEEP learning with AIN and SWC has created a conducive environment for the 
replication of SANDEEP learning throughout the NGO sector. 
The major sustainability issues are that capable and educated EC members became staff to 
accommodate SANDEEP’s requirements. The new EC members who replaced the original ones have 
not been sufficiently trained and are unable to provide sufficient guidance and oversight. This creates 
a situation where staff will be dominant over the EC for some time to come. As PNGOs need 
projects to practice their learning, the major concern now is how they can tap into new donors and 
local resources. Retaining OCBOs and ODF by ISOs and PNGOs can also pose a problem due to 
financial constraints in the absence of donor funded projects. Another major concern regarding 
sustainability and replicating SANDEEP’s learning is: Will the ISOs be willing to perform their role as 
OD facilitators or will they focus more on project implementation? Thus, much will depend on 
supporting follow-up activities to ensure that SANDEEP’s learning is institutionalized. 
11. RECOMMENDATIONS 
The recommendations for SANDEEP/ SCUS to consider are as follows: 
1. There is a need for continued support to the ISOs and the PNGOs in terms of information, 
follow-up and linkages after the project phase-out. It should be ensured that this support is 
provided for a period of at least two years to make sure that SANDEEP learning is 
institutionalized by the ISOs and the PNGOs. In this regard, SCUS regional offices need to take 
up ownership to carry forward the SANDEEP initiative and also coordinate with donors at the 
regional level to improve linkages of PNGOs with donors. The FTE suggests that support be in 
the form of: i) biannual reviews and reflection sessions and reporting ii) follow up and monitoring 
of the Road Map iii) linkages to SC Alliance and AIN members and iv) provision of adequate 
annual budget support for the implementation of these activities through the respective ISOs. 
2. There is high demand for CB focused projects from stakeholders and NGOs. All the 100+ 
INGOs and bilateral/multilateral development agencies need capable partners. Thus, there is a 
need to develop and implement a Second Phase SANDEEP project, in collaboration with the SC 
Alliance, AIN and the SWC, as there is more to be done in this field. 
3. There is a need for extensive dissemination of SANDEEP learning and experience. This should be 
done through appropriate sharing forums targeting donors, NGO networks, representatives of 
relevant government agencies, private sector and OD experts at the national level in Kathmandu 
and all the regional level headquarters. The SANDEEP OD Modules should be published and made 
available for distribution at subsidized rates through the NGO Federation and/or other 
appropriate channels. 
4. Advocacy for policy change in INGOs and bilateral and multilateral development in favor of 
support to OD processes in civil society organizations and funding specific OD focused projects 
needs to be formulated and implemented. 
5. Advocacy for OD initiatives can only succeed when it can show tangible results in terms of 
enhanced service delivery and tangible benefits at the targeted community level. In this context, 
there is a need to support SANDEEP initiatives with actual project implementation and closely 
monitor service delivery through specific criteria and indicators. As many SANDEEP partners are 
already working in partnership within the SC Alliance, the Alliance could be lobbied for a joint 
initiative to specifically monitor service delivery in projects implemented by SANDEEP partners 
for a period of three years. The findings could be used to support advocacy efforts in the future. 
 
41
6. AIN members demonstrating strong OD support and the SC Alliance can be consulted and 
lobbied for full or partial course support on SANDEEP to train their partners for a period ranging 
from one to two years. 
7. There is a need to supplement the SANDEEP Modules with sections on social mobilization and 
proposal development, which would fit into OM and RM modules respectively. 
12. LESSONS LEARNED AND CHALLENGES 
12.1 LESSONS 
• ISO and module approach: For a dedicated OD project like SANDEEP, where there are 
diverse partners in terms of size, ethnicity and cultural affiliation and geographic locations, 
working through the locally based ISOs is the right approach. Similarly, identifying the 
common needs of the NGO partners and developing modules to address these needs is 
more cost effective rather than trying to address the needs of these partners separately. 
• Time commitment: The process of OD is about changing individual and collective 
attitudes and behavior of people in the organization, and this takes time. As OD is an “inside￾out” process of change, it takes time and lot of patience to identify organizational strengths 
and weaknesses, develop and practice new systems and policies to address organizational 
issues. The OD facilitator has to be emphatic (has to be “on the shoes” of the NGOs) and 
understand the organizational boundaries and context and coach the leaders for change, 
which is time consuming. Creating consensus for change through participation also takes 
time. 
• Addressing diversity: Though common needs of NGOs are addressed through the 
modules, the specific needs of each NGO needs to be addressed through intensive coaching. 
Therefore, modules must be implemented in conjunction with intensive coaching. 
• Leadership commitment: OD is about changing organizational culture to make the 
organizations democratic, pro-poor and sustainable. As the leaders of organizations set the 
tone of the organizational culture, changing the attitudes of those in leadership positions is 
extremely important in driving forward organizational change. 
• Focused OD Interventions
o Focused OD support, which is rarely recognized by most donors and not being 
advocated for by NGO networks, is essential to equip NGO leaders to manage and 
improve organizational systems and polices. 
o Without strong local organizations sustainable development remains unachievable and 
without OD organizations themselves will not be sustainable. 
12.2 CHALLENGES 
• Institutionalization of changes: The ISOs and especially the PNGOs do not have 
sufficient time and resources to implement the systems and policies they have developed 
during the project period and institutionalize the changes fully. Another challenge for 
institutionalization is retaining the staff of ISOs and PNGOs (OCBO, FOCBO, ODF, 
Accountants) who have facilitated the organizations on organizational change. Trained OD 
personnel are in high demand by INGOs and donors and ISOs and PNGOs face the threat of 
losing these talented staff to larger organizations (who can offer better financial and career 
development opportunities) despite the effort and environment created by the leadership of 
42
these organizations to retain these staff. Finally, another challenge for institutionalization 
involves motivating the EC members who have to give time voluntarily to guide the NGOs. 
• Marketing SANDEEP to Donors/INGOs: Donors and INGOs have diverse policies, 
practices and priorities. Marketing the SANDEEP learning to AIN and donors through the 
implementation of AIN’s partnership policy guideline is the immediate challenge to replicate 
and sustain the benefits of the project. 
• Collaboration with the private sector: Collaboration between NGOs and the private 
sector is still “uncharted territory” in the development context of Nepal. ISOs and PNGOs 
must work towards creating trust and common understanding with the private sector for 
mutual benefit. The private sector could learn social responsibility from NGOs and NGOs 
could learn (social) entrepreneurship skills from the private sector. 
• Measuring quality of service: Quality of service is affected by too many factors and these 
factors could range from the local to global levels. Therefore, it is a challenge for ISOs and 
PNGOs to develop participatory mechanisms to measure changes in the quality of service 
and identify issues for program development. 
43
ANNEXES
44
ANNEX - 1 
Terms of Reference 
For The Final Evaluation of Strengthening the NGO Sector in Nepal (SNSN) 
Project 
BACKGROUND 
SANDEEP (Sanstaghat Diego Pariwartan) project is a USAID funded program which is implemented by 
Save the Children US. The project aims to strengthen the capability of local NGOs to improve the 
delivery of health, education, and economic opportunity services to conflict affected Mid and Far 
Western Regions of Nepal and strengthen the capacity of the NGO sector in the region. SANDEEP
envisions accomplishing this by achieving results in three key areas: 
4. Strengthen the operational and financial capabilities of individual PNGOs and ISOs; 
5. Expand the linkages among and/or between PNGOs and government and private sector 
institutions; 
6. Enhance the program learning and sharing among and/or between NGOs, government and 
private sector intuitions. 
The project's philosophy is based on the hypothesis that strengthening the capability of the 
organizations in the above ways is necessary if NGOs in Nepal are to increase their effectiveness in 
program delivery, and therefore, achieve desired impacts in the communities they serve. 
MAP OF WORKING DISTRICTS
GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND COMPOSITION OF SANDEEP NGOS
SANDEEP is a five year project that was initiated in October 2003. The project works mainly in Mid, 
Far Western and parts of Central and Eastern Regions of Nepal. The project covers 17 districts and 
45
works with 35 NGOs (Initially 40 NGOs) in total. The NGOs are divided into 5 ISOs and 30 (initially 
35) PNGOs (see Annex 1. for a list of PNGOs). 
PROGRAMMATIC STRUCTURE 
The program model provides support through the Program Management Team (PMT) of SANDEEP
to 5 Intermediary Support Organizations (ISOs) which in turn support 30 local district PNGOs to 
strength their internal organizational capacities so that they can improve services to target 
communities. The ISOs are developed as organizational development and capacity building support 
organizations by PMT, applying their expertise both with PNGOs and within their own organizations. 
Program Mgt Team 
NGO & (Sectoral) 
Networks
 
 
 
 
 
Community members, 
especially women, 
children & other 
disadvantaged people, in 
conflict affected areas
CBO 
Networks 
Local Government 
Agencies & Local 
Institutions
 
 
35 Partner NGOs 
(PNGOs) in 17 districts
5 Intermediary 
Support 
Organisations
(ISO)
Program Outreach to NGOs and Communities
PROGRAM APPROACH
The SANDEEP program started in November 2003. Intermediary Support Organizations (ISOs) 
were selected in March 2004, and an initial baseline cum needs assessment was conducted in April 
2004. In May 2004 a Detailed Implementation and Monitoring Plan (DIMP) workshop was held with 5 
ISOs, and from this a draft DIMP was prepared and finalized in September 2004. At the same time 
the selection of 35 partner NGOs was initiated. 
The DIMP followed an "organizational development" issue based approach where by the 
organizational assessment tool was the basis for NGOs to assess their organizations and formulate 
activity plans to address their issues and build on their strengths. This approach was constrained by 
the NGOs lack of knowledge of how to address the issues they identified, and by the need of the 
project to have consistent activities across the NGOs to ensure common indicators in the planning 
matrix are addressed, and to ensure that the project management team (PMT) can manage the range 
of intervention activities required. During FY 2005, the PMT with ISOs revised the approach and 
identified a new tool, Institutional Development Framework (IDF), to more effectively help NGOs 
assess where they are now and where they want to reach. Based on the tool and the assessment of 
NGOs a set of major interventions were identified using a training approach and the development of 
modules was initiated. These modules are: Governance and Leadership (including strategic planning 
and management); Operational Management; Human Resource Management; Financial Management; 
and Resource Mobilization. Since August 2005 SANDEEP has been implementing 'project-set 
46
interventions' to all PNGOs and ISOs that have not reached "capability" in the five organizational 
categories as defined by the project. 
In addition to the internal strengthening of NGOs, the project is addressing the NGOs linkages with 
other stakeholders, and the sharing of learning about organizational strengthening. The development 
of linkages is integrated with the Resource Mobilization module. 
The project uses a standard set of modules, to facilitate each training. First, the PMT staff is oriented 
in the modules, and then the PMT regional staff will give a TOT training to the ISOs’ SANDEEP staff 
- the OCBOs and the OCBAs. Next, the ISOs staff will conduct the training within each of their 
ISOs, and finally to their respective PNGOs. Once the training has been delivered to the ISOs and 
PNGOs, they are asked to build an internal capacity building plan drawing on the knowledge gained 
form the module trainings. Though this is a tighter approach than a traditional OD approach this new 
approach ensures that the PMT, the OCBOs, OCBAs, and the PNGOs are all working within the 
same conceptual framework. This makes it easier for the project to coach the NGOs to implement 
their activities, and to monitor the progress of outputs and outcomes of those activities, as 
summarized in the project's common planning matrix. 
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION
As SANDEEP is in its last year of program implementation, the project is required to conduct a Final 
Evaluation facilitated by external consultants. The project is seeking consultants to conduct 
SANDEEP's Final Evaluation, which will require 43 days of work – March to August 2008. 
Purpose: 
The purpose of the Final Evaluation is to assess whether the program achieved the three 
intermediary objectives which lead to the strategic objectives, and what are the success and failure of 
the project along with the project's influence in NGOs Capacity Building. In addition to that the 
evaluation will find out the evidence based impact of capacity building on service delivery, evaluate 
how the project mitigates the conflict through capacity building interventions and make 
recommendations to the development community on the value of conducting and supporting OD 
amongst NGOs in Nepal. 
This information is required by the participating PNGOs and ISOs, by the donor USAID, by the 
Program Management Team (PMT) of Save the Children, and by other stakeholders, in particular the 
Government of Nepal and PNGO donors. 
They want to know the achievements, lessons and effective practices of the program, and how these 
might be further strengthened. This information will enable the PNGOs, ISOs and PMT to make 
program adjustments in consultation with the USAID and to inform other stakeholders of how other 
NGOs' capacities can be enhanced. Some of the information may require further investigation to 
ensure adjustments are well designed and targeted. 
Objectives: 
The key objectives and expected related answers of the Final Evaluation are: 
12. To evaluate whether the project achieved its Planning Matrix including PMP and whether the 
project achieved its strategic objectives. 
13. To determine 'if' and 'why' the project's objectives were achieved fully, partially or not at all 
14. To evaluate net impact (net change between the baseline, midterm, and end of project) 
regarding the status of project interventions, capacity of NGOs to deliver development 
services in the areas involved and expanded linkage among NGOs, networks and public and 
private sector organization 
15. To identify whether there are indications that these changes are resulting in improvements in 
the ISOs and PNGOs' service delivery 
47
16. To identify what effect and impact that the project has had on the other stakeholders (other 
NGOs, NGO networks, donors, AIN and other government organizations which were not 
direct beneficiaries of the project) 
17. To identify how the conflict situation in Nepal is affecting ISOs and PNGOs, and whether the 
project responded appropriately to mitigate these effects. 
18. To evaluate the viability of the sustainability of capacities developed within SC/US and 
Partners 
19. To assess the unintended result of the project 
20. To identify the challenges/lesson learned during the project period 
21. To identify specific OD issues and needs of PNGOs in the health, education and livelihood 
sectors and make appropriate recommendations for replication and improvement of 
prevailing OD practices applied by SANDEEP as well as other donor agencies for effective 
service delivery by their respective partner organizations working in these sectors. 
22. To recommend specific advocacy measures targeting potential donor agencies who can 
support SANDEEP’s second phase design and implementation 
EXPECTED DELIVERABLES OF THE EVALUATION: 
At the end of the final evaluation SANDEEP projects expected outputs are: 
¾ Compilation of questionnaire responses 
¾ Separate PNGO, ISO, PMT(SC/US), donor and other stakeholder level analysis and 
recommendations 
¾ Preliminary finding presentation 
¾ A draft and final Evaluation report (hard copy and soft copy into a CD) 
RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY:
Since much of this evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the net impact so that the SANDEEP
project is positioned to achieve its strategic and immediate objectives, evaluators should use various 
methods to assess the different aspects of the project to see all the objectives outlined above. 
Though the evaluators have full leeway to design and use methods they feel are appropriate at 
different stages of the assessment, the evaluation should be participatory in its design and 
implementation. The evaluation team should choose purposive sample of ISOs and PNGOs for the 
evaluation: The following methods for the assessment are highly recommended: 
1) Literature Review: The evaluator should review all major program documents such as the: The 
project RFP; The SNSN Proposal; Detailed Implementation and Performance Plan (submitted to 
USAID June 2004); Baseline Report 2004; Annual Reports; Baseline Report 2005; DIMP 2005; Mid 
Term Evaluation Report; All Monitoring and Evaluation Reports; the Organizational Assessment 
Packet; and Overview History of Project; The illustrative Questions on approached to OD used in 
Conflict Vs. Non Conflict situations; Reporting Guidelines; etc. to achieve the objective of the 
evaluation, Organization Capacity Building Research Report. 
2) Observation and Field Visits to sample ISOs, PNGOs and Beneficiaries: The evaluation 
should include a visit to a sample of the project's PNGOs, ISOs and their beneficiaries while the 
ISO's OCBOs (Organizational Capacity Building Officers), and OCBAs (Organizational Capacity 
Building Assistants) and the project's CBPOs (Capacity Building Program Officers) are conducting 
Organizational Assessments for the Final Evaluation. The sample selection of PNGOs should take 
into consideration the following variables: 
• Location of PNGO (whether it is accessible location or a more remote and heavily conflict 
affected location, type of service delivery in geographic locations – Hill and Terai) 
• Composition of PNGO board and staff by ethnicity and gender 
• Size of the PNGO (mainly determined by the staff number) 
• Number of years the PNGO has been running the organization 
48
• ISOs or PNGOs selected for measuring PMP 
3) Checklists or Questionnaire: Checklists or questionnaires be developed to ensure there is 
consistency in the collection of information 
4) Focus Group Discussions: The evaluation should include focus group discussions with a sample 
of the ISOs and PNGOs: 
• Board Members, Senior Staffs and key field staffs 
• OCBOs, OCBAs and FOCBOs 
• Target Beneficiaries 
5) Individual Interviews using Checklist or Questionnaire: The evaluation should include 
individual checklist or questionnaire to interview with: 
• Target Beneficiaries 
• Chairperson or president 
• Executive Director or Chief of Staff 
• PNGOs OD Facilitators 
• Project's PMT CPBOs and RPTL 
• Project's PMT at Katmandu 
• Other stakeholders (including USAID, PNGO donors, district/regional NFN) 
6) Review of ISO and PNGO Organizational Assessments using IDF: During the evaluation 
ISOs and PNGOs will conduct organizational assessments with the PMT to assess what changes are 
taking place in their organizations and service delivery. This information will be used by the Final 
Evaluation to help assess changes and progress across all ISOs and PNGOs. 
All questionnaires and methods should be accepted by the SANDEEP PMT, especially the Monitoring 
and Evaluations Officer, before conducting them. 
Analysis: the information collected will be analyzed by the Evaluation Team to identify correlations 
and establish what are the major trends and issues. The basic unit of data will be each PNGO and 
ISO. Data will be disaggregated by gender, caste and ethnicity to identify how program inputs are 
benefiting disadvantaged and advantaged groups. The data collected will be both quantitative and 
qualitative. The major quantitative data will come from questionnaire survey by evaluator and 
Organizational Assessment, which will be collected by evaluator and the M & E officer respectively, 
who will also support the team in its processing of the data. 
COMPOSITION OF EVALUATION TEAM
The Evaluation Team will be composed of the following team members:
• an external consultant, who will be team leader, that specializes in Organizational 
Development, and evaluations of OD and service delivery projects.
• an external consultant that specializes in Organizational Development and experienced on 
evaluation of project to support team leader
The local USAID Mission, SC/US home office and the Government of Nepal's Social Welfare Council 
will be approached to see if they wish to appoint a team member from their organizations – either 
full time or part time.
MANAGEMENT OF EVALUATION
The evaluation team will report to SANDEEP's Monitoring and Evaluation Officer (M&EO) in 
Kathmandu. The M&EO will be designated as the key contact person for the final evaluation, he/she 
49
will make all decision regarding the final evaluation in close consultation with the project's ODS 
(Organizational Development Specialist), the Project Manager and Evaluation Advisory Team. 
TENTATIVE TIMELINE
Activities Level-of-Effort Timeline Stag
e No
. Particulars TL TM-1 
1.0 1.1 Preliminary consultation 0.5 0.5 March 25 
2.1 Literature review 1.0 2.0 March 26-
27 
2.2 Design of evaluation framework 3.0 3.0 April 8 -10 
2.3 Meeting on design and finalization 0.5 0.5 April 11 
2.4 Preparation of questionnaires / checklists 1.0 2.0 April 16-17 
2.0 
2.5 Meeting on questionnaires / checklists 0.5 0.5 April 22 
3.1 Field Visit 1: ISOs and PNGOs OAs, OCBO/As, 
ODFs, CBPOs, and Beneficiaries 
11.0 11.0 
3.2 Field Visit 2: ISOs and PNGOs OAs, OCBO/As, 
ODFs, CBPOs and Beneficiaries 
8.0 8.0 May 12 – 
22 
June 5 - 9 
3.0 
3.3 Meeting with PMT and stakeholders (in KTM/field) 
including extensive discussions with development 
partners whose programmes are being impacted 
by SANDEEP 
5.0 5.0 June 23 - 
27 
4.0 4.1 Preparation of preliminary findings 2.0 2.0 July 7 - 8 
4.2 Presentation of preliminary findings to PMT, ISOs, 
SMT and collection of feedback 
2.0 2.0 July 10 - 11 
5.1 Prepare draft report 5.0 4.0 July 22-26 
5.2 Meetings with PMT & SC to share draft report 
and collect feedback 
0.5 0.5 August 6 
5.0 
5.3 Finalization of report 3.0 2.0 By August 
15 
TOTAL 43.0 43.0 
50
 ANNEX - 2 
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INTERVIEW WITH STAKEHOLDERS 
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
April – August 2008 
Questionnaire Guideline for EC Members of PNGO/ISOs
Name of ISO/PNGO 
Address 
Phone/ email 
Date: 
 Respondents Designation 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
 
1. Please explain why your organization joined SANDEEP Project? What were the objectives and 
needs? 
2. Has these objectives been fulfilled? What are the major achievements and changes? 
3. How has the role of EC changed over the past 4 years? 
4. Please explain how these changes and achievements contributed to fulfill the goals of your 
organization? 
5. Are the supports from ISO/PMT SANDEEP in line with your organization’s OD needs? Which 
inputs (training/ coaching/modules) were effective to bring change? Why? 
6. Has the organizational changes brought improvement in service delivery? 
7. Have you developed any best practices where OD helps improvement in the delivery of health, 
education and livelihoods of poor and marginalized communities that could be replicated? 
8. Please provide your view on SANDEEP's approach (mode) of providing support to PNGOs 
through the ISOs? Any other comments and suggestions to enhance the Support Approach to 
strengthen ISOs/PNGOs? 
9. Has your organization developed any strategies to sustain the benefits of SANDEEP? Can your 
organization sustain an ODF/OCBOs/As/FOCBOs financially? 
10. Please mention if there are other NGOs/donors/INGOs in your district interested in 
ISO/SANDEEP support (OD support)? Why? 
51
11. Has there been any change in the relationship with other stakeholders (GO/NGO/ Donors)? If 
yes, can this be attributed to SANDEEP support? What are the results and benefits of these 
linkages? 
12. What is the impact of SANDEEP on the NGO sector? Has the capacity of the sector enhanced? 
How? 
13. What linkage does your organization have with private organizations (corporate)? For what 
purpose? What are the results of linkages? 
 
14. Please mention the SANDEEP learning (Governance/ management systems/ HRD/ resource 
mobilization) which you have shared most? What is the mechanism to share the learning? 
15. In your opinion, why should development community support OD of NGOs? 
16. How can OD help mitigate the effects of conflict? Which OD interventions are effective in 
conflict environment? 
(For PNGOs) 
17. In your view are the ODF capable to continue to providing “OD support service” after project 
phase out? 
(For ISOs) 
18. In your view are the OCBOs/As and FOCBOs capable to continue to providing “OD support 
service” after project phase out? 
• Any other comments /suggestions: 
 
52
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
April – August 2008 
Questionnaire Guideline for ISO/PNGO Senior Staff 
Name of 
ISO/PNGO 
Address 
Phone/ email 
Date: 
 Respondents Designation 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
 
1. Please explain how your organization looked like before SANDEEP Project and what changes 
have you achieved now? 
2. What can your organization do now that you could not do before joining SANDEEP? How? 
3. What contributed to these changes? Which inputs and support from PMT/ISO were most 
effective and why? 
4. Please provide your view on SANDEEP's approach (mode) of providing support to PNGOs 
through the ISOs? 
5. How is OD team functioning and would it be continued after the project and how? 
6. Is the capacity of ISO staff adequate to handle the number of PNGOs they are supporting? 
7. Please provide your view on the appropriateness of the training module approach including 
content of the module? 
8. Any other comments and suggestions to enhance the Support Approach to strengthen 
ISO/PNGO? 
9. Has the organizational changes (governance, management systems, HRD, financial management, 
resource mobilization) contributed to the improvement in the delivery of services to the 
communities? How? What mechanisms have you developed to improve service delivery as a 
result of OD support from SANDEEP? 
10. Please suggest other approach / interventions (support) that can support to enhance service 
delivery? 
53
11. What are the learning and challenges (planning and implementation) in the organizational 
development of NGOs? 
12. Considering phase out of SANDEEP, what will your organization give continuity to the “the 
change processes initiated”? 
13. Considering conflict situation: how did the PNGO/ISO (and other NGOs/government) work in 
the district/VDC in the conflict situation? Did it have any effect on the PNGO/ISO activities e.g. 
programme reduction and less field presence? Were there any programs/activities that had to be 
slowed down, postponed or closed due to the conflict? 
14. Has the PNGO/ISO intervention helped to mitigate the conflict? Give reasons for your answer? 
Does OD help to mitigate conflict? Given the conflict situation, what adjustment in planning, 
implementing and monitoring programs did you makes/should be made by NGOs to improve its 
contribution towards conflict mitigation? 
To PNGO Staff 
15. Please explain the relationship with ISO before SANDEEP? How has the relationship evolved 
(changed)? Why? 
16. Any suggestions to strengthen your organization’s relationship with the ISO? (From your 
organization side and/or from the ISO side) 
17. How is your working experience with ISO and with PMT (SANDEEP – Regional/KTM) 
18. How has your relationship with other NGOs, NGO networks, donors, AIN changed in the 
project intervention period? What was before and what is now? Why change? Result of change? 
19. How frequent is ISO support to the PNGO? What type of support does your organization 
usually demand for? Is the response of ISO adequate? 
20. What is the process adopted by ISO and your views in providing the support to your 
organization? 
21. Is the capacity of the ISO adequate to provide the support? Is there a need to strengthen this 
further? If yes, please mention areas and provide suggestions. 
22. Any other comments /suggestions: 
54
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
April – August 2008 
Questionnaire Guideline for field Staff of ISO/PNGO 
Name of 
Organization 
Address: 
Date: 
 Respondents Designation 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
 
1. Please briefly explain about SANDEEP and its objectives. Why did your organization partner with 
SANDEEP? What were your objectives? Have these objectives been met? 
2. Please mention what benefits your organization has had (if any) from the SANDEEP partnership? 
(changes in governance, management, HRD skills, linkages financial management) 
3. What has been the communities' response to your organization’s services (programme and 
activities) over the past 4 year, 2 year and now? 
4. What are the key strengths and areas of improvement of your organization? Are there efforts 
taking place to address the areas for improvement? Who? How? 
5. Is there any change (improvements) in the internal operations of your organization - 4 years ago 
and recently? If yes, please mention the main changes and what influence this has had in your 
work area? 
6. Have you noticed any change (improvement) in the capacity of your colleagues (OCBOs/As and 
FCBOs)? If yes, what contributed to this change? 
7. Are there other NGOs that are informed of SANDEEP support and demand for capacity 
strengthening inputs? 
8. What has been your major learning in the past 4 years? What do you think has been the major 
challenge for ISO/PNGO in the past 4 years? 
9. What should the ISO/PNGO focus on to develop itself further? 
10. In what way has the conflict affected your organizations (ISO/PNGOs) activities/ programme 
delivery? Please mention these, and the coping mechanisms and responses adopted: 
Any other comments /suggestions: 
55
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
April – August 2008 
Questionnaire Guideline for ODF (PNGO)
Name of PNGO: 
Name of ODF: 
Address: 
Phone/ email: 
Date: 
1. What do you think are the major achievements of SANDEEP? 
2. What is your experience (positive/negative) of working as ODF? (support, relation with PNGO 
EC, staff)? 
3. How is the relationship with OCBO/As/FOCBOs/CBPOs and other SANDEEP PMT staff in 
terms of their support? What do you suggest for improvement in relationship between PNGO, 
ISO, PMT for PNGO capacity building and improved service delivery? 
4. How do you feel about your workload as an ODF? How do you deal with demanding situations? 
5. Any suggestion to improve the role & effectiveness of ODF after end of project? 
6. In which areas do you solicit support from OCBOs/As/FOCBOs and CBPOs? Do you get 
support in time? 
7. What are the mechanisms for communication (including reporting), monitoring, feedback and 
documentation? Any suggestions to enhance it? 
8. What is your view on SANDEEP approach? 
9. How do you find the OD team approach? What are the challenges, if any? Please suggest how to 
improve this.
10. Please provide your view on how the PNGO can give continuity to learning and other inputs 
from SANDEEP? 
11. How has conflict influenced in PNGOs capacity strengthening process? 
12. Considering conflict situation: how did the PNGO/ISO (and other NGOs/government) work in 
the district/VDC in the conflict situation? Did it have any effect on the PNGO/ISO activities e.g. 
programme reduction and less field presence? Were there any programs/activities that had to be 
slowed down, postponed or closed due to the conflict? 
13. Has the PNGO/ISO intervention helped to mitigate the conflict? Give reasons for your answer? 
Does OD help to mitigate conflict? Given the conflict situation, what adjustment in planning, 
implementing and monitoring programs did you makes/should be made by NGOs to improve its 
contribution towards conflict mitigation? 
14. Any other comments and suggestions: 
 
56
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
April – August 2008 
Questionnaire Guideline for OCBOs/As and FOCBOs
Date: 
Name of ISO 
Address 
Phone/ email 
Date: 
 Respondents Designation 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
1. What have been the major achievements of SANDEEP? 
2. What are your roles/functions in SANDEP project? 
3. Please briefly explain your working experience (level of support, inputs, communication, 
feedback) with PNGOs/ISOs and PMT (regional/KTM) 
4. In which areas do you solicit support from regional PMT and KTM? Do you get the support in 
time? 
5. What are the challenges in executing your role/functions? 
6. How was the relationship with PNGOs before SANDEEP? How has the relationship changed? In 
which areas? 
7. Please provide your views on SANDEEP's approach/model of providing support to PNGOs 
through ISOs? Are there other viable alternatives? Have there been any adjustments made to the 
project approach in the past 5 years? 
8. What is your opinion of project approach in addressing the variation in size and nature of 
PNGOs? 
9. Do you find the project's approach and interventions clear and in alignment with the projects 
assumptions and hypothesis? 
10. How do you find the OD team approach? What are the challenges, if any? Please suggest how to 
improve this. 
11. What is your understanding of OD concept? 
12. Which intervention modules and programme initiatives do you find challenging to implement? 
Why? 
13. What change do you feel in your confidence level before (start, 2 year back and now)? What 
capacity do you need to strengthen further to enable you carry out your functions effectively? 
57
14. How is the work distributed among the OCBOs/As and FOCBOs? How do you deal with 
demanding situations? 
15. What are the reporting, feedback, and decision making mechanism for making programmatic and 
managerial decisions in the SANDEEP project? What needs to be improved? 
16. Do you think your support will be demanded (internally / externally) after project phase out? 
17. How has conflict influenced in extending your support to the ISOs/PNGOs? 
18. Considering conflict situation: how did the PNGO/ISO (and other NGOs/government) work in 
the district/VDC in the conflict situation? Did it have any effect on the PNGO/ISO activities e.g. 
programme reduction and less field presence? Were there any programs/activities that had to be 
slowed down, postponed or closed due to the conflict? 
19. Has the PNGO/ISO intervention helped to mitigate the conflict? Give reasons for your answer? 
Does OD help to mitigate conflict? Given the conflict situation, what adjustment in planning, 
implementing and monitoring programs did you make/should be made by NGOs continue to 
work in the conflict situation? 
20. Any other comments and suggestions: 
58
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
April – August 2006 
Questionnaire Guideline for CBM/CBPOs and RFM (SCUS RO staff) 
Name Address 
Phone/ email Date 
 
1. What is the major achievement of SANDEEP? 
2. How do you perceive SANDEEP's approach, process and interventions? Any suggestion? 
3. What adjustments have been made to the approach in the past five years? 
4. What is your suggestion on SANDEEP's approach/model of providing support to PNGOs 
through ISOs? Are there other viable alternatives? 
5. What is your experience of project approach in addressing the variation in size and nature of 
PNGOs/ISOs? 
6. What is your comment on training module approach? Are the content of the modules 
appropriate? How sustainable are the project approach? 
7. What is your experience of conveying the content of the 'intervention module' and other 
programme initiatives? Which intervention modules and programme initiatives do you find 
challenging to implement? Why? 
8. Do you find the project's approach and interventions clear and in alignment with the projects 
assumptions and hypothesis? 
9. How do you find the OD team approach? How do you think it can be sustained? 
10. Please assess the capacity of the OCBOs/As, FOCBOs – what are the strengths and weaknesses? 
To what extents have OCBOs /As, FOCBOs internalized the OD concepts and skills? 
11. How effective do you find the OCBOs/As, FOCBOs in transferring the knowledge /skills and 
facilitating the change process as per need of ISO/PNGOs? 
12. What change do you feel in your confidence level before (start, and now)? What capacity do you 
need to strengthen further to enable you carry out your functions effectively? 
13. How is the work distribution vis a vis PMT KMT? How do you deal with demanding situations? 
14. In which areas do you solicit support from PMT KTM and do you get the support in time? 
15. What are the mechanisms for communication (including reporting), monitoring, feedback and 
documentation? 
16. How likely will the OCBOs/As/FCBOs continue to fill this function post programme? 
59
17. To what extent to you think the ISO/PNGOs value OD in order to continue to drawing upon 
knowledge of OCBOs/As in the future? 
18. How has conflict influenced in extending your support to the ISOs/PNGOs? 
19. Considering conflict situation: how did the PNGO/ISO (and other NGOs/government) work in 
the district/VDC in the conflict situation? Did it have any effect on the PNGO/ISO activities e.g. 
programme reduction and less field presence? Were there any programs/activities that had to be 
slowed down, postponed or closed due to the conflict? 
20. How has the project interventions helped the PNGO/ISO helped to deliver services in conflict 
situation? Give reasons for your answer? Does OD help to mitigate conflict? Given the conflict 
situation, what adjustment in planning, implementing and monitoring programs did you 
make/should be made by NGOs to continue to work in the conflict situation? 
21. Any other comments and suggestions: 
60
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
March – August 2006 
Questionnaire Guideline for Community People (FGDs with PNGO/ISO Beneficiaries)
VDC/Ward 
District 
Programme 
Date: 
 Respondents Designation 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
 
1. What are the activities/services undertaken by PNGO/ISO in your community? Please mention 
the activities of the PNGO that you find most useful and why? 
2. Over the years, is there any change (improvements) in the way the PNGO/ISO deals with, 
facilitates and implements activities in your community? 
 If yes, what are the changes (improvements) and how were they changed? In your opinion, what 
made the PNGO/ISO change its way of dealing and implementing its activities? 
3. In recent times, has the PNGO/ISO services (e.g. training conduction, facilitation and community 
mobilization, communication and coordination, increased activities and resources, more field 
visits), been more effective and helpful for the communities' development? If yes, which services? 
4. How does the PNGO/ISO interact with you (regular meetings, visits by PNGO/ISO staff)? Have 
you participated in or been consulted during planning, implementation and monitoring of 
PNGO/ISO activities/programmes or asked for feedback on PNGO/ISO work? Have PNGO/ISO 
accepted your suggestions/feedbacks and made suitable changes in their planning, implementation 
and monitoring processes? 
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the PNGO/ISO? 
6. Is the PNGO/ISO transparent about budgetary allocation for project activities in your 
community? Are social audits/public hearing organized by the PNGO/ISO? 
7. How many NGOs other than the PNGO/ISO are active in your area? How do you compare the 
quality of services of PNGO/ISO with other NGOs? Is it better or the same as other NGOs? If it 
is better, what makes you say so? E.g. more resources, more effective services, better 
transparency and accountability? 
8. What do you think has been the challenges in planning, implementing and monitoring programs 
for the PNGO/ISO in the past 4 years (in terms of community mobilization, imparting awareness, 
conducting consultation session with community people, motivating community people to take 
ownership of program, effectively participating and supervising program activities etc) 
61
9. Considering conflict situation: how did the PNGO/ISO (and other NGOs/government) work in 
the district/VDC in the conflict situation? Did it have any effect on the PNGO/ISO activities e.g. 
programme reduction and less field presence? Were there any programs/activities that had to be 
slowed down, postponed or closed due to the conflict? 
10. Has the PNGO/ISO intervention helped to mitigate the conflict? Give reasons for your answer? 
Given the conflict situation, what adjustment in planning, implementing and monitoring programs 
should be made by NGOs to continue to work in the conflict situation? 
11. What should the PNGO/ISO focus on to develop itself further to enhance its service delivery? 
12. Any other comments /suggestions: 
62
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
March – August 2006 
Questionnaire Guideline for district level stakeholders 
Name of 
Organization 
Address 
Programme 
Date: 
 Respondents Designation 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
1. Are you aware of SANDEEP activities and programmes? 
2. What is your view of the PNGO /ISO and the services it provides in the district? (Usefulness, 
adequacy, timeliness and gender sensitivity) 
3. In your opinion, which activities/programs of PNGO/ISO do you think are most effective? Why? 
4. In recent times, have you noticed any positive changes in the way the PNGO/ISO deals with, 
facilitates and implements activities in the community and or deals with you/your organization? If 
yes, what and how? 
5. If the response to question 4 is yes, what in your opinion has influenced the PNGO /ISO to 
change its way of dealing and / or implement its activities? 
6. How does the PNGO/ISO interact with you (regular meetings, visits by PNGO staff)? Have you 
been consulted during planning, implementation and monitoring of PNGO/ISO 
activities/programmes or asked for feedback on PNGO/ISO work? If yes, have you provided 
feedbacks and suggestions? Which areas of organizational development aspect are your feedbacks 
and suggestions generally concerned with? Do you find any change after your feedback? 
7. What are the strengths and areas of improvement of the PNGO/ISO (governance, management 
systems, human resource, planning & monitoring evaluation, financial management)? What are 
your suggestions to facilitate improvement? 
8. Are the services of the PNGO /ISO better or the same as other NGO in the district? Please 
provide reasons for your answer? E.g. more resources, PNGO/ISO staff attend more 
trainings/workshops outside the district; PNGO/ISO staffs are busy training other CBOs/local 
NGOs. 
9. Are you satisfied with collaborative and coordination effort of PNGO/ISO with other 
stakeholders? If yes or no, please provide reasons. 
63
10. Considering conflict situation: how did the PNGO/ISO (and other NGOs/government) work in 
the district/VDC in the conflict situation? Did it have any effect on the PNGO/ISO activities e.g. 
programme reduction and less field presence? Were there any programs/activities that had to be 
slowed down, postponed or closed due to the conflict? 
12. Has the PNGO/ISO intervention helped to mitigate the conflict? Give reasons for your answer? 
Given the conflict situation, what adjustment in planning, implementing and monitoring programs 
should be made by NGOs to continue to work in conflict situation? 
13. What do you think has been the major challenge in planning, implementing and monitoring 
programs for the PNGO/ISO in the past 4 years (in terms of community mobilization, imparting 
awareness, conducting consultation session with community people, motivating community 
people to take ownership of program, effectively participating and supervising program activities 
etc) 
14. In your opinion, which operational/management aspects of your PNGOs need to be further 
developed for effective service delivery to your target group? 
15. How would you be able to collaborate/support a program that primarily focuses on the 
organizational development of civil society organizations? 
16. Any other comments /suggestions: 
64
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
March – August 2006 
Questionnaire Guideline for Donors 
Name of 
Organization 
Address 
Programme 
Date: 
 Respondents Designation 
 
 
1. How long have you been collaborating with the PNGO/ISO? What is your support? 
2. What are your primary reasons for collaborating with the PNGO/ISO? 
3. Are you satisfied with the service delivery of the PNGO/ISO? Please provide reasons for your 
response? 
4. In your opinion, which activities of the PNGO/ISO are the most effective? Why? 
5. During the period of your support have you noticed any positive changes in (governance, 
management systems, human resource, planning & monitoring evaluation, financial 
management) the way the PNGO/ISO deals with, facilitates and implements activities in the 
community and or deals with your organization? If yes, what and how? 
6. If the response to question 5 is yes, what in your opinion has influenced the PNGO /ISO to 
change its way of dealing and / or implement its activities? 
7. Has PNGO/ISO asked feedback on their program activities? If yes, have you provided 
feedbacks and suggestions? Which areas of organizational development aspect (governance, 
management systems, human resource, planning & monitoring evaluation, financial 
management) are your feedbacks and suggestions generally concerned with? Do you find any 
change after your feedback? 
8. What are the strengths and areas of improvement of the PNGO/ISO? What are your 
suggestions to facilitate improvement? 
9. What should the PNGO/ISO focus on in the future and what capacity does it need to 
strengthen for this? 
10. Are the services of the PNGO /ISO better, the same as or not at par with other NGOs under 
your portfolio? Please provide reasons for your answer? E.g. more resources, PNGO /ISO staff 
attend more trainings/workshops outside the district, PNGO/ISOs staff busy with training to 
other CBOs/local NGOs 
65
11. How has PNGO /ISO (and other NGOs / government) worked in the district/VDC in the 
conflict situation? What where the major effects of the conflict on the service delivery of the 
PNGO/ISOs? e.g. programme reduction and less field presence? 
12. What were the major steps taken to mitigate the effects of the conflict? 
13. How is the work of NGOs affecting the root causes of the conflict? Given the conflict 
situation, what adjustment in the approach should be made by NGOs to continue to work in 
conflict situation? 
14. What do you think were the major challenges in planning, implementing and monitoring 
programs in partnership with NGOs in recent years? 
15. In your opinion, which operational/management aspects of your PNGOs need to further 
developed for effective service delivery to your target group? 
16. Does your organization support organizational development activities of PNGOs? 
17. If yes, what proportion of your program budget do you allocate for OD? 
18. What are the best practices in formulating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating a capacity 
development project? 
19. Are you interested in supporting a program that specifically focuses on organizational 
development of your PNGOs? If yes, what type of support? 
20. Any other comments /suggestions: 
66
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
March – August 2006 
Checklist for interaction with PMT Staff 
Name of Respondent: 
Designation / Function 
Date: 
General Opinion 
• Objective and rationale of SANDEEP as per project document approved by USAID 
• Changes/amendment made to approved project objectives and targets and rationale for doing so. 
• Major achievements of SANDEEP 
• Major challenges in implementation of the project. 
• Successes cases 
• Major learning: What are the main lessons that can be drawn from the project experience that 
may have generic application? What are the best practices in formulating, implementing, 
monitoring and evaluating a capacity development project? 
Role and responsibilities 
• PMT structure and various role/functions/responsibilities 
• Communication, reporting and coordination: within PMT (KTM/Region) and with ISO/PNGO 
PMT (OCBOs/As/FOCBOs, ODF and others), community members, SCUS staff, donors and 
USAID/Nepal & Washington. 
• Challenges and constraints in execution of role/functions/responsibilities 
Programme: process and approach 
• Achievement of strategic objectives (full or partial). Reasons for opinion. 
• Feedback from the direct "beneficiaries" of SANDEEP’s support (regional PMT, ISO/PNGO 
SANDEEP staff), satisfaction/dissatisfaction about programme approach and processes. 
• Project approach of ISO strengthening PNGOs – "what has worked", what can be enhanced and the 
approach to address the challenges. (relative to PNGOs delivery of services and linkages to 
networks and alliance) 
• Partner NGOs initiative /role in accessing different support from SANDEEP in accordance with their 
OD needs 
67
• Changes made in programme approach, and implication on SANDEEP’s activities thereafter 
(functions /responsibilities of staff (OCBOs/As, FOCBOs, FCBO, CPBOs and PMT KTM) – please 
specify these. "Benefit" of the change in the approach – e.g. responses from the partners etc. 
• OD team approach? (Rationale, advantages and challenges) 
Management systems and processes 
• Programme planning and decision making (participation PMT team and partners) 
• Reporting and communication: current system (guidelines and manuals) , major modifications if 
any and reasons for such modification and response of partners and donors 
• Effectiveness and timeliness of monitoring, documentation and reporting of programme and 
learning 
• Major lessons learnt, sharing and feedbacks (within PMT team, PMT and ISO/PNGOs, 
PSO/PNGO & beneficiaries and PMT, ISO/PNGO, targeted community people & stakeholders) 
• Reporting and feedback from donors 
Support to PMT regional and partners of SANDEEP 
• Support to regional PMT and partners – mostly on which areas, why? 
• Taking up requests from regional and field staff, and ISO/PNGOs 
• Changes (improvements) observed on ISO/ PNGO functioning 
• ISO/PNGO service delivery effectiveness 
• Progress in terms of expanded linkages between PNGOs, Govt., & Private sector 
• Learning & sharing between NGOs, Govt., & Private sector institutions as a result of expanded 
linkages 
Capacity of PMT staff 
• Capacity of CBPOs/FCBO to strengthen OCBOs/As and FOCBOs 
• Capacity of OCBOs/As and FOCBOs in facilitating change in PNGOs/ISOs 
ISO/ PNGOs OD needs and service delivery in conflict situation 
• Major difficulties and challenges posed by the conflict to service delivery (activities that were 
severely affected) 
 
• Major OD needs to face difficulties and challenges 
• Adjustments/changes made in programme and organization to face challenges and difficulties. 
• Contribution of SANDEEP to the reconciliation and recovery process 
68
Sustainability of program 
• Major issues for sustainability 
• Phase out strategy 
• Future role of OD team: continuity, demand assessment, adaptation of techniques to serve other 
organization in the future. 
• Future focus of ISO/PNGO focus to develop itself 
• Advocacy focus for the support of future OD program 
• Actions recommended to follow up or reinforce the benefits from the project? 
• Any other comments /suggestions: 
Thank you for your cooperation 
69
FINAL EVALUATION OF 
Sansthagat Diego Pariwartan (SANDEEP) Project 
March – August 2006 
Checklist for interaction with SCUS & USAID 
Name of Respondent: 
Designation / Function 
Date: 
• Organizational policies and strategies on OD intervention 
• Major achievements of SANDEEP 
• Major challenges (factors affecting success) of OD program 
• Major learning from SANDEEP/ OD program. What are the main lessons that can be drawn 
from the project experience that may have generic application? What are the best practices in 
formulating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating a capacity development project? (For 
SCUS only) Lessons learnt in application of OD program and how they have been applied (For 
USAID). 
• OD aspect focused on while supporting program. How is blended to service delivery? (For 
USAID)
• Specific OD issues and needs of PNGOs that need to further strengthened. 
• Major issues related coordination, reporting and feedback 
• Effectiveness and timeliness of monitoring, documentation and reporting of programme and 
learning 
• Introduction of “new” non-traditional components into the OD strengthening program (for 
example, conflict analysis or assessment, planning for conflict mitigation, conflict resolution or 
mediation skills, psycho-social or other forms of support for program staff). 
• Biggest challenge to working with strengthening of local partners in a conflict affected 
environment 
• Unique opportunities available for doing NGO capacity building that are present in a conflict 
environment. If so, what are some of these opportunities? 
• Particular OD interventions well suited for conflict affected environments and why? 
• OD interventions and approaches that are NOT appropriate to working in a conflict-affected 
environment and why? 
• Major difficulties and challenges posed by the conflict to service delivery (activities that were 
severely affected) 
 
70
• Major issues for sustainability 
• Phase out strategy 
• Future role of OD team: continuity, demand assessment, adaptation of techniques to serve other 
organization in the future. 
• Advocacy focus for the support of future OD program 
• Corrective actions recommended for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of 
the project (For SCUS only) 
• Influence of SANDEEP on the NGO sector and their donors and how it has been applied at the 
country, regional and international level (For SCUS only) 
• Actions recommended for following up or reinforcing the benefits from the project? 
• Any other comments /suggestions: 
Thank you for your cooperation 
71
ANNEX - 3 
Organizations, groups and individuals interacted for data/information collection during 
field visit. 
Date Time Activity People Interacted Position Organization 
Janakpur 
May 14, 
2008 
10 -
18 
Observation of OA exercise Staff and EC 
members of CFWA 
 CFWA 
May 15 10 -
12 
Interview with EC 6 EC meembers of 
CFWA 
 
 12-14 Interview with Staff 4 staff members of 
CFWA 
 
 Meeting with DPHO Bijay Kumar Jha DPHO 
 14-16 Interview with ODF Laxmeshwor Mandal ODF 
16 FGD with School teachers 
and parents 
10 participants 
 Interview with NFN Ram Chandra Sah President NFN 
 FGD with adolescent girls of 
GATE Class 
14 particiapnts Bageda-4 
 Interview with OCBO Rambabu Shah OCBO/SCDC 
17 Interview with ISO staff 10 staff members SCDC Choharwa 
May 18 7-9 Interview with CBM Rabindra Thapa PMT SCUS/RO 
 10-12 Interview with ERO Manager Bhim K Pun Regional 
Coordinator 
SCUS BRT 
13-15 Interview with Regional NFN Mr Shankar Thapa Resional President NFN BRT 
Darchula 
May 22 10-12 Meeting with EC Sundar S Budathoki 
Sarita Budathoki 
V. President 
Secretary 
RYC 
13-15 Meeting with Staff 5 staff members 
23 Meeting with ODF Gokarna Badu ODF 
 Meeting with LDO Mr. Danda Pani Baral LDO 
 FGD with Community 
 Meeting with NFN Mr Narhari Thekre NFN secretary; 
Program Manager 
PNGO 
NFN Darchula 
PNGO Markende 
 Meeting with Helvetas 
WAMP 
 
72
Date Time Activity People Interacted Position Organization 
 Meeting with BDA 
Kanchanpur 
May 25 Meeting with EC 7 EC members of NNSWA 
 Meeting with staff 11 staff members of 
NNSWA 
 
 Meeting with NFN Bhawa R Regmi 
Krishna Joshi 
Surendra Bista 
Dharma S Kunwar 
V. Presidnet 
Member 
President 
Treasurer 
NFN 
26 Meeting with Child care 
centre 
Bhan B Bista 
Min B Dhanuk 
Ganesh B Negi 
Dev B Singh 
Ratan Kadayat 
Madhavi Kunwar 
President 
Parent 
Parent 
Parent 
Parent 
Facilitator 
Jhalari W-2 
Simalphanta 
 Meeting with DEO Lok Mani Joshi DEO Kanchanpur 
 Meeting with OCBO/ 
FOCBO 
Hansha R Joshi 
Karna Sunar 
 
 Meeting with PNGO Bhawa R Regmi President NEEDS 
27 Meeting with EC 7 EC members Tharu Mahila 
Manch 
 Meeting with staff Meeting with 8 staff 
members 
 TMM 
 Meeting with WDO Vishwo M Joshi 
Maya Joshi 
DWO 
Supervisor 
DWO 
28 Meeting with DDC Bhagirath Bhatta 
Bhanu D Bhatta 
DDC Advisor 
Advisor 
DDC 
 Meeting with Child Club 22 participants Haldukhal village 
 Meeting with teachers and 
parents 
6 participants Suda High school 
 Meeting with ODF Hema Bhatta ODF TMM 
Dadeldhura 
29 Travel to Dadeldhura 
30 Meeting with sr. staff Ghanshyam Poudel Program 
Coordinator 
NRCS 
73
Date Time Activity People Interacted Position Organization 
Mahadev Awasthi Prog Coordinator 
 Meeting with field staff Harendra K Paneru 
Sarswati Khadka 
Iswari D Joshi 
Store Keeper 
Social mobiliser 
Counselor 
 Meeting with EC 6 EC members 
 Meeting with Junior Redcross Prem B Dhanuk 
Sher B Saud 
Student class X 
Volunteer 
JRC. 
Kailpalmandu-6 
 Meeting with DPHO 
31 Meeting with ODF Jog Raj Air ODF 
 Travel to Nepalganj 
June 1 Travel to Kathmandu 
Surkhet 
5 Observe OA Staff and EC of SAC SAC Surkhet 
 Observe OA Staff and EC of SAC 
6 Meeting with EC 6 EC members 
 Meeting with staff 7 staff members 
 Meeting with DEO 
7 Meeting with community 
 Meeting with CECI Pawan Karki 
Maya Nath 
Reg. Coordinator 
Livelihood officer 
Sahakarya Project 
 Meeting with Donor B kram Rana Tharu Project 
Coordinator 
WARNP Helvetas 
 Meeting with OCBO Prakash Subedi OCBO SAC 
8 Meeting with EC of PNGO 
SDC 
7 EC members l SDC 
 Meeting with Staff 5 staff members SDC 
 Meeting with ODF Hasta Sunar ODF/TL 
 
9 Meeting with Donor Kabita Shrestha 
P Bishwokarma 
District In-charge 
Marketing 
supervisor 
SIMI-OVC 
 Meeting with women group 
of SIMI, OVC 
12 participants 
Dang 
74
Date Time Activity People Interacted Position Organization 
10 Meeting with Staff 10 staff members BASE 
 Meeting with EC 3 EC members 
 Meeting with community 25 participants 
 Meeting with Child Group 10 participants 
 Meeting with OCBO Tilak Tharu 
11 Meeting with WDO Rashi Pande Dhital 
Ishwara Rawal 
Program Officer 
Staff member 
Ghorahi 
 Meeting with DDC Bal Krishna Khanal Social development 
officer 
Ghorahi 
 Meeting with NFN Suman Ghale EC Member NFN Dang 
 Travel to Nepalganj 
Kailali 
13 Meeting with Staff of ISO 11 staff members NRCS 
 Meeting with EC 7 EC members 
 Meeting with Mercy Corps 
Intl 
 
 Meeting with Lutheran 
World Federation 
Rajan Niraula Program 
Coordinator 
LWF 
 Meeting with Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry 
Gopi Hamal 
Binod Bhandary 
 
 Meeting with NFN Mr Prakash Sah President Regional chapter 
 Meeting with OCBO Tirtha Raj Joshi OCBO 
14 Meeting at Ex-Kamaya Camp Masuriya 
 Meeting with staff of PNGO 4 staff members KPUS 
 Meeting with EC S EC members KPUS 
 Meeting with ODF 
Banke 
12 Meeting at DEO Mr. Dabal B. C, Planning Officer UNESCO Club 
 Meeting with EC 6 EC members 
13 Meeting at SC, Norway, Npj. Pasupati Sapkota 
Prakash Acharya 
Dev Ale 
Regional Manager 
 Meeting at DDC Dev Bdr. Adhikari 
Sharad Paudel 
Program Officers 
75
Date Time Activity People Interacted Position Organization 
Ramesh Shah 
 Meeting at UNDP Mr. 
 Meeting with staff 6 staff members UNESCO Club 
 Meeting with ODF Shova Laxmi Joshi ODF UNESCO Club 
 Meeting with OCBO Prem Chadhari OCBO 
14 Meeting at SCUS, Banke Lila Mani Sharma Regional 
Coordinator 
 Ratna Tandulkar OCBPO 
Kathmandu 
16 World Education Manoj Silwal Program officer WE office 
 Meeting with SCN Norway Bhola 
Jagat Khadka Deputy CR 
16 Meeting with USAID Linda 
17 Meeting with SCUS directors Tory 
Uday Manandhar 
?? 
 
18 Meeting with PAF Rajesh Babu Shrestha Project Manager 
19 Meetingh with SCUS Japan Eiichi 
Rajendra Manandhar 
Chandra D Sah 
Country Director 
Program Officer 
Prog Officer 
 Meeting with AIN Sony AIN 
 Meeting with PMT Deepak Koirala Program Manager SCUS 
25 Meeting with CECI Sahakarya Mahendra Laxmi 
Sharma 
 
 
 
 
 
76
ANNEX - 4 
Planning Matrix and EOP Achievement 
Objective 
Measurement and 
Data Management 
Methods 
Indicators Baseline Targets: MTE and EOP Achievement Activities 
Goal: Improved health, education and economic well being for communities, especially for women and children and disadvantaged groups, in the conflict affected Mid, Far Western and parts of 
the Central and Eastern Regions of Nepal
Strategic Objective: 
Enhance the capacity of the 
NGO Sector to improve the 
delivery of health, education 
and economic services, 
especially for women and 
children and disadvantaged 
groups, in the conflict affected 
Mid, Far Western, and parts of 
Central and Eastern Regions of 
Nepal. 
Risks and Assumptions: 
Improved internal organization, 
expanded linkages and increased
learning and sharing means more
effectively run programs, which 
in turn means improved service 
delivery.
SNSN PNGOs continue to 
receive donor support from 
their respective donors for 
health, education or economic 
opportunity programs during the
life of the project. 
Building capacity of 35 NGOs 
and 5 ISOs will help enhance and
Data for indicators 1.1 
& 1.2 will be collected 
during midterm and 
final evaluation by IDF 
Data for indicator 1.3 
Interviews will be 
conducted with the 
PNGOs’ respective 
donors. Secondary 
data will be collected 
via PNGOs’ impact 
evaluation reports
ISOs: 
1.1 %(#) of capable ISOs 
PNGOs 
1.2 %(#) of capable 
PNGOs 
1.3 # of PNGOs who 
receive positive impact 
evaluations of their 
health, education, or 
economic opportunity 
programs by their 
respective donors 
(who identify the 
impact as a result of 
SANDEEP
intervention) 
20%(1) 
0% (0/35) 
% ( ) 
MT: 20%(1/5) 
EOP: 80%(4/5) 
MT: 
0% (0/35) 
EOP: 
40% (14/35) 
EOP: 
34%(12/35) 
MT: ISO 40% (2/5) 
EOP: 80% (4/5) 
PNGO 
11% (4/35) 
EOP: 
90% (27/30) 
MT: 
(12.5% in aggregate) 
EOP: 
47% (14/30) 
77
Objective 
Measurement and 
Data Management 
Methods 
Indicators Baseline Targets: MTE and EOP Achievement Activities 
influence the NGO sector in the
Mid, Far Western, and parts of 
Eastern Region.
NGOs in Mid and Far Western
Region are able to reach to their
target groups in conflict 
situation 
35 PNGOs =100% 
5 ISOs =100% 
1. Strengthen the operational 
and financial capabilities of 
individual PNGOs and ISOs. 
Risks and Assumptions: 
SNSN ISOs and PNGOs will 
be able to reach defined 
capability areas of the 
Oversight/Vision Management 
Resources, Human Resource 
Management, and the Financial 
Resources sections in the IDF 
within the project period. 
All SNSN ISOs are 
organizationally developing at 
the same rate. 
All SNSN PNGOs are 
organizationally developing at 
the same rate. 
IDF Tool is used to 
measure progress 
against indicators 1.1 
to 1.5 
Data for all indicators 
will be collected during 
midterm and final 
evaluation by IDF. 
Data will be stored on 
hardcopy and softcopy 
in the ISO offices, 
PNGO offices, and in a 
database system in SC 
Field Office. This data 
will be utilized to help 
ISOs and PNGOs 
recognize their 
improvement areas 
and make appropriate 
action plans to 
1.1 %(#) of ISOs and 
%(#) of PNGOs with 
“good governance” and 
leadership 
1.2 %(#) of ISOs and %(#) 
of PNGOs have an 
effective management 
system 
1.3 %(#) of ISOs and %(#) 
of PNGOs practicing 
participatory human 
resource management 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 
0%(0) 
ISO 20% (1) 
PNGO 
0%(0) 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 
0%(0) 
MT: 
ISO 60% (3) 
PNGO 3%(1) 
EOP: 
ISO 100% (5) 
PNGO 89% (31) 
MT: 
ISO 60% (3) 
PNGO 6%(2) 
EOP: 
ISO 100% (5) 
PNGO 97% (34) 
MT: 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 0%(0) 
EOP: 
ISO 100% (5) 
MT: 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 
20%(7) 
EOP: 
ISO 80% (4/5) 
PNGO 100% (30/30) 
MT 
ISO 60% (3) 
PNGO 
14%(5) 
EOP 
ISO 100%(5/5) 
PNGO 97% (29/30) 
MT 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 6%(2) 
EOP 
ISO 80% (4/5) 
Promote Good Governance and 
Leadership 
• Conduct Organizational 
Development Assessments in ISO 
• Establish Organizational 
Development Team in ISOs 
• Organize ISO Strategic Plan 
workshop 
• Develop Governance Module 
• Facilitate TOT for OCBOs on 
Governance 
• Training of Governance Module for 
ISOs 
• Support ISOs to conduct training to 
PNGOs 
Promote Effective Operational 
Management 
• Organize working in conflict 
workshop 
• Facilitate TOT for OCBOs for 
78
Objective 
Measurement and 
Data Management 
Methods 
Indicators Baseline Targets: MTE and EOP Achievement Activities 
 improve their 
governance structure, 
HRD, Monitoring 
System and Financial 
system, make the 
needed changes (if 
any) in their financial 
sustainability plans. 
These indicators will 
be reported in the 
Annual report to 
USAID. 
1.4 %(#) of ISOs and %(#) 
of PNGOs that have an 
“effective planning 
monitoring and evaluation 
system" that enables them 
to monitor their 
achievement of their annual 
program targets. 
1.5 %() of ISOs and %() of 
PNGOs that have a 
functioning financial 
management system. 
1.6 % (#) of ISO and 
PNGOs which have 
established an internal 
system and using for 
measuring quality of service 
with beneficiaries 
participation 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 
0%(0) 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 
0%(0) 
ISO 0% 
(0/5) 
PNGO 
0% (0/35) 
PNGO 71%(25) 
MT: 
ISO 60% (3) 
PNGO 9%(3) 
EOP: 
ISO 100% (5) 
PNGO 80% (28) 
MT: 
ISO 80% (4) 
PNGO 11%(4) 
EOP: 
ISO 100% (5) 
PNGO 77% (27) 
MT 
ISO 0% (0/5) 
PNGO 
0% (0/35) 
EOP 
ISO 60% (3/35) 
PNGO 48% 
(17/35) 
PNGO 90% (27/30) 
MT 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 11%(4) 
EOP 
ISO 100% (5/5) 
100% (30/30) 
MT 
ISO 40% (2) 
PNGO 
17%(6) 
EOP 
ISO 100% (5/5) 
PNGO 100% (30/30) 
MT 
ISO 0% (0/5) 
PNGO 
0% (0/35) 
EOP 
ISO 80% (4/5) 
100% (30/30)
Operational Management 
• Training of Operational Management 
Module to ISOs 
• Support ISOs to conduct training to 
PNGOs 
Promote Participatory Human Resource 
System 
• Develop Human Resource Module 
• Facilitate TOT for OCBOs on 
Human Resource 
• Training of Human Resource 
Management to ISOs 
• Support ISOs to conduct training to 
PNGOs on HR 
• Promote Good Financial 
Management System 
• Develop Financial Module 
• Facilitate TOT for ISO Accountants 
on Financial Management 
• Support ISOs to conduct training on 
PNGOs on Financial Management 
2. Expand the linkages among 
and/or between PNGOs and 
government and private sector 
institutions. 
Risks and Assumptions: 
Meeting minutes; 
Interviews with 
PNGOs’ Executive 
Directors and Board 
Members; Annually 
2.1 %(#) of PNGOs whose 
Executive Directors or 
Board Members are 
initiating meetings with 
other PNGOs in the SNSN 
program in order to 
develop standards in 
0%(0) MT: 23%(8) 
EOP: 57%(20) 
MT 100% (35/35) 
EOP 100% (30/30) 
Promote Resource Mobilization 
• Develop Resource Mobilization 
Module 
• Facilitate TOT for OCBOs on 
Resource Development 
• Training on Resource Development 
to ISOs 
79
Objective 
Measurement and 
Data Management 
Methods 
Indicators Baseline Targets: MTE and EOP Achievement Activities 
Private Sector, Government, 
and NGO networks in Nepal 
are interested to collaborate 
with SNSN ISOs and PNGOs. 
Private sector, Government 
and NGO Networks that 
SNSN ISOs and PNGOs 
approach have resources for 
working together. 
(IDF; Annual Financial 
Report) 
(IDF; Annual Financial 
Report) 
ISO/NGO Profile; 
Cash, In-kind receipt 
Training certificates; 
Workshop recites and 
other reports; Annual 
Report 
Data for indicators 2.1 
will be collected 
annually during the 
project's annual review 
process. Data for 
indicators 2.2 and 2.3 
will be colleted during 
mid-term and final 
evaluations. Data for 
indicators 2.4 and 2.5 
management practices. 
2.2 %(#) of ISOs that are 
receiving not more than 
40% of funds from one 
source. 
2.3 %(#) of PNGOs that 
are receiving not more that 
60% of funds from one 
source. 
2.4%(#) of ISOs and %(#) 
of PNGOs that received 
mentoring or pro-bono 
consultancy services in 
management, marketing, 
costumer relations, etc.., 
or in-kind donations from 
the private sector to 
expand their the delivery 
of services to communities 
in need. 
2.5 %(#) of PNGOs that 
have participated in at least 
one yearly training, 
workshop or learning fora 
hosted by a district or 
regional network related 
to providing health, 
education, and economic 
opportunity services to 
women, children and other 
disadvantaged groups in the 
0%(0) 
0% (0) 
ISO: 
20%(1) 
PNGO: 
11%(4) 
0%(0) 
MT: 0% (0) 
EOP: 60% (3) 
MT: 3% (1) 
EOP: 66% (23) 
MT: 
ISO: 20%(1) 
PNGO: 11%(4) 
EOP: 
ISO: 80% (4) 
PNGO: 46% (16) 
MT: 0% (0) 
EOP: 70% (25) 
MT 
ISO 40% (2) 
EOP 
ISO 100% (5/5)
MT 
PNGO 57% (20) 
EOP 
70% (21/30) 
MT 
ISO 0% (0/5) 
PNGO 0% (0/35) 
EOP 
ISO 80% (4/5) 
PNGO 13 
MT 0% 
EOP 
100% (30/30) 
• Support ISOs to conduct training on 
Resource Development to ISOs 
Establish Linkages between SANDEEP 
NGOs and the FNCCI Regional 
Chapters 
• Conduct Research study 
• Hold sharing & strategic meeting 
with FNCCI at central level 
• Facilitate regional linkages between 
FNCCI and ISOs 
Support or facilitate SANDEEP ISO (and 
its PNGOs) to activate regional NFN 
• Hold a strategy workshop with ISOs 
• about meeting with NFN 
• Organize meeting with NFN central 
committee 
• Support ISOs to organize meeting 
with NFN 
80
Objective 
Measurement and 
Data Management 
Methods 
Indicators Baseline Targets: MTE and EOP Achievement Activities 
will be collected 
annually through the 
PNGOs and ISOs 
Annual Report. Data 
will be stored on 
hardcopy and softcopy 
in the ISO offices, 
NGO offices, and in a 
database system in SC 
Field Office. This data 
will be utilized to help 
ISOs, NGOs and 
Networks expand 
their linkages to the 
government, other 
NGOs, private sector 
and networks. It will 
also allow them to 
monitor the tangible 
benefits received from 
these linkages. The 
data will be reported 
on an annual basis to 
USAID. 
Mid and Far Western 
Region 
3. Enhance the program 
learning and sharing among 
and/or between NGOs, 
government and private sector 
institutions. 
Risks and Assumptions: 
NGOs, Government and Private
ISO and NGO Annual 
Report; Proof of 
Publication 
PNGO and ISO 
Annual Report; 
3.1 %(#)of ISOs and %(#) 
PNGOs producing 
publications on effective 
organizational practices 
that help to build service 
delivery capacity in health, 
education, and economic 
opportunity programs.
3.2 %(#) of ISOs and %(#) 
ISO: 
0%(0) 
PNGO: 
0%(0) 
ISO: 
0%(0) 
MT: 
ISO: 40%(2) 
PNGO: 0%(0) 
EOP: 
ISO: 80% (4) 
PNGO: %50 (17) 
MT: 
ISO: 0%(0) 
MT 
ISO 0% (0/5) 
PNGO 0% (0/35) 
EOP 
ISO 100% (5/5) 
PNGO 23% (7/30) 
MT 
ISO 0% (0/5) 
Establish a network of SANDEEP 
PNGOs and ISOs 
• Develop R&R Guidelines 
• Hold Annual R &R Meeting 
• Support ISOs to hold semi-annual 
R&R with PNGOs 
• Support ISOs to organize 
learning/sharing fora 
Support ISOs to document & 
81
Objective 
Measurement and 
Data Management 
Methods 
Indicators Baseline Targets: MTE and EOP Achievement Activities 
sector are interested to learn 
about effective organizational 
practices.
SNSN ISOs and PNGOs have 
time to test and replicate 
effective organizational 
practices identified by the 
project within the project 
period. 
Publications 
themselves 
Data for indicator 3.1 
will be collect annually. 
Data for indicator 3.2 
will be collected during 
mid-term and final 
evaluations. Data will 
be stored on hardcopy 
and softcopy in the 
ISO offices, NGO 
offices, and in a 
database system in SC 
Field Office. This data 
will be utilized to let 
this projects’ 
management team 
know what 
information is being 
disseminated by ISOs 
and NGOs and if the 
information is relevant 
to share with the 
international 
community of NGOs. 
Data will be reported 
in the Annual report 
to USAID. 
PNGOs replicating 
effective organizational 
practices resulting from 
participating in learning 
fora with other ISOs and 
PNGOs in order to build 
their service delivery 
capacity in health, 
education, and economic 
opportunity programs. 
PNGO: 
0%(0) 
PNGO: 0%(0) 
EOP: 
ISO: 80% (4) 
PNGO: %50 (17) 
PNGO 0% (0/35) 
EOP 
ISO 80% (4/5) 
PNGO 100% (30/30) 
disseminate information 
• Prepare guideline "what will be 
documented and what needs to be 
disseminated 
• Conduct small case studies to 
identify effective organizational 
practices 
• Support ISOs to disseminate 
publication 
Support ISOs to organize 
cross/exposure 
• Development directory of resource 
organizations in Nepal & South Asia 
• Guideline on how to conduct an 
effective cross/exposure visit 
• Support ISOs to organize exposure 
visit for PNGO 
82
ANNEX - 5 
EXPLANATION OF PMP ASSESSMENT SCORING 
PMP Indicators 
Process of Graph development according to categorization 
Following graphs were developed from the annual data collected by the Project on PMP indicators. 
The indicators are categorized as internal operations (indicators 1 to 8), external relations 
(indicators 9 to 14) and financial resources (indicators 15 to 19). 
The response of indicators was designated the following scores: 
Strongly Agree = 5 
Agree = 4 
Unsure = 3 
Disagree = 2 
Strongly Disagree =1 
The scores were aggregated according to categories and transformed into graphs. 
PMP INDICATORS ANALYSIS: SCORES OBTAINED 
SAC 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Internal Operation 40 34 33 33 34 36 
External Operation 30 21 23 26 23 20 
Financial Resources 25 17 17 20 19 22 
 
BASE 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Internal Operation 40 32 32 34 36 37 
External Operation 30 28 25 23 26 29 
Financial Resources 25 19 21 21 20 23 
 
NRC-Kailali 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Internal Operation 40 29 33 31 36 38 
External Operation 30 16 20 19 22 24 
Financial Resources 25 22 20 21 22 22 
 
NNSWA 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Internal Operation 40 37 34 38 38 40 
External Operation 30 23 24 18 20 26 
Financial Resources 25 19 20 19 22 23 
 
TCDF 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Internal Operation 40 30 29 33 33 38 
External Operation 30 14 17 25 25 26 
Financial Resources 25 16 18 17 17 21 
 
TWUC 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
83
Internal Operation 40 30 32 35 35 37 
External Operation 30 25 23 27 27 27 
Financial Resources 25 16 20 17 17 21 
 
TWOF 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Internal Operation 40 31 34 31 36 36 
External Operation 30 13 21 22 21 23 
Financial Resources 25 16 16 16 16 16 
 
Aggregate of all 
Year Full Mark 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 
Internal Operation 40 32 33 34 35 38 
External Operation 30 20 22 23 23 23 
Financial Resources 25 18 19 18 18 21 
84
ANNEX- 6 
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 
1. ToR for Final Evaluation of SANDEEP, April, 2008 
2. Proposal, Strengthen the NGO Sector in Nepal (SNSN Program) submitted to USAID, 2003 
3. Detailed Implementation and Monitoring Plan (Submitted to USAID), 2004 
4. Revised Detailed Implementation and Monitoring Plan, Sept 2005 
5. History of SANDEEP Program (1st Oct 2003 to 31 May 2006), 2006 
6. Organizational Assessment Compilation (Baseline and Mid Term), August 2006 
7. Organizational Assessment report for selected ISOs and PNGOs 
8. USAID Standard Performance Measurement Plan, Section III, for FY 04/05/06 
9. SANDEEP Annual Report, 2004-2007 
10. SANDEEP Quarterly Reports October 2007 – March 2008 
11. SANDEEP Training Modules (5 nos) 
12. Monitoring and Evaluation Manual for FY 2005/06, 2006 
13. SANDEEP Study on Private sector 
14. SANDEEP Case Studies 2006 
15. SANDEEP Mid Term Evaluation Report 2006 
16. SANDEEP Partnership compliance Guidelines 2008 
17. AIN partnership Guidelines 2008 
18. NFN Good Governance Guidelines 2008 
19. SCUS strategic plan (2007-2012) 
20. Annual Reports of ISOs BASE and SAC, 2007
85
ANNEX - 7 
LIST OF SANDEEP ACTIVITIES 
Major SANDEEP Activities and Dates 
Major Dates SANDEEP Activities 
November 2003 Project Start 
December 2003 Situational Analysis of Mid and Far Western Regions 
January 2004 Project management team Strategy workshop 
Feb to March 2004 Selection of 5 ISO from Mid and Far Western Region of Nepal 
March 2004 Draft Planning Matrix for USAID 
March 2004 ISO orientation regarding the program 
April – May 2004 Baseline study and analysis 
May 2004 ISO DIMP workshop 
June – July 2004 In-service training for ISOs 
June – July 2004 Pre-award Surveys for ISOs 
July – Aug 2004 First phase of PNGO selection (16) 
September 2004 Study of sample NGOs by Organizational Development Center to provide 
information to revise NICAT 
September 2004 Final Detailed Implementation and Monitoring Plan (DIMP) 
Sept – Oct 2004 Internalization workshops with each ISO 
October 2004 ISO/PMT Quarterly Review and Reflection 
Nov 2004 Revised ISO DIMP Workshop 
Dec 2004 Selection and review of IDF 
Dec 2004 & Jan 2005 5 ISOs strategic planning workshops 
Dec 2004 Annual report preparation & submission for 2004 
Jan 2005 Testing of appropriateness of IDF, adaptation and translation into Nepali 
Jan 2005 Quarterly review and reflection of the program 
Jan 2005 M & E training for ISOs 
Feb 2005 Organizational Assessment and baseline information collection Training 
Feb – March 2005 Pre-award surveys for first phase PNGOs 
March – April 2005 First phase PNGO Organizational Assessments 
April 2005 Eastern Region expansion 
April 2005 Exposure visit to India for ISO staffs to observe the organizational 
development practices 
April 2005 Review meeting on ISO progress 
May 2005 Organizational Assessment analysis 
86
May 2005 Second phase 20 PNGO selection (36 PNGO in total) 
May 2005 Presentation of OCBO/As learning "projects" 
May 2005 Linkage and sharing workshop for ISO staff 
June 2005 Second phase PNGO orientation 
June 2005 Training on conflict to 1st phase 16 PNGOs and 5 ISO 
July 2005 Semi-Annual Report 
July-August 2005 Second phase PNGO organizational assessments 
August 2005 ISO organizational assessments using IDF 
August 2005 Governance training to ISO leaders 
Sept 2005 PMT prepared Planning Matrix and Output Indicators 
September 2005 Review and reflection with PNGOs and ISOs 
Sept 2005 ISO DIMP 
Sept 2005 PMT DIMP 
October 2005 ISO Annual report 
October 2005 PNGO DIMP workshops 
November 2005 Finalized output indicators 
November 2005 Finalized PNGO budgets & MOUs 
Dec 2005 Submission of Annual Report FY 05 to AID 
Dec 2005 TOT for OCBOs on Governance module 
December 2005 ISO governance module training 
December 2005 PNGO governance module training 
January 2006 ISO meeting on linkages 
January 2006 PMT Quarterly Meeting 
February 2006 TOT on Strategic Planning & Mgt (East only) 
February 2006 TOT on Financial Management 
February 2006 Review meeting of Strategic Planning process for West ISOs 
February 2006 Meeting on outputs indicators 
Feb - April 2006 PNGO Strategic Plan workshops 
Feb – June 2006 PNGO Financial Management Training 
March – April 2006 Semi-annual ISO/PNGO Review & Reflection workshops 
May 2006 Semi-annual PMT/ISO Review & Reflection workshop 
May 2006 Coaching training for OCBO/As and FOCBO 
May 2006 M&E training for OCBO/As and FOCBO 
June – July 2006 MTE OA exercises 
March Pre-testing of Operational Management Module 
87
April-May Workshops for review of ISO strategic plan 
May 2007 Training to ISOs on OM module 
June 2007 Training on OM Module to PNGOs 
November 2007 Training of Trainers (TOT) for ISOs staff (phase II) on RM Module 
April 2007 Learning sharing workshop with the Regional NGO Federation of Nepal 
(NFN) in eastern region 
July 2007 Learning sharing workshop with the Regional NGO Federation of Nepal 
(NFN) in western region 
August 2007 Update directory of resource organizations 
July-August 2007 Organizational Capacity Building Research by ODC 
Learning and Sharing Fora 
July 2007 Exposure visit to meet SNV partners in Ilam, VDRC in Nawalparasi, Kalika 
in Kapilbastu, Siddhi Memorial Foundation and CBR in Bhaktapur, WATCH 
and NEWAH in Kathmandu 
September 2007 Pre-award surveys 
December 2007 Guideline preparation 
April 2007 SANDEEP project profile published in ODC’s “the Organization” magazine 
November 2007 Donors meeting 
July 2007 Changes in project management structure, New project manager 
appointed and CBPOs placed at ISOs for intensive coaching and support 
December 2007 HRM ToT to ISOs 
December 2007 HRM training to PNGOs 
 
 
88
ANNEX - 8 
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 
Evaluation Objective:
3- To evaluate net impact (net change between the baseline, midterm, and end of project) regarding the status of project interventions, capacity of NGOs to 
deliver development services in the areas involved and expanded linkage among NGOs, networks and public and private sector organization 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• Learnt how to manage organization, programmes and to work 
according to Mission rather than on donor requirements. Strategic 
planning helped to adopt appropriate methodologies based on VMGO￾like preparing baseline, facilitation, monitoring and evaluation. 
Understood the importance of aligning budgets with strategies 
• Staff and EC participation in management has increased; decisions are 
made through regular meetings. Staff selection process has improved. 
• Policies have been developed according to Constitution; they are 
helpful to better manage the projects. In ISOs there was system before 
SANDEEP, but that was not comprehensive and was not systematically 
implemented. In most PNGOs, there was no system at all. 
• Understood the responsibilities of staff and EC, role distributed 
according to JD, work is not stopped in the absence of an individual 
due to delegation of authority. Staff and EC commitment has increased. 
Subcommittees have been formed and delegated specific responsibilities 
based on policies and guidelines. EC and staff now can articulate issues, 
women EC members also can speak, and skills of articulation, 
comprehension and presentation have increased. 
• Increased linkages with district stakeholders and donors. Resource 
sharing with stakeholders has increased. Line agencies have started 
participating to monitor our activities. We have started taking feedback 
from donors and stakeholders to improve programme. (ISO). RM 
module helped to identify potential donors and also helped to find gaps 
in our strategies and plans for fundraising. Meeting with donors has 
taken place in a planned manner. We have been able to link PNGOs to 
donors and they have got new projects. (SAC, BASE) 
• We have been able to get skills training from GOs for CBOs, DPHO is 
helping to organize RH and first aid camps, Veterinary office is helping 
Project interventions were effective to bring changes in 
ISOs and PNGOs. OA helped to see the larger picture 
of the organization and helped to increase participation 
in the organization. It also helped increase internal 
coordination through regular meetings. 
The governance module helped to end dual roles and 
nepotism, clarify roles and responsibility between EC 
and staff through JD. OD team has been effective to 
address organizational issues. Subcommittees formed 
and generally active. Staff recruitment has been 
transparent. The module helped to have conceptual 
and technical skills for policy making, delegation of 
authority and distribution of workload as well as 
transparency and accountability. Policies helped to 
negotiate with donors. EC in PNGOs was reorganized 
several times to become inclusive. Module helped to 
have increased trust of community and stakeholders 
due to separation of roles. 
Strategic Management helped to understand the 
meaning and purpose of having clear VMGO. ISOs and 
PNGOs have clear alignment of goals, programmes, and 
structures and have also started aligning budgets and 
strategies. They have been able to identify gaps and 
develop new programmes. Strategic planning helped to 
increase partner confidence in dealing with donors, 
helped them to get new projects and increase 
89
in animal raising, private sectors have also started to provide small 
support such as hand pumps, computer training to women and 
stationery for school children (TMM/PNGO). 
• Planning and review system has become systematic due to SANDEEP 
(daily plan, quarterly plan, annual plan, strategic plan). Filing, 
documentation and book keeping system improved. Store system 
improved. 
• Dual role separated, manager and leader are separate. Not all EC 
members were active before but now they give more time for NGO. 
General members are also participating in procurement 
subcommittees. (SAC). Two day retreat is organized annually with 
participation of staff, EC and life members for team building. 
Staff • Dual roles eliminated, sub-committees has been formed and functioning 
(OD, purchasing, recruitment etc). Financial systems developed 
(separate ledgers, reporting), physical verification system introduced, 
• Regular staff meeting takes place to discuss program and management 
issues. Log book of telephone and motorbike established. System of 
advances and supporting documents before making payments 
established. Cash transaction has been reduced. System of Petty cash 
introduced. Financial and administrative formats developed (advance, 
timesheets, and leave). Operational guidelines have been prepared. 
Administrative work has become fast. Established systems to run an 
organization effectively. 
• Strategic plans and programme wise action plans developed. 
Organization received strategic guidance from SANDEEP and helped 
increased trust with donors to fulfill the needs of communities. 
Resource directory was helpful to contact with donors. Work plan has 
become a mirror, and a tool to monitor progress. 
• Quality reports are submitted to stakeholders whereas other NGOs 
submit just give a 1 page report. PNGO has been able to implement 
programmes which other NGOs could not implement (PNGO/ RYC 
electrification project in Darchula). PNGOs can put their opinion 
confidently with donors and stakeholders (presentation skills). Staff 
team expanded due to expansion of programme by ISO and PNGO. 
coverage. It gave the partners a sense of their mission. 
Financial Management module helped to establish and 
review policy. ISOs and PNGOs are now providing 
timely and quality report to donors which have 
increased trust. Other achievement include, separation 
of ledgers, following procurement guidelines, use of 
bank checks, use of petty cash, timesheets use, use of 
log books, practice of physical verification and regular 
auditing. One of the most important achievement is the 
practice of reviewing and planning of both internal and 
external (donor) budgets. Improved financial policies 
provided feeling of security among staff, provided 
timely payment to staff and community, and ensured 
purchase of quality goods. This has contributed to the 
efficient use of resources and improvement of quality 
of service thereby, increasing donor trust. 
Resource mobilization module sensitized the ISOs and 
PNGOs to identify resources (not just funds) through 
collaboration with local stakeholders, not only through 
external donors. It also gave skills to identify resource 
gaps between goals and programmes, identify and 
contact donors in a planned way (not just waiting for 
donors as in the past). Due to the module, 
participation of ISOs and PNGOs in district networks 
(RHCC etc) has increased. Dialogue with private 
sector was also initiated. Some ISOs and PNGOs got 
new projects as a result of new contacts. EC became 
active in fundraising (not only staff or president as 
before). 
Operational Management module helped understand 
PPME, project cycle management Social audit has been 
highly effective for transparency, accountability and 
90
• Strategic plans have provided direction to our actions; it has increased 
motivation to fulfill objectives. Policies have helped us to negotiate with 
donors. Social audit has helped us to develop programme through 
community and stakeholder feedback. EC and staff have realized that 
separation of roles is a good thing as it makes management easier 
(workload is divided). 
OCBO/FOCBO • Ended dual roles among EC members, regular meetings take place and 
are focused on agenda 
• RM team has been active to identify and tap new resources. 
Relationships increased with private sector, GO and INGOs. 
Publication and dissemination of brochures for marketing of NGO. 
Project monitoring with participation of stakeholders. ISOs and 
PNGOs have advocated at district forums to end dual roles. 
• Policies have been developed, systems developed for internal auditing, 
manuals developed for monitoring and evaluation, budget and plan 
prepared for internal income, expenditure are booked and reported to 
the EC 
• In the beginning PNGOs do not have any documents, now they have 
improved documentation (strategy, policies, and guidelines). Policies are 
implemented to some extent. VDC coverage, staff size and funding has 
increased. 
ODF • Policies and strategies established, financial system, petty cash 
introduced and implemented. 
• EC understood what NGO is and how to provide leadership; EC was 
reorganized several times to make it inclusive (CFWA). Commitment 
of EC increased, they started giving more time – ownership has 
increased. Rapport of NGO and relation with community increased. 
• Skills of staff increased in community facilitation and reporting 
CBM/CBPOs • 5 modules developed 
• guidelines for social audit and strategic planning developed 
• Partnership / compliance guidelines developed and implemented in 
SCUS. Supported AIN to develop partnership guidelines due to which 
84 INGOs are implementing it. Supported NFN to develop NFN 
getting feedback from stakeholders to improve service 
delivery. Social audit widely replicated by other donors 
and NGOs. EC has started visiting community for 
oversight and community feedback. Some ISOs 
(NNSWA and SAC) developed M&E manuals (ISO). 
Social audit has greatly enhanced the rapport of ISOs 
and PNGOs – e.g. CFWA was the only NGO in 
Janakpur who conducted social audit. 
Human Resource Management module was recently 
introduced and action plan is just being developed. 
ISOs and PNGOs got CBNA skills and revised the 
personal policy once again. HRM remains a major 
capacity area in the future for ISOs and PNGOs as they 
still need skills to develop, mobilize and retain staff. 
91
institutional and governance guidelines. 
• Authority delegation has taken place in ISOs and PNGOs, the decision 
making has become faster. No delay takes place in programme 
implementation due to EC. 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
• EC has become active. Regularity in EC meeting and AGM. NGO has 
become inclusive in gender aspects. 
• NGO public image has increased. Accountability and transparency has 
increased due to social audit in villages. Progress reports are sent to 
stakeholders regularly. Stakeholders are invited in NGO events for 
sharing and feedback. 
• ISOs and PNGOs have started conducting social audit, which has given 
a positive message to other NGOs. 
• Dual roles in ISO have been ended, but there is doubt whether this is 
just a cosmetic change (NFN Kanchanpur). 
Donors • EC members have started visiting communities for monitoring and 
feedback. 
• Timely reporting to donors. Reporting format is excellent; these 
reports clearly reflect community achievements, learning and issues. 
Other NGOs just report about expenditure and demand next 
installment. (WAMP/ Surkhet) 
• ISO have become able to conduct social audit. It has also effectively 
facilitated PNGOs. However, in one PNGO there is excessive staff 
turnover. 
• PNGOs have become most responsive to our feedback, take feedback 
positively. (SC Japan). 
PMT staff • ISOs and PNGOs have become able to analyse gaps between their 
strategies and plans to develop new projects. 
• NGOs are continuously revising their policies – policies are taken as a 
living document 
• EC has been diversified. NGOs have diversified their funding portfolio 
that includes private sector 
• It seems that dual role separation will not reverse as staff are 
92
empowered and systems have started functioning. Nepotism has been 
reduced. 
• Social audit has been replicated widely; SWC is thinking to make it 
mandatory for NGOs 
SCUS directors • ISOs have become more professional, they have policies and 
procedures 
• ISOs have more chances of sustainability than PNGOs 
• ISOs and PNGOs have become confident 
• Size of NGO is also a factor for sustainability 
Evaluation Objective:
4- To identify whether there are indications that these changes are resulting in improvements in the ISOs and PNGOs' service delivery 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• Interventions are taking place in a planned way, before SANDEEP we did not have 
plans. Now we practice bottom up planning. We have understood importance of 
participation within our organisation and therefore encouraged community 
participation to discuss programme issues (CFWA) 
• We have given high priority to coordinate with relevant stakeholders and share 
information with them 
• We have become transparent through social audit and have given continuous 
contacts with communities after end of project (continuity of support is one of the 
important indicators for quality of service) 
• Before SANDEEP we did not have capacity to effectively implement projects even if 
we had access to resources 
• We have learnt from SANDEEP to make participatory discussion in community 
before selecting target groups 
• We have become able to coordinate with DHO and provide public health services to 
community (Polio, contraceptives) 
• Some of the skills have been transferred to CBOs – book keeping, transparency, 
• ISOs and PNGOs are serious 
about identifying the target 
groups and focus programmes on 
them 
• Need assessment and community 
feedback through social audit, 
regular community meetings for 
planning 
• PNGOs are making planned 
intervention, there was no 
system of annual planning in 
PNGOs 
• Regular view meeting to identify 
programme issues and act on 
them to improve programmes 
• Stakeholder participation in 
93
organizing meeting regularly 
• Before SANDEEP we visited beneficiary groups without clear purpose of visit. Now 
we have taken SANDEEP learning to the CBOs. CBO cooperatives have benefited 
from SANDEEP (eg they have established filing system, developed guidelines, JD and 
are becoming more transparent). 
• Detailed discussions are carried out after ISO gets demands from community in 
order to clarify community demand. Social audit is also very helpful to identify 
community demands. EC goes on monitoring visits to communities. Staff also 
carryout technical monitoring regularly. Stakeholders also visit for monitoring. 
Implementation has been efficient after SANDEEP systems. Participation of 
communities has increased due to inclusion provisions (for dalits, women and 
disadvantaged) in our policies and programme guidelines. 
• SANDEEP motivated for delegation, pre planning. Due to plans, budgets are 
effectively used and project coverage has increased as a result. Regular review has 
helped identify gaps and improve service delivery to communities. Beneficiary groups 
have started planning based on their income from community forests (FUGs) and 
have started to ask for matching fund from stakeholders based on their own plan. 
• Due to change in ISO policies, representatives of beneficiaries are participating in EC 
meetings. (ISO). 
Staff • Community trust has increased due to transparency of programme and budgets. 
Social audit conducted with stakeholders. 
• We have become totally community based, have advocated issues of community with 
donors 
• Implementation of activities on time, completion of action plans on time. 
• Linking community needs with related stakeholders and projects (sanitary pad) 
• NGO committed to best use of resources 
• EC is also providing oversight on quality of programme implementation, brings issues 
to the meetings for decision 
• Creating environment for beneficiaries to participate (school enrollment) 
• Inter sector and sectoral meeting in NGO 
• Difficult to see impact of SANDEEP on service delivery immediately, you need to 
continuously assess the impact 
• Community has been given monitoring skills. CBO members have increased mutual 
project monitoring 
• Timely completion of projects 
• Quality goods delivered to the 
communities due to improved 
financial management 
• More time needed to see direct 
impact on service delivery 
• Expansion of program by ISOs 
and PNGOs – coverage has 
increased. 
94
trust and attend meetings regularly. Members of CBOs repay loans regularly. CBOs 
have started to organise meetings on agendas they decide and make decisions in a 
participatory way. 
OCBO/FOCBO • Planned action by NGO, timely delivery of projects and services. 
• Obtaining quotation, provision of quality goods to communities, 
• Time management has helped improve quality of service. 
• Transfer of funds from one project to another has stopped, due to which work is 
completed on time. 
• Social audit has increased community participation in planning and monitoring. VDCs 
have started funding NGO projects due to increased community participation. 
ODF 
CBM/CBPOs • We do not monitor improvement in service delivery of NGOs as the indicators have 
not been developed. We depend on donors’ feedback on NGO programme 
performance through the donor questionnaires on annual basis. 
• NGOs have started practice of community level review of projects periodically 
• Budget is not returned to donors due to planned work by NGOs and timely review. 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
• Some of the skills have been transferred to CBO e.g. participation, transparency and 
accountability 
• Continuous follow up in communities by NGO 
Donors • ISO capacity to mediate disputes in communities has increased. During conflict time 
Maoists use to solve disputes (over water sources), now ISO solves such issues. 
• Waste water management is an indicator of quality service for community water 
schemes. 
• Participatory needs assessment is done by ISO, these needs are further approved by 
VDC assembly and forwarded to donors for funding (coordination with VDC has 
increased). 
• One of the important indicators for quality of service is whether the User Group 
sustains after the project is completed. Generally after completion of projects, the 
UC becomes inactive; some of the leaders resign or leave the community. 
• Other indicators for quality of service could be: achievement of project targets, 
problem solving capacity of NGO, and timely completion of projects. 
95
PMT staff • NGO coverage has increased 
• Social audit has increased community participation 
• ISOs and PNGOs have developed specific TG focused strategies 
• ISOs and PNGOs make decisions on time; project implementation is done on time. 
SCUS directors • ISOs and PNGOs have stronger sense of their mission – moving away from project 
orientation 
• Dealing with other donors and expanding coverage 
• Social audit has been a good tool and indicator for improvement of quality of service 
Evaluation Objective:
5- To identify what effect and impact that the project has had on the other stakeholders (other NGOs, NGO networks, donors, AIN and other government 
organizations which were not direct beneficiaries of the project) 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• Many stakeholders attended out social audit and have given feedback. This has given 
pressure to other NGOs to be transparent. We have become role model as we 
don’t take salaries or other benefits from NGO. 
• Our contacts and relationships with other related NGOs, donors and GO has 
increased, we are getting more support from them on programme issues (polio 
eradication, school enrollment, child labour, sharing learning) 
• Private sector could not support us due to continuous strikes and intimidation during 
conflict. 
• Other NGOs demand coaching on modules from us on governance and policy 
development. Donors have started valuing good governance practices. NGOs feel 
that, as soon as funds come from donors, it creates conflict within organization. 
Therefore, they want to learn from SANDEEP how to avoid future conflict in their 
organization. 
• SANDEEP learning has been shared with other NGOs through FEDEN and NFN. ID 
forum was established where sharing took place on quarterly basis. But now this 
forum is inactive. (Kanchanpur) 
• Local NGO demand for support to establish systems has increased on ISOs. 
• SANDEEP approach seems to be 
more ‘ecological’, ISO and 
PNGO seen as role models due 
to social audits with participation 
of donors and stakeholders. 
• pressure on other NGOs to 
become transparent 
• District NGOs are curious to 
learn due to heightened image 
and rapport of ISOs and 
especially PNGOs achieved in 
short period of time. 
• District NGOs have demanded 
coaching on policy, systems and 
training on modules (governance, 
strategic management, social 
audit) 
96
However, the is no uniformity among donors, there are some donors, who 
appreciate dual roles. Some donors like Save the Children Norway, CARE who have 
large programmes have shown more interest in SANDEEP learning. Other donors 
are not interested in OD; they want to use NGOs as an extra hand for social 
mobilization. These donors even do purchasing themselves. (ISO). 
• SANDEEP/ SCUS should continue organizing interface between ISOs and 
donors/AIN. This helps develop linkages with other donors. 
• SANDEEP has tabled the issues of dual roles, need for second line leadership and 
nepotism on the NGO sector. NGOs are now improving their staff hiring 
procedures. ISO is sharing SANDEEP learning in NGO networks. Learning was also 
shared with 20 CECI partners together with PNGO. Sharing also took place with 
SCN partners to support them for making policies and strategies. 
Staff • We have become able to advocate about the advantages and disadvantages of dual 
role with other stakeholders 
• Annual reports shared with VDC, NGOs, DDC and donors 
• Participation in networks has increased due after SANDEEP (RHCC, District 
Development Fund) 
• Other NGOs visit PNGO for a copy of organizational policy, they want to learn the 
filing systems. They also ask for different formats, copy of constitution and 
operational guidelines. 
• “The attitude of stakeholders towards us has changed after the success of our 
electrification project that gave light to 110 households” – Darchula. 
• We send monthly reports to DDC, now they have started to call us in meetings. 
However, they still feel that they are the boss; they still do not see us as partners. 
OCBO/FOCBO ?? 
ODF ?? 
CBM/CBPOs • Have conducted joint training to PAF, World vision and CECI partners on 
Governance, Strategic Planning and policy development. They have replicated these 
modules. 
• Training has also been conducted with SWC and they have highly appreciated it. 
There is possibility for policy change of SWC due to SANDEEP learning. 
Beneficiaries 
District • NGO has organized sharing form together with NFN, but it is still spontaneous 
• Sharing with NGO sector not 
regular due to political division of 
NGO sector 
• Private sector is skeptical about 
NGOs, they believe NGOs get 
lot of funding from donors 
• Diverse attitude and practice of 
donors regarding OD 
• GOs have appreciated ISOs and 
PNGOs but they still don’t see 
them as allies (partners) 
• District stakeholders and donors 
have appreciated reporting skills 
of ISOs and PNGOs. 
• Some district NGOs are 
improving their staff hiring 
procedure due to pressure 
created by SANDEEP 
• SANDEEP partners regularly 
share their progress reports to 
DDC, line agencies 
• Some donors are interested in 
sandeep module training to their 
partners – PAF, CECI etc 
• SWC highly positive about 
SANDEEP practice – policy 
implications for sector 
• Many AIN members are 
implementing common 
partnership policy – Task force 
created for facilitation of the 
process. 
• Common partnership policy in 
SC alliance --- sharing between 
97
Stakeholders 
Donors PNGO has greatly enhanced their coordination and rapport with stakeholders. 
PMT staff • Worked with AIN for uniformity in partnership policies, AIN members have also 
realized that they also need good governance. AIN has formed task force on 
partnership policy and capacity building 
• PMT worked with NFN for good governance act of NGOs, dialogue with bilateral 
agencies has taken place to replicate SANDEEP learning (Bilateral agencies have a 
policy which doesn’t require separation of dual roles for grants less than USD 
100,000.00) 
• SWC has been highly influenced by SANDEEP learning, they are willing to publish the 
modules jointly. 
• Sharing of social audit, modules have taken place within save the children alliance. 
Discussion is going on to create a OD cell to institutionalize learning 
• SANDEEP message has reached to almost all INGOs in Nepal 
• SANDEEP learning is shared with SCUS regional office and Headquarters, they have 
huge interests on the project outcome 
• OD has been incorporated in the new SCUS Strategic plans (partnership guidelines) 
partners 
• Dissemination of SANDEEP 
learning through NFN 
• ISOs and PNGOs have not been 
able to meet the demand from 
NGO sector. ISOs more 
interested in delivery projects 
because they see easy money 
coming from donors to 
implement projects. 
• Lack of sufficient inputs from 
Project on IR- 2 and 3 
• Absence of peoples 
representatives in local bodies 
• Some donors don’t want to 
work in alliance – fear of loosing 
partner 
• Donors practicing wait and see in 
the current political climate. 
Evaluation Objective:
6- To identify how the conflict situation in Nepal is affecting ISOs and PNGOs, and whether the project responded appropriately to mitigate these effects. 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• Do not hide anything from stakeholders – social audit – helps mitigate conflict 
• During conflict, we locked the main door and conducted meeting inside 
• Clarify mutual expectation with conflicting parties – they will not abduct you. 
• During conflict, only those organizations suffered who were not transparent. For us, 
sometimes we faced difficulty in transportation. 
• SANDEEP hypothesis is correct and relevant. The more participation of community 
is insured, the more conflict is reduced. The root cause of conflict is domination of 
• Conflict management training 
helped the ISOs and PNGOs of 
the first phase to develop 
confidence to make dialogue with 
stakeholders and continued 
working in conflict situation. 
• ISOs and PNGOs adopted 
different strategies to work in 
98
community and society by individuals. In order to reduce conflict, we need systems 
(openness and accountability). (ISO). 
Staff • Communities were terrified during Maoist conflict, but the programmes were not 
postponed. NGO hired local staff. The most effective methodology for working in 
conflict is to provide orientation to community on what the NGO wants to do, 
why, for whom and when. During Madhesh movement, we don’t challenge their call 
for strike (bandh) and use bicycle instead motorbike in. There is no problem for 
supervision at community level. 
• NGO solidarity and joint press release for Zone of Peace helped to reduce tensions 
in community 
• Health activities (polio, Vitamin A) are the best medium to have access in conflict 
situations 
• Project area has increased due to donor coordination – more donor trust, skills of 
EC and staff increased, systems established in NGO 
• Donors don’t return our reports and proposals., staff and board members have 
become articulate 
• Coordination with other NGOs increased due to SANDEEP 
• Separation and control in financial systems developed 
• Inter project coordination meeting in NGO 
• Reporting skills of staff increased 
• Stakeholders can get help even when key staff are away from office 
• During the conflict, we were successful to unite the community, due to which no 
one could intimidate them. OD taught us to become transparent and united. 
Politicians and government service holders speak sweet language, but they try to 
create confusion among community during conflict. 
• In the beginning of conflict it was very difficult to enter community, as they were 
terrified. The NGO workers need to take permission from Maobadi. Later we 
shared our programme and budgets with them and our local staff also helped to 
clarity expectations. After this they gave permission for NGO to work in 
community. However, we were cautious not to tell them that we were using US 
grants. 
• During conflict, do not select VDCs near army barracks. Keep low profile. Even 
don’t polish your finger nails. Make agreements with community (MOU). 
OCBO/FOCBO • Due to increased participation of community, the community level conflict has 
conflict situation: rescheduling of 
training, maintaining neutrality, 
relocation of office, delegate 
monitoring responsibility to 
community, hiring local staff, 
sharing fact sheets, policies and 
budgets with stakeholders, signing 
MOU with community etc. 
• SANDEEP emphasis on – 
transparency, accountability highly 
relevant in conflict situation. 
• Minimal impact on project 
outcomes due to project inputs to 
cope with conflict situation 
99
decreased. However, SANDEEP so far doesn’t have impact on the root cause of 
national level conflict. Conflict within organization has reduced. 
• During conflict, we took laptops at home and worked there. Kept low profile, used 
rickshaw or bicycles. 
• In order to reduce conflict, donors need to increase funding projects in eastern 
Terai, otherwise it might be too late. 
• To effectively work in conflict situations, all donors and INGOs should practice OD 
principles. 
• SANDEEP hypothesis related to conflict mitigation was relevant during conflict, but 
in post conflict situation, the hypothesis needs revision. 
• During conflict many training were postponed to a later date due to strikes. Our 
field visit was also reduced. Field offices were moved to central office. However 
projects were not closed down. We successfully perused the following strategies: 
don’t tell anyone about the funding source (USAID), keep low profile (don’t use 
vehicle), make contacts with both sides but keep neutrality, answer the questions in 
short, don’t give information that is not being asked for. Sometimes, planning was 
done at district headquarters by inviting CBO leaders. Monitoring was done mostly 
by field staff, frequency of office staff visiting field was reduced. 
• SANDEEP prepared the ISO to be prepared for conflict by being more transparent 
in sharing information and hiring staff. Fact sheets and policy documents were 
shared with stakeholders. Communities were provided relevant information on 
projects. This helped mitigate the conflict. In some cases, Maobadi were driven away 
from village by the communities. 
ODF • During conflict we delegated some of our functions to local clubs and committees 
for selection of target groups. After local involvement in TG selection, conflict was 
reduced. 
CBM/CBPOs 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
• Intimidation and extortion of government agencies is continuing in Madhesh, 
however, they have not targeted NGOs due to transparency. NGOs have also 
invited the conflict parties for negotiation. Project implementation is slow which is 
due to strikes. 
100
Donors • To work effectively during conflict, insert a component for dalit and women 
empowerment in your project activities. 
PMT staff • Governance module came on the right time when the NGOs were facing challenges 
of conflict – this helped them through transparency, prepared code of conduct, 
some NGOs even handed over their policy papers to Maoist rebels. MOU template 
helped NGOs a lot. 
• Hiring local staff was another successful strategy to cope with conflict. 
• Computer backup, pen-drive support was another coping strategy. 
• First phase ISOs and PNGOs all received training on conflict management that was 
helpful 
• Strategies were developed for working in conflict (strategic plans) 
• Some NGOs organized meeting with participation of staff, EC, stakeholders with 
Maobadi 
• Centralization of structure and developed communication strategy 
• ID cards were issued for security 
• Do not name your donor (especially US grant) 
• Do No harm training 
• Sharing experiences of conflict in Review and reflection workshops 
SCUS directors • Empowerment of NGOs and communities in 1980s and 90s led to conflict because 
the marginalized wanted their rights to be fulfilled 
• Building civil society at grassroots level is important – that helps politicians be 
accountable to local people and thus helps reduction of conflict. 
• Strengthening NGOs is an important part of strengthening civil society. 
Evaluation Objective:
7- To evaluate the viability of the sustainability of capacities developed within SC/US and Partners 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive • ISO approach has been effective • All ISOs/PNGOs commitment for continued 
101
committee • We are hopeful to get continuous support from donor, also have 
submitted proposal to PAF, this might help to retain ODF and other key 
staff. 
• Performance of ODF is excellent, he conducted training to other 
organizations as well 
• OCBOs are capable to help solve issues by taking them positively 
• We have developed a road map for sustaining the benefits of SANDEEP. 
We will give continuity to conduct social audit, strategy review, policy 
review, JD review and organization assessment on our own. We now 
have resource persons who can facilitate implementation of these 
activities. 
Staff • Direct support to PNGOs might have been effective as it takes time to 
outreach through ISOs and also increases cost 
• ISO taught us modules, but did not share their learning. Inter EC idea 
sharing has not taken place 
• Not much motivation is taking place from ISO to PNGO, 
• OD team merged with RM committee to combine internal and external 
resources 
• Modules provide organizational basics which are always needed 
• EC has become capable; it can give continuity to the systems established 
in spite of staff turnover. 
• ISO approach has both positive and negative aspects. Without ISOs, 
PNGOs could have received more direct funding and more training and 
full knowledge of modules. But if trainers come from outside they might 
not understand the local context as ISO does. ISO understands local 
context and language and their facilitation is easy for us to comprehend. 
• OD team meets once a month and gives its recommendations to EC for 
decision. OD team members bring agendas for meeting and wait 
impatiently for discussion in meeting to address issues. This is an 
indication for sustainability of OD team. 
OCBO/FOCBO There were occasional contacts between ISO and PNGOs before SANDEEP, but 
now they have started submitting joint proposals have conducted joint training 
(PAF). 
application of the established OD policies, 
systems and processes (Organizational 
Development (OD) Team along with 
Organizational Assessment (OA) and Strategic 
Planning and Management Processes) 
• ISOs confident of retaining OCBOs and FCBOs 
in a suitable position in their organization 
despite financial constraints 
• PNGOs conveyed commitment to and 
realization of the benefit of retaining the ODFs 
but financial constraints make this primarily 
contingent on the receipt of new projects. 
• Sustainability of SANDEEP is supported by the 
internal review and implementation system 
initiated and established by the project. 
• Pool of OD based human resources have been 
developed to carry on the SANDEEP learning 
and experiences. 
• The OD team of ISOs and PNGOs has strong 
support and involvement of EC members. 
• NGO Federation, donors, AIN members and 
the Social Welfare Council (SWC) show 
positive attitude for further collaboration 
• Sustainability of SANDEEP initiatives will 
primarily depend on the level of change in the 
attitude of NGO leaders 
• EC members, especially new ones inducted to 
accommodate mandatory SANDEEP’s 
provisions (inclusion and avoidance of dual role) 
still lack OD knowledge and skills 
• Another area of concern is the ability and 
willingness in terms of availability of time, 
resources and commitment by EC members 
who have to work voluntarily without direct 
102
ODF • ODF has to work hard to motivate EC, staffs are occupied with project 
work, ODF has to coordinate all, which is a challenging task. ODF is 
overwhelmed with work. I changed myself very much, now I can help and 
coordinate everyone. 
• It was challenging to transform a CBO like organization into an NGO. 
Due to lack of academic qualification of EC members, ODF had to work 
hard to make them understand the content of modules. Project period 
was short keeping in mind the level of EC members. 
• If PMT worked directly with PNGO might have been better. If ISO and 
PNGO work in same district, they become competitors and ISO doesn’t 
provide support. External ISO (advisor) might have been better (like in 
SNV in Ilam). ISOs just transferred bookish knowledge, it could not add 
value to the modules due to lack of expertise. 
• ODF role for supporting policy making is good. However, ODF doesn’t 
have resource tapping skills. There is confusion about ODF role 
extension due to lack of resources after SANDEEP phase-out 
• I have worked with PNGO as volunteer for five years before SANDEEP. I 
will continue working as volunteer after SANDEEP phase-out with the 
hope that new projects will be coming in the future. 
CBM/CBPOs 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
Donors 
PMT staff 
financial benefit. 
• Contingent on availability of projects (Smaller 
PNGOs inadequate linkage with donors and 
negligible access to local resources, especially 
the private sector) 
• Smaller PNGOs not been able to adequately 
practice many of the policies and systems due 
to short time span (need time and follow up 
support to reinforce new practice into habits) 
Evaluation Objective:
8- To assess the unintended result of the project 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• Some donors want to dictate their “partner” NGOs. As the NGOs are 
empowered, donors feel they are loosing their power, because in 
SANDEEP, the needs of communities and the strategies of NGO to 
Reduced budget for fifth year affected the planned 
activities related to the HRM and OM modules. 
103
address these needs that counts. Donors have become afraid of NGOs 
policy and systems. 
Staff • Skilled and educated members of EC have now become staff. New people 
have been elected in EC who have not received training on modules. 
OCBO/FOCBO • Administration of HRM and OM modules was rather rushed and fell short 
of the required level of inputs. 
• PNGOs can be de-motivated as they have experienced losing out to other 
NGOs that they consider less endowed in terms of SANDEEP’s IDF 
indicators. 
ODF •
CBM/CBPOs 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
New EC members, majority of whom have not been exposed to the Project’s 
inputs, are primarily passive contributors while the control of the previous 
leadership (especially in most ISOs and larger PNGOs) remains intact. 
Donors 
PMT staff The Project’s approved budget for the fifth year was significantly reduced affected 
the planned activities related to the HRM and OM modules. 
Administration of HRM and OM modules was 
rather rushed and fell short of the required level of 
inputs. 
Some smaller PNGOs felt assured that just being 
SANDEEP’s beneficiary would by itself open up 
linkages to donor agencies 
PNGOs can be de-motivated as they have 
experience losing out to other NGOs that they 
consider less endowed in terms of OD. 
Considerable time and effort was spent on 
convincing EC members and ushering attitude 
change. 
New EC members who did not get training or 
coaching, are passive contributors while the 
control of the previous leadership (especially in 
most ISOs and larger PNGOs) remains intact. 
Evaluation Objective:
9- To identify the challenges/lesson learned during the project period 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• PNGOs face the challenge to establish link with government and donors at central 
level 
• How to establish contacts with SCUS after phase out of SANDEEP? 
• Continuous practice of five modules makes organization sustainable. 
• We have learnt a lot, but sometimes feel whether we can give continuity to all of 
them as they have not been sufficiently practiced. 
• We need to develop staff that is capable to prepare quality grant proposals. Now we 
Challenges: 
• Develop project strategy, 
modules and train HR in short 
period of time 
• Less time for OM and HRM 
module, action plans not fully 
104
hire consultant in Kathmandu. 
• Donors give priority to joint proposals rather than directly from PNGO 
• In one ISO, EC member turnover is high, now they don’t have people who have 
received SANDEEP training. 
• The notion that EC has no work and the President and PD are responsible for 
organization is changing. We have learnt that EC has some important functions for 
coordination and linkage. We have also learnt that in order to improve linkages with 
stakeholders, just meeting them is not enough, we need to give them reports and 
documents. 
• Partner selection criteria of many donors are not transparent. Personal contacts and 
political standing of NGO play a decisive role in getting projects from donors. Some 
donors have regretted their decision later for selecting wrong partners based on 
political influence. 
• Before SANDEEP, there was general feeling among NGOs that they should keep 
information about their projects, organizational policies and donors in secret. Now, 
there is a feeling that we should not hide such information and share it openly. 
• There are some NGOs who work on good governance issues, but they have 
practice of dual roles. 
• After 4 years of practice, governance and finance modules have been much practiced. 
OM and HRM modules were recently introduced and we have not got time to 
practice them fully. We feel that OM is a module that will bring results slowly. 
• Same module is not suitable for ISOs and PNGOs as they have different size and 
coverage. Facilitating and making action plan on modules was a challenge in small 
organizations. Even ISOs have not been able to fulfill some indicators like single chart 
of account for all donors as donors use different software and formats. (ISO). 
• We have learnt that implementing specific programmes in specific locations as per 
community needs improves quality service. 
• Cosmetic changes are seen in some ISOs. If the leaders of ISOs have not realized the 
need for change from within, these changes will not last long. (ISO). 
• We failed in mobilizing resources from private sector. SANDEEP input was shallow 
in this regard. Private sector organizations outright reject our request for 
collaboration. Private sector is not strong in hilly districts. 
Staff • SANDEEP needs to develop a module in proposal development and provide training 
implemented 
• Some PNGOs could not 
practice their new systems and 
policies due to lack of projects 
• Private sector skeptical to work 
with NGOs 
• ISOs not always being role 
models for PNGOs 
• Budget cut from USAID for last 
year of project 
• Measuring quality of service 
• Donor coordination in 
Kathmandu level 
Lessons: 
• ISO and module approach is the 
right way to go if you have large 
coverage and diverse partners 
• Time commitment is important 
• One size don’t fit all 
• Constant follow-up, coaching on 
action plans. 
• Continuous orientation of staff 
and EC on policies to reinforce 
change 
• It is difficult to change those 
organizations in which the 
organizational culture and 
hierarchy has already been set. 
• Leadership attitude is decisive in 
OD process. 
• For quality of service, 
specialization is needed. 
105
and follow-up. A module in social mobilization will be helpful. PNGOs need skills in 
case study and M&E. Charts of accounts needs to be taught to PNGOs. If SANDEEP 
provided delivery project, might have been easier to show its impact. Until PNGOs 
get new projects from other donors, SANDEEP needs to provide some form of 
support however small 
• If the needs of community are analyzed in depth and with their participation, the 
impact of project will be better. 
• Once you install system in your organization, it will be difficult in the beginning, but 
later it will be easier to manage the organization later. 
• Challenges in mobilizing communities due to diverse policies and approaches of 
NGOs and donors 
• There is a need for constant orientation of staff and EC on policy provisions so that 
policies are internalized in full. 
• Staff turnover is a major challenge in ISOs and PNGOs. 
• Only some selected staff get training of SANDEEP all the time. 
• In future we need skills on English language, Proposal development skills, and 
facilitation skills. SANDEEP needs to develop modules on these themes. 
• Though dual role is separated, still the staffs are dominant over the EC. 
• Resource mobilization is the biggest challenge for NGOs in remote locations. The 
community here is very backward, they don’t trust development workers, and they 
think NGOs work for themselves not for community. 
• “OD is like taking weeds out of the fields. Once you take out some weeds, other will 
grow later. It is a continuous process”. 
• Delegation of responsibilities is more important than ending dual roles. 
• ISOs learn the modules (TOT) for 9 days; PNGOs are given training for 3 days only. 
PNGOs need more time to practice and institutionalize the learning of SANDEEP 
modules 
OCBO/FOCBO • PNGOs have yet to implement some of the modules like OM, RM. They have 
developed policies, but needs follow-up for some time to see results. 
• Dual role has not been eliminated in ISO constitution. ISO is continually postponing 
GA (SCDC) in order to avoid such change (e.g. SCDC). 
• OCBOs are given other office work which the leaders are expected to perform 
therefore, OCBO is overstretched. Sometimes the OCBO has to perform the 
106
function of CBPO to sensitize the EC of ISO. 
• ISOs could not become role models for PNGOs (dual roles). CBPOs and PMT could 
not give enough efforts to motivate ISO leadership for change in dual roles in the 
constitution (e.g. SCDC). 
• Some PNGOs are far ahead than others, so the time needed for coaching is 
different. Most PNGOs are lagging behind in IR 2-3. 
• RM module is difficult to implement, difficulty in diversifying resources, difficulty in 
meeting the high demand of communities. PNGO is covering just one village in each 
VDC due to lack of resources. 
• It is highly challenging to adjust modules in diverse organizations. If there will be no 
second phase of SANDEEP, how will be our feedback be implemented? 
• It is difficult to change those organizations in which the organizational culture has 
already been set. Some of the ISOs provided negative examples, which discouraged 
PNGOs to separate dual roles in the beginning. 
• Managing staff time for sharing of modules was difficult. Governance module took 
bulk of the time, whereas other modules were conducted in haste (OM, HRM). Time 
was short for planning and action for later modules. There was not enough time for 
IR-II and IR-III activities. 
• The staff of PNGOs have not received salaries as mentioned in policies. Policies need 
to be tailored to PNGOs. PNGOs are facing difficulty in getting professional experts 
demanded by IDF. SANDEEP input to PNGOs to work with private sector was 
shallow. There is no indicator to measure SANDEEP hypothesis. 
• Finance module was the easiest to implement as it was more technical and provided 
visible output to PNGOs. Governance module was highly appreciated during training 
but later it became difficult to actually separate roles 
• PNGOs cannot identify learning and best practices of their work. They need external 
experts to help facilitate in this important work. 
• In PNGOs a single person has to participate in various subcommittees, where as in 
ISOs different people are engaged in different subcommittees. Hence number of 
subcommittees in PNGOs should be less. 
• Some ISOs have not incorporated dual role separation clauses in their constitution. 
OM is also a very challenging module as it demands bottom up planning, monitoring 
and evaluation. But for this, cooperation of donors is needed. Donors have their 
own perception of community needs which may not match with the real needs of 
107
communities. 
ODF • How does PMT monitor quality of ISO-PNGO relationships? What are the 
indicators? 
• If there are no projects, how can PNGO practice SANDEEP learning? Those 
organizations who have few and small projects, the practice of IDF is slow and it 
becomes a theoretical exercise. 
• Functioning of OD team depends on quality of human resources. OD team approach 
might be effective in those organizations, where there is much workload. Most 
members of PNGO are peasants, the educated ones are out of the villages, they 
cannot contribute. 
• In some PNGOs, the educational qualification of EC is very low, they cannot 
understand management concepts. 
• ISOs could not add much value. It just became a medium for conveying issues and 
feedback between PMT and PNGOs. Therefore, in future, PMT needs to work 
directly with PNGOs. 
• Subcommittees were reduced from 7 to 3 in PNGO. 
CBM/CBPOs • Outreach structure (PMT-ISO-PNGO) is too lengthy, layered; ISOs had to provide 
training on modules before they digested the issues themselves. Not enough time for 
ISOs to practice the modules before they train PNGOs. 
• Same modules applied to all types and sizes of NGOs. If an NGO has 3 staff, does it 
need HRD policy? 
• Senior management team is not feasible in small NGOs. Some NGOs formed 10 
subcommittees initially, which became dysfunctional. Later they were merged into 
three subcommittees. 
• Due to lack of indicators, project goal is difficult to measure. 
• Sustaining changes in ISOs and PNGOs is a challenge. The changes have not been 
institutionalized yet, not transformed into habits. More practice is needed especially 
PNGOs. 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
• Individuals have contributed to the organization voluntarily and they have control 
over the organization, which is natural. As staff get salaries, EC members also want 
to become staff. This has been the practice in NGOs so far, which cannot be 
changed in short period of time. No one can work as volunteer for extended period 
108
of time. Therefore dual role is a compulsion. Now due to AIN policies, NGOs are 
looking for retired government officials to join their EC. (NFN, Dhanusha). 
• SANDEEP policy on dual role separation has been very harsh; it could have been 
more flexible and slow process. SANDEEP needs to appreciate the NGO context 
first. 
• ISOs and PNGOs could not market SANDEEP properly. Many stakeholders 
understand that the project is just about ending dual roles. SANDEEP could not 
come out of the ISO and PNGO circles. There was no mechanism for participation 
of stakeholders in SANDEEP. SANDEEP achievements, issues and learning were not 
properly publicized or disseminated. NFN has its own good governance network, 
SANDEEP partners could have used this forum for sharing, but no one took 
initiatives. In the beginning, PMT was very positive to work with N/FN, but later 
ISOs and PNGOs did not give much importance to such collaboration. (NFN 
Kanchanpur) 
• Though dual role has been ended in paper, it seems that the staffs are dominant in 
SANDEEP partners. 
Donors • Donors cannot get information in the absence of key staff. Sharing and coordination 
within NGO needs to be improved. 
• NGOs need specialization on certain sectors, define their Mission more clearly and 
make it focused (is NGO for social mobilization or should it be involved in technical 
aspects as well, hire engineers?) 
PMT staff • Some ISOs have not incorporated dual role separation in their constitution. 
• Some INGOs are still resisting implementing AIN partnership policies, they think 
that it is over ambitious. Some INGOs don’t have focus on capacity building of 
partners; they also don’t have adequate knowledge on the concept of OD. They 
think that capacity building is a non issue for them. Some INGOs face difficulty to 
apply partnership guidelines with their existing partners due to partner pressure 
• Change in attitude and behavior of leadership is important. One shot support is not 
enough for success of OD. Lots of time and coordination is needed. Now we have 
tools and methodologies and systematic experience for sharing the learning. It took 
time (1-1½ years) to internalize the concept of SANDEEP by ISOs and PNGOs 
• SANDEEP had to work on reduced budget during the last year and some of the staff 
109
have to be out placed. 
• Difficulty to bring all the donors of ISOs and PNGOs (15 donors/INGOs) for 
coordination at national level. There is a challenge to bring uniformity in donors and 
sectors. Challenge to sensitize donors and INGOs 
• There is still a challenge to bring change in NGO culture 
• The partnership of NGO with private sector has not yet achieved. 
SCUS directors • OD builds up slowly, length of commitment is important 
• Follow up support is important in OD 
• You cannot use same module for diverse organizations – one size don’t fit all 
Evaluation Objective:
10- To identify specific OD issues and needs of PNGOs in the health, education and livelihood sectors and make appropriate recommendations for 
replication and improvement of prevailing OD practices applied by SANDEEP as well as other donor agencies for effective service delivery by their 
respective partner organizations working in these sectors. 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• Social entrepreneurship – we get contraceptives for Rs 15/- and sell to community 
for Rs. 20/-. We have published health bulletin in local language which has helped 
increase awareness in public health and RH. Community has demanded income 
generation activities as we motivated them to send their children to school and 
they need more income 
• In future staffs need skills in follow-up and monitoring. SANDEEP should help 
develop skills of PNGOs in documentation, HR skills so that we don’t need to hire 
external consultants. Programme development, linkage skills development should 
be given priority. We could not update our website. 
Staff • In order to increase quality of service, NGOs should be provided with integrated 
programmes a single project (eg drinking water) cannot address the community 
needs effectively. 
• PNGOs need TOT on Modules, proposal writing. 
OCBO/FOCBO • Even after phase-out, there should be mechanism for follow-up of SANDEEP. 
Continue support to the ISOs and the 
PNGOs in terms of information, follow-up 
and linkage after the project phase-out. 
Provide support for biannual review and 
reflection sessions and reporting. 
Provide follow up and monitoring of the 
Road Map. Provide linkage support to 
ISOs and PNGOs with SC Alliance and 
AIN members. Provision of adequate 
annual budget for the implementation of 
these activities through the respective 
ISOs. 
SANDDEP OD Modules should be 
published and made available for 
110
PNGOs have yet to get used to in applying policies and systems. 
• Other INGOs need to sincerely apply partnership guidelines like SCUS. 
• SANDEEP modules are good for new NGOs. But for existing ISOs and PNGOs, 
service delivery and OD project should go hand in hand. There is a challenge to 
monitor progress in improvement of quality of service. Therefore, same donor 
needs to support service delivery project as well to see the link between OD and 
service delivery. 
ODF 
CBM/CBPOs 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
• Donors have not given priority to NGO capacity building so far. Providing training 
is not enough, physical and equipment support should also be provided by donors. 
(SIMI) 
Donors 
PMT staff • Best practices developed by SANDEEP: Review and reflection, Coaching and 
follow-up, SANDEEP approach (module-training-coaching-follow-up), OA, Social 
audit, Partnership policy/ Compliance guidelines 
• May be in future, we could develop a module how to link OD with service delivery 
• There might also be a need for Technical Modules (HIV, Education etc) 
distribution at subsidized rates through 
the NGO Federation and/or other 
appropriate channels. 
. 
Support SANDEEP initiatives with actual 
project implementation and closely 
monitor service delivery through specific 
criteria and indicators. 
Supplement the SANDEEP Module with 
sections on social mobilization and 
proposal development which fit in OM 
and RM modules respectively. … 
Evaluation Objective:
11- To recommend specific advocacy measures targeting potential donor agencies who can support SANDEEP’s second phase design and implementation 
Respondents Response Conclusions 
Executive 
committee 
• It is good that projects like PAF, CECI have given priority to select SANDEEP 
partners. Their experience with ISOs and PNGOs could be marketed with other 
INGOs. 
• NGOs are labeled as “dollar cultivation”. Donors need to support NGO capacity 
building to eliminate this myth. Donors need to understand that due to lack of 
NGO capacity, the programmes have not reached the target groups. Therefore, 
donors need to invest in capacity building together with programme funding. Just 
giving funds to NGOs will not help improve quality of service. 
Develop and implement a Second Phase 
SANDEEP project, in collaboration with 
the SC Alliance, AIN and the SWC, as 
there is more to be done in this field. 
Provide extensive dissemination of 
SANDEEP learning and experience 
targeting donors, NGO networks, 
111
Staff 
OCBO/FOCBO • AIN partnership guidelines should be honestly implemented. 
• Some INGOs even don’t have indicators to measure impact of their work. They 
need to learn from SANDEEP. 
ODF • SANDEEP needs to advocate INGOs and donors on the need of policies and 
systems in their partner NGOs. 
• It is difficult to work with private sector at the moment in Madhesh due to ongoing 
conflict. Some donors are interested in OD (CARE) but others are not (WE). Many 
INGOs don’t give priority to separation of dual role, availability of policies/ systems 
and lack of nepotism in NGO partners 
CBM/CBPOs 
Beneficiaries 
District 
Stakeholders 
• SANDEEP experiences should be shared and marketed through INGOs. 
Donors 
PMT staff • Incorporate SANDEEP learning in AIN strategic plans 
• Lobby the AIN – bilateral negotiations 
• Sensitize NFN to demand 10% overhead from donors for OD 
• Continuous dialogue with SWC to incorporate SANDEEP learning in their policies 
representatives of relevant government 
agencies, private sector and OD experts. 
Advocacy strategy for policy change in 
INGOs and bilateral and multilateral 
development in favor of support to OD 
processes in civil society organization and 
funding specific OD focused projects to 
be formulated and implemented. 
SCUS regional offices to be activated and 
take up ownership to carry forward the 
SANDEEP initiative and coordinate with 
donors at the regional level. 
Consult and lobby potential donors (such 
as CARE, CECI, PAF, other AIN members 
demonstrating strong OD support, 
DANIDA, SC Alliance) for full or partial 
course on SANDEEP to train their 
partners for a period ranging from one to 
two years. 
112
ANNEX 9: List of ISOs/PNGOs 
SN ISO Name District Region Caste/Ethnicit
y 
1 Srijana Community Development Centre (SCDC) Siraha ER Newar 
2 Social Awareness Center (SAC) Surkhet MWR Mixed 
3 Backward Society Education (BASE) Dang MWR Tharu 
4 Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS)-Kailali Kailali FWR Mixed 
5 Nepal National Social Welfare Association (NNSWA) Kanchanpur FWR Dalit 
No. Name of ISO Name of NGO District Caste/ Ethnic Remarks 
6 SCDC Shiva Shakti Youth Club (SSYC) Siraha Mixed/Dalit 
7 SCDC Nepal Rishikul Saday Kalyan Samaj (NRSKS) Siraha Dalit 
8 SCDC Janachetana Dalit Sangam (JDS) Saptari Dalit 
9 SCDC Sripurraj Samudayik Bikah Kendra (SCDC) Saptari Tharu 
10 SCDC 
Community Family Welfare Awareness 
(CFWA) Dhanusha Mixed 
11 SAC Suriya Samajik Sewa Sang (4S) Jumla Mixed 
12 SAC Samadik Swasta Tatha Bikas (CHD) Jumla Mixed 
13 SAC Himali Ekriti Bikas (HEB) Jumla Dalit 
14 SAC Samajik Sewa Kendra (SOSEC) Dailekh Mixed 
15 SAC Gramin Mahila Utthan Kendra (RWRC) Dailekh Mixed Terminated 
16 SAC Mahila Jagaran Munch (MJM) Surkhet Mixed Terminated 
17 SAC Suppressed Development Centre (SDC) Surkhet Dalit 
18 BASE Kamaiya Pratha Unmulan Samaj (KPUS) Kailali Tharu 
19 BASE 
Nepal Rastriya Dalit Samaj Kalyan Sanstha 
(NNDSWO) Kailali Dalit 
20 BASE Gramin Mahila Utthan Kendra (GMUK) Dang Tharu 
21 BASE Gramin Mahila Bikas Sanstha (GMBS) Dang Tharu Terminated 
22 BASE UNESCO Banke Muslim 
23 BASE Tharu Samudaya Bikas Manch (TCDF) Bardiya Tharu 
24 BASE 
Nepal Rastriya Dalit Janjati Mahila Utthan 
Sangh (NNDEWUA) Bardiya Dalit 
Terminated 
25 BASE Tharu Mahila Utthan Kendra (TWUC) Bardiya Tharu 
26 BASE Dalit Bikas Samaj (DBSA) Salyan Dalit 
27 BASE Samatamulak Samajko Srijana (CES) Salyan Dalit 
28 NRCS Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS)-Achham Achham 
Brahmin/Chh
etri 
29 NRCS 
Utpidit Janajati Tatha Mahila Sasetan Kendra 
(OCWAC) Achham 
Brahmin/Chh
etri 
113
30 NRCS Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS)-Doti Doti 
Brahmin/Chh
etri 
31 NRCS Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS)-Dadeldhura Dadeldhura 
Brahmin/Chh
etri 
32 NRCS Samudaya Bikas Kendra (CDC) Doti 
Brahmin/Chh
etri 
33 NNSWA Rajakot Yuba Club (RYC) Darchula Bhotiya 
34 NNSWA Markande Bikash Samaj (MBS) Darchula Bhotiya 
35 NNSWA 
Gramin Bikas Yabam Batabaran Byabasthapan 
Samaj (GBYBBS) Baitadi Mixed 
36 NNSWA Basuling Jana Jagriti Samaj (BJJS) Baitadi Mixed Terminated 
37 NNSWA Mahila Mukti Samaj (WDS) Dadeldhura Mixed 
38 NNSWA Ekikrit Bikas Samaj (IDeS) Dadeldhura Mixed 
39 NNSWA 
Nepal Paryabaran Tatha Shikha Bikas Samaj 
(NEEDS) Kanchanpur 
Brahmin/Chh
etri 
40 NNSWA Tharu Mahila Manch (TWOF) Kanchanpur Tharu 
114
ANNEX - 10 
Final Evaluation Sample ISOs and PNGOs, 
OA and Final Evaluation Dates 
Name of ISO Location Led by Donor of 
monitoring 
program 
Evaluation 
date 
OA date 
NNSWA Kanchanpu
r 
Dalit and 
Tharu 
SC/US 25-26 May 13 – 16 
May 
SAC Surkhet Mixed SC/N 7-8 June 3-6 June 
BASE Dang Tharu World 
Education 
6 – 9 June 6-9 June 
The consultants will interact with other two ISOs (SCDC and NRCS) for one day though 
they are not in sample. 
SCDC 17 May 
NRCS 1-2 June 
CFWA supported 
by Srijana 
Janakpur Terai 
(Madhesi) 
World 
education 
15-16 May 12-14 May 
RYC (Supported 
by NNSWA) 
Darchula Sauka 
(Ethnic) 
PAF 22- 23 May 12-14 April 
TMM (Supported 
by NNSWA) 
Kanchanpur Tharu 
woman 
SC/US 27- 28 May 22-24 April 
NRCS 
Dadekdhura 
(Supported by 
NRCS Kailali) 
Dadeldhura Mix NRCS 
center 
29-30 May 4-6 May 
UNESCO Banke 
(Supported by 
BASE) 
Banke Muslim World 
Education 
12-13 June 2-4 May 
SDC (supported 
by SAC) 
Surkhet Dalit CECI 8-9 June 15-17 April 
KPUS (supported 
by BASE) 
Kailali Tharu LWF 12-13 June 15-17 April 
Criteria for selecting sample: (Geography, leadership, size of budget and staff, program 
coverage, Sector, sex, caste and ethnicity. 
ISOs 
1) BASE – Large membership based with expanded structure in six districts and lead by Tharu. 
Working as an ISO before SANDEEP, working with more than 15 donors and partners, big 
size of staff and budget. Leading in regions, implementing different programs. Supported by 
other donors for organizational development. A separate study done on BASE governance 
structure. 
2) NNSWA – Midium size organization lead by Dalit. Growing in region with district 
structures. Working with diversified donors and focusing on three issues. 
3) SAC- relatively small in staffing and budget among five ISOs. Lead by youth mix caste groups. 
Working as umbrella partner of SC/N (supporting other local NGOs). Working in districts 
that were highly affected by conflict. 
115
4) PNGOs: 
a) RYC (Rajakoth Yuba Club) Darchula: Lead by Sauka (ethcic) group, growing in 
district. Remote hill based NGOs. 
b) TMM (Tharu Mahila Manch) Led by Tharu woman and Terai based NGO. 
Implementing income generation and education programs 
c) KPUS (Kamaiya Pratha Unmulan Samaj) Led by freed Kamaiya Tharu and working for 
freed Kamaiya. Small organization implementing income generation program. 
d) NRCS (Nepal Red Cross Society) Dadeldhura: Lead by mixed group, hill based, 
entertaining multiple donors, centrally guided, and growing and youth leadership. 
e) UNESCO Banke: Lead by Muslim and working for Muslim women, growing and 
dynamic leadership. Medium size organization in Terai. 
f) SDC (Social Development Center) Surkhet: Hill and lead by Dalit. Small organization 
implementing health programs. 
g) CFWA (Community Family Welfare Association) Dhanusha, Lead by Madhesi group, 
in east. Working in conflict.