The 2005 Baseline Survey of G-RAP Grantees
Last updated:  14th June 2006, by Rick Davies
CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE  (also available in .pdf format, in two parts: 1 and 2)
Caveat: The contents of this baseline survey are now being sent back to the orginal respondents for correction of any errors and omissions (20/07/06)
  1. Background on G-RAP
  2. The respondents and the questions they were asked
  3. The purpose of the 2005 Baseline Survey
  4. The survey findings
    1. RAO's existing working relationships in 2005
      1. A broad view: the main categories of organisations mentioned by respondents
      2. RAOs' relationships with each other in 2005
      3. RAOs' relationships with the Government of Ghana
      4. RAOs' relationships with other Ghanaian NGOs and local organisations
      5. RAOs' involvement in coalitions and networks
      6. RAOs' relationships with regional and international organisations
      7. Using this data for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes
    2. RAO engagement with each of the four themes of the GPRS II
      1. RAOs' engagement with issues within the "Good governance and civic responsibility" theme
      2. RAOs' engagement with issues within the "Macro-economic policies and strategies" theme 
      3. RAOs' engagement with issues within the "Human resource development" theme
      4. RAOs' engagement with issues within the "Private sector development" theme
      5. RAOs' engagement with GPRS II process
      6. Using this data for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes
  5. Sharing and updating the results?
  6. Availability of the collated raw data?
  7. What are the limitations?

Annexes
  1. RAO respondents: Name and position
  2. RAO responses to the two main sections of the baseline questionairre
  3. How the network diagrams were created
  4. Full list of organisations mentioned, their acronyms and their organisation categories


1. Background on G-RAP

The Ghana Research & Advocacy Programme (G-RAP) is a pooled funding mechanism to support the institutional development of Research and Advocacy Organisations (RAOs) in Ghana. [Note: G-RAP funded RAOs are mainly but not only NGOs, they include a university-based institute and one trade union body]

It aims to strengthen the institutional capacity and the autonomy of RAOs to engage actively with Government and civil society in pro-poor processes and to advocate on behalf of the poor and socially excluded in Ghanaian society.

G-RAP offers multi-annual core funding to established RAOs which meet minimum criteria, selected on a competitive and needs-based assessment, together with one-off grants and technical assistance to emerging RAOs.

Participating donors are supporting G-RAP as a follow-up to their move towards a Multi-Donor Budgetary Support approach in order to assist the Government of Ghana and its civil society partners to achieve its Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Participating donors include DFID,CIDA,DANIDA and the Royal Netherlands Embassy.


2. The Respondents and the Questions

Between December 2005 and January 2006 16 Ghanaian RAOs funded by the G-RAP project were interviewed. Of these 11 responded to the whole questionairre, and 14 to part of the questionairre (see here for details). The survey was carried out by two enumerators directly hired and supervised by G-RAP.

The interviewed NGOs were asked two sets of questions, about ...
1. Which organisations they were working with in 2005, including

This part of the baseline survey addresses three G-RAP Purposes, as stated in the G-RAP Logical Framework , relating to:

   Purpose 5: "Improved cooperation between RAOs",

   Purpose 6: RAOs build up a strategic set of relationships with CBOs.",

   Purpose 7: "RAOs build up a strategic set of relationships with government, parliament and MDBS donors"



2. Their engagement with the national Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II), including

This part of the baseline survey addresses one aspect of the G-RAP Goal, as stated in the G-RAP Logical Framework narrative statement: 

"Pro-poor policy adopted and implemented effectively by GoG" and its OVIs ("Indicators of policy changes which are of shared concern to RAOs").

The identification of policy areas which are of shared concern is the first step towards the identification of indicators of policy changes which are of shared concern to RAOs.

A separate survey was attempted, to identify donor views of relevant GPRS II issues. The process and results are documented on a separate web page.


3. The purpose of the 2005 Baseline Survey was to:


4. THE RESULTS...

4.1. RAO's existing working relationships in 2005

4.1.1 A broad view: the main categories of organisations mentioned by respondents

The total number of organisations RAOs reported working with in 2005 was 268, an average of 19 per RAO. Many of those organisations have been working with multiple RAOs.  As a result there is in effect a large and complex network that is very difficult to work with, at either a planning or evaluation stage of the G-RAP project (look here if you really want to see it!).

One way of simplifying this large and complex picture is to categorise the named organisations and then to document which RAOs have been working with what types of organisations. Table 1 below shows the result of such an exercise, using 13 categories of organisations.
There are two issues here where readers of this web page could help. Firstly, a set of categories like those used here require some sort of theory - about the types of organisations that are important to the work of G-RAP and the RAOs it is funding. We could have categoriesed the organisations RAOs mentioned according to their religion or to the football team they support, but that is unlikely to have been relevant to the strategies that are being pursued by G-RAP and the RAOs it is funding.  On the other hand, the 13 categories of organisations may not be the most relevant of all, there may be a  better set of categories. You (the reader) may be able to suggest some more appropriate categories. if so, please contact Rick Davies

Secondly, even using the 13 categories, there may have been some mistakes in categorising the organisations that were mentioned by the RAOs. You cna see details of which organisations were categorised as what types in Annex 4. Note that some organisations fitted more than one category e.g. a church group could be categorised as a membership organisation and as a religious organisation. This categorisation is open to  correction. Requests for changes should be sent to Rick Davies

There are two types of summary rows and columns in Table 1. The first summary row and summary column is the sum of the numbers in the cells. The second summary row and summary column is a simple count of cells with entries of any kind.
Table 1:   Types of organisations that RAOs said they were working with in 2005


The same data is shown in network diagram format below, in Figure 1. red nodes are the funded RAOs, blue nodes are the categories of organisations they reported working with. Each link represents a reported working relationship in 2005, as shown in Table 1 above. Thicker lines represent a RAO having relationships with higher numbers of organisations in the category it connects to. For example, ISODEC had a large number of working relationships with Ghanaian local organisations in 2005, relative to other RAOs. Organisations shown as being close together in the diagram generally have similar structure of linkages to others in the network diagram.

In the table we can see that:
 The initial G-RAP program design assumed that it is important that RAOs have good links both "upwards" to GoG bodies and "downwards" to local and community level organisations. The baseline results indicate that while there are numerous linkages with government, linkages with local and community level organisations are not so numerous. ISODEC stands out as one organisation with above average numbers of linkages with local and community organisations.

The network diagram below also highlights some important commonalities and differences between the RAOs:
Figure 1:  RAOs and the types of organisations that RAOs said they were working with in 2005



4.1.2 RAOs' relationships with each other in 2005

Figure 2 below shows which RAOs reported working with which other RAOs in 2005. Thick red lines = reciprocated links, where each RAO reported working with the other. Thin red lines = where only one of the two RAOs reported working with the other.

One RAO (ASDR) reported no working relationships with other RAOs in 2005, and no other RAOs reported working with it in 2005.
In contrast, TWN was engaged in three working relationships that were confirmed by other RAOs.

The initial G-RAP program design assumed that some working relationships between RAOs would be necessary, but there was no more specific conception of what those relationships would look like. E.g. what density or type of connectedness would be desirable.

Theories of innovation and communications could be drawn upon for ideas about appropriate network structures, but what would be more important would be to get the views of the participating organisations themselves, on what might constitute a desirable structure of working relationships. This would require discussion not just about the the presence/absence of relationships, but more importantly what types of relationships were needed.
Figure 2:  RAOs reported working relationships with other RAOs in 2005



4.1.3 RAO relationships with the Government of Ghana

All 14 RAOs reported relationships with GoG bodies, and a total of 56 different government bodies were mentioned. The details of the reported relationships are shown in Table 2 below.  Cell entries with 1 = a relationship existed in 2005. Cell entries with values between 5 and 100 indicate the relative importance as well as the existence of the relationship. Not all respondents gave this information, and not all those that did gave it in a way that added to 100 (as was intended).

Looking at the summary row at the bottom we can see that IEA and AWLA reported the largest number of relationships with GoG bodies (12), whereas IDEG reported the least number (2).

Looking at the summary column to the right we can see that amongst the GoG bodies, those with the largest number of relationships with the RAOs were the NDPC (7), MoFEP (4), MoLG (4), and Parliament (4). Thirty of the 56 GoG bodies were involved in working relationships with only one of the RAOs.

Table 2:  RAOs working relationships with Government of Ghana (GoG) bodies in 2005 


Figure 3 below shows the structure of the reported working relationships between the RAOs (red) and GoG bodies (blue). Because of the large number of GoG bodies involved this is by definition a complex network.  In Figure 3 labels of GoG bodies have been omitted to make the clustering of RAOs more evident.  The names of GoG bodies each RAO is working with can be found in the table above.

In this network there is a core of (26) GoG bodies with relationships with multiple RAO relationships and a periphery of (30) GoG bodies with  only one RAO relationship.  Figure 4 below shows the structure of the relationships between the core body of GoG and RAOs. Here all the GoG bodies are labeled.
Figure 3:  RAOs working relationships with Government of Ghana (GoG) bodies in 2005: WHOLE NETWORK


Re Figure 4 below, there is no off-the shelf view of what is a desirable structure of working relationships in such a network. It is up to the RAOs involved, and their supporters, to identify where there are strengths and weaknesses. Donors supporting the GPRS2 might be interested in how RAOs are linked into the NDPC. Others might be concerned with RAO linkages with Parliament.

The fact that some RAOs are on the periphery of this network is not by definition grounds for concern. They may be performing an important bridging role, bring in information and views from other actors. For example, as noted above, in 2005 ISODEC had extensive working relationships with Ghanaian local organisations. Similarly, being a central actor in this network such as IDA, might be a positive or negative for the RAOs as whole, depending on whether that RAO takes a facilitative or monopolistic view of its role within the network.

In this network AWLA and WILDAF have the most similar structure of relationships with GoG. They might be expected to need to invest more time in coordination of their efforts, but Figure 2 above suggest that this may not have been happening. One explanation may be significant differences in the contents of the issues they are working on.

Figure 4:  RAOs working relationships with Government of Ghana (GoG) bodies in 2005: CORE OF THE NETWORK



4.1.4 RAO relationships with other Ghanaian NGOs and local organisations

In Table 1 above we can see that RAOs reported working relationships with 56 Ghanaian local organisations and 43 Ghanaian NGOs (including 6 RAOs). Ghanaian NGOs were deemed to be organisations with a capital city or regional capital office base. These are shown in bold in Table 3 below. Because the distinction between these and Ghanaian local organisations is not very clear, RAO relationships with both groups are shown below (NGOs in bold). The full list of names for the acronyms shown below can be found in Annex 4 below. As with Table 2 above, some cell entries have values between 10 and 60, indicating the relative importance of this relation ship to the RAO concerned (with the total down the column ideally adding to100).

Looking in the summary column to the right we can see that almost all ( 65, being 93%) organisations had working relationships with only one of the RAOs.

Looking in the summary row at the bottom we can see that four of the RAOs had only one working relationship with Ghanaian NGOs and local organisations (excluding other RAOs), but one (ISODEC) had 32. The median number of working relationships was 4.

Table 3:  RAO relationships with other Ghanaian NGOs and local organisations.      See Annex 4 for full names 


Figure 5 shows the core of this network of working relationships (excluding all organisations connected to one RAO only). It is a very sparse network, with ISODEC in the most central position.  If the survey responses are an accurate reflection of actual practice, then there is little overlap in RAO connections at this level, and little requirement for coordination. This is in contrast to the situation with RAO working relationships with GoG bodies, where there are many  relationships in common.

There are of course positive advantages to dense networks - information is likely to flow faster, because there are multiple alternate channels. A denser network of conenctions between Ghanaian local organisations and RAOs would mean that  the Ghanaian local organisations have more chance of getting their voices heard in Accra. They would be less dependent on one relationships with one RAO. One possible way forward, suggested by these baseline results, would be more coordination between RAVI and G-RAP, to help facilitate linkages between the organisations they each fund.
Figure 5:  RAO relationships with other Ghanaian NGOs and local organisations; CORE only



4.1.5 RAO involvement in coalitions and networks

In the summary row of Table 4 below we can see that 9 of the 14 RAOs reported working with coalitions and networks in 2005.  Of the 18 coalitions and networks listed below more than 75% (14) were engaged with by one RAO only. Four of the coalitions involved between two and six RAOs. (Netright (6), Coalition Against privatisation (3), Womens' Manifesto (2) and the Domestic Violence coalition (2). Three of these are explicitly addressing gender issues.
Table 4:  RAO involvement in coalitions and networks.    


In Figure 6 Netwright becomes more visible as the most central network amongst those listed above, linking 6 of the 14 RAOs
Figure 6:  RAO involvement in coalitions and networks: CORE only


Late Note: G-RAP have since pointed out two coalitions that were not mentioned by respondents, but which the RAOs were known to be members of:

It is likely that a number of potentially important collations have not been mentioned. These will need to be identified and included in an update of the baseline survey data.





4.1.6 RAO involvement with regional and international organisations

 Table 5 below shows in detail the relationships summarised in columns 1,2,3 & 5 of Table 1 above. The list of organisations in the left column includes Multilaterals (11), Bilaterals (10), INGOs (47), and other African organisations (28),  in that descending order.  

Looking at the summary rows at the bottom we can see that amongst the RAOs, relationships were most common with INGOs (14 RAOs), then Bilaterals (13 RAOs), African organisations (12 RAOs) and Multilaterals (10 RAOs).

Looking at the summary column to the right we can see that more than two thirds (71) of these relationships are with one RAO only.  Figure 7 below shows the relationships between the RAOs and those other organisations which have multiple relationships with RAOs
Table 5:  RAO involvement with regional and international organisations     See Annex 4 for full names 


In Figure 7 yellow = INGOs, green = bilateral, red = multilateral donors, khaki = African organisations, and blue = RAOs
USAID and ActionAid-Ghana are the most central non-RAO  organisations in this network, in terms of their proximity to all the other actors.

Figure 7:  RAO involvement with regional and international organisations


  4.1.7. Using the baseline survey data for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes

Planning: The information presented above describes RAO's relationships with others in 2005, but it does not represent a plan for how the RAOs or G-RAP, will work with these various organisations. One means of capturing planning intentions would be for G-RAP to encourage each of the RAOs to identify which relationships it was was intending to prioritise over the next few years.  A modest attempt was made at capturing RAO relationship priorities in 2005, by asking them to allocate 100 percentage points across the relationships they had with GoG bodies, and other actors, indicating which were more versus less important to them that year. Ten of the 14 responding RAOs were willing to do so, but not always as well as expected.    

A more collective form of planning could happen via a workshop setting, where the focus was on specific aspects of the network shown above. In particular, the situations where two or more RAOs had a very similar set of relationships with particular sets of other actors. It could be argued that this is where coordination and communication between RAOs would be especially important. For example FOSDA and WANEP's relationship with Oxfam UK, Oxfam US and Ecowas shown in Figure 7. Or AWLA and WILDAF's relationships with Ghana National Commission on Women and Children, Deprtment of Social Welfare, Women and juvenile Unit, and Ghana National Chamber of Commerce, as shown in Fugure 4.

Another workshop response could be to look at the aggregated results of the relationship prioritisation exercises suggested above, and ask participants what gaps were missing. What organisations and what relationships were being neglected?

Evaluation: A similar approach can be taken with evaluation, as that proposed for planning above. The focus can be on the relative success of each actors relationships with others they are working with. This could be assessed via the use of pre-agreed performance measures and milestones, or via the use of retrospective success ranking (using pair comparisons to pull out the criteria being used). As with the priority judgments, 100 point scores could be allocated across a row of relationships with others, indicating the relative success of each relationship.

There are two possible uses of such information. With each individual RAO, their subsequent judgments about the relative success of each relationship can be compared back to their initial prioritisations. Of special interest will be the outliers: the relationships which were low priority but which became very successfull, and the relationships which were high priority but which were not successful.

The other is to aggregate each of the RAO views on their relationship priorities into one network matrix and diagram, to identify the overall consequences. It may be that some relationships with actors of common concern are over-emphasised, and others neglected.  

Similarly, success ranking of relationships could be aggregated into one network matrix and diagram, to identify the overall consequences. Evaluation activities could be usefully concentrated on those actors who seem to be at the center of multiple  "more successfull" relationships. The aggregated could also make visible a collectively constructed impact pathway, leading from one organisation to another, hopefully in the right direction (i.e. not returning around a small self-serving clique).

In the Logical Framework, and other Temporal Logic Models, there is a causal chain of expected events: Activities + Assumptions = Outputs, Outputs + Assumptions = Purpose, Purpose + Assumptions = Goal.

In network models the equivalent is a process of expected influence in the form of:  Actor + Relationship + Actor + Relationship + Actor... [but one involving multiple interacting actors, not a simple linear sequence]
From Network Models of Development Projects: An Introduction


4.2. RAO engagement with each of the four themes of the GPRS II

Eleven of the RAOs responded to questions about their engagement with GPRS II .  The number of RAOs reporting engagement with each GPRS II theme is summarised in Table 6 below

Table 6: Engagement with GPRSII  themes
# RAOs
i. Macroeconomic policies and strategies 7
ii. Private sector development 4
iii. Human resource development 4
iv. Good governance and civic responsibility 10


Figure 8 below provides more detail, showing which of the four main themes of the GPRS II that each of the NGOs is engaged with.
Lines indicate some form of RAO engagement. The survey did not identify the relative scale or importance of each NGOs' engagement with each theme. Red nodes = GPRS themes. Black nodes = surveyed RAOs. Similarity of position of 2 or more nodes usually means similarity of relationships to GPRS II themes. Length of line is not significant
Figure 8: RAO engagement with the four main themes of GPRS II


4.2.1 RAO engagement with issues within the "Good governance and civic responsibility" theme 

Using the headings provided in the relevant sections of the GPRS II document RAOs were asked about their engagement with the more specific issues associated with each of these themes. The distribution of RAO's engagement with each of the "good governance" issues is summarised in Table 6 below . "1" =  some form of NGO engagement.  

Good corporate governance was not being addressed by any of the RAOs,

Table 6: RAO engagement with specific "Good governance and civic responsibility" issues
Public Sector Reform  Decentralization  Security and Rule of Law  Challenges to governance  Governance strategies in GPRSII  Political Governance  Economic Governance  Good corporate governance  Promoting an evidence-based  decision making #  NGOs 
ABANTU             1    1       2
CDD       1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
CEPA      1 1 1 1 1 5
FOSDA     1 1
IDEG      1 1 1 1 3
IEA       1 1 1 1 4
ISODEC    1 1
ISSER     1 1 1 3
TUC      1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
WANEP    1 1 1 1 4
WILDAF   1 1 1 1 4
#  issues 5 6 4 7 2 9 6 0 3

The relationships between the different RAOs' engagement with the issues is shown in Figure 9 below
Figure 9: RAO engagement with specific "Good governance and civic responsibility" issues



4.2.2 RAO engagement with issues within the "Macro-economic policies and strategies" theme

The distribution of RAOs' engagement with the specific issues within the "Macro-economic..." theme is summarised in Table 7 below. "1" =  some form of RAO engagement.

Table  7: RAO engagement with specific issues within the "Macro-economic policies and strategies" theme
Growth Target for GPRS  Strategic Direction of GPRS  Agriculture as Basis for Economic Growth and Structural Transformation  Weaknesses and Threats to an Agriculture-Led Strategy  Other Sectors  # issues 
ABANTU             0
CDD   0
CEPA     1 1 2
FOSDA   0
IDEG     1 1 1 1 1 4
IEA     1 1 1
ISODEC   1 1 1 3
ISSER   1 1 1 3
TUC   1 1 1 1 1 5
WANEP   1 1
WILDAF   1 1 2
# NGOs 5 3 6 5 4

Figure 10: RAO engagement with specific issues within the "Macro-economic policies and strategies" theme




4.2.3 RAO engagement with issues within the "Human resource development" theme

 The distribution of  RAOs' engagement with specific issues within the "Human resource development..." theme is summarised in Table 8 below. "1" =  some form of RAO engagement.
Table  9: RAO engagement with specific issues within the Human resource development" theme
  Education, skills, manpower and sports development for accelerated growth   Access to_health care, malaria control and prevention of HIV/AIDS   Population management  Safe water and environmental sanitation   Urban development, housing and slum upgrading/urban regeneration    Social policy framework for mainstreaming the vulnerable and excluded in human resource  development   # issues 
ABANTU                     0
CDD   1 1
CEPA   1 1
 FOSDA    0
IDEG   1 1
IEA   0
ISODEC   0
ISSER   1 1 1 1 4
TUC    1 1 1 1 1 1 6
WANEP   0
WILDAF   1 1
  # NGOs 4 2 2 1 1 4


Figure 11: RAO engagement with specific issues within Human resource development" theme

4.2.4 RAO engagement with issues within the "Private sector development" theme of the GPRS II

The distribution of  RAOs' engagement with specific issues within the "Private sector development..." theme is summarised in Table 9 below. "1" =  some form of RAO engagement.
Table  9: RAO engagement with specific issues within the "Private sector development" theme
Private sector development  Improving the business and investment environment for agriculture-led growth   Linkages to other sectors support services   Developing additional sectors to support growth  # issues 
ABANTU             0
CDD    0
CEPA   0
FOSDA    0
IDEG   1 1 1 3
IEA    0
ISODEC   1 1 2
ISSER   1 1 2
TUC    1 1 1 1 4
WANEP      0
WILDAF    0
# NGOs 4 3 3 1




Figure 12: RAO engagement with specific issues within the "Private sector development" theme

4.2.5 Using this data planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes

As with relationships shown in section 4.1, RAOs with structurally similar sets of relationships to GPRS II issues might be expected to be talking to each other, to cordinate their work. At least to minimise conflicts, and ideally to maximise opportunities. Is this happening? Examples of structurally similar sets of relationships in the Figures above include ISSER and TUC in Figure 11 (Human resources), TUC and IDEG in Figure 10 (Macro-economy).

The converse of this response would be to identify, possibly in a workshop setting, where are the gaps in RAO responses. What issues seem to be neglected, when we look at the collective picture? Amongts the four themes "Good governance..." was receiving above avergage attention, but "Private sector development" and "Human resource development" were receiving much less so. Within each theme, some issues were the focus of more RAO attention than others. In the "Private sector development" theme  the "Developing additional sectors to support growth" issue was attended to by only one RAO, and a similar case can be seen in the "Human resource development" theme.

There are limitations to this part of the survey which could be overcome by further work. The menu of issues was taken from the section headings in the GPRS II document. But this list of issues was not complete, in the sense that a number of interviewed RAOs were able to report other issues of concern to them that were not listed in the GPRS II.  Possibly in a workshop setting, a revised menu list of policy issues could be generated by the RAOs, and then the same RAOs could then each indicate which are of current priority to them.

4.2.6 RAO engagement with GPRS II process

The baseline survey questionnaire included a multiple option question, about eight possible ways in which the RAOs might have participated in the GPRS II process. Their responses are shown in Table 10 below. "1" =  some form of engagement.
Table 10: RAO engagement with GPRS II process
Submitted a policy brief as input to GPRS II Comments on the draft  GPRS II document Attended workshop/seminar to discuss GPRS II Collected primary data as evidence to influence the outcome of GPRS II Mobilized CSO groups to raise an issue on the GPRS II  Provided training to members of civil society to enable them input into GPRS II Facilitated meetings of CSO/RAOs to input into GPRS II Other # activities
ABANTU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   7
CDD 1 1 2
CEPA 1 1 2
FOSDA 1 1
IDEG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
IEA 1 1 1 3
ISODEC 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
ISSER 1 1 2
TUC 1 1 1 3
WANEP 1 1 2
WILDAF 1 1 1 1 4
# NGOs 4 9 10 3 5 3 4 1


5. Sharing and updating the baseline survey results 
  1. The baseline results will be fed back to all the participating RAOs, for correction.  Small scale changes will be incorporated in the above tables and figures without explanation. Large scale changes will be used to generate new tables and figures, and there will be some explanatory comment made about the changes made. Old copies will be retained for  reference purposes. 
  2. Agreement will be sought to make the summary tables and network diagrams publicly available on the G-RAP website. 
  3. The baseline results will be updated at least annually, on the basis of information provided in the RAO Progress and Financial Reports to G-rap., and any other available sources that are reliable.

6. Availability of the collated raw data

The collated survey data is held in an Excel file. Agreement will be sought to make this data publicly available on request, subject to the users willingness to publicly share any analysis they make of the data in that file.   For more information contact  Rick Davies


7. What are the limitations of this survey?
  1. Not all the grantees responded (see list below)
  2. Some respondents (5 of 12) did not want to prioritise the importance of different relationships. This will make it more difficult to assess the significance of changes in RAO relationships during and after funding form G-RAP
  3. The data that is provided is about the existence of working relationships, but not what kind of working relationship was involved. In this respect the survey is a crude cross-section of what was going on in 2005, and much more work would be needed to detail what kinds of working relationships were taking place. Because there were working relationships, of one kind or another, with 268 different organisations some sort of selectivity in this detailing would be essential. One way of doing it is through attending to prioritised relationships, and relationships which are structurally similar to those of other key actors, and thereby raise the issue of coordination. For more on this approach, see
  4. The categories used to describe the key components of the GPRS II were taken from the headings used in a draft version of the GPRSII made available in July 2005. The heading structure was subsequently changed in the final ("November 2005)  version that became available on the NDPC website in early 2006. The categories used by a subsequent World Bank survey on donor engagement with GPRS II themes were also slightly different, partly because of particular interests, and partly because the ambivalent structure of the GPRS II document. 

ANNEXES

1. RAO respondents
2. RAO responses to the baseline survey
Respondents to Part 1
Relationships with other organisations		 Part 2
Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II)
Abantu YES YES
ARK - -
ASDR YES -
AWLA YES -
CDD YES YES
CEPA YES YES
FIDA - -
FOSDA YES YES
IDEG YES YES
IEA YES YES
ISSER YES YES
ISODEC YES YES
TWN YES -
TUC YES YES
WANEP YES YES
WILDAF YES YES
ALL 14 11

3. How the network diagrams were created

All the network diagrams on this page have been constructed with UCINET and then NetDraw. NetwDraw tries to minimise the overlap of lines connecting nodes, to make the structure of the relationships in the network as visible as possible. In some cases above, e.g. Figure 4, the resulting network diagram has then been manually adjusted to minimise overlap in labels.

4. Full list of the mentioned organisations, their acronyms, and their organisation category





Visit counter