advocacy capacity assessment of georgian ngos 2011 _eng

7/29/2019 Advocacy Capacity Assessment of Georgian NGOs 2011 _ENG

1/60

Advocacy Capacity Assessment of

Georgian NGOs

March 2011

Tbilisi, Georgia


2/60

Contents

Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................... 1Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 1Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 2

NGOs Advocacy Strengths .................................................................................................................. 2

I. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 51. Assessing NGO Advocacy Capacities: Interviewing and Textual Analysis .............................. 52. Citizens Perceptions of and Participation in NGOs: Focus Groups .......................................... 73. Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................................................... 8

II. The Advocacy Capacity of Georgian NGOs................................................................................... 91. Descriptive Information about the NGO Cohort ............................................................................ 92. An Overview of NGOs AI Scores.................................................................................................. 113. NGOs Advocacy Strengths............................................................................................................ 124. Challenges to Successful Advocacy ............................................................................................. 135. Recommendations for Furthering NGOs Advocacy Capacity .................................................. 15

III. Citizens Perceptions and Participation in NGOs ................................................................... 191. Citizens Perceptions and Awareness of NGOs Advocacy Efforts.......................................... 192. Factors Encouraging and Discouraging Citizens Participation in NGO Activities ................. 23

ANNEX 1. Interview Guide ..................................................................................................................... 27ANNEX 2. Scorecard ............................................................................................................................... 35ANNEX 3. Sample letter to NGOs......................................................................................................... 42ANNEX 4. Research Statement and Oral Consent Form .................................................................. 43ANNEX 5. Focus Group Guide .............................................................................................................. 45ANNEX 6. Individual NGO Advocacy Capacity Assessment Reports ............................................. 46ANNEX 7. List of NGOs Interviewed..................................................................................................... 46ANNEX 8. Transcripts of Focus Groups............................................................................................... 46ANNEX 9. NGO AI Scores...................................................................................................................... 47


3/60

Advocacy Capacity Assessment of Georgian NGOs

Acronyms

AI Advocacy Index

AYEG Association of Young Economists of Georgia

CSO

EWMIG-PAC

Civil Society Organization

East-West Management Institute, Inc.Policy, Advocacy, and Civil Society Development in Georgia (financed by USAID,

Georgia and implemented by East-West Management Institute, Inc.)

IDP Internally Displaced Persons

NGO

SME

Non-governmental Organization

Small and Medium Sized Enterprise

USAID United States Agency for International Development


4/60

Advocacy Capacity Assessment of Georgian NGOs 1

Acknowledgments

This Advocacy Capacity Assessment of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Georgia was

undertaken as part of the Policy, Advocacy, and Civil Society Development in Georgia (G-PAC), a project

financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under a cooperative

agreement between USAID and the East-West Management Institute, Inc. (EWMI).

The Association of Young Economists of Georgia (AYEG) conducted the research. Ana Katamidze (Head

of the AYEG Board) led the research. Senior researchers included Temur Tsitsilashvili (Research

Consultant) and Giorgi Tsimintia (Development Department Manager). Field research was conducted by

Madona Kotia (Research Fellow), Ketevan Patsatsia (Program Officer), Ketevan Chitanava (Program

Officer), Davit Merabishvili (Research Fellow), Mariam Nanitashvili (Program Officer), and Temur

Tsitsilashvili. Nicole Farnsworth, an independent consultant contracted by EWMI, provided ongoing

assistance with research design and the final report. AYEG staff members wish to express their gratitude

for the support from the G-PAC project team and the NGO representatives who kindly participated in the

research.


5/60


Executive Summary

This Advocacy Capacity Assessment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Georgia was carried

out as part of Policy, Advocacy, and Civil Society Development in Georgia (G-PAC), a project financed by

USAID under a cooperative agreement between USAID and the East-West Management Institute, Inc.

(EWMI). The overall objective of the assessment was to provide a basis for the development of ademand-driven, tailored advocacy capacity development program for G-PAC. More specifically, the

assessment aimed to:

1) Assess the capacity of Georgian NGOs to engage in effective advocacy efforts at the

regional and national levels, using the USAID Advocacy Index (AI);

2) Identify a NGO AI score for individual advocacy NGOs and an overall score for advocacy NGOs

in Georgia to serve as benchmark indicators for G-PAC;

3) Identify capacity development needs for advocacy NGOs;

4) Develop recommendations foradvocacy NGOs capacity development needs; and

5) Examine citizens perceptions and awareness of NGOs advocacy efforts, as well as what

encourages or discourages citizens from participating in NGOs advocacy efforts.

The Association of Young Economists of Georgia (AYEG) carried out the assessment in February 2011.

An independent consultant contracted by EWMI G-PAC provided ongoing capacity development

assistance to AYEG for the research design, data analysis, and final report. She drew from her

experience utilizing the USAID AI elsewhere in reviewing the validity and reliability of the findings.

The assessment involved in-depth interviews with 100 NGOs regarding their advocacy experience;1

analysis of the texts they produced texts (i.e., reports, policy papers, newsletters); and 12 focus groups

with diverse citizens in six regions. NGOs were assigned scores using the USAID AI. Scores on each of

the aforementioned components are an average of an index of factors, each scored from one to five

(where one is the lowest possible score). Summing the eight component scores produced an overall

score for each NGO, ranging from eight to forty. The cohorts overall AI score is an average of individualNGO scores: 26.3 (out of 40). The following sections describe more specifically the research findings.

NGOs Advocacy StrengthsAdvocacy Strengths are areas where NGOs scored relatively higher than on other indicators (e.g., 3.6 to3.9). Considering that the maximum possible score was five, NGOs still have room for improvement inthese areas as well. Advocacy strengths included: Identifying issues that are of vital concern to the groups constituents (3.9)

Identifying relevant government agencies and their respective roles in the issue (3.9)

Mapping at least some key stakeholders and their position on the issue (3.8)

Soliciting general public input on the issue (3.7)

Involving diverse media to produce quality coverage of the issue, towards raising public awareness

and securing public support (3.6)

Ensuring that at least a few key decision makers are receptive to the issue (3.6)

Challenges to Successful Advocacy

Challenges to successful advocacy included areas where the NGO cohort scored relatively lower (e.g.,

3.3 and below). The following challenges were identified:

1Interviews revealed that 11 NGOs were not involved in advocacy and could not be scored. The findings are

therefore based on a sample of 89 advocacy NGOs.


6/60


Diversifying financial resources, particularly local resources (2.1)

Developing comprehensive advocacy strategies (3.2): strategies rarely considered alternative

strategies or contingency plans (2.8); involved consultations with diverse stakeholders (2.8); or

identified ways to convince uncommitted/opposition groups to support their initiatives (3.2)

Sustaining advocacy after the initial project (3) and monitoring public awareness for opportunities to

renew advocacy when a desired policy was not passed (2.4)

Monitoring and follow-up advocacy (2.8): NGOs rarely assigned human resources to monitoring

policy implementation and/or its impact on beneficiaries after a policy decision was made and/or the

initial campaign concluded (2.8)

Analyzing policies relevant to their advocacy issue (3.1): NGOs, particularly those outside Tbilisi,

sometimes failed to analyze policies or did not possess sufficient skills for analysis

Drafting policies in writing, using various formats and levels of detail for different audiences (3);

NGOs policy positions were not always appropriate for their target audiences, visually attractive, or

effective (3.3). Regional NGOs were particularly weak in presenting their policy positions (2.9)

Formulating a viable policy position on the issue (3.3): the cohort did not consistently involve key

stakeholders in formulating policies (3.3); and their rationales were only sometimes coherent,

persuasive, and/or evidence-based (3.3)

Taking actions to influence policy or other aspects of the issue (3.3): NGOs only sometimes involvedmembers/citizens in direct actions (3.3); and as a cohort NGOs seldom lobbied the government

directly (3.3)

Identifying international agencies with interests in the issue and securing support (3.3): Few NGOssecured financing from multiple donors for a single advocacy effort or involved international agents inadvocating to the government

Developing active and sustainable coalitions (3.4): NGOs tended to participate sometimes incoalitions and networks. However, evidence suggested that coalitions were established based ondonor demands and were not particularly active, especially after project funding ended.

Advocacy Capacity Development Opportunities

Assist NGOs to diversify funding: NGOs rely heavily on international donors. NGOs could benefitfrom workshops or mentoring towards diversifying their local resource base.

Support comprehensive strategic planning for advocacy: NGOs could benefit from workshopsand mentoring in drafting strategic plans for advocacy, including thorough stakeholder, situation,

problem, and risk analyses, as well as developing alternative strategies and conducting monitoring

and evaluation.

Encourage NGOs to conduct post-campaign monitoring and follow-up actions: Tailored

mentoring or workshops could impart monitoring and evaluation skills to NGOs, including results-

based management techniques, project cycle management (including establishing indicators), and

cost-efficient long-term monitoring. Through its grant applications, G-PAC can encourage NGOs to

consider and plan for monitoring and follow-up actions.

Coach NGOs in formulating viable policy positions and presenting them effectively: G-PAC

could organize workshops on research design and policy analysis. Then, individualized mentoring

could support NGOs in analyzing existing policies; drafting well-written policy papers; formulating

policy positions; and presenting policy recommendations.

Enhance NGOs access to information: G-PAC could support the development of a web-portal

containing research reports, policy papers, and analyses. Perhaps G-PAC could encourage Ilia State

University to enable NGO access to online academic journals.

Improve data analysis techniques: Workshops could involve practical exercises through which

NGOs could analyze data relevant to their ongoing advocacy initiatives.


7/60


Encourage NGOs to involve stakeholders in advocacy actions: Mentoring may help NGOs

mobilize diverse stakeholders; learn strategies for overcoming citizen apathy; and identify

mechanisms for involving citizens in public actions.

Help NGOs identify and involve diverse international agencies in advocacy : G-PAC could

organize a Meet the Donors program through which various donors c ould visit regions to present

their strategic interests and funding priorities to NGOs. Then, mentoring may help NGOs identify new

fundraising options and ways to involve international agents in advocacy.

Encourage NGOs to utilize coalitions and networks: After mapping the existing coalitions,

assessing their functioning, and identifying development needs, G-PAC could hold workshops

through which NGOs might: 1) discuss prior experiences in coalitions and networks; 2) learn ways to

utilize coalitions/networks towards more effective advocacy; 3) develop better systems for

coordinating coalitions/networks; and 4) undertake coalition-building exercises on concrete issues.

Enhance organizational and project cycle management: Mentoring could assist individual NGOs

to develop internal management systems.

Improve communications and PR: Regional NGOs in particular needed support in designing

attractive public presentations and attracting diverse media coverage.

Facilitate experience sharing between advanced and relatively weaker NGOs: more advanced

NGOs could be involved in providing training and mentoring to relatively weaker NGOs, tailored totheir specific needs and interests.

Citizen Perceptions and Factors Encouraging/Discouraging Participation in NGOs:

Focus group participants vaguely understood the purpose of NGOs and knew even less about NGOs

activities. They often confused NGOs with opposition political parties.

When asked what motivated NGOs, citizens identified the government, financial interests, and/or

donors. However, NGOs sometimes undertook initiatives that benefited people, they said.

Television served as citizens main source of information about NGOs, though citizens tended not to

trust the media and said that it rarely aired objective information about NGOs.

Citizens hoped that NGOs would be a bridge between them and the government, pushing the

government to address issues such as unemployment, rising living costs, healthcare, and education.

Insufficient information about NGOs, distrust, concern over political manipulation, busy schedules,nihilism, and disbelief that NGOs have the ability to instigate change discouraged citizens from

becoming engaged in NGO activities.

Better information-sharing about NGO activities, evidence of a positive track record, and establishing

trust could encourage citizens to become more involved in NGOs.


8/60


I. Introduction

The overall objective of the Advocacy Capacity Assessment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

in Georgia was to provide a basis for the development of a demand-driven, tailored advocacy capacity

development program for G-PAC. More specifically, the NGO Advocacy Capacity Assessment aimed to:

1) Assess the capacity of Georgian NGOs in Tbilisi and the regions to engage in effective

advocacy efforts at the regional and national levels, using the USAID Advocacy Index (AI);

2) Identify a NGO AI score for individual advocacy NGOs and an overall score for advocacy NGOs

in Georgia (scores will serve as benchmark indicators for later assessing the effectiveness of G-

PAC advocacy capacity development activities);

3) Identify capacity development needs for advocacy NGOs;

4) Develop recommendations for strategies and activities to address the capacity development

needs of advocacy NGOs; and

5) Examine citizens perceptions and awareness of NGOs advocacy efforts, as well as what

encourages or discourages citizens from participating in NGOs advocacy efforts.

For the purpose of this research, advocacy NGOs was operationalized as registered, functioning NGOsinvolved in advocacy.2Advocacy was defined broadly, as an active process through which citizens seek

to influence political and social change. Drawing from the USAID AI, effective advocacy often includes

various steps: ensuring the issue is timely; devising an effective advocacy strategy; collecting information

about the issue; formulating a viable policy position; securing sufficient resources; building partnerships;

taking action; and monitoring policy changes to ensure that they are implemented well. NGOs involved in

any or all of these advocacy components were potential assessment respondents.

The assessment occurred in February 2011 and involved three methods: 1) semi-structured in-depth

interviews with 100 NGOs; 2) analysis of texts produced by NGOs (e.g., policy papers, research reports,

and public relations materials) and 3) twelve focus groups with diverse citizens. The following sections

discuss each method in further detail.

This report includes three chapters. This first chapter details the methodology. The second chapter

examines the advocacy capacity of NGOs. It describes the cohort of NGOs; examines their advocacy

strengths; explores challenges to successful advocacy; and offers recommendations for their capacity

development. The third chapter summarizes insights gleaned from the focus groups with citizens.

1. Assessing NGO Advocacy Capacities: Interviewing and Textual Analysis

Considering the research objectives, selecting a random sample of Georgias NGO population (totaling

more than 5,000 registered NGOs3) would not provide the detailed data required. Randomly selecting

NGOs from the official registration list would likely produce NGOs that either no longer existed or that

were not involved in advocacy.4 Such NGOs are not primary targets for G-PAC grants or capacity

2Since only registered NGOs involved in advocacy will qualify for G-PACs capacity-building program, they were the

focus of this assessment. Further, assessing the advocacy capacity of NGOs not involved in advocacy would be oflittle use when using the USAID AI.3

See the public registry atwww.napr.gov.ge.4

Evidence suggests that many registered NGOs are no longer operating, but have not been deregistered. Further,random sampling in small-N research such as this is inadvisable because it can easily fail to capture the full range ofvariation on the variables of interest, as King et al. warn (King, G., Keohane, & Verba, Designing Social Inquiry,
http://www.napr.gov.ge/http://www.napr.gov.ge/http://www.napr.gov.ge/http://www.napr.gov.ge/


9/60


development. In the absence of a sampling frame inclusive of all NGOs involved in advocacy, AYEG

compiled its own database of advocacy-oriented NGOs, drawing from NGO databases held by AYEG,

partner NGOs, and various donors.5 The database was circulated among journalists, including the

Association of Regional Broadcasters of Georgia, and NGOs at the regional level to identify additional

active NGOs.

Finally, 100 NGOs (or cases) that maximized variation relevant to the research were selected:

Georgian advocacy NGOs and NGO networks that are more likely to lead advocacy initiatives at the

regional and country-wide levels and, as such, also become main beneficiaries of G-PAC grant and

capacity development assistance.6 Here, variation sampling7 involved selecting diverse NGOs by

geographic location, their main area of engagement, gender (e.g., women- or men-led), age (in terms of

focus and leadership), and ethnicity.8 More developed NGOs involved specifically in advocacy work were

of intrinsic interest in that G-PAC will target them, and as such were selected for study. Due to the

sampling strategy employed, the cohort studied is not representative of all Georgian NGOs. However,

moderate, probabilistic generalizations can be made based on the following logic: if the advocacy

capacity development needs of diverse NGOs (e.g., youth/elderly; women/men; Georgian/Azeri/

Armenian, and rural/urban) prove similar, the population of NGOs involved in advocacy probably has

similar needs.9

Interviews later revealed that 11 NGOs were not involved in advocacy and could not bescored. The findings are therefore based on a sample of 89 advocacy NGOs.

Multiple observations were collected for each NGO (or case). NGOs were asked to detail multiple

examples from various prior advocacy campaigns to illustrate each factor considered in the USAID AI. 10

The scoring system acknowledges that observations can correspond or compete. For example, if an

NGO consulted with stakeholders to plan one advocacy initiative, but did not consult them on other

initiatives, the score would be lower than if stakeholders helped plan most or every initiative.

The interview guide was based on the USAID AI and involved eight advocacy components:

1) The issue is timely and significant;

2) Devising a strategy or action plan for an advocacy initiative;113) Collecting information and input about the issue;

4) Formulating a viable policy position on the issue;

5) Obtaining and/or allocating resources (especially time and money) for advocacy;

6) Building coalitions and networks to obtain cooperative efforts for joint action on the issue;

1994, cited in Collier, D., Seawright, J., & Munck, G. L., The Quest for Standards: King, Keohane, and VerbasDesigning Social Inquiry, Rethinking Social Inquiry, 2004).5AYEG partners databases included: theAssociation of Disabled Women and Mothers of Disabled Children Deaand Gori Rural Development Center (GRDC). Donors databases included USAID/EWMI/G-PAC, the EurasiaPartnership Foundation, Open Society Institute, Oxfam Novib, Oxfam Great Britain, Dutch Embassy, and SwissAgency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).6

G-PAC, Request for Proposals, November 2010.7

This is also known as theoretical or purposive sampling. For more information, see King et al., Designing SocialInquiry, 1994.8

Although the Statement of Work also referred to size, this was impossible to determine in the initial sampling phasedue to an incomplete sampling frame.9

As Payne and Williams note, small-N samples can result in moderatum generalizations that are moderate in boththeir claims (probabilistic rather than deterministic) and in their acknowledgement of the dynamic, shifting situation(Generalization in qualitative research Sociology, 2005, 39, 2:295-314).10

Here the issue of NGOs self-sampling examples from more successful advocacy initiatives existed.Researchers sought to minimize this selection bias by proactively asking NGOs about different advocacycampaigns and drawing from information on their websites.11

EWMI added this component to the USAID AI as they considered strategic planning for advocacy crucial.


10/60


7) Taking actions to influence policy or other aspects of the issue;

8) Taking follow-up actions after a policy decision is made, to foster implementation and/or to

maintain public interest.

The interview guide was reviewed multiple times and tested towards enhancing the validity of the

indicators (see Annex 1). The procedures were reliable to the extent that similar procedures have been

used elsewhere and can be replicated in Georgia. For this purpose, a USAID AI Score Card and

database were developed (see Annex 2). Each component score is an average of an index of factors,

each scored from one to five (where one is the lowest possible score). The sum of the eight component

scores makes up the overall score for a single NGO, ranging from eight to forty. The cohorts overall AI

score is an average of individual NGO scores.

When recruiting respondents, information about the research was given orally and an official letter

requesting interviews (developed by EWMI) was sent to potential respondent organizations (See Annex

3). Prior to interviews, researchers used the Internet to collect information about NGO respondents

advocacy experience. This preliminary research informed the interviews.

Two researchers attended each interview. Researchers began interviews by explaining the purpose of theresearch and requesting respondents oral consent to participate (see Annex 4). A lead interviewer

facilitated the interview while taking brief notes. A second interviewer took detailed notes and asked

additional questions, if needed.

Immediately following the interview, each researcher independently scored the NGO, using the AI Score

Card. Relevant documents collected during interviews and NGOs websites were also used in scoring.

These were analyzed in accordance with the USAID AI. To enhance validity, the researchers then

discussed scores together. Based on the evidence collected, researchers agreed on scores for each

factor. AI scores and the relevant evidence were entered into the AI database (see Annex 10). An

external reviewer with experience using the AI elsewhere reviewed the evidence and scoring, again

towards enhanced validity. Background data about NGOs was entered into a separate database.

Researchers then drafted individual reports for each NGO, including an introduction, advocacy strengths,and capacity development opportunities. Microsoft Excel was used to facilitate cross-case analysis. The

analysis focused on priority capacity development needs (dually NGOs lowest AI scores), as per the

research objectives.

2. Citizens Perceptions of and Participation in NGOs: Focus Groups

Focus groups were used to examine: 1) citizens perceptions and awareness of NGOs advocacy efforts

and 2) what encourages or discourages citizens from participating in NGOs advocacy efforts. Focus

groups are useful for learning more about a populations perceptions and experiences. However, a

limitation of this method is that findings cannot represent the views of the entire population. Again,

variation sampling sought to collect a range of perceptions and opinions suggestive of probabilistic

trends. The same logic applied: if diverse people have similar views, evidence suggests that such views

may exist within the broader population.

Twelve focus groups were conducted in the following six regions, with two meetings in each region on the

respective topics:

1) Tbilisi, the capital, where people hypothetically may have the greatest opportunity to participate in

an advocacy-oriented initiative;


11/60


2) Kvemo Kartli, where a large proportion ofGeorgiasAzeri ethnic minority is located;

3) Samtskhe-Javakheti, where the majority of GeorgiasArmenian ethnic minority is located;

4) Adjara, a region which possesses a relatively strong economy;

5) Imereti, which is also relatively economically strong; and

6) Shida Kartli, a region where numerous NGOs have been operating due to the large population of

internally displaced persons (IDPs).

Variation sampling involved selecting six to ten diverse individuals who were unknown to each other.

Respondents were recruited from the streets considering the following criteria: age; gender; employment

status; habitat (rural/urban); and prior NGO participation/non-participation.

Focus groups lasted between one and a half and two hours. A moderator led the focus groups, using a

guide developed specifically for this purpose (see Annex 5). Pending participants agreement focus

groups were recorded. The resulting transcripts were coded by two researchers and analyzed for trends,

as per the research objectives.

3. Validity and Reliability

A number of steps were taken towards enhancing validity and reliability:

External reviewers/controllers from G-PAC (Nicole Farnsworth, consultant, and Tamuna

Karosanidze, G-PAC Deputy Chief of Party) attended some interviews and focus groups to

monitor quality;

An external reviewer (Nicole Farnsworth) examined the extent to which the AI scores assigned

corresponded with the evidence provided;

Triangulation of methods: interviewing, textual analysis, and focus groups;

Triangulation of data sources: diverse NGOs, various NGO texts, and citizens;

Triangulation of researchers: two interviewers discussed observations for scoring; Similarly, two

researchers coded transcripts resulting from focus groups;

Triangulation coupled with reflexivity, in which researchers struggled with themselves and theircolleagues to identify and understand any inconsistencies in the data;

The researchers knowledge of the context: familiarity with the NGOs, their work, and prior media

coverage; and

Thick description: details of the multiple observations collected were entered into a database as

evidence or exist as transcripts from focus groups.


12/60


II. The Advocacy Capacity of Georgian NGOs

This chapter examines the advocacy capacity of NGOs in Georgia. It first describes the cohort of NGOsinvolved in the research. Second, it provides an overview of cohort scores on the Advocacy Index (AI).Third, examines NGOs advocacy strengths. Fourth, it discusses challenges to successful advocacy.Fifth, the chapter offers recommendations for furthering NGOs advocacy capacity.

1. Descriptive Information about the NGO Cohort

Of the 100 NGOs interviewed, 45 percent were Tbilisi-based and 55

percent were located in various regions (see Table 1). On average,

NGOs had nine years advocacy experience. Fifty-four percent were led

by women and 46 percent by men. Interethnic staffs, including

Armenians and Azeris, managed six NGOs while the other NGOs were

Georgian-led.

Most organizations (68) said that they were membership-based

independent NGOs (see Table 2). This may be attributed to the fact

that before the revision of the Civil Code in 2006, NGOs could registeras either foundations or membership-based unions, and many chose

the latter. However, experience suggests that membership-based

NGOs tend to have few members and/or seldom involve members

actively in their work.12 Thirteen NGO respondents were non-

membership-based independent NGOs, and 11 were branches of Georgian NGOs. Only three NGOs

were coalitions or networks. Three were funds and two were branches of foreign NGOs.

NGOs mentioned 22 different issues on which they

worked (see Chart 1 on the next page). The most

common focus areas included education (50

NGOs),13 human rights (42), local/state government

(27), rule of law (27), democracy building (21),

economy and business climate (20), youth (15),

ethnic minorities (15), health (14), and media (13).

Other focus areas included civil society development

(12 NGOs), IDPs (12), gender equality / women rights (12), persons with disabilities / special needs (12),

and social affairs (10), among others. Some organizations focused on one or two issues, while others

claimed to have more than 10 focus areas.

12Unfortunately, NGOs membership was not studied here. The Law did not specify how many members NGOs had

to have, so it is quite likely that many membership-based NGOs have as few as 5-10 members.13

Here, Education related to both the education sector and the education of citizens.

Table 1. Regional Distribution

of Interviewed Advocacy NGOs

Region #

Tbilisi 45

Adjara 7

Guria 7

Imereti 7

Kakheti 5

Kvemo Kartli 7

Racha 1

Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti 10

Samtskhe-Javakheti 4

Shida Kartli 7

Total 100

Table 2. NGO Types (according to respondents)

Type of Organization #

Branch of Foreign NGO 2

Branch of Georgian NGO 11

Coalition/Network 3Fund 3

Independent NGO (membership-based) 68

Independent NGO (not membership-based) 13


13/60


On average, NGOs said that they employed 10 full-time staff members; 56 percent had part-time

personnel (six staff on average).14

Sixty-two percent claimed to have at least one volunteer. Many

regional organizations had international volunteers (e.g., from the Peace Corps) and larger organizations

stated that they periodically involved 10 to 20 volunteers in advocacy initiatives. Evidence suggested that

NGOs tended to involve volunteers on more of an ad-hoc than systematic basis.

When asked about their key benefic iaries,

most NGOs identified citizens in general

(44), young people (35), state agencies (33),

vulnerable groups (23), and IDPs (23) (see

Chart 2). NGOs also mentioned children (21

NGOs), women (20), media or journalists

(18), minorities (10), persons with disabilities

(9), small and medium sized enterprises

(SMEs) (7), CSOs (6), and farmers (4).

Notably, all of the NGOs that indicated thatthey worked to help citizens in general

seemed to have at least one specific target

group as well. Most NGOs said that their

work benefited three to four beneficiary

groups simultaneously. A few organizations

14However, this number seems high. Unfortunately, researchers did not have any way of checking the information

provided by NGOs.


14/60


purportedly targeted up to nine groups at once. NGOs lack of clarity regarding key beneficiaries could

affect the extent to which they carry out effective advocacy initiatives.

NGOs named 97 different donors from which they

had received funds since 2007. The donors that

seemed to have supported the most advocacy NGOs

included the Eurasia Partnership Foundation (EPF)

(33 NGOs), Open Society Georgia Foundation (32),

USAID (26), European Union (23), U.S. Embassy

(13), European Commission (11), and World Bank

(10) (see Table 3). Fifty-two different donors were

named only once. While NGOs funding sources may

appear diverse, NGOs tended to rely primarily on the

aforementioned 10 main donors.

In total, NGOs listed 56 topics in which they had

received training. Trainings attended by the most advocacy NGOs included organizational management

(33 NGOs), project management (29), advocacy tools (25), fundraising (14), communications or publicrelations (14), strategic planning (11), and project writing (9) (see Chart 3). Areas in which the most NGOs

expressed interest in further training included fundraising (28 NGOs), advocacy tools (25), organizational

management (22), communications and public relations (21), project management (20), project writing

(16), and human resource management (12).

2. An Overview of NGOs AI Scores

Overall, the cohorts average score was 26.3 (out of 40). With regard to the individual components of theAI (see Chart 4), on average NGOs were relatively stronger at identifying a timely and significant issue(3.7) and collecting information and input about the issue (3.5). They were comparatively weaker at takingfollow up actions to implement and/or maintain public interests (2.8); obtaining and/or allocating resourcesfor advocacy (3.1); and devising strategies/actions plans for advocacy. The following sections take acloser look at the indicators within these components. Overall, the cohort scored close to average (3) onmost components, as would be expected based on experience employing the AI elsewhere. Clearly

Table 3. Donors Funding at Least Eight NGOs

Donor

# of NGOs

financed

Eurasia Partnership Foundation 33Open Society Georgia Foundation 32

USAID 26

European Union 23

U.S. Embassy 13

European Commission 11

World Bank 10

United Nations Development Program 9

Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs 9

Oxfam Novib 8

Dutch Embassy 8


15/60


differences existed within the cohort, and regional NGOs in particular tended to have lower scores thanTbilisi-based NGOs.

Chart 4. NGOs' Average AI Score by Components

2.8

3.3

3.4

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.2

3.7

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

8. CSO takes follow up actions to foster im plementation and/or

maintain public interest

7. CSO takes actions to i nfluence policy/other aspects of the iss ue

6. CSO builds coalitions and networks for joint action

5. CSO obtains and/or all ocates resources for advocacy

4. CSO formulates a viable pol icy position on the iss ue

3. CSO collects information and input about the is sue

2. CSO devises strategy/action plan for its advocacy initiative

1. Issue is timely and significant

3. NGOs Advocacy Strengths

Advocacy Strengths are areas where NGOs scored relatively higher than on other indicators (e.g.,scores of 3.6 to 3.9). However, considering that the maximum score is five, NGOs still have room forimprovement in these areas as well. Overall, NGOs advocacy strengths included:

Identifying issues that are ofvital concern to the groups constituents(3.9): NGOs determined

beneficiaries needs using evidence obtained via research, review of secondary data, public

meetings, and consultations with target groups. For example, 25 NGOs had carried out needs

assessments to inform their advocacy campaigns.

15

Their key sources included statistical data,various reports, human stories, meetings with different clients, and papers produced as part of other

advocacy initiatives. NGOs focusing on specific issues (e.g., gender, youth, environment) tended to

possess more data about beneficiaries needs.

Identifying relevant government agencies and their respective roles in the issue at national

and local levels (3.9): Many NGOs had established connections with government agencies and

understood the relevant agencies' knowledge and/or positions on the issue. They usually identified

the positions of state officials via personal meetings, analyses of official speeches, and participation

in conferences and/or committee meetings. Tbilisi-based NGOs tended to have better access to

central government representatives than organizations located outside Tbilisi.

Mapping at least some key stakeholders and their positions on the issue (3.8) as part ofadvocacy strategies.

Soliciting general public input on the issue (3.7): NGOs tended to collect at least some general

public input via public meetings, focus groups, debates, and observation through field visits. In some

15NGOs did not always specify what they meant by needs assessments. Probing by researchers suggested that

disparity existed between Tbilisi-based NGOs and regional NGOs: Tbilisi-based NGOs were able to conduct surveysin accordance with respected research standards, but many regional NGOs did not abide by such standards.


16/60


instances, the method(s) employed for collecting input could have been more appropriate or input

more diverse. For example, some NGOs surveyed citizens, but their samples were unrepresentative.

Regional NGOs in particular tended to be less familiar with research design and respected research

standards. Some NGOs ensured input from diverse citizens, including women and minorities.

Involving diverse media to produce quality coverage of the issue, towards raising public

awareness and securing public support (3.6): Tbilisi-based NGOs cooperated primarily with

national-level media, whereas regional NGOs tended to have close relations with local media and

very limited relations with national media. NGOs had additional communication tools: publishing their

own newspapers, magazines, or leaflets; launching Facebook pages; and disseminating e-

newsletters. Some NGOs trained journalists about particular advocacy issues.

Ensuring that at least a few key decision-makers are receptive to the issue (3.6): NGOs tended

to ensure that at least a few key decision-makers were receptive to their advocacy initiative. Tbilisi-

based NGOs working primarily on legislative initiatives tended to have assigned staff members who

sought to secure MPs support. Regional NGOs struggled to reach decision-makers at the central

level, however. Despite some NGOs ad hoc efforts, few NGOs seemed to have a systematic

approach to securing decision-makers support. Receptiveness seemed to result from long-termcommunication and/or personal contacts.

4. Challenges to Successful Advocacy

Those areas where the NGO cohort scored relatively lower (e.g., 3.3 and below) can be consideredchallenges to successful advocacy. The following key challenges were identified:

Diversifying financial resources, particularly local resources (2.1): Almost all of the NGOs

depended almost exclusively on foreign donor funding for their advocacy campaigns. Only business

associations had accumulated significant financial resources from their members.16 Approximately ten

NGOs had secured contributions from private companies for particular advocacy campaigns. Up to 30

NGOs had collected some resources by offering services like trainings, research, and consultations.

However, such non-grant income represented only 10 to 20 percent of their annual budgets and was

not used solely for advocacy. Diversifying their local resource base could enable NGOs to sustain

their advocacy efforts beyond international donor-funded projects and to secure greater ownership

from local stakeholders.

Developing a comprehensive advocacy strategy (3.2): NGOs tended to have advocacy action

plans so long as their initiatives were part of donor-funded projects. When NGOs implemented

advocacy initiatives without donor funding, written strategies or action plans were uncommon. Written

strategies rarely considered alternative strategies or contingency plans in case their initial strategies

faced obstacles (2.8). On average, NGOs consulted with a few stakeholders to compile their strategy,

rather than consulting extensively with diverse stakeholders (2.8). Further, on average, NGOs rarely

considered within their strategy ways to convince uncommitted or opposition groups to support theirinitiatives (3.2). Instead, they usually preferred to work with stakeholders who already supported

them. Even though up to 50 percent of the cohort declared that they had received various trainings in

planning and management, few used such skills and knowledge in practice.

16For example, for some NGOs, companies paid annual membership fees averaging $1,000.


17/60


Maintaining advocacy (3) and monitoring public awareness for opportunities to renew

advocacy when a desired policy is not passed (2.4): When a desired policy was not passed, some

NGOs maintain minimal, ad-hoc advocacy. Most waited for time to pass or the climate to change

before renewing advocacy efforts. NGOs tended to repeat prior advocacy actions rather than

considering or employing alternative strategies. Similarly, very few (if any) NGOs monitored public

awareness and interest to identify opportunities for renewing pressure on an issue. Rather, NGOs

tended to believe that success on certain issues depended completely on political will and the existing

situation; they had minimal influence in changing the status quo, they said.

Taking follow-up advocacy actions (2.8): NGOs rarely assigned staff or volunteer time to

monitoring after a policy decision was made and/or the initial advocacy campaign concluded (2.8).

Only ten NGOs reported carrying out systematic, post-campaign monitoring (3.1). Some NGO leaders

said that they would like to conduct monitoring, but usually projects funded by international agencies

did not enable such actions.

Analyzing policies relevant to their issue (3.1): Only 25 NGOs analyzed multiple policies relevant

to their advocacy issue. Almost all of them were either Tbilisi-based, or branch offices of NGOs at the

national level. Other organizations sometimes failed to analyze relevant policies appropriately and/ordid not have sufficient skills for analysis. This potentially negatively affected their ability to carry out

effective advocacy campaigns or to make viable policy recommendations.

Drafting policies in writing, using various formats and levels of detail (3): 22 NGOs usually

produced two or more formats and versions of their policy documents. They tended to prepare one

version for decision-makers and experts and another for the public. However, most NGOs had only

one written version, which was not always appropriate. Nor did NGOs regularly present their policy

positions in attractive and effective formats (3.3). Regional NGOs were particularly weak in presenting

visually their policy positions (2.9) compared to those in Tbilisi (3.8). Most Tbilisi-based NGOs tended

to use graphs, illustrations, and photos.

Formulating a viable policy position on the issue (3.3): Only 34 percent of the cohort usuallyinvolved some stakeholders in formulating their policy position in a participatory manner (3.3). In

general, the cohort only sometimes involved stakeholders and/or failed to include key stakeholders.

Policy positions were not always gender sensitive. NGOs tended to involve direct beneficiaries, rather

than decision-makers in drafting policy positions. Only four NGOs had introduced draft policy

positions to key decision-makers prior to publishing. Further, NGOs rationales for their policy

positions were only sometimes coherent, persuasive, and/or evidence-based (3.3). Regional NGOs in

particular struggled to present a coherent rationale. NGOs policy analyses tended to be poorly

communicated to wider audiences or inclusive of too much irrelevant data.

Drafting legislation (3.1): Overall, 22 NGOs had drafted legislation. Indeed, drafting legislation is not

necessarily within the mandate or capacities of all NGOs. NGOs at the national level draftedlegislation more often than those at the municipal level. Regional-based NGOs sometimes

contributed by drafting policy analyses and recommendations.

Taking actions to influence policy or other aspects of the issue (3.3): NGOs only sometimes

involved members or citizens in direct actions (3.3), such as street actions, marathons, initiative

groups, and community mobilizing. NGOs working nationwide often lobbied for their policy position

(3.3), whereas other NGOs lobbied relatively rarely. Sometimes beneficiaries and stakeholders were

involved, sharing stories and information.


18/60


Identifying international agencies with interests in the issue and securing support (3.3): NGOs

tended to identify and apply for support from one or two international agencies interested in their

advocacy issue. Few NGOs ever secured financing from multiple donors for a single advocacy effort.

Tbilisi-based NGOs were more able to secure financing from donors than regional NGOs.

Developing active and sustainable coalitions (3.4): NGOs tended to participate sometimes in

coalitions and networks. However, evidence suggested that coalitions were established based on

donor demands and were not particularly active, especially after project funding ended.

5. Recommendations forFurthering NGOs Advocacy Capacity

Drawing from the aforementioned challenges to successful advocacy, best practices identified in the

USAID AI, and the aforementioned training needs identified by NGOs, G-PAC might consider the

following interventions towards furthering NGOs advocacy capacity:

Assist NGOs to diversify their funding: Georgian NGOs tend to rely heavily on donor funds. NGOs

could benefit from workshops or individualized mentoring on how to diversify their funding base. In

particular, there is potential for improving cooperation between NGOs and socially responsible

businesses. Roundtables with participants from different sectors could facilitate communication and

identification of common interests. NGOs members could serve as another untapped resource. While

most NGOs claimed to be membership-based organizations, few collected membership dues.

Workshops or mentoring towards creating membership services plans; offering services or programs

that meet members needs; and recruiting new members could help NGOs build their membership

base and secure broader ownership of and support for their advocacy initiatives. Workshops on

identifying donors, drafting project proposals, and project cycle management could be particularly

useful for regional organizations. They could also benefit from mentoring in 1) fundraising from the

general public or specific interest groups for concrete initiatives (i.e., targeted fundraising); and 2)

carrying out income generation activities (i.e. services, training, research).

Support comprehensive strategic planning for advocacy: Few NGOs developed strategic

advocacy plans that consider diverse stakeholders interests (including opponents), alternative

strategies, and monitoring or follow-up actions. Promoting the importance of detailed planning for

effective advocacy, regardless of donors request, is crucial. NGOs could benefit from workshops and

individualized mentoring in drafting advocacy strategies, including conducting thorough stakeholder

analyses, situation analyses, problem analyses, risk analyses, and monitoring and evaluation. This

could be paired with G-PAC grants via pilot advocacy campaigns, where consultants could assist

NGOs in designing effective advocacy initiatives and then be available for consultation during

implementation and post-campaign monitoring.

Encourage NGOs to conduct post-campaign monitoring and follow-up actions: NGO

respondents rarely engaged in follow-up actions when their desired policy was not passed or in

monitoring the mid- to long-term impact of their advocacy initiatives on beneficiaries. Tailored

mentoring or workshops could impart monitoring and evaluation skills to NGOs, including results-

based management techniques, project cycle management (including establishing indicators), and

cost-efficient long-term monitoring. This could be part of coaching provided to NGOs during the

suggested pilot advocacy campaigns. G-PAC could also take the lead in supporting, as well as

encouraging other donors to support NGOs follow-up projects that monitor the results of prior

advocacy initiatives, how policy changes impact stakeholders over time, and the extent to which


19/60


approved policies are implemented. Through its grant applications, G-PAC can encourage NGOs to

consider and plan for monitoring and follow-up actions.

Coach NGOs in formulating viable policy positions and presenting them effectively: NGOs

tended to have a relatively poor understanding of how to conduct comprehensive policy analyses and

draft effective policy recommendations. First, towardsimproving NGOs research and analytical skills,

G-PAC could organize workshops on research design and policy analysis. Then, individualized

mentoring could support NGOs in analyzing existing policies; drafting well-written, evidence-based

policy papers; formulating policy positions; and presenting concrete policy recommendations in

visually appealing formats tailored to diverse audiences. This learning-by-doing approach could

include mentors reviewing NGOs draft papers and providing recommendations for improvement.

Regional NGOs in particular could benefit from such hands-on mentoring.

Enhance NGOs access to information: NGOs, particularly those located in regions, lacked access

to existing research, policy papers, and analytical reports that could inform their policy papers. G-PAC

could support the development of a web-portal with local and international research reports,

resources, policy papers, and analyses relevant to Georgia. Perhaps G-PAC could encourage Ilia

State University to create a sustainable program through which NGOs could sign up for free orsubsidized access to academic journals online (e.g., LexisNexis, JSTOR, EBSCOhost) This could

facilitate NGOs access to lessons learned internationally.

Improve data analysis techniques: Many NGOs collected useful information and conducted solid

research, but then struggled to analyze the data. This hampered their ability to present solid evidence

for their advocacy initiatives. A series of workshops on data analysis could target NGOs at different

levels. Workshops could involve practical exercises through which NGOs could analyze already

collected data relevant to their ongoing advocacy initiatives.

Encourage NGOs to involve stakeholders in advocacy actions: In general, NGOs do not involve

their members, citizens, or other stakeholders effectively in advocacy campaigns. Mentoring may help

NGOs identify which groups could participate in direct actions; how to mobilize diverse stakeholdersupport; strategies for overcoming citizen apathy; and concrete techniques for involving citizens in

public actions (e.g., letter writing, petitioning, and new information communication technologies like

Facebook).

Help NGOs identify and involve diverse international agencies in their advocacy campaigns :

Training in fundraising was requested by the most NGOs (28). Regional NGOs in particular lack

knowledge about which international agencies may support their advocacy efforts. First, G-PAC could

develop a donor matrix with information about donors and their funding priorities, which could be

shared with NGOs. Then, perhaps G-PAC could organize a Meet the Donors program through

which various donors could visit regions to present their strategic interests and funding priorities to

NGOs. At the same time, NGOs could share information about their work and initiatives, towardsidentifying areas of common interest. Then, as NGOs generally know basic theories of fundraising but

struggle to transfer these into practice, follow-up mentoring may help individual NGOs identify new,

tailored fundraising options. Here, NGOs could also learn non-financial ways to involve international

stakeholders, such as in advocating to the government. Finally, G-PAC could encourage NGOs to

consider how involving diverse international (and national) stakeholders might support their advocacy

efforts via questions on its grants application.


20/60


Encourage NGOs to utilize coalitions and networks: While numerous coalitions exist in Georgia,

few NGOs seem to participate actively in coalitions. Many coalitions appear to be donor-driven, falling

apart when funding ends. An important first step towards strengthening coalitions could be mapping

the existing coalitions and networks, assessing their functioning, and identifying development needs.

Then, G-PAC could hold workshops through which NGOs could: 1) discuss lessons learned from their

prior experiences in coalitions and networks (participants can identify and study challenges and

successes); 2) learn ways to utilize coalitions and networks towards more effective advocacy; 3)

develop better systems for cooperation and coordination in existing coalitions and networks; and 4)

undertake coalition-building exercises (simulations) on specific advocacy issues.

Develop advocacy tools: This was the second most requested training (identified by 25 NGOs).

Here, NGOs interests included utilizing modern media tools for advocacy; building relationships with

key decision-makers; and attracting and involving diverse stakeholders in their advocacy efforts.

Mentoring could follow training, linking theory with concrete practices, relevant to NGOs ongoing

advocacy campaigns. Experience-sharing workshops may enable NGOs to exchange best practices

and gain new knowledge and skills.

Enhance organizational management: Although 33 organizations had attended training in NGOmanagement, 22 NGOs requested such training.

17 In addition to group training, mentoring could

assist individual NGOs to develop internal management systems adjusted to their specific needs.

Mentors could follow-up, monitoring how newly established systems functioned and offering

additional assistance, as needed. Improved internal management could make NGOs advocacy

efforts more effective and efficient.

Improve project cycle management: Related, although 29 NGOs had attended training on project

management, 20 NGOs requested such training. More specifically, NGOs requested training towards

solving concrete challenges within the Georgian context and improving efficiency.Again, training

followed by mentoring might address NGOs individual needs, as well as the gap between what

NGOs have learned in theory and what they do in practice.

Improve communication and PR: While 14 NGOs had attended public relations (PR) training, 21

requested such training. Evidence suggested that regional NGOs in particular needed support in

designing attractive presentations and establishing relationships with diverse media outlets. Even for

NGOs that ensured media coverage, room exists for improving quality and quantity.18 G-PAC could

develop a series of workshops to further NGOs communication skills. Media representatives could

participate in some workshops, sharing tips on how NGOs could secure better coverage or make

their issues hot. Such workshops could also foster better relations between media and NGOs.

Facilitate experience sharing between advanced and relatively weaker NGOs: Linking

experienced NGOs with newer NGOs, circulating Georgian advocacy success stories, and arranging

experience-sharing discussions may support nascent NGOs and facilitate advocacy-orientedcooperation among NGOs. Experienced NGOs with similar focus areas could meet with less

experienced regional NGOs to discuss techniques and identify opportunities for cooperation. NGO

leaders were particularly interested in discussions surrounding the Georgian Context where

challenging and successful cases of advocacy could be presented and discussed.

17For example, in Guria, organizations faced serious human resource availability issues.

18This was particularly clear considering citizens lack of knowledge regarding NGOs (see the next chapter).


21/60


Overall, NGOs leaders hoped that advocacy capacity development opportunities offered by G-PAC wouldbe both practical and participatory. For a summary of the proposed capacity development options, seeTable 4.

Table 4. Summary of Proposed Capacity Development Interventions

Capacity Development Issue

Recommended Methods

Training/Workshop

Mentoring Other

Advocacy tools (different advocacy stages) X X Experience-sharing workshops

Project cycle management X X

Data analysis X

Communication and PR X X Workshops with different target

groups to support networking

Fundraising and diversifying resources X X Meet the Donors Program

Advocacy strategic planning X

Post-campaign monitoring and follow-up actions X

Policy formulation and presentation X

Access to information Web-portal; working with

universities

Involving stakeholders & international agencies in

advocacy campaigns

X

Coalition building X

Organizational management X X

Experience sharing X Experience sharing sessions


22/60


III. Citizens Perceptions and Participation in NGOs

Twelve focus groups conducted in February 2011 examined: 1) citizens perceptions and awareness of

NGOs advocacy efforts; and 2) what encourages or discourages citizens from participating in NGO s

advocacy efforts. The following two sections address each of the research questions, respectively.

1. Citizens Perceptions and Awareness of NGOs Advocacy Efforts

Participants in the focus groups on Citizens perceptions and awareness of NGOs advocacy efforts

tended to be unfamiliar with NGOs, their activities, and purpose. The following comments illustrate

recurring themes:

People are not well informed about NGOs.

In my opinion, only one percent of the rural population knows what NGOs are.

I know NGOs like World Vision because Ive seen their car driving around the city.

USAID is an NGO! [Another participant commented: No, it is something international.]

We know the opposition [parties and politicians]; we know the position [of the government], but

we dont know the NGOs.

A recurring trend among participants was to confuse NGOs with political parties, especially the

opposition:

NGOs are in the [political] opposition, right?

The NGO is out [of the government] like Targamadze.19

I was searching for NGOs, and I asked everyone, and nobody told me where they are. People

said, They are like opposition parties.

An exceptional few had a foggy notion of what NGOs do:

They are independent from the government. They have their own opinions and help people.

I think they also get some grants and write some projects.

When I hear the term NGO, the first thing that comes to my mind is free consultations.

They [NGOs] are involved in politics, in social justice, in religion

NGOs have done much for people with disabilit ies, I knowbut I dont know exactly who has

done what.

19The respondent was referring to Giorgi Targamadze, a Member of Parliament in the opposition.


23/60


Respondents indicated that the extensive media coverage of NGO activities after the Georgia-Russia war

in August 2008 contributed to their understanding of NGOs:

I have heard that NGOs helped people by giving aid and providing free health care for IDPs.

They [NGOs] are working for people and after the war NGOs helped IDPs.

When asked what motivated NGOs, participants identified patriotism, a love of people, government, and

financial interests:

The government needs NGOs; it uses them. NGOs are attached to government.

In the past there were NGOs. Now there are NGOs under the governments umbrella.

The Ramishvili20

organization is an NGO that stands with the government. We need those who

will stand with people.

They want a united Georgia. This is their motivation.

NGOs are driven by financial interests; they get some money for various activities. But NGOs

work for people as well, I think.

Again, a noticeable recurring trend was the perception that NGOs were attached to the government

and/or were oppositional political parties. Another recurring theme was that NGOs are a kind of bridge

between citizens and the government and that they work on social issues.

Respondents generally believed that NGOs selected issues based on surveys that they conducted.

However, discussions about these surveys reiterated some citizens confusion of NGOs and political

parties. NGO surveys sometimes sounded more like political party actions. Other respondents indicated

that NGOs select issues dictated by donor agencies:

They [NGOs] sometimes come to us, organize meetings in the streets, and ask for our priority

problems.

They came from NGOs, called the people to come out of their houses, and asked us: What do

you need? What problems you have? How can we help you? [They said they would] renovate the

elevators, the roofs of the houses, and help us with financial and health problems.

There were cases when I was stopped at the entrance of metro stations. I dont remember who

exactly they were, but they [possibly NGO representatives] asked me questions like: How many

people are in my family? How much do we earn? How satisfied am I with life? And they alsorequested my signature.

After the Rose Revolution, NGOs became off-side [financing was significantly reduced, there

was a brain drain as many entered the government, and many NGOs lost their influence]

NGOs are dictated by donors. NGOs have no more resources to do what they want to do.

20The respondent referred to Levan Ramishvili, leader of the NGO Liberty Institute (seewww.liberty.ge).
http://www.liberty.ge/http://www.liberty.ge/http://www.liberty.ge/http://www.liberty.ge/


24/60


NGOs are just filling the gap in the governments activities.

When asked if they could name specific NGOs, participants were often confused. They could remember

only a few by name:

[Which NGOs have you heard about?] The Young Lawyers Association. [Why?] Because they

are the most active. They care about people .

NGOs sound like opposition parties, but I know that this is financed by foreign organizations like

the Soros Organization.21 I know for example an NGO called Article 42.22

I remember there is one NGO Union of Citizens of Georgia,23 No, sorry. This is an Orthodox

movement which fights for Orthodox beliefs, and it is called the Orthodox Parents Union.24

I have also heard about an NGO called The Blood Bank.25

They got some financial support and

now they are very active.

We need NGOs like Kmara,26

which will be useful for people.

Eka Tutberidze [confused with Tea Tutberidze] also has an NGO and is against our Patriarch.27

I have heard about the NGO CARE.28 They have done much in the villages.

Is the Red Cross an NGO? [] The Red Cross helped me very much: my brother was kidnapped

in Tskhinvali29 and they [ICRC] rescued him from jail.

I know Unicap [meaning UNICEF]. This NGO is doing much for children.

I know Democrat Meskhs Union.30 They are really helping people.

Aldagi31 was an NGO. BP32 is a NGO.

21The respondent meant the Open Society Georgia Foundation (seewww.osgf.ge).

22Seewww.article42.ge.

23This is a currently inactive political party established by former president Eduard Shevardnadze (see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Citizens_of_Georgia).24

Media coverage of this NGO can be found at:http://georgiamediacentre.com/category/tags/orthodox_parents_union andhttp://economist.com.ge/news_details.php?id=326&version=490.25

See LCC Blood Bank atwww.blood.com.ge.26

Kmara is a Georgian word, which translates as Enough; this was a Georgian civic resistance movement, which

undermined the government of Eduard Shevardnadze. Kmara led the protests that precipitated his downfall in whatbecame known as the Rose Revolution.27

Media coverage on this issue is at:http://georgiamediacentre.com/content/tea_tutberidzes_swear_word_assault_patriarch.28

CARE is an international NGO in the Caucasus:www.care-caucasus.org.ge.29

The de facto government of South Ossetia considers the administrative border into South Ossetia a state borderand arrests Georgians crossing this international borderillegally.30

This is a local NGO in Akhaltsikhe.31

Aldagi BCI is an insurance company (seewww.aldagibci.ge).32

British Petroleum is also a company (see www.bp.com). In Akhaltsikhe areas, where BP was mentioned in a focusgroup, BP compensated landowners when it constructed the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline.
http://www.osgf.ge/http://www.osgf.ge/http://www.osgf.ge/http://www.article42.ge/http://www.article42.ge/http://www.article42.ge/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Citizens_of_Georgiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Citizens_of_Georgiahttp://georgiamediacentre.com/category/tags/orthodox_parents_unionhttp://economist.com.ge/news_details.php?id=326&version=490http://www.blood.com.ge/http://www.blood.com.ge/http://www.blood.com.ge/http://georgiamediacentre.com/content/tea_tutberidzes_swear_word_assault_patriarchhttp://georgiamediacentre.com/content/tea_tutberidzes_swear_word_assault_patriarchhttp://www.care-caucasus.org.ge/http://www.care-caucasus.org.ge/http://www.care-caucasus.org.ge/http://www.aldagibci.ge/http://www.aldagibci.ge/http://www.aldagibci.ge/http://www.bp.com/http://www.bp.com/http://www.aldagibci.ge/http://www.care-caucasus.org.ge/http://georgiamediacentre.com/content/tea_tutberidzes_swear_word_assault_patriarchhttp://www.blood.com.ge/http://economist.com.ge/news_details.php?id=326&version=490http://georgiamediacentre.com/category/tags/orthodox_parents_unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Citizens_of_Georgiahttp://www.article42.ge/http://www.osgf.ge/


25/60


As the last quotation illustrates, participants sometimes confused NGOs with private companies.

Participants main source of information about NGOs seemed to be television:

TV stations cover NGO activities very rarely and in small parts, but I have seen them quite

frequently on Aku [TV].33

On TV I have seen the issue of child abuse and that there are some ten NGOs who are working

on this, but only three [NGOs] are active.

I have seen on TV34 that an NGO was helping youth find employment, but when I wanted to find

this NGO, nobody could tell me where they were.

[Have you ever seen any information about NGOs on the Internet?] No, never.

Respondents opinions about NGOs appeared to be influenced by TV, which has relatively poor coverage

of NGOs work. Further, participants considered television a rather unreliable source of information. A

respondent commented, [Television stations] make the coverage as they want. Television is not free;

they are under pressure from the government.

When asked what issues they would like to see NGOs addressing, participants described problems that

they faced in their everyday lives. In general, citizens felt that NGOs should take responsibility for bringing

peoples concerns to the government:

They need to work on improving our standard of living. The prices of everything are increasing

and people have financial difficulties. I wish that they would stand with us, and we will do the same

for them. They should help us to decrease the prices. The prices of utilities, electricity, water, have

greatly increased.

They need to be between the people and government [facilitate the dialogue]. The NGOs should

work for our employment.

They should be more active in ensuring accessible and quality health care services .

They should bring our problems to the government; they have more power than ordinary

citizens.

The NGOs should try to reduce prices of medicines.

NGOs should open factories to employ people .

They should work on agriculture, sports, education, and economic issues.

They should be mediators between us and Mr. President .

Another recurring trend was respondents hope that NGOs would interact more with citizens:

33Aku is a nickname of Davit Akubardia, the founder of Kavkasia TV (see:www.kavkasiatv.ge).

34They saw it on Trialeti TV, a local television station in Shida Kartli.
http://www.kavkasiatv.ge/http://www.kavkasiatv.ge/http://www.kavkasiatv.ge/http://www.kavkasiatv.ge/


26/60


First, a research of needs should be conducted, and then a peaceful demonstration in front of the

governments officeshould be organized.

They should come to our districts, and even if they do not do anything, they could just give us

verbal or moral support.

They should win our trust and we will follow them .

2. Factors Encouraging and Discouraging Citizens Participation in NGO Activities

None of the focus group participants had ever approached an NGO for assistance with addressing their

concerns, largely due to insufficient information:

I dont know where to go and to whom to apply. There is an information vacuum. I have some

problems, but who [which NGO] can help me? But, for instance, I know that if I need some

assistance I can go to the Young Lawyers Association.35 They even fight against domestic

violence.

Over 90 percent of citizens dont know where to find an NGO with which to be engaged .

People dont see NGOsmaybe the government doesnt allow NGOs to be seen.

If I knew that there were NGOs, I would for sure apply to them to help me.

Participants knew that other people had received assistance from NGOs. However, they struggled to offer

concrete examples:

I never needed an NGOs assistance and dont personally know anyone who has needed this, but

I have heard on TV that NGOs have helped many people.

I remember an NGO [unknown title] that has helped people.

I remember there was an NGO that helped people with disabilities by giving them free food.

They were financed by foreign NGOs .

Some participants expressed disappointment with NGOs:

NGOs spend only 20 percent of their finances on the people .

Im not pleased with CAREs activities [in Akhaltsikhe]. They gave five sacks of potato seeds andtold us to give back 15 sacks. What is this?! Ok, I will give 15 sacks of seed, but not to CARE: it is

better to give to other farmers.

Im not pleased with Mercy Corps activities; they built a road in such a way that after the rain it

was completely destroyed.

35The respondent referred to the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (seewww.gyla.ge).
http://www.gyla.ge/http://www.gyla.ge/http://www.gyla.ge/http://www.gyla.ge/


27/60


Other respondents were satisfied with the work of NGOs and provided concrete examples:

I am pleased that NGOs are helping children. I have heard that they have also solved the water

supply issues in villages.

NGOs brought firewood for free. I asked the driver, Who is sending this firewood? And he told

me that it was from an NGO. Many thanks for this.

I remember the school was half-built and NGOs started to work on this issue with the local

government [] now children are studying in this school [] this is great.

I am very pleased with NGO activities. For instance, one NGO had psychologists sent to

prisoners to help them.

Participants said they were engaged in prior NGO activities as survey respondents, volunteers, trainees,

and participants in demonstrations:

I sometimes participated in NGO surveys [but dont remember the details]. They are coming tomy house and they ask questions.

I was working as a volunteer. I was calling vulnerable families to inform them about the aid

available. I was doing this because it was a pleasure to help the poor.

I participated in a training organized by Fair Elections.36 It was really useful.

I am working as a minibus driver and I have participated in demonstrations. We got a result, but I

dont know if this demonstration was organized by an NGO. The result was attached to the local

city halls kind decision afterwards on TV.37

One participant had attended a free accounting and computer literacy course, designed to help peoplesecure a job. Overall, however, citizens participation seemed relatively passive. Again, participants

seemed to lack information about NGOs. Participants emphasized the importance of making information

about NGO activities more available. Some citizens were interested in becoming involved in NGOs: I

would like to join an NGO as a volunteer to collect information, a respondent commented.I could also

work physically [] where are they [NGOs]?

Other citizens were skeptical. Fear prevented some citizens from participating in NGOs activities. They

were wary of someone (mis)using them. They did not want to encounter problems or serve someone

elses personal interests. Thus, distrust discouraged people from participating in NGOs:

There are some NGOs, who collect money in the streets to help other people. We dont knowwhere this money goes in the endwe dont trust them.

36The respondent referred to the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) (see www.isfed.ge).

37In 2009, Batumi City Hall announced minimum requirements for minibus owners to retain their licenses. The City

Hall gave minibus owners very little time to upgrade their minibuses. A local NGO, the Institute of Democracy,organized a demonstration of 350 minibus drivers/owners. As a result, the City Hall changed the time schedule: oneyear was given to minibus owners to meet the new standards. In the end, however, participants attributed the resultto the City Hall rather than the NGO organizers.
http://www.isfed.ge/http://www.isfed.ge/http://www.isfed.ge/http://www.isfed.ge/


28/60


I will not join an NGO for someone elses sake.

Many [people] think that they [NGOs] are connected with opposition parties, and they fear that if

they join an NGO in its activities, they might have some problems with the government. People

dont know who the NGOs are and so they have fear.

Im a 20-year-old girl; nobody listens to me []. In the meetings organized by local government,

when discussing local problems, only men are represented [] . I dont want to have the same

situation when working with NGOs []. Also, the problem is that we never thought that NGOs

could help us.

Peoples self-perceived lack of skills and knowledge may present another obstacle. A respondent

commented, NGOs require good knowledge of English, computer skills you need to be a professional

lawyer or economist to work with an NGO. Citizens also doubted that they (or anyone) could affect

change:

People have no more belief in anythingif I join an NGO, how will this matter?

Does an NGO need me? What do they want me to do? How do I know who they are? I dont want

to be engaged in such activities that again will [not have results].

I am an IDP from Abkhazia and I lived in the Hotel Medea in Batumi. When they [the government]

pushed us out of the building, only the NGOs stood with us and helped. But unfortunately the

NGOs were not strong enough to change the governments decis ion.

Participants also commented that people were too busy with their everyday lives to become involved in

NGOs: People are worried more about their own families and their everyday lives, rather than about the

public interest. Participants struggled to identify factors that could stimulate citizens involvement in

NGOs:

If we know that NGOs have done something, something good for society, it will for sure motivate

us to be engaged in their activities.

We need some trust and the belief that NGOs can really do something.

We also need to be paid for our involvement.

Thus, establishing a positive track record, trust, and financial compensation were among the motivating

factors mentioned. Participants also tended to agree that the dissemination of more information was

crucial for involving people in NGO activities. Participants expressed interest in receiving more

information about NGOs and their activities. For example, NGOs could organize special TV shows andhave more public outreach activities to inform citizens about their work, participants said. They also

suggested that NGOs go out into the street and meet the citizens that they purport to represent:

We know some NGOs, some three or four, which are active [in TV]. But we dont know the

others. What do they do? We need more information.


29/60


It is not enough that NGOs are only shown in small parts on TV. For instance, Nana Kakabadze

represents the NGO Article 42 [actually she leads the NGO Former political prisoners for human

rights38]. They should go to the people and explain what they can offer them.

NGOs could also have more special TV shows [] and then people will be better informed about

them.

NGOs should meet the people people do not know them.

In conclusion, the focus groups revealed the following key findings:

Citizens vaguely understood the purpose of NGOs and knew even less about NGOs activities. They

often confused NGOs with opposition political parties.

When asked what motivated NGOs, citizens identified the government, financial interests, and/or

donors. However, NGOs sometimes undertook initiatives that benefited people, they said.

Citizens hoped that NGOs would be a bridge between them and the government, particularly

pushing the government to address issues such as unemployment, the rising cost of living,

healthcare, and education. Television served as citizens main source of information about NGOs, though citizens tended not to

trust the media and said that it rarely aired objective information about NGOs.

Insufficient information about NGOs, distrust, concern over political manipulation, busy schedules,

nihilism, and disbelief that NGOs have the ability to instigate change discouraged citizens from

becoming engaged in NGO activities.

Better information sharing about NGO activities, evidence of a positive record of accomplishments,

and establishing trust could encourage citizens to become more involved in NGOs.

38Seehttp://fpphr.org.ge.
http://fpphr.org.ge/http://fpphr.org.ge/http://fpphr.org.ge/http://fpphr.org.ge/


30/60


Organizational Background Information

ANNEX 1. Interview Guide

USAID CSO AI Interview Guide

Date: Interviewers:

Start time: End time:

1. Name(s), surname(s) and position(s) of respondent(s):

2. Organizations Name:

3. Organizations Acronym:

4. Mobile:

5. Landline:

6. Email:

7. Website (if available):

8. Organizations location (and add regional offices, if any)Address:City, village, settlement:Municipality:Region:

9. Where does your organization operate? (Researcher: write specific locations)

Internationally:National level:Regions:Municipality:City:Village/settlement:

10. Type of organization

1 Independent NGO (membership-based)2 Independent NGO (not membership-based)3 Business Association4 Branch of Georgian NGO5 Branch of Foreign NGO

6 Coalition/NetworkOther (specify)

11. Who are your primary beneficiaries:(Do not read the possible answers to the respondent)

1 Media/Journalists2 Representatives of state agencies3 Women4 IDPs


31/60


Advocacy knowledge and experience

5 Youth6 Children7 Persons with disabilities8 SMEs9 Citizens in general

Other (specify)

Other (specify)

12. What is your mission statement?

13. On what issue or issues do you focus? (Do not show the respondent the possible answers. Rankin order of importance with 1 being the most important)

Issue Rank

1 Democracy building2 Demography3 Economy/Business climate4 Education5

advocacy capacity assessment of georgian ngos 2011 _eng

Documents