In order for the grantees to effectively and efficiently implement the projects, MWF assessed the capacity of organizations and groups working for the women’s rights in target regions and came up with a mapping of women’s rights organizations for further actions.
The assessment covered a total of 81 institutions, including 35 organizations located in Ulaanbaatar city and 46 NGOs and groups operating in Arkhangai, Bulgan, Darkhan-Uul, Dornogovi and Zavkhan province centers.
When the women’s organizations assessed their own capacity based on 8 criteria of Strategic Planning, Fund Making, Governance, Human Resource Management, Financial Management, Monitoring, Foreign Relations and Technology, organizations appeared to perform well in terms of governance and communications with other organizations, and poorly in the departments of fund making and financial management issues.
The results of the 8-criteria self-assessment on organizational capacity reveal that:
- There was no organization which was assessed at the level of high performance;
- 6 organizations (7.4%) were assessed at the level of formative development;
- 12 organizations (14.8%) were assessed at the level of building its capacity;
- 15 organizations (18.5%) were assessed at the level of its initial development; and,
- 48 organizations (59.3%) were assessed at the level of stability. Bigger, more experienced organizations carrying out sustainable activities at the national level assessed themselves at the level of stability here.
How are the organizations collaborating with one another?
Today women’s organizations are working collaboratively in such a broad range of areas, namely, enlightening the public, doing advocacy targeting decision-makers, organizing the forum, discussion and training and conducting research and assessment. NGOs suggested that the strengths of their cooperation were advocacy work at the decision-making level, reaching out to the previously unreached groups, instilling positive attitudes in society, strengthening cooperation by information exchange, and domestic and international collaboration, whereas the weaknesses were the disunity of NGOs, poor human resources, ownership of particular issues, inconsistent information exchange, values and methodology, and weak support from government organizations.