1. Page | 1
NARRATIVE REPORT OF PARTNER’S PARTICIPATORY CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT FOR GCA AND SODA
Written by:
Phetsoulaphonh N. Choulatida, Project Manager
Participation of Remote Ethnic Group for Good Forest Governance (GOFOGO)
CARE International in Lao PDR
Vientiane,
22 September 2014
©2014, All Rights Reserved

2. Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENT
I. Background and rationale……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..3
II. Assessment objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
III. Roles of involved parties………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……3
IV. Assessment methodology, agenda, and participants ………………………………………………………………..………..3
V. General results of the process…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
1. Use of the Picture of partnership……………………………………………………………………………….………………..7
2. Doctor References…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………..8
3. X-ray the partner’s organization…………………………………………………………………………………..………………8
4. Reflection whole process of PPCA…………………………………………………………………………………………..……9
VI. Partner’s Participatort Capacity Assessment Results and Findings…………………………………………………..….9
1. Green Community Alliance Association (GCA)…………………………………………………………………….….……9
1.1. Summary of key findings…………………………………………………………………………………………..……….….9
1.1.1. Strategic Planning, Programme Development, Mgt & Service Delivery Assessment….………..9
1.1.2. Good Governance and Accountability Assessment…………………………………………………….…….10
1.1.3. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment……………………………………………..….……10
1.1.4. Gender and Social Inclusion Assessment……………………………………………………………………..…..10
1.1.5. Finance Compliance and Financial System Assessment…………………………………………….……...10
1.1.6. Human Resource and Logistics Management Assessment…………………………………………….….11
1.1.7. Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………….11
1.2. GCA’s Capacity Improvement Plan……………………………………………………………………….……………..13
2. Social Development Alliance Association (SODA)………………………………………………………….…….……..13
2.1. Summary of key findings…………………………………………………………………………………………….….……13
2.1.1. Strategic Planning, Programme Development, Mgt & Service Delivery Assessment………….13
2.1.2. Good Governance and Accountability Assessment…………………………………………………………..14
2.1.3. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment……………………………………………….……..14
2.1.4. Gender and Social Inclusion Assessment……………………………………………………………..…………..14
2.1.5. Finance Compliance and Financial System Assessment…………………………………………………….14
2.1.6. Human Resource and Logistics Management Assessment………………………………………….…….14
2.1.7. Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....15
2.2. SODA’s Capacity Improvement Plan……………………………………………………………………………….……17
VII. Conclusion and Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………..….17
o Transparency……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
o Participatory……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…18
o Feedback mechanism…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
o Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)………………………………………………………………………………….……18
o Empowerment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
Annex 1: List of participants participated in this assessment

3. Page | 3
NARRATIVE REPORT OF PARTNER’S PARTICIPATORY CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT WITH TWO CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS
By Phetsoulaphonh N. Choulatida, project manager
I. Background and Rationale
The Partner’s Participatory Capacity Assessment (PPCA) tool is one of the pioneering initiatives in the field of
civil society strengthening within CARE International in Lao PDR for increased rights and voice of marginalized
people within ethnic minorities in the Lao PDR. In line of program quality team, strengthening capacity of
partner is very crucial to ensure that we reach wider impacts and quality of partnership engagement. CARE
International in Lao PDR develops the partnership strategy for 2012-2016 (Henry Braum, 2010) aims
collaborating through partnership approaches that achieve significant and lasting change for marginalized
groups. Second objective is to strengthen the capacity of partners in quality development actions.
The good forest governance (GOFOGO) project has since its inception with consortium partners in April 2014
with the cooperation of different forms of consortium partners classified as implementing partner (including
INGOs, CSOs, CBOs, and networks) and government of Lao PDR at all levels which classified as advocacy
partner. The GOFOGO project aims at: Improved capacity of civil society organisations to engage in dialogue on
forest governance (Right to Lands, Indigenous People Rights, Right to adequate food, and Gender Rights).
Therefore, there are two CSOs namely Green Community Alliance Association (GCA) and Social Development
Alliance Association (SODA) initially start doing this PPCA tool in early stage before giving any assignment.
Expected outcomes from this Partner’s Participatory Capacity Assessment
 Had an understanding the reality that leads to mutual learning.
 Knew clearly strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities that promote quality of partnership roles
 Completed the agreed partner’s capacity development plan for two years.
Capacity strengthening is not a strange terminology to CSOs in Lao PDR at all but developing a plan for
partner’s capacity strengthening is supposed to be quite new to GCA and SODA as nascent CSOs. Both of them,
therefore, under the partnership grant agreement of GOFOGO project, CARE International in Lao PDR is using
MELI
+
document (CARE Lao PDR, June 2014) to emphasize the additional focus on activity tracking/getting the
basic right and together with integration of gender that will ensure GCA and SODA partners to achieve their
goals.
II. Assessment objectives
 Explore strengths, gaps, and opportunities in capacity building activity of CSOs;
 Develop Instituitional development and organizational strength mapping and list of capacity
building activities for two organizations of SODA and GCA;
 Assess on six key areas of partners regarding program development, good governance and
accountability, M&E, gender and social inclusion, financial system, and human resource.
III. Role of involved parties
 CARE Lao PDR: is facilitator and do not make any decision on the content of assessment;
 GCA and SODA partners: to decide the content of assessment.
IV. Assessment methodology, agenda, and participants
Approach: Assessment process is a participatory process via discussions. All participants are free to
express and listen to different points of view and come up with mutual conclusion. The Program Quality
Team and CARE Lao PDR’s staff just plays a facilitator role and to record all the comments, feedbacks

4. Page | 4
given, discussed by GCA and SODA partners and to document suammaries of the results for sharing with
a broader consortium partners.
Method: method used is group discussion, individual brain storming, and Self-assessment will not be
Critical, Constructive, and Consensus (3C). Each session of the day will discuss on a different content,
those are applied various ways of assessment. Those are:
 Use of pictures to illustrate the meaning of partnership during capacity assessment was found to be
attractive & convincing :
- CARE Lao PDR facilitates a self introduction of participants who is who by giving pictures and try
to give message of each pictures that hidden meaningful partnership topic
- Setting the scene of partnership and capacity assessment
 Doctor references :
- Most of partcipants are familiar with this given example, it’s easy/simple to picture it out
- Gradually goes into real case of GCA and SODA
 PPCA tool introduction:
- Slowly introduce content by content
- Together review, improve, and customize the standard of the PPCA tool according to
organizational partner type
 Partners take lead process as doctor to do X-ray their own CSOs:
- CARE Lao PDR takes the role as facilitator
- GCA and SODA take lead to decide the content of assessment
 Critical, constructive and consensus aspect employ all sessions:
- Facilitation of CARE Lao PDR way is to give question and question in order to investigate deeper,
push participants generating critical thinking, and find agreed conclusion point
 Sector expertise involvement:
- Invite human resource person, financial officer, manager, coordinators, field staff and gender
advisor to help the process that participants can decide the content of assessment
 Reflection of whole process for two days program:
- CARE Lao PDR and partners conduct the reflection on what went well, what are challenges, what
did we learned, and what we can do differently for next time.
- Mutual learning
- Apply what we have learned so far
The detailed discussion of the PPCA process is conducted by the following steps:
Step Content Facilitation question/ Analysis templates on
Step 1 Strategic Planning, Programme
Development, Management &
Service Delivery
Strategic plan / Programme development/design,
planning;
Program Management & service delivery;
Coordination and communication with concerned
stakeholders;
Coordination with provincial / central (and District)
authorities / organizations;
Advocacy / working together for impacts at scale.

5. Page | 5
Step 2 Good Governance and
Accountability
Standard organisational systems, policies and
procedures exist;
Inclusive leadership exists;
Decisions are made in a participatory way;
Accountability policy/system or mechanism exist and
is functional;
Zero tolerance policy exist and operationalized;
Clarity on roles and responsibility of staff and board
members.
Step 3 Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation policy/mechanism exists;
Monitoring and evaluation policy/mechanism
operationlized;
Documentation and dissemination practice exists
including M&E reports are shared with concerned
stakeholders.
Step 4 Gender and Social Inclusion Policy exist and operational;
Putting women's issues at the centre of our work.
Step 5 Finance Compliance and Financial
System
Policy;
Accounting System and Financial Report;
Bank Account;
Cash Management;
Procurement;
Internal Control;
Shared Program Costs.
Step 6 Human Resource and Logistics
Management
Qualified project staff (finance plus programme)
recruited through competitive/transparent process;
Staff Personal file maintained (appointment letter,
salary provision, leave, performance);
Proper mechanism/system for procurement exists
and practiced;
Staff Skills and Competences.

6. Page | 6
Agenda: designed for two days with the detailed contents as follows:
AGENDA
Date & time Program details Facilitators
Day One: Wenesday 3 September (GCA), and Monday 8 September (SODA)
8:00-8:30 Register and welcome
8:30-9:30 Introduction with an activities Bharat (PQ)
9:30-9:45 Purpose of Partner's Participatory Capacity Assessment Bharat (PQ)
9:45-10:00 Introduction of two days schedule Phetsoulaphonh
10:00-10:15 Tea/Coffee break
10:15-11:00 Structure of tool and capacity assessment areas Bharat (PQ)
11:00-11:15 Discussion All
11:15-12:00 Practice tool - program Phetsoulaphonh
12:00-13:00 Collective lunch
13:00-14:30 Continue to practice tool - program Phetsoulaphonh
14:30-14:45 Tea/Coffee break
14:45-16:00 Continue to practice tool - governance, M&E Phommachanh
16:00-16:30 Review day 1 Phetsoulaphonh
Day Two: Thursday 4 September (GCA), and Tuesday 9 September (SODA)
8:00-8:30 Welcome and review day-1
8:30-10:00 Continue to practice tool -finance Tity & Bualaphanh
10:00-10:15 Tea/Coffee break
10:15-12:00 Continue to practice tool - HR Tity & Bualaphanh
12:00-13:00 Collective lunch
13:00-14:30 Analyze findings Bharat (PQ)
14:30-14:45 Tea/Coffee break
14:45-16:00 Action plan Phetsoulaphonh
16:00-16:30 Review the whole process of capacity assessment Bharat (PQ)

7. Page | 7
Implementation schedule:
 Green Community Alliance (GCA) : 3-4 September 2014
 Social Development Alliance (SODA) : 8-9 September 2014
Participant:
- GCA and SODA organisation’s leader/director/board member (1- 2 people);
- 2-3 Representatives are project responsible staff;
- Staff in charge of GOFOGO project;
- Financial/admin staff (1-2 people).
(List of all participants is attached under annex 1)
Implementing agency: CARE International in Lao PDR
- PQ team (1-2 people);
- Gender expertise (1 person);
- Manager (1 person);
- Financial/admin staff (1-2 people).
V. GENERAL RESULTS OF THE PROCESS
1. Use of the Picture of partnership
Use of pictures to illustrate the meaning of partnership during capacity assessment was found to be
attractive & convincing. This is good practice by CARE that contributed to strengthening the
partnership.
When we illustrated and gave these pictures to GCA and SODA partners, they were able to
communicate messages very well unexpectedly. Following given meaning of each picture by both
partners of GCA and SODA, those are:
Picture 1: First mechanical wheel as partner 1 and second as partner 2 have different strengths and
gaps, since both have mutual objective and benefit, they can share and help to fill gaps by other

8. Page | 8
strengths. If strength and strength it will be broken, gap and gap cannot work. Strength and gap are
matching and move to the same direction as partner.
Picture 2: different types of organisation, country, political regime, economic growth, race, religion,
sex, and age can be a partner as long as we have same purpose, share resource (fund and
knowledge), and have accountability.
Picture 3: Partners are willing to help, share, and support each other if needed. Both put materials,
resources, skills, experience, challenges, lessons learned, and new idea for mutual learning to
identify ways to go.
Picture 4: Partner cannot stay alone; we have to work as network and set a flatform to build up
lasting change and long term impacts. We cannot achievelarge scale impact by alone organisation.
Picture 5: the partners knew well their role and responsibility, and also have strengths and
weaknesses. Each has to accept own gaps and willing to receive other strengths from partner to fill
our gaps as alignment with partnership capacity building. Help when see firend hopeless.
Picture 6: Working together, clear role identified as leader and follower, leader has to understand
partner’s skills, knowledge, and attitude to step faster or slower but make sure our follower step
with happiness in the same as we take lead them. Always give signal and right communication
because follower cannot see vision like you stay in front.
Picture 7: When we’re the partner, doesn’t mean we located office near by and that’s it. We have
to jump and break barrier to go and see each other regularly. We can see real situation of partners
and partner understand our circumstance. Only eamail and telephone call, it doesn’t work enough.
Picture 8: We share role, responsibility, resource, office (sometime), documents, problems,
impacts, and benefit equally among partners.
Picture 9: Since we work in same direction and same objective in order to achieve of goals, we have
agreed and clear roles among partners (leader, and implementors) we support and encourage each
other. Since ones can give feedback, learn, and apply.
2. Doctor references
Giving the example to participants when you are sick and go to hospital, the doctor will need to
- Inquery (what happened, …..)
- Analyse (symptom, weight, hight, temperature, ultra sound, vedio X-ray, pathological test
including blood, urine, eyes, …)
- Make a conclusion (diarrhea, cough, dengue fever, …)
- Recommendation and medicine (take medicine 1-2 tablets before meal, three times per day
for one week, ….)
Then, go into partner’s organization. The doctor here is GCA and SODA, and patient is their
organization. The CARE is facilitating the process only.
3. X-ray the partner’s organization
Both GCA and SODA partners will have a look about
- Infrastructure
- Staff capacity, qualification, possision, human resource, …
- System: structure, administration, financial management, …
- Planning: strategy, program design, action plan, …
- Coordination: with stakeholders
- Donors, working with donors

9. Page | 9
The participants will review all aspects before making any conclusion. They work as team and more
critical, constructive, and concensus.
4. Reflection whole process of PPCA
Apply learning into action, meaning that CARE and partners conducted a reflection session after
our first capacity assessment (our practice) to extract the learning and CARE applied the learning
together by changing our approach. As a result CARE had fewer challenges during the 2
nd
capacity
assessment and partner staff said ’CARE Cares’.
VI. PARTNER’S PARTICIPATORY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND FINDINGS
1. Green Community Alliance Association (GCA):
1.1. Summary of key findings
The results of GCA’s assessment are really exiting that partnership start date is April 1, 2014. There
are five projects supported in the past by different donors namely: GIZ-CliPad, UNDP-GEF, Thailand
Environment Institute (TEI), Helvetas-LIWG, Central for International Development and Training
(CIDT). And currently there are four donors supporting GCA like CARE Lao PDR, Village Focus
International-DFID, Global Withness, and IUCN. This is the first time that CARE Lao PDR is working in
partnership with GCA under project of Participation of remote ethnic groups for Good Forest
Governance (Go-FOGO) with total budget amount to be managed by the partner is 65,312.00 Euros.
After 2 days, with CARE Lao PDR’s facilitation, the GCA drew out a capacity improvement plan based
on assessment findings by team (Details in page no. 13).
1.1.1. Strategic Planning, Programme Development, Management & Service Delivery Assessment
Regarding Strategic Planning, Programme Development, Management & Service Delivery, the GCA
organization’s overall capacity assessment score came to 36 out of 84 (42.86 % of obtained, capacity
level is slightly low). The elements of Standard on Programme/ project proposal is
developed/designed in consultation / participation of impact group (right holders) (need assessment,
FGD report, Household survey) stage; Adequate capacity to implement the programme maintaining
standard quality (timely result that satisfy or exceed the beneficiarie's expecetation); There is support
and goodwill from the community for the organization; Meetings with stakeholders (partner & CARE
Lao PDR) are documented and decisions are shared with all staffs and board members; Design and
implementation of projects/programmes in coordination and collaboration with other stakeholders;

10. Page | 10
Coordination meetings with District government (e.g., DHO, DAFO…..) held regularly are all scoring 2;
The PPCA results show that the elements needing more supports and should be more focused on in
the future were Long term strategic plan; result based management; individual work plan; using the
beneficiare data management; periodic review with stakeholder, coordination with government and
UN organizations and advocacy with score of zero (0).
1.1.2. Good Governance and Accountability Assessment
The obtained the score of GCA is 40 out of 64 (62.5% of obtained, classified as midiem). The elements
of Standard that GCA got all scoring 2 there are: The roles and functions of the board are written
down and understood; General assembly held regularly in time and Board members
elected/nominated by the General Assembly; Board members are independent; professional or
known as social service or have social development background; Organization's leaders (vital
positions) have clarity on organization's vision and strategy including second line leadership exist;
Resources are appropriately utilized - no evidences of FRAUD and misappropriation of resources; No
evidences of Discrimination (gender, ethnicity etc) and Sexual Harassment in program/project team
and organization; No evidences of Exploitation and Wrongful Conduct within organization/its
staff/board members; Clarity on roles and responsibility of staff and board members. The PPCA
results show that the elements needing more supports and should be more focused on in the future
were Policy on inclusive governance and accountability tools and approaches.
1.1.3. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment
Regarding M&E, the GCA organization’s overall capacity assessment score came to 6 out of 30 or
equivalent of 20 % of score obtained (capacity level is low). The only one elements of Standard that
GCA received scare at 2 is Baseline report for all projects is available. The PPCA results show that the
elements needing more supports and should be more focused on M&E Policy, Strategy, Plan,
Learning and documentation.
1.1.4. Gender and Social Inclusion Assessment
The score came to 8 out of 20 or equivalent of 40 % (capacity level of GCA is low). The elements of
Standard on No sexual abuse/harrassment (no cases been heard, recorded or reported); and Partner
Organization promoted people's organizations representing Impact group are the member of district
/national women's network are both scoring 2; The PPCA results show that the elements needing
more supports and should be more focused on in the future were women's representation and
gender budgeting.
1.1.5. Finance Compliance and Financial System Assessment
The score of finance compliance and its system came to 39 out of 82 that equivalent of 47.5%
(capacity level is midiem). The elements of Standard on Bank account maintained under the name of
the organization; Payment voucher file of cheque payments including, supporting documents such
invoice receipts and other relevant information; Payment voucher to support cash payment; Pre-
numbered receipt for cash / income received; Payment voucher file of cash payments including,
supporting documents such invoice receipts and other relevant information; Payment voucher file of
cash payments including, supporting documents such invoice receipts and other relevant information;
Purchase Request (PR) to request procurement of goods and services; Request for Quotation (RfQ) to
obtain price from suppliers; Purchase Order (PO) to procure goods and services; Bank account held in
the organisation’s name with minimum two signatories; Annual external audit is undertaken by
recognised auditing firm; Compliance with tax and other local laws; and Review of actual expenditures
against budget are all scoring 2; The PPCA results show that the elements needing more supports and

11. Page | 11
should be more focused on in the future were According Software; approval system at GCA; capacity
use accounting software; banking and authority deligation / bid analysis for pocurement / guideline /
cash management and asset management.
1.1.6. Human Resource and Logistics Management Assessment
Lastly, the GCA obtained score of human resource and logistic management came to 22 out of 46 in
equivalent of 47.8% (capacity level is midiem). The elements of Standard on staff qualification and
recruitment process are all scoring 2; The PPCA results show that the elements needing more
supports and should be more focused on in the future were Timesheet and leave record; staff
expertise capacity on financial management and technicals; communication and report writing skill
(see the chart below).
Chart 1: GCA’s total capacity score of six areas of assessment
1.1.7. Findings:
1. Strategic Planning, Programme Development, Management & Service Delivery:
 Develop long term strategic plan incorporating inputs from board, members, staff,
stakeholders and beneficiary members
 Initiate result based management, when we make strategic plan, GCA will conduct
beneficiary consultation to incorporate their feedbacks / opinions
 Advocacy strategy and plan, this is a bit new - advocacy it self is a bit harder but GCA
could be the part of network with specefic strategy in future
 It has been done with Lao furniture association which is private secor / still seeking the
plat form for sharing and networking. Need to try more in future on external relation
espcially UN and internnational organizations

12. Page | 12
2. Good Governance and Accountability:
 Try to formulate policy to improve inclusive governance and accountability. Since
concept has discussion in paper but how to reach and develop not happenning
3. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation:
 Develop systems, strategy and plan for monitoring, evaluation, learning, reflection and
continuous improvement because GCA is missing too many of things in M&E
4. Gender and Social Inclusion:
 Intiate seeking women's representation at all levels of board member, decision making
position and Representations of ethnic women both at staffs and organization's level
5. Finance Compliance and Financial System:
 Currently use simple systematic accounting, use excel file to do cash statement. So, we
recommened GCA to adopt and pracite user friendly accounting software
 Submit to director in each day of 25th - 27th of the month, there is no written guidelines
including limits of authority. The GCA needs to draft the guideline for authorization
 GCA has no Competitive Bid Analysis based on RfQ, and Procurement file including duly
signed PR, RfQ, CBA, PO and other relevant documentation. GCA has to develop the
procurement system and asset management
 GCA is lack of Cash kept in a locked cash box or safe, and Surprise cash count performed
by senior staff. GCA has to create the internal policy for cash management
6. Human Resource and Logistics Management:
 There is no any practices of time sheet and leave records, it needs to develop timesheet
and leave record
 The finance staffs have limitation of the skills and qualifications to carry out all financial
activities. GCA has to provide financial staff on financial shoftware fit into the line of
donor
 Program officers have not really good technical expertise for the relevant sectors they
work in (gender, health, climate change, M&E, etc.). Assement team recommeded GCA
for technical capacity building including climate change and gender, etc…
 GCA Staffs do not possess sound basic communication skills (e.g. listening, presenting,
interviewing, feedback etc.). the GCA staff have to increase capacity on communication
and report writing skill for daily works

13. Page | 13
1.2. GCA’s Capacity Improvement Plan
(Source of information: CARE Lao PDR 2014, PPCA for GOFOGO)
2. Social Development Alliance Association (SODA)
2.1. Summary of key findings
The results of SODA’s assessment are not big different from previous CSO. The partnership start
date is April 1, 2014. There is no any project supported in the past, it’s just emerged recently.
And currently there is only one donor supporting this CSO like CARE Lao PDR. This is the first
time that CARE Lao PDR is working in partnership with SODA under project of Participation of
remote ethnic groups for Good Forest Governance (Go-FOGO) with total budget amount to be
managed by the partner is 38,842.00 Euros.
After 2 days, with CARE Lao PDR’s facilitation, the SODA also drew out its capacity improvement
plan based on assessment findings by team (Details in page no. 17).
2.1.1. Strategic Planning, Programme Development, Management & Service Delivery
Assessment
The SODA’s overall capacity assessment on this, score came to 40 out of 84 (48% obtained,
capacity level is midiem). The elements of Standard on Clear and consistent vision and mission
statements exists that provide focus and direction; Organizational values and principles exist
and have been written down; A clear long-term (3-5 years) strategic plan document is in place;
Clarity on project/programme operational strategy amongst central/district and field based
staffs, management and responsible board members; Staff is familiar with use of key tools for
community needs assessment; NPA applies participatory methods and demonstrates
community participation in planning and decision making; NPA has a good relationship and

14. Page | 14
works together with government departments; Actively participate in coordination meeting
organized by government organizations and other stakeholders; Programmes are aligned to GOL
annual plans and programmes (or synergy with District and other stakeholders' programme) are
all scoring 2; The PPCA results show that the elements needing more supports and should be
more focused on in the future were Logframe/Indicator/Result based planning system,
individual and annual work plan for the program and staff, Humanitarian Accountability
Partnership (HAP) & Sphere standards, Participation of impact group, and developed its website.
2.1.2. Good Governance and Accountability Assessment
Regarding good governance and accountability, the SODA’s overall capacity assessment score
came to 52 out of 64 (81% obtained, capacity level is high). The elements of Standard look so
good for all scoring at 2; The PPCA results show that the elements needing more supports and
should be more focused on in the future were Social audit is conducted at least once in a year
and project information (programme details, budget and expenditure) is shared with all related
stakeholders regularly (information boards, at the end of each event, budget in hard copy
shared).
2.1.3. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment
The score came to 5 out of 30 (17% obtained, capacity level is low). There is no any elements of
Standard is scoring 2 any more; The PPCA results show that the elements needing more
supports and should be more focused on in the future were Review and reflection M&E
mechanism, Responsible M&E focal person, Monitoring by staff, board member and community
held regularly, Specific assessment, evaluation report, final report or programme /project
completion report.
2.1.4. Gender and Social Inclusion Assessment
The score came to 5 out of 20 (25% obtained, capacity level is low). There is only one element of
Standard on No sexual abuse/harrassment (no cases been heard, recorded or reported) is
scoring 2; The PPCA results show that the elements needing more supports and should be more
focused on in the future were Gender policy and putting women's issues at the centre of
SODA's work.
2.1.5. Finance Compliance and Financial System Assessment
The score came to 25 out of 82 (30% obtained, capacity level is low). The elements of Standard
on Bank account maintained under the name of the organization; Written guidelines including
limits of authority; Segregation of duties in practice; Review of bank and cash reconciliation by
senior management staff; and Bank account held in the organisation’s name with minimum two
signatories are all scoring 2; The PPCA results show that the elements needing more supports
and should be more focused on in the future were Administrative and procedure policy,
accounting system and financial report, Bank account including payment record, cheque,
vouchure, filling, cash management, procurement, competitive bid analysis, internal control,
shared programcost.
2.1.6. Human Resource and Logistics Management Assessment
Regarding this, the score came to 24 out of 46 (52% obtained, capacity is midiem). The elements
of Standard on The organization has clear policies on pay and reward, which are consistently
followed; The organization identifies staffs training needs and provides opportunities for staff
development; Program officers have good technical expertise for the relevant sectors they work

15. Page | 15
in (gender, health, climate change, M&E, etc.); Staff possesses sound basic communication skills
(e.g. listening, presenting, interviewing, feedback etc.); Majority of staff is computer literate; and
Key staff has quality report writing skill are all scoring 2; The PPCA results show that the elements
needing more supports and should be more focused on in the future were Recruitment process,
staff contract with clear job description, timesheet, physical verification of cash inventory items,
and finance staff skill (see the chart below).
Chart 2: SODA’s total capacity score of six areas of assessment
2.1.7. Findings:
1. Strategic Planning, Programme Development, Management & Service Delivery:
 For the moment, there is no project yet, just accepted assignment from other INGOs and
donors, it needs to improve logframe, indicators, and result
 Three permanent staff only and 30 staffs are part-time. Therefore, no any clear
individual work plan and annual work plan. Therefore, SODA has to develop annual work
plan for program and individual work plan
 Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) & Sphere standards are very new to
SODA. So that SODA needs to learn about it. Adopt HAP and sphare standard for
humanitarian development
 SODA limks impact groups to other level of organisations of advocational training center,
consuling center of LWU, etc. SODA has to practice participatory program design
involving impact groups
 Develop the SODA's website

16. Page | 16
2. Good Governance and Accountability:
 No social audit yet, Partners need to develop a joint social audit procedure / guideline.
Social audit should conduct in each year to share with all stakeholder
3. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation:
 No target yet about responsible M&E focal person, need to train key person to take lead
and the PPCA team recommended SODA could create a Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation
4. Gender and Social Inclusion:
 SODA takes lead on this and it has a wrtten policy paper, but do not implement yet. It
needs to disseminate gender policy and practice
5. Finance Compliance and Financial System:
 Financial policy is written and need to practice, it needs to revise policy and implication
 Simple accounting system in excel and start practicing, SODA has to improve
adminstrative and accounting system
 SODA asking BCEL bank statement at the end of the month, need to develop reconciled
form, SODA needs to improve cash management
 No competitive form, and no any file system set up yet, it needs to improve
procurement and logistic management system sooner.
6. Human Resource and Logistics Management:
 SODA applies volunteery approach, it needs to improve and develop recruitment
process and transparentcy
 There is not clear staff contract letter with job description provided to/accepted by
staffs since now SODA cannot provide salary. It needs to improve staff contract
 There is no time sheet and leave records yet, SODA has to create staff timesheet
 Conduct physical verification of cash inventory items
 Train finance staff to enhence their skill and competency

17. Page | 17
2.2. SODA’s Capacity Improvement Plan
(Source of information: CARE Lao PDR 2014, PPCA for GOFOGO)
VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
All the two organizations have had the chance to review, and evaluate all their resources in order to
envisioning their dreams in the two to fice years to go regarding institutional development area.
This is the first time, both the CSOs as GOFOGO partners developing the plan to enhance their
organisation. They have conducted this assessment to strengthen organizational capacity but mostly
focused on interal issues.
By taking this assessment process, the GCA and SODA have taken all the working areas, relations into
account. By doing that, they have seen the gaps between their dreams and current situations, and
Institutional development & organizational strengthening activity plans were born based on that.
The capacity development activity plans of two partners include short-term and long- term activities.
All these activities, within the GOFOGO project, can not be completed as the project budget is limited
and just partly support for some capacity strengthening activities only. The two partners, therefore,

18. Page | 18
should have to combine with other resources/donors in achieving the set objective or it would be
propose to European Union and Care Denmark for further assistance or even if other potential doners
(if any).
In conclusion, all the two CSOs as GOFOGO partners have tried and being tried the best in completing
its organsations. That has been recognized and credited by local government, peer organizations and
local people.
Both partners, basically, have developed organisatoinal & working system/policies and/or procedures
almost perfect in order to responding the demand of various stakeholders. And it can be view under
the following angles:
 Transparency: With this assessment, all the organizations have shown the information of
transparency, i.e.
o They do have clear vision, mission, goals and annual plans, annual reports with all
information on where, when, for how long and who is responsible for, etc.
o They have organisational structure and processes i.e. governance and decision-making
processes, Financial information detailing income and expenditure, audit reports,
resource allocation, Monitoring & evaluation policy, Project information, Criteria for
beneficiary/ target area selection
But whether all or major part of those information to be provided in a language that
stakeholders understand, and in a format that is easy accessible and understandable for them is
still a question need to be answered and acted by all the partners.
 Participatory: In this regard, both partners has done a good job in ensuring the participatory of
its stakeholders in at all stages of projects/programme or activities. However the role of
stakeholders is just a listener or a “decision maker” and a “shaper” in the project/programme
and/or activities development. It is recommended that social audits, community scorecard should
be considered for using to ensure participation in the near future (if it was planned).
 Feedback mechanism: All the organization is working toward the way that to provide evidences
from grass-root to policy makers at national level as well as information to decision maker at
district and/or provincial levels including internal organization with staff member. The
ability/capability of two-way information providing to national level of these organization needs
to enhance thoroughly in order to be regconised and credited by policy makers at different levels
for being registered association and recognized by law.
 Monitoring and evaluation (M&E): Currently, M&E system is not existed by both organizations
which serve project/programme implementation purposes. There is no information show that
the M&E systems are planning to do in future. Monitoring satisfaction level of local people is also
very important to figure out complaints, if any, to have mechanism to place them.
 Empowerment: All the both partners have been doing great job in this regard. In order to ensure
the empowerment, especially to their target groups (primary stakeholders), they have been
conduting a series of trainings in leadership, develop self-esteem of primary stakeholders,
promoting dialogue between stakeholders, social mobilisation of marginalised people, and
raising awareness.

19. Page | 19
ANNEX1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSMENT
Full name Organisation Responsible of
Mr. Aod Douangphachanh GCA Director
Mr. Houmphanh GCA Administrator
Ms. Vathsana GCA Financial officer
Mr. Viengsouk GCA Financial officer
Ms. Kongphet SODA Coordinator
Miss. Kongkham SODA Financial officer
Mr. Khamkhol SODA Assistant
Mr. Saysamon SODA Board member
Mr. Phathomphone SODA Board member
Ms. Douangchit Viravongsa CARE Lao PDR Gender advisor
Ms. Phoutthasone CARE Lao PDR Financial officer
Mr. Viengphayvanh CARE Lao PDR Financial manager
Mr. Boualaphanh CARE Lao PDR Financial officer
Mr. Phommachanh Phothichanh CARE Lao PDR Information management specialist
Mr. Bharat Raj Gautam CARE Lao PDR Program quality, internatinal advisor
Mr. Phetsoulaphonh N. Choulatida CARE Lao PDR Project manager