GMI Report 09-01-2016

Livelihoods and Food Security Programme: Agricultural Productivity and

Nutrition Component November 2015

JACKSON JACK (M&E COORDINATOR)

GROUP MATURITY INDEX REPORT

(1st wave GMI findings)

Adopted from cartoonstudio.co.uk

1

Executive Summary

Executive Summary The first wave of the Group Maturity Index (GMI) survey was conducted in November 2015 across

all three target districts. The main aim of the survey was to find out the proportion of the target groups

that are at managed stage. This will provide important information that will be used in the year 2016

to assess whether there has been an improvement in the groups’ capacity and skills to operate as

independent entities that demand extension and financial services. A total of 122 groups were sampled

and assessed in the perspective of the five maturity domains to obtain the GMI score. These maturity

domains are objectives, governance, resources, systems and, impact and sustainability.

The Objectives seek to elucidate the reasons why the group was formed and centres on the aspect of

shared goals amongst group members. Most of the groups were formed as a result of external

influence from NGOs. They had shared objectives but they lacked the capacity to run as independent

entities, hence external support was crucial to them. They had plans in place which lacked clarity and

some of these were not fully implemented. Admittedly, most of the groups had activities that were

aligned to their objectives. There are indications that some of the groups review their plans but on an

ad hoc basis.

Governance inculcates order within a group. Majority of the groups had written constitutions and

these were being enforced and adhered to. The survey noted that some of the groups had excellent

constitutions which they wrote with the assistance of technocrats. Some community groups stated that

they were being assisted by extension workers, NGOs and the police department. The groups had

leadership structures in place and members were clear about their roles. These group leaders were

democratically elected and some of them received training and capacity building for the required

skills and knowledge. The group members acknowledged that their leaders had good knowledge of

leadership and management though there is still need for improvement and/or refresher courses. There

is high participation and consultation when important decisions are being made and when planning.

Groups infrequently experience interpersonal problems and they have mechanisms in place to resolve

them if they ever happen. The groups testified that, they had high levels of transparency and

accountability, as every group activity is done with the full knowledge of every member.

Resources and resource mobilization seeks to note the availability of resources needed in the

implementation of group interventions. The groups own about half of the assets required for their

activities and most of the resources owned are from external support. They have the capacity to do

basic maintenance of the resources and assets they own. Few groups indicated the need to acquire

assets of their own despite the fact that they lack adequate resources for their activities.

Group systems enable a good flow of activities within it. Most of the groups had group activity

records (minutes, cash flow books, asset records, ISALs records, etc.) but these are not to standard.

There is evidence that these groups interact with some key stakeholders namely, MAMID, NGOs,

Community Base Mobilisers (CBMs) and the private sector just to mention a few. Some of the groups

have ways of regularly monitoring and evaluating their activities.

The Impact and sustainability component of the GMI focuses on the impact that the group has on

the individuals in the groups and the community that they operate in. The group members were quick

to point what they gained as a result of the group’s existence. Some groups in Kwekwe acquired

livestock and another group in Gokwe South have bought farming implements (ploughs) which are

being shared within the group. Individual members of groups testified that they have gained more

through the group’s existence e.g. some members now have all kitchen utensils and enough linen for

the household. Some groups highlighted that, they were now able to invest into agricultural

production through income gained from ISALs. The communities which they are in are now

benefitting from the group activities. Some groups affirmed that they were paying school fees and

buying school uniforms for the orphans and some were giving surplus produce (maize) to the elderly.

Majority of the groups had group members that were greatly satisfied by being part of the group. This

can be the reason why most of the groups have excellent and high member participation in group

activities as well as low turnover. Most of the groups were involved in one activity and have since

2

Acronyms

diversified into several activities which complements and backup each other in case of shocks. For an

example, a group in Shurugwi was involved in livestock and diversified into crop production and

ISALs. In case of drought, the group can sell their livestock and get income and savings from ISALs

can serve the same purpose. Most of the group members point out how they are different from their

peers who are not in these groups. For instance, most group members in Gokwe South highlighted

how they are able to feed and send children to school, a thing that their peers are struggling to do.

According to the overall GMI analysis, 62% of the sampled groups are at managed stage and this is

within the 2015 milestone which states that 50% of the groups should be in the managed stage

meaning that these groups are able to operate with minimal assistance and support from external

organizations. According to the milestones provided in the log-frame, by the end of 2016, 90% of the

groups should be in the managed stage and the target is to have 90% of the groups at the mature stage.

This means that the groups will be having organisational capacity and skills that enable them to

demand extension and financial services as proposed by the EXTRA project strategy.

In order to achieve this, all registered groups should be trained on group management and the groups

should use the GMI tool as a checklist/training syllabus. Groups should be encouraged to mobilise

their own resources if they are to operate independently and sustainably.

The second wave of the GMI survey will be done in June 2016.

If you have suggestions for suggestions and improvements, please feel free to contact:

JACKSON JACK (M&E Coordinator), [email protected], +263 773 063 488

Acronyms CBMs Community Based Mobilisers

EXTRA Extension and Training for Rural Agriculture

GMI Group Maturity Index

HH Household

HIP Heifer International Project

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

ISALs Internal Savings and Lending Groups

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

WHH Welthungerhilfe

mailto:[email protected]

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 A brief background to the study .................................................................................................... 5

1.2 The GMI concept .......................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 The GMI milestones ..................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Statement of the problem .............................................................................................................. 8

1.5 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 8

1.6 Study area...................................................................................................................................... 9

2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10

2.2 Study design ................................................................................................................................ 10

2.3 Data collection techniques and tools ........................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 Interview .............................................................................................................................. 10

2.3.2 Target population and sampling frame ................................................................................ 10

2.3.3 Sample size .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.4 Sampling procedure ............................................................................................................. 11

2.3.5 Enumerators ......................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................. 11

3. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................... 12

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Group demographics ................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Overall GMI analysis .................................................................................................................. 13

3.3.1 Group maturity levels........................................................................................................... 13

3.3.2 Groups’ own perception of their maturity level ................................................................... 14

3.3.3 Analysing components of the GMI ...................................................................................... 16

3.3.4 Extrapolating from the domains analysis (refer to graph 3 and table in appendices 6.4) .... 17

3.3.5 Areas that need improvement .............................................................................................. 18

3.4 Gokwe South, Kwekwe and Shurugwi GMI Analysis................................................................ 18

3.4.1 Group maturity levels per district ........................................................................................ 18

3.4.2 Overall analysis of the growth domains for the target districts............................................ 19

3.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 19

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 20

4.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 20

4.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 20

5. NEXT GMI SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 21

6. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 22

6.1 Study area – Ward Maps ............................................................................................................. 22

6.1.1 Gokwe South District ........................................................................................................... 22

6.1.2 Kwekwe District .................................................................................................................. 22

6.1.3 Shurugwi District ................................................................................................................. 23

6.2 GMI Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 23

6.3 SPSS Syntax................................................................................................................................ 24

6.4 Frequency distribution of scores and average score per domain question .................................. 25

6.5 Group Maturity Index (GMI) Tool ............................................................................................. 26

4

Table of Contents

Tables:

Table 1: GMI Scale ................................................................................................................................. 6

Table 2: Study area statistics ................................................................................................................... 9

Table 3: Target groups .......................................................................................................................... 10

Table 4: Sampled groups’ statistics ...................................................................................................... 11

Table 5: Distribution of the sampled wards and groups ....................................................................... 12

Table 6: Percentage distribution of the group sizes and age groups (n=2196) ..................................... 12

Table 7: Percentage distribution of groups formed in 2015 by growth stage (n=29) ........................... 13

Table 8: Areas that need improvement (from table in appendices 6.4) ................................................ 18

Graphs:

Graph 1: Percentage distribution of groups formed in a given year (n=122) ....................................... 13

Graph 2: Percentage distribution of groups within the growth stages (n=122) .................................... 14

Graph 3: Percentage distribution of groups' own perception of its growth stage (n=122).................... 15

Graph 4: A regression analysis between number of years the group was in existence and its GMI score

.............................................................................................................................................................. 15

Graph 5: Percentage distribution of maturity domains' average GMI scores (n=122).......................... 16

Graph 6: Percentage distribution of groups within a score per domain (n=122) .................................. 16

Graph 7: Percentage distribution of groups within growth levels by district ....................................... 18

Graph 8: Percentage distribution of maturity domains’ average GMI scores by district ..................... 19

Figures:

Figure 1: The four group maturity stages ................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2: Group and development agency’s level of participation and input ......................................... 6

Figure 3: EXTRA milestones .................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4: The GMI survey strategy ....................................................................................................... 21

Maps:

Map 1: Study area ................................................................................................................................... 9

5

1. INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 A brief background to the study Extension and Training for Rural Agriculture (EXTRA) project’s group based approach has been a

deliberate effort aimed at offering an excellent opportunity for communities to take the lead in the

identification and implementation of relevant, appropriate and sustainable interventions. The project seeks

to improve the food and nutrition security of 48,436 participating smallholder farming households.

This is achieved through a pluralistic, demand driven extension approach leading to improved

productivity and diversity in nutrition culminating in improved incomes and savings for farmer

groups. The project interventions should improve the organizational capacity and skills of women and

men farmers within these groups, to demand extension and/or financial services (Output 2 of outcome

1). The Group Maturity Index (GMI) will be instrumental in providing evidence on whether this

output has been achieved.

1.2 The GMI concept The Group Maturity Index (GMI) is a tool that is used for assessing and determining the growth (maturity) of a group. It is an innovative monitoring tool which seeks to

• Provide an insight into the current status of a group in perspective of its five growth domains (aims and objectives, governance, resources, systems and impact)

• Assess and determine the level of maturity of a group, and • Point the way forward for the group to achieve maturity.

The GMI has five key components (maturity domains), which focus on various aspects of the group

operations. These are, Objectives, Governance, Resources and resource mobilization, Group systems

and Impact and sustainability of group systems.

The Objectives seek to elucidate the reasons why the group was formed and hubs on the aspect of

shared objectives amongst group members. This helps the group to function as a single unit as they

will be focusing on the same goals. Where people function as a group, order is vital. Governance

therefore facilitates the incorporation of order as it looks at the existence of a constitution which is to

be adhered to by the whole group regardless of status. It also looks at the groups leadership structure

and how it came to existence, and whether the leaders have received any form of training.

For the function of the daily activities of the groups, assets are required, Resources and resource

mobilization then seeks to note the availability of these resources and whether the group purchased

them or an external organisation. It seeks to find out who is responsible for the maintenance and

stewardship of these assets and if they have future plans to buy more assets for the group.

The groups need transparency and reference documents to enable a good flow of activities such as

minutes of every meeting conducted and/or all financial records. These factors are encompassed in the

Group systems maturity domain.

Impact and sustainability of the groups’ activities focus on the impact that the group has on the

individuals in the groups and the community that they operate in.

These five components jointly contribute to the success of the group as an entity in its own right. The

index assumes that each of the five components describing the group passes through four stages of

development, namely formation (low index), growth (medium index), managed (high index) and

mature (optimal index). Each of the GMI key components are examined via a number of searching

questions which are subsequently scored and the sum of the scores is converted to a percentage which

is used to classify the group domains through the use of the GMI scale. The average of the five

component scores becomes the group GMI score and is again interpreted in terms of the development

stages using the same GMI scale.

6

1. INTRODUCTION

Table 1: GMI Scale

GMI level

GMI Scale

Group Growth Stage

Low 0%–39% Infancy/Formation Stage

Medium 40%-59% Growth Stage

High 60%-89% Managed Stage

Optimal 90%-100% Mature Stage

Group maturity follows the epigenetic principle which states that the progress of each growth stage through each development stage is in part determined by the success, or lack of it, in the previous stage. A group cannot reach a higher growth stage if it has not fully achieved the minimal essentials of the previous stage. The higher the GMI score, or maturity stage the more the group is organized, structured, integrated and empowered to work as an independent and sustainable entity (as shown by figure below).

The ideal situation, from a programmatic perspective, is to have communities taking more control and ownership of their activities and hence a graduated withdrawal of the development agencies from the community. The figure below illustrates the levels of maturity based on the availability of external support.

Figure 2: Group and development agency’s level of participation and input Being in one growth stage does not imply that all the conditions or essentials of the current and

preceding growth stage have been met. It simply means that the essentials of the current and previous

stage have been achieved to the minimal. Thus the following discussion on the growth stages simply

specifies the essentials that a group should achieve on the minimal.

Figure 1: The four group maturity stages

Low Sustainable High Medium

Local Contribution

External Contribution

Project Time

7

1. INTRODUCTION

Groups in the infancy stage, are those that are usually formed due to NGO interventions or as a result

of external influence. Usually group members in this stage are, in most cases, not clear on the reason

why the group was formed. When such a group is interviewed, one is bound to get diverse reasons as

to why the group was formed. The group, either has no objectives or the objectives are not clear and

plans to achieve those objectives are sometimes sketchy or its not there. At this level (infancy), the

group usually has no constitution or the constitution is there but it’s rough or unwritten and it’s not

clear to all the group members. There is usually selective adherence or no adherence to the

constitution. The group might not have a leadership structure or it’s there but the group members are

not clear on its roles. The selection criterion of the leaders is usually not democratic. There is usually

no participation of members in decision making and planning. The group usually experience

interpersonal problems and in most cases there is no known method of conflict resolution. This can be

attributed to the lack of or inadequacy of the constitution. In such situations, corruption cases are

common. At infancy, the group has no assets or has very few of the assets it requires. These assets are

usually from external support and their maintenance might be a challenge because of lack of capacity.

A group in this category might be reluctant to acquire its own resources. There is usually no proper

record keeping, no financial statements and no assets register. Group in infancy stage usually has no

impact or have impact to a selected few members. In most cases such a group has high turnover as

most of the group members are always disgruntled. Typically this group has no mechanisms to

overcome shocks, as in most cases, the group will be implementing a single intervention.

At growth stage, the group would have started structuring and integrating itself. Its formation might

have been as a result of external influence or its own idea but external support is still crucial. The

group’s objectives are usually not clear to all the members and its activity plan lacks clarity. This

subsequently results in engaging into activities which are not aligned to the group’s objectives. The

group usually has a draft or an unwritten constitution which in most cases is not adhered to or there is

selective adherence and low enforcement. The selection of group leaders might not be democratic

and their roles might also be unclear. Within this stage, there are average levels of participation and

consultation of group members. Group cohesion and conflict management is sometimes an issue.

There are usually low cases of corruption, and transparency and accountability is an issue. A group in

this stage own half of the assets required for its activities and most likely these resources would have

been received from external support. The groups within this stage might have records but these will

not be up to standard. Group members and the community might be profiting from the group’s

activities. Not all of its members will be satisfied and happy to be part of the group and this

sometimes leads to frustration. As a result, there is group member turnover, but which is lower than

that at infancy level. The group struggles to overcome shocks.

At Managed stage, a group will be having the enthusiasm to pursue a goal but will be experiencing

challenges and/or sometimes lack capacity and need external support. A group within this category

has clear and shared objectives. The group has well defined plans which are sometimes not fully

implemented. As a result, the group’s activities will be aligned to its objectives. The groups’

objectives are reviewed but on an ad hoc basis. The constitution of a group in this category should be

well written and clear to all the group members. In most cases, the constitution is certified by

authorities. The group will have democratically elected leaders who in some instances are in the

process of undergoing capacity building through some technical support. The group leaders highly

consult the members when making decisions and when planning. There are few cases of interpersonal

problems within the groups. The group will be having most of the required resources and few of these

resources will have been received from external support. The groups are organised on record keeping,

financial statements and asset inventory. It also keeps minutes as a record of its proceedings. The

group’s impact to the individual members and the community is high. Group members will be happy

to be part of the group and there in usually very low turnover. The group usually saves between 50 to

70% of what it will have planned.

Mature, independent, sustainable stage, is the optimal growth stage. A common objective or an

identified need usually motivates the formation of the group. The group might even start with external

support but this will be minimal as time goes on as its starts to mobilise its own resources. The

8

1. INTRODUCTION

group’s objectives are well defined, articulated and shared. The group also has well-crafted plans to

meet its objectives. The objectives are regularly reviewed, at least annually. The group has well

written constitutions which are clear and certified by authorities. The group members adhere to the

constitution and enforcement is not selective. The leaders would have been democratically elected and

their roles are clear to everybody. Leaders consult group members before making decisions and when

planning. There are minimal incidences of interpersonal problems and measures are in place to

resolve conflicts. The group owns most if not all of the resources required for their regular activities

and majority of these resources would have been acquired or mobilised by the group itself. Most

importantly, the group takes good care of its assets. A group within this category has excellent record

keeping skills and have standard financial records, assets registers, and minutes. The group interacts

with stakeholders who provide it with technical backstopping. In most cases, the group reviews its

activities, so as to align them with its changing needs. The group’s impact to the individual members

and the community is very glaring. The group members are highly satisfied and there is very low

turnover. The group has savings and investments above 75% of what it planned and targeted or

budgeted. The group has diversified activities which complement and backup each other in case of

shocks.

1.3 The GMI milestones

According to the different milestones presented in the EXTRA log frame, by the 2015, based on the GMI score, 50% of the groups should be at managed stage. By the end of 2016 the groups should have augmented to a significant 90% being at same stage. By the end of 2017, 90% of the groups should be at mature (sustainable or independence stage) as shown in figure below.

1.4 Statement of the problem There is no baseline information about the overall maturity of the target groups and the proportion of the groups within the growth maturity stages.

1.5 Objectives The main objective of the survey is to find out the proportion of the EXTRA target groups that are at managed stage. The following were the specific objectives: 1. To measure the five growth stage domains (Objectives, Governance, Resources, Systems and

Impact). 2. Identify domains which the programme extension and training should improve on.

Milestone 2017

Milestone 2016

Milestone 2015 50% at managed stage

90% at managed stage

90% at mature / sustainable / independence stage

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

erio

d

D

ec

20

14

to

No

v 2

01

6

Figure 3: EXTRA milestones

9

1. INTRODUCTION

1.6 Study area The EXTRA project is being implemented in 54 wards of three districts of Gokwe South, Kwekwe and Shurugwi in the Midlands province. It is targeting 48, 436 category B small holder farming households (HHs) (see table below). This is approximately 57% of the total eligible category B households in the three districts.

Table 2: Study area statistics

District

Total District HH Number

Target (HHs)

Shurugwi 17,134 8,005

Gokwe South 63,224 24,162

Kwekwe 38,107 16,269

TOTAL 118,465 48,436

The EXTRA project is working in 20 wards in Gokwe South, 21 in Kwekwe and 13 in Shurugwi (see maps in appendices 6.1). All the three districts are divided into two agro-ecological regions – region III and IV. Small holder farmers in these districts work in groups and have been practising conservation farming, horticulture and livestock production.

Map 1: Study area

Productivity in these districts has been low because of biophysical and socio-economic challenges.

Biophysical challenges include unreliable rainfall patterns, low soil fertility and pest and disease

prevalence. Socio-economic challenges include input access, poor physical infrastructure, labour

shortages, credit unavailability, poor extension services and lack of access to output markets.

The target area communities have been and are still receiving much support from the donor community. The consortium partners (WHH, Heifer International Project, ICRISAT, Weeffect) have in the past worked in these districts implementing various livelihood projects.

10

2. METHODOLOGY

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction Group Maturity Index (GMI) incorporates facets of both the analytical and descriptive quantitative study designs. All these designs are collectively known as the non-intervention study designs.

2.2 Study design

This is a longitudinal, cohort study which aims to estimate the overall growth level (GMI Score) of

the 2, 612 target groups on a yearly basis, for the 2 year implementation period. GMI scores for the

sampled 122 groups were measured in November 2015 and their overall growth level was established.

Being a cohort study, at least 122 different groups will be sampled again in 2016 and their overall

growth level compared with the current growth level to determine and asses any improvement on the

organizational capacity and skills of the target groups to independently and sustainably operate as

entities.

2.3 Data collection techniques and tools The actual data collection in the field started on the 5th of November and ended on the 16th of

November 2015. A one-day training followed by a pilot test preceded the actual data collection

exercise (see data collection schedule in appendices 6.2).

2.3.1 Interview Highly flexible group interviews (data collection technique) using standardized, open ended questionnaires (tool – see appendices 6.5) were conducted with the selected 122 groups. Interviews were conducted to get the groups shared understanding of their objectives, operations, governance, and source of resources, systems and coordination of activities. The sessions were conducted in a similar way that a focus group discussion is conducted. A team of two interviewers would take turns to interview and score a group using a score sheet. After the interview, the two would consolidate and agree on a score for each question. The final compiled sheet was submitted for data capturing.

2.3.2 Target population and sampling frame

The study targeted 2, 612 registered groups (sampling frame) in all three districts. These are the groups that will or are being strengthened by the project interventions. The targeted groups are currently participating in field crop farming, horticulture, livestock and bee keeping value chains. Table 3: Target groups District

TOTAL No of Groups Identified ISALs only ISALs Other

Activities

Field Crop

Farming

Livestock Horticulture

Beekeeping

No

. o

f G

ro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

(♀+

♂)

Ma

le ♀

Fem

ale

♂

No

. o

f G

ro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

No

. o

f G

ro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

No

. o

f G

ro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

No

. o

f G

ro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

No

. o

f G

ro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

No

. o

f G

ro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

Gokwe

South

1,263 12,843 4,695 8,148 379 3,053 261 2,567 328 3,654 397 3,952 232 2,857 43 380

Kwekwe 759 11,568 3,741 7,827 118 1,101 111 1,468 135 2,743 273 4,351 239 4,339 34 396

Shurugwi 590 11,735 3,762 7,973 178 2,580 64 1,331 82 1,726 150 3,673 164 3,473 6 38

TOTAL 2,612 36,146 12,198 23,948 675 6,734 436 5,366 545 8,123 820 11,976 635 10,669 83 814

2.3.3 Sample size Finding the sample size necessary for a survey has always been a never ending quandary for many studies. A 10% sample size would have been more representative but given the time needed to complete each group interview (30-60mins), conducting 261 group interviews was not feasible. Given this fact and that this was a longitudinal and cohort study, having a smaller meaningful sample size was therefore appropriate. A sample of at least 40 groups per district was therefore adequate and

11

2. METHODOLOGY

appropriate for a meaningful GMI analysis. A total of 126 groups were sampled and four of these were screened during data cleaning exercise. The total sample size was therefore 122 groups.

2.3.4 Sampling procedure A multi-stage sampling procedure was used. A total of 34 wards were conveniently selected from the 54 EXTRA target wards and two wards which were adjacent and conveniently located to each other were selected per day. This enabled the team of enumerators to cover two wards in a day. The survey was not supposed to disrupt the implementation process. As such, some wards were conveniently selected so as not to disrupt ongoing activities. Through this sampling procedure, 13 wards were conveniently selected in Gokwe south, 10 in Kwekwe and 11 in Shurugwi district. Within a selected ward, groups were conveniently and purposively sampled. A total of 124 groups were therefore selected as follows: 41 groups from Gokwe South, 42 from Kwekwe and 41 from Shurugwi district. The team would purposively sample within a ward, a group per each value chain. Were this was not possible they would select more than one group per value chain Table 4: Sampled groups’ statistics District TOTAL No of

Target

wa

rd

s

Sa

mp

led

wa

rd

s

Exis

tin

g

Gro

up

s

Sa

mp

led

Gro

up

s

Gro

up

Mem

ber

s

(♀+

♂)

Ma

le ♀

Fem

ale

♂

Gokwe South 20 13 1,263 41 497 189 308

Kwekwe 21 10 759 42 765 247 518

Shurugwi 13 11 590 39 964 246 718

TOTAL 54 34 2,612 124 2226 682 1544

2.3.5 Enumerators Eight tertiary level students and graduates were selected per district to conduct the survey. These received a one day training on how to conduct the GMI survey and interviews. A one day pilot test was also conducted to make sure that the enumerators understood the GMI concept and perfected their data collection skills.

2.4 Ethical considerations The survey adhered to the rules that govern ethical research. These included full disclosure about the survey to the participant, respect of freedom to participate, informed consent, right and liberty of participant to withdraw at any time and privacy and confidentiality.

12

3. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION


3.1 Introduction A total of 124 records were captured and 122 of them had complete information which was suitable

for analysis. The proportion of groups that were in each growth stage was established and the

analysed results were compared with the 2015 milestone given in the log frame. The growth domains

(objectives, governance, resources, systems and impact) that are currently failing within the groups

were established. A further analysis on each domain was done to establish areas that need

improvement so as to help achieve the 2016 milestone. The data for each district was also analysed in

a similar manner in order to give appropriate advice to the respective districts.

3.2 Group demographics The selected groups were implementing 5 group based interventions namely, ISALs, field crop

farming, livestock production, horticulture and health clubs. Most of the groups were participating in

more than one value chain and/or activity and majority (52%) of them have ISALs as their major

activity.

Table 5: Distribution of the sampled wards and groups District TOTAL No of Groups sampled ISALs Field Crop

Farming

Livestock Horticulture Health

Clubs

No

o

f w

ard

s

sam

ple

d

No

. o

f

Gro

up

s

To

tal

Mem

ber

ship

(♀+

♂)

Ma

le ♀

Fem

ale

♂

No

. o

f

Gro

up

s

%

No

. o

f

Gro

up

s

%

No

. o

f

Gro

up

s

%

No

. o

f

Gro

up

s

%

No

. o

f

Gro

up

s

%

Gokwe

South

13/20 41 497 189 308 25 61% 25 61% 21 51% 10 24% 3 7%

Kwekwe 10/21 42 765 247 518 21 50% 18 43% 11 26% 14 33% 4 10%

Shurugwi 11/13 39 934 242 692 19 46% 15 37% 22 54% 20 49% 6 15%

TOTAL 34/54 122 2196 678 1518 65 52% 58 47% 54 44% 44 35% 13 10%

The average (median) group size is 13 members and most (36%) of the groups have group sizes within the range of 10 to 20 members. The average (modal) age group range is 20 to 49 years. Table 6: Percentage distribution of the group sizes and age groups (n=2196)

Description %

Group size

Below 10 33.6%

11 to 20 36.1%

21 to 30 23.0%

31 to 40 2.5

Above 40 4.9%

TOTAL 100.0%

Age Groups

Under20 1%

From 20 to 49 54%

From 50 to 65 36%

Above 65 9%

From 50 to 65 36%

TOTAL 100.0%

The oldest group was formed in 1983 and majority (76.2%) of the groups were formed before 2015. Year 2015 had the highest frequency of groups (24%) and this can be attributed to EXTRA interventions.

13


Graph 1: Percentage distribution of groups formed in a given year (n=122)

1983 1984 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Percent 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.8 1.6 2.5 3.3 2.5 13.1 2.5 4.9 13.9 21.3 23.8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Under normal circumstance, groups formed in 2015 are expected to be at lower group levels, but surprisingly, majority (75.9%) of these groups are in the managed stage. This can be attributed to the introduction and formation of new ISAL groups whose initial training included topics on group management. A cross tabulation of the group growth stages with ISAL group types shows that, 78% of the ISAL groups are in the managed stage Table 7: Percentage distribution of groups formed in 2015 by growth stage (n=29)

Description % all groups % ISALs

Growth Stage

Infancy/formation stage 6.9% 11.1%

Growth stage 17.2% 11.1%

Managed Stage 75.9% 77.8%

Mature/independent/sustainability

stage

0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%

3.3 Overall GMI analysis

3.3.1 Group maturity levels Majority (57%) of the groups are in the growth and managed stage and this surpasses the 2015

milestone which states that 50% of the groups should be at managed stage. From the graph below, it

can be observed that 57% of the groups are within the managed stage and 5% are above the targeted

growth stage. Therefore, 62% of the groups are within and above the minimum expected growth

stage. A sizeable proportion (35%) of the groups are in the growth stage. With the EXTRA

intervention, these groups can be augmented to the managed stage in 2016.

14


Graph 2: Percentage distribution of groups within the growth stages (n=122)

Infancy/FormationStage

Growth Stage Managed Stage Maturity Stage

Percent 3.3% 35.2% 56.6% 4.9%

3%

35%

57%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%%

of

gro

up

s w

ith

in a

gro

wth

sta

ge

NB: It should be noted that, when the initial results were presented in November 2015, the GMI analysis

was done with 100 cases only and the results reviewed that 51% of the groups were in managed stage

and 1% in mature stage. This therefore meant that, 52% of the groups were within and above the

minimum required group growth level. These results were used in the annual activities progress report.

This report now reports on the final analysis of the collected data using 122 cases.

3.3.2 Groups’ own perception of their maturity level It is always interesting to note how the groups perceive themselves against the calculated GMI.

Majority (63%) of the groups perceived themselves to be at growth stage and 20% at infancy level

despite the fact that some have been operational since the 80’s. Groups usually show fear on their

group’s status. It is understood that some feel they may be left out for some interventions if they state

that they are grown and sustainable. This is noted especially when an NGO is still operational in the

area.

15


Graph 3: Percentage distribution of groups' own perception of its growth stage (n=122)

Infancy/formation stage Growth stage Managed stage Maturity stage

Percent 20% 63% 15% 2%

20%

63%

15%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

One would expect the groups to mature with age or number of years the group was in existence (a

positive linear relationship). A regression analysis of the years the group has been in existence and the

groups’ overall GMI score shows that, there is no such relationship. Rather, groups which has been in

existence for fewer years are the majority and have higher GMI scores.

Graph 4: A regression analysis between number of years the group was in existence and its GMI score

y = -0.0051x + 0.6662R² = 0.0441

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

GM

I Sc

ore

s

Years

16


3.3.3 Analysing components of the GMI Four of the groups’ domains are in the managed stage (group objectives score-67%, governance-72%,

group systems-69% and impact and sustainability-65%). The resources and resource mobilisation

domain is in the growth stage. This suggests that most of the groups are depending on external

support and they do not have enough resources to enable them to do their own planned activities.

Graph 5: Percentage distribution of maturity domains' average GMI scores (n=122)

ObjectivesGovernance

Issues

Resources &Resource

MobilisationGroup Systems

Impact &Sustainability ofGroups Activities

Score (%) 67% 72% 49% 69% 65%

67%72%

49%

69%65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sco

res

In all the domains, most of the groups scored three (high 3) and lowly on resources and resource

mobilisation (see appendices 6.4).

Graph 6: Percentage distribution of groups within a score per domain (n=122)

18

11

21

32

22

23

34

45

25

22

26

1415

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

% O

F G

RO

UP

S W

ITH

IN A

SC

OR

E

17


3.3.4 Extrapolating from the domains analysis (refer to graph 3 and table in appendices

6.4)

1. Objectives:

Most of the groups were formed as a result of external influence from NGOs. They had shared

objectives but they lacked the capacity to run as independent entities, hence external support was

crucial to them. They had plans in place which lacked clarity and some of these were not fully

implemented. Admittedly, most of the groups had activities that were aligned to their objectives.

There are indications that some of the groups review their plans but on an ad hoc basis.

2. Governance issues:

The survey noted that some of the groups had excellent constitutions which they wrote with the

assistance of technocrats. Some community groups stated that they were being assisted by extension

workers, NGOs and the police department. The groups had leadership structures in place and

members were clear about their roles. These group leaders were democratically elected and some of

them received training and capacity building for the required skills and knowledge. The group

members acknowledged that their leaders had good knowledge of leadership and management though

there is still need for improvement and/or refresher courses. There is high participation and

consultation when important decisions are being made and when planning. Groups infrequently

experience interpersonal problems and they have mechanisms in place to resolve them if they ever

happen. The groups testified that, they had high levels of transparency and accountability, as every

group activity is done with the full knowledge of every member.

3. Resources and resource mobilisation:

The groups own about half of the assets required for their activities and most of the resources owned

are from external support. They have the capacity to do basic maintenance of the resources and assets

they own. Few groups indicated the need to acquire assets of their own despite the fact that they lack

adequate resources for their activities.

4. Group systems:

Most of the groups had group activity records (minutes, cash flow books, asset records, ISALs

records, etc.) but these are not to standard. There is evidence that these groups interact with some key

stakeholders namely, MAMID, NGOs, CBMs and the private sector just to mention a few. Some of

the groups have ways of regularly monitoring and evaluating their activities.

5. Impact and sustainability of group’s activities:

The group members were quick to point what they gained as a result of the group’s existence. Some

groups in Kwekwe acquired livestock and another group in Gokwe South have bought farming

implements (ploughs) which are being shared within the group. Individual members of groups

testified that they have gained more through the group’s existence e.g. some members now have all

kitchen utensils and enough linen for the household. Some groups highlighted that, they were now

able to invest into agricultural production through income gained from ISALs. The communities

which they are in are now benefitting from the group activities. Some groups affirmed that they were

paying school fees and buying school uniforms for the orphans and some were giving surplus produce

(maize) to the elderly. Majority of the groups had group members that were greatly satisfied by being

part of the group. This can be the reason why most of the groups have excellent and high member

participation in group activities as well as low turnover. Most of the groups were involved in one

activity and have since diversified into several activities which complements and backup each other in

case of shocks. For an example, a group in Shurugwi was involved in livestock and diversified into

crop production and ISALs. In case of drought, the group can sell their livestock and get income and

savings from ISALs can serve the same purpose. Most of the group members point out how they are

different from their peers who are not in these groups. For instance, most group members in Gokwe

South highlighted how they are able to feed and send children to school, a thing that their peers are

struggling to do.

18


3.3.5 Areas that need improvement Areas that need improvement are those that have scored below 60% (refer to table 8 below). The

groups have challenges in creating savings, investments and resources for their daily operations. Point

30 of section F reflects the challenges in savings and investments for their daily operations as

evidenced by a low score of 44% and also on point 16 of section D with a score of 43%. These low

scores show that groups are having challenges in acquiring resources for optimal function. In addition,

most of the groups’ leadership have not been capacitated in order to make their roles more effective.

Table 8: Areas that need improvement (from table in appendices 6.4)

Questions % Overall average

Score (n=488)

SECTION C – GOVERNANCE ISSUES

11. How much training, capacity building was received by group leadership since group formation? 57

12.Level of knowledge of leadership & management (Rated after reviewing records & systems of group 59

SECTION D: RESOURCES AND RESOURCE MOBILISATION

16. Asset and capital ownership (for assets & equipment relevant to the type of group) over time. 43

17. Resource mapping & weighting. Resource Sources & weight of Source. Consider major resources only. 51

18.Maintenance and stewardship of resources 50

19.Plans for acquisition of assets to carry out group activities 52

SECTION F – IMPACT & SUSTAINABILITY OF GROUP’S ACTIVITIES

25. What has been gained by the group as a result of the group’s existence? 56

27. What has been gained by the Community as a result of the group’s activities? 55

30.Group savings or investments 44

31. Analysis of trends in crisis situations and how the group overcame shocks. 58

n=488 is the total score for all the groups if they had scored 4s

3.4 Gokwe South, Kwekwe and Shurugwi GMI Analysis 3.4.1 Group maturity levels per district Gokwe South and Kwekwe districts’ proportion of groups in the managed stage are more than those

targeted for 2015. Gokwe South has 78% of its groups in the managed stage and 15% in the mature

stage. It therefore has 95% of its groups within and above the managed stage. Kwekwe has 55% of its

groups in the managed stage. Shurugwi district has 36% of its groups in the managed stage and is

below the proposed target.

Graph 7: Percentage distribution of groups within growth levels by district

Infancy/FormationStage

Growth Stage Managed Stage Maturity Stage

Gokwe South (n=41) 0% 7% 78% 15%

Kwekwe (n=42) 2% 43% 55% 0%

Shurugwi (n=39) 8% 56% 36% 0%

0%

7%

78%

15%

2%

43%

55%

0%

8%

56%

36%

0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% o

f gr

ou

ps

wit

hin

a g

row

th s

tage

19


3.4.2 Overall analysis of the growth domains for the target districts

In reference to the five growth domains, all the districts scored high on governance. Gokwe South had

an overall high score in all the five domains. The lower score on resources and resource mobilisation

suggests the need to improve on this domain. Kwekwe district has better scores on objectives (65%),

governance (68%), group systems (65%) and impact and sustainability (63%) compared to resources

and resource mobilisation with an average score of 44%. Shurugwi has majority of its groups in the

growth stage. It performed better on governance (65%) and group systems (65%) only. There is need

for the district to improve on resource and resource mobilisation as well as on impact and

sustainability.

Graph 8: Percentage distribution of maturity domains’ average GMI scores by district

Objectives Governance IssuesResources &

ResourceMobilisation

Group SystemsImpact &

Sustainability ofGroups Activities

Gokwe South (n=41) 80% 83% 63% 82% 75%

Kwekwe (n=42) 65% 68% 44% 61% 63%

Shurugwi (n=39) 55% 65% 39% 65% 58%

80%83%

63%

82%

75%

65%68%

44%

61%63%

55%

65%

39%

65%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ave

raag

e Sc

ore

s

3.5 Conclusion With this analysis, the proportion of groups within and above the managed stage was established. The

domains that are currently affecting the augmentation of the groups to the managed and/or to mature stage

were identified. Most importantly specific domain elements that need to be worked on were also identified.

20

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

This study unearthed a number of issues pertaining to the overall group maturity level of EXTRA target

groups. About 62% of the groups are at the managed and mature stages. This is above the 2015 milestone

which states that 50% of the groups should be at managed stage by end of 2015. This implies that these

groups may operate with minimal assistance and support from external organizations. With 35% of the

groups in the growth stage, there are higher chances that with group management trainings, these groups

can easily augment to the managed stage.

Group objectives, governance, group systems and, impact and sustainability are the maturity domains in the lower level of the managed stage and the resources and resource mobilisation domain is in the

growth stage. All the growth domains need improvement though greater attention is to be directed to the resource and resource mobilisation domain.

4.2 Recommendations

All groups should be trained in group management and much emphasis should be on the following; building capacity for leaders, educating groups on the importance of mobilising

and caring for their own resources, having savings and investing in agricultural production and other income generating activities.

When training the groups, it would be ideal to use the GMI tool as a checklist/training syllabus.

ISAL intervention can be an approach for groups to generate income for acquiring and mobilising resources. Groups that were already using ISALs can be encouraged to redirect their savings to resource and resource mobilisation and agricultural investments.

21

5. NEXT GMI SURVEY

5. NEXT GMI SURVEY

The next GMI wave will be conducted in June 2016. At least 122 groups will be conveniently

sampled from the same population. These groups will be different from the groups that were selected

for the 2015 GMI survey. All the 20 wards that were not selected GMI will be sampled. A comparison

of the 2015 and 2016 growth maturity levels will provide evidence on whether there has been an

improvement on the organizational capacity and skills of men and women small holder farmers to

demand extension and financial services. Enumerators will be trained and/or retrained on conducting

the GMI survey and interviews.

2, 612 registered groups

(sampling frame)

X registered groups (actual

number to be established after

the current data cleaning

exercise) (sampling frame)

Conveniently and

purposively sample at

least 122 groups

Conveniently and

purposively sampled

122 groups

June - 2016 November - 2015 July to November 2016

Correctional measures to

improve the overall group

performance

Figure 4: The GMI survey strategy

22

6. APPENDICES

6. APPENDICES

6.1 Study area – Ward Maps

6.1.1 Gokwe South District

8

15

9

5

28

4

24

6

1

7

13

2

1922

21

18

3

2311

16

27

12

17

1425

32

29

26

10

31

20

33

30

Legend

Other wards

EXTRA and unsampled wards

EXTRA and sampled wards

40 0 40 80 Kilometers

Gokwe South

S

N

EW

Gokwe South District

6.1.2 Kwekwe District

2

3

1

4

5

31

30

15

24

9

7

6

8

17

21

25

2722

16

26

12

33

13

23

11

20

14

10

29

19

32

28

18

Legend

Other w ards




Kwekwe

S

N

EW

Kwekwe District

23

6. APPENDICES

6.1.3 Shurugwi District

1

2

6

18

215

17

19

9

16

20

3

4

23

8

7

13

22

15

12

11

10

14

24

Legend

Other Wards




Shurugwi

S

N

EW

Shurugwi District

6.2 GMI Schedule

24

6. APPENDICES

6.3 SPSS Syntax Recoding Districts into categorical data:

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet0.

RECODE Dist ('Gokwe-South'='1') ('Kwekwe'='2') ('Shurugwi'='3').

EXECUTE.

Calculating the domain scores:

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

COMPUTE Score_Obj=(whyformed+howformed+objectives+plan+activitiesalign+obj_updated)/24.

EXECUTE.

COMPUTE Score_Govern=(Constitution + adherence + leadership_operate + leader_selection +

training_capacity + leadership_knowledge + consultation + problem_resolve +

transparency_accountability)/36.

EXECUTE.

COMPUTE Score_resource=(assets_ownership + resources + maintenance + plans_for_acquisation)/16.

EXECUTE.

COMPUTE Score_system=(reports_documentation + standard_record + stakeholder_consultation +

monitoring_review)/16.

EXECUTE.

COMPUTE Score_impac=(objectives_achievement + group_impact + member_impact + community_impact +

are_u_happy + turn_over + group_savings + analysis_of_trends + positive_differences +

innovation_diversify)/40.

EXECUTE.

Calculating the overall group score:

COMPUTE Overall_Grp_Scor=(Score_Obj + Score_Govern + Score_resource + Score_system +

Score_impac)/5.

EXECUTE.

Recording overall group score into categorical data and establishing the group growth level:

RECODE Overall_Grp_Scor (Lowest thru .39=1) (.39 thru .59=2) (.59 thru .89=3) (.89 thru Highest=4)

INTO Grp_Growth_Stage.

VARIABLE LABELS Grp_Growth_Stage 'Group Growth Stage'.

EXECUTE.

Calsulating the Domains questions score frequencies

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=whyformed howformed objectives plan activitiesalign Constitution adherence

leadership_operate leader_selection training_capacity leadership_knowledge consultation

problem_resolve transparency_accountability assets_ownership resources maintenance

plans_for_acquisation reports_documentation standard_record stakeholder_consultation

monitoring_review objectives_achievement group_impact member_impact community_impact are_u_happy

turn_over group_savings analysis_of_trends positive_differences innovation_diversify

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Percentage Distribution of Groups within growth levels by district

SORT CASES BY District.

SPLIT FILE LAYERED BY District.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Grp_Growth_Stage

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=Score_Obj Score_Govern Score_resource Score_system Score_impac

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX

25

6. APPENDICES

6.4 Frequency distribution of scores and average score per domain question

Questions % Score Frequencies (n=122) % Overall

average Score

(n=488) 0 1 2 3 4

SECTION B– OBJECTIVES

1.Why was the group formed 0 12.3 42.6 19.7 25.4 65

2. How was the group formed – Whose idea was it? What then happened to advance this idea up to today?

2.5 13.1 32 36.1 16.4 63

3. Does the group have shared/common objectives (purpose, goals & vision of the group). 0.8 1.6 13.1 60.7 23.8 76

4. Does the group have a plan to meet its objectives? 1.6 9.8 27.9 34.4 26.2 68

5. How aligned are group’s activities to its objectives. 0 15.6 37.7 27 19.7 63

6. How often are the group’s objectives updated to respond to changing circumstances? 0 15.6 37.7 27 19.7 66

Average Scores (n=122) 0.8 11.3 31.8 34.2 21.9


7. Does group have a constitution? If yes, how was the constitution drafted? 3.3 4.9 32 45.1 14.8 66

8.Level of adherence to, and enforcement of, constitution 4.9 1.6 16.4 50 27 73

9. If the group have a leadership structure? How well does it operate? 2.5 2.5 15.6 45.9 33.6 76

10. How was the most recent selection of leaders carried out? 2.5 7.4 14.8 26.2 49.2 78

11. How much training, capacity building was received by group leadership since group formation?

7.4 13.9 33.6 35.2 9.8 57

12.Level of knowledge of leadership & management (Rated after reviewing records &

systems of group 0.8 8.2 50.8 35.2 4.9 59

13. Level of consultation of members in decision making & planning 0 0.8 15.6 54.1 29.5 78

14. Do you face any interpersonal problems in working as a group (cohesion)? Explain

these & how you have resolved them (conflict management) 0 0 12.3 64.8 23 78

15.Levels of transparency & accountability (Group members only) 0.8 0.8 5.7 47.5 45.1 84

Average Scores (n=122) 2.5 4.5 21.9 44.9 26.3


16. Asset and capital ownership (for assets & equipment relevant to the type of group) over

time.

18.9 32.8 19.7 14.8 13.9

43

17. Resource mapping & weighting. Resource Sources & weight of Source. Consider major

resources only.

14.8 23.8 16.4 32.8 12.3

51

18.Maintenance and stewardship of resources 24.6 9.8 23.8 24.6 17.2 50

19.Plans for acquisition of assets to carry out group activities 12.3 16.4 33.6 26.2 11.5 52

Average Scores (n=122) 17.7 20.7 23.4 24.6 13.7

SECTION E: GROUP SYSTEMS

20.The standard of the group’s activity reports, minutes 1.6 13.1 23 32.8 29.5 69

21.The standard of the group’s records – financial/asset inventory records, 3.3 10.7 36.1 27 23 64

22.How does the group interact with key stakeholders on their own without aid from

support organisations

0 4.9 22.1 52.5 20.5

72

23. Does the group regularly monitor, evaluate, reflect, review progress and impact of its

activities and use the results / information to refine the way they do things.

3.3 4.1 30.3 39.3 23

73

Average Scores (n=122) 2.1 8.2 27.9 37.9 24.0


24. Level of achievement of group’s objectives. 2.5 10.7 45.1 21.3 20.5 62

25. What has been gained by the group as a result of the group’s existence? 14.8 9.8 30.3 26.2 18.9 56

26. What has been gained by the Individual members as a result of the group’s existence? 6.6 8.2 23.8 39.3 22.1 72

27. What has been gained by the Community as a result of the group’s activities? 10.7 18 29.5 24.6 17.2 55

28. Are you happy to be in this group? 0 1.6 4.1 45.9 48.4 85

29. How is the attendance rate turnover in membership? 0.8 2.5 18.9 28.7 49.2 81

30.Group savings or investments 9.8 32 32.8 21.3 4.1 44

31. Analysis of trends in crisis situations and how the group overcame shocks. Or do they have a plan & strategy to deal with shocks

7.4 12.3 35.2 31.1 13.9 58

32.Do you see any positive differences between yourself and your peers who are not in the

group

0.8 2.5 18 43.4 35.2

77

33.Level of innovation and diversification of group’s projects 0.8 18 30.3 29.5 21.3 63

Average Scores (n=122) 5.4 11.6 26.8 31.1 25.1

6.5 Group Maturity Index (GMI) Tool

GROUP MATURITY INDEX (GMI) TOOL

Section A: Group Identification and Member Demographic Information

A1 – Date

A2 – Facilitating Organisation: A3 – District: A4 – Ward/Number:

A5 – Group’s Name (write in space below) A6 Group Type (Circle Appropriate Responses)

1=Support Group 2=ISAL Group 3=IGA Group 4=Health Club

5=Garden Group 6=Dairy Cooperative 7=Farmer Grp 8=Other specify

A7 – Year group

was formed.

A7 (a) Was Group ever

dissolved at some point

1 = Yes

2 = No

A7b - In this box State Reason if group was ever dissolved at some point:

A8 – Membership # Below 20 Yrs # 20-49 Yrs # 50-65 yrs # 65 Yrs+ #Males #Females #Chronically Ill # Disabled # widowed

Totals

A9 - Does this group have a leadership Structure, management committee or similar? 1 = Yes 2 = No (If ‘No’ Skip to Section B)

Position A (1=Male 2=Female) B (Age) Position A (1-Male 2 – Female) B (Age)

1.Chairperson 4.Vice Treasurer

2.Vice Chair 5.Secretary

3.Treasurer 6.Other Specify

SECTION B : GROUP’S OBJECTIVES

Questions Score Explanation Comments

1. Why was the group

formed

0 Very Poor Reason not clear

1 Poor Externals saw need and sold reason to individuals but group still battling

to take ownership 2 Average Group had heard about it and copied

3 High Group saw need but lacked capacity, and hence external support

4 Excellent Self-formation out of identified need

2. How was the group

formed – Whose idea was

it? What then happened to

advance this idea up to

today?

0 Very Poor External idea (no consultation). Forming the group was by externals and

externals still running the group

1 Poor External idea and formation with minimal consultation. Externals are

still involved to a great extent. 2 Average Local idea but mutual discussions between externals and locals at start.

Minimal involvement of externals now. 3 High Self-initiated, external support was very crucial and there is now some

minimal involvement of externals. 4 Excellent Self-initiated. Even though external support was initially sought and

provided, it is no longer necessary 3. Does the group have 0 None No objectives

27

6. APPENDICES

shared/common objectives

(purpose, goals & vision of

the group).

1 Low Objectives not clear

2 Average Objectives not shared/common among members

3 High Objectives clear and shared

4 Excellent Objectives very well defined and articulated & shared

4. Does the group have a plan

to meet its objectives?

(Capture the Plans on

Flip Chart)

0 None No plan at all

1 Low Some kind of plan but very sketchy

2 Average A plan is in place but lacks clarity

3 High Well defined plan in place but not fully implementing

4 Excellent Group has a well-defined local plan in place & implementing

5. How aligned are group’s

activities to its objectives.

(Facilitator’s Judgement

using what was captured

above)

0 None No direct relationship exists

1 Low Some few broad activities aligned

2 Average Most broad activities aligned

3 High All broad activities aligned but some few new ones not

4 Excellent Activities are highly aligned to the group/s objectives

6. How often are the group’s

objectives updated to

respond to changing

circumstances?

0 None No objectives

1 Low Objectives have never been updated since start-up

2 Average Objectives have been reviewed since start up

3 High Objectives are reviewed but on an ad hoc basis

4 Excellent Objectives are reviewed at least annually


7. Does group have a

constitution? If yes, how

was the constitution

drafted?

0 None No constitution drafted nor discussion of rules

1 Low Unwritten/sketchily drafted constitution not very clear to members

2 Average Unwritten/draft constitution but clear to members

3 High Well written, clear to members & certified by authorities

4 Excellent Well-crafted with technical support, clear to members & certified.

8. Level of adherence to, and

enforcement of,

constitution

0 None No adherence or enforcement at all or No constitution exists

1 Low Selective adherence & enforcement

2 Average Low adherence and enforcement

3 High High levels of adherence and enforcement

4 Excellent Total adherence & enforcement

9. If the group have a 0 None No leadership structure

28

6. APPENDICES

leadership structure? How

well does it operate?

1 Low Ad-hoc and individualistic leadership structure

2 Average Leadership structure in place but members not clear about roles

3 High Leadership structure in place & members in the process of undergoing

capacity building through some technical support 4 Excellent Clearly defined, agreed and functional leadership structure in place

10. How was the most

recent selection of leaders

carried out?

0 None Dictatorship or no leadership structure in place

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent Complete Democracy & transparency

11. How much training,

capacity building was

received by group

leadership since group

formation? Ask group

leaders only)

0 None No training/capacity building was ever received by any leaders

1 Low Very limited training/capacity building was received by leaders

2 Average Quality training and capacity building was received for some of the

required skills and knowledge for some leaders of the group 3 High Past and current group leaders received most of the relevant and quality

training and capacity building 4 Excellent All the required and relevant training or capacity building was received

by all of the past and current group leaders 12. Level of knowledge

of leadership &

management (Rated after

reviewing records &

systems of group –

Leadership discussions

0 None No knowledge of leadership & management as evidenced by records and

systems that are in a shambles

1 Low Poor level of knowledge on leadership & management. As evidenced by

records existing but not properly kept. 2 Average Good knowledge of leadership & management as evidenced by good

records and systems existing though still needing improvement 3 High High knowledge of leadership & management evidenced by good

records and systems existing needing only minor improvements 4 Excellent Excellent knowledge of leadership & management

13. Level of

consultation of members in

decision making &

planning (Ask members

only).

0 None No Participation at all

1 Low Low levels of participation and consultation

2 Average Average levels of participation and consultation

3 High High levels of participation and consultation

4 Excellent Excellent levels of participation and consultation

14. Do you face any

interpersonal problems in

working as a group

(cohesion)? Explain these

& how you have resolved

them (conflict

management) (Group

members question).

0 Poor Yes – all the time. Group cohesion & conflict management is still a

major problem

1 Low Group cohesion & conflict management are still problems most of the

time. 2 Average At times - Group cohesion & conflict management is sometimes an

issue. 3 High Rarely. Group has high level of cohesion & good conflict management

4 Excellent Not any more, group has found ways of understanding and finding each

other, diffusing tensions long before they become conflict. Excellent

levels of cohesion and conflict management

15. Levels of 0 None Low levels of transparency & accountability/ Many cases of corruption

1 Low No transparency & accountability/ Frequent cases of corruption

29

6. APPENDICES

transparency &

accountability (Group

members only)

2 Average No transparency & accountability/ few cases of corruption

3 High There are rare cases of corruption i.e. high transparency & accountability

4 Excellent High levels of transparency & accountability/ no corruption at all


16. Asset and capital

ownership (for assets

& equipment relevant

to the type of group)

over time.

0 None No assets

1 Low Group has/owns very few of the assets it requires

2 Average Group owns about half the assets it requires for its activities

3 High Group owns most of the required assets

4 Excellent Group owns all required assets (Group does not need assets, eg ISAL)

17. Resource mapping &

weighting. Resource

Sources & weight of

Source. Consider

major resources only.

0 None All resources weighted above 20% are still from outside the group and no

alternatives exist to replace external support.

1 Low

2 Average

3 High No resource weighted above 20% is from outside the group but external support is

still very important 4 Excellent No resource weighted above 20% is from outside the group and external support is

regarded as not necessary. 18. Maintenance and

stewardship of

resources (Ask & also

find time to inspect

the condition of the

group’s assets)

0 None There is no maintenance & stewardship of resources by the group out of sheer

incompetence

1 Low There is poor maintenance & stewardship due to limited resources

2 Average There is basic maintenance & stewardship of resources by the group. Some

resources are poorly looked after while some are properly maintained. 3 High Good maintenance & stewardship of resources by the group

4 Excellent Excellent maintenance & stewardship of all available resources by the group

19. Plans for acquisition

of assets to carry out

group activities

0 None No plans at all

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent Plans are well advanced/ Group has all resources

SECTION E: GROUP SYSTEMS

30

6. APPENDICES


20. The standard of the

group’s activity

reports, minutes ...

(Ask documents from

leaders)

0 None No records exist at all

1 Low Some kind of records exist but difficult to follow

2 Average Some minutes and records not complete

3 High Minutes exist but some are not up to date

4 Excellent Records, reports & meetings etc exist and these are all up to date.

21. The standard of the

group’s records –

financial/asset

inventory records,

0 None No records exist at all

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent Records of transactions (financial) exist and these are supported by essential

support documents (receipts) including asset Inventories 22. How does the group

interact with key

stakeholders on their

own without aid from

support organisations

0 None No interaction exists between the group and its stakeholders

1 Low

2 Average

3 High There is evidence of beneficial interaction with some key stakeholders and the

group 4 Excellent There is evidence of high and beneficial interaction with all key stakeholders

along the value chain and the group Write Stakeholders:

23. Does the group

regularly monitor,

evaluate, reflect,

review progress and

impact of its activities

and use the results /

information to refine

the way they do

things.

0 None No monitoring and no review and reflection in place

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent A detailed regular monitoring & review and reflection process is in place and the

group learns from it to refine their operations.



24. Level of achievement

of group’s objectives.

(Go back to the Group

objectives discussed in

section B)

0 None No objective has been met up to date and evidence suggests that meeting

objectives will remain difficult

1 Low None met but signs that some may be met

2 Average

3 High All met but some members not fully satisfied

4 Excellent All objectives are being met & members satisfied with the benefits

31

6. APPENDICES

25. What has been

gained by the group as a

result of the group’s

existence? (Ask Group

members only)

0 None No benefits up to date & evidence suggest no benefits in near future

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent All members are getting expected benefits and additional benefits

26. What has been

gained by the Individual

members as a result of

the group’s existence?

(Ask Group members

only)

0 None No benefits up to date & evidence suggest no benefits in near future

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent The group individual members are getting expected benefits and additional

benefits 27. What has been gained

by the Community as

a result of the group’s

activities?

0 None No benefits to date, no evidence of benefits in the near future

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent Community is getting expected benefits and additional benefits.

28. Are you happy to be in

this group? (Asked

group members only,

probe for reasons for

perspective)

0 Not at all No satisfaction.

1 Slightly Some satisfaction but mostly not satisfied

2 Average Mostly satisfied but substantial frustration still exist

3 Happy Satisfied

4 V. Happy Greatly satisfied

29. How is the attendance

rate turnover in

membership?

0 None

1 Low Participation and attendance of group activities is very poor. Turnover is very

high. 2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent Participation and attendance of group activities is very high. Turnover is very

low, minimal or only through death. 30. Group savings or

investments

0 None No savings at all. No Investments

1 Low Savings & investments exists but less than 25% of planned, targeted or budgeted

2 Average Between 25 & 50% of what was planned

3 High Between 50 & 75% of what was planned

4 Excellent High savings & investments of above 75% of planned, targeted or budgeted/

Group does not need and does not have savings

32

6. APPENDICES


31. Analysis of trends in crisis

situations and how the group

overcame shocks. Or do they

have a plan & strategy to deal

with shocks.

0 None Group is not resilient & incapable of adapting to changing situations.

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent Group is highly resilient and adapts very well to changing situations.

32. Do you see any positive

differences between yourself

and your peers who are not in

the group?

(give concrete examples)

0 None No difference is seen at all

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent There is evidence members are far ahead of their peers.

33. Level of innovation and

diversification of group’s

projects

0 None No diversification & current activities are not being modified to adapt to

changing times

1 Low

2 Average

3 High

4 Excellent More projects have been added on top of the original and the original project

has also been greatly modified

SECTION G: GROUP’S OWN PERCEPTION OF ITS GROWTH, MATURITY & SUSTAINABILITY

Questions Score/Stage Duration (Convert to Months Reasons why the group think they are at this stage.

1. What’s your perception on what

stage of growth, maturity &

sustainability the group is currently

on? Give reasons why you think so.

1 Formation

2 Growth

3 Managed

4 Mature

2. How long did the group take to go

through each of the stages it has

passed through so far? (Ensure the

last stage corresponds with that

indicated above.)

Score/Stage Duration (Convert to Months Reasons for taking such a period (long or short)

1 Formation

2 Growth

3 Managed

4 Mature

Documents

GMI Report 09-01-2016