critical enquiry 2

8/7/2019 CRITICAL ENQUIRY 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critical-enquiry-2 1/31

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS OF VOLUNTARY

ORGANISATIONS

Dr.Mrs.Lina R.Thatte and Dr.Mrs.Madhura Bedarkar

Abstract

Voluntary Oraganisations (VOs) have emerged as a social force thatstrives to bring about a desirable change by stimulating the civilsociety. Therefore, it is essential to assess the role and effectiveness of the VOs. We attempted to measure the multi-dimensionality of effectiveness of VOs with the help of six parameters, namely socialsupport, networking, beneficiaries’ rapport, awareness generation, self assessment and voluntary contribution. It is seen that Vanarai is themost effective VO in protecting and conserving environment whileNisarg Sevak is found least effective. Hariyali stands next to Vanarai.SUNNY, Hope and Enviro-Vigil ranked third, fourth and fifth,respectively.

Our regression analysis showed that social support garnered by VOs,its networking with other VOs, especially with national andinternational VOs, its self-perception and its age seem to be theimportant determinants of effectiveness.

1.INTRODUCTION

Voluntary organizations, popularly known as Non GovernmentalOrganisations (NGOs) in India, have increasingly seen as providing analternative mode of development, as they emphasize on environmentalconservation and protection or on empowerment of the masses at thegrassroot level. Thus, Voluntary Oraganisations (VOs) have emerged asa social force that strives to bring about a desirable change bystimulating the civil society. Therefore, it is essential to assess the roleand effectiveness of the VOs.

In India, certain factors like involvement of VOs in numerousdevelopment issues, their stress on participatory mode of intervention,strong claims of achieving the localized desired goals and the volumeof funds they obtain, have provided an impetus to study theireffectiveness.

The issue of assessing effectiveness of VOs has become so pervasive



that the researchers are neither able to ignore the issue of effectiveness of VOs nor are they able to deploy a simple universalstandard of measurement to evaluate their effectiveness. Thus, theissues of effectiveness and governance of VOs have assumed immenseimportance and hold potential of becoming a rich research agenda

among VO study circles in the developing countries.

Very little has been done towards formulating a theoretical frameworkand developing measures for evaluating the performance of VOs, moreso in case of VOs performing in the field of environment protection.Hence, there is a need to carry out such exercise.

2. SELECTION OF SAMPLE

We applied the following criteria for selecting grassroot environmental

voluntary organizations for our study.

i. An organization that has presence in either Thane or Pune

district

ii. An organization that is a not-for-profit or voluntary in nature

iii. An organization that is involved in multiple environment

protection activities such as aforestation, water conservation,

awareness generation, etc., simultaneously

iv. An organization that is a clearly identifiable group of likeminded

citizens

v. An organization that operates at grassroot level and interacts

with respective beneficiaries

vi. An organization that has done sizeable work in the area of

environment protection

vii. Willingness of the organization to share its records and data with

the researchers

viii. An organization that pursues environmental work as its major

activity



For obtaining information on environmental voluntary organizations inPune district, we used following sources. Firstly, we approached Pune-based ‘Action for Agricultural Renewal in Maharashtra’ (AFARM), whichserves as an umbrella organization for VOs operational in watershed,rural development and environment protection. AFARM provided us a

list of Pune-based VOs that pursue environment protection relatedactivities.

Secondly, we referred to an online database of Pune-based VOs, titled‘www.punediary.com’ that provides the contact details of VOs as pertheir area of activity.

Similarly, for selecting environmental voluntary organizations in Thane,we referred to the online database titled ’www.IndianNGOs.com. Wereferred to a few newspaper clippings on the contribution of environmental grassroot VOs.

Moreover, an online search was done to get more information on theseVOs. We conducted discussions with a few experts for selecting VOs forour study. We interviewed the senior officials of VOs to know moreabout their activities and contribution. We also talked to a few citizensabout environmental grassroot VOs active in their localities

Thus, from available list ,we randomly selected following three Pune-based grassroots VOs :

i. Vanarai

ii. Nisarg Va Samaj Seva Sangh (SUNNY)

iii. Nisarg Sevak

And, similarly we randomly selected following three environmental

grassroots VOs in Thane district:

i. Hariyali

ii. Enviro Vigil

iii. Hope

2.1 Profiles of Sampled Voluntary Organizations



In this section, we have described in detail the profiles of the six VOs

studied by us.

i) VANARAI FOUNDATION

Vanarai, formed by Dr. Mohan Dhariya in 1982, has been involved inenvironment protection activities since last twenty five years.

Vanarai has presence in more than 250 villages spread all overMaharashtra. It attempts to make these villages green, clean and self-reliant through aforestation, agriculture with modern methods, animalhusbandry, latrine and gobar gas for every house, eradication of illiteracy and creating local employment opportunities. Vanarai, thus,calls itself a people’s movement.

Vanarai’s membership increased from around six hundred in the yearof establishment to one thousand at present.

The corpus fund of Vanarai as on April, 2006 was Rs. 16,48,975.Vanarai’s donations and other receipts for the year 2005-06 amountto Rs. 2, 49, 000. Vanarai does not receive foreign funds.

Vanarai’s operations are governed by a board of trustee, comprising aPresident and six trustees.

ii) SAMAJ VA NISARG SEVA SANGH (SUNNY)

Samaj Va Nisarg Seva Sangh was established in 1993 under theBombay Public Trust Act by Shri. N V Deshpande. Since past 14 years,the organization is involved in environment protection activities.

Through a few initiatives, Samaj Va Nisarg Seva Sangh has madeattempts to contribute to ecology and society.

Number of members of SUNNY increased from one hundred and twelvein 1993 to one hundred and seventy two in 2007.

SUNNY’s corpus fund as on April, 2006 amount to Rs. 12,69,288 andother receipts amount to Rs. 2,80,148.

SUNNY has a formal organizational structure which consists of a



president and seven trustees, who meet on bi-monthly basis.

iii) NISARG SEVAK

Nisarg Sevak was established in 1987. Since last twenty one years,Nisarg Sevak has been carrying out activities relating to environmentprotection, conservation and awareness generation in Pune city. It wasfounded by Dr. Ramesh Godbole and ten other like-minded individuals.

The membership increased from one hundred and seventy seven in1987 to two hundred and ninety five in 2007.

The corpus fund of Nisarg Sevak amount to Rs. 14,64,371 as on April31, 2006.

Nisarg Sevak receives foreign funds from Indo-German BermanFoundation. In 2005-2006, it received Rs. 1.10 lakh from thefoundation.

Nisarg Sevak has a formal organizational structure consisting of achairman, a Vice chairman, a Secretary and eleven managingcommittee members. Elections for these posts are conducted everythree years. The managing committee meets once every fortnight.

iv) HARIYALI

Hariyali was set up in 1996 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is serving as an action-oriented social service organization since last ten years. Since itsestablishment, it has received the involvement and participation fromschool and college students, senior citizens and housewives.

Hariyali’s activities are spread in areas surrounding Thane city such asKalher/ Kasheli, Upvan, Saddle Tunnel Side of Bhandup, Balkum-Majiwada Saddle Tunnel and Pipeline area, hills in IIT Campus at Powai,Kunda Dongar, Dindeshwar Mahadev hill ranges, Chikholi dam nearBadlapur, Vihar Lake, etc.

It has a membership base of three hundred and fifty two members.

As on April 31, 2006, Hariyali’s corpus fund was Rs. 8,91,376. Its totalreceipts, for the year 2005-06, amount to Rs. 1,74,482.



It does not receive foreign funds.

Hariyali has a well-defined organizational structure. It is headed by thePresident, who consults with the members of Managing Committee onkey issues. He also works in coordination with the Secretary and Joint

Secretary. The financial matters of Hariyali are looked after by theTreasurer and Internal Auditor.

The Managing Committee meets regularly to discuss matters relatingto administration and activities.

v) ENVIRO VIGIL (PARYAVARAN DAKSHATA MANCH)

Enviro Vigil, also known as ‘Paryavaran Dakshata Manch’, is based inThane, Maharashtra. It was established nine years ago, i.e., in 1999. It

has a strong task force of highly motivated, dedicated and intellectualindividuals and professionals from all walks of life.

Enviro Vigil has initiated several projects pertaining to environmentalissues in Thane city and surrounding areas like Wada, Karjat, etc. Theactivities of Enviro Vigil are Management of Municipal Solid Waste,Vermi-composting , Management of Bio-Medical Waste , Rain waterharvesting ,Environment information centre,publishing monthlymagazine,plant library etc. It has a membership base of around five hundred individuals who have

subscribed to its newsletter by paying subscription fees of Rs. 450 perannum. In the year of establishment, Enviro Vigil had three hundredand forty members.

The corpus fund was around Rs. 50,000/, which now has gone to Rs.5.45 lakh as on April 31, 2006. Enviro Vigil had taken a bank loan of Rs,45,000 for setting up bio-medical waste treatment plant in itspremises.

Enviro Vigil does not receive any funds from foreign bodies.

Enviro Vigil has a formal organisational structure. It has an OrganisingCommittee consisting of President, Secretary, General Secretary andTreasurer. It has a board of directors, consisting of ten directors thatlead a team of twenty ordinary board members. The OrganisingCommittee meets twice a month. The bio-medical treatment plant hasa paid staff of around 35 individuals.



vi) HOPE

HOPE, established in 1996 as an environment initiative of Rotary Clubof Thane, works in the field of environmental awareness, education and

socio-economic development in and around Thane, since last elevenyears. The membership of Hope, open to all nature lovers and atpresent, increased from twenty in 1996 to two hundred in 2007. Hopewas registered as Hope Nature Trust in 2003.

The corpus fund of Hope, as on April 31, 2006, was rupees two lakh.

Hope does not receive any foreign funds.

Its total expenses during 2005-06 amount to rupees thirty thousand, of which rupees eighteen thousand were spent on awareness generation,

plantation, excursions programmes.

Hope has informal structure, consisting of a President and twoSecretaries.

3. EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

For any voluntary organization to be effective in its functioning, it hasto garner larger social support, good networking with similarorganizations, increasing the number of volunteers and members,

uninterrupted rapport with beneficiaries, generation of environmentalawareness and continuous self assessment of its activities.

3.1 Measurement of Effectiveness

For measuring effectiveness of the sampled VOs to protectenvironment ,we collected data on following variables pertaining tothem as seen in Table 1:

Table 1

Thirty Six Key Variables

V1: Growth in number of donors, annual and life members fromthe year

of establishment to 2005-06V2: Total number of donors, life members, annual members and

volunteers from the year of establishment to 2005-06



V3: Number of individuals participating in the seminars,workshops, fairs,

discussions organized by sampled grassroot environmentalVOsV4: Amount of corpus fund generated upto 2005-06

V5: Interaction with local VOsV6: Interaction with national/ international VOsV7: Self-assessment of people offering voluntary labourV8: Self- assessment of donations receivedV9: Self- assessment of corpus generationV10: Self- assessment of environmental awareness generationV11: Self- assessment of starting a new activityV12: Self- assessment of distribution of saplingsV13: Self- assessment of fight against pollutionV14: Self- assessment of organizing programmes (workshops/seminars/

conferences)V15: Expenses saved due to voluntary contributionV16: Total expensesV17: Ratio of productive expenses to total expensesV18: Number of Project stage/s at which beneficiaries’participation is

soughtV19: Number of Measures used to influence policies andprogrammes of

governmentV20: Number of Methods used to build rapport with beneficiaries

V21: Number of saplings planted every yearV22: Survival rate of planted saplingsV23: Number of bunds constructed so farV24: Number of techniques used for creating awareness amongmassesV25: Number of workshops/ seminars organized every yearV26: Number of public meetings organized every yearV27: Number of rallies and similar activities organized every yearV28: Social Support parameter

V29: Networking parameterV30: Self Assessment Parameter A

V31: Self Assessment Parameter BV32: Voluntary Contribution parameterV33: Beneficiaries’ Rapport ParameterV34: Awareness Generation ParameterV35: Effectiveness ParameterV36: Age of VOs



For collecting data on the above variables, we administered structuredinterviews with either the founders or senior officials of the sampledVOs , whom we term as respondents.

We developed six parameters to measure effectiveness. Each

parameter was defined in terms of certain variables. These sixparameters are :

i. Social Support parameterii. Networking parameteriii. Self Assessment parameteriv. Voluntary Contribution parameterv. Beneficiaries’ Rapport parametervi. Awareness Generation parameter

i. Social Support Parameter:

Social Support Parameter indicates the degree of participation bysociety in the activities of VOs. We have constructed it by consideringvariables V1 to V4 as noted below:

a. Increase in number of donors, life members and volunteers fromthe year of establishment to upto the year (2005-06): V1

b. Total number of donors, life members and volunteers from theyear of establishment to upto the year (2005-06): V2

c. Number of individuals participating in the seminars, workshops,

fairs, discussions organized by sampled grassroot environmentalVOs: V3

d. Amount of corpus fund generated upto (2005-06): V4

ii. Networking Parameter:

Networking parameter measures the extent of liaison established byVOs with similar organizations. The constituents of this parameter areV5 and V6 as listed below:

a. Nature of interaction with local like-minded VOs: V5b. Nature of interaction with national or international VOs: V6

iii. Self Assessment Parameter:

Self Assessment parameter is measured in following two ways, A andB:



A. VOs were asked to rate their performance on following activities ona numericscale of 1 to 5:

i. People offering voluntary labour: V7ii. Amount of donations received: V8iii. Amount of corpus fund generated: V9iv. Spreading environmental awareness: V10v. Starting a new activity: V11vi. Distribution of saplings: V12vii.Fight against pollution: V13viii. Organising seminars/ treks: V14

Total score on Self Assessment Parameter A is depicted by V30.

B. VOs were asked to state the extent to which their organizationalaims and objects were achieved.

This we term as Self Assessment Parameter B, which is shown byV31.

iv. Voluntary Contribution Parameter:

Voluntary Contribution Parameter measures the opportunity cost of thevoluntary contribution of society and the extent to which the VO enjoys

voluntary services.

Voluntary Contribution Parameter is measured in terms of savings of VOs due to voluntary services offered by people, absolute totalexpenses and ratios of productive expenses to total expenses andunproductive expenses to total expenses. Productive expenses werecalculated as expenses on plantation, sapling making, research,conducting awareness programmes like seminars, workshops, naturewalks, while unproductive expenses were calculated as expenses onsalary, furniture, maintenance of office, etc. This parameter is basedon variables V15, V16 and V17.

v. Beneficiaries’ Rapport Parameter:

The Beneficiaries’ Rapport Parameter is a measure that reveals thelevel of participation by beneficiaries in the activities of sampled VOs.It is measured in terms of following three variables, V18, V19 and V20:



a. Number of project stage/s at which beneficiaries participation issought: V18

b. Number of measures used by the VOs to influence policies/programmes of the government or similar bodies in corporatesector: V19

c. Number of methods used to build rapport with beneficiariesthrough their participation and creating grassroot level popularinstitutions: V20

Sampled VOs were requested to indicate project stages at which theyseek involvement of beneficiaries in their various projects or schemes.They were presented with following project stages:

i. Project initiation called as first stageii. Project implementation called as second stageiii. Project maintenance and follow-up activities called as final stage

We also asked the sampled VOs to tick at the following measures thatare used by them to influence policies and programmes of thegovernment and that of similar bodies in the corporate sector:

i. Negotiating with authorities concernedii. Getting favourable court orders to reverse executive decisioniii. Getting court orders as stay on executive decisions andiv. Making suggestion to government/ legislative/ policy making

bodies for enactment of certain kind/ interest

Moreover, VOs were requested to state which of the following methodswere used by them to build rapport with beneficiaries:

i. Taking beneficiaries feedback to combat local environmentalproblems

ii. Using indigenous practices/ beliefs and knowledge base andiii. Creating community-based organizations to sustain the

activities of organisations

vi. Awareness Generation Parameter:

Awareness Generation Parameter measures the impact of theorganization’s awareness generation activities.

It is measured in terms of variables V21 to V27:

a. Number of plants or saplings planted every year: V21b. The survival rate of planted trees: V22



c. Number of bunds constructed so far: V23d. Number of techniques used for creating awareness among

masses: V24e. Number of workshops/ seminars organized every year: V25f. Number of public meetings organized every year: V26

g. Number of rallies and similar activities organized every year: V27

The effectiveness of VOs is measured in terms of the above sixparameters.

Total Effectiveness Parameter:

We have defined Total Effectiveness Parameter as the sum of all theabove explained six parameters. The Effectiveness parameter isdenoted by V35 and is a sum of V28 to V34

vii. Social Support parameter: V28viii. Networking parameter: V29ix. Self Assessment parameter A and B: V30 and V31x. Voluntary Contribution parameter: V32xi. Beneficiaries’ Rapport parameter: V33xii. Awareness Generation parameter: V34

The coding is given in Tables 2 to 7 . Finally, the total score on eachvariable and further, on each parameter was calculated for each VO.

Table 2 presents the variables which form the social support parameterand coding of these variables.

Table 2Social Support Parameter

Brief Description of Variable Coding of DataGrowth in no. of annual donors, annualmembers and life members (in %) fromthe year of establishment to the year2005-06 : V1

1 – Upto 20 per cent2 – 21 – 40 per cent3 – 41 – 60 per cent4 – 61 – 80 per cent

5 – 81 – 100 per centTotal number of annual donors, annualmembers and life members from the yearof establishment to the year 2005-06 : V2

1 – Upto 2002 – 201 - 4003 – 401 - 6004 – 601 - 8005 – 801 - 1000

Number of individuals participatingseminars, workshops, fairs, discussions

1 – Upto 502 – 51 - 100



organized by sampled VOs annually: V3 3 – 101 - 1504 – 151 - 2005 – 201 and above

Amount of corpus fund generated upto2005-06: V4

1 – Upto Rs. 5,00,000/2 – Rs. 5,00,001 – Rs.

10,00,0003 – Rs. 10,00,001- Rs.15,00,0004 – Rs. 15,00,001- Rs.20,00,0005 – Rs. 20,00,001andabove

Table 3 describes variables that determine networking parameter andtheir coding.

Table 3Networking Parameter

Brief Description of Variable Coding of DataInteraction with local VOs: V5 0 – No

1 – YesInteraction with national or internationalVOs: V6

0 – No1 – Yes

Table 4 presents variables that define self assessment parameter andtheir coding.

Table 5 provides description of variables which determine voluntarycontribution parameter and their coding.

Table 4Self Assessment Parameter

Brief Description of Variable Coding of DataSelf Assessment Parameter (A)

Self assessment of people offeringvoluntary labour: V7

1 - Not so good2 - Satisfactory3 - Good4 - Very Good5 - Excellent

Self assessment of amount of donationsreceived: V8

1 - Not so good2 - Satisfactory3 - Good



4 - Very Good5 - Excellent

Self assessment of spreadingenvironmental awareness: V10

1 - Not so good2 - Satisfactory3 - Good

4 - Very Good5 – Excellent

Self assessment of starting a new activity:V11


Self assessment of distribution of saplings: V12

1 - Not so good2 - Satisfactory3 - Good4 - Very Good

5 - ExcellentSelf assessment of fight against pollution:V13


Self assessment of organisingprogrammes (seminars/ treks/workshops): V14


Self Assessment Parameter (B)Self assessment of goal achievement:V31

1 – Unsuccessful2 – Partially successful3 – Fully successful

Table 5Voluntary Contribution Parameter

Brief Description of Variable Coding of DataExpenses saved due to voluntarycontribution: V15

1 – Upto Rs. 50,000/2 – Rs. 50,001 – Rs.1,00,0003 – Rs. 1,00,001 – Rs.1,50,0004 – Rs. 1,50,001 – Rs.2,00,0005 – Rs. 2,00,000 and above



Total expenses: V16 1 – Upto Rs. 50,000/2 – Rs. 50,001 – Rs.1,00,0003 – Rs. 1,00,001 – Rs.3,00,000

4 – Rs. 3,00,001 – Rs.5,00,0005 – Rs. 5,00,001 and above

Ratio of productive expenses to totalexpenses: V17

1 – Upto 0.202 – 0.21 – 0.403 - 0.41 – 0.604 - 0.61 – 0.805 - 0.81 - 1.00

We have described the variables that form beneficiaries’ rapport

parameter and their coding in Table 6.

Table 6Beneficiaries’ Rapport Parameter

Brief Description of Variable Coding of DataNumber of project stages at whichbeneficiaries’ involvement is sought: V18

1. Involvement sought atany one project stage

2. Involvement sought atany 2 stages

3. Involvement sought at

all 3 stagesNumber of measures used to influencepolicies of government : V19

1. Only one measure usedto influence policies of government

2. Any two measures usedto influence policies of government

3. Any three measuresused to influencepolicies of government

4. All four measures used

to influence policies of government

Number of methods used to build rapportwith beneficiaries: V20

1. Only one method usedto build rapport withbeneficiaries

2. Any two methods usedto build rapport withbeneficiaries



3. All three measures usedto build rapport withbeneficiaries

Table 7 describes the variables that form awareness generationparameter and their coding.

Table 7Awareness Generation Parameter

Brief Description of Variable Coding of DataNumber of saplings planted every years:V21

1 – Upto 5002 – 501 - 10003 - 1001 - 3000

4 - 3001 - 50005 - 5001 and more

Survival rate of planted saplings: V22 1 – Upto 20 per cent2 – 21 – 40 per cent3 – 41 – 60 per cent4 – 61 – 80 per cent5 – 81 – 100 per cent

No. of bunds constructed so far: V23 1 – Upto 52 – 6 - 153 –16 - 254 – 26 - 35

5 – 35 and moreNo. of techniques used for buildingawareness among masses: V24

1 – upto 32 – 4 – 63 - 7 -9

No. of workshops/ seminars organizedevery year: V25

1 – Upto 102 – 11 - 153 – 16 - 204 – 21- 255 – 26 and above

No. of public meetings organized everyyear: V26

1 – Upto 52 – 6 - 10

3 – 11 - 154 – 16- 205 – 21 and above

The next section discusses the findings based on these parameters.



3.2 Parameter Estimation

The findings of our survey on measuring effectiveness of environmental grassroot VOs are presented in tables below:

i Social Support Parameter Estimates

The coded data is shown in Table 8. Vanarai, Nisarg Sevak, Hariyaliand Hope were given a score of 4 out of 5 on percentage increase inannual donors, annual members and life members since theirpercentage increase in annual donors, annual members and lifemembers ranges between 61 to 80 per cent (as shown in Table 2).SUNNY and Enviro Vigil are given 3 since their percentage increase inannual donors, annual members and life members ranges between 41to 60 per cent. On total number of donors, members and volunteers,

Vanarai is given a score of 5 out of 5 as its total number of donors,members and volunteers ranges between 801 to1000. Enviro-Vigil isgiven a score of 3, Nisarg Sevak and Hariyali of 2 and SUNNY and Hopeof 1. Hariyali is given score of 4 out of 5 on number of individualsparticipating in seminars, workshops annually as the total number of individuals participating in its seminars, workshops lies in the range of 151 to 200. SUNNY and Hope are given a score of 2, while Vanarai andNisarg Sevak are given a score of 1. On corpus fund, Vanarai is given ascore of 4 out of 5, while Nisarg Sevak, SUNNY, Hariyali, Enviro Vigiland Hope are given score of 3,3,2,2 and 1, respectively.

Table 8Social Support Parameter Estimates

Variables Sampled VOs/ Score MAXScoreVanarai Nisarg

SevakSUNNY* Hariya

liEnviro Vigil

Hope

Percentagegrowth inannual

donors,annualmembersand lifemembers

4 4 3 4 3 4 5

Total no. of donors,members

5 2 1 2 3 1 5



andvolunteersNo. of individualsparticipatin

g inseminars/workshopsannually

1 1 2 4 1 2 5

Amount of corpus fundby March,2006

4 3 3 2 2 1 5

Total Score 14 10 9 12 9 8 20MAX Score = 20

Vanarai has gained the maximum score,i.e, 14 on social supportparameter. Then are Hariyali, Nisarg Sevak, SUNNY and Enviro Vigiland Hope.

ii. Networking Parameter Estimates

Except for Hope, all sampled VOs co-ordinate with local VOs whilecarrying environment protection activities, while only Nisarg Sevak andVanarai interact with international or national VOs.

It can be seen from Table 9 that organizations that interact with localenvironmental VOs, national/ international VOs are given a score of 1,while those do not interact are given a score of zero. Nisarg Sevak andVanarai have obtained the maximum score on networking parameter.

Table 9 indicates that sampled VOs need to strengthen their relationswith local, regional, national and international VOs for enhancing theimpact of their work and for attaining maximum score on networkingparameter.



Table 9Networking Parameter Estimates

Variables Sampled VOs/Score MAXScoreVanarai Nisar

gSevak

SUNNY*

Hariya

li

Envir

oVigil

Hop

e

Interactionwith localenvironmental VOs

1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Interactionwithinternationalor national

environmental VOs

1 1 0 0 0 0 1


iii Self Assessment Parameter Estimates

Table 10Self Assessment Parameter A Estimates

Variables Sampled VOs/Score MAXScoreVanarai Nisar

gSevak

SUNNY*

Hariyali

EnviroVigil

Hope

Peopleofferingvoluntarylabour

3 0 4 5 2 5 5

Amount of donationsreceived

3 3 3 2 - 4 5

Amount of corpus fundgenerated

2 2 3 2 3 1 5

Spreadingenvironmental awareness

4 1 2 3 4 3 5



Starting anew activity

4 4 1 3 4 3 5

Distributionof saplings

2 0 4 4 - 3 5

Fight against

pollution

2 1 1 1 3 1 5

Organizingseminars/treks

3 2 2 3 4 3 5

Total score of VO out of theMAX. Scoreof 40

23 13 20 23 20 23 40

MAX Score = 40

In assessing self performance in terms of the eight activities as listed

in Table 10, Vanarai, Hariyali and Hope stand equal, while Nisarg Sevakhas rated itself low. However, the total score on self assessment of allVOs is not as high as compared to the highest score they can get.

Table 11Self Assessment Parameter B Estimates

Variables Sampled VOs/ Score MAXScoreVanarai Nisar

gSeva

k

SUNNY*

Hariyali

EnviroVigil

Hope

Extent towhich aims of organizationare fulfilled

3 2 2 2 2 2 3

MAX Score = 3

All sampled VOs opine that they are partially successful in achievingtheir organizational goals, except Vanarai.

iv. Voluntary Contribution Parameter Estimates

Expenses saved by VOs due to voluntary contribution, as stated byfounders, range approximately between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,50,000.Hariyali enjoys highest level of voluntary contribution as compared toother VOs. It can be seen that VOs that are more voluntary in natureexpend less. Vanarai and Nisarg Sevak have larger amount of total



expenses as compared to other VOs. SUNNY has the highest ratio of productive expenses to total expenses, followed by Nisarg Sevak,Hariyali, Hope, Vanarai and Enviro Vigil. We observed that theorganizations, i.e., Vanarai and Enviro Vigil having more formal mannerof functioning and structure have higher ratio of unproductive to total

expenses. Nisarg Sevak has gained highest score on voluntarycontribution parameter.

In Table 12, on the first variable, i.e., approximate expenses that aresaved due to voluntary contribution, Hariyali gets a score of 3 as itsexpenses saved due to voluntary contribution range between Rs.1,00,001 to Rs. 1,50,000. On the same variable, Nisarg Sevak, SUNNYand Hope are given a score of 2 as their expenses saved due tovoluntary contribution were in the range of Rs. 50,001 to Rs. 1,00,000,while Vanarai is given a score of 1 as its expenses saved due tovoluntary contribution were not greater than Rs. 50,000. On variable

total expenses per annum, Vanarai and Nisarg Sevak are given a scoreof 5 as their total expenses were in the range of Rs. 5,00,001 andabove, while SUNNY, Hariyali and Enviro Vigil are given a score of 3 astheir total expenses ranged between Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000.Hope is given a score of 1 as its total expenses were not greater thanRs. 50,000. Nisarg Sevak, SUNNY, Hariyali and Hope are given a scoreof 3 as their ratio of productive expenses to total expenses lies in therange of 0.41 to 0.60, while Vanarai and Nisarg Sevak are given ascore of 2 as their ratio of productive expenses to total expenses fallsin the range of 0.21 to 0.40.

Table 12Voluntary Contribution Parameter Estimates

Variables Sampled VOs/Score MAXScore

Vanarai

NisargSevak

SUNNY*

Hariyali

EnviroVigil

Hope

Approximateexpensesthat aresaved due to

voluntarycontributionbyvolunteers,members

1 2 2 3 1 2 5

Totalexpenses inRs.

5 5 3 3 3 1 5



Ratio of productiveexpenses tototalexpenses

2 3 3 3 2 3 5




v. Beneficiaries’ Rapport Parameter Estimates

Table 13Beneficiaries’ Rapport Parameter Estimates

Variables Sampled VOs/ Score MAXScoreVanarai NisargSevak

SUNNY*

Hariyali

EnviroVigil

Hope

No. of projectstage/s atwhichbeneficiariesparticipation is

sought

3 1 2 2 3 2 3

No. of measure/sused toinfluencepolicies/programmesof thegovernment orsimilar bodiesin corporate

sector

1 0 1 2 2 3 4

No. of measuresused to buildrapport withbeneficiariesthrough theirparticipationand creatinggrassrootslevel popular

institutions

2 2 2 2 2 1 3


Enviro-Vigil and Vanarai receive beneficiaries’ participation at all thethree stages. Nisarg Sevak receives beneficiaries’ participation at the



project initiation stage. SUNNY, Hariyali and Hope get it at the projectimplementation and maintenance/ follow-up stages.

Nisarg Sevak does not utilize any measure to influence policies orprogrammes of the government. Vanarai makes suggestions to

government, while SUNNY also employs only one measure, i.e.negotiating with authorities concerned. Hariyali and Enviro Vigil usetwo measures to influence policies or programmes of the governmentviz. negotiating with authorities concerned and making suggestions.Hope uses all the three measures to influence policies of government.Thus, Hope is more effective in employing measures to influencepolicies of government.

Vanarai uses two measures to build rapport with beneficiaries, namelytaking their feedback to combat local environmental problems andcreating community-based organizations. Nisarg Sevak, SUNNY,

Hariyali and Enviro Vigil also employ two methods viz. takingbeneficiaries feedback to combat local environmental problems andusing indigenous practices and knowledge base. Hope uses only onemeasure, i.e., taking beneficiaries feedback to combat localenvironmental problems. Enviro Vigil has scored highest marks onBeneficiaries’ Rapport parameter as seen from Table 13.

vi. Awareness Generation Parameter Estimates

Hariyali plants the highest number of saplings, followed by Vanarai.Hope, Enviro-Vigil and Nisarg Sevak plant relatively negligible number

of saplings. It shows that Hariyali is more effective in planting morenumber of saplings as it enjoys a greater participation of volunteers.Vanarai has constructed the largest number of water conservationstructures. It has done outstanding work in water conservation. SUNNYuses the maximum number of techniques to build awareness. Hope,Enviro-Vigil and Vanarai organize more number of workshops andseminars as compared to other VOs. Thus, they are more effective ingenerating environmental awareness among masses through thismedium. SUNNY, Vanarai and Enviro-Vigil effectively use publicmeetings as a channel to create awareness.

Vanarai and Hariyali are given a score of 5 as they plant more than5,000 saplings per year (as shown in Table 7 for coding). SUNNY plantsone thousand saplings per annum, thus, is given a score of 2. NisargSevak, Enviro Vigil and Hope are given a score of 1 since they do notplant more than five hundred saplings a year. Eventhough, NisargSevak has two large aforestation sites namely Smrutivan and SmrutiUdyan, it plants only hundreds saplings a year. This is because these



two sites saturated two years back. Thus, now there is no landavailable for plantation at these two sites.

Nisarg Sevak and SUNNY are given a score of 4 since survival rate of their saplings ranges between 61 to 80 per cent. Vanarai and Hope are

given a score of 3 as survival rate of their saplings is between 41 to 60per cent. Hariyali and Enviro Vigil are given a score of 2 since thesurvival rate of their saplings lies in the range of 21 to 40 per cent. Onnumber of bunds constructed so far, Vanarai is given the highest scoreof five. SUNNY receives the highest score of 3 on number of techniquesused for building awareness among masses. Enviro Vigil and Hopereceived the highest score of 5 on number of workshops organized peryear as they organize around thirty workshops and seminars everyyear. As seen from Table 14 below, Vanarai has received the highestscore on awareness generation parameter, followed by SUNNY, Hope,Hariyali, Enviro Vigil and Nisarg Sevak.

Table 14Awareness Generation Parameter Estimates

Variables Sampled VOs/ Score MAXScoreVanara

iNisargSevak

SUNNY Hariyali

EnviroVigil

Hope

No. of saplingsplanted every

year

5 1 2 5 1 1 5

Survival rate % 3 4 4 2 2 3 5No. of bundsconstructed sofar

5 1 2 2 1 4 5

No. of techniques usedfor buildingawarenessamong masses

2 1 3 2 2 2 3

No. of

workshopsorganized everyyear

4 1 1 2 5 5 5

No. of publicmeetingsorganized everyyear

2 1 4 1 2 1 5



No. of ralliesorganized everyyear

2 1 2 1 1 1 5


Total Effectiveness Parameter Estimates

Table 15 gives the scores obtained by six sampled VOs on sixparameters and their effectiveness.



Table 15Ranks of Sampled VOS as per Total Effectiveness Parameter

me of SocialNetworking Self Self Voluntary

Beneficiaries'

Awareness

Effectiveness

mpled

O Support

Paramete

r

Assessme

nt

Assessme

nt

Contributi

on Rapport

Generati

on Parameter

a

Parameter

parameter

parameter Parameter Parameter

Parameter O

A B

narai 14 2 23 3 8 6 23 79

riyali 12 1 23 2 9 6 15 68 2

NNY 9 1 20 2 8 5 18 63 3

ope 8 0 23 2 6 6 17 62 4virogil 9 1 20 2 6 7 14 59 5sargvak 10 2 13 2 10 3 10 50 6

AXore 20 2 40 3 15 10 33 123

Table 15 denotes that on the Social Support Parameter, Vanarai hasreceived the highest score and Hope has scored the lowest marks.Vanarai and Nisarg Sevak have gained the highest marks on theNetworking parameter, while Hope has the lowest marks. Vanarai,Hariyali and Hope have obtained an equal score of 23 on Self Assessment Parameter A. On the same parameter, SUNNY and EnviroVigil have got a score of twenty, while Nisarg Sevak has the lowest

score of thirteen. Vanarai ranks the highest on the Self AssessmentParameter B while all the other organizations have obtained a score of 2. Nisarg Sevak has gained the maximum score on the VoluntaryContribution Parameter, then are Hariyali, Vanarai and SUNNY, Hopeand Enviro Vigil. Enviro Vigil has gained the highest score onBeneficiaries’ Rapport Parameter and Nisarg Sevak has got the lowestscore. On the Awareness Generation Parameter, Vanarai has got thehighest score, followed by SUNNY, Hope, Hariyali, Enviro Vigil andNisarg Sevak.

Vanarai ranks the highest on five parameters.

It can be seen that Vanarai is the most effective VO in conservingenvironment, while Nisarg Sevak is the least effective VO. Hariyalistands next to Vanarai. SUNNY, Hope and Enviro-Vigil rank third, fourthand fifth, respectively. However, the comparison between actualscores obtained by VOs on parameters estimated above and thehighest they could have scored indicates that they need to work more.For instance, on the self assessment parameter A, the actual score of



23 obtained by Vanarai, Hariyali and Hope is only 58 per cent of thehighest score of 40.

Further, we have attempted regression analysis on this data. Theresults are discussed in the next section.

Effectiveness of voluntary organization is used as the dependentvariable in regression analysis.

4. REGRESSION ANALYSIS We ran regression between Effectiveness Parameter V35 andremaining 35 variables. We have reported below the findings that arestatistically significant upto 10 per cent level:

V35=52.85 + 4.70 V2 (1)

(2.47)R Square = 0.61

Equation 1 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (5per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andtotal number of donors, life members, annual members and volunteers(V2). V2 explains around 61 per cent variation in Effectivenessparameter.

V35 = 43.15 + 8.27 V4 (2)(6.25)

R Square = 0.91

Equation 2 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (0.1per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andamount of corpus fund generated (V4). V4 alone explains as high as 91per cent variation in Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 52 + 14.2 V5 (3)(1.65)

R Square = 0.41

Equation 3 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (10per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andinteraction with local VOs (V5). V5 explains around 41 per centvariation in Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 59 + 14.5 V6 (4)(2.89)

R Square = 0.68



Equation 4 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (2.5per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andinteraction with international/ national VOs (V6). V6 explains around 68per cent variation in Effectiveness parameter.

Thus, interaction with international and national VOs results in greaterincrease in effectiveness as compared to interaction with local VOs.

V35 = 53.83 + 10 V13 (5)(1.93)

R Square = 0.48

Equation 5 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (10per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andself assessment of fight against pollution (V13). V13 explains around

48 per cent variation in Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 45.5 + 5.5 V16 (6)(4.36)

R Square = 0.83

Equation 6 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (0.5per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andtotal expenses (V16). V16 alone explains a sizeable, i.e. 83 per cent,variation in Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 73.24-6.27 V19 (7)(-2.08)R Square = 0.52

Equation 7 indicates that there is a negative and significant relation (5per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andnumber of measures used to influence policies of government (V19).V19 explains 52 per cent, variation in Effectiveness parameter.

V 35 = 37.8 + 14.2 V20 (8)(1.65)

R Square = 0.41

Equation 8 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (10per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter andnumber of methods used to build rapport with beneficiaries (V20). V20explains 41 per cent variation in Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 57.10 + 2.69 V21 (9)



(1.44)R Square = 0.34

Equation 9 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation (10per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter and

number of saplings planted (V21). V21 explains 34 per cent variation inEffectiveness parameter.

V35 = 49.5 + 10.75 V27 (10)(1.54)

R Square = 0.37

Equation 10 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation(10 per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameterand number of rallies (V27). V27 explains 37 per cent variation inEffectiveness parameter.

V35 = 28.62 + 3.41 V28(3.12)

R Square = 0.71 (11)

Equation 11 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation(2.5 per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameterand social support parameter (V28). V28 explains 71 per cent variationin Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 51 + 11 V29(4.36)

R Square = 0.83 (12)

Equation 12 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation(0.5 per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameterand networking parameter (V29). V29 explains 83 per cent variationsin Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 24.4 + 18.2 V31 (13)(2.82)

R Square = 0.67

Equation 13 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation(2.5 per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameter



and self assessment parameter B (V31). V31 explains around 67 percent variation in Effectiveness parameter.

V35 = 47.1 + 1.14 V36 (14)

(8.75)R Square = 0.95

Equation 14 indicates that there is a positive and significant relation(0.1 per cent level of significance) between Effectiveness Parameterand age of VOs (V36). V36 explains as high as 95 per cent variations inEffectiveness parameter.

5. CONCLUSION

We attempted to measure the multi-dimensionality of effectiveness of

VOs with the help of six parameters, namely social support,networking, beneficiaries’ rapport, awareness generation, self assessment and voluntary contribution. It is seen that Vanarai is themost effective VO in protecting and conserving environment whileNisarg Sevak is found least effective. Hariyali stands next to Vanarai.SUNNY, Hope and Enviro-Vigil ranked third, fourth and fifth,respectively.

Social support garnered by VOs, its networking with other VOs,especially with national and international VOs, its self-perception andits age seem to be the important determinants of effectiveness.

critical enquiry 2

Documents