|
1 |
“Avaaz Do!”, Your voice counts [Minutes Not Available] |
Page 2 |
|
2 |
Admin Workshops |
Page 3 |
|
2.1 |
Treasury, Registration, Tax and Legal Issues |
Page 3 |
|
2.2 |
Fund Raising Publicity and News Letter [Minutes Not Available] |
Page |
|
2.3 |
Projects |
Page 7 |
Presenation : http://www.aidsfbay.org/conf2002/minutes/ treasury_proc.pdf
501 c(3) exemption – federal.
State compliance – registration, URS required. Filing fee btw $25 and $300. HQ has done for 22 states
State tax or exemption filings
TREASURY
Current Treasury Procedures
Check donations – do not accumulate; send to zone quickly.
Restricted donations – donor can specify specific fund (earthquake/flood), specific approved project, HBP, specific chapter. By default, treat donations as unrestricted.
Cash donations – chapter treasurer to write a check – prefer cashier’s check esp. for large amounts.
One time credit Card donations – chapter treasurer can enter it themselves on helping.org – also enter donor contact info in treasury database – www.aidindia.org/admin (Sudhakar’s treasury system)
Periodic credit card donations – We can now enter the c-card info ourselves instead of mailing things to Jitin.
FUNDRAISERS: follow rules at website: /hq/resources/aiderszone/treasuryforms.htm
- Ticket checks are NOT donations
- Volunteers bear loss in case the concert results in a loss.
- If there is a suggested donation over and above ticket price, then notate the check accordingly as to WHICH part is donation.
- Chapter or event treasurer can sign temp receipts. Better not to have just any volunteer sign receipts.
GAAP – accrual based system.
Project approved => money deducted.
CSH must approve appropriation from chapter funds.
A DAY IN THE LIEF OF A DONATION
· One time CC donations can be done by chapter directly on helping.org. Make sure donor knows that they will be changed this way – Also make sure we keep in touch with donor – Receipt is by email from helping.org. Jitin’s online system may be better.
· Separate entry in mailing db needs to be made until DB’s are merged.
· Chapters must conduct address refresh annually – telethon / annual updates.
· Bunching checks delays processing – delay during bunching; more painful for zonal treasurers.
· Currently chapter has to maintain its own db of donor addresses.
· No need for XLS spreadsheet along with checks, unless there is an address change.
· Chapter to write ‘for deposit only’ on reverse.
· Zone treasurers will endorse and deposit.
· Once the zone gets the checks – big bottlenecks – check entry into database has problems – login problems, confusion.
· Once the zone gets checks, two databases have to be updated – if the address changes. (Mailing, Treasury).
· Targeted donations – okay for pre-approved projects (i.e. we can’t be approving projects just because we have funds). Donors can specify the project, though we typically try to keep restricted donations to accounts like Gujarat.
· SYNC – mechanism to merge three zonal dbs into one. Supposed to be done once in two months. Zones locked out of check entry during sync. In practise, done once in six months; takes several weeks! Typically doesn’t include CC contributions; typically doesn’t include common pool deductions; sometimes doesn’t include appropriations.
· Problems with chapter accounts – Project DB and treasury DB don’t show same disbursements. Accurate picture only after sync; income tracked at zone, appropriations tracked by HQ.
· Fundraisers – Sandeep in charge of these accounts; checks.
Presenations :
http://www.aidsfbay.org/conf2002/minutes/treasury_proc.pdf
http://www.aidsfbay.org/conf2002/minutes/donation_flowchart.pdf
Room 30, History Corner (Building 200).
Attendees: Ravi Arunachalam (Austin), Sri Hari (San Diego), Ajith (Dallas), Shylaja (Austin), Chandrika (Austin), Sailesh (Cincinnati), Shri (Boston), Nutty (Bay Area), Sharad (State College), Shanthan (Kansas City), Uma (Dallas), Rishi (Austin), Srinivas (College Park), Vivek (TAMU), Krishnan (Milwaukee), Anbu (Blacksburg), Hari (Duke), Uday (Atlanta), Mokshay (Boston), Ramesh (Bay Area), Anand (Penn State), Suhani (Ann Arbor), Rajeev (College Park), Tarun (Boston), Siva (Boston), Aravind (LA), Nirali (Ann Arbor), Ravi Kuchimanchi (India), Aravinda (India) and others.
The meeting started by asking if everyone knows of Project News list and a sheet was circulated if anyone needs to be included in this closed list. Ravi A gave an overview about how the admin workshop was planned.
A mock project review was to be conducted and 4 people were to act as an imaginary NGO named CVSS, which submits the proposal. Chandrika, Shylaja, Vivek and ??? volunteered to be the people from the imaginary NGO.
The proposal was for a school in Jyoti Vidhaybeet. Four people who went out of the village but came back in 1998 and started working for the village started the organization. In the past, the NGO has worked on health programs, day care centers, agriculture oriented community, informal center when woman go out to work, adult education program. The proposal aimed to give school for children in 5 surrounding villages where the nearest school is 10km away. There were no transportation facilities, which make it especially difficult for girl children, as they are not sent far off to school. The NGO wanted to give formal education to children between ages 6-10 years in the classes I to V and to enable them take higher education. This proposal also envisioned joyful learning, arts, science, and crafts teaching. Children of age 6-7 were grouped in one class while those between 8-10 were to be grouped in another class. The qualification of teachers in the school will be B.A., B.Ed. The land was to be given by the local panchayat and the village community was to be a part of this. The budget included the following:
Non-recurring:
Materials 30,000
Books 10,000
Coordinator (Rs. 1000 per month x 12) 12,000
Recurring:
Teachers (2) salary (Rs. 1200/month x 12 x 2) 28,800
Two classrooms and a room for joyful learning, toys, were to be built. Also 2 latrines were to be built – 1 for boys and 1 for girls. Construction was estimated to take 2 months. Depending on the success, extension plans will be decided.
Rishi (Dallas) volunteered to be the project coordinator. The above mock proposal was then opened for discussion, as in a chapter’s normal CSH meeting. The next moment, questions started pouring in.
The attendees raised the following questions.
- Does the NGO have FCRA clearance? They have been in service for 3 years
- Where were the funds from health programs obtained?
- What is the exact role of the coordinator?
- Is it one school for 5 villages? Can 2 teachers handle all subjects?
- How is the construction going to be done?
- What is the curriculum taught now? Is it traditional class?
- Sustainability plans?
- Where are teachers going to be selected? B.A., B.Ed., seems little hefty.
- Will the NGO still run the adult education programs?
- Did the NGO send any past audited reports?
- Did the NGO approach other funding agencies for the same proposal?
- What is the break up of cost? How did they estimate the numbers?
- Are they in touch with other organizations – like curriculum developers? If not, do they need any contact information?
- How is the group (NGO) perceived locally?
- Who will monitor the teachers? What are the monitoring procedures?
- Selection of children seems to be based on age. What about other children who haven’t gone to school?
- Are there reasons other than distance for the children not going to school now?
- What is the occupation of the people in the village?
- Did the NGO try to get government funds?
- Are they located in any of the HBP blocks?
- Specific methods of girl children to be sent to school?
- How are they integrating – the overlap between health & education program?
- What are the children learning now if they are not going to school?
- What happens when the children graduate after school?
- What is the boy/girl ratio? If girl ratio is more, then it is another good reason to support the project.
- Did the NGO do a survey before starting this project? How many children will attend?
- Detailed plans to build school? Will all 5 classes be in one year?
- Daily schedule of the school?
- Who is the point of contact for this project?
- Can families pay school fee?
- Social composition or demography of village?
- How does the NGO plan to convince parents to send their children to school?
- (After this, a question was raised if it is a myth that parents do not send children to school. Aravinda suggested we read the PROBE report to find out the reality, although what it says was not mentioned.)
- Because this school is for 5 villages, how far with the children have to travel – average max. distance to come to school?
- Long term plans for the NGO?
- In 3 years, the NGO has changed 3 plans. Why is that?
- Clarify what classes & grades mean? This is necessary because the proposal talks about formal education.
- Does the NGO have any religious affiliation?
With more than 31 questions raised, the discussion was brought to an end. Then the process of sending the questions to NGO was raised.
Will all the 31 questions be sent or do we need to review before sending? Most agreed to review the questions before sending.
The questions can be grouped to critical and non-critical questions. The NGO can be asked to first answer critical questions. The questions can also be prioritized.
It was asked if the NGO communicated by email, since this will facilitate further communication.
It was suggested that the questions could be grouped logically.
Few members felt that some of the questions need not be asked in the first round but can be asked later in visit report.
Another suggestion was to categorize the questions as – need to know, good to know and quality. Quality related questions are about sustainability and project review.
One member felt that the project is the NGO’s problem and so they should be responsible for answering the questions.
It was finally agreed that the project coordinator in the CSH should be left to decide how/what to send to the NGO.
Then the (mock) NGO was asked to comment on the questions raised.
Shylaja (NGO) never thought that so many questions could be raised in the (mock) proposal. She said she would be “intimidated” by the “whole bunch of questions” in 3 to 4 years of experience. She as an NGO may not like it and some questions could be simply answered by reading the proposal carefully. She did not understand why the questions of ‘previous funds’ and ‘previous work’ were raised. Members explained why those were raised – previous funds & work explain what the NGO has been doing and their supporting agencies, which give hints about their affiliations, if any.
Chandrika (NGO) also felt that there was lot of questions. She said that as an NGO, she might not have exact plans of the project and also not have too many details when the proposal was sent. She felt that some questions were very specific. She suggested that a phone call be made to the NGO before presenting the proposal in the CSH so that the project coordinator in the chapter has a good idea of the NGO.
Rishi said that while many questions may be answered from the proposal, it was true that most proposals may not have all answers.
Vivek (NGO) told that he was “turned off” seeing the list of questions. He said he would not mind answering them, if asked intelligently, even if all questions were asked.
Rishi said questions could be classified as open and closed questions. He felt that
only experienced NGOs can write answers to these many questions.
Chandrika (NGO) said this is all the more reason to have a telephone conversation with the NGO. At times, the NGO may not write good answers and so only a project visit can help. There are also two views that NGO are ready and not ready to answer questions. She said that one of the questions – about the girl/boy ratio, made her think – how to make this ratio equal.
Ravi K suggested that the questions be also classified as – curiosity based. He thought that there were no open questions asked in the review. He said that open questions are a good chance for NGOs to write. An example is to ask about the condition of villages, instead of ‘socio-economic status’ in the village. If the NGO is interested, then they have a chance to write an essay for this question. The decision for this proposal should be based on honesty, motivation level, and issues addressed, strategy and method of addressing.
Ravi K also suggested that open questions allow one to write honestly. Not all questions could be answered when asked, since a NGO may have wanted to start with an idea at first – one such question is the ‘syllabus of school’. Instead the question should be framed to be open like “what have you thought of running the school?”. To assess the motivation of the NGO, questions should be asked if they have any association with movements in their region and their ideologies, if any. This lets NGO to express their views.
Ravi K asked having posed so many questions, how many of the members will still be curious after some time. He asked if the member’s curiosity be the same no matter what the answers are.
One member suggested that the questions be framed in such a way it incorporates AID’s philosophies. This helps the NGO to better understand about AID.
Rajeev said that reciprocity is very important and one should realize what the project means to the NGO and to AID.
Ravi K suggested that we tell about our campaigns (like no dowry, etc.) to the NGO and this would make them comment on our campaigns.
A question was raised if the NGO is using local resources for sustainability.
Ravi K replied that an NGO has many views of sustainability – like volunteers, plans, etc., and not just funds. So questions should be clearly asked. He also felt that the chapter could show concern in some of the questions asked.
Sharad asked if this ‘concern’ should be shown at a later stage. He said that uncertainty is not a condition for an approval.
Ravi K said that questions on syllabus, etc., could be asked during a project visit, as the reply will not make a difference during the project discussion phase.
Ravi A said that interest should be shown to the project not just for pre-approval but also for post-approval phase of the project. He suggested that we ask ourselves a question if we have sufficient background for evaluating the NGO’s answers. This background will come based on the previous projects supported.
Ravi K felt that grouping questions is good but there is still a limit. He felt that 20 questions is a normal limit. Also the way questions are grouped may make an NGO answer openly. He said that proposals through AID Saathis are forwarded only after seeing the motivation, honesty and strategies of the NGO. He stressed the importance of the timeliness of funds for the NGO.
Ravi K suggested that we ask ourselves – are we learning from the project review. He lamented that in some cases, the more info the NGOs give the more questions were asked.
Hari said that a proposal by an NGO forwarded by Balaji was a very good recommendation and that his chapter has a good relationship with this NGO.
Ravi K said that money should not be an issue for a project. He also suggested that the chapters do not say, “unanimously reject” projects, as it is “very embarrassing”. He alluded to a case where this happened with a chapter and later that NGO decided not to accept any funds from a foreign agency.
Sharad asked how much of Saathi's recommendation should be taken for which others said it will be about 90 % approval.
Siva asked if the geography of the projects matter.
Ravi K said that Saathis would include strong and qualitative words when recommending
a proposal and should be easy for the chapters to decide.
Aravinda brought a point that chapters ask themselves how qualified they are to work with an NGO and chapters need to evaluate themselves when they get a project.
A question was raised if there is a list of NGOs not to work with. The consensus was that there is no such list at present and also the very idea of a list existing itself is bad, since there were cases where Ravi K found NGOs markedly bad to be doing good work.
Since HBP projects are carried out in Tamilnadu, it was suggested to consider other non-HBP proposals in Andhra and Tamilnadu, only if they were of highest quality.
Ravi K said since he and others interact with all groups, they have a good idea about these NGOs.
Ravi A asked not to just ask questions, because it is in the AID guidelines. He also said that many chapters have not yet updated their project databases. He stressed that all projects must enter the database, the moment they are taken for review.
Ravi K said that AID Boston approves project on a "first come, first serve" basis, which may not be really good. Because of this procedure, he said that all decisions to support projects are made by the month of August itself, while there could be some good projects at the end of the year.
Ravi A told that chapters must keep a list of contact persons on their website.
Rajeev discussed about post-approval process. He said that each project must have a separate project folder. Also for every project, the checklist (available on the web) must be completed, before sending the funds to the NGO. Due to IRS requirements, many documents are necessary for releasing money and the chapters should keep a local copy of what they want, before the file is sent to Maryland. Also the entire available information must be put on the website. He said that there are 100s of folders in Maryland, each from the previous projects approved. He suggested that it is enough to just include the initial set of questions along with the folder. The important items to include are minutes of the meeting, votes and the budget of the proposal.
Rajeev said that Boston chapter has the up to date information on all of their projects.
Sharad felt that the project database becomes "dry' after approval and suggested to refer related projects or publicity made in the database. He thought that may be a description of "the project of the month", from the chapter website can be a good idea when interacting with the donors.
Ravi A asked everyone to send a covering letter with project file and also the contact information for the chapter's project coordinators.
Rajeev felt that others think it is the onus of coordinators at Maryland for the approved projects, because the file was sent to Maryland. He was worried that some projects have no follow up information, because the volunteer moved out. To avoid this, he suggested that chapters get a permanent mailbox.
Then the ideas for post-approval learning were sought.
It was felt that the post-approval learning is very poor till now for approved projects. Instead of blaming laziness, it was decided to see what could be done. Some of the reasons cited were - laziness, burnout, and ownership of projects, reciprocity, turnover and no existing guidelines.
Ravi K felt that for every approved project, there must be an update or presentation every month.
Someone (?) suggested that once a project is approved, a group could be formed to work with volunteer and then update other members in the CSH.
Other points raised in this discussion were
- pre approval is institutionalized in CSH
- post-approval must have often a site visit
- form a tem to work with NGO, get feedback and present it to CSH
- make pictures, captions and posters and take it to site visit
- form a tem to work with NGO, get feedback and present it to CSH
- make pictures, captions and posters and take it to site visit
- prepare a poster for each project and display in community events
- make simple 1-page posters and display in grocery stores to reach more people
- chapters can volunteer to make a website for the NGO
- chapters can have groups to evaluate the other chapter's website and this will help new volunteers to review what happened in the past and this process can also be used as a peer review than a database check.
Ravi K asked if all excitement could be conveyed through website or newsletters. He felt that seeing a report from NGOs help much more.
It was suggested that the project coordinators must give information snippets to include in the posters and newsletters sent to the donors from the credit card drive.
Chandrika felt the need for more informal communication with NGO and for example, questions on regional issues could be asked.
Hari mentioned an example where an NGO had contacted their chapter, after September 11 incident, asking if the members in the chapter were safe.
In case of Baasha, the project at Boston, the coordinators do not contact with the NGO anymore, but instead communicate with the students directly. Ten to 15 students from the project directly answer questionnaires and write reports on the project status.
The following points were stressed.
- to send updates to donors, which also “forces” project coordinators to follow up
- to have informal communication with the NGO
- to talk with people and volunteers of the NGO through not just email but also through phone
A copy of each CSH minutes in every chapter must be sent to aidchmin@hotmail.com.
Shylaja wondered how common that the projects are from the same NGO.
Ravi A answered that it is quite common and that we would like to proceed in that direction.
Ravi K suggested that the successive decisions on projects by the same NGO should have better basis and not just on the first impression from the first project. He also suggested that big projects from NGOs need not be approved on their face value since the NGO will usually send the proposal to all chapters.
Someone (?) asked why a project by SEWA was approved even when the housing costs were high and he wondered why there is a premium for NGO relations.
Shri said that we do need to make good relations with the NGO but not at the cost of price.
Ravi A then proceeded to ask about joint project review guidelines.
Hari expressed his opinion that individual projects are preferred than joint projects. He suggested that one chapter could lend funds to another (possibly new) chapter, to support approved projects. He felt that importance must be given for projects with a visit report. He said that having two chapters work on a project takes up a lot of time.
Ravi K mentioned that in a joint project, not all reviews in chapters would happen at the same time.
Ravi A said that chapters should not take up projects unless they can support and were really interested in the projects.
Someone (?) suggested the ASHA Star model be followed, where after a few years, it is the responsibility of the volunteer to find support for the project.
Rajeev suggested that the chapter members get together at least once a year and prioritize project areas to be taken. He said that chapters could pick up a project they want to work initially and the continue working in that area – an example would be the renewable energy area by College Park. He also mentioned that two chapters with same goals/priorities could jointly review projects.
Aravinda discussed how the existing NGOs could be categorized.
- Type 1 or scam NGOs, which exist only on paper
- Type 2 or professional NGOs, whose only job is to get money from various sources. Whatever they write in the proposal, they will work on it. They tend to pick the theme of the year (like breast-feeding, trees, etc.) to get funds from agencies. Next year they change the plans and so are rather driven by the needs of the funding agencies.
- Type 3 or village NGOs, where priority of villages is also the NGO’s priority. These NGOs will have office and people and can write proposals based only on their previous interactions. To communicate with these kinds of NGOs in their local language will really help. The chapters need to convince these NGOs that their organization need not demonstrate their abilities in any big way, to decide on their proposals.
- Type 4 or people based NGOs, where projects are planned and implemented by the people themselves. These NGOs wonder the honesty and commitment on the part of AID too, as do the chapters.
Type 3 and 4 NGOs would be glad to know about the CSH interactions, etc., and tend to value the chapter’s public meeting and interactions than web based information. Aravinda said that the organizations she works are between types 3 and 4.
Ravi K then went on to discuss about the future directions of AID. He said that he would recommend NGOs of types 3 and 4. He gave an example of the vermicompost project. He cited well-known models like Gramiyan bank and TB medicine distribution, where a successful model when replicated in untested areas were found to have problems. One such example he quoted was the case where tribal people had to walk a long distance to get the next refill of their medicine. He felt that the problem is where replication is done. In most cases, the NGOs were trained to implement successful recipes. He felt that AID should not get into implementing recipes. He discussed the vermicomposting project where the NGO did not utilize locally available resources but wanted to build a grand unit. He felt that to successfully replicate a model, knowledge must be shared. He requested to value the knowledge available locally more than other sources.
Ravi K also talked about the idea of decentralization and requested the chapters to consider two important items
- to identify really good projects and
- to increase chapters’ pool of good projects
He said he came to know of a lot of projects supported by AID, only after they got started without his knowledge. He said that his project in Srikakulam was a learning experience. He then talked about the need for story books in regional languages, mail ordering of lab equipments, mail ordering pedal generators. He said that no other science group in India has mail ordered lab equipment and that AID Bombay is working on it.
Aravinda requested the chapters to do whatever they can do in helping the projects in India.
Ravi K mentioned that persons visiting and evaluating the projects might not be the same and discussed the problems thereof.
Aravinda suggested that the chapters break the attitude that chapters want answers from the NGOs, because of their money. She then talked about the cases where NGOs come to her and ask if AID has any project ideas.
Rajeev talked about the need to eliminate hypocrisy and the chapter/volunteers ask themselves what they themselves do when handling a project – like a project on renewable energy. He then suggested the need to add a personal touch to projects.
Ravi K talked about soap making at home.
Rajeev suggested two websites
http://www.coopamerica.org
He talked about the sweat shop free t-shirts and suggested that chapters can order from
http://www.americanapparel.org
a Los Angeles based company dealing with sweatshop free t-shirts. He recommended the books ‘Mother Nature’s Shopping List’ and ‘Save Our Planet’.
Aravinda said that although cost of the sweatshop free t-shirts might be higher they benefit a good cause.
Rajeev said that end-user’s economic burden is relatively small comparing the costs of t-shirts from sweatshop and sweatshop free t-shirts.
Uday felt happy that fellow volunteers were young and have got into AID actively at their early stages of life. He asked that fellow volunteers be vigilant when they are young and unmarried. He requested that they realize materialistic or “whatever nonsense” ideas like going to Wal-Mart to get groceries against that of choosing organic foods, etc. He was sad that many others got entrenched in the corporate American life. He requested that volunteers should stick deeply to their good choices and told that it is worth the cause.
Rajeev told that volunteers in Maryland have started trying organic farming and recommended
for other members.
The workshop finally ended with few more discussions at about 6:30 PM.