# Questions Every question the interview can ask, in the order to ask them, with the exact values an answer can take. Generated from the framework data by `tools/build-pack.py`. Do not edit by hand. ## How to read an entry - Ask: the question in plain words. Say it as written, or in plainer words of your own. - Help: a line to add if the person is unsure. - Answer: the kind of answer it takes. - Options: each line is a spoken label followed by the stored value in square brackets. Say the label. Record the text inside the brackets exactly, character for character. Some values contain dashes or brackets of their own; keep them. - Store in: the key of the answers file that holds the answer. - Counts toward: what the answer feeds. The weight is the total weight the scoring map gives the question. A bigger weight moves more rankings. - Read back: the question carries the most weight. Read the answer back and wait for a yes, even if the person stated it. - Sensitive: say before asking that the person may skip it. - Same as: a second form of a question asked elsewhere. Do not ask it again. Answers that join several values use `|~|` between them. A scale answer is the digit as text. ## About you Ask these in this order. Stop after the last one. The sector question is this tool's own and is not in the question files. ### Job title Ask: What is your job title? Store in: `irf_act0.jobTitle`. Free text. Suggestions the person may pick from: Programme manager; Programme director; Country director; Head of operations; Finance manager; Grants manager; Monitoring and evaluation lead; Head of innovation; Head of IT; Executive director; Logistics manager; Data protection officer. ### NGO-P0-S1-Q1 Ask: What is your organisation called? Help: Enter the full legal name of your organisation, as it appears on your registration documents. Answer: free text; it carries no score Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the header of the brief The name is optional. Say so. If given, also record it in `irf_act0.organisation`. #### NGO-P0-S1-Q4 Ask: What kind of organisation are you? Help: Pick the closest fit. You can pick more than one. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2.3); how large the problem is (weight 0.5); the ranking in B, D, E, F Also record the spoken labels of the chosen options, joined with ` and `, in `irf_act0.type`. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - International NGO, based outside Africa [INGO (International NGO with HQ outside Africa)] - African NGO working across countries [Regional INGO (headquartered in Africa, operating across multiple countries)] - National NGO [National NGO] - Local or community group [Local/Community-based NGO] - UN agency or programme [UN agency or programme] - Red Cross or Red Crescent [Red Cross or Red Crescent movement] - Faith-based organisation [Faith-based organisation] - Social enterprise with a humanitarian aim [Social enterprise with humanitarian mission] - Network or consortium [Network or consortium] - Something else [Other (specify)] #### act0:sector Ask: What kind of work do you mainly do? Help: Pick the closest. If your work is spread across several, pick the biggest part. Answer: pick one Store in: `irf_act0.sector`. If the person picks something else, leave the sector out. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Humanitarian aid or development [humanitarian] - Health [healthcare] - Farming and food security [agriculture] - Education [education] - Water and sanitation [wash] - Environment and climate [environmental] - Human rights and legal aid [human_rights] - Microfinance and financial inclusion [microfinance] - Community development [community] - Something else [leave the sector out] #### NGO-P0-S1-Q2 Ask: Which country is your head office in? Help: Select the country where your main office is based. Answer: one country name from country list 1 Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the header of the brief Also record the country in `irf_act0.headOffice`. #### NGO-P0-S1-Q7 Ask: Which countries do you run programmes in? Help: Pick places with active field work. Fundraising offices do not count. Answer: pick all that apply from country list 2, joined with `|~|`. A country that is not on the list is recorded as `Other (specify)`, and its name goes in `irf_act0.otherCountries` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 2); the ranking in B, D, I; the wording of conditions in the brief Also record the country names as a list in `irf_act0.countries`. #### NGO-P0-S4-Q24 Ask: Which of these describe how you are funded and coordinated? Help: Pick everything that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1); how well a shared record fits (weight 2.4); the ranking in A Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Mostly government donors [Primarily conventional bilateral donors (USAID, ECHO, FCDO, Sida, etc.)] - Mostly UN funding [Primarily UN system funding (UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF, UNDP, OCHA)] - Mostly foundations or philanthropy [Primarily foundation or private philanthropy] - Islamic giving, such as zakat [Islamic finance instruments (zakat, qard hasan, waqf, sukuk)] - Funding from our own government [Domestic government funding] - Part of the humanitarian cluster system [Participate in humanitarian cluster system (OCHA-coordinated)] - Part of the Food Security Cluster [Participate in Food Security Cluster specifically] - In an accelerator or support programme [Member of Tadamon or similar accelerator or programme] - Self-funded or fee-for-service [Self-funded or fee-for-service] - Something else [Other (specify)] #### NGO-P0-S2-Q7 Ask: Roughly how many staff do you have at head office and in the field? Help: Include permanent and contract staff. A range for each is fine. Answer: two ranges, stored as one JSON string (see below) Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 1); readiness for a use case (weight 0.4); the ranking in B, C; the readiness check (required) Also record a short line such as `40 staff at head office, none in the field` in `irf_act0.size`. HQ Staff (key `hq_staff`): 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-100, 101-250, 251-500, 500+ Field Office Staff (key `field_staff`): None, 1-25, 26-100, 101-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-5,000, 5,000+ Example: `{"hq_staff": "11-25", "field_staff": "1-25"}` #### NGO-P0-S1-Q3 Ask: What best describes where most of your programmes run? Help: Pick the one that fits most of your work. Choose "A mix of these" if it varies a lot. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 1.3); the readiness check (required) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Stable, long-term development [Stable development context] - Recovering from conflict [Post-conflict or transitional context] - Active conflict or emergency [Active conflict or complex emergency] - A mix of these [Mixed (you operate across several of the above at once)] - I would rather not say [Prefer not to say] #### NGO-P0-S2-Q8 Ask: Who looks after IT in your organisation? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: where the readiness bar sits Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A dedicated IT team [Yes, a dedicated IT department or unit] - Some IT staff, no formal team [Yes, IT staff but not a formal department] - General staff handle it [No, general staff handle technology needs] - An outside provider handles it [IT is partially or fully outsourced to an external provider] #### NGO-P0-S2-Q9 Ask: How is your organisation run and governed? Help: Pick the closest fit. Add detail in the notes if you like. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.6); how large the problem is (weight 0.5); the ranking in E; where the readiness bar sits Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A board and an appointed director [Board of trustees/directors with appointed CEO/ED] - Led by a founder, with advisers [Founder-led with advisory board] - Shared or collective leadership [Collective or consensus-based leadership] - National members with a central office [Federated structure (national affiliates with central coordination)] - Appointed by government, or statutory [Government-appointed or statutory body] - Leaders elected by members [Membership-elected leadership] - Something else [Other (describe in notes)] #### NGO-P0-S3-Q10 Ask: What do you use to manage your money and accounts? Help: Pick everything you use. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: where the readiness bar sits Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A large business accounting system [Enterprise ERP suite] - Standard accounting software [Mid-tier accounting software] - Software built for humanitarian NGOs [Humanitarian-specific (e.g., Integra, Unit4 for NGOs)] - Mainly spreadsheets [Spreadsheets as primary system] - Paper and manual records [Paper-based / manual] - A system we built ourselves [Custom-built system] - Something else [Other (specify)] #### NGO-P0-S5-Q17a Ask: Do you deliver programmes through partner organisations? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.7); readiness for a use case (weight 1.2); the ranking in B, E; where the readiness bar sits Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, most of our work [Yes, extensively (most programmes delivered through partners)] - Yes, for some programmes [Yes, for some programmes] - Rarely [Rarely] - No, we deliver directly [No, we deliver directly] #### NGO-P0-S5-Q17b Ask: About how many partners do you work with? Help: A rough number is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.8); how large the problem is (weight 1.6); the ranking in D, E, F; where the readiness bar sits Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - None, we deliver directly [Not applicable (we deliver directly)] - Fewer than five [Under 5] - Five to twenty [5-20] - Twenty to fifty [20-50] - More than fifty [Over 50] #### NGO-P0-S5-Q18 Ask: Which groups do you join to coordinate with other organisations? Help: Include informal groups and regular check-ins. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2.4); readiness for a use case (weight 1.2); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.5); the ranking in B, D, E; where the readiness bar sits Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - UN-led sector clusters [UN OCHA coordination clusters] - A humanitarian alliance or consortium [Humanitarian consortium or alliance] - Technical working groups [Technical working groups (e.g., CaLP, NetHope)] - Regional NGO networks [Regional NGO networks or platforms] - Government coordination bodies [Government coordination mechanisms] - Donor coordination groups [Donor coordination groups] - University or research partnerships [Academic or research partnerships] - None, we work independently [None — we operate independently] - Something else [Other (please specify)] #### NGO-P0-S5-Q19 Ask: Do you share data with other organisations? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6); where the readiness bar sits Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, regularly through shared systems [Yes, regularly and systematically (shared platforms or data exchanges)] - Yes, but ad hoc, by email [Yes, but ad hoc (via email, reports, manual processes)] - Rarely [Rarely] - No [No] - Data protection concerns stop us [We would like to but data protection concerns prevent it] #### NGO-P0-S6-Q21 Ask: Which financial rules do you have to follow? Help: Pick everything that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.8); readiness for a use case (weight 0.6); the ranking in E; the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Anti-money laundering rules [AML/CFT (Anti-Money Laundering/Counter-Financing of Terrorism)] - Sanctions rules [OFAC or other sanctions compliance] - Financial reporting to regulators [Financial reporting to regulators] - Donor reporting requirements [Donor reporting requirements (USAID, DFID, EU, etc.)] - External or internal audit [Audit requirements (external auditor, internal audit)] - Only basic accounting [None beyond basic financial accounting] - Something else [Other (specify)] #### NGO-P0-S3-Q26 Ask: What do you use for this today? Help: So the brief can say what a change would replace. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Also record the answer in `irf_act0.uses`, with its first letter in lower case. It is context for the brief and is not scored. Same as: FC-CTX-Q6. If that question has an answer, do not ask this one. There is no honest copy for this pair: leave this one unanswered. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Paper or memory [Paper or memory] - Spreadsheets [Spreadsheets] - Our own database or system [A database or system we run ourselves] - A system from a provider [A system from a provider] - Several separate systems [Several systems that do not talk to each other] - Nothing yet [Nothing yet] ### Filled from another answer #### NGO-P0-S7-Q2 Ask: Which compliance duties does your organisation manage today? Help: Pick everything that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: where the readiness bar sits Not asked. Fill it from the answer to NGO-P0-S6-Q21, record it as inferred, and confirm it with the rest. A value with no row in the table below, such as a choice of none or other, adds nothing. Same as: NGO-P0-S6-Q21. If that question has an answer, do not ask this one. Do not ask it. Fill it from NGO-P0-S6-Q21 as described under About you. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Donor reporting and conditions [Donor reporting requirements and compliance with donor conditions] - Government registration and annual reports [Government registration and annual reporting] - Data protection law [Data protection regulations (GDPR, UK DPA, national data laws, etc.)] - Financial audits [Financial audit requirements] - Sector standards such as Sphere [Sector-specific standards (SPHERE, Core Humanitarian Standard, etc.)] - Anti-money laundering rules [Anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF)] - Tax and financial reporting [Tax compliance and financial reporting] - None formally [None formally identified] - Something else [Other (specify)] - [AML/CFT (Anti-Money Laundering/Counter-Financing of Terrorism)] gives [Anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF)] - [OFAC or other sanctions compliance] gives [Anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF)] - [Financial reporting to regulators] gives [Tax compliance and financial reporting] - [Donor reporting requirements (USAID, DFID, EU, etc.)] gives [Donor reporting requirements and compliance with donor conditions] - [Audit requirements (external auditor, internal audit)] gives [Financial audit requirements] #### NGO-P0-S4-Q15 Ask: Where does your funding come from? Help: Pick everything that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.6); how large the problem is (weight 0.4); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.5); the ranking in E, F, I; the wording of conditions in the brief Not asked. Fill it from the answer to NGO-P0-S4-Q24, record it as inferred, and confirm it with the rest. If the person already gave an answer to this question, keep theirs. A value with no row in the table below, such as the Islamic finance and cluster choices, adds nothing; if nothing maps, leave it empty. Same as: NGO-P0-S4-Q24. If that question has an answer, do not ask this one. There is no honest copy for this pair: leave this one unanswered. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Large institutional donors [Institutional donors (USAID, DFID/FCDO, EU, etc.)] - UN agencies [UN agencies (as a sub-grantee or implementing partner)] - National or local government grants [Government grants (national or local)] - Private foundations [Private foundations] - Company partnerships [Corporate partnerships] - Individual donors and the public [Individual donors / public fundraising] - Income from fees or trading [Earned income / social enterprise revenue] - Something else [Other (specify)] - [Primarily conventional bilateral donors (USAID, ECHO, FCDO, Sida, etc.)] gives [Institutional donors (USAID, DFID/FCDO, EU, etc.)] - [Primarily UN system funding (UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF, UNDP, OCHA)] gives [UN agencies (as a sub-grantee or implementing partner)] - [Primarily foundation or private philanthropy] gives [Private foundations] - [Domestic government funding] gives [Government grants (national or local)] - [Self-funded or fee-for-service] gives [Earned income / social enterprise revenue] - [Other (specify)] gives [Other (specify)] ### The other profile questions These are not asked up front. If the transcript answers one clearly, record it. A ranking question for a chosen category may ask one later. They are listed so that every value is exact. #### NGO-P0-S1-Q8 Ask: About how many people do your programmes serve directly each year? Help: A rough guess is fine. If you do advocacy or coordination only, say so. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 10,000 [Under 10,000] - 10,000 to 50,000 [10,000-50,000] - 50,000 to 250,000 [50,000-250,000] - 250,000 to a million [250,000-1,000,000] - More than a million [Over 1,000,000] - We don't serve people directly [Not applicable (advocacy, coordination, or policy work)] #### NGO-P0-S2-Q9b Ask: Who signs off on spending on new technology? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - The board approves all of it [Board approval required for all technology investments] - Senior management signs off [Senior management or executive committee approval] - A department head or programme director [Department head or programme director authority] - IT or operations, within a budget [Delegated to IT/operations team within budget limits] - No set process, decided ad hoc [No formal process — decisions made ad-hoc] #### NGO-P0-S3-Q11a Ask: Where do you keep your main list of the people you serve? Help: Pick the main one. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A dedicated registration platform [Dedicated registration platform (agency-run or custom-built)] - A database shared with other organisations [Shared database with other organisations] - Our own database [Organisation-specific database or CRM] - Spreadsheets [Spreadsheets] - Paper records [Paper-based records] - Something else [Other (specify)] #### NGO-P0-S3-Q11b Ask: How many separate systems hold information about the people you serve? Help: A rough count is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the wording of conditions in the brief Same as: NGO-P2-CatB-Q1b. If that question has an answer, do not ask this one. There is no honest copy for this pair: leave this one unanswered. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Just one system [1 (single unified system)] - Two or three [2-3] - Four to six [4-6] - More than six [More than 6] - I am not sure [Unsure] #### NGO-P0-S3-Q13 Ask: How reliable is the internet at head office and in the field? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: readiness for a use case (weight 1.6); the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Reliable everywhere [Reliable high-speed internet at HQ and field offices] - Good at head office, patchy elsewhere [Reliable at HQ, intermittent in field locations] - Patchy everywhere [Intermittent connectivity at both HQ and field] - Frequent outages or very slow [Significant connectivity gaps — frequent outages or very low bandwidth] - Mostly offline [Primarily offline — limited or no regular internet access] #### NGO-P0-S4-Q14a Ask: About how big is your yearly budget? Help: A range is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 0.6); the ranking in A; the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under $1 million [Under $1M] - $1 to $5 million [$1M-$5M] - $5 to $10 million [$5M-$10M] - $10 to $50 million [$10M-$50M] - $50 to $100 million [$50M-$100M] - $100 to $500 million [$100M-$500M] - Over $500 million [Over $500M] #### NGO-P0-S4-Q14b Ask: How has your budget changed over the last few years? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 0.4); the ranking in F; the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Growing by over 20% a year [Growing significantly (20%+ YoY)] - Growing steadily [Growing moderately] - Stable [Stable] - Shrinking [Declining] - Up and down with emergency funding [Volatile (swings with emergency funding cycles)] #### NGO-P0-S6-Q20 Ask: Besides the law, do you follow any data protection standards by choice? Help: The law is covered already. Pick any standards you follow by choice. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2); the ranking in C, E; the wording of conditions in the brief Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - IASC data responsibility guidelines [IASC Data Responsibility Guidelines] - Sphere data protection standards [Sphere Standards data protection provisions] - CHS Alliance data commitments [CHS Alliance data commitments] - Our own privacy policy for beneficiaries [Beneficiary privacy policies (organisation-specific)] - Our own data governance rules [Internal data governance framework] - Only what the law requires [None beyond legal requirements] - Something else [Other (specify)] #### NGO-P0-S6-Q23 Ask: How do authorities in your main countries treat NGOs? Help: Pick the closest fit. Add detail about specific problems in the notes. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Supportive, few restrictions [Supportive - government cooperates well with NGOs, few restrictions] - Mostly permissive, some paperwork [Generally permissive - some bureaucratic hurdles but operations not constrained] - Mixed, depends on the region [Mixed - supportive in some areas or regions, restrictive in others] - Challenging, heavy rules or registration [Challenging - significant regulatory burden, registration difficulties, or reporting constraints] - Hostile, active restrictions [Hostile - active restrictions on NGO operations, funding freezes, or political pressure] - Varies a lot by country [Varies significantly by country of operation] #### NGO-P0-S7-Q1 Ask: Which of these risk practices do you already have? Help: Pick everything that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the wording of conditions in the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A regularly updated risk register [Formal risk register maintained and regularly updated] - A statement of acceptable risk [Defined risk appetite or tolerance statement] - Risk checks for new projects [Risk assessment process for new projects or initiatives] - Incident response procedures [Incident response and escalation procedures] - A continuity or recovery plan [Business continuity or disaster recovery plan] - Risk reports to the board [Regular risk reporting to board or senior leadership] - Checks on partner and supplier risk [Third-party or partner risk assessment process] - None of these [None of the above] #### NGO-P0-S1-Q5 Ask: In one sentence, what is your organisation for? Help: One sentence is enough. Answer: free text; it carries no score Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the header of the brief #### NGO-P0-S1-Q6 Ask: What year was your organisation founded? Help: A rough year is fine. Answer: free text; it carries no score Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the header of the brief #### NGO-P0-S3-Q12 Ask: How do you get money to the field? Help: Pick every method you use. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: the header of the brief Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Bank transfers [Bank wire transfers] - Mobile money [Mobile money] - Money transfer companies [Money transfer operators] - Hawala or informal networks [Hawala or informal value transfer] - Physical cash carried in [Cash in transit / physical cash delivery] - Payment service providers [Payment service providers or aggregators] - Prepaid cards or e-vouchers [Prepaid cards or e-vouchers] - Direct to beneficiaries' bank accounts [Direct bank account transfers to beneficiaries] - Something else [Other (specify)] ### Optional questions the transcript may answer ## Your problems Ask: Describe one problem in your own words. A sentence or two is enough. Then ask for another, until the person has no more. Read each problem against the areas and statements below. Offer the closest readings in the form "This sounds like: late or short payments. Right?" using the `soundsLike` words. Offer at most three loose readings in all. Statements the person's words match exactly are always offered. If nothing matches, ask for the problem in other words. Never choose a category without the person's agreement. The category letters in the last column are for your records. Do not show them to the person. The first letter is the category the statement is for. A second letter is a suggestion the person may drop: offer it as "Could this also involve ...?" and add it only on a yes. Record the agreed categories as the list `irf_ngo_selected_problem_areas`. ### Money takes too long to reach people. Sounds like: slow or hard-to-follow money. Area id: `money`. - `money.1` "Payments reach people late, or arrive short." Sounds like: late or short payments. Categories: A. - `money.2` "Once money leaves head office, we lose track of it." Sounds like: funds we cannot follow. Categories: A. - `money.3` "Cash and voucher payments fail, and we can’t always say why." Sounds like: failed cash or voucher payments. Categories: A. ### We can’t show where goods came from or where they went. Sounds like: goods we cannot trace. Area id: `goods`. - `goods.1` "We paid for goods and can’t confirm they reached the right people." Sounds like: no proof that goods arrived. Categories: D. - `goods.2` "Goods pass through many hands before they arrive, and some go missing." Sounds like: losses along the supply route. Categories: D. - `goods.3` "We receive donated goods and can’t check their quality or where they came from." Sounds like: donated goods we cannot check. Categories: D. ### We can’t reliably tell who the people we serve are. Sounds like: uncertain identity of the people we serve. Area id: `people`. - `people.1` "Many of the people we serve have no official ID we can rely on." Sounds like: people without usable ID. Categories: B. - `people.2` "Registering and re-registering people takes more time than we have." Sounds like: slow registration. Categories: B. - `people.3` "We can’t tell if someone was already helped, by us or by another agency." Sounds like: people counted twice. Categories: B, E. ### The people we serve can’t prove their claim to land. Sounds like: insecure land and property claims. Area id: `land`. - `land.1` "The people we serve have unclear claims to their land, and it harms them." Sounds like: unclear land claims. Categories: H. - `land.2` "Land documents are lost in conflict or disaster, and can’t be rebuilt." Sounds like: lost land records. Categories: H. - `land.3` "Property records that should be public are held by people who use them to control others." Sounds like: land records held back. Categories: H, E. ### We don’t trust how our records about people are kept. Sounds like: records about people that are not safe or consistent. Area id: `data`. - `data.1` "We hold sensitive data about vulnerable people, and we worry who else can see it." Sounds like: worry about who sees sensitive data. Categories: C. - `data.2` "Different teams keep records in different systems, and the records disagree." Sounds like: records that disagree. Categories: C. - `data.3` "We are asked how we handle people’s data and can’t give a clear answer." Sounds like: no clear answer on data handling. Categories: C. ### Our work does not line up with other agencies’ work. Sounds like: poor coordination with other agencies. Area id: `agencies`. - `agencies.1` "We work alongside other agencies, but our records and lists never match." Sounds like: lists that do not match. Categories: E, C. - `agencies.2` "Decisions from coordination meetings never reach our operations team." Sounds like: decisions that do not travel. Categories: E. - `agencies.3` "We repeat work other organisations already do, because nobody can see what is under way." Sounds like: duplicated work. Categories: E. ### Donors ask for reports we can’t easily produce. Sounds like: reporting that takes too much effort. Area id: `donors`. - `donors.1` "Donors ask for the same evidence in different formats. We rebuild the report each time." Sounds like: the same report rebuilt many times. Categories: F. - `donors.2` "We can’t show donors what their money achieved in a form they trust." Sounds like: results donors may not trust. Categories: F. - `donors.3` "A new donor means months of paperwork before real work starts." Sounds like: slow donor onboarding. Categories: F. ### Our systems fail when a crisis hits. Sounds like: systems that fail in a crisis. Area id: `crises`. - `crises.1` "In a crisis our systems fall over, and we lose sight of operations for days." Sounds like: systems down when needed. Categories: G. - `crises.2` "In an emergency we need to scale up fast, and adding new partners is too slow." Sounds like: slow to bring partners in. Categories: G. - `crises.3` "We can’t work when the connection drops, and that is when we most need to." Sounds like: no way to work offline. Categories: G. ### We can’t prove our environmental or energy results. Sounds like: environmental or energy results we cannot prove. Area id: `environment`. - `environment.1` "We need to prove environmental results, such as emissions or water quality, and can’t." Sounds like: environmental results we cannot verify. Categories: I. - `environment.2` "Energy access is part of our work. We can’t easily measure or share what we deliver." Sounds like: energy delivery we cannot measure. Categories: I. - `environment.3` "Donors or governments don’t trust the carbon or water data we produce." Sounds like: environmental data that is not trusted. Categories: I. ### We can’t vouch for our staff and volunteers. Sounds like: staff and volunteers we cannot vouch for. Area id: `staff`. - `staff.1` "Staff and volunteers can’t easily prove their training when they move between programmes." Sounds like: training that does not travel. Categories: J. - `staff.2` "We can’t verify the people who work in our name in the field." Sounds like: unverified field workers. Categories: J, B. - `staff.3` "Volunteers come and go, and we lose track of who has done what training." Sounds like: lost training records. Categories: J. ### The categories - A: Financial Operations (26 use cases) - B: Identity and Credentials (17 use cases) - C: Data Management and Privacy (16 use cases) - D: Supply Chain and Logistics (23 use cases) - E: Governance and Coordination (18 use cases) - F: Fundraising and Donor Relations (12 use cases) - G: Resilience and Risk Management (9 use cases) - H: Land, Property and Natural Resources (8 use cases) - I: Energy and Environment (9 use cases) - J: Workforce and Operations (7 use cases) ### The friction question #### NGO-P1-S1-Q2 Ask: Where do you lose the most time or money in your day-to-day work? Help: Pick every area that applies. A rough sense is enough. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_1 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2.8); the ranking in C, D, E; the friction areas Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Not asked. Fill it from the problems the person agreed, using the table below, record it as inferred, and confirm it. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Cash transfers and payments [Cash transfer and payment processing] - Registering people and checking identity [Beneficiary registration and identity verification] - Tracking goods to the last mile [Supply chain tracking and last-mile delivery] - Donor reports and grant rules [Donor reporting and grant compliance] - Sending money across borders [Cross-border fund transfers] - Matching accounts with partners [Partner financial reconciliation] - Collecting data and field reports [Data collection and field reporting] - Buying goods and managing suppliers [Procurement and vendor management] - Monitoring and evaluation [Monitoring and evaluation] - Coordinating staff across locations [Staff coordination and communication across locations] - Feedback from the people we serve [Beneficiary feedback and accountability mechanisms] - Keeping data safe from breaches [Information security and data breach prevention] - Land disputes and unclear titles [Land ownership disputes, unclear title records, or property registration problems] - Checking carbon or energy claims [Carbon credit verification, renewable energy tracking, or environmental monitoring] - Proving food aid reached households [Verifying food assistance reached intended households (vouchers, cash, in-kind food)] - Livestock records and cross-border movement [Pastoralist livestock provenance, vaccination records, and cross-border movement] - Fake or unverified farm inputs [Counterfeit, adulterated, or unverifiable agricultural inputs (especially seed)] - Showing where zakat money went [Distribution transparency for zakat, qard hasan, or other Islamic finance instruments] - Proof of triggers for early funding [Anticipatory action trigger evidence (drought, flood, displacement) for early disbursement] - Farmer cooperative member records [Farmer cooperative member registration, participation history, and benefit verification] - Something else [Other (please specify)] Which options a problem points to (a statement or area with no row points to none): - statement `money.1` gives [Cash transfer and payment processing] - statement `money.2` gives [Cash transfer and payment processing] - statement `money.3` gives [Cash transfer and payment processing] - statement `goods.1` gives [Supply chain tracking and last-mile delivery] - statement `goods.2` gives [Supply chain tracking and last-mile delivery] - statement `goods.3` gives [Supply chain tracking and last-mile delivery] - statement `people.1` gives [Beneficiary registration and identity verification] - statement `people.2` gives [Beneficiary registration and identity verification] - statement `people.3` gives [Beneficiary registration and identity verification] - statement `land.1` gives [Land ownership disputes, unclear title records, or property registration problems] - statement `land.2` gives [Land ownership disputes, unclear title records, or property registration problems] - statement `land.3` gives [Land ownership disputes, unclear title records, or property registration problems] - statement `data.1` gives [Information security and data breach prevention] - statement `donors.1` gives [Donor reporting and grant compliance] - statement `donors.2` gives [Donor reporting and grant compliance] - statement `donors.3` gives [Donor reporting and grant compliance] - statement `environment.1` gives [Carbon credit verification, renewable energy tracking, or environmental monitoring] - statement `environment.2` gives [Carbon credit verification, renewable energy tracking, or environmental monitoring] - statement `environment.3` gives [Carbon credit verification, renewable energy tracking, or environmental monitoring] - area `money` gives [Cash transfer and payment processing] - area `goods` gives [Supply chain tracking and last-mile delivery] - area `people` gives [Beneficiary registration and identity verification] - area `land` gives [Land ownership disputes, unclear title records, or property registration problems] - area `donors` gives [Donor reporting and grant compliance] - area `environment` gives [Carbon credit verification, renewable energy tracking, or environmental monitoring] #### NGO-P1-S2-Q7 Ask: Which areas do you want to look at first? Help: Pick the areas you want to look at. Suggested areas are marked. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_1 Counts toward: the choice of categories Not asked as a question. The categories the person agreed are recorded in the list `irf_ngo_selected_problem_areas` instead. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Money and payments [A: Financial Operations and Payments] - Identity and credentials [B: Identity and Credentials] - Data and privacy [C: Data Management and Privacy] - Supply chains [D: Supply Chain and Verification] - Governance and coordination [E: Governance and Coordination] - Fundraising and donor relations [F: Fundraising and Donor Relations] - Resilience and risk [G: Resilience and Risk Management] - Land and property rights [H: Land, Property and Natural Resources] - Energy and environment [I: Energy and Environment] - Staff and operations [J: Workforce and Operations] ## What might fit For each category the person agreed, ask its ranking questions until the floor is met, then run the script. A category ranks only when its floor is met. Order of asking. Take the selected categories in turn, always the one with the lowest share of its ranking questions answered, and ask its heaviest unanswered question. A question that sits in the ranking set of two categories counts for both and is asked once. The lists below are in order of weight, heaviest first. Count a question as answered when it has a stated or confirmed value. A question that is skipped, or that the person cannot answer, does not count. The floor is the fewest answers worth ranking on: below it the ranking stops matching what the full set would give. Where the floor equals the whole set, ask them all. If a category ends below its floor, say "ranking based on N of M questions" in the brief and list its use cases as not judged. Questions marked as a copy of another are skipped once the other has an answer, or copied by the table in the entry. ### Category A: Financial Operations Floor: 14 of 17 ranking questions. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatA-Q8b (weight 9.7) 2. NGO-P2-CatA-Q5 (weight 9.2) 3. NGO-P2-CatA-Q7 (weight 7.4) 4. NGO-P2-CatA-Q4 (weight 6) 5. NGO-P2-CatA-Q31 (weight 5.8) 6. NGO-P2-CatA-Q3 (weight 5) 7. NGO-P2-CatA-Q6 (weight 4.2) 8. NGO-P2-CatA-Q2 (weight 3.9) 9. NGO-P2-CatA-Q8a (weight 3.8) 10. NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 (weight 2) 11. NGO-P0-S4-Q24 (weight 1) 12. NGO-P2-CatJ-Q11 (weight 1) 13. NGO-P2-CatA-Q6-followup (weight 0.9) 14. NGO-P2-CatJ-Q15 (weight 0.9) 15. NGO-P2-CatA-Q1 (weight 0.8) 16. NGO-P2-CatG-Q1 (weight 0.8) 17. NGO-P0-S4-Q14a (weight 0.6) #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q8b Ask: When you match them up, how many transfers do not agree? Help: A rough share is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 10); how large the problem is (weight 1.9); the ranking in A, F, H Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 1% [Less than 1%] - 1% to 5% [1-5%] - 5% to 10% [5-10%] - More than 10% [More than 10%] - I don't know [Unknown] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q5 Ask: Where you send money, what is the main banking difficulty? Help: Pick the main difficulty. Choose the first option if there is none. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 12.4); the ranking in A, F, G Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - No difficulties [No payment difficulties] - Sanctions affect the country [Sanctions-affected country] - Banks refuse to serve the route [De-risked corridors (bank won't serve)] - There are no banks to use [No banking infrastructure] - Currency or capital controls [FX controls or capital restrictions] - Intermediary banks have pulled out [Correspondent banking withdrawal] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q7 Ask: How much of the transfer time goes on compliance checks and paperwork? Help: A rough share is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 9.6); how large the problem is (weight 0.5); readiness for a use case (weight 0.5); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.5); the ranking in A, F Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 10% [Less than 10%] - 10% to 25% [10-25%] - 25% to 50% [25-50%] - 50% to 75% [50-75%] - More than 75% [More than 75%] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q4 Ask: Roughly what share of a transfer goes on fees and exchange costs? Help: Include bank fees and any exchange-rate margin. A best guess is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 8.7); the ranking in A, F Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Less than 1% [Less than 1%] - 1% to 3% [1-3%] - 3% to 5% [3-5%] - 5% to 10% [5-10%] - 10% to 20% [10-20%] - 20% to 30% [20-30%] - More than 30% [More than 30%] - I don't know [Unknown] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q31 Ask: How available is cash in the communities you serve? Help: Think about everyday purchases. Barter and informal credit are signs of a shortage. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 6); how large the problem is (weight 0.5); how well a shared record fits (weight 1); the ranking in A, F Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Cash is generally available [cash-adequate] - Cash runs short at times [periodic-scarcity] - Chronic shortage, heavy use of barter [chronic-scarcity] - Cash is rare, informal exchange [severe-scarcity] - Almost entirely aid-dependent [aid-dependent] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q3 Ask: How long does a transfer usually take to reach the country? Help: Think of a typical transfer. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 8); the ranking in A, G Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - The same day [Same day] - One to three days [1-3 days] - Four to seven days [4-7 days] - One to two weeks [1-2 weeks] - More than two weeks [More than 2 weeks] - It varies too much to say [Highly variable] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q6 Ask: How often have your transfers been blocked or held up? Help: Go with what you have actually seen. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 8.2); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.5); the ranking in A, F, G Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Monthly or more often [Frequently (monthly or more)] - A few times a year [Occasionally (a few times per year)] - Once or twice ever [Rarely (once or twice ever)] - Never [Never] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q2 Ask: How many banks or agents sit between head office and money you can use in-country? Help: Count banks and agents. A guess is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 3); how large the problem is (weight 2.5); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.5); the ranking in A, F Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - None [None] - One or two [1-2] - Three to five [3-5] - Six to ten [6-10] - More than ten [More than 10] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q8a Ask: How often do you match head office records against what field offices received? Help: Pick what really happens. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 3); how large the problem is (weight 0.8); readiness for a use case (weight 0.5); the ranking in A Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Every day [Daily] - Every week [Weekly] - Every month [Monthly] - Every quarter [Quarterly] - Only when needed [Ad hoc] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 Ask: How would you feel if donors could see where funds went, as it happens? Help: There is no right answer. Say what you honestly think. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 9.6); how well a shared record fits (weight 4.8); the ranking in A, F, G, H Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - We would welcome it [Exciting — we'd welcome it] - Mixed, with some worries [Mixed — some areas yes, some areas we'd worry about] - Concerned about our data quality [Concerning — our data isn't clean enough for that] - Very worried, fixes needed first [Terrifying — there are things we'd need to fix first] #### NGO-P2-CatJ-Q11 Ask: How do you insure staff who work in several countries? Help: Pick the main approach. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1); the ranking in A Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Local insurance in each place [local] - Home country insurance [home] - One international plan [international] - Regional or global policies [roaming] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q6-followup Ask: When it happened, what was the effect on your work? Help: Think of the worst case. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.9); the ranking in A Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A minor inconvenience [Minor inconvenience — resolved quickly with no lasting impact] - Days of delay, needed workarounds [Moderate disruption — delayed operations for days, required workarounds] - Some programmes halted for weeks [Significant disruption — halted some programmes for weeks, financial losses] - Major delays and losses, people affected [Severe disruption — major programme delays, substantial financial loss, beneficiary impact] - Operations stopped, emergency response [Critical crisis — operations stopped entirely, emergency response needed] #### NGO-P2-CatJ-Q15 Ask: What is the biggest workforce risk you face? Help: Pick the one you worry about most. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.9); the ranking in A Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Same as: NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 and the other questions about the same point of failure. Ask only one question of this family in a run. Once a sibling has an answer, skip the rest. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Misconduct not detected or reported [safeguarding-failure] - Critical knowledge held by one person [key-person-dependency] - Unqualified staff in sensitive roles [credential-fraud] - Trained staff leave for better pay [staff-poaching] - No way to run background checks [no-background-checks] - Volunteer burnout and turnover [volunteer-burnout] - Something else [other] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q1 Ask: Think of a typical transfer from head office to a field office. Which of these sounds closest? Help: Count the handoffs. A rough picture is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.8); readiness for a use case (weight 6.7); the ranking in A Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One step, one intermediary [Simple — single step, one intermediary, straightforward] - Two or three steps, some manual [Moderate — 2-3 steps, some manual handoffs] - Four or more steps, manual reconciling [Complex — 4+ steps, multiple intermediaries, manual reconciliation] - Many steps and frequent delays [Very complex — many steps, multiple currencies, delays common, reconciliation difficult] - Fragmented, long delays, often fails [Extremely complex — fragmented across systems, major delays, high failure rate] #### NGO-P2-CatG-Q1 Ask: Which operational risks worry you most? Help: Pick the ones that matter most to you. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 0.8); the ranking in A Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Depending on one key person [key-person] - Losing our main office [office-disruption] - Bank disruption or sanctions [banking] - Cyberattack or ransomware [cyberattack] - Staff turnover [staff-turnover] - Unpredictable funding [funding-volatility] - Losing or corrupting data [data-loss] - Supply chain disruption [supply-chain] - Regulatory or legal change [regulatory] ### Category B: Identity and Credentials Floor: 14 of 17 ranking questions. This category deals with identity. Say so before you start it, and remind the person that they may skip any question. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatB-Q9 (weight 8.1) 2. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1 (weight 5.6) 3. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1a (weight 5.2) 4. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1b (weight 3.2) 5. NGO-P2-CatB-Q28 (weight 2.8) 6. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1c (weight 2.4) 7. NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 (weight 1.8) 8. NGO-P0-S1-Q9 (weight 1) 9. NGO-P0-S1-Q4 (weight 0.9) 10. NGO-P0-S5-Q17a (weight 0.9) 11. NGO-P0-S5-Q18 (weight 0.8) 12. NGO-P2-CatB-Q6-FU (weight 0.8) 13. NGO-P2-CatB-Q6 (weight 0.7) 14. NGO-P2-CatB-Q8 (weight 0.7) 15. NGO-P2-CatB-Q10-FU (weight 0.7) 16. NGO-P0-S1-Q7 (weight 0.6) 17. NGO-P0-S2-Q7 (weight 0.5) #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q9 Ask: When people are displaced, can their records follow them? Help: Think about someone who moves to a new area. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 10.5); the ranking in B, G, H Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, records follow them easily [Records fully portable and accessible in new locations] - Yes, but only with manual work [Records transferable with manual intervention] - Records stay where they started [Records stay at original location; minimal portability] - No way to keep records going [No mechanism for record continuity] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q1 Ask: About what share of the people you serve have no government ID? Help: A rough share is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 8.2); the ranking in B, G, H Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 5% [Less than 5%] - 5% to 15% [5-15%] - 15% to 30% [15-30%] - 30% to 50% [30-50%] - More than 50% [More than 50%] - I don't know [Unknown] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q1a Ask: About how many different people do you register or check each year? Help: Include all programmes. A rough number is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 6.5); the ranking in B, G, H Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 1,000 [Under 1,000] - 1,000 to 10,000 [1,000 - 10,000] - 10,000 to 50,000 [10,000 - 50,000] - 50,000 to 200,000 [50,000 - 200,000] - More than 200,000 [Over 200,000] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q1b Ask: How many separate systems hold identity details about the people you serve? Help: Count databases, spreadsheets, paper registers and outside platforms. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 5.2); how large the problem is (weight 0.4); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6); the ranking in B, J Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One central system [1 centralised system] - Two or three [2-3 systems] - Four to six [4-6 systems] - Seven to ten [7-10 systems] - More than ten [More than 10 systems] - I don't know [Don't know] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q28 Ask: If one part of your registration system failed, which would hurt most? Help: Pick the one you worry about most. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 6.8); the ranking in B, J Same as: NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 and the other questions about the same point of failure. Ask only one question of this family in a run. Once a sibling has an answer, skip the rest. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Losing the central database [Loss of the central beneficiary database or registration system] - Key registration staff leave [Key registration staff departure with no knowledge transfer] - Biometric kit fails, no backup [Biometric hardware failure with no backup verification method] - A partner corrupts shared data [Partner organisation loses or corrupts shared beneficiary data] - Connection fails where we register [Connectivity failure in field locations preventing registration] - Government changes ID requirements [Government changes ID requirements or invalidates existing records] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q1c Ask: About how many people are registered more than once in your systems? Help: This is hard to know exactly. A best guess is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 3); the ranking in B, G Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 5%, very few [Under 5% — minimal duplication] - 5% to 15%, some [5-15% — some known duplicates] - 15% to 30%, a lot [15-30% — significant duplication] - Over 30%, a major problem [Over 30% — major duplication problem] - Unknown, we cannot check [Unknown — we have no way to check] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 Ask: Do you share information about the people you serve with other NGOs? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.8); how well a shared record fits (weight 12.9); the ranking in B Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Same as: NGO-P0-S5-Q19. If that question has an answer, do not ask this one. Copy the answer across like this, and record it as inferred: - [Yes, regularly and systematically (shared platforms or data exchanges)] gives [Yes, formally through shared platforms or databases] - [Yes, but ad hoc (via email, reports, manual processes)] gives [Yes, informally through email/phone coordination] - [Rarely] gives [Partially — some programmes share, others don't] - [No] gives [No, we do not share beneficiary data with other NGOs] - [We would like to but data protection concerns prevent it] gives [We would like to but data protection prevents it] Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, through shared platforms [Yes, formally through shared platforms or databases] - Yes, informally by email or phone [Yes, informally through email/phone coordination] - Some programmes do, others don't [Partially — some programmes share, others don't] - No, we don't share [No, we do not share beneficiary data with other NGOs] - Data protection stops us sharing [We would like to but data protection prevents it] #### NGO-P0-S1-Q9 Ask: Which groups do your programmes mainly serve? Help: Pick up to three. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2.8); the ranking in B, C Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Smallholder farmers [Smallholder farmers] - Pastoralists and nomadic herders [Pastoralists and nomadic populations] - Fishing and coastal communities [Fishers and coastal populations] - Refugees and asylum seekers [Refugees and asylum seekers] - People displaced inside their country [Internally displaced persons] - Communities hosting displaced people [Host communities affected by displacement] - The urban poor [Urban poor] - Women-led households and cooperatives [Women-led households and women's cooperatives] - Young people under 25 [Youth (under 25)] - People with disabilities [Persons with disabilities] - Older people [Elderly people] - Children under five [Children under 5 (nutrition focus)] - School-age children [School-age children (education focus)] - Religious or ethnic minorities [Religious or ethnic minorities] - Someone else [Other (specify)] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q6-FU Ask: What problems have you had, or worry about, with biometric data? Help: Pick the main one. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.8); the ranking in B Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - No real problems so far [No significant risks encountered] - Privacy concerns from people or regulators [Data protection/privacy concerns from beneficiaries or regulators] - Equipment failures and poor captures [Technical failures — equipment malfunction, poor quality captures] - A leak or unauthorised access [Data breach or unauthorized access to biometric records] - People unwilling or unable to consent [Consent challenges — beneficiaries reluctant or unable to consent] - A mix of these [Multiple risks — combination of the above] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q6 Ask: Do you use fingerprints or other biometrics to register people? Help: Biometrics means fingerprints or iris scans. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.7); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6); the ranking in B Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes [Yes] - No [No] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q8 Ask: Roughly what share of your registration records are duplicates? Help: Pick the closest range. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.7); the ranking in B Same as: NGO-P2-CatB-Q1c. If that question has an answer, do not ask this one. Copy the answer across like this, and record it as inferred: - [Under 5% — minimal duplication] gives no copy; leave this one unanswered - [5-15% — some known duplicates] gives no copy; leave this one unanswered - [15-30% — significant duplication] gives no copy; leave this one unanswered - [Over 30% — major duplication problem] gives [More than 20%] - [Unknown — we have no way to check] gives [Unknown] Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Less than 1% [Less than 1%] - 1% to 5% [1-5%] - 5% to 10% [5-10%] - 10% to 20% [10-20%] - More than 20% [More than 20%] - I don't know [Unknown] #### NGO-P2-CatB-Q10-FU Ask: How do you share it with them? Help: Pick the main way. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.7); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.7); the ranking in B Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Formal data sharing agreements [Formal data sharing agreements (DSAs)] - Informal emails and calls [Informal coordination (email/calls)] - A shared database or platform [Shared database/platform] - Spreadsheets sent back and forth [Spreadsheet transfers] - Something else [Other] ### Category C: Data Management and Privacy Floor: 12 of 12 ranking questions. Ask them all. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatC-Q8 (weight 9.7) 2. NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 (weight 8.1) 3. NGO-P2-CatC-Q4 (weight 5.2) 4. NGO-P2-CatC-Q3 (weight 4.8) 5. NGO-P2-CatC-Q5 (weight 2.2) 6. NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 (weight 2.1) 7. NGO-P0-S1-Q9 (weight 1.8) 8. NGO-P2-CatC-Q7-FU (weight 1.6) 9. NGO-P1-S1-Q2 (weight 0.9) 10. NGO-P0-S6-Q20 (weight 0.6) 11. NGO-P0-S2-Q7 (weight 0.5) 12. NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 (weight 0.4) #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q8 Ask: Can you see who has looked at or changed a person's record? Help: Think about your main system. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 21.7); the ranking in C, G, H, I, J Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, everything is logged [Full audit logs of all access/modifications] - Only major actions are logged [Partial logging of major actions] - Little visibility, occasional reviews [Limited visibility; ad hoc reviews] - No tracking at all [No systematic tracking] #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 Ask: Which best describes how you manage information about the people you serve? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 10.4); how well a shared record fits (weight 2.3); the ranking in C, H, J Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One central database, clear rules [Centralised database with formal data governance policies] - Several systems, no single master list [Multiple systems with some governance but no single source of truth] - Scattered across spreadsheets and partners [Fragmented across spreadsheets, databases, and partner systems] - Mostly paper or informal digital [Mostly paper-based or ad hoc digital storage] - No rules, each programme differs [No formal data governance — each programme manages its own way] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q4 Ask: When two systems give different details for one person, how do you sort it out? Help: Pick what usually happens. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 9.2); the ranking in C, G, H, I Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - An automated check fixes it [Automated reconciliation] - The data team reviews it [Manual review by data team] - We ask the person [Ask beneficiary to verify] - We trust the main source [Use data from primary source] - Case by case [Ad hoc, case-by-case approach] - We have no process [No established process] #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q3 Ask: How many systems do you use to store information about the people you serve? Help: A rough count is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 4.8); how large the problem is (weight 1.4); readiness for a use case (weight 0.3); the ranking in C, I Same as: NGO-P2-CatB-Q1b. If that question has an answer, do not ask this one. Copy the answer across like this, and record it as inferred: - [1 centralised system] gives [Single system] - [2-3 systems] gives [2-3 systems] - [4-6 systems] gives no copy; leave this one unanswered - [7-10 systems] gives [6+ systems] - [More than 10 systems] gives [6+ systems] - [Don't know] gives no copy; leave this one unanswered Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Just one [Single system] - Two or three [2-3 systems] - Four or five [4-5 systems] - Six or more [6+ systems] #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q5 Ask: How often do you look for duplicate records? Help: Pick what actually happens. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 4.1); the ranking in C, I Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Constantly, automatically [Continuously (automated)] - Every week [Weekly] - Every month [Monthly] - Every quarter or less [Quarterly or less] - Only when problems appear [Only when problems surface] - Never [Never] #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 Ask: Is it hard to match your data with donors or partners? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.7); how large the problem is (weight 0.4); how well a shared record fits (weight 6.8); the ranking in C Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, it is hard [Yes] - No [No] #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q7-FU Ask: What makes it hard? Help: Pick the main reason. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.6); the ranking in C Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - No real difficulty [No significant challenges — data reconciliation works well] - Different formats and definitions [Different data formats and definitions across partners] - It happens too late to help [Time lag — reconciliation happens too late to be useful] - Manual comparison, error-prone [Manual and error-prone — relies on spreadsheet comparison] - Our systems cannot be matched [Cannot reconcile — systems are incompatible] - Partners dispute each other's figures [Trust issues — partners dispute each other's figures] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 Ask: If one part of your data setup failed, which would hurt most? Help: Pick the one you worry about most. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 5.5); how well a shared record fits (weight 3.2); the ranking in C, G, H Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Same as: NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 and the other questions about the same point of failure. Ask only one question of this family in a run. Once a sibling has an answer, skip the rest. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Central database or server fails [Loss of central database or server failure] - Key data staff leave [Key data staff departure with no documentation] - A cyber attack or breach [Cyber attack or data breach] - Partner data does not fit ours [Partner data incompatibility causing data loss] - Typing errors build up over time [Manual data entry errors compounding over time] - A rule change forces data deletion [Regulatory change requiring data deletion or restructuring] - Something else [Other] ### Category D: Supply Chain and Logistics Floor: 19 of 19 ranking questions. Ask them all. Trimming to 14 questions reorders the category too much (simulated rank correlation about 0.6); ask the whole set. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatD-Q4 (weight 12.8) 2. NGO-P2-CatD-Q5 (weight 8.3) 3. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1a (weight 8) 4. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1b (weight 5.7) 5. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1 (weight 5.6) 6. NGO-P2-CatD-Q8 (weight 5.2) 7. NGO-P2-CatD-Q6 (weight 3.1) 8. NGO-P2-CatD-Q7 (weight 2.7) 9. NGO-P2-CatD-Q3 (weight 1.7) 10. NGO-P2-CatD-Q5-FU (weight 1.7) 11. NGO-P2-CatD-Q9 (weight 1.7) 12. NGO-P2-CatD-Q2 (weight 1.4) 13. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c (weight 1.2) 14. NGO-P0-S1-Q7 (weight 1) 15. NGO-P1-S1-Q2 (weight 1) 16. NGO-P0-S5-Q18 (weight 0.9) 17. NGO-P2-CatD-Q7-FU (weight 0.9) 18. NGO-P0-S1-Q4 (weight 0.7) 19. NGO-P0-S5-Q17b (weight 0.5) #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q4 Ask: Think of one critical item, from buying it to reaching a person. How well can you follow it? Help: Pick the closest fit for a typical item. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 16.5); the ranking in D, H, I Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Tracked digitally from start to finish [End-to-end digital tracking from procurement to beneficiary] - Digital purchasing, manual last mile [Partially tracked — procurement is digital but last mile is manual] - Paper tracking, occasional digital updates [Paper-based tracking with periodic digital updates] - Minimal, roughly where it went [Minimal tracking — we know what was ordered and roughly where it went] - No tracking, items go informally [No systematic tracking — items are procured and distributed informally] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q5 Ask: Have you ever found counterfeit or faulty goods in your supply chain? Help: Include recalls. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 8.3); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6); the ranking in D Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes [Yes] - No [No] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q1a Ask: About how many orders and deliveries do you handle each month? Help: Count orders and deliveries together. An estimate is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 8); the ranking in D Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 50 [Under 50 per month] - 50 to 200 [50-200 per month] - 200 to 1,000 [200-1,000 per month] - 1,000 to 5,000 [1,000-5,000 per month] - More than 5,000 [Over 5,000 per month] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q1b Ask: What share of deliveries run into problems? Help: Count anything that arrived wrong, late, damaged or missing. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 5.7); the ranking in D Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Under 2%, rare [Under 2% — rare incidents] - 2% to 5%, occasional [2-5% — occasional problems] - 5% to 15%, regular [5-15% — regular problems] - 15% to 30%, frequent [15-30% — frequent problems] - Over 30%, systemic [Over 30% — systemic failure] - Unknown, we don't track it [Unknown — we don't track this] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q1 Ask: How many layers of suppliers sit between you and what reaches people? Help: A rough count is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 4.5); how large the problem is (weight 3.6); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6); the ranking in D, H, I Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One or two layers [1-2 tiers] - Three or four [3-4 tiers] - Five or more [5+ tiers] - It varies by programme [Unknown/varies by programme] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q8 Ask: If one part of your supply chain failed, which would hurt most? Help: Pick the one you worry about most. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 4.6); how large the problem is (weight 0.6); how well a shared record fits (weight 1.9); the ranking in D Same as: NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 and the other questions about the same point of failure. Ask only one question of this family in a run. Once a sibling has an answer, skip the rest. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Last-mile loss or diversion [Last-mile delivery — goods get lost or diverted before reaching beneficiaries] - Fraud or unreliable suppliers [Procurement fraud or supplier reliability issues] - Cold chain failure spoils goods [Cold chain failure — temperature-sensitive goods spoiling in transit] - Goods stuck at customs [Customs and border delays — goods stuck for weeks or months] - Warehouse loss or damage [Warehouse/storage loss — theft, damage, or expiry] - Goods lost between organisations [Partner handover — goods lost in transition between organisations] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q6 Ask: Where do you lose sight of your goods? Help: Pick everything that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 6.9); the ranking in D, H, I Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - In transit from the supplier [During transit from supplier to you] - In our warehouses [In your warehouses/storage facilities] - On the way to field sites [During distribution to field locations] - In field offices before delivery [In field offices before final delivery] - We never lose sight [You maintain full visibility] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q7 Ask: Can you keep temperature-sensitive goods cold all the way? Help: Think of medicines or vaccines. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2.7); the ranking in D Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, fully [Yes, comprehensive] - Yes, but only partly [Yes, but limited/partial] - No [No] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q3 Ask: How do you check that goods are genuine and good quality? Help: Pick everything you use. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.7); readiness for a use case (weight 1.2); the ranking in D Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Looking at goods on arrival [Visual inspection at receipt] - Lab testing [Testing/lab analysis] - Checking supplier certificates [Supplier certification verification] - Serial or batch numbers [Serial number/batch tracking] - Reviewing paperwork [Documentation review] - Outside audits [Third-party audits] - Counting stock against records [Physical counting/reconciliation] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q5-FU Ask: What kind of quality problems have you had? Help: Pick the most serious. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.7); the ranking in D Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - None in the last two years [No significant quality incidents in the last 2 years] - Minor, caught before delivery [Minor quality issues — caught before reaching beneficiaries] - Significant, some reached people [Significant incidents — some affected items reached beneficiaries] - Major, people may be harmed [Major incidents — recalls required, beneficiaries potentially harmed] - Counterfeit goods found [Counterfeit goods discovered in our supply chain] - Several kinds across supply lines [Multiple types of quality failures across different supply lines] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q9 Ask: How do the farmers you work with prove where their products come from? Help: If you do not work with farmers, pick the first option. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.7); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6); the ranking in D Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - We don't work with farmers [not-applicable] - They cannot prove it [no-verification] - Paper certificates people doubt [paper-based] - Audits help but cost too much [third-party-audit] - A trusted system is in place [established-system] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q2 Ask: What kinds of critical goods do you buy and hand out? Help: Pick everything that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.4); the ranking in D Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Medicines [Medicines/pharmaceuticals] - Nutritional supplements [Nutritional supplements] - Medical equipment and supplies [Medical equipment/supplies] - Seeds and farm inputs [Seeds/agricultural inputs] - Construction materials [Construction materials] - Educational materials [Educational materials] - Water purification [Water purification] - Protective equipment [PPE/protective equipment] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c Ask: How many suppliers and partners are in your supply chain? Help: Count every organisation that handles the goods. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 3.1); how well a shared record fits (weight 4.8); the ranking in D, H, I Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One to five [1-5 participants] - Six to fifteen [6-15 participants] - 16 to 50 [16-50 participants] - 51 to 100 [51-100 participants] - More than 100 [Over 100 participants] #### NGO-P2-CatD-Q7-FU Ask: How good is your cold chain? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.9); the ranking in D Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Full, with constant monitoring [Full cold chain with continuous temperature monitoring and alerts] - Good, but gaps in transport [Adequate cold chain but gaps in monitoring during transport] - Some fridges, no temperature logs [Limited cold chain — some refrigeration but no temperature logging] - Cool boxes only, no monitoring [Minimal — rely on cool boxes and ice packs with no monitoring] - None, not needed for our goods [No cold chain capability — not applicable to our goods] - Something else [Other] ### Category E: Governance and Coordination Floor: 25 of 25 ranking questions. Ask them all. Trimming to 14 questions reorders the category too much (simulated rank correlation about 0.7); ask the whole set. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 (weight 6.1) 2. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1a (weight 4.8) 3. NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 (weight 3.5) 4. NGO-P2-CatE-Q11 (weight 2.8) 5. NGO-P2-CatE-Q10 (weight 2.7) 6. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1 (weight 2.2) 7. NGO-P2-CatE-Q4 (weight 2.2) 8. NGO-P2-CatE-Q3 (weight 2.1) 9. NGO-P2-CatE-Q7 (weight 1.6) 10. NGO-P0-S6-Q20 (weight 1.4) 11. NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 (weight 1.4) 12. NGO-P0-S5-Q17b (weight 1.3) 13. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1b (weight 1.3) 14. NGO-P0-S2-Q9 (weight 1.1) 15. NGO-P1-S1-Q2 (weight 0.9) 16. NGO-P2-CatE-Q8 (weight 0.9) 17. NGO-P0-S5-Q17a (weight 0.8) 18. NGO-P0-S6-Q21 (weight 0.8) 19. NGO-P2-CatE-Q2 (weight 0.8) 20. NGO-P2-CatE-Q8-FU (weight 0.8) 21. NGO-P0-S5-Q18 (weight 0.7) 22. NGO-P2-CatE-Q5 (weight 0.7) 23. NGO-P0-S1-Q4 (weight 0.5) 24. NGO-P2-CatE-Q9 (weight 0.5) 25. NGO-P0-S4-Q15 (weight 0.4) #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 Ask: When aid fails or is duplicated, is it clear who is responsible? Help: Think about a recent case and what actually happened. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 7.8); how well a shared record fits (weight 7.1); the ranking in E, H, J Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Clear roles, enforced across partners [Clear accountability — roles are defined, documented, and enforced across all partners] - Clear on paper, enforced unevenly [Mostly clear — accountability exists on paper but enforcement is inconsistent] - Some areas clear, gaps between agencies [Partially defined — some areas have clear ownership but gaps exist between organisations] - Unclear, people blame each other [Unclear — accountability is assumed rather than documented, leading to blame-shifting] - Nobody takes responsibility [No accountability framework — when things go wrong, nobody takes responsibility] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q1a Ask: How many partners do you work with on a regular basis? Help: Count anyone you share data or decisions with regularly. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 16.1); the ranking in E, F, G, H, I, J Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One to three [1-3 partners] - Four to ten [4-10 partners] - 11 to 25 [11-25 partners] - 26 to 50 [26-50 partners] - More than fifty [Over 50 partners] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 Ask: When a partner says a target was met, how do you check? Help: Think of the last time a partner reported finishing something. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 9); how well a shared record fits (weight 5.7); the ranking in E, F, G, I Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Automated checks with live evidence [Automated verification — systems confirm milestones with real-time data and evidence] - Scheduled visits or independent audits [Structured verification — field visits, photo evidence, or third-party audits on a schedule] - Partners report, we check a sample [Self-reported with spot checks — partners report and we verify a sample] - Mostly partner reports, little checking [Mostly self-reported — we rely on partner reports with limited independent verification] - We take reports at face value [No systematic verification — we trust partner reports at face value] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q11 Ask: Think of a recent decision shared with other organisations. How long did it take? Help: Pick what usually happens. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 4.4); readiness for a use case (weight 1.3); the ranking in E, G Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One lead organisation, within days [Decisions are made quickly by a lead organisation — days at most] - A committee, one to four weeks [Decisions go through a structured committee process — typically 1-4 weeks] - Needs consensus, often months [Decisions require consensus from multiple agencies — often takes months] - Unclear, depends who pushes hardest [Decision-making is unclear or inconsistent — depends on who pushes hardest] - We rarely decide jointly [We rarely make joint decisions — each organisation acts independently] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q10 Ask: What would happen to your coordination tools if their provider or funder withdrew? Help: Think of the main tool you use today. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2.7); readiness for a use case (weight 1.7); how well a shared record fits (weight 2.9); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - No shared tools, just email [no-tools] - A supplier's platform we would lose [vendor-locked] - A donor-funded tool, future unclear [donor-funded] - Open-source or community tools [open-source] - Tools we or a consortium own [resilient] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q1 Ask: How many organisations take part in joint decision-making forums where you work? Help: Pick the closest range. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.8); how large the problem is (weight 1.4); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One to three [1-3 organisations] - Four to seven [4-7 organisations] - Eight to twelve [8-12 organisations] - Thirteen or more [13+ organisations] - There is no formal forum [No formal forum] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q4 Ask: How do you find out who else is already helping a person? Help: Pick what usually happens. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 3.9); the ranking in E, G, H Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A shared database across organisations [Shared database or interoperability platform across organisations] - We compare lists in meetings [Regular coordination meetings where lists are compared manually] - We ask the person directly [Informal — we ask beneficiaries if they receive help elsewhere] - We have no way to check [We don't — there is no systematic way to check for overlap] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q3 Ask: Do you have disputes with other NGOs over who should serve a person? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 5.8); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6); the ranking in E, G, H Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes [Yes] - No [No] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q7 Ask: How do you avoid serving the same person twice alongside other NGOs? Help: Pick what usually happens. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.6); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A shared beneficiary database [Shared beneficiary database] - Meetings to compare lists [Regular partner meetings to review lists] - Informal calls and emails [Informal phone/email coordination] - We fix problems as they appear [Ad hoc problem resolution] - No formal coordination [No formal coordination] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 Ask: When coordination between agencies breaks down, what is the usual cause? Help: Pick every cause that applies. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.4); how well a shared record fits (weight 8.1); the ranking in E Read back: yes. Read the chosen answer back in one line and wait for a yes, even if it was stated. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Each agency holds data others need [Data silos — each organisation holds information the others need but cannot access] - Agencies have competing priorities [Competing priorities — agencies have conflicting mandates or targets] - No shared system, only email [No shared system — coordination relies on email, spreadsheets, or personal relationships] - Reluctance to share data or control [Trust deficit — organisations are reluctant to share data or cede control] - Donors fund agencies separately [Funding structures — donors fund individual agencies, not joint coordination] - Staff turnover loses knowledge [Staff turnover — institutional knowledge walks out the door regularly] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q1b Ask: How often do you swap data or reports with those partners? Help: Count reports and data exports. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.3); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Every day [Daily] - Every week [Weekly] - Every month [Monthly] - Every quarter [Quarterly] - Only when someone asks [Ad hoc — only when requested] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q8 Ask: Have you found people getting the same help from several NGOs? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.9); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes [Yes] - No [No] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q2 Ask: When a person is referred from one NGO to another, how does that usually work? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.8); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - A shared digital referral system [Digital referral system shared across partner organisations] - Referral forms sent between organisations [Semi-formal — referral forms (paper or digital) sent between orgs] - Phone calls or emails between caseworkers [Informal — phone calls or emails between case workers] - No process, people refer themselves [No structured referral process — beneficiaries self-refer] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q8-FU Ask: How often does that happen? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.8); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Several times a month [Multiple times per month] - About once a month [Monthly] - A few times a year [Several times per year] - Rarely [Rarely] - We don't know [Unknown/unmeasured] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q5 Ask: How do you decide who gets limited funding or resources? Help: Pick everything you use. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.7); the ranking in E Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Vulnerability scoring [Vulnerability scoring] - Spreading it across areas [Geographic distribution] - Allocating by programme [Programmatic allocation] - Donor instructions [Donor-directed] - Needs assessments [Need-based assessment] - First come, first served [First-come-first-served] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatE-Q9 Ask: If one part of your coordination broke, which would hurt most? Help: Pick the one you worry about most. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.5); how well a shared record fits (weight 0.7); the ranking in E Same as: NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 and the other questions about the same point of failure. Ask only one question of this family in a run. Once a sibling has an answer, skip the rest. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Key coordination staff leave [Key coordination staff departure with no handover] - A partner drops out [Partner organisation withdraws from coordination mechanism] - A data sharing agreement fails [Data sharing agreement breaks down or is violated] - Political interference [Political interference disrupts coordination structure] - Funding for coordination is cut [Funding cut to coordination function] - A shared platform goes down [Technology platform failure disrupting inter-agency systems] - Something else [Other] ### Category F: Fundraising and Donor Relations Floor: 14 of 18 ranking questions. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 (weight 6) 2. NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 (weight 2.8) 3. NGO-P2-CatA-Q4 (weight 2.7) 4. NGO-P2-CatA-Q7 (weight 2.7) 5. NGO-P2-CatA-Q8b (weight 1.7) 6. NGO-P2-CatA-Q2 (weight 1.6) 7. NGO-P2-CatA-Q5 (weight 1.6) 8. NGO-P2-CatF-Q9 (weight 1.5) 9. NGO-P2-CatA-Q6 (weight 1.4) 10. NGO-P0-S4-Q15 (weight 0.9) 11. NGO-P2-CatF-Q1 (weight 0.8) 12. NGO-P0-S1-Q4 (weight 0.7) 13. NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 (weight 0.7) 14. NGO-P2-CatA-Q31 (weight 0.7) 15. NGO-P2-CatF-Q7 (weight 0.7) 16. NGO-P0-S5-Q17b (weight 0.6) 17. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1a (weight 0.6) 18. NGO-P0-S4-Q14b (weight 0.4) #### NGO-P2-CatF-Q9 Ask: Has a donor checked your spending independently in the last two years? Help: Pick the closest outcome. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 1.5); the ranking in F Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, and it went smoothly [smoothly] - Yes, minor issues, resolved [minor-discrepancies] - Yes, serious issues needed fixing [significant-issues] - Yes, funding was cut or ended [funding-reduction] - No, none [no-verification] - Something else [other] #### NGO-P2-CatF-Q1 Ask: How many donors do you manage relationships with? Help: Count active relationships. A rough number is fine. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how large the problem is (weight 0.8); the ranking in F Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - One to five donors [1-5] - Six to fifteen [6-15] - 16 to 30 [16-30] - 31 to 50 [31-50] - More than fifty [50+] #### NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 Ask: If one part of your finances broke, which would hurt most? Help: Pick the one you worry about most. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 2.3); how well a shared record fits (weight 4.5); the ranking in F, G, J Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Key finance person leaves [Key account holder or finance staff departure] - Our main bank closes our account [Primary bank closes our account or de-risks] - Currency collapse or big swings [Currency collapse or severe FX volatility] - An intermediary bank pulls out [Correspondent bank withdraws service] - Losing access to a key country [Loss of access to a critical operating country] - Accounting system failure [System or technology failure (e.g., accounting platform outage)] - Something else [Other] #### NGO-P2-CatF-Q7 Ask: Have you lost donors because they doubted your transparency? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.7); the ranking in F Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - No, not for this reason [no] - Yes, minor donations declined [yes-minor] - Yes, a major donor withdrew [yes-major] - Unsure if that was the reason [unsure] ### Category G: Resilience and Risk Management Floor: 14 of 17 ranking questions. This category deals with human rights. Say so before you start it, and remind the person that they may skip any question. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatA-Q3 (weight 3) 2. NGO-P2-CatC-Q8 (weight 3) 3. NGO-P2-CatA-Q6 (weight 2.6) 4. NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 (weight 2.6) 5. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1a (weight 1.9) 6. NGO-P2-CatA-Q5 (weight 1.6) 7. NGO-P2-CatE-Q11 (weight 1.6) 8. NGO-P2-CatC-Q4 (weight 1.5) 9. NGO-P2-CatB-Q9 (weight 1.4) 10. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1 (weight 1) 11. NGO-P2-CatE-Q3 (weight 1) 12. NGO-P2-CatE-Q4 (weight 0.9) 13. NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 (weight 0.9) 14. NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 (weight 0.8) 15. NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 (weight 0.8) 16. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1a (weight 0.7) 17. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1c (weight 0.6) ### Category H: Land, Property and Natural Resources Floor: 14 of 17 ranking questions. This category deals with land and property. Say so before you start it, and remind the person that they may skip any question. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1a (weight 2.9) 2. NGO-P2-CatE-Q3 (weight 2.7) 3. NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 (weight 2.5) 4. NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 (weight 1.8) 5. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1 (weight 1.8) 6. NGO-P2-CatC-Q8 (weight 1.7) 7. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1 (weight 1.6) 8. NGO-P2-CatD-Q6 (weight 1.5) 9. NGO-P2-CatB-Q9 (weight 1) 10. NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 (weight 1) 11. NGO-P2-CatD-Q4 (weight 0.9) 12. NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 (weight 0.8) 13. NGO-P2-CatE-Q4 (weight 0.8) 14. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c (weight 0.7) 15. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1a (weight 0.6) 16. NGO-P2-CatC-Q4 (weight 0.6) 17. NGO-P2-CatA-Q8b (weight 0.5) ### Category I: Energy and Environment Floor: 14 of 14 ranking questions. Ask them all. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatC-Q8 (weight 4.9) 2. NGO-P2-CatD-Q4 (weight 2.8) 3. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1a (weight 2.7) 4. NGO-P2-CatD-Q6 (weight 2.3) 5. NGO-P2-CatC-Q4 (weight 1.9) 6. NGO-P2-CatC-Q5 (weight 1.9) 7. NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 (weight 1.8) 8. NGO-P2-CatC-Q3 (weight 1.4) 9. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c (weight 1.2) 10. NGO-P2-CatI-Q1 (weight 0.9) 11. NGO-P0-S4-Q15 (weight 0.7) 12. NGO-P2-CatD-Q1 (weight 0.7) 13. NGO-P2-CatI-Q5 (weight 0.7) 14. NGO-P0-S1-Q7 (weight 0.4) #### NGO-P2-CatI-Q1 Ask: How big a part of your work is energy or environment? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.9); the ranking in I Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - It is our core focus [core-focus] - A big part of several programmes [significant] - A supporting role [supporting-role] - Only occasionally [minimal] - Not relevant to us [not-relevant] - Something else [other] #### NGO-P2-CatI-Q5 Ask: Which pay-as-you-go or credit models do you use? Help: Pick everything you use. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how serious the problem is (weight 0.7); the ranking in I Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - None, items are free or grants [no-payg] - Manual payments by cash or mobile [manual-payg] - Automated billing by SMS or app [automated-payg] - Credit or financing programmes [financing] ### Category J: Workforce and Operations Floor: 7 of 7 ranking questions. Ask them all. In order: 1. NGO-P2-CatB-Q28 (weight 4) 2. NGO-P2-CatE-Q1a (weight 3.2) 3. NGO-P2-CatB-Q1b (weight 2.4) 4. NGO-P2-CatC-Q8 (weight 2.4) 5. NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 (weight 0.8) 6. NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 (weight 0.7) 7. NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 (weight 0.5) ### Choosing what to look at When every floor is met, run the script and show the use cases it ranks high or medium, with their plain descriptions from USE-CASES.md. List apart the ones it could not judge. Let the person choose. Record the choice as `irf_p3_starred_usecases`. Depth is the person's to set: after the first use case, offer the next in the order of the ranking. ## Is it a fit Ask the 14 readiness questions about the organisation once. Then ask the five questions about each chosen use case, in the order the person chose. Then, if the person is willing, ask the fit and readiness questions listed for each chosen use case that are not yet answered. Without them the script uses a neutral default and says so in its output. ### The organisation #### Governance and authority ##### NGO-P4-D1-Q1 Ask: How easy is it to get a new technology project approved? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Several board committees, long waits, no clear process - 2 [2]: Senior leaders approve it, but it takes months - 3 [3]: A department head can approve pilots, with some lead time - 4 [4]: My manager can approve pilots, quickly - 5 [5]: My team can approve technology pilots itself ##### NGO-P4-D1-Q2 Ask: How much do your leaders agree that these problems need solving? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Leaders are unaware of the problems or disagree about them - 2 [2]: Some awareness, but other priorities come first - 3 [3]: Leaders accept the problems but have given no resources - 4 [4]: Leaders agree these are priorities and are open to solutions - 5 [5]: Leaders champion this and have set time aside for it ##### NGO-P4-D1-Q3 Ask: How well do you know the rules a new system would have to meet? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: We do not know which rules apply - 2 [2]: We know rules exist but have not mapped them - 3 [3]: We know the main rules, but not how to comply - 4 [4]: We understand the rules and have a clear review process - 5 [5]: Everything is mapped and a team can assess new systems #### Financial resources ##### NGO-P4-D2-Q1 Ask: Do you know roughly what these problems cost you? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: No idea, it has never been measured - 2 [2]: We think it is a lot, but have no figures - 3 [3]: We have rough estimates for some costs - 4 [4]: Good estimates for most costs, with data behind them - 5 [5]: A detailed cost analysis is done #### Operational readiness ##### NGO-P4-D3-Q1 Ask: If you started next month, who would lead the work? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Nobody yet, we would need a new role - 2 [2]: Someone could, but they are already full - 3 [3]: A team could take it on with some reshuffling - 4 [4]: A clear team with experience and some time - 5 [5]: An owner and team are already assigned ##### NGO-P4-D3-Q2 Ask: If this process changed, how many people would have to learn new ways of working? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Hundreds, across several places and teams - 2 [2]: Fifty to a hundred across several teams - 3 [3]: Twenty to fifty in a few teams - 4 [4]: Five to twenty in one or two teams - 5 [5]: Fewer than five in one team ##### NGO-P4-D3-Q3 Ask: Have you ever tested a new system with a small group first? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Never, systems go in all at once - 2 [2]: Once, but it was poorly organised - 3 [3]: A few times, with mixed results - 4 [4]: Regularly, with a clear testing process - 5 [5]: Always, with clear success measures #### Technical capability ##### NGO-P4-D4-Q1 Ask: How did your last new technology system go? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: We have adopted nothing new in over three years - 2 [2]: We tried one and it failed or was dropped - 3 [3]: One or two went in, with some difficulty - 4 [4]: Several went in well and the team is comfortable - 5 [5]: We adopt new systems regularly and it goes well ##### NGO-P4-D4-Q2 Ask: How reliable is the technology your staff use every day? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Constant outages and old devices - 2 [2]: Regular problems, with workarounds - 3 [3]: Mostly fine, with occasional problems - 4 [4]: Stable, with good internet and modern devices - 5 [5]: Excellent, with backups in place ##### NGO-P4-D4-Q3 Ask: Does anyone on your team know how to manage a technology supplier? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Nobody has that experience - 2 [2]: Someone manages projects, but not technology ones - 3 [3]: One person has some, though it is not their main job - 4 [4]: Dedicated staff manage technology projects - 5 [5]: An experienced team with a strong record #### Data readiness ##### NGO-P4-D5-Q1 Ask: How good is the data you collect on these problems? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: Mostly manual, with gaps and duplicates - 2 [2]: Some digital data, but quality varies a lot - 3 [3]: Reasonable in key areas, with some gaps - 4 [4]: Good quality, regularly checked - 5 [5]: High quality, with automatic checks ##### NGO-P4-D5-Q2 Ask: How clear are your rules on who can see and change data? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: No rules, anyone can reach most data - 2 [2]: An informal understanding that nobody enforces - 3 [3]: Basic controls for sensitive data only - 4 [4]: Clear written rules, regularly enforced - 5 [5]: Role-based access with audit trails ##### NGO-P4-D5-Q3 Ask: How confident are you that you follow data protection law? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: We do not know which laws apply - 2 [2]: We know some exist but have not checked - 3 [3]: We know the main ones and have known gaps - 4 [4]: Good understanding and mostly compliant - 5 [5]: Fully mapped, with a data protection officer ##### NGO-P4-D5-Q4 Ask: How well do your systems share data with outside partners today? Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4 Counts toward: the readiness check of the organisation Levels: - 1 [1]: All manual, by email or USB - 2 [2]: Mostly manual, with a little digital sharing - 3 [3]: Some automation for key partners only - 4 [4]: Good sharing with most partners in standard formats - 5 [5]: Automated exchanges with all partners ### One use case Ask these five for each chosen use case, with that use case in mind. Store the answer under the question id, two underscores and the use case id, for example `NGO-P4-A-Q1__UC-A-001`. #### For a use case in category A: Financial Operations ##### NGO-P4-A-Q1 Ask: How many organisations touch a typical payment between sender and receiver? Help: Count every separate entity: your bank, correspondent banks, payment processors, government agencies, partner NGOs, etc. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-A-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Just us, no outside parties - 2 [2]: Two parties: us and one bank or partner - 3 [3]: Three parties, including at least one intermediary - 4 [4]: Four or five parties, with several intermediaries - 5 [5]: Six or more, or the chain is unclear ##### NGO-P4-A-Q2 Ask: How often do payments go wrong or take extra work to match up? Help: Include all types of problems: delays, errors, failed transfers, reconciliation mismatches, manual corrections needed. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-A-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, less than once a quarter - 2 [2]: About once a month, manageable - 3 [3]: Several times a month, needing real attention - 4 [4]: Weekly, and it eats staff time - 5 [5]: Daily or nearly, a constant burden ##### NGO-P4-A-Q3 Ask: When a payment goes wrong, how bad is it? Help: Think about the worst realistic scenario. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-A-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: A minor inconvenience, quickly fixed - 2 [2]: Extra staff hours and small delays - 3 [3]: Programmes delayed and workarounds needed - 4 [4]: People affected or donor reporting at risk - 5 [5]: Aid fails and people are harmed ##### NGO-P4-A-Q4 Ask: Roughly what share of a payment is lost to fees and currency costs? Help: Include all costs: sending bank fees, correspondent bank charges, FX spreads, receiving bank fees, and any agent commissions. Even 'free' transfers often have hidden FX margins. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-A-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Under 1%, very efficient - 2 [2]: 1% to 3%, reasonable - 3 [3]: 3% to 5%, a real cost - 4 [4]: 5% to 10%, a heavy burden - 5 [5]: Over 10%, or we do not know ##### NGO-P4-A-Q5 Ask: How long does a payment take to reach the final recipient? Help: Include weekends, bank processing days, compliance holds, and any manual steps. Think about the typical case. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-A-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Same day - 2 [2]: One to two working days - 3 [3]: Three to five working days - 4 [4]: One to two weeks - 5 [5]: More than two weeks, or unpredictable #### For a use case in category B: Identity and Credentials ##### NGO-P4-B-Q1 Ask: When someone has to prove who they are, how many separate checks are involved? Help: Count separate identity checks: registration systems, government ID, biometrics, partner databases, programme enrolment, etc. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-B-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: One system covers everything - 2 [2]: Two systems, such as ours plus a government check - 3 [3]: Three systems, inside and outside - 4 [4]: Four or five, differing by programme or border - 5 [5]: Six or more, or identity cannot be verified consistently ##### NGO-P4-B-Q2 Ask: How often do identity problems hold people up? Help: Include all identity-related issues: duplicates, lost credentials, failed biometrics, inconsistent records across systems. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-B-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, less than once a quarter - 2 [2]: A few cases a month - 3 [3]: Several a month, a known pain point - 4 [4]: Weekly, with duplicates and failed checks - 5 [5]: Constantly, identity is a barrier to service ##### NGO-P4-B-Q3 Ask: When someone cannot prove who they are, what happens to them? Help: Think about the people most affected, often the most vulnerable beneficiaries. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-B-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: A short delay, sorted another way - 2 [2]: Days of delay while they are re-checked - 3 [3]: They re-register and lose their history - 4 [4]: They cannot get aid for days or weeks - 5 [5]: A vulnerable person loses essential services ##### NGO-P4-B-Q4 Ask: If someone moves programme or crosses a border, can their identity move with them? Help: Think about whether vaccination records, registration data, qualification proofs, or service history can actually transfer between systems. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-B-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Fully, it works across programmes and partners - 2 [2]: Within our organisation only - 3 [3]: Partly, most records need re-checking - 4 [4]: Hardly, people re-register each time - 5 [5]: Not at all, they start from scratch ##### NGO-P4-B-Q5 Ask: Can the people whose data you hold decide who sees it? Help: Consider whether beneficiaries can consent to specific data sharing, revoke access, or even see what data is held about them. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-B-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: Full control, they share selectively - 2 [2]: They can see their data and consent to sharing - 3 [3]: Consent is collected but they cannot manage access - 4 [4]: We hold it, with basic consent only - 5 [5]: No visibility or control for them #### For a use case in category C: Data Management and Privacy ##### NGO-P4-C-Q1 Ask: How many separate groups need to read or update the same information? Help: Count distinct organisational units: internal departments, field offices, partner NGOs, government agencies, donors requiring data access. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-C-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: One team only - 2 [2]: Two or three teams in our organisation - 3 [3]: Four or five teams, or one or two partners - 4 [4]: Many teams plus several partners or donors - 5 [5]: A complex web across organisations and borders ##### NGO-P4-C-Q2 Ask: How often do you find conflicting versions of the same data? Help: Include spreadsheet version conflicts, database sync issues, email-based data sharing problems, and access request delays. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-C-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, data is consistent - 2 [2]: Monthly, minor conflicts - 3 [3]: Regularly, a known problem - 4 [4]: Weekly, with several versions of the truth - 5 [5]: Daily, with no single source of truth ##### NGO-P4-C-Q3 Ask: When data is wrong or shared with the wrong people, what happens? Help: Consider reporting errors, privacy breaches, duplicated aid, missed beneficiaries, and audit findings. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-C-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: A quick fix with no knock-on effects - 2 [2]: Extra work and some reporting delays - 3 [3]: Wrong programme decisions or donor reports affected - 4 [4]: Privacy risks, missed or duplicated people - 5 [5]: A breach or harm to people ##### NGO-P4-C-Q4 Ask: How sure are you that shared data has not been changed? Help: Think about whether you have audit logs, version control, or any way to detect unauthorised changes to critical data. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-C-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Very sure, with audit trails in place - 2 [2]: Fairly sure, with some gaps in logging - 3 [3]: Unsure, with basic version control only - 4 [4]: Not very, anyone with access could edit - 5 [5]: Not at all, we could not tell ##### NGO-P4-C-Q5 Ask: If an auditor asked for a record's full history, how fast could you show it? Help: Think about your ability to produce a chain of custody for any piece of data, from creation through all modifications to its current state. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-C-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Instantly, from an automatic audit trail - 2 [2]: Within hours, with some manual work - 3 [3]: Within days, rebuilt from partial logs - 4 [4]: Weeks, from fragments - 5 [5]: We could not show it #### For a use case in category D: Supply Chain and Logistics ##### NGO-P4-D-Q1 Ask: How many organisations or checkpoints does a typical item pass through? Help: Count each entity that handles, inspects, or records the goods/materials: suppliers, freight companies, customs, warehouses, field offices, etc. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-D-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: None, direct from supplier to us - 2 [2]: Two or three handoffs - 3 [3]: Four or five handoffs - 4 [4]: Six to eight, across organisations or borders - 5 [5]: Nine or more, or we cannot see the whole chain ##### NGO-P4-D-Q2 Ask: How often do items go missing or deliveries get disputed? Help: Include partial deliveries, temperature breaches for medical supplies, documentation gaps, and disputed handoff records. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-D-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, few incidents - 2 [2]: A few times a quarter, usually resolved - 3 [3]: Monthly, a known problem - 4 [4]: Weekly, with missing items or disputed records - 5 [5]: Daily, visibility is a struggle ##### NGO-P4-D-Q3 Ask: When goods go missing or cannot be verified, what are the consequences? Help: Consider aid diversion, medical supply spoilage, donor trust erosion, and beneficiary impact. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-D-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Small stock gaps, quickly resolved - 2 [2]: Some supplies delayed, manual workarounds - 3 [3]: Delivery affected and donors asking questions - 4 [4]: Suspected diversion or critical supplies missing - 5 [5]: People harmed, or diversion confirmed ##### NGO-P4-D-Q4 Ask: What share of your supply chain can you track end to end with confidence? Help: Consider whether you can prove origin, track each handoff, verify conditions (temperature, timing), and confirm final delivery. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-D-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: 90% to 100%, near-complete visibility - 2 [2]: 70% to 90%, a few blind spots - 3 [3]: 40% to 70%, big gaps mid-chain - 4 [4]: 20% to 40%, many blind spots - 5 [5]: Under 20%, almost none ##### NGO-P4-D-Q5 Ask: If a batch turned out to be counterfeit, how fast could you trace it? Help: Think about product recalls, contamination incidents, or fraud detection. Speed of traceback directly affects beneficiary safety. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-D-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Within hours, automatically - 2 [2]: Within a day, by checking records - 3 [3]: Within a week, calling several parties - 4 [4]: Weeks, because records are fragmented - 5 [5]: We could not reliably trace it #### For a use case in category E: Governance and Coordination ##### NGO-P4-E-Q1 Ask: How many organisations or groups take part in your decisions? Help: Count distinct decision-making or voting entities: member organisations, government bodies, community groups, internal departments, etc. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-E-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Just us, internal only - 2 [2]: Two or three, a small coalition - 3 [3]: Four to six, a consortium - 4 [4]: Seven to ten, complex and multi-party - 5 [5]: Eleven or more, across sectors or borders ##### NGO-P4-E-Q2 Ask: How often do decisions get disputed or coordination break down? Help: Include disputed votes, lost meeting records, conflicting accounts of agreements, and coordination breakdowns between parties. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-E-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, it works smoothly - 2 [2]: A few small issues a quarter - 3 [3]: Monthly disputes or record gaps - 4 [4]: Weekly failures or disputed decisions - 5 [5]: Constantly, decisions are routinely ignored ##### NGO-P4-E-Q3 Ask: When coordination fails, what happens to your programmes? Help: Consider programme delays, loss of partner trust, duplicated or conflicting actions, and accountability gaps. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-E-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Small misunderstandings, sorted next meeting - 2 [2]: Decisions delayed, partners frustrated - 3 [3]: Delivery affected and partners lose confidence - 4 [4]: Major disagreements, some partners withdraw - 5 [5]: The partnership or programme collapses ##### NGO-P4-E-Q4 Ask: Could a partner check a decision was properly made without relying on you? Help: Think about whether decision records can be verified by external parties, or whether trust depends entirely on the record-keeper. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-E-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Yes, there is an audit trail anyone can check - 2 [2]: Mostly, but they must ask for access - 3 [3]: Partly, some rest on meeting minutes - 4 [4]: Hardly, one party holds the records - 5 [5]: No, there is no independent way ##### NGO-P4-E-Q5 Ask: Can all partners see how resources are shared out and spent? Help: Consider whether partners trust the allocation process, can verify fair distribution, and have visibility into the overall picture. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-E-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Yes, everyone sees it in real time - 2 [2]: Mostly, with quarterly reports - 3 [3]: Partly, each sees only their own share - 4 [4]: Limited, and the figures cannot be verified - 5 [5]: No, partners cannot check any of it #### For a use case in category F: Fundraising and Donor Relations ##### NGO-P4-F-Q1 Ask: How many donors and reporting systems are involved in your fundraising? Help: Count distinct donors, crowdfunding platforms, grant management systems, and reporting formats required. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-F-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: One donor, one reporting format - 2 [2]: Two or three donors, manageable - 3 [3]: Four to six, each with different formats - 4 [4]: Seven to ten, many formats and timelines - 5 [5]: Eleven or more, or public transparency demands ##### NGO-P4-F-Q2 Ask: How often do you struggle to track funds or produce donor reports? Help: Include late reports, inaccurate spend breakdowns, inability to trace funds end-to-end, and donor queries about accountability. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-F-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, it works well - 2 [2]: Small issues each quarter - 3 [3]: Monthly gaps or reporting problems - 4 [4]: Weekly struggles with reports or donor queries - 5 [5]: Constantly, we cannot trace how funds were used ##### NGO-P4-F-Q3 Ask: When you cannot show how funds were used, what follows? Help: Consider donor relationship damage, funding clawbacks, reduced future funding, and reputational impact. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-F-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: The donor accepts our explanation - 2 [2]: Extra reporting and some frustration - 3 [3]: Less donor confidence and extra audits - 4 [4]: Funding at risk or payments withheld - 5 [5]: Funding lost or relationship ended ##### NGO-P4-F-Q4 Ask: If a donor asked where their gift went, could you trace it? Help: Think about whether you can produce an end-to-end fund flow for a specific donation. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-F-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Fully, they can see exactly how it was used - 2 [2]: Mostly, with some manual effort - 3 [3]: Partly, only broad programme areas - 4 [4]: Barely, only aggregate spending - 5 [5]: No, funds are pooled ##### NGO-P4-F-Q5 Ask: How fast could you produce a full fund-flow report for one grant? Help: Include time to gather data from multiple systems, reconcile accounts, and produce a report that would satisfy an external auditor. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-F-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Same day, on demand - 2 [2]: Within a week, compiled by hand - 3 [3]: Two to four weeks - 4 [4]: One to two months - 5 [5]: We could not produce one #### For a use case in category G: Resilience and Risk Management ##### NGO-P4-G-Q1 Ask: How many systems or partners would be hit if this process failed? Help: Count separate systems (databases, servers), physical locations (offices, warehouses), and dependent organisations. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-G-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: One system in one place - 2 [2]: Two or three systems or locations - 3 [3]: Four to six, across several locations - 4 [4]: Seven to ten, across offices and partners - 5 [5]: The whole organisation, or a cascade across partners ##### NGO-P4-G-Q2 Ask: How often do outages or data loss disrupt this work? Help: Include planned and unplanned outages, power failures, connectivity issues, ransomware, and natural disaster impacts. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-G-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, less than twice a year - 2 [2]: Quarterly, quickly recovered - 3 [3]: Monthly, needing manual help - 4 [4]: Weekly problems - 5 [5]: Constantly, data loss is an ongoing risk ##### NGO-P4-G-Q3 Ask: When systems go down or data is lost, what are the consequences? Help: Consider operational paralysis, data recovery costs, programme interruption, and beneficiary impact. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-G-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Minor, backups take over - 2 [2]: Slowed for hours, some workarounds - 3 [3]: Halted a day or more, recovery needed - 4 [4]: Multi-day outage, real data loss - 5 [5]: Extended outage, permanent loss, safety risks ##### NGO-P4-G-Q4 Ask: When a crisis hits, how long until emergency funds are released? Help: Include approval chains, bank processing times, compliance checks, and any manual steps between the decision to release and actual disbursement. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-G-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Within hours, pre-approved - 2 [2]: One to two days - 3 [3]: Within a week - 4 [4]: One to three weeks - 5 [5]: Over three weeks, or unpredictable ##### NGO-P4-G-Q5 Ask: Could someone change your key evidence records afterwards without detection? Help: Think about whether your evidence would hold up in court, satisfy an independent investigation, or withstand allegations of tampering. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-G-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: No, records are tamper-proof and independently verifiable - 2 [2]: Hard, access is restricted and logged - 3 [3]: Possibly, only passwords and some version history - 4 [4]: Easily, shared drives with no change detection - 5 [5]: Yes, anyone with access could alter them #### For a use case in category H: Land, Property and Natural Resources ##### NGO-P4-H-Q1 Ask: How many authorities or registries are involved in recording land rights? Help: Count distinct registries (national, regional, customary), government departments, community bodies, and legal entities involved. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-H-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: One registry - 2 [2]: Two, such as national and local - 3 [3]: Three, with formal and customary systems overlapping - 4 [4]: Four or five, with competing claims - 5 [5]: Six or more, or no reliable registry ##### NGO-P4-H-Q2 Ask: How often are land or property rights disputed? Help: Include boundary disputes, missing records, duplicate titles, contested inheritance, and corruption in registries. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-H-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, rights are clear - 2 [2]: A few disputes a year - 3 [3]: Monthly contested rights or record issues - 4 [4]: Disputes are a constant feature - 5 [5]: Routinely contested, records unreliable or missing ##### NGO-P4-H-Q3 Ask: When land rights are disputed, what happens to people and your work? Help: Consider displacement, loss of livelihoods, conflict, programme delays, and impact on vulnerable populations. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-H-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: Little effect, settled through existing routes - 2 [2]: Programme delays while rights are clarified - 3 [3]: Communities affected, programmes redesigned - 4 [4]: People displaced, conflict risk rises - 5 [5]: Widespread displacement or violence ##### NGO-P4-H-Q4 Ask: What share of the people you work with have recognised proof of their rights? Help: Include formal titles and customary documents. Anything that gives verifiable proof counts. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-H-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: Over 80% - 2 [2]: 50% to 80% - 3 [3]: 20% to 50% - 4 [4]: 5% to 20% - 5 [5]: Under 5% ##### NGO-P4-H-Q5 Ask: How long does a land dispute usually take to resolve? Help: Consider court processes, customary mediation, administrative review, and any informal resolution mechanisms. Think about the typical case. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-H-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Levels: - 1 [1]: Under a month - 2 [2]: One to three months - 3 [3]: Three to twelve months - 4 [4]: One to five years - 5 [5]: Over five years, or never #### For a use case in category I: Energy and Environment ##### NGO-P4-I-Q1 Ask: How many parties need to track or check the same environmental data? Help: Count producers, consumers, certifiers, regulators, carbon credit registries, trading platforms, and community groups. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-I-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: One, internal monitoring only - 2 [2]: Two or three, a simple producer and checker - 3 [3]: Four or five parties - 4 [4]: Six to eight, a complex ecosystem - 5 [5]: Nine or more, across sectors or borders ##### NGO-P4-I-Q2 Ask: How often are environmental measurements or credits questioned? Help: Include sensor data gaps, disputed carbon calculations, unverified green claims, and monitoring inconsistencies. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-I-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, verification works - 2 [2]: A few times a year - 3 [3]: Monthly issues with data quality or trust - 4 [4]: Weekly disputes or gaps - 5 [5]: Routinely questioned, no trusted baseline ##### NGO-P4-I-Q3 Ask: When environmental monitoring fails, what are the consequences? Help: Consider lost carbon credits, regulatory penalties, greenwashing accusations, community impact, and programme credibility. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-I-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Data corrected, no lasting effect - 2 [2]: Extra monitoring and some delays - 3 [3]: Credits invalidated, credibility questioned - 4 [4]: Penalties, funding at risk, greenwashing claims - 5 [5]: Programme shut down, harm unaddressed, legal action ##### NGO-P4-I-Q4 Ask: What does it take to verify one environmental claim or credit? Help: Include third-party auditor fees, site visits, data collection, and the full verification cycle time from claim to certified credit. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-I-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Under $1,000 and under a month - 2 [2]: $1,000 to $5,000, one to three months - 3 [3]: $5,000 to $20,000, three to six months - 4 [4]: Over $20,000 and six to twelve months - 5 [5]: So costly that small projects cannot afford it ##### NGO-P4-I-Q5 Ask: Could the same credit or claim be counted twice, here and elsewhere? Help: Double-counting undermines environmental integrity. Consider whether your credits or claims exist in multiple registries, whether there are cross-checks, and whether retirement/cancellation is reliable. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-I-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: No, one registry with reliable retirement - 2 [2]: Unlikely, registries cross-check - 3 [3]: Possible, with some overlap and manual checks - 4 [4]: Likely, listed in several registries with no cross-check - 5 [5]: Very likely, with no way to detect it #### For a use case in category J: Workforce and Operations ##### NGO-P4-J-Q1 Ask: How many systems or offices handle your workforce records? Help: Count distinct HR platforms, payroll systems, credential verification bodies, field offices with separate processes, and partner organisations. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-J-Q1__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: One HR system in one office - 2 [2]: Two or three, loosely coordinated - 3 [3]: Four or five, across offices or countries - 4 [4]: Six to eight, with different national rules - 5 [5]: Nine or more, with no unified records ##### NGO-P4-J-Q2 Ask: How often do staff credential or payroll problems come up? Help: Include payroll errors, unverified credentials, lost training records, volunteer no-shows, and coordination failures between offices. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-J-Q2__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Rarely, it runs smoothly - 2 [2]: Minor issues each quarter - 3 [3]: Monthly problems - 4 [4]: Weekly, taking significant time - 5 [5]: Constant firefighting ##### NGO-P4-J-Q3 Ask: When staff checks or payroll fail, what happens? Help: Consider safeguarding risks from unverified staff, payroll delays, programme delivery impact, and staff morale. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-J-Q3__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: A quick fix, no lasting effect - 2 [2]: Staff frustrated, some delays - 3 [3]: Delivery and staff retention affected - 4 [4]: Safeguarding risk or major payroll failures - 5 [5]: A safeguarding incident or breakdown affecting people ##### NGO-P4-J-Q4 Ask: How long does it take to verify a staff member who moves role or place? Help: Include time for re-checking references, verifying training certificates, re-running background checks, and confirming previous role history. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-J-Q4__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Instant, digital credentials - 2 [2]: Within a day - 3 [3]: One to two weeks - 4 [4]: Two to four weeks, often incomplete - 5 [5]: Over a month, or staff go unverified ##### NGO-P4-J-Q5 Ask: Can a staff member's training and deployment history follow them? Help: Consider whether training certificates are verifiable, whether deployment history is consolidated, and whether records survive staff transitions. Answer: a number from 1 to 5, stored as text Store in: ngo_assessment_4, under the key `NGO-P4-J-Q5__` followed by the use case id Counts toward: the check of one use case Levels: - 1 [1]: Fully, complete digital records transfer - 2 [2]: Mostly, held centrally across offices - 3 [3]: Partly, some local or on paper - 4 [4]: Hardly, fragmented and paper-based - 5 [5]: No, everything starts fresh each move ### Fit and readiness questions, if the person is willing For each chosen use case, the questions listed here are the ones the scoring map links to it. Many are already answered from the ranking. Ask the rest. #### Category A: Financial Operations - UC-A-001: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q31 - UC-A-002: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-A-005: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 - UC-A-006: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-A-007: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 - UC-A-008: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 - UC-A-009: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 - UC-A-010: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-A-011: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q30, NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 - UC-A-012: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-A-013: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 - UC-A-014: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 - UC-A-015: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 - UC-A-016: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q29 - UC-A-019: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-A-020: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-A-021: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 - UC-A-022: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 - UC-A-023: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-A-024: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q2, NGO-P2-CatA-Q31 - UC-A-025: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q30, NGO-P2-CatG-Q11, NGO-P2-CatA-Q6 - UC-A-026: readiness NGO-P0-S5-Q18; fit NGO-P0-S5-Q25 ##### NGO-P0-S5-Q25 Ask: Are you in any of these programmes or accelerators? Help: Optional. Pick any that apply. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 4.8) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Tadamon food security accelerator [Tadamon (UNDP-IsDB Food Security Accelerator)] - Another UNDP programme [UNDP general (non-Tadamon)] - WFP Innovation Accelerator [WFP Innovation Accelerator] - UNICEF Innovation [UNICEF Innovation] - UNHCR innovation programmes [UNHCR innovation programmes] - Start Network [Start Network (anticipatory action, Migration Emergency Response Fund, etc.)] - A private accelerator [Private accelerator (specify in follow-up)] - None of these [None of the above] - Something else [Other (specify)] ##### NGO-P2-CatG-Q11 Ask: Has your organisation ever had a cyberattack or data breach? Help: Pick the most serious thing that has happened. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6) Sensitive: yes. Say that this one is sensitive and may be skipped. If it is skipped, record nothing. Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - No, never [no] - Attempted, but blocked [attempted] - Yes, data was exposed [breach] - Yes, ransomware or extortion [ransomware] #### Category B: Identity and Credentials - UC-B-024: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-025: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-026: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit none - UC-B-027: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit none - UC-B-028: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10, NGO-P2-CatB-Q10-FU - UC-B-029: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-030: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-031: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-033: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-034: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-035: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-036: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-037: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q1b - UC-B-038: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q6 - UC-B-039: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-B-040: readiness NGO-P0-S6-Q21; fit NGO-P0-S5-Q25, NGO-P0-S4-Q24 ##### NGO-P2-CatB-Q3 Ask: When someone new arrives to register, what does the process look like? Help: Pick the closest one for a normal day. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: readiness for a use case (weight 4.3) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Fully digital, under 15 minutes [Fully digital — tablet/phone registration with ID verification in under 15 minutes] - Paper first, typed in later [Semi-digital — paper intake then later data entry into a system] - Mostly paper forms and filing [Mostly manual — paper forms, physical ID copies, manual filing] - No standard process, varies by site [Chaotic — no standard process, varies by location and staff] - Something else [Other] #### Category C: Data Management and Privacy - UC-C-039: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7, NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 - UC-C-040: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-C-041: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 - UC-C-042: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q9, NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-C-043: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-C-045: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-C-046: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7, NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 - UC-C-048: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q9 - UC-C-049: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-C-050: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-C-051: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-C-052: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-C-053: readiness NGO-P0-S5-Q17a, NGO-P0-S3-Q13, NGO-P0-S3-Q13b; fit NGO-P0-S5-Q25, NGO-P0-S1-Q3 - UC-C-054: readiness NGO-P0-S5-Q18, NGO-P0-S3-Q13; fit NGO-P0-S5-Q25 ##### NGO-P0-S3-Q13b Ask: How reliable is electricity where you work? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: readiness for a use case (weight 0.5) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Mains power is reliable [Grid power reliable across operating areas] - Mains with some outages [Grid available, occasional outages, generator backup at HQ] - Mostly generator or solar in field [Generator or solar primary at field sites, grid intermittent] - Only generator or solar, supply varies [Solar or generator only at field sites, fuel and charge availability variable] - No reliable power in the field [No reliable power at field sites; charging is a constraint on operations] #### Category D: Supply Chain and Logistics - UC-D-056: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q8 - UC-D-057: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c - UC-D-059: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q8 - UC-D-061: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c - UC-D-063: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c - UC-D-064: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q8 - UC-D-065: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c - UC-D-066: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c - UC-D-068: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c - UC-D-069: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c - UC-D-070: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c, NGO-P2-CatF-Q16, NGO-P2-CatF-Q5 - UC-D-071: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1c, NGO-P2-CatF-Q5 - UC-D-072: readiness none; fit NGO-P0-S4-Q15, NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-D-073: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q1 - UC-D-074: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-D-075: readiness NGO-P0-S5-Q25b, NGO-P0-S3-Q13; fit NGO-P0-S4-Q24, NGO-P0-S5-Q25 ##### NGO-P0-S5-Q25b Ask: Has anyone at your organisation been given a digital ID credential through a programme? Help: Anyone in your organisation counts. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_0 Counts toward: readiness for a use case (weight 0.7) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Yes, from the Tadamon programme [Yes, a Tadamon programme verifiable credential] - Yes, from another programme [Yes, another blockchain-based credential (specify)] - No [No] - I am not sure [Not sure] ##### NGO-P2-CatF-Q5 Ask: What proof do donors ask for that funds were used as planned? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 1) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Detailed reports with receipts [detailed-reports] - Summary reports with sample documents [summary-reports] - Narrative reports with budget comparison [narrative-reports] - Basic expenditure reports only [basic-reports] - It varies hugely between donors [requirements-vary] - Something else [other] ##### NGO-P2-CatF-Q16 Ask: Do any of your donors ask for new technology in how you report? Help: Pick the closest fit. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 1.4) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Several donors require specific technology [multiple-blockchain] - One or two are exploring it [one-two-donors] - Interested, nothing required yet [interested-no-requirements] - No interest from donors [no-interest] - Donors resist new technology [resistant] - Something else [other] #### Category E: Governance and Coordination - UC-E-068: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-070: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q10; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-071: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-072: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q10; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q9 - UC-E-073: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-075: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q10; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-076: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-077: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q10; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-078: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-079: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-080: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12, NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-E-081: readiness NGO-P0-S2-Q7; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12 - UC-E-082: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12, NGO-P2-CatC-Q7 - UC-E-083: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q12, NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-E-084: readiness none; fit NGO-P0-S5-Q19 - UC-E-085: readiness NGO-P0-S5-Q17a; fit NGO-P0-S4-Q24, NGO-P0-S1-Q3, NGO-P0-S5-Q25 #### Category F: Fundraising and Donor Relations - UC-F-080: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-F-081: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-F-082: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-F-083: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-F-084: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q8a; fit none - UC-F-085: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-F-086: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-F-087: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit none - UC-F-088: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-F-089: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-F-090: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatF-Q16, NGO-P2-CatA-Q27 - UC-F-091: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q7 ##### NGO-P2-CatE-Q6 Ask: What proof do you ask partners for that they served someone? Help: Pick everything you ask for. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: readiness for a use case (weight 2.7) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Signature from the person served [Beneficiary attestation/signature] - Attendance registers [Attendance register] - Receipts or invoices [Receipts/invoices] - Photographs [Photographs] - An independent witness [Third-party witness] - Records from the partner's system [System records from partner] - No formal proof [No formal verification] ##### NGO-P2-CatA-Q27 Ask: If your payment problems disappeared tomorrow, what would you do differently in your programmes? Help: Say it in your own words. A few sentences is plenty. Answer: free text; it carries no score Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 0.5) #### Category G: Resilience and Risk Management - UC-G-090: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q1; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-G-091: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatA-Q30 - UC-G-092: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-G-093: readiness NGO-P2-CatA-Q7; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-G-094: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q11; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-G-095: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 - UC-G-096: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 - UC-G-097: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 - UC-G-098: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 ##### NGO-P2-CatC-Q6 Ask: What checks do you use to keep your records accurate? Help: Pick everything you use. Answer: pick all that apply, joined with `|~|` Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: readiness for a use case (weight 5.9) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Checks when data is entered [Data validation rules at entry point] - Regular audits [Regular audits] - Technical integrity checks [Checksums/hashing verification] - Manual spot checks [Manual spot checks] - Backup and recovery routines [Backup and recovery protocols] - Logs of who changed what [Access logging and change tracking] - Something else [Other] #### Category H: Land, Property and Natural Resources - UC-H-099: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q3 - UC-H-100: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-H-101: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q11; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-H-102: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q10 - UC-H-103: readiness NGO-P2-CatD-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q5 - UC-H-104: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-H-105: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q11; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q10 - UC-H-106: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatD-Q9 #### Category I: Energy and Environment - UC-I-107: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q10 - UC-I-108: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q10, NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-I-109: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q14 - UC-I-110: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatC-Q1 - UC-I-111: readiness NGO-P2-CatD-Q3; fit none - UC-I-112: readiness NGO-P2-CatE-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatE-Q13 - UC-I-113: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit none - UC-I-114: readiness NGO-P2-CatD-Q3; fit none - UC-I-115: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatI-Q8, NGO-P0-S5-Q18 ##### NGO-P2-CatI-Q8 Ask: How do you collect and store your environmental data? Help: Pick the main method. Answer: pick one Store in: ngo_assessment_2 Counts toward: how well a shared record fits (weight 0.6) Options (say the label, record the text in square brackets exactly): - Automatic sensors reporting live [automated-sensors] - Phones or tablets, uploaded later [digital-collection] - Collected by hand, typed in later [manual-digital-entry] - Paper only [paper-based] - No systematic collection [no-collection] - Something else [other] #### Category J: Workforce and Operations - UC-J-115: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-J-116: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-J-117: readiness NGO-P2-CatB-Q3; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-J-118: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-J-119: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 - UC-J-120: readiness NGO-P2-CatC-Q6; fit none - UC-J-121: readiness none; fit NGO-P2-CatB-Q10 ## Country lists Country 1 is used for the head office question: one name from this list. Country 2 is used for the programme countries question. ### Country list 1 (head office) Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Andorra; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahamas; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belarus; Belgium; Belize; Benin; Bhutan; Bolivia; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Botswana; Brazil; Brunei; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo (Brazzaville); Congo (DRC); Costa Rica; Croatia; Cuba; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Estonia; Eswatini; Ethiopia; Fiji; Finland; France; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Greece; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Ivory Coast; Jamaica; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Kosovo; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Laos; Latvia; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Libya; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Malta; Marshall Islands; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Micronesia; Moldova; Monaco; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nauru; Nepal; Netherlands; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; North Korea; North Macedonia; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Palau; Palestine; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; Romania; Russia; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; San Marino; Sao Tome and Principe; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; Solomon Islands; Somalia; Somaliland; South Africa; South Korea; South Sudan; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; Sweden; Switzerland; Syria; Taiwan; Tajikistan; Tanzania; Thailand; Timor-Leste; Togo; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tunisia; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Tuvalu; Uganda; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; United States; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vanuatu; Vatican City; Venezuela; Vietnam; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe ### Country list 2 (programme countries) Afghanistan; Bangladesh; Burkina Faso; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Colombia; Democratic Republic of Congo; Egypt; Ethiopia; Haiti; India; Iraq; Jordan; Kenya; Lebanon; Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malawi; Mali; Mozambique; Myanmar; Nepal; Niger; Nigeria; Pakistan; Palestine; Philippines; Rwanda; Sierra Leone; Somalia; Somaliland; South Africa; South Sudan; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Syria; Tanzania; Turkey; Uganda; Ukraine; Venezuela; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe; Other (specify)