CSO Sustainability: Ethiopia

1. Legal Environment Overall Score 6.6 USAID Score 5.6 – Registration law favorable to CSOs? 7.0 No! Very restrictive Charities and Societies Act (CSA) – CSA law: no unwarranted state control? 7.0 Govt regulation close, closure threat real – Administrative impediments/harassment? 7.0 Free expression tightly limited by authoritarian rule – Local legal capacity? 6.0 Capacity exists but limited and subject to official harassment – Favorable tax status? ?? Pay VAT or equivalent, contributions deductible? – Earned income opportunities? 6.0 No govt contracts, limited to mission as gov’t defines it – Overall: Authoritarian environment underlying tight CSA restrictions and controls intensifies negative effects on CSO sustainability

2.Organizational Capacity Overall Score 6.2 USAID Score 6.5 – Constituency Building 6.0 Do CSOs actively build constituencies? – Very limited—function less of capacity and commitment than authoritarian environment, incidence of econ. development – Strategic Planning 6.0 CSOs adhere to clearly defined missions, strategic plans? – CSA requirement used to constrain, not empower CSOs – CSA financial, operational restrictions further impedes – Internal Management Structure 7.0 Clearly defined, operational management structure? – Generally not, oppressiveness of CSA operational and financial restraints more responsible than lack of commitment or capacity – CSO Staffing 6.0 Reliance on paid staff? Recruitment of volunteers? – Paid staff more than volunteers, missing “culture of volunteerism” attributable largely to CSA restrictiveness and authoritarian climate – Technical Advance 6.0 Modern office equipment? – Generally, but incidence of economic development an important factor, CSA limits on operational costs

3. Financial Viability Overall Score 6.6 USAID Score 6.1 – Local Support 7.0 CSOs draw on volunteers, local funding? – Most depend on a single source—incidence of economic CSA constraints on fundraising, authoritarian climate hurts – Diversification 7.0 Diverse sources of funding? – Same as above – Financial Management Systems 5.0 Sound management? Transparency? Published Reports? – Generally sound management, few reports, transparency hard to gauge CSA operational limits, authoritarian climate may inhibit publications – Fundraising 7.0 Loyal financial supporters? Outreach? Philanthropy development? – Local financial constituencies limited fof CSA operating constraints, incidence of economic development, authoritarian environment inhibit building public profiles – Earned Income 7.0 Revenues from services, products, rents, assets? – CSA limits on fundraising, can’t fundraise if foreign funding used

4. Advocacy Overall Score 6.8 USAID Score 6.1 – Cooperation with governments 7.0 Lines of communication? – Largely adversarial except where in support of govt policy – Policy advocacy initiatives 7.0 Advocacy coalition campaigns? – CSA and authoritarian climate all but preclude – Lobby efforts 7.0 Mechanisms and relationships for lobbying – Same as above – Local legal reform advocacy 6.0 CSO awareness/efforts to promote favorable legal reforms – CSA constraints, authoritarian climate all but preclude, though awareness of its merits within CSO community likely significant

5.Service Provision Overall Score 5.7 USAID Score 4.9 – Range of goods and services 5.5 diverse range of goods/services across sectors – Yes but heavily constrained in democracy, justice, rights governance, and conflict resolution areas – Community responsiveness 5.0 services provided meet constituent needs? – Yes, subject to credit accounts of gov’t politicization – Constituencies and clienteles 6.0 goods and services beyond own constituents – CSA tight restrictions obstruct that very objective – Cost recovery 6.0 cost recovery? – Generally not, incidence of lack of economic on constituents a serious constraint to doing so. Government recognition/support – Government recognition and support 6.0 Government recognition, support and grants? – in development yes but badly undercut by CSA constraints and climate of authoritarian rule

6.Infrastructure Overall score 6.4 USAID Score 5.5 – Intermediate support organizations(ISOs) 7.0 ISOs to meet the needs of CSOs? – blocked from grantmaking to local organizations, foreign funding for ISOs blocked, can’t run programs – Local grant-making organizations 7.0 grant making? – same as above – CSO coalitions 6.0 coalitions share information, promote common interests? – CSA restrictions effectively block their functions though several try – Training 6.0 training programs available? – very few – Intersectoral partnerships 6.0 partnerships with businesses, governments, awareness of advantages? – only possible to extent ISOs, CSOs support government activities

7. Public Image Overall Score 6.8 USAID Score 5.1 – Media coverage 7.0 Media provide positive coverage? – Tight media control/harassment preclude this – Public Perception of CSOs 7.0 Positive public perception of CSOs? – authoritarian environment prohibits formation of a distinct formation and identification of a “public” – Government/business perception of CSOs 7.0 Business /government positive perception of CSOs? – no business support of CSOs, positive gov’t perception in perception undercut by letter/spirit of CSA law,authoritarian environ. – Public relations 7.0 Public relations activities, positive media coverage? – out of the question given the above – Self-regulation 6. 0 CSOs have codes of ethics, try to demonstrate transparent operations? – intent probably there, authoritarian atmosphere runs counter and inhibits such initiatives

Summary Overall Score USAID Score Legal Environment Organizational capacity Financial viability Advocacy Service provision Infrastructure Public Image Total