1. Capacity Building of CSO in Western Balkans and Turkey TACSO 2
INDEX formation draft
© 2015 Ipsos.  All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos. 1
© 2015 Ipsos.

2. INDEX formation Items were created based on the EU guidelines
6 broad objectives
23 indicators
Indicators operationalized by 145 items (items developed in cooperation with RCs).
Each of 145 items is operationalized benchmark from the EU guidelines or requested by RCs. Items include questions regarding: legal framework, implementatation, CSO representative’s perception.
Items which were difficult to be gathered were excluded from further analysis (with the agreement of RCs during the last meeting).
114 of items were obtained by RCs and 30 of them were gathered through the survey with CSOs and 1 item from the survey with GP
Off all included items from analysis were excluded 7 items – data were provided for one or two countries only (items: v22a_11; v22a_12; v22a_6; v23a_2; v23a_4; v53a_2; v53a_3).
At the end, 138 of items were analyzed.

3. Number of items without answers* Bosnia and Herzegovina
INDEX formation
Type of answers
From RC
Yes/No
Scale from 1 to 4
Absolute number
Percentage
From CSO survey
Percentage of answers
Average
From GP survey
Correlation
Country
Number of items without answers*
Albania 9
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2
Kosovo 10
Macedonia 15
Montenegro 7
Serbia 19
Turkey 6
*All missing answers were coded in the same way as negative answers

4. Bosnia and Herzegovina
INDEX formation
Country
Number of validators
Albania 10
Bosnia and Herzegovina 20
Kosovo 5
Macedonia
Montenegro 7
Serbia 9
Turkey 11
From all measures of importance provided by the experts one measure was extracted – average importance (for each item, per country)

5. INDEX formation
Answers to all items were recalculated to the same scale, from -1 to 1
All items negatively oriented were reoriented in order to have positive direction so it is possible to make further mathematical operations between them
Answers were multiplied by average importance (for that item)
Items belonging to one indicator were summed up in order to obtain one measure per each indicator/subareas/sub-objectives

6. INDEX formation
This score again was categorized to three categories in the following way:
Three colours:
30% (from -1 to -0.06) – green, the best evaluated in the region
40% (from to 0.49) – yellow, middle positioned in the region
30% (from 0.50 to 1) – red, the worst evaluated in the region
Five colours (green and red are separated into two shades):
15% (from -1 to -0.37) – Green, the best evaluated in the region
15% (from to -0.06) – Light green, the second best evaluated in the region
40% (from to 0.49) – Yellow, middle positioned in the region
15% (from 0.50 to 0.81) – Orange, the second worst evaluated in the region
15% (from 0.82 to 1) – Red, the worst evaluated in the region
Scores for indicators were summed up in order to obtain one measure per each objective

7. INDEX formation (23 indicators)
THREE COLOURS
Alb
BiH
Kos
Mac
Mne
Ser
Tur
1.1.a. Quality of existing legislation and policy framework
1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation
1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time)
1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs
1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework
1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives
2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements
2.1.b. Quality of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms )
2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving
2.3.a. Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities
2.4.a. Increase of public funding for CSOs
2.4.b. Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document)
3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively consulted with CSOs
3.1.b Quality of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions
4.1.a. Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents
4.2.a. External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.
4.3.a. Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available
4.4.a. Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators
5.1.a. Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities
5.2.a. Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals
5.3.a. Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks
6.1.a. Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans
6.2.a. Diversity in CSO sources of income

8. INDEX formation (6 objectives)
THREE COLOURS
ALB
BIH
KOS
MAC
MNE
SRB
TUR
1. An enabling legal and policy environment, for the exercise of the rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association
2. An enabling financial environment, which supports sustainability of CSOs
3. Civil society and public institutions work in partnership through dialogue and cooperation
4. Capable, transparent and accountable CSOs
5. Effective CSOs
6. Financially sustainable CSOs

9. INDEX formation (23 indicators)
FIVE COLOURS
Alb
BiH
Kos
Mac
Mne
Ser
Tur
1.1.a. Quality of existing legislation and policy framework
1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation
1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time)
1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs
1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework
1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives
2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements
2.1.b. Quality of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms )
2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving
2.3.a. Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities
2.4.a. Increase of public funding for CSOs
2.4.b. Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document)
3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively consulted with CSOs
3.1.b Quality of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions
4.1.a. Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents
4.2.a. External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.
4.3.a. Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available
4.4.a. Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators
5.1.a. Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities
5.2.a. Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals
5.3.a. Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks
6.1.a. Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans
6.2.a. Diversity in CSO sources of income

10. INDEX formation (6 objectives)
FIVE COLOURS
ALB
BIH
KOS
MAC
MNE
SRB
TUR
1. An enabling legal and policy environment, for the exercise of the rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association
2. An enabling financial environment, which supports sustainability of CSOs
3. Civil society and public institutions work in partnership through dialogue and cooperation
4. Capable, transparent and accountable CSOs
5. Effective CSOs
6. Financially sustainable CSOs

11. 11
© 2015 Ipsos.