Organizations scoring highly in this category would tend to be characterized as having well developed, timely, results-oriented communications with groups essential to mission accomplishment; a well defined, consistent effort to influence public policy related to mission; innovative linkages with the private business sector; diversified financial support; and a fundraising effort that is efficient and effective in generating organizational resources.

Organizations scoring poorly in this category would be characterized as having limited or ineffective communications with groups essential to accomplishment of mission; limited or no outreach to policy-makers whose work is related to organizational mission; limited or no linkages with the private business sector; reliance on a very small number of funders; and a fundraising effort that is inefficient and ineffective in generating organizational resources.

Organizations scoring highly in this category would be characterized as agile in avoiding deficit operations; highly prone to allocate financial resources in ways that support strategic priorities and overall mission; highly competent in generating accurate and timely financial reports that support managerial decision-making; consistent in making efforts to maintain adequate reserves and cash on hand to meet organizational needs; and consistent in applying regularized procedures to organizational procurements.

Organizations scoring poorly in this category would be characterized as frequently operating with little regard for the relationship between expenses and revenue; highly prone to allocate financial resources in ways that are unrelated to strategic priorities and overall mission; highly unlikely to generate accurate and timely financial reports to support managerial decision-making; inconsistent in their efforts to maintain adequate reserves and cash on hand to meet organizational needs; and inconsistent in applying regularized procedures to organizational procurements.

Organizations scoring highly in this category would be characterized as having regular staff training; adequate staff in terms of numbers and skills; human resource practices that significantly contribute to staff retention, accomplishment and morale; and supervisory practices that contribute to the professional development of staff.

Organizations scoring poorly in this category would be characterized as having little or no ongoing staff development; staffing patterns that are inadequate to accomplish assigned tasks; human resource practices that weaken staff retention, accomplishment and morale; and, supervisory practices that are more punitive than developmental.

Organizations scoring highly in this category would be characterized as having their internal communications flow in multiple directions; internally generated information accessible to those who need it that is timely, useful and accurate; a culture that successfully promotes the identification of lessons learned to improve organizational performance; highly effective deployment of teams to resolve organizational issues; highly participatory management practices; and highly productive staff meetings.

Organizations scoring poorly in this category would tend to be characterized as having a one-way, top-down communication flow; a culture that does not support or encourage the systematic gathering of lessons learned to improve organizational performance; poor or infrequent deployment of teams to resolve organizational issues; autocratic management practices; and ineffective staff meetings.

Organizations scoring highly in this category would be characterized as having high levels of involvement by stakeholders (including those traditionally under-represented in development decision-making) in project design, implementation and assessment; strong monitoring and evaluation systems; highly sustainable development activities; and high quality technical support for field operations.

Organizations scoring poorly in this category would be characterized as having low levels of involvement by stakeholders (including those traditionally under-represented in development decision-making) in project design, implementation and assessment; weak or erratic monitoring and evaluation practices; development activities that are not likely to be sustainable; and, poor, erratic or minimal technical support for field operations.

Organizations scoring highly in this category would be characterized as using strategic planning to "refit" the organization to its environment in an ongoing fashion; a system of governance that contributes significantly to the accomplishment of organizational mission; a pattern of managerial decision-making that is highly consistent with mission, goals and philosophy; and a well developed network of strategic partnerships with other organizations.

Organizations scoring poorly in this category would tend to be characterized as engaging in little or no strategic planning to "refit" the organization to its environment; a system of governance that makes little or no contribution to the accomplishment of organizational mission; a pattern of managerial decision-making that is highly inconsistent with mission, goals and philosophy; and a nascent or minimal network of strategic partnerships with other organizations.

Organizations with high scores in this area would be characterized as having, or actively pursuing, a broad donor base. Such organizations are likely to be experiencing an overall increase in the level of financial support from each of the above sources.

Alternately, low scoring organizations would tend to rely on a very narrow funding base that is either stagnant or even decreasing in terms of both overall levels of funding and number of donors.

Organizations with high scores in this area would be characterized as receiving contributions of increasing size in each of the donor categories and as having a declining fundraising ratio (less money spent to raise one dollar of support) as captured through routine monitoring. Timely submission of financial and narrative reports builds donor confidence.

Low scoring organizations in this category would tend to have stagnant or decreasing contributions in each of the five categories. They would also be characterized as having poor fundraising monitoring practices and increasing fundraising ratios. Reporting to donors is often tardy, negatively affecting donor confidence.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as having an active board which participates and contributes competently in carrying out the functions noted.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as having a board of directors that is insufficiently involved in providing leadership and direction in the organization. Inadequacies may be related to one or more areas of board responsibility.

Organizations scoring highly in this category would be characterized as having their internal communications flow in multiple directions; internally generated information accessible to those who need it that is timely, useful and accurate; and a culture that successfully promotes the identification of lessons learned to improve organizational performance.

Organizations scoring poorly in this category would tend to be characterized as having a one-way, top-down communication flow; ineffective or erratic sharing of important information; and a culture that does not support or encourage the systematic gathering of lessons learned to improve organizational performance.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as having regular communication with stakeholders and the general public about mission and objectives. These organizations are likely to allocate funding in ways that reflect organizational priorities and have front-line workers, senior managers, field staff and board members who routinely reflect organizational mission, goals and philosophy when making decisions.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as failing to adequately communicate their mission to relevant policy makers, institutions, constituencies and the general public. These organizations do not always allocate resources in ways that reflect the organization's mission and may have members who are unaware of organizational goals and philosophy or who do not consider their actions and the consequences of their actions in relation to the organization's mission, goals and philosophy.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as having monitoring and evaluation practices that produce useful feedback on the progress, outcomes and impacts of projects, and enhance local organizational capacity. These organizations also regularly examine themselves in relation to the external environment, exhibit a high level of consonance between their activities and larger organizational goals, and regularly and effectively track their progress in achieving these goals.

Low scoring organizations are likely to engage in limited monitoring and evaluation, either internally or externally. Furthermore, these organizations do not contribute optimally to local organizational capacity-building and often lack the ability to track their own progress in achieving larger organizational objectives. Finally, organizational activities may not effectively represent or further the organization’s objectives.

Organizations scoring very highly in this category would be characterized as having a well-developed network of strategic partnerships with other organizations, including appropriate linkages with the private business sector, and utilizing these partnerships to achieve strategic objectives. Human resources are not stretched so thin as to hinder achievement of the organization's mission. Internal financial management practices and procedures are effective in ensuring the most effective use of resources and preventing financial and operational disruptions.

Low scoring organizations in this category would tend to have only a minimal network of strategic partnerships with other organizations or limited linkages with the private business sector. Internally, it may be that too few people are filling too broad a range of positions, or that staff does not fully possess the required skill for their positions. Internal financial management practices and procedures are either erratically applied or ineffective in preventing financial and operational disruptions and resources may not be used to their fullest potential.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as having personnel practices that contribute to good employee and supervisor performance. Specifically, activities would reward and acknowledge employees for work well done, as well as offer opportunities for growth and improvement within the organization.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as having a personnel administration system that is less than productive. Activities may lead staff to feel underrepresented and powerless, or create an antagonistic atmosphere between management and employees. Consequently, the organization is not as efficient as it could be.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as having highly sustainable development activities. Specifically, activities would have no negative impact on the environment; would be easily accommodated by existing laws, policies and political institutions; and would fit within the framework of existing cultural norms, values and practices. Additionally, institutions created through project activities and recurrent costs associated with project activities would be viable over the long term. Furthermore, organizations scoring very highly in this category would be characterized as having effective cash management procedures to ensure the timely disbursement of funds. They would also be characterized as providing consistently high quality technical support to the field.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as having development projects that may not be very sustainable over the long-term. Some of their activities might well be environmentally harmful, politically and culturally inappropriate, or institutionally and economically unfeasible. Additionally, fund disbursement tends to be erratic and often tardy. Technical support to the field may be inconsistent, unresponsive or inappropriate.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as using information from a variety of sources, such as feedback from constituents and the general public, data on program priorities, strategic planning exercises and internal financial reports, to realign programs to adapt to a changing environment or a shift in constituents' needs.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as lacking well developed mechanisms for gathering information on and responding to changing external conditions.

A high scoring organization would be characterized as using its human resources to the best of its abilities. Specifically, appropriate training is being offered and utilized. Staff generally participate in planning and decision-making, meetings are productive and contribute to organizational learning, and teamwork is effectively used to enhance the organization's ability to meet its objectives.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as having limited human resource capacity. This could mean that the staff is not fully capable of providing the required skill for their positions because of lack of appropriate training or a lack of appropriate participation in decision-making. These organizations may also exhibit ineffective teamwork and inefficient staff meetings.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as generally having human resources/personnel practices that encourage continuity and stability of staff. These practices promote a stable environment that allows employees to focus on their work to achieve the organization's mission. There is not a lot of employee turnover, which disrupts operations.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as having limited staff stability or continuity. Specifically, high turnover rates or loss of key personnel may limit the efficiency of a program or damage the credibility of the organization.

Organizations with high scores in this category would be characterized as including stakeholders in a variety of activities related to the design, implementation and evaluation of projects, and as having a high level of participation from traditionally under-represented stakeholders in the areas listed above.

Low scoring organizations in this category would be characterized as failing to sufficiently engage stakeholders, especially traditionally under-represented stakeholders in these activities.