Consideration of the use of BRIDGE may be prompted in a number of ways. A general request, not making specific mention of BRIDGE, may be received for assistance with electoral administration, electoral training or staff capacity development. In some cases a donor or BRIDGE partner conducts a broad country-based assessment on electoral assistance and may consider the option of using BRIDGE as part of an assistance package. Over a series of exploratory discussions, a consensus may develop between several bodies that the use of BRIDGE would be worth exploring, without there necessarily being a formal request. Another scenario is a specific request received directly from an organisation such as an electoral management body (EMB) or from the government of a country that would like to use BRIDGE as a short-term project.

The first set of questions to assess whether BRIDGE would be relevant or feasible are:

• Where a request is submitted by an organisation, is it duly authorised to do so? (This is particularly important where an organisation is seeking assistance from a foreign source, in which case diplomatic and foreign policy issues are likely to arise).
• Is there a baseline commitment to democratic values in the interested organisation or country?  Is the use of BRIDGE being sought in order to legitimise processes or organisations that are obviously flawed?
• Has the interested organisation (for example an EMB) already been identified? Does it even exist? If not, is BRIDGE to be used for institution building?
• Is the interested organisation committed to staff development?
• Is there currently a critical mass of support for undertaking capacity development (not necessarily using BRIDGE)? How broad is that support among the interested organisation's management and staff, partner organisations, implementing agencies and donors? Within these bodies, is support generalised or is it concentrated in certain individuals? Is there a formalised, institutional commitment or only a personal one? Is the use of BRIDGE being sought in order to generate change within an organisation? If support is not currently manifest, is this a permanent and unchangeable constraint or does it appear possible to build support at a later stage?
• Is there a long-standing personal or institutional relationship with the interested organisation? Will work be conducted through other organisations or individuals who have such a relationship? Is the use of BRIDGE expected to contribute to building such a relationship?
• On the basis of what can be discerned even before detailed examination, is there a reasonable prospect that resources will be able to be mobilised for the use of BRIDGE? What resources (in particular: funding for initial study and for later development and implementation; translated, customised and appropriately adapted materials, evaluation, time; accredited facilitators; and experienced project managers) might be available, both within and from outside the country? Are the interested organisation’s priorities likely to be dominated by short-term, often election-related, tasks?
• Are there aspects of the environment in a country - for example, the security situation - that would essentially rule out the conduct of BRIDGE workshops, at least in the short run, or significantly constrain the way in which BRIDGE might be used?
• Is there agreement on the expenditure of funds and resources? With widely differing needs competing for limited funds, and with many options available to satisfy those needs, reaching agreement on what should actually be done may be difficult. It is crucial that the project advocate recognise this.

If the answers to these questions suggest that the use of BRIDGE is not likely to be a feasible option, other forms of support and capacity development - which are beyond the scope of this manual - might nevertheless be considered. It should also be understood that the answers, should they be insufficient to guide a decision on whether or not to use BRIDGE, may nevertheless serve to identify factors to be taken into account in determining the best approach to needs assessment, design and implementation of an electoral assistance program.

Should BRIDGE be a relevant part of an envisioned package, a needs assessment will inform all the relevant stakeholders of the consultative process followed, key areas to be addressed, potential strategy to implement the project and ensure the evaluation of the impact of the project.

This needs assessment process should involve at least one accredited, experienced BRIDGE facilitator. This will help to anticipate any problems (logistical, technical, or financial) that might be encountered during implementation, as well as build a relationship with the main stakeholders. When an assessment is undertaken, one of the first steps should involve communication with other BRIDGE partners working in the area, allowing for streamlining and integration of BRIDGE activities to maximise impact.

Typical outputs of a needs assessment process would be:

• An assessment of the existing conditions that enable the conduct of capacity development, such as past learning experiences, institutional and operational contexts and stakeholder concerns.
• An assessment of the factors that inhibit the conduct of capacity development.
• The development of criteria that allow for the measurement of the impact of the capacity development project.
• The development of recommendations for practical and cost effective means of capacity development.

Assessment considerations summary

The conduct of the needs assessment to take into account some of the following considerations: