Asset tagging for NGOs and donor-funded projects

The distinguishing requirement here is what goes on the tag, not what it is made of.

Most donors require the tag face to show the funding source. We print a “Funded by [donor]”, “Property of [organisation]” or “Not for sale” line at no additional charge, alongside your logo, the asset number and the barcode or QR code. On a 50 × 30 mm or 60 × 30 mm tag there is room for all of it.

For field-deployed equipment in dust, heat and transport, anodised aluminium with acetone-activated adhesive is the right specification: 9+ years outdoor life, operating range -40°C to +120°C.

For laptops and portable ICT, tamper-evident tags. Project equipment moves between staff, and a tag that cannot be relocated is the only reliable control.

For office furniture in fixed locations, polyester from KSh 35 is entirely adequate and keeps the budget for the field equipment.

QR code tags are worth considering for multi-country projects: field staff and partners can verify with a phone, without you shipping scanners to every location.

Tag at the point of receipt, before the asset is deployed. Retrofitting a register onto equipment already distributed across four field offices and six partners is several times harder, and some of it will never be found.

If you are mid-project and untagged, do it before your next grant audit, and allow time to resolve exceptions.

Build the register around what the donor will ask for: asset description, unique identifier, acquisition date and cost, funding source and grant reference, location, custodian, condition, and disposal status. The funding source field matters more here than in any other sector — it is what lets you produce a per-grant asset schedule without re-counting.

At project close, the same register drives your disposal report: what was handed over to government, what transferred to another project, what was sold and at what value, and what was written off.