Demystifying M&E Capacity Building: An analysis of Gaps in Monitoring and Evaluation of Projects by NGOs in Kenya:
Experience of Realtime Healthcare
A Consulting Firm in Kenya
Authored by Lucy Njue (MA Population Studies)
2019
Abstract
Purpose:
The aim of this paper is to demystify the term M&E capacity building. It highlights the common gaps that need to be addressed in order to build the capacity of organisations in M&E.
Introduction to Realtime Healthcare
Realtime Healthcare Limited (RTHC) is a local development organization working to build the capacity of developmental and humanitarian organizations, foundations and civil society organizations in Africa. Her mission is to build the capacity of Civil Society Organizations in development of evidence based and people driven interventions for sustainable social impact.
Since her inception in 2013, RTHC has collaborated with Academic Institutions, National and International Non-Governmental Organisations, Community Based Organisations, Private Organisations and Government Agencies in a wide range of capacity building activities. In the recent past, the firm has particularly supported NGOs in Kenya in developing and implementing M&E plans as well as in conducting evaluations.
Since her inception in 2013, RTHC has collaborated with Academic Institutions, National and International Non-Governmental Organisations, Community Based Organisations, Private Organisations and Government Agencies in a wide range of capacity building activities. In the recent past, the firm has particularly supported NGOs in Kenya in developing and implementing M&E plans as well as in conducting evaluations.
Why M&E
M&E is an embedded concept and constitutive part of every project or programme design. In the latest past, there has been focus on strengthening organisational M&E systems with more resources being allocated for this purpose. However, for many local small NGOs, M&E is viewed as an imposed control instrument by the donor or an optional accessory (“nice to have”). Some find no or minimal added value in investing in M&E as they continue to focus on direct activity implementation. This is partly contributed by inadequate resources to implement robust M&E systems.
With the localisation agenda, more and more international organisations are shying away from direct implementation to working with local implementing partners. This has brought in new challenges as International NGOs push the local NGOs to strengthen their M&E systems.
This paper presents the common gaps found among various organisations in relation to M&E systems. The gaps are organised around 4 main areas: Planning for M&E; Data Management and Reporting, with a distinction between common gaps among the INGOs and the LIPs
This paper presents the common gaps found among various organisations in relation to M&E systems. The gaps are organised around 4 main areas: Planning for M&E; Data Management and Reporting, with a distinction between common gaps among the INGOs and the LIPs
Common Gaps among Local Implementing partners/ Local NGOs
Planning for M&E:
- Existence of well documented organisational M&E policies that are not in use: Most organisations have M&E policy but they do not own it. It exists for purposes of meeting the donor requirements. It is one of those boiler plate documents that you must ensure you have ticked as an organisation, however it has no or little if any impact on the activities of the organisation.
- Inadequate resources for M&E- e.g. evaluations are under-budgeted hence comprehensive evaluations could not be conducted
- Copy pasting of indicators from other projects without contextualising to the needs of the project
- Appropriate indicators but lack of understanding of means of measurement- hence systems not put in place to collect data at project start
- Limited M&E activities- need to have a clear M&E work plan with planned activities- DQAs, exit interviews, regular review meetings,
- Existence of a well-documented work plan in word that is not used in project implementation- should be shared with all project staff. (Need to break all activities mentioned in the word doc into an easy to follow excel sheet to guide implementation – focus on activities that are not necessarily the main ones- Accountability, inclusion etc. which are often missed in the overall work plan)
- Non-realistic targets not based on baseline data
- Use of Process indicators only with no clear link how the contribute to project outcomes
Lack of a clear Theory of change to guide M&E planning
Data Management system
- Non –existence of data management system- no project database capturing segregated data in line with the project needs
- Paper based systems
Common Gaps among the International NGOs
- Lack of detailed M&E guidelines for partner reporting. (Should clearly articulate the indicators – process, inter-mediate, outcome- their definitions; how to calculate them, the targets)
- Lack of standard monitoring tool to use during project visits- this should be shared with the partner upfront at project start.
- Non-Supportive M&E visits- viewed as harassment of staff instead of technical support
- Poor understanding of specific programmatic area e.g a case of a project implementing a health project with minimal internal capacity in health programming.
Opportunities
- Training of key project team in establishing M&E system for the organisation and specific projects
- Mentorship/coaching of project teams in M&E systems – developing and putting into action their M&E Plans
Lessons learnt
Building the capacity of local implementing partners MUST go beyond the classroom set up:
Conclusion
Need for engagement of M&E experts to walk the journey with the local organisation; look at it as a service just like Advertising, PR etc.
