FACTORS INFLUENCING ADOPTION OF MONITORING AND

EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

AMONG NGOS IN RARIEDA DISTRICT, SIAYA COUNTY,
KENYA.

BY

BEATRICE ADHIAMBO DOBI

A research Project Report submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the

award of Master of Arts Degree in Project Planning and Management of the
University of Nairobi.

2012.

i
 DECLARATION

The Research Project Report is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any

other university.

Signature: ___________________ Date ___________________

Beatrice Adhiambo Dobi

L50/72650/08

This project Report as been submitted for examination with our approval as University

Supervisors.

Signature _____________________ Date_______________________

DR. RAPHAEL NYONJE
SENIOR LECTURER,
DEPARTMENT OF EXTRA – MURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

Signature ____________________ Date ___________________

Dr. JOSHUA WANJARE

LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS STUDIES.
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this research project report to my husband, James Odhiambo Munda who has been my

greatest inspiration throughout my academic life. To my children Rhoda, Kevin, Victor, Philip

and Helen for being patient, understanding and emotionally supportive.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My deep appreciation goes to my family for their support and prayer. To my husband Mr.

James Odhiambo Munda for his endless support and devotion. To my mother Mrs. Achieng’

Dobi for her encouragement and inspiration. I wish to very sincerely appreciate the support

assistance and goodwill I received from various people during the writing of my research project

report . I fell sincerely grateful to my supervisors Dr. Joshua Wanjare and Dr. Raphael Nyonje

for helping me to work hard towards the completion of my project I am indebted to Dr. Charles

Rambo my residential lecturer for setting the place for this study. I cannot fail to mention the

assistance given to me by my lecturers:- Dr. Maria Onyango, Prof. Omolo Ongati, Dr. Paul

Odundo, Dr. Ouru Nyaegah and Mr. Michael Ochieng’ during my studies. I wish to the staff of

the University of Kenya National Library Kisumu and the University of Nairobi librarian for

their assistance in accessing the relevant references for my project report. My appreciation is

also extended to my respondents; Rarieda District projects for their immense information they

provided during the research period which made this study a success. I wish to thank great

authors and researcher whose writings have been used to support my literature review and have

lit a burning desire of knowledge within me. I sincerely appreciate the dedication of Mr. Fredrick

Odede Otieno of Kobs Printers for typing and printing this work.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Page

DECLARATION ………………………………………………………………… ii
DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………… iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT………………………………………………………… iv
TABLE OF CONTENT ………………………………………………………….. vi
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………… vii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….. viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS………………………….. … ix
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………….. x

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Background of the study …………………………………………………. 1
1.2 Statement of the problem ………………………………………………….. 6
1.3 Purpose of the study………………………………………………………. 8
1.4 Objectives of the study …………………………………………………… 8
1.5 Research Questions ………………………………………………………. 9
1.6 Significance of the study …………………………………………………. 10
1.7 Basic assumptions of the study …………………………………………… 10
1.8 Limitations of the study………………………………………………….. 11
1.9 Delimitation of the study ………………………………………………… 11
1.10 Definition of significant terms used in the study …………………………. 12
1.11 Organization of the study ………………………………………………… 12

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………….………………………………13
2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 13
2.2 Financial Status of NGOs and adoption of Monitoring and evaluation system … 13
2.3 Staff knowledge and skills and adoption of Monitoring and evaluation system ... 17
2.4 Donor influence and adoption of Monitoring and evaluation system ……….…... 22
2.5 Need for Stakeholder involvement and adoption of M&E system …………… 24
2.6 Theoretical framework ……………………………………………………….. 27
2.7 Conceptual framework ………………………………………………………… 28
2.8 Summary of the literature reviewed……………………………………………. 29

v
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….. 32

3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 32

3.2 Research Design ………………………………………………………………. 32

3.3 Target Population ……………………………………………………………… 32

3.4 Sample size and Sample selection………………………………………………. 33

3.4.1 Sample size……………………………………………………………………… 33

3.4.2 Sampling selection …………………………………………………………… 33

3.5 Research Instruments …………………………………………………………… 34

3.5.1 Pilot testing ……………………………………………………………………. 36

3.5.2 Validity of instruments ……………………………………………………… 36

3.5.3 Reliability of instruments ……………………………………………………. 37

3.6 Data collection procedures ……………………………………………………… 37

3.7 Data analysis techniques ……………………………………………………….. 38

3.8 Ethical consideration……………………………………………………………. 39

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND
DISCUSSIONS……………………………………………………………………. 40

4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 40

4.2 Questionnaire return rate …………………………………………………………. 40

4.3 Demographic characteristics of the respondents ………………………………... 41

4.3.1 Distribution of the respondents by gender ……………………………………….. 41

4.3.2 Distribution of the respondents by age …………………………………………… 42

4.3.3 Distribution of the respondents by level of education …………………………. 43

4.3.4 Distribution of the respondents by occupation …………………………………. 45

4.3.5 Distribution of the respondents by duration for which they have been carrying
out their projects …………………………………………………………………. 46
4.3.6 Distribution of the respondents by nature of projects implemented by NGO …… 48

vi
4.4 Financial status of NGOs ………………………………………………………. 49

4.4.1 Annual budget ………………………………………………………………….. 50

4.4.2 Funds allocated to Monitoring and Evaluation system ………..…………….… 52

4.4.3 Contribution in percentage of the total budget spent on M& E …………….. 53

4.5 Staff knowledge and skill ………………………………………………………. 53

4.5.1 Number of training in Monitoring and Evaluation …………………………….. 55

4.5.2 Staff experience in Monitoring and Evaluation ………………………………… 58

4.5.3 Impact of training on the project management ….……………………………… 60

4.5.4 Types of evaluation carried on projects ………………………………………. 60

4.6 Donor influence ………………………………………………………………… 61

4.6.1 Technical assistance ……………………………………………………………. 61

4.6.2 Monitoring and Evaluation funding requirements …………………………….. 64

4.6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation reporting requirements ……………………………. 64

4.6.4 Release of funds from donors ………………………………………………….. 65

4.7 Need for stakeholder involvement ……………………………………………… 65

4.7.1 Dissemination mode of Monitoring and Evaluation findings …………………… 67

4.7.2 Factors that influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation ………………… 68

4.8 Document analysis guide ……………………………………………………….. 69

4.8.1 Data collection methods ………………………………………………………… 69

4.8.2 Documents of lessons learnt on Monitoring and Evaluation …………………… 72

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS…… 73

5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 73

5.2 Summary of the findings ………………………………………………………… 73

5.3 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………… 75

5.4 Recommendations ………………………………………………………………… 78

vii
5.4.1 Recommendations for further studies …………………………………………... 80

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………….. 81

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………….. 84

Appendix A: Letter of transmittal ……………………………………………. 84

Appendix B: Questionnaires for project managers …………………………… 85
Appendix C: Questionnaires for Monitoring and evaluation Officers………… 89
Appendix D: Questionnaires for Monitoring and evaluation staff. …………… 93
Appendix E: Interview schedules for project managers ………………………. 97

viii
 LIST OF TABLES .

3.1 Study population and sample size. ………………………………………………. 34

4.1 The response rate of the study ………………………..…………………………… 41

4.2 Distribution of the respondents by gender ……………………………………….. 42

4.3 Distribution of the respondents by age ……………………………………………. 42

4.4 Distribution of the respondents by level of education ……………………………. 44

4.5 Distribution of the respondents by occupation ……………………………………. 45

4.6 Distribution of the respondents by duration for which they have been carrying
out their projects ………………………………………………………………….. 47
4.7 Distribution of the respondents by nature of projects implemented by NGO …… 48

4.8 Size of NGO budget spent on the previous year …………………………………. 50

4.9 Extent of donor contribution of NGO budgets …………………………………... 51

4.10 Donor source of funding to the NGO projects …………………………………... 52

4.11 Monitoring and Evaluation budget ……………………………………………… 53

4.12 Monitoring and Evaluation budget constitution to total budget …………………. 54

4.13 Findings to the Monitoring and Evaluation issues ………………………………... 55

4.14 Monitoring and Evaluation Staff………………………………………………….. 56

4.15 Staff experience in Monitoring and Evaluation …………………………………… 58

4.16 Findings to the availability of technical assistance ……………………………… 62

4.17 Reasons to the involvement of technical assistance ……………………………. 63

4.18 Involvement of stakeholder in adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system.. 66

4.19 Dissemination of mode for Monitoring and Evaluation findings …………….. 67

4.20 Factors that influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system ………… 68

4.21 Data collection methods ………………………………………………………… 69

4.22 Use of computer for Monitoring and Evaluation ………………………………. 71

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework …………………………………………………… 25

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AIDS – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

APM – Association of Project Management

BCC – Behavioral Change Communications

CBO – Community based Organizations

FBO – Faith Based Organizations

GFATM – Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

HRA – Advocacy for Human Rights

M&E – Monitoring and Evaluation

NGO – Non Governmental Organizations

PMI – Project Management Institution

PEPFAR – Presidents’ Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

UK – United Kingdom

UNDP – United Nations Development Plan

SD – Standard Deviation

xi
 ABSTRACT
Effective Monitoring and Evaluation of projects is usually one of the ingredients of good
project performance. It provides means of accountability, demonstrating transparency to the
Stakeholders and facilitates, organizational learning through documenting lessons learned in
implementation of the projects and incorporating the same in the subsequent project planning
and implementation or through sharing experience with other implementers. In Rarieda District
Project Managers today are concerned with the development of their projects as evidence by
their enthusiasm in the adoption of M&E system. This is so because a lot of donor and
government resources are provided to local NGOs for the implementation various projects.
However, the productivity of these projects has been lagging behind because of lack of
Monitoring and Evaluation system. To alleviate this problem, some projects have adopted M&E
system as a way of managing the projects. However, most projects have not adopted M&E
system and although outcomes and effectiveness of M&E system are known. The information of
these formed a bulk of the study concern. Objectives of the study were to examine the extent to
which financial status of NGOs influence adoption of M&E system, to determine the level to
which staff knowledge and skills influence adoption of M&E system, to assess how donors
influence adoption of M&E system and to examine the extent to which the need for stakeholder’s
involvement influence adoption of M&E system for Project Management among NGOs in
Rarieda District. A conceptual frame work showing the interplay among the various variables
was developed to guide the study. The study was carried out using descriptive survey design.
The study population was 161, it consisted of 32 Project Managers, 32 Project M&E Officers, 96
Project Implementer Staff and 1 District M&E Officer. Purposive sampling and census sampling
were used to select 32 Project Managers, 32 Project M&E Officers, 96 Project Implementer Staff
and 1 District M&E Officer. The instruments for data collection were questionnaires, interview
schedules and document analysis guide. A pilot study was conducted to determine the reliability
of the instruments. To ensure the validity of the research instruments experts from the
department were consulted and their input included in the final draft of the instruments. The data
collected was analyzed using descriptive statistics in form of percentages, means and frequency
counts. Inferential statistics was also used to analyze data. The study found that demographic
characteristics of the respondents such as gender, age and level of education influenced the
adoption of M&E system. The study also found that extent of donor contribution to NGOs
annual budget, M&E budget also influenced the adoption of M&E system. Findings of the study
such training of implementer staff, proper funding of NGOs projects and effective involvement
of stakeholder may provide individual local NGOs to improve the monitoring and evaluation of
their projects. The recommendations should be implemented hopefully with the benefit of
improving the performance and their accountability to the stakeholder’s in terms of resources use
and impact of the project they implement.

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Non-governmental Organizations are non- profit organizations that are neither

governmental nor inter-governmental. NGOs are generally established to bring the like –

minded individuals committed to achieving particular objectives. NGOs vary

considerably in the size of their constituencies, in their organizational structures and in

their effectiveness. They range from organizations of small procedures and rural people

to development and environment NGOs, traditional trade unions and to professional,

academic and industry associations (Humanitarian Policy Groups, 2003).

Both Monitoring and Evaluation are management tools. In this case of

monitoring, information is routinely gathered for tracking progress according to

previously agreed plans and schedules. Monitoring is an ongoing process of data capture

and analysis for primarily project control with an internally driven emphasis on efficiency

of project (Crawford and Brye, 2003). Evaluations are systematic and independent. They

are an assessment of an ongoing or completed project including its implementation and

results (Uitto, 2004).

Globally, by the 1990’s many development actors, including both larger NGOs

and donors, were beginning to accept that development assistance spread out over a large

number of projects was making little difference to a country’s development. Talk focused

on the need to be more strategic in thinking and planning, the need to finance groups of

projects which together might create synergy and achieve results which would prove to

1
be greater than the sum of the individual projects, and the need for adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system which would help measure the progress of the projects.

In Armenia, the core purpose of adoption of M&E system for the SWA Rural

Development are to provide the information needed for impact oriented project

management and to involve key stakeholders in learning how to improve project

implementation. The M&E System will provide regular reports on project progress to the

different stakeholder groups in a format appropriate or their needs.

In Yemeni, M&E functions of a project were carried out by the M&E department

of a government agency responsible for M&E in several projects using national

guidelines. This agency had much experience and was able to commence project M&E

activities at an early stage. However, the agency did not have direct access to the

project’s M&E resources and had limited funds. Obtaining authorization for activities and

resources was a lengthy procedure. This affected M&E budgeting and adoption of M&E

system recommended by the project. The government agency did not prioritize M&E for

this project and so the organizational structure was hindering effective adoption of M&E

system (Furman, 2001).

Considering the M&E as a system helps in understanding the range of M&E tasks

that different people will need to undertake during the project cycle. Well-constructed

monitoring and evaluation system by NGO projects can contribute towards the

achievement of objectives. Equally a badly constructed monitoring and evaluation system

could negatively affect the achievement of objectives. In very complex social

development programmes there is often no concept of the role and purpose of taking a

2
participatory and empowering approach to monitoring that includes the people who are

classified as ‘beneficiaries’. (Jerry Adams and Ann Garbutt, 2008)

According to INTRAC (2008), the task of developing monitoring and evaluation

system would be delegated to a specialist M&E team. The rationale for this would

usually be that M&E is seen as an activity that only M&E experts, not programme

planners or implementers, are able to provide. Monitoring and Evaluation is not seen as

an integral part of the project management or the project process. This is especially

relevant where the M&E team in a head office sets up the M&E system for country

programmes and projects, and local managers are expected to deliver on pre-selected

targets and output.

In Central Asia, participation in development is generally accepted as a process

that is fundamental to addressing issues of ownership and sustainability. Everyone

acknowledges the value of participation. Yet when it comes to developing monitoring

and evaluation (M&E) systems many Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) continue to

employ experts to develop their objectives, indicators and data collection methodologies-

with very little participation from the very people they are attempting to engage with

(INTRAC 2008).

In Kyrgyzstan, the new project would involve work at multiple levels –

communities, local government, NGOs, NGO support and coalition organizations, donors

and to a lesser extent central government. It was now becoming more apparent when

working at so many levels how important it was going to be to monitor the progress of

the interventions. The sector as a whole still had not adopted monitoring and evaluation

system and INTRAC, like many International NGOs, was concerned about how it was

3
going to report progress against the interventions in order to satisfy three different donors

(Eade, 1997)

In Ghana, the government recognizes that Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are

essential ingredients in the planning and management of development and good

governance. Part attempts at improving on the M&E management functions in public and

project management functions in public and project agencies in Ghana were not carried

out within a comprehensive framework and thus did not benefit from the desired

synergies. The civil service law, which aims at establishing a policy focused on civil

service, prescribes policy planning, monitoring and evaluation structures across all

sectors of the economy. At present, monitoring is limited in scope and coverage

(Koranteng, 2000).

In local NGOs in Botswana play a huge role by bringing the much needed

services to the communities in which they operate (Hams, 2003). A lot of funds and other

resources have been committed in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The donors and other

stakeholders expect transparency, proper accountability and project performance from

them. For example up to USD18million was approved and provided by the global fund to

fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). There is need to determine whether the

resources by the donors are being used efficiently and effectively and whether the

projects are within schedule and to determine any problems that may be hampering the

implementation. Determining of efficient management of resources is a factor projection

monitoring and evaluation (Hawkins, 2004).

The president of United States of America in 2003, announced the President’s

Emergency Plan for Aid relief (PEPFAR) in which he committed up to the USD15

4
Billion for 5 years (Myra, 2005). The 15 focus countries for PEPFAR Initiative includes

Kenya among other 12 sub-Saharan Countries and other hard hit countries (Myra, 2005).

A lot of funds have been spent and more are being committed in various projects e.g.

behavioral change communication, HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria projects. It is

evident that a significant amount of resources have been provided to the NGOs in Kenya

so there is need to demonstrate that the funds actually did achieve what they were

disbursed for. So there is need for adoption of monitoring and evaluation systems because

stakeholders require accountability in terms of resource use and impact of the project,

transparency good project performance (Myra, 2005).

In Kenya there is a rapid growth of NGOs. According to Korach (2003), there are

about two million operating NGOs. This has spawned demand for greater transparency

among government, funders, and the public. Also the increased amounts of funds NGOs

attract is estimated to worth one trillion globally (Crawford, 2004). Given the hundreds, if

not thousands of millions of pounds that have been spent by NGOs over the last decades,

why has it been so difficult to come to persuasive conclusion about the result of their

work? Several different reasons have been examined including the adoption of

monitoring and evaluation systems for project management.

In Kenya, just like any other developing countries, evaluation has yet to reach

acceptable levels of operation, evaluation when carried out, deal more with inputs and

outputs than with impacts, “Major Evaluations are driven by activities and donor

demands” (Odhiambo, 2000). There is lack of professionalism on the part of qualified

practitioners and there are few academically trained evaluators’. Those who carry out

evaluations are influenced by social science research approaches and because of their

research background, carry out evaluations that in some cases do not have any
5
characteristics of expert evaluation. For a long time in the government there has been no

central monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programs and projects, expect for financial

auditing and monitoring that are done to audit. The support that monitoring and

evaluation system can offer when adopted in institutional development is often not fully

understood (Odhiambo, 2000)

In Rarieda, there has been a dramatic growth in the number of NGOs involved in

development aid. Associated with this growth has been a growing concern about

identifying the achievements of NGOs. In Rarieda District there are 32 local NGOs

carrying out activities including, Behavioral Change Communication (BCC), care and

support of the sick and the elderly, socio-economic impact mitigation (SEM) through

care of the widows, orphans and other vulnerable children and other advocacy for Human

Rights (HRA) of people living with HIV/AIDS and those affected by the pandemic. A lot

of funds and other resources have been committed in these local NGOs but it is not clear

whether monitoring and evaluation is done in these projects. Stakeholders blame their

poor monitoring and evaluation by the guarantees for their failure to timely compile a

report of expenditure and impact (Serite, 2006). This study investigated factors

influencing adoption of monitoring and evaluation system for project management among

NGOs in Rarieda District.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Over the last decade there has been a dramatic growth in the number of NGOs

involved in development aid, in both developed and developing countries. The total

amount of the public funds being spent through NGOs has grown dramatically and the

proportion of development aid going through NGOs relative to bilateral or multilateral

6
agencies has also increased. Associated with this group has been a growing concern about

identifying the achievements of NGOs. This has been evident in the burgeoning literature

on the monitoring and evaluation of NGO activities.

Monitoring and evaluation of projects in Kenya is very critical because a lot of

donor and government resources are provided to local NGOs to implement various

projects. Not only does best practices require that projects are monitored for control but

also project stake holders require transparency, accountability for resource use and

impact, good project performance and organizational learning to benefit future projects.

There have been reports in the media decrying the inadequate monitoring and

evaluation of projects implemented by NGOs in Kenya. The report highlights the lack of

accountability for the disbursed funds and absence of any evident of the attainment of the

objectives of which the funds were disbursed to the NGOs. Many NGOs do not submit

reports detailing expenditure and impact of the funds that had been disbursed. The donor

disbursed funds to implement projects in local areas and blame the poor monitoring and

evaluation by the local NGOs for their failure to timely compile a nationwide report of

expenditure and impact (Serite, 2006).

There is an increasing pressure on governmental and non-governmental organizations in

developmental co-operation to improve monitoring and evaluation of activities, with an

emphasis on measuring the effect they have on the beneficiaries.

Most evaluations of NGO projects in the last years have indicated that monitoring

and evaluation are still very weak. In many NGOs, the attention for monitoring and

evaluation is not consistent throughout the project cycle. In the planning phase, in general

a good number of indicators are formulated. In the project implementation some

7
information is collected, though often concentrating on production, while the initially

formulated indicators are often not followed. Finally, monitoring concentrates on

financial and organizational aspects and the formulated indicators are no longer used at

all. The weakness of monitoring and evaluation is mentioned from time to time and

though donor organizations have given instructions on improvement of monitoring and

evaluation system, little has improved. This is not only a matter of limited capacity of the

programme implementers, but also a matter of lack of methodological clarity on adoption

of M&E system for project management.

In Rarieda District, despite the huge amount of resources provided to the local

NGOs to implement projects and despite the fact that these projects plays big role in

improving the lives of the people in the community. It is not clear whether monitoring

and evaluation system has been adopted in the projects implemented by NGOs in Rarieda

District. This study investigated factors influencing adoption of monitoring evaluation

system for project management among NGO projects in Rarieda District.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate factors influencing adoption of monitoring

and evaluation system for project management among Non-Governmental Organizations

in Rarieda District.

1.4 Objectives of the study

This study sought to achieve the following objectives:

1. To examine the extent to which financial status of Non-Governmental

Organizations influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system for

project management among Non-Governmental Organizations in Rarieda District.

8
 2. To determine the level at which staff knowledge and skills influence adoption of

Monitoring and Evaluation systems for project management among Non-

Governmental Organizations in Rarieda District.

3. To assess how donors influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system

for project management among Non-Governmental Organizations in Rarieda

District.

4. To examine the extent to which the need for stakeholder involvement influence

adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system for project management among

Non-Governmental Organizations in Rarieda District.

1.5 Research Questions

The study was guided by the following questions:

1. To what extent do the financial status of Non-Governmental Organizations

influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system for project management

among Non-Governmental Organizations in Rarieda District?

2. What is the level at which staff knowledge and skills influence adoption of

Monitoring and Evaluation system for project management among Non-

Governmental Organizations in Rarieda District?

3. How do donors influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system for

project management among Non-Governmental Organizations in Rarieda

District?

4. To what extent do need for stakeholder involvement influence adoption of

Monitoring and Evaluation system for project management among Non-

Governmental Organizations in Rarieda District.

9
 1.6 Significance of the study

It is hoped that the study findings help stakeholders and community understand

what the projects are doing, how well they are meeting their objectives and whether there

are ways that progress can be improved; help in ensuring social, financial and political

support and help the projects establish or strengthen the network of the individuals and

organizations with similar goals of working with young people; findings of the research

be provided to the individual local NGOs to improve the monitoring and evaluation of

their projects they implement hopefully with the benefit of improving the performance of

the projects and their accountability to the stakeholders in terms of resources use and

impact of the projects they implement and findings of the research be provided to donors

and to assist them in understanding the monitoring and evaluation aspect of project

management implemented by their member organizations.

1.7 Basic assumptions of the study

For the purpose of this study, the following assumptions were made: That

resources provided by the donors are being used effectively for the adoption of M&E

systems for project management; the project managers and stakeholders are aware that

adoption of monitoring and evaluation provides accountability and transparency to the

stakeholders; the resources provided with set objectives are adequately responding to the

factors influencing adoption of monitoring and evaluation system for project management

and the stakeholders are fully involved in the adoption of monitoring and evaluation

systems.

10
1.8 Limitation of the study

The study only focused on the factors influencing adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system for project management among NGOs in Rarieda District. The study

was conducted in all NGOs projects and census sampling was used. The data was

collected using questionnaires, interview schedules and documents analysis guide to meet

objectives. The Questionnaires included both open and closed questions. The

Questionnaires were administered to all project managers, project monitoring and

evaluation officers and project implementer staff. The answered questionnaires were

scored and tallied to give correct data. The question of generalization as data obtained

may be not representative, refusal by some of the respondents to offer information on the

questionnaires for fear of reprisal even though no respondent was expected to write their

names in the questionnaires.

1.9 Delimitation of the study

The study was exclusively delimited to NGO projects in Rarieda District, Siaya

County. The study targeted 32 Project Managers, 32 Project Monitoring and Evaluation

officers, 1 District M&E officer 96 Project Implementer staff in 32projects in Rarieda

District. The area was chosen because there had been dramatic growth in the number of

NGOs involved in development aid associated with this growth, there had been a growing

concern about identifying the achievement of the NGOs. A lot of funds and other

resources had been committed in this local NGOs but it is not clear whether monitoring

and evaluation has been adopted for proper project management. No clear objectives, no

11
accountability for the disbursed fund and no proper report detailing expenditure and

impact of the funds disbursed by donors.

1.10 Definition of significant terms as used in the study

Financial status: Refers to funds allocated to monitoring and evaluation and the annual

budget for monitoring and evaluation

Skills and acknowledge: Refers to number of training in monitoring and evaluation,

academic level and experience in monitoring and evaluation

Donor Influence: Refers to criteria for funding Technical Assistance to monitoring and

evaluation and policy guideline as on monitoring and evaluation

Need for Stakeholders: Refers to number of training in monitoring and evaluation,

academic level, experience and accessibility of the project

Adoption: Have or have no Monitoring and evaluation system.

1.11 Organization of the study

This study was organized in five chapters. Chapter One Comprises of background

of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, objectives of the study,

research questions, significance of the study, limitation of the study , delimitations of the

study, basic assumptions of the study and definitions of significant terms. Chapter two

contains literature review which is composed of the introduction and areas under which

literature be revealed. These are allocation of financial resources for monitoring and

evaluation of projects, capacity of projects managers, and data utilization in decision

making, stakeholder’s involvement and review of related studies. Chapter three is

composed of research methodology; it has the introduction, research design, target

population sample and sampling techniques, research instruments, validity and reliability

12
of the instruments, data collection procedures and data analysis techniques. Chapter four

presents data analysis in the following themes: response return rate, demographic

characteristics of the respondents and factors influencing adoption of M&E system.

Chapter five presents summary of findings, conclusion, recommendations and

recommendations for future studies.

13
 CHAPTER TWO

LITRATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction:

This chapter presents the related literature on the study .This chapter is presented

under the following sections: financial status of NGOs and adoption of M&E system;

staff knowledge and skills and adoption of M&E system, donor influence and adoption of

M&E system, the need for stakeholders involvement and adoption of M&E system for

project management among NGOs. Each of the sections is presented next:

2.2 Financial Status of NGOs and Adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation System

Local NGOs implementing projects in influence communities have various

factors that influence adoption of monitoring and evaluation system .A lot of scholars

have highlighted the fact that NGOs have a number of challenges in this aspect of

adoption of monitoring and evaluation system (Hughes, 2002, Ramesh, 2002).The

challenges unless mitigated mean that adoption of monitoring and evaluation system is

not effectively done, translating into inability of projects optimally benefit from this

monitoring and evaluation aspect.

In Central Asia there is some recognition amongst governments that they are not

in a position to provide for all the needs of their citizens and that NGOs attract much

needed foreign funding none of the republics have a clear allocation of the funds for

adoption of monitoring and evaluation ;system for (Adams ,2008).

14
 In China the cost and resources of the adoption of the M&E system is USD,

13,173.The annual budget includes specific training for staff in the M&E techniques,

extra meeting with stakeholders for designing M&E system; additional meetings for local

level analysis, short training .workshop on keys steps in designing M&E and specific

elements such as indicators and methods (including using the log frame matrix) (Lamy

2001).

In Vietnam, 2000, the total cost of introducing M&E system per project is USD

15000.This includes consultant’s fee, training workshop material and follow up

assistance (Lamy 2001).

Lack of adequate financial resources to carry out monitoring and evaluation is one

of the factors that influence the adoption of monitoring and evaluation systems for project

management among NGOs .A good number of NGOs lack adequate funding for their

activities; this means that the little resources available are channeled to actual

implementation of project activities: monitoring and evaluation are looked at as an

expense that they cannot afford. If any is done then it is done superficially, just recording

a few activities and irregularly (Gibbs et al, 2002 and Gilliam et al, 2003). Lack of funds

means that NGOs may not be in a position to bring external evaluators: they may not be

able to adequately collect all the necessary data. It also means that they may not be able

to afford computers and any other technology to aid the adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system.

Level of allocation of the funds for monitoring and evaluation ranges from 2% to

15% of all Costs .for example, In Venezuela funds allocated for the adoption of M&E

system is 370,700 out of the total project funds which is 26, 742 and 700 (1.4%). Chile,

15
M&E funds is 582,676 out of the total project funds which is 34,491,969(1.7%) (Lamy

and lessard, 2001)

To be effective, the adoptions of M&E system need to be supported with a

realistic and a clear budget. Knowing what to include in the M&E budget is not always

as clear as in other areas of the project as may M&E functions and activities overlap with

implementation and management activities. It is critical to include M&E cost in the

management cost, M&E cost should be stated clearly. Managers should avoid putting

M&E under the heading “project management” as this make it very unclear what is

available for the adoption of M&E system (Lamy and Lessard, 2001).

Project budget should be made and should provide a clear and adequate provision

for monitoring and evaluation activities. A monitoring and evaluation budget can be

clearly delimited within the overall project budget to give the adoption for the M&E

system due to the recognition it plays in the project management (Gyorkos, 2003and

McCoy et al, 2005). Some authors argue for a monitoring and evaluation budget to be

about 5%to 10% of the total budget (Kelly and Magongo, 2004 and AIDS Alliance,

2006).The intention with this practice is not to be prescriptive of the percentage that is

adequate, but to come up with sufficient funds to facilitate monitoring and evaluation

when they are due. It also ensures that monitoring and evaluation are not treated as

peripheral function.

Regardless of how the M&E budget is calculated, it will always overlap to some

degree with other project activities. For example, about 78% of total annual funds for the

MARENASS Project in Peru goes directly to the farmer’s management of their own

community development plans, with the remainder going to two components, project

16
management and M&E. Yet even with these two components, many costs were related to

community development such as festivals, communication bulletins, raising this figure to

82.85%. So the funds left for the adoption of the M&E system is too minimal that has

resulted to poor or no adoption of M&E system for the project management among

NGOs (Forman, 2001).

PASSIA (2004), further argues that poorly designed projects are hard to monitor

and evaluate. The project plan defines the project budget and schedule of activities and

outputs which acts as baselines against which implementation performance is assessed

periodically during the project monitoring process. Monitoring and evaluation can be as

good as the project plan, if Project plans is flawed and unrealistic then adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system will not be of any significant value to the project

stakeholders.

Financial resources should be tracked with project budget with the project

activities having cost attached to them, with comparison of what has been spent on

project activities with what should have been spent has per planned expenditure in the

budget (Crawford and Bryce, 2003). Developing countries are increasing finding it

worthwhile to establish cross-border projects. These countries are still faced with

enormous financial constrains which inhibits efficient international project delivery and

achievement of development targets. To date the project has granted more than 1,000,000

US &to local in almost 20 countries. Many of these grants did not exceed 10,000 USD.

With focused technical inputs and adoption of M&E system, local organizations can

provide high quality. (Crawford, 2003)

2.3 Staff Knowledge and Skills and adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system

17
 When asked why a project M&E system is not working, a common response is

‘poor’ or insufficient knowledge and skills. A most common answer to inadequate skills

and knowledge is let’s send the M&E Officer on a training course where new knowledge

can be heard and new skills can be practiced. Although training course can provide

valuable input, every course has limitations. In practice skills and knowledge is built on

the job through concrete experience. (UNDP, 1998).

For an effective adoption of M&E system, you need skilled people who can,

between them, fulfill the M&E functions and tasks. Key task include; designing the

general outline of the M&E system, setting up and operating supportive computerized

system; facilitating learning in reflective events and managing of communication of

M&E findings. Meeting skills and knowledge needs will require training the staff

(internally or via external course), hiring already trained people. Even the most trained

M&E professional will need to upgrade skills and understanding. Field officers will

require continual skills building as information needs in a project shift and new methods

of data collection and analysis are required (UNDP, 1998)

India, the feedback on M&E from one project reported, “the report has gone into

intensive and continuous training of Project Implementer staff for the adoption of M&E

system and the managers were quite satisfied with the quality and timeliness of reports”

(Lamy and Lessard , 2001).

In Bangladesh, when ADIP Project started discussing the adoption of M&E

system the project did not know how to undertake it. The implanting partners also were

unclear on how to proceed with M&E System. While some partners were implementing

elements of participatory monitoring they had not been selected for their experience with

18
M&E. the project was unable to provide necessary guidance as it had no or strategy on

the adoption of M&E system and did not possess the necessary experience, capacity or

financial resources. Project Manager has always relied on external consultants and so had

no internal skills. To rectify the situation the project managers needed training (Guijt, and

Gaventa, 1998).

In a project in Nepal and Zimbabwe, Project Implementer staffs were trained on

developing an M&E plan. The M&E plan was merged with project management training

needs. Three levels of staff were to be trained, senior management, middle level staff and

field staff below district level and community workers (Lamy and Lessard, 2001).

In Tanzania, one project recognized the adoption of good quality M&E system

among the projects and implementation staff, and attempted this by changing its staff

selection procedure to advertise positions outside the government, rather than only

within. This offered more chance of finding someone with the right qualifications. (Lamy

and Lessard, 2001).

According to Ramesh, et al (2002), Human resources on the project should be

given clear job allocation and designation by fitting their expertise, if they are inadequate

then training for the requisite skills should be arranged. For projects with staff that they

are sent out in the field to carryout project activities on their own there is need for

constant and intensive on site support to the outfield staff.

Hughues and Gibbs et al, (2002), argue that lack of adequate monitoring and

evaluation expertise or capacity among the local NGOs is one area that has been

highlighted by several scholars. The adoption of monitoring and evaluation requires a

specific skills expertise such as monitoring and evaluation design skills particularly log

19
frame design, indicator setting; both qualitative and quantitative, design of data collection

instruments including questionnaires, focus discussion guidance, other necessary skills

include data collection skills such conducting interviews, conducting focus group

discussions, data analysis and report writing skills.

Kelly and Magongo (2004) noted that some of the highlighted skills may be

available in the NGOs but not all of it and in their research they noted that skills such as

advanced data analysis, conducting of focus group discussion, qualitative indicator

setting are very scarce among the Local NGOs in Swaziland. The local NGOs may not be

in a position to procure them implying that these areas that require these skills are not

done and hence the adoption of monitoring and evaluation system is not effectively done.

Gilliam et al, (2003), also argues that this translates into shortage of quality data which

makes decision making on the project to be based on intuition not solid data.

According to Kelly and Magongo (2004), there should be an individual who is

directly in charge of the monitoring and evaluation as a main function. Having staff

clearly designed with monitoring and evaluation system due somebody is available to do

it, and staff appreciate that the project managers value monitoring and evaluation not as a

compliance to the funding agency but as a tool for project management, learning and

improving on the performance of the project.

In Kenya, NGOs projects may not be as effective as claimed, the professional

skills of NGO staff, the accountability of NGOs to the grassroots, strategic planning,

adoption of monitoring and evaluation poorly developed. Project managers should have

asset of knowledge and skills and monitoring and evaluation systems beyond traditional

project financing and management. (ISNAR, 2001).

20
 The level of capacity of project managers can foster the development of

organizational confidence, creativity, independence and effectiveness, improving NGOs

performance and bringing benefits to the communities they serve (Ferri, 2004).

The limited exposure of NGO staff to development-related information and skills

and adoption of M&E system coupled with constraints of donor funding has inhabited the

development of an independent NGO. M&E training tied up with donor funding has put

NGOs in no position to challenge policies and approaches. The predominance of ‘low

quality’ donor funding, i.e. low-level, short-term and Project-specific, means a hand-to-

mouth existence for most NGOs and severely limited opportunities for organizational

growth. On the other hand, higher levels of funding tend to come with high

conditionality. With practically no alternatives for self-sustainability, NGOs are prone to

‘fit the bill’ of what they perceive donors’ expectations to be (Adams and Garbutt,

2008).

Odhiambo (2000), did a study on challenges facing monitoring and evaluation

practices in Kenya. He observed that evaluation has yet to reach acceptable level of

operation, evaluation when carried out, deal move with inputs and outputs than with

impacts. He also noted that there is lack of professionalism on the on the part of qualified

practitioners as there are few academically trained evaluators.

Matanga (2002), did a study on Non-Governmental Organizations and the politics

or rural development in Kenya with particular reference to Western Province, Matanga

(2000), stated that further training of project managers is very critical because they are

overall administrators at the grassroots where NGOs projects are actually implemented.

He used self administered questionnaires. He also used the following respondents;

21
Governmental officials, NGO project managers, NGO beneficiaries and the local people.

This study was different because it used questionnaires, interview schedules and

document analysis guide. This study investigated the knowledge and skills of project

managers and staff on adoption of monitoring and evaluation system for project

management among NGOs in Rarieda District.

2.4 Donor influence and Adoption of monitoring and Evaluation System

NGOs also face a challenge of multiple monitoring and evaluation requirements

in the case of those NGOs with more than one donor or with one that has very stringent

requirements (Gilliam et al, 2003). This translates into excessive burden to the NGOs to

conform to those requirements; this acerbates the problem of stretched capacity on the

project in terms of manpower. These stringent donor funding requirements also

perpetuate the practice of emphasis on upward accountability to the donor with minimum

or no accountability to other stakeholders including the beneficiaries. Disregard to the

beneficiaries and other stakeholders are counterproductive because it results in lack of

ownership of the project and hence the adoption of monitoring and evaluation system

becomes difficult and hence lack of sustainability of project when the donors withdraw

the funding (Gilliam et al, 2003).

In China, the opportunities for NGO lie in their adjustment to international criteria

against the background of globalization. Chinese NGOs are able to receive international

funding and to work according to international donor regulations. In China there are still

nonsufficient Monitoring and Evaluation system to measure the accountability. NGOs

lack strong network of support. The legal framework lacks policy regulations and a

functional legal environment. The existing administrative system also limits the adoption

22
of M&E system in NGO projects. The awareness of civil society is still weak and

donation is government driven (Ming, 2001).

In Kenya, the donors provide a preset monitoring and evaluation reporting of

format that the implementing agency has to adhere to. All that the implementing staff has

to do is collect data that goes into filling this report to passing over to donor. The most

emphasis is on the monitoring and evaluation needs of the donor as opposed to other

stakeholders (World Bank, 2004).

Programme Managers are often asked to develop monitoring and evaluation

systems that measure the aims and objectives of their projects. This apparent straight

forward request immediately leads to a number of problems; first, not enough time is

given to clarify the extremely complex social development objectives stakeholders are

hoping to address within any project, or to establish the logical links between the problem

and purpose statements, the objectives and activities. With little time available objectives

would be developed by the managers themselves, sometimes with limited assistance from

other stakeholders; second, the managers are appointed to manage a project once the

funds have been secured and after the project outline has been developed and the

objectives set-again with no opportunity for their participation or input and little

consideration to integrating a participatory approach to Monitoring and Evaluation. These

problems have resulted to poor or no adoption of monitoring and evaluation system for

project management among NGO projects (Adams, 2001).

The use of ‘pooled funds’ is preferred by some donors in some context. This can

be seen as a compromise modality. Which enables some form of expenditure in

preference to direct budget support. Local funds are a particular form of pooled funds,

23
created to disburse funds locally and are both financing instruments and funding

agencies. These funds are controlled by donors and adoption of M&E system is given the

last priority (Giffen, 2009).

2.5 The need for stakeholder’s involvement and adoption of Monitoring and
Evaluation system

Definition and concept of stakeholder’s participation in development have

evolved over time. Their roots can be traced back to community and popular participation

promoted mainly by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the 1950s and 1960s. In

the late 1970s and 1980s multilateral agencies such as FAO, ILO also began to promote

stakeholder participation in development projects and programmes. The limited success

of many development initiatives was attributed to failure to involve people in the

adoption of monitoring and evaluation system for project management (FAO, 1990,

World Bank, 1998).

The APM body of Knowledge (2006, page 128) defines a project brief as: “A

high level outline of stakeholders needs and requirements for a project,” it also defines

projects success as the satisfaction of the stakeholders needs and is measured by success

criteria set at the beginning of the project. This implies that at the end of the project there

is need to evaluate how successful the project has been in relationship with the earlier set

criterion by the stakeholders.

Monitoring and Evaluation should be Integral components of the project

management cycle including project planning and design. Thinking in terms of

monitoring and evaluation at the design stage facilitates the project stakeholders to think

in terms of performance measurement even before implementation starts with a clear

picture of expectations of what a successful project would look like (PASSIA, 2004).

24
 The World Bank (2004), states that stakeholders should be involved in identifying

the project, the objectives and goals and identification of indicators that will be used in

monitoring and evaluation. The stakeholders are also involved in collection and analysis

of the data and capturing the lessons. The role of the managers of the projects is to

facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process.

The ideal way is the involvement of all stakeholders including the donors,

community, beneficiaries and people involved in the planning and implementation of the

project in all stages of monitoring and evaluation throughout the duration of the project.

In consultation and collaboration with all these, they determine what is to be monitored

and evaluated, how monitoring and evaluation is to take place including identification of

indicators, they do the analysis of the data and assess the performance of the project and

be able to generate guidance on how to proceed with the project (CORE, 2006; and

Bradle et al, 2002).

In Kenya, stakeholders should be involved in the development of projects. This

was tried in 1984 through the District Focus for the Rural Development (DFRD) which

emphasized community participation. However, formal institutions at local levels, chiefs

and councilors were used to the exclusion of other stakeholders thereby leading to

resentment of their programme undertaking (Gulleth, 1991).

Existing literature suggest that lack of stakeholder’s participation in the adoption

of monitoring and evaluation system is the barrier to proper monitoring and evaluation.

Stakeholders participation in the entire project is very critical because it is evident that as

soon as the donors pull out from the project site and technicians leave the project

collapse.

25
 Stakeholders involvement increases the legitimacy of the decision-making process

and reinforcement of democratic practices (NEA, 2004).The project team must also pay

proper attention to the identification and impact assessment of projects decisions made by

stakeholders outside their influence authority (Ireland, 2002). Project monitoring consist

of the collection and interpretation of data and reporting information in relation to the

project plans, planning and requirements, close interaction with the stakeholders is

needed.

Lock (2007), observed that early involvement of stakeholders in the adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system may also pose some disadvantages. The slowing down

of the decision making progress is often mentioned which may turn out costly and very

undesired for in the current economic situation. As the range and nature of stakeholders

in the project monitoring and evaluation will vary, the appropriate means and depth of

dealing with the parties should be properly assessed; spending valuable time on

insignificant stakeholders is money down the drain. An increased number of stakeholders

will mean more influence, so substantial alignment is needed.

Orna and Koning (2003), states that more parties will be disappointed, as not all

wishes may become reality and stakeholders may create excessive expectations. This will

also be the case monitoring the project under time-pressure or without stakeholders; as a

result parties may feel passed-on and demotivated. Stakeholder involvement may also

become entangled when the view and opinion of stakeholder changes over time when

complexity increases and insight may decrease.

Lack of space for key project stakeholders to be involved in the adoption of the

monitoring and evaluation system leaves outcomes and impacts to be measured by

26
‘experts’ who have no vested interest in the success of the project other than for reporting

to senior managers or even donors (INTRAC, 2008).

Allando (2005), did a study on partnership in the design of monitoring and

evaluation for community water projects. He observed that participatory project

monitoring and evaluation is one way through which various stakeholders and especially

the primary stakeholder can be involved in managing the local projects. He used random

sampling technique, information interview, household interviews and direct observation.

This study used questionnaires; interview schedules and document analysis guide. It

investigated the need for stakeholder involvement in the adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system for project management among NGOs in Rarieda District.

Awiti (2001), carried out a study on limits on operation of community action plan:

the challenges of Kusa Development Projects. His objective was to look at the reasons

why action plans formulated together with community members are not fully

implemented or do not adequately meet the expectations of the intended beneficiaries in

the long run. This study was different from the above study because it investigated the

need for stakeholder involvement in the adoption of M&E System for project

management among NGO Project in Rarieda District.

2.6 Theoretical framework

According to Davidson (2008), a theory is a set of properly argued ideas intended

to explain a phenomenal by specifying variables of the laws that relate the variables to

each other. This study was modeled on theory based evaluations. It allowed an in-depth

understanding of a programme or project. It applies a system approach where the success

of an intervention is affected by other factors in the environment which should be

27
identified and how they might interact, it can then be decided which steps should be

monitored as the program develops to see how well they are in fact borne out

Vamopen (1994) as quoted by Aune (2000) argues that planners of the project from the

onset think in terms of measuring performance by identifying the measures and criteria

for success during the planning stage.

2.7 Conceptual framework

This section describes the conceptual framework that guided the study.

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework presented in figure 2.1 below gives the idea of the study.

Independent Variables
Intervening Variable
Financial status
- Funds allocated to M&E Type of donor
- Annual budget

Skills and Knowledge

- No. Of training in M&E
Dependent Variable
- Academic Level
- Experience in M&E Adoption
· Have or Have not
Donor influence
- Criteria for funding
- TA for M& E
- Policy

Need for Stakeholder Location

- Experience in M&E
- No. Of training in M&E
- Academic Level Moderating Variable

Source: Self conceptualized

28
 According to Orodho (2004), a conceptual framework is a model of presentation

where a researcher represents the relationship between variables in the study and show

relationship graphically or diagrammatically. This gave over view of the relationship

between the variables to be tested and their relevance to monitoring and evaluation of

projects.

Conceptual framework for this study was based on the idea that adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system which is of high quality in terms of producing good

results that the project needs, such M&E systems need effective stakeholder involvement,

enough funds allocated to M&E, adequate skills and knowledge on M&E, and limited

donor influence. On the other hand if funds allocated to M&E, is not adequate, no

adequate skills and knowledge on M&E, high donor influence and no stakeholder

involvement then there will be poor or no adoption of M&E system for project

management among NGOs in Rarieda District.

2.8 Summary of Literature Review

The literature captured in this section has been on the concept of factors

influencing adoption of M&E system for project management among NGOs. Good

Project Management depends on the effective monitoring and evaluation system. The

financial status of NGOs and how it influences adoption of M&E system has also been

captured. The literature reviewed has revealed that the financial status greatly influence

the way project performs. Lack of adequate financial resources to carry out monitoring

and evaluation is one of the factors that influence adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system for project management among NGOs. A good number of NGOs

lack adequate funding for their activities, this means that the little resources available

29
are channeled to actual implementation of projects activities; monitoring and evaluation

are looked as an expense that they cannot afford. Lack of funds means that NGOs not be

in a position to bring external evaluators and it also means that they may not be able to

afford computers and any other technology to aid the adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system. The literature has also revealed that what to include in the M &E

budget is not always as clear as in other areas of the project as many functions and

activities overlap with implementation and management activities. So project budget

should be made and should provide a clear adequate provision for monitoring and

evaluation activities.

Staff knowledge and skills has also been considered. Literature reviewed has

revealed that Project Implementer staff should acquire knowledge and skills in M&E to

enhance project performance. The literature reviewed has also revealed that for an

effective adoption of M&E system you need skilled people who can fulfill the M&E

functions and tasks. Key tasks includes designing the outline of the M&E system. It

has also revealed that human resources on the project should be given a clear job

allocation and designation by fitting their expertise, if they are inadequate then training

for the requisite skills should be arranged. It has also revealed that lack of adequate

M&E expertise or capacity among the local NGOs is one area that has been highlighted

by several scholars . The adoption of M&E system requires specific skills such as

advance data analysis. Qualitative indicator setting that are very scarce among the local

NGOs. The local NGOs may not be in a position to procure them implying that these

areas that require these skill are not done and hence adoption of M&E is not effectively

done. It was also noted that M&E has yet to reach acceptable level of operation, so

30
further training of the implementer staff is very critical so as to foster the development

of NGOs and bring benefits to the communities they serve.

Donor influence and adoption of M&E system has also been considered. The

literature has also captured details on how donors influence adoption of M & E system.

It has been realized that NGOs also face a challenge of multiple monitoring and

evaluation requirement, in the case of those NGOs with every stringent requirements.

This translates into excessive burden to the NGOs to conform those requirements. This

stringent donor funding requirement also perpetuate the practice of emphasis on upward

accountability to the donor with minimum or no accountability to other stakeholder.

The literature has also revealed that program managers are often asked to develop M& E

system that measures the aims and objectives of their projects. This apparent straight

forward request leads to a number of problems. First, no enough time is given to clarify

some statement, objectives and activities that are supposed to be carried out in projects.

Second, the mangers are appointed once the funds have been secured and after the project

outline has been developed and the objectives set again with no opportunity for their

participation. These problems have resulted to poor or no adoption of M& E system for

project management among NGOs projects.

The need for stakeholders involvement and adoption of M&E system. The

literature has also captured the need for stakeholder involvement in adoption of M&E

system.

31
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Methodology describes the overall approach design .It is a strategy or a plan of

action that links methods to outcome. It governs choice and use of methods (Creswell,

2003). This section outlined research design, target population, sample selection and

sample size, research instruments, validity of the instruments, reliability of instruments,

data collection procedures data analysis techniques and ethical consideration.

3.2 Research design

Descriptive survey design was adopted for this study. This design was suitable for

the study since questionnaires, interview schedule and document analysis guide was used

to collect data. This design was guided by contingency theory of Fiedler (1967), who

points out that effective project performance could only be achieved by matching the

manager to the situation or by changing the situation. The main advantage of this type of

design is that it enabled the researcher to assess the situation within the study area at that

time (Kothari, 2003). In the context of this research, researcher sought to investigate

factors influencing adoption of monitoring and evaluation system among NGO projects.

3.3 Target population

The study was carried out in Rarieda District, Siaya County. Rarieda district is

one of the districts in Siaya County. The district has a geographical area of 644 km2 of

which 399.6 km2 island while 244.4 km2 is covered with water. It borders Bondo district

to the North – West, Kisumu to the East, Rachuonyo, Homabay and Suba Districts across

Lake Victoria. The district has two administrative divisions namely: Madiany and

Rarieda (Republic of Kenya, 2002). Rarieda District had a population of 122,000 people
32
in 2010. By 2011, Rarieda District had a total of 32 NGOs projects with at least 161

employees (District Gender, Children and Social Development Office 2011). These

projects are distributed over the two divisions. The inhabitants of this district are mainly

Luos whose economic activities are farming and fishing. The target population consisted

of 32 NGO projects.

3.4 Sample size and sample selection

The study used the following sample size and sample selection.

3.4.1 Sample size

A total number of 161 of all the employees of NGOs were used for the study.

Census survey was adopted. This means that there was no sample size for project

managers, project monitoring and evaluation officers and Project Implementer staff used

in this study because these respondents were drawn from all the 32 NGO projects. A

sample of District M&E Officer was involved.

3.4.2 Sample selection

Purposive sampling was used to select 32 project managers, 32 monitoring and

evaluation officials, 96 Project Implementer staff and 1 district M&E officer. The

researcher used purposive sampling technique based on clear judgment that would yield

considerable data needed information-rich cases.

33
A summary of the study population and sample size in Rarieda District as shown in table

3.1

Table 3.1 Study Population and Sample Size

Categories of respondents study population sample size

Project Managers 32 32
Project M&E Officers 32 32
Project Implementer Staff 96 96
District M&E Officer 1 1
Total 161 161

Source: District Gender, Children and Social Development Office

3.5 Research Instruments

The investigation was done using questionnaires, interview schedule and

document analysis guide to meet the objectives. The questionnaires included both closed

and open ended questions. The questionnaires were administered to all project managers,

project monitoring and evaluation officers and project implementer staff. Shao (1999), a

questionnaire is a formal set of questions or statements designed to gather information

from the respondents that accomplish research objectives.

In this respect, the questionnaires were answered by the project managers, project

M&E officers, project implementer staff that enabled us to know more about practices of

the particular projects and the way they monitor and evaluate their projects. There were

four types of questionnaires in this study namely; questionnaire for project managers,

M&E officers and Project implementer staff.

34
 The project managers for questionnaires had four sections. Section A dealt with

demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as age, sex, level of Education.

Section B included information related to sources of information about financial status of

NGOs. Section C included information related to sources of information about donor

influence and section D included information related to the need for stakeholder

involvement in the adoption of M&E system. This approach was followed in project

M&E officers, project implementer staff questionnaires as well as the interview schedule

for District M&E Officer. The instruments were adopted from Odhiambo (2000) but

modified to suit the present study. The questionnaires are attached to appendix B, C, D,

E, F

Interview schedule was used as supplementary instrument to the questionnaires. It

provided additional information which could not otherwise be obtained from the

questionnaire. This varied with particular persons in specific circumstances and helped to

ascertain opinion and attitude of the respondents. An interview schedule assisted the

researcher in recording appropriate information. The guide had leading simple statements

or questions to direct the interview in a way that maximum information was obtained at

minimum time.

The researcher requested project managers to avail relevant documents on

monitoring and evaluation for verification. The researcher studied monitoring and

evaluation plan, circulars on M&E from the donors, the budget, inventory on purchases

of equipment used for implementing projects and monitoring and evaluation findings.

35
3.5.1 Pilot Testing of Research Instruments

The purpose of pre – testing was to asses clarity of the instruments, validity and

reliability of each of the items in the questionnaire and sustainability of the language used

in the instruments (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). Drafted questionnaire items were

piloted in order to avoid threats of reliability revealing vague questions and unclear

instruments. Mugenda theory of 10% of the total target population was used to arrive at

four projects. To determine the reliability of the instruments, the test – retest method was

used to estimate the degree to which the same results could be obtained with repeated

measures of the same concepts. To do these, questionnaires were given to the respondents

from the two projects in Madiany Division and two from Rarieda Division. The field

officers took the respondents through all the questions in the questionnaires to make them

understand how to respond to the questions. They assured the respondents of

confidentiality and anonymity of the information imparted.

The researcher asked the respondents to mark out the unclear questions and make

suggestions for improvement. The answered questionnaires were scored and the

improved questionnaires were given after two weeks and the answers were again scored.

A comparison between the answers was done. Reliability co – efficient was calculated

and it was 0.5 that indicated that the instrument was valid.

3.5.2 Validity of the instruments

According to Borg and Gall (1996), validity is the degree to which a test measures

what it purports to measure. Face validity of the research instruments was used because it

is the only type validity that is relevant as far as the nature and the purpose of the

questionnaires and interview schedules are concerned. To ensure face validity of the

36
research instruments, members of the department who are experts in the area of study

scrutinized the research instruments. Their input was used in the final draft.

3.5.3 Reliability of the research instruments

Reliability is the measure of the degree to which a research instrument yields

consistent results on data after repeated trials (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). A reliable

instrument is one that produces consistent result when used more than once to collect data

from samples drawn from same population. To ensure reliability of the research

instruments, a pilot study was carried out in four projects prior to going out for the actual

research. Test – retest was used to estimate the degree to which the same results could be

obtained with repeated measures of the same concepts. To do these, questionnaires

were given to the respondents from the two projects in Madiany Division and two from

Rarieda Division. The field officers took the respondents through all the questions in the

questionnaires to make them understand how to respond to the questions. They assured

the respondents of confidentiality and anonymity of the information imparted.

The researcher asked the respondents to mark out the unclear questions and make

suggestions for improvement. The answered questionnaires were scored and the

improved questionnaires were given after two weeks and the answers were again scored.

A comparison between the answers was done. Reliability co – efficient was calculated

and it was 0.5 that indicated that the instrument was valid.

3.6 Data collection procedures

The researcher obtained an introductory letter from the University and this was

used to get a permit from National Council for Science and Technology (NCST). The

researcher booked appointments with project managers of the selected projects within the
37
district and arranged for the date for data collection. The researcher personally

administered the questionnaires for both the (pre – test) and the main research. The

researcher administered the instruments and collected them later. This gave respondents

reasonable time to answer the instruments well by giving the appropriate information

required for the study.

3.7: Data Analysis Techniques

Data was analyzed using descriptive survey design (Grinnel 1993). The

descriptive analysis was appropriate for this study because it involved the description

analysis and interpretation of circumstances prevailing at the time of study. Descriptive

statistics that is frequencies, percentages and means were used to describe and summarize

data. Information from the questionnaire and interviews were coded, variables

transformed and relevant data put into computer for statistical analysis, frequencies and

percentages of responses were calculated for each item category on the selected factors.

Frequency tables and means were used to summarize the data. Information from

in depth interviews was organized in themes, categories and analyzed qualitatively using

direct questions from District M&E Officer, information from project records on

monitoring and evaluation activities was used to complement and cross check data

collected using the main instruments.

The item on attitude and scale was coded using score value of the likert type of

scales. The data was tallied and changed into percentages which were analyzed according

to the degree of their response. Likert scales are a source of big debate in the academic

that has ranged on for almost half a century (Villeman and Wilkinson, 1993). Some

authors find the data means and standard deviations while some of the questions were

38
analyzed using frequencies developed by the Havard Psychologist of ordinal, interval

nominal and ration data with the “appropriate and permissible” statistical procedures to

be misleading, not appropriate for all the different data (Villeman and Wilkinson, 1993).

Scholars have argued that likert scale data like the one that was used in this survey for

some of the question can be assumed and analyzed like internal data with means and

standard deviations (Hand and Keynes, 1993).

3.8 Ethical Consideration

The researcher first obtained data collection authorization from the National

Council of Science and Technology. Permission was then sorted from the Ministry of

Education Science and Technology to carry research in Rarieda District. A copy of

MOEST permission letter was forwarded to the D.E.O Rarieda District. Potential

interviewees were presented with consent forms. The consent form described the type of

study being done, its purpose, rights of all participants with special emphasis on

participant’s confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study as deemed

necessary. An assurance was given to the participants on confidentiality of their

information by asking them not to include their names or any form of identification on

the questionnaires. The researcher organized for preliminary visits to the sampled

projects to verbally explain the purpose and importance of the study and to predict some

challenges that would come with data collection.

39
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents data analysis in the following themes: response return data,

demographic characteristics of the respondents, influence of financial status of NGOs on

adoption of M&E system, influence of staff knowledge and skills on adoption of M&E

system, donor influence on adoption of M&E system and the need for stakeholder

involvement in adoption of M&E system.

4.2 Questionnaire return rate

Questionnaires were given to 32 Projects, whose names were obtained from

District Gender Children and Social Development Office (2012). A total of 160

respondents were given questionnaires. After giving out the questionnaires, visits were

made to the projects in order to persuade them to participate in the study. This was

necessary in order to increase the response rate to an acceptable level. Different authors

define the prescribe acceptable response rate for the survey. Baruch (2004) analyzed 175

surveys as reported in academic journals and found an average response rate at 36.1%

with a standard deviation of 13.1%. In this study the 32 organizations that were targeted,

31 completed and returned the questionnaires. This shows that a total of 155 respondents

returned the questionnaires. Table 4.1 shows the response rate of the study.

40
Table 4.1: The response rate of the study

Rate Respondents Percentage

Response 155 96.9
Non response 5 3.1
Total 160 100

Table 4.1 shows that the response rate was approximately 96.9%. This response

rate is higher than the average rate of academic survey done among organizations

(Baruch, 2004).

4.3: Demographic characteristics of the respondents

This section described the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The

demographic information was collected on gender, age, level of education, occupation of

the respondents, the duration for which they have been carrying out their projects and the

nature of project implemented by the NGOs. These results were presented as follows in

six themes mainly: the respondents’ gender, respondents’ age, respondents’ level of

education, respondents’ occupation and respondent’s participation.

4.3.1: Distribution of the respondents by gender

The study found it important to analyze gender distribution of the respondent.

This was important because the study wanted to compare the level of participation in

adoption of M&E system. Due to this, the respondents were asked to state the gender and

the result were given in table 4.2

41
Table 4.2 Distribution of the respondents by gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 115 74.2
Female 40 25.8
Total 155 100

Table 4.2 shows that majority of respondents 115 (74.2%) were of the male sex

while 40 (25.8%) were females. This indicated that there are more males than females in

monitoring and evaluation section.

This can be explained that projects have recognized the adoption of good quality

M&E system among the projects and implementation staff, and have attempted this by

changing its staff selection and procedure to advertise positions outside the government,

rather than only within. This offered more chances of employing more male than female

because of the right qualification and experience they have. (Lamy. and Lessard, 2001).

4.3.2: Distribution of respondents by age

The researcher found it very necessary to understand the age distribution of the

respondents. This was because it could provide background for analysis of the factors

influencing adoption of M&E system. For this purpose, the respondents were asked to

state their ages and results were presented in table 4.3

Table 4.3 Distribution of respondents by age

Age of respondents Frequency Percentage

18 – 28 22 14.2
29 – 39 58 37.4
40 – 49 50 32.3
50 and above 25 16.1
Total 155 100

42
 Table 4.3 shows that majority of the respondents, 37.4% were between the age of

29 to 39 while 32.3% were between the age of 40 to 49 and 14.2% were between the age

of 18 to 28 and 16.1% were 50 years and above.

It is evident that in terms of the human resources the NGOs did not have

experienced personnel at their disposal for the projects they implemented. Most of the

local NGO projects relied on inexperienced personnel (employing staff aged 18 – 39) as

opposed to experienced personnel (employing staff aged 40 – 50). This is explained by

the fact that most of the projects could not attract a lot of experienced personnel since

they could not be able to adequately pay them because M&E budget is not always clear

as many M&E functions and activities overlap with implementation and management

activities. It is critical to include M&E cost in the management cost and so M&E cost

should be stated clearly. Managers should avoid putting M&E under the heading “Project

Management” as this made it very unclear what is available for the adoption of M&E

system (Lamy and Lessard , 2001).

4.3.3: Distribution of the respondents by level of education

The study found it necessary to analyze the level of education of the respondents

who have participated in monitoring and evaluation of the project. This was considered as

very important because the level of education also determines the level of understanding

of M&E system. Respondents were asked their level of education and the results of the

analysis were summarized in table 4.4

43
Table 4.4: Distribution of the respondents by level of education

Level of Project PM&E Officers Project Total

Education Manager Implementer Staff
Freq per Freq per Freq per Freq per
Certificate 5 16.1 8 25.8 82 88.2 95 61.3
Diploma 18 58.1 20 64.5 11 11.8 49 31.6
Degree 8 25.8 3 9.7 0 0 11 7.1
Master and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
above

Table 4.4 shows that majority of the respondents who had participated in adoption

of M&E system 61.3% had certificate level of education followed by 31.6% who had

diploma level of education and 7.1% had degree education. Therefore the study

established that 25.8% of project managers had bachelor of degrees certificates while

58.1% had attained diploma education while 61.1% had attained certificate education and

none had attained master degree. The study further established that 9.7% of PM&E

Officers had a bachelor of degree certificate while 64.5% had attained diploma level of

education while 25.8% had attained certificate level of education and none had attained

master degree. 11.8% of Project Implementer Staff had diploma education while 88.2%

had certificate education and none had attained degree and master degree.

According to the findings of this study, there is lack of professionalism on the part

of qualified practitioners and there are few academically trained evaluators. Those who

carry out evaluations do not have any characteristics of expert’s evaluators. For a long

time in the government there has been no central monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of

programs and projects, except for financial auditing. The support that monitoring and

evaluation system can offer when adopted in institutional development is often not fully

understood (Odhiambo, 2000). This explains why most of the monitoring and evaluation
44
staff are certificate and diploma holders. This also indicate that human resources on the

project should be given a clear job allocation and designation by fitting their expertise, if

most of them are certificate and diploma holders the training for the requisite skills

should be arranged (Ramesh, et, al, 2002).

Lack of adequate financial resources to carry out monitoring and evaluation was

one of the factors that influenced the adoption of monitoring and evaluation system. A

good number of NGOs lack adequate funding for their activities; monitoring and

evaluation are looked at as an expense that they cannot afford and so employing most of

the certificate and diploma holders enabled them to pay low wages than employing the

degree and master holders who will require high wages (Gibbs et al, 2002 and Gilliam et

al, 2003).

4.3.4: Distribution of the respondents by occupation

One hundred and sixty staff who works in projects was interviewed to find out

their current positions. The study sort to establish the current position of the staff. To

answer this, a question of their current position was asked and the responses are in table

4.5

Table 4.5 distribution of the respondents by occupation

Responses Frequency Percentage

Project Managers 31 20
PM&E Officers 31 20
Project Implementer Staff 93 60
Total 155 100

45
 Table 4.5 shows that 20% of the respondents were project managers, 20% were

PM&E Officers and 60% of the respondents were project implementers.

This is explained by the fact that there should be an individual who is directly in

charge of monitoring and evaluation as a main function. Having staff clearly designed

with monitoring and evaluation system, somebody is available to do the management and

implementer staff appreciates that project M&E officers and project managers value

monitoring and evaluation not as a compliance to the funding agency but as a tool for

project management (Kelly and Magongo, 2004). So project managers and PM&E

officers should have a set of knowledge and skills of monitoring and evaluation system

beyond project financing and management (ISNAR, 2001). Project managers are often

asked to develop monitoring and evaluation systems that measure the aims and objectives

of their project. This would enable implementer staff to go out and evaluate the project

activities effectively (Adams, 2001).

4.3.5: Distribution of the respondents’ in terms of the duration of their projects

The study found it important to analyze the duration for which the projects have

been carried out. This was considered as important because the duration also determines

the extent to which monitoring and evaluation has been carried out on the projects.

Respondents were asked the duration of their projects and the result of their analysis was

summarized in table 4.6.

46
Table 4.6: The distribution of the respondents’ in terms of the duration of their

projects

Duration Frequency Percentage

0–3 0 0
4–5 80 51
7–9 40 26
10 and above 35 23
Total 155 100

Table 4.6 Shows that majority of the respondents, 77% (51% + 26%) have been

implementing socio – economic mitigation (care of orphans, widows, elderly) and

HIV/AIDS projects for five years and above. There was significant increase in the

number of organizations carrying out these activities over time. This can be attributed to

the increasing community needs as the HIV/AIDS pandemic grew over time. There is

also an increased number of NGOs at the time when the global fund provided funds to the

NGOs; the increase can be attributed to desire by the civil society to tap into this money

and use it in projects that were not within the schedule.

Findings of the study, corroborate this argument, activities of some NGOs were

suspended or scaled back when the global cut off its funding for other project activities

According to Korach (2003), there are about two million operating NGOs. This

has spawned demand for greater transparency among government, funders and the public.

So there has been a growing concern about identifying the achievements of NGOs. This

has been evident in the literature on the monitoring and evaluation of NGO activities.

There have been reports in the media decrying the inadequate monitoring and evaluation

of projects implemented by NGOs (Crawford, 2004). For example the USD 18 million

was approved and provided by the global funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

47
There was an outcry on how the resources were being used because it became very

difficult to come to persuasive conclusion about the result of their work (Crawford,

2004). The findings of this study corroborate this argument and activities of some NGOs

were suspended or scaled back when the global reduced its funding.

4.3.6: Distribution of the respondents by nature of projects implemented by NGOs

Data for this was analyzed using frequencies. The respondents were asked which type of

project activities they were implementing. The result of the analysis was summarized in

table 4.7

Table 4.7: Distribution of the respondents by nature of projects implemented by

NGOs

Type of projects Frequency Percentage

implemented
Care and support of sick 10 7
(CCS)
Human Rights and Advocacy 15 10
(HRA)
Socio – economic Mitigation 50 32
(SEC) (Care of Orphans,
Widows and Elderly )
Behavioral Change Com 25 16
(BCC)
Adolescent Reproductive 20 13
Health Project (ARH)
23
HIV/AIDS Project 35
Total 155 100

Table 4.7 Shows that most NGOs were implementing more than one type of

project. The table illustrates that socio – economic mitigation projects are the most

frequent. These projects were identified by 32% of the respondents as the projects they

48
were involved in. This can be explained as the donors are putting a lot of funds on taking

care of the orphans, widows and elderly. The prevention of new infections as the most

way of defeating HIV/AIDS (NACA, 2003) was identified by 23% of the respondents.

Behavioral change communication activities were identified by 16%. BCC activities do

not need a lot of resources in terms of man power and finances and they can cover a large

area. The least implemented projects were: Care and support of the sick with only 7%.

CSS require a lot of resources to have a big reach in terms of coverage. This explained

lack of funds to increase their catchment area; Human Rights and Advocacy Projects with

only 10% of the projects implemented by them. This can be attributed to the fact that the

human rights based approach to HIV/AIDS is a relatively new concept (Ilako et al, 2004)

and that it requires expertise that is lacking within the NGOs.

After examining the distribution of the respondents the subsequent sections

highlight and discuss the findings of the research under the various themes: Financial

status of NGOs, Staff knowledge and skills, Donor influence and the need for

Stakeholder involvement on adoption of M&E system.

4.4: Financial status of NGOS and adoption of monitoring and evaluation system

One of the objectives was to examine the extent to which financial status of

NGOs influence adoption M&E system in the projects. To achieve this objective,

respondents were asked to respond to various questions under the following sub-themes:

annual budget and funds allocated to M&E.

According to this study, there is lack of professionalism on the part of qualified

practitioners and there are few academically trained evaluators. Thos who carry out

evaluations do not have any characteristics of expert evaluations for a long time in the

49
government there has been no central monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programs and

projects, except financial auditing. The support that monitoring and evaluation system

can offer when adopted in institutional development is often not fully understood.

(Odhiambo, 2000).

4.4.1: Annual Budget and adoption of monitoring and evaluation system

The findings related to NGO budget are discussed under the following sub –

headings, size of budget, source of donor funds and extent of donor contribution to the

NGO budget.

Size of budget

Table 4.8 illustrates the response to the question that sought to determine the size

of the budget in different projects in Rarieda District that was spent in the previous year

by the NGOs.

Table 4.8: Size of the NGO budget spent in the previous year.

NGO Budget Frequency Percentage

Less than 50,000 00 00
50,000 – 99,999 15 10
100,000 – 149,000 15 10
150,000 – 199,999 75 48
200,000 – 250,000 25 16
250,000 and above 25 16
Total 155 100

Table 4.8 Shows that 84% (64% + 10% + 10%) of the respondents had an annual

budget of less than 250,000. Only 16% of the respondents had a budget of 250,000 and

above. It is evident that majority of the NGOs had small budgets to spend on different

50
project activities e.g. HIV/AIDS activities. This can be attributed to lack of funds from

donors or recent suspension of funding from the global funds (BOPA 2006, and

Motlaloso, 2006).

Extent of donor contribution

The contribution in percentage of donors to the total budget spent on project

activities. The response are shown in table 4.9

Table 4.9: Extent of donor contribution to NGO budget

Donor contribution to NGO budget Frequency Percentage

0 – 25% 10 7
26 – 50% 30 19
51 – 75% 0 0
76 – 100% 115 74
Total 155 100

Table 4.9 shows that 74% of the respondents received between 76 – 100 percent of their

budget from donors. Only 26% (19% + 7%) had a donor contribution of less than 50% of

their budgets. It is evident that most of the NGOs are heavily reliant on donors to fund

their projects. This is highly disadvantageous in that in case the donors withdraw their

funding as was the case with the global fund, the activities of the NGO would stall

(BODA, 2006; and Matlaloso, 2006).

51
Donor source of funding

Table 4.10: Donor source of funding to the NGO projects.

Source of Funding Frequency Percentage

International Donor 21 64.5
Agencies 18 58.1
Government Bodies 10 32.3
Corporate Companies 13 42.0
Private Donors 3 9.7
No Funding 00 00

Table 4.10 shows that projects had more than one source of donor funding for their

project activities. Of which 9.7% indicated that they did not have any donor funding for

their activities. The most frequent source was from donors with a percentage of 64.5%.

The least frequent source was from corporate companies with a percentage of 32.3%.

4.4.2: Funds allocated to adoption of monitoring and evaluation system.

The findings related to funds allocated to M&E system are discussed under the

following sub headings: M&E budget, contribution in percentage of donor to the total

budget spent on adoption of M&E system and availability of adequate funds for

monitoring and evaluation.

Monitoring and Evaluation Budget

The respondents were probed for whether monitoring and evaluation system had a

separate budget with a special vote within the project budget. Table 4.11 shows the

findings to the question.

52
Table 4.11: Monitoring and Evaluation Budgets.

M&E Budget Respondents Percentage

Separate budget 10 6.5
Budget not separate 145 93.5
Total 155 100

Table 4.11 show that 93.4% of the respondents did not have a separate budget

with a special vote arrangement for monitoring and evaluation system. This means that

the majority of the NGOs did not have a clear and separate financial provision for

monitoring and evaluation system. The implication of this is that monitoring and

evaluation system was not given the due recognition they deserve (Gyorko, 2003; and Mc

Coy et al, 2005) and monitoring and evaluation system were only done at the whims of

the project managers, this would result to some activities not being done at all. This

would result in effective and inadequate adoption of monitoring and evaluation system in

projects.

4.4.3 Contribution in percentage of donor to the total budget spent on adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system.
The respondents were probed for the contribution in percentage of donors to the

total budget spent on adoption of monitoring and evaluation system last year. The

findings to these questions are shown in table 4.12.

53
Table 4.12: Monitoring and Evaluation budget constitution to total budget

Donors contribution to the total budget Frequency Percentage

0 – 25% 40 26
26 – 55% 10 6
56 – 75% 20 13
76 – 100% 0 0
No specific percentage 85 55
Total 155 100

Table 4.12 shows that 55% of the respondents did not have specific percentage of

budgetary allocation to monitoring and evaluation system. This was the majority of the

respondents. 26% of the respondents had budgetary allocation of less than 25% assigned

to monitoring and evaluation system. Only 19% (13% + 6%) had the recommended

budgetary allocation range of 26% to 75% (Kelly and Magongo, 2004: IFRC, 2001: and

AIDS alliance, 2006). It is evident that majority of the respondents did not allocate the

optimum budget for adoption of monitoring and evaluation system. This had the effect

that monitoring and evaluation of activities suffered a risk of being missed since majority

of the respondents did not have any specific budgetary allocation to them.

Availability of adequate funds

The study sought to establish the availability of finances amongst the respondents

to adoption of monitoring and evaluation system. The findings were summarized in table

4.13

54
Table 4.13: Findings to the monitoring and evaluation issues

Items Mean SD Interpretation

Item 2.5: Adequate funds 3.00 1.95 Finances not adequate
Item 3.4: Impact of training 2.25 0.76 No impact of training
Item 3.5: Types of evaluation
Mid term 3.01 0.82 Strong agreement on
Summative 1.45 1.21 summative evaluation
Item 4.3: Funding requirements 1.29 0.49 Strong agreement on
funding requirement
Item 4.4: Reporting requirements 1.30 0.46 Very strict donor
requirement
Item 4.5: Release of donor funds 2.20 0.73 Mixed opinion

Table 4.13 Shows that the mean score was 3.00 interpreted to mean that the

NGOs faced a challenge of inadequate finances to adopt monitoring and evaluation

system in projects they implement. These findings were consistent with the findings of

Gibbs et al, 2002: and Gilliam et al, 2003). However a standard deviation of 1.95 implied

a wide variation in response with some reporting that they had adequate finances and

others to the contrary.

Without adequate finances the NGOs are forced to scale back on some of the

monitoring and evaluation activities they were supposed to carry out. This would have an

implication of inadequate and in effective monitoring and evaluation system in most of

the projects the respondents implemented.

4.5: Staff knowledge and skills and adoption of monitoring and evaluation
system
The second objective of the study was to determine the level at which staff

knowledge and skills influence adoption of M&E system for project management among
55
NGOs in Rarieda District. To achieve this objective, respondents were asked to respond

to various items under the following themes: number of training in M&E, academic level

and experience in M&E.

4.5.1: Number of training in M&E

The researcher found it very necessary to analyze the number of training in M&E.

this was considered important because the number of trained staff on M&E will influence

the adoption of M&E system. Respondents were asked if they have attended any training

on management of projects, monitoring and evaluation and the duration of training. The

respondents were categorized into trained staff and non trained staff. The findings to the

items are shown in table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Monitoring and Evaluation Staff

Number of M&E Staff Trained staff Non trained staff

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

0–3 30 19.4 10 6.5

4–7 108 69.7 16 10.3

8 – 11 12 7.7 23 14.8

Over 11 5 3.2 106 68.4

Total 155 100 155 100

Table 4.14 shows that 89.1% (69.7% + 19.4%) of the respondents had less than

seven trained M&E staff. Only 10.9% (7.7% + 3.2%) of the respondents had more than

56
eight trained M&E staff. The table further shows that 83.2% (68.4% + 14.8) of the

respondents had more than eight untrained staff and only 16.8% (6.5% + 10.3%) had less

than seven untrained M&E staff. It is clear that in terms of trained M&E staff the NGOs

did not have adequate trained personel at their disposal for the adoption of M&E System.

They relied on untrained M&E staff as opposed to trained personnel. This explained by

the fact that M&E was a new concept amongst the NGOs. This can be explained that

most projects started discussing the adoption of M&E system as the projects did not

know how to undertake it. The implementation partners were also unclear on how to

proceed with adoption of M&E system. While some projects were implementing

elements of participatory monitoring. The projects were unable to provide necessary

guidance as it had no or strategy on the adoption of M&E system and did not possess the

necessary experience, capacity or financial resources. Project managers always relied on

external consultations and so had no internal skills. To rectify the situation the project

managers needed training to be well conversant with the concept of M&E (Guijt and

Gaventa, 1998).

The findings of the study shows that some of the highlighted skills may be

available in the NGOs projects but not all of it. In their research they noted that skills

such as advanced data analysis were not available in most of the projects and so local

NGOs may not adopt M&E system effectively (Kelly and Magongo, 2004).

The study also shows that lack of adequate monitoring and evaluation expertise

among the local NGOs, is one area that has been highlighted by several scholars. The

adoption of M&E requires a specific skills and expertise such as monitoring and

evaluation design skills particularly log frame design and indicator setting (Hughues and

Gibbs et al, 2002).

57
 According to lamy and Lessar, (2001), it is very unclear, the percentage allocated

for the adoption of M&E system and so it seems to be a new concept in most of the NGO

projects.

Adams, (2008) stated that none of the projects have a clear allocation of the funds

for adoption monitoring and evaluation system so it seems to be a new concept in most of

the projects. Some respondents observed that donors do not support this area of training.

This can also be viewed as NGOs could not attract a lot of trained M&E staff since they

could not be able to adequately remunerate them as illustrated by the findings of the

research which showed that big percentage of NGOs had a budget of 250,000 and below.

Despite the fact that trained M&E staff the NGOs had were limited, it is imperative that

their deployment on monitoring and evaluation of project activities is managed and

controlled effectively if the projects were to achieve their objectives.

4.5.2: Staff Experience in Monitoring and Evaluation

The study found it necessary to analyze the experience of the respondents who
have participated in monitoring and evaluation of the projects. This was considered
important because the experience of M&E staff influence adoption of M&E system. The
result were summarized in table 4.15.

Table 4.15 Staff Experience in M&E

Years Frequency Percentage .

Below 1 year 45 29.0

2–6 60 38.7

7 – 10 30 19.4

11 and above 20 12.9 .

Total 155 100 .

58
 Table 4.15 shows that 67.7% (29.0% + 38.7%) of the respondents had less than

six years of experience. Only 32.3% (19.4% + 12.9%) had more than seven years of

experience in M&E. it is evident that experienced M&E staff the NGOs have is not

adequate. This is explained by the fact that there is loss of experienced personnel due to

high staff turnover. This could be associated with lack of financial resources to

adequately train them and remunerate them so the staff opt for greener pastures.

Lamy (2001), stated that the cost and resources of the adoption of the M&E

system is USD 13,173. The annual budget includes specific training for staff in the M&E

techniques, extra meetings with stakeholders for designing M&E system; addition

meetings for local level analysis, short training workshop on key steps in designing M&E

and specific elements such as indicators and methods. This indicates that there is lack of

financial resources allocated for training M&E staff and most of them do not have

enough experience to adopt M&E system.

Lamy and Lessard, (2001) observed that funds allocated for the adoption of M&E

system is 370,700 out of the total project funds which is 26,742 and 700 (1.4%) and in

some projects funds allocated for M&E is 582,676 out of the total budget which is 34,

491, 969 (1.7%). This indicates clearly that many projects lack financial resources to

adequately train the M&E and remunerate them well.

A monitoring and evaluation budget should be clearly delimited within the overall

project budget to give the adoption of M&E system due recognition in the project

management (Gyorkos, 2003 and Mc Coy et al, 2005). This will enable M&E staff to

have adequate training and be remunerated well and this will lead to effective

management of the projects.

59
4.5.3: The impact of training on the project management

The study sought to determine from a few respondents who have undergone

training ease of demonstrating the impact of their training on the projects they

implemented. Table 4.13 shows that the mean score for this issue was 2.25 and standard

deviation 1.15 interpreted to mean a mixed opinion amongst the respondents. There is no

clear opinion on whether they considered it very high or moderate impact. The findings

are inconsistent with those of Riddel et al, (1997) as cited by Rick, (2001). He found that

NGOs had a big challenge of demonstrating impact of trained personnel on the adoption

of monitoring and evaluation system for which they sought funding. Failure to

demonstrate impact of M&E system project management has implications that the NGOs

find it hard to source more funding from the donors who may be of the view that the

projects were not effective.

4.5.4: Type of evaluations carried on projects

The study sought to determine how often the respondents carried out midterm

evaluations of the projects they implemented. Table 4.13 shows that this item had a mean

of 3.01 implying that this practice was not done by the respondents. The standard

deviation of 0.82 implies that there was a minimum variation amongst the respondents

with majority of them not carrying out these evaluations.

Midterm evaluations enable the project manager to assess the performance of the

project before its completion. It may seek to determine whether the project will achieve

its objectives, the continued relevance. Failure to carry out midterm evaluations means

that the projects were not assessed midway before completion to enable the project

managers to determine issues such as continued relevance, probability of achieving

60
project objectives, performance with a view of rectifying any problems that could have

arisen. The study also sought to determine how often the respondents carry out

summative evaluation (end of project evaluation). Table 4.13 shows that the mean score

for this item was 1.45, implying that this type of evaluation was done on the projects

implemented by the respondents. Summative evaluations are carried out at the end of the

project with the objective of determining how the project progressed, what went right and

what went wrong, capture any lessons learned and also determine the impact and success

in achieving the objectives of the project. The respondents consistently carried out these

evaluations on their projects giving them an opportunity to capture any lessons learned to

benefit future projects. A standard deviation of 1. 21 implies a wide variation amongst

respondents.

4.6: Donor influence and adoption of monitoring and evaluation

The third objective of the study was to assess how donors influence adoption of

M&E system for project management. To achieve this objective respondents were

requested to respond to various items under the following sub-themes: technical

assistance for M&E, criteria for funding and policy formulation.

4.6.1: Technical assistance

The study sought to determine opinion of respondents on the level of availability

of monitoring and evaluation technical assistance among NGOs. The respondents were

asked about the availability of technical assistance in project. The result of the analysis

was summarized in table 4.16.

61
Table 4.16: Findings to the availability of technical assistance

Technical Assistance Mean SD Interpretation

Availability of technical assistance 3.05 1.12 Expertise not available
How often they are involved 2.49 1.08 Inconsistently done

The table 4.16 shows that the mean score for this question was 3.05 to mean that

the technical assistance was not available amongst the NGOs. However, a standard

deviation of 1.12 implies a wide variation amongst the respondents. Lack of adequate

monitoring and evaluation technical assistance among the local NGOs in one area that

has been highlighted by several scholars (Hughes, 2002: Gibbs et al, 2002: and Kelly and

Magongo 2004). Monitoring and evaluation requires specific skills particularly log frame

design, indicator setting: both qualitative and quantitative, design of data collecting

instrument including questionnaires, focus discussion guides (Hughes, 2002: Gibbs et al,

2002).

Kelly and Magongo (2004), noted that skills such as advanced data analysis, conducting

of focus groups, qualitative indicator. Settings are very scarce amongst local NGOs in

Swaziland. The local NGOs may not be in a position to procure them implying that these

areas that require these skills are not done and hence adoption of monitoring and

evaluation systems is not effectively done. Gilliam et al, (2003) argues that this translates

into shortage of quality data which makes decision making on the projects to be based on

intuition not solid data.

The study also sought to determine how often they involved technical assistance

during monitoring and evaluation of the projects they implemented. With a mean of 2.49

and SD of 1.08, this implied a practice that was inconsistently done by the respondents.

62
This involvement of a technical assistance would benefit the project in that it will

introduce an objective perspective to the evaluation and hence identify issues that may

not be captured by the other stakeholders. Inconsistence of this practice means that some

of the project monitoring and evaluation lacked the technical assistance.

The findings also showed that 39.2% of the respondents involved technical

assistance during evaluation of their projects. They were further probed for the reasons

why they did so. The responses were analyzed and categorized around the key recurring

themes. Table 4.17 shows the findings to the probing.

Table 4.17: Reasons for the involvement of technical assistance.

Reasons Frequency Percentage

Donor requirement 120 77.4
Objectivity 30 19.3
Tapping into expertise 5 3.3
Total 155 100

Table 4.17 shows that objectivity was identified by 19.3% of the respondents that

answered this question: tapping into the expertise of the facilitator was another reason

which was identified by 3.3% respondents. Donor requirement was the most frequent

identified by the respondents with 77.4% of them. It is evident that reasons why most the

respondents involved a technical assistance was because they sought to have an objective,

tapping expertise but donor requirements are too high that make the managers to have

difficulties in involving technical assistance.

63
4.6.2: Monitoring and evaluation funding requirements

The study sought to determine the opinion of the respondents on the monitoring and

evaluation funding requirements of different donors. Table 4.13 shows that the mean

score was 1.29 interpreted to mean that there was strong funding requirements. The

standard deviation of 0.49 implies a small variation amongst the respondents with

majority of them strongly agreeing.

Multiple donor funding requirements would translate into excessive burden to the

NGOs to conform to the different requirements, this exerbates the problem of stretched

capacity on the project in terms of manpower. This would result in adoption of M&E

system being looked at as burden, not as an opportunity to learn.

4.6.3: Monitoring and Evaluation reporting requirements

The study sought to determine how strict the donor reporting requirements were.

Table 4.13 shows that the mean score for this question was 1.30 interpreted to mean that

the respondents agreed that monitoring and evaluation reporting requirements were very

strict. A standard deviation of 0.46 denotes a small variation amongst the respondents

with majority of them agreeing that the requirements were very strict. The issue is related

to the previous one of multiple donor reporting requirements. Very strict donor reporting

requirements exerbates the problem of stretched capacity on the project in terms of

manpower. This is a result of the NGOs having to invest a lot of resources and time in

order to meet the donor funding requirements. This would be at the detriment of other

project activities (Gilliam et al, 2003). These stringent donors reporting with minimum or

no accountability to other stakeholder including the beneficiaries. This would result in

lack of ownership of the project which is a very critical factor in project sustainability

64
(Ramesh, 2002). Stringent reporting requirements also make adoption of M&E system to

be looked at as a burden not an opportunity for learning by the stakeholders.

4.6.4: Release of funds from donors

The respondents were probed for whether the release of funds from donor is

subject to clarity of our M&E system. The findings to this question are shown in table

4.13. Table 4.13 shows that the mean for the issue was 2.20 interpreted to mean a mixed

opinion amongst the respondents. There is no clear opinion on whether they consider

release of funds from donors as a subject to clarity of M&E system. A standard deviation

of 0.73 implies a minimum variation amongst the respondents. The findings are

inconsistent with those of Rick, (2001). He found that NGOs had a big challenge of how

donors release funds that had made M&E system not to be effective for project

management. Failure to release funds, more especially for M&E system has implications

that the NGOs find it hard to source more funding from donors who may be of the view

that the projects were not effective.

4.7: The need for Stakeholder Involvement

This is the fourth objective that was to determine the need for stakeholder

involvement in adoption of M&E system. To achieve this objective, respondents were

asked various questions under the following sub themes: stakeholder involvement in

design and adoption of M&E system, dissemination, mode for monitoring and evaluation

findings and factors that influence M&E system. The respondents were asked which

stakeholders were involved in the design and adoption of M&E system for the projects

they were involved. Table 4.18 shows mean scores and SD for the involvement of

stakeholders.

65
Table 4.18: Involvement of stakeholders in adoption of M&E system

Stakeholder Mean scores Standard Interpretation

deviation
Donors 1.45 0.70 Consistently involved
Community 3.03 0.87 Inconsistently involved
Beneficiaries 2.45 1.28 Inconsistently involved

Table 4.18 shows that involvement of the donors in the design and adoption of

M&E system had a mean score of 1.45. This means that donors were consistently

involved on all projects and with standards deviation of 0.70 implies a small variation

within the respondents. This can be explained by the facts that since donors finance the

project activities of these NGOs to a large extent then they always dictate how the

projects should be monitored and evaluated. This is as a way of tracking the use of their

resources.

The involvement of the community in the design of monitoring and evaluation

system had a mean score of 3.03 implying and this was never done and with a standard

deviation of 0.87 means that there was a minimum variation between the respondents that

majority of the NGOs did not involve the community in the design of their project. The

involvement of the beneficiaries in design and adoption of M&E system had a mean of

2.45 implying that it was inconsistently done on the projects done by the respondents.

The standard deviation of 1.28 implies a wide variation between the respondents. The

implication of this is that the beneficiaries were mostly only a source of monitoring and

evaluation data, without any meaningful input. Their inconsistent involvement in the

design and adoption of monitoring and evaluation meant that the project did not fully

demonstrate downward accountability to the beneficiaries (Aune, 2001).

66
 It is evident that most of the stakeholders were not consistently involved in the

design and adoption of monitoring and evaluation system with the exception of the

donors. Non involvement of the other stakeholders meant that the project implementers

lost an opportunity of fully demonstrating downward accountability to all the other

stakeholders most especially the community and the beneficiaries (CORE 2006: and

Bradley et al, 2002).

4.7.1: Dissemination mode for monitoring and evaluation findings

The study sought to establish the modes the respondents used to disseminate

monitoring and evaluation findings of the projects. The respondents were probed and the

analysis of the findings was shown in table 4.19

Table 4.19: Dissemination mode for monitoring and evaluation findings

Dissemination mode Frequencies Percentage

Report to donors 80 51.6
Community meetings 50 32.3
Report to beneficiaries 25 16.1
New letter 00 00
Notice boards 00 00
Total 155 100

Table 4.19 shows that respondents had made more than one mode of

disseminating their findings. The table shows that majority of the respondents

disseminated the findings by way of a report donor. The findings of the study further

show that 51.6% of the respondents used this mode. The least frequently used mode of

dissemination was report to the beneficiaries with only 16.1% of the respondents using

this mode of dissemination. None of the respondents mentioned newsletters and notice

boards.
67
 It is evident from the modes that the majority and evaluation to other

stakeholders. It is however evident that a lot of emphasis was to the donors at the expense

of other beneficiaries. The emphasis with the donor requirement as a condition of funding

to the NGOs. Disseminating the findings to all stakeholders facilitate ownership for the

projects, and is a learning opportunity for the stakeholder’s strategies (Gyorkos, 2003:

and Mc Coy et al, 2005). Since not all the evaluation findings, the project missed the full

benefits of such a practice. All in all adoption of M&E system was not effectively done

by the respondents. There was no consistent adoption of M&E system in all the projects

they implemented.

4.7.2: Factors that influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system

The respondents were probed for the major factors that influence adoption of M&E

system. Table 4.20 shows the following findings to the question.

Table 4.20 Factors that influence adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation system

Factors Frequency Percentage

Staff knowledge and skills 25 16.1
Financial status 40 25.8
Availability of facilities 15 3.2
Donor influence 75 48.4
Need for stakeholder involvement 10 6.5
Total 155 100

Table 4.20 shows that the respondents had more than one factor that influence

adoption of M&E system. The table shows that majority 25.8% of respondents identified

that financial status of NGOs in a major factor that influences adoption of M&E system.

48.4% of the respondents also identified donor influence as a major factor that influence

68
adoption of M&E system. The least factors were need for stakeholder involvement that

had 6.5% of the respondents.

It is evident that the local NGOs had some factors that influence adoption of

M&E system. The factors identified by the respondents affected the way the monitor and

evaluate the projects they implemented. The adequacy and effectiveness of M&E system

of projects implemented was severally hampered by the factors identified by the

respondents.

4.8: Document analysis guide

This instrument of data collection was used. The findings show that 41.9% of the

respondents did not have any monitoring and evaluation assets registers only 25.8% of

the respondents updated the asset registers within six months. The other 32.3% (9.7% +

22%) updated their registers either every year or at the end of the project. This was bad in

that in absence of a regular up date of M&E assets register.

4.8.1: Data collection methods

The respondents were probed for the data collection methods they used to collect

M&E data and how often they used them. Table 4.21 shows the findings to this question.

Table 4.21 Data collecting methods

Method Mean SD Interpretation

Distribution registers 2.42 1.43 Inconsistency
Attendance forms 1.65 1.12 Consistently used
Questionnaires 3.05 1.16 Not used

69
Material distribution registers

The mean scores for the use of material distribution registers was 2.42 implying

that method was not consistently used as data collection method by the respondents. This

method is very vital in collecting data of materials distributed during the implementation

of project activities such as IEC materials. Inconsistent use of this method means that the

respondents did not adequately keep a record of materials they deployed on the projects.

Attendance forms

Table 4.21 shows that the mean score for the use of attendance forms on projects

to collect monitoring and evaluation data was 1.65, implying consistent use of this

method by the respondents. Use of attendance forms consistently enables the project

M&E system to be active and also enables the project managers to determine the reach of

the project activities in terms of the numbers of people accessing the project services

(FHI, 2004) this information is very vital in evaluating the project at end to determine the

total number of people reached by the project services. Since this method was used

consistently on projects the project managers were in a position to monitor and evaluate

the coverage of their services in terms of numbers of people reached. The SD of 1.10 was

a wide variation in practice by the respondents.

Questionnaires

Table 4.21 shows that the questionnaire method of collecting monitoring and

evaluation data had a mean score of 3.05 implying that this method was not used on

projects implemented by the respondents. A SD of 1.16 denotes a wide variation among

the respondents with some not using it on any project and others using it on some

projects. The questionnaire method can be very important in determining the view,
70
perception and knowledge of beneficiaries, donors and wider community about the

project M&E system (Shao, 1997). The respondents did not use this method, statistically

generalizable knowledge, views and perceptions of the wider community about project

activities and project M&E system were not readily available to the project managers.

This meant that this information could not be made use of by the project managers in

order to improve M&E system and performance of the project.

Use of computers

The respondents were probed for whenever they need computers to aid M&E of

the projects they implemented and what they used the computers for. The findings of the

study showed that 87% of the respondents used computers for M&E table 4.22 shows the

response to what monitoring and evaluation function they used computers for.

Table 4.22: Use of computers for monitoring and evaluation

Use of computers Frequency Percentage

Emailing of findings 21 67.7
Report writing 37 100
Data storage 24 77.4
Collection of data 7 22.6
Analysis of data 19 61.3

Table 4.22 shows that 100% of the respondents that used computer for M&E used

them for report writing. Only 22.6% of the respondents used computers for other

functions. It is evident that majority of the respondents used computers for monitoring

and evaluation of their projects. Computers make task of managing M&E data and

information move effective and efficient (Kelly and Magongo, 2004).

71
4.8.2: Documents of lessons learnt on Monitoring and Evaluation

This document was to determine how often the projects were keeping documents

of lessons learnt on M&E. it had a mean score of 2.32 implying that it was not

consistently done by the respondents. The standard deviation of 1.19 implies a wide

variation amongst the respondents.

Capturing and documenting the lessons learnt on M&E enables the project manager and

project M&E officers and project implementer staff to learn from the project and in

cooperate the same into other projects.

72
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1: Introduction

This chapter focuses on the summary of the findings on factors affecting adoption

of M&E system, recommendations and conclusion.

5.2: Summary of the findings

The first objective of the study was to establish to what extent financial status of

NGOs influence adoption of M&E system. On annual budget the study found that 84% of

the respondents had an annual budget of less than 250,000 and only 16% had an annual

budget of 250,000 and above. The study also found that funds allocated to M&E system

was not enough. 93.5% of the respondents did not have a separate budget for M&E

system while 6.5% had a separate M&E budget. The study also established that 55% of

the respondents did not have specific percentage of budgetary allocation to M&E system

while 26% of the respondents had budgetary allocation of less than 25% assigned to

monitoring and evaluation system and only 19% had the recommended budgetary

allocation range of 26% - 75%. The study established that finances to adopt monitoring

and evaluation system were not adequate. It had a mean of 3.00 and SD of 1.95. This

would have an implication of inadequate and in effective monitoring and evaluation

system in most of the projects.

The second objective looked at the level of staff knowledge and skills and the

study established that there was lack of enough trained M&E staff. The study established

that 89.1% of the respondents had less than seven trained M&E staff while 10.9% had

73
more than eight trained M&E staff. The study furthers shows that 83.2 % of the

respondents had more than 8 untrained staff and only 16.8% had less that 7 untrained

staff. On staff experience in M & E, 67.7% of the respondents are less than 6 years of

experience. Only 32.3 % had more than 7 years of experience in M & E. The study

also found that there was no impact of training on the project management. It had a mean

of 2.25 and standard deviation of 0.76. On the types of Evaluation carried on projects

there was a mean of 3.01 and standard deviation of 0.82.

The third objective also looked at donors influence on adoption of M & E

system. The study established the technical assistance which had a mean of 3.02 and

standard deviation of 1.12. The study also sort to determine how often they involve

technical assistance during monitoring evaluation of projects they implemented and the

findings showed the mean was 2.49 and standard deviation of 1.08. The findings also

showed that 39.2% of the respondents involved technical assistance during the evaluation

of their projects. The respondents were later probe for the reasons why they involve

technical assistance and objectivity was identified by 19.3% of the respondents, for

tapping into expertise was identified by 3.3% of the respondents and donors requirement

was identified by 77.4%. Monitoring and Evaluation funding and requirements were also

very strict. It had a mean of 1.29 and a SD of 0.49. M &E reporting requirements were

also very strict. It had a mean of 1.30 and a standard deviation of 0.46. The respondents

were also probe for whether the release funds from donor is a subject to clarity of our

M& E system. The findings showed that the mean for the issue was 2.20 and a SD was

0.73

The forth objective looked at the need for stakeholder involvement and adoption

of M&E system. The study established that the involvement of donors in adoption of and
74
system had a mean of 1.45 and a SD of 8.70. Involvement of the community in the

design of monitoring and evaluation system had a mean of 3.03 and a SD of 0.87.

The involvement of beneficiaries in adoption of M &E system had a mean of

2.45 and a SD of 1.28. On dissemination mode of monitoring and evaluation, the

findings showed that 51.6% of respondents disseminated their findings by way of a

report to donor. The least frequent used mode of dissemination was report to the

beneficiaries with only 16.1% of the respondents. None of the respondents mentioned

newsletters and notice boards.

5.3 Conclusion

The study investigated factors influencing adoption of monitoring and evaluation

system for projects management among NGOs in Rarieda District. The findings of the

first objective showed that financial status of NGOs influenced adoption of M&E system

in the projects. To achieve this objective, respondents were asked to respond to various

questions under the following themes; Annual Budget and adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system. When we looked at the size the budget, the findings showed that

majority of the NGOs had small budget to spend on different projects like HIV/ AIDS.

This can be attributed to lack of adequate funds from donors. The study also looked at

extent of donor contribution to annual budget. The findings showed that most of the

NGOs are heavily reliant on donors to fund their projects and this is highly

disadvantageous in that incase the donor withdraws their funds the activities of NGOs

would stall. On donor source of funding to the NGOs projects, the findings showed that

projects had more than one source of funding and the most frequent source was from

donors. The second theme was funds allocate to adoption of M&E system. The study
75
looked at M & E budget and the findings showed that the majority of the NGOs did not

have a clear and separate financial provision for M&E system. The implication of this

is that M&E system was not given the due recognition they deserve and M&E were only

done at the whims of the project managers and this would resist to some activities not

being done well. The third theme was contribution in percentage of donor to the total

budget on adoption of M&E system. The study showed that majority of the NGO’s did

not allocate the optimum budget for M&E system . This had the effect that M & E of

activities suffered a risk of being missed since the majority of the NGOs did not have

any specific allocation to them. The study found out that the NGOs faced a challenge of

inadequate finances to adopt M&E system in projects they implement. So without

adequate finances, NGOs are forced to scale back on some of M&E activities they were

supposed to carry out. This would have an implication of inadequate and effective M&E

system in most of the projects they implement.

The second objective looked at staff knowledge and skills and adoption of M&E

system. This objective determine the level of which staff knowledge and skills influenced

adoption of M& E system. The first theme was the number of training in M&E. The

study showed that most NGOs did have adequate trained personnel at the conclusion for

the adoption M and E system. They relied on a trained M&E staff as opposed to trained

personnel. The study found out that none of the project have a clear allocation of the

funds of M&E system as it seems to be a new concept in most of the projects. The study

found that experienced M&E staff the NGOs had was not adequate. This could be

explained by the fact that there is loss ox experienced personnel due to high staff

turnover. This could be associated with lack of financial resources to adequately train

them remunerate so the staff opt for greener pastures. The study also looked at the

76
impacts of M&E training on the project management. The study found out that NGOs

had a big challenge of demonstrating impacts of trained personnel on adoption of M &

E system because the NGOs find it hard to source more funding from the donors to

effectively implement the M&E system. On the type of evaluation carried on projects,

the study found out that the majority of NGOs did not carry out midterm and summative

evaluations. This showes that evaluation is not carried out in many projects that NGOs

implement because of lack of staff knowledge and skills on M&E system.

The third objective determined the donor influence on adoption of M&E. The

study showed that lack of adequate M&E technical assistance among local NGOs is one

area has been highlighted by the scholar. In M&E there are specific skills which should

be applied and so this involvement of a technical assistance would benefit the project. In

consistence of M&E in most projects means that some projects lacked the technical

assistance. This was because donor requirement was too high to make the managers to

have difficulties in involving technical assistance, strict donor funding and reporting

requirement have made the adoption of M&E system to be looked at burden not an

opportunity for learning by the stakeholders. On the release of funds from donors, the

study found out that NGOs had a big challenge on how donors release funds that had

made M&E system not to be effective for project management. Failure to release funds,

more especially for M& E system has implications NGO find it hard to adopt M&E

system.

The forth objective also looked at the need stakeholder involvement and adoption

of M&E system. The study showed that donors were not consistently involved in all

projects. This can be explained by the fact that since donors finance the project activities

of these NGOs to a large extent then they always dictate how the project should be
77
monitored and evaluated. On the involvement of the community in M&E, the study

found that the community was mostly only a source of monitoring and evaluation data

without any meaningful input. This showed that the project did not fully demonstrate

downward accountability to the beneficiaries. It is evident that most of the stake holders

were not consistently involved in M&E system with exception of donors. None

involvement of other stakeholders meant that the project implementers lost an

opportunity of fully adopting M&E system. Recommendations were made to improve

monitoring and evaluation system of projects implementing by the NGOs.

5.4: Recommendations

The study made the following recommendations and also made recommendations for

further study. The NGOs were heavily relation donors in terms of financing the project

they implemented. The mostly frequent implemented projects were care and support for

the sick, HIV/AIDS. The adoption of monitoring and evaluation system in projects was

found wanting. M&E was inconsistently done on the projects. Some practices like design

of M&E system and the use of qualitative indicators were generally not used by majority

of the NGOs. This can be explained by the fact that they lacked expertise in monitoring

and evaluation as highlighted by the findings. Other factors that influence adoption of

M&E system incident among other, stringent requirements from donors, lack of skill

project implementer staff, lack of stakeholder involvement and inadequate finance. The

adequacy and effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation system of the projects

implemented was severally hampered by the factors identified by the respondents. The

researcher makes the following recommendations to address some of the key findings of

the study.

78
 Much as there are a lot of funds being interested in different projects, for instance,

HIV/AIDS projects, very little is trickling down to the grass root NGOs. There is need for

the donors to provide resources to the NGOs, so that their activities can have impact.

With insufficient funds, monitoring and evaluation is looked at as a luxury and hence the

projects do not benefit from it. With more funds the NGOs can train and retain the critical

skills that they are lacking especially monitoring and evaluation.

The findings found a critical lack of expertise in monitoring and evaluation of

projects implemented by NGOs. There is need for training in this particular aspect of

monitoring and evaluation. Donors together with government should put in place

programmes to impart M&E skills among the local NGOs.

Donor need to relax the reporting requirements, adjust their budgets to

accommodate M&E systems, relax the system of employing technical assistance. There is

need for donors to identify simpler and friendlier reporting formats for the recipients of

their funds without compromising their interest but at the same time not overburdening

the NGOs.

There is need for the NGOs to involve all the stakeholders in the design and

adoption of M&E system for project management. The stakeholder should not be passive

recipients of the service the project is offering. An active involvement of the stakeholders

will mitigate the challenges of collecting M&E data from them. It has got an added

advantage of demonstrating accountability to them and also project ensuring

sustainability of the project when the donors withdraw funding.

It is imperative that NGOs start or involve themselves more in income generating

activities in order to reduce their over reliance on the donors for funding their activities as

79
a means of ensuring sustainability of their activities in the event that donors cease

funding. The findings of their research also highlight the fact that there are not enough

funds allocated for M&E system. For the project to be effective, M&E should be done

effectively and efficiency so NGOs should have income generating activities.

5.4.1: Recommendation of future studies

The research study was limited to factors influencing adoption of M&E system

for project management. Further research would be required to determine the actual

impact of M&E on the performance of projects. Since monitoring and evaluation of

projects should be an integrated with project planning and design. Further research

should try investigating the project design and planning and implementation of M&E

local NGOs.

80
 REFERENCES

AIDS alliance. 2006: Monitoring and Evaluation.hhp://www.aidsallianceorg/sw1/25/asp.

APM, (2006), APM body of knowledge. Buckingmshire: APM.

Association for project management, (2006). APM body of knowledge. 5th ed. Buckinghamshire,
UK: Association for project management.

Aune, B. (2000). Logical frame work approach and PRA – mutually exclusive or

complementary tools for planning? Journal of Development in practice, 10 (5):

687 – 690

AUSAID. 2006. M & E Framework Good Practice Guide. Sydney. AUSAID.

Borg. W. R & Gall, M.D. (1996). Education Research, An introduction (Sixth Ed.)

New York: Longman.

Bradley J, Mayfield M, Mehta M, and Rukonge A. (2002). Participatory evaluation of

Reproductive health care quality in developing countries. Journal of Social

Science and medicine, 55(6): 269-282

CORE.(2006), Participatory monitoring and evaluation of community and Faith Based

Programs. Washington. USAID.

Crawford, P, & Bryce P. (2003). Project monitoring and evaluation: A method of enhancing

the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of

project management, 21(5):363-373

Donaldson, T. (1999). Ties that bind. A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston,
USA: Havard Business School Press.

Evison, I. (1999). Learning from evaluation in Christian Aid: A critical Analysis of evaluation

reports 1991 – 1998. Christian Aid. London.

FHI.(2004). Monitoring and evaluation of Behavioral change communication programmes.

Washington D.C: FHI

Gilliam A, Barrington T, Davis D, Lascon R, Uhi G & Phoenix U. 2003: Building evaluation

capacity for HIV prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning. 26(2)
81
 133 – 142.

Grennel, M. & Richard. J. R. (1993). Social Research and Education forth edition

Illinois’. Peacock Publishers Ins.

Groykos T, (2003). Monitoring and Evaluation of large scale Helminth control programmes.

Acta Tropic, 86(2): 275 – 282.

Health link. (2006). HIV/AIDS – Enhancing HIV/AIDS Communication in Sub Saharan Africa.

Assessed from http://www.healthlink.orguk/projects/hiv/submande.html

Hughes – d Aeth. (2002). Evaluation of HIV/AIDS peer projects in Zambia. Evaluation and

Program planning, 25(4): 397 – 407

Ireland, L. (2002). Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation, 4thed.

Columbus,

UK: Mc Grew – Hill Professional.

Kathuri, N.J. & Pals, D.A (1993). Introduction to Educational Research. Egerton University

Educational Media Centre.

Kelly, K & Magongo, B. (2004). Report on assessment of monitoring and evaluation capacity

of HIV/AIDS organizations in Swaziland. Swaziland: NERCHA.

Key, P. (1997). Research design in Occupational Education. Oklahoma State University.

Kothari, C. (2003). Research methodology: Methods and techniques, Kisha Prakashem.

New Delhi.

Lock, D. (2007), Project Management, 9th ed. Burlington, USA: Gower Publishing Limited.

McCoy, L. Ngari, P. & Krumpe, E. (2005). Building Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

Systems for HIV/AIDS programmes. Washington DC. USAID.

Myra, S.(2005). HIV/AIDS Monitor: Tracking Aid Effectiveness: an overview of the Presidents

Emergency plan for AIDS Relief . New York: Center for Global Development.

Mugenda, O. M & Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research method: Qualitative and Quantitative

approaches. Nairobi African centre for technology studies.

82
Oakley, P. (1999). Overview report. The Danish NGO impact study. A review of Danish NGO

activities in Developing Countries. INTRAC. Oxford.

www.um.dk/uderigspotlink/udviklingspolitick/ngosamarbejde/impact/synteseeng/
Wallale, T.

Orodho A. J. (2004). Technologies of writing Research proposals and report in Education and

Social Science. Masola publishers, Reata Prince .S. Nairobi.

PASSIA. (2006).Civil Society Empowerment: Monitoring and Evaluation.

www.passia.org/seminars/2002/monitoring.htm (Accessed on 18/8/2006)

PMI.(2004). A Guide to the Project management Book of Knowledge. New York: PMI

Ramesh, S. (200). Evaluation of HIV/AIDS prevention through peer education, counseling,

health care, training and urban refuge in Ghana. Evaluation and Programme
planning,25(4):409-420

Reijer, P. Chalimba, M. & Nakwagala. A. (2002). Malawi goes full scale anti AIDS clubs and

popular media. Evaluation and Programme Planning , 25(4): 357- 6

Riddel, R. C . (1997). Searching for impact methods : NGO Evaluation synthesis study. A report

produced for the OECD/DAC expert group on evaluation. Department for

international Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Helsinki.
http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/ids/ngo.

Roche, C. (1999). “Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: learning to value change”

Oxfam. Oxford.

Shao, T. (1999). Marketing Research: an Aid to decision making. Ohio: South Western College

Publishing.

Uitto, J.A. (2004). Multi – country co- operation around shared waters: Role of monitoring

andEvaluation. Global environment change, 14(1): 5-14.

Wasonga, M. (2007). Analysis of community participation in projects funded by plan

international in Madiany Division.

World Bank. (2004). Monitoring and Evaluation. Some methods, Tools and Approaches World

Bank : Washington DC

83
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

BEATRICE ADHIAMBO DOBI,

NAYA SEC. SCHOOL,
P.O. BOX 54,
MADIANY.
March 2012

Dear Sir/ Madam,

RE: FACTORS INFLUENCING ADOPTION OF MONITORING AND

EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT AMONG NGO

PROJECTS

I am currently a student pursuing a Masters of Arts Degree in Project Planning and

Management at the University of Nairobi.
I am carrying out the above study in your District as part of the requirements for the
fulfillment of Masters of Arts Degree. The purpose of this letter is to humbly request you
to participate in the study by completing the attached questionnaires.
All the information collected will be treated as strictly confidential.
Your assistance and corporation will be highly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.

Beatrice Adhiambo Dobi.

Student Researcher
The University of Nairobi.

84
 APPENDIX B

PROJECT MANAGERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE (PMQ)

This questionnaire is intended to collect information on the factors influencing adoption

of monitoring and evaluation system for project management among NGOs in Rarieda

District. Please read the instruction for each question carefully before giving responses

required. The data collected will be treated with at most confidentially and use for the

purpose of the study only. Kindly give the information on the spaces provided. Indicate

with a tick or fill as required. Feel free and give the correct information about your

project.

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Tick where necessary

1. Sex 1. Male ( ) 2. Female ( )

2. Age: 18 – 28 ( ) 29 – 39 ( ) 40 – 49 ( ) 50 and above ( )

3. For how long have you worked as a manager in this project?

Below 1 year ( ) 2 – 6 years ( ) 7 – 10years ( ) 11 and above ( )

4. Have you ever served as a senior manager before? Yes ( ) No ( )

5. If yes, in question 3, how long?

Below 1 year ( ) 2 – 6 years ( ) 7 – 10years ( ) 11 and above ( )

6. Give the level of qualification.

Certificate ( ) Diploma ( ) Degree ( ) Masters and above ( )

7. Highest professional qualification ______________________________________

8. What type of projects does your organization implement? (Please tick more than

one option if you implement more than one project).

HIV / AIDS Project

85
 Behavioral Communication change projects

Care and support of the sick.

Social economic mitigation(care of orphans, widows , elderly)

Human rights and advocacy

Adolescent reproductive health project.

9. For how long (in years) has your organization been carrying out these projects?

0-3 4- 6 7–9 over 9

10. Have you adopted monitoring and evaluation system in your project?

Yes ( ) No ( )

SECTION B: FINANCIAL STATUS

1. What was the total budget that you spent on adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system last year?

Less than 50,000 50,000-99,999 100,000 – 149,000

150,000 – 199,999 200,000- 249,000 250,000 and above

2. What was the contribution in percentage of donors to the total budget you spent

on project activities last year?

0% - 25% 26%- 50% 51% - 75% 76% - 100%

3. Monitoring and evaluation system have:

A separate budget with special vote

No special vote arrangement

4. What was the contribution in percentage of donors to the total budget you spent

on adoption of monitoring and evaluation system?

0 – 25% ( ) 26 – 50% ( ) 51 – 75 ( ) 76 – 100% ( )

No specific percentage ( )

86
 5. Considering the supply of monitoring and evaluation funds to projects. What

would you say about its adequacy? Very adequate ( ) Adequate ( )

Not Adequate ( )

SECTION C: PROJECT MANAGERS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

1) Have you ever attended any training on management of projects? Yes ( ) or No ( )

2) If yes, give us the information on the training by filling the table below.

Institution of training ________________________________________________

Area of training ____________________________________________________

Duration of training: 3 months ( ) 6 months ( ) 9 months ( )

1 year and above ( )

Year of Training ____________________________________________________

3) Was the training useful to your work? Yes ( ) No ( )

4) If yes, what impact has the training brought towards your services delivery to the

project? Very high ( ) Moderate ( ) No impact ( )

5) Do you normally carry out midterm evaluation of projects you implement?

Yes ( ) No. ( )

SECTION D: DONOR INFLUENCE

1. There is lack of monitoring and evaluation Technical Assistance within NGOs

projects

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

2. If you carry out monitoring and evaluation of your projects, how often do you

involve a Technical Assistance?

For all projects For a few projects For some projects

Never
87
 3. Monitoring and evaluation funding requirements from donors are

Very strict Strict Lenient Very lenient

4. Monitoring and evaluation reporting requirements from donors are:

Very strict Strict Lenient Very lenient

5. Release of funds from donors is subject to clarity of our M&E system

Strongly agree ( ) Agree ( ) Not sure ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree ( )

SECTION E. THE NEED FOR STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT.

1. Normally the following stakeholders are involved in designing and adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system.

For all projects Some projects Few projects never

Donors

Community

Project beneficiaries

We do not involve any

Stakeholder.

2. Do you involve stakeholders in disseminating monitoring and evaluation findings?

Yes ( ) No. ( )

3. How do you disseminate monitoring and evaluation findings?

No dissemination

On the notice board

Report to donor.

Report to Community meetings

Report to beneficiaries

News letters

88
4. What factors do you think influence adoption of M&E system?

1. Strong 2. Very strong 3. Moderate 4. Weak 5. Very weak

1 2 3 4 5

Staff knowledge and skills ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Financial status ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Availability of facilities ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Donor influence ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Stakeholder involvement ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

APPENDIX C. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION OFFICIALS :

QUESTIONNAIRES

This questionnaire is intended to collect information on the factors influencing adoption

of monitoring and evaluation system for project management among NGOs in Rarieda

District. Please read the instruction for each question carefully before giving responses

required. The data collected will be treated with at most confidentially and use for the

purpose of the study only. Kindly give the information on the spaces provided. Indicate

with a tick or fill as required. Feel free and give the correct information about your

project.

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION.

1. Gender male ( ) Female ( )

2. Age: 18 – 28 ( ) 29 – 39 ( ) 40 – 49 ( ) 50 and above ( )

3. For how long have you been a monitoring and evaluation officer in this project?

Below 1 year ( ) 2 – 6 years ( ) 7 – 10years ( ) 11 and above ( )

4. Have you ever served as M&E Officer before? Yes ( ) No ( )

89
 5. If yes, in question 4, how long?

Below 1 year ( ) 2 – 6 years ( ) 7 – 10years ( ) 11 and above ( )

6. Give the level of qualification.

Certificate ( ) Diploma ( ) Degree ( ) Masters and above ( )

SECTION B. FINANCIAL STATUS.

1. The organization that fund your project include the following.

International Donor Agencies e.g. UNDP, Global Fund, USAID

Government bodies e.g. NACA, AIDS Committee

Cooperate companies

We do not receive any donor funding

2. Monitoring and evaluation system have:

A separate budget with special vote ( )

No special vote arrangement ( )

6. What was the total budget that you spent on adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system last year?

Less than 50,000 50,000-99,999 100,000 – 149,000

150,000 – 199,999 200,000- 249,000 250,000 and above

7. What was the contribution in percentage of donors to the total budget you spent

on project activities last year?

0% - 25% 26%- 50% 51% - 75% 76% - 100%

8. What was the contribution in percentage of donors to the total budget you spent

on adoption of monitoring and evaluation system?

0 – 25% ( ) 26 – 50% ( ) 51 – 75 ( ) 76 – 100% ( )

No specific percentage ( )

90
 9. Considering the supply of monitoring and evaluation funds to projects. What

would you say about its adequacy? Very adequate ( ) Adequate ( )

Not Adequate ( )

SECTION C: M& E OFFICERS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS.

1) Have you ever attended any training on management of projects? Yes ( ) No ( )

2) If yes, give us the information on the training by filling the table below.

Institution of training ________________________________________________

Area of training ____________________________________________________

Duration of training: 3 months ( ) 6 months ( ) 9 months ( )

1 year and above ( )

Year of Training ____________________________________________________

3) Was the training useful to your work? Yes ( ) No ( )

4) If yes, what impact has the training brought towards your services delivery to the

project? Very high ( ) Moderate ( ) No impact ( )

5) Do you normally carry out midterm evaluation of projects you implement?

Yes ( ) No. ( )

SECTION D: DONOR INFLUENCE

1. There is lack of monitoring and evaluation expertise within NGO’s .

Strongly agree Agree Disagree strongly disagree

2. If you carry out evaluation of your projects, how often. Do you involve an

external facilitator?

For all projects For a few projects For some projects Never

If you involve an external facilitator briefly explain why __________________

__________________________________________________________________

91
 3. Monitoring and evaluation funding requirements from donors are

Very strict Strict Lenient Very lenient

4. Monitoring and evaluation reporting requirements from donors are

Very strict Strict Lenient Very lenient

5. Release of funds from donors is subject to clarity of our M&E system

Strongly agree ( ) Agree ( ) Not sure ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree ( )

SECTION E. STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT.

1. Normally the following stakeholders are involved in designing and adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system.

For all projects Some projects Few projects never

Donors

Community

Project beneficiaries

We do not involve any

Stakeholder.

2. Do you involve stakeholders in disseminating monitoring and evaluation

findings? Yes ( ) No. ( )

3. How do you disseminate monitoring and evaluation findings?

No dissemination

On the notice board

Report to donor.

Report to Community meetings

Report to beneficiaries

92
 News letters

4. What factors do you think influence adoption of M&E system?

1. Strong 2. Very strong 3. Moderate 4. Weak 5. Very weak

1 2 3 4 5

Staff knowledge and skills ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Financial status ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Availability of facilities ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Donor influence ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Stakeholder involvement ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

APPENDIX D: PROJECT IMPLEMENTER STAFF

This questionnaire is intended to collect information on the factors influencing adoption

of monitoring and evaluation system for project management among NGOs in Rarieda

District. Please read the instruction for each question carefully before giving responses

required. The data collected will be treated with at most confidentially and use for the

purpose of the study only. Kindly give the information on the spaces provided. Indicate

with a tick or fill as required. Feel free and give the correct information about your

project.

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Tick where necessary

1. Sex 1. Male ( ) 2. Female ( )

2. Age: 18 – 28 ( ) 29 – 39 ( ) 40 – 49 ( ) 50 and above ( )

3. For how long have you worked as a manager in this project?

Below 1 year ( ) 2 – 6 years ( ) 7 – 10years ( ) 11 and above ( )

93
 4. Have you ever served as a senior manager before? Yes ( ) No ( )

5. If yes, in question 3, how long?

Below 1 year ( ) 2 – 6 years ( ) 7 – 10years ( ) 11 and above ( )

6. Give the level of qualification.

Certificate ( ) Diploma ( ) Degree ( ) Masters and above ( )

7. Highest professional qualification ______________________________________

8. What type of projects does your organization implement? (Please tick more than

one option if you implement more than one project).

HIV / AIDS Project

Behavioral Communication change projects

Care and support of the sick.

Social economic mitigation (care of orphans, widows, elderly)

Human rights and advocacy

Adolescent reproductive health project.

9. For how long (in years) has your organization been carrying out these projects?

0-3 4- 6 7–9 over 9

10. Have you adopted monitoring and evaluation system in your project?

Yes ( ) No ( )

SECTION B. FINANCIAL STATUS.

3. The organization that fund your project include the following.

International Donor Agencies e.g. UNDP, Global Fund, USAID

Government bodies e.g. NACA, AIDS Committee

Cooperate companies

We do not receive any donor funding

94
 4. Monitoring and evaluation system have:

A separate budget with special vote ( )

No special vote arrangement ( )

10. What was the total budget that you spent on adoption of monitoring and

evaluation system last year?

Less than 50,000 50,000-99,999 100,000 – 149,000

150,000 – 199,999 200,000- 249,000 250,000 and above

11. What was the contribution in percentage of donors to the total budget you spent

on project activities last year?

0% - 25% 26%- 50% 51% - 75% 76% - 100%

12. What was the contribution in percentage of donors to the total budget you spent

on adoption of monitoring and evaluation system?

0 – 25% ( ) 26 – 50% ( ) 51 – 75 ( ) 76 – 100% ( )

No specific percentage ( )

13. Considering the supply of monitoring and evaluation funds to projects. What

would you say about its adequacy? Very adequate ( ) Adequate ( )

Not Adequate ( )

SECTION C: STAFF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

1) Have you ever attended any training on management of projects? Yes ( ) No ( )

2) If yes, give us the information on the training by filling the table below.

Institution of training ________________________________________________

Area of training ____________________________________________________

Duration of training: 3 months ( ) 6 months ( ) 9 months ( )

1 year and above ( )

95
 Year of Training ____________________________________________________

3) Was the training useful to your work? Yes ( ) No ( )

4) If yes, what impact has the training brought towards your services delivery to the

project? Very high ( ) Moderate ( ) No impact ( )

5) Do you normally carry out midterm evaluation of projects you implement?

Yes ( ) No. ( )

SECTION D: DONOR INFLUENCE

1. There is lack of monitoring and evaluation expertise within NGO’s .

Strongly agree Agree Disagree strongly disagree

2. If you carry out evaluation of your projects, how often. Do you involve an

external facilitator?

For all projects for a few projects For some projects Never

If you involve an external facilitator briefly explain why __________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Monitoring and evaluation funding requirements from donors are

Very strict Strict Lenient Very lenient

4. Monitoring and evaluation reporting requirements from donors are

Very strict Strict Lenient Very lenient

5. Release of funds from donors is subject to clarity of our M&E system

Strongly agree ( ) Agree ( ) Not sure ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree ( )

96
SECTION E: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

1. Normally the following stakeholders are involved in designing and adoption of

monitoring and evaluation system.

For all projects Some projects Few projects never

Donors

Community

Project beneficiaries

We do not involve any

Stakeholder.

2. Do you involve stakeholders in disseminating monitoring and evaluation

findings? Yes ( ) No. ( )

3. How do you disseminate monitoring and evaluation findings?

No dissemination

On the notice board

Report to donor.

Report to Community meetings

Report to beneficiaries

News letters

4. What factors do you think influence adoption of M&E system?

1. Strong 2. Very strong 3. Moderate 4. Weak 5. Very weak

1 2 3 4 5
Staff knowledge and skills ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Financial status ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Availability of facilities ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Donor influence ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Stakeholder involvement ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

97
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW SCHEDULES FOR DISTRICT M&E OFFICER
This interview schedule is intended to collect information on the factors influencing

adoption of monitoring and evaluation system for project management among NGOs in

Rarieda District. Please read the instruction for each question carefully before giving

responses required. The data collected will be treated with at most confidentially and use

for the purpose of the study only. Kindly give the information on the spaces provided.

Feel free and give the correct information about your project.

1. For how long have you served as a district M&E officer? ________

2. What percentage of stakeholders and M&E officials in the project has been trained in
the M&E? __________________________________________________________

3. Do you think that stake holders and M&E officials have the necessary skills and
knowledge in monitoring and evaluation of the project?(briefly explain)

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4. What are the importance of training in the monitoring and evaluation of projects?

________________________________________________________________________

5. According to you what would be the minimum academic qualification for one to be
M&E officer?___________________________________________________________

6. Considering the officers of M&E what would you say on their adequacy?

________________________________________________________________________

7. How many M&E officers do you have in the projects? __________________________

8. What would you say about M&E resources in the projects?

________________________________________________________________________

9. Do you have full time officers in your project? _______________________________

10. What are the factors influencing adoption of monitoring and evaluation systems in
your Organization. ___________________________________________________

98
 11. What would you recommend to be done to improve factors influencing monitoring
and evaluation system in the local NGOs projects in Rarieda District
____________________________

a. By the projects_________________________________________________
b. By the government______________________________________________
c. By stakeholders _________________________________________________

99
 RESEARCH TIME PLAN

YEAR MONTH ACTIVITY

2011 DEC Consider the best approach to the chosen study.

2012 JANUARY - Starting study problem and determining research

design.

- Review of related literature.

- First proposal draft

- Review of 2nd proposal draft

- Review of 3rd proposal draft.

FEBRUARY - Presentation of the proposal to the department.

2012 MARCH - Making corrections on the draft.

APR-MAY - Fieldwork and data analysis

JUNE - Writing and typing the report.

JULY - Defense of the report

. - Submission of final project report

100
 BUDGET

ITEM QTY UNIT TOTAL

COST (KSHS)

A. STATIONARY
1. Ball Point Pens
20 10.00 200.00

2. Document holder 10 50.00 500.00

3. Foolscaps 5 Reams 200.00 1,000.00

SUB TOTAL 1,700.00

B. PRODUCTION
1. Questionnaire Production
5,000.00

2. Typing of the project report 250pgs 50.00 12,500.00

3. Photocopy of the proposal report 2000pgs 2.00 4,000.00

4. Typing proposal 40pgs 50.00 2,000.00

5. Photocopying proposal 120pgs 2.00 240.00

6. Binding 4 copies 400.00 1,600.00

SUB TOTAL 25,340.00

C. RESEARCH
1. Traveling Allowance
60 days 400.00 24,000.00

2. Subsistence 60 days 500.00 30,000.00

SUB TOTAL 54,000.00

CONTINGENCIES 10,000.00

GRAND TOTAL 91,000.00

101