EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING AND …ijmrr.com/admin/upload_data/journal_Kevin Mulama...PERFORMANCE OF...

ISSN: 2249-7196

IJMRR/ August 2014/ Volume 4/Issue 8/Article No-2/773-796

Kevin Mulama et. al./ International Journal of Management Research & Review

*Corresponding Author www.ijmrr.com 773

EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN ENHANCING

PERFORMANCE OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN BUSIA COUNTY-A

SURVEY OF GOVERNMENT SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Kevin Mulama*1, Mr. Peter Liguyani

2, Dr. Douglas Musiega

3

1Student, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Tech., Kakamega CBD, Kenya.

2Lecturer, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Tech., Kakamega CBD, Kenya.

3Director, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Tech., Kakamega CBD, Kenya.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to establish effectiveness ofMonitoring and Evaluationin

enhancingperformance of social development projects in Busia County with a focus on

Government social development projects. The study sort to examine the effect of downward

accountability on performance of social development projects in Busia County. Descriptive

and Correlation research design methods were used in this study. Descriptive design was used

to collect data in order to answer questions concerning the current status of M & E. Since this

study aimed at clarifying relationships, correlation research was used. The instruments used

included the use of structured questionnaires and focus group interviews. The survey was

administered to the 231 staff members (HoD, technical and management) of Government

ministries, NGOs, CBOs and FBOs in Bunyala and Samia Sub Counties. This therefore

constituted a census study. The data collected was analyzed using statistical package for

social sciences (SPSS). The data output is presented in form of tables and description. The

researcher also used the Pearson`s product moment correlation analysis to access the

relationship between the variables. The study found out that downward accountability has a

positive effect on performance of social development projects with regard to feedback to

right holders but has a negative effect with regard to participation of right holder in

development planning and decision making .There were also strong positive correlation

between various aspects of downward accountability, namely, feedback to beneficiaries but

negative correlations with regard to participation and decision making of beneficiaries and

performance of social development projects.The research findings will be helpful to

academicians, county planners and policy makers seeking to impact positively in the

development of Busia County.

INTRODUCTION

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) has increasingly become essential in the management of

development programs and the two have become a separate field of expertise within the

development sector. Quite a substantial amount of the annual budget (two to fifteen percent)

of a development program is typically spent on M&E related activities such as writing

proposals, designing programs, developing program frameworks, compiling action plans,


Copyright © 2012 Published by IJMRR. All rights reserved 774

collecting data, writing reports, developing and maintaining information systems and carrying

out evaluation studies. The importance of Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in global efforts

toward achieving environmental, economic and social development cannot be understated

(Mrosek, Balsillie & Schleifenbaum, 2006). A part of this importance lies in the fact that

over the same period there has been a heightened awareness of the importance of

tracking progress of development projects and providing relevant feedback through reporting

especially at the Government level. Countries such as the United States of America have been

able to achieve successful development because they have put in place effective and efficient

systems that track achievement of development objectives.In the United States of America,

the last two decades have noted an increased interest in outcomes-based performance

monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of policies and development programs under the

administrations of three successive Presidents, namely, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and

Barrack Obama. Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA) under President Clinton, the President’s Management Agenda and Program

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) under President Bush and most recently, the High Priority

Performance Goals (HPPG) Initiative and the Program Evaluation Initiative under the

President Obama have brought greater emphasis on transparency and results, and

performance measurement more prominence. The GPRA for example did require that a

summary of the findings from any program evaluations completed during the fiscal year

covered by the annual performance report be included in those annual reports.The Bush

administration introduced PART, partly out of a belief that implementation of the GPRA had

fallen short of its original intention.It was envisaged that it would provide a consistent

approach to assessing and rating programs across the federal government. PART assessment

reviewed overall program efficacy, from design to implementation and results.

The South Africa National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) is the last of the three

policy elements introduced in the Policy Framework for the Government-Wide

Monitoring and Evaluation System, which was approved by Cabinet in 2005. The other

two elements are program performance information and quality of statistical data.

This policy framework provides the basis for a system of evaluation across the

government with the purpose of promoting quality evaluations. This provides a learning

opportunity by the Government with regard to what is and is not working hence the need to

take corrective measures. The policy framework seeks to ensure that credible and objective

evidence from evaluation is used in overall management of on-going programs and

general project management to ensure efficiency and improve performance. It forms the

basis of evaluation culture within the civil service.

This importance of monitoring and evaluation as a system that tracks performance of

development projects has not gone unnoticed in Kenya.

With the exit of Kenya African National Union (KANU) party rule, the new National

Rainbow Coalition (NARC) government began a series of reforms in 2003, aimed at

improving public sector management in order to plan, implement, and continuously assess the

execution of its development agenda of Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS). This is the

context in which the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) was



established in 2003/2004, and adjusted in 2007/2008 when Kenya’s Vision 2030 and its five-

year Medium Term Plan (MTP) replaced ERS.

NIMES was designed to have a three-tier institutional relationship for generating M&E

information. At the national level is Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate(MED), that

provides leadership and coordinates the system by ensuring that two vital sources of M&E

information, namely Annual Progress Reports (APRs) on the Medium Term Plan of Vision

2030 and Annual Public Expenditure Review (PER) are ably and timely produced. At

ministerial level is the Central Project Planning and Monitoring Unit (CPPMU). The

CPPMUs produce Ministerial Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Reports (MAMERs), and

Ministerial Public Expenditure Reviews (MPERs) which are synthesized into the APR and

PER respectively. At sub-national level, the District Development Officers, supervised by the

Provincial Directors of Planning, are meant to produce the District Annual Monitoring and

Evaluation Reports (DAMERs) which reflect progress on social development projects

towards achievement of their set objectives

M&E therefore is a practice that is useful and relevant for the actors in the development

world. This is an assumed basic principle for any M&E system. However, many mainstream

M&E practices tend to be isolated and disconnected from management and decision-making.

Many programs and projects are driven by pre-set targets and actions, such that M&E is

perceived as an additional burden by program teams and their M&E practice is limited to the

fulfilment of the reporting requirements of donor.

Most of the social development projects and programs in the County are funded by the

Government in collaboration with International development partners, implemented through

line Ministries, local NGOs, CBOs and FBOs. These social development projects and

programs in the County are; Program of Agriculture and Livelihoods in Western

Communities (PALWECO), Community Empowerment and Institutional Support Project

(CEISP), Busia Community Development Project, Western Kenya Community Driven

Development and Flood Mitigation Program (WKCDD&FP), Lake Victoria Environmental

Management Project (LVEMPT), Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project

(KAPAP) and GIZ.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Social development projects undertaken by the government in conjunction with its agencies

and development partners take unusually long to be complete, they also use a lot of resources

but fail to deliver on results despite systems being in place for monitoring and evaluation

(MAMER, 2010). Busia County-a County of high potential, still remains one of the poorest

County in Kenya. According to the KNBS report of November 2013, Busia County was rated

the ninth poorest County in Kenya out of a total of forty seven Counties, with a poverty index

of 66%. This is despite the fact that lots of funds annually, are being channeled towards

development projects in the Sub Counties-65% of County budget allocated to development

expenditure (Busia County Budget, 2012). The County also host some of the largest and well-

funded Government social development projects in PALWECO and WKCDD&FP. This

projects achieve minimal results contrary to what had been envisaged by donors despite an

M&E system being put in place to track progress towards achievement of set objectives.



Many of this programs are characterized by delays with regard to time, overshoot the

proposed budgets and do not cover intended scope. The end result is a product that is of poor

quality that does not meet right holders’ expectations hence not sustainable. Could it be that

monitoring and evaluation in Busia County is not effective in enhancing the performance of

social development projects with an aim of keeping them on track? This study seeks to

answer that question.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study aims at finding out the effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation in enhancing

performance of Social Development Projects in Busia County- A survey of Government

social development projects.

Specific objectives of the study is to examine the effect of downward accountability on

performance of social development projects in Busia County

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does downward accountability affect performance of social development projects in Busia

County?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study has academic significance because of the new insights into the body of

knowledge. It makes specific contribution to the domain of knowledge in the field of M&E in

the area of accountability. The study too seeks to contribute to knowledge generation in of

terms of M&E systems development and implementation. To be able to achieve Vision 2030,

the Government will need a rigorous M&E system to track implementation of development

projects. It is hoped that this study will highlight to policy makers the need for an efficient

monitoring and evaluation system and its benefits. The study hopes to generate new

knowledge and understanding of the critical challenges faced at the County level, challenges

that hamper effective monitoring and evaluation of development projects in rural Kenya.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study will be delimited to Bunyala and Samia Sub Counties of Busia County. These two

Sub Counties have been chosen because they receives substantial amount of development

funds from the Government but still lags behind in development. Focus was restricted to

M&E practitioners in the two Sub Counties. They also host all the social development

programs and projects that are intended to accelerate development in the County. M&E issue

to be considered is downward accountability. Study was intended to take place in the months

of July and August.



The Conceptual Framework

Dependent Variable Independent variable

Moderating Variable

Fig 1: Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework shows one independent variables used in the study. The

researcher intends to assess the performance of social development project as the dependent

variable through independent variable of downward accountability. County Government

planning framework is the moderating variable of varying magnitudes.

The study will assess downward accountability through feedback to right holders,

participation of right holders and involvement of right holders in decision making.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Accountability is widely viewed as the most common purpose and use of M&E processes and

is associated with reporting systems, justification for and control of funds, and impact

measurement.

Anderson (2000 p. 496) argues that the giving side of the aid relationship is primarily

accountable to communities and powers outside the development programs and only

secondarily, if at all, to insiders, the people who receive aid.

Accountability of development organizations

The most discussed development organizations with regard to accountability and its

contribution to improved performance of development projects have been those involving

international organizations such as CAFOD, Action Aid, Save the Children and Oxfam.

Development organization’s accountability is a more appealing area of research because it

raises the question of whether these organizations-which often aim to hold others to account,

are themselves accountable (Grant and Keohane, 2002).

The goal in reviewing development organization’s accountability is to survey the current state

of their accountability. Almost all development organizations are legally and primarily

accountable to their trustees, who ordinarily provide lightweight oversight with regard to

fiscal management. Organizations must also normally account for their activities to the

governments of the poor countries in which they operate, and sometimes also to the

Downward Accountability

• Feedback

• Participation

• Decision making

Performance of Social

development programs

Project activities delivered on;

time, within budget, scope

andquality qualityquality.

County planning

framework



government of the country in which they are based. However, this usually amounts to little

more than filing some obligatory reports and being subject to an occasional audit depending

on the planning framework of the Country.

With regard to performance, no development organization is accountable in a material way

for benefiting the poor in the long term. If a development organization fails in effect to help

the poor, there are virtually no mechanisms in place to sanction it. Most NGO sit is stated, do

not release the information about project effectiveness that would enable private donors to

hold them accountable for their successes and failures.

Notion of downward Accountability

The notion that right holder or beneficiaries have rights and are dynamic shapers of their own

development, has led to a shift from the previous morally instilled cooperation to a rights-

based approach to development (Gaventa, J. 2009). Based on this therefore, accountability

reflects the relation between duty bearers, who have to account for their activities and

beneficiaries or right holders, who should claim accountability. Development organizations

as service deliverers and promoters of advocacy have a duty to be accountable to their

stakeholders through the tenets of participatory approach to development (Richard Chambers,

1997).

Participatory development aims to engage the rights holders in the whole project cycle from

the design, implementation to evaluation of the development projects which target their

specific needs. The thinking behind participatory development is to involve the right holders

in projects so that projects become more in sync with local practices and aspirations, while at

the same time encouraging greater participation in the programs by giving the participants a

sense of ownership in them hence ultimately building into sustainability. A manifestation of

this is in Albania, where Albanian villagers were consulted as to what form a micro-lending

program they could take to so as to be most useful to them, and residents of a Brazilianslum

were consulted to help develop indicators for evaluating the success of a housing rights

campaign. The benefits of participation are that it draws on the greatest pool of knowledge

about local circumstances and situations, while also including the right holders in projects in

ways that can lead to lasting improvements in their livelihoods.

Involving the poor in the design and implementation of development projects can be an

effective technique for improving project outcomes and realizing overall goal of the project.

However, it is difficult totranslate such involvement into mechanisms for accountability.

It is one thing to listen to the rights holders when designing a project, and another to give

them power to penalize for actions they deem wrong (Burall and Neligan, 2002).

In terms of the conceptual analysis above, the right holders may at the very best presently,

have some limited standard-setting and performance-measuring powers but they always lack

the crucial power to sanction (Roche, 2002).

Agencies like ActionAid and Save the Children UK, which champion participation by the

rights holder, do not afford them powers to penalize agency personnel or to redirect resources

against staff wishes. In these agencies projects information flows to and from the poor, but

the power over resources remains as always top-down (Yedla Padmavathi, 1999).



Presently, with regard to the dynamics of the development world, this seems almost

inevitable.

The right holders have no way to force development organizations to yield power to them,

and it is extremely rare for organizations to freely grant to others the power to discipline them

for not fulfilling their mandate.

Research continues to manifest that despite the attractive sound of increased downward

accountability, the most viable proposals for reform are therefore those that make rich/ giving

actors the agents of accountability. It is well documented that only power balances power,

and it is in general only the rich and their agents who will be able to hold the rich and their

agents to account.

However, David Ellerman’s work, drawing on substantial philosophers, puts forward the

case that development work is only effective when its activities are owned by local people

themselves (Ellerman, 2001). Development organizations cannot develop other people;

development has to come from within. NGOs can initiate works and provide goods and

services, but these do not contribute to lasting change without associated changes in local

people’s confidence, attitudes and behaviors.

Helvetas Switzerland Downward Accountability Framework

Helvetas has given more support to downward accountability by including it in the new

“Civil Society and the State” (CS&S) working area strategy as a cross-cutting area which has

to be implemented throughout the implementation areas of operation. Helvetas thus adheres

to the following principles of downward accountability (based on research by One World

Trust, 2005);

Transparency; according to Helvetas, transparency means providing all necessary information

to stakeholders in the easiest and accessible way. But transparency is more than a one-way

flow of information; it is an ongoing dialogue between stakeholders and Helvetas to better the

implementation of development projects.

Participation; participation refers to the way stakeholders are involved in the program and in

all stages of the project cycle (planning, implementation, M&E). People should participate in

order to be the makers and shapers of their own development (Gaventa, 2009).

However, for Helvetas Switzerland, participation is only as effective as it is inclusive and

meaningful and if it provides avenues for change. There no point in consulting with

stakeholders if their remarks and concerns are not taken seriously.

Feedback; enabling stakeholders to seek and receive response for complaints, grievances and

alleged harm is a critical act of accountability. Feedback mechanisms should enable

stakeholders to give feedback on the activities of Helvetas through suitable and provided for

formal channels.

Monitoring and Evaluation; courtesy of M&E, Helvetas is measured against goals, outcomes

and outputs and forms the basis of accountability to various stakeholders. The purposes of the

comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of Helvetas are to provide; a) a



basis for steering, b) to capture experiences and lessons for organisational learning and c) to

ensure upward, downward and mutual accountability.

Empowerment; effective downward accountability needs to ensure social inclusion and

empowerment of the marginalized groups. In most cases, accountability is usually not rooted

in the culture of the countries where development cooperation engages, hence the respective

country programs have to ensure there is adequate implementation of the concept as well as

the necessary empowerment and awareness raising strategies.

CAFOD Accountability Framework

CAFOD accountabilitymeans taking responsibility of listeningto the needs, concerns and

views of supporters, donors, partners and the communities that they serve. CAFOD is

committed to acting on feedback from stakeholder’s pool and to being answerableto them in

terms of decision making. It means that CAFOD strives to improve the quality, learning and

effectivenessof its international programs by placing its partners and the communities that

they serve at the center of their work. At its heart, being accountable is about how they relate

topeople- men, women and children - with dignity and respect.

CAFOD’s accountability and quality commitments therefore hold the model of ‘downward’

accountability at its core. CAFOD as an organization is committed to taking account of the

views, needs and capacities of its partners and beneficiary communities to strengthen the

quality and effectiveness of international program work. CAFOD attributes the success of its

development project to a well-articulated downward accountability framework that is all

inclusive.

National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System

Historically, the desire for a more integrated M&E system in Kenya spans less than a decade,

although project and program-based monitoring and evaluation has featured in Kenya since

the 1980s. Early attempts at government-wide monitoring and evaluation are generally

associated with the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) introduced by the

IMF and World Bank in 2000, although this program was not effectively implemented. The

Kenyan government that took office after the 2002 general election instead transformed the

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper to align it to its economic Manifesto thus coming up with

the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERSWEC).

Chapter seven of the ERSWEC document stipulated that the government would undertake

M&E to track its policies, programs and projects being implemented. This is how the

National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES), and the Monitoring and

Evaluation Directorate (MED) who leads and coordinates the system were created and later

adjusted to the requirements of Kenya’s Vision 2030 that replaced ERS in 2008.

Centrally executed M&E across government is a relatively recent phenomenon in Kenya,

although various projects and programs incorporated notions of M&E since the 1980s. A

good example was the District Focus for Rural Development which was introduced in 1983

(Republic of Kenya, 2007:1). Besides this experiment, offices such as that of the Controller

of Budget and Auditor-General that evaluate governmental use of budgetary resources have

been parts of Kenyan governance before and after independence in 1963.



The next major phase in the evolution of M&E in Kenya was the introduction of the Kenya

Vision 2030 in 2008, which replaced the ERS as the country’s development blueprint. Vision

2030 became the principle driver of development in Kenya – and therefore the basis for

NIMES.

When in 2008, Kenya Vision 2030 as the national developmental blueprint replaced ERS,

NIMES was re-oriented to monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Vision. The

monitoring and evaluation responsibility was at this time, however, divided between MED

and a new tailor-made body, within the Ministry of Planning responsible for flagship

programs and projects in Kenya Vision 2030. The Kenya Vision 2030 Board and its

Secretariat were created for that purpose.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (MED) as the lead agency is mandated to

ensure that all monitoring products, particularly the Annual Progress Reports(APRs) on the

national Medium Term Plan of the Kenya Vision 2030 are prepared on schedule. Other duties

include “to prepare Cabinet papers on issues pertaining to NIMES and to coordinate the

production of policy and other papers required by Cabinet (NIMES, 2007:52-53).”

MED is mandated to “maintain a documentation center on all matters pertaining to the

functioning of NIMES” and to “make this information available to all stakeholders and/or

development practitioners in the country” (NIMES, 2007:53).

This enables the government to undertake evidenced-based decision making in terms of

policies and programs planning and implementation.

The Kenyan MED is designed to operate on three-tier relationship, namely, (a) the

Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate, (b) the Central Project Planning and Monitoring

Units based in each line Ministry, and (c) the Sub County Planning Units based in every

district.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter covers the research methodology. The methodology include: research design,

the target population, data collection procedures, tools and techniques of data collection, pre-

testing, validity, data analysis and ethical considerations.

Research Design

Descriptive and Correlation research methods were used in this study. Descriptive design

was used to collect data in order to answer questions concerning the current status of the

subject of study. It is the most appropriate in collecting data about characteristics of a large

population of this study in terms of cost effectiveness and time constraints. Descriptive

design’s findings can also be generalized which this study was aimed to achieve. Techniques

of correlational design research are particularly useful in social and behavioral investigations.

Since this study aimed at clarifying relationships correlational research was used. The tools

used included the use of structured questionnaires. The questionnaires were self -

administered to ensure a high return rate.



Focused group Interviews were also conducted to give in-depth information which might

have been omitted by the questionnaire. A quantitative method of data analysis was used

in order to establish and describe the degree of relationship between the independent

variables and dependent variables.

The researcher determined how downward accountabilityinfluenced performance of social

development projects in Busia County.

Target population

The target population was 113 and 118 Government Officers, NGOs, CBOs, and FBOs staff

from Bunyala and Samia Sub Counties respectively.

Table 1: Composition of the population in Bunyala and Samia Sub Counties

Government

employees(HoD/Technical)

NGO staff

(Technical)

CBO staff

(Technical)

FBO staff

(Technical)

Total

Bunyala 36 31 26 20 113

Samia 40 28 26 24 118 Source: Author

This study considered the entire population hence a census study. It provides a correct

measure of the population (no sampling error), benchmark data may be obtained for

future studies and detailed information about small sub-groups within the population is

more likely to be available (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Table 1 too constitutes the

sampling frame.

Data collection instruments

Questionnaire and focus interview schedule were the main tools of data collection. The use of

questionnaires as the key primary tool for data collection is supported by many scholars

including Peil (1995). Mugenda (2003) alludes to the fact that questionnaires are easy to

administer, are less costly and ensure greater depth with regard to responses. Questionnaires

were administered to 231 respondents. Focused-group interview schedule was administered

to the Sub County monitoring and evaluation committee. This was to bring out the Sub

County Monitoring and Evaluation Committee’s (SCMEC’s) valuable insights regarding the

contribution of National M&E system towards implementation of development projects in the

County. It was important so because the SCMEC is the custodian of the M&E function in the

Sub Counties.

Pre-Testing

Before the research instruments were finally administered to participants, pre-testing for

clarity and flow using mock interviews were conducted. A pilot study was undertaken to

further test whether or not the questionnaire adequately captured all the information required

in the study. 23 respondent as sample sizes were used for pre-testing representing about 10%

of the total population.

Validity

Validity according to Robinson, (2002) is the degree to which result obtained from analysis

of the data actually represents the phenomenon under study. Care was taken in constructing



the questionnaire and the pre-testing was done to identify and change any ambiguous,

awkward, or offensive questions as emphasized by Cooper and Schindler (2003). Expert

opinion was requested to comment on the representativeness and suitability of questions and

give suggestions on the structure of the tools. This helped in the improvement of the content

validity of the data that was collected.

Methods of data analysis

Data analysis is the critical examination of the coded data and making inferences. The

collected data was edited, coded and analyzed using statistical package for social

sciences (SPSS). The analysis output was presented in terms of tables. The qualitative data

took an exploratory/conceptual content analysis process. The researcher also used the

Pearson’s correlation analysis to assess the relationships between the independent and the

dependent variables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General characteristics

Existence of an M&E system

Table 2: Existence of M&E system

Existence of M&E system Total

YES NO DK

Organization for

which respondent

works for

Government 72 0 4 76

NGO 52 3 4 59

CBO 51 0 1 52

FBO 33 2 9 44

Total 208 5 18 231

Of the 231 respondents, 208 agreed that there is M&E system in place to track performance

of projects. This is especially important since it indicates to the researcher that the

respondents know the value of an M&E system and its importance in project management.

Performance of Social Development Projects

Table 3: Mean Social Development Project Performance

Organization for which respondent works for Mean N

Government 3.05 76

NGO 3.37 59

CBO 2.40 52

FBO 2.25 44

Total 2.28 231

From table 3, the NGOs are the highest performing with a mean of 3.37, followed by

Government with a mean of 3.05. CBOs come in third with a mean of 2.40 while FBOs are

least performing with a mean of 2.25. All organizations lie between a mean of 3.37 and 2.25

which is the performance rating of between good and fairly good.

Feedback

This section covers data analysis of feedback to right holders.



Table 4: Organization’s relationship with right holders

Organization relationship with right holders Total

Good Fair Bad

Organization for

which respondent

works for


NGO 57 2 0 59

CBO 43 7 2 52

FBO 35 7 2 44

Total 193 34 4 231

From the table we can deduce that there is a good relationship between right holders and the

various organizations implementing projects in the County. 84% of respondents indicated that

there is good relationship with right holders. This is important because project environment

encompasses relations with right holder and this relationships have to be good since

successful implementation of projects involve interaction with right holders, often the most

poor of society. A good relationship with right holders is key to successful implementation of

any project (MacDowell, 2002). This findings negates assertions made by (Groves and

Hinton, 2004, p. 4) that an important barrier to improved downward accountability is that

relationships, most notably those with poor people, are not in place .They argue that people

are generally better at forming relationships with those with whom they share common

behavioral traits. Where there are significant differences, it appears to be more difficult to

develop relationships grounded in trust and transparency. However the findings agree with

(Johnson, 2001), that being in tune with the aspirations and needs of the local people,

spending time in a community, being willing to listen to what villagers have to say, and the

cultural and religious affiliations of external agents have a serious impact on accountability to

beneficiaries (p. 14). The voices of those most affected by development programs are the

voices of local intermediary organizations – such as local institutions or NGOs– and the right

holders – often the poor.

Table 5: Correlation between organization’s good relation with right holders and

Performance of social development projects

Performance of social

development projects

Organization good relationship

with right holders



Pearson Correlation 1 .654

Sig. (2-tailed) .413

N 231 231

Organization good

relationship with right

holders

Pearson Correlation .654 1


N 231 231

Correlation is significant at .05 level(2-tailed)

From the table the result is a correlation coefficient of 0.654 which is significant at .05 level,

there is a strong positive relationship between good organization’s relationship with right

holders and performance of social development projects. The better the relationship between

organization and right holders, the higher the performance of social development projects.

This could be interpreted to mean that when the relationship is good-as cross tabulated above,

then there is a greater tendency and motivation to work harder for the success of projects.

This is corroborated by a recent study by BOND based on research across 90 NGOs,

concluded that the quality of an NGO’s fieldwork and implementation processes is often



determined by the quality of its relationships with its target right holders”. This means that

NGOs deliver quality work when their work is based on a sensitive and dynamic

understanding ofright holder’ realities; responds to local priorities in a way right holders feel

is appropriate; and is judged to be useful by right holders.” (BOND, 2006, p. v)

Table 6: Organization provide feedback to right holders

Organization provide feedback to right holders Total

YES NO DK

Organization for which

respondent works for


NGO 50 6 3 59

CBO 43 7 2 52

FBO 34 5 5 44

Total 181 30 20 231

Table 6 indicates that majority of the respondents agree that feedback is provided to the right

holders. 78% of respondents agreed that feedback is provided to right holders while only 13%

negated the same. 9% responded that they do not know and this could be because they may

not be charged with the responsibility of providing the feedback to right holders. Feedback to

right holders is very important especially as implementing agencies seek to have right holders

own the various initiatives being implemented within their jurisdiction. This findings agree

with David Ellerman’s work making the case that development work is only effective when

beneficiaries are in the know with regard to implementation of projects (Ellerman, 2001).

Development agencies cannot develop other people, for development has to come from

within. They can build infrastructure and provide goods and services; but these do

not contribute to lasting change without associated changes in local people’s

confidence, attitudes and behaviors. Hence, there has been a considerable shift in the

development world towards this need. 40 percent of projects in the developing world are not

sustainable because of very minimal right holder’sknowledge of their delivery and progress

(WB, 2008).

Table 7: Correlation between feedback provided to right holders and Performance of

social development projects

Feedback

provided to

right holders



Feedback provided to

right holders

Pearson Correlation 1 .554


N 231 231



Pearson Correlation .554 1


N 231 231

correlation is significant at .05 level(2-tailed)

Table 7, correlation coefficient of 0.654 is significant at .05 level indicates a moderate

positive relationship between feedback provided to right holders and performance of social

development projects. This means that the more the feedback is provided to right holders

with regard to project activities, the higher the performance of social development projects.

Management should therefore strive to continuously provide feedback to right holders so as

to better projects implementation.This findings are in agreement with the findings of IFRC

(2011), when continuous feedback is provided to beneficiaries, they become more attached to



the development initiative hence the greater the chances of its eventual success and

sustainability.

Table 8: The form in which feedback is made

The form in which feedback is made Total

Report Meetings Stakeholder

forums

Organization for

which respondent

works for


NGO 11 20 19 50

CBO 3 37 3 43

FBO 5 25 4 34

Total 27 88 66 181

Table 8 shows that meetings and stakeholder forums are the most common forms in which

feedback is made to right holders at 49% and 36% respectively. This is corroborated by the

interviews carried out in the course of data collection where it was noted that meetings and

stakeholder forums are the most common forms of information dissemination by the

Government and most NGOs in Busia County. This is because they have a wider reach

compared to reports and provide an atmosphere of exchange and learning. It is also cost

efficient. At the sub County level, there are already platforms through which meetings and

stakeholder forums are held. There is the Sub County stakeholders committee that is chaired

by the Deputy County Commissioner. This committee consists of heads of department of line

Ministries within which the project is being implemented, implementing partners as local

NGOs, FBOs and CBOs and representatives of right holders. This committee meets during

the life cycle of various projects in the County. At the Sub County too, we have the Sub

County Development Committee and Executive Committee which deliberate of development

issues within the Sub County. They provide for avenues through which progress with regard

to implementation of various projects is made. It is this progress that is then communicated to

right holders. Progress reports are then stored together with the minutes of the committees.

Though held monthly, they could be convened as the need arises. NIMES framework too

provides that feedback be made courtesy of meetings, stakeholder forums and reports.

Table 9: Correlations between (form in which feedback is made) stakeholder forums,

meeting and Performance of social development projects



Stakeholder

forums

Meetings



Pearson Correlation 1 0.211 0.494

Sig. (2-tailed) .500 .500

N 231 66 88

Stakeholder forums Pearson Correlation 0.211 1 .a

Sig. (2-tailed) .500 .000

N 66 66 88

Meetings Pearson Correlation 0.494 .a 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .500 .000

N 88 66 88

a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.


From table 9, we note that there is a very weak positive correlation between stakeholder

forum as a form of feedback to right holders and performance of social development projects.

The coefficient correlation of .211 is significant at .05. There is a moderate positive



relationship between meetings as a form of feedback to right holders and performance of

social development projects. A coefficient correlation of .494 is significant at .05 level.

Meaning that the more feedback is provided via meetings, the higher the performance of

social development projects. This is so because meetings are frequently held in the

development sector in relation to project’s implementation and provide better avenues for

learning (IFAD, 2002).

Table 10: How often feedback is made

How often feedback is made Total

Monthly Quarterly bi-annually annually



Government 8 46 3 19 76

NGO 7 26 3 23 59

CBO 8 27 1 16 52

FBO 2 30 3 9 44

Total 25 129 10 67 231

Table 10 indicates that most feedback, 56% is made quarterly and this is corroborated by the

interview responses obtained. Reporting with regard to the Government is mostly done

quarterly hence it would be the basis upon which its implementing partners would report. At

the end of each quarter, the Sub County Development Office is mandatedcourtesy of NIMES

framework, to collect all progress reports from the various line Ministries with regard to

programs being implemented. This collection is done based on a template developed by the

National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System. The Sub County development office

then compiles the reports and disseminates them courtesy of the District Executive

Committee. This reports are available to right holders. The quarterly reports are eventually

consolidated into The Sub County Annual Monitoring and Evaluation report. This too is a

requirement of the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System.

Participation

Table 11: Involvement of right holders in development of plans

Does org involve right holders in development

of plans

Total

Yes NO DK




NGO 7 51 1 59

CBO 7 44 1 52

FBO 16 26 2 44

Total 56 162 12 231

From table 11, 70% of respondents disagree that right holders are involved in the

development of plans for projects. This is significant because when right holders are not

involved in planning for their own projects then they will not own them hence chances of

failure are high. 24% of the respondents however agreed that right holders are involved. This

is good for sustainability of projects. The negative findings negate particular studies that

emphasis need for participation of right holders in development planning. The foreign Aid

Assistance Act of USA 1966, called on development agencies in the USA partnering in

implementation of projects in developing nations to ensure maximum participation of the

locals. This, the act envisage, would lead to an even greater success of projects hence the

lives of intended right holders. Gamer (1976) concludes too that a healthy development



system is one that emerges from the indigenous people hence the need to involve them in

planning. Development imposed from outside the local setting no matter how benevolent and

well-meaning will ultimately be counterproductive. This has led to a shift towards

participatory development planning. Proponents of the grass root citizen movement (Stoke,

1991 and community development (Chekki, 1980) have advocated right holderparticipation

because power gravitates to those who solve problems. A potable water project in Tunisia is

an example of a project that suffered due to lack of right holders’ involvement. The team did

not seek local participation at implementation and design hence attempts to involve them at

maintenance failed due to lack of interest.

Table 12: Correlation between right holders’ involvement in development of plans and

Performance of social development projects

Involvement of right

holders in development

of plans



Involvement of right

holders in development of

plans

Pearson Correlation 1 -.882


N 162 231



Pearson Correlation -.882 1


N 231 162


Correlation coefficient of -0.882 significant at .05 level denotes a strong negative relationship

between right holders involvement in development planning and performance of social

development projects. This means that the more the right holders are involved in

development planning, the lower the performance of social development projects. Right

holder involvement has a negative effect on performance of social development projects. This

is further corroborated through interviews conducted where the interviewees noted that

politics has to a large extend derailed development in the County. Wandera (2005), strongly

argues that the nature of development in Africa and by extension the developing world is

political. He goes on to note that many development initiatives in Africa fail because by

extension their success would lead to political milestone of the donor-more so the politically

driven Government initiatives. According to interviews conducted, politics is more than often

at the center of development in the County and any initiatives directed towards development

are politicized. This means that would be right holders are bound to clash as each set fights

for its interests. The end result is persistent delays in overall implementation of project

activities. This findings negate the thought of a new group of development administration

experts who view participation of right holders as directly related to success of development

work (Honadle and Klauss, 1979).

Table 13: How involvement of right holders is done

How is the involvement of right holders done Total

Meetings stakeholder

forums

Seminars

Organization for

which respondent

works for


NGO 35 14 2 51

CBO 26 17 1 44

FBO 16 8 1 25

Total 105 51 6 162



From table 13, 65% of respondents indicated that right holders are involved through meeting

while 31% responded that involvement is via stakeholder forums. This is tandem with the

mode of feedback to right holders and its related correlation. This finding are in agreement

with regard to Government system already in place at the sun national level in Kenya. Most

Sub Counties have Sub County Stakeholder forum committees in place to facilitate

involvement of right holders. There are also various Sub County development committees

that provide avenues for meetings in relation to development agenda in the Sub Counties.

This is very much articulated as earlier stated in the National Monitoring and Evaluation

System of Kenya. The system gives a number of reasons for preferring this methods of right

holder involvement. It note that this method is efficient and cost effective. Allowances are not

paid to participants of the various Sub County committees hence greatly reducing the

administrative budget, at the same time increasing funds available for development. At the

Sub County level, right holders are involved not as individuals but rather as groups. Zaman

and Esman (1984) have stressed on the importance of organizations to effective participation.

Organized groups have more influence to champion policy areas that are beneficial to all.

This is true especially when the organization is created and managed by members themselves.

This is true of the various organizations in the County.

Table 14: Weight given to input by right holders in plans

Weight given to input by right holders in plans Total

SERIOUSLY FAIRLY

SERIOUS

LESS

SERIOUS




NGO 11 9 39 59

CBO 9 16 27 52

FBO 8 10 26 44

Total 35 65 131 231

Table 14 can be interpreted together with the correlational table 11. From table 11 we saw

that there is a negative correlation between right holders’ involvement in development

planning and performance of social development projects. The more they are involved the

less the performance of social development projects. It is therefore conclusive as manifested

in table 14 that their input is taken less serious. The table highlights that 57% of respondents

took this input less serious, 28% took the same fairly serious. However 15% of respondents

took their input seriously. There no point in consulting with stakeholders if their remarks and

concerns are not taken seriously (Oneworld trust, 2005). Most government plans flow directly

from the very top-at the Ministerial level, to the Sub County leaving very little room for right

holders’ involvement. Even where they are involved, there input is less reflected in future

plans flowing to the Sub national level. Such programs in the County include the Community

Empowerment and Institutional Support Project which is nationally controlled, rigid and does

not offer a platform for right holders to be involved in development of its plans as the

researcher found out from interviews conducted. At the Sub County level, mainly with regard

to Government programs, the Sub County staff get already formulated implementation plans

to actualize. This platform does not involve right holders at all. Though capacity building

takes place to better the involvement capacity of right holders in development of plans, it

remains just that. Even for the most technical programs at the County level as Program for

Agriculture and Livelihoods in Western Communities, right holders are not involved in



development of plan and rarely is their input sought. Review meetings and annual work

planning does not involve right holders but only limited to the technical staff in the

Ministries. Right holders come into play only at implementation stage.

Decision Making

Table 15: Right holders involved in decision making process

Right holders involved in decision making process Total

YES NO DK

Organization for

which respondent

works for


NGO 15 38 6 59

CBO 14 30 8 52

FBO 18 20 6 44

Total 70 133 28 231

From table 15, we see that majority of the respondents say that right holders are not involved

in decision making. This accounts for 58% of the respondents. We can also note that this is

across the organizations i.e. Government, CBO, NGO and FBO. This could be attributed to

the fact that with regard to government programs, most decisions are taken at the very top-

ministerial level. Also interpreting this table in conjunction with table 14 which shows that

right holder input is given little weight then so is their decisions hence involvement. However

from the table we note too that 30% of respondents agree that right holders are involved in

decision making process. This can be attributed to that fact that some Government programs

generated at the County level through the various line Ministries or development partners

have a high level of right holder involvement in decision making. 12% responded that they do

not know. These findings negate the very principles of downward accountability in relation to

project management. Downward accountability is the extent to which development agencies

are transparent about their actions, listens and responds to those lower the aid chain,

involving them in decision making(BOND, 2006). It is imperative therefore that Government

in an effort to uplift the lives of its citizens in Busia County, strives as much as possible to

involve them in decision making. A project that does not involve its intended right holders in

decision making is alien to them (Shapiro, 2006). However as analyzed much earlier in

relation to participation is the fact that most decisions with regard to Government

development projects generally in Kenya are made at the very top-Ministerial level, as

opposed to implementing units at the Sub Counties. This is detrimental to development as

highlighted by Lopes (2008).

Table 16: Input of right holders into decisions communicated to them

Input of right holders into decisions communicated

to them

Total

YES NO DK

Organization for

which respondent

works for


NGO 6 8 1 15

CBO 3 10 1 14

FBO 6 12 0 18

Total 22 45 2 69

Table 16 highlights that majority of respondents- 65%, allude to the fact that input into

decision making process by right holders is not communicated to them when plans are

eventually actualized and approved. Like we noted early this could be due to the fact that



their input is not really incorporated into decisions made. Besides, it takes a very long time

for Government decisions to be made and communicated due to high level bureaucracy hence

by the time the same is made it has been overtaken by events. It could also be that the

demand side is ineffective in calling for that communication. From interviews conducted, the

researcher noted that the residents of Busia County do not demand for information from

Government offices. They do not make follow ups with regard to pushing through their

articulations with regard to what they want to be done. Consequently, due to this, the officers

do not see the need of communicating to them the various resolutions made in relation to

development. In fact, in most cases with regard to Government programs in the Sub Counties,

there are no communication strategies to actualize communication plans so that information

is available to right holders. It is not enough for right holders to wait for implementers to be

accountable to them but rather they should take the first steps in demanding for that

accountability. This findings negate assertions made by IFRC (2011) that right holders feel

valued and cherished in the development agenda when the see their contribution in the

development process actualized.

Table 17: Correlations between input of right holders communicated to them and

performance of social development projects

Performance

of social

development

projects

Right holders

involved in

decision

making process

Input of right

holders into

decisions

communicated to

them

performance of social


Pearson Correlation 1 .000 -.564

Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 .500

N 231 231 69

Right holders involved

in decision making

process

Pearson Correlation .000 1 .a

Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 .000

N 231 231 69

Input of right

holders into decisions

communicated to

them

Pearson Correlation -.564 .a 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .500 .000

N 69 69 69

a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.


From the table we can deduce that there is a moderate negative correlation between input of

right holders into decision making process communicated to them and performance of social

development projects. The correlation coefficient -.564 is significant at .05 level. This means

that the more the input of right holders in decision making is communicated to them the less

the performance of social development projects. As we observed earlier this could stem from

the fact that when this decisions are communicated to them they are politicized hence

affecting projects rollout or ongoing implementation of programs. This findings again as

illustrated earlier negate the very principles of downward accountability as manifested by

scholars in earlier discussions. Marije Boerhof, in her PhD dissertation; how does a local

organization practice accountability; a study on dangling accountability, highlights the

importance of an effective communication strategy that is actualized through reporting. She

notes that right holders have to be in the know all the time with regard to their input into

decision making or any other input. Such a relationship built on communication is very



central to the success of any project. In fact, she notes that it is a primary pillar to the success

of project initiatives. The scholar goes ahead to draw a strong positive relationship between

organizations that have a communication strategy and success of their projects.

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

Downward Accountability

This section covers findings on downward accountability and its effect on the performance of

social development projects in Busia County.

Feedback to right holders

From the tables, descriptively with regard to the relationship between implementing

organizations and right holders, we note that 84% of respondents indicated a very good

relationship while only 15% negated the same. There is a moderate positive correlation of

.654 significant at .05 level, between good relationship with right holders and performance of

social development projects.

We also note that 91% of respondents indicated that the nature of relationship affects

performance of social development projects while 9% negated the same. From the analysis,

78% of respondents agreed that feedback is provided to right holders while 13% negated the

same. There is a moderate positive correlation of 0.554 between feedback provided to right

holders and performance of social development projects. Feedback is mainly done through

stakeholder forums, meetings and reports in that order at 49% and 36% respectively. There is

a weak positive correlation of 0.211 significant at .05 level, between stakeholder forum as a

form of feedback and performance of social development projects. Meetings have a moderate

positive correlation of 0.494. Feedback is mainly done quarterly at 56%, which is consistent

with Government reporting while 29% indicated annually.

Participation of right holders

Descriptively, 70% of respondents indicated that project right holders are not involved in the

development of plans in the County with 24% alluding to participation. A correlation

between involvement of right holders in development planning and performance of social

development projects yielded a -0.889 correlation, indicating a strong negative correlation.

This signifies that the more the right holders are involved in development of plans, the lower

the performance of social development projects.

From the analysis, involvement of right holders is done courtesy of meetings at 65% and

stakeholders forums at 31%. However, the input of right holders is taken less seriously at

57%, 28% fairly serious and 15% very serious

Decision making

Descriptively, 58% of the respondents indicated that right holders are not involved in the

decision making with regard to projects being implemented. 30% agreed that there is right

holder involvement in decision making.

However though even for those who indicated that right holders are involved, 65% of them

indicated that there input into decision making is not communicated to them. More



importantly, a correlation between input into decision making communicated to right holders

and performance of social development projects yielded a coefficient of -0.564. This means

that the more input is communicated to right holders, the lower the performance of social


CONCLUSION

From the analysis of downward accountability with regard to relationship with right holders,

it was found out that there is a good relationship with right holders. This is contrary to

popular belief that the Government officers usually have a bad relationship with project right

holders. This is good for successful implementation process. There is a positive correlation

between good relationships with right holders and performance of social development

projects. This implies that avenues through which to nurture even better relations should be

sort so as to even better implementation.

Respondents also noted that feedback is provided to right holders beneficiaries. This is good

and implies that the right holders are in the know with regard to progress of project

initiatives. They are aware of challenges faced and can appreciate corrective measures taken.

They can easily identify and own the projects building towards sustainability.

With regard to participation, most respondents indicated that right holders are not involved in

developing development plans for projects in the County. This implies that these projects are

alien to them and may not be of priority to them in an attempt to improve their livelihoods.

They may not know there value towards bettering their livelihood. Right holderspoint of view

is less valued in relation to what may benefit them. This is not good for the success of any

project and does little to help in overcoming challenges that are even beyond the project

environment. Ownership and sustainability of the same projects is at stake.

There is a negative correlation between right holder’s involvement in development planning

and performance of social development projects. This is not good for the County since most

of the literature reviewed indicated that success of any project depends on high level

participation by the right holders. This implies that lots of political undertones characterize

involvement of right holders hence derailing overall implementation.

Input by right holders is not taken seriously. This implies that right holders are merely used

as rubber stamps to champion development agenda. They are merely involved by

implementers so that the whole process can sound participatory.

It was observed that majority respondents indicated that right holders are not involved in

decision making process. This implies that participatory approach to development does not

take place in the County. This could translate to the reason as to why many of the social

development projects fail to achieve set goals. It also means a deficiency on the demand side

of development projects. Right holders are not proactive in seeking avenues for involvement

in decision making. There too is a negative correlation between involvement in decision

making and performance of social development projects. This points to the political nature of

development in the County as the researcher found out, hence derailing successful

implementation of development projects.



RECOMMENDATIONS

In practice, there is a good relationship between implementers and right holders, the County

should take every available opportunity to consolidate that relationship through continuous

interaction with right holders courtesy of meetings. There is too a positive correlation with

performance of social development projects. The County should create sharing platforms

with project right holders such as results dissemination forums, so that they can even better

understand development initiatives coming their way. This will create transparency, a very

strong selling point towards any right holder.

Feedback is provided to right holders but however it yields a negative correlation with

performance of social development projects. This as earlier mentioned is aligned to the

political nature of development in Busia County. The County Government should roll out

sensitization initiatives to enlighten its people on the benefits of development through

projects being initiated. Busia County is one of the poorest in Kenya, a fact attributed to lack

of meaningful development.

Importantly, Government project staffs should be reoriented and trained on the value of

participatory approaches to development. This is because they seldom involve right holders

in decision making and their input into planning process not taken seriously. They should be

made aware of the fact that success and sustainability of any project is dependent on the

nature of right holder participation in the same. The County should summarily adopt

participatory approaches to development.

Overly, the County Government should develop a downward accountability framework so as

to consolidate goodwill already present from its residents hence successful implementation of

its development agenda.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

There is a negative correlation between participation of beneficiaries in development

planning, decision making and performance of social development projects. A study should

be undertaken to understand why this is the yet ordinarily, participation by beneficiaries in

development planning and decision making leads to success of development projects.

REFERENCES

Albaek E. Why all this evaluation? Theoretical notes and empirical observations on the

functions of growth of evaluation, with Denmark as an illustrative case. The Canadian

Journal of Program Evaluation 1996; 11(2): 1-34.

Anderson MB. Aid: A mixed blessing. Development in Practice 2000; 10(3&4): 495-500.

Berg BL. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Pearson Education: Boston,

2007.

Crawford P, Bryce P. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing efficiency

and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of Project Management

2003; 21: 363-373.



Dahler-Larsen P. From Program Theory to Constructivism: On Tragic, Magic and Competing

Programs. Evaluation 2001; 7(3): 331-349.

Dahler-Larsen P. Beyond Non-utilization of Evaluations: An Institutional Perspective,

Knowledge, Technology and Policy, Spring/Summer 1998; 11(1-2): 64-90.

Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation, Republic of Kenya.

2004.

Frederick G, Lori F. Research Methods for the behavioral sciences, 2009.

Horton DA, Alexaki S, Bennett-Lartey KN, Brice D, Campilan F, Carden J. et al. Evaluating

capacity development: Experiences from research and development organizations around the

world. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), 2003.

Gaventa J. Exploring Citizenship, Participation and Accountability. IDS Bulletin Volume

2009; 33(2).

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Managing for impact in rural

development. A guide for project M&E. IFAD Office for Evaluation & Study, 2002..

Retrieved on 2006 April 20 from http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/index.htm.

Jacobs A, Angood C. Increasing downward accountability: Reporting financial information to

program users. Retrieved January 17, 2006, from http://www.intrac.org.

Janet Shapiro. CIVICUS, South Africa, 2000.

Chikaiti J. The Project Management Handbook, Regional Partnership for Resource

Development, Kenya, 2006.

Johnson C. Towards accountability: Narrowing the gap between NGO priorities and local

realities in Thailand (ODI Working Paper 149). London: Overseas Development Institute

(ODI), 2001.

Mark K, Pfeiffer JR. Evaluation Capacity Development (ECD) Working Paper Series on

Monitoring & Evaluation in the United States Government 2011; 26.

Lopes C, Theisohn T. Ownership, leadership and transformation: Can We Do Better for

Capacity Development? New York: United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2003.

MacLachlan M, Carr S. The human dynamics of aid (Policy Insights 10). Paris: OECD, 2005.

Ministerial Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Republic of Kenya, 2010.

Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030-2008-2012, Medium Term

Plan, Kenya.

Mugenda O, Mugenda A. Research methods: Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches, 2003.

Mwangi W. Project Planning and Administration, Department of Sociology, Anthropology

and Economics, Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya, 2006.

OECD. Development cooperation, efforts and policies of the members of the Development

Assistance Committee (DAC) 1995 report. Paris: Author. 1996.



OECD/DAC (Eds.). Paris declaration on aid effectiveness. Paris: 2005.

One World Trust. Pathways to Accountability. The GAP Framework, 2005. Available online

at www.oneworldtrust.org

Patton QM. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd edition). London: Sage,

1997.

Republic of Kenya, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics Report, Kenya, 2013.

Republic of South Africa, National Evaluation Policy Framework, South Africa, 2008.

Grant R, Keohane R. Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics. American

Political Science Review 2005; 99(1): 29–43.

Chambers R. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First (London: ITDG Press, 1997).

Wallace T, Chapman J. Some realities behind the rhetoric of downward accountability.

Working paper presented at the 5th INTRAC Evaluation Conference, The Netherlands, 2003.

Date post:	17-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangbao
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING AND …ijmrr.com/admin/upload_data/journal_Kevin Mulama...PERFORMANCE OF...

Documents