All the stars and the planets around the globe have truly aligned and have so far developed so much interest in institutionalization of M&E systems both in the public and private sectors. The increase in the number of NGOs in development work has resulted in donors placing accountability pressures on them to demonstrate results from the resources intrusted to them in aid spending. One way for NGOs to demonstrate results and show the effectiveness of their interventions is through strengthening their M&E systems. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) have evolved overtime as important tools that can be used to enhance management of programmes and facilitates measurement of progress on project implementation [1].  Monitoring and Evaluation are as well regarded as powerful tools that can be used by non-governmental organizations to measure and improve the way they do their business and the achievement of their results. The mantra of performance measurement- ‘What gets measured gets done’ [2] should be encapsulated in a functional M&E system. They are strong accusations from different quotas that M&E systems in Africa are donor driven. The importance of M&E within public administration in Africa has been magnified by the ‘growing voice of civil society’ which brought the question of good governance to the limelight [1]. The majority of the African countries are relying heavily on donors to fund, to design and establish M&E systems in government departments and the public sector at large. Many donors, locally or internationally, have become key players and stakeholders in many African countries to drive the process of institutionalizing M&E in the public sector. According to Porter and Goldman [3] the supply of M&E in Africa has to a large extent been influenced by donor demands that have stimulated the development of M&E practice. These donors fund or support the efforts of many governments and NGOs across Africa in strengthening M&E capacities and systems. Heavily relying on donor support for M&E institutionalization raises more questions when it comes to ownership and sustainability of the M&E initiatives. Most NGOs carry out monitoring and evaluation systems as part of meeting one of the grant condition they signed with the donor. It is quite evident in many NGOs that all M&E activities are tied to donor funding and they are not part of a broader M&E institutionalization processes. This then means the M&E systems are only there to address donor concerns for accountability and transparency rather than being part of the overall organizational concerns directly related to broader developmental issues. 

The regular progress reporting by NGOs normally is done solely for donor purposes and reassuring the donor that the money has been used for what it was intended. If you can’t measure how well you are going against targets and indicators, you may go on using resources, without changing the circumstances you have recognised as a problem at all [1]. There is tremendous power for NGOs to measure their progress or performance. Osborne and Gaebler  in the power for measuring results declared that:

“What gets measured gets done.

If you cannot measure results, you cannot tell success from failure

If you cannot see success, you cannot reward it.

If you cannot reward success, you are probably rewarding failure.

If you cannot see success, you cannot learn from it.

If you cannot recognize failure, you cannot correct it.

If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support” 

Source: Moleko [2] Influence and originality in Michael Quinn Patton’s Utilization-Focused Evaluation.

Performance monitoring systems provides objective information that helps program managers to make informed decisions thereby strengthening program performance and stakeholders’ accountability. Wholey et al. [4] argue that performance monitoring systems are designed to provide objective information to managers and policy makers in order to improve decision making and strengthening performance thereby providing accountability to a range of stakeholders. The main driver of the effectiveness of M&E is the amount, quality, and periodicity of information produced [5]. It is, therefore, crucial for NGOs to establish M&E systems that enable data collection which are relevant and reliable. However, building and operationalizing M&E in an institution is mud with several challenges. Kimaro and Fourie [6] states that some of the challenges worth noting relate to lack of linkages between the collection of performance data and its future use in policy making, lack of political will, shortage of manpower skilled in M&E and lack of resources to fund M&E institutionalization.

Gorgens and Kusek [7] states that understanding the skills needed and the capacity of people involved in the M&E system and addressing capacity gaps is at the heart of the M&E system. M&E systems in NGOs cannot function without skilled many powers who can effectively execute the M&E tasks for which they are responsible. While the organization collects performance information, often the quality of data is poor. This is partly because the burden of data collection sometimes falls on over-worked staff who are not trained in M&E and who rarely receives any feedback on how the data are actually being used. This leads to a chicken-and-egg problem: data are poor partly because they aren’t being used; and they’re not used partly because their quality is poor [8]. NGOs needs to design M&E systems that builds reliable organizational data systems that helps to feed raw data on which the M&E systems depends. With respect to reliability of data, it is important to maintain consistency in data collection procedures in order to generate valid trend data overtime [4]. Kimaro et al. [9] states that the importance of developing a comprehensive M&E system comes at the stage where approaches to be used and budget for data collection should be planned in advance and ideally mainstreamed into the plans of an institution. However, Karani et al [1] argue that lack of commitment by project managers, incompetency on the use of the monitoring and evaluation systems by project managers, stringent donor requirements and capacity constraints of NGOs affects the effective use of the M&E systems. 

Ideally, program managers should reference information generated from the M&E system in order to track progress towards the achievements of set targets. In most developing countries, monitoring and evaluation is yet to reach an acceptable level of operation. The question arises whether NGOs in Chegutu district has the necessary competences and skills to be able to analyse and utilize the information that is generated by the M&E systems. There are no known and available studies in Zimbabwe that has been conducted to establish factors influencing the performance of the M&E systems of non-governmental organizations. This study will form the basis upon which other similar studies will be carried in future.

This paper used a case study approach which incorporated the mixed (quantitative and qualitative) research designs. Interviews and questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 74 questionnaires were distributed and were completed by the respondents. According to Nyamambi [10], the use of interviews allows the researcher to elicit the views and opinions of the respondents through probing and asking questions for clarification. The study was conducted in all the NGOs that are in Chegutu district and purposive sampling was used to select the respondents. In purposive sampling, the respondents are known and the selection is based on the individual’s relevant knowledge and experience with which to contribute to the study [10]. The respondents from programmes and M&E staff had sufficient experience to offer insights and relevant information on various factors influencing performance of monitoring and evaluation systems of non-governmental organizations in Chegutu district, Zimbabwe. 

Informed consent was taken from all the study participants. No name appeared on the questionnaire to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. 

M and E data quality

Data quality has a direct influence on the performance of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of an organization. According to Figure 1, 88% (65) of the respondents indicated that they regularly collect data on programme or project activities. The supply and demand of M&E information in NGOs has been influenced to a great extent by the donor demands which have promoted the development of the M&E culture. This makes data to be readily available for organizations to use their M&E systems to track changes (positive or negative) that occur to the project beneficiaries as a result of the programme or project activities. In support of data quality, one of the Program Officer had this to say: “The majority of NGOs regularly collects data and ensures that the data are timely and accurately collected and the data are of good quality. The data is collected from primary and secondary sources ensuring that important information about the project is not missed. Once the data are collected, they are analysed in order to provide meaning for it to be used to inform decision making.” As NGOs regularly collects data, this ensures that data are captured in real time and are used to inform decision making. However, studies have shown that the M&E systems often generates data which is often poor because the burden of data collection is placed on the shoulders of untrained program staff and they are often overworked at the shop floor level.   

Human capacity for M&E

For the sustainability of the M&E systems, it is critically important for NGOs to have sufficient manpower with the adequate skills set. As shown by Figure 1, 74% (55) of the respondents reported that they were trained in M&E through in-service training or formally. This demonstrates that the majority of the program staff in NGOs in Chegutu district have the technical knowledge in the operation of the M&E systems. The majority of the program staff in many NGOs had received some training in M&E through either formal or in-service training. However, it is critically important for the NGOs to continually develop the capacity of their program staff in M&E. Investing in human capacity building for M&E will in the long run improve the quality of the M&E system [10].  Monitoring and Evaluation which is conducted by untrained and inexperienced staff is time consuming, costly and the results which will be generated will be impractical and irrelevant. In addition, Micah and Luketero [11] argue that program staff working in majority of NGOs are not clear about their M&E roles since the roles are not captured in their job description. The results demonstrate that an M&E system cannot function effectively and efficiently without skilled personnel trained in M&E to execute the M&E functions responsibly. It is crucial for the NGOs to ensure that program staff operating the M&E systems are properly trained in M&E and ensure there is no information gaps. According to Gorgens and Kusek [7] understanding the skills needed and the capacity of people involved in the M&E system and addressing capacity gaps is at the heart of the M&E system.   

Use of logic models for planning

Literature has shown that various NGOs are using the logical framework as a planning, monitoring and evaluation tool with specified outputs and established timeframes. According to Figure 1, 96% (71) of the respondents indicated that NGOs do use the logical framework as a tool for planning, monitoring and evaluation. These results show that the logical framework is the basic tool which is being used for planning, monitoring and evaluation by the majority of NGOs in the district. There was general consensus among respondents that NGOs are using logical framework throughout the project cycle to monitor implementation of project activities. The Senior M&E Officer in one of the NGOs indicated: “The logical framework is used by many NGOs throughout the project cycle as a tool for tracking and reviewing project implementation. The bias is on the choice and use of quantitative indicators at the expense of qualitative indicators creating a gap for measuring the qualitative aspect of the project. On the continuum of the results chain, majority of the program staff only know how to measure the results of the lower levels of the logical framework but lacks the skills to measure and track the upper levels of the results chain on the logical framework.” 

According to Jacobs et al. [12], logical framework offers significant benefits to various stakeholders and it meets the needs of powerful decision makers in developmental organizations. However, the use of logic models is biased towards the use of quantitative indicators for measuring program performance at the expense of qualitative indicators.  Edmunds and Marchant argue that the top end of the results chain is complex to analyse and increasingly costly to collect information. However, program staff need to have knowledge about the various components of the logical framework (impacts, outcomes, outputs, inputs) especially on how they influence the performance of the M&E system.

Utilization of the M&E information

According to Nyamambi [10] utilization of the M&E information by all key stakeholders in influencing decision making is one of the pillars of a functional M&E system. As shown by Figure 1, 91% (67) of the respondents reported that NGOs are so keen in utilizing M&E information in promoting organizational learning and improving project implementation. This shows that NGOs do utilize and use M&E findings to inform project planning and implementation. In support of the utilization of the M&E information, one of the M&E officer had this to say: “There is a tendency to use monitoring information to inform decision making as opposed to evaluation findings. In most cases evaluations are done by external evaluators and the report is never shared with program staff.” Utilization of M&E information is the yardstick of a successful M&E system [13]. The M&E system tend to provide the necessary information which help NGOs to measure the performance of the programs they are implementing. The M&E measures the achievement of the set goals and the generation of evidence to ensure accountability to various stakeholders. However, Cuesta and Guzman [5] argue that the most robust and comprehensive M&E system is useless if the information it generates is not consumed. A successful M&E system should be measured by its utility and actual use [10]. 

Incentives for M and E

Incentives are crucial for M&E information to be utilized by program managers and staff in their day-to-day work, by budget and planning officials responsible for advising on policy options, or by legislature responsible for accountability oversight [10,14]. According to Figure 1, 85% (63) of the respondents indicated the need for M&E incentives for an M&E system to be functional. To have functional M&E systems, the introduction of incentives (carrots, sticks, sermons) by NGOs becomes imperative. Strong incentives are necessary for the sustainability of the M&E system. There is need for NGOs to provide strong incentives for monitoring information and evaluation findings to be actually used. Literature has shown that demand for M&E information has been created through the use of incentives and has been applied successfully in both developing and developed nations.   

M and E funding

For the M&E system to be properly functional, NGOs need to invest resources into it. As shown by Figure 1, 99% (73) respondents indicated that M&E funding is crucial for a successful M&E system. This then means that NGOs should set aside a budget for M&E activities. Njama  states that the availability of funds for activities, stakeholder participation and organizational leadership are positive determinants to a sound and functional M&E system. In both the interviews and the questionnaires, the respondents concurred that majority of the NGOs fund M&E activities but the resources are not adequate. This argument was supported by Bamberger et al. [15] when they stated that project and program budgets often include insufficient funds for M&E. 

Figure 1: Performance of M AND E Systems 

RECOMMENDATIONS

From the foregoing discussions, it is recommended that:

Use of evaluation findings

NGOs are expected to utilize evaluation findings in informing their decision making thereby increasing transparency, strengthening accountability and improving program performance.  Evaluation reports are expected to produce findings that should influence programs or policy implementation. The evaluation process should not be undertaken if they are no prospects of evaluation findings being utilized by key stakeholders to inform decision making. Conducting evaluation whose findings will not be used or utilized is a sheer waste of resources. Abreu [16] argue that when evaluation is made only to answer external accountability without helping managers improve their programs, managers tend to be less involved, and the results are not worth the cost. Ross et al. [17] states that evaluation is intended to be both useful and used directly or immediately or as an incremental contribution to a cumulative body of practical knowledge. Evaluation findings represents lessons learnt and should be of necessity be used in the formulation of new programmes or projects. Evaluation findings are ‘perishable’ for they tend to deteriorate quickly as the world changes rapidly hence the need to quickly utilize evaluation findings to inform program decisions. Evaluation findings are crucial for decision making for they do help managers by revealing the performance of a project and leads to organizational learning which results in improvement of the current and future projects.  However, literature has shown that evaluation findings are not used to influence program decision making instead evaluations are conducted on the instance of donors and not as part of the overall organizational learning process. Hardlife and Zhou [18] argue that in developmental programmes, there is lack of learning from experience and a lack of systematic use of findings from past programme evaluation.  Many of the evaluation reports are gathering dust in the shelves with no single recommendation used or implemented. Patton (1997) state of the need to narrow the gap between generating evaluation findings and actually using those findings for program decision making and improvement

Conducting routine data auditing exercises

Data auditing is the only sure way in which the quality of data in NGOs can be generated. Data needs quality control and it largely involves data reviews and data verification exercises. NGOs should selectively conduct data audits on a small random scale and this will in a long run ensure high quality data. To conduct data audits on a small scale can help in safeguarding against deliberate falsification and manipulation of data and reports. Lopez-Acevedo et al. [14] states that data quality should adhere to the six dimensions of quality; accuracy, reliability, completeness, precision, timeliness and integrity. Data auditing is a process of verifying whether reported data adheres to the six dimensions of data quality. In many NGOs this process is done by the M&E team. There is need for the M&E team to conduct data verification exercises frequently and take the necessary remedial action of correcting the data before it is shared with the donor and key stakeholders. Wholey et al. [4] states that data audit process provides an overall reading on the accuracy of reported data, identifies problems in data collection that can then be resolved, and serves as an incentive for people to guard against sloppy reporting. This is done through field visits to the organization that submitted raw data and comparison is made with the information the organization has checking for internal consistency and ensuring that data sourcing was done accurately. There is need to strengthen the capacities and the capabilities of the M&E teams in NGOs through in-services training for the teams to be able to conduct data auditing exercises. 

Promotion of organizational learning

There is need for the NGOs to use evaluation findings to promote a culture of organizational learning. An organization with a desire to learn should be interested in evaluation findings. Hardlife and Zhou [18] indicated that evaluation addresses issues of causality for both programme success or programme failure, by highlighting the contributing factors in each case, to draw lessons for organizational learning and enable replication of positive performance. The purpose of evaluation is to produce findings about program outcomes and processes and NGOs are expected to use the findings to influence program improvements. The evaluation findings should be used by management to inform decision making thereby promoting organizational learning. According to Micah and Luketero [11] evaluation findings and recommendations represent the lessons learnt from completed programmes and must be considered in the formulation of new programmes and projects. The desire for M&E in NGOs should be fuelled by the need to enhance learning. The aim for having an M&E system should be to help different actors to understand lessons learned and unintended outcomes. In order to promote organizational learning, this is one area NGOs should introduce M&E incentives

Training program staff on M and E

There is need for NGOs to strengthen the capacity of program staff on data quality control measures. It is crucial for the NGOs to provide in-service or formal training to program staff who has the responsibilities of collecting data and entering data into the M&E system. The quality of data is crucial for maintaining the credibility and usefulness of the performance monitoring system and it is important to have procedures in place for ensuring data integrity. The ability of the program staff to measure the upper level of the logical framework also needs strengthening

Use of qualitative indicators in the M and E system

The majority of NGOs use logic framework for planning which has a bias towards the use of quantitative indicators at the expense of qualitative indicators. The quantitative outputs lack the flesh of qualitative information which provides more details on how the objectives of a program are being achieved or not. The M&E system of NGOs must encompass qualitative indicators which help to explain in detail how and why outputs are being achieved.   It is critical that NGOs must go beyond numbers or figures when monitoring, capturing, evaluating and reporting the impact of a project or program. As quantitative indicators are used as objective and empirical method of assessing program performance but in absence of qualitative information, it misses out the recording of real essence of change of circumstances recognised as problems

Allocating an adequate budget for M&E

Resource allocation towards M&E activities directly influence the performance of a functional M&E system. The M&E budget should provide sufficient and adequate resources for the M&E department to carry out M&E activities effectively. NGOs in Chegutu district need to allocate adequate budget for M&E activities. A good rule of thumb as shown by literature is to allocate 5-10% of the project costs for M&E activities. However, Fankel and Gage [19] argue that there is no formula to be used for calculating the proportion of budget to be allocated for M&E. It is crucial, therefore, that the M&E budget should not be too little to affect the functionality of the M&E Unit or be too much to the extent of swallowing resources meant for other project or program activities. The M&E budget should be sufficient enough to accommodate the unforeseen and the rising costs of materials

Stakeholder Participation

There is need for the NGOs to clearly define in their M&E protocols and guidelines the roles of stakeholders in order for them to execute effectively their part in the operation of the M&E system. It is of no use having a complex M&E system if your partners are unable to collect data that provides the information you need [11]. It is crucial that stakeholders should engage at various levels in monitoring and evaluating a project, program or policy. The meaningful involvement of stakeholders in M&E will result in the generation of sufficient, adequate and relevant information that has the potential to enhance delivery of results. However, Micah and Lukeveto [11] argue that stakeholder’s involvement should be carefully managed in order to enrich the quality of M&E data and ensure that project delivery is not slowed down. 

The results of the study showed that the performance of M&E systems of various NGOs are influenced by the quality of data, human capacity for M&E, use of logic models, M&E incentives and M&E funding. They are numerous challenges being faced by NGOs in the provision of quality data and in the utilization of evaluation findings. It is of no use and a sheer waste of resources to commission an evaluation whose results will not be utilized. The majority of the NGOs have invested much resources and established functional M&E systems which are being used to generate information to inform decision making. The study established that evaluation findings are not being used in the majority of NGOs in informing decision making and in promoting organization learning. The study made numerous recommendations in order to enhance the M&E systems to measure program performance in relation to the continuum of the results chain of various NGOs in the district. The majority of NGOs need to create demand for M&E information through provision of incentives. 

1. Karani, F.N. et al. “Effective Use of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Managing HIV/AIDS Related Projects: A Case Study of Local NGOs in Kenya.” Science Journal of Business and Management, vol. 2, no. 2, 2014, pp. 67–76. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjbm.20140202.13

2. Moleko, M.P. Influence and Originality in Michael Quinn Patton’s Utilization-Focused Evaluation. University of Stellenbosch, 2011.

3. Porter, S., and Goldman, I. “A Growing Demand for Monitoring and Evaluation in Africa.” African Evaluation Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/aej.v1i1.25

4. Wholey, J.S. et al. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, 2010.

5. Cuesta, J.P., and Guzman, J.R.M. Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Guyana. Inter-American Development Bank, 2014.

6. Kimaro, J.R., and Fourie, D.J. “A Roadmap, Similarities and Lessons Learnt from National Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Africa.” Administratia Publica, vol. 25, no. 4, 2017, pp. 193–211.

7. Gorgens, M., and Kusek, J.Z. Making Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Work: A Capacity Developing Toolkit. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2009.

8. Mackay, K. Institutionalization of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems to Improve Public Sector Management. ECD Working Paper Series, no. 15, Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank, 2006.

9. Kimaro, J.R. et al. “Institutionalisation of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): Considerations Influencing the Interrelationships between Performance, Performance Management and M&E.” Administratio Publica, vol. 26, no. 4, 2018, pp. 196–219.

10. Nyamambi, E. “Challenges Faced by Municipalities in Institutionalizing Monitoring and Evaluation Systems: A Case of Chegutu Municipality in Zimbabwe.” IAR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 1, 2021, pp. 46–51. https://doi.org/10.47310/jiarjhss.v02i01.007

11. Micah, N.J., and Luketero, S.W. “Monitoring and Evaluation Systems and Performance of Non-Governmental Based Maternal Health Projects in Bungoma South Sub-County, Kenya.” European Scientific Journal, vol. 13, no. 23, 2017, pp. 11–23. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n23p11

12. Jacobs, A. et al. “Three Approaches to Monitoring: Feedback Systems, Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation and Logical Frameworks.” Institute of Development Studies, vol. 41, no. 6, 2010, pp. 36–44.

13. Mackay, K. How to Build M&E Systems to Support Better Government. Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank, 2007.

14. Lopez-Acevedo, G. et al. Building Better Policies: The Nuts and Bolts of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2012.

15. Bamberger, M. et al. RealWorld Evaluation: Working under Budget, Time, Data and Political Constraints. Sage, 2006.

16. Abreu, R.V. Monitoring and Evaluating Governmental Programs: Lessons for Designing a Governmental Network of M&E. The George Washington University, 2013.

17. Ross, P. et al. Evaluation: A Systemic Approach. 7th ed., Sage, 2004.

18. Hardlife, Z., and Zhou, G. “Utilization of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems by Developmental Agencies: The Case of the UNDP in Zimbabwe.” American International Journal of Contemporary Research, vol. 3, no. 3, 2013, pp. 70–83.

19. Fankel, N., and Gage, N. M&E Fundamentals: A Self-Guided Mini-Course. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 2007.