Transcript Implications of selected USAID-supported interventions in Namibia
Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably: Implications of selected USAID supported interventions in Namibia
HIV Capacity Building Summit March 19, 2013 Johannesburg
Background
• • • • Since 2006, Pact supported 22 NGOs in HIV service delivery funded by USAID. Support: Mentoring, training, on-the-job assistance, peer exchange, facilitated services In late 2010, donor changed focus, and only 6 NGOs had continued support with the goal of getting prepared for direct funding Pact changed the approach to “OD Roadmap” to focus on graduation priorities
OD Roadmap approach and tools
Organizational Development (OD) Roadmaps
objective and participatory measure of CSO partner organizational systems and structures • • •
Basis for identifying organisational efficiency gaps and prioritizing interventions Progression on a scale from 1 (nascent) to 5 (mature) Covers 10 capacity building areas
Comprehensive Institutional Strengthening Plans
to identify, schedule and monitor all capacity-building activities
Key areas of analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
Assess the quality and usefulness of capacity development efforts since 2006 Examine the effectiveness of the “OD roadmap” capacity building approach Review selected capacity building factors associated with sustainability (retention) of systems. Assess perceived differences in importance of priority capacity building areas
Relevant Data collection tools
1.
2.
3.
4.
Partner survey (Quantitative and Qualitative) USAID tool (Qualitative) Pact tool (Qualitative) Historical OD Roadmap scores (Quantitative) • • Partner tool collected on 4 capacity building priority areas : • Strategic planning support • Financial Management support Programmatic/Technical Monitoring and Evaluation Support (M&E)
Study limitations
Sample size: • • Limited data: Only 47 respondents from 17 organizations; Organisations that we couldn’t reach are likely those whose programs had closed due to lack of funding (and thus may not have been sustainable).
Objective data: • Except for those (6 orgs out of 17) who received “OD roadmap” support, we did not have reliable baseline data. Reponses: • Potential for recall bias (survey conducted 2012)
Partner information (quantitative survey)
Number of orgs OD Roadmap support, graduated to direct funding OD Roadmap support, not graduated No OD Roadmap support, graduated No OD Roadmap support, not graduated Total
3 (18%) 3 (18%) 2 (12%) 9 (53%) 17
Number of partner respondents
10 (21%) 12 (26%) 3 (6%) 22 (47%) 47
Findings
Quality and Usefulness rated high
Average
5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 Strategic Support Financial Planning Usefulness Quality Program Thematic Mon & Eval
No difference in usefulness between OD roadmap and pre-OD roadmap approach 5 Pre-OD Roadmap OD Roadmap 4 3 2 1 Strategic Support Financial Planning Program Thematic Mon & Eval
Changes in OD Roadmap Scores
Score
5 Baseline Score Endline Score 4 1 0 3 2 PNP ORG NETW GOV FM HRM OPM GNC PROG M&E
Systems retained and in use today from capacity building support Pre-OD Roadmap OD Roadmap M&E PT FP SP Non-Grads Grads 0 20 40 60 80 100
Retention by whether the support was the partner’s decision at first
Retention
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Strategic Support Financial Planning Partner Program Thematic Other Mon & Eval
Retention of capacity building support by level of usefulness 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strategic Support Financial Planning Little or Somewhat Useful Program Thematic V/Critically Useful Mon & Eval
Different stakeholders, different top-ranked capacity needs OD Roadmap partners 1. Monitoring & evaluation 2. Technical support 3. Financial management 4. Program development Non-OD Roadmap partners 1. Technical support 2. Financial management 3. Advocacy 4. Monitoring & evaluation USAID 1. Resource mobilization 2. Financial management 3. Administration 4. Monitoring & evaluation Pact 1. Resource mobilization 2. Financial management 3. Institutional support 4. Technical support
Graduated partners & USAID: contrasting expectations Partners expect of USAID: USAID expects: 1. Same relationship/treatment with USAID as partners had with Pact 2. Continued technical assistance, but often lack adequate budget 1. Strong organizational capacity and governance systems, ability to work independently and maintain capacity even after staff turnover 2. USAID support to partners, but also partner ability to address own needs 3. Increased USAID capacity building support after graduation 3. Performance like long-term international USAID partners, responsive and accountable
Conclusions
• • • OD roadmap support appears to be an effective approach for increasing organisational capacity.
CD organizations may need to consider impact of ownership of interventions for maximum impact in the area of system retention (although more research may need to be done to control for recall bias) Increased communication on expectations will improve the transition to direct funding for both partners and USAID.