Stephanie Posner - PACT Namibia
-
Upload
regional-aids-training-network -
Category
Documents
-
view
264 -
download
4
Transcript of Stephanie Posner - PACT Namibia
HIV Capacity Building Summit March 19, 2013 Johannesburg
Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably:Implications of selected USAID-supported interventions in Namibia
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. Assess the quality and usefulness of capacity development efforts since 2006
2. Examine the effectiveness of the “OD roadmap” capacity building approach
3. Review selected capacity building factors associated with sustainability (retention) of systems.
4. Assess perceived differences in importance of priority capacity building areas
Relevant Data collection tools
1. Partner survey (Quantitative and Qualitative) 2. USAID tool (Qualitative)3. Pact tool (Qualitative)4. 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)
OD Roadmap support, graduated to direct funding
OD Roadmap support, not graduated
No OD Roadmap support, graduated
No OD Roadmap support, not graduated
Total
Number of orgs
3(18%)
3(18%)
2(12%)
9(53%)
17
Number of partner respondents
10(21%)
12(26%)
3(6%)
22 (47%)
47
Quality and Usefulness rated high
StrategicSupport
FinancialPlanning
ProgramThematic
Mon &Eval
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00Usefulness QualityAverage
Rating
No difference in usefulness between OD roadmap and pre-OD roadmap approach
StrategicSupport
FinancialPlanning
ProgramThematic
Mon &Eval
1
2
3
4
5Pre-OD Roadmap OD Roadmap
Use
fuln
ess
rati
ng
Changes in OD Roadmap Scores
PNP ORG NETW GOV FM HRM OPM GNC PROG M&E0
1
2
3
4
5
Baseline ScoreEndline ScoreScore
Systems retained and in use today from capacity building support
Grads
Non-Grads
OD Roadmap
Pre-OD Roadmap
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
M&EPTFPSP
Retention by whether the support was the partner’s decision at first
StrategicSupport
FinancialPlanning
ProgramThematic
Mon &Eval
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
Partner OtherRe-ten-tion
Retention of capacity building support by level of usefulness
StrategicSupport
FinancialPlanning
ProgramThematic
Mon &Eval
0
20
40
60
80
100
Little or Somewhat Useful V/Critically Useful
% r
ete
nti
on
Different stakeholders, different top-ranked capacity needs
OD Roadmap partners1. Monitoring & evaluation
2. Technical support
3. Financial management
4. Program development
Pact1. Resource mobilization
2. Financial management
3. Institutional support
4. Technical support
USAID1. Resource mobilization
2. Financial management
3. Administration
4. Monitoring & evaluation
Non-OD Roadmap partners1. Technical support
2. Financial management
3. Advocacy
4. Monitoring & evaluation
Graduated partners & USAID: contrasting expectations
Partners expect of USAID:1. Same relationship/treatment with USAID as partners had with Pact
2. Continued technical assistance, but often lack adequate budget
3. Increased USAID capacity-building support after graduation
USAID expects: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. 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.