Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

HIV Capacity Building Summit  March 19, 2013  Johannesburg Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably: Implications of selected USAID-

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "HIV Capacity Building Summit  March 19, 2013  Johannesburg Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably: Implications of selected USAID-"— Presentation transcript:

1 HIV Capacity Building Summit  March 19, 2013  Johannesburg Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably: Implications of selected USAID- supported interventions in Namibia

2 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

3 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

4 Key areas of analysis 1.Assess the quality and usefulness of capacity development efforts since 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

5 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)

6 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)

7 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%) 2 (12%) 9 (53%) 17 Number of partner respondents 10 (21%) 12 (26%) 3 (6%) 22 (47%) 47

8 Findings

9 Quality and Usefulness rated high

10 No difference in usefulness between OD roadmap and pre-OD roadmap approach

11 Changes in OD Roadmap Scores

12 Systems retained and in use today from capacity building support

13 Retention by whether the support was the partner’s decision at first

14 Retention of capacity building support by level of usefulness

15 Most significant changes M&E and Financial management the “cornerstones of programs” (partner, Pact and USAID responses) M&E Timely reporting Capturing the right and required data Use data for decision making Finance Proper management of organization finance & USAID funds Complete and accurate finance reports Proper budget management

16 Different stakeholders, different top-ranked capacity needs OD Roadmap partners 1. Monitoring & evaluation 2. Technical support 3. Financial management 4. Program development Pact 1. Resource mobilization 2. Financial management 3. Institutional support 4. Technical support USAID 1. Resource mobilization 2. Financial management 3. Administration 4. Monitoring & evaluation Non-OD Roadmap partners 1. Technical support 2. Financial management 3. Advocacy 4. Monitoring & evaluation

17 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

18 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.

19 Thank you!


Download ppt "HIV Capacity Building Summit  March 19, 2013  Johannesburg Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably: Implications of selected USAID-"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google