Evaluating operationalisation of integrated monitoring and evaluation system in Kisumu County: Implications for policy makers

Enock Warinda

doi:10.4102/aej.v7i1.385

Abstract

Background: Evaluation findings are increasingly becoming valuable for policy makers in Kenya. The Directorate of Monitoring and Evaluation is responsible for providing reliable data findings for decision-makers. They are in turn expected to access the data and information through the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES). Unfortunately, the directorate hardly receives timely data as required, thus is unable to make timely decision within the ministry of agriculture, livestock and irrigation in Kisumu County.Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the extent of operationalisation of NIMES through utilisation of the electronic project management information system (e-ProMIS) within the three agricultural departments.Methods: Through single-point face-to-face interviews using semi-structured questionnaires, mixed methods approach and Likert scale were applied to assess the level of operationalisation of, staff competences in, and satisfaction with NIMES. Both random and purposive sampling was used. Using mixed methods approach, primary and secondary data were collected from 10 key indicators and fitted in a binary logistic regression model to assess the level of operationalisation of NIMES.Results: This article shows that operationalisation of NIMES is unsatisfactory, and data collected are incorrectly formatted. None of the departmental personnel charged with uploading relevant data in e-ProMIS neither accessed nor utilised the platform. There were no champions supporting NIMES, thus no reports generated from the system.Conclusions: Factors hindering operationalisation of NIMES were: dysfunctional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, limited human capacity on M&E, lack of NIMES champions, limited availability of data, unclear information flow to decision makers and inadequate integration of NIMES in planning and budgeting.

Highlights

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has increasingly come to the fore over the past three decades in being regarded as the key in providing evidence of programme and organisational performance (Christie 2007; Johnson et al 2009; Mackay 2006; Patton 2001; Picciotto 2003)
Data sets are generated on five key indicators, namely: (1) number of full-time staff engaged in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities, (2) number of personnel trained on e-ProMIS, (3) total amount of budget allocated to M&E activities, (4) frequency of data uploads on e-ProMIS and (5) number of staff skilled to upload data on e-ProMIS
The effectiveness of M&E systems and operationalisation of National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) depends on the proportion of staff who have accessed M&E training, and the proportion of annual budget dedicated to M&E activities

Summary

Introduction

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has increasingly come to the fore over the past three decades in being regarded as the key in providing evidence of programme and organisational performance (Christie 2007; Johnson et al 2009; Mackay 2006; Patton 2001; Picciotto 2003). For example, developed its National Results-Based Management and Evaluation System (SINERGIA) to aid in enhancing the country’s reform towards performance-based management, at the central administration through promoting joint planning and budgeting using system-generated data. The Directorate of Monitoring and Evaluation is responsible for providing reliable data findings for decision-makers. They are in turn expected to access the data and information through the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES). The directorate hardly receives timely data as required, is unable to make timely decision within the ministry of agriculture, livestock and irrigation in Kisumu County

Objectives

Results

Conclusion