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

Findings

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.

Thank you!