Building local NGO capacity, effectively and sustainably: Implications of selected USAID-supported interventions in Namibia

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

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 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

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 OD No OD No OD Total
support, Roadmap Roadmap Roadmap
graduated to support, support, support,
direct funding not graduated not
graduated graduated
Number of 3 3 2 9 17
orgs
(18%) (18%) (12%) (53%)
Number of 10 12 3 22 47
partner
respondents
(21%) (26%) (6%) (47%)

8. Findings

9. Quality and Usefulness rated high
Average
Rating Usefulness Quality
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Strategic Financial Program Mon &
Support Planning Thematic Eval

10. No difference in usefulness between OD
roadmap and pre-OD roadmap approach
5
Pre-OD Roadmap OD Roadmap
Usefulness rating
4
3
2
1
Strategic… Financial… Program… Mon &…

11. Changes in OD Roadmap Scores
Baseline Score
Score
Endline Score
5
4
3
2
1
0
PNP ORG NETW GOV FM HRM OPM GNC PROG M&E

12. Systems retained and in use today from
capacity building support
Pre-OD Roadmap
OD Roadmap
M&E
PT
FP
Non-Grads SP
Grads
0 20 40 60 80 100

13. Retention by whether the support was the
partner’s decision at first
Retention Partner Other
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Strategic Financial Program Mon &
Support Planning Thematic Eval

14. Retention of capacity building support by
level of usefulness
100
80
% retention
60
40
20
0
Strategic Financial Program Mon &
Support Planning Thematic Eval
Little or Somewhat Useful V/Critically Useful

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

16. Graduated partners & USAID: contrasting expectations
Partners expect of USAID: USAID expects:
1. Same relationship/treatment 1. Strong organizational capacity
with USAID as partners had with and governance systems, ability
Pact to work independently and
maintain capacity even after
2. Continued technical staff turnover
assistance, but often lack
2. USAID support to partners,
adequate budget
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

17. 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.

18. Thank you!