PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE

GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROJECTS IN BUWENGE SUBCOUNTY JINJA DISTRICT.

CASE STUDY: PARISH DEVELOPMENT MODEL

BY

Supervisor:

A Proposal Submitted to the School of Business and Management for the Award of a
Master’s degree in Monitoring and Evaluation of Uganda Management Institute

May, 2024

i
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................2
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Background to the Study..........................................................................................................................2

1
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction
The goal of the study is to determine how participatory monitoring and evaluation influences
performance of government funded projects in Buwenge subcounty Jinja district case study of
Parish development model . Project performance is the dependent variable in this proposal, and
participatory monitoring and evaluation procedures are the independent variable. This chapter
includes the study's history, problem statement, purpose, objectives, research questions,
hypothesis, study scope, importance, justification for the investigation, and operational definitions
of terms.

1.2 Background to the Study

1.2.1 Historical Background

The ever-increasing demand for limited resources has increased awareness of the necessity to not
only monitor and assess development initiatives, but also to guarantee that the outcomes of these

2
evaluations have an impact on project execution. At the national and subnational levels, it is
believed that the availability of accurate, reliable, and consistent data is essential for development
programs to effectively deliver services, make responsible use of allotted resources, and assure
accountability (Kananura et al, 2017).

The concept of globally monitoring and evaluating projects was first presented in the early 1980s,
and it has since attracted interest. However, the history of observation and assessment dates back
to ancient Egypt. More than 5000 years ago, they conducted routine monitoring of their nation's
output of cattle and grain, suggesting that M&E is not a relatively recent development. But as the
world changes, it is important to distinguish between traditional and modern M&E, which are
carried out by various generations and communities. In other words, monitoring and assessment
have always been on the development reform agenda of many governments and institutions.
Therefore, interactive performance measurement is a procedure where stakeholders from different
levels watch or assess an intervention, program, or project, share control and ownership of the
assessment activity's outcomes, and take or identify corrective actions.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) has gained currency in decentralised local
governance in the developing world. The driving forces behind its adoption are its potential to
promote community empowerment, learning, accountability and effectiveness in the
implementation of development interventions (Vernooy 2003; Akin et al. 2005; Jütting et al. 2005;
Woodhill 2005; Göergens and Kusek 2010; Akanbang 2012; Porter and Goldman 2013; Kananura
et al. 2017).
PM&E, as conceived by the World Bank (2010) and viewed in this study, is a process through
which stakeholders at various levels take part in monitoring and/or evaluating a specific policy,
programme or project, and share power and responsibilities over the substance, the procedure and
the after-effects of the monitoring and evaluation action as well as any remedial activities required.
PM&E is largely based on two perspectives – participation as a means (process of participation)
and participation as an end (effect or benefits of participation) (Vernooy 2005). A review of the
literature shows that PM&E builds the capacity of local people to analyse, reflect and take action
(Estrella et al. 2000; Bartecchi 2016). It strives to be an internal learning process for project
implementers and community-level stakeholders; it is flexible and adaptive to local contexts; it
encourages stakeholder participation beyond data gathering; and it strengthens people's capacities

3
to take action and promote change (Estrella et al. 2000; Matsiliza 2012; Mascia et al. 2014). It is
also adaptable, and quintessentially and methodologically eclectic (Rossman 2015). Nevertheless,
for its effective application PM&E needs to be grounded in key standards including preferential
involvement of the weak and vulnerable; empowerment and commitment of all stakeholders; open
dialogue; and transparency and accountability in the use of resources (World Bank 2009, cited in
Muriungi 2015, p. 61; Bartecchi 2016).
The study explores stakeholders’ experiences of PM&E with a view to enriching the quality of
knowledge and debate about how best to mainstream PM&E in local governance as a catalyst for
poverty reduction. As underscored by Harnar and Preskill (2007), there is unanimity on the
necessity for stakeholder participation in project and programme evaluation, but how best to
implement PM&E in different settings is still unclear especially those with a weak evaluation
culture and financial resource base (Estrella et al. 2000; Miller and Campbell 2006). Filling this
knowledge gap is very important because, as acknowledged by Boissiere et al. (2014), Garcia and
Lescuyer (2008) and Villasenor et al. (2016), not all PM&E activities are effective in enhancing
the performance of programmes, or lead to capacity development at the community level.

In the worldwide endeavor to achieve environmental, economic and social sustainability, PM&E
has proved to be an important instrument.
The phrase ’Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation’ (PM&E) is the tracking efforts that
incorporate local individuals with a variety of skills, experience, societal positions, and interests
who may not have had specialized, professional training. Local users carefully capture information
about their projects, consider it, and make collaborative management decisions as part of a
continuous and periodic process (Abdirahman, 2022).
In Latin American organizations regularly engage in participative monitoring and assessment to
emphasize upon the resources that project use to produce results, in terms of finance, knowledge
and skills and activities. For instance, collecting data via methodical observations, systematic
bookkeeping, or a programmed descriptive research, as well as outputs such as employee training
printed materials, or any ongoing development (Franks, 2012). The Canadian public institutions
and as well as related projects undergo periodic assessments and the reports produced are used to
inform the steering and diagnostic political discourses. PM&E became an established part of the
growth policy or program lifecycle, resulting in higher growth efficacy by enhancing performance

4
responsibility and giving effective solutions that have improved planning, budgeting, and
policymaking.
After several years of executing the PM&E in Ghana, better project outcomes of public initiatives
were realized (Tørseth, Aas, Breivik, Fjæraa, Fiebig, Hjellbrekke & Yttri, 2012). Zambia on the
other hand, have witnessed a rise in staff wrangles related to management of programs. Some
NGOs that receive funds from donors engage in a struggle amongst management over who should
be in charge of management, thus resulting in ineffective administration processes and ultimately
affects PM&E’s execution (Mackenzie, Tan, Hoverman & Baldwin, 2012). As a result, resource
utilization gets postponed, only to be completed at a date beyond the schedule. Programmes are
classified as successful only when the time and budget factors are adhered to. PM&E enhances the
operational efficiency and keeps the agendas within the implementation frame. Mackenzie et al.
(2021) opines that the adoption of PM&E in projects cultivates an efficiency culture.
PM&E offers new way for involving the stakeholders in planning and implementation of projects
in public schools environment. In a study was to establish influence of participatory monitoring
and evaluation on performance of public schools projects in Mutomo Sub-County, Kenya,
(Kathongo, 2018) concluded that institutional strengthening has influence on the performance
since the stakeholders had little knowledge on participatory monitoring and evaluation and if the
objectives will be achieved efforts can be made by the appointing authority to train the selected
stakeholders Negotiations perspectives of shareholders has influence on performance of public
schools in the sub county, Public accountability still has influence on the performance of public
secondary schools projects, Project planning has influence on performance of public school
projects and lastly TSC policy has influence on the performance of public school projects. The
study recommended that public secondary should involve the stakeholders in the process of
projects management by creating meeting, forums and seminars that will allow them to air their
views, needs and opinions which make them negotiate their perspectives and make critical
decisions.
In a study by (Akanbang & Abdallah, 2021) reaffirming the factors hindering effective PM&E in
local government systems, it low prioritization and budgetary support for PM&E, and low levels
of participation by community-level stakeholders. It also identified emerging inhibitors in the
Ghanaian weaknesses in procedures and processes at district level for involving local-level actors
in the PM&E process, lack of clarity in policy guidelines and manuals, weak systems for

5
transparency and accountability; and weak citizen power and control. These all need to be taken
into consideration in efforts to enhance the practice of PM&E in local governance.
Uganda has also had a significant M&E involvement. According to history, Uganda has included
M&E in some capacity into its programs and initiatives since the 1980s. The District Focus for
Rural Development (DFRD) of 1983 was designed so that recipients could keep an eye on the
funds and the projects the fund was intended for, as noted by Mugo and Oleche (2015). In an effort
to reduce economic risks and uncertainties, Uganda has recently elevated M&E to the status of a
critical performance management instrument.
According to Lopez et al. (2010), Uganda is another African success story in M&E. Uganda has
implemented several successful M&E systems and programs. One example is the Public
Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) initiative from the 1990s. Uganda established the PETS
program in the 1990s in collaboration with the World Bank as a means of monitoring the amount
of money that the federal government sent to basic education institutions. According to Lopez et
al. (2010), PETS significantly increased the amount of money that went to primary schools.
Therefore, the use of M&E in Uganda showed that fund administrators were held responsible
because there was a notable improvement in both the absorption and utilization of money.
The M&E activity has been carried out to follow different government programs and projects, as
was the case in Uganda. In Uganda, M&E is frequently used in projects (Mugo & Oleche, 2015).
For instance, during the Economic Recovery Strategy period ending in 2007, the National
Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES), established in 2004, was entrusted with
the duty of monitoring policy, program, and project execution (Andersson et al, 2014).

In Uganda in astudy to establish the impact Partnership Building and Participatory Monitoring
Evaluation for Sustainable Rural Transport In Uganda(Kaira et al., 2014) discovered that a
participatory and inclusive approach to monitoring and evaluation stresses that participatory M&E
should not be interpreted as M&E only with and by end-users (as has been commonplace), which
overlooks the key roles and responsibilities of other stakeholders in the design and implementation
process of the project. With the assistance of the CPHP Regional Office, a participatory M&E
system was put in place in order to track and review performance and impact of the project.
Workshops for representatives from farmers’ groups, directly targeted by the projects were held in
their sub counties, with the exception of Katakwi who were met in Iganga district due to insecurity

6
in their district. The outputs expected from the workshops were that M&E was understood by all
workshop participants; the beneficiaries had identified indicators for: monitoring benefits and
effects; methods and tools to be used for beneficiary M&E have been understood; and
beneficiaries were able to start M&E.
In a study was to examine the effect of participatory project design on project success in a
government-funded project in Uganda, a case study of Parish Development in Kabale District,
(Turyasingura et al., 2023) that parish development model project success in Kabale district is
significantly influenced by participatory project design. In order to guarantee the sustainability of
the project success of the parish development model, the study suggests that more emphasis should
be placed on adopting participatory project design through defining project goals, determining
results, identifying risks and constraints, and refining project strategy. Therefore this study is to
focus on finding answers on how participatory monitoring and evaluation at the local level
influence performance. Some research on PM&E to date has explored the benefits of PM&E for
local governance (Ahwoi 2008; Naidoo 2011; Sulemana et al. 2018). More recently Akanbang
(2021) examined the implications of integrated decentralized monitoring of water and sanitation
services at the local level, while Akanbang and Bekyieriya (2020) examined benefits and
constraining factors affecting decentralized monitoring of development projects,(Turyasingura et
al., 2023) examined the effects on participatory project design on project success . However, these
studies did not closely examine how the PM&E processes actually worked at the grassroots level
thus the rational for this study.

1.2.3 Conceptual Perspective

PM&E is an important tool in management of projects because it improves service delivery,
planning and allocation of resources and finally portraying the outcome of projects in a transparent
manner (World Bank, 2004).According to Igunnu et al (2005), Projects in public secondary
schools arise out of the desire to satisfy demands and needs of stakeholders and beneficiaries and
try to achieve the objectives of vision 2030 (Education for All). Stakeholders may need to carry a
project based on interest, demand and perspective of its stakeholders, or to improve an already
existing project in the public schools. However, to implement the projects successfully there are
influences of participatory monitoring and evaluation on improving performances of those projects
in public which should be undertaken to improve the performances of the projects.

7
Stakeholder participation is a key element in success of M & E. The Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMI) define stakeholders in a project as the individuals or institutions
that are, in one way or the other, involved in the project, whose needs are indispensable and
therefore may be affected by the project (PMI, 2010). Therefore, it is believed that stakeholder
participation is essential to the success of projects and project management. In fact, it has received
a lot of attention from many bodies of knowledge on project management, including the
Association of Project Managers of Australia (2013) and the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (2010). Stakeholder participation has been interpreted by a number of studies,
including Theyel and Hofmann (2012) and Martinez and Olander (2015), as the engagement of all
parties involved that results in better project performance. Bringing together the important and
interested stakeholders to participate in the monitoring and evaluation of a certain effort is known
as participatory monitoring and evaluation, or PM&E.

The value of stakeholder participation cannot therefore be gainsaid. M & E provides

information for policy decision making (UNDP, 2009). Mwangi et al., (2015) carried out a
study on the effectiveness of M & E and established that stakeholder participation had a
positive and significant contribution to M & E. Participation involves using stakeholders at
the various levels engaged in monitoring and evaluating interventions through sharing control
over content, sharing the activity as well as the results of the M&E activity and further
engaging in identifying and taking up corrective actions. Participatory Monitoring and
Evaluation is geared on the active engagement of key stakeholders. However, Mugo and Oleche
(2015) on another study on the impact of monitoring and evaluation of developments projects on
economic growth in Kenya held that stakeholder participation surprisingly had a negative effect on
M & E performance.

Building capacity is essential in addition to stakeholder participation because M&E can only be
carried out efficiently by qualified individuals. Answers to issues like the presence of experts and
how their experience fits the demands, M&E assistance from the organization carrying out the
project/program, and any experience from the target beneficiary are helpful for training. M&E and
M&E training have a solid and favorable relationship (Wanjiru, 2013). The IFRC (2011) states that

8
after determining the necessary M&E needs, it is imperative to develop the participants' capacity
before any M&E can occur. Building capacity can be done formally or informally. Informal
training might take the form of supervision and guidance provided while working on the job,
mentoring in a variety of activities, providing feedback on reports, or instruction on the use of data
management systems. On the other hand, formal training could involve taking classes and
attending workshops on topics including designing projects and programs, managing data
collecting and administration, reporting and analysis, and audience- and need-specific topics.

Effective M&E activity requires a highly qualified personnel, according to Mackay (2007). Every
researcher and practitioner working in M&E agrees that sufficient funding is necessary for this
endeavor, as it is for any other. UNDP (2002) states that the complexity of the project, the outcome
to be assessed, and the exercise's goal all influence budgeting and, consequently, funding for
M&E. The amount of money to be spent on M&E functions in a particular project is known as the
M&E budgetary allocation (Mugo &Oleche, 2015). It is anticipated that a rise in funding will have
a favorable impact on project M&E and vice versa. Popova and Sharpanskykh (2011) defined
performance as the level of attainment of organizational goals/objectives. According to Rolstadas
(1998), performance can be measured based on seven criteria namely; effectiveness, efficiency,
quality, productivity, quality of work life, innovation, and profitability

Generally, timely monitoring and evaluation practices are vital in an economy. M & E is
expected to offer reliable information that can guide in managerial decision making, it adds to
knowledge sharing in form of shared experiences and uphold accountability and transparency
besides allowing stakeholder feedback. Therefore project performance may be indicated
by acceptability of the project deliverables, timely completion, completion within budget and
right quality. Performance of the public NGOS is the dependent variable, which will be assessed,
inform of efficiency and the effectiveness as conceptualized by Mouzas, 2006: 1124.

1.2.3 Theoretical Background

The study will be guided by two theories participatory and theory of change. Participatory theory
seeks to explain the contribution of participation on the end results. The

9
participatory theory is an approach to development that has received quite impressive attention
from development researchers and development agencies. Whereas theory requires stakeholders to
model their desired outcomes before they decide on the forms of intervention that are needed in
order to achieve the outcomes.

1.2.4 Contextual Background

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Benoit et al. (2017), the parish development model is facing numerous difficulties in its second
phase, which Akliyah et al. (2022) have already mentioned. The reason behind this is that
stakeholders were not consulted during the parish development model project design in order to
help define project goals, determine results, identify risks and limits, and fine-tune project strategy
before it was launched. A nightmare could come from this project's success. PDM seeks to
transition 39% of families (or around 3.5 million people) from the subsistence economy to the
money economy. This would eventually help to realize the third National Development Plan (NDP
III), which prioritizes inclusive growth, employment, and sustainable wealth creation at the
household level and is part of The Uganda Vision 2040, which envisions "a transformed Ugandan
society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country.
The sub-county is to be strengthened as the lowest planning unit, and the parish will serve as the
administrative and operational center for all government services, according to the widespread
consensus that the PDM will bring services closer to the people. In actuality, the entire model was
budgeted for at Shs200 billion in FY 2021/22, of which Shs182 billion has been appropriated
under local government and Shs120 billion is the revolving money for the identified parishes in the
146 districts of Uganda. In the current fiscal year, the government intends to give each parish Sh17
million, and in the following fiscal year, it will climb to Sh100 million. Following the launch, the
parish revolving funds will be distributed through SACCOs with the assistance of the parish
chiefs, and pre-launch activities such as the distribution of bicycles to the LC1 and LCII
chairpersons and motorcycles to the LCIII chairpersons are already underway nationwide. The
PDM, however, is facing a number of new problems. First, the Ministry of Local Government
(MoLG) has not yet completed the enterprise groupings and implementation instructions. Second,

10
some districts do not have functional entities like the District Service Commission to complete the
hiring of parish chiefs. Despite the government giving all districts the tools, they needed to hire
parish chiefs, and just 80% of them met the deadline of September 30, 2021. Some districts' hiring
practices did not adhere to the MoFPED's requirements for qualifications (Kerrigan et al., 2017).
This occasionally occurs in conjunction with a delay in the public service commission approving
the positions. As a result, the Sh200 billion Parish Development Model funding has been
suspended by the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development. However, this is
linked to the project beneficiaries' insufficient input into strategic goals of the NDPIII. Thus,
despite the enormous potential benefits that PM&E offers for the development through better local
governance and parish development model, , it faces many challenges. There is a need for
concerted collaboration by all stakeholders with an interest in PM&E (policy-makers, researchers,
implementers and project beneficiaries) to provide a practical response to these challenges, taking
local context into account. Thus this research will focus on the roles and accountability of PM&E
stakeholders Buwenge subcounty jinja district.

1.4General Objective

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of PM & E practices on project
performance of government funded projects in buwenge subcounty jinja district.
1.4.1 Specific objectives
 To establish the influence of participatory project planning on project performance
government funded projects in buwenge subcounty jinja district.
 To establish the influence of participatory project designing on project performance
government funded projects in buwenge subcounty jinja district.
 To examine the influence of capacity building on project performance government funded
projects in buwenge subcounty jinja district.

1.5 Research Objectives

The study will attempt to answer the following questions.

11
  Does participatory project design have an influence on the performance of government
funded projects in buwenge subcounty jinja district?
 Does participatory project planning have an influence performance government funded
projects in buwenge subcounty jinja district?
 Does capacity building have an influence performance government funded projects in
buwenge subcounty jinja district?

1.6 Hypotheses of the Study

 There is an association between participatory project design and performance government
funded projects
 There is a relationship between Participatory project planning and performance
government funded projects
 There is an association between capacity building and performance government funded
projects

1.8 Significance of the Study

This study will be of benefit to the organization, including the Country government of Uganda as
well as any other organization undertaking projects. They may employ the recommendations that
are given in this study so as to improve their project performance. Key stakeholder may also gain
understanding of their role in projects performance. Finally, the study shall serve as a source of
knowledge to academicians and practitioners alike by way of expanding the current knowledge on
monitoring and evaluation practices.

12
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the theoretical review, literature review, and summary of the literature review.
Literature will be obtained from journals, company documents, text books, dissertations, internet,
government publications and research papers.

2.2 Theoretical Review

The study will be guided by two theories participatory and change theories.

2.2.1ParticipatoryTheory

This theory aims to elucidate how participation affects final outcomes. Researchers and
development organizations have given the participatory theory a great deal of attention as a
development strategy. Mahatma Gandhi may have developed the participation theory through his
efforts to empower the community to participate in the shaping of their social lives. Nonetheless,
Chambers' traditional top-down, typically Eurocentric development methods were criticized by the
current participatory approach.

13
The thesis states that as participatory development has evolved, most development agencies now
need beneficiary engagement in development programs. This is due to the fact that involvement is
frequently seen as essential to development initiatives, since it increases efficacy and efficiency
(Nelson & Wright, 1995).Sharing knowledge, volunteering labor, and providing other community
resources all contribute to local ownership and the development of self-reliance. Participation as a
goal in and of itself may boost local residents' self-esteem and sense of empowerment.
Utilizing local expertise can also help to define needs, develop solutions, lower the possibility of
misunderstandings, and boost people's commitment all of which increase the project's chances of
being successful and sustainable. This notion states that involvement in M&E empowers the
stakeholders and ultimately results in the intended outcomes.

2.2.2 Theory of Change

The theory of change, according to Stein and Valters (2012), developed in the 1990s as an
improvement on the assessment theory at the time. This theory is thought to be useful in problem-
solving for intricate societal issues. The theory's distinctive feature is in its ability to differentiate
between intended and actual results (Brest, 2010). Before determining the types of interventions
required to achieve the desired objectives, stakeholders must model the outcomes they hope to
achieve. Building capacity through modeling ultimately allows stakeholders to determine the
interventionist mechanism. According to this notion, in order for change to occur, stakeholders
must get training. In this research, the researcher argues that the right atmosphere in form of
capacity building must be created for the expected change to take place; the right practices for M
& E must be adopted in order for projects to succeed

14
References

Abdirahman, A. (2022). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation and Performance of Community

Based IDP Projects in AFGOYE, Lower Shebelle Somalia. Nairobi.
Akanbang, B. A. A., & Abdallah, A. I. (2021). Participatory monitoring and evaluation in local
government: a case study of Lambussie District, Ghana. Commonwealth Journal of Local
Governance, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.5130/cjlg.vi25.8037
Kaira, C. K., Kwamusi, P., Iga, H., & Kleih, U. (2014). Partnership Building and Participatory
Monitoring Evaluation for Sustainable Rural Transport In Uganda and. 1, 1–16.
Kathongo, S. M. (2018). Influence of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation on Performance of
Public Secondary Schools Projects in Mutomo Sub-County, Kenya. In International Journal
of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) (Vol. 6, Issue 03).
https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i3.el06
Turyasingura, J. B., Agaba, M., & Kabagambe, J. D. (2023). The effect of participatory project
design on project success in government funded project in Uganda: A case study of parish
development in Kabale District. African Journal of Business Management, 17(3), 53–64.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm2022.9427

15