OBSTACLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following tables offer some insight into the obstacles that FBOs and CSOs encounter in the process of accessing funding from NAPs. The items in these tables came out of the working groups at the Addis Ababa workshop.

The editors of this report have noted that most obstacles do have a corresponding recommendation and most recommendations are related to one or more concerns raised as obstacles. Thus, we have arrayed them in tables for ease of comprehension. The reader may feel that some recommendations could apply to different obstacles or, in a few cases, even obstacles in another segment of the report. This is evidence of the broad value of such recommendations.

Documentation, Monitoring and Reporting
Obstacles / Recommendations
  • Difficulty in understanding the differences between auditing and monitoring at NAP level and community level.
/
  • Training on all procedures that are required, developed at level of NACs down to FBOs – user friendly tools for grassroots level where there is high illiteracy, and reporting is done by story telling.

  • NACs do not provide training on what is involved in documentation and reporting, what activities should be reported at each level, or provide feedback on inadequacies in submitted reports.
/
  • NAPs should have at least one person to give feedback on reports in a timely fashion on documents submitted with suggestions for improvement.

  • Reporting formats are too complex and not comprehensible at the local level because they are not user-friendly or simplified, with too many indicators, and no or inadequate training provided on understanding the formats.
/
  • Need for continuous review process – timely review processes to make people know what is going wrong and allow them to rectify it before it is too late.
  • Need for NACs to give timely feedback to implementers on documents submitted (can’t continue to blame you without telling you it wasn’t good enough and give solutions).
  • Proper, measurable and simple indicators at all levels – simple to understand and to report.

  • Lack of a previously determined plan for program and financial evaluation, so this is not included in the cost of the project.
/
  • Program design should include monitoring and evaluation plans covering costs of reporting, design of an evaluation schedule every 2-5 years, and regular internal reviews of the organization on what is going wrong and needs to be adjusted.

  • Time consuming - not priority for beneficiaries – literacy is not sufficient at the community level (overstretched staff – usually last thing to do).
/
  • Outsource documentation, monitoring and reporting to consortium(s) of FBOs or hire consultant services for report-writing, evaluation, etc. and allow partner organizations to mentor small FBOs and CSOs on monitoring and evaluation and provide advisory services and technical support.

  • Expectations of donors and implementers/FBOs are mismatched, which often leads to conflicts of interest, and trying to accommodate the expectations of both parties leads to bad project designs.
/
  • Donors should create uniform and harmonized report formats targeted at different levels – simpler formats the lower you go with proper, measurable indicators, to be fed in at the end of each month (or other specified interval) – that are used for quality control more than just fulfillment of donor needs.
  • Lack of skills in M&E by the FBOs

  • FBOs have little or no skills or facilities (typewriters, computers, etc.) for documentation, monitoring and reporting; and there is no linkage between reports for national FBOs and their respective branches.

  • Language complexity and barriers at lower levels for FBOs (project proposals have words that are not in the local languages, so lose meaning through the translation process).
/
  • Guidelines should be in local languages, not just national language which is not always the same for all.

  • Other Issues
/
  • FBOs can use manpower from within, such as using their existing planning and development departments for documentation and reporting.
  • Unmatched expectations of donors and implementers/FBOs – leads to conflict of interest, and lack of proper design in accommodating both.