INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF MONITORING

AND EVALUATION IN KABALE DIOCESE

BY

BEN

Supervisors
Dr. KISUTI BRUCE

Dr. JAMES KAMUKAMA

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND

MANAGEMENT IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE AWARD OF A MASTER’S DEGREE IN MANAGEMENT
STUDIES (M&E SPECIALIZATION) OF UGANDA
SEPTEMBER, 2023

i
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Performance of monitoring and evaluation is determined by the following key factors:
monitoring and evaluation mission, top management support, monitoring and evaluation
plans / plans, customer service, employees, monitoring and evaluation support technology,
customer acceptance, monitoring, and feedback and communication channels (Serrador &
Turner, 2014). Monitoring is the process of regular and systematic collection, analyzing and
reporting information about a monitoring and evaluation s inputs, activities, outputs,
outcomes and impacts (UNDP, 2009). The regular reports and information obtained from
monitoring is used by monitoring and evaluation managers to make informed decisions.
Monitoring provides monitoring and evaluation managers with the information needed to
assess the current monitoring and evaluation situation and assess where it is relative to
specified targets and objectives identifying monitoring and evaluation trends and patterns,
keeping monitoring and evaluation activities on schedule, and measuring progress toward
expected outcomes. Performance reports provide information on the monitoring and
evaluation’s performance with regard to scope, schedule, cost, resources, quality and risk
which can be used as inputs to other processes (PMBOK, 2001). It is a way of improving
efficiency and effectiveness of a monitoring and evaluation by providing the management
and stakeholders with monitoring and evaluation progressive development and achievement
of its objectives within the allocated resources.
1.2 Background to the study
The background to the study included the historical background of the variables that is
institutional challenges and performance of monitoring and evaluation, the theoretical
background covering the theory guided the study on the contextual and conceptual
backgrounds.
1.2.1 Historical Background
Monitoring and evaluation activities are said to have been born in the US in the 1950s. It was
started by one institute of higher learning by the name of "Urban Institute of the USA" that
wanted to evaluate the efficiency of government programs as compared to what the
government was promising to do. The exercise to evaluate government activities by this
higher Institute of learning was named "promise and performance" and was publicized in
1979. Since then, monitoring and evaluation programs have spread all over the world, Africa

2
inclusive, and it mostly attracted the attention of higher institutes of learning and research
centers (Ngarambe, 2015).
Countries like the United States of America (US) have achieved successful development by
implementing effective and efficient processes that monitor the achievement of development
goals all over the world (Katharine & John, 2015). There are regular monitoring activities in
India and Malaysia, ranging from comprehensive national ranking systems to baseline
monitoring of selected programs in many Middle Eastern countries (Zvoushe & Gideon,
2013). In all areas of government, it is critical to centralize and improve monitoring and
assessment capability. A significant number of high-cost monitoring and evaluation s were
undertaken, according to Chofreh, Goni, Malik, Khan, and Kleme (2019), with sustainability
issues frequently encountered. Concerns have been raised by the World Bank, the Asian
Development Bank, and bilateral aid agencies.
In Africa, even though the principle of M&E is new in Africa and has yet to be widely
embraced as an integral part of operations in organizational ventures, it has recently been
copied by a variety of communities, industries, and firms (Kissi et al., 2019). Fonbeyin
(2020) established that in Libya, factors like stakeholders’ involvement, support and
perceptions of M&E, sources of financial resources and the amounts allocated, the
government policies and external conditions tied to donors, training and education for the
employees influenced monitoring and evaluation performance. The South African
government attaches great importance to oversight. A study by Muzondo and McCutcheon
(2018) reported that service quality and attitude are key factors limiting the success of
monitoring and evaluation implementation in South Africa. In Rwanda, poor monitoring and
evaluation performance, as evidenced by rising maintenance costs, may be due to a lack of
successful monitoring and evaluation (Umugwaneza & Kule, 2016). In Ghana, both the
government and nongovernmental organizations face significant difficulties in tracking
monitoring and evaluation funding. Donor funding for development monitoring and
evaluation s has grown to the point that they are now referred to as development partners,
reflecting Ghana's reliance on donor support for surveillance development (Ameyaw & Chan,
2013).
In Uganda, monitoring and evaluation performance is the achievement of a specific company
and is assessed using pre-set indicators that are perceived for peak, precision, price, and
speed. Therefore, by considering and measuring the three constraints, reasons, prices and
values, conclusions can be drawn about the performance of a monitoring and evaluation.
According to Franz and Messner (2019), monitoring and evaluation performance denotes
3
how much outcomes have been accomplished, comprises of practicality, number of
expectations accomplished, number of exercises, fulfilled clients and expenditure of plan. A
monitoring and evaluation is deemed successful if it is completed on time, on budget, and
with the desired quality (Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2016). Monitoring and evaluation success was
measured and evaluated using time, cost, productivity, client satisfaction, client adjustments,
company outcomes, and health and safety indicators (Lee, Chong & Wang, 2018).
By recognizing the importance of capacity building, an organization invests in developing the
skills of staff involved in M&E activities. Training and professional development
opportunities enable them to effectively carry out monitoring and evaluation tasks, enhancing
the overall M&E capabilities of the organization as the M&E culture is instilled in them
through training. Healey et al. (2017), argue that; “organizational structures, adequate
commitment, knowledge, policies and resource allocation processes directly impact M&E
effectiveness”. Similarly, Davies et al. (2019) emphasize the role of institutional culture and
values in promoting a conducive environment for monitoring and evaluation. They
furthermore highlight the importance of leadership, management support, and staff capacity
in driving successful M&E outcomes through proper allocation of resources. Data
management poses another challenge, with the absence of a standardized system leading to
difficulties in data collection, organization, storage, and analysis. Moreover, even when data
is collected, the limited utilization of M&E findings for evidence-based decision-making
prevents the diocese from fully benefiting from evaluation insights. Therefore, addressing
these institutional challenges and fostering a culture that values M&E policy is crucial for
enhancing the diocese's ability to make informed improvements to its programs.
1.2.2 Theoretical Background
The study will be guided by program theory developed by Huey Chen, Peter Rossi, Michael
Quinn Patton, and Carol Weiss. Who is responsible for change and how to bring about
change are at the center of this theory. Logical models that demonstrate how the
intervention's overall logic is applied are frequently used to illustrate program theory. The
theory is part of the theory of change and applied development evaluation field. Weiss, the
proponents, applied this theory for several years to the issue of connecting program theories
to evaluation.
For monitoring and evaluating, program theory has long been a useful tool. This theory was
well-known for its consistent approach to problem solving and the requirement for evaluation
to back up its findings. In addition, it gives you tools to control how influence is valued
(Sethi and Philippines, 2012). Human service programs designed to meet social needs are a
4
part of many corporate deals. The program can change based on pre-established
circumstances because it is fluid. Program theory employs the logic framework approach as a
result. Program theory is a comprehensive version of the logical model. A graphical scale was
used to relate the logical model to it. Holly (2009) claims that logical models make it easier
for senior management, stakeholders, and results verification.
It predicts theory and provides a practical model of how virtual programs operate, according
to Buckman (2007). Lipsey (2011) says that this is a statement about how inputs become
outputs. Compare the anticipated output and input to evaluate the transformation. It
demonstrates how the outcome is affected by each component of the program. Program
theory, as defined by Rossi (2012), is an organizational chart for allocating resources and
organizing program activities in order to establish and maintain planned service systems.
This theory was used to plan how money were spent and distributed to those in need. By
connecting various service delivery systems, this is accomplished. Finally, program theory
explains how specific target groups are presented with the anticipated social benefits of
planned activities. The advantages of utilizing theory-based frameworks for monitoring and
evaluation includes the ability to attribute monitoring and evaluation outcomes to specific
monitoring and evaluation s or activities as well as the ability to identify expected and
unexpected outcomes of the program.
1.2.3 Conceptual Background
In this section, the independent and its dimension were defined and the dependent variable as
well.
Budgetary allocation is specified by Béné, Frankenberger, and Nelson (2015) as the amount
of money allotted to each expenditure line. It specifies the maximum amount of money a
company can spend on a particular monitoring and evaluation, and that's a cap that can't be
surpassed by the employee who's allowed to charge expenditures to a specific budget line.
Nambiro (2018) studied the effect of M&E on monitoring and evaluation performance,
focusing on budget allocation as an M&E dimension. The impact of monitoring and
evaluation M&E procedures on monitoring and evaluation performance standards is
discussed in depth in their study. Kissi et al. (2019) used budget allocation as well. In this
study, Budget allocation was calculated using monitoring and evaluation costs, remittance
time, distance, and benchmarking (Mwangi & Jagongo, 2019).

Capacity building helps people and organizations gain, grow, and keep the knowledge and
skills required for work (Merino & de los Ros Carmenado, 2014). As a result, individuals and

5
businesses are willing to perform at a higher level. Phiri (2015) looked into the effect of
M&E on monitoring and evaluation performance, with a particular emphasis on capacity
building as an M&E metric. Sanganyi (2016) evaluated the M&E implementation in
infrastructure monitoring and evaluation s, stressing the value of M&E capacity building. In
this study, capacity building was measured through level of evaluators training, defined roles
and responsibilities, frequency of training and existence of mission.

A performance review is a structured assessment in which a manager evaluates an employee's

job performance, identifies strengths and weaknesses, offers feedback, and determines
potential performance goals (Asio, 2020). Shihemi (2016) investigated the effect of
monitoring and evaluation strategies on monitoring and evaluation progress, including
performance evaluation as a monitoring and evaluation dimension. This study measured
performance review using regular reviews, feedback, goal setting and employee strengths &
weaknesses.
1.2.4 Contextual Background
Kabale Diocese was erected on 17th April 1966 being separated from Mbarara Diocese which
up to 1956 formed part of the Apostolic Vicariate of Rwenzori. On its inception as diocese,
the Most Rev.Bishop Gervasius Placidus Nkalanga (R.I.P) of Bukoba Diocese, a native of
Tanzania was appointed Apostolic Administrator of this newly erected diocese. Three years
later, on August 1, 1969, Bishop Emeritus Barnabas R. Halem’Imana (R.I.P) was appointed
and consecrated as the first native Residential Bishop. He retired on July 15, 1994 and was
succeeded by Bishop Emeritus Robert Mary Gay (M. Afr) (R.I.P) who was first appointed as
Apostolic Administrator but was on March 9, 1996 ordained Bishop. He retired in 2003 and
was succeeded by the current Bishop, Rt.Rev. Callist Rubaramira. He was ordained Bishop at
Rushoroza on June 8, 2003. Kabale is a suffragan Diocese within the Archdiocese of Mbarara
since 1999.
Kabale started to be self-reliance and around 1976, every parish had started a model farm to
support local churches and the Diocese. Rubanda and Kakore parishes began the monitoring
and evaluation and other parishes followed suit making Kabale the first model Diocese in
Uganda. Other Dioceses began to visiting Kabale diocese to learn from its monitoring and
evaluation. There was also spiritual development which helped other Sectors to grow. Kabale
Diocese also became famous in music and sent the first Uganda Choir to sing in Vatican.
This made it shine the more on the global scene. Monitoring and evaluation on the ground
started to be more visible and a number of buildings were built and other bought. There were

6
other monitoring and evaluation s across the diocese and other parts of the country. Some of
the monitoring and evaluation s and properties included; Cardial Motel in Kabale town, dairy
farms, St Raphel Hotel also in Kabale town, Oil factory in Kitumba, Modem Garage in
Kitumba, Travellers Hotel in Kisoro town, Bitwire House in Makanga and many buildings in
Mbarara and Kampala which made itself reliance and different from other Dioceses in
Uganda.
1.3 Problem statement
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system is an integral part of any programme or
monitoring and evaluation in the non- governmental organization environment. Continuous
monitoring and regular evaluation of the process, outcomes, and impact are essential.
Informed decision making is seriously compromised when decisions are not based on
monitoring information (Buckmaster, 1999). In the Diocese, efforts have been put in resource
allocation, improving the capacity for M&E and boosting the M&E culture through training
of Staff (priests) in monitoring and evaluation courses. In addition to this, daily monitoring of
the different monitoring and evaluation s run by the Diocese and data collection are being
enforced though with rudimentary approaches. However, this is not yet good enough because
the diocese is still struggling to allocate insufficient resources which include financial,
personnel, and technological resources thus hindering the establishment of a dedicated
organizational structure to oversee M&E processes. Decision-making processes are also
fragmented across various departments and monitoring and evaluation s, making it difficult to
integrate M&E findings into the overall decision-making framework. In addition, there is still
inadequate training and capacity among staff involved in M&E activities thus presenting
obstacles in effectively tracking and assessing monitoring and evaluation progress and impact
resulting in a compromised understanding of evaluation methodologies, data analysis
techniques, and the practical utilization of M&E findings. It is against this background that
the study will examine the relationship between institutional challenges and performance of
monitoring and evaluation at Kabale diocese.
1.4 Purpose of the study
The study will examine the relationship between institutional challenges and performance of
monitoring and evaluation at Kabale diocese.
1.5 Specific objectives of the study
i. To determine the relationship between financial resources and performance of M & E
at Kabale diocese
ii. To examine the relationship between technical capacity and performance of M & E at
7
 Kabale diocese
iii. To examine the relationship between stakeholder participation and performance of M
& E at Kabale diocese
1.6 Research Questions
i. What is the relationship between financial resources and performance of M & E at
Kabale diocese
ii. What is the relationship between technical capacity and performance of M & E at
Kabale diocese
iii. What is the relationship between stakeholder participation and performance of M & E
at Kabale diocese
1.7 Hypothesis of the study
H1: There is a significant relationship between financial resources and performance of M & E
at Kabale diocese
H2: There is a significant relationship between technical capacity and performance of M & E
at Kabale diocese
H3: There is a significant relationship between stakeholder participation and performance of
M & E at Kabale diocese
1.8 Conceptual Framework
Institutional Challenges (IV)
Financial resources
∞ Adequacy / sufficient
∞ M&E budget allocation
∞ Timely allocation H1
Technical capacity
Performance of M & E (DV)
∞ Field of specialization
∞ Relevant and useful results
∞ Academic qualification
∞ Activities with in schedule
∞ On-job training on M&E H2
∞ Timely results
∞ Budgetary allocation for
trainings ∞ Economical use of resources
Stakeholder participation ∞ Achievement of objectives
∞ Planning and design of
H3
system
∞ Identification of indicators
∞ Data collection 8
∞ Result / findings analysis
Source: Source: (Adopted from Njeri, 2019 and modified by the researcher 2023)
Figure 1.1: Conceptual framework

The institutional challenges will be the independent variables (IV) and effective monitoring
and evaluation will be the dependent variable (DV). The independent variable is measured in
terms of financial resources with subthemes of adequacy / sufficient, M&E budget allocation
and timely allocation, technical capacity with subthemes of field of specialization, academic
qualification, on-job training on M&E and budgetary allocation for trainings and stakeholder
participation with subthemes of planning and design of system, identification of indicators,
data collection and result / findings analysis. The dependent variable is measured in terms of
relevant and useful results, activities with in schedule, timely results, economical use of
resources and achievement of objectives. It is hypothesized and presumed that institutional
challenges as a causal variable tends to affect the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation.
Poor resource allocation, limited staff capacity building and training, poor data management
greatly affect the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation and in the end lead to poor
performance of monitoring and evaluation s, limited data utilization and lack of stakeholder
satisfaction.
1.9 Justification of the study
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is indispensable for effective development of projects and
achieving of sustainable outcomes. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy in an
organization involves a well-integrated, systematic, and results-oriented approach that
effectively supports the organization's goals and mission (Hamisi et al., 2020). M&E plays a
central role in ensuring the success and sustainability of the organization's projects and
programs. It helps an organization to set SMART indicators to measure its objectives. These
indicators serve as benchmarks to assess progress and impact ensuring that the organization
stays focused on achieving its goals. Comprehensive data collection and management are
crucial components of ideal M&E systems. Data collection is conducted systematically,
capturing relevant information aligned with the objectives. Organizations utilize standardized
data management systems that consolidate data from various sources, ensuring data integrity
and accessibility for informed decision-making. An organization conducts periodic reviews to
track progress against set indicators, analyze collected data, identify trends, and assess project
performance. This proactive monitoring allows for timely adjustments and optimization of
project strategies.

9
Data management poses another challenge, with the absence of a standardized system leading
to difficulties in data collection, organization, storage, and analysis. Moreover, even when
data is collected, the limited utilization of M&E findings for evidence-based decision-making
prevents the diocese from fully benefiting from evaluation insights. Therefore, addressing
these institutional challenges and fostering a culture that values M&E policy is crucial for
enhancing the diocese's ability to make informed improvements to its programs.

1.10 Significance of the study

This study might particularly help NGOs, private and public organizations staff, donor
agencies and monitoring and evaluation managers in better understanding of the M&E
systems and how to improve them to be able to better monitor and evaluate and also meet the
expectations of the stakeholders, as well as provide valuable information for future
interventions.

The study will inform policies towards setting up of monitoring and evaluation systems, and
show how M&E can be used as a powerful management tool to improve the way
organizations and stakeholders can achieve greater accountability and transparency. The
study may therefore, be beneficial to NGOs, donor agencies, monitoring and evaluation
managers, and monitoring and evaluation management students who are involved in the
designing and implementation of result-based and effective M & E systems.

The academicians, policy planners, and researchers might also benefit by getting new areas of
study and improvements. Overall, the study recommendations might improve effectiveness of
monitoring and evaluation in Programs and provide comprehensive guidance on how to set
up and implement a monitoring and evaluation system by avoiding the pitfalls that may lead
to its failure. The study also identified areas related to M&E field that might require more
research, hence a basis for further research.

The findings of this study are hoped to contribute empirical knowledge to students and
academicians and provide the best practices to be replicated by monitoring and evaluation
implementers for the smooth implementation, monitoring and evaluation of further
monitoring and evaluation s.

1.11 Scope of the study

The scope of study explained the extent to which the research area was explored in the work
and specifies the parameters within the study were operating. The study included the

10
geographical scope, time scope and content scope.
1.11.1 Geographical scope
The study will be carried out at Kabale diocese located in the city of Kabale in
the Ecclesiastical province of Mbarara in Uganda. It covers Kigezi sub region covering six
districts which includes; Kabale, Rukungiri, Kisoro, Rubanda, Kanuungu and Rukiga. Kabale
Diocese is known by its dynamism globally which is part of Banyakigezi culture
1.11.2 Content Scope
The study will focus on the relationship between institutional challenges and performance of
monitoring and evaluation at Kabale diocese. institutional challenges will include financial
resources with subthemes of adequacy / sufficient, M&E budget allocation and timely
allocation, technical capacity with subthemes of field of specialization, academic
qualification, on-job training on M&E and budgetary allocation for trainings and stakeholder
participation with subthemes of planning and design of system, identification of indicators,
data collection and result / findings analysis. Performance of monitoring and evaluation is
measured in terms of relevant and useful results, activities with in schedule, timely results,
economical use of resources and achievement of objectives.
1.11.3 Time Scope
The research study will review the period between 2018 and 2022, a time space the
researcher believes will be adequate to collect information enough to draw credible
conclusions. This is because this is not yet good enough because the diocese is still struggling
to allocate insufficient resources which include financial, personnel, and technological
resources thus hindering the establishment of a dedicated organizational structure to oversee
M&E processes.
1.12 Definition of key terms
M&E is the systematic compilation and review of data and procedures to ascertain the degree
to which objectives and milestones are being reached, as well as the analysis of any
inconsistencies. M&E is one of the most important methods for influencing monitoring and
evaluation efficiency and completion.
M&E is distinct but complementary, and it is closely related to monitoring and evaluation
functions. Monitoring and assessment is a mechanism that uses empirical data to assist
program implementers in making informed decisions about program activities, service
delivery, and efficacy.
Performance is the achievement of a specific company and is assessed using pre-set
indicators that are perceived for peak, precision, price, and speed. Therefore, by considering
11
and measuring the three constraints, reasons, prices and values, conclusions can be drawn
about the performance of a monitoring and evaluation. A monitoring and evaluation is termed
to have performed well if monitoring and evaluation was attributed to be successful.
Monitoring and evaluation performance denotes how much outcomes have been
accomplished, comprises of practicality, number of expectations accomplished, number of
exercises, fulfilled clients and expenditure of plan.

12
 REFERENCES

Hamisi Jitta Mwaguni, John Mbugua, Charles Rambo, (2020) Budgets and Performance of
Research Monitoring and evaluation s in Public Universities in the Coastal Region,
Kenya , European Journal of Business and Management Research: Vol. 5 No. 3
Jenifer Wothaya Wambugu, Dorothy Kyalo, John Mbugua, Regina Mutave, (2020)
Influence of Access to Quality Services on Performance of Family Planning Programs
in Kuresoi North Sub-County, Nakuru County, Kenya , European Journal of Business
and Management Research: Vol. 5 No. 3
Jenifer Wothaya Wambugu, Dorothy Ndunge Kyalo, John Mbugua, Regina Mutave, (2020)
Influence of Management Competency on Performance of Family Planning Programs
in Kuresoi North Sub-County, Nakuru County, Kenya , European Journal of Business
and Management Research: Vol. 5 No. 3
Kissi, E., Agyekum, K., Baiden, B. K., Tannor, R. A., Asamoah, G. E., & Andam, E. T.
(2019). Impact of monitoring and evaluation monitoring and evaluation practices on
construction monitoring and evaluation success criteria in Ghana. Built Environment
Monitoring and evaluation and Asset Management.
Njeri, D. N., & Were, S. (2019). Determinants of monitoring and evaluation performance in
non govermental organizations in kenya, a case study of hand in hand Eastern Africa.
International Journal of Business Management and Finance, 1(1).
Panda, A., Jurko, J., & Pandová, I. (2016). Monitoring and Evaluation of Production
Processes. Springer International Publishing, Basel, doi, 10, 978-3.
Simwaka, E. (2020). Influence of monitoring and evaluation on monitoring and evaluation
performance: A case of Howard University, Lusaka Province Zambia (Doctoral
dissertation).

13
14