Grassroots Accountability and Mission Accomplishement

Researchjournali’s Journal of Education Vol. 3 | No. 10 October | 2015 ISSN 2347-8225

1

Michael Pervarah

Head Of Programmes. Acdep Secretariat. P. O. Box

1411. Tamale. Ghana

Kere, Osman Daud

University For Development Studies. (Lecturer)

Faculty Of Education. P.O. Box Tl 1350. Tamale

Grassroots

Accountability

And Mission

Accomplishment: The

Case Of ACDEP In

Northern Ghana


2

ABSTRACT

It is common for donors to have their accountability claims honored while grassroots constituents, the

supposed beneficiaries, are increasingly being alienated from the center of project decision-making. This

study addresses how Association of Church Development Projects (ACDEP) accounts its actions to project

beneficiaries and how both value the accountability mechanisms in practice. The study employed structured

open-ended questionnaire and interview and identified key stages of project cycle where ACDEP accounts its

actions to beneficiaries. To be effective, the study concludes that ACDEP should uphold downward

accountability by adopting key elements that currently do not exist.

1. INTRODUCTION

A recurring theme in modern development discourse is the role Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

play in providing mechanisms for strengthening civil society to lift marginalized communities in developing

countries out from poverty (Krut, 1997; Nelson, 1995; World Bank, 1996). Two key concepts in the debate

around managing and reporting the performance of NGOs’ field work are: ‘upward accountability’ and

‘downward accountability’. There is substantial evidence in the literature that suggests that upward

accountability to donors is not an appropriate way of measuring NGO’s effectiveness using the ‘logframe’.

This is because it is not possible to reduce social problems to predictable cause-and-effect relationships

(Wallace, 2006; Ebrahim, 2003; Chambers, 1997; and Earle, 2004). To be effective, NGO’s field work needs

to respond to changing realities on the ground, rather than assume they can be predicted in advance (Jacob

and Wilford, 2007)

Generally, NGOs implement projects to meet the needs of beneficiaries and contribute to the realization of its

mission. However, the relationship that exist between NGOs and their constituents is not a matter of civic

entitlement, but rather lie in the realm of ‘grace and favour”1 (Mulgan, 2003). This is usually the case because

NGOs are generally not required by law or regulation to provide their constituency the necessary mechanisms

for genuine accountability. It is common for donors to have their accountability claims honored while

grassroots constituents, the supposed beneficiaries, are increasingly being alienated from the center of project

decision-making. The underlying assumption is that the people most affected by NGOs’ work are best placed

to say what worked well and not so well. Actively sharing information with beneficiaries, engaging them in

the design, implementation and delivery of activities and having appropriate systems in place to monitor

1 NGOs usually perceive their support to project beneficiaries as a favor through the generosity of funders and beneficiaries on the

other hand have imbibed this perception.


3

performance and facilitate learning are crucial to realizing accountability and effective programmes

(Commonwealth Foundation, 2009).

It is noted that high quality downward accountability is one of the foundation stones of effective interventions

(Jacob and Wilford, 2007). Keystone’s (2006) work with organizations around the World suggests that the

quality of an organization’s work is often directly linked to the quality of the relationship it maintains with its

beneficiaries. Downward accountability ensures that NGOs’ field activities are responsive to beneficiaries’

felt needs; it helps create ownership and contribute to the validation of claims as to whether indeed the

organization is really achieving what it said it would or it is missing anything? (Jacob and Wilford, 2007).

Besides, it provides a feedback mechanism for learning about what works well and what does not to improve

future practice. Furthermore, downward accountability can be part of the empowerment process of NGOs’

work to facilitate the distribution of power between NGOs and its project beneficiaries for them to take

control of activities that affect their lives. It is about accountability towards the beneficiaries, the people that

the NGO is trying to help. It is also about the extent to which an NGO remains true to its stated mission and

goals. Although downward accountability to beneficiaries is crucial to determine the effectiveness of NGOs

as empowerment agents, only few authors have focused on this issue.

The existing practitioner and academic literature on accountability within development NGOs argues strongly

in favour of accountability mechanisms that provide accountability to, and capture the views of beneficiaries

and NGO field workers, with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of aid delivery. Using ACDEP as a case

study, this research project provides insight into how ACDEP accounts to beneficiaries and how the

accountability mechanisms are valued by both ACDEP and beneficiaries, and the challenges associated with

them. By investigating this issue, this study seeks to generate and share relevant knowledge on effective ways

of interacting with constituents in a manner that support more engaging, open and responsive relationships,

for NGO mission accomplishment.

1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions are as follows:

How does ACDEP account its actions to beneficiaries?

How is the accountability mechanism valued by both ACDEP and beneficiaries?

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

It is argued that downward accountability will yield better project design, help create ownership, and

empower the primary constituents to take control of their lives. However, there is a general lack of

independent study into attempts made by NGOs to engage their constituents to ensure that their practice is

transparent and involves them in project activities and decision-making processes. In order to place this study


4

in context, literature on accountability, downward accountability, mechanisms of downward accountability is

reviewed.

2.1 ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability is a malleable concept that means different things to different people. As a result, numerous

definitions have been offered by scholars and practitioners of development. Edwards and Hulme (1996)

define accountability as the means by which individuals or organizations report to a recognized authority (or

authorities) and are held accountable for their actions. It refers to being answerable to those who give you the

mandate and to leave up to certain performance expectations. In a special issue of the IDS Bulletin on

Accountability through participation, Cornwall, Lucas, and Pasteur (2000) widened the perspective by

suggesting that accountability is both about being ‘held responsible’ by others and about ‘taking

responsibility’ for oneself. By extension, accountability has both an external dimension in terms of ‘an

obligation to meet prescribed standards and behavior (Chisolm,1995) and an internal one motivated by ‘felt

responsibility’ as expressed through individual action and organizational mission (Fry, 1995) by assessing

performance in relation to the organization’s mission, goal and objectives.

Upward accountability is associated with relationships at the top end of the aid chain. This may include

accountability to donors, foundations, or governments who provide resources for designated purposes and act

as regulators. The primary purpose of upward accountability is to account to donors on how their funds are

being used to give them confidence that their funds are being used effectively and appropriately. On the other

hand, downward accountability describes the extent to which an NGO is accountable to those down the aid

chain. In this study, it is taken to mean how an organization engages with its ‘beneficiaries’, builds

relationships, and is accountable for results in ways that enable learning and improvement towards the

achievement of its mission (Keystone, 2006).

2.2 DOWNWARD-ACCOUNTABILITY OF NGOS

Un-like ‘upward accountability’ which is associated with relationships at the upper end of the aid chain, e.g.

from implementing NGO to donor, ‘downward accountability’ describes the extent to which an NGO is

accountable to those lower in the aid chain, generally to organizations which receive funds or the intended

beneficiaries of aid. It is often used loosely to describe the extent to which the implementing NGO is

transparent about its actions, listens and respond to those at the lower or bottom or even recipient end of the

aid chain, and/or involves its beneficiaries or grassroots constituents in decision-making (BOND, 2006). It is

indeed rare for grassroots constituents to have their accountability claims honored.

However, evidence abound in the literature that involving beneficiaries in project activities and decisions is

core to NGO accountability and crucial to the effectiveness of NGOs as empowerment agents (Jacobs and

Wilford, 2007; Kilby, 2006). Involving project beneficiaries in NGO activities and decisions that impact upon


5

them ensures that field activities are in line with needs, help create ownership and plays an important role in

empowering local people to take control of their lives. Downward accountability also has a moral dimension

as an organization’s accountability towards the people it was established to help. Therefore, involving

beneficiaries to influence the activities that affect them is a core value of the sector.

3.0 RESEARCH METHODS

This study is descriptive mainly because it collected data from ACDEP staff and beneficiaries to answer the

questions about how ACDEP accounts its actions to beneficiaries and how the accountability mechanisms are

valued by both ACDEP and beneficiaries without influencing the structures in any way. Furthermore, it

describes downward accountability mechanisms in practice and the quality of relationships between project

implementers and beneficiaries. A case study approach was adopted because it emphasized detailed

contextual analysis of a limited number of the network partners and provided opportunity to triangulate data

in order to strengthen the research findings and conclusions. The study employed qualitative approach in

collecting data. This approach was found to be suitable for answering the research questions because it

provides in-depth understanding of how downward accountability mechanisms are practiced in ACDEP and

the reasons behind the practice.

Purposive sampling technique as described by Patton (1990) was used in the selection of respondents. This

technique was chosen because it offered an effective strategy for obtaining data deemed information-rich

from managers and staff of ACDEP with vast experience and specific knowledge in NGO/community

engagements, project implementation and management.

Structured open-ended individual interviews were held with three Heads of network partners from each of the

three regions; Northern, Upper East and West, two project officers at ACDEP secretariat, three partner staff

from each of the three regions, and twenty nine beneficiaries of the Farmers Agricultural and Marketing

project (FAMAR) in three communities. Each interview lasted between 40 and 45 minutes. Interviews were

chosen as a suitable data collection technique for this study because they offer an effective strategy for

gaining deep meaning and understanding from individuals and elicited explanations behind their experiences.

The choice of the FAMAR model as the unit of observation for this study stems from the fact that FAMAR

focuses on accountability by building FBOs at the community, district, and regional levels and providing

leadership training for its leaders to be able to engage other stakeholders in agri-business and value chain, and

serve its members efficiently. What is however unclear is the extent to which ACDEP accounts their actions

to these project beneficiaries under the FAMAR model and whether the FBO structures developed can

demand ACDEP to account.


6

4.0 DOWNWARDS ACCOUNTABILITY AND MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT

This section presents findings and discussions on how ACDEP accounts its actions to their primary

constituents through the existing mechanisms. It specifically identifies the downward accountability systems

and practices in ACDEP and examines how both ACDEP and beneficiaries value them. The mechanisms of

downward accountability as practiced by ACDEP were identified as consultations and needs appraisal,

planning, monitoring, evaluation and project reviews. The process ranged from informal and irregular

meetings with project staff and beneficiaries and formal and regular meetings.

4.1COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS AND NEEDS APPRAISAL

According to ACDEP staff interviewed, community consultation is part of their community entry strategy.

This usually occurs in two phases entailing a one-stage process or a continuing dialogue. The first phase deals

with notification2 and awareness creation about the upcoming project and the second has to do with

community needs appraisal where the felt needs of community members are determined and prioritized for

effective project intervention.

The first phase begins with formal meeting with key individuals at the community level, usually opinion

leaders3 such as the Assembly persons4, to brief them on an upcoming project and discuss the possibility of

meeting the entire community. At this meeting, the date, venue and time are agreed upon for the larger

community consultation and appraisal process. Information is communicated to the entire community through

the traditional beating of the gong - gong and/or announced in the mosque or church. The venue for

community meetings is often the community’s usual meeting grounds such as the Chief’s palace, at a school

premise or under a shady tree in the community.

It was observed that the sitting arrangement at these meetings is often segmented according to the

community’s traditional protocols. Whereas men’s seats are in-front and closer to project officials, women

and children often take the back seats with just a few elderly women in the front seats. Usually, the discussion

focuses on the project goal, objectives, strategies and possible collaborators. This is what a beneficiary had to

say about the consultation process:

2 It is a one-way process of communication in which the public plays a passive beneficiary role of project information. This allows

stakeholders the time to prepare themselves for upcoming consultations.

3 Opinion leaders are influential (traditional or religious) people in the communities whose opinions are critical on issues affecting the

lives of their members.

4 Assembly persons are political heads electoral areas in the communities responsible for the wellbeing and community development

of their respective constituency.


7

The first thing they told us was that the project is a new one that is to be implemented in the District and it is all about farming. They

are trying to help us farmers to get good market for our produce and for us to get the knowledge on good agronomic practices to

improve our yields.

The study observed that the total project budget was often not disclosed to beneficiaries. This confirms

Agyemang et. al. (2009) assertion that total project funds are often not discussed during consultation

meetings. Some project staff explained that the value of the amount, particularly, when stated in foreign

currency usually does not make any sense to beneficiaries as they are not particularly keen in knowing what

amount is involved, ostensibly because of their levels of illiteracy.

The second phase is the needs appraisal stage where the felt needs of the community members are

determined. ACDEP staff usually facilitates the process but ultimately allows community members to define

and shape the issues that confront them. According to ACDEP staff interviewed, the beneficiaries nominate

someone among them to moderate the discussion where each member of a group gets to express his/her views

and exchange ideas while the ACDEP staff records and guides the discussion to ensure that emerging issues

from the discussion which the new project does not support are made known to the group. After the group

level discussions, the groups reconvene in a forum with their findings to be crossed examined by other groups

and eventually the community arrives at a consensus on common issues that represent their felt needs and

which should be addressed by the project. These needs are then prioritized and captured on flipchart paper.

When asked how ACDEP staff handles community identified needs that fall outside the proposed project

objectives, a project manager had this to share:

In addressing the needs of beneficiaries, ACDEP also takes into account the expectations of the donor agency. Analysis of donors’

demand and beneficiaries’ needs are carefully done and where necessary, ACDEP explains to beneficiaries to ensure cooperation for

mutual benefit.

Generally, the availability of donor funding defines and shapes the felt needs of project beneficiaries given the

fact that the problems and concerns of most communities are varied and almost impossible for one project to

mitigate. In view of that, their felt needs are usually tailored to the objectives of the project and where such

needs cannot be covered under the project, this is explained and attempts are made to link them to other

projects whose activities cover the concerns expressed by the community members. What it means is that the

actual needs of beneficiaries may not necessarily match the specific areas that donors want to fund. This

observation corroborates Agyemang et. al. (2009) assertion that the actual needs of beneficiaries are often not

identified or met during the consultation process. Granted that consultation is concerned with the objective of

gathering information to facilitate the design of project intervention, the risk is that potential beneficiaries

may find it convenient to problematize aspects of their lives to reflect the goals and objectives of the proposed

project with the hope to benefit from project ‘handouts’. This stems from the fact that most community


8

members believe NGOs are out to support marginalized groups with funds or farm inputs which often come

for free.

How does ACDEP and beneficiaries Value community consultations and needs appraisal?

There was a general recognition among ACDEP staff that the consultation and dialogue process is a useful

exercise to achieve project objectives and maintain ACDEP’s credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of donors

and other stakeholders. According to some project staff interviewed, it is a way of getting down to project

beneficiaries to facilitate ownership and support to implement project activities. Furthermore, it was seen as

an instrument for legitimacy to deepen the perception that ACDEP, indeed, works to improve the lives of the

poor and marginalized groups and therefore seeks to align project goals and objectives to fit beneficiaries’

expectations. A project manager stated that:

Once the project concerns them (beneficiaries), they have to know exactly what is coming to them and how they can participate in it.

Community consultation, therefore, is key to the success of any project.

Another major challenge associated with community consultations and needs appraisal is the absence of

women’s involvement or low participation in discussions. The absence of women in community consultations

and needs appraisal is attributed to the assumption that men will listen to the issues discussed and debrief their

wives later. Also, even when women attend such meetings they are constrained by traditional norms that

restrict their level of involvement. However, the exclusion of women from community consultations could

have adverse effects on project intervention. First, their specific constraints or needs are often over looked.

Second, the community dialogue sessions usually miss out diverse perspectives, views and ideas that could

enhance project effectiveness.

4.2 PROJECT PLANNING

Project implementation in ACDEP is largely through network partners who know and understand the

communities they serve because of their familiarity with the socio-cultural context and several years of

development work. Once ACDEP identifies beneficiaries whose needs match donor’s areas of interest, they

engage them in project planning to develop action plan to be carried out in the communities. The initial

planning meeting with beneficiaries is at the community level where the project staff and the beneficiaries

review the felt needs identified during the appraisal process involving the entire community. The review

session is held with men and women separately to encourage freer discussion and safe spaces. The

beneficiaries then prioritize their needs by giving scores to each need according to their importance. Once

they prioritize their felt needs, the field officer guides them to generate suggestions to address the felt needs.

The suggestions are reviewed in relation to the project objectives and used to develop action plan for

implementation. This brings to the fore the extent to which donor requirements can influence and shape the

felt needs of project beneficiaries. According to a project manager:


9

ACDEP has to look at the funding requirements of the donor vis-à-vis what the farmers are also saying. In as much as we try to

address what the farmers’ needs are, we are also conscious of the kind of results the donor wants to see. In development work, this has

always been a challenge because donors want to finance some activities and you have to be seen going towards that direction before

you can access that fund. Therefore if you are not going towards that direction you cannot access the fund. Therefore when there is

funding for something, we try to find out whether our potential beneficiaries have needs that much it, then we go for it. Ones we go for

it, we have to make sure that we also deliver accordingly because that is what we said we are going to do.

According to a partner staff interviewed, the opinions of beneficiaries are seriously taken into consideration

during planning to achieve project results and sustainability. He stated that the essence of involving

beneficiaries in the planning process was to seek their opinion regarding what activities to be carried out,

how, where and when to carry out the planned activities. This is necessary because they are always involved

in social events such as funerals, naming ceremonies and community market days and therefore are in the

position to indicate suitable times and dates for conducting project activities like trainings.

When asked whether beneficiaries could formally express concerns to ACDEP and formal responses given?

This was what a project staff had to say:

“The FBOs are not there yet. In fact, they see us as a project trying to help them stand on their feet by building their capacities and

therefore have never complained about our actions. However, it is most likely that they may have concerns with the project activities

but they have not expressed them anyway.

A key element missing from the planning process was the absence of beneficiary’s involvement in developing

the monitoring plan to track project progress. Participatory planning enjoins project staff and beneficiaries to

jointly decide how to track project progress to ensure that implementation occurs according to actions

planned. More importantly, the process is expected to generate a two-way learning which will shape project

interventions to reflect local needs (Shah et al, 2006).

The planning process was observed to be transparent, open and a two-way dialogue between field officers and

beneficiaries and they mutually made adjustments to planned activities where necessary. This ensured that

field activities recognized beneficiaries’ priorities from their point of views. The critical question to answer is

‘whose voice counted during the planning process? According to Ebrahim (2003), although community

leaders are involved at the initial stage of new projects, decision-making power remains with the project

planners. In the case of ACDEP, a project manager stated that beneficiaries are often persuaded to reach a

compromise with field officers on what is possible and allowable under the project, and agree together. What

this implies is that, field officers usually explain to beneficiaries why some of their demands cannot be met to

create a common understanding on the way forward. Deductions from the project manager’s submission

revealed that there is usually a compromise centrally to Ebrahim’s (2003) assertion that decision-making

power remains with project planners.


10

In spite of the significance in involving beneficiaries in planning processes, ACDEP staff also indicated some

challenges associated with their involvement. They stated that though beneficiaries will agree to provide

certain resources during the planning stage, sometimes they were unable to honor their commitments during

the implementation stage. For instance, in a cost share arrangement in some projects in ACDEP, beneficiaries

of a grant facility were required to contribute 30% of the total cost of the item they require to facilitate

effectiveness in their business, while the project contributed 70% of the total cost. However, it was a

challenge for beneficiaries to provide the 30% which made it difficult to achieve project results. Also, the

high illiteracy level in the communities is a challenge during planning and implementation. More often than

not, they are easily influenced by the few semi-literate people who think otherwise about the issues under

discussion. In that circumstance, a partner staff indicated that more time and resources were needed to engage

effectively with beneficiaries to ensure that they are clear on the issues involved.

4.3 PROJECT MONITORING

Ideally, the system of monitoring and evaluation should be an integrated part of the project design. It should

start before the commencement of project activities, with decisions on what should be monitored, and

eventually, evaluated. Indeed, if the system of monitoring and evaluation is to be truly participatory, the

performance indicators to be measured and the means of determining them should be discussed, identified and

agreed upon by the community stakeholders at the inception of the project. It should then be these same

stakeholders who decide how often progress should be monitored, who should be involved and what methods

to be used among others. In the case of ACDEP, monitoring of project progress is done at three levels;

monitoring by project staff from ACDEP secretariat, monitoring by partner staff, and monitoring by a team of

beneficiaries at the community level.

4.4 MONITORING BY PARTNER STAFF

Station staff monitoring is usually a routine exercise since the staff interacts with beneficiaries on a daily

bases at the communities. Their monitoring plan is developed from the logical framework (logframe) which

outlines the project objectives and expected results as well as provides a list of indicators to be used to

measure and verify progress toward achieving set project objectives and results. What is being monitored

depends on the crop calendar of the year given the fact that most of the projects are agricultural related.

Using a checklist, the partner staff collects the data, analyze and report findings in the quarterly report which

is often sent to ACDEP secretariat. When asked how the findings are shared with beneficiaries, this was what

a partner staff had to say: “The report is not shared with the farmers. However, they will get to know basic

information such as the average income and market prices during informal interactions or discussions but

there is no formal obligation on us to share with them as it is the case with sharing with ACDEP”.


11

It is obvious that the partners do not feel obliged to formally share project report with beneficiaries but rather

feel obligated to ACDEP (a form of upward accountability). This supports the claim that actors higher up the

aid chain, such as ACDEP, can exert power over those down the chain (partners). According to Ebrahim

(2003), one reason that may account for this phenomenon is that NGOs are generally not required by law or

regulation to provide their constituents genuine accountability

The investigations revealed that monitoring by the partners and ACDEP staff could not be said to be entirely

participatory because beneficiaries were not usually involved in developing the indicators to be monitored but

only participate in the process through their responses to the checklist. The two levels of monitoring assume

that once beneficiaries were involved in setting up project objectives at the initial stages, it was not necessary

to involve them during monitoring.

4.5 MONITORING BY BENEFICIARIES

It was observed that, one of ACDEP’s projects called the FAMAR project attempted to empower

beneficiaries to undertake monitoring by initiating the setting up of monitoring committees in each project

community to monitor the adoption of Good Agronomic Practices (GAPs) by project beneficiaries and also

monitor the development of the FBOs.

As a result of their level of illiteracy, no written document is prepared to collect data but they only observe the

agricultural practices in line with the training received and make recommendations accordingly. Furthermore,

they take note of critical issues of concern and share with other executive members during meetings.

The study revealed several challenges that limit effective monitoring by beneficiaries. It was observed that the

monitoring teams were constrained by logistics such as means of transport to be able to visit members’ fields

given the fact that some of the fields were far apart and impossible to cover on foot. Similarly, there was no

incentive for the monitoring team to continue their monitoring exercise because they are farmers themselves

and usually do not have the comfort of time to visit colleagues’ fields due to the busy nature of the farming

season.

Generally, it was revealed that monitoring processes in ACDEP do not incorporate the principle of

participatory monitoring. Drawing from the core principle of participatory monitoring, direct beneficiaries of

the project play an active role in selecting indicators and discuss how data will be collected (Shah et al, 2006).

It is expected that the process will enable learning and improvement towards achieving organization’s

mission.

How does ACDEP and beneficiaries value project monitoring?

According to ACDEP staff interviewed, monitoring activities are valued highly because they provide

empirical information on project progress for reporting purposes. They asserted that, analysis of the


12

monitoring reports and the observations from the field give a clue as to what is working well and what is not.

The data from monitoring also inform project decisions toward achieving set objectives. A project staff stated

that monitoring is a core activity in the project design and used to track project implementation to ensure that

activities are being implemented according to plan to achieve the intended outcomes.

Field officers acknowledged the potential value in involving beneficiaries in the main stream monitoring

processes but admitted that the present system does not involve them. They asserted that fully involving

beneficiaries in the process will create a common understanding between beneficiaries and project

implementers about the key indicators that reflect their realities and change.

Beneficiaries on the other hand were unable to separate project monitoring activities from the routine field

activities organized by project staff and therefore could not attach any specific significance to monitoring

activities. They perceive the monitoring activity as the usual project activities that they are involved in and

therefore do not have the full appreciation of the value of monitoring as compared to project staff who use the

feedback from the monitoring activities to strategize the next line of action to achieve project results.

It was observed that monitoring at the project level was constrained by project indicators and targets and not

flexible enough to accommodate field level realities. As a result, beneficiaries remain passive and only

provide responses to questions put to them by project staff without actively participating in the monitoring

activity to derive any inherent benefits from the process.

4.6 PROJECT EVALUATION

Evaluation at ACDEP is a management function aimed at determining how successful a project is meeting its

objectives. It is usually undertaken internally by project staff or externally by an external evaluator. This

contradicts the notion of participatory evaluation as indicated in KNT (2005). It was observed that, internally,

evaluations in ACDEP are conducted annually by project staff. They develop the tool for evaluation, mainly a

check list of performance indicators, which is used to track results related to the objectives of the project. The

evaluation exercise follows the same pattern as the monitoring by the project staff. It differs only in terms of

the fact that evaluation is conducted annually and more comprehensive while monitoring is conducted

periodically. Internal evaluation ends with a detailed report which is often shared with the partners and also

feed into the agenda for the Project Managers’ Meeting.

External evaluation on the other hand is conducted at the end of the project span where a detailed Terms of

Reference (TOR) is developed based on the project proposal and the targets it proposed to achieve. An

external evaluator is recruited and based on the TOR and the project documents provided will develop his/her

monitoring tools to capture those performance indicators as stated in the TOR. In that respect, it is the

evaluator who decides on the method of data collection and analysis without any interference from the


13

project. Ideally, an evaluation should provide independent outside judgment of project outcomes and impact

and that is what ACDEP seeks to do by not interfering unduly.

It is apparent from this discussion that the voices of beneficiaries are not captured in the final evaluation

report because beneficiaries were not involved in deciding how project success should look like and how

indicators should be measured. The only opportunity they get to make inputs is at the data collection stage

where they are made to respond to questions in the questionnaire or through focus group discussion. A

beneficiary had this to share:

“Beneficiaries are only involved in providing information but are not involved in designing the instrument for the evaluation. If we

were fully involved, it means that the project implementers will not have much problems or challenges with us because we already

know what we are expected to do, but where we are not fully involved there are many challenges because we don’t actually

understand from the word go what we should be doing”.

The existing feedback mechanism to share the findings of the evaluation is through the partners to the leaders

of beneficiary groups where a debriefing session is held to bring beneficiaries to speed on the outcome of the

evaluation exercise. The leaders then relay the information to their respective members in the communities.

That notwithstanding, a project officer alluded to the fact that though the structures exist for feedback they are

not fully utilized to effectively provide efficient feedback to beneficiaries.

How does ACDEP and beneficiaries value project evaluation?

ACDEP staff asserted that both the internal and external evaluation are valued highly because they help to

assess the impact of project activities on desired outcomes to ensure that project implementation is achieving

set goals and objectives and show that it is having a positive impact on the lives of beneficiaries. According to

a network partner, evaluation creates feedback and learning that improves the focus and practices of an

organization. He indicated that some network partners have improved their organizational practices and

remained relevant to the needs of their constituents because they followed recommendations made by

previous evaluation reports.

Though external evaluation provides independent outside judgment of project outcomes and impact, some

project staff interviewed asserted that external evaluators are unable to appreciate the subtle transformations

that beneficiaries experience. He explained that sometimes the external evaluator will focus on measuring

change based on beneficiaries’ ability to acquire material assets, for example, bicycle or roofing sheet to roof

a thatch house. That notwithstanding, a beneficiary may find it fulfilling to be able to perform the funeral of a

love one or being able to marry a new wife. These and other transformational changes are often not included

in project performance indicators and therefore are overlooked by external evaluators.


14

4.7 PROJECT REVIEWS

At ACDEP, reviews are held with project staff at one level and with beneficiaries at another level. While

reviews between ACDEP secretariat and partners take place quarterly, reviews held with beneficiaries may

occur annually. The review session is often to discuss planned activities implemented, expected outcomes, the

challenges, lesions lerned, and the way forward. The review session offers partners and project staff the

opportunity to share experiences, ideas and develop action points which are used to re-strategize project

activities going forward. The study observed that beneficiaries were often not involved in the review sessions

possibly because project implementers assume that the issues to be discussed are technical.

Furthermore, inadequate resource and time constraints may possibly explain why review mechanisms

involving beneficiaries are underdeveloped and not being practiced. It was observed that in instances where

reviews were held with beneficiaries they were unable to openly criticize project activities. When asked

whether beneficiaries are able to criticize ACDEP on project activities, a project manager and staff shared

different opinions. The project manager opined that:

“Beneficiaries to a very large extent seem to be satisfied with whatever we do because we plan with them and the intervention appears

to be touching their needs and they are experiencing the benefits”.

He gave an example to substantiate his claim:

“For example, under the SPRING project, we trained twenty women groups to go into dry season vegetable gardening as an income

generating opportunity for them. After a year in the project, the groups increased to over eighty. This means that they have seen the

benefits and as a result everybody wants to be part of it. This is how we are able to judge that they are satisfied with activities”.

An FBO secretary confirmed the project Manager’s assertion:

‘The reason why we are not able to criticize them (ACDEP) is that, all the things that they are doing is an achievement to us the

farmers. Because we have never seen ACDEP lead us to where our needs cannot be met, they always take us through activities which

will lead us to where we want to go”.

However, the project staff thought otherwise, he stated that beneficiaries to a large extent are unable to

criticize project activities because of certain limitations. He had this to say:

“Usually, few beneficiaries are able to criticize project activities but a lot of them find it difficult to criticize because of limited

technical knowledge about the project which is as a result of their level of illiteracy. Besides, some of them fear that when they

criticize the activities of a new project, it is unlikely for the project to continue and they stand to lose the project intervention thereby

not creating opportunity for other communities to benefit as well”.

How does ACDEP and beneficiaries value project reviews?

Both network partners and ACDEP staff agreed that project reviews are useful and beneficial for effective

project performance. According to them, the review sessions provide a platform for implementing partners to

share best practices, experiences and lessons learned. Constraints are collectively resolved and the outcome of


15

the review provides a common understanding of agreed activities to be implemented and the expected

outcomes. They stated further that the review session often serve as a sounding board to assess project

performance in terms of how far a partner is meeting project targets and the challenges.

The statement below by a manager confirms this assertion:

“Most of the issues are rather from us. Sometimes, due to time constrain or delay in receiving funds, as a result we could not carry out

certain activities which is not the making of the beneficiaries. Hence, we don’t go to them on such issues. It is not their making, it is

our making so in that case we look at it and see what we can do to improve upon services that we deliver to our project target”.

Some field officers recognized the value in involving beneficiaries in project reviews. One officer mentioned

an instance where some representatives of the SFBOs were invited to a review and planning meeting

organized by the FAMAR project. The representatives appreciated the work of the field officers and admitted

that they (beneficiaries) did not do enough to complement the efforts of the field officers and therefore

appealed to the Executive Director of ACDEP to facilitate a meeting for them to share their experience from

the review meeting with other FBO leaders and to deliberate on the way they can contribute to enhance

project performance.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Grounded in the belief that downward accountability will make NGOs effective at what they do (Jacobs and

Wilford, 2007; Kilby, 2006; Keystone, 2006), this study sought to examine how ACDEP accounts its actions

to beneficiaries and how both ACDEP and beneficiaries value the accountability mechanisms in practice?

The results show that ACDEP accounts its actions to project beneficiaries by engaging them in the design and

planning stages of the project life circle. The interaction is a two-way flow of information and beneficiary

views are taken into consideration to make adjustments where necessary. Key elements in the literature

regarding beneficiary involvement in project design and planning compared favorably with existing practice

in ACDEP. It was also observed that both ACDEP and beneficiaries value the initial project engagement that

offered beneficiaries the opportunity to make inputs into project activities that affect their life and provide

legitimacy for field staff to mobilize support for successful project implementation. However, in terms of an

obligation to meet prescribed standards and behavior that is indicative of accountability (Chisolm, 1995), the

study noticed that beneficiaries and ACDEP staff jointly agree on roles and responsibility for carrying out

project activities but did not formalize their relationship through MoUs. This provides the bases upon which

parties to the MoU could be held accountable and grant the power or authority to call the other to account

(Coner and Kannungo, 1988; Day and Klein, 1987; Mulgan, 2003; Mahena, 2005).

A critical analysis of the findings reveal that beneficiaries are more noticeable at the functional processes

where they participate in project design and planning but were virtually not involved at the strategic processes


16

such as the project review stage of the project circle where strategic decisions are taken to inform action plans

to improve project performance. Given the evidence in the literature that involving beneficiaries in project

activities and decisions is core to NGO accountability and crucial to the effectiveness of NGOs as

empowerment agent (Jacobs and Wilford, 2007; Kilby, 2006; BOND, 2006 Commonwealth Foundation,

2009), it is imperative for ACDEP and other NGOs in development to develop a genuine desire to involve

beneficiaries in project strategic decision making processes such as project reviews. To be effective, the study

concludes that ACDEP should uphold downward accountability by adopting key elements that currently do

not exist in ACDEP such as holding project reviews with beneficiaries or making it possible for them to

participate in the review session with project managers, jointly developing action plans and deciding on how

to track progress, and signing MoUs with beneficiaries on agreed roles and responsibilities to carry out

project activities. Since accountability is about leaving up to certain performance expectation (Hulme, 1996),

it is prudent that ACDEP and other NGOs recognize beneficiaries’ rights within NGO-beneficiary

relationships and be motivated by ‘felt responsibility’ to collectively define criteria for downward

accountability to track project progress and assess performance in relation to project objectives.

For future research purposes, it will be interesting to investigate the incentives for NGOs to become more

open, transparent and accountable organizations in the absence of strong demands from their less powerful

constituents. In the absence of strong demand from the primary constituents and the less incentive for NGOs

to become more open, transparent and accountable, there is the agent need for government to strengthen state

institutions responsible for the regulation of NGOs to ensure effective delivery of NGO services.

6. REFERENCES

Agyemang, G., Awumbila, M., O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2009). NGO Accountability and aid Delivery, Certified Accountants

Educational Trust, London

BOND (2006). A BOND Approach to Quality in Non-Governemental Organizations: Putting Beneficiaries First, BOND

www.bond.org.uk/futures/standards/report.htm accessed on 13/12/2011

Chambers, R (1997) Whose reality Counts? Putting the First Last, ITDG Publishing, United Kingdom.

Chilsolm, L. B. (1995). Accountability of nonprofit organizations and those who control them: the legal framework. Nonprofit

Management and Leadership, 6(2): 141-156.

Conger, J. A., &Kannungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management

Review, 1988(3), 471-482.

Commonwealth Foundation (2009) A Toolkit for Civil Society Organisations in Uganda, United Kingdom,

Cornwall, A., Lucas, H., & Pasteur, K. (2000). Introduction: accountability through participation: developing workable partnership

models in the health sector. IDS Bulletin. 31(1): 1-13.

Day, P., and Klein, R (1987) Accountabilities: Five public services. London: Tavistock.

Earle, L (ed) (2004) Creativity and Constraints Grassroots monitoring and evaluation and the international aid arena, INTRAC

Ebrahim, A (2003) Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs’, World Development, 31(5):813-829.

Edwards, M., andHulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on NGOs.World Development, 24(6): 961-973.

http://www.bond.org.uk/futures/standards/report.htm


17

Fowler, A.(1997). Striking a balance: enhancing the effectiveness of non-governmental organizations in international development,

London: Earthscan

Fry, R.E.(1995). Accountability in organizational life:problem or opportunity for Nonprofits? Nonprofit Management and Leadership,

6(2): 181-195.

Joshi, A., and Moore, M. (2000). Enabling environments: Do anti-poverty programmesmobilise the poor? The Journal of Development

Studies, 37 (1): 25-56.

Karnataka-Tamil Nadu. (2005). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Field Experiences. NGO Programme Karnataka-Tamil Nadu

Series 1 Inretcooperation Delegation, Hyderabad, India.

Keohane, R. O. (2002). Commentary on democratic accountability of non-governmental organizations.Chicago Journal of

International Law, 3(2): 477-479.

Keystone (2006) Downward to ‘beneficiaries’: NGO and donor perspectives, www.keystonereporting.org

Kilby, Patrick. (2006). Accountability for Empowerment: Dilemas Facing Non-Governmental Organizations. World Development,

34(6): 951-963.

Krut, R. (1997).Globalization and civil society: NGO influence in international decision-making Discussion Paper No. 83 Geneva:

UNRISD.

Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14(4): 39-353.

Nelson, P.J (1995) The World Bank and NGOs: The limits of apolitical development. London: MacMillan.

O’Dwyer, B. And Unerman, J. (2007). ‘From Functional to Social Accountability: Transforming the Accountability Relationship

beyween Funders and Non Governmental Developments: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3): 446-71.

Roche, C. (1999) “Impact assessment for development agencies: Learning to value change. Oxford: Oxfam, Novib

Salamon, L. M., Hems, L. C., &Chinnock, K. (2000). The non-profit sector: For what and for whom? Working papers of the Johns

Hopkins Comparative non-profit Sector Project.No. 37.Boltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

Sogge, D. (2009). The aid chain: Coercion and Commitment in development NGOs, by Tina Wallace with Lisa Bornstein and Jennifer

Chapman, Development and Change, 40: 981-983.

World Bank (1996) Participation sourcebook, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Documents

Grassroots Accountability and Mission Accomplishement