You Have a Duty to Know if Your CSI Works
Comments
By Anonymous
Tue 7 Jun, 2011 - 17:34
It is true that most CSI projects are premised on the obligation for Companies to comply with the BEE policy. As such many CSI projects lack the understaning and knowledge of the needs of the intended beneficiaries hence the element of M&E in these projects is designed to give a feedback that the donors want to hear. This practice has demonstrated that the feedback of the given CSI is not a true reflection of what the project has done in the given community and therefore a donor is left with a good report while the community remain undeveloped. Xolani Tsalong, CARE SA Provincial Coordinator -Mpumalanga.
By Anonymous
Mon 6 Jun, 2011 - 18:32
This article raises issues of major importance for our sector: not least because CSI grants should include a budget line for NGOs to use for supporting their own M&E practice. M&E is not a one size fits all - as the writer explains, and training NGO managers to conceive and monitor their interventions through an M&E framework takes time and expertise which is not readily or cheaply available. It is also vital in our current climate of talking about job creation, for government to engage with the NGOs and institutions who train youth for the workplace or for entrepreneurial initiatives, to plan realistic, measurable and sustainable programmes which will contribute to the rising rates of youth unemployment. Too much attention is paid to quantity or 'reach' and not enough to sustained impact, and the related real-time costs of making impact which lasts, and providing training which is affordable, meaningful and provides an entry into the economy. Which CSI budget would give funds for 'networking' of entry level youth into say the IT industry? None I can think of, but we all know that networking and 'showcasing' is a highly effective method of recruitment. Universities provide it for their graduates, but no-one gives the same benefit to those youth who will never make it into university. Using high quality M&E gives accurate information on how funds are best spent according to your desired impact, not your desired input.
By Anonymous
Fri 3 Jun, 2011 - 11:29
I don't see what's the problem, its very simple2have a M&E tool to measure. From @Dawn on Facebook: Sangonet pulse
By Anonymous
Fri 3 Jun, 2011 - 11:28
Transparency in reporting and collaboration in objectives, that's what we always offer our donors... and it works. From @Topsy NPO on Facebook: Sangonet pulse
By Anonymous
Wed 1 Jun, 2011 - 12:01
Some very important points are being made in this article by Mokibelo. Certainly if we look at CSI in the education field we can see the challenges that are mentioned in this article. My critical concern is that we do not build on our knowledge, which means that we tend to go round in circles. Hence, the CSI focus on maths and science interventions in schools over the last few years, as was the case in the early 1990s. However, as a result of research that was undertaken at that time, particularly by JET, many CSIs realised that putting funds into science and maths in a largely dysfunctional school generally deepened the internal contraditions in the school and led to even worse maths and science results! So why 15 years later are we making the same mistakes again? The obvious reasons are that the corpus of research at that time was not deep enough,and it was not used fully by CSIs and NGOs to improve practice, and so it was forgotten and a full circle is turned...and we are back with CSIs wondering why all their investment in maths and science in schols is having little or no impact. If the CSIs had commissioned a meta-evaluation of the sector before launching into investment they would have seen that this was likely to be wasted money, unless set on a raft of improved school management. CSIs have to take research seriously. This includes building into their funding process baseline surveys done in advance of implementation, impact evaluation at the end, and beyond the end of the delivery process, as well as regular monitoring between these two points. There are some excellent examples of good practice among funders, such as Zenex's approach which foregrounds the planning of evaluations. However, too many CSI managers fail to do this and then seeing failure which they cannot explain to their Board leap into another area of funding, leaving projects bereft of sustained funding and schools feeling abandoned. Martin Prew, director: Centre for Education Policy Development.
As the corporate social responsibility sector evolves, so should monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices.
There were 65 000 nonprofit organisations registered with the Department of Social Development at the end of March last year, which are some of the tremendous number of organisations in South Africa that have been formed with the intention of alleviating social problems; of ‘doing good’.
But how can we tell when ‘good’ has been done well? How do we differentiate between projects and organisations that work and those that don’t? And how important is it that we do?
The answer to the first two questions is: through proper M&E. That is, through deriving a clear and accurate picture of what the organisation does and the way in which it does it, and then sensibly measuring project achievements and impact.
Although M&E is gaining momentum in corporate social investment (CSI), its full benefits are yet to be realised. This can be attributed to a number of factors, including associated costs, inadequate project planning, and the fact that it is not fully understood or appreciated. As a result, many social investments go unmeasured, and this can have unfortunate ramifications.
Firstly, if the impact of social investment is not measured, then there is no method of screening ineffective practices. This means that it is possible that these practices will be repeated, resulting in a waste of scarce resources. Similarly, if there is no way of identifying projects that are successful and result in tangible improvements to the lives of their beneficiaries, then it is not possible to replicate these projects elsewhere, or on a larger scale.
Secondly, nonprofit organisations arguably have an obligation to produce measurable, verifiable results among those they ostensibly exist to serve.
Thirdly, donors have a right to expect a return on their social investments. This is not to say that only organisations that can show short-term, measurable results should be funded: often it takes years for the effects of a project to be felt, and denying funding to organisations trying to get off the ground will reduce innovation and experimentation in development.
At the moment, M&E in South Africa exists largely to bolster arguments for compliance with Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and most recently, the ISO 26 000. We must move from a culture of compliance to a culture of ensuring needs are appropriately addressed. It is therefore important to suggest alternatives that may help to cultivate a culture of measurement among social investors, and to identify projects that contribute to breaking through developmental challenges, whilst exploring the value of the work being done.
As the corporate social responsibility sector evolves, through the introduction of international guidelines that require social responsibility programmes to move from cheque-signing relationships to relationships that engage with communities, so should M&E practices. This evolution requires transformation of ad hoc M&E processes towards more formalised processes that reflect the growing need for accountability, learning and responsible giving.
This is not to say that M&E should serve to simplify the CSI process to the extent that the choice of whether or not to fund a project should be reduced to a couple of variables. Development is complex and, for this reason, clear-cut M&E solutions do not exist. M&E should be tailored to the needs of each development programme.
Tshikululu has designed alternative M&E options whereby social investors can make choices that are appropriate to development programmes. These M&E recommendations are benchmarked against the size of the grant, and include:
- Mokibelo Ntshabeleng is monitoring and evaluation specialist at Tshikululu Social Investments.
There were 65 000 nonprofit organisations registered with the Department of Social Development at the end of March last year, which are some of the tremendous number of organisations in South Africa that have been formed with the intention of alleviating social problems; of ‘doing good’.
But how can we tell when ‘good’ has been done well? How do we differentiate between projects and organisations that work and those that don’t? And how important is it that we do?
The answer to the first two questions is: through proper M&E. That is, through deriving a clear and accurate picture of what the organisation does and the way in which it does it, and then sensibly measuring project achievements and impact.
Although M&E is gaining momentum in corporate social investment (CSI), its full benefits are yet to be realised. This can be attributed to a number of factors, including associated costs, inadequate project planning, and the fact that it is not fully understood or appreciated. As a result, many social investments go unmeasured, and this can have unfortunate ramifications.
Firstly, if the impact of social investment is not measured, then there is no method of screening ineffective practices. This means that it is possible that these practices will be repeated, resulting in a waste of scarce resources. Similarly, if there is no way of identifying projects that are successful and result in tangible improvements to the lives of their beneficiaries, then it is not possible to replicate these projects elsewhere, or on a larger scale.
Secondly, nonprofit organisations arguably have an obligation to produce measurable, verifiable results among those they ostensibly exist to serve.
Thirdly, donors have a right to expect a return on their social investments. This is not to say that only organisations that can show short-term, measurable results should be funded: often it takes years for the effects of a project to be felt, and denying funding to organisations trying to get off the ground will reduce innovation and experimentation in development.
At the moment, M&E in South Africa exists largely to bolster arguments for compliance with Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and most recently, the ISO 26 000. We must move from a culture of compliance to a culture of ensuring needs are appropriately addressed. It is therefore important to suggest alternatives that may help to cultivate a culture of measurement among social investors, and to identify projects that contribute to breaking through developmental challenges, whilst exploring the value of the work being done.
As the corporate social responsibility sector evolves, through the introduction of international guidelines that require social responsibility programmes to move from cheque-signing relationships to relationships that engage with communities, so should M&E practices. This evolution requires transformation of ad hoc M&E processes towards more formalised processes that reflect the growing need for accountability, learning and responsible giving.
This is not to say that M&E should serve to simplify the CSI process to the extent that the choice of whether or not to fund a project should be reduced to a couple of variables. Development is complex and, for this reason, clear-cut M&E solutions do not exist. M&E should be tailored to the needs of each development programme.
Tshikululu has designed alternative M&E options whereby social investors can make choices that are appropriate to development programmes. These M&E recommendations are benchmarked against the size of the grant, and include:
- Basic monitoring, which is recommended for small and once-off grants. It functions only to ensure that resources are used to implement activities in the manner agreed between the projects and the grantmakers;
- Intensive monitoring, which is recommended for multi-year and large grants where the social investor is interested in keeping track of the performance of the programme and comparing its effects to the programme objectives; and
- The full M&E package, which is recommended for multi-year projects and large grants. Because of the nature of activities involved in monitoring and evaluation, the full M&E package can be costly, but it is worthwhile for social investors who are interested in evaluating the journey the programme has taken and the impact it has achieved.
- Mokibelo Ntshabeleng is monitoring and evaluation specialist at Tshikululu Social Investments.
Author(s):
Mokibelo Ntshabeleng Share this:
Printer-friendly version
By Anonymous