Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 31;15(1):2088083.
doi: 10.1080/16549716.2022.2088083.

NGO perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for real-world evaluation: a qualitative study

Affiliations

NGO perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for real-world evaluation: a qualitative study

Talata Sawadogo-Lewis et al. Glob Health Action. .

Abstract

Background: The move towards robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has been increasing in global health, motivated by both an accountability agenda and to increase learning from M&E activities. Many international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receive funding from one or more large institutional donors.

Objective: To understand NGOs' perspective on their own role in terms of accountability to both donors and the populations they serve.

Methods: We conducted a series of in-depth interviews with M&E staff in 11 NGOs with projects related to maternal and child health to better understand how M&E is being implemented in these organizations. We then examined the data based on a priori identified themes.

Results: We found that despite flexibility from some donors, rigid reporting structures remain a barrier for NGOs to fully communicate the impact of their projects. While NGOs do utilize M&E findings, their use is limited by low staff capacity. The primary audience for the results remains the donor agency, and the primary motivation for M&E remains donor reporting. Reporting remains a burdensome affair, with ongoing limitations around streamlining results for donors. To reduce the burden of reporting for individual projects, the participants in our study suggested placing greater emphasis on process evaluations rather than impact evaluations. Participants also suggested increased data sharing between organizations working in the same regions and making better use of secondary data sources; in both cases to reduce the need for primary data collection.

Conclusion: We carried out this work to advance the conversation on how NGOs currently manage their M&E - a conversation which should involve NGOs, donors, local health system actors, and the communities with whom they work. More flexibility from donors, increased use of technology, and more transparency on if and how data is being used would help NGOs with their M&E process.

Keywords: Evaluation; NGOs; donors; maternal and child health; non-governmental organizations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors are funded by one of the donors affiliated with the study. The donor had no impact on study design, data collection or data interpretation.

References

    1. Tvedt T. The international aid system and the non-governmental organisations: a new research agenda. J Int Dev. 2006;18:677–7.
    1. Lewis D, Opoku-Mensah P. Moving forward research agendas on international NGOs: theory, agency and context. J Int Dev. 2006;18:665–675.
    1. Galway LP, Corbett KK, Zeng L. Where are the NGOs and why? The distribution of health and development NGOs in Bolivia. Global Health. 2012;8:38. Epub 2012/11/24. PubMed PMID: 23173815; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3539961. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bach-Mortensen AM, Montgomery P. What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organisations (non-profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2018;7:13. Epub 2018/01/24. PubMed PMID: 29357930; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5778760. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Harsh M, Mbatia P, Shrum W. Accountability and inaction: nGOs and resource lodging in development. Dev Change. 2010;41:253–278.

Publication types