"Hi Sylvestor..
Thanks for checking on me. I am very busy these days and jumping between North and South of my country. I hope that things will be better for our Sudans"
From my own experience: Capacity development and social development- Insertion No. 0
Planning of interventions
It is obvious that capacity development
comes at the top of the hierarchy of support provided by any institutions be it
government, private sector or civil society. Investing enough time and resources
on capacity development will directly contribute to achievement of development
results, the thing that could not be reached if an entity embarks directly on
implementation of service delivery intervention[1]. However, many challenges
are facing the investment in capacity development, especially in the least
developed countries. Challenges facing capacity development could be counted as
follow:
comes at the top of the hierarchy of support provided by any institutions be it
government, private sector or civil society. Investing enough time and resources
on capacity development will directly contribute to achievement of development
results, the thing that could not be reached if an entity embarks directly on
implementation of service delivery intervention[1]. However, many challenges
are facing the investment in capacity development, especially in the least
developed countries. Challenges facing capacity development could be counted as
follow:
- Target groups ‘recipients’ perception: lack of interest- resulted from deep
ignorance- of the target group in capacity outputs, with their increased
interest on tangible services provision. Service providers competition on
limited sources of funds, and their augmented interest in ‘doing something’
to their communities and target groups is mainly the driving force for
this behavior[2].The capacity development is relatively new as concept. It is usage came synchronizing with the change from providing relief support to contributing to social development[3]. CSOs and other social actors traditionally knew that to get support or funds, certain level of capacities must be demonstrated, that level is preferred if it is high. Reported low capacity prohibits the institution from enjoying support of funds provided. That somehow contradicts with the concept of the capacity development, which based mainly on acknowledgement of gaps, and working proactively upon amending them. Hence, the intended recipients of capacity development are often denying capacity gaps and demanding funds for service delivery. Without cautious assessment and thorough scrutinizing system it is hard to discover capacity gaps. However this aspect is now being changed with strong advocacy from donors and states including the recipients.
- Getting enough support for capacity development: the capacity development is not prioritized as an issue for support. There not much initiative for
providing basket support for capacity development. Most of the efforts are
individuals and poorly coordinated at the levels of the provider and the recipients.
- Targeting: without accurate assessment, it is hard to target the actual gap. The targeting also means selecting the right recipient and themes for the
capacity development intervention.
Evaluation of capacity development interventions
The biggest challenge for capacity development is the appropriate approach for pre- assessment and evaluation, the relation between those two aspects could determine the fate of any capacity development. Sometimes, in the development field monitoring and evaluation practice is referred to as an activity conducted to generate data either to learn about the project and/ or to the report about it. So generally the evaluation exercise is done for:
- Documentation and reporting
- Learning and further planning
The perception that capacity development is always for-good made it to be less to investigate about. But programmatically, capacity development should not be treated as good intentions; it has to be criticized in order to improve. For example, in a project for capacity development for civil society organizations in Sudan,
stakeholders had big argument regarding using the right approach for evaluation. RCT was discussed amongst different approaches and techniques to measure the change. Lots of discussion that ended up with the decision that; capacity development is positive intervention; it has no any component that can be used as base for randomization. The discussion was developed to a burning argument and debate about inequality, human rights and development of capacity. It was based on the notion that everybody has the right for capacity development; therefore using RCT for capacity development is not fair. To cut long story short, some recommendation were raised that practice on capacity evaluation must be based on:
stakeholders had big argument regarding using the right approach for evaluation. RCT was discussed amongst different approaches and techniques to measure the change. Lots of discussion that ended up with the decision that; capacity development is positive intervention; it has no any component that can be used as base for randomization. The discussion was developed to a burning argument and debate about inequality, human rights and development of capacity. It was based on the notion that everybody has the right for capacity development; therefore using RCT for capacity development is not fair. To cut long story short, some recommendation were raised that practice on capacity evaluation must be based on:
- Targeting: geographically, thematically and according to prioritized target group.
- Contextual aspects: carefulness must be considered in selecting reference community or social group, both nationally and internationally.
- Integration: capacity development is not stand alone activity, but it is an activity that should rum parallel to service activity or strengthening initiative.
- With comparative reference to internationally agreed upon documents.
The Sudanese civil society has acknowledged
the fact that it is very important to give enough time for reflection about
capacity development, rather than merely implementation and assuming good
intentions.
the fact that it is very important to give enough time for reflection about
capacity development, rather than merely implementation and assuming good
intentions.
[1] This is true in case of
support provided by international through local bodies. It contributes directly
to sustainability and ownership.
support provided by international through local bodies. It contributes directly
to sustainability and ownership.
[2]There is a need for comprehensive values clarification exercise to come around
issues of competition versus cooperation especially in the voluntary sector.
issues of competition versus cooperation especially in the voluntary sector.
[3] Upon discussing this, more emphasize should be put in the transfer of the idea
from the developed countries to reach capacity development aid receiving
countries.
from the developed countries to reach capacity development aid receiving
countries.
Views: 6
Get Involved
Latest Activity
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Nuha"Nuha,
Hallo how have you been! You are lost, how is Sudan and work!
"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Benjamin Mlimbila"Benjamin,
Karibu African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results"
Sylvestor Obong’o left a comment for Salima Madhany"Hi Salima,
Can see you have joined the community! Karibu sana and I hope you will enjoy it!
"
Ethirajan Soundararajan's discussion was featuredProject Level MfDR
While so much of emphasis is given for Managing for Development Results at the Partner Country level, it is essential that the same level of importance should be given at the Project Level as well. The accountability and ownership of all the stakeholders thus created through MfDR will ensure the successful implementation of the projects. Be it a donor or a government funded programme, the aspirations and needs of the beneficiaries need to be appropriately dovetailed in the plan and MfDR by its…See More
© 2012 Created by copafrica.
