Influence of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems on the Performance of County Flagship Projects in Kwale County, Kenya

References

[1] J. Z. Kusek and R. C. Rist, Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank, 2004.

[2] Republic of Kenya, Kenya National Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. Nairobi, Kenya: The National Treasury and Planning, State Department for Planning, 2022.

[3] M. Gorgens and J. Z. Kusek, Making Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Work: A Capacity Development Tool Kit. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank, 2009.

[4] L. Murei, H. Kidombo, and C. Gakuu, “Influence of monitoring and evaluation budget on performance of horticulture projects in Nakuru County, Kenya,” Int. J. Econ., Commerce Manage., vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 620–633, 2017.

[5] A. Roba, “Monitoring and evaluation practices on performance of water projects in Marsabit County, Kenya,” Int. J. Social Sci. Manage. Entrepreneurship, 2022.

[6] County Government of Kwale, County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) 2022–2027. Kwale, Kenya: County Government of Kwale, 2022.

[7] County Government of Kwale, County Annual Progress Reports 2020/21–2024/25. Kwale, Kenya: County Government of Kwale, n.d.

[8] L. O. Okello and F. Mugambi, “Determinants of effective monitoring and evaluation system of public health programs: A case study of school-based hand washing program in Kwale County, Kenya,” Int. J. Econ., Finance Manage. Sci., vol. 3, no. 3, 2015. Science Publishing Group

[9] M. C. Ruwa, “The influence of stakeholder participation on the performance of donor funded projects: A case of Kinango Integrated Food Security and Livelihood Project (KIFSLP), Kwale County, Kenya,” M.A. thesis, Univ. Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2016.

[10] M. Otundo Richard, “Strategic monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning (MEAL) emerging practice and the performance of donor funded development projects in Kwale County, Kenya,” SSRN working paper, 2024. [Online]. Available: SSRN

[11] H. Kerzner, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, 11th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2013.

[12] Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 6th ed. Newtown Square, PA, USA: Project Management Institute, 2017.

[13] M. Q. Patton, Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008.

[14] J. Mayne, “Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management,” Evaluation, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 87–109, 2007. SAGE

[15] J. W. Creswell and V. L. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2018.

[16] A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, Eds., SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2010.

[17] M. S. Setia, “Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies,” Indian J. Dermatol., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 261–264, 2016. PubMed

[18] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2015.

[19] A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, 5th ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2016.

[20] T. Yamane, Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Harper & Row, 1967.

[21] O. M. Mugenda and A. G. Mugenda, Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies, 2003.

[22] L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297–334, 1951. Cambridge

[23] J. C. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

[24] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

[25] D. W. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow, and R. X. Sturdivant, Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2013.

[26] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006. Taylor & Francis

@article{1723669,
      author = {Samuel Tsuma Mkuta, Dr. Hellen Kamwele, Isabella Lutzili Asamba, PhD},
      title = {Influence of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems on the Performance of County Flagship Projects in Kwale County, Kenya},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {4},
      pages = {330-340},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1723669.pdf},
      abstract = {Kenyan counties are required by law to operate integrated monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, yet about 30% of the flagship projects in Kwale County continue to run late and over budget. This study examined how three features of the county’s M&E system, namely data quality, budgetary allocation and the technical capacity of M&E personnel, influence the performance of these projects. A descriptive mixed-methods design with a cross-sectional survey was used. Evidence came from 119 completed questionnaires (a 96.0% response rate), fifteen key informant interviews, three focus group discussions and a review of county planning and budget documents. Quantitative data were analysed with Pearson’s correlation and binary logistic regression, and interview material was analysed thematically. All three pillars were rated poor. Mean index scores on a five-point scale were 1.94 for data quality, 1.69 for budgetary allocation and 1.86 for technical capacity, and 62.2% of respondents rated project performance as poor or very poor. Each pillar correlated strongly with performance (r = 0.712, 0.684 and 0.731 respectively; p < 0.001). In the logistic model all three remained significant predictors, and together they explained 63.3% of the variation in satisfactory performance (Nagelkerke R² = 0.633). Technical capacity had the largest odds ratio (3.71), followed by data quality (3.27) and budgetary allocation (2.52). Interview evidence suggested that the three weaknesses feed one another. The results indicate that county M&E reform should deal with data systems, protected funding and staff capacity together and not as separate projects.},
      keywords = {Budgetary allocation, County flagship projects, Data quality, Monitoring and evaluation, technical capacity},
      month = {October},
  }