IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bcp/journl/v8y2024i6p384-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monitoring and Evaluation Approaches and Implementation of Projects by Presbyterian Church of East Africa, in Nairobi Region, Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Githae Wachira

    (Student, School Business, Economics and Tourism, Kenyatta University, Kenya)

  • Dr. Morrisson Mutuku

    (Lecturer, School of Business, Economics and Tourism, Kenyatta University, Kenya)

Abstract

Project monitoring and evaluation approaches when implemented are the watch dog of success of projects. Most monitoring systems are not meeting their obligatory requirements as decision making tools. Instead, their activities have been viewed as controlled by a bureaucratic management. In other cases, project monitoring and evaluation has been viewed as a donor and not necessarily a management requirement in the enhancement of program success. This study sought to determine the effect of monitoring and evaluation approaches on implementation of projects in Presbyterian Church of East Africa, Nairobi Region, Kenya. The specific objectives of the study were; to determine the effect of participatory approaches, to identify the effect of evaluation approaches, to establish the effect of survey approach and to determine the effect of performance indicators approach on implementation of projects in Presbyterian Church of East Africa, Nairobi region, Kenya. The study was guided by three theories, namely; stakeholders’ theory, utility theory and theory of change. The study adopted descriptive research design. The study targeted projects implemented by PCEA in Nairobi Region, Kenya between 2017 -2021. Purposive sampling approach was used to in reaching the targeted respondents. The study relied on primary data collected using a semi-structured questionnaire. Descriptive and multiple regression analysis were used for data analysis. All independent variables of participatory approaches, evaluation approaches, survey approaches and performance indicators approaches were found to have a positive statistically significant effect on project implementation. The study concluded that having sufficient monitoring and evaluation approaches policies enhances the quality of project implementation. The study recommended that the PCEA church n Nairobi Region, together with all other M&E practitioners should ensure sufficient monitoring and evaluation approaches are utilized, for a successful project implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Githae Wachira & Dr. Morrisson Mutuku, 2024. "Monitoring and Evaluation Approaches and Implementation of Projects by Presbyterian Church of East Africa, in Nairobi Region, Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(6), pages 384-402, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:8:y:2024:i:6:p:384-402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-8-issue-6/384-402.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/monitoring-and-evaluation-approaches-and-implementation-of-projects-by-presbyterian-church-of-east-africa-in-nairobi-region-kenya/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    2. Eric Chu & Isabelle Anguelovski & JoAnn Carmin, 2016. "Inclusive approaches to urban climate adaptation planning and implementation in the Global South," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 372-392, April.
    3. Raymond, Christopher M. & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja & Berry, Pam & Breil, Margaretha & Nita, Mihai Razvan & Geneletti, Davide & Calfapietra, Carlo, 2017. "A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 15-24.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2021. "Entry-Proofness and Discriminatory Pricing under Adverse Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(8), pages 2623-2659, August.
    2. Ralph W. Bailey & Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2005. "Ambiguity and Public Good Provision in Large Societies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(5), pages 741-759, December.
    3. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Drouhin, Nicolas, 2015. "A rank-dependent utility model of uncertain lifetime," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 208-224.
    5. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    6. Choo, Weihao & de Jong, Piet, 2015. "The tradeoff insurance premium as a two-sided generalisation of the distortion premium," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 238-246.
    7. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    8. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 2001. "The independence axiom and asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 537-572, December.
    9. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    10. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    11. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    14. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    15. Haliassos, Michael & Hassapis, Christis, 2001. "Non-expected Utility, Saving and Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 69-102, January.
    16. Houba, Harold & Tieman, Alexander F. & Brinksma, Rene, 1998. "The Nash bargaining solution for decision weight utility functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 41-48, July.
    17. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub & Edmund Phelps, 2012. "Contracting for Innovation under Knightian Uncertainty," Cahiers de recherche 18-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    18. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    19. Courtault, Jean-Michel & Gayant, Jean-Pascal, 1998. "Local risk aversion in the rank dependent expected utility model: First order versus second order effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 207-212, May.
    20. A. Alventosa & Y. Gómez & V. Martínez-Molés & J. Vila, 2016. "Location and Innovation Optimism: a Behavioral-Experimental Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 890-904, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:8:y:2024:i:6:p:384-402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dr. Pawan Verma (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.