Cargando…

Capacity and readiness of civil society organisations to implement community case management of malaria in Kenya

INTRODUCTION: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) contribute to achieving development goals through advocacy, social mobilisation and provision of health services. CSO programming is a key component of Global Fund (GF) grants; however, CSOs face technical and governance capacity challenges in grant u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marita, Enock, Oule, Jared, Mungai, Margaret, Thiam, Sylla, Ilako, Festus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The African Field Epidemiology Network 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5424268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28523081
http://dx.doi.org/10.11604/pamj.supp.2016.25.2.9305
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) contribute to achieving development goals through advocacy, social mobilisation and provision of health services. CSO programming is a key component of Global Fund (GF) grants; however, CSOs face technical and governance capacity challenges in grant utilisation leading to missed opportunities for improving health at community level. Amref Health Africa was appointed Principal Recipient of a GF grant aimed at scaling up community case management of malaria through CSOs as sub-recipients in western Kenya. To identify potential risks and strengthen grant management, Amref Health Africa and the Ministry of Health conducted a capacity needs assessment to determine the capacity of CSOs to effectively utilise grants. METHODS: 26 selected CSOs participated in this study. Document reviews and on-site assessments and observations were conducted using structured tool. The five main assessment areas were: governance and risk management; strategic and operational planning; monitoring and evaluation; programme management; and financial management. Overall performance was grouped into four categories: 3.0-2.5 (excellent), 2.0-2.4 (good), 1.5-1.9 (fair), and 1.0-1.4 (poor). Data were collected and analysed using Excel software. RESULTS: Twenty five out of 26 CSOs were legally compliant. 14(54%) CSOs were categorized as good; 7(27%) as excellent; 3(12%) as poor and 2(8%) as fair. Most CSOs had good programme management capacity but monitoring and evaluation presented the most capacity gaps. CONCLUSION: More than 75% of the CSOs were rated as excellent or good. A capacity building plan, programme risk management plan and oversight mechanisms were important for successful grant implementation.