2013年-世界发展银行全球_Funding_and_Expenditure_of_a_Sample_of_Community-based_Organizations_in_Kenya_Nigeria_and_Zimbabwe_31页_291kb

Summary of "Funding and Expenditure of a Sample of Community-based Organizations in Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe"

Core Content

This article presents an analysis of funding and expenditure patterns of community-based organizations (CBOs) in Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, focusing on their role in the national response to HIV/AIDS. The study was conducted as part of an evaluation exercise led by the World Bank, Department of International Development (DFID), and the UK Consortium on AIDS and International Development.

Main Findings

Funding Sources and Amounts

• Average Annual Funding: CBOs in the sample received an average of US$29,800 annually, or US$2,480 per month.
• Country Differences:
  • Zimbabwe: Average annual funding was US$72,000 (SD: US$75,114).
  • Kenya: Average annual funding was US$10,000 (SD: US$7,783).
  • Nigeria: Average annual funding was US$16,000 (SD: US$37,269).
• Funding Composition:
  • 69% of total funding came from international sources.
  • 35% of funding was from multilateral organizations (e.g., Global Fund, World Bank, UNAIDS).
  • Only 5% of funding came from member contributions and income-generating activities (IGAs), despite 29.7% of CBOs reporting such support.
  • 50.9% of CBOs relied on only one funding source.

Expenditure Allocation

• Programmatic Activities: CBOs spent 71% of their funds on programmatic activities, including treatment, support, care, and impact mitigation.
• Expenditure Breakdown:
  • 27% on support and mitigation of the economic impact of AIDS.
  • 24% on prevention.
  • 20% on treatment and care.
  • 16% on capacity building.
  • 13% on program management and administration.
• Expenditure on Program Management:
  • Increased with more volunteers and more clients reached.
  • CBOs receiving support from charities, foundations, and NGOs spent 18.7% more on program management.
  • CBOs receiving funding from member contributions and IGAs spent 14.1% less on program management.
  • Each additional US$1,000 in total funding was associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease in program management spending.

Key Information

• Data Collection:
  • The study collected data from 126 CBOs across the three countries.
  • In Kenya and Nigeria, up to 6 or 8 CBOs were selected per community, depending on the number of CBOs present.
  • In Zimbabwe, data was collected from organizations participating in the Manicaland M&E Facility Survey.
• Data Analysis:
  • All monetary values were annualized and converted to US dollars.
  • Deflation was applied to US dollar amounts to account for inflation, with all data adjusted to 2011 values.
  • Regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyze the relationship between funding, expenditure, and organizational factors.
• Volunteer and Client Reach:
  • 84 CBOs reported volunteer data, with an average of 86 volunteers per CBO.
  • 84 CBOs reported client reach data, with an average of 9,686 individuals reached per CBO.
  • The reported means were inflated due to outliers.

Discussion Highlights

• Funding Variability:
  • There was significant variation in funding levels among CBOs, even within countries.
  • Zimbabwean CBOs received more funding than those in Kenya and Nigeria, but this may not be due to CBO size, as no significant association was found between the number of volunteers and funding levels.
• Community Engagement Benefits:
  • CBOs that involved community members in their operations spent less on administration and more on programmatic activities.
  • This suggests that community engagement may enhance the efficiency and legitimacy of CBOs.
• Limitations:
  • The study used a convenience sample, so it may not be representative of all CBOs in the three countries.
  • Small sample size in Kenya and Zimbabwe limited the ability to perform country-specific regression analyses.
  • Data reliability was ensured through consistency checks but not through formal audits.
  • The study did not assess whether expenditure priorities aligned with community needs.

Conclusion

The study underscores the importance of CBOs in the HIV/AIDS response and highlights the economic dimension of their operations. It provides valuable insights into how funding is sourced and allocated, emphasizing the need for diversification in funding streams to reduce vulnerability to funding fluctuations. The findings also suggest that community engagement can lead to more efficient use of funds, and that international donors play a central role in supporting CBOs. However, further research is needed to explore the contextual and organizational factors that influence funding and expenditure patterns, as well as the alignment of CBO activities with community needs.