Evaluation of the Impact and Effectiveness of Institutional Capacity
Interventions Support to AGMARK
End of Project Evaluation Report
Submitted to
AGMARK
Final Report
MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD
P.O BOX 19131-40123 KISUMU
Tel : +254-720 575286/0736545755/0713575070
Email : archielaogange@yahoo.com
December 2016
MMC
i | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgment .............................................................................................................................................................iv
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................................................v
2.0 Evaluation Methodology ......................................................................................................................................9
2.1. The OCA Tool .............................................................................................................................…………9
3.0 Assessment Findings........................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1. Governance and Legal Structure .........................................................................................................10
3.1.1 Key Strengths.....................................................................................................................................10
3.1.2 Key Capacity Gaps:...........................................................................................................................11
3.1.3 Recommended Interventions:.............................................................................................................11
3.2. Administration and Procurement Systems...........................................................................................11
3.2.1 Key Strengths.....................................................................................................................................12
3.2.2 Key Capacity Gaps ............................................................................................................................12
3.3. Human Resources Management Systems.............................................................................................13
3.4. Financial Management, Internal Controls and Sustainability Systems...............................................14
3.4.2 Key Capacity Gaps ............................................................................................................................15
3.4.3. Recommended Interventions.............................................................................................................16
3.5. Organizational Management ...............................................................................................................16
3.5.1 Key Strengths.....................................................................................................................................16
3.5.2 Key Capacity Gaps ............................................................................................................................17
3.5.3 Recommended Interventions..............................................................................................................17
3.6. Program Management .........................................................................................................................17
3.6.1 Key Strengths .....................................................................................................................................18
3.6.2. Key Capacity Gaps ...........................................................................................................................18
3.6.3. Recommended Intervention...............................................................................................................18
ii | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
3.7. Project Performance Management ......................................................................................................18
3.7.1. Key Strengths....................................................................................................................................19
3.7.2 Key Capacity Gaps ............................................................................................................................19
3.7.3. Recommended Interventions.............................................................................................................19
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................................................ 20
5.0 References............................................................................................................................................................... 22
Annexes............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
iii | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AGMARK Agricultural Market Development Trust
AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
AIIM African Institutions Innovation Mechanisms
AIIM- Assist African Institutions Innovation Mechanisms-Assist
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Africa
ED Executive Director
EU European Union
FOSTER Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through Enhanced
Regional Trade
HR Human Resource
ICT Information and Communication and Technology
IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards
IS Plan Institutional Strengthening Plan
MD Managing Director
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MMC Moford Management Consultants
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NUPAS Non-U.S. Organization Pre-Award Survey
OCA Organizational Capacity Assessment
Re-OCA Repeat Organizational Capacity Assessment
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAID/EAST AFRICA United States Agency for International Development – East Africa
iv | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Acknowledgment
Moford Management Consultants Limited and its entire team wish to express their sincere
appreciation to all the people and institutions for their advice and support during this
assessment exercise. However, in a special way MMC wishes to thank AGMARK for giving her
team the opportunity to serve as an external assessor of its Institutional Capacity Assessment as
part of the USAID funded Food Security through Enhanced Regional Trade End of Project
Evaluation Activity. The Team Members further acknowledge the organizational support provided by AGMARK
through the overall guidance, advice, coordination, cooperation of the staff that afforded their
time for the face-to-face interviews for the study. Further, the team acknowledges the access to
extensive documentary information including the AGMARK Strategic Plan, various policy and
procedure manuals, project work plans among others that informed the desk top review of the
organization’s systems and processes.
v | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Executive Summary
This report contains the findings and recommendations of an end of project Institutional
Capacity Strengthening exercise of the Agricultural Market Development Trust (AGMARK).
AGMARK as a grantee of the funds to implement Feed the Future East Africa Food Security
through Enhanced Regional Trade (FOSTER) activity by the USAID. The activity was designed
with two components: the regional trade facilitation component that worked to enhance cross
border trade and the institutional development component for organizational capacity building. The objective of the Institutional Assessment was to assess the impact and effectiveness of
institutional capacity interventions support to AGMARK.
The institutional development component of AGMARK was supported by African Institutions
Innovation Mechanisms (AIIM)-Assist, an USAID/EAST program to support USAID African
funded institutions. Under FOSTER, AIIM Assist supported, AGMARK to build her capacity in
the areas of Legal Structure, Financial Management and Internal Control Systems, Procurement
Systems, Human Resources Systems, Project Performance Management and Organization
Sustainability for a period of two years.
AIIMs-Assist employed an integrated approach to support AGMARK on institutional
strengthening as well as the implementation of the findings of the NUPAS. The approach
involved conducting of the baseline OCA in January 2015 and development of an Institutional
Strengthening plan that detailed the process of capacity building activities and their
implementation. In December 2016, AIIMs- Assist further carried out a repeat OCA of the
organization to ascertain the extent to which AGMARK has implemented the IS plan. The Methodology of the assessment of the Institutional Strengthening of AGMARK included: 1)
an assessment of documentation and the implementation of IS plans including the review of
work plans, strategic plan, contracts and financial statements and 2) Key Informant Interviews
(KII) or In-depth Interviews (IDI), in the form of face-to-face interviews with all the senior staff
of the organization to generate qualitative data for the assessment of the impact and effectiveness
of institutional capacity interventions support to AGMARK. The capacity building initiative has had the following the short-term (less than three years)
outcomes:
i) AGMARK has an improved governance structure with a compliance legal framework
and policy guidelines for almost all aspects of the organization
vi | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
ii) All staff are competent and well qualified with a good understanding of the
organization’s mission/vision and how their roles contribute to the achievement of the
overall strategic plan. They also understand their performance matrices as well as their
reporting responsibilities
iii) The Administrative function was divorced from the Finance function and paired with HR.
This has created easier overhead cost management as well as reduced procurement
bottlenecks
iv) The newly formed procurement committee had created a transparent and effective
procurement process
v) The automation of the systems, though on-going has improved on efficiencies in
communication and information availability across all departments
vi) The inclusive approach to program management ensures that AGMARK is effective in its
service delivery to it stakeholders
vii)Project Performance Management has the buy-in from all departments, especially the
program team though it still needs to be further developed, standardized and staffed to
increase output
It is recommended that AGMARK needs to develop a written comprehensive succession plan for
not only the MD role but also for all the other roles within the organization. This is hoped will
ensure continuity in case of staff separation from the organization. The organization will need to
develop a written financial sustainability plan.
7 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
1. Introduction
Agricultural Market Development Trust (AGMARK) is a regional not-for-profit development
organization with headquarters in Nairobi. AGMARK is registered as a Trust under the laws of
Kenya. AGMARK is also registered in South Sudan as an NGO with offices in Juba, Yei,
Yambio and Torit.
AGMARK has specialized in programs that facilitate smallholder farmers and pastoralists to
access inputs and technologies for increased production and output markets for surplus
production. The objective is to improve incomes and food security of smallholder farmers by
facilitating agricultural development in Africa through adoption of improved production
technologies and effective output marketing in response to identified market opportunities.
AGMARK has specialized in working at the agrodealer level to establish these networks that
serve farmers. AGMARK has been implementing agricultural development programs since 2004
and implemented projects in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Burundi, Zambia,
Malawi, Swaziland, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Mozambique.
AGMARK Capabilities
AGMARK is managed by a core team of experienced professionals and support staff who
include Agronomists, Agribusiness Specialists, Trainers, and Rural finance experts and a team of
associate consultants who are regularly engaged in various assignments in Kenya and the region.
a) AGMARK has developed training materials in:  Basic Business Management for agrodealers  Advanced Business Management for agrodealers  Business counseling and mentorship for agrodealers  Technical knowledge on agricultural Inputs  Grain Bulking – aggregation for agrodealers  Formation and Management of Agrodealer Associations and
 Farming as a business.
b) AGMARK has trained and developed a pool of Independent commercial trainers and
consultants in 8 countries in Africa to support agricultural projects including training of
Agrodealers, training of farmers and support for demand creation activities.
c) AGMARK has developed and Managed Agricultural Inputs Voucher Systems.
d) AGMARK has developed the capacities of local African institutions in Zambia, Tanzania,
Uganda, Mozambique, Swaziland and Ethiopia to engage in agrodealer support programs.
8 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
This report contains the findings and recommendations of an end of project Institutional
Capacity Strengthening exercise of the Agricultural Market Development Trust (AGMARK).
AGMARK as a grantee of the funds to implement Feed the Future East Africa Food Security
through Enhanced Regional Trade (FOSTER) activity by the USAID. The activity was designed
with two components: the regional trade facilitation component that worked to enhance cross
border trade and the institutional development component for organizational capacity building.
The objective of the Institutional Assessment was to assess the impact and effectiveness of
institutional capacity interventions support to AGMARK.
The institutional development component of AGMARK was supported by African Institutions
Innovation Mechanisms (AIIM)-Assist, an USAID/EAST program to support USAID African
funded institutions. Under FOSTER, AIIM Assist supported, AGMARK to build her capacity in
the areas of Legal Structure, Financial Management and Internal Control Systems, Procurement
Systems, Human Resources Systems, Project Performance Management and Organization
Sustainability for a period of two years.
9 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
2.0 Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation relied mainly on two major sources of data for this study. These two sources were
literature review and key informant interviews. The literature review involved a study of the
AGMARK reports, review of AIIM ASSIST initial Organization Capacity Assessment (OCA)
Reports and any other available relevant literature.
The following steps were undertaken during the evaluation
 Step 1: Desk Review of the Baseline OCA and Repeat including the IS plans, and a
review of all the institutional capacity strengthening documents of AGMARK including
policy and procedure manuals, work plans, strategic plan, contracts, financial statements
among others and
 Step 2: Key Informant Interviews (KII) or In-depth Interviews (IDI), in the form of face￾to-face interviews with all the senior staff of the organization to generate qualitative data
for the assessment of the impact and effectiveness of institutional capacity interventions
support to AGMARK
The tool used for these interviews was the OCA developed by USAID
2.1. The OCA Tool
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) designed an OCA tool for
use with local recipients of USAID awards. The tool assesses an organization’s capacity in seven
capacity areas and 43 sub-capacity areas. The seven capacity areas are listed below.
i) Governance and Legal Structure
ii) Financial Management and Internal Control Systems
iii) Administration and Procurement Systems
iv) Human Resources Management
v) Program Management
vi) Project Performance Management
vii) Organizational Management and Sustainability
The OCA tool categorizes organizations into four distinct stages of organizational development
along a four-stage organizational development continuum. These stages are:  Stage 1: Low Capacity
 Stage 2: Basic Capacity
 Stage 3: Moderate Capacity and
 Stage 4: Strong Capacity
Stage 1 represents the lowest capacity while Stage 4 denotes the highest capacity. Each stage has
indicator statements that define the key characteristics of an organization at that stage of
organizational development.
10 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
3.0 Assessment Findings
3.1. Governance and Legal Structure
Currently, AGMARK has successfully plugged most of its governance capacity gaps. The
organization’s vision and mission are clearly stated and understood by all key staff in the
organization. This is further demonstrated through the implementation if the AGMARK Strategic
Plan 2015 – 2019. The organization is legally present within Kenya, Mozambique and South
Sudan. It has a fully constituted Board consisting of one (1) woman and four (4) men that have
clear Board guidelines, processed and procedures for meeting, decision making, tenure, on- boarding and exiting. The organizational structure remains largely project focused though
successful attempts have been made to integrate cross-cutting roles such as M&E, ICT,
Administration & Human resource management into the projects through active budgeting for
overhead costs of operation and joint committees such as the ‘procurement committee’ to
integrate functions. It would however be best to have a comprehensive organogram that
considers the current income structure. A case in point is the fact that the current Finance
Director felt the lack of job security owing to the coming end of the project that funded their role
and therefore left. For an organization that currently generates income though donor specific
projects, it is important to beef up the strategic finance plan to avoid such turnover in the future. Finally, though it is important to note that the organization’s founder CEO also serves as its
Chairman and that the current Accounts Administrator is functioning well to fill in the role of the
Finance Director that just left, succession processes appear to be organically in place. However,
to avoid ambiguities in the organizational hierarchy and reporting structures, it is fundamentally
important that AGMARK implement a clear succession plan and/or process for the organization.
3.1.1 Key Strengths
Under the Governance and Legal Structures domain, it is recognized that AGMARK has the
following strengths:
i) Its vision, mission and objectives are clearly articulated and understood by the entire
team. They are also reflected in the day-to-day running of the organization
ii) AGMARK’s Board of Trustees consists of five (four man and one woman) diverse and
relevant Board members drawn from broad spectrum of areas including agribusiness,
non-profit development, donor and academia, with clear terms of service, procedures,
regulations and oversight over the organization including strategic planning
iii) The organization is Legally registered as a Trust, with a Trust deed and follows all
statutory financial and tax reporting, external audits, labor laws and board representation
requirements
iv) All departments including the board are managed using procedure and policy manuals
that are actively reviewed based on the changing challenges of the organization. These
11 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
include: AGMARK Terms of Service of the Board of Trustees, AGMARK’s revised
strategic plan (2015-2019), Human resources manual, Finance policy and procedures
manual, Risk Policy manual, ICT user and systems manuals, M&E Procedures Manual
(Work in Progress) among others
v) The inclusion of the ICT staff appears to be a clear facilitator of improved
communication and oversight over the management as well as Board of Trustees, leading
to greater transparency, accountability and responsibility within AGMARK
3.1.2 Key Capacity Gaps:
The Key capacity gaps under the governance domain include:
i) AGMARK lacks a clear succession plan for the ED/CEO. Granted that the Founder CEO
is the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees and therefore a clear store of
institutional memory, AGMARK needs to identify a clear and stated successor and/or
succession process for the ED/CEO to assure institutional viability over the long-run
ii) The AGMARK organogram, demonstrates that all senior staff report directly to the
ED/CEO. There is the need for clear reporting lines that ensure clear communication and
efficiency in the organization. Being an organization that is heavily dependent of donor
restricted income for its viability, and its current reporting stricture, its team should be
expanded to include the function of a Business Development personnel to ensure long￾term financial sustainability
3.1.3 Recommended Interventions:
The following interventions have been recommended to improve governance:
i. AGMARK should develop a clear succession plan for not only the MD but also all levels
of staffing roles, processes and procedures
ii. The organization update the organogram to represent clear reporting lines that achieve the
desired outcomes stated in the mission and in line with the current strategic plan. The
M&E team for instance needs beefing up to undertake more detailed data collection,
analysis and summary of project outcomes.
iii. To achieve financial sustainability, in addition to the MD that has several functions
reporting directly to him, we propose the creation of a dedicated Business Development
role to beef up the MD’s role in raising funds through additional projects to assure
institutional financial viability. 3.2. Administration and Procurement Systems
In this OCA review, it was established that AGMARK had the required operational policies,
procedures and systems for the administration and procurement functions. These include the
12 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Administration and procurement policy manual, the travel policy, fixed asset and motor vehicle
management policy, inventory management policy and ICT manual. It was further established
that all staff including the procurement committee were actively implementing the policy and
procedures of the organization. Further, the inception of a customized ICT system, including
training on use had created greater organizational efficiencies. For instance, the process of travel
documentation and expensing had been automated and therefore become for efficient to the
fulfilment of project management goals. This system also strengthened the separation between
the procurement and finance function and therefore limits any potential for fraud and misuse of
funds in the organization. This ICT system already has systems and user manuals and procedures
that have been adopted by the Board and staff. Now, cash for travel is disbursed through an
automated accounting system to accounts of the project staff for use and accounted for by the
individual staff member attributed to the expense in the system. Assets cost attribution to specific
projects/cost centers or activities remains a challenge.
3.2.1 Key Strengths
i) The organization has established and Board Approved Administration, Procurement and
travel policies and procedures that are well implemented by staff
ii) The ICT system has developed overall efficiencies, transparency and understanding of
the administrative and procurement procedures of AGMARK
iii) The procurement committee offers a transparent and balanced procurement process and
the concept of Board approval of procurement of more than Kenya shillings five hundred
thousand (Ksh. 500,000) upon recommendation of the committee has created further
controls over the use of organizational funds in a transparent and efficient manner.
3.2.2 Key Capacity Gaps
i. The fixed asset attribution to overheads, activities and projects needs to be clarified to
allow for proper project costing
ii. The customized ICT system is a work in progress and with this development, there have
been visible improvements in the administration and procurement processes of
AGMARK. This system does need further funding to bring it up to the required standard
that enables maximum efficiencies in the organization.
13 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
3.3. Human Resources Management Systems
Currently, AGMARK’s Human Resource and management systems are carried out in
conjunction with the Administration and logistics functions. Previously, the administration
function was part of the finance department. This posed challenges of conflicts of interest and
separation of powers in the procurement, administration and payment for assets and services.
This is now resolved with the detachment of the administration and human resources function
from finance. The manager reports directly to the MD. All staff is well-motivated and committed
to the organization’s mission and vision. They also have a good understanding of the
organization’s policies, processes and procedures. Each role is based on an organogram with a
stated job description and responsibilities. However, certain cross-cutting roles such as drivers
that assist in administrative functions in the field as unofficial field officers need their roles,
remuneration and responsibilities clearly defined. Also, clear role reporting needs to be defined
because now, six (6) project managers report directly to the MD along with all the other
department heads. With no clear succession plan, this could be detrimental to the long-term
survival of the organization. Finally, the role of the Administration and Human resource manager
used to be overlooked, as there was a focus on project implementation at the cost of adherence to
administrative and human resource policy and procedures. Now, this oversight has been
corrected with the inclusion of the Human Resource and Administration component in the
discussion and budgeting for projects from inception to completion.
3.3.1 Key Strengths:
i) The AGMARK staff is well-motivated and competent and have a good understanding and
appreciation of the organizations mission, vision, values, policies and procedures. The
MD is part of the Board of Trustees and therefore there is inclusion of Management and
Staff sentiments on the Board.
ii) AGMARK complies with Kenyan Laws on employee statutory deductions on
Employment and Safety and Health
iii) The HR Policy is comprehensive covering performance evaluation, legal contracting,
recruitment policies and procedures
iv) Staff management is formalized through clear job description; the development of work
plans and work appraisals. The final approval of Key staff is undertaken by the Board
3.3.2. Key Capacity Gaps and Recommended Interventions
i) The Human Resource management plan needs to be reviewed. This is because the current
plan is project specific. It implies the once a project ends, then the role of an individual is
likely to end. This can lead to a loss in staff morale as well as increased staff turnover for
the organization and therefore a loss in the institutional continuity and/or memory. For
instance, once project was ending in October 2016 and thus, three (3) staff were laid-off
14 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
and one (1) key staff, the Finance Manager, resigned in September in anticipation of the
Project completion
ii) All roles appear to report directly to the MD, including six (6) project managers, the HR
and administration manager, M&E, ICT manager, Finance and administration. For the
Project Management Role, a streamlining of their reporting procedures so that a summary
of their activities is reported to the MD, would ease the reporting channels from this
function, this would mean that possibly a head of Project Management may need to be
appointed or recruited to undertake the role.
3.4. Financial Management, Internal Controls and Sustainability Systems
The current Financial Manager had resigned from the organization in September, 2016 due to the
pending end of the term of the project that had recruited them. In their place, the Accounts
Assistant had taken over as the acting Financial Manager. AGMARK had acquired a new
financial management system in April 2015 though it had some malfunctions. This system
however works well for the other departments and therefore may need some form of
customization to work better. The financial policy and procedures are in place and are revised on
a regular basis based on experience if there are discrepancies. The external auditors previously
undertook the development of financial statements as well as the independent audit of the
organization’s financial statements that they developed. During the review, it was noted that
these two functions have been separated with the financial statement preparation being
undertaken in-house while the auditors (Baker Tilly Merali’s) independently undertake the audit.
This is in compliance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
The financial management controls include the development of budgets that are approved by the
MD and Project Manager. These budgets include a Master budget for the organization and
project specific budgets. Regular status meetings are held to review and monitor the budget
though most are not documented. The staff have a good understanding of their internal financial
reporting functions through the system and also undergo continuous training. It is the
organization’s policy to avoid cash and checks and therefore travel and related expenses are done
through direct deposit to the respective staff account. The respective staff is required to produce
a trip report at least one (1) month after the trip. AGMARK now operates a pooled account for
all the funds into the organization with the MD and Chairman placed as signatories to the
account. Cash transfers are linked to documents such as invoices most of which are done online.
The organization’s documents are backed up both physically and electronically on-site.
The Administration and Finance functions have since been separated. This implied that for small
project items, project requests are placed with the Administration and Human Resource Manager
who places the request on their behalf to the Financial Manager for execution. For large project
items including fixed assets, the procurement committee has the mandate to approve and execute
15 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
on items priced below five hundred thousand Kenya shillings (Ksh. 500,000) and for any items
above this amount, it is the Board of Trustees that approves one (1) of the final three (3)
recommendations from the procurement committee.
AGMARK largely earns its income through grants from donor funders. It has no debts, no cash
reserve balance requirement policy and no cash reserve investment policy. It mobilizes resources
though the development of donor proposals that are currently funded by a diverse number of
donors (7).
3.4.1 Key Strengths:
i) Despite the resignation in September 2016 of the Financial Manager, the Acting
Financial Manager appears to have managed a smooth transition that is overseeing the
audit and day-to-day financial management of the organization. This succession plan,
though not formal, works
ii) The financial system has developed efficiencies in the current management of financial
information including the development of reports, daily working capital management and
security of cash movement in the organization
iii) The separation of the Administration and procurement from the Finance Function has
created better procedures that are more transparent; and the separation between the
Internal financial accounting and the external audit is in compliance with industry
reporting standards practice
iv) The master budget and project budgets are in place and all staff are involved in the
preparation and on-going monitoring of the variances in the year
v) The donor funding base is diversified, albeit from a similar sector focus but given the
large number of donors within the small holder and other agribusiness related spaces,
AGMARK can maintain a long term strategy of appealing to new donors while also
securing follow on funding for programs by already engaged donor agencies that they
already work with
3.4.2 Key Capacity Gaps
i) The Lack of a formal financial treasury management strategic plan threatens the future
sustainability of AGMARK. The organization is currently financed and managed on a
project-by-project basis with no debt, reserve funds, income outside of donor grants and
capital or equity investments
ii) AGMARK’s financial model is run on a project by project basis. This provides the
challenge of maintaining liquidity and cash reserves to meet obligations, especially
overhead costs that could disrupt the long run operational and staffing stability of the
organization
16 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
3.4.3. Recommended Interventions
i) AGMARK needs to put in place an organizational treasury management strategy to take
advantage of short and long-term cash in hand in order to manage its liquidity while also
smoothing out operational, financial and reputational risk such as the resignation of the
Financial Manager due to the completion of the project that their income was assigned to.
ii) Further, the recruitment of a full time Business Development staff, will augment the
MD’s fund raising for the organization to increase the income generated through
additional grants and other related activities such as AGMARK facilitated conferences
and/or exhibitions among other mission related income generating activities
3.5. Organizational Management
AGMARK is currently working within the framework of the AGMARK 2015-2019 strategic
plan. This plan is well understood by the staff and implemented at all levels of internal and
external organizational management. Resource Mobilization is currently restricted to specific
grant-based donor funding. The funders are however diverse though this source of income has
created the challenge of continued financial funds flow over the long term. This has resulted in
increased staff turnover and threatens the long-term viability of AGMARK. An operational
development plans have been developed in the form of work plans for the specific project
portfolios within the organization. However, a master organizational plan will need to be
developed to link these project work plans to an organizational activity plan that link its strategic
plan to the organizations mission.
An informal communication strategy is maintained through the ICT manager. The organization
also brands and marks using the donor prescribed rules and regulations. AGMARK has well
established policies and procedures for each department. These procedures allow for the
organization to change as the environment win which it is operating changes as they are
reviewed on an on-going basis and are not static just as the ICT user manual is changing
currently as new processes and customizations are undertaken in the ICT system.
AGMARK has a reputable name within the NGO space in Africa and participates in information
and best practice sharing through relevant industry related trade shows along with industry
stakeholders, undertakes training and seeks to engage with Governments, both local and national
across Africa in the long run.
3.5.1 Key Strengths
i) AGMARK has a well written and implemented strategic plan in line with vision and
mission goals
17 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
ii) Its staff is well motivated and take part in decision making as well as stakeholder
engagement at all levels from pitching proposals to raise funds to trainings of
stakeholders
iii) The organization’s departments interact at all levels especially during the development of
project budgets and work plans as well as reporting and therefore allowing for the ease in
flow of information within the organization, allows for cross trainings and policy and
procedure revisions as well as maintaining the institutional memory across different
functions.
3.5.2 Key Capacity Gaps
i) A long term (three to five year) resource mobilization strategy is lacking. This is along
with a dedicated staff to implement the resource mobilization strategy to assure
organizational long run sustainability
ii) The organization should develop multi-year operational plans in line with the strategic
plan in order for it to project its current and future sources and uses of funds that will
inform its resource mobilization strategy
3.5.3 Recommended Interventions
i) To improve on and manage available resources and to attract further resources to meet
the organization’s long term strategic goals, a dedicated Business Development staff will
need to be engaged to fully develop the constant and diverse grant income for the
organization
3.6. Program Management
In the current OCA review, it was observed that the Program Management staff was technically
competent and well-motivated in their role. The team undertook program planning, design,
implementation along with external stakeholders such as government, corporate, NGOS, agro
dealer associations and NGOs are involved in project activities in the planning, design and
implementation stages as well as multi-disciplinary teams within the organization including HR, Communication, procurement, MD and M&E functions. The programs have a clear results
framework and all staff were inducted into the results framework for the USAID. The team
currently develops quarterly reports based on the milestones delivered and activity reports to
USAID; these reports are routinely discussed with the MD ahead of approval for sharing with
USAID.
Within the program implementation, there is a work plan developed for community engagement
18 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
that considers gender and cultural mainstreaming. For instance, the FOSTER Project had a
gender component that ensured that women had a session to train them as well as a cultural
session that covered the youth. Thus, they had ten (10) trainers of whom four (4) were women.
There are adequate management guidelines including contracts for short term and volunteer
engagement in the program work. Further, an M&E component was incorporated to document
the lessons learnt as well as best practices. This is discussed in seven (7) below.
3.6.1 Key Strengths
i) AGMARK is currently implementing its programs in line with the compliance
requirements of its donors
ii) The staff is technically competent with the ability to execute over their mandate
iii) The community engagement is tailored based on relevant experience to take into account
gender and cultural sensitivities pf the diverse communities within which they operate
while not losing sight of their strategic objectives
iv) AGMARK has developed strong linkages between itself and stakeholders at all levels
including government, corporate, NGOS, agro dealer associations and NGOs are
involved in project activities in the planning, design and implementation stages
v) The Program management is undertaken under best practice for the development of work
plans, budgets and implementation along with its approved policies and procedures. The
process also includes all departments of the organization for a holistic results framework
3.6.2. Key Capacity Gaps
i) Resistance by staff to changes in the acceptance of ICT systems to improve work flow
and create better controls
3.6.3. Recommended Intervention
i) Continued training on the new ICT systems to get buy-in by all staff on the benefits of
automated systems
3.7. Project Performance Management
AGMARK at the moment is staffed by one (1) M&E manager. This manager works on a project- by-project basis to undertake the project M&E function. The organization’s M&E policy and
guidelines are still being finalized whereas the organization lacks a service delivery charter. The
performance standards are largely dictated by the expected project delivery and using the
specific project budgets. There is therefore no organizational-wide performance standard to
19 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
quality assurance. The current supervisory tools are manual and therefore there is no system for
automated data collection and analysis to review trends in the short or long run. This also means
that the analysis is largely delayed by the need for face-to-face meetings between the program
staff and the M&E staff to consolidate, analyze and report data and information as it is not
available from the field in real time. Also, the quality of the data may be compromised in the
process.
3.7.1. Key Strengths
i) AGMARK’s M&E function is fully integrated into the entire program management
process from planning to design and implementation and also in the organizational
management functions such as procurement and budgeting.
3.7.2 Key Capacity Gaps
i) Inadequate Standard for service delivery tools.
ii) Lack of an effective automated system for data collection, collation and analysis to
support organizational level decision-making processes and reporting for quarterly
and annual reports
iii) Lack of a written M&E policy and plan
iv) No evidence that M&E tools are used at each project and organizational level to
foster learning and build strategic competence
v) Insufficient budgetary and staffing allocation to M&E activities
3.7.3. Recommended Interventions
i) Development of a service delivery standard charter for the organization
ii) Completion of the development of the M&E policy guidelines for AGMARK
iii) Automation of the data collection and evaluation to allow for real time data availability
for M&E purposes
iv) Overhead allocation of M&E to projects and the operational strategic plan of the
organization
20 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
The outcome of this OCA indicates a slight improvement in the organization’s capacity across all
domains of the evaluation. Overall, AGMARK can be described as having a “moderate capacity”
as of November 2016. This is up from the cumulative score of 2.8 in January 2015 to “Moderate
Capacity” with an average score of 3.1 in December 2015 and now 3.2 in November 2016.
Feb-15 Dec-15 Nov-16
Governance and Legal
Structure
3.1 3.2 3.5 Moderate Capacity
Financial Management and
Internal Control Systems
2.7 2.9 3 Moderate Capacity
Administration and
Procurement Systems
2.5 3 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Human Resources
Management Systems
3 3.1 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Program Management 2.7 3.2 3.4 Moderate Capacity
Project Performance
Management
2.6 2.9 2.9 Basic Capacity
Organizational
Management and
Sustainability
2.9 3.2 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Overall Average 2.8 3.1 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Capacity
Area/Element
Stage of OD (Nov, 2016)
Rating
This score is largely driven by the marked improvement in the Governance structures of the
organization. AGMARK currently has a well-formed Board of Trustees. These Board members
are from a diverse spectrum of career experience ranging from agribusiness to entrepreneurship
and academia among others. The Board are meeting their statutory meeting and reporting
requirements and also participate in the high-level decision making of the organization. For
instance, they have developed an organizational strategic plan in line with the organization’s
mission and vision, they have approved several policy and procedures guidelines across most of
the organization’s departments and have also developed terms of reference and conflict of
interest and codes of conduct guidelines for themselves. Despite the fact that the current
21 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Chairman is the Founder CEO, it is important to note that a written succession plan is still not in
place for the MD and also for other roles within the organization.
Overall, the AIIMS-Assist capacity building has led to the institutionalization of AGMARK
since the inception of the process in January 2015. Even though AGMARK still has a long way
to go especially in succession planning, financial sustainability management and M&E
management, the organization has maintained a fine balance between an entrepreneurial
organization with improved systems, processes, procedures and reporting structures.
The overall benefit of the Institutional Strengthening exercise of AGMARK over the past three
years has been an increase in project funding. This project funding has been awarded from
organizations such as the European Union (EU) and AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution)
among others. The funds have been placed largely due to the institutionalization of AGMARK.
The following recommendations are proposed for AGMARK
AGMARK will need to develop a written comprehensive succession plan for not only the MD
role but also for all the other roles within the organization. This is hoped will ensure continuity in
case of staff separation from the organization.
The organization will need to develop a written financial sustainability plan. This plan will have
three facets;
a) The sources of income to the organization should be identified and a role established
(Business Development manager) to be dedicated on a fulltime basis reporting to the MD on
the activities of proposal writing and pitching to obtain further grant funding for projects
from diverse donors to sustain the organization
b) A treasury management plan will be developed to manage ‘sitting cash’ or cash reserves in
the pooled account. These funds could be placed in safe investments such high yielding
account and government bonds with a tenure that allows these funds to generate income
before deployment. Other treasury management tools or partners may be sought.
c) A financial strategic plan should be developed to project the future growth of the
organization besides the annual budgets so that this plan is in line with AGMARK’s
strategy, staffing requirements to meet the strategy and other income growth strategies to be
implemented. This will allow the organization to develop a rate of growth that can be used
as a base rate for the evaluation of the organization’s financial sustainability.
Finally all other recommendations identified for each unit of the organization should be
implemented.
22 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
5.0 References
1) New Partners Initiative technical Assistance (NuPITA) Project; 2009. USAID
Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool: Facilitator’s Copy for Organizations Funded
by USAID
2) Asunza, M; Kachuwa, L. 2015. USAID-East Africa Organizational Capacity Assessment
(OCA) Report; Agricultural Management Development Trust (AGMARK)
3) Olago, S; Kariuki, A: Oggema, S. 2015. USAID-East Africa Organizational Capacity
Assessment (OCA) Report; Agricultural Management Development Trust (AGMARK)
4) Agricultural Management Development Trust (AGMARK) Strategic Plan 2015 – 2019
5) Revised Work Plan for Upcoming Trade fairs and Business Linkages Meetings
6) Consultancy Service Contract: Short term Technical Assistance; In-group Planning and
Conducting of the Trade Fairs
7) Final Revised Foster Trade Annual Work Plan, prepared by AGMARK Project
Management Team
8) AGMARK Annual Performance Report, November 2016
23 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Annexes
1.1 Annex 1: Overall OCA results from Baseline OCA to Re- OCA and End of Project
OCA
Baseline
OCA
Re￾OCA
Close
OCA
Governance and Legal
Structure
3.1 3.2 3.5 Moderate Capacity
Financial Management and
Internal Control Systems
2.7 2.9 3 Moderate Capacity
Administration and
Procurement Systems
2.5 3 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Human Resources
Management Systems
3 3.1 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Program Management 2.7 3.2 3.4 Moderate Capacity
Project Performance
Management
2.6 2.9 2.9 Basic Capacity
Organizational
Management and
Sustainability
2.9 3.2 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Overall Average 2.8 3.1 3.2 Moderate Capacity
Capacity
Area/Element
Stage of OD (Dec, 2015)
Rating
Annex 2: List of Key Informants Interviewed at AGMARK
1. James Mutonyi Managing Director
2. Allan Mukisira Project Management Department
3. Nixon Khama ICT Department
4. Wilfrida Onono M&E Department
5. Faith Awuor Finance Department
6. Mildred Barasa Administration & HR Department
24 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Annex 3: Graph comparing January 2015 and December 2015 OCA Scores
25 | P a g e
Institutional Capacity Intervention to AGMARK- Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (MMC) December, 2016
Annex 6: AGMARK End of Project OCA Scores
Capacity Areas/Elements Summary Scores
Governance and Legal Structure 3.5
Vision/Mission 4.0
Legal Requirements 3.6
Organizational Structure and Internal Communications 3.1
Board Composition and Responsibility 3.5
Succession Planning 3.2
Financial Management and Internal Control Systems 2.9
Financial Systems 3.0
Financial Controls 3.0
Financial Documentation 3.0
Financial Statements and Financial Reporting 3.2
Audit Experience 3.2
Cost Share (if applicable) 3.0
Administrative and Procurement Systems 3.2
Operational Policies, Procedures and Systems 3.5
Travel Policies and Procedures 3.2
Procurement 3.2
Fixed Asset Control 3.0
Branding and Marking (Optional) 3.2
Human Resources Systems 3.2
Staff Job Descriptions 3.3
Recruitment and Retention 3.2
Staffing Levels 3.0
Personnel Policies 3.5
Staff Time Management 3.3
Staff and Consultant History Documentation 3.3
Staff Salary and Benefits Policy 3.0
Staff Performance Management 3.0
Management and Staff Diversity 3.5
Policy on Volunteers/Interns (Optional) 3.0
Program Management 3.4
Donor Compliance Requirements 3.5
Sub-Award Management (where applicable) 3.0
Technical Reporting 3.5
Stakeholder Involvement 3.5
Culture and Gender Issues 3.5
Project Performance Management 2.9
Monitoring 2.8
Evaluation 3.0
Standards 3.2
Supervision 2.8
Field Support and Oversight 2.8
Organizational Management and Sustainability 3.2
Strategic Planning 3.5
Work plan Development 3.5
Change Management 2.7
Knowledge Management and Linkages 3.2
Opportunity Development for Sustainability 2.8
Internal Communications 3.3
Decision Making 3.5