The assessment of implementation of monitoring systems in settlements upgrading projects: the case of Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP) in Munyaka, Uasin Gishu county, Kenya

Abstract

Globally, it is estimated that 70 million new residents get added to urban areas of the developing countries each year. In the next two decades, the urban population of the world’s two poorest regions, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, is expected to double, suggesting that informal settlements dwellers in these regions will dramatically grow. In 2011, the Kenyan Government rolled out the Kenyan Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP) to address the living conditions in the county’s informal settlements. Despite huge financial investments and community efforts directed at improving the living conditions in the settlements, it is not clear if the project design included an explicit M&E system to begin with and more fundamentally, it is not clear how the M&E system was implemented on the ground. This study aimed at carrying out an analysis of the implementation of monitoring systems in settlement upgrading by KISIP in Munyaka, Eldoret town. Thus, the main objective of the study was to undertake the assessment of the implementation of monitoring system in settlements upgrading projects: the case of Kenya informal settlement improvement project in Munyaka, Uasin Gishu County Kenya. The specific objectives were to evaluate how human resource capability influences implementation of monitoring of projects; examine how budgetary allocation influences implementation of monitoring of projects; and assess how stakeholder participation influences implementation of monitoring systems in settlements upgrading projects. Stakeholder Theory and theory of planned behavior anchored the study. The study utilized a descriptive research design to target 137 respondents including project management staff working for the Kenyan Informal Settlement Improvement Project in Munyaka and small business owners, household heads and religious leaders who are direct beneficiaries of the KISIP project and who have lived in Munyaka for 10 years or longer. Purposeful selection was used to get one national and five county KISIP project implementers while simple random sampling was used to get 110 adult direct beneficiaries (households, small business traders and religious leaders) of KISIP. Primary data was collected using questionnaires and interview schedules, while secondary data was collected using documentary checklist. To determine the reliability of research instruments, Cronbach Coefficient alpha was used, and a reliable figure of 0.713 realized. To determine content validity of the instruments, the research supervisor appraised the content of the instruments and counseled the researcher appropriately. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive analysis in the form of counts and percentages while qualitative data from interviews and documents were analyzed using thematic analysis. The results revealed that there was relatively low human resource capability, budgetary allocation and stakeholder participation which had a negative influence on the implementation of monitoring systems in the KISIP project in Munyaka. The study thus recommends that the KISIP project management should invest in training and capacity building of its staff in monitoring and evaluation. They should do this through seminars and in-service training sessions. The KISIP project management should also perform resource mobilization to acquire financial resources that would support monitoring of projects. The project management should also devise an inclusion policy that would enhance effective stakeholder participation in project monitoring. Further, the residents themselves should proactively demand for participation as that is their legal right. The government should come up with tactful and elaborate strategies that checks corruption and one that ensures that the government-based projects are completed on time, within cost and with top quality finish.