Influence of Monitoring and Evaluation on the Performance of “Give Directly” Project in Rwanda

The study aimed at determining the influence of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on the Give Directly project performance in Rwanda. The study was specifically to examine how Monitoring and Evaluation plans influence the performance of Give Directly project in Rwanda, to assess how Monitoring and evaluation training influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda, to evaluate whether stakeholders’ involvement in Monitoring and evaluation influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda and to determine whether M&E Budget influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda. The study was important to Give Directly project, other Non-Government and Government organizations and further researchers. The study was directed by three theories including evaluation theory, Program theory and theory of change. This research may be used as a source of information for further research. Both descriptive and correlation research design were used for the study. The targeted population were all 90 project implementers of Give Directly project in Rwanda whereby census method was considered. Data was collected using Likert scale questionnaire. Data was processed, analyzed by quantitative method and Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version 20 was used to code and enter quantitative data for analysis. Both descriptive including mean and standard deviation and inferential statistical analysis (linear regression analysis, correlation) were used. Data was presented using tables. Inferential statistics were also performed using the field data and tested at 5% level of significance and it resulted the followings: the results demonstrate a moderate strong positive relationship between M&E plans and project performance of Give Directly in Rwanda (r= 0.545, sig=.000) followed by M&E Training which had a moderate strong positive relationship (r=0.537, sig=.000) and M&E Budget had a moderate strong positive relationship (r=0.532, sig=.000). Furthermore, the results revealed a weak correlation between Stakeholders involvement in M&E and project performance (r=0.253, sig=0.016). By using linear regression analysis, it indicated that all explanatory variables including M&E Plans, M&E Training, Stakeholders involvement in M&E and M&E budget have an influence on the Give Directly project performance. Therefore, the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.549 means that M&E Plans, M&E Training, Stakeholders involvement in M&E and M&E budget contribute 54.9% to project performance and 45.1% is contributed by others factors not studied in this research. It was recommended that a given organization including Non-Government organizations should have M&E unit in place to conduct M&E related activities for a successful implementation of planned activities.

Under Uganda's M&E system, the process of developing talent, involving institutions, advocating for change, and designing systems will never end.The leadership of Uganda will especially be asked to reinforce the frameworks for the Poverty Eradication Plan (PEAP), Poverty Reduction Support Plan (PRSP), Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), and Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC).In a policy matrix developed by the World Bank (2011) in partnership with local organizations in Uganda, M&E systems was defined as a system that cut across all public sector changes under an outcomes management framework.
During the creation and implementation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) in 2018, when M&E was predominantly controlled by development partners at the national level, the idea for the complete M&E system in Kenya first developed.The Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Development (ERSWEC) was created in 2013.According to ERSEWEC (2013-2017), which recognized the role of M&E in encouraging accountability to enhance good governance, the government would perform M&E to monitor its policies, programs, and projects.At the UN (2015) international summit in Copenhagen in March 1995, more than 100 world leaders reached a consensus for social development to reduce poverty and advance social integration as a method of putting people at the center of development.Five years later, in September 2018, Kenya and other nations ratified the millennium declaration.In addition to eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, the MDGs status report for Kenya (2015) said that the declaration specified eight targets actions to be completed by 2015.To address the false distribution of public funds, a number of decentralization initiatives were considered throughout the 1970s.However, they were not particularly effective since they politicized and resource misallocation persisted Kinyanjui (1980).A more major decentralization trend started in 2015 with the acquisition of district focus for rural development (DFRD) plan by the GoK (2015), Makokha (2016), and Chitere & Ireri (2016).It attempted to increase geographical equity by sending funds to regions with less development.This failed because of several causes, including staff ineffectiveness in participatory planning, a lack of monitoring and assessment, poor project design, and insufficient social administration mechanisms below the district.GoK (2018).According to USAID Rwanda (2016), M&E is used to monitor the project's progress toward its objectives and to document the effectiveness of project methodologies and responsiveness to overall capacity building requirements in Rwanda.M&E has been created to enhance the management of outputs, results, and impact in the present and the future (UNDP, 2012).M&E has always played a role in human civilization.Every community has experienced some type of M&E in the past, according to Kanyamuna (2019).He also observes that M&E has consistently been on numerous institutions' agendas for development transformation.More about historical perspective on the significance and applicability of M&E practice, Kusek (2016) recalled: "Measuring performance has enormous power.M&E is undoubtedly nothing new.Over 5,000 years ago, the ancient Egyptians utilized it to periodically track the outputs of food and cattle from their nation.They kept track of their costs, earnings, personnel levels, resources, project activities, and the items and services they generated over time, among other things.However, the 1980s may be credited with giving rise to modern M&E.The "E" that is, evaluation was given a lot of attention when it originally emerged as a branch of applied research.They challenged the preconceived notion by focusing the M&E reporting systems on project-level budget management and performance budgeting, with funders and the government serving as the majority of users.Those who regarded it as management tool and as being extremely quantitative rapidly changed this viewpoint, though.The focus changed from projects to sectors at the start of the 1990s in order to assist and coordinate sectorand country-wide development planning.In the 2018s, institutions started combining monitoring activities for Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) with project and sector-based M&E projects.Modern M&E approaches have their origins in outcomes Based Management (RBM), a management strategy that is focused on performance and achieving outputs, outcomes, and effects for a program or project, according to Kanyamuna (2019).Despite the fact that M&E are two management specialties that collaborate closely to achieve projects' stated goals and objectives, some schools have voiced reservations about their relationship.Many evaluation specialists think that M&E and management are two separate managerial roles, while others disagree, saying that the two are interrelated (Musomba, & Kilika, 2013).Monitoring and assessment, as was already said, are two separate processes that function best when combined.For instance, monitoring provides information on a project's or program's progress in relation to its objectives.If objectives are not met, evaluation provides an explanation.Depending on how something is rated, causality may vary.Evaluation then draws attention to reality and emphasizes the context of the entire project when monitoring reveals indications that models may have gotten off course or weren't performing as expected.Kusek and Rist (2016) show how monitoring and assessment work together.An international non-governmental organization called Give Directly Project (GD) initiative was established in 2008 with the goal of distributing unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) to impoverished households in developing nations.In 2009, GD started working to aid the world's poorest households with the assistance of donors, charities corporations, and organizations.The Give Directly Project initiative has been helping Rwandans in the Nyamagabe, Gisagara, Ngororero, Ngoma, and Gicumbi Districts since 2016.Each recipient home received around Rwf 800,000 through the family's mother's account to ensure good administration.Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) are getting more attention in order to reduce poverty in underdeveloped nations (Baird and O'zler 2013).Cash transfers are becoming a more important part of poverty reduction and social protection measures in low-and middle-income nations (Barrientos, 2013).

Statement of the Problem
In many organizations especially Non-Government Organizations(NGO), project Monitoring and Evaluation(M&E) remains a critical yet underexplored management function.Furthermore, M&E activity is seen as a donor requirement rather than a management tool (Babbie & Mouton, 2016).Different Non-Government Organizations implement project M&E just to manage the demands and pressures from funding agencies rather than as a measure to contribute to a project performance.Next, there is inadequate information on how the key activities of M&E including M&E plans, M&E training, stakeholders' involvement in M&E and M&E budget singularly and severally influence project performance.Briefly, an influence of Monitoring and Evaluation on the project performance is not satisfactory set which makes organizations to view M&E practices an additional burden of small scale or no advantage at all.This study therefore seeks to determine specifically and generally an influence that Monitoring and Evaluation plays to enhance the performance of Give Directly project.The study will analyze M&E plans, M&E training, stakeholder's involvement in M&E and M&E budget for their influence on the performance of Give Directly Project in Rwanda in terms of project completion within scheduled time, budget and scope.

The scope of study
Give Directly Project initiative in Rwanda was the main subject of the study, which would also assess an influence of Monitoring and Evaluation on project performance with an emphasis on the roles that Monitoring and Evaluation plans, M&E Training, stakeholders' involvement in monitoring and evaluation, and M&E budget play.Geographically, the study was conducted under the Give Directly Project.The fact that the project headquarter is in Kigali made it simpler to gather data.The time this study covered is from 2017 to 2022.Due to the availability of precise data, the survey was launched in Rwanda between 2017 and 2022.This period was chosen so that the researcher may share any thoughts made during that time.Census method was used to determine the sample size.

The significance of study
As far as I am concerned, this research is still relevant because many businesses employ project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) to meet accountability standards.Other Non-Governmental and Public Organizations, particularly those with doubtful project results achievement and those who need to start utilizing M&E to improve project performance could benefit from this research.In addition to Give Directly Project Non-Governmental Organization, it is predicted that other organizations will begin monitoring and evaluating their initiatives after completion of this research with the purpose of attaining the expected performance of project rather than donor requirements.This study was essential for academic institutions like colleges and universities.Benefits will result from the integration of theoretical and practical skills.The researcher found it useful in facilitating students with a background in project management or any other related field.For better understanding of an influence of Monitoring and evaluation on the performance of project and the fact that these activities are used as management tools rather than mandates, Policy makers, planners, project managers and other stakeholders in the field of project management would benefit from this research.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction
The literature described in this chapter one serve as the section that provides more insights on the research variables previously utilized by researchers.In order to describe and explain the issues connected with the study subject and develop a conceptual understanding, the researcher focused on the philosophies and other factors related to monitoring, evaluation, and project performance.This chapter gives a thorough analysis of the M&E and how it affects project performance.This part includes the conceptual review, theoretical framework, empirical review, conceptual framework, and research gaps.

Conceptual review 2.2.1. Monitoring and Evaluation plans
A Monitoring and Evaluation plan is a document that succinctly explains the operation of the whole M&E system of a specific project or program.Bull (2013).According to Cleland & Ireland (2007), an M&E plan has to include details on how a specific project or program should be assessed.Furthermore, UN Women (2012) expanded the description of the M&E plan by adding that it specifies the project indicators, defines the data that must be acquired, and specifies the data collection methods, analysis, and reporting.Every aspect of the project that must be in place is highlighted during the development of the monitoring and evaluation system to enable early obstacle detection and the capacity to make informed decisions.Monitoring and evaluation tactics have an effect on the performance of the project.The capacity of a project to connect its inputs, actions and outputs is crucial to the project's performance.A monitoring schedule defining when data is to be acquired and who was responsible, instruments for data collection, sources for the necessary data, and project expenditures are all included in the plan.The metrics and definitions of indicators are also explicitly stated.Numerous subject matter experts have explained why using a monitoring and assessment approach is justified.These elements completed the M&E plan, offered enhanced project monitoring, and project direction during execution.Armstrong & Baron (2013) took timeline and data feasibility into account; some of these elements include financial resources and human capacity for M&E operations (Brignall & Modell, 2010).The project teams are usually required to provide answers to important questions raised by these ideas by diverse academics.These reactions then influence and guide action, enabling projects to be finished on time, under budget, and in compliance with customer demands.

Monitoring and evaluation Training
It is absolutely necessary for the growth of M&E outcomes to have human capital with the required education and experience.In order to retain and keep some stable M&E personnel, according to World Bank (2011), it is important to have an effective Monitoring and Evaluation human resources capabilities in terms of quantities and qualities.This is because choosing the proper M&E systems also necessitates the employment of a qualified worker.In 2012, Koffi Tessio.M&E deployment is difficult since it is a new area of expertise.According to Georgens & Kuseka (2019), there is also a large demand for trained specialists, M&E system capacity building, training programs, and technical help.According to the UNDP's 2019 handbook of planning, monitoring, and evaluating for development results, which also specifies that staff working in a particular area should possess the necessary technical expertise to ensure high quality in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), human resources are of the utmost importance for an effective M&E.In order to produce evaluators with a range of management for training and growth possibilities in monitoring programs, both formal training and on-job experience are necessary (Krauser 2010).During the project life cycle, M&E training and capacity assessment assist to identify M&E capability shortages and the resources required to carry out M&E.After that, determining the need for training may be done informally based on knowledge about staff experience.Moreover, it can be done in a more formal manner (Pfohl J. 2019).A discussion of the key performance indicators that was monitored should be included in M&E training in addition to what was previously said.The description of each indicator, its measurement, the manner in which data for each indicator was gathered, the timetable for gathering data and reporting it, and the indicator's ability to meet client demands are among the topics discussed in the M&E awareness.(Alcock, 2019).In essence, this information helps the project implementer better understand how M&E training will affect the project's performance based on how events during M&E training are organized.According to Reviere et al. (1996), it was observed that monitoring and evaluation training can be varied from project to project and is suited to the requirements of each other in terms of how complicated it is.The most important component of the M&E training is the formulation of M&E tools using a participatory approach since it will improve participants' awareness on project indicators and emphasize the need of monitoring project performance throughout implementation.David and Oakley (2011).This information is crucial because it raises the possibility that M&E data was gathered as scheduled, allow to detect mistake promptly and subsequent correction, as necessary (PAMFORK, 2017), which will eventually enhance project performance.The effects of M&E on project performance is critically relevant to both Ruth P. Saunders' Implementation Monitoring and Process Evaluation and Scott G. Chaplowe and J. Bradley Cousins' Monitoring and Evaluation Training as a Systematic Approach.

Stakeholders involvement in monitoring and evaluation
When stakeholders are included in the M&E process, participatory approaches are employed.The participatory approach to monitoring and evaluation, or PM&E for short, is a procedure where partners at various levels participate in monitoring or evaluating a particular project, program, or policy and share control over the activity's content, process, and outcomes as well as taking or identifying corrective actions (World Bank, 2010).PM&E.Implementers, sponsors, take the views of significant stakeholders seriously and broader communities must all participate in the Monitoring and Evaluation process.A stakeholder is defined by PMI (2013) as "Stakeholders are individuals, groups, or entities that have an interest or concern in a particular project, organization, or system.They can significantly influence or be influenced by the actions, decisions, and outcomes related to that project or entity."Participatory monitoring, according to IFRXRA (2017), is a process where stakeholders evaluate the project's progress and have some control over the evaluation metrics and corrective measures.Participatory monitoring and evaluation's main objective, according to the World Bank (2010), is to include the project's important stakeholders.Monitoring and assessment are the last stages of a project's life cycle.When a process is participative, decision-making power is redistributed and given to the people who will directly benefit from the endeavor.Muluwa (2018) emphasized that participation ensures the project's continuation since the participants own it and are dedicated to seeing it through.For a project to be successful, certain variables must be considered.The following are some benefits of participative M&E: According to Philip et al., concentrating just on money while ignoring other processes will lead to project failure.Making the project adaptable, enhancing ownership, encouraging learning among all participants, and expanding the knowledge base required for evaluation and, if necessary, corrective action are all achieved by providing a way for gathering proposals for corrective actions and feedback.According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2019), evaluation is a thorough and objective analysis of either completed or ongoing activities to determine the extent to which they are fulfilling specified objectives to influence decision-making.Monitoring is defined as an ongoing process that offers regular feedback to stakeholders on the status of their goals and objectives.According to Bourne (2010), conventional monitoring and evaluation was carried out by outside experts using questionnaires and surveys to evaluate inputs and outputs and create indicators to ensure accountability, which was mostly done to please funding or donor organizations.In contrast to the traditional M&E strategy, PME offers project stakeholders the chance to learn together, which encourages commitment to taking remedial action.The case for participatory Monitoring and Evaluation is strengthened by the involvement of project stakeholders.As a result, the study encourages participation of stakeholders in monitoring and evaluation, taking into account their impact on project performance.

Monitoring and Evaluation(M&E) budget
The importance of an effective itemized project budget cannot be overstated when it comes to the reallocation and prioritization of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) budget to evaluate the performance of projects.Additionally, with the introduction of results-based M&E, managing project money has become increasingly important.Despite improvements in budget-related performance-based budgeting, projects continue to be characterized by poor performance (Nzekwe, Oladejo, & Emoh, 2015).There are currently concerns regarding whether funding M&E increases project performance.This pattern is still present even though project failure and the consequences of cost-related implementation issues are becoming more widely understood (Okello & Mugambi, 2015).Furthermore, it doesn't appear that any actual data exists demonstrating an extent to which project performance is influenced by M&E budget-related factors.Even though project performance has been a concern during project implementation, the assessment of project performance is based on traditional critical performance variables using the triple criteria of time, money, and quality (Styne, 2014).The scale and inherent complexity of different projects make it conceivable to evaluate certain particular projects using several criteria, even if there are recognized standards for evaluating performance (Nzekwe et al., 2015).

Project Performance
The degree of target accomplishment during the project lifecycle, the specified time, scope, and budget is referred to as its performance.Kariuki (2015) notes that some studies equate project performance with performance which involves completing the project on schedule, under budget, with high-quality work, and in accordance with customer requirements.According to Sierra and Kune (2014), project performance may be measured in terms of meeting stakeholder's requirements.According to them, satisfying the project's deadline, budget, and quality requirements as well as delivering benefits that the customer can maintain and find acceptable are reliable indicators of a project's performance.Project cost, satisfied stakeholders, on-time delivery of deliverables, activities completed within the project's scope, and timeliness are all factors that lead to project performance for which in this study refers to the degree to which outcomes have been achieved (Krzysztof & Stanisaw, 2011).It is crucial to emphasize that the specifics of each of these project performance sub-components be taken into account throughout project planning and design.However, project management is flexible and may modify the project plan as needed.The sole action carried out during project implementation is checking to determine if an activity was finished on time; if it wasn't, evaluation explains why.

Theoretical Review
Scholars may understand the research and objective of M&E from several points of view.In addition to Wanyoike, Shadish, Cook, and Leviton (1991) defined a theory as a collection of information that organizes, categorizes, describes, forecasts, or otherwise aids in comprehending and managing a topic.This theoretical review consists of evaluation theory, program theory and theory of change.People may be better able to comprehend the research and purpose of M&E by studying it from diverse researchers' points of view.According to Shadish, Cook, and Leviton (1991), a theory is a body of knowledge that organizes, categorizes, characterizes, forecasts, or otherwise aids one in understanding and managing a topic.

The evaluation Theory
Ralph Taylor is the father of evaluation theory.In 1932, Ralph Tyler pioneered the development of the objectives-oriented evaluation approach, He is recognized as the pioneer of this approach (Stufflebeam & Shinklefield, 1985).Worthen and Sanders (1987) describe Tyler's early evaluation approach as "logical, scientifically acceptable, and easily applicable for educational evaluators" (p.63).Tyler's premise was that, before conducting an evaluation, it is essential to clearly define the goals and objectives.The evaluation process would then assess whether these specified goals and objectives were achieved.The aim of evaluation is to furnish information grounded in evidence, which can be utilized to make informed decisions, ensure accountability, and facilitate the process of learning.Assessing the project's performance involves three fundamental dimension which includes quality, cost, and time (Lenfle, 2012).When evaluating initiatives, researchers might use a systems viewpoint (Laursen & Svejvig, 2016).The iron triangle, which has the three elements of money, time, and quality, is a conventional project evaluation and comparison approach (Atkinson, 2018).According to Shadijsh (1998), assessment theory is the knowledge base of the assessment profession and has to be properly preserved.According to him, evaluation theory is a collection of dissimilar theoretical works bound together by the fact that assessment practice is their primary target market.Evaluation theory may be quite helpful for the early requirements analysis and program design.Evaluation theory offers strategies for addressing challenges encountered throughout the evaluation process.Time and money can be saved by program designers and evaluators by learning from what doesn't work (Donaldson, 2011).According to McCoy et al. (2015), evaluation theory compares the project impact with what was planned to be achieved in the project plan, assessing effectiveness in achieving project goals, and determining the relevance and sustainability of a continuing project.According to Shapiro (2016), there are two main types depending on when the evaluation is finished.They are used for summative and formative assessments.
In order to determine whether the project's ongoing execution of its project plan was able to achieve its goals or whether it requires to be redesigned, formative evaluation (mid-term evaluation) examines the project's strengths, weaknesses, and challenges and places a greater emphasis on the effective use of resources to produce outputs (Passia, 2016).At the end of the project, a summative evaluation is done to determine how it evolved, what went well and poorly, and to record any lessons learned.A few important considerations must be made during an evaluation.These aspects include the use of applicable skills, sound technique, enough numbers of competent people, financial resources, and transparency to assure the efficacy and quality of M&E (Jones et al., 2019).Rogers (2018) advises using multi-stakeholder dialogues for information collecting, hypothesis testing, and action to promote more involvement and account for any discrepancies.For an aim of this study, theory-based evaluation will rely on program theory, which will direct the M&E methodology, tools, and other factors to ensure the evaluation accurately and meaningfully assesses program.This kind of guided M&E enables accurate interpretation of a program's performance or failure by providing data through assessment.Bickman (1996).This theory provides an answer to the question of how to conduct assessments effectively and efficiently and frequently specifies what the evaluator should do (Leeuw & Donaldson, 2015).

Programme Theory
The program theory offers a coherent, rational, and reasonable conceptual framework for understanding how a program is anticipated to operate (Bickman, 1987) This is important because it will help the implementing team comprehend the program intervention's objectives, the metrics used to measure those objectives, and the adjustments that require to be made moving forward.This is an essential component of monitoring and evaluation because it sets the standards for measurements and guides decisions about how to change programs to keep them on track to provide the intended results.Program theory is defined in this study as the underlying reason for a program, including its purpose, intended method of operation, and motivation for achieving results.According to Funnell & Rogers (2011), program theory must be updated as the program matures and the environment changes.That is why the stakeholders must be included at each of those stages.Following that, implementing institutions was able to defend the performance or failure of a project using program theory.The performance of a project (or program) depends on program theory since it outlines the activities that must be accomplished.It is absolutely necessary to M&E since it facilitates the development of M&E strategy.According to Muriithi (2017), application of the participatory approach in M&E (program theory) may aid participants in formulating desired outcomes early on during the planning stage.It will also help in differentiating implementation issues from conceptual failures and locating places where quality has to be checked.As a result, the theory was essential in shedding light on the relevance and effects of impact assessment.The accidental links between program results are increasingly being guided by theory in M&E methods, activities, and reporting.Weiss (2015) asserts that program theory has been applied to explain how the program's actions and underlying premises connect to its reported results.
Program theory provides benefits over downsides that outweigh them, as Sharpe (2011) has observed.Project evaluation offers numerous benefits, but it also has certain limitations, impediments, and downsides.These include the requirement for certain abilities, monetary resources, and time, all of which are perceived as depleting program members (Bickman, 2018).The three mistakes Rogers (2018) found in program theory evaluation was attributing causality, coping with unexpected effects, and multiple pathways through a program.In view of the aforementioned theoretical literature on program theory, it becomes a plausible theory to link program (project) interventions (activities) to its assessment of performance through monitoring and evaluation.When it is specified what is to be completed, how it is to be accomplished, by whom, and with what resources, the indicators used for M&E are enhanced.The M&E in program theory therefore becomes a formidable tool to push the program towards performance by giving vital information on program milestones, accomplishments, and areas that require development to assure performance.

Theory of Change
The theory of changes was popularized by Carol Weiss.He introduced the term "Theory of Change" to articulate the collection of assumptions elucidating the incremental steps toward achieving a long-term goal, along with the interrelations between program activities and outcomes observed at each point in time (Weiss, 1995).Its purpose was to give attention to some problems that evaluators faced when examining the impact that complex social developed programs played.These included lack of understanding about how process occurred and insufficient attention given to sequence of changes.(O'Flynn, 2012).A project's performance is regularly evaluated during implementation to identify performance gaps.In order to respond to M&E outcomes and achieve the greatest performance, the project organization must mobilize its resources and competencies (Shao, 2019).A theory of change, which is based on a causal analysis using the data currently available, provides an explanation of how a certain intervention, or sequence of treatments, is predicted to cause a specific development change.UNPD (2017) The primary principal of the Theory of Change is that, in order to manage social change, an anticipated intervention will lead to immediate outcomes that will accomplish the intended aim.However, Rhodes (2020) also noted that the quality of the relationship which is about having an influence of applied M&E on project performance is the key to the advantageous results (Rhodes et al., 2015).The objectives of M&E tools eventually help to improve project performance, claim Rhodes and Lowe (2018).The theory of changes would facilitate donors to understand the organization's intentions and how well they are attaining their ultimate goals or objectives.The organization's capacity to acquire and use the information necessary to change direction when things don't go according to plan is equally important.The three primary types of information an organization seeks for when implementing a program are getting feedback from recipients, monitoring activities and outcomes, and evaluating the outcome.

IJFMR240111031
Volume 6, Issue 1, January-February 2024 Within the context of a theory of change, an organization's ultimate aims or goals and the strategies it will employ to achieve them may be understood.An organization should seek input from beneficiaries and other stakeholders as it develops and puts a theory of change into action.It should also review its operations to determine what is truly working and adjust course as necessary.
A theory of change outlines the reasons and consequences that lead up to the planned outcome of an organization, starting with its actions in the first place.The theory of change for an organization provides its leadership with a shared framework for comprehending what it hopes to achieve and how it intends to go about doing it.For many organizations, programs, and projects, a Theory of Change approach to planning and evaluation is becoming increasingly important.Theories of change can be produced in a variety of ways, but they frequently share some aspects.One of them is describing how modifications occur in a particular setting and describing how an organization and its partners contribute to change (Vogel, 2012).The Theory of change and monitoring process could be related.The fundamental elements of a conceptual framework and the relationships between modifications at various levels may be continually assessed, and program adjustments may be made in light of the recent M&E data.Theory of change thinking proponents claim that the approach provides a number of benefits (James, 2011).It helps all stakeholders have a common idea of the program or organization is aiming to improve.It can increase the programs' and organizations' effectiveness, clarity, and focus.It provides a structure for evaluating, monitoring, and assessing effect.
In order to strengthen relationships, it promotes open communication and the identification of important partners.People are given the opportunity to engage more actively in initiatives.The opportunity to think more clearly and strategically about how to help bring about real, significant, long-lasting benefits for real people is provided by Theory of Change.It is not meant to entirely replace results frameworks like the logical framework, but rather to add to them.

Empirical Review
The project performance and other comparable M&E initiatives has been heavily influenced by M&E, according to several empirical investigations by various writers.The results are consistent with Miller's (2012) research, which posits that Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) represents a specialized discipline designed to furnish decision-makers with a systematic approach to generate the targeted variation from an anticipated outcome within a specific timeframe.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plans and project performance
Hubert and Mulyungi (2018) conducted research in Rwanda on the influence of project Monitoring and assessment on project performance.The study's primary goal was to determine how monitoring and assessment techniques influenced project outcomes in Rwanda, and more particularly, the outcomes of a few chosen NGOs in the Gasabo District.The study's target population was 72 NGOs in Kigali's Gasabo district, would be surveyed using a descriptive survey approach.The target demographic had respondents since two respondents (an M&E specialist and a finance manager) have been deliberately chosen from each NGO.Yamane's approach used to calculate the sample size, which would be respondents.
For the purpose of assembling the study's data, questionnaires were employed to gather both primary and secondary data.The dependability of the research tool was evaluated using the Cronbach's alpha test.SPSS version 21 used for data processing.Statistics computations for averages, percentages, correlation analysis, and regression analysis are necessary for the examination of the data.Descriptive statistics and correlation (using Karl Pearson's coefficient of correlation) were applied to the data in order to assess the information and establish the relationship between the independent variables and dependent variables.This strategy combines all crucial M&E plans processes to ensure enhanced project performance.
For their view that M&E plans had an effect on the effectiveness of the projects under consideration, 92% of the respondents provided convincing justifications.M&E plans and project performance have shown to have a substantial positive Spearman correlation value of 0.8.A well-thought-out M&E strategy in place and making sure it is successfully implemented will lead to improved project service, the findings reveal a substantial relationship between M&E plans and project performance.This study discusses the level of stakeholder involvement in project delivery as well as monitoring and evaluation of public company in Ghana.An organized plan for conducting interviews and a sample questionnaire was used to collect the necessary study data.A desk review of pertinent journal articles, conference proceedings, published and unpublished thesis work from the institutions' database, as well as internet sources, was used to support the study.The minutes from the meetings and the project's implementation was also carefully reviewed.This research employ descriptive data analysis.Six key participants were identified in Ghana's local government project implementation.
The study found that a stakeholder participation in project delivery, is essential in project monitoring and evaluation at the local government level.
In conclusion, the absence of stakeholder involvement in the monitoring and assessment of project performance would be the root cause of the numerous difficulties local government project delivery in Ghana encountered.These difficulties included project delivery delays, deviations from project specifications, a lack of health and safety compliance, fed up clients, and unethical business activities in the construction sector.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Budget and Project Performance
The M&E budget's allocation has a significant impact on the performance of company.Ibeto and Chinyeaka (2012) claim that a project's performance rate is greatly influenced by the amount of money allotted to the M&E.The implication is that without this funding, the performance management of M&E tool introduced would be low.However, it's important to keep in mind that inadequate financing for M&E operations also played a crucial role in this failure.The project budget should contain a clear and enough allocation for monitoring and evaluation tasks.Clarifying the monitoring and evaluation budget within the overall project costing would help give the monitoring and evaluation function the due credit for its contribution to project management (Gyorkos, 2013).
According to Kelly and Magongo (2016), between 5 and 10% of the overall budget should be allocated to M&E.Ibeto and Chinyeaka (2012) advise that collaboration within project implementers is needed to ensure that the necessary money for projects is supplied on schedule and in the proper amounts, despite the fact that M&E teams frequently claim the glory for a project's performance.This is because if the other project management facets are adequately managed, M&E will yield sufficient outcomes.

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction
This chapter's point of view discusses about the approach used to the research process on the influence of Monitoring and Evaluation on the performance of Give Directly project.It includes the research design, study population, demographic of the study, sampling techniques, data collection techniques, and tools that was used in the research.The chapter also discusses data processing, limits, and ethical consideration.It also discusses testing strategies for validity and reliability.

Research Design
A descriptive survey design was used for the investigation.A descriptive survey is a complementary strategy for gathering data that involves giving a questionnaire to the selected population (Orodho, 2013).Descriptive research's main goal is to describe the current situation and then make sense of the results.Descriptive research, according to Kerlinger (1995), is not just limited to factual discoveries; it may also frequently lead to the creation of crucial scientific theories and the resolution of key issues.The researcher also used correlational research to help researcher investigate the influence of independent variables including M&E Plans, M&E Training, Stakeholders involvement in M&E, M&E budget and project performance as dependent variable.

The population of the study
Ary et al. ( 2012) define a sample as the process of selecting a set of subjects for a subject in a way that ensures the individuals reflect the larger group from which they are chosen.All the subjects you want to study collectively make up a population.A sample is an accurate representation of the population.The target population is the group of people to which the researcher wishes to apply the conclusions from Manoj (2013).The study was conducted with the aid of the Give Directly Project.The research population for this analysis was made up of the whole project implementation staff of The Give Directly Project.A population is a discrete collection of the people, things, events, or houses that make up the research issue.Using these criteria ensures the homogeneity of the target population (Ngechu, 2016).Ninety (90) Give Directly Project employees made up the study's population.

Sample size determination
The respondents for the Give Directly Project were chosen using census population.The term "representative sample" refers to a sample that does a good job of accurately transmitting information about the total (Ruane, 2015).A sample is a smaller subset of the research population.Due to the available targeted population for this research, a researcher considered all targeted 90 employees of Give Directly Project whom made up the census population of this study.

Sampling techniques
A statistical exploration in which the data are collected for each and every element or unit of the population is termed as census method.It is also referred to as a complete enumeration or 100% enumeration.This technique was utilized to enable researchers conduct study to all targeted respondents inside the Give Directly Project and it provided the most accurate description of the phenomenon researcher seeks to study.A researcher selected this strategy because it would help to achieve on the study's objectives and provide information on the study area.

Data Collection methods and techniques
Data collection methods refer to the systematic processes and procedures used to gather information and data for research or analysis.These methods involve the collection of data from various sources, individuals, or events to obtain relevant and reliable information.The choice of data collection method depends on the research objectives, the type of data needed, and the characteristics of the study population.Data collection methods can be divided into two categories including primary data method and secondary method of data collection.A structured questionnaire was used to gather primary data in order to get comprehensive information.All respondents received the same fixed items in the same order of the structured questionnaire.In the study, some of the close-ended questions were utilized from the structured Likert questionnaires which occasionally made it clear information hence understanding the research title.Respondents were required to reply to questions on the influence of Monitoring and Evaluation on the performance of Give Directly Project.The quantitative data obtained complement one another to produce more reliable findings.

Primary data sources
A primary data source refers to the original source of data that has not been previously collected, processed, or interpreted by someone else.This type of data is firsthand information collected directly from individuals, events, experiment, or observations for a specific purpose.Primary data sources are often used in research and analysis to address specific research questions or objectives.For this study, primary data was collected through survey to the targeted population of Give Directly project.Data sources was used to clearly convey the results and the rationale behind them, and the questionnaires was used in the study whereby this technique is essential in clarifying an influence of monitoring and evaluation on Give Directly project performance.

Questionnaire technique
According to Grawitz (2012), the researcher prepared a questionnaire and distributed it to the respondents.This approach involved interactions between the researcher and participants, and participants was given a designed questionnaire in order to give them a chance to express their own views on the questionnaire.Surveys with close-ended questions was delivered to the staff members of the Give Directly project.

Validity of Instruments
Validity is a concept used to evaluate the quality of research (Trochim, 2016).Next, validity refers to the degree to which a test, instrument, or study accurately measures what it claims to measure.It is a fundamental concept that assesses the appropriateness and accuracy of the inferences, interpretations, and uses of the collected data.Essentially, validity addresses the question of whether a given tool or method is measuring what it is supposed to measure and describes the truth of research findings (Zohrabi, 2013).Instrument of this research was measured through the opinion of experts especially the research supervisor, who is more knowledgeable.In case uncertainty occurs or non-clarity observed, it was corrected before data collection at the field of study.The validity was tested using Content Validity Index (CVI) CVI=       ℎ       ℎ  If the calculated CVI was closer to 1 not less to 0.6 Sounders.2010, questionnaire considered valid.

Reliability of Instruments
According to Drost (2011) reliability refers to the degree for which measurement is consistent or dependable.Reliability is also referred to as a stability of a measurement over a variety of conditions for which the results should be obtained (Nunnally and Drost, 2011).Internal consistency reliability measure consistency of different items of the same construct, Cronbach's alpha coefficient is used to determine internal consistency between items (Cronbach, 1951).If Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is greater or equal to 0.7, then the instrument was considered reliable.N = the number of items c̄ = average covariance between item pairs v̄ = average variance

Data processing
In order to transform relevant data into information that can be comprehended and understood, the researcher will process the data.Editing, coding, and tabulation are all parts of this process.

Editing
The researcher edited to ensure the comprehensibility, consistency, completeness, and accuracy.Editing is to check and detect missing, invalid or recorded entries which shows an error.

Coding
Coding is the process of allocating codes, words or phrases that that identify to which topics or issues portions of the data refer to and organize data in a way that is useful for further analysis (Baily 2017).The coding was applied for classifying the data aimed at easy manipulation of M&E quantitative data.It was done to categorize analysis and was done by using different response received from Give Directly project respondents.

Tabulation
Tabulation in data analysis refers to the systematic arrangement and presentation of data in a table or matrix format.The purpose of tabulation is to organize and summarize large amounts of data in a structured and easily understandable manner.Tables are a common form of visual representation used to present data, making it more accessible for analysis and interpretation.The researcher used tabulation by defining data analysis as variable records analysis to obtain quantitative data.The edited and coded data was transferred into tables was constructed basing mainly on the variables considered under the study.

Data analysis
To help in addressing the study's goals and questions, the data was processed and evaluated.Information from Likert scale questionnaire was handled using quantitative data analysis technique, and then the findings was analyzed and interpreted.The statistical package for social science (SPSS) was used to modify, code, and enter quantitative data so that it may be cleaned up for analysis.Both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis were performed using SPSS version 20.To condense and arrange the data, descriptive analysis, including frequencies, was employed.The level and distribution of staff members for the Give Directly project was examined using descriptive statistics.When dealing with variables that would have been classified, it was recommended to determine whether the variables are connected.After quantitative data has been analyzed, the findings were combined, evaluated, and discussed in order to fulfill the study's goals and provide answers to the research questions.

Statistical Treatment of Data
The information gathered from the respondents' questionnaire was examined using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) 20 version, and the findings was displayed as tables in chapter four.The data was evaluated using SPSS's frequencies, descriptive, Pearson correlation tools and multiple linear regression.

Coefficient of variation (CV)
According to Hamilton (2014), the relative standard deviation (RSD), often known as the coefficient of variation (CV), is a normalized indicator of the dispersion of a frequency or probability distribution.It is typically expressed as percentage and it's known as the standard deviation to mean ratio.The steps for computing the coefficient of variation are as follows: Table 3.

Evaluation of standard deviation
Source: Aggresti (2019) Homogeneity describes things or people that share many or all of the same characteristics, whereas heterogeneity describes things or people that have few or no common characteristics.Pearson's test of correlation is a very useful tool for establishing the statistical relationship between independent and dependent variables.

Correlation
Correlation refers to the statistical measure that describe the degree to which two variables change together.The link between variables was examined and quantified using the correlation analysis approach.
The research deals with multiple correlations when three or more elements are taken into consideration.
The degree and closeness of each independent variable's connections to the dependent variables was evaluated using correlation analysis.

Limitations
It was emphasized that respondents had highly demanding work schedules in addition to their other daily tasks, for which resulted in delaying to respond to the distributed Likert scale questionnaire.As a result, it was necessary to approach them flexibly and even allowed them to take their time while responding to questionnaires.In addition, some books and journals with contents related to the study were not easily accessible and required to purchase them.

Ethical considerations
For guaranteed study results, the researcher has considered the Give Directly project to conduct the research or study and distributed the letter to workers asking for information addressed to the project.The researcher upholded their confidentially by notifying them that the reason behind this research is for academic purpose.The staff of the Give Directly project provided the researcher with confidential information, and the findings of the research would only have utilized to support the main and specific objectives of the study.

CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 4.1. Introduction
In order to support the goals of the current research, this chapter provides information of data analysis, interpretation, and presentation of primary data that has been gathered.The researcher was determined to study an influence of monitoring and evaluation on the performance of Give Directly project in Rwanda.
The researcher managed to have data collected from project implementers.Demographic analysis and study variables analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20.

Identification of the respondents
Investigating the socio-demographic details of the survey, respondents are extremely important.Identification of respondents discuss their gender, ages, levels of education, and experience by the respondents within the Give Directly project.

Respondents' Gender
In order to know how many men and women made up the sample size and to get their opinions on the research subject, the gender of the respondents was classified.As a results, the respondents were listed according to their gender as follows: As revealed in the above table 4.2.1, it was determined that most of the subjects who participated in the study were male indicated by 81.1% of respondents and 18.9% of respondents are female.This table above shows that male respondents constitute a big part of the organization of Give Directly Project, which is represented by 81.1% while the female respondents are 18.9%.This also confirms that both Male and Female participated in the survey at Give Directly Project.

Respondents' age
When a researcher examined the responses of the respondents, this variable is crucial.It enables to understand how a phenomenon under investigation is experienced by various age groups, and the below table provides extra information.For the above table 4.2.2, the study reveals that the majority of respondents said that they are aged between 25-35 years old with an indication of 73.3% of respondents, the second range are between 36-45 years old with an indication of 23.3% of respondents while 3.3% respondents are more than 45 years old.This shows that the organization members are classified into different ages and 73.3% of them are between 25 and 35years old.

Level of education of the respondents
This part identifies the different categories of respondents who know well different activities within Give Directly Project.The following table provides a detailed explanation of the respondents' education level.The above table 4.2.4 reveals that 36.7% of respondents have been working in Give Directly for less than 3 years, 35.6% of respondents have been working in an organization between 3-5 years and 27.8% of respondents have an experience of over 5 years.

Descriptives statistics 4.3.1. Examining how monitoring and evaluation plans influence Give Directly Project performance in Rwanda
M&E plans and project performance were reported to influence the performance of Give Directly project.The table below shows the influence of Monitoring and Evaluation Plans on Project Performance of Give Direct Project.

.58
Training on the monitoring and evaluation project indicators lead to the success of Give Directly project.

.87
Achieving the anticipated project objectives depends on training on certain M&E tools.

.61
The project will operate better when more often staff members are trained on new advances in M&E.

1.01
Source: Primary data (2023) The study conducted as revealed by the table 4.3.2reveals that M&E training influences the project performance whereby the results for the first statement which says "it is essential that qualified workers are readily available to carry out the Give Directly Project" confirmed the strong evidence of the fact with mean=4.54 and std.= .58.The next statement "training on the monitoring and evaluation project indicators lead to the success of Give Directly project revealed high mean= 3.93, Std.Deviation= 0.58 shows the fact to appear more.The third statement "achieving the anticipated project objectives depends on training on certain M&E tools" shows high mean=4.26,std= 0.61 which means the fact appear more and last statement states that the project will operate better when more often staff members are trained on new advances in M&E.This was confirmed by the strong mean which reveals the fact of influence existence appears more, mean =4.01, std=1.01.

Influence of stakeholder's involvement in Monitoring&Evaluation on Project Performance
The third objective of the study was to evaluate whether stakeholders' involvement in Monitoring and Evaluation influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda and the results revealed an influence as the findings have been recorded in the table below: To have a good impact on the project monitoring and evaluation operations, it is crucial to identify all project stakeholders.

.46
Involving stakeholders in M&E and project implementation lead to the prioritization of decision making.

.66
Feedback provision is a result of involving stakeholders in M&E.

.58
Depending on the suggestions of the project M&E, stakeholders may call for adjustments to the project.that makes a clear and sufficient allocation for monitoring and evaluation activities, the mean=4.07and std.= 0.96 said that Give Directly Project timely allocate fund in monitoring and evaluation for successful implementation of planned activities, the mean=4.24and std.= 0.58 said that typically, M&E funding is allocated for the appropriate purposes, mean=4.34and std.= .73stated that when designing initiatives, a reasonable monitoring and assessment estimate is often made.

5. Analysis of the Give Directly project performance
Project performance refers to the assessment of how well a project is meeting its objectives, goals, and expectations.It involves evaluating various aspects of project execution, including time management, cost control, quality of deliverables, stakeholders satisfaction, and overall adherence to the project plans.
Monitoring and assessing project performance are crucial for identifying areas of success, potential risks and opportunities for improvement.Elements of project performance in this study would include budget, timelines, deliverables, among others.The table below shows the performance of Give Directly project.4.4 is used to describe the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the independent variables and the project performance of Give Directly project in Rwanda.The Pearson correlation coefficient between M&E plans and Performance is positive moderate correlation with a coefficient of .545,significance=.000, which is significant at the 0.05 level.This indicates a positive relationship between the M&E plans and the performance of Give Directly Project in Rwanda.The results align with the findings of Hubert, N., and Mulyungi, D. (2018) conducted research and revealed an influence of project monitoring and assessment on project performance and the results concluded that M&E plans and project performance shown to have a strong positive Spearman correlation with value of 0.8.The Pearson correlation coefficient between M&E training and Performance is also positive strong moderate correlation with a coefficient of .537,which is significant at the 0.05 level.This indicates a significant positive association between M&E training and project performance for Give Directly project.The correlation between Stakeholders involvement in M&E and project performance is .352,which is significant at the 0.05 level but has a weak correlation.The Pearson correlation between M&E Budget and project performance is notably strong moderate at .532, and significant at the 0.05 level.This highlights a moderate positive relationship between M&E Budget and the performance of Give Directly Project.The correlation results suggest that M&E plans, M&E Training, and M&E budget are positively linked to the performance of Give Directly Project.Coefficient of determination explains the extent to which changes in the explained variable can be explained by the changes in the explanatory variables or the percentage of variation in the dependent variable (project performance) that is explained by all four predictor variables (M&E Plans, M&E Training, stakeholders' involvement in M&E) and M&E budget).The results of model summary shown in Table 4.5 reveals the influence of M&E on the performance of Give Directly Project.Four independent variables evaluated by R, R squared and modified R-squared, show that 54.9% of the total performance variation are explained by monitoring and evaluation explanatory variables including M&E Plans, M&E Training, stakeholders' involvement in M&E and M&E budget.The goodness of fit is better since R 2 is greater than 0.5.The studied variables explain only 54.9% have an effect on the performance of Give Directly project which means that other factors not studied in this research contribute 45.1% of the effects of independent variables on the project performance.The results are consistent with Miller's (2012) research, which posits that Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) represents a specialized discipline designed to furnish decision-makers with a systematic approach to generate the targeted variation from an anticipated outcome within a specific timeframe.This is highlighting the e influence of M&E on the performance of an organization as whole and aligns well with the findings in table below showing the positive correlation between M&E and the performance of Give Directly Project.4.7 provided presents the results of multiple linear regression analysis aimed at examining the influence of various factors on the performance of Give Directly Project in Rwanda.Starting with the constant (intercept) term, it stands at .564.This constant represents the estimated level of performance when all the independent variables are set to zero, essentially indicating the baseline performance of an organization without any influence from the examined factors.Moving on to the independent variables, the coefficient for "M&E plans" is .651.Importantly, the corresponding sign is .000.These statistics indicate that M&E plans significantly and positively affects the performance of Give Directly Project.In practical terms, a one-unit increase in M&E plans is linked to an increase of 0.651-unit on the organization's project performance, and this influence is statistically significant.The results align with the findings of Hubert and Mulyungi (2018) conducted research and revealed an influence of project monitoring and assessment on project performance and the results concluded that M&E plans and project performance shown to have a strong positive Spearman correlation with value of 0.8.Regarding "M&E Training," the coefficient is 0.637, and its p-value is 0.000.The coefficient indicates a positive influence that a one-unit increase in M&E Training lead to an increase of 0.637-unit increase in the organization's project performance, the p-value of 0.000 is below the typical significance level of 0.05.The results align with the findings of Kennedy and Githaiga (2022) carried out a research and revealed that monitoring and evaluation training significantly affects the program's performance because of elements of M & E indicators which are essential to determining the program's performance.For "Stakeholders involvement in M&E," the coefficient is -575, with a p-value of 0.001.These statistics indicate that stakeholder's involvement in M&E has a negative relationship.A one-unit increase in stakeholders' involvement in M&E is linked to 575-unit decrease in project performance.The results align with the findings of Tengan, C. (2016) who found that a stakeholder participation in project delivery, is essential in project monitoring and evaluation.Finally, "M&E Budget" has a coefficient of 0.191 and p-value of 0.036.These results indicate that M&E Budget significantly and positively affect the performance of Give Directly Project, with a one-unit increase in M&E budget leads to an 0.191 -unit increase in the project performance.
The statistical significance of the variables, with p-values below 0.05, confirms the adequacy of the model for the data.Specifically, M&E plans, M&E Training, stakeholders 'involvement in M&E and M&E Budget all exhibit statistically significant associations with project performance.These findings emphasize the significant influence of M&E on the performance of Give Directly project.

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Summary of findings
The general objective of the study was to determine the influence of M&E on the performance of Give Directly project in Rwanda.

M&E plans influence on the performance of Give Directly Project
The first objective of the study was to examine how monitoring and evaluation plans influence Give Directly project performance in Rwanda.For this variable, the study reveals that M&E Plans influence project performance as the statement with high mean equal to 4.85 and std=.46 which stated that a well data collection plans affect positively Give Directly project performance, next mean=4.63,std.=.52 stated that a suitable activity work plan for M&E is well established in advance.

M&E Training influence on the performance of Give Directly Project
The second objective was to assess how M&E Training influence the performance of Give Directly in Rwanda.This variable has an influence on dependent variable as the statement with high mean is equal to =4.54and std.= .58which stated that it's essential that qualified workers are readily available to carry out the Give Directly project, followed by mean=4.26,std= 0.61 stated that achieving the anticipated project objectives depends on training of certain M&E tools.

Stakeholders involvement in M&E on the performance of Give Directly Project
The third objective of the study was to evaluate whether stakeholder's involvement in M&E influence Project Performance and the results confirmed with high mean=4.85and std.= .46stated that to have a good impact on project monitoring and evaluation operations, it is crucial to identify all project stakeholders, followed by mean= 4.34, std.=.58 stated that feedback provision is a result of involving stakeholders in M&E.

M&E Budget influence on the performance of Give Directly Project
The fourth objective of the study was to determine whether M&E budget influence Give Directly project performance in Rwanda and the results confirmed with high mean= 4.34, std.= .73,stated that when designing initiatives, a reasonable monitoring and assessment estimate is often made, followed by the mean= 4.24, std.= .58stated that M&E funding is typically allocated for the appropriate purposes.

CONCLUSION
The general objective of the study was to determine an influence of monitoring and evaluation on the performance of Give Directly project in Rwanda.As per the study, it can be concluded that all explanatory variables (M&E Plans, M&E Training, Stakeholders involvement in M&E, M&E budget) have an influence on dependent variable (project performance).Regression and correlation analysis was runt and also confirmed the positive significance linear relationship and positive moderate correlation between M&E Plans, M&E Training and M&E budget.The relationship was also confirmed through the regression and correlation analysis which revealed that there was a negative significant linear relationship and weak correlation between Stakeholders involvement in M&E and Give Directly project performance.Concisely, the findings of this research revealed that Monitoring and Evaluation(M&E) has a significant influence on the Give Directly project performance.M&E plans is statistically significant with p-value=0.000which is less than 0.05 level of significance and lead to positively affecting the project performance by having a well data collection plan, activity work plan which contribute to the completion of project within the scope of project.In addition, the study also revealed that M&E Training is statistically significant with p-value=0.000which is less than 0.05 level of significance.This shows how Monitoring and evaluation influence the Give Directly project performance by having qualified workers on M&E tools and project indicators which lead to the prompt actions taken while implementing project hence the completion of project within the set timelines.Furthermore, the research shows that Monitoring and evaluation budget influence project performance.Basing of the performed analysis of multiple linear regression, the P-value is 0.36 which is less than 0.05 level of significance, indicating that M& E budget is statistically significant and affect positively the project performance.This indicate that Give Directly projects clearly allocate sufficient budget for Monitoring and Evaluation activities and timely allocate fund which contribute to the completion of project within budget.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Referring to the findings of the study, recommendations have been highlighted and if executed would enhance an influence of monitoring and evaluation on the performance of Give Directly Project in Rwanda.1. Having that M&E plans is the variable to have the highest correlation with project performance compared to other variables, it is in this regard a researcher recommends that a suitable M&E activity work plan and a well data collection plan need to be in place and be fully executed in order to enhance the project performance.2. From the findings, it reveals that M&E training including Monitoring and evaluation tools and reviewing M&E project indicators lead to the significant performance of Give Directly project through understanding appropriate data collection tools.This study therefore recommends that M&E training is highly required for a successful M&E in a given project.3.As revealed by this study, having identified how M&E variables influence project performance, the researcher recommends that a given organization should have monitoring and evaluation unit within their organizational charts to conduct M&E related activities for a successful implementation of the planned projects.

Suggestions for further research
Due to other factors that influence project performance not covered by this study, further research should be conducted to investigate the other factors influencing project performance.This study reveals many interesting areas where further research can be carried out.In particular, the following can be considered: 1.An investigation of influence of Monitoring and Evaluation on the performance of public institutions in Rwanda.2. An assessment of the role of stakeholders on the performance of Non-Government Organizations in Rwanda.

An investigation of factors that influence project performance in Government and Non-Government
Organizations in Rwanda.The project will operate better when the more often staff members are trained on new advances in M&E.

Section D: Stakeholder's involvement in monitoring and evaluation and Project Performance
The effectiveness of the GIVE DIRECT PROJECT is influenced by stakeholders' participation in monitoring and evaluation activities, as shown in the table below.According to the scale below, check the corresponding column to indicate how much you agree or disagree with the assertions.1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=agree, 5= Strongly agree STATEMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 To have a good impact on the project monitoring and evaluation operations, it is crucial to identify all project stakeholders.Involving stakeholders in M&E and project implementation lead to the prioritization of decision making Feedback provision is a result of involving stakeholders in M&E and project implementation Depending on the suggestions of the project M&E, stakeholders may call for adjustments to the project.

Section E: Influence of Monitoring and Evaluation Budget and Project Performance
Does the Give Directly project management conduct research to build an M&E Budget before getting involved with the project?Please tick where appropriate for below statements STATEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 Most projects within Give Directly Project have a budget that makes a clear and sufficient allocation for monitoring and evaluation activities.
Give Directly project timely allocate fund in monitoring and evaluation for successful implementation of planned activities Typically, M&E funding is allocated for the appropriate purposes.When designing initiatives, a reasonable monitoring and assessment estimate is often made.
Section F: Project Performance Project's performance is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most effective/successful and 1 being the least effective/successful "1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Very good, and 5 = Excellent."Any assistance given to him in this regard will be appreciated.

1. 3 .
Research Objectives The research objectives are categorized as the general objective and specific objectives 1.3.1.General purpose of study The general objective of the research was to determine an influence of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on the performance of Give Directly project in Rwanda.1.3.2.Specific Objectives 1.To examine how Monitoring and Evaluation Plans influence Give Directly project performance in Rwanda 2. To assess how Monitoring and Evaluation training influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda 3. To evaluate whether stakeholder's involvement in Monitoring and Evaluation influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda 4. To Determine whether M&E Budget influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda.1.4.Research Questions 1.How do M&E Plans influence Give Directly project performance in Rwanda? 2. How does M&E training influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda 3. How does stakeholder's involvement in M&E influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda? 4. To what extent does M&E Budget influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda 1.
. It enables the recognition of implicit assumptions and connections among different elements of the program.According to Sedani and Sechrest (2018), it is composed of assertions that define a program, provide the circumstances necessary for the program's effects to occur, and aid in the creation of predictions about the program's conclusion.According to Rogers et al. (2018), program theory is made up of a program's actions, expected results, and strategies for obtaining those results.As a result, program theory transforms into the implementation's hypothesis; monitoring and evaluation then utilize research methods and methodologies to determine how plausible it is (Rogers et al., 2018).The purpose of program theory, according to Sharpe (2011), is to guarantee that any program is theoretically responsive.Program theory, according to Chen (1990), outlines what must be done to achieve the desired goals, what extra major outcomes may be anticipated, and how these outcomes was generated.Donaldson (2013) described program theory as a shared understanding of how a program is believed to address social problems.

2 . 4 . 2 .
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Trainings and project performanceKennedy and Githaiga (2022)  carried out a research on the impact of monitoring and evaluation training on the execution of infrastructure projects at Dedan Kimathi University in Kenya.The study's objective was to ascertain the impact of monitoring and evaluation training on the efficiency of infrastructure projects at Kenya's Dedan Kimathi University.The Morgan and Krejcie methodology randomly selected 157 applications from a sample population of 265 persons.In order to clean up the data, code it, and determine response frequency counts in order to identify common categories, the data was compared and assessed.The findings show that this monitoring and evaluation training significantly affects the program's performance because elements of M & E indicators which are essential to determining the program's performance.The researcher advises that the monitoring and evaluation training be used as a guide for carrying out the project since it will aid in any necessary re-planning and review.An important administrative tool can influence the performance of a project when used appropriately.2.4.3.Stakeholders involvement in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and project performanceThe participation and involvement of stakeholders in monitoring and evaluation was the subject of study by Tengan, C. (2016).
The predicted association between the research variables is represented or symbolized by a Conceptual framework.It serves as a research path, as claimed by Ravitch & Reagan (2016).The independent variable(s) tries to imply a motivating factor in the study.According to Maxwell (2015), a conceptual framework is a central idea or representation of the subject the researcher plans to study.

2. 7 ≤
≤ 3.4: Neutrality 3.5 ≤  ≤ 4.2 : High mean i.e the fact appears more 4.3 ≤  ≤ 5.0: Very high mean i.e strong evidence of the existence of the fact  ≤ 0.5 i. e homogeneity of responses  > 0.5 i.e heterogeneity of responses 3.7.2.1.Descriptive statistics The frequency, and percentage of each variable were used in descriptive analysis to create the final results.To further analyze results, researchers computed the means and standard deviations for each of the Likert scale variable.3.7.3.Regression analysis This study made used of a multiple regression model: Y = α+β1X1+β2X2+β3X3+β4X4+ € Y=Dependent variable -Performance α=Constant €=Error β =Coefficient of the Disbursement X1= Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E Plans) X2 = Monitoring and evaluation training (M&E Training) X3 = Stakeholders involvement in Monitoring and Evaluation X4 = Monitoring and evaluation budget (M&E budget) The model was used in the study and took the form below: Y= α+β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3, β4X4 +ę Where: Y= Project Performance as measured by Timeliness, Deliverables within scope and Budget.α= Constant Term β= Beta Coefficient -This measures how many standard deviations a dependent variable changed per standard deviation increase in the independent variable.
19. Wambuku (2018) Management and Commerce Innovations, International Journal: ISSN 2348-7585 (Online) Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 649-664 20.Weiss, C. H. (1995).Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families.New approaches to evaluating comprehensive community initiatives (pp.65-92).New York: The Aspen Roundtable Institute.21.Tyler R (1942).General statement of evaluation.Journal of Education Research, 35(4),492-501 • Email: editor@ijfmr.comIJFMR240111031 Volume 6, Issue 1, January-February 2024 32 performing.According to you, does the monitoring and evaluation staff's training affect the Give Directly project performanceIt is essential that qualified workers are readily available to carry out the Give Directly project.Training on the monitoring and evaluation tools and project indicators lead to the performance of Give Directly project Achieving the anticipated project objectives depends on training on certain M&E tools.

1 2 3 4 5 1)
Timeliness of project delivery 2) Number of project deliverables 3) Cost of project 4) The general satisfaction level of project performance Thank you for your participation APPENDIX II.CONSIDERATION LETTER Kigali 16 th August, 2023 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Sir/Madam, Subject: DATA COLLECTION LETTER FOR JEROME IMANISHIMWE REG NO: MBAIPM12110916790 As part of the curriculum for all academic programs at University of Kigali, the students are required to undergo research collecting data from Institutions of repute for academic use only.The purpose of this letter is to introduce to you the above named Masters student, who is interested in sourcing information from your organization.His subject Of interest is" Influence of Monitoring And Evaluation On The Performance Of Give Directly Project In Rwanda."

Table 3 .2 Evaluation of correlation 3
.7.2.Description of Descriptive statistics 1.0 ≤  ≤ 1.8 : Very low mean i.e the fact is not apparent 1.9 ≤  ≤ 2.6 : Low mean i.e the fact appears less

Table 4 .2.3 Level of education
The table 4.2.3 reveals that 83.3% of Give Directly Project staff hold Bachelors' degree while 16.7% of respondents hold Master's degree.This shows that the most project implementers are educated.

table 4 .
3.1 reveals that the M&E plans influence the Give Directly project performance in Rwanda where mean=4.85andstd=0.46strongly confirmed that a well data collection plans affect positively the project performance.Next, a suitable activity work plan for M&E is well established in advance, this is confirmed by the mean = 4.63 and std.= 0.52.Furthermore, the mean equal to 4.16 with respective standard deviation 0.67 revealed that M&E plans contribute to the staff knowledge of Give Directly project's objectives.Not only the above mentioned statements but also the mean which is equal to 4.08 and standard deviation 0.94 confirmed that Give Directly project management offer M&E proper support.4.

3.2. Assessing how doeas M&E Training influences Give Directly project performance in Rwanda
The Second objective of the study was to assess how M&E training offered to project implementers influence performance of Give Directly Project in Rwanda.Below table shows that Monitoring and Evaluation staff's training has an influence on the performance of Give Directly project.

3.4. To what extent does Monitoring and Evaluation Budget influences Give Directly Project performance
The table 4.3.3revealed that the Stakeholder's involvement in monitoring and evaluation influence the Give Directly Project Performance.The first statement was asking if it is crucial to identify all project stakeholders in order to have a good impact on the project monitoring and evaluation.The mean for this statement= 4.85, std= 0.46 shows strong evidence of the fact existence.The second statement "involving stakeholders in M&E and project implementation lead to the prioritization of decision making" mean=4.30,std=.66 which revealed appearance of the fact.For feedback provision as a result of involving stakeholders in M&E, mean= 4.34, std=0.58which also shows existence of the fact.The last statement "depending on the suggestions of the project M&E, stakeholders may call for adjustments to the project".The mean=4.14, std=0.75 which reveals an existence of fact.Basing on the means, M&E stakeholders' involvement in M&E has an influence on the Give Directly project performance 4.The fourth objective of the study was to determine whether M&E budget influence Give Directly Project performance in Rwanda.Below table shows that Monitoring and Evaluation budget has an influence on the performance of Give Directly project.

Table 4 .3.4 Influence of Monitoring and Evaluation Budget on Project Performance
The table 4.3.4reveals the influence of Monitoring and Evaluation Budget on Project Performance confirmed by the mean=4.10andstd.= 0.93 reveals that most projects within Give Directly have a budget

Table 4 .
The statistical significance of the variables is 0.000, according to the results in Table4.6.The P-value is less than 0.05, indicating that the model is adequate for the data.As a result, it reveals that M&E has a Positive link with the performance of Give directly project.