Michael "Miko" Cañares

Many development programs aim to build capacity of individuals and organisations as part of its targeted development outcomes. While the term capacity building is considered a “contested” concept in development literature because of its colonial origins and the seeming disregard of local “capacities”, hence the need to “build”, it continues to be a significant component in major development programs.

Let’s set aside the problems with the use of the word, but is it really possible to trace the results of capacity building activities?

Capacity development is a multi-layered process that occurs at various levels: individual, organizational, and institutional. Each level requires a tailored approach to monitoring and evaluation.

• Individual Level: This level focuses on enhancing the awareness, knowledge, skills, and competencies of individuals. Improvements at this level are often more specific, observable, and measurable. For example, individuals who gain new skills or knowledge are better equipped to make informed decisions that benefit both themselves and their communities.
• Organizational Level: At this level, the goal is to improve an organization’s ability to deliver services, manage resources, and achieve its goals. This involves not only technical and logistical enhancements but also fostering a culture of adaptability and resilience. Organizations that can effectively navigate changing contexts and build strong networks are better positioned to drive sustainable development.
• Institutional Level: This level involves transforming the formal and informal rules that govern societies, including policy improvements, enhanced inter-organizational cooperation, and fostering a collective approach to problem-solving. While these changes are often more challenging to achieve and measure, they are essential for creating an enabling environment for sustainable development.

There are a few things that we need to remember when we will attempt to assess the results of capacity development activities.

1. Improvements in capacity are difficult to capture. The value of capacity improvements is shown by the outcomes achieved by the individual or organization whose capacity is targeted to be improved (Bennet and Bennet, 2007). While measurement can be done through conducting baseline and endline assessments, like conducting a pre-test and post-test before and after a training, the ultimate test as to whether capacity has improved is what individuals are able to perform, produce, or act on as a result of capacity development interventions. Thus, active observation of changes and sensitivity to incremental improvements is critical.
2. Improvements in capacity are multi-layered and/or multifaceted. At the individual level, improvements in awareness and knowledge are considered to be preliminary improvements in capacity. Improvements in attitudes, skills, and behaviour, and practices are more mature expressions of improvements in individual capacity (Carneiro et all, 2015). Improvements in organisational capacity on the other hand, can happen in different spheres – systems, structures, roles and responsibilities (Millen 2001). Conducting capacity monitoring will require breaking capacity into monitorable areas. For example, in assessing the capacity of organisations in policy-making, it may be useful to look into different stages in the policy-making processes – problem definition, agenda setting, consideration of policy options, decision-making and formulation, implementation, and evaluation. The monitoring can then have a more discreet focus, for example, whether the organisation has improved in decision-making or formulation, relative to the baseline.
3. Improvements in capacity may require a longer gestation period. Capacity building interventions may not automatically result to tangible outcomes – and may require a longer time period to translate into actual action or practice (Simister and Smith 2010). It will be useful to acknowledge the time element involved in monitoring improvements in capacity by looking at what particular changes have occurred or why changes have not happened as expected. When the measurement date is too close to the time the capacity development intervention was conducted, it may be too early to look for behavioral changes.
4. Acquiring or strengthening capacity is a process influenced by different actors, systems, and dynamics. Individuals, organisations, and institutions are living and dynamic systems that manage their own strengths and weaknesses and establish connections with others (Woodhill 2010). Individuals and organisations too have different assets and resources impacting on their ability to implement changes from the learning they have acquired. Thus, changes in capacity may not necessarily be caused solely by a project’s interventions. An analysis of how a project has contributed to the capacity improvement is important to be able to assess what strategies have worked in delivering capacity development interventions. Generalisations based on monitoring data should be approached with care. It is also important to acknowledge here that individuals and institutions will not have a uniform path of travel or will have similar capacity improvements over time.
5. Capacity improvements are relational in nature. Improvements in capacity may be impacted by power relations, including gender dimensions. An effective assessment of capacity improvement should take into account how power impacts the changes or lack of changes in capacity – who exercised them, where they are located, and how they are applied (Fowler and Ubels 2010). In development projquestions on how power and relationships facilitate or hinder capacity improvements, are important.  These may not be observable at times and thus may require targeted conversations with actors of interest.