The Government of Namibia is committed to improving the welfare of children through various acts, including the Combating of the Rape Act (Act 8 of 2000), the Education Act (Act 16 of 2001), the Combating of Domestic Violence Act (Act 4 of 2003) and the Child Care and Protection Act (Act 3 of 2015) (Republic of Namibia 2000, 2001, 2003, 2015). The Sustainable Development Goals as adopted by the United Nations recognise the prevailing role of poverty and inequality as challenges impeding the improvement of the livelihoods of underprivileged populations and children specifically (United Nations 2016). One of its strategies for sustainable development is to eradicate poverty under the ‘no poverty’ goal (United Nations 2016). The national governments must develop contextualised strategies to assist poor and vulnerable populations (United Nations 2016). Cash transfer programmes play a critical part in the global agenda to alleviate poverty in developing and underdeveloped countries (Bastagli et al. 2016; Devereux et al. 2017; Owusu-Addo, Renzaho & Smith 2018; Roelen et al. 2017; UNICEF 2017). Child Support Grants (CSGs) typically provide financial assistance to eligible children to ensure that the basic development needs of children are met (UNICEF 2021). The specific goals and objectives of such programmes may differ between contexts and focus on reducing child poverty, improving child health and nutrition, providing access to education, or other development outcomes (Global Development Network 2018; ILO 2017).

Namibia has a comprehensive social protection system with a solid financial commitment (Schade, La & Pick 2019). The national budget for the CSG programme, called ‘child state grants’, has increased from N$55.2 million in 2003–2004 to N$1054.2m in 2017–2018 (Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare 2018), with the programme reaching around 30% of the child population (UNICEF 2017). The CSG programme is aligned with the National Development Plan to prioritise reducing child poverty and enhancing children’s well-being, particularly for the vulnerable.

While social assistance programmes strive to reduce poverty and improve the living conditions of the beneficiaries (Roelen et al. 2017), monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems that specifically track the socioeconomic impacts and results for beneficiaries are often inadequate. In Namibia, the outcomes of the CSG programme were demonstrated to be based explicitly on household data through the National Household Income Expenditure Survey (Levine, Van der Berg & Yu 2011). However, such an analysis is likely to underestimate the welfare of the poorest and is not a suitable tool to apply in developing countries (Levine et al. 2011). A study conducted on Namibia’s child welfare regime from 1990 to 2017 also confirmed that there was limited useful documented information on the provision of CSGs and the effect of the CSG programme on the beneficiaries (Chinyoka 2019). Although there are substantial expenses, social protection benefits do not reach beneficiaries efficiently and effectively (Tjivikua, Olivier & Likukela 2018). The sluggish progress in the development of social protection in Namibia is attributed to a deficiency in feedback information needed to assess the effectiveness of the SP programmes (Tjivikua et al. 2018). These challenges remain despite reforms’ provision of general support to poor families with children (Chinyoka 2019). In fact, it was confirmed that the Namibian public service emphasises activity measurements rather outcomes and impact, and funds will be spent without expected results by executive state institutions (Mutumba 2021).

Similarly, despite efforts at the global level to strengthen M&E systems (Kusek & Rist 2004; Mackay 2007; Segone 2010), the information delivered by such systems often focuses on activities and budget expenditure rather than on the achievement of outcomes. The findings of a CLEAR study in 2013 show that such deficiencies also exist in the adopted M&E practices in the government of Namibia, including the lack of a government M&E framework, inadequate utilisation of M&E and performance management information, lack of information on the roles of government and civil society organisations, and insufficient skills building in M&E (CLEAR 2013).

The identified research problem is that a lack of systematic M&E data to monitor and report on the outcomes of the CSG programme limits the ability of the programme to promote child welfare in Namibia effectively.

This article endeavours to answer the following research questions:

The article will commence with a brief overview of the focus of cash transfer programmes and the requirements of results-based M&E systems before describing the current case in Namibia.

Cash transfer is described as regular noncontributory payment, in cash or in kind (e.g. food or vouchers), made by government or nongovernment organisations (NGOs) to individuals or households, to decrease chronic shock due to poverty; and addressing social risk and reducing economic vulnerability (Devereux et al. 2017). Cash transfers as a social protection strategy aim to provide poor and vulnerable members of society with monetary assistance to reduce poverty and inequality (National Planning Commission 2017; Schade et al. 2019; UNICEF 2018). Cash transfers often target households within particular population groups that are considered vulnerable, including older people, persons with disabilities and children (DFID & UK Aid 2011). Cash transfers can be unconditional and meant to actively fulfil human development responsibilities such as education, health and nutrition, or they can be dependent on recipients’ providing labour in compliance with a work requirement (Samson, Van Niekerk & Mac 2010).

The purpose of cash transfers for children is to ensure that parents and caregivers of children living in poverty or possessing other vulnerabilities can access income to meet their children’s basic needs (Dinbabo 2011). Child Support Grants create potential economic benefits that increase beneficiaries’ ability to cope with potential risks and insecurities and lessen recipients’ exposure to shocks (Neves et al. 2009, cited in Matuku 2015). Cash transfer programmes aim to increase access to children’s critical services, namely health, education and nutrition. In addition, the programmes support realising the human rights of children and their families (Kgawane-Swathe 2017; UNICEF 2016).

Cash transfer programmes are sometimes questioned regarding their success, with critiques including the careless use of funds or increased dependency by beneficiaries on the state (Sellars 2021). However, there is also evidence of increased nutrition, education, health and productivity following such assistance (Beegle, Honorati & Monsalve 2018; Garcia & Moore 2012; Sellars 2021). Table 1 presents a range of outcomes that may be the intended focus of improved child well-being through a child support programme. The wide range of alternative outcomes makes it more challenging to define the intended results of a child support programme and when the programme would be regarded as successful. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the M&E system of the MGEPESW tracks the specific outcomes of the CSG programme to reflect on the results of the CSG programme. Table 1 presents the domains and related outcomes for measuring the child’s well-being in different social protection programme intervention contexts.

Monitoring and evaluation systems provide credible, continuous information on the progress to achieve development results and outcomes (Rabie 2011). Results-based M&E systems measure the extent to which programmes or policies change situations and are essential milestones in any country’s developmental plans (Chirau, Dlakavu & Masilela 2022; Chirau et al. 2020; Lopez-Acevedo, Krause & Mackay 2012; Markiewicz & Patrick 2016; Morkel & Sibanda 2022; UNESCO 2016). Information from such systems plays an important role in providing critical information to various stakeholders, including government policymakers, implementing ministries, departments or agencies, donors, programme managers, and stakeholders and enables more informed decision-making and coordinated planning between social protection institutions and agencies to improve the success of the programmes (ILO 2017; UNICEF 2021). Improved M&E systems improve accountability and transparency for achieving desired outcomes and enable stakeholders to monitor progress against indicators and targets.

Placement of the M&E system within the organisation is essential to ensure functionality and sufficient authority within the organisation. The system is supported by line managers who appreciate the benefits of the M&E system and consistently produce and use M&E information for decision-making and improvement processes. Managers create an enabling environment by making financial and other resources available to build and maintain the M&E system and capacitating staff to collect, collate, analyse and interpret data, ensuring that the system can function optimally (Mackay 2007; Matsiliza 2019; De Coning & Rabie, cited in Cloete, Rabie & De Coning 2014). Internal capacity is complemented and enhanced when external beneficiaries and stakeholders are capacitated to provide feedback that can improve performance and learning (Stofile 2017).

In order to determine the outcomes of the programmes, it is crucial to include the theory of change and the logic model. The theory of change is an approach to theoretical thinking on why and how the programme will produce the desired results by connecting the goals, objectives and outcomes (Auriacombe 2011; Ghate 2018). At the same time, the logic model extends the theory of change by detailing how the intended results will be measured (Stofile 2017). The logic model also clarifies processes, related indicators and data collection to measure the performance and results (Rubio 2012). Thus, this article proposes an improved M&E system for the MGEPESW with a specific focus on the Namibian CSG programme.

This study employed qualitative explorative, descriptive and explanatory methods to analyse the existing M&E system of the MGEPESW as it enables monitoring of the results of the CSG programme in Namibia. Ethical clearance was attained from the Research Ethics Committee of Stellenbosch University (project reference number 23867). Data were collected in three phases:

Phase 1: Secondary data were drawn from the literature and document reviews. A keyword search on various databases was used to identify relevant academic books, discussion papers, journal articles, working papers and research papers. Additionally, reports from reputable international institutions such as the World Bank, reports from government institutions and insights from specialists and practitioners in M&E were incorporated to enhance the discussion. A targeted search yielded the key documents sharing M&E in the Namibian context, including Namibia Vision 2030, the Fifth National Development Plan, the Harambe Prosperity Plan I and II, medium-term expenditure frameworks, the Blueprint on Wealth Redistribution and Poverty Eradication, the M&E Plan for the Child Welfare Directorate programmes, the National Agenda for Children, annual reports and reviews, and the social assistance database. The literature review informed the identification of themes and subthemes that constitute an effective M&E system. This informed the analysis of the CSG programme and established the basis for collecting further primary data.

Phase 2: Primary data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with purposively selected senior, middle and programme managers of the MGEPESW responsible for data collection or using M&E data for strategic and operational decision-making. Respondents were selected as experts on the M&E system of the MGEPESW and the CSG programme in particular. A total of 12 interviews were conducted. The respondents comprised one executive director, two directors, two deputy directors and seven programme officers. The respondents were from the directorates of Social Protection, and Policy Planning and Research. The seven programme officers included five from the CSG programme administration and two programme officers from the Directorate of Policy Planning and Research responsible for M&E and planning functions. Open-ended questions allowed the opportunity to probe for more information and to seek clarification on some of the responses from the respondents. Ethical protocols, including the protection of confidentiality and identities, governed the empirical data collection process.

Phase 3: Secondary and primary data informed an assessment of the current M&E practices employed by the MGEPESW for the CSG programme. A set of recommendations was prepared, including a new revised theory of change, indicators for outcomes, and recommendations for strengthening data collection and governance, data demand and use, building M&E capacity and creating appropriate institutional support. A follow-up workshop with the study participants provided an opportunity to validate and further refine the findings from the study and to better align the recommendations to the context of the MGEPESW and Namibia.

The first research question focused on whether current M&E processes and arrangements adopted by the MGEPESW sufficiently tracked the results for beneficiaries to inform strategic decision-making. The detailed document review and interview data presented a comprehensive understanding of the inner arrangements and focus of the M&E system for the MGEPESW and the CSG programme specifically. It also revealed differences in the opinions of staff familiar with the system. A brief synopsis of Nshimyimana’s (2023) comprehensive findings is presented as follows.

Monitoring of the CSG programme is informed by the strategic plan of the MGEPESW that outlines a comprehensive social assistance programme to improve the well-being of children, older adults and people with disabilities, ensuring gender equality and women’s empowerment and uplifting marginalised communities (MGEPESW 2020). The following four strategic objectives in the MGEPESW strategic plan guide the M&E practices of the CSG: SO3, which aims to strengthen and expand social protection; SO5, which focuses on improving care and protection for children’s well-being; SO7, which focuses on developing integrated management information systems; and SO8, which aims to enhance the enabling environment for high-performance culture and service delivery (MGEPESW 2020). Respondents agreed that guidelines for monitoring the CSG included the ministerial strategic plan, the social protection policy and the indicators employed by the Directorate of Social Protection:

While some respondents identified aspects of a theory of change and logic model within the Child Welfare Directorate M&E plan, others believed that an explicit theory of change and logic model for the CSG programme did not exist:

An in-depth review of available programme documents revealed that while there was a theory of change and logic model for child welfare across programmes, there was no specifically dedicated change theory for the CSG programme. A further in-depth review of available documents did not render a dedicated M&E framework for the CSG programme.

Monitoring and evaluation for child welfare resides under the Social Protection Directorate and includes planning support in terms of the 5-year ministerial plan and annual work plan; monthly data capturing, verification and approval for payment purposes; monthly reporting on the number of new children receiving grants; and quarterly and annual reporting per the performance management system guideline (Office of the Prime Minister 2011) for public sector institutions. Respondents disagreed on the principal custodian for M&E, with responses citing the Directorate of Social Protection, the Directorate of Policy Planning and Research, or both directorates as the primary custodian for M&E activities and reporting. The following quotes reflect the diversity of responses:

While some agreed that the Office of the Prime Minister and the Directorate of Policy Planning and Research Planning acted as external and internal champions of the M&E system, others disagreed on a strong, identifiable custodian:

Respondents identified the following indicators as most relevant to measure the CSG programme:

An in-depth database review revealed that the system tracked the number of children added or deleted from the system. Those numbers were aggregated by region, type of grant and constituency; the accumulative number of children on the Social Assistance System by region, constituency, sex and type of grant; and total expenditure of the grants by region, constituency and month (Social Assistance System, MGEPESW). No evidence was found of the monitoring of the health, nutrition or education outcomes of beneficiaries of the CSG programme. This is also confirmed in Table 2 which includes a review of national policies and frameworks that include indicators related to the CSG programme.

Child welfare is however measured through the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) (Namibia Statistics Agency 2021) using data from the National Household Expending Survey implemented by the National Statistics Agency. Child-specific dimensions and indicators are depicted in Table 3.

Respondents agreed that there were several requests for data on the programme for planning, reporting and decision-making, which includes requests from the following stakeholders:

Respondents agreed that available data on the CSG programme did not directly influence policy and budget decisions and that political priorities and national budget considerations determined further assistance to additional beneficiaries:

Respondents mostly agreed that the available budget for the M&E activities was inadequate, with low to moderate investment in strengthening the M&E capacity of staff members, as reflected below:

Some respondents regarded a recent adoption of technology to support M&E as a prioritisation of funding to strengthen M&E activities:

The review of the current system identified several weaknesses stemming from a lack of shared understanding of the system, no dedicated theory of change that specifies results, indicators that focus only on reaching the beneficiary rather than the results for the beneficiary, and limited resources and capacity to expand organically.

The study found that there is no independent M&E unit responsible for the M&E of the CSG programme. The findings indicate that the Policy Planning and Research Directorate performs M&E roles and responsibilities but does not seem to have the mandate to ensure that M&E-related activities are performed across the different directorates in the MGEPESW. While different directorates contribute to the supply of information to monitor the performance of their respective directorates, it is essential to have an independent unit and/or directorate responsible for producing information and reporting on the overall performance of the MGEPESW’s implementation of the strategic plan and its key programmes.

While the MGEPESW has an M&E system with procedures and indicators, the current system does not optimally focus on the outcomes of the CSG programme. This is further exasperated by the lack of annual or multiyear evaluation plans and dedicated budget for evaluations and limited trained evaluators within the public sector (National Planning Commission 2021). The current focus of monitoring is on programme implementation, tracking transfers to beneficiaries rather than the effect of the grants. Limited resources and capacity-building initiatives may limit the expansion of M&E activities to areas of further interest to the various decision-makers within the executive and legislative arms of government, as well as beneficiaries and other members of the public.

The review of the current MGEPESW M&E system found an insufficient focus on the results of the programme. The assessment of the current M&E arrangements of the CSG programme failed to find an explicit theory of change or logic model for this programme that may inform the monitoring framework and evaluation strategy. A theory of change helps to explain the rationale behind the expected results and why and how a programme will produce the desired results by connecting the goals, objectives and outcomes (Auriacombe 2011; Ghate 2018). A logic model complements the theory of change by clarifying how the intended results would be measured by specifying the indicators, data sources and responsibilities (Stofile 2017). While indicators should measure progress across the results chain, from inputs to outcomes and impact, the study finds that the existing indicators are mainly limited to tracking the transfer of the grant to recipients.

The study finds that there is not an M&E framework of M&E roles and responsibilities in the MGEPESW. The M&E framework should outline the key components necessary to monitor and evaluate a policy and programme in the MGEPESW. It should also comprehensively define the scope of M&E efforts, the resources required, the key stakeholders and the performance indicators that will be used to measure progress towards achieving the intended outcomes of the programmes of the MGEPESW, including the CSG programme. As the CSG programme is associated with several strategic objectives of the MGEPESW, that is, to strengthen and expand social protection, to improve care and protection for children’s well-being and to enhance an enabling environment for high-performance culture and service delivery (MGEPESW 2020), developing a monitoring framework for the CSG programme offers useful insight relevant for other programmes of the MGEPESW and similar CSG programmes in similar contexts.

It is important to cultivate the culture of the demand and use of M&E information. An M&E system should support decision-making, accountability, transparency and optimal resource allocation (Görgens & Zall Kusek 2009; Stofile 2017). The interviews showed that while CSG programme data are being requested and used by external and internal stakeholders, no standardised methodology exists for disseminating information to encourage use and access to data. Information produced by the MGEPESW M&E system needs to respond to the needs of users at various levels. Executive managers seek information on the attainment of the objectives of specific programmes and delivery of the mandate of the ministry. Ministers and parliamentarians require information on the attainment of the objectives, the distribution of benefits to the public. Programme managers and directors require data on the attainment of operational targets, client satisfaction and the correct implementation of procedures. Beneficiaries, taxpayers, social justice advocates and other members of the public require information related to the quality and value of outputs and related outcomes (Nshimyimana 2023).

A functional M&E system is expected to produce accurate, reliable and timely information through established standards. Available information is not routinely shared with relevant stakeholders or via available platforms, such as the website of the MGEPESW or related media platforms. The study finds that the current M&E system is paper-based with limited security measures to protect paper-based records. In most cases, the parents or guardians of children are the applicants, and their details are captured on the system. Some verification of the beneficiaries and quality checks are in place for the CSG database, but there were no formal guidelines entailing the processes of verification procedures or documented guidelines to inform data collection methods, sources and reporting.

Thus far, the study on the effectiveness of child welfare grants in Namibia was conducted (Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare 2010). No formal evaluation has been conducted on the CSG programme driven by the Ministry of Government (Nshimyimana 2023). Evaluations use a combination of evidence and standards to judge the merit of a programme or a policy (Peersman 2014) and inform decisions on adjusting the programme to improve efficiency and effectiveness (Holman et al. 2019).

A robust results-based M&E system for the MGEPESW and a results-based M&E framework for the CSG programme are essential to measure the progress and effectiveness of the grants in responding to the needs of beneficiaries, improving their lives and furthering the overall goal and objectives of the social protection intervention. The following recommendations are offered in response to the second research question that focused on strengthening the results-based M&E system for the MGEPESW and the M&E framework for the Namibian CSG and similar child support programmes.

Strengthening the M&E system to track the results and benefits for beneficiaries supports more informed decision-making, both by government actors and other agencies that support child development. An outcomes-based approach acknowledges the complexity of child development, in supporting both immediate physical needs and longer-term health and educational development goals, within a safe context that protects and empowers children. The recommendations in this study demonstrate that the data sources for measuring outcomes are potentially available in the Namibian context. Strengthening the M&E systems for the CSG programme and the MGEPESW to focus more explicitly on the intended goals of the CSG and other priority programmes within the context of national development programmes will support improved decision-making towards improved child welfare. The adoption of the proposed system may face delays due to factors like insufficient knowledge, capacity and budget for M&E activities. However, gradual implementation is achievable by providing capacity-building initiatives for senior management and designated M&E staff, fostering a deeper understanding of the M&E system’s value and in return acting as an advocate for securing the necessary budget to operationalise the M&E system in the Ministry.

Sustainability of these changes requires improved data management systems, dedicated capacity, high-level commitment and financial resources for monitoring and more in-depth evaluation studies. Strengthening of the internal system should be complemented by dedicated activities to encourage the demand and use of produced evidence by various stakeholders, thereby enabling a coordinated and integrated response to child welfare by multiple stakeholders in the public and development sectors. The findings and recommendations from this study offer useful guidance for the development of results-based M&E systems for cash transfer support programmes in similar contexts. Further research is needed to develop an M&E framework that measures child development beyond the mandate of the MGEPESW.