Given Hapunda

278 1. Lack of country (organisation) ownership of these evaluations and, therefore, underutilisation of evaluation findings and recommendations. 2. Proliferation of donor evaluations leading to high transaction costs for the countries. In addition, the primary purpose of donor-led evaluations is to ensure donor accountability and learning, and not to address the information needs of national and local decision-makers and governance systems. In the literature, a country-led system has been extensively discussed. However, with a lot of medium-sized, faith and community-based organisations increasingly receiving money from donors and sometimes donor funded multinational and local civil society organizations, it is worth discussing the organization-led monitoring and evaluation system too. Medium-sized, faith and community-based organisation receive such donor funding with conditionalities attached to them, hence influencing the M&E outcomes one way or another. A country or organisation-led monitoring and evaluation system is a system in which the host and not donor leads and owns the system by determining: 1. What intervention component, project, programme or policy will be evaluated? 2. What evaluation questions will be asked? 3. What analytical approach will be used? 4. How findings will be communicated and ultimately be used? The idea of a country or organization-led monitoring and evaluation system is to serve primarily, information needs of a nation or organisation before serving needs of donors. Therefore, it is for this reason that a county or organisation-led M&E system is seen as an agent of change and instrumental in supporting national and organisational developmental needs. Country or organisational-led M&E systems focus on building change on personal, relational, cultural, structural and systems levels within a country and organisation. Although country or organisation-led systems seem to be the trending development now, they have their own challenges. First, its common knowledge that most donors do not just transfer funds but also skills in order to make sure their agendas are met. This means that the separation (independence) advocated by country-led systems still involve capacity building and clearly defined “values” that the system must save, most of which would be donor-driven. This entails that the donor and host (country or organisation) must agree on ownership, power and boundary issues that must be respected by each party. Unfortunately, the funder tends to have more power and control, hence agreements tends to favour the funder. This transition should not be mistaken with advocating for non-accountability on the