Monitoring-evaluation of the implementation of the university decentralization program (pdu) in ivory coast: case of the university of Bondoukou

The objective of this study is to analyze the explanatory factors for the low use of the results of monitoring and evaluation implemented in the University Decentralization Program. The working hypothesis maintains that social and organizational factors favor the low use of monitoring-evaluation results implemented in the university decentralization program. To account for the object of study, we used functionalism. The documentary study, the survey (questionnaires and interview guides) and the observation helped in the collection of data. These have undergone the test of qualitative and quantitative analyses. The results of the study reveal major problems in the organization and operation of the implementation of monitoring-evaluation activities in the university decentralization program in Côte d'Ivoire. The respondents attribute these difficulties to a central factor: the low use of results from monitoring and evaluation. This deficiency in the use of the data produced directly impacts the program's ability to adjust and improve its performance. Several factors contribute to the low use of monitoring and evaluation results in the university decentralization program. Among these factors, the absence of a coherent public policy in terms of monitoring and evaluation stands out as being the most critical, with 38.5% of respondents identifying it as the main obstacle. This high percentage indicates a lack of institutional and strategic framework, essential to guarantee the systematic integration of monitoring and evaluation results into decision-making processes. The second most important factor, with 25.6%, is the diversity of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. This multiplicity leads to a fragmentation of efforts and results, making harmonization and effective use of data difficult. The various systems in place are poorly coordinated, thus reducing the overall impact of monitoring and evaluation activities. Then, 17.1% of respondents point out shortcomings in the functions of the actors involved in the management of monitoring and evaluation. This factor reflects a lack of clear roles, responsibilities, and coordination between different stakeholders, which hinders the collection, analysis, and use of data for continuous improvement of the program. In light of these data, our research hypothesis is confirmed.