Internal Organizational Processes
Clients asked the respondents to state if there is feedback; 48.1% agreed, 11.2% were undecided, 36.9% strongly
agreed, but 2.9% disagreed and 1.0% strongly disagreed. A mean score of 4.173 out of 5 and standard deviation
of .814 was recorded. The response indicated that there is feedback by Clients. To establish whether NGOs services
are popular in the region or not. The responses were as follows: 40.3% agreed, 12.6% were undecided, 16.2 %
strongly agreed, but 2.9% disagreed and 1.0% strongly disagreed. A mean score of 4.22 out of 5 and standard
deviation of .849 was recorded. The feedback from the respondents indicated that NGOs services are popular in the
region. The respondents were also requested to state whether NGOs services in Kenya are consistent to their vision
and mission; 48.1% agreed, 11.2% were undecided, 36.9% strongly agreed, but 2.9% disagreed and 1.0% strongly
disagreed. A mean score of 4.09 out of 5 and standard deviation of 1.074 was recorded. Again, the respondents
agreed that NGOs‘ services in Kenya are consistent to their vision and mission.
The respondents were asked to state if their organizations were members of a business network; 40.3% agreed,
12.6% were undecided, 43.2% strongly agreed, but 2.9% disagreed and 1.0% strongly disagreed. A mean score of
3.70 out of 5 and standard deviation of 1.286 was recorded. Based on the finding the respondents agreed that their
organizations were members of a business network. The respondents were also asked to state whether NGOs in
Kenya participates in partners‘ activities and meetings; 45.6% agreed, 20.4% were undecided, 20.4% strongly
agreed, but 11.7% disagreed and 1.9% strongly disagreed. A mean score of 3.70 out of 5 and standard deviation
of .982 was recorded. Again, the respondents agreed that NGOs in Kenya participates in partners‘ activities and
meetings. The respondents were also asked to state whether NGOs in Kenya receives funding from different donors;
52.9% agreed, 18.0% were undecided, 20.9% strongly agreed, but 5.3% disagreed and 2.9% strongly disagreed. A
mean score of 3.83% out of 5 and standard deviation of 0.916 was recorded.
Based on the findings, the respondents were in agreement that NGOs in Kenya received funding from different
donors. Lastly, the respondents were also asked to state whether NGOs in Kenya maintains record of donors; 48.5%
agreed, 10.2% were undecided, 31.6% strongly agreed, but 1.0% disagreed and 8.7% strongly disagreed. A mean
score of 3.93 out of 5 and standard deviation of 1.118 was recorded. Again the respondents agreed that NGOs in
Kenya maintains record of donors. Respondents said that NGOs in Kenya attracted partner through: open days,
networks and collaborations, by meeting the client‘s needs, reports and financial transparency, workshops, open
house events and annual celebrations and good performance. When asked if NGOs in Kenya received funding
through donors, majority said yes at (80.6%) and on quarterly basis. The overall finding confirmed that employee
retention, client satisfaction, internal organizational processes and attraction of partners as the key indicators of
Performance in NGOs in Kenya had significant influence on performance of NGOs. This was supported with an
overall rating of 3.692 and standard deviation of 1.009. The details of the findings are shown in table 4.4.
Table: Performance of NGOs in Kenya Descriptive Statistics
Statement S.D D N A S. A Mean Std.Dev
OPER1 21.4% 5.8% 52.4% 14.6% 5.8% 2.78 1.120
OPER2 20.4% 18.4% 36.9% 20.4% 3.9% 2.69 1.129
OPCS1 16.5% 5.8% 29.1% 35.9% 12.6% 3.22 1.244
OPCS2 2.9% 2.9% 19.4% 54.4% 20.4% 3.86 .875
OPCS3 2.9% 13.6% 19.4% 44.7% 19.4% 3.64 1.037
OPCS4 0.0% 3.9% 33.0% 39.8% 23.3% 3.82 .833
OPCS5 1.0% 2.9% 19.4% 44.2% 32.5% 4.04 .853
OPOP1 1.0% 2.9% 11.2% 48.1% 36.9% 4.17 .814
OPOP2 1.0% 2.9% 12.6% 40.3% 43.2% 4.22 .849
OPOP3 1.0% 2.9% 11.2% 48.1% 36.9% 4.09 1.074
OPAP1 1.0% 2.9% 12.6% 40.3% 43.2% 3.70 1.286
OPAP2 1.9% 11.7% 20.4% 45.6% 20.4% 3.70 .982
OPAP3 2.9% 5.3% 18.0% 52.9% 20.9% 3.83 .916
OPAP4 8.7% 1.0% 10.2% 48.5% 31.6% 3.93 1.118
Total 3.692 1.009
Respondents were also interviewed and gave specific information: 43.7% of the respondents said the performance of
employees in NGOs in Kenya was good, 32% of the respondents said performance of employees in Kenya was
moderate and 24.3% of the respondents did not respond to this question. When asked to state the indicators of
performance in NGOs in Kenya, they answered beneficiary stories and reports about the services provided physical
observations; improve economic status of families, recognition of the organization good services, recommendation
from clients and partners. Asked to rate the client satisfaction, respondents said, 52.5% was good, 24.3% are average
and 23.3% did not respond. Regarding employee satisfaction, 50.5% said it was good, 27.2% aid it was moderate
and 23.3% did not respond. On market share of the organization, majority said it was high, 6.8% said it was fair or
moderate, 45.6% did not respond. On the question whether or not increase in funding led to the increase in
performance, majority (71.8%) of the respondents answered in the positive, 22.3% did not respond and 5.8%
responded in the negative. When asked to rate the scope of NGO organization with other organizations in Kenya,
50.5% said good, 6.8% said low, 30.1% did not respond. When asked if the targets of the NGOs in Kenya were
SMART, majority (76.7%) of the respondents answered in the positive, 23.3% said no, there was nil response the
respondents.
Sample Adequacy Test (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO))
The sample adequacy test was done to define the state of the adequacy of the sample. It was measured using the
Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin (KMO) test. The sampling adequacy should be greater than 0.5 for a satisfactory factor
analysis to proceed. A common rule is that a researcher should have 10 – 15 participants per variable. Factor
analysis is inappropriate when the sample size is below 50 (Fidel, 2005). Orodho (2008) recommends 0.5 as a
minimum (barely accepted), values between 0.7- 0.8 acceptable and values above 0.9 are superb. From Table 4.20,
the sample was acceptable since the KMO values were mainly between 0.586 and 0.911. The least value was 0.586
which was also good enough since it was above the minimum of 0.5.
Skewness and Kurtosis Test for Normality
The study sought to find out how well the distribution could be approximated, that is, whether the data is normally
distributed or not. Consequently, Skewness and Kurtosis was employed as shown in Table 4.5. Skewness measures
the deviation of distribution from symmetry and Kurtosis measures ‗peakness‘ of the distribution (Ming‘ala, 2002;
Orodho 2008). The values of Skewness and Kurtosis should be zero in normal distribution (Field, 2009).
Table: Skewness and Kurtosis
Variables Descriptive Statistic Std. Error Z score
Std. Deviation .66412
Social Support Skewness -.875 .170 -1.978
Kurtosis 1.163 .338 1.644
Std. Deviation .46153
NGOs Performance Skewness .085 .170 -0.873
Kurtosis -.573 .338 1.105
Although it is assumed in multiple linear regressions that the residuals are distributed normally it is a good idea
before drawing final conclusions, to review the distributions of major variables of interest (Ming‘ala, 2002).
Histograms are a good way of getting an instant picture of the distribution of data (Field, 2009). Therefore, a
histogram was also employed in the study to test the normality of the dependent variable as shown in Figure 4.3
since t- test, regression and ANOVA are based on the assumption that the data were sampled from a Gaussian
distribution (Indiana, 2011).
Figure 4.1: Histogram for Normality Test
Kolmogorov- Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk Test for Normality
Kolmogorov- Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk tests were also used to test the normality of the dependent variable. They
compared the scores in the samples and checked whether they have the same mean or standard deviation or not. The
findings for Kolmogorov- Smirnov showed that, the p- values were greater than 0.05 indicating that the distributions
were normally distributed. It was the same case with Shapiro-Wilk. The details of the findings are shown in Table
4.6.
Table: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk
Kolmogorov-SmirnovaShapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.
Y .059 205 .075 .991 205 .250
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
