careglobalmel.careinternationalwikis.org

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Return to [[http://careglobalmel.careinternationalwikis.org/fns_supplementary_indicators|list]]

[[http://careglobalmel.careinternationalwikis.org/indicator_20_french|French version of Indicator 20 ]]

|**INDICATOR 20: # of new or amended policies, legislation, public programs, and/or budgets responsive to the rights, needs and demands of people of all genders** ||
|**Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? ** \\ The rationale for this indicator is to capture the //responsiveness// of power-holders to the rights, needs and demands of impact groups.  ||
|**What Sustainable Development Goal is the indicator connected to? ** \\  **16.5** Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms \\ **16.6** Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels \\ **16.b** Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development \\ **17.18 **By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts||
|**Definitions and key terms** \\  **“All genders”**acknowledges that gender justice is beyond the binary that has traditionally been used in development discussions (men, women, boys and girls), and in recognition that those who associate with genders outside of those binary classifications often face the harshest gender injustices((CARE USA’s Gender Justice team, and other country offices, CMPs, and teams across CARE globally have started to integrate ‘all genders’ in their work.)) . Generally, CARE currently captures information about the ‘sex’ of individuals who attend our trainings, access services supported by CARE, or other otherwise reached indirectly or directly by our interventions; to do this we normally capture ‘sex-disaggregated data’. It is important to distinguish here that ‘sex’ is a biological distinction (e.g., male/female) while gender points more to individuals’ association of identity which go beyond binary to reflect individuals who may not associate as man or woman, boy or girl, but may be transgendered, gender variant, and many others. If your project/initiative is capturing data on “all genders”, please note that in the comments section explaining if you have captured sex-disaggregated data, or if your project/initiative has asked survey respondents or participants of focus groups, etc. about their gender identity \\ **Responsive: **‘This refers to a kind of //behavior//. Mary is responsive to Jane if Mary makes some effort to do something to meet Jane’s needs or wants (Moore and Teskey, [[http://www2.ids.ac.uk/gdr/cfs/pdfs/CARframeworkDRCweb.pdf|2006]]).’ In CARE’s case, it means whether power-holders listen to citizens and/or users demands and change their behavior by taking on board their demands and producing laws, policies, programs and budgets that reflects these demands.  ||
|**Data and information required to measure the indicator** \\ The link between inputs and a policy or budgeting change needs to look at: \\ * Existing laws, policies, budgets, plans and protocols linked to the specific thematic area. \\ * CARE-generated monitoring documents evidencing the kind of inputs linked with our influence \\ * Changes in budgets and annual operating plans (AOPs) at district, municipal or governorate level, or nationally.||
|**Suggested method for data collection** \\  //Recommended methods// \\ * **Most Significant Change:** [[https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/approach/most_significant_change|Most Significant Change]] can help you define domains of change, gather personal accounts of change from impact groups, and provide a way to define which of these accounts is the most significant and why. \\  * **Outcome Mapping and Outcome Harvesting:** Outcome Mapping can help you define and track key behavioral changes and Outcome Harvesting can also help prioritize key changes to investigate and evaluate (see the [[https://www.outcomemapping.ca/|Outcome Mapping Learning Community]], RAPID Outcome Mapping Approach – [[https://www.odi.org/features/roma/home|ROMA]] and [[http://outcomeharvesting.net/|outcome harvesting.net]]). \\  * **Contribution Tracing:** [[https://insights.careinternational.org.uk/development-blog/capturing-complex-change-is-it-really-all-about-confidence|Contribution Tracing]] can help you demonstrate a sequential chain of an initiative’s influence over policy change, budget amendments, etc. and show how confident we are about our influence. \\  //Data collection// \\ * **Policy and content analysis:** amendments tracking, examination of government announcements on expected policy changes, government’s prioritization of a selected issue, etc. \\ * **Budget analysis and tracking:** government expenditure tracking, stakeholders’ interviews on resources allocation decision-making processes, etc. \\ * **Semi-structured Key Informant Interviews (KIIs):** a sample of opinion leaders and decision-makers (target groups) may be interviewed on the potential influence of our advocacy. \\ * **In-depth Interviews (IDIs):** In depth interviews with impact groups regarding the significance of changes and roles of different actors related to that change. \\ * **Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with impact groups:** a sample of community representatives who belong to vulnerable groups articulate if and how their set of interests were considered and addressed in a change of policy, budget, plan, etc.||
|**Possible data sources** \\ Given the complexity of measuring causality, a number of data sources will need to be integrated and closely monitored throughout the whole project cycle. The suggested data sources are: \\ * Selected laws and policies relevant to the project \\ * Program documents capturing input allocation \\ * Budgets and their yearly variations \\ * Key informant interviews on the process and reasons for change, and project contribution to this \\ * Impact groups’ views on the process and reasons for change. and project contribution to this||
|**Resources needed for data collection** \\ Policy-level framework monitoring will imply the design of tracking tools which explore the process of change towards the stated aim in a consistent way, therefore resources will be needed to design/pilot and scale-up appropriate tools linking resource allocation with the policy-level change to address needs expressed by the impact group.||
|**Reporting results for this indicator ** \\ At the country level, details will be focused on resource allocation and contribution of change linked with primary sources of information (impact groups and target groups). To inform CI, evidence aggregation around key issues should demonstrate national/regional-level changes induced by bundles of inputs dedicated to similar outcome areas across projects. \\ Defining the scope of policy and budget changes is an important consideration. While each case is different, in general, we recommend looking at the guidance on indirect participants, including: \\ * Potential groups to benefit or be affected by a policy change (e.g. estimate number of women in a district who would be enabled to access a service, as a result of a policy change) \\ * Demographics related to policy (e.g. number of school-aged children in a specific location where an education policy may drive change)||
|**Questions for guiding the analysis and interpretation of data (explaining the how and why the change happened, and how CARE contributed to the change)** \\ * To what extent did decision-makers listen to proposals made by our impact group? \\ * Were commitments proposed by our impact group included in action plans? Were there follow up meetings on these commitments? \\ * Are policies, laws, programs, budgets reflecting the demands put forwards by our impact group?  ||
| \\  **Examples** \\  \\ The main way to improve how we can demonstrate responsiveness is by more clearly explaining how we and our partners **influenced actors** and evidence the **process** of change. The only way to do this effectively is to have a Theory of Change (ToC) with clearly expressed assumptions about the connections between the underlying causes and the problem that the stakeholders are trying to address, which explain why each change is necessary to achieve the proposed goal (assumptions behind the if-then hypotheses), and assumption about the context/environment in which the theory of change is situated. \\  \\ Outcome Mapping can help you to articulate which **key actors** ([[https://www.outcomemapping.ca/nuggets/characterising-boundary-partners|boundary partners]], which can be both impact and target groups) are important to work with and support or **influence a change in behavior** (actions and interactions), and how best to **provide that support** (through an analysis of [[https://www.outcomemapping.ca/resource/a-structured-look-at-om-strategy-maps|strategy maps]]).((Other commonly used tools such as decision-making trees and timeline drawings can also help explain how, when and why change happened.))  Outcome Mapping’s [[https://www.outcomemapping.ca/outcome-mapping-practitioner-guide/intentional-design/progress-markers|progress markers]] can help organize that data into common milestones of change. \\   \\  Process Tracing, which is a key component of Contribution Tracing, can help you better explain the **causal pathway(s) that led to a particular outcome**.((Contribution analysis also provides a similar but lighter approach to testing a “performance story” related to a theory of change.))  The Social and Economic Transformation of the Ultra-Poor ([[https://www.careevaluations.org/evaluation/social-and-economic-transformation-of-the-ultra-poor/|SETU]]) project in Bangladesh employed a [[https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/5997/CDIPracticePaper_10.pdf;jsessionid35CA77A45B741799C52B1B8E8683889A?sequence1|Process Tracing]] methodology in order to map out potential causal pathways. While the evaluation team did not carry out the four [[https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/5997/CDIPracticePaper_10.pdf;jsessionid35CA77A45B741799C52B1B8E8683889A?sequence1|formal tests]] of process tracing (straw-in-the-wind hoop tests, smoking gun, doubly decisive), they did follow the general logic of tracing key factors and ways of working in the project which contributed to the program’s various outcomes. The method was particularly useful in helping to explain how activities related to social solidarity and engaging public authorities contributed to economic outcomes and explain how this supported project sustainability. \\   \\  CARE has also used [[http://insights.careinternational.org.uk/development-blog/capturing-complex-change-is-it-really-all-about-confidence|Contribution Tracing]] , which uses both Process Tracing and Bayesian (Confidence) Updating,in the Ghana Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms ([[http://governance.careinternationalwikis.org/ghana_strengthening_accountability_mechanisms_gsam|GSAM]]) project in Ghana and the Journey for Advancement in Transparency, Representation and Accountability ([[http://governance.careinternationalwikis.org/ghana_strengthening_accountability_mechanisms_gsam|JATRA]]) project in Bangladesh. The aim has been to better understand the responsiveness of public authorities related to infrastructure investment and budget allocation, respectively. The method was particularly useful in refining the projects’ theories of change, in focusing data collection on the strongest evidence (highest “probative value”), and in defining the sequence of events towards intended outcomes. \\   \\  CARE has employed [[https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/approach/most_significant_change|Most Significant Change]] to support various projects in the Andes, including the \\   \\  [[http://www.careevaluations.org/evaluation/evaluacion-del-proyecto-promoviendo-el-fortalecimiento-de-pueblos-indigenas-para-la-gestion-de-recursos-naturales-en-peru-ecuador-y-bolivia/|Strengthening Andean Organizations in Public Policy Advocacy in Food Security in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru]] project. The method was particularly useful in identifying the most (and least) successful practices which led to changes and lessons learned in the process. It also helped provide a clear framework for guiding questions in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). \\   \\  Outcome Mapping can also be used to help track and explain **household-level our intra-community behavioral changes**. And this can be significant in terms of understanding shifting gender norms at a local level. In the Pathways Program in Mali, Malawi, Tanzania, Ghana, India, and Bangladesh, CARE used [[https://www.outcomemapping.ca/download/emily.pdf|Outcome Mapping]] at mid-term to help evaluate men’s behavioral changes around production, access to land, and workload sharing, for example. The process helped the project to refine its indicators around behavioral change and show the relative significance of different changes. \\   \\  The Redefining Norms to Empower Women (ReNEW) project in Sri Lanka, and the Towards Improved Economic and Sexual Reproductive Health Outcomes for Adolescent Girls (TESFA) and Improving Adolescent Reproductive Health and Nutrition through Structural Solutions (Abdiboru) projects in Ethiopia have also experimented with the measurement of {{:care-social-norms-paper-web.pdf|social norm perceptions }}  through the use of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) surveys, with prompts on others behaviors and attitudes, alongside vignettes during Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). This has allowed impact groups to better understand the role of peer pressure by girls’ friends in girls’ own decisions about when to marry, sometimes against parents’ wishes. Better understanding this type of changes can thus further help you to put formal changes, such as child marriage laws, in context.  ||

----

[[:home_ftnref1|[1]]]CARE USA’s Gender Justice team, and other country offices, CMPs, and teams across CARE globally have started to integrate ‘all genders’ in their work.

[[:home_ftnref2|[2]]]Other commonly used tools such as [[http://mande.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Decision-Trees-and-ToCs-Vs-20121227-NPW1-1.pdf|decision-making trees]] and [[http://www.carepathwaystoempowerment.org/wp-content/uploads/.../ME-Tools-FINAL.doc|timeline drawings]] can also help explain how, when and why change happened.

[[:home_ftnref3|[3]]][[https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Effectiveness_Programme/meetings/VfM/Contribution_Analysis_Paper.pdf|Contribution analysis]] also provides a similar but lighter approach to testing a “performance story” related to a theory of change.

\\
careglobalmel.careinternationalwikis.org

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools
