Date post: | 02-Apr-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | plan-nederland |
View: | 222 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Appendix A Monitoring Protocol on the Girl Power Programme
GIRL POWER
“Promoting Equal Rights and Opportunities for Girls and Young Women”
Revised version 1 December 2013
Revised Girl Power Monitoring Protocol
December 2013
New insights from existing monitoring practices, persistent doubts about
the reliability and usefulness of the baseline study carried out in 2011, and
2
the recommendations from the mid-term review of end 2013 have
triggered the need to revise the monitoring protocol for the remaining
period of the programme.
In this “Revised version 1 December 2013” we have, in some cases,
reordered and reformulated outcomes. However, intended outcomes as
such, apart from some minor alterations in wording, have remained the
same.
Most of the changes made in this revision have affected the progress
indicators for box 1 and box 2. Five indicators were operationalized
differently, whilst maintaining the same rationale. Four were removed. One
was added.
We have decided to remove the Girl Power Gender Empowerment Measure
(GPGEM). This index was initially imagined as a composite indicator,
composed from a few key indicators measured elsewhere in the protocol.
However, the operationalisation of the GPGEM has proved to be difficult.
Although one indicator to capture empowerment certainly has advantages,
the time and effort required to develop a meaningful instrument has
outweighed the expected benefits for reporting and other communication.
However, we may try, in a later stage, to make a renewed effort to conceive
and measure the GPGEM.
All indicators were subjected to a critical syntax review.
The mid term review, carried out in the 2nd half of 2013, has measured the
new set of indicators for 2013. Moreover, the MTR has reconstructed the
indicator values for 2011. Comparison of both datasets already shows some
interesting trends.
2015 Targets for box 1 and box 2 will be added early 2014, after the
findings from MTR will have been discussed with the GP countries. Targets
for box 3, box 4, and box 5 have remained the same.
In the following sections, revised and improved monitoring and evaluation
frameworks per result area are presented. Indeed, this update will allow us
to conduct more sensible and concise performance tracking of the Girl
Power programme.
Definitions and Abbreviations
DGIS Development Cooperation Department of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
CSO Civil Society Organization
Communities Communities with which the Alliance collaborates
CRA Child Rights Alliance
CRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
2
CSC Country Steering Committee
Impact The contribution of the Alliance programme to the effects on societies
Key Indicators The indicators identified in the Result areas of the Alliance programme
Outcome The development change to which the Alliance programme contributes
Output Deliverable, product or service of the Alliance programme
Partners Organizations with whom the Alliance collaborates
Project Grouped activities, implemented by partners to achieve the results of the Alliance Programme
Country Programme Aligned CRA partner projects for achievement of common Girl Power objectives at country level
MDG Millennium Development Goal: Girl Power acts upon MDG 3 (Gender Equality) and MDG 2 (Universal Education)
3
1. Introduction
The Girl Power programme envisages to capacitate local civil society and
civil organizations in 10 countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia to
support the empowerment of girls and young women for gender equality.
Girl Power is relevant to particularly MDG 3 and focuses on four thematic
areas. These are:
Violence against girls and young women;
(Post-primary) education;
Economic participation;
Socio-political participation;
The four thematic areas are addressed in three dimensions -individual,
socio-cultural and institutional-, and through the strengthening of civil
society.
The strategic orientation of the Girl Power programme is captured in the
diagram below, in which the major results areas are presented as “boxes”.
Empowered girls and young women, composed of the key dimensions
of change (box 1), the four thematic areas (box 2), and civil society (box
3)
Capacity build in partners (box 4), expressed through the 5 capabilities
for development (5C), resulting in improved organizational capacity and
quality of partner projects’ outputs in the country programs.
Support by the Child Rights Alliance (box 5)
Outputs by partner organizations (box 6)
2. Monitoring
2.1. Objectives of Monitoring under Girl Power
Progress monitoring will support 4 basic program management
requirements these are:
Accountability (vertical and horizontal)
Strategic guidance (increase effectiveness)
Operational guidance ((increase efficiency)
Learning
These requirements are not equally important to all stakeholders. Whilst
DGIS may be less concerned with the operational and strategic guidance
functions, these are of utmost importance for the Country Steering
Committees (CSCs) guiding the individual country programs and the
individual projects. Variations in importance are shown in Table 1:
4
Table 1. Variations in importance attached to monitoring functions:
by category of stakeholder
Function DGIS CRA CSC Local
partner
Target group
Accountability **** *** *** ** ****
Strategic
guidance ** **** **** *** *
Operational
Guidance * ** *** *** *
Learning * *** *** * *
* = low importance; ** = some importance;
*** = important; **** = very important
5
6
Although interests may vary, ultimately the combined monitoring effort
must provide sufficient information for all the above mentioned functions.
This means that monitoring practices need to be harmonized and aligned
in one common system and operationalized in one common protocol.
The following pages present the minimal information the Girl Power
program needs to generate through the monitoring practices of individual
participation partners. For all results areas (the “boxes” in the results chain
in the diagram) key results and performance indicators are formulated.
2.2. Minimal information requirements
Country programs are required to show at least developments in box 1,
box 2, box 3, and box 4.
Individual projects are minimally required to show results in box 4 and box
6.
Note that these are minimal requirements. Country programs and projects
may opt for monitoring of specific changes resulting from their activities for
their own reasons. Strictly speaking, such monitoring remains outside the
scope of the Girl Power monitoring framework, although it may provide
circumstantial supportive evidence for Girl Power results
2.3. Three different levels of monitoring.
Girl Power distinguishes between three main levels of monitoring: project
level, country level, and alliance level.
Project level
The Dutch members of the CRA agree with their southern partners what
capabilities need to be developed (box 4) in order to ensure agreed quality
outputs in the program countries (box 6). Hence results are at the level of
the southern partner organization and in the quality of the work they do
for achieving gender equality.
CRA members and the southern partner organization agree individually on
the terms of their collaboration. Already existing project management tools,
including those for monitoring and reporting, may be used.
All project monitoring needs to comply with the minimal standards set by
the Girl Power Steering Committee. These includes guidelines about
frequency of reporting, use of reporting formats, use of progress indicators,
and mechanisms for sharing of information.
7
Responsibility for quality project information, valid, reliable and useful for
Girl Power reporting and learning, lies with the CRA member.
All projects will share their relevant project information at country level with
the Girl Power Country Steering Committee and with the Dutch CRA
through the responsible CRA-member.
Projects will report on their activities twice a year.
Country Level
Civil society organizations in each program country have agreed to
collaborate, harmonize and coordinate their individual projects within a
country specific Girl Power framework based upon a common vision,
aiming for common goals, and used for joint learning. Country Steering
Committees (CSCs) are formed in each country representing all
participating civil society organizations. A major task of CSCs is to
safeguard and monitor country program consistency and provide strategic
guidance to all stakeholders. Moreover, CSCs play a key role in the
implementation of the country learning agenda and will ensure that new
learnings are used to enhance program quality. (See also learning agenda)
As an overarching steering body CSCs are well placed to co-monitor –
together with the Child Rights Alliance (CRC)- the effectiveness of civil
society partners in the their countries in relation to defined country
outcomes regarding the strength of civil society to enhance gender
equality.
An important source of information for CSCs are the Girl Power Expert
panels established in each country: one panel composed of knowledgeable
girls and young women representing the final beneficiaries, another panel
composed of knowledgeable professionals from civil society and
government institutions supported by the program. Structural involvement
of beneficiaries in monitoring, learning and steering is a core element in all
Girl Power programs, giving additional content to its participatory
approaches.
For their effective operation CSCs need access to all partner project
information. Annual GP reflection sessions constitute an important source
of additional information. During these sessions all stakeholders, including
the aforementioned panels, will discuss progress; learnings and problems in
the country program and agree on measures to take for better
effectiveness.
CSCs under Girl Power will receive all the support they need from the CRA
via country support teams. CSCs are expected to mature gradually during
the implementation period of the program. CRA support will be relatively
substantial in the first few years of the program, but gradually reduce in
line with capacities built.
8
CSCs will report to the Steering Committee of the CRA on its activities
twice a year.
Alliance level
The CRA-Steering Committee will monitor and guide Girl Power progress at
the highest level. It receives relevant monitoring information through the
country support teams and the CRA member organizations.
The Girl Power Desk is responsible for the administration and analysis of all
Girl Power information, including information regarding the learning
agenda(s). Information will be entered in the Girl Power MIS. Aggregated
information will be produced for reporting to the Ministry and other
parties. The Girl Power Desk will also maintain a system for the sharing of
relevant information between CRA-members, country programs, regions
and partner organizations.
9
3. Girl Power results and progress indicators
In the following tables, the key results and indicators for measurement are presented. As of December 2013 values for 2011 and 2013 are available from the
midterm review carried out during the final trimester of 2013, which validated/reconstructed baseline values collected in 2011 and measured progress to date.
The ten Girl Power country programs are in line with the framework and our partners are obliged to report on developments in the “boxes” relevant to their
country programs against the identified results and the corresponding indicators. The indicator values presented in this monitoring protocol are calculated from
the country values.
Note: where indicator values are accompanied with an asterisk (*), this means that data were collected from girls and young women aged 14-24 only, because
the subject matter was deemed unfit to discuss with younger children.
Box 1 and box 2: Protection against violence
Outcomes
Note: Only those Girl Power country programmes that intervene in this thematic area are assessed for progress made against stipulated outcome results and
indicators. Each country programme may, in addition to the indicators mentioned below, include additional specific progress indicators. These will be primarily
used to enhance internal progress reporting, but may also enrich the annual reporting to DGIS, e.g. via stories, cases and illustrations.
Outputs, as delivered by the programme’s southern partners, are grouped together into output categories (mentioned under Box 6.)Country programmes are
free to include their own specific activities and outputs.
Better protection against violence for G&YW Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline
2011
MTR
2013
Target
2015
Decreased prevalence of violence against
you or girls that you know
% of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have
experienced economic violence
82.1* 80.3
10
% of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have
experienced physical violence
88.2* 84.0
% of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have
experienced emotional violence
90.7* 88.0
% of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have
experienced sexual violence
79.3* 74.5
Non-acceptance of violence against
G&YW
% of girls and young women who feel able to say no to sexual activity 55.9* 90.7*
% of girls and young women who agree that children may be beaten by adults 57.5 41.8
Access of G&YW to quality (child)
protection systems
% of girls and young women who know how to act when in need of protection
against violence
41.8* 74.9
% of girls and young women who demonstrate knowledge of available protection
services
42.4* 82.8
% of girls and young women who indicated they know GYW who accessed formal
protection services because violence happened to them
NA 62.8
Communities recognize violence against
G&YW as unacceptable
perceived* % of community members who agree that children deserve to be beaten
by their parents and/or teachers.
74.2 53.1
perceived* % of community members who agree that violence against G&YW inside
and outside the home should always be reported
53.5 87.1
perceived* % of community members who agree that a man is allowed to beat his
wife/girlfriend
43.3 13.4
Government acts to ensure the rights of
G&YW to protection against violence
% of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that
government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through policies
and legislation
55.5 76.2
11
% of “girl power” experts (members of the Girl Power girl’s panels) who feel that
government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through policies
and legislation
28.6 32.0
% of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that
government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through services
49.2 58.7
% of "girl power" experts (members of the Girl Power girl's panels) who feel that
government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through services
41.8 34.6
Box 1 and box 2 Socio-political participation
Outcomes
Note: Only those Girl Power country programmes that intervene in this thematic area will be assessed for progress made against stipulated outcome results
and indicators. Each country programme may, in addition to the indicators mentioned below, include additional specific progress indicators. These will be
primarily used to enhance internal progress reporting, but may also enrich the annual reporting to DGIS, e.g. via stories, cases and illustrations.
Outputs, as delivered by the programme’s southern partners, are grouped together into output categories (mentioned under Box 6.)Country programmes are
free to include their own specific activities and outputs.
Socio-political participation
Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline 2011 MTR
2013
Target
2015
G&YW take equally part in decision taking
and politics
% of girls and young women who agree that G&YW should be part of community
committees or other groups, to decide on issues that are important to them
56.6 97.8
% of girls and young women who confirm that it is possible for them to join
groups and discuss freely in places where girls and young women meet
27.5 85.9
12
% of girls and young women who confirm that when they have an idea to improve
something at home, school or in the community, they have the opportunity to
make that happen
25.8 84.6
Communities value G&YW as actors of
importance in (political) decision taking
perceived % of community members who agree that girls and young women
should be active in political/public decision making
51.9 94.3
Government actively creates conditions for
equal political participation by both sexes
% of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that the
government is supportive of enhancing the participation of young women in local
governance
44.4 59.2
% of “girl power” experts (members of the Girl Power girl’s panels) who feel that
the government is supportive of enhancing the participation of young women in
local governance
44.7 26.6
Box 1 and box 2: Economic participation
Outcomes
Note: Only those Girl Power country programmes that intervene in this thematic area will be assessed for progress made against stipulated outcome results
and indicators. Each country programme may, in addition to the indicators mentioned below, include additional specific progress indicators. These will be
primarily used to enhance internal progress reporting, but may also enrich the annual reporting to DGIS, e.g. via stories, cases and illustrations.
Outputs, as delivered by the programme’s southern partners, are grouped together into output categories (mentioned under Box 6.)Country programmes are
free to include their own specific activities and outputs.
Economic participation Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline 2011 MTR Target
13
2013 2015
G&YW benefit from socio-economic
services
% of girls and young women who indicate that they benefit from socio-economic
services, delivered by organisations like saving and credit groups and local
development banks, vocational training institutes etc.
13.7* 54.2
% of girls and young women who have engaged in income generating economic
activities outside their homes
43.2 50.8
% of girls and young women who feel that women have the same opportunities to
earn money as men
37.4* 49.1
G&YW take equal part in household
budget management
% of young women who indicate they have a say in how the money they earned is
spent
41.0 72.9
Communities value G&YW as actors of
importance in economic life
perceived % of community members who agree that women should have an equal
say as boys and young men in deciding upon the use of household income.
57.1 91.9
perceived % of community members who disagree that men should earn more
than women for the same work
58.8 77.6
Govt actively creates conditions for equal
economic participation by both sexes
% of formal “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel
that government is supportive to socio-economic participation of young women
through legislation and policies
71.4 76.2
% of “girl power” experts (members of the Girl Power girl’s panels) who feel that
government is supportive to socio-economic participation of young women
through legislation and policies
58.6 9.2
% of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that
government is supporting socio-economic participation of girls and young women
through services
61.9 66.7
% of “girl power” experts (members of the Girl Power girl’s panels) who feel that
government is supporting socio-economic participation of girls and young women
through services
63.2 41.4
14
Box 1 and box 2: (Post-primary) Education
Outcomes
Note: Only those Girl Power country programmes that intervene in this thematic area will be assessed for progress made against stipulated outcome results
and indicators. Each country programme may, in addition to the indicators mentioned below, include additional specific progress indicators. These will be
primarily used to enhance internal progress reporting, but may also enrich the annual reporting to DGIS, e.g. via stories, cases and illustrations.
Outputs, as delivered by the programme’s southern partners, are grouped together into output categories (mentioned under Box 6). Country programmes are
free to include their own specific activities and outputs.
(Post-primary) Education Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline 2011 MTR
2013
Target
2015
G&YW enrol and complete post-primary
education
National net enrolment ratio (NER) Primary education - male 68.61
National net enrolment ratio (NER) Primary education - female 47.02
National completion rate (until last grade) Primary education - male 47.03
National completion rate (until last grade) Primary education - female 43.54
1 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Ethiopia, Zambia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
2 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Ethiopia, Zambia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
3 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Zambia, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
4 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Zambia, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
15
National net enrolment ratio (NER) Post-primary education - male 40.35
National net enrolment ratio (NER) Post-primary education - female 34.56
National completion rate (until last grade) Post-primary education - male 30.67
National completion rate (until last grade) Post-primary education - female 36.08
G&YW value education
% of girls and young women who agree that girls should be able to continue their
education after childbirth / after marriage
54.4 91.9
Communities value education for G&YW
equally important as for B&YM
perceived % of community members who agree that girls should be able to
continue their education after childbirth / after marriage
58.5 93.0
perceived % of community members who agree that girls should have an equal
chance to go to school as boys
71.0 97.3
Govt actively creates conditions for equal
participation of both sexes in (post-)
primary education
% of formal “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel
that government, is supportive to (post) primary education for girls and young
women through enforcement of legislation and policies.
56.1 73.1
% of “girl power” experts (members of the Girl Power girl’s panels) who feel that
government is supportive to (post) primary education for girls and young women
through enforcement of legislation and policies.
25.0 40.2
5 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
6 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
7 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
8 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Bolivia and Nicaragua.
16
Box 3: Civil Society Development
Outputs
Outputs are delivered by:
1. CRA member organisations through support to their southern partner organisations: Box 5. 2. Southern partner organisations through support to grassroots organisations (eg. women’s groups and girls’ clubs), civil society in local
communities, networks, and professionals: Box 6.
Outputs may involve:
Support to civil society for the promotion of the rights of girls and young women, e.g. through sports events and building adequate capacity
Support to civil society to take part in child protection systems, including systems for protection of girls and young women and build
adequate capacity
Support and establish CBOs to promote the rights of girls and young women and build required capacity
Support to civil society media organisations (TV and radio stations, newspapers etc.) to become effectively involved in information
dissemination regarding gender equality
Support civil society for effective lobbying for and advocacy of laws and policies for girls empowerment, gender equality, child rights and
women rights
Support to civil society for the establishment of constructive dialogue with government regarding gender equality development in formal
and informal meetings
Support to civil society to take part in joint action to advocate girls rights and build multi-level coalitions and networks
Training of civil society professionals in the rights of girls and young women
Support to civil society to effectively monitor government responsiveness to girls and gender issues
Support to civil society to develop and implement programs to promote (post-primary) education and employment for girls
Programs by CS organisations to combat violence against girls and young women
Programs by CS organisations to enhance socio-political participation of girls and young women
Programs by CS organisations to enhance socio-economic participation of girls and young women
Programs by CS organisations for enhanced (secondary) education for girls and young women
17
Outcomes
Note: Strength of civil society is measured by an adapted version of the Civicus methodology. In line with Civicus, expert panels will be used to answer the
guiding questions about the five dimensions. Where needed these questions have been operationalized for the Girl Power reality.
All country programs will report on this box.
Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
Civic
engagement
Diversity of
socially based
engagement
[Core] Do partner organizations act on behalf of
their constituency and do they include social
target groups in their analysis and planning and
take the needs of the poor and marginalized into
account?
As a core objective of the program we expect civil society organisations to improve
substantially in this field
What percentage of partner organizations
involves girls and young women in the
analysis and planning?
What percentage of partner organizations
involves girls and young women in the
monitoring and evaluation?
What percentage of partner organizations
reach marginalized girls and young women
equally well as other girls and young
women?
How well do CS organizations represent girls
and young women, according to their own
perception?
6,3
7,5
10,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
18
Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
Diversity of
political
engagement
[Core] Is a diverse segment of the target group
of partner organizations represented in locally
elected bodies of government and/or in user
groups?
The representation of girls and young women in political settings varies per topic and per
country. The program aims to increase the political participation of girls and young
women. Since most of the target group is not yet in the age to be elected, we do not
expect a direct increase in girls and young women in elected bodies. We expect a more
indirect influence in their representation because Girls and young women will speak out
and take part in political discussion more freely.
How well are targeted girl and young
women organization represented in local
governments, according to their own
perception?
What percentage of girl and young women
have undertaken last year a form of political
action (e.g. contacted media, written to a
newspaper, signed a petition, attended a
demonstration)?
What percentage of girl and young women
belong to at least one CSO as staff,
volunteers and/or as member)?
What percentage of girl and young women
has participated in a collective community
action within the last year?
Level of
organization
Organizational
level of civil
society
(infrastructure
CSI)
[Core] Are partner organizations and alliances
organized in networks/ umbrella organizations
and do they represent CBOs and other actors?
5,5
6,9
7,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
6,8
7,3
9,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
19
Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
What percentage of partner organizations
and targeted CBOs is organized in networks/
umbrella/ Country Steering Committees?
Country Steering Committees (CSC) for the Girl Power program were set-up in 2010.
Along with their development we expect significant improvement of coordination and
harmonization between all stakeholders through networks and umbrella structures.
How many Country Steering Committees
involve girls and young women, or their
CBOs, in the analysis and planning?
How many Country Steering Committees
involve girls and young women, or their
CBOs, in the monitoring and evaluation?
Peer-to peer
communication
How well do partner organizations share
information and collaborate in joint analysis?
Sharing of information and collaboration among partner organizations and the civil
society organizations they support varies at the moment per country, but is generally
unstructured. We expect a large improvement on this issue as learning and exchange of
experiences are important objectives in the Girl Power program
How well do the partner organizations
collaborate in the Country Steering
Committees?
How many joint activities and campaigns by
partner organizations have occurred?
How many multi-level coalitions and
networks are in place (CRA Output)
Financial and
human
resources
[Core] Are financial resources of partner
organizations and alliances diversified with sound
internal financial and human management?
Maintain organizations effective financial
resource mobilization? (5C)
Maintain organizations effective human
7,1
7,4
8,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
20
Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
resource mobilization? (5C)
We expect that the baseline will show that the partners, selected for their potential to
grow on these criteria, will indeed grow rapidly through the capacity building components
in the GP program. This will reflect positively on the CS organizations they support in
turn.
Practice of
values
Internal
governance
[Core] Do the partner organizations and the CSOs
they support involve their target groups in
decision making?
Democratic decision making is a core objective of the program we expect that the partner
organizations and the CS organizations they support have the potential to grow on these
criteria very rapidly.
There is more variation among the targeted CSOs. We expect that we will have a major
impact in improving involvement of Girls and Young women in CSOs
What percentage of partner organizations
and the CSOs they support have girls or
young women involved as leaders?
What percentage of partner organizations
and the CSOs they support have policies in
place to ensure gender equity?
What percentage of partner organizations
and the CSOs they support have selected
leaders through democratic elections?
6,5
7,1
8,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
5,9
7,4
8,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
21
Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
What percentage of partner organizations
and the CSOs they support systematically
include girls and young women in decision
making?
Transparency [Core] Are the partner organizations and the
CSOs they support transparent on financial
information and does the staff respect internal
procedures (code of conduct)?
Transparency is core criteria for the GP program and one of the core values. We expect
the partner organizations and the CS organizations they support to score high at the end
of the program.
What percentage of partner organizations
and the CSOs they support make their
financial accounts publicly available?
Does the staff respect internal procedures
(code of conduct)?
Perception of
impact
Responsiveness [Core] Are the partner organizations and the
CSOs they support considered as counterparts by
local government and private sector?
We expect a major improvement of responsiveness amongst partner organizations and
the CS organizations they support.
Social impact [Core] Do the partner organizations, in the
sectors they work in, provide services that
6,6
7,4
8,5
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
7,2
7,7
9,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
7,7
7,8
9,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
22
Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
respond to one or more basic social needs of
their target group?
We expect the social impact of the partner organizations and the CS organizations they
support will be very high at the end of the program since this is one of the main
objective. Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.
How active and successful is civil society in
empowering girls and young women?
How active and successful is civil society in
building the capacity of girls and young
women to organize themselves, mobilize
resources and work together to solve
common problems?
How active and successful is civil society in
creating / supporting services (protection,
education, employment, participation)
especially for marginalized girls and young
women?
Policy impact [Core] Do the partner organizations successfully
influence government policy or planning/
budgeting/ policy making of international
organizations in the sectors they work in?
We expect the policy impact that of the partner organizations and the CS organizations
they support will be very high at the end of the program. Since this is one of the main
How active and successful are partner
organizations and the CSOs they support in
influencing public policy on girls and young
women’s rights?
How active and successful are partner
organizations and the CSOs they support in
monitoring state performance and holding
5,8
7,1
8,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
23
Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
the state accountable, especially regarding
policy/initiatives directed at G&YW?
objective. Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.
How did CS organizations change
government support to gender equality and
girls’ empowerment, eg. through (formal)
dialogue and research.
Environment Socio-
economic,
socio-political
and socio-
cultural context
[Core] Are the interventions of the alliance the
choice of the partner organizations and are their
interventions based on a quality context analysis
of the space and the role of CS in that specific
country (including socio-economic, political and
cultural context)?
We expect that the partner organizations and the CS organizations they support will have
a very high score at the end of the program since this is one of the main objectives.
Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.
[Core] Do partner organizations take into account
and participate in studies of CS in the country they
work in?
Box 4: Building Capabilities in Partners
Outcomes
Note: Five interrelated capabilities will be measured in partner civil society organizations, including the CSC, as a way to assess their organizational capacity. All
capabilities are important to all types of organizations but, depending on the core business of a particular organization, capabilities may be valued differently.
7,3
7,5
9,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
2015
2013
2011
24
Capabilities in civil society organisations will be seen in relation to the expected Girl Power outputs and outcomes, as well as in relation to the intrinsic capacity
to be sustainable agents of change.
Capacity building of partner organizations within CRA – GP program
Assessment of the capacity to deliver quality outputs in partner organisations is common practice amongst CRA member organizations. Since the Alliance
members have developed a common partner policy, they also want to approach the capacity building in a more systematic harmonized way. The 5C model,
provided by the Ministry, has been adapted to the reality of the Alliance members and tailored into a practical capacity assessment tool.
Capacity assessment allows for tracking capacity development of partners over time and constitutes the basis for CRA capacity building programming.
Ownership of this whole process will be with the partner organization itself. CRA member organisations may use their own capacity assessment tools for regular
monitoring of capacity development trajectories with their partner organisations. Specific capacity development of individual partners will take place in bilateral
agreement between partner and CRA member.
For monitoring of capacity development at overall alliance level, the 5C model will be used to establish baseline and outcome result information for 2011, 2013
and 2015.
Key indicators per Capability
For the baseline, alliance partner organizations have been assessed on 5 key indicators per capability; four generic elements and a fifth element that was added
to do justice to the specific Girl Power character. Together, these indicators represent the capabilities necessary for an organisation to play its role effectively
and efficiently as actor for gender equality. This assessment was consistent within countries and between countries to ensure comparability of data as much as
possible.
Baseline and targets
In the baseline report, aggregated scores were presented per indicator. The scores were based on the 4 phases in a change process: awareness, exploration,
transition and full implementation. The maximum total score is therefore 5 x 5 x 4 = 100. It is expected that all partner organizations will grow to at least level
3 (transition), with at least 75% reaching level 4 (full implementation) on all five capabilities
Monitoring and reporting
It is foreseen that for internal monitoring, learning and decision making, this exercise will be repeated for 2013 and 2015. For reporting to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs however, the CRA will follow the recommendations from the DSO workshop on monitoring capacity development (11 December 2012) and focus
on trends in developments of partner organisations on specific capabilities and overall organisational capacity according to their own perceptions, including
qualitative information on representative cases. Reporting will be qualitative and descriptive per capability, and based upon the quantitative scoring on pointers.
25
Pointer values were measured in baseline (2011) and mid-term review (2013). In some cased values have reduced between 2011 and 2013, which most likely
reflects an increased awareness and better understanding of the 5C methodology and not so much a lesser capability. Targets for 2015 have remained
unchanged.
All country programs will report on the partner organisations’ capabilities.
Result C1 Indicators and pointers Baseline 2011 MTR 2013 Target 2015
The Partner Organisation is
capable to commit to its actions
and act accordingly
1. The organisation has a (strategic) plan, takes decisions and acts on these decisions
collectively
3,3
3,32
3,6
2. The organization maintains effective human resource mobilization 3,1
3,18
3,7
3. The organization maintains effective financial resource mobilization 3
3,08
3,7
4. The organisation has effective, inspiring and action oriented leadership 3,5
3,41
3,7
5. The organization’s mission is rights based and gender sensitive 3,3
3,28
3,8
Result C2 Indicators and pointers Baseline 2011 MTR 2013 Target 2015
The Partner Organisation is
capable to deliver on
development objectives
1. The organisation’s infrastructure is considered sufficient and relevant for its core
tasks
2,7
2,95
3,6
2. The organisation has adequate and sufficiently stable human resources at its
disposal
3,1
3,13
3,7
3. The organisation has an adequate PM&E system 3,2
3,32
3,7
26
4. The organisation has access to knowledge resources 3,2
3,22
3,7
5. Rights based approaches and gender sensitivity are major principles in the
organization’s operations.
3,5
3,38
3,8
Result C3 Indicators and pointers Baseline 2011 MTR 2013 Target 2015
The Partner Organisation is
capable to attract and relate to
external stakeholders
1. The organization enters into coalitions and maintains adequate alliances with
relevant stakeholders
3,3
3,28
3,7
2. The organization’s leadership and staff are incorruptible, according to its
stakeholders
3,4
3,40
3,7
27
3. The organization is seen as politically and socially legitimate by relevant
stakeholders
3,5
3,54
3,7
4. The organization has operational credibility /reliability in the eyes of relevant
stakeholders
3,2
3,22
3,7
5. The organization maintains relations with other organizations working for child
rights and gender equality
3,4
3,56
3,8
Result C4 Indicators and pointers Baseline 2011 MTR 2013 Target 2015
The Partner Organisation is
capable to adapt and self-renew
1. The management has an understanding of shifting contexts and relevant trends
(external factors)
3,3
3,13
3,7
2. The management leaves room for diversity, flexibility and creativity to change and
divert from original plans
3,2
3,01
3,3
3. Management encourages and rewards learning and exchange, including within its
own management
3,1
3,19
3,6
28
4. The organisation plans and evaluates its learning systematically 2,9
3,03
3,6
5. Learning is used for greater effectiveness in operations for gender equality 2,9
2,99
3,7
Result C5 Indicators and pointers Baseline 2011 MTR 2013 Target 2015
The Partner Organisation is
capable to balance diversity and
consistency in its operations
1. The organization has a clear mandate, vision and strategy that are known by staff
and used by its management in decision-making
3,3
3,34
3,3
2. The organization has a well-defined set of operating principles and uses these in its
operations
3,2
3,35
3,8
3. Leadership is committed to achieving coherence, balancing stability and change 3,3
3,22
3,6
4. There is consistency between ambition, vision, strategy and operations 3,3
3,32
3,8
5. The organization has a gender policy which guides the organization in its internal
management and in its implementation.
2,9
3,06
3,6
29
Box 5: CRA outputs
Outputs CRA member organizations
Note: CRA outputs will be measured by individual CRA members. Targets will be set on a yearly basis according to need.
Reporting on this box is only at the level of CRA.
CRA outputs
Result Indicators Baseline Target
2013
Target
2015
A.1 Management of
relationships with
partners (including
PME by CRA
members)
Partnerships built # of new partners identified 0 12 125
Partner proposals assessed and approved # of new partner project proposals assessed and approved 0 31 123
Partner project monitoring (including
financial and narrative reporting)
# of partner projects monitored 0 118 127
A.2 Technical and
financial capacity
support to partners
Organisational capacity of Southern partners
assessed
# of partners performing 5C methodology
0 98 123
Capacity development support delivered # of partner organisations supported with capacity development in
the area of rights-based-approach/gender mainstreaming/lobby and
advocacy/PME
0 133 171
A.3 Creation and
promotion of
grassroots
organisations
Grassroots organisations to work with
identified
# of grassroots organisations identified 0 943 3.272
Capacity development support delivered to
grassroots organisations
# of grassroots organisations supported with capacity development 0 1.645 3.177
A.4 Support linking
and networking
among partners
Well monitored country programmes # of country programmes monitored 0 10 10
Facilitated CSC meetings, including Annual
Reflection Meetings
# of CSC meetings facilitated 0 80 330
30
CRA outputs
Result Indicators Baseline Target
2013
Target
2015
(including the
Country Steering
Committees)
Supported cross-country meetings and
consultations aimed at strengthening
linkages and networks among partners
# of meetings/consultations
0 26 115
A.5 Research and
learning (on issues
of girl’s rights and
empowerment)
Conducted research on issues of girls' and
young women’s' rights
# of studies initiated by CRA (members) 0 32 101
Disseminated leanings on issues of girls' and
young women's rights (including lectures,
workshops, publications, launches)
# of dissemination events (including lectures, workshops, publications,
launches)
0 59 242
Implemented learning agenda # of organisations (CRA or others) involved in study and discussion of
learning questions
0 135 214
# of learning questions addressed 0 4 4
A.6 Alignment and
coordination
Harmonisation meetings with other
alliances, RNE's/bi-lateral and multi-lateral
agencies
# of agreements, contracts and/or MoU's reached on harmonisation
with MFSII alliances
0 13 35
# of agreements, contracts and/or MoU's reached on harmonisation
with RNE's/bi-lateral agencies
0 9 15
# of agreements, contracts and/or MoU's reached on harmonisation
with multi-lateral agencies
0 7 23
Implementation of harmonisation
agreements with other alliances, RNE's/bi-
lateral and multi-lateral agencies
# of effective harmonisation agreements (contracts, MoU's) with other
alliances
0 9 35
# of effective harmonisation agreements (contracts, MoU's) with
RNE's/bi-lateral agencies
0 1 15
# of effective harmonisation agreements, contracts and/or MoU's
with multi-lateral agencies
0 5 23
Cross-country
PM&E
Implementation of cross-country planning,
monitoring and evaluation
# of Girl Power countries involved in joint MFSII evaluation
(sub)studies
0 4 4
31
CRA outputs
Result Indicators Baseline Target
2013
Target
2015
# of revisions of M&E framework 0 1 1
# of impact assessment and studies implemented 0 4 3
Box 6: Partner outputs
Outputs Southern Partners
32
Partner outputs are monitored by the partners individually, using essentially own monitoring systems, in alignment with the Girl Power results framework and
corresponding indicators. Baseline information will be collected at the start of project activities (rolling baseline)
Partner outputs
Result Indicators Baseline Target
2013
Target
2015
B.1. Services
delivered to young
girls and women:
Individual level
Media messages specifically
targeted to girls and young
women and/or boys to provide
information on gender equality
and women's rights (radio, TV etc.)
Training & workshops on gender
equality & rights and/or overall
empowerment (life skills,
leadership, participation etc.),
including training of trainers
Sports events or activities
Support to victims of gender
based violence (social, legal,
counselling, medical referral etc.)
through shelter facilities
Support to victims of gender
based violence (social, legal,
counselling, medical referral etc.)
at community level
Setting up and supporting child
helplines
Provision of scholarships and/or
# of girls and young women reached by services delivered
by partners
0 468.140 1.507.790
# of boys and young men reached by services delivered by
partners
0 277.939 591.200
33
Partner outputs
Result Indicators Baseline Target
2013
Target
2015
material support for (post-)
primary education
Providing access to vocational
skills trainings
Saving & loans schemes
B.2. Sensitization of
communities (men
and women):
Institutional level
Awareness raising/sensitization
meetings & events (promotion of
girl friendly attitudes and non-
violence)
Facilitate and support child welfare
committees and other community
based protection initiatives
Meetings with traditional leaders in
communities Girl Power issues
Media messages specifically
targeted at communities on
gender equality and women's
rights
# of communities reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights
0 2.085 4.509
# of households reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights
0 538.909 758.933
# of traditional leaders reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights
0 7.004 18.954
B.3. Influencing of
national/district/loca
l governments:
Institutional level
Training to government frontline
professionals at local, district,
province, regional or national level
(health professionals, teachers,
police)
Lobby & advocacy activities on
laws and policies related to girls
empowerment, child rights and
# of staff of government institutions reached by partners for lobby and advocacy
0 4.695 15.133
# of international policy institutions reached by partners for lobby and advocacy
0 5.757 18.662
# of frontline staff of government institutions reached by partners for training
0 2 5
34
Partner outputs
Result Indicators Baseline Target
2013
Target
2015
women’s rights
B.4. Strengthening
of civil society
(organisations): Civil
Society
Capacity support to CSO's by
partners
Capacity support to girls’ club &
other grassroots organisations by
partners
Strengthening CSO networks
Training media professionals on
Girl Power issues
Participation in local, regional,
national, international lobby
networks & initiatives
# of CSO’s, grassroots organisations and media professionals reached
by partners
0 10.216 26.784
# of networks supported or strengthened by partners 0 213 472
B5. Increased
coordination and
learning among
partners: CSC level
Conduct research on issues of
girls' and young women’s' rights
by CSCs
Implement learning agenda's by
CSCs Implement girl panels for
review and strengthening of the
GPP
Conduct research on issues of
girls' and young women’s' rights
by CSCs
# of studies initiated by CSCs 0 14 43
# of learning agenda's operationalized by CSCs 0 10 10
# girl panel meetings 0 535 1.597
# of active girls panels 0 10 10
B6. PME Monitor projects by Southern
partners
# of projects monitored by southern partners 0 107 120
35
Partner outputs
Result Indicators Baseline Target
2013
Target
2015
southern
partners: Partner
Organisation level
Develop quarterly, bi-annual and
annual financial and narrative
reports by Southern partners
# of southern partners reporting according to agreed schedules
0 109 121
36
4. Data collection
Baseline
The country baseline carried out under the guidance of the CRA and the
CSCs has used already existing information in data bases of government
agencies, INGOs, NGOs, research institutes and other agents. Essential
information not available yet was collected with the assistance of,
preferably local, knowledge institutes. Country baseline information
presents the initial situation in each of the boxes identified in the Girl
Power Results Framework (see diagram above).
Each project under GP is building on an assessed starting situation for
which each will carry out it own baseline study. Project baseline information
will be updated in “rolling baselines”, as soon as project activities extend
to new geographic and thematic areas.
Information gathering for baseline and monitoring MDGs and civil society (Box 1, box 2, and box 3)
All information will be in alignment with the Girl Power Results Framework.
The core variables of the GP are:
1. Numbers for scope of the program
2. Knowledge; about rights and position of girls and young women
3. Values in communities in relation to gender equity
4. Government support to gender equality
5. Perceptions of girls and young women regarding the supportiveness of
their social and institutional environment to gender equality.
6. Capability of girls and young women to make decisions regarding their
own lives
In order to measure progress and keep track of key performance indicators
different sources of information and different data collection methods may
be used.
Primary data Expert panel discussions (using scoring matrix) with girls and young
women on perceptions (box 1, box 2). These panels will be
representative of the final beneficiaries (girls and young women) at all
times and facilitated by an instructed and trained facilitator. The panels
will meet at least twice a year to feed CSCs with progress information,
particularly in relation to changes in the four strategic areas of
intervention and the three dimensions of change. The insights of the
panels will be analysed and documented in program progress reports
and are crucial for program steering purposes at country level and may
feed the country learning agendas.
Expert panel discussions with professionals involved in Girl Power (box
1, box 2, box 3). These panels will be representative for the partner
organizations involved in the country program at all times and meet at
least twice a year. The professional expert panels will particularly
provide insights in the effectiveness of the country program: are the
involved partner organizations doing the right things to achieve gender
equality? Moreover they will tackle Box 3 issues, using the adapted
CIVICUS key questions and provide information about the dynamics
and performance of civil society on gender issues. The insights of the
panels will be analyzed and documented in program progress reports
and are crucial for program steering purposes at country level and may
feed the country learning agendas.
Interviews with girls and young women and with key informants of the
communities in the project area (box 1, box 2, box 3). As a part of
regular monitoring in all program areas, key informants will be
interviewed at least four times a year, using context specific key
questionnaires and guidelines. Results will be discussed during the
37
annual reflection sessions led by the CSC and integrated in the bi-
annual progress reporting.
Participatory methods (e.g. ranking, storytelling such as Most
Significant Change Technique) (box 1, box 2, box 3) These data
collection methods will mainly be used for triangulation, to validate
already collected information, and provide additional circumstantial
evidence.
Secondary data
Secondary databases, particularly for quantitative indicators (numbers, %,
incidence, ratio) may be used: MIS/databases of local partners, statistics
and reports (Southern partners, NGOs data bases, government,
international organizations, research institutions). Validity and usability of
these data will be assessed in each country. For reasons of comparability,
use of databases kept at international organizations, such as the UN are
preferred, but may lack specificity and detail required for GP monitoring
38