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 time and effort required to develop a meaningful instrument has
the reliability and usefulness of the baseline study carried out in 2011, and
outweighed the expected benefits for reporting and other communication.
the recommendations from the mid-term review of end 2013 have
However, we may try, in a later stage, to make a renewed effort to conceive
triggered the need to revise the monitoring protocol for the remaining
and measure the GPGEM.
period of the programme. All indicators were subjected to a critical syntax review. In this “Revised version 1 December 2013� we have, in some cases, reordered and reformulated outcomes. However, intended outcomes as
The mid term review, carried out in the 2nd half of 2013, has measured the
such, apart from some minor alterations in wording, have remained the
new set of indicators for 2013. Moreover, the MTR has reconstructed the
same.
indicator values for 2011. Comparison of both datasets already shows some interesting trends.
Most of the changes made in this revision have affected the progress indicators for box 1 and box 2. Five indicators were operationalized
2015 Targets for box 1 and box 2 will be added early 2014, after the
differently, whilst maintaining the same rationale. Four were removed. One
findings from MTR will have been discussed with the GP countries. Targets
was added.
for box 3, box 4, and box 5 have remained the same.
We have decided to remove the Girl Power Gender Empowerment Measure (GPGEM). This index was initially imagined as a composite indicator,
In the following sections, revised and improved monitoring and evaluation
composed from a few key indicators measured elsewhere in the protocol.
frameworks per result area are presented. Indeed, this update will allow us
However, the operationalisation of the GPGEM has proved to be difficult.
to conduct more sensible and concise performance tracking of the Girl
Although one indicator to capture empowerment certainly has advantages,
Power programme.
Definitions and Abbreviations DGIS CSO Communities CRA CRC CSC Impact Key Indicators Outcome Output Partners Project Country Programme MDG
Development Cooperation Department of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Civil Society Organization Communities with which the Alliance collaborates Child Rights Alliance United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Country Steering Committee The contribution of the Alliance programme to the effects on societies The indicators identified in the Result areas of the Alliance programme The development change to which the Alliance programme contributes Deliverable, product or service of the Alliance programme Organizations with whom the Alliance collaborates Grouped activities, implemented by partners to achieve the results of the Alliance Programme Aligned CRA partner projects for achievement of common Girl Power objectives at country level Millennium Development Goal: Girl Power acts upon MDG 3 (Gender Equality) and MDG 2 (Universal Education)
2
1. Introduction
Support by the Child Rights Alliance (box 5)
Outputs by partner organizations (box 6)
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.
2. Monitoring
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;
2.1.
Objectives of Monitoring under Girl Power
Progress monitoring will support 4 basic program management requirements these are:
The four thematic areas are addressed in three dimensions -individual, socio-cultural and institutional-, and through the strengthening of civil society.
Accountability (vertical and horizontal)
Strategic guidance (increase effectiveness)
Operational guidance ((increase efficiency)
Learning
The strategic orientation of the Girl Power programme is captured in the
These requirements are not equally important to all stakeholders. Whilst
diagram below, in which the major results areas are presented as “boxes”.
DGIS may be less concerned with the operational and strategic guidance functions, these are of utmost importance for the Country Steering
Empowered girls and young women, composed of the key dimensions
Committees (CSCs) guiding the individual country programs and the
of change (box 1), the four thematic areas (box 2), and civil society (box
individual projects. Variations in importance are shown in Table 1:
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.
3
Table 1. Variations in importance attached to monitoring functions: by category of stakeholder Function
DGIS
CRA
CSC
Local
Target group
partner Accountability Strategic guidance Operational Guidance Learning
****
***
***
**
****
**
****
****
***
*
*
**
***
***
*
*
***
***
*
*
*
= low importance;
**
= some importance;
***
= important;
****
= very important
4
5
Although interests may vary, ultimately the combined monitoring effort
2.3. Three different levels of monitoring.
must provide sufficient information for all the above mentioned functions. This means that monitoring practices need to be harmonized and aligned
Girl Power distinguishes between three main levels of monitoring: project
in one common system and operationalized in one common protocol.
level, country level, and alliance level. Project level
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
The Dutch members of the CRA agree with their southern partners what
in the diagram) key results and performance indicators are formulated.
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
2.2. Minimal information requirements
for achieving gender equality. Country programs are required to show at least developments in box 1, CRA members and the southern partner organization agree individually on
box 2, box 3, and box 4.
the terms of their collaboration. Already existing project management tools, including those for monitoring and reporting, may be used.
Individual projects are minimally required to show results in box 4 and box 6.
All project monitoring needs to comply with the minimal standards set by Note that these are minimal requirements. Country programs and projects
the Girl Power Steering Committee. These includes guidelines about
may opt for monitoring of specific changes resulting from their activities for
frequency of reporting, use of reporting formats, use of progress indicators,
their own reasons. Strictly speaking, such monitoring remains outside the
and mechanisms for sharing of information.
scope of the Girl Power monitoring framework, although it may provide circumstantial supportive evidence for Girl Power results 6
Responsibility for quality project information, valid, reliable and useful for
outcomes regarding the strength of civil society to enhance gender
Girl Power reporting and learning, lies with the CRA member.
equality.
All projects will share their relevant project information at country level with
An important source of information for CSCs are the Girl Power Expert
the Girl Power Country Steering Committee and with the Dutch CRA
panels established in each country: one panel composed of knowledgeable
through the responsible CRA-member.
girls and young women representing the final beneficiaries, another panel composed of knowledgeable professionals from civil society and
Projects will report on their activities twice a year.
government institutions supported by the program. Structural involvement of beneficiaries in monitoring, learning and steering is a core element in all
Country Level
Girl Power programs, giving additional content to its participatory approaches.
Civil society organizations in each program country have agreed to collaborate, harmonize and coordinate their individual projects within a
For their effective operation CSCs need access to all partner project
country specific Girl Power framework based upon a common vision,
information. Annual GP reflection sessions constitute an important source
aiming for common goals, and used for joint learning. Country Steering
of additional information. During these sessions all stakeholders, including
Committees (CSCs) are formed in each country representing all
the aforementioned panels, will discuss progress; learnings and problems in
participating civil society organizations. A major task of CSCs is to
the country program and agree on measures to take for better
safeguard and monitor country program consistency and provide strategic
effectiveness.
guidance to all stakeholders. Moreover, CSCs play a key role in the implementation of the country learning agenda and will ensure that new
CSCs under Girl Power will receive all the support they need from the CRA
learnings are used to enhance program quality. (See also learning agenda)
via country support teams. CSCs are expected to mature gradually during the implementation period of the program. CRA support will be relatively
As an overarching steering body CSCs are well placed to co-monitor –
substantial in the first few years of the program, but gradually reduce in
together with the Child Rights Alliance (CRC)- the effectiveness of civil
line with capacities built.
society partners in the their countries in relation to defined country
7
CSCs will report to the Steering Committee of the CRA on its activities
agenda(s). Information will be entered in the Girl Power MIS. Aggregated
twice a year.
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
Alliance level
relevant information between CRA-members, country programs, regions and partner organizations.
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
8
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)
Decreased prevalence of violence against
% of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have
you or girls that you know
experienced economic violence
9
Baseline
MTR
Target
2011
2013
2015
82.1*
80.3
% of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have
88.2*
84.0
90.7*
88.0
79.3*
74.5
% 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)
% of girls and young women who know how to act when in need of protection
41.8*
74.9
protection systems
against violence 42.4*
82.8
NA
62.8
74.2
53.1
53.5
87.1
43.3
13.4
55.5
76.2
experienced physical violence % of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have experienced emotional violence % of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have experienced sexual violence Non-acceptance of violence against G&YW
% of girls and young women who demonstrate knowledge of available protection services % of girls and young women who indicated they know GYW who accessed formal protection services because violence happened to them Communities recognize violence against
perceived* % of community members who agree that children deserve to be beaten
G&YW as unacceptable
by their parents and/or teachers. perceived* % of community members who agree that violence against G&YW inside and outside the home should always be reported perceived* % of community members who agree that a man is allowed to beat his wife/girlfriend
Government acts to ensure the rights of
% of “girl power� experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that
G&YW to protection against violence
government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through policies and legislation
10
% of “girl power” experts (members of the Girl Power girl’s panels) who feel that
28.6
32.0
49.2
58.7
41.8
34.6
government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through policies and legislation % of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through services % 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
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
G&YW take equally part in decision taking
% of girls and young women who agree that G&YW should be part of community
and politics
committees or other groups, to decide on issues that are important to them % 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
11
MTR 2013
56.6
97.8
27.5
85.9
Target 2015
% of girls and young women who confirm that when they have an idea to improve
25.8
84.6
51.9
94.3
44.4
59.2
44.7
26.6
something at home, school or in the community, they have the opportunity to make that happen Communities value G&YW as actors of
perceived % of community members who agree that girls and young women
importance in (political) decision taking
should be active in political/public decision making
Government actively creates conditions for
% of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that the
equal political participation by both sexes
government is supportive of enhancing the participation of young women in local governance % 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
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
12
MTR 2013
Target 2015
G&YW benefit from socio-economic
% of girls and young women who indicate that they benefit from socio-economic
services
services, delivered by organisations like saving and credit groups and local
13.7*
54.2
43.2
50.8
37.4*
49.1
41.0
72.9
57.1
91.9
58.8
77.6
71.4
76.2
58.6
9.2
61.9
66.7
63.2
41.4
development banks, vocational training institutes etc. % of girls and young women who have engaged in income generating economic activities outside their homes % of girls and young women who feel that women have the same opportunities to earn money as men G&YW take equal part in household
% of young women who indicate they have a say in how the money they earned is
budget management
spent
Communities value G&YW as actors of
perceived % of community members who agree that women should have an equal
importance in economic life
say as boys and young men in deciding upon the use of household income. perceived % of community members who disagree that men should earn more than women for the same work
Govt actively creates conditions for equal
% of formal “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel
economic participation by both sexes
that government is supportive to socio-economic participation of young women through legislation and policies % 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 % 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 % 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
13
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
G&YW enrol and complete post-primary
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
National net enrolment ratio (NER) Post-primary education - male
40.35
education
Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Ethiopia, Zambia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua. 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. 5 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua. 1 2
14
MTR 2013
Target 2015
G&YW value education
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
% of girls and young women who agree that girls should be able to continue their
54.4
91.9
58.5
93.0
71.0
97.3
56.1
73.1
25.0
40.2
education after childbirth / after marriage Communities value education for G&YW
perceived % of community members who agree that girls should be able to
equally important as for B&YM
continue their education after childbirth / after marriage perceived % of community members who agree that girls should have an equal chance to go to school as boys
Govt actively creates conditions for equal
% of formal “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel
participation of both sexes in (post-)
that government, is supportive to (post) primary education for girls and young
primary education
women through enforcement of legislation and policies. % 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.
Box 3: Civil Society Development
Based on data from: Ethiopia, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Based on data from: Ethiopia, Bolivia and Nicaragua. 8 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Bolivia and Nicaragua. 6 7
15
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
Outcomes
16
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
Diversity of
[Core] Do partner organizations act on behalf of
engagement
socially based
their constituency and do they include social
2015
engagement
target groups in their analysis and planning and
2013
take the needs of the poor and marginalized into
2011
10,0 7,5 6,3
account?
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
What percentage of partner organizations involves girls and young women in the
analysis and planning?
As a core objective of the program we expect civil society organisations to improve
What percentage of partner organizations
substantially in this field
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?
Diversity of
[Core] Is a diverse segment of the target group
2015
7,0 6,9
2013 17
5,5
2011 0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
Dimension
Result
Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
political
of partner organizations represented in locally
The representation of girls and young women in political settings varies per topic and per
engagement
elected bodies of government and/or in user
country. The program aims to increase the political participation of girls and young
groups?
women. Since most of the target group is not yet in the age to be elected, we do not
How well are targeted girl and young
expect a direct increase in girls and young women in elected bodies. We expect a more
women organization represented in local
indirect influence in their representation because Girls and young women will speak out
governments, according to their own
and take part in political discussion more freely.
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
Organizational
[Core] Are partner organizations and alliances
organization
level of civil
organized in networks/ umbrella organizations
2015
society
and do they represent CBOs and other actors?
2013
(infrastructure
9,0 7,3 6,8
2011
CSI)
0,0
What percentage of partner organizations and targeted CBOs is organized in networks/
18
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
Dimension
Result
Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
umbrella/ Country Steering Committees?
Country Steering Committees (CSC) for the Girl Power program were set-up in 2010.
How many Country Steering Committees
Along with their development we expect significant improvement of coordination and
involve girls and young women, or their
harmonization between all stakeholders through networks and umbrella structures.
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?
2015
How well do the partner organizations
2013
collaborate in the Country Steering
2011
8,0 7,4 7,1
Committees?
0,0
How many joint activities and campaigns by
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
partner organizations have occurred?
Sharing of information and collaboration among partner organizations and the civil
How many multi-level coalitions and
society organizations they support varies at the moment per country, but is generally
networks are in place (CRA Output)
unstructured. We expect a large improvement on this issue as learning and exchange of experiences are important objectives in the Girl Power program
Financial and
[Core] Are financial resources of partner
human
organizations and alliances diversified with sound
resources
internal financial and human management?
2015
Maintain organizations effective financial
2013
resource mobilization? (5C)
2011
8,0 7,1 6,5
Maintain organizations effective human
0,0
resource mobilization? (5C)
19
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
Dimension
Result
Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015 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
Internal
[Core] Do the partner organizations and the CSOs
values
governance
they support involve their target groups in
2015
decision making?
2013
What percentage of partner organizations
8,0
7,4 5,9
2011
and the CSOs they support have girls or
0,0
young women involved as leaders?
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
What percentage of partner organizations
Democratic decision making is a core objective of the program we expect that the partner
and the CSOs they support have policies in
organizations and the CS organizations they support have the potential to grow on these
place to ensure gender equity?
criteria very rapidly. There is more variation among the targeted CSOs. We expect that we will have a major
What percentage of partner organizations
impact in improving involvement of Girls and Young women in CSOs
and the CSOs they support have selected leaders through democratic elections?
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
2015
8,5
2013 20
7,4 6,6
2011 0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
Dimension
Result
Indicators (Answers to key-questions) CSOs they support transparent on financial
Change between 2011 and 2015 Transparency is core criteria for the GP program and one of the core values. We expect
information and does the staff respect internal
the partner organizations and the CS organizations they support to score high at the end
procedures (code of conduct)?
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
Responsiveness
impact
[Core] Are the partner organizations and the CSOs they support considered as counterparts by
2015
local government and private sector?
2013
9,0 7,7 7,2
2011 0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
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
2015
respond to one or more basic social needs of
2013
their target group?
2011
How active and successful is civil society in
0,0
empowering girls and young women?
9,0 7,8 7,7 2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
How active and successful is civil society in building the capacity of girls and young
We expect the social impact of the partner organizations and the CS organizations they
women to organize themselves, mobilize
21
Dimension
Result
Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
resources and work together to solve
support will be very high at the end of the program since this is one of the main
common problems?
objective. Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.
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
2015
organizations in the sectors they work in?
2013
How active and successful are partner
8,0 7,1 5,8
2011
organizations and the CSOs they support in
0,0
influencing public policy on girls and young
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
women’s rights?
How active and successful are partner
We expect the policy impact that of the partner organizations and the CS organizations
organizations and the CSOs they support in
they support will be very high at the end of the program. Since this is one of the main
monitoring state performance and holding
objective. Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.
the state accountable, especially regarding policy/initiatives directed at G&YW?
How did CS organizations change government support to gender equality and girls’ empowerment, eg. through (formal) dialogue and research.
Environment
Socio-
[Core] Are the interventions of the alliance the
22
Dimension
Result
Indicators (Answers to key-questions)
Change between 2011 and 2015
economic,
choice of the partner organizations and are their
socio-political
interventions based on a quality context analysis
2015
and socio-
of the space and the role of CS in that specific
2013
cultural context
country (including socio-economic, political and
2011
9,0 7,5 7,3
cultural context)?
0,0
[Core] Do partner organizations take into account
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
and participate in studies of CS in the country they work in?
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.
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. 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.
23
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. 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.
24
Result C1
Indicators and pointers
The Partner Organisation is
1.
capable to commit to its actions
collectively
and act accordingly
Baseline 2011
The organisation has a (strategic) plan, takes decisions and acts on these decisions
The organization maintains effective human resource mobilization
3.
The organization maintains effective financial resource mobilization
4.
The organisation has effective, inspiring and action oriented leadership
5.
The organization’s mission is rights based and gender sensitive
Indicators and pointers
The Partner Organisation is
1.
capable to deliver on
tasks
development objectives
2.
3,3
Target 2015 3,6
3,32
2.
Result C2
MTR 2013
3,1 3
3,7 3,08
3,5
3,7 3,41
3,3
3,8 3,28
Baseline 2011
The organisation’s infrastructure is considered sufficient and relevant for its core
3,7 3,18
MTR 2013
2,7
Target 2015 3,6
2,95
The organisation has adequate and sufficiently stable human resources at its
3,1
disposal
3,7 3,13
3.
The organisation has an adequate PM&E system
4.
The organisation has access to knowledge resources
5.
Rights based approaches and gender sensitivity are major principles in the
organization’s operations.
3,2
3,7 3,32
3,2
3,7 3,22
3,5
3,8 3,38
25
Result C3
Indicators and pointers
The Partner Organisation is
1.
capable to attract and relate to
relevant stakeholders
external stakeholders
2.
Baseline 2011
The organization enters into coalitions and maintains adequate alliances with
3,3
The organization’s leadership and staff are incorruptible, according to its
3,7 3,40
The organization is seen as politically and socially legitimate by relevant
3,5
3,7 3,54
The organization has operational credibility /reliability in the eyes of relevant
3,2
stakeholders 5.
3,7
3,4
stakeholders 4.
Target 2015
3,28
stakeholders 3.
MTR 2013
3,7 3,22
The organization maintains relations with other organizations working for child
rights and gender equality
3,4
3,8 3,56
26
Result C4
Indicators and pointers
The Partner Organisation is
1.
capable to adapt and self-renew
(external factors) 2.
Baseline 2011
The management has an understanding of shifting contexts and relevant trends
3,3
The management leaves room for diversity, flexibility and creativity to change and
3,2
The organisation plans and evaluates its learning systematically
5.
Learning is used for greater effectiveness in operations for gender equality
1.
capable to balance diversity and
and used by its management in decision-making
consistency in its operations
2.
3,6 3,19
4.
The Partner Organisation is
3,3
3,1
own management
Indicators and pointers
3,7
3,01
Management encourages and rewards learning and exchange, including within its
Result C5
Target 2015
3,13
divert from original plans 3.
MTR 2013
2,9 2,9
3,7 2,99
Baseline 2011
The organization has a clear mandate, vision and strategy that are known by staff
3,6 3,03
MTR 2013
3,3
Target 2015 3,3
3,34
The organization has a well-defined set of operating principles and uses these in its
operations
3,2
3,8 3,35
27
3.
Leadership is committed to achieving coherence, balancing stability and change
4.
There is consistency between ambition, vision, strategy and operations
5.
The organization has a gender policy which guides the organization in its internal
3,3
3,6 3,22
3,3
3,8 3,32
2,9
3,6
management and in its implementation.
3,06
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
A.1 Management of
Partnerships built
# of new partners identified
0
Partner proposals assessed and approved
# of new partner project proposals assessed and approved
Partner project monitoring (including
relationships with partners (including PME by CRA members)
Baseline
Target
Target
2013
2015
12
125
0
31
123
# of partner projects monitored
0
118
127
# of partners performing 5C methodology
0
98
123
# of partner organisations supported with capacity development in
0
133
171
financial and narrative reporting)
A.2 Technical and
Organisational capacity of Southern partners
financial capacity
assessed
support to partners
Capacity development support delivered
the area of rights-based-approach/gender mainstreaming/lobby and advocacy/PME
28
CRA outputs
Result
A.3 Creation and
Grassroots organisations to work with
promotion of
identified
grassroots
Capacity development support delivered to
organisations
grassroots organisations
A.4 Support linking and networking among partners (including the Country Steering Committees)
Indicators
Baseline
Target
Target
2013
2015
# of grassroots organisations identified
0
943
3.272
# of grassroots organisations supported with capacity development
0
1.645
3.177
Well monitored country programmes
# of country programmes monitored
0
10
10
Facilitated CSC meetings, including Annual
# of CSC meetings facilitated
0
80
330
# of meetings/consultations
0
26
115
# of studies initiated by CRA (members)
0
32
101
0
59
242
0
135
214
# of learning questions addressed
0
4
4
0
13
35
0
9
15
0
7
23
Reflection Meetings Supported cross-country meetings and consultations aimed at strengthening linkages and networks among partners
A.5 Research and
Conducted research on issues of girls' and
learning (on issues
young women’s' rights
of girl’s rights and
Disseminated leanings on issues of girls' and
# of dissemination events (including lectures, workshops, publications,
empowerment)
young women's rights (including lectures,
launches)
workshops, publications, launches) Implemented learning agenda
# of organisations (CRA or others) involved in study and discussion of learning questions
A.6 Alignment and
Harmonisation meetings with other
# of agreements, contracts and/or MoU's reached on harmonisation
coordination
alliances, RNE's/bi-lateral and multi-lateral
with MFSII alliances
agencies
# of agreements, contracts and/or MoU's reached on harmonisation with RNE's/bi-lateral agencies # of agreements, contracts and/or MoU's reached on harmonisation with multi-lateral agencies
29
CRA outputs
Result
Indicators
Baseline
Target
Target
2013
2015
0
9
35
0
1
15
0
5
23
0
4
4
# of revisions of M&E framework
0
1
1
# of impact assessment and studies implemented
0
4
3
Implementation of harmonisation
# of effective harmonisation agreements (contracts, MoU's) with other
agreements with other alliances, RNE's/bi-
alliances
lateral and multi-lateral agencies
# of effective harmonisation agreements (contracts, MoU's) with RNE's/bi-lateral agencies # of effective harmonisation agreements, contracts and/or MoU's with multi-lateral agencies
Cross-country
Implementation of cross-country planning,
# of Girl Power countries involved in joint MFSII evaluation
PM&E
monitoring and evaluation
(sub)studies
30
Box 6: Partner outputs
Outputs Southern Partners 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 B.1. Services
Result
Indicators Media messages specifically
delivered to young
targeted to girls and young
girls and women:
women and/or boys to provide
Individual level
information on gender equality
Baseline
Target
Target
2013
2015
# 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
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
31
Partner outputs
Result
Indicators
Baseline
Target
Target
2013
2015
helplines
Provision of scholarships and/or material support for (post-) primary education
Providing access to vocational skills trainings
B.2. Sensitization of
Saving & loans schemes
Awareness raising/sensitization
communities (men
meetings & events (promotion of
and women):
girl friendly attitudes and non-
Institutional level
violence)
Facilitate and support child welfare committees and other community
# of communities reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights # of households reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights # of traditional leaders reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights
0
2.085
4.509
0
538.909
758.933
0
7.004
18.954
0
4.695
15.133
0
5.757
18.662
0
2
5
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
B.3. Influencing of
Training to government frontline
national/district/loca
professionals at local, district,
l governments:
province, regional or national level
Institutional level
(health professionals, teachers, police)
# of staff of government institutions reached by partners for lobby and advocacy # of international policy institutions reached by partners for lobby and advocacy # of frontline staff of government institutions reached by partners for training
Lobby & advocacy activities on
32
Partner outputs
Result
Indicators
Baseline
Target
Target
2013
2015
laws and policies related to girls empowerment, child rights and women’s rights B.4. Strengthening
of civil society (organisations): Civil
Society
Capacity support to CSO's by
# of CSO’s, grassroots organisations and media professionals reached
0
10.216
26.784
partners
by partners
# of networks supported or strengthened by partners
0
213
472
# 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
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
B5. Increased
Conduct research on issues of
coordination and
girls' and young women’s' rights
learning among
by CSCs
partners: CSC level
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
33
Partner outputs
Result
B6. PME southern partners: Partner

Organisation level

Indicators Monitor projects by Southern
Baseline
# of projects monitored by southern partners
Target
Target
2013
2015
0
107
120
0
109
121
partners Develop quarterly, bi-annual and annual financial and narrative
# of southern partners reporting according to agreed schedules
reports by Southern partners
34
In order to measure progress and keep track of key performance indicators different sources of information and different data collection methods may be used.
4. Data collection
Primary data
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
35
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

annual reflection sessions led by the CSC and integrated in the biannual 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
36
37