cscf learning workshop kenya, 17th may 2013 24th june … · cscf learning workshop – kenya, may...

CSCF LEARNING WORKSHOP

KENYA, 17th MAY 2013

24th June 2013

Triple Line Consulting Ltd 3 Princeton Court St. Nicholas House

55 Felsham Rd St. Nicholas Rd LONDON SW15 1AZ SUTTON SM1 1EL

United Kingdom United Kingdom www.tripleline.com www.crownagents.com

http://www.tripleline.com/

http://www.crownagents.com/

CSCF Learning Workshop – Kenya, May 2013

of 23

Table of Contents

1 .... INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 5

2 .... WORKSHOP OUTCOMES ........................................................................... 5

3 .... THE CIVIL SOCIETY CHALLENGE FUND AND ITS LEARNING AGENDA ........... 6

3.1 ......... Diversity within the Fund ........................................................................................................... 6 3.2 ......... Rationale for learning across civil society funds ........................................................................ 7 3.3 ......... Learning Approach and Methodology ....................................................................................... 7

4 .... CSCF PROJECTS IN KENYA .......................................................................... 8

5 .... DFID’S CURRENT POLICY PRIORITIES ......................................................... 8

6 .... THE CSCF KENYA WORKSHOP: WHAT WE LEARNED .................................. 9

6.1 ......... Empowerment ........................................................................................................................... 9 6.1.1 How does empowerment work and what are the steps towards it? ...................................... 10 6.1.2 Looking for the ‘win-win’: What does empowerment looks like? ........................................... 10 6.1.3 How can empowerment be measured? .................................................................................. 10

6.2 ......... Equity and Gender ................................................................................................................... 11 6.2.1 What challenges are faced in addressing gender equality, women’s empowerment and equity? .............................................................................................................................................. 11 6.2.2 How can gaps in capacity be addressed? ................................................................................ 12 6.2.3 How can projects fully understand and represent ‘the disempowered’? ............................... 12

6.3 ......... Strategic approaches to advocacy ........................................................................................... 13 6.3.1 Working in coalition: what works? ......................................................................................... 13 6.3.2 What advocacy approaches yield results? ............................................................................... 13 6.3.3 Are there clear steps in the advocacy process? ....................................................................... 13 6.3.4 Investing resources in advocacy when results are not always tangible .................................. 14 6.3.5 What does successful advocacy look like?............................................................................... 14 6.3.6 How can advocacy success be measured? ............................................................................... 14 6.3.7 What are the elements of success? ......................................................................................... 14

6.4 ......... Capacity building ...................................................................................................................... 14 6.4.1 What approaches work? .......................................................................................................... 14

7 .... BENEFICIARY REPORTING ........................................................................ 14

7.1 ......... Measuring impact: The challenge of defining and counting beneficiaries ............................. 14 7.2 ......... Defining beneficiaries: unpacking the term ............................................................................. 15 7.3 ......... Mass awareness raising: who benefits and how? .................................................................. 15 7.4 ......... M & E budgets for laying down systems to track beneficiaries/impact .................................. 15 7.5 ......... Alternative approaches to assessing ‘who and ‘how many’ benefit ....................................... 15 7.6 ......... Improvements seen in the reporting template ....................................................................... 16 7.7 ......... Dedicating resources for monitoring and evaluation .............................................................. 16

8 .... BENEFICIARY FEEDBACK MECHANISMS ................................................... 16

8.1 ......... Understanding of the term ...................................................................................................... 16 8.2 ......... Tools and approaches .............................................................................................................. 16 8.3 ......... Beneficiary involvement in project processes - a mechanism of eliciting feedback ............... 17 8.4 ......... Challenges in gathering beneficiary feedback ......................................................................... 17


of 23

8.5 ......... Feedback influencing project design ....................................................................................... 17

9 .... PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK FROM THE WORKSHOP .................................... 18

9.1 ......... Responses ................................................................................................................................ 18 9.2 ......... Implications and Recommendations for fund management ................................................... 18

ANNEX 1 - SUMMARY OF CSCF PROJECTS IN KENYA ..................................... 20

ANNEX 2 - WORKSHOP ATTENDEES .............................................................. 23


of 23

List of Acronyms

ANPPCAN – African Network for Prevention and Protection against Child Abuse and Neglect APCA – African Palliative Care Association CAPSAY – Climate Action Programme for Schools and Youth CPDA – Christian Partners Development Agency COTU – Central Organisation of Trade Unions KEHPCA – Kenya Hospices and Palliative Care Association KENASVIT – Kenya National Alliance of Street Vendors and Informal Traders RODI - Resources Oriented Development Initiatives

Acknowledgements We would like to thank DFID, the British High Commission in Kenya, all the workshop participants and the UK Grant Holders for CSCF projects in Kenya. The participants provided very useful input and valuable insights. We would like to acknowledge and congratulate the CSCF Grant Holders and their partners for their contribution to the reduction of poverty and promotion of rights and accountability in Kenya.

The picture on the front page was taken by Clarissa Poulson.


of 23

1 INTRODUCTION 1 This report documents the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) Learning Workshop held in Kenya with

Southern Partners 17th May 2013 at the British High Commission, Nairobi. At present, Kenya has the largest concentration of CSCF grants (9 projects in total) representing an investment of £4.5 million. Project staff from the country’s nine projects attended the workshop which, in keeping with the CSCF Learning Strategy, explored learning from projects in key areas: empowerment, advocacy, equity and gender equality, capacity building, monitoring and evaluation, beneficiary reporting and beneficiary feedback.

2 The workshop was a welcome opportunity for CSCF project implementing staff to share with each other the work that they are doing. The workshop also helped promote the value of the CSCF to staff at DFID Kenya and the British High Commission.

3 This report is principally for the workshop participants and provides: a summary of the main sessions, summarizes feedback from the participants and highlights the next steps. Project summaries and a list of attendees can be found at Annexes 1 and 2. The report’s main findings have been incorporated into the CSCF Learning Visit Report, which has a wider audience. All participants mentioned what a valuable networking the workshop provided and many spoke of their intentions to build relationships for exchanging learning on approaches and for combining awareness raising activities. It is hoped that this account of the day’s presentations and discussions will facilitate these endeavours.

2 WORKSHOP OUTCOMES 4 The workshop facilitated collective understanding in:

The CSCF portfolio 2012/13 (105 projects spanning education, health, livelihoods and social inclusion);

The contribution Kenyan projects are making to the fund’s empowerment, capacity building and service delivery objectives;

DFID’s priorities: results, impact, quality of evidence and value for money; The areas where we can work together to learn, examining: what works and what doesn’t work

in relation to empowering marginalized groups; advocacy; capacity building; equity and gender and monitoring and evaluation.

How to use the reporting template to better reflect results and impact, including who benefits from projects and how, as well as the methodological challenges of ‘putting absolute numbers on target groups.’

The multiple and varied approaches to involving beneficiaries and integrating their feedback into project processes so that accountability to stakeholders is safeguarded.


of 23

3 THE CIVIL SOCIETY CHALLENGE FUND AND ITS LEARNING AGENDA

5 The Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) is the Department for International Development (DFID’s) longest running grant funding programme. The Fund opened in 2001 and has supported over 550 Grant Holders and their Southern implementing partners with grants of up to £0.5 million in Africa, Asia, Americas and the Middle East.

6 Triple Line Consulting Ltd in Joint Venture with Crown Agents was awarded the Fund Management contract in 2010. In addition to managing the portfolio, the Fund Manager takes lead responsibility for the fund’s learning agenda. Between April 2010 and the fund closure in March 2015, DFID investment during this period represents £67 million for 156 projects. Thus there is a clear imperative to analyse results, assess impact and learn lessons so that future efforts and investment can be directed to what works and what makes a difference to the lives of marginalized groups.

7 The Fund’s higher level impact is to contribute to reduced levels of poverty amongst poor and marginalised groups, such people living with HIV/AIDS, disability, youth, disadvantaged women and small-scale producers. The Fund’s intended outcome is that marginalised groups have greater access to improved services and those policies that affect their lives, at local and national levels are strengthened with their involvement.

8 The Fund’s theory of change is that a managed and supported investment by UK aid through civil society partnerships can bring about sustained improvements in policies and practices, including service delivery so that marginalised and disadvantaged men, women and children can claim their rights.

9 CSCF’s overarching objectives (relevant to all projects) are to improve the capacity of Southern civil society to engage in local and national decision-making process; provide innovative service delivery; provide service delivery in difficult environments; and improve national linkages through global advocacy.

10 The Fund is now closed to new applications. Projects typically last 3 – 5 years and all will end by March 2015.

3.1 Diversity within the Fund

11 While all CSCF projects contribute to the fund’s overarching objectives their areas of focus are very diverse. In 2012/13 a Portfolio Analysis found that projects work in four broad thematic areas: education, health, livelihoods and social inclusion. However there are overlaps between these groups and there are also clear sub-thematic areas as illustrated in the table below.


of 23

Table 1: CSCF Portfolio Financial Year 2012/2013: Thematic and sub-thematic areas

Education Health Livelihoods Social Inclusion

Primary education access and quality (9 projects)

Child protection (1 project)

Education for women’s empowerment (2 projects)

Sexual and reproductive health (9 projects)

Mental Health (4 projects)

TB and HIV/AIDS (4 projects);

Palliative Care (3 projects)

Nutrition (1 project)

Protecting the environment and natural resources (7 projects)

Food security and producer’s rights (12 projects)

Promoting labour rights and improved working conditions (6 projects)

Widening access to and the quality of public services (3 projects)

Increasing economic opportunities

Securing land and property rights (2 projects)

Rights for marginalized groups (11 projects)

Women’s political empowerment and reducing gender based violence (8 projects)

Child protection and rights (3 projects)

3.2 Rationale for learning across civil society funds

As a focal point for DFID’s work with civil society, the Civil Society Department (CSD) supports DFID in promoting learning and improved practice from its investments that support the strengthening of civil society in developing countries (Operational Plan 2011 – 2015, DFID Civil Society Department, May 2012). The process of conducting learning research from the CSCF and other civil society challenge funds represents an opportunity for key stakeholders (DFID, grantees, project partners and the fund manager) to engage in dialogue on what works and what doesn’t. In taking forward lessons from across its portfolio, CSD expects to influence development policy and improve development practices. This will include developing expertise on value for money including indicators and unit costs of investment. CSD also expect to share their knowledge and capture experience from innovation. At the same time all stakeholders have an interest in learning from the plethora of approaches and methodologies related to advocacy, empowerment, service delivery and innovation. Only by considering what drives and impedes results will development practice improve. Current projects in Kenya alone represent a significant investment (almost £4.5 million). Taking time to hear from project staff and other stakeholders and to observe activities on the ground is a very important component of the learning approach.

3.3 Learning Approach and Methodology

12 In 2011/12 DFID’s Civil Society Department agreed a framework of priority areas for learning with indicative questions across a number of challenge funds designed to support civil society. Of key importance is uncovering what works; what doesn’t work, and how can we collectively learn from each other. Equally important is an assessment of value for money, in particular relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, economy and sustainability.


of 23

Civil Society Challenge Fund: A framework for learning

Empowerment: How it is locally defined; the iterative change process; how to capture hard to measure results; what it looks like when it happens; responses to unintended consequences.

Advocacy: Experiences in coalition advocacy, raising awareness, providing technical support to local and national government; what tangible changes have occurred; the challenge of measuring results (attribution and contribution); including the voices of target groups/beneficiaries.

Capacity building: Identifying needs; what approaches work and why; difficulties encountered; learning successes and failures.

Equity and gender equality: strategies used to promote inclusion (by, for example: ethnic group, socio-economic status, age and gender); issues relating to group intra power relations; approaches in addressing gender inequality.

Monitoring and evaluation: the role of the logfame; what works/doesn’t work; how to report process and qualitative changes in for example empowerment and capacity building; tools used to gather evidence.

Context, relevance and value for money: Are projects relevant and why; is the context supportive: does it provide opportunities or barriers; examples of ways of working that promote value for money.

Defining and counting beneficiaries: methodological challenges of defining and presenting data in reporting templates; challenges in collecting evidence; alternative approaches.

Stakeholder accountability: empowering target groups/beneficiaries within management processes, through for example beneficiary feedback mechanisms.

13 The learning from this report is based on social research conducted by the fund manager and southern partners using a case study approach to collecting and analysing data.

Structured and unstructured group discussions were carried out at a workshop and on project visits;

One to one interviews were held with key stakeholders (southern partners, beneficiaries, target groups, CSCF government partners at local and national level, staff from DFID country officers);

Observation of project activities took place in situ.

14 In conducting our research with multiple interlocutors we sought to increase the reliability and credibility of our findings so that more than one standpoint was reflected1.

4 CSCF PROJECTS IN KENYA 15 A summary of projects, their locations and contact details can be found at Annex 1.

5 DFID’S CURRENT POLICY PRIORITIES 16 The Fund Management team provided insight into the CSCF portfolio overall as well as insight into

DFID’s current policy priorities. Of key importance within the UK’s development agenda is: investing in evidence and knowledge of ‘what works and doesn’t work’ and on how to demonstrate impact.

1 This report is guided by DFID’s How to Note: Assessing the Strength of Evidence, February 2013.


of 23

17 The CSCF is managed by DFID’s Civil Society Department (CSD). CSD leads DFID’s policy work and contributes to the evidence base on working with and through civil society. CSD are becoming more systematic in how evidence is gathered, in particular in clarifying research questions; scrutinizing the quality of evidence, and gathering learning from across their programme. CSD is supporting the development of the Bond Improve it Framework which includes evidence principles for the sector (see link below). Evidence from implementation is used to inform policy decisions, advise ministers, design new programmes, develop arguments for aid spending and in measuring results and value for money.

18 CSCF makes an important contribution to DFID’s evidence base: It is the longest running challenge fund and it offers a wealth of learning spanning over 10 years. Recent efforts to capture results and learning include: the portfolio analysis, the India/Nepal learning visit and the subsequent roundtable discussions with Grant Holders, as well as the survey to assess how Grant Holders collect and use beneficiary feedback. Part of the impetus for the learning seminar and project visits in Kenya is to involve Southern Partners in the methodology for gathering and analysing evidence of what approaches are working.

19 The team shared a summary of the BOND Impact Builder (http://my.bond.org.uk/impact-builder) which provides points of principle for gathering evidence of impact:

Voice/Inclusion: evidence includes the perspectives of people living in poverty; a clear picture of who is affected and how.

Appropriateness: justifiable methods for data collection are used. Triangulation: a mix of methods is used; data sources are cited and different perspectives are

collected in the monitoring and evaluation process. Contribution: evidence explores how change happens; Transparency: name your data sources! Checklist to score evidence from weak to gold standard.

20 There is an increasing emphasis on the quality of evidence for DFID funded programmes. This was emphasised in the workshop. For more information on quality of evidence score card, see: http://www.bond.org.uk/pages/the-ngo-evidence-principles.html#principles and https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-note-assessing-the-strength-of-evidence.

6 THE CSCF KENYA WORKSHOP: WHAT WE LEARNED 21 Eighteen project participants and four facilitators worked in four groups to discuss what they have

learned in relation to empowerment, advocacy, equity and gender equality, and capacity building. Issues related to monitoring and evaluation cut across all discussions. Groups were divided by thematic area to maximize potential for learning from different approaches.

22 This is a summary of points we felt were important in contributing to our collective understanding of what works and doesn’t work and the complexities of civil society engagement in development and empowerment processes.

6.1 Empowerment2

23 How is empowerment perceived and understood?

2 See reference to CSCF learning on empowerment and accountability:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/201978/GPAF-add-guidance-empowerment-accountability.pdf

http://my.bond.org.uk/impact-builder

http://www.bond.org.uk/pages/the-ngo-evidence-principles.html#principles

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-note-assessing-the-strength-of-evidence




of 23

24 One group described empowerment as

The power to defend yourself The confidence which came from knowing (or being reminded of) your rights Strengthening and emboldening what people already have Self-belief The confidence to raise your voice

25 These points can be further summarized as: the confidence to challenge the status quo that is derived from a grasp of rights and support structures.

6.1.1 How does empowerment work and what are the steps towards it?

26 The first element of empowerment (knowledge of rights), is often addressed through formal means, such as the Know Your Rights workshops around ILO Convention 189 on domestic workers. The media was seen as a valuable means of communicating to the general public and with those unable to attend training, for example through domestic workers speaking on radio. A peer to peer engagement and ‘people speaking to you from the heart’ was another key means of awareness raising. The role of peer leaders, often formally elected, was also seen as very significant, through providing a role model of someone who had blazed a trail.

27 The second element identified above – a support structure – was provided in part through peers. However, also significant was the importance of working through existing structures in which people had faith, strengthening them and building their capacity. Beneficiaries gain confidence through the case advice, legal advice and technical support as well as personal encouragement provided by representative bodies. Examples: KENASVIT (Kenya National Association of Street Vendors and Informal Traders) which, as well as having individual members, brings together many organisations from around the country as affiliate members, providing training and advice; KEHPCA (Kenya Hospices and Palliative Care Association) where those dying from HIV/AIDS are provided access to paralegal advice to prepare wills which reassures family members.

6.1.2 Looking for the ‘win-win’: What does empowerment looks like?

28 A group of project staff spoke about confidence and boldness in empowered individuals. With the support structures in place (peer support and technical advice) fear of reprisals was diminished to the extent that there were examples of domestic workers winning court cases against their employers. Sensitization and training in negotiation had resulted in confrontation and demonstration being seen as a last, rather than a first resort, by many street vendors. As a result they had secured many improvements to their working conditions, for example through the provision of designated sites for vending.

29 One group suggested that empowerment might mean one party had to relinquish power to enable a weaker party to become more empowered. Thus one person’s empowerment might result in another person’s (or group’s) anger at loss of full control. This is part of an empowerment process that has to be anticipated and managed. A challenge is to make the process feel like a ‘win-win’ for all parties.

6.1.3 How can empowerment be measured?

30 The first response is to focus on the tangibles – the results of the actions of empowered individuals and groups, such as those cited above which can be measured and quantified. Documentation can provide such evidence, for example a written memorandum concerning the extension of trading hours or the involvement of street vendors in decisions about stall allocation. Other tangibles which can be clearly evidenced include numbers of contracts in place, membership of representative bodies, numbers of disputes solved etc.


of 23

31 Process (steps through which people become empowered) is also a result since it leads towards changes to knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, but its importance can be lost in the focus on what is (easily) measurable (a point of arrival). Important questions for assessing process are: Who did what? How have individuals or communities changed? How was change secured? What other examples are there of empowered action? For example, domestic workers have voluntarily worked together to clean up areas of housing in Kisumu as a consequence of the sense of agency which came from knowledge of rights. The tangible outcome of their empowerment was being emboldened to improve their own and others’ lives beyond the focus of the project (their working conditions). Empowerment can also be witnessed when beneficiaries have the confidence to engage in social dialogue rather than resorting to sometimes violent demonstrations borne out of feelings of frustration and impotence.

32 Documenting examples of where individuals take advantage of a situation in which they can exercise their empowerment is important. For example: a domestic worker asks her employer to have time-off to attend a meeting whereas before the project she would never have been brave enough to do this.

33 A second example of a project creating space for individuals or groups to demonstrate empowerment comes from the Youth Climate Action Project. Here advocacy efforts targeted local powerful public officials to explain what they were trying to achieve by working with youth groups. Youth groups took advantage of the change in attitude towards them secured by this intervention by asking to be invited to the planning of a public celebration. Once on the planning committee they volunteered to take responsibility for waste management thereby demonstrating their empowerment through purpose and action. This in turn gained them community respect. These accounts represent significant steps in the empowerment process. A results oriented approach that strives to measure in one to three bullet points against pre-determined indicators may fail to capture the subtle story of empowerment at an individual or collective level. A more productive approach would be to expand the concept of ‘measurement’ to encompass methods that ‘capture processes’ such as case studies and most significant change stories.

34 One group emphasized the importance of monitoring and documenting a project team’s ability to adapt, change, take advantage of opportunities, network, form partnerships etc. At the same time, results frameworks should also keep sight of the change empowerment and advocacy projects are seeking.

6.2 Equity and Gender

6.2.1 What challenges are faced in addressing gender equality, women’s empowerment and equity?

35 Challenges are encountered by projects in engaging women and men in equal numbers and in addressing gender inequalities. Achieving equal numbers of beneficiaries by gender may be viewed as a key result whereas for projects working on the ground, the process and approach in working towards this indicator are equally if not more important than the 50/50 result. For example: the Climate Change project which works with youth groups of 18 – 35 year olds is aiming for a 50/50 gender mix. However in a culture where young women are expected to work at home, prepare for marriage and not to consort with men in public achieving this target is challenging. If a project is working ‘mindfully’ towards gender equality it should be able to shed light on its growing understanding of the barriers women face in joining youth groups and the efforts it is making to address them. These aspects need to reinforce reporting against targets and be understood by appraisers.


of 23

6.2.2 How can gaps in capacity be addressed?

36 In taking forward a gender agenda, projects acknowledge they need to assess staff composition and capacities, including gendered attitudes and behaviours. In this respect, some project staff acknowledges that they need support to understand the complexities of their own attitudes and office practices as well as gender analysis and programming. Gender mainstreaming is an area where the Fund Manager could usefully provide further capacity building support.

37 Ignoring gender in formative research (i.e., research that informs project design) can set a project on a trajectory that will not necessarily empower or meet gender equality or equity goals. For example one project spoke of their experience in building the capacity of farmers (the majority are men) to negotiate a fair price for tea. It took a full year to uncover the gender division of labour around tea production where women grow tea but men own the land and sell the commodity. The lesson for future grant funding design would be to include an inception phase for projects to conduct gendered formative research. For this to take place capacities are required in how to use a gender analysis framework to inform research processes. Again, this is an area where a Fund Manager can either provide capacity building support or facilitate learning between projects.

38 In Kenya, one project has experience of using gender analysis frameworks. Nature Kenya (Tana River Delta project) provided useful insight into how a gender analysis framework can be used to research and analyse gender relations in communities and to inform project approaches. The framework asks: Who does what? Who has access and controls what resources? What is the socio-economic context? And what gender considerations are therefore needed for the project. These broad questions are worked into questionnaires using local languages that are used by researchers to conduct qualitative research through one-to-one interviews and focus group discussions with an emphasis on triangulation (i.e., comparing differences in standpoint between what men and women say). For further information see: http://www.gdrc.org/gender/framework/g-framework.html and https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203050/GPAF-Gender-Guidelines.pdf

6.2.3 How can projects fully understand and represent ‘the disempowered’?

39 It’s not uncommon for beneficiaries to be depicted as victims. One project suggested that this is unhelpful and reality is more complex. For example, tea farmers may be disadvantaged in one sphere (e.g., in negotiating a fair price for tea with factory owners); and more powerful in another: e.g., in control over the quality of the product they deliver to the factor (where the factory head perceives he is short changed by a low quality crop). But is this really the case?

40 The example of the tea factory head’s perspective of his disempowerment presents project staff with another challenge: whose perspective counts? If a project staff member identifies more readily with the factory owner they may take on face value their perspective rather than exploring underlying causes that prevent a farmer from delivering a high quality tea product. Such a situation might arise when project staff have similar education levels and aspirations to the ‘empowered’ rather than the ‘disempowered’. Therefore, projects that are involved in partnerships that bring together individuals of differing power and perspectives need to be vigilant in asking on a continual basis: whose reality counts and in whose interests is the project acting? This learning point is also relevant to the Tana River Delta project which involves different stakeholders with differing levels of power and influence.

http://www.gdrc.org/gender/framework/g-framework.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203050/GPAF-Gender-Guidelines.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203050/GPAF-Gender-Guidelines.pdf


of 23

6.3 Strategic approaches to advocacy

6.3.1 Working in coalition: what works?

41 Coalition advocacy (working in partnership with other CSOs on similar issues) is a strategy used by CSCF projects to persuade governments or other powerful actors to enact or implement pro-poor policies. Working in coalition requires consensus and compromise, but also risk analysis and tactics. For example, the Tana River project works to protect the environment, as well as livelihoods rights and land use by marginalized communities (pastoralists, fisher folk and farmers). Key stakeholders also include vested business interests (agribusiness and tourism). Kenya’s new constitution with its emphasis on devolved decision-making provided the project with an opportunity to persuade the Kenyan national government to initiate a local debate with all stakeholders on land use. The project produced a ‘Land Use Plan’ as a tool to guide discussions and sought support from coalition partners. One partner would only support the plan if it placed the protection of trees at the centre of all dialogue with government. The project considered the risks of this approach and decided to step out of the coalition to focus on finding the right champions in government. Once this was achieved the project stepped back into the coalition but from a position of strength.

6.3.2 What advocacy approaches yield results?

42 A successful advocacy approach is effective targeting of the right person(s) within Government. Snowballing is one approach where one contact leads to another until the right individual or group of influencers is engaged through various means.

43 ‘Our Grant Holder had one key high-level contact within government. Through him we found another, and through that one, another and so on; we wrote letters, secured meetings, raised awareness and sold our idea.’ Nature Kenya (Tana River Delta project)

44 Non-combative and inclusive approaches are as important as more aggressive advocacy techniques that harness the power of the media to shed light on an area where government is failing in its responsibilities or in leading demonstrations. An example of non-combative and inclusive advocacy approaches is provided by CAPSAY who work to engage young people around climate change. The project found that if they sought out hostile government officials and business interlocutors and explained the aims of their youth groups, attitudes towards young men improved and youth activities were supported rather than ‘crushed’. This approach is often described as a win-win where both sides have something to gain.

45 In other settings a mix of combative and non-combative approaches also workeds well. For example the Palliative Care project supported Human Rights Watch in their exposé of the lack of action to reduce the pain suffered by children with life threatening illnesses. The exposé was well-publicized in the media and designed to provoke government action. The Palliative Care project tempered this aggressive approach with a simultaneous offer to the Ministry of Health of a technical partnership to address the problem. The project director says: ‘you should be bold and brave…but you also have to offer solutions.’

6.3.3 Are there clear steps in the advocacy process?

46 Advocacy in the context of CSCF projects in Kenya is about bringing about a change (an improvement) in policy or legislation or in attitudes and behaviours. Within this process there are steps: Clarity about the desired goal of any advocacy action is very important. Steps to achieving this will then be framed by an analysis of who needs to be influenced (the decision makers) and with what messages. The experience of the African Palliative Care Association and their partner in Kenya, the Kenya Hospice and Palliative Care Association has been formulated into a common framework which serves as a useful toolkit for their advocacy actions.


of 23

6.3.4 Investing resources in advocacy when results are not always tangible

47 The group said that advocacy requires investment of resources – often with little tangible progress to show for it – and timeframes are largely outside the control of the project. These features often make this area of civil society project activity hard to manage and account for and that be uncomfortable for recipients of aid.

6.3.5 What does successful advocacy look like?

48 The group felt that the results of advocacy were: changed attitudes leading to changed behaviours (e.g., involvement in decision-making and greater control over resources). Successful advocacy was based on building general goodwill, dialogue, partnerships and synergies with both coalition partners and decision maker(s). It was important to develop shared recognition of the issues, and to develop an enabling environment for discussion and change. The confidence of the advocators was important, as was availability of resources.

6.3.6 How can advocacy success be measured?

49 The group identified a good baseline as critical to being able to articulate change brought about by advocacy (e.g., through achievement of indicators). However, the group also felt that the story of the change was important in itself. The outcome of targeted change could be tangible (such as legislation) or a change in public opinion, which could be tracked for example through media surveys.

6.3.7 What are the elements of success?

50 Successful influencing of decision makers was key to a good outcome. This ‘good outcome’ can only be achieved with patience and persistence. Collaboration with other stakeholders was often a successful strategy, although it was recognized that this might mean others also taking the credit for a positive result. Having a budget available for meetings with decision makers, often expected to be over drinks, was important to enabling the work. Again, it’s an area that elicits uncomfortable feelings and challenges in financial reporting.

6.4 Capacity building

6.4.1 What approaches work?

51 Projects working with government concur that an important part of their capacity building work is to ‘lead government from behind’. Pro-active CSOs know which government schemes to support and can identify officials at national and local level who are mandated but not necessarily sufficiently skilled to implement. CSOs can play an important role in ‘getting things moving’. For example: The government has allocated resources to support building cattle dips in the Tana Delta but local officials lack capacity. CSO support at a local level provides the community link and assists government staff in taking the scheme forward.

7 BENEFICIARY REPORTING

7.1 Measuring impact: The challenge of defining and counting beneficiaries

52 The group that worked on beneficiary reporting understood and acknowledged the need for DFID to understand who was being reached by their investment and in what number. However, providing accurate figures and descriptions poses methodological challenges for empowerment and advocacy projects. Here’s why:


of 23

7.2 Defining beneficiaries: unpacking the term

53 Who is a beneficiary? Projects do not always work with ‘beneficiaries’ but rather with target groups or intermediaries. Accurately counting the ultimate beneficiaries is often beyond the control or capacity of the project, for example the palliative care project centres on advocacy with the Ministry of Health and capacity building of Government health staff (i.e., training in pain assessment and management). While the project keeps the needs of HIV/AIDS sufferers in their sight, their day-to-day business is with intermediaries target groups (government health workers who are trained by the project). It’s a ‘work in progress’ to encourage Government Health Staff to record accurately everyone they treat. Moreover, this task is the work of government, not a small contributing CSO.

54 Working with target groups and beneficiaries: Some CSCF projects work with those they are empowering as well as those who exert power or who influence lives of beneficiaries in some way and whose capacity is also being built by the project. Reporting beneficiaries across the fund with a single figure does not capture this important distinction.

55 Beneficiaries can be a transitory group. Example: Young people in youth groups frequently dip in and dip out or move on to go to university or to get a job. These young people may start groups of their own but again their subsequent actions would be hard to trace if the project was evaluated as systems are not in place to conduct tracer studies.

56 One set of beneficiaries may reach another set of beneficiaries. Example: youth groups are beneficiaries but they also reach out to children in schools, church groups and community members to raise their awareness on climate change issues. Introducing a system to capture how one group of beneficiaries reaches another group is complex and requires a longer time-frame and a dedicated monitoring and evaluation budget.

7.3 Mass awareness raising: who benefits and how?

57 For projects that raise awareness through the media, through rallies, with youth groups, and/or in village dialogue etc., having to put a number, age, gender and disability status on beneficiaries is problematic. While awareness raising is often an essential part of the empowerment process, measuring attitude and behaviour change is a technical area that requires specific expertise that does not necessarily reside in small CSOs but rather in universities or research institutions specialized in communications for development.

7.4 M & E budgets for laying down systems to track beneficiaries/impact

58 CSCF budgets for monitoring and evaluation are insufficient to develop capacity and apply communication research tools that might shed light on the impact of raising awareness activities (for example, representative sample surveys that explore changes in knowledge, attitudes and practices before and after radio listening). A lesson for DFID in designing future challenge funds is to allocate sufficient resources to monitoring and evaluation and to consider building a partnership with a university specialized in this area.

7.5 Alternative approaches to assessing ‘who and ‘how many’ benefit

59 The group found unpacking and defining the term ‘beneficiary’ very useful. They felt the term ‘beneficiaries’ could usefully be further divided into: target groups; actors; citizens; private sector agents; government agents; and marginalized groups. They group suggested DFID and the Fund Manager consider these multiple dimensions. They also emphasized that all parties engaged in a project may benefit in some way or another, and defining exactly how, is important.

60 Other suggested approaches were to abandon the whole notion of counting and defining beneficiaries and to ask more broadly:


of 23

Who are we spending money on and why? (Projects work through chains of interlinked people - some with a little more power over others, some more advantaged or disadvantaged but all benefiting from new knowledge, insights and capacities).

What change is the project working to bring about and how? What change has been brought (annually) in terms of process and for whom. This might include

project staff in the equation and their capacities.

7.6 Improvements seen in the reporting template

61 One group member summed up attitudes towards the revised annual report template: …the reporting template has evolved. It’s easy if you understand it but its demands are complex. It can be used as an important monitoring and evaluation tool with project staff. It can be used to improve project staff’s knowledge and skills. It demands you go back to the field, you collect data and you do analysis and that’s a good thing. There is space now in the form for us to communicate….The VfM section is tricky but it’s actually very useful for us.

7.7 Dedicating resources for monitoring and evaluation

62 The group noted that the aspiration for ‘robust evidence’ of beneficiary empowerment needs to be matched by investment in capacity development and longer project time-frames. They also asked, whether it is realistic to track absolute numbers (i.e., all the people ever involved or benefiting from a project) or to elicit qualitative evidence through, for example, more qualitative approaches including sample surveys and most significant change stories?

8 BENEFICIARY FEEDBACK MECHANISMS

8.1 Understanding of the term

63 This group also examined the term ‘beneficiaries’. There was consensus that ‘beneficiaries’ in the context of stakeholder accountability meant those with whom the projects were working at community level, whilst recognizing that implementing organisations were themselves beneficiaries (in terms of capacity building, funding etc). Additionally, there were people reached more indirectly by projects, from whom a different level of feedback would be appropriate – for example, teachers in schools who benefitted from the parents of deaf children beginning to take a real interest in their child’s education.

64 Beneficiary feedback was succinctly defined by one participant as a means of understanding ‘how beneficiaries react and respond to the processes and activities of the project’ and it was also described as ‘what they feel about it [the project]’. These comments illustrate the fact that beneficiary feedback is often qualitative, based on perception and opinion.

8.2 Tools and approaches

65 The group confirmed that the methods identified through the Beneficiary Feedback Survey were important, adding that they saw value in mixed methods: stories, informal discussions with beneficiaries and observation of attitudes during implementation. A good example of the latter would be non-attendance at project organized meeting. Here, observed non-verbal behavioural feedback speaks eloquently about the relevance and practicality of project approach. As one participant observed, ‘if people don’t show up, they’re telling you a lot.’

66 Formal settings such as training events were used as a vehicle to obtain feedback, for example by opening events by asking participants to share their expectations, and by including questions asking


of 23

‘how could this workshop have been improved?’ for example, on a post-event evaluation questionnaire.

67 Peer education and assessment and youth friendly feedback mechanisms were also cited by participants as ‘continuous efforts to gather feedback’, demonstrating the value of tailoring approaches to fit beneficiary characteristics.

8.3 Beneficiary involvement in project processes - a mechanism of eliciting feedback

68 Group members were able to provide several examples of beneficiary involvement in project processes (i.e., the design, governance and implementation of projects). For example, support groups for parents of deaf children had chosen their own leadership, taken responsibility for registering, and asked for support in setting up income-generating activities which they had identified. Learning sign language is difficult and demands time away from tending fields. However by giving ownership to parents and allowing the groups to expand their remit, for example through income generation schemes, group attendance and cohesiveness and therefore learning of sign language was assured.

69 Similarly, domestic worker committees took ownership of the group through electing their own leaders. By identifying core and shared problems, members demonstrated the value of strength of voice through unity. This represents feedback on the relevance of project activities. The prisons project had not yet been able to secure the participation of inmates on prison health care committees, although prison staff on the committees had recognized the value it would offer.

70 There were also examples of projects involving beneficiaries within management and governance structures. Parents of deaf children and deaf adults attended quarterly learning and planning sessions at Education Assessment and Resource Centres and street vendors themselves were members of all committees from national level, down to town level.

71 All in the group therefore recognized the value of direct beneficiary involvement in decision making fora and benefitted from it.

8.4 Challenges in gathering beneficiary feedback

72 Turnover of beneficiary populations was cited by two projects as a hindrance to obtaining beneficiary feedback (as well as achieving wider project objectives). A particular problem in the prison context was also lack of privacy and confidentiality, a prison officer needing to be present in all meetings with inmates.

73 The issue of ‘raising expectations’ by asking for feedback was cited by many projects, and had been raised in the Beneficiary Feedback Survey conducted in 2012. Examples included not being able to supply condoms to prisoners, since homosexual acts are illegal in Kenya; and prisoners not being able to eat the produce of their gardens, designed to meet nutritional guidance for PLWHA in some prisons, where adherence to prison diets were insisted upon

74 For other projects, feedback came in the form of requests for action as a result of increased beneficiary awareness about rights. This led to feelings of frustration where the project was unable to meet the request due to lack of influence, funds or scope. Examples include the parents of deaf children frustrated at the quality of education their children were receiving and street vendors feeling ‘what next?’ – empowered but impotent in the face of council intransigence.

8.5 Feedback influencing project design

75 There were several good examples of beneficiary feedback influencing project design and approach. On a practical level, difficulties in beneficiaries meeting the scheduling or number of trainings and workshops had led to revisions of plan: training for prisoners was more intensive to enable


of 23

completion, given the high turnover rate and movement between prisons; workshops for deaf children were held at a more appropriate time, and in smaller clusters to reduce distance travelled; and changes had been made in response to feedback on palliative care training.

9 PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK FROM THE WORKSHOP 76 All seventeen workshop participants from the nine CSCF projects in Kenya completed a feedback

form. Feedback was very positive. It provides learning for fund management processes and demonstrates how all involved in the workshop learned about project implementation, issues and challenges, not just the fund manager.

9.1 Responses

77 Feedback was very positive: 16 respondents rated the workshop ‘very useful’ and one, ‘useful’. Several participants identified more than one aspect as ‘most useful’, showing the high value placed on the day, the most frequently cited being meeting each other – networking, sharing resources, learning from each other (10 respondents); sessions on beneficiary reporting/feedback (7); and on empowerment (4).

78 14 requests for further information related to interacting with others, sharing good practice, resources and stories of success. 5 related to capacity building and 7 to reporting issues.

9.2 Implications and Recommendations for fund management

79 Partner organisations greatly appreciated the chance to meet together. The Fund Manager convenes seminars and round tables for UK grant-holders but only gathers implementing partners together at learning visits, which have been held approximately annually. There is a desire for Southern partners to feel more connected with the CSCF overall, and with other projects in their country. There were many requests made for more such opportunities and one expressed a willingness to organize networking events.

Recommendations:

Ensure learning visits (as set out in the Fund Manager’s Terms of Reference) take place and are scheduled to maximize attendance (e.g., a learning workshop could involve projects from more than one country). We will look closely at potential opportunities.

Connect implementing partners to UK seminars via web cam or live streaming: make this happen.

Increase the involvement of Southern Partners. Include one partner contact per project in email group communications to Grant Holders on all issues if they would find this helpful.

Discuss with Southern Partners in Kenya how to launch a learning group (CAPSAY is interested to lead in the first instance). Assess budget implications and discuss with DFID. Consider rolling out this approach to other countries.

80 A number of requests were made for further information, many related to sharing learning amongst CSCF projects. Several requests related to the need to build capacity. Some information is readily available and people just need sign-posting. Other requests would be met more appropriately through a web-based information-sharing platform.


of 23

Recommendations:

Compile a response to the requests for more information for all workshop attendees; circulate this workshop report so that partners have a reminder of the issues discussed and lessons identified.

Identify information sources, reports, web links etc., which could be uploaded onto the CSCF page of the gov.uk website – or the Triple Line website - for easy access and to enable shared learning, whilst being mindful that learning by ‘discussing, seeing, sharing and doing’ is more useful than pushing paper-based resources and web links which Southern Partners might find it difficult to make time for.

Share the information requests from Southern Partners with Grant Holders who may be able to meet them.

Ensure that learning from Kenya is shared with Grant Holders and with partners by: uploading learning visit report onto the website and alerting them; seeking on-line attendance at the learning round table in July and the M&E seminar in October (see above); seeking partner input to develop the learning strategy, possibly through the next learning visit.

To discuss with DFID: explore the interest in, as well as the technical feasibility and resource implications of launching a simple ‘on-line community’ where projects could post questions, engage in dialogue with each other and share lessons, experiences and resources. If not possible for the CSCF, consider its application to GPAF.


of 23

ANNEX 1 - SUMMARY OF CSCF PROJECTS IN KENYA

Education

81 0437: Rights for deaf children and their families in Kenya implemented by Deaf Child Worldwide and the African Network for the Prevention and Protection against Child Abuse and Neglect (ANPPCAN). The project works with the parents of deaf children so they have a better understanding of their children’s needs and abilities. Facilitating parents’ understanding of deafness helps them advocate and lobby for their children’s rights. The project also facilitates self-help groups to access savings and loan schemes which help to increase household income. With assistance from this project parents have secured secondary school places, special units and bursaries for deaf children.

Project locations: Butere-Mumias, Embu, Kajiado and Kitui.

82 Contact: Wambui Njuguna - Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]

Health

83 0473: Reducing the impact of HIV/AID by improving access to pain and symptom controlling drugs for people living with HIV/Aids implemented by Help the Hospices and Kenya Hospice and Palliative Care Association (KHPCA). This is one strand of a multi-country project being implemented in six countries in Africa to mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS by improving access to pain and symptom controlling drugs. The project addresses key barriers in policy and practice on drug availability including: supply chain mechanisms; tight drug controls; unreliable stocking mechanisms; legislation, including unfavourable regulations; the lack of national policies on opiate use; and poor education among health professionals. The project has elicited strong support from the Ministry of Health through a combination of advocacy techniques and technical partnerships. The project is currently taking advantage of Kenya’s new constitution and devolution framework to move from pilot to near scale in 41 out 47 counties in rolling out training for healthcare workers in pain management.

Project location: Nairobi

84 Contact: Dr Zipporah Ali - Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]

85 0519: HIV Prevention and Mitigation for Kenyan Prisons implemented by Interact Worldwide with Resources Orientated Development Initiatives (RODI, Kenya). The project is reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS with prisoners, ex-prisoners, their families and prison workers. For those living with HIV/AIDS, the project works to improve conditions and access to quality care including support and services. The project has built relationships at national and local levels to gain access to prisons and to build trust with and cooperation from prison around the issues of rights and protection. The project also works with communities living around prisons and with prisoners’ families.

Project locations: Western Nyanza, Rift Valley, Central and Nairobi province

Contact: Ester Bett - Email 1: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]






of 23

Livelihoods

86 0542: To reduce poverty amongst and discrimination against street vendors and marketers living in slums in Kenya by War on Want and Kenyan National Alliance of Street Vendors and Informal Traders (KENASVIT). The overall outcome for this project is improvement in the livelihoods of street vendors and marketers through law change, increased knowledge of rights and capacity to demand them, increased income, reduced discrimination and support of a strong trade union. The project is working with informal workers.

Project locations: Eldoret, Kitale, Nakuru, Kisii, Nyeri, Kisumu, Migori, Kakamega, Busia, Machakos, Nairobi

87 Contact: Francis Kapere - Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]

88 0529: Climate Action Teams (CATS project for Youth in Kenya implemented by Living Earth Foundation and ERMIS (Africa). This is a climate change project which provides outreach and entrepreneurship training to Kenyan youth to inspire community action and influence local government responses and the uptake of the ‘National Climate Change Response Strategy’. The project harnesses the energy and innovative skills of youth when they are between school/university and work. It teaches climate change, leadership, entrepreneur and business skills. It also provides positive role models and strong value systems to youth groups. Local and national leaders are being encouraged to see youth as part of the solution. The project is capitalizing on Kenya’s fertile policy environment and fulfilling a capacity gap at the lowest tiers of government.

Project locations: Nairobi, Nanyuki, Naivasha, Embu, Thika, Mombasa

89 Contact: Greig Whitehead - IC Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected] - LEF Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]

90 0489: Realising decent work and social protection for all implemented by UNISON and Central Organisation of Trade Unions (Kenya) COTU. This is one strand of a CSCF multi-country project being implemented across 24 countries worldwide, with COTU having the status of ‘leading national partner’. The project is empowering trade unions and social organisations to work together to advocate for social protection, in line with the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda for All. The project engages with social organisations representing key target groups (e.g. women, informal sector workers, migrants, people living with HIV/AIDS) to form alliances around advocacy on issues related to social protection, and to ensure that social protection is recognised and claimed as a fundamental right for all.

Project locations: Nairobi

91 Contact: Jane Masta - Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]

92 0498: Promoting the rights and livelihoods of soapstone sector workers in Kenya implemented by Action on Poverty (APT) with SITE Enterprise Promotion. The project is empowering workers in the soapstone sector to advocate for, and realise safe and favourable working conditions with improved and more secure livelihoods. The project organizes workers to form strong linkages and alliances between them. It builds knowledge of soapstone workers’ rights and it builds their skills to engage those who influence, develop, and enforce policies and regulations that affect the sector. By developing an environment where soapstone workers and quarry owners can meet and discuss issues, the project improves working conditions.










of 23

Project locations: Gucha South District, Kisii Country.

93 Contact: Harun Baiya - Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]

94 0556: Ensuring rights of small scale tea famers in Kenya implemented by Traidcraft Exchange with the Christian Partners Development Agency, Kenya. The project is working with 30,000 smallholder tea farmers to understand their rights to a fair market price for their tea and to help them diversify their source of income. It focuses on six factories where farmers sell tea. Though the government has made farmers shareholders in the factories in reality few understand their rights and responsibilities. The project also works with the heads of factories to help them become more accountable to farmers. The project has recently gain an interesting perspective on the gender division of labour which will impact on equity goals: most ‘farmers’ who sell tea are men while those who actually tend the plants are women.

Project Locations: Nyeri and Murang’a counties.

Contact: Yohannes Tesfamichael - Email 1: [email protected]

95 0557: Empowering poor people to achieve local control and sustainable management of the natural resources of the Tana River Delta implemented by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds with Nature Kenya. The delta is one of Kenya’s most significant wetland systems with a community of cattle herders, farmers, fishermen and others. It’s delicate habitat is subject to regular flooding and pressure from competing economic interests for land use (agribusiness, tourism etc.,). The project is bringing civil society and government together to secure long-term sustainable management through a participatory and strategic land-use planning approach. The project is assisting village committees represent their interests at District Level and to increase their income through new farming and fishing technology.

Project location: Nairobi and Tana River District

96 Contact: Serah Munguti - Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]







of 23

ANNEX 2 - WORKSHOP ATTENDEES

Name Organisation CSCF Project Reference and Focus

CSCF Implementing Partners in Kenya

1. Jane Masta COTU Kenya 489 - Rights for domestic Workers

2. James Kiniani Interact Worldwide 519 - Prisoners, HIV/AIDS

3. Ester Beet RODI Kenya 519 - Prisoners, HIV/AIDS

4. Lilian Indomberg ANPPCAN Regional 437 - Deaf Children

5. Wambui Njuguna ANPPCAN Nairobi 437 - Deaf Children

6. Dr. Zipporah Ali KEHPCA Kenya 473 - Palliative Care

7. Marleen Masclee APCA 473 - Palliative Care

8. Greig Whitehead CAPSAY 529 - Climate Youth Groups

9. Habil Olembo CAPSAY (CATS) 529 - Climate Youth Groups

10. Sereh Munguti Nature Kenya 557 - Tana River Delta

11. Joan Gichuki Nature Kenya 557 - Tana River Delta

12. Francis Kapere KENASVIT 542 - Street Vendors & marketeers

13. Rosemary Kimani KENASVIT 542 - Street Vendors & marketeers

14. Jane Nolungu SITE Enterprise Promotion 498 - Soapstone Workers

15. Harun Baiya SITE Enterprise Promotion 498 - Soapstone Workers

16. Yohannes Tesfamichael Traidcraft Exchange 556 - Tea farmers

17. Alice Kirambi CPDA 556 - Tea farmers

Fund Managers and Facilitators

Juliette Seibold Triple Line Consulting Ltd

Clarissa Poulson Triple Line Consulting Ltd

Eva M Ayieri Adili Consulting (Nairobi)

Nyang’ori Ohenjo Adili Consulting (Nairobi)

British High Commission

Virinder Sharma DFID Kenya – Climate Change Team

Veronica Oakeshott FCO – Political Officer

DFID Kenya - Communications Officer

Charles Warria DAP Kenya

cscf learning workshop kenya, 17th may 2013 24th june … · cscf learning workshop – kenya, may...

Documents