gp monitoring protocol 2014

Appendix A Monitoring Protocol on the Girl Power Programme

GIRL POWER

“Promoting Equal Rights and Opportunities for Girls and Young Women”

Revised version 1 December 2013

Revised Girl Power Monitoring Protocol

December 2013

New insights from existing monitoring practices, persistent doubts about

the reliability and usefulness of the baseline study carried out in 2011, and

2

the recommendations from the mid-term review of end 2013 have

triggered the need to revise the monitoring protocol for the remaining

period of the programme.

In this “Revised version 1 December 2013” we have, in some cases,

reordered and reformulated outcomes. However, intended outcomes as

such, apart from some minor alterations in wording, have remained the

same.

Most of the changes made in this revision have affected the progress

indicators for box 1 and box 2. Five indicators were operationalized

differently, whilst maintaining the same rationale. Four were removed. One

was added.

We have decided to remove the Girl Power Gender Empowerment Measure

(GPGEM). This index was initially imagined as a composite indicator,

composed from a few key indicators measured elsewhere in the protocol.

However, the operationalisation of the GPGEM has proved to be difficult.

Although one indicator to capture empowerment certainly has advantages,

the time and effort required to develop a meaningful instrument has

outweighed the expected benefits for reporting and other communication.

However, we may try, in a later stage, to make a renewed effort to conceive

and measure the GPGEM.

All indicators were subjected to a critical syntax review.

The mid term review, carried out in the 2nd half of 2013, has measured the

new set of indicators for 2013. Moreover, the MTR has reconstructed the

indicator values for 2011. Comparison of both datasets already shows some

interesting trends.

2015 Targets for box 1 and box 2 will be added early 2014, after the

findings from MTR will have been discussed with the GP countries. Targets

for box 3, box 4, and box 5 have remained the same.

In the following sections, revised and improved monitoring and evaluation

frameworks per result area are presented. Indeed, this update will allow us

to conduct more sensible and concise performance tracking of the Girl

Power programme.

Definitions and Abbreviations

DGIS Development Cooperation Department of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs

CSO Civil Society Organization

Communities Communities with which the Alliance collaborates

CRA Child Rights Alliance

CRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

2

CSC Country Steering Committee

Impact The contribution of the Alliance programme to the effects on societies

Key Indicators The indicators identified in the Result areas of the Alliance programme

Outcome The development change to which the Alliance programme contributes

Output Deliverable, product or service of the Alliance programme

Partners Organizations with whom the Alliance collaborates

Project Grouped activities, implemented by partners to achieve the results of the Alliance Programme

Country Programme Aligned CRA partner projects for achievement of common Girl Power objectives at country level

MDG Millennium Development Goal: Girl Power acts upon MDG 3 (Gender Equality) and MDG 2 (Universal Education)

3

1. Introduction

The Girl Power programme envisages to capacitate local civil society and

civil organizations in 10 countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia to

support the empowerment of girls and young women for gender equality.

Girl Power is relevant to particularly MDG 3 and focuses on four thematic

areas. These are:

Violence against girls and young women;

(Post-primary) education;

Economic participation;

Socio-political participation;

The four thematic areas are addressed in three dimensions -individual,

socio-cultural and institutional-, and through the strengthening of civil

society.

The strategic orientation of the Girl Power programme is captured in the

diagram below, in which the major results areas are presented as “boxes”.

Empowered girls and young women, composed of the key dimensions

of change (box 1), the four thematic areas (box 2), and civil society (box

3)

Capacity build in partners (box 4), expressed through the 5 capabilities

for development (5C), resulting in improved organizational capacity and

quality of partner projects’ outputs in the country programs.

Support by the Child Rights Alliance (box 5)

Outputs by partner organizations (box 6)

2. Monitoring

2.1. Objectives of Monitoring under Girl Power

Progress monitoring will support 4 basic program management

requirements these are:

Accountability (vertical and horizontal)

Strategic guidance (increase effectiveness)

Operational guidance ((increase efficiency)

Learning

These requirements are not equally important to all stakeholders. Whilst

DGIS may be less concerned with the operational and strategic guidance

functions, these are of utmost importance for the Country Steering

Committees (CSCs) guiding the individual country programs and the

individual projects. Variations in importance are shown in Table 1:

4

Table 1. Variations in importance attached to monitoring functions:

by category of stakeholder

Function DGIS CRA CSC Local

partner

Target group

Accountability **** *** *** ** ****

Strategic

guidance ** **** **** *** *

Operational

Guidance * ** *** *** *

Learning * *** *** * *

* = low importance; ** = some importance;

*** = important; **** = very important

6

Although interests may vary, ultimately the combined monitoring effort

must provide sufficient information for all the above mentioned functions.

This means that monitoring practices need to be harmonized and aligned

in one common system and operationalized in one common protocol.

The following pages present the minimal information the Girl Power

program needs to generate through the monitoring practices of individual

participation partners. For all results areas (the “boxes” in the results chain

in the diagram) key results and performance indicators are formulated.

2.2. Minimal information requirements

Country programs are required to show at least developments in box 1,

box 2, box 3, and box 4.

Individual projects are minimally required to show results in box 4 and box

6.

Note that these are minimal requirements. Country programs and projects

may opt for monitoring of specific changes resulting from their activities for

their own reasons. Strictly speaking, such monitoring remains outside the

scope of the Girl Power monitoring framework, although it may provide

circumstantial supportive evidence for Girl Power results

2.3. Three different levels of monitoring.

Girl Power distinguishes between three main levels of monitoring: project

level, country level, and alliance level.

Project level

The Dutch members of the CRA agree with their southern partners what

capabilities need to be developed (box 4) in order to ensure agreed quality

outputs in the program countries (box 6). Hence results are at the level of

the southern partner organization and in the quality of the work they do

for achieving gender equality.

CRA members and the southern partner organization agree individually on

the terms of their collaboration. Already existing project management tools,

including those for monitoring and reporting, may be used.

All project monitoring needs to comply with the minimal standards set by

the Girl Power Steering Committee. These includes guidelines about

frequency of reporting, use of reporting formats, use of progress indicators,

and mechanisms for sharing of information.

7

Responsibility for quality project information, valid, reliable and useful for

Girl Power reporting and learning, lies with the CRA member.

All projects will share their relevant project information at country level with

the Girl Power Country Steering Committee and with the Dutch CRA

through the responsible CRA-member.

Projects will report on their activities twice a year.

Country Level

Civil society organizations in each program country have agreed to

collaborate, harmonize and coordinate their individual projects within a

country specific Girl Power framework based upon a common vision,

aiming for common goals, and used for joint learning. Country Steering

Committees (CSCs) are formed in each country representing all

participating civil society organizations. A major task of CSCs is to

safeguard and monitor country program consistency and provide strategic

guidance to all stakeholders. Moreover, CSCs play a key role in the

implementation of the country learning agenda and will ensure that new

learnings are used to enhance program quality. (See also learning agenda)

As an overarching steering body CSCs are well placed to co-monitor –

together with the Child Rights Alliance (CRC)- the effectiveness of civil

society partners in the their countries in relation to defined country

outcomes regarding the strength of civil society to enhance gender

equality.

An important source of information for CSCs are the Girl Power Expert

panels established in each country: one panel composed of knowledgeable

girls and young women representing the final beneficiaries, another panel

composed of knowledgeable professionals from civil society and

government institutions supported by the program. Structural involvement

of beneficiaries in monitoring, learning and steering is a core element in all

Girl Power programs, giving additional content to its participatory

approaches.

For their effective operation CSCs need access to all partner project

information. Annual GP reflection sessions constitute an important source

of additional information. During these sessions all stakeholders, including

the aforementioned panels, will discuss progress; learnings and problems in

the country program and agree on measures to take for better

effectiveness.

CSCs under Girl Power will receive all the support they need from the CRA

via country support teams. CSCs are expected to mature gradually during

the implementation period of the program. CRA support will be relatively

substantial in the first few years of the program, but gradually reduce in

line with capacities built.

8

CSCs will report to the Steering Committee of the CRA on its activities

twice a year.

Alliance level

The CRA-Steering Committee will monitor and guide Girl Power progress at

the highest level. It receives relevant monitoring information through the

country support teams and the CRA member organizations.

The Girl Power Desk is responsible for the administration and analysis of all

Girl Power information, including information regarding the learning

agenda(s). Information will be entered in the Girl Power MIS. Aggregated

information will be produced for reporting to the Ministry and other

parties. The Girl Power Desk will also maintain a system for the sharing of

relevant information between CRA-members, country programs, regions

and partner organizations.

9

3. Girl Power results and progress indicators

In the following tables, the key results and indicators for measurement are presented. As of December 2013 values for 2011 and 2013 are available from the

midterm review carried out during the final trimester of 2013, which validated/reconstructed baseline values collected in 2011 and measured progress to date.

The ten Girl Power country programs are in line with the framework and our partners are obliged to report on developments in the “boxes” relevant to their

country programs against the identified results and the corresponding indicators. The indicator values presented in this monitoring protocol are calculated from

the country values.

Note: where indicator values are accompanied with an asterisk (*), this means that data were collected from girls and young women aged 14-24 only, because

the subject matter was deemed unfit to discuss with younger children.

Box 1 and box 2: Protection against violence

Outcomes

Note: Only those Girl Power country programmes that intervene in this thematic area are assessed for progress made against stipulated outcome results and

indicators. Each country programme may, in addition to the indicators mentioned below, include additional specific progress indicators. These will be primarily

used to enhance internal progress reporting, but may also enrich the annual reporting to DGIS, e.g. via stories, cases and illustrations.

Outputs, as delivered by the programme’s southern partners, are grouped together into output categories (mentioned under Box 6.)Country programmes are

free to include their own specific activities and outputs.

Better protection against violence for G&YW Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline

2011

MTR

2013

Target

2015

Decreased prevalence of violence against

you or girls that you know

% of girls and young women who indicate that they or girls they know have

experienced economic violence

82.1* 80.3

10


experienced physical violence

88.2* 84.0


experienced emotional violence

90.7* 88.0


experienced sexual violence

79.3* 74.5

Non-acceptance of violence against

G&YW

% of girls and young women who feel able to say no to sexual activity 55.9* 90.7*

% of girls and young women who agree that children may be beaten by adults 57.5 41.8

Access of G&YW to quality (child)

protection systems

% of girls and young women who know how to act when in need of protection

against violence

41.8* 74.9

% of girls and young women who demonstrate knowledge of available protection

services

42.4* 82.8

% of girls and young women who indicated they know GYW who accessed formal

protection services because violence happened to them

NA 62.8

Communities recognize violence against

G&YW as unacceptable

perceived* % of community members who agree that children deserve to be beaten

by their parents and/or teachers.

74.2 53.1

perceived* % of community members who agree that violence against G&YW inside

and outside the home should always be reported

53.5 87.1

perceived* % of community members who agree that a man is allowed to beat his

wife/girlfriend

43.3 13.4

Government acts to ensure the rights of

G&YW to protection against violence

% of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that

government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through policies

and legislation

55.5 76.2

11

% of “girl power” experts (members of the Girl Power girl’s panels) who feel that

government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through policies

and legislation

28.6 32.0


government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through services

49.2 58.7

% of "girl power" experts (members of the Girl Power girl's panels) who feel that

government is supportive to protection of girls and young women through services

41.8 34.6

Box 1 and box 2 Socio-political participation

Outcomes

Note: Only those Girl Power country programmes that intervene in this thematic area will be assessed for progress made against stipulated outcome results

and indicators. Each country programme may, in addition to the indicators mentioned below, include additional specific progress indicators. These will be

primarily used to enhance internal progress reporting, but may also enrich the annual reporting to DGIS, e.g. via stories, cases and illustrations.



Socio-political participation

Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline 2011 MTR

2013

Target

2015

G&YW take equally part in decision taking

and politics

% of girls and young women who agree that G&YW should be part of community

committees or other groups, to decide on issues that are important to them

56.6 97.8

% of girls and young women who confirm that it is possible for them to join

groups and discuss freely in places where girls and young women meet

27.5 85.9

12

% of girls and young women who confirm that when they have an idea to improve

something at home, school or in the community, they have the opportunity to

make that happen

25.8 84.6

Communities value G&YW as actors of

importance in (political) decision taking

perceived % of community members who agree that girls and young women

should be active in political/public decision making

51.9 94.3

Government actively creates conditions for

equal political participation by both sexes

% of “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel that the

government is supportive of enhancing the participation of young women in local

governance

44.4 59.2


the government is supportive of enhancing the participation of young women in

local governance

44.7 26.6

Box 1 and box 2: Economic participation

Outcomes






Economic participation Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline 2011 MTR Target

13

2013 2015

G&YW benefit from socio-economic

services

% of girls and young women who indicate that they benefit from socio-economic

services, delivered by organisations like saving and credit groups and local

development banks, vocational training institutes etc.

13.7* 54.2

% of girls and young women who have engaged in income generating economic

activities outside their homes

43.2 50.8

% of girls and young women who feel that women have the same opportunities to

earn money as men

37.4* 49.1

G&YW take equal part in household

budget management

% of young women who indicate they have a say in how the money they earned is

spent

41.0 72.9

Communities value G&YW as actors of

importance in economic life

perceived % of community members who agree that women should have an equal

say as boys and young men in deciding upon the use of household income.

57.1 91.9

perceived % of community members who disagree that men should earn more

than women for the same work

58.8 77.6

Govt actively creates conditions for equal

economic participation by both sexes

% of formal “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel

that government is supportive to socio-economic participation of young women

through legislation and policies

71.4 76.2


government is supportive to socio-economic participation of young women

through legislation and policies

58.6 9.2


government is supporting socio-economic participation of girls and young women

through services

61.9 66.7


government is supporting socio-economic participation of girls and young women

through services

63.2 41.4

14

Box 1 and box 2: (Post-primary) Education

Outcomes




Outputs, as delivered by the programme’s southern partners, are grouped together into output categories (mentioned under Box 6). Country programmes are


(Post-primary) Education Outcome Result Indicator(s) Baseline 2011 MTR

2013

Target

2015

G&YW enrol and complete post-primary

education

National net enrolment ratio (NER) Primary education - male 68.61

National net enrolment ratio (NER) Primary education - female 47.02

National completion rate (until last grade) Primary education - male 47.03

National completion rate (until last grade) Primary education - female 43.54

1 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Ethiopia, Zambia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

2 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Ethiopia, Zambia, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

3 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Zambia, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

4 Based on data from: Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Zambia, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

15

National net enrolment ratio (NER) Post-primary education - male 40.35

National net enrolment ratio (NER) Post-primary education - female 34.56

National completion rate (until last grade) Post-primary education - male 30.67

National completion rate (until last grade) Post-primary education - female 36.08

G&YW value education

% of girls and young women who agree that girls should be able to continue their

education after childbirth / after marriage

54.4 91.9

Communities value education for G&YW

equally important as for B&YM

perceived % of community members who agree that girls should be able to

continue their education after childbirth / after marriage

58.5 93.0

perceived % of community members who agree that girls should have an equal

chance to go to school as boys

71.0 97.3

Govt actively creates conditions for equal

participation of both sexes in (post-)

primary education

% of formal “girl power” experts (members of the professional panels) who feel

that government, is supportive to (post) primary education for girls and young

women through enforcement of legislation and policies.

56.1 73.1


government is supportive to (post) primary education for girls and young women

through enforcement of legislation and policies.

25.0 40.2

5 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Nepal, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

6 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Pakistan, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

7 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

8 Based on data from: Ethiopia, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

16

Box 3: Civil Society Development

Outputs

Outputs are delivered by:

1. CRA member organisations through support to their southern partner organisations: Box 5. 2. Southern partner organisations through support to grassroots organisations (eg. women’s groups and girls’ clubs), civil society in local

communities, networks, and professionals: Box 6.

Outputs may involve:

Support to civil society for the promotion of the rights of girls and young women, e.g. through sports events and building adequate capacity

Support to civil society to take part in child protection systems, including systems for protection of girls and young women and build

adequate capacity

Support and establish CBOs to promote the rights of girls and young women and build required capacity

Support to civil society media organisations (TV and radio stations, newspapers etc.) to become effectively involved in information

dissemination regarding gender equality

Support civil society for effective lobbying for and advocacy of laws and policies for girls empowerment, gender equality, child rights and

women rights

Support to civil society for the establishment of constructive dialogue with government regarding gender equality development in formal

and informal meetings

Support to civil society to take part in joint action to advocate girls rights and build multi-level coalitions and networks

Training of civil society professionals in the rights of girls and young women

Support to civil society to effectively monitor government responsiveness to girls and gender issues

Support to civil society to develop and implement programs to promote (post-primary) education and employment for girls

Programs by CS organisations to combat violence against girls and young women

Programs by CS organisations to enhance socio-political participation of girls and young women

Programs by CS organisations to enhance socio-economic participation of girls and young women

Programs by CS organisations for enhanced (secondary) education for girls and young women

17

Outcomes

Note: Strength of civil society is measured by an adapted version of the Civicus methodology. In line with Civicus, expert panels will be used to answer the

guiding questions about the five dimensions. Where needed these questions have been operationalized for the Girl Power reality.

All country programs will report on this box.

Dimension Result Indicators (Answers to key-questions)

Change between 2011 and 2015

Civic

engagement

Diversity of

socially based

engagement

[Core] Do partner organizations act on behalf of

their constituency and do they include social

target groups in their analysis and planning and

take the needs of the poor and marginalized into

account?

As a core objective of the program we expect civil society organisations to improve

substantially in this field

What percentage of partner organizations

involves girls and young women in the

analysis and planning?


involves girls and young women in the

monitoring and evaluation?


reach marginalized girls and young women

equally well as other girls and young

women?

How well do CS organizations represent girls

and young women, according to their own

perception?

6,3

7,5

10,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

18



Diversity of

political

engagement

[Core] Is a diverse segment of the target group

of partner organizations represented in locally

elected bodies of government and/or in user

groups?

The representation of girls and young women in political settings varies per topic and per

country. The program aims to increase the political participation of girls and young

women. Since most of the target group is not yet in the age to be elected, we do not

expect a direct increase in girls and young women in elected bodies. We expect a more

indirect influence in their representation because Girls and young women will speak out

and take part in political discussion more freely.

How well are targeted girl and young

women organization represented in local

governments, according to their own

perception?

What percentage of girl and young women

have undertaken last year a form of political

action (e.g. contacted media, written to a

newspaper, signed a petition, attended a

demonstration)?


belong to at least one CSO as staff,

volunteers and/or as member)?


has participated in a collective community

action within the last year?

Level of

organization

Organizational

level of civil

society

(infrastructure

CSI)

[Core] Are partner organizations and alliances

organized in networks/ umbrella organizations

and do they represent CBOs and other actors?

5,5

6,9

7,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

6,8

7,3

9,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

19




and targeted CBOs is organized in networks/

umbrella/ Country Steering Committees?

Country Steering Committees (CSC) for the Girl Power program were set-up in 2010.

Along with their development we expect significant improvement of coordination and

harmonization between all stakeholders through networks and umbrella structures.

How many Country Steering Committees

involve girls and young women, or their

CBOs, in the analysis and planning?

How many Country Steering Committees

involve girls and young women, or their

CBOs, in the monitoring and evaluation?

Peer-to peer

communication

How well do partner organizations share

information and collaborate in joint analysis?

Sharing of information and collaboration among partner organizations and the civil

society organizations they support varies at the moment per country, but is generally

unstructured. We expect a large improvement on this issue as learning and exchange of

experiences are important objectives in the Girl Power program

How well do the partner organizations

collaborate in the Country Steering

Committees?

How many joint activities and campaigns by

partner organizations have occurred?

How many multi-level coalitions and

networks are in place (CRA Output)

Financial and

human

resources

[Core] Are financial resources of partner

organizations and alliances diversified with sound

internal financial and human management?

Maintain organizations effective financial

resource mobilization? (5C)

Maintain organizations effective human

7,1

7,4

8,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

20



resource mobilization? (5C)

We expect that the baseline will show that the partners, selected for their potential to

grow on these criteria, will indeed grow rapidly through the capacity building components

in the GP program. This will reflect positively on the CS organizations they support in

turn.

Practice of

values

Internal

governance

[Core] Do the partner organizations and the CSOs

they support involve their target groups in

decision making?

Democratic decision making is a core objective of the program we expect that the partner

organizations and the CS organizations they support have the potential to grow on these

criteria very rapidly.

There is more variation among the targeted CSOs. We expect that we will have a major

impact in improving involvement of Girls and Young women in CSOs


and the CSOs they support have girls or

young women involved as leaders?


and the CSOs they support have policies in

place to ensure gender equity?


and the CSOs they support have selected

leaders through democratic elections?

6,5

7,1

8,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

5,9

7,4

8,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

21




and the CSOs they support systematically

include girls and young women in decision

making?

Transparency [Core] Are the partner organizations and the

CSOs they support transparent on financial

information and does the staff respect internal

procedures (code of conduct)?

Transparency is core criteria for the GP program and one of the core values. We expect

the partner organizations and the CS organizations they support to score high at the end

of the program.


and the CSOs they support make their

financial accounts publicly available?

Does the staff respect internal procedures

(code of conduct)?

Perception of

impact

Responsiveness [Core] Are the partner organizations and the

CSOs they support considered as counterparts by

local government and private sector?

We expect a major improvement of responsiveness amongst partner organizations and

the CS organizations they support.

Social impact [Core] Do the partner organizations, in the

sectors they work in, provide services that

6,6

7,4

8,5

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

7,2

7,7

9,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

7,7

7,8

9,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

22



respond to one or more basic social needs of

their target group?

We expect the social impact of the partner organizations and the CS organizations they

support will be very high at the end of the program since this is one of the main

objective. Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.

How active and successful is civil society in

empowering girls and young women?


building the capacity of girls and young

women to organize themselves, mobilize

resources and work together to solve

common problems?


creating / supporting services (protection,

education, employment, participation)

especially for marginalized girls and young

women?

Policy impact [Core] Do the partner organizations successfully

influence government policy or planning/

budgeting/ policy making of international

organizations in the sectors they work in?

We expect the policy impact that of the partner organizations and the CS organizations

they support will be very high at the end of the program. Since this is one of the main

How active and successful are partner

organizations and the CSOs they support in

influencing public policy on girls and young

women’s rights?

How active and successful are partner

organizations and the CSOs they support in

monitoring state performance and holding

5,8

7,1

8,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

23



the state accountable, especially regarding

policy/initiatives directed at G&YW?

objective. Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.

How did CS organizations change

government support to gender equality and

girls’ empowerment, eg. through (formal)

dialogue and research.

Environment Socio-

economic,

socio-political

and socio-

cultural context

[Core] Are the interventions of the alliance the

choice of the partner organizations and are their

interventions based on a quality context analysis

of the space and the role of CS in that specific

country (including socio-economic, political and

cultural context)?

We expect that the partner organizations and the CS organizations they support will have

a very high score at the end of the program since this is one of the main objectives.

Baseline is expected to indicate high partner potential for growth.

[Core] Do partner organizations take into account

and participate in studies of CS in the country they

work in?

Box 4: Building Capabilities in Partners

Outcomes

Note: Five interrelated capabilities will be measured in partner civil society organizations, including the CSC, as a way to assess their organizational capacity. All

capabilities are important to all types of organizations but, depending on the core business of a particular organization, capabilities may be valued differently.

7,3

7,5

9,0

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

2015

2013

2011

24

Capabilities in civil society organisations will be seen in relation to the expected Girl Power outputs and outcomes, as well as in relation to the intrinsic capacity

to be sustainable agents of change.

Capacity building of partner organizations within CRA – GP program

Assessment of the capacity to deliver quality outputs in partner organisations is common practice amongst CRA member organizations. Since the Alliance

members have developed a common partner policy, they also want to approach the capacity building in a more systematic harmonized way. The 5C model,

provided by the Ministry, has been adapted to the reality of the Alliance members and tailored into a practical capacity assessment tool.

Capacity assessment allows for tracking capacity development of partners over time and constitutes the basis for CRA capacity building programming.

Ownership of this whole process will be with the partner organization itself. CRA member organisations may use their own capacity assessment tools for regular

monitoring of capacity development trajectories with their partner organisations. Specific capacity development of individual partners will take place in bilateral

agreement between partner and CRA member.

For monitoring of capacity development at overall alliance level, the 5C model will be used to establish baseline and outcome result information for 2011, 2013

and 2015.

Key indicators per Capability

For the baseline, alliance partner organizations have been assessed on 5 key indicators per capability; four generic elements and a fifth element that was added

to do justice to the specific Girl Power character. Together, these indicators represent the capabilities necessary for an organisation to play its role effectively

and efficiently as actor for gender equality. This assessment was consistent within countries and between countries to ensure comparability of data as much as

possible.

Baseline and targets

In the baseline report, aggregated scores were presented per indicator. The scores were based on the 4 phases in a change process: awareness, exploration,

transition and full implementation. The maximum total score is therefore 5 x 5 x 4 = 100. It is expected that all partner organizations will grow to at least level

3 (transition), with at least 75% reaching level 4 (full implementation) on all five capabilities

Monitoring and reporting

It is foreseen that for internal monitoring, learning and decision making, this exercise will be repeated for 2013 and 2015. For reporting to the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs however, the CRA will follow the recommendations from the DSO workshop on monitoring capacity development (11 December 2012) and focus

on trends in developments of partner organisations on specific capabilities and overall organisational capacity according to their own perceptions, including

qualitative information on representative cases. Reporting will be qualitative and descriptive per capability, and based upon the quantitative scoring on pointers.

25

Pointer values were measured in baseline (2011) and mid-term review (2013). In some cased values have reduced between 2011 and 2013, which most likely

reflects an increased awareness and better understanding of the 5C methodology and not so much a lesser capability. Targets for 2015 have remained

unchanged.

All country programs will report on the partner organisations’ capabilities.

Result C1 Indicators and pointers Baseline 2011 MTR 2013 Target 2015

The Partner Organisation is

capable to commit to its actions

and act accordingly

1. The organisation has a (strategic) plan, takes decisions and acts on these decisions

collectively

3,3

3,32

3,6

2. The organization maintains effective human resource mobilization 3,1

3,18

3,7

3. The organization maintains effective financial resource mobilization 3

3,08

3,7

4. The organisation has effective, inspiring and action oriented leadership 3,5

3,41

3,7

5. The organization’s mission is rights based and gender sensitive 3,3

3,28

3,8



capable to deliver on

development objectives

1. The organisation’s infrastructure is considered sufficient and relevant for its core

tasks

2,7

2,95

3,6

2. The organisation has adequate and sufficiently stable human resources at its

disposal

3,1

3,13

3,7

3. The organisation has an adequate PM&E system 3,2

3,32

3,7

26

4. The organisation has access to knowledge resources 3,2

3,22

3,7

5. Rights based approaches and gender sensitivity are major principles in the

organization’s operations.

3,5

3,38

3,8



capable to attract and relate to

external stakeholders

1. The organization enters into coalitions and maintains adequate alliances with

relevant stakeholders

3,3

3,28

3,7

2. The organization’s leadership and staff are incorruptible, according to its

stakeholders

3,4

3,40

3,7

27

3. The organization is seen as politically and socially legitimate by relevant

stakeholders

3,5

3,54

3,7

4. The organization has operational credibility /reliability in the eyes of relevant

stakeholders

3,2

3,22

3,7

5. The organization maintains relations with other organizations working for child

rights and gender equality

3,4

3,56

3,8



capable to adapt and self-renew

1. The management has an understanding of shifting contexts and relevant trends

(external factors)

3,3

3,13

3,7

2. The management leaves room for diversity, flexibility and creativity to change and

divert from original plans

3,2

3,01

3,3

3. Management encourages and rewards learning and exchange, including within its

own management

3,1

3,19

3,6

28

4. The organisation plans and evaluates its learning systematically 2,9

3,03

3,6

5. Learning is used for greater effectiveness in operations for gender equality 2,9

2,99

3,7



capable to balance diversity and

consistency in its operations

1. The organization has a clear mandate, vision and strategy that are known by staff

and used by its management in decision-making

3,3

3,34

3,3

2. The organization has a well-defined set of operating principles and uses these in its

operations

3,2

3,35

3,8

3. Leadership is committed to achieving coherence, balancing stability and change 3,3

3,22

3,6

4. There is consistency between ambition, vision, strategy and operations 3,3

3,32

3,8

5. The organization has a gender policy which guides the organization in its internal

management and in its implementation.

2,9

3,06

3,6

29

Box 5: CRA outputs

Outputs CRA member organizations

Note: CRA outputs will be measured by individual CRA members. Targets will be set on a yearly basis according to need.

Reporting on this box is only at the level of CRA.

CRA outputs

Result Indicators Baseline Target

2013

Target

2015

A.1 Management of

relationships with

partners (including

PME by CRA

members)

Partnerships built # of new partners identified 0 12 125

Partner proposals assessed and approved # of new partner project proposals assessed and approved 0 31 123

Partner project monitoring (including

financial and narrative reporting)

# of partner projects monitored 0 118 127

A.2 Technical and

financial capacity

support to partners

Organisational capacity of Southern partners

assessed

# of partners performing 5C methodology

0 98 123

Capacity development support delivered # of partner organisations supported with capacity development in

the area of rights-based-approach/gender mainstreaming/lobby and

advocacy/PME

0 133 171

A.3 Creation and

promotion of

grassroots

organisations

Grassroots organisations to work with

identified

# of grassroots organisations identified 0 943 3.272

Capacity development support delivered to

grassroots organisations

# of grassroots organisations supported with capacity development 0 1.645 3.177

A.4 Support linking

and networking

among partners

Well monitored country programmes # of country programmes monitored 0 10 10

Facilitated CSC meetings, including Annual

Reflection Meetings

# of CSC meetings facilitated 0 80 330

30

CRA outputs


2013

Target

2015

(including the

Country Steering

Committees)

Supported cross-country meetings and

consultations aimed at strengthening

linkages and networks among partners

# of meetings/consultations

0 26 115

A.5 Research and

learning (on issues

of girl’s rights and

empowerment)

Conducted research on issues of girls' and

young women’s' rights

# of studies initiated by CRA (members) 0 32 101

Disseminated leanings on issues of girls' and

young women's rights (including lectures,

workshops, publications, launches)

# of dissemination events (including lectures, workshops, publications,

launches)

0 59 242

Implemented learning agenda # of organisations (CRA or others) involved in study and discussion of

learning questions

0 135 214

# of learning questions addressed 0 4 4

A.6 Alignment and

coordination

Harmonisation meetings with other

alliances, RNE's/bi-lateral and multi-lateral

agencies

# of agreements, contracts and/or MoU's reached on harmonisation

with MFSII alliances

0 13 35


with RNE's/bi-lateral agencies

0 9 15


with multi-lateral agencies

0 7 23

Implementation of harmonisation

agreements with other alliances, RNE's/bi-

lateral and multi-lateral agencies

# of effective harmonisation agreements (contracts, MoU's) with other

alliances

0 9 35

# of effective harmonisation agreements (contracts, MoU's) with

RNE's/bi-lateral agencies

0 1 15

# of effective harmonisation agreements, contracts and/or MoU's

with multi-lateral agencies

0 5 23

Cross-country

PM&E

Implementation of cross-country planning,

monitoring and evaluation

# of Girl Power countries involved in joint MFSII evaluation

(sub)studies

0 4 4

31

CRA outputs


2013

Target

2015

# of revisions of M&E framework 0 1 1

# of impact assessment and studies implemented 0 4 3

Box 6: Partner outputs

Outputs Southern Partners

32

Partner outputs are monitored by the partners individually, using essentially own monitoring systems, in alignment with the Girl Power results framework and

corresponding indicators. Baseline information will be collected at the start of project activities (rolling baseline)

Partner outputs


2013

Target

2015

B.1. Services

delivered to young

girls and women:

Individual level

Media messages specifically

targeted to girls and young

women and/or boys to provide

information on gender equality

and women's rights (radio, TV etc.)

Training & workshops on gender

equality & rights and/or overall

empowerment (life skills,

leadership, participation etc.),

including training of trainers

Sports events or activities

Support to victims of gender

based violence (social, legal,

counselling, medical referral etc.)

through shelter facilities

Support to victims of gender

based violence (social, legal,

counselling, medical referral etc.)

at community level

Setting up and supporting child

helplines

Provision of scholarships and/or

# of girls and young women reached by services delivered

by partners

0 468.140 1.507.790

# of boys and young men reached by services delivered by

partners

0 277.939 591.200

33

Partner outputs


2013

Target

2015

material support for (post-)

primary education

Providing access to vocational

skills trainings

Saving & loans schemes

B.2. Sensitization of

communities (men

and women):

Institutional level

Awareness raising/sensitization

meetings & events (promotion of

girl friendly attitudes and non-

violence)

Facilitate and support child welfare

committees and other community

based protection initiatives

Meetings with traditional leaders in

communities Girl Power issues

Media messages specifically

targeted at communities on

gender equality and women's

rights

# of communities reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights

0 2.085 4.509

# of households reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights

0 538.909 758.933

# of traditional leaders reached by partners with activities aimed at promotion of gender equality and girls' rights

0 7.004 18.954

B.3. Influencing of

national/district/loca

l governments:

Institutional level

Training to government frontline

professionals at local, district,

province, regional or national level

(health professionals, teachers,

police)

Lobby & advocacy activities on

laws and policies related to girls

empowerment, child rights and

# of staff of government institutions reached by partners for lobby and advocacy

0 4.695 15.133

# of international policy institutions reached by partners for lobby and advocacy

0 5.757 18.662

# of frontline staff of government institutions reached by partners for training

0 2 5

34

Partner outputs


2013

Target

2015

women’s rights

B.4. Strengthening

of civil society

(organisations): Civil

Society

Capacity support to CSO's by

partners

Capacity support to girls’ club &

other grassroots organisations by

partners

Strengthening CSO networks

Training media professionals on

Girl Power issues

Participation in local, regional,

national, international lobby

networks & initiatives

# of CSO’s, grassroots organisations and media professionals reached

by partners

0 10.216 26.784

# of networks supported or strengthened by partners 0 213 472

B5. Increased

coordination and

learning among

partners: CSC level

Conduct research on issues of

girls' and young women’s' rights

by CSCs

Implement learning agenda's by

CSCs Implement girl panels for

review and strengthening of the

GPP

Conduct research on issues of

girls' and young women’s' rights

by CSCs

# of studies initiated by CSCs 0 14 43

# of learning agenda's operationalized by CSCs 0 10 10

# girl panel meetings 0 535 1.597

# of active girls panels 0 10 10

B6. PME Monitor projects by Southern

partners

# of projects monitored by southern partners 0 107 120

35

Partner outputs


2013

Target

2015

southern

partners: Partner

Organisation level

Develop quarterly, bi-annual and

annual financial and narrative

reports by Southern partners

# of southern partners reporting according to agreed schedules

0 109 121

36

4. Data collection

Baseline

The country baseline carried out under the guidance of the CRA and the

CSCs has used already existing information in data bases of government

agencies, INGOs, NGOs, research institutes and other agents. Essential

information not available yet was collected with the assistance of,

preferably local, knowledge institutes. Country baseline information

presents the initial situation in each of the boxes identified in the Girl

Power Results Framework (see diagram above).

Each project under GP is building on an assessed starting situation for

which each will carry out it own baseline study. Project baseline information

will be updated in “rolling baselines”, as soon as project activities extend

to new geographic and thematic areas.

Information gathering for baseline and monitoring MDGs and civil society (Box 1, box 2, and box 3)

All information will be in alignment with the Girl Power Results Framework.

The core variables of the GP are:

1. Numbers for scope of the program

2. Knowledge; about rights and position of girls and young women

3. Values in communities in relation to gender equity

4. Government support to gender equality

5. Perceptions of girls and young women regarding the supportiveness of

their social and institutional environment to gender equality.

6. Capability of girls and young women to make decisions regarding their

own lives

In order to measure progress and keep track of key performance indicators

different sources of information and different data collection methods may

be used.

Primary data Expert panel discussions (using scoring matrix) with girls and young

women on perceptions (box 1, box 2). These panels will be

representative of the final beneficiaries (girls and young women) at all

times and facilitated by an instructed and trained facilitator. The panels

will meet at least twice a year to feed CSCs with progress information,

particularly in relation to changes in the four strategic areas of

intervention and the three dimensions of change. The insights of the

panels will be analysed and documented in program progress reports

and are crucial for program steering purposes at country level and may

feed the country learning agendas.

Expert panel discussions with professionals involved in Girl Power (box

1, box 2, box 3). These panels will be representative for the partner

organizations involved in the country program at all times and meet at

least twice a year. The professional expert panels will particularly

provide insights in the effectiveness of the country program: are the

involved partner organizations doing the right things to achieve gender

equality? Moreover they will tackle Box 3 issues, using the adapted

CIVICUS key questions and provide information about the dynamics

and performance of civil society on gender issues. The insights of the

panels will be analyzed and documented in program progress reports

and are crucial for program steering purposes at country level and may

feed the country learning agendas.

Interviews with girls and young women and with key informants of the

communities in the project area (box 1, box 2, box 3). As a part of

regular monitoring in all program areas, key informants will be

interviewed at least four times a year, using context specific key

questionnaires and guidelines. Results will be discussed during the

37

annual reflection sessions led by the CSC and integrated in the bi-

annual progress reporting.

Participatory methods (e.g. ranking, storytelling such as Most

Significant Change Technique) (box 1, box 2, box 3) These data

collection methods will mainly be used for triangulation, to validate

already collected information, and provide additional circumstantial

evidence.

Secondary data

Secondary databases, particularly for quantitative indicators (numbers, %,

incidence, ratio) may be used: MIS/databases of local partners, statistics

and reports (Southern partners, NGOs data bases, government,

international organizations, research institutions). Validity and usability of

these data will be assessed in each country. For reasons of comparability,

use of databases kept at international organizations, such as the UN are

preferred, but may lack specificity and detail required for GP monitoring

gp monitoring protocol 2014

Documents

alliance programme outcome

progress indicators

societies key indicators

new set of indicators

improved monitoring

revised version

existing monitoring

equal rights