report advocacy - overseas development institute · sector in africa and bangladesh to help...
TRANSCRIPT
1
REPORT “POLICY ANALYSIS, ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY” 31 July-4 August, 2006 Civic Inn, Dhaka, Bangladesh
2
REPORT
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: NAVED CHOWDHURY, ODI
Email: [email protected] MUNTASIM TANVIR
House# 8 Road# 136
Tel# 8815941-2 Fax# 8815973
E-mail – [email protected]
Rapporteur: John Rahat Coordination of Reporting: Saraana Mujadid
Photographer: John Rahat
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From 31st July to 4th August 2006, CEF and ODI organized “Policy Analysis, Engagement and Advocacy” workshop for its member organizations of South Asia and it was held in Civic Inn, Dhaka, Bangladesh. The purpose of the workshop was to enhance knowledge and skills among CEF member organizations to provide a deeper understanding of the concept of advocacy, policy and the role of education NGOs in influencing the attainment of Education for All goals.
Naved Chowdhury, from ODI’s Civil Society Partnerships Programme (CSPP), facilitated the whole policy entrepreneurship and advocacy workshop. To meet the objectives, the workshop programme was divided into three parts – Part One focused on Policy influence and tools for Policy Impact where as the second part was concentrated on the Practical Field Experience to CEF partner project which were facilitated by the ActionAid Education Theme. Part Three focused on developing a strategy, monitoring and assessment which was also conducted by Naved. Emily Lungano, CEF Africa Regional Coordinator also enriched the workshop with her experiences from Africa. Participants mostly came from South Asian Countries: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 26 participants attended the five day long workshop along with the representation from CEF-UK and Africa Regional Coordinator.
The specific objectives of the workshop were to:
Enrich advocacy knowledge and skills among CEF member organizations. Enhance the awareness amongst member organizations of the latest
theories and practices about policies processes and policy influence. Implement practical knowledge from the field visit to the policy level
strategies. Explore the types of policy/advocacy tools and frameworks and their
application. Identify opportunities and limitations for influence in the education sector. Design and develop advocacy strategies and key messages, with agreed
work plans.
4
Key elements covered during the workshop included the RAPID Framework, lessons from the Civil Society Partnership Program, Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire, Group work on different tools and methods, Advocacy rules, Monitoring & Management Knowledge Basics. Other elements included the respective CSOs engagement covered the workshop in the education sector in Africa and Bangladesh to help workshop participants to understand the current role of CSOs in the sector. Various types and characteristics of different CSOs were explored in great detail.
Naved Chowdhury, the facilitator also described Definition, Functions and
Types of CSOs and a unique linear logical policy model which identify the problem and stepwise evaluate the result. Also African experience shared by CEF Africa Coordinator helped the participants to get knowledge on CSOs involvement in the other region of the globe.
In the Key Note Speaker Session, one researcher and one policymaker share their experience on producing policy relevant and credible evidence and on the needs and pressure of Policymaking. This is to help workshop participants understand the current role of CSOs in the sector.
The policy entrepreneurship sessions discussed the various theories of practice and policy influencing. This included field visit and learning the various practical frameworks, tools and approaches to maximize policy impact, various communication tools and key elements when developing a communication/ advocacy strategy. Finally, the education context was mapped and linked with advocacy and policy influencing processes.
The field trip to see one project practically for analyzing the project to find out the policy implication of that work which the participants had been doing. The participants were asked to share in a group and identify different strategy for policy implication. The projected area was four and half hour route to Netrokona in the north of Capital Dhaka.
Some major subject matter to remember from the workshop:
• The quality of education was broadly identified by all groups as a key issue and many addressed it in their strategies. The quality issue is more prominent in India and Bangladesh where as in Pakistan the issue of access to education get higher priority.
• Globalization issue is very important. We need to know how to operate within globalization. Also one needed to know what to say to donors if he has to convince them. Policy makers are sometimes handicapped because they are looking at their jobs.
• We should not always criticize the government. Sometimes we need to team up and work with them because they are in direct contact with key donors like the World Bank.
5
• Sometimes the governments need CSOs to provide them with useful information, therefore we should look at this as a policy window and take advantage of it when we want to advocate.
• To influence policy makers we should package our message to be simple and straightforward. Create a simple summary of the policy issue on a one or two-paged paper and present it to the policy makers (government). The idea is to make them read, as they are usually not interested in reading bulky documents.
• It is important for CSOs to identify who is good in each of these fields in order to get the desired impact. The tools help CSOs in gathering evidence, doing research, learning lessons or advising on strategy for social, environment and economic development.
• Is there a clear distinction between policy, plans and legislations? The policy process needs to be understood as a process. Documents, laws, projects, programmes, policy statements, discourses, etc. are all part of the policy process.
• Link actors to policies to narratives to evidence to power to other actors. When developing context assessment one should try to think about the roles of actors and their relations to the other aspects of the RAPID framework. This will help in making sense of the roles that evidence and narratives and links play in research uptake.
• The Links arena is about the mechanisms affecting how evidence gets into the policy process or not and includes factors such as networks and the relationship between them. When CSOs understand these factors, they are more able to design an appropriate advocacy strategy to rectify their national concerns.
• We should not forget about evidence. CSOs need to collect significant stories from the field level. Define the domains of change and the reporting period. It is a way of evaluating change that CSOs have brought in the country and is important because it helps CSOs shape the way they communicate.
On the whole, the workshop was very successful and the participants felt that it was of high quality and value as well as relevant to their work. The challenge remains with the CEFs member organisations to follow through the issues raised and develop an action plan that will yield desirable results in influencing the attainment of CEF Projects in the South Asian countries.
6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAB ActionAid Bangladesh CEF Commonwealth Education Fund ODI Overseas Development Institute CSPP Civil Society Partnerships Programme ZANEC Zambia National Education Coalition NGO Non Governmental Organization GOV Government SMC School management committee CSO Civil Society Organization HF Health Facility Ques Questionnaire SA Survey Area DFID Department for International Developer PEDP Primary Education Development Program CABE Central Advisory Board Education MoF Ministry of Finance MoE Ministry of Education MP Member of Parliament WB World Bank MNC Multi National Corporation SUS Sabalamby Unnayan Samity ED Executive Director PCE Pakistan Coalition on Education
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary PPGG 33--55 List of Abbreviation PPGG 66 Table of Content PPGG 77--88 List of Figures and Tables PPGG 99 Background PPGG 1100--1111
DDAAYY OONNEE PPGG 1122--1199
Basics of Policy Influence: CSOs, Evidence and Policy Process Registration & Welcoming Speech Expectation and Introduction Plenary: Opportunities and Challenges to Policy Influence African Experience By CEF Africa Coordinator Key-Note Speaker Session The RAPID Framework and The lessons from the Civil Society Partnership Programme Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire
DDAAYY TTWWOO PPGG 2200--3311 Tools for Policy Impact
Results of the Policy entrepreneurship questionnaire Lessons from the Civil Society Partnership Programme (cont.) Identifying the Problem: Tools Policy Influence Group work on problem tree analysis and presentation The RAPID 28 Questions and other methods Group works and Presentations Findings
DDAAYY TTHHRREEEE PPGG 3322--3333 Field Trip to a School or CEF partner project
Netrokona: Field Trip Map of the Area & SUS Watch Out List for the Participants for the Field Trip
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( CONT)
DDAAYY FFOOUURR PPGG 3344--3388
Communication and Developing a Strategy Development the Strategy: Audience, Message and Promotion Advocacy Rules Experience Sharing Session from PCE Force field Analysis And Group Work
DDAAYY FFIIVVEE PPGG 3399--4488
Monitoring and Learning Group I: Community Audit Group II: What is the problem? Group III: Visit to Bangla Govt. School Monitoring and knowledge management basics Concluding Coments
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX PPGG 4499--6677
Program Schedule of the Workshop Participants of the Workshop Day one: Group works Day one: Presentation outline of Manzoor Ahmed Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire and results Day two: Group works Pictures Day three: What to Watch for sheets Rapid 28 Questions Day Four: Outline of Kamaleshwar Presentation Contact List
9
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Fig 1 Registration Process 13 Fig 2 Tanvir welcoming the participants 13 Fig 3 Naved in the opening session 14 Fig 4 Opportunities and Challenge were presented by the different countries 15 Fig 5 Emily sharing her experience 16 Fig 6 Key-Note Speaker Session 17 Fig 7 Questionnaire results 21 Fig 8 Map of Netrokona 33 Fig 9 The different Approaches 36 Fig 10 Presentation by Kamleshwar 38 Fig 11 Group one members giving their presentation 41 Fig 12 Group two members in their presentation session 43 Fig 13 Group three members gave the final presentation 45 Fig 14 Knowledge and learning 46 Appendix 49
10
BACKGROUND
CEF AND ODI: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
The Commonwealth Education Fund (CEF) involves an innovative partnership between three leading aid organisations ActionAid, Oxfam and Save the Children. In the 16 Commonwealth countries which the Fund is intended to benefit, these organisations have already appointed national co-ordinators and they have drawn-up plans for working on the ground with the local communities including parents, businesses and faith-based organisations with the aim of focussing attention on the fundamental importance of primary education in their societies. They also intend providing a bottom-up input to the design and implementation of policies that will help to deliver this important goal.
ODI is Britain's leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Their mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. ODI’s approach is to lock together high-quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. They work with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries.
In November 2005, ZANEC, in collaboration with CEF and ODI, organized the regional workshop for its member organizations in Africa. Following the footstep of African regional workshop, CEF and ODI organized this “Policy Analysis, Engagement and Advocacy” workshop for its member organizations of South Asia. The purpose of the workshop was to enhance knowledge and skills among CEF member organizations to provide a deeper understanding of the concept of advocacy, policy and the role of education NGOs in influencing the attainment of Education for All goals.
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of the workshop were to: 1. Enrich advocacy knowledge and skills among CEF member organizations. 2. Enhance the awareness amongst member organizations of the latest theories and practices about policies processes and policy influence. 3. Implement practical knowledge from the field visit to the policy level strategies. 4. Explore the types of policy/advocacy tools and frameworks and their application. 5. Identify opportunities and limitations for influence in the education sector. 6. Design and develop advocacy strategies and key messages, with agreed work plans.
11
WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
Naved Chowdhury, from ODI’s Civil Society Partnerships Programme (CSPP), facilitated the whole policy entrepreneurship and advocacy workshop. To meet the objectives, the workshop programme was divided into three parts – Part One focused on Policy influence and tools for Policy Impact where as the second part was concentrated on the Practical Field Experience to CEF partner project which were facilitated by the ActionAid Education Theme. Part Three focused on developing a strategy, monitoring and assessment which was also conducted by Naved. Emily Lungano, CEF Africa Regional Coordinator also enriched the workshop with her experiences from Africa. The programme outline was as follows:
Day 1: Basic of Policy influence: CSOs, evidences and policy process Day 2: Tools for Policy Implication Day 3: Field Trip to a school or CEF partner project Day 4: Developing a strategy Day 5: Monitoring and Learning
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Participants mostly came from South Asian Countries: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 26 participants attended the five day long workshop along with the representation from CEF-UK and Africa Regional Coordinator.
Country Number of Participants India 6 Pakistan 5 Bangladesh 8 Sri Lanka 3 Other 4
MATERIALS GIVEN IN WORKSHOP
Policy impact and Communications Toolkits CSPP Handout RAPID Policy Brief Networks: Functions and form Hand out Report of previous CEF-RAPID workshop CSPP lessons learned paper Policy entepreneurship Questionnaire ODI CD, Other handout, bags & Souvenir
12
13
Registration process Tanvir welcoming the participants
DAY ONE BASICS OF POLICY INFLUENCE: CSOS, EVIDENCE AND POLICY PROCESS
REGISTRATION & WELCOMING SPEECH Registration got underway before 9:30 as more of the participants come to the Workshop. The Audience and the Guests took their seats as the workshop got ready to start on schedule. Muntasim Tanvir of ActionAid Bangladesh greeted everyone to the Workshop and inaugurated the workshop with his opening speech. Mr. Tanvir welcomed everyone for participating to the Workshop as he emphasized on the importance policy advocacy and strategy development. He talked about the CEF project scenario of 2006 and how it moved from 2002 when it was piloted. He also stressed on the evidence from grass root level and capacity building of different stake holders and how it is sometime very difficult to influence the advocacy level of policy changing in the educational sector. He hoped that this workshop would enable the participants to work effectively in future to link policy analysis with policy engagement and also to advocate for a positive change in the educational scenario of their respected countries. He then gave the floor to Mr. Hasnat and then to the main Facilitator Naved Chowdhury of Overseas Development Institute for the day’s proceedings.
EXPECTATION AND INTRODUCTION
Naved Chowdhury started the workshop with his witty full words as he talked about the necessity of policy advocacy and how this workshop could enrich their capacity to do better. He reflected on the four main objectives of the workshop, which were:
1. Share experiences about CSO-policy context in African CEF partners; 2. Learn about the latest worldwide research and practice in this area; 3. Share experiences about approaches to influence policy and what
works; 4. Start to develop strategies to improve policy impact.
14
Naved in the opening session
He started his presentation with the topic of “Civil Society Organisations
and Policy Entrepreneurship” and the question of why we should term ourselves entrepreneurship. Naved continued the session with the outline of the workshop as he talked about the details of different sessions and some methods and tools that they would learn through the five day event. This was followed by self-introduction by participants who gave their personal details and the profile of the organization they were representing (see appendix for participants list). The participants also expressed their expectation from the workshop and these were their main expectation:
Building Capacity in Policy Advocacy Systematizing Knowledge Sharing lessons and experience Networking and network related issues How to do Policy relevant research Guarding Policy to practical experience Learning different Tools and Application
Then Mr. Chowdhury summarized the rationale behind the workshop, an
outline of workshop expectations and the ground rules for the five days.
PLENARY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES TO POLICY INFLUENCE
The participants were asked to work firstly individually to find opportunities & challenges of their respected country’s education sector and then to summarize in a group level among the four main countries of South Asia. The main discussion was about: “What are the main opportunities and challenges “
1. Regarding CSO-policy links? (in general) 2. Affecting the policy impact of your work?
The plenary discussion is given in the next page:
15
Plenary Discussion: Opportunities and Challenge were presented by the different countries
Country Opportunities Challenges
Team India
“Right to Education” – Fundamental Right – 06th Amendment Act
Institution of act 21A by 06th A. Act in 2002 in Part-III of Indian constitution – Fundamental Right.
Draft Bill prepared by MMRD posted on official website
Reconstitution of Central Advisory Board Education (CABE) and constitution of a committee on right to education
Model State Bill refer to the statistics recently
CSOs should speak in one voice Weak support from media (both print
& electronic) Despite all efforts by CSOs, it is not
listed yet Revising the Political Profile of the
issue Demand for education still remains
unarticulated – Mass mobilization
Team Pakistan
Government’s openness to Civil Society Decentralization & Freedom of
Information Act 2001 Increased Budget Allocation in Education
Sector Information & Support from donors Lobbying with Policy Makers
Quality of contribution and mistrust between Govt & CSOs
Transparency, Social Accountability, Capacity to deliver services effectively
Allocation, Distribution, implementation & clear analysis (Cost)
Changing Priorities Vs. Sustainability
Lack of authentic quality research & understanding of policy process
Team Sri Lanka
Present status of Education Budget Constraints Election Manifesto (New Govt) Use the decentralised structure of the
political administration system Growing interest among people in policy
Eradicating the contradictory agendas of different political parties on national issues
Lack of collective & legitimate intention of CSOs in influencing the state
Lack of Local enabling act in line with International conventions/treaties etc.
Lack of Communication among politicians & civil society
Lack of linkage with relevant govt agencies & CSOs/ INGOs
Team Bangladesh
Policy makers willing to listen Strong Networking Informed Community Monitoring Policy Implementation Upcoming Election
Fragmented or competing vision of
NGOs Input in Policy Formulation Research of Advocacy Linkage Confrontational Views between Govt
and NGOs Donor Dependency
16
AFRICAN EXPERIENCE BY CEF AFRICA COORDINATOR
Emily Lugano, CEF regional Coordinator of Africa came in the next session to talk about her experience in the African region. She mention about the workshop of Zambia National Education Coalition (ZANEC) which took place in November 2005 at Commonwealth Centre, University of Zambia Campus, Lusaka. She told about the historical perspective of CSOs engagement in the education sector in Zambia to help workshop participants understand the current role of CSOs in the sector. She also talked about different coalitions of African region and how the CSOs struggle to advocate in the policy level. She added the success stories of Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya where education is free from 1997, 2001 and 2003 respectively. She hoped that this workshop would enable the participants to work further in the policy advocacy level.
KEY-NOTE SPEAKER SESSION
Session One: Researcher: Some comments on producing policy relevant and credible evidence
Speaker: Manzoor Ahmed
Manzoor Ahmed, who is the Director of Institute of Educational Development in BRAC University chaired the first session. He is involved with Education Watch which was established in 1998 and has been working on primary education and literacy for some years now. There have been six reports down the years which have helped to build a baseline of information on key quantitative and qualitative indicators on primary education and literacy situation.
Mr. Ahmed started his presentation by stating the classic view of no love lost between the two sides – Researcher and Policymakers. He described the situation as - the Researchers’ complaint about the policy makers being uninterested and the Policy-makers belief of researchers who work with their own ethos and motivation. He pointed out some issues from Bangladesh and the initiatives of Education Watch and the outline are given in the next passage.
Emily sharing her experience
17
Key-Note Speaker Session
Mr. Ahmed also spoke about Research approach, Research Process and
Research output of Education Watch as well the Dissemination, Follow-up and Reflection on Impact of the reports.
(The full outline of Mr. Monzoor Ahmed is given in the appendix.)
Session Two: Policymaker: on the needs and pressure of Policymaking
Speaker: Fazle Rabbani
Fazle Rabbani, the Education Advisor of DFID presented his experience in the PEDP (Primary Education Development Program). PEDP project which is the biggest in Bangladesh educational sector, is managed by the donor consortium and the consortium is chaired by DFID. So DFID has special role in educational sector as it is involved in all level from design to implementation phase. Mr. Rabbani talked about the development of PEDP II and the role of civil society which could contribute in the implementation of PEDP project. He started with the troubled picture in the educational sector of Bangladesh. In his words he said that Government, Non-government organizations and other agencies of civil society acknowledged the many problems facing the system and challenging all efforts to build a high quality primary education sub-sector. Indeed during 1997-2003, development partners have worked with the Government on a number of projects to alleviate some of the problems. However, focus has been on increasing access rather than improving the quality of education. Rabbani spoke about the PEDP I which was actually 21 different projects funded by different donors and the management issue was very difficult. PEDP II was developed to cover all the projects in one project.
PEDP II has four components
Quality Improvement through organizational development and capacity building
Quality Improvement in School and class rooms (Teaching, Learning, Curriculum)
Quality Improvement through Infrastructure Development (Construction, Furniture)
Improving and supporting Equitable access to quality schooling
18
Mr. Rabbani then discussed some issues regarding PEDP project such as’
Missing one or more components in many of the projected areas Proper management and obstacle in Implementation stage Addressing disability Improved access to ethnic minorities Macro plan which was not implemented Swap – not effective Lack of political will Lack of good governance Politicization of educational institution
Session Three:
Disscussion
The two speakers then gave answer to the different questions from the participants. Questions came to Mr. Monzoor and Mr. Fazle about different issues involve in Education Sector as some participants added their views in this session. The topics that were discussed are:
- The CAMPE and its involvement in Education Sector as Mr. Manzoor
talked about the gradual effect since the beginning of Education Watch. He told the audience of no direct effect of the reports to the policy makers but impact is slowly gaining as more involvements of CSOs are required.
- The need of bilingual reports as the example of Education Watch Annual
Reports was drawn. Kamelswar from Pakistan shared some of his experiences in Sindh and gave the emphasis on the local language.
- The funding for Education Watch as Manzoor describes the level of
creditability and methodology of study where useful database are applied for questionnaire and research.
- The role of CSO in the education sector in all the involved countries as
Tanvir of Bangladesh and Vinay of India talked about Civil bodies of their own countries. Mr. Rabbani added that the civil society could play an important role to bridge the gap of appropriate policy and its implementation.
- The bureaucracy involvement as Mr. Rabbani talked about bureaucracy
which always stole the show. The example of PEDP came again as he told how different ministries spiral decisions and play around the projects.
19
THE RAPID FRAMEWORK AND THE LESSONS FROM THE CIVIL SOCIETY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME
Naved Chowdhury continued his presentation on “Civil Society
Organisations and Policy Entrepreneurship” as he talked about CSOs, Evidence and Policy Processes, Overseas Development Institute, RAPID Programme and Civil Society Partnerships Programme. Naved discussed topics on the Pro-poor Policy Influence issues that ODI work with. He gave example of TEHIP Project of Tanzania and Primary School Action for Better Health Project in Kenya (PSABH). Mr. Chowdhury displayed a graph illustrating the HIV Prevalence in Thailand, Uganda & KwaZulu-Natal from 1990 to 2000. He quoted from Court and Maxwell to explain the Aid and Debt work best with the alliance of Researcher and Civil society.
Naved Chowdhury also described Definition, Functions and Types of CSOs and a unique linear logical policy model which identify the problem and stepwise evaluate the result. He then talked about the interconnectivity of different stakeholders regarding policy matter and showed a diagram from Yael Parag to demonstrate the attachment issues into a policy formulation. He then quoted some existing theory on CSOs and Policy from Edwards, Lipsky, Gladwell, Lindblom, etc. to name few. He went on to give the Key factors for CSO influence in Malawi case as he pointed out the opposing and supporting issues and they were:
Opposing Supporting
Lack of capacity Lack of local ownership Translating data into evidence Lack of data Donor influence Crises Political factors
Evidence of the value of CSO involvement Governments becoming more interested in CSOs CSOs are gaining confidence Strength of networks The media Political factors
Before going to the RAPID Framework Naved gave a word of warning
and discussed in details on Political Context, Evidence, Links and External Influence. Naved also spoke about different models of this framework such as Ideal model, Islands model, Technocratic model & Ivory Tower model. He finished the day’s presentation session by describing key areas of Political Context, Relevance & credibility of Evidence, Coalitions and Networks and lastly External Influence.
POLICY ENTREPRENEUR QUESTIONNAIRE
There was a questionnaire to fill up at the end of the session where the participants had to rank responses to test the skills on the policy entrepreneurship. The questionnaire is given in appendix.
20
21
DAY TWO TOOLS FOR POLICY IMPACT
RESULTS OF THE POLICY ENTREPRENEURSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
The day’s work started with continuation of first day’s Policy entrepreneurship questionnaire as the participants submitted their results to Naved and he displayed the results on the main screen. Through the scores, Naved addressed the necessity of Storytellers, Networkers, Engineers and Fixers and tried to identify the strengths and weakness of different participants He also compared with the Kenya CSO Policy entrepreneurs with the Dhaka results to get a broader picture for the participants. He urged that the judging of this questionnaire would enable them to find the need of their particular works in the policy level.
LESSONS FROM THE CIVIL SOCIETY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME (CONT.)
Naved presented the aim and outcome of Civil Society Partnerships Programme and explained different activities of CSPP. He specially emphasized on the linking evidence to policy and the need of establishing capacity. He also discussed the key issues for partnership and capacity development in CSPP.
Questionnaire results
22
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM: TOOLS POLICY INFLUENCE
In the next presentation Naved introduced some major tools for policy
influence as he talked about the maximizing the chances through better understanding of policy, using of evidence more effectively, building stronger connection with other stakeholders and actively participating in the policy network. He discussed about some Practical Tools and focussed on seven policy analysis methods and tools. They were -
RAPID Framework Problem Situation Analysis (Tree Analysis) Stakeholder Analysis Policy Process Mapping Force Field Analysis Influence Mapping SWOT Analysis
Naved went on to define some of the tools and their utility in policy
advocacy. He talked in details about the two very important tools – Problem Tree Analysis and Force Field Analysis as there would be two different group works involving those tools. He continued the presentation with Planning & Social Network and Policy process workshop. He gave example of DFID & SMEPOL (EGYPT) regarding the RAPID view. Overall Framework that he suggested had to have following checkpoints –
Identify the problem Understand the context Identify the audience(s) Develop a SMART Strategy Identify the message(s) Resources – staff, time, partners & fund Promotion – tools & activities Monitor, learn, adapt
Naved then move on to the group work session and emphasized on the
importance of addressing the problem. He termed the problem tree analysis as a very effective tool to identify the problem.
23
GROUP WORK ON PROBLEM TREE ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
Naved asked the participants to pick a policy issue to work on for rest of workshop and to identify the problem, the roots (causes) and the branches (effects) of it. Four groups were there in group work representing four countries of South Asia as the four country members and some other participants tried to focus on each side’s problem issues and presented each other’s problem and reasons for addressing it. The participants discussed within the group and each country had different problems. The findings were presented followed by question answer sessions and it is given below.
Team Sri Lanka
Danger of Closing Down Schools in Remote Areas with less than 35 Student
(World bank Recommendation) Causes Effects
For Receiving Aid from World bank
Lack of Strong educational policies where any one can interfere
Vicious, corrupted and manipulative political activity
Confusion, contradiction, bureaucracy and politics between the national and provincial level administration
Favourable attitude from parents towards political activities and tolerance for change
Lack of Vision on negative effects of the problem in the long run
Education is not prioritized in the agenda of civil society organizations
Have a negative effect on existing ethnic conflict
Additional cost for the parents Continuation of vicious cycle of poverty
Negative effect on wellbeing of the society in the future concerning the possible deviant behaviour
Impact on Indexes as Literacy rate and Productivity went down and Drop out went up
Bureaucracy effects negatively on well being of the community
Further reduction of privileges in less privileged areas
Future of the effected are endangered
Cannot get rid of the dependency mentality caused by poverty
24
Team Bangladesh
Legislative Policy Influence of bureaucracy
Vested interest Partisan approach in politics
Lack of participation
Best practices are not disseminated
Resource constraint
Lack of proper needs assessment
Financing Political Will Pragmatic Planning and implementation
Lack of Quality Education
Incompetent learners
Fragmented society
Underdeveloped value system
Unskilled workforce
25
Team Pakistan
Poor School retention
Child labor
Low Literacy rate
Poor Law and Order
Gender Disparity
Lack of confidence in educational system
No link to life and social skills
Parents do not take education
effective Unskilled workforce
Increase in Economic disparity
Access To
Quality Education
Lack of Political
Commitment
Allocation of Less Budget Lack of competent
Quality teacher
Lack of awareness of Education as fundamental right
Poverty and low socio economic status
Weak Governance
Medium of instruction and relevancy of text learning
support materials
Poor Institutional Capacity
26
Team India QUALITY OF EDUCATION
Causes and Problems
Level One, sub-division one: Basic Teaching issues • Shortage of Teachers – High Teacher student Ratio • Few Female Teachers • Increase in recruitment of Para-teachers • Teacher motivation is low • Use of teachers for non educational work. E.g.: Election, census • Status of teaching profession no longer high • Lack of qualified teachers
Level One, sub-division two: Lack of Joyful Teaching and & Learning Methodology
Insensitivity to marginalized groups Learning environment not conducive Curriculum not relevant to the community or tribe Lack of infrastructure (toilet, classroom, water) Absence of common school system Functioning of school locally not satisfactory
Level Two: Capacity Issues In service training is ad-hoc and infrastructure is lacking Not enough pre service training available
Level Three: Planning and Management Issues Funds utilization process is flawed Low allocation of money to education Department of finance – resource is flawed Corruption in fund allocation and utilization Lack of Planning at all level No implementation of monitoring mechanism
Level Four: Other Major Issues Lack of Community linkage and lack of Local level planning Low level research and development relating to school situation Lack of Community involvement in school Linkage of local planning with macro plans in states Sensitivity of higher policy planners to ground issues
Solutions
Community Involvement in School Research and Development and chiefly School centric Research Structural reform through common school system Local Level Planning with community Design Macro Plans based on Local Plans Sensitization of Policy Makers
27
THE RAPID 28 QUESTIONS AND OTHER METHODS
In the next session Naved Chowdhury talked on details about the RAPID
Framework and the 28 Questions which explains how to use the framework. The analytical view of the framework emphases on four parts – i) The Political context – which consists of political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs. radical change etc. ii) The Links – which is the association between policy and research communities – networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge etc. iii) The Evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged etc. and iv) the External Influences – Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc. The Practical Framework & Using the framework based on three link points: Scientific information exchange & validation, Campaigning, Lobbying and Policy analysis & research.
Naved then added some examples of application such as the Animal
Healthcare in Kenya where the participants could use a time line of events and the PRSP case where they could analyse events that lead to a significant development or change. In the following session Naved ask the participants to use the RAPID Framework to analyse the key factors likely to affect the policy influence of their respective work and to use the 28 questions as guideline for the group work.
28
GROUP WORKS AND PRESENTATIONS FINDINGS Team Bangladesh
Political Context
MoF, MoE, MP Centralised/Top-
down system of policy making that does not necessarily accommodate or take in to account the grassroots demands
Should not be Specific timing based – this should be part of a process; Election and budgetary revision
Policy environment Links
Government, NGOs, Networks, School based Community, CSOs
Planning Commission, NCTB, PTI, BIDS, CPD
CAMPE - Individual Research, policy influence – legitimate, constituency among poor through its network partners
External Environment
WB, IMF, ADB and Donors
Limiting Service Sector
Evidence
BIDS, BBS
29
Team Pakistan
Political Context
National Curriculum wing
MoE, MoF Madrassas, MMA Political Parties Western Foreign
Policy
Links
Children Women, men Local Government Parents
External Environment
Donors MNCs & IFIs Fiscal, Monetary and
social Policy Self initiatives than
global interaction Earthquake, Conflicts
Evidence
State Representatives, Experts
Civil Society, Foreign Technical Experts, Foreign consortium
Network between the two – vulnerable and fragile
30
Team India
Political Context
Prime ministers, Finance Minister, deputy chairman of Planning Commission, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Director of Elementary Education, MPs from different parties, Standing Committee of HR Ministry
Development Journalists, Few identified analyst and commentator, National dailies, Electronic Media
Some education related agencies like CABE, NIPA, NCERT
Some Educational institutes, Teachers Union, National Alliances
Links
Political actors who have a legitimacy as their creation of constituency
Network have relatively varying legitimacy depending on the nature of participation and size of constituency
Political party have a large constituency among the poor
External Environment
Education traditionally remain in upper classes
Introduction of Right to Education is an effective and meaningful for the poor
Evidence
Public Reports on basic Education by different educationalist
Statistics available in NIPA, MHRD Annual Report, NCERT Educational Survey
Study at National, State and Local level undertaken by CSOs
31
Team Sri Lanka
Political Context
Political parties and public servants who are divided in party lines
Educational and domestic priorities among Gov, CSOs
Other issues like relief, war and easy to obtainable fund
Policy revised with each new government
Links
Interconnectivity among Government, NGOs, CSOs, WB, other donors
No consultation with CSOs, people
External Environment
WB Aid conditionality Social spending,
Development of Tsunami areas
Increase in amount of Educational Budget
Evidence
Information assemble Evidence for closing
school, cost benefit analysis
World Bank report on Sri Lanka – public to all rather than in English
Aid Condition Gov prepare policy
document which are not accessible to CSOs as well as lack of involvement of CSOs
32
33
DAY THREE FIELD TRIP TO A SCHOOL OR CEF PARTNER PROJECT
NETROKONA: FIELD TRIP
In the third day of the workshop, there was a field trip to see one project practically for analyzing the project to find out the policy implication of that work which the participants had been doing themselves. The participants were asked to share in a group and identify different strategy for policy implication. The projected area was four and half hour route to Netrokona in the north of Capital Dhaka.
MAP OF THE AREA & SUS
After reaching the projected area, the participants were greeted by Begum Rokeya, ED of Sabalamby Unnayan Samity. She presented the different activities of SUS and gave information of changes which were happening in the regions in the educational sector. There were three different schools which were chosen as targeted ones and the participants divided themselves into three groups and share there views after their trip in a discussion session with Begum Rokeya.
WATCH OUT LIST FOR THE PARTICIPANTS FOR THE FIELD TRIP
Watch out for visual hooks Watch out for a narrative Watch out for a problem Watch out for resources Watch out for people Watch out for knowledge gaps Watch out for stories Watch out for policy implications
Map of Netrokona
34
35
DAY FOUR COMMUNICATION AND DEVELOPING A STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT THE STRATEGY: AUDIENCE, MESSAGE AND PROMOTION
Naved started day four with recap of the over all framework and stressed on importance of identifying audiences & massages and using of different tools & activities. He termed these three as the most crucial for developing a strategy. He added the topic of Communication Toolkit which give insight to the researcher and CSOs.
He stated an example of African Agriculture Researcher and emphasized the need of Communication for each stakeholder by giving example of the Target of each country representative of CEF. He then spoke about Audience, Message & Promotion and asked the participants following questions:
Audience Message Messenger (Promotion)
Who needs to make these changes?
Who has the power?
What is their stance on the issue?
Who influences them?
Identify targets and influence
Why should things change (or what is the evidence to support your case?)
How to make sure that the evidence is credible and ‘legitimate’?
What the target audience can hear.... frameworks of thought
Language, content, packaging, and timing
How to access information and target?
Who is a trusted and credible messenger?
What is the most appropriate medium? (campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying)
How will you package your information?
Role of the media?
Identify the problem Understand the context Identify the audience(s) Develop a SMART Strategy Identify the message(s) Resources – staff, time, partners &
funds Promotion – tools & activities Monitor, learn, adapt
36
There were a discussion on the different approaches consisting of Advising, Advocacy, Lobbying and Activism as Naved gave example of several organizations to elaborate the issue. He then talked about persuasion and lobbying and highlighted on the Target of Writing Effective Policy Papers and Networking. The picture of different approaches and the issues are given below.
Issues Persuasion Lobbying
• Separate people from problem • Focus on interests, not positions • Invent options for mutual gain • Insist on using objective criteria.
• Manage human emotion
separately from the practical problem
• Highlight the human need to feel heard, understood, respected and valued.
• Be an authority on the subject
• Include all group in the work
• Be positive in your approach
• Be aware of the agenda and language on the government in power
• Identify and target politicians
• Time your input • Use the Media to lobby
The different Approaches
37
ADVOCACY RULES
Naved termed Advocacy Rules as how to influence people to make
changes. He told the participants to use the problem tree or some other tool to identify problems, impact of the problem and root causes. He also added about the Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-Bound (SMART) objectives to bring changes. To find out different issues and self assessing, Naved asked few questions about advocacy which are given below.
Advocacy - Self Assessment
Who are you Advocating or Communicating to?
Who needs to make these changes? Who has the power? What is their stance on the issue? Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude,
Behaviour Targets and influence Mapping where decisions happen Analyse the outcome and then decide.
Who are you working together with?
1. Who do you need to work with? 2. Identify your ‘niche’ (SWOT) 3. Stakeholder Mapping 4. Structures for collaborative working 5. Skills needed in teams 6. Benefits and pitfalls of collaborations
Why do you want to make the changes?
Why should things change (or what is the evidence to support your case?)
How to make sure that the evidence is credible and ‘legitimate’?
The evidence: accurate, credible, well researched, authoritative…
What the target audience wants to hear....
He then describe the Advocacy Statement - “A concise and persuasive statement that captures what you want to achieve, why, how and by when? “. It should communicate with the target audience and prompt action. In the end of this session the facilitator added some instructions to find how, when and where to communicate the massage and evidence. Naved then ask Kamleshwar from Pakistan to narrate his experience in the Sindh.
38
EXPERIENCE SHARING SESSION FROM PCE
Translating Research into Policy Advocacy in Sindh Kamleshwer Lohana
Kamleshwar Lohana talked about the role of CSOs in Advocating
Education issues as he represented the Indus Resource Center and Pakistan Coalition on Education. He firstly gave a back ground on the education scenario of Pakistan. Kamleshwar then talked about the Role of CSOs, CSOs types and the need for capacity building & support organization. He also discussed about the non threatening advocacy and the different barriers.
Mr. Lohana told the audience about some of the efforts at district level and at provincial level. At district level they were able to have District education plan, Coordination a network of organization in 16 districts and do other activities such as lobbying, press conferences, mapping exercises, rallies, processions and dialogue with district members at district assembly. At provincial level they started Revision of a policy on school management committees, organizing Events at provincial assembly, publishing fortnightly supplement on education, “Sojhro”- in Sindhi language daily, Published 03 monthly magazine, Taleem Nama, etc. the impacts of these efforts had some impact on the government as the government started to learn from the CSOs. Kamleshwar ended his presentation with talking about the policy influencing, the lessons learnt and the indication of the future research study.
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS AND GROUP WORK:
In the next session the facilitator recapped the Force field Analysis from
Day Two as talked about identifying Forces, priorities and developing strategies. He asked to get together in groups and develop strategy using Force Field Analysis and practical Data from the Field trip in Day3. The Participants would need to write up a strategy brief detailing problem, context, strategy and communication and to develop a presentation of their Massage. In the remaining part of the day, the participants intensely worked on groups to develop their massages which were presented in the last day of the workshop.
Presentation by Kamleshwar
39
40
DAY FIVE MONITORING AND LEARNING
The day started with continuation of previous days group work as all the
participants came to take part for their respected groups. Naved Chowdhury of ODI facilitated the group work session.
GROUP I Community Audit Group Members: Avinash, Mokhtarul, Chandima, Enamul & Swapan
Visual Hooks
Observed good Child Teacher Relationship An acceptable level of PT Ratio was visible Proactive participation of parents was high where participation of mothers and their
contribution was significant. As the it moves to higher level classes (grade 2 to 5), decrease of numbers in a class
was visible Safe drinking water was supplied and toilets were there, but there was no source of
water. Enthusiasm among of students were high Access route to the school need to be improved. Satisfactory level of physical facilities, which has room for further improvement
Problem
Lack of technical support Lack of awareness of their role among certain members
Narrative Community participation with a vision towards children's future. (participatory) Resources Collective approach of the SMC and the community
Enthusiasm among the community Awareness of their collective influence
People They are a blend of engineers and fixers Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge on technical areas like quality in education, budget tracking and further awareness on bureaucracy (whom to reach for what).
Stories Change in the family behaviour towards supportive direction Responsible feeling is generated among adults to support and monitor children’s
education in the community. Policy Implications
EFA with Community participation.
Strategy Developing training manual in local language Develop a core trainer group Deliver training Monitoring & Evaluation Periodical Assessment
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS CAPACITY BUILDING OF COMMUNITY
Forces for Change Forces against change Current motivation among the
community Availability of facilitators Availability of a structure (SMC) to
carry forward activities
Bureaucracy people with vested political
influence
41
The Final Outcome:
GROUP II Group Members: Emily, Montse, Raquel, Kamleshwer, Tanvir, Thusitha & Sadaf What is the problem?
HUMAN RESOURCES: Not enough teachers (multi-grade teaching), inadequate in-service training for teachers
PHYSICAL RESOURCES: No electricity connection, Limited access to school (road), Not enough classrooms, toilet facilities
TEACHING RESOURCES: No teaching aids/textbooks OTHER Out-of-school children (10% of school-age)
How?
Who?
What?
Posters Workshops
Training Conversations and dialogues
“Grow with the growth of your child”
Community and community based gatherings (Eg: SMC’s)
Group one members giving their presentation
42
What needs to change? Implementation of PEDP in response to each district’s needs Is there enough evidence supporting this?
Yes
Who needs to change or bring about change?
State actors (local government, Ministry of Education), media, PEDP funders
What do they need to do different? By when?
State actors: devise mechanism for increased transparency and accountability in their implementation plan; build capacity for effective implementation
Media: highlight issues in open/transparent manner; provide space for dialogue between community and state actors on voluntary basis; expose ground realities, facts without fear; monitor PEDP implementation
PEDP funders: be more responsive to country needs, build capacity of government to implement PEDP
Does anyone oppose these changes?
Catalyst/drivers for these changes are missing. Media: lack of interest to report on education State actors: education is not a priority; political interests PEDP funders: set priorities that do not correspond to country
context; powerful force in policy development What will you do to bring about these changes?
State actors: sensitisation on importance of transparency and accountability, advocacy for changes in PEDP implementation.
Media: mobilisation, sensitisation and capacity building. PEDP funders: lobbying for CSOs to be included in donor-
government discussions. Who will you work with? Work with corporate sector, teachers’ unions, faith based organisations,
SMCs/PTAs, wings of Education Committee, education coalitions How will you address opposition?
Lobbying and pressure groups, consensus-building, influence thinking
What inputs, resources and skills will you need?
Inputs we have Case studies/Ground realities Collaboration with national networks Rapport with village committees, SMCs, local teacher unions, union councils
Inputs we don’t have Financial resources Effective Advocacy skills Strong links with Technical experts: research etc.
How/Where to get: Financial resources: CEF, other donors. Effective Advocacy skills Strong links with Govt/key stakeholders Technical experts: research etc.
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS TO IMPROVE THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Forces for Change - 12 Forces against change - 17 High level of community interest and
participation Involvement of key stakeholder
(government) in SMC Existence and implementation of PEDP
(classroom construction). SUS’ support: facilitation, capacity
building
Poor resource base: boundary wall, toilets, electricity, teaching aids
Funding identified as key constraint
Low literacy level among SMC members
Insufficient usage of available teaching material
Not enough teachers (multi-grade teaching)
PEDP tunnel vision – focus on infrastructure development
43
The Final Outcome:
GROUP III Visit to Bangla Govt. School Group Members: Zishan, Saraana, Shah Jahan, Farooque, Debdutt, Sadaf, Meenakshi, Vinay & Jayantha Theme: SUS School Development Plan where focus was mostly on development related issues. Problems identified by the committee:
No Electricity Connection Class room infrastructure Drinking water Nutrition Uniform Requirement of Play materials
How?
Who?
What?
Leaflets Posters Brochures Pens T-shirt Press release Policy brief
for State actors & PEDP funders
“Reform Practice, Inform People”
State Actors Media
PEDP Funders Public
Group two members in their presentation session
44
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS REMOVAL OF DEFICIENCY IN SCHOOL INFRATRUCTURE
Forces for Change 17.5 Forces Against Change 17.5 Community demand and
participation Demand for education Support from Local MP CSO Support Contribution of Head Teacher
5
1 4 4
3.5
Cost Long Process and
Legislative Values Natural Disaster Process of SDP lacks policy
Legitimisation
3.5 5
4 5
National Government
Division
District
Thana
Union Parishad
SDPC
Note: No local Government
representation beyond UP
My Right My Decision
Removal of deficiencies in school infrastructure and the prevailing narrative about this problem relate to Human rights, Human Development issues and participatory approach
45
What needs to change? Law and policy procedures so that the implementation method or
process becomes faster. Is there enough evidence supporting this?
SMCs have confined or restricted process and decentralization is needed because of the long process something as small as construction a building.
Who needs to change or bring about change?
PM, Secretary of Education, Director PE, Standing committee directors, MPs, etc.
What do they need to do different? By when?
Change policy to bring greater decentralization, simplify procedures and dialogue with CSOs.
By 2008 (by the time CEF wraps up)
Does anyone oppose these changes?
Bureaucracy and upper level of power
What will you do to bring about these changes?
Understanding political context Evidence of needed change Power play and create linkage
Who will you work with? Work with journalists & media, CSOs, donors, think tanks, ODI, activists, legislative bodies, etc.
What inputs, resources and skills will you need?
Inputs we have Capacity Advocacy Media Research
Inputs we don’t have Study and research on Documentation and process making
How/Where to get: A coalition needs to prioritize issues and highlight them for lobbying. Create evidence through extensive research.
The Final Outcome:
How?
Who?
What?
Local & National Print and electric media, Strong Spokesman,
Strong Activist
“My Right My
Decision”
National Government
Group three members gave the final presentation
46
External networks; Colleagues;
Information assets
Goals Results Using
Knowledge
Learn during
Learn after
Learn before
Knowledge and learning
MONITORING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT BASICS
Naved Chowdhury started the final presentation of the workshop largely emphasising the monitoring and management basics. He initially knowledge and learning where the idea is not to create an encyclopaedia of everything that everybody knows, but to keep track of people who ‘know the recipe’, and nurture the technology and culture that will get them talking. Naved told that there were different forms of knowledge and different approaches to learning and influencing, but there is a need for getting the environment right.
He recapped the ODI experience and emphasized on five organizational competencies where knowledge and learning self assessment is based on. Here is the outline of some other topics that Naved discussed
The Knowledge Strategies
Framework Knowledge: processes and tools Knowledge: a menu of tools What kind of learner are you? Activists Reflectors Theorists
Pragmatists After action reviews: learning
during projects The Retrospect – Learning after
projects What are the problems we face? The problem with attribution
47
CONCLUDING COMMENTS In the end, Naved give away some resource materials and other sources of
information. The participants commented on the workshop and they viewed the workshop as valuable and productive. On behalf of CEF, Muntasim Tanvir thanked everyone and hoped that this workshop would enhance their ability to work more in future.
Some key issues to remember
Throughout the workshop, participants identified key issues that they considered important or needed to be addressed in more detail. Naved and Kameleshwar contributed to some of these based on thier observations during the workshop
• What is civil society? This question came up at the beginning of the
workshop. Naved defined Civil Society as the space between the state, the family and the private sector –including all types of organizations. However, he stressed that when ODI spoke about civil society, because of its own characteristics, it was probably thinking more about think tanks or research policy institutions. Hence, it is important to understand what each person or organization is referring to when they use the term.
• The quality of education was broadly identified by all groups as a key
issue and many addressed it in their strategies. The quality issue is more prominent in India and Bangladesh where as in Pakistan the issue of access to education get higher priority.
• Definitions of research and policy were covered – research as ‘any
systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge’ and policy as ‘a purposive course of action as there are ways to enable participants to better understand latest theory and findings on policy links and how to influence the policy making processes more effectively through RAPID framework.
• Globalization issue is very important. We need to know how to operate
within globalization.
• We need to know what to say to donors if we have to convince them. Policy makers are sometimes handicapped because they are looking at their jobs.
48
• We should not always criticize the government. Sometimes we need to team up and work with them because they are in direct contact with key donors like the World Bank.
• Sometimes the governments need CSOs to provide them with useful
information, therefore we should look at this as a policy window and take advantage of it when we want to advocate.
• To influence policy makers we should package our message to be simple
and straightforward. Create a simple summary of the policy issue on a one or two-paged paper and present it to the policy makers (government). The idea is to make them read, as they are usually not interested in reading bulky documents.
• Give government credibility on the work being done before making
suggestions on our policy issue.
• It is important for CSOs to identify who is good in each of these fields in order to get the desired impact. The tools help CSOs in gathering evidence, doing research, learning lessons or advising on strategy for social, environment and economic development.
• Is there a clear distinction between policy, plans and legislations? The
policy process needs to be understood as a process. Documents, laws, projects, programmes, policy statements, discourses, etc. are all part of the policy process.
• Link actors to policies to narratives to evidence to power to other actors.
When developing context assessment one should try to think about the roles of actors and their relations to the other aspects of the RAPID framework. This will help in making sense of the roles that evidence and narratives and links play in research uptake.
• The Links arena is about the mechanisms affecting how evidence gets
into the policy process or not and includes factors such as networks and the relationship between them. When CSOs understand these factors, they are more able to design an appropriate advocacy strategy to rectify their national concerns.
• We should not forget about evidence. CSOs need to collect significant
stories from the field level. Define the domains of change and the reporting period. It is a way of evaluating change that CSOs have brought in the country and is important because it helps CSOs shape the way they communicate.
49
50
PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF THE WORKSHOP
Day 1 Basics of policy influence: CSOs, evidence and policy processes 9.30-10.00 Registration 10.00 – 11.00 Introduction : Expectations and introductions 11.00-11.30 Tea Break 11.30 – 12.30 Plenary: Opportunities and Challenges to Policy influence 12.30 – 13.30 The RAPID framework: Theory and Practice
Lessons from the Civil Society Partnerships Programme 13.30 -2.30 Lunch 2.30 – 4.00 (with tea break)
Key-note speaker: Policymaker: on the needs and pressures of policymaking Researcher: some comments on producing policy relevant and credible
evidence 4.00 – 5.00 Discussion 5.00 – 5.30 Policy Entrepreneurs Questionnaire Day 2 Tools for policy impact 9.00 – 9.15 Introduction for the day 9.15-9.45 Policy Entrepreneurship Questionnaire 9.45 – 10.15 Identifying the Problem: Problem Tree Analysis 10.15 – 11.15
Group work (Groups of 4 made up of participants of two countries). (with tea break)
11.15 – 13.30 Presentation 13.30 – 2.30 Lunch 2.30 – 3.00 Understanding the context: The RAPID 28 Questions and other methods 3.00 – 4.15 Group work 4.15 – 4.30 Tea 4.30 – 5.30 Presentations 5.30 – 5.45 Close of day and instructions for Day 3 Day 3 Field trip to a school and CEF partner project Day 4 Developing a strategy 9.30 – 10.00 Developing the strategy: Force Field Analysis 10.00-12.30 Group work (with tea break) 12.30-13.30 Presentation & Plenary 13.30-14.30 Lunch 14.30-15.00 Planning communications: Audience, Message and Messenger 15.00-16.30 Group work: Participants will 1) write up a strategy brief (detailing problem,
context, strategy and communications) and 2) develop a presentation of their Message
16.30-17.00 Advocacy Rules Day 5 Monitoring and learning 9.00 – 10.00 Presentation of Strategy & message 10.00 – 11.00 Monitoring and Knowledge management basics 11.00 – 11.30 Closing
The schedule was slightly changed according to the need of the workshop
51
PARTICIPANTS OF THE WORKSHOP
No Name Country Organization 1 Raquel Castilo Philippines ASPBAE 2 Shamima Tasmin Bangladesh Concern 3 Avinash K. Singh India NCE/ASPBAE 4 Mokhtarul Haque India NCE/ASPBAE 5 S A Hasan Al Farooque Bangladesh ActionAid Bangladesh 6 Muntasim Tanvir Bangladesh CEF/ActionAid Bangladesh 7 Kamleshwer Lohana Pakistan PCE – IRC 8 Zishan Ahmed Pakistan OXFAM Pakistan 9 Swapan Panda India WBEN 10 Shah Jahan Baloch Pakistan CEF Pakistan 11 Thusitha Siriwardana Sri Lanka ActionAid Sri Lanka 12 Naved Chowdhury Bangladesh ODI 13 Chandima Liyanagamage Sri Lanka CEF Sri Lanka 14 Sadaf Zulfiqar Ali Pakistan CEF – SCF – Pakistan 15 Selina Irfan Pakistan CPDI Pakistan 16 Bibhash Chakraborty Bangladesh OXFAM Bangladesh 17 K.M. Enamul Hoque Bangladesh CAMPE 18 Debdutt Panda India CEF India 19 Meenakshi Singh India OXFAM India 20 Vinay K. Kantha India East & West Edu. Society 21 Saraana Mujadid Bangladesh CEF/ActionAid Bangladesh 22 Emily Lugano Kenya CEF Africa 23 Montse Pejuan UK CEF UK 24 Manzoor Ahmed Bangladesh BRAC University 25 Fazle Rabbani Bangladesh DFID 26 Jayantha Ratnawera Sri Lanka -- 27 M. Hasnat Bangladesh ActionAid Bangladesh 28 Md. Nuru Bangladesh ActionAid Bangladesh 29 John Rahat Bangladesh ActionAid Bangladesh 30
52 Plenary Discussion: Opportunities and Challenge were presented by the different countries
DAY ONE: GROUP WORKS
Country Opportunities Challenges
Team India
“Right to Education” – Fundamental Right – 06th Amendment Act
Institution of act 21A by 06th A. Act in 2002 in Part-III of Indian constitution – Fundamental Right.
Draft Bill prepared by MMRD posted on official website
Reconstitution of Central Advisory Board Education (CABE) and constitution of a committee on right to education
Model State Bill refer to the statistics recently
CSOs should speak in one voice Weak support from media (both print
& electronic) Despite all efforts by CSOs, it is not
listed yet Revising the Political Profile of the
issue Demand for education still remains
unarticulated – Mass mobilization
Team Pakistan
Government’s openness to Civil Society Decentralization & Freedom of
Information Act 2001 Increased Budget Allocation in Education
Sector Information & Support from donors Lobbying with Policy Makers
Quality of contribution and mistrust between Govt & CSOs
Transparency, Social Accountability, Capacity to deliver services effectively
Allocation, Distribution, implementation & clear analysis (Cost)
Changing Priorities Vs. Sustainability
Lack of authentic quality research & understanding of policy process
Team Sri Lanka
Present status of Education Budget Constraints Election Manifesto (New Govt) Use the decentralised structure of the
political administration system Growing interest among people in policy
Eradicating the contradictory agendas of different political parties on national issues
Lack of collective & legitimate intention of CSOs in influencing the state
Lack of Local enabling act in line with International conventions/treaties etc.
Lack of Communication among politicians & civil society
Lack of linkage with relevant govt agencies & CSOs/ INGOs
Team Bangladesh
Policy makers willing to listen Strong Networking Informed Community Monitoring Policy Implementation Upcoming Election
Fragmented or competing vision of
NGOs Input in Policy Formulation Research of Advocacy Linkage Confrontational Views between Govt
and NGOs Donor Dependency
53
DAY ONE: PRESENTATION OUTLINE OF MANZOOR AHMED
Research for Policy Development and Advocacy Manzoor Ahmed
Director Institute of Educational Development
BRAC University
Research for Policy Development and Advocacy • A classic issue – no love lost between the two sides • Researchers’ complaint – policy makers are uninterested • Policy-makers believe researchers work with their own ethos and motivation
Special Bangladesh Issues
Dearth of professional capacity in research and lack of support for research Policy development and decision-making process and culture Who are the interlocutors on the policy-making side? Perhaps not a unique Bangladesh problem
Education Watch Bangladesh Initiative Established in 1998 in the context of EFA goals
Objectives: • Periodic independent review of state of basic education • Disseminate research findings to all stakeholders • Engage in advocacy to support quality EFA
Organization and Management Features of Education Watch
• CAMPE – the well-established forum of Education NGOs – as the organizational home
• Wide stakeholder and professional participation through Advisory Board, Technical committee and Working group
• A home-grown initiative with strong support from key national NGOs • External support “without strings”
Research Approach
Emphasis on primary data and large-scale sample surveys to fill key gaps in relevant information
Use of relevant secondary information Selection of policy-relevant topics for study Attention to policy implications of research findings
and articulation of policy recommendations
54
Research Process
• Close involvement of the Education Watch Community at every step • Attention to quality and quantity issues and mix of research and analytic methods • Quality assurance and professionalism at all stages • Sharing of findings and conclusions within the “community” to help identify policy
implications and shape policy recommendations Research output
Series of annual reports – six since 1999
• 1999: Hope Not Complacency: State of Primary Education in Bangladesh (Internal Efficiency; Basic Competencies Achieved)
• 2000: A Question of Quality: Sate of Primary Education in Bangladesh (Learning Achievement; Teacher Education)
• 2001: Renewed Hope Daunting Challenges: State of Primary Education i(Internal Efficiency; Private Costs; School Budgets; Literacy )
• 2002: Literacy in Bangladesh: Need for a New Vision ( Exploration of Literacy levels of the Population)
• 2003/4: Quality with Equity: the Primary Education Agenda (Probe of quality and Equity in 10 Upazilas)
• 2005: The State of Secondary Education: Progress and Challenges (Establishing benchmarks about secondary education) Dissemination and Follow-up
A participatory process is the hallmark of dissemination Each report launched with a high profile public event Special effort to involve the media National launch followed by seminars in the districts involving local partners A space for interaction with local groups and stakeholders created Simplified Bangla version of reports widely distributed
Reflection on Impact
A cumulative and gradual effect Greater opportunity and space for expressing public voice on policy issues Capacity building and acceptance of civil society/NGO
participation in policy dialogue Greater awareness and policy concern about “quality
with equity.” What would have been lost without the effort? Key elements of a larger public dialogue, awareness raising and advocacy effort.
55
POLICY ENTREPRENEUR QUESTIONNAIRE
What model of Policy Entrepreneurship do you use?
Use this questionnaire to find out what model of policy entrepreneurship you use. To complete it, read each question carefully, and then rank the four possible answers from 1 to 4, giving 1 to your first choice, 2 to your second choice and so on. There should only be one number in each box. When you have completed the questionnaire, the scores will be added up for you. Next to each answer you will find a link to useful tools that could be used to enhance your natural skills or to compensate for those you do not spend enough time on.
Family name:
First name:
Nationality:
Age:
Gender:
Years of education:
Level of education: high school; undergraduate; post graduate
Profession:
Organisation: where you work
Sector: health; education; industry; trade; etc.
Type of organisation: public sector; Think Tank; NGO; grassroots; private sector
Is it a Network? (Y/N)
Level of responsibility at work: low; middle; high
Country: where you work
Your Ranking
Question
When confronted by a new issue my immediate reaction is to
(a) Formulate it as a problem to be solved;
(b) Send an e-mail to my contacts to see who else is interested;
(c) Talk it over with people I meet on my next field trip;
(d) Contact the Chair or a key decision maker for a chat.
In trying to fund or find support for my work, my first line strategy is usually to
(a) Find a sponsor who wants a solution to the same problem;
(b) Find out who else is working on the topic and set up a collaboration;
(c) Seek a commissioned study from a Ministry, operational agency or department;
(d) Identify who might gain by funding the work
My project proposals are usually
(a) Focused on a time-line that will deliver solutions; (b) Joint proposals, with collaborators who will carry out parts of the work;
(c) In the form of a two-pager I can present to the interested party
(d) Presented verbally over lunch.
56
I think of the role of theory in research as
(a) Of value, but in the background;
(b) Important alongside the theories of other disciplines;
(c) Of limited use in the real world;
(d) Helpful in small doses, to underpin my ‘expert’ status.
The most valueable data
(a) Is simple enough to underpin a good story;
(b) Comes from different sources, and is put together to triangulate results;
(c) Is based on practical experience in the field, rather than from formal surveys or theories;
(d) Can be deployed to shift an argument.
When there is a Steering Committee (advisor) for my work, I like it to consist of
(a) Good communicators, who can help me simplify;
(b) A multi-disciplinary mix of other researchers that can help see the problem from different angles;
(c) Practitioners who have some experience of struggling with the real implementation problems;
(d) Politicians, NGO campaigning staff, lobbyists and others who can make things happen.
Research works best when
(a) It is focused on a specific solution to a specific problem;
(b) People from different disciplines bring perspectives from their own different backgrounds;
(c) A mixture of researchers and practitioners, merge their different approaches into a single methodology;
(d) It happens quickly.
When it comes to writing up, I prefer to
(a) Wait until the ideas are truly polished;
(b) Share preliminary findings with colleagues as I go along;
(c) Test out my ideas in the field before deciding what I think;
(d) Try out preliminary ideas on my favourite policy-maker or decision-maker.
Looking at the impact of my work, I have been most successful when
(a) I have told stories that others can pick up;
(b) The reports are data-based, but also jointly authored with collaborators from other perspectives;
(c) The outputs consist mainly of consultancy reports;
(d) I’ve been able to feed ideas quickly into the political or dicision making process.
The final chapter of a research report should
(a) Provide an elegant overview of the ‘narrative’;
(b) Summarise the various lessons learned by me and my various collaborators;
(c) Tell the agencies what to do;
(d) Be oriented to the needs of policy and decision makers.
When I have to choose how to disseminate the results of my work, I give priority to
(a) Any format that will reach a wide audience;
(b) Publication in cross-disciplinary journals;
(c) Briefing Papers or similar for busy policy-makers;
(d) Private briefings for key individuals.
I have finished a piece of work when
(a) I can tell the story;
(b) Our network agrees on the findings;
(c) The agency I am working with signs off on the project;
57
(d) I see change beginning to happen on the ground.
I think evaluation of a project should be based on
(a) Literature reviews;
(b) Assessment by a research network panel;
(c) User feed-back;
(d) The number of references in the newspapers.
I feel a project has been successful if
(a) My key phrases enter the discourse;
(b) The people I meet at Conferences tell me they like it;
(c) The funding agency or client asks me back to do more consultancy;
(d) Political speeches and policy statements reflect my thinking.
I am happiest
(a) Writing;
(b) Talking;
(c) Observing;
(d) Lunching.
Total score for each answer
Comments
Is the result what you expected? Did you find the questionnaire relevant to your work? Do you want to share an example of how you try to achieve change?
Scoring
To complete it, read each question carefully, and then rank the four possible answers from 1 to 4, giving 1 to your first choice, 2 to your second choice and so on. There should only be one number in each box. When you have completed the questionnaire, add up all the scores for (a), all the scores for (b) and so on, and complete the table at the end. N.B. The total of all scores should be 150.
In scoring the questionnaire, a low score indicates that you make extensive use of a particular style of entrepreneurship, and a high score indicates that you make little use of a particular style. For all the questions, the answer for (a) corresponds to story-teller, (b) to networker, (c) to engineer, and (d) to fixer. A score of 37 for each indicates that you use each equally. For each type less than 30 is low, and less than 23 is very low. More than 44 is high and more than 52, is very high. Remember: the total of your four scores should be 150.
For example: Jane filled in the questionnaire. The total of her four scores was as follows: a) Story teller: 21; b) Networker: 49; c) Engineer: 42 d) Fixer: 38. These results suggested to Jane that she spent an above-average share of her time storytelling, and a below-average share networking. She wondered whether she should spend a little more time at meetings and workshops, and a little less time polishing and simplifying the results of her research.
58
RESULTS OF THE POLICY ENTREPRENEURSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE There was a questionnaire to fill up at the end of the session where the
participants had to rank responses to test the skills on the policy entrepreneurship. The questionnaire result would be needed in the day two’s program to illustrate the strengths and weakness of the participants. The questionnaire is given in appendix.
Through the scores, Naved addressed the necessity of Storytellers, Networkers, Engineers and Fixers and tried to identify the strengths and weakness of different participants He also compared with the Kenya CSO Policy entrepreneurs with the Dhaka results to get a broader picture for the participants. He urged that the judging of this questionnaire would enable them to find the need of their particular works in the policy level.
Questionnaire results
59
DAY TWO: GROUP WORKS PICTURES
60
DAY THREE: WHAT TO WATCH FOR SHEETS
Watch out for visual hooks (Images or things that will allow you to remember what you’ve learned today) Watch out for a narrative (What is the underlying story of the project? Is it human rights, human development, residual, neo-liberal, neo-Marxist, modernism, post-modernism, participatory, etc.?) Watch out for a problem (What is the main problem faced by the project?) Watch out for resources (What are the project’s most valuable assets or inputs?) Watch out for people (Are there any leaders or policy entrepreneurs? Can you tell if they are storytellers, networkers, fixers of engineers?) Watch out for knowledge gaps (Is there anything that they do not know about but that would be of great advantage for them to?) Watch out for stories (Talk to them and ask them about them and what they do; if they do things different because of the project; what works well and what doe not work so well; etc.) Watch out for policy implications (Anything that you think could inform a policy)
61
RAPID 28 QUESTIONS
Context 1. Who are the key policy actors (including policymakers)? 2. Is there a demand for research and new ideas among policymakers? 3. What are the sources of resistance to evidence based policymaking? 4. What is the policy environment?
a. What are the policymaking structures? b. What are the policymaking processes? c. What is the relevant legal/policy framework? d. What are the opportunities and timing for input into formal processes?
5. How do global, national and community-level political, social and economic structures and interests affect the room for manoeuvre of policymakers?
6. Who shapes the aims and outputs of policies? 7. How do assumptions and prevailing narratives (which ones?) influence policymaking; to what extend are
decisions routine, incremental, fundamental or emergent, and who supports or resists change?
Evidence 1. What is the current theory or prevailing narratives? 2. Is there enough evidence (research based, experience and statistics)?
a. How divergent is the evidence? 3. What type of evidence exists?
a. What type convinces policymakers? b. How is evidence presented?
4. Is the evidence relevant? Is it accurate, material and applicable? 5. How was the information gathered and by whom? 6. Are the evidence and the source perceived as credible and trustworthy by policy actors? 7. Has any information or research been ignored and why?
Links 1. Who are the key stakeholders? 2. Who are the experts? 3. What links and networks exist between them? 4. What roles do they play? Are they intermediaries between research and policy? 5. Whose evidence and research do they communicate? 6. Which individuals or institutions have a significant power to influence policy? 7. Are these policy actors and networks legitimate? Do they have a constituency among the poor?
External Environment 1. Who are main international actors in the policy process? 2. What influence do they have? Who influences them? 3. What are their aid priorities and policy agendas? 4. What are their research priorities and mechanisms? 5. How do social structures and customs affect the policy process? 6. Are there any overarching economic, political or social processes and trends? 7. Are there exogenous shocks and trends that affect the policy process?
62
DAY FOUR: OUTLINE OF KAMALESHWAR PRESENTATION
Translating Research into Policy Advocacy in Sindh Role of CSOs in Advocating Education issues
Kamleshwer Lohana Indus Resource Center
Pakistan Coalition on Education, Sindh, Pakistan ISSUES REGARDING EDUCATION
Pakistan has one of the lowest rates of education In Sindh province, 2.8 Million children are out of school (Source: SEMIS) 53% girl children are out of school (4-9 y old) 5500 schools are closed (Source: SEMIS) Education budget allocation decline by 0.6 % of GDP Lack of Political Commitment to education No priority on Community participation an ownership Orthodox and outdated procedures of Monitoring and Evaluation Low priority given to appointment and HR issues of Education Department Lack of ownership regarding different education projects implemented by CSOs National education policy No accountability at all levels of education department
ROLE OF CSOs
CSOs types – Advocacy – Implementation – Capacity building and support organization
Awareness raising – Non threatening Advocacy – Research Based – Policy Advocacy
Barriers – Objectives of stakeholders are not same – Implementers cannot go beyond Non threatening Advocacy
EFFORTS AT DISTRICT LEVEL
At district level we were able to: – District education plan – Coordination a network of organization in 16 districts – Lobbying, press conferences, politicians go back to school, mapping exercises,
rallies, processions and dialogue with district members at district assembly. AT PROVINCIAL WE WERE ABLE TO:
63
Revision of a policy on school management committees Events at provincial assembly Published 94 fortnightly supplement on education, “Sojhro”-
in Sindhi language daily, Published 03 monthly magazine, Taleem Nama. It focuses
The issues of education and related news, analysis, reports of Sindh IMPACTS ON GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Started to learn from CSOs – Community Participation – Local Teacher Hiring – Preference on Female teacher – EFA and ESR – Infrastructure to CSOs
PLANNING FOR BETTER FUTURE
capacitate the CSOs of Sindh provinces regarding budget tracking of district and provinces.
Strategize regularity and more thought provoking publications on education. Disseminating our publications upto provincial national level decision makers. Liaise with organization which are precisely working for the human rights and
education very closely at with assemblies of provincial and national level. FELT NEEDS
How to run big networks Conducting research based advocacy Education about advocacy – CSOs Continuous follow up of activities Training on research tools and Data Management
– Statistical Software – Database Management
STRATEGIES DESIGN & NETWORKING
To develop appropriate advocacy messages and slogan To develop recognition of PCE To develop non-threatening messages To identify the medium for disseminating advocacy messages Networking with Ministry of Education Defining new avenues (budget) for advocacy
To identify and analyze strengths and weakness of district level NGOs and explore
the ways and means of empowering them under PEC To plan appropriate supervision and monitoring mechanism for PEC To prepare suitable strategies for reopening policy dialogue with law makers at
district and national levels
64
THE FRAMEWORK
ACTION: Medium of Communication & Dissemination Identified
Communication & Dissemination Media Printed - Posters - Brochures - Banners - Policy Briefs
- Publications on Education
Press - Press Conference - Journalists Forum Electronic - Radio Program - Web-site Community
- Advocacy workshops
- Educational Workshop
- Taleemi Melas - Street Drama
- NGO Empowerment
Action Evaluation
Situation Analysis Strategies
MobilizationContinuity/ Expansion
PEC
65
Target Audience for PEC
Advocacy - Parliamentarians - Political Parties - Policy Makers/ Administrators - Lawyers - Women Associations - Journalists - NGO/INGOs Education - Women Groups - Social Workers - Village Education Workers - Community Leaders - School Teachers / High School Students
ACTION: District Government Involved From the Start
Technical advisory committee with representatives from CSO and decisions makers
Formal launching of the posters and brochures by representatives from Department of Education
ACTION & OUTCOMES OF PEC_SINDH
More District level NGOs identified and trained District level advocacy workshop held by partner NGOs Village level PEC activities launched by partner NGO Formation of Network at union council level at few districts
INFLUENCING POLICY
Acceptance and ownership of the PCE materials (Posters) on Education Similarity of PCE related strategies in government's education related
events District Education officer participate in orientation
LESSONS LEARNT
Research is key to influence Opinion & Policy. Since issues of Education is highly divisive, sensitization should start from
the top. Wide range of Approaches needed. Cost-effective yet expensive Concerned Policy Makers' involvement required from planning stage Creativity & Continuity Necessary
66
Credibility of the organization INDICATORS OF RESEARCH STUDY
Common Indicators – Public Expenditure on Education
n As percentage of GDP n As percentage of total public expenditure n Per pupil cost of Primary Education
– Budget allocation by sub-sector – Budget distribution by geographic area – Budget utilization – External Resources for Education – Household Contribution (Private Cost)
NEED FOR THE STUDY
Pioneering efforts on part of coalition to carryout research
The scope, scale and depth of research
Amalgamating the numbers with the aspirations of people
67
CONTACT LIST
No Name Country Email 1 Raquel Castilo Philippines [email protected] 2 Shamima Tasmin Bangladesh -- 3 Avinash K. Singh India [email protected] 4 Mokhtarul Haque India -- 5 S A Hasan Al Farooque Bangladesh [email protected] 6 Muntasim Tanvir Bangladesh [email protected] 7 Kamleshwer Lohana Pakistan [email protected] 8 Zishan Ahmed Pakistan [email protected] 9 Swapan Panda India [email protected] 10 Shah Jahan Baloch Pakistan [email protected] 11 Thusitha Siriwardana Sri Lanka [email protected] Naved Chowdhury Bangladesh [email protected] 13 Chandima Liyanagamage Sri Lanka [email protected] 14 Sadaf Zulfiqar Ali Pakistan [email protected] 15 Selina Irfan Pakistan [email protected] or
[email protected] 16 Bibhash Chakraborty Bangladesh [email protected] 17 K.M. Enamul Hoque Bangladesh [email protected] 18 Debdutt Panda India [email protected] 19 Meenakshi Singh India [email protected] 20 Vinay K. Kantha India [email protected] 21 Saraana Mujadid Bangladesh [email protected] 22 Emily Lugano Kenya [email protected] 23 Montse Pejuan UK [email protected] 24 Manzoor Ahmed Bangladesh -- 25 Fazle Rabbani Bangladesh -- 26 Jayantha Ratnawera Sri Lanka [email protected] 27 M. Hasnat Bangladesh [email protected] 28 Md. Nuru Bangladesh -- 29 John Rahat Bangladesh [email protected] 30