east and central africa regional strategic impact inquiry report

East and Central Africa

Regional

Strategic Impact Inquiry

Report

Our plans in April 2005

SII would be part of our regional strategy on inequality, discrimination and governance.Shared principlesShared questions that focused on empowerment and groups

Shared ‘methodologies’ with leads – ex-post desk review, impact dialogues and in-depth field research.Low cost – high involvement and shared learning

So was it regional?

Six sites – Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Tanzania, UgandaVariety of questions, but some still very relevant to the overarching questionsThree broad methodologiesOverall RMU managementSome level of sharing – WELF, exchange, email, etc.28 staff in synthesis meeting – and emerging similarities, gaps, etc

Research methods

Ex post desk review – with quick field trip to check conclusions in Somalia (partnership) and Eritrea (GBV and Health project)

In-depth research – Tanzania and Ethiopia (VSL and FGM project)

Impact dialogues – Burundi and Uganda (broader, country wide, or two site dialogues). More focused on organizational change.

Methodologies and evidence of impact

The quick/low cost desk review did seem to provide evidence and as one site put it, the findings would probably not have been any better with increased time and resources.

The in-depth ‘research’ inquiries produced compelling results. However, differing levels of analysis capacity – so one was particularly compelling because of its’ inclusion of ‘quantities’; however, the other was compelling because of the qualitative reflection of diverse ‘voices’.

Methodologies and evidence of impact - continued

The impact dialogues were very different and have not yet fully analyzed data. These were seen as ‘organizational/programmatic change’ processes and as such are evolving.Perhaps rigor is built over time? Perhaps a level of ‘change’ is required amongst the research teams before we are able to analyze data?

Definition of empowerment

Empowerment is people expanding their capabilities to interact and influence others, negotiate, control assets and achieve their aspirations and achieve recognition in mutually accountable and respectful ways.

WE CHANGED THE GLOBAL ONE

Definitions

All sites explored empowerment primarily from communities. Challenges included:

Language and concepts

The questions we asked, risk of agency focus

Disagreement and inferring logic e.g. empowerment = marriage. For marriage FGC is required….

IT WAS A STRUGGLE

The struggle led us at synthesis to rethink our definition and make it:Necessarily socialNecessarily mutualInclude recognitionA ‘good thing’ leading to increased harmony and happiness….CHALLENGES – Feminists/ Academics

Indicators

We came up with a set of core, secondary and tertiary from the results. This was an imperfect process because it may perpetuate the bias of the results… What is interesting is that we felt that ALL had to be seen from the perspectives of Agency, Structure and Relations…

Annex 2Empowerment:

People expanding their capabilities to interact and influence others, negotiate, control assets and achieve one’s aspiration and recognition in mutually accountable and

respectful ways.

ECARMU Indicators

•Self-Image/Self-esteem/Confidence •Decision influence •Material assets (control)

Ability to hold duty bearers accountable

Active involvement of participants in groups

•Inclusiveness citizenry •Interdependence

•Ability to identify, analyze issues that impact livelihood

•Self-Expression •Source of income or control of income

•Negotiation •New social forms

•Ability to advocate issues that impact the livelihood •Ability to mobilize constituency

•Freedom from Violence of all forms

Note that all indicators carry the dimension of agency, structure and relations. Depending on who is responsible for the changes required to achieve them. (What about the other 14???)

A

RS

A

RSA

RS

A

RS

A

RSA

RS

A

RS

IMPACTS ++ and +

Key areas are AGENCY areas – self esteem, image, confidence; decision making and influence; increase in material assets (and control over).Some around marriage and citizenry – where norms, laws and practice changeSome around social negotiation, new ways of organizing and building alliance.

Mixed pictures

Did these impacts lead to improved lives for women?No impact seen on violence and some indication of potential for increaseNo impact on collective advocacy, or awareness of interdependenceGenerally little or no impact in areas of relations/structure

HARMS -- or -

Increase in work load

Increased assets does not necessarily mean increased control

Evidence of inappropriate solutions – rice in Uganda

Evidence of increase resistance/fear from men, unclear how this impacts.

Organizational Factors

Seem to fall into agency, structure and relationsSuperiority/insensitivity and attitudes of ‘we know’ – agencyInability to see ourselves as interdependent – a part of the society and a partner – relationsOur HR practice, what we are rewarded for.Our project approach and lack of time (priority) to look at structural/relational issues in program.Our own contentment with the status quo, and inability to take on ‘adaptive’ work.The risks of doing so!

And finally…………In life each of us makes judgements about the people around us on the basis of our prejudices, past history and our attitudes to their behaviours. We may have perceived some as criminals, we may envy some, have a long-term dispute with them, despise them. In each case we will make a judgement about the level of support we provide. To an outsider it may seem we are denying them ‘their rights’. There are many micro-moments and reasons behind people’s behaviors. We must determine how people interact with one another. We must compare viewpoints until there is a common ground for action. We must learn to balance different social forces. The language of ‘rights’ places us/CARE into the social arena and it is challenging.”