CI Element
|
Indicators
|
Findings of the Midterm Review
|
Common Agenda
|
The development of the common agenda has included a diverse set of voices and perspectives from multiple sectors, including members of the target population.
|
At present, the agenda is largely driven by the priorities of the DFAT EVAW program implementing partners. Though the activities were found to be largely determined based on evidence, there is a need for further incorporation of consumer perspectives in shaping the overall agenda of the program.
|
Partners and the broader community understand and can articulate the problem
|
There was a clear understanding and articulation of the problems in by DFAT and program implementing partners, but there was less clear understanding among wider stakeholders and target groups, particularly some government institutions.
|
Geographical boundaries and population targets are clear for all partners
|
The geographic coordination of activities is strong, and the review of activities at the provincial level in CSG meetings ensures that targets in terms of geography and stakeholders are clear for all partners.
|
Partners use data (qualitative and quantitative) to inform the selection of strategies and actions)
|
The review found that activities were generally evidence-based at their inception, but the ongoing use of monitoring data to inform the evolution of strategies and implementation of activities is limited.
|
Backbone Infrastructure (BBI)
|
The CSG includes a diverse set of voices and perspectives from multiple, relevant sectors and constituencies
|
The CSG includes voices from direct implementers of the DFAT EVAW program, but currently does not provide a platform for the consideration of perspectives from local partners and consumers of the services and support provided through the program.
|
Backbone staff are respected by important partners and external stakeholders
|
Generally, positive coordination was noted between DFAT as the BBI for the program and implementing partners. However, some limitations were noted in terms of timeliness of response and provision of information from the partners to DFAT and effective inputs and ownership from partners.
|
Partners look to the BBI and CSG for initiative support, strategic guidance, and leadership
|
The effective support from DFAT to partners was apparent, with the flexibility afforded recognized as a key component facilitating the utilization of DFAT for strategic guidance and support from partners.
|
BBI provides project management support, including monitoring progress toward goals and connecting partners to discuss challenges, opportunities, gaps, and overlaps
|
Generally, the support and management provided from DFT in terms of monitoring progress towards goals was found to have considerable limitations, compounded by a PAF in need of revision and an absence of a uniform monitoring template. Furthermore, the focus on activities in coordination platforms and a lack of discussion and consideration at the outcome level was noted. However, management and support in terms of connecting partners to discuss challenges, opportunities, gaps, and overlaps was found to be sufficient and effective.
|
BBI convenes partners and key external stakeholders to ensure the alignment of activities and pursue new opportunities
|
At present, external stakeholders are not convened or consulted by the BBI related to the program.
|
The CSG regularly reviews data on progress toward goals and uses it to inform strategic decision making
|
Data is reviewed at the output level, but there is inadequate collection or review of data in terms of progress, which limits the strategic decision making capacity of the program.
|
Shared Measurement System (SMS)
|
Partners understand the value of the shared measurement system
|
At present, partners clearly understand the value of a shared measurement system, but have been unable to coordinate effectively in terms of monitoring and the collection of data to facilitate it.
|
Partners understand how they will participate in the shared measurement system
|
There were considerable limitations observed between the indicators in the PAF—which is the SMS for the program—and the data being collected by partners in their individual monitoring systems and frameworks.
|
A participatory process is used to determine a common set of indicators and data collection methods
|
The PAF is in need of realignment, particularly with the addition of AWN and AIHRC activities in phase two of the program.
|
Partners agree to a data sharing agreement that supports ongoing collaboration
|
Partners demonstrated openness and willingness to share materials. However, there was less data sharing beyond activities and outputs, with limited willingness to even share this information with the review team.
|
The system includes a common set of indicators and data collection methods that can provide timely evidence of (a lack of) progress toward the CI initiative’s outcomes
|
The PAF shares a common set of indicators, but there is no data collection plan clearly specifying how, when and by whom data should be collected.
|
Partners know how to use the SMS, and commit to collecting the data as defined in the data plan
|
Partners contribute high-quality data on a common set of indicators in a timely and consistent manner
|
Due to inconsistencies between individual partners’ monitoring systems and the PAF, and in the absence of a data collection plan, some partners are collecting more quality data than others, and timeliness and consistency is lacking.
|
Mutually Reinforcing Activities
|
An action plan clearly specifies the activities that different partners have committed to implementing
|
Partners coordinate on a geographic and stakeholder level and in terms of addressing duplication, but currently do not share an overall action plan. Some noted that a shared action plan would further promote the coherence of the program and allow for more considered coordination at a strategic level.
|
Partners’ activities change to better align with the action plan
|
DFAT and the program implementing partners demonstrated considerable flexibility, adaptiveness, and responsiveness in terms of changing activities to avoid duplication among partners and across the wider EVAW sector as well as in response to changing context.
|
Continuous Communication
|
Working groups (or other collaborative structures) have regular meetings
|
The CSG meets semi-annually, which was found to be the most appropriate frequency striking a balance between the need for regular meeting and coordination and the multiple commitments and availability of partner organizations.
|
Members of working groups or other collaborative structures attend and participate actively in meetings
|
Partners are generally consistent in attending and participating in CSG meetings, but have not taken an active interest in shaping their agenda.
|
Partners communicate and coordinate efforts regularly (with and independently of backbone staff)
|
Considerable coordination was noted among partners, both through the CSG and facilitated by DFAT as well as outside of the DFAT EVAW program platforms. However, advocacy efforts from AWN could be better coordinated with larger ongoing initiatives of other partners.
|
The CI initiative engages external stakeholders in regular meetings and integrates their feedback into the overall strategy
|
Partners independently coordinate with key government stakeholders, and the review found this coordination to be generally adequate and effective at the central level, with less effectiveness at the provincial level. Feedback is generally considered and adequately integrated into overall strategies, with notable support from DFAT in this regard.
|
Initiative Capacity
|
Sufficient operating support is available to enable the initiative’s backbone infrastructure to fulfil its responsibilities
|
There are considerable challenges in the management structure of the program, particularly with the remote support to the program provided from Canberra. In consideration of the context and these challenges, as well as challenges related to security and access and independent monitoring and verification of the program, operating support is generally effective. However, there are considerable needs for more targeted technical support among specific partners.
|
CI initiative has influencers and champions that command the respect of a broader set of stakeholders and can bring stakeholders to the table
|
DFAT is active and engaged in the wider EVAW sector, and the partners hold key positions in other sector-related platforms, including the GBV SC and EVAW SF. However, there are no standout influencers or champions from the government stakeholder side for the program.
|
CI initiative has supporters who can champion the strategy with the broader community
|
There is considerable evidence that activities have found supporters to champion the strategy at the community level. Other target groups at the community level including teachers, community members, and civil society activists have been effectively engaged.
|
Leadership of the CI initiative comes from multiple sectors that are able to shift both public and private funds
|
At present, all funds related to the program are private, and there has been limited interest from those targeted by the CI initiative to utilize their position and influence to support activities through the use of public resources.
|
Learning Culture
|
Learning structures and processes are embedded in the work of the CI initiative
|
To date, the program has facilitated learning through the CSG, but this has largely been focused on coordination and awareness raising on EVAW sector activities. There has been less focus in terms of reviewing and reassessing the ToC, underlying assumptions, and learning regarding the contribution of activities and the overall strategy towards achieving the program goal.
|
Decision-making processes are open and transparent
|
Decision-making processes were found to be open and transparent.
|
Partners feel included in major decision-making processes
|
Partners felt adequately consulted, involved, and included in decision-making processes regarding the program.
|
Partners regularly seek feedback and advice from one another
|
Though partners coordinate and share resources, it was less apparent that the strengths and experiences of other partners are used as a source for feedback and advice among partners.
|
Partners trust each other
|
A considerable amount of trust was observed among partners.
|
People of different cultures and backgrounds feel respected and heard within the CI initiative
|
Though there were differing opinions among partners on some key issues, both from strategic and administrative perspectives, considerable respect was observed and all partners were allowed to express their opinions and perspectives within the collective group.
|
