“Afghanistan: Ending Child Marriage and Domestic Violence,” Human Rights Watch, 2015,
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/Afghanistan_brochure_0913_09032013.pdf.
“Afghanistan Gender Equality Report Card: Evaluating the Government of Afghanistan’s Commitments to Women and Gender Equality,” Equality for Peace and Democracy, 2015, http://www.epd-afg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GERC-English.pdf.
“Afghanistan’s National Action Plan on UNSCR 1325-Women, Peace, and Security: 2015-2022,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Human Rights and Women’s International Affairs, GIRoA, June 2015, https://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/WPS-Afghanistan%20National%20Action%20Plan%201325.pdf
“Afghan Women’s Access to Mobile Technology,” USIAD, 2013, https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/infographic-afghan-mobile.
“A Long Way To Go: Implementation of the EVAW Law,” UNAMA, December 2012, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/AF/UNAMA_Stillalongway_go_implementation.pdf
Caprioli, Mary, Valerie M. Hudson, S. Matthew Stearmer, Rose McDermott, Chad Emmett, and Bonnie Balilif-Spanvill,, “Walking a Fine Line: Addressing Issues of Gender with WomanStats,” Paper presented at the annual International Studies Asosciation Conference, 28 February to 3 March, 2007, Chicago, Illinois, http://www.womanstats.org/images/ISA2007WomanStats.pdf.
“Explore Women’s Economic Empowerment as it Relates to Gender Equality and Global Economies and Find Out What Can Be Done to Overcome Barriers Facing Women Worldwide,” Soroptimist White Paper, Soroptimist International of the Americas, February 2013, http://www.soroptimist.org/whitepapers/whitepaperdocs/wpwomenandeconomicempowerment.pdf.
“Factsheet, EU: Support to promoting Afghan women leaders,” Brussels, 8 March 2015,
http://eeas.europa.eu/factsheets/docs/150308_01_factsheet_promoting_women_leaders_en.pdf.
Fergus, Lara. “Prevention of violence against women and girls,” UN Women, 2012, http://www.unwomen.org/~/media/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/CSW/57/EGM/cs557-EGM-prevention-background-paper%20pdf.pdf.
Harders, Cilja. “Gender Relations, Violence and Conflict Transformation,” Berghof Foundation, n.g., http://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Handbook/Articles/harders_handbook.pdf.
Hudson, Valerie M., Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Mary Caprioli, and Chad F. Emmett, Sex and World Peace, Columbia University Press, 2012.
“Human Development Report 2014: Work for Human Development,” United Nations Development Programme, 2015, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf.
“’I Had to Run Away’ The Imprisonment of Women and Girls for ‘Moral Crimes’ in Afghanistan,” Human Rights Watch, 2012,
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0312webwcover_0.pdf.
“Implementation of the NAPWA: An Assessment,” APPRO, 2014, http://www.baag.org.uk/sites/www.baag.org.uk/files/resources/attachments/APPRO%20Implementation%20of%20the%20NAPWA%20Assessment%20Mar2014.pdf.
“Independent Review of Afghanistan 1395 Draft National Budget,” EQUALITY for Peace and Democracy, December 2015, http://www.epd-afg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1395-Budget-Snapshot_English_14-12.pdf.
“Justice through the Eyes of Afghan Women: Cases of Violence against Women Addressed through Mediation and Court Adjudication,” UNAMA, 2015,
https://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/UNAMA-OHCHR/UNAMA_OHCHR_Justice_through_eyes_of_Afghan_women_-_15_April_2015.pdf
“National Inquiry Report on Factors and Causes of Rape and Honor Killing in Afghanistan,” AIHRC, Spring 1392, http://www.aihrc.org.af/media/files/PDF/Natioan%20Inquiry%20final%20-%20for%20meru.pdf.
“Nepal: Preliminary Mapping of Gender Based Violence,” The Asia Foundation, 2010, https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/GBVMappingNepal.pdf.
Preskill, Hallie, Marcie Parkhurst, and Jennifer Splansky Juster, “Guide to Evaluating Collective Impact: Learning and Evaluation in the Collective Impact Context,” Collective Impact Forum, 2013.
“Resource Guide,” Violence Against Women and Girls, 2014, http://www.vawgresourceguide.org/overview.
“Standard Operating Procedures for Healthcare Sector Response to Gender-Based Violence: Referral procedures and guidelines for health care providers as part of the Implementation Package of Multi-agency Coordination Model,” Ministry of Public Health, https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/SOP%20Final.pdf.
“Survey of the Afghan People,” The Asia Foundation, 2012 to present, http://afghansurvey.asiafoundation.org
Trent Ruder, “Lessons and Opportunities from the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework,” United States Institute of Peace, September 2015, http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR378-Lessons-and-Opportunities-from-the-Tokyo-Mutual-Accountability-Framework.pdf.
“Violence Against Women in Afghanistan Biannual report 1391,” AIHRC, 2013.
“Violence Against Women in Afghanistan 1392 (2013-2014),” AIHRC, 2014, http://www.aihrc.org.af/home/research_report/2091
“Violence Against Women in Afghanistan 1392 (2013-2014),” AIHRC, 2014, http://www.aihrc.org.af/home/research_report/2091
“Women’s Rights and Political Representation: Past Achievements and Future Challenges,” Prio Paper, Background Brief for the Symposium Women’s Rights and Empowerment in Afghanistan Oslo 23 November 2014,
http://www.cmi.no/publications/file/5301-womens-rights-and-political-representation.pdf
“Women’s Role in Afghanistan’s Future: Taking Stock of Achievements and Continued Challenges,” World Bank, 2014, http://www.artf.af/images/uploads/ARTF_Gender_Stocktaking_2014-_Summary_Leaftet.pdf.
“Gender Based Violence Treatment Protocol for Healthcare Providers in Afghanistan,” WHO, UN Women, 2014.
Annex A: Evaluation Matrix
Criteria
|
Evaluation questions
|
Data methods
|
Focus
|
Effectiveness
|
Are output targets demonstrating progress towards collective EVAW Program outcomes as expected?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
User perceptions and experiences in engaging with institutions, sectors and services supported through the program, as a particular focus of interviews with intended beneficiaries
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
The activities that have been undertaken, how these have been determined and why
-
Progress to date, and the extent to which this progress is contributing to the achievement of program outcomes
|
What activities have been more/less effective and why?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
User perceptions and experiences in engaging with institutions, sectors and services supported through the program, as a particular focus of interviews with intended beneficiaries
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Alignment of activities with program objectives
-
Enablers and barriers to achievement
|
Which beneficiaries have benefitted most/least from the program (both intended and unintended beneficiaries)?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Satisfaction of direct indirect program beneficiaries (intended and unintended) with the results
-
Reach of program
|
To what extent are the outcomes mutually reinforcing and is the program working effectively as a whole?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Modified stakeholder analysis
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
CI framework (common agenda, continuous communication, mutually reinforcing activities, backbone function)
|
Is the theory of change robust and are there any gaps?
| -
A Strategic Learning Debrief to review the program’s theory of change to check for alignment of activities and direction with intended goals, particularly in the context of progress and learning within the program to date.
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
The desired effects
-
The underlying theory of change
-
Underlying assumptions
-
Updated contextual analysis to assess the relevance and and context-appropriateness of the theory of change
|
How effective is policy engagement (by DFAT and in collaboration with other donors) in influencing policy change in the sector in ways which support program outcomes?
| -
Analysis of a small sample of policy changes suggested by stakeholders to review to what extent they have been influenced by the work of the EVAW program and its stakeholders
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
The policy initiatives the research has promoted/supported
-
Uptake and outcomes in policy
|
How has the Do No Harm principle been applied in the program?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Unintended consequences
-
Safeguards and measures in place to prevent anticipated potential negative outcomes
|
Has the program had any unintended consequences that have caused harm?
|
Efficiency
|
Are the governance and management arrangements efficient and effective?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
CI framework (common agenda, continuous communication, mutually reinforcing activities, backbone function)
-
Linkages and coordination frameworks
|
Is the Core Steering Group operating effectively? What mechanisms could be easily implemented to strengthen it?
|
Is engagement, coordination and dialogue (formal and informal structures) between implementing partners and other key sector stakeholders effective at provincial and national level?
|
To what extent is the program harmonized with other donor and government activities in terms of policy engagement, program scope and implementation arrangements?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
A comprehensive desk research of existing resources and research related to the EVAW sector in Afghanistan, as well as relevant policies and law including NAPWA, NPPs, the EVAW Law
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Context-appropriateness
-
Changes in context and operating framework since program inception
-
Function of activities as capacity building and supporting institutional development in line with national and international frameworks (for example, CEDAW, AMDGs, NPPs, and NAPWA)
-
Complementarity of program to other donor-supported funding mechanisms such as the ARTF and the EVAW Special Fund
-
Complementarity of program to on-budget government programming
|
Monitoring and Evaluation
|
How robust is the M&E system and data collected (at the whole-of-program and individual partner level)? What are the gaps?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Evaluation of a small sample of secondary-level IPs’ reporting (where relevant), which will be randomly selected from the reports provided to the review team
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
CI framework (shared measurement system, backbone function)
-
Capacity of secondary-level IPs in terms of monitoring and reporting
-
Verification mechanisms
|
How can the PAF and investment M&E framework be better aligned?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Capacity of M&E frameworks and data collection tools to capture outcomes in addition to outputs
-
Capacity of partners to rigorously collect, collate, and analyze results-based monitoring data
|
To what extent is data being used to inform decision-making, including monitoring data and Rapid Review recommendations?
| -
Utility of data to inform IPs’ program monitoring and decision-making
-
Uptake of recommendations by IPs and DFAT
-
Extent to which reporting reflects learning, and influences program revisions by IPs and DFAT
|
Sustainability
|
To what extent is the program contributing to behavior change and policy change by the Afghan Government and beneficiaries?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Analysis of a small sample of policy changes suggested by stakeholders to review to what extent they have been influenced by the work of the EVAW program and its stakeholders
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
User perceptions and experiences in engaging with institutions, sectors and services supported through the program, as a particular focus of interviews with intended beneficiaries
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Uptake and buy-in from GIRoA actors (focus on key stakeholders including AIHRC, MoWA, MoJ, AGO, and MoI)
-
Extent to which changes in knowledge, attitudes, and practice among key EVAW sector actors are evident in terms of case registration, prosecution, protection, and other relevant services
-
Extent to which changes in awareness and utilization among users are evident in terms of case registration, prosecution, protection, and other relevant services
|
To what extent is there government buy-in and institutionalization of changes achieved through the program?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Analysis of a small sample of policy changes suggested by stakeholders to review to what extent they have been influenced by the work of the EVAW program and its stakeholders
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Extent to which changes are supported by government policies and on-budget funding that supports long-term EVAW objectives
-
Extent to which changes are supported by policy commitments of the international community and donor policies and programs, and agreements with the GIRoA (such as the Self-Reliance through Mutual Accountability Framework (SMAF))
|
What evidence is there that these changes will be sustained beyond the life of the program?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
A comprehensive desk research of existing resources and research related to the EVAW sector in Afghanistan, as well as relevant policies and law including NAPWA, NPPs, the EVAW Law
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Extent to which changes are supported by government policies and on-budget funding that supports long-term EVAW objectives
-
Extent to which changes are supported by funding from the international community and donor policies and programs
-
Means of delivering capacity building an institutional development support and how potential risks such as turnover, mandate revision, etc. could impact sustainability
|
What evidence is there that improvements to NGO capacity will be sustainable beyond the duration of the program?
| -
Program document reviews, including: design documents; performance assessment framework; aid quality checks; rapid management review; work plans; IP reporting; IP reviews/evaluations
-
Strategic Learning Debrief
-
Individual and group interviews
| -
Capacity of IPs and secondary-level IPs in terms of programming, advocacy, coordination, and institutional development
-
Extent to which long-term EVAW objectives have been incorporated into the culture and planning within NGO partners and NGO partner networks
|
Share with your friends: |
