Submit a thread to our digital quilt for the chance to be featured in an exhibition and win £200. Learn more
Menu

Tag: Citizen evidence

When the tough get going: civil society resilience

Posted on by Sarah Peck

The term ‘resilience’ is often thrown around in the context of climate change, but my research on civil society in Barbados and Grenada showed that resilience is in fact essential to achieving social justice goals.

Between September 2014 and January 2018 I worked with the University of Sheffield and the Commonwealth Foundation on my Doctoral research. The purpose of the project was to understand more about how civil society groups operate in the Caribbean: their hopes, challenges, and everyday experiences; my purpose was to foreground the opinions and voices of civil society activists.

A summary of the project findings is available here.

Recent academic and practice-based engagement with civil society has focused on understanding civil society through the lens of sustainability, and less tangibly the wider civil society space they occupy. This is partly in response to changes in donor funding and the global economy, increased emphasis on terrorism and security, and also in response to the closing down of civil society space around the world. The sustainability literature does, however, highlight two key areas of concern for civil society: firstly, the ability of civil society to operate in an increasingly restrictive environment and, secondly, the ability of CSOs to continue their work with reduced levels of international funding.

‘Many are starting to utilise technological advances such as PayPal and crowdfunding to maximise their financial connections to diaspora groups.’

Whilst greater understanding of what sustains civil society is important, I want to use the remainder of this piece to think about the related, but subtlety different, concept of resilience. Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover from difficulties or challenging events. Critiques of this definition include the notion that ‘bouncing back’ does not challenge the status quo: they dispute the idea that vulnerabilities are entirely self-created and that responsibility lies with the individual and their coping mechanisms (see Commonwealth Insights paper ‘What makes societies resilient’). Despite these convincing critiques I want to put forward an argument for considering civil society’s’ resilience as well as its sustainability. For me the concept of sustainability implies stasis and predictability; the assumption that if certain procedures are continuously followed civil society will be sustained. This sidelines the importance of national and regional contexts and indeed innovation in the sector – factors that are far less predictable. The idea of resilience is perhaps more useful for reflecting the inherently variable, dynamic, and fluid nature of civil society. These inevitable fluctuations make being part of civil society exciting and challenging, and the need to be flexible, adaptable and resurgent in the face of change is critical. Resilience in this context can be thought of as ways of rearranging the status quo and taking control of the complexities that are part of civil society work.

This can be illustrated in a number of ways as civil society resilience takes many forms. During my research civil society activists described occasions when they have had to bounce back in the face of criticism from outside and inside the sector. This increases fatigue and places an emotional toll on activists, but in response civil society groups are finding alternative ways of engaging, for example through different media, and are using their social networks for support.

‘Groups also […] commit to a culture of reciprocity to aid their resilience and continue the work they do’

It was also apparent that civil society groups in the Caribbean need to develop financial resilience in the face of multiple challenges, including: reductions in donor funding, increased competition between organisations, and changes in the global economy. Working in civil society is often associated with having several part-time occupations, and often working during unpaid hours over evenings and weekends.. Not knowing where funding for the next project might come from also increases anxiety levels. This insecurity has the potential to reduce human resources and human capital in the sector. In the face of this, civil society groups have to be resilient to succeed. To build their resilience they are crafting multiple financial opportunities to sustain their work. This includes income-generating schemes within the organisation and engaging with the corporate sector and philanthropic institutions. Diaspora groups also offer a valuable source of revenue and other forms of social support. Many are starting to utilise technological advances such as PayPal and crowdfunding to maximise their financial connections to diaspora groups. Users of crowdfunding felt that the system had the potential to create more democratic relations between donors and civil society.

Civil society groups are also promoting their resilience through social connections, with friendships, for example, providing morale. Groups also: mentor each other, use volunteers, and commit to a culture of reciprocity to aid their resilience and continue the work they do.

In the future, developing networks between locally based organisations across the Caribbean region could allow the sharing of experience and resources and build solidarity. Civil society in the Caribbean may also benefit from meeting in informal settings to build a feeling of solidarity, share experiences, and share expertise. This could provide a forum to discuss wider issues that may be relevant for the sector. Such a forum may also offer moral and emotional support for civil society groups during challenging times.

Civil society groups need to be resilient if they are to sustain their work and identity as a sector that promotes social justice. The idea of civil society resilience promotes the ever-changing nature of the sector and the need to be versatile and adaptable. A key question is: what is the role of the international community in helping civil society groups become more resilient?

Sarah Peck is a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) candidate at the University of Sheffield.

Following the money: cash transfers

Posted on by Commonwealth Foundation

(Above) Helen Mudora presents project results at the Foundation’s annual grants workshop. The workshop shares monitoring and evaluation techniques with new grants partners and provides opportunities for networking and knowledge sharing.

Earlier this month, Helen Mudora, Programme Manager at Africa Platform for Social Protection (APSP), presented the results of her organisation’s project ‘Enhancing accountability for cash transfer programmes’ to our new cohort of grantees and our Board members at the annual Commonwealth Foundation grants workshop.

APSP’s project is being delivered in the counties of Busia, Kilifi and Kajiado in Kenya. In this interview, Helen discussed some results and lessons the project has generated with Gillian Cooper from the Knowledge, Learning and Communications team.

Gillian: What are social protection cash transfers?

Helen: The Africa Union defines social protection as: ‘responses by the state and society to protect citizens from risks, vulnerabilities and deprivations. It also includes strategies and programmes aimed at ensuring a minimum standard of livelihood for all people in a given country. This entails measures to secure education and health care, social welfare, livelihoods, access to a stable income, as well as employment’.

Social protection is largely seen to have three pillars: health insurance, social security, and social assistance.  In Kenya, the three most common social assistance programmes include the Orphans and Vulnerable Children cash transfer (OVC-CT), the Older Persons cash transfer (OPCT) and the Persons with Severe Disabilities cash transfer (PWSD-CT).

‘Cash transfers have transformed the lives of thousands of people who would ordinarily find it a challenge to meet even their basic needs.’

The orphans and vulnerable children cash transfer programme was started by UNICEF as a pilot, mainly as a response to the crisis of HIV orphans. It is now funded by the government and gradually over time has included all children who face poverty and vulnerability.

Cash transfer programmes for older persons respond to the unique challenges faced by older persons including low income levels and destitution.

The Persons with Severe Disabilities cash transfer programme was started to meet the basic needs of carer families who may not be in a position to find time to generate income because of caring responsiblities for a family member with a severe disability.

In many countries, the poorest of the poor are PwDs. They face multiple barriers – the system disadvantages PwDs from earning an income. They don’t have access to services and there’s no transport to take them to school. Without schooling there is a close correlation to poverty – only about 5% of PwDs in Kenya make it to university – and so the PwDs cash transfer helps to redress this imbalance. Cash transfers have transformed the lives of thousands of people who would ordinarily find it a challenge to meet even their basic needs.

Gillian: What did APSP’s community sensitisation and social audits uncover about the cash transfer programme?

Helen: APSP works with communities to promote citizen engagement in the delivery of cash transfer services through social audits. We identify community organisations to work with, who in turn identify community monitors who form the link between government programmes, citizens, and beneficiaries.

APSP trains the community monitors in social protection, rights-based approaches and advocacy.

Community sensitisation forums are held to increase awareness levels of the communities and citizens about existing social protection programmes. APSP, in collaboration with community groups, then conduct a social audit of government programmes.

The social audit is a deeper way of generating evidence to inform policy.

This entails collecting data on various parameters of the government service charter, including timeliness of payments, distance to collection points, dignity in service delivery, awareness of existing government programmes, as well as impact of the cash transfers.

‘APSP is conscious to strike a balance, making sure not to undermine the relationship with government and manage the politics so it does not become confrontational.’

Our audits have found that some people in rural areas have to walk more than 6km, sometimes 7km, to collect the cash.  In the urban areas this is not a problem as the service has been more decentralised and the road infrastructure is good. In rural areas beneficiaries walk longer distances to access the cash. We also found that the timeliness of payments varies. 50% say they get their payments on time. 33% have to wait about 6 months. For the rest, the time varies, some have delays more than six months.

We also looked at the length of time it takes to receive the cash at the bank. It was noted that because those who receive the cash are few in number, there is often a long line especially considering people have a short two week window within which to be paid.

Finally, the audit looked at the complaints and redress mechanism. We found that this has been poorly publicised as not many people know about the government toll free number, where they can report any challenges or issues. Currently the complaints process is still centralised at the headquarters in Nairobi, but the complaints might be made from 400km away! We are recommending that the complaints mechanism is decentralised so that people can lodge complaints and have it resolved at the community level.

Social accountability is about pushing for effective service delivery. What the government says it’s going to do should be done within the promised timeframe. That’s what it means to provide cash transfers as a right. APSP is trying to discourage tokenism and help community members realise that the cash transfer is a right. We’ve worked to build the confidence of the community so that if they find a problem, they have a right to complain and the government has an obligation to listen.

Gillian: What have been the most effective ways to track progress and ensure government accountability?

Helen: Evidence. You must generate evidence. For a long time, individuals would make complaints, but when you make a complaint as an individual, it’s not sufficient. But it becomes evidence when you bring in a bit of science, and present it as a research finding which shows that a particular phenomenon is a part of a bigger picture. And so, this project has helped us to move from individuals complaining, to a collective approach that generates evidence to inform policy.

‘Building capacity is about supporting marginalised groups to make their voice heard in a way that makes policy makers listen and respect them.’

Gillian: How has the project addressed gendered needs?

Helen: This is a work in progress. For starters, whenever we do community mobilisation, we always ask for a specific number of women and men. At the beginning, when you mobilise people to come together, you must make sure you get both men and women. You might not get a 50-50 ratio, but it’s important to set this as a target so that at least you will get a considerable number of women. For trainings we go the extra mile to get women to participate; we might need a sensitisation meeting to encourage participation.

We respect and are conscious of the triple roles of women. So for the community sensitisation forums, our starting time must take account of when women have completed their morning routine. We start at 9 or 10 and by 12:30 we must finish. If the timing is not right they will not come at all.  We have also built the capacity of women to articulate their issues in different fora. For APSP’s international meetings, we make sure women from project communities are on the programme to speak.

Gillian: How does APSP engage with government to make change?

Helen: We seek opportunities to sit with government and meet in their Boardroom. We always request meetings with the Permanent Secretary in her/his Boardroom so that we share these findings with them first before it goes public. APSP is conscious to strike a balance, making sure not to undermine the relationship with government and manage the politics so it does not become confrontational. APSP is part of the National Steering Committee for Social Protection, which is a government constituted committee. This shows they have faith in our work.

Our engagement has paid off; APSP’s research has influenced the process of cash disbursement. In 2018, the government started a universal cash transfer for older people. Previous cash transfers were provided at only two banks. Now there are five banks from which to choose from. In addition, clients are given an ATM card, so they can access the money at any time.

We also engage in the legislative process. Social protection is in the constitution but there is no subsidiary law to enshrine the cash transfer system. APSP has been working with both Parliament and the Executive arm. We try to balance our engagement so we are not leaning on one side. Parliament now invite us to the departmental committee meetings and we are working with them to pass that law.

Gillian: How should marginalised groups be included in decision-making about policies that affect their lives?

Helen: Capacity building is very important. Building capacity is about supporting marginalised groups to make their voice heard in a way that makes policy makers listen and respect them. The voice is there but how they voice it may mean nobody can listen to them. They may be voicing it through complaints or in anger or desperation.

Evidence generation is one way. People are less likely to doubt statistics – you don’t have to bang tables when you have data. The skills we’ve been able to build for the community has been intense but transformational.

We have developed an advocacy tool. It provides steps for engaging and how to make your message hard-hitting. The advocacy tool includes a monitoring guide to help track meetings and progress so you can attribute the impact of your work to a policy change.

Gillian: What are the next steps for your project?

Helen: We are hoping our experiences can be used to replicate the project in other counties in Kenya.  We can also replicate it in other countries – APSP works in 27. The project provides a very good basis for knowledge sharing. When we have our delegates meeting in August, grassroots representatives are part of the programme. We can show it as a model of citizen engagement in decision-making.

Beyond that our long term goal is for sustainability of social protection programmes. Our bigger advocacy agenda is around national budgets and processes. In many countries, social protection is funded by donors. In Kenya it is now 97% government funded but in other countries it is 100% donor funded. So where is the government commitment? We aim to push for social protection allocations from national budgets to meet the African Union  Social policy framework – which states that every government should use 2% of its budget on social protection so that it is sustainable and not dependent on external donors.

Helen Mudora is Programme Manager at Africa Platform for Social Protection

Message for Commonwealth Day 2018

Posted on by Vijay Krishnarayan

This year the Commonwealth’s theme is ‘Towards a Common Future.’

It’s an aspiration which many would subscribe to; what distinguishes the Commonwealth’s commitment is a focus on making that future fairer for all.

For the Commonwealth fairness is a powerful concept. We invoke it, for example, in relation to the conduct of elections and the pursuit of a global rules-based trading system. But fairness also evokes other words that are keystones for the Commonwealth, like equity and justice. Through these lenses fairness also means sustainable development and universal human rights.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) saw the global community agree that we should ‘leave no one behind’. This means that each of us has a responsibility to each of us and that we all need a say in determining what’s fair. At the Commonwealth Foundation our strapline is ‘More voices for a fairer world’ because we recognise that inclusive, fair, and accountable development is best achieved through civic dialogue and participation.

‘The architecture of the SDGs acknowledges that fairness doesn’t just happen—it requires foundations.’

There is no universal template for achieving fairness within the Commonwealth’s broad vision for plural democracies where all can expect equal treatment. Any definition of fairness should respond to an articulation of people’s needs regardless of their status. The road to fairness is culturally situated and negotiated.

Civil society is an essential part of this mix. It is these voices that can bring the interests and concerns—particularly from those that aren’t usually heard—into the public arena, where institutions and policies can respond.  The architecture of the SDGs acknowledges that fairness doesn’t just happen—it requires foundations. SDG 16 calls for peace, justice, and strong institutions. These are the essential building blocks for sustainable development. Policies can signal the intent of institutions to encourage this kind of environment; at their best these policies are driven by or engage with civil society.

The Southern African Alliance for Youth Employment is bringing together organisations from seven countries, including trade unions, churches, and wider civil society to develop their ideas for policies that get young people working. The Eastern African Sub-Regional Support Initiative for the Advancement of Women is monitoring the commitments of East African governments on gender equality and has been advocating for a regional Gender and Development Bill.

‘An environment that encourages creative expression also has a part to play in enabling citizen voice and establishes a climate for fairness.’

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative from India and the Katiba Institute from Kenya are learning from each other to establish and strengthen Right to Information legislation. Transparency International Sri Lanka is doing the same, while the Network for Non-Governmental Organisations is informing the regulatory for civil society in Nigeria.

The Commonwealth Foundation supports these initiatives but also recognises that not all voices get heard through established and institutionalised ways and means. An environment that encourages creative expression also has a part to play in enabling citizen voice and establishes a climate for fairness. Anthologies of writing on small states or the experience of indentured labour encourages each of us to see through the eyes of others. Short films from new directors from Pacific Islands reveal issues of concern to new audiences.

These examples illustrate the ways in which civic voices help to determine what fairness looks like. They deepen our understanding of what fairness needs to deliver and shape the policies that will make it happen. Most importantly they help us to be true to the commitment to leave no one behind by amplifying those that are less heard. Without less-heard voices, ‘fairness’ only works for those powerful enough to define it, leaving others with a sense of grievance and injustice. ‘Governance that is inclusive and delivers development that is inclusive’: that’s what we mean by ‘A Common Future’ and it signposts Commonwealth renewal.

Vijay Krishnarayan is Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation. 

Citizen-generated data for a change

Posted on by Gillian Cooper

‘Citizen-generated and evidence-based data’ are terms we hear more and more about in the discourse around monitoring and accountability of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

I joined Mansuriah alongside other colleagues from the Foundation and EASSI on the learning visit to Gender Links earlier this month and thought the Gender Barometer they have developed was an excellent example of citizen-generated data. It was clear the barometer had become a powerful accountability tool in Southern Africa, influencing discourse and provoking change across the region around gender equality.

‘It was clear the barometer had become a powerful accountability tool in Southern Africa’

After South Africa, I continued to East Africa where I met with Foundation grant partners KELIN and the Africa Platform for Social Protection (APSP) who work with some of Kenya’s most marginalised communities. What approaches to citizen-generated data did they find effective?

Citizen-generated data is defined as ‘data that people or their organisations produce to directly monitor, demand or drive change on issues that affect them’ . Here are a few of the approaches to citizen-generated data that our partners are using to ensure inclusion of marginalised people in holding duty-bearers to account.

Mixed methods approaches that harness different knowledge sources

The SADC Gender Protocol barometer effectively pulls together and ‘houses’ data from a variety of monitoring and evidence measures. Referred to as an ‘omnibus’, it uses two main measures: An Index and the Citizen Score Card.

  • The Index draws on data from readily available statistics, an attitude survey and a media monitor tool.
  • The Index is complimented and compared with data collected from a Citizen Score Card – a perceptions measure administered to a representative sample of women and men in each of the 15 SADC countries.
  • Each of the organisations also use a variety of participatory methods to harness data and knowledge from communities to bring evidence and voice into decision-making spaces:
    Providing testimony on the lived experience and challenges faced by service-users and marginalised communities, if presented in a participatory decision-making space, such evidence can be a powerful stimulus for change and strengthens voices at the grassroots.
  • multistakeholder dialogues that bring together service-users with service providers and other governmental decision-making bodies into a participatory space where voices can be heard and progress towards change and solutions can be discussed.
  • case studies are used to capture more in-depth analysis of experiences.

Choosing indicators that really question the change

In March 2017, the Gender Protocol Alliance revamped its index so that it would result in ‘better data for better decisions’. Rather than using indicators that relied on data which was readily available, indicators were revised to really get at the nub of the issue and to ask difficult questions on gender equality. Gender Links’ Executive Director, Colleen Lowe, explained that indicators have been chosen for their potential to provide critical evidence; not simply about monitoring for the sake of data capture but about demonstrating the change that needs to happen.

‘Rather than using indicators that relied on data which was readily available, indicators were revised to really get at the nub of the issue’

Examples of indicators aimed at measuring some of the more hard-to-measure areas around women’s voice and gender-based violence, which have remained intractable and hidden issues for women, are:

• % who say if a woman works she should give her money to her husband
• % who say if a man beats a woman it shows that he loves her
• % who say a woman has a right to insist on a man using a condom
• % women sources on economic topics

Aligning with policy and validating data

The SADC gender barometer is aligned to an existing policy. It follows the nine sectors of the Gender Protocol: constitutional and legal rights, governance, education and training, the economy, gender violence, health HIV and AIDS, the media and climate change. Aligning the protocol to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) has given additional leverage for government to sign up to the protocol and meet the targets. Joan De Klerk, Head of Public Education and Information at South Africa’s Commission for Gender Equality confirmed that the Commission uses data from the barometer to cite in their own reports.

Validation of data with government has been critical for buy in and credibility of the evidence presented by civil society. APSP have validated data that showed that the people in need were not accessing the cash transfers, thus compromising its impact, by bringing government officers into the field to see the reality. Partnering with academic bodies to help in determining what is statistically acceptable is also another way to avoid data being discredited by government.

Popularizing the accountability tools, the results and building rights awareness

Each of the three organisations have gone to great lengths to popularise and breakdown technical policy documents and assessment criteria into simple language. This approach is critical to creating interest around the accountability process as it helps to build rights awareness and demonstrate how individual and community-based issues fit into a wider rights-based policy framework.

KELIN’s publication, Monitoring the Implementation of the Right to Health Under the Constitution of Kenya, outlines the constitutional provisions on Kenya’s right to health. As Allan Maleche, KELIN’s Executive Director noted, people living with HIV ‘must be able to know how to plug into questioning the broader rights to health issues. Unless they understand how the right to health and the health system works then the advocacy [and accountability measures] will be useless’.

The use of infographics and data visuals has also been a powerful way in which Gender Links has communicated the results of the barometer. These can be more easily shared via social media and to tell the story in accessible yet powerful ways that can build interest to engage.

Strong networks to capture perceptions in the margins and support advocacy

The Southern Africa Gender Protocol Alliance has been a critical vehicle for advocacy. Gender Links has sought to embed the protocol provisions in the work of each of its Alliance members. Gender Links’ networks also include working relationships with 430 local government councils who play a critical role in data capture.

‘[KELIN] is also building its network to include journalists who […] can also act as advocates to provide further evidence.’

KELIN is working to identify community champions and strong CSOs in each of the counties where its project operates. It is also building its network to include journalists who are passionate on community issues and who, with some additional training on health rights, can also act as advocates to provide further evidence.

Looking ahead

It’s not yet clear what strictly is or isn’t citizen-generated data but the visit and discussions showed that evidence and data used for accountability needs to have credible data and information that ask difficult questions, ideally using measures validated by duty-bearers but backed by a strong rights awareness among affected communities. Those affected need to see how their experiences fit into a wider policy and rights-based framework so that evidence collected is accountable to them.

A challenge that always exists is negotiating and judging how best to use the data and evidence in the accountability space. Describing the challenges of complimenting government interests while also advocating for change, Samuel Obara, of APSP said: ‘this [advocacy] space is fragile because [our work relies] on political will and this is a will that we are trying to protect’. Colleen Lowe from Gender Links described the relationship between government and civil society as ‘creative tension’. I would like to thank our partners in South Africa and Kenya for hosting rich discussions and sharing experiences.

Gillian Cooper is Programme Manager for Knowledge, Learning and Communications at the Commonwealth Foundation.