East and Central Africa

1
East and Central Africa

• Regional
• Strategic Impact Inquiry
• Report

2
Our plans in April 2005

• SII would be part of our regional strategy on
  inequality, discrimination and governance.
• Shared principles
• Shared 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

3
So was it regional?

• Six sites Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia,
  Tanzania, Uganda
• Variety of questions, but some still very
  relevant to the overarching questions
• Three broad methodologies
• Overall RMU management
• Some level of sharing WELF, exchange, email,
  etc.
• 28 staff in synthesis meeting and emerging
  similarities, gaps, etc

4
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.

5
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.

6
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?

7
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

8
(No Transcript)
9
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.

10
IT WAS A STRUGGLE

• The struggle led us at synthesis to rethink our
  definition and make it
• Necessarily social
• Necessarily mutual
• Include recognition
• A good thing leading to increased harmony and
  happiness.
• CHALLENGES Feminists/ Academics

11
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

12
ECARMU Indicators
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???)
13
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 change
• Some around social negotiation, new ways of
  organizing and building alliance.

14
Mixed pictures

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

15
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.

16
Organizational Factors

• Seem to fall into agency, structure and relations
• Superiority/insensitivity and attitudes of we
  know agency
• Inability to see ourselves as interdependent a
  part of the society and a partner relations
• Our 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!

17
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 peoples
  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.