Monitoring progress of programmes in the informal sector builds on the baseline data collection. Monitoring focuses on gathering data to assess the following (UNDP, 2009):
- Progress towards outcomes
- Factors contributing to or impeding achievement of the outcomes
- Partnership strategy
- Engagement of survivors in programme work
- Project sustainability
- Lessons being learned and documentation of knowledge for wider sharing
Effective monitoring develops a foundation for programme evaluation. Monitoring data and reports should be made available for use in the programme evaluation.
Monitoring can be relatively easy to integrate into programming and can take simple forms. Monitoring can include, for example, meeting notes and activity reports to records the processes that are used to implement the programme as well as challenges and unexpected results or events, such as political changes, abrupt changes in stakeholder perceptions or partnership functioning.
Sample forms to monitor meetings and report on activities can be found in Mobilising Communities to Prevent Domestic Violence: A Resource Guide for Organisations in East and Southern Africa, pp. 245-47 (Raising Voices, 2003). Available in English.
Monitoring can also include regular observation of processes to ensure that they are consistent with original plans and protocols. This might include developing a system of performance indicators. Performance measurement helps identify opportunities for improvement in an organization’s approach to achieving social impact, and it can inform day-to-day and longer-term decision making. Monitoring may also include repeated collection of data that was gathered in the baseline study.
Building a Performance Measurement System: A How to Guide (Root Cause, 2009). Available in English.
Canadian Observatory on the Justice System Response to Intimate Partner Violence (2011). This website provides tolls and research from a consortium of Canadian organizations that are working to monitor and evaluate programmes focused on justice sector reform and domestic violence. Available in English and French.
USAID Performance Monitoring Indicators
The Women’s Legal Rights Initiative used the following indicators related to the justice sector, gathered on a quarterly basis to monitor its programme in Albania, Benin, Guatemala, Madagascar, Rwanda, and southern Africa.
- Percent of violations of women’s legal rights (such as domestic violence, rape, trafficking) reported to police or prosecutors that are presented in court
- Number of legal professionals trained in women’s human rights and international human rights law
- Number of judicial decisions that cite international human rights law
- Number of mechanisms available for improving legal redress, e.g. women’s bar associations, specialized courts, family courts, women in the justice system
- Number of legal professionals using project-sponsored publications on women’s legal rights
Importantly, although U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) intended to gather data on each of these indicators in the countries where its programmes operated, it was unable to access useful data on these indicators in all countries. This highlights the challenges associated with monitoring of violence against women and the need for creative methods for data collection, such as media monitoring and more qualitative methods.
Source: U.S. Agency for International Development. 2007. Practical Guide and Methods to Advance Women's Legal Rights: Final Report of Women's Legal Rights Initiative, Annex A.
Depending on the length of the project, it may be important to gather data to compare to the baseline information on a regular basis so as to monitor progress toward objectives.
Monitoring the Domestic Violence Law in India
The Lawyers Collective, a non-governmental organization in India has been monitoring the implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) since its passage in 2005. Watch a video about the group’s efforts to pass the PWDVA. The group’s Women’s rights Initiative (LCWRI) used a two-pronged approach to gain an understanding of the functioning of the agencies put in place to implement the PWDVA (2005): (i) Primary data on the infrastructure put in place and the steps taken by the state towards effective implementation of the Act was collected from the nodal department of each state; (ii) In order to examine the manner in which the agencies are functioning on the ground, LCWRI conducted selective state field visits to interview various stakeholders. Data on infrastructure was collected from representatives of relevant state nodal departments at a meeting organized by LCWRI and the National Commission for Women (NCW) on August 26, 2008, in New Delhi. At the meeting, representatives completed a questionnaire providing details on:
(i) Protection Officers (POs): Number of appointments; work profile; work procedures: supervision and accountability; administrative support provided by the nodal department; problems faced by POs.
(ii) Service Providers (SPs): Number of appointments; organizational profile; government funded or private, non-governmental organization.
(iii) Shelter Homes and Medical Facilities: Number registered; organizational profile of these institutions.
(iv) Budget allocations made by the state government to implement the PWDVA (2005) and the nature of awareness campaigns carried out.
(v) Steps taken by the State Legal Services Authority, State Commission for Women and the Police Department to implement the PWDVA (2005).
In addition to completing the questionnaire, participants also made individual presentations to share information on best practices, challenges and emerging trends in implementation. States that were not present at the meeting were sent the questionnaire by the NCW, which then returned the completed forms to LCWRI.
LCWRI also collaborated with local partners to gather data from 20 states. Fifteen of these states were visited by LCWRI; in the remaining 5, field visits were carried out by LCWRI’s partners. A list of the 20 states follows; brackets indicate who conducted the fieldwork. The above states were chosen for site visits on the following basis:
(i) States not included in the 1st M and E Report. (In addition, LCWRI re-visited the states covered in the 1st M and E Report).
(ii) An attempt was made to ensure the widest geographic spread by including states from each region.
(iii) States that have undertaken successful initiatives in implementation
(iv) States where LCWRI has local partners well-qualified to conduct field visits on account of their experience in working with the PWDVA.
LCWRI also developed an interview template which was used to interview the following stakeholders about their experience in implementing the PWDVA (2005):
(i) Heads of government departments (for example: Department of Women and Child Development, Department of Social Welfare).
(ii) Protection Officers (POs): Focus on their educational qualifications, work experience and pre- and post-litigation roles. For each state, a minimum of one and maximum of 10 POs were interviewed. POs were chosen on the basis of their geographical proximity to the areas visited by LCWRI and its partners and, therefore, the sample has an urban bias.
(iii) Service Providers (SPs): Focus on their organizational profile and pre- and post-litigation roles. SPs were chosen on the basis of their geographical proximity to the areas visited by LCWRI and its partners and, therefore, the sample has an urban bias.
(iv) Shelter Homes and Medical Facilities.
(v) State Women’s Commissions and State Legal Services Authorities: Focus on their role in the implementation of the PWDVA (2005).
(vi) Women’s organizations, civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations and legal practitioners: Focus on their experience of working with the PWDVA (2005).
LCWRI also collected relevant notifications, government circulars, government orders and court orders to get a comprehensive picture of the status of implementation. Importantly, LCWRI also reported the limitations inherent in its data gathering efforts. Their monitoring report noted the problems they had encountered in during the monitoring process, the limitations of the sampling methods they used, and the types of data that were missing from the analysis. This reporting of limitations is critical to enhancing the credibility of a report.
Resource Tool on Monitoring and Evaluating Implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Collective, 2013). Available in English.
Manual on the Best Practices under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Collective, 2013). Available in English.
See the Monitoring Reports:
Staying Alive: First Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Initiative Women’s Rights Collective, 2007). Available in English.
Staying Alive: Second Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Initiative Women’s Rights Collective, 2008). Available in English.
Staying Alive: Third Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Initiative Women’s Rights Collective, 2009). Available in English.
Staying Alive: Fourth Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Initiative Women’s Rights Collective, 2010). Available in English.
Staying Alive: Fifth Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Initiative Women’s Rights Collective, 2012). Available in English.
Staying Alive: Sixth Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Lawyer’s Initiative Women’s Rights Collective, 2012). Available in English.
Source: Lawyers Collective. 2008. Staying Alive - Second Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2008 on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, pp. 8-10.