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

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. Annex 2 Empowerment: People expanding their capabilities to interact and influence others, negotiate, control assets and achieve one’s aspiration and recognition in mutually accountable and respectful ways. ECARMU Indicators Self-Image/Self-esteem/Confidence Decision influence Material assets (control) Ability to hold duty bearers accountable Active involvement of participants in groups Inclusiveness citizenry Interdependence Ability to identify, analyze issues that impact livelihood Self-Expression Source of income or control of income Negotiation New social forms Ability to advocate issues that impact the livelihood Ability to mobilize constituency Freedom from Violence of all forms 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???) A RS A RS A RS A RS A RS A RS A RS

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 people’s 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.”