¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ

Language selection

Search

Framework for Assessing Gender Equality Results

Table of Contents

Introduction

This framework responds to the need to assess progress on the implementation of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality.

The framework is innovative in that it provides a performance management framework of generic importance to how good policy is developed and implemented. It essentially focuses performance measurement where ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ has chosen to focus, and identifies what actual results are to be measured. The central question the framework is designed to address is the following: To what extent does ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's development results reflect its policy commitment to gender equality? Because gender equality is a key Agency result area and a crosscutting programming theme, the framework is designed to assess corporate performance. It sets out "assessment tools" for reviewing the full range of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ investments, whether delivered as directive programming, responsive programming or core funding/institutional support, i.e. ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's three business delivery models.Footnote 1

The framework supports ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's results-based approach in two ways:

The central question this framework is designed to address is the following: To what extent do ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's development results reflect its policy commitment to gender equality? Gender equality is a key results area for the Agency, which has had a formal commitment to support equality between women and men through its development cooperation investments since 1976. While ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's approach has evolved since then to reflect experience gained, the basic and continuing theme since the first statement has been that ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ investments should recognize differences in the situation of women and men to deliver equitable benefits and contribute to reducing inequalities.

The 1999 update to ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality reflects the consensus between ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ and its development partners (including partner governments and other development assistance agencies) that gender equality is an important development goal in its own right, and is also integral to the achievement of poverty reduction and sustainable development. The policy also reflects Canada's international commitments to equality between women and men, particularly the 1995 Platform for Action endorsed in Beijing (and reaffirmed in 2005) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, to which Canada and most development partners are signatories. A recent evaluation of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality "validated the Agency's good work and strong leadership to date. It recognized the continuing relevance of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality both within ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ and in the development cooperation community."Footnote 2

The term "gender equality results" is used in the framework to refer to results that contribute to reducing inequality between women and men in accordance with the policy.

What is being assessed?

The framework sets out an approach to performance assessment that differs in significant ways from more familiar project-based performance measurement, because it focuses on Agency performance on a crosscutting theme, rather than on a specific investment. Performance assessment of a specific investment generally focuses on the question: Did the investment contribute to the specific results it was designed to achieve? In contrast, performance assessment of the Agency in implementing ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality focuses on the extent to which ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ investments contribute to gender equality results defined at the broader, corporate level.

Drawing on ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality, the overall result or impact to which ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ seeks to contribute is "equality between women and men to ensure sustainable development." The policy also identifies three corporate objectives that can be restated in the form of results as follows.Footnote 3

  1. Decision making. More equal participation of women with men as decision makers in shaping the sustainable development of their societies.
  2. Rights. Women and girls more able to realize their full human rights.
  3. Development resources and benefits. Reduced inequalities between women and men in access to and control over the resources and benefits of development.

These are results to which ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ can contribute, but will not achieve on its own. An assessment of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's performance therefore needs to focus on the nature and significance of the incremental contributions made through ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's investments in specific initiatives.

While gender equality expected results have been identified at the corporate level, ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's actual results and contributions to gender equality depend on decisions made in the selection, design and management of specific investments. These investments may be made through any of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's three business models (directive programming, responsive programming and core funding/institutional support), respond to different priority sectors (such as governance, private sector, health, education) and use various approaches (from community development to institutional capacity building). Most of these investments do not have gender equality as their principal objective. However, to the extent that they affect people, all these investments potentially have positive (or negative) effects on gender equality.

Accordingly, the framework begins with a major initial question: To what extent do ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's development results reflect its policy commitment to gender equality? That is, are ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's investments making contributions to the corporate gender equality results? In what proportion of cases are these contributions meaningful or significant in relation to the overall initiative undertaken? Do the number of investments in which there are significant contributions to gender equality results add up to a significant proportion of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's overall investment in development? Where are the strengths and gaps?

The initial focus is therefore on development results, rather than process, inputs or efforts (such as doing gender analyses or the preparation of gender equality strategies). While the latter are important, they are the means to achieve results, rather than results themselves. The initial findings about development results provide the basis to structure more in-depth follow-up analyses to identify lessons to inform decision making and future management for results.

An assessment of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ performance must cover all types of investment, whether delivered as directive programming, responsive programming or core funding/institutional support. Given differences in the characteristics and objectives of the investments made under the three business models, the framework provides for two different approaches:

  1. Approach for directive and responsive programming.For both directive and responsive programming, investments are designed to respond to a particular development problem or set of problems, have a set of expected results that relate to that problem, and are undertaken in a specific location for a specific time period. The Agency's results-based management (RBM) tools are used for planning and management, and there are regular reporting mechanisms to capture information on actual outcome-level development results (the changes achieved through the investment). In responsive programming, accountabilities are shared to a greater extent between ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ and partners than they are in directive programming, but the actual results achieved can be reviewed in the same way for both business models.

    For directive and responsive programming, the assessment focuses on the results achieved by projects that are completed or near completion and aims to identify whether project results contribute to any of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's corporate gender equality results.

  2. Approach for core funding of institutions (including multilateral, regional and non-governmental organizations). Core funding differs significantly from project or program funding. Institutions receiving core funding generally have an ongoing relationship with ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ. The investment is in the institution, and that institution, rather than ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ, takes responsibility for the design and management of specific programs. In contrast with directive and responsive programming (where ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ aims to have a direct effect on development results), with core funding ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ aims to achieve development results indirectly through support to partners with policies, priorities and approaches that are congruent with those of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ. Performance reporting by these institutions relates to the use of their resources from all sources in support of institutional policy objectives.

    For core funding, the assessment focuses on the quality of the institutional strategy and mechanisms for achieving gender equality development results, with particular attention to the monitoring and reporting of gender equality results.

What does the framework allow us to do?

The innovative aspects of this framework are the assessment tools to be used in the initial phase of a two-phase assessment process.

In the case of directive and responsive programming, the assessment tool provides a means of categorizing the results against the corporate gender equality results and then weighing the significance of these results on a graduated scale. This provides:

In the case of core funding, the assessment tool sets out elements relevant to gender equality results and a means to rate these elements as well as the institution. This provides:

In both cases, the use of the tools will result in an overview and a summary assessment of performance. However, the tools do not themselves provide a means to analyze why or how such results were achieved, or what steps should be taken to improve gender equality results. The use of the tools must be complemented with further analyses to provide a more complete picture of the quality of results and the operational factors supporting the achievement of the results. The in-depth follow-up analyses required to complete the assessment will draw on other ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ assessment tools and approaches (including, for example, the "Framework of results and key success factors") and would consider the implementation of the operational steps outlined in ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality.

Assessment of directive and responsive programming

There are two phases in the assessment process-an initial analysis using the assessment tool outlined in this framework and then follow-up analyses guided by the findings of the initial analysis.

Initial phase: assessment tool and analysis

The approach for the initial phase is to use the assessment tool to categorize and rate results achieved by a broad sample of investments selected to be representative of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's directive and responsive investments. As the focus is on outcome-level results, the investments included in the sample should be sufficiently advanced in implementation to allow for an assessment of actual results achieved (e.g. 80 percent or more disbursed). The Agency's central data systems will be the data source, providing information on both key characteristics of the investments in the sample (branch, country, priority sector, business model, budget, etc.) and results information (project performance reports, also knows PPRs).

Tool 1(a): Categorization of gender equality results consists of the three corporate gender equality results, each of which is further subdivided into its key elements, resulting in a 10-part classification. (The tool provides illustrations to assist with classification, as there are many different ways that particular investments could contribute to the gender equality result.)

Tool 1(b): Rating scale for significance of gender equality results is a four-point scale to weigh the significance of each gender equality result (significant, encouraging, modest, weak). An overall rating for the investment is based on the combined ratings of all the gender equality results it achieved. (See pages 9 to 10 for a schematic overview of the approach and the assessment tool.)

The categorization of results provides a means to aggregate the assessments of specific investments and to identify where gender equality results are being achieved (or not). The initial analysis of the database created provides insights into the extent to which directive and responsive initiatives are reporting gender equality results. Major questions to consider in data analysis include:

Schematic overview of approach for directive and responsive programming

For each investment included in the assessment:

  1. Identify whether there are reported results or achievements that can be categorized under any of the gender equality results (Tool 1(a))
  2. Identify whether there is credible evidence offered to back the claim on these results.
  3. Weigh the significance of each gender equality result using the rating scale (Tool 1(b), step 1).
  4. Provide an overall rating for the investment (Tool 1(b), step 2).

The results ratings and the overall rating for the investment, together with basic information about the investment, such as budget, codes for country, business model, priority sector, etc. (as well as a brief statement of the results) would make up the database used for the analysis of performance.

Table 1: Schematic overview of approach for directive and responsive programming
Gender equality resultsQuestions about each investment
Corporate Development Result (from ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's Policy on Gender Equality)Elements of this result. The major types of outcomes for each gender equality result are outlined below. The assessment will categorize results achieved by ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ investments under these headings. See Tool 1(a) for illustrations of the types of reported results that would be assigned to each category. (Where an investment has results in more than one category, each should be rated separately.)Results in any of these areas? If yes, what was the result achieved?Evidence of results? (Qualitative and/or quantitative)Significance of results? Rating on the scale in Tool 1(b)
Overall rating: see Tool 1(b)
1. Decision Making - More equal participation of women with men as decision makers in shaping the sustainable development of their societies.1.1 Capacity for public participation. Increased capacity of women and women's organizations for advocacy and for participation in public life and decision making.   
1.2 Representation among decision makers. Increased representation of women in democratic processes and in decision making positions in the partner institution, target sector, partner community.   
1.3 Household and individual decision making. More equal power relations between women and men at the household level, increased decision making capacity of individual women.   
2. Rights - Women and girls more able to realize their full human rights.2.1 Legal system. Strengthened promotion and protection of the human rights of women and girls in law and the action of police, prosecutors, judges, and courts.   
2.2 Public awareness. Increased knowledge and recognition by the general public (women and men) and decision makers of the human rights of women and girls.   
2.3 Response to gender-specific rights violations. Improved services and mechanisms responding to gender-specific constraints on rights or rights violations (e.g., violence against women/girls, trafficking, sexual violence in conflict zones).   
3. Development Resources and Benefits. Reduced inequalities between women and men in access to and control over the resources and benefits of development.3.1 Livelihoods and productive assets. Increased control by women over productive assets (land, capital/credit, technology, skills) and increased access to decent work.   
3.2 Institutional capacity. Increased capacity of partner institutions, governments and civil society organizations to design and implement policies, programs and projects that reflect the priorities and interests of both women and men.   
3.3 Policy change. Adoption of policies supporting gender equality by institutions that manage development resources and benefits (i.e., policies responding to the different priorities and interests of women/men, girls/boys).   
3.4 Well-being and basic needs. Access by women to basic and appropriate services that support well-being and quality of life.   

Tool 1 (a): Gender Equality Results Categorization

Corporate Results

1. Decision Making - More equal participation of women with men as decision makers in shaping the sustainable development of their societies.

1.1 Capacity for public participation. Increased capacity of women and women's organizations for advocacy and for participation in public life and decision making.

1.2 Representation among decision makers. - Increased representation of women in democratic processes and in decision making positions in the partner institution, target sector, partner community.

1.3 Household and individual decision making. - More equal power relations between women and men at the household level; increased decision making capacity of individual women.

2. Rights - Women and girls more able to realize their full human rights.

2.1 Legal system. - Strengthened promotion and protection of the human rights of girls and women in law and the actions of police, prosecutors, judges and courts.

2.2 Public awareness. - Increased knowledge and recognition by the general public (women and men)and decision makers of the human rights of women and girls.

2.3 Response to gender-specific rights violations. - Improved services and mechanisms responding to genderspecific constraints on rights or rights violations (e.g. violence against women/girls, trafficking of women and girls, sexual violence in conflict zones).

3. Development Resources and Benefits - Reduced inequalities between women and men in access to and control over the resources and benefits of development.

3.1 Livelihoods and productive assets. - Increased access and control by women over productive assets (land, capital/credit, technology, skills) and increased access to decent work.

3.2 Institutional capacity. - Increased capacity of partner institutions, governments, and civil society organizations to design and implement policies, programs and projects that reflect the priorities and interests of both women and men.

3.3 Policy change. - Adoption of policies supporting gender equality by institutions that manage development resources and benefits (i.e. policies responding to the different priorities and interests of women/men, girls/boys).

3.4 Well-being and basic needs. - Access by women to basic and appropriate services that support well-being and quality of life.

Tool 1(b): Rating Scale For Signficance Of Gender Equality Results

Step #1. Rate significance of results.

Where results have been identified in any of the gender equality results categories (see Tool 1(a)), weigh the significance of that result according to the scale below. Note: there should be a separate rating for any results category in which results are identified (what is rated here is the particular result).

Significant

Meets all the following criteria:

Encouraging

Meets the relevance criterion:

(While the gender equality result is relevant, there is either weak evidence but good reach OR adequate evidence but poor reach.)

Modest

Meets the relevance criterion:

But does not meet the other criteria of significant, so that:

(While the gender equality result is relevant, there is neither adequate evidence nor significant reach.)

Weak

(NOTE: Achievements that relate only to staff hired by the executing agency to manage or deliver the project do not qualify as a gender equality result.)

Step #2. Provide an overall rating of an investment's contribution to corporate gender equality results.

The overall rating is equal to the highest rating achieved on a particular gender equality result. (NOTE: the scale is NOT intended to respond to the question "Is this a significant project?" but rather, "Does the project make significant (or encouraging, modest, etc.) contributions to gender equality development results?")

Significant

Investment has at least one rating of Significant.

Encouraging

Investment has at least one rating of Encouraging.

Modest

Investment has at least one rating of Modest.

Weak

Investment has at least one rating of Weak.

None

No gender equality result identified.

Follow-up phase: focused studies

The areas of strength and gaps identified through the initial phase of this framework will provide a foundation for defining focused follow-up studies on factors conducive to achieving results, reasons for gaps in performance, and implications for project selection, design and management by ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ. Such studies also allow for more in-depth assessments of the quality of the results achieved and a better understanding of the findings of the initial analysis.

In contrast with the initial analysis, the follow-up studies require field research. The follow-up to the initial "diagnosis" is ideally undertaken using participatory approaches that involve ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ staff and partners in considering the facilitating and constraining factors and in drawing practical lessons. Participatory approaches both enrich the analysis and support Agency learning and capacity development.

Types of questions that could be pursued in the follow-up analyses are suggested below.

Assessment of core funding

As with directive and responsive programming, there are two phases in the assessment process for ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ core funding of institutions: an initial phase using the assessment tool and a follow-up phase guided by the findings of the initial analysis.

Initial phase: assessment tool and analysis

The approach for the initial phase is to use the assessment tool to review and rate the extent to which institutions receiving core funding from ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ are in a position to contribute to gender equality results. The sample used for the assessment should be selected so conclusions can be drawn about progress and issues in relation to the main groupings of ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ core funding: investments in large multilateral and regional organizations, investments in smaller international and non-governmental organizations, and investments through mechanisms such as pooled funding and budgetary support.

Tool 2 - Assessment of core-funded institutions, sets out six assessment factors that have been defined to reflect a number of considerations: the rationale for core funding, ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ's accountability for this type of investment, the lessons from ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ experience about achieving gender equality results, and relationships between ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ and core-funded partners. The first element of Tool 2 focuses explicitly on gender equality results, and is given greater weight than the others in deriving an overall rating for the institution. The next four elements examine institutional strategies and mechanisms that contribute to the achievement of gender equality results: gender equality policy, the broader institutional framework, the enabling environment and institutional commitment. The final element focuses on human resource management practices rather than development results, but is included as it is another indicator of institutional awareness and commitment to gender equality as a value (and is a gender equality issue that ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ has consistently raised with partner institutions).

The use of Tool 2 produces a rating for the institution on each element, as well as an overall institutional rating. The ratings provide a means to aggregate the assessments and to consider questions such as the following:

Tool 2: Assessment Of Core Funding

Step #1: Rating of specific elements of institutional strategy, structures and achievements

Institutional Performance: What are we looking for?

1. Gender Equality Results - Institutional programming contributes toward gender equality development results. Institutional systems are in place to monitor results, and these are regularly reported on. (As in the Beijing Platform for Action or PFA, gender equality results refer to women's empowerment and equality of women and men.)

Rating: Good

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Promising

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Fair

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Of Concern

Decision criteria for rating:

2. Shift to a Gender Equality Focus - The institution's approach (in its policy and related documentation on gender equality) reflects the international consensus reached in international documents, such as the Beijing PFA and the full implementation of CEDAW. Gender equality is seen as an explicit development goal and as integral to the achievement of other development goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Rating: Good

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Promising

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Fair

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Of Concern

Decision criteria for rating:

3. Supportive Institutional Policy Framework - Gender equality perspectives are evident in the major policy and planning documents guiding the work of the institution. For example, gender perspectives and/or expected results are evident in:

Rating: Good

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Promising

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Fair

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Of Concern

Decision criteria for rating:

4. Institutional Enabling Environment - The institution has developed a comprehensive and systematic approach to ensure attention to gender equality results throughout the organization. Consider, for example:

Rating: Good

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Promising

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Fair

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Of Concern

Decision criteria for rating:

5. Institutional Momentum and Commitment - The institution demonstrates ongoing commitment to pursue gender equality objectives. This can be seen in:

Rating: Good

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Promising

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Fair

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Of Concern

Decision criteria for rating:

6. Gender Balance/ Employment Equity - The institution is working toward gender balance in staffing throughout the organization, in particular in management positions.

Rating: Good

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Promising

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Fair

Decision criteria for rating:

Rating: Of Concern

Decision criteria for rating:

Step #2 Overall rating of an institution/organization.

To determine the overall rating of the institution, begin with the rating on the first element - gender equality results (left column) - and then the ratings on the other elements. The overall rating cannot be higher than the rating on the gender equality results element, but it could be reduced depending on the performance on the other elements.

Follow-up phase: focused studies

The analysis from the initial phase provides information on which instruments are doing well. It also highlights the elements of institutional strategy or mechanisms (such as the institutional policy framework or the enabling environment), that are consistently strong or weak. Further investigation of these findings would be a means of strengthening ¶¶ÒùÊÓƵ strategies for selecting and/or working with core-funded organizations.

The types of questions that can be pursued in follow-up analyses are suggested below.

Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please .

Date modified: