results-based management an overview

1: Results-based ManagementAn overview

4: RBM in practice What are the 2 main benefits/advantages and 2 limitations/challenges in using RBM? (1 benefit / challenge per card) 10mn

6: What is a Result ?

7: General Challenges: Applying RBM Difficult to apply causal logic Different definitions Difficult to integrate cross cutting issues Difficult to revise Difficult to measure Limitations/challengesLimitations/challenges

8: Why RBM? Stated rationale/intended gains: Improved focus / clarity on results instead of activities Improved transparency & accountability Improved monitoring of programme achievements Basically positive side of RBM (benefits/advantages)Basically positive side of RBM (benefits/advantages)

9: Common elements of RBM Use of causality and causal (if�then) logic and problem analysis Structuring of programmes/projects around a hierarchy of desired results Use of change language Costing of results (RBB) rather than isolated activity budgeting Regular monitoring & performance evaluation against planned results with use of indicators

Slide 10:Key idea: UN RC/RR/Agency Rep. needs to be able to identify and set strategic priorities systematically. Main criteria for priority setting are represented as three circles: national challenges and opportunities; UNCT capacity/comparative advantage, and alignment of key actors with decision making power and influence to support UNCT action on an issue. Note: MDs, MDGs and other international agreements and norms are also a point of reference for UNCT. Here, we assume that they�ll be reflected in UNCT commitment to gear capacity and comparative advantage toward MD/MDGs, and in the overlap between UNCT and national challenges. At any point in time, these three circles are shifting and shiftable to differing degrees: National challenges shift due to factors largely beyond UNCT�s control UNCT comparative advantage (mandate plus capacity plus ability to perform better than others) can shift over time through decisions and actions by RC and CT Representatives and staffs Alignment can increase through processes of negotiation and consensus building, which RC/RR/Agency heads can lead and/or participate in Top priorities (area 1) are the situations where all three criteria are met. UNCT can take action now and do some good. Potential high priorities (areas 2 and 3) Area 2: situations where there is a national challenge and UNCT capacity to meet the challenge, but key actors aren�t yet in alignment to support UNCT action. UN RC/RR/Agency Rep. can take strategic action through negotiation and consensus building to increase alignment. However, it may be impossible to gain support of key actors, in which case UNCT should not proceed. Area 3: situations where there is a challenge, and key actors are in principle supportive of UNCT action, but UNCT doesn�t actually have the comparative advantage to act. UNCT may be able to draw on regional/global UN capacity, something that will usually take time. Critical questions are whether capacity can be built quickly enough to respond effectively, and whether others are already better positioned and UNCT would be duplicative. Lower priorities (area 4) are situations where the Country Team has capacity and other actors are supportive, but action by the UNCT isn�t likely to make a significant contribution to major national challenges. These may be the hardest internal negotiations for UNCTs. There will be a strong temptation to do it �because we can.�Key idea: UN RC/RR/Agency Rep. needs to be able to identify and set strategic priorities systematically. Main criteria for priority setting are represented as three circles: national challenges and opportunities; UNCT capacity/comparative advantage, and alignment of key actors with decision making power and influence to support UNCT action on an issue. Note: MDs, MDGs and other international agreements and norms are also a point of reference for UNCT. Here, we assume that they�ll be reflected in UNCT commitment to gear capacity and comparative advantage toward MD/MDGs, and in the overlap between UNCT and national challenges. At any point in time, these three circles are shifting and shiftable to differing degrees: National challenges shift due to factors largely beyond UNCT�s control UNCT comparative advantage (mandate plus capacity plus ability to perform better than others) can shift over time through decisions and actions by RC and CT Representatives and staffs Alignment can increase through processes of negotiation and consensus building, which RC/RR/Agency heads can lead and/or participate in Top priorities (area 1) are the situations where all three criteria are met. UNCT can take action now and do some good. Potential high priorities (areas 2 and 3) Area 2: situations where there is a national challenge and UNCT capacity to meet the challenge, but key actors aren�t yet in alignment to support UNCT action. UN RC/RR/Agency Rep. can take strategic action through negotiation and consensus building to increase alignment. However, it may be impossible to gain support of key actors, in which case UNCT should not proceed. Area 3: situations where there is a challenge, and key actors are in principle supportive of UNCT action, but UNCT doesn�t actually have the comparative advantage to act. UNCT may be able to draw on regional/global UN capacity, something that will usually take time. Critical questions are whether capacity can be built quickly enough to respond effectively, and whether others are already better positioned and UNCT would be duplicative. Lower priorities (area 4) are situations where the Country Team has capacity and other actors are supportive, but action by the UNCT isn�t likely to make a significant contribution to major national challenges. These may be the hardest internal negotiations for UNCTs. There will be a strong temptation to do it �because we can.�

11: Mandate to act + Capacity to act + Unique Niche for the UNCT/Agency Only the UNCT/Agency can act in this area in this way The UNCT/Agency has a unique contribution in this area The UNCT/Agency is better positioned than other actors Comparative Advantage

12: Capacity to Act From HLP report: UN system coherence and performance underpinned by 3 things: Core comparative advantage: The UN needs to be flexible enough to respond to the operational and policy needs of all countries and to advocate global standards and norms. In each country it should focus on where it is best able to provide leadership�and withdraw from areas where it does not�to deliver results in response to country programme needs. The value added of the system lies in harnessing the full array of capabilities under its umbrella in an integrated way, not in seeking out narrow niches. What comparative advantages? The UN plays critical role at country level based on the legitimacy of its membership and on its capabilities as a convener of stakeholders, a capacity-builder, and advocate for international norms and standards. Four main comparative advantages: 1.Promoting international standards, particularly the Millennium Declaration, MDGs and ratified human rights instruments; 2. Capacity development at all levels leading to national ownership; 3. Objective monitoring and evaluation of the national development framework; 4. Providing impartial policy advice, based on international experience, technical expertise and best practices. A country is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of a good (say cloth) if it can produce cloth at a lower opportunity cost than another country. The opportunity cost of cloth production is defined as the amount of wine that must be given up in order to produce one more unit of cloth. Thus England would have the comparative advantage in cloth production relative to Portugal if it must give up less wine to produce another unit of cloth than the amount of wine that Portugal would have to give up to produce another unit of cloth. The UN has comparative advantage in the provision of a service, it it can provide that service at a lower opportunity cost than another development stakeholder. From HLP report: UN system coherence and performance underpinned by 3 things: Core comparative advantage: The UN needs to be flexible enough to respond to the operational and policy needs of all countries and to advocate global standards and norms. In each country it should focus on where it is best able to provide leadership�and withdraw from areas where it does not�to deliver results in response to country programme needs. The value added of the system lies in harnessing the full array of capabilities under its umbrella in an integrated way, not in seeking out narrow niches. What comparative advantages? The UN plays critical role at country level based on the legitimacy of its membership and on its capabilities as a convener of stakeholders, a capacity-builder, and advocate for international norms and standards. Four main comparative advantages: 1.Promoting international standards, particularly the Millennium Declaration, MDGs and ratified human rights instruments; 2. Capacity development at all levels leading to national ownership; 3. Objective monitoring and evaluation of the national development framework; 4. Providing impartial policy advice, based on international experience, technical expertise and best practices. A country is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of a good (say cloth) if it can produce cloth at a lower opportunity cost than another country. The opportunity cost of cloth production is defined as the amount of wine that must be given up in order to produce one more unit of cloth. Thus England would have the comparative advantage in cloth production relative to Portugal if it must give up less wine to produce another unit of cloth than the amount of wine that Portugal would have to give up to produce another unit of cloth. The UN has comparative advantage in the provision of a service, it it can provide that service at a lower opportunity cost than another development stakeholder.

13: Terminology Exercise Match the RBM terms with their definitions. See if there�s any logical hierarchy (per table, 10mn)

14: Terminology Results: Changes in a state / condition which derive from a cause and effect relationship Impact: Positive and negative long term effects on identifiable population groups produced by a peacebuilding / development intervention Outcome: The intended or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention�s outputs, usually requiring the collective effort of partners.

15: Terminology cont. Outputs: The products and services which result from the completion of activities within a development intervention. Activities: Actions taken or work performed through which inputs, such as funds, technical assistance and other types of resources are mobilised to produce specific outputs. Inputs:The financial, human, material, technological and information resources used for the development intervention.

16: A Typology for RBM: Poverty Reduction (2) Notes: As an introduction to RBM, emphasise that there are no absolutes in RBM � rather this is a rough typology to help them navigate � a guide � not a straightjacket. Each of the columns of information appear in order, from left to right. The presenter introduces the results terminology from top to bottom (impact down to activity) Next the arrows come in. The main message here is that there is a vertical logic of causality flowing between the levels. Next the yellow column of examples emerge. These examples match the previous slide, so it is an opportunity to clarify again the levels and the causality Next the �If � Then� flags appear. Again, emphasise the vertical, causal logic of results. The white column emerges to provide the overall focus of change for each level of result. The green column then emerges, emphasising the rough timeframe for levels of results. Next the red triangle emerges. Message: that collective accountability for results increases as they move up the chain of results. At the outcome level, no single agency is likely to be able to guarantee a result. Rather, the collective efforts of several agencies and partners will be needed. Last � the second level of outcome appears. This is the time to introduce the UN�s approach to RBM which has two levels of Outcome � UNDAF Outcome and contributing CP Outcomes. Point out that the second level of outcome is still an outcome level result (ie institutional/ behavioural; 5 years) BUT that it has a higher level of ambition. Now, move to the next slide to show them how these results fit into the Results Matrix. Notes: As an introduction to RBM, emphasise that there are no absolutes in RBM � rather this is a rough typology to help them navigate � a guide � not a straightjacket. Each of the columns of information appear in order, from left to right. The presenter introduces the results terminology from top to bottom (impact down to activity) Next the arrows come in. The main message here is that there is a vertical logic of causality flowing between the levels. Next the yellow column of examples emerge. These examples match the previous slide, so it is an opportunity to clarify again the levels and the causality Next the �If � Then� flags appear. Again, emphasise the vertical, causal logic of results. The white column emerges to provide the overall focus of change for each level of result. The green column then emerges, emphasising the rough timeframe for levels of results. Next the red triangle emerges. Message: that collective accountability for results increases as they move up the chain of results. At the outcome level, no single agency is likely to be able to guarantee a result. Rather, the collective efforts of several agencies and partners will be needed. Last � the second level of outcome appears. This is the time to introduce the UN�s approach to RBM which has two levels of Outcome � UNDAF Outcome and contributing CP Outcomes. Point out that the second level of outcome is still an outcome level result (ie institutional/ behavioural; 5 years) BUT that it has a higher level of ambition. Now, move to the next slide to show them how these results fit into the Results Matrix.

17: A Typology for RBM: Poverty Reduction (2) Notes: As an introduction to RBM, emphasise that there are no absolutes in RBM � rather this is a rough typology to help them navigate � a guide � not a straightjacket. Each of the columns of information appear in order, from left to right. The presenter introduces the results terminology from top to bottom (impact down to activity) Next the arrows come in. The main message here is that there is a vertical logic of causality flowing between the levels. Next the yellow column of examples emerge. These examples match the previous slide, so it is an opportunity to clarify again the levels and the causality Next the �If � Then� flags appear. Again, emphasise the vertical, causal logic of results. The white column emerges to provide the overall focus of change for each level of result. The green column then emerges, emphasising the rough timeframe for levels of results. Next the red triangle emerges. Message: that collective accountability for results increases as they move up the chain of results. At the outcome level, no single agency is likely to be able to guarantee a result. Rather, the collective efforts of several agencies and partners will be needed. Last � the second level of outcome appears. This is the time to introduce the UN�s approach to RBM which has two levels of Outcome � UNDAF Outcome and contributing CP Outcomes. Point out that the second level of outcome is still an outcome level result (ie institutional/ behavioural; 5 years) BUT that it has a higher level of ambition. Now, move to the next slide to show them how these results fit into the Results Matrix. Notes: As an introduction to RBM, emphasise that there are no absolutes in RBM � rather this is a rough typology to help them navigate � a guide � not a straightjacket. Each of the columns of information appear in order, from left to right. The presenter introduces the results terminology from top to bottom (impact down to activity) Next the arrows come in. The main message here is that there is a vertical logic of causality flowing between the levels. Next the yellow column of examples emerge. These examples match the previous slide, so it is an opportunity to clarify again the levels and the causality Next the �If � Then� flags appear. Again, emphasise the vertical, causal logic of results. The white column emerges to provide the overall focus of change for each level of result. The green column then emerges, emphasising the rough timeframe for levels of results. Next the red triangle emerges. Message: that collective accountability for results increases as they move up the chain of results. At the outcome level, no single agency is likely to be able to guarantee a result. Rather, the collective efforts of several agencies and partners will be needed. Last � the second level of outcome appears. This is the time to introduce the UN�s approach to RBM which has two levels of Outcome � UNDAF Outcome and contributing CP Outcomes. Point out that the second level of outcome is still an outcome level result (ie institutional/ behavioural; 5 years) BUT that it has a higher level of ambition. Now, move to the next slide to show them how these results fit into the Results Matrix.

18: The Logical Framework Approach and the LogFrame Process (LFA) and product (Logframe) Starting point for all current RBM systems Each UN agencies moved to independently modify the Logframe, related definitions and systems to meet their own needs Shows the intended paths we think are required to achieve desired results

19: The UNDAF Results Hierarchy

21: UN Outcomes: typical pitfalls Wordy (..and no change language) To promote equitable economic development and democratic governance in accordance with international norms by strengthening national capacities at all levels and empowering citizens and increasing their participation in decision-making processes Containing multiple results The state improves its delivery of services and its protection of rights�with the involvement of civil society and in compliance with its international commitments Wishy-washy, not a result Support to institutional capacity building for improved governance

22: UN Outputs: typical pitfalls Confusing means and ends Train 2,000 police officers by 2010 Confusing output and indicator Proportion of under-five children accessing preventive health interventions at 50% by 2011 Unclear link between output and outcome ( no �if/then�) Unfocused, unrealistic in terms of UN accountability Emergency preparedness plans are operationalized at national and district level Law is passed

25: HRBA ? RBM Outcomes A change in the performance of rights holders and duty-bearers What are RH and DB doing differently? Outputs A change in the capacities of RH and DB? What are the new services, products, authority, responsibility, skills, resources that contribute to performance?

26: UNDAF Outcomes In addition to �sectoral� outcomes, the UNDAF can include outcomes that focus explicitly on root causes and / or address horizontal issues: . By 2013, social cohesion and reconciliation is consolidated . By 2013, conflict afflicted youth are empowered and effectively participate in the country�s political, economic and social development . By 2014, sustained community based recovery . Sustained capacity by government, civil society and private sector to effectively, and collectively design, implement and monitor equitable economic development policies ?Can promote greater UN cohesion and intersectoral coordination Explain: Ongoing debate about HR indicators and application of HR (or HR-based) indicators in programming context The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; both are important and should complement each other. HR indicators look at the higher impact/outcome level, in terms of changes in the level of HR realizations which the development programmes are ultimately addressing. HRBA programming indicators look at programme level results � CP outcomes and outputs, as well as programming process.Explain: Ongoing debate about HR indicators and application of HR (or HR-based) indicators in programming context The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; both are important and should complement each other. HR indicators look at the higher impact/outcome level, in terms of changes in the level of HR realizations which the development programmes are ultimately addressing. HRBA programming indicators look at programme level results � CP outcomes and outputs, as well as programming process.

27: Let�s try�

28: Group ActivityUsing the set of cards provided, develop a results framework�

30: Monitoring and Evaluation Explain: Ongoing debate about HR indicators and application of HR (or HR-based) indicators in programming context The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; both are important and should complement each other. HR indicators look at the higher impact/outcome level, in terms of changes in the level of HR realizations which the development programmes are ultimately addressing. HRBA programming indicators look at programme level results � CP outcomes and outputs, as well as programming process.Explain: Ongoing debate about HR indicators and application of HR (or HR-based) indicators in programming context The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; both are important and should complement each other. HR indicators look at the higher impact/outcome level, in terms of changes in the level of HR realizations which the development programmes are ultimately addressing. HRBA programming indicators look at programme level results � CP outcomes and outputs, as well as programming process.

31: What is an indicator? A tool to measure evidence of progress towards a result or that a result has been achieved

32: Baseline, Target and Achievement

33: Indicators, Baseline, Target and Source of Data

34: Performance Indicator Selection Criteria Validity - Does it measure the result? Reliability - Is it a consistent measure over time and, if supplied externally, will it continue to be available? Sensitivity - When a change occurs will it be sensitive to those changes? Simplicity - Will it be easy to collect and analyze the information? Utility - Will the information be useful for decision-making and learning? Affordable � Do we have the resources to collect the information?

35: Indicators for different levels of results Indicators can be used to measure impacts, outcomes, outputs and also programming processes: Impact level: the realization of relevant human rights and sustained, positive changes in the life, dignity and wellbeing of individuals and peoples. Outcome level: legal, policy, institutional and behavioural changes leading to a better performance of rights-holders to claim rights and duty-bearers to meet obligations Output level: goods, services and deliverables produced to develop the capacities of duty-bearers and rights-holders Programming processes: measuring ways in which programme processes are participatory, inclusive and transparent, especially for vulnerable groups Example: Programme performance on Multi-cultural Education Process Indicator: Number of consultations with different ethnic groups and education ministry on education policy and objectives of programme to improve multicultural education Output indicator: Number and quality of inputs provided to the draft national law and policy on multicultural and non-discriminatory education Outcome indicator: Number of school native teachers recruited and trained and ratio of female teachers Impact indicator: Ratio of girls completing primary education disaggregated by ethnicity, and geographic areas. Example: Programme performance on Multi-cultural Education Process Indicator: Number of consultations with different ethnic groups and education ministry on education policy and objectives of programme to improve multicultural education Output indicator: Number and quality of inputs provided to the draft national law and policy on multicultural and non-discriminatory education Outcome indicator: Number of school native teachers recruited and trained and ratio of female teachers Impact indicator: Ratio of girls completing primary education disaggregated by ethnicity, and geographic areas.

36: How to develop good indicators �especially from a HRBA perspective Equality: Do your indicators capture the experience of vulnerable and marginalised groups? Can your indicators be disaggregated? Ownership: Have RHs and DBs contributed to the development of the indicators? Do they have confidence in the indicators chosen? Clarity: Are they clear and understandable to all audiences, including vulnerable and marginalised groups?

37: Table 1:UNDAF M & E Framework

38: The framework for HR indicators

40: Programme-level indicators At programme level, indicators can measure human rights based results and programming processes Results (outcomes/outputs) Measure the change in behaviours or capacities of duty-bearers and right-holders. Focus on HR principles (e.g. non-discrimination) Programming process Measure extent to which the programming process abides by human rights principles. HRBA-sensitive indicators measure the extent to which programme and project results are �rights-based�. They are not a new set of indicators, but part of the existing M&E framework, capable of measuring �rights-based results�. HRBA-sensitive indicators are central not only for measuring programme or project results. They are also the foundation for any human rights-based situation assessment and analysis. Developing indicators for the M&E stage of the programming cycle, will come at the programme planning and design phase of the programming cycle following the analysis and assessment phase. HRBA-sensitive indicators measure the extent to which programme and project results are �rights-based�. They are not a new set of indicators, but part of the existing M&E framework, capable of measuring �rights-based results�. HRBA-sensitive indicators are central not only for measuring programme or project results. They are also the foundation for any human rights-based situation assessment and analysis. Developing indicators for the M&E stage of the programming cycle, will come at the programme planning and design phase of the programming cycle following the analysis and assessment phase.

41: 1. Change in Capacity of DBs and RHs  Indicators will need to measure: The capacity of state institutions to fulfil their human rights obligations, (skills, authority, resources, knowledge). The capacities of individual and groups to claim their rights (information, HR knowledge etc). How programmes have influenced the relationship between the two, (mechanisms for mutual accountability and participation). Changes in enabling environment (legal, political framework) Changes in behaviour and attitudes of RH and DBs Once the baseline capacities have been identified, it will be important to assess the degree to which gaps in capacity can be addressed through programme strategies and to monitor the progress in developing these capacities over time. This process of programme development and monitoring can be assisted through indicators that capture any changes that may have taken place from the initial assessment through to the ongoing implementation phase of the programmes. Indicators of capacity will be reflected in different levels of result: output, outcome and impact. At the output level, indicators should measure changes in skills, authority, resources, knowledge, technology, etc. At the outcome level, indicators should i) gauge how programmes have resulted in changes in performance and actions of rights-holders and duty-bearers; ii) measure how the programme has influenced the relationship between the two groups, for example the quality of mechanisms that ensure mutual accountability; existence of mechanisms to oblige decision makers to give reasons for their decisions; existence of �citizen charters� ; level of civic engagement and bottom�up influence on the policy agenda and development. Indicators of capacity at both the outcome and impact level of results should measure the enabling environment and the change in behaviour and action brought about by the programme.Once the baseline capacities have been identified, it will be important to assess the degree to which gaps in capacity can be addressed through programme strategies and to monitor the progress in developing these capacities over time. This process of programme development and monitoring can be assisted through indicators that capture any changes that may have taken place from the initial assessment through to the ongoing implementation phase of the programmes. Indicators of capacity will be reflected in different levels of result: output, outcome and impact. At the output level, indicators should measure changes in skills, authority, resources, knowledge, technology, etc. At the outcome level, indicators should i) gauge how programmes have resulted in changes in performance and actions of rights-holders and duty-bearers; ii) measure how the programme has influenced the relationship between the two groups, for example the quality of mechanisms that ensure mutual accountability; existence of mechanisms to oblige decision makers to give reasons for their decisions; existence of �citizen charters� ; level of civic engagement and bottom�up influence on the policy agenda and development. Indicators of capacity at both the outcome and impact level of results should measure the enabling environment and the change in behaviour and action brought about by the programme.

42: Tip: look at the content of rights on which programme is focusing Indicators will need to go beyond the national legal and policy framework and the skills and knowledge that interventions have resulted in. An intervention may have improved the normative framework of a country and strengthened overall capacity but unless the law or policy is implemented and behaviours change, the overall human rights situation may not change. It is important that at the outcome and impact level, indicators are also able to measure the change in the level of enjoyment of the right. Human rights standards (provide useful criteria for helping governments and development practitioners assess whether a right is truly enjoyed and implemented; for example the right to housing. Indicators will need to go beyond the national legal and policy framework and the skills and knowledge that interventions have resulted in. An intervention may have improved the normative framework of a country and strengthened overall capacity but unless the law or policy is implemented and behaviours change, the overall human rights situation may not change. It is important that at the outcome and impact level, indicators are also able to measure the change in the level of enjoyment of the right. Human rights standards (provide useful criteria for helping governments and development practitioners assess whether a right is truly enjoyed and implemented; for example the right to housing.

43: 1. Change in Capacity of DBs and RHs An example of indicators for various levels of capacity: Guyana UNDAF(2006-2010) CP Outcome: Equal access to justice and protection of rights in accordance with national and international human rights standards Indicators: % of laws and policies in line with international HR conventions and guidelines Disaggregated accounts of persons accessing judicial and protection % of persons able to access protection and justice through the social services system % of cases adjudicated, disaggregated by groups % of national reports filed under international human rights treaty obligations % of laws and policies in line with international HR conventions and guidelines (enabling environment) Disaggregated accounts of persons accessing judicial and protection (change in capacity- skills, knowledge, leading to change in behaviour) % of persons able to access protection and justice through the social services system (change in capacity- skills, knowledge, leading to change in behaviour) % of cases adjudicated, disaggregated by groups (change in capacity- skills, knowledge- especially of judges- leading to change in behaviour) % of national reports filed under international human rights treaty obligations (change in capacity- skills, knowledge, leading to change in behaviour) % of laws and policies in line with international HR conventions and guidelines (enabling environment) Disaggregated accounts of persons accessing judicial and protection (change in capacity- skills, knowledge, leading to change in behaviour) % of persons able to access protection and justice through the social services system (change in capacity- skills, knowledge, leading to change in behaviour) % of cases adjudicated, disaggregated by groups (change in capacity- skills, knowledge- especially of judges- leading to change in behaviour) % of national reports filed under international human rights treaty obligations (change in capacity- skills, knowledge, leading to change in behaviour)

44: 2. Focus on non- discrimination and attention to vulnerable groups Disaggregated data Disaggregating data according to significant variables such as gender, ethnicity, race, religion, national, and social origin will be crucial in identifying which sections of the population are not able to access their rights; which groups should be targeted in the programme; and whether the programme is having an impact on these groups. As the collection of disaggregated data requires a considerable amount of resources, both human and financial, it is important to prioritise which issues are to be disaggregated within a particular State and region. This choice should be carried out in consultation with the relevant groups. In some countries disaggregation by religion may be an important factor and in others there may be little likelihood that there are differences in access to these services along these lines. Specific to the marginalized and vulnerable groups This group of indicators measures development practices which are specifically targeted at marginalized groups, such as women, the poor or an ethnic minority. In practice, it is likely to be made up largely of the inputs, outputs and outcomes of policies designed to increase the empowerment of these groups. Examples: - Proportion of women elected onto provincial councils (%) - Proportion of cases brought to trial which were initiated by poor households. Implicitly sensitive to the marginalized group In this case, the indicator makes no explicit reference to the group that is marginalized. However, if it is interpreted within a broader context, it is clear that the indicator is of particular relevance to them. Examples: - Number and proportion (%) of reported cases of domestic violence prosecuted in courts (victims predominantly female) - Number and proportion of courts that offer free translation services (number of people unable to speak national language - predominantly poor and from an ethnic minority). Chosen by group Using participatory techniques with survey methods provides an opportunity for marginalized and vulnerable groups to identify and have programming indicators that are of particular interest to them. These groups of indicators need not refer to the group at hand at all. They may simply reflect differences in that group�s preferences and priorities regarding different areas of development. Example: - Percentage of women who say that they receive adequate information from the government on policies and laws that affect them.[2] Disaggregated data Disaggregating data according to significant variables such as gender, ethnicity, race, religion, national, and social origin will be crucial in identifying which sections of the population are not able to access their rights; which groups should be targeted in the programme; and whether the programme is having an impact on these groups. As the collection of disaggregated data requires a considerable amount of resources, both human and financial, it is important to prioritise which issues are to be disaggregated within a particular State and region. This choice should be carried out in consultation with the relevant groups. In some countries disaggregation by religion may be an important factor and in others there may be little likelihood that there are differences in access to these services along these lines. Specific to the marginalized and vulnerable groups This group of indicators measures development practices which are specifically targeted at marginalized groups, such as women, the poor or an ethnic minority. In practice, it is likely to be made up largely of the inputs, outputs and outcomes of policies designed to increase the empowerment of these groups. Examples: - Proportion of women elected onto provincial councils (%) - Proportion of cases brought to trial which were initiated by poor households. Implicitly sensitive to the marginalized group In this case, the indicator makes no explicit reference to the group that is marginalized. However, if it is interpreted within a broader context, it is clear that the indicator is of particular relevance to them. Examples: - Number and proportion (%) of reported cases of domestic violence prosecuted in courts (victims predominantly female) - Number and proportion of courts that offer free translation services (number of people unable to speak national language - predominantly poor and from an ethnic minority). Chosen by group Using participatory techniques with survey methods provides an opportunity for marginalized and vulnerable groups to identify and have programming indicators that are of particular interest to them. These groups of indicators need not refer to the group at hand at all. They may simply reflect differences in that group�s preferences and priorities regarding different areas of development. Example: - Percentage of women who say that they receive adequate information from the government on policies and laws that affect them.[2]

45: 2. Focus on non-discrimination and attention to vulnerable groups Disaggregated data Disaggregating data according to significant variables such as gender, ethnicity, race, religion, national, and social origin will be crucial in identifying which sections of the population are not able to access their rights; which groups should be targeted in the programme; and whether the programme is having an impact on these groups. As the collection of disaggregated data requires a considerable amount of resources, both human and financial, it is important to prioritise which issues are to be disaggregated within a particular State and region. This choice should be carried out in consultation with the relevant groups. In some countries disaggregation by religion may be an important factor and in others there may be little likelihood that there are differences in access to these services along these lines. Specific to the marginalized and vulnerable groups This group of indicators measures development practices which are specifically targeted at marginalized groups, such as women, the poor or an ethnic minority. In practice, it is likely to be made up largely of the inputs, outputs and outcomes of policies designed to increase the empowerment of these groups. Examples: - Proportion of women elected onto provincial councils (%) - Proportion of cases brought to trial which were initiated by poor households. Implicitly sensitive to the marginalized group In this case, the indicator makes no explicit reference to the group that is marginalized. However, if it is interpreted within a broader context, it is clear that the indicator is of particular relevance to them. Examples: - Number and proportion (%) of reported cases of domestic violence prosecuted in courts (victims predominantly female) - Number and proportion of courts that offer free translation services (number of people unable to speak national language - predominantly poor and from an ethnic minority). Chosen by group Using participatory techniques with survey methods provides an opportunity for marginalized and vulnerable groups to identify and have programming indicators that are of particular interest to them. These groups of indicators need not refer to the group at hand at all. They may simply reflect differences in that group�s preferences and priorities regarding different areas of development. Example: - Percentage of women who say that they receive adequate information from the government on policies and laws that affect them.[2] Disaggregated data Disaggregating data according to significant variables such as gender, ethnicity, race, religion, national, and social origin will be crucial in identifying which sections of the population are not able to access their rights; which groups should be targeted in the programme; and whether the programme is having an impact on these groups. As the collection of disaggregated data requires a considerable amount of resources, both human and financial, it is important to prioritise which issues are to be disaggregated within a particular State and region. This choice should be carried out in consultation with the relevant groups. In some countries disaggregation by religion may be an important factor and in others there may be little likelihood that there are differences in access to these services along these lines. Specific to the marginalized and vulnerable groups This group of indicators measures development practices which are specifically targeted at marginalized groups, such as women, the poor or an ethnic minority. In practice, it is likely to be made up largely of the inputs, outputs and outcomes of policies designed to increase the empowerment of these groups. Examples: - Proportion of women elected onto provincial councils (%) - Proportion of cases brought to trial which were initiated by poor households. Implicitly sensitive to the marginalized group In this case, the indicator makes no explicit reference to the group that is marginalized. However, if it is interpreted within a broader context, it is clear that the indicator is of particular relevance to them. Examples: - Number and proportion (%) of reported cases of domestic violence prosecuted in courts (victims predominantly female) - Number and proportion of courts that offer free translation services (number of people unable to speak national language - predominantly poor and from an ethnic minority). Chosen by group Using participatory techniques with survey methods provides an opportunity for marginalized and vulnerable groups to identify and have programming indicators that are of particular interest to them. These groups of indicators need not refer to the group at hand at all. They may simply reflect differences in that group�s preferences and priorities regarding different areas of development. Example: - Percentage of women who say that they receive adequate information from the government on policies and laws that affect them.[2]

46: 3. Indicators to Measure Programming Process Is programming process participatory, accountable and non-discriminatory? Evidence of involvement of key rights-holders and duty-bearers in defining programme goals Evidence of fair and equal representation for all rights-holders across all affected sub-groups (especially minority and vulnerable groups) in programme consultations Evidence that adequate information related to the programme has been provided to the public Participation: RH and DBs should have an opportunity to set the criteria for measuring progress by taking part in developing indicators. Consultation over indicators should take place in the formal consultations with government and civil society that occur at the beginning of the HRBA programme, where the overall programme is discussed. Time and resources should then be set aside for such consultations at the outset. Participation: RH and DBs should have an opportunity to set the criteria for measuring progress by taking part in developing indicators. Consultation over indicators should take place in the formal consultations with government and civil society that occur at the beginning of the HRBA programme, where the overall programme is discussed. Time and resources should then be set aside for such consultations at the outset.