Evaluation Report PWDC’s Gender Responsive BudgetingProject in Penang By Regina Frey, genderbüro Berlin, 23.12.2013 Contents: Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Core ideas of GRB .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Methods and process of the evaluation .................................................................................. 4 3 Key Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Perceptions of GRB .................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 General Setup of the Project ................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Output 1: Institutionalisation of GRB in Penang Local Government ....................................... 6 3.4 Output 2: GRB implementation of Community Pilot Projects ................................................ 8 3.5 Output 3: Sex-disaggregated data ........................................................................................... 9 3.6 Output 4: Capacity building in GRB tools and methodologies ................................................ 9 3.7 Output 5: Increased public awareness and participation in LA budgeting processes .......... 10 3.8 Summary................................................................................................................................ 10 4 Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Vision and strategy ................................................................................................................ 11 4.2 Capacity Building ................................................................................................................... 15 4.3 Role of GRB Team .................................................................................................................. 17 5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 17 6 Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 19 7 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 20 7.1 List of documents .................................................................................................................. 20 7.2 Guideline for semi-structured Interview ............................................................................... 26 7.3 List of interviews ................................................................................................................... 28 Executive Summary This report is the result of an evaluation done in November 2013 in Penang. It is based on material generated with the help of several methods like analysis of documents, single and group semi structured interviews (25) as well as field trips, observations and meetings. The key findings are: • The project was planned very thoughtfully; with a good analysis I the beginning and a detailed planning of outputs and activities. However a three year life span seems to be to short time to achieve the planned results. Also the project seems to be understaffed in the light of the five outputs. • In terms of the five outputs the project’s strengths clearly are with the project pilots (output 2). Also the translation of GRB to the public and to the local authorities via publicity work (output 5) can be seen as success. • The project partly conceptualises gender as “different needs for different people” which could lead to weaken the dimension of gender equality as defined in the international Gender Budgeting discourse. • Challenges remain in the institutionalisation of GRB which means that the administration is actively and systematic contributing to a budget process which is gender responsive – this is a long term process of change. In the short span of life of the GRB project the team was very productive and has achieved much: GRB is well known to many stakeholders with the local administration, there are formal and informal networks and bodies to implement GRB, there are good showcases with a clear methodology via the pilot projects, many stakeholders were trained on Gender and GRB. There was also an extensive output in the field of publicity. This is already an excellent result. Since GRB is a process which is transforming procedures and cultures within organisations, it is not something that can be implemented in two years - and also the three years given to the project will not be enough time to make the Penang budgeting cycle systematically gender responsive. Therefore key recommendations are: • The five outputs should be rearranged an prioritised, making the current output 1 an overall result • GRB should be linked to the Penang Gender Policy • There should be a ruling or resolution on GRB by policy makers - defining roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved as well as providing a monitoring and reporting system • An implementation strategy should be created which is in line with the budget cycle • There should be a focus on capacity building with strongly follows the resolution and the implementation model as well as giving guidelines and checklists according with this implementation setup and process. All in all, after a phase with a stronger focus on pilot projects, there should now be a focus on the strategic and systematic institutionalisation of GRB. genderbüro, Dr. Regina Frey Page 1 1 Introduction The Gender Responsive Budget (GRB) Pilot Project is a flagship programme of the Penang Women’s Development Cooperation (PWDC). The project started at the beginning of 2012 and after almost two years of implementation the evaluation serves as a means of reflection and adjustment. After the GRB project staff expressed their wish for an evaluation, Regina Frey, who is a German expert on Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Budgeting, was hired by Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation. The terms of reference of the evaluation indicate the following key objectives: • “Review all the activities and initiatives that have been undertaken under the GRB pilot from the initial ideas (2010) to its inception (2012) to end of Oct 2013; • Assess the relevance and success of the strategies, objectives, outputs and activities that have been developed and implemented to achieve the aims of the GRB pilot; • Identify the enabling and disabling factors from the political, social, economic and institutional context that have affected and will affect the achievement of the pilot expected results; and • Identify gaps and formulate recommendations for the improvement and continuation of the GRB project at the state and local levels.” (Terms of Reference, p. 1/2) The evaluation had four phases: 1. Preparatory phase: The evaluator received 59 documents in preparation for her stay in Penang, they were partly analysed before travelling to Malaysia. Also there was email communication in preparation on the evaluation programme 2. Field phase: 14th until 22th November 2013: After a first meeting with the GRB team, there were field trips and interviews (in Detail see appendix 7.3). 3. Presentation phase: From 23rd to 24th November there was preparatory work for writing the report as well as preparing presentations for a) a technical workshop with the GRB team (25th November) and a presentation on preliminary results on 26th November for the administration staff involved in the GRB project. 4. After returning to Berlin, the final report was written; it was delivered on 23nd December 2013. In the chapters to follow this report describes the approach of the evaluation taken, key findings and recommendations. Preliminary findings were already presented in the technical meeting for the GRB team (25.11.2013) and partially also in the presentation of preliminary results taking place on 26.11.2013). For the compilation of the report, a more systematic analysis of documents and recordings of the interviews wasconducted. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, namely Sabine Franze, for giving me the opportunity to undertake such an interesting study. Also I would like to thank PWDC for being willing and open to be evaluated and taking this as an opportunity to improve. A very big thank you go to Aloyah Bakar and Henry Loh and the rest of the GRB team:Without their ongoing and intensive support, I would have been very lost. Thank you so much! genderbüro, Dr. Regina Frey Page 2 2 Approach For the evaluation of a project, two perspectives are important: a) From an internal perspective the following questions can be asked: Which way was a project setup? Is the allocation of funds and staff appropriate, have objectives been clearly defined, does a solid working plan exist and were the