Document Abstract
Published:
2011
The “We Can” Campaign in South Asia, 2004-2011. External evaluation report
This evaluation was commissioned by Oxfam GB to measure the impact of the We Can campaign, which ran from 2004-2010 in six countries across south Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka). The overall goal of the We Can programme was to reduce the social acceptance of violence against women across the six countries. There were four objectives:
• A fundamental shift in social attitudes and beliefs that support VAW
• A collective and visible stand by different sections of the community against VAW
• A popular movement to end all VAW
• A range of local, national and regional alliances to address VAW
This would be done by mobilising five million ‘change makers’ who would go on to influence 50 million ‘ordinary men and women’. The inspiration for this was the Raising Voices project in Uganda. In the first stage of the programme, women and men were encouraged to join the campaign by making a ‘change maker pledge’ to “(i) not tolerate or perpetrate violence against women under any circumstances, and (ii) to motivate at least ten people to help prevent and end gender discrimination and violence against women” (2011:9).
In addition, there were large scale appeals through communication campaigns including posters, comic strips, newsletters and video clips all “designed to trigger reflection among audiences unfamiliar with concepts of gender equality” (2011:10). Materials were gathered into ‘change maker kits’ to aid the change makers in their roles. Campaign alliances were also an important element of We Can. In each country alliances were formed at national or state level according to what was appropriate in that context; “the campaign allies had much leeway in developing their mobilisation strategies – within a joint, clearly articulated regional strategy” (2011:5). The combination of these elements meant that We Can was very different to other Oxfam GB campaigns which have focused on rallying support for specific policy objectives, because it “triggered gradual, open-ended personal development processes across all social strata” (2011:5).
Evaluation conclusions fall into the areas of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. The key findings in these areas were:
• Relevance
The We Can campaign was highly relevant to the needs of its audiences and participants, because it:
o Addressed major impediments to human development in south Asia
o Complemented previous and parallel efforts
o Brought the issue of VAW to new audiences
o Had a well articulated and coherent theory of change containing good practice in VAW prevention
o Was context sensitive and devised as a regional initiative
• Effectiveness
We Can was effectively developed and implemented through campaign alliances, however lack of data and variation in implementation in each country made effectiveness hard to measure.
o Causing a fundamental shift in social norms is a more distant goal, and it is too early to speak of a ‘social movement’, but significant progress has been made in localised contexts including highly traditional communities and regions with armed conflict, and among local decision makers and their constituencies.
o It can be safely assumed that 1.4 million change makers have engaged in activism and triggered 21 million conversations on VAW and women’s rights.
o Broad, diverse alliances have taken a stand against VAW and work on VAW has been mainstreamed into mixed and rural organisations.
o We Can monitoring systems failed to capture the scope and complexity of the campaign.
• Efficiency
The resources mobilised for the campaign were commensurate with its duration, scale and nature. Considerable expenditure on learning was justified, but regular monitoring systems were incomplete and of uneven quality.
• Sustainability
Campaign allies in at least four countries agree that We Can is worth continuing and four out of six We Can national secretariats were still operational with Oxfam’s support after the end of the campaign, but national alliance strategies beyond 2011 were vague on funding and campaign management, and secretariats were struggling with running costs.
• Impact
o We Can demonstrably contributed to changing attitudes – in broad public awareness, and in change makers’ personal development and their external activism.
o Work against VAW has been mainstreamed into development organisations, schools, police and local governance institutions.
o Attitudinal and institutional changes are likely to contribute to reducing the incidence of VAW, although the exact scope of We Can’s impact on this cannot be measured.
The evaluation report goes on to make a number of recommendations, including:
• In work on attitudes and social norms, obtain expert support from practice oriented specialists in social and development psychology, so as to build robust, evidence based conceptual frameworks for effective planning, monitoring and reporting.
• Develop appropriate, evolving monitoring, learning and documentation systems that respond to participants needs and facilitate reporting to donors and other stakeholders.
• Create opportunities for learning and joint reflection among We Can allies through meetings, exchange visits and virtual platforms.
• Create frequent opportunities for ‘change makers’ to continue transforming their lives and influencing others
• Support alliances to continue to recruit a new generation of ‘change makers’ of quality rather than quantity
• Think about life after We Can: “How can allies continue to support the individual and community dynamisms We Can may have created in the future? At what point should the alliances be dissolved or turned into something different? How can those who have integrated We Can into the programmes of their organisations continue to exchange experience and coordinate activities? What needs to happen to develop a broad, inclusive movement to end VAW?” (2011:35).
• A fundamental shift in social attitudes and beliefs that support VAW
• A collective and visible stand by different sections of the community against VAW
• A popular movement to end all VAW
• A range of local, national and regional alliances to address VAW
This would be done by mobilising five million ‘change makers’ who would go on to influence 50 million ‘ordinary men and women’. The inspiration for this was the Raising Voices project in Uganda. In the first stage of the programme, women and men were encouraged to join the campaign by making a ‘change maker pledge’ to “(i) not tolerate or perpetrate violence against women under any circumstances, and (ii) to motivate at least ten people to help prevent and end gender discrimination and violence against women” (2011:9).
In addition, there were large scale appeals through communication campaigns including posters, comic strips, newsletters and video clips all “designed to trigger reflection among audiences unfamiliar with concepts of gender equality” (2011:10). Materials were gathered into ‘change maker kits’ to aid the change makers in their roles. Campaign alliances were also an important element of We Can. In each country alliances were formed at national or state level according to what was appropriate in that context; “the campaign allies had much leeway in developing their mobilisation strategies – within a joint, clearly articulated regional strategy” (2011:5). The combination of these elements meant that We Can was very different to other Oxfam GB campaigns which have focused on rallying support for specific policy objectives, because it “triggered gradual, open-ended personal development processes across all social strata” (2011:5).
Evaluation conclusions fall into the areas of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. The key findings in these areas were:
• Relevance
The We Can campaign was highly relevant to the needs of its audiences and participants, because it:
o Addressed major impediments to human development in south Asia
o Complemented previous and parallel efforts
o Brought the issue of VAW to new audiences
o Had a well articulated and coherent theory of change containing good practice in VAW prevention
o Was context sensitive and devised as a regional initiative
• Effectiveness
We Can was effectively developed and implemented through campaign alliances, however lack of data and variation in implementation in each country made effectiveness hard to measure.
o Causing a fundamental shift in social norms is a more distant goal, and it is too early to speak of a ‘social movement’, but significant progress has been made in localised contexts including highly traditional communities and regions with armed conflict, and among local decision makers and their constituencies.
o It can be safely assumed that 1.4 million change makers have engaged in activism and triggered 21 million conversations on VAW and women’s rights.
o Broad, diverse alliances have taken a stand against VAW and work on VAW has been mainstreamed into mixed and rural organisations.
o We Can monitoring systems failed to capture the scope and complexity of the campaign.
• Efficiency
The resources mobilised for the campaign were commensurate with its duration, scale and nature. Considerable expenditure on learning was justified, but regular monitoring systems were incomplete and of uneven quality.
• Sustainability
Campaign allies in at least four countries agree that We Can is worth continuing and four out of six We Can national secretariats were still operational with Oxfam’s support after the end of the campaign, but national alliance strategies beyond 2011 were vague on funding and campaign management, and secretariats were struggling with running costs.
• Impact
o We Can demonstrably contributed to changing attitudes – in broad public awareness, and in change makers’ personal development and their external activism.
o Work against VAW has been mainstreamed into development organisations, schools, police and local governance institutions.
o Attitudinal and institutional changes are likely to contribute to reducing the incidence of VAW, although the exact scope of We Can’s impact on this cannot be measured.
The evaluation report goes on to make a number of recommendations, including:
• In work on attitudes and social norms, obtain expert support from practice oriented specialists in social and development psychology, so as to build robust, evidence based conceptual frameworks for effective planning, monitoring and reporting.
• Develop appropriate, evolving monitoring, learning and documentation systems that respond to participants needs and facilitate reporting to donors and other stakeholders.
• Create opportunities for learning and joint reflection among We Can allies through meetings, exchange visits and virtual platforms.
• Create frequent opportunities for ‘change makers’ to continue transforming their lives and influencing others
• Support alliances to continue to recruit a new generation of ‘change makers’ of quality rather than quantity
• Think about life after We Can: “How can allies continue to support the individual and community dynamisms We Can may have created in the future? At what point should the alliances be dissolved or turned into something different? How can those who have integrated We Can into the programmes of their organisations continue to exchange experience and coordinate activities? What needs to happen to develop a broad, inclusive movement to end VAW?” (2011:35).
