International Women's Programme (IWP)-Open Society Institute (OSI) Evaluation Training Report for Women Groups in Liberia.(February, 2011)

8/3/2019 International Women's Programme (IWP)-Open Society Institute (OSI) Evaluation Training Report for Women Groups

1/12

TAILORED POLICY ADVOCACY AND

ENGAGEMENT TRAINING FOR WOMEN

GROUPS AND NETWORKS IN LIBERIA

EVALUATION REPORT

VENUE: PALM SPRING RESORT, MONROVIA, LIBERIA

DATE: FEBRUARY 1 - 4, 2011.

TRAINERS:

MARGARET BREW-WARD AND MR. JASPER CUMMEH II

FEBRUARY, 2011.


2/12

1 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction. 2

Overall Course Delivery. 3

Course Content and Recommendations 6

Assessment of Facilitators 10

Course Duration. 11

Analyses of Response.. 11


3/12

2 | P a g e

Introduction

Over the years the Policy Advocacy Unit of the West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) has

been building the capacities of CSOs in the area of advocacy. This was basically to enhance

their advocacy skills and create a networking platform to improve their ability to engage policy

decision makers. By observation, it was realized that the workshop records a low number ofwomen participation, thus in response, WACSI partnered with the International Womens

Programme of the Open Society Institute and with the support of the Local Government and

Public Services Reform Initiative, of the Open Society Institute (LGI-OSI) and the Open Society

Institute of West Africa, organized a four-day advocacy training workshop for womens groups

and organizations in Monrovia, Liberia.

The overarching goal of this workshop was to build the advocacy capacity of women groups

and organizations in Liberia, and deepen their knowledge and skills in planning and conducting

effective policy engagement, influencing and advocacy. A total of 20 women attended and

participated in the workshop.

Participants were handed over questionnaires to evaluate the overall outcome of the

workshop, that is, from the organization of the workshop, through to the facilitating/course

content and delivery.

Out of 20 participants, 19 of them answered the questionnaires representing 95% of the total

number of participants present. Below is a compiled response of the participants.


4/12

3 | P a g e

Session A

I: Overall Course Delivery

This session sought the perceptions of the participants on the outcome of the overall outcome

of the workshop, thereby assessing the training materials and rating their satisfaction in terms

of meeting their expectations and building on their knowledge. Participants ratings ofsatisfaction and explanations to the ratings are tabulated and represented below respectively.

Table 1.0: Percentage Rating Outcomes of Participants/Areas of Assessment

Areas of Assessment

Percentage Rating Outcomes of Participants

Very Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied

What is your overall impression of the

workshop?

89% 11% -

Were your objectives for this workshop

met?

74% 26%-

Rate your satisfaction with the course

training materials

84% 16% -

Taking into account your knowledge of

policy advocacy before the workshop, did

the workshop help to build your

knowledge and skills in this area?

74% 26% -

How effective was

the methodology

used in the

workshop?

The Discussions 74% 26% -The Exercises 68% 26% 5%

Overall Impression

Organization and facilitation was top-notch and professional; Acquired knowledge and skills; The workshop is very useful to my professional growth and current responsibilities; Very satisfied because the objectives outlined were covered and well explained; Very satisfied with the outcome, it is a rewarding training for activists/advocates 2; Acquired very useful information and advocacy engagement skills;


5/12

4 | P a g e

Understood the definition of writing a policy paper, the key characteristics to consider inwriting a policy paper and the differences and similarities between policy brief and study;

Extremely useful and well-presented workshop2; Very interactive and more rewarding; A bit satisfied with the outcome because of limited time; Catchy and very interesting and knowledge based; Satisfied with the upshot of the workshop except with the time factor; The presentations were clear and concise, and participatory;

Objectives

learned about strategies in advocacy and policy-process; Objectives were met beyond expectations as compared to other workshops attended (3); Learned about the differences and similarities between a policy brief and study; Learned how to develop effective strategies and communication tools for policy

advocacy;

Not completely, because policy engagement and advocacy is a process not an event; In-depth knowledge and understanding of policy papers (3); Acquired adequate knowledge on policy advocacy as a beginner; Enhanced knowledge and skills in advocacy (4)

Satisfaction with training materials

Very explicit and sufficient; Bulky but will be used as a reference material; Enhanced knowledge and skills in the area of advocacy; Satisfied with the training material and would be useful to my organization; Acquired in-depth knowledge on the subject and has enhanced my ability to develop

policy papers;

Very satisfied, the materials are comprehensive and simplified; The course training materials are satisfactory; The materials contains questions and exercises for clearer understanding of policy advocacy; The materials is very rich tools in providing a deeper understanding of the concepts; The materials are excellent (2); The materials and slides used were adequate and useful; The training materials are very good, very useful; The materials provided were good, but needs to have Liberian scenarios; Course was very intensive and the materials were in-depth and good; Very impressed with contents of the training materials.


6/12

5 | P a g e

Build knowledge and skills

Learned new policy skills and knowledge; Enhanced knowledge and skills on policy processes; Gained an in-depth understanding of policy advocacy; Need further practical skills and knowledge to enhance the acquired; Acquired new skills in policy engagement new skills in planning advocacy (3) ; Gained knowledge specifically on the important contents of policy papers; Enlightened on methods and strategies of public policy advocacy; Improved knowledge on advocacy but look forward to using the APF in the second phase; Acquired practical skills in policy advocacy.

The Discussion

Stimulating and lively; Effective and good (6); Rewarding and enriched the training; Participatory and active; Provided platforms to grasp concepts easily, and learn from other experiences; Provided opportunity to learn best practices, intrinsic advocacy challenges (2); The approach was participatory (2) The idea of having a group and individual discussion helped a lot Very effective, in that the methodology is feasible

The Exercises

Effective and thought-provoking

(3)

; Provided new skills in policy engagement and workshop facilitation and activity; Good and rewarding (2); Participatory and provided deeper understanding and clarity of issues; Provided practical sense of the concepts; Helped in developing more ideas; Did not understand all; Simplified each session for easy understanding; Practical and relevant; Good and educative; Good but more should be included; Helped to assimilate the lessons in each session because they were practical Helped to increase knowledge of the subject matter.


7/12

6 | P a g e

Session B

II. Course ContentIn this session, participants assessed the contents of the course. By doing this, the participants

pinpointed the strengths and weaknesses of the workshop as well as the impact of the

workshop on their knowledge and skills. Participants also stated the different ways they intend

to make impact with their advocacy activities. Below is a tabular representation of their ratings

and responses respectively.

Table 1.1: Percentage Rating Outcomes of Participant on the Course Content

Policy Advocacy

Percentage Rating Outcomes of Participants

Very useful, am

very satisfied

Satisfied with

this topic, may

be useful

Not satisfied,

may not be

useful

Session 1: Understanding the context of

policy advocacy and writing

89% 11% -

Session 2: Structuring and developing a

coherent policy paper

79% 21% -

Session 3: Developing a targeted

advocacy plan using the Advocacy

Planning Framework (APF)

53% 47% -

What will you do differently in your practice?

Pay attention to target audience and problem description as well as in dissemination ofresearch findings;

The best way/time to engage the target policy debate, when to make contribution,engage key players, explore the problem, pay attention to mode of communication,

how to build support and momentum for advocacy network;

Practice the different stages of policy circle for an effective advocacy campaign;

Be coherent , straight to the point and be within context; How to reach out to the target group; Analysis and research; Find a way to involve decision-makers in an advocacy; Write my own policy briefs and papers; Improve on networking relations with other partners; Utilize all the elements of advocacy in planning, and adopt the usage of the best approach;


8/12

7 | P a g e

Follow the policy making cycle accordingly; Involve community members, stakeholders and complete the policy making cycle; Enhance my advocacy skills; Persistently work to improve on my advocacy planning; Be persistent in advocating till the goal is met; Focus on the problem description, policy options, context analysis and dissemination; Conduct thorough research to get the fact right prior to starting the advocacy process; Write policy papers, send by e-mail for correction and show knowledge gained to

facilitators and WACSI and teach others about how to write;

Strengths of the training

Exercises and real life examples and the participatory style of the presentation; Developing effective strategies and communication tools for policy advocacy;

Session 1-3; Session 2-4; Policy brief and study session; All the sessions were excellent and important (5); Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper (2); Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper; Advocacy; The practical aspects of the training (the exercise and games); The Advocacy Planning Framework (APF) that was introduced; Developing a policy paper session was very educative; All of the sessions had a lot of strengths which strengthened my knowledge, skills and

experience;

Understanding the context of policy advocacy and writing.Weaknesses

More time needed for Phase One of the training; Time factor need for Phase One of the training; The number of days for the training; Trainers did not address participants by name; None; Lack of time and opportunity for the groups to prepare a real policy brief; Women cannot do it all alone; Limited timeframe for the workshop (2); Lack of transportation;


9/12

8 | P a g e

The materials are very informative, educative but the timing for the work was short; Training starts too early; Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper.

Advice

Add more days (2) to the first phase; Resources documents should be made available in soft copies; Trainers should identify/address participants by their names; Longer timeframe for the workshop (2); Allow the participation of other male colleagues for a better advocacy; Improve on the daily timing of the workshop (2); The workshop should start at 8am in the morning and it should hold for five days; Recommend seven days for the workshop;

Include more practical approaches and more group presentation, assignment sessions; It is a well organized training, keep it up for the second phase; Increase the duration of the workshop (3).

Topic/information to include

None, the course is tough enough; Writing an advocacy paper; The training seemed holistic; Resource management; The topics treated were appropriate; Include more practical writing (3); Resource mobilization for Policy Advocacy; The topics treated were very adequate for the workshop

A sentence to describe what you learned

In order to effect change one has to be persistent and persevere in their policyadvocacy and disseminate information appropriately;

How to effectively develop strategies and communication tools for policy advocacy; How to write effective policy paper and plan an advocacy The importance of a network community in moving an advocacy process forward; How to advocate effectively to achieve the set objective; The difference between policy brief and policy paper (2); How to write an effective policy paper; Defining policy paper and public policy including differences and similarities;


10/12

9 | P a g e

The policy cycle session enlightened me on what I was doing wrong; An effective policy paper must posses all of the elements, that is, precise, analytical,

pervasive and appeal to the interest of the target audience;

Learned that it is valuable to complete the policy making cycle because they aremutually inclusive;

Developing an admirable policy paper, understanding the policy making cycle andwriting effective policy paper;

Learned that policy makers are busy people, and it is essential to be persistent andidentify new methods in advocacy;

Learned that advocacy is a tool for change, and the differences policy briefs and policystudy;

Persistently engage target audience in terms of enacting legislations on the preventionof domestic violence;

Learned about the content of the elements of a policy paperAdvice for the training team

continue to use practical examples to enable participants to relate and understandconcept;

Need more days to cover the entire handbook, The training team did an excellent job; Continue to conduct the workshop using the same methodology but let it be held for

five days instead of four days and begin at 8:30am;

Samples of the various types of policy be given to participants to aid in their practical work;

Include more energizers and additional facilitators because the workshop is toointensive for two facilitators;

The training should hold in a different location other than Monrovia; Increase the duration of the training; Application should be sent to participants a week before the workshop; Continue with the good work.


11/12

10 | P a g e

About the Workshop

Table 1.2: Percentage Rating of Participants Impression about the Workshop

About the Trainers

Table 1.3: Percentage Rating of Participants Impression about the Trainers

Course Duration

Table 1.4: Percentage Rating Outcome of the Duration of Workshop

Percentage Rating Outcome of Participants

Too Long Too Short About Right

- 68% 21%

Percentage Rating Outcome of Participants

Impression of the Workshop (form lowest to highest) 1 2 3 4 5

1 The difficulty level was about right 11% 5% 16% 16% 42%

2 Applying the information and skills in on-going/ future

advocacy planning

5% - 16% 16% 53%

3 Presentation met professional educational needs - - 11% 16% 63%

4 Information, strategies, and instructional methods

shared were helpful

- 5% 5% 16% 58%

5 Facilities and amenities were suitable for the

workshop

- - 5% 37% 47%

6 Confident in my capacity to engage in practical policy

advocacy

5% - 16% 5% 63%

7 The workshop was well organized - - 5% 21% 63%

Percentage Rating Outcome of Participants Impression

about the Trainers 1 2 3 4 5

1 Trainers expertise in all sessions 5% - 11% - 68%

2 Trainers clarity in delivery 5% - 5% 16% 63%

3 Cultural appropriateness of trainers - - 16% 21% 63%

4 Trainers time management - - 11% 16% 63%

5 Trainers responsiveness throughout the training 5% - 11% - 74%

6 Did trainers actively involve you in this training 5% - 5% - 74%

7 Would you say the trainers were well prepared 5% - - 5% 74%


12/12

11 | P a g e

EVALUATION SYNOPSIS

The participants assessed the overall outcome of the four day Policy Engagement and

Advocacy Workshop, from organization, facilitation to the contents of the course and the

materials. The main objective of this assessment is to aid in restructuring future courses to

meet the demands of the participants.

With this backdrop, it can be inferred from the tabulated responses that the importance of the

workshop was highly acknowledged by the participants. Table 1.0, indicates that the ratio of

participants who were very satisfied as against satisfied ranges from 68-89% and 11-26%

respectively. The overall impression of the workshop recorded 89% very satisfied response as

against 11% satisfied and nil for the not satisfied. This implies that the participants appreciated

the outcome of the workshop.

In table 1.1,which presents the participants impressions on the contents of the course, it is

obvious here also that, they valued every bit of the content which is evident in their responses.

They acknowledged the usefulness of the materials and the value of the methodologies used

in delivering the workshop. Phrases such as excellent, stimulating, rewarding, participatory,

effective, practical, feasible among others were used to describe the methodology adopted.

Furthermore, stating how different they engage in advocacy after the training, the responses

of the participants were positive and encouraging. It gives a picture of the shortfalls that were

existing prior to the workshop and positive impact of the training on their skills and

knowledge. Interestingly, participants who had less or no knowledge about advocacy and

engagement seemed to have been fired up to be better advocates.

As mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the responses of the participants were positive;

however this represented the views of the majority. Without trashing the minority views, it

was obvious that, the workshop had weaknesses which were pinpointed by the participants.

This ranged from timing/duration which the participants indicated that was short and

inconvenient, logistics, and location. Participants therefore requested for additional days;

change in the starting time; and change in location.

In sum the participants at the end of the workshop were impressed about the workshop

specifically on the information, knowledge and skills acquired.

Documents

International Women's Programme (IWP)-Open Society Institute (OSI) Evaluation Training Report for Women Groups in Liberia.(February, 2011)