You need to be registered in the Community of Practice and logged in to contribute to the forum. Please Register and/or Login
Dont miss out on any Forum activity. Subscribe to updates and replies to the Forum.
by Antoine Hanin
Hello Petra,
Thanks for re-launching this debate/forum. It indeed remains very valid. My experience in measuring results of donors support to SSR tells me that you cannot do it with generic indicators. A basket of indicators may give you information on whether some aspects of the reform process have improved, stayed the same or decreased. This is useful for reporting, for monitoring purposes, mainly for the country undergoing a reform process. It can be used for political purposes, for capturing more funds, for informing the population, etc.
Indicators will never give you information on the results of donors support to the reform process. In order to do so, you will need to carry out a fully-fledged evaluation that may give you some evidence on the extent to which the donors have contributed to the reform process. You could for example carry out an evaluation of the support from the Netherlands to SSR in all the countries you are working over the last 5-10 years. Such type of evaluations are often being carried out by the EU on several topics, of which SSR published in 2011: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-support-justice-and-security-system-reforms-third-countries-2001-2009_en
Happy to discuss more if you want.
Best regards,
Antoine
by Petra van Oijen
Dear colleagues,
It is interesting to read about these topics - which remain very current. At the NL MFA we are at the moment discussing issues related to measuring results - and how to improve this for the various activities we have. In this context, of course, also the formulation of indicators is discussed. I was asked to think about one or a few indicators that capture our SSR activities. This is quite a challenge as our activities are quite diverse (ranging from Iraq to Burundi, Mali and North Africa, as well as different focus areas). Of course, a few aspects always return (e.g. governance, civil society).
I have already looked into a few documents of DCAF (e.g. ISSAT, TFNA) as well as SDG 16 and its indicators. Below a few of the things that came up.
- SDG 16 uses a few relevant indicators, including:
- Indicator 16.6.2. Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services, disaggregated by service
- Indicator 16.7.1b. Percentage of population who believe decision-making at all levels is inclusive and responsive
- Indicator 16.b.1. Proportion of the population who believe that state institutions are treating people of all groups fairly, equitably and without discrimination
- A few of the indicators we tried to use at the MFA in the past (still quite some challenges regarding the measuring):
- Strengthened capacity of (security) institutions with oversight functions in the security sector (qualitative, disaggregated per country)
- Perhaps a link can be made to “# accountability mechanisms in place” – but also difficult, as not every project focusses on this.
- Access to information on security sector strengthened for society (qualitative, disaggregated per country)
- Also difficult to measure as several projects/activities can be included by this, but these are all defined differently, and have a different focus.
- Strengthened capacity of (security) institutions with oversight functions in the security sector (qualitative, disaggregated per country)
- And these are a few indicators, mentioned in a MFA guideline for measuring results (again, it is important to think about the method of measuring - %? Based on (subjective) questions tot he population/involved actors?)
- Inclusion of civil society in security sector is promoted
- Needs assessments conducted by security institutions, community dialogues
- This in combination with a perception survey of the local population in the area of security & justice can be useful
- However, not all organisations can do this (due to knowledge, costs, resources) – it is actually a different/separate activity – not sure if we can ask this of all organizations we support in the area of SSR
- Capacity of institutions with oversight functions strengthened
- Percentage of community members declaring to be involved in dialogue to find solutions for insecurity and instability with other community members, including of other ethnicities.
- Important to realise that not everything can be measured easily – and perhaps an extra activity is needed (e.g. regarding perception surveys)
- It remains a challenge to define “a general indicator” for SSR (or perhaps even two or three) – which is at the same time relevant for all our activities, as these can be quite diverse
- Several aspects will be based on subjective reactions of involved people/organisations
- All this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be thought through
Any ideas and/or suggestions related to the questions above are welcome!
Thank you!
Petra
by Thammy Evans
Hello All,
The subject of indicators for measuring progress (not just counting output) comes up periodically in security and justice sector reform programming. I thought, therefore, that it is worth highlighting a couple more sources for potential indicators
Security Sector Monitor publications from 2009-2011 (CIGI)
Creating Indicators for Measuring Gender in SSR (DCAF)
Please add others to this list!
by Natacha Meden
You may find the 2010 DCAF paper on "Measuring SSG - a Guide to Relevant Indicators" by Ursula Schroeder useful to fuel the discussion further.
by Daniel Szczepanski
To add to this comprehensive list I'd like to add a number of thematic/sectoral tools, guidelines and reports which may contain interesting methodologies and/or indicators or at least provide an overview of good practice. Many of these are related to the police sector specifically, though the first publication deals with the wider security sector in general:
- UNDPKO-OROLSI, Planning Toolkit
- UNODC-USIP, 2011, Criminal Justice Reform in Post-Conflict States – A Guide for Practitioners
- OSCE, 2006, The Role of Capacity-Building in Police Reform
- DCAF, 2012, Toolkit on Police Integrity
- UNODC, 2011, Handbook on Police Accountability, Oversight and Integrity
- OSCE-ODIHR, 2012, Guidelines on Human Rights Education for Law Enforcement Officials
- OSCE, 2012, Guidelines for Police Officers involved in Community Policing
- Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation & Open Society Justice Initiative, 2005, The Police that We Want: A Handbook for Oversight of the Police in South Africa
- DCAF, 2008, Police Reform and Gender
- DCAF, 2009, Training Resources on Police Reform and Gender
- International Peace Academy – Saferworld, 2004, Police Reform through Community-Based Policing Philosophy and Guidelines for Implementation
- IPES-DCAF, 2012, A Framework for Conducting Annual Community Safety Audits: an in-House Methodology for Police Departments
You need to be registered in the Community of Practice and logged in to contribute to the forum. Please Register and/or Login
Dont miss out on any Forum activity. Subscribe to updates and replies to the Forum.