Description:
The Inception Report made provision for 9 key informant interviews, a total of 18 key informant interviews were conducted. As planned twelve focus group interviews were conducted. Over 100 documents were studied.
Abstract:
The Democracy Governance and Service Delivery research programme of the HSRC conducted an evaluation of the Access to Justice and the Promotion of Constitutional Rights (AJPCR) Programme, which was implemented from 2009 to 2014 with financial support from the European Union. The AJPCR, aimed to strengthen democracy by improving access to justice and promoting constitutional rights in South Africa, involving Civil Society Organisations at national and sub-national level. The involved stakeholders to make an independent assessment of the performance of the Programme; identify key lessons learned; identify the value add of the Programme; identify challenges; propose practical recommendations.
The methodology of the AJPCR evaluation included: a review of Programme documents; key informant interviews; focus group discussions; and analysis of fieldwork. The assessment included the physical and policy environment and how it has evolved over time.
The analysis included the logic and completeness of the programme planning and design process. Several steps were undertaken that logically set out the justification for Budget Support and the policy area and programme to be supported, as well as design, objectives, and other key modalities of the Programme. A study was made of the appropriateness of implementation strategies, Project results contributed to the Programme purpose of strengthening democracy by improving access to justice, increasing awareness of constitutional rights and enhancing participatory democracy for vulnerable and marginalised communities.
Feedback from beneficiaries, both to the HSRC and other external evaluators, indicate a profoundly positive immediate outcome for many community beneficiaries who received crucial services, training and empowerment as a result of the project activities supported by FHR grants under the programme. FHR correctly identified support to the advice office sector as a crucial mechanism for facilitating access to justice for the most vulnerable and marginalised communities.
Efficiency can be identified in the Programmeâs flexible funding modality; its use of resources such as time, information, relationships and expertise; its matrix of interlinked and complementary activities; its allocation of responsibilities and its governance structures and processes; as well as in its grant-making, âsupervision and âreporting systems and techniques.
The Programme has impacted on various processes in the governance sector. The FHR engaged in a vast number of project activities over the duration of the Programme and met or exceeded all numerical targets, assuming then that the project activities would have contributed to Programme purposes. The FHR has funded a number of organisations and enabled them to carry out their intended tasks. Ample evidence from the research highlights that a significant number of projects were implemented by community-based organisations in rural and disadvantaged areas working with vulnerable and marginalised groups.
Administrative records
Compilation or synthesis of existing material
Content analysis
Digital audio recording
Face-to-face interview
Focus group
Telephone interview
Transcription of materials
Documentation from FHR; FHR staff; staff from recipient organisations; beneficiaries from recipient organisation programmes.
The research team initially adopted an analysis framework based on outcomes theory, which started with the three outputs of the Programme, with indicators, baseline or target, activities and means of verification as sub-sections. This approach enabled the team to set a series of questions that guided the document analysis, and was reflected in the outline of the Desk Report.
In its preparation for the fieldwork phase, the team amended its approach by adopting a framework that was based on the 6 criteria, as set out in the Inception Report. The fieldwork data collection instruments were developed using these criteria:
A review of relevant Programme documents
Key informant interviews
Focus group discussions
Analysis of fieldwork, and
Consolidation of analyses results
Twelve focus groups were carried out with beneficiaries in four Provinces (Limpopo, Western Cape, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal); in each province three focus groups were selected based on discussions with the major partners on criteria for stratification. These focus groups were conducted in the language with which beneficiaries were most comfortable in. The beneficiaries considered for focus group discussions were:
Beneficiaries of CAOs;
Women beneficiaries;
Farmworker beneficiaries;
Staff of CSOs that underwent capacity-building;
Beneficiaries of alternative dispute resolution;
Refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants;
Target groups of public awareness campaigns;
Staff of CSOs and CSO networks that have participated in forums with the government on human rights issues; and
Staff of CSOs that participated in public dialogues.
The selection criteria for focus group discussions mirrored some of the secondary criteria for the selection of the projects whose project leaders were to be interviewed. Where possible, beneficiaries and project leaders from the same organisation were selected.
