What enabled or constrained progress?
Outcomes and impact
In this article:
Ten enablers of progress
Enabling factors and barriers are often two sides of the same coin. And there’s considerable overlap between barriers and risks, with risks often acting as barriers. Enablers, inhibiters and risks reported were largely similar across all of the transparency, participation and accountability (TPA) sub-strategies and thematic areas, and they affected both the ability of civil society organisations (CSOs) to engage government successfully and the ability and willingness of governments to adopt reforms.
1. Long-term, reliable and flexible funding
Respondents describe the Hewlett Foundation’s grantmaking as being less focused on the delivery of outputs, compared to other funders. This allows grantees to focus on relationship building with key stakeholders, partners and sub-grantees (that is so crucial to work in the governance sector), rather than just ‘nagging them for deliverables’. Several interviewees noted that this funding was a particular enabler for government engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Funding from the Hewlett Foundation is core support and this gave us breathing room to draw on relationships we had built previous to the pandemic. With Hewlett Foundation support we were able to build on those relationships really quickly to have a successful coalition between a North institution, a South institution and together with government. (Grantee, field learning)
One respondent noted that the Hewlett Foundation’s prompt disbursement of funds throughout the project period, coupled with relevant guidance from the Hewlett TPA staff, enabled smooth implementation.
2. Grantees’ ability to work in an adaptive and agile way
Closely connected to flexible funding is the ability of grantees to work in an adaptive and agile way. Not only is this crucial for mitigating risk but it also means TPA actors can take advantage of windows of opportunity — an overarching enabler for achieving government reform.
For example, although all respondents cited the COVID-19 pandemic (and response) as a barrier to some efforts, grantees reported that they adapted by hosting online events, hiring local consultants and fieldworkers, and moving to remote facilitation methods. One interviewee reported the use of non-governmental radio stations as a means of continuing community outreach and information dissemination activities.
The pandemic also presented new opportunities for stakeholders to work together to achieve a common goal. For instance, COVID-19 enabled grantees to show the value of open contracting around emergency procurement of personal protective equipment and magnified the status of weak national health systems, providing a basis for further advocacy.
COVID-19 helped to demonstrate the critical value of open contracting, enabling countries and cities to plan, coordinate and buy better and empowering media to civil society organisations to demand more transparency and accountability. (Grantee, open contracting)
3. Strong, locally rooted partners or sub-grantees
Having partners or sub-grantees at subnational level with good organisational and technical capacity for implementation — particularly for international organisations that are removed from national contexts — was often mentioned as a key enabler.
Legal empowerment grantees emphasised the importance of having teams locally rooted in the countries in which they operate, with strong connections to the target group they are assisting. One of the grantees mentioned their approach of working in the nested system as an enabler. This may be particularly important given the Hewlett Foundation’s multiple theme approach, which necessarily means less in-depth knowledge within an individual sector or country.
The ability to point to enough examples of violations that we can document patterns and use as evidence base to push for change and advocate for system change and changing institutions at national level. (Grantee, legal empowerment)
4. Being viewed as credible, independent and nonpartisan
This is a key enabler for building trusting relationships with both citizens and government. For example, Shujaaz (media), explained that being a ‘trusted brand’ is a critical enabler for engaging and sustaining youth as an interested audience.
Grantees also noted that CSOs with credibility among citizens are more likely to earn government respect. According to Hewlett Foundation staff, building this credibility requires being neutral and keeping the same messaging despite changes in government. findings are further elaborated on in some of the conclusions from the Mexico learning event, which are useful enablers to consider, namely that:
Building trust and credibility with stakeholders entails being aware and transparent with respect to possible conflict of interests and it requires strong and fluid communication channels. Trust is not a virtue but is a consequence of our work. When working with communities or local level organisations, we must be very aware that we are not utilising them to extract information or that we are exploiting them for our own purposes. We need to avoid the ‘they came, they researched, and they left’ scenario because this destroys trust and credibility. (ITAD, Hewlett Foundation Learning Event, Mexico)
These points were echoed during the interviews. Within the media thematic area, using the right channels of communication is a critical enabler. For example, Shujaaz is shifting to online as digital is the ‘new normal’, particularly when engaging with young people.
With the increase of access to smartphones, grantees have improved their communication and reach to their constituency via WhatsApp and social media, but this raises new challenges related to the threat of disinformation (Hewlett Foundation staff member).
5. Engagement with multiple stakeholders at national and subnational levels
This is a key enabler for eventual evidence uptake and changes in policy and practice. It includes working at different levels, with multiple stakeholders simultaneously, engaging decision makers while also building citizen capacity to demand change. In the open contracting sector, this would include working with government officials at both national and subnational level. This is a more sustainable way to increase use of procurement data as effective procurement and service delivery become more closely linked.
Getting parliamentary support is a further enabler here and some respondents report bringing them on board as an implementing partner. Similarly, the Mexico evaluation found that the foundation’s contribution to engage more diverse organisations that work closer to the grassroots responding to an identified need was an enabling factor (OTT, 2021: 30). As we discuss in section on the grantmaking portfolio, however, working at multiple levels also presents a number of challenges.
6. Taking a collaborative, participatory and capacity-building approach
This facilitates greater buy-in and support along the policy influence continuum. Collaboration and the existence of an established partnership between grantee and stakeholder- influenced evidence uptake and use. For example, a representative from the TJN-A indicated that they tend to use ATAF research a lot due to the partnership and memorandum of understanding they have in place with the ATAF. The same was noted for FOWODE and the Uganda Equal Opportunity Commission, who have had a long-standing relationship. Within the learning sub-strategy, decision makers set the research agenda from the outset thus strengthening the likelihood of evidence uptake.
When working in the open contracting sector, a collaborative approach when engaging the procurement authorities is a critical enabler which increases the chance of implementing open contracting in line with global norms.
This is what I will call a ‘constructive engagement approach’. Not activist approach and this makes them less defensive. We discuss with them how we can support them. (Grantee, open contracting)
The majority of Hewlett Foundation staff concur that those grantees who are finding ways to work with policymakers in government that gets their buy-in tend to be more effective (insider approach):
Without this, you just push them and berate them — this does not lead to change. Engaging directly with government and putting systems and structures in place to inform policies is very critical — grantees who work with governments tend to be more successful. (Hewlett Foundation staff member)
On the other hand, progress can be inhibited when grantees are ‘too collaborative’ in their engagement with government (see next section on inhibiting factors).
When engaging with government, there is a tension between our roles as watchdogs and the need to negotiate and engage as an ally. This is very complex, and it entails a constant need to question our assumptions, strategies, and those of others. (ITAD, Hewlett Foundation learning event, Mexico)
Overall, government behaviour is outside of grantee control, thus requiring an approach that is able to read the context and navigate carefully along the continuum of confrontation and collaboration based on the context (Hewlett Foundation staff member).
7. Being considerate of political, cultural and religious sensitivities
As one grantee explained, TPA is ‘so politically charged’. Respondents noted that being sensitive to this tension is a key enabler for TPA efforts:
Even though we are nonpartisan we recognise that the context in which we operate is so politically charged — when you mobilise citizens it creates discomfort in the leadership and you need to make sure you engage with leadership and there is buy in so you don’t cause anxiety. (Grantee, field learning)
Similarly, respondents working in the media sector noted cultural and religious sensitivity as a particular enabler for engaging citizens:
You have to gain acceptance (there are) conservative views based on religious and cultural practices … health infrastructure is owned by religious institutions.(Grantee, Uganda, media)
When building strong regional networks and engaging at different levels, this understanding of and sensitivity to context can demand a considerable amount of time, given the vast differences in political, social, cultural and religious environments.
8. Linking with regional and international networks
Creating linkages between the national level and regional and international networks was highlighted as an enabler across all sub-strategies. This broadens the scope and outreach capabilities of an organisation and is particularly relevant when working in a new thematic area such as water integrity or open contracting as it creates an enabling environment for government reform.
In the extractive sector, grantees have successfully established good partnerships with institutions like the EITI secretariat and ECOWAS. Furthermore, increased collaboration with peer grantees in the extractive sector was seen as an enabling factor. Within the learning sub-strategy, those grantees that are linked to networks are able to share their research findings and practices more broadly, also creating an enabling environment for governance related issues.
Enablers for a strong, coalesced network include: strong governance structures; secretariat support; and having a joint advocacy strategy designed collaboratively amongst network partners.
9. Visible regional expertise and ownership
Within the tax and budget transparency themes, having regional technical expertise (as opposed to expertise from the North) creates a sense of ownership for national members, which is an enabler for progress:
There is a sense of ownership by members of the organisation as it is a network of senior budget and debt management government officials. They have a comparative advantage in that it is African owned; it was grown in Africa and the strategic direction that is taken is informed by those that stand to benefit from the outputs of the network. (Grantee, budget transparency)
However, because many grantees rely on funding from developed countries, they are limited in the extent to which they can set and pursue their own priorities:
We have to follow the agenda of the North on what is best for Africa as we rely on funding from the developed countries. (Grantee, tax)
The visibility and power of certain actors over others is in fact a barrier to the effectiveness of some grantees:
The space is occupied by powerful players like the World Bank, the IMF and other bilateral programs who work with the ministries of finance in a particular way where it is driven by consultants. That has contributed towards the following unintended consequence that sometimes inhibits our work, namely that officials start to think that change and reforms are meant to be externally driven by experts flying in from Washington. (Grantee, budget transparency)
10. Making sure research and evidence is credible, relevant and use-focused
Grantees have made efforts to ensure their research can be understood and used by the public and other stakeholders and have adopted various sharing strategies. These have included producing open-source knowledge materials, uploading resources to accessible online platforms and knowledge hubs, and ensuring widespread distribution at important events such as symposiums, workshops and policy events.
Trust in grantee research is another important factor. According to one of the interviewed external stakeholders, decision makers are most likely to use research and evidence from a trusted and credible knowledge resource. Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO) was noted as an example of an organisation that decision makers consider a partner and centre of knowledge and resources. Government ministries and trade unions used training materials produced by WIEGO, for example. Publication in major world publications and established journals also increases trust in grantee research.
Where researchers proactively engage practitioners and policymakers in the global South — like the PRG (UCLA) project with Sierra Leone’s National Mining Authority and work by PASGR — research agendas are more likely to be determined by these global South partners and more likely to be relevant to their needs. This generates greater buy-in:
One part is because research is driven by global South partners. This is why we have buy-in and help them answer questions they have. We recognise that we are helping them in the policy research that is pertinent to them — they brought this idea to us to say they want to focus on this topic in their country. (Grantee, field learning)
Academic institutions in the North mention that they should ‘not put papers first’; viewing research as a ‘public good’ is thus an enabler. However, as one interviewee noted:
Research cannot be a public good until it is applied, translated and useful — this builds trust and credibility with your partners. (Grantee, field learning)
This was echoed during the Kampala Learning event which added that:
Evidence can be a powerful advocacy tool when it is relevant and easy to understand for community members, particularly those who are affected by the policy in question. (Kampala Convening Report, Final)
Seven inhibiters of progress
1. The shift towards nationalist, populist and isolationist politics (and closing civic space)
Interviewees noted a shift in global politics towards nationalism, isolationism and populism, and argued that this has contributed towards a climate of suspicion and, at times, even antagonism towards civil society actors — particularly those arguing for greater accountability, good governance and the protection of civil liberties.
Although levels of political opposition and civil society restriction vary from one country to the next, interviewees noted that it encumbered their efforts in the following ways:
- Limited levels of information sharing between political and civil society actors — this was noted particularly in relation to fiscal matters.
- Linked to limited information sharing is the restriction of public access to information as well as the introduction of restrictive legislative frameworks related to civil society organisations and actions, as well as the press and social media.
- Some cases of limited levels of participation by key decision makers in evidence dissemination and discussion — this, respondents noted, contributed to limited uptake and utilisation of evidence by these decision makers and policymakers.
- Lastly, in light of all of these things, the creation of an often weak and fragmented civil society.
To overcome this barrier, organisations often adopt an insider/outsider approach to advocacy, which one respondent describes as:
Keeping a foot in the door when the windows are closed. (Grantee, field learning)
2. The COVID-19 pandemic and response
All respondents cited the COVID-19 pandemic (and response) as a barrier to engaging collaboration partners, government or other institutions that grantees wanted to influence. Social distancing requirements and travel restrictions hindered the hosting of events and face-to-face engagements, and drastically curtailed grantee access to key stakeholders at local, national, regional and international level. Research activities had to be delayed or postponed, despite the phasing in of online/remote work options and an increased use of local consultants.
Another barrier associated with the COVID-19 pandemic was the move by a number of governments towards an authoritarian response to dealing with the health crisis through restrictions on movement and increased policing. This further exacerbated the challenges outlined under political environment, as the following quote illustrates:
Many governments are becoming populist and the space for organisations to demand transparency and anti-corruption is closing. Participation is being threatened in such a real and upsetting way. A lot of organisations are facing difficult legislation with laws that restrict them and their movements. COVID-19 has exacerbated this and it is not getting better. (Grantee, legal empowerment)
3. Grantee financial and capacity constraints
Financial constraints were directly linked to two the first two inhibiting factors — the COVID-19 pandemic, and the rise of nationalist and populist politics. Grantees also noted that their reliance on donor funding also presented a risk to their operations (see following section).
Enabling activities, like multiple-level engagement, are time consuming and requires substantial resources which are often in short supply among CSOs:
Building strategic alliances as a means for credibility and engagement means that organisations invest a lot of resources in time and money to sustain them. Time and money that we do not factor in when designing a project because it is difficult to determine how much this [engagement] costs. (ITAD, Hewlett Foundation learning event, Mexico)
Respondents also noted a number of risks associated with capacity. These include limited access to staff with the relevant qualifications and levels of experience and expertise required for research and advocacy interventions. Additional risks include being able to retain well-qualified staff who are often in high demand. Challenges associated with staff retention during periods of limited funding and budget cuts were also noted.
4. Lack of government capacity to respond to citizen feedback
One lesson shared at the Kampala learning event is that pressurising and engaging in dialogue with local government using TPA work is not enough; the government must be sufficiently capable and willing to respond. Some organisations have therefore chosen to limit citizen feedback to the areas where there can be government response. This reduces frustration and increases the possibility of effecting change.
5. Systemic inequalities and the global South/North divide
Within the field-learning thematic area, one external stakeholder noted that a major barrier to evidence uptake is the lack of trust for data produced in the global North. A reason given by one African researcher is the history of colonisation and systemic inequalities which widens the gap between North and South:
It may be because they have an inferiority complex — they feel they can never match up to the experts from the West. I don’t think there is any common ground yet — there are systemic reasons for this. (External stakeholder, field learning)
The TPA field often fails to acknowledge or recognise contributions from the global South to the same degree as those from the global North. Interviews with North-based grantees reveal that they are aware of this divide and are making efforts to address it.
Our counterparts are making globally relevant contributions or innovations but they are just [country name] groups, or other, but located in the South. But if it was us, being in the North, would be more recognisable as contributing to the field. (International grantee)
6. Lack of enabling legal and policy environment
In some sectors, the lack of legislation and policy in many countries does not create an enabling environment for change. This is true for the open contracting sector, where there is no legislation or policies in place to guide procurement processes resulting in them remaining opaque, complex and antiquated. This, in turn, makes it difficult and expensive to put online e-Procurement systems in place which is further exacerbated by low-tech environments with poor internet connectivity.
7. Social and political norms
Social and cultural norms were noted as a barrier by only two interviewees. However, we include this here given their potential impact on women’s participation and perceived levels of credibility within the advocacy and policy engagement space. (This particular barrier was highlighted by grantees working in the gender sector.)
That was all for Outcomes and impact!
- Go to About the strategy
- Go to About the evaluation
- Go to Strategy implementation
- Go back to the beginning
