Gender-Responsive Monitoring and Evaluation Training Course

Participants can define population groups and analytical categories for intersectional M&E.

• Gender roles, relations, identities and norms affecting programme participation
• Intersectionality across age, disability, displacement, ethnicity, income and location
• Intra-household decision-making and control of income, assets and time
• Care work measurement using time-use questions and activity diaries
• Social exclusion pathways affecting access to services and complaint mechanisms
• Avoiding binary assumptions when defining participant and comparison groups

Participants can conduct a structured gender analysis that informs M&E priorities.

• Harvard Analytical Framework mapping activities, access, control and influencing factors
• Problem-tree analysis of gendered constraints, causes and programme consequences
• Stakeholder mapping of formal authority, informal influence and excluded groups
• Barrier analysis for service uptake, mobility, safety and information access
• Seasonal calendars identifying labour peaks, risks and participation constraints
• Gender analysis findings translated into results, indicators and monitoring questions

Participants can build a theory of change that makes gender assumptions explicit.

• Theory of change pathways from intervention inputs to equality outcomes
• Assumption mapping for norms, household bargaining and institutional response
• Causal mechanisms linking programme services to changes in power
• Negative outcomes and backlash risks included within causal pathways
• Outcome statements specifying rights-holders, duty-bearers and expected changes
• Logical Framework Approach aligned with gender-responsive causal assumptions

Participants can plan inclusive participation and feedback mechanisms for M&E.

• Participation matrices identifying whose voice informs programme decisions
• Separate and mixed consultation formats matched to safety considerations
• Community feedback mechanisms accessible to women, adolescents and persons with disabilities
• Accountability to Affected Populations principles applied to monitoring processes
• Closing feedback loops through documented responses and communicated actions
• Facilitation choices that reduce elite capture and respondent intimidation

Participants can create indicators that measure gender-related outputs, outcomes and impacts.

• Indicator hierarchy covering access, quality, agency, norms and systems
• SMART criteria tested against gender equality result statements
• Outcome indicators measuring decision-making, mobility, safety and resource control
• Proxy indicators and their limitations for sensitive gender constructs
• Numerators, denominators, units and direction of change specified precisely
• Indicator reference sheets documenting definitions, sources, frequency and responsibility

Participants can specify disaggregation dimensions and feasible measurement approaches.

• Disaggregation plans based on sex, age, disability and relevant identities
• Minimum sample sizes for meaningful subgroup reporting and comparison
• Washington Group Short Set questions for disability disaggregation
• Data dictionaries preventing inconsistent categories across reporting periods
• Missing-data codes distinguishing refusal, absence, inapplicability and nonresponse
• Data collection schedules aligned with programme milestones and decision points

Participants can set defensible baselines, targets and sampling approaches for gender evidence.

• Baseline studies establishing pre-intervention differences between population groups
• Target setting using contextual benchmarks, baseline values and programme reach
• Probability sampling methods for representative quantitative monitoring and surveys
• Purposive sampling for marginalised groups and qualitative inquiry
• Sampling frames checked for exclusion of mobile and unregistered populations
• Panel, repeated cross-sectional and sentinel-site designs compared

Participants can design survey instruments that generate usable gender-disaggregated evidence.

• Questionnaire flow reducing respondent burden and sensitive-question fatigue
• Question wording avoiding leading language, stereotypes and social desirability bias
• Household roster design capturing relationships, roles and demographic characteristics
• Scales measuring attitudes, self-efficacy, decision-making and perceived safety
• Skip logic and validation rules configured before field deployment
• Enumerator instructions standardising definitions, probes and response recording

Participants can select and use qualitative methods appropriate for gender-related inquiry.

• Semi-structured interviews exploring experiences, choices and perceived programme effects
• Focus group discussion guides segmented by relevant safety and power factors
• Most Significant Change technique documenting participant-defined outcomes and attribution
• Outcome Harvesting for emergent changes in relationships, policies and practices
• Participatory tools including mobility mapping, ranking and body mapping
• Reflexive field notes recording context, positionality and emerging interpretations

Participants can apply ethical safeguards to gender-related monitoring and evaluation activities.

• Informed consent procedures matched to literacy, language and power dynamics
• Do No Harm assessment for intimate partner violence and protection questions
• Confidentiality protocols for identifiers, recordings, transcripts and case narratives
• Referral pathways prepared before collecting disclosures of violence or abuse
• Enumerator recruitment, briefing and supervision for sensitive data collection
• Data minimisation principles applied to personally identifiable information

Participants can establish data flows, responsibilities and controls for gender-responsive monitoring.

• M&E plans linking indicators, sources, frequency, owners and use
• Data flow diagrams from field collection through validation and reporting
• RACI matrices assigning collection, review, approval and escalation responsibilities
• Data quality assessments examining validity, reliability, precision, integrity and timeliness
• Routine data verification using source-document checks and record reconciliation
• Dashboard specifications displaying disaggregated trends, gaps and management actions

Participants can prepare an evaluation framework that addresses gender equality questions.

• OECD DAC criteria interpreted through gender equality and inclusion commitments
• Evaluation questions testing relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability differentially
• Evaluation matrices linking questions, indicators, methods, sources and analysis
• Terms of reference specifying gender expertise, methods and deliverables
• Evaluator selection criteria assessing independence, contextual knowledge and safeguarding competence
• Inception report requirements for refining scope, methods and ethical protocols

Participants can combine quantitative and qualitative evidence within an evaluation design.

• Convergent mixed-method design comparing quantitative patterns with qualitative explanations
• Sequential explanatory design following survey findings with targeted qualitative inquiry
• Triangulation protocols assessing convergence, complementarity and contradictions between sources
• Comparison group options and limitations in nonexperimental programme settings
• Contribution analysis testing intervention influence amid multiple causal factors
• Process tracing for causal claims involving policy, norms and institutional change

Participants can analyse quantitative and qualitative data for differential results and explanations.

• Cross-tabulations comparing participation, completion and outcomes between population groups
• Percentage-point gaps interpreted alongside counts, denominators and uncertainty
• Disaggregated trend analysis identifying widening, narrowing and persistent inequalities
• Thematic coding framework derived from evaluation questions and gender analysis
• Matrix displays connecting participant characteristics, themes and reported outcomes
• Outlier review distinguishing data errors from meaningful differential experiences

Participants can make proportionate findings about gender-related programme contribution.

• Evidence strength ratings based on source quality, consistency and plausibility
• Alternative explanations examined before attributing changes to programme activities
• Unintended effects documented for participants, households and community relationships
• Disconfirming evidence retained rather than removed from analysis narratives
• Gender norm change interpreted over realistic timeframes and levels
• Findings framed with limitations, confidence statements and unresolved questions

Participants can communicate gender evidence clearly to management, donors and communities.

• Gender-responsive report structures linking findings, conclusions and actionable recommendations
• Data visualisations showing disaggregated results without concealing denominator differences
• Outcome stories substantiated through triangulated evidence and participant consent
• Recommendation matrices assigning actions, owners, deadlines and follow-up indicators
• Management response processes documenting acceptance, adaptation and justification
• Accessible reporting formats for community participants and nontechnical decision-makers

Participants can use gender evidence to revise implementation decisions and learning priorities.

• Pause-and-reflect reviews interpreting gender monitoring evidence with delivery teams
• Adaptive management triggers defined for participation gaps and protection risks
• Learning questions prioritised where evidence is uncertain or contradictory
• After-action reviews documenting decisions, rationale, results and next steps
• Programme adaptations tested through revised outreach, timing and service models
• Decision logs linking evidence reviews to approved management actions

Participants can oversee commissioned evaluations from planning through use of findings.

• Evaluation workplans sequencing inception, fieldwork, analysis, validation and reporting
• Quality assurance checklists for gender analysis, methods, findings and recommendations
• Reference group roles balancing technical review, independence and decision authority
• Stakeholder validation methods that test accuracy without suppressing critical findings
• Budget lines for accessibility, translation, safeguarding and meaningful participation
• Evaluation dissemination plans tailored to donors, partners, communities and management

Participants can build, peer-review and present a complete gender-responsive M&E plan for a programme.

• Programme gender analysis synthesised into priority monitoring and evaluation questions
• Theory of change showing gendered pathways, assumptions and risk points
• Indicator matrix specifying disaggregation, sources, methods, frequency and ownership
• Mixed-method data collection plan with sampling, ethics and quality controls
• Analysis and reporting plan linking evidence to management decisions
• Peer review against donor requirements, OECD DAC criteria and safeguarding standards