My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Evaluation of Access to Justice and Promotion of Constitutional Rights Programme (AJPCR) 2016 - South Africa

Version
1.0
Resource Type
Dataset
Creator
  • Pienaar, Gary David
  • Bohler, Narnia
  • Davids, Yul Derek Davids
  • Barolsky, Vanessa
  • Human Sciences Research Council
Publication Date
2018-03-20
Embargo End Date
2018-03-01
Contributor
  • Human Sciences Research Council (Producer)
Funding Reference
  • Foundation for Human Rights
Free Keywords
Schema: UK DATA ARCHIVE - HASSET
ACCESS TO JUSTICE; CAPACITY BUILDING; CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS; CONSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE; EVALUATION; HUMAN RIGHTS; VULNERABLE GROUPS
Description
  • Abstract

    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 Programme’s 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, –supervision and –reporting 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.

Geographic Coverage
  • South Africa (ZA)
Sampled Universe
Documentation from FHR; FHR staff; staff from recipient organisations; beneficiaries from recipient organisation programmes.
Sampling
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.
Collection Mode
  • Administrative records
  • Compilation or synthesis of existing material
  • Content analysis
  • Digital audio recording
  • Face-to-face interview
  • Focus group
  • Telephone interview
  • Transcription of materials
Availability
Download
Rights
By accessing the data, you give assurance that The data and documentation will not be duplicated, redistributed or sold without prior approval from the rights holder. The data will be used for scientific research or educational purposes only. The data will only be used for the specified purpose. If it is used for another purpose the additional purpose will be registered. Redundant data files will be destroyed. The confidentiality of individuals/organisations in the data will be preserved at all times. No attempt will be made to obtain or derive information from the data to identify individuals/organisations. The HSRC will be acknowledged in all published and unpublished works based on the data according to the provided citation. The HSRC will be informed of any books, articles, conference papers, theses, dissertations, reports or other publications resulting from work based in whole or in part on the data and documentation. For archiving and bibliographic purposes an electronic copy of all reports and publications based on the requested data will be sent to the HSRC. To offer for deposit into the HSRC Data Collection any new data sets which have been derived from or which have been created by the combination of the data supplied with other data. The data team bears no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Failure to comply with the End User License may result in sanctions being imposed.
Other

Update Metadata: 2019-12-10 | Issue Number: 569 | Registration Date: 2018-04-03

Pienaar, Gary David; Bohler, Narnia; Davids, Yul Derek Davids; Barolsky, Vanessa; Human Sciences Research Council (2018): Evaluation of Access to Justice and Promotion of Constitutional Rights Programme (AJPCR) 2016 - South Africa. Version: 1.0. HSRC - Human Science Research Council SA. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.14749/1517219549