Monitoring Matrix 2 0 Workshop 28 29 October

Monitoring Matrix 2. 0 Workshop 28 -29 October, Skopje

AGENDA • METHODOLOGY • • Methodological plan Instruments • • Survey Fo. I Sampling Indicators scale definitions • THE MM IN PRACTICE • OTHER RELATED ISSUES

Methodological Plan • Based on the Toolkit • Changes in the MP – redefining the Matrix? • What are the key elements of EE in the Balkans? • • Mandatory vs. additional data • Goal: More clarity, transparency and standardization of the process • How to make it more efficient? Core standards?

Fo. I • Bank of questions • No need to ask them all, just make sure you find those data • Discussion on the format in which data is available on the basis of previous experience -> adjust questions • Copies of documents/decisions? • Grouping per institution?

Topic guides for semi-structured interviews • Interviews with media/journalists? • Interviews with representatives of organisations of volunteers? • Interviews with representative of the institution/ mechanism for CSO cooperation • Same list and institutions • Context specific questions & listed questions (for comparison)

Survey • Based only on mandatory data types in the MP • Reflects comments/changes in the MP • Current changes – clarification (explanations) and reformulation (negative framing) • Short (as much as possible) • Are there Qs that can be answered through other instruments?

Survey (and when that is agreed…) 1. 2. 3. Translate/adjust according to the legal framework in each country 1. 2. Don’t change the meaning Keep it standardized and unified Test it (sequencing, language/jargon) Administering the survey?

Sampling • • Sampling is key! How to make the sample • • • List of registered CSOs Mapping active CSOs in policy processes on local/national level Cross-strategy How to ensure a good sample and better responsiveness? • • Invest time in updating the list (contacts, names, emails) Keep the survey open for a longer time

Methodology wrap-up • • Standardizing data gathering is paramount to enhance the proficiency of the analyses. Commonly agreed hierarchy of sources which will be applied to all practice-based indicators. • • • Primary data registers Survey Secondary applicable data Focus group Interview Build a common approach in data gathering and share the same instruments for each of the indicators.

About the scoring • The scoring part of the MM is a necessary feature and should be implemented by all partners. It is important to develop a meaning of the scores at the level of indicators. A peer review process should ensure unified scoring across partners. • The weighting of scores needs to be focused on practice. Furthermore, the weight of areas should not only be based on the number of indicators but on the importance of the areas from the perspective of the toolkit and the advocacy goals of the network.

Presentation and advocacy • The weaknesses of the advocacy potential are in the style and presentation of the reports. • transfer results solely to graphs and tables and leaving the text only dealing with conclusions, arguments and explanations • The scoring simplifies the findings, puts them into a common framework of explanation and thus serves the purpose of easy comprehension of decision makers