Development Southern Africa

ISSN: 0376-835X (Print) 1470-3637 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdsa20

Assessing gender responsiveness of the

Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation
System in South Africa

Precious Tirivanhu & Madri Jansen van Rensburg

To cite this article: Precious Tirivanhu & Madri Jansen van Rensburg (2018) Assessing gender
responsiveness of the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation System in South Africa,
Development Southern Africa, 35:2, 163-178, DOI: 10.1080/0376835X.2017.1396443

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2017.1396443

Published online: 11 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 57

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdsa20
DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA
2018, VOL. 35, NO. 2, 163–178
https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2017.1396443

Assessing gender responsiveness of the Government-wide

Monitoring and Evaluation System in South Africa
Precious Tirivanhua and Madri Jansen van Rensburgb
a
Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results for Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Wits School of Governance,
University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; bAfrican Gender and Development Evaluators
Network (AGDEN), Resilience Analysis Consulting, Johannesburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
There is growing recognition of the critical role that National gender mainstreaming;
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems can play in achieving National Evaluation Policy
sustainable development through enhancing effectiveness, (NEP); Government-wide
efficiency and sustainability of policies and programmes. The Monitoring and Evaluation
South African government legislated the Government-wide System (GWMES); South
Monitoring and Evaluation System (GWMES) in 2009. The extent Africa
of gender responsiveness of the system has not been assessed yet
gender mainstreaming ensures that gender needs, realities and
issues are consistently and specifically considered in policies,
programmes and projects. The study utilises data from document
reviews and key informant interviews to assess gender
mainstreaming in the National Evaluation Policy (NEP) and the
GWMES using a gender diagnostic matrix. Results indicate that the
GWMES and NEP rank low in most gender-mainstreaming
dimensions. However, the study concludes that existing policies
and institutional frameworks if well supported by multiple
stakeholders are conducive for effective gender mainstreaming
within the GWMES in South Africa.

1. Introduction: the need for gender mainstreaming in NMESs

There is growing recognition of the critical role that NMESs can play in achieving sustain-
able development through enhancing effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of pol-
icies and programmes. National Monitoring and Evaluation Systems (NMES) inform
evidence-based policy-making and improve transparency through strengthening account-
ability and relationships between policy-makers and civil society. They build a perform-
ance culture within public institutions at all levels, inform budget decision-making and
provide information and knowledge for effective policy implementation. In the last two
decades, a number of countries legislated and institutionalised NMESs owing to
demands for improving accountability and the need to meet national and global develop-
ment agendas (Mckay, 2008; Talbot, 2010). According to a global mapping of National
Evaluation Policies (NEPs) conducted by the Parliamentarians Forum for Development

CONTACT Precious Tirivanhu ptirivanhu@gmail.com Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results for Anglo-
phone Africa (CLEAR-AA), Wits School of Governance, University of Witwatersrand, 2 St David’s Place, Parktown, Johan-
nesburg 2193, South Africa
© 2017 Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC)
164 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

Evaluation for South Asia with support from EvalPartners, in 2013, fewer than 20
countries in the world had formal NEPS, including three African countries (Rosenstein,
2013). The regional consultation in Africa in 2017 revealed that, among 54 African
countries only Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe had endorsed
national evaluation policies. Among these, only Zimbabwe and Ethiopia included direct
reference to gender equality in their NEPs (AfrEA, 2017).
The need for engendering NMESs has come to the fore, with emphasis on gender equal-
ity (UN Women, 2015). Engendering monitoring and evaluation systems entails viewing
policies, programmes and projects being evaluated through a gender dimension to ensure
that gender needs, realities and issues are consistently and specifically considered at each
stage of the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) process (Brisolara, 2014). Such a process
involves gender mainstreaming at the policy and institutional levels of the NMES as well as
M&E in practice (strategies, methodologies and tools). It has become increasingly clear
that a gender-sensitive NMES has the capacity to assess gender specific impacts of
policy and programme interventions that can have multiplier effects on socio-economic
development. Gender mainstreaming has been proven to have positive impacts on econ-
omic productivity through enabling women to reach their full potential and improving
family welfare (OECD, 2000). In addition, engendering NMESs can change gender-
related power relationships using broad stakeholder inclusive and participatory mechan-
isms (UN Women, 2015). Research has shown that the female proportion of the world’s
human capital is undervalued, and countries are underinvesting in utilising women’s
potential (OECD, 2008). Such a market and systems failure can be explained in terms
of gender constraints, which are based on the socially constructed and historically devel-
oped roles of men and women. Engendering of NMESs, policies, programmes and projects
is critical in minimising the socio-economic costs of gender inequality.
The declaration of 2015 as the International Evaluation Year has helped boost evalu-
ation capacities in many countries, but doing so in a gender-sensitive way remains an
issue, especially the implementation of gender-responsive evaluations. A study by De
Orte et al. (2015) on challenges in integrating gender equality in NMESs for Madagascar,
Mexico, Spain, Egypt, Morroco, Uganda, Tunisia and Kenya identified a number of key
challenges. These included: limited funds for evaluation; limited capacity for continuous
collection of gender disaggregated data and implementation of gender-sensitive indicators;
and poor networking between advocates, practitioners and policy-makers. In addition,
although there is a rich theoretical body from feminist research that can inform
gender-mainstreaming practice, there is resistance for mainstreaming gender equality
by practitioners owing to ideological and political views. These issues tend to highlight
the need for collaborative efforts by policy-makers, civil society and evaluation prac-
titioners to enhance gender mainstreaming.
In recent years, concerted efforts have been made by various institutions to drive the
gender mainstreaming agenda in evaluations. The Food and Agricultural Organization
and other United Nations agencies have improved the availability of gender-disaggregated
data. There has been an increase in the quantity of training materials, toolkits and guide-
lines for gender-sensitive M&E. Examples include inter alia: the Danida gender-sensitive
monitoring indicators’ technical advisory services (DANIDA, 2006), World Bank toolkit
on gender issues in M&E in agriculture (World Bank, 2012), GIZ’s guidelines on designing
a gender-sensitive results-based monitoring system (GIZ, 2014), The Centre for Learning
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 165

on Evaluation and Results for Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA) diagnostic studies on

gender responsiveness in NMESs and the UN Women guidelines for managing gender-
sensitive evaluations (UN Women, 2015).
This study aims at contributing to the gender-mainstreaming discourse for NMESs. A
review of literature indicates a dearth on research in this discourse, particularly within the
African context, and in particular, the GWMES has not been assessed for gender main-
streaming. This study therefore assesses gender responsiveness within the institutional
arrangements of the GWMES. The research question addressed is: to what extent are
the NEP and GWMES in South Africa responsive to gender mainstreaming? The focus
of the study was not on gender mainstreaming in general, or how gender interventions,
programmes or projects are monitored and evaluated, but on how the GWMES includes
aspects of gender equality. It is envisaged that the findings will provide knowledge on the
process of gender mainstreaming to other countries currently developing NMESs. The
proceeding section provides a synopsis of gender policies and GWMES for South Africa
to create a context for the study.

2. Building a context: overview of NMESs and gender policies for South

Africa
2.1 Brief overview of the South African gender policy
The first democratic government of South Africa in 1994 inherited a deeply divided society
with gender inequalities. Even within racial groups, communities were typically male-
dominated. Discrimination based on gender led to women becoming more vulnerable
to stressors such as unemployment, poor health and low educational status (Van Der
Byl, 2014). Post-apartheid South Africa provides pro-gender equality constitutional and
legal frameworks. The National Development Plan (NDP 2030) identifies rural women
and informal settlers as the most vulnerable with regard to gender inequality, poverty
and unemployment.
South Africa has ratified a number of international instruments promoting gender
equality and the protection of women’s rights, including: Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Southern African Develop-
ment Community Protocol on Gender and Development, Millennium Development
Goals, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) and
the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of
Women. A number of key national policy documents initiated a trajectory on gender
equality: the Framework for Transforming Gender Relations, Constitution of South
Africa (1996), Commission for Gender Equality Act (1996), Women Empowerment
and Gender Equality Bill (2013), National Gender Policy Framework, Gender Equality
Strategic Framework and Gender Policy Framework for Local Government.
A National Gender Machinery (NGM), which comprises government and civil society,
was formed in 1997. The mandate for gender mainstreaming lies with the Department of
Women (DoW). In 1997 the Office on the Status of Women was established in the Pre-
sidency to steer the national gender programme. It championed the development of the
National Policy Framework for Women Empowerment and Gender Equality that was
approved by Cabinet in 2000. In 2009 the President pronounced the establishment a
166 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

Ministry of Women, Children and People with Disabilities (DWCPD), and in 2014 the
department evolved into a dedicated ministry for women (DoW).

2.2 Brief overview of the South African NMES

The South African NMES is coined the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation
System (GWMES). South Africa initially had a top-down M&E system that focused on
accountability and improved management. The system has evolved to focus on improving
performance, accountability, knowledge generation and improving decision-making
(Goldman et al., 2014). The GWMES consists of three data terrains: programme perform-
ance information; social, economic and demographic statistics; and evaluation. The set of
policies consists of the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Framework
(GWMEPF) by the Presidency, the Framework for Managing Programme Performance
Information (FMPPI) by the National Treasury, the South African Statistics Quality Fra-
mework (SASQFP) by Statistics South Africa and the National Evaluation Policy Frame-
work (NEPF) by the Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) (see
Figure 1).
The aim of the GWMES is to provide an integrated and encompassing framework of
M&E principles, practices and standards to be used throughout Government. It functions
as an apex-level information system, which delivers useful M&E products for its users
(The Presidency, 2007). The GWMES consists of different systems. The main systems
include outcomes monitoring, the Management Performance Assessment System
(MPAT), the Local Government Monitoring Model and the National Evaluation
System. There are various other sector specific systems, including the Health and Edu-
cation Information Systems (Phillips et al., 2014). The latter and the local government
systems were not included in this assessment

Figure 1. Components of the GWMES. Source: Engela & Ajam (2010).

 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 167

The Presidency plays a crucial role in the coordination, monitoring, evaluation and
communication of government policies and programmes. In 2014 the DPME was estab-
lished through the merging of the National Planning Commission Secretariat in The Pre-
sidency with the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (that was
established in 2010). The merging of the planning, M&E function into the new DPME
has resulted in the reorganisation of the department into to the following five pro-
grammes: Administration; Outcomes Monitoring; Institutional Performance Monitoring
and Evaluation; National Planning; and National Youth Development Programme.
The DPME is the custodian of GWMES (see Figure 2). Other key M&E role players
include The National Treasury and Statistics South Africa. Other M&E stakeholders
include the Department of Public Service Administration, the Provincial Offices of the
Premier, the Public Service Commission, the Auditor General (AGSA), South African
Monitoring and Evaluation Association (SAMEA), universities and research institutions.
Universities, research institutions and M&E capacity building institutions such as the
Centre for Learning on Evaluation and Results for Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA)
play an important role in skills development. After 2009, a number of organisations
became responsible for planning, M&E. The responsibility of the National Treasury
regarding the Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans was transferred to the
DPME. Figure 3 shows the main stakeholders in the South African M&E system.
Gender mainstreaming within the GWMES is expected to be given due attention in
light of the SDGs’ focus to ‘leave no-one behind’, and the EvalAgenda 2020s aim to use
a gender lens in all evaluations (EvalPartners, 2016). Both the departments mandated
with M&E and gender mainstreaming have very important mandates that have impli-
cations across all government structures. Gender mainstreaming, through the establish-
ment of gender focal points (GFP) has been documented in the Gender Policy
Framework since 2003 as a strategy to deepen the transformation of the public service.
However, currently gender mainstreaming as a strategy is not effective mostly, as those
who are expected to influence the mainstreaming process are not strategically positioned

Figure 2. Role of DPME. Source: Goldman (2016).

168 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

Figure 3. Main stakeholders in M&E in South Africa. Source: (Phillips et al., 2014:394).

to influence change at all levels of government, including departments and GFPs (Van Der
Byl, 2014) (Table 1).

3. Concept of gender mainstreaming

The process of institutionalising gender into NMESs addressed in this paper derives
rationale from the concept of gender mainstreaming, which surfaced in the late 1980s

Table 1. Overview of main aspects for NMES in South Africa.

Aspect Characteristics
Description The system in the new democratic government started as the Government-wide
M&E System (GWMES); it evolved since 2007 from mainly monitoring function to
evaluation (54 national evaluations)
Composition of National M&E The GWMES consisted of three data terrains: Programme performance information,
System Social, economic and demographic statistics and Evaluation. The NMES currently
consists of various systems including outcomes monitoring, Performance
monitoring, evaluations, etc.
Main policies . Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Framework (GWMEPF)
. Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information (FMPPI)
. South African Statistics Quality Framework (SASQFP)
. Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF)

Ministries mandated with M&E . Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

M&E department location Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Ministry mandated with gender Department of Women (in The Presidency)
mainstreaming
Gender machinery Structure and function clear, but at present fragmented and not fully functional
Source: research results.
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 169

to the early 1990s (Andersen, 1993; True, 2003; Sueng-kyung & Kyounghee, 2011). The
BPFA of 1995, a key United Nations statement on gender equality across all sectors,
gave rise to gender mainstreaming as a tool for policy-makers (Verloo, 2006; Unterhalter
2007:130). Since then, gender mainstreaming has been the key approach to addressing the
perceived cause of gender inequality, i.e. the genderedness of policies, systems, procedures
and organisations. In recent years, collaborations among feminist researchers, advocates
and policy-makers have integrated gender analysis as a routine practice for public
policy-making by many governments (True, 2003).
Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for
women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes,
in all areas and at all levels (Kwigisa and Ssendiwala, 2006). It is based on the foun-
dations of human rights, deepening democracy and recognition of sociocultural differ-
ences between men and women. Within the context of NMESs, gender mainstreaming
aims at a fundamental transformation, by eliminating gender biases and redirecting pol-
icies, programmes and projects so that they can contribute towards the goal of gender
equality. It is thus, an integral dimension of the design, implementation, M&E of policies
and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres to enhance equality
between men and women (Corner, 1999; Rai, 2003). It entails the consistent use of
gender perspectives at all stages of developing M&E systems. Gender mainstreaming
involves multiple levels in governance as well as multiple shifts in governance of insti-
tutions within NMESs. It involves not only national or regional state bureaucracies, but
also supranational and international players. Multiple shifts in governance are required,
since the strategy focuses on reorganisation of policy processes and strategies with a shift
in responsibilities (Verloo, 2006:13). There is need for comprehensive gender main-
streaming strategies that systemically permeates all aspects of institutions and services
and orients values, policies and organisational processes within the NMES to take
account of gender equality.
Gender mainstreaming developed as an alternative to earlier approaches for addressing
gender inequalities, which include Women in Development (WID) and Gender and
Development (GAD). The WID paradigm of the 1970s promoted gender equality in the
economic development agenda of state institutions and international agencies through
promoting women focused projects (Tinker, 1990). It evolved into GAD in the late
1980s, and some critics associate the shift to a need for institutional transformation. It
is argued that WID incorporated women into existing institutional frameworks without
transforming the socio-institutional frameworks that shaped gender inequalities. They
view it as having failed to challenge power differentials in gender relations within the
wider political economy and to leverage women’s interests in organisations (Karlsson,
2010:499). The progression towards gender mainstreaming has received its fair share of
critique. For example, some critics view the shift of the gender discourse from the
realm of feminist theory towards integration into local policy formulation arena as a com-
promise from the focus on ‘women’s issues’. Within this context, gender mainstreaming
has been viewed as part of a broader instrumental capitalist agenda creating gender
experts at the expense of empowering the grassroots (True, 2003:369). However, some
feminist scholars view gender mainstreaming as an appropriate extension of preceding
paradigms which is critical for sustainable development (OECD, 2008; UN Women,
2015).
170 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

The theoretical constructs of gender mainstreaming are not well documented and seem
to have been overlooked in literature and practice (Kwigisa & Ssendiwala, 2006:594). For
example, it is argued by Beveridge et al. (2000:388) that:
[t]here has been little attempt to develop a general theory of mainstreaming which transcends
the diversity of state practice in order to provide a universal frame of reference, or set of cri-
teria, by which mainstreaming may be understood and particular mainstreaming initiatives
judged.

This has led to various interpretations of mainstreaming without a commonly agreed fra-
mework. Despite the varying interpretations emanating from socio-political, cultural and
economic contexts, scholars have identified a few overarching tenets for gender main-
streaming. True (2003), Rai (2003) and Jahan (1996) give a few elements that guide
gender mainstreaming assessments in this study. These include, inter alia, the assertions
that; gender mainstreaming strategies are premised on the assertion that inequalities
exist between women and men that shape policies and outcomes and that such disparities
can be addressed through policy and programme reforms informed by gender diagnosis.
Second, in contrast to anti-discrimination, mainstreaming does not necessarily require the
placement of women in decision-making roles but utilises policy instruments that institu-
tionalise mechanisms for addressing gender inequality. Third, the gender mainstreaming
agenda should be driven by institutional outcomes that are people-centred rather than
inputs and promises. It must allow policy dialogue at various levels recognising the com-
peting dialogues that operate in global and national society and occasionally within insti-
tutions themselves around a transformative gender equality agenda. Gender
mainstreaming should drive changes on many fronts in decision-making structures and
processes, in articulation of objectives, in prioritisation of strategies, in the positioning
of gender amidst competing emerging concerns and in building a critical mass of
support among both men and women. Finally, clear political will and allocation of ade-
quate resources for mainstreaming, including additional financial and human resources
if necessary, are important for translation of the concept into practice.
With regard to implementation of gender mainstreaming, various frameworks have
been proposed. Leo-Rhynie and Institute of Development and Labour Law (1999) in
Karlsson (2010) propose three pillars: a gender-management system; policy regulatory
framework; and plans, programmes and projects. The gender-management system com-
prises organisational units, teams and personnel (gender machinery) to lead and coor-
dinate the transformative process. The policy and regulatory framework must have
indicators for measuring provision, access, participation, resources, outcomes and
impacts. The plans, programmes and projects allow implementation of the gender-
mainstreaming process.
In a bid to offer clarity, Verloo (2006:23–4) contrasts gender mainstreaming with two
other commonly utilised policy-making tools for addressing gender inequality; equal treat-
ment and specific equality policies. Equal treatment focuses on enhancing equal access and
addresses existing inequalities in legislation to allow equality among citizens. It is crafted
within a liberal discourse that allows citizens to utilise their equal rights. Specific or tar-
geted gender equality policies recognise that individuals have varying capacities in utilising
equal rights owing to gender inequalities. They focus on creating conditions that enhance
equality in policy outcomes to counterbalance unequal societal circumstances for men and
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 171

women. They are usually conducted by specialised state institutions and by gender equal-
ity agencies. The distinctive features of the approaches are outlined in Table 2.
There are a limited number of evaluative and reflective studies on the implementation of
gender mainstreaming in the African context. However, review of literature from European
experiences highlights a number of key lessons. A study by Behning and Serrano Pascual
(2001) argues that the understanding and adaptation of the gender mainstreaming
concept varies widely (multiple interpretations of policy-making). Again, this calls for a
need for theoretical development of the concept to guide practice. The study argues that
most strategies focus on women as the subject of change, fitting women into the status
quo rather than transforming the status quo. Braithwaite (1999) argues that most strategies
have no clear objectives, are not based on consensus and have no consistent goals as there is
a continuous shift in gender equality concepts leading to ineffectiveness of gender main-
streaming endeavours. A review of gender mainstreaming by international institutions con-
ducted by Moser and Moser (2010) identified a number of key constraints in the
implementation of gender mainstreaming. These include inter alia: inconsistency and frag-
mentation of activities; failure to move beyond planning to implementation (policy evap-
oration); organisational culture; resistance; poor mechanisms for accountability; and poor
M&E mechanisms. The study asserts that most efforts are inconsistent and involve a few
fragmented activities. Policy commitments to gender mainstreaming seldom go beyond
the planning phase towards implementation. This can be due to factors such as lack of
staff capacity, organisational culture and attitudes, resistance to the notion of gender equal-
ity, treating gender equality as a separate process and lack of ownership of the policy. This
study aims at contributing to the growing discourse of gender mainstreaming.

4. Methodology
This study assessed the gender responsiveness of the NEP and GWMES for South Africa.
The study is qualitative and utilised the following tools: document reviews, observations

Table 2. Different approaches in gender-equality policies.

Attribution of causality
(Who/what is Call for action (Who
responsible for the Prognosis (What should do
Strategy Diagnosis (What is wrong?) problem?) should be done?) something?)
Equal treatment Inequality in law, different Individual Change the laws Legislators
laws/rights for me and responsibilities towards formally
women equal rights for men
and women in laws
Specific equality Unequal starting position Diverse, both at Design and fund Gender equality
policies of me and women. Group individual and specific projects to agencies,
disadvantage of women; structural levels address problems of sometimes
specific problems of specific women together with
women that are not groups established
addressed; lack of access, institutions
skills or resources for
women
Gender Gender bias in regular Policy-makers (Re)organise policy Government/all
mainstreeting policies and social (unintentionally) processes to actors routinely
institutions resulting in incorporate a gender involved in policy-
gender inequality equality perspective making
in all policies
Source: Verloo (2006).
172 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

and key informant interviews. Documents reviewed were; policy documents; national
constitution, M&E strategies and plans; publications by institutions within the NMESs;
guidelines and M&E standards; and progress reports. Key informant interviews were con-
ducted in 2016 with representatives of key stakeholders who were identified using a snow-
ball sampling process. Table 3 gives details on the data collection tools and sample sizes.
A gender diagnostic matrix was used to assess the different dimensions in line with the
defined criteria. Each criterion consisted of various questions to guide the assessment and
scoring. Table 4 outlines the Gender Diagnostic Matrix (GDM). The dimensions and cri-
teria reflect the conceptualisation of gender mainstreaming for this study. These were
developed through a consultative and iterative process including evaluation and gender
experts.
The rating scale illustrated in Table 5 was used to assess and score each of the questions
in the GDM. This was used for all data collection tools including document reviews, obser-
vations and key informant interviews. Trustworthiness and rigour of the tool and the
rating process were ensured through triangulation of information sources, i.e. interviewing
representatives from different stakeholder groups and the incorporation of document
reviews and personal interviews. Two researchers rated the different variables from the
different data sources and reached consensus regarding the rating. An additional two
gender experts from the Africa Gender and Development Evaluators Network
(AGDEN) reviewed the scores and compared it with the application of the GDM in
two other studies performed simultaneously in Benin and Uganda.

5. Results and discussion

5.1 Government-wide M&E policy framework
5.1.1 Gender equality
The gender equality assessment score was rated at 46%. As described in section 2.1 there
are various legislations that guarantee gender equality and women’s empowerment in
South Africa, which are supposed to inform the four key policies that guide the
GWMES. Results indicate that none of these policies mention gender or gender equality.
Gender is only mentioned once in the GWMEPF as a critical skill needed for evaluations.
The GWMEPF has as a key principle (number 2) that the M&E should be rights based.
The only other mention of human rights is in the foreword of the NEPF. The
GWMEPF states in principle 2 and 3 that M&E should be pro-poor, but none of the
other policies directly mentions poverty reduction. In addition, none of the international
conventions on women’s rights including that South Africa has signed are being reported

Table 3. Sample sizes of data sources.

Data sources Sample size
Documents reviewed 95
(86 policy and government documents and nine additional background literature)
Key Informant 7
Interviews (Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation; Gender Commission; Department of Social
Development; Sonke Gender Justice; National Treasury; Black Sash)
Other sources 2 meetings with Twende Mbele
2 sets of feedback and comments on draft report by government departments
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 173

Table 4. Gender diagnostic matrix.

I. National Monitoring and Evaluation Policy (NEP)
Documents reviewed:
Score
Criteria Explanation Evidence (maximum score is 3)
1 Gender Equality How responsive are existing laws, legislations, Indicate
National Development Strategies or NEP to GE? Sources of
evidence
2 Public Policy Gender disaggregated decision-making
Evaluation Decision-
making
3 Participation Mechanisms for men and women to express views
and exert influence
4 Evaluability, Review Assessing reviews from a gender perspective
and Revision
5 Sustainability Ability to sustain change
II National Monitoring and Evaluation System (NMES): Institutional Arrangements and Capacities, Processes and Procedures
Criteria Explanation Evidence Score
(maximum score is 3)
1 Gender Equality The degree to which existing (NMES) institutional Indicate
arrangements are adequate, appropriate and Sources of
responsive to women’s rights and gender evidence
equality
2 Evaluability, Review Assessing reviews from a gender perspective
and Revision
3 Public Policy Gender disaggregated decision-making
Evaluation Decision-
making
4 Participation Mechanisms for men and women to express views
and exert influence
5 Sustainability Ability to sustain change

indicated in the GWMEPF. The four key policies of the GWMES are all legislated, in full
implementation and are all based on a results-based framework. Public policy perform-
ance monitoring is conducted through the Management Performance Assessment Tool
(MPAT) and stipulated in the GWMEPF and FMPPI. Nevertheless, the policies (including
the FMPPI) do not include gender-responsive indicators. There are only limited indicators
on specific gender mainstreaming aspects including employment equity and human
resources.

5.1.2 Public policy evaluation decision-making

Decision-making was rated low (33.3%). Although results show that the GWMEPF and
three other associated policies fully addressed When? What? How? to monitor and

Table 5. Rating scores.

Score Score values Alternative rating scale interpretation
0 Non-existent Non-existent
1 Partial existence = no written national policy but evaluations Limited existence = no/very limited
undertaken either sectorally or for some key programmes, policies or written evidence
projects
2 Full existence = Written national policy but not (yet) legislated and Full existence = mentioned, but
parts of which are in practice implementation not evident
3 Full existence = Written national legislated Policy and or guidelines Implementation evident
being actively used, i.e. implemented
174 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

evaluate public policies and implementation, no mention is made of gender-responsive

evaluations. In the NEPF there is an implication that appropriate approaches and
methods are to be used. The FMPPI addresses equity, but in a more broad sense and
regarding specific to benefit-incidence studies. There are descriptions for the use of infor-
mation (M&E results), but not specific to address inequalities or improve gender equality.
For example, the FMPPI (Step 6) stipulates how information on performance contributes
to decision-making and could facilitate corrective action, but blind on gender equality.
Regarding the disaggregation of data by sex, the South African Statistical Quality Assess-
ment Framework (SASQAF) (the main policy guiding data and statistics) does not stipu-
late gender disaggregated date, but it is implied throughout the Statistics SA’s definition of
fitness for use and the eight dimensions of quality.

5.1.3 Participation
Participation was rated at 50%, and respondents felt that it needed to be reflected in the
policies in explicit mechanisms to allow both men and women to express opinions and
exert influence. Results from Key Informant Interviews (KII) indicated that the DPME
partnered closely with other government departments (Statistics SA and the Treasury in
particular) and SAMEA regarding M&E policies and plans. Participation of other evalu-
ation experts is stipulated in the NEP but what is not explicit is the inclusion and partici-
pation of gender experts or departments. The fact that the mandate for gender
mainstreaming falls with the DoW (and specific aspects such as social empowerment of
women with the Department of Social Development and other departments) gender is
seen as the work of these departments. Respondents from KII felt that cooperation mod-
alities were not yet in place to ensure participation of gender experts in all departments
and especially in the development of policies for GWMES.

5.1.4 Evaluability, review and revision

Evaluation was rated at 50%, and at the time of the study, the GWMEPF, SASQAF, FMPPI
and NEPF had not been revised. This, according to KII, was explained in terms of the
rollout of the NEP where there was no single National Evaluation Policy in South
Africa, but rather an evolving system that started in 2009 with the development of the
GWMEPF. Subsequently the SASQAF, FMPPI and lastly the NEPF were developed
through incorporating lessons learnt in recognition of changing political contexts.
However, evidence from previous plans that have been revised and evaluated indicate
non adherence to take gender mainstreaming (local or international) best practice or
developments into consideration. The latest NEP (2016/17–2018/19) does not put empha-
sis on gender responsiveness of the evaluations, assessments or use.

5.1.5 Sustainability
The GWMES has policies in place for all three data strands in the form of the SASQAF,
FMPPI and NEPF. The development of the GWMES and the policies were reported to be
up to date and well developed. The M&E policies are supported through updated plans.
Document reviews indicated that Cabinet was briefed by DPME on the latest, 5th National
Evaluation Plan for 2016/17 to 2018/19 on 26 April 2016. Although mandates of the
GWMES and for gender mainstreaming are clear, respondents felt that more direct
focus was needed for the integration of the two systems with regard to gender equality
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 175

as measures to integrate gender mainstreaming into the GWME Policies were not clear.
Although the sustainability of the policies (through plans) was perceived as high, the sus-
tainability of the system to ensure that gender responses would be captured, adjusted and
maintained was not evident and needs to be developed.

5.2 GWMES
5.2.1 Gender equality
Results indicate that the GWMES in South Africa includes some aspects of gender equal-
ity, but lacks provisions for gender-disaggregated data. Results from KII indicate that there
is no specific structure for gender-responsive evaluations. Furthermore, the results indi-
cate overlapping roles and lack of clarity on specific mandates regarding gender main-
streaming and M&E. It was highlighted that, although the DPME involve a number of
stakeholders in M&E activities (including citizen-based monitoring [CBM], SAMEA,
experts and government departments), such engagements do not integrate gender main-
streaming. KII also highlighted that, although the DPME has staff with specialised gender
experience, they do not have a general culture of gender mainstreaming in their routine
operations. There is no specific structure for gender-responsive evaluations. The NGM
has been criticised for being fragmented and lacking coordination and cohesion. Accord-
ing to the DoW (2015) the GFPs were at varying levels of appointment and placement,
away from the points of leverage and decision-making and were not positioned to influ-
ence policy-making and decision-making. The resulted in gender neutral decisions regard-
ing to policy, budgets and programmes.
Results also indicated that gender audits and monitoring of legislative compliance were
seen as the responsibility of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE), a specialised
structure with gender specialists. It was highlighted that the DPME has developed numer-
ous guidelines and policies, including procurement and process documents that were
viewed as not being gender-responsive (and do not stipulate gender aspects or standards).
Document reviews indicate that although the DPME has developed numerous guidelines
and policies, including procurement and process documents, these guidelines are not
gender-responsive (and do not stipulate gender aspects or standards). However, the
quality of these guidelines clearly indicates that the DPME has the competency and will
to develop guidelines with precise content. This offers an important opportunity in that
guidelines can be developed around aspects such as gender-responsive evaluations, main-
streaming of gender into all evaluations, capturing and using gender-disaggregated data
and the use of engendered evaluations for policy change.

5.2.2 Decision-making
Decision-making received a score of 25%. Results indicated that, in South Africa, the
NGM, Voluntary Organisation for Professional Evaluators and gender advocates did
not play a key role in determining gender responsiveness. The DPME is fully empowered
to determine national evaluation schedules (within budget and priority limits). KIIs indi-
cated that at the time of the study, the gender was not functioning appropriately to advo-
cate for gender responsiveness of the national evaluation or monitoring efforts, or exert
influence on methodologies, influence the budget of national evaluations and improve
gender responsiveness. The CGE, as a statutory Chapter 9 institution, has the mandate
176 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

to monitor compliance of all institutions (including public, private and other organis-
ations) with constitutional gender equality. However, the budget constraints and lack of
punitive and other corrective authority seem to leave this important role player
‘without teeth’.

5.2.3 Participation
Participation was rated high (75%), with high levels of involvement by ministries and
agencies in GWME. The GWMEPF stipulates that all government departments and
agencies are part of M&E. Provincial Premiers’ offices have M&E departments that coor-
dinate and report on the M&E functions. It was reported that other government
agencies, evaluation experts and voluntary organisations for professional evaluators
collaborated in most aspects of national evaluation. The GWMES includes citizens in
monitoring through CBM, thus mitigating the risk that cultural, social and physical
barriers have on preventing citizens from contributing towards development, through
the design and choice of CBM instruments. The design of CBMs takes into account
social, cultural and physical barriers that may prevent the marginalised (elderly,
women, disabled, youth, illiterate, immigrants, etc.) from giving their real views on
service delivery. The CGE ensures gender-balanced participation. It was however estab-
lished that, although the presence of gender focal persons is mandatory for all depart-
ments, these roles are often fulfilled by persons who are not gender experts and/or at
levels with little influence and decision-making authority.

5.2.4 Sustainability
It was observed that, although gender-mainstreaming mandates and structures (as evi-
denced by the different policies and plans for the GWMES) are in place to support the
gender responsiveness of the GWMES, the mainstreaming efforts were not yet
implemented in the GWMES. Long-term sustainability of implementation was viewed
as not measurable at the time of the study. The NEP and other GWMES activities had
budgets for gender mainstreaming, which remain in the national budget in future. It
was however perceived that the coordinated work needed to be done to engender the
GWMES through funding from multi-stakeholders across departments, as it involves
the DPME and DoW but also needs to include role players from private sector and CSOs.

6. Conclusion
The South Africa Government-wide National M&E System is well developed. The evol-
ution of the system includes the incorporation of three key areas, each with a policy frame-
work (GWMEPF, SASQAF, FMPPI and NEPF) and the present components of the
national M&E system (including the outcomes system, MPAT, etc.). Gender mainstream-
ing is lacking in the South African public sector, and efforts seem to be fragmented at
present. There is a lack of general gender skills for GFPs in particular. The policies and
systems lack gender responsiveness. There are various strengths and opportunities that
can enable the system to be more gender-responsive. These include political will and
the strategic empowerment of the two main role-playing departments (DPME and
DoW) as drivers of gender mainstreaming. Strategies include more immediate remedial
actions such as the development of a gender responsiveness guideline/s, advocating for
 DEVELOPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA 177

gender disaggregated data analysis and use, and the establishment of forums that will
enhance the systems. There is need for multi-stakeholder engagement and commitment
to gender mainstreaming. Longer-term strategies must focus on the revision of key docu-
ments and capacity development of key role players.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
AfrEA, 2017. Report on consultative meeting on NEPS. 8th AfrEA international conference, 27–31
March 2017, Kampala, Uganda.
Andersen, M, 1993. The concept of mainstreaming: Experience and change. In Undersen, M (Ed.),
Focusing on women: UNIFEM’s experience with mainstreaming, 1–32. UNIFEM, New York.
Behning, U & Serrano Pascual, A, 2001. Rethinking the gender contract? Gender mainstreaming in
the European employment strategy. In Gabaglio, E & Hoffmann, R (Eds.), European trade union
yearbook. ETUL, Brussels.
Beveridge, F, Nott, S & Stephen, K, 2000. Mainstreaming and the engendering of policy-making: A
means to an end? Journal of European Public Policy 7(3), 385–405.
Braithwaite, M, 1999. Mainstreaming equal opportunities into the structural funds: How regions in
Germany, France and the United Kingdom are putting into practice the new approach. Final
report of the survey of current practice and findings of the seminar at Gelsenkirchen, January
21-22, 1999. Report produced for the European Commission, DG XVI (Regional Policy and
Cohesion).
Brisolara, S, 2014. Gender-sensitive evaluation: Best and promising practices in engendering evalu-
ations. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Maryland.
Corner, L, 1999. A gender approach to the advancement of women: Handout and notes for gender
workshop. UNIFEM East and South East Asia, Bangkok.
DANIDA, 2006. Gender-sensitive monitoring indicators. Technical advisory service. Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Copenhagen.
De Orte, P, Segone, M, Da Costa Nogueira, lM, Tateossian, F & Nhlapo-Hlope, J, 2015. Challenges
to integrating gender equality approaches into evaluation. The International Policy Centre for
Inclusive Growth, No. 283, Brasilia.
DoW, 2015. The status of women in the South African economy. Department of Women, Republic
of South Africa, Pretoria.
Engela, R & Ajam, T, 2010. Implementing a government-wide monitoring and evaluation system in
South Africa. ECD Working Paper Series, No. 21.
EvalPartners, 2016. Global evaluation agenda 2016–2020. EvalPartners. https://www.evalpartners.
org/sites/default/files/documents/EvalAgenda2020.pdf Accessed 15 August 2017.
GIZ, 2014. Guidelines on designing a gender-sensitive results-based monitoring (RBM) system.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Bonn and Eschborn, n.
Goldman, I, 2016. CSO linkages on national M&E systems. Presentation at twende mbele NGO con-
sultative meeting at africlassic river lodge, Rivonia Johannesburg, 8 March 2016.
Goldman, I, Mathe, JE, Jacob, C, Hercules, A, Amisi, M, Buthelezi, T, Narsee, H, Ntakumba, S &
Sadan, M, 2014. Developing South Africa’s national evaluation policy and system: First
lessons learned. African Evaluation Journal 3(1), Art. 107, 9 pages.
Jahan, R, 1996. The elusive agenda: Mainstreaming women in development. The Pakistan
Development Review 35(4), 825–34.
Karlsson, J, 2010. Gender mainstreaming in a South African provincial education department: A
transformative shift or technical fix for oppressive gender relations? Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 40(4), 497–514.
178 P. TIRIVANHU AND M. JANSEN VAN RENSBURG

Kwigisa, JC & Ssendiwala, EN, 2006. Gender mainstreaming in the university context: Prospects
and challenges at makerere university, Uganda. Women’s Studies International Forum 29,
592–605.
McKay, K, 2008. Good-Practice government systems for monitoring and evaluation. Independent
Evaluation Group. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Moser, C & Moser, A, 2010. Gender mainstreaming since Beijing: A review of success and limit-
ations in international institutions. Gender & Development 13(2), 11–22.
OECD. 2000. Gender mainstreaming: Competitiveness and growth conference proceedings, Paris, 23-
24 November. http://www.oecd.org/subject/gender_mainstreaming
OECD, 2008. Gender and sustainable development: Maximising the economic, social and environ-
mental role of women.
Phillips, S, Goldman, I, Gasa, N, Akhalwaya, I & Leon, B, 2014. A focus on M&E of results: An
example from the presidency, South Africa. Journal of Development Effectiveness 6(4), 392–406.
Rai, SM, eds. 2003. Mainstreaming gender, democratising the state? Institutional mechanisms for
the advancement of women. Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York.
Rosenstein, B, 2013. Mapping the status of national evaluation policies: Commissioned by
Parliamentarians Forum on Development Evaluation in South Asia jointly with EvalPartners.
Sueng-kyung, K & Kyounghee, K, 2011. Gender mainstreaming and the institutionalization of the
women’s movement in South Korea. Women’s Studies International Forum 34, 390–400.
Talbot, C, 2010. Performance in government: The evolving system of performance and evaluation
measurement, monitoring, and management in the United Kingdom. Independent Evaluation
Group Communications, Learning, and Strategy (IEGCS), World Bank, Washington, DC.
The Presidency, 2007. Policy framework for the government-wide monitoring and evaluation
systems. Pretoria.
Tinker, I, 1990. The making of a field: Advocates, practitioners and scholars. In Tinker, I (Ed.),
Persistent inequalities: Women and world development, 27–53. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
True, J, 2003. Mainstreaming gender in global public policy. International Feminist Journal of
Politics 5(3), 368–96.
UN Women, 2015. How to manage gender-sensitive evaluation. Independent Evaluation Office.
Unterhalter, E, 2007. Gender, schooling and global social justice. Routledge, Abingdon.
Van Der Byl, C, 2014. Twenty year review: South Africa: 1994–2014: Background paper: Women’s
empowerment and gender equality. The Presidency, Pretoria.
Verloo, M, 2006. Mainstreaming gender equality in Europe: A critical frame analysis approach. The
Greek Review of Social Research 117(B), 11–34.
World Bank, 2012. Gender issues in monitoring and evaluation in agriculture. World Bank,
Washington, DC.