Management Response Template
This template is included as a recommended template in the CAMSA.
August 2014
Please consult the Oxfam Evaluation Guidance
1
when planning an evaluation. This
template should be filled out when closing an evaluation.
What’s this template?
This template summarizes the reflections of your team and program/project stakeholders in relation to the evaluation’s
findings and recommendations and offers an opportunity to comment
on the utility of the evaluation process and final report. The template is
divided into two parts: The first part should be published together with
the evaluation report (or its executive summary); the second part is for
internal use only as it helps you define and track a detailed action plan
in response to the evaluation findings.
Why should this template be filled out?
The overall purpose of a management response (MR) is to ensure that
findings, conclusions and recommendations from Oxfam evaluations
are given careful consideration and are acted on. Developing a
management response in consultation with the relevant stakeholders
helps us document our main learnings from evaluations as well as track
our actions in response to the recommendations.
Who should fill it out?
The evaluation manager is responsible for ensuring that a management response is prepared within a reasonably brief
period of time after the finalization of the evaluation report or other products (see Oxfam Policy on Program Evaluation).
The team that is responsible for the program implementation should participate in the development of the response. If the
evaluated project or program has been implemented together with partners and/or communities, these stakeholders should,
in a way appropriate to the evaluation context, also participate in the discussion of findings and the development of a
response (specifically regarding recommendations that are addressed to them).
When should this tool be filled out?
The management response should be filled out when you discuss the findings and recommendation of an evaluation with
relevant stakeholders, i.e. at the end of an evaluation. Before responding to the evaluation findings and recommendations,
you should assess the quality of the evaluation and the validity of its findings and recommendations (see Evaluation Quality
Assessment Tool in CAMSA). Where you choose to not act upon findings and recommendations, because they are not
clearly justified by the evidence presented in the evaluation report/products, this should be clearly communicated. However,
together with the relevant stakeholders you should discuss also those recommendations on which Oxfam may not be able
to act directly (e.g. when partners are addressed in recommendations) and agree on options to address these.
The preparation of the management response, review by senior management and posting on SUMUS (as well as
submission for posting on the Oxfam public website) should happen within a reasonably short timeframe from the moment
the evaluation is submitted to the evaluation manager.
What to do with the tool once completed?
Internally, the MR should be used to track actions as agreed. After an evaluation is completed the MR should be posted on
SUMUS and the Oxfam website together with the evaluation product itself (i.e. the evaluation report) and the evaluation
quality assessment tool. Please notify the OI secretariat by email (meal@oxfaminternational.org) where the documents are
posted.
1
Also available in the relevant sections in CAMSA.
Oxfam Policy on Program Evaluation
All evaluation reports must be
accompanied by a management
response that communicates careful
consideration of the evaluation’s findings
and recommendations, detailed actions
that will be taken to respond to these
findings, and offers an opportunity to
comment on the utility of the evaluation
process and final report.
(Page 4: Paragraph 11)
CAMSA minimum requirements regarding the management response
1. The commissioning manager must issue a management response to the review or evaluation. The team that is
responsible for the program implementation can participate in the development of the response. It should include how
Oxfam plans to use the findings and recommendations to review program planning and strategy.
2. To ensure transparency to Oxfam’s constituents, Oxfam will routinely place the executive summary and
management response for all evaluations of Oxfam programs or projects on www.oxfam.org and/or the affiliate’s website.
Barring unacceptable risk or repercussions to staff, partners or program efforts, the complete reports from all final
program or project evaluations will be posted on the website.
Oxfam Management response to the evaluation of PhaseII EI and Gender Project funded by Hewlett
Foundation
This information is for internal use only and should not be published.
Prepared by:
Katherine (Kate) Stanley
Contributors:
Eneya Maseko, Maria Ezpeleta, Emilie Amri
Signed off by:
enter person who signed off the draft response on behalf of management
Date:
Country/Region/Campaign: USA, Zambia, Dominican
Republic
Please remember that this part of the management response should be written in an accessible way for external
audiences!
A: Context, background and findings
1. The context and background of the evaluation
, i.e. the purpose and scope of the evaluation.
Oxfam and partners sought to learn from Phase 2 of the Hewlett funded project on Extractives Industries (EI) and
Social Accountability in order to inform and improve upon the design and implementation for Phase 3 beginning in
June 2021. Oxfam and partners seek to understand how the project has contributed toward progress on shared
outcomes and produced results important to gender action learning (GAL) participants and pa rticipating
organizations in addition to assessing the GAL process itself which is facilitated by Gender at Work (G@W)
facilitators. The specific objectives of the evaluation were 1) to assess Phase 2 contributions to multi -causal
transformational outcomes in individuals, organizations and networks; 2) to review GAL change project results and
progress at the national level and 3) to review the effectiveness of Phase 2 project design and components – “the
model”, including GAL (programming), global advocacy, research, and MEL. The evaluation’s scope was to cover
work implemented from the period May 2019 to May 2021 and to include partners in rural and urban areas across
the Dominican Republic and Zambia that either live in mining affected communities or work within capital cities on
behalf of those communities.
2. Summary of main findings and recommendations
In Phase 2’s final evaluation, the team found that transformational outcomes were observable in both Dominican
Republic and Zambia. Participants described increase confidence and improved communications skills they used
within their advocacy around gender and technical extractives lexicon. The project design was complimented as
“well-conceived and implementation carried out even in the adverse conditions created by Covid -19” by the
evaluation team. For Zambia, the collaborations across GAL change teams contributed to the incorporation of
gender in spaces traditionally focused elsewhere, and even communities have increased their awareness of
women’s rights and participation. Participants were able to select their own change projects without pressure from
Oxfam, and this allowed for growth and adaptation of the project being implemented. For Dominican Republic, the
evaluators found that power mapping across the advocacy space helped to encourage collaboration and facilitation
of action plans more effectively despite the culture of Machismo within government and administrative spaces.
Additionally, mentorship and skills-building around communication enabled new collaborations with local media.
Cross-learning spaces between Dominican Republic, Zambia and others encouraged new methods of advocacy,
and new methods of integration of building power.
Based on these and other findings, the evaluators recommended:
- clearer written documentation of how the continuation of the GAL process with G@W during Phase 2 would
continue to impact gender transformational change after Phase 1’s 18-month traditional GAL process concluded,
- deliberate inclusion of economic empowerment activities to support broader participation of women in EI social
accountability and decision-making spaces,
- avoid targeting women specifically through activities which risks a feminization of responsibilities,
- ensure self-care strategies are grounded in local customs or not required of participants,
- develop a reporting format that helps to deliberately track and record transformational changes as well as
backlash and set-backs faced by change makers, and
- focus work on areas with potential for mining rather than those already in the midst of mining to allow for
strengthening advocacy skills in communities before the onset of extractive projects.
B: Oxfam’s response
to the validity and relevance of the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Include
3. Summary of evaluation quality assessment,
i.e. quality of the evaluation is strong/mixed/poor and short
assessment of the process (e.g. good, wordy report)
The team felt the evaluation was of mixed quality despite feedback from the team at the initial findings meeting.
While it was strong in maintaining anonymity of the participants, it fell short in its execution of the planned
methodology detailed in the inception report. Additionally, while the evaluation was certainly utilization focused, it
was not focused on changing power dynamics as feminist evaluation would be.
4. Main Oxfam follow-up actions
(detailed follow-up actions should be included in the table below)
5. Any conclusions/recommendations Oxfam does not agree with or will not act upon
- and why (this
reflection should consider the results of the evaluation quality assessment)
Oxfam does not wish to be prescriptive in the development of GAL participant organizations’ change projects. Thus,
Oxfam will not be encouraging partner organizations to focus their activities in areas without extractive industries nor will
they force change teams to incorporate a livelihoods and economic empowerment or local content legal dimensions to
their projects. Should these factors be incorporated organically by Oxfam’s partners, Oxfam will absolutely support the
efforts of its partners. Due to our interest in decolonizing development and empowering local partners, we will continue to
wherever possible encourage partners to define the way forward in their own communities through participatory means
rather than via a top-down approach from Oxfam.
6. Additional reflections
that have emerged from the evaluation process but were not the subject of the
evaluation.
The Oxfam-PWYP Gender and EI learning event brought representatives from 18 countries together over four
days where participants identified many challenges, but also tactics for success, needs for gender disaggregated
data, and pans to further conversations. Among the challenges identified were difficulties engaging with companies,
lack of local government funding, and well as restrictions from donor requirements. It was highlighted that despite
meaningful participation of women in EI governance, much more could be done.
7. How are results and learning being shared?
(with partners, communities, local authorities, etc…)
The results of the evaluation have already begun to be shared with partners in Zambia through a validation session
as part of the country offices’ final reflection workshop of Phase 2. For Dominican Republic, the full report has been
translated into Spanish for increased access, though due to the closure of Oxfam’s office in Dominican Republic,
there will be little Oxfam can do to ensure that the recommendations made to our partners are taken forward.
Detailed Action Plan on Key recommendations – for internal use only
A: Summary actionable evaluation recommendations
Please list all recommendations that require specific actions as per the management response above.
No.
Evaluation Recommendation (copy from above)
ER 1
- clearer written documentation of how the continuation of the GAL process with G@W during Phase 2 would continue to
impact gender transformational change after Phase 1’s 18-month traditional GAL process concluded,
ER 2
- deliberate inclusion of economic empowerment activities to support broader participation of women in EI social accountability
and decision-making spaces, (Similar to ZAM: Project should include a more holistic design to ensure economic empowerment as
well: “It would be good to have an economic empowerment component in the project to improve women’s livelihood. In this way the project will be more holistic
and sustainable as well as more successful in achieving result in terms of advancing women’s right in EI. Advocacy alone will not help people to earn a descent
livelihood but also economic empowerment which funders do not understand”.)
ER 3
- avoid targeting women specifically through activities which risks a feminization of responsibilities,
ER 4
- ensure self-care strategies are grounded in local customs or not required of participants,
ER 5
- develop a reporting format that helps to deliberately track and record transformational changes as well as backlash and
set-backs faced by change makers, and
ER 6
- focus work on areas with potential for mining rather than those already in the midst of mining to allow for strengthening advocacy
skills in communities before projects begin work
ER 7
DR: Conduct early stakeholder mapping
ER 8
DR: Reinforce focus on behavioural change to ensure cultural change
ER 9
DR: Select GAL Participants with a mix of experienced advocates and young advocates
ER 10
DR: Plan interventions before mining licensing has been approved and mining implementation supporting systems are in place.
ER 11
DR: Continue accessing and participating in localized media outlets
ER 12
DR: Continue building and delivering and EI education and information curriculum to enhance participants’ technical knowledge;
keep abreast of updates in EI standards
ER 13
DR: Consider augmenting men’s participation so they can be agents of change as well.
ER 14
DR: Continue stating project goals and objectives clearly, ensuring participant understanding and follow-up.
ER 15
DR: Continue advocating for the 5% law implementation
ER 16
DR: Allow for more top-down input into project design.
ER 17
DR: Set aside a budget for internet costs and plan for mentorship and support after workshops and learning activities.
ER 18
ZAM: Participant organizations (including Oxfam) should engage government as a stakeholder more.
ER 19
ZAM: Participant organizations (Including Oxfam) should re-engage mining companies through the identification of a designated
focal contact person to engage with the communities.
ER 20
ZAM: Participant organizations (including Oxfam) should consider having an EI expert in each women’s rights organization to fill
the knowledge gaps.
ER 21
ZAM: Participant organizations (including Oxfam) should consider protection for WROs engaging mining companies and local
leadership since the engagement can be dangerous.
ER 22
ZAM: Oxfam needs to ensure timely disbursement of funding, and local context for recipient spending (rainy season etc)
ER 23
ZAM: Participant organizations (including Oxfam) should advocate for mines to prioritize local suppliers of commodities and
services where they can be locally sourced.
ER 24
ZAM: Oxfam should continue to engage WROs to enhance sharing of ideas.
B: Detailed action plan
One action may address several recommendations. In this case list all recommendations that are addressed.
Key action(s)
Responding to
recommendation no.
Time frame
Responsible
person/team
Review
Comments
Status
1. Gender at Work GAL project plan is well
documented in order to ensure clarity for
partner teams, consultants and Oxfam
staff involved in each country participating
in Phase 3. This includes both clarity of
design and participants involved,
stakeholder mapping is included within
the Hearing Our Stories component of the
process. Phase 3 design will incorporate
lessons learned from operating during the
Covid-19 pandemic, which required
adaptation by teams and may not have
been documented as hoped for by the
evaluation team. However, Oxfam will not
be taking an approach of dictating which
communities or individuals our partners
will work within (ie. non-mining zones),
nor will Oxfam engage in top-down project
design since both would disempower our
partners and silence community-voiced
needs. In the latest design updates, self-
care strategies from the local region will
be incorporated as applicable in Zambia,
and well explained within new locations of
work for Phase 3.
ER1, 4, 6-10, 14, 16
June-August 2021
Phase 3 Project
Management Team
(Oxfam US, Zambia,
Vietnam, and Peru
staff) and Gender at
Work consultants
2. Oxfam budgeted Phase 3 expenses for
country offices flexibly and encourages
our partners to do so as well, while
conducting needs assessments in terms
of infrastructure and logistical challenges
for our partners (ex. considering
technology, data, internet access, and
communication needs). Oxfam will not
mandate funding be held back for this
purpose, though staff and partners are
aware that the lasting effects of Covid-19
pandemic will continue into Phase 3’s
work.
17
June-July 2021
Phase 3 Project
Management Team
3. Oxfam will continue to encourage change
teams to self-select the focus of their
work, and will not mandate partners work
on economic empowerment. However,
Oxfam and Gender at Work can
encourage discussion of linkages
between extractives, women’s rights and
women’s economic empowerment within
the context of the Gender at Work
Framework. This is also true of
advocating for local content laws and
contracting; Oxfam will support partner
prioritization through self-determined
change projects.
2, 23
August 2021-
December 2022
Phase 3 Project
Management Team;
Gender at Work
facilitators
4. Oxfam will continue to engage both men
and women participants in our GAL
processes, as selected by partner
organizations. Oxfam is proud to have
supported our Zambian partners in
workshops that included men, women and
youth, as well as, worked with both male
and female traditional leaders. In
Dominican Republic, the two most active
partners are women's rights organizations
and therefore their constituency is largely
women and Oxfam is proud to support
their work and community engagement in
3, 13
June 2021- 2022
Phase 3 Project
Management Team
tackling patriarchal norms that influence
the actions of both men and women.
5. Oxfam will work with partners to develop
a joint Global MEL Framework and
accompanying learning questions that
seek to highlight more deliberately
transformational change and the backlash
or barriers to it through internal reporting
mechanisms.
5
June-August 2021
Phase 3 Project
Management Team
6. Oxfam and Gender at Work will seek to
further develop skill-building exercises
around engagement with media,
government, and corporations, as well as
work to document these interactions.
Additionally, Oxfam will provide strategic
advice to partners on the importance and
implementation of women’s meaningful
participation in EI governance broadly
(including community rights, agreement
making, Environmental Impact
assessments and accountability of
revenue sharing mechanisms).
11-12 18-19
August 2021-
December 2022
Phase 3 Project
Management Team
and Gender at Work
7. Oxfam will not mandate that WROs have
an in house EI expert to work on this
project, but rather will continue to
encourage growing networks that
encourage WROs and EITA organizations
to learn from one another. Oxfam sees
value in building the relationships across
the organizations to develop internal
expertise. Oxfam will also consider
incorporating skill-building into our cross-
country learning sessions as was piloted
between EI and WRO organizations in the
Dominican Republic (revenue sharing
system training).
12, 20, 24
August 2021-
December 2022
Phase 3 Project
Management Team
8. Through in-country inception meetings
(live or digital), Oxfam staff from the US,
Zambia, Vietnam and Peru will seek to
ensure that partners have clarity on
14, 20, 22
July-August 2021
Country Specific
Project Management
Team
project goals and objectives. Oxfam will
work to continue to incorporate
discussions of risk analysis in these
sessions to ensure safety of our partners.
Additionally, Oxfam will work to strive for
timely disbursal of funds as agreed to at
the inception meetings.
9. Oxfam in Dominican Republic’s office will
be closing in 2021, so partners will be
taking on this work going forward without
direct support by Oxfam. Oxfam will
continue to provide solidarity for the 5%
campaign, but will be unable to directly
fund work in the country after the office
closure date.
15
Oxfam in DR
Partners
10. Oxfam will ensure partners have access
to risk mitigation measures, and will seek
to understand the risks faced by partners.
21
August 2021-
December 2022
Phase 3 Project
Management Team
Signed off by:
enter person who signed off the draft response on behalf of management enter person who
signed off the draft response on behalf of management
Date:
Country/Region/Campaign: United States of America
Signed off by:
enter person who signed off the draft response on behalf of management enter person who
signed off the draft response on behalf of management
Date:
Country/Region/Campaign: Zambia
Signed off by:
enter person who signed off the draft response on behalf of management enter person who
signed off the draft response on behalf of management
Date:
Country/Region/Campaign: Dominican Republic
