Over the past five years, Jane Meme, Head of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL), has helped shape The Girl Generation’s learning journey. Working closely with the FGM Data Hub and programme partners, she strengthened data generation and evidence use to better understand what works, and what doesn’t, in ending FGM, while contributing to the growing body of evidence informing the global movement.
In this reflection, Jane shares insights from her role, lessons learned over five years of implementation, and the evidence she believes should shape future efforts to end FGM. Read on to discover her reflections and recommendations for organisations working to accelerate change.
TGG-ALM was designed to generate evidence on what works and what doesn’t, to end FGM. How did the MEL team lead in capturing, measuring, and translating these learnings throughout the programme?
In the early years of the programme, the Central MEL team was limited to receiving and reviewing partner reports, with little contribution to the preceding processes. Later, significant gaps and data quality issues necessitated the development, adoption,and use of common tools to measure indicators. At that point, the MEL teams from both consortiums (The Girl Generation and FGM Data Hub) became involved in supporting tool development and data analysis, as well as reviewing the findings and advising the consortium partner MEL teams.
How did working closely with implementing partners strengthen the quality and use of the programme’s evidence?
MEL supported partners by developing and providing measurement tools and by supporting data analysis and the presentation of findings, which improved data quality. Evidence to support the development of interventions or their adaptations was also shared, and some partners aligned with that evidence, thereby avoiding interventions that had already been proven not to work.
However, despite existing and well-documented evidence, some partners remained adamant about interventions that were not evidence-based and subsequently did not achieve positive results with those interventions. Other partners were highly adaptable and quickly applied lessons from their own work and existing evidence to pivot their interventions, thereby improving outcomes.
Collecting evidence on a sensitive issue like FGM comes with unique considerations. What lessons did you learn about ethical and survivor-centered monitoring and evaluation?
If research ethics are followed as they should be, data collection, monitoring, and evaluation are sound. FGM data should not be handled differently from other sensitive data on Gender-Based Violence or Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG). However, when it comes to monitoring activities and discussion meetings with FGM Survivors, it is essential that survivor-friendly approaches and spaces be taken into account to provide the necessary environment for full and meaningful participation.
If you could highlight examples of evidence from TGG-ALM that everyone working to end FGM should know, what would they be?
- Increased knowledge and awareness of FGM do not necessarily lead to behavior change. The fact that everyone can recite almost all the negatives that need to be known about FGM (including long-term effects, that it is a form of violence, abuse of girls’ rights, and is illegal) does not necessarily translate into changes in beliefs and attitudes. Without changes in attitudes and beliefs, behavior change does not take root, and FGM continues. The ultimate goal in FGM programming needs to be to go beyond knowledge to behavior change.
- Agency matters, but it is not enough. Promoting and supporting girls’ and women’s voices so they are heard in the end FGM sector is key, and their advocacy matters. However, when it comes to decisions about whether girls and women can be subjected to FGM, it is a collective decision that calls for more stakeholders at the table. And different geographical areas have different key influential stakeholders, so it is not a one-size- fits-all. Contextual issues and differences in the end FGM programming need to be considered and tailored depending on who has the most influence on the decision.
- Girls and boys are allies in the end-FGM movement and need to be meaningfully involved, depending on their levels of understanding. Leaving younger girls and boys out of discussions and awareness efforts works against the common interest, especially as communities lower the age of cutting to circumvent awareness and the repercussions wave. Let girls and boys in, as young as they can begin to understand the subject matter, and structure material to match their levels of understanding at that point in time.
- When it comes to FGM, there is a significant gap between what individuals say they want and what they actually do. At the personal level, a large proportion of the population exposed to the implications of FGM say they would not subject their daughters to FGM and would want to see an end to it, yet they still subject their daughters to FGM due to fear of social sanctions rife in their communities. Programs need to work with communities to address the realities of social sanctions and find ways to ring-fence and protect families that opt not to perform FGM on their daughters.
- Empower and strengthen the capacity of community-based organizations, local activists, and survivors to lead the end-FGM movement in their own communities. External organizations do not understand the intricacies of the context and community dynamics well enough to make significant inroads into the end FGM movement. Their role should be to ensure community-based organizations are well-equipped and resourced, not to lead.
- Girls and women are subjected to FGM, but they do not make decisions about it. They therefore should not bear the burden of ending FGM, nor should they be solely responsible for the awareness and advocacy that will end it. They are part of the larger social movement and need community support and protection as they engage and lobby.
- The ‘hidden hand’/role of male members of the community in the continuation of FGM also needs to be brought to the fore and addressed. Meaningful engagement of male members of these communities (of all ages) and their active participation in the end FGM movement will fasten attainment of and sustaining of positive results.
What advice would you give to organizations designing MEL systems for complex social norm change programs?
- Invest in adequate MEL resources. If you cannot collect adequate data and follow research guidelines because resources are inadequate, the evidence will be inadequate and mostly shoddy, making it difficult to support evidence -based programming.
- Invest in qualified human resources. This is a game changer when a programme requires quality, credible evidence that can withstand the test of basic research ethos
- MEL systems and frameworks are only as good as the overall programme design. If the programme design and MEL system are divorced from each other and are not in sync, the programme will not deliver as expected regardless of efforts invested all round.
- Social norm change programmes require time and patience. A 5 year programme only scratches the surface and if there is no sound sustainability plan, the gains can be lost within one year.
- Go slow. Positive concrete results in social norm change programmes take time, so programmes need to set indicators that are realistic and that reflect this reality to avoid disappointment.
- Meaningfully engage and listen to community expertise during programme design. Communities know more about their problems and challenges than external interest parties will ever know from books and reading papers; but most importantly, communities are best placed to support the design of solutions that will work in their context.
- There is the programme position and then there is the reality on the ground/community position. Do not impose programme positions on communities no matter how noble, as these will backfire; unless truth and reality are not important to your endeavour. Once you insist on a programme position that must be adopted across the board, the community adapts and tells you what you want to hear; but not what actually is. The reality might be too far divorced from your programme position! Let communities ease into the programme position when they well understand the reasons behind it and are ready to make the adjustments the programme position calls for; in other words, hold on to your position and work with the community until they are ready to ease into it.
As The Girl Generation comes to a close, Jane’s reflections remind us that ending FGM is not simply about implementing programmes; it is about continuously learning, adapting, and listening to the communities at the heart of the movement. The evidence generated over the past five years offers valuable lessons for governments, practitioners, survivors, champions, donors, and community leaders working to accelerate progress.
While the programme may be ending, its learning journey does not. We hope these reflections inspire others to build on what has been learned, strengthen evidence-informed approaches, and continue advancing the Africa-led movement to end FGM.
To learn more about our endline evaluations, click here
