Are changes in different units of analysis being measured - the individual, household, community, group level, and the aggregate (population level)?

Women’s empowerment is a social change process that is manifest at many different levels. It is not sufficient, for example, to merely refer to change at individual level (often, agency indicators). Change is almost invariably embedded in relations which a woman has with household members, community, with other women in a collectivity, and as part of society. These must all be taken into consideration.

Research on measuring women’s empowerment tells us that in fact few standard indicators measure the interaction between individuals/households and larger community, district or state. Also most of the case studies on women’s collective action for social change are descriptive with few standard measures.

Population level measurement often uses proxy indicators for WE, such as participation in education, labor force, age at first marriage, political representation.

Are you measuring both process and outcome of women’s and girls’ empowerment? How are you disaggregating this and measuring equivalent measures in men and boys?

Both process and outcome are equally important to understanding achievements in and threats to women’s and girls’ empowerment. And often the “process” to achieving specific outcomes will differ for the population or sub-population group. The risks (e.g., of increasing women’s economic empowerment) may be higher for some groups than for others. At the same time, this is what makes measuring women’s empowerment and the reason it is important to apply a mix of qualitative and quantitative data gathering methods.

Women and girls’ empowerment, however, cannot be measured exclusively; it needs comparison with men and boys’ empowerment for gender equity to be achieved.

Are you capturing both breadth (scale) and depth of impact?

Even with reporting on indicators, evidence can sometimes be anecdotal with reference to a specific success case or possibility of change, for example. It is important that programs demonstrate systematic measurement and that means being able to show breadth or scale of the social changes – for how many women is this true? AND depth – how much improvement? What is a significant level of change?

This data is essential to demonstrate that a specific model of change works or to convince policymakers that the impact achieved is truly significant. Efforts at policy change must proceed from credible evidence.

Are you capturing the essential changes among key stakeholders in government, civil society and the private sector reflected in our theory of change?

Where reference is made in your theory of change to any of these actors, check to see that you are actually measuring changes in their behaviors and decisions. And do not neglect the private sector, as CARE is more accustomed to working directly with civil society and government.

It may help to construct a matrix showing what the essential anticipated changes are for each category of actor.

Are you including men and boys in measurement of behavioral change at target group level?

Inclusion of men and boys is pivotal to success in achieving gender parity. As such, they become very important target groups in any program. Try to identify within your particular country context which men and which boys are important to target and the behaviors for your behavior change strategy.

Are there any expected changes in the overall theory of change that are not being captured and may actually be slipping through the measurement cracks?

This is a final check on your theory of change, after you have selected breakthroughs, indicators, hypotheses, and macro trends. Go back to the theory of change and ask yourselves what you have neglected.