HKS Ash Center
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/34045469
Browse
7 results
Search Results
Publication Transparency for Development: Project Results & Implications(Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 2021-01) Fung, Archon; Arkedis, Jean; Creighton, Jessica; Kosack, Steve; Levy, Dan; Tolmie, CourtneyThe Transparency for Development (T4D) project was launched in 2013 to try to answer these challenging questions and to make sense of a highly mixed evidence base. Ultimately, we sought to design research that could provide useful and actionable guidance to policymakers, donors, and practitioners alike seeking to improve the effectiveness of their work.Publication Transparency for Development: Evaluation Design Report(Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 2015-02) Arkedis, Jean; Creighton, Jessica; Fung, Archon; Kosack, Stephen; Levy, Dan; Naimpally, Rohit; Tolmie, CourtneyThe Transparency for Development Evaluation Design Report describes the mixed methods evaluation design for the Transparency for Development project as of February 2015 – just before the start of the first data collection activities associated with the project (baseline data collection in Indonesia). Since the writing of this report, a number of changes have been made to the design. For the most recent details, visit t4dproject.org.Publication Encouraging Participation(Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 2019-12-05) Kosack, Stephen; Bridgman, Grant; Creighton, Jessica; Tolmie, Courtney; Whitt, Preston; Fung, ArchonCan civic engagement that is encouraged by a development program be empowering and helpful for improving public services? Transparency and accountability or social accountability programs are a popular approach to improving the responsiveness and effectiveness of health care, education, and other public services, but evidence of their effects is mixed. We ask whether participants in 200 randomly selected communities in Indonesia and Tanzania engaged with an experimental community-led scorecard program they were offered and whether they found the experience to be empowering and helpful for improving their maternal and newborn health care. Interviews, focus groups, and observations of program meetings before, during, immediately after, and two years after the program all indicate from complementary perspectives that in almost all communities, participants engaged in sustained and largely self-directed discussions about how to improve their care and tried the approaches they designed. Although their experiences were far from uniform and some grew skeptical of their efficacy, most who participated throughout eventually described their activities as having improved their care and as being as or more confident in their capacities to improve their communities than when they began. On average, their efforts were not sufficient to add significantly to measurable health outcomes in their broader communities two years after the program, relative to 200 other communities who were not offered the program. Thus participants’ perceptions of the efficacy of their efforts might stem in part from attribution bias. Yet the evidence also suggests that in a substantial minority of communities, participants had been willing to continue their efforts long after the program ended, and that their efforts had led to changes in their care that, although they may have had limited effects on average community-level outcomes or substituted for others’ efforts, were noticeable and memorable to them and others in their community. Altogether a wide range of observations and reflections all suggest that for most who participated throughout the program, the experience sustained or improved their perceptions of civic efficacy.Publication Transparency for Development Baseline Report(Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 2016-09) Arkedis, Jean; Creighton, Jessica; Fung, Archon; Kosack, Stephen; Levy, Dan; Naimpally, Rohit; Roots, Lindsey; Tolmie, CourtneyThis baseline report describes the baseline data collection activities, baseline findings and revised primary outcomes for the impact evaluation of phase one of the Transparency for Development (T4D) project. The report is broken into five chapters. Chapter I describes the T4D intervention and evaluation, and situates the project within the broader context of the fields of transparency and accountability (T/A) and maternal and neonatal health (MNH). Chapter II describes the T4D data collection process, including a description of the survey tools, sampling strategy, and how data were cleaned and prepared. Chapter III presents the baseline findings for the T4D communities in Indonesia and Tanzania. It also describes how these findings were used to revise the evaluation design. Chapter IV details the T4D impact evaluation design. This chapter includes details on random assignment and verification of balance on observable variables between treatment and control villages, a listing of primary outcomes by research question, and the T4D impact estimation strategy. Finally, chapter V presents conclusions and next steps. This chapter is organized as follows: Section 1 describes the current state of MNH worldwide, and in Tanzania and Indonesia specifically. It explores the use of transparency and accountability (T/A) interventions to improve MNH and positions the T4D project within this debate. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the T4D intervention, including its underlying logic model. Section 3 describes the T4D evaluation, in which the impact evaluation (the primary topic of this report) plays a major role.Publication Insights from Transparency and Accountability Action Plans in Indonesia and Tanzania(Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, 2020-01) Creighton, Jessica; Arkedis, Jean; Fung, Archon; Kosack, Steve; Levy, Dan; Tolmie, CourtneyThis paper provides insight into community designed and led actions in Indonesia and Tanzania that were prompted by Transparency for Development (T4D), a six-year research project that explores whether, how, and in what conditions “transparency and accountability” or “social accountability” programs improve maternal and newborn health care. We find that all communities participating in the T4D program planned social actions, with the vast majority completing at least one action. We also find that the focus of the actions was diverse in nature, though participants in nearly every community planned at least one action aimed at educating members of the community. We compare actions designed in Indonesia to those in Tanzania and find a number of similarities and differences in the types of actions designed and whether the actions were completed. When analyzed from a social accountability lens, we find three trends. Firstly, the actions were overwhelmingly collaborative in nature. Secondly, the majority of the actions were short route, meaning they targeted the health facility or provider directly, rather than government officials higher up the accountability chain. Finally, when classified by accountability “type” we find that more than half of communities took a self-help approach, with only about a quarter pursuing solutions through social accountability channels.Publication Strengthening Models of Civic Engagement: Community-Informed Approaches to Inclusive and Equitable Decision-Making(Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, New America, 2022-07) Fung, Archon; Gilman, Hollie Russon; Schmitt, MarkFor too long the federal policymaking process has been mysterious and inaccessible to everyone but the most sophisticated, elite stakeholders. Not only has this made the policymaking process exclusive to long-standing players with connections and resources, but it has also made it extremely difficult for most Americans, especially those from underrepresented communities, to be engaged in authentic ways with federal agencies and institutions. The costs of such exclusion are evident: Federal policies created and implemented without meaningful input from local leaders and residents are less efficient, less effective, and more likely to perpetuate the very systems of injustice they are often designed to disrupt or reverse. In contrast, inclusive engagement demonstrably increases the efficacy and legitimacy of federal policy, triggering a virtuous cycle of feedback and trust between government and the people. When the Biden-Harris administration took office, one of their very first acts was to issue an executive order to advance equity and racial justice throughout federal agencies and institutions. This was quickly followed by orders intended to transform the experience of interacting with government, modernize the federal regulatory process, and strengthen tribal consultations and nation-to-nation relationships. Together, these efforts push the executive branch to improve equity and racial justice through more inclusive policy processes.Publication Designing for Community Engagement: Toward More Equitable Civic Participation in the Federal Regulatory Process(Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation; New America) Fung, Archon; Gilman, Hollie Russon; Schmitt, MarkTo understand the advantages of and challenges to a reformed regulatory review process, New America’s Political Reform program and the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government convened a group of local community engagement experts, public sector leaders, and on-the-ground organizers to share their expertise in designing processes that support more inclusive engagement, in particular working with historically underserved communities. During this discussion with local community engagement experts, we sought to identify the process designs and other innovations that would empower residents to exercise meaningful influence over decisions about the formation, review, and implementation of regulations. Our discussion focused on extending community engagement processes to give grassroots groups and affected parties a voice in the federal regulatory process. These experts agreed that when engagement is designed intentionally, policymakers can work with communities more effectively to garner information and insights, implement programs or provide services, and build trusting relationships. Furthermore, while participation in and of itself is important, designing more effective engagement can also ensure that participants identify and harness opportunities to protect their interests and influence decision-making. And, most importantly, transparent and inclusive engagement practices can improve policy outcomes and strengthen equity.