20 RESILIENCE PROGRAMMING AMONG NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
that are seen as producing or mediating those outcomes. Two elements of initial- and subsequent-state measures that are typically underrepresented and in need of improvement are context and systems. While context is regularly highlighted as important, a more disciplined approach to measuring those aspects of context that are important for resilience is needed. More closely related to theoretical foundations for resilience, the way in which systems are portrayed and measured needs further atention.
• Disturbance measures: NGOs commonly measure shocks by retroactively asking respondents to recall events (and their reactions to events) related to a shock. To collect more accurate data on the occurrence and impact of shocks, the latency period between the oc- currence of a shock and the collection of data should be minimized. Data on ongoing stresses, many of which may be as damaging as larger-magnitude shocks, should also be collected.
• Capacity measures: A number of NGOs provide good examples of how the array of resources (human, social, material, physical, and so on) that are used to model resilience capacity may be organized into a coher- ent model. Tere is, however, a tendency to focus the greatest amount of atention on those capacities that align with an NGO’s theory of change. Te tendency to adhere too strictly to a given change model could result in an underspecified model of resilience dynamics.
• Scale of measurement: Households and communi- ties are the most common scales of measurement used in emergent measures of resilience. While this practice makes sense from a targeted-beneficiary perspective, it is important to use more fully developed multilevel and systems-oriented approaches to development. More fully developed approaches would include higher-level indict- ors, such as trade and price policies, that might affect the ability of households and communities to be resilient in the face of shocks that threaten food security.8
• Temporal aspects: Te duration of projects and the need to satisfy external accountability are oſten the strongest determinants of when measurement data are collected. Among the options of data collection timing
shown in Table 1, the use of quasi-arbitrary measures driven by accountability is perhaps most common. Tere is, however, emerging work among some NGOs to use trigger events that link the collection of resilience measurement data to shocks and stressors.
In addition to the above recommendations for im-
proved resilience measurement, it is important to make sure that “resilience measurement” is more than a simple relabeling of existing measures. A review of some mea- surement activities revealed that long-used measures, such as the Coping Strategies Index (CSI) (Maxwell and Caldwell 2008), were being used as measures of resilience. Te strategies assessed by the CSI are likely an important component of resilience. Te tendency to rely on the CSI as the sole proxy for resilience is, however, more com- monly found in earlier work on resilience. Indeed more recent atempts to measure resilience tend to treat it as a unique, multidimensional construct, one that requires a new approach to measurement.
CHALLENGES
A number of contextual challenges influence and shape NGO strategies for enhancing resilience capacity at the operational level. NGOs will not be able to transcend a number of these challenges without change on the part of donors, governments, and other high-level stakeholders.
Limited ability to facilitate transformational change
While NGOs’ resilience-building approaches typically include strengthening absorptive and adaptive capaci- ties, the ability of most NGOs to improve transformative capacity, particularly at a national level, is oſten limited by external factors beyond their control. Interventions designed to influence transformative capacities oſten include institutional reforms, improved service delivery plans, catalyzing cultural change, support for appropriate processes of decentralization, or devolution of local land governance to increase security of property rights. Resil- ience programming initiatives must take into account link- ages to the systems, structures, and processes that limit or expand the types of positive coping mechanisms an indi- vidual, household, or community may adopt in response
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45