Evidence Based Legislation - Programme

The workshop is opened by a high profile dignitary.

Plenary Session

Institutionalist Legislative Theory and Methodology (ILTAM):

A guide for: designing, drafting and assessing bills to provide all East Africans  with better health care

Presenter: Ann Seidman,

Plenary Session

ILTAM four step problem-solving methodology as a guide for writing a research  report – Introduction

Step 1: Identifying (a) the nature and scope of the targeted social problem; and (b) the problematic behaviours that cause the problem.

Step 2: Explaining the causes of the problematic behaviours mentioned in Step 1, based on evidence.

Step 3: Designing a bill’s detailed provisions to address the causes of problematic behaviours.

Step 4: Monitoring and supervising the law’s implementation and social impact after its enactment.

Presenter: Lorna Seitz, ICLAD

This session provides an introduction to ILTAM’s four steps, and helps participants appreciate why evidence-based policy development and legislation drafting is more effective than alternative methodologies. Using a case study drawn from the EAC source book, presenters guide participants through the process of identifying role occupants, describing and explaining problematic behaviours, narrowing the topic, and producing basic solutions. If time permits, participants discuss how the ILTAM approach differs from existing approaches to policy-making, and how the resultant solutions are also likely to differ. Session format: interactive lecture and group discussion.

Working Groups

Step 1: Identifying the Social Problem
Each working group will review one case drawn from the EAC Resource Book. Each group’s members will analyze the evidence as to the validity of their chapter’s description of –

1. the nature and scope of the targeted social problem; and
2. whose and what behaviors contribute to the problems.

Each facilitator briefly outlines what his/her group will do during the afternoon working groups, and summarizes his/her group’s case study. The group then asks questions, and offers evidence, to generate a more comprehensive, and factually-accurate, picture of the nature and scope of the social problem.

During this session, groups focus on assessing the selection of role occupants, and on describing the behaviors of primary role occupants.

Working Groups: Focusing on describing implementing officials’ problematic behaviors

Groups conclude discussions of the statement of the social problem, focusing now on assessing the descriptions of implementing officials’ problematic behaviors.

Groups critically evaluate reports, to ensure that the descriptions of problematic patterns of behavior accurately reflect local institutional differences, identify key implementing officials’ problematic behaviors and describe regional coordinating mechanisms.

Presenter describes what the groups are expected to present during the Tuesday morning “report back” sessions, and participants prepare presentations describing their group’s social problem. A group representative will give this presentation during Tuesday’s first plenary session.

Plenary Session
Daily evaluation and planning session

Evaluate the day and explain the process for day two emphasizing the importance of reading the relevant chapters for day 2

Reading

Required: EAC resource book:chapter 2 and chapter to which group is assigned; Recommended: Drafters’ Manual, Chs. 5, 6;

Group Reports on Whose and What Behaviours Constitute the Social Problem an Effective Law Must Transform

Groups present detailed problem statements, and receive comments from other groups. The discussion will focus on why it is important to understand problems in behavioural terms, approaches to identifying and selecting key role occupants, and the types of evidence required to test the validity of behavioural hypotheses. Group will identify strategies MPs can use to ensure that draft proposals are based on an accurate understanding of how key institutions function.

A. One reporter for each group will give a 10 minute report on:

1. the assigned chapter’s description of -
   
   • the nature and scope of the targeted social problem, and
   • the role occupants’ and implementing agencies’ problematic behaviours.
2. new evidence that might change the description of the nature, scope and behaviours that constitute the social problem.

B. 20 minute plenary discussion to improve problem statements

Plenary Session

Step 2: Explaining the Legal and Non-Legal Causes of Problematic Behaviors

Presenters:  Ann Seidman and Lorna Seitz

During this session, presenters introduce participants to the ROCCIPI categories (Rule Opportunity, Capacity, Communication, Interest, Process and Ideology) and explain how they can serve as a guide for developing hypotheses about the legal and non-legal causes of problematic behaviours. Participants will discuss the need to conduct research to challenge these explanatory hypotheses, and the need to revise explanatory hypotheses in light of country-specific evidence.

Working Groups:  Assessing the probable causes of the relevant role occupants’ problematic behaviours

Using the Rule, Opportunity, Capacity, Communication, Interest, Process and Ideology  (ROCCIPI ) categories, each team should  assess the evidence as to the causes of the primary role occupants’ and implementing agency personnel’s problematic behaviours.

Working in pairs, participants seek to explain the causes of different actors’ problematic behaviours. Participants review the causal explanations contained in the EAC Resource Book, and see if these explanations match their own understanding of the facts. Participants develop research outlines to gather missing information. Participants revise their research reports to reflect a deeper understanding of why the various actors are doing what they are doing in the face of local resources and constraints.

Note: this second step must provide the evidence on which a drafter relies in designing and drafting the bill’s detailed provisions. Workshop participants ensure that their explanations for why the various actors are engaging in the problematic behaviours are consistent with all available facts.

Plenary Session

Assessing Legislation to Determine Whether/Not it is Likely to Work in the Face of Available Evidence, and Revising Legislative Provisions on the Basis of Available Evidence

Presenters: Toby Dorsey / Sean Kelly

After a brief presentation on ILTAM’s 3rd Step, and an introduction to ILTAM as a guide to legislative assessment, participants will be asked to predict whether/not a proposed solution is likely to work in the face of country-specific facts. We will draw legislative assessment exercises from the cases contained in the EAC Resource Book.  These exercises will highlight the importance of drafting proposals on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the country-specific fact pattern.

Plenary Session

Daily evaluation and planning session

Evaluate the day and explain the process for day two emphasizing the importance of reading the relevant chapters for day 3

Drafting for Clarity and Avoiding Ambiguity

Presenter: Toby Dorsey , Sean Kelly

In this session, the presenters will guide participants through the rules for drafting legislation that avoids ambiguity and that clearly defines what officials may, shall, or shall not do what.  Participants will consider examples from existing legislation to determine whether it complies with the rules and then draft their own sentences to improve the examples according to the drafting rules.

RIC-D-FRETT

Rule-Making Provisions

Presenter: Lorma Seitz and Ann Seidman

Using the draft EAC bill to establish a health commission as an example, discuss the importance of stating criteria and procedures to make it likely that the Commission will make decisions and draft and promulgate regulations through transparent, accountable and participatory processes.

Issues discussed:

• Value of ILTAM in structuring input processes (re: notice and comment, media programs, focus groups), and value of input received
• Possible role of ICT in communicative rulemaking processes
• Assessment of rulemaking provisions from throughout EAC, and how they function (strengths/weaknesses of provisions as actualized)

RIC-D-FRETT

Monitoring and Evaluation Provisions

Presenter: Ann Seidman, Sean Kelly and Lorna Seitz

Issues discussed:

• Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation
• Current M&E practices in EAC: EACLA, national legislatures, ministerial community based, donor-implemented, etc.
• Existing systems for monitoring and evaluation, and the strengths/weaknesses of different approaches (a critical evaluation of tools and practices in use around the world)

Group Work: Design a monitoring system that ensures that new needs are identified and legislative impacts are appropriately assessed.

Working Groups:

Finalizing Day 5 Presentations

Groups finalize their presentations, to ensure that  they are prepared to present their problem statements, explanations and solutions for discussion.

Daily evaluation and planning session

The workshop facilitator(s) should ask all workshop participants to fill in a survey evaluation questionnaire for the final session on Day 4,.

Group Presentations & Editing Sessions

Group presentations of initial report & bill, with highlights as to changes made to report and bill in course of workshop. Feedback from all participants regarding additional changes needed, evidence needed to support changes, suggested coordination mechanisms throughout EAC

Building the Legislator/ Policymaker – Drafter Relationship

Presenter: Toby Dorsey

Group discussion of the “editing session” process, and how it differs from processes for policy-making and bill reform in use in EAC. In the existing system, how can an MP obtain necessary evidence and effectively advocate for reforms to draft policies and bills that are logically and factually warranted?

Way forward and closure

Presenter: EALA/UNDESA

This session will summarize results of  evaluation survey and its implications for next steps for strengthening regional legislative drafting capacity by the facilitators.

Discussion on  next  steps for institutionalizing on-going legislative drafting ‘learning by doing process’;  plenary discussion and revision for presentation to EALA and UNDESA.

E-modules: Review Meeting
Presentation  e-modules in order to have the feedback on how to best development them.

Facilitators : Lorna Seitz, Flavio Zeni
Participants : All consultants and participants

The meeting will review proposed e-modules to ensure consistency and relevancy. It will also provide an opportunity to get inputs from experts in the field and working in Africa. Suggested methods for delivering the modules will be identified.