To maximise the potential impact and acceptability of EIDM capacity building, there is a need for programmes to coordinate their remits within existing systems, playing both 'insider' and 'outsider' roles. Through a review of the South African evidence-policy landscape and analysis of a stakeholder event that brought together EIDM role players, this paper illustrates how one capacity-building programme navigated its position within the national evidence-policy interface. It identifies strategies for improving the acceptability and potential effectiveness of donor-funded EIDM capacity-building activities: understanding the evidence-policy interface, incorporating programmes into the decision-making infrastructure (being an 'insider'), whilst retaining an element of neutrality (being an 'outsider').key words evidence-informed decision making • capacity building • South Africa • evidence use

No abstract

Based on growing consensus that the availability and utilisation of research enhances the quality of policy discussions and policy outcomes. This paper reflects on the experiences within one approach; mentoring. UJ-BCURE aimed to increase the capacity of decision-makers to use evidence in decision-making processes via four models. The key features of the models that have contributed to the programme's success are comprehensive orientation workshops mentees combined with participatory, problem-based, needs-led and flexible approaches in the delivery of the programme. UJ-BCURE experiences are relevant to the wider field to build capacity EIDM in an African government context. programme was its ability to respond flexibly to the changing environment, which led to, inter alia, the redesign of the secondment into the mentorship-plus visits. The UJ-BCURE programme reached 108 civil servants with its mentorship programme: 85 civil servants were from Malawi, while 23 were from South Africa. There were a number of repeat mentorships in South Africa, resulting in a total number of 46 unique mentorship relationships. A repeat mentorship occurs when the same mentor and mentee repeat of renew their relationship after the initial 6-week periods. UJ-BCURE applied four different models of mentorship in the beneficiary countries. The models included short-term individual mentoring, repeat individual mentoring, group mentoring for individuals, and team mentoring. The general 6-week mentorship approach was aspecific to the mentee's workplace setting. This approach was complemented with a mentorship-plus option, which included an arm to extend the mentorship into the actual workplace setting. The main objective of the mentorshipplus programme was to provide practical guidance to civil servants on how to access, appraise, synthesise, and use research evidence in their workplaces. In South Africa, UJ-BCURE mentees included individuals from the Department for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME); the Department of Basic Education (DBE); the Department of Science and Technology (DST); the Department of Social Development (DSD); the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA); the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) as part of the DPME team mentorship; and the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). In Malawi, UJ-BCURE's mentees were members of the District Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinating Committee (DMECC) structures from the districts of Mchinji and Ntchisi. The Malawian mentees were all identified by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) in partnership with the UJ-BCURE local implementing partner.

Decision makers’ capacity to use evidence is a key component of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) at a policy level. This paper describes a unique combination of EIDM workshops and mentoring to build decision makers’ capacity to use evidence. It reflects how the deliberate design of sequential workshop and mentoring capacity-building activities enhanced programme effects and reports on the design features that we believe have most contributed to the observed effects. We have found that this combined approach is most effective when it is underpinned by a relationship-building theory of change and remains flexible and responsive to delivering on the needs of participants, and when it is delivered in a timely manner by partners who have been carefully paired with participants based on required expertise.