Outcome Mapping

Civil society coordination meeting Sarajevo, 6.12.2007

Steve Powell & Ivona ČelebičićproMENTE social research, Sarajevo

an evaluation of six civil society projects in BiH

www.promente.org/om

Contents

TOR of our evaluation project What is OM? Findings Conclusions Recommendations Discussion

www.promente.org/om

Who are we

Steve Powell & Ivona ČelebičićproMENTE social research, Sarajevo

Sources for OM: International Development Research Centre www.idrc.ca

See: www.promente.org/om

www.promente.org/om

Evaluation TOR

1. Explorative evaluation of six civil society projects

2. Sida-funded civil society programming: lessons on sustainability

3. Exploration of OM as a tool

www.promente.org/om

Our project in B&H: 1 donor, 3 framework partners, 6 implementing partners, 6 projects: 2007Framework organisation

Partner organisation Evaluated activity

Kvinna til Kvinna

Zenski Centar Womens political lobby

Most Village activities (including round tables in towns)

Olof Palme International Center

Helsinki Citizens Assembly (HCA) – Academy for political leaders)

Academy for political leaders

Civil Society Promotion Center – GROZD, "Citizen in action"

"Citizen in action"– Project of community-based advocacy campaigns for solving priority citizens problems from "Civic Platform for 2006 Elections". "Local Government leadership building activities"

Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights

BiH Press Council (funded by SHC)

Work with judges and journalists on Press Code

Vasa Prava "Improvement of access to justice – Raising public awareness on access to rights, legislative changes and legal procedures in BiH

www.promente.org/om

What is Outcome Mapping (OM)?

An approach to project planning, monitoring and evaluation A new, soft alternative to replace or complement LFA A new paradigm/way of thinking. A backlash?

www.promente.org/om

Problems with RBMResults Based Management (RBM) / Logframe (LFA)

OM

Force implementing orgs to try to demonstrate that they caused numerically large impacts

Focus on development/change of key partners; outcomes, not impacts

Focus too much on impact in areas “where their influence … is low and decreasing relative to that of other actors”*

Quality, not quantity of change

Inflexible Flexible

NGOs tend to see it as alien Fits better with what NGOs feel they are doing: stimulating change, not delivering outputs

Attribution (did they really cause the change?) Contribution (what did they do, what worked?)

Mechanistic approach to strategy Strategy maps inspire thinking about different dimensions of planning

Provide only “clueless feedback” Rich, useful feedback

Exclusive focus on impact/results Focus on: strategy, learning as well as outcomes

www.promente.org/om

Vision

Logframe vs. OM

Goal

Objectives

Outcomes

Outputs Implementing agency: strategy

Boundary partners.changes in attitudes, behaviour, relationships

Other actors?

?

www.promente.org/om

Boundary partners ≠ beneficiaries! – (might be, do not have to be)

There can be more than one group of boundary partners Development work is really about leveraging the influence of a

limited number of key partners … … focus is NOT on the stakeholders with whom the boundary

partners interact changing consciousness, ways of working … … in service of a vision

Key outcomes: changes in attitudes, behaviour, relationships in boundary partner groups

www.promente.org/om

VisionThe partners become part of a new, younger, gender-equal generation in politics, who through their influence in their political parties initiate a change in the direction of everyday political issues – away from national/ethnic issues towards themes which respect democracy and human rights including gender rights and which will contribute to social prosperity in the long term. …. … …. …

Example

Implementing agency: Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly

Boundary partners: young politiciansOutcome challenge: Empowered young politicians

influence the change of the everyday politics in their parties. Recognized need for improvement in the areas selected in the party

modules, continuous activities on the empowerment of youth engaged in politics.

Other actors: political parties, other young politicians …

www.promente.org/om

Intentional design Outcome & performance monitoring

Evaluation

1. Vision

2. Mission

3. ...Boundary partners

4. ...Outcome challenges

5. ...Progress markers 9. Outcome journals

6. …Strategy maps 10. Strategy journal

7. Organisational practices 11. Performance journal

8. Monitoring priorities 12. Evaluation plan

OM: 12 steps

Helping the implementing partner to learn

Internal M &E

Considering all the dimensions of strategy

Focus on outcomes

www.promente.org/om

VisionProgress marker ladders Outcome challenge 1

Love to see

Like to see

Expect to see

Outcome challenge 2

Boundary partner 1

Boundary partner 2

www.promente.org/om

Method: timeframeevaluation time-frame captures only a small slice of project implementation

Framework partner support: several years

Implementing partner project: several years

Duration of project activities being evaluated: Jan-Dec 2007

Research time-frame: May-Nov 2007

www.promente.org/om

Method: OM Special use of OM for external evaluation

1. Mission, vision, progress markers, outcome challenge2. Assessment of planning strategies using strategy maps3. OM questionnaires4. OM interview with boundary partners5. OM interview with implementing partners6. Writing evaluation-start Outcome Journals 7. Confirming evaluation-start Outcome Journals8. OM questionnaires (same as evaluation-start)9. OM interview with boundary partners (on the basis of evaluation-start interview)10. OM interview with implementing partners (on the basis of evaluation-start interview)11. Assessment of management progress using existing strategy maps12. Mission and vision: still relevant? Changed focus?13. Gathering contextual information and intervention timeline

Baseline

interimfinal assessm

ent

www.promente.org/om

Findings: OM

Most organisations succeeded in redefining changes in a small group of boundary partners as the main component of their vision (and )

All made progress towards their vision (A lot of information about individual

projects)

www.promente.org/om

Method: relevance interviews

Aim: to assess project and program relevance Sources:

– 50 additional interviews at baseline: stakeholder views of poverty, gender and civil society

– + 50 at final assessment: project relevance. Analysis: qualitative methods, specialised software

-> stakeholders’ own themes.

www.promente.org/om

Findings: relevance interviews: Gender

Strong opinions about gender equality– There is no real gender equality – Women are capable of taking leading roles in society– Women are not really interested in change (especially female respondents).

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

primary secondary tertiary

tradition causes genderinequality

www.promente.org/om

tabletype of partnergender project education age = <30 area

boun

dary

impl

emen

ting

fem

ale

mal

e

proj

ect =

HC

-VP

proj

ect =

HC

-PC

proj

ect =

KK

-MV

proj

ect =

KK

-ZC

proj

ect =

OP

-CP

proj

ect =

OP

-HB

prim

ary

or le

ss

finis

hed

seco

ndar

y

beyo

nd s

econ

dary

<30

30-

50

51-

65

>66

urba

n

rura

l

total respondents 34 10 29 15 6 8 10 2 6 2 15 10 19 10 25 7 2 18 26

total references 267 89 237 125 125 125 99 37 72 24 95 99 169 95 222 44 7 160 195references/respondent 7.9 8.9 8.2 8.3 20.8 15.6 9.9 18.5 12.0 12.0 6.3 9.9 8.9 9.5 8.9 6.3 3.5 8.9 7.5

gender total references per themethere is no gender equality 36 0.82 0.79 0.90 0.86 0.87 2.17 1.63 1.00 2.00 1.33 2.00 0.87 1.20 0.68 1.00 0.92 0.57 0.50 0.67 0.92poverty, low education cause inequality 11 0.25 0.24 0.30 0.34 0.07 0.17 0.13 0.20 1.00 0.17 0.40 0.26 0.20 0.36 0.22 0.27tradition causes inequality 33 0.75 0.65 1.10 0.79 0.67 1.67 1.25 0.90 1.50 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.40 1.26 0.80 0.92 0.57 1.00 0.58women are capable of leading 28 0.64 0.53 1.00 0.69 0.60 1.50 1.13 0.50 1.50 1.17 0.73 0.50 0.68 1.00 0.64 0.14 1.00 0.61 0.65women are not interested in change 21 0.48 0.50 0.40 0.59 0.27 0.67 0.50 1.30 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.67 0.70 0.21 0.40 0.64 0.50 0.33 0.58bad strategy in fight for equality 5 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.07 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.22 0.04

povertyvictims of poverty

pensioners are hit by poverty 5 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.67 0.50 0.67 0.13 0.40 0.05 0.20 0.12 0.29 0.06 0.15young people are hit by poverty 7 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.17 0.20 0.50 0.38 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.30 0.08 0.29 0.50 0.11 0.19

reasons for povertysystem does not care for vulnerable 9 0.20 0.18 0.30 0.14 0.33 0.83 0.63 0.10 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.07 0.60 0.11 0.40 0.08 0.43 0.17 0.23poverty is due to the war 11 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.21 0.33 0.83 0.63 0.30 1.00 0.13 0.20 0.37 0.10 0.28 0.43 0.39 0.15poverty is due to unemployment 15 0.34 0.35 0.30 0.41 0.20 0.50 0.38 0.40 1.50 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.42 0.30 0.44 0.14 0.28 0.38

forms of povertythere is much material poverty 26 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.52 0.73 1.83 1.38 0.60 0.50 0.83 1.50 0.53 0.80 0.53 0.60 0.60 0.71 0.44 0.69there is much mental poverty 11 0.25 0.18 0.50 0.24 0.27 0.67 0.50 0.30 0.33 0.50 0.30 0.42 0.50 0.20 0.29 0.56 0.04

possibility of changepolitical leadership

corruption is everywhere 11 0.25 0.29 0.10 0.07 0.60 1.50 1.13 0.10 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.07 0.40 0.32 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.17 0.31the wrong people are in power 5 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.33 0.25 0.10 0.17 0.50 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.17 0.08politics is all wrong 11 0.25 0.32 0.21 0.33 0.83 0.63 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.13 0.60 0.16 0.10 0.28 0.29 0.50 0.33 0.19we need ~strong~ leaders 2 0.05 0.06 0.13 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.20 0.20 0.11

Civil societyindividuals cannot do anything alone 15 0.34 0.38 0.20 0.28 0.53 1.33 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.17 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.32 0.50 0.40 0.14 0.22 0.42there is no ~civic consciousness~ 10 0.23 0.26 0.10 0.10 0.47 1.17 0.88 0.20 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.60 0.21 0.60 0.08 0.29 0.39 0.12change possible if we work together 19 0.43 0.41 0.50 0.52 0.33 0.83 0.63 0.80 1.50 0.67 0.53 0.30 0.47 0.50 0.56 0.29 0.33 0.50individuals can help change society 19 0.43 0.29 0.90 0.66 0.70 1.50 0.27 0.40 0.58 0.40 0.52 0.29 0.67 0.27change is possible 23 0.52 0.44 0.80 0.59 0.33 0.83 0.63 0.60 1.50 0.67 0.50 0.20 0.30 0.84 0.20 0.68 0.43 0.67 0.38change is impossible 7 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.17 0.13 0.60 0.17 0.27 0.20 0.05 0.20 0.29 0.11 0.19citizens are not interested 5 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.20 0.50 0.38 0.10 0.17 0.50 0.30 0.11 0.20 0.08 0.14 0.17 0.08civil society is the people 11 0.25 0.21 0.40 0.21 0.33 0.83 0.63 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.53 0.40 0.28 0.14 0.50 0.08

references per theme per person

www.promente.org/om

Findings: relevance interviews: poverty and change

About one respondent in four brought up the concept of "spiritual" or "intellectual" poverty … Most very sceptical about the possibility of change. Males very frequently mentioned the problem of corruption. Implementing partners much more optimistic

There is no end to it. Here, people are hanging and killing themselves with their own hands. In my village, fifteen days ago, right beneath my window, a man hung himself... He was single. He might have had some small pension, just a little bit... and his health was pretty bad ... that’s what I think.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

boundary implementing

individuals can change society

www.promente.org/om

Assistance?

A good part of the population is used to some sort of humanitarian aid, some sort of social help, mercy, call it what you will. This means that nobody has to work and, at the same time, they get something. We can set our sights lower but we don’t need to invest anything.

www.promente.org/om

Method: quantitative analysis

For four projects, a customised questionnaire was made on the basis of progress markers.

Questionnaire filled in at baseline and again at final assessment

Results from around 100 baseline and 100 final assessment questionnaires compared on a per-project basis.

www.promente.org/om

Findings: quantitative analysis

Results for one project

Small but significant overall improvement

Women start lower than men and improve more than men

In spite of a possible tendency to “raise the bar” during the project

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

m ž

pre

post

male female

www.promente.org/om

Improvement up the progress marker ladder

at which points of the progress marker ladder do which boundary partners improve?

Not only do women improve more than men but they improve strongly at the upper end of the scale

Progress marker ladder

improvement

female

male

www.promente.org/om

Conclusions: programming

Sida support helps develop civil society and CS activists Vision is not always about boundary partner change Civil society not a mass movement! Small number of partners; handful of key “career” activists Poverty

– Less clear progress with the least educated– Not clear that civil society development has reduction of poverty as a direct outcome.– Most successful projects do not connect directly to poverty– Projects with a stronger connection to poverty have less of a development perspective– Projects are not directly relevant to the really poor; different language; illiteracy– For the poor, not with the poor

Gender equality – is perceived as lacking– is not perceived to be a primary need in rural populations

In CS projects, women may have benefited more than men

www.promente.org/om

Recommendations: programming

Think missing links! Think hard about motivation of “missing links”

– Differential skills are needed (talking to parliament, then villagers)– HR for activists? Business support for NGOs?

Need to demonstrate link between civil society and poverty reduction??

Pay more attention to how the poor conceive poverty

www.promente.org/om

Conclusions: OM

“Thinking OM”, e.g. about different groups of boundary partners, makes a dramatic difference

NGOs enthusiastic!? OM for monitoring -> OM for planning Focus on contribution is a big relief Gives richer feedback Strategy maps inspire thinking about different dimensions of planning Separate quantitative analysis validates OM: both show progress

www.promente.org/om

Reflection: criticisms of RBM for CS programming

RBM: killing the birds of planning, control, monitoring and evaluation with one stone? Data and influence flow upwards.– Planning: Inspires theories of change which are inaccurate and

optimistically mechanistic. Blind to the groups and individuals who implement change.

– Control: gathering data via a chain in which every link has a vested interest in lying

– Monitoring: ticking boxes at the expense of strategic thinking and organisational learning

– Evaluation: Can you calculate impacts by aggregating outputs? Are NGOs competent to measure outcome and impact directly? Is it their job?

Impacts …

outcomes …

outputs …Program

Project BProject A

www.promente.org/om

Recommendations: OM

Better planning: OM could/should be adopted by donors from the project application stage (or as a hybrid).

Better control: release NGOs from exhausting box-ticking and implement fair random checking of outputs.

Better monitoring: in exchange, require elements of strategic planning and organisational learning.

Better evaluation: – Demonstrate donor-relevant results: commission independent, external

investigations of society change and why it happens/happened– Sharpen the focus: help NGOs to do empirical explorations of a selection of

specific issues that really interest them