March 28, 2018<\/p>\n
Michael Moses<\/em>, Director of Learning and Programs<\/p>\n ***This post was originally published by New Philanthropy Capital (NPC)<\/a> on March 26, 2018***<\/em><\/p>\n To tackle complex, systemic problems you need a plan: enter\u00a0theory of change<\/a>\u00a0(ToC). But like any plan, a theory of change must be reviewed and adapted as new information comes to light, the situation changes or assumptions are questioned.<\/strong><\/p>\n The challenges that the development sector tries to address are complex and systemic. And governance challenges – like the ones we tackle at\u00a0Global Integrity<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 are particularly confounding.<\/p>\n The challenges the communities we work with face are unique, so generalised solutions developed outside of those communities, in other contexts,\u00a0will be of limited use<\/a>\u00a0to those trying to solve local problems.<\/p>\n Instead, solutions that effectively address the issues which local people care about tend to emerge\u00a0over time<\/a>, in particular places and led by\u00a0local stakeholders<\/a>. Success is contingent on these people engaging with, learning about, and shaping the dynamics of the complex, political systems in their specific contexts.<\/p>\n Developing a\u00a0theory of change<\/a>\u00a0is an essential first step to this. A ToC helps make assumptions explicit, lays out an\u00a0evidence-based hypothesis\u00a0<\/a>about how change is expected to occur, and provides\u00a0a frame<\/a>\u00a0for reflection and course corrections throughout a project or program.<\/p>\n This latter point is key. As NPC\u2019s recent report on\u00a0systemic use of theories of change<\/a>\u00a0states: \u2018The word \u2018theory\u2019 in its name is no coincidence. Theories are tested and updated as new knowledge emerges<\/p>\n Effective use of a ToC, requires collecting, and reflecting on, data needed for learning and adaptation.<\/p>\n The specific design of any approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) will vary according to the theory of change it serves, and the context in which it\u2019s used. But three general principles are worth keeping in mind when pursuing change in complex systems.<\/p>\n Monitoring data\/evidence aims must be useful to local stakeholders. Whether it helps them interrogate their assumptions; track progress; or consider how to adapt in response to emergent information, understanding opportunities for impact is the key. Reporting to donors is a secondary priority.<\/p>\n For example, in Global Integrity\u2019s recent\u00a0Learning to Make All Voices Count<\/a>\u00a0project, we worked with civil society organizations in five countries to explore whether progress expected in their theories of was unfolding as expected.<\/p>\n When it wasn\u2019t, we helped our partners use evidence to adapt their strategies.<\/p>\n In another case, our partners in Tanzania had initially thought that, if they provided community members with information about a national open government policy, citizens would respond by trying to hold local officials to account for honouring those policy commitments.<\/p>\n Initial monitoring data, perhaps unsurprisingly, did not bear out this assumption. Instead, local power dynamics – rather than access to information about government policy \u2013 were found to be the issue. So our partners adapted their theory of change, and set to work helping young people and women mobilise into \u201cpeople\u2019s committees\u201d to reshape those dynamics. See this case story<\/a>\u00a0for more.<\/p>\n A good monitoring, evaluation and learning framework is not developed solely by MEL staff, or by people sitting in offices in places that are geographically or culturally far-away. Rather, they are co-created and used in partnership with local stakeholders and beneficiaries, with their perspectives, priorities, and interests baked into the design and application.<\/p>\n For example, our colleagues in the Philippines co-created their MEL framework with regional universities and regional civil society organisations. In doing so, they learned that local partners were most interested in improving their capacity to understand and use district-level budget data. So determining whether and how the project was helping this, became a priority.<\/p>\n As a result, our partners to realized that some of the training tools they initially used weren\u2019t having the intended effects. They made course corrections to the assumptions and activities underpinning that aspect of their theory of change. More details are available in\u00a0this case study<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n
\n\n
\n