Civil society coordination meeting Sarajevo, 6.12.2007

1. Outcome Mapping Civil society coordination meeting Sarajevo, 6.12.2007 Steve Powell & Ivona Čelebičić proMENTE social research, Sarajevo an evaluation of six civil society projects in BiH

5. Our project in B&H : 1 donor, 3 framework partners, 6 implementing partners, 6 projects : 2007 "Improvement of access to justice – Raising public awareness on access to rights, legislative changes and legal procedures in BiH Vasa Prava Work with judges and journalists on Press Code BiH Press Council (funded by SHC) Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights "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" Civil Society Promotion Center – GROZD, "Citizen in action" Academy for political leaders Helsinki Citizens Assembly (HCA) – Academy for political leaders) Olof Palme International Center Village activities (including round tables in towns) Most Womens political lobby Zenski Centar Kvinna til Kvinna Evaluated activity Partner organisation Framework organisation

7. Problems with RBM Strategy maps inspire thinking about different dimensions of planning Mechanistic approach to strategy Quality , not quantity of change Focus too much on impact in areas “where their influence … is low and decreasing relative to that of other actors”* Fits better with what NGOs feel they are doing: stimulating change, not delivering outputs NGOs tend to see it as alien OM Results Based Management (RBM) / Logframe (LFA) Focus on: strategy, learning as well as outcomes Exclusive focus on impact/results Rich , useful feedback Provide only “ clueless feedback ” Contribution (what did they do, what worked?) Attribution (did they really cause the change?) Flexible Inflexible Focus on development/change of key partners; outcomes, not impacts Force implementing orgs to try to demonstrate that they caused numerically large impacts

8. Logframe vs. OM Vision Implementing agency: strategy Boundary partners. changes in attitudes, behaviour, relationships Other actors? ? Outputs Outcomes Objectives Goal

10. Example Implementing agency: Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly Boundary partners: young politicians Outcome 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 … Vision The 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. …. … …. …

11. OM: 12 steps Helping the implementing partner to learn Internal M &E Considering all the dimensions of strategy Focus on outcomes 11. Performance journal 7. Organisational practices Evaluation Outcome & performance monitoring Intentional design 10. Strategy journal 6. …Strategy maps 12. Evaluation plan 8. Monitoring priorities 9. Outcome journals 5. ...Progress markers 4. ...Outcome challenges 3. ...Boundary partners 2. Mission 1. Vision

12. Progress marker ladders Vision Boundary partner 1 Boundary partner 2 Outcome challenge 1 Love to see Like to see Expect to see Outcome challenge 2

13. Method: timeframe

19. table