What are outcomes and how are they constructed? Ricardo Wilson Grau ricardo.wilson-grau@inter.nl.net

The fish soup development story Inputs or resources Parents get together fish, fresh vegetables, water, barley, spices, pot, source of heat Activities Mother or father carefully prepare and cook all the ingredients Output Children taste the most nourishing fish soup in the world Outcome Children consider the soup delicious and eat fish soup once a week for the rest of their lives Impact Children are healthy adults Parents control Inspired by Monika Jetzin, FTS Hungary Parents support Parents worry

Outputs What the organisation generates directly through its activities on the short-term – the processes, goods and services that it produces. For example: Workshops, training manuals, research and assessment reports, guidelines and action plans, strategies, and technical assistance packages, amongst others. The organisation controls activities and outputs.

Outcomes Observable changes in “boundary partners “ – individuals, groups, organisations, institutions that you work to influence – that potentially contribute to the long-term, sustainable improvement in people’s lives or the state of the environment envisioned in the mission of the organisation. The organisation influences outcomes.

Impact Long-term, sustainable changes in the conditions of people and the state of the environment that structurally reduce poverty, improve human well-being and protect and conserve natural resources. The organisation contributes indirectly to impact.

Other actors and factors Ultimate beneficiaries CONCERN IMPACT EcoHealth team Strategic partners SUPPORT OUTCOMES Boundary actors CONTROL OUTPUTS RESOURCES Other actors and factors Ultimate beneficiaries Thanks to Paul Crawford

Outcomes and Outcome Challenges Outcome Challenges are potential, ambitious changes in boundary actors that EcoHealth would like to achieve in the future, generally over a period of years. Outcomes are defined as observable and significant changes in a boundary actor that have been realised.

Reporting on outcomes – the basics Describe the changes in boundary actors Be as specific as possible: Who is doing what differently, when and where? Significance of each outcome. Why is it noteworthy? Since a change in a social actor in country A does not necessarily have the same significance as a similar change in country B, what is the significance of each outcome?

Specify how you contributed to the outcome. This is detective work. There is rarely a direct, linear relationship between an activity and an outcome. Many activities may influence one outcome. Also, one activity may influence two or more outcomes. Equally important, outcomes usually are influenced by a variety of social actors and factors and over a period of many months or years. Mention the EcoHealth activities—from the reporting period or before—that influenced it.

Full sample from 2008 evaluation of the Ford Foundation Global Civil Society portfolio

In 2007, the Board of Executive Directors of the African Development Bank (AFDB) approves a whistleblower protection policy. Outcome: In January, 2007, the Board of Executive Directors of the African Development Bank (AFDB) approves a whistleblower protection policy. It broadens the definition of “whistleblower” to include contractors and their employees; expands the definition of “retaliation”, and guarantees the employment of those who come forward with disclosures of misconduct. Significance: The AFDB whistleblower policy expanded the rights of those who make responsible disclosures about wrongdoing in significant and positive ways. By including contractors and their employees, it recognizes that these are often the people most likely to witness wrongdoing first hand. By expanding the definition of “retaliation” it better protects whistleblowers from reprisal and harassment. Its guarantee of employment for whistleblowers marks a meaningful departure from the punitive cycle of disclosure, dismissal, and inadequate financial compensation experienced by many whistleblowers. Contribution of the grantee: The Government Accountability Project prepared a detailed analysis of the draft policy in September 2006, which addressed the scope of the coverage; the forum for a hearing; the rules to prevail; relief for whistleblowers who win; and, the importance of making a difference. GAP worked closely with the office of the auditor general at the AFDB, the U.S. Treasury department and a special officer seconded to the AFDB specifically to provide technical cooperation in the development of this policy. GAP continues to work with this office to develop mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution, which are called for in the approved policy.