Outcome Mapping kaia.ambrose@care.ca www.outcomemapping.ca Intro slide to all of these: - these things will help you do OM and CT well: - these methodologies build off of CI MEL standards and principles – emphasize the how and who - telling a better story; understanding how change happens so that we can learn and adapt, empower our partners to do the same kaia.ambrose@care.ca www.outcomemapping.ca

What is Outcome Mapping? History Focus Developed by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in 1999 Response to output-oriented monitoring systems, with endline impact evaluations, that failed to capture change in complex contexts of social change A complexity- and systems-oriented approach for planning AND/OR monitoring AND/OR evaluation An actor-centred approach that focuses on changes in behaviour (actions, interactions) of those with whom the project or program works Oriented towards social & organizational learning, adaptive management .

The three biggest mistakes when monitoring and evaluating development projects are: Only focussing on outputs (how many meetings, how many publications) Only focussing on impacts (decrease in infant mortality, new legislation, access to water, incidence of malaria) Assuming a causal link between the two We are basing our M&E systems on these Performance Measurement Frameworks that have either really specific, yet unconnected outputs and really one-off indicators. So if we have an indicator like “Proportion of children 0-5 months receiving only breastmilk” – exclusive breastfeeding, or hectares reforested and managed – not very useful unless we unpack who has a part to play in that. And of course on the ground, we do understand why these things happen – we’re talking to banks, ministries, fertilizer companies, farmer organizations, M2M groups – but we’re not documenting, in a systematic way, and we’re not using our observations, conversations, to analyze, inform, reflect and make sense of the results we’re getting Quantiative; we know the qualitative is good to have, but in practice? tricky

What we get funded to do: 4 Thanks to Ricardo Wilson-Grau

Expected & Unexpected + & - Changes What we actually deal with: Expected & Unexpected + & - Changes OUTCOME OUTPUT OUTCOME ACTIVITY OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT OUTCOME ACTIVITY OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTCOME You may have a plan for which you have obtained resources but as soon as you begin to implement it, the activities change and their outputs too. Some lead to outcomes and other do not. And outcomes emerge in the most unexpected places. So in these situations, complexity-oriented approaches like OM may be appropriate. Social change can be: Beyond the control of the intervention Independent of project duration Non-linear Cumulative, with tipping points Dynamic, multi-directional Emergent ACTIVITY INPUTS ACTIVITY OUTPUT OUTCOME INPUTS Plan 5

There are limits to our influence Beneficiaries, stakeholders: people who are supported by the actors in spheres of influence Partners, stakeholders: people we can support their own change pathways Project or Program Key concept: sphere of influence sphere of concern sphere of influence

OM allows us to: Recognise that all interventions have limited influence Start from observable behaviour change Support people to build their own well-being All developmental change, if it is to be sustainable, depends on changes in behaviour Doesn’t look at all kinds of results, only outcomes within sphere of influence Participatory in order to draw from stakeholders’ experience and for stakeholders to take control of their own development Step out from the narrow perspective of a project plan or objectives and see the world through the eyes of the different people involved. It must make learning possible for the practitioners – self assessment Recognize that interconnectivity is not only a reality to deal with but an integral part of the system Embrace different perspectives Enable interventions to adapt as they engage Apply a systems understanding

It’s more acurate to think of OM as a set of principles with a suggested toolkit for implementing those. But you can apply the principles any way you like – and many people do.

How are we using it at CARE? a) Sorting out who our “boundary partners” are b) Exploring change pathways prospectively and retrospectively – WHO is doing WHAT differently and WHY Pathways – midterm review using OM, then from this the development of a set of Progress Markers for monitoring. POWER Africa – OM-inspired monitoring system to explore in-depth change in key actors (direct and indirect participants / impact and target groups) .

Data Collection Process Field agents from CARE and implementing partners collect data at the community level through focus group discussions. The importance of rich qualitative data to help us understand our “ranking” data for program improvement. focus group discussions.

What’s the missing piece in OM? While OM does ask ‘what actors and factors contributed to the change’, it doesn’t explore in-depth or necessarily with a degree of rigour, the contribution made, specifically by a project, to a particular change. This is where Contribution Tracing may help. .