Large , multi-country programmes with multiple implementing partners often face the problem of monitoring the planned outcomes in their programme Theory of Change (ToC) and systematically gathering stories of change. This is largely due to the complex and dynamic nature of their social change initiatives.
Outcome Harvesting (OH) and Theory of Change (ToC) are two powerful tools which can be used to overcome this challenge. While ToC is a planning tool used to map out how and why desired changes are expected to happen in a particular context; OH is a qualitative evaluation approach that focuses on identifying and documenting outcomes, both intended and unintended. The synergy between Outcome Harvesting and Theory of Change lies in their participatory nature and focus on learning and adaptation.
As an example of how we have supported clients through this process, this blog outlines the step by step approach we used to combine them when supporting APHRC’s Challenging the Politics of Social Exclusion (CPSE) programme which is a three-year multi-country programme (CPSE programme run by APHRC) during their participatory, multi-partner annual review sessions. The session included 13 NGO partners from eight (8) countries across Eastern, Western and Southern Africa. In brief the approach involves gathering outcomes (via OH) and then reviewing planned versus actual achievements by mapping them up against the ToC.

Step 1: Familiarise all partners with the programme ToC
Using a visual display of the ToC we help participants to orientate themselves to it. We then use it as the basis for mapping identified outcomes later in the process.

Step 2: Use outcome harvesting to collect evidence of change
Take participants through a step-by-step process of developing outcome statements, including a detailed description of the change and the programmes contribution to that change. . we also identified how each outcome could be substantiated.
We support many organisations to gather their outcomes using an outcome harvesting tracking tool (add link to tool). They also save any documentation in an online ‘evidence box’ where any supporting documents can be added (e.g. photos, press releases, videos etc.) as evidence of outcomes.

Step 3: Compare outcomes harvested with your Theory of change
Map the identified outcomes onto the ToC. Many unintended outcomes will also emerge during your harvesting process. These are just as important as the intended or planned outcomes and should also be captured and documented. During the workshop we also worked closely with participants to strengthen their outcome statements to ensure they included all the elements: What changed, who changed and where and when did the change take place?

Participants organise their revised ToC and map outcomes onto the ToC
Revised ToC and mapping outcomes onto ToC using Outcome Harvesting methodology

Step 4: Participatory sense making
Sense-making involves analysing the outcomes to identify patterns and trends; assess whether the documented outcomes align with the intended outcomes in the Toc; and explore any gaps in your pathways and why unintended outcomes occurred. Use the following questions to guide the process:

  • When looking at the TOC and mapping of our results, what have we achieved collectively?
  • How far are we to achieving our outcomes? Where are we progressing?
  • Do our assumptions hold true?
  • What can we learn from this?
  • Where are the gaps?
  • What opportunities are emerging from this pictures?

Some examples of outcomes harvested and the contribution made by the CPSE project are presented below. During the workshop, these outcomes were still in the validation process. We encouraged participants to enhance the validity of their outcomes by reaching out to external stakeholders. They were provided with questionnaire templates or brief validation email templates to facilitate this process.

  • In September 2023, the research team from the Institut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population (ISSP) was invited by Share Net Burkina Faso to present the findings from the Pregnant and Parenting Adolescents study to SRHR stakeholders in Burkina Faso for the first time. The CPSE project played a crucial role in this achievement by conducting the study on understanding the lived experiences of pregnant and parenting adolescents and presenting its key findings.
  • In November 2023, the Ministry of Health and UNFPA in Liberia requested abortion-related data to inform service delivery programming, supply distribution, and resource allocation. Leveraging abortion incidence data produced by CHAI and APHRC, the Liberia MOH, UNFPA, and other SRHR stakeholders utilized this information to strategise the training of healthcare workers in each county and the distribution of medical abortion drugs such as Combi PAC and Misoprostol.
  • Since June 2023, civil society organizations (CSOs) and young people in Malawi have been leveraging evidence-based advocacy, including research findings, to engage key line ministries (Health, Gender, Youth, Justice, and Education) and the Parliamentary Health Committee in passing the Termination of Pregnancy (TOP) Bill in Parliament. The CPSE project played a critical role in this effort by providing technical and financial support for conducting research and facilitating the Symposium where the data was presented.
  • In 2021, the Reproductive Health Unit of the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Sierra Leone collaborated with APHRC to conduct the CPSE study on abortion incidences and the severity of complications. The findings from this study were instrumental in informing policy discussions around the Safe Motherhood Bill. This partnership has significantly influenced the policy framework within Sierra Leone’s sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) landscape.
  • Since 2022, CPSE CSO partners in Sierra Leone have collaborated closely, strategically engaging with policymakers, traditional and religious leaders, and the media to advocate for quality sexual and reproductive health services. The CPSE capacity strengthening initiatives have led to notable outcomes including increased organizational capacity, strengthened coalitions, and improved participation in policy decision-making by these CSOs.
  • We made use of Barbara Klugman’s template: “Typical outcome categories for monitoring and evaluating progress in advocacy or social change strategies” as a useful framework for categorising outcomes.

During the session with CPSE partners, a notable observation emerged among participants. They highlighted that the changes realised by the end of 2022 were primarily at the immediate outcome level. However, by the end of 2023, these changes had evolved towards longer-term outcomes.
Another pivotal insight is the importance of partnerships and collaboration. The success stories shared during the session, underscored how building and nurturing partnerships with key organizations and Ministries can lead to substantial policy influence and positive outcomes.
These, and other insights were incredibly motivating for organisations as they recognised the collective impact of their hard work.

Step 5: Planning for the next project phase
Based on the findings from the OH and ToC review, participants were asked:

  • What opportunities have emerged from our review?
  • What do we still need to do (activities/outputs) in order to fill these gaps or seize these opportunities?

Some examples of new opportunities and action points that emerged during the discussions included the need to strengthen collaboration of CPSE partners across the region to share their insights and ‘best practices’; and the need for ongoing investment in capacity building of CSOs and policy makers to strengthen evidence-based policy making.

Step 6: Communicate your findings
During our workshop we allocated half a day to writing up outcomes into case studies. Each organisation used a simple case study template to write a ‘story of change’ to showcase their successes, challenges and lessons learnt. We made use of Barbara Klugman’s template, “Typical outcome categories for monitoring and evaluating progress in advocacy or social change strategies,” as a useful framework for categorising outcomes.

Conclusion

In a world where social change initiatives are increasingly complex, combining Outcome Harvesting and Theory of Change offers a robust framework for participatory sense-making. These methods enable organizations to not only understand the impact of their interventions but also engage stakeholders in the evaluation process, validate assumptions, and adapt to changing circumstances. By harnessing the power of both approaches, organizations can better navigate the intricacies of social change and improve their effectiveness in creating lasting impact.