Outcome Harvesting Training - Developing Skills to Define and Achieve Outcomes

1. Training Conny Hoitink 30 August 2019, Stockholm Outcome Harvesting Sources: Ricardo Wilson-Grau, www.outcomeharvesting.net

2. Agenda

3. Expectations • To understand  the OH methodology and applicability in own organisation (use indicators?) • To develop our skills in applying OH so that we can share it with others interested in our network. • Clarification on how to define the outcomes and how to achieve the same (…) given the current lack of space and opportunities. • To get guidance on developing a plan to apply the same in our ongoing interventions under Watershed partnership • Concerns • What is the added value of OH ? • Capacity and resources needed? • Frequency of OH? • Indicators? • External facilitation needed?

4. Objectives of today • Introduce the participants in the use of the OH methodology • Identify, reflect on and define the main outcomes of our coordinated and collective efforts • Discuss and define continued use of the OH by the group and its potential to be used in support to national CSO’s.

5. Expected outputs of today • Draft set of jointly agreed outcomes that documents the results of our collaboration over the last 1.5-2 years • Agreement on how to follow-up on the results of the OH workshop (as participating organisations or jointly).

6. Process roles: Shaker and Waker Time Keeper

7. I Differentiating outputs, outcomes and impact

8. Personal reflection • In another sentence or two, jot down your working definition of “outcome”.

9. Fish Soup Development Story Inspired by Monika Jetzin, Global Water Partnership , Hungary

10. Impact • Children are healthy adults How do you believe these three types of results are different? • Outcomes • Children consider the soup delicious; begin demanding fish soup weekly Exercise #1.1 • Outputs • Children are served and taste the most nourishing fish soup in the world • Activities • Mother or father carefully prepare and cook all the ingredients • Inputs or resources • Parents get together fish, fresh vegetables, water, grains, spices, pot, source of heat

11. Impact • Children are healthy adults Parents worry • Outcomes • Children consider the soup delicious; begin demanding fish soup weekly Parents influence • Outputs • Children are served and taste the most nourishing fish soup in the world Parents control • Activities • Mother or father carefully prepare and cook all the ingredients • Inputs or resources • Parents get together fish, fresh vegetables, water, barley, spices, pot, source of heat

12. Impact • Children are healthy adults • Outcomes • Children consider the soup delicious ; begin demanding fish soup weekly • Outputs • Children are served and taste the most nourishing fish soup in the world • Activities • Mother or father carefully prepare and cook all the ingredients • Inputs or resources • Parents get together fish, fresh vegetables, water, barley, spices, pot, source of heat

13. Impact • Children are healthy adults • Outcome • Local library features great grandmother’s fish soup • Outcome • Priest declares Friday a day of meat fasting • Outcomes • Children consider the soup delicious; begin demanding fish soup weekly • Outcome • Neighbours begin serving fish soup to their children • Outcome • Some mothers ask for recipe • Outputs • Children are served and taste the most nourishing fish soup in the world • Outcome • Children invite friends for fish soup dinner • Outcome • Children learn how to cook great grandmother’s fish soup

14. Outcomes Impact Results in Outcome Harvesting Sphere of Influence Sphere of Interest Sphere of Control Inputs $ Activities Outputs

15. Q&A • Do you have questions about differentiating between outputs and outcomes (and impact) in Outcome Harvesting?

16. II The complex challenges of monitoring and evaluating outcomes

17. M&E of a simple intervention Vision IMPACT OUTCOMES Are we efficient? Installing village boreholes OUTPUTS Are we effective? ACTIVITIES INPUTS Plan Time

18. M&E of a complex intervention Vision OUTPUT OUTPUT OUTPUT Achieving environmentally sustainable and equitable governance of WASH and IWRM ACTIVITY OUTPUT ACTIVITY OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME INPUTS ACTIVITY Plan OUTPUT Time INPUTS ACTIVITY INPUTS INPUTS

19. In sum • Outcome Harvesting is “an evaluation approach that does not [necessarily] measure progress towards predetermined outcomes, but rather collects evidence of what has been achieved, and works backward to determine whether and how the project or intervention contributed to the change.” – UNDP https://undp.unteamworks.org/node/370238

20. Questions & Answers • How compatible or incompatible is your understanding of complexity now with what I have explained of complexity as understood in Outcome Harvesting?

21. III The core of an outcome

22. Why focus on outcomes? • Social change = social actors doing things differently • Sustainable social change = social actors taking the initiative to do things differently

23. Individual Action, activities Relationships What is an outcome? • 1. A societal actor taking action to change the way she, he, they or it do things Group or community BEHAVIOUR SOCIETAL ACTOR Policies Practices Institution Organisation

24. When is it your outcome? Effect Cause • 2. A change that your process influenced

25. Agenda ggg

26. Comment : Who organised the 35 social actors? Coalition Eau • OUTCOME: In June 2019, in Senegal, during a workshop for the exchange of experiences and strengthening of the new “French-speakingAfrican Alliance for Water and Sanitation”, 35 social actorsfrom the civil society of 10 westafrican countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Cameroon, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Senegal and Togo) have been organized and mobilized for the World Water Forum 2021 (kick off meeting in Senegal in June 2019). They made a commondeclaration and have acquiredadaptedworkingmethods to share a commonvoice of CSOstowardsenvironnmentalysustainable and equitable gouvernance of WASH and they have…. • CONTRIBUTION: Coalition Eau contributed to the organisation of the workshop and intervened. Comment : What did they do differently?

27. Coalition Eau • OUTCOME: In June 2019, in Senegal, 35 CSOs of 10 West African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cameroon, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Togo) formed the new “French-speaking African Alliance for Water and Sanitation”. This new alliance adopted common messages and working methods to share one common voice towards environmentally sustainable and equitable governance of WASH in the World Water Forum of 2021 in Dakar (Senegal) and beyond.

28. Coalition Eau Comment : Rule: 1 outcome, 1 actor. Who changed? NGOs or gvt of Benin? • OUTCOME: Since 2018, manyONGs of these countries(Benin, Mali, Burkina, etc.) developedstrong national advocacystrategies to call to theirgovernments and demand more accountability for SDG 6 and obtainedsome changes (For example, Benin has adopted a 2021 Water Vision for achieving the Water SDG by 2021: thismeans an additional 2.5 million inhabitants to providewithdrinking water, whereastoday the averagedrinking water supply rate is about 46%.) • CONTRIBUTION: Coalition Eau contributed to the global study of national accountabilitymechanisms for SDG 6 and supportedNGOs of 7 countries in developing messages and strategies Comment : Who, how many? Is the outcome about developing strategies or implementing them?

29. Comment : Who changed? FANSA • OUTCOME: The realization from the study findings have significantly impacted our own thinking in FANSA and strategy for our future engagement has been built on enlarged and deepened spirit of collaboration and coordinated action. • FANSA has lead the Global review of national level accountability mechanisms in South Asia (Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) and the study found that accountability mechanisms are insufficient, whatever exist are ineffective and are not inclusive, particularly the space for CSOs engagement with Governments is highly limited and CSOs strengths to influence the same is also limited due to lack of coordinated efforts among various partners. Study findings were shared  through organizing multi stakeholders workshops in all the countries wherein it was emphasized that for the CSOs advocacy efforts to be effective,  their   capacities to be built  to produce evidence based analysis, mobilization of community voices and ability to engage at high level platforms. Further  the collective stregths of CSOs   to  be united  , their actions  to be coordinated  and roles have to be shared with well functioning mutual accountability mechanisms. FANSA has applied the same into action and contributed to developing a common CSO engagement strategy for the next three years.  • CONTRIBUTION: FANSA identified a representative regional group of Civil society champions from within WASH sector and other allied sectors and facilitated a three day regional workshop in August 2018 through which a collective CSOs regional engagement strategy has been developed to support and guide the country teams and also to act as a pressure group for monitoring the commitments of SACOSAN and tracking of SDG 6. Comment : What did FANSA do differently?

30. Exercise • We now form 4 groups. • In your group, based on your reports and knowledge, take 15 minutes to identify one outcome: • Who changed her, his or its behaviour, relationships, activities, actions, policies or practice? • What changed? • When did it change? • And where? • We will discuss in plenary.

31. Coalition Eau • CONTRIBUTION: Coalition Eau contributed to the organisation of the workshop and intervened..

32. Coalition Eau • CONTRIBUTION: Coalition Eau contributed to the global study of national accountabilitymechanisms for SDG 6 and supportedNGOs of 7 countries in developing messages and strategies

33. FANSA CONTRIBUTION: FANSA identified a representative regional group of Civil society champions from within WASH sector and other allied sectors and facilitated a three day regional workshop in August 2018 through which a collective CSOs regional engagement strategy has been developed to support and guide the country teams and also to act as a pressure group for monitoring the commitments of SACOSAN and tracking of SDG 6.

34. Exercise • How did you contribute to the outcome? • In your group, take another 10 minutes to identify your activities and outputs that plausibly contributed to the change in that societal actor, however partial, indirect and even unintentional the contribution may have been. • We will discuss in plenary.

35. Types of outcomes • Small/early • Big • Intended or expected • Unintended, surprises • Positive • Negative Thanks to Ricardo Wilson-Grau

36. Other information? • Significance of the outcome • Collaboration with other social actors • Contribution of other actors and factors • History • Context • Evidence of impact on people’s lives • And so forth. Thanks to Ricardo Wilson-Grau

37. A. Outcome: When, Who, What, Where • B. Significance: Why is the outcome important for the achievement of our objectives? • C. Contribution: How did we contribute to the outcome? Useful information?

38. Q & A • How compatible is your working definition of an outcome with the definition used in Outcome Harvesting?

39. Agenda

40. Exercise #2.1 — Identify and formulate one outcome In groups (per organisation?), identify a real potential outcome in the Outcome Harvesting sheet. We will discuss in plenary.

41. 1. Brainstorm and Identify potential outcomes 2. Prioritise max 3 outcomes 3. Formulate the 3 outcomes in full

42. Customising an Outcome Harvest for Watershed 2. Identify and formulate outcomes 6. Support use of findings 4. Substantiate 5. Analyse, interpret 1. Design the harvest Outcome Harvest

43. 1. Design the harvest Users: WPs, PMEL group, PWG and WGB Uses: What decisions or actions will they take? Utilisation-focused, Participatory

44. 1. Design the harvest • Users: • Uses: • M&E questions: • What do the users need to know? • Thus, what question(s) should the Outcome Harvesting findings answer? Utilisation-focused, Participatory

45. What M&E questions should the Outcome Harvesting findings answer? 1. What are the outcomes that Watershed contributes to in terms of improved environmentally sustainable and equitable governance of WASH and IWRM as well as capacity development of civil society? 2. What has been the contribution of Watershed to these outcomes? 3. How do these outcomes confirm and challenge the ToC and what does that mean for the Watershed strategy and implementation plans?

46. 1. Design the harvest What data do we need to answer the M&E questions? From whom? Users Uses M&E questions Data to be collected Utilisation-focused, Participatory • What: Descriptions of outcomes, their significance, how Watershed contributed, and the sources for this information. • From whom: • Harvesters — WP people • Harvester Coordinator • When: July and January

47. 2. Identify and formulate outcomes 1. Design the harvest • Harvesters identify and formulate outcomes, engaging with his/her team and possibly other informants: • Outcome • Significance • Contribution • Source • Harvester Coordinator manages the process, with support from Conny • Harvester Coordinator reviews potential Outcome Statements prepared by Harvester • Coordinator poses questions to arrive at verifiable outcomes • + 1 hour per outcome Final, verifiable outcomes

48. Facilitating outcome formulations • Complete? • Sufficient methodological and content quality? • Gentle but rigorous ping-ponging Agreed Fund Now Outcomes Harvester Coordinator Harvester

49. Avoiding this...

50. Credible data = credible sources People who personally know who changed, what changed and how. They give initial authenticity, confidence and credibility to the information you harvest. Thus, Outcome Harvesting is highly participatory and bottom-up.