Changes Resulting from Joint Initiatives

Outcome

evidence of changes in [define: policy/service delivery/community engagement practices] resulting from joint initiatives between [specify actors]

This indicator assesses the extent of changes in public policy, service delivery practices, or community engagement approaches that emerged through joint initiatives among multiple actors—for example, between civil society organisations (CSOs) and government institutions, CSOs and the private sector, or local authorities and community groups. It focuses on documenting collaborative results—where partnership, coordination, advocacy, or dialogue between actors leads to changes in decisions, processes, or behaviours that improve governance, responsiveness, or inclusion.

Determine the indicator’s value by using the following methodology:

1) With key project partners and other relevant stakeholders, discuss and agree on clear criteria for identifying change. Consider the following suggestions:

• Is verifiable through credible evidence.

• Reflects an improvement or adaptation of existing policy/service/practice. Define the scope of potential desired changes in policy (e.g. new or revised laws, strategies, regulations, or guidelines), service delivery (e.g. improved quality, accessibility, inclusiveness, responsiveness), and/or community engagement (e.g. new participatory processes or accountability practices) to be tracked.

• Was influenced, at least in part, by the joint initiative. Clearly describe what constitutes a “joint initiative” in your project context—for example, a multi-stakeholder task force or advocacy campaign involving at least two distinct actor types.

• Has observable benefits for target populations or systems.

2) With key project partners and other relevant stakeholders, discuss and define what constitutes “evidence” of changes resulting from joint initiatives. Acceptable evidence includes a combination at least two of the following sources:

• Official documents showing changes in policy or practice—revised policies, new guidelines, amended procedures, updated service standards.

• Records or minutes documenting decisions influenced by joint initiatives. This can include meeting minutes, resolutions, and committee reports.

• Service delivery data or reports showing improved access, quality, or responsiveness.

• Public announcements or statements confirming the adoption of changes (e.g. press releases, official notices, social media statements by authorities).

• Direct observation of new or improved practices; for example, newly introduced community feedback mechanisms, enhanced frontline service procedures.

• Testimonies from stakeholders—government officials, CSO representatives, service users—confirming the change and describing how joint efforts contributed.

• Reports or media coverage confirming the changes.

3) Set the reference period for which you will collect evidence of changes resulting from joint initiatives. Typically measure changes within the current reporting year or project period (e.g. past 12 months).

4) Develop a tool to record evidence of change resulting from joint initiatives. Prepare a simple tool (table or database) to document the types of changes and evidence of joint initiatives improving policies, services, or practices according to the predefined criteria (step 1). The tool may record the following information for each observed case of change resulting from joint initiatives:

• location

• period / date

• type of joint initiative / partnership

• stakeholders involved

• subject of change (policy / service / engagement)

• description of change

• significance of change

• source of verification / evidence

• project contribution

• external contribution

 

5) Collect evidence through two or more suggested methods:

• Document and media review: Review policies, meeting minutes, service delivery records, or media coverage reflecting new or improved policies, services or practices resulting from collaboration.

• Key Informant Interviews: Interview representatives from different actor groups (CSOs, government, private sector, citizens) of the joint initiatives to confirm the changes, their roles, and collaboration processes.

• Focus Group Discussions: Conduct group discussions with beneficiaries or citizens to confirm changes and whether joint initiatives improved inclusiveness or effectiveness.

• Observation: Where possible, observe implementation or engagement sessions to verify actual changes in practice.

6) Document collected information in the tool you designed in step 4 and store evidence. Keep records such as meeting minutes, MOUs, policy documents, official letters, photos, testimonies, and media articles for each verified change.

7) Report on the indicator. Provide a narrative description of the indicator’s achievement using the collected evidence and information captured in the table or database (step 4). Categorise changes by type (policy, service delivery, or community engagement) and describe the actors involved. In your reporting, combine any available quantitative information—number of changes recorded and joint initiatives involved—with qualitative interpretation that explains the type and nature of the observed changes, as well as the contribution of joint initiatives.

Report and interpret findings with reference to relevant contextual factors such as type of observed change (policy/service delivery/community engagement), actors involved (CSO, government, private sector), level of implementation (local/regional/national), geographic area, or sector, as feasible and appropriate.

1) Use this indicator when describing the qualitative extent of change provides more meaningful insight than numerical measurement, as it focuses on the improvements in policies, service delivery, or community engagement practices—not on simply counting activities or meetings. It allows you to assess whether joint initiatives between actors have led to meaningful and verifiable changes in how things are done, which numbers alone cannot capture. Quantitative measures alone may misrepresent progress, while a qualitative approach helps determine whether the observed changes are substantive and attributable to collaborative efforts.

2) Consider using Outcome Harvesting methodology to identify and verify changes resulting from joint initiatives. Outcome Harvesting is well suited to this indicator, as it helps systematically document and verify concrete changes in policies, service delivery, or community engagement practices that emerged through collaboration among actors. Take advantage of the guidance on Outcome Harvesting methodology provided in the documents below. For each “harvested outcome,” document:

• What changed? (policy, service, or practice)

• Who changed it? (actor(s) responsible)

• When and where did the change occur?

• How significant is the change? and

• How did the joint initiative contribute? (e.g. through advocacy, facilitation, or demonstration)

3) Decide whether it is necessary to collect baseline considering the type or combination of methodologies you use and the type of evidence you collect.

4) Triangulate sources. Data and evidence become stronger when verified and validated against multiple sources, including supporting documents, external persons, other experts.

5) Given that civic space has many actors, examine how your activities may have influenced the observed changes in policy, service delivery, or community engagement. This will help you to understand your contribution more in depth. Determine whether these shifts can be linked to project support (e.g. coordination, capacity strengthening, funding, evidence generation, or convening stakeholders). Document contribution pathways using interviews, reflection sessions, or Outcome Harvesting.

6) If resources allow, consider also alternative or external factors contributing to change. These can be assessed by asking questions such as:

• How has the political context influenced this change/outcome, either positively or negatively?

• How did cooperation with other actors affect the achievement of this change/outcome? Which actors were involved, and in what ways did their involvement help or hinder progress?

7) If your project has a strong Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) component, assess whether marginalised or underrepresented groups (e.g. women, youth, ethnic minorities) are equally benefiting from the observed changes.

8) If your project wants to assess the degree of change rather than document evidence, you may consider reformulating the indicator to Extent of changes in [policy/service delivery/community engagement practices] resulting from joint initiatives between [actors]. Additional guidance on this approach, including practical considerations and illustrative examples, is provided in the one-page document linked below.

9) If you prefer to use a quantitative indicator, you can reformulate the proposed indicator to Number of changes in [policy/service delivery/community engagement practices] resulting from joint initiatives between [actors].

10) Consider other IndiKit advocacy indicators:

• number of recommendations for [define the purpose] that were adopted by relevant decision-makers

• number of people positively impacted by the results of the project’s advocacy initiatives