Fundraising actions examples

Proposal Narrative

Change Map

Project Risk Analysis-

Explore

Change Map

Project information:

Project Name: “Financial integrity, anti-corruption and compliance” concentration for master students in law”

Strategic Policy Alignment (To be completed by INL):

FBS Objective(s):

ICS Objective(s):

Other regional or cross-cutting strategic alignment

Design element and Statement Note: Goal, objective, and sub-objective statements should meet the Change and Clarity standards described in Appendix B. In brief, state the result expected, and be specific about what we should observe if the end state is achieved.

Indicator name Note: Each design element may have no indicators, one indicator, or multiple indicators. Only collect indicators that will be useful for understanding the extent to which project implementation is proceeding as expected. Do not include indicators for deliverables. Additional indicator information should be provided in the PIRS.

Goal 1: Create 7 training courses for the master's program of the UCU School of Law with a focus on combating corruption in Ukraine

Outcome Indicators:

- 7 Number of courses developed

- 80% Student satisfaction

Objective 1.1: Curriculum Development

Outcome Indicators:

- 7 of syllabuses developed

Activity 1.1.1: Develop syllabuses including case studies and assignments

- 7 of syllabuses developed - 3 of case studies and assignments included

Activity 1.1.2: Develop an evaluation system

- 1 Evaluation system developed - 7 courses utilize the developed evaluation system

Objective 1.2: Course Implementation

Outcome Indicators:

- 7 courses implemented

- 80% Student satisfaction (based on course evaluations)

Activity 1.2.1: Conduct 7 lectures for each course

- 7 lectures for each course conducted (49 in general) - 80 % students attendance rate

Activity 1.2.2: Conduct 8 seminars for each course

- 8 seminars for each course conducted (56 in general) - 80 % Participation rate

Activity 1.2.3: Perform final evaluations (review written assignments and tests)

- 7 final evaluations completed - 7 final evaluations reviewed and feedback provided to students - Fair and consistent grading criteria were followed for all final grades.

Activity 1.2.4: Collect course evaluations from students

- 20 of evaluations collected per each course (140 in general) - 15 Student feedback and suggestions provided per each course (105 in general)

Objective 1.3: Course Promotion

Outcome Indicators:

- 3 promotional videos produced

- Reached at least 1600 views of each promotional video

Activity 1.3.1: Create video presentations for 3 anti-corruption courses

- 3 video presentations created - Quality and clarity of video content

Activity 1.3.2: Evaluate videos among students and faculty staff

- 7 of evaluations received per each video - Feedback on video presentations (5 per each course from students and 3 per each course from professors)

Activity 1.3.3: Promote videos through social media

- 5 social media posts - Engagement metrics (1500 views in Facebook and 1500 views in Instagram, at least 40 likes)

Objective 1.4: Practitioner Engagement

Outcome Indicators:

- 7 of practitioners engaged

- 5 Student feedback on workshops and guest lectures

Activity 1.4.1: Prepare workshops and guest lectures program

-7 workshops and lectures planned - 7 Topics covered

Activity 1.4.2: Organize and host workshops and guest lectures

- 7 workshops and lectures held - 20 Participant feedback

Objective 1.5: Anti-Corruption Educational Component Promotion

Outcome Indicators:

- 1 guideline distributed

Activity 1.5.1: Develop guidelines for implementing an “anti-corruption” component into the curriculum for master students in law

- 1 guideline developed - 3 Expert reviews and feedback on guidelines

Activity 1.5.2: Publish and promote guidelines in relevant media and among educational institutions

- 5 publications and promotions - Reached 1500 views

Activity 1.5.3: Organize and host a round table to present and discuss the guidelines

- 1 round table conducted - 5 Participant feedback collected

Activity 1.5.4: Evaluate the guidelines

- 5 evaluations collected - Quality and relevance of feedback from 2 experts

Objective 1.6: Extracurricular Activities

Outcome Indicators:

- 20 participants in the Winter Anti-Corruption School

- 20 Participant feedback and learning outcomes

Activity 1.6.1: Develop the concept and program for the Winter Anti-Corruption School in Wroclaw

- 1 Concept and 1 program documents prepared - Approval of the program by stakeholders (3 feedback)

Activity 1.6.2: Organize and host a 3-day school at UCU Centre in Wroclaw

- 20 participants - Feedback from 20 participants with 80% satisfaction rate

Activity 1.6.3: Evaluate the Winter Anti-Corruption School

- 20 of evaluations collected - Quality and impact of feedback from 20 participants with 80% satisfaction rate

Activity 1.6.4: professors visits to EU institutions

Institutional visit to GRECO for 2 people for 3 days

Goal 2: Create an Analytical Center

Outcome Indicators:

- 1 research reports published

- Adoptions of recommendations by 5 other organizations

Objective 2.1: Conduct in-depth studies of successful non-corrupt organizations in Ukraine

Outcome Indicators:

- 3 completed case studies

- 3 Quality of case study reports (based on peer reviews)

Sub-Objective 2.1.1: Identify key factors, practices, and approaches that lead to successful non-corrupt functioning

Outcome Indicators:

- 5 identified common factors

- Relevance of identified practices (based on feedback from 3 stakeholders)

Activity 2.1.1.1: Each expert conducts a separate study of a selected organization

- 10 experts assigned to case studies - 5 interviews conducted

Activity 2.1.1.2: Quarterly strategic sessions and round tables to discuss interim results and share insights

- 3 strategic sessions conducted -10 participants in sessions - 5 insights generated

Activity 2.1.1.3: Additional working meetings to finalize studies in written form

- 5 of working meetings held - 1 draft report produced

Activity 2.1.1.4: Conduct interviews, study organizational structures, values, principles of work, and leadership roles

- 5 interviews conducted -5 organizational structures analyzed -5 leadership roles evaluated

Objective 2.2: Prepare detailed reports and white papers with analysis of each case

Outcome Indicators: - 1 general report and white paper prepared - 3 Quality and comprehensiveness of reports (based on expert evaluations)

Activity 2.2.1: Compile findings into comprehensive reports and white papers

- 1 general report compiled; - 1 White paper published

Objective 2.3: Disseminate findings and recommendations to a wider audience

Outcome Indicators:

- Reach and engagement of published findings (1500 facebook post views, 1500 instagram post views 30 people attend conference)

Activity 2.3.1: Publish research findings on the project website (hosted on the UCU Law School website)

-2 publications on the website -600 of website visits/views

Activity 2.3.2: Present findings at a concluding conference at the end of the grant period

- 30 conference attendees - 5 presentations given

Objective 2.4: Develop recommendations and step-by-step plans for other organizations seeking to eradicate corruption

Outcome Indicators: - 3 recommendations developed - 1 step-by-step plan created

Activity 2.4.1: Draft and finalize recommendations based on identified best practices

- 1 draft created - 1 final recommendation

Objective 2.5: Ensure target audience engagement and impact

Outcome Indicators:

- 70% Level of engagement from target audience (survey responses, feedback)

Activity 2.5.1: Target leaders and mid-level managers in public bodies, commercial companies, educational institutions, and compliance specialists

- 50 targeted communications sent - 5 responses received

Activity 2.5.2: Engage a broader audience interested in organizational transformation and anti-corruption efforts

-7 outreach activities conducted

Goal 3: Holding a large-scale conference on the influence of higher education on the prevention and counteraction of corruption in Ukraine

Outcome Indicators:

- 40 of participants

- Impact on participants' understanding and approach to anti-corruption (at least 70% of participants)

Objective 3.1: Conduct a large-scale conference on the role of higher education in preventing and combating corruption in Ukraine

Outcome Indicators:

- 40 participants

- Diversity of participants is provided (managers, anti-corruption commissioners, representatives of anti-corruption bodies)

Sub-Objective 3.1.1: Discuss and share best practices and experiences of universities in implementing anti-corruption policies and procedures

Outcome Indicators:

- 3 best practices shared

- 10 Participant feedback on discussions

Activity 3.1.1.1: Organize plenary sessions with keynote speeches by invited speakers

- 3 plenary sessions -3 keynote speeches given

Activity 3.1.1.2: Facilitate panel discussions on thematic areas

- 3 panel discussions - 3 themes covered

Activity 3.1.1.3: Conduct workshops and training sessions for experience exchange and development of recommendations

- 1 workshops/training sessions - 40 participants in workshops

Objective 3.2: Examine the impact of values and principles instilled by universities on students' future professional integrity and anti-corruption efforts

Outcome Indicators - 3 case studies presented - Quality of discussions evaluated as good by 80 % of participants (based on participant surveys)

Activity 3.2.1: Present findings from research and initiatives in education and anti-corruption

- 1 presentation - 1 research findings shared

Objective 3.3: Explore the potential for collaboration between universities and anti-corruption bodies, NGOs, and businesses

Outcome Indicators:

- 1 collaboration initiatives discussed

-1 follow-up actions planned

Activity 3.3.1: Engage representatives from NABU, NAPK, EU Anti-Corruption Initiative, etc.

- 5 representatives engaged - 3 collaboration ideas generated

Objective 3.4: Promote the conference and engage the target audience effectively

Outcome Indicators:

- Reached 1000 views of promotional materials in social media

- 100 of registrations from target audience

Activity 3.4.1: Send targeted invitations to law faculties, law schools, and relevant research centers

- 50 invitations sent - 40 responses received

Activity 3.4.2: Spread information through educational and anti-corruption professional networks

-5 networks utilized - 3 promotional posts/articles published

Activity 3.4.3: Engage alumni, partners, and stakeholders of UCU and the School of Law

-5 alumni/partners/stakeholders engaged -3 engagement activities conducted

Objective 3.5: Strengthen the role of universities as drivers of integrity and anti-corruption in Ukraine

Outcome Indicators:

- 1 action plans developed for universities

- 7 Participant commitment to implement changes

Activity 3.5.1: Develop recommendations and action plans for the education sector to combat corruption

- 1 recommendations developed - 1 action plans formulated

There are no rows in this table

⁠

INSTRUCTIONS and DEFINITIONS

Overview

Purpose: The primary purpose of the Change Map is to link the work plan (goals, objectives, sub-objectives, and activities) to the monitoring plan (indicators). INL emphasizes “Change” in the title because the work plan should describe what changes the project intends to achieve (i.e., the goals, objectives, and sub-objectives) and how the project will achieve them (i.e., the activities). There should be more detailed information about the work plan in the project proposal; and more details about the indicators in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS). This document serves as a “mapping” between the two, by showing which indicators will be used to monitor progress toward which goals, objectives, and activities. It also functions as a high-level summary or “cover sheet” of the project that describes the specific results the project intends to achieve and how it will achieve them.

Roles and Responsibilities: INL staff are responsible for filling in the strategic alignment section. Implementing partners generally create the initial draft of the main Change Map table. INL staff provide feedback and eventually approve a final version. INL staff and dedicated M&E specialists at Post or in Washington can work with implementers in a consultative capacity to ensure that goals, objectives, and indicators meet INL design and monitoring standards.

Requirements: The change map must include the strategic alignment section; goals, objectives, sub-objectives (if applicable), and activities—all in the first column; and indicators in the second column. The vision section and associated indicators are optional.

A note on indicators: More is not necessarily better. Data are costly to collect and analyze; and too many indicators can result in focusing on minutiae at the expense of answering the most important monitoring questions, namely: 1) are major project activities going to plan; and 2) is the project achieving the expected immediate results.

A note on indicator terminology: INL uses the following indicator terminology:

Output indicator: A measure of the expected result of an activity

Outcome indicator: A measure of the expected change defined by a goal, objective, or sub-objective statement

Vision: Changes that are expected to occur after the period of performance ends, or only in combination with other projects

Definitions

Strategic Alignment: INL will complete this section. All INL projects should align to strategic goals and objectives laid out in strategy documents such as the Functional Bureau Strategy (FBS), an Integrated Country Strategy (ICS), or an Issue-Based Strategy. The Strategic Alignment section indicates which strategic objectives the project is intended to advance.

Vision: A vision statement describes the results that a project contributes to but is not expected to achieve during its period of performance. The vision may be broad (“reduce the flow of illicit narcotics through Freedonia”) or more specific (“increase arrests related to methamphetamine production sites in Freedonia”). The vision statement is optional because achieving a vision-level change is often the result of multiple interventions and lines of effort, over an extended period of time, in which INL is not the only actor.

Goal: A goal describes the highest level of change that a project expects to achieve as an immediate result of its activities, during the project’s period of performance. Projects may have one or multiple goals. Goals must meet the “change” and “clarity” design standards. See Appendix B below (Design Work Aid) for more explanation and examples.

Objective / Sub-Objective: Similar to goals, objectives and sub-objectives describe changes that the project expects to achieve during the period of performance. Objectives are mid-level changes that, if achieved, should result in the achievement of a project goal. Sub-objectives are the smallest level of change that, if achieved, should result in the achievement of an objective. Note that many objectives may not require sub-objectives.

Activity: An activity refers to the things that INL or the implementing partner are doing to cause the changes described in the goal, objective, and sub-objective statements, such as training, development of guidance documents, and equipment donations.

Indicator: An indicator is a statistic (or metric) used to measure progress toward accomplishing the activities or changes described in the goal, objective, and sub-objective statements. Indicators should answer the question: to what extent was the associated activity, goal, or objective achieved? Note that indicators associated with activities are generally output indicators (e.g., # trained, $ value of equipment donated), while indicators associated with goals, objectives, and sub-objectives are outcome indicators (e.g., changes in knowledge or behavior as a result of training). See the Indicator Work Aid, a tab in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet for more explanation and examples.

Design Work Aid

Introduction:

To improve project design, INL is focused on two of our design standards: change and clarity. To meet the change standard, goals and objectives should be expressed as the expected results, or desired end states, of the project, not as the activities that INL or its implementing partners undertake to achieve those results. To meet the clarity standard, goals and objectives should be specific about the expected results. What exactly should we expect to observe if the project achieves the expected result?

This document provides quick tips on how to meet each of these standards, examples of what meeting them and not meeting them looks like, and why meeting them matters.

How to Meet the Change Standard:

The key to the change standard is the actor: are we describing what will be true for our partners at the end of the project or are we describing what INL or our implementers will do during the project? The first is a change, the second an activity. For example, INL might train police. Running the training is our activity. The desired change is what the police learn or, in combination with other activities, the change in their behavior. A training project’s goal should be about what the police learn or do.

To be sure you’ve met the change standard, always write goals to include the subject (the person performing the action) and check that the subject is not INL or our implementing partner.

Examples of Common Mistakes and How to Fix Them:

Original

Explanation of the Problem

Improvement

Develop Freedonian corrections officials’ capabilities to confiscate contraband.

It is unclear who is doing the developing. Presumably, it is INL or our implementing partner. If our goal is just that we execute our activities, then all we will monitor is whether we executed our activities. This will not tell us if the officials learned anything or not. If we do not know if our training is effective, we run the risk of investing in a lot of ineffective training and not realizing we need to adjust how we deliver the training.

Freedonian corrections officials have the knowledge and skills to confiscate contraband.

INL delivers a series of trainings and targeted equipment that assists border enforcement and justice sector officials to interdict illegal drugs.

This makes the actor explicit but because the actor is us, this is an activity.

Border enforcement and justice sector officials know how to interdict illegal drugs and have the equipment to do so.

There are no rows in this table

⁠

Why Change-based Goals Matter:

Congress entrusts INL with taxpayer funds for the purpose of making a difference on the ground, not funding the existence of foreign assistance implementing organizations. Setting change-based goals and objectives is important for two reasons. First, what a project monitors depends on its goal. If we want to know if our projects are making a difference on the ground, we need to set goals focused on that external difference. Second, it sends an important message about what we are collectively responsible for accomplishing. It is not enough to execute an activity. We are also responsible for understanding if that activity resulted in the desired change so we can adjust future activities if needed.

How to Meet the Clarity Standard:

There are three components to clarity: (1) be consistent in describing the most significant change the project seeks to achieve, i.e., the goal; (2) the goal and objectives should be precise about what will be different as a result of the project; and (3) project documents should define ambiguous terms.

Each is elaborated below.

Consistent goal: When projects are described in narrative form without a change map, they often articulate a range of aspirations, some of which the project actually intends to bring about and others to which the project might contribute in a small way but that are much bigger than what one project can reasonably expect to accomplish. It is not always clear, however, which the project seeks to catalyze and which are aspirational. A good way to avoid this problem is to use a change map and to be clear that a goal is a change the project expects to achieve, not a visionary purpose for pursuing a project. (Note: different organizations use terms in different ways. Some use the word goal to mean visionary purpose. That is fine so long as the project document clearly identifies the most significant change the project expects to achieve.)

Precise changes: It is very common for a project to know a desired end state but one that is not attainable as the result of a particular intervention. In these cases, INL often articulates goals that indicate progress toward that desired end state but do not specify how much progress to expect from the particular project. Goals like this use words like build, enhance, increase, or strengthen. This can mask a superficial understanding of what is causing the problem INL seeks to address and how much of that can be addressed given context and resources. When working on challenging issues with limited resources, it is imperative that we understand all the main causes of the issue in question, which of those are the most important to address and in what sequence, and who has the power to address them. Being disciplined about writing goals and objectives that state who will be different in what way as a result of our activities drives deeper analysis that allows us to design more effective interventions. One tip for avoiding the fuzzy thinking pitfall is to design with a partner. It’s fine to start with the general statement that we want to, for example, improve border security. Then talk with a partner about follow up questions like: what are the main problems with Freedonia’s border security now? What’s causing those problems? What would it take to address those causes? How much of that can we afford to take on? In most cases this will lead to identifying a particular way in which the project will improve border security. Occasionally, however, INL is truly seeking to chip away at a problem it does not make sense to break into its component parts. In these cases the goal/objective can call for “improving” but should include a target to make clear by how much.

Define terms: There can be a surprising number of words that mean different things to different people. Two common categories that benefit from definitions are target groups and words that describe doing something to a certain quality marker. On the former, for example, a project might state that it seeks to target police leadership. If someone said INL leadership, would you understand that to mean the Front Office, Office Directors, or some other grouping? Similarly, police leadership can mean different things to different people and knowing which we’re talking about is important for how we scope and approach activities. On the latter, words like “appropriate” or “effective” can mean different things. If our implementing partner has a very different understanding of what an “effective” prosecution looks like, they are likely to execute activities that emphasize points we don’t prioritize. As with articulating precise changes, a good approach for making sure we define ambiguous terms is to talk about our project plans with others. It’s fine to have short goal statements (e.g., the police investigate effectively) and provide the necessary definitions as footnotes.

Examples of Common Mistakes and How to Fix Them:

Original

Explanation of the Problem

Improvement

This project will work with the government of Freedonia to: (1) develop the rule of law; and (2) combat transnational crime. Building a stable, transparent, and effective legal system will prevent extra judicial activities. The project aims to fight corruption.

Which statement is the goal? As written, it is not clear what would constitute success. Each of the possible goals is also at the aspirational level. The specific way in which Freedonia would be different at the end of this project is unknown.

Vision: Freedonia has a stable, transparent, and effective legal system. Goal: Freedonian judges impartially apply the law to cases. Impartial means deciding issues based on the facts, not other factors such as preferred executive branch outcomes.

Freedonia improves its prisoner classification.

How much and what kind of improvement needs to happen for this project to consider itself a success? It would be easy to imagine a scenario in which INL and our implementing partner had different answers to this question but did not realize that in time to address it.

Freedonian prison authorities assign inmates to appropriate levels of security and custody. Appropriate means the least restrictive regime with the most services possible given the risk the inmate poses to staff, other inmates, and the public.

There are no rows in this table

⁠

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.