Skip to content
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
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:
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.
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.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.