Principles-Focused

Evalua3on

Michael Quinn Pa-on

August 23, 2016

1
The Niche of
Principles-Focused Evalua8on
• Unit of analysis (evaluand)
• Approach to programming
• Way to navigate complex dynamic
systems
• Approach to evalua;on
• Fundamental to Developmental
Evalua.on
2
Evalua&on
Tradi<onal Nontradi<onal &
Evalua;ng… New Direc<ons:
•  Grants Evalua;ng…
•  Projects & Programs •  Mission fulfillment
•  Clusters of grants •  Strategy
•  Goal aEainment •  Advocacy campaigns
•  Outcomes •  Policy change
•  Implementa;on •  Systems Change
Genera;ng... •  Complex dynamic
•  Lessons interven;ons
•  Recommenda;ons 3
 Innova8ons & Challenges:
Evalua&ng…
•  Community impacts
•  Regional ini;a;ves
•  Environmental ecosystem sustainability
•  Networks and collabora;ons
•  Leadership
•  Inclusiveness and diversity
•  Innova;on
•  Collec;ve impact
•  Scaling
•  PRINCIPLES 4
Principles-driven programs and
interven8ons
•  Vibrant communi;es
•  Project Spirit
•  Global Alliance for the Future of Food
•  Paris Declara;on for Development Aid
•  Programs serving homeless youth
•  Centre for Global Pluralism
•  Peacekeeping and conflict mi;ga;on

5
Effec8veness Principles

6
How are principles useful?

7
What difference do principles
make?

8
9
10
11
Your ????

12
 GUIDE
For Effec;veness Principles

13
SMART Goals

14
GUIDE Framework

15
RECIPES vs PRINCIPLES
REPLICATION RECIPE ADAPTIVE PRINCIPLE
Season to taste &
Add 1/4 teaspoon of situa<on
salt

16
Managing email

17
Exercise
Rule: Principle:
30 minutes of Exercise regularly
aerobic exercise at a level that
each day supports health
and is sustainable
given your
health, life style,
age, and capacity.
18
19
20
21
22
U-FE Principle
Focus on Intended Use
by
Intended Users

23
24
25
26
Principles-focused
strategy and evalua8on
should inspire as well as provide
direc8on

27
28
29
Principles
“I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the
first of which is to be flexible at all times.”

U.S. Senator Everett

Dirksen

30
31
 DE Purposes
Purpose Challenge Implications
Ongoing Implemented in No intention of
1 development complex & becoming fixed;
dynamic identifies effective
environment principles
Adapting Innovative Knowledge
2 effective initiatives: interpreted,
principles to Develop ‘their adapted to context
new own’ version through DE.
contexts 32
Henry Mintzberg
Strategic Evalua;on of
Leadership
strategy
Expert
Implementaion

33
 How emergent strategy works
Unrealized
Strategy

Realized
Strategy

Intended
Strategy Deliberate
Strategy

Emergent
Strategy

Source: Henry Mintzberg, Sumatra Ghoshal and James B. Quinn, The Strategy Process, Prentice Hall, 1998
http://www.ssireview.org/up_for_debate/article/strategic_philanthropy
34
 Tradi;onal Accountability Focus

Unrealized Strategy=
Failure
Intended
Strategy
Deliberate
Strategy
Realized
Strategy
Emergent Strategy=Mission dri?
35
 How developmental outcomes evalua;on works

Unrealized
Outcomes

Realized
Outcomes
Intended
Outcomes Implemented
Outcomes

Emergent
Outcomes
Adapta.on informed and
guided by principles
Source: Henry Mintzberg, Sumatra Ghoshal and James B. Quinn, The Strategy Process, Prentice Hall, 1998
http://www.ssireview.org/up_for_debate/article/strategic_philanthropy
36
Complex development situa8ons are ones
in which this…
IMPACT

OUTCOMES

OUTPUTS

ACTIVITIES

INPUTS
Time
Inspired by Jeff Conklin,
37
cognexus.org
And this…

38

 Turns out to be this… OUTPUT
OM E
OUTC

OUTPUT OUTCOME
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY
OUTPUT OUTPUT

ACTIVITY
OUTCOME
INPUTS

ACTIVITY
OUTPUT
INPUTS ACTIVITY

INPUTS Time
INPUTS 39
 …looks like this
OUTPUT
OM E
OUTC

OUTPUT OUTCOME
OUTCOME

ACTIVITY
OUTPUT OUTPUT

ACTIVITY
OUTCOME
INPUTS

ACTIVITY
OUTPUT
INPUTS ACTIVITY

INPUTS
INPUTS 40
DE Principles
1.  Developmental purpose
2.  Evalua3on rigor
3.  U3liza3on focus
4.  Innova3on niche
5. Complexity perspec3ve
6. Systems thinking
7. Co-crea3on
8. Timely feedback

41
42
 SYSTEMS THINKING and
COMPLEXITY THEORY
Ge:ng to Maybe
Transforma;ve

social
movements were
problem-focused
and principles-
driven
43
 Evidence-based Practice

Evaluation grew up in the “projects”

testing models under a theory of
change that pilot testing would lead to
proven models that could be
disseminated and taken to scale:
The search for best practices
and evidenced-based practices

44
 Fundamental Issue:
How the World Is Changed
Top-down scaling of
“proven models” with
Fidelity Evalua3on
versus
Bo-oms-up adap<ve management
and
Developmental Evalua3on 45
 Models vs. Principles

Identifying proven principles for

adaptive management
(bottoms-up approach)
versus
Identifying and disseminating
proven models
(top down approach)
46

CONTEXTUAL SCALING

•  Op;ons by context
•  Principles-based adapta;on
•  DE documents and assesses adapta;on

versus

HIGH FIDELITY REPLICATION

47
48
 Three kinds of
evidence-based interven8ons
•  Summa<ve evalua<on of a single program, grant, or
model.

•  Meta-analysis of results for several programs/grants
using the same model aiming at the same outcomes.

•  Synthesis of effec<ve principles: Diverse
interven.ons adhering to shared evidence-based
principles.

49
"Principles are like
prayers. Noble, of
course, but
awkward at a
party."

Lady Crawley, the

Dowager Countess,
Downton Abbey

50
Principles…
•  Unit of analysis (evaluand)
•  Approach to programming
•  Way to navigate complex dynamic systems
•  Approach to evalua;on
•  Fundamental to Developmental Evalua.on

51
52
Your ????

53
54
55
56
Examples of Principles
Science
Evalua;on

57
“Science isn't about authority
or white coats; it's about following
a method. That method is built
on core principles:
•  precision and transparency
•  being clear about your methods
•  being honest about your results, and
•  drawing a clear line between the results, on the
one hand, and your judgment calls about how
those results support a hypothesis.”


58
American Evalua<on Associa<on Guiding
Principles For Evaluators

Resul<ng Principles. Given the diversity of
interests and employment sekngs represented on
the Task Force, it is noteworthy that Task Force
members reached substan;al agreement about the
following five principles. The order of these
principles does not imply priority among them;
priority will vary by situa;on and evaluator role. 59
Evalua&on Principles
v AEA guiding principles
v Par;cipatory evalua;on principles
v U;liza;on-Focused Evalua;on
principles
v Culturally competence evalua;on
principles
v Indigenous peoples’ research and
evalua;on principles

60
Principles
• Provide direc;on but not detailed prescrip;on
• Are grounded in values about what maEers
• Are based on evidence about how to be
effec;ve
• Must be interpreted and applied contextually,
• Require judgment in applica;on
• Inform choices at forks in the road
• Are the rudder for naviga;ng complex dynamic
systems
• Point to outcomes and impacts
• Can be evaluated for both process
(implementa;on) -- and results
61
Vibrant communi8es, Canada
In April 2002, fineen communi;es and the
three na;onal sponsors met for a three day forum in
Guelph, Ontario to create Vibrant Communi;es.
They jointly developed an experiment designed to
test a “new” way to tackle poverty in a way that
acknowledged the complex nature of poverty and
the challenge of achieving scale in poverty reduc;on
efforts. The new way was not a model, but rather a
set of five core principles that local communi;es
agreed to follow in moun;ng locally unique
campaigns:

62
Each community was represented by someone from
the private, public and non-profit sector, as well as
someone with experience living in poverty.

63
Principles

1. Poverty Reduc;on – a focus on reducing poverty as
opposed to allevia;ng the hardships of living in poverty
2. Comprehensive Thinking & Ac;on – addressing the
inter-related causes of poverty rather than its individual
symptoms
3. Mul;sectoral Collabora;on – engaging individuals and
organiza;ons from at least four key sectors – business,
government, non-profit and persons who’ve experienced
poverty – in a joint effort rather than one sector
4. Community Asset-Building – building on community
strengths rather than focusing on its deficits
5. Learning & Change – embracing a long term process of
learning and change rather than simply undertaking a
series of specific interven;ons

64
65
 Māori
He Oranga
Poutama
Initiative

66
 Māori Health Ini8a8ve Example
The story of He Oranga Poutama, evaluators Kate
McKegg and Nan Wehipeihana

TO Māori

WITH Māori
AS Māori


•  DE book, pages 274-279

67
Overarching Principle

Engage in health and recrea;on

AS Māori

68
 He Oranga Poutama Developmental
Evaluation

Core principles were developed

HOP initiative set out to
and adapted in various local
develop a practical,
settings along with a system of
grounded understanding of
national coordination and support
what as Māori looks like in
to facilitate local effort.
diverse activities. 69
What was
developed

70
AES Best Evalua8on Policy and Systems
Award
2013 Award Winners: Nan Wehipeihana, Kate McKegg and Kataraina Pipi of
Research Evaluation Consultancy Limited (a member of the Kinnect Group), and
Veronica Thompson from Sport New Zealand) for Developmental Evaluation – He
Oranga Poutama: what have we learned?

Kate
Veronica Nan Kataraina 71
Your ????

72
 Principle:
Blandin Nurture
Founda;on commiQed
connec3ons

73
Reflec8ve prac8ce:
Senior leadership team
How does being a commiLed connector inform and
affect the Founda.on’s work in local communi.es?

•  Strong commiEed connec;ons cases
•  Weak commiEed connec;ons cases
•  Cross-case analysis
•  Examined pending program and ini;a;ve proposals
through the lens of commiEed connec;ons.
•  Board reflec;ve prac;ce
•  All-staff reflec;ve prac;ce
•  High dosage/high impact partners RP
74
Lessons: 2013 Report to the Board
Principle: Nurture commiEed connec;ons.
•  “What we learned was that in each of our strong
commiEed connec;ons, the rela;onship with the
Founda;on was key. Where staff were more
deeply engaged, connec;ons were stronger and
impacts were greater.
•  Another insight learned was that while contribu;ng
funds was very important, it wasn’t always about
the money. In other words, there were a number
of successful commiEed connec;ons, for which
funding was minimal, that yielded posi;ve impacts,
as well as where financial contribu;ons were
significant.” 75
Key insights gained that help inform
our work on commi^ed connec8ons

•  CommiEed connec;ons are core to the

Founda;on’s work.

•  Connec;ons of the Founda;on can take many
forms, and the most impacsul are those that
are commiEed – those that last. For example:

76
•  Connec;ng people to each other (individually, small groups)
•  Connec;ng people to networks
•  Connec;ng people to knowledge
•  Connec;ng people to issues
•  Connec;ng issues to issues (breaking down silos between
issues)
•  Connec;ng people to resources
•  Connec;ng people to opportuni;es
•  Connec;ng people to ac;on (from talk to ac;on)
•  Connec;ng people to organiza;ons
•  Connec;ng organiza;ons to each other
•  Connec;ng people to communi;es
•  Connec;ng communi;es to each other
•  Connec;ng communi;es to regions
•  Disconnec;ng people from ineffec;ve or dysfunc;onal
connec;ons 77
Commi^ed connec8ons insights

4. Bringing people together doesn’t necessarily

lead to commiEed connec;ons.

5. Being an effec;ve connector is a pre-requisite
for the Founda;on to be effec;ve at inclusion.

6. CommiEed connec;ons is BOTH PROCESS and

OUTCOMES, and the two are linked

78
7. The internet offers emerging opportuni;es for virtual
connec.ons:
•  This is an important area for future development and
developmental evalua;on already underway with the
Broadband Ini;a;ve and Founda;on communica;ons
and informa;on systems infrastructure. Inquiry
ques;ons going forward include: What are the
opportuni;es for commiLed connec.ons using web
plasorms? Youth virtual communi;es? Social media?
Connec;ng former Itasca residents to home area? BCLP
alums? How does Blandin con;nue to stay on top of
these new developments and direc;ons?

79
8. In addi;on to engaging in deep reflec;on
(developmental evalua;on) on our external work, we
also conducted reflec;ve prac;ce on how we could
get beEer at connec;ng with each other as the
Senior Leadership Team in order to share learning
and beEer leverage our work. Our focusing ques;on
was:
“What is shared learning?”

80
Commi^ed connec8ons insights
•  We learned that we only know something when we
know it together. As a result of this we commiEed
to regular check-ins at SLT mee;ngs to cross-
fer;lize connec;ons being made and knowledge
being gained.
•  We asked ourselves what we needed to know
together and decided that we needed to watch for
trends and themes emerging in common from our
separate spheres, and to beEer capture impacts as
they occur. One way to do this is develop some
simple processes for “aner ac;on reviews.”
•  Monitoring these issues together is a core part of
strengthening the team’s development.

81
82
83
84
85
86
Your ????

87
88
•  Three
emergency
shelters
•  Two drop-in
centers
•  One street
outreach
collaborative
•  Two counties
in the Twin
Cities metro
 Principles-focused evalua8on
1.  Iden;fied principles in dran form
2.  Collabora;vely iden;fied fourteen youth
3.  Interviewed youth, reviewed their case file,
interviewed a nominated staff person
4.  Synthesized informa;on and wrote case stories
5.  Reviewed stories with the youth
6.  Analyzed stories, looking for principles and
emergent themes

90

True caring by staff is profoundly
important to youth.

Build rela8onships by interac8ng with youth in

an honest, dependable,
authen8c, caring
and suppor8ve way
91
And you be like, “Okay, I have all this on my plate. I
have to dig in and look into [the choices I’m making] to
make my life more complete.” And I felt that on my
own, I really couldn’t. Not even the strongest person
on God’s green Earth can do it. I couldn’t do it. So I
ended up reaching out to [the youth shelter], and they
opened their arms. They were like just, “Come. Just get
here,” and they got me back on track.
-Pearl

92
If I was to sit in a room and think about, like,
everything that happened to me or I’ve been
through, I’ll get to cryin’ and feelin’ like I don’t
wanna be on Earth anymore—like I wanted to die.
When I talk to somebody about it, it makes me
feel beLer. The people I talk to about it give me
good advice. They tell me how much they like me
and how [good] I’m doin’. They just put good stuff
in my head, and then I think about it and realize I
am a good person and everything’s gonna work
out beLer.
-Maria

93
•  [Rahim’s] not going to send me to the next man, put
me onto the next person’s caseload. He just always
took care of me.[…]I honestly feel like if I didn’t have
Rahim in my corner, I would have been doing a whole
bunch of dumb shit. I would have been right back at
square one. I probably would have spent more ;me
in jail than I did. I just felt like if it wasn’t for him, I
probably wouldn’t be here right now, talking to you.
-Thmaris

94
 How this is different

The opposite of this principle (trus.ng adult-youth

rela.onships) is to;
focus on the transac;on (ex: help with
GED prepara;on, help with resume wri;ng,
help applying for housing) while minimizing
opportuni;es for rela;onships to develop.

95
Journey Oriented
Interact with youth to help them understand the
interconnectedness of past, present and future as
the decide where they want to go and how to get
there

The opposite
Immediate outcomes focus:
housing
96
Trauma-Informed
Recognize that most homeless youth have
experienced trauma; build rela;onships, responses,
and services on that knowledge

The opposite
Standards of behavior; compliance
with rules 97
 Non-Judgmental
Interact with youth without labeling or judging them
on the basis of background, experiences,
choices or behaviors

Contain the effects of risky behavior in the short-term

and seek to reduce its effects in the long-term

The opposite: Zero tolerance

98
Your ????

99
Methods and design implica8ons

•  Sampling principles
•  Surveys
•  Interviewing
•  Observing
•  Document analysis

100
Evalua8on methodological principles
1.  Match methods to the situa;on and intended use
by intended users
(not, base methods on disciplinary pres;ge)

1.  Judge methodological quality by appropriateness

(not a rigid hierarchy of context-free rigor)

101
Evalua&ng Principles

102
The Paris Declara8on on Aid Effec8veness

The Paris Declara;on (2005) is a prac;cal, ac;on-
oriented roadmap to improve the quality of aid and
its impact on development. It gives a series of
specific implementa;on measures and establishes
a monitoring system to assess progress and ensure
that donors and recipients hold each other
accountable for their commitments. (OECD)

The Paris Declara;on outlines the following five
fundamental principles for making aid more
effec;ve:

103
 Paris Declara8on Principles

1. Ownership: Developing countries set their own strategies for

poverty reduc.on, improve their ins.tu.ons and tackle corrup.on.

2. Alignment: Donor countries align behind these objec.ves and use
local systems.

3. Harmonisa<on: Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures
and share informa.on to avoid duplica.on.

4. Results: Developing countries and donors shiX focus to
development results and results get measured.

5. Mutual accountability: Donors and partners are accountable for
development results.

104
RELEVANCE

The Paris Declara;on on

Aid Effec;veness is a
landmark interna;onal
agreement and program
of reform – the
culmina;on of several
decades of aEempts to
improve the quality of
aid and its impacts on
development.

105
RELEVANCE
The Paris Declara;on on Aid Effec;veness was endorsed
in 2005 by over 100 countries including the more
developed aid donor countries like the United States,
developing countries from around the world, and
interna;onal development ins;tu;ons like the World
Bank, the United Na;ons Development Group, and the
Organiza;on for Economic Co-opera;on and
Development (OECD).

106
RELEVANCE
The stakes are huge: the cri;cal need for beEer lives
for billions of people (reflected in the approaching
Millennium Development Goals for 2015); hundreds of
billions of dollars commiEed to addressing poverty
reduc;on; a web of interna;onal rela;onships; and
growing, onen skep;cal, demands from many sides to
see demonstrable results from development aid.
This Evalua;on is therefore important both for
accountability – assessing the reforms achieved or not
achieved – and for learning to guide future
improvements.

107
Five Paris Declara8on Principles
1 .  Country ownership
2.  Alignment
3.  Harmoniza<on
4.  Mutual accountability
5.  Managing for results

108
 11 intended improvements for effec8ve
aid
1.  Stronger na;onal strategies and opera;onal frameworks
2.  Increased alignment of aid with country systems
3.  Mee;ng defined measures and standards, e.g. in financial
mgt.
4.  Reduced duplica;on of donor effort, more coopera;on
5.  Reformed and simplified donor policies and procedures
6.  Increased predictability of aid
7.  Sufficient delega;on to donor field staff
8.  Sufficient integra;on of global ini;a;ves
9.  Increased capacity
10.  Enhanced accountability
11.  Reduced corrup;on and increased transparency

109
 Background, process and limits for the Evalua8on
Background
•  The Declara;on itself pledged an independent evalua;on
- itself a tool for mutual accountability
•  Fully joint evalua;on conducted over 4 years (Phase 1:
2007-8; Phase 2: 2009-11).
Evidence base
• 22 Country-level evalua;ons led by partner countries and
managed in-country
• 18 Donor/agency HQ studies
• 7 Supplementary studies on key topics plus review of the
most significant global literature

110
The Key Evalua8on Ques8ons

1.  “What are the important factors that have affected the
relevance and implementa<on of the Paris Declara<on and
its poten<al effects on aid effec<veness and development
results?” (The Paris Declara<on in context)
2.  “To what extent and how has the implementa<on of the
Paris Declara<on led to an improvement in the efficiency
of aid delivery, the management and use of aid and be-er
partnerships?” (Process and intermediate outcomes)
3.  “Has the implementa<on of the Paris Declara<on
strengthened the contribu<on of aid to sustainable
development results? How?” (Development outcomes)

111
Building blocks of the Evalua8on
SYNTHESIS

EVALUATION QUESTIONS
3. Development outcomes
2. Process and intermediate outcomes
1. Context

DONOR STUDIES
COUNTRY STUDIES
SUPPLEMENTARY
STUDIES

PDE PHASE 1 RESULTS + Monitoring Information

112
Rela8onships: A joint evalua8on
•  Based on the principles of the Paris Declara<on:
partner countries and development partners
develop the evalua<on framework/approach and
execute the evalua<on jointly
•  The evalua<on itself is a tool for mutual
accountability:
•  22 Country-level evalua<ons led by partner countries
and managed in-country (Phase 1=7, Phase 2=21)
•  18 Donor/agency HQ studies (phase 1=11, Phase 2=7)

113
Rela8onships: Country Evalua8ons & Donor Studies

114
Rela8onships: Governance, management and
implementa8on
•  Interna<onal Reference Group (40-plus reps. of governments,
interna;onal Organiza;ons and CSOs. Co-chaired by Malawi and
Sweden)
•  Management Group (Colombia, Malawi, Netherlands, Sweden,
US, Vietnam)
•  Evalua<on Secretariat at DIIS
•  Na<onal/Agency Reference Groups and Evalua<on Coordinators
•  Na<onal/Agency Evalua<on Teams (with specified recruitment
criteria, and common generic ToRs)
•  Core Evalua<on Team (7 Members, from Canada, Denmark,
Nigeria, Peru, Sri Lanka, Malawi and the UK + resource persons)
•  High Level Peer Reviewers: Dr. Mary Chinery-Hesse and Mr. Mark
Malloch Brown.

115
RELATIONSHIPS

116
The Core Evalua8on Team
•  Developed detailed methodology and provides support
to country teams
•  Was responsible for the synthesis of country and donor
HQ evalua<on results, those from Phase 1, and other
studies, and for preparing the overall Evalua<on Report
•  Reported and was responsible to the Evalua<on
Management Group, through the Evalua<on Secretariat
•  Was compe<<vely recruited (by interna<onal tender) by
the Evalua<on Management Group
•  Comprise six interna<onal consultants and a number of
associated members for specific tasks

117
CORE INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION TEAM

118
Rela8onships: Managing the evalua8on
Management Group (Colombia, Malawi, Netherlands, Sweden,
US, Vietnam) responsible for:

•  Developing the overall evalua<on framework and
ToR for the Core Evalua<on Team
•  Coordina<ng and managing the evalua<on
process
•  Guiding the component studies
•  Developing and managing supplementary studies
and synthesis of findings and recommenda<ons
•  Dissemina<on

Evalua<on Secretariat at the Danish Ins<tute for Interna<onal
Studies

119
RELATIONSHIPS: Team
Configura8ons

120
Evalua8on metrics
•  Distance
•  Direc;on
•  Speed

121
OVERALL FINDINGS

•  Country ownership has advanced farthest
•  Alignment and harmoniza<on improved unevenly.
•  Mutual accountability and managing for results
lagging most
•  Ac;on on mutual accountability is now the most
important need - backed by transparency and a
realis;c acceptance and management of risks

122
 Clarity: The Central Messages
•  The Paris Declara<on has contributed to change of
behaviour – but unevenly so. Partner countries have
moved further and faster than donors. Some donors
more than others and some very li-le.
•  The Paris Declara<on has contributed to improve aid
effec<veness – but much remains to be done.
•  The Paris Declara<on has contributed to be-er
development results – but not across the board.
•  The PD and AAA “campaign” remains relevant and
has gained momentum – but needs nurturing to
con<nue.

123
 Clarity: The central message

•  The global campaign to make interna<onal aid

programmes more effec<ve is showing results.
•  But the improvements are slow and uneven in most
developing countries and even more so among most
donor agencies, although the changes expected of
them are less demanding.

124
Responsibility:
Process Use
The impacts of being involved in the evalua;on
process for those countries, donors, and
par;cipants involved.

125
Meta-Evalua8on

126
 Meta-Evalua8on Design & Methods
•  Review all documents (complete transparency & access)
•  Observe two Interna;onal Reference Group (IRG) mee;ngs:
Indonesia in December, 2010; Copenhagen in April, 2011.
•  Interview diverse stakeholders & par;cipants
•  Facilitate a reflec;ve prac;ce session with IRG par;cipants
•  Survey of country evaluators and IRG par;cipants
•  Observe Evalua;on Management Group mee;ngs and
correspondence
•  Review the dran and final report

127
 Transparency & Dissemina8on:
Full reports and suppor8ng materials
All documents from the Evalua<on, including the full country
evalua<ons and donor studies, can be found
in English, French and Spanish
on
www.busanhlf4.org
and
www.oecd.org/dac/evalua<onnetwork/pde

These sites also have links to a number of videos illustra<ng key
aspects of the Paris Declara<on and the Evalua<on

128
 PRINCIPLES
2001

2012
129
“It is cri;cal to
get the
principles of
ac;on right
before
ac;ng.”

130
 Global Alliance for the Future of Food

The Global Alliance for the Future of Food is a new alliance of

founda<ons commi-ed to leveraging our resources to help shim
food and agriculture systems towards greater sustainability,
security, and equity. The Global Alliance represents more than 30
founda<ons from 10 countries with diverse interests and
exper<se, spanning health, agriculture, food, conserva<on,
cultural diversity, and community well-being.

There are a host of other people working towards similar goals on
food system reform. Given the Global Alliance’s unique resources,
we aim to support the genera<on of new and different solu<ons at
the global level that take us beyond our usual strategies,
recognizing that the Global Alliance’s shared ac<ons will magnify
all our founda<ons’ individual responses.

131
Global Alliance Goal
The GA cul<vates healthy, equitable, renewable,
resilient, and culturally diverse food and agriculture
systems shaped by people, communi<es, and their
ins<tu<ons.

132
WHAT BRINGS US TOGETHER
Par;cipants in the Global Alliance for the Future of
Food believe that current global food systems are
not sustainable, and that many of the values upon
which they are based make them an undesirable
choice for the future of food on the planet,
par;cularly when coupled with climate change and
shining global economics, poli;cs, demographics,
and diets.

133
We each work at different scales, on diverse issues, and
from a mul8tude of perspec8ves, but collec8vely we
see global food systems that increasingly…
•  Depend on fossil fuels and non-renewable inputs that
result in pollu;on and environmental damage, and
consume unsustainable quan;;es of scarce natural
resources leading to deple;on of natural capital,
especially water, soil, and biodiversity;

•  Erode human health, social cohesion, rural livelihoods,

important social, cultural, and spiritual tradi;ons;
undermine the vital contribu;ons of farming, fishing,
and forest communi;es as innovators, producers,
providers, and custodians; and are unresponsive to the
knowledge and priori;es of ci;zens in determining
food policies and prac;ces from the local to global
level;
•  Promote an economic system that privileges corporate
culture and result in economic liabili;es due to hidden
costs, global trade vulnerabili;es, and declining rural
economies that threaten food security and prevent the
prolifera;on of sustainable food systems

•  We agree that these problems do not stand alone but
are in;mately connected, and jeopardize our individual
and collec;ve aims to promote food access, food
security, food equity, human health, and a sustainable
environment. Change is urgently needed, change at all
scales from local to regional to global through a
systems-level approach that leads to effec;ve poli;cal,
economic, and social change.

135
HOW WE WORK TOGETHER
•  Our work is guided by a set of shared principles
that both express the shared values of the Global
Alliance and provide a diagnos;c, assessment, and
strategic interven;on tool for realizing our overall
goal. The following principles express values,
provide ac;onable direc;on, and encompass the
change we want to make interpreted within and
adapted to specific sustainable food and
agricultural systems contexts:

136
GA Principles

1. Renewability
Address the integrity of natural and social
resources that are the founda;on of a healthy
planet and future genera;ons in the face of
changing global and local demands.

2. Resilience
Support regenera;ve, durable, and
economically adap;ve systems in the face of a
changing planet.

3. Equity
Promote sustainable livelihoods and access to
nutri;ous and just food systems.


137
Global Alliance Principles
4. Diversity
Value our rich and diverse agricultural, ecological, and
cultural heritage.
5. Healthfulness
Advance the health and well-being of people, the
environment, and the socie;es that depend on both.
6. Interconnectedness
Understand the implica;ons of the interdependence of
food, people, and the planet in a transi;on to more
sustainable food and agricultural systems

138
We apply a principles framework as a diagnos;c tool
to food and agriculture system at all levels – local,
regional, global – to capture innova;ve
interven;ons, assess their effects and consequences,
and feed back the findings to learn what works and
what doesn’t, as we experiment, learn, and adapt
together. We recognize that this work is adap;ve,
ongoing, and complex, and that the strategies to
move forward will evolve through engagement and
learning.

139
 System X: e.g. Mayan Slash and Burn
Principle Current Status Future Desired Ac<on to get from Current to
Status Future
Renewability Non- Renewable X Y Z
renewable/
depleted


Resilience

Equity

Diversity

Healthfulness

Interconnecte
dness
140
McKnight Founda8on CCRP

141
142
Diagnosis CCRP response
Ag Systems Strategic grantmaking
•  Hunger hot spots leave billions of Convening
people hungry or malnourished –  CoPs
•  Agro-resource base degraded –  Communica;on tools
R+D Systems Regional and program level
•  R+D systems do not have support
capacity, incen;ves and –  Regional and program teams
resources to address this need –  Technical assistance and RMS

Scaling op;ons Outcomes and Impacts

•  AEI principles and
•  Contextualized scaling evidence
•  Inspira;on •  Social and technological
innova;ons
•  Policy
•  More resilient and
•  Cross-sector adap;ve systems and
communica;on ins;tu;ons 143
 Exploratory
LT
Generative 2009-1014
Cornell

Seville
Convergence

Coherent Principles–Focused
CCRP Niche
Aligned and
mutually
reinforcing
sets of
principles

CCRP Leadership Annual Conference, Cornell,

145
2014
 PRINCIPLES ORGANIZING STRUCTURE

Principle Principle
2 3

Collabora;ve Crop
Principle 1
Principle 4
CCRP
Principle 5 Principle 8

Research Program

Principle 6 Principle 7
CCRP: COLLABORATION
1.  INCLUSION
Convene mul;ple and diverse stakeholders to
inform delibera;ons at all levels and loca;ons of
decision-making.
2. GENUINE COLLABORATION
Ensure genuine and authen.c collabora;ve
engagement.
Inclusive Genuine
Collabora;on

COLLABORATION
Dangers, traps,
Opera<ng Principles contrary principles
a.  Reciprocity: Build trust a.  Win-lose power plays:
based on shared compliance
interests and honest mentality and
interac;ons behavior
b.  Mutuality: Nego;ate b.  Tokenism/one-sided
win-win agreements control
c.  Realis<c engagement: c.  Overwhelming
Start where people
are.
d.  Nudge: Generate d.  Pushing too hard, too
movement far, too fast
COLLABORATION

Opera<ng Principles Desired Outcomes
a.  Reciprocity: Build trust a.  Trust and mutual respect
based on shared
interests and honest
interac;ons
b.  Shared ownership
b.  Mutuality: Nego;ate
win-win agreements
c.  Sense of “we can do this.”
c.  Realis<c engagement:
Start where people
are. d.  Movement, being
engaged, process
d.  Nudge: Generate animated
movement
 PRINCIPLES ORGANIZING STRUCTURE

Principle Principle
2 3

Collabora;ve Crop
Principle 1
Principle 4
CCRP

Research Program
CCRP: CROP SYSTEMS
Throughout all aspects and stages of crop systems
improvement work…
3. Apply agroecology concepts,
knowledge, and principles (AEI)
and
4. Conduct contextual analysis
CONTEXTUALIZE THROUGHOUT

CROP SYSTEMS
Dangers, traps,
Opera<ng Principles contrary principles
a.  Frame needs, diagnosis, a.  Unsystema;c and
the CCRP response, idiosyncra;c analysis, ad
pathways of change, hoc interven;ons, non-
outcomes, and scaling contextualized findings,
and simple, singular,
poten;al through the linear recommenda;ons.
lens of AEI and op;ons
by context analysis.
b. Reduced diversity
b.  Value heterogeneity:
Build on and enhance
diversity c. Single commodity
outcomes (versus cropping
c.  Include mul;- systems improvements)
dimensional outcomes
d. Short-term, isolated and
d.  Enhance resilience and immediate outcomes focus
sustainability

CROP SYSTEMS
Dangers, traps,
Opera<ng Principles contrary principles

e. Look for intersec;ons e. Isolated, siloed

and interac;ons among interven;ons and
mul;ple, interrelated outcomes
pathways of change (e.g.,
soil health and plant
breeding)
f. Take an integrated
long-term perspec;ve f. Short-term thinking
while producing short-
and medium term results
(e.g., Quinoa #1, #2, # 3)
SMALLHOLDER FARMERS
IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
(Drae 18-Mar-15)
V. Ernesto Méndez
 Prac<ces
# Principles Sub-principles (by Context)

1
Conserve and enhance •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Intercropping
agroecosystem diversity at mul;ple diversity ü  Agroforestry
levels •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Cover cropping
gene;c diversity
•  Preserve and enhance
landscape diversity
 Prac<ces
# Principles Sub-principles (by Context)

1
Conserve and enhance •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Intercropping
agroecosystem diversity at mul;ple diversity ü  Agroforestry
levels •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Cover cropping
gene;c diversity
•  Preserve and enhance
landscape diversity

2
Conserve and enhance soil •  Manage all soil proper;es: ü  Intercropping
health and nutrient cycling biological, physical and ü  Agroforestry
chemical ü  Green
•  Conserve and enhance soil manuring
organic maEer ü  Compos;ng


3

4

 Prac<ces
# Principles Sub-principles (by Context)

1
Conserve and enhance •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Intercropping
agroecosystem diversity at mul;ple diversity ü  Agroforestry
levels •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Cover cropping
gene;c diversity
•  Preserve and enhance
landscape diversity

2
Conserve and enhance soil •  Manage all soil proper;es: ü  Intercropping
health and nutrient cycling biological, physical and ü  Agroforestry
chemical ü  Green
•  Conserve and enhance soil manuring
organic maEer ü  Compos;ng


3
Conserve and enhance natural/ •  Minimize use of pes;cides
ecological pest and disease
regula;ng mechanisms

4
 Prac<ces
# Principles Sub-principles (by Context)

1
Conserve and enhance •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Intercropping
agroecosystem diversity at mul;ple diversity ü  Agroforestry
levels •  Preserve and enhance crop ü  Cover cropping
gene;c diversity
•  Preserve and enhance
landscape diversity

2
Conserve and enhance soil •  Manage all soil proper;es: ü  Intercropping
health and nutrient cycling biological, physical and ü  Agroforestry
chemical ü  Green
•  Conserve and enhance soil manuring
organic maEer ü  Compos;ng


3
Conserve and enhance natural/ •  Minimize use of pes;cides
ecological pest and disease
regula;ng mechanisms

4
Minimize dependence on •  Minimize use of synthe;c
external synthe;c inputs pes;cides
 CROP
SYSTEMS

AEI Contextualize
Principles
 PRINCIPLES ORGANIZING STRUCTURE

Principle Principle
2 3

Cropping
Collabora;ve
Systems
Principle 1
Principle 4
CCRP
Principle 5

Research Program

Principle 6
CCRP: RESEARCH
5. Farmer-Researcher Co-Crea<on

and

6. Research for AEI Impact

CCRP: RESEARCH
In all aspects and phases of cropping systems research
facilitate…
5. Farmer-researcher co-crea<on:
Engage farmers as partners to ensure
relevance and use of research
processes and results
and
6. Research for AEI Impact: Design and
implement research to achieve impact
(genera<ng op<ons by context for
improving crop systems).

RESEARCH
Dangers, traps,
Opera<ng Principles contrary principles

a.  Enhance quality a. Expec;ng quality

without support,
through capacity guidance, and technical
building assistance
b.  Integrate local & global b. Isolated findings
research c. Technically adequate
c.  Link social & technical research that is not
inquiry relevant and useful.
d.  Integrate farmer d. Research isolated from
knowledge into the exis;ng contextual
understandings and
research. knowledge, and therefore
less relevant and useful.

RESEARCH
O
pera<ng Principles Dangers, traps,
e. Incen;vize, support, and contrary principles
reinforce farmer par;cipa;on e. Weak farmer
to ensure responsiveness to par;cipa;on; researcher
farmers’ needs, knowledge, control (not genuine co-
problems, concerns, and crea;on)
constraints.
f. Make the research process
empowering: Build social,
technical, and methodological f. Narrow outcomes; liEle, if
any, sustainable and
capital through the farmer- resilient systems change.
researcher co-crea;on
process.
g. Project phases
g. Phased and emergent disconnected; lack of
design accumula;on of capacity,
& implementa;on findings, uses, and impacts.

RESEARCH
O
pera<ng Principles Dangers, traps,
e. Incen;vize, support, and contrary principles
reinforce farmer par;cipa;on e. Weak farmer
to ensure responsiveness to par;cipa;on; researcher
farmers’ needs, knowledge, control (not genuine co-
problems, concerns, and crea;on)
constraints.
f. Make the research process
empowering: Build social,
technical, and methodological f. Narrow outcomes; liEle, if
any, sustainable and
capital through the farmer- resilient systems change.
researcher co-crea;on
process.
g. Project phases
g. Phased and emergent disconnected; lack of
design accumula;on of capacity,
& implementa;on findings, uses, and impacts.

RESEARCH
O
pera<ng Principles Dangers, traps,
h. Be u;liza;on-focused: contrary principles
Don’t collect data un;l and
unless you know how it will h. Extraneous data,
be used. unused finings

i. Ensure two-way flow of i. One-way, top-down,
communica;ons between ineffec;ve, aliena;ng
farmers and researchers communica;ons
throughout.



j. Secure data for access,
aggrega;on, and future use j. Lost data; inaccessible,
locally and globally. unused, disaggregated.

 RESEARCH

Farmer- Research for

Researcher AEI Impact
Co-crea;on
 PRINCIPLES ORGANIZING STRUCTURE

Principle Principle
2 3

Collabora;ve Crop
Principle 1
Principle 4
CCRP
Principle 5 Principle 8

Research Program

Principle 6 Principle 7
CCRP: PROGRAM
7. Values Coherence:
Ensure that CCRP work is ethical and
grounded in core values.

and
8. Systemic Program Coherence:
Ensure that the diverse levels,
elements, dimensions, and loca<ons
of CCRP are interconnected.
 PROGRAM COHERENCE
O
pera<ng Principles Dangers, traps,
VALUES COHERENCE contrary principles
a. Clarify, reinforce, and a. Pretense of being value-free
incorporate core values: and neutral, purely technical
equity, gender, human rights, orienta;on.
and ethical interac;ons.
b. Keep the focus on b. Slippery slope to suppor;ng
smallholder, marginalized more advantaged farmers
famers (onen easier to work with)
c. Ensure respect for c. Undermining indigenous
indigenous culture and culture with technical
knowledge. innova;ons and interven;ons.
d. Empower. d. Disempowering
e. Avoid doing harm. e. Inadvertently doing harm
f. Protect those at risk (be f. Being overwhelmed by
defensive when needed) powerful, well-resourced
offensive ini;a;ves.
 PROGRAM COHERENCE
O
pera<ng Principles Dangers, traps,
VALUES COHERENCE contrary principles
a. Clarify, reinforce, and a. Pretense of being value-free
incorporate core values: and neutral, purely technical
equity, gender, human rights, orienta;on.
and ethical interac;ons.
b. Keep the focus on b. Slippery slope to suppor;ng
smallholder, marginalized more advantaged farmers
famers (onen easier to work with)
c. Ensure respect for c. Undermining indigenous
indigenous culture and culture with technical
knowledge. innova;ons and interven;ons.
d. Empower. d. Disempowering
e. Avoid doing harm. e. Inadvertently doing hard
f. Protect those at risk (be f. Being overwhelmed by
defensive when needed) powerful, well-resourced
offensive ini;a;ves.
 PROGRAM COHERENCE
O
pera<ng Principles Dangers, traps,
SYSTEMIC COHERENCE contrary principles
a. Integrate theory and a. Incoherence; isolated
prac;ce findings and outcomes
b. Reinforce systems &
complexity thinking b. Linear, simple thinking
throughout c. M&E done as compliance
c. Integrate M&E d. Lack of shared learning
d. Reflec;ve prac;ce, using
the adap;ve cycle e. Disconnected, incoherent,
ineffec;ve programming
e. Connect levels, pathways,
regions, outcomes f. Reduced impact
f. Connect CCRP to other g. Lack of program
development ins;tu;ons and coherence across projects,
ini;a;ves regions, CoPs, and pathways
g. Ensure use of the Theory of change
of Change
 PROGRAM COHERENCE
O
pera<ng Principles Dangers, traps,
SYSTEMIC COHERENCE contrary principles
h. Mutual accountability h. Accountability a burden,
i. Administra;ve efficiency puni;ve, resisted
i-j-k. Poor resource use, not
j. Effec;ve stewardship and realizing poten;al
investment of scare
resources.
k. Economies of scale in l. Individual agendas rule;
programming lack of shared direc;on;
conflict
l. Team leadership
m. No contribu;on to the
m. Model of Collabora;ve field in its struggle for
Development effec;ve, values-based
models.

Drae IMEP Principles
1.  M&E is u;liza;on-focused and developmental
2.  M&E is informed by human systems dynamics and the adap;ve cycle: What?
So what? Now what?
3.  M&E serves learning, adapta;on, and accountability
4.  M&E uses mul;ple and mixed methods.
5. Embed M&E so that it’s everyone’s responsibility
6.  M&E is based on and aligned with the TOC.
7.  M&E is systema;c and integrated across CCRP levels
8.  M&E is built into project and program structures and uses data generated
with projects and programs as the founda;on for M&E.
9.  Supplemental evalua;on is undertaken to aggregate and synthesize learning
across projects and ;me to iden;fy paEerns and generate lessons.
10.  Communicate and process evalua;on findings to support ongoing program
development and meet accountability demands.
11.  IMEP follows the evalua;on profession’s Joint CommiEee Standards.

176
 LEADERSHIP
2001

2012
177
COMPLEXITY
“A Leader's Framework for Decision
Making” by David J. Snowden and
Mary E. Boone, Harvard Business
Review,
November, 2007:
Wise executives tailor their approach to
fit the complexity of the circumstances
they face.

178
179
182
183
184
185
Your ????

186