Please update your browser

We have detected that you are using an outdated browser that will prevent you from using
certain features. An update is required to improve your browsing experience.

Use the links below to upgrade your existing browser

Hello, visitor.

Register Now

  • Intervention - precaution - outcome.
    Following their Theory of Change planning sessions, NAMA Foundation had some hard decisions to make. NAMA Foundation’s CEO, Dr. Saleh Bazead Saleh Mubarak, put it this way:

    “If you have a Theory of Change, you have to follow it. If you follow it, you may end up removing a lot of your current programs. You may discover that many of your programs are out of scope. You have to be brave to cut.

    "People will complain. But if you want [your organization] to work well, you will have to continue.”

    Ultimately, this meant that some popular programs were cut. A limit was set on the number of beneficiaries which the foundation would focus on for the next few years. The remaining beneficiaries, however, would receive a renewed focus.

    NAMA Foundation is still in the process of realigning their programs with their Theory of Change. They are investigating which of their existing programs should be strengthened or revised; which programs should be cut; and which new programs should be devised. Each of these changes requires major planning and coordination from the whole team.

  • Intervention - precaution - outcome.

  • Fiver Children Foundation and Schol Readiness Thery of change
    Fiver Children Foundation Theory of Change is easier to understand since its demonstrates explanations of all processes.

  • I compared ELC and School Readiness pathway of change diagrams.
    ELC is clear and easy to understand and presented in an attractive, simple manner.
    School Readiness diagram is much complex and not directing towards a single vision. Rather scattered and concluded at a long term outcome/ preconditions level.
    Vision is not mentioned clearly.

  • The simplest to understand is the ToC of Fiver's Foundation. The preconditions are shown beside the interventions and any lower levels is reasonably linked with the upper ones. All the path bring to the final outcome, achieved through a 10-years-strategy.

  • End-of-Life Care Association of Japan.
    Images, graphics and arrows made it easy to understand, but also to follow connections and the logic behind it.

  • I choose "the hunger project" and "school readiness".
    I personally think that the hunger project has a more well done and linear structure.

  • I compared ToC of Fiver Children's Foundation and End-of-Life Care Association of Japan. Even though it does not conform to the format of separate PoC and Narrative, I liked EoLCA better as it beautifully merges the PoC and Narrative in a single, easy to understand one page graphic succinctly and cogently. PoC of FCF is also good but its narrative is too heavy and doesn't provide a clear picture.

  • This is not relevant to the task of comparing ToCs.

  • That is simply explained. On checking up both, I would agree with your view.

  • I have compared the “Hunger Project” and the “Fiver Children’s Foundation”. I find the Fiver Children's Foundation's Theory of Change is easier to understand because they give background information and list activities for each of the intermediate outcomes. Furthermore, they show a timeline. In comparison, the Hunger Project's Theory of Change is very complex. A very large number of intermediate outcomes are mentioned. This raises the question of how these can be achieved, since neither interventions nor indicators are mentioned.

  • I have compared the “Hunger Project” and the “Fiver Children’s Foundation”. I find the Fiver Children's Foundation's Theory of Change is easier to understand because they give background information and list activities for each of the intermediate outcomes. Furthermore, they show a timeline. In comparison, the Hunger Project's Theory of Change is very complex. A very large number of intermediate outcomes are mentioned. This raises the question of how these can be achieved, since neither interventions nor indicators are mentioned.

  • I compared the Project Superwoman and the fiver children foundation. The Project Superwoman was easier to understand for me. I didn't take note of the important information missing.

  • The two pathway of change diagrams I compare are as follows:

    1. FIVER Children's Foundation. This diagram gives a graphical narrative of all the interventions that lead to outcomes and the outcomes that lead to the ultimate outcome at the top.

    2. Guided example: Project superwomen. The diagram gives a graphical narrative of all the interventions that lead to outcomes and the outcomes that lead to the ultimate outcome at the top.

    The Fiver Children's Foundation diagram was easier to understand. I don't think any important information was missing.

  • I compared two pathway of change diagrams: theory of change Japan and Hunger Project (2011).

    The Hunger Project (2011) was easier to understand because the diagram showed the key information like the outcomes, the preconditions and the interventions even though in a pretty complex form.

    The theory of change Japan was more difficult to understand as the pathway of change was clumsy and not easily comprehensible.

  • PARTNERS, BENEFICIARY AND STAFF
    The question will on whether the indicator selected can measure the input, output, outcome and impact

  • the pathway of change maps and illustrate the relationship between outcomes and also show how the outcome relates to each other over life span

  • The Hivos theory of change was more easier to understand

  • My name Sarah, am very passionate on issues to do with data

  • Training is vital for providing skills for persons going to collect data.

  • Training is vital for providing skills for persons going to collect data.

  • The theories of changes analysed are;

    End of life care association of Japan: The ToC is not clear on the three basic components of a ToC which includes; Intervention, Preconditions and long term outcomes.

    Fiver Childrens Foundation 2013: The ToC has all the components but the intervention needs to be more precise.

  • The Fiver Children's Foundation who have simplified diagram of TOC.
    The Hunger Project who have a much complex diagram of TOC.

    Both TOC applied the bottom-to-top approach.

  • The diagram should be picture based which gives more clarity and understanding to the pathway of change rather simple diagram boxes

  • The diagram of superwoman is easy to understand because of that all the components of theory of change are existing.
    There is no missing information

  • The two pathway of change diagrams I compare are as follows:

    FIVER Children's Foundation. This diagram gives a graphical narrative of all the interventions that lead to outcomes and the outcomes that lead to the ultimate outcome at the top.

    Guided example: Project superwomen. The diagram gives a graphical narrative of all the interventions that lead to outcomes and the outcomes that lead to the ultimate outcome at the top.

    The Fiver Children's Foundation diagram was easier to understand. I don't think any important information was missing.

  • I compared the diagram of the hunger project and the one aiming the create placid culture while embracing suffering.

    • The most easier to understand is the diagram of the hunger project because the internventions and preconditions leading the ultimate out comes are logically determined.
    • The only missing information for the hunger project is the absence of arrows showinng ineractions between ealier preconditions to the further one.
  • The two ToC diagrams I compared for this assignment are  "The Hunger Project" ToC and "Fiver Children Foundation" ToC.

    1. Descriptions of the two ToCs

    (A) The Hunger Project's long-term outcome is  "Sustainable, vibrant, healthy rural communities free from hunger & poverty". It identifies three possible pathways to the long-term outcome (MOBILIZINGCOMMUNITY; EMPOWERING WOMEN, CREATING AGENCY; and  PARTNERINGWITH LOCALGOVERNMENT).  It has four sets of intermediate outcomes, one building on the other from bottom up in this order - Shifts in Community Capacity and Conditions, Community Impact, Formation of Country-Led Strategies and the last set of outcome leading to the long term outcome (consisting of Government implementing community-driven anti-poverty strategies, Human rights supported and protected, and Decentralized political power). Finally it enlists nine interventions by the project and another set of interventions that needs to be implemented by governments. The ToC further shows the M&E component of the project.

    (B) The Fiver Children’s Foundation ToC has three long term outcomes, namely, Fivers possess 21st century skills to succeed in school and careers; Fivers are engaged citizens; and Fivers make ethical and healthy life choices. The ToC identifies three possible pathways to the three long-term outcomes: Civic Mindedness, Healthy and Ethical Life Choices, and Education and Career Success. This ToC has three (sets) of intermediate outcomes building on each other from bottom up. The last two levels of the intermediate outcomes are linked to the specific long term that they are linked to respectively. Finally, the required interventions are shown by the intermediate outcome that they apply to throughout the diagram. All in all, eight interventions are shown in the ToC. The ToC further shows the vision of the foundation as its ultimate outcome.

    1. Comparison of the two ToCs

    I found the ToC of the "Fiver Foundation" easier to understand for two basic reasons. The first is that it has an adequate narrative. The second is that it has fewer elements (sets of intermediate outcomes) in the diagram than the other ToC. It also shows the interventions by intermediate outcome, which adds to my better understanding of the ToC.

    1. Missing information

    The ToC of the "Hunger Project" lacks the narrative part. This ToC also lacks the label (or group name) for the upper most set of intermediate outcome (consisting of the Government implementing community-driven anti-poverty strategies, Human rights supported and protected, and  Decentralized political power).

  • The main distinction between a logic model and theory of change is that a logic model describes a logical sequence showing what the intervention's intended outcomes are—If we provide X, the result will be Y—while a theory of change includes causal mechanisms to show why each intervention component is expected to result ...

  • The Society We Want To Create is easier than the project Superwomen.

  • Regarding the School Readiness TOC, I believe the sequence of it is very logical and it was easy to understand, however there is some information that I'd have ommited because it was either too basic or obvious.

    With respect to the Theory of Change Japan, it seemed to me more like a motivational guide tha a TOC, enethough the sequence is logical.

    Finally, with regards to the Hunger Project, it is a very detailed TOC but it is understandable since the objective is to end hunger. It is very clear how the project pretends to act at diferent levels too. My only comment would be to have some additional presentantion for different target populations.

  • agriculture and Fiver Children's foundation
    the second has more information on the project while the first has limited

  • The UK-based non-profit company Evolution and Philanthropy generously translated ActKnowledge’s Guided Example: Project “Superwoman” in to Russian, and asked us to share it with the Theory of Change community.E&P seeks to support international philanthropic initiatives, primarily in Russia, by promoting best practices to Russian organizations. They consider the original English language document “”Theory of Change – Guided Example: Project ‘Superwoman’” as an important document with the potential to improve the effectiveness and activities of Russian funders and non-profits.- easy to understand

  • (1) Fiver Children’s Foundation - Theory of Change
    (2)PROJECT SUPERWOMEN

    The Fiver Children’s Foundation is easier to understand than the Project Woman. The project superwoman has no easily identified intervention.

    The two theories of change specified their long term outcomes. For Fiver Children’s Foundation their, Long term outcome was: Fivers are happy and fulfilled in work, family and life and make positive contributions to society; for PROJECT SUPERWOMEN, their overall outcome was: Long-Term Employment at Livable Wage for Domestic Violence Survivors. Both theories have identified preconditions along the pathway for the long term outcome to be achieved. However, unlike the Fiver Children’s Foundation, the planners of the PROJECT SUPERWOMEN did not clearly indicate their intervention. They only outlined activities or outputs without first, specifying what the inputs are.

  • the hunger project diagram is easier to understand that the agricultural research translation projects, but there are no any brief in the paper which the agricultural did.

    the planning part is not clearly explain, as precondition and set some assumption

  • the hunger project diagram is easier to understand that the agricultural research translation projects, but there are no any brief in the paper which the agricultural did.

    the planning part is not clearly explain, as precondition and set some assumption

  • The two examples were no 1."The Hunger Project" and no 2. "Same outcome for school readiness"
    No 2 was much easier to understand than no 1.
    No 2: Easy to follow direction, mimimalistic graphics. No information missing.
    No 1: Many colours, different sorts of boxes and two directions, confusing. Information missing: very difficult to understand how the different parts of the model are connected.

  • I chose the pathways of change below:
    Project Superwomen and The Hunger Project.
    Both seem easy to understand, but the project superwomen was not just easy but it also explain how it was build, from the very early stages of TOC until the final version of it, which was very interesting.
    About the Hunger Project, even though, visually it´s better (or at least more appealing), it lacks a structure that connect each intervention with its precondition.

  • I chose the pathways of change below:
    Project Superwomen and The Hunger Project.
    Both seem easy to understand, but the project superwomen was not just easy but it also explain how it was build, from the very early stages of TOC until the final version of it, which was very interesting.
    About the Hunger Project, even though, visually it´s better (or at least more appealing), it lacks a structure that connect each intervention with its precondition.

  • I chose the pathways of change below:
    Project Superwomen and The Hunger Project.
    Both seem easy to understand, but the project superwomen was not just easy but it also explain how it was build, from the very early stages of TOC until the final version of it, which was very interesting.
    About the Hunger Project, even though, visually it´s better (or at least more appealing), it lacks a structure that connect each intervention with its precondition.

  • I chose the pathways of change below:
    Project Superwomen and The Hunger Project.
    Both seem easy to understand, but the project superwomen was not just easy but it also explain how it was build, from the very early stages of TOC until the final version of it, which was very interesting.
    About the Hunger Project, even though, visually it´s better (or at least more appealing), it lacks a structure that connect each intervention with its precondition.

  • I chose the pathways of change below:
    Project Superwomen and The Hunger Project.
    Both seem easy to understand, but the project superwomen was not just easy but it also explain how it was build, from the very early stages of TOC until the final version of it, which was very interesting.
    About the Hunger Project, even though, visually it´s better (or at least more appealing), it lacks a structure that connect each intervention with its precondition.

  • all of them is really important.

  • the hunger project theory and the children protections foundation

  • The diagram which is easier to understand is the Hunger Project because it clearly shows the outcome, preconditions and interventions and how these preconditions and interventions will contribute to the outcome. It also lists, in a good hierarchic order, how these conditions will affect each other to reach the desired outcome.
    Some diagrams don't have well-defined interventions. It was noted also that some diagrams don't have smart preconditions and it might be hard or practically impossible to measure the impact.

  • I compared :
    1)Fiver Children’s Foundation (2013).
    2)How can agricultural research translation projects targeting smallholder production systems be strengthened by using Theory of Change?

    They are in different fields and I believe the have come up with great theories of change.

  • Left to right direction

  • all is easy to understand

  • The diagram from Global Food Security "How can agricultural research translation projects targeting smallholder
    production systems be strengthened by using Theory of Change? " was easy to understand because it showed the steps to follow to achieve their goals.
    There was no step missing

  • Simple demographic diagrams are easy to understand.

  • I try to see School Readiness ToC and The Hunger Project. The Hunger project's ToC is visually better but School readiness' ToC is easier to understood

  • Superwoman project theory of change was easy to follow up together with Fiver's Children Foundation one

  • the Fiver Children’s Foundation - pathway of change diagrams was easier to understand. it clearly shows how an intervention causes a precondition and them the overall goal. its pretty obvious since the pathway of change seems simplified.

  • I am comparing the diagram captured in the first, captioned

    1. "How can agricultural research translation projects targeting smallholder production systems be strengthened by using Theory of Change?" and the second which is captioned
    2. "English translation of ToC from Theory of Change Japan (ToCJ), created for End-of-Life Care Association of Japan in 2019 (translation finalized in 2021)".
      The first (1) pathway of change diagram is cyclical in direction, simple and easy to understand. It is easy to understand at a glance. But the second (2), is complex, not easily understood, and full of information that are not necessarily needed in a pathway of change diagram.
  • NCCS Building Community Schools is too complicated with so many information while ELC_200313 is easy and friendly and even encourage people to be part of the interventions.

  • I have compared "The Hunger Project Global" with the "Fiver Children's Foundation" Pathway of Change.
    A) Ease of Understanding: The Global Hunger Project PoC may seem voluminous, but it is easy to understand compared to the Fiver Children's Foundation PoC. In this regard, it is easy to visualize and recognize the logical causality between interventions, preconditions, and outcomes. As such, the relationships of the three elements are obvious. One can therefore link the activities to shifts in community capacities and conditions that lead to community impact and penultimately country strategy formation which ultimately leads to sustainable vibrant and healthy communities that are free of hunger. On the other hand the Fiver Children's foundation PoC the logical causality between interventions and first, early, intermediate, penultimate, and ultimate outcomes is less obvious. If the outcomes are supposed to be logical, then Fiver Children's Foundation PoC falls short because activities appear at different outcome levels. While it may be plausible, it may require some explanations.
    B) Missing Information: None of the two diagrams have missing information in my assessment. They are all complete in terms of activities, preconditions, and outcomes.

  • Most of the pathways of change diagrams are very detailed. The ToC of approche suivi-action de l'education is much more detailed and complex as the school readiness ToC. However, the school readiness ToC is much more easier to understand but it is missing assumptions and indicators. Despite the complexity of the ToC of Approche suivi-action de l'Education it is followed with a narrative of the ToC as well as the tools used to measure throughout the project. It is highly planned!

  • Describe the two pathway of change diagrams that you compared. Which diagram was easier to understand? Was there any important information missing?

    Project Superwoman: Provided a full description on the cycle of the program for the women involved. Clearly explained the process for accessing services, what services are available, the interventions necessary to achieve certain goals or preconditions, before ultimately achieving the desired outcome

    The Hunger Project: Provided a detailed account of the project from the current status to the desired outcome, including a thorough analysis of the external forces that could impact the project and the impct the project will have on the community.

    The Project Superwoman diagram was easier to understand with a simpler flow. It was missing some of the key assumptions and did not include the environmentla scan the Hunger Project had.

  • global food security Toc was easy to be understood as opposed to Society we want
    important information was kept short while follow by narrative explaining the missing information

  • project superwoman and project fiver children. both was easy to understand. project superwoman was detailed while fiver was crisp

  • 1.Fiver Children's Foundation

    1. The Hunger Project

    The Fiver TOC is easy, simple and shows the flow from long term goal to interventions and assumptions in a simple way while

    The Hunger Project TOC is too detailed and scary to users. E.g. Donors may be scared and not have enough time and interest to read it hence biasing such key stakeholders that would otherwise support the success of the organization/project

  • The easiest to understand was the Fiver Children's Foundation, I do not believe there was any information missing based on what was provided.

  • I like the Fiver diagram as it depicted the interaction of the objectives and the activities feeding into those objective at every level. It was also easy to understand. I wonder if the interplay between pathways could also have been depicted and if this would have made it too complicated.

    CAS Community school TOC does not seem overly simplified and the pathways of change is more detailed. However, it is difficult to distinguish between actions and outcomes. It is also more difficult to follow.

    The school readiness TOC is missing an over arching goal

  • i have compared fiverrs theory of change and Japan theory of change
    Japans theory of change was easy to understand. you can cleary tell the interventions, preconditions and the long term outcome. fiverrs theory of change is equally easy to understand for someone who is in the humantarian industry but i find some of the interventions too high in the diagram rather than at the bottom. some interventions are at the level of preconditions. I find the explantion easy to grasp than the diagram.

    japan theory of change does not have an explantion that link the interventions to the preconditions and the long term outcome

  • Abstract This commentary focuses on the difference between a theory of change and change theory, as it relates to systemic change projects in STEM higher education. A theory of change is project-specific and related to evaluation. It makes the underlying rationale of a project explicit, which supports planning, implementation, and assessment of the

  • I failed to opened the documents, I can't contribute much for today but ready to follow from my colleagues. Thanks

  • The two examples of pathways of change I considered were: The Hunger Project TOC; and the SNV TOC Example 2 (in French).

    • After reading the diagrams entirely, I sense that none of them is easily understandable. Both have their inherent shortcomings, making them difficult to read. Overall, the logical flow of things from interventions to short and long-term outcomes seems difficult to follow in both TOC.

    • Considering the Hunger Project TOC, in the current presentation of the diagram, it is impossible to follow which intervention logically causes what intermediary outcomes and so forth for intermediary outcomes to long-term outcomes.

    For the SNV TOC Example 2 (in French), in addition to the initial interventions (1-6-7) which seem to be intermediary outcomes (rather than interventions), almost everything about this TOC is misleading, even the colour code and the arrows are misleading.

  • The first one was bottom to top and other was left to right .The diagrams which was easy to understand was from left to right includes intervention , preconditions and outcomes

  • I checked on the ToC for "End-of-Life Care Association of Japan" and "The hunger project". All the documents are clearly compelling, good visuals, they both used down to up method. They managed to include all the parts necessary for the pathway of change and is easy to understand.

  • The two pathways of change diagrams that I compared are the school readiness and the hunger project. The two diagrams are complex to read and understand. The school readiness pathway of change is on a two-page document with no arrow(s) pointing to the long-term outcome whilst the hunger project has one arrow from bottom to top but not connecting the long-term outcome, intermediate outcomes, and interventions. The important information missing is the assumptions and the narrative to complete the TOC.

  • The out comes of change in the organization is how much the organization see changes before an year in the market world how many partners have they attracted.
    The precautions and the application of intervention is also needful to the organization

  • Some of the are very detailed it is difficult to understand and some elements are missing

  • I compared the Fiver's PoC to Japan's ELC. Between these two, Fivers is much easier to understand and has clearer direction from intervention -precondition-outcomes, while Japan's PoC is eye-catching but it takes time to see which one is what.

  • I compared Fiver's Pathway of Change to ELC Japan's Pathway of Change.
    From these two Pathways, I think the Fiver's one is clearer and easier to understand.

    The Fiver one has a clear and focused Ultimate Outcome,
    I can see what kind of interventions do they use and the preconditions.
    I can see how many preconditions should be met to reach the Ultimate Outcome.

  • I compared Fiver's to ELC's, Fiver's have easier to understand and clearer pathway. Meanwhile ELC's feels too complex and the outcome is too vague.

  • Fiver: clean, easy to understand, clear and focused outcomes.
    ELC Japan: feels complex to understand, vague outcomes, assumptions, interventions, and indicators.

  • After comparing the Pathways of Change from Fiver Children's Foundation and ELC Japan, I came into consideration that.

    Fiver's Pathways of Change visually looks clean and it's easy to read and track the pathways and the which preconditions causes which outcomes. They also give practical activities that make sense to us.

    On the other side, ELC Japan's Pathways of Change is visually a little bit complex and it's harder to track the causes and outputs. There general idea is still vague as there are lacks of tangible examples.

  • I am comparing the two pathway of change diagrams: 'Fiver Children’s Foundation (2013)' and 'English translation of ToC from Theory of Change Japan (ToCJ), created for End-of-Life Care Association of Japan in 2019 (translation finalized in 2021)'.

    • The English Translation of TOC diagram is easier to understand because it is summarized in just one page and and have short but enough narratives.

    • The second diagram Fiver Children’s Foundation (2013)' diagram is more detailed and could be used for donors who are interested in detailed TOC information.

  • I viewed the fiver diagram and the hunger project. I appreciated the clean design of the fiver diagram. The hunger project was well thought out and executed but it was also distracting and hard to follow because there was so much going on.

  • The easiest diagram to understand was the one about "School readiness".

  • Fiver Children’s Foundation - Theory of Change:

    It is well designed and easy to follow. It uses easy diagrams and well-illustrated and narrated with no heavy jargon, making it easy for any person to understand and follow-through. Very rich use of diagrams

  • I looked at the Pathway of Change for: a) The Hunger Project, and b) Fiver Childrens' Foundation.

    The Fiver Childrens Foundation Pathway of Change diagram is much easier to understand. It is succinct, clear and logical. It is to follow the logic that links the various interventions with the preconditions they create and the final outcome. I believe that the document is comprehensive and suitable for intended purpose.

    Conversely, the Pathway to Change diagram for The Hunger Project appears extremely cluttered. It is consequently difficult to see the thread linking the various components of the Theory of Change. It can easily frustrate anyone trying to read and follow it.

  • I looked at the Pathway of Change for: a) The Hunger Project, and b) Fiver Childrens' Foundation.

    The Fiver Childrens Foundation Pathway of Change diagram is much easier to understand. It is succinct, clear and logical. It is to follow the logic that links the various interventions with the preconditions they create and the final outcome. I believe that the document is comprehensive and suitable for intended purpose.

    Conversely, the Pathway to Change diagram for The Hunger Project appears extremely cluttered. It is consequently difficult to see the thread linking the various components of the Theory of Change. It can easily frustrate anyone trying to read and follow it.

  • Here is a comparison of the two pathway of change diagrams : Hunger Project Theory of Change vs School Readiness Theory of Change
    In my opinion, the Hunger Project Theory of Change is easier to understand. It is more straightforward and does not contain as much detail as the School Readiness Theory of Change. However, the School Readiness Theory of Change is more comprehensive and includes more information about the organization's activities.

  • The Hunger Project VS Global Food Security
    The Hunger Project pathway of change diagrams is easy to understand since a bottom-up diagram has been adopted. The diagram has captured all the stakeholders involved, unlike Global Food Security.
    The Hunger Project has clearly stated the pathways from intervention stage to outcome stage.

  • i prefered the diagram that flows from left to right showing

    Intervention - precondition - outcome

  • My Choices;

    1. NCCS_Building community Schools Toc
    2. Global Food Security Toc

    Number 1 is easier

    I think my number 2 lacks a little details to the preconditions.

  • My Choices;

    1. NCCS_Building community Schools Toc
    2. Global Food Security Toc

    Number 1 is easier

    I think my number 2 lacks a little details to the preconditions.

  • Program staff .

    According to your observations, do you think we shall achieve and why?

  • Des deux diagrammes que j'ai consulté, l'in était mieux que l'autre
    en effet dan sl'un le sens et la légende des fléches de liaisons étaient clairement explicités et claires que dans l'autre

  • I like the School Readiness ToC for Some City, Pennsylvania. For starters, its formatted fairly cleanly - only one font, black and white, and not too many words in the boxes.
    I can start at the bottom and it's easy to follow upwards. The three interventions are clearly written in the bottom three boxes. The arrows are quite useful. If I was an evaluator, I could go through each of the boxes to see if they'd been implemented or not.

  • I compare the Toc of the Fiver Children's foundation with the End of life care association in Japan, and found the latter easier and simpler to understand. Their long term is very simple, despite the wide scope implied, and all the images, colours used and icons are consistent and aligned with the flow of thought. The Fiver children's diagram is also very good but I find the arrows pointing in different directions are not helping to understand the sequential flow.

  • I reviewed the hunger project and Fivers Children Foundation
    The fivers children foundation is easy to understand. The long term outcome has been outlined which is: 'Fivers are happy and fulfilled in work, family and life and make positive contributions to society'. However, it does not indicate which ones are the preconditions. The intermediate outcomes are missing.

    On the other hand the hunger project clearly outlines the interventions-what will be done to achieve the goal, the intermediate results that will be realized from implementing the activities which will be a necessary precursor to achieving the long term outcome. Its easy to follow though detailed.

  • I compared the SNV TOC Example 2 and the Project “Superwoman” . The former was easier to understand.

  • The Hunger project is made a huge theory of Change which include all steps of TOC and seem to be a big project aiming a to bring a real and meaningful changes in different field of life which are necessary to reduce the poverty and the Resilient is mostly focused on how to made people to resist so, the TOC is cover only specific area.
    The Hunger project is a comprehensive TOC while the Resilient is limit
    There are some missing in Resilient TOC as I realized e.g. Clear precondition and strong interventions which are lead to a achieve outcome.

  • The two pathway of change diagrams that I compared were the “Linear” and “Circular” diagrams. The Linear diagram was easier to understand as it follows a sequential order, making it easier to visualize the steps involved in the change process. On the other hand, the Circular diagram was more complex and abstract, making it harder to comprehend.

    However, both diagrams had their strengths and weaknesses. The Linear diagram clearly showed the steps involved in the change process, but it lacked detail and did not show the interconnectedness of the steps. The Circular diagram, on the other hand, showed the interdependence of the steps and how they all contribute to the overall change, but it was not as straightforward as the Linear diagram.

    In my opinion, a combination of both diagrams would provide a comprehensive understanding of the change process. The Linear diagram can be used to show the steps involved, while the Circular diagram can be used to demonstrate the interconnectedness and impact of each step. This would provide a more holistic view of the change process.

  • Not viewing the example

  • The evaluator group will be important. I can Ask them My theory of change are measurable ?

  • I reviewed pathway of change diagrams for Fiver Children's Foundation (FCF) and End-of-Life Care Association of Japan (ECAJ). The FCF was much easier to understand, as it set out the interventions and preconditions in a logical way, identifying its program activities and what outcomes those will produce along this pathway. The ECAJ diagram was quite confusing to me; the stated long term vision is quite broad, and I did not find any labeled interventions except for the two early in the pathway (ELC Supporter Training Course and Workshop for all Ages).

  • I have compared End-of-Life Care Association of Japan and Sample Outcome for School Readiness.
    All are fairly detailed

Reply to Topic

Looks like your connection to PhilanthropyU was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.