Skip to main content

Example: Mid-term review of 'Sustainable Diets for All' program of Hivos

Introduction

'The Sustainable Diets for All' program was part of a wider initiative implemented by a consortium of Hivos, IIED and Article 19. The program advocated a transformation towards sustainable food systems. It worked in four countries distributed over four regions (Indonesia, Zambia, Uganda and Bolivia) and at the international level. Similar to the Green and Inclusive Energy program, it used Outcome Harvesting and Theory of Change thinking. A small team including an advocacy officer worked with partners in each country, guided by a joint Theory of Change. The mid-term review meeting followed a second cycle of Outcome Harvesting.

Step 1

In preparation for the mid-term review, the SD4All program manager suggested holding narrative assessment interviews with all five advocacy officers. After a first interview, in conversation with the program manager, the Narrative Assessment facilitators decided to focus the interviews not on particular outcomes, but rather on how to start an advocacy program. Six interviews were held via meeting software, including one with the program manager and one with two persons. At this writing, a seventh interview with staff from the consortium partner IIED will be held in a few weeks. An interview with a partner organization did not go through because of connectivity problems.

Step 2

From the verified transcripts, six stories were created around emerging themes identified by the Narrative Assessment facilitators. All themes related to the evolving program. In this case, the stories were between one-and-half and five pages. Again, each story contained the six story elements mentioned earlier: transformation, a movement over time, actions by which this transformation happens, in a specific setting, a plot (often involving crises and turning points), and one or more takeaway messages.

Step 3

As the meeting was part of a mid-term review, some instruments from Theory U were used that can support deeper reflection, such as levels of listening and dialogue walks. The team worked in two groups on the following questions:

  • What do the stories tell about your own journey and the journey of the SD4All program?
  • What do the stories tell you about how important challenges and opportunities for SD4all have been taken on?
  • What do the stories tell you about the best possible ways forward for SD4all
    • at the level of your country or region?
    • at international level?
  • With the stories in mind, think with your heart and mind about what SD4all should try to achieve in the coming 2.5 years.
  • Based on the stories and the discussion so far, can you come up with one to three concrete ideas for SD4all to take up, that can be made operational this week? 

In plenary, the team then discussed the following:

  • What opportunities do you see emerging and where
  • Where and on what should SD4All therefore put more weight?
  • How can we translate our views so far into concrete actions: during this week, and in the coming two years?

This session then led into one on the consequences for the SD4All overall, country theories of change, and priorities for the year and the remaining project period.

Evaluation of the Narrative Assessment process and experience
As the program works with consortium partners, these required more information on the context of the new approach. SD4All was a new program on an ambitious topic. The Narrative Assessment stories helped to unearth insights into the struggle to start such a program, to show the strategies and reasoning used, and recognize the complexities of starting a new program with a heritage from the past. Interviewees remarked how they changed from thinking that the interview was a test, to coming into a reflective and learning mood through the facilitated interview. They said that the interviews helped them to remember what was already forgotten in the rush of the day. However, not all interviewees found it easy to transmit the peculiarities of their context despite their understanding its importance. As this was a first pilot it took quite some time, whereas a regular use of the approach could make it more agile.

For all participants, the process itself was as important as what it produced. It was recommended to extend this approach to the partner organizations as well, and to organize a training of narrative assessment facilitators.