Feedback

Helping Evaluation Equal Value
Mark R. Kramer addresses very important issues in his article “Strategic Confusion” (May/June 2001). Among other things, he is interested in why evaluation so rarely adds anything of value to the work of foundations, and he argues quite cogently that evaluation inherently cannot be of value when the work of a foundation is grounded in a confused strategy or when evaluation is brought into play after-the-fact. I agree with these points, and am happy to see them voiced in such a clear way.

However, I think that Kramer is on less secure ground—and sets up a bit of a straw man—when he discusses “theory of change.” At least as I read him, he seems to think that a “theory of change” is a comprehensive statement of the social causality of change...and quite rightly objects that social reality is inherently too complex to be reducible to any one theory of how to change it.

But evaluators who use a “theory of change” approach to their work would say that is exactly the point: Social reality is tremendously complex and there are countless ways one might go about changing it—so, if one wants to do so, one had better be as clear as possible regarding (a) what one wants to accomplish (desired outcomes), (b) for which group(s) the desired change(s) are intended, (c) what specific things will be done and what will be used (activities and outputs) to bring about the desired results, and (d) what resources will be brought to bear to support the planned-for activities and outputs. In fact, I see little meaningful difference between the notions of “theory of change” as used by practitioners and strategy” as discussed in the article.

As Kramer does recognize, any “theory of change” itself represents a strategic choice among many competing possibilities for how to do whatever it is one wants to get done (reality is complex). How to chose? Well, there are at least four commonly used criteria for selecting a particular “theory of change” from among competing approaches: It should be meaningful, plausible, doable, and its outcomes measurable. To be robust, a “theory of change” must rate highly in all four areas. (Readers interested in learning more about “theory of change” work should consult the publications of the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families.)

Having said this, it is worth highlighting that Kramer and I converge in the shared conviction that “theory of change”—and evaluation in particular—lose all meaning in the context of confused strategy. In fact, this is precisely the argument for bringing evaluation into play at the very moment when a social change project first is being conceived—if given a voice, the evaluation perspective will contribute to the crafting of a sound change (grantmaking) strategy that has a decent chance of succeeding, as well as the means for assessing whether, at the end of the day, it has achieved its intended results.
David E.K. Hunter
Director of Assessments
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
New York City

Choices, Not Changes
Mark R. Kramer responds: Let me try to respond briefly as to the difficulties I have with a theory of change model. The essence of strategy, for us, is a sense of unique positioning: How can this foundation maximize the value it creates, or in other words, how can a grant from this foundation do more than the same amount of money given to the same project from another funder?

To answer that question, one must indeed know what one is trying to change, but an answer that is “meaningful, plausible, doable, and measurable” is hardly enough. Many approaches could rate highly in these four categories, giving a long list of plausible theories of change.

 All well and good, but strategy is about making choices—choices that are mutually reinforcing, that play to the foundation’s strengths (or comparative advantage) and that maximize impact. These four criteria are not sufficient to guide a foundation in making the right set of choices to create an effective strategy. Even picking the most meaningful, plausible, doable and measurable theory of change is no assurance that it is the right strategic choice for any given foundation.

That is, in fact, the essence of the problem with relying on a theory of change in place of a strategy. A strategy is unique to the particular combination of attributes and ambitions of a given foundation. A theory of change is the same for all funders. Whether the theory meets your four criteria is only about the logic model (to pick another term I try to avoid) external to the foundation. Any knowledgeable funder will weigh the same theory of change the same way on your four attributes. But the right strategy for one foundation will not be the right strategy for another one.

To go back to the language of my article, the theory of change is purely an external analysis—a necessary step, but not a sufficient one. Only by finding the right set of choices, among the many plausible theories of change extant, can a fully developed strategy be created.

A Call Heard ’Round the World
Thank you for Lynn Walker Huntley’s commentary, “A Global Call to End Racism” (May/June 2001). I, too, work for an organization that addresses the racial divide in the USA, so I have been well informed about the upcoming World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR).

The world conference themes and issues affect the way we live in America today and how we interact with others, locally and globally. As Huntley points out in her “ten good reasons why foundations should care about the world conference,” I, too, hope that caring will spark efforts to promote reinvestment in South Africa, specifically a focus on the legacy of apartheid. What might we learn from that in the USA?

Front-page news again—black people riot in another major American city in response to longstanding bitterness and the killing of yet another unarmed, black suspect by a white police officer. Counterpoised, the public endures the spectacle surrounding the imminent execution of Timothy McVeigh for a terrorist act that killed 168 people including children referred to as “collateral damage” by McVeigh. Both events suggest a serious fracture in the American body politic.

Independent monitoring groups are familiar with the concept of leaderless resistance, a clandestine movement that urges genocidal acts and other forms of mass violence by persons fitting McVeigh’s profile. What could we learn about U.S. institutions and ideas, attitudes and practices, especially as they are played out in local communities, by uncovering and addressing leaderless resistance?

On the same page, statistical reporting began nearly a decade ago on race-based and other bias-motivated violence. All of the statistical monitors, government and non-governmental, agree that crimes motivated by bias against a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation are rising. Individuals who are openly affiliated with organized groups commit only 4 percent of those crimes. Who commits the majority, the other 96 percent? Ordinary people. Are they a deviation, a signal or something else? In the midst of these and other momentous facts and events, one would think that there would be heightened interest and investment, particularly among foundations, in assuring a substantive [Nongovernmental Organization] NGO presence at a world gathering focused entirely on the issues of discrimination and intolerance.            

I have greater hopes than ever because of the world conference. I hope that the participation of diverse NGOs from the USA, representing all the regions and colors and cultures in our country, will be noticed at the world conference in South Africa. I hope the NGOs that make it to South Africa and articulate their resolve to end discrimination will spark even greater interest and investment by foundations that have been leading the way by helping to build a firewall against emergent class, race and ethnic conflicts in the USA, and attract more company in the philanthropic world. Mostly, I hope that our NGO can continue to illustrate the importance of increasing understanding about the significance of race until such time that the impact of race (and related difference) on the life chances of individuals, groups and nations becomes insignificant.
Naima Major
Director of Development
Center for Democratic Renewal and Education, Inc.
(Formerly known as the National Anti-Klan Network); Atlanta

Kudos
I enjoyed Martin B. Schneiderman’s article “Brave New Broadband World” (March/April 2001). The accompanying chart (Comparison of Internet Connection Services) is terrific.
Ann Treacy, Content Manager
eBusiness Institute
Minnesota Technology Inc.
Minneapolis

Thanks for the Challenge
We circulated H. George Fredrickson’s thoughtful and useful piece, “First, There’s Theory. Then, There’s Practice” (March/April 2001), as background reading in advance of our biennial board retreat in April and used it as the basis for a facilitated discussion on the topic of measurement and accountability.

 The reaction from individual members of my board of governors was very positive. According to one measure, at least, our community foundation has been spectacularly successful: Last year our assets tripled and we established 34 new funds, double our previous record. Our challenge now is to cope with this growth, ensuring that it gets translated into social capital.

 Frederickson’s article and others in Foundation News & Commentary challenge our assumptions and keep us abreast of new ways of thinking about our work.
Barbara McInnes
President & CEO
Community Foundation of Ottawa
Canada

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

In the January/February 2001 “Great Grants,” the truth campaign was presented as a grantee of the American Legacy Foundation. The truth campaign is actually the foundation’s own program.