Theory of Change Review: A Report Commissioned by Comic Relief

Comic Relief does three things. It raises much needed cash, it then allocates that cash to projects in the United States and in the poorest countries in the world, and it raises awareness of the issues it feels strongly about. This report is one of a series of Comic Relief commissioned learning reports. Some learning reports aim to bring the impact of and learning from some of the work Comic Relief has funded in helping change lives to a wider audience. Other reports aim to draw together learning on key issues from a range of stakeholders to inform Comic Relief's thinking and promote debate in the sector. This report aims to draw together Comic Relief staff and partners' experiences in using theory of change; to identify others in development that are using theory of change and analyse their different approaches and experience; and to capture learning from everyone to promote debate, and to help inform what agencies using or advocating for the use of theory of change do next. This report was commissioned by Comic Relief and written by Cathy James, an independent consultant. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Comic Relief

Participatory Monitoring of Community-Based Rehabilitation and other Disability- Inclusive Development Programmes: the Development of a Manual and Menu

Purpose: This paper describes a three-year research project leading to the development of the CBR Monitoring Manual and Menu (MM&M). The MM&M is a practical toolkit that meets the needs of CBR managers and stakeholders, and is consistent with the philosophy of CBR and community-based disability-inclusive development. It is designed to produce meaningful and locally useful information and data, based on international data standards where possible, to enable aggregation at regional, national and international levels. Methods: Five complementary workstreams of research were carried out from 2011 to 2014: 1) literature review and analysis; 2) participatory action research with CBR stakeholders; 3) analysis and refinement of validity of concepts and structures; 4) consultation and review; and 5) synthesis of results. This article documents the method and key results of each of the five workstreams, and the lessons learned along the way. Results: The MM&M is now freely available on-line at http://sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/cdrp/projects/cbr-monitoring.shtml. Collaboration among members of the development team continues, chiefly via an on-line group to which new members have been welcomed. Conclusion and Implications: At the time of writing, the MM&M is the only international monitoring product, known to the authors, that consciously sets out to reflect both a ‘bottom- up’ and ‘top-down’ perspective of monitoring information and data. To achieve this for a complex programme such as CBR, and to align with its principles, it was essential to use a multi-component and multi-stage strategy for tool development, involving a diverse multidisciplinary team includingcollaboration with CBR stakeholders

Analysis and design of multiagent systems using MAS-CommonKADS

This article proposes an agent-oriented methodology called MAS-CommonKADS and develops a case study. This methodology extends the knowledge engineering methodology CommonKADSwith techniquesfrom objectoriented and protocol engineering methodologies. The methodology consists of the development of seven models: Agent Model, that describes the characteristics of each agent; Task Model, that describes the tasks that the agents carry out; Expertise Model, that describes the knowledge needed by the agents to achieve their goals; Organisation Model, that describes the structural relationships between agents (software agents and/or human agents); Coordination Model, that describes the dynamic relationships between software agents; Communication Model, that describes the dynamic relationships between human agents and their respective personal assistant software agents; and Design Model, that refines the previous models and determines the most suitable agent architecture for each agent, and the requirements of the agent network

Critical Review of Research on Families and Family Policies in Europe Conference Report

This report was produced by FAMILYPLATFORM. FAMILYPLATFORM (SSH-2009-3.2.2 Social platform on research for families and family policies) is funded by the EU’s 7th Framework Programme (€1,400,000) and has a duration of 18 months (October 2009 – March 2011). The consortium consists of the following 12 organisations: 1) Technical University Dortmund (Coordinators); 2) State Institute for Family Research, University of Bamberg; 3) Family Research Centre, University of Jyväskylä; 4) Austrian Institute for Family Studies, University of Vienna; 5) Demographic Research Institute, Budapest; 6) Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon; 7) Department of Sociology and Social research, University of Milan-Bicocca; 8) Institute of International and Social Studies, Tallinn University; 9) London School of Economics; 10) Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union (COFACE), Brussels; 11) Forum delle Associazioni Familiari, Italy; 12) Mouvement Mondial des Mères, Brussels; Contact [email protected] or visit http://www.familyplatform.eu for more information.The aim of this Critical Review Report is to describe and report on the international conference "Families and Family Policies in Europe - A Critical Review", wich took place in Lisbon, at the Institute for Social Sciences (University of Lisbon), in May 2010. Organized by FAMILYPLATFORM consortium, the main objective of this 3 day conference was to carry out a critical review of existing research on families and family policies in Europe. Drawing on expert reviews of the state of the art, critical statements by stakeholders and policy makers, and debate on the major challenges for research and policies, the conference was organized with a view to providing a major forum for discussing and identifying the design of future family policies and research.FAMILYPLATFORM (SSH 2009.2.2 Social platform on research for families and family  policies):  funded  by  the  European  Unions 7th Framework Programme for 18 months (October 2009 – March 2011)

Strategy Workshops and Strategic Change

Despite the attention that strategic change as a topic of research has received, there remain considerable difficulties in conceptualizing the actual sources of strategic change. Strategy workshops represent one obvious and explicit research site since organizations often use such events as a means of effecting or initiating strategic change. This paper examines empirical data from ninety-nine strategy workshops in ten separate organizations to address the research question: Do strategy workshops produce strategic change? The paper concludes that workshops can produce change but that one-off workshops are much less effective than a series of workshops. The data presented indicates that the elapsed duration of the entire series of workshops, the frequency of workshops, the scope and autonomy of the unit concerned, and the seniority of participants have an impact on the success or failure of the venture

Impact in networks and ecosystems: building case studies that make a difference

open accessThis toolkit aims to support the building up of case studies that show the impact of project activities aiming to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. The case studies respond to the challenge of understanding what kinds of interventions work in the Southern African region, where, and why. The toolkit has a specific focus on entrepreneurial ecosystems and proposes a method of mapping out the actors and their relationships over time. The aim is to understand the changes that take place in the ecosystems. These changes are seen to be indicators of impact as increased connectivity and activity in ecosystems are key enablers of innovation. Innovations usually happen together with matching social and institutional adjustments, facilitating the translation of inventions into new or improved products and services. Similarly, the processes supporting entrepreneurship are guided by policies implemented in the common framework provided by innovation systems. Overall, policies related to systems of innovation are by nature networking policies applied throughout the socioeconomic framework of society to pool scarce resources and make various sectors work in coordination with each other. Most participating SAIS countries already have some kinds of identifiable systems of innovation in place both on national and regional levels, but the lack of appropriate institutions, policies, financial instruments, human resources, and support systems, together with underdeveloped markets, create inefficiencies and gaps in systemic cooperation and collaboration. In other words, we do not always know what works and what does not. On another level, engaging users and intermediaries at the local level and driving the development of local innovation ecosystems within which local culture, especially in urban settings, has evident impact on how collaboration and competition is both seen and done. In this complex environment, organisations supporting entrepreneurship and innovation often find it difficult to create or apply relevant knowledge and appropriate networking tools, approaches, and methods needed to put their processes to work for broader developmental goals. To further enable these organisations’ work, it is necessary to understand what works and why in a given environment. Enhanced local and regional cooperation promoted by SAIS Innovation Fund projects can generate new data on this little-explored area in Southern Africa. Data-driven knowledge on entrepreneurship and innovation support best practices as well as effective and efficient management of entrepreneurial ecosystems can support replication and inform policymaking, leading thus to a wider impact than just that of the immediate reported projects and initiatives

Report on the consultation for the 6th Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS6)

"This report outlines findings from the consultation undertaken, between 1 February and 17 March 2010, to inform the development of the sixth Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS6). WERS is the only study of British employment relations that collects data from employers, employee representatives and employees across a sample of more than 2,500 workplaces." - introduction

2011: Celebrating 10 Years of YEPP!

This booklet includes a series of case studies of the YEPP Local Programme Sites and the young people together with studies that demonstrate the unique partnership aspect, as well as the international dimension of the Youth Empowerment Partnership Programme

Internal marketing, collaboration and motivation in service quality management

School of Managemen

VALUING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE SOCIAL INCLUSION PROGRAMME (SICAP) 2015–2017 TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION. ESRI RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 77 FEBRUARY 2019

The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) represents a major component of Ireland’s community development strategy, led by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD). The vision of SICAP is to improve the opportunities and life chances of those who are marginalised in society, experiencing unemployment or living in poverty through community development approaches, targeted supports and interagency collaboration, where the values of equality and inclusion are promoted and human rights are respected. In 2016, total expenditure on SICAP amounted to approximately €36 million (Pobal, 2016a). Using a mixed methodology, this report examines the extent to which community development programmes can or should be subject to evaluation, with a particular focus on SICAP. In doing so, the report draws on a rich body of information – including desk-based research; consultation workshops with members of local community groups (LCGs), local community workers (LCWs) and other key policy stakeholders; and an analysis of administrative data held by Pobal – on the characteristics of LCGs that received direct support under SICAP. The findings in this report relate to the delivery of the SICAP 2015–2017 programme which ended in December 2017. The aim of the study is to inform policy by shedding light on a number of issues including the following. Can community development be evaluated? What are the current metrics and methodologies suggested in the literature for evaluating community development interventions? What possible metrics can be used to evaluate community development interventions and how do these relate to the SICAP programme? How can a framework be developed that could potentially be used by SICAP for monitoring evaluation of its community development programme