“Theory of Change Guide and IPAL Guide.” 2008. Keystone Accountability.

Keystone Accountability has created a Theory of Change framework to assess the social change impacts in development work. Organizations start by engaging in a contextual analysis, mapping out all the actors in its system that can influence their vision positively or negatively. This map is called an ‘activity ecosystem.’  Staff within an organization then discuss and document their vision of what “success” looks like and highlight the social changes they desire. This mapping helps an organization understand where they presently are and how they aim to achieve their vision. In this process, organizations identify who in the ecosystem will help them achieve their specific goals as well as outline what is needed in order to maintain desired changes in the future. They also consider the kinds of working relationships needed with specific constituents in order to implement their vision most effectively. The preconditions for achieving change are also mapped according to each constituent group in order to ensure solid assessment of the links between processes and outcomes. Finally, the method emphasizes the role of an organization’s constituency in developing the Theory of Change. 

Impact Planning, Assessment and Learning (IPAL) 

Keystone Accountability has also developed the associated Impact Planning, Assessment and Learning (IPAL) system, which can be used with a variety different constituents, including staff, managers, and donors. The tool encourages staff to empower constituents by more deeply engaging with stakeholders. The goal is to shift power relations and specifically the way in which success is defined to those its program is targeted. The IPAL system has five stages: 1) Articulate the Theory of Change; 2) Refine the strategies and indicators; 3) Monitor against indicators, paying particular attention to intended and unintended results; 4) Report feedback to constituents; and 5) Deliberate and improve program and assessment systems.

Strengths:

• The Theory of Change framework assesses the fundamental assumptions embedded in an organization or program. By making these assumptions explicit and testing their relevancy in a certain context, we gain deeper understanding into why a program works or does not work.
• The IPAL system fosters stakeholder and particularly grassroots’ agency in defining what “success” looks like; thus, circumventing misspecifications based on lack of understanding of local realities. Participatory stakeholder engagement also increases the relevance of program outcomes to communities of interest, thereby strengthening the link and possibilities between program and outcome. 
• There is a significant focus is on adaptive reflecting, which includes reviewing the Theory of Change with constituents, updating it as necessary, as well as revising planning and implementation strategies based on relevant assessment results. 
• There is a strong focus on multiple methods, highlighting the necessity of different types of data—qualitative and quantitative—based on what is being measured.
• Indicators are designed to be context-specific and sensitive to power dynamics. In addition, caution is exercised when selecting indicators to ensure that only the most relevant are selected.   
• Reporting back to participants is encouraged— referred to as the feedback principle of public reporting. Transparency and accountability mechanisms are strengthened as organizations are encouraged to report specifically to constituents and as constituents are asked to report back on that feedback.   

Weaknesses (or not designed for):

• Some argue that the Theory of Change still has embedded logical assumptions, particularly due to its focus on testing program assumptions and links between implementation and outcomes.
• The assessment processes in the IPAL system are comprehensive and require significant time commitments from a variety of constituents.