Outcome Mapping


 

Sarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo. 2001. “Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection Into Development Programs.” International Development Research Centre (IDRC) 

 

Outcome Mapping recognizes that the promotion of social justice is essentially about changing how people relate to each other and to their environment. Outcome Mapping is different from conventional approaches to evaluation, which assumes a causal relationship between an intervention and lasting changes in the well-being of intended beneficiaries. Outcome Mapping focuses on tracking outcomes that result from changes in behavior, relationships, or activities of stakeholders. Outcomes are not only outlined for direct recipients of an intervention, but also for all actors or groups targeted or potentially influenced, referred to as “boundary partners.” The hallmark of Outcome Mapping is a focus on contribution to change, rather than directly attributing the results to a program’s activities. Outcome Mapping uses three core concepts: outcomes, boundary partners, and progress markers. Typically, progress markers are identified for each boundary partner on a three-point scale ranging from “expect to see, like to see, and love to see.”[1]   

 

Strengths: 

 

 

Weaknesses (or not designed for): 

 

 


[1] Sarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo. 2001. “Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection Into Development Programs.” IDRC.