When tackling the world’s most pressing challenges – like poverty, climate change, and systemic inequality – traditional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools often fall short. Why? Because they’re designed for linear projects with clear cause-and-effect logic, not for the messy, dynamic realities of systems change.
In a world where progress is often defined by numbers, indicators, and rigid frameworks, how do we capture the real value of change—especially when it unfolds in unpredictable, complex environments?
In their thought-provoking article The transformative power of evaluative rubrics, evaluation experts Malene Soenderskov and Savi Mull argue that rubrics offer a vital alternative to conventional monitoring and evaluation tools. Rooted in the realities of systems change, evaluative rubrics go beyond ticking boxes—they embrace nuance, context, and the messy, non-linear paths that lead to meaningful outcomes.
Read The transformative power of evaluation rubrics (pdf)
Here are some of the key takeaways from the article:
✅ Rubrics bridge complexity and learning: They enable organisations to assess change relatively, accounting for context, constraints, and what’s realistically achievable—rather than applying a one-size-fits-all standard.
✅ They complement, not replace, traditional indicators: Rubrics add a critical layer of evaluative judgement that fosters adaptive learning and honest conversations about what success really looks like.
✅ They promote equity and transparency: By recognising diverse starting points and valuing incremental progress, rubrics ensure that all contributions—big or small—are seen and celebrated.
✅ They support stronger partnerships with donors: Rubrics create space for collaborative sense-making, moving beyond compliance to shared understanding and adaptive management.
👉 Download the full article here and discover practical examples, challenges, and insights on integrating rubrics into your measurement and learning practices.
Join our upcoming webinar on evaluation rubrics – a practical, flexible method for assessing progress in complex development programs.
Learn how leading INGOs and foundations are using rubrics to:
✅ Go beyond linear cause-effect models
✅ Track changes in power, narratives, and relationships
✅ Support learning, participation, and adaptive decisions
🗓 June 3, 10:00 AM (UTC +2)
💻 Online | Hosted by StrategyHouse
🔗 Register now: https://www.globalevaluationinitiative.org/event/how-use-evaluation-rubrics-assess-progress-and-contribution-complex-programs-aimed-systems
When tackling the world’s most pressing challenges—like poverty, climate change, and systemic inequality—traditional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools often fall short. Why? Because they’re designed for linear projects with clear cause-and-effect logic, not for the messy, dynamic realities of systems change.
In their insightful article, How Evaluation Rubrics Can Help Trace Progress and Results in Complex Programs, Malene Soenderskov and Savi Mull make a powerful case for a different approach: evaluation rubrics.
Read: How evaluation rubrics can help trace progress and results in complex programs
Here’s a glimpse into what you’ll learn:
✅ Why linear M&E models don’t work for systemic change: Rigid indicators and predefined targets can’t capture shifts in power dynamics, cultural narratives, or policy landscapes.
✅ How rubrics enable nuanced, context-sensitive evaluation: By defining criteria, levels of progress, and descriptors, rubrics help organizations assess what good looks like in complex environments—and track progress along a continuum, not just a pass/fail.
✅ The power of participatory learning: Rubrics open space for multiple perspectives, foster dialogue, and support adaptive decision-making—turning compliance reporting into a meaningful learning process.
✅ Real-world examples: From Laudes Foundation to international NGOs, rubrics are helping organizations make sense of complex change and guide strategic adaptations.
👉 Download the full article here and discover practical tools, frameworks, and real-life insights that can help you capture the real value of your work.
Let’s move beyond numbers—and embrace a richer, more honest conversation about progress and impact.
Join our upcoming webinar on evaluation rubrics – a practical, flexible method for assessing progress in complex development programs.
Learn how leading INGOs and foundations are using rubrics to:
✅ Go beyond linear cause-effect models
✅ Track changes in power, narratives, and relationships
✅ Support learning, participation, and adaptive decisions
🗓 June 3, 10:00 AM (UTC +2)
💻 Online | Hosted by StrategyHouse
🔗 Register now: https://www.globalevaluationinitiative.org/event/how-use-evaluation-rubrics-assess-progress-and-contribution-complex-programs-aimed-systems
Still using logframes to evaluate systems change?
Then it might be time to rethink your tools.
Join our upcoming webinar on evaluation rubrics – a practical, flexible method for assessing progress in complex development programs.
Learn how leading INGOs and foundations are using rubrics to:
✔️ Go beyond linear cause-effect models
✔️ Track changes in power, narratives, and relationships
✔️ Support learning, participation, and adaptive decisions
Civilsamfundets indflydelse er mere end tal. Så lad os anerkende, at de talbaserede metoder ikke er de eneste og måske heller ikke altid de bedste metoder til at dokumentere en sammenhæng mellem civilsamfundets arbejde og dets effekt.
Effekten af dansk bistand måles ofte i succeshistorier. Men i en tid, hvor verden er i bakgear, er det en succes i sig selv, når bistanden bidrager til at bevare status quo.
I en tid, hvor bistandskronerne bliver færre, er det vigtigere end nogensinde, at udviklingsorganisationerne kan dokumentere værdien af udviklingsarbejdet. To udviklingskonsulenter giver deres bud på, hvordan monitorering og evaluering af fremtidens komplekse udviklingsprogrammer kan blive bedre.
Listen af krav til ngo’er, der søger støtte hos donorer, er lang og voksende. Det betyder, at nogle ngo’er risikerer at blive fanget af en negativ spiral, hvor de bliver presset til at pynte på rapporteringen for at få støtte. Det er ikke kun organisationernes problem.
De store og komplekse problemer står i kø i det nye år. Stadig flere fonde og organisationer har derfor fået øjnene op for den systemiske forandring. Men forandring af systemet starter med at tage ansvar for egne handlinger og valg.
Will Occupancy Free of Charge for 12 months strengthen Syrian refugees’ resilience and ability to develop positive coping mechanisms in Lebanon? And what is the impact on the housing market in Lebanon per se?
Norwegian Refugee Council has supported medium scale rehabilitation of water and sanitation infrastructure, such as water tanks and solid waste disposal sited (community support projects) and Occupancy Free of Charge (OFC) to Syrian refugees in Lebanese border areas since 2012.
The aim has been to contribute to:
a) An increased availability of minimum standard housing for vulnerable households, at affordable cost.
b) An improved security of tenure/lease for vulnerable refugee households and landlords and an enforcement of the legal rights of refugees.
c) A reduced strain on the already overstretched public infrastructure in Lebanese communities with a high refugee caseload.
In 2018 StrategyHouse.dk worked with Norwegian refugee Council to assess the intervention’s impact on
Evaluating the impact, (let alone effectiveness and sustainability) of an initiative aimed at contributing to long-term or (more) durable changes in households, markets or communities as was the case with NRC’s intervention in Lebanon, presents certain methodological challenges.
Evaluating the impact, (let alone effectiveness and sustainability) of an initiative aimed at contributing to long-term or (more) durable changes in households, markets or communities as was the case with NRC’s intervention in Lebanon, presents certain methodological challenges.
A first challenge is the role of external forces or conditions in promoting desired changes. The political context in Lebanon is complex and not in favor of any move stabilizing the refugees in the country
A second challenge is that change is typically stimulated by numerous concurrent factors and many actors. It may be difficult to determine the exact cause and effect between one specific organization’s interventions activities and impact identified.
A third challenge is the typical way that we may conceptualize programme outcomes or results. Outcomes are typically expressed as “forward progress” but outcomes might be positive also when they are “defensive” in nature, such as preventing further deterioration of public services.
To overcome these challenges, and enable project staff to reflect on the viability of the intervention’s implicit theory of change the evaluation adopted a mixed evaluation approach consisting of the following, key elements:
a) Articulation of the intervention’s theory of change and the rationale between provision of occupancy free of charge and the expected changes related to household income, behaviour, attitudes and market conditions.
b) Identification of expected and unexpected outcomes and changes relevant to the interventions direct sphere of influence.
c) Validation of outcomes, assessment of their significance and the intervention’s contribution as well as the contribution of other factors and actors.
d) Comparison between the theory of change (point A) and ‘how change really happened’ according to outcomes harvested (point B and C).
This was done using a rage on participatory approaches and tools to ensure ownership and learning among staff members as well as beneficiaries. These included desk reviews, interviews, focus groups, and analysis, interpretation and discussion of findings with NRC staff and a participatory comparison of the intervention’s initial theory of change with outcomes identified during the evaluation process.
The evaluation found that the intervention contributed to stabilize households’ socio-economic situation during the 12 months that the intervention provided occupancy free of charge. This had a positive impact on household’s food consumption as households were able to buy meat and fresh vegetables. Households also reported that they could afford to buy medicine and non-food items such as soap or clothes. The OFC reduced the financial stress and enabled households to pay accumulated debts.
The evaluation also found that occupancy free of charge had a positive impact on refugees’ social capital as staying in the same location enabled refugees to build relationships with neighbours and landlords. This was instrumental in terms of accessing information, potential jobs, help to look after children or access credit.
Yet coping and resilience post the occupancy free of charge period was challenged by an exhaustion of refugee households’ human capital, including deteriorating physical and mental health, low levels of self-esteem, limited production skills and feelings of disempowerment. So while occupancy free of charge did provide refugee households with time and mental space’ to recover from the stress of homelessness, it did not enable them to develop more sustainable coping strategies and strengthen resilience beyond to period where housing was provided free of charge.
The findings therefor led to a revision of the intervention’s theory of change and understanding of the importance to – also – invest in refugees’ human capital to maximize the benefits and sustainability of an occupancy free of charge intervention.
