The move to participatory philanthropy and the evaluative questions it raises

When PMP started, the Committee wanted to fund initiatives with innovative ideas designed to attack the systems holding child poverty in place. They were particularly interested in looking at bold ideas which may not have been tried before, but could potentially have a profound impact on child poverty. The Committee saw the PMP fund as an opportunity to support initiatives which may not have been able to get funding from other sources.

As there was not always a weight of existing evidence for the ideas proposed, we asked ngā Kaikōkiri (the initiatives) in their proposals, to provide a theory of change (TOC); a description of what they were trying to achieve and a “best guess” roadmap of the conditions they thought might need to be in place to achieve it.

PMP had developed its TOC to help guide the Committee’s decisions on the types of changes which might need to be in place to tackle poverty, and therefore the types of ideas which might be supported. While it had been thought that the TOCs of ngā Kaikōkiri would align with PMPs TOC, it soon became apparent that the reverse was also true. As ngā Kaikōkiri came on board, with their new ideas and perspectives, PMP’s TOC needed to adapt in response to their thinking. These were not just small tweaks. Many of the changes were significant. The goal of reducing child poverty moved, for example, to a focus on whānau flourishing; a far more audacious goal!

As a result, PMP’s TOC evolved to capture the role of the Committee and what might need to be in place to best support the work of ngā Kaikōkiri. You can download the TOC below.

PMP has always supported a participatory evaluative approach, where ngā Kaikōkiri evaluate and capture their learning and any impacts using approaches and methods which help inform and progress their work. It has encouraged ngā Kaikōkiri to share what they were learning about systems change work in ways which work best for them; in person, videos, short reports or at Committee meetings, and at Mahi Tahi. The emphasis has been on using robust reflective practice based on their TOC or thinking, to advance their work; a developmental evaluative approach. Ngā Kaikōkiri have developed a range of ways of undertaking this, with some developing their own evaluation frameworks.

Despite working towards a collective goal and vision – whānau flourishing -  the reporting focus to date has been on what each Kaikōkiri are doing, what they are learning and if progress towards impact has been made, what they are achieving.

With the move to a participatory philanthropic approach, the Committee, ngā Kaikōkiri and ngā Kaikawenga (the group of ngā Kaikōkiri who are helping us move to a participatory way of working) have expressed an interest in exploring a more collective participatory evaluative approach. This approach would enable PMP participants to bring their ideas together to better understand what it takes to do this work and to interrogate some of the big questions which underpin systems change work, such as how do you start the mahi? How do service organisations move towards systems change organisations?

There is interest in finding out:

1. What are we learning together about how to do systems change work, and what might be helpful to learn from each other or others? Where are we at and what else is needed to advance our mahi?
2. What is our work (including the work of Committee members under our new participatory stucture) currently impacting? Can we start to build an emerging picture of our collective impact? How might we capture and/or measure this?
3. Having moved to a participatory philanthropic approach, what are we learning and how well is this working?

Lastly, a key question emerging from a move to a participatory philanthropic approach concerns the role of the PMP Committee. The Committee comprises an extraordinary group of people with years of expertise and experience in tackling poverty and working in philanthropy.

Current questions for PMP include; What is the new role of the Committee, and how can the members’ expertise and experience, and frankly serious heft, continue to add value to the critical work of PMP? Does our theory of change still reflect our work? Is it time to build a collective theory of change, which rather than reflecting how the Committee and Kaikawenga support ngā Kaikōkiri, reflects the mahi ngā Kaikōkiri and Committee members are undertaking to create an Aotearoa with flourishing whānau?

Article by Alex Woodley

Theory of Change