Process is-powerful

A practical guideto methods andtoolsthat can help
strengthenthe movementto advance media justice
planning and evaluation for media activists
learning from
five years of projects at
CIMA:
Center for International Media Action

Process is Powerful: planning and evaluation for media activists
Center for International
Media Action
AboutThis Booklet
Credits
This guide is based on five years of alliance-building projects at CIMA: Center
for International Media Action.As a nonprofit organization created to
support the movement for a better media and communications system, CIMA
has always prioritized learning, experimentation, reflection, and sharing in our
work.
The primary aim of this guide is to present an easy-to-use, movement-building
resource for planning and evaluation, with an eye towards long-term change
within the context of the media justice/communication rights movement.We
focus on the power of process because so many of us expend considerable
amounts of energy moving from fire to fire, so to speak, allowing inadequate
time to reflect on how our daily work relates to our larger visions and goals.
This guide is NOT a comprehensive manual to the work of planning and
evaluation. Rather, we offer it with the hopes of sharing some of our tools,
strategies, and lessons learned in these areas.
In particular, this guide centers on CIMA’s learnings on how to build
participation, strategy, and long-range frameworks through planning and
evaluation.We discuss the importance of recognizing the role of power
dynamics and ways to transfer power to low-income groups, people of color,
and other groups/people who tend to be disenfranchised.We look to
participatory principles and practices that share leadership, enable a diversity
of ideas, and seek to be relevant to the lives and work of people involved.We
discuss strategies for developing long-range frameworks that recognize that
shifts take time, and we also consider what the interim steps and long-range
goals might look like.
This guide is intended for practitioners (media and social justice activists,
advocates, and allies) working to organize networks, alliances, and
movement-building projects for systemic, progressive media change.We see
it as a small way to advance social justice, increase equity, and build grassroots
power among stakeholders.
This guide was produced by CIMA: Center for International Media Action. Sections on principles and planning by Aliza Dichter and
Rachel Kulick; Catherine Borgman-Arboleda and Heléne Clark contributed the sections on evaluation, in collaboration with
ActKnowledge. Edited by Aliza Dichter and Elinor Nauen. Graphic Design by MariannaTrofimova (www.inch.com/~marianna/).
CIMA: Center for International Media Action works to strengthen the movement for media and communications systems to serve
social justice, economic justice and human rights. CIMA helps build alliances, knowledge and strategies for structural transformation
in the media and communications environment. For copies of prior CIMA publications, or more information, please visit our website:
www.mediaactioncenter.org
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are deeply grateful to the extraordinary activists, educators and organizers we have worked with over the years whose examples
and constructive criticism have been the basis of our own learning.While this booklet is CIMA’s attempt to share some specific
strategies that have worked for us, the insights are inherited from the on-the-ground expertise of groups such as the members of
MAG-Net (Media Action Grassroots Network), the OurMedia/NuestrosMedios Network, the Boston ActionTank, the Allied Media
Conference and the Rockwood Media & Communications Fellowship; the grantees of the Media Justice Fund (Funding Exchange) and
the Necessary Knowledge Program (Social Science Research Council); and all the media justice and community activists who have
attended meetings with us over the years.We hope you’ll have the opportunity to learn about and support their work.
This content is not
meant to be proprietary.
Instead, we offer this
booklet in the spirit of
open source as something
that we want to share.
Please feel free to adapt
it, copy it, and use it in
whatever form works
for you.
Note

Media Action
Table of Contents
Introduction: Principles for Practice.
............................................................................................................. 1
A note on process and time........................................................................................................................... 3
1.
.
Planning and Participation.
............................................................................................................................... 4
A checklist for a co-planning meeting.
.......................................................................................................... 5
Case study: Creating shared leadership.
....................................................................................................... 6
Widening the circle: an outreach checklist.................................................................................................. 8
Case study: Overcoming mistrust and disconnects................................................................................... 9
Building together: How to make planning a collaborative process........................................................ 11
Long-Range Strategy......................................................................................................................................... 12
Strategy planning tool I:Timelines.
................................................................................................................. 14
Strategy planning tool II:Theory of Change................................................................................................ 16
Strategy planning tool III: Power Analysis..................................................................................................... 18
Considering Evaluation.
.................................................................................................................................... 20
General thoughts on evaluation..................................................................................................................... 20
Part One (Why): Evaluation and Social Justice.
..................................................................................... 21
.
Some benefits............................................................................................................................................... 22
.
Some challenges.
........................................................................................................................................... 23
Part Two (How): Key features of evaluation for social justice........................................................... 24
.
Recommendations.
....................................................................................................................................... 25
.
Case study: Participants assess an exploratory program....................................................................... 27
.
Case study:An inside-outside evaluation team....................................................................................... 31
Part Three (Tools):Activities and worksheets.
...................................................................................... 32
.
The “SoThat” Chain..................................................................................................................................... 32
.
An EvaluationToolkit........................................................................................................................................................... 33
RESOURCES
The Money Game: thoughts on dealing with funders.
................................................................................. 41
.
Recommended Sites and Readings................................................................................................................ 42
.
Planning and evaluation tools..................................................................................................................... 42
.
Groups offering training & facilitation..........................................
...................................................................... 43
.
Articles on evaluation.................................................................................................................................. 44

Process is Powerful: planning and evaluation for media activists 1
Media Action
Introduction: Principles for Practice
As activists working toward an ambitious vision of a movement to
improve the systems of media and communications, we’ve learned that
we need to attend to not just what we are going to do in our projects,
but how we do it.We’ve learned that the oft-quoted Ghandian wisdom
of “be the change you wish to see in the world” can serve as guidance
for media activists if we are clear about the values we think a media
system should uphold, and then ask ourselves what it looks like to apply
those same values to the work we do.
Media change work tends to involve diverse stakeholders –
community organizers, professional advocacy groups, policy makers,
academics, funders, among others – with varied experiences, struggles,
identities, and aims.The development of a guiding set of principles can
be a useful tool for groups not only to articulate the values that
underlie their long-range visions and goals, but also to create standards
for organizing strategies and day-to-day work. By articulating their
principles, groups can lay a strong foundation for deciding on what
planning, evaluation and action steps they are going to follow.
However, the development and realization of a set of principles does
not happen overnight. Groups need to allocate adequate time, space,
and process to consider which principles might be useful in guiding their
work.This process might also illuminate where organizational and
individual values align and diverge; there may need to be space and
facilitation to explore that.While groups may decide to include
principles only where there’s full consensus, it is also important to
recognize differences that may surface through the process of
articulating a common set of principles.
There are many factors — of course — in creating successful collaborations, as well as
planning and evaluation for social change, and we’re only touching on a few in this guide.
More than anything, we’ve found that this work takes practice, patience, clear intentions, a
lot of listening, and the willingness to learn from each challenge and keep going. It also takes
support, and the resource section at the end lists a number of groups and readings we’ve
found really helpful.
Note

Media Action
We at CIMA used the following steps to come up with a working list
of principles and standards for how we do our work:
Articulate values
c Describe and define the nature of the system we are working
towards. What are the qualities we believe the media system
should embody? Discuss these in the context of how they apply
to our own projects.
Learn from feedback
c Go over the comments, advice, and concerns that emerged from
our projects.Write up and discuss positive feedback, appreciation,
and encouragement as well as constructive criticism, push-back, and
red flags.
Take our own advice
c Look back at moments where we offered recommendations or
critique to others and note those as guiding points for us to follow.
Reflect and discuss together
c A facilitated retreat can be a good place to surface values and
visions, and to look at where those felt either aligned or
contradicted in past projects.
Get concrete
c Find examples of what it looks like to put values into practice. It
might be useful to discuss past experiences where activities
embodied the values and where they didn’t.
Draft a statement of principles and practices
c One person might write it up, followed by review and revision by
a sub-group then the full group.
Get an outside eye
c An outside editor was very helpful to make sure we were being
explicit, clear, and not redundant.
Review, revise
c This step needs to be repeated as the document – and the
work – evolves.
AN EXAMPLE OF MEDIA VALUES
TO APPLY TO OUR OWN WORK
CIMA’s staff and board members
developed this list of principles to name
both the media we are working towards
and to describe how we want to shape
our own work.The full version includes
specific descriptions of what we mean
by each item and is understood to be a
work-in-progress.We offer it here as an
example of what a media activist group
might come up with.
See www.mediaactioncenter.org/principles
for our full list.
CIMA’s work is guided by the principles
we believe should shape media and
communications infrastructure and
institutions.We aim to follow these same
principles in our projects.We understand
“media” as the technologies and
institutions of communication, culture
and information.We believe that media
policies, infrastructure and practices - and
our own projects - should be directed to
create future systems that are:
I. Connective and multi-directional
II. Accountable, transparent and
responsible
III. Universal and accessible and
affordable
IV. Creative and expansive
V. Diverse and inclusive and
representative
VI. Relevant to democracy and the
broad exchange of ideas and
political perspectives as a human
right
VII. Social-justice driven
VIII.Open and free
IX. Public-interest and community-
based
X. Ecologically & economically
sustainable
Introduction: Principles for Practice

Media Action
A note on process and
“all the time it takes!”
Committees... Group opinions...The cycle of review, reflect and revise.These all take up precious time,
and sometimes feel slow, repetitive, taking time away from our real work. Not surprisingly, the process of
planning and evaluation can often face resistance, from participants as well as the realities of the clock and
calendar.
The point is not to delay our work, but to find ways of working that advance our goals at every step.
When we are planning or evaluating a project, it might feel as though we are not “taking action” – but
if we are doing these things in ways that build power, deepen strategies and spread leadership, then this
group work is the work of making change.
Of course, the urgencies of political opportunities or crises, and the pressures of funding, are a very real
context for social-change work.
The purpose of grounding our work in principled practice, strategic planning and evaluation is so that
we can develop the knowledge and methods to respond quickly and effectively to situations without
being thrown off course and without being derailed from our long-range goals.
Sometimes we will need to remind ourselves that an emphasis on “expedience” or “pragmatism” has at
times been the excuse that perpetuates the very imbalances of power and collective leadership that we
are trying to counteract.
Sometimes we will need to remember a proverb we’ve heard attributed to both spiritual revolutionaries
and surgeons: The situation is so critical, so urgent, that we must take our time and proceed with care.
And always, we need to make choices.
We need to find the balance between making decisions and building knowledge and consensus.
We need to deal with funders and partners who may object to the way we take the time we need to do
things the way we think they need to happen.
We have a rapidly changing media system, and, as Martin Luther King, Jr, said, a long arc of history. As
activists for media justice and communication rights, we are concerned with the evolution of not just
technology and economics, but of culture and power. Planning and evaluation can be key tools to deal
with both rapid change and long-term transformation.

Media Action
Planning and Participation: Building and Sharing Leadership
On collaboration & power…
OVERVIEW:
Whether we’re planning a campaign, an event, an alliance or some other activist project, if we’re ultimately
looking to build the community of people involved in making change, then how we engage others is at least
as important as what we are planning to do.
Specifically, this means thinking about who we need to involve, at what stage,
and how to make it a meaningful and positive experience.As we developed
collaborative projects, we learned firsthand that we must be explicit in how we
account for differences in not only culture/values, but in access to power and
resources as well.
This booklet has emerged primarily from the perspective of activists with the
privilege to have paid jobs at a movement-building nonprofit as well as
relationships with funders and large nonprofit groups. Our learning about
building alliances and navigating power dynamics is grounded in these
experiences.While we hope that our tools and insights will be generally
helpful, we recognize that the relevance of many of our points may vary
according to people’s standpoints and the context of their work.
Some points in this section are lessons from our experience and reflections,
and many are from the guidance of organizers and activists we’ve been
fortunate to work with and learn from.
c Rather than defining a “participatory project” as getting others to participate in our thing, we can define
“participatory” as when work participates in – is relevant to – the lives and realities of the people we want to
work with and support.
c Working from a social justice perspective means that we’re not just treating everyone equally, but specifically
prioritizing those who are too often excluded and vulnerable, and that affects how assets, time, attention, leadership,
and credit are allocated.
c Time is a resource: though everyone is “swamped,” how we pace our projects can have very different implications for
participants depending on what other pressures and urgencies they are facing.
c Enabling connections is as valuable as building them – which means not just reaching out to a diverse group, but
enabling them to connect & communicate with each other.
c Bridges aren’t necessarily positive – they may actually further inequity unless imbalances and agendas are accounted
for in how relations are structured.
c Co-planning means sharing control – even giving up control. If the project needs to go exactly the way we envision it,
it’s probably not a good case for co-planning, but if we are able to be open to new directions and ideas, building
collaboration and leadership can become one of the project’s strongest outcomes.
We’ve found that
in the throes of activity
we often overlook advice
we’ve received, so we began
developing checklists and
other documents as a way
to keep those points at the
forefront in our planning.You
might find that creating your
own checklist or statement of
practices is a good frame of
reference for members of your
group to keep on track with
the values and priorities you’ve
established.

Media Action
A checklist for a co-planning meeting…
q When setting the agenda, be realistic about what can get accomplished in a single meeting.
q If the participants haven’t already been working together, make time at the beginning (or even
the day before if possible) for people to get to know a bit about each other, their work, why
they are there.
q Present the history, context, and goals of a project right at the beginning to catch up new
people. What’s already been decided, what ideas need to be reviewed or newly developed?
q Make sure everyone is clear on the meeting’s purpose. Especially for a planning meeting: what
decisions are on the table, or what information needs to be generated or gathered.What will
be the next steps after the meeting?
q Be explicit about whether the group is to make decisions that will hold, or if they are being
asked to generate ideas and feedback –and if so, who will make decisions?
q Explain, or collectively decide, what will happen with what’s said at the meeting, as well as with
the participant list. Get group agreement on confidentiality, attribution, and sharing.
q Provide a range of ways for people to commit to additional participation, from reporting on
the meeting to their organization or community to reviewing/editing notes from the meeting to
active involvement in the project.
q Create a contact list so everyone attending has everyone else’s contact info.
q Document the meeting, sharing a draft with all participants for corrections and provide them
all with a copy.A briefer version can be developed to share with others not in attendance, if
appropriate.
q Follow up with participants within three weeks of the meeting to inform them of any next
steps or developments.
q ____________________________________________________________
q ____________________________________________________________
(a few key points we sometimes need to remind ourselves… add your own!)
Planning and Participation:

Media Action
The OURMedia network began as a mini-conference of scholars focused on
grassroots media around the world. It quickly expanded to a larger conference
and email discussion list that also included advocates and practitioners. One of
the founders did most of the work of keeping the network connected, inviting
people to join, sending news through the email list and organizing the
conference. She was seeking ways for the network to embody the collective
leadership and active participation that many members agreed should
characterize the group.While members deeply appreciated the network, they
noted that competing obligations kept active involvement low beyond
conferences.
However, many participants at the group’s third conference showed strong
interest in having a next conference that included presentations, discussion and
organizing spaces, field trips and a hands-on media laboratory.
CIMA was brought on to organize the fourth conference. Our mandate was
to ensure participation from members in an open and democratic process, to
strengthen the emerging network and help it connect with other media-change
networks.As we created committees to help with organizing, we came across challenges that we’ve seen frequently in
other projects. Open-ended queries to the planners produced few responses and it was rare to receive concrete
suggestions (e.g., for themes or activities).These folks were most likely to reply when we offered ideas to respond to.
Yet when we presented examples intended to spark other ideas, people suggested only small adjustments, and when we
presented a list of choices, people generally wanted to do them all.
Another challenge was how to ensure full participation for participants from the Global South and grassroots media
activists, who were a priority for the group yet generally have less access to events and resources than academics or their
Northern/Western peers.We found it was essential to allocate time and funds to provide translation (both in-person
and over email), free or affordable food, transportation and housing, and to encourage U.S. and European academics who
had a travel budget to contribute fees that could help cover others who wouldn’t otherwise be able to attend.
Now, four years later, the OURMedia/NuestrosMedios network is an active global network with more than 500
members and leadership provided by international workgroups.They have held conferences in India,Australia and Africa
and have a new website, social networks and other projects.
Planning Case Study: Creating Shared Leadership
The project: Organize the 4th annual OURMedia/NuestrosMedios conference of grassroots media scholars,
advocates and practitioners and build and strengthen OM/NM as a global network.
The team: Several members of the network, mostly academics from North America and Latin America,
volunteered their time to serve on committees.We raised funds for CIMA staff and one member of the
network to work as lead coordinators and hired three part-time logistics organizers on location.
The challenges: How to transform the structure and culture of this informal international association with
two hundred nominal members from a hub-and-spoke model with one founder driving development to a
horizontally organized network with distributed leadership and shared initiative. How to collaboratively
organize with an international group each representing different facets of a diverse network (and of course
with limited time).
For more on the OURMedia/NuestrosMedios network, visit www.ourmedianetwork.org.
Planning from strength…
When starting or designing a
project, it’s helpful to include
“asset mapping” — identifying the
resources, skills, connections, and
other valuable assets within our
network of allies and partners,
and within our community.
Building from the resources we
already have helps avoid being
driven by the pressures of scarcity
and reduces the impact of relying
on outside funders.

Media Action
Planning Case Study: Creating Shared Leadership
On reflection, we can see two key strategies that helped move the
OURMedia/Nuestros Medios network on this path, one intentional,
the other somewhat inadvertent.
c Establishing committees with specific roles and expectations (e.g.,
Steering, Program, Outreach, Fundraising, Logistics,Translation), with
a point-person for each to ensure deadlines were met and to keep
track of committee progress.
c Creating an ambitious, innovative project.This may feel
overwhelming and fall short of expectations, but can actually inspire
others more than a perfect event that seems too daunting to repeat.
Showing what was possible turned out to be a great way to
motivate people to move forward with their own ideas.
This project and other gatherings gave us some insights about
building shared leadership through event organizing, and how to
overcome common challenges.A few lessons we’ve learned:
• Create proposals that balance between giving people something
concrete to respond to but are not so fleshed-out that the only
feedback is minor tweaks.
• Email is not a good format for brainstorming; better to collect ideas
other ways (eg: individual conversations, things raised at prior
meetings) and then use email to refine them.
• Focus on participatory activities: roundtables, strategy discussions,
social time, field trips, not just presentations.
• Prioritize allocating resources (time, money, translation support) to
make diverse participation possible.
• Document and share the planning experience as an important way
to support subsequent leadership.
• When doing an event with
community people or issues,
make the effort for all or part
of the event to take place at an
accessible/familiar community
location, and not just at a
convenient university site or
conference room.
• Be attentive to who is given an
introductory, stage-setting
position. Consider who might be
used to pontificating or being in
a directive position and design
agendas to have a prominent
role for those who tend to be
sidelined.
• Beware of setting up
requirements that create
barriers for less resourced
groups to participate: such as
travel, time expectations.
Some ideas for
mitigating power
imbalances when
bringing a mixed
group together…

Media Action
Widening the Circle… an outreach checklist
q Spend time at the beginning of planning to identify the key constituencies in the relevant
community or area, and especially those stakeholders who are most vulnerable and/or most
affected by the issue. Prioritize those who are most typically excluded from conversations,
decision-making and resources that affect them. (For example, depending on the issue and the
community, these likely include people of color, low-income folks, youth, seniors, immigrants,
people with disabilities, LGBT people, etc.)Talk with these folks first.
q Seek to include both people who have been part of related processes, for continuity, as well as
people new to the project.
q Ask and listen first: Find out what people/groups are working on, current priorities and current
challenges. Explain a bit about the overall idea and query their interest and feedback.
q Look for ways to connect with existing networks, coalitions, and events, and reach out to
people who can serve as liaisons to those groups.
q Write up the goals and purpose of the event or project as far as they’ve been developed and
share with potential participants. Be clear where these are open to evolve and what the
intentions of the initiators/organizers are.
q Make phone calls as follow-up to reach people who are important to involve, rather than
relying on email. Particularly with community organizers and leaders from groups often
excluded, make the effort to reach them.
q Communicate both the incentives (such as a lead role for the group, future funding) and
expectations (including time commitments for planning and evaluation stages ) for participating.
q Allocate resources to maximize the ability of people to participate. Consider event locations
and scheduling, funds for travel, childcare, language translation, physical accessibility, as well as
taking time to support people to take on new roles and leadership. Don’t let ease of availability
be the default factor for participation.
q ____________________________________________________________
q ____________________________________________________________
(a few key points we sometimes need to remind ourselves… add your own!)

Media Action
Planning Case Study: Overcoming Mistrust and Disconnects
The project: Create the “Necessary Knowledge” program to give out grants for collaborative research and
build a “culture of collaboration” between public-interest advocates and academic researchers working on
media and communications issues.
The team: A project of the Social Science Research Council, in partnership with CIMA, funded by the
Ford Foundation.
The challenge: The target groups for this project have different priorities, different ways of communicating and
some skepticism on each side. How to gather their best thinking about ways to overcome the barriers, create
a program that has their buy-in and willingness to participate,AND involve them in the planning despite their
limited time?!
The “Necessary Knowledge” program was built around an obvious opportunity: advocates working on media issues needed
more research to advance their campaigns, and academics studying those issues wanted their work to be relevant. But
despite potential synergies, barriers to collaboration were deep and persistent, particularly in the U.S.
For advocates, perceptions or experiences of disrespect or even exploitation by professional researchers seen to have
greater resources and legitimacy made them wary. For their part, scholars had seen how the stigma against working with
public-interest or community groups could jeopardize academic careers or credibility, and told us that advocates at times
dismissed the constraints and standards of academic methods. Both groups also acknowledged that differences in language,
priorities, and timeframes for their work created further obstacles to working together well.
To design a program that could overcome these challenges, we knew we needed to talk with activist-scholars who
straddled both worlds, with advocates and academics who had done collaborations before, and with skeptics on both
sides.We also knew that the program had to avoid getting pegged as belonging to one side or the other, so that potential
participants would feel that their work would be respected and valued.
The first step was to understand the perceptions and realities of power
dynamics as well as the opportunities and urgencies that this program could
serve.This process included several components:
• open-ended group meetings with scholars and advocates together,
who helped us explore their perceptions and priorities.
• a collective document of activist recommendations, produced
through interviews and small group discussions on phone, in-person
and email.This formalized shared perspectives from those whose
views are often received with less authority than academics.
• individual interviews, which enabled us to hear perspectives that
might get overlooked or not get voiced in a group setting.
• commissioned papers from advocates, with response papers from
academics and then a group meeting to discuss — putting advocacy
knowledge in a format recognized by the academy.
Alliances sometimes
need divides…
When disparate types of
people are coming together,
there may need to be some
separate space at first,
especially for those from a less
powerful or well-resourced
position. It may be important
for some groups to be able to
gather or caucus separately
to clarify their goals, agenda,
strategy, leadership as well as to
build trust among themselves.

Media Action
Planning Case Study: Overcoming Mistrust and Disconnects
The next phase was to develop a plan for a Collaborate Grants program to address these issues, ensuring
responsiveness to the field with a decision-making committee representing both academics and advocates.
Here we faced a classic challenge of participatory planning: how to engage people’s best thinking while
recognizing their limited time. For this we used a series of feedback loops of research, reflection, presenting
ideas, receiving feedback, revising, testing, evaluating, and then more research.
A key tactic was preparing written drafts at each stage and building in the flexibility to receive responses either in
writing or interviews.
After three years of grantmaking, the ongoing evaluation of the Necessary Knowledge Collaborative Grants program is
finding that we have helped not only produce specific collaborative research projects, but also push forward the idea that
scholars and activists can work together. Moreover, we developed a program that has begun to create some equity
between participating academics and advocates. Given how much we learned from our inclusive planning processes, we
might have done more from the start to involve and inform other power-brokers outside the program, such as academic
deans and advocacy funders, so the recommendations might also inform programs they are developing.
Navigating the dynamics of difference was challenging, and often frustrating, especially when we needed to accommodate
those same dominant frameworks (i.e., mainstream academic culture) that the program was created to transcend. Regular
check-ins with those we hoped to serve through the program helped sustain our commitment through those challenges.
For more about the Necessary Knowledge program, see: mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/grants/
Steps that made strong program design possible were:
• Carefully mapping out the logic and theories behind the program.
• Researching similar programs, both through reading and talking with
people involved.
• Asking a wide range of people specific questions relating to the
challenges we perceived.
• Conducting a pilot of the project and evaluating both qualitatively
(interviews) and quantitatively (numbers).
• Bringing a committee together for two days to look at the
information and discuss strategy.
• Documenting and referring back to program priorities, so that time
pressures or the ease of the familiar didn’t persuade us to just give in
to the “usual way” of doing things.
(see p. 31 for a brief case study on how we integrated evaluation into this program)
Connect to networkers,
but don’t overload
them…
It’s key to involve people who are
highly “networked” and who have
broad relationships and respect
among diverse groups. But it’s
often the same individuals within
grassroots groups (or
communities of color, etc) who are
invited – over and over – to cross
class, race and cultural lines and to
participate in meetings and other
events, which can lead to overload
and burnout. It’s important to also
find other people who can
participate and help build these
bridges.

Media Action
Building together…. How to make planning a collaborative process
q Find out who is already doing or has done similar work and what they learned.
q Use a variety of ways to seek input from others (both individual & group calls, in-person
conversations, email, other tech tools, etc) and then write up the input received and re-circulate
to the whole group.
q Document subgroup and committee meetings in brief, clear reports and share with the full
group. Keep people updated as things are in progress so they can see where there are holes
and offer to step up.
q Provide specific proposals, questions, and/or ideas for people to respond to.
q Design processes to respect the capacity of participants. For example, turnaround times for
grassroots and smaller groups often need to be longer;“assignments” may need to be shorter/
fewer; and conversations/meetings more focused, shorter but more frequent.
q When asking for feedback or advice, be clear how their input will be used, and how/if they will
be involved in the project moving forward, when/how the final decision will be made and by
whom – and whether the person/group providing input has a role in that decision-making.
Follow up to share what recommendations were or weren’t taken, and why.
q Make sure that participants and partners (as well as other advisors) in a project, process, or
event are clear how decision-making will happen, when and by whom, and what their role is.
q Ensure that there are grassroots/constituency-based groups in a decision-making and
direction-setting role before any major decisions are made.
q Decide how the timing of the project fits into larger campaign or policy timeframes and check
in with partners to adjust, where possible/necessary, for timelines to fit their current or
forthcoming efforts.
q When writing documents, circulate and get consensus at the outline stage, ensuring that all
involved agree before a few people handle final wordsmithing.
q Define success together with participants; take care to set measurable outcomes throughout
the course of the project that reflect the collective goals and values of those involved.
q Discuss and develop awareness of the internal and external dynamics that create and
perpetuate imbalance.Take time to think through how to address the ways that the
dynamics of race, economics, gender, national status, etc., may lead to advantages and
disadvantages when it comes to access to resources, decision-making, cultural behaviors,
and other sources of power.
(for co-planning a campaign, event, new alliance, or other media activist project)
Lessons we learned to keep in mind…

Media Action
c A timeline to identify concrete goals for the future. Sketching out visions and predictions with specificity and pushing
ourselves to state realistic timeframes for identifiable developments can be a good method of choosing goals to work
towards.
c Mapping our Theory of Change. Once we know the long-term outcomes we are aiming towards, being explicit about
the path to get there can help us build a strong logical foundation for our work.We can focus on the various conditions
and factors required to achieve our goals and examine our assumptions about how change happens and what our work
can do.The process can be particularly useful in setting a foundation for evaluation: identifying interim steps and short-
term outcomes, as well as indicators of progress.
c A power analysis. Another process that builds off an identified goal (or set of goals) is a power analysis of who
supports our agenda, who opposes it and how much relative influence they have. By identifying the institutions, groups
and individuals who are organized opponents, potential allies, etc, we can pinpoint where we might target our efforts..
Long-Range StrategyTools
The tools:
How can media activists have a long-range strategy when
communication technologies, economics and practices are changing so
rapidly? It’s because the changes are so drastic and fast that we need to
know what our long-range vision is and how we will get there.That’s
the only way we’ll be in a position to respond as tomorrow’s version
of blogs, cell phones or television emerges. If we believe that everyone
should have access to networks; that journalism and culture should
serve the public good – not just private profits; that all communities,
especially the marginalized, should be able to represent themselves fully
– we need to consider what exactly it will take to make that happen.
If your group is challenging the structural and systemic manifestations of
injustice in media and communications – racism, sexism, capitalism and
commercialism, nationalism, anti-collectivism or whatever problems your
group sees as core… what is your analysis and strategy for change?
Because these questions are both overwhelming and yet so
fundamental, we have been exploring specific tools that can help groups
map their aspirational visions for a better world to concrete strategies
for action.
We’ve found that group-thinking tools and facilitated workshops are
really helpful in exploring the interplay of economics, politics, technology,
social development and institutional power in the changes we want to
see.There are many useful tools out there, and in this section we share
three that we’ve been experimenting with, along with when and how to
use them and some additional resources.These could be used in order
as part of a strategic planning process, or individually as fits your needs.
Note
These tools and workshops are
an opportunity to be creative,
expansive and flexible as well
as concrete.When we are
discussing the questions it’s not
that we KNOW the answers,
but we are hypothesizing,
reasoning and sharing our
perspectives.
It’s most important to create
the space for creativity, and
not let the linear nature of the
tools limit the vision.

Media Action
When to use these tools - We’ve found these tools work well in two different contexts:
1) PROJECT PLANNING: For an organization, coalition or team that is planning projects or overall work, the
tools may be most useful in a retreat and/or over a series of facilitated sessions.The group process of
identifying long-range goals and trends, mapping the strategy to get there and analyzing the power players is
valuable at the beginning of planning a new project, of course, but really can be used any time in the
development of projects and plans.
• To use the tools in this way, it’s important to make enough time for coming to consensus and working through
points of divergence or disagreement.
2) STRATEGY WORKSHOPS: At a conference or other gathering of activists, these tools can be used to ground
strategy discussions and surface key questions, debates and opportunities for our movement.They can be
adapted for a 90-minute workshop (choosing one or at most two tools), or for a longer session or series of
sessions. In a mixed group, the focus would not be to find consensus, but rather to explore critical questions
– and to identify where we have disagreements, where there is strong alignment, and where we need more
information or more discussion.
• One of the benefits of using these tools in a workshop is to introduce people to a few methods they can use
with their own groups. Handouts with resources for getting additional info on these tools are helpful.
A few thoughts on using planning tools and strategy workshops…
c It’s essential to start with a shared understanding of whether the intention is to come to consensus on
vision, theory, strategy, or whether the purpose is to surface ideas and discussions, including where there are
differences and questions.
c Having an outside facilitator can be key for an effective planning and strategy session. It can be really
challenging for someone to support a group going through a process if they want to also contribute or have
a vested stake in the outcome. If a group can’t hire a facilitator, they might look into an exchange with an ally
group where each organization provides someone to facilitate for the other.
c Before launching into the tools, depending on the nature of the group and your history together, it can be
valuable to set the framework with initial discussions such as the scope of the vision to be generated, and the
meaning and implications of concepts like “power.”
c When beginning any workshop or group process, we’ve found it’s important to begin by going over the
purpose, outcomes/objectives and process for the session (as Rockwood Leadership Program calls it, the
P.O.P.) to make sure there’s clarity around what is and isn’t on the table for that particular meeting, what you
hope to achieve and how.
c We need to remember to set the context when we are using these tools:What are some of the relevant
conversations that have come before and what are the next steps in the process, how will the information
surfaced in the session be used, by whom and when?
The resource section at the end of this guide lists several sources of other great tools, as well as publications and groups
that offer guidance on how to structure and facilitate planning sessions.

Media Action
TimelineVersion One: Past and Future Trends
Example design for basic trends timeline
Purpose:To help identify long-, middle-, and short-range goals within a realistic timeframe.
Materials:
c A long sheet of butcher paper or roll paper, attached to a wall (6 to 20+ feet, depending on size of group
and space).
c Markers, plus tape or paint to make the template.
c Large sticky notes or shapes of colored paper and tape (moveable artists’ tape if the group wants to be
able to revise the timeline)
Note: If the group needs a large timeline, including labels or symbols (such as smiley faces or frowns)
to indicate positive/negative throughout the paper can help people understand how to use the chart
even if they are only looking at a small section at a time.
Strategy PlanningTool I:Timelines
Setup: This timeline looks 10 to 25 years back
and the same distance forward, with NOW in the
center. It is divided horizontally as well, so that the
top part is for “positive” items and the bottom
row is “negative.”
The past is labeled “what happened then” and the
future is “what could happen.”The rows lead to a
good or bad future.
Seeing how the present was shaped by our history
(what we do and don’t know of it) helps put the
future in context of what we work on now.
Depending on the group/setting, the labels for the
sections may vary, especially the text that the
arrows are pointing to.
Process:
• The timeline can be filled out in a workshop setting, with pairs or small groups working together to come up with
items to put on stickies and put on the timeline.
• Or, especially for a large group or at a conference or retreat, the timeline can be up on the wall with stickies and
markers available for individuals to add to it over the course of an afternoon, evening or a couple of days (we’ve
done this during a dinner event and also over a 3-day conference).
• Then in a workshop or meeting, people come together to reflect on what they are seeing on the timeline – where
there’s a lot of items, where there are few, where people might disagree about what’s positive/negative, what the big
concerns/opportunities are, etc.
• This can become the basis for a group discussion or additional activity to focus on how to work towards the desired
trends to prevent the unwanted developments, what we can learn from history, and so on.
1989 1999 2019 2029
2009
1989 1999 2019 2029
2009
Good
Trends
What happened then? What could happen?
Bad
Trends
What we
want &
need
What we
DON’T
want
NOW

Media Action
TimelineVersion Two: Long-TermVision
Example design for basic vision timeline
Purpose: To help identify long-, middle-, and short-range goals within a realistic timeframe.
Materials:
c A long sheet of butcher paper or roll paper, attached to a wall (6 to 20+ feet, depending on size of
group and space).
c Markers, plus tape or paint to make the template.
c Large sticky notes or shapes of colored paper and tape (moveable artists’ tape if the group wants to be
able to revise the timeline)
Strategy PlanningTool I:Timelines
Setup: This timeline looks 10 to 25 years forward,
starting at NOW. The horizontal points forward
and the vertical lines mark the years.Whatever
the endpoints are, it’s important to have shorter
timeframes marked, as well as some space at the
end for items that are further into the future, but
important long-range goals to keep in mind.
Depending on the group needs and size (and with
sufficient time for the activity), the tool can be
made more detailed/complex by using different
colors for different types of items on the
timeline, or by having rows for different aspects of
the future (e.g. education, journalism, etc).
Process:
• The timeline can be filled out in a workshop setting, with pairs or small groups working together to come up with
CONCRETE, SPECIFIC things they want to see – institutions, policies, conditions – things that could be seen or
measured to confirm they are true.
• Then they write each item on a sticky and identify the year by when this reality could be achieved and place it on
the timeline.
• For items that are 10 or more years out, the groups then identify interim steps/stages toward that item that can be
located at 5 years or sooner.
• The full group then comes back together and takes time to look at the timeline, discuss what they see (what’s noted
frequently, where are there different ideas on timing, what’s less common, what’s missing, etc).
• The results can be used in a priority-setting session to choose goals to work towards, and/or a strategy session to
map a path to that goal.
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029
2014 2019 2024 2029
NOW
Media
justice

Media Action
Theory of Change (TOC) is a great way to help develop a strong, logical strategy for social-change work.
Mapping aTheory of Change is often done as a group, over a series of facilitated sessions. It’s used in strategy
development, program design and evaluation.
We’ve used theTOC method developed by ActKnowledge and the Aspen Roundtable on Community Change.
Similar methods by other groups may be called “pathway mapping,”“outcomes mapping,”“outcomes pathways,”
or “backwards mapping.”
Strategy PlanningTool II:Theory of Change
Even a short version of a TOC process can be valuable for grounding a
strategy discussion.A group can use the method to begin a structured
conversation about the logic of what it will take to realize their goals.
In a mixed gathering (at a conference for example) it can bring out different
perspectives on how change happens and specifically on such factors as the
role of government – initiating really important conversations for us to be
having in our movement and across our coalitions.
The purpose is to understand what, specifically, needs to come about
in order for your long-term goal to be realized, and from there to
determine what would be the most effective strategies and actions
to make that happen. It’s a way to open up creative thinking.
Developing theTheory can be challenging and complicated, because it
requires a concrete focus on the conditions required at every step, and
not on activities.The challenge is to investigate our logic about the systemic
change we seek, and to be explicit about the our assumptions, so it’s really
helpful to have a facilitator who is familiar with the process.
It’s a really useful tool, but you’ll need a more comprehensive guide than we
can offer here.This description is to give you an idea of how it works and
hopefully spark your interest in using tools to map out the pathway to the
change you seek.
Theory mapping can be complex, but so is systemic change, especially when
we are looking at media, and need to account for the economics, technology,
politics, education, culture and social behaviors that all interplay in shaping our
communications environment. Using a mapping method like this, and/or
having an outside facilitator can help us get explicit about what we need to
do to have the long-term impact we seek.
We’ve gone through a fewTOC workshops over the years, read about this
and other types of logic mapping, and eventually took a 3-day training on
facilitating the method. It was an investment of time to understand it, but
now we can use it in a range of ways, and even a 30-minute workshop with a
group can be really powerful for raising important questions and
conversations.
See the description below for a general overview of the process and check
out the resources for more.
TOC GUIDES
www.TheoryOfChange.org --
Created and run by ActKnowledge, this
site has an introduction to the model,
guides, articles and an onlineTOC tool.
Check out the Community Builders
Approach to Theory of Change
guidebook under “resources.”
The Aspen Institute Roundtable on
Community Change has a guide for
communities to assess what it will take
to work towards racial justice:
“Dismantling Structural Racism:
A Racial EquityTheory of Change”
--visit www.aspenroundtable.org
and search for “racial equity theory of
change”
TOC TRAINING AND FACILITATION
ActKnowledge leadsTheory of Change
sessions and workshop series for non-
profit groups.They also train facilitators
and may be able to recommend some-
one for your group or provide a training.
See: www.actknowledge.org
If you are working on structural racism
issues and seeking facilitation for the
Racial EquityTheory of Change, contact
the Aspen Roundtable:
www.aspenroundtable.org

Media Action
ULTIMATE GOAL
Long-term
outcome
Precondition
Note: The trick with mapping the logical path towards the ultimate goal is to avoid talking about projects,
activities, interventions until you’ve mapped out what you see as the path of change, based on the
developments needed in a community, society, industry, government (etc) to achieve the long-term goals.
Strategy PlanningTool II:Theory of Change: Basic overview of the process
This is a visual mapping process: using big paper on the wall and then cut-out pieces
you can move around.The map usually looks like a tree graph or flow-chart, but can
also be done as bricks along a road or whatever visual works and lets you move the
pieces around as you discuss the logic of the path.
1. The mapping starts by identifying the long-term goal (consensus & clarity on
this can take time), describing some of what it would “look like” to have reached
that goal.
2. The next step is to identify the necessary and sufficient preconditions for that
goal–what would need to be in place for it to happen, what would need to exist?
3. Then, looking at those preconditions, what are the preconditions before them?
What components need to be in place to have those conditions occur?
• Each condition is itself a goal or outcome of the situation below/before it,
and a precondition of the condition above it.
4. At each step, we spell out the rationales underlying or behind our theory.Why
does one precondition lead to the outcome above it? Why is a particular
precondition required for the ultimate goal?
5. We also need to state specifically our assumptions, the conditions or realities
we presume to be already true and don’t need to make happen.We need to be
clear what we are assuming and what we might need to research or test.
6. The indicators for each outcome are a key element (and make theTOC
useful later for evaluation).The question is how would we know the outcome is
achieved? What does it look like? Are there numbers that represent the
critical mass necessary (eg laws in 5 states, or 80% of people, etc) to consider
that outcome successful?
7. By continuing to map the chain of preconditions for each outcome, we can
determine the conditions that the project, organization, campaign (etc) will try to
create. Only then do we look at the types of interventions (activities) that can
produce that outcome.
8. To use theTOC to identify key strategies and approaches for your work, you
can hone in on the specific outcomes that are most fitting for you to target by
looking at both what other groups are doing (you can indicate this on the map)
and also which outcomes seem most appropriate given your particular assets,
strengths, goals, constituency, etc.
Final map would also include the assumptions, the
interventions (activities), and the indicators (the
measure of each outcome).You can also highlight
on the map which outcomes other groups are
working on.
Example outline of a basic theory of change map
Visualizing the Theory
Large paper, markers and
stickies are great for working out the
ideas, and it’s also key to save the
important data and ideas that are
generated.These can be typed up,
and flow-chart or drawing software
can be used to make an electronic
version of the map.There’s an online
tool atTheoryOfChange.org.
It’s important to find ways to
capture and keep working with the
knowledge that’s generated.
Even if your group can’t dedicate time to mapping out aTOC over a number of
meetings, a half- or full-day gathering can be very useful for exploring your goals and
assumptions.The process can help you see where you need more research, where you
need to develop activities, and where there are internal disagreements about priorities
and strategy. The result is not a fixed “answer” but a tool for creative and strategic
thinking that you can continue to use as your learning and work evolve.

Media Action
We learned this method from Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE), the Praxis Project and
other community organizers. It can help us see who is – or could be – key to reaching our goal . Power analysis can
be a foundation for strategic discussions that look at the authority, self-interest and motivators of decision-makers and
what’s likely to move them. It can be used to focus in on the various strengths and challenges for ally groups and
opportunities for organizing and alliance building. Here’s a simplified version – check out the resources for more.
See example grids on the next page
Purpose: To identify who supports/opposes our goal, who has power, who might be moved and where we can
focus to build power. Once we map out who the “players” are, we can develop strategies for who we need to
target, and how we want to engage with them; we can look at what influences them.
Materials: Large paper with the basic template/grid. Sticky notes of different colors or cut-out paper & tape.
Markers. Handouts useful in a larger group for small-group work.
Strategy PlanningTool III: Power Analysis
Process:
The group first needs to agree on and name the goal to focus on.This can
be a specific campaign goal or a broader long-range agenda.The timeline or
Theory of Change tools can be useful in defining the goal.
With a smaller group (up to 5-6 people), the basic mapping can be done all
together, or it can be useful to break into pairs or groups of 3 or 4 and each
use a worksheet to answer the questions:
1. Who are the key decision-making bodies?
2. Who are the key organized opposition groups/forces?
3. Who are the key organized ally groups/forces?
4. Who are the unorganized groups that are most affected by this issue
or most important to organize to make change?
Then for each group listed, identify:
a. Where do they stand on the issue (from +3 support to -3 oppose)
b. How much power do they have (from 10= decisive to 0= no
influence)
The next step is to use different colored sticky notes or cut-out paper to plot
these different groups on the grid.This may take some discussion to agree on
where to locate them.
From there we can look at:
c where on our side do we need to build power
c which powerful players in the opposition do we need to move/shift in
their position
c which neutral groups should we be organizing to gain their support
and/or build their power
Toolkits:
There’s a comprehensive
Power Analysis tool in the “Power
Tools” kit, an excellent set of
community organizing resources
from the Los Angeles-based
Strategic Concepts in Organizing
and Policy Education, (SCOPE LA).
SCOPE also offers training in Power
Analysis. See:
www.scopela.org
The Praxis Project provides an
excerpted power analysis tool
adapted from resources developed
by SCOPE. (MS Word document
download):
www.thepraxisproject.org
(click on Information Resource

Media Action
Simplified version of a Power Analysis Grid
This basic template can be used for a quick mapping, or for more detail:
Vertical axis
• Decisive decision-making power or influence
• Active participant in decision-making
• Power to have major influence on decision-making
• Taken into account in decision-making
• Can get attention
• Not on radar
Horizontal axis
• Die hard (our agenda)
• Active support (our agenda)
• Inclined towards (our agenda)
• Neutral
• Inclined towards (opposition)
• Active support (opposition)
• Die hard (opposition)
Strategy PlanningTool III: Power Analysis
OUR GOAL OPPOSITION
Decisive
power
Some
influence
Decisive
power
Some
influence
Not on
radar
Die hard Die hard
Neutral
Not on
radar
Example Power Analysis Map from a 2005 strategy meeting on open, accessible networks

Media Action
Reflections for social change and movement-building groups
Some general thoughts on evaluation…
The following sections are offered as a resource to social justice and social change groups interested in
pursuing evaluation as a tool for building a more reflective, learning organization and using strong,
knowledge-based advocacy and change strategies.
Part one (why): contains some background on the role of evaluation in social change work,
and the opportunities provided through the use of evaluation itself as a strategy for
achieving social justice.
Part two (how): provides an outline of concrete key features of social justice evaluation,
to be used as a map to help groups develop their own approach.
Part three (tools): is an evaluation toolkit, with worksheets that you can use to develop
an evaluation framework for your group or project
c Understanding long-term goals and what interim steps are needed to get there is a key foundation for
evaluating a project.We need to set measurable outcomes along the way that will lead towards
longer-term goals.
c Developing aTheory of Change or other strategic framework and logic as part of the planning is a way of
building in evaluation from the beginning.As action research, this enables us to learn as we are moving, and
not just in retrospect when a project is completed.
c Being realistic about a group’s capacity is key for setting objectives, though not always easy to predict, so
it’s important to check in about this at the beginning, but then revisit as the project develops.
c Assessments and recommendations are most valuable when they can be incorporated into the planning
and implementation of ongoing projects.To achieve this, produce useful project input early and do interim
evaluations.
Considering Evaluation
Suggestions:
c Build in feedback and evaluation loops before, throughout and after projects. Include evaluation steps in
project timelines.
c Plan for and don’t skip an evaluation stage after the initial activities of a project and one at the end of the
first phase of work or completion of the project/event.
c Realize that we may need to push back to funders when their outcome/evaluation measures don’t meet
ours or the groups we work with.
c For major projects or events, let participants know they will be re-contacted after some time has passed for
reflective assessment on whether and how the project/event was useful. Be sure to in fact do this follow-up.

Media Action
PART ONE (Why): Evaluation and Social Justice
Often in a nonprofit and social justice context,“evaluation” may bring to mind bean-counters and power
relationships in which those who control the resources get to decide if those who are doing the work are
being cost-effective enough to be allowed to continue.
“Social justice,” on the other hand, usually implies transparency and fairness. It certainly assumes value has a more
lofty measure than some numbers in a chart.
So, there is an apparent disconnect between the concept of evaluation and the concept of social justice. To those
who have reconciled the two concepts, there remain challenges in practice, including:
• Determining goals for a social justice movement that can be achieved in the near future and within
the current generation.
• Identifying smaller scale and detectable changes that are important and necessary for the ultimate
social justice goal.
• Attributing outcomes to particular strategies and interventions – this is probably the biggest
problem. Given the complexity of social justice work, if the intended improvements are in fact
obtained, how can we know what strategies, actions or groups are responsible?
These just scratch the surface of practical problems in evaluating social
justice movements and outcomes. However, although these challenges are
serious, social justice movements and their effectiveness can be, and need
to be, assessed.
There are no perfect solutions, but the important thing is to be able to
measure progress towards social justice goals, not simply the end in itself.
If social justice goals are met, they will, perhaps ironically, be easy to
measure and evaluate – they will, by their very nature, be observable to all.
Before delving into the practical and conceptual steps to evaluating social
justice, it is important to recognize that we cannot take the definition of
social justice for granted. What it looks like to one may be the complete
opposite of what it looks like to others, even if we all agree with abstract
ideas of fairness, freedom, or opportunity.
It is surprising how difficult it is to assess whether progress towards
social justice is being made if you lack a precise definition of what you
are trying to achieve.
How does evaluation
offer options for
enhancing social justice?
There are two ways to think about
evaluation of social justice work.
One is to construct an evaluation
that adds knowledge to the effort
by measuring whether goals are met
and strategies are working.
Another way is to think about the
evaluation itself as enhancing the
social justice effort. If done in ways
that are participatory, include
sharing knowledge and power, and
help clarify what it takes to succeed,
then evaluation becomes one more
strategy that can change relationships
of power and social inequity.

Media Action
Some Benefits of Doing Evaluation in a Social Justice Context
Need for Critical Thinking and Analysis
While social change organizations are often very aware of the limitations of
“traditional” approaches to evaluation, they may also feel frustrated with their
inability to measure progress, capture success, and have their work benefit
from a rigorous analytical process.
As one executive director recently told us,“I’m tired of people saying
movement building work is too long-term and impossible to measure. I feel like
it’s an excuse and I think we need to be accountable, to know if we’re making
progress.”
Developing a Movement Knowledge Strategy
When evaluation is approached as a learning opportunity for an organization, it
provides critical opportunities to develop a “knowledge strategy.” Knowledge is
a critical piece of any social change strategy, and evaluation can be an
opportunity to build organizations, collaborations, and strategies in a number
of important ways.
Evaluation provides:
• An opportunity for groups to clarify and articulate for themselves how change happens.
• A much-needed space for reflection as a basis for strategic action.
• A system for tracking, measuring, and accounting for progress.
• A process for gathering and analyzing the key knowledge needed to inform planning.
• An opportunity to involve staff and other key stakeholders in a way that reflects social justice values.
Documentation of New Models
Those of us involved in social change often feel there is little time for reflection and documentation of our learning,
strategies, and models.The process of evaluation offers an important opportunity to document and disseminate
information that can both inform other groups’ work and help make a case to funders and others about the nature and
value of grassroots organizing and other social justice strategies.This documentation can include research and reporting
on the work of other organizations as well, which can be used to inform and substantiate our own projects and
campaigns.
Making the Case for Organizing and Movement-Building
A recent report by the Women’s Funding Network,“Measuring Social Change Investments,” formalized for funders what
organizers already know: that social change investment needs to focus on a broader spectrum of efforts, beyond those
that aim to directly affect public policy.The report found that change at the community level is important in driving what
happens legislatively, and that the interplay between cultural shifts in the public sphere and action at the institutional level
is core to the what makes change possible.As one long-term study of water policy–making found, focusing evaluation
on shorter-term outcomes missed completely “the truly important results of these [collaborative] processes, including
the building of social and political capital, the learning and change, the development of high quality information, new and
innovative ideas, new institutions and practices that are adaptive and flexible, and the cascade of changes in attitudes,
behaviors and actions.” (Sarah Connick and Judith E. Innes)
Developing evaluations to measure social justice progress on our own terms can help document and demonstrate the
importance of community-based and movement-building work.
“Analysis of real-life
organizing experience is a vital
source of new knowledge
and ideas about social change
processes.Talking about ideas
and producing analysis together
is action that produces social
change: facilitating a
conversation among a group
of people about what change
they seek and how they plan
to achieve it is in itself a social
change strategy.”
~ Molly Reilly, from “An
Agenda for Change in the USA”
(see resources section)

Media Action
Some Challenges
Evaluation Imposed from the Outside
Grassroots and social change nonprofits and foundations in the US often find evaluation an irrelevant task
imposed upon them by funding agencies, and at best a task they know can be useful but are unsure how to
pursue in a way that is appropriate for their strategies and values.This can be especially true for groups using
movement-building and organizing approaches to achieve social justice goals.
In this context, evaluation is perceived often as a burdensome task unrelated to the core work of the
organization, and even potentially harmful by pushing for inappropriate and ineffective “logic models”
and “outcomes.” In addition, the pressure to state accomplishments and outcomes when seeking funding may
even create divisiveness when groups are put in a position to claim “attribution” instead of “contribution” to
social change work, which is by its nature a collective process.
The typical approach to evaluation, particularly in cases where the evaluator or evaluation process is
beholden to a funder, can be problematic for a number of reasons:
• there is often an inherent power imbalance, with external evaluators coming in to assess the worth
or merit of a program, and controlling the findings and final reporting;
• an external process is unlikely to be internalized by the organization;
• the building of organizational capacity and strategy requires an internal capacity to evaluate, analyze
and reflect deeply on work, something more likely to be built though a collaborative or participatory
approach to evaluation.
A Focus on Short-Term Gains Over Movement-Building
When evaluation is not grounded in a working conceptual model that includes the power relationships and
changes in attitude, knowledge, and behavior that are needed for large-scale social change, then assessments
may be driven by technical, apolitical thinking that affects the selection of evaluation goals and indicators of
progress. In these cases, immediate policy impact is often prioritized, rather than the process and
relationship-oriented goals that movement-building history and experience tell us are critical for
sustainable social change.
While assessing advocacy work is an ongoing challenge and focus of much discussion by funders and
evaluators alike, the dominant model for counting “success” still tends to be focused on constituency
mobilization and short-term policy gains, generally orchestrated by professional national advocates, rather
than ‘movement-building’ approaches which view short-term policy gains as just one strategy, along with
broader efforts to build leadership infrastructure, collective power and citizen-centered efforts.
A change strategy of building critical consciousness and active citizenship through engaging people in analysis
of issues and context and envisioning solutions requires a different sort of measurement and assessment.
Rather than trying to fit social justice groups into a typical evaluation model, it can be much more
powerful for groups to become involved in re-defining how evaluation works, in partnership with
evaluators who share an understanding of social justice.

Media Action
The problems of evaluating long-term changes are not unknown. Several foundations have produced excellent
papers on evaluation of policy and social change. Practitioners and activists have collaborated on evaluation,
bringing key lessons to light.
Some key principles that have been outlined in these works:
Evaluation Lessons
• Know your goal and
have a clear plan
• Be clear and specific about
projected long-term outcomes
• Model social justice principles:
be transparent, democratic,
and attentive to power
dynamics and the role of
those most vulnerable and
typically excluded
• Transparency
• Participation
• Explicitness of power relationships
• Conceptual framework (ATheory of Change) [see p. 16]
• Ownership of the questions and the means
• Good working partnership with evaluators with research expertise; being open to bringing in people
knowledgeable in any area that will help with the work
PARTTWO (How): Key features of evaluation for social justice
1. The critical importance of knowing what social change is desired and
having a plausible plan to achieve it.Then, evaluation tests whether or
not the plan was executed as planned and if it worked as intended. In
The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities: Strategies for a
Prospective Evaluation Approach, by Guthrie, Louie, David and Foster
(2005), written forThe California Endowment, the authors call this
“prospective” evaluation:
“…a prospective evaluation sets out goals for a project at the
outset and measures how well the project is moving toward
those goals throughout the project’s life. Unlike retrospective
evaluation, prospective evaluation can help a funder monitor
the progress of a grant and allow the grantee to use
evaluation information to make improvements in its program
as the program is in progress. Like retrospective evaluation,
prospective evaluation is useful for looking at efforts at the
grantee, initiative or program level.”
2. The necessity of being clear and specific about long-term outcomes.
You can’t plan to reach an outcome if you don’t really know what
you mean; you can’t evaluate if you’ve achieved a goal without being
clear about what the goal is.
3. Evaluation should model social justice principles by being transparent
and democratic, with ownership of the research questions and
methods by as many stakeholders as is practical.
Essentials of Evaluation of Social Justice Initiatives

Media Action
Frame evaluation as a tool for change
By redefining evaluation with an emphasis on the process of group learning we can deemphasize the sense of
being “judged.” Evaluation can be seen as a way to facilitate thinking, provide data needed for planning, and help
a group become a learning organization.
Plan when and how to use findings
Social justice groups generally feel that the worth of an evaluation is directly proportional to its ability to inform
and strengthen their ongoing practice. Given this, its essential to define from the beginning exactly when and
how findings will be used, and plan for this in timelines. For example, findings might be used as the basis for an
upcoming planning workshop or for a strategy discussion with partners, as well as for fundraising.
Consider how to build evaluation capacity with limited resources
Evaluation can be resource- and time-intensive.While the ideal situation might certainly be to have adequate
funds dedicated to evaluation, we know that this isn’t always the case. Even when it is, there is the risk that an
evaluation team is brought in, delivers a report which then perhaps is incorporated into fundraising materials,
but spends most of its time collecting dust on a shelf.We feel the goal for social justice organizations needs to
be building internal capacity to evaluate and reflect.
An appropriate and
relevant approach
usually combines:
• Articulating a framework that
establishes shared assumptions
about how change happens.
• Defining the change you
would like to see over the
longer term, the steps you are
taking to achieve changes, and
the signs (indicators) that you
are making progress.
• Looking for patterns of
effectiveness and value as
they emerge, and then
incorporating them into the
change model.
RECOMMENDATIONS
c Make time for reflection: This isn’t a luxury, but an important
social change strategy. It’s essential to find time and space to
bring staff and stakeholders together to ask:
• What worked best last year (or with a specific program)?
• What changes did we see?
• Why do we think we were effective?
• What didn’t work so well?
• Why?
• What lessons are there to be learned, and what can we
do differently?
This process might be best facilitated from the outside, but it’s
not mandatory. Documentation is important, though, so future
conversations can be informed by this work.
c Get help with the plan: Even if a group can’t (or doesn’t want
to) hire an evaluator, an outside consultant can help set up an
assessment and learning process. If not an evaluation consultant,
a graduate student with some training or an ally from another
group with evaluation experience might be a resource to help
an organization develop a plan for internal data collection,
analysis, discussion, and reporting.

Media Action
Define success
An approach we have found effective is having a consultant or evaluator facilitate a process where groups
self-define and articulate what they believe needs to happen to reach their larger goals, and then have them
use their own standards (rather than ones imposed from the outside) to establish progress and accountability
measures.The planning tools on p. 12 can help with this.
Participatory Evaluation: Include key people
Participation in evaluation is important for a number of reasons. First, including the perspectives of both those
doing the work and those they aim to serve is essential for a democratic, social justice approach. Second, we
know that research and analysis is strongest and most relevant when informed by a variety of viewpoints and
perspectives.
Bringing in different perspectives is especially important in evaluating collaborative efforts and initiatives.
Participatory evaluation in this context means both centralizing the priorities and perspectives of the
constituencies most affected and also integrating differing perspectives, values, and opinions.
A participatory evaluation may have staff, project participants, community members, and other stakeholders
involved at several different stages:
1. Defining the purpose of the evaluation:What are the questions
that participants want answered? How will the evaluation be used?
2. Articulating what “success” and “effectiveness” looks like from
different perspectives, and what is needed to get there.
3. Helping determine and give feedback on the design of the
evaluation.
4. Assisting with data collection
5. Participating in data analysis
6. Collaborating on final reporting
7. Determining how findings should be integrated into organizational
planning and decision-making.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Including participants such as allies and community members in an evaluation process needs to be
attentive to both the impositions on their time and also how to make it a worthwhile and valuable experience.
This can be helped by providing both a learning opportunity in methods and tools, and also a means of giving people
more of a shared leadership position.
Opportunities to shape the evaluation questions, define success, analyze the learning, and decide what to do with the
findings can bring people into a more powerful role related to the work.
As Lisa VeneKlasen
and Valerie Miller
remind us,
“Participation is
empowering only when
those who participate
make decisions and
choices.”
(from A New Weave of
Power, People & Politics:
The Action Guide for
Advocacy and Citizen
Participation)
Note

Media Action
Evaluation Case Study: Participants Assess An Exploratory Program
The project: Evaluate a pilot program in progress: assess the new “Knowledge Exchange” program – bringing
together community organizers and national advocates – in order to shape the development of this project
and learn from it for future work.
The team: The program was a collaboration of Consumers Union and the Media Justice Fund of the Funding
Exchange, which hired CIMA to do the assessment.
The challenge: The program was exploratory, planners didn’t know what the exact outcomes would be, and
the goals were long-term and hard to measure (e.g.: improved relationships, a stronger media-change
movement).
The Knowledge Exchange was developed by the Media Justice Fund of the Funding Exchange and Consumers Union
as an experiment in bringing together DC-based national media policy advocates and local grassroots media organizers
from around the country to share knowledge and build relationships.The pilot program was conducted in three rounds,
a week-long meeting in the fall, another in the spring and again in the summer.
Because this was an exploratory program, CIMA developed a “learning assessment” that was based on listening to and
reflecting back the participants’ experiences, rather than setting up a series of indicators and outcomes in advance and
then seeking to measure if the program achieved those specific targets.
Surveys and interviews after each round were used to generate concrete recommendations for the evolving program
and related future projects.The assessment was considered “formative,” in that the evaluation of each round of activities
was used to improve the following round, and then there was a final assessment that looked at emerging outcomes from
the model.The evaluator didn’t attend or observe the program activities, but rather played a role of synthesizing feedback,
noting opportunities for improvement, highlighting patterns of effectiveness in the initiative, and making
recommendations based on participant insights. Given the diverse backgrounds and change theories of the participants,
developing an integrated assessment enabled CIMA to present both individual perspectives and common themes, to
reflect back the questions that the planners and participants discussed and debated among themselves.
Time limitations
Often one of the biggest challenges of participatory processes is the reality of time limitations in writing up ideas, giving
input, reviewing documents, and so on.While a facilitated discussion among all participants often might be ideal, time and
resource constraints can make this difficult.What often works, and was the case in the Knowledge Exchange Assessment,
is having the evaluator collect input from participants in a variety of ways that fit their availability (online surveys, phone
interviews and email), then develop a draft that is then circulated for their review before a final draft is completed.
Dealing with power imbalances
Power imbalances can often be an obstacle in participatory processes, and so it’s important to consider this when
structuring the process.The Knowledge Exchange involved national professional advocates, a funder, and grassroots
organizers, so there were definitely issues of power that needed to be dealt with.The evaluator shared the draft with the
grassroots organizers prior to sending to the advocates, so that the grassroots point of view was then formally established
by their signing off on the document, prior to the national advocates having a chance to do the same.
Discovering outcomes
In this program the outcomes were “emergent” – that is, we learned through the assessment what to look for as
indicators of success.As the program evolved, we looked for evidence of shifts in how grassroots organizers and national
advocates understood the intricacies and dynamics of each other’s work.We also looked at the impact beyond the
program, at the development of relationships and collaboration between local and national groups, shifts in resource
allocation from national to local groups, and changes in decision-making in coalitions and projects.
For more about the Knowledge Exchange program, visit the Media Justice Fund at www.fex.org/mjf/

Media Action
Develop and document your theory of how change happens
As described in the section on planning (see p.12), developing aTheory of Change can be especially valuable
for grassroots and social justice organizations – the thinking, conversations, and analysis that go into this work
can themselves be considered a social change strategy.
Just as evaluation is most powerful when it is closely integrated with planning, developing aTheory of Change
can be an indispensable foundation for evaluation. In an evaluation context, aTheory of Change process is
particularly useful to:
• Help an organization or participants in an initiative or collaborative think about and define what they are
trying to achieve.
• Establish the framework for the evaluation by helping to define what important questions need to be
answered, why, and what information will help to answer them.
• Document how change happens, and how to share these new models and thinking.
Identify indicators of progress
When profound social change is the ultimate goal, it can be a challenge to pinpoint what the interim stages
look like.A number of theories have looked to the conditions that history tells us likely need to be in place for
the often serendipitous outcomes to be achieved. Building capacity for change can include:
• Political education of communities.
• Alliance building: increasing number of partners, levels of collaboration, breadth/diversity of partnership,
improvements in alignment efforts.
• Increased levels of participation in decision-making.
• Informing, educating policy-makers.
• Building constituencies.
• Building and strengthening relationships with decision-makers.
• Skills built in navigating complex, judicial, legislative related-processes.
• Increased organizational capacity, including sharpened strategies, management abilities.
• Shift in social norms – aligning advocacy and policy goals with core social values and behaviors. Includes
changes in awareness of an issue, problem definition, change in beliefs, attitudes, values, priorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A cautionary note
A fullTheory of Change process, as often undertaken by foundations or larger, well-funded projects, can
often be quite time and resource intensive. It often involves a degree of understanding and articulation of the
broader forces at work, beyond the direct sphere of influence, leaving participants with more questions than
answers.While we feel this work is essential, we’ve found that aTheory of Change “lite” is often the best
approach. In this case a facilitator takes participants through a process where they identify:
1. the big changes they are working towards in the long-term (such as more equitable distribution of and access to
resources)
2. what they are doing to reach these goals and why they believe these strategies will be effective
3. what they will see along the way that will let them know they are making progress.
See page 16 for more on developing a Theory of Change

Media Action
Dialogue with funders/donors
Funders are often unsure how to approach evaluation.They may press groups into a certain approach as they
are unaware of other options to ensure accountability for their grantmaking. Quite often, a funder understands
that evaluation is most effective when it is a learning tool, but it may be unclear what this looks like. Groups
can work to establish a conversation about evaluation, which both recognizes and supports the needs of the
grantmaker within the foundation, as well as meets the needs of the practitioner group. Groups can present a
proposal to the funder, which includes accountability mechanisms (such as oversight and final reporting from an
outside evaluator), along with the evaluation goals that the organization feels are important.Another effective
strategy might be to partner with an ally evaluator and put together a proposal for evaluation, with the
expectation that if funding is received, that evaluator would then work with the organization.
Use new models
There are some situations, such as choosing an external evaluator, drawing on existing publications as resources,
or seeking funding for an evaluation program, where you may want to identify a particular evaluation method.
Note that much of the research on evaluation comes out of an academic framework or from within the funder
world, and can be fairly technical and jargonistic. If you are looking into current forms of evaluation, here’s some
of the language you might encounter:“Complexity thinking” and “Systems change” frameworks look at such
things as the creation of “social and political capital,” innovation, building of relationships and networks, changes
in attitudes, behaviors, and actions.Through a systems framework, an evaluation aims to capture effectiveness
and value that arises from interventions, with the assumption that these outcomes might be much different
then what was initially imagined.“Developmental evaluation” focuses on capturing what emerges from a
program or initiative and feeding these findings back into the evolving initiative.“Outcome mapping” was
developed to evaluate complex, collaborative development initiatives; it allows for
capturing change happening in a direct sphere of influence.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Core Factors
In our experience, there are three core factors that contribute to the usefulness of evaluation
for strengthening organizations and advancing a social change agenda:
1. when the evaluation is integrated with, and helps advance, political approaches to achieving social
justice ends
2. effectiveness in analyzing and capturing change occurring in a complex environment
3. the ability of participants to insist on, and accept, the bad news with the good, to appreciate the
importance of critique in learning

Media Action
Evaluation as a collaboration:The roles of “inside” and “outside” evaluators
Evaluations have traditionally been broken up into “insider” or “outsider” assessments, with each approach
having its pros and cons. Insider evaluations, conducted by a group itself, benefit from an intimate understanding
of the issues, dynamics, change theories, and values of the organizations or initiatives to be examined, and can
help build internal evaluation and reflection capacity.An evaluation where staff and key stakeholders are actively
engaged can help participants learn about the program, develop critical, evaluative thinking, and creates buy-in
to the evaluation, increasing the likelihood that results will actually be used.
However, insiders may be less likely to question basic assumptions, and those evaluating from within the group
may be – or may be perceived to be – more susceptible to bias. For an evaluation to provide the most relevant,
pertinent information the process must be rigorous to a degree where “bad news” can be delivered and tough
questions asked.
An outside evaluation can often bring a more objective lens, although an outside evaluator won’t
necessarily share the values or theories of the organization.There is a risk that outside evaluators have a very
different perspective on the value and impact of particular outcomes, as well as a different sense of how the
values of the organization/initiative need to be integrated in the evaluation approach.
An external evaluator can often elicit feedback from staff, stakeholders, and constituents and other key
informants in a way that might be difficult for an insider to do. Especially if it is determined that the findings will
be anonymous, this process can provide important feedback.
We’ve found that a combined “insider-outsider” approach can be effective.These are often referred to as
collaborative, participatory, empowerment, learning-oriented, or appreciative inquiry forms of evaluation.While
these approaches differ slightly in the level of control ceded to the evaluator, they share in viewing the
evaluator as a facilitator who creates a process and environment for learning and assessment. Overall, a
collaborative evaluation approach tends to emphasize the use of findings for decision-making and action.
Ultimately, decisions about who will be involved in the evaluation, to what degree, and the balance of work
between the evaluator and the rest of the evaluation team depends much on the purpose of the evaluation.
For example, if the evaluation will be used for external accountability, as defined by a funder, than the evaluator
might need to have a more dominant role.We recommend clarifying this in advance with the funder, to ensure
that the process maintains the benefits of more participatory approaches.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Media Action
The Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere program was created to bring to together activists
and academics to advance political change agendas involving the media and communications system.The
evaluation, which was incorporated from the beginning as part of the program design phase, used an
insider-outsider approach. In an “outsider” role, evaluators from ActKnowledge facilitated the project’s theory
of change process and provided oversight for the design of the evaluation and analysis of findings.The insider
evaluation role played by CIMA was important in ensuring the findings were considered in planning and
decision-making, while ActKnowledge as an outsider helped ensure rigor and guarded against bias.
A number of times we have found that doing research on effective practices of other organizations is valuable
both for sharpening program strategies as well as clarifying and supporting evaluation frameworks. In this
developmental evaluation – meaning that the evaluation was actively informing program development – an
understanding of what value and impact other programs had experienced helped provide some indication of
what evaluators should look for in their own assessment.
The Necessary Knowledge program ultimately aims at complex systems change, with the top level outcome
in theTheory of Change stated as “a more open, participatory, informed public sphere.” In this case, program
designers and evaluators were not testing a firm change theory, as much as seeing what emerged from the
interactions between scholars, activists, and program staff. Some of the indicators included changes in learning
and strategy formation within the activist organizations, as well as shifts in academic understanding of how social
change happens, and what is needed to contribute to activist work.
To read more about the strategies, outcomes and evaluation data from the Necessary Knowledge program, see the
reports at mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/grants
Evaluation Case Study: An Inside-Outside EvaluationTeam
The project: Evaluate the “Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere” (NK) program as a model of
building activist-academic collaboration in order to understand and disseminate successful strategies and raise
funds and support for this type of work
The team: The NK program was produced by the Social Science Research Council in collaboration with CIMA.
As part of the core planning staff for the program, CIMA served as the internal evaluators, partnering with the
social-change research organization ActKnowledge as the external evaluators.
The challenge: How to build-in evaluation as part of the program operations, but maintain objectivity so we
could effectively learn what was and wasn’t working, including the unexpected.
See the case study of the planning process for the NK program on p. 9

Media Action
The Resources section at the end of this guide lists several online and offline toolkits for evaluation and planning.
PartThree (Tools): Activities and Worksheets
The “So That” Chain
In A Practical Guide to Documenting
Influence and Leverage In “Making
Connections” Communities, the Annie
E. Casey Foundation offers the “so
that” chain for grantees as a tool to
building their conceptual model.
A “so that” chain can be a useful
exercise to more explicitly show the
short-, intermediate-, and long-term
changes that will lead to lasting
change. It is a tool for describing a
strategy and how it links systemic
change to positive impacts in people’s
lives.
The concept can be used in a
workshop or discussion setting, in a
facilitated process, or among a group
trying to articulate the logic of their
plans.
Once a group describes a “so that”
chain, it can be used as the basis for
additional questions, such as WHY
participants are sure one thing will
lead to another and what the
FACTORS are that can make that
outcome more or less likely. It can
also be a starting place to look for
indicators, that is, how will the group
know when a particular stage has
been achieved.
A Sample “So That” Chain
We will (activity or strategy here):
Increase media coverage about the amount of money low-
income families and individuals pay for cable and internet access
and the implications of what happens when they have reduced
access.
So That
Public awareness of this issue increases. [Influence Outcome]
So That
Policy-makers increase their knowledge of and interest in this
issue. [Influence Outcome]
So That
Policies change to create options for cable and broadband more
affordable rates. [Influence Outcome]
So That
New business models and requirements for industry are de-
veloped to provide more affordableTV and internet services.
[Influence Outcome]
So That
Individuals and families have increased ability to make affordable
choices for access to content and communication networks.
[Impact Outcome]
So That
Low-income individuals and families are able to have full access
to educational, informational, communication, and cultural
benefits of the internet, the government, and other services
that are increasingly online.

Media Action
A Brief Guide to Using the Evaluation Toolkit:
1.A few quick points about evaluation: (you can put the headings up on the board or easel)
c WHEN DOYOU EVALUATE?
While evaluation usually happens at the end of a project, we’ve found that developing a change theory/evaluation
framework is important to do at the beginning of a project, as a core part of strategic planning.This helps make sure
all participants are on the same page about what the project aims to achieve and how you’ll get there. Early thinking
about evaluation helps surface assumptions that may or may not be shared, and ensures that you’re able to set up
processes for data collection early.
c This process can also help you lay out your funding proposals; it’s the kind of thinking that funders are looking for.
c THINKING ABOUT EVALUATION AS A LEARNING/PLANNING TOOL
We wanted to point out the differences in how you might think about approaching evaluation. In the past,
evaluation has often been seen as an outside “judgment” on how well or poorly something is doing.When
working on complex social/structural change initiatives, we’d encourage you to think about this work as an
assessment (or learning evaluation) that looks at measuring for the purpose of improving, rather than proving,
and focuses on learning and building knowledge that can strengthen overall advocacy and organizing efforts.
c CONTRIBUTIONVS.ATTRIBUTION
Another important point: Look at contribution rather than attribution.You are interested in making systemic change,
and this will be multidimensional rather than linear, so think in terms of contribution, rather than taking individual
credit for change.
c TAKE CONTROL:
Establish your own hypotheses about how change happens and the role your organization or project will play
(rather than having funders do this for you, for example).ThisTheory of Change approach demonstrates how your
strategies map to the outcomes you want to achieve, and why – i.e., what the underlying assumptions are.
c There are ways to think about claiming/defining the impact of media projects that go beyond traditional metrics
that are often imposed from the outside.
c See the handout “Impact On Our Terms”
AToolkit for Building Evaluation Capacity
This toolkit was prepared for an evaluation workshop that CIMA produced for media and
communications activists and scholars, as part of the Necessary Knowledge Workshop on Collaborative
Research and Advocacy in 2007. It was developed by Catherine Borgman-Arboleda for CIMA, with
contributions from Felicia Sullivan and Dorothy Kidd. Graphic design by MariannaTrofimova.
This toolkit can be used for groups to conduct their own simple evaluation workshop, and as an aid
to articulating and measuring change goals.The toolkit contains the following:
1. A brief guide to using the toolkit
2. Handout:“Impact on OurTerms”
3. Worksheets A & B: blank templates to write your “change map”
4. Worksheets C, D, E: examples

Media Action
2. USING THE WORKSHEETS:
(Worksheets A & B are to be filled in; C, D, and E are for references and examples)
c Worksheet A: this is where you will be recording your own change maps.The other pages are examples to help
you fill this out.
c Outcome statements: concrete measurable outcomes that you are trying to achieve, on the path to longer-term
change goals.
• Worksheet C has examples of types of change goals, and then examples of specific outcome statements.
c Strategies: what you are actually doing to achieve your outcomes
c Assumptions: why you think your strategies will lead to your outcome statements.What theories, evidence,
research can you site to back up your hypotheses?
• Worksheet D has examples of outcome statements, strategies, and assumptions.
c Indicators: what you will actually observe to let you know you are making progress towards your outcomes
• Worksheet E show examples of outcomes and indicators.
c Worksheet B:
c Here you record your outcomes statements, your indictors of progress (what you will actually be able to
observe that will let you know you are making progress towards your outcomes) and data you will collect.
• Data collection: Here you describe what information you will be collecting to track progress on indicators.
This could be either qualitative (interviews, observations) or quantitative (number of people attending a
meeting, new members, etc.), or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative measures.
c Worksheet C:
c An example set of “change goals” – the types of change that groups have mentioned wanting to achieve, each
mapped to examples of specific outcome statements or concrete, measurable outcomes that projects might aim
to achieve.
c Worksheet D:
c An example of how outcome statements (concrete, measurable) are grounded in strategies and the assumptions
behind those strategies – such as:Why do you think your strategies will lead to your change goals? What
theories, evidence, etc. can you cite to back up your hypotheses?
c Worksheet E:
c An example of how outcome statements map to indicators: what you will actually observe to let you know you
are making progress towards your outcome statements.
Evaluation Toolkit produced by CIMA: Center for International Media Action
EvaluationToolkit, continued

Media Action
Often we are pressured to demonstrate impact in a manner that has been defined in the context of commercial and
corporate media. Some of the traditional ways of measuring media impact are:
c Number of viewers / listeners / readers / hits
c Revenue from sponsorship / underwriting / advertising
c Quality of the production
c Amount of coverage in the mainstream press
Yet those of us working in non-commercial, community or alternative media don’t always view these impacts as the most
important. International development projects (i.e. UNESCO’s Community Multimedia Center Programme) view
successful media and communication projects as serving to alleviate poverty or providing greater social inclusion. New
efforts around citizen journalism look to the level at which underserved communities, local voices, and civic dialogues
are present. Many community-based media projects (i.e. youth media, ethnic media) seek to transform and empower the
communities they work in. Here are alternative ways in which media impact can be measured:
Individual Impacts
c Number of people who have been trained to create their own media
c Increase in individual self-esteem and confidence about skills and abilities
c Freedom of expression and creative expression
c Improved outlook on future
c Improved sense of well-being and belonging
c Breaks down individual isolation
c Helps individual participate in social or collective project
c Increases media content (representation) of individual narratives of under-served and marginalized communities that are
seldom represented
c Increases skills in practices of deliberative and participatory democracy
c Improves capacity to withstand other social problems, for eg. youth vis a vis addiction to drugs, risk of HIV, etc.
Organizational Impacts
c Increase in the number of people who access the organization’s resources
c Improved communication tools
c Stronger understanding of organizational mission (internally / externally)
c New partnerships and collaborations
c Stronger awareness amongst constituencies / stakeholders about key issues important to the organization
c Increases media content (representation) of narratives of under-served and marginalized communities
c Increase processes of democracy, ie media, of collective intelligence and participation by under-served and marginalized
communities
Community Impacts
c Number of groups who came together to work on a project
c New connections formed between groups
c Increase in volunteer efforts
c New community-wide dialogues and debates
c Increased awareness about important community-wide issues / problems
c New means of sharing knowledge for a common purpose (techniques, issues, etc.)
c Representation of counter public spheres raises new issues, and new perspectives about conditions, experiences, critiques and
remedies (alternative policies) of particular populations which then circulate for social change
c Lessons about alternative remedies (ie. practical case studies) which make practice more effective
c All this adds to the creation of democratic alternatives
There are many, many more ways in which impact can and is reworked to meet the needs of our communities.
EvaluationToolkit
Impact on Our OwnTerms
(a brief start to turn thinking around)
Compiled by Felicia Sullivan and Dorothy Kidd

Media Action
EvaluationToolkit
Worksheet A
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
Evaluating
Your
Research
Project:
A
Change
Map
&
Evaluation
Framework
Or,
how
is
the
world
going
to
be
different
because
your
research
exists,
and
how
will
you
know?
STRATEGY
Assumption:
STRATEGY
Assumption:
STRATEGY
Assumption:
STRATEGY
Assumption:
STRATEGY
Assumption:
STRATEGY
Assumption:
Project
Name
INDICATORS
INDICATORS
INDICATORS
INDICATORS
WORKSHEET
A

Media Action
EvaluationToolkit
Worksheet B
Evaluating
Your
Research
Project:
A
Change
Map
&
Evaluation
Framework
Or,
how
is
the
world
going
to
be
different
because
your
research
exists,
and
how
will
you
know?
Project
Name
WORKSHEET
B
Outcome
Statements
Indicators
Data
Collection
What
information
do
you
need
to
get?
What
will
be
observable?

Media Action
EvaluationToolkit
Worksheet C
Change
goals
are
examples
of
the
types
of
change
that
grantees
have
mentioned
wanting
to
achieve.
In
orange
are
examples
of
specific
outcome
statements
or
concrete,
measurable
outcomes
that
projects
might
aim
to
achieve.
WORKSHEET
C
Overturn
of
new
FCC
rules
allowing
newspaper/broadcast
cross-ownership.
Philadelphia
Daily
News,
Philadelphia
Metro
cover
more
community
environmental
and
social
justice
issues.
Increased
resources
for
applied
research
at
ABC
University’s
Communication
Dept.
Thousands
of
signed
petitions
and
congressional
visits
opposing
unfair
copyright
laws
Language
in
upcoming
campaigns
for
muni
wireless
centers
on
goals
of
social,
economic,
political
equality
Case
study/Model
produced
for
immigrant
and
worker
organizing
groups
to
use
mobile
connectivity
(text-messaging,
action
alerts,
radio
streaming)
to
advance
organizing
agendas
Shift
in
how
impact
of
rural
radio
stations
is
measured
Participating
communities
have
capacity
to
analyze
how
communication
technologies
can
advance
their
justice
agendas
Change
Goals
Change
in
legislative
or
regulatory
structure,
policy
Public
mobilization
Shift
in
issue
framing
/Definition
Evaluation
of
social/political
impact
of
media,
new
technologies
Development
of
independent/community
media
outlets,
infrastructure,
models
Change
in
corporate/
institutional
policy
or
practice
Community
empowerment
/Political
education

Media Action
EvaluationToolkit
Worksheet D
WORKSHEET
D
Shift
in
how
impact
of
rural
radio
stations
is
measured
Thousands
of
signed
petitions
and
congressional
visits
opposing
unfair
copyright
laws
Outcome
statements Strategies Assumptions
Increased
resources
for
applied
research
at
ABC
University’s
Communication
Dept.
Overturn
of
new
FCC
rules
allowing
newspaper
/broadcast
cross-ownership
Language
in
upcoming
campaigns
for
muni
wireless
centers
on
goals
of
social,
economic,
political
equality
Participating
communities
have
capacity
to
analyze
how
communication
technologies
can
advance
their
justice
agendas
Philadelphia
Daily
News,
Philadelphia
Metro
cover
more
commu-
nity
environ-
mental
and
social
justice
issues
Creation
of
new
regulatory
proposals
to
protect
consumer
rights
&
guarantee
access
to
culture
(Brazil)
Development
of
metrics
that
serve
as
a
model
for
rural
radio
stations
to
measure
impact
Rural
radio
stations
have
little
meaningful
data
on
audiences.
Arbitron
methodology
is
insufficient
“Digital
Divide"
frame
is
simplistic.
Use
of
a
new
framework
implies
policies
beyond
just
access
(eg
tools,
training
Individual
journalists/editor
s
can
be
receptive
to
needs
of
community.
Communities
empowered
to
demand
more
responsive
media
Brazil
is
currently
debating
future
of
media/telecom
regulation
and
there
are
opportunities
for
research
to
support
consumer’s/citize
n’s
rights
Participatory
methods
increase
quality,
validity
of
research.
Community
capacities
are
built,
political
consciousness
raised.
Groups
don’t
know
about
policy
opportu-
nities.
They
represent
a
strong
case
to
policymakers
Applied
research
not
seen
as
credible
within
the
department
Scarcity
of
data
on
how
consolidation
impacts
minority
ownership.
Is
crucial,
FCC
considering
broader
consolidation
issues.
Outreach
to
artists,
educators,
and
critics
who
use
or
might
use
Fair
Use
material
Produce
a
conference
for
applied
researchers,
publish
in
journals
receptive
to
engaged
methods
Look
at
correlation
between
media
consolidation
and
minority/women
ownership
Produce
a
toolkit
explaining
how
to
negotiate
digital
inclusion
provisions
in
municipal
broadband
initiatives
Community
volunteers
participate
in
research
process
Institute
a
community-
editorial
board
with
monthly
meetings
Research
results
presented
in
workshop
for
members
of
congress,
nat’l
consumers
groups,
&
other
advocacy
groups
Outcome
statements
~
Concrete,
measurable
outcomes
that
work
aims
for,
on
the
way
to
larger
change
goals
Strategies
~
What
you
are
actually
doing
to
achieve
your
outcomes
Assumptions
~
Why
do
you
think
your
strategies
will
lead
to
your
change
goals?
What
theories,
evidence,
etc.
can
you
cite
to
back
up
your
hypotheses?

Media Action
EvaluationToolkit
Worksheet E
WORKSHEET E
Shift in how impact of
rural radio stations is
measured
Rural radio station WNIT and one additional radio station are able to use model
to secure funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Thousands of signed
petitions and
congressional visits
opposing unfair
copyright laws
Increased resources
for applied research
at ABC University’s
Communication
Dept.
Overturn of new FCC
rules allowing
newspaper/broadcast
cross-ownership
Language in
upcoming campaigns
for muni wireless
centers on goals of
social, economic,
political equality
Participating
communities have
capacity to analyze
how communication
technologies can
advance their justice
agendas
Philadelphia Daily
News, Philadelphia
Metro cover more
community
environmental and
social justice issues
Creation of new
regulatory
proposals to protect
consumer rights &
guarantee access to
culture (Brazil)
Outcome statements ~ Concrete, measurable outcomes that work aims for, on the way to larger change goals
Indicators ~ What you will actually observe to let you know you are making progress towards your outcome statements
10,000 petitions signed, 500 visits
Department breaks precedent, offers course “buy outs” for applied/engaged research
Research is submitted to FCC for 6/21/06 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on broadcast
"Digital Inclusion" framework, and priorities re: serving excluded communities appear in
city documents
Community members are able to articulate both how communication technologies can support their
organizing work, and what they are at risk of losing
News outlets cover community issues raised in meetings with editors/journalists
Research is discussed, cited in gov’t/civil society convenings for designing a new legal framework for
telecommunications and intellectual property.
Outcome statements Indicators

Media Action
Resources
The MONEY game: thoughts on dealing with funding
When planning a project, we need to be clear how we will deal with funders, as they can be a major influence
on the project’s development as well as the dynamics between collaborators.
As a group that has often worked directly with funders and with relatively well-resourced groups, we at CIMA
learned a number of lessons that were important in being true to our values and intentions.These points
are excerpted from a list we created for ourselves, to keep us on track when navigating those high-pressure
waters.
It can be very valuable to spend some time talking through these issues in your organization or coalition.
We invite you to print this list and use it in discussion to come up with your own list of considerations
when dealing with funders and financial resources.
Funding & Transparency
$ Be clear and open with partners/allies about funding, including who has funded the project so far, and if partners/
allies’ participation, support or involvement will be referenced to funders.
$ Be generous about sharing information about funding opportunities, sources or strategies with allies.
$ Communicate with partners about our understanding of limitations and implications of funding for a particular
project, and decisions to appeal (or not) to funders at various points.
Navigating the Pressures
$ The benefits of appealing to funders can be a very strong influence; we need to be aware when decisions about
our projects and goals are made with an eye to being funded and handle that strategically and tactically.
$ Take care when working on projects with, or for funders.We need to consider and discuss with partners the limits
and implications that could come with specific grants, foundation funding or other sources, and account for this in
planning.
$ Be conscious of how projects are framed and positioned to attract funders and how doing so may reinforce
imbalances.We often need to make a strategic consideration if it’s more important to resonate with a funder’s
interest or stick with the frames and language that emerge from the work on the ground.
Spreading the Wealth
$ Seek to raise and allocate funds so partners can participate fully in joint projects.
$ Ask community-based project participants about ways to enable their involvement. When available, stipends and
other forms of reciprocity can sometimes make participation from grassroots groups possible.
$ Encourage partners with resources to compensate community-based project participants for their involvement. For
example, if staff at a funded organization are paid to do planning and prep work on a given project, and they want
help from community-based partners, can they consider allocating/offering resources to compensate that time.
$ Try to push back to funders who don’t want to fund grassroots groups directly. Or, if you can get money to work
“with” an ally who is not able to get the funds to do that same work, seek ways to transfer funds to them directly
for their leadership.
$ Be willing to step away from funding opportunities that compete with allies with less access to resources.
Educating Funders
$ Take and make opportunities to educate and encourage funders, especially new funders, to support media activist
organizing and to direct resources to community- and constituency-based groups.
$ Bring up factors of racial, economic, gender, and other inequities to funders.We all need to raise these issues as a
core part of the work and not just leave it to interested parties, such as women, people of color, or community
groups, to raise them.

Media Action
(this is just a partial list, these can lead you to many other excellent tools, readings and groups)
Resources
Building collaborative strategic plans and collective power:
(all available free online except where otherwise noted)
“A New Weave of Power, People & Politics:The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation,”
guidebook on power & movement-building, from Just Associates
www.justassociates.org/ActionGuide.htm (some chapters online, book is worth buying)
“Counting OurVictories: Popular Education and Organizing,”
training guide and video for grassroots groups, from Repeal the Deal Productions
www.transformcommunities.org/resources/counting_vic.html (book and video to purchase)
“PowerTools:A Manual for Organizations Fighting for Justice,”
comprehensive social-change toolkit, from Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education
www.scopela.org to find out more (contact SCOPE to order the manual and CD-ROM kit)
“Re:Imagining Change – An Introduction to Story-based Strategy”
a manual for using stories to define struggles and shape campaigns, from SmartMeme
www.smartmeme.org/change (order the book, or download – for a donation if you can)
Strategy tools for collaborative planning, from the Community Problem-Solving Project at MIT
web.mit.edu/cpsproject/strategy_tools.html
Tools for planning and designing an advocacy campaign, fromThe Change Agency
www.thechangeagency.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=57
Workshop activities for developing a strategy and strategic thinking, fromTraining for Change
www.trainingforchange.org/content/section/4/39/index.html#29
Coalition-building checklists, tools for facilitation, vision and more, from Hollyhock Leadership Institution
www.hollyhockleadership.org/resources
Comprehensive online toolkit - including planning, facilitation and evaluation, from CommunityToolbox
ctb.ku.edu/en/dothework
An organized library of tools and links to resources, from the Center for Collaborative Planning
www.connectccp.org/resources/
Power Mapping: a tool for utilizing networks and relationships, from Idealist
www.idealist.org/ioc/learn/curriculum/pdf/Power-Mapping.pdf
Planning & EvaluationTools for Social Justice Work

Media Action
Resources
An online visual “logic model” for planning advocacy and policy change, from Continuous Progress
www.planning.continuousprogress.org
Tools for assessment, building logic models and evaluation plans, from Innovation Network
www.innonet.org (free online tools with registration)
“The Community Builder’s Approach toTheory of Change,” from the Aspen Roundtable and ActKnowledge
theoryofchange.org/pdf/TOC_fac_guide.pdf (book free to download)
“Outcome Mapping”Toolkit (including karaoke!), from International Development Research Center
www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (online guide and tools)
Advocacy EvaluationToolkit from the Alliance for Social Justice
www.advocacyevaluation.org (tools for purchase by nonprofits or foundations)
“A Practical Guide to Documenting Influence and Leverage In ‘Making Connections’ Communities,”
from the Annie E. Casey Foundation
www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/cc2977k439.pdf (free)
“A Guide to Measuring Advocacy and Policy,” from the Annie E. Casey Foundation
www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/DA3622H5000.pdf (free)
Strategy development and movement-building workshops, consulting & facilitation:
Center for Collaborative Planning (California) - www.connectccp.org
Grassroots Policy Project (national) - www.grassrootspolicy.org
Movement Strategy Center (national) - www.movementstrategy.org
(also has a network of consultants and can provide recommendations)
Praxis Project (national) - www.thepraxisproject.org/
Project South (US South) - www.projectsouth.org
Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (California/national) - www.scopela.org
Theory of Change workshops, consulting & facilitation:
ActKnowledge, a NewYork City-based Social enterprise that connects social change with a rigorous study of how
and why initiatives work - www.actknowledge.com
(also has trained TOC consultants and can provide recommendations)
Racial Equity Theory of Change training & facilitation:
Aspen Roundtable on Community Change (national) - www.aspenroundtable.org
Training in facilitation & how to facilitate strategy work:
Training for Change (US and Canada) - www.trainingforchange.org
Logic models, theory of change and evaluation guides and tools
Groups OfferingTraining & Facilitation (U.S. based)
The authors of this guide may be available for consulting and facilitation in planning and evaluation, or can recommend
others.All of us are familiar withTheory of Change work.
Aliza Dichter (planning, alliance-building & group facilitation) : liza@mhcable.com
Rachel Kulick (alliance-building, evaluation & action research): rakulick@yahoo.com
Catherine Borgman-Arboleda (evaluation & research): cborgman.arboleda@gmail.com
Heléne Clark (evaluation & research): hclark@actknowledge.org

Media Action
Resources
Research articles on advocacy evaluation from Innovation Network
http://www.innonet.org/?section_id=3&content_id=601
Who Measures Change?:An Introduction to Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Communication for Social
Change, from Communication For Social Change Consortium
www.communicationforsocialchange.org/pdf/who_measures_change.pdf
Monitoring and Evaluating Advocacy:A Scoping Study, from Action Aid
www.actionaid.org/assets/pdf/Scoping%20advocacy%20paper%202001.pdf
Measuring Success:What’s New,What’s Next?, slide presentation from Just Associates
www.justassociates.org/index_files/ES_M&M.pdf
Making Change Happen: Concepts for Revisioning Power for Justice Equality and Peace, from Just Associates
www.justassociates.org/index_files/MCH3red.pdf
An Agenda For Change in the USA: Insights From a Conversation About Assessing Social Change in Washington,
DC, from Just Associates
www.justassociates.org/index_files/agendaforchange.pdf
Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy–Making:Applying ComplexityThinking to Evaluation, by Sarah Connick
and Judith E. Innes
repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=iurd
Strengthening Social ChangeThrough Assessment and Organizational Learning, from the
Community Learning Project
comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2005/mott.htm
Evaluation of the oppressed:A social justice approach to program evaluation, by Mohamed Ismail Ibrahim
scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3078693/
Measuring Social Change Investments, from the Women’s Funding Network
www.wfnet.org/resource/white-paper/measuring-social-change-investments
Catsambas,TessieTzavaras & Preskill, Hallie. (2006) Reframing EvaluationThrough Appreciative Inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
Patton, Michael Quinn. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th Edition.Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
Articles on Evaluation
Books on Evaluation

Media Action
This is an open source document. Permission is granted to use, copy, distribute, adapt,
remix and/ or modify this document for all noncommercial purposes. Please cite CIMA:
Center for International Media Action as the original source if distributing or reusing
entire sections, pages, images or the whole booklet.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Process is-powerful

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Process is-powerful (20)

More from Patrick Mphaka (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

Process is-powerful