Out of ”Manual on reporting”
7-step method
for result reporting at program level
1. WHAT
What problem has the program addressed? What change was brought about by the
program’s activities? Refer to previous achievements if they are important to
understand this program’s contribution to the change. Please focus on the most
important change(s)/outcome(s) at the program level.
2. WHO or WHAT is affected
Who or what was affected? For example, organisation X and Y, law Z, how many
women and/or children in target group A.
3. BY WHOM
What actor contributed to the change? If a greater change has been brought about by the
combined efforts of several actors, describe the program’s particular contribution as
specifically as you can.
4. WHERE
Where the change has taken place (region, country, province, town)?
5. HOW was it achieved
What did you and your partner(s) do to make an impact on the problem? Include what
the program did (activities/outputs/methods) in order to bring about the
change/outcome.
6. VERIFIABILITY
How did you verify it? What evidence is there? (Evaluations, interviews, surveys, etc.)
7. LESSONS learned
What lessons were learned from the program and how will these lessons affect future
work?
See the example of the results summary on the next page.
Forum Syd | Katarinavägen 20 | Box 15407 | SE-104 65 Stockholm | Sweden | tel: +46(0)8 506 370 00 | fax: +46(0)8 506 370 99 | www.forumsyd.org
Example of Results Summary:
Situation before
Who/what and
where the change
has taken place
Our activities
that we
supported
Fishing communities in Region A with small-scale fishing
as their main livelihood have never before had legal rights
to their fishing areas. The organisations working to
strengthen the fishing communities and their rights have
had limited capacity to advocate for the communities.
Through the support of the Swedish Marine Conservation
Society (SvEO), 6 LEO in (Country B) and (Country C)
strengthened their communities and organisations, and
started to influence local and national authorities to
strengthen the rights of marginalised fishing communities
during 2014 – 2016, as it was verified by an external
evaluation carried out in the beginning of 2017
(“Evaluation of program XXXXX”, January 2017,
YYYYY).
Through the program, capacity building activities have been
carried out to strengthen the leadership of the organizations and
communities, both in administration and in advocacy skills. A
national network was built in both countries, and coordination
of activities and exchanges of experiences among networks,
communities and organisations have strengthened the effects of
capacity building and advocacy work for all involved actors.
One result was that the new national network in Country A has
participated in the reference group for a new national policy
draft that recognizes the role of small-scale fishing communities
in the preservation of marine resources. The evaluation also
showed that the new national networks in both countries need to
further strengthen their capacities in financial administration
and internal steering/ control.
Reference to
previous work
Our verification
Description
of change
A little bit of
lessons learned
2 (2)