Objectives: The purpose of the base line was to support both activist strategising and ongoing reflection, and more effective donor collaboration and grant making.

Method: Drawing on interviews with key stakeholders, the authors examined the dominant approach to funding and evaluation on social change globally. They analysed the impact of this dominant approach on developing and sustaining a SOGI movement in Kenya. They developed an alternative theory of change and participatory methodology and worked with a range of donors and SOGI organisations to conceptualise and support the collaborative collection of information on four themes: legislation and policy, organisational mapping, political and cultural context, and lived experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

Results: This was a useful process and tool for activists and donors to develop a shared understanding of the current context and capacities influencing efforts to promote SOGI rights. It served as a basis for improved strategising and participants expected it to prove useful for monitoring progress in the longer term.

Conclusion: This theory of change and participatory approach to base line development could be helpful to donors, activists and monitoring and evaluation specialists concerned with supporting social change in the region and globally.

Contexte: Cet article décrit les efforts de donateurs et d’activistes qui développent ensemble une base nationale sur les organisations travaillant en faveur des droits humains en relation avec l’orientation sexuelle et l’identitié de genre (OSIG) au Kenya afin de développer un processus de suivi et d’évaluation continu.

Objectifs: L’objectif de cette base était de soutenir tant l’élaboration de stratégies et la réflexion continue des activistes, qu’une collaboration et un octroi de subventions des donateurs plus efficaces.

Méthode: En se fondant sur des entretiens avec des acteurs clés, les auteurs ont examiné l’approche dominante au financement et à l’évaluation du changement social dans le monde. Ils ont analysé l’impact de cette approche dominante sur le développement et le maintien d’un mouvement OSIG au Kenya. Ils ont élaboré une méthodologie alternative de la théorie du changement et participative et ont travaillé avec une palette de donateurs et d’organisations OSIG afin de conceptualiser et de soutenir la collecte collective d’informations sur quatre thème: la législation et la politique, la cartographie organisationnelle, le contexte politique et culturel, et les expériences vécues par les personnes lesbiennes, gays, bisexuelles, transgenres et intersexuées.

Résultats: Il s’agissait d’un processus et d’un outil utiles pour les activistes et les donateurs afin de développer une compréhension commune du contexte actuel et des capacités influençant les efforts visant à promouvoir les droits OSIG. Il a servi de base à l’amélioration de l’élaboration de stratégies et les participants pensaient qu’il serait utile pour suivre les progrès réalisés à plus long terme.

Conclusion: Cette approche à la théorie du changement et participative pour le développement d’une base de référence pourrait être utile aux donateurs, activistes et spécialistes du suivi et de l’évaluation intéressés par l’appui au changement social dans la région et dans le monde.

The purpose of this article is to explore how a particular approach to programme evaluation might be used to address this challenge. It is based on a case study exploring the way in which a group of donors based in the USA, Europe and East Africa worked with a number of their grantees to develop a base line against which to measure progress being made in Kenya towards the broad goal of advancing rights related to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).

Whilst funds have gone to support a range of work, one of the central themes to emerge from grant-making strategies over this period has been providing support to grassroots organisations. This support primarily has been in the form of small grants (under $10 000) for core support, funds for specific project-based activities, as well as indirect support through technical and capacity building activities. One of the leading foundations pursuing this strategy with regard to advancing LGBT rights in the global South was the Arcus Foundation (Funders for LGBTQI Issues). From 2009 to 2012 the Foundation provided support to 11 ‘intermediaries’ working broadly on human rights and women’s rights to make small grants to grassroots SOGI organisations in Africa, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and South East Asia.

At the same time that this approach to SOGI rights funding was developing, within philanthropy more generally there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ approach to grant making for social change. Particularly within US-based private foundations, increasing attention has been paid to finding ways in which to more clearly articulate specific and measurable outcomes and to develop strategies that more directly pursue these ends over a specified time period. (Guthrie et al. 2005) One of the consequences of this approach is that there has been a growing focus on policy change as it is a visible and measurable signifier of the more amorphous notion of social change (Mackinnon & Amott 2009; Morariu & Brennan 2009). Such donors have viewed policy change as a logical and linear process that can be achieved by grant making to a few partners, working on behalf of a broader movement.

These trends were factors which prompted a great deal of discussion in the development and management of the Arcus Foundation’s international programme. Carla Sutherland, then Director of the International SOGI rights programme at Arcus, hired Barbara Klugman, an independent strategy, evaluation and learning consultant, to work with her to develop a learning and evaluation process that might navigate a middle path between these two opposing viewpoints: to find a process that would embrace the complexity of social change (including policy change) whilst still enabling the international programme to have a set of clearly articulated and measurable outcomes, with a sound set of indicators that would be able to measure progress (or not) towards the achievement of these goals, and that could be easily explained to senior management and the foundation’s board.

In discussion we identified the need to be able to clearly articulate three issues:

1. A starting point so that we could show clearly what needed to change - and why; what resources and opportunities were available to make that change; and what barriers had to be overcome; and an end point (a clear statement of what success would look like and how we would know we had got there);

2. An argument around how we thought changed happened in the specific contexts in which work was being funded, and a rationale for why we thought the way we did: in other words, a theory of change;

3. A process by which we could measure progress from our starting point to our end point, that was grounded in our theory of change, but which would be robust and meaningful enough to show progress over the short term (i.e. during a grant period, which typically was one to two years) the medium term (i.e. matching the Foundation’s strategic planning period of five years), and the long term (i.e. how long it typically takes for policy change and/or social change to take place – which can be anywhere from a few months to ten years, or even longer).

It was this frame that informed the decision to develop a base-line study as the foundation for a participatory evaluation process, which is presented below.

The pilot itself involved the following steps:

Interviews were held with 11 donor intermediaries being supported by Arcus Foundation’s international programme in 2010 (Klugman & Kahn 2010). These interviews explored the strategies that intermediaries were pursing with regard to investing the funds they had received from the Arcus Foundation to support grassroots activism to challenge SOGI related violence, discrimination and inequality in Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia.

The interviews informed the planning of the first New York workshop, as it became clear that very few of the intermediaries had any more detailed strategy than providing core support to a range of grassroots organisations to pursue a self-identified programme of action. Very few of the intermediaries could explain how this approach to grant making would bring about the social change that many had identified as the goal of their grant making, such as ‘improved visibility of LGBT groups’; ‘increased acceptance of LGBT issues in the human rights sector’; ‘increased tolerance for LGBT issues in the country’ and so on. Where a rationale for this approach was provided, it tended to focus on the very long-term process of ‘movement building’ both amongst the various LGBT groups, and the LGBT sector and the wider human rights and women’s rights sectors. Hence, this first workshop involved a facilitated process where participants reflected on their individual organisational grant-making strategies, and we explored whether it might be possible to develop a single frame through which to understand both the Arcus strategy (funding a range of intermediaries to make a large number of small grants to grassroots organisations in a number of different countries) and the individual intermediaries’ strategies (how they decided which grants to make, and whether these grants linked to a wider national or thematic strategy).

A follow-up workshop in 2011 pushed this process further, exploring whether it might be possible for the intermediaries to work in collaboration with one another to develop complementary grant-making strategies - informed by a shared understanding of theory of change at the national and sub-regional level. At the second workshop a number of speakers from other sectors, notably the environmental justice movement and the women’s movement, reflected on their experiences of evaluating the impact of strategies that centrally involved small grants to grassroots organisations.

The third workshop in Johannesburg in 2011 was organised with a smaller group of intermediaries and with activists from Kenya to explore collectively a participatory evaluation process that would meet the need of donors to report on the impact of their investments, whilst taking into account (1) activist and intermediaries’ concerns about a donor-driven change agenda; (2) the non-linear process of policy change; and (3) a concern that the evaluation process should not be either too expensive or too time consuming to be useful. At the end of the workshop we had developed a frame and a process for the pilot base-line study and agreed that it should be implemented as soon as possible. Three funders – Arcus, Hivos and Urgent Action Fund – Africa – provided the resources ($10 000) for the study, and a fourth, UHAI, agreed to coordinate the process from Nairobi.

The pilot base-line study was initiated in July 2011, and completed by December 2011. At the start of the process a workshop organised by the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK), and UHAI to share the frame developed in Johannesburg with representatives of Kenyan SOGI organisations where they further refined the proposed questions and method and worked out who would play what roles to get it carried out. Two skilled researchers, Nguru Karugu and Monica Mbaru, who were allies of the movement, were contracted to do the work.

The interim results were presented to a follow-up workshop of activists from Kenya, where participants had a chance to amend the empirical data and provide analysis of the study to the writers. This information was incorporated into the report, which was finalised, printed and widely distributed. Additional resources were found to cover unanticipated costs, so that the final budget was closer to $15 000, as opposed to the original $10 000.

The intervention that allowed us to move forward was a presentation that Barbara Klugman made at the first workshop, which identified a theory of change based on complexity analysis (Klugman 2010).

Our starting point in seeking a different approach to evaluation was a concern that the most widely used models, complexity, nuance, and non-linear thinking were excluded. All the participants at the first workshop were deeply resistant to identifying specific outcomes, attached to specific activities. Underpinning this concern was a belief that advocacy for social justice – whether policy change or changes in public norms and actions – cannot be predicted in the short or long term because they takes place in highly complex environments with innumerable actors each operating in their own interests. Participants had not encountered evaluation approaches that were able to capture the complexity of the activism they were supporting; their views were a reaction to deterministic explanations of the process of change (Callaghan 2008).

Early theories of policy change suggested that policy changes were predictable because they were based on rational processes. Policy makers reviewed all possible options and made decisions based on existing evidence (Grindle & Thomas 1991). This happened in an orderly sequence of policy-making steps. However, today it is recognised that there is no inevitable relationship between social problems and efforts to address them because society is highly complex with multiple and unpredictable factors influencing any specific changes (Cilliers 2000, Patton 2012). The model in Figure 1 identifies six different areas that are involved in change – what Kingdon (2002) describes as ‘streams’ – (1) problems, (2) solutions and/or policy or service implementation options, (3) politics, (4) bureaucracy and/or administration, (5) courts and (6) public values and actions¹ (Klugman 2000).

FIGURE 1: Model for analysing the advocacy process to influence public perspectives and actions, and for influencing decision makers to make, retain or implement policies.

Socially dominant actions as well as culturally dominant norms and beliefs frequently undermine well-intentioned policies and programmes from achieving their expected goals (Friedman & Gordezky 2010). The model incorporates public norms, values and opinions, and indeed prevalent public actions, in recognition that they, too, may undermine or indeed enable the ability of politicians to create a law and bureaucrats to implement. Prejudices amongst some members of the public may undermine the ability of other members of the public to enjoy existing rights. Public opinion may or may not be amenable to change through media influence (Newton 2006).

Compounding this complex dynamic, changes in the political, economic or social context can also open or close windows of opportunity for shifting public opinion or getting issues into political and bureaucratic agendas (Stone, Maxwell & Keating 2001).

It requires activists to identify problems and build a base of individuals and organisations that recognise these problems and support the activists’ definition of the problem. From a social justice point of view, this means activists need to come from those groups most affected by the issue: those with least power and access to resources; those who directly experience discrimination. At a minimum, activists need to enable such groups to participate in shaping the problem definition.

They need to sift amongst possible policy options or public interventions, and build agreement in as large a constituency as possible on the best or most achievable options for addressing that problem, in the given political and social context. Figure 1 illustrates that the role of activists is to influence problem definition and identify matching ideal or at least viable policy options and to then get these onto the agendas of the politicians, bureaucrats, and other decision makers who determine policies and their implementation, and keep them there in the face of opposition or bureaucratic apathy. At times it may be strategic to use the courts to facilitate this process.

Similarly, they mobilise public opinion in favour of their understanding of the problem and their solution, influencing social and cultural norms over time and using public opinion to sway political and bureaucratic decision makers. Indeed, in some contexts they may be able to shift public discourse, to get specific problems and preferred solutions into public debate in a way that pushes politicians to take action.

To play this role, they need to understand what concerns politicians, and what might draw their interest, and similarly what influences bureaucrats to implement laws and policies. They need to have analysed whether the juridical system and legal framework make litigation a potentially effective strategy. They need to understand current public norms and values and how to influence these. They need to be alert to windows of opportunity for change. This kind of analysis is essential to effective activism.

Another lesson for activists and for donors, from this theory of how change happens, is that achieving change cannot be accomplished by one person or one group. It requires collaboration.

Following this theory of change, whilst the achievement of a social movement’s goals cannot be predicted, it is possible to identify the extent to which an initiative for social change is strengthening over time.

A number of reviews of the literature on successful advocacy initiatives group the outcomes that advocacy campaigns tend to aim for (Coffman 2006; Korwin 2009). Reisman, Gienapp and Stachowiak (2007) call these groups ‘outcome categories’. For the purposes of the kind of organising undertaken by sexual rights activists, these have been organised into eight categories (Klugman 2010). The first four lay the groundwork for effective advocacy:

1. Strengthened organisational capacity including whether groups are registered, have systems of governance and financial management, leadership, strategic and communications capacity, adaptability;

2. Strengthened base of support, that is, the breadth of membership or public figures supporting the issue;

3. Strengthened alliances between organisations working on the same issue, and with organisations and networks on other issues.

These, in turn, draw on:

4. Increased data and analysis from a social justice perspective.

These four outcome categories form the basis for conducting advocacy, sometimes quietly within the corridors of power, and sometimes from the outside, through the mobilisation of constituencies, publications and engagement of the media. Together, achievements in all four outcome areas enable the following outcome category, which is a marker of significant progress in advocacy:

5. The development of consensus around a common definition of the problem and possible policy options by an ever widening constituency of people (both of which will also evolve over time with new insights, data and constituencies informing them).

These, in turn, form the basis for the advocacy movement as a whole, comprising individuals, organisations and alliances that are continually adapting to changes in context in order to ensure the ‘readiness’ of their organisational capacity, messages and strategies. They enable effective engagement in the policy process, which falls within the sixth outcome category:

6. Increased visibility of the issue in policy processes resulting in positive policy outcomes, including maintaining gains, and maintaining pressure through on-going monitoring of the implementation of policy. A litigation process and judicial finding would also fit within this outcome.

Ultimate impacts, usually beyond the timeframe of any grant or set of grants, would be:

1. Shifts in social norms (such as decreased discrimination against a specific group or increased belief that the state should provide high quality education). That said, along the way, one may start to see shifts in public understanding and visibility of the issues, as the problem definition or potential solutions gain social acceptance over time; and

2. Shifts in population-level impact indicators (such as decreased violence against women, suicides of gay youth, or increased educational achievement amongst groups with historically poor achievement).

What we developed was a very simple model against which to map individual organisations working on a common thematic area, in a common geographical space. Collectively, the map could give a rough indication where the ‘movement’ as a whole was, and if repeated, an indication of whether or not progress was being made, both by individual organisations and the movement more widely. Secondly, if mapped against the theory of change outlined above, we would also be able to realistically assess the kind of outcomes that could reasonably be expected so that much more precise goals could be set for individual grants, as well as the programme strategy as a whole.

The simple model we developed is presented graphically in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2: Mapping organisations working on similar issues in common geographic space.

Quinn Patton’s (2012) work on utilisation-focused evaluation argues that it is essential to involve ‘primary intended users’ (PIUs) in shaping the evaluation. PIUs are simply those individuals and organisations who need to find the outcome of the evaluation meaningful. In our case, this was both activists and the donors funding their work. Patton suggests meaningful participation of PIUs needs to include ‘making design and methods decisions, and interpret(ing) results to assure that the evaluation is useful, meaningful, relevant, and credible’ (Patton 2012:67). Patton notes that such evaluations have ‘process use’, meaning that the doing of the evaluation will enable learning and may well shift people’s actions well before there are evaluation findings.

For the pilot development of our base line, these issues were managed by creating key decision-making moments that explicitly involved both donors and activists. At the Johannesburg workshop, we had participation from four key funders supporting work in Kenya. In addition, there was an equal number of activists who were invited primarily because they were all in Johannesburg attending the first African Same-Sex Sexualities conference. The key decisions collectively reached at the workshop were:

1. A basic frame and process, including engaging with a wide range of activists at the beginning and the end of the study;

2. A first listing of outcome categories that framed the base line, which included a discussion around how policy change happened in Kenya;

3. Ideas for how information could be gathered, and who should do the data gathering, including drawing on information that organisations already had, as well as identifying where consultants would be helpful. It was agreed that all the consultants should be based (living and working) in East Africa;

4. A commitment that the evaluation could not use funds disproportionate to the funding levels of organisations in the field; and

5. Who would be the lead organisation for the process, and what their responsibilities would be.

In terms of the substantive content of the base line, and again drawing on our theory of change, at the first meeting of donors and activists in Johannesburg, we agreed to collect data on the following four areas:

Legislation and policy: We agreed that the base line needed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the laws and policies that discriminated against or failed to protect people based on their SOGI. The second area we were interested in was how laws and policies were applied in ‘real life’, in part because activists were conscious that whilst there was a major focus on decriminalisation amongst the international NGOs and many funders, there were other laws that were much more readily applied against them, such as loitering and solicitation. In terms of thinking through how best to collect this data we agreed on two strategies: first, the national coalition organisation (i.e. that had as members organisations rather than individuals) said that they had been collecting this information in the form of newspaper reports and reports filed by their organisational members. Despite having collected this information over more than two years, the coalition had not found any particular use for it. This was the first of many examples of organisations having valuable records that they had either not used or under-utilised both in strategising processes for activists, and in evaluation data collecting by funders. Second, we agreed that we would include a question about experiences of discrimination in the proposed questionnaire that we decided to undertake (discussed below).

Organisational mapping: We thought it was important to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the different organisations working on SOGI issues in Kenya. Information related to this that we thought important was: (1) organisational priorities and activities; (2) where it was based and its geographic reach; (3) number of members, and whether it had specific types of members (e.g. transgender, men who have sex with men [MSM], lesbians, etc.); and (4) whether it was registered. We quickly realised that this was information that donors had readily to hand, and that a fairly comprehensive picture would emerge if we pooled our information. Hence, no new data would need to be collected (or paid for).

Political and cultural context: We agreed that identifying some proxy measures for the hostility or openness of wider society and key decision makers to advancing LGBT rights was important to getting a clear picture of the context in which activists were working. Progress towards policy change was likely to be accelerated in more open contexts, and being able to demonstrate movement towards this would be useful to understand whether the work was being effective. Whilst we had a wide-ranging discussion the two measures we agreed on were (1) media reporting and (2) leading activists in civil society human rights organisations; leaders from the major political parties and religious leaders from a range of denominations. In terms of media reporting, initially we identified a number of organisations that did newspaper reviews and clippings, and agreed that approaching one of them to do a base line of coverage of LGBT issues, both in terms of frequency and ‘tone’ would be the easiest way in which to do this. Concern was expressed by activists that newspapers were not the best litmus test as the most interesting and insightful discussions were happening on radio talk shows and television. In response we agreed on a compromise strategy of employing a media expert to write an analytical report, identifying key trends with examples of the kind of writing or discussion that reflected the dominant discourse. In terms of leadership attitudes, we agreed that activist volunteers would seek to interview around ten key public opinion leaders drawn from the various sectors identified and use a pre-identified set of questions to engage all of them. When people refused to be interviewed, that fact, and the reasons why, would be regarded as the outcome of that interview. If we had this as a base line we would be able to measure progress over time as a deeply stigmatised issue that was either not discussed or discussed only in disparaging terms became more visible and more acceptable.

Lived experiences: The final category for information gathering came out of a realisation that in the end the change that was being sought was ultimately to improve the lived experiences of LGBT people. To this end we thought it important to try and capture a snapshot of the kind of issues, concerns and experiences that LGBT people had in Kenya. Although not comprehensive, we thought a rapid way in which to collect this data would be through a simple questionnaire that each of the participating organisations would conduct with five of their members. The organisations would be requested to pass out the questionnaire to their members. We thought that this information might be useful to activists in order to see the extent to which they were working on the most pressing issues for their members; and for donors to see to what extent the issues they had prioritised for funding were connected to the lived experiences and priorities of LGBT people. We agreed that this was important information and that a qualified and experienced consultant would need to be found to develop, distribute and analyse the questionnaire and its results.

The final report, Imagined futures, lived realities (Karugu & Mbaru 2011), was finalised three months later and widely distributed to activists and donors.

FIGURE 3: Chart of organisations working on SOGI-related issues in Kenya (2011).

This view is reinforced when looking at the geographical focus and reach of the organisaisations. Four of the organisaisations have a national reach, which our theory of change suggested was essential for substantial social change to take place. As would be expected, the newer organisaisations (clustered at the left hand side of the chart) have a more local focus. However, what is also important to note is that most of these organisations are based outside of the capital, Nairobi. This suggests a strengthening of the movement, as the issue was moving beyond urbanised centres to include organised activism in other (including rural) areas.

Finally, in terms of membership and focus, the chart shows an important level of diversity and specialisation. As would be expected, the strongest national organisations had a more general membership base with an advocacy focus. The one trans-gender organisation had a focus that extended nationally, and there were three lesbian-focused organisations, one outside of Nairobi. Just over a third (seven) of the organisations were focused specifically on MSM and on HIV/AIDS related work (both service and advocacy).

A chart like this can be helpful to programme officers attempting to refine their grant-making strategies to support the advancement of SOGI-related rights in Kenya. Against the theory of change underpinning the chart and the analysis, two distinct grant-making strategies emerge. The first is to provide specific support to assist emerging organisations to move from being small, largely informal groups of friends and acquaintances to ones that can undertake outreach efforts such as advocacy, public education or service to members. It is unlikely that all the groups will be able – or indeed willing – to move in this direction. However, a grant-making strategy designed to strengthen and encourage progress to social change needs to be providing resources to those groups that are able to develop the capacity to press forward that agenda. The kind of work that might be supported to encourage this will include continuing small grant support, but also some collective workshops to strengthen the capacity of activists to build and maintain organisations as well as to deepen strategising and advocacy skills.

The need to provide support, beyond direct resources, feeds into the second strategic approach that the chart suggests, namely providing support to the stronger national organisations to enable them to play this kind of leadership role within the country. Again, organisations may not want to take on this role but if substantial policy or other social change is to occur, it is needed. At times, this need is masked by the strong presence of international NGOs stepping into that space but that is neither ideal, nor sustainable in the longer term. At the very least, what the chart enables programme officers to do is to engage with grantees (and potential grantees) to explain what work they are looking to support and why. The challenge to a good programme officer is to listen carefully to the responses and if there is no organisation willing or able to take on that role to either adapt the theory of change (in response to grantees’ arguments about how change happens) and/or seek to support an interim process that will enable at least one or two organisations to play that role in the future. This underscores the importance of undertaking a highly participatory approach to the evaluation process, as it is much more likely that this kind of analysis will be shared by grantees if they have been party to gathering and analysing the information.

Finally, what the chart has the potential to do for activists, programme officers and evaluators, is to enable them to show measurable progress in response to a particular grant making strategy. To give a sense of how this might work, Figure 4 shows a similar chart for 2006, that is, five years earlier, based on information on which groups the Ford Foundation, Hivos and UHAI were supporting at that time. Hence, whilst not covering all potential groups, it does provide a brush stroke picture that is different in important ways from the 2011 chart.

What this earlier mapping demonstrates is that over a five-year period the SOGI movement in Kenya had considerably strengthened. Not only was there a significant growth in the number of organisations visibly working on these issues, but the organisations that were already in existence had become stronger and better able to tackle the social change they were seeking. In addition, it is noticeable how few of the organisations were based outside of Nairobi, and how little diversity there was in terms of membership. The two charts together provide a strong visual summary of progress being made within the country, and suggest that the grant-making strategy underpinning it was successful. Certainly, it shifts the conversation from one of ‘movement building’, which is very hard to report on, particularly when the only outcome that matters is ‘policy change’ or another proxy of social change that is likely to be sometime in the far distant future.

The broader value of this kind of approach is to ensure that donor programming and activist agendas are grounded on the actual context and dynamics in a specific country, rather than the hopes of donor boards or programme officers on other continents. This is a key role for African evaluators, and offers them the challenge of developing practices grounded in the values of participation and collective learning.

FIGURE 4: Chart of organisations working on SOGI-related issues in Kenya (2006).

Cilliers, P., 2000, ‘What can we learn from a theory of complexity?’, Emergence 2(1), 23–33.

Coffman, J., 2007, ‘Using the advocacy and policy change composite logic model to guide evaluation planning’, Harvard Family Research Project, Boston.

Friedman, M. & Gordezky, R., 2010, A holistic approach to gender equality and social justice, Gender at Work, Johannesburg.

Funders for LGBTQI Issues , 2011, A global gaze: Lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender and intersex grantmaking in the global south and east, Funders for LGBTQI Issues, New York.

Grindle, M. & Thomas, J., 1991, Public choices and policy change, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Guthrie, K., Louie, J., David, T. & Foster, C., 2005, The challenges of assessing policy and advocacy activities: strategies for a prospective evaluation approach, The California Endowment, Oakland.

Karugu, N. & Mbaru, M., 2011, Lived realities, imagined futures: Baseline study on LGBTI organising in Kenya, UHAI, Nairobi.

Kingdon, J., 2002, Agendas, alternatives, and public policy, Longman, New York.

Klugman, B., 2000, ‘Empowering women through the policy process: The making of health policy in South Africa’, in H. Presser & G. Sen (eds.), Women’s empowerment and demographic processes: Moving beyond Cairo, p. 95–118, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Klugman, B., 2010, ‘Is the policy win all? A framework for effective social justice advocacy’, Foundation Review 2(3), 93–107.

Klugman, B & Kahn, M., 2010, ‘Approaches to human rights evaluation: Themes emerging from interviews with donors, in preparation for the International Human Rights Funders’ Group Evaluation Institute, July 2010’, unpublished.

Korwin, L., 2009, The catalyst fund theory of change, Korwin Consulting for the Tides Foundation, San Francisco.

Mackinnon, A. & Amott, N., 2006, Mapping a change: Using a theory of change to guide planning and evaluation, Grantcraft, New York.

Morariu, J. & Brennan, K., 2009, ‘Effective advocacy evaluation: The role of funders’, Foundation Review 1(3), 100–108.

Newton, K., 2006, ‘May the weak force be with you: The power of the mass media in modern politics’, European Journal of Political Research 45, 209–234.

Parsons, W., 1995, Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Patton, M. Q., 2012, Essentials of utilisation-focused evaluation, Sage, Los Angeles.

Rao, M., 2010, Gender justice: Comparative perspectives and lessons from around the world, Women’s Link Worldwide, Bogota.

Rao, M & Klugman, B., 2013, Courts as a site for social change, Women’s Link Worldwide, Madrid, forthcoming.

Reisman, J., Gienapp, A. & Stachowiak, S., 2007, A guide to measuring advocacy and policy, Organisational Research Services, Seattle.

Stone, D., Maxwell, S. & Keating, M., 2001, ‘Bridging research and policy’. Background paper presented for An International Workshop Funded by the UK Department for International Development, July 16-17 2001, Radcliffe House, Warwick University, Warwick.

Sutton, R. 1999, ‘The policy process: An overview’, Working Paper 118, Overseas Development Institute, London.