Process Rubrics

Harmful

The current design, even with adaptations, is likely to exacerbate or perpetuate rather than improve climate and/or equity. For example:

• Although the design may address the main presenting issue(s), it fails to adequately address equity considerations, to an extent that is likely to exacerbate inequity (or has done so), particularly for the most vulnerable.
• Although the [cluster of] initiative(s) addresses one or more climate-relevant issues, one or more flaws in the design have produced an unintended effect of encouraging or incentivising other climate-negative practices and/or practices that exacerbate inequity and/or social exclusion for one or more groups.

Unconducive

The design of this [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s), although conceptually strong enough to obtain funding initially, has turned out not to be well suited to some of the unanticipated challenges and conditions in the implementation environment. For example, one or more of the following issues are serious enough to significantly affect the likely success of this [cluster of] initiative(s):

• Despite having a design concept promising enough to secure funding initially, the issues faced in practice may be very different from what was anticipated, particularly with respect to addressing the needs of the most vulnerable and/or other issues that are key to producing systemic impact. This mismatch with what was needed is too substantial to address with midstream adaptations or refinements.
• There may also be highly problematic misalignment between the design and partners’ capacities and strengths that makes success unattainable.
• Identified risks may not have been addressed.
• Completely unrealistic timeline and budget.

Partly conducive

The design of this [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) is relatively strong; it includes many of the right intervention approaches needed to address the most important issues and needs. However, some important gaps compromise and/or limit its potential to produce systemic impact. The design may not have been effectively built on past lessons, and/or important opportunities were missed to develop, adapt and/or refine it in light of the particular contextual challenges or issues encountered. For example, one or more of the following gaps or weaknesses are evident:

• a weak mix and/or intensity of interventions, particularly with respect to addressing the needs of the most vulnerable
• inadequate or poorly designed responses to risks
• weak synergy with adjacent initiatives
• misalignments with the strengths of the partner organisation(s)
• an overly ambitious timeline
• not enough financial support
• limitations in expertise and experience to tackle the issues

Conducive & Supportive

The design of the [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) has on the whole been well conceptualised, developed, adapted and/or refined over time. Some minor limitations are evident as opportunities for strengthening the design. All or most of the following are evident:

• It includes the right mix and intensity of intervention approaches to address most of the important issues/needs to produce systemic impact toward climate-positive practices, equity, human dignity and flourishing, particularly for the most vulnerable, as well as identified risks.
• It is appropriately resourced, budgeted and staffed, with the right choice of partners to deliver on the work.
• The design builds on past lessons, has reasonably good synergy with adjacent initiatives and has good alignment with Laudes’ and partners’ strengths and capacities as well as Laudes’ systemwide theory of change.

Harmful

The [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant have been implemented in a way that produced negative, harmful consequences to organisations, groups or individuals, including those who have historically experienced exclusion. Examples of how implementation can be harmful include:

• Although the implementation approach may be adequate for most participants, it fails to adequately address equity considerations, to an extent that is likely to exacerbate inequity (or has done so).
• Although the [cluster of] initiative(s) addresses one or more climate-relevant issues, one or more flaws in the implementation have produced an unintended effect of encouraging or incentivising other climate-negative practices and/or practices that exacerbate inequity and/or social exclusion for one or more groups.

Unconducive

Several major limitations are evident in the implementation of the [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant, especially in terms of efficiency.

Other relevant issues that may also be observed relate to ethics, professionalism, cultural appropriateness, inclusion, consistency, or a misalignment of implementation with the strengths of Laudes and its partners.

These limitations, although serious and preventing it from making effective contributions, do not appear to be harmful to organisations, groups or individuals participating in or affected by the [cluster of] initiative(s), including those who have historically been excluded.

Partly conducive

Overall, the [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant have been implemented with reasonable efficiency, thoroughness, professionalism, ethicality, cultural appropriateness, inclusion, consistency with relevant legal and professional standards, and in ways that to some extent play to the strengths of Laudes and its partners.

There are some attempts to enhance the capacity of participating organisations, but they are limited and inconsistent.

Other inefficiencies and inconsistencies are evident, but none of them are very serious. 

Conducive & Supportive

The [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant have been implemented with good efficiency, thoroughness, professionalism, ethicality, cultural appropriateness, inclusion, consistency with relevant legal and professional standards, and in ways that play reasonably well to the strengths of Laudes and its partners.

It also uses reasonably effective strategies – including some innovative and explorative approaches where appropriate  – that engage with the wider community  and that include, enable, empower, and enhance the capacity of participating organisations, groups and individuals.

Some minor inefficiencies or inconsistencies may be evident as opportunities for strengthening implementation.

Harmful

The monitoring system for this [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant have been poorly designed and implemented. Problems are likely to include one or more of the following:

• The relevance and utility of the data collected is very weak, perhaps due to using inappropriate tools.
• The analyses and reporting are inaccurate or misleading.
• Too much evidence, much of which is not useful, is being gathered, placing a seriously problematic strain on staffing or resources, to a level that adversely impacts initiative implementation.

As a result, managers may end up making wrong decisions based on such flawed monitoring data or may need to ignore the evidence in their decision making or the performance of the [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or grantee organisation(s) is affected by the excessive amount of time devoted for irrelevant and useless monitoring activities.

Unconducive

Overall, the [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant have had some monitoring completed, using strategies and tools, some of which are weak, to collect and report key information about the quality of implementation, key outputs and early outcomes.

Several major limitations are evident in the monitoring system for this [cluster of] initiative(s). These might include:

• Too much evidence, not all of which can be analysed or is useful, is being gathered, placing a problematic strain on staffing or resources.
• Monitoring may be almost entirely focused on compliance with formal reporting but with little or no real-time adaptive management.
• Monitoring or reporting to Laudes are too infrequent to ensure that the work stays on track.

These limitations, although serious and preventing the monitoring system from usefully informing the curation, development, adaptation and improvement of the [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s), do not appear to be harmful to the people or organisations involved, including vulnerable groups and those who have historically experienced marginalisation.

Partly conducive

The [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant have been reasonably well monitored, using some appropriate strategies and tools to collect and report key information about the quality of implementation, key outputs and early outcomes.

Some inefficiencies and inconsistencies may be evident, but none of them are very serious. These might include:

• Monitoring is predominantly focused on compliance with formal reporting requirements but with several missed opportunities to use the evidence to inform real-time adaptive management.
• Too much evidence, not all of which can be analysed or is useful, is being gathered, placing an unnecessary (but not seriously problematic) strain on staffing or resources.
• Reporting lacks quality, timeliness or usefulness to inform decisions.
• Sensemaking meetings exclude one or more important contributors.

Overall, the monitoring system has proved somewhat helpful to inform the curation, development, adaptation and improvement of the [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s), but there have likely been some slippages in its relevance, efficiency and effectiveness over its lifespan.

Conducive & Supportive

The [cluster of] initiative(s) and/or general operating support grant have been well monitored using appropriate strategies and the right tools for the particular context to collect and report key information about the quality of implementation, key outputs and early outcomes.

This includes:

• Gathering a good mix of evidence that covers all important requirements and is mostly useful and informative, without inappropriately straining staffing and other resources.
• Effective ongoing real-time adaptive management, not just meeting regular reporting requirements.
• Generally succinct and user-friendly reporting, although some of it could be more engaging and straight to the point.
• Reasonably well structured and regular sensemaking meetings to discuss monitoring findings among key people. In some cases, these meetings may not include some useful contributors or allow sufficient time for deeper reflection and learning.

Overall, the monitoring system has proved quite helpful to inform the curation, development, adaptation and improvement of the [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) and has largely ensured that it has remained relevant, efficient and effective over its lifespan.

Harmful

The [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) has a problematic collective learning and communication system that has produced negative, harmful consequences to organisations, groups or individuals, especially those that have historically experienced exclusion.

Examples of learning and communication that could cause harm include:

• Using disappointing results or identified areas for improvement to name and shame partner organisations, particularly in ways that could damage their reputations or relationships or stifle openness to learning.
• Concealing evidence of adverse impact or major problems with design or implementation, particularly where there are implications for groups that have historically experienced marginalisation or harm.
• Reporting on outcomes in ways that implicitly or explicitly reinforce harmful stereotypes of groups that have historically experienced marginalisation.
• Leaking or failing to protect confidential information about participants, impactees, staff or other stakeholders of the [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s).

Unconducive

The [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) has a weak collective learning and communication system within and between the partner organisations and Laudes and across the networks relevant to this [cluster of] initiative(s)

All or most of the following are evident:

• The [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) has a weak communication system with participating individuals, organisations and networks; it may not communicate at all with some important audiences such as the wider community, particularly those affected by their work, and almost no mutual learning is occurring.
• The information made publicly available about design, methods, strategies, outputs, outcomes, learning etc of the [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) is only about successes; no failures are shared.
• There may be some instances of publicity being used inappropriately or with a serious lack of coherence (e.g., conflicting messages being released by partners).

Partly conducive

There is reasonably good collective learning and communication within and between the partner organisations and Laudes and across the networks relevant to this [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s), but with some non-serious areas for improvement.

All or most of the following are evident:

• Partner organisations and Laudes demonstrate some openness to learning, particularly about what is working well, but may be reluctant to reflect on or share challenges and opportunities for improvement, particularly with the wider community.
• The [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) has a reasonable communication system with participating individuals, organisations and networks; however, mutual learning is occurring only at a minimum level.
• Publicity and other external messaging are used when appropriate, including with those affected by the [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s). However, there may be important issues with the coherence, language and/or delivery of messaging that limit the value and/or influence of the messages.

Conducive & Supportive

There is good collective learning and communication within and between the partner organisations and Laudes and across the networks relevant to this [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s).

All or most of the following are evident:

• Partner organisations and Laudes demonstrate generally good openness to learning and reflecting on the work to take it to the next level. There may be room to enhance deeper reflection on some of the more challenging feedback and/or to engage more effectively with the wider community to support the effectiveness of the work over the short and long term.
• The [cluster of] initiative(s) or grant(s) has a good and transparent communication system with participating individuals, organisations and networks facilitating internal learning. Communication with external audiences is reasonably good, but with some challenges that may limit mutual learning.
• Publicity and other external messaging (where appropriate) are usually well aligned, coherent and used wisely and purposefully to help maximise influence and improve impact and effectiveness and to share learning.

Harmful

The grantee organisation(s) and network(s) have major gaps in one or more critically important areas of knowledge, skills and capacity, which are serious enough to have caused, exacerbated or perpetuated harm to workers, producers and/or communities they work with, including their own staff.

These gaps include some or all of the following:

• Seriously inadequate capabilities and/or commitment to identify, diagnose and adequately address harmful structural racism issues in the systems, networks, organisations and/or communities with which it works (including its own organisational culture).
• Seriously inadequate capabilities and/or commitment to identify, diagnose and adequately address harmful gender- and socially exploitative practices in the systems, networks, organisations and/or communities with which it works (including its own organisational culture).
• Seriously inadequate or missing critical capabilities and/or commitment to tailor, adapt, implement or monitor initiatives in a culturally and contextually appropriate way – lacking to an extent that causes harm or exacerbates inequities or marginalisation.

Unconducive

The grantee organisation(s) and network(s) have serious gaps in one or more important areas of knowledge, skills and capacity, which are problematic enough to seriously compromise the ability to create change or deliver on the most important outcomes.

These gaps include some or all of the following:

• Inadequate capabilities and/or commitment to identify, diagnose and adequately address problematic structural racism^[1] in the systems, networks, organisations and/or communities with which it works (including its own organisational and network cultures).
• Inadequate capabilities and/or commitment to identify, diagnose and adequately address problematic gender- and socially exploitative ^[2] practices in the systems, networks, organisations and/or communities with which it works (including its own organisational and network cultures).
• Inadequate capabilities and/or commitment to tailor, adapt, or implement initiatives in a culturally and contextually responsive way – lacking to an extent that does little to address inequities or marginalisation (but does not exacerbate these issues).
• Insufficient depth or breadth of staffing with the right mix of other knowledge, skills and capabilities to implement the initiative(s) or deliver on even minimally adequate outcomes.
• Insufficient financial stability and fund-raising capacity to ensure the [cluster of] initiative(s) can be implemented to at least a minimal acceptable level.
• Insufficient strengths in leadership and/or governance – lacking to an extent that seriously impacts the organisation or network ability to implement the initiative(s) or deliver on even minimally acceptable outcomes.
• Inadequate monitoring and adaptive management needed to refine and improve the quality and impact of change efforts.

  Footnotes

  1. ^{^} “Structural racism” refers to policies, practices, cultural representations and other norms that work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. These features of social, economic and political systems allow privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “colour” to endure over time.
  2. ^{^} “Gender- and socially exploitative” practices are those that reinforce, aggravate, or take advantage of inequalities and stereotypes in ways that exploit those who have historically been marginalised or excluded and/or that exacerbate inequalities in access to power and resources.

Partly conducive

The grantee organisation(s) and network(s) have some of the knowledge, skills and capacity needed to create change and deliver on the important outcomes in somewhat effective ways that leverage some of their own and Laudes’ strengths. However, there are some inefficiencies and inconsistencies limiting their performance that need immediate attention, but none of them are very serious.

These limitations include some of the following:

• Somewhat weak and unclear vision, mission and/or strategy.
• Leadership (including succession planning) to lead the work and to connect with the relevant networks, organisations and communities is somewhat weak or lacks greater credible and/or inclusion.
• Governance only provides reasonable fiduciary oversight, only sometimes holds organisational leaders accountable for progress toward achieving the mission and outreach efforts to garner resources and connect people with the mission are only reasonably effective.
• The mix of staff somewhat limited in terms of knowledge, skills and capacity (numbers) needed to implement the initiative effectively and responsively, including technical, cultural, contextual and/or content expertise.
• Even though the organisational culture is mostly positive and inclusive, some people or groups have challenges to thrive.
• The financial stability (e.g., level of operating reserves) and/or fund-raising capacity are only reasonable.
• Only reasonable capability to assess their own capacity development needs and to implement strategies to address those needs and continuously improve their own performance and outcomes.
• An organisational learning culture with some openness to learning and use of monitoring and adaptive management to refine and improve the quality and impact of change efforts – although with important weaknesses that should be improved.

Conducive & Supportive

The grantee organisation(s) and network(s) have most of the knowledge, skills and capacity needed to create change and deliver on the important outcomes in effective ways that leverage both their own and Laudes’ strengths. There are a few minor issues limiting their performance.

All or most of the following are evident in the participating organisation(s):

• Reasonably strong and clear vision, mission and strategy.
• Reasonably strong, credible and inclusive leadership (including succession planning) to lead the work and to connect with the relevant networks, organisations and communities.
• Reasonably strong governance that provides good fiduciary oversight, most of the time holds organisational leaders accountable for progress toward achieving the mission and conducts outreach to garner resources and to connect people with the mission, with good effectiveness.
• A reasonably strong mix of staff with the knowledge, skills and capacity (numbers) needed to implement the initiative effectively and responsively, including technical, cultural, contextual and content expertise.
• A positive and inclusive organisational culture that helps people to fulfil their potential, sometimes those who have historically experienced marginalisation.
• Good financial stability (e.g., level of operating reserves) and reasonably strong fund-raising capacity.
• Good capability to assess their own capacity development needs and to implement strategies to address those needs and continuously improve their own performance and outcomes.
• A reasonably strong organisational learning culture, including openness to learning and effective use of monitoring and adaptive management to refine and improve the quality and impact of change efforts.