Published: May 12, 2026
MONROVIA — Naymote Partners for Democratic Development, with support from the Swedish government, has concluded a one-day Outcome Harvesting training workshop aimed at strengthening the capacity of civil society organizations to document behavioral change, improve evidence-based reporting, and enhance monitoring and evaluation systems.
The training, held Monday, May 11, at Naymote’s Sawabenu office in Monrovia, brought together participants to deepen their understanding of Outcome Harvesting — a results-based reporting approach increasingly being prioritized by international donors and development partners.
The workshop sought to improve participants’ ability to track project outcomes, document measurable social and behavioral changes, and strengthen institutional learning and accountability systems.
Building Institutions That Attract Donor Confidence
Providing an overview of the training, Naymote Program Director Peace Thor Mahteh-Boye stressed the growing importance of institutional credibility, transparency, and accountability in securing donor partnerships and managing development programs.
Mahteh-Boye said many donors are no longer interested in simply funding organizations, but are prioritizing institutions with strong operational systems and the capacity to independently lead projects.
“I think that they are interested in working with organizations, but more interested in working with organizations that have the capacity to lead on projects,” she said.
According to her, donor institutions often conduct detailed institutional assessments to determine whether organizations have the necessary documentation, policies, systems, and operational procedures required to effectively manage donor-funded programs.
She explained that strengthening internal systems not only increases access to donor funding but also promotes transparency, accountability, and integrity within institutions.
“Once your internal system is set up in a way that donor wants it to be, the required documentation, the processes, your policy documents, and every other requirement, it helps you in applying for funding, it helps you in securing donor support, and it also talks about transparency, accountability, and integrity,” Mahteh-Boye noted.
Drawing from Naymote’s own experience, she said the institution successfully met international donor assessment standards, allowing it to implement externally funded projects and support smaller organizations seeking to build similar capacities.
“We saw it necessary that based on our skills, we can work with you and be able to help you to bring you up to that level so that your own institution can have such capacity,” she added.
Moving Beyond Theory to Practical Learning
Mahteh-Boye emphasized that the workshop was designed to move beyond theoretical discussions by giving participants hands-on experience in documenting outcomes and behavioral change.
According to her, participants were expected to gain practical knowledge on how to identify and report measurable changes occurring within communities and institutions.
“We are hopeful that at the end of this training, we will have an understanding of what Outcome Harvesting is,” she said. “We will also have the time to do some practical so that we learn by doing, and not more about theory.”
She further highlighted the increasing demand among donors for evidence-based reporting and measurable “stories of change” that demonstrate the real impact of projects.
“One thing donors have also stressed is that when we write our reports, we should be able to document those key changes that happened,” Mahteh-Boye said. “All of the changes that we observe in our communities or in the spaces where we work, we document those changes.”
She said the broader goal of the training was to improve participants’ reporting and documentation skills while encouraging behavioral change and strengthening accountability within development programming.
Understanding Outcome Harvesting
Also speaking during the workshop, Naymote Deputy Program Director Joshua D. Cleon described Outcome Harvesting as a participatory and flexible monitoring and evaluation approach focused on identifying and documenting behavioral and social changes resulting from interventions.
Cleon explained that the approach helps institutions identify, formulate, verify, and make sense of changes influenced by development initiatives, especially changes in behavior, actions, relationships, and practices among stakeholders and communities.
According to him, donor-supported initiatives such as the Civil Society Activity (CSA) are increasingly focused on evidence-based reporting and behavioral change rather than simply reviewing lists of completed project activities.
“So when we talk about outcome, we look at results,” Cleon explained. “And what results we’re talking about is directly behavior change.”
He distinguished between outputs, outcomes, and impacts, noting that outputs are tied to project activities and deliverables, outcomes focus on direct behavioral changes, while impacts represent long-term transformation within communities or institutions.
Traditional M&E Versus Outcome Harvesting
Providing further insight, Cleon compared traditional Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems with Outcome Harvesting, describing the latter as more adaptive and change-centered.
According to him, traditional M&E typically focuses on predefined indicators and planned targets, while Outcome Harvesting concentrates on identifying actual changes that occur during project implementation.
“For traditional M&E, it’s about measuring planned results,” he explained. “But for Outcome Harvesting, all you have to do is identify the actual change that occurred.”
He said Outcome Harvesting is particularly useful in capturing behavioral change, understanding patterns of change, supporting adaptive learning, strengthening accountability, and improving program effectiveness.
Focusing on ‘What Changed’
Cleon also outlined the key components of Outcome Harvesting, noting that practitioners must answer critical questions including:
- What changed?
- Who changed?
- Where and when did the change occur?
- Why is the change significant?
- Who contributed to the change?
Using practical examples, he stressed that effective reporting should focus first on communicating the actual change observed before explaining the activities that led to the change.
“After all the meetings and activities, the important question is: what actually changed?” Cleon emphasized.
He said development partners are increasingly interested in tangible outcomes and documented stories showing how interventions have affected communities, women groups, youth organizations, and other stakeholders.
Discussion about this post