Delivery failure
Support that arrives late, partially or unverifiably would undermine the predictability the model depends on.
Draft document · v0.1
Theory of change: from predictable support to credible evidence.
This draft states how the Foundation believes change would occur, which assumptions each link depends on, and what would count as evidence that the logic does or does not hold.
Status of this document
Working draft v0.1 — not formally adopted
No part of this chain has yet been tested. Each outcome is a hypothesis to be measured, not an achievement. Causal attribution would require independent evaluation.
Results chain
The proposed logic, stated plainly
- 01
Inputs
Donated and institutional funding, governance and safeguarding framework, eligibility criteria, verification method, payment route, monitoring capacity.
- 02
Activities
Referral and assessment, enrolment, identity verification, scheduled support instructions, household review, grievance handling, monitoring visits or calls.
- 03
Outputs
Verified households enrolled, support delivered on schedule, review decisions recorded, grievances resolved, monitoring data collected.
- 04
Short-term outcomes
More predictable household income; reduced need for harmful coping strategies; children able to remain in or return to schooling; more stable accommodation.
- 05
Medium-term outcomes
Improved food security and child welfare; greater household resilience to shocks; increased trust in a transparent, appealable process.
- 06
Longer-term contribution
Credible, documented evidence about whether accountable, electronically enabled household support is deliverable in Afghanistan — usable by institutions considering larger frameworks.
Assumptions
What each link depends on
- Households receive support reliably enough to plan around it, not merely occasionally.
- Support is sufficient to relieve pressure on food, shelter and schooling costs in the local economy.
- Decisions about a household's income remain with the household, within the charity's purpose.
- Verification and review do not impose costs or risks that outweigh the benefit of support.
- Grievance routes are known, safe to use, and result in visible correction.
- Data collected about households is minimised, secured and never used to their detriment.
Falsification
What would show the logic is wrong
No household change
Households reporting no improvement in food security, schooling or accommodation stability would challenge the outcome links.
Disproportionate cost or harm
Cost per household or safeguarding incidents at levels that cannot be justified would argue against scaling the design.
Comment on this draft
Technical review is welcome, particularly from agencies with experience of cash transfers, beneficiary targeting, safeguarding and monitoring in Afghanistan. Written comments are read and logged, and revisions are versioned.