Valuing impact in social justice and advocacy 

For organisations working in public interest law and social justice advocacy, measuring impact is anything but straightforward. Unlike service delivery initiatives, where outputs are often quantifiable, the outcomes of rights-based advocacy – such as dignity, equity and justice – are abstract and often slow to emerge. South African public interest law centre SECTION27 is confronting this challenge head-on through a careful, learning-oriented approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL). 

Their work uses the law to contribute to systemic change in areas like education and health rights, while also generating lessons for others navigating the complexities of monitoring and evaluating advocacy outcomes in a constitutional democracy, especially for those using the law as a lever for change. 

A MEL approach tailored to complexity 

SECTION27’s MEL journey began when it saw an opportunity to embed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) into a four-year project grant. This catalysed a range of internal processes, including training in results-based management, a baseline study and the introduction of data collection tools to measure progress. For the first time, the organisation had to measure and report on very clearly articulated expected results. 

The complexity of monitoring and evaluating social justice outcomes soon became clear. As Sasha Stevenson, executive director at SECTION27, explains: “We’re not counting heads, as with a school feeding programme. Our work incorporates complex non-quantifiable concepts, such as equity, justice, access to resources and power.”  

Advocacy can take various forms, including litigation, marches, research, media campaigns and policy engagements, each of which may require a distinct monitoring lens. And, more often than not, it takes multiple different advocacy approaches by multiple actors over time to shift the needle. 

Because of this, the organisation’s MEL approach emphasises contribution, not attribution. “We don’t claim our actions alone caused systemic change, but we work to show a plausible causal link where our strategies have contributed to change,” notes Julie Staples, head of fundraising and M&E at SECTION27.  

Using theory of change as a strategic backbone 

In 2024, SECTION27 completed a comprehensive review of its theory of change (ToC) as part of its strategic planning process. The new ToC articulates the organisation’s intended social change goals and the outcomes that need to be achieved to contribute to those goals.  

The ToC is due for review in 2027, timed with the next strategic cycle. It is not a static document but a reflective tool that guides the organisation’s adaptive strategy in a shifting legal, political and social context, recognising that the path to achieving systemic change is rarely linear and that insights gained along the way are as valuable as the end result.  

A case study on how impact is tracked: Legal, material and political outcomes 

One of SECTION27’s most prominent cases, the eradication of pit latrines in Limpopo schools (Rosina Mankone Komape & Others v The Minister of Education & Others), has provided a case study for tracking different dimensions of impact: 

• Legal outcomes are defined in terms of strengthened accountability and legal redress. In the Komape case, judgments reframed sanitation failures in schools as constitutional rights violations, not just service delivery lapses, setting a powerful legal precedent. 
• Material outcomes refer to tangible improvements in people’s lives. In this case, SECTION27’s monitoring of the court order led to quantifiable improvement in school sanitation infrastructure. A specially developed Michael Komape Sanitation Progress Monitoring Tool tracked implementation progress, supported by on-the-ground verification and pressure on the provincial education department. 
• Political outcomes involve shifts in national discourse and power dynamics. SECTION27 examined speeches, policy documents and interviews with duty-bearers to confirm that constitutional framing was increasingly being used in sanitation policy discussions. 

The organisation also captured qualitative feedback from focus groups and interviews with school staff and parents– anecdotal evidence that’s essential for understanding the impact on learners and their school environment. 

The case study employed process tracing, an evaluation methodology well-suited to complex social change. Rather than proving a direct causal chain, process-tracing identifies plausible links between strategy and outcomes. In the Komape case, this approach helped establish the organisation’s contribution to legal, policy and implementation changes. 

As SECTION27 explains, causal attribution is neither feasible nor appropriate; however, careful, contextual evidence can demonstrate how actions matter. 

Institutional change driven by data 

Although SECTION27’s MEL systems are still evolving, early results are already shaping internal practice. Strategic planning and reflection sessions are increasingly grounded in evidence from their data collection. For example, data from the pre- and post-workshop surveys conducted in schools highlighted training gaps, including insufficient content on sexual identity, which led to the revision of workshop materials and the development of new community dialogue sessions for parents and teachers.  

The Komape evaluation, which has just been finalised, has also generated new internal momentum. “It gave the legal, field and communications teams the chance to stop and reflect on 10 years of painstaking work,” Stevenson reports. “It helped us see the big picture – what we’ve achieved, and how our work fits into broader systems change.”  

Most importantly, a clearer understanding of the value of MEL is emerging for the organisation and potentially for the social justice sector. In an increasingly challenging funding environment, demonstrating impact is crucial for sustainability.