SYSTEMS CHANGE EVALUATION: our joyful experience understanding the impact of the LGBT+ Fund
By Natasha Ereira-Guyer
Last week, we hosted an online event “Let’s Get to Grips with Systems Change — Together”, and were blown away by the level of interest and engagement. The session sold out within a day, with people from across the sector - particularly statutory professionals and grassroots organisations that we support through Nurturing Grassroots - joining us to demystify systems change.
More on that later. For now suffice it to say, the event confirmed something important: people are hungry for practical, grounded examples of what systems change really looks like — and how on earth you evaluate it. We realised many people may be interested in the systems change evaluation that turned us into systems change experts in the first place.
In this post, we’re sharing our journey carrying out a systems change evaluation of the LGBT+ Fund, for the National Lottery Community Fund and LGBT+ Consortium. (We have two other blog posts in the oven, which will share the key takeaways from the event)
Spoiler: we were interested (but unsurprised) in light of our experience of Steps to Togetherness, to see that connection, trust and storytelling are the fundamentals for systems change.
Context
Last year, we were asked to evaluate the LGBT+ Futures: Equity Fund (now the LGBT+ Fund) in terms of the systems change impact. We had already thoroughly evaluated the Fund between 2022-2024. We concluded that the funding model is efficient, cost-effective and fit-for-purpose, and, as a result, the fund is having a meaningful impact among LGBT+ people and communities typically underserved. The National Lottery and Consortium then sought to adopt a wider lens to understand and demonstrate how it contributes to systems change - and brought us on to do the brain-tangling job.
What is systems change?
First things first: what is systems change?
Despite all the economic growth we have seen in recent years, many social ills have deepened and become all the more widespread. As such, there has been an increasing call among charities, funders, and practitioners to address the root causes of societal issues rather than merely alleviate their symptoms. Addressing root causes of social problems requires a systems change approach - addressing the root causes of complex social problems by transforming the underlying structures, relationships, and norms that shape how society operates. Therefore, there is - rightly - a growing ambition across the board to take a ‘systems change’ approach.
The systems change concept draws from various disciplines, based on the idea that the system(s) that govern(s) our lives consists of multiple components: norms, processes, policies, relationships, resources, services, and, crucially, people, whose attitudes, beliefs and values determine their behaviour and decisions. Many of the social problems and issues we face share root causes that are deeply systemic, making them interconnected. Therefore, systems change approaches are often about strengthening collective power through the active collaboration of diverse people and organisations.
A great example to illustrate why a systems change approach is so important is the loneliness epidemic. Many efforts aiming to reduce loneliness focus on alleviating symptoms, such as prescribing medication, befriending services, or wellbeing sessions. A systems change approach looks at the root causes and the ‘system’ that generates the widespread disconnection, including work culture, the rise of digital platforms, cuts to public services, urban design, wider policy and so on.
The challenges of systems change evaluation
As you can imagine from how difficult systems change is to define, systems change is not easy to evaluate.
Systems change takes time (longer than the typical funding cycle),
The results are non-linear and unpredictable,
It is difficult to define ‘the system’ (there is no such thing as a closed system).
It’s difficult to prove what caused what: many things are happening at once in a system, so it’s hard to say “this action caused this outcome.” You often have to settle for showing that you contributed to change, not that you caused it.
The work keeps changing — partnerships shift, ideas get adapted, and new opportunities emerge. That makes it tricky to pin down exactly what you’re evaluating.
Systems change is an abstract concept, so, when you’re evaluating it, it can be difficult to keep an evaluation grounded in tangible realities.
These challenges are explained well in Social Finance’s white paper: Navigating Systems Change Evaluation.
How we did it: co-producing a systems change map with stakeholders
We took a co-productive and qualitative approach to our systems change evaluation, building on everything we already knew about the LGBT+ Fund from our past two evaluations.
To evaluate Consortium’s impact, we first needed to map it. We carried out a series of workshops and facilitated group discussions to understand the impact the LGBT+ Fund has on different stakeholder types. Rather than seeking linear causality, we focused on identifying patterns, enablers and entry points for deeper systems change, producing a dynamic map to guide Consortium’s strategic planning over the next five years. We were inspired and held by the methodology set out by Social Finance.
[Map]
How is the LGBT+ Fund driving systems change?
The process of building a systems change map revealed three distinct but interconnected modes through which Consortium contributes to systems change:
1. Impact directly on the funding sector:
By demonstrating the viability of Consortium’s participatory and lived experience-led funding model, the LGBT+ Fund is helping to normalise funding practices that have historically been perceived as unfeasible, laborious and/or costly by mainstream funders. It is reshaping conceptions of ‘risk’ in funding decisions.
By enabling funding to get to ‘by and for’ grassroots organisations and supporting their development, LGBT+ Consortium helps to create a pipeline of organisations that funders can confidently support without fear of ‘horror stories’ - such as funding unsuitable or inappropriate groups - that could undermine progress.
In addition to the above, funders that distribute funds via the LGBT+ Fund— the National Lottery Community Fund, Comic Relief and Henry Smith—gain increased credibility and trust from the wider sector which in turn builds hope, momentum and helps prevent burnout across the whole VCSE sector (not just among those working on LGBT+ issues).
2. Impact on the wider ‘system’ (VCSE sector, statutory system):
Consortium is directly changing the conditions in which intersectional LGBT+ organisations operate. Organisations that might once have been lost are now able to thrive, which means the very fabric of the system is being directly altered as a result of the LGBT+Fund and surrounding infrastructure support. Specifically, Consortium is:
Creating a more favourable environment in which all LGBT+ organisations are better positioned to thrive and achieve long-term sustainability.
Fostering a collaborative culture and establishing a centre of gravity — providing orientation, security/stability and infrastructure— for LGBT+ organisations working towards shared goals.
As well as becoming part of the ‘fabric’ of the system, funded and supported organisations go on to generate further systems change within their local ‘ecosystems’. Many of the organisations funded and/or supported by Consortium have localised systems change, influencing the health system, local authorities, adult social care services and the education system in their local spheres of influence. We heard loud and clear from grantees and members that their localised systems change was made possible thanks to their connection to Consortium, which gives them confidence and credibility to increasingly act as agents of systems change.
Consortium also complements and catalyses the work done by grantees and members to influence their local ecosystems via a second prong: high-level advocacy. Consortium guides and drives change across centralised governing structures (e.g. Government Departments) by directly influencing decision-makers at ‘the top’ of them. This high level advocacy is represented as a dark blue arrow on the systems change map below.
3. Secondary impact (via supported people and communities) on UK society as a whole
The primary aim of the LGBT+ Fund is to ensure that intersectional LGBT+ people and communities receive support from the organisations best placed to meet their needs. Each individual that is supported appropriately is more empowered and increasingly able to advocate for themselves - shaping the behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs of those around them. As these ‘micro’ changes take place simultaneously across the country, we have every reason to believe that local systems are gradually being influenced and educated.
In many cases, Consortium’s grantees and members help prevent intersectional people and communities from reaching crisis point. Their resilience feeds into positive narratives and perceptions of LGBT+ communities among the general public. Each ‘success story’ helps to create and sustain much-needed hope for the future.
The conditions needed for systems change
Whilst mapping the systems change the LGBT+ Fund has, we also explored the enabling factors - both internal and external - that make it possible in order to identify how systems change can be supported, enhanced and scaled.
Internal factors - which we refer to as quality of inputs—are refer to key features of consortiums way of working:
Its relational approach, embedded lived experience, and ability to “speak both languages” of funders, high-level policy-makers and grassroots organisations ensure mutual understanding and trust.
Shared lived experience within the team, board, membership and grantees acts as emotional shorthand, enabling empathy, alignment and psychologically safe collaboration.
There are also external factors, actors, and entities that enable and inhibit Consortium’s systems change impact: referred to in this report as Enablers and Barriers. Broadly, these include trustful relationships, appetite for learning among partners, and hope that change is possible. Each mode also has its own distinctive enablers and barriers too:
In the funding sector, progress is enabled by leadership that values honesty and learning, but slowed by entrenched bureaucratic habits.
In the wider system, shared goals and collaboration foster solidarity, but fragmentation, burnout and underfunding remain barriers.
Secondary impact via people and communities is enabled by connection, empowerment and storytelling for resilience and to sustain hope, while social hostility and fear of regression are risk factors.
Three key considerations
The evaluation tangled our brain cells into knots at times, because there are just so many factors and forces at play. Systems change is not an easy thing to map, let alone evaluate. The challenges we faced highlight three important considerations for understanding Consortium’s systems change work:
The conflict between short-term and long-term goals
Consortium’s dual role in meeting urgent needs and enabling long-term transformation requires a constant balancing act.Preventing regression is invisible systems change
In the current climate—marked by polarisation, hostility, the rise of far right extremism and the increasing politicisation of LGBT+ rights defending progress is itself a form of change.Behaviours are contagious
Hope, collaboration and storytelling can spread through systems just as fear and division do; nurturing this positive contagion is essential.
How can the LGBT+ Fund generate even more systems change?
We discovered many entry points for more systems change, and many ideas were generated through our discussion with stakeholders. Analysing them, we found that really there are three approaches for increasing the systems change impact:
Building solidarity among LGBT+ organisations: Consortium is successfully fostering connection, trust and understanding among LGBT+ communities. However, there is still considerable disconnect and tension. More connection, unity and solidarity will create the conditions for more systems change, and could be achieved through: addressing division within LGBT+ communities; co-producing a shared vision for systems change; creating more in-person experiences; and building a shared understanding of the shared values of the LGBT+ community.
Increasing grantees’ and members’ capacity for localised systems change: An impressive amount of localised systems change is being achieved through grantees and members. Even more could be achieved with intentional support and capacity-building for that work. Some ideas include: develop useful resources and guidance; increase understanding of systems change; support grassroots leaders in their personal healing journeys; facilitate shadowing and knowledge exchange opportunities
Scaling up the fund, which could have an exponentially positive impact given that behaviours are contagious and systems change is not linear.
Looking ahead
The findings in this report confirm that systems change is already happening through Consortium’s work, and that there is potential for more.
Over the next two years, we will continue to evaluate how this systems change is being sustained. We conclude our evaluation by highlighting the power of storytelling the importance of hope and the need for scale - as well as the vital role of connection which is the most prevalent underlying theme throughout this report.
Looking ahead, we will continue to track and evaluate how systems change is farring, using this ‘map’ as a benchmark and framework. In particular, we want to explore how more intersectional solidarity with other social change movements can enhance Consortium’s systems change impact.
