The development of a vision was done both in the national and regional events and generated much interest and energy among the participants. It was recognised as an important factor for an effective change process (see below, § 2.3). However, the regional consultations and national consultations also showed that focusing too much on obstacles can make it difficult to cultivate a positive image of change, which is important both for actors within the criminal justice system to engage and for decision-makers to support reforms. The element of resources recognises the fact that understanding the drivers and having a common vision does not yet create change but someone has to do something. It thus asks questions as: • • • What are the available resources, strengths, etc. that can be used for achieving this vision? What resources, strengths have been used for change in the past? Which stakeholders could support the change and how? This point is particularly important as - also witnessed during the project events - the lack of resources is commonly mentioned as a key factor preventing important reforms. And finally, in order not to fail at big plans every change process needs to clarify the first steps. Questions asked include: • • • What are good first steps to take in order to create early success and thus a sense of “feasibility”? Who should be involved? What are the steps and milestones on the way? It needs to be clarified who will carry the ideas forward. Therefore, the project’s national roundtables developed action plans to strengthen procedural rights. A specific focus on resources not only helped to sketch a feasible way forward but was also a useful way to make representatives in the room feel engaged, responsible, and motivated going forward. However, these action plans were used differently in every project country and remained mostly a first sketch of a strategy. It would be advisable to follow-up on these plans and consider developing them into a more elaborate strategy. In conclusion, the Change Formula has helped to design effective regional consultations and national roundtables. At the same time, in some countries it was used with much caution for fear of scaring off stakeholders with overly ambitious goals. Moreover, it showed that it can be challenging to structure the inputs and discussions along these factors of change and not fall back into old patterns of ‘just’ discussing deficits. The lesson learned was that using this formula requires practice and confidence and has to be adapted to the context and target group. In a workshop setting a professional moderation familiar with the formula can be helpful and the organisers have to be ready to be challenged for their approach. When used more often, it promises to familiarise change agents to getting a fuller picture on what is needed to create change. 2.1.3 Developing a ‘Theory of Change’ A more elaborate method to develop change strategies is the so-called ‘Theory of Change’ (Theory of Change). A Theory of Change is a conceptual model24 or process to describe how change happens and identify the elements leading to change.25 The definition and uses of Theory of Changes are not uniform and differ according to context.26 They are sometimes also referred to as “pathway of 24. Moritz Birk and others, ‘Enhancing Impact of National Preventive Mechanisms. Strengthening the Follow-Up on NPM Recommendations in the EU: Strategic Development, Current Practices and the Way Forward’ (University of Bristol and Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Fundamental and Human Rights 2015) 89. 25. UNDG LAC, ‘Theory of Change: Concept Note’ (2016) 1. 26. Sarah Stachowiak, ‘Pathways to Change: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts’ (ORS Impact 2013) 1. 16