Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Impact Measurement Guide Beta
Menu
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
The Impact Measurement Guide is still in beta release, we welcome your feedback on which features you like as well as what we should change or improve in future versions.
Impact evaluations compare the people who receive your program to a similar group of people who did not receive your program. Based on how this similar group is chosen, impact evaluations can be randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental.
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard of impact evaluation. In an RCT, the program is randomly assigned among a target population. Those who receive the program are called the treatment group; those who do not receive the program are called the control group. We consider the outcomes from the control group to represent what would have happened to the treatment group in the absence of the program. By comparing outcomes among those who receive the program (the treatment group) to those who don’t (the control group), we can rigorously estimate the impact of the program. The random assignment of the program to the treatment and control group provides the rigor, as it ensures that the selection of people is not based on biased criteria that could affect the results.
When a randomized design is not feasible, there are other, “quasi-experimental,” ways of constructing a valid comparison group.
Matched designs and regression discontinuity designs are just two of many quasi-experimental techniques. J-PAL provides an overview of common methods of conducting an impact evaluation. All such methods seek to identify what would have happened to your target population if they had never received the program, and their success relies on the strength of the assumptions they make about whether the comparison group is a credible stand-in for your program’s target population.
A theory of change is a narrative about how and why a program will lead to social impact. Every development program rests on a theory of change – it’s a crucial first step that helps you remain focused on impact and plan your program better.
You can use diagrams.net to create your Theory of Change.
A needs assessment describes the context in which your program will operate (or is already operating). It can help you understand the scope and urgency of the problems you identified in the theory of change. It can also help you identify the specific communities that can benefit from your program and how you can reach them.
Once you’re satisfied that your program can be implemented as expected:
You have a written plan for how your program will improve lives – great! Make sure to refer to it as you explore the different sections in the Impact Measurement Guide, as it is the foundation for any other method you’ll use.
A process evaluation can tell you whether your program is being implemented as expected, and if assumptions in your theory of change hold. It is an in-depth, one-time exercise that can help identify gaps in your program.
Once you are satisfied that your program can be implemented as expected:
An evidence review summarizes findings from research related to your program. It can help you make informed decisions about what’s likely to work in your context, and can provide ideas for program features.
Once you are satisfied with your evidence review:
A monitoring system provides continuous real-time information about how your program is being implemented and how you’re progressing toward your goals. Once you set up a monitoring system, you would receive regular information on program implementation to track how your program is performing on specific indicators.
Once you are satisfied with your monitoring system:
A monitoring system provides continuous real-time information about how your program is being implemented and how you’re progressing toward your goals. Once you set up a monitoring system, you would receive regular information on program implementation to track how your program is performing on specific indicators.
Once you are satisfied with your monitoring system:
You’re on this page because you want to search for evidence relevant to your program.
Here are some academic sources where you can search for relevant research:
However, don’t include only academic studies in your review! You should also consult:
The free Zotero plug-in provides an easy way to save, organize, and format citations collected during internet research. Note that Zotero can help you start your annotated bibliography, but it is not a substitute since it does not include any summary or interpretation of each study’s findings.
Start with the 3ie Development Evidence Portal, which has compiled over 3,700 evaluations and over 700 systematic evidence reviews. Steps 2-7 of this example are specific to locating evidence on the 3ie website, but you can also consider looking for a review by J-PAL or Campbell Collaborations or the Cochrane.
For example, suppose your goal is to increase immunization rates in India. Type “immunization vaccination” or other related terms into the search box, and click the magnification lens to search.
The search results include individual studies, which are usually about a single program in a single location, as well as “systematic reviews”, which is what we are looking for because they are more comprehensive. To show only the systematic reviews, on the left of the screen under Filter Results, click on PRODUCTS and check the Systematic Reviews box. We’re now left with 17 evidence reviews related to immunization.
Now you might want to further narrow your search by region or country. In our example, suppose we want to see only those evidence reviews that contain at least one study from India. Click on COUNTRY and scroll down to click on India.
There are still 9 evidence reviews! Now read the titles of each review and start going through the ones that seem applicable to you.
The next page gives you an overview of the study. If it is “Open access”, this means you can read it for free – click “Go to source” below the star rating. If it isn’t open access, you can try some of the strategies in Step 9 to see if you can find the study for free elsewhere.
Clicking on “Go to source” opens a new tab with a PDF of the article. Don’t be intimidated by the length and technical terminology, and start with the summary – these articles usually include an “abstract” and sometimes a “plain language summary” and/or “summary of findings”.
The summary will likely be useful but too vague – dig into the review and look for details about which programs were tried and where, and how well they worked.
a) Go back to your search and see if you can find a PDF posted on one of the authors’ websites – authors often share “working papers”, which might differ only slightly from the final paper, for free on their site.
b) Email the paper’s authors if you can’t find it elsewhere – many researchers are happy to share a copy with people looking to learn from their experience.
For each piece of evidence that you find, there should be a clear justification for including it in the bibliography, such as: it is a landmark study in the topic (i.e. it has a large number of citations or is cited by many other studies in your review), it is relevant to specific aspects of this evaluation (such as measuring similar outcomes, being conducted in a similar context, or evaluating a similar intervention), etc. However, there are no absolute standards for inclusion, and since not all studies will be used in writing up the review, it is better to err on the side of including a study in the annotated bibliography.
Repeat step 9 for every paper from the systematic review that you found relevant!
Process evaluations and monitoring both provide information on how your program is running and whether it is meeting expectations. The key difference is that process evaluations are a one-off activity, while monitoring is ongoing. That means that process evaluations are often more intensive exercises to collect more data and dive deeper into the theory of change. In contrast, ongoing monitoring must not overburden program staff and often tracks just a few high-priority indicators that are critical to program success.
Consider the following questions to help you decide between conducting a process evaluation and building a monitoring system:
1. Are you interested in identifying specific problems or general problems?
Process evaluations typically identify general or systemic problems along the theory of change, whereas monitoring typically identifies specific entities (e.g. service providers or locations)that need more attention.
2. Are you looking to hold program staff accountable?
Both process evaluations and monitoring are implemented for learning – is our program being implemented as planned? If not, at which steps is it breaking down? However, if you are seeking an accountability system, monitoring is better-suited as it is continuous, whereas a process evaluation is a one-time exercise.
3. Do you need ongoing data on how your program is performing?
A process evaluation typically offers a snapshot in time, whereas monitoring involves ongoing data collection and analysis for the entire duration of the program. For example, a process evaluation may do in-depth interviews with program participants on their experiences, whereas a monitoring system might collect data on just a few questions related to beneficiary satisfaction.
4. Do you need comprehensive data?
A process evaluation is typically based on a sample, while monitoring is usually comprehensive. For example, in a teacher training program, you would monitor the training of all teachers (because it is useful to know exactly which teachers did not attend the training), whereas in a process evaluation, you would interview a subset of teachers to understand the reasons why they did not attend the training.
Hi, this is a comment.
To get started with moderating, editing, and deleting comments, please visit the Comments screen in the dashboard.
Commenter avatars come from Gravatar.