Impact Evaluations in UN Agency Evaluation Systems - Guidance On Selection, Planning and Management

Impact Evaluation in UN
Agency Evaluation
Systems: Guidance on
Selection, Planning and
Management

Guidance
Document
August 2013
This Guidance Document was prepared by the UNEG Impact Evaluation Task
Force. Helpful guidance from Dr. David Todd, Dr. Patricia Rogers, Burt Perrin, Dr.
Michael Spilsbury and Dugan Fraser is gratefully acknowledged.

Impact Evaluation in UN Agency Evaluation Systems: Guidance on Slection, Planning and Management 2


Contents
Summary..................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
1 Definitions and role of impact evaluation .............................................................................. 6
2 Impact Evaluation Design ................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Range of Design Approaches ........................................................................................... 12
2.2 Theory of Change ............................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Evaluability Assessment in Impact Evaluation Planning ................................................. 17
2. 4 Gender Equality and Human Rights .................................................................................. 18
3 Common Methods in Impact Evaluation ............................................................................. 19
3.2 Quantitative Methods ....................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Qualitative Methods ......................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Participatory Methods to Establish Stakeholder Perceptions ........................................... 21
3.5 Methods and Validity ....................................................................................................... 22
3.6 Choosing the Mix of Methods for Impact Evaluation ...................................................... 23
4 Quality Control for Impact Evaluations .............................................................................. 24
4.1 Specific Quality Control Criteria at the Design Stage ...................................................... 24
4.2 Quality Control Requirements and Approaches for Impact Evaluation ........................... 25
4.3 Quality Control of Evaluation Standards .......................................................................... 26
4.4 Managing a Quality Control System ................................................................................ 27
5 Impact Evaluation of Normative Work ............................................................................... 29
6 Impact Evaluation of Multi-Agency Interventions ............................................................. 30
6.1 Types of Multi-Agency Interventions .............................................................................. 31
6.2 Impact Evaluation Issues Specific to Multi-Agency Interventions .................................. 34
6.3 Agreement on Purpose and Roles in Multi-Agency Impact Evaluations ......................... 35
Annex 1: Works Cited ............................................................................................................ 38
Annex 2: Agency Specific Definitions of Impact cited by UNEG Members. ....................... 41


Summary
This Guidance Note, used in conjunction with many other recent resources on impact
evaluation, provides a sound starting point for UN evaluation bodies wishing to commence
conducting impact evaluations.
A summary of the key points:
There is rising interest and a growing body of expertise and experience in Impact
Evaluation among evaluators in the UN system.
The concept of impact used by most UNEG member bodies is derived from the DAC
definition.
Impact evaluation can be used for different purposes. Accountability and lesson
learning are two aspects, which have been emphasized. The evaluation purpose should
form the basis of its design and methods.
A fundamental element of impact evaluation is establishing cause and effect chains to
show if an intervention has worked and, if so, how.
Different impact evaluation designs provide varying approaches to establishing how
and to what extent, interventions have caused anticipated and/or unanticipated effects.
A mixed method approach utilizing quantitative, qualitative, participatory and
blended (e.g. quantifying qualitative data) approaches is now widely accepted as
advisable to address the types of interventions that are now predominant in
international development.
A Theory of Change approach has become accepted as a basic foundation for most
types of Impact Evaluation.
Impact evaluation of UN normative work needs to go beyond establishing institutional
impact to identify changes in peoples lives.
Quality control is very important for impact evaluation and systems need to be
specified and managed to different aspects and characteristics of such evaluations.
Joint impact evaluation of Multi-Agency Interventions can deliver additional findings,
beyond those arising from the evaluation of individual components. However, they
also have costs and must be systematically managed.


Introduction
The purpose of this guidance note is to describe and define impact evaluation for member
organizations of the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG); and to articulate some of the main
theoretical and practical considerations when carrying out impact evaluations.
Interest in impact evaluation has arisen in response to increasing emphasis in international
development circles on the principles of Evidence Based Policy and Results Based
Management. At the same time, understanding of the role of development assistance has
changed, with an increased perception that aid rarely achieves results on its own. Rather,
development is attained as a result of strong national ownership and leadership of change
processes, supported by international partners, who should operate in a harmonized fashion in
order to maximize the benefits of their support.
Impact evaluation has come under increasing scrutiny, since its elevated profile has appeared
in parallel with enhanced understanding of the complexity of the issues it addresses, as a result
of substantial and heated debate among practitioners and development institutions.
UNEG created the Impact Evaluation Task Force (IETF), which has been exploring the issues
around Impact Evaluation in the UN system since 2009. It initially conducted research among
UNEG member evaluation units to establish the current status of and experience with impact
evaluation in their programmes. On the basis of this, a Concept Note was circulated to set the
ground for future work on the issue. This work has proceeded through a substantial exercise of
desk research, drafting and consultation among IETF members, culminating in this Guidance
Note.
At the same time, UNEG created other bodies, notably on Multi-Agency Interventions and on
UN Normative Work, whose findings related to impact evaluation have been summarized in
this Guidance Note. The Note also draws on many other recent documents on impact
evaluation and seeks to provide an introduction to the topic, without going into extensive
details of specific design and methodological issues. These are to be found in numerous more
detailed papers, which are cross-referenced in the text, for those who want to explore
particular topics in more depth.


1. Definitions and Role of Impact Evaluation
Attempts to establish one universally agreed definition of impact evaluation have not been
productive. This is because different, but overlapping elements of such evaluations have been
emphasized by various stakeholders. Furthermore, methodological discussions around impact
evaluation have raised fundamental and sensitive issues of the relationship between qualitative
and quantitative methods in the social sciences, which cannot be resolved in the evaluation
arena.
A paper published by the Center for Global Development in 2006 claimed that there is an
absence of strong evidence on what works or does not work in the international development
arena.
1
This sparked a heated debate among practitioners, notably between those who claimed
the exclusive right to be considered rigorous because of their adoption of the methodology
of Randomized Control Trials and those who considered that a broad range of other methods
can also be pursued in a rigorous manner. Over time, discussions have become more balanced
and several recent papers have provided useful overviews of the range of methods in common
use in impact evaluation. This Note draws upon some of these recent documents and tries to
make use of those elements which are most relevant to UNEG members.
In terms of definitions, the main debates have focused around two types. The first of these has
come to be known as the DAC definition. This was not a definition formally approved or
prescribed as correct by the DAC. Rather, it was a formulation, which received the assent (or
at least no objection), of the then 30 DAC member states and agencies, (including
representatives of the UN system and Development Banks), for inclusion in its Glossary of
Evaluation Terms.
2
The DAC defines impact as: Positive and negative, primary and
secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly,
intended or unintended. The DAC definition of impact forms the core of many definitions of
impact evaluation adopted by development institutions, often with minor modifications or
additions.
3

This definition has several important elements. Impact is about effects produced by a
development intervention. It is therefore about cause and effect and thus specifically
addresses the issue of attribution,
4
which incorporates the concept of contribution. The latter
concept has been widely adopted among UN implementers and evaluators as providing an
accurate approach to assessing the difference most UN interventions make. However, it
should be noted that attribution-based definitions of impact do not require that effects be
produced solely or totally by the intervention. They anticipate the co-existence of other causes,

1
Center for Global Development. When will we ever learn? Washington DC, 2006.
2
Development Assistance Committee, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and
Development. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. Paris,
2001.
3
Annex 1 lists some definitions of impact evaluation used by UN Agencies.
4
The DAC Glossary defines attribution as the ascription of a causal link between observed
(or expected to be observed) changes and a specific intervention.

so that the intervention will have contributed to the demonstrated effects. The DAC impact
definition specifically includes the possibility of partial attribution, or contribution, through its
inclusion of secondary and indirect effects.
Another important aspect of the DAC definition of impact is that it focuses on long term
effects. According to the DAC Glossary, outcomes are the likely or achieved short-term and
medium-term effects of an interventions outputs. The DAC definition therefore draws
attention to a longer time scale, in which short and medium term effects (outcomes) have
played some part in the generation of long-term effects (impacts). It should be noted that the
concept of a long-term effect does not define when in the overall results chain such an effect
can begin, but highlights its duration.
Additional aspects of the definition, which need to be addressed by any impact evaluation are
negative and unanticipated consequences of an intervention. These are different and both can
be important in any intervention. As an example of negative, but anticipated effects we can
consider infrastructure projects; such as roads, dams and storm water drains. It is known in
advance that such projects may require some people to be relocated; and measures are built
into the overall implementation plan to mitigate the harmful effects through compensation and
support measures. Any impact evaluation therefore needs to assess to what extent the negative
aspects have been appropriately addressed.
A GEF biodiversity project offers an example of unanticipated negative consequences. The
project aimed to generate income for a Protected Area and surrounding communities through
eco-tourism activities. However, an offshoot of these activities was that local indigenous
people became involved in alcohol abuse and sexual services, with associated health effects.
The GEF impact evaluation of the project commissioned an additional specialist study to
assess these effects
5
, so that they could be included in the overall evaluation of the results of
the intervention.
The second main strand of definitions focuses on specifically comparing the differences
between what actually happened and what would have happened without the intervention,
through the specification of some form of counterfactual.
The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3impact evaluation)
6
definition of impact in
its Impact Evaluation Glossary
7
is similar to that of the DAC, namely: How an intervention
alters the state of the world. Impact evaluations typically focus on the effect of the intervention

5
GEF Evaluation Office. Impacts of Creation and Implementation of National Parks and of
Support to Batwa on their Livelihoods, Well-Being and Use of Forest Products. Namara, A.
2007.
6
The 3ie is an organization which was founded as part of the process of highlighting the
importance of impact evaluation in the international development communitys moves towards
enhanced use of Results Based Management and Evidence Based Policy principles.
7
3ie. 3ie impact evaluation glossary. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation: New
Delhi, India. 2012.


on the outcome for the beneficiary population. The core concept associated with this
approach is that of attribution, which the 3ie Glossary defines as: The extent to which the
observed change in outcome is the result of the intervention, having allowed for all other
factors which may also affect the outcome(s) of interest.
Although neither the DAC Glossary, nor the 3ie Glossary of evaluation terms has a specific
entry for contribution, both of their definitions of attribution incorporate this concept. In
considering available terminology relevant to impact evaluation, it is therefore clear that there
is no need for a separate definition of contribution, since it is already covered under
attribution.
Whereas the DAC Glossary has no specific definition of Impact Evaluation, the 3ie Glossary
does: a study of the attribution of changes in the outcome to the intervention. Impact
evaluations have either an experimental or quasi-experimental design. It therefore specifies
that, in order to qualify as an impact evaluation, methods based on comparison between the
factual and a counterfactual established through experimental design or statistical controls
counterfactual must be used. It is mainly on this issue that the (polemical) debates on impact
evaluation in recent years have centered. Some of those advocating a statistical counterfactual
have claimed for their work the exclusive right to be considered rigorous. According to this
view, only particular quantitative social science methods have rigour, whilst the results of
qualitative or simple statistical analysis can be considered inexact or impressionistic.
In considering the heated debates on impact evaluation, it can therefore be said that there are
(at least) two common approaches, which have been considered by their proponents to be
examples of Impact Evaluation. The common element is a strong focus on tracing cause and
effect, to demonstrate if an intervention actually produced results. Whereas under the DAC
definition, impact could in principle be evaluated solely on the basis of the factual, according
to the 3iE Glossary, the determination of impact requires explicit comparison with a
counterfactual, however this is constructed.
The two approaches towards impact evaluation are not mutually exclusive, but overlap at
certain points. Thus an approach using a statistical counterfactual could be used during project
implementation, immediately at its end (at Terminal Evaluation stage) and/or some years later.
The DAC definition could also be applied at different stages, since a long-term effect might
be generated at any time. Furthermore, it neither specifies nor rules out the use of a
counterfactual-based approach, whether statistically or otherwise pursued.
Most UN Agencies adopt the DAC definition of impact and apply it to impact evaluation, with
some adaptations to account for specifics of their key target groups,
8
including:
Causal pathways from outputs to impacts, which can be fairly straightforward or more
complicated, and effects that become manifest relatively quickly or over longer
timeframes;

8
Some agency-specific definitions are listed in Annex 1.

Different levels of analysis: national, institutional, community, household, etc.;
Different types of intervention that require tailor-made approaches to assess impact
(ranging from administrative reform, support to national legislation, to farmer
subsidies and humanitarian aid). Given the above, the focus of an impact evaluation
can differ widely from one evaluation to another; correspondingly, there may be
substantial variation in the mix of methods applied in the evaluation through which the
why and how of an intervention can be explored, and that also may capture the
form and extent of indirect and secondary effects.
Role of impact evaluation
Impact evaluation is ideally embedded within broader monitoring and evaluation systems.
Together with evaluations based at the outcome and output level, impact evaluations help to
demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention in relation to its objectives; to inform
decisions about the continuation (or discontinuation), expansion, or replication of a
programme or project; and to contribute to the global evidence base of what works and what
works for whom in what situations.
Additionally, impact evaluation enables a better understanding of the process(es) by which
impacts are achieved and to identify the factors that promote or hinder their achievement as
important feedback into ongoing or future initiatives, including adapting successful
interventions to suit new contexts.
Ideally, Impact Evaluation can build upon a substantial base of existing information, to
consider the specific issues it can best address. The key questions,
9
to which impact
evaluation may provide invaluable (and perhaps unique) answers include the following:
Did the intervention make a difference?
What specific contribution did the project make? (Alternatively couched as What
specific part of this difference can be attributed to the project?)
How was the difference made?
Can the intervention be expected to produce similar results elsewhere?

These questions cover a broad range of issues from accountability (particularly value for
money) to lesson learning (for replication and scaling up of the effects of the intervention).
Accountability issues may encourage a focus on the first two questions and on specifying
cause and effect, rather than on explaining how and why change came about. Questions
concerning how much an intervention contributed are often approached through
counterfactual-based statistical methods as at least one of their methodological strands. The

9
See, for example, Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation,
DFID Working Paper No. 38, April 2012, P37.

third and fourth questions are appropriate for detailed examination of processes, mechanisms
and contexts. They will best be answered through qualitative methods, to uncover underlying
processes and their relationship to such contextual factors as national or institutional culture.
None of these questions can be simply answered and each might be approached through one or
more evaluation methods. The emerging consensus in literature on impact evaluation appears
to be that most questions can best be answered by mixed methods. This might involve a mix
of both quantitative and qualitative methods, or a mix of specific approaches within either of
the two categories. Furthermore, approaches which blend methods, such as quantifying
some aspects of qualitative data are also increasingly seen as valuable.
The use of impact evaluations among the UN agencies is varied, and its use is expanding. In
2009, the UNEG Task Force on Impact Evaluation conducted a survey of current impact
evaluation practices among UNEG members and obtained responses from 28 member
organizations. Of these nine had conducted or were about to conduct specific impact
evaluations. Others felt that they have partially addressed impact issues as part of other types
of evaluation. The nine organizations were: FAO, GEF, IFAD, ILO, OIOS, UNEP, UNICEF,
UNIDO and WFP. Since 2009, the number of impact evaluations carried out by these and
other UN agencies has increased.


2. Impact Evaluation Design
An impact evaluation design must choose the best means of meeting its objectives, as defined
by the key questions it is attempting to answer and by the stakeholders commissioning and
conducting the work. It consists of four basic elements:
10

The evaluation questions
The theory of cause and effect, which will be accepted as providing sufficient answers
to the questions
Definition of the data necessary to examine the theory
Framework for analyzing the data to provide adequate explanation of performance
against the theory.

A given set of evaluation questions could be answered by a range of evaluation designs.
Which design is chosen as best depends on a number of factors, including the context of the
evaluation, preferences and persuasions of the commissioning institution and of the evaluators
(e.g. in terms of experimental or theory-based approaches), available time, resources and
budget. Within a broad design type, (e.g. Theory Based Evaluation) a variety of methods may
be used (e.g. document review, case studies, and surveys). Some methods may be components
of many or most designs. Thus, a Theory of Change will be an essential part of a Theory
Based Evaluation, but may also be found in a design focused on Randomized Controlled
Trials. All designs are likely to commence with documentary review.
For impact evaluation to be useful, it is important to adopt methods and approaches that can
indicate why a given approach did or did not result in impact, along with implications of this
for future directions. For example, an intervention may not have resulted in impact because
there were flaws in its underlying assumptions, often referred to as theory failure, that will
always prevent it from achieving the intended effects. In other cases the logic of the normative
work made sense, but lack of impact was due to poor implementation, weak awareness raising
or lack of funds, leading to overall implementation failure. Clearly, responses to theory or
implementation failure should differ. Impact evaluation will be most useful when it can
identify factors contributing to successful implementation at the institutional and other levels
and the likelihood of sustained benefits to people, as well as at what stages blockages emerge
and what can be done to overcome these.
A fundamental characteristic of Impact Evaluation, as indicated by the basic design elements,
is its focus on cause and effect and on assessing to what extent results can be attributed to
the intervention, and what role was played by other factors. There are different types of causal

10
For a more detailed discussion of design issues see DFID 2012, Chapter 3.

relation, which will require different nuances of impact evaluation design and methods to
address. This is illustrated in Table 1 below.
11

Table 1: Types of cause-effect relationship in different intervention types
Cause Effect
Relationship
Example of Intervention Type
One cause (the
intervention) associated
with one outcome
A livelihood programme targeting early reduction of income
poverty
One cause (The
intervention) associated
with multiple outcomes
A road infrastructure programme, which aims to improve travel and
transport, commerce and access to basic services
Multiple causes (from
one or more
interventions) associated
with multiple outcomes
A deepening democracy programme, which combines support for
election processes with training members of parliament and
encouraging a culture of political accountability; in order to
improve governance, policy making and distribution of national
services and benefits
Multiple causes (or
interventions) associated
with one main outcome
Improving maternal health through one or more interventions to
improve neonatal services, health education, and midwife training;
and targeting of low income families for health and nutrition
assistance
2.1 Range of Design Approaches
The recent rich spate of discussion of Impact Evaluation has produced substantial agreement
on the overall range of impact evaluation designs and methods available, but authors have
categorized them somewhat differently, depending on their particular perspectives. A recent
DFID Working Paper
12
provides the following (Table 2) useful overview of how the main
repertoire of design approaches can be used to address the four key questions, which impact
evaluation is expected to help answer.
It can be seen from the Table 2.
13
that there is a substantial range of design approaches
available under the broad category of impact evaluation. Furthermore, these design approaches
can be combined to ensure that their respective strengths can be used to build up a
comprehensive picture of such issues as what has happened, how and why? If we consider the
four basic evaluation questions (and the assumptions which underlie them) we can see the
match between questions and designs. Once the evaluation design or designs have been
selected to answer the key questions of the impact evaluation, the methods necessary to deliver

11
Source: DFID 2012, Table 3.2, P20.
12
DFID 2012, P24.
13
Source: DFID 2012, P48.

according to each design can be selected. This process can be implemented through the use of
a detailed evaluation matrix, which relates the specific questions of the impact evaluation to
the designs and methods necessary to answer them to the satisfaction of those commissioning
the study. This exercise also enables an assessment to be made of the extent to which the
design and methods need to be tailored to the available resources and of how best to retain the
validity and breadth of findings in the real world in which the evaluation must be
conducted.
14

Table 2: Impact evaluation designs for key questions
Key
Evaluation
Question
Related
Evaluation
Question
Underlying
assumptions
Requirements Suitable
designs
To what
extent can a
specific (net)
impact be
attributed to
the
intervention?
What is the extent
of the perceived
impact? What are
other causal or
mitigating
factors? How
much of the
impact can be
attributed to the
intervention?
What would have
happened without
the intervention?
Expected
outcomes and the
intervention itself
clearly understood
and specifiable.
Likelihood of
primary cause and
primary effect.
Interest in
particular
intervention
rather than
generalization.
Can manipulate
interventions.
Sufficient numbers
(beneficiaries,
households etc.)
for statistical
analysis.
Experiments.
Quasi-
experiments.
Statistical
studies.
Hybrids with
Case based
and
participatory
designs.
Has the
intervention
made a
difference?
What causes are
necessary or
sufficient for the
effect? Was the
intervention
needed to
produce the
effect? Would
these impacts
have happened
anyhow?
There are several
relevant causes
that need to be
disentangled.
Interventions are
just one part of a
causal package.
Comparable cases
where a common
set of causes are
present and
evidence exists as
to their potency.
Experiments.
Quasi-
experiments.
Theory based
evaluation,
e.g.
contribution
analysis. Case-
based designs,
e.g. QCA.

14
See Bamberger, M. and Rao, V. and Woolcock, M. Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring
and Evaluation: Experiences from International Development. World Bank. 2010.

How has the
intervention
made a
difference?
How and why
have the impacts
come about?
What causal
factors have
resulted in the
observed
impacts? Has the
intervention
resulted in any
unintended
impacts? For
whom has the
intervention made
a difference?
Interventions
interact with other
causal factors. It is
possible to clearly
represent the
causal process
through which the
intervention made
a difference may
require theory
development.
Understanding
how supporting &
contextual factors
connect
intervention with
effects. Theory
that allows for the
identification of
supporting factors
-proximate,
contextual and
historical.
Theory based
evaluation
especially
realist
variants.
Participatory
approaches.
Can this be
expected to
work
elsewhere?
Can this pilot be
transferred
elsewhere and
scaled up? Is the
intervention
sustainable? What
generalizable
lessons have we
learned about
impact?
What has worked
in one place can
work somewhere
else. Stakeholders
will cooperate in
joint donor/
beneficiary
evaluations.
Generic
understanding of
contexts e.g.
typologies of
context. Clusters
of causal
packages.
Innovation
diffusion
mechanisms.
Participatory
approaches.
Natural
experiments.
Synthesis
studies.

Given the fact that there is a plethora of design approaches, which have been found to
contribute towards sound impact evaluation, it is perhaps surprising that relatively few impact
evaluations are undertaken, including within the UN system. Although the number of agencies
carrying out impact evaluations has increased in recent years, those that conduct specific
impact evaluations are not yet the majority. A number of agencies include impact, either
directly or through the criterion of the sustainability of benefits, among the issues to be
addressed in their regular evaluations. Budgets spent on specific impact evaluations by
UNEG members vary hugely, from $25,000 to over $ 220,000. In discussing the opportunities
for impact evaluation within the UN system, the current very low level of funding available for
impact evaluation needs to be kept in mind, to prevent unrealistic expectations or proposals.
2.2 Theory of Change
There is a growing consensus that a Theory of Change approach provides a sound basis for
impact evaluations adopting qualitative or quantitative approaches, or a mix of the two.
A Theory of Change may also be referred to as a program theory, results chain, program logic
model, and intervention or attribution logic. In international development evaluation circles,

these terms seem to be used interchangeably. However, academic analysts may draw subtle
distinctions among them. In order to avoid extensive discussions of correct use of
terminology, it is therefore important to define, early in the preparation for an impact
evaluation exactly what terms are being used with what meanings.
A Theory of Change is a model that explains how an intervention is expected to lead to
intended or observed impacts. The theory of change illustrates, generally in graphical form, the
series of assumptions and links underpinning the presumed causal relationships between
inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts at various levels. Many other factors may be
incorporated into the model; including impact drivers, assumptions and intermediate
states between core steps in the model (e.g., between outputs and outcomes). One effective
approach to articulating the theory of change is to work backwards. This involves starting with
the desired impact, identifying the various factors that can influence this, and what will need to
happen, at various stages, for intervention inputs, outputs and outcomes to be able to
contribute to this impact.
Woolcock
15
has emphasized the importance of determining the timeframes and trajectories of
impact that we should expect. He notes that, while some projects can be expected to yield high
initial impacts, others may take far longer to show results, not because they are ineffective, but
because the change they are targeting is inherently long-term in its nature. This needs to be
kept in mind with regard to impact evaluation, in order to avoid drawing falsely negative
conclusions concerning progress at the time of evaluation.
The process leading to the articulation of the Theory of Change is also important. Sometimes a
ToC model is prepared by an evaluator, mainly based upon a review of documentation and
perhaps supplemented by some interviews. But there is a danger that this can result in a model
for which there is no ownership, and that may not reflect the reality of what is taking place.
While of course a review of documentation represents one essential step, very often how an
intervention is implemented in practice may vary, sometimes considerably, from how it is
described on paper. Stakeholders are more likely to be aware of this, as well as of important
nuances, than an evaluator with limited involvement in the content area.
Thus, to the extent possible, a participatory approach should be followed to articulate the ToC,
with the role of the evaluator primarily as a facilitator of the process. A group process can help
create a shared perspective regarding the nature of the intervention and how it is expected to
lead to impact, including identification of various intermediate steps, the roles of other actors,
and other factors that may have to be in place. At a minimum, key personnel within the UN
agency should be involved in the process, preferably including people who can bring in
different perspectives. Other UN agencies that have a role to play in the development and/or
implementation of the initiative should also be involved. And as suggested later, other
partners, who need to play a role in implementation, including Government bodies, NGOs, and

15
Woolcock, M. Towards a Plurality of Methods in Project Evaluation: A contextualised
Approach to Understanding Impact Trajectories and Efficacy. Working Paper 73, University
of Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute.

other international organizations, should also be given an opportunity to be involved in some
way.
At the same time, consensus should not be forced. If there are differing views about potential
outcomes and the needed pathways and intermediate steps to achieve these, consideration of
these alternative views or assumptions may represent a potential focus for the evaluation,
where the validity of these competing assumptions can be examined empirically. Indeed,
sometimes it can be useful to develop alternative theory of change models, one representing a
presumed pathway to success, and the other where different impacts, including possible
negative effects, may result.
One of the benefits arising from articulating the theory of change, in particular if a
participatory approach is taken is that this can help surface implicit assumptions and beliefs.
Frequently these implicit views are not thought through or shared even with close colleagues.
This can result in individuals and programs operating upon differing assumptions without
realizing this, often leading to working at cross purposes and/or with basic considerations such
as gender equality being forgotten.

Box 1: Outline Theory of Change for UNDESA Statistical Work

The Statistics Division (SD) of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
provides technical analysis on various statistical issues where norms need to be developed
or elaborated.
Member States take notice of this analysis in their deliberations at the intergovernmental
level.
Member States are influenced positively by this analysis.
Member States then agree on the basis of this analysis to elaborate or agree to some
norms and promulgate these norms as declarations, conventions or resolutions.
National authorities become aware of these norms.
National authorities incorporate these norms in their national planning efforts.
These norms are used by national authorities in their national planning efforts.
The use of these norms at the national level leads to better identification of target
population X with a given development need.
National authorities are able to better use their limited resources making use of this norm.
X number of citizens in a Member State benefit because of the use of this norm, (positive
and intended impact), or
The use of this norm by a Member State leads to confusion as the old norm was too well
established and the civil servants of the given Member States were not convinced of the
utility of the new norm.

A useful strategy for articulating the theory of change is to encourage stakeholders to map out
the necessary steps between the initial output and the eventual impact, wherever and whenever
this is expected to arise. This process can involve getting into considerable detail about the
expected causal pathway. Box 1 (on page 16), prepared by the UN Secretariat, is an example
of a bare-bone, stripped-down illustration of intermediate steps by which the statistics work of
the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) is expected, ultimately, to lead to
benefits for citizens in Member States (but may not do so).
Most of the steps listed in this example refer to changes at the institutional level. Such changes
are a key aspect of many UN-supported activities (particularly in normative work), since they
are often necessary for successful implementation of improved policies and/or for effective
service delivery. When evaluating institutional change, it is important to consider multiple and
sometimes simultaneous casual pathways. For example, advocacy may involve direct
engagement at senior levels of government, developing support throughout the administration
and community mobilization.
While the theory of change represents an invaluable tool for articulating the various steps
involved in bringing about change at the institutional level, its focus should not be limited just
to this level. It should also indicate the expected pathways whereby changes at this level are
expected to lead to ultimate long-term and down-stream impacts, for example on peoples
livelihoods. The exercise should provide a frame of reference for evaluating the relevance of
pursued actions and changes at the institutional level, even though it may not always be
possible to fully assess changes at more down-stream levels. Involving partners in this process
should also help to unpack in greater detail the links between a broader set of actions, or
inputs, and changes throughout the causality chain. The theory of change should identify these
various pathways, and how they are expected to interact with one another, as well as with
other factors, including supporting or opposing actions by other actors.
2.3 Evaluability Assessment in Impact Evaluation Planning
Typically, an evaluability assessment includes several steps and has a number of outputs.
Among these, the evaluability assessment will include the mapping, systematization and
analysis of any baseline and/or monitoring data that were produced by the managers of the
intervention/body of work to be evaluated; these data will be important to inform the
development of the impact evaluation tools. The main output of the evaluability assessment
should be a full approach paper, including an evaluation matrix, that sets out in a detailed and
explicit manner the analytical and methodological approach of the evaluation.
The development of the theory of change is a key part of the evaluability assessment. A ToC is
particularly useful in identifying potential evaluation questions and in helping to determine
what it is realistic or possible to assess at given points of time in the programme cycle and
with defined resources. In particular, the theory of change should specify how far along the
results chain it can be realistic to expect changes attributable to the intervention to have
occurred at any given point in time and this can aid in identifying how best to focus the
evaluation. Development of the Theory of Change should therefore be a major part of the

evaluability assessment, discussed later, which forms the preparatory phase of all complex
evaluations. For the impact evaluation of very large or complex interventions, the evaluability
assessment may be a study in itself. More often, it is undertaken by the evaluation office as
part of its preparation for the impact evaluation and to facilitate development of its detailed
Terms of Reference.
By identifying what is possible to evaluate at a given point in time, highlighting those
evaluation questions that are most critical, and specifying assumptions in the programme logic
most in need of empirical verification, an evaluability assessment can identify priorities for
impact evaluation. Even when it may be premature to assess long-term impact specifically, an
evaluability assessment should identify how progress towards impact can be assessed, and
those assumptions in the theory of change that are most in need of objective verification.
2.4 Gender Equality and Human Rights
Gender equality and human rights (GE and HR) are both substantive areas of normative work
and crosscutting issues, which should be mainstreamed in all UN initiatives and that should be
assessed in all UN evaluations, including impact evaluations. The UNEG Handbook
Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation - Towards UNEG Guidance
notes that All UN interventions have a mandate to address Human Rights and Gender
Equality issues.
The Handbook identifies the following principles for integrating human rights and gender
equality in evaluation:
Inclusion
Participation
Fair power relations
Mixed evaluation methods
These principles, which largely correspond to good evaluation practice, are translated into
various aspects of the evaluation process. Examples include the conduct of an evaluation
stakeholder analysis from a HR and GE perspective, the development of evaluation criteria
and questions that specifically address HR and GE, the collection of disaggregated data, but
also the recruitment of an evaluation team with knowledge of and commitment to HR and GE.
This may prove challenging in some situations. For example, basic data that an evaluation
should ideally draw upon may not have been disaggregated or even exist in any form. This
may require additional data collection through specific methods; such as, for example, through
surveys and analysis of existing documentation (e.g. both informal and formal records of
meetings) that talk about gender and human rights differences. A variety of qualitative
techniques, including community meetings, focus groups, key informant interviews and Most
Significant Change reports, can also be used to obtain retrospective data.

Below are examples of questions, which may help address HR/ GE principles in impact
evaluations:
To what extent has the UN agency incorporated HR/GE principles in inter-agency work: e.g.
the development of institutional monitoring and reporting mechanisms for workers or
childrens rights?
To what extent have governments and other institutional partners incorporated and applied
HR/GE principles in their implementation of normative work?
A theory of change may be explicit in the original intervention design, but often is not. For
example, proposals for change may assume that increasing women's income-generating
capacity will lead to empowerment which may or may not be true. Or that laws ensuring
human rights (in a constitution, for example) are sufficient to guarantee their fulfilment. More
frequently, proposals for change focus on one dimension (for example; economic, skills
training, infrastructure); which is necessary but not sufficient, while ignoring other key factors
(e.g. access to markets, self-confidence or other social and cultural phenomena). A very
important role of evaluations is to draw attention to implicit theories of change and their
strengths and weaknesses. Often human rights and gender equality are absent in a theory of
change, or expressed in a way that does not lead to concomitant action. For example, projects
or programmes might note that woman-headed households are poorer than others, but include
no activities designed to address this inequality. Alternatively, a programme of land reform
that pays attention to gender equality might not only enact rights to land, but may also ensure
that the registration system includes a category for joint ownership, identifies the gender of the
owner, communicates and promotes women's rights to land ownership and the advantages of
joint registration, and provides disaggregated information about changes in the ownership of
land by gender.
3. Common Methods in Impact Evaluation
It has been shown above that there is a range of impact evaluation designs. There is also a
range of methods that can be used within these designs. Methods are flexible and can be used
in different combinations within impact evaluation designs to answer the specified evaluation
questions.
3.1 Quantitative Methods
Experimental and quasi-experimental quantitative designs are appropriate for questions
concerning whether an intervention has made a difference and the extent to which a specific
impact can be attributed to an intervention. Leeuw and Vaessen
16
have noted that methods
suited to such designs are particularly appropriate for impact evaluations of single-strand

16
NONIE. Impact Evaluations and Development. Nonie Guidance on Impact Evaluation.
(Leeuw, F. and J. Vaessen, J.) 2009.

initiatives with explicit objectives for example, the change in crop yield after introduction
of a new technology, or reduction in malaria prevalence after the introduction of bed nets.
Such interventions can be isolated, manipulated, and measured, and experimental and quasi-
experimental designs may be appropriate for assessing causal relationships between these
single-strand initiatives and their effects. Further, as White and Phillips
17
have indicated,
these methods are most suited for evaluations with both large N and large n. Both the
overall population affected and the sample groups must be large.
These quantitative methods use sophisticated statistical procedures to address three basic
issues, namely:
18

The establishment of a counterfactual: What would have happened in the absence of
the intervention(s)?
The elimination of selection effects, which might lead to differences between the
intervention group (or treatment group) and the control group
A solution for the problem of unobservables: The omission of one or more
unobserved variables, leading to biased estimates.
Statistical methods used in experimental and quasi-experimental designs include: Randomized
Controlled Trials (RCTs), pipeline approaches, propensity score matching, judgemental
matching, double difference, regression analysis, instrumental variables and regression
discontinuity analysis. Increasingly, impact evaluations using these methods also incorporate
at an early stage preparing an overview of the intervention based on the construction of a
Theory of Change (see 5.2.1 below).
The intervention characteristics (single-strand initiatives with explicit objectives), which
promote use of these methods, are not the normal business of many UN organizations.
Furthermore, the requirement for large n studies using complex statistics calls for substantial
finance (and evaluation management resources), which is rarely available. An IETF study
19

showed that (as at 2010) only 3 UNEG member bodies had commissioned Impact Evaluations
using experimental or quasi-experimental methods. With this background in mind, it is
important to focus guidance for UNEG evaluation practitioners on issues, which actually
confront them. This conforms with an important observation made by Bamberger et al.,
20

namely: For many evaluation professionals, particularly those working in developing
countries, the debates on the merits and limitations of statistically strong impact evaluation
designs are of no more than academic interest as many may never (and are highly unlikely to)

17
White, H. and Phillips, D. Addressing attribution of cause and effect in small n impact
evaluations: towards an integrated framework. 3ie. New Delhi. 2012
18
NONIE, 2009, P23.
19
UNEG. Concept Note: Impact Evaluation among UNEG Members, Annex 2, Impact
Evaluation in UNEG members. New York. 2010.
20
Bamberger, M. and Rao, V. and Woolcock, M. Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and
Evaluation: Experiences from International Development. World Bank. 2010.

have an opportunity to apply any of these designs during their whole professional career. This
Guidance Note does not therefore examine these methods further, but refers readers to the
NONIE Guidance (Ps. 23-31), which provides a good introduction to them.
In addition to the more complex statistical approaches described above, basic quantitative
analysis of existing databases and/or survey analysis can make an important contribution to
developing the overall story of the difference made by an intervention. This analysis may
draw on descriptive statistics, such as cross-tabulations; and/or inferential statistics, such as
analysis of variance to compare the means of several different groups.
3.2 Qualitative Methods
Many types of intervention are not appropriate for complex quantitative approaches, such as
experimental or quasi-experimental methods. These would include: programs with an
extensive range and scope that have activities that cut across sectors, themes, and geographic
areas. These can be complicated multiple agencies, multiple simultaneous causes for the
outcomes and causal mechanisms differing across contexts and complex (recursive, with
feedback loops, and with emergent outcomes).
21
Much of the work of UN bodies is in
complicated and/or complex situations,
22
an aspect that needs to be built into impact
evaluation designs. Sometimes, it may be possible to break down such interventions into
simpler components, which lend themselves to quantitative analysis. However, for a great
many UN interventions, quantitative methods will answer only part of the questions related to
impact. This will place a premium on evaluation designs, which are centered on qualitative
methods.
There is a range of qualitative methods, which have been found useful in Impact Evaluation,
including: Realist Evaluation, General Elimination Methodology,
23
Process Tracing,
24
and
Contribution Analysis. Information on their characteristics and potential scope and use, can be
readily found in guidance documents, (see Annex 1, List of Works Cited).
3.3 Participatory Methods to Establish Stakeholder Perceptions
Various participatory methods,
25
including: Most Significant Change Method, Success Case
Method, Outcome Mapping, and Method for Impact Assessment of Programmes and Projects
(MAPP) do not focus on explicit attribution of cause and effect, although they may contribute
to an understanding of this. Rather, they attempt to establish the factors that have contributed
towards change by talking directly to stakeholders, using semi-structured approaches, rather
than structured survey instruments. These methods are primarily qualitative, although small

21
NONIE, 2009.
22
See, Rogers, 2009
23
See also White and Phillips, (P9, 10, 38,39)
24
See, for example, White and Phillips (P10, 11, 40, 41)
25
See NONIE Guidance, Annex 9.

scale quantitative approaches (e.g. surveys) may be used, as well as methods (such as
Qualitative Comparative Analysis26), which quantify key elements emerging from qualitative
methods.
3.4 Methods and Validity
The various methods examined above have different comparative advantages and the
contribution, which each can make, can be organized under four different types of validity:
27

Internal validity: establishes that the causal relationships verified or measured by the
evaluation correctly describe the links between outputs, outcomes and impacts.
Construct validity: establishes that the variables selected for measurement
appropriately represent the underlying processes of change.
External validity: establishes the extent to which the findings from one evaluation can
be generalized to inform similar activities.
Statistical conclusion validity: for quantitative approaches, establishes the degree of
confidence about the relationship between the impact variables and the magnitude of
change.
In terms of the major impact evaluation approaches discussed, Randomized Control Trials are
regarded as particularly strong on internal validity, since they eliminate other factors, which
might affect the identified causal linkages. However, they have relatively low external
validity, since their resources are mainly focused on ensuring an accurate counterfactual to the
specific intervention under examination and they do not consider similar interventions
elsewhere.
28

Qualitative and participatory methods, on the other hand, focus on the details, complexity and
meanings of change and may therefore be highly effective in terms of construct validity.
However, since the findings of these methods are also context specific, they are just as prone
as quantitative methods to low external validity. In many cases, the most effective way of
boosting external validity may be through some form of synthetic review of existing evidence
from other evaluative sources.
In order to ensure a certain degree of internal (external, construct) validity of findings, the
Guidance advocates for a mix of methods, triangulating the findings of different methods by

26
See DFID 2012, Appendix and White and Phillips, (P56-60).
27
As discussed in Chapter Five of the NONIE Guidance.
28
RCTs control for observable and unobservable characteristics in the sample which may
affect outcomes. Without further knowledge on the relationships between these characteristics,
the distribution of these characteristics in the sample, and the distribution of these
characteristics in other populations, the findings of the analysis cannot be generalized to these
other populations.

comparing them with each other. For most development evaluations, the phenomena to be
evaluated are sufficiently complex to make a mixed method approach essential.
3.5 Choosing the Mix of Methods for Impact Evaluation
When undertaking impact evaluation, even more so than in other types of evaluation, it is
important to do more than list a set of methods and assume that this amounts to a
methodology. Rather, within the chosen evaluation design, there should be an explicit over-
arching methodological framework, which enables the individual methods to be brought
together to produce a meaningful overall analysis that can evaluate whether the intervention
has had impacts, or made a contribution towards them. It is essential to tailor the particular
evaluation design and mix of methods, to the particular situation, context, questions and issues
of most concern.
For these and related reasons, this Guidance Note has emphasized the importance of starting
with the Theory of Change and of using this as a basis for identifying and prioritizing
questions for impact evaluation that can be appropriately explored at the chosen point in time.
The discussion above has identified various design options (e.g., experimental, case-based)
and principles that should be taken into consideration when choosing an appropriate mix of
methods.
In each case, it is essential to consider the strengths and limitations of potential methods and
their best fit with the requirements of the evaluation being designed. Given that all methods
have strengths and limitations, it is important to use a mix of different methods, both
quantitative and qualitative, to provide for triangulation and to balance off the limitations of
any single method.
For example, policy change, which is a frequently intended institutional impact, is influenced
by many factors. Responses to a questionnaire (as an example of a possible method to include
in impact evaluation) may or may not acknowledge the influence of any UN intervention on
the development of a new policy. Politicians and officials may sometimes be reluctant to
acknowledge that others have influenced their work. Furthermore, government policies are
invariably influenced by multiple factors and the role of external stakeholders is often not
explicitly acknowledged, particularly in formal documents.
Nevertheless, it may be possible to relate particular events, such as work on new legislation or
policies initiated, to other activities that can be documented, such as representations by UN
officials and public advocacy campaigns. This may require significant probing; as well
crosschecking with different stakeholders, to be able to identify how the UN has contributed to
this. In some situations, it might be possible to develop a time-series, to relate changes over a
period of time to when specific actions occurred. Much of the most pertinent documentation
(e.g. minutes, memos) may only be identified during open-ended interviews and discussions
(if at all). In-depth interviews with a range of stakeholders are among the best means to gather
evidence about how actions came about, including perceptual data and to build up a
meaningful picture.

The exact choice of methods will vary from evaluation to evaluation and should be identified
during the development of the evaluability assessment. This Note stresses the importance of
planning adequately for impact evaluation and has emphasized the need to articulate the
program logic and identify the intermediate steps and the types of data that are needed at
various stages for meaningful impact evaluation.
This does not mean that once the theory of change has been identified, the evaluation design
developed, and data collection mechanisms put into place, these should be regarded as
definitive or unchangeable. It is useful to periodically consider if the assumptions underlying
the approach to impact evaluation are still valid, and if any changes may be needed. For
example, at the early stages in the evaluation, findings may raise some questions about certain
assumptions in the theory of change. It might be appropriate then to make some modifications
to the theory of change, and perhaps also to the evaluation approach as applicable.
In particular, it is important to bear in mind the iterative, circular nature of complex
undertakings, such as those often supported by the UN. Circularity does not mean going
around in circles or being confused. In the context of systems thinking, this refers to the inter-
relatedness of the various components of a system, that most frequently are not unidirectional
but instead have feedback loops. Interactions often may occur in unpredictable ways. This
means that throughout the conduct of the impact evaluation, evaluators and managers of the
exercise should maintain an open mind on issues to be pursued and analyzed, including
necessary reviews of original assumptions and approaches to the evaluation. Flexibility in
methods should be ensured in so far as possible given usual time and resource constraints.
4. Quality Control for Impact Evaluations
Impact evaluation provides answers to questions concerning the ultimate benefits to which an
intervention has contributed. It is therefore highly sensitive and must be able to withstand
intense scrutiny. These characteristics make effective quality control essential.
4.1 Specific Quality Control Criteria at the Design Stage
In view of the over-riding importance of the initial choice of design and methods for an impact
evaluation, there should be additional Quality Control at this stage. This should cover the
specific areas shown in Table 3 on the next page.


Table 3: Issues for quality control at IE design stage to assure validity and rigour
29

Contribution Explanation Effects
Is the design able to identify
multiple causal factors?
Does the design take into
account whether causal factors
are independent or
interdependent?
Can the design analyze the
effects of contingent, adjacent
and cross-cutting interventions?
Are issues of necessity,
sufficiency and probability
discussed?
Does the evaluation make it clear
how causal claims will be arrived
at?
Is the chosen design able to
support explanatory analysis (e.g.
answer how and why questions)?
Is theory used to support
explanation? (E.g. research-
based theory, Theory of Change),
if so how has theory been
derived?
Are alternative explanations
considered and systematically
eliminated?
Are long term effects
identified?
Are these effects related to
intermediate effects and
implementation trajectories?
Is the question impact for
whom addressed in the
design?
4.2 Quality Control
30
Requirements and Approaches for Impact
Evaluation
To a large extent, experimental and quasi-experimental methods have established techniques
to determine such aspects as validity, reliability and bias.
31
These techniques are largely
impenetrable to all but specialist statisticians or academics with a strong background in
quantitative methods. In this respect, quality of impact evaluations with high statistical content
can best be assured through recruitment of a specialist adviser or panel, to meet at key stages
to review the conduct and, later, outputs of the work.
Although there are many quality requirements, these are often basic evaluation practice, rather
than specific to impact evaluation. However, given the potential importance of impact
evaluation in assessing the contribution of UN bodies to their long-term change goals, quality
requirements acquire an even higher profile in such exercises. Quality questions begin at the
design stage of the impact evaluation and follow through to completion. They can be broken
down into specific quality questions, covering the various standards shown in Tables 4 and 5
on the next pages.

29
Source: DFID 2012, P75
30
Often referred to as Quality Assurance. In this paper, the two terms are used
interchangeably.
31
See NONIE Guidelines, Section 4.2 for a discussion of these issues.

Table 4: Quality control criteria for overall technical tmplementation of impact
evaluation
Choice of designs and
methods
Are designs and associated methods put forward
established, well documented and able to be defended?
Do the chosen designs take into account the Evaluation
Questions and intervention attributes?
Reliability
Are they able to explain how an intervention contributes to
intended effects for final beneficiaries?
Do the Evaluation Questions allow for success and failure
(positive and negative effects) to be distinguished?
Proper application of
designs and method
Robustness
Are the ways that designs and methods are applied clearly
described and documented?
Does the application of designs and methods and
subsequent analysis follow any protocols or good practice
guidelines?
Is the evaluation team knowledgeable about the methods
used?
Drawing legitimate
conclusions
Transparency
Do conclusions clearly follow from the findings?
Has the evaluation explained the effects of the programme?
How are evaluative judgements justified?
Have stakeholder judgements been taken into account when
reaching conclusions?
Are the limitations of the evaluation and its conclusions
described?
Source: DFID 2012, P74.
As shown in Table 4 above, there are a number of key quality questions, which cover the full
life-cycle of the impact evaluation: from its initial choice of design and methods, through the
application of these during the work, to the final process of drawing conclusions in a
legitimate manner. Quality Control should ensure the reliability, robustness and transparency
of the evaluation methods used throughout the process.
4.3 Quality Control of Evaluation Standards
An additional set of Quality Control criteria should be in place to ensure that the evaluation
standards appropriate to the UN system are maintained throughout the study. Although these
are to a large extent covered by the UNEG Norms and Standards, they can be clearly codified

for verification and control in the circumstances of impact evaluation as shown in Table 5
below.
32

Table 5: Quality control issues for evaluation norms and standards
Country-based criteria Ethical criteria Institutional criteria
Have country-based
stakeholders (government and
civil society) been actively
involved and consulted in
formulating evaluation
questions?
Have country based
administration and information
systems been used as far as
possible?
Has the evaluation been set into
the country context and other
country based evaluation taken
into account?
Have the evaluators made
explicit their interests and values
as they relate to this
intervention?
Have arrangements been put in
place to monitor and remedy
bias or lack of impartiality?
Have confidentiality and risks to
informants been taken into
account?
Have feedback and validation
procedures that involve
stakeholders been specified and
used?
Are there any joint or
partnership arrangements in
place joint evaluations,
consortia involving local
partners?
In what ways has the
evaluation contributed to
evaluation capacity building in-
country?
What has the evaluation done
to feed into policy making both
among donors and in partner
countries?
4.4 Managing a Quality Control System
Effective management of a Quality Control System for an Impact Evaluation requires
substantial inputs from several sets of stakeholders: the evaluation office itself, the impact
evaluation team (usually external consultants) and any internal or external Quality Assurance
(QA) advisers recruited to act individually or as a Panel. It is therefore important to ensure that
any such system designed can achieve the best balance between degree of QA offered and the
available resources. As noted earlier, the budgets actually available for impact evaluation
within the UN system have historically mainly clustered around the $25,000 to $30,000 mark.
Unless this figure increases substantially, the only option to ensure adequate control of quality
will be for Evaluation Office staff to undertake this role themselves (assuming that their time
is not included in the initial budget figure). However, this will only work if they have
sufficient specialist knowledge of the key issues of impact evaluation design and
implementation.
In situations of scarce resources, the most important contribution to be made in terms of QC is
likely to be through the original development of an impact evaluation concept paper and
methodology. This will be done by specialists in charge of the exercise (if it is a self-
evaluation) or by the evaluation office (if it is an independent one). The paper should include:

32
Source DFID 2012, P76

The nature of the evaluation (key questions);
A draft theory of change (or a change model);
A description of the methods to be used and how they link to the key evaluation
questions;
Whether (and if so how) to treat counterfactuals and/or how to use such methods as
causal contribution analysis;
Which partners should be associated with the impact evaluation and in what roles;
How impact evaluation results will be used;
The Quality Assurance/Control plan for the impact evaluation.
Such a well-developed Concept Paper provides a firm basis for: drawing up Terms of
Reference, if consultants are to be used; informing and assessing proposals in the event of
competitive bidding; and briefing consultants during the inception phase of the work.
Thereafter, regular quality control measures can be put in place to ensure that the evaluation
team work according to the concept paper.
Furthermore, the Tables 3 to 5 above can be used to create QC Checklists. Depending on
resources, these can form the basis of periodic meetings between the impact evaluation
implementation team, the Evaluation Office and the QC panel or Adviser. If resources are not
available for such regular meetings, the issues highlighted in the Tables can be used to create
tailored evaluation-specific check lists, which can be scored (even if only as Yes or No)
on the basis of documents produced during the course of the evaluation, supported by
(occasional) in-person and regular virtual meetings between the EO and the evaluation team
members (together with any Quality Adviser(s)).
Important contributions can also be made through the process of circulating all impact
evaluation documents at draft stage to key stakeholders for review, comments and feedback.
Such stakeholders can include the UN Country Team, representatives of Government bodies
and other institutions affected by the evaluation and (rarely) of bodies representing direct
beneficiaries (where there are such). Feedback can also be provided verbally, in writing or
through meetings of knowledgeable and experienced peers, particularly at headquarters level,
where EOs are often located.
The circulation process is particularly important at the stage of the Draft Final Report, which
needs detailed review by all key stakeholders. Appropriate comments should be integrated into
the report by the evaluation team, in a transparent manner, with a clear audit trail.
Although they can play an important role, such QC procedures may also have some negative
consequences. For example, different viewpoints or emphases between the evaluation team
and external quality advisers may impose time delays and use up valuable human resources. A

system for negotiating agreement or (as necessary) imposing decisions needs to be agreed in
advance by all parties.
5. Impact Evaluation of Normative Work
33

UN Normative work has been defined by UNEG as follows:
The support to the development of norms and standards in conventions, declarations,
resolutions, regulatory frameworks, agreements, guidelines, codes of practice and other
standard setting instruments, at global, regional and national level.
Normative work also includes the support to the implementation of these instruments at the
policy level, i.e. their integration into legislation, policies and development plans, and to their
implementation at the programme level.
Normative work has the potential to result in high level impacts that can affect the lives of
millions of people. Broadly speaking, existing evaluation approaches and methods can be
applied to the evaluation of normative work. Nevertheless, the nature of this type of work does
differ in some significant ways from that of initiatives, including projects and programmes that
have a direct impact at the community, household or individual level.
Impact evaluation of normative work refers to identifying the lasting and significant changes
of this work at all levels in the results chain, including at its end, e.g. on peoples livelihoods,
their empowerment, increased biodiversity and healthier ecosystems. However, this impact
comes to fruition through a variety of intermediate steps and a complex results chain, in which
institutions are often the intended primary initial beneficiary of normative work (institutional
impact) and play a major role in influencing the down-stream effects of the NW itself.
Institutions are indeed the first and direct focus of impact of NW and this level can have
considerable intrinsic value in itself, such as when government policies, practices, or
organizational cultures are changed in response to the NW itself.
Given the long-term trajectory of much normative work and the indirect way in which impacts
further down the results chain may come about, it is not always possible for an evaluation to
identify all longer-term impacts, depending upon its timing and resources. Nevertheless, it is
widely recognized that impact evaluation of normative work, to the extent possible, should go
beyond establishing institutional impacts and that it is appropriate to combine assessment of
institutional impact with identification of subsequent resulting changes. Assessment of the
latter would also allow identifying the validity, merit or worth of the normative work itself.
For example, adoption of standards with respect to food quality by itself does not guarantee
that these standards are indeed appropriate and lead to the intended effects (e.g. do they really
result in safer food as obtained and consumed by individuals and families). Equally, the

33
This section draws extensively on the draft paper prepared for the impact evaluation TF by
Mr. B. Perrin. More detailed guidance on Evaluation of Normative Work is to be found in the
UNEG Guidance Note on Evaluation of Normative Work.

standards might result in unintended negative effects that undermine the overall positive
impact. For example, labour protection standards lead to improved safety for those covered,
but may lead to some employers and workers moving instead into the informal economy with
lesser protection.
The assessment of attribution means demonstrating that the identified impact resulted in some
way from what was done (i.e. the normative work); and would not have happened otherwise
(i.e. the counterfactual). When evaluating the impacts of NW, this becomes increasingly
indirect and difficult further down the results chain, due to the increasing number and types of
factors influencing impact. In this context, the most feasible, and important approach is
identifying what actually took place and indicating how the normative work (along with other
actions) influenced or contributed to the observed change.
In this context, models and approaches that can acknowledge and reflect complicated and
complex causal relationships are likely to be more appropriate than those that are more
applicable to simple linear relationships. Data on activities, outputs and intermediate
outcomes, irrespective of who is directly responsible for them, are essential components of the
impact evaluation of normative work. It is also essential to test out and document the assumed
causal links and relationships, at all levels, leading up to impacts.
6. Impact Evaluation of Multi-Agency Interventions
34
The defining feature of a multi-agency intervention is that multiple actors, such as UN
agencies and other international bodies, national public institutions and civil society
organizations, contribute to the execution of activities towards a common overarching goal.
The collaborating agencies share responsibility for the interventions overall achievements and
shortcomings. This is different to the situation where one agency is responsible for
implementation and delegates responsibility for execution to another agency.
UN initiatives are increasingly moving away from discrete projects implemented by a single
agency to comprehensive programmes at the country, regional and global levels which bring
together expertise from different organizations. There are also multi-agency initiatives such as
the Delivering as One initiative and the UN Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAF),
around which countries are increasingly arranging their programmes and joint programmes
addressing a wide range of different issues and priorities. These often include a variety of
initiatives that cut across sectors, themes and geographic areas. The Delivery as One initiative,
launched in 2007 is an important component of the United Nations response to the challenges
of a changing world. The initiative seeks to enhance the coherence, efficiency and
effectiveness of the UN at a country level and to reduce transaction costs for host countries.

34
This sections draws extensively on the draft paper prepared for the IETF, by Prof. P. Rogers,
P. and Mr. D. Fraser: Impact Evaluation of Multi-Agency Interventions. Guidance Note on
Planning, Managing, and Utilizing Impact Evaluations of Multi-Agency Interventions. UNEG
IETF Revised Draft.

6.1 Types of Multi-Agency Interventions
Multi-agency interventions are expected to achieve results that are more than the sum of their
parts, thanks to the synergistic effects of their programme components. Thus, an important
aspect of multi-agency impact evaluations should be a focus on assessing the additional value
from agencies working together.
Multi-agency interventions differ in the ways they work together and the degree of jointness.
These have important implications for impact evaluation. If agencies are already working
closely together, it is likely to be both more useful to undertake a joint evaluation of their work
and easier in terms of already having worked on common definitions of terms and data
systems.
35

When the multi-agency intervention is in the form of a joint project or programme there are
often good reasons to conduct a joint impact evaluation including:
36,37

To enhance joint work by increasing understanding of priorities, the shared and
separate issues involved in an interventions effectiveness and appropriateness, and by
aligning recommendations;
To reduce the evaluation burden on partner governments and aid recipients from
multiple, separate evaluations;
To improve the impact evaluations, by bringing together wider expertise, sharing
information about evaluation methods and processes, enabling cost-sharing and
broadening ownership of findings.
However, it should not be assumed that a joint impact evaluation will always be the best
option. If agencies have very different information needs and processes, the evaluation risks
incurring significant transaction costs without producing additional useful information for
either agency.
38
Another option is to have a smaller joint impact evaluation, which addresses
specific issues of joint concern, supplemented by separate evaluations undertaken by the
different agencies. Figure 1 on the next page illustrates these options.

35
More detailed guidance on Joint Evaluations is to be found in the UNEG Resource Pack of
Joint Evaluations.
36
Feinstein, O. and Ingram. G. (2003). Lessons Learned from World Bank Experiences in
Joint Evaluation. DAC Working Party on Evaluation. Available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/secure/15/13/31736431.pdf
37
Binnendijk, A (2000) Effective Practices in Conducting a Multi-Donor Evaluation. Paris:
OCED/DAC.
38
Toulemonde, J., Fontaine, C., Laudren E. and Vincke, P. (1999). Evaluation in Partnership.
Practical Suggestions for Improving their Quality. Evaluation, 4 (2): 171-188.

Figure 1: Options for impact evaluations of multi-agency interventions

Table 6 shows six types of Multi-Agency Interventions which describe different levels of
jointness and different ways that agencies might work together. These are not intended as
specific examples, but rather as starting points to allow teams designing or commissioning
impact evaluations of multi-agency interventions to develop their own understanding of the
intervention they will be evaluating.
Table 6: Types of multi-agency interventions and their implications for impact
evaluation
Type Description Implications for Impact
Evaluation
1. Shared
front end
Two or more programmes which are
planned and delivered separately but which
feature a shared entry point and co-
location of services for members of the
target group (including direct beneficiaries,
NGOs and government departments and
agencies). While there is some co-
ordination between agencies in outreach
and reception, the activities are actually
quite separate and relate to quite different
programmes and intended outcomes and
impacts.
While it might be useful to
conduct an evaluation of the
costs and benefits of co-
location, there would not be
value in doing a joint impact
evaluation of the different
programmes.

2. Separate
strands
Two or more programmes which contribute
to a shared intended impact but which
operate separately for example, school
infrastructure and child health, which can
each contribute to improving educational
outcomes. In these types of multi-agency
programmes, the different agencies do not
work together to achieve short-term
outcomes. The agencies usually have
separate funding for their activities. In these
cases, the achievements of each separate
agency at the lower levels of the results
chain can be easily distinguished.
An evaluation of the entire
intervention would probably
add little of value in terms of
improving knowledge of the
separate programmes,
although it might be useful in
terms of providing an overall
evaluation of success.
3. Relay
Interventions where the output from one
agency becomes an input for another
agency for example, one agency produces
plans, which another agency then uses to
guide implementation, or one agency builds
capacity of agencies, which then use this
capacity to implement specific interventions.
An impact evaluation can
provide evidence of the overall
impact of the agencies work
and improve their co-
ordination.
4. Different
sites
A large intervention implemented by
different agencies at different sites such as
different local authorities, or different
national governments. This can be thought
of as a variation of the relay type, but with
multiple implementing agencies.
This requires a high level of co-
ordination to develop a joint
impact evaluation, and
increases the likelihood that a
single evaluation will not meet
all the different needs of the
different agencies.
5: Horizontal
collaboration
While the relay type has two or more
agencies working vertically, with results
passing from one agency to the next,
horizontal collaboration is where agencies
are working together at the same level in
the causal chain to produce outputs and
outcomes.
An example from refugee services is where
one agency provides basic food, and another
provides materials for cooking the food, and
obviously these need to be coordinated to
be effective.
This highly inter-related
intervention is one where
agencies are likely to find it
particularly useful to
undertake a joint impact
evaluation and to learn about
improving the quality of their
co-ordination and partnership.

6: Emergent
partners and
roles
Where agencies are working together in
flexible and adaptive ways. This is more
likely to be appropriate for new types of
interventions, where the problems or
opportunities, which they address, are less
This emergent type of
intervention is the most
difficult for multi-agency
impact evaluation, as the
evaluation design might need

well understood, and where the plan for
working together will need to be developed
as it is implemented. As this happens, the
agencies involved may well change, and
their roles may change as well.
to change to accommodate
changes in how the
intervention is implemented
and changes in the partners in
the intervention and their
needs and expectations for
evaluation.
6.2 Impact Evaluation Issues Specific to Multi-Agency
Interventions
Multi-agency interventions can present particular challenges for impact evaluations in terms
of:
Effective management balancing clear management processes and adequate
consultation
Appropriate scope and purpose negotiating between competing priorities and needs
of the different agencies in terms of questions to be answered and timelines for
decisions
Clear theory of change/logic model articulating how the multiple components of the
intervention are understood to work together
Explicit and defensible evaluative criteria and standards negotiating what success
looks like, in terms of which impacts are seen as important and what standards of
performance are required
Feasible data collection and analysis - accommodating differences in data definitions
and formats and what are seen as appropriate indicators and measures
Credible causal inference meeting different organizations needs regarding causal
attribution. Partner organizations may have different policies and understandings
about what research designs are considered credible and appropriate. For some
organizations, only RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) can provide a compelling
argument about causal attribution; for others a range of research designs can be used.
Given the variation in the way terms are used and the very different positions held by
different agencies, it is essential that this issue is clearly discussed and that agreement
is reached before deciding to proceed with a joint impact evaluation of a multi-agency
intervention.


6.3 Agreement on Purpose and Roles in Multi-Agency Impact
Evaluations
The intended use of a joint evaluation needs to be identified and addressed carefully during
planning and throughout the evaluation, not only when an evaluation has been completed. A
multi-agency impact evaluation will likely need to balance agencies different intended
purposes and priorities, so it is even more critical at project design stage to systematically
identify who is expected to use the impact evaluation and for what purpose(s).
In multi-agency impact evaluations different agencies might have different criteria for
evaluating interventions, based on their overall organizations goals. Alternatively, they might
agree on criteria but not on standards. Involving the different agencies in the process of
developing shared descriptors or rubric of what success means will identify whether or not it
will be possible to develop a shared evaluative judgement.
While most impact evaluations are based on a theory of change, these are particularly useful
for multi-agency impact evaluations, especially if they make clear how the different agencies
are understood to work together. It is important that the different agencies share an
understanding of the intervention and are able to develop a characterization of how the
agencies combined efforts are expected to produce greater benefits than from individual
interventions.
Existing documentation may not be sufficiently specific about how the agencies are
understood to work together, even if a theory of change has been developed. If the impact
evaluation is being planned some time after the program has begun, it is also likely that
intended results, roles and responsibilities will have become clearer or have shifted to some
degree since the intervention started. Therefore it is likely that a combination of sources will
be needed including existing documentation and articulation of stakeholders perceptual
models.
As with any joint evaluation, in the case of joint impact evaluation it is usually advisable for
one of the participating agencies to accept a lead role, particularly in terms of engaging on
quality assurance matters with the service provider and in acting as a convener of strategic and
important events. The full implications of the decision should be explored with the
procurement functions of the agencies, so that there are no negative consequences for the
implementing agency further down the line.
Issues to be addressed:
Is an impact evaluation really needed?
Some agencies participating in the intervention may not wish to conduct an impact evaluation
while others do. Careful consideration is needed to determine whether an evaluation should go
ahead without the participation of all agencies involved in the multi-agency intervention,
particularly from a data access perspective.

Is there agreement about the main purpose of the evaluation or scope to accommodate
multiple purposes?
The purpose of an evaluation plays a key role in informing strategic decisions around the
approach to be followed, including who will implement the evaluation and the methods to be
used. As a result it is important that agencies collaborating in an impact evaluation agree on its
purpose. They should be explicit about their intended uses for the evaluation, and to ensure
that the evaluation will adequately meet these needs.
How will the key evaluation questions be decided?
In multi-agency impact evaluations it is important to have agreement about the key evaluation
questions. This does not mean simply increasing the number of questions to accommodate all
the different agencies, as this is likely to produce an unmanageable list for the evaluation to
adequately address. Instead a workable compromise should be sought which may include
having supplementary components of the evaluation that are undertaken by different agencies.
How are the different agencies understood to contribute to the intended outcomes and
impacts?
It is most useful, but rare, for a logic model of a multi-agency intervention to make explicit
how the different agencies are understood to work together showing clearly what type of
multi-agency intervention it is. For example, a separate strands multi-agency intervention
would show the different agencies producing separate outputs, which later combine to produce
the intended outcomes and impacts; a relay multi-agency intervention would show how the
outputs from one agency are the inputs for another agency.
Are the criteria for evaluating the success of the intervention clear and agreed and is there
agreement about the standard of performance required?
The criteria for success should be made explicit and reviewed by all evaluation stakeholders in
order to ensure that there is consensus on the evaluation criteria. Each agency participating in
the intervention will have its own particular areas of concern, depending on its specific
mandate and this will determine what should be looked at to assess whether success has been
achieved.
Each agency is also likely to have an institutional approach that stipulates what standards need
to be met in relation to each criterion: in most instances these will relate to the norms and
standards used to assess and guide performance, although different terminology may well be
used in different agencies. In certain instances, these standards may be implicit and may not
have been articulated in a written document, which should be done for the purposes of the
evaluation. Making performance standards explicit and capturing them in a shared document
will enable all evaluation stakeholders to understand what will be considered success (or not)
and avoid disagreements during the analysis and reporting phase.
Is there agreement about how to synthesize evidence to form an overall judgement of success?

Synthesis of evidence to produce an evaluative judgement (whether of the whole intervention
or aspects of it) is not a process of applying a formula, but of making transparent and
defensible judgements. It is rarely appropriate to base the overall evaluative judgement of an
intervention on a single performance measure. It usually requires synthesizing evidence about
performance across different dimensions.

Annex 1: Works Cited
3ie. 3ie Impact Evaluation Glossary. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation: New Delhi,
India. 2012
ADB and EBRD. Performance Evaluation Report: Kazakhstan And The Kyrgyz Republic:
Almaty-Bishkek Regional Road Rehabilitation Project. 2009.
ALNAP 20th Biannual Workshop Report. 2007.
http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/Jointevaluationsworkshop2.pdf
Bamberger, M. and Rao, V. and Woolcock, M. Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and
Evaluation: Experiences from International Development. World Bank. 2010.
Bennet, A. Process tracing and causal inference, in Henry Brady and David Collier (eds.)
Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Rowman and Littlefield. 2010.
Binnendijk, A. Effective Practices in Conducting a Multi-Donor Evaluation. Paris: OCED/DAC.
2000.
Brinkerhoff, R.O. The Success Case method: Find out Quickly whats working and whats not?
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. (2003)
Brinkerhoff, R.O. Telling Training's Story: Evaluation Made Simple, Credible, and Effective. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. (2008)
Center for Global Development. When will we ever learn? Washington DC, 2006.
Davidson, E.J. (2009) Improving evaluation questions and answers: Getting actionable answers
for real-world decision makers. Presentation at the American Evaluation Association conference.
Available at http://bit.ly/MRUqci
Development Assistance Committee, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.
Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. Paris, 2001.
DFID. Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation. Working Paper
No. 38, April 2012. (Stern, E. Stame, N. Mayne, J. Forss, K. Davies, R. Befani, B.)
Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. (2001) Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection
Into Development Programs. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
http://www.outcomemapping.ca/
Evaluation in the context of global public goods, Rob van den Berg, Evaluation 2011 17: 405
Evalue Research (2010). Final Evaluation Report of the Recognised Seasonal Employer Policy.
http://dol.govt.nz/publications/research/rse-evaluation-final-report/final-06.asp
Feinstein, O. and Ingram. G. (2003). Lessons Learned from World Bank Experiences in Joint
Evaluation. DAC Working Party on Evaluation.


GEF Evaluation Office (2008) Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small Grants Programme.
http://sgp.undp.org/img/file/SGP%20Joint%20Evaluation%202008[1].pdf
GEF Evaluation Office. Impacts of Creation and Implementation of National Parks and of
Support to Batwa on their Livelihoods, Well-Being and Use of Forest Products. Namara, A. 2007.
Health Scotland. Multiple Results Chains Showing Partner Contributions to Shared Health
Outcomes. 2009.
Hughes, K. and Hutchings, C. Can we obtain the required rigour without randomization? Oxfam
GBs non-experimental global performance framework. 3ie Working Paper No. 13. 2011
Mayne Contribution analysis: addressing cause and effect, in K. Forss, M. Marra and R. Schwartz
(eds.) Evaluating the Complex. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 2011
Mayne, J. Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures
sensibly. Canadian Journal of Programme Evaluation, 16:124. 2001.
NONIE. Impact Evaluations and Development. Nonie Guidance on Impact Evaluation. (Leeuw,
F. and J. Vaessen, J.) 2009.
OECD/DAC. Guidance for Managing Joint Evaluations. 2006.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N., Realistic Evaluation. Sage. 1997.
Rogers, P. Matching Impact Evaluation Design to the Nature of the Intervention and the Purpose
of the Evaluation, in: Designing Impact Evaluations: Different Perspectives. 3IE. 2009.
Scriven, M. Can we infer causation from cross-sectional data. The Evaluation Center, Western
Michigan University, 2005.
Toulemonde, J., Fontaine, C., Laudren E. and Vincke, P. Evaluation in Partnership. Practical
Suggestions for Improving their Quality. Evaluation, 4 (2): 171-188. 1999.
UK Cabinet Office. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research
evidence. Government Chief Social Researchers Office. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J and Dillon
L. London. 2003.
UNEG. Concept Note: Impact Evaluation among UNEG Members, Annex 2, Impact Evaluation
in UNEG members. New York. 2010.
Van den Berg, R.D. Evaluation in the context of global public goods. Evaluation 2011 17: 405-
415.
WFP and UNHCR Mixed Method Impact Evaluation The Contribution of Food Assistance to
Durable Solutions in Protracted Refugee Situations: its impact and role in Chad.
White, H. and Phillips, D. Addressing attribution of cause and effect in small n impact
evaluations: towards an integrated framework. 3ie. New Delhi. 2012.
Woolcock, M. Towards a Plurality of Methods in Project Evaluation: A Contextualised
Approach to Understanding Impact Trajectories and Efficacy. Working Paper 73, University of
Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute.

World Food Program Office of Evaluation (2010) Concept Note Impact Evaluations 2010-2011.
http://bit.ly/KKhhYA.


Annex 2: Agency Specific Definitions of Impact cited by
UNEG Members
39

Agency Definition Used
CTBTO For the purpose of the verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
(CTBT), the DAC definition, i.e. positive and negative, primary and secondary long-
term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly,
intended or unintended, is adapted as positive and negative, primary and
secondary long-term effects produced by the development and operation of the
CTBT verification system, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
DPI No specific impact evaluation activities or definition reported.
ESCAP Changes and effects, positive and negative, planned and unforeseen, resulting from
the program with respect to the ultimate beneficiaries and other affected
stakeholders.
FAO The OECD/DAC definition is considered broadly valid. FAO Office of Evaluation
defines impact as lasting and significant change in institutions, policies, individual
capacities, livelihoods, production patterns and levels, food consumption and
security, incomes, etc., that can be attributed to FAO or to which FAO has
contributed.
GEF DAC definition, modified as appropriate to focus on the global environmental
objective of GEF activities.
IAEA The long-term effect of change, direct or indirect, on the identified needs which,
when combined with other efforts, results from Agency involvement.
IFAD Impact is defined as the changes that have occurred in the lives of the rural poor
(whether intended or unintended, positive or negative, direct or indirect) as a result
of a development intervention.
ILO The OECD/DAC definition is broadly accepted; ILOs primary beneficiaries are
governments and organizations, whereas the household and individual level are
mostly reached through governments action, thus not under ILOs direct
responsibility. The institutional level and the contribution aspects of the ILO are
most relevant for the Evaluation Office.

39
Source: Concept Note: Impact Evaluation among UNEG members. Annexes. (Table 1, P7-9).
UNEG 2010, updated 2013

IOM The OECD/DAC definition is broad enough; IOMs primary beneficiaries are
migrants, although it also reaches out to governments with policy advice and to the
public at large through awareness campaigns, particularly for counter trafficking
activities and to combat illegal migration.
OCHA OCHA does not yet undertake impact evaluations or have any formal definition of
impact. Insofar as it has considered the issue, it leans towards an OXFAM UK
definition: The systematic analysis of the lasting or significant changes positive or
negative, intended or not, in peoples lives brought about by a given action or a
series of actions.
OIOS According to the Inspection and Evaluation Division manual, impact refers to the
ultimate, highest level, or end outcome that is desired. In OIOS inspections and
evaluations, impact is considered part of effectiveness. This broader definition may
be divided into smaller subsets (particular types of impact), such as impact on
legislative frameworks, impact on behavioural norms, impact on the ways in which
police and other uniformed services are trained, impact on the visibility of an issue,
etc. These are frequently easier and more useful to assess than impact in general.
OPCW No specific impact evaluation activities or definition reported.
UNCDF Uses a definition thought to be derived from the UNDP Evaluation Policy: Actual or
intended changes in human development as measured by peoples well-being.
UNCTAD The OECD/DAC definition is fine; most of UNCTADs work has governments and
institutions as primary beneficiaries, although some technical assistance work also
aims at enterprises and individuals.
UNDP UNDP does not use the word impact. It defines all its results in terms of
outcomes. It evaluates effects of its programmes as outcomes. So it conducts
outcome evaluations rather than impact evaluations. However, the distinction is to
some extent semantic. In fact, some of the outcomes are expressed as long-term
objectives and could also be seen as impacts.
In its thinking about impacts, It supports the standard DAC definition, whilst
following the UNDP nomenclature, which is based on outcomes. It focuses on
actual or intended changes in human development as measured by peoples well-
being.
UNEP The OECD/DAC definition is broadly accepted; UNEPs primary beneficiaries are
governments and institutions and the Programme should have a catalytic role; the
Evaluation Unit considers that in a number of cases, the causal chain leading to
impact on the environment of UNEPs work can be identified.
UN-ESCAP Impact in ESCAP is defined as Member States achievements in bringing about
benefits for ultimate target groups. Impact is thus considered a shared

responsibility of ESCAP member States and the secretariat.
UNESCO
UNIDO
UNIFEM
DAC definition
DAC definition
DAC definition
UNFPA No specific reflection in UNFPA on impact definition, by default the OECD/DAC
definition is accepted but no impact evaluations are conducted.
UNICEF DAC definition at the level of children and women in relation to the rights
contained in the CRC and/or the goals/objectives established in the Millennium
Declaration and the World Fit for Children Declaration.
UNODC The highest result level currently defined is Project Objective, defined as The
long term benefit the target group will receive.
UNRWA Long-term changes, whether planned or un-planned, positive or negative, direct or
indirect, that a programme or project helped to bring about
UNV No specific impact evaluation activities or definition reported.
WFP Lasting and/or significant effects of the intervention social, economic,
environmental or technical on individuals, gender and age-groups, households,
communities and institutions. Impact can be intended or unintended, positive and
negative, macro (sector) and micro (household)
WHO Given the wide range of work performed by WHO, at different levels of the health
system, the Internal Oversight Service does not have a standard working definition
of impact that is applicable to the evaluations that it carries out.
WIPO The OECD/DAC definition is fine; WIPOs primary beneficiaries are governments and
institutions.
WMO No specific impact evaluation activities or definition reported.

Impact Evaluations in UN Agency Evaluation Systems - Guidance On Selection, Planning and Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Evaluations in UN Agency Evaluation Systems - Guidance On Selection, Planning and Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Evaluations in UN Agency Evaluation Systems - Guidance On Selection, Planning and Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Evaluation in UN

You might also like