Evaluating the impacts that impact evaluations don’t evaluate
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
4 recomendaciones•960 vistas
Stephen Devereux & Keetie Roelen
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Evaluating the impacts that impact evaluations don’t evaluate
Similar a Evaluating the impacts that impact evaluations don’t evaluate (20)
Más de Institute of Development Studies
Más de Institute of Development Studies (20)
Último
Último (20)
Evaluating the impacts that impact evaluations don’t evaluate
- 1. Evaluating the Impacts That Impact Evaluations Don’t Evaluate Book launch @ IDS 14 October 2015 Stephen Devereux & Keetie Roelen Disaggregating causal complexity and social dynamics
- 2. Theory of change: Development interventions Inputs Resources (goods or services) to be delivered to programme beneficiaries – e.g. food, livestock, microcredit, school bursaries, health insurance Process The modality by which resources are delivered – e.g. cash transfer, fertiliser subsidy, fee-free education, school feeding scheme Outcomes Direct consequences of the intervention – e.g. giving food to hungry people is expected to have higher food consumption as one outcome Impacts (short-term) Attributable changes in wellbeing due to the intervention – such as higher asset ownership or reduced malnutrition rates Impacts (long-term) Sustainable and attributable improvements in wellbeing – such as reduced intergenerational transmission of poverty
- 3. Theory of change: school feeding schemes Inputs Process Outcomes Impacts (short-term) Impacts (long-term) Food to under- nourished and under-educated children School meals scheme Higher food consumption by children Reduced child malnutrition Higher income and reduced poverty for children in adulthood Higher school attendance rates Better child performance at school
- 4. Interrogating the theory of change Were undernourished and under-educated children reached by the school feeding scheme? Are school meals additional to food consumed at home? Did school attendance rates improve after free school meals were introduced? Did children who received school meals perform better in examinations? Do children who received free school meals earn higher incomes and escape poverty in adult life?
- 5. Social dynamics in development programmes Level Social relationships Intra-household Female ↔ Male Older generation ↔ Younger generation Biological children ↔ Non-biological children Beneficiary ↔ Recipient Intra-community Beneficiaries ↔ Non-beneficiaries Programme actors Beneficiaries ↔ Programme staff Economic actors Beneficiaries ↔ Traders Political actors Beneficiaries ↔ Local politicians
- 6. Social dynamics in development programmes Level Social relationships Intra-household Female ↔ Male Older generation ↔ Younger generation Biological children ↔ Non-biological children Beneficiary ↔ Recipient Intra-community Beneficiaries ↔ Non-beneficiaries Programme actors Beneficiaries ↔ Programme staff Economic actors Beneficiaries ↔ Traders Political actors Beneficiaries ↔ Local politicians
- 7. Assessing intended and unintended impacts Intended (material) impacts Unintended (social) impacts Positive Neutral Positive ‘Double success’ [+/+] Intervention achieved its objectives and also had unplanned, beneficial social consequences Success [+/=] Intervention achieved its material objectives and had no discernible social consequences ‘Mix Interven materia had unp social co Neutral ‘Qualified success’ [=/+] Intervention did not achieve its objectives, but recorded improved social indicators No impact [=/=] Intervention effectively never happened; it had no discernible intended or unintended impacts ‘Qualif Interven achieve left ben off on so
- 8. Assessing intended and unintended impacts Intended (material) impacts Unintended (social) impacts Positive Neutral Negative Positive ‘Double success’ [+/+] Intervention achieved its objectives and also had unplanned, beneficial social consequences Success [+/=] Intervention achieved its material objectives and had no discernible social consequences ‘Mixed result’ [+/ Intervention achieve material objectives, had unplanned nega social consequences Neutral ‘Qualified success’ [=/+] Intervention did not achieve its objectives, but recorded improved social indicators No impact [=/=] Intervention effectively never happened; it had no discernible intended or unintended impacts ‘Qualified failure’ [ Intervention did not achieve its objective left beneficiaries wo off on social indicato ‘Failure plus’ [–/+] Intervention left its Failure [–/=] Intervention left its ‘Double failure’ [– Intervention left its
- 9. Assessing intended and unintended impacts Intended (material) impacts Unintended (social) impacts Positive Neutral Negative Positive ‘Double success’ [+/+] Intervention achieved its objectives and also had unplanned, beneficial social consequences Success [+/=] Intervention achieved its material objectives and had no discernible social consequences ‘Mixed result’ [+/–] Intervention achieved its material objectives, but had unplanned negative social consequences Neutral ‘Qualified success’ [=/+] Intervention did not achieve its objectives, but recorded improved social indicators No impact [=/=] Intervention effectively never happened; it had no discernible intended or unintended impacts ‘Qualified failure’ [=/–] Intervention did not achieve its objectives and left beneficiaries worse off on social indicators Negative ‘Failure plus’ [–/+] Intervention left its beneficiaries worse off in material terms but better off on social indicators Failure [–/=] Intervention left its beneficiaries worse off in terms of its intended material indicators ‘Double failure’ [–/–] Intervention left its beneficiaries worse off in both material and social indicators