Are quantitative or qualitative methods better for undertaking impact evaluations? What about true experiments? Is contribution analysis the new 'state of the art' in impact evaluation or should I just do a survey and use statistical methods to create comparison groups?
Determining one's plan for an impact evaluation occurs within the constraints of a specific context. Since method choices must always be context specific, debates in the professional literature about impact methods can at best only provide partial guidance to evaluation practitioners. The way to break out of this methods impasse is by focusing on the evidentiary requirements for assessing casual impacts.
This blog post was originally posted on the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) blog. It has been republished with ANZSOG's permission. You can find the BetterEvaluation resource page for the article discussed here.
This book presents a detailed overview of the impact evaluations of cash transfer programmes, carried out by the Transfer Project and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)'s From Protection to Production project. There is a focus on the role of programme evaluation in the process of developing policies and implementing programmes.
The Public Impact Fundamentals are a framework developed by the Centre for Public Impact to assess what makes a successful policy outcome and describe what can be done to maximise the chances of achieving public impact. The Fundamentals are complemented by the Centre's Public Impact Observatory - a library of hundreds of public policy case studies that have been analysed using the Fundamentals.