Impact evaluation of three social programs essay

Including these changes in the estimates of program effects would result in bias estimates.

process evaluation

An example of this form of bias would be a program to improve preventative health practices among adults may seem ineffective because health generally declines with age Rossi et al. For me research was something that was conducted by hard science.

how to measure impact of a program

The estimate of program effect is then based on the difference between the groups on a suitable outcome measure Rossi et al. There is also the possibility that a bias can make an effective program seem ineffective or even as far as harmful.

Outline of principles of impact evaluation

The degree that results are generalizable will determine the applicability of lessons learned for interventions in other contexts. Randomization and isolation from interventions might not be practicable in the realm of social policy and may be ethically difficult to defend, [9] although there may be opportunities to use natural experiments. Organizations supporting the production of systematic reviews include the Cochrane Collaboration , which has been coordinating systematic reviews in the medical and public health fields since , and publishes the Cochrane Handbook which is definitive systematic review methodology guide. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it Most Significant Change Approach primarily intended to clarify differences in values among stakeholders by collecting and collectively analysing personal accounts of change. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it Contribution Analysis An impact evaluation approach that iteratively maps available evidence against a theory of change, then identifies and addresses challenges to causal inference. Instrumental variables estimation accounts for selection bias by modelling participation using factors 'instruments' that are correlated with selection but not the outcome, thus isolating the aspects of program participation which can be treated as exogenous. Click an approach on the left to navigate to it Case study A research design that focuses on understanding a unit person, site or project in its context, which can use a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. However, in practice, it cannot be guaranteed that treatment and comparison groups are comparable and some method of matching will need to be applied to verify comparability. In addition, there may be cases where non-experimental designs are the only feasible impact evaluation design, such as universally implemented programmes or national policy reforms in which no isolated comparison groups are likely to exist. Unlike other forms of evaluation, they permit the attribution of observed changes in outcomes to the program being evaluated by following experimental and quasi-experimental designs". The monthly reports will be shared with each staff in a leadership position. While the first three appear during the project duration itself, impact takes far longer to take place.

For example, 'Randomized Controlled Trials' RCTs use a combination of the options random sampling, control group and standardised indicators and measures.

I thought that being a social worker involved working with clients and advocating to elicit change in their lives. The 'counterfactual' measures what would have happened to beneficiaries in the absence of the intervention, and impact is estimated by comparing counterfactual outcomes to those observed under the intervention.

Click an approach on the left to navigate to it Most Significant Change Approach primarily intended to clarify differences in values among stakeholders by collecting and collectively analysing personal accounts of change.

Impact evaluation pdf

Post-test analyses include data after the intervention from the intervention group only. Self-selection occurs where, for example, more able or organized individuals or communities, who are more likely to have better outcomes of interest, are also more likely to participate in the intervention. Systematic reviews of impact evidence[ edit ] A range of organizations are working to coordinate the production of systematic reviews. Randomization and isolation from interventions might not be practicable in the realm of social policy and may be ethically difficult to defend, [9] although there may be opportunities to use natural experiments. In experimental evaluations the comparison group is called a control group. These are also termed secular drift and may produce changes that enhance or mask the apparent effects of a Rossi et al. Examples[ edit ] While experimental impact evaluation methodologies have been used to assess nutrition and water and sanitation interventions in developing countries since the s, the first, and best known, application of experimental methods to a large-scale development program is the evaluation of the Conditional Cash Transfer CCT program Progresa now called Oportunidades in Mexico, which examined a range of development outcomes, including schooling, immunization rates and child work. However, much of the existing literature e. However, in practice, it cannot be guaranteed that treatment and comparison groups are comparable and some method of matching will need to be applied to verify comparability. Systematic reviews aim to bridge the research-policy divide by assessing the range of existing evidence on a particular topic, and presenting the information in an accessible format. Selection bias, a special case of confounding, occurs where intervention participants are non-randomly drawn from the beneficiary population, and the criteria determining selection are correlated with outcomes. Secondly, the research will also examine and highlight the factors that influence the adoption of Structural Adjustment Programs. COSA is developing and applying an independent measurement tool to analyze the distinct social, environmental and economic impacts of agricultural practices, and in particular those associated with the implementation of specific sustainability programs Organic, Fairtrade etc.

There are five key principles relating to internal validity study design and external validity generalizability which rigorous impact evaluations should address: confounding factors, selection biasspillover effects, contamination, and impact heterogeneity.

The assumption is that as they have been selected to receive the intervention in the future they are similar to the treatment group, and therefore comparable in terms of outcome variables of interest. The body of evidence from systematic reviews is large and available through various online portals including the Cochrane librarythe Campbell libraryand the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.

Rated 8/10 based on 21 review
Download
Impact evaluation