Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Author Julia Kaufman

1. Taking Stock of Organizations with Impact Evaluation Capacity Headquartered in sub-Saharan Africa: A New Database and Landscaping Analysis

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Justin Hurley, Janeen Madan Keller, and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The evidence-informed policy ecosystem has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Alongside an increase in the number of impact evaluations, the community of researchers and organizations in low- and middle-income countries conducting these studies continues to grow. Locally immersed researchers can help increase the policy use and utility of impact evaluation and related evidence, bringing critical insight on the priorities of policymakers and windows of opportunity to inform decision-making. Still, despite their vital role, many locally immersed research organizations encounter chronic funding challenges and other institutional and professional barriers. CGD conducted a landscaping exercise to better understand the current landscape of organizations headquartered in sub-Saharan Africa that boast impact evaluation capacity. The resulting database is intended as a resource for funders looking to advance locally led development; to help facilitate coordination and networking; and to advance opportunities for collaboration among researchers, program implementers, policymakers, and funders. We found that the number of organizations headquartered in sub-Saharan Africa with impact evaluation capacity has increased over recent years. We identified 181 unique African organizations with impact evaluation capacity, representing a 26 percent increase since 2019. These organizations are distributed across the region, with the largest concentration in East Africa. A significant portion has received or currently receives US government support, though often indirectly, providing potential openings for deepening partnerships with locally led organizations. Finally, a wide range of types of organizations have impact evaluation capacity—independent think tanks/NGOs, academic institutions, and government-embedded or adjacent entities.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, USAID, Aid Effectiveness, and Evaluation
Political Geography:
Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa

2. Breakthrough to Policy Use: Reinvigorating Impact Evaluation for Global Development

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Amanda Glassman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In 2006, when a CGD working group published its report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, very few social programs benefitted from studies that could determine whether they actually make a difference. Since then, there has been tremendous progress in harnessing better evidence to inform public policy decision making, especially from impact evaluations of programs in low- and middle-income countries. Impact evaluation is a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program, making it uniquely well suited to inform decision making about resource allocation, program design, and scale up or drawdown. But the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda, underscoring the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data. Approximately 15 million more deaths took place in 2020 and 2021 than would have occurred in the absence of COVID-19, and cumulative economic losses from the pandemic are expected to reach 13.8 trillion. Given the potential real-world benefits, why have decision makers within governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence—including from impact evaluations—for better public policies? Looking ahead, how can the development community renew momentum and broaden bases of support for impact evaluation and the wider evidence agenda? In response to these questions and building on progress to date, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact. The working group aimed to develop a renewed agenda for investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for policy use. It brought together a diverse group of policymakers and experts to review recent progress and examine how to address remaining obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development, with a focus on impact evaluation. This brief summarizes the final report of the working group. The report collates resources and insights on progress in implementing and using impact evaluations for decision making and proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice, directed to the development community—government policymakers; other multilateral, bilateral, and philanthropic funders; researchers, and NGOs
Topic:
Development, Governance, Leadership, NGOs, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Mainstreaming Evidence Use through Locally Led Development: Recommendations for USAID

Author:
Janeen Madan Keller, Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, and Ruth Levine
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
ince the 2006 release of the CGD report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, there have been nearly two decades of progress in generating and using evidence for public policy decisions and development programs. There has been a steady increase in the number of impact evaluations—a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program. Their ability to assess attribution makes impact evaluations uniquely well suited for decision making. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda and underscored the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. Across sectors, decision makers in governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs have not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence for better public policies. Numerous challenges limit evidence use. On the demand side, impact evaluations may lack relevance to policy decisions and fail to respond to decision makers’ priorities, timelines, and questions. On the supply side, decision makers often lack institutional incentives and funding to generate and act on relevant evidence. Current funding models compound these challenges by contributing to misaligned incentives between policymaker needs and academic researchers. In response to these challenges, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact to develop a renewed agenda for the next generation of investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for real-world decision making. The group brought together policymakers and experts to review the progress and obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development. Its final report highlights how far the field has come in addressing critiques about the scale, generalizability, and policy utility of impact evaluation, and offers recommendations to the development community on “what and how to fund to deliver on the promise of impact evaluation and bolster the broader evidence ecosystem.” The working group proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice: (1) design evaluations that start from the policy question and decision space; (2) harness technology for timely, lower-cost evidence; (3) advance locally grounded evidence-to-policy partnerships; (4) enact new incentives and structures to strengthen evidence use; and (5) invest in evidence leaders and communities. This brief details how USAID can mainstream evidence use across the agency. It is based on working group discussions, numerous consultations with experts including current and former USAID staff, and background research over the course of the project.
Topic:
Development, Local, USAID, and Foreign Assistance
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

4. Breakthrough to Policy Use Reinvigorating Impact Evaluation for Global Development

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Amanda Glassman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In 2006, when a CGD working group, led by Ruth Levine, Bill Savedoff, and Nancy Birdsall, published its report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, very few social programs benefitted from studies that could determine whether or not they actually make a difference. Since then, the world has seen tremendous progress in harnessing better evidence to inform public policy decision making, especially from impact evaluations of programs in low- and middle-income countries. But COVID-19 has put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda, underscoring the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence—for both effectiveness and political credibility of the response. The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods lost when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data. Given the potential real-world benefits, why have decision makers within governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence—including from impact evaluations—for better public policies? Looking ahead, how can the development community renew momentum and broaden bases of support for impact evaluation and the wider evidence agenda? These questions were the focus of a CGD Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact, which set out to understand why these social benefits continue to go unrealized and to chart out a renewed funding agenda for greater value in government policymaking.
Topic:
Development, Leadership, Community, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Exploring How the US International Development Finance Corporation Can Support Health Sector Investments: Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Janeen Madan Keller, and Rachel Silverman
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Health sector investments present an opportunity for the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), under the Biden-Harris administration, to demonstrate meaningful global leadership and refocus on its development mandate, driving broader health benefits and contributing to global economic recovery. DFC’s early days have been defined by a mixed record, notably in the health sector. Still, in the context of the pandemic’s health and economic impacts, the agency is well positioned to help strengthen pandemic preparedness and expand equitable access to health products and innovation in low- and middle-income countries. Through investments to build private sector manufacturing and delivery capacity, DFC can help stem and reverse these losses and insure against future health crises. This policy paper explores how DFC can strategically invest in health while balancing sometimes competing policy imperatives related to health equity, commercial viability, and foreign policy interests. We first provide an overview of the development finance landscape in the health sector and select DFC health-focused investments to date. We then suggest three high-impact engagement opportunities in the health sector for DFC to consider, including building regional manufacturing hubs for health supplies; providing R&D incentives for biotechnology; and supporting robust supply chains for health-adjacent services and delivery models. Lastly, we outline key principles to guide future DFC health sector investments, such as compatibility with long-term universal health coverage goals, a learning agenda for development effectiveness, and health-specific considerations for additionality and co-financing.
Topic:
Development, Health, Finance, and Investment
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America