The paper presents examples and approaches on conducting M&E of policy research from the current experience of a range of research institutes, think tanks and funding bodies. The approaches have been divided into the following five key performance areas: Strategy and direction; Management; Outputs; Uptake; and Outcomes and impacts. Research programmes or institutes may wish to focus on only one of these areas, or may combine approaches across the areas to form a more comprehensive M&E plan.
This report from the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI) (archived link) outlines four key principles that aim to ensure an ethical and strategic approach to lobbying by non-profit organisations.
Founded in 1998 as a project of the Independent Sector, the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI, now the Council for Nonprofits Everyday Advocacy) is now a national, nonprofit organization that helps charitable organizations increase their effectiveness and impact through advocacy.
This state-of-the-art report, commissioned by Oxfam America, describes how nine advocacy and campaigning organisations in the UK and US undertake monitoring and evaluation of their campaigns. The study was undertaken by two independent evaluators experienced with advocacy initiatives and involved a voluntary cohort of nine NGOs who were surveyed and interviewed.
Authors: Jim Coe and Juliette Majot. February 2013.
This handbook provides guidance for conducting and managing evaluations, including a conceptual framework for thinking about evaluation as a relevant and useful program tool. It was written primarily for project directors who have direct responsibility for the ongoing evaluation of W.K. Kellogg Foundation-funded projects and Kellogg Foundation Grant Applicants.
Resource2016In this journal article, Andrew Gunn (University of Leeds) and Michael Mintrom (ANZSOG/Monash University ) explore how evaluation of non-academic research impact can measure impact effectively without undermining academic freedom and research excellence. This article is published in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management behind a paywall, however a summary published in the ANZSOG blog has been republished on BetterEvaluation with permission.
This working paper forms part of the International Livestock Research Institute’s (ILRI’s) and Overseas Development Institute’s (ODI’s) ‘Process and Partnership for Pro-poor Policy Change’, which seeks to identify and institutionalize innovative research and development mechanisms and approaches that lead to pro-poor policy.
This collection gathers eight stories from around the world about evaluations that have made a difference to the lives of people. These stories collectively represent a range of approaches to evaluation, making it clear that there is no one 'right' way to do evaluation that leads to improvements in people’s lives. This project was supported through an EvalPartners-Innovation Challenge grant, which aimed to strengthen the demand for and use of evaluation to inform policy making during the International Year of Evaluation (2015).