Skip to content
← Back to SearchPDF(756 KB)

Performance evaluation of the measuring impact activity

2017English"March 26, 2017 (Revised July 19, 2017)" | Evaluated project title: Measuring impact (MI) | Project title: E3 analytics and evaluation Revised Biological diversity and ecologyIndonesia Uganda

Metadata

Authors
Berard, Jacques | Berenter, Jared | Oya, Setsuko | Shanstrom, Max | Waters, Meredith
Contract/Code
AID-OAA-M-13-00017 | AID-OAA-C-12-00078
Institution
3970 - Management Systems International, Inc. (MSI) | 11492 Development & Training Services, (dTS) 13894 USAID. Bur. for Economic Growth, Education and Environment. Ofc. of Forestry Biodiversity
Keywords
Forestry | Biological diversity | Natural resource conservation | Resilience | Ecosystems RC00 Environmental protection and conservation (423.15) | Management operations and methods (320.0) | Climate change (140.4)
ID
PA00N1HJ
File size
756 KB
Source
Open PDF

Abstract

The Office of Forestry and Biodiversity in the United States Agency for International Development's (USAID's) Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment commissioned a midterm performance evaluation of USAID's Measuring Impact (MI) activity.  MI is a six-year contract that helps strengthen the capacity of Agency staff and enhance the evidence base by providing technical assistance (TA) and tools to foster adaptive management of biodiversity programming.  The evaluation sought to examine activity achievements towards mainstreaming best practices for adaptive management and evidence-based decision-making at each stage of the program cycle, in compliance with the Agency's Biodiversity Policy.  The evaluation employed a mixed-methods participatory approach using both qualitative and quantitative methods to address five evaluation questions.  The evaluation concluded that MI has furthered USAID's capacity and appreciation for implementing processes for adaptive management in biodiversity programming.  This success is due to the flexibility, adaptable framework, stakeholder engagement, and demand-driven model of MI tools and TA that allow for engagement at the various stages of USAID's program cycle.  MI has also effectively promoted the use of an analytical framework for incorporating evidence into programming, monitoring, evaluation, and learning purposes.  The activity has also had an effect at the Agency policy level on the use of evidence in programming, although findings on missions' utilization of evidence are less conclusive.  The evaluation provides recommendations for further dissemination of tools and technical approaches and continued engagement with Agency operating units, including nurturing cross-mission learning, to help institutionalize achievements in adaptive management and biodiversity programming.  (Author abstract)