It is clear that a new wind is blowing in the discussion about how best to evaluate international aid. Three back-to-back events in Washington, DC recently attracted the attention of bilateral agencies, government ministries and private donors: December’s announcement of the first director for the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (or 3IE) was followed by a conference held by the World Bank, entitled “Making Smart Policy: Using Impact Evaluation for Policy Making,” and the convening of members of the Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation (NONIE). These meetings shared a focus on rigorous impact evaluation: “analyses that measure the net change in outcomes for a particular group of people that can be attributed to a specific program using the best methodology available, feasible and appropriate to the evaluation question that is being investigated and to the specific context,” to quote 3IE’s founding document of March 2007. For some, the phrase above hints at an ominous turn toward randomized control trials (RCTs) – the epitome of experimental research and an investigative approach assumed by many to be largely inappropriate for the contexts in which NGOs work. Online discussions suggest concern about a donor-driven evaluation agenda and the overly scientific measurement of tangible results. The worry likely stems from two views. First, that assigning aid programs randomly is unethical because it contradicts principles about serving those in need, the most vulnerable or excluded. And second, that the use of “rigorous” approaches contradicts all we have learned about the importance of evaluation as a means of empowerment, not just measurement.
