Workshop on Using Contribution Analysis to Address Cause-Effect Questions Danish Evaluation Society...

Workshop onUsing Contribution Analysis to Address

Cause-Effect Questions

Workshop onUsing Contribution Analysis to Address

Cause-Effect QuestionsDanish Evaluation Society

ConferenceKolding, September 2008

John Mayne, Advisor on Public Sector Performance

john.mayne@rogers.com

2

Workshop ObjectivesWorkshop Objectives

• Understand the need to address attribution

• Understand how contribution analysis can help

• Have enough information to undertake a contribution analysis on your own

3

OutlineOutline• Dealing with attribution• Contribution analysis• Working a case• Levels of contribution analysis• Conclusions

4

The challengeThe challenge• Attribution for outcomes always a

challenge• Strong evaluations (such as RCTs) not

always available or possible• A credible performance story needs to

address attribution• Sensible accountability needs to address

attribution• Complexity significantly complicates the

issue• What can be done?

5

The ideaThe idea• Based on the theory of change of

the program,• Buttressed by evidence validating

the theory of change, • Reinforced by examination of other

influencing factors,• Contribution analysis builds a

reasonably credible case about the difference the program is making

6

The typical contextThe typical context

• A program has been funded to achieve intended results

• The results have occurred, perhaps more or less

• It is recognized that several factors likely ‘caused’ the results

• Need to know what was the program’s role in this

7

Two measurement problems

Two measurement problems

• Measuring outcomes• Linking outcomes to actions

(activities and outputs), i.e. attribution• Are we making a difference with our

actions?

8

AttributionAttribution• Outcomes not controlled; are always

other factors at play• Conclusive causal links don’t exist• Are trying to understand better the

influence you are having on intended outcomes

• Need to understand the theory of the program, to establish plausible association

• Something like contribution analysis can help

9

The need to say something

The need to say something

• Many evaluations and most public reporting are silent on attribution

• Credibility greatly weakened as a result

• In evaluations, in performance reporting and in accountability, something be said about attribution

10

Proving CausalityProving Causality

• The gold standard debate (RCTs et al)

• Intense debate underway, especially in development impact evaluation

• Some challenge on RCTs (e.g. Scriven)

• Does appear if RCTs have limited applicability

• Then what do we do?

11

Proving CausalityProving Causality• AEA and EES: many methods

capable of demonstrating scientific rigour

• Methodological appropriateness for given evaluation questions

• Causal analysis: auto mechanic, air crashes, forensic work, doctors—Scriven’s Modus Operandi approach

12

Theory-based evaluation

Theory-based evaluation

• Reconstructing the theory of the program

• Assess/test the credibility of the micro-steps in the theory (links in the results chain)

• Developing & confirming the results achieved by the program

13

Contribution analysis: the theory

Contribution analysis: the theory

• There is a postulated theory of change• The activities of the program were

implemented• The theory of change is supported by

evidence• Other influencing factors have been

assessed & accounted forTherefore• The program very likely made a

contribution

14

Steps in Contribution Analysis

Steps in Contribution Analysis1. Set out the attribution problem to be

addressed2. Develop the postulated theory of change3. Gather the existing evidence on the ToC4. Assemble & assess the contribution story5. Seek out additional evidence6. Revise & strengthen the contribution story7. Develop the complex contribution story

15

1. Set out the attribution problem

1. Set out the attribution problem

• Acknowledge the need to address attribution

• Scope the attribution problem• What is really being asked• What level of confidence is needed?

• Explore the contribution expected• What are the other influencing

factors?• How plausible is a contribution?

16

Cause-Effect QuestionsCause-Effect Questions

Traditional attribution questions• Has the program caused the outcome?• How much of the outcome is caused by

the program?

Contribution questions• Has the program made a difference?• How much of a difference?

17

Cause-Effect QuestionsCause-Effect Questions

Management questions• Is it reasonable to conclude that the

program made a difference?• What conditions are needed to make

this type of program succeed?• Why has the program failed?

18

building an evaluation office

contribution story

building an evaluation office

contribution story• Evaluation aim is to ‘make a

difference’ (an outcome)• e.g., improvements in management

and reporting, more cost-effective public service, enhanced accountability, etc.

• Evaluation products (outputs): • Evaluations and evaluation reports• Advice and assistance

Step 1

19

2. Develop the ToC and Risks to It

2. Develop the ToC and Risks to It

• Build the postulated results chain and ToC• Identify roles played by other

influencing factors• Identify the risks to the assumptions• Determine how contested the ToC is

20

outputs(goods and services

produced by the program)

activities(how the program carries

out its work)

intermediate outcomes(the benefits and changes resulting from the outputs)

end outcomes(the final or long-term

consequences)

Examplesnegotiating, consulting, inspecting, drafting legislation

Exampleschecks delivered, advice given, people processed, information provided, reports produced

Examplessatisfied users, jobs found, equitable treatment, illegal entries stopped, better decisions made

Examplesenvironment improved, stronger economy, safer streets, energy saved

Immediate outcomes(the first level effects of the

outputs)

Examplesactions taken by the recipients, or behaviour changes

Re

su

l ts

A results chainA results chain

External Factors

21

outputs(goods and services

produced by the program)

activities(how the program carries

out its work)

intermediate outcomes(the benefits and changes resulting from the outputs)

end outcomes(the final or long-term

consequences)

Examplesnegotiating, consulting, inspecting, drafting legislation

Exampleschecks delivered, advice given, people processed, information provided, reports produced

Examplessatisfied users, jobs found, equitable treatment, illegal entries stopped, better decisions made

Examplesenvironment improved, stronger economy, safer streets, energy saved

Immediate outcomes(the first level effects of the

outputs)

Examplesactions taken by the recipients, or behaviour changes

Re

su

l ts

Why will these

immediate outcomes

come about?

Results chain linksResults chain links

External Factors

22

Theories of changeTheories of change• A results chain with embedded

assumptions and risks identified• An explanation of why the results

chain is expected to work; what has to happen

Reduction in smoking

Anti-smoking campaign

Assumptions: target is reached, message is heard, message is convincing, no other major influences at work

Risks: target not reached, poor message, peer pressure very strong

23

Strengthened management of agriculture research

Institutionalization of integrated PM&E systems and strategic management

principles

Enhanced planning processes, evaluation systems,

monitoring systems, and professional PM&E capacities

More effective, efficient and relevant agricultural

programs

informationtraining and workshopsfacilitation of organizational change

outputs

immediate outcomes

intermediate outcomes

final outcomes (impacts)

(impacts

Assumptions: Intended target audience received the outputs. With hands on, participatory assistance and training, AROs will try enhanced planning, monitoring and evaluation approaches.Risks: Intended reach not met; training and information not convincing enough for AROs to make the investment; only partially adopted to show interest to donors.

Assumptions: Over time and with continued participatory assistance, AROs will integrate these new approaches into how they do business. The projects activities complement other influencing factors.Risks: Trial efforts do not demonstrate their worth; pressures for greater accountability dissipate; PM&E systems sidelined.

Assumptions: The new planning, monitoring and evaluation approaches will enhance the capacity of the AROs to better manage their resources.Risks: Management becomes too complicated; PM&E systems become a burden; information overload; evidence not really valued for managing

Assumptions: Better management will result in more effective, efficient and relevant agricultural programs.Risks: New approaches do not deliver (great plans but poor delivery); resources cut backs affect PM&E first; weak utilization of evaluative information.

Results Chain Theory of Change: Assumptions and Risks

Figure 1Enhancing Management Capacity in Agricultural Research Organizations (AROs)

Adapted from Horton, Mackay, Anderson and Dupleich (2000).

24

Theory one: Classification The quality of particular aspects of health care can be monitored and measured to provide valid and reliable rankings of comparative performance

Theory two:

Disclosure Information on the comparative performance and the identity of the respective parties is disclosed and publicised

through public media

Theory six:

Rival Framing The ‘expert framing’ assumed in the performance measure is distorted through the application of the media’s ‘dominant frames’

Theory four:

Response Parties subject to the public notification measures will react to the sanctions in order to maintain position or improve performance

Theory five:

Ratings Resistance The authority of the performance measures can be undermined by the agents of those measured claiming that the data are invalid and

unreliable

Theory seven:

Measure manipulation Response may be made to the measurement rather than its consequences with attempts to outmanoeuvre the monitoring apparatus

Theory three a, b, c, d

Alternative sanctions The sanction mounted on the basis of differential performance operate through: a) ‘regulation’ b) ‘consumer choice’ c) ‘purchasing decisions’ d) ‘shaming’

Theory three:

Sanction Members of the broader health community act on the disclosure in order to influence subsequent performance of named parties

Figure 2An initial ‘theory map’ of the public disclosure of health care information

From Pawson et al. (2005)

Theory of Change for anEvaluation Office

better informed management

implementation of recommendations &

advice

acceptance of recommendatio

ns & advice

Outputs

ImmediateOutcomes

Final Outcomes

Results ChainResults Chain

More effective programs• informed decision-making• productive operations• cost-effective programs

Better benefits to citizens

Evaluation Reports- findings &

conclusions- recommendations

Advice

better management practices

IntermediateOutcomes

Enhanced value of evaluative

thinking

Our contribution story line

managers’ & organisation initiatives

Evaluation Studies- participation

Better designed programs

Better data for evaluations

Step 2

Other influencing factors

Office has credibility

and evidence

Changes not planned anyway

Recommendations work

Recommendations work

26

3. Gather existing evidence

3. Gather existing evidence

• Assess the logical robustness of the ToC

• Gather available evidence on• Results• Assumptions• Other influencing factors

27

4. Assemble and assess the contribution story

4. Assemble and assess the contribution story

• Set out the contribution story• Assess its strengths and weaknesses• Refine the ToC

28

Theory of change analysis

Theory of change analysis

• Need to identify which of the links in the results chain have the weakest evidence

• Some may be supported by prior research• Some may be well accepted• But some may be a large leap of faith, or

the subject of debate• With limited resources, these contested

links are where effort should be focused

29

5. Seek out additional evidence

5. Seek out additional evidence

• Determine what is needed• Gather new evidence

30

Strengthening Techniques

Strengthening Techniques

• Refine the results chain and/or gather additional results data

• Survey knowledgeable others involved • Track program variations and their

impacts (time, location, strength)• Undertake case studies• Identify relevant research or evaluation• Use multiple lines of evidence• Do a focused mini-evaluation

31

The Agr Research Orgs evaluation

The Agr Research Orgs evaluation

• CA done:• Theory of change developed• Other influencing factors recognized• The theory of change was revised based on

lessons learned

• CA that could have been done:• A more CA structured approach• More analysis of other factors• More attention to the risks faced

32

6. Revise and strengthen the

contribution story

6. Revise and strengthen the

contribution story• Build the more credible contribution

story• Reassess its strengths and

weaknesses• Revisit step 5

33

A CA Case StudyA CA Case Study

Patton (2008). Advocacy Impact Evaluation. JMDE, 5(9): 1-10.

• Collaboration of agencies spent over $2M on a campaign to influence a Supreme Court decision

• Evaluation Issue: Did it work?• Conclusion: the campaign

contributed significantly to the Court’s decision

34

FeaturesFeatures

• Was a stealth campaign• Evaluation used Scriven’s General

Elimination Method, or the modus operandi approach.

• Undertook considerable document review and interviews, an in-depth case study which served as the evidence for the evaluation

35

Cause-effectCause-effect

• Attribution vs contribution• Attribution concepts don’t work well

in complex settings• Contribution analysis identifies likely

influences• Case examined 2 alternative

possible influences

36

Levels of contribution analysis

Levels of contribution analysis

• Minimalist contribution analysis• Contribution analysis of direct

influence• Contribution analysis of indirect

influence

37

Minimalist CAMinimalist CA• Develop the theory of change• Confirm that the expected outputs

were delivered then,• Based on the strength of the theory

of change, conclude the program made a contribution

38

Other influencing factors

Other influencing factors

• Literature and knowledgeable others can identify the possible other factors

• Reflecting on the theory of change may provide some insight on their plausibility

• Prior evaluation/research may provide insight

• Relative size compared to the program intervention can be examined

• Knowledgeable others will have views on the relative importance of other factors

39

CA of direct influenceCA of direct influence• Minimalist CA, plus• Verifying the expected direct outcomes

occurred• Confirming the assumptions associated

with the direct outcomes • Accounting for other influencing factors

40

CA of indirect influenceCA of indirect influence• CA of direct influence, plus• Verifying the intermediate and final

outcomes occurred• Confirming the assumptions associated

with these indirect outcomes• Accounting for other influencing factors

41

A credible contribution statement

A credible contribution statement

• Description of program context and other influencing factors

• A plausible theory of change• Confirmed program activities, outputs and

outcomes• CA findings: evidence supporting the ToC

and assessment of other influencing factors

• Discussion of the quality of evidence

42

When is CA useful?When is CA useful?• Program is not experimental• Funding is based on a theory of change• Program has been in place for some time• No real scope for varying the

intervention(s)

43

Contribution analysisContribution analysisBuilds evidence on

• Immediate/intermediate outcomes, the behavioural changes

• Links in the results chain• Other influencing factors at play• Other explanations for observed

outcomes

Contribution Evaluation