Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publishing Institution Center for Global Development Author Amanda Glassman Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 3 Years

1. 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
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The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data.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

2. Leveraging Knowledge Generation for Policy Impact: Recommendations for the World Bank

Author:
Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
Since 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.
Topic:
International Cooperation, World Bank, Finance, and Banking
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
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
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. A Package of Reforms for Financing Pandemic Preparedness and Response for the G7

Author:
Amanda Glassman and Eleni Smitham
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
COVID-19 has shown the detrimental consequences of insufficient and fragmented financing for outbreak preparedness, prevention, and response (PPR). As the world seeks to recover from the current COVID-19 pandemic, and to mitigate recovery needs for future health crises, more must be done to accelerate global efforts to ensure rapid, adequate funding and governance for global health security, which has been under-resourced and under-prioritized. The rationale for reforming and replenishing the global health architecture to prepare for the next pandemic is clear: to protect health, human lives, and economic well-being.[1] Without dedicated and accelerated investment—in scaled up surveillance, strengthened national health systems, enhanced research and development of medical countermeasures, and more—we will continue to face more frequent and more complex epidemics and pandemics in the years ahead, and be less prepared to stop them.[2] Without the capacity to surge financing to respond at-scale to infectious disease outbreaks, we risk a repeat of the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Last July, the High-Level Independent Panel (HLIP) on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, mandated by the Italian Presidency of the G20, released the report A Global Deal for Our Pandemic Age, laying out policies and investments needed to reduce vulnerabilities to future pandemics.[3] Likewise, in 2021, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response[4] described the shortcomings of the existing architecture and suggested similar policies for the future, including greater assessed contributions for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the need for dedicated financing to prevent and prepare for the next COVID-19 variant and pandemic risk. The Global Preparedness and Monitoring Board’s periodic reports went in this same direction[5] , as did earlier assessments following Ebola, SARS and MERS outbreaks though recommendations often went without implementation.[6] These reports and the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic itself have again made clear that existing mechanisms for financing pandemic preparedness and response are not fit-for-purpose, nor at the sufficient speed and scale needed to ensure global health security. Current financing for pandemic preparedness is small, fragmented, and concentrated in the health sector.[7] Different organizations across the global health and international financial institution architecture hold different comparative advantages in mobilizing and deploying monies and need to be fully financed to do what they are best suited to do. However, no institution (that is adequately funded, credible, and capable) is currently mandated to or accountable for ensuring pandemic preparedness, resulting in financing and accountability gaps, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where Global Health Security Action Plans too often go un-costed and unfunded.[8] Further, new regional organizations and groupings are leaders in their own development, and must be a central part of a new global health security architecture—the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Forum for the Progress and Development of South America (PROSUR), among others, are examples. Adequate reforms and robust replenishments of global health organizations new and old are needed to ensure stronger global health security and pandemic preparedness now and in the future. External funders should take a comprehensive view of the major global health initiatives and consider how a range of reforms, when combined, have the potential to respond more coherently and efficiently to the financing demands related to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, other macro risks that affect public spending on health, and in the face of future health threats. There are reasons for optimism. Unlike the experience during previous pandemic threats, COVID-19 has finally seen the International Monetary Fund become more aware and vocal on the need to address both COVID-19 and future pandemic risks as “systemic risk(s) to the global economy, not just the development […] of a particular country.”[9] Finance, health and development policymakers are increasingly coming together in different fora and recognizing the need to invest across sectors and to connect the international financial architecture with health initiatives in ways that will deliver better outcomes.[10]
Topic:
Reform, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. A Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness

Author:
Amanda Glassman, Eleni Smitham, and Erin Collinson
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The COVID-19 crisis has served as a painful demonstration that no country is fully prepared for a pandemic and that the existing global health architecture remains ill-equipped to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR). The rationale for preventing and containing pandemics is self-evident: the price of preparedness is a fraction of the cost of responding to catastrophic outbreaks, both in terms of human and economic well-being.[1] In the aftermath of the 2003 SARS outbreak, 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak, experts called for scaling up sustainable financing to ensure the world was better prepared to face that next global health threat. But even amid efforts to better understand and measure preparedness gaps,[2] little action was taken to mobilize financing and incentivize investments in strengthening detection, prevention, and response capabilities. As global health threats evolve, countries’ capacity to prepare for and respond to disease outbreaks is increasingly a global imperative. Now is the time to take concrete steps toward establishing sustained financing for pandemic PPR to help bring an end to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, combat future health security threats, and break the costly cycle of neglect.
Topic:
Security, Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Prioritizing Public Spending on Health in Lower-Income Countries: The Role of the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents

Author:
Janeen Madan Keller, Rachel Silverman, Julia Kaufman, and Amanda Glassman
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The Global Financing Facility (GFF), launched in 2015, is a partnership backed by a multi-donor World Bank trust fund that aims to “prioritize and scale-up evidence-driven investments to improve reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH-N) interventions” in low- and lower middle-income countries. A major component of the GFF’s operational model is centered around the investment case, described by the GFF as “a description of the changes that a country wants to see with regard to reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) and a prioritized set of investments required to achieve these results.” Looking retrospectively at investment cases and associated ongoing World Bank operations, this paper aims to shed light on specific aspects of the GFF’s operating model, approach, theory of change, and results to date related to the “development of a costed and prioritized investment case,” and whether the investment case helps to prioritize public spending on health in the real world. The portfolio-wide findings suggest that the GFF delivers a clear value-add within the global health architecture by directing more funding to flow directly through governments via increased World Bank lending for RMNCAH-N (especially in the context of COVID-19-related service disruptions and fiscal contractions). The role of the investment case in aligning and prioritizing resources behind a consensus set of highest-value RMNCAH-N interventions within a specific funding envelope is less well documented in the public domain; GFF efforts to directly influence government RMNCAH-N spending decisions and their efficiency seem to occur primarily through follow-on resource mapping and expenditure tracking. The paper concludes with three recommendations for the GFF and its donors: (1) pursue a deliberate strategy for prioritization of RMNCAH-N services and products within the realistic budget constraint to advance evidence-based decisions on certain trade-offs; (2) increase transparency and public visibility into GFF-supported activities and funding, especially related to RMNCAH-N product procurement and overall resource tracking; and (3) explore incentives for increased donor co-financing within the framework of World Bank projects as a strategy to pool and channel more resources through government coffers.
Topic:
Health, Children, Women, Public Spending, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

Refine your search

more »

more »