Instead of costly annual reports, track SDGs to assess impact of development programs

Communicating the impact of development programs has been the Achilles’ heel of governments and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) since development aid came into being almost a century ago. Impact enhances transparency and accountability, and facilitates learning and improvement. Even with digitalization, which has done technological wonders to data management, governments and NGOs can only continue to speculate about impact. Relying mainly on anecdotal information, which is rich but lacks hard data, governments and NGOs have struggled to provide incontrovertible evidence that their development programs have impacted the lives of their targeted demographics.

This explains why their annual reports are replete with the usual list of direct results, like activities done and outputs produced or delivered. Operational, not development, results are presented. Nothing about that is useful in gauging the effectiveness of programs.

So how should governments and NGOs communicate impact, or at least its manifestations, which are articulated as the desired long-term results in program goals and objectives? These would include reduced poverty incidence as seen in “improved access to basic services, greater resilience to natural disasters, improved literacy rates, increased gender equality, greater economic empowerment and opportunities for women, improved public health outcomes, reduced incidence of preventable illnesses and deaths, increased life expectancy, greater political stability, increased trust in government institutions, and stronger democratic systems.”

There are contemporary methodologies in measuring impact, like randomized control trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, cost benefit analysis, etc. But these are costly to conduct, and require specialists and consultants. There are also ethical issues, as in RCTs, owing to the use of treatment and control groups. These methodologies are often beyond the financial and technical capability of most governments and NGOs, while impinging on their transparency and accountability. NGOs, though, are adept at oversight and audit, as well as in financial controls.

Of course, governments and NGOs can always argue with confidence that without their programs, the overall situation in terms of well-being would have been worse. And the poor and vulnerable would have suffered more in their daily lives, especially in times of adversities. Governments, though, are mandated by laws to make life bearable, if not enjoyable, to their constituents. Given the above issues and constraints, the way forward is for governments and NGOs to hew to the reporting format of the United Nations (UN), through which the progress toward achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is tracked.

The SDGs are virtually the world’s overarching development goals, and they are impact statements with accompanying impact indicators. Governments and NGOs will input all the pertinent data or metrics corresponding to the applicable SDGs, or those they are affecting or contributing to. These will cover the appropriate programs and projects undertaken, the relevant activities completed like webinars, training, workshops, etc.; the number of beneficiaries (communities, families, women/men, young women/young men, girls/boys), the budget spent, and outputs produced or delivered.

The conduct of context-specific evaluation studies, ad hoc or otherwise, is essential to bolster the findings and conclusions drawn from the exercise. All the above will fit into a one-page infographic. If the UN narratives indicate progress toward achievement of the SDGs, well and good. Governments and NGOs can claim contribution straightforwardly. If the results are negative, as explained by the UN, governments and NGOs can argue that the situation would have been worse without their interventions. Therefore, it is an advantageous situation (“win-win”) for both governments and NGOs. And, once and for all, they can get rid of shallow but costly annual reports that are unable to enhance transparency and accountability, and facilitate learning and improvement over time.

Nono Felix