Unit IV

Monitoring impact of Interventions

Monitoring is a form of evaluation or assessment, though unlike outcome or impact evalua-

tion, it takes place shortly after an intervention has begun (formative evaluation), through-
out the course of an intervention (process evaluation) or midway through the intervention
(mid-term evaluation).
Monitoring is not an end in itself. Monitoring allows programmes to determine what is and
is not working well, so that adjustments can be made along the way. It allows programmes
to assess what is actually happening versus what was planned.

Monitoring allows programmes to:

• Implement remedial measures to get programmes back on track and remain ac-
countable to the expected results the programme is aiming to achieve.
• Determine how funds should be distributed across the programme activities.
• Collect information that can be used in the evaluation process.

When monitoring activities are not carried out directly by the decision-makers of the pro-
gramme it is crucial that the findings from those monitoring activities are coordinated and
fed back to them.

Information from monitoring activities can also be disseminated to different groups outside
of the organization which helps promote transparency and provides an opportunity to ob-
tain feedback from key stakeholders.

There are no standard monitoring tools and methods. These will vary according to the
type of intervention and objectives outlined in the programme. Examples of monitoring
methods include:
• Activity monitoring reports
• Record reviews from service provision (e.g. police reports, case records, health in-
take forms and records, others)
• Exit interviews with clients (survivors)
 • Qualitative techniques to measure attitudes, knowledge, skills, behavior and the ex-
periences of survivors, service providers, perpetrators and others that might be tar-
geted in the intervention.
• Statistical reviews from administrative databases (i.e. in the health, justice, interior
sectors, shelters, social welfare offices and others)
• Other quantitative techniques.

Outcome Evaluation

Outcome evaluations measure programme results or outcomes. These can be both short
and long-term outcomes.
• For example, in a programme to strengthen health sector response to cases of vio-
lence against women, a short-term outcome may be the use of standardized proto-
cols and procedures by practitioners in a health facility.
• A long-term outcome may be the sector and system-wide integration of those poli-
cies.
• It is important to be very clear from the beginning of a project or intervention, what
the expected objectives and outcomes will be, and to identify what specific changes
are expected for what specific population.

Impact Evaluation
Impact evaluation measures the difference between what happened with the programme
and what would have happened without it. It answers the question, “How much (if any) of
the change observed in the target population occurred because of the programme or inter-
vention?”
Rigorous research designs are needed for this level of evaluation. It is the most complex
and intensive type of evaluation, incorporating methods such as random selection, control
and comparison groups.
These methods serve to:
• Establish causal links or relationships between the activities carried out and the de-
sired outcomes.
• Identify and isolate any external factors that may influence the desired outcomes.
For example, an impact evaluation of an initiative aimed at preventing sexual assaults on
women and girls in town x through infrastructural improvements (lighting, more visible
walkways, etc.) might also look at data from a comparison community (town y) to assess
whether reductions in the number of assaults seen at the end of the programme could be
attributed to those improvements. The aim is to isolate other factors that might have influ-
enced the reduction in assaults, such as training for police or new legislation.
While impact evaluations may be considered the “gold standard” for monitoring and evalu-
ation, they are challenging and may not be feasible for many reasons, including:
• They require a significant amount of resources and time, which many organizations
may not have.
• To be done properly, they also require the collection of data following specific statis-
tical methodology, over a period of time, from a range of control and intervention
groups, which may be difficult for some groups.
Impact evaluations may not always be called for, or even appropriate for the needs of most
programmes and interventions looking to monitor and evaluate their activities.

• To measure programme impact, an evaluation is typically conducted at the start

(known as a baseline) and again at the end (known as an endline) of a programme.
Measurements are also collected from a control group with similar characteristics to
the target population, but that is not receiving the intervention so that the two can be
compared.
• Attributing changes in outcomes to a particular intervention requires one to rule out
all other possible explanations and control for all external or confounding factors
that may account for the results.

An evaluation of the impact of a campaign to raise awareness around the provisions of a

recently enacted law on violence against women for example would need to incorporate:
baseline data on awareness of the law’s provisions prior to the campaign for the interven-
tion group; endline data on awareness of the law’s provisions after the campaign for the in-
tervention group; baseline data on awareness of the law’s provisions prior to the campaign
for a closely matched control group not exposed to the campaign; and
endline data on awareness of the law’s provisions after the campaign for a closely
matched control group not exposed to the campaign.

Endline data allows the programme to see if there were external/ additional factors that
might influence the level of awareness among those not exposed to the campaign. If the
study design does not involve a randomly-assigned control group, it is not possible to
make a definitive statement regarding any differences in outcome between areas with the
programme and areas without the programme.
However, if statistically rigorous baseline studies with randomly assigned control groups
cannot be conducted, very useful and valid baseline information and endline information
can still be collected.
 Evidence - based HR practices

Organizations increasingly utilize data to make decisions that ultimately impact their bottom line.
This has provoked the transition into an evidence-based approach to HR functions.

Evidence-based HR is the practice of making decisions supported by evidence from the following
sources to help ensure the desired business outcomes are reached:

• Available internal data

• Research findings and empirical studies
• Expert judgment and real experience

• Values and concerns

This method shifts away from basing HR management on trends, biases, quick fixes, or word-of-
mouth success stories. Instead, it progresses toward critical thinking about what works and doesn’t
work for tactical decision-making.

Example of evidence-based HR
This is a hypothetical illustration:

(1) An organization’s leadership has asked HR to address the problem of high absence rates. Instead
of just suggesting an anecdotal method you recently read about, you would start with some re-
search. Were any previous initiatives to manage absence rates, and were they impactful?

It turns out that some managers had sporadically followed up with employees when they come back
to work, but it wasn’t consistent enough to affect the absence rate. You find credible sources on
how to conduct successful return-to-work interviews and take on the responsibility of a trial pro-
gram, tracking the feedback. That data is compared to the previous absence rates, and a slight re-
duction in the absence rate surfaces. Managers are then trained to efficiently conduct return-to-work
interviews themselves. HR continues to review that data for absence patterns and alerts managers to
the trigger points that seem to precede employee absences.

(2) One real-world instance is that of PNC Bank, which embraced an evidence-based mindset on
performance management. Its HR team employed tools and analytics to better understand the risk
pertaining to their numerous incentive plans. Thinking through all stages of the talent cycle pro-
vided better knowledge of the nature of certain jobs. HR was then able to create a framework to
mitigate risk instead of simply doing away with the bonus policies.

(3) Now for a case of how evidence-based HR principles could have saved one employer a great
deal of money:

The city of New York invested $75 million in incentive payments for teachers in 2007. The as-
sumption was that it would motivate teachers to be more satisfied and productive and lead to im-
provement in their students’ performance. As it turned out, the program had no impact on how the
teachers performed or student achievement. If school officials had done some research, they would
have discovered evidence that this approach was unlikely to deliver their presumed results.

Benefits of evidence-based HR
Today’s fast-paced, highly competitive business world requires sound decision-making for organi-
zations to stay competitive. When HR adopts an evidence-based mindset, it can better support com-
pany goals. The many benefits of this include:

• Aligning HR practices with strategic organizational goals – An organization’s most im-

portant asset is its workforce, which can have a direct impact on the organization’s business
performance and bottom line. Using an evidence-based approach, HR will be able to, for ex-
ample, balance the amount of compensation offered with the existing resources of the orga-
nization, or decide on the number of new talents they need to hire to help the organization
further expand.
• Systematic and consistent decision-making that generates effective interventions –
Think of recruitment, for example. By utilizing hiring data, HR professionals can help their
organizations increase recruiting efficiency by 80% and decrease up to 50% of attrition
rates.
• Reducing speculation, uncertainty, and errors in judgment – Every professional, no
matter how senior or experienced they are, will always have their own biases. The presence
of data and evidence in people management and HR decision-making will help reduce those
biases and allow the team to make judgements based on a shared objective reality instead of
just gut instinct.
• Improve credibility and stature of the HR profession – Gone are the days when HR is
seen as merely an administrative team with no real strategic value. By utilizing a data-driven
approach to an organization’s people issues and applying HR best practices, HR can directly
contribute to increasing the business’ bottom line and realizing business goals.
• Ensuring solid risk management – With data, HR people can not only understand what
has gone wrong in the past, but also have an insight into what might happen in the future.
This means that HR can make decisions and plan accordingly in order to effectively mini-
mize the possibility of failure when implementing their future initiatives.

Obstacles to practicing evidence-based HR

As with any new way of doing things, there are always obstacles to overcome. When trying to pro-
mote evidence-based HRM, these are the hurdles you may face:
 • Resistance to change – Many people are skeptical about new methods and resist leaving
their comfort zones. They might also fear that a new approach will reveal flaws in current
practices that reflect poorly on their efforts. Consequently, it can be challenging to convince

them that it’s safe to move beyond “the way things have always been done.”
• Low data literacy – HR practitioners might not have the knowledge and skills needed to
read and interpret workforce data and other figures and translate it into action. They may
also be apprehensive about the process of learning what they need to know.
• Lack of access to data – If HR does not have essential company data at its disposal, it ham-
pers the effort to make evidence-based decisions. HR needs the right resources and the abil-
ity to analyze data from all functions of the organization.
• Perceived time issues – Decisions often need to be made quickly, and going through the
process of gathering and analyzing data might be seen as time-consuming. However, the re-
duction of errors and improved efficiency outweigh this.

Responsible Investment

What is responsible investment?

Responsible investment involves considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues
when making investment decisions and influencing companies or assets (known as active ownership
or stewardship). It complements traditional financial analysis and portfolio construction techniques.

Responsible investors can have different objectives. Some focus exclusively on financial returns
and consider ESG issues that could impact these. Others aim to generate financial returns and to
achieve positive outcomes for people and the planet, while avoiding negative ones.

ESG issues that investors can consider when investing responsibly include:

Environmental Social Governance

Climate Change Human Rights Board Structure
Circular Economy Decent work Executive remuneration
Biodiversity Diversity, equity, inclusion Tax fairness
Deforestation Responsible political engagement
 Mediation
Mediation is a process that helps people resolve conflicts for themselves in a mutually acceptable
way in which everyone engaged in the dispute meets with one or more trained mediators. In a pri-
vate setting, the mediator provides a sequential, simple process for the parties to discuss their dis-
pute along with their feelings, perceptions and needs.

Mediation process

There are six steps in the mediation process:

1) Agree to mediate
2) Gather points of view
3) Focus on interest
4) Create win-win options
5) Evaluate options
6) Create an agreement

Types of Mediation process

The following are the various types of mediation process:

Evaluative mediation

Evaluative mediation is a type of mediation in which mediators are more likely to make recommen-
dations and suggestions and to express opinions. Mediator is more “involved” in terms of the medi-
ator suggesting or proposing practical results and effectively attempting to bring the parties to a res-
olution.

Facilitative mediation

Facilitative mediation is also a known as traditional mediation. Here, an expert or a professional

mediator attempts to facilitate negotiation agreement between the parties in dispute. Rather than
making recommendations and suggestions or forcing a decision, the mediator urges and encourages
disputants to arrive at their own voluntary solutions by investigating each other’s more profound in-
terests.

Transformative mediation
Instead of seeking resolution ( a settlement agreement), transformative mediation seeks to change
(transform) party-interaction, perception and approach to conflict. In transformative mediation, me-
diators focus on engaging and empowering disputants to resolve their conflict and urge them to per-
ceive each others needs and interests.

Moderation Analysis

Moderator is an arbitrator or mediator. It is an Independent variable that change the nature of the
other variable. Moderators are responsible for the facilitation, review and guidance of a discussion
or a debate and its related interactions. Moderators use a standard guideline to ensure that all the
content shared during a discussion or debate is appropriate and adheres to the organisation’s rules.

A moderator analysis is used to determine whether the relationship between two variables depends
on (is moderated by) the third variable.

Interaction analysis

Interaction analysis is the objective and systematic observation of an interaction. The moderator
looks for the verbal and non verbal interaction that is going on between the parties the initiation, re-
sponses, the silences and how the feelings were between them and the acceptance of the feelings.
Arguments, lecturing, listening etc are some common types of interaction analysis.