Impact evaluation

Impact evaluation is used to understand if government programs and policies work and how well they work.

The term ‘impact’ is used by evaluators in different ways.

The Australian Centre for Evaluation generally uses the term to mean the average effect of a program or policy on the outcome or outcomes it was designed to influence.

We can conduct 'impact evaluation' in many ways. This includes theory-based impact evaluation. However, this page's guidance focuses on experimental and quasi-experimental approaches.

On this page of the toolkit, you can find more background information on impact evaluation.

For information on impact evaluation methods, see: randomised controlled trials, and quasi‑experimental methods.

For information on how to preregister your randomised controlled trial, see: preregistration and pre‑analysis plans for randomised controlled trials.

Causal questions

Questions about program impact are causal in nature. We are asking if the program caused a change in outcomes. For example, did a school-based education program cause a change in average test scores?

There are other important evaluation questions, aside from assessing program impact. It is often appropriate to combine several evaluation methods to fully evaluate a program or policy. For more information, see How to evaluate.

Answering causal questions

The challenge with answering causal questions is that we never get access to 2 worlds. We never know the individual causal effect.

Instead, we only see if your headache persists in this world after you take one course of action.

If your headache went away after taking the medication, there could be many reasons why.

Perhaps it was the medicine, or it was the water you drank with it, or it just got better on its own.

Without the second world where you didn’t take the medicine, how can we be sure the change in your outcome was caused by the medicine?

Misleading comparisons

We need to find a way to mimic the 2 identical worlds above to make valid comparisons.

Comparing the number of headaches that persist among a group of people who took the medicine and a group that didn’t seems like it might be the solution. However, this approach can seriously mislead us.

It can mislead because looking at different people in 2 groups is not the same as looking at the same people in 2 worlds where everything is identical. In the 2 groups, the people who take the medicine and the people who don’t might be very different in ways that matter.

For example, what if the people who took the medicine do it because their headache is worse, and thus less likely to go away? We might underestimate the impact of our medicine. What if the group that take the medicine drink more water with it, and it’s the water helps relieve the headache? Then we might overestimate the impact of our medicine. In both cases, simply comparing the number of headaches in our 2 groups would be misleading.

Creating credible counterfactuals

The field of causal inference looks for ways to solve this problem of misleading comparisons. The goal is to create a group that can stand in for the world that you didn’t observe (in this case, the world where you didn’t take the medicine). We call this a counterfactual.

The best way to create a credible counterfactual is to use a randomised controlled trial (RCT). By assigning people to groups using a coin flip, and then giving one group the medicine, we create 2 groups that are highly comparable. This is as close as we can get to creating 2 identical worlds. Since individuals were assigned at random, we are unlikely to get all the people with the worst headaches assigned to the group that takes the medicine.

There are other methods, sometimes called quasi‑experimental methods, that can be used to create counterfactuals, including:

• regression discontinuity designs
• difference‑in‑differences
• instrumental variables.