Results in development assistance are about change

A good result is not about how much money is spent, or how many projects are launched. A result is about the changes that development assistance actually contributes to.

For instance, a result could be that more children learn to read, that farmers in developing countries achieve higher yields, or that the health system provides better treatment for the population.

To understand results, it is useful to distinguish between different levels in a results chain.

An important distinction between what we do and the effects of what we do

• Outputs are the products and services delivered through an intervention.
• Outcomes are direct changes for the people, organisations or institutions targeted by the intervention, in the short or medium term.
• Impacts are broader, longer-term changes in society that the intervention has contributed to over time.

Building a school is an output – a step towards achieving the goal. An outcome is that more children attend school and learn to read, write and do arithmetic. A long-term impact might be that young people are better prepared for the future and make valuable contributions to society.

Introducing new data systems and training public-sector employees, for example in a tax authority in a developing country, are also outputs. Increased expertise among tax authority employees is an outcome. The longer-term impact is hopefully that the state is able to collect more tax fairly, and thus have more resources to spend on schools, healthcare and other services.

So it is not enough simply to know what the money is spent on. We need to examine what difference development assistance makes for people and societies: What is different from what it would have been without the development assistance? And did the intervention have a greater effect than other possible alternatives?

Research, evaluation and experience provide the foundation

Norad starts its work long before the money is disbursed. First, we assess the problem we want to address. We define a goal. We then consider different ways of addressing the problem before selecting the partners and projects we believe are most likely to deliver results.

Our assessments are always informed by research, evaluations and experience from previous projects.

While projects are ongoing, partners report on progress and results, and projects are evaluated. At Norad, we also make field visits and regularly speak with relevant stakeholders to check whether projects are on the right track. Where necessary, we make adjustments along the way. And we stop disbursements if we find that the money is not being used as intended. We keep our hands on the wheel throughout the process.

Not everything can be counted

Some results are relatively easy to measure. To illustrate, we can count how many people have been vaccinated, measure reductions in child mortality and test children's reading and writing skills. Other results and changes are more difficult to measure precisely and link directly to individual development assistance projects.

But development assistance matters, even when it cannot be counted.

For example, women's rights may be strengthened, important political reforms may have taken place that improve people's lives in a country, or public institutions may have become stronger and more capable.

This does not mean that such results are less important or impossible to assess. Quantitative data can be combined with in-depth interviews, observations and thorough analyses using robust qualitative methods. Methods for measuring results are adapted to the intervention and the context.

We cannot take all the credit

Access to information that we take for granted in Norway is limited or very poor in many of our partner countries. The quality of statistics and information about countries' economies and development varies. This makes measuring change difficult. Some development assistance is used to improve these systems, but projects also often need to establish their own data collection.

In some cases, it is possible to assess how much of a change can be attributed to a specific intervention. Often, it is more appropriate to assess whether and how the intervention is likely to have contributed to the change. This is particularly relevant for complex and long-term interventions, capacity development and political reforms.

Development rarely happens because of one actor alone, and this is also important to emphasise. Local authorities, other donors and local communities themselves often contribute to the changes. War, the global economy, politics and climate also affect results.

We therefore cannot always say precisely how much credit Norwegian development assistance can take for positive results. But we can assess whether and how development assistance has contributed. And we must be open about what we know and what we are uncertain about.

Getting the greatest development impact from every krone spent

Where possible, results should be considered in relation to the costs of achieving them and what alternative interventions could have achieved with the same resources.

It is also important to assess whether the intervention has had any unintended or negative effects, and whether positive results will last after funding and follow-up have ended. Local ownership, local anchoring, and sustainable institutions and systems are key considerations in such an assessment.

Knowledge, evaluation and the assessment of results help us understand what works and what does not. That allows us to direct funding where it can make the greatest difference – and achieve the greatest possible development impact from every krone spent.