Evaluating evolving and complex programmes: learning and reflections from the child poverty pathfinders' evaluation

Footnotes

1 Quasi-Experimental Designs compare before and after measures for key outcomes of interest for those going through a programme (the intervention group) with a matched comparison group, in order to provide evidence of impact.

2 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) randomly allocate eligible potential participants either to the participant group, who receive the intervention, or a control group, who do not, so that outcomes for the two can be compared. RCTs are often described as the ‘gold standard’ in impact evaluation but can be difficult to apply to social interventions. When interventions are place-based, random allocation would arguably create both practical and ethical issues.

3 See for example GMCA (2022). Cost benefit analysis, including Unit Cost Database (2022).

4 For further background on the 4 E’s, see National Audit Office guidance on assessing value for money in government spending, which outlines the first three Es (Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness). This was subsequently expanded to consider Equity – see for example discussion of the 4Es at betterevaluation.org.

5 A ‘control group’ is a comparison group of people with similar characteristics to those who took part in the intervention, but who were not invited to take part. Data on outcomes for participants can be compared with outcomes for the control group, to establish whether or not the intervention has made a difference.

6 GMCA (2022). Cost benefit analysis, including Unit Cost Database (2022)

7 Office for Budget Responsibility: Fiscal risks and sustainability – September 2024

8 See HM Treasury (2021) Wellbeing guidance for appraisal: supplementary green book guidance. Social Impacts Task Force.