STEG Workshop Examines Impact Evaluation and Theory of Change in Development Programmes
The University of Ghana Business School (UGBS) Research and Grant Management Office, in collaboration with the School of Graduate Studies and the Transform Africa from Within (TaFW) Group, organised the 7th STEG Workshop focusing on impact evaluation and the application of Theory of Change in the design and assessment of development programmes. The sessions were held on 8th October 2026 and facilitated by Prof. Edward Asiedu of the Department of Finance, UGBS. The workshop aimed to examine approaches to determining the effectiveness of development interventions, establishing credible evidence of programme outcomes and understanding the processes through which intended changes are achieved.
The first session, titled “What Is Impact Evaluation?”, introduced participants to the concept of impact evaluation, its relevance to public policy and the methods used to determine whether a programme has made a measurable difference. Prof. Asiedu explained that impact evaluation goes beyond documenting programme activities and outputs to establish the actual changes attributable to an intervention. He noted that the central question is the difference between what happened with a programme and what would have happened in its absence. He distinguished monitoring from evaluation, explaining that while monitoring tracks whether programmes are being implemented as planned, evaluation examines whether they have achieved their intended objectives and why. He identified five components of programme evaluation: needs assessment, programme theory assessment, process evaluation, impact evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Prof. Edward Asiedu, facilitating the STEG Workshop on Impact Evaluation and Theory of Change in Development Programmes.
A major focus of the session was the evaluation problem and the difficulty of establishing what would have happened to programme beneficiaries without the intervention. Prof. Asiedu explained that this alternative outcome, known as the counterfactual, cannot be directly observed for the same individual or unit, making it necessary to construct a credible comparison group. Using a hypothetical school feeding programme, he demonstrated how relying solely on before-and-after comparisons or comparing beneficiaries with non-beneficiaries could produce misleading conclusions. He explained that changes in attendance could result from other factors, while differences between participating and non-participating schools could reflect conditions that existed before the programme began. The session examined several methods for constructing a credible counterfactual, including randomised assignment, difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity and matching. Participants were also introduced to Ghanaian programme evaluations, including secondary school scholarship interventions, the Ghana School Feeding Programme and the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) programme, as examples of how different evaluation methods are applied in practice.
The second session focused on “Theory of Change (ToC)”, an approach to understanding and documenting how and why a programme is expected to achieve its intended results within a particular context. Prof. Asiedu explained that a Theory of Change maps the causal links between a programme’s inputs, activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes and final outcomes, while identifying the assumptions underlying each stage. He described it as a way of filling the ‘missing middle’ between what a programme does and the long-term change it seeks to achieve. The session examined how to develop a Theory of Change, beginning with clearly defining the intervention, its objectives and expected outcomes. This is followed by mapping the main steps in the causal chain, identifying the assumptions underpinning the process, establishing a realistic timeline, identifying key evaluation questions and validating and revising the framework. Using an immunisation intervention in Udaipur, India, as a practical example, Prof. Asiedu demonstrated how a Theory of Change could help identify barriers to achieving full immunisation coverage and develop appropriate interventions to address them.
The example examined both supply-side and demand-side challenges, including the high absenteeism of health workers at health centres, the time and income costs associated with repeated visits for vaccination, and the low value attached to immunisation by some members of the community. To address these challenges, the intervention introduced regular immunisation camps to ensure the availability of health workers and provided incentives, including one kilogramme of lentils per immunisation visit and steel plates upon completion of the required vaccination schedule, to encourage parents to immunise their children. Participants were taken through the different stages of the causal chain, from the resources and activities required to implement the intervention to the immediate outputs, behavioural changes and expected long-term outcomes of increased immunisation, improved child health and reduced mortality. Prof. Asiedu further discussed the importance of identifying assumptions, risks and indicators when developing a Theory of Change.
Some participants at the STEG Workshop on Impact Evaluation and Theory of Change in Development Programmes.
The session also examined the relationship between Theory of Change and the Logical Framework (LogFrame), noting that both approaches support programme theory assessment, although they differ in how they present the pathways through which programmes are expected to achieve results. Prof. Asiedu also introduced participants to the ‘black box’ problem in programme evaluation, which occurs when evaluators focus on final outcomes without adequately examining the processes that led to those results. He explained that a programme may fail to achieve its objectives because of weaknesses in implementation or because the underlying theory of the intervention is faulty. Distinguishing between implementation failure and theory failure, he noted that examining the different stages of the causal chain enables programme managers and evaluators to identify where an intervention has broken down and make informed decisions about necessary changes. The two sessions provided participants with an understanding that while impact evaluation establishes whether a programme has made a difference, Theory of Change helps explain how the intended change is expected to occur and the conditions necessary for it to happen.