Browse by sub-sector
Open all 268 in the libraryPolicy & Legal Reform
Development, adoption, and implementation of laws, policies, and regulations, including legislative drafting support, regulatory reform, and tracking of formal policy change.
Output
Goal
Civil Society & Community Governance
Civil society organization capacity, civic space, citizen participation, community-level decision-making structures, and engagement between communities and authorities.
Output
Outcome
Local Government Capacity
Subnational government systems, planning and budgeting, revenue and financial management, staffing and skills, and the performance of local administrative functions.
Output
Goal
Public Service Delivery
Access to and quality of publicly provided services, citizen satisfaction and responsiveness, grievance handling, and service standards at the point of delivery.
Output
Goal
Accountability & Anti-Corruption
Oversight institutions, audit and procurement transparency, integrity systems, complaint and whistleblower mechanisms, and measures of perceived and reported corruption.
Output
Outcome
Human Rights & Civil Liberties
Protection and realization of civil and political rights, freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, and the functioning of rights institutions and protections.
Output
Immediate Outcome
Democratic Governance & Elections
Electoral processes and administration, political participation and representation, electoral integrity, and the institutions that organize and oversee elections.
Output
Outcome
Other Governance & Institutional Development sub-sectors
Smaller measurement areas in Governance & Institutional Development, with a sample indicator from each.
Methods by outcome type
Match the method to the outcome, not to what is easiest to collect.
| Outcome type | Primary method | Observation | Key instruments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy & legal change | Documentary tracking against a defined policy or legislative stage model | Verification against official gazettes and legal texts required | Policy and legislation trackers, official records review, process tracing |
| Institutional capacity & performance | Institutional or organizational capacity assessment, repeated over time | Document review and structured assessment required | Capacity assessment tools, PEFA for public financial management, records review |
| Service delivery quality | Service delivery assessment plus citizen feedback | Observation or facility-level review where feasible | Citizen report cards, community scorecards, service standards checklists, administrative records |
| Citizen participation & voice | Population or stakeholder survey plus participation records | Not required (self-reported participation and meeting records) | Afrobarometer and Latinobarometro question modules, attendance and consultation records |
| Perceived corruption & integrity | Perception and experience surveys, triangulated with administrative integrity data | Not directly observable; perceived and reported separately | Experience-of-corruption survey modules, audit and procurement records, complaint system data |
| Rights protection | Case documentation, monitoring records, and standardized rights assessment | Verification of documented cases required | Human rights monitoring frameworks, case records, SDG 16 official indicators |
Common evaluation questions
The questions that anchor design and data-collection decisions, grouped by cluster.
Policy & Legal Reform
Did supported policies or laws advance through the intended stages from drafting to adoption?
Evidence: Documentary tracking against a defined stage model, verified against official gazettes and legal texts. Design: Process tracing, implementation evaluation.
Were adopted reforms implemented in practice, not only on paper?
Evidence: Review of implementing regulations, budget allocations, and administrative records over time. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Civil Society & Community Governance
Did supported civil society organizations strengthen their organizational and advocacy capacity?
Evidence: Repeat organizational capacity assessment at baseline and a later point. Design: Implementation evaluation, before-and-after.
Did community governance structures change how decisions are made or contested locally?
Evidence: Participation and meeting records triangulated with stakeholder interviews and a perception survey. Design: Contribution analysis, outcome evaluation.
Local Government Capacity
Did public financial management at supported local governments improve?
Evidence: PEFA assessment or equivalent financial management review at two points in time. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Are strengthened local government functions sustained after support ends?
Evidence: Repeat capacity assessment and records review at program end and a follow-up point. Design: Sustainability / ex-post evaluation.
Public Service Delivery
Did the quality or responsiveness of targeted services change?
Evidence: Citizen report card or community scorecard at baseline and endline, with service records. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Were service improvements delivered with the intended coverage and fidelity?
Evidence: Service delivery assessment against standards plus program monitoring data. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Accountability & Anti-Corruption
Did oversight, audit, or grievance mechanisms function as intended and handle cases?
Evidence: Complaint and case system data, audit coverage records, and procurement transparency review. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Did citizens report different experiences with corruption in the target area?
Evidence: Experience-of-corruption survey modules at baseline and endline, read as one signal among several. Design: Outcome evaluation, with attribution treated cautiously.
Human Rights & Civil Liberties
Did rights monitoring or protection mechanisms document and respond to more cases?
Evidence: Case documentation and monitoring records reviewed against a defined framework. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Did the program strengthen the capacity of rights institutions to carry out their mandate?
Evidence: Institutional capacity assessment and review of mandated functions over time. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Democratic Governance & Elections
Were supported electoral processes administered according to the intended standards?
Evidence: Electoral administration records and observation against an agreed standards checklist. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Did participation or representation among the target population change?
Evidence: Participation records and population survey modules at two points, with context noted. Design: Outcome evaluation, with attribution treated cautiously.
The standards that matter
Governance has a large ecosystem of cross-country indices and standards, and they serve different purposes. Composite and perception indices such as the Worldwide Governance Indicators, V-Dem, Freedom House, and the Transparency International CPI are built for comparison and trend tracking across countries; they are not designed to attribute change to a single program. For institutional performance, PEFA gives a structured public financial management assessment. For program-level outcomes, draw indicator wording from SDG 16 official indicators where it fits, use Afrobarometer or Latinobarometro modules for citizen perception, and report index movement as context rather than as program effect.
World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) ↗
Composite cross-country indicators across six governance dimensions, built from many underlying sources for comparison, not program attribution.
V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) ↗
Disaggregated expert-coded dataset and indices measuring multiple dimensions of democracy across countries and over time.
Freedom House: Freedom in the World ↗
Annual assessment of political rights and civil liberties scoring countries and territories on a standardized framework.
Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ↗
Composite index ranking countries by perceived public sector corruption; a perception measure, not a count of corruption.
PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) ↗
Standardized framework for assessing the performance of public financial management systems.
Open Government Partnership ↗
Multilateral initiative with national and local commitments on transparency, participation, and accountability, monitored by an Independent Reporting Mechanism.
Afrobarometer / Latinobarometro ↗
Regional public attitude survey networks with validated modules on democracy, governance, trust, and experience of corruption.
Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) ↗
Composite index measuring governance performance across African countries from many underlying indicators.
SDG 16 official indicators ↗
UN indicator set for peaceful and inclusive societies, justice, and effective institutions, with official metadata and definitions.
OECD public governance work ↗
OECD measurement and indicators on public sector performance, integrity, open government, and trust in institutions.
Common mistakes to avoid
Claiming a program moved a national governance index
Indices such as WGI, V-Dem, Freedom House, and the CPI are composite or perception measures built for cross-country comparison. Their own documentation does not support attributing a movement to one program, since many factors and underlying sources drive the score.
Treating perception scores as direct measures of behavior
The CPI and similar indices measure perceived corruption, not counts of corrupt acts. Reporting them as if they were experience or incidence data misreads what the framework states it measures.
Reporting a governance score without naming the source and method
WGI, V-Dem, and IIAG aggregate different underlying sources with different methods. Citing a number without the source, year, and dimension breaks comparability and traceability.
Using non-standard indicator wording for institutional outcomes
Reworded indicators break comparability with SDG 16 official indicators and with Afrobarometer and Latinobarometro modules. Use the published definitions verbatim where they apply.
Assessing public financial management without the structured framework
Ad hoc financial management scoring departs from PEFA, which sets defined dimensions and scoring rules. Use the framework so results are comparable and replicable.
Collecting sensitive governance and rights data without protection protocols
Data on corruption experience, political opinion, and human rights cases can put respondents at risk. Consent, confidentiality, and data protection should be designed in, consistent with established human rights monitoring and survey ethics guidance, not added afterward.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use a national governance index as an outcome indicator for my program?
Use it as context, not as a program outcome you claim to have moved. Indices such as the Worldwide Governance Indicators, V-Dem, Freedom House, and the CPI are built for cross-country comparison and aggregate many underlying sources. A national score can shift for reasons unrelated to any single program. For program-level results, measure outcomes you can plausibly link to your activities and report index movement separately as background.
What is the difference between perceived and experienced corruption?
Perceived corruption, as in the Transparency International CPI, captures how corrupt people believe the public sector to be. Experienced corruption captures whether respondents report encountering specific corrupt practices, often through survey modules like those used by Afrobarometer or Latinobarometro. They can move in different directions, so name which one your indicator measures and use the matching instrument.
How should I measure policy or legal reform results?
Track reforms against a defined stage model, from drafting through adoption to implementation, and verify each stage against official records such as gazettes and legal texts. Adoption on paper is not the same as implementation, so include implementing regulations, budget allocations, and administrative practice in what you measure. Process tracing and contribution analysis are common designs because governance change rarely has a single clean cause.
Which framework should I use for local government financial management?
PEFA (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability) is the standard structured framework for assessing public financial management performance. It defines the dimensions and scoring rules, which makes results comparable across assessments and over time. Apply it as published rather than building an ad hoc scoring scheme, so a later reassessment can show change on the same basis.
Why is attribution treated so cautiously in governance M&E?
Governance outcomes such as trust, integrity, participation, and rights protection are shaped by political, economic, and social forces well beyond any one program. That is why this guidance frames results as evaluation questions with appropriate designs, often process tracing or contribution analysis, rather than as claims that a program changed a national indicator. Be explicit about your contribution, the other plausible explanations, and the evidence that lets you weigh them.