Process and Implementation Evaluations: A Primer

Beyond assessing whether or not interventions have achieved their stated goals, evaluations can also provide greater understanding—in real-time and at completion—about how, where, for whom, over what time frame, and which aspects of an intervention may (or may not) have succeeded, and thus where improvements might be sought. Moreover, to the extent any intervention is only as good as its implementation, evaluations can also help identify where breakdowns in the delivery system may have occurred and spaces wherein frontline implementers were able to find innovative solutions to local (“binding constraint”) problems. Process and implementation evaluations thus serve the vital purpose of jointly promoting accountability and learning, thereby expanding the common perception of evaluations as external instruments of compliance and discipline to internal procedures for promoting partnerships, innovation, and improvement (organizationally or technically). In this chapter, we describe six different types of process and implementation evaluations and describe their respective strengths and weaknesses in various contexts, for various purposes. As part of collective efforts to enhance the effectiveness of all classes of interventions, impact and process evaluations should be regarded as necessary complements.