Trust and mutual learning among partners at country and subnational levels are valued. Dialogue among partners and participatory approaches supporting locally led problem-solving are promoted. Broad involvement – supported by appropriate capacity building – is sought in problem analysis, design, planning, monitoring, evaluation and use of results to foster broad-based ownership and ensure sustainability.
OECD (2019[1]) Managing for Sustainable Development Results, Guiding Principle 3
Development partners increasingly support locally led development as a way to achieve more sustainable results and greater fairness by promoting ownership, aligning to local needs and catalysing the power and capacity of local actors. This trend resonates strongly with Guiding Principle 3, which calls for promoting locally led problem-solving through participatory approaches throughout the programming cycle, appropriate capacity building and a culture of trust and mutual learning.
Locally led development and capacity building are intrinsically linked:
The shift towards locally led development acknowledges the critical role of local actors as policymakers and/or change agents with crucial links to local communities. Yet those actors often face challenges in accessing the resources and power needed to implement their solutions. Creating an enabling environment for locally led development therefore requires capacity-building efforts and increased resources to strengthen the efficiencies of local actors.
Building capacity is a long-term process that cannot be led from the outside. It has to be owned by the people and organisations that benefit from it, even if assisted by external support.
Most locally led initiatives include, implicitly or explicitly, a capacity-building component. This chapter therefore starts with measuring the results of capacity-building initiatives, noting the challenges inherent in the nature of capacity-building interventions and offering specific approaches that can help address these obstacles and get results information for learning and improved programming. The chapter then extends the approach to measuring the results of locally led projects and programmes, a frontier area in which many development actors are struggling to get the right method and metrics. It can be read in conjunction with section 5.3 of Chapter 5, which explores ways to ensure that monitoring, evaluation and learning systems are locally led.
Measuring the results of capacity-building initiatives.
Measuring the results of support to locally led development.
Capacity building is vital for social change and development, and a significant share of ODA includes a capacity-building component.
Capacity development is defined as a “process whereby people, organisations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time” (OECD, 2006[2]). It applies at three interconnected levels: i) individuals’ competencies and skills – touching upon both “soft” competencies such as building relationships, trust and legitimacy, and “hard” competencies such as technical, logistical and managerial skills; ii) organisations’ structures, functions and systems; and iii) the enabling environment, which concerns the policy, legal, regulatory, economic and social support systems in which individuals and organisations operate.
People routinely consider capacity building to be narrowly or mostly related to training. Yet, while training is a way in which capacity building can occur, it is not the only way. Training is often necessary, but insufficient. Therefore, when developing capacity-building initiatives, it is important to consider that capacity building encompasses a broad array of modalities, including training, technical assistance, scholarships and e-learning, each requiring distinct measurement approaches.
Source: (OECD, 2023[3]), Measuring the impact of capacity-building initiatives.
Measuring outcomes of capacity-building initiatives is difficult for a number of reasons, including:
the multi-layered nature of capacity building, which requires a comprehensive approach that involves different learning outcomes, change processes and change agents. Capacity-building initiatives involve diverse modalities, generally over time, and their results do not necessarily happen in a linear way and are often less tangible than in other areas (e.g. empowerment versus equipment);
the timeframe in which results can be measured. Changes at individual and organisational levels take time to materialise, and changing the enabling environment takes time to be internalised by affected stakeholders. Further, the increase in capacity can be latent and may generate concrete results well beyond the timeframe of the initiative;
the multiple pathways that lead to capacity strengthening and ultimately behaviour change, which make it difficult to attribute results to specific capacity-building initiatives, especially when multiple capacity-building modalities are used in one intervention. This is all the more the case when measuring high-level outcomes, given that the control and causality diminishes compared with measuring short-term outputs;
the level of expertise and costs required to measure results. Using assessment tools such as testing or surveys requires expertise, and relying on qualitative approaches involves heavy and often expensive methods. The measurement complexity also increases when going beyond individual and community levels to assess at the level of organisations or social change as a whole. Finally, it can be difficult to find people with the required knowledge and skills in both capacity building and M&E disciplines to conduct assessments.
A theory of change for capacity building considers learning (alongside being equipped with the right resources) as a critical enabler for triggering the behavioural, organisational and institutional changes needed to develop individual and organisational capabilities which can enable people, organisations and societies to unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity in support of sustainable development over time. These change processes lead to empowerment outcomes which cover two dimensions: i) the agency of individuals and organisations to pursue their goals; and ii) the institutional environment, which enables people and local organisations to exercise their agency successfully (Figure 9.2).
Monitoring and evaluation aim to provide evidence about the role capacity has in development processes and how increased capacities help lead to increased development impact and sustainability. Measuring learning outputs and outcomes and their effect on capacity strengthening and empowerment therefore become key elements of capacity-development results frameworks. This requires designing sound methodologies to measure progress and build the evidence basis, and selecting appropriate indicators at activity, output and outcome levels.
Source: Authors’ elaboration building on the World Bank’s Otoo, Agapitova and Behrens (2009[4]), Capacity Development Results Framework (CDRF), https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/f416224d-54bc-5ed8-bc8d-7cea94b98735
What is the level of understanding of capacity-building practices in your organisation? Have you recently conducted or supported a capacity-building needs assessment in your organisation and in the partner countries you support? Are there training opportunities, guidance, networks and other resources available to help staff acquire an informed understanding and knowledge of capacity building?
How is capacity-building programming managed, monitored and assessed at the project and corporate levels?
Create an enabling environment supportive of capacity-building approaches:
Build a sound understanding and knowledge of capacity-building practices and assessments across the organisation.
Advocate for capacity building as a long-haul activity, highly worthwhile when done right and with a long-term approach in mind.
As part of capacity-building programming, ensure that capacity-building expertise is available and can be mobilised to assess individual and organisational system changes.
Avoid:
including capacity-building objectives as a separate category, as this lens should be applied across sectors and priority areas.
applying an automatic, “tick-the-box” approach whenever capacity development is mainstreamed.
Carefully design capacity-building initiatives or programmes with a capacity-building component:
Consider the long-term commitment required for capacity building to achieve sustainable results. Leaders should be engaged to understand how the programmes will be designed and implemented, and lasting budgetary and other support needed to ensure this long-term commitment.
Make the context and local actors the starting point: these initiatives should be jointly designed and implemented, and more often locally led, for maximum relevance and to ensure local and sustained ownership. They must be informed by a clear understanding of the local dynamics and structural factors that shape the performance of individuals and organisations, and the incentives and constraints that may affect capacity building.
Clearly specify the development objective and expected results of the programme, and identify clear indicators with sound baselines: the extent to which the desired outcomes are process- or product-driven, tangible or intangible and time-bound, will inform the M&E method to apply;
Adopt a comprehensive approach that addresses the multi-layered nature of capacity building and involves different learning outcomes, change processes and change agents. In particular:
Consult capacity-building and learning literature as well as the existing models for capacity-building planning and/or collaborate with experts in capacity building – using, wherever possible, national or local expertise. Importantly, review capacity asset literature – which involves focusing on the strengths and assets that counterparts bring to a situation (see resources section).
Carefully assess the capacity vectors and constraining factors, identify where change needs to happen at individual, organisational and institutional levels, and how learning and other aspects of the programme will contribute to those changes. Where possible, do deeper root-cause analysis exercises to understand the nature of the strengths and challenges that the capacity-building initiatives are meant to address.
Consider the various capacity modalities that can be used to achieve the expected results and select the possible optimal combination of those modalities.
Plan for capturing evidence of these changes at multiple levels, from the individual to the organisational and systemic levels.
Avoid:
designing and implementing simplistic, one-off and linear approaches which ignore the multiple pathways to developing capacity;
ignoring local partners’ ownership and leadership, which includes ignoring the breadth and scope of partner-country capacity in place, often developed in the past by previous development co-operation activities;
working in isolation without co-ordinating approaches with other development partners and other domestic stakeholders.
Apply specific standards for monitoring and evaluating capacity-building initiatives:
Select the most suitable model for capacity-development monitoring, collaborating as needed with capacity-building experts (see examples below).
Plan for piloting some initial changes, iterations and refinements of the monitoring tool.
Monitor learning outcomes and adapt programme implementation as necessary to ensure results are achieved.
Monitor progress towards targeted capacity-development outcomes, incorporating feedback loops to adjust the programme as needed. This requires creating regular occasions for learning and feedback moments, recognising that mid-term assessments may come too late.
In the evaluation design, engage stakeholders to define what you want to know, who wants to know it, how it will be used, and the level of precision needed.
Avoid: putting pressure to demonstrate results in the short term, recognising that capacity building is a long-term endeavour.
Learn:
Use the evidence produced by the M&E system to inform and improve your capacity-building efforts. The evidence should also show whether the capacity-building initiative strengthens (or undermines) other development processes directly or indirectly, and if it can be used to maximise their impact. It is also useful to document any opportunity cost (e.g. booking the time of highly solicited officials).
Communicate the evidence collected within your organisation and with other donors to feed into organisational learning and help improve capacity-building approaches and initiatives. Monitoring and evaluation of capacity building should also help management to understand development programming better and inform learning and adaptive management processes.
Ensure findings and results are shared and widely owned by local actors.
Measure learning outputs and outcomes: Learning results can be measured against a scale covering the effects on:
Individuals: ranging from awareness-raising – measured by the degree of motivation, to enhanced skills – measured by the new skills acquired.
Processes: ranging from improved teamwork – measured by the capacity to build consensus, to the ability to organise networks – measured by the partnerships created.
Products: ranging from the capacity to formulate a strategy – measured by the proposed strategy, to the capacity to formulate an implementation plan – measured by its actual implementation.
For each capacity-building initiative, the above generic indicators need to be turned into specific indicators accompanied by the definition of their measurement and citing the source of evidence. The World Bank’s Capacity Development Results Framework (CDRF) offers a strategic and results-oriented approach to learning for capacity development. It categorises capacity-building activities and maps their progression from learning outcomes to socio-political changes, policy instruments, organisational arrangements and, finally, development goals.
Use assessment models to measure and evaluate the results of capacity-building initiatives. Different assessment methodologies have been developed, each one presenting specific strengths and limitations that have to be considered before their selection. The Kirkpatrick Model, for instance, is a widely tested method applied across multiple sectors (e.g. humanitarian, development, government, etc.). It consists of four levels which measure: i) participants’ reactions (level of satisfaction); ii) learning (acquisition of intended knowledge or skills); iii) behaviour (application of learning); and iv) results (value added of training) (Kirkpatrick, 2010[5]).
This model’s strength lies in its simplicity: it employs easy-to-understand concepts for measuring training programmes; it provides four basic categories of training-success indicators; and it promotes the use of evaluations for training interventions, which are otherwise complex to assess. Yet its simplicity may lead to misunderstandings and over-generalisations because: i) the four levels of analysis are not hierarchical and not necessarily correlated; ii) the model does not sufficiently consider non-training interventions that contribute to capacity building; and iii) it measures changes after the training programmes at the participant level, thereby ignoring broader societal changes as a result of spillover effects. The practice also shows that the questionnaires and tests (level 1 and level 2 measurement instruments) are often poorly designed, leading to issues with interpretation, and that the four-level assessment is not usually applied in its entirety, with data being generated and used mostly at level 1 (satisfaction) and 2 (learning).
Using participatory methodologies to measure empowerment outcomes. The empowerment process is context-specific and non-linear: it involves complex, interrelated elements embracing values, knowledge, behaviour and relationships, so that different aspects of empowerment may be achieved asymmetrically and at a different pace in different contexts. These features require adapting traditional monitoring systems. Experience shows that involving the people that are struggling to be more empowered is critical, as they can easily identify and measure the steps in their own process of empowerment. Quantifying the qualitative information generated by them, i.e. conducting quantitative analyses of qualitative assessments, can then generate sufficient and robust evidence to satisfy the demands of results-based management. A study conducted by Sida presents the experience of a social movement in Bangladesh, which managed to find a way to measure empowerment by letting the members themselves explain which benefits they had acquired from the movement and by developing a means to measure change over time. It gives a valuable example of how empowerment is measured and accounted for by the people closest to these change processes and used by them for future work (Jupp and Ibn Ali, 2010[6]).
Standing capacity. Capacity-building initiatives should not be geared towards achieving results in the short term but should aim to raise the level of standing capacity of organisations and systems in the longer term. Two levels of standing capacity can be considered. They enable respectively: i) the “basic functionalities” of a system (i.e. the minimal systems, infrastructure, resources, collective ability and coherence needed for an organisation to perform consistently well over time); and ii) the “organisational talents” (i.e. the ability of an organisation to be able to modify plans, react, create, summon, innovate and adapt to evolving situations). The latter requires longer-term support but should be the ultimate objective. The monitoring and evaluation of capacity building needs to measure standing capacity in order to better understand the links between capacity and performance. (For more information, see (Ortiz and Taylor, 2009[7])).
African Development Bank, Capacity Development Strategy 2021-25
Alfredo Ortiz and Peter Taylor, Institute of Development Studies (2009):, Learning purposefully in capacity development: Why, what and when to measure? An opinion paper prepared for IIEP
Altschuld, J.W. (2014), Bridging the Gap Between Asset/Capacity Building and Needs Assessment
IDOS (2022), Localising the SDGs in India: the role of government and private training institutes (idos-research.de)
Ingrid J. Guerra-López (2008), Performance Evaluation: Proven Approaches for Improving Program and Organizational Performance.
Innovation Network, Social Movement Learning Project - Innovation Network (innonet.org)
Isabelle Bourgeois and Bradley Cousins, American Journal of Evaluation (2013), Understanding Dimensions of Organizational Evaluation Capacity
James D. Kirkpatrick and Wendy Kayser Kirkpatrick (2016), Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation
OECD (2012), Supporting Partners to Develop their Capacity: Twelve Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews
There is no standard definition of locally led development – also referred to as localisation, community led development or participatory development. The OECD has defined it as “an ongoing development process where local actors have agency in framing, designing, delivering (including control over funding), accounting for and learning, with or without the support of international development co-operation.” (OECD, 2023[8]).
Locally led development (LLD) can be best understood as a spectrum that ranges from omitting local actor agency, to local actors taking prime responsibility and acting independently throughout the project or programme cycle. The following figure further outlines the key dimensions of local stakeholders’ agency in development co-operation:
Source: OECD (2023[8]), Framing DAC member approaches to enabling locally led development, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD%282023%2947/en/pdf
Although locally led development is not a new concept, it has gained renewed attention in recent years as a means of increasing ownership by the actors most affected by development challenges. It is expected to enhance development co-operation effectiveness, inclusivity and sustainability, and achieve greater impact (See Section 5.3 Monitoring, evaluation and learning systems are locally led).
Advancements towards localised co-operation were first achieved in the humanitarian sector, prompted by the Grand Bargain commitments to increasing funding to local responders, as well as by the Covid-19 pandemic’s restrictions on international humanitarian workers (Barbelet, Bryant and Spencer, 2021[9]). However, similar large-scale pledges and shifts towards locally led approaches have shown slower progress in the development co-operation field (Baguios et al., 2021[10]).
Development partners are gradually incorporating locally led development notions in their programming design and have started to develop indicators to measure whether, and to what extent, their programmes and projects are locally led. To date, however, these approaches have mostly been centred on measuring programme inputs and activities and do not include considerations as to how to assess locally led development results. The figure below illustrates the different dimensions of locally led development measurement along the results chain and exemplifies their specificities.
What needs to be measured in addition to traditional results?
Some members argue that development co-operation should be locally led as a principle (i.e. as a transformation in aid delivery to address power imbalances) regardless of its results or expected effectiveness. Nonetheless, defining, measuring and evaluating the results achieved through locally driven approaches, including their potential added value, is crucial to providing the evidence base that is currently lacking and that is needed to foster and improve the way support to locally led development is designed and implemented (Barbelet et al., 2021[11]).
At the corporate level, it can be useful (e.g. from a scaling-up perspective) to assess whether and how locally led programmes improve development outcomes and achieve more value than non-locally led programming, and under which conditions. Given that support to locally led development is meant to increase the ownership and agency of local actors as well as to bring more sustainable impact, it is essential to measure: i) the effect on local empowerment – capturing whether meaningful individual and institutional capabilities are developed (see section 1 of this chapter); ii) intangible outcomes such as the degree of motivation of local actors and level of trust among development stakeholders; and iii) whether results achieved by locally led approaches are sustainable over time. To do this, aggregated results from individual projects should be carefully analysed and compared to those of traditional programming, so that successes and constraining factors can be identified. This requires additional measurement steps at the project level besides the usual measurement of progress toward the expected development outputs and outcomes.
Taking these gaps and the need for guidance on the topic into consideration, this section focuses on measuring the outputs, outcomes and impact of locally led initiatives. It does not discuss input measurement nor the assessment of the extent to which programming and activities are locally led. Resources on these latter dimensions have been developed by other co-operation partners, such as USAID, and in an OECD publication reflecting a DAC Peer Learning Exercise deep dive on locally led development.
To what extent has programming in your organisation incorporated a locally led development perspective?
How are locally led projects currently monitored and evaluated? Have the results of these projects been measured? If so, are they being monitored and evaluated differently from non-locally led projects?
Are you equipped to aggregate and analyse the results of these projects at the corporate level? What alternatives to aggregation do you have for reporting on the results of locally led projects at the corporate level?
At the corporate level:
Assessments of locally led development initiatives can take different forms depending on the needs and goals of the development actors conducting them. Before getting started, define the purpose and objectives of the assessment and select the level of measurement and analysis according to your needs. Possible examples could be as follows (non-exhaustive list):
Measuring generic outputs or outcomes of locally led programmes (e.g. training workshops conducted, community-driven initiatives created, improved governance, wellbeing needs addressed, etc.). These outputs/outcomes might not differ substantially from what is currently measured in non-locally led programmes.
Gauging specific outcomes expected from locally led projects, such as sense of agency, ownership, inclusivity, empowerment and sustainability.
Collecting evidence on the impact that such outcomes have on programme stakeholders and their surroundings.
Measuring development changes at the individual, community or institutional level.
Evaluating the value added of locally led interventions vis-à-vis non-locally led programming.
Consider postponing your assessment until outcome-level results have been attained, in order to reach more solid conclusions.
Avoid: conducting a results assessment shortly after programme implementation, when higher-level results are not yet visible.
Whenever possible, work collectively with other development partners to conduct joint results measurements and capitalise on synergies. Focus on contribution rather than attribution to results.
Set a concise list of standard indicators and metrics that accurately reflect your assessment’s objectives and level of analysis and allow for comparability across projects.
Ensure a context-based interpretation of findings and validate your conclusions with local experts and other stakeholders involved in your development programming.
Extract lessons learned from the results assessment and plan how to integrate these learnings into future programming.
Share the outcomes of your assessment (e.g. publishing the final report) and contribute to generating more publicly available evidence on the results of locally led development.
At the project level:
Consult, co-create with or delegate to local actors the project/programme framing to ensure that the intervention aligns with their priorities and creates value. In all cases, include local inputs in the project’s logical model or theory of change and encourage local stakeholders to question your underlying assumptions about the programme or local context. Consider cultural and socio-economic dimensions (e.g. language, ethnicity, workplace, etc.) when involving local actors. In addition, provide adequate financial resources for such work.
Ensure a thorough local context analysis is conducted before project/programme implementation. This will serve as a benchmark or baseline level against which to assess intervention results. Assess how the intervention may interact with and impact local dynamics.
Avoid: ignoring local actors’ diversity (which can manifest in conflicting interests and varying needs), as well as pre-existing intra-community power dynamics.
Ensure that clear objectives against which to measure project results are set. Do so in collaboration with local actors to ensure common understanding.
Select indicators and metrics that capture changes in the objectives defined above. If they exist, select the relevant standard corporate indicators.
Create or use existing monitoring and evaluation systems that capture unintended or unexpected outcomes resulting from the locally led initiative.
Foster flexible approaches to project implementation and results measurement, so as to gauge what does and doesn’t work in real time and adapt programming based on local actors’ feedback.
Avoid: linear or normative approaches to change and results measurement (e.g. only incorporating evaluation in the latter stages of programming).
Research whether evaluations of similar locally led programming have already been conducted by other development partners at the international or local level. Reflect on how your results assessment aligns with them and what knowledge gaps it fills.
When monitoring and evaluating locally led initiatives, consider assessing the effectiveness of the implementation as well as its progress towards locally defined objectives and its sustainability over time.
Avoid: only assessing compliance with donor standards or risks traditionally associated with local actors’ delivery.
Adopt research methodologies which put local voices at the forefront of evaluation efforts (Section 5.3 Monitoring, evaluation and learning systems are locally led). Examples include participatory, people-centred approaches such as most significant change (MSC), outcome harvesting or impact stories, which rely on qualitative data collection and analysis.
Avoid: overly focusing on numeric or quantifiable outputs which do not provide contextual interpretations of change.
Engage local actors and experts throughout the results measurement process. These actors will contribute to “sense-making” of findings based on their contextual knowledge and expertise. Ensure findings and results are shared and widely owned by local actors.
Share the outcomes of your project-level assessment (e.g. publishing the final report in local languages, holding workshops or briefings on the findings, etc.) and contribute to generating more publicly available evidence on the results of locally led development.
Use monitoring approaches that capture local developments beyond the project’s performance. In addition to gathering information on the intervention’s progress (e.g. planned activities and outputs), consider introducing monitoring tools that reflect broader community changes, such as:
Context monitoring. This provides information about the local conditions and external factors that surround a project and may affect its implementation and performance. It captures data on the economic, social and political situation, and can be used to better interpret project-related developments in a grounded manner.
Complementary monitoring. This allows the measurement of a broad range of factors not captured by traditional monitoring methods. For instance, it can be used to measure a project’s unintended outcomes, or to collect information throughout the project cycle on the local community’s sense of agency, feelings of trust toward different development actors, and capacity building (Section 9.1 Measuring the results of capacity-building initiatives).
Explore more complex methodologies to measure the long-term impact of locally led development when answering questions of causality is a high priority. Accurately measuring the results of locally led programmes presents important challenges such as defining a counterfactual or control group in order to establish causality and assess whether the observed changes occurred as a result of the intervention. In addition to the qualitative methodologies suggested above, advanced quantitative evaluation approaches (e.g. quasi-experimental designs, randomised control trials, difference-in-differences) can overcome these shortcomings and strengthen results assessments.
Familiarise yourself with impact evaluation methodologies which allow the comparison of outcomes between communities that receive an intervention and communities that do not. Invest in building staff’s capacity and knowledge of these methodologies’ applications to development co-operation and their challenges, and engage colleagues with expertise in these methodologies (Congdon, Simms and De Vita, 2021[12]).
Assess the feasibility of and need for conducting an impact assessment of your programming. If the decision is favourable, allocate sufficient time and resources for the study.
Compare the results of locally led programming with those of traditional programming. In order to achieve this, think about your knowledge gaps and needs (what differences do you want to compare, what would you like to know, e.g. in terms of sustainability, relevance to context, empowerment of individuals and organisations), and ensure that clear assessment goals are set. Establish indicators that capture these goals and compare aggregated results between locally led programming and non-locally led programming. Keep in mind that some parameters might be needed to allow comparability between different contexts and programming types.
Efforts to measure the results of locally led development are still in the making and only a few organisations have taken initial steps towards developing measurement frameworks and indicators.
USAID has created a set of resources for measuring progress on localisation such as methods and metrics to monitor programme performance and evaluate the outcomes and outputs of their locally led programming. These tools complement the agency’s localisation key performance indicators for funding and programming.
Similarly, Christian Aid, CARE, Tearfund, ActionAid, CAFOD and Oxfam have developed a global localisation framework that includes objectives, actions, results and indicators to increase and track locally led humanitarian actions in four areas: partnerships, capacity, financial resources and co-ordination.
Better Evaluation, Evaluation Approaches
Inspiring Communities (2015), Measuring and Evaluating Impact and Change from a Community-led Development Perspective
International Rescue Committee (2019), Localizing the Response – A Comparative Review of INGO Direct Service Delivery and Partnerships with Local and National Actors
OECD (2023), Framing DAC member approaches to enabling locally led development
OECD (2024), Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation: Learning by example
USAID (n.d.), Measuring Progress on Localization
World Bank (2013), Localizing Development. Does Participation Work?
[10] Baguios, A. et al. (2021), Are we there yet? Localisation as the journey towards locally led practice, https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/ODI-SH-Localisation-Report-Oct21-Proof06.pdf.
[9] Barbelet, V., J. Bryant and A. Spencer (2021), Local humanitarian action during Covid-19, https://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/C19__localisation_diary_methods_WEB.pdf.
[11] Barbelet, V. et al. (2021), Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation, https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/Localisation_lit_review_WEB.pdf.
[12] Congdon, W., M. Simms and C. De Vita (2021), Assessing the impact of community-level intiatives, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103920/assessing-the-impact-of-community-level-initiatives_1.pdf.
[6] Jupp, D. and S. Ibn Ali (2010), Measuring Empowerment? Ask Them. Quantifying qualitative outcomes from people’s own analysis. Insights for results-based management from the experience of a social movement in Bangladesh, Sida.
[5] Kirkpatrick, D. (2010), The Kirkpatrick Model, https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/the-kirkpatrick-model/ (accessed on 22 April 2024).
[13] Meiers, M. (2023), Course materials from the OECD DAC Results Community Workshop, “Measuring the impact of capacity-building initiatives”.
[8] OECD (2023), Framing DAC member approaches to enabling locally led development, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2023)47/en/pdf.
[3] OECD (2023), Meeting summary: 15th Workshop of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC)’s Results Community, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD(2023)54/en/pdf?sessionId=1730979279544.
[1] OECD (2019), Managing for Sustainable Development Results: Guiding Principles, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/44a288bc-en.
[2] OECD (2006), “The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working towards Good Practice”, OECD Papers, https://doi.org/10.1787/oecd_papers-v6-art2-en.
[7] Ortiz, A. and P. Taylor (2009), Learning purposefully in capacity development: why, what and when to measure?, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000186984.
[4] Otoo, S., N. Agapitova and J. Behrens (2009), The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning for Capacity Development, World Bank, https://hdl.handle.net/10986/23037 (accessed on 22 April 2024).