The Evaluation Approaches library provides an overview of key evaluation approaches that can be used to evaluate the progress toward achieving results of ILAB-funded projects. DOL has a commitment to conducting rigorous, relevant evaluations and to using evidence from evaluations to inform policy and practice. DOL seeks to promote rigor, relevance, transparency, independence, and ethics in the conduct of evaluations. Evaluations can be completed internally by grantees, or by external/third-party evaluators.

Evaluation Resources

  • Evaluation Methods and Approaches | This webpage housed on Better Evaluation presents evaluation methods and approaches, including a link to guidance on choosing methods. This includes both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods that grantees can use to evaluate the effectiveness of their activities.
  • Utilization-focused evaluation (U-FE) Checklist | This checklist provides guidance on how to design evaluations keeping in mind how real people will apply evaluation findings. Use concerns how real people in the real world apply evaluation findings and experience and learn from the evaluation process.
  • Principles-Focused Evaluation: A Brief Reference Guide | This guide on Principles-Focused Evaluation provides guidance on how to apply this evaluation approach to initiatives guided primarily by principles. This approach is well suited for ILAB projects that have a human rights advocacy focus.
  • ILO Guidance Note 3.1: Integrating Gender Equality in Monitoring and Evaluation (pg 7-10) | This guidance note explains why it is important to integrate gender equality systematically into monitoring and evaluation processes.
  • UNICEF Evaluation for Equitable Development Results | An Equity-focused evaluation is a judgment made of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability – and, in humanitarian settings, coverage, connectedness and coherence – of policies, programs and projects concerned with achieving equitable development results. This guide explains this type of evaluation and describes its methodological implications.
  • Principles for Effective Use of Systems Thinking in Evaluation: Systems in Evaluation TIG A Topical Interest Group of the American Evaluation Association (Revised September 9, 2018) | The Systems in Evaluation Topical Interest Group (SETIG) of the American Evaluation Association (AEA) has developed a set of principles to guide the use of four core systems concepts in the design and implementation of an evaluation. The primary purpose of these principles is to support evaluators and evaluation stakeholders in the use of systems concepts in evaluation.
  • Outcome Harvesting | Outcome Harvesting is a method that enables evaluators, grant makers, and managers to identify, formulate, verify, and make sense of outcomes. This brief introduces the concepts and approach used in Outcome Harvesting to grant makers, managers, and evaluators, with the hope that it may inspire them to learn more about the method and apply it to appropriate contexts.
  • Outcome Mapping and Outcome Harvesting: common concepts, differences, and uses | This brief describes the commonalities and differences of Outcome Mapping and Outcome Harvesting. It presents the main concepts shared by the approaches, how they differ and what to consider when deciding which approach to use or whether to use them together.
  • The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique | This publication is aimed at organizations, community groups, students and academics who wish to use MSC to help monitor and evaluate their social change programs and projects, or to learn more about how it can be used. Essentially, the process involves the collection of significant change (SC) stories emanating from the field level, and the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by panels of designated stakeholders or staff.
    • Participatory Video and the Most Significant Change | This toolkit has been developed to support you in planning and carrying out evaluations using Participatory Video with the Most Significant Change technique. This is a participatory approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning that amplifies the voices of participants and helps organizations to better understand and improve their programs.

Evaluation Policies

Evaluation Results

  • Synthesis of ILO Performance Evaluations in Armenia, Guatemala and Vietnam (2023) | This infographic synthesizes evaluation results from ILAB-funded ILO projects aimed at strengthening labor administration and improving working conditions in Armenia, Guatemala, and Vietnam. The evaluations were conducted by a 3rd party contractor, Sistemas, Familia y Sociedad, in 2022-2023.
  • Mathematica Synthesis Evaluation (2020) | This evaluation generated information and recommendations to support ILAB to maximize the effectiveness of its technical assistance aimed at improving labor law enforcement and compliance in trade partner countries. The report provides a description of the projects included in the synthesis review, factors associated with project effectiveness, challenges faced by the projects and the most effective solutions, conclusions and recommendations. The evaluation was conducted by a 3rd party contractor, Mathematica, in 2019-2020.
  • ECMS Thematic Evaluation (2021) | This is an external evaluation carried out in 2021 of the labor inspectorate electronic case management system (ECMS) components of 7 ILAB-funded projects (in Colombia, Honduras, Paraguay, Philippines, Peru, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam). The purpose of the thematic evaluation was to assess the achievements, challenges, and sustainability of the ECMS components of those projects. The primary audiences for this evaluation are ILAB personnel, Grantees, and labor stakeholders in the seven countries, as well as in other countries interested in establishing or strengthening ECMS capabilities for more effective labor administration.

  • Meta-Evaluation of Labor Rights-Related Outcomes – Summary Brief | This 5 page brief summarizes results from a meta-evaluation of outcome achievement of labor rights-related projects in relation to scope, cost, and time frame factors. The brief highlights key trends and patterns emerging after analyzing 98 evaluations across 95 countries across 9 outcome domains. The projects were funded by various donor organizations including the United States Department of Labor (USDOL), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and International Labor Organization (ILO). The meta-evaluation was conducted by a 3rd party contractor, QED Group LLC dba Q2 Impact, in 2022-2023.

  • Meta-Evaluation of Labor Rights-Related Outcomes – Options Paper | This 65 page options paper summarizes results from a meta-evaluation of outcome achievement of labor rights-related projects in relation to scope, cost, and time frame factors. The purpose of the meta-evaluation was to inform technical assistance project design, with a focus on i) the types and levels of labor rights outcomes that can be achieved within timeframe and budget; ii) the context for labor rights outcome achievement; and iii) sustainability.  The options paper highlights key trends and patterns that emerged after analyzing close to 100 evaluations of labor rights-related projects across various donor organizations including the United States Department of Labor (USDOL), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and International Labor Organization (ILO), among others. The meta-evaluation was conducted by a 3rd party contractor, QED Group LLC dba Q2 Impact, in 2022-2023.

  • Meta-Evaluation of Labor Rights-Related Outcomes – Infographic Summary | This 2 page infographic includes charts and graphics highlighting key trends and patterns emerging after analyzing 98 evaluations of labor rights-related projects across 95 countries and 9 outcome domains. The projects were funded by various donor organizations including the United States Department of Labor (USDOL), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and International Labor Organization (ILO). The meta-evaluation was conducted by a 3rd party contractor, QED Group LLC dba Q2 Impact, in 2022-2023.