Two impact assessment reports scored principle by principle. One scores 5.8, the other 7.0 — showing how the Standard differentiates quality and where common gaps appear.
Strong operational success in improving healthcare access — OPD attendance doubled, doctor availability went from 2 to 6 days/week, satisfaction rose from 34% to 76%. However, evidence of actual health outcomes is limited: no outcome monitoring systems were established at inception. The report honestly acknowledges this gap.
The contribution analysis chapter is a notable strength — explicitly distinguishing what can and cannot be claimed. But the absence of formal ethical protocols (no documented consent, privacy, or data protection) pulls the score below the accreditation floor.
A substantially stronger report. Documented Theory of Change with clear causal pathways and stated assumptions. Mixed-method design with 312-household survey (37% coverage), 12 FGDs, and 28 KIIs. Sampling framework and stakeholder mapping in annexures. Cross-cutting analysis of inclusion, gender, and government convergence.
The integrated design generates reinforcing evidence across sectors — water improvements link to livelihood gains, SHG participation links to women's financial decision-making. The weakest areas remain ethics (basic protocols, no formal review) and causality (no control group, contribution framing without counterfactual).
Both reports assess three-year development programmes, both use mixed methods, and both are honest about their limitations. Yet one scores 5.8 and the other 7.0. The difference comes down to three things: whether the Theory of Change was designed prospectively or reconstructed, whether the methodology has structured sampling and coverage, and whether ethical safeguards are documented rather than implied.
The IAAF Standard doesn't reward perfection — it rewards rigour, honesty, and structure. A report can acknowledge significant gaps (as the Bansitola report does with health outcomes) and still score reasonably on causality because it doesn't over-claim. But undocumented ethical processes cannot be compensated for by strengths elsewhere.
Upload your impact assessment report for a free benchmark against the same Standard used in these reviews.