Map the Outcome / Research

Evidence, implementation and evaluation.

Research briefs on how development programs are documented, evaluated and learned from. Explore findings, methods and limitations from scientific studies and public institutional reviews.

FROM THE LITERATURE

Three findings worth investigating.

Different sources examine different problems. These findings should not be combined into a single estimate of reporting failure.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW · 202059%

CFIR applied at endline

Of 34 studies in 21 low- and middle-income countries, 59% used the framework at study endline, mainly for analysis or interpretation.

What does this tell us?

It describes the timing of one framework in the reviewed studies, not the share of all programs evaluated too late.

Read the study ↗Explore the brief →
UN INSPECTION · 2025Cost gap

Additional oversight has a workload

The UN JIU identifies costs from additional donor requests and limited information on those costs.

What should we watch for?

Repeated requests can create burden, but the review does not quantify a universal percentage of wasted spending.

Read the report ↗Explore the brief →
METHODS · 2019Context

Adaptation changes what is evaluated

FRAME documents what changed, when, who decided and why. These details help describe the intervention actually delivered.

What remains uncertain?

Documenting a change does not prove that it improved outcomes. Its effects still need assessment.

Read the framework ↗Explore the brief →

Public records: organisations named, results harder to trace.

Cambodia · 2018–2025 · fourteen-code health scope

Source & method
Funding organisation named95.4% Base: 914 activities
Implementing organisation named90.8% Base: 914 activities
Location information recorded37.3% Base: 636 full XML records
Flagged as outcome-reporting in the audit5.7% Base: 636 full XML records

A thinner results record. The original audit found less result information than organisation information in these public records. Missing public fields do not establish that outcomes or documentation are absent elsewhere.

Preliminary MapToc research. IATI records via Code for IATI Datastore, retrieval reported as 21 August 2026. Different denominators; original exports and coding rules have not been independently reproduced. Read the limitations.

What supports this? These preliminary Cambodia figures compare field coverage in inspected IATI records. They do not measure program success or prove that evidence is missing elsewhere. The original coding and exports still require independent reproduction.

START WITH YOUR QUESTION

Explore the collection

33 articles

Editorial approach

This collection offers selective evidence briefs and methodological analysis. It is not a peer-reviewed journal or a systematic review. Original study authors are credited in the references; the editorial synthesis is separate from their findings. Preliminary internal audit figures are identified separately from published research.

MapToc / Research