Using empirical evidence to evaluate outcomes and impact is vital to adaptive management and fostering best practices. A number of systems for evaluation of conservation impacts, notably the Open Standards for Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership), are available to guide development of indicators on conservation outcomes and data needed to assess them. Indicators have also been developed for captive animal welfare (ENDCAP), companion animal and farm animal welfare (for example European Union (EU) Welfare Quality Project and International Companion Animal Management Coalition’s (ICAM) Dog Population Management monitoring and evaluation guidance). Wildlife Impact develops custom indicators for each project’s specific wildlife conservation and welfare outcomes that build on these tools. Using these measures, along with other emerging systems of impact analysis (for example Black and Groombridge, 2010), the Wildlife Impact program is addressing the need for outcome evaluation by providing independent verification of project outcomes and valuable strategic planning tools, specifically: project-specific outcome indicators and data required for assessment; synthesis of project outcomes; an overall benchmark for project and for each outcome category; and specific steps to improve outcomes.
Wildlife Impact’s evaluation methodology, below, is always open for review and comments.
Impact Evaluation Methodology
Evaluation Process
Minimum written documents required are:
The initial review process typically takes 45 – 60 days following receipt of documents.
Evaluation methods and indicators
WI evaluation is based on principles of strategic planning, evaluation and adaptive management. Ideally, projects operate following a strategic process:
In practice, strategic planning and evaluation are often difficult when projects struggle with few resources and staff to address time-sensitive issues in complex settings. WI helps organizations with strategic planning tools to identify appropriate indicators and monitoring actions, and provides independent evaluation of indicators and outcomes.
WI has developed a database of published and open source indicators, and develops specific indicators for each applicant depending on their goals and activities and the potential ramifications of their work in its geographic, biodiversity and sociopolitical contexts. This database is being finalized and will be available via the Wildlife Impact website for download and review.
We rely on indicators that meet the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership (BIP) guidance (2010):
WI evaluation processes, indicators and monitoring recommendations are based on the work of the Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for Conservation, Conservation Action Plans (The Nature Conservancy) Ferraro & Pattanayak (2006), Baylis et al. (2015), Conservation Excellence Model (Black et al., 2011), ENDCAP, European Union Animal Welfare Quality, International Companion Animal Management Coalition, Biodiversity Indicators Project, IUCN Action Plans for species or taxa (IUCN Species Survival Commission Specialist Groups), and Wildlife Impact.
Benefits
Benefits including outreach/promotion to funders and the public, and scholarships for capacity development are available as funding permits for two years following each analysis. Projects’ specific needs that would enable improved evaluation scores will be highlighted to funders and the public on Wildlife Impact’s website.
Wildlife Impact Principles
Wildlife Impact holds itself accountable to the following principles:
Impact Evaluation Criteria
To seek an evaluation from Wildlife Impact, projects/organizations need to demonstrate they:
Minimum Criteria
Wildlife Impact cannot conduct evaluations of projects that participate in the following activities:
Our minimum criteria conform to the standards of the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) and the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights (CIHR). WI encourages applicants with questions or concerns to contact us directly at info@wildlifeimpact.org.
Evaluation grading process
Wildlife Impact (WI) evaluates projects’ conservation and welfare impacts using accepted or accredited standards and approaches. WI creates specific indicators for each applicant depending on their goals and activities and the potential ramifications of their work in its geographic, biodiversity and sociopolitical contexts. WI uses indicators that meet the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership (BIP) guidance (2010). Our evaluation processes, indicators and monitoring recommendations are based on the Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for Conservation, Conservation Action Plans (The Nature Conservancy) Ferraro & Pattanayak (2006), Baylis et al. (2015), Conservation Excellence Model (Black et al., 2011), ENDCAP, European Union Animal Welfare Quality, International Companion Animal Management Coalition, Biodiversity Indicators Project, IUCN Action Plans for species or taxa (IUCN Species Survival Commission Specialist Groups), and Wildlife Impact. WI evaluations are conducted and reviewed by professionals with expertise in monitoring and evaluation, strategic planning, conservation, wildlife ecology and welfare, and organizational management.
Prior to evaluation, projects or organizations must first demonstrate, via sharing organizational documentation or other evidence, that WI evaluation candidate criteria have been met. Follow up on these criteria may also be part of the on-site evaluation. For a passing grade (>50%), project evaluation provides evidence that all WI criteria have been met, and evidence of some positive outcomes for wildlife conservation and/or welfare.
Wildlife Impact Evaluation Benchmarks | |||
Benchmark type | Description | ||
Descriptive | Grade | Score | |
Exceptional | A+ | 100% | Significant positive impacts, no noted negative impacts; sustainable; regular evaluationand strategic planning; goals are being met |
Excellent | A | 90-99% | Significant positive impacts; minor improvements possible but not neededNo negative impacts or negative unintended consequences needing to be addressed High standards of work; Goals are being met Project or organization is able to sustain activities to continue meeting goals Regular strategic planning; Regular evaluation and adaptive management is undertaken orbeing implemented |
Very Good | B | 80-89% | Significant positive impacts; few minor improvements needed No significant negative impacts |
Good | C | 70-79% | Many positive impacts but room for improvement; Few to no negative impacts |
Needs Improvement | D | 60-69% | Some positive impacts but could be improved; Few negative impacts |
Needs Significant Improvement | E- F | 0 -59% | Range from: Few positive impacts but significant work needed to improve outcomes + Some negative impacts from activities or unintended consequencesTo:No impact or outcomes on stated goals AND/OR Significant negative impacts or unintended consequences AND/OR Publicized goals are not relevant to actual activities AND/OR Activities have no discernible impact conservation or welfare AND/OR Evaluation criteria found not to have been met (e.g. illegal trades, human rights issues) |
Data Needed for Assessment | – | – | Unable to make an assessment based on available data. Suggestions will be provided on indicators necessary to assess progress, data needed and collection methodologies, as appropriate. |