Which type of evaluation is especially valuable for policymakers evaluating past funding decisions?

The selection of Impact Assessment as the correct type of evaluation is justified by its focus on understanding the effects and efficacy of past funding decisions. Impact assessments are designed to measure the changes that can be attributed specifically to a program or intervention, providing insights into how effectively funds were utilized to achieve intended outcomes. This type of evaluation often employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess long-term effects and overall impacts.

Policymakers benefit from impact assessments because they reveal whether the investments made led to significant changes or improvements, thereby shaping future funding strategies and decision-making processes. This retrospective analysis is crucial for ensuring accountability and informing future initiatives based on solid evidence of what has worked and what has not.

In contrast, needs assessments identify gaps or needs within a community or area but do not evaluate past performance. Formative evaluations tend to focus on program development and ongoing improvement rather than evaluating the final outcomes. Summative evaluations assess the overall effectiveness of a program after it has been implemented but may not provide the in-depth understanding of specific impacts related to funding that an impact assessment delivers.