LogoLogo
- BACK TO THE GFMD WEBSITE+ SUBSCRIBE TO THE GFMD IMPACT NEWSLETTER
  • Welcome to GFMD IMPACT
  • Learning meetings
    • 2025
      • From crisis to opportunity: reimagining media development in the MENA region (Apr. 2025)
        • Meeting Agenda
        • Literature Review
          • Lebanon
          • Palestine
          • Syria
          • MENA region
          • Frameworks, Guidelines and Recommendations
      • Connecting the dots: How to use existing mechanisms to protect media freedom online? (Jan. 2025)
    • 2024
      • GFMD Levant Regional Meeting on Media Support (Dec. 2024)
        • Mapping report
        • Key Recommendations
        • Meeting Agenda
        • Literature Review
          • Lebanon
          • Palestine
          • Syria
          • MENA region
          • Frameworks, Guidelines and Recommendations
      • Post-Summit of the Future Updates and Upcoming Opportunities (Nov. 2024)
      • UNDP–GFMD-SFCG Webinar: Media actors and the (de)construction of the ‘other’ (Oct. 2024)
        • Key insights from the meeting
        • Speakers
        • Literature review
      • Advocating for public interest media and journalism (Aug.-Sept.2024)
        • Donor Workshop: Donor Support for Locally Led Journalism and Media Advocacy (Sept. 2024)
          • Meeting agenda
        • Learning Call: Coordinating policy and advocacy working groups (Aug.2024)
          • Meeting agenda
        • Literature review
      • GFMD Regional Meeting for the wider European region (May 2024)
        • Mapping report
        • Meeting report
        • Meeting agenda
        • Literature review
      • GFMD Latin America & Caribbean Summit (May 2024)
        • Meeting report
        • Literature Review & Case Studies
      • Journalism Cloud Alliance Inaugural Meeting (Apr. 2024)
        • Meeting agenda
        • Speakers
        • Literature Review
        • Press release
      • PRIMED (Feb. - Mar. 2024)
        • Key takeaways
        • Workshop 1
          • Meeting agenda
          • Speakers
          • Literature review & case studies
        • Workshop 2
          • Meeting agenda
          • Speakers
          • Literature review & case studies
        • Workshop 3
          • Meeting agenda
          • Literature review & case studies
    • 2023
      • MENA regional meeting (Nov. 2023)
        • Lit review & case studies
        • Meeting report
      • National Journalism Funds (July 2023)
        • Lit' review & case studies
      • Philanthropy for Ukraine (Apr. '23)
      • Summit for Democracy (March. '23)
        • Media Freedom Cohort: key outcomes and findings
        • Thriving media for resilient democracies
        • Media viability in crisis
        • Other Summit for Democracy Events
      • National consultations on Media Viability (Jan.- Feb. '23)
        • Lebanon
        • Tunisia
        • Namibia
    • 2022
      • Challenges and perspectives for media support programs (Nov. '22)
      • World News Media Congress: Media Viability (Sept. '22)
        • Meeting Report
      • Investing in the future of independent journalism (Sept. '22)
        • Investing in independent media to strengthen democracy
        • Exploring new funding models: thinking brave and bold
        • Editorial sustainability: on ownership and media capture
        • Investing in people
        • Agenda
      • IAMCR 2022 (July '22)
      • World Press Freedom Day (Uruguay, May '22)
        • Principles for effective media assistance
        • Safety of journalists in Ukraine
      • Principles for effective mediadev Belgrade (April '22)
        • Coordination and local perspective
        • Suggestions for improving the support
        • Building digital competences
        • Positive examples
      • MFC Global Conference for Media Freedom (9 Feb. '22)
        • Sustainability & viability
          • How is sustainability defined and measured?
          • Cross-cutting themes
          • Achieving sustainability and viability
          • Initiatives to support media sustainability: an overview for donors and policy
          • Literature review
          • Meeting agenda
        • Renewing the principles for effective media support
          • Process of renewing the principles, development and pathways to implementation
          • Three pillars identified in the consultative process so far
          • Donor perspective- improved partnership
          • Improvements that would benefit the principles process
          • Moving forward with the Principles for Effective Media Development
        • Participation in other MFC events
      • Principles for effective mediadev (Jan. '22)
    • 2021
      • Theories of change & impact measurement (March '21)
        • Meeting agenda
        • Case studies
          • Theories of change in media and governance programmes
          • PRIMED - Protecting Independent Media for Effective Development
          • Measuring the impact of investigative reporting
        • Introduction to GFMD IMPACT
        • Feedback
      • Disinformation - Media support (June '21)
        • Introduction (efficacy of MediaDev responses)
        • 1. Identification responses
        • 2. Responses aimed at producers and distributors
        • 3. Impacting production and distribution mechanisms
        • 4. Supporting the target audiences of disinformation campaigns
        • 5. Evaluating counter-disinformation programmes
          • The Challenges of Evaluating Countering Disinformation Programs: A Working Paper (June 2021)
          • Tips for evaluators
        • 6. Research on disinformation
        • Literature review
        • Feedback
        • Meeting agenda
      • Principles for effective mediadev (Dec. '21)
        • In quotes - What should the principles look like?
        • Feedback
  • Resource centre
  • Activities & services
    • OECD Development Co-operation Principles for Relevant and Effective Support to Media and the Information Environment
    • Help desk
      • Report: Informing the Initial Priorities of IFPIM
      • Literature review on pooled funds
        • IFPIM
    • Learning meetings
  • Policy & Learning Meetings
    • Workshop on Encryption and Media Freedom (June '23)
      • Workshop Report
      • Resources
    • Gender Equality in Media Regulation (May '22)
      • Meeting Report
      • Literature Review
  • RESOURCES
    • Latest data, trends and issues facing journalism and media
    • Guides for donors & funders
    • Declarations
      • Events w/recommendations
    • Policy briefs, working papers & primers
      • Disinformation
      • Gender Equality
      • MediaDev effectiveness
      • Sustainability & viability
      • ... by donors & funders
      • + how to produce a policy brief
    • Academic studies & papers
      • AI, regulation, legislation & design of platforms
      • Disinformation
        • Support to journalism
        • Media & information literacy and fact-checking
      • Ethics & independence
      • Evaluation
      • Gender Equality
      • Investigative journalism
        • Collaborative journalism
      • Journalism, democracy & governance
      • Journalism training
      • MediaDev effectiveness
      • Sustainability & viability
      • Thematic reporting
    • Research & reports
      • AI, regulation, legislation & design of platforms
      • Disinformation
        • Support to journalism
        • Media & information literacy and fact-checking
      • Ethics & independence
      • Evaluation
      • Exiled media
      • Gender Equality in Media Development
      • Investigative journalism
      • Investment & innovation
      • Journalism, democracy & governance
      • Journalism training
      • MediaDev effectiveness
      • Media in fragile contexts
      • Sustainability & viability
        • Business models & start-ups
        • Support for Ukranian Media
      • Thematic reporting
    • Case studies
      • Disinformation
      • Gender Equality
      • Impact measurement, evaluation & learning
        • PRIMED learning questions
        • Measuring social impact
      • Investigative journalism
      • Investment & innovation
      • Research Programmes
      • Sustainability & viability
    • Articles
      • AI, regulation, legislation & design of platforms
      • Data & indicators
      • Ethics & independence
      • Disinformation
        • Support to journalism
        • Media & information literacy and fact-checking
        • Gendered disinformation
      • Gender Equality
      • Investigative journalism
      • Journalism, democracy & governance
      • MediaDev effectiveness
      • Media in fragile contexts
      • Sustainability & viability
        • Business models and start-ups
        • Support for Ukrainian Media
      • Thematic reporting
    • Podcasts
      • Sustainability & viability
    • Evaluation & impact reports
      • Disinformation
      • Emergency & crisis funding
      • Media & information literacy
    • Indicators
    • Data sources
    • Learning tools, interactive maps and applications
    • Glossary
    • Independent Media in Exile
  • OPPORTUNITIES
    • Calls for papers & submissions
    • Events
  • GFMD IMPACT BACKGROUND
    • Consultation (2019)
      • Recipient Perceptions of Media Development Assistance: A GFMD Study (Jan. 2019)
      • Donor feedback on GFMD’s concept for a media development policy Hub - (Sept. 2019)
    • Co-design (2020-2021)
    • Related projects and initiatives
      • Ariadne
      • BBC Media Action research and insight
      • CAMECO
      • CIMA
        • CIMA - Putting Research to Work: Scholars and Practitioners Discuss Greater Collaboration (2016)
      • Civitates
      • Communication Initiative
      • Council of Foundations
      • Dafne
      • Forum Media and Development - FoME (Germany)
      • Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation
      • Human Rights Funders Network
      • Humanitarian Journalism
      • Journalism Funders Forum
      • Media Impact Funders
      • Media Impact Project
      • Network for European Foundations (NEF)
      • OECD - DAC Network on Governance (GovNet)
      • Government agencies
  • SUBSCRIBE TO:
    • MediaDev Insider (GFMD IMPACT's newsletter)
    • GFMD's LinkedIn newsletter
  • ABOUT
    • About GFMD IMPACT & FAQs
    • Give feedback
    • GFMD IMPACT regional coordinators
    • GFMD IMPACT pool of consultants
    • About GFMD
    • GFMD coordination
    • GFMD homepage
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • THE CASE STUDY
  • Traditional monitoring and evaluation
  • Measuring impact by accountability
  • Strengths of the OCCRP approach
  • Limitations of the OCCRP approach
  • Opportunities from the OCCRP approach
  • Taking the long view
  • BREAKOUT GROUP
  • Summary
  • Advice to donors new to investigative journalism
  • Evaluating investigative skills
  • Enabling environments
  • Can a hostile action indicate impact?
  • Awards and recognition
  • Collaborating with civil society
  • Future GFMD IMPACT meetings

Was this helpful?

Export as PDF
  1. Learning meetings
  2. 2021
  3. Theories of change & impact measurement (March '21)
  4. Case studies

Measuring the impact of investigative reporting

PreviousPRIMED - Protecting Independent Media for Effective DevelopmentNextIntroduction to GFMD IMPACT

Last updated 1 year ago

Was this helpful?

THE CASE STUDY

This case study looked at how the has evolved the way it measures the impact of its work both in terms of reporting to donors but also informing how it follows up on its investigations through further reporting. The case study also heard from one of OCCRP's donors, USAID.

Traditional monitoring and evaluation

Before setting out their current methodology, the meeting heard about how OCCRP used to focus on metrics such as whether investigations were trending on social media and website data.

These metrics can be superficial and misleading.

They also struggle to measure engagement and trust in journalism and therefore they don't equate to real impact.

These kinds of metrics also fail to acknowledge the fact that investigative reporting:

Is seen as a vehicle to address countless development goals: anti-corruption, access to information, creating an informed citizenry, democracy-building, building civil society, accountability, and many more.

Does not fit well into short term (six-month, one-year projects) and requires a long-term perspective.

“It takes 10 years to mint an investigative reporter that's really going to create change in society.”

Measuring impact by accountability

Effective monitoring and evaluation, the OCCRP case study suggests, in large part depend on having a viable, clear theory of change.

Strengths of the OCCRP approach

For more resources on measuring the impact of investigative journalism see:

Limitations of the OCCRP approach

While the strengths of the OCCRP approach are considerable, the case study also identified some limitations:

You can't promise donors these kinds of results upfront -- X number of corrupt officials are fired or Y amount of illegal assets are seized -- this is why taking a long term perspective is essential.

There is no baseline or ability to know what would happen without certain investigations being published.

It obviously cannot measure intangibles, for example, the corruption that didn’t take place for fear of being caught or decisions behind prosecutions and priorities of law enforcement.

Causality: How can you say this investigative reporting created this firing or this particular change in government?

The law of unintended consequences: “Things can get worse. You get somebody thrown out and somebody worse comes in.”

Some other organisations who have adopted this approach have made claims around the impact of their work that seem hard to justify.

Opportunities from the OCCRP approach

Better systems and audits are needed to justify claims made around impact.

OCCRP follows up on its stories continues reporting on them, in order to better understand the impact of the story. This probably would not be such a focus if they were not a government and institutional donor sponsored organisation.

Taking the long view

USAID has been supporting OCCRP since 2007 which enables them to take a long term perspective on OCCRP's growth as an organisation.

The importance of donors being patient when supporting investigative reporting was emphasised by both USAID and OCCRP.

This approach has led to OCCRP being "the most decorated investigative reporting organisation in Eastern Europe."

"Its members’ networks are regularly called upon to testify at multilateral meetings and hearings; OCCRP also advocates for safer working conditions by providing and pushing donors and policymakers to push for focussing on digital, physical and legal security; has also mentored other partners and outlets; and is an incubator of technology."

BREAKOUT GROUP

Breakout group three was attended by

  • 6 representatives of investigative journalism organisations

  • 3 media development donors

  • 5 representatives of media development/journalism support organisations involved in policy and learning

  • and 1 independent researcher

Gender ratio: 7 Male / 8 Female

Participants selected which breakout group they wanted to attend.

Summary

The breakout group agreed that continued long-term support for cross-border, collaborative investigative journalism is essential.

The group put forward a number of areas for future research and ideas for how donors adjust how they approach supporting investigative journalism.

Advice to donors new to investigative journalism

The group welcomed the prospect of new supporters for investigative journalism but warned that considering the complexities and risks, it is essential that they collaborate with more experienced donors and listen to the advice that already exists.

Concerns were raised that the decisions of some less experienced donors have led to mistakes that are damaging to the reputation of the sector.

For example, by funding investigative reporting or programmes with media development groups and/or media who are themselves new to proper investigative reporting.

Concerns were also raised that some donors do not provide adequate support for or access to safety and security resources (including, physical, digital, legal, and psycho-social) among the grantees.

It is critical to consider such support as part of the "do no harm" principle, particularly given how risky investigative journalism, in particular, can be.

Donors new to investigative reporting were encouraged to

  • learn from their peers and the expertise available

  • engage more constructively and realistically on evaluation and measuring impact

  • put greater priority on safety and security

Potential solutions:

Smaller or newer supporters of investigative journalism might consider teaming up with other donors to

  • Provide funding that is longer-term.

  • Pool resources and knowledge on safety, security and monitoring and evaluation.

  • Reduce the burden of having to provide multiple reports for multiple donors

Evaluating investigative skills

“One of the nice things about investigative reporting is that everything you need to know about an investigative reporter is in that story. And if you have an expert professional read that story, they can tell you how good this journalism is."

"The problem is many donors and many development agencies don't always have investigative reporters doing this [evaluation] and so consequently that there can be a lot of inaccurate information that's collected.”

Emphasis should be placed on evaluating the skills of the investigative journalists and organisations, looking at key indicators like accuracy, fairness, the quality and number of sources, as well as how libelous a story was.

Suggested solution:

Donors need to involve the right profile of people when evaluating investigative journalism.

As it is unlikely to be practical to bring the expertise in-house, could these skill sets be pooled between donors?

Enabling environments

Often a measure of the impact of investigative journalism is whether you are “moving the needle” or “creating enabling environments” on issues around good governance, fighting corruption, human rights and other areas in the public interest.

However, participants noted that in closed societies, this can be an unrealistic expectation considering that even measuring your audience can be problematic if your work is primarily being accessed by VPN or being shared by messaging apps.

Can a hostile action indicate impact?

One of the donors in the breakout group posed this question:

Should investigative journalists and their supporters consider negative responses to their work (SLAPPs, lawsuits, harassment) - assuming that reporting was accurate and met high editorial standards - as an indirect way to measure impact?

Some donors appear to be open to this idea but further research is needed to codify and test this.

Awards and recognition

One of the donors in the group argued that the following could, in some circumstances, be useful indicators of impact:

Receiving prizes or awards when they:

  • are awarded by a relevant organisation or sector

  • are an acknowledgement of the processes that led to the award.

Being asked to testify at meetings, hearings, or high-level conferences with the public and private sector because of their technical expertise.

Being seen by peers as a leader and an advocate for the tools and enabling environment that facilitate investigative journalism.

Developing and incubating tools and resources that are used by other investigative journalism organisations.

The multiplier effect of partnering with other IJ organisation as well as news organisations. (Because of risks involved in investigative reporting organisations only work with each other if there is a high degree of trust.)

Collaborating with civil society

Recent trends of investigative journalists collaborating with advocacy and civil society groups are to be welcomed.

It was acknowledged that there need to be strict rules of engagement to ensure that investigative journalists are not seen as activists.

However, considering the hostile environment towards investigative journalism, the benefit of collaborating with civil society is that it helps achieve some of the ultimate outcomes that donors wish to see: transparency, anti-corruption, access to information, creating an informed citizenry, democracy-building, building civil society, accountability.

Future GFMD IMPACT meetings

OCCRP will be invited to share best practice from their collaboration with Transparency International so that can be shared so others can learn from the experience.

This approach draws on and is supported by studies - such as - which argues that every dollar invested in investigative journalism, returns about one hundred dollars in societal good.

It was also noted in the breakout group that the way some investigative journalism organisations report results in a context where results are not expected to be achieved in a linear way has similarities to the methodology of .

A guide for donors already exists -.

And.

James T. Hamilton (2016) Democracy’s Detectives - The Economics of Investigative Journalism
Academic research
Research reports and articles
Case studies
Outcome Mapping
How to fund investigative journalism Insights from the field and its key donors - DW Akademie (2020)
events held dedicated to this topic as recently as 2019
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
“OCCRP’s primary basis for measuring impact is increased accountability. We measure this in terms of illicitly acquired funds returned to the public sphere; civic actions, such as a protest calling for change; government actions, such as when a government seeks evidence from another government based on an investigation; corporate actions, such as when a financial institution closes a loophole in the banking system; resignations and sackings, like when a prime minister is forced to quit; official investigations, usually opened by a national prosecutor; and arrests, indictments, and sentences.”
LogoImpact to Date
LogoHow to fund investigative journalismDW.COM
LogoGlobal Funders Meeting – Rudolf Augstein FoundationRudolf Augstein Foundation
Page cover image