While impact evaluation has moved away from strictly behavioural approaches (as embodied by randomised controlled trials) to include contexts and mechanisms, the role of institutions as explanatory mechanisms has so far been understudied. This lack of reflection on institutions in impact evaluation contrasts with the centrality of neo-institutionalism in policy analysis. This article draws on the inputs of these theoretical reflections developed in policy analysis to theorise how institutions can be analysed as an explanatory mechanism in impact evaluation. The fruitfulness of this perspective is empirically illustrated by the case of an impact evaluation of French community centres. The article shows how community centres as institutions mediate the impact of a variety of community-based interventions through fostering a welcoming culture, encouraging the expression of residents’ needs and wishes, and relying on organisational flexibility and embeddedness.
AstburyBLeeuwFL (2010) Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. The American Journal of Evaluation31(3): 363–81.
2.
BarnesMMatkaESullivanH (2003) Evidence, understanding and complexity: Evaluation in non-linear systems. Evaluation9(3): 265–84.
3.
BélandD (2019) How Ideas and Institutions Shape the Politics of Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BergerPLuckmannT (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
5.
BressonM (2002) Les Centres Sociaux: Entre Expertise et Militantisme. Paris: L’Harmattan.
6.
BroecklingJPinsoneaultLDahlquistA, et al. (2015) Using authentic engagement to improve health outcomes: Community center practices and values (at the agency). Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services96(3): 165–74.
7.
CairneyP (2011) Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
CorbettCNMoxleyDP (2018) Using the visual arts to form an intervention design concept for resettlement support among refugee women. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services99(2): 146–59.
9.
CorbinJMStraussA (1990) Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology13(1): 3–21.
10.
Dahler-LarsenP (2001) From programme theory to constructivism: On tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation7(3): 331–49.
11.
DessertineDDurandREloyJ, et al. (2004) Les centres sociaux 1880-1980, Une résolution locale de la question sociale ?Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
12.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–60.
13.
EnsellemC (2021) Les Effets Des Structures de l’animation de La Vie Sociale. Analyse des Contributions à un Défi. CNAF, Dossier d’étude, n° 200. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/49w8bwzk
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Aldine Pub. Co.
16.
HøjlundS (2014) Evaluation use in the organizational context – Changing focus to improve theory. Evaluation20(1): 26–43.
17.
HallPTaylorR (1996) Political science and the three new institutionnalisms. Political Studies44: 936–57.
18.
HosokawaRKondoKItoM, et al. (2019) The effectiveness of Japan’s Community Centers in facilitating social participation and maintaining the functional capacity of older people. Research on Aging41(4): 315–35.
19.
KupiecTCelińska-JanowiczDPattynV (2023) Understanding evaluation use from an organisational perspective: A review of the literature and a research agenda. Evaluation29(3): 338–55.
20.
LascoumesPLe GalesP (2007) Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments – From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance20(1): 1–21.
21.
LebonF (2003) Une politique de l’enfance, du patronage au centre de loisirs. Éducation et Sociétés (Louvain-la-neuve)11(1): 135–52.
22.
LemireSKwakoANielsenSB, et al. (2020) What is this thing called a mechanism? Findings from a review of realist evaluations. New Directions for Evaluation167: 73–86.
23.
LingT (2012) Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time. Evaluation18(1): 79–91.
24.
LucasHRevillardA (2025) Identifier et expliquer les effets de l’animation de la vie sociale. Rapport d’évaluation. CNAF, Dossier d’étude, n° 236. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/4vcu3jcn
25.
McLeroyKRNortonBLKeglerMC, et al. (2003) Community-based interventions. American Journal of Public Health93(4): 4.
26.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1984) The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review78(3): 734–49.
27.
MercierCPiatMPeladeauN, et al. (2000) An application of theory-driven evaluation to a drop-in youth center. Evaluation Review24(1): 73–91.
28.
NezHNeveuCGarnierJ (2023a) Saisir le politique des centres sociaux. Formes de participation et de pouvoir d’agir dans des espaces délaissés par les sciences sociales’. Participations35(1): 19–49.
29.
NezHNeveuCGarnierJ, et al. (2023b) Le pouvoir d’agir dans les centres sociaux: Reconfigurations militantes et professionnelles. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
30.
NorthDC (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
PattynV (2014) Why organizations (do not) evaluate? Explaining evaluation activity through the lens of configurational comparative methods. Evaluation20(3): 348–67.
PetersG (2019) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism. London: Edward Elgar.
34.
PiersonP (1993) When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics45(4): 95–628.
35.
PiersonP (2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
PowellWWDimaggioP (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (eds PowellWWDimaggioPJ). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.
37.
RadaelliCMDenteBDossiS (2012) Recasting institutionalism: Institutional analysis and public policy. European Political Science11(4): 537–50.
38.
RaimondoE (2018) The power and dysfunctions of evaluation systems in international organizations. Evaluation24(1): 26–41.
39.
RaimondoE (2020) Getting practical with causal mechanisms: The application of process-tracing under real-world evaluation constraints. New Directions for Evaluation2020(167): 45–58.
40.
RolfeS (2019) Combining theories of change and realist evaluation in practice: Lessons from a research on evaluation study. Evaluation25(3): 294–316.
41.
SandersonI (2000) Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation6(4): 433–54.
42.
SchmidtVA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science11: 303–26.
43.
SchmittJ (2020) The causal mechanism claim in evaluation: Does the prophecy fulfill?New Directions for Evaluation2020(167): 11–26.
44.
SkocpolT (1985) Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In: EvansPBRueschemeyerDSkocpolT (eds) Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–38.
45.
UnterreinerA (2022) Accompagner les parents issus de l’immigration en France: typologie des pratiques d’accueil. Recherches Familiales19(1): 19–31.
46.
WeissCH (1998) Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
