Rahel [user:field_middlename] Kahlert

Rahel Kahlert

Senior Evaluation Officer
IAEA
Austria

Rahel Kahlert is a Senior Evaluation Officer at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Rahel was a long-term Evaluation Expert Consultant with the OSCE, and an evaluator with the U.N.-affiliated European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research. Rahel has twenty years of experience in leading evaluation projects in intersectional policy areas including public health, education, security, and social services. Rahel has evaluated UN- and EU-funded projects targeting vulnerable groups. She trains on a wide range of evaluation topics including participatory, gender-responsive, evidence-based evaluation.

Before joining the European Centre, Rahel was the Head of Evaluation and Deputy Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Health Promotion Research, leading evaluations in the areas of mental health, health literacy and health promotion. Prior to her tenure in Austria, Rahel was a Research and Evaluation Associate with the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin as well as an Ethics Fellow with the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Rahel Kahlert holds a Ph.D in Public Policy from the University of Texas at Austin, where she focused on evaluating effectiveness and impact. Rahel received the Emmette S. Redford Award for Outstanding Research for her evaluation research from UT Austin.

My contributions

  • Impact Evaluation: How far have we come?

    Blog

    When I embarked on my dissertation on impact evaluation work 15 years ago, I observed the new trend of rigorous impact evaluation in international development. Criticisms of aid effectiveness have been raised for decades, for example the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) called for evidence-based delivery of development interventions. Impact evaluation has become a valuable tool to provide greater accountability and determine the true effectiveness of development interventions. However, the international evaluation community has not yet reached consensus on the ideal tools and methodologies to be applied by these impact evaluations.

    Startling the evaluation community. 

    In 2006, the Center