The conference program encompassed two main tracks: “Wellbeing-Focused Evaluation” and “Evaluation of Sociocultural Projects,” in addition to thematic segments dedicated to evaluation in specific domains – such as social entrepreneurship, working with children with special developmental needs, individuals with disabilities, and various forms of chronic illnesses. As usual, several sessions were also devoted to evaluation methodologies.

“The program was exceptionally rich, packed with engaging and substantive presentations. The relevance of the issues on the table and the profound discussions surrounding them underscore that interest in evaluation remains unwavering. I believe that thanks to our speakers and partners, whom I’d like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to, the conference offered an opportunity for all participants to expand their knowledge, enhance their professional competencies, delve into existing practices, and introduce their real-world working experiences to colleagues. In my view, this event holds great significance and utility, nurturing a sense of unity within the evaluation community and inspiring fresh achievements,” remarked Anna Lygina, President ASPPE.

The Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for evaluating the implementation of state programs and policies, among other things, has been an active participant in the conference for several years. In recent times, this regulatory body has been actively championing an evidence-based approach.

“In 2021–2022, we organized an extensive competition for government and municipal employees to encourage the adoption of an evidencebased approach in decision-making.[17] In 2023, in collaboration with the Financial University, we are hosting a research project competition for undergraduate and graduate students.[18] We aspire to cultivate a community of individuals passionate about evaluation among students, researchers, and decision-makers,” stated Anastasia Kim, Deputy Head of Inspection at the Research and Methodology Department of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, during the ASPPE conference’s opening session.

The central theme of this year’s conference revolved around the evaluation of quality of life and well-being. As early as the 1960s, researchers began to conclude that gross domestic product (GDP) and the standard of living were not the ideal indicators to describe society’s life and individual well-being. That is how the concept of “quality of life” emerged, oriented toward a comprehensive assessment of various aspects of societal life, including non-material ones.[19]

In 1972, the concept of Gross National Happiness was introduced by the King of Bhutan in place of the commonly used GDP. This immediately elevated a small South Asian nation to become a trailblazer among countries making happiness the cornerstone of national policy. In 2008, the kingdom developed the corresponding tool – the Gross National Happiness Index. Happiness indices have since been calculated for various countries. One example is the World Happiness Report, published by the UN’s Sustainable Development Solutions Network.[20] According to the 2023 report, Russia ranks 70th out of 137 countries in terms of happiness, with Finland, Denmark, and Iceland leading the chart.

Approaches to assessing the quality of life, well-being, and happiness are intricately interlinked, as noted by Natalia Kosheleva, a member of the ASPPE Board and a consultant specializing in monitoring and evaluating socially oriented programs and projects.

According to the expert, these approaches can be categorized into three major groups, distinguished by their impact scale:

1. National/Territorial

Programs and policies aiming to enhance the quality of life, well-being, and happiness of people within a specific country or territory.

2. Organization-Specific

Programs or projects whose objective is to promote the quality of life, well-being, and happiness of individuals within a given organization.

3. Individual

The goal of programs and policies is to ensure the quality of life, well-being, and happiness of specific individuals.

The national/territorial approach can be illustrated by Bhutan, where the Gross National Happiness Index encompasses 9 spheres of human life:

• Psychological well-being;

• Health;

• Time utilization (e.g., adequate sleep is considered an important part of well-being);

• Education;

• Cultural diversity and sustainability;

• Quality management;

• Quality of life in local communities;

• Ecological diversity;

• Standard of living.

The survey questionnaire for the Gross National Happiness Index comprises 249 questions. For instance, in the Psychological Well-Being section, residents of the kingdom are asked to identify the 6–7 most important factors and elements that contribute to their happiness, rate the quality of their life on a scale of 0 to 10, and express how much pleasure they derive from it.

Which units can we measure well-being in? The Happiness Research Institute suggests a unit of measurement known as WALY (Wellbeing Adjusted Life Years) – life years adjusted based on the subjective level of well-being. This approach originates from the field of medicine, where health is measured in QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and DALYs (Disability Adjusted Life Years).

In essence, WALY is akin to a kilowatt-hour: if we have an electrical device with a power of one kilowatt, it consumes one kilowatt-hour of electricity in an hour of continuous operation. When calculating WALY, subjective well-being ratings on a scale of 0 to 10 are used as “power,” where 10 signifies complete life satisfaction. If a person is completely satisfied with their life for a year, the well-being “consumed” amounts to one WALY, Natalia Kosheleva explains.

Researchers also strive to calculate well-being losses and gains resulting from various factors and policies. Moreover, WALY enables the measurement of the Happiness Return on Investment (HROI).

According to Natalia Kosheleva, there is a significant development in the assessment of how projects impact individuals’ subjective well-being. For example, substantial work in this direction has been carried out in the United Kingdom. There is a center dedicated to evidence-based approaches in projects aimed at enhancing well-being. Since 2011, the annual population survey features four questions related to personal well-being. Respondents are asked to rate their current life satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, assess the significance of their life pursuits, reflect on their happiness the previous day, and indicate their level of anxiety during the same period.[21]

In the UK, creative approaches to measuring well-being have also emerged. Convinced that the purpose of exhibitions includes influencing people’s emotional and psychological states, museums have particularly excelled in this area. To assess this impact, all visitors are invited to select a leaf of a specific color at the entrance to the exhibition and attach it to a tree. Following a color-coded system, a red leaf signifies “I feel good and prosperous,” a yellow leaf indicates a neutral state, and a green leaf expresses “I feel sad.” At the exit, visitors encounter another tree. Subsequently, the number of leaves of each color at the entrance and exit is tallied to gauge whether the exhibition has affected people’s emotional states.