abdulgadir turkawi krishna pidatala tei fujiwara ryan sheely
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Abdulgadir Turkawi , Krishna Pidatala, Tei Fujiwara, Ryan Sheely

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Abdulgadir Turkawi , Krishna Pidatala, Tei Fujiwara, Ryan Sheely - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 43 Views
  • Uploaded on

Abdulgadir Turkawi , Krishna Pidatala, Tei Fujiwara, Ryan Sheely. Sudan Community Development Fund: Preliminary Slice I Impact Evaluation Results and Needs for Future Evaluations. CDF – Project Background.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Abdulgadir Turkawi , Krishna Pidatala, Tei Fujiwara, Ryan Sheely' - pahana


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
cdf project background
CDF – Project Background
  • Community Development Fund (CDF) National program that uses CDD approach to rapidly provide basic social infrastructure and services to war-affected and underdeveloped areas of North Sudan – i.e. In 4 states out of 15 states
  • Two Phases
    • Slice-1 (2006 -2008) - $25 million
    • Slice-2 (2008 -2011) - $50 million
project background 2
Project Background (2)
  • Slice I (2006-2008) - US$ 25 million
    • 4 states out of 15 states; 10 neediest localities within these 4 states; 20 communities per locality = 200 total communities
  • Slice II (2008-2011) - US$ 50 million
    • 4 states out of 15 states; 6 more communities added to the original 10 Slice-I localities; 19 new localities added in the 4 states in Slice-II to increase coverage within the states.
    • Total Slice-I communities = 260
    • Total Slice-II communities = 380
implementation overview
Implementation Overview
  • Baseline 1 – May 2007 (3 treatment communities per locality; 2 control communities per locality; 27 random Households in each community )
  • Follow-up Survey/Baseline Survey 2 – June 2008
  • Follow-up survey for Slice1 - panel survey for same households as in baseline 1 for Slice1 ;
  • Baseline survey for Slice2 - 4 treatment communities per each new locality; 2 control communities per each new locality; 24 random Households in each community
  • Going Forward – Final survey expected in 2011
evaluation strategy and survey design
Evaluation Strategy and Survey Design
  • Targeting – based upon poverty & population assessments; 20 lowest ranked communities in each locality were selected to receive the CDF program. 21st and 22nd lowest communities in each locality picked as the control group
  • Treatment & Control groups – selected communities with similar characteristics
  • Cluster Random Sampling – Households in Treatment and Control groups were selected randomly
selection of treatment communities
Selection of Treatment Communities
  • Total of 20 Communities per Locality
  • Needed to Ensure that there was at least one treatment Community per Administrative Unit
    • Within each Administrative Unit, communities were ranked based on poverty, population, availability and condition of Basic Services and Population
  • Number of Communities Chosen for Treatment Per Administrative Unit - based on above ranking (Poverty, population, availability & condition of basic infrastructure & services)
selection of control group
Selection of Control Group
  • To construct a control group, all communities within each locality were ranked based on the number and condition of basic services and population
  • The 21st and 22nd communities on the list were selected as a control group
    • These were the communities that were not selected that were most similar to the selected communities
survey methodology
Survey Methodology
  • Community and Household Questionnaires
  • 50 Communities Chosen from all 10 Localities – 5 from each locality
    • 3 Treatment Communities Randomly Chosen From Each Locality
    • 2 Control Communities From Each Locality
  • Selection of Households
    • 27 Households Randomly Selected from Each of the 5 Communities
    • Sampling Frame-Household Lists where available, “Spin the Pen” method where not available
evaluation questions
Evaluation Questions
  • The Slice 1 Baseline and Follow-Up Surveys were designed to assess the overall effectiveness of the project at meeting its objectives:

Measurements :

    • Access to Education, Health, and Water?
    • Good Governance?
    • Participation and Social Capital?
results of slice i impact evaluation
Results of Slice I Impact Evaluation
  • Results Estimated Using Difference-in-Difference Approach
  • Education
    • Gains in enrollment, reduction in dropouts
      • Decline in female dropouts
    • Increases in number of classrooms, toilets, benches, and teachers dormitories
    • Treatment communities 34% more satisfied with education after intervention, compared to control group
results of slice i impact evaluation1
Results of Slice I Impact Evaluation
  • Health
    • Fewer statistically significant increases in health center functionality
    • Increase in frequency of health center visits
    • Satisfaction with health facilities significantly increased
  • Water
    • Fewer statistically significant increases in water quality
    • Increased consumption of water
    • Increased Number of Pump sets
    • Increased Satisfaction with Access to Water
results of slice i impact evaluation2
Results of Slice I Impact Evaluation
  • Governance
    • Increase in Reported Rates of Leader Compliance with Community Needs and Leader Responsiveness
    • Decrease in Ease of Changing Leader
  • Participation and Social Capital
    • Increase in Community’s Ability to Solve Development Problems
    • No significant increase in Participation in Community Activities or Meetings
evaluation challenges lessons learned
Evaluation Challenges & Lessons Learned
  • Sample attrition – possibility that some households could have moved by 2011
  • Data Management – difficulty in matching of some households from baseline & follow-up surveys
  • Gender sensitivity & participation – 1st baseline survey did not have any female respondents. Addressed this shortcoming in 2nd baseline survey for Slice-II.
  • Survey questionnaires too long – Need to condense follow-up questionnaires. Interview takes 1 hour 15 minutes.
looking forward impact evaluation
Looking forward – Impact Evaluation
  • 2011 - Final survey expected to be undertaken
  • Impact Evaluation – Need for continued support from DIME for facilitation & technical expertise to the project
  • Phase-II – Dependent upon the Referendum in January 2011 and the political landscape there after. We expect a more rigorous IE design for the next phase/project.
    • Evaluation design - possible sub treatment interventions
    • Survey design and management
    • Sampling
questions feedback needed slice ii follow up survey
Questions & Feedback Needed:Slice II Follow-Up Survey
  • Budget constraints – For the final survey, should we reduce – (a) the number of households per community ,or (b) the number of communities per locality ?
preparing for future impact evaluations
Preparing for Future Impact Evaluations
  • Build Local capacity – involve local counterparts in IE technical design & analysis (as far as possible)
  • Gender Sensitivity/Participation – IE expert on team to be a woman (based upon past experience)
  • Focus on Project/Program – Develop project/program questions to be answered by IE
  • National Statistics Bureau – Look at possibility to involve them in some way to build their capacity (most projects ignore them)
  • DIME Support– need continued support from them. DIME to provide technical expertise, oversee IE work, ensure quality of work, etc.
questions for future evaluations
Questions For Future Evaluations
  • What is the effect of installation of solar electricity on health, education, and security outcomes?
  • What is effect of social accountability mechanisms on Infrastructure Functionality?
  • Due to implementation in progress, may not be able to evaluate until Phase II
  • Will look for opportunities for evaluations in Slice II
ad