1 / 9

Presented by: Shubha Chakravarty (Economist, AFTPM) Impact Evaluation team:

Impact Evaluation of the Adolescent Girls Initiative. Presented by: Shubha Chakravarty (Economist, AFTPM) Impact Evaluation team: Mattias Lundberg (Sr. Economist, HDNCY) Markus Goldstein (Sr. Economist, AFTPM and DEC) AGI Technical Meetings July 22-23, 2010, Washington , DC.

amal
Download Presentation

Presented by: Shubha Chakravarty (Economist, AFTPM) Impact Evaluation team:

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact Evaluation of the Adolescent Girls Initiative Presented by: ShubhaChakravarty (Economist, AFTPM) Impact Evaluation team: Mattias Lundberg (Sr. Economist, HDNCY) Markus Goldstein (Sr. Economist, AFTPM and DEC) AGI Technical Meetings July 22-23, 2010, Washington , DC

  2. Impact Evaluations of AGI • Objective: To measure the impact of the program on the well-being of participants and their families • Method: Comparison of treatment and control groups • Why do we need a control group? • Allows us to attribute a causal effect to the program • Design Options: Randomized Pipeline (Liberia), Lotteries among eligible girls (Jordan), Random selection of villages (S Sudan), Discontinuity with quantitative scoring (Nepal), Matching • Timeline: • Baseline surveys 2010 (2011 in some cases) • Follow up surveys 2012 • Final reports by early 2013

  3. What We Will Learn • What is the impact of the program on: • Economic outcomes for participants and their households : employment, earnings, investment, savings, borrowing, and lending. • Socioeconomic behaviors and outcomes: marriage, fertility, time use, experience of gender-based violence, and attitudes toward risk • Empowerment of participants: physical mobility, aspirations for the future, control over household resources, self-confidence • Knowledge: Financial literacy, HIV/AIDS • How do the program impacts vary according to the demographic and personal characteristics of the participants? • Variation by age, level of family support, level of stress • Does job training work in post-conflict settings? How does childhood experience of trauma, displacement, schooling interruption, and/or loss of relatives affect the success of program participants? • Why don’t these indicators correspond to the results framework?

  4. Why Impact Evaluation? • Cross-country learning • Results shared across countries • International workshops at different stages of project to share lessons learned • Core evaluation team works across countries to ensure consistency • Expansion: Potential to add AGI programs in new countries • Sustainability: By comparing outcomes, we can learn what methods work best. • These lessons can inform design of future programs and the scale-up of these pilot projects to ensure their success in the future

  5. The Role of Monitoring • “M” vs. “E” • Monitoring: ongoing process of data collection on the outputs of a program (Are we doing the program right?) • Evaluation: assessment of the consequences of a program (Are we doing the right program?) • Evaluation can’t work unless we know what we are evaluating • What services were delivered? • Which participants received which services?

  6. The Role of Monitoring • Essential data from monitoring for IE • Who participated? How often? • How many hours of training were delivered? • What was the content of the training (curriculum, OJT, etc.) • Who completed the training? Who dropped out and why? • Which participants were with which trainers? What was the composition of each classroom? • How satisfied were the trainees with the program?

  7. Many Actors, One Goal • Project M&E officer: Primary liaison between implementing agency and IE team; responsible for project monitoring system • IE Field Coordinator: Primary liaison between Bank IE team, implementing agency, and local survey firm during surveys • Washington IE Team: Responsible for design of IE; assist with development of monitoring system; coordinate with Bank project team; data analysis, writing, and dissemination • Survey Firm:An independent agency (preferably local) to conduct data collection at baseline and endline • Huge potential for learning, sharing, capacity building

  8. How does all this help you? • Improve program design • How did participants benefit? What were the unintended consequences? • Improve targeting • Which girls benefit most from your program? How can you better reach the others? • Improve program implementation • Which trainers/ courses were most effective? • Hard evidence of program’s impact • Provide justification for expansion from an external source • Guidance for replication • Which program components are the most essential?

  9. Thank you

More Related