200 likes | 348 Views
The Evaluation of Programs Combating Female Genital Cutting: Data Sources and Options. P. Stanley Yoder Macro International. February 6, 2007. Overview of presentation. Assessing long-term impact DHS data Single survey data Challenges in designing evaluations.
E N D
The Evaluation of Programs Combating Female Genital Cutting: Data Sources and Options P. Stanley Yoder Macro International February 6, 2007
Overview of presentation • Assessing long-term impact • DHS data • Single survey data • Challenges in designing evaluations
Current situation: Anti-FGC programs • Great variety of program types - Public awareness media campaigns - Social mobilization in specific populations - Lobbying for legal action - Enlisting help from traditional and political leaders • Very little empirical evidence of impact (Diop & Askew, book chapter in R.M. Abusharaf, ed. 2006)
Need for data on FGC program impact • Statistical evidence for changes in FGC prevalence • Possible use of DHS data? • Surveys of sample populations - Baseline and follow-up surveys - Comparison of intervention and control regions
Challenges in collection of relevant data • Conducting a survey in program areas only • Need to have data on events 10 years ago • Temptation to rely on program personnel rather than outside observers to evaluate • DHS provides data on women 15-49 years old and not on young girls • Need to describe situation taking account of secular trend
Use of DHS data for FGC evaluations • Data on prevalence by age group of women • Data on daughters (most recently cut) - Age at FGC - Identity of practitioner - type of cutting • Does not provide data on all daughters
DHS data on distribution of FGC • Prevalence by region • Prevalence by ethnicity • Prevalence by rural/urban residence • Prevalence by religion (sometimes)
Limitations in use of DHS data for evaluations • No complete data on FGC among young girls • Sample size limits aggregation by small units such as those covered by an FGC program • Provides data on FGC events 10-15 years ago and more only (women 15-24 years old)
Assessing long-term impact: Stand alone surveys • Baseline and follow-up surveys - relatively expensive to design and implement - results after more than five years • One survey with intervention & control areas - much cheaper - difficult to identify intervention & control areas, for they don’t follow administrative units - very hard to match intervention & control areas
Example: Tostan evaluation for UNICEF New York • Commissioned and funded by Child Protection Division of UNICEF New York • Implemented through contract between UNICEF and Macro International • Additional funding by USAID • Two components: Quantitative and Qualitative - Quantitative: Centre de Recherche pour le Développement Humain (CRDH) - Qualitative: Population Council, Dakar
Quantitative component: intervention and control areas • Designed and implemented by the CRDH • Questionnaire for households and for women 15-49 years old • Questionnaire similar to DHS • Questions on knowing about Tostan, participation in Tostan, knowing about a Public Declaration, participation in a PD
Basic questions to answer • How has Tostan affected: - average age of marriage? - cutting of young girls? • How has participation in a Public Declaration affected: - average age of marriage? - cutting of young girls?
Three types of villages where FGC is practiced Basic comparison: Data on age of first marriage and rates of FGC in three types of villages: • Type A: Tostan operated and population participated in a Public Declaration (PD) • Type B: Population participated in PD without Tostan • Type C: Control villages: No Tostan, no PD
Assessment of program impact • What are the starting points for rates of FGC and for age of marriage in these three types of villages? • What is the secular trend in these areas? • How do the intervention and the control villages differ? • To what extent can differences be attributed to Tostan activities?
Village type by prevalence of FGC for women • Type A villages – FGC prevalence 64% • Type B villages – FGC prevalence 81% • Type C villages – FGC prevalence 87% • Implication: The point of departure is different for the assessment of any change that may have occurred
Major challenges for village comparisons • Matching control and intervention villages by: - ethnic composition - practice of FGC - literacy - development of social services • Locating villages near Tostan villages that had no Tostan influence
Reporting on an evaluation: Being clear • The questions to be answered • The indicators to be followed • How and why they are important • The expectations of the program personnel • The ways evaluators would assess the program • The ways evaluators would measure success
Setting up a new evaluation • Questionnaire that matches program activities • Sample population that covers program areas plus control areas • Choosing indicators that show process as well as impact • Identifying a neutral agency to conduct survey • Articulating how assessments will be made • Plan final report that provides all this information