1 / 19

Abdulgadir Turkawi , Krishna Pidatala, Tei Fujiwara, Ryan Sheely

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.

pahana
Download Presentation

Abdulgadir Turkawi , Krishna Pidatala, Tei Fujiwara, Ryan Sheely

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. AbdulgadirTurkawi, Krishna Pidatala, Tei Fujiwara, Ryan Sheely Sudan Community Development Fund:Preliminary Slice I Impact Evaluation Results and Needs for Future Evaluations

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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?

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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 ?

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. THANK YOU

More Related