Transcript Slajd 1 - government.bg

Impact Evaluations and Social Innovation in
Europe
Sofia, 24 January, 2012
Joost de Laat (PhD)
Human Development Economics
Europe and Central Asia
The World Bank
Comments: [email protected]
PROGRESS
15 December 2011 Deadline
Results Framework for an Early Childhood Education Program
Inputs
Finance
Activities
Outputs
Project preparation activities
(4 months)
Project preparation outputs
20 communities selected
European Social
Fund
Identify 20 communities
20 Roma mediators trained on
early childhood education and
monitoring
Human resources
Provide monitoring training to
mediators
State budget
Min. of education –
social inclusion unit
Slovak Education
NGO
Office of the
Plenipotentiary
Hire 20 mediators and provide
early childhood education training
Design monitoring database
Poject implementation
activities (1 year). Mediators:
Identify the vulnerable families
Monitoring database in place
Project implementation
Est. 600 vulnerable families
identified
Est. 600 vulnerable families
received information on ECD
Provide information to these
families on early childhood
Municipal Authorities education parenting techniques
Est. 400 children assisted with
enrolment into preschool
Assist parents enroll children in
nearest preschool
Est. 200 parents received
material needs for their young
children
Preschool staff
Provide material needs to poorest
families
Organize weekly reading clubs for
Roma mothers
Record activities and outputs in
database
Est. 300 mothers participate in
reading clubs
Database with information on
600 families
Impacts on
Outcomes
Improved knowledge on
parenting skills
Increased preschool
enrolment of students from
vulnerable families
Improved socio-emotional
skills of young vulnerable
children
Improved cognitive skills of
young vulnerable children
Improved health outcomes of
young vulnerable children
Lower enrolment into special
primary schools among
vulnerable children
Improved primary and
secondary school
performance
Greater long run employment
outcomes and reduced
poverty
Outline
What?
Impact Evaluations
Who?
How?
Ethics?
Why?
?
Isolates causal impact on beneficiary outcomes
What?
Globally hundreds of randomized impact evaluations
• Canadian self-sufficiency welfare program
• Danish employment programs
• Turkish employment program
• India remedial education program
• Kenya school deworming program
• Mexican conditional cash transfer program
(PROGRESA)
• United States youth development programs
Different from:
e.g. evaluation measuring whether social assistance is
reaching the poorest households
Often coalitions of:
• Governments
• International organizations
• Academics
• NGOs
• Private sector companies
Who?
Examples:
• Poverty Action Lab (academic)
• Mathematica Policy Research (private)
• Development Innovations Ventures (USAID)
• International Initiative for Impact Eval. (3ie)
• WB Development IMpact Evaluation (DIME)
Ex 1: Development Innovation Venture (USAID)
7
Ex 2: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
Ex 3: MIT’s Poverty Action Lab (JPAL)
9
Ex 4: WB Development IMpact Evaluation (DIME)
10
Make publicly available training materials in partnership with
other WB groups (e.g. Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund)
11
Location
Date
Countries
Attending
12
Participants
Project Teams
164
17
El Cairo, Egypt
January 13-17, 2008
Managua, Nicaragua
March 3-7, 2008
11
104
15
Madrid, Spain
June 23-27, 2008
1
184
9
Manila, Philippines
December 1-5, 2008
6
137
16
Lima, Peru
January 26-30, 2009
9
184
18
Amman, Jordan
March 8-12, 2009
9
206
17
Beijing, China
July 20-24, 2009
1
212
12
Sarajevo, Bosnia
September 21-25, 2009
17
115
12
Cape Town, South Africa
December 7-11, 2009
14
106
12
Kathmandu, Nepal
February 22-26, 2010
6
118
15
86
1,530
143
Total
Organize trainings on impact evaluations in partnership
with others (e.g. Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund)
12
Impact Evaluation
Clusters
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conditional Cash Transfers
Early Childhood Development
Education Service Delivery
HIV/AIDS Treatment and Prevention
Local Development
Malaria Control
Pay-for-Performance in Health
Rural Roads
Rural Electrification
Urban Upgrading
ALMP and Youth Employment
Help coordinate impact evaluations portfolio
Basic Elements
How to carry
one out?
• Comparison group that is identical at start of
program
• Prospective: evaluation needs to be built
into design from start
• Randomized evaluations generally most
rigorous
• Example: randomize phase-in (who goes
first?)
• Qualitative information – helps program
design and understanding of the 'why'
Ethics?
Implementation considerations
• Most programs cannot reach all:
randomization provides each potential
beneficiary fair chance of receiving program
(early)
• Review by ethical review boards
Broader considerations
•Important welfare implications of not spending
resources effectively
•Is the program very beneficial? If we know the
answer, there is no need for an IE
EU2020 Targets (selected)
• 75% of the 20-64 year-olds to be employed
• Reducing school drop-out rates below 10%
• At least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of
poverty and social exclusion
Why?
Policy Options Are Many
• Different ALMPs, trainings, pension rules,
incentives for men taking on more home care
etc. etc.
• For each policy options, also different
intensities, ways of delivery…
Selective Use of Impact evaluations
• Help provide answers to program effectiveness
and design in EU2020 areas facing some of the
greatest and most difficult social challenges
Why?
But impact evaluations can also
• Build public support for proven programs
• Encourage program designers (govts, ngos,
etc.) to focus more on program results
• Provide incentive to academia to focus
energies on most pressing social issues like
Roma inclusion!
Why?
+
Help Encourage Social Innovation
Thank you for your attention!