Screen 1 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting LEARNING OBJECTIVES Understand the basic measures to monitor and evaluate targeting activities.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ed-D 420 Inclusion of Exceptional Learners. CAT time Learner-Centered - Learner-centered techniques focus on strategies and approaches to improve learning.
Advertisements

Phase 1 Do No Harm Basic Phase 2 Partners Beneficiaries Diversion Phase 3 Complaints Flexibility Communication Phase 4 Review Building Capacity Good Enough.
Donald T. Simeon Caribbean Health Research Council
Action Plan Skills Building: Module 2 Defining Action Plan Purpose and Scope January 2013.
Prepared by BSP/PMR Results-Based Programming, Management and Monitoring Presentation to Geneva Group - Paris Hans d’Orville Director, Bureau of Strategic.
Good Evaluation Planning – and why this matters Presentation by Elliot Stern to Evaluation Network Meeting January 16 th 2015.
Monitoring and Evaluation for HES Activities
Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar January 2014 Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar.
Humanitarian Programme Cycle 2015 August
Cash transfers to emergency affected households The assessment phase.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Ethiopia Productive Social Safety Net. Program description This program aims to provide –Predictable, multi-year assistance to –chronically the food insecure.
J. Francis Centre for Rural Development University of Venda HOUSEHOLD VULNERABILITY INDEX: Postgraduate Research with the University of Venda.
Piloting the Household Vulnerability Index to Improve Targeting in WVI programmes in Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe Tendayi Kureya
What is Participatory M & E? Part of participatory approach to development Stakeholders / beneficiaries are subjects, not objects of evaluation Strong.
Systematic analysis and synthesis in qualitative evaluation Case study evaluation of the Oxfam Novib programme in Burundi ( ) Ferko Bodnar CDI.
Social Protection Policy Elbert N. Ellis Operations Officer, Social Analyst Social Sector Division, Caribbean Development Bank September 26, 2013 Presented.
Indicators to Monitor Investment in Social Protection Simone Cecchini Social Development Division Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
ZEST Gender issues in Agriculture. ZEST This is the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather.
LOT QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLING (LQAS). What is LQAS A sampling method that:  Is simple, in-expensive, and probabilistic.  Combines two standard statistical.
RESEARCH A systematic quest for undiscovered truth A way of thinking
Shelter Training 08b – Belgium, 16 th –18 th November, 2008 based on content developed by p This session describes the benefits of developing a strategic.
Indicators of Success -- Applying the TOC What will change? You must be able to test your theory!
Monitoring and Evaluation for Adult Education Programmes Module 1 © 2013 PRIA International Academy | Appreciation Courses Monitoring and Evaluation for.
Evaluation methods and tools (Focus on delivery mechanism) Jela Tvrdonova, 2014.
Year Seven Self-Evaluation Workshop OR Getting from Here to There Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
1 What are Monitoring and Evaluation? How do we think about M&E in the context of the LAM Project?
How to Use National Governance Data for UNDAF, CCA and other development frameworks Workshop on Measuring and Assessing Democratic Governance November,
1. Social Protection for Older Persons: Social Pensions in Asia This book is an outcome of a study to gather evidence on the effectiveness and relevance.
Andrey Ivanov, Senior Policy Advisor, Human Development and Roma Inclusion cluster, UNDP BRC.
The National Development Plan, Iraq 6 July 2010 “Developing Objectives & Indicators for Strategic Planning” Khaled Ehsan and Helen Olafsdottir UNDP Iraq.
Module 2 Stakeholder analysis. What’s in Module 2  Why do stakeholder analysis ?  Identifying the stakeholders  Assessing stakeholders importance and.
A Framework to discuss Social Assistance for Health Care Bruno Meessen, ITM International Workshop Health Care and Poverty, Solutions Ahead?
Targeted Interventions in Health Care: The case of PROMIN Sebastian Galiani Mercedes Fernandez Ernesto Schargrodsky.
Monitoring & Evaluation Presentation for Technical Assistance Unit, National Treasury 19 August 2004 Fia van Rensburg.
Monitoring for the Elimination of Iodine Deficiency -Introduction of the framework- Moldova – April Arnold Timmer UNICEF Regional Office.
Screen 1 of 23 Targeting Introduction to Targeting LEARNING OBJECTIVES Explain the key principles of targeting. Understand the steps of the targeting process.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation Lecture 2c – Process Evaluation.
Global Social Floor: a Universal Social Pension Silvia Stefanoni Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Programmes HelpAge International.
Screen 1 of 22 Food Security Policies – Formulation and Implementation Policy Monitoring and Evaluation LEARNING OBJECTIVES Define the purpose of a monitoring.
Scenario building workshop Dec Objectives of the workshop: Impact Intervention  Introduce different scenario building concepts and tools  Develop.
Screen 1 of 20 Vulnerability Vulnerability Assessment LEARNING OBJECTIVES Define the purpose and scope of vulnerability assessment. Understand how vulnerability.
1 REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE MINISTRY OF WOMAN AND SOCIAL ACTION “A policy dialogue and a south-south learning event on long term social protection and inclusive.
Midterm Review of the Food Security Sector 22 – 23 June 2009, Baghdad.
Overview of targeting in Sub- Saharan Africa - the ongoing debate in the region Cash Transfers Workshop 21 st September 2010.
Rome, july 5, 2006 Observing project implementation and conducting project analysis (UVER) Presentation by Luigi Guerci.
NATIONAL INDABA 2015 Breakaway 3: Socio-economic impact of the lottery businesses on the South African economy.
PREPARING FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION 27 – 31 May 2013 Bangkok Bangkok Office Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education United Nations Educational,
Targeting of Public Spending Menno Pradhan Senior Poverty Economist The World Bank office, Jakarta.
SJI Impact Assessment 2014 Based on Impact Assessment for Development Agencies – Learning to Value Change (Chris Roche, Oxfam, digital file 2010)
Emergency Preparedness Planning: Middle East January 9 th -11 th.
Targeting Outcomes, Redux Coady, Grosh, and Hoddinott (forthcoming in World Bank Research Observer) Presentation at Reaching the Poor Conference Washington,
UN ECE Seminar on New Frontiers for Statistical Data Collection 31 Oct – 2 Nov 2012 Beyond 2011 The future of population statistics Andy Teague, Office.
Accountability to Affected Populations 8 December 2015.
Screen 1 of 20 Targeting Targeting in Emergencies LEARNING OBJECTIVES Apply the basic principles and tools of targeting to various emergency situations.
Defining Key Performance Indicators Learning from international practices Challenges for the UI scheme in Viet Nam By Celine Peyron Bista, 13 December.
The Gender Marker: Analysis and Coding Gender in Humanitarian Action Food Sector Workshop 18 September.
Module 9 Monitoring and Evaluation Tuesday, Oct 14, 2013 Ngo Thi Loan and John Carter.
Health equity audit Stuart Harris Public Health Intelligence Analyst Course – Day 4.
CRITICALLY APPRAISING EVIDENCE Lisa Broughton, PhD, RN, CCRN.
Evaluation What is evaluation?
People Centred Humanitarian Action Gender Equality in Early Recovery CCfER Training, December 2015.
Aid Effectiveness Project Syrian Refugees Jordan.
13th Regional Meeting of National EFA Coordinators: The Big Push
Food Security Assessment of South Sudanese Refugees in White Nile
Building the assessment matrix
WFP-UNICEF Emergency Cash Transfers to support Dominicans affected by Hurricane Maria Dominica, December 2017 – February 2018 November 30th, 2017.
SUSTAINABLE MICRO-FINANCE for WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT
USING SECONDARY DATA IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Monitoring and Evaluation in Communication Management
Presentation transcript:

Screen 1 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting LEARNING OBJECTIVES Understand the basic measures to monitor and evaluate targeting activities. Use qualitative information to integrate measures of targeting accuracy.

Screen 2 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting INTRODUCTION Good feedback information can be very important in fine-tuning or correcting the targeting during an ongoing operation. Which types of information and analysis are useful in monitoring and evaluating how well targeting works in practice? Food security information systems can make an important contribution.

Screen 3 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting INTRODUCTION KEY QUESTIONS: Has the targeting system identified the right people? How many of the target group have been assisted? Has the targeting system succeeded in concentrating resources on the intended beneficiaries? Have any of the resources intended for the target group been diverted elsewhere?

Screen 4 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting CAUSES OF TARGETING “ERROR” In the real world, no targeting system is perfect. The imperfections are called targeting “errors”. Some potential causes of targeting error: Technical problems Inaccurate needs or vulnerability assessment Gaps in data or information Poor design Flawed implementation Governance problems Malpractice, especially diversion or misuse of resources Weak administrative capacity Poor accountability Poor analysis of power structures and interest groups Clash of values Cultural issues

Screen 5 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting THREE APPROACHES TO MEASURING ACCURACY 1. How many people were correctly or incorrectly targeted? 2. How much aid reached the right people? 3. Who are the beneficiaries (and the non-beneficiaries)? Key questions:

Screen 6 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting COVERAGE, EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION – HOW MANY PEOPLE? The accuracy is often measured in terms of how many people are correctly or incorrectly receiving benefits. The diagram shows how the target group and the beneficiaries may not exactly overlap Target population Beneficiaries (population receiving assistance) TOTAL POPULATION CORRECT TARGETING EXCLUSION ERROR INCLUSION ERROR 1. How many people?

Screen 7 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting Correct targeting is usually measured in terms of coverage. COVERAGE, EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION – HOW MANY PEOPLE? Coverage is the percentage of the target group who receive benefits. Coverage and exclusion error are complementary. TARGET GROUP Exclusion Error Coverage Example – Coverage and exclusion error

Screen 8 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting COVERAGE, EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION – HOW MANY PEOPLE? Example – Perfect targeting Community of 100 people. 20 meet the targeting criteria.  Perfect targeting BeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries 

Screen 9 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting Example – Perfect targeting totalBeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries total Target group 200 Exclusion error = 0/20 = 0 Non- target group 800 Inclusion error = 0/20 = 0 % Coverage = 20/20 = 100% COVERAGE, EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION – HOW MANY PEOPLE?

Screen 10 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting COVERAGE, EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION – HOW MANY PEOPLE? Example – Imperfect targeting (with adequate resources) Imperfect targeting (with adequate resources) BeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries  TotalBeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries Total Target group 205 Exclusion error = 5/20 = 25% Non-target group 805 Inclusion error = 5/20 = 25% Coverage = 15/20 = 75%

Screen 11 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting COVERAGE, EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION – HOW MANY PEOPLE? Example – Imperfect targeting (with under-resources) Imperfect targeting B (with under-resourcing) BeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries  TotalBeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries Total Target group Exclusion error (or under- coverage) = __% Non-target group 70 1 Inclusion error =__% Coverage =__%

Screen 12 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting COVERAGE, EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION – HOW MANY PEOPLE? Example – Imperfect targeting (with under-resources) Imperfect targeting B (with under-resourcing) BeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries  TotalBeneficiariesNon-beneficiaries Total Target group / 30 Exclusion error (or under- coverage) = 37 % Non-target group /20 Inclusion error = 5 % /30 Coverage = 63 %

Screen 13 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting 2. How much aid? Another approach to measuring the success of targeting is by assessing the quantity or proportion of aid actually received by the target group. EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID?

Screen 14 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? Beneficiaries  Beneficiaries (20) Target group (15)Non-target group (5) (25% inclusion error)  Target groupNon-target group  Example – Imperfect targeting (with adequate resources)

Screen 15 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? Targeting Effectiveness = the percentage of transfer resources actually delivered to the intended target group. Target groupNon-target group  targeting effectiveness = 75% EffectivenessLeakage Effectiveness and leakage are complementary.

Screen 16 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting IDENTIFYING TARGET GROUPS – METHODS OF TARGETINGEFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? The 20 sacks have been distributed as follows: 18 to the correctly targeted households; and only 2 to the non-target group. Example – Imperfect targeting (with adequate resources) - 2 Target groupNon-target group  Effectiveness = ?Leakage = ?

Screen 17 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting IDENTIFYING TARGET GROUPS – METHODS OF TARGETINGEFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? The 20 sacks have been distributed as follows: 18 to the correctly targeted households; and only 2 to the non-target group. Example – Imperfect targeting (with adequate resources) - 2 Target groupNon-target group  Effectiveness = 18/20 = 90% Leakage = 2/20 (or ) = 10% …of course, the opposite can also happen...

Screen 18 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? Example – Imperfect targeting (with adequate resources) - 3 Target groupNon-target group  ?? Missing resources Effectiveness = ?Leakage = ? Target group -> 12 sacks in total. Non-target group beneficiaries -> 4 sacks. Four sacks are unaccounted for.

Screen 19 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? Example – Imperfect targeting (with adequate resources) - 3 Target groupNon-target group  ?? Missing resources Effectiveness = 12/20 = 60% Leakage = = 40% Target group -> 12 sacks in total. Non-target group beneficiaries -> 4 sacks. Four sacks are unaccounted for.

Screen 20 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? TOTAL POPULATION TARGET GROUP Targeting Performance = % of resources received by the target group / % of target group in population. Targeting effectiveness can be compared with the results of an untargeted distribution. The accuracy of the targeting can be measured in terms of how much more the target group receive from the targeted programme.

Screen 21 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? It is worse than no targeting. PERFORMANCE < 1 PERFORMANCE = 1 PERFORMANCE > 1 The targeting has had no effect. Targeting has improved the outcome for the target group.

Screen 22 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting EFFECTIVENESS, LEAKAGE AND DILUTION – HOW MUCH AID? Dilution = the amount of aid received by each targeted beneficiary, as a percentage of the planned amount. Dilution is the opposite of concentration (the aim of targeting). It is a common targeting problem in which aid is shared among a larger number of people than the programme was designed for.

Screen 23 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting BENEFICIARY & NON-BENEFICIARY PROFILES – WHO’S IN, WHO’S OUT? 3. Who are the beneficiaries? The third group of targeting indicators falls under the question of who is included and who is excluded by the targeting system. It is very useful to compare the characteristics of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary populations. If there is a clear difference between them it means that the targeting has been effective.

Screen 24 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting BENEFICIARY & NON-BENEFICIARY PROFILES – WHO’S IN, WHO’S OUT? It is also useful to look at the profiles of people in the exclusion and inclusion errors. Exclusion Inclusion Do the excluded target group members have any factor in common that might suggest systematic marginalization? Who are the people wrongly included among the beneficiaries? Why and how the error is happening?

Screen 25 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting THE BOTTOM LINE Standard of accuracy and targeting priorities are different in different contexts. Targeting is more accurate in countries with higher incomes, good administrative capacity, and high levels of inequality. In emergency operations, the priority is often to maximize coverage, while in other situations, the priority may be to eliminate inclusion error and leakage.

Screen 26 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting THE BOTTOM LINE Contextual information and qualitative assessment of how the targeting system is working help to interpret the error measurements in a meaningful way. Why are problems or errors happening? What can be changed in order to reduce them? What do beneficiaries and their community think about the targeting? How are targeting decisions actually made, and by whom? How transparent and accountable is the process? Does the targeting match the programme’s objectives? Could the targeting design have been better?

Screen 27 of 27 Targeting Monitoring and Evaluation of Targeting SUMMARY No targeting system is perfect. Usually some degree of inaccuracy must be accepted to make the programme workable and affordable. A judgement has to be made about which kinds of error, and what degree of error, are acceptable given the programme’s objectives and context. The most useful indicators for measuring the accuracy of targeting fall under 3 key questions: 1. How many people were correctly or incorrectly identified as beneficiaries? Coverage = % of target group receiving benefits Exclusion = % of target group not receiving benefits Inclusion = % of beneficiaries who are not target group members 2. How much of the resources for distribution reached the right people? Effectiveness = % of transfer resources received by the target group Leakage = % of transfer resources not received by the target group Performance = % of transfer resources received by the target group, divided by the % they would have received from an untargeted distribution 3. Who is included, who is excluded?