Www.worldbank.org/hdchiefeconomist The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
AFRICA IMPACT EVALUATION INITIATIVE, AFTRL Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation Muna Meky Impact Evaluation Cluster, AFTRL Slides by Paul J.
Advertisements

Impact Evaluation Methods: Causal Inference
Explanation of slide: Logos, to show while the audience arrive.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
An Overview Lori Beaman, PhD RWJF Scholar in Health Policy UC Berkeley
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
Explanation of slide: Logos, to show while the audience arrive.
Knowing if the RBF mechanism is working Incorporating Rigorous Impact Evaluation into your HRBF program Sebastian Martinez World Bank.
Mywish K. Maredia Michigan State University
#ieGovern Impact Evaluation Workshop Istanbul, Turkey January 27-30, 2015 Measuring Impact 1 Non-experimental methods 2 Experiments Vincenzo Di Maro Development.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
Social Impacts Measurement in Government and Academia Daniel Fujiwara Cabinet Office & London School of Economics.
Impact Evaluation Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style Impact Evaluation World Bank InstituteHuman Development Network.
Heterogeneous impact of the social program Oportunidades on contraceptive methods use in young adult women living in rural areas: limitations of the regression.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
VIII Evaluation Conference ‘Methodological Developments and Challenges in UK Policy Evaluation’ Daniel Fujiwara Senior Economist Cabinet Office & London.
Impact Evaluation Methods. Randomized Trials Regression Discontinuity Matching Difference in Differences.
Public Policy & Evidence: How to discriminate, interpret and communicate scientific research to better inform society. Rachel Glennerster Executive Director.
Impact Evaluation: The case of Bogotá’s concession schools Felipe Barrera-Osorio World Bank 1 October 2010.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
Quasi Experimental Methods I Nethra Palaniswamy Development Strategy and Governance International Food Policy Research Institute.
Assessing the Distributional Impact of Social Programs The World Bank Public Expenditure Analysis and Manage Core Course Presented by: Dominique van de.
CAUSAL INFERENCE Shwetlena Sabarwal Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation Accra, Ghana, May 2010.
The days ahead Monday-Wednesday –Training workshop on how to measure the actual reduction in HIV incidence that is caused by implementation of MC programs.
Impact Evaluation in Education Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation Andrew Jenkins 23/03/14.
Session III Regression discontinuity (RD) Christel Vermeersch LCSHD November 2006.
Africa Impact Evaluation Program on AIDS (AIM-AIDS) Cape Town, South Africa March 8 – 13, Causal Inference Nandini Krishnan Africa Impact Evaluation.
Impact Evaluation Designs for Male Circumcision Sandi McCoy University of California, Berkeley Male Circumcision Evaluation Workshop and Operations Meeting.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
Public Policy Analysis ECON 3386 Anant Nyshadham.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
AFRICA IMPACT EVALUATION INITIATIVE, AFTRL Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation David Evans Impact Evaluation Cluster, AFTRL Slides by Paul J.
Nigeria Impact Evaluation Community of Practice Abuja, Nigeria, April 2, 2014 Measuring Program Impacts Through Randomization David Evans (World Bank)
Applying impact evaluation tools A hypothetical fertilizer project.
Non-experimental methods Markus Goldstein The World Bank DECRG & AFTPM.
Africa Impact Evaluation Program on AIDS (AIM-AIDS) Cape Town, South Africa March 8 – 13, Steps in Implementing an Impact Evaluation Nandini Krishnan.
Implementing an impact evaluation under constraints Emanuela Galasso (DECRG) Prem Learning Week May 2 nd, 2006.
Randomized Assignment Difference-in-Differences
Bilal Siddiqi Istanbul, May 12, 2015 Measuring Impact: Non-Experimental Methods.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
What is Impact Evaluation … and How Do We Use It? Deon Filmer Development Research Group, The World Bank Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Education Workshop.
Impact Evaluation for Evidence-Based Policy Making Arianna Legovini Lead Specialist Africa Impact Evaluation Initiative.
Copyright © 2015 Inter-American Development Bank. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-IGO.
Impact Evaluation Methods Randomization and Causal Inference Slides by Paul J. Gertler & Sebastian Martinez.
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS EVALUATION PBAF 526. Today: Recap last week Next week: Bring in picture with program theory and evaluation questions Partners?
Copyright © 2015 Inter-American Development Bank. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-IGO.
The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
Cross-Country Workshop for Impact Evaluations in Agriculture and Community Driven Development Addis Ababa, April 13-16, Causal Inference Nandini.
Technical Track Session III
Impact Evaluation Methods Regression Discontinuity Design and Difference in Differences Slides by Paul J. Gertler & Sebastian Martinez.
Measuring Results and Impact Evaluation: From Promises into Evidence
Impact Evaluation Methods
Explanation of slide: Logos, to show while the audience arrive.
Explanation of slide: Logos, to show while the audience arrive.
Quasi-Experimental Methods
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Impact Evaluation Methods
1 Causal Inference Counterfactuals False Counterfactuals
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Impact Evaluation Methods: Difference in difference & Matching
Impact Evaluation Designs for Male Circumcision
Explanation of slide: Logos, to show while the audience arrive.
Sampling for Impact Evaluation -theory and application-
Applying Impact Evaluation Tools: Hypothetical Fertilizer Project
Module 3: Impact Evaluation for TTLs
Presentation transcript:

The World Bank Human Development Network Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund

This material constitutes supporting material for the "Impact Evaluation in Practice" book. This additional material is made freely but please acknowledge its use as follows: Gertler, P. J.; Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B. and Christel M. J. Vermeersch, 2010, Impact Evaluation in Practice: Ancillary Material, The World Bank, Washington DC ( The content of this presentation reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the World Bank. MEASURING IMPACT Impact Evaluation Methods for Policy Makers

Impact Evaluation Logical Framework Measuring Impact Data Operational Plan Resources How the program works in theory Identification Strategy

1 Causal Inference Counterfactuals False Counterfactuals Before & After (Pre & Post) Enrolled & Not Enrolled (Apples & Oranges)

2 IE Methods Toolbox Randomized Assignment Discontinuity Design Diff-in-Diff Randomized Offering/Promotion Difference-in-Differences P-Score matching Matching

1 Causal Inference Counterfactuals False Counterfactuals Before & After (Pre & Post) Enrolled & Not Enrolled (Apples & Oranges)

Our Objective Estimate the causal effect (impact) of intervention (P) on outcome (Y). (P) = Program or Treatment (Y) = Indicator, Measure of Success Example: What is the effect of a Cash Transfer Program (P) on Household Consumption (Y)? “

Causal Inference What is the impact of (P) on (Y) ? α= (Y | P=1)-(Y | P=0) Can we all go home?

Problem of Missing Data For a program beneficiary: α= (Y | P=1)-(Y | P=0) we observe (Y | P=1): Household Consumption (Y) with a cash transfer program (P=1) but we do not observe (Y | P=0): Household Consumption (Y) without a cash transfer program (P=0)

Solution Estimate what would have happened to Y in the absence of P. We call this the Counterfactual. The key to a good impact evaluation is a valid counterfactual!

Estimating impact of P on Y OBSERVE (Y | P=1) Outcome with treatment ESTIMATE (Y | P=0) The Counterfactual o Intention to Treat (ITT) – Those to whom we wanted to give treatment o Treatment on the Treated (TOT) – Those actually receiving treatment o Use comparison or control group α= (Y | P=1)-(Y | P=0) IMPACT = - counterfactual Outcome with treatment

Example: What is the Impact of… giving Fulanito (P) (Y) ? additional pocket money on Fulanito’s consumption of candies

The Perfect Clone FulanitoFulanito’s Clone IMPACT=6-4=2 Candies 6 candies4 candies X

In reality, use statistics TreatmentComparison Average Y=6 candiesAverage Y=4 Candies IMPACT=6-4=2 Candies X

Finding good comparison groups We want to find clones for the Fulanitos in our programs. The treatment and comparison groups should o have identical characteristics o except for benefiting from the intervention. In practice, use program eligibility & assignment rules to construct valid counterfactuals

Finding good comparison groups We want to find clones for the Fulanitos in our programs. The treatment and comparison groups should o have identical characteristics o except for benefiting from the intervention. In practice, use program eligibility & assignment rules to construct valid counterfactuals With a good comparison group, the only reason for different outcomes between treatments and comparisons is the intervention (P)

Case Study: Progresa National anti-poverty program in Mexico o Started 1997 o 5 million beneficiaries by 2004 o Eligibility – based on poverty index Cash Transfers o Conditional on school and health care attendance.

Case Study: Progresa Rigorous impact evaluation with rich data o 506 communities, 24,000 households o Baseline 1997, follow-up 1998 Many outcomes of interest Here: Consumption per capita What is the effect of Progresa (P) on Consumption Per Capita (Y)? If impact is an increase of $20 or more, then scale up nationally

Eligibility and Enrollment Ineligibles (Non-Poor) Eligibles (Poor) Enrolled Not Enrolled

1 Causal Inference Counterfactuals False Counterfactuals Before & After (Pre & Post) Enrolled & Not Enrolled (Apples & Oranges)

False Counterfactual #1 Y Time T=0 Baseline T=1 Endline A-B = 4 A-C = 2 IMPACT? B A C (counterfactual) Before & After

Case 1: Before & After What is the effect of Progresa (P) on consumption (Y) ? Y Time T=1997 T=1998 α = $35 IMPACT=A-B= $35 B A (1) Observe only beneficiaries (P=1) (2) Two observations in time: Consumption at T=0 and consumption at T=1.

Case 1: Before & After Note: If the effect is statistically significant at the 1% significance level, we label the estimated impact with 2 stars (**). Consumption (Y) Outcome with Treatment (After) Counterfactual (Before) Impact (Y | P=1) - (Y | P=0) 35.3*** Estimated Impact on Consumption (Y) Linear Regression 35.27** Multivariate Linear Regression 34.28**

Case 1: What’s the problem? Y Time T=1997 T=1998 α = $35 B A Economic Boom: o Real Impact=A-C o A-B is an overestimate C ? D ? Impact? Economic Recession: o Real Impact=A-D o A-B is an underestimate Before & After doesn’t control for other time-varying factors!

1 Causal Inference Counterfactuals False Counterfactuals Before & After (Pre & Post) Enrolled & Not Enrolled (Apples & Oranges)

False Counterfactual #2 If we have post-treatment data on o Enrolled: treatment group o Not-enrolled: “comparison” group (counterfactual) Those ineligible to participate. Those that choose NOT to participate. Selection Bias o Reason for not enrolling may be correlated with outcome (Y) Control for observables. But not un-observables! o Estimated impact is confounded with other things. Enrolled & Not Enrolled

Measure outcomes in post-treatment (T=1) Case 2: Enrolled & Not Enrolled Enrolled Y=268 Not Enrolled Y=290 Ineligibles (Non-Poor) Eligibles (Poor) In what ways might E&NE be different, other than their enrollment in the program?

Case 2: Enrolled & Not Enrolled Consumption (Y) Outcome with Treatment (Enrolled) 268 Counterfactual (Not Enrolled) 290 Impact (Y | P=1) - (Y | P=0) -22** Estimated Impact on Consumption (Y) Linear Regression -22** Multivariate Linear Regression Note: If the effect is statistically significant at the 1% significance level, we label the estimated impact with 2 stars (**).

Progresa Policy Recommendation? Will you recommend scaling up Progresa? B&A: Are there other time-varying factors that also influence consumption? E&BNE: o Are reasons for enrolling correlated with consumption? o Selection Bias. Impact on Consumption (Y) Case 1: Before & After Linear Regression 35.27** Multivariate Linear Regression 34.28** Case 2: Enrolled & Not Enrolled Linear Regression -22** Multivariate Linear Regression Note: If the effect is statistically significant at the 1% significance level, we label the estimated impact with 2 stars (**).

B&A Compare: Same individuals Before and After they receive P. Problem: Other things may have happened over time. E&NE Compare: Group of individuals Enrolled in a program with group that chooses not to enroll. Problem: Selection Bias. We don’t know why they are not enrolled. Keep in Mind Both counterfactuals may lead to biased estimates of the impact. !