1. IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS EVALUATION PBAF 526

2. Today: Recap last week Next week: Bring in picture with program theory and evaluation questions Partners? Questions? Overview of Implementation and Process Evaluation Path in Jamaica Monitoring and Performance Management Zinc in Nepal

3. Process and Implementation Evaluation Focused on key “what are we doing” questions (p. 170-1 Rossi; 320- 322 Patton) What activities are taking place? How are those being delivered? Which clients are getting which services? When? Is the neediest clients getting the services they need? How’s the quality of services? Are there appropriate staffing and resources? How do the activities match what was planned? How do they vary across case workers, program sites, or over time? Is that appropriate? Program design is basis for designing process evaluation Consider program process theory Look for processes critical to causal links Flow chart of program services is key Expect program adaptation over time (that’s how managers are successful!) Listen to experiences of those at the front line (clients, staff), as well as outside (collaborators, support functions)

4. Process and Implementation Evaluation Qualitative Methods: Interviews, focus groups, site visits, observations Provide insider and evaluator perceptions of what’s happening, what is working well and what isn’t Clients Staff Collaborators Quantitative Methods: Surveys, administrative data bases for program or related institutions, external monitoring data Provide assessments of who is receiving services, what kinds of services are being delivered, over what time periods, at what cost

5. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation Logic Model Targeting Evaluation Implementation Evaluation Impact Evaluation Regression Discontinuity Design Results

6. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation (p.11)

7. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation: Logic Model

8. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation: Targeting Evaluation Did benefits go to target population of those most in need? Data sources: Random sample of poor households (pre-PATH) Random sample of PATH eligible applicants Data from administrative database Most recipients are poor; 25% are in extreme poverty; a few are well-off Coverage of program may only be 20% of poor (after conditional rules), but funding only for double that.

9. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation: Implementation Evaluation Was PATH implemented as planned? Eligibility process, Benefit adequacy, Determining compliance with conditions, Benefit receipt, Satisfaction Data sources: Two site visits in 5 random parishes Focus groups with recipients Interviews with local staff, schools, health clinics, post offices

10. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation: Implementation Evaluation Recipients and others believe benefits may not always be well targeted Recipients think process of determining eligibility is difficult and slow Monitoring of compliance with healthcare and school attendance is problematic Benefits are generally adequate, but are sometimes delivered late

11. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation: Impact Evaluation What were the effects of PATH? Human capital: health care use, school attendance Data sources: Administrative data for participants and the comparison group Surveys: baseline and 1.5 years later (pre and post program) Compares random samples of participants with applicants who were not eligible, before and after the program (and controls for differences with regression)

12. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation: Impact Evaluation Participants come from those just under threshold Control group comes from those just over threshold Regression discontinuity controls for eligibility score and other characteristics in multivariate regression Source: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasird.phphttp://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasird.php

13. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation: Impact Evaluation

14. Jamaica’s Path Evaluation Evidence of successful implementation Eligibility and monitoring of compliance might be improved Evidence of small but significant effects on school attendance and health care (for kids)

15. Monitoring and Performance Measurement Takes process evaluation to real time: What are we doing? How is it being delivered? To whom? In what time frame? Success depends on administrative data capacity Must be tied to management processes to be sustainable Example: GMAP http://www.accountability.wa.gov/reports/workfirst/200710 17/WorkFirstReport.pdf http://www.accountability.wa.gov/reports/workfirst/200710 17/WorkFirstReport.pdf On-line monitoring: http://www.accountability.wa.gov/reports/default.asp

16. Introducing Zinc in Nepal What were the key program activities? What are the critical causal links necessary for success of the program? How was implementation evaluated? [What were the results of the implementation and impact evaluation?]

17. Introducing Zinc in Nepal: Results: Increased Zinc use from.4% to 15.4% in 6 months Zinc was usually used correctly Greatly increased knowledge of zinc by parents and providers Local manufacturers developed low-cost products and successfully distributed them

19. Introducing Zinc in Nepal: Lessons for other programs: Efforts most effective when target both public and private sectors Local manufacturers can produce products if there is market potential (Total market strategy), but profit margins matter Mass media was successful in creating demand and giving knowledge including about correct usage Training and media together changed provider behaviors