Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience

Phnom Penh SKY evaluation meeting

4-5 October 2011

4 October 2011Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 2

What are impact evaluations promises?

Context: Increased concern for aid effectiveness (2005 Paris Declaration) Relative failure of academic literature on growth (and its relationship with aid) to inform

aid delivery (2006 report by the Center for Global Development: “When will we ever learn”)

In response, impact evaluations were promoted to: Provide robust evidence on the effect of development interventions on their

beneficiaries… … and hence finally learn on “what works and what doesn’t”

Thus, impact evaluations aim at contributing to accountability and knowledge, towards effectiveness of (future) development interventions

1.1

4 October 2011Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 3

The rise of the “evidence movement”

Creation of the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3IE), Development Impact Evaluation Initiative (DIME, World Bank), etc.

Movement reinforced by the widely acclaimed example of the Progresa program in Mexico

Strong increase of the number of IE related to development interventions over the past 10 years More than 800 completed or on-going studies (White, 2011)

Several methods exist, but RCTs have rapidly been considered as the most robust one

1.2

4 October 2011Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 4

Impact evaluations at AFD

Impact evaluations at AFD: a stepwise experience Build in-house and AFD’s partners capacities on IE tools Contribute to overall debate on development aid effectiveness and IE Define a strategy towards the use of IE in AFD’s operations

Since 2003, AFD has completed or initiated 9 IE studies in various sectors and countries, using different methodologies

Two large scale experimental studies: “Al Amana”: rural microcredit in Morocco “SKY”: micro health insurance in Cambodia

1.3

4 October 2011Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 5

Importance of the SKY evaluation from AFD perspective

Change in French government strategy since 2004 (CICID) in the context of MDGs Health and education sectors: top of the agenda

Several on-going projects of health-insurance: Cambodia, Laos, Mali, Senegal, Cameroun, Madagascar, Mauritania

Little robust knowledge about effects of health insurance in developing countries

On-going debate about best interventions to (i) remove financial barriers to health protection whilst (ii) insuring sustainability User fees, conditional-cash transfers, insurance, free services

1.4

4 October 2011Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 6

Lessons learned: objective of accountability can be reached only under certain conditions

Relative simple interventions (best if single-strand initiatives) Difficulties if too many inputs (may be conflicting effects)

Interventions that have been already piloted in other areas / contexts → mature and stabilized interventions If new services provided, take-up might be low (“compliance” problem) due to slow

learning process

Evaluation conditions not too different from normal implementation conditions

Measured outcomes not too far in the causal chain If far, statistically hard to detect an impact through the evaluation

Outcomes expected in the short-run If not, problematic to maintain treatment / control groups (“spillovers” effects)

1.5

4 October 2011Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 7

What resultsFor which utilization

1.6

Progresa Al Amana Sky

Evaluated beneficiaries

Program’s beneficiaries

Purposive sampling Compliers to incentive

Evaluated impact Program’s impact Intermediary outcomes

Intermediary outcomes

Lessons from Impact Evaluation

Impact of Progresa + Academic publications

Microfinance and investment behavior

Microinsurance, health behavior and adverse selection

4 October 2011Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 8

Lessons learned: objective of knowledge-production achieved

Various interesting quantitative results Examples Opposable results (robust)

Coupled with qualitative approaches, IE programmes can provide great understanding of the mechanisms at stake SKY example: economic impacts, health-care behavior, adverse selection effects,

supply quality, etc.

Sub-product of these studies: make explicit the theory behind the intervention (“theory of change”), otherwise often hidden

Perspectives at AFD: Carefully screen projects to be evaluated with IE tools

Innovative projects (test alternative options within interventions)

Promote a mixed-methods approach (qualitative / quantitative)

1.7

Thanksfor your attention

http://www.afd.fr/home/recherche/evaluation-capitalisation/Evaluation-impacts