Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013

339

Published on

Different performance monitoring models are appropriate for different funders. …

Different performance monitoring models are appropriate for different funders.

JPAL's Kamilla Gumede speaks at the Tshikululu Social Investments Serious Social Investing 2013 workshop.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
339
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Impact Investments2  Different definitions, agreed common goal  Produce change in people’s lives (and/or the environment) that wouldn’t have happened otherwise  J P Morgan 2010 survey: 96% measure impacts  No common metric, evaluation standards what happened (with the programme) …and - what would have happened (without the programme) = IMPACT of the programme
  • 2. Impact: What is it?Primary Outcome Intervention Impact Time
  • 3. Why randomized evaluations? Standard ways of measuring impact:  Changes over time  How do beneficiaries compare to non beneficiaries But this does not distinguish impact of program from other confounding factors  Children learn over time (with or without a program)  First to sign up for a program are not typical (e.g. microfinance) Randomized evaluation ensures beneficiaries are nodifferent from non beneficiaries (except for the program) Many ways to introduce randomization that are  Ethical  Fit the needs of implementing agencies Randomization is not always appropriate or necessary
  • 4. Measuring and Preventing Corruption Community Driven Development Program in Indonesia (KDP)  Communities that had chosen feeder roads as their project  Villages randomized to get 100% chance of external audit  Others got intensified community oversight Measure of corruption  Dug up small (random) sample of road  Measured how much construction material was used and compared this to material in accounts Threat of 100 percent audit reduced corruption  On average corruption fell by 8.5 percent
  • 5. Remedial education Massive improvements in primary school enrollment  Too many children are in school, but not learning  Grade progression, with basic literacy and numeracy skills Remedial education can be fast, effective, relatively cheap  Key is to provide children more time to learn at their level  Tracking, holiday camps, some CAL can facilitate same results Investment opportunity for replication in South Africa  WCED/Molteno holiday literacy camp  50 worse performing schools in Cape Town  30% perform at grade level
  • 6. About us7  Established by 3 Professors of Economics at MIT, now a network of 70 researchers throughout the world  Specialise in randomized evaluations to help fill knowledge gap about what works  334 completed or ongoing evaluations, 31 countries  Education, health, labour, finance, governance, environment  We also work closely with policymakers to translate evidence into policy  Online evidence database  Regional office for Africa, based at UCT
  • 7. Rethinking conventional wisdom  Microfinance to help the poor help themselves  Success stories largely based on cliental numbers  Rigorous evaluation find modest benefits, only few beneficiaries  Menstruation cups to get girls to go to school  Girls skip schools often, but they do so anytime of the month  High take-up of menstruation cups, no school effects  Cookstoves and indoor air pollution  WHO estimate 2 million death pa from indoor air pollution  High improved stove, but continued to use old one and neglected maintenance  No significant health benefits
  • 8. High impact investments  Mass in-school deworming of young children  Reduce absenteeism by 1/6, cost 50c per child per year  Long term gains into labour market entry  Inform girls about HIV prevalence rates for boys and men  Cross-generational sexual is important driver of HIV infections  Reduce teen pregnancies with older men by 65%, $1 per student.  Smart incentives for farmers  Sell farmers fertilisers immediately after harvest  Strong usage of fertilisers  Female leaders  Reservations for women in India improved service delivery

×