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

Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013

on

  • 480 views

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
480
Views on SlideShare
263
Embed Views
217

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 217

http://www.tshikululu.org.za 217

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013 Choose wisely - Serious Social Investing 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • 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
  • Impact: What is it?Primary Outcome Intervention Impact Time
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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