1. Group 4 ‘Shiny happy evaluators’ ALES AN JAN OLGA URSKA ZBYNEK ☺ ☺ ☺ ☻ ☺ ☺

2. Case 1: Social safety net program Benefits distribution –Officials –Neighborhood committee Timeframe> Between 1998-2008 (evaluation 2004) From 1 urban area to 40 by mid term – 80 urban areas at the end >>> national policy Independent from other allowances’ programs (e.g. other public services – education, health)

3. INPUTSACTIVITIESOUTPUTSOUTCOMESIMPACT Money Data Hardware sys. HR: staff + NC + trainers We have enough financial resources Data are relevant and reliable Sys. of distribution established Fair and transparent NC Training of staff + NC Development of data process tools Identification of eligible participants All staff working in the system receive training + understand the process Identified eligible participants Trained staff + NC Functional database Distribution of benefits All eligible participants receive benefits Poverty reduction in urban area Benefits are used wisely Group 4 – An, Aleš, Jan, Olga, Urška, Zbynek

4. We’re almost half way…

5. Descriptive question 1. How were the beneficiaries selected? –1.B. What were the criteria for selection ? Measure or indicators: Comparison with evaluation of similar project; Triangulation Data Sources: Rules and procedures on who qualifies, - internal manual Design:One shot, Case study Sample:One time Data collection Instrument: Semi structured interviews, desk study Data Analysis:Qualitative

6. Descriptive part of Evaluation Report Chapter 1: Role of the Stakeholders –Neighborhood committee Training of committee’s members Terms of Reference –Selection of beneficiaries Determination of threshold –Officials Training for officials Amount of officials needed

7. Descriptive statistics

8. Normative question 2. Was the program effective in distributing benefits to eligible beneficiaries? –2.B. Have errors in distribution occurred? (in other words: were eligible applicants excluded and some beneficiaries wrongly included?) Measure or indicators:Threshold criterion; (or error : wrong inclusion or exclusion) Data Sources:Sample of appraisal documents, semi-structured interview Design:Causal tracing strategies Sample:Random sample Data collection Instrument:Semi structured interviews, secondary data analysis Data Analysis:Quantitative and Qualitative, descriptive statistics

9. Applications in zone 1

10. Cause & Effect question 4. To what extent did the program influence the economic activities of the eligible group? 4. A What was the effect of benefits distribution on unemployment rate among the eligible group? Measure or indicators:Unemployment rate (in areas with and without intervention) Data Sources:Database of the regional authorities Design:Interrupted Time series with comparison group Sample:Census Data collection Instrument: Secondary data analysis, Expert judgment Data Analysis: Quantitative, descriptive, interpretation of association

11. Unemployment rate (%)

12. Correlation analysis of side effects BenefitsUnemployment Migration rateBirth rate Support1 Unemployment0,8661 Migration rate0,9450,9821 Birth rate0,7560,9820,9281

13. Were beneficiaries happier after the program? Suicide rate  boring database analysis Amount of smiles/parties  hidden camera http://vodpod.com/watch/140462-rem-muppets-furry-happy-monsters THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !