1. Yuriy Nesterov, M.Sc. University of Arkansas / Heifer International yvnesterov@clintonschool.uasys.edu

2.  Over half century of experience in the rural development field  A unique approach to rural development through Passing on the Gift (PoG)  Similarity of the past and future projects  Opportunities for replication of things that work

3.  The Passing of the Gift (POG) process does not have end date on many older projects  Little or no data is currently collected on projects after the monitoring phase  Former project participants report the ongoing POG process on completed projects  As with many other projects, most of the impact is visible only after the project is closed

4.  How a typical Heifer International project looks like: ◦ Targets one rural community (village) ◦ The total budget is several hundred USD ◦ More than half of the funds are used for providing animals and plants ◦ Passing of the gift is required for all tangible assistance and knowledge ◦ Several years of active phase + two years monitoring phase ◦ After the monitoring phase the project is called ‘historic’

5. InputsActivitiesOutputsShort term outcomes Intermediate outcomes Long term outcomes 1.Funding 2.International expertise 3.Local expertise 4.Local HR 5.Livestock and ag. supplies market 6.Responsible project participants 7.Socio-economic climate 1.Provide funds for livestock 2.Provide funds for ag supplies 3.Conduct trainings 4.Control adherence to the rules 5.Provide networking opportunitie s 6.Assist community in procuremen t and delivery of animals & supplies 1.High-quality livestock purchased 2.Ag. Supplies purchased 3.Trainings conducted 4.Project implemented according to the budget and the cornerstones 5.Participants share information within and among communities 1.Some highly productive livestock in the community 2.Improved nutrition of the families 3.Improved knowledge of agricultural technologies 4.Improved knowledge of environment- friendly/susta inable agriculture 1.Increased percentage of highly productive livestock in community 2.Participants are aware of and apply modern ag techniques 3.Improved marketing skills of the project participants 4.Surpluses are sold and revenues are used to cover basic needs 5.Community practices environment- friendly agriculture 1.The community is sustainable and prosperous 2.Community members benefit from cooperation in their production and marketing efforts 3.Improved genetic quality of local livestock 4.Absence of significant environment al problems

6.  After detecting what works and what does not, the new interventions might be adjusted  The best practices might be easy to replicate in the Heifer International system  Other organizations might be willing to adopt POG and other Heifer International practices  If the projects have a persistent impact in rural communities, getting funding will be easier

7.  Experimental design is not possible  High level of attrition  Multitude of external factors

8.  Availability of baseline data collected by Heifer International staff at the beginning of projects  Availability of governmental statistics data  Possibility of use of similar rural communities without intervention history as a comparison  Availability of key informants for collection of qualitative data

9. One of the possible designs: O₁ X O₂ ◦ 10-50 years between X and O₂ ◦ O₁ immediately precedes X Another option – comparative post-test: X O₁ O₂ ◦ Controls are needed to ensure comparability

10.  Former project participants (quantitative & qualitative)  Key informants (qualitative)  Governmental statistics (quantitative)

11.  Your questions and suggestions are welcome!