MEASURING IMPACT

IN
DFID FINANCED LIVELIHOOD PROJECTS
IN
MADHYA PRADESH AND ORISSA STATES
OF INDIA

Dharmendra Chandurkar
Sambodhi Research &
Communications
The views expressed in this paper/presentation are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADB
does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data,
finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented, nor does it make any representation concerning the same.
 Framework
Programme Logic Model

Input Process Output Outcome Impact

Money Technical Bio- Livelihood Poverty

People watershed physical, and Impacts
Technology treatments socio- Climate
and economic, Change
Watershed institutiona Outcomes
plus l and policy
activities outputs
Poverty

Environm Climate
ent
 Impact Assessment
Evaluation Design
Methodology
 Difference in Difference (DID)
 Pre-post, with-without scenario

Quasi-Experimental

Project & Project &

Control Control

Answering the 3
fundamental Qs
 Whether there is a change?
 Is it because of the project?
 What contributed to the
 Impact Assessment
Research Design Methodology
 Mix Design, Cross-sectional
Sampling protocols
 Robust design ensuring statistically robust & conclusive
measure of change
 Key parameters: Key indicator, amount of change to be
measured, confidence interval (95%), power (80%)
 Proportionate representative distribution
Sample
 Western Orissa RLP: Project 1400 hh (64 villages), Control
700 hh (32 villages)
 Madhya Pradesh RLP: Project 920hh (48 villages), Control
460 hh (24 villages)
 Orissa Tribal Empowerment LP: Project 820 (56 villages),
Control 410 (28 villages)
Analysis
 MDG 1: Eradicate extreme
Food security
poverty and hunger

OTELP

Now Before
MPRLP 22 49
WORL 5.8 25
P
 MDG 1: Eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger
% hhs moving out of poverty

Income poverty
WORLP: 14373 poor hh or
72000 men and women
moving out of poverty
Relative poverty
WORLP: 31 % moved out of
poverty

MPRLP: 24380 poor hh or MPRLP: 40% moved up the

1.22 lakh men and women poverty ladder
moving out of poverty
OTELP: 2868 poor hh, 14339
 MDG 3: Promote gender equality and
Gender Empowerment
empower women
Index-WORLP
Involvementin livelihoodactivities
Index
50 50
40

30 26
20

10
26 3
Householdlevel decision Making
0 Access to Information Index
Index 2
39 43

18

Project Control

Access to Institutions Index

37.4
40
14.6
20
0
Project Control
 MDG 7: Ensure
environmental sustainability
Disaster coping capacity

WORLP
Category Project (%) Control (%)
Marginal farmers 74 66

Small Farmers 75 77
Medium Farmers 88 88

MPRLP
Category Project (%) Control (%)
Marginal farmers 54 12
 Key lessons

 Assessment,
 Reporting
Green Growth  Harmonization, Aggregation and
Comparison
 Evidence based policy decisions

REQUIRE
 Standard indicators, metrics
 Standard methodologies
 Scientific rigour
 Mainstreamed in Government
programmes
 Pointers for the way forward

MDG 7
 Drylands- Land and ground water rejuvenated
 Coastal: Proportion of people using NR in non-
degradable manner
 Reduced cost of environmental services
 Increased efficiency of resource use/waste
minimization, jobs in re-use/recycle processes
 Average to real per capita income-
 Per capita emissions to lets say: % of people
emitting above a benchmark
 Resilience of livelihoods
 Ability to cope with climate induced stress
 Green jobs as proportion of new jobs
 Pointers for the way forward

Precise
Indicators

Standard Capacities
methods

Robust
Assessments
Thank You!!