Impact Assessment of the District Poverty Initiative Project Rajasthan

The quantitative evaluation seeks to estimate the impacts of multiple treatments– i.e.,
different components, different exposures, different modes of facilitation and different
districts. The general question that this part of the evaluation attempts to answer is what has
worked (categories), how (the quality of the facilitation), where (districts) and when (length
of exposure to the program). The methods used provide estimation of multiple treatments and
a regression discontinuity design (World Bank has been provided data to conduct this part of
the analysis as was decided during the various discussions). The latter will estimate the
marginal effect of participating in the program. This estimation provides comparison of BPL
and APL households on either side of an estimated threshold value (estimated using the
baseline data to construct a poverty index based on the probability of being poor).
The qualitative evaluation seeks to understand how and why CIGs members were able to
improve or not their social and economic status through participation in DPIP. Some of the
questions answered here include: Why do some CIGs are inactive while others are active and
continue working as a group How important is the role of NGOs and service providers In
what ways do district managers promote the effectiveness of the Program How important is
the quality of the implementation of the program
Sample Selection
Quantitative evaluation: In the baseline survey conducted in 2001 covered 12 project
villages and 8 control villages in each district. In each village, 15 APL households and 25
BPL households were randomly selected for the survey. Therefore, 300 APL and 500 BPL
households were covered in each district and in seven districts 2100 APL and 3500 BPL
households were covered.
In the impact assessment survey in 2007, 140 villages were to be repeated, but only 74
villages were revisited (table 1.1). The remaining 66 villages were selected from phases II, III
and IV covered by DPIP. The list of these villages was provided by DPIP-SPMU.
In the 74 villages, same households were traced out in the impact survey. Out of these 30
households could not be covered as the heads were not found due to migration of entire
family or death. Thus, out of the total sample 30 households are reduced (table 1.2). In the
new 66 villages, the same procedure as in the baseline was adopted to select the households.
This means 15 APL and 25 BPL households in each village.
13