Ten-Year Impacts of Burkina Faso’s BRIGHT Program

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX D MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH Table D.6. Estimated effects of the BRIGHT programs on enrollment and test scores Enrollment rates a Children enrolled b Total scores c Selected villages 0.379 106 0.1 Unselected villages 0.319 90 -0.09 Marginal effect 0.06 17 0.19 a The estimates for the unselected villages are taken from regressions similar to those in column 2 of Table C.1, but without department-level fixed effects. We calculated the estimate for the selected villages by adding the estimate for the unselected villages to our estimate of the treatment effect from our preferred specification in column 1 in Table C.1. b Estimated by multiplying the estimated fraction of children enrolled in each village by the number of children listed in Table V.4. c The estimates for the unselected villages are calculated in the same way that the enrollment rates are calculated (note a), but using the estimates in Table C.2. The comparisons of the cost-effectiveness estimates in Table V.5 to those of other programs are based on Tables D.7 and D.8. Compared to these other programs, the BRIGHT intervention falls just below the high end in the table. For enrollment, it is more cost-effective than conditional cash transfers, on par with girl’s scholarships at $346.98 in Kenya (Kremer et al. 2007). It is less cost-effective than most of the interventions shown in the table, including, for example, school meals at $42.22 (Vermeersch and Kremer 2005), teacher incentives at $65.89 (Duflo et al. 2007), and extremely inexpensive interventions such as deworming at $6.74 (Miguel and Kremer 2004). In terms of changes in test scores, the programs are less costeffective than all but conditional cash transfers. 63 63 Conditional cash transfers are a good example of how these comparisons can be challenging. Such programs provide direct cash transfers to families and have been shown to do much more than simply improve enrollment. D.10
APPENDIX D MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH Table D.7. Cost-effectiveness estimates of other education interventions: school enrollment a Intervention Country Costeffectiveness a Study Panel A: School construction interventions Village-based schools Afghanistan $38.55 Burde and Linden (2013) School construction Indonesia $81.60 Duflo (2001) School construction Burkina Faso $245.78–$357.31 BRIGHT (current study) Panel B: Other educational interventions Extra teachers (OB) India $2.74 Chin (2005) Information on returns to education for Madagascar $4.08 Nguyen (2008) parents Deworming Kenya $6.74 Miguel and Kremer (2004) Information on returns to education for Dominica $30.22 Jensen (2010) boys Republic Iron fortification and deworming India $34.70 Bobonis, Miguel, and Puri- Sharma (2006) School meals Kenya $42.22 Vermeersch and Kremer (2005) Teacher incentives India $65.89 Duflo, Hanna, and Ryan (2012) Free school uniforms (a) Kenya $85.20 Evans, Kremer, and Ngatia (2008) School uniforms(b) Kenya $127.44 Kremer, Moulin, and Namunyu (2003) Girls scholarship Kenya $346.98 Kremer, Miguel, and Thornton (2007) Girl conditional cash transfer (CCT) (minimum amount) Malawi $1,040.93 Baird, McIntosh, and Ozler (2011) Girl CCT (average amount) Malawi $1,338.33 Baird, McIntosh, and Ozler (2011) PROGRESA CCT Mexico $3,122.78 Coady (2000) Girl unconditional cash transfer (UCT) (average amount) Malawi $4,684.17 Baird, McIntosh, and Ozler (2011) Camera monitoring of teachers' India No significant Duflo, Hanna, and Ryan (2012) attendance impacts Computer assisted learning India No significant Banerjee et al. (2007) curriculum impacts Remedial tutoring by community India No significant Banerjee et al. (2007) volunteers impacts Cash incentives for teachers Kenya No significant impacts Glewwe, Ilias, and Kremer (2010) Textbook provision Kenya No significant impacts Glewwe, Kremer, and Moulin (2009) Flip chart provision Kenya No significant Glewwe et al. (2004) impacts Menstrual cups for teenage girls Nepal No significant impacts Oster and Thorton (2011) Sources: Dhaliwal et al. 2012; Evans and Ghosh (2008); Kremer et al. (2007); He et al. (2008). Note: The estimates in this table are different than those presented in Evans and Ghosh (2008) for two reasons: First, their estimates were in 1997 U.S. dollars, whereas we have expressed them in 2006 U.S. dollars. Second, they presented “education budget cost-effectiveness” of interventions, which accounts for the deadweight loss associated with raising the necessary funds, whereas we present the original estimates given by the authors of the studies (adjusted to 2006 U.S. dollars). The original figures in Dhaliwal et al. (2012) are given in 2010 U.S. dollars (footnote 3, page 8). We express these figures in 2006 U.S. dollars. a Cost needed to achieve an impact of one additional student enrolled in school per year. Measured in 2006 U.S. dollars. D.11
Page 1 and 2:
Ten-Year Impacts of Burkina Faso’
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is the
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS ACRONYMS .................
Page 7 and 8:
TABLES ES.1 ES.2 ES.3 ES.4 ES.5 ES.
Page 9 and 10:
FIGURES I.1 Gross enrollment ratios
Page 11 and 12:
ACRONYMS AMEs - Association de Mèr
Page 13 and 14:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The BRIGHT progra
Page 15 and 16:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MATHEMATICA POLIC
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
I. INTRODUCTION From 2005 through 2
Page 25 and 26:
I. INTRODUCTION MATHEMATICA POLICY
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
I: INTRODUCTION MATHEMATICA POLICY
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
II. EVALUATION DESIGN AND DATA COLL
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
III. IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY Under t
Page 53 and 54:
III. IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY MATHEMA
Page 55 and 56:
IV. FINDINGS In this chapter, we pr
Page 57 and 58:
IV: FINDINGS MATHEMATICA POLICY RES
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
V. COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-BENE
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84: V. COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-BENE
Page 89 and 90: VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSS
Page 95 and 96: REFERENCES Abeberese, Ama Baafra, T
Page 97 and 98: REFERENCES MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 103 and 104: APPENDIX A STATISTICAL MODEL FOR IM
Page 105 and 106: APPENDIX A MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 107 and 108: APPENDIX B VALIDATION OF REGRESSION
Page 109 and 110: APPENDIX B MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 111 and 112: APPENDIX B MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX C ROBUSTNESS OF IMPACT EST
Page 115 and 116: APPENDIX C MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 125 and 126: APPENDIX D DETAILS ON COST-BENEFIT
Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX D MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 133: APPENDIX D MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 149 and 150: APPENDIX E SURVEY FORMS
Page 151 and 152: APPENDIX E MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 153 and 154: APPENDIX E BURKINA FASO MATHEMATICA
Page 155 and 156: APPENDIX E MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 157 and 158: HOUSEHOLD LISTING FORM Village ID:
Page 159 and 160: ENROLLMENT MODULE VILLAGE ID: ___ _
Page 161 and 162: CHILD LABOR MODULE VILLAGE ID: ___
Page 163 and 164: YOUNG ADULT MODULE VILLAGE ID: ___
Page 169 and 170: ASSESSMENT CONSENT LANGUAGE: PLEASE
Page 171 and 172: MATH ASSESSMENT VILLAGE ID: ___ ___
Page 173 and 174: MATH ASSESSMENT VILLAGE ID: ___ ___
Page 175 and 176: FRENCH ASSESSMENT VILLAGE ID: ___ _
Page 177 and 178: FRENCH ASSESSMENT VILLAGE ID: ___ _
Page 179 and 180: BURKINA FASO SCHOOL INFORMATION PAN
Page 181 and 182: A: SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS SC SC9. D
Page 183 and 184: C: SCHOOL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE SS SS5
Page 185 and 186:
This page has been left blank for d
Page 187 and 188:
This page has been left blank for d
Page 189 and 190:
APPENDIX F MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
show all

Ten-Year Impacts of Burkina Faso’s BRIGHT Program

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?