Ten-Year Impacts of Burkina Faso’s BRIGHT Program

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH data collection firm, the Laboratoire d’Analyse Quantitative Appliquée au Développement-Sahel (LAQAD-S), hired by Mathematica Policy Research. The BRIGHT program consisted of constructing 132 primary schools and developing a set of complementary interventions designed to increase girls' enrollment rates. The schools were based on a model that consists of three classrooms, housing for three teachers, and separate latrines for boys and girls. The schools' locations within each selected village were deliberately chosen because they were near a water source, and a borehole was installed close by. Three classrooms (grades 1-3) were built in each of the 132 schools between 2005 and 2008; three additional classrooms (grades 4-6) were built in each school between 2009 and 2012. The complementary interventions carried out during the seven years included: • School canteens (daily meals for all). Daily meals were offered to all boys and girls who attended school. • Take-home rations. Girls who had a 90 percent attendance rate received 5 kilograms of dry cereal each month to take home. • School kits and textbooks. Textbooks and school supplies were given to all students. • Mobilization campaign. The mobilization campaign brought together communities and stakeholders in the education system to discuss the issues involved in, and barriers to, girls' education. The campaign included informational meetings; door-to-door canvassing; providing gender-sensitivity training to ministry officials, pedagogical inspectors, teachers, and community members; instituting girls' education day; radio broadcasts; posters; and providing awards for female teachers. • Literacy. The literacy program had both adult literacy training and mentoring for girls. For all project years, Tin Tua organized adult literacy training and training for student mothers/female role models. • Local partner capacity building. Training included local officials in the Ministry of Basic Education (MEBA), monitors for bisongos (child care centers), and teachers. Specific training included completing school registers. A. Overview of the evaluation The impact evaluation sought to answer five key questions: 1. What was the impact of BRIGHT on school enrollment? 2. What was the impact of the program on learning? 3. What was the impact of BRIGHT on outcomes related to child labor? 4. What was the impact of the program on young adult outcomes, such as employment, marital status, and whether they have children? 5. Were the impacts different for girls than for boys? xiv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH Other reports have documented that, by and large, the program was implemented as intended, 6 Levy et al. (2009) and Kazianga et al. (2013) have documented the short-term (three years after the start of the implementation) impacts, and Kazianga et al. (2016) have documented the impacts of the program seven years after implementation. This evaluation focuses on assessing the impacts of the program ten years after the start of the implementation. An impact evaluation estimates program impacts by seeking to compare what happened to the beneficiaries of the program relative to what would have happened to the beneficiaries in the absence of the program. In this evaluation, to estimate the program’s impacts, we assess how children in BRIGHT villages fared relative to how they would have fared had BRIGHT not been implemented. This assessment is important because even without BRIGHT, enrollment likely would have increased in the 132 villages in which it was implemented. In fact, school construction and enrollment were both increasing during the period before implementation of BRIGHT. For example, the government of Burkina Faso launched a 10-year (2002–2011) Basic Education Development Plan (PDDEB) aimed at increasing access to education, improving education quality, and building capacity through constructing and restoring schools, along with several initiatives to promote girls’ education. Hence, our ability to assess BRIGHT’s success depends on whether and to what extent we can ascertain any part of the improvement in educational outcomes in the 132 BRIGHT villages was due to the program and what would have occurred even if the program had not been implemented. 1. Evaluation design The evaluation design involved comparing children in the villages selected for BRIGHT (participant group) with children in the villages that applied to participate in BRIGHT but were not chosen (comparison group). The statistical technique used to estimate program impacts is called regression discontinuity (RD). It takes advantage of the fact that all 293 villages that applied to the program were given an eligibility score by the Burkina Faso MEBA based on their potential to improve girls’ educational outcomes; it compares villages that scored just high enough to receive the program to those that scored just below the level necessary to receive it. 2. Data collection Evaluation data for the 10-year impacts on the participant and comparison groups were collected between April and May in 2015 by a Burkinabé data collection firm, LAQAD-S, with oversight from Mathematica, from the following sources: • A household survey included questions on the characteristics and possessions of households, children’s educational outcomes (such as enrollment and attendance), parents’ perceptions of education, and the extent to which any children in the household worked. The young adult module was a new addition to the 2015 survey; it was administered to all household members between the ages of 13 and 22. It contained questions about their employment, 6 See “BRIGHT Project Final Evaluation Report” (CERFODES 2008) and “Threshold Country Program Final Report” (USAID 2009). xv
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: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The BRIGHT progra
Page 17 and 18: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MATHEMATICA POLIC
Page 23 and 24: I. INTRODUCTION From 2005 through 2
Page 25 and 26: I. INTRODUCTION MATHEMATICA POLICY
Page 31 and 32: I: INTRODUCTION MATHEMATICA POLICY
Page 39 and 40: II. EVALUATION DESIGN AND DATA COLL
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 65 and 66:
IV: FINDINGS MATHEMATICA POLICY RES
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:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSS
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
REFERENCES Abeberese, Ama Baafra, T
Page 97 and 98:
REFERENCES MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
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 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
APPENDIX D DETAILS ON COST-BENEFIT
Page 127 and 128:
APPENDIX D MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEA
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
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 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?