- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Acknowledgement
- About the Sourcebook
- Acronyms
- Part 1 - Introduction and overview
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Assessing the effectiveness of a technical assistance program: The case of maize seed relief to vulnerable households in Zimbabwe
Tue, 08/11/2009 - 11:26 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
Journal ArticleSource:
Food Policy, Volume 34, Issue 4, p.377-387 (2009)Keywords:
Africa; Maize hybrids; Open pollinated varieties; Probit model; Protracted relief program; Vulnerable households; ZimbabweAbstract:
The recent economic downturn in Zimbabwe impoverished the majority of households. To assist vulnerable rural households improve their food security, the British Department for International Development implemented a seed relief program from 2003/2004 to 2005/2006 that emphasized recycling of maize open pollinated varieties (OPV). Using data collected from 597 households in six districts in 2006, this study assesses the effectiveness of the program in terms of its targeting of beneficiaries, the flow of information from participating NGOs to beneficiaries on the need to recycle the seeds, and the level of recycling done at the end of the program. The empirical results suggest that the targeting method participating NGOs use inadvertently excludes relatively vulnerable households while including large proportions of relatively well-endowed households in the program. The choice of varieties to distribute is guided more by the ecological adaptability of available commercial seeds and less by preferences of beneficiaries. Notwithstanding the fact that seed selection information is critical in encouraging beneficiaries to recycle distributed seed, not all of them received it. In conclusion, it may be stated that the program undoubtedly contributed to increased food productivity by vulnerable households but its overall effectiveness could have been enhanced through (i) the involvement of the beneficiaries in the choice of types of seed to be distributed, (ii) better targeting of beneficiaries, and (iii) improved information flow between NGOs and beneficiaries.