This study aims to evaluate the impact of a community development program meant to improve living standards of poor rural families through income generating activities (IGAs) based on conditional cash transfers (CCTs) in Doti, Nepal.
Method:
We use cross-sectional field data from a sample of 392 families representative of the village development committees of Pokhari, Ladagada, and Gajari. After running a propensity score analysis to increase comparability between the treatment and comparison groups, we compare mean scores on a series of chosen outcome variables via t-test analyses.
Results:
Results suggest that, although improvements in family income and living standards are felt subjectively, crop production might have worsened as a result of IGAs, suggesting the possibility of a trade-off and of long-term effects.
Discussion and Implications:
This article has implications for research and practice in community development programs and data collection and evaluation of such programs.
AbadieA.ImbensG. W. (2011). Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29, 1–11.
2.
AustinP. C. (2011). Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10, 150–161.
3.
BairdS.FerreiraF. H. G.ÖzlerB.WoolcockM. (2014). Conditional, unconditional and everything in between: A systematic review of the effects of cash transfer programs on schooling outcomes. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6, 1–14.
4.
BambergerM. (2000). The evaluation of international development programs: A view from the front. American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 96–102.
5.
BarthR. P.GuoS.McRaeJ. S. (2008). Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating the success of child and family service programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 212–222.
6.
BecerrilJ.AbdulaiA. (2010). The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in Mexico: A propensity score-matching approach. World Development, 38, 1024–1035. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.017
7.
BenedettiF.IbarraránP.McEwanP. J. (2016). Do education and health conditions matter in a large cash transfer? Evidence from a Honduran experiment. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 64, 759–793. doi:10.1086/686583
8.
CaliendoM.KopeinigS. (2005). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching (IZA Discussion Papers, No. 1588). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
9.
CampbellD.StanleyJ.GageN. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
Centre for Economic Development and Administration. (2013). Mid-line evaluation report. Kathmandu, Nepal: Good Neighbours International (GNI) & Tribhuvan University.
11.
DeemingC. (2013). Trials and tribulations: The ‘use’ (and ‘misuse’) of evidence in public policy. Social Policy & Administration, 47, 359–381.
12.
DehejiaR. H.WahbaS. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151–161.
13.
Des JarlaisD. C.LylesC.CrepazN., & the Trend Group. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361–366.
14.
DiazJ. J.HandaS. (2006). An assessment of propensity score matching as a nonexperimental impact estimator evidence from Mexico’s PROGRESA program. Journal of Human Resources, 41, 319–345. doi:10.1016/j.physd.2006.03.008
15.
DoriusN. (2011). Measuring community development outcomes: In search of an analytical framework. Economic Development Quarterly, 25, 267–276.
16.
FraserM. W.GalinskyM. J. (2010). Steps in intervention research: Designing and developing social programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 459–466.
17.
GreenJ. J. (2016). Community development and social development: Informing concepts of place and intentional social change in a globalizing world. Research on Social Work Practice, 26, 605–608.
18.
HillA. B. (1965). Association or causation?Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300.
19.
HoloskoM. J. (2010). What types of designs are we using in social work research and evaluation?Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 665–673.
20.
KumarV.MohantyS.KumarA.MisraR. P.SantoshamM.AwasthiS.…DarmstadtG. L. (2008). Effect of community-based behaviour change management on neonatal mortality in Shivgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 372, 1151–1162.
21.
LagardeM.HainesA.PalmerN. (2009). The impact of conditional cash transfers on health outcomes and use of health services in low and middle income countries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), 4, CD008137.
22.
LanceP.GuilkeyD.HattoriA.AngelesG. (2014). How do we know if a program made a difference? A guide to statistical methods for program impact evaluation. Chapel Hill, NC: MEASURE Evaluation.
23.
RingenS.KwonH. J.YiI.KimT.LeeJ. (2011). The Korean state and social policy: How South Korea lifted itself from poverty and dictatorship to affluence and democracy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
25.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.
26.
RoyseD.ThyerB. A.PadgettD. K. (2009). Program evaluation: An introduction to an evidence-based approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
27.
RubinA.BabbieE. R. (2013). Research methods for social work (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
28.
ScrivenM. (1999). The fine line between evaluation and explanation. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 521–524.
29.
ShadishW. R. (2011). Randomized controlled studies and alternative designs in outcome studies: Challenges and opportunities. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 636–643.
30.
SoaresF. V.RibasR. P.HirataG. I. (2010). Impact evaluation of a rural conditional cash transfer programme on outcomes beyond health and education. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 2, 138–157.
31.
SosinM. R. (2002). Outcomes and sample selection: The case of a homelessness and substance abuse intervention. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 55, 63–91.
32.
SsewamalaF. M.KarimliL.HanC. K.IsmayilovaL. (2010). Social capital, savings, and educational performance of orphaned adolescents in Sub-Saharan Africa. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1704–1710.
33.
SsewamalaF. M.NeilandsT. B.WaldfogelJ.IsmayilovaL. (2012). The impact of a comprehensive microfinance intervention on depression levels of AIDS-orphaned children in Uganda. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 346–352. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.08.008
34.
ThoemmesF. J.KimE. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 90–118.
35.
ThyerB. (2015). A bibliography of randomized controlled experiments in social work (1949–2013): Solvitur ambulando. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 753–793.
