Technical Assistance Progress Report - Asian Development Bank · 2014. 9. 29. · Asian Development Bank, State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development

Technical Assistance Progress Report

Project Number：TA 4580-PRC April 2005 (TA approval date; monograph posted to web December 2008)

People’s Republic of China: NGO-Government Partnerships in Village-Level Poverty Alleviation (Financed by the Poverty Reduction Cooperation Fund)

Prepared principally by: China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation (CFPA)

Beijing, PRC

TA Executing Agency: State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development (LGOP)

SUMMARY REPORT FOR TA 4580 JIANGXI PILOT TEST

EVALUATION OF PROCESSES AND IMPACTSOF NGO-GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPSIN VILLAGE-LEVEL POVERTY PROGRAMSSeptember 2008

Evaluation of Processes and Impacts of NGO-Government Partnerships in Village-Level Poverty Programs i

Table of Contents

Preface 1 1. Background ......................................................................................................................3 2. M&E Framework Rationale for the PVPADP Process ......................................................5 3．Main Achievements...........................................................................................................6 4. Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................11

Acronyms and Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank CIAD Centre for Integrated Agricultural Development IDSS International Development Support Services LGOP State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non Government Organisation NIT Nanchang Institute of Technology PRC The People’s Republic of China PRCG The People’s Republic of China Government PVPADP Participatory Village Poverty Alleviation and Development Planning TA Technical Assistance

Evaluation of Processes and Impacts of NGO-Government Partnerships in Village-Level Poverty Programs 1

SUMMARY REPORT FOR TA 4580 JIANGXI PILOT TEST

EVALUATION OF PROCESSES AND IMPACTS

OF NGO-GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPS

IN VILLAGE-LEVEL POVERTY PROGRAMS

PREFACE

The objective of Asian Development Bank (ADB) technical assistance TA 4580-PRC (Non Government Organizations and Government Partnerships in Village-level Poverty Alleviation) is to formulate and demonstrate replicable models for NGO participation in government-funded village poverty alleviation and development planning (VPADP). The TA’s pilot test component (focused on 3 counties of Jiangxi Province) field-tested two modalities for NGO-government partnership, to assess the potential value-added of such cooperation vis-à-vis a government-only model in control villages.

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Team was tasked with making an independent, objective and externally credible assessment of the efficiency and impact of the cooperative Government-NGO modalities. This M&E task also includes identification of gaps or weaknesses to give a realistic view of prospects and key considerations.

At the outset of the TA, the external M&E team prepared a framework outlining the assessment strategy and methodology. Central to the framework was the testing of the following hypothesis:

"NGO-government cooperation in pilot villages will increase the impact of poverty alleviation planning and implementation in a transparent, efficient and replicable manner. In addition, NGO involvement should increase the sustainability of these benefits by building increased capacity within villages and a supportive environment among government agencies.

The external M & E team applied both quantitative and qualitative approaches to conduct the assessment, which involved a baseline survey followed by three survey sweeps of all villages at early, middle, and late stages of the pilot test. The M&E sweeps collected both (i) absolute quantitative data, and (ii) subjective or perception-based data covering judgements made by stakeholders about processes and impacts. Evidence for the M&E sweeps was collected separately from villagers in


groups, individual village households, sub-village committee members, village committee members, relevant government officials, and the nine selected NGOs.

In addition to survey sweeps, more detailed case studies were collected in three villages throughout the project cycle. Case studies provide a window over elapsed time on how processes unfold in practice. Each case study had a different focus, namely NGOs/Government cooperation in pilot villages, the targeting of poverty households in pilot villages, and NGOs/government cooperation in hybrid villages.

Representing joint efforts by the International Development Support Services (IDSS), the Center for the Integrated Agricultural Development (CIAD) and the ADB1 under the TA, this Evaluation of

Processes and Impacts has been drafted to disseminate the key findings from the TA’s three M&E sweeps and the three Case Studies. TA Consultants Dr. Wang Libin Field Research Coordinator, Centre for Integrated Agricultural Development (CIAD) at China Agricultural University Dr. Tony Voutas M&E Strategy and Design Mr. Chen Binggui Rural Development M&E Methods Specialist

Field Researchers CIAD Graduate Students Wang Ruikun, Wang Lei, Hong Wei, Wang Hechun, Zhou Yuanxi,

Zhang Weibin, Bai Yang, Liu Yushen, Liu Yu, Kong Hanling, and Wu Jie Faculty Members Nanchang Institute of Technology, Jiangxi.

Acknowledgements Dr. Chris Spohr Project Officer, Asian Development Bank, PRC Mission

1 The content in this Evaluation of Processes and Impacts reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Asian Development Bank, State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development or UK Department for International Development.


1. Background

The People's Republic of China (PRC) has made remarkable progress in reducing poverty, cutting the number of people living in absolute poverty from approximately 250 million in 1978 to an estimated 23.7 million at the end of 2005. In 2001, with the shifting focus of poverty alleviation from counties to villages and households, the Government of PRC (PRCG) ratified the Rural China Poverty Alleviation and Development Program (2001-2010).

Despite such progress, the economic inequity and deceleration in poverty reduction remain a challenge for the PRCG. Poverty alleviation efforts have been undermined by institutional issues, including: (i) poor targeting of funds and in some cases, misallocation of funds; (ii) lack of transparency and (iii) weak capacities and/or incentives to adopt new approaches. The State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development (LGOP) believes non-government organisations (NGOs) participation in areas such as project design, management and/or monitoring and evaluation is a key to addressing systemic flaws.

The PRCG recognizes the potential of NGOs as a partner in state-supported poverty alleviation efforts. The PRCG requested this technical assistance (TA) from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to tap this potential.

To promote rural poverty reduction, with NGOs mainstreamed within more effective, efficient, and well-targeted poverty alleviation programs throughout China, the TA’s objective was to formulate and demonstrate replicable models and mechanisms for NGO participation in government-funded village-level poverty alleviation efforts. Feeding into this objective, the TA design included four components, aimed at:

(i) Developing and achieving consensus on a comprehensive framework for NGO-government partnerships in rural poverty alleviation, incorporating models demonstrated in the TA;

(ii) Developing and initiating a capacity building program for NGOs competitively selected to participate in the TA’s pilot test, building capacity of local governments in effective cooperation with NGOs, and developing and disseminating a curriculum framework and resource materials for both programs to support post-TA replication;

The TA’s objective was to formulate and

demonstrate replicable models for NGO

participation in the PRCG’s village-level

poverty alleviation efforts.


(iii) Pilot testing and demonstrating the viability of new mechanisms for NGO-government cooperation, and further building capacities of participating NGOs in poverty alleviation;

(iv) Completion of an objective and externally credible assessment on the efficacy and impact of NGO-Government cooperated poverty alleviation projects, being an aim which is the subject of this document.

The TA design posited a theoretically robust comparison of three modalities linked to the government’s flagship grassroots poverty program: participatory village poverty alleviation and development planning (PVPADP). The three modalities were:

• Modality 1, wherein state poverty funds are channelled through NGOs, who work closely with local governments in facilitating a villager-driven PVPADP process to determine and implement micro-projects. This modality was tested in 16 pilot villages.

• Modality 2, wherein NGOs also work with local officials to facilitate the PVPADP planning process (e.g., organizing village meetings, meeting with smaller groups of female and male villagers, and visiting poorer and more remote households to assess their needs), but plan funding and implementation remain principally under the government. This modality was tested in three hybrid villages.

• Modality 3, a total of seven control villages, with the PVPADP process managed by government without NGO participation.

It should be emphasized that the comparison made is between NGO-government cooperation (in pilot and hybrid villages) vis-à-vis a government-only model (in control villages). More specifically, the external M & E assessed the differences in the following three areas across pilot, hybrid, and control villages:

(i) The process followed in developing and implementing a PVPADP plan;

(ii) The inputs/outputs involved in developing and implementing the PVPADP; and

(iii) The impact of PVPADP implementation.


2. M&E Framework Rationale for the PVPADP Process

The external M&E tested the assumption that the NGO-GO cooperation would improve the process of planning and implementing the PVPADP in four ways, by:

(i) broadening the scope of participation (i.e., involving more villagers, especially the poor), in detailed poverty analysis and project selection;

(ii) increasing the depth (i.e. extent and quality) of participation, especially of women and poor households;

(iii) ensuring a more transparent process of decision making and management of funds in PVPADP; and

(iv) building a greater sense of villager ownership of the projects chosen and a confidence that the community itself has the capacity to sustain and expand its initial poverty alleviation plan.

A key purpose of monitoring processes was to assess how effective NGO-government

cooperation has been in achieving each of the above improvements. It is recognized that the number of villages included in the pilot test is relatively small (with implications for interpreting statistical figures), while limited duration of the TA meant that external M&E during the project could provide indirect evidence on processes and emerging impacts, but less direct evidence on longer-term impacts. The TA’s experimental design and the M&E strategy also had to respond to some largely external factors during TA implementation, ranging from the impact of snow and ice storms in early 2008 to the inability, in practice, to align the timetable for arrival of government poverty funds in control and hybrid villages vis-à-vis pilot villages, as planned in the original TA design. However, the M&E team feel that the experimental design and the conclusions reported below (which are based on a range of data sources) remain very valid.


3. Main Achievements

The information collected shows that the PVPADP and implementation process in the pilot villages (where NGOs cooperated with local governments) yielded a significant number of positives. Compared to the control villages, pilot villages were indeed far more participatory, involved many more poor in poverty analysis and project selection, were far more transparent, and built a greater sense of ownership over the selected projects. In addition, the pilot villages were more transparent and effective in fund use, and were more participatory in monitoring the project quality. The villagers in pilot villages contributed more labors and financial inputs in the implementation process. More poverty households in pilot villages felt that the implementation process and outputs improved their production and living conditions, enhanced their capacities and made them feel more confident in escaping from poverty. The following are the key findings from the M&E surveys.

(1) There is a higher level of participation of villagers, women and the poor throughout the planning process in pilot villages than there is in control villages. Those in pilot villages, including women and the poor, have more chances of participating in planning meetings, being visited and consulted by planning staff, selecting planning representatives, identifying the poor and analyzing poverty and selecting the poverty alleviation projects. Facilitating the PVPADP process on behalf of and working closely with the local government, NGOs intentionally gave the poor and women more opportunities to participate in the planning process by visiting them, persuading them to participate in meetings and reserving seats for them as planning representatives. (2) The planning process tends to be more public and transparent in pilot villages than it is in control villages. As a consequence of more villagers in the pilot villages participating in the planning process, the planning process in these villages tends to be more public and transparent. Residents of pilot villages had more involvement in selecting projects, raising their voices before the projects were decided and having project proposals accepted. More people in the pilot villages where aware of who the representatives were on the planning committee and were informed by NGO’s of the planning results and outputs than was the case in control villages.

The planning process tends to be more

participatory, pro-poor and transparent in pilot

villages than it is in control villages.


Awareness and Participation2: − 83% of interviewees learnt about the PVPADP through village group meetings

compared with 38% in control villages. 44% of interviewees in pilot villages learnt

about the PVPADP via interviews by planning personnel, while only 6% of participants

were interviewed in control villages. − The number of villagers participating in the planning process rose from 20% in the

control villages to 56% in the pilots. − 76% of interviewees in pilot villages have taken part in the election of village-level

planning representatives. In the control villages the figure was 40%. − In the pilot villages, 76% of the interviewees knew that their village had a planning

administrative committee, while only 44% in the control villages were aware of this. − In the pilot villages, approximately 20-25% of women and 30-60% of the poor

participated as planning representatives in each village. In control villages, there is

either no planning administrative committee or the planning representatives include

few women and poor people.

(3) The villagers in pilot villages are more satisfied with the poverty alleviation planning processes and approaches than villagers in control villages. In comparison with the control villages, the people of the pilot villages are more satisfied with the planning processes, approaches, results and are more satisfied with the selected projects and the distribution of the funds. Satisfaction and Transparency3 − The percentage of people in pilot villages who are “very satisfied” about the method,

process and output of the planning are separately 82%, 82%, 63%; similar figures in

control villages are 17%, 21%, 44%.

− 74% of the interviewees in the pilot villages thought that the process of planning was

open and transparent, while only 17% thought so in the control villages.

2 Data from the first Sweep of M & E Survey 3 Data from the first Sweep of M & E Survey


(4) NGO work spirit, commitment and their respect of the poor have been recognized by the villagers, the village committee, and government officials. Both the villagers and the local government officials recognized and appreciated the work spirit and work styles of the NGO. The NGO staff worked very hard; made numerous efforts to interact with the villagers; showed respect and listened to the poor and therefore were well accepted by the villagers. The local government officials were also moved by the commitment of the NGO staff. NGOs were seen to have introduced a process whereby villagers as a whole felt empowered to participate in village decision making. Satisfaction with NGO Staff4 − In pilot villages, 86% of interviewees were “very satisfied” with the planning

personnel, compared by 25% in control villages.

(5) In pilot villages, more villagers participated in monitoring the construction quality, and this generally led to enhanced project quality. In pilot villages, the responsibility of sourcing contractors and monitoring the quality were transferred to sub-villages, which gave villagers the opportunity to monitor the construction and encouraged villagers’ to be responsible for the outcomes and the quality of the projects.

Participation in Monitoring Construction Quality5

- In pilot villages, 25% villagers felt they had frequent opportunities in participating into

monitoring and evaluation about the project process and quality, while in control

villages, 4% villagers felt so.

(6) The involvement of NGOs working with local governments enhanced the targeting of the poverty in PVPADP and the implementation. More poverty households in pilot villages feel that the implementation process and outputs improved their production and living conditions, enhanced their capacities and made them feel more confident in escaping from poverty. In pilot villages, NGO-facilitated participatory planning resulted in a wider number of smaller projects able to meet more diverse needs of the poor villagers than in control villages. In the latter there was a

4 Data from the first Sweep of M & E Survey 5 Data from the third Sweep of M & E Survey


tendency towards bigger and fewer infrastructure projects. The wider range of smaller projects tended to allow the inclusion of some projects with a more direct impact on poorer households. In addition, in the pilot villages, more project budgets were allocated to the poorer sub-villages.

Benefits Perceived by the Poor6

-In pilot villages, 79% poverty households believed that the implementation of the plan

improved their living conditions, 73% believed that the implementation improved their

production conditions, while in control villages the proportion was 40% and 7.5%,

respectively.

- In pilot villages, 27% poverty households believed that the implementation increased

their incomes, also, 29% poverty households believed that the planning enhanced their

capacities, while in control villages, no poverty households believed so.

- In pilot villages 50% poverty households believed that the planning made them more

confident, while in control the proportion was 23%.

- In pilot villages, 47% villagers believed that the planning strengthened their

confidence in reducing poverty, while in control villages the proportion was zero.

(7) During implementation, the fund appropriation in pilot villages was more punctual and avoided redirection and misuse of funds more effectively. In pilot villages, the funds were appropriated to NGOs directly. As the NGOs’ reputations were at stake and project completion was time-bound, fund appropriation was more punctual and avoided misuse.

(8) The target of fund use was more understood in pilot villages and led to more open and transparent processes. Compared with control villages, the distribution and use of funds in pilot villages followed the participatory methods and was more open and transparent. Villagers understood the use of funds more.

6 Data from the third Sweep of M & E Survey


(9) Fund use was more equitable in pilot villages than in control villages. In pilot villages, the funds covered and benefited more sub-villages. There was frugal use of funds, thus the funds were used more effectively in pilot villages except in a few cases where frugality lessened the quality of the works. In addition the NGO-facilitated participatory planning allocated more proportion of the budget to the poor sub-villages.

(10) A number of pilot villages successfully obtained external technical expertise and funding to support their needs. With the assistance of the village committee, villagers, NGO and local government, a number of pilot villages obtained the external technical expertise and fund support they needed to implement the PVPADP.

(11) During implementation, the villagers in pilot villages contributed more labor inputs and financial inputs than the control villages. In pilot villages, the projects were identified by villagers and they are the beneficiaries, so that the villagers are more willing to contribute labour and funds during the implementation process.

- In pilot villages, 48% of villagers made labour inputs and 44% made financial inputs

to project implementation, while in control villages the proportion was 24% and 28%,

respectively.

(12) The local government officials involved in the project assumed new roles and responsibilities in poverty alleviation. While some local officials had low awareness of the concept of NGOs at the start of the pilot and openly admitted scepticism towards their involvement in the PVPADP, local officials took increasing ownership of the experiment (aided by both TA-provided capacity building, and the cooperation process itself). Moreover, the project pointed to a workable new division of labor, with government officials repositioning their roles in poverty alleviation from implementers to supervisors and supporters.


4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the above results, the external M & E concluded that the NGO-government cooperation in pilot villages increased the impact of poverty alleviation planning and implementation in a participatory, transparent, efficient and pro-poor manner. In addition, the NGO involvement in the government poverty alleviation work increased the sustainability of these benefits by building up the enhanced capacities, feeling of ownership, and control over the planning and implementation process among the villagers, especially women and the poor.

To further promote the win-win partnerships between NGOs and governments in advancing poverty reduction goals, the findings of the external M&E suggest further exploration of the following recommendations:

(1) Reform the management regulations and remove some of the restrictions for NGOs in

China so as to enlarge the working space of NGOs, for example, to make the NGOs have more freedom to work in different geographic areas and more convenient to set up their bank accounts.

(2) Revise related regulations to allow the NGO to have access to the public fiscal funds for poverty alleviation and study how to supervise the fund use of NGOs.

(3) Further clarify the roles and responsibilities and precise division of labor between NGOs and government in future cooperation, and clarify which level of government that the NGOs need to work with for each set of tasks, to smooth the cooperation process.

(4) Develop standard procedures for NGO participation in government-supported poverty alleviation work throughout the NGO selection, planning, and implementation process. The procedures developed under the TA can be used for reference.

(5) Enhance NGOs’ capacities in both organizational and technical (engineering) aspects of planning and implementation in order to provide effective instruction and monitoring to village plan implementation boards during the planning and implementation processes.


(6) Finally, while the LGOP/Jiangxi PADO pilot test supported under TA 4580 was limited in scale, its success suggests that there is considerable potential for NGO-government cooperation (including via outsourcing) in poverty reduction as well as other programs (e.g., perhaps literacy training, rural basic health services, etc.), particularly in poorer and more remote areas. This is also demonstrated by considerable international experience. The M&E team thus suggests that the government explore options to scale-up such piloting within the PVPADP and/or replicate similar approaches in other programs, to assess the impact of appropriate NGO-GO partnership models in equitably providing public services.

Technical Assistance Progress Report - Asian Development Bank · 2014. 9. 29. · Asian Development Bank, State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development

Documents