Sub-Treatment Interventions and Program Implementation Monitoring

In the 250 treatment villages, FPs have implemented two sub-treatment interventions (STIs), which are designed to assess relative impacts of modifications in implementation strategies. The first of these STIs concern the manner by which villages elect CDCs, contrasting a cluster-based election with an at-large election. The second STI is focused on the method by which the community selects the sub-project, contrasting a referendum with a community consultation meeting. The impacts of these two STIs are to be assessed across numerous dimensions, such as the type of CDC members elected, the correspondence between selected sub-projects and the ex-ante preferences of community members, as well as general outcomes. In order to collect data to be used in the analysis of relative STI impacts and to systematically document the process of NSP implementation, a monitoring system was established to observe both the election and sub-project selection procedures and collect relevant data from community members. The results of these monitoring exercises are presented in the CDC Election Monitoring Report and the Sub-Project Selection Procedure Monitoring Report.

The monitoring of CDC elections was held across a sample of 131 NSP evaluation villages between October 2007 and May 2008. Overall, the evaluation team found that the CDC election process had been professionally executed by FPs and that, in general, villagers have a good understanding of the CDC election process and the NSP generally. Monitors reported no instances where ballot papers or ballot boxes may have been changed before the counting of the votes, indicating that instances of electoral fraud seemed to be largely absent, and there were only a few cases where monitors raised doubts about the integrity of the voting process. Results from psot-vote interviews conducted individually with voters suggest that villagers exhibit a high level of engagement with the electoral process and a solid understanding of both the procedural and substantive aspects of the election. The overwhelming majority of voters in the monitored NSP evaluation villages reported that they made their own decision for whom to vote, with only a very small fraction of the respondents suggesting that their choice was determined by others, and generally perceived the process to be free and fair.

In addition, 127 evaluation villages were subjected to detailed monitoring of the sub-project selection procedure, which occurred between November 2007 and July 2008 and were organized according to either a consultation meeting or a referendum. Overall, the evaluation team found that the sub-project selection process was professionally executed by FPs. Consultation meetings were well attended, attracting an average of roughly 70 men and a similar number of women and villagers in attendance outnumbered CDC officials by a ratio of ten-to-one. Monitors noted very high level of convergence of opinions between villagers and CDC members and between male and female participants, but no instances when the villagers appeared afraid or unwilling to express an opinion different to that of the members of the CDC or any other person at the meeting. Monitors found that referenda were professionally-executed, with various measures implemented to ensure the secrecy of the vote and the integrity of the process. When interviewed individually, the majority of participants expressed satisfaction with their CDC and believed that elections constituted a good way to select their community representatives. With respect to the sub-project selection process, respondents appeared largely informed on its governmental sponsorship and the steps it entailed, as FPs had discussed with them the logistics and rationale behind subproject selection. Villagers were also found to be generally satisfied with the type and range of the proposed projects and expressed confidence in the process, stating that they truly expected it to determine project selection outcomes.