Comparative Evaluation of Three Haitian Rural Development Projects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comparative Evaluation of Three Haitian Rural Development Projects Uli Locher Glenn R. Smucker Drexel G. Woodson July 1983 Prepared for CREATIVE ASSOCIATES, INC., Washington, D.C. Preface This comparative evaluation of the three Haitian rural development projects is divided into five parts. The three central parts deal with each of these projects separately while the introductory part, the conclusion, and various annexes are designed to make broad comparisons possible. The authors are Glenn R. Smucker (Part Two), Drexel G. Woodson (Part Four), and Ui Locher (Parts One, Three and Five). Their authorial responsibility is limited to their respective parts. Many people have been generous with their help to the evaluation team, and the list is too long for all to be named. I would, however, like to express my special gratitude to Michel Baldw, of USAID/Haiti and to Angelamaria Michael of Creativ Associates, Inc., who provided essential logistical support, and to the directors of three projects, Marc-Antoine Noel, Chavannes Jn-Baptiste, and Claude Bouthillier, whose warm hospitality and many other forms of assistance were of great support to the evaluation effort. Finally, I should like to thank Harold Kursk, who was responsible for editing and typing the text. Uli Locher TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: The Planning of the Comparative Evaluation 1.1 The Team and its Mandate . 9 1.2 Short Presentation of the Three Projects . 11 1. Gros-Morne . 11 2. Groupment Pilot Project. 12 3. Chambellan Community Development Project. 13 1.3 Bases for Comparison . .. 16 1.4 A Note on the Functions of Evaluation. 18 PART TWO: GROS-MORNE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION .............. 5 II. PROJECT HISTORY . a .. 9 Objectives. Phase I Project . 9 . 10 Phase II Project. 12 III. PROJECT"IMPLEMENTATION . .. 14 Administration. Staff 14 . Physical . 14 Plant. ... Collaborating . 17 Agencies. Budget. 18 . Community Organization. 19 . 21 The Groupman Movement . .. 21 Credit and Investment . ... 31 Education . 34 Technology. 35 Health....... ..................... ... 36 IV. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. 38 Analysis and Documentation. 39 Reports and Verification. 39 Soci al Character of Groups. 41 Prod. Commercial Characteristics. Agricultural . 42 Extension. Administration. 43 . 44 Non-Formal Education. Peasant Organization. 47 . 49 Philosophy of Groupman. 49 Strategy . Groupman . 50 and Community Councils . Staff Training. 53 . 54 Costs and Benefits. Costs . 55 . 0 . Benefits . 55 . .. Distribution of Benefits. 57 . ..... 60 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 63 ANNEX I. Budget Summary, Gros-Morne Rural Development Project, 1980-1983. 68 ANNEX II. Gros-Morne Credit Program: Budget and Disbursements . ... 69 ANNEX III. Text of Groupman Contracts . .. 70 ANNEX IV. Text of Association Contracts . 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 75 PART THREE: GROUPEMENT PILOT PROJECT 1. Introduction: Project Goals . .. 4 2. Project History . 8 3. Project Implementation. 16 3.1 Goals and Implementation . .. 16 3.2 Project Administration . 17 1. The distribution of responsibility . 17 2. Administration . 21 3. The communication/ organization section* . 4. The . ... 26 analysis section . ..... 35 5. Coordination . 37 6. The technology section ........ 38 7. The other sections . 41 8. The current state of goal implementation. 43 4. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Project . 49 4.1 The experimental mission . 49 4.2 The physical setup and impact. 51 4.3 The staff. .. 52 4.4 The organizational framework . 54 4.5 Project output . 56 5. Costs and benefits of the GPP . 59 5.1 Tangible benefits to local farmers . 59 5.2 Intangible benefits for the project area . 62 5.3 Monetary costs of GPP. 63 5.4 Non-monetary costs of GPP . 65 5.5 The balance of costs and benefits. 67 5.6 The spread of benefits . 68 6. Recommendations . 73 Bibliography . 78 Annexes Annex 1 Report on the 1983 Evaluation of GPP. .. Annex 2 Current GPP Staff. .. Annex 3 Index of Texts . ..... .... Annex 4 GPP Summary Budget .......... Annex 5 Some GPP Baseline Data Made Available in April 1983 .... PART FOUR: CHAMBELLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1. Introduction . 4 2. Project History . 9 2.1 Original Social, Economic and Politi~al Context of the PDCC . 9 2.2 The Project Site: Selection and Baseline Data . 10 2.3 Project Goals and Implementation Strategy . 13 2.4 Budget . 16 2.5 Expected Project Outputs . 16 3. Implementation . 18 3.1 Overview . .. .. 18 3.2 Administrative Organization, Field Staff and Field Personnel. 20 3.3 Previous Evaluations . 27 4. Strengths and Weaknesses of Project Outputs. 32 4.1 Organization of Peasant Groups . 32 4.2 Construction . .. .. 36 4.3 Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fish Farming . * . .. 38 4.4 Health and Sanitation. 39 4.5 Other. 40 5. Conclusions and Recommendations. 41 References Cited . 45 Annexes. 46 Annex 1 AEDC - DARNDR Contract. .. Annex 2 AEDC - USAID Contract . Annex 3 PDCC Project Paper Table 1 .... Annex 4 Chart 1: Administrative Organization of PDCC. .. PART FIVE: THE THREE PROJECTS COMPARED 5.1 Original goals and current priorities. .. 2 5.2 The pace of advancement . 6 5.3 Project impact . 9 5.3.1 The target populations . 9 5.3.2 Economic impact. 0 . a . 14 5.3.3 Hypothetical extrapolation of income increases in the three projects. 23 5.3.4 Social impact . 36 5.4 Non-formal education . 40 5.5 A comparison of project inputs and outputs . 45 5.6 A final remark . 49 Annex 1 Common Scope of Work .......... 51 PART ONE 1. The Planning of the Comoarative Evaluation 1.1 The team and its mandate In March of 1983, CREATIVE ASSOCIATES, a Washington D.C.-based consulting firm, signed contracts with three project evaluation specialists for the design and implementation of the evaluation of three Haitian Rural Development Projects: - Gros-Morne II (CRS): "GM" - Groupement Pilot Project (CRS): "GPP" - Chambellan Community Development Project (Save the *V' Children): "CCDP" This evaluation entailed a comparative analysis of institutional and cost effectiveness of these projects in the context of their particular objectives as stated in the respective project agreements ("project papers"). In more precise terms, the task of the consultants was to: 1) assess the social, economic, and technical impact of the project inputs; 2) evaluate the ability of the projects to benefit a broad spectrum of the local population; 3) assess the relative effectiveness of education the non-formal methodologies employed in bringing about attitudinal changes in the rural population; 4) measure the monetary value of financial against inputs benefits accruing to the target population. Prior to this assignment, the team members had accumulated considerable experience in social scientific and evaluation PART ONE Page 10 research in aiti and other Caribbean locations. Based on this experience and on some preliminary acquaintance with the three projects, they designed a "common scope of work" (see annex) which took account of particular project ideologies and features within the context of the four major tasks mentioned. The team was allowed a considerable amount of flexibility in doing so and even in adapting this common scope of work at regular intervals during the field work. Such flexibility was both needed and appreciated beacuse, as the work progressed, it became increasingly evident that the definitions of "impact", "output", and "success" implied in the team's mandate were at odds with the various projects' own internal definitions of principal aims and achievements. To put this discrepancy bluntly: what evolved from the team's mandate was an interest in the economic impact of the projects. This stands opposed to the project staff's view that peasant organization is their principal aim. The evaluation team tried to assess progress along both lines and to do justice to both of these - clearly legitimate preoccupations. But it soon became clear that the projects by and large did not possess sufficient data to allow a full exploration of their economic impact. The team members did their best to secure information, opinions, and estimates from a wide variety of sources ranging from a houngan to a bishop, from landless peasants to local elites, and from development administrators in air-conditioned offices to development practicioners on rocky hillsides. Only one of the projects (GPP) has an adequate household-level baseline PART ONE Page 11 census which will, if replicated after four years, allow for a precise measurement of project impact upon the participating peasant families. None of the projects listed impact measurement as an ongoing activity on its agenda. However, it must be added on the positive side that all three projects had some sort of documentation concerning the membership and activities of the peasant organizations. This permitted an indirect estimate of project impact via the organizational accomplishments so crucial to project staff. 1.2 Short oresentation of the three projects 1.2.1 Gros-Morne The Gros-Morne Rural Development Project (CRS) has been in existence for seven years. The first phase (1976-79) "has led to many qualitative results - attitudinal and psychological..." (Klein, 1980a:15). It should be noted that 197 small groups of around ten farmers each ("groupements") have been formed as well as thirty-five "health clubs". In the eyes of the project members, these are the foundations of the economic results to be expected during later phases of the project. They are the principal project outputs anticipated since the thrust of the project is "the preparation of men rather than of land" (ibid.). This type of peasant organizations is important for its symbolism (it makes peasants feel that their investments together create a powerful force), its orientation towards production (rather than consumption), and the increase of PART ONE Page 12 local, low-level administrative skills. For the second phase (1980-83), the following goals were established (this list is drawn from several places in Klein, 1980a): 1. Formation of twenty cooperatives, each carrying out one project. 2. Doubling of groupements to 400, executing 120 projects.