Yuriy Nesterov, M.Sc.University of Arkansas / Heifer International

yvnesterov@clintonschool.uasys.edu

Over half century of experience in the rural development field

A unique approach to rural development through Passing on the Gift (PoG)

Similarity of the past and future projects Opportunities for replication of things that

work

The Passing of the Gift (POG) process does not have end date on many older projects

Little or no data is currently collected on projects after the monitoring phase

Former project participants report the ongoing POG process on completed projects

As with many other projects, most of the impact is visible only after the project is closed

How a typical Heifer International project looks like:◦ Targets one rural community (village)◦ The total budget is several hundred USD◦ More than half of the funds are used for providing

animals and plants◦ Passing of the gift is required for all tangible

assistance and knowledge◦ Several years of active phase + two years

monitoring phase◦ After the monitoring phase the project is called

‘historic’

Inputs Activities Outputs Short term outcomes

Intermediate outcomes

Long term outcomes

1. Funding2. International

expertise3. Local expertise4. Local HR5. Livestock and ag.

supplies market6. Responsible

project participants

7. Socio-economic climate

1. Provide funds for livestock

2. Provide funds for ag supplies

3. Conduct trainings

4. Control adherence to the rules

5. Provide networking opportunities

6. Assist community in procurement and delivery of animals & supplies

1. High-quality livestock purchased

2. Ag. Supplies purchased

3. Trainings conducted

4. Project implemented according to the budget and the cornerstones

5. Participants share information within and among communities

1. Some highly productive livestock in the community

2. Improved nutrition of the families

3. Improved knowledge of agricultural technologies

4. Improved knowledge of environment-friendly/sustainable agriculture

1. Increased percentage of highly productive livestock in community

2. Participants are aware of and apply modern ag techniques

3. Improved marketing skills of the project participants

4. Surpluses are sold and revenues are used to cover basic needs

5. Community practices environment-friendly agriculture

1. The community is sustainable and prosperous

2. Community members benefit from cooperation in their production and marketing efforts

3. Improved genetic quality of local livestock

4. Absence of significant environmental problems

After detecting what works and what does not, the new interventions might be adjusted

The best practices might be easy to replicate in the Heifer International system

Other organizations might be willing to adopt POG and other Heifer International practices

If the projects have a persistent impact in rural communities, getting funding will be easier

Experimental design is not possible High level of attrition Multitude of external factors

Availability of baseline data collected by Heifer International staff at the beginning of projects

Availability of governmental statistics data Possibility of use of similar rural

communities without intervention history as a comparison

Availability of key informants for collection of qualitative data

One of the possible designs: O₁ X O₂◦ 10-50 years between X and O₂◦ O₁ immediately precedes X

Another option – comparative post-test:

X O₁ O₂◦ Controls are needed to ensure comparability

Former project participants (quantitative & qualitative)

Key informants (qualitative) Governmental statistics (quantitative)

Your questions and suggestions are welcome!