Jackie (Jacqueline) [user:field_middlename] Yiptong Avila

Jackie (Jacqueline) Yiptong Avila

Program Evaluator/Survey Methodologist
Independent Consultant

More about me

Jackie Yiptong Avila is Program Evaluator with over ten years of experience in conducting evaluation using a mixed methods approach. Previously. she has  worked at Statistics Canada as a Survey Statistician and Methodologist, a career that spanned for over 30 years. She has extensive experience in designing and managing household, socio-economic and enterprise surveys as well  as customer satisfaction surveys She has worked in West Africa, the Middle East, Haiti, Mauritius and Canada. Her experience in program evaluation includes

·       Familiarity with the UN, USAID and USDA Evaluation Policy and Guidelines.

·       Evaluation of USAID Feed the Future Food security and Nutrition Programs, USDA Food for Progress Agriculture Value Chains Program; UNDP Women and Youth empowerment and micro-enterprises Programs; UNFPA and USAID programs in humanitarian settings.

Jackie was a Staff member of the World Bank International Program for Development Evaluation Training (IPDET). She provides training and workshop facilitation in Survey Methodology;  Monitoring and Evaluation. She is a member of the Canadian Evaluation Society; the American Evaluation Association; the Canadian Association of International Development Practitioners and is a  Lifetime member of the International Development Evaluation Association ( IDEAS). She is fluent in English, French and Spanish and enjoys working with emerging young evaluators.

My contributions

    • Dear Colleagues,

      I am happy that John has brought up ToC for discussion.  I often wondered why evaluations review/mention the ToC at the inception phase but seem to  ignore it during the analysis; seldom assess the validity or robustness of the ToC and the accompanying  assumptions. Instead, Evaluation focus on the OECD criteria and rarely have I seen the validity ToC addressed in evaluation reports, have you ?

      I do not think that ToC are cast in stone hence I like to think that evaluations can/should show data that 1. confirm that the assumptions are valid 2. Prove or disprove that the expected outcome and results are realistic, 3. Identify which one will be realised and 4. for those that will not happen,  what can be done/changed in the intervention so that the results be achieved; else tell us what will happen if the intervention is carried on as is.

      I would like to suggest an article from John Mayne who sadly passed away last December. In it, John discusses the criteria for a robust ToC and a tool for carrying out analysis of ToCs which he discusses in an  ex-ante or ex post setting. Please see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321510354_Theory_of_Change_Analysis_Building_Robust_Theories_of_Change

      Kind regards,


    • Thank you, Carlos, for bringing up another important topic in the forum and for the document links. I also thank the colleagues who shared their experience and comments.

      Theory of Change, Logical Framework (Logframe) and result Chains are all methodologies for planning, measure and evaluate programs. Each has a visual representation in the form of a matrix of what happens or expected to happen as the result of the program or project or any initiative for that matter. As a past facilitator at IPDET (International Program for Developmental Evaluation training financed by the World Bank Program) and in my practice, I have found that Theory of Change is a name or title that is not easily identified as a methodology;  it is a term that can bring dread in the mind ?.  I would rather use Logic Model a term some use interchangeably to describe ToC.  However, Logic model is also synonyms for Result Chains (https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/search/site/result%20chain) and Program Theory/Theory of Change https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/rainbow_framework/define/develop_programme_theory.  

      In my view, Theory of change is a more powerful tool than the two others mentioned since direct links between Activities, Output and Outcomes (Short and mid -erm and long-term often referred to as Impact) must be established and shown in the matrix. Furthermore, the ToC is not complete without assumptions. It is not a one-time matrix but must/can be reviewed and modified with time. During evaluation, the assumptions must be verified and if they do not hold or activities were modified during the course of the program, the matrix has to be reviewed accordingly.

      The requirements of the ToC foster an in-depth reflection of what the program is trying to achieve. A difficulty often encountered is deciding what is an output and what is an outcome. I have found the Kellogg document a very useful Guide; it uses the term Logic model. https://www.bttop.org/sites/default/files/public/W.K.%20Kellogg%20LogicModel.pdf. Semantic is important in the developing the matrix and active verbs such as “Increased” that denote changes, help make the distinction between output and outcome.

       I also find that filling the Activity column brings discussions that often show that stakeholders are not aware or had different views of what was actually happening during the program implementation. Follow-up discussions would often happen on whether the activities will trigger behaviour change among the program beneficiaries and have spill-over effect and results  in the community or overall target population.   I find that the ToC matrix facilitate the identification of indicators which are more meaningful for measuring performance and results.

      I agree that the ToC must be developed in a participatory manner. However, at the time of evaluation, it may not exist or the one available is poor/confusing. In these cases, after an initial document review and discussions with the program staff, I will design the matrix or modify the existing one and circulate it. It helps me understand the program and formulate my requests for clarification. Since the matrix is simple to read (I like left to right), it usually receives attention and feedback.  We end up with all involved having the same understanding of the program and its expected achievements. I have seen evaluation questions revised as the result of this exercise.

      It would be interesting to find out how many Ipdeters who are practising evaluation, utilize ToC in their work. ToC is at the core of the IPDET.  See Road to Results, Morras and Rist 2009, the textbook for this training. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2699/52678.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


    • Dear Colleagues,

      I wish to thank you for taking the time to join this discussion, share your experience and web links to very informative documents. Please allow me to summarize some of your comments and share my reflections following this discussion on women in agriculture which is certainly an important topic as demonstrated by your interest and contribution.

      Several of you have pointed out the challenges faced by women; these include no access to Land Ownership; lack of financing; chores and household responsibilities. More importantly, is the lack of voice of women in decision making which can be due to the cultural and societal norms; perception that women are illiterate hence cannot contribute to decision making. Furthermore, technology is perceived as a male domain.

      It was also noted that while evaluations found that agricultural production by women beneficiaries increased as a result of their participation in agricultural activities, there was less evidence to suggest that they were individually diversifying their agricultural products and breaking into agri-business and self-employment as expected. This is to say that women continue to practice subsistence farming which is not going to move them and their family from poverty.

      It appears that we have yet to find ways for women develop formal and informal support innovation networks with others;  ways for women to exercise decision-making power in intra-household discussions with their spouses, and extended family especially when culture limits this kind of interaction. Not the least is how do we get men to support women including their spouse to innovate and move from subsistence farming to entrepreneurship. Should we say moving women from the invisibles to strong actors along the agriculture value chains?

      I also note with interest in your contributions that urban farming especially on roof top is now an activity that is being practiced. I have not yet seen in my work and It would be interesting to see what data exist for this type of activity.  Sadly, you have noted that monitoring systems are not always in place to measure the results of agriculture programs on women performance beyond increased productivity. Furthermore, some of you are finding that program managers still think that M&E exercises are expensive and require significant effort; hence the lack of efficient M&E system.

      The Oxford Dictionary provides the following definition for Empowerment which says

      To empower somebody (to do something) is to give someone more control over their own life or the situation they are as in “The movement actively empowered women and gave them confidence in themselves.”

      This will become more necessary as we try to meet the challenges of the SDGs since statistics tell us that there are increasing number of households being headed by females (for a summary of World bank data please see http://www.factfish.com/statistic/female%20headed%20households). Women are often left in charge as their spouse has left to wage wars and/or have returned maimed; left to work in the cities; have never married; are widowed or the man has simply deserted the family.

      Thank you again for your contributions. I hope that we will have more opportunities to discuss this topic in the future and that you will be reporting that women and marginalized groups are moving from subsistence farming to engagement in agricultural market expansion. J

      Jackie Yiptong Avila, Bsc, MBA, DPE

      International Consultant

      Program Evaluator; Survey Methodologist

      Ottawa, Canada

    • Dear Dorothy,

      Thank you for having brought up Youth in Agriculture in this forum. The remarkable response indicates how important this topic is for evaluators and others. I have had the opportunity to evaluate several agriculture programs in Senegal and The Gambia. I would like to share my reflections, findings and the recommendations that I have made which I hope answers your initial questions: Are evaluations making a difference or not? If not, how does that happen to greater effect?

      There seems to be general agreement that the negative perception of agriculture which describes farmers as illiterate;  farm work as back breaking are deterrents for young people. I think that these are part of a larger number of reasons.  What can be done to de-stigmatize farming? I believe that changing the language and concept concerning small-scale farming is a first step. Should we not

      • Think of the farmer as an agriculture entrepreneur, businessman or businesswomen not the illiterate poor person who does a backbreaking job who is able to provide for his family
      • Treat the farm as a family business and not some entity for survival?

      Colleagues have mentioned educated and uneducated Youth. I believe that an uneducated Youth with some numeracy and literacy skills can become a successful entrepreneur. Let’s not stigmatize the “uneducated” Youth in rural areas. It will perpetuate the negative perception of farmers and farming.

      In the discussion, it was noted that there are initiatives that are encouraging the Youth to enter the Agribusiness. This person is not necessarily from a rural community. Hence two other divisions:

      1. Outsidesr and
      2. Children of the farmers/Youth in rural areas.

      The outsider is as in the AgriHack Talent initiative - already an entrepreneur/start-up/companies/country diaspora etc. i.e. they are investors in the agricultural sectors. (Thank you, Pamela White, for the link https://www.cta.int/en/youth ). They are educated presumably, with technology and resources obtained on their own or as beneficiaries of some programs. The questions I would like to ask are:

      • Are they going to build capacity among the local farmers and Youth or are they expecting cheap labour?
      • Do they have a good understanding of the rural and farming community to be able to collaborate with the rural community? Will they be ready to learn from locals and adopt traditional agricultural practices that bring results?
      • Are they truly going to make a positive difference for the local Youth or are they going to be the masters who dictate?

      For the children of the farmers, the challenges are many. Land ownership is an important issue. Farmers in my studies did not have title to their land and we collected incidence of abuse; for example once the farmer is having success  as in  the cashew sector that can be quite lucrative,  there is a “cousin” who lives in the city and presumably now “wealthy” who arrives and makes claim to the ancestral land farmed by the “pauvre paysan, son cousin” . Young people are justifiably upset and discouraged to see their father mistreated and have few recourses for this “injustice”. One of the recommendations made is that there is a push for land ownership in the country and if the law already allows for this, that the farmer  be taught and supported in obtaining title for his/her parcel of land through an association of farmers and/or the aid program.

      Someone has mentioned the “claustrophobic” environment of farms. Indeed, lack of roads or difficult access to towns is an issue. This situation limits the sale of the crops and in fact, in many villages, we found that the farmers are at the mercy of buyers. For lack of transportation, the farmer has no choice but to sell to those who come in the village with their own truck, car, motorcycle etc. and of course,  at the price set by the buyers. An unfair practice which will discourage the Youth from farming.

      I disagree that young people are leaving for the city just because of the big city lights; the discotheques and the “fun” life. Once outside, the appeal for not returning to the village is great. Can we blame them if they do not return to their village where there is no electricity and no running water? Rural development is fundamental if we wish  Youth to remain on agricultural land.

      How do we get the young people to start thinking of the farm as a business?

      I was deeply saddened to hear of a compound in Gambia that saw 26 of its youth leave for the north. They were believed to have all died in the Mediterranean Sea. They were young people  who have attended school, but the lack of opportunities led them to take this risk of leaving home with the hope of a better future. I was deeply saddened because growing cashew trees could be a lucrative business in this country and maybe had they known that this sector had much to offer, they would not have left their village but cultivate the land instead. Unfortunately, an academic education is intended for landing in a white-collar job. This is a common problem. Here in Canada, we have a shortage of tradespeople; for a long time, our children were encouraged to get a university degree for example,  in electrical engineering while a college degree to become an electrician was not viewed in the same light. This is in reverse now as an entrepreneurial electrician is often making more income than an engineer.

      Older farmers are also selling their land as their children have gone away for higher education and other professions.  However, university graduates in agriculture in this country are hired by large food producing companies and in research; this may not yet be as frequent in developing countries.  

      We should not forget the agriculture sectors offer jobs along the value chain and toiling the land is not the sole occupation. These usually require a certain level of education.

      It was suggested in our evaluation reports that young literate family members be included in the Farmers Field Schools (FFS) which targeted the farmers only. The evaluations found that the training which includes business practices and accounting was not very successful since the farmers were too often illiterate.

      I understand that the recommendations we have made, were taken into account in the planning of the next phase of the programs. I hope to have the opportunity to evaluate these “enhancements”. I strongly suggest that similar to gender, we treat Youth as a cross-cutting theme in evaluations of agriculture programs. Let us not forget the young girls and women who farm. I have found that the agriculture programs would make a head count of female beneficiariesbut few initiatives adopt activities to match the needs and accommodate the timetable of the women. Absenteeism and drop-out rates for female at FFS was higher for females than males.

      It will be good that evaluators share their findings and recommendations. Should we, evaluators have a common set, a repertoire of recommendations that promotes practices proven to bring positive results?  Of course, to be applied where relevant and contextual! 

      Jackie Yiptong Avila
      Program evaluator / Survey methodologist