Impact of the Graduation
Model: highlighting
worldwide efforts
Innovations for Poverty Action
Adaptation at 10 Sites

• Adaptation sponsored by CGAP and Ford Foundation:
Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, India (3), Ethiopia, P...
Why Evaluate?
• Thinking forward
• Not looking backwards
• What is the impact of the Graduation
model on the ultra poor?
–...
Primary Outcome

What is impact?

Intervention

Impact

Time
Global Study Timeline
 Baseline Survey
(India, 2007; Pakistan,
2008; Honduras, 200809; Peru, Ethiopia &
Yemen, 2010; Ghan...
Spill Over Design
Villages

Treatment
Communities

Control
Communities

Households

TT

www.poverty-action.org

TC

Non-el...
Ghana Evaluation Design

241 Communities (3,981 households)
Core Module:

Savings Only:

78 communities

77 communities

G...
Survey Modules
• Household
information
• Health indicators
• Education
• Consumption
• Income and activities
• Assets
• Cr...
Asset transfers
Honduras

chickens

Pakistan
goat

vegetable
production
plantains

sheep
hen

grocery
stores
fisheries

se...
Cross-Site Analysis

10
Household Consumption
Annual consumption in year following treatment
0.2

+ $115.97

% increase relative to control

+ $74...
Food Consumption
Food Consumption, Last 30 Days
0.14

+ $4.13

% increase relative to control

0.12
+ $4.16

0.1
+ $5.97

...
Above Poverty Line

www.poverty-action.org

13

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

0.9...
Food Security
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05

India (Bandhan)

www.poverty-action.org

Pakistan
14

Honduras

Treatment

Control...
Happiness

India (Bandhan)

www.poverty-action.org

Honduras
15

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

7.20
7...
Honduras: Returns to Chickens

0

.002

.004

.006

Chickens

-2000

-1000

0
x
Round 1
Round 3
Round 5

www.povertyaction...
Peru: Returns to Guinea Pigs
Number of Guinea Pigs Sold
6
5
4
3
2
1
May
2011

Sept
2011

Dec
2011

March
2012

June
2012

...
Peru: Returns to Guinea Pigs
Weekly Net Income from Guinea Pigs
6

4

2

0
May
2011

Sept
2011

Dec
2011

March
2012

June...
Take-away points
• Integrated approach: whole bigger than sum of
the parts?
• Early impacts quite positive, but not 100% o...
Thank You!
nbaddiri@poverty-action.org
www.poverty-action.org

20
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Graduation programs creating ladders out of extreme poverty nassreena sampaco baddiri

301 views
201 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
301
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In Ethiopia, poverty levels down by 30%,
  • Closer look at Honduras: Analysis ongoing.Returns to livelihood measures net value over a 1 month periodOverall Median: -14Overall Mean: 1.569Monthly returns to chickens:458 households had zero returns;1845 households had negative returnsAsset Selection: expensive to upkeep, not adapted to environment and circumstances, many died from illnessChickens that were given were not the typical chickens native to the area, they were more expensive and required special care. Households were encouraged to buy “concentrado” – a special, and more costly, chicken feed (as opposed to just feeding them maize). Furthermore, the chickens were maladapted to the environment and their specific circumstances – many of them died due to illness Across all 5 consumption surveys, 52.8% of households said they had chickens who died from disease in the past 3 months. The average number of chickens who died from disease (in past 3 months) is 12.60.
  • Graduation programs creating ladders out of extreme poverty nassreena sampaco baddiri

    1. 1. Impact of the Graduation Model: highlighting worldwide efforts Innovations for Poverty Action
    2. 2. Adaptation at 10 Sites • Adaptation sponsored by CGAP and Ford Foundation: Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, India (3), Ethiopia, Pakistan, Peru, Yemen • Randomized evaluations at 8 sites ( ) 2
    3. 3. Why Evaluate? • Thinking forward • Not looking backwards • What is the impact of the Graduation model on the ultra poor? – Impact evaluation measures: How have the lives of clients changed compared to how they would have changed in the absence of the program – Note this is different from “How have their lives changed” www.poverty-action.org 3
    4. 4. Primary Outcome What is impact? Intervention Impact Time
    5. 5. Global Study Timeline  Baseline Survey (India, 2007; Pakistan, 2008; Honduras, 200809; Peru, Ethiopia & Yemen, 2010; Ghana, 2011)  Randomizatio n Year 0  Endline Survey (India, 2009; Pakistan, 2011; Honduras, 2012; Ethiopia, 2012; Yemen, pending; Peru, 2013; Ghana, 2013) Year 1 Year 2  Implementation Begins India, 2007-08; Pakistan, 2008; Honduras, 2009; Ethiopia, 2010; Yemen, 2010-11; Peru, 2011; Ghana, 2011  Follow-up Surveys (India, 2010; Pakistan, Honduras & Ethiopia, 2013; Peru & Ghana, 2014) Pre-Baseline  Identification of Beneficiaries www.poverty-action.org Year 3 5
    6. 6. Spill Over Design Villages Treatment Communities Control Communities Households TT www.poverty-action.org TC Non-eligible 6 CC Non-eligible
    7. 7. Ghana Evaluation Design 241 Communities (3,981 households) Core Module: Savings Only: 78 communities 77 communities GUP – Savings GUP – No Savings Control www.poverty-action.org SOUP – Matched SOUP – Not Matched 7 Control Asset Only: 10 comm. Asset only Control: 76 comm. Pure Control
    8. 8. Survey Modules • Household information • Health indicators • Education • Consumption • Income and activities • Assets • Credit • Risk preferences • Ongoing qualitative research www.poverty-action.org 8
    9. 9. Asset transfers Honduras chickens Pakistan goat vegetable production plantains sheep hen grocery stores fisheries sewing machine boat pigs shoats Ethiopia oxen bee colony petty trade www.poverty-action.org 9
    10. 10. Cross-Site Analysis 10
    11. 11. Household Consumption Annual consumption in year following treatment 0.2 + $115.97 % increase relative to control + $74.35 0.15 + $183.12 0.1 0.05 - $20.40 0 -0.05 India (Bandhan) C: $528.39 www.poverty-action.org Pakistan C: $1622.79 Honduras C: $1644.31 11 Ethiopia C: $670.74
    12. 12. Food Consumption Food Consumption, Last 30 Days 0.14 + $4.13 % increase relative to control 0.12 + $4.16 0.1 + $5.97 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 + $0.21 0 India (Bandhan) www.poverty-action.org Pakistan Honduras 12 Ethiopia
    13. 13. Above Poverty Line www.poverty-action.org 13 Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Control Proportion of Households Households Above US$1.25/day PPP
    14. 14. Food Security 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 India (Bandhan) www.poverty-action.org Pakistan 14 Honduras Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment 0.00 Control Proportion of Households Ever cut the size of children's meals? Ethiopia
    15. 15. Happiness India (Bandhan) www.poverty-action.org Honduras 15 Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment 7.20 7.00 6.80 6.60 6.40 6.20 6.00 5.80 5.60 Control Happiness Index Happiness Ethiopia
    16. 16. Honduras: Returns to Chickens 0 .002 .004 .006 Chickens -2000 -1000 0 x Round 1 Round 3 Round 5 www.povertyaction.org 16 1000 Round 2 Round 4 2000
    17. 17. Peru: Returns to Guinea Pigs Number of Guinea Pigs Sold 6 5 4 3 2 1 May 2011 Sept 2011 Dec 2011 March 2012 June 2012 Round Control www.poverty-action.org Treatment 17 Sept 2012 Jan 2013
    18. 18. Peru: Returns to Guinea Pigs Weekly Net Income from Guinea Pigs 6 4 2 0 May 2011 Sept 2011 Dec 2011 March 2012 June 2012 Round Control www.poverty-action.org Treatment 18 Sept 2012 Jan 2013
    19. 19. Take-away points • Integrated approach: whole bigger than sum of the parts? • Early impacts quite positive, but not 100% of time – When does it work, when does it not? • Improving the model: – Which program components are most useful? – Compare to cash 19
    20. 20. Thank You! nbaddiri@poverty-action.org www.poverty-action.org 20

    ×