Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Nathanael Goldberg Deeper Look - Programs that work with ultra-poor
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Nathanael Goldberg Deeper Look - Programs that work with ultra-poor


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • IPA is conducting 7 of the randomized evaluations
  • Note costs are for pilots: cost reduction are anticipated with high # of participants (eco of scale etc). - the costs are "all inclusive" (like a holiday package), and for the whole 18 months to 3 years of the program- Haiti has a VERY different cost structure than anywhere else (high costs of input, staff motorcycles, salaries, low population density etc etc)
  • Transcript

    • 1. Ultra Poor Graduation Pilots:Spanning the gap between charity & microfinance Nathanael Goldberg, Policy Director Valladolid, November 14, 2011
    • 2. Ultra Poor Graduation Model Program designed by BRAC to target ultra poor households  Holistic approach: support household needs for savings, financial education, skills training, healthcare Targeting  Use PWR to identify ultra poor households
    • 3. Ultra Poor Graduation ModelSource: CGAP (
    • 4. Why not just microfinance?Substantial numbers of clients do not take uptraditional productsCOUNTRY FIELD PARTNER PRODUCT TAKE-UP RATE (%)Mexico Compartamos Credit 4Peru Arariwa Credit 7.9South Africa Credit Indemnity Credit 8.7Ghana Opportunity International Credit 1.8Philippines Green Bank Insurance 27Philippines Green Bank Insurance 46Kenya K-Rep Development Agency Savings 55Philippines First Isabela Cooperative Bank Savings 2.5Philippines First Valley Bank Savings 23Philippines Green Bank Savings 28
    • 5. Who are the Ultra Poor:Consumption In past 12 months, did HH members get enough food? Large share of expenses spent on food and fuel: Yemen No  Pakistan: 54% of total 18.6 % budget  India: 72% Some  Peru: 70% Months 45  Yemen: 69% of stipend % Majority have at least 2 All Year No Not Enough Some Months I Dont Know meals a day 11%  India: 62% Pakistan  Pakistan: 75% Yes 33%  Yemen: 87.5%  Ethiopia: 83% Some But, seasonality Months 56%
    • 6. Who are the Ultra Poor: Income-Generating Activities Pakistan Type of activities: ACTIVITY OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD Percent  India: Farming Land 2.15  12% report agricultural tending animals 1.43 labor as main source of Selfemployed in business 3.06 Fishing 2.99 income Housework 6.05 Agricultural labor 6.84  1% cultivate land owned by Daily labor fishing 15.49 household Daily Labor Other 40.04 Formal Employment Salaried 3.45  Pakistan: Does not work 13.15 Other 5.34  Avg 1.4 activities Total 100  13% no activities  Main activity is daily labor in agriculture or fishing  Only 2% cultivate land they own
    • 7. Who are the Ultra Poor: School Enrollment Percent Enrolled 0.99 1 0.94 0.76 0.790.80.6 0.40.4 0.330.2 0 India Pakistan Peru (6-12) Peru (13- Honduras Honduras 16) (6-12) (13-16)
    • 8. Who are the Ultra Poor:Health Shocks  India:29% of selected HH experience 1 or more health shock in past year  Pakistan: Medical expenses 12% of HH budget Access to care  More than 1 hour to nearest health center  Peru: 24-30%  Honduras: 28-58%
    • 9. Adaptation at 10 Sites Adaptation sponsored by CGAP and Ford Foundation: Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, India(3), Ethiopia, Pakistan, P eru, Yemen Randomized evaluation at 8 sites
    • 10. Why Evaluate? 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”
    • 11. Impact: What is it?Primary Outcome Intervention Impact Time
    • 12. Why do we need a control group? What does it mean when your clients face:  Macroeconomic changes (+/-) program is good! My  Agricultural shocks (+/-) My program is bad!  Price shocks (-) My program is bad!  New road (+) My program is good!  Government subsidies (+) My program is good! The control group gives us the counterfactual  A randomized control group ensures we compare similar types of people
    • 13. Study Design  Collect data on eligible households Baseline  Some sites: also collect data from non-ultra poor householdsConsumptio  Many sites have quarterly surveys to n surveys monitor changes  Survey re-applied to baseline Endline households after 2 yearsFollow-up  1 year after Endline- track more long- term impacts survey
    • 14. Survey Modules Household information Health indicators Education Consumption Income and activities Assets Credit Risk preferences Ongoing qualitative research
    • 15. Cost per client Cost Includes: Country Cost/client (US$)  Consumption support India $330-$650  Asset transfer Haiti $1,900  Staff costs  Head office overhead Proportion of cost spent on each program component varies by country Which parts of the program create the most impact?  Need evaluations to separate contributions of individual components
    • 16. Ghana Ultra Poor Pilot Design 241 Communities (3,981 households) Asset Control:Core Module: Savings Only: Only: 7678 communities 77 communities 10 comm. comm. control asset only PureRegular Regular Matched HH HH controlSusu UP only Susu control HH Savings HHSavings HH Savings HH& UP HH HH Randomize communities, then households  Measure spillovers of program by comparing „pure‟ control households with control households in treatment communities Next year: randomize employment program
    • 17. Initial Results: Bandhan Increase in food consumption  mean difference of Rs. 64 per person per month  represents 15% of control group mean  greater than 25% for excluding those who refused participation little indication of increase in non-food consumption
    • 18. Initial Results: Bandhan Increased Food Security  less likely to skip or reduce meals, especially among adults Health  Increase in health knowledge (hand washing, etc.)  Decreased emotional stress and increased life satisfaction  Little impact on physical health
    • 19. Initial Results: SKS No significant increases in consumption  Shift in income: agriculture  livestock 8% less likely to receive “below the poverty line” rations No impact on children in school Decreased amounts of outstanding loans by 84% of initial average amount  Less likely to borrow from money lender
    • 20. Initial Results: SKS  More likely to be saving, impact on amount is uncertain  Health  Reported being sick less: lost 2 fewer work days (in month prior to interview) to sickness (which is 56% of baseline number of days lost)  12% less likely to have gone to doctor/hospital in past year
    • 21. Take-away points Integrated approach: Ultra Poor Graduation Model takes holistic approach to addressing needs of households in extreme poverty Evaluation is essential: Does the graduation program help ultra poor to generate income, build up assets, increase consumption? RCTs answer these questions. Early impacts mixed but promising: Initial results tentatively suggest model is working, but long-term results will be key Improving the model: Which program components are most useful?  Ghana evaluation will explore this question by randomizing program components  Suggest most cost-effective way to scale program
    • 22. Thank You!