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

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

    1. 1. Ultra Poor Graduation Pilots:Spanning the gap between charity & microfinance Nathanael Goldberg, Policy Director Valladolid, November 14, 2011
    2. 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. 3. Ultra Poor Graduation ModelSource: CGAP (
    4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 11. Impact: What is it?Primary Outcome Intervention Impact Time
    12. 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. 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. 14. Survey Modules Household information Health indicators Education Consumption Income and activities Assets Credit Risk preferences Ongoing qualitative research
    15. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 22. Thank You!