Assessing the multidimensions of poverty: a practical example of using MPAT by NURU
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Assessing the multidimensions of poverty: a practical example of using MPAT by NURU

on

  • 1,618 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,618
Views on SlideShare
1,451
Embed Views
167

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

5 Embeds 167

http://www.ifad.org 141
http://intradev 17
http://development.ifad.org 5
http://discdocdev.ifad.org 2
http://ifad.org 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Nuru’s M&E Team seeks to objectively monitor and evaluate the performance and impact of the Nuru Impact & Leadership Programs to ensure we meet our goal of ending extreme poverty in the communities where Nuru works
  • Nuru’s M&E Team seeks to objectively monitor and evaluate the performance and impact of the Nuru Impact & Leadership Programs to ensure we meet our goal of ending extreme poverty in the communities where Nuru works
  • Nuru’s M&E Team seeks to objectively monitor and evaluate the performance and impact of the Nuru Impact & Leadership Programs to ensure we meet our goal of ending extreme poverty in the communities where Nuru works
  • Nuru’s M&E Team seeks to objectively monitor and evaluate the performance and impact of the Nuru Impact & Leadership Programs to ensure we meet our goal of ending extreme poverty in the communities where Nuru works

Assessing the multidimensions of poverty: a practical example of using MPAT by NURU Presentation Transcript

  • 1. 1 Assessing the Multidimensions of Poverty Prepared by Veronica Olazabal, Nuru for Innovation made at IFAD: Launch of the Multidimensional Poverty Assessment Tool IFAD Headquarters, Rome, April 2014
  • 2. Nuru raises up local businesses and local leaders capable of co-designing integrated solutions to end extreme poverty in remote, rural areas throughout a nation. 2 A Sustainable, Scalable Grassroots Model
  • 3. Addressing Four Areas of Need ① Hunger ② Inability to cope with economic shocks ③ Preventable disease and death ④ Lack of quality education for children 3
  • 4. By the Numbers… Countries: Ethiopia; Kenya Acres of Maize Production: 6,236 Metric Tons of Fertilizers & Seed: 686 Farm Input Loan Valuation: USD $570,000 Total People Impacted: >30,000 4
  • 5. Why Does Nuru Measure Poverty?  World Bank estimates that 1.44 billion people are poor and living on $1.25 USD or less a day.  One-dimensional versus Multidimensional: Nuru defines poverty as access to meaningful choices to basic human rights, as defined by Amartya Sen.  By this definition, the number of people living in poverty increases to 1.71 billion, which is a more inclusive estimate.  If we are to meet our mission of ending poverty in remote, rural areas according to this poverty definition, we need a tool that can inform us of our progress toward addressing the multidimensions of poverty. 5
  • 6. Why Nuru implemented the MPAT  The survey tool was developed by 40+ experts in the field of poverty measurement and extensively piloted in the field1  It measures what we want to affect: the creation of an enabling environment for community members  Easily communicated and understood  Relatively straight-forward to conduct and analyze – we did it on a low budget and with a small staff.  Sum is greater than the parts: there is NOT a lot of overlap between the MPAT and our Program Indicators. We did not expect to be able to attribute results of the MPAT to specific program interventions but rather, to an overall change in the community as a whole. 6 1Quantifying the Qualitative: Eliciting Expert Input to Develop the Multidimensional Poverty Assessment Tool. Alasdair Cohen, Michaela Saisana. The Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 50, Iss. 1, 2014
  • 7. MPAT Implementation  Nuru Kenya implemented a baseline MPAT in May 2011 in sublocations in Kuria West District, Nyanza Province, Kenya  A follow-up was collected in May 2013 7
  • 8. How the MPAT was conducted  In 2011, Alasdair Cohen traveled to Kuria West Kenya to assist in facilitation of the work  A sampling frame for the two sub-locations was designed  Enumerators and data enterers were recruited and trained 8 MPAT enumerator training: First day (left), role playing with trainer (center) and role playing in groups (right)
  • 9. How the MPAT was conducted  Over four weeks, enumerators traveled to randomly chosen households and conducted surveys  Fifteen village surveys were conducted with government, healthcare, and education officials (MPAT recommends 16-30 villages)  Data was entered into the MPAT Excel model 9 Random sampling of HHs: Preparing numbers (left) and village elder selecting HHs (center) and Enumerator Supervisors instructing Enumerator Team which HHs to visit (right)
  • 10. Scores were generated for MPAT components in fifteen villages 10 MPAT Component values for 15 villages in Kuria District 0 20 40 60 80 100 Food & Nutrition Security Domestic Water Supply Health & Healthcare Sanitation & Hygiene Housing, Clothing & Energy Education Farm Assets Non-Farm Assets Exposure & Resilience to Shocks Gender & Social Equality Village 1, Bonkomo, Nyamaranya Village 2, Gukihuru A, Nyamaranya Village 3, Makonge, Nyamaranya Village 4, Muturio, Nyamaranya Village 5, Nyamaranya A, Nyamaranya Village 6, Seremu, Nyamaranya Village 7, Gaibose, Ngisiru Village 8, Karamu, Ngisiru Village 9, Kugisingisi, Ngisiru Village 10, Kuibu, Ngisiru Village 11, Kuigoto, Ngisiru Village 12, Moseta, Ngisiru Village 13, Ngisiru, Ngisiru Village 14, Nyamorasi, Ngisiru Village 15, Romasanda, Ngisiru MPAT Project Overview: Component values for 15 villages, 2011 Baseline
  • 11. In 2013, baseline scores were compared to the follow-up 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 Food & Nutrition Security Domestic Water Supply Health & Healthcare Sanitation & Hygiene Housing, Clothing & Energy Education Farm Assets Non-Farm Assets Exposure & Resilience to Shocks Gender & Social Equality Nuru Kenya MPAT 2013 Midpoint Overview Baseline Midpoint
  • 12. Results and Analysis  From baseline to follow-up point, a positive trend was seen in 7 out of 10 MPAT components, indicating lower poverty levels in the project area.  Two of the components show no significant change (Food & Nutrition Security and Farm Assets); while one cannot be calculated (Education) due to a lack of schools in the area.  For results between Nuru and non-Nuru members, Nuru farmers have statistically significant higher scores for the following components: Farm Assets, Non-Farm Assets, and Resilience to Shocks.  Because of the lack of a comparison group at baseline and because Nuru farmers opted into the program after the baseline was collected, the differences in the Nuru versus non-Nuru farmer scores cannot be attributed to Nuru programs because of the differences that may have existed at baseline. 12
  • 13. Lessons Learned  Complement not Supplement: A poverty assessment tool cannot take the place of project specific M&E but a tool like the MPAT can certainly support traditional M&E processes.  Attribution: Importance of a comparison group to demonstrate change linked to Nuru’s intervention. Trends from one time point to another may not be sufficient when addressing poverty shifts.  Weights and Ease of Analysis: Benefits of not developing custom weighting systems or analytical tools outweighs the cost of implementation. 13
  • 14. 14 Questions?