Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Graduation programs creating ladders out of extreme poverty nassreena sampaco baddiri

475 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

×