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.

Evidence on Graduation in Practice: Concern Worldwide's Graduation Programme in Rwanda

933 views

Published on

Rachel Sabates-Wheeler's (IDS) presentation at the Transfer Project Workshop in Arusha, Tanzania on 2nd April 2019.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Evidence on Graduation in Practice: Concern Worldwide's Graduation Programme in Rwanda

  1. 1. Evidence on Graduation in Practice: Concern Worldwide’s Graduation Programme in Rwanda Rachel Sabates-Wheeler IDS Transfer Project Workshop, Arusha 2 April 2019
  2. 2. Concern Rwanda’s “Graduation Programme”  Overall aim: Enable sustained exit from extreme poverty of poor households  Launched in May 2011, ran until Dec 2015  Supported extremely poor households with:  Cash transfer & enhanced savings  Skills development  Coaching and mentoring  Seed capital for investment in enterprise development
  3. 3. Huye Nyaruguru
  4. 4. The Research  Baseline information plus survey at 12 months (to assess immediate impacts).  After cash transfer: surveys at 18 & 36 months (to assess if impacts are sustained).  Two cohorts of beneficiaries & control group (to assess if changes are attributable).  Survey contains information on financial, social and human “key impact indicators”.  Quasi-experimental design: Difference in Differences
  5. 5. The Average Impact 1. Significant reductions in deprivation 2.55 2.49 2.88 4.35 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Control Beneficiary Baseline 12 Months
  6. 6. 2. Increased ownership of livestock  Cows (+)  Goats (+)  Pigs (+)  Chickens (+) 3. Increased ownership of productive assets  Mobile phone (+)  Radios (+)  Registered land (+)
  7. 7. 4. Increased ownership of consumption assets 10 13 10 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 Control Beneficiary Baseline 12 Months Value of assets in USD
  8. 8. 5. Increased savings 6. Increased investment in children’s education at secondary school level 7. Increased consumption of meat & vegetables 8. Use of preventative health measures & hygiene practices 9. Improved social cohesion All participants get access to health insurance
  9. 9. Graduation for Whom?
  10. 10. Sabates-Wheeler, R., R. Sabates and S. Devereux (2018). ‘Enabling graduation for whom? Identifying and explaining heterogeneity in livelihood trajectories post-cash transfer exposure’, Journal of International Development. Food Security Assets Livestock Clients Control Clients Control Clients Control 36m % 36m % 36m % 36m % 36m % 36m % Improvers 7.66 43 7 7 36 35 25 1 0.74 29 1 1 decliners 3.89 27 3.57 19 16 25 11 10 0 23 0.04 3 dropping out 3.98 13 3.39 57 15 24 11 77 0.1 24 0.08 82 late improvers 7.82 17 7 17 33 16 33 13 0.61 24 0.66 14
  11. 11. For food security and basic needs indicator:  56 % of ‘dropping out’ households are fhhds  only 37 % of ‘improvers’ are fhhds  ‘ improvers’ have more working-age adults compared to ‘dropping out’ households  Same trends and results hold for TLU and asset indicators  Initial asset base a strong determinant of trajectories  Complementary relationship between land and livestock  Strong location effect for ‘improvers Findings
  12. 12.  Heterogeneity in target populations means more nuance is needed in household support/package  Time horizon for graduation programmes (2–3 years) is usually too short  Building the evidence base for graduation requires substantial long-term investment in M&E  Incentives to graduate people – to demonstrate successful policies (governments) and value for money (donors) – can lead to premature graduation  Graduation is not possible for everyone – expectations must be realistic and must be managed Lessons

×