Concern Rwanda's graduation program aimed to help extremely poor households sustainably exit poverty through cash transfers, skills development, and investment support from 2011 to 2015. Research showed significant improvements in livestock ownership, asset accumulation, savings, education, and health among beneficiaries, though outcomes varied by household characteristics. The findings suggest that individualized support is essential, and realistic expectations for graduation timelines must be set.

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. 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. Huye
Nyaruguru

5. 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

6. 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

7. 2. Increased ownership of livestock
 Cows (+)
 Goats (+)
 Pigs (+)
 Chickens (+)
3. Increased ownership of productive assets
 Mobile phone (+)
 Radios (+)
 Registered land (+)

8. 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

9. 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

10. Graduation for Whom?

11. 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

12. 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

13.  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