Published on

Published in: Technology
  • 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


  1. 1. Gendered Impact of BRAC’s Ultra Poor Programme Md. Kamruzzaman Nusrat Z Hossain Jinnat Ara Wameq A Raza Narayan C Das
  2. 2. The Research and Evaluation Division of BRAC• Established in 1975 as an independent unit within BRAC• Largest research unit within an NGO (nearly 100 full- time staff)• A multidisciplinary research environment• Primarily mandated to provide research support to BRAC programmes: • Design, implementation and fine-tuning • Impact evaluation
  3. 3. BRAC response to ultra-poverty:Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction(CFPR)Programme Background:• BRAC learned from its 40 yrs of experience through a number of programmes (such as IGVGD)• In order to build the bridge between the ultra poor and mainstream poverty, BRAC innovated CFPR• Although predominantly a grant-based approach, it adopts a holistic attitude in dealing with ultra poverty reduction• Lunching in 2002, CFPR has already covered about 400,000 ultra poor households
  4. 4. Programme Background (cont’d)• Three staged targeting• Income Generating Assets(IGA) selection and training (usually livestock/poultry/nursery or a combination through expert consultation)• The finally selected ultra-poor were then provided income generating assets (IGA) worth ~USD $200• Continued multifaceted training over the next 24 months• Total cost per beneficiary: ~USD $292
  5. 5. Why women were targeted by CFPR Work considered suitable for women in both treatment and control area:• The assets provided by the programme are considered to be very suitable for women given that, especially in the rural context, women rarely leave their homes. These assets can be taken care of without leaving the homestead premises• While taking care of the assets, women are usually helped by their family members, especially children Work considered suitable for men in both treatment and control area:• Assets outside the home are considered better for the men as they tend to go outside their homes, significantly more so than their female counterparts• Men usually do not opt to take care of assets provided by the programme as they spend significant amounts of time outside the household
  6. 6. Sample Design: 2007-2009 40 Branch offices 20 ‘control’ branch 20 ‘treatment’ branch All villages All villagesAll primarily selected HH All primarily selected HH 10% of the(finally selected + those 10 % of the rest of the (finally selected + those rest of the who failed to make the HH who failed to make the HH final selection) final selection)
  7. 7. Current Status:• Quantitative survey on socio-economic status completed (third and final round)• Qualitative study: first draft completed• Quantitative questionnaire for asset ownership and control developed, to be implemented during mid-November to December,2011
  8. 8. Qualitative StudyObjective:• To get an insight of the gender aspects related to the asset holding• To collect detailed information about the gender disaggregated asset ownership issues which generally can not be explored directly through quantitative studies• Due to the randomized nature of the data, we try to ascertain pertinent quantitative questions using the results from the qualitative exploration
  9. 9. Data: Qualitative ExplorationStudy area Data collection & analysis method• One district (Rangpur) • 15 FGDs: 9 in Treatment & 6 in Control area from Monga (seasonal Respondents: food insecurity) area -Women beneficiaries• One district from -Women non beneficiaries southern Bangladesh -Men (spouses of beneficiary women) (Madaripur) and • 6 In-depth interviews: Treatment area• One district (Netrokona) Respondents: from haor areas. -Programme staff• A total of six branch -Community people offices (one treatment • Data collection was carried out during and one control branch March- April, 2011. from each of the three districts) were covered by the qualitative study • Data was analyzed using the content analysis method
  10. 10. Extent of Asset Ownership: Study Findings• Control predominantly depends on the value of the assets in question. Low value assets such as food items and so forth are controlled by women, whereas income generating assets and so forth are controlled by the men• Men often tend to dominate when it comes to making decisions about family assets.• Women have the rights to sell household utensils, own attires and cosmetics and own cultivated vegetable.• Both men and the women can’t lend out products used by the other without permission• Decision of choosing heir is taken by both husband and wife• Where the women spend their own income is usually up to them, and this income usually pertains to very small scaled assets such as selling eggs, some vegetables and so forth from within their homesteads
  11. 11. Qualitative Study Findings Asset ownershipAssets typically owned Assets owned by Assets owned by womenjointly by men and women women (both areas) in treatment area  House  Poultry and egg  Items bought from own  Homestead  fruits, vegetables earned money  Cash money (earned from  Kitchen utensils  Poultry and livestock joint controlling assets/  Quilt/ pillow received from labor selling)  Women’s clothing programme  Mortgaged-in land and accessories  Radio  Own land (crops)  Cash money (from personal income)  Food (rice, pulse, sugar, salt)
  12. 12. Ownership of the assets transferred by CFPR/TUP (BRAC)• The beneficiaries women demanded the using rights of assets, given by programme, “He won’t take them. Even if he does, BRAC will give them back to me. I certainly will fight for the rights over my assets.” -Beneficiary Women, Rangpur.• Divorcees/widows hold the sole rights when it comes to selling her assets• Usually decisions about spending the lion’s share of the earning generated from the program assets are taken jointly by both husband and wife together• Women have the right to bequeath her CFPR assets to whomever she choosed
  13. 13. Findings reiterated initial thoughts on centering the programme around women:• “When assets are given to men they are too excited about getting these to concentrate on the ways to improve their fate through proper utilization. They become more reluctant and prefer spending more time in gossiping and smoking biri/cigarette or gambling”. - FGD, Beneficiary male spouse, Rangpur• One of the main reasons why men are not given the assets is that many of them are not considered responsible enough to be taking care of them adequately. Anecdotal evidence suggests men are prone to playing fast and loose with their assets• Women are primarily disadvantaged, and this transfer would promote their earning opportunity and empowerment, “It is better to give assets to the women. Because now even if the husbands want to sell them, wives would not let them do so” – FGD, Beneficiary male spouse, Rangpur
  14. 14. Project Impact on Beneficiary Women• Improved economic well-being• Improved human and social capital• Improved crisis coping mechanisms through savings and various asset accumulation• Spill-over effects• Improved family relationships
  15. 15. Thank You!