Graduation programs creating ladders out of extreme poverty nassreena sampaco baddiri
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•524 vues
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (6)
Similaire à Graduation programs creating ladders out of extreme poverty nassreena sampaco baddiri
Similaire à Graduation programs creating ladders out of extreme poverty nassreena sampaco baddiri (20)
Plus de Microcredit Summit Campaign
Plus de Microcredit Summit Campaign (20)
Dernier
Dernier (10)
Graduation programs creating ladders out of extreme poverty nassreena sampaco baddiri
- 1. Impact of the Graduation Model: highlighting worldwide efforts Innovations for Poverty Action
- 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. 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. Primary Outcome What is impact? Intervention Impact Time
- 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
- 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. Survey Modules • Household information • Health indicators • Education • Consumption • Income and activities • Assets • Credit • Risk preferences • Ongoing qualitative research www.poverty-action.org 8
- 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
- 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. 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. 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. 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
- 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. 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. 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. 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
Notes de l'éditeur
- In Ethiopia, poverty levels down by 30%,
- Closer look at Honduras: Analysis ongoing.Returns to livelihood measures net value over a 1 month periodOverall Median: -14Overall Mean: 1.569Monthly returns to chickens:458 households had zero returns;1845 households had negative returnsAsset Selection: expensive to upkeep, not adapted to environment and circumstances, many died from illnessChickens that were given were not the typical chickens native to the area, they were more expensive and required special care. Households were encouraged to buy “concentrado” – a special, and more costly, chicken feed (as opposed to just feeding them maize). Furthermore, the chickens were maladapted to the environment and their specific circumstances – many of them died due to illness Across all 5 consumption surveys, 52.8% of households said they had chickens who died from disease in the past 3 months. The average number of chickens who died from disease (in past 3 months) is 12.60.