Chars Livelihoods Programme

Graduation: Results & Lessons

CLP’s Graduation Criteria

Graduation criteria: why?

• Wage labour • Plinth• Access to water/ sanitation• Cash savings (Taka 2,400)• Assets of Taka 60,000

• Wage labour• NO plinth• NO access to water/ sanitation• Cash savings (Taka 500)• Assets of Taka 10,000

Can potentially still be

above the poverty line

1

Can potentially still be

below the poverty line

2

Developing CLP’s criteria (Timeline)

April 2010Second Phase of CLP begins

March 2011Annual Review team recommends CLP develop graduation criteria

September 2011CLP presents a two-step approach to graduation

March 2012Annual Review team recommends changes (one-step process)

March 2013Annual Review team tasked with reviewing graduation criteria

March 2014Annual Review team tasked with reviewing graduation criteria

March 2014Final graduation criteria and methodology agreed

November 2014First report published documenting graduation rates

Version 1LogFrame

Impact

Weighting

Definition Score, if

met

40% HH on raised plinth 14

Access to improved water 13

Access to sanitary latrine 13

30% Has productive assets Tk. 30,000 20

Member of VSL or other social group/committee 5

Savings Tk. 3,000 5

10% Knowledge of dowry law 5

Ash/soap visible at latrine 5

Annual reviews impact approach

March 2011:

Recommendation

March 2012:

2-step process

March 2013:

BMI, FCS, Assets

March 2014:

Assets/ cash,

water seals

% of HHs graduating, by cohort

66.781.3 86.7 91.1 98.7 98.8

89.7

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Overall

Target 85%

% of HHs meeting criteria

17.6

52.3 59.5 65.284.7 85.8 89.7 93.5 94.5 96.6

High High High

Low

LowLow

Cas

h s

avin

gs

Imp

rove

d w

ater

Pro

du

ctiv

e as

sets

Inco

me

sou

rces

Rai

sed

plin

th

San

itar

y la

trin

e

Infl

uen

ce d

ecis

ion

s

Ash

/ so

ap

Gro

up

mem

ber

3 m

eals

% of HHs graduating, by cohort, years after

CLP support ends

2.9

0 0 0 0.5

0.3

66

.7

81

.3 86

.7 91

.1 98

.7

88

81

.9

84

.1

92

.7

88

.4

96

.4

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 OVERALL

% o

f H

OU

SE H

OLD

S

Baseline End of Support At 2015

Pros and cons

• Multi-dimensional view of poverty

• Context specific

• People have different views• Time consuming to achieve

agreement• Difficult to change

Pros Cons

Lessons

• Early consultation important

• CLP criteria good but by no means perfect (cash savings, assets)

• They were over-reviewed• Community involvement• Think through data

collection, analysis and reporting framework early

Thank youwww.clp-bangladesh.org