Banteay Mean Chey and Kampot Provinces · 2017. 9. 25. · program began in 2008. RACHA is a rural...

Emerging Markets Consulting, Ltd. 2nd Floor, The Hong Kong Centre, Samdech Sothearos Blvd, PO Box 737, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

+855 (23) 221890 [email protected] www.emergingmarkets.com.kh

Saving for Change’s Research Study in Banteay Mean Chey and Kampot

Provinces

Final Report – Evaluation and Baseline

Prepared by: EMERGING MARKETS CONSULTING AND MARC WANCER

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/

Oxfam_SfC_Final Report_EMC_v3.0 P a g e | 1

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................................................. 5

CURRENCIES AND OTHER UNITS OF MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................................ 5

MAP OF RESEARCH AREAS .......................................................................................................................................... 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 7

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 RESEARCH DESIGN OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 7 RACHA - OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CHALLENGES ............................................................................................................. 8 WHO IS BEING REACHED AND ARE THE VERY POOR JOINING? ..................................................................................................... 8 IMPACT OF SFC .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 10 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 IMPLICATIONS OF BASELINE FINDINGS FOR SFC EXPANSION ....................................................................................................... 11

RESEARCH PURPOSE AND GOALS .............................................................................................................................. 12

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

PHASE 1: BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................................... 12 PHASE 2: RACHA AND OXFAMAMERICA STAFF INTERVIEWS..................................................................................................... 13 PHASE 3: FIELDWORK ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 TEAM, PILOT AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 15 METHODOLOGY STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES ....................................................................................................................... 15

CAMBODIAN RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR .................................................................................................... 17

MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 17 RURAL CREDIT OPERATORS – REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED ................................................................................................. 19 INFORMAL SOURCES OF CREDIT ........................................................................................................................................... 20

BACKGROUND OF SFC PROGRAM IN CAMBODIA ....................................................................................................... 21

EVALUATION OF RACHA OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 22

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................................. 22 LINES OF REPORTING ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 STAFFING POSITIONS AND NUMBERS .................................................................................................................................... 23 STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................................................................... 24 DPF RECRUITMENT, COMPENSATION, STAFF DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 26 STAFF PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS..................................................................................................................................... 27 STAFF TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 PROGRAM METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 28 MONITORING AND EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................................... 31 SFC GROUPS STAGES OF INDEPENDENCE ............................................................................................................................... 32 RACHA-IDENTIFIED STRENGTHS OF SFC ............................................................................................................................... 32 RACHA IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................... 32

WHO IS BEING REACHED AND ARE THE VERY POOR JOINING? .................................................................................. 35

THE VERY POOR AND SFC – WHY THE LOW MEMBERSHIP RATES? ............................................................................................. 38 SUCCESSFUL STRUCTURES FOR PROMOTING ACCESS TO THE POOR ............................................................................................. 39 DO THE VERY POOR TEND TO JOIN LATE? .............................................................................................................................. 40


IMPACT OF SFC: SET 1 VILLAGES ................................................................................................................................ 40

INTERVIEWEE DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................. 41 SUMMARY OF MEMBER PERCEPTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 41 INCOME AND LIVELIHOODS ................................................................................................................................................. 42 SAVINGS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 43 LOANS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 46 ASSETS – HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURAL ........................................................................................................................... 49 HEALTH ........................................................................................................................................................................... 51 FOOD AND NUTRITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 51 EDUCATION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 53 RESILIENCE TO SHOCKS ....................................................................................................................................................... 53 EMPOWERMENT ............................................................................................................................................................... 54

GENDER ..................................................................................................................................................................... 55

CHANGES OVER THE LAST DECADE ....................................................................................................................................... 55 SFC IMPACT ON GENDER .................................................................................................................................................... 56

STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF SFC PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 57

STRENGTHS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 58 CHALLENGES .................................................................................................................................................................... 59

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 61

BASELINE SURVEY: SET 2 AND 3 VILLAGES ................................................................................................................. 64

VILLAGE CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................................................. 64 INTERVIEWEE DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................. 66

MEASUREMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS .............................................................................................. 67

LIVELIHOOD AND INCOME ................................................................................................................................................... 67 SAVINGS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 68 LOANS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 70 ASSETS – HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURAL ........................................................................................................................... 71 HEALTH ........................................................................................................................................................................... 73 FOOD AND NUTRITION ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 EDUCATION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 74 RESILIENCE TO SHOCKS ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 EMPOWERMENT AND GENDER ............................................................................................................................................ 76

IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS FOR SFC EXPANSION ..................................................................................................... 77

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................................. 79

APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................................ 79 APPENDIX B: FIELDWORK DETAILS ........................................................................................................................................ 85 APPENDIX C: RACHA ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... 87


List of Figures FIGURE 1: MAP OF FIELDWORK BY OPERATIONAL DISTRICTS ............................................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 2: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ......................................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 3: THE SHIFT OF FOCUS OF MFI TOWARD BETTER-OFF COMMUNITIES .................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 4: RACHA SFC STAFF POSITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 22 FIGURE 5: GROUP FORMATION PROCESS AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 6: SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR HH MEDICAL TREATMENT ................................................................................................. 51 FIGURE 7: SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR HH FOOD SHORTAGE ....................................................................................................... 52 FIGURE 8: SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR HH MEDICAL TREATMENT ................................................................................................. 73 FIGURE 9: SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR HH FOOD SHORTAGE ....................................................................................................... 74

List of Tables TABLE 1: DESCRIPTION OF VILLAGE CATEGORISATION ................................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF SET 1 FIELDWORK .................................................................................................................................. 14 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF BASELINE SET 2 AND 3 FIELDWORK ........................................................................................................... 15 TABLE 4: SELECT MFIS AND ACLEDA BANK - DEPOSITORS AND AMOUNTS AS OF MARCH 2010 ............................................................ 18 TABLE 5: RACHA’S SFC OPERATIONAL AREA AND MEMBERSHIP – AS OF JUNE 2010 ........................................................................ 21 TABLE 6: RACHA’S SFC LOANS AND MEMBERS’ EQUITY HIGHLIGHTS – AS OF JUNE 2010 ................................................................. 21 TABLE 7: RACHA STAFFING FOR SFC ........................................................................................................................................ 23 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES BY POSITIONS ................................................................................................ 25 TABLE 9: RACHA IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................... 33 TABLE 10: PPI SCORES ........................................................................................................................................................... 37 TABLE 11: ID POOR USED ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 TABLE 12: INCOME INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................ 38 TABLE 13: LAND OWNERSHIPS ................................................................................................................................................. 38 TABLE 14: GENDER, AGE GROUP AND MARITAL STATUS .............................................................................................................. 41 TABLE 15: PERCEIVED IMPACT OF SFC BY MEMBERS – KEY HIGHLIGHTS .......................................................................................... 41 TABLE 16: INCOME PATTERNS – MEMBERS VS. NON-MEMBERS ..................................................................................................... 43 TABLE 17: SAVING METHODS – MEMBERS VS. NON-MEMBERS...................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 18: SAVING HABITS – MEMBERS VS. NON-MEMBERS .......................................................................................................... 45 TABLE 19: THE USE OF PAYOUT ............................................................................................................................................... 45 TABLE 20: PLANNED USE OF PAYOUT ........................................................................................................................................ 45 TABLE 21: BORROWING PATTERN IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO JOINING SFC ........................................................................................... 47 TABLE 22: SOURCES AND REASONS FOR BORROWING IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO JOINING SFC .................................................................. 47 TABLE 23: CHARACTERISTICS OF SFC LOANS ............................................................................................................................... 47 TABLE 24: PURPOSE OF SFC LOANS .......................................................................................................................................... 48 TABLE 25: BORROWING PATTERN AFTER JOINING SFC ................................................................................................................. 49 TABLE 26: SOURCES AND REASONS FOR BORROWING FROM ADDITIONAL SOURCES AFTER JOINING SFC ................................................. 49 TABLE 27: PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OF OUTER WALL OF HH ......................................................................................... 49 TABLE 28: SELECTED HH ASSETS OWNED .................................................................................................................................. 50 TABLE 29: AGRICULTURAL ASSETS OWNED ................................................................................................................................. 50 TABLE 30: LIVESTOCK OWNED ................................................................................................................................................. 50 TABLE 31: FOOD AND NUTRITION ............................................................................................................................................. 52 TABLE 32: EVENTS AFFECTING HH ............................................................................................................................................ 53 TABLE 33: HOW SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EFFECT ............................................................................................................................ 53 TABLE 34: TYPICAL HH RESPONSE TO THE EVENT ........................................................................................................................ 54 TABLE 35: HH RECOVERY FROM THE EVENT ............................................................................................................................... 54 TABLE 36: DECISION MAKING PATTERNS IN HH .......................................................................................................................... 57 TABLE 37: AGE GROUP AND MARITAL STATUS ............................................................................................................................ 66 TABLE 38: HOUSEHOLD SIZE .................................................................................................................................................... 66 TABLE 39: LITERACY AND EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 67 TABLE 40: INCOME INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................ 67 TABLE 41: INCOME PATTERNS .................................................................................................................................................. 68


TABLE 42: PPI SCORES ........................................................................................................................................................... 68 TABLE 43: SAVING HABITS ...................................................................................................................................................... 69 TABLE 44: SAVING METHODS AMONG THOSE WHO SAVE ............................................................................................................. 69 TABLE 45: SOURCES OF BORROWING ........................................................................................................................................ 70 TABLE 46: REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 70 TABLE 47: CHARACTERISTICS OF SFC LOANS ............................................................................................................................... 71 TABLE 48: PURPOSE OF LOANS ................................................................................................................................................ 71 TABLE 49: PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OF OUTER WALL OF HH ......................................................................................... 72 TABLE 50: SELECTED HH ASSETS OWNED .................................................................................................................................. 72 TABLE 51: AGRICULTURAL ASSETS OWNED ................................................................................................................................. 72 TABLE 52: LIVESTOCK OWNED ................................................................................................................................................. 73 TABLE 53: FOOD AND NUTRITION ............................................................................................................................................. 74 TABLE 54: EVENTS AFFECTING HH ............................................................................................................................................ 75 TABLE 55: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EFFECT .............................................................................................................................. 75 TABLE 56: TYPICAL HH RESPONSES TO THE EVENT ....................................................................................................................... 76 TABLE 57: HH RECOVERY FROM THE EVENT ............................................................................................................................... 76 TABLE 58: DECISION MAKING IN HOUSEHOLDS ........................................................................................................................... 77


Acronyms

APC Assistant Provincial Coordinator

BMC Banteay Mean Chey

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate

DCA Dan Church Aid

DPF District Project Facilitator

ECOSORN Economic and Social Relaunch of Northern Provinces

FGD Focus Group Discussion

HA Hectare

HH Household

ID Poor Identification of Poor Households Program

IFAD/RULIP International Fund for Agricultural Development/Rural Livelihood Improvement Project

KHR Khmer Riel

MFI Microfinance Institution

OD Operational District

PC Project Coordinator

PF Project Facilitator

PNP Phnom Penh

PO Project Officer

PVH Preah Vihear

RACHA The Reproductive Child and Health Alliance

SCW Save Cambodia Wildlife

SHG Self Help Groups

THB Thai Baht

THD Thailand

$ United States Dollar

Currencies and Other Units of Measurements

1 $ = KHR 4,000 100 THB = KHR 10,000 1 Kilogram = 4 Cans of Rice


Map of Research Areas

Figure 1: Map of Fieldwork by Operational Districts

Kampot: 2 Operational Districts

Banteay Mean Chey: 5 Operational Districts


Executive Summary

Background Savings for Change (SfC) is a savings-led microfinance program designed by OxfamAmerica and implemented by local partners. Catering to the rural poor, it is based on the premise that the rural poor require access to savings products, and not only credit. SfC offers a structured and safe savings mechanism, with less risk of loss than traditional savings methods, such as hiding cash at home or buying livestock. SfC calls for the implementing partner’s staff to train groups who meet and save regularly, and which are self-governing. Groups include 10-20 members, the majority whom are women. The savings are used to make loans to other members. The interest builds the group fund and remains with the group, offering a return on savings. At the end of the “savings cycle”, interest plus savings are paid out. SfC has been operational in Cambodia since 2005. Currently, the main partner is RACHA whose SfC program began in 2008. RACHA is a rural health organization, working with the Ministry of Health to deliver programs through community based health facilities. As of June 2010, RACHA had formed 738 groups with 10,547 members in Banteay Mean Chey and Preah Vihear provinces. RACHA’s goal is to reach 20,000 members by December 2011, building its presence in existing operational areas, as well as expanding to Siem Reap and Pursat provinces.

Research Design Overview The purpose of the SfC research study is to examine the current operations and impact of the program in Cambodia, and to conduct a baseline study. A summary of the specific research goals are: (a) To review and analyze salient aspects of SfC’s operational structure, as it is being implemented by RACHA; (b) to identify membership income and poverty levels, assessing if the “very poor” are joining; (c) to assess the impact of SfC on member household’s income and livelihoods, savings, loans, assets, health, food security, education, resilience to shocks and empowerment; (d) to examine the impact of SfC on gender roles and relationships; and (e) to measure, in the baseline villages, the level of the same economic and social factors examined in SfC villages, so as to be able to track future impacts. The research will provide the feedback and framework for adjustments to the program, and will help inform its planned expansion. The research included extensive fieldwork, combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It was conducted over a period of 5 weeks in Banteay Mean Chey and Kampot provinces, in 8 villages in which SfC is operational and 16 baseline villages in which the program will be introduced over the next two years.1 The research also relied heavily on interviews with 18 RACHA staff, ranging in level from senior management to field officers, as well as meetings with OxfamAmerica personnel and industry experts, and a review of previous SfC studies. A key strength of the research methodology was the complimentary blend of individual and RACHA interviews, and FGDs, offering significant insight into operational aspects of the program, as well as its impact.

1 SfC village fieldwork included 102 individual interviews with members and non-members and 30 FGDs. In baseline

villages 464 interviews were conducted coupled with FGDs with local leaders.


RACHA - Operational Structure and Challenges RACHA is a strong, highly committed partner with over 50 staff dedicated to SfC. Their knowledge of the program and the communities in which they operate is invaluable. Although organizational structure is somewhat hierarchical, in practice it is decentralized with flexibility at the field level. Teamwork is strong, and supervisors offer substantial support, working closely with field staff. With SfC’s expansion, RACHA has faced challenges building commensurate capacity in staffing, operations and program delivery, while integrating SfC into its operational structure. None of the challenges are especially unusual for an organization adding a new program. Of importance is that RACHA continues to adapt and make adjustments as is needed. Perhaps the most pressing staffing issue, and one identified by RACHA staff is the compensation package of District Project Facilitators (DPF). As the “face of the program”, DPFs promote and train groups, working long hours, often in remote locations. They play a critical role in the sustainability of the program, yet their compensation is comparatively low and they receive no health or travel benefits. RACHA’s monitoring processes have been enhanced with the introduction of a series of reports and plans, accompanied by upgrades to the MIS. The reporting and data collection, although considerably more thorough, is not yet entirely conducted in a consistent and timely manner. This deficiency could hinder the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation, the ability to implement corrective measures and adequately inform larger strategic decisions. Currently, RACHA allocates significant resources to group formation and training. A demanding process, this phase is an invaluable and unique aspect of the SfC methodology. However, upon completion of this stage, staff involvement varies, and in instances slows down precipitously. Members commend RACHA on the training and its content, but would like greater ongoing support. Such a shift could prove worthwhile, strengthening groups, attracting members and addressing issues in a timely manner. By creating strong initial groups additional groups will be encouraged to form in the same village.

Who Is Being Reached and Are the Very Poor Joining? SfC tends to attract moderately poor to medium income populations more so than the very poor.2 Although somewhat anecdotal, the research identifies possible grounds for the low membership rates of the very poor segments of the population. Often the case is that they perceive themselves as being “too poor to save”, as well as being socially, economically and geographically isolated. There are also features inherent to the sustainability of the SfC model, which do not necessarily favor the inclusion of the very poor, such as the implicit credit risk associated with their membership in groups. Noteworthy is that qualitative data suggests no explicit exclusion of the very poor by other members, and that groups in principal are open to everyone. Successful structures for promoting access to the very poor include weekly savings; careful promotion using case studies; and collaboration with local leaders to ensure attendance at

2

This is largely substantiated by our research using Progress Out of Poverty scores, ID Poor rankings, the measurement of assets and land ownership and qualitative data. See body of report for details.


promotional meetings. An indirect but effective method is through the presence of strong groups, influencing the very poor to form their own groups.

Impact of SfC SfC is in an early stage of implementation, in most cases less than 12 months. As a result there is minimal economic impact but members do perceive social and cognitive benefits. Overall, members view SfC positively and appreciate the financial services and opportunities of membership, as well as its presence in the community.

Loans and Savings

Members recognize the value of SfC loans and savings products. Loans, although small, offer low interest, require no collateral, and can be easily and quickly accessed for multiple purposes, including emergency or consumption. Members appreciate interest income remaining within the group and the community. The main perceived weakness is that group savings and available loans are often too small, limiting their usefulness.

Most members have previously borrowed from MFIs or moneylenders. Once becoming members, 75% use SfC loans but still continue to rely on other sources of credit, albeit to a lesser extent.3 SfC loans are primarily used for agricultural, livestock and business activities, followed by health related expenses. Typically, the average SfC loan size is KHR 147,500 ($37) with a 3-month term, and an interest rate of 2% per month. SfC creates savings awareness, influencing knowledge as well as savings habits. Of the members who report having money left over after expenses, 70% deposit funds into SfC. Members continue to utilize traditional methods of saving but less so than previously. As would be expected from the program methodology, almost 50% of members save a planned amount regularly, versus 11% of non-members. Clearly, awareness about savings methods is being built. In addition, members perceive SfC as a planning tool even if specific goals are often not defined. This presents an opportunity to offer members an “investment plan”, defining goals, monthly amounts and payments, creating a savings incentive with a tangible goal.

Health

Medical and health related expenses play a significant role in household expenditures. To cover these costs, members rely on income as their primary option, but often this falls short. Thus, people are dependent on other sources, such as moneylenders or selling of assets. Increasingly members utilize SfC, and appear to rely less on moneylenders for medical treatment than do non-members.

Social and Gender

Members identify SfC with building trust amongst the community. On a household level, it fosters planning with couples jointly participating in savings and decision-making activities. SfC positively impacts women’s sense of empowerment through leadership positions, knowledge building, and

3

The small available SfC loan size necessitates members to access MFIs or moneylenders. Low interest rates and flexibility of repayment, respectively from MFIs and moneylenders, can also influence the source of funds.


greater financial independence. SfC seems to provide an especially positive educational and leadership opportunity for the young women who are committee members. They are strongly encouraged to serve by others, and for many it is their first leadership position in the community.

Challenges and Limitations The key challenges and limitations of the SfC program and its implementation are summarized below and expanded upon in greater detail in the body of the report.

OxfamAmerica’s SfC Capacity in Cambodia

Since the program’s inception in Cambodia, SfC’s development has experienced few but noteworthy challenges in part due to organizational capacity. The reasons are complex, but include having an insufficient level of field and office staff to support the program, a lack of a formal partner evaluation process, and varying approaches to working with partners.

Clear Definition of Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

The SfC model can be complex as the methodology is designed by OxfamAmerica, yet is implemented in the field by RACHA. Therefore, its success relies on clear communication, and both organizations’ alignment of goals and programmatic mission. Occasionally this has posed a challenge and is deserving of attention going forward.

SfC Model

The SfC structure has its inherent limitations. Savings mobilization is not always adequate to meet credit needs and can cause members to access loans elsewhere. Increasing savings levels addresses insufficient loan capital but mandates higher savings, excluding very poor segments of the population. Also, there are inherent risks associated with a larger pool of capital, especially without the commensurate credit expertise. With no “formal” protection for depositors, sizable defaults could severely impact members. Lastly, the usefulness of SfC loans for significant income generating activities is limited by their small size and short term.

Competition

SfC faces competition from MFIs and NGOs, the latter often offering value-added services and matching funds. The challenge for SfC is to offer “mission-driven” financial services, while remaining competitive. Competition can be addressed in a myriad of ways such as emphasizing the benefits of SfC methodology, providing groups with basic start up materials, and incorporating services such as “investment planning” or linkages with health benefits, such as micro-health insurance.

Recommendations RACHA has ambitious expansion goals, which require careful consideration of organizational capacity, program delivery methods, as well as long-term sustainability. It necessitates ongoing communication between RACHA and OxfamAmerica, with clear explanations of expectations and where necessary, additional support. The scale of the planned expansion of SfC warrants consideration of new targeting strategies, such as pre-screening of villages, and reducing resources allocated to communities not meeting


appropriate criteria. SfC expansion should also focus on leveraging communities where strong groups already operate. Monitoring and evaluation should ideally be conducted in an accurate, consistent and timely manner. RACHA must strive to ensure that the staff understands the purpose and usefulness of reports, plans, and MIS data. The information should be routinely used for monitoring and evaluation purposes. RACHA has the opportunity to take advantage of in-house, health related competencies to jointly deliver a health and savings message. As of yet, this “health message” does not seem to be formally incorporated into SfC. This strategy has been identified by senior management as being central to the sustainability of SfC. As RACHA plans for the long-term, it will be important to engage in ongoing analysis and evaluation of SfC program outcomes and performance, operations, as well as support and resources. Such an evaluation when combined with targeting and growth strategies will be helpful in reaching program expansion goals.

Implications of Baseline Findings for SfC Expansion The baseline will allow for future measurement of impact in 16 expansion villages. The research offers an opportunity to evaluate the potential for SfC to operate in these communities and identifies key synergies between community needs and opportunities afforded by SfC. Analysis of baseline data suggests SfC could be expanded. Expansion comes with many of the external and programmatic challenges highlighted in the body of this report but nonetheless presents a feasible opportunity. Almost 65% of respondents have money left over after expenses but few save a planned amount regularly. This represents a chance to create savings awareness and change habits. Almost half of baseline respondents save at home; SfC could offer a safer and more lucrative alternative. Baseline households also incur significant medical expenses. SfC, especially when coupled with a health component, might offer an attractive solution to meeting these costs.


Research Purpose and Goals

The purpose of the SfC research study is to examine and evaluate the operational structure and impact of the SfC program in Cambodia, and to conduct a baseline study. The latter will serve as the first segment of a longitudinal program in which the same locations will be examined at intervals over the next two years, allowing for OxfamAmerica to track impact and to obtain regular feedback on the operations of the program. The findings of the research study will provide insight and the framework for adjustments to SfC, helping to inform the program’s continued expansion. The main research goals as outlined in the TOR are as follows:

To examine the operational structure of the SfC program, including a study of RACHA’s SfC operations, with an emphasis on reporting lines, roles and responsibilities, challenges and solutions, programmatic suggestions, and methods for staging SfC groups’ independence.

To identify who in the community SfC is reaching and if the very poor are joining.4 Examine membership demographics with special attention to income and poverty measures. Identify the range of income levels within the community and the profile of SfC members; the membership trends of the poorest members; and the structures that are best suited for promoting their access to SfC groups.

To assess the impact of SfC on members’ income and livelihoods, savings, loans, assets, health, food security, education, resilience to shocks and empowerment.

To study gender constraints and relationships, and how SfC impacts gender relations. Look at gender roles and relationships in the family and village, how they have changed and the changes that have given more equal opportunities.

In the baseline villages to measure the current level of income and livelihoods, savings, loans, assets, health, food security, education, resilience to shocks and empowerment and gender to be able to track future impacts.

The research study called for extensive fieldwork in SfC and baseline villages, as well as RACHA staff interviews, meetings with OxfamAmerica staff and industry experts, and an in-depth literature review.

Methodology

The program evaluation and baseline survey was conducted in several phases between February and July 2010.

Phase 1: Background Research This phase included the review of SfC evaluations and baseline studies previously conducted in Mali, El Salvador and Cambodia, facilitating the design of the data collection tools and informing the fieldwork process.5 Interviews with industry experts at CARE and World Vision, which operate comparable savings led microfinance programs, were conducted.

4 Using existing poverty measures identify poor households. Poverty measures utilized are those from the Cambodian

Ministry of Planning’s Identification of Household Poor (“ID Poor”) program. 5 Please see Appendix A: Literature Review


Phase 2: RACHA and OxfamAmerica Staff Interviews Starting with senior management, we conducted 18 in-depth interviews with multiple levels of RACHA staff based in Phnom Penh, Banteay Mean Chey (“BMC”) and Preah Vihear (“PVH”). This interface offered a comprehensive understanding of the program’s operations, and staffs’ perceptions of the program. Conducted concurrently with fieldwork it provided a logical point of reference for program related discussions. RACHA staff was extremely helpful in collaborating with the research. Their willingness to engage and discuss topics speaks highly to their commitment to SfC and to RACHA.

Our meetings with OxfamAmerica staff, including the SfC Program Coordinator, Research Coordinator, and the Deputy Regional Director, offered essential background information and history of the SfC program in Cambodia.

Phase 3: Fieldwork Fieldwork took place in 24 villages in Banteay Mean Chey and Kampot.6 Utilizing qualitative and quantitative data collection tools, fieldwork took place over a period of 33 days between May 9th and June 18th. Two teams used a rolling approach, moving from one village to the next as targets were reached. Team members convened daily to discuss preliminary findings and review fieldwork methodology. The fieldwork was apportioned in three sets (See Table 1). For simplicity we have separated the discussion of fieldwork into two sections – SfC villages and baseline villages.

Table 1: Description of Village Categorisation

Set Purpose Description

Set 1 Villages

Evaluation of SfC program.

8 villages in BMC province in which the SfC program is currently being implemented by RACHA.

Set 2 Villages

Treatment villages for baseline study.

8 villages equally divided between BMC and Kampot where the program will be delivered within 6 months after the study.

Set 3 Villages

Control villages for baseline study.

8 villages equally divided between BMC and Kampot, where the program is not implemented and will not be in place for at least 2 years.

Set 1 Villages – SfC Villages

Fieldwork commenced with SfC villages in Banteay Mean Chey. OxfamAmerica randomly selected villages from a pre-screened group to ensure that research was conducted only in communities where SfC groups had been formed by RACHA, not the previous implementing partner. There was no prior contact with village leaders or local RACHA field staff. This was intentional so as to prevent communities being “prepped” for our arrival, potentially biasing data. Our approach called for the team to enter the village, meet with the village leader and inquire about SfC groups. Working with SfC leaders the team obtained SfC membership lists, and organized FGDs and individual interviews. Members and non-members were randomly selected for individual interviews. Between 1 and 2 days was spent in each Set 1 village.

6 Please see Appendix B: Fieldwork Details


As per the below table, Set 1 fieldwork included 102 individual interviews, evenly divided amongst members and non-members.7 This was coupled with a total of 30 FGDs comprised of member sub-groups, and local leaders.

Table 2: Summary of Set 1 Fieldwork

Province District Villages (#) Interview (#) FGD (#)

Banteay Mean Chey Preah Net Preah 4 49 14

Phnom Srok 4 53 16

Total 2 8 102 30

The individual questionnaire was mostly quantitative with a few qualitative questions. Questionnaires were logically organized by topic. Open-ended questions encouraged interviewees to share opinions and expand on earlier answers. Questionnaires made use of research studies previously conducted by the team in Cambodia, as well as those utilized for SfC studies in Mali.8 Individual interviews took up to 1.5 hours each. As certain topics were sensitive in nature, the team was careful to ensure confidentiality; to create a safe environment in which interviewees didn’t feel threatened; and when possible to interview individuals in private. FGDs comprised poor, women, committee, and non-committee members (regardless of income status or gender). Each FGD had 3-5 participants and used a guided but flexible format. The small group size promoted an informal environment, giving the opportunity for all members to participate. Cultural norms often influenced the level of participant involvement. The team was respectful of these dynamics but also encouraged everyone to participate. FGDs were useful in gauging the range of SfC membership opinions. They provided insight into key topics and helped to identify recurring themes. Meeting with local leaders provided a comprehensive perspective of the community, giving insight into economic and social characteristics.

Sets 2 and 3 - Baseline Villages

The 16 baseline villages were randomly selected to meet desired treatment and control village characteristics. Fieldwork commenced in Banteay Mean Chey and concluded in Kampot. In Banteay Mean Chey the team worked in a high number of backup villages as RACHA had unexpectedly already rolled out the program in several primary villages, making them ineligible for Set 2 or Set 3 classification. Interviewees were randomly chosen from each of two sub-groups - “very poor” and moderately poor. We used the MOP-GTZ database to identify and randomly select very poor (P1/P2) households. In the 5 villages without GTZ database information we relied on poor household identification lists developed by Poor Family Development and provided by the village chief. 9 Moderately poor households were randomly selected using paper ballots.

7 Each category included “poor” interviewees (ID Poor) and moderate poor; however, the random selection process

did not lend itself to an equal distribution of interviewees by those categories. 8 Studies include “Ex-post Evaluation of Cambodia Community Savings Federation”, 2008, Marc Wancer, and “Baseline

Report of Saving for Change in Mali”, 2010, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology. 9 PFD is a local NGO that provides healthcare services to segments of the poor population in BMC. Persons identified

as “Poor” by village chiefs, using the PFD assessment, did not have P1 or P2 cards.


As per the below table a total of 464 persons were interviewed in baseline villages, ranging from 24 to 30 persons per village. The final breakdown was 40% “poor”, as defined by ID Poor, and 60% moderate poor or formally undefined. Approximately 80% of interviewees were women.

Table 3: Summary of Baseline Set 2 and 3 Fieldwork

Province District Villages (#) Interviews (#) FGDs (#)

Banteay Mean Chey Mongkol Borey 4 118 4

Thmor Pourk 2 60 2

Svay Chek 2 60 2

Kampot Angkor Chey 4 114 4

Banteay Meas 4 112 4

Total 5 16 464 16

Sets 2 and 3 utilized a pared down version of the Set 1 individual questionnaire with identical organization and structure. It was used more as a quantitative tool and as such did not include open-ended questions. Local leader FGDs or interviews used a similar structure as those in Set 1.

Team, Pilot and Training The 12-person team included a project manager, 2 project advisors, lead consultant, 2 team leaders, 4 researchers, and 3 data entry personnel. The team combined persons with backgrounds in community based finance, strategic consulting and rural livelihood development. All were Cambodian nationals except for the project advisors and manager. Pre-pilot training focused on understanding the data collection tools and interviewing techniques. OxfamAmerica’s SfC Research Coordinator participated in the training as well as the pilot. Her research experience helped to inform the design of the questionnaires and FGD guides, and fieldwork practices. Piloting took place for two days in one SfC village and one “baseline” village. The pilot tested the clarity of questions and their suitability for obtaining usable data, respondents’ reactions to questions, and the length of the questionnaire and FGD. Interviewing and moderating techniques were observed. An important aspect of the pilot was to verify that the questionnaire, designed in English, but translated and delivered in Khmer, was precise and clear. Upon completion of the pilot the team debriefed, reviewing data for consistency and quality. Based on our findings we made adjustments to questionnaire structure and revised translations. The final training included the entire project team. The focus was on the pilot findings, reviewing the finalized data collection tools, and the nuances of conducting interviews through the use of role-playing exercises.

Methodology Strengths and Challenges Typical of any research study, the methodology had its strengths and challenges. Identifying successful activities and approaches, as well as those that achieved less than expected results or posed a challenge will be useful for the design of future studies.


Strengths:

An appropriate mixture of data collection tools. Qualitative and quantitative data collected through individual questionnaires, FGDs and RACHA staff interviews was highly complementary. As per the figure below the triangulation of data from multiple sources was useful for identifying themes and testing hypotheses.

Figure 2: Data Collection Tools

The individual questionnaire was well structured and adeptly covered a broad range of topics. Interviewees responded well to the content and to the length of the questionnaires.

Conducting the operational evaluation and a baseline as one larger study was useful, providing a well-informed starting point for future studies.

Challenges:

Interrelated questions with subtle differences were sometimes difficult for interviewees to understand, requiring further explanation.

Discussion of household income and savings were sensitive topics. Obtaining consistent and accurate quantitative information was challenging.

The homogeneity of the majority of FGD participants - moderately poor, rural women from households reliant on seasonal agricultural activities - resulted in a high level of redundant information. Although this process did reinforce key themes, a more useful approach would have been to conduct fewer FGDs with more participants in each.

More than 50% of the SfC villages had only one active group, offering a small sample from which to choose persons for both interviews and FGDs.

For the baseline study, there were several treatment and control villages, which already had SfC groups or had been approached to form groups. From a methodology perspective, there is concern about the suitability of the data for future studies, which rely on the clear

FGD Members

Local Leaders

RACHA Staff

Individual Interviews -Members and Non-members


demarcation of treatment and control villages to conduct “the difference in difference” approach of evaluation of impact.10

Cambodian Rural Financial Services Sector

The Cambodian financial services industry has burgeoned in the last decade. It now includes 33 commercial and specialized banks, 20 MFIs, 26 registered rural credit operators and at least 60 unregistered NGO credit and rural finance programs.11 Informal financial services such as moneylenders and tontines remain prevalent and continue to account for an important, albeit small, segment of the rural finance industry.

Microfinance Institutions Almost 90% of MFI clients reside in rural areas of Cambodia, accounting for the bulk of MFIs’ credit and savings business. The growth over the last five years has been exponential, and the number of borrowers had almost tripled, reaching 900,000 as of December 2009. Achieving the same level of growth in the number of depositors has been slightly more challenging, although the level of total deposits has grown, increasing the average savings per depositor. The 100,000 depositors as of December 2009, represents a drop from 122,000 in 2004, and its peak of 147,000 depositors in 2007. From 2004 to 2009, MFI savings increased from $2 million to $9.5 million, representing a CAGR of 37%, while gross loans increased from $40 million to almost $300 million, representing a CAGR OF 49%.12 In December 2007, National Bank of Cambodia introduced more stringent regulations on deposit taking, impacting MFIs and their savings business. This reduced the number of MFIs providing savings services from 13 to only 4, but at the same time provided depositors with an improved legal framework and government support for deposits. In the long term, this is essential as weak savings levels are strongly influenced by a lack of public trust in institutions. However, there are additional obstacles to implementing formal savings amongst the rural population, which will probably continue to impact the level of deposits. These include a lack of financial awareness, the perceived low rate of return on capital in a financial institution and the prevalence of traditional methods of savings. MFI’s level of market penetration in rural areas is extremely high. Leading MFIs such as Amret and AMK operate in 4,754 and 6,679 villages, respectively, accounting for 33% and 50% village saturation. In Banteay Mean Chey alone, AMK operates in 429 villages, with a customer base of over 11,000. High village saturation levels and extensive geographic scope means that SfC is often operating in communities that also have MFI services. Of course this does not imply that everyone in these communities is “bankable”, or that the nature of MFI services meets their needs, especially in the area of savings. Increasingly, the overall trend for MFIs is to provide larger size loans, backed with collateral, representing a transition from grassroots type lending. This means fewer group loans or village

10

For additional details, please refer to Oxfam Fieldwork Detailed Summary, submitted to Oxfam on June 23, 2010. 11

The National Bank of Cambodia regulates and oversees the sector to ensure control and monitoring and to continuously build public confidence. This does not include unregistered NGO credit and rural finance programs. 12

Commercial banks increased their deposits from $ 830 million to $ 3.3 billion in the same periods, and loans from $482 million to $2.5 billion.


banks, which are guaranteed by borrowers but do not require collateral. The notable exceptions to this trend are Vision Fund, TPC, Amret and especially, AMK, which has an average loan size of $121 and continues to have a strong commitment to the rural poor.

Figure 3: The Shift of Focus of MFI toward Better-off Communities

Source: CMA's Information Exchange as of 31 March 2010 (www.cma-network.org) In many of the areas where SfC is currently being implemented, financial institutions such as Acleda Bank, AMK, Prasac, Sathapana, HKL, CREDIT, Vision Fund, TPC and C-BIRD have a strong presence, providing both individual and group loans. Besides Acleda, their level of savings business in these areas does not seem to be extensive. Please see the below table for a summary of savings amounts and depositors from select MFIs and Acleda Bank.

Table 4: Select MFIs and Acleda Bank - Depositors and Amounts as of March 2010

Financial Institution

Banteay Mean Chey Kampot

No. of Depositor

Amount No. of

Depositor

Amount

In Million KHR

In Thousand $

In Million KHR

In Thousand $

ACLEDA BANK PLC 27,422 89,607 22,402 17,202 42,451 10,613

AMK 364 150 37 63 63 16

PRASAC 72 8 2 99 10 3

SATHAPANA 611 391 98 554 243 61

HKL 5,947 1,436 359 0 0 0

CREDIT 0 0 0 0 0 0

VISIONFUND 0 0 0 0 0 0

TPC 106 181 45 61 10 2

CBIRD 432 88 22 0 0 0

Source: CMA's Information Exchange as of 31 March 2010 (www.cma-network.org)

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

The Change of Av. Loan Size ($/Borrower)

2006 2010

http://www.cma-network.org/

http://www.cma-network.org/


Rural Credit Operators – Registered and Unregistered There are currently 26 rural credit operators formally registered with NBC providing credit, and to lesser extent savings products, to communities across Cambodia. Their outreach generally remains quite limited and access to performance and outreach data is scant. In addition, there are numerous unregistered NGO programs (NBC estimates about 60 programs) providing credit and self-help savings services especially focusing on poor communities. A few of the rural credit operators and NGOs in this space are described below.

Cambodian Community Saving Federation (CCSF)

Initiated through CARE International, the Cambodian Community Savings Federation (CCSF) began as an economic agricultural project in 1998 before transforming into an NGO and rural credit operator in 2002. CCSF operates as a hybrid financial intermediary serving as the apex of a federation of Community Based Microfinance Organizations (CBMIFOs), as well as a provider of microfinance services for SMEs. CCSF operates in Battambang and Banteay Mean Chey provinces, with an overlap in certain SfC operational districts such as Mongkol Borei. CCSF maintains a strong emphasis on savings, using a loosely based credit union federation model. Saving is a requirement, as is share capital for voting members. CCSF currently has a network of 33 CBMIFOs with a total of 31,000 members utilizing savings and credit services. As of December 2009, loans outstanding totaled $2.3 million and deposits totaled $323,000. Individual loans have an approximate interest rate of 2-3% per month. Savings, depending on the term can yield up to 8% per annum.

CARE International

CARE International operates its Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA) program in Prey Veng and Svay Rieng provinces. It is based on the model used by CARE in Africa but adjusted to meet the Cambodian context. VSLA uses a share system and disburses interest at the end of the cycle with shares usually being “re-cycled”. Loans are priced at 3% per month with a term of up to 12 months. Average loan size is KHR 102,000 ($25). Groups tend to lend out a high percentage of savings to increase interest income. Our understanding is that VSLA membership is roughly 70% women but does not cater to the “very poor”. As with SfC, the program offers necessary and unique financial services, addressing the needs of the rural poor. As of January 2010 there were 70 groups operational under the VSLA program, with 1,277 members, and 37 drop outs. Noteworthy is that approximately half of the groups have been operational for over three years. Although internally governed and self-managed, groups have ongoing support from CARE, albeit at varying levels. One of the ongoing challenges for the program is migration. Based on conversations with CARE staff, our understanding is that the long term goal is for VSLAs to move to a federation level but to also link with SHGs and cooperatives, creating a platform from which to leverage other activities such as farming, sanitation, potable water and irrigation.


World Vision

World Vision International (“WVI”) operates two savings programs through its Area Development Project (“ADP”) model that has a multi-sector, long-term approach to working with communities. The first is a matching fund that combines community savings with WVI funds, focusing on development priorities and disaster risk management. The second program, Accumulated Saving Credit Association (“ASCA”) program is a variation of the VSLA model, and is currently being piloted in several provinces under the ADP umbrella. Initial feedback has been positive but we were not privy to the extent to which it will be rolled out. WVI’s savings groups do not appear to be operational in areas in which the research study fieldwork was conducted.

International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD)

Rural Livelihood Improvement Project (RULIP) is a project co-financed by IFAD and UNDP through 2014. The project looks to improve the livelihood systems, food security and incomes of rural poor, ethnic minority and female-headed households in targeted villages of NE Cambodia in a sustainable manner. The livelihood improvement component utilizes a self-help approach including integrating VSLA type structures into agricultural activities. In Preah Vihear, they are present in many of the same communities as SfC.

Ockenden Cambodia

Ockenden Cambodia operates a variety of small-scale community-based programs in Banteay Mean Chey in conjunction with other NGOs and community authorities. These include enterprise development, rice and cow banks, literacy programs and SHGs. SHGs operate savings schemes and credit services usually comprised of 15-20 members. They have a presence in several of the baseline villages.

Informal Sources of Credit Moneylenders and other informal financial services play a dominant role in rural communities. Moneylenders provide flexible capital, generally without collateral, to persons in their community for consumption and business activities. Repayment is flexible, often matching the seasonal cash flow fluctuations of the rural population. Rates are generally in the 5-6% per month range, but in certain instances can reach 10%. Based on information derived from interviews with members, non-members and local leaders, these usurious rates often place households in a position of duress, and can add to the interrelated cycle of debt and poverty. Credit from vendors, rice millers and middlemen are also quite commonplace in the rural finance context, with borrowers often repaying with agricultural inputs, or a portion of their harvest or livestock. For example, if a farmer receives one bag of fertilizer in June then after the rice harvest, approximately 6 months later, two bags of fertilizer are expected as repayment. (This is equal to an approximate interest rate of 100% for the 6-month period.) Tontines are popular in Cambodia but less so with the rural and remote poor. The better off members of the community, primarily merchants who are situated closer to markets and central areas of the community, tend to “play” tontines. Very few of the interviewees in the research study were found to utilize tontines.


Background of SfC Program in Cambodia

OxfamAmerica has operated SfC in Cambodia since 2005. Since inception, the program’s growth and development has taken different forms and has not been entirely linear. In part, this is due to a lack of continuity in implementing partners, as well as varied approaches to program methodology, monitoring and evaluation. This poses an on-going challenge for the analysis of trends in membership and group growth, as well as the evaluation of impact. Currently OxfamAmerica’s main partner in Cambodia is Reproductive and Child Health Alliance (RACHA). Officially, RACHA and OxfamAmerica commenced working together in 2008, but expectations and directives were unclear in the first year of collaboration, resulting in program execution delays. As such, RACHA’s implementation of SfC commenced in early 2009. RACHA implements SfC in areas in which it provides community based health programming, using its existing management structure and community level networks to promote the program. RACHA has strong ties to Ministry of Health at a provincial and district level, and its operational districts (“OD”) generally match those of the Ministry of Health’s Operational Districts. RACHA is implementing SfC in 3 operational districts in Banteay Mean Chey and one operational district in Preah Vihear. It plans to expand to Pursat and Siem Reap over the next 12 months. As of March 2010, RACHA had reached approximately 10,926 members in 768 groups. The goal is to reach at least 20,000 members by December 2011.

Table 5: RACHA’s SfC Operational Area and Membership – As of June 2010

Province Operational District Groups (#) Members (#)

Banteay Mean Chey Preah Net Preah* 272 3,699

Thmor Pourk 108 1,414

Mongkol Borei 74 999

Preah Vihear Tbeng Meanchey 314 4,814

Total: 768 10,926 *Preah Net Preah includes Phnom Srok District

Neither OxfamAmerica nor RACHA generate internal financial statements for SfC but the MIS data offers a snapshot of assets normally found on a balance sheet such as cash, loans outstanding and member’s equity, as of June 2010. This information is continually being updated and more recent figures could be significantly different considering the rapid expansion rate of the program. Table 5 below highlights key financials of the program.

Table 6: RACHA’s SfC Loans and Members’ Equity Highlights – As of June 2010

Description KHR $ Equivalent

Value of Loans Outstanding 580,668,000 145,167

Cash in Hand 144,072,000 36,018

Member Equity 724,740,000 181,185

Average Size of Loan 140,000 35

Number of Loans 4,107

In 2010, OxfamAmerica added a new implementing partner, Save Cambodia’s Wildlife (SCW). SCW operates in coastal areas – Koh Kong, Kampot and Kep. Between 2005 and 2009, OxfamAmerica worked with Cambodia Center for Agriculture Development and Studies (CEDAC) reaching an


estimated 52,000 members. The two organizations are no longer in partnership, and the future of SfC groups formed during this period is unclear.

Evaluation of RACHA Operational Structure

The goal of this section of the study is to conduct a review and evaluation of RACHA’s SfC operational structure with an emphasis on operations and staffing, RACHA identified challenges and solutions, as well as methods of staging SfC’s group independence. The scope includes certain topics not explicitly called for in the TOR but which are useful and necessary when examining broad themes such as operations or RACHA- identified program challenges. This portion of the study relies on in-depth interviews with RACHA staff and to a lesser extent, interviews and FGDs with SfC members. Understanding the program from the perspective of the implementing organization as well as its clients offered a multi-tiered method of evaluation. Of added benefit is that the majority of RACHA staff are based in Banteay Mean Chey, coinciding with the area where the fieldwork was conducted, providing useful points of comparison. Since January 2009, the SfC program has experienced substantial membership growth. Program expansion has been accompanied by adjustments to staffing, implementation methodology, reporting and planning, and monitoring and evaluation. As expected, operational structure has been dynamically evolving to meet the aforementioned changes. This has come with its challenges but none that are unusual for an organization leveraging an existing structure to accommodate the appropriate human, capital and programmatic components necessary to develop, integrate and sustain a new program.

Organizational Structure RACHA’s SfC hierarchical organizational structure has 6 levels of staff responsible for both technical (programmatic) and administrative (MIS, reporting) aspects of program implementation. The below figure lists the SfC staff positions but is best used in conjunction with the organizational chart (Appendix C: Organizational Chart.), which shows the detailed reporting structure by province and district.

Figure 4: RACHA SfC Staff Positions

(For more detail, please see Appendix C: Organizational Chart.) In practice, this configuration is not excessively centralized. It retains a high degree of flexibility, especially at the field level,

• Program Implementation Advisor (PIA)

• Provincial Coordinator (PC)

• Assistant Provincial Coordinator (APC)

• Project Officer (PO)

• Project Facilitator (PF)

• District Project Facilitator (DPF)


accommodating the challenges of group formation and monitoring. As of July 2010, a revised SfC organizational structure is expected to be put into practice, re-defining roles and responsibilities, as well as lines of reporting.

Lines of Reporting Staffs report a degree of ambiguity regarding the lines of reporting at the DPF, PF, PO and APC levels, as well as some variation by OD and province. The lack of clarity appears to have two primary root causes:

Different Sized ODs: RACHA operates in three ODs in Banteay Mean Chey, each with different staff positions. This is entirely practical considering the size and maturity of the program in each OD, but can pose a challenge for the consistency of reporting lines. Potential solutions put forth by staff include the standardization of reporting across the province, and the division of staff roles and responsibilities along technical and administrative lines. At an APC level, a shift to more administrative tasks would be in line with the roles of other APCs in Banteay Mean Chey involved with health programs.

Fast Growth: The growth of SfC staff has accompanied program expansion from Preah Net Preah to Mongkol Borei and Thmor Pork. This includes new hires as well as staff who have been promoted internally. These promotions come with new roles, responsibilities and reporting lines. It appears that these changes were not always accompanied by clear delegation of responsibilities and announcements, causing some ambiguity amongst staff at the OD level.

Staffing Positions and Numbers RACHA operates SfC with a mix of their own existing staff and a group of new recruits with full dedication to SfC program. Table 6 below describe their staffing by operational area.

Table 7: RACHA Staffing for SfC

Operational Area DPF (#) PF (#) PO (#) APC (#) PC (#)

BMC

Preah Net Preah 12 2 1 1

Thmor Pourk 8 2 1

Mongkol Borei 7 1

PVH

Tbeng Meanchey 12 5 1 1

Total: 39 10 2 1 2

DPF Snapshot: In Banteay Mean Chey there are 27 DPFs, of which 14 were hired prior to August 2009, and 13 who have been hired since then. This has roughly matched the pace of program expansion in the province. In Preah Vihear there are 12 DPFs, some who have been with RACHA for over a year. DPFs are committed to the program and invest significant time and effort in the field to its development. All DPFs were hired explicitly for SfC. Their professional backgrounds are in the educational or NGO sectors. The goal is for DPFs to be hired from the commune in which they work. However, balancing this criterion with the appropriate skill set is not always possible. Most have at least a high school level education. Approximately 40% of DPFs are female.


PF, PO and APC Snapshot: In Banteay Mean Chey there are 5 PFs, 1 PO and 1 APC. In Preah Vihear there are 5 PFs and 1 PO. Most have been with RACHA for at least a year. As the program has expanded and DPFs were hired, their roles have become more supervisory. POs and APCs have been promoted internally. All allocate 100% of their time to SfC except for the APC who has other programmatic responsibilities. Their professional backgrounds are in secondary education, community based finance and development, with a few having previously been employed in RACHA’s health programs. Their professional experience is greater than that of DPFs, and all have completed their BA. The majority of supervisory positions at this level are male. PC and PIA Snapshot: Senior RACHA staff have been with the organization for at least 3 years, and in the case of the PIA, for over 10 years. Their backgrounds, both academically and professionally, are in health administration. All have been involved with SfC since inception, providing important continuity to the program’s implementation. They are responsible for the performance of other programs in addition to SfC. As a result of staffing changes and internal reviews, resource allocation to SfC has increased significantly, since the beginning of 2010, with the PIA dedicating 70% effort to SfC.

Staff Roles and Responsibilities Staff rely on the combination of job recruitment announcements, informal feedback, formal staff evaluations and reviews, and team building efforts to define their roles and responsibilities. Although comprehensive in scope, having a written, updated job description (“JD”) could serve to clarify organizational structure, define expectations and goals, as well as delineating allocation of time to technical and administrative tasks. As the program develops, updating JDs can be a useful tool to building organizational capacity. For maximum impact, they can be employed in conjunction with staff evaluations. RACHA staff demonstrates great flexibility in allocating time to various SfC activities. In that respect the organizational structure is highly decentralized. Fieldwork is influenced by external variables and requires team members to be dynamic and creative. This is not only the case with DPFs, but with PFs and POs, who must also cover large distances between villages while working in the field and also work long hours to accommodate the schedules of their clients. Teamwork is strong, and there appears to be a great level of support provided for junior staff. DPFs as well as upper levels of OD staff articulated this sentiment.

“I am a PF but in the field I learn firsthand about group formation through actually trying the process myself. It then allows me to provide oversight and monitor DPFs. If I do not learn the group

formation process I cannot provide oversight.” – PF, RACHA

Table 7 below table outlines the main roles and responsibilities of each level of staff, as well as the time allocated to their activities.13 It is based on the research team’s in-depth interviews with staff members, not written documents such as recruitment announcements.

13

RACHA staff members often categorize tasks as either being technical or administrative. Technical refers to roles such as group promotion, fieldwork, program delivery and fieldwork training, while administrative refers to reporting, planning, MIS activities, recruitment, budgeting and management.


Table 8: Summary of Roles and Responsibilities by Positions

District Project Facilitator (DPF)

Roles and Responsibilities

Promotion and forming of groups in target areas.

Monitoring groups. Includes providing ongoing assistance to issues such as record keeping, loan assessments etc.

Coordination with village authorities.

Weekly reports and weekly plan.

Monthly report on groups formed and monitored.

Participate in generation of quarterly plan and bi-annual plan, which outlines the areas in which DPFs need to work.

MIS data collection.

In some instances there is an informal health message being delivered.

Time Allocation 100% SfC. Approximately 90% of time spent in field and 10% of time spent on administrative tasks.

Project Facilitator (PF)


Create groups.

Supervise, monitor, train and evaluate DPFs.

Support DPFs in building community relations and with local authorities.

Generate weekly, monthly reports and plans.

MIS data consolidation. This includes verifying data and compiling data for monthly, quarterly reports.

Oversee weekly or monthly meetings with DPFs to share experiences, challenges and solutions.

In TP, DPFs seem to report to PF for all technical issues and to APC for everything else, i.e. leave, salary, etc.

Time Allocation 100% SfC. Varies by OD but generally the breakdown is 60% field and 40% office. In TP there is separation of technical and administrative tasks, between two PFs.

Project Officer (PO)


Supervise PFs and DPFs.

Monitor fieldwork and provide support to DPFs and PFs.

Train PFs and DPFs.

Generate monthly reports and plans for PC and PIA.

MIS data consolidation. This includes verifying data and compiling data for monthly, quarterly reports

Create groups

Time allocation 100% SfC. PO allocates roughly 60% of his time to field related activities and 40% to administrative tasks. This seems to roughly be the same allocation in both provinces.

Assistant Provincial Coordinator (APC)


Was asked to serve as “APC and as PO” but no new job description. Poses a challenge.

Supervise PFs and DPFs. DPFs in TP report directly to him for personnel and administrative issues but to the PF for technical issues.

MIS data consolidation and monthly and quarterly report generation for PC and PIA.


Time allocation APC now allocates up to 80% of his time on SfC. Previously, between August 2009 and February 2010, he allocated 50% of his time to health programs and 50% to SfC. After reviewing his position it was decided that he needed to increase focus on SfC.

Provincial Coordinator (PC)


Both PCs are entirely responsible for their respective province’s operations. This includes health programs and SfC.

Supervision of staff – APC and PO.

Ensure technical and administrative guidelines are being followed.

Review final MIS reports.

Work with local authorities, donors and program partners.

Time Allocation In BMC, 25% SfC and 75% health programs.

In PVH the PC now spends up to 60% of his time on SfC. This changed after March 2010 review of time allocation needs.

Program Implementation Advisor (PIA)


Oversee SfC program. Both technical and administrative issues.

Develops program strategy and plan.

Works closely with authorities, donors and program partners.

Time allocation

She currently allocates up to 70% of her time on SfC. This increased in October 2009 after the SfC project coordinator resigned.

DPF Recruitment, Compensation, Staff Development DPFs are the “face” of RACHA and SfC in the field. They deliver the SfC message and play an important role in the outreach and implementation of the program. Special consideration of their recruitment, compensation and development are key. Historically RACHA has tried to hire DPFs from the commune in which they will work. This has posed a challenge, as it is difficult to find the appropriate level of expertise, at the current levels of compensation. There are several interrelated factors at play here deserving of examination.

Previous assumption was that a high school education would be adequate to perform the tasks of the position. However, it has become apparent that the requirements of the position call for candidates to have at the very least, several years of university.

Compensation is not competitive for candidates with a university education. Higher compensation might attract more qualified candidates locally, and if necessary can attract appropriate staff from other areas.

DPFs do not have any benefits – health insurance, accrued leave, transportation reimbursement, uniforms, etc. 14

DPFs are hired as one-year contractual staff not as permanent staff. This might be because of funding considerations; however, if intended as a short-term approach to staffing could limit long-term staff development. Ideally a DPF, after being trained and meeting goals and expectations of the position, could be promoted to PF and build organizational capacity internally.

14

Compensation is lower than that of comparable RACHA health staff. Other SfC positions enjoy benefits.


Staff Performance Evaluations Evaluations are an important component of staffing and as such are touched upon in our research. The PC conducts performance evaluations of the PF, PO and APC positions. The process commences with a self-appraisal, which is then jointly reviewed with the PC. Staff use a standard form designed by senior management for evaluating performance and adjusting salary. There is no written performance evaluation for DPFs. However, their work is closely monitored and reviewed by PFs and POs. Evaluation criteria for DPFs include “communication, attitude, willingness to work, teaching technique and the number of groups formed”. Comments and feedback are provided on a regular basis, and are often found in the notes of weekly and monthly reports. It is not clear if the feedback translates into defining expectations and goals, and how, if at all, this ties in to performance and salary reviews. The lack of formal evaluations for DPFs was identified as an issue by staff and merits further examination.

Staff Training Training is provided for all levels of RACHA SfC staff. Based on the position, it appears that the content and approach, as well as trainer, varies. RACHA conducts trainings, as does OxfamAmerica. Training focuses on fieldwork and MIS. We intentionally asked staff what training they had received - a rather general question - to try and determine the uniformity in training and to measure staff’s recall of areas that seemed significant. Three trainings were identified – 1) Training Manual 2) Adult Learning 3) MIS Database. Currently DPFs undergo a week of training, which includes time in the classroom and in the field. The focus is on the training manual. After the initial training, there are 4-6 weeks of continued “hands-on” training in the field with senior DPFs, PFs or POs. According to one supervisor the classroom training methodology changed for DPFs in the last year, corresponding with the two rounds of hiring. The perception is that the methodology used in Preah Net Preah was more comprehensive and “linear”, than that used in Mongkol Borei and Thmor Pourk. Staff did not provide details of the two methodologies but it is perceived that the first had produced better results based on the performance of DPFs in Preah Net Preah. DPFs generally consider trainings to be appropriate but would like more time in the classroom to review the training manual (specifically M5, M6 and M7), as well as additional training in communication, conflict resolution and facilitation skills. More frequent refresher courses were a popular suggestion. Non-DPF staff consider the training to be adequate but with certain limitations. Highlights include the following:

Staff found the “Adult Learning” module to be helpful with work in the field.

Training requires more “role playing” and intensive fieldwork practice after the classroom module. Mirroring the sentiment of DPFs there is a desire for more training in facilitation and communication with groups.

The pace at which material is covered in the classroom is too fast.

The MIS trainings are recognized as being necessary for monitoring of groups and programmatic expansion.


Staff express the desire for more training and more MIS support but also have reservations and concerns about the number and frequency of updates to the MIS.

Noteworthy is the interest by several staff in additional “coaching” about credit and savings, and the community based microfinance industry. One staff person even suggests that adding a credit and savings professional to the team would be useful in teaching staff about the community finance industry and the pros and cons of SfC versus a MFI, bank or a moneylender. This ties into staff wanting to be able to market the program and sell its benefits. The suggestion draws our attention to the potential need to build organizational expertise in the “space” in which ultimately SfC operates – community based finance. Further discussion regarding SfC’s role in the continuum of financial services is warranted.

Program Methodology This section describes how it is SfC is implemented in the field from the perspective of RACHA staff as well as SfC members. It highlights areas where there are discrepancies between the sources, as well as methods that require further examination. It reviews processes and where relevant identifies findings. Successful implementation of SfC lies in field staff’s ability to attract membership, form and train groups, and to provide ongoing support and guidance. This generally takes place for approximately one year, which is equal to one “savings” cycle. This includes an intensive 8 week training process, and upon group formation, a year of monitoring. The success or the failure of this implementation to a large extent dictates the growth trend and ultimate sustainability of this program. RACHA staff, prior to working with potential members, engage in orientations with government authorities, initially at the provincial and district level, and then with health center staff, village chiefs and Village Health Support Groups. This is essential as their buy in is critical to the success of the program and also echoes senior management’s vision to develop a platform to ensure SfC’s long-term sustainability. (Of note is that development of relationships with village leaders is cited as an ongoing challenge for many field staff.) Once the planning with local authorities has concluded and dates have been set for initial meetings and promotions, staff enter into a community.

Group Formation

The training manual is designed to be delivered over an 8-week period. In reality the timeframe varies based on the expertise of DPFs, the commitment of participants, and other external factors such as seasonality. Descriptions of the process, the content and duration vary amongst RACHA staff and as recollected by SfC members. In itself these inconsistencies are not surprising as the process is inherently dynamic, requiring adjustments in the field to be effective. That said these findings do raise concerns about the uniformity of the implementation methodology, its effectiveness and impact. Members generally recall training and group formation occurring in a period of roughly 8 weeks. However, in two villages the group formation process was described as taking place over 3-4 weeks, with monthly follow up meetings thereafter. It is difficult to ascertain if this recollection is accurate but is worth noting.


“During the training RACHA came and gave us ideas, explained about savings, asked if villagers are interested, and if so to form a group. When RACHA staff came the third time, they helped us conduct the election and provided us the book to record the transactions. After third time of

coming to our village, RACHA changed their schedule to come to our village every month for three more times to follow up before they stopped coming.”- SfC Member

Several SfC groups report start-up materials, such as the lock-box, being provided by RACHA staff; however, most groups pay for these items by themselves. Assisting groups with this initial “gift” is completely understandable. It is of small commercial value, supports the formation of the group without “matching funds” and is an important good faith gesture. That said these actions are not protocol for program guidelines and when conducted randomly can lead to misunderstandings amongst groups. Implementing a standardized policy would be useful.

“The trainings and meetings were very helpful. Operation skills were trained to the group. They motivated us to save in the group as well as understand the concept and objective of saving as a

group. “ – SfC Member

Members describe the training and group formation process in a very positive manner. Members uniformly express strong praise for RACHA staff, what they learn through the trainings and the benefits and strengths of the program. Members would like additional support, during and beyond the initial training, in areas such as record keeping, interest calculation and lending. Members consider the training as being too time consuming but also recognize the value added of a lengthy process in which “one learns so much.” Our review of the steps of the process generally follows the training program’s model; however, because of variations in implementation the focus is more on topics, than chronology and module specific information.

Figure 5: Group Formation Process and Training

Promotion: A critical stage it can take several weeks to gather interested villagers, to describe and articulate the strengths of the program, and to attract potential members. DPFs collaborate with village chiefs and active community to gather participants. The promotion phase gathers a significant number of villagers - usually 20-40 persons. However, it is usually between this phase and the next that a relatively high percentage of persons decide not

1 •Promotion

2 •Registration (M1)

3 •Committee Selection (M2)

4 •Savings Goals (M3)

5 •Seasonal Income, Savings, Group Rules (M4)

6 •Record Keeping (M5)

7 •Fund Utilization and Loans (M6)

8 •Lending Policies and Dividends (M7)


to participate in SfC. Persons who chose not to continue forward are described as the “very poor” and the “rich”. It is possible that opportunities to attract greater numbers of members are being missed at this stage of the process. Some interviewees reported that joining late or not joining was because of “not being invited to the first meeting”. That said, staff uniformly report that gathering many villagers for one meeting remains a challenge. Registration (M1) and Committee Selection (M2): These two modules are generally conducted in weeks 2 and 3, and are considered the first two “trainings”. RACHA staff perceives these as being the easiest for membership and for implementation. Some DPFs consider a group formed after M2. “The Dream” – Savings Goals – Social and Financial (M3): There is little mention of this actual session by RACHA or by membership; however, in FGDs members did articulate individual, although usually nonspecific, goals. Absent is the consideration of group or community goals. As has been reported in other SfC programs these types of group goals can further savings patterns as well as assisting to achieve important, albeit small development goals in areas such as sanitation and hygiene, clean water, agriculture, etc. It is unclear if groups decide on savings levels during this module or later, as they report both taking place. The process by which this happens is of interest as it begins to define who will be able to participate as well as the financial goals that can be reached. Proceeding with a high weekly minimum will probably exclude the very poor but on the other hand will serve to more rapidly build group savings, the latter being of great importance to members. Seasonal Income, Savings and Group Rules (M4): This lesson was not highlighted by RACHA staff or by members. However, it is one of the points of reference for when savings begins and as such is an important benchmark thematically for members. Certain staff considers a group to be formed at this juncture. Record Keeping (M5): This module sticks out thematically. Along with M6 and M7 it is described as being very labor intensive and challenging. It is during this lesson that the group book is given to the committee to take charge of the recording. Fund Utilization and Loans (M6): There is little discussion of this module per se but access to loans is a big part of the program’s attraction and loans have been taken out by roughly 75% of members interviewed. As with topics covered in M5 and M7 this subject matter is challenging. Responsible and appropriate use of credit is not an easy concept to learn and to practice. Members noted occasional challenges with loans in default. The impact of this on the group is significant. Supporting proper credit evaluation techniques could be highly beneficial for the group’s sustainability. RACHA staff also expressed the need for additional expertise in this area, especially with problem loans that require a “workout”. Lending Policies and Dividends (M7): Described by some staff as “the longest and most challenging” lesson. One RACHA staff referred to this as a 3-hour lesson covering “the calculation of interest rate, length of loans, size of loans, penalty and distribution (how to distribute the saving to members – once a year or twice a year, etc.).”

Post-Training


After the training is complete the monitoring schedule calls for 3 monthly visits, followed by two quarterly visits and one final meeting at the end of the cycle. RACHA staff report that the frequency increases in the case of groups, which save more often; however, the specifics of this schedule are unclear. It appears that little or no monitoring takes place after the cycle is complete. Our belief, to a large extent validated by RACHA feedback and member perceptions, is that more emphasis is placed on the 8-week training process than the subsequent monitoring period. Members identify insufficient follow up visits as a key weakness of the process. Members suggest that RACHA staff visit the groups one time per month to assist with record keeping, to provide follow up training on basic topics, to assist with conflict resolution, to help prevent members from dropping out, and to continue to promote the program to persons who did not join the group initially.

“RACHA staff are respected and their presence in the community makes people trust the group. It would help raise awareness.”- SfC Member

“I want RACHA to gather all people in the village again and invite those who have successful story

with the saving group to tell to those who feel reluctant or those who don’t know about the program.” – SfC Member

The challenge is how to respond to these requests for an increase in frequency of visits and greater participation by RACHA staff. On one hand, group independence is key for the long-term development of the group, and in turn the sustainability of the program, but on the other hand one year of support is considered by several RACHA staff “to be insufficient to ensure the group is competent and can sustain.” It has been proven in previous studies, and demonstrated in the fieldwork, that strong and well functioning groups encourage others in the community to join existing groups and to form their own groups.

Monitoring and Evaluation Steps to improve the monitoring of groups are being made with the use of weekly, monthly and quarterly reports and plans. Information from these reports is consolidated and compiled at various stages and entered into the MIS. The reports appear to be generated regularly but according to staff do not always capture group problems in a timely manner. The extent to which the content of the reports is being used to analyze and evaluate performance, and to strategically plan is uncertain. Also unclear is if these reports are perceived by staff as practical tools or as an obligation imposed by senior management or OxfamAmerica. If the data is useful and relevant it can be a great evaluation and planning tool. RACHA field staff describe there being minimal feedback from upper level staff about the content and usefulness of the reports The monthly report includes group activity, staff performance, as well as problems and challenges. It does not seem to clearly identify solutions or propose action steps with an expected target date. Staff openly recognized that an improved monitoring system combined with its consistent use across the organization, would be highly useful in terms of responding to group issues and challenges in a more timely manner. Ideally, the combination of useful monitoring tools, administered regularly, and the ongoing evaluation of data, could greatly facilitate programmatic and strategic planning.


SfC Groups Stages of Independence Staging of independence closely ties into monitoring and evaluation. RACHA does not use a formal process for staging group independence. DPFs conduct routine assessments of group strengths, but determination of stage of independence tends to be subjective. Stages are generally associated with the monitoring schedule, the emphasis being on time not performance or level of independence. Some staff speak to groups as being strong or weak, based on an informal evaluation of “recording, consistency of savings, regular attendance and meetings, loan repayment and level of conflict.” Strong is the equivalent of independent and generally implies that RACHA no longer meets with the group. Of equal importance is that RACHA staff do not all consider groups to be formed at the same stage of the training process. This needs to be made consistent for MIS, monitoring and evaluation purposes

RACHA-Identified Strengths of SfC Although omitted from the TOR’s scope of work, the inclusion of RACHA identified SfC strengths is requisite, especially as it complements the subsequent section focusing on challenges and solutions. Many of the strengths perceived by RACHA staff are also shared by members. They are highlighted below.

Staff considers SfC’s actual methodology to be a significant strength of the program. The inherent nature of the methodology requires members to participate in an intensive and lengthy group formation process. It does not offer any material incentives or matching grants, therefore members, if successfully participating in the formation process, are effectively “buying in” to the concepts and ideas being put forth by SfC. In an environment where many NGOs offer matching grants and other enticements SfC’s success attracting members is considered noteworthy.

RACHA staff perceives SfC as offering an excellent mechanism for members and communities to learn about the concepts of savings, changing their behavior and attitude, and impacting financial literacy and household financial planning. It empowers members to make decisions, fostering independence and self-confidence.

Staff identifies SfC as facilitating solidarity and trust within the community. This is in great part due to the methodology, which promotes self-governance, and does not call for the funds to be managed or handled by outsiders. Fundamentally the money remaining in the community, plus the income generation, and eventual payout is considered a highly tangible strength of the program.

SfC offers members access to affordable, accessible loans, which can be used for small purchases, and to supplement income as well as other sources of debt. It potentially reduces reliance on moneylenders.

An important strength of the program is its ability to serve as a platform to introduce other programs in the future, namely health.

RACHA Identified Challenges and Proposed Solutions As per the TOR this section details the challenges and solutions as identified by RACHA staff. Although RACHA staff do offer solutions, OxfamAmerica participation and support is of great


importance. Solutions do not imply that action has or will be taken. It contains considerably more details than the preceding section “RACHA Identified Strengths” as it was identified as an area of emphasis in the TOR. The composition and level of detail does not reflect that RACHA perceives challenges outweighing strengths.

Table 9: RACHA Identified Challenges and Proposed Solutions

Challenges Suggestions and Solutions

DPF: 1. Low salaries and a lack of benefits

are not competitive, and limit recruitment possibilities.

2. DPFs are hired as one-year contractual employees not as permanent staff.

3. Recruitment process is primarily directed from Phnom Penh, with insufficient local participation.

4. Training is too brief and should incorporate additional topics.

5. No formal evaluations to measure staff performance.

6. Safety concerns regarding solitary travel.

DPF: 1. Provide health insurance, sick leave, transportation

reimbursement and bonus. 2. Increase salary to attract DPFs with higher education

from larger area not just commune in which they will work.

3. Hire DPFs as permanent staff and focus on long-term staff development.

4. Work more closely with PFs and POs to hire local DPF staff.

5. More time allocated to operational manual training, include more field practice. Offer training on facilitation, lending, communication and refresher courses.

6. Conduct written evaluations that tie into salary and performance reviews.

7. Work together as teams to mitigate safety issues, especially night travel in remote areas.

Ambiguous lines of reporting and unclear roles and responsibilities, especially at the district level.

1. Update JDs and clearly delegate responsibilities to staff.

2. Make lines of reporting standard across ODs. 3. Separate technical and administrative duties. 4. Communicate all changes to staff.

Gaps in new and existing areas of training and staff development.

1. More training on MIS, and communication, facilitation skills.

2. More time allocated to training. 3. Introduce credit and savings training and expertise. 4. Refresher courses, based on an assessment of what

staff need.

Methodology

Lengthy group formation process can effect participation.

1. Enforce concept of strong participation as being key to success of group and as a response to complaints about lengthy process.

2. Perhaps try and reduce to 4-6 weeks by combining lessons and ideas.

Weak groups, which can lead to members quitting or group not reengaging at end of cycle.

1. Strengthen DPFs skill set and expertise. 2. Train members thoroughly and consistently. 3. Develop record keeping skills of members. (Recruit

teenage children of members to help with record keeping as they often have higher education or hire a



designated person to do record keeping for a number of groups.)

4. Encourage strong committees with literate members. 5. Emphasize regular attendance and participation. 6. Regular monitoring by staff. 7. Rapid response to problems.

Attracting the very poor (and/or persons who “say they do not have enough money to save.”)

1. DPFs must believe that the very poor can save in order to promote the general idea and the specifics such as weekly savings methods.

2. Make clear explanations and use case studies with concrete examples that show benefits.

3. Promote more frequent (weekly) and flexible (up to 5 times the maximum) savings methods.

4. Learn more about individual household income and expenses to identify potential savings opportunities.

5. Work closely with local leaders who are influential in attracting members and promoting programs.

Group disbands after a one-year cycle. 1. Introduce 2-year cycle to groups. 2. Monitor monthly with the intention to continue after

one year. 3. Address ongoing issues in a timely manner to avoid

them lingering until the end of the cycle.

Lack of trust about the SfC program and the control of funds being saved.

1. Proper explanation by RACHA staff with emphasis on the group controlling money not RACHA.

2. Case studies and real proof through formation of strong groups in communities.

3. Excellent promotional skills by DPFs. 4. Local leader support. 5. Avoid communities that have “negative” experiences

with other savings groups.

Migration of a significant percentage of households in operational areas.

No concrete solutions provided by RACHA staff, except for avoiding focusing on those communities.

Consistency and timeliness of monitoring and evaluation processes, coupled with limited feedback on report content.

1. More consistent monitoring of groups. 2. Regular and timely generation of reports and plans,

to be used in planning and evaluation. 3. Compile and coordinate monitoring reports on a

more local level – not just sending information on to Phnom Penh

4. Obtain feedback from upper management on report content and usefulness, as well as how it ties into planning.

1. Direct competition from other NGOs, which provide “services, gifts or matching grants” and

1. Explain “helping yourself” concept of program. 2. Provide lockbox, calculator and small level of

matching funds at start-up phase. These items should



cause members to question why SfC does not have similar policies.

2. Indirect competition from MFIs and moneylenders that also provide financial services.

be “branded” with OxfamAmerica or RACHA name. 3. Evaluate implementation of a micro health insurance

program for villagers, which would lower household expenses, give them more money to save and also “compete” with other NGOs, providing an additional service.

4. Expand staff expertise on credit and savings to better compete with other sources of financing. Villagers want to be able to access credit services as well as a secure method of savings. SfC can meet some of these needs but staff must be able to demonstrate this clearly and help SfC committee members navigate this process.

5. Do not target communities that have existing NGO sponsored savings groups.

Operational area includes limited number of communities in which to implement program.

1. Expand the target areas within rural section of BMC to include more communities.

2. Go to “clean” villages – where there is not an existing NGO or savings program and where there are no negative experiences with such programs in the past.

Long-term sustainability of the SfC program beyond OxfamAmerica funding cycle

1. Leverage existing health network. 2. Include general health message and link with

maternity health issues. 3. Obtain support from local authorities, including

commune council, governors, provincial level, district, etc. Build advocacy to foster linkages to social issues.

4. Community support and interest allows for the program to remain sustainable.

Who Is Being Reached and Are the Very Poor Joining?

Snapshot of a SfC Member…

Most SfC members are female. This is in line with gender roles in Cambodian society in which women generally manage household savings. The average age is 38, but the range is from 17 to 65. Members tend to be married and live in households with 5-6 persons. Most have had some education with an average of 5 years. Member households primarily rely on rice farming, and to a lesser extent raising livestock, sewing and fishing to generate income. Seasonality of income is commonplace. Only 22% of households report consistent income throughout the entire year. Level of land ownership tends to be high with all members owning some agricultural property. Median size of land is 2 HA. Debt is not a new concept to members with 80% having borrowed in the last 2 years, primarily from moneylenders and MFIs. Traditional savings methods are commonplace but a formal “savings” structure such as SfC is a new approach to savings for members.


A primary goal of the research is to identify who is being reached through SfC and to ascertain whether or not the very poor are joining the program. This calls for the examination of membership demographics with special attention to their income and poverty levels, and their placement within the range of income levels in the community. Our research, using numerous income and poverty measurement tools, strongly suggests that SfC tends to attract moderately poor to medium income populations more so than the “very poor”. This section describes the methods and outcomes, used to support this finding. To identify poor households within the selected communities we relied on Cambodian Ministry of Planning’s (“MOP”) Identification of Household Poor (“ID Poor”). The ID Poor program is widely used throughout Cambodia. Questionnaires included questions from the Progress Out of Poverty Index (“PPI”) scorecard, which measures household poverty levels. There are 10 questions focusing on household construction materials, household size, school attendance, assets, and access to water and sanitation facilities, with each response being weighted to calculate a total score between 0-100. The convenience of PPI is that it provides a score for each household and can be used with various poverty lines and in longitudinal studies. For each PPI household score there is an estimated poverty likelihood calibrated to one of several poverty line methodologies, i.e. National Poverty Line, USAID Extreme Poverty Line. For example if the PPI score is between 35-39 then there is a 13.4% likelihood (%) of the household being below the National Poverty Line. PPI scores were used to compare the poverty likelihood of members versus non-members, and to determine where members are within the community. As per the below table the mean, median and range of PPI scores for SfC members and non-members were quite similar. Lower quartile and upper quartile results for members and non-members were also generally comparable, although members did have a considerably higher upper quartile score suggesting that slightly more members are grouped in a range of households having higher PPI scores. Based on these preliminary findings, there does not appear to be a significant variation in the poverty level of the member population and the non-member population. 15 Where there is a degree of variance between members and non-members the causality is unknown, and most likely is due to initial differences before SfC’s implementation, rather than impacts of the program, considering its short duration in these communities. With further rounds of this study in the Set 2 and 3 villages, OxfamAmerica will have a more precise understanding of the demographics of the population that joins SfC as well as its impact on members.

15

As detailed in the Methodology section of the report, members were randomly selected from SfC membership lists, while non-members were randomly selected from a short list of neighbor’s names provided by each member.


Table 10: PPI Scores

Description SfC Member Non-Member Overall

Sample Size 49 53 102

Lower Quartile 31 26 28

Median 36 33 35

Upper Quartile 45 37 42

Mean 39 34 36

Minimum 12 16 12

Maximum 68 62 68

The average member PPI score of 39 is in a range which corresponds with a 13.4% likelihood of the household falling below the poverty (National Poverty Line), while non-members with a slightly lower average score of 34 are in a range which suggests a 21.9 % likelihood of falling below the poverty (National Poverty Line). A household score of 60 or greater corresponds to a 0 % likelihood of poverty. The same PPI household scores when applied to the USAID Extreme Poverty Line corresponds with a 4.3% likelihood of member households falling below the poverty line and 7.6% likelihood for non-members. A score of 45 or greater corresponds with a 0% likelihood of poverty. In conjunction with the above PPI scores, the research relies on the use of ID Poor, household revenue and land ownership, to offer perspective into member income levels and how they compare to that of the community. These are described below. Roughly 20% of the SfC members interviewed had ID Poor cards, while 33% of the 53 non-members had ID Poor cards.16 As the sample size was small this in itself is not statistically significant but does provide a potential snapshot of member versus non-member poverty profile.

Table 11: ID Poor Used

Description Member Non-Member

Sample size 49 53

ID Poor 10 (20%) 18 (33%)

Obtaining accurate income information tends to be difficult without an in-depth study of each household’s livelihood activities and expenditures. As such, income figures must be accepted as rough approximations, based on the top three livelihood sources. Income information is derived from a series of questions in which we examined sources of livelihood as well as income patterns. Both average and median income per member household appears to be slightly higher than that of non-members. Sources of income are generally similar with rice farming and raising livestock, respectively first and second for both groups in terms of popularity as well as income generated. The third most popular source of income for members is sewing and for non-members is fishing.

16 The average PPI scores for the ID Poor households of members and non-members are 32 and 30, respectively.


Table 12: Income Information


KHR $ Equivalent KHR $ Equivalent

Average Income per HH 4,235,367 1,059 3,025,304 756

Median Income per HH 833,333 208 666,667 167

Most popular livelihoods are… 1. Rice farmer 2. Livestock 3. Sewing

1. Rice Farmer 2. Livestock 3. Fishing

The PPI scorecard does not reflect land ownership, which when combined with other data can be a good measurement of relative income and social position. Both members and non-members have a high level of agricultural land ownership, at 100% and 91%, respectively. Median land ownership is 2 HA for both. Measurement of yield and quality of land were not taken into consideration but significantly influence household income.

Table 13: Land Ownerships


Level of Agricultural Land Ownership 100% 91%

Average Number of Hectares Owned 3.7 2.2

Median Number of Hectares Owned 2.0 2.0

Utilization of the above measurement tools suggests slight variations in the household income and poverty levels between members and non-members, with members being slightly less poor; however, these findings are often not statistically significant and require additional and extensive in-depth analysis to be conclusive.

The Very Poor and SfC – Why the Low Membership Rates? Definitive reasons for the low membership rates of the “very poor” population are difficult to ascertain without conducting in depth analysis for each household. However, based on staff and member perceptions the research team can put forth well-informed theories regarding the low membership levels of the very poor segments of the population. 1. “Too poor to save.” The challenge is to change this pervasive perception that the poor have of

themselves, but also to change the similar perception of the poor by some RACHA staff. RACHA supervisors consider it important for DPFs to believe that the very poor can save, even if it is only a small amount, in order for them to clearly articulate this message and potentially challenge the “too poor to save” perception.

2. The very poor tend to be isolated socially, economically and geographically. As a result they

are not always aware of promotional meetings, and in certain instances might not be asked to participate. Many savings groups form along economic and social lines defined by livelihood, neighborhood and extended family. It is difficult to engage “very poor” and “rural rich” in the same group.

3. “Not understanding the program.” Although basic, the premise is noteworthy. Members

suggest that the “very poor” segments of the population frequently do not join or drop out due to a lack of understanding about the benefits of the program.


4. There are key features inherent to the SfC model that inadvertently can pose a challenge for

the inclusion of the “very poor” in groups.

Regular savings can be difficult due to the seasonality of income and ensuing cash shortfalls. This is an issue for all segments of the population, as only 17% of Set 1 interviewees have consistent income throughout the year. The distinction however, is that the very poor do not have a safety cushion and often do not have additional sources of income to reduce cash shortfalls. Many migrate for work so attendance becomes sporadic, as does regular savings. The underlying concern “is that they will not be able to save on a monthly (or weekly) basis.”

Flexible savings amounts, where the maximum is usually 5x the minimum can intimidate “very poor” members who can only afford the minimum. At the same time members expressed a strong interest in larger group savings to support access to bigger loans and to generate more income. This mandates setting higher savings levels, potentially at more frequent intervals. Both features can pose barriers to the “very poor”.

Generation of income for group members relies on a high level of loan turnover, no defaults and prompt repayment. The implicit credit risk of “very poor” members can impact their inclusion in certain groups. This was understood and pointed out by several members.

Regardless of the actual composition of groups, SfC members consistently emphasize that their groups are open to everyone and anyone joining regardless of their social background or income level. FGDs with poor members are equally vocal about the lack of discrimination.

“All villagers are welcome to join regardless of their financial background and family status. As long as they are able to attend meetings and save the required amount they can join the group. It is not difficult to attract poor families, but they don’t have money to save as they have too many

mouths to feed.” –SfC Member

Successful Structures for Promoting Access to the Poor There is a noteworthy distinction between an approach to proactively targeting the very poor and implementation with the anticipation of reaching the very poor. Currently promotion and group formation appears to be structured to attract members, regardless of participants’ social status, although the hope is to attract the very poor. Staff seem to be thoroughly familiar with village demographics and distinctions between very poor and the poor based on land ownership, housing stock and livelihood, but it is unclear if this information, or other data such as ID Poor lists, are used to proactively target the very poor. To date, there are several “structures” that appear to be successful in promoting the program amongst the “very poor”. Of interest would be an in-depth evaluation of these methods and their impact. 1. Weekly Savings Model: The “weekly savings” model is reported by staff to be a successful

strategy for attracting “very poor” membership. Supervisors emphasized the importance of


DPFs utilizing this methodology in order to continue to attract the “very poor.” There were several members who noted their groups changing to a weekly savings pattern with a minimum requirement of KHR 2,500 ($0.63). However the motivation seemed to be to raise the savings within the group not to attract the “very poor”.

2. Strong Groups: Strong groups indirectly promote the program within a village, and can serve to attract the “very poor” segments of the population. Our fieldwork identified 3 groups comprised of “very poor” members, which formed after observing a successful group in their community. In Plou Lea the first group was formed with a minimum monthly savings requirement of KHR 5,000 ($1.25). Several months later, with RACHA assistance, a second group formed with a lower minimum savings amount of KHR 2,000 ($0.50) per month.

3. Quality Promotion Using Case Studies and Clear Explanations: Members and staff agree that

once groups truly understand the benefits of the program it is appealing. Once the very poor comprehend the advantages they make an effort to save. A poor member described how she sometimes would borrow money from a friend so that she can make her regular savings payment because of the long-term benefits of membership.

“To encourage the poorest families to become members and participate in the group we need to explain to them and make them understand about the saving benefit and they are not being left

apart because we have other people in group that are poor like them.” - SfC Member

4. Collaboration with Leaders: Strong collaboration and coordination with local leaders to ensure

the very poor are present at promotional meetings. If the very poor are to be encouraged to join their attendance at promotional meetings is important. Local leaders can assist in this process and identify very poor households, which may be geographically isolated.

Do the Very Poor Tend to Join Late? Our research did not identify any clear correlation between poverty level and members joining groups at a later stage. We found that those who join groups at a later stage often do so for a variety of reasons such as: having missed the initial promotional meetings; wanting to see if the group will succeed; or not trusting and understanding the concept. It was also suggested that in some cases, groups do not encourage late joiners because of internal trust issues, as well as complicating record keeping, especially with regard to payout and interest calculations.

Impact of SfC: Set 1 Villages

Measurement of impact (and perceived impact) relies on quantitative and qualitative data gathered through individual interviews with SfC members and non-members, and SfC member FGDs. The analysis in this section focuses on impact as it relates to income and livelihoods, savings, loans, assets, health, education, food security, resilience to shocks, empowerment and social networks. SfC is relatively new to most Set 1 communities with very few groups beyond their first cycle. The short time frame in which the program has been operational, as well as the lack of baseline data, does not lend itself to longitudinal measurement of economic impact, thus perceived impact is often a more useful measurement. Where possible we try and intermix the two approaches.


Follow up studies utilizing baseline data will be able to more accurately quantify the economic impact of SfC. The analysis relies on member and non-member data, and where significant compares and contrasts findings from both.

Interviewee Demographics As described in Table 2, the breakdown of the 102 individual interviewees in Set 1 includes 49 SfC members and 53 non-members. Women interviewees account for 82% of the total. The average age of members is 38 and of non-members is 41. The majority of both sample groups fall between the ages of 30 and 59. Eighty-seven percent of all respondents are married, living in households with 4 to 6 persons. See the below table for additional details.

Table 14: Gender, Age Group and Marital Status

Member Non-Member

Gender (#) (%) (#) (%)

Male 5 11% 15 28%

Female 44 89% 38 72%

Age Group

Description (#) (%) (#) (%)

Less than 30 12 25% 8 15%

30-59 34 69% 44 83%

60 and over 3 6% 1 2%

Marital Status

Description (#) (%) (#) (%)

Single 3 6% 1 2%

Married 43 88% 46 87%

Divorce or Widow 3 6% 6 11%

Summary of Member Perceptions Members generally perceive SfC as having a positive impact on themselves, their families and community. Impact is described in different ways but tends to touch on a few distinct but interrelated themes - financial flexibility, financial planning, poverty reduction, empowerment, a sense of “well-being” and community building. The below table highlights the impact themes organized into two broad areas, economic and social.

Table 15: Perceived Impact of SfC by Members – Key Highlights

Economic and Material

Increased accessibility to financial products. Loans, with low interest rates can be quickly accessed and used for emergency, consumption or income generating activities.

Loans generate interest income, which is eventually paid out to members.

Greater financial security.

Less, dependence on moneylenders, reducing interest expense and the “cycle of debt.”

Money stays in the community. Reduces poverty in the community.

Understanding of savings and methods of saving to better meet goals.

Facilitates savings discipline. Members save regularly and report saving more than if the money was kept at home.


Goals mixed with savings mechanism provide incentive to put money aside for material possessions, education, health and inputs for income generating activities.

Membership encourages other family members to save as well.

Social and Cognitive

Encourages leadership roles, especially for women.

Enables women to make more financial decisions. Greater independence and empowerment.

Promotes joint decision making in the family. Spouses save together.

Family and household financial planning.

Offers “hope about the future and a greater sense of well-being”.

Builds trust, cooperation and principles of sharing in the community. Solidarity.

Serves as a social network.

Education. Learning about record keeping, interest calculation, lending procedures.

Public speaking and sharing of ideas.

Encouragement for young persons to continue with education.

Income and Livelihoods Impact of SfC on income is primarily associated with having greater access to loans and savings that in turn can be utilized to support and expand income-generating activities. With that consideration, members express a strong desire to increase the level of group savings in anticipation that more group savings, bigger loans and payouts could positively impact income-generating activities, foster entrepreneurship and even reduce the level of migration to Thailand for employment. However, in its current state most members consider SfC savings, loans and payouts too small to have any significant effect on their income.

“The SfC loan couldn’t help our family income very much since the loans are still small. Each loan is just around 200,000 Riel which can be used to buy small things like animal feed for pigs or

fertilizer.” -SfC Member

Rice farming, followed by the raising of livestock are the most common livelihoods. As such almost 40% of SfC loans are used for related inputs such as labor, fertilizer, seed, plowing, animal feed, and the purchase of livestock. The average size of the most recent SfC loan taken by members is KHR 147,500 ($37). Several members would want to use SfC to make large-scale investments in agricultural activities such as the purchase of “Kor Yun” (an ubiquitous, highly useful two-wheel tractor) but because of size constraints must rely on MFI financing or loans from moneylenders. Sewing is the third most popular income generating activity of SfC members, with members using loans or payouts to purchase materials. In several SfC villages there is a noticeable level of households involved in light garment manufacturing for factories in Phnom Penh and Poipet. In comparison, for non-members, the third most popular livelihood is fishing. 17

17

Other sources of livelihood for members, in order of popularity, include fishing, and vegetable and fruit farming, followed by an assortment such as rice-wine production, civil servants, and shopkeepers. For non-members additional popular livelihoods include, agricultural labor, sewing and weaving.


As with most rural households, members, as well as non-members, have a high percentage of seasonal and variable income.18 To some extent, members mitigate the risk of seasonal cash flow shortfalls through the use of multiple livelihood activities. On average each member household relies on average of 2.5 sources of income. (Rural development studies have shown there to often be a positive connection between diversity of livelihoods and household income.) A potential argument can be made that as SfC loans are often used for livelihood activities, theoretically they can assist with smoothing out seasonal cash flow shortfalls, positively affecting household income. However, the level of economic impact is difficult to measure.

Table 16: Income Patterns – Members vs. Non-members

How Income is Earned?

Description Members (%) Non-members (%)

Consistent 23% 21%

Seasonal 56% 64%

Variable 14% 12%

Other 7% 3%

Total 100% 100%

Members speak highly of the benefits of interest income generated by the group. It is recognized as adding to household income and strengthening the community as a whole.

Savings SfC impacts how members understand savings, their savings habits as well as the amount of money “formally” saved. This is clearly evidenced in members’ comments regarding the role of savings and its potential impact, but also in their discernible savings patterns. The difference in savings habits between members and non-members is noticeable. This does not imply that members save more money or that SfC is their sole method for savings but of importance is the combination of awareness coupled with changes in behavior. Members perceive SfC as being an important tool for planning, whether it is business activities, children’s education or “old age” related expenses. Members frequently describe savings as a mechanism which will benefit their children or which will allow them to meet their long-term goals (5-10 years). In line with long-term goals and the desire for higher savings amounts, members have a preference for longer payout cycles. 19 Almost 75% of members report “having money left over from income generating activities after paying all of their living expenses”. The question serves to test a conceptual understanding of savings and as an entry point to more specific questions about savings habits. So what do SfC members do with their extra money? Of the members who report having money left over, 34 (70%) state they deposit into SfC. It was clearly the most popular option representing more than a third of the total choices for how households save money. Members continue to utilize other traditional methods of saving such as buying livestock, investing in their business and

18

Seasonal income pertains to revenue generated at cyclically recurring times of the year, such as harvesting rice, while variable income applies to revenue generated inconsistently throughout the year, such as the small scale raising and selling of chickens. 19

One group in Teankham Khang Cheung reported putting a 5-year payout cycle in place.


keeping money at home, but less so than previously.20 A gradual change in savings habits is apparent.

“Before I saved at home using piggy bank or bamboo pole but I was never able to reach any planned amount because it was easy to spend.” SfC Member

On average, each member uses 2 methods of savings. Of interest would be further investigation as to the levels of disposable income being allocated to SfC versus other methods of savings.

Table 17: Saving Methods – Members vs. Non-members

What do you usually do with your left over money?

Description Member (#)

Non-member (#)

Member (%)

Non-member (%)

Savings SfC 34 0 34% 0%

Buy livestock 16 5 16% 9%

Safe place in house 14 13 14% 24%

Improve my business 13 10 13% 18%

Improve my house 6 5 6% 9%

Buy assets 3 5 3% 9%

Lockbox 2 3 2% 6%

Buy gold 2 0 2% 0%

Loan to others 2 2 2% 4%

Tontine 1 3 1% 5%

Other 6 8 6% 15%

Total 99 54 100% 100%

Number of respondents with money left over

48 53

Average savings method per HH

2 1

The table below shows member and non-member savings habits. Almost half of members save in a planned and regular manner as compared to only 11% of non-members. Although regular savings is inherent in SfC these results demonstrate an awareness of the regular and planned savings by members.

20

Rural households rely on “traditional” strategies to save, i.e. buying gold or livestock, hiding money, reinvesting in their business. Local studies (“Ex-post Evaluation of Cambodia Community Savings Federation”, 2008, Marc Wancer), demonstrate that even credit union members only allocate a small percentage of their available savings to these “formal” methods. The primary reasons are a lack of trust, perceived lost of opportunity and not wanting “others” managing their money.


Table 18: Saving Habits – Members vs. Non-members

How do you usually save?

Description Members (#) Non-members (#)

Members (%) Non-members (%)

Save a planned amount and regularly

19 3 45% 11%

Save what is left after paying my expenses

16 14 38% 50%

Save when I have some extra income

7 11 17% 39%

Total 42 28 100% 100%

When measuring the impact of SfC it is useful to examine how members use their payouts. Unfortunately in our sample group only 10 members had received payouts as most groups are still in their first cycle. Each payout was used for a combination of purposes, the most popular being food, clothing, reinvesting with SfC, and agricultural and livestock activities.

Table 19: The Use of Payout

Type of Use Use (#)

Food 5

Clothes 4

Leave with SfC 3

Agricultural 3

Livestock 2

Special Occasions 1

Home improvements 1

Health, medical 1

Existing business 1

Education 1

Total 22

Of the 39 members who have not yet received savings payouts, their two top choices, representing roughly 33% of uses each, are business (agricultural, livestock, existing business) and reinvestment with SfC.

Table 20: Planned Use of Payout

Type of Use Use (#)

Business 24

Leave with SfC 21

Food 9

Education 6

Purchase household equipment 6

Other 5

Health 3

Home improvements 2

Don’t know 1

Total 77


SfC Groups Savings Patterns

Members represent 12 SfC groups from 8 villages. Their savings patterns exhibit slight variations based on the group composition and dynamics, village characteristics, and the quality of training from RACHA staff.. The majority of the groups use a monthly savings method, with two groups practicing weekly savings methods. These two groups had modified their approach in the middle of their cycle. One group decided it was easier to reach savings goals through a more consistent weekly depositing system, while the other wanted to raise the amount of its group’s savings. All but one of the groups implements a flexible savings approach, generally with a 5x minimum-maximum differential. The range of minimum monthly savings amounts was KHR 3,000 ($0.75) to KHR 10,000 ($2.50). Certain groups adjusted savings amounts in the middle of the cycle. In Sambour the maximum was raised from KHR 15,000 ($3.75) to KHR 50,000 ($12.50) allowing late joiners to catch up with original members In certain instances members described a methodology that fundamentally allows for members “with money” to put in a maximum of KHR 50,000 ($12.50) even if it exceeds the group’s maximum deposit guidelines.21

“It is become our habit now. Even though sometimes we don’t have enough money we will then go borrow from our neighbor or relative to save, and give it back the next month.” – SfC Member

Commitment to the savings process is an important aspect of SfC groups’ characteristics, and a direct impact of the program’s methodology. Some members who are too busy will send their children to make deposits, obtaining group updates at a later time. Others report borrowing the monthly savings amount from neighbors or friends to ensure ongoing participation.

Loans SfC offers its members an affordable and accessible source of credit. It has a growing place in the continuum of financing options and offers members a credit product, to which they previously did not have access. An essential prerequisite of the SfC methodology, similar to that of a credit union, is that the level of savings must be adequate to support the loan requirements of the members of the group. Members seem to have a strong understanding of the inherent relationship between savings, loans outstanding, interest income and payouts. This relationship is critical and the comprehension of its implications by members, equally so. A key finding from both FGDs and individual interviews is that members perceive group capital as being too small, limiting loan size and as such, both are frequently highlighted as limitations of the program. In general, members have access to several, not necessarily mutually exclusive, sources of credit. SfC, MFIs, moneylenders, and friends and family, are the primary options, offering a variety of “financial services”. Consideration of source is based on loan terms as well as more subjective criteria. Households do not all have equal access to the same quality of credit options.

21 From a record keeping perspective this might cause challenges. Also worthy of consideration is once everyone’s

savings is on par, what happens to minimum and maximum levels


Members are not new to using debt. In the 12 months prior to joining SfC, 39 members (80% of sample) had reported borrowing money. As shown below, MFIs and moneylenders are equally as popular.

Table 21: Borrowing Pattern in the Year Prior to Joining SfC


Member (%)

Source of Borrowing

(%)

Moneylender 15 31% 38%

MFI 15 31% 38%

Family and friends 8 16% 21%

Other source 1 2% 3%

Did not borrow 10 20% N/A

Total 49 100% 100%

Reasons for borrowing from a specific source include familiarity, ease of process, low interest, urgency, size of loan and flexibility of loan term. The below table prioritizes the reasons by source.

Table 22: Sources and Reasons for Borrowing in the Year Prior to Joining SfC

Sources Reason for Choosing this Source

Moneylenders Primary reason is urgency, followed by the ease of process and familiarity with the source. Flexibility was also a key reason, whether it is a longer term or an open-ended repayment term. Followed by loan size.

MFIs MFIs on the other hand were primarily chosen because of the lower interest rate, but also because of the large loan size and ease of process. This applies to group loans as well as individual loans.

Friends and Family Borrowing from friends and family is overwhelmingly due to them knowing the source.

Although the program has only been in pace for a short time, there are minor but noticeable changes in members borrowing habits. Members now use SfC loans for small purchases, although continuing to rely on other sources of credit, albeit to a lesser extent (see below) than prior to joining SfC. Since joining SfC 36 members (74% of sample) have borrowed from their group fund, several more than once. The total number of loans taken by members was 42 or an average of 1.2x per member. The average loan size was KHR 147,500 ($37) with a 3-month term. Interest rate varies by group but is usually 2% per month. See below table for details.

Table 23: Characteristics of SfC Loans

Description Average Range

Loan Size KHR 147,500 ($37) KHR 30,000 to KHR 400,000 ($7.50 to $100)

Interest Rate (Per Month)* 2% 2% to 3%

Term 3 months 1 month to 6 months * For members. For non-members the range is 3% to 5%.

Groups will also provide loans to non-members but at higher rates, usually between 3-5%. Some groups use the high rate as a means to entice persons to join the group and receive the benefit of a 2% loan. Others focus on potential income generation and consideration of moneylender rates, which are generally 5% or higher.


SfC loans are used for a variety of purposes. As described in the income section of the report, almost half of the loan usage is for income generating activities such as agricultural, livestock and business activities.22 The second largest category is for health, which suggests that medical expense potentially represents a significant financial burden on households. The table below lists loan purpose, ranked by popularity.

Table 24: Purpose of SfC Loans

Description Purpose (#) Purpose (%)

Agricultural - Income and Subsistence 13 25%

Health 11 22%

Food 7 14%

Livestock - Income and Subsistence 7 14%

Other existing business 4 8%

Education 4 8%

Celebrations, Funerals 2 4%

Other 2 4%

Home improvements 1 2%

Total 51 100%

According to members the “very poor” are given priority to access SfC loans. Although somewhat anecdotal, and based on a small sample, our data shows that 90% of members holding ID Poor cards having received SfC loans – a slightly higher percentage than the total member sample. 23 Quantitative and qualitative analysis shows that after joining SfC members do continue to rely on moneylenders and MFIs for some of their credit needs. Reasons are varied but as highlighted earlier not all members have equal access to credit options. Many members lament the reliance on moneylenders, understanding the cycle of debt and its implications for their household’s livelihood. Viable alternatives are not always available.

“We want our next generation to continue to deposit in the savings group in order to reduce borrowing from money lenders.”- SfC Member

The table below details borrowing sources by members after joining SfC. Of the 25 members that use other sources, 80% are borrowing from both SfC and from other sources, sometimes blending the two for the same use.

22

Subsistence and income generating activities are very closely aligned and for the purpose of certain sections of the report are merged together. 23

One “very poor” member had received 3 SfC loans, the most recent for KHR 30,000 ($7.50).


Table 25: Borrowing Pattern After Joining SfC


Member (%)

Source of Borrowing

(%)

Moneylender 12 24% 48%

MFI 8 16% 32%

Family and friends 4 8% 16%

Other source 1 2% 4%

Did not borrow 24 49% N/A

Total 49 100% 100%

The below table outlines the primary reasons members continue to borrow from specific sources after joining SfC.

Table 26: Sources and Reasons for Borrowing from Additional Sources after Joining SfC

Sources Reasons

Moneylenders Primary reason is the size of the loan followed by the urgency. Flexibility of repayment remains an attractive attribute.

MFIs MFIs were chosen because of a combination of larger sized loans, low interest rates and a relatively easy process. Process is considered easy as members are repeat borrowers.

Friends and Family Members continue to borrow from friends and family because of familiarity, and to some extent flexibility.

Assets – Household and Agricultural In this section we measure assets, both household and agricultural, some which have been included in the PPI questions, covered previously, and others that were not. Where relevant we compare assets of members and non-members. All members, and 94% of non-members, own their household land plot. The size varies by village, and location within village, but was not measured during the fieldwork. Roughly 50% use their household land plot to grow fruit or vegetables, but with yields generally not enough to be considered one of the top three sources of income. Classification of home construction materials is often used to aid in measurement of income levels. Respondents will often reinvest “savings” into home improvements. The table shows the breakdown of homes by primary construction materials. The majority of members fall in the second category, while non-members are more equally divided between the first two categories.

Table 27: Primary Construction Material of Outer Wall of HH

Description Members (%)

Non-members (%)

1 - Bamboo, thatch, makeshift, salvaged materials 18% 42%

2 - Wood, logs, plywood, galvanized iron or aluminum 76% 58%

3 - Concrete, brick or stone 6% 0%


Roughly 25% of member and non-member homes have some form of toilet facility but the vast majority have none or relies on open land adjacent to their home. Certain NGOs such as ECOSORN have provided latrines to communities. Awareness of associated sanitation issues is growing and was mentioned as a development priority of numerous households and local leaders. Members tend to own a greater number of household assets, such as motorcycles, televisions and water pumps, than non-members. As the sample and control groups are relatively small we do not believe this finding is in itself especially revealing but is worth noting for future studies. From a development perspective, the low number of water pumps in the community is significant. Access to clean water remains a challenge for most communities, and those that have water pumps, often are in the operational district of an NGO project.

Table 28: Selected HH Assets Owned

Description Members (%) Non-members (%)

Own one or more motorcycles 57% 30%

Own a television 53% 45%

Own a water pump 7% 4%

Ownership of agricultural assets is comparable for members and non-members. Of note is the overall high level of land ownership, as well as hectare per household. Median level of land ownership is 2 HA per household. Coupled with this finding, almost 30% of members own a two-wheel tractor (“Kor Yun”), a relatively expensive agricultural asset that can be used for plowing, pumping water and hauling. In addition it can be rented to other households, generating additional income. Almost all members grow rice for income and subsistence purposes and as such 60% of households have some form of paddy storage.

Table 29: Agricultural Assets Owned

Description Members (%)

Non-members (%)

Agricultural Land 100% 91%

Two-wheel tractor (Kor Yun) 29% 25%

Oxcart 15% 11%

Paddy Storage 60% 57%

Well 21% 11%

The below table highlights the levels of livestock ownership by members.24 Consideration of the relatively high percentage of households that own livestock, especially pigs is important, as it closely ties into their technique of mitigating risks associated with seasonal income. Chickens are ubiquitous, owned by 90% of households, for income and subsistence purposes.

Table 30: Livestock Owned

Description Member (%) Average per HH (#)

Water buffalo 12% 2.5

Cow or oxen 50% 1.7

Pigs 57% 2.5

Chickens 90% 15

24

There are no noteworthy differences between member and non-member households.


Health Respondents and their families have varying levels of access to health services, including holistic healers, pharmacies, health centers, clinics, mobile treatment services, and to a lesser extent, hospitals. For persons with ID Poor cards, medical treatment is free but money is needed for transportation. But many poor members, those with ID poor cards, prefer not to get free service from government facilities but borrow in order to access higher quality health services. Our research found that in general medical treatment and ongoing health related expenses play a significant role in household expenditures. Members describe feeling “indebted” because of medical related expenses. Over 95% of member and non-member households report sickness or injury over the last six months. Members rely on numerous sources (average of 2.0x per household) to pay for medical expenses. The chart below shows the top 5 sources of funding. Income is the preferred option. However, this is not always feasible, thus members borrow from moneylenders, sell assets, borrow from friends and family, and utilize SfC. Of interest is that members relied less on moneylenders than non-members for medical treatment. The sample size is small but there is a possibility that this divergence is due to member’s accessibility to SfC loans. That said the average cost of medical treatment over the last 6 months was KHR 353,283 ($88), while the average size of SfC “medical” loans was KHR 135,000 ($34). The gap is significant thus members in theory still need to rely on additional sources to cover their medical expenses.

Figure 6: Sources of Financing for HH Medical Treatment

Food and Nutrition Households consume an average of 8 cans (2 kilos) of rice daily. In the last 12 months 61% of member households had experienced food shortages, on an average of 2 months per year. The food shortages were generally not so extreme as to prevent persons from missing a regular meal.

6

7

9

10

36

9

0

13

19

34

0 10 20 30 40

Borrow from Household/friends

Loan SfC

Sell assets

Moneylender

Income

Number of Household

S

o

u

r

c

e

Primary Source - Medical Treatment

Non Member of SfC

Member of SfC


Table 31: Food and Nutrition


How many cans of rice does your household consume daily?

Average HH rice consumption

8 cans (2 kilos) 8 cans (2 kilos)

In the last 12 months have you and your household experienced food shortages?

Yes 61% 81%

If yes, how many months in the last year have you experienced food shortages?

Experience food shortage last year

2 months 3 months

In the last 12 months did anyone in your household miss a regular meal because of a lack of food?

Yes 4% 18%

Members use a blend of strategies such as loans, gifts, vendor credit, selling of assets and income generation to ensure the household has food and to mitigate the impact of food shortages.25 Role and impact of each source is not easily quantifiable as agricultural activities often serve as both income generating and subsistence activities. The chart shows the most commonly used sources by members and non-members. Far fewer members chose moneylenders as compared to non-members but causality is uncertain and may be influenced by factors such as household income level or access to food supplies. Four members rely on SfC loans to mitigate food shortages. This response is slightly misleading as members report using SfC payouts and loans more often in subsequent “food” questions. Perhaps the distinction is between food shortage and “food” in general.

Figure 7: Sources of Financing for HH Food Shortage

25

On an average, households reported using 2.0x sources each to pay for food.

4

5

6

11

12

14

6

5

23

13

19

0 5 10 15 20 25

SfC

MFI

Gift from Household/friends

Moneylender


Income

Number of Household

S

o

u

r

c

e

s

Primary Sources - Food Shortages

Non Member of SfC

Member of SfC


Education School attendance of member “school age” children is 90%. Members rely on income as their primary source (65%) of funds to pay for educational costs. Members frequently cite “education for children” as a savings goal, and as a perceived benefit of SfC. However, quantitative data shows less than 10% of members using SfC loans and payouts for education. When asked about the planned use of future payouts, less than 10% suggest allocating funds to educational expenses.

Resilience to Shocks Rural households often face significant “shocks”, such as harvest failure, death of livestock, illness, etc. A certain degree of proactive planning and processes can mitigate some of the risks, and in certain communities this exists. But for many and for certain types of shocks, this is not an option. To better understand members’ resilience to shocks a series of questions were asked to identify event, level of significance, response and perceived sense of recovery. In FGDs SfC is often cited as a “safety net”; a source of funds that can be used for emergencies, such as food and medical. But the quantitative data does not strongly support SfC’s use as a primary source for dealing with shocks. The divergence could be due to our method of inquiry, that recovery from significant shocks requires more capital than SfC can provide or that in many cases households chose to do nothing in response to “shocks”. The first question identifies the events that have had a negative effect on the household in the last 12 months. The below table highlights the three most prevalent events, and shows harvest failure or crop loss to be the primary shock to both member and non-member households.

Table 32: Events Affecting HH

Description Member Events (#)

Non-Member Events

(#)

Member Events (%)

Non-Member

Events (%)

Harvest failure or crop loss 34 26 56% 46%

Illness or injury of self or HH member 10 13 16% 23%

Illness or death of livestock 8 8 13% 14%

Other: Business failure, damage to house, theft, death of HH member

9 10 15% 17%

Total 61 57 100% 100%

Over 97% of households describe these events as having either a “small or large” negative effect; a small minority categorize it as having no effect. The question measures respondent’s perception of significance, not actual economic or material impact.

Table 33: How Significance of the Effect


Non-Member Events

(#)

Member Events (%)

Non-Member Events (%)

No effect 1 2 1% 3%

Small negative effect 28 22 46% 39%

Large negative effect 32 33 52% 58%

Total 61 57 100% 100%


Members and non-members two top response mechanisms to these events are to borrow from moneylenders, followed by taking no action. Moneylenders tend to be an easy source from which to obtain large amounts and quickly, thus in the case of emergencies can adeptly meet the need of respondents. “Doing nothing” can be misleading as a response and should not infer no impact. Instead it pertains to events, often those associated with harvest failure or crop loss, to which rural households are somewhat accustomed and to which they feel there is little recourse. Only 5 events relied on SfC loans and payouts, which were used in response to harvest failure or crop loss, not other events. 26

Table 34: Typical HH Response to the Event


Non-Member Events

(#)

Member Events

(%)

Non-Member Events

(%)

Borrowed money from money lender 14 15 23% 26%

Did nothing 12 16 20% 28%

Borrowed money from MFI 8 0 13% 0%

Engaged in additional income activities 7 3 11% 5%

Borrowed money from other sources 5 5 8% 9%

Sold assets 5 10 8% 18%

Borrowed money from SfC group 4 1 7% 2%

Used other savings 3 2 5% 3%

Other 2 5 3% 9%

Used savings payout from SfC group 1 0 1% 0%

Total 61 57 100% 100%

Asking respondents if they had recovered from the event is highly subjective in that each household’s definition and perception of recovery varies. Of importance is that over 50% of households do not identify with having recovered from the “shock”.

Table 35: HH Recovery from the Event

Response Member Events (#)

Non-Member Events

(#)

Member Events (%)

Non-Member Events (%)

Yes 28 24 46% 43%

No 33 32 54% 57%

Total 61 56 100% 100%

Empowerment As the majority of members are female, empowerment ties in closely with gender related topics; however, specific gender roles and relationships will be examined in greater detail in a subsequent section of the report. Here we discuss overall, non-gender-specific empowerment. There are a number of ways in which the study examines empowerment. It measures the extent to which members perceive themselves as having the ability to make or influence decisions, and

26

Generally responses between members and non-members are consistent with the exception of loans from MFIs, where there is a big difference. The reason behind this finding is uncertain.


looks at the degree to which SfC has an impact on these processes. Consideration is given to potential impact on empowerment in the context of the group, household and community. The willingness of members to address grievances and influence decisions on a village level can be a measurement of empowerment. The majority of members, if they disagree with something that is happening in the village, will be vocal about it. Approximately 50% feel empowered to go directly to village or community leaders. However only 20% of members felt they could influence substantive changes in their community, such as the building of a primary school. Members’ perception of their ability to influence decisions within their SfC group is mixed. Half of the members think they could stop a questionable loan from being given to a committee leader’s friend or family member who was not in the group. Approximately 30% think they could possibly prevent it from happening and 20% thought they could not. Members perceive the process of learning about savings and SfC’s methodology in itself as being empowering. This includes savings concepts, as well as details such as interest rate calculations and recording transactions. On a household level, members report more joint decision-making and financial planning. It is uncertain if this represents a substantive change from prior methods of decision-making and financial planning. Members report that participation in the group, demonstrating the ability to save and access loans, and having some money to be able to purchase small items for personal use as well as for the household, offers them a level of financial independence and more respect in the household. SfC seems to provide an especially positive educational and leadership opportunity for young women, often unmarried and with a higher level of education, who are serving as secretaries of groups. They are strongly encouraged and motivated to become committee members by the other women in the group, and speak of their role with a high level of pride and commitment. They would like to stay on as leaders. For most this is their first “leadership” position in the community. Members report activity in SfC positively influencing their social skills and ability to speak publicly. Through their participation in group activities, such as gathering members, encouraging non-members to join, creating and adjusting policies, and the discussion of loans, members report becoming more outspoken and assertive.

Gender

One of the primary research goals is to identify current gender roles and relationships, how they have changed over the last ten years and the perceived impact of SfC on gender relations. There is consideration of the above factors at a community, household and individual level. 27

Changes Over the Last Decade Members and local leaders were asked a series of open-ended questions used to identify and describe the changes in the lives of women in the community over the last decade. This information served to describe the current gender environment by way of considering this

27

It should be noted that the majority of the gender discussion is based on member perceptions and that 90% of the member sample are women.


contrast. Overall the perception is that there have been significant positive changes in educational, professional and leadership opportunities, as well as improved human rights and increased confidence.

Respondents reported an increase in educational opportunities for women as well as an increase in their motivation to pursue their studies. There appears to be more women teachers than previously, and the school attendance levels for girls are equal to those of boys.

Although women are still expected to continue with their traditional household roles, there are an increasing number of women who are working as civil servants (teachers, village chief, deputy commune chief), for community based development organizations and MFIs, and who also run their own businesses. Linked to educational and professional opportunities, more women serve in voluntary and paid leadership roles in the community. This includes organizing villagers and working together with organizations on a variety of issues, such as health, development planning and women’s rights.

“Human rights” are at the forefront of every gender discussion. Women describe having a greater awareness of their rights but also having access to mechanisms to address their grievances. The number one reported human rights violation is domestic violence, often induced by alcohol consumption. There is some sense that the prevalence of domestic violence has been reduced in fieldwork communities but this is inconclusive.

On the whole respondents perceive women as having greater confidence and self–esteem. This is on a community-wide level but also within the household where women have greater independence and more say in decision-making.

SfC Impact on Gender The impact of SfC on gender roles and relationships generally echoed the broad changes identified as having taken place over the last decade. However, there are several examples specific to SfC.

SfC provides women with an opportunity to serve as committee members, fostering leadership skills. This serves the purpose of demonstrating to the community and to husbands that women can effectively lead. It also serves the purpose of challenging traditional ideas and roles of women as only “staying at home and looking after the family.”

Members report SfC to positively impact social networks, building women’s cohesion in the community and fostering solidarity.

Women members describe SfC’s group activities, discussion and decision-making processes as improving their confidence and communication skills. This is on a community, group and household level.

Membership encourages women to save, adding to their financial independence, but also influencing household financial planning and savings patterns. Select members articulate husbands’ increased participation in planning and savings.


In response to a question linking income and role in the household, members and village leaders suggest that there is a link between women’s rights and respect in the home and their ability to generate income. As such if a woman makes more money, not only could she afford to pay for additional household necessities but she could also influence her position in the household. If accurate, then it is feasible to suggest that SfC, through its loans and savings, can add to a woman’s ability to generate income, and can possibly improve her role in the household. Making decisions in the household can be telling with regard to gender roles and empowerment. Our research finds that with regard to education, healthcare and large financial transactions or purchases, women make more individual decisions than men, but “joint decisions” are most common. This is especially the case for financial transactions in which 76% of households made combined decisions. (Please see Table: Decision Making in Households.) As it appears now, men are less involved overall in household decisions than women. We do not know if this represents a change from previously and of interest would be to be revisit this topic in a later study to measure change and impact.

Table 36: Decision Making Patterns in HH

Who in the HH makes decisions about children’s’ education and schooling?

Decision Maker %

Women 20%

Joint 69%

Men 2%

Other 9%

Who in the household makes decisions about the family's healthcare?

Decision Maker %

Women 29%

Joint 63%

Men 2%

Other 6%

Who in the household makes decision about large financial transactions or purchases?

Decision Maker %

Women 12%

Joint 76%

Men 8%

Other 4%

Strengths and Challenges of SfC Program

The research team has been privy to a significant amount of data from SfC members and non-members, community leaders, RACHA field staff and management, as well as OxfamAmerica personnel. These many sources of information coupled with the use of qualitative and quantitative data collection tools, offers a unique and objective perspective of SfC and its operations. The goal of this section is to leverage this information to identify and elaborate on the many strengths and challenges of the SfC program, touched upon throughout the report.


Strengths Through OxfamAmerica and RACHA’s partnership, SfC offers rural Cambodian communities a useful and important savings and credit mechanism, which is appreciated by its members. SfC is increasingly playing a more important role in the continuum of available financial services. It offers small, easily accessible loans, which can be used for income, consumption or emergency purposes. Its presence is increasing savings awareness and changing savings habits. SfC is described as empowering members offering a level of financial independence and fostering household financial planning.

Implementing Partner

Success of SfC in large part relies on the implementing organization’s ability to deliver the program effectively. RACHA is a strong collaborating partner that is highly committed to implementation and expansion of SfC. RACHA’s extensive community based health network, programmatic focus on women and health in rural communities, and strong national reputation, offers a substantial platform with which to offer and leverage SfC services. RACHA has a large team of over 50 staff who are actively involved in implementing technical and administrative aspects of SfC. Their expertise and understanding of SfC is an invaluable asset for the program.

Savings and Credit Products

SfC offers useful and in-demand financial services to rural Cambodian households. Its credit and savings products have an important place in the continuum of community based financial services. Consumers increasingly want credit and savings options and as such SfC has the opportunity to offer a package of financial services that if delivered effectively, can be attractive to segments of the rural population. SfC also offers an open process, with a high level of self-governance and transparency, which are important attributes for attracting rural members to savings led programs. Notably, members seem to understand, and appreciate, the essential and interrelated connection between savings levels, credit and payouts.

Market Presence

SfC currently has significant outreach in Banteay Mean Chey and Preah Vihear with over 8,000 members and 585 groups, and is growing. This achievement cannot be understated, as in itself it already represents a presence in over 300 villages. Capitalizing on the performance of the groups and members in these communities is essential. As existing customers, they represent an opportunity for repeat business, and effectively as marketing tools of SfC in their communities. Our research shows that successful groups with active members can have a positive role in the development of other groups and member participation in the community.

Savings Awareness and Planning

SfC helps to promote savings awareness, and in doing so often changes people’s perceptions of formal savings mechanisms, as well as their actual savings habits. It is a key strength of the program with visible impact. Financial planning on a household level is implicitly affected by this awareness, and offers participants an opportunity to further consider implications of savings and credit, and their relation to factors such as seasonal income patterns and cash flow shortfalls, as well as future plans and goals.


Impact on Gender

The vast majority of SfC members are women, and as such, to an extent, women directly benefit from the program. Level of self-confidence and empowerment are not quantifiable, but unequivocally are positively impacted by SfC if for no other reason than through attainment of leadership positions as committee members and educational advances, in the areas of record keeping, and savings, loans and interest calculations.

Challenges Our research identifies several areas in which SfC faces challenges. Consideration of these challenges and limitations are best understood with both OxfamAmerica and RACHA’s roles in mind. The two organizations are partners in this project, and as such resolving challenges may often require participation and support from both organizations.

OxfamAmerica’s SfC Capacity

OxfamAmerica introduced the SfC program to Cambodia in 2005. Based on the research team’s discussions with Oxfam and RACHA staff, the growth and success of the program has had successes and challenges. The reasons for the challenges encountered are complex, but include a lack of a technical unit and what appears to be an insufficient level of staff to actively manage a program, which requires both field presence and back office support; a lack of a formal evaluation process used for partner selection; and varying approaches towards working with partners, including training and support.

Clear Definition of Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

The construct of the SfC model is complicated by virtue of the fact that program methodology is designed and mostly funded by OxfamAmerica, yet on the ground is being implemented by RACHA under its operational structure. Aligning the goals, priorities and programmatic mission of both organizations is absolutely essential. It requires ongoing, dynamic and constructive communication between the two organizations, as well as clear delineation of expectations, roles and responsibilities. This applies to numerous areas, such as methodology or expansion strategy. Since the program’s inception, communication between the two organizations has improved dramatically; however, the findings of our research suggest there might still be areas in which further clarity is warranted, such as the degree of OxfamAmerica’s involvement in RACHA’s operations and staffing, and the delineation of SfC expansion areas to avoid overlap with other new SfC partners.

Staffing and Operations

RACHA staff identify certain challenges (and solutions) pertaining to staffing and operations. These are highlighted in previous sections. As we concur with many of the challenges, such as: ambiguous lines of reporting; DPF recruitment, compensation, benefits, and evaluations; and the clear delineation of staff roles and responsibilities, we will not expand on them further. That is not to say we do not consider them important for RACHA’s operational structure and its impact on the delivery of SfC. Of importance is that the identified challenges pertaining to staffing and


operations are addressed in a timely manner, and consistently within the SfC operational structure.

SfC Model

The SfC model construct has its inherent limitations. The model fundamentally relies on a simplified Accumulating Savings and Credit Association model, whereby savings mobilized serve as the pool of capital from which members can access loans, but also receive payout of interest on their savings. Although members understand the correlation between deposits, loans and payouts, the level of savings mobilization is often not adequate, in terms of availability as well as size of loan, to meet the credit needs of members. One of the implications is that members then access loans elsewhere. A widespread increase in savings mobilization to some degree could address the issue of insufficient loan capital; however, this comes with other risks and challenges. The assumption mandates higher savings amounts, which excludes very poor segments of the population. From a credit perspective there are inherent risks with a larger pool of capital, especially without the commensurate expertise of committee members to manage larger and more complex credit requests. Lastly, SfC does not offer any “formal” protection for depositors and if a sizable loan defaults it could severely impact members. That said, there are other mechanisms in place such as appealing to the village counsel which if necessary could be effective. SfC loans are also limited by their relatively small size and short term. They do not offer much opportunity to significantly impact economic activities, which generally require more significant capital and a longer loan term, especially to accommodate seasonal income activities. Another limitation of the model is that the savings potential, credit needs and options of the very poor as compared to other segments of the population are not necessarily similar. The “one size fits all” approach might not be effective in attracting both. In addition, a very poor household, living “hand to mouth” often requires a more thorough and comprehensive array of services and social benefits, such as medical, livelihood and potable water, to assist them in their daily livelihood. Savings alone is not going to alleviate their dire situation. This is not to say that SfC must expand its focus to deliver these types of services, but is important to consider when evaluating which segments of the rural population are being reached and why.

Record Keeping

The principle of self-governance is recognized and appreciated by SfC members; however, it must be accompanied with the appropriate expertise and training in record keeping, including loan, interest and payout calculations. Poor recordkeeping and the ensuing errors can greatly damage group confidence; it can also lead to problems with fraud. If the perception of members is that this method of savings is not safe then they will resort back to traditional methods with which they are familiar and trust. It goes without saying that RACHA must also make certain that its own data collection and records are sound and done in a timely manner.

Perceived Opportunity Cost

Formal saving is more attractive to the rural population when it is self-governed and perceived as safe but also when it demonstrates tangible monetary benefits. This specifically speaks to the


opportunity cost associated with maintaining savings in a group, versus another more profitable investment vehicle. These investment vehicles could include other MFI or NGO savings programs, business expansion or lending money to others. It is important to be able to clearly demonstrate to members the financial advantages of SfC participation. This is relevant to potential members as well as existing members.

Competition

SfC faces competition from other providers of financial services as well as NGOs who operate a blend of community development projects, often merged with a savings and credit component. Although SfC does strongly impact members on a social and cognitive level, it is important to recognize that the main reason behind members joining SfC is because of the perceived benefits of credit, savings and payouts. As such, the presence, and services, of MFIs, other institutions and moneylenders must not be discounted. The challenge is to articulate the key benefits of SfC’s methodology but also to be able to articulate the financial benefits of its services and how they compare to others. In addition, through participatory approaches staff can learn what the needs of SfC members are and attempt to adjust accordingly. SfC plays a complimentary role to other sources but its future largely lies in being able to provide its clients with what it is they want and need, competitively.

Recommendations

This section highlights key recommendations, some of which have already been touched upon throughout the report. The recommendations are based on our objective review and the identification of potential opportunities. All of the below recommendations are made with the ultimate goal of strengthening the management, delivery and sustainability of the SfC program.

Sustainability

As RACHA continues to implement SfC it is important to formulate and implement a strategic plan to ensure program sustainability beyond the planned funding cycle. This includes an evaluation of the program delivery and outcomes; administration and operations; and existing support and financial resources. Ideally this plan should address and map out strategies such as coupling SfC with a health message; leveraging existing community health networks; obtaining support from local authorities; and advocacy. Should the goal be to utilize RACHA funds, along with other funding sources such as USAID, then levels should be quantified to plan for future allocation and prepare for funding gaps. Once again this is a process in which Oxfam should participate, jointly identifying opportunities and areas requiring financial and technical support.

Targeting

Examination, and further refinement of the strategy used to identify target communities is warranted. Our understanding is that currently senior management provides goals based on operational district, and then PCs, in consultation with local leaders and health staff, work with their teams to design local level strategies. Emphasis remains on the quantity of villages with the goal of “covering every village”. A time consuming approach, it appears to be driven by geographic location not by village or potential member characteristics. It also does not wholly consider communities that potentially have SfC implemented by other organizations such as DCA.


Implementation of a formal process to pre-screen and prioritize villages, categorized into tiers, could effectively reduce time allocated to visiting communities that do not meet the appropriate criteria. RACHA staff is aware of community characteristics and household qualities, which influence membership, and as such should leverage this knowledge. This system would also serve to identify and flag villages that are worth re-visiting should the initial visit not be beneficial.

Health and Savings Message

RACHA has the opportunity to take advantage of its in-house health related competencies to jointly deliver a health and savings message. The joint message can offer knowledge and awareness, coupled with a tangible health related savings goal. As of yet this “health message” does not seem to be formally and consistently incorporated into SfC promotion. Articulation of this strategy is central to RACHA’s plan for the sustainability of SfC. It calls for message and method of delivery to be clearly identified. Consideration of linking micro-health insurance with SfC is deserving of further attention. However, our research did identify household health expenses as being significant and often paid for by debt, which represents a net loss to the household’s income. Theoretically if this impact can be reduced then it could improve household income and poverty levels.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation should ideally be conducted in an accurate, consistent and timely manner. RACHA must strive to ensure that staff understand the purpose and usefulness of reports, plans, and MIS data. The information should be routinely used for monitoring and evaluation purposes. This mandates consistent and timely gathering of data. It also calls for feedback to field staff regarding report content and findings, and where necessary, action steps. In the case where membership retention is a challenge it could be helpful to engage in short exit interviews to identify the reasons, and if possible take measures to mitigate the chance of recurrence. Ongoing analysis of this data should be used to evaluate outcome and activities, influence “corrective” program measures, and inform larger strategic decisions.

Staff Development and Training

Several RACHA staff flag the need to build internal expertise in the area of community based finance so as to allow them to more effectively understand the context of SfC and market its benefits of SfC. This will also serve to offer higher-level training to committee members.28 This recommendation is partially derived from conversations with staff but is also based on our perception of SfC as one of the many debt and savings products offered in the continuum of financial services, and as such requiring it to be competitive. This staff development can rely on expertise from RACHA’s existing health microfinance program, from OxfamAmerica or other external sources. Ultimately this will strengthen SfC staff and in turn, group capacity. Strong consideration must be given to providing DPFs with comprehensive and updated training; higher compensation that is more in line with market, as well as RACHA health staff; and benefits, including health and accident insurance, transportation, bonus, and perhaps uniforms.

28

In the Cambodian context SfC competes with MFIs as well as other providers of financial services. This is potentially more the case than in other countries where SfC is being implemented.


Working with Groups After Training Period

SfC members uniformly express a strong interest in having RACHA staff visit groups regularly, preferably on a monthly basis, and where necessary to provide ongoing support and training. Our research shows that an adjustment of the monitoring schedule to accommodate regular monthly visits to groups, at least throughout the first cycle, could be highly advantageous. Currently, the majority of RACHA resources are allocated to group formation and training. But monthly visits are much less resource intensive and have the added benefit of an existing relationship, which can be leveraged to build group capacity, provide support, potentially attract new members and address group and membership issues in a timely manner. The presence of strong groups in a community serves to “market” the program, with other groups often following suit. This demonstrates another reason for staff to leverage existing communities that have groups, perhaps focusing less on adding new villages. More frequent village visits also offer staff an opportunity to collect data on a consistent and timely basis and serves the purpose of strengthening the monitoring and evaluation processes.

Define Savings Goals

Define specific member (and/or group) savings goals, using an “investment” plan, which includes monthly amounts and specific term. The goal can be a tangible asset or an amount to be used for a service, potentially linking with a RACHA health goal, or a development need such as water filters, latrines or wells. This process serves to offer incentive and motivation to the savings process as well as an eventual realization of the goal. Of course such an approach does necessitate RACHA staff to conduct more in-depth and individual work with members and groups.

Record Keeping:

Improve membership expertise and training in record keeping, and loan, interest and payout calculations. This also builds confidence in the process. RACHA staff can offer members additional follow up trainings as well as testing of concepts on an ongoing basis.


Baseline Survey: Set 2 and 3 Villages

The Research Purpose and Methodology sections at the beginning of the research study provide all of the details on the background, purpose, data collections tools, piloting and methodology for the baseline survey. Questions and approach for the baseline survey mirrored those used in Set 1. Rationale and characteristics of questions are often explained in Set 1, and as such the baseline is best used in conjunction with the preceding sections of the research study. To recap, the goal of the baseline survey was to measure the current level of income and livelihoods, savings, loans, assets, health, food security, education, resilience to shocks and empowerment and gender to be able to track future impacts. The baseline survey took place in 16 villages, equally divided between treatment and control villages in both Banteay Mean Chey and Kampot provinces. Data collection relied on the use of individual questionnaires with 464 respondents, and meetings with local leaders from each of the 16 villages. The majority of the data is quantitative in nature. It will be used as the baseline for follow up studies examining the impact of the program, in intervals over the next two years.

Village Characteristics Village characteristics include basic data on size; livelihood characteristics; accessibility to schools, medical services and markets; development priorities; and migration patterns.

Number of Households

Baseline villages have an average of 252 households per community. Villages in Banteay Mean Chey had an average of 294 households each, while those in Kampot had an average size of 211. Seventy-five percent of villages fall in the range of 185 to 300 households. Villages generally have undergone growth in the last 30 years.29

Livelihood

Baseline villages rely on multiple livelihoods to generate household income. The most frequent livelihoods include rice farming, raising livestock, agricultural labor, vegetable and fruit farming, and food or drink stands. Each household relies on an average of 2 livelihood activities. Rice farming is conducted by 64% of respondents surveyed. Its success relies on regular and controlled access to water. Baseline villages are primarily reliant on rainwater to grow rice, and to a lesser extent sporadic access to irrigation canals. Certain communities experience droughts while others experience the uncontrolled flooding of fields. Either extreme can damage the harvest, impacting household livelihood.

Accessibility to Schools, Medical Services and Markets

Most villages report easy access to primary (Grades 1-6) and secondary schools (Grades 7-9). The maximum distance of travel reported is 3 km. High schools, conversely, are often reported to be

29 Not all communities were forced to vacate their villages during the Khmer Rouge regime, but those who remained

engaged in nearby collective farming. Many who did leave, returned in 1979, re-forming their communities, some with as few as 10 HH. The majority of persons returning home at this stage were often the recipients of government land gifts.


prohibitively far, up to 30 km, and not easily accessible because of distance and poor road conditions. If children opt to continue for a high school education it is often necessary for them to reside in the community in which the school is located. Medical and health services include traditional healers, pharmacies, private clinics, mobile health staff, health centers, hospitals, and NGO health programs. For minor illnesses households commonly make use of village based facilities, including health centers that tend to be located in close proximity, no more than 3 km away. For more severe injuries and sicknesses villagers opt to visit hospitals and clinics, generally located in provincial centers.30 Preference is not always based on proximity but on perceived quality and value of health care service provided. Accessibility to markets was not cited as being a problem for the majority of communities. Every village has basic grocery stands, and most food products can be obtained through purchase or exchange. When there is a need to buy something more significant, usually non-food products, villagers travel to the district market. Farmers with crops, vegetables or livestock either rely on middlemen who visit their homes or go directly to district or provincial markets. This is driven by the consistency of supply, as well as marketplace systems such as cooperatives.

Development Priorities

The primary development priority is construction or restoration of existing canals and irrigation channels to transport and control access to water for crops. Rehabilitation of roads to improve year around access is also cited as a popular development goal. On a household level, latrines and wells are a development priority but are considered to be the domain of NGOs, such as ECOSORN and Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), unlike public projects such as irrigation or roads.

Migration

Migration plays a relevant role in baseline villages, impacting income levels as well as household and village demographics. Migration patterns tend to differ slightly by region. In Banteay Mean Chey many villagers work in Thailand or in the border area, sometimes for extended periods of time. Migration levels per village can sometimes be as high as 60% of total households. Equally significant is that this is often not just limited to one person, but may often include the household head, and eldest children. Villages in Kampot also experience significant migration but the tendency is for households to send children (aged 15-20) to work in garment factories in Phnom Penh. As a result the majority of household members have an active presence in the community, and are able to engage in consistent business activities. Migration should not be instinctively equated with financial gain for the household as there are numerous instances wherein money is borrowed to migrate and is not able to be repaid, or where employers do not pay migrant workers as promised. Noteworthy is that the research does not show a clear correlation between household poverty and income level, and migration patterns. This is not to say they do not exist but a discernible trend was not identified.

30

Certain villages such as Luong and Russei Krok, both in Mongkol Borrei District are less than 5km from a major hospital.


Interviewee Demographics In line with the gender composition of SfC membership, 81% of the baseline interviewees are female. The average age of respondents is 45 with 70% of the respondents between the ages of 30 and 59. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents are married. Noteworthy is the considerably high number of widows and widowers comprising 19% of the total sample.

Table 37: Age Group and Marital Status

Age Group

Description (#) (%)

Less than 30 58 13%

30-59 324 70%

60 and over 82 18%

Marital Status

Description (#) (%)

Single 14 3%

Married 355 77%

Divorce 8 2%

Widow 87 19%

The average household size is 4.4 persons, with the smallest unit being 1 and the largest being 13. Almost 80% of households have between 3 and 7 members. These households can generally be categorized as “simple households” in that they primarily consist of the nuclear family. The exceptions are those that include the elderly or recently married children, who have not yet moved away from home.31

Table 38: Household Size

Description (#) (%)

Average 4.4 N/A

Smallest 1 N/A

Largest 13 N/A

HH with 1-2 members 66 14%

HH with 3-7 members 360 78%

HH with more than 7 members 38 8%

The average level of education for respondents is 5 years. Of the total sample 78% has attended some level of formal education but only 57% was able to read a basic proverb pertaining to savings – “Tak tak penh bam pong.”32 Further breakdowns by level of education are found in the below table.

31 Household: "A household is a group of persons who commonly live together and would take their meals from a

common kitchen unless the exigencies of work prevented any of them from doing so. There may be a household of persons related by blood or a household of unrelated persons or having a mix of both. Examples of unrelated households are boarding houses, messes, hostels, residential hotels, rescue homes, jails, pagodas, etc. These are called “Institutional Households”. There may be one- member households, two- member households or multi-member households. For census purposes each one of these types is regarded as a “Household”. 32

The translation of the proverb, although not literal, suggests “Drop by drop we can achieve our goal.”


Table 39: Literacy and Education

Description Attendees (#) Attendees (%)

Primary (1-6) 256 55%

Secondary (7-9) 70 15%

High School (10-12) 35 8%

University or Higher 2 0%

Subtotal - Formal Education 363 78%

Informal Education 18 4%

No School or Informal Education 83 18%

Subtotal - Informal or No Education 101 22%

Total 464 100%

Measurement of Economic and Social Factors

Livelihood and Income The most popular household income sources are rice farming (65%), raising livestock (26%), agricultural labor (21%), fruit and vegetable farming (13%), and operating food and coffee stands (10%). Diversity of livelihood sources is more than 2 per household. The table below offers an approximation of household income for the baseline villages. As with Set 1, income estimates were conducted as part of a series of questions designed to obtain data on livelihood sources, as well as the seasonality of income. With that consideration the below figures should not be relied upon for placement of the household within an income range or as a measurement of poverty.

Table 40: Income Information

Average Income per HH KHR 5,929,165 ($1,482)

Median Income per HH KHR 2,200,000 ($550)

Most popular livelihoods 1. Rice farming 2. Livestock 3. Agricultural labor 4. Vegetable and fruit farmer 5. Food /coffee stand

Most households who farm rice yield one harvest per year due to the lack of reliable year round water sources. In Banteay Mean Chey, farmers have significantly larger plots of agricultural land and will often use 2 wheel tractors (Kor Yun) while in Kampot there is a greater reliance on the use of cows and oxen, and plows. It should be noted that yield was not examined, and as such it would be incorrect to assume that households in Banteay Mean Chey necessarily generated a higher yield. Flooding, quality of soil and rice growing technique are considerations.


Respondents raise livestock on a relatively small scale per household. It serves the role of income generation but also as a means of “saving” extra money. Livestock such as pigs and cows represent a more significant investment for households and are less commonplace than those with chickens. Seasonality of income significantly impacts household livelihood. Only 28% of households report consistent income generated throughout the year, thus the strong reliance on multiple sources of livelihood.

Table 41: Income Patterns

How Income is Earned? Income Patterns (%)

Consistent 28%

Seasonal 48%

Variable 24%

Total 100%

Poverty

The use of PPI, alongside measurement such as land ownership, and to a lesser extent income levels offers perspective into the poverty levels of baseline respondents.

Table 42: PPI Scores

Sample Size Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Respondents 464 39 37 8 85

The average PPI score of 39 suggests the likelihood of baseline households falling below the poverty line is 13.4% (National Poverty Line). A household score of 60 or greater corresponds with a 0% likelihood of poverty. The same measurements as applied to the USAID Extreme Poverty Line, suggest a 4.3% likelihood of being below the poverty line. A household score of 45 or greater corresponds with a 0% likelihood of poverty. The PPI scorecard does not reflect land ownership, which can also be a useful but basic measurement of income level within a community. Roughly 72% of households own agricultural land, with median land ownership of 1.6 HA per household. In summary, the PPI scores are comparable to that of Set 1 communities. Percentage of baseline respondents that own land is slightly lower, as is the average HA per household.

Savings 57% percent of respondents report having money left over after paying all their expenses; 8% report usually or sometimes having money left over and 35% report not having money left over. As with Set 1, this question served the purpose of being an entry point into the topic of savings, and subsequent questions regarding savings patterns. Once identified as having some money left over or “savings”, respondents were asked about their savings pattern. Of particular interest is that only 8% save a planned amount and regularly. This finding is comparable to that of Set 1 non-members, who also do not save a planned amount and regularly.


Table 43: Saving Habits

Description Savings Habits (#) Savings Habits (%)

Save a planned amount and regularly 24 8%

Save what is left after paying my expenses 157 52%

Save when I have some extra income 119 40%

Total 300 100%

The below table shows the different savings methods used by households in the baseline villages. The use of traditional methods of savings is readily visible. Keeping money in a safe place at home is overwhelmingly the most popular savings methods, used by 75% of respondents that save. It also represents 46% of the total savings methods. Households rely on an average of 1.6x methods to save. Other popular savings strategies include buying livestock and reinvesting in businesses. Only 12 households use other formal savings programs, such as credit unions or MFIs. The high level of savings kept at home represents a potential opportunity for SfC type programs, which can make better use of idle capital; however, it should be noted that the percentage of total savings and the amount allocated to each method is unknown.

Table 44: Saving Methods among Those Who Save

Description Savings Methods (#) Savings Methods (%)

Safe place in house 224 46%

Buy livestock 58 12%

Improve my business 57 12%

Other 36 7%

Lockbox 30 6%

Buy assets 21 4%

Improve my house 21 4%

Savings at bank, credit union or MFI 12 2%

Buy gold 11 2%

Tontine 11 2%

Loan it to others 2 0%

Total 483 100%

Respondents with Money Left Over 300

Average Savings Method per HH 1.61x

Meetings with village leaders touched on the topic of household savings patterns and the presence of savings groups in the community. Leaders identified villagers as having a strong predilection for traditional methods of savings, supporting our quantitative findings. Although not widespread there are a few savings program implemented by CCSF, CEDAC, Ockenden International, IFAD and CWCC. The most significant appears to be that of CCSF in Chamkar Louk Village, followed by CEDAC in Angk Khchey Kahng Cheung Village. 33

33

Our interim fieldwork reports, submitted to Oxfam, describe these findings in additional detail.


Loans As with Set 1, the use of debt in baseline communities is commonplace. Approximately 71% of respondents had reported taking a loan in the last 12 months, with an average of 2 borrowings, while 29% had not relied on any debt during the same 12-month period. As per the below table the three most common, and almost equally utilized sources are family and friends, MFIs and moneylenders. (MFIs and Acleda are ubiquitous in baseline villages, the most common being AMK, Amret, TPC, HKL, Seilanithih, and Acleda. AMK and Amret have a noteworthy level of group borrowers.)

Table 45: Sources of Borrowing

Description Sources (#) Sources (%)

Family and friends 121 33%

MFI 118 32%

Moneylender 105 28%

Bank 13 4%

Village bank 10 3%

Tontine 1 0%

Other 1 0%

Total 369 100%

The reasons for borrowing from each of these sources to some extent mirror those found in Set 1 villages, including familiarity, ease of process, low interest, urgency, size and terms of loan.

Table 46: Reasons for Choosing the Sources

Sources Reason for Choosing this Source

Household/friends Popular because of the familiarity with the source, and the implied flexibility and lower interest. Also, as many loans are used for medical reasons, urgency is important.

MFI Primarily because of the low interest rate, followed by access to larger sized loans, and familiarity of source, especially for repeat clients.

Moneylender Familiarity with source is an important reason, coupled with flexibility of repayment and loan term, and ease of access.

Information obtained on loan characteristics is based on the size, term and rate of the respondent’s most recent loan, and not all of the borrowings in the last 12 months. The average loan size is approximately KHR 1,000,000 ($250), while median loans size was roughly KHR 300,000 ($75). However, the range is quite extreme, with one respondent borrowing KHR 24,000,000 ($6,000) from an MFI for home improvements. MFI loans tend to have an average term of one year, with an interest rate between 1.8% and 3% per month. Terms are largely dependent on the borrower (individual or group), whether it is secured or unsecured, as well as loan size and currency denomination. Moneylenders on the other hand offer flexibility and speed of service, with rates that are reported to be as high as 10% per month.


Table 47: Characteristics of SfC Loans

Average Loan Size KHR 1,000,000 ($250)

Median Loan Size KHR 300,000 ($75)

Range: KHR 5000 – KHR 24,000,000 ($1.25 - $6,000)

MFI Moneylender

Range of Interest Rate* 1.8 – 3% 5% - 10%

Average Term 1 Year Unspecified

Range of Term 6 months – 2 years Unspecified

Repayment Monthly, bullet. Flexible

Loans often have multiple purposes but the primary uses of debt are medical and health, followed by food. If one consolidates agricultural, livestock and business activities to represent all livelihood activities, then it accounts for 34% of loan use, higher than that of health or food. The high level of households who rely on credit for health and medical expenses is worrisome, especially as over 50% are from moneylenders. As was also identified with Set 1 households, there is an opportunity to offer appropriate savings and credit mechanisms to partially mitigate the risk associated with unexpected health costs and the associated financing fees.

Table 48: Purpose of Loans

Description Purpose (#) Purpose (%)

Health 144 27%

Food 117 22%

Agricultural - Income and subsistence 97 18%

Other existing business activities 51 10%

Education 34 6%

Home improvements 33 6%

Celebrations, weddings, funerals 23 4%

Livestock - Income and subsistence 18 3%

New business activities 17 3%

Total 534 100%

Assets – Household and Agricultural Measurement of assets includes several of the PPI questions as well as others more focused on agricultural assets and land ownership. Household land plot ownership is high at 92%. Almost 70% use this land to supplement their income and subsistence by growing vegetables or fruit. Size of land was not formally measured but tends to be relatively small, usually not exceeding 0.25HA. The table below shows the housing type by primary construction materials. Medium to moderately poor tend to live in homes most closely aligned with option 2, while the very poor tend to live in homes usually built of thatch and bamboo. Sixty-two percent of baseline interviewees live in homes built of materials most aligned with option 2, listed in the below table.


Table 49: Primary Construction Material of Outer Wall of HH

Description (%)

1 - Bamboo, thatch, makeshift, salvaged materials 29%

2 - Wood, logs, plywood, galvanized iron or aluminum 62%

3 - Concrete, brick or stone 9%

Roughly one third of baseline homes have toilets. Rural households do not commonly own latrines; however, more centrally located villages tend to have more toilet facilities compared to those who are further from district centers. Water pumps although present in 16% of households are rarely only used by one family but instead tend to be “quasi” communal even if located on one family’s land plot. Latrines and water pumps are often part of an NGO development project requiring some input by the household or community. Other household assets include bicycles or motorcycles, as well as TVs. Almost every house has at least one bicycle, but only 37% own a motorcycle. Slightly more than half of the respondents own a television.

Table 50: Selected HH Assets Owned

Description Ownership (%)

Own one or more motorcycles 37%

Own a television 52%

Own a latrine 33%

Own a water pump 16%

Roughly 72% of respondents own agricultural land. The median size per household is 1.58 HA. Only 9% own two wheel tractors, which is significantly lower than in Set 1. This is most likely due to the baseline sample’s higher percentage of “very poor” as well as the low rate of two-wheel tractor ownership in Kampot where the reliance is more on oxen and plows. A little more than a third of households have paddy storage. Year round access to clean water is a challenge and in many communities more than 10 homes will share one well.

Table 51: Agricultural Assets Owned

Description Ownership (%)

Agricultural Land 72%

Two-wheel tractor – “Kor Yun” 9%

Oxcart 25%

Paddy Storage 37%

Well 13%

Livestock are used for income generating activities as well as subsistence. In general, the baseline sample had a smaller percentage of households owning livestock than the Set 1 sample. Causality behind this is unclear, although it might be correlated to the greater percentage of “very poor” in the baseline villages as well as specific village livelihood characteristics.


Table 52: Livestock Owned

Description Ownership (%) # HH owns at least one Average per HH (#)

Water buffalo 1% 6 2.6

Oxen or Cow 39% 179 2.4

Pigs 19% 90 2.4

Chickens 66% 308 12.5

Health In the last six months 94% of households had person(s) who were sick or injured. The most popular treatment methods were hospitals and clinics, followed by pharmacy and health center. In several villages in Thmor Pourk District, respondents reported having access to a community based health insurance program established by Cambodian Association for Assistance to Families and Widows (CAAFW) which covers medical costs as well as transportation. Financial impact is unknown but respondents did still incur some level of medical expenses in the last six months. Average medical and health costs over the last 6 months were KHR 360,000 ($90) per household. As the below chart shows households rely on multiple sources to cover medical expenses; an average of 1.5x per household. The primary choice is income, followed by gifts and loans from family and friends, selling assets and moneylenders. Reliance on income occurs in 80% of households that reported someone sick or injured. It accounts for 52% of total sources used for medical costs. Meanwhile moneylenders are a source in only 10% of households that reported someone sick or injured, accounting for only 6% of total sources.

Figure 8: Sources of Financing for HH Medical Treatment

42

48

69

88

354

0 100 200 300 400

Moneylender

Sell assets



Income

Number of Household

Primary Sources - Health Financing


Food and Nutrition In the last 12 months, 62% of households experienced food shortages, on an average of 4 months per year. 20% of respondents had someone miss a regular meal in the last 12 months because of a lack of food.

Table 53: Food and Nutrition

Average number of cans of rice HH consume per day 6.6 cans (~1.6Kilo)

% of HH that experienced food shortages during the last 12 months

62%

Average number of months above HH experienced food shortages 4 months

% of HH that missed a regular meal because of a lack of food during the last 12 month

20%

As with health related expenses, respondents rely on multiple sources to pay for food costs. The chart below shows the top 5 sources to pay for food costs. The most popular source is income, followed by gifts or borrowed from friends and family. Income is used as a source by 65% of households, while gifts or loans from families and friends, are utilized by roughly a third each.

Figure 9: Sources of Financing for HH Food Shortage

Education School attendance of “school age” children is 80%.34 Of those not attending school the primary reason is a lack of money for food and supplies, followed by the need to earn money. Almost 75% of households rely on income to pay for educational expenses.

Resilience to Shocks A section of the interviews asked a series of questions to examine events which have had a negative effect on households in the last 12 months, the significance of those events, the response and ultimately the recovery or lack thereof. 35

34

School age is defined as 7-18 years old.

42

45

98

101

189

0 50 100 150 200

Labor swap

Moneylender



Income

Number of Household

Primary Sources - Food Shortages Financing


Almost 70% of respondents report an extreme negative event,- “a shock” - having impacted their household in the last 12 months. On average, each household experienced more than one. Illness or injury constituted the primary “shock” affecting 48% of the total sample. The two subsequent events are illness or death of livestock, followed by harvest failure or crop loss. When respondents refer to harvest failure or crop loss, it generally seems to imply a loss of great magnitude. Many described a loss of 20% as the norm. The loss of livestock seems to happen more frequently with chickens rather than pig or cattle but level of magnitude and impact is unclear.

Table 54: Events Affecting HH

Description Events (#) Events (%)

Illness or injury of self or household member 223 52%

Illness or death of livestock 75 18%

Harvest failure or crop loss 60 14%

Theft 31 7%

Damage to house or equipment 18 4%

Others: Business failure or job loss, Death of household member, Conflict, dispute or legal case

19 4%

Total 426 100%

As per the below table, almost all events are considered to have a degree of negative effect, with the majority being categorized as small. The level of impact for the three most commonly identified events –illness or injury, illness or death of livestock, harvest failure or crop loss - is similar to the total breakdowns.

Table 55: The Significance of the Effect


No effect 27 6%

Small negative effect 260 61%

Large negative effect 139 33%

Total 426 100%

The survey also investigates what sources of funds are relied upon to respond to the event, with the aim of recovery. As per the below table, households tend to rely on multiple sources, but also in a significant number of cases do nothing. Income accounts for the response to 27% of events, and is the primary choice of action. Response to each of the three most commonplace events was slightly different. For illness or injury to persons, close to 50% relied on income, followed by 35% who utilized some form of credit. As expected, doing nothing accounted for a minor percentage. In the case of illness or death of livestock 73% of events had “no response”. This was also the case with harvest failure or crop loss, albeit at a smaller scale, in which 45% of events households “did not do anything”.

35

The series of “resilience to shocks” questions were asked with a degree of sensitivity to the topics being addressed. As such, interviewers would ask the question but without a great deal of probing.


Table 56: Typical HH Responses to the Event


Did nothing 130 31%

Income 116 27%

Other 53 12%

Borrow money from sources rather than MFI or money lenders 37 9%

Used other savings 23 5%

Borrowed money from money lender 22 5%

Engaged in additional income generating activities 19 4%

Borrowed money from MFI 14 3%

Sold assets 11 3%

Relied on credit from vendors 1 0%

Total 426 100%

Respondents report having recovered from 64% of the events. Generally where households relied on income, sold assets or did nothing, there was a higher percentage of recovery from the event. But in those cases where the “shock” required the use of debt, there was a lower rate of recovery from the event. This difference potentially suggests a significant impact of debt or that the debt has not yet been repaid, and therefore is categorized as “no recovery.”

Table 57: HH Recovery from the Event


Has Recovered 273 64%

Has Not Recovered 153 36%

Total 426 100%

Empowerment and Gender One key measure of empowerment is respondent’s willingness to address grievances in the community. Fifty-six percent of respondents will speak out regarding a problem in their community. Of this group approximately a third will address the issue with a local leader, whether it is a village chief or someone else. When broken out by gender, we did not find any significant differences. Interviewees were asked if they could influence salient changes and outcomes in the community, such as the building of a primary school. The question intended to measure involvement as well as empowerment to participate in community wide change. Only 13% felt they could, 17% thought they usually or sometimes could influence change, and 70% unequivocally answered that they could not. The measurement of empowerment from a gender perspective relied on a small group of questions focusing on decision-making roles in the household. As shown in the below table, the majority of decisions regarding children’s education and schooling, family’s healthcare, as well as large financial transactions are made jointly. In all cases, women make more individual decisions in these areas then men do.


Table 58: Decision Making in Households

Decision Maker (%)

Who in the HH makes decisions about children’s’ education and schooling?

Women 18%

Joint 52%

Men 4%

Other36 26%

Who in the household makes decisions about the family's healthcare?

Women 26%

Joint 67%

Men 4%

Other28 3%

Who in the household makes decision about large financial transactions or purchases?

Women 24%37

Joint 70%

Men 3%

Other 3%

Do you have to ask your husband for permission prior to joining a social, business or lending group?

Yes 71%

No 8%

Sometimes 2%

N/A38 19%

Meetings with local leaders examined two gender related topics. The first was the change in women’s roles in the last decade, and the second was the impact of a potential increase in women’s income on the household. Comments echo the Set 1 Gender findings. Local leaders perceive there to be significant positive changes for women in areas of educational and employment opportunities, human rights, and overall empowerment. Leaders also suggest that an increase in a woman’s income could equate to her having more independence, more say in the household and a more prominent position in the household.

Implications of Findings for SfC Expansion

The data collected in the baseline villages offers several findings, which favorably support a SfC expansion. These findings do not necessarily suggest success of program implementation or that communities will find the SfC methodology appealing. However, onto themselves, they represent compelling reasons to carefully consider expansion in baseline villages. Key findings are as follows:

Sample group resembles the general demographics of SfC members from Set 1, including comparable livelihoods, land ownership and PPI scores.

36

High level of “Other” is grandparents caring for children, and teenagers deciding on their own. 37

The high percentage of women who make the household decision about large financial transactions or purchases, is in part influenced by the significant number of female widows. 38 High level of N/A refers to women who are widows or divorcees.


72% of total respondents own agricultural land, which is a main source of income generation. In addition most have at least 2 sources of livelihood income.

Approximately 65% of respondents report having money left over after expenses, representing a form of “savings” or disposable income.

Baseline communities do not save regularly. Only 8% of household reported saving a planed amount regularly. This represents a significant opportunity to create savings awareness and change habits.

Preferred method of savings is to keep money at home. 46% percent of respondents keep their money at home in a safe place, while only 2% use a bank, credit union or savings program. SfC could potentially offer a safer, more lucrative and attractive alternative

Respondents incur significant health and medical related expenses, paid for through income, debt, selling of assets. However, these costs generally represent a net loss to the household, impacting income and poverty. SfC, coupled with a health component, might be an attractive solution.

The vast majority of decision-making processes for education, food, healthcare and even large financial transaction have significant female participation.

Many of the key challenges are the same as those identified in Set 1.

Migration remains a significant hurdle, especially if groups are formed in communities with high migration levels, and even more so where entire households migrate.

Baseline respondents rely on seasonal income and therefore experience many of the same cash flow shortfalls as Set 1 respondents, impacting their ability to save year round.

Average credit needs of respondents are high, surpassing what SfC generally can provide. However, SfC can still compliment other sources and be especially useful for small purchases, such as agricultural inputs.

Select communities in Kampot and Banteay Mean Chey have had negative experiences with other NGOs and savings groups. In addition, several communities have versions of SfC being implemented by RACHA, CEDAC and DCA, through CWCC. This warrants special attention going forward.


Appendices

Appendix A: Literature Review

Goal

The goal of the literature review is to provide the research team with a more comprehensive understanding of the SfC program, as well as its position in the community-based microfinance industry. The review should provide the research team with valuable insight, as well as facilitating the design of questionnaires, focus group discussion guides and other research instruments. For the purpose of the literature review we have examined the following reports:

1. Operational Evaluation of Saving for Change in Mali, Conducted by BARA, September, 2008 2. Baseline Report of Saving for Change in Mali: Results from the Segou Expansion Zone and

Existing SfC Sites, Conducted by BARA and IPA, February 26, 2010 3. Saving for Change Program Assessment (El Salvador), Conducted by Janina Matuszeski and

Eloisa Devietti, June 2009 4. Overview of Savings-led Microfinance and Saving for Change, Jeffrey Ashe, OxfamAmerica,

February 2009

Savings Led Microfinance

In order to understand the purpose and the approach of the Saving for Change (SfC) program it is necessary to comprehend the salient differences between traditional microfinance – as practiced by organizations such as Grameen Bank - and savings led microfinance – as practiced through OxfamAmerica’s SfC program. The first can be considered a top down, administrative and networked approach, while the second is an empowerment approach - grassroots, building on the capacity of the local population and relatively informal. Microfinance in many ways can be considered a “development success” story, providing credit services to over one hundred million persons worldwide. In the last three decades microfinance has expanded and matured into a multi billion-dollar industry, with over 500 MFIs worldwide and over $7 billion in loans outstanding. However there are hundreds of millions – mostly the rural poor - who still do not have access to basic financial services. Why? Market penetration is challenging, especially when targeting the rural poor. These persons often live in scattered, hard to reach communities with credit needs that tend to be too small and labor intensive for MFIs to make a profit. In addition, many MFIs focus on providing credit with little emphasis on savings, which remains a key and important need for the rural poor. Savings led microfinance assumes that not everyone needs a loan and that the poor are not “too poor to save.” Savings led microfinance programs operate through the training of savings and lending groups by implementing organizations (such as local or international NGOs), village agents and/or group leaders. Groups usually include 15-30 members, many whom are women. The


money lent by the group is the money that is saved by the group. Members meet to save and borrow from their pooled savings. Interest from loans builds the group fund as it grows the saving of each member. The groups are entirely self-governing, and are based on village traditions of saving and lending, of working for the common good and of group accountability. The savings groups provide members with a safe, convenient and self-managed place to save. OxfamAmerica’s SfC program is active in Mali, Senegal, El Salvador and Cambodia. In Mali it is operated through an oral system while in Cambodia a simplified written recording system is used. The SfC model often serves as a platform for additional services. In Mali, malaria prevention and treatment is an integral part of the package. In Cambodia it is in the process of being linked to health treatment, as part of the implementation by RACHA. The SfC program methodology has been built on the work previously implemented by pioneers in the industry such as CARE, PACT and CRS, which offer ideologically similar savings based programs, albeit with different methodologies. 39

SfC Studies – Strengths and Limitations of the SfC Program

Studies conducted in Mali and El Salvador show that the SfC model positively impacts women and the communities in which they reside. Often the model has provided a small buffer that can be used to mitigate the impact of crises as well as short-term fluctuations in income. The model generally seems to be providing women with a sense of empowerment. The self-governing and transparent model tends to build trust and solidarity, and is often perceived in a positive light by the community. SfC also has its limitations as it is not able to single handedly reverse poverty trends nor provide the type of capital necessary to cause substantive material change. The program is fundamentally administered by agents of implementing organizations not OxfamAmerica staff, occasionally causing structural limitations and program delivery challenges.

Strengths of SfC Program

Economic impact: The Mali Operational Evaluation and El Salvador studies generally show the SfC program positively impacting income security but there is not strong evidence supporting a significant economic impact, i.e. an increase in assets or an increase in income generation.40 The key economic benefits as perceived by members themselves (and for that matter, the community) is the ability to address food consumption needs for the household, support healthcare and medical services related expenditures, and provide for their children’s education. The Mali reports also suggest that some women are experiencing a shift in certain livelihood activities to areas of petty commerce, and possibly their ability to purchase additional livestock.

39

For instance CARE’s VSLA program – based more closely on the centuries old tontine system - has enjoyed widespread success in Africa. It uses a system of “shares” and at the same time builds a parallel group/social fund.

40 It should be noted that measurement of economic impact usually requires the examination of assets and income

over a longer period, perhaps10 years.


Although not easily quantifiable, the presence of SfC and its features such as financial literacy and loan does in itself encourage women to think more about business activities which could eventually translate into additional economic activities. The Mali Operational Evaluation articulates the difficulty in ascertaining if there is a proven economic impact or perhaps only perceived economic impacts. There are several reasons for this uncertainty. The amounts of monies involved in SfC groups is relatively small so their economic impact, if any, is hard to detect. Also, most households are involved in numerous income generating activities, with corresponding expenses, mandating that resources are re-allocated as needed. This makes it nearly impossible to ascertain the direct influence of SfC monies. In El Salvador, household income is pooled together so it is challenging to determine if SfC does have or would have a direct impact on livelihood. The El Salvador study states that the SfC program appears to provide income security but that there is little evidence to show that SfC increases the level of income generation or in the quantity of household possessions. The study identifies several potential influencing factors. The first is that the focus of the groups is on the need to generate savings to contribute to the group fund and not on the longer-term income generating possibilities derived from building an enterprise. The second is that activities undertaken as a result of a loan often compliment or expand an existing business or household activity, rather than lead to a new activity. Third, changes in income might be minimal because of a lack of financial literacy and experience in obtaining optimal prices. This ultimately prevents women from starting new businesses. Finally, loan sizes may be too small to undertake the kind of activities that would bring significant growth in household assets. Social impact: Undeniably the range of positive social impacts is significant and is strongly supported by the findings of the Mali and El Salvador studies. SfC members and implementing partner staff consider these changes, as noteworthy as the economic impacts of the program. Several studies demonstrate the benefits of enhanced cooperation and solidarity by the groups. The basic cohesion of members in self-governing groups provides members with strong bonds that support participation, adherence to internal regulations and ultimately, the repayment of loans. The Mali Operational Evaluation identifies how group cooperation has facilitated additional group activities, such as agricultural and financial aid activities. It should be noted however that the studies do not imply causality but that SfC groups effectively build on existing groups in the community. The SfC model has a very clear emphasis on women making decisions and also controlling the funds on their own.41 This serves to demonstrate to one another and to the community at large, their ability to engage in savings and lending activities, but also to make relevant decisions concerning both. It also is a very transparent process that has strong support of both literate and illiterate group members. Expanding further on this emphasis of women making decisions, the very existence of the groups has offered some women the opportunity to have a change in mentality towards savings, as well as an increased motivation and incentive to do so. The Mali Operational Evaluation identifies an increase in women’s self-confidence and leadership skills due to participation in SfC. It cites changes in members’ demeanor and ways of managing

41 In Mali this appears to be a feature that distinguishes SfC from other models.


their lives, as well as public speaking skills. Using SfC Groups as a Platform for Additional Services. While credit and savings are important, they are in themselves insufficient for promoting more broad based development. The Mali Operational Evaluation touches on the success of the malaria education being provided by the implementing partner in the third phase of group training. SfC members reported a noted increase in their understanding of malaria and how it can be prevented. Linking SfC to longer-term sustainable change type services, such as healthcare, agriculture (food security) and gender initiatives is also touched upon in the El Salvador study as well. OxfamAmerica’s Program Strategy Plan (PSP), which is a long-range planning effort, is assessing ideas on how to build and develop linkages to additional services.

Limitations of SfC Program

As evidenced by the Mali and El Salvador reports, the SfC program although generally perceived in a positive light, does also have its limitations. SfC by itself is not able to “reverse” poverty. What is necessary in order to accomplish such an ambitious goal is a comprehensive and concerted effort that addresses a whole range of other development issues such as access to water, health, education, road infrastructure, etc. For example in Mali the lack of water for consumption and for water shortages is the primary challenge for most communities. It has a significant impact on the lives of communities. The Mali baseline report suggests that the presence of NGOs is important for members to be able to capitalize on the savings opportunities SfC provides. Loan structure. The small maximum amount, high interest and short-term nature of the SfC loans place limitations on the kinds of income generating activities in which members can engage. It appears that loan activity is generally for similar type activities viewed by the group to be less risky. This could potentially be limiting the entrepreneurial spirit of many members. The loan size is well suited for small income generating activities, emergency purposes and consumption; however, not for larger scale business ventures or community projects. Savings payout. The annual distribution of funds gives persons access to savings and allows for group modifications, including loan structure, leadership, etc. It also limits risk. But this practice might also prevent groups from engaging in larger projects and projects that might have a more transformative affect. Reaching the poorest of the poor. As a program, which is replicated often by social interactions, those poorest persons with no social capital and no economic capital might not be included. Also there is some evidence of groups being formed that are of poorer quality for poorer women and of greater quality for less poor women. Also for some members – the poorest of the poor - a weekly savings might be difficult. It might represent truly a major expense.

Structural limitations of the administrative structure. The Mali Operational Evaluation found great pressure was placed upon the technical agents (TAs) who are in many ways the most essential component of the program. TAs serve as the true interface between the villagers. The program sustainability relies on the retention of appropriate and qualified agents. However, TAs are not


always treated well by their NGOs and often overextended TAs are in the situation of reducing the quality of their visits to groups.

SfC Group Characteristics

Groups are often formed based on affinity and kinship, resulting in women from common neighborhoods joining the same groups. The Mali Baseline Report reported that the first women to join SfC groups were usually those best positioned to undertake an uncertain economic activity. However this does not imply that they are wealthier but perhaps are women who have previous experience with credit and savings systems, access to information about markets and support networks. In Mali a small group of persons tends to join in the first year, while many women hold back and observe. After the first payout, more women join. Technical agents describe women’s success or failure in SfC groups with regard to their level of dynamism and awareness, not wealth. In Mali, SfC participation was largely limited to married or widowed women due to their geographic stability. There are however exceptions to this model, such as young women saving for wedding related expenses, mixed gender groups and several spontaneously formed men’s groups. In Mali the role of men in determining SfC membership is very important, as husbands usually must grant permission prior to women participating. Good leadership is key to the success of SfC groups. In El Salvador leadership tends to be persons who are slightly better off financially than regular group members, possibly pointing to a correlation with financial status, education and recognition in the community. In both Mali and El Salvador there was little rotation amongst leadership after cycles. In Mali group presidents are often chosen based on age (sign of respect) but if not truly capable are made honorary presidents, while other younger women take over the actual role and responsibilities.

Access to Credit

There are numerous sources of credit that are used in rural communities– tontines, middlemen, moneylenders, MFIs, banks, credit unions, etc. The Mali Baseline Report makes the important distinction that when evaluating SfC it is important to understand not only how SfC competes with these other sources, but also what leads persons to seek credit from one source over another. Accessibility is a huge factor. Who is included and who is not, and why? Another key point is that access to SfC and the usage of SfC for credit does not necessarily imply that persons no longer utilize other sources of credit. SfC is not necessarily a replacement for other sources of credit but perhaps has its own purpose within the community.

Use of Loans

SfC loans are used for income generating activities and consumption, and to a lesser extent, emergency purposes. The El Salvador study identified loans being used for activities that are traditionally related to gender roles, i.e. preparation and sale of food, raising livestock. The Mali studies report most loans being used for income generating activities but that household consumption loans remain an important and essential benefit. The Mali Baseline Report found that some of the relatively wealthier households that have multiple income sources used SfC loans purely to generate income. Noteworthy is that loan repayment does not necessarily come from the income activity being financed. This is especially true in the case of consumption loans that do not generate any income. Household income sources are blended together and are used to cover related and unrelated expenses. The Mali Operational Evaluation reminds us that the question of


repayment sources can be quite important, as it is possible that loans are repaid with credit from other sources.

Savings

Savings are used for a variety of purposes - consumption, petty commerce and the purchasing of livestock. The SfC program is in part an attempt to replace or at the very least complement traditional forms of savings that is both less risky and more productive (e.g. earns interest). The SfC model ideally strives to provide its group members with a consistent savings mechanism to build up sums of money but also through its loans, can provide cash if needed. Tontines on the other hand have lower liquidity but do offer large lump sum payouts. Certain areas use the lowest common denominator for savings quotas while others use a higher amount and also implement flexible savings amounts. This serves the purpose of building larger sums of money, creating more interest and also attracts wealthier members. As with access to credit, membership in SfC does not preclude members from using other methods of savings.

Implementing Partners

Implementing partners generally commence with a sole focus on SfC and then – in principle – can leverage the group formation to focus on other services, such as health, agriculture, etc. The SfC model works with several implementing partners in each region. NGO interaction is important to share in experiences and best practices, improving the implementation of the program. SfC’s implementing partners are critical to the success of the program hence partner NGOs must have a solid institutional structure, significant existing resources, well-defined goals, respected and recognizable presence in the communities where they work, and willingness to undertake long-term collaboration. The partners do not have to be specialized financial institutions. Their ability to work closely with OxfamAmerica is essential. The level of involvement of OxfamAmerica staff varies but according to the reports seems to be the greatest in El Salvador. It is not clear if that greater involvement translates to better program implementation and a “higher” success rate. In fact the El Salvador study speaks to the challenge of promoters/field agents being too involved with program implementation and not having any groups graduate because of this dependency. The studies emphasize that experience and commitment of partner staff is critical to ensure the successful rollout of the program to grassroots members. The proper training of the local staff of implementing partners – supervisors/coordinators and promoters/field agents – is key. Promoters/field agents must be able to adequately teach group members in important areas such as financial principles. In order to do so they must have a through understanding of financial principles themselves. The studies show that strong groups often have strong promoters/field agents. Promoters/field agents are engaged in difficult and often isolating work. Their biggest challenge is gaining the trust of villagers, and potential members, in the initial stages of the program. Communities often have had negative experiences with microfinance and other organizations. In El Salvador some community members had already worked with NGOs and expected some sort of “handout”. Other potential obstacles include difficulties in accessing hard to reach and remote communities, breaking away from traditional “women” roles in the workplace, and in certain instances, inadequate support from supervisors.


Context of Chronic Vulnerability

The Operational Evaluation-Mali study briefly discusses economic, political and environmental characteristics, which have created a chronic state of vulnerability in Mali. The study also touches on the potential impact of other factors that affect the economy that can have an affect on SfC expansion, such as a lack of infrastructure, remoteness, lack of training, land security, and poor performance of agricultural services and producer organizations.42

Appendix B: Fieldwork Details

Fieldwork Details – Set 1

Province District Commune Village Interview (#) Gender FGD (#)

SfC Groups

(#) Member Non-

Member Male

(#) Female

(#)

Banteay Mean Chey

Preah Net Preah

Poi Char Poi Char 6 7 5 8 5 5*

Sam Bour 7 9 3 13 4 2

Trapeang Thmor Cheung

7 8 2 13 4 1

Spean Sreng

Mok Chhneang

5 6 4 7 3 1

Phnom Srok

Prasat Phlov Leav

7 6 2 11 4 2

Ta Am 6 5 0 11 3 1

Teankam Teankam Cheung

5 5 1 9 3 1

Teankam Lech

6 7 3 10 4 1

Total 49 53 20 82 30 14

42

This is highly relevant in the Cambodian context and is noteworthy when evaluating the operational structure of the SfC program, delivery and its impact.


Fieldwork Details – Sets 2 and 3

Province District Commune Village Set Gender FGD (#)

Male (#)

Female (#)

Banteay Mean Chey

Mongkol Borey

Ruessei Krok Luong 2 5 25 1

Ruessei Krok 2 6 24 1

Chamnaom Roung Kou Kandal

3 8 21 1

Ou Prasat Chamkar Louk 3 6 23 1

Thmor Pourk

Banteay Chhmar Thlok 2 2 28 1

Kumru Angdong Khlong

2 3 27 1

Svay Chek

Rolous Steung 3 7 23 1

Sarongk Pheas Tboung 3 2 28 1

Kampot Angkor Chey

Angkor Chey Angkor Chey Leu

2 9 19 1

Daeum Dong Ou Romchek 2 9 21 1

Dan Koum Angk Khchey Kahng Cheung

3 7 22 1

Tani Ruessei 3 5 22 1

Banteay Meas

Sdach Kong Khang Cheung

Kanlang 2 3 25 1

Tuk Meas Khang Keut

Angk Mli 2 7 21 1

Banteay Meas Khang Keut

Prey Bantoam 3 4 24 1

Samroang Leu Tram Sasar 3 5 23 1

Total 88 376 16


Appendix C: RACHA Organisational Structure

Source: RACHA

Dr. Sun Nasy(PIA – SfC)

Dr. Kun Navuth(PC BMC)

Mr. Yan Sadin(APC BMC)

Mr. Kleb Tyn (PO BMC)

Mr. HachKhmera (PF)

Mr. Men Kosal(PF)

Mr. Phon Chantrea (PF)

Mr. Pheng Kimyeng (PF)

Mr. San Siden(PF)

DPF

DPF

DFP

Dr. Chou Ponina(PC PVH)

Mr. ReupSameurth (PO

PVH)

Mr. Nhim Tang Cheng (PF)

Mr. Bopea (PF)Mr. Phay Siphan

(PF)Mr. Chen

Khantey (PF)

DPF

DPF

DFP

PIA Program Implementation Advisor PC Provincial Coordinator APC Assistant Provincial Coordinator PO Project Officer PF Project Facilitator DPF District Project Facilitator BMC Banteay Mean Chey Province PVH Preah Vihear Province

Banteay Mean Chey and Kampot Provinces · 2017. 9. 25. · program began in 2008. RACHA is a rural...

Documents

Transcript of Banteay Mean Chey and Kampot Provinces · 2017. 9. 25. · program began in 2008. RACHA is a rural...