Matthew bird the ultra poor graduation project at fundación capital

IDRC/IPC, Brasilia, September 10-11, 2014

Matthew Bird

Unviersidad del Pacífico

The Ultra-Poor Graduation

Project at Fundación Capital:

Toward an Evaluation of a Public

Policy Graduation Model

EVOLUTION OF THE GRADUATION MODEL

ORIGINAL MODEL

(400,000 households)

REPLICATIONS

(RCT)

ADAPTATION

(Public policy)

BRAC AND CGAP/FORD MODEL

FUNDACION CAPITAL PUBLIC POLICY MODEL

DEMAND FOCUS

CASH TRANSFER

ICT

FUNDAK ADAPTATIONS

Demand Focus

Cash Transfer

ICTs

1. DEMAND FOCUS

Belief that it is the participants themselves who best know their

personal abilities, interests, previous experiences and the local context

well enough to determine what economic activity will constitute the

best investment of their time and the project resources.

Life plan

Business profile

Local support committee

• Powerful instrument for empowerment and teaching

IFAD

• Various studies validate the proper use of resources

Blattman et al. (2013) in Uganda; De Mel et al. (2008) in Sri

Lanka; Fafchamps et al. (2011) in Ghana

In-kind transfers do not guarantee proper usage

• More cost-effective for governments

• Financial inclusion

2. CASH TRANSFER

3. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGIES

Rules of thumb

Colombia LISTA

experience

• Guarantees quality

• Reduces costs

• Closes digital gap

• Creates spillover effects

• Enables participants to

learn at their own pace

GRADUATION PROJECT EVALUATION

Phase 2: Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

Phase 1: Concept evaluation, Process evaluation, Results evaluation

• Pre-Post

• Quantitative supported by qualitative Results

• Acceptability, salience, effectiveness

• Qualitative supported by quantitative Concepts

• Implementation of the design

• Qualitative supported by quantitative Processes

CONCEPT EVALUATION: SOME EXAMPLES

Asset-building coach profile

Community versus proxy means test targeting

Business profile format and supporting material

Results: PMT more cost-efficient in Colombian

context to identify the extreme poor

Results: Identification and prioritization of 7 factors

that make a suitable coach

Results: Need to simplify and strengthen visual

codes because of functional anafalbetism

Testing Two Targeting Methods: Proxy means vs. Participatory Wealth Ranking

Item(Costfortargeting250programparticipants) Costo

Tallerdecapacitacióndelosgestores(incl.viajeyhonorariosdeltalleristaymateriales) USD700

Organizaciónde15talleresmapasparlantes(convocatoria,salones,materiales,yrefrigerios) USD4.500

Honorariosde5gestoresdurante2meses(incl.tiempodeformación,convocatoria,talleresyreporte) USD10.000

TOTAL USD15.200

0

.02

.04

.06

0 20 40 60 80Puntaje Sisbén

Unidos/Sisbén Mapas parlantes

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

0 20 40 60 80Puntaje Sisbén

Physical Assets

Human Assets

Access Social

Assets

Financial Assets

LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE INDEX

Weighting

determined in

Phase 1

Appropriate

variables

determined in

Phase 1

INDICATORS

PRODUCTIVE ASSETS

• Participants’ ave age o thly i o e is at least USD 45

• Participants have at least 1 profitable

productive activity

• Participants have invested in their

productive activity from their own income in

order to strengthen it

• Participants have at least 1 physical asset

more than what they had in the baseline

• If consumption has increased by 10%

• If the frequency of households reporting

having lacked money to buy food in the last 3

months has decreased by 10%

FOOD SECURITY

• Participants’ savi gs ala es have i eased by 30%

• The p opo tio of pa ti ipa ts’ savi gs i banks or savings groups has increased by 30%

• During the project duration participants have

saved at least once a month

• Participants are 15% more likely to use their

savings to cover their non-regular expenses

instead of using moneylenders or selling

assets

FINANCIAL ASSETS

HUMAN & SOCIAL ASSETS

• The decision-making index for women

participants has increased by at least 5%

• The optimism index among participants has

increased by at least 9%

• The social capital index among participants

has increased by at least 5%

Welfare: Percpetion

Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total

Base Media Base Media Base Media

P37_¿Cómo es el nivel

de vida de su hogar en

comparación con meses

anteriores?

Mejor 35,5% 88,6% 29,7% 67,4% 31,0% 77,5%

Peor 14,1% 0,2% 23,6% 1,9% 18,1% 1,1%

Similar 50,5% 11,2% 46,7% 30,6% 50,9% 21,4%

¿Faltó dinero en el hogar para

comprar alimentos?



No 28,6% 70,3% 35,8% 60,3% 42,3% 65,0%

Si, Algunas veces 42,9% 13,2% 41,5% 32,1% 38,5% 23,1%

Sí: Rara vez 14,3% 15,8% 5,7% 3,2% 4,6% 9,2%

Sí: Siempre 14,3% 0,5% 17,0% 3,4% 14,6% 2,0%

Si; No contestaron 0,2% - 1,1% - 0,7%

Financial Accounting / Planning

Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media

P17.1_Metas en el corto plazo No 88,4% 80,7% 74,7% 78,7% 78,8% 79,6%

Si 11,6% 19,3% 25,3% 21,3% 21,2% 20,4%

P17.2_Metas en el mediano plazo No 71,0% 69,0% 65,5% 92,4% 66,9% 81,3%

Si 29,0% 31,0% 34,5% 7,6% 33,1% 18,7%

P17.3_Metas en el largo plazo No 45,7% 50,1% 58,8% 33,3% 56,5% 41,3%

Si 54,3% 49,9% 41,2% 66,7% 43,5% 58,7%



P31_¿Sabe ud qué es un

presupuesto?

No 58,9% 24,6% 87,2% 59,1% 72,9% 42,7%

Si 41,1% 75,4% 12,8% 40,9% 27,1% 57,3%



P33_¿Elabora usted su

presupuesto? No 59,1% 26,4% 94,9% 54,9% 77,7% 40,6%

Si 40,9% 73,6% 5,1% 45,1% 22,3% 59,4%

Savings



P19_¿le queda dinero

para ahorrar? No 59,1% 16,3% 90,5% 21,9% 75,1% 19,2%

Si 40,9% 83,7% 9,5% 78,1% 24,9% 80,8%



FORMA DE

AHORRO

MAS

SEGURA

Dinero en el banco 23,9% 45,2% 11,0% 11,6% 17,8% 27,7%

Dinero en la casa 20,2% 33,4% 6,9% 28,5% 13,5% 30,9%

En animales 44,6% 26,2% 79,5% 61,3% 62,1% 44,6%

En cadenas ,2% ,5% 1,5% 1,5% ,8% 1,0%

Otra, ¿Cuál? 11,0% 1,2% 1,0% ,2% 6,0% ,7%

Use of Funds/Resources (Hypothetical 1)



Si hoy usted

recibiera

$100.000

adicionales,

¿en qué se

gastaría la

plata?

En bienes o gastos para el

negocio 24,4% 26,0% 11,0% 18,2% 17,2% 21,9%

En compra de alimentos 37,8% 23,2% 61,0% 29,5% 49,6% 26,5% En mejoramiento de

vivienda 7,8% 13,1% 3,1% 10,5% 6,0% 11,7%

En bienes u otros gastos

para el hogar 7,1% 10,5% 0,5% 6,2% 3,9% 8,3%

Pagar deudas 3,7% 1,2% 8,7% 11,8% 6,1% 6,7% Gastaría una parte y la otra

la guardaría 16,8% 25,8% 14,9% 16,2% 15,9% 20,8%

Otro 2,3% ,2% ,8% 7,7% 1,4% 4,1%

Source of Funds/Resources (Hypothetical 2)



Como

obtener

50.000

emergencia

De un familiar, amigo o

vecino 64,1% 36,1% 72,6% 69,0% 68,2% 53,3%

De un prestamista o

cadenas 24,4% 7,7% 1,3% ,4% 12,9% 3,9%

De un banco 0,0% 0,0% ,3% 0,0% ,1% 0,0%

De una casa de empeño 3,2% ,2% ,3% ,2% 1,8% ,2%

De la venta de animales

o bienes 1,1% 1,6% 15,4% 10,6% 8,0% 6,3%

Del dinero que tiene

guardado 2,3% 47,8% 1,8% 14,9% 2,1% 30,5%

De su cuenta de ahorros 5,2% 2,8% 3,9%

No tendría a quien

pedirle 4,4% 1,2% 8,2% 1,9% 6,5% 1,6%

Otro 0,5% ,2% ,3% ,2% ,3% ,2%

Last emergency where got resources/money

3.45%

8.74%

6.67%

4.37%

33.33%

0.23%

18.85%

0.69%

11.72%

11.95%

0.69%

19.21%

3.01%

6.94%

20.37%

0.93%

8.10%

0.46%

37.50%

2.78%

00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Algún miembro del hogar

ue o t a aja a o…

Con los ingresos normales

Nunca ha tenido una

emergencia económica

Otro

Pidiendo prestado a

amigos o familiares

Pidiendo prestado a un

banco


prestamista

Pidiendo prestado a una

e tidad fi a ie a ot a…

Utilizando dinero ahorrado

Vendiendo o empeñando

animales o bienes

Sitio Nuevo Media

Sitio Nuevo Base

23.59%

14.10%

3.59%

0.77%

32.82%

1.03%

0.26%

0.51%

3.08%

20.26%

3.38%

9.92%

9.07%

3.80%

42.62%

1.27%

0.42%

0.84%

11.60%

16.46%

00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Algún miembro del hogar

ue o t a aja a o…

Con los ingresos normales

Nunca ha tenido una

emergencia económica

Otro

Pidiendo prestado a amigos

o familiares


banco


prestamista

Pidiendo prestado a una

e tidad fi a ie a ot a…

Utilizando dinero ahorrado

Vendiendo o empeñando

animales o bienes

San Luis Media

San Luis Base

Attitudes / Mentalities

Working RCT Design

3 Research Questions

(1) Does the Graduation package set the extreme poor on a path out of extreme

poverty as measured by a suite of indicators?

(2) Is it more effective to provide cash or asset transfers to the extreme poor as

measured by a suite of indicators?

(3) Is it more effective to provide training via a tablet or in-person model?

Thank you

Matthew bird the ultra poor graduation project at fundación capital

Documents

Transcript of Matthew bird the ultra poor graduation project at fundación capital