Resilient Livelihoods for the Poor (RLP)

Process Evaluation Report

Prepared for Social Protection Sustainable Livelihoods (SPSL)/ Maxwell Stamp PLC

September 2016

Final Version

Acknowledgements

This evaluation is not possible without the participation and support from all stakeholders in the

Resilient Livelihoods for the Poor pilot. Thank you to the implementation partner organisations, Care

International, Health Poverty Action and World Education Lao for their participation and logistics co-

ordination in the districts. Our appreciation extends to household beneficiaries who volunteered

their time and experience. Village authority and district governments representatives were generous

with sharing their experience in the pilot. Thank you to the Social Protection and Sustainable

Livelihoods team for their contribution and the Australian Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs

team in Vientiane for their support in this process evaluation.

The findings and interpretations expressed in this report are those of the author and do not

necessarily reflect the views of beneficiaries, Government of Lao, implementing partners, SPSL/ MSP

or DFAT.

Author: Dr Santi Owen

Evaluation field team: Vimala Dejvongsa, Thalalin Vongsonephet, Khamhou Nanthalad and

Phonesiva Vongsonephet.

REPORT CONSULTATION RECORD

Position Organisation

Program Manager Care International

First Secretary, Development Co-operation Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Program Manager/ Rural Infrastructure, Development Co-operation

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Country director Health Poverty Action

Program Manager Health Poverty Action

Senior Social Protection Specialist Social Protection and Sustainable Livelihoods

Zoe Windle Maxwell Stamp PLC

Program Manager World Education Lao

VERSION INFORMATION

Version Version Date Description of Revision Approved by

0 27/07/2016 Working draft for internal review Santi Owen

1 28/07/2016 First draft reviewed by SPSL: Zoe Windle and Karishma Huda

Zoe Windle

2 05/09/2016 Final Version reviewed by: Zoe Windle

Zoe Windle

Contents 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Country and policy context ........................................................................................................... 5

2.2 RLP pilot program background ..................................................................................................... 9

3 RLP Process Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Evaluation methodology ............................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 13

3.2 Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 13

4 Findings from the Process Evaluation ................................................................................................ 14

4.1 Household beneficiaries.............................................................................................................. 11

4.2 Household profile of the evaluation sample group and cohort 1 ............................................... 11

4.3 Targeting, selection and enrolment ............................................................................................ 12

4.4 Asset procurement, preparation, transfer and care training ..................................................... 17

4.5 Financial services ........................................................................................................................ 24

4.6 Capacity building of target households ...................................................................................... 29

4.7 Innovation and Cross Cutting Activities ...................................................................................... 36

4.8 Lessons from the implementation .............................................................................................. 40

5 Discussion about findings .................................................................................................................. 42

5.1 Progress towards outcomes ....................................................................................................... 42

5.3 Pilot vs Scaling up ........................................................................................................................ 45

6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 46

7 Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 1 RLP Process Evaluation TOR ........................................................................................... 49

Appendix 2 RLP Process Evaluation Plan .......................................................................................... 49

Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Questions ................................................................................ 49

Appendix 4 Interview Questions ....................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 5 Fieldwork schedule ........................................................................................................ 49

Appendix 6 Figures and Tables ......................................................................................................... 50

List of Figures

Table 1 Number of households in cohort 1 and 2 by district ............................................................... 11

Table 2 household beneficiaries by gender and district ....................................................................... 11

Table 3 Beneficiary average household size and dependency rate by district ..................................... 12

Table 4 Cohort 1 number of households by asset type ........................................................................ 21

Table 5 Cohort 2 number of households by asset type ........................................................................ 22

List of Tables

Figure 1 Reasons for household drop out in Lao Ngam and Soukhouma Districts............................... 16

Figure 2 Asset loss, cohorts 1 and 2 ...................................................................................................... 19

Figure 3 RLP activity and household land ............................................................................................. 23

Figure 4 Household attitudes towards banking .................................................................................... 25

Figure 5 Household perception of stipend transfer.............................................................................. 26

Figure 6 Household stipend savings cohort 1 ....................................................................................... 27

Figure 7 Household banking transactions ............................................................................................. 28

Figure 8 Fortnightly visits by facilitators ............................................................................................... 30

Figure 9 Time spent with facilitators .................................................................................................... 30

Figure 10 Household perception of time use change ........................................................................... 33

Figure 11 Financial discussions with facilitators ................................................................................... 35

Figure 12 Asset growth, cohort 1 .......................................................................................................... 36

Figure 13 Average household income from sales ................................................................................. 32

Figure 14 Stipend expenditure .............................................................................................................. 33

Figure 15 Family wellbeing issues ......................................................................................................... 35

Figure 16 Household perception of support with family wellbeing ..................................................... 36

Figure 17 Asset growth and sales ......................................................................................................... 44

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AFP Access to Finance for the Poor APB Agricultural Promotion Bank AUD Australian Dollar CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor COPE Cooperative Orthotic and Prosthetic Enterprise (COPE) DAFO District Agriculture and Forestry Office DRDO District Rural Development Office DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade GEID Gender Engagement and Inclusive Development Strategy GDP Gross Domestic Product GIZ German cooperation agency - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH GOL Government of Lao HPA Health Poverty Action

HH Household ILO International Labour Organisation IPs Implementing Partners LAK Lao Kip LARLP Lao Australian Rural Livelihoods Program MAFIPP Making Access to Finance More Inclusive for Poor People M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MECF Micro Enterprise Challenge Fund MIS Management Information System MLSW Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare MoU Memorandum of Understanding MSP Maxwell Stamp PLC RLP Resilient Livelihoods for the Poor SCA Senior Citizen Allowance SPSL Social Protection and Sustainable Livelihoods UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund USD United States Dollar UXO Unexploded Ordnance WE World Education Lao

1

1 Executive Summary The Resilience Livelihood for the Poor (RLP) pilot commenced implementation activities in mid-2015.

The pilot is funded by Australian Aid under the Lao Australian Rural Livelihood Program (LARLP). The

contract manager is Maxwell Stamp PLC (MSP) and the Implementing Partners (IP) are Care

International (Champassak province), Health Poverty Action (Savannakhet province) and World

Education Lao (Saravane province).

The RLP pilot is a Graduation approach program providing assets, cash transfers and income generation support to poor rural women and men. Anticipated outcomes for the pilot are two-fold. First, that poor households will see an increase in their income generating opportunities. Second, that poor households will experience increased access to social transfers and enhanced livelihood opportunities.

Implementation activities have been underway for approximately 12 months. Cohort 1 households

have participated in all the key processes of the pilot. These include: household targeting and

selection; asset selection; asset procurement and transfer to beneficiary households; training for

asset care, growth, selling, financial literacy; bank accounts for monthly cash transfer and coaching

via household visits. Household beneficiaries continue to receive training and coaching on

developing assets into a micro-enterprise. Cohort 2 households were selected in late 2015. These

households have received their assets, established bank accounts for receipt of monthly cash

transfers; asset care training and household visits by Facilitators.

As at 31 May 2016, cohorts 1 and 2 household beneficiaries total 1,167 households in the RLP pilot.

Of this group, 73% (n= 852) are female beneficiaries, who also hold bank accounts. The RLP provides

support to 5,759 people in four districts in three provinces.

An independent process evaluation was commission by SPSL. The scope of the process evaluation is

to conduct a systematic assessment of implementation activities across three districts where the

pilot is operating. The focus of this process evaluation as outlined in the TOR, is to assist SPSL to

make decisions about improvements to the pilot implementation for the remaining time of the

program. The emphasis is on the implement activities and the context in which IPs operate the RLP.

This evaluation does not cover the performance of SPSL or DFAT’s investment in rural livelihood

programs.1

Key findings2

The pilot has achieved 97% of household targeting. Currently, 1167 households enrolled out

of the 1,200 household target. The beneficiary household drop out is 3% of the total

1 For a review of SPSL and the performance of the LARLP investment, see DFAT, 2016, The Laos-Australian Rural Livelihoods Program (LARLP), draft main report, July. 2 Note: Green box denotes progress is as expected at this stage of implementation or demonstrating success. Orange box denotes progress is slightly less than expected, the area/ activity was weak or some improvement is required. Red box denotes progress is significantly less than expected, the area/ activity is a potential risk for achieving outcomes.

2

enrolled households. The RLP pilot appears to have implemented a comprehensive

household targeting and selection processes.

73% of household beneficiaries are women. The gender target is 50% of beneficiaries are

women, all three sites have exceeded this target. All female household beneficiaries are also

the primary bank account holder for cash stipend transfers.

All households in cohorts 1 and 2 have received cash transfers on schedule. Cash stipend

transfers provide an important consumption support to rural poor beneficiaries while they

develop knowledge and skills for their micro enterprise. Most households, particularly in

Sepon and Lao Ngam districts spend their stipend on food, health care and asset care.

Savings behaviour is strongest among households in Soukhouma district. Almost a quarter of

cohort 1 beneficiaries in Soukhouma district have saved 100% of their stipend in their bank

accounts.

20% of cohort 1 household beneficiaries have sold assets. As a proportion of all households,

58% of households in this group have produced offspring from their livestock assets.

Implementation of key processes has mostly been to schedule. Once the MOU delays were

resolved, implementation activities commenced rapidly. Activities completed to schedule

were: household targeting; selection and enrolment; asset selection; asset training;

household visits; and beneficiary training.

Household visits by Facilitators is the strongest component in the RLP design and

implementation. Beneficiaries attribute the good health and care of their assets to the

regular support provided by Facilitators. By all accounts from informants in this evaluation,

the regularity and quality of household visits by Facilitators ensured high-levels of

engagement of beneficiaries in pilot activities.

A case load of 50 households to 1 Facilitator is the maximum threshold to adequately

support poorest households in the local context. This case load allows Facilitators to conduct

fortnightly household visits for an average of 30 minutes per household.

Pilot inputs have enabled key processes and activities to be achieved in a compressed

timeframe. The information and operational system (the Tool Kit and MIS) provided the

organisational infrastructure to implement and monitor activities. The budget for asset

replacement, innovation activities and technical advisors facilitated responsiveness to local

issues and needs. The SPSL team provided direction on key stages of the implementation of

a graduation approach.3

3 SPSL has two functions, one function is the social policy dialogue with Government of Lao and the second function is to co-ordinate and implement the RLP pilot. In this report, reference to SPSL or SPSL team refers to the latter RLP implementation team made up of the Social Protection Specialist, Livelihood Co-ordinator; Gender/ Social Development Specialist and the MIS Manager.

3

The pilot is closing at a time when implementation stage ‘teething’ issues are being resolved

by the IPs and SPSL.4 Beneficiaries are also beginning to invest their own resources into

growing their assets. The anticipated closing of the pilot at this stage of implementation

means it is unlikely to demonstrate success against the original outcomes 1 and 2.

The Australian Aid budget cuts have impacted the implementation process by reducing

effectiveness in some process areas. For example, the compressed time resulted in the

rushed to complete asset selection, procurement and transfer processes. The squeezing of

activities into a compressed timeframe has meant that a tailored approach to training and

coaching of poor households is difficult to achieve.

Cross cutting and innovation activities have had limited positive effect in the RLP pilot so far.

The GEID and innovation activities such as the para vet training are under resourced. It is too

early to see wide spread results from these activities. Given the remaining timeframe it will

be challenging to demonstrate positive change for a significant number of RLP female

beneficiaries and households.

The Management Information System (MIS) is an important mechanism for monitoring

livestock assets, household savings and more recently the income and expenditure of

households. The system needs to increase its monitoring capabilities of household financial

literacy, non-livestock assets and family wellbeing. MIS has the potential to provide more

reliable and meaningful data for the outcome evaluation.

Land resource pressures for participating households may be acerbated by the project. Field

observations suggest that the vast majority of households have elected to locate pens and

coops on household or plantation land. As their livestock asset numbers increase, more land

will be needed, and the risks for infections and cross contamination will increase. Asset care

training for a larger number of animals will need to be sustained by IPs and SPSL.

Health, nutrition, hygiene, sanitation, education and food security remains a significant

barrier to asset growth and income generation for RLP beneficiaries. This is especially the

case for households in Sepon and Lao Ngam districts. The original design scope included

interventions to address some of these barriers. The current pilot implementation has not

allocated enough resources (budget and time) to address these issues.

Summary of recommendations

A broad recommendation is for the pilot be extended for another 24 months to ensure the

cohorts and 2 households are support for two to three growth seasons.

4 The current funding of RLP pilot activities is to December 2016. At the time of writing this report, a request for an extension was being considered by DFAT.

4

Budget savings from low performing components such as the GEID, innovation fund and

other parts of SPSL could fund the extension.

The Management Information System (MIS) should track and monitor all enterprise

activities. The MIS should also track household outcomes, such as: skills relating to goal

setting, planning and budgeting.

MIS data should be used to identify and target households with significant savings from

stipend and asset sales. This information should be used by IP staff to provide tailored

financial literacy coaching for these households.

IPs should be empowered to assess and determine the level of supplementary support for

households struggling with asset management and growth. IPs and SPSL should assess the

needs of households and explore options within the current pilot budget and resources to

target support to at-risk beneficiaries.

As sales from assets increase, income should be tracked to ensure households are managing

their income for planned expenditures and strategic asset reinvestment. This should be done

within the scope of the existing financial literacy coaching and training component of the

pilot.

Develop a more structured and holistic case approach to household visits using the

household planning tool. Identify beneficiary households who are struggling with their

assets and family wellbeing issues. For these households, support should focus on ensuring

they are not further disadvantaged by their assets.

Households who are capable of generating income from their assets should be linked to local

markets with strategies to improve their value chain.

There is a need to provide Facilitators with refresher training on financial counselling skills in

anticipation and preparation of increased cash flow from livestock sales.

Sponsor and support the district steering committee members to visit each site as part of a

monitoring process across the three districts. This will promote a better appreciation of the

pilots’ activities and objectives, as well as prepare district government partners for exiting

households and the eventual closing of the pilot.

As the number of livestock assets grow, households will require support with planning and

managing land use pressure. Seeking additional land near the village may need the

involvement and consultation of village authorities who have the mandate to allocate land

for these activities. District counterparts should also be involved in this process.

SPSL and IPs to develop an exit strategy and plan for beneficiary households as soon as

possible. Graduation indicators should be used along with other household monitoring data.

These indicators should identify and tailor household support with a view to exit households

with as little harm as possible.

5

2 Introduction Insitu Development Consulting (IDC) was engaged to provide an independent evaluation of

implementation activities in the pilot. The scope of the process evaluation is focused on the RLP

implementation activities by the three leading IPs. SPSL activities relating to policy dialogue and

advocacy; and the management and governance of SPSL are outside of the evaluation scope. The

process evaluation report constitutes one of two deliverables required under the terms of reference

provided by SPSL. The second deliverable was a presentation to SPSL, IPS and DFAT representatives.5

The recommendations provided in the presentation should be read in tandem with the

recommendation detailed in this report.

This evaluation makes some references to household outcomes in terms of progress towards the

expressed outcomes in the pilot objectives. At this point in time household behaviour change is

incremental and shallow. Planned activities for cohort 1 and 2 are being implemented by IPs as

efficiently as possible in the shortened timeframe. A full discussion of findings can be found in

section 4.

The report provides a background to the country and policy context, an overview of the program

and methodology for the evaluation. Findings are presented in section 4, followed by a discussion in

section 5 about the implications of these results. Recommendations for improving activities for the

remaining duration of the pilot is offered in section 6.

2.1 Country and policy context 2.1.1 Poverty in Lao PDR Poverty in the Lao PDR is a complex and entrenched problem. Most recent reports on poverty offer a

mixed picture of improvements and concerns.6 Nationally, poverty numbers across Lao PDR between

2005 to 2015 are reported as declining. Recent national trends include:

Poverty reduction in Lao PDR has been incremental in contrast to the economic growth. The high rate of GDP growth has not resulted in significant improvements in poverty rates. Over the period 2007/8 to 2012/12, the World Bank noted that poverty declined by 0.47% for every 1% increase in GDP per capita.7

GDP growth did not translate to increased household consumption. The World Bank this suggests that household income growth has not kept pace with national economic growth. In addition, non-poor households in urban areas have benefited the most from the country’s economic growth.

5 IDC, 2016, RLP Process Evaluation: Presentation of Report Findings. Vientiane, Lao PDR (12th August 2016). 6 World Bank, 2014, Poverty Profile in Lao PDR: Poverty Report for the Lao Consumption and Expenditure Survey, 2012-2013. World Bank, 2016 June, Where are the poor? Lao PDR 2015 Census based poverty map: Province and District level results. 7 World Bank, 2014, Poverty Profile in Lao PDR, 2012-2013.

6

Poverty and inequality is increasingly evident in rural areas of the country. According to a recent

poverty profile report by the World Bank, examples of current trends are:8

Poverty remains entrenched in rural areas where 28.6% of the population live in poverty, compared with 10% in urban areas. Poverty has declined faster in urban areas. Previously 81.9% of all poor people live in rural areas, now 87.6% live in rural Lao PDR.

Poverty is higher among ethnic minorities in rural areas, with 55% of all poor people being from Lao Teung and Lao Soong groups.

A significant number of households previously classified as ‘non-poor’ are falling back into poverty. This pattern is notable in Saravan, Bokeo and Champassak provinces. Highlighting the vulnerability of households to shocks and setbacks.

Poverty levels in the northern regions of the country have fallen over the last decade, however more of the poorest districts can now be found in provinces in the south.

2.1.2 Focus on the Graduation approach

Entrenched and persistent poverty in Lao PDR has received special attention from donors. Social

protection frameworks aim to reduce poverty, by providing a ‘floor’ safety net and measures to

prevent poorest households further declining into poverty.9 According to a review of social

protection in Lao PDR in 2013 by AusAID, there was an emergent national framework being

established by the Government of Laos (GOL).10 The review cited a growing policy framework related

to social protection, appearing to be in line with the GOL’s national development and poverty

eradication goals. For example, in 2013, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare convened a

national committee with the intent of establishing a national policy on social protection.11 Given the

limited financial and human resources available to the government, implementation of the social

protection policies has been challenging and progress in this area has been slow.12 In fact,

subsequent LARLP evaluations have identified the lack of appetite for social protection by the GoL

posing a risk to program buy-in and sustainability.13

8 World Bank, 2016 June, Where are the poor? 9 Types of social protection are: social insurance; social assistance; social welfare. SPSL, Social Protection for Lao, presentation, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 10 SPSL, 2015, Social protection in Lao PDR: Frameworks, vulnerabilities, coping strategies and gaps. 11 National Committee members include key ministries: Labour and Social Welfare; Health; Education and Sport; Planning and Investment; Agriculture and Forestry; Home Affairs; Information and Culture; and Finance. SPSL, 2015, Social protection in Lao PDR. 12 See, SPSL, 2015, Social protection in Lao PDR. ILO, 2013, Baseline Report, Supporting the establishment of the National Social Health Insurance and the extension of coverage in Lao PDR, November. Alkenbrack. S, Jacobs. B, Lindelow. M, 2013, Achieving universal health coverage through voluntary insurance: what can we learn from the experience of Lao PDR? 13 DFAT, 2016, Independent evaluation of The Laos-Australia Rural Livelihoods Program (LARLP), draft main

report, July. DFAT, 2014, Rapid appraisal of Australian aid rural development sector investment portfolio at mid-term. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Vientiane, Lao PDR.

7

Elements in the Graduation approach14

The Graduation approach operating in other developing countries for the last decade have shown to

be effective in reducing extreme instances of poverty.15 The graduation model offers a mix of

interventions aimed at addressing livelihoods, financial inclusion and access and health or education

of poorest households.16 The graduation model has six core elements: 1) targeting, 2) consumption

support, 3) savings, 4) skills training and 5) regular coaching, and 6) and asset transfer. According to

Consultative Group to Assist the Poor(CGAP), the graduation approach is structured around the

sequencing of the above six core elements, with “graduation” out of extreme poverty and into

sustainable livelihoods as the end goal. Achieving this goal typically takes between 18 and 36 months

(see Appendix 6, Figure 1). While the overarching goal of graduation is common across all pilots

around the world, that is exit from extreme poverty, the measurement criteria for graduation is

specific to each location and program.

Deliberately targeting the poorest and excluding better off households is the first step to ensure the

pilots accurately reach the extreme poor. A key premise of the graduation model is that food

insecurity causes significant stress which reduces poor people’s ability to generate income and plan

for the future.

Consumption support, either as cash or food, is meant to provide a ‘buffer’ for beneficiary

households to stabilize their food consumption levels until they start earning income from the

productive asset they receive from the program. Savings are at the core of the graduation model.

Savings help poor households manage their income and reduce the likelihood of emergency selling

of assets when faced with a shock. Although many poor people save informally, regular formal

savings helps to build financial discipline and familiarity with financial service providers.

Transferring an asset to help beneficiaries develop a sustainable economic activity is a critical

element of the graduation approach. Options for viable livelihoods are developed through market

studies that analyse demand constraints, infrastructure availability, value chains, and upstream and

downstream linkages. Program staff then discuss the menu of livelihood options and corresponding

assets with participants. The aim is to match the right activity to the interest and skills sets of

beneficiaries. The most common asset transferred across all Graduation approach pilots is livestock.

Pilots have also offered seedlings and other agricultural inputs, sewing machines, and a stock of

commodities to start small shops.

Regular monitoring and coaching provided by program staff are also important elements in the

Graduation approach. In most pilots, staff make weekly visits to beneficiary households. During

14 www.cgap.org 15 Hashemi. S.M and Montesquiou. A, 2011, Reaching the Poorest: Lessons from the Graduation Model, Focus Note, CGAP, March. www.cgap.org/graduation 16 The Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) developed this graduation approach three decades ago. Ten pilots around the world have been launched by the CGAP and Ford Foundation, and a growing evidence base is emerging from the Haiti, India and Pakistan pilots. See Hashemi. S.M and Montesquiou. A, 2011 and Huda.k and Simanowitz.A, 2010, Chemin Levi Miyo- Final evaluation (24 months).

8

household visits, program staff monitor progress and address problems. More importantly, visits are

intended to develop strong bonds with participants and provide informal coaching over the 18 to 24

months of the program. Staff determine whether participants are on track to reach their goals by the

end of the program and offer guidance on how to do so. They also often offer business planning

advice, provide social support, promote health and nutrition, and encourage positive attitudinal

changes along the way. Program staff need a mix of skills and qualities, ranging from technical

expertise in specific livelihood based activity to listening skills.

Skills training, centered on managing assets and running a business, is part of all pilots. The most

effective training packages are short and provide hands on learning for beneficiaries. Pilots also can

leverage from government health clinics to extension workers. Almost all pilots include some social

messaging on personal hygiene, safe drinking water, immunizations, contraception, and the

importance of schooling for children.

2.1.3 Rural development policy

The Laos Australia Rural Livelihoods Program (LARLP) was conceptualised in the context of a ‘pro-

poor’ and expanding rural sector investment environment. At the same time, social protection

programs, namely social insurance, was being established by the GoL. Funding for the LARLP

represented a significant budget expansion for rural livelihoods by the Australian Government,

importantly this gave rise to an opportunity to take an innovative approach to poverty reduction in

the Lao PDR. At a time of an expanding aid budget and ten-year commitment it seemed ripe to

attempt a new approach to rural poverty reduction through social protection and graduation.17

Under the LARLP program umbrella, the original intervention was comprehensive in tackling poverty

at various levels through policy influence (social protection); systems reform (through financial

inclusion for the poor) and household behaviour (income generation and asset growth).18

17 Graduation programs have not been implemented in Lao PDR previously. 18 AusAID, 2013, Social protection activity design document for the Laos Australia Rural Livelihoods Program (2012-2016). For an evaluation of the LARLP program see: DFAT, 2016, Independent evaluation of the Laos- Australia Rural Livelihoods Program (LARLP), July.

9

2.2 RLP pilot program background The principal goal of the LARLP is increasing the economic security and resilience of poor women and

men in rural areas. The Social Protection and Sustainable Livelihoods (SPSL) project is one

component of the LARLP.19 The SPSL component was worth AUD 16 million which originally included:

a) Resilient Livelihoods for the Poor (RLP) to provide 3,000 vulnerable households with a combination of short term social transfers (cash stipend), productive assets, coaching and financial literacy.

b) Senior Citizens Allowance (SCA) to provide approximately 15,000 people aged 65+ with regular transfers of 100,000 Kip per month.

c) Micro Enterprise Challenge Fund (MECF) to provide NGOs and social enterprises with funding to support village level income generating activities.

In 2012, the SPSL pilot phase was planned for 30 months of activities and at the end of this time the

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) would decide whether to extend the

project for a further five years. This timeframe is of critical importance because the pilot design

aimed to achieve transformative change in household behaviour and sustainable economic activity.

2.2.1 RLP pilot components

The impact of the Australian government budget cut to DFAT’s aid programs in 2014 resulted in the

SPSL project being reduced to two sub-components by the beginning of 2015. These sub-

components included: the RLP pilot and the capacity building support to GoL through social

protection policy dialogue activities. These sub-components are supported and monitored by three

cross cutting activities covering monitoring and evaluation (M&E), Management of Information

System (MIS) and the Gender Equity and Inclusion Strategy (GEIDS). The RLP pilot and government

capacity building support contributes to the LARLP objective to provide poor rural families in

particular women, with greater and inclusive access to social protection, financial services,

productive assets and opportunities to generate income. Despite the change in program priorities

the three outcomes in the design remain a target for SPSL, these are:

Outcome 1: Increased income generating opportunities for poor women and men, including through greater commercial and sustainable exploitation of natural resources.

Outcome 2: Increased access to social transfers and enhanced livelihood opportunities for the most vulnerable families within selected communities.

Outcome 3: A clear policy direction on social protection by the Government of Laos.

Outcomes 1 and 2 are most directly relevant to the RLP pilot.

The RLP targets the poorest households in a community and aims to ‘graduate’ households out of

extreme poverty through intensive case management support. The RLP is implemented in two

cohorts. The first cohort of approximately 600 households in three districts was selected in mid-

19 Other components include: a Financial Inclusion program comprising of the Access to Finance for the Poor (AFP) and Making Access to Finance More Inclusive for Poor People (MAFIPP); UXO clearance and a Learning Facility. The ten-year program commitment was an investment of AUD 32 million. AusAid, 2013, Social Protection Activity Design Document for the Laos Australia Rural Livelihoods Program (2012-2016), March.

10

2015. A second cohort of another 600 households was selected at the end of 2015.20 The RLP pilot

aims to provide a total of 1,200 vulnerable households (around 6,000 people) with a combination of:

a) Productive assets valued up to 1.8 million LAK per household beneficiary; b) Monthly stipends of 100,000 LAK per household to support with asset for up to 12 months; c) 15,000LAK per household per month for transport cost associated with banking; d) Individual bank accounts per household with the Agricultural Promotion Bank (APB); e) Household visits on a fortnightly basis that aim to increase the technical and financial

literacy knowledge of participating households. f) Cohort 1 households will receive up to 24 months and Cohort 2 households will receive up to

12 months of support.21

2.2.2 RLP Stakeholders

Maxwell Stamp PLC (MSP) was contracted by DFAT as the contract manager and lead implementing

agency for the SPSL project. DFAT selected Health Poverty Action (HPA), World Education Lao (WE)

and Care International from an international open tender process to implement the RLP pilot. The

Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MLSW) is the key government partner in which MSP and the

three IPs have an MOU to implement SPSL and RLP activities in the districts. RLP activities are being

implemented in three provinces with a separate lead IP, as below:

Care International: Soukhouma and Mounlapamok districts, Champassak Province

World Education: Lao Ngam district, Saravane Province

Health Poverty Action: Sepon district, Savannakhet Province

2.2.3 RLP Implementation overview

The RLP pilot commenced in January 2014. Below is a summary of key implementation milestones

from 2014 up to the time of this process evaluation.

2014

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MSP and the MLSW took approximately 12 months to approve. Protracted negotiations between the MLSW, MSP and DFAT over terms and conditions of the MOU delayed the implementation phase.

The Australian Government aid budget cut also excerbated the negotiations process. By end of 2014, the Senior Citizens Allowance component was removed from the SPSL project at the insistence of the Government of Laos. The Micro Enterprise Challenge Fund was then removed at the decision of DFAT.

Unable to implement activities in the districts as planned, SPSL continued with prepatory activities such as developing policy, procedures, plans, systems and staff recruitment.

20 After the budget cut, household beneficiaries were revised down from 3,000 to 1,200. 21 The RLP pilot is approved to operate until the end of November 2016. An extension of pilot activities until June 2017 was being considered by MSP and DFAT at the time of writing this report.

11

2015

The MOU between MSP and the MLSW was signed at the end of January which enabled the IPs to proceed with their MOUs with the MLSW to effectively commence activities in the districts. The approval of these MOUs was given in May.

IPs and SPSL continued with prepatory activities in the background while MOU approvals were being sought.

By end of June the IPs and SPSL had commenced the implementation of the RLP with a refocus on compacting activities into a shorter timeframe.22 Activities implemented included cohort 1 village targeting and selection, poorest household (HH) targeting, verification and selection, household enrolment, asset selection, procurement, transfer, asset care training, APB bank account registration, cash stipend transfer, and regular household visits. In addition to cohort 2 village and household targeting, selection, recruitment and asset selection.

Significant animal losses across the three districts at the end of 2015 led to an emergency response to reduce the spread of infection and losses.

2016

During the first six months of 2016, IPs and SPSL have focused on replacing animal loss for cohorts 1 and 2.

Cohort 1 household visits have focused on support for aset care, asset growth, income generation and financial literacy.

Cohort 2 are receiving their assets, cash stipend transfers, asset care training and regular support through the household visits by RLP facilitators.

22 SPSL, 2015, Annual Progress Report.

12

3 RLP Process Evaluation Process evaluation is the systematic assessment of the program for the purpose of improving its

design, delivery and quality of ‘services’ provided to beneficiaries. IDC employed research methods

to compare the RLP program design elements with the processes of implementation at the

respective sites. The TOR provided by SPSL outlined the scope of the evaluation to focus on

identifying areas of ‘success and failure’ and to present learnings and possible improvements for

future rollout or scale-up of activities by SPSL and the implementing partners (see Appendix 1). The

key evaluation questions and objectives are:

Evaluation questions Evaluation objectives 1. To what extent has the program

been implemented as intended? 2. What factors contribute to

successful implementation in the three sites?

3. How do RLP participants experience the program activities?

1. To understand the extent to which the RLP is being implemented across each site as intended.

2. To assess and document the degree of variability and continuity in the implementation of the RLP pilot as planned or unplanned.

3. To understand the relationship between program context (i.e., setting characteristics) and program processes (i.e., inputs translated to outputs).

4. To provide SPSL, implementing partners and stakeholders with feedback on the quality of implementation and make recommendations to further refine delivery components.

3.1 Evaluation methodology The evaluation primarily used qualitative methods and a purposive sampling of target groups. The

evaluation methodology combines primary and secondary data collection to address the key

evaluation questions. Full details of the evaluation plan can be found in Appendix 2.

3.1.1 Data collection tools

Focus Group Discussions (FGD)

Focus group discussions with district government, village authority members and IP senior

facilitators and facilitators were undertaken. The semi-structured questions were used to explore

(a) understanding of RLP pilot objectives; (b) the process of implementation (c) solicit participant

perspectives on the progress of the RLP in the target villages. English and Lao language versions of

the focus group questions can be found in Appendix 3.

Interviews

In–depth interviews were conducted with IP management staff members, APB staff, RLP

implementing team in SPSL and DFAT representatives. The interviews aimed to capture the

perspectives about the implementation process, the overall progress of the program, in addition to

identifying areas for learning and improvement. Interview questions can be found in Appendix 4.

Survey interviews using tablets were conducted with selected beneficiaries in target villages.

Questions focused on gauging the experience of the RLP activities from the point of the beneficiary.

This tool was translated from English to Lao and uploaded to an Andriod application. The

13

application is an online data collection tool hosted by SurveyCTO which enabled the team to record

data directly on the tablet and upload the data when internet connectivity was available.23 The

data collection was pre-coded to facilitate efficient analysis. Interview questions for household

beneficiaries are attached in Appendix 4. The FGD and interviews in the districts was conducted in

Lao with translation and transcription into English while in the field.

Household data

Household data for assets, savings, income and expenditures was extracted from MIS for this

evaluation. The data was analysed for changes during the implementation stage.

3.1.2 Sample size and groups

A total of 159 participants were involved in this process evaluation (Appendix Table 1). A

combination of primary and secondary data sources was used in the analysis. Primary data was

collected from selected cohort 1 beneficiaries at the village level, IPs, district government partners,

RLP implementation team in SPSL and DFAT staff members involved in the design and/ or overseeing

the implementation. Secondary data sources include MIS data, RLP program documents, periodic

reports, the Gender Engagement and Inclusion Strategy (GEIDS) and M&E reports. A total of 76

cohort 1 beneficiaries (approx. 13% of cohort 1) participated in survey interviews. Household

beneficiaries were selected by IPs, each RLP team liaised and co-ordinated with the selected villages.

The evaluation team visited three villages in Lao Ngam, two villages in Sepon and four villages in

Soukhouma districts (see Appendix Table 2).

3.2 Data collection Fieldwork in Sepon, Lao Ngam and Soukhouma for the process evaluation took place from 19 – 30th

June 2016. A daily schedule and logistics plan was developed by IDC in consultation with SPSL, HPA,

WE and Care. In order to achieve the evaluation aims with respect to cost and timeframe, an

evaluation team of four people undertook the focus group discussions and household interviews.

The data collection schedule is attached in Appendix 5.

3.2 Analysis Primary data was analysed according to the stages of the implementation process of: targeting and

selection of villages and household; asset selection, procurement and transfer; financial services

(bank accounts and stipend transfer); and capacity building. Data on progress achieved in the cross

cutting activities, MIS and GEIDS action plans were also analysed. Secondary data sources from the

program included: 1) design documents (results log frame, program description, budget), 2) tool kit,

3) annual reports, 4) work plans, 5) baseline survey reports and 6) M&E reports. The two types of

data were analysed together to verify areas of consistency and divergence. The synthesis of data

from different sources and types also establishes validity of the data providing more confidence in

the results. For example, where reports by household beneficiaries are corroborated by reports from

facilitators and district government staff, there is increased confidence in the validity of the data.

Where appropriate, de-identified examples from FGDs and interviews are used to illustrate a finding.

23 http://www.surveycto.com/index.html

14

4 Findings from the Process Evaluation The RLP pilot implementation phase is progressing efficiently according to scheduled activities. By all

accounts, after a frustrating start to the pilot, activities are progressing and there are indications of

good practice in the pilot. Cash stipend transfers are providing important consumption support to

households while they learn their new micro enterprise. Sequenced training and coaching via

fortnightly household visits have supported beneficiaries to remain engaged and participated in

developing their knowledge and skills about asset care and growth. Features in the pilot enabling

these elements to work well on the ground are:

Local co-ordination with district government and village authority stakeholders; The Management Information System has facilitated trouble shooting and continuous-improvement monitoring of asset health, growth and sales. The 50:1 beneficiary to Facilitator ratio is the maximum threshold to sustain fortnightly household visits in these locations. Resources within the pilot are adequate and necessary for working with poorest households in this particular part of Laos. The budget for asset replacement has been necessary to recover from livestock loss. Other relevant resources include the MIS dedicated officers, technical support in SPSL and within IPs, M&E system and resources for training on each RLP process.

This section presents the findings by program processes and themes for all three districts. Where

results are distinctively different between districts or participant groups, the issue is addressed and

discussed. Otherwise the results are presented for all three sites. The findings have focused on the

activities conducted with cohort 1 for the reason that this group has completed the majority of the

program activities and steps. References to cohort 2 in this report are made to compare or contrast

a change with cohort 1.

RLP pilot processes

The RLP Tool Kit details the processes and procedures for delivering activities by IPs in each of the

districts. The aim of the Tool Kit is to ensure consistency and standards in the implementation

activities. The document was developed from the original design and references to this

implementation Tool Kit are made throughout the following sections. The sequence of key processes

in the RLP pilot are:

1. Targeting and selection 2. Household enrolment and registration 3. Asset selection by households 4. Asset procurement and transfer

5. Asset support: training 6. Bank account registration 7. Household visits

An overview of the RLP beneficiaries are provided below.

11

4.1 Household beneficiaries As at the 31st May 2016, 1,167 households were participating in the RLP pilot. 73% (n= 855) of the

main beneficiaries were female members of the household.24

TABLE 1 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN COHORT 1 AND 2 BY DISTRICT

Cohort 1 (n=581) Cohort 2 (n= 586)

District Number of

Females Number of Males

Total Number of Females

Number of Males Total

Lao Ngam 110 86 196 127 76 203

Sepon 191 17 208 181 15 196

Soukhouma 140 37 177 106 81 187

Total 441 140 581 414 172 586

Source: MIS (June 2016)

4.2 Household profile of the evaluation sample group and cohort 1 Household beneficiary participants in this evaluation represent 13% (n=76) of the total cohort 1

(n=581), see Table 2. Female participants and ethnic minority beneficiaries made up 62% (n=47) of

the total evaluation sample.

TABLE 2 HOUSEHOLD BENEFICIARIES BY GENDER AND DISTRICT

Evaluation sample group (n=76) Cohort 1 (n=581)

District Number of

Females Number of Males Total

Number of Females

Number of Males Total

Lao Ngam 13 11 24 110 86 196

Sepon 10 13 23 191 17 208

Soukhouma 24 5 29 140 37 177

Total 47 29 76 441 140 581

Source: MIS (June 2016) Sepon district male participants in this evaluation included three beneficiaries. The other 10 male participants are from households where females are the pilot beneficiaries.

Consistent with the profile of poor households in the RLP Baseline, beneficiaries have large

households. The average household size in the evaluation sample group is: 5.7 household members

in Sepon; 4.8 household members in Lao Ngam; and 4.6 household members in Soukhouma districts

(Table 3). In terms of all beneficiaries in cohort 1, Sepon and Lao Ngam have similar average

household sizes with 5.2 and 5.1 respectively. Soukhouma has an average household size of 4.7

members.

24 MIS data as at 31 May 2016.

12

TABLE 3 BENEFICIARY AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND DEPENDENCY RATE BY DISTRICT

Evaluation sample group (n= 76) Cohort 1 (n=581)

District Average HH size Average HH

dependency ratio Average HH size

Average HH dependency ratio

Lao Ngam 4.8 110 5.2 130

Sepon 5.7 120 5.2 120

Soukhouma 4.6 90 4.8 110

Source: author’s calculation of MIS data, MIS (June 2016)

In addition to other indicators of poverty (such as landlessness, unimproved housing, income and

lack of assets) the dependency ratio provides another dimension to poverty.25 In this evaluation

sample Sepon households have a slightly higher average dependency ratio of 120 dependents per

100 working person than the other two districts. However, when viewed as a cohort, Lao Ngam

households have a higher average dependency ratio of 130 dependents, more than Sepon and

Soukhouma households in cohort 1. For example, an average of 130 dependents for every 100

working person in Lao Ngam means that each working person will need to provide for themselves

and another 1.3 person.

4.3 Targeting, selection and enrolment The RLP Operations Manager, Senior Facilitators and Facilitators undertook the village selection and

then household selection. The activities for this process include: 1) completing village registration

and ranking, 2) verification of selected villages by district government, IP and SPSL, 3) household

survey to assess poor households and 4) household verification by district government, IP and SPSL

and final selection. The criteria for village selection are:

1. Accessible year round by motorbike or a maximum of one hour walk; 2. Should have at least 8-10 poor households based on government criteria; 3. Has an existing village bank; and 4. No other livelihood projects present in the village.

25 The average dependency ratio = number of children 0-14 and people aged over 65 years divided by the number of working age people 15-64 years, multiplied by 100. A high dependency by children or the elderly in a household means fewer people working to support themselves and other household members. The implication of a high dependency ratio for RLP districts is that households have fewer members who can be productive. The national average dependency ratio is Lao PDR is 64 (2014) dependents per 100 working persons. www.worldbank.org

13

The RLP team conducted the household survey to assess household suitability based on the program

inclusion and exclusion criteria. The criteria are:

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria 1. Inadequate housing. 1. Loan of more than 2 million LAK 2. No ownership of productive land (less than 2 ha

of lowland, or 3 ha of upland). 2. Receiving assistance from another livelihood

project. 3. No ownership of productive assets (large

livestock; more than one pig or goat; tok tok). 3. Head of household has a permanent salaried

employment. 4. A beneficiary of the health equity fund (e.g. has a

‘card’ for free medical expenses). 4. Head of the household is a long-term dependent.

5. Sells labour 6. Identified disability in the household survey.

Once households have been assessed as being eligible for the program, the RLP team proceed to

enrol households by: 1) informing households of the terms of their participation; 2) completing the

enrolment form; 3) household beneficiaries signing the Conditions Acceptance form; and 4)

household enrolment details being entered into the MIS.

4.3.1 Good co-ordination of household targeting, selection and enrolment activities in the district.

On the whole, the preparatory work undertaken by SPSL and the IPs during 2014 and early 2015,

have enabled a rapid mobilisation of the RLP teams to complete the targeting and selection of

households. The IP MOUs were signed in May 2015. Targeting and selection of villages and

households in cohort 1 was completed by July 2015 in the Sepon, Lao Ngam and Soukhouma

districts.26 Cohort 2 targeting, selection and enrolment was completed for all three districts in

September 2015. The targeting and selection process involved multiple stakeholders. The process

was led by the RLP IP teams, with support from SPSL, district government and village authorities.

In each district, there was a discrepancy between the government and RLP household selection

criteria. At first the district government partners insisted on using their criteria for household level

poverty.27 Through good communication and engagement of district government partners by all IPs,

the government counterparts eventually accepted the program’s selection criteria. During the

negotiations IPs engaged with District governments at Senior and Executive levels. This engagement

included liaison with the District Government Steering Committee; District Labour and Social

Welfare (DLSW) counterpart; the District Agricultural Forestry Office (DAFO) and/ or District Rural

Development Office (DRDO) officers. The Care RLP team have seconded the DAFO officer on a part

time basis into their team. This formal engagement of the DAFO officer provides the RLP team with

technical expertise and a strong program liaison function. The feedback from all RLP Operation

26 Targeting, selection and enrolment of beneficiary households was planned for the first half of 2014, due to delays in the pilot approval, the implementation of these activities effectively commenced from June 2015. The pilot was slated to operate until mid-2016, however an extension of six months was granted by DFAT. 27 In Soukhouma and Lao Ngam, government staff wanted to include remote poor villages however once it was explained that as a pilot program villages needed to be accessible to IPs within 75km or one-hour travel time on a motorbike, the district government accepted the program selection criteria.

14

Managers and Senior Facilitators in this evaluation was that district government counterparts

demonstrated a willingness to adopt the program selection criteria.

All 14 district government counterparts in Lao Ngam, Sepon and Soukhouma interviewed for this

evaluation described similar processes for targeting, selecting and enrolling households as those

reported by IP teams.28 During the implementation stage of the project, government partners

demonstrated an understanding of their role. One DLSW officer explained his role: “the DLSW is to

co-ordinate with other district counterparts on the implementation plan and support the IPs at each

stage. The district role is to help explain the purpose of the program to the community and

encourage participation of households.” By all accounts, the district government counterparts

collaborated with the IPs and village authorities to complete the household selection in the

compressed time frame.

Target village authority representatives in this evaluation reported the process of household

selection and enrolment in positive terms. Across the three sites, 22 village chiefs, deputy chiefs and

village leaders were interviewed, all reported that the IP RLP teams and district government worked

with the Village Committee to inform members about the pilot objectives and activities. Village

leaders share the understanding that it is their responsibility to mobilise households to attend

meetings and to co-operate with the program. Broadly, village leaders expressed that the household

selection and enrolment was conducted smoothly. Examples include:

“This process was a very good process.” Village chief, Soukhouma district

“During this stage, the RLP staff stayed in the village for the whole day, arriving at 6:00am until

5:00pm. Sometimes they stayed overnight to complete the work.” Village chief, Sepon district

“The program staff work directly with the Village Committee to co-ordinate and mobilise

households.” Deputy village chief, Lao Ngam

4.3.2 Challenges with household selection in Soukhouma district.

Soukhouma district had fewer villages with ultra- poor households that met the program inclusion

criteria. The local characteristics presented a challenge for the Care RLP team to select the required

400 households for cohort 1 and 2.29 In order to achieve this enrolment target in Soukhouma, the

team would have had to select households from 62 villages spread across the district. To support

400 households in 62 villages would introduce inefficiencies such as an increase in travel time for the

28 The targeting and selection of households was rigorous. for example, the development of the inclusion/exclusion criteria involved SPSL and the IPs conducting 20 wealth ranking exercises across the 3 districts. The most common and recurring indicators of poverty became the program eligibility criteria. For instance, SPSL met with district authorities to agree on the villages that met the government’s criteria and also met the RLP pilot criteria for a poor village. According to SPSL, this process ensured that the RLP program achieved the selection of poorest productive households and not just the poorest as defined by the GoL criteria. 29 The district appears to have smaller pockets of poverty within villages rather than whole poor villages. Households also had larger debts (greater than 2 million LAK), most households had the Bronze Health Equity insurance card (considered to be ‘middle wealth’ households) and World Vision programs were operating in many villages in the district.

15

eight Facilitators to conduct fortnightly household visits.30 Discussions between Care and SPSL about

adjusting the inclusion criteria took place, the result being cohort 1 households were selected from

32 villages in Soukhouma and cohort 2 households were selected from 14 villages in Soukhouma and

from 11 villages in Mounlapamok district.31

Soukhouma, by comparison with Sepon and Lao Ngam districts appears to have fewer villages and

households that meet the program’s ultra-poor criteria. The cohort 1 baseline survey undertaken in

mid-2015 found that Soukhouma households were relatively ‘better off’ in a number of poverty

indicators, such as employment, household income, household savings and borrowings and

ownership of assets.32 Internal discussions about the appropriateness of targeting Soukhouma

district for the RLP pilot have are taken place. In this evaluation, two main issues were raised by

implementing stakeholders. Firstly, there was a concern that the households in Soukhouma district

were not poor enough to qualify for the pilot program. Secondly, due to lower concentrations of

extremely poor households, the program has become more geographically dispersed compared to

the Sepon and Lao Ngam districts. This has meant that Care has had to roll its activities over a

greater number of villages in order to reach its household quota.

4.4.3 The pilot has achieved 97% of target households.

Of the 1,208 households initially enrolled in both cohorts, 3% (n= 41) of households have dropped

out (Figure 1). Of this drop out group, 46% (n= 19) households self-selected to leave the program.

Households leaving the program due to migration for work in Thailand and other provinces made up

32% of all household drop outs. The graph below shows reasons for drop out as recorded by IPs as at

the 31st May 2016.

30 Care, 2nd Quarterly Report (June- Aug 2015). 31 Care was allowed to select households from villages where World Vision Lao are implementing development programs. 32 SPSL, 2015, Baseline Survey Cohort 1.

16

FIGURE 1 REASONS FOR HOUSEHOLD DROP OUT IN LAO NGAM AND SOUKHOUMA DISTRICTS

Sources: 2nd – 5th Quarterly reports by Care, HPA and WE.

The number of households dropping out from the RLP is more pronounced in Soukhouma district

than the other two districts. Of 400 households originally enrolled in both cohorts, 9% (n= 37) have

dropped out of the pilot.33 The most prevalent reason for household drop outs in both cohorts, in

order of significance: 49% (n= 18) beneficiary selected to leave the program; 30% (n=11) migration

to Thailand for work; 16% (n= 6) household did not comply with program conditions; and 5% (n= 2)

migration to other provinces to work.34

Household drop outs in Lao Ngam for cohorts 1 and 2 have been minimal, with 1% (n=4) of all

households originally enrolled dropping out. The reasons for dropping out include: relocating out of

the target village, the beneficiary selected to leave and a beneficiary self-excluded due to the

perceived lack of household capacity to manage an enterprise.35 Cohorts 1 and 2 enrolled

households in Sepon district have remained stable and there have been no drop outs.36 Viewed in

context of a pilot, the number of household dropouts is low. It is not surprising that households drop

out more frequently in Soukhouma district than the other two districts. The wage labour market for

unskilled and semi-skilled work in Thailand and other provinces is a significant pull factor for poor

households in this district.

33 Soukhouma district drop out figures are: cohort 1, 12% (n= 23 HHs), cohort 2, 7% (n= 14 HHs). 34 Care, Quarterly reports for Q2 (June- Aug 2015), Q3 (Sept- Nov 2015), Q4 (Dec 2015- Feb 2016) and Q5 (Mar-May 2016). 35 WE, Quarterly reports for Q4 (Dec 2015- Feb 2016) and Q5 (Mar-May 2016). 36 HPA, Quarterly reports for Q2 (June- Aug 2015), Q3 (Sept- Nov 2015), Q4 (Dec 2015- Feb 2016) and Q5 (Mar-May 2016).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Migration for work in Thailand

Migration for work in other provinces

Relocation out of target village

HH non compliance

HH selected to leave

Lack capacity to manage enterprise

% of HHs

Reasons for HH drop out, cohort 1 and 2, Lao Ngam and Soukhouma

17

4.4 Asset procurement, preparation, transfer and care training According to the RLP Tool Kit, the process steps involved in the asset selection and transfer are:

1. Inform households of asset menu for first and second choices 2. High level asset training for households and follow up discussions about assets 3. Asset selection by households and registration 4. Asset procurement by IPs with households and local partners37 5. Asset transfer ceremony

The Program Manager, Operations Manager and Senior Facilitators lead and oversee these steps.

During each of these steps, district government representatives are also present to provide

monitoring of activities, liaison with village authorities and community mobilisation.

4.4.1 Asset selection was conducted efficiently.

SPSL developed a ‘menu’ of assets based on the results of a market analysis of a range of assets and

enterprise relevant to southern Lao PDR.38 From this, an information package was developed

including pictorial posters depicting the asset, the enterprise activity, potential income generation

and household resources required. SPSL provided guidance to IPs on the procedures for informing

household about asset menu options. IPs largely carried out this step in a similar manner where each

RLP team worked with village leaders and district government to co-ordinate meetings in each

village, presented the menu options to the group, then followed up with asset specific training with

households before finalising the asset registration. For example, to ensure ethnic households

understand the options on offer, HPA divided the training into four step-by-step sessions (location

for shelter; daily care of goats; health care; and breeding). In Lao Ngam, WE integrated practical

demonstrations into their training which was conducted by the Senior Facilitator and Livelihood

Specialist from Village Focus International (VFI). The Care RLP team conducted the asset menu

training and selection process simultaneously with the household enrolment process to ‘squeeze’

activities in the short timeframe.

Household beneficiaries interviewed for this evaluation reported they felt properly informed about

asset options. In addition, 64% of households recalled receiving information about assets or

enterprises not on the menu list of options. From the perspective of households in this evaluation,

RLP teams provided adequate information for receiving their assets. 95% of households reported the

asset preparation training was useful and easy to understand. An example of a typical description of

this process is demonstrated in the following quote:

“The [program] staff showed us pictures of the different activities we can do. They came

back several times to talk to us then they came to my home to talk about what assets we

wanted to choose.” Female beneficiary, Kengkok village, Sepon district.

37 Households in cohort 1 were provided with assets to the value of 1.8 million LAK, this includes purchase of livestock and non-livestock assets and asset support material. This value has increased for cohort 2 to enable households to purchase quality livestock. 38 Jones. M and Keoviriyavong. S, 2015, Report on market analysis and micro-enterprise options for the RLP, March.

18

This asset selection process was conducted in August 2015, quite soon after the household

enrolment process in July 2015.

4.4.2 Asset procurement and transfer was frustrated by local supplies issues.

Most households in cohort 1 selected livestock assets. Livestock procurement and supply issues

resulted in unexpected delays. While there were different challenges associated with procuring the

variety of livestock assets, the lack of commercial suppliers, limited numbers of livestock held by

suppliers and the quality of supplies were consistent themes.

Goats in Sepon district were sourced from a single supplier, who had to source from multiple

locations and traders. HPA worked with the DLSW and DAFO officers to oversee the procurement of

412 goats.39 Traders for goats, pigs and chicken in Lao Ngam district was limited, the nearest

livestock trader was based outside the district some 160km away.40 The distance impacted the

negotiation process, planning and logistics of the transfer by the WE RLP team. Livestock assets for

Soukhouma households were procured within the district from various local suppliers. IPs reported

that local suppliers of livestock in this part of Laos were either small scale farms or household level

traders. This meant that IPs had difficulty sourcing the volume of assets required and sourcing assets

with specific requirements, such as age, weight, reproductive requirements and breed type.41

During this period (Aug to Nov 2015), all three districts experienced substantial livestock losses

during the quarantine stage and shortly after the transfer to households.42 Of the initial asset

transfer, goat losses were 32% (n= 312) of total transferred and all households who selected goats

were impacted. Of pigs and piglets procured, 35% (n= 70) died. This affected 34% of households who

chose to raise pigs. Poultry, mainly chicken incurred the largest losses with 77% of stock not

surviving during quarantine or shortly after transfer to households. This affected 88% of households

in Lao Ngam and Soukhouma districts who had selected poultry assets.

The poor quality of supplies was an issue for goats and some pigs due to an under developed

livestock industry with weak regulations for production and supply. Pre-inspection of animal

conditions and health monitoring during quarantine needed better technical oversight. The practice

of housing large numbers of animals and of different ages together also contributed to the spread of

infections.

Improved asset transfer procedures have significantly reduced livestock losses. Figure 2 illustrates

the proportion of losses during and after asset transfer for cohorts 1 and 2. Lessons from cohort 1

39 Goats were quarantined on the supplier’s farm where they were to be dewormed, vaccinated and tagged, before being transferred to households in batches between September to October 2015. 40 WEL, 2nd Quarterly Report, June- Aug 2015. 41 Livestock supply is a constant issue for a pilot such as the RLP. HPA reported it has been able to partially procure some of the chickens required for cohort 2 households. The local supplier has a waiting period of four months for the next available stock. Which means some households in cohort 2 in Sepon will receive their chickens at the end of 2016. 42 Asset loss appears to be common across graduation programs, see Hashemi. S.M and Montesquiou. A, 2011, Reaching the Poorest: Lessons from the Graduation Model, Focus Note, CGAP, March.

19

asset transfer have been learnt and improved practices have been implemented with cohort 2. Such

as IPs setting up village based quarantine centres to better monitor the health of assets for two

weeks before transferring to households. Village based quarantine facilities also provides an

opportunity to expose beneficiary households to animal care while in the quarantine area.

FIGURE 2 ASSET LOSS, COHORTS 1 AND 2

Source: MIS (June, 2016)

4.4.3 Greater livestock technical inputs were

needed during asset procurement and transfer.

A rapid response to the asset loss was instituted

by all IPs and SPSL. This involved engaging

livestock technical expertise, reviewing the

procurement and quarantine process and

communication with the district government

partners and village leaders to co-ordinate a

response in affected villages. District government

feedback in this evaluation emphasised that the

district leadership supported the rapid response,

for example in Sepon the district governor’s

office approved an investigation into the asset

loss and subsequently developed

recommendations for improvements.43 From the perspective of government counterparts and

village leaders, the RLP was more responsive than other livelihood programs they had observed. The

resources within the pilot, that is, the RLP teams, technical advisors accessed by IPs and SPSL

enabled mistakes to be quickly understood and translated into action on the ground. This example of

43 The result of this investigation led to internal reflections within the district government, for instance the Sepon DLSW interviewed for this evaluation acknowledged that he and his counterparts should have been more vigilant in their pre-inspection and monitoring during the quarantine stage and that the Office should have prepared the village and households better to look after their animals in the new environment.

0

20

40

60

80

Goats Pigs Poultry% o

f A

sset

loss

Asset type

% Asset loss change, Cohort 1 & 2, by asset, all districts

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

Photo: Goat shelter and care have improved since the initial transfer for cohort 1. Goats in Na Bon village, Lao Ngam district. Credit: P. Vongsonephet (June, 2016)

20

continuous-improvement in the procedures for procurement, quarantine and transfer of assets has

reduced the asset loss for the replacement animals for cohort 1 and assets for cohort 2 across all

three districts.44

Post analysis of the procurement and transfer stage by SPSL and IPs found the following issues.

Monitoring of stock while in quarantine and post transfer lacked the appropriate technical

support and expertise. In Sepon, the goat supplier neglected to provide proper water and

feed for the animals. The Sepon district government staff learned through their investigation

that the goats were extremely undernourished which made them more susceptible to

disease. The HPA RLP team and DLSW officer acknowledged that closer and more frequent

checks of animals were needed. The RLP teams in all sites identified the need to

communicate and work closely with households after the transfer to ensure animals adjust

into the village environment, such as penning routine, water and feeding. The local practice

of letting animals forage in the village, increased cross infections with local livestock of non

RLP households.45

Asset transfer and preparation activities was hindered by seasonal challenges. During

September to December the rain, followed by cool weather increased the susceptibility of

animals to viruses and spread of infections. SPSL assessed that if the asset transfer was

delayed further until the next dry season from January 2016, this would have reduced the

support time for both cohorts.46 The wet season also places additional resource pressures on

poorest households, RLP teams reported that many households relocate temporarily to their

rice fields during the months of August to November. This made it difficult for RLP teams to

conduct asset preparation training with these beneficiaries.

The experience gained from procurement, quarantine and transportation of livestock assets

to cohort 1 beneficiaries has resulted in improvements in procedures for cohort 2. Such as,

HPA sourcing goats from multiple traders in nearby districts of Phine, Vilabouly and Nong;

increased support to beneficiaries to settle the animals into the village setting; separation of

pens and coops and staged asset distribution. These efforts lead to improvements in the

health of livestock and reduced animal deaths overall.

44 For example, in responding to the losses in livestock for cohort 1 households, HPA consulted livestock experts from the Agricultural Faculty, National University of Laos; Village Focus; Vets without Borders and quarantine and biosecurity experts from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and University of Sydney. 45 In Soukhouma, village chiefs reported that World Vision Lao had delivered chickens to the village as part of their livelihood program prior to the RLP households receiving their assets. 46 SPSL, 2015, Annual Progress Report, March.

21

4.4.4 Livestock assets present a significant challenge for extremely poor households in the Lao

context.

Many graduation programs around the world offer livestock assets, particularly goats and cattle as a

first time asset.47 These programs work with poor families to build their capacity with livestock then

other skills to diversify into other non-livestock assets over time. In this way, livestock assets

represent a medium level entry point into income generating assets. According to SPSL, this is also

the strategy behind livestock assets transfer in RLP pilot. The rationale for the RLP asset transfer was

based on approaches in graduation programs elsewhere which demonstrated that livestock assets

hold cultural significance and therefore buy-in from poorest families. Other non-livestock assets,

such as small shops and mushrooms require higher levels of skill in literacy and numeracy. Most

poor households lack the literacy and confidence to engage in non-livestock from the onset. The RLP

pilot implementation demonstrate that livestock assets come with high levels of risk of loss; animals

need more management and care than households are often aware of; and assets draw heavily on

household land and labour. Poor households struggling on the margins trying to maintain livestock

assets and subsistence is constant tension not uncommon in Laos or other pilots globally.

Livestock assets make up 98% (n= 571) of all assets provided to households in cohort 1 (Table 4). Of

this, 66% (n= 375) are goat assets mainly selected by households in Lao Ngam and Sepon districts. of

all households in cohort 1, 17% selected pigs and 18% selected poultry assets. Pig and poultry assets

are a popular choice with Soukhouma households with 47% selecting to raise pigs and 37% selecting

to raise poultry. Approximately 2% (n= 10) of cohort 1 households selected non livestock assets and

approximately half of this group have elected to grow mushrooms.48

TABLE 4 COHORT 1 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY ASSET TYPE

District Goats Pigs Poultry Mushrooms Food production Small shop Total

Lao Ngam 154 12 29 1 0 0 196

Sepon 202 0 6 0 0 0 208

Soukhouma 19 84 65 4 1 4 177

Total 375 96 100 5 1 4 581

Source: MIS (June, 2016)

Livestock assets also dominate in cohort 2 with 97% (n=568) of households electing to raise animals

(Table 5). Within districts there are notable differences in the selection of livestock assets between

cohort 1 and 2.

Pigs

Pig assets have increased among households in cohort 2 in Lao Ngam and Sepon. For example, in Lao

Ngam district 6% of cohort 1 households selected pigs, this asset has increased to 10% in cohort 2

47 See examples of graduation approaches at www.cgap.org . 48 MIS data as at 31 May 2016.

22

households. Pigs were not selected by cohort 1, however 8% of Sepon households in cohort 2 have

chosen pig assets.

Poultry

In Lao Ngam district, 15% of cohort 1 households selected poultry assets and this has increased to

28% in cohort 2 households selecting poultry. Poultry was selected by 3% of households in cohort 1

in Sepon, this has increased to 12% in cohort 2.

Non-livestock assets

Non livestock assets also increased slightly from 2% among cohort 1 to 3% among cohort 2. Of

cohort 2 households undertaking non livestock assets, almost half have selected to operate small

shops. The small changes in livestock and non-livestock asset selection among households in cohort

2 indicate a shift towards more diversity of assets at the district level. The pilot has emphasised

practical demonstrations of income generating activities as a strategy to engage beneficiaries in

different types of enterprises. According to SPSL, the RLP team has been working closely with IPs on

having ‘demonstration groups’ where beneficiaries visit successful non-livestock micro-enterprises

to learn about how these activities operate.

TABLE 5 COHORT 2 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY ASSET TYPE

District Goats Pigs Poultry Mushrooms Food

production Small shop

Vegetables Other Total

Lao Ngam 123 20 55 1 0 2 0 2 203

Sepon 153 16 24 0 0 2 1 0 196

Soukhouma 59 77 42 3 1 4 0 1 187

Total 335 113 121 4 1 8 1 3 586

Source: MIS (June, 2016)

The provision of livestock assets to poor landless households places pressure on existing land use.

Of the beneficiaries interviewed in this evaluation, 97% of households reported integrating the RLP

assets into current productive land (Figure 3).49 Land pressures are present in all three districts in a

variety of ways. In Sepon and Lao Ngam districts, productive land has been impacted by commercial

crop leases which have reduced land for foraging and household production. The hilly geography of

Sepon district also limits land available for upland rice production and animal farming.

49 ‘Other’ includes vacant non-productive land. ‘NR’ = non response.

23

FIGURE 3 RLP ACTIVITY AND HOUSEHOLD LAND

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

According to SPSL, the approach to enterprise development is to train household beneficiaries about

various enterprise options; support households to select an asset and provide practical training to

turn assets into an enterprise.50 The strategy is to provide households entry into an enterprise

through livestock assets then over time to expand household skills to undertake non-livestock

enterprises. Capacity building occurs through tailored household support, cross-visits,

demonstration sites and connecting households to traders and suppliers. This is the current focus of

work by SPSL and IPs. In early 2016, SPSL commissioned a study on non-livestock enterprises in Lao

Ngam district and another study is underway in Sepon district. According to SPSL, training was

conducted with Care on how to carry out cross visits with households with the view to expanding

and diversifying enterprise options. In this way, SPSL and IPs are taking a household approach to

developing skills for a longer term process.

In the short time frame of RLP pilot implementation, households in cohort 1 have increased their

awareness, knowledge of asset care and some have applied skills to their micro-enterprise. Typically,

graduation programs provide 24-36 months of support to households. On the current

understanding, the RLP pilot will provide less than 24 months of support for both cohorts making it

difficult to achieve the target outcome indicators.

50 SPSL, 2016, Annual Work Plan.

HH land68%

Plantation land23%

HH and plantation/paddy

land5%

Other3%

NR1%

Proportion of HHs incorporating RLP assets into existing productive land

24

4.5 Financial services The original design of the RLP included financial education and financial services provided to

beneficiary households by GIZ/ UNCDF. This was later removed in late 2014 due to Australian Aid

budget cuts and conflicting village inclusion criteria used by GIZ and the RLP pilot. In place of this

component, SPSL engaged the Agricultural Promotional Bank to facilitate cash transfers to

beneficiary households. Financial literacy support is provided by IP Facilitators.

4.5.1 Household attitudes towards formal banking are generally positive.

Most (99%) households surveyed in this evaluation reported that the training on banking with the

APB adequately prepared them for opening and using their bank accounts. Most target beneficiaries

did not have a bank account prior to joining the RLP pilot. During the fieldwork phase of the

evaluation household beneficiaries responded positively to the banking assistance provided by APB

staff. For most women who have not travelled outside the village, the visit to the bank gave them an

opportunity to visit the district town and market. Most beneficiaries in this evaluation felt that the

APB provided a more secure cash holding than in the village or at home. Some examples of

sentiments expressed by women in this evaluation are:

“I like going to the bank once a month because I can sit in the air conditioning.” Female

beneficiary, Ahore village, Sepon district.

“Saving money in the bank is safer than at home and in the village. I know that it’s there and

how much.” Female beneficiary, Na Bon village, Lao Ngam district.

Implementing partners agree that exposing households to formal banking has been positive as it

supports the ideas about saving, promoting the discipline of saving and monitoring of household

spending. HPA RLP Facilitators made the observation that women are beginning to develop

confidence about traveling to the bank to use services. APB branch managers interviewed for this

evaluation observed that RLP beneficiaries were routinely visiting the bank, although most needed

staff assistance to complete a deposit or withdrawal form at each visit.

Figure 4 shows that in all three sites, the majority of household beneficiaries surveyed viewed

banking services positively and most have aspirations to keep saving after the pilot.

25

FIGURE 4 HOUSEHOLD ATTITUDES TOWARDS BANKING

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

The Senior Facilitators and Facilitators in all three sites reported that recent household visits have

focused on household saving and spending. The fortnightly visit discussions promoting saving, in

conjunction with banking the monthly stipend appears to have provided households with a positive

experience of formal financial services.

4.5.2 Monthly cash stipend transfer provides an important safety net for households.

As in the original design, the monthly stipend is for the first 12 months of the pilot. The cash transfer

is meant to give families ‘breathing space’ while they transition into a new livelihood.51 According to

household beneficiaries, the monthly stipend of 100,000 LAK is ‘very important’ or ‘important’ to

households in all three sites (Figure 5).52 With the exception of two respondents in Soukhouma

district sample group, households in this evaluation report the important function of the cash

stipend payments in supporting household consumption. During interviews with households, most

beneficiaries explained that the stipend has enabled households to cope with health care needs,

children’s education, food shortages and materials for their assets.

51 AusAid, 2013, Social Protection Activity Design Document for the LARLP, 2012-2016. 52 15,000 LAK is also provided to cover monthly travel costs to and from the bank.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lao Ngam Sepon Soukouma

% o

f H

Hs

Household attitudes towards banking

Saving money with a bank is a benefit Positve view of banking service

Aspiration to keep saving

26

FIGURE 5 HOUSEHOLD PERCEPTION OF STIPEND TRANSFER

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

4.5.3 Cohort 1 household saving behaviour is progressing incrementally.

Given the poverty level of target households in the three districts, it is expected that households

make small and incremental savings over time in their bank accounts. Additionally, most of the cash

transfers are expected to be directed towards asset and household care. Savings, in the RLP pilot,

are meant to build up when households begin generating an income from their assets. More

households in Soukhouma district are generating income from their assets and are saving more than

households from Sepon and Lao Ngam districts.

Over half (53%) of households surveyed in this evaluation have saved 25% or less of the total stipend

received from the pilot program (see Appendix 6 Figure 2). Of households from Soukhouma district

participating in this evaluation, a quarter of households have saved over 100% of their total stipend.

For all households in cohort 1, approximately half of cohort 1 having 25% or less of their total

stipend saved in the bank (Figure 6). According to MIS data (May, 2016) for cohort 1 household

beneficiaries:

Of the 575 households in cohort 1, 21% (n=122) have a savings balance of 100,000 LAK

or less. Of this group: 43% (n= 52) are Sepon households; 34% (n= 42) are Lao Ngam

households; and 23% (n= 28) are Soukhouma households.53

Of cohort 1, 8% (n= 46) of households have over 1 million LAK in savings. Of this group:

76% (n= 35) are Soukhouma households; 15% (n= 7) are Lao Ngam households; and 9%

(n= 4) are Sepon households.

53 At the Baseline survey for cohort 1, households without savings were found among 59% of Sepon households, 48% of Lao Ngam households and 22% of Soukhouma households.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Laognam Sepon Soukouma

% o

HH

s

Importance of stipend

Very important Important Unimportant

27

The mean savings for cohort 1 has improved since the baseline survey in 2015. The

mean household saving in Soukhouma district, as at 31 May 2016, is 286,754 LAK, for

households in Sepon district it is 292,316 LAK and for households in Lao Ngam the mean

savings amount is 251,662 LAK.54

Almost one year into the program, nine households in Soukhouma made a cash deposit, four

households in Lao Ngam and three households in Sepon also made deposits in their APB accounts.55

Household saving habits and discipline will take time to develop. Current levels of household savings

are an indication of progress towards this developing this habit. Evidence of more households in

Soukhouma district saving much of their cash stipend at this early stage is indicative of two things.

Firstly, it reinforces their relative economic security compared with the other two districts.56

Secondly, the curtailed version of the RLP pilot appears to be more appropriate for households in

Soukhouma district, however the risk for extremely poor households in the other two districts not

improving their livelihood and becoming more entrenched in poverty remains a challenge for the

pilot.57

FIGURE 6 HOUSEHOLD STIPEND SAVINGS COHORT 1

Source: MIS (May, 2016)

54 MIS data. The mean household saving in the Baseline Survey for cohort 1, 2015 are: 251,710LAK in Soukhouma; 103,870LAK in Sepon and 118,226LAK in Lao Ngam. 55 SPSL, 2015, RLP Update All Districts (cohort 1): APB and Markets. 56 SPSL, 2015, RLP baseline study. 57 The risk to reputation to implementing stakeholders and the risk of doing harm to household livelihood from the shortened pilot were identified in DFAT reports: the LARLP rapid appraisal midterm review (2014), and the LARLP independent evaluation (2016).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% >100%

% o

f H

Hs

Household stipend savings, cohort 1, balance at 31/05/2016

Lao Ngam C1 Sepon C1 Soukhouma C1

28

4.5.4 Regular access to banking services remains a challenge for many households.

Household participants in this evaluation reported that transport was a barrier to using banking

services. More households from Soukhouma (38%) and Sepon (43%) report visiting the bank twice in

the last 6 months (Figure 7). Households in Lao Ngam appear to visit the bank more frequently than

the other districts, 38% report going to the bank once every 3 months and 29% report going to the

bank once a month.

Some Sepon household participants report that they cannot travel to the bank more regularly due to

the distance and cost of travel. For example, travel into the district centre can cost up to 40,000 LAK

each trip, this represents 35% of the household monthly stipend.58 Households are provided with

15,000 LAK per month to offset the travel cost, however the amount is not enough to cover the

transport cost for household in remote areas.59 The time cost of the travel is another barrier. When

the time of travel is added with the time waiting for other people’s transport, the trip to and from

the bank can take up a substantial part of the day.

Seasonal challenges also prevent households from travelling more often to the bank during the rainy

season due to inaccessibility of roads. Facilitators report assisting beneficiaries by updating their

account balance on the bank account book when beneficiaries cannot make the monthly trip into

the district town.

FIGURE 7 HOUSEHOLD BANKING TRANSACTIONS

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

These identified challenges point to the need for than one financial service solution. Where access

to formal bank services are difficult, a more localised solution is needed for these villages such as

mobile banking services or village banks. APB bank accounts ensure that household funds are

protected. This is considered to be a form of financial inclusion because households are accessing

and participating in formal banking. SPSL report it is currently in discussions with APB and other

58 HPA, 2016, 5th Quarterly report (March – May). 59 An example is a beneficiary who withdrew all their stipend to spend in the village because the transport to the bank was too high. This is a prevalent issue among Sepon beneficiaries.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Fortnightly Once a month Once every 2months

Once every 3months

A couple of times in6 months

% o

f H

Hs

Households deposits/ withdrawals with APB

Lao Ngam Sepon Soukouma

29

development partners to ensure that both localised and formal banking services are available to as

many RLP households as possible by the end of the pilot.

4.6 Capacity building of target households Capacity building of beneficiary households to progress towards program outcomes is achieved

mainly through fortnightly household visits by Facilitators and group training on asset care, asset

growth, asset selling and financial planning.

The original design places emphasis on household mentoring and coaching through regular

household visits.60 The design document does not articulate how the intensive household mentoring

and coaching will occur. Descriptions of process steps are partly covered in the RLP Tool Kit. The Tool

Kit states that household visits should be carried out every fortnight, and should cover the following

aspects:

1. Check the status of enterprises: general rapport; check assets; discuss profit and loss;

trouble shoot.

2. Provide enterprise advice and discuss personal/programmatic goals: discuss plans and next

steps.

3. Discuss household and community level issues that could be affecting enterprise

performance: Enquire about general family wellbeing; address issues at village level.

The Tool Kit states the importance of the mentoring and coaching relationship between RLP

Facilitators and beneficiary households:

It is expected that the individualised guidance, training and mentoring that the Facilitators

provide to the participants during the visits will give them the necessary skills and self-

confidence to succeed with their enterprises. With strong facilitation, the participants will

learn to turn their assets into strong enterprises, build their savings and financial knowledge,

and learn to set goals for the future. The close relationship between participants and

Facilitators will be a critical element to ensure the success of RLP.61

The purpose of the household visit according to the operational Tool Kit is to develop beneficiary

skills in order to achieve outcomes such as asset growth, income generation and financial literacy.

RLP Facilitators have a case load of 40-50 households per Facilitator. IPs reported that two

Facilitators often travel to a village together to conduct household visits. The following sections

presents the findings for household capacity building in the program.

4.6.1 Household visits provide appropriately intensive support to poorest households.

Beneficiaries in this evaluation were asked how often they receive household visits from their

Facilitators. Overall, household visits by RLP facilitators are regular and consistent, 92% of household

60 AusAID, 2013, Social Protection Activity Design Document. 61 RLP Tool Kit, 2014, T4 household visits.

30

participants surveyed reported receiving fortnightly visits (Figure 8). In Sepon, all household

participants report receiving fortnightly visits. In Soukhouma district, 82% of household participants

reported receiving fortnightly visits and 18% reported receiving fortnightly visits once a month.62

FIGURE 8 FORTNIGHTLY VISITS BY FACILITATORS

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

All household beneficiaries interviewed for this evaluation reported feeling satisfied with the quality

of support provided by Facilitators. Figure 9 below shows the amount of time spent with Facilitators

by district from the perspective of beneficiaries. In the majority of cases, Facilitators are spending

between 30-60 minutes per visit with beneficiary households.

FIGURE 9 TIME SPENT WITH FACILITATORS

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

62 The evaluation team visited villages in June 2016 at the beginning of the wet season. Access by road to the nine villages was still possible at this time. During the months of June to September household visits are reduced to inaccessibility by car, motorbike or foot. Households were asked to recall the most recent month of household visits.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lao Ngam Sepon Soukhouma

% o

f H

Hs

Districts

Fortnightly visits by facilitators

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Lao Ngam Sepon Soukhouma

% o

f H

Hs

Time spent with facilitators

30min-1hr spent with HHs < 30mins spent with HHs

31

Beneficiaries appear to understand the function of the household visits. When asked what they

understand to be the purpose of household visits, participants report that: visits are to provide

advice, practical assistance, skills development (68%); and to provide advice and monitoring of

assets (32%). In this evaluation 97% of household participants report their Facilitators provide

assistance with their asset during every household visit. Facilitators across the three districts appear

to be consistently supporting households with asset monitoring. IP quarterly reports also attest to

the regularity and intensity of these household visits, which have enabled Facilitators to identify and

trouble shoot problems with banking and asset health.63

All stakeholders in the RLP pilot agree that the household visit is an effective mechanism for

engaging with poorest households. All IP management staff interviewed for this evaluation report

that the beneficiary household visit has been a positive element in the program.64 From the

perspective of district government partners, household visits provide sufficient intensity of contact

with households to ensure participation is maintained, issues are identified and resolved quickly and

households are guided through each process in the pilot. The Sepon and Soukhouma district

government officers explain further:

“Compared with other [poverty alleviation] programs where activities target the community and

everyone benefits except the poorest families who stay in the same situation [of poverty]. The RLP

model is different from other programs because it closely monitors the household and the activities

reaches into the household level.”

“If I compare [the RLP] with other programs, the support goes to the right [poor] households. Other

programs did not reach the poorest people.”

4.6.2 Asset training and support are beginning to improve household knowledge.

SPSL has provided training to IPs in the area of asset care for the various livestock assets, in addition to asset growth planning, selling at optimal periods and financial literacy. Further to this, IPs have drawn on local livestock expertise to enhance asset care training and support to households. Some examples include:

A livestock advisor engaged by HPA RLP team supports household training, provides advice and supports the Village Vet Worker (VVW) program.65

Village Vet Workers are being supported in all three districts through the innovation fund.

Volunteers are recruited from local villages and trained by a local livestock technical expert.

63 For example, a facilitator worked with the village leader to resolve a case where the husband withdrew the stipend without the wife’s knowledge. Another facilitator assisted a beneficiary to measure out the required quantity of water for her goats each day. 64 Two IPs senior managers interviewed reported that the regular household visit is a strong element of the RLP, and they would consider integrating regular household visits into other program areas within their organisation. 65 The VVW is a joint innovation activity between HPA and WE.

32

VVW are supported to develop their para veterinary and business skills and to make their

service into a small enterprise.66

The Green Earth Centre (GEC) supports training in growing animal feed, mushrooms, other

vegetables, poultry raising demonstrations and fruit tree growing.67

Care has seconded the DAFO officer and the LWU representative into their RLP team.

According to the most recent IP quarterly reports, animal losses in cohort 1 replacement assets have

reduced. The loss of livestock during the transfer of assets to cohort 2 has also reduced.

Furthermore, 328 households in cohort 1 have been able to grow their assets with new offspring.

Household training coupled with the above support and household visit follow up appear to have

contributed to this improvement.

All participants in the evaluation make the observation that the capacity building of cohort 1

households is beginning to take effect. For example, households in a village in Lao Ngam have

organised a communal penning area for goats and households take turn to herd and feed the goats.

It was reported that most households are following advice to provide regular water and feed to their

animals and to make closer inspection of the animal’s physical condition. An observation made by

village leaders Sepon district about the implementation of activities include:

District government and RLP teams concur in their observation that household behaviour will take

longer to change and that these early signs of improved practice are on the right track.

Implementing stakeholders in the RLP, all agree that the existing pilot timeframe is too short for

households to demonstrate their asset growth and income generation is sustainable. District

government officers in Sepon and Soukhouma suggested that another two years of program support

will enable most households to gain enough skills to generate income from their assets.

IP management and SPSL interviewed in this evaluation also pointed out that many households,

particularly in Sepon and Lao Ngam continue to struggle with food shortage, health issues, sanitation

and education. In Soukhouma and Lao Ngam districts, the pull of wage labour is significant which

impacts on household capability to sustain participation in RLP activities.

Beneficiaries were asked about the time impact of RLP activities on their usual household activities.

Across the three sites, approximately 30% of beneficiaries’ report having less time to forage for food

66 In Soukhouma district, VVW in 12 villages have been trained and equipped to assist households. Care, DAFO and the VVW have conducted vaccination campaigns. In Lao Ngam and Sepon districts, 6 VVWs have received technical and business skills training. 67 The GEC is operated by Village Focus International (VFI). WE is collaborating with VFI under the innovation activity to pilot a collaborative approach to land based livelihood training to enhance the support to RLP households.

“This program helps poor families, one step at a time”

“Activities are conducted in small steps, like eating chilli one bite a time rather than

eating the whole thing. This allows households to learn new ideas and skills.”

33

and to collect Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) (Figure 10). These two activities appear to be most

affected by beneficiary participation in RLP activities. Less time was also reported for: tending to

crops (17%), food preparation (5%) and caring for family (9%).68

The vision in the original design is that households will achieve shifts in occupational structure from

wage labour and reliance on NTFPs to self-employment through the selling of assets. If the pilot was

allowed to operate for original timeframe, the additional income from cash transfers and the regular

selling of assets may offset the short-term household losses. The reduced timeframe has made this

long-term occupational shift impossible to achieve. In the face of this current reality, program

stakeholders need to be cognizant of leaving some households worse off by not giving them enough

time to develop their new livelihoods.

FIGURE 10 HOUSEHOLD PERCEPTION OF TIME USE CHANGE

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

4.6.3 Household financial literacy activities need strengthening.

The Tool Kit module 5 describes the process of developing financial literacy based on education materials used by GIZ. The topics covered in module 5 are:

1. Financial goal setting (4 steps of goal setting) 2. What is a want and what is a need? 3. Managing and prioritising expenses

Household financial literacy needs to be improved. It is well recognised within the graduation

literature, that household financial literacy will facilitate sustained access to formal and village

banking. The Haiti graduation model is evidence that cash transfers coupled with good financial

68 For individual districts, see charts in Appendix 6.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tend to crops Prepare food Forage for food Care for family Collect NTFP

% o

f H

Hs

HH activities

Household perception of time use change since joining the RLP, total sample

More time Less time No change

34

education was utilised by families to invest in education (school attendance increased by over 90 per

cent) and to diversify into other productive activities.69

RLP Facilitators have received training from SPSL on the methods to implement this module with

beneficiaries during household visits. Households have not yet grasped how to plan for their

expenditure. For example, some beneficiaries are withdrawing all their stipend at once. Most

households in the pilot have never experienced having regular and predictable income. In this way

the concept of planning for saving and expenditure will take time to develop. A typical feedback

about budgeting from beneficiaries interviewed for this evaluation are:

“The program staff give me advice and encouragement to save money in the bank. I try to

save, but earlier this year we needed to buy rice so I took all the money out.” Female

beneficiary, Bpa Kuay village, Lao Ngam district.

“I have a goal to sell my goats next year, the HPA staff advised me to keep my goats for

February to April next year. They showed me pictures of how I can grow my animals bigger

to get a good price.” Female beneficiary, Ahore village, Sepon district.

Financial planning and goal setting posters were developed by SPSL early 2016. IPs were trained in

April and May 2016. Facilitators report that posters are an effective tool to convey ideas about

financial goals and household budget planning with low literacy households. SPSL staff and IP teams

recognise that tools need to be tailored at the district level and implemented with households.

Informants are also aware that more time in the program is required to instil new concepts of

budget planning and goal setting among RLP beneficiaries.

WE recently developed a household planning tool and a financial planning tool for use by Facilitators

with households. The tools were developed to bolster household financial literacy by ensuring

household visit discussions are structured, focused on skills development in goal setting and

planning. The household planning tool has been shared with other IPs for use.

APB managers interviewed for this evaluation in all three districts identified that many beneficiaries

need further orientation and support with banking. As an example, a beneficiary who waited to be

served by the same teller every time she came to the bank, not realising another teller could provide

the same service. Another example is the lack of improvement among beneficiary’s ability to

complete a transaction slip.70 APB staff reported that bank tellers have filled in forms for

beneficiaries but they do not have time to teach customers how to fill in the forms.

Although financial literacy is and will be a significant focus of household training and household

visits, progress in this area is not systematically monitored or reported within the program.

Facilitators routinely record beneficiary financial literacy matters in the household log book kept in

the IP district offices. Beneficiary financial literacy is reported in selected log entries in the IP

69 AusAID, 2013, Social Protection Activity Design Document. 70 Anecdotal reports from ABP staff and IP teams reveal that low levels of literacy and numeracy among household beneficiaries means some are not familiar with using a pen or paper.

35

quarterly reports to SPSL and issues are discussed at the RLP monthly co-ordination meetings in

Vientiane. However, there is no systematic monitoring of progress of household financial goal

setting and planning activities. Without systematic monitoring of financial literacy support (such as

system for the monitoring of assets), it will be difficult to discern at the end of the pilot, what skills

development have been achieved in this area.71

Most household beneficiaries in this evaluation reported developing a financial plan and goals with

their Facilitators (Figure 11). As part of developing goal setting and planning skills, the majority of

beneficiaries report talking about household saving and expenditure with their Facilitators regularly.

FIGURE 11 FINANCIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH FACILITATORS

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

4.6.4 Cohort 1 household asset growth and income generation is emerging.

Livestock assets are just beginning to show signs of growth among cohort 1 household after

approximately eight months of intensive support. Of the beneficiaries interviewed for this

evaluation, 32% of households report having sold an asset. Of this group, 79% are households from

Soukhouma district. The main buyer (68%) of assets are traders coming to the village, followed by

people within the village (18%). When asked how households determine the sale price for livestock

assets, 77% of respondents report that the trader’s offering price is often the guide, followed by 9%

reporting they are guided by Facilitators’ advice or the seasonal price. Households also report

following the programs advice and will hold their livestock assets until the peak season for sale in

February to April.

71 At the time of writing this report, draft graduation indicators for households have been finalised. One indicator is ‘achieving progress towards financial goal’ which will be tracked in the MIS from October 2016 to the end of the pilot.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lao Ngam Sepon Soukhouma

% o

f H

Hs

Household financial discussion with Facilitators

Have HH financial plan and goal Saving and expenditure discussed every visit

36

In terms of asset growth for all households in cohort 1, the greatest asset increases are among

households raising pigs, followed by goats and poultry (Figure 12).72 Beneficiaries in Soukhouma are

leading the way for asset growth in pigs, poultry and goats.73

The average asset growth at this point in time is in the process of fluctuation, particularly for

households growing mushrooms which require new bags to be replenished every few months.74

Recording and monitoring of asset growth for non-livestock enterprises is limited in MIS. The system

configuration has focused largely on tracking animal stock. For this reason, it is difficult to know the

rate of change for non-livestock asset growth.

FIGURE 12 ASSET GROWTH, COHORT 1

Source: MIS (May, 2016)

72 Average asset growth change in each district is calculated using the current asset numbers for each household and asset loss from death or stolen (as at 31 May 2016). Current asset numbers include initial assets transferred, replacement assets, assets purchased by households and asset offspring. 73 18 households in Soukhouma district are raising goats, compared with 202 households in Sepon and 154 households in Lao Ngam districts. These two latter districts experienced significant goat losses during the transfer stage. 74 Some caution should be used to interpret negative asset growth. A household in Lao Ngam growing mushrooms decided to switch assets and used the money from the sale of the first mushroom crops towards the purchase of a goat.

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Goats Mushrooms Pigs Poultry

% c

han

ge

Assets of HHs C1

Average asset growth, Cohort 1, 01/07/2015-31/05/2016

LaoNgam Sepon Soukhouma

37

It is too early to gauge the ability of households to sustain income generation from their assets.

According to households in Sepon and Lao Ngam districts surveyed in this evaluation, 70% and 75%

respectively, report that their household income has increased as a result of the stipend transfer

(Appendix 6 Figure 3). Households surveyed in Soukhouma district for this evaluation report income

improvements as a result of the stipend transfer and some asset sale (62%).

Households are just beginning to apply their skills in asset management and income generating

activities. Of the 569 households in cohort 1 with livestock assets, 58% (n= 328) have increased their

assets from offspring. Of this group 20% (n= 113) have sold an asset. In addition, those households

that have sold their assets, 78% (n= 88) have reinvested in to additional assets.75

Households in Soukhouma district mostly selected the ‘pig fattening’ model (e.g. fattening pigs and

selling them) over the ‘breeding’ model (waiting for offspring to become adults before selling). Goats

are typically ‘bred’ and not ‘fattened’, which means a longer time period between asset transfer and

selling. Respondents explained that ‘fattening’ pigs for sale was better enterprise option due to a

quicker turn over. In Sepon and Lao Ngam districts households selected to breed goats and

households in Soukhouma district mainly selected pigs for fattening.

Not surprising, Soukhouma households are selling their assets more than households in the other

two districts. Of cohort 1 households in Soukhouma, 51% (n=88) are selling their assets or goods

from their enterprise. Compared with 5% (n=11) of households in Sepon and 3% (n=5) of households

in Lao Ngam who are selling their assets.76 It is likely households in Soukhouma district will continue

this trend of growing their assets and generating an income faster than the other two districts.77

Compared with Lao Ngam and Sepon districts, enabling characteristics of households and

Soukhouma district include:

more Lao speaking households

primary school attendance across the district and province is better than in Sepon and Lao Ngam

more established water sources and infrastructure

more flat land areas

75 SPSL, RLP Updates, All Districts (cohort 1)- May 2016. 76 Care, WEL and HPA, 5th Quarterly reports (Mar-May 2016). 77 Households in Soukhouma district selected pig fattening, mushroom growing and small shop micro enterprises which provide a quicker timeframe for assets to be ready for sale.

close proximity to major road infrastructures and electricity supply

better access to unskilled or low skilled wage labour in Thailand and in nearby provinces

established trade routes and markets with Thailand and internally.

32

The average household net earnings from

asset sale for Soukhouma beneficiaries, varies

significantly by asset type. In Figure 13:

An average household net income per household of 1.7 million LAK was from small shop sales. Four households started their enterprise less than a year ago.78

An average net income per household from pig sales is 765,325 LAK. This was achieved by 60 households.

Poultry provided an average net income of 153,349 LAK per household for 14 households who sold their assets.

Mushroom growing and food production at present show a loss of net income.79 This may not be a

true loss as households use the income from sales to re-invest or replenish stock. Households raising

goats sold their assets and reinvested the money from this sale, which shows no income for

households during this period. A longer monitoring timeframe may demonstrate the profitability of

these enterprises.

FIGURE 13 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME FROM SALES

Source: MIS (May, 2016)

78 MIS data, for the period from July 2015 to May 2016. MIS data is only available for Soukhouma households. Net income calculations are based on household own expenditure on asset/ enterprise and income from sales. Excludes the RLP asset support transfer of 1.8million LAK. 79 Four households are growing mushrooms and one household is undertaking food production as an enterprise.

-500,000

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

Pigs Poultry Goats Mushrooms Food production Small shop

LAK

Average household net income for C1 by asset type for Soukhouma district

Photo: Pigs raised for fattening are doing well in Sen Meuang village, Soukhouma district. Credit: P. Vongsonephet (June, 2016)

33

The sustainability of household income generation from these activities is unknown at this stage.

Informants in this evaluation all agree that it is unlikely that households can maintain the asset care,

growth and achieve profitability by the end of program. District government partners and IPs

suggest another two years would provide households in both cohorts with the recommended 24

months of support which is the standard for the graduation approach. This would allow households

to manage and grow their livestock assets for at least three seasons with intensive support. The

extended time would also allow follow up of households to monitor the sustainability of their

enterprises.

4.6.5 Household coping expenditure remains significant for cohort 1.

Household beneficiaries in cohort 1 in this evaluation were asked what they spent most of their

stipend on. Soukhouma households reported spending more of their stipend (48%) on animal care

and feed than households in the other two districts (Figure 14). Lao Ngam (46%) and Sepon (30%)

households report spending most of their stipend on food and rice items. Sepon households also

reported spending more on housing material (roofing, nails and timber planks).

FIGURE 14 STIPEND EXPENDITURE

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Health care

Rice/ food

Animal care and feed

Agriculture materials

House building materials

Consumables

Other

% of HH responses

Concentration of stipend expenditure by households

Soukouma Sepon Lao Ngam

34

A small proportion of households in Soukhouma use their stipend, along with income from asset sale

to improve their housing, items purchased include a latrine and water pump. Of households in

Soukhouma districts, 21% reported using the stipend to purchase fuel to transport cassava roots for

sale and one household purchased fuel for a chainsaw to cut 200 planks of wood. In return, this male

beneficiary was paid with a second hand motorbike. The motorbike has enabled this beneficiary to

travel outside the village to undertake wage labour.

The pattern of household coping expenditure, particularly in Sepon and Lao Ngam cohort 1

households in this evaluation appears consistent with results from commissioned M&E studies and

quarterly IP reports. For example, the RLP Baseline survey for cohort 1, found that more households

in Sepon and Lao Ngam districts are food insecure than in Soukhouma.80 The RLP Income and

Expenditure report for the period from April – September 2015, found that of all household

spending, food accounted for 45% of expenditure among Sepon households and 30% of expenditure

among Lao Ngam households, compared with 20% among Soukhouma households.81 Household visit

log books describe continuing instance of food shortage among households. Rice is therefore a

common household stipend expenditure item.

4.6.6 Family wellbeing support is a weak element in the design and implementation.

Household visits during the implementation have concentrated on asset care, growth and income

generation. RLP Facilitators have received training from SPSL and their own organisations on these

topics. Posters developed by SPSL on asset and financial topics have guided Facilitators in their

household visit discussions with beneficiaries. Facilitators received training from SPSL on conducting

household visits early in the implementation stage. This training included the types of questions to

enquire about family wellbeing and procedures for responding to health issues and family conflict. In

addition to this, gender awareness training has been provided by SPSL and IPs to Facilitators. This

has enabled Facilitators to become aware of the workload of women beneficiaries in the home and

strategies for improving communication between household members.

Household beneficiaries interviewed in this evaluation reported that health issues and food shortage

were the most pressing concern (Figure 15).82 Health issues were significant among Lao Ngam (46%)

and Soukhouma (35%) households. Sepon households (36%) reported that food shortage was more

significant. These issues pose a barrier to achieving sustainable income generation from RLP

activities due to their impact on household time and human resources to grow their assets into an

enterprise.

80 SPSL, 2015, Baseline Survey Report, Cohort 1. Over 600 households were surveyed. 81 SPSL, 2015, RLP Income and Expenditure Studies, April to September 2015. Approximately 120 households were surveyed. The March 2016 report was not available at the time of this report. 82 Health issues are localised. For example, in Sepon district the lack of water and sanitation pose health issues such as diarrhoea and skin infections. In Lao Ngam, households working in rubber plantations are exposed to high levels of chemicals.

35

FIGURE 15 FAMILY WELLBEING ISSUES

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

A review of sample household log book notes in the quarterly reports, reveal that Facilitators have

mainly responded to health issues by providing the following guidance and advice:

Encouraging beneficiaries to use the stipend to cover the cost of medicine or treatment;

Supporting beneficiaries to plan their savings and manage their coping expenditure; and

Advising beneficiaries to seek treatment in hospital or district clinic. General advice on health care, taking medicine and health eating are also provided.

It is worth noting that on the whole, household

beneficiaries have a positive view about their

relationship with Facilitators. Beneficiaries in this

evaluation were asked several questions about their

interaction with Facilitators during and outside of

household visits. The majority of beneficiaries report

that Facilitators enquire about the wellbeing of

family members at each visit (Error! Reference

source not found.).83 Most beneficiaries also report

having belief in the ability of facilitators to help with

family issues. When asked if facilitators took action

to assist or resolve a family concern, over 50% of

beneficiaries report that help was provided. These

83 Family wellbeing is defined non enterprises related issues, such as personal issues, interpersonal conflict, health, education, food shortages and employment.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Health problems

Education costs

Family conflict

Food shortage

Other

% of HH responses

Family wellbeing issues reported by households

Soukouma Sepon Lao Ngam

Photo: The kitchen in the home of a beneficiary in Ahor village, Sepon district. Credit: P. Vongsonephet (June, 2016)

36

results suggest that the strong signal of support provided by Facilitators has earned the trust of

beneficiaries and a confidence in their intentions to assist.

FIGURE 16 HOUSEHOLD PERCEPTION OF SUPPORT WITH FAMILY WELLBEING

Source: Household beneficiary evaluation participants, n= 76.

4.7 Innovation and Cross Cutting Activities 4.7.1 Gender equity and inclusive development (GEID) activities

The GEID strategy for the RLP comprehensively outlines the gender sensitive and inclusive approach

to implementing activities. All three IPs have developed a gender and inclusive action plan. Part of

the RLP pilot focus is to promote poor women’s participation in enterprise activities. IPs are

achieving the target of at least 50% of household beneficiaries being women in cohort 1 and 2. From

various accounts, the engagement of women during each process has demonstrated to have

increased their confidence in activities.

SPSL has implemented gender awareness training to IPs. Local gender refresher training has also

been conducted by IPs with their Facilitators. Care has a gender and disability focus in their

innovation activities. This includes the LWU representative secondment to the RLP team to

implement gender awareness training, gender negotiation training in 12 villages and support

Facilitators.

Facilitators have also received training on the rights of people with a disability. All RLP teams have

conducted an assessment and monitoring of people with a disability in beneficiary households. Care

is also leading the way in this area by drawing on the technical expertise of the Inclusion Officer and

engaging Handicap International and COPE to provide assistive devices to 32 RLP households.84 WE

84 Care, 4th and 5th Quarterly reports.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lao Ngam Sepon Soukouma

% o

f H

Hs

Household perception of assistance with family wellbeing

Facilitators enquire about family wellbeing Perceived ability of facilitators to assist

Help provided

37

and HPA facilitators have also participated in training provided by Care on assistive device and home

adaption. HPA have 33% of women in their RLP team and 27% of the team are ethnic minorities.

The implementation of the GEID strategy has been limited. The lack of resources to implement

activities in more villages and reach more households is one reason for this. Another is the short

time which has only allowed gender and inclusiveness awareness raising to occur, behaviour and

attitudinal changes will take longer to achieve. The risk to effective delivery of the gender

inclusiveness was identified prior to the implementation in the LARLP midterm review.85 It

emphatically echoes the LANGOCA evaluation findings in mid-2014 in the following way:

“changes to women’s empowerment occur best when fundamental issues such as food-

security, health, WASH and access to education are addressed and when both men and

women are actively engaged in behaviour change. Women’s representation on committees

does not automatically lead to their ability to influence decision-making, especially when

this is counter to traditional gender roles”.86

4.7.2 Management of Information System (MIS)

The main functions of the MIS are to:

Record all necessary data on RLP beneficiaries (e.g. personal registration details; stipend

payments and withdrawals; asset transfer and performance data; household visits from RLP

Facilitators and reports);

Facilitate payments, by providing payment schedules to the Payment Service Provider (APB)

and reconciling payments once they have been made; and

Track the processing and outcomes of grievances and complaints.

These checks are needed to confirm the accuracy of data included in the MIS. Standard reporting

from the MIS is focused on tracking: (a) the rollout of the RLP processes; and (b) the progress of

beneficiaries within the implementation processes. It will also provide “frontline” information on

implementation effectiveness and early warning of potential problems and the need for

management action to strengthen systems or processes.87

The data management system to track and monitor assets is important in a livestock program.

According to informants in the evaluation, MIS has mostly been useful in the monitoring of livestock

assets. At the procurement and transfer stage, the system comprehensively records the asset health,

deaths/ loss and births. It supports trouble shooting, strategies for mitigation and continuous

improvement process. The MIS data base and human resources provides a good mechanism for

monitoring and continuous evaluation through the stages of implementation. Dedicated MIS

resources (an officer in the district and SPSL Vientiane office) ensure data is up to date and the

85 DFAT, 2014, Rapid appraisal of Australian aid rural development sector investment portfolio at mid-

term. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Vientiane, Lao PDR, December. 86 Quoted sited in DFAT, 2014, Rapid appraisal of Australian aid rural development sector investment portfolio at mid-term, p.vi. 87 AusAid, 2013, Social Protection Activity design document.

38

capability of the system evolves with the pilot. The data is shared monthly and in between co-

ordination meetings between IPs an SPSL where assets issues can be monitored and quickly

addressed. The system has a greater potential to provide quality monitoring and performance data

throughout the implementation and for the final evaluation. Tracking of household financial literacy

skills and wellbeing support in MIS would enhance the evidence of the pilot’s progress and outcomes

achieved.

4.7.3 ‘Graduation’ Approach

The RLP pilot in itself is an innovation being implemented for the first time in Lao PDR. Readiness of

households for Graduation is being discussed within the pilot. Preparing RLP households to a point

where they are considered to have ‘graduated’, that is meeting the objectives intended in the

program, is a significant focus for SPSL. As of June 2016, SPSL and the IPs have finalised Graduation

indicators. These indicators will be programmed into the MIS for data collection. Graduation

indicators are:

Enterprise management 1. Household sold at least 1 of the new breeding stock; for non-livestock, household selling

monthly. 2. Livestock had been sold strategically (during the peak time of the year, or at the point of

maturity). 3. Household investing resources into additional breeding stock; towards a new enterprise; or

growing existing enterprise.

Financial inclusion 4. Household has an account balance of 240,000 LAK for three months, and at least one

transaction over three months. 5. Household made at least 1 deposit into account. 6. Household ‘on track’ to achieving financial goal.

These graduation indicators have been developed midway through the pilot’s implementation.

During the drafting process, SPSL consulted IPs and DFAT representatives. It is not yet clear from

program documents and interviews with SPSL, IPs and DFAT representatives how these graduation

indicators link to or are related to the outcome indicators in the current results framework. If

graduated households will be used to demonstrate achievement of Outcomes 1 and 2, there needs

to be a clearer link between these indicators and the pilot outcome indicators.88

According to SPSL, the timetable for measuring graduation is as follows:

June 2016 - Indicators finalised

July/August 2016 - Indicators programmed into the MIS

88 Outcome 1: Increased income generating opportunities for poor women and men, including through greater commercial and sustainable exploitation of natural resources. Outcome 2: Increased access to social transfers and enhanced livelihood opportunities for the most vulnerable families within selected communities

39

Post-September 2016 - IPs will receive training on the Graduation process, e.g. what indicators means, what the indicators are, and how to measure them.

From October 2016 - IPs will start capturing household level progress towards ‘graduation’ from October to the end of the program on a monthly basis. This will provide up to date data on how many households are on track to graduate, and areas of support to focus on during household visits to achieve graduation (e.g. are savings generally low; are people not selling assets, etc.).

From October 2016 - Final household assessment of graduation indicators will also be conducted at the end of the program.

From October 2016 - As a part of the ‘graduation process’, SPSL will be looking at areas of sustainability: how can participants sustain progress after the program ends; ensuring that most RLP households are linked into a village bank, continue to use their APB bank accounts, or linked into a Poverty Reduction Fund (PRF) self-help group.

40

4.8 Lessons from the implementation 4.8.1 Providing extremely poor households with livestock assets in the Lao context needs

rethinking.

Livestock asset transfer to poorest households need well-resourced livestock and agricultural

expertise. Livestock assets have a high risk of loss. The resources available in IP organisations, SPSL

or contracted has enabled a rapid response to the asset loss. However, the level of preparedness

was low for such emergencies during the provisioning of assets for cohort 1. Medium to large

livestock assets for extremely poor households is inappropriate for the Lao PDR context because

these households need a lower risk entry into income generation.

In undertaking livestock asset enterprises an appropriate budget for asset procurement and

replacement is needed. For example, assets were under budgeted and under-resourced. When the

Australian dollar dropped against the US dollar, the asset budget was not re-calibrated to ensure

that IPs could purchase the same quality and package of assets. This design did not take into account

the risk of currency fluctuation on the programme delivery.

Another example is the local cost of animals in markets across the three districts varies and

fluctuates over time, resulting in unanticipated price increases. A good analysis of the local trade and

market is important for implementing asset procurement and supporting beneficiaries with their

asset sale. For instance, suppliers selling goats may charge by the kilogram or whole animals.

Different types of breeds, sex and age affect the price and care requirements.

The experience of poor households in this pilot has shown that beneficiaries are undertaking these

activities alongside other livelihood activities such as labour work and land production. It should be

recognised in the program that until the RLP activities are generating adequate income for

beneficiaries, households should be supported and encouraged to mitigate the risk of falling further

into poverty by engaging in multiple livelihood activities. For example, in the Haiti graduation

program, beneficiaries were provided with chickens for short term income and goats for longer term

returns. In Honduras, the design allowed for beneficiaries to take time away from the program to

earn cash during the coffee harvest season. Given the current timeframe, the RLP pilot may adapt

the program activities to suit local household livelihood strategies. However, further thought about

the appropriateness of livestock assets in livelihood programs for poorest households in the Lao

context is required to avoid the risk of deepening poverty among target beneficiaries.89

4.9.2 Balancing the tension between compressed implementation, progress and effectiveness.

The emphasis on rapid implementation of RLP processes has resulted in activities sequenced and

completed in a compressed time. The effectiveness of the activities may be compromised in the

drive for efficiency. For example, stock loss, delivery of information and limited capacity

development in case management skills. The rushed implementation did not allow adequate analysis

89 Risks with livestock assets were identified in the LARLP midterm review, see DFAT, 2014, Rapid appraisal of Australian aid rural development sector investment portfolio at mid-term. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Vientiane, Lao PDR.

41

and understanding of existing community knowledge and beliefs around livestock raising. Had there

been enough time, a better understanding of the community and household capacity could have

been integrated into the asset preparation training and asset care training. A net result of this

compressed timeframe is the lower adaptability of resources and limited space for IPs to adopt

creative approaches.

4.9.3 Local context matters.

The local context impacts on progress of activities. Seasonal challenges affected asset health,

transfer, travel for household visits and training. Soukhouma district is prone to flooding on the

paddy plains and villages become inaccessible to Facilitators during the wet season. Furthermore, in

both Soukhouma and Lao Ngam districts, most households relocate their paddy fields or plantations

during the wet season. Ethnic minorities in Sepon district are slower to make progress, partly due to

their low literacy and limited Lao language. This has affected the delivery of training for assets and

VVW training. RLP materials and activities were adapted by IPs to ensure accessibility by ethnic

households.

The approach to the Facilitator roles and responsibilities has been flexible enough for IPs to provide

on-job-training and support which reflects the local context. In Sepon, the HPA was able to recruit

Bru speaking staff, which has enabled effective communication between beneficiaries and the HPA

RLP team. In all three sites, Facilitators are supported to lead discussions on a diverse range of topics

such as animal husbandry, health issues, family conflict, saving and spending and future planning. IPs

identified issues with recruiting suitably qualified and skilled staff to provide the intensive support to

poorest households. Not only is the graduation approach new to Lao PDR, the intensive household

mentoring and coaching method is also being piloted in this program.

IPs that have regular engagement with district government counterparts and local project steering

committees reported strong support for the RLP pilot. District government staff turnover and

resource demands require IPs to sustain engagement with this stakeholder group. This way it

ensures district government can support household mobilisation, resolve conflict at the village level

and provide political advocacy. This support can also position the district government to continue

monitoring activities after the close of the pilot.

42

5 Discussion about findings The original design of the RLP outlined in 2013, was a Graduation approach within a wider social

protection program commitment for 10 years. With the subsequent budget cuts to the LARLP

program, the social protection component has been significantly reduced and the RLP Graduation

approach has devolved into a short term intensive livelihood pilot. Elements of the graduation

approach are still present in the form of asset transfers, household training, cash transfers, savings

promotion and household coaching. Other important elements removed were access to financial

education (literacy, access to credit) and scope to support health and education. Time is a crucial

element in the graduation approach. It is recognised that graduation from extreme poverty can take

households 24 to 36 months to achieve.90 In other Graduation programs, 18 months has worked in

contexts where markets and infrastructure are well developed and strong entrepreneurial behaviour

already exists (e.g. India and Bangladesh). A minimum of 24 months is recommended as good

practice in most contexts. Presently, RLP cohort 1 will receive 15 months of support and cohort 2 will

receive 11 months of support.91

Unlike other livelihood programs, additional resource arrangements are built into the design, such as

a dedicated centralised information management system and an innovation fund to implement

complementary ‘pilot’ activities within the pilot. The current iteration of the RLP pilot model has

resemblances of a Graduation approach and still retains graduation objectives. However, it would be

unfair to the current pilot model and all the implementing stakeholders to assess progress against

the original design as if the pilot had a long implementation. The budget cuts and frustrations of all

stakeholders with the processes in 2014 are well documented and it is recognised in this process

evaluation that the legacy of these early mistakes has cascaded into the implementation phase. The

findings in this report are examined in relation to the implementation plan developed after the pilot

was restructured for the reduced budget. The discussion below is focused on analysing the findings

in context of the current version of the RLP as it is operating under the reduced budget rather than

the grand design where it emerged.

5.1 Progress towards outcomes The activities overall appeared to be on target in terms of throughput for cohort 1 household

targeting, assets procured, assets transferred, training sessions conducted and household

participation. In this sense, efficiency was achieved by IPs in these early stages, however the

effectiveness is questionable because households needed to be better prepared for the assets,

including understanding the requirements of animals to adjust to living in the village. As one IP

pointed out, if more time was available, the asset selection and preparation would be tailored to the

specific needs of each very poor household, rather than in group settings.92 Household visits and

training are intended to be tailored to specific needs of households. The limited effectiveness of

asset procurement, transfer and care training for cohort 1 may reflect the learning process of IPs

91 This period of support is based on funding for the pilot until December 2016. 92 According to traditional graduation models and the RLP’s original design, the selection and transfer of assets

would have occurred after six months of implementation when households would have received skilling support, support with stipend use and savings.

43

who have not conducted this type of program previously. These processes for cohort 2 have been

carried out with significantly less delay time and asset loss.

The project requires stakeholders to have skills in procuring, quarantining and transferring assets on

a large scale. As such RLP teams developed their knowledge on the run. The lack of knowledge of

local suppliers and the timeframes needed to conduct adequate market surveys were all under

estimated. The extended procurement and transfer time took approximately three months instead

of the four weeks described in the implementing Tool Kit. Although the recommended timeframe for

this process based on the Bangladesh experience where there are large livestock markets that can

supply the order from a single source.

At the time of writing this evaluation report, Cohort 1 has had about 8-10 months of support since

asset transfer. This implies that 12 months is not long enough. In terms of progress towards

achieving Outcome 1: Increased income generating opportunities for poor women and men,

including through greater commercial and sustainable exploitation of natural resources, by the end

of the pilot is unlikely for the 1,167 households.93 Household income generation from assets is only

emerging at this stage. Presently, 10% (n= 113) of the total 1167 household beneficiaries have sold

assets (Figure 17).94 As a proportion of all households, 29% (n= 328) of households have produced

offspring from their livestock assets. If the offspring growth rate of 29% is projected out for the next

12 and 24 months (highlighted in the hash column bars in Figure 17), it is very possible that asset

growth could be achieved by 58% of households in 2017 and 87% of households by 2018.95 The same

approach could be applied to asset sales, if the rate of households selling an asset is 10% within this

first 12 months, it may possible that 20% of all households will be selling an asset by 2017 and 30%

of households in 2018 (highlighted in the hash column bars in Figure 17). This would be a

conservative estimate as it does not take into account households that may increase their assets

through purchases and selling them. None the less, without additional time for the pilot it will be

challenging for households to achieve the desired income generating targets set.

93 MIS data as at 30 June 2016. 94 SPSL, RLP Update, all districts (cohort 1) May 2016 asset numbers. 95 If asset offspring growth is 29% in this first year of the implementation stage, in the second year it may possible to sustain this rate of offspring growth which means 58% (n=656) of households will have new offspring.

44

FIGURE 17 ASSET GROWTH AND SALES

Source: MIS (May, 2016)

Progress towards Outcome 2: Increased access to social transfers and enhanced livelihood opportunities for the most vulnerable families within selected communities, appears to be mostly on track. The pilot has achieved 95% of household targeting. As at end of May 2016, 1167 households were enrolled, household drop outs from cohort 1 and 2 have reduced the household enrolment below the target. All households have received cash transfers providing 100% achievement of this target. Although household savings discipline and financial literacy is only being formed. The pilot also achieved its gender target of 50% of beneficiaries being women. The target of achieving complete training to all household beneficiaries is on target.

Progress is on track for RLP households in terms of sequenced and co-ordinated activities on the

ground. The time and budget intensive resourcing of the pilot during the past 12 months is to be

expected and is appropriate for the implementation stage. The direct support to household

beneficiaries represents approximately 15% of the total SPSL budget. This includes direct transfers to

beneficiaries and direct support for capacity building.96 This approximately 15% of the total SPSL

budget reaching 5,759 people in the poorest villages of Sepon, Lao Ngam and Soukhouma districts.

Almost half (48%) of this group are poor rural women.

The average cost per household per each year of support is USD$2,437.97 This figure may be viewed

as costly compared to Graduation approaches in India, however it should be kept in mind that the

small dispersed population and remoteness of villages in Lao PDR makes program delivery more

96 Direct transfers included the cost for cash stipend, asset transfer and asset replacement provided to households. Direct support includes operational costs for IPs, and management fees. Costings provided by SPSL. 97 Equivalent to AUD$3,199 (0.76 foreign exchange on 7th August 2016). This amount provides for the direct support of households with an average of 5 persons in a household. The figure is based on the direct transfer costs and direct support costs provided to households. Cost figure provided by SPSL.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 June 2016 June 2017 June 2018 June

% o

f H

Hs

Asset growth and sales, all households

% of HHs with asset growth from offspring % of HHs selling assets

45

expensive.98 The value of this investment can only be determined after follow up of households post

the pilot closure.

5.3 Pilot vs Scaling up The RLP pilot represents a learning exercise where ‘teething problems’ are to be expected and the

program stakeholders learn from mistakes and improvements are made to operations along the

way. A strength of the RLP pilot is that it has wasted no time on learning lessons and improving the

program whilst being implemented. In this way, IPs and SPSL have pushed through early frustrations

from mistakes and have adopted a continuous improvement approach to each process in the pilot.

The frontline partners with support from SPSL have not waited until the end of the pilot to figure out

what is working or not working. Having this ‘dual implementation/lesson learning’ approach has

enabled the RLP pilot to make critical adjustments along the way and in a very short timeframe. As

the program is still a pilot, it will continue to experience teething problems. A consideration for

scaling up will be to whether to retain the dual process of implementation and learning. While this

dual process has been challenging it has also produced important adjustments in the

implementation. Unfortunately, the pilot will be denied an opportunity to go from pilot to scale-up.

Scaling up in terms of country wide roll out would require institutional support from the GoL and a

donor. This is unlikely at present. The model would also require addition components to make it

more relevant to the extreme poverty context in Lao PDR. Components such as health, education

and natural resource management interventions to complement the existing elements are also

important. It would not be prudent to scale up the current model as it is. Although diffusion in the

form of IP organisations taking learnings and elements of the pilot, such as the household targeting,

household visit, and asset provision into other programs is possible and should be supported. District

government participating in the implementation have learnt methods and strategies for working

with the poorest households. They are also likely to share these lessons within the district and with

other development partners.

98 CGAP, www.cgap.org

46

6 Recommendations The recommendations are organised by thematic headings. Twelve (12) recommendations are

offered.

Pilot extension

1. A broad recommendation is for the pilot be extended for another 24 months to ensure the

cohorts and 2 households are support for two to three growth seasons. The cost of an

additional time could include the cash transfer, support and health component.

2. Budget savings from low performing components such as the GEID, innovation fund and

other parts of SPSL could fund the extension. A follow up period after the pilot should also

be included to monitor the sustainability of outcomes. The Lao Australia Development

Learning Facility could provide this follow up or support the development of a monitoring

framework post pilot.

In the case that an extension for another 24 months is not granted or possible, the

recommendations below pertain to specific aspects in the pilot activities for the remaining

timeframe. With the time left in the pilot, a focus on the following priorities are strongly advised:

Improve program monitoring for better tailoring of support.

3. The Management Information System (MIS) should track and monitor all enterprise

activities. The MIS should also track household outcomes, such as: skills relating to goal

setting, planning and budgeting.

4. MIS data should be used to identify and target households with significant savings from

stipend and asset sales. This information should be used by IP staff to provide tailored

financial literacy coaching for these households.

Household mentoring and coaching should focus on achieving effectiveness.

5. IPs should be empowered to assess and determine the level of supplementary support for

households struggling with asset management and growth. IPs and SPSL should assess the

needs of households and explore options within the current pilot budget and resources to

target support to at-risk beneficiaries.

6. As sales from assets increase, income should be tracked to ensure households are managing

their income for planned expenditures and strategic asset reinvestment. This should be done

within the scope of the existing financial literacy coaching and training component of the

pilot.

47

7. Develop a more structured and holistic case approach to household visits using the

household planning tool. Identify beneficiary households who are struggling with their

assets and family wellbeing issues. For these households, support should focus on ensuring

they are not further disadvantaged by their assets. As required, support households to plan

and use their cash stipend to meet food and health gaps. These households will face the

greatest risk of asset failure.

8. Households who are capable of generating income from their assets should be linked to local

markets with strategies to improve their value chain. Use the findings from the WE

enterprise study to identify pathways for this group to sustain income generating activity.

Alternatively, identify options for non-livestock enterprises for households who are at risk of

asset and income failure.

Facilitator capacity building should focus on the counselling households on finance and asset

management.

9. There is a need to provide Facilitators with refresher training on financial counselling

skills in anticipation and preparation of increased cash flow from livestock sales.

Facilitator training should also focus on skills to support households to manage their

asset health as the number of animals increase.

Increase District Government engage in anticipation for pilot wind down.

10. Sponsor and support the district steering committee members to visit each site as part

of a monitoring process across the three districts. This will promote a better

appreciation of the pilots’ activities and objectives, as well as prepare district

government partners for exiting households and the eventual closing of the pilot.

Plan for livestock and land management.

11. As the number of livestock assets grow, households will require support with planning

and managing land use pressure. Seeking additional land near the village may need the

involvement and consultation of village authorities who have the mandate to allocate

land for these activities. District counterparts should also be involved in this process.

48

Household exit strategy and plan should be the priority focus of the pilot.

12. SPSL and IPs to develop an exit strategy and plan for beneficiary households as soon as

possible. Graduation indicators should be used along with other household monitoring

data (e.g. qualitative household visit data, savings, asset health, growth income etc.).

These indicators should identify and tailor household support with a view to exit

households with as little harm as possible and where appropriate, place households in

the best position to continue generating income.

49

7 Appendices Appendix 1 RLP Process Evaluation TOR

ToR process

evaluation March 17 2016.docx

Appendix 2 RLP Process Evaluation Plan

RLP Process

Evaluation Plan.docx

Appendix 3 Focus Group Discussion Questions

FGD Questions_RLP

Facilitators.docx

6. FGD Questions_RLP

Facilitators_Lao.docx

FGD

Questions_district govt.docx

FGD

Questions_district govt_Lao.docx

FGD

Questions_village authority.docx

FGD

Questions_village authority_Lao.docx

Appendix 4 Interview Questions

KII

Questions_DFAT.docx

KII Questions_IP

senior mgt.docx

KII Questions_PM and

OM.docx

KII

Questions_SPSL.docx

KII

Questions_APB.docx

HH interview survey

questions_Eng and Lao.docx

Appendix 5 Fieldwork schedule

District Data

Collection Schedule Eng version.docx

50

Appendix 6 Figures and Tables Appendix Figure 1. BRAC’s Graduation model

Source: CGAP, www.cgap.org

Appendix Table 1. Process evaluation participants

Evaluation participants Number

Beneficiary households, Sepon, Lao Ngam and Soukhouma 76

District Officials in Sepon, Lao Ngam and Soukhouma 14

Village Authority representatives 22

Agricultural Promotion Bank (APB) staff members 3

HPA staff members 16

WEL staff members 10

CARE staff members 10

SPSL/MSP staff members 5

DFAT representatives 3

Total 159

Appendix Table 2. Evaluation villages and districts.

District Villages

Total participants

Lao Ngam 24

Keppeung 6

Na Bon 12

51

Na Om 6

Sepon 23

Ahor 8

Kengkok 15

Soukhouma 29

Pak Kouay 7

Phone Pheuang 10

Sen Meuang 9

Tha Phosy 3

Total 76

Appendix Figure 2.

Source: Evaluation participants, n = 76

Appendix Figure 3.

Source: Evaluation participants, n = 76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% >100%

% o

f H

Hs

Current savings balance as % of total cash transferred

HH stipend savings in evaluation sample, current balance at 31/05/2016

Lao Ngam sample Sepon sample Soukhouma sample Total sample

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lao Ngam

Sepon

Soukhouma

% of HHs

HH Income change

Income is same as before Increased income from stipend Increased income from stipend and sale

52

Appendix Figure 4.

Source: Evaluation participants, n = 76

Appendix Figure 5.

Source: MIS data

Appendix Figure 6.

Source: MIS data

0

20

40

60

80

100

Laognam Sepon Soukhouma

% o

f H

H r

epo

nse

s

Asset sale and marketing discussion with facilitators

Profit/ loss calculation Optimal selling time Access to markets Sale price

-

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16

LAK

Soukhouma HH Income v Expenditure, Pigs

Income Expenditure

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16

LAK

Soukohouma HH Income v Expenditure, Poultry

Income Expenditure

53

Appendix Figure 7.

Source: MIS data

Appendix Figure 8.

Source: MIS data

Appendix Figure 9.

Source: MIS data

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

May-16 Jun-16 Cummulative incomeand expenditure,

Goats

Months

LAK

Soukouma HH Income v Expenditure, Goats

1,095,000 1,215,000

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16

LAK

Soukhouma Income v Expenditure, Mushrooms

Income Expenditure

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16

LAK

Soukhouma Income v Expenditure, Food production

Income Expenditure

54

Appendix Figure 10.

Source: MIS data

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16

LAK

Soukhouma Income v Expenditure, Small shop

Income Expenditure