Impact of the Graduation Approach: Findings from the CGAP- Ford Graduation Pilots. Nathanael Goldberg Jeremy Shapiro April 2016

Transcription

1 Impact of the Graduation Approach: Findings from the CGAP- Ford Graduation Pilots Nathanael Goldberg Jeremy Shapiro April 2016

2 Why Evaluate? What is the impact of the Graduation model on the ultra poor? Impact evaluation measures: How have the lives of clients changed compared to how they would have changed in the absence of the program Note this is different from How have their lives changed

3 Seven-Country Replication Honduras Ghana Ethiopia Pakistan Yemen India Peru

4 Cross-Site Timeline

5 Cross-Site Analysis

6 Asset Index Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Total asset value Pooled endline 1: $599 (control mean $2619) Pooled endline 2: $533 (control mean $2300)

7 Income and Revenues Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Monthly livestock revenues Pooled endline 1: $85.81 (control mean $73.52) Pooled endline 2: $55.50 (control mean $80.62)

8 Time Use Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Minutes spent on productive activities Pooled endline 1: 17.5 (control mean 169) Pooled endline 2: 11.2 (control mean 185)

9 Per Capita Consumption Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Per capita consumption, month Pooled endline 1: $4.55 (control mean $78.80) Pooled endline 2: $3.36 (control mean $68.80)

10 Food Security Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Everyone gets enough to eat each day Pooled endline 1: treatment 47%, control 42% Pooled endline 2: treatment 45%, control 40%

11 Financial Inclusion Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Total savings balance Pooled endline 1: $ (control mean $97.07) Pooled endline 2: $58.38 (control mean $78.38)

12 Mental Health Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Self-reported life satisfaction (1-5 scale) Pooled endline 1: 0.11 points (control mean 2.99) Pooled endline 2: 0.08 points (control mean 3.13)

13 Physical Health Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Activities of daily living index Pooled endline 1: treatment 83%, control 82% Pooled endline 2: treatment 81%, control 80%

14 Women s Empowerment Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Female major decision-maker, food decisions Pooled endline 1: treatment 57%, control 55% Pooled endline 2: treatment 64%, control 63%

15 Political Involvement Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 Member has attended village meeting, last year Pooled endline 1: treatment 45%, control 42% Pooled endline 2: treatment 39%, control 36%

16 Are assets all that matter?

17 Graduation vs. Goats, endline 1 105% *** Endline 1 % Change from Control Mean 85% 65% 45% 25% 5% -15% -35% -55% *** * *** ** Any GUP Goat Drop -75% Value of Goats Livestock Value Excluding Goats All Livestock Value Total Consumption per Month

18 Graduation vs. Goats, endline 2 % Change from Control Mean 105% 85% 65% 45% 25% 5% -15% -35% -55% *** *** *** Endline 2 *** ** Any GUP Goat Drop -75% Value of Goats Livestock Value Excluding Goats All Livestock Value Total Consumption per Month

19 Who benefits from graduation? Everybody benefits Some more than others

20 Quantile results: Consumption 0.35 Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile

21 Quantiles: Asset Ownership 0.60 Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile

22 Quantiles: Income and Revenues 0.80 Standard deviation treatment effects Endline 1 Endline 2 10th percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile

23 Cost Effective? 500% Total Benefits / Total Costs by Country 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% -100% -200% -300% Ethiopia Ghana Honduras India Pakistan Peru

24 But does it work in the long term?

25 Comparison to BRAC results Variable Total consumption per capita, month Food consumption per capita, month Non-food consumption per capita, month Multi-Site Results (Three Years) $3.77 (control $77) $3.02 (control $46.40) $0.82 (control $27.80) BRAC Results (Four Years) $4.31 (baseline $51.16) $1.71 (baseline $5.44) $2.60 (baseline $45.72) Household savings $78.80 (control $92.60) Productive asset value $222 (control $1880) $5.42 (baseline $0.63) $55.38 (livestock only) (baseline $4.85) Benefit/cost 166% 244%

26 Long-Term Impacts in West Bengal 7 years 3 years BL 2 years EL1 EL2 EL3 Mar 15 Feb 07 Jan 09 Nov 10 Jan 14

27 Long-Term Consumption Control TUP USD 2014 PPP EL1 EL2 EL3 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL1 EL2 EL3 TOTAL CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA, MONTH FOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA, MONTH NONFOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA, MONTH DURABLE GOODS EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA, MONTH

28 Long-Term Income & Revenues Control TUP USD 2014 PPP EL1 EL2 EL3 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL1 EL2 EL3 HH LIVESTOCK REVENUE, MONTH HH NON- FARM MICRO- ENTERPRISE INCOME, MONTH HH INCOME FROM PAID LABOR, MONTH EL1 EL2 EL3 SELF- REPORTED ECONOMIC STATUS 1/10

29 In the News Much of the news about global poverty is depressing, but this is fabulous: a large-scale experiment showing, with rigorous evidence, what works to lift people out of the most extreme poverty. - Nicholas Kristof The New York Times

30 New Graduation Adaptations New Graduation Adaptations (April 2016) MISFA DLLM-Prospera FONKOZE BRAC BISP Bandhan & Trickle Up NRLM &OLM RLP Trickle Up HW PMF & TMF Trickle Up CONCERN HABP PROFIT BOMA, VEF VEF, BRAC BRAC KUBE PKH SO SLDHHRAP EPRI BRAC Bangladesh (1) Since 2002 CGAP-Ford Foundation Pilots (8) Source: CGAP NGO-implemented (12) Since 2010 Donor-implemented [UNHCR] (5) Since 2013 Government-implemented (13) Since 2013

31 Next Steps: Learning as we Scale Who benefits the most? What to do for those who benefit less? Do we need all the components? Can it be cheaper? Complementary inputs Community impacts?

32 Get in touch! poverty-action.org/socialprotection