matthew bird: the ultra poor graduation project at fundación capital
Post on 15-Dec-2014
1.171 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
IDRC/IPC, Brasilia, September 10-11, 2014
Matthew BirdUnviersidad del Pacífico
The Ultra-Poor Graduation Project at Fundación Capital:
Toward an Evaluation of a Public Policy Graduation Model
EVOLUTION OF THE GRADUATION MODEL
ORIGINAL MODEL(400,000 households)
REPLICATIONS(RCT)
ADAPTATION(Public policy)
BRAC AND CGAP/FORD MODEL
FUNDACION CAPITAL PUBLIC POLICY MODEL
DEMAND FOCUS
CASH TRANSFER
ICT
FUNDAK ADAPTATIONS
Demand Focus
Cash Transfer
ICTs
1. DEMAND FOCUS
Belief that it is the participants themselves who best know theirpersonal abilities, interests, previous experiences and the local contextwell enough to determine what economic activity will constitute thebest investment of their time and the project resources.
Life plan
Business profile
Local support committee
• Powerful instrument for empowerment and teaching IFAD
• Various studies validate the proper use of resources Give Directly in Kenya; Blattman, Fiala and Martinez at
NUSAF in Uganda; Hanlon, Barrientos and Hulme’s Just Give Money to the Poor; De Mel, McKenzie and Woodruff (Sri Lanka, De Mel, McKenzie and Woodruff in Sri Lanka, 2008
In-kind transfers do not guarantee proper usage
• More cost-effective for governments• Financial inclusion
2. CASH TRANSFER
3. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Rules of thumb
Colombia LISTAexperience
• Guarantees quality• Reduces costs• Closes digital gap• Creates spillover effects• Enables participants to
learn at their own pace
GRADUATION PROJECT EVALUATION
Phase 2: Randomized Controlled Trial
Phase 1: Concept evaluation, Process evaluation, Results evaluation
• Pre-Post• Quantitative supported by qualiResults
• Acceptability, salience, effectiveness• Qualitative supported by quantiConcepts
• Implementation of the design• Qualitative supported by quantiProcesses
CONCEPT EVALUATION: SOME EXAMPLES
Asset-building coach profile
Community versus proxy means test targeting
Business profile format and supporting material
Results: PMT more cost-efficient in Colombian context to identify the extreme poor
Results: Identification and prioritization of 7 factors that make a suitable coach
Results: Need to simplify and strengthen visual codes because of functional anafalbetism
Testing 2 targeting methods: Proxy means vs. Participatory Wealth Ranking
0.0
2.0
4.0
6D
ensi
ty
0 20 40 60 80Puntaje Sisbén
Unidos/Sisbén Mapas parlantes
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5D
ensi
ty
0 20 40 60 80Puntaje Sisbén
PhysicalAssets
Human Assets
AccessSocialAssets
FinancialAssets
LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE INDEX
Weightingdetermined in
Phase 1
Appropriatevariables
determined in Phase 1
INDICATORS
PRODUCTIVE ASSETS
• Participants’ average monthly income is at least USD 45
• Participants have at least 1 profitable productive activity
• Participants have invested in their productive activity from their own income in order to strengthen it
• Participants have at least 1 physical asset more than what they had in the baseline
• If consumption has increased by 10%• If the frequency of households reporting
having lacked money to buy food in the last 3 months has decreased by 10%
FOOD SECURITY
• Participants’ savings balances have increased by 30%
• The proportion of participants’ savings in banks or savings groups has increased by 30%
• During the project duration participants have saved at least once a month
• Participants are 15% more likely to use their savings to cover their non-regular expenses instead of using moneylenders or selling assets
FINANCIAL ASSETS
HUMAN & SOCIAL ASSETS
• The decision-making index for women participants has increased by at least 5%
• The optimism index among participants has increased by at least 9%
• The social capital index among participants has increased by at least 5%
INSERT SELECT 3-5 SLIDES FROM DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS
SEE ATTACHED FILE
WILL GIVE WARNING TO THE AUDIENCE. JUST PRE-POST. MANY CONFOUNDING FACTORS.
Working RCT Design
3 Research Questions
(1) Does the Graduation package set the extreme poor on a path out of extreme poverty as measured by a suite of indicators?
(2) Is it more effective to provide cash or asset transfers to the extreme poor as measured by a suite of indicators?
(3) Is it more effective to provide training via a tablet or in-person model?
Thank you
top related