rldsf evaluating graduation: insights from the vision 2020 · “ds in 2011 & 2014”...

Evaluating Graduation: Insights from the Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme in Rwanda

Vincent GahamanyiDirector, Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme,

Local Development Agency (LODA)

Renate HartwigErasmus University Rotterdam,

University of Passau

Andrew KettlewellFinancial Management Advisor,

Local Development Agency (LODA)

Graduation and Social Protection Conference

May 6th, 2014

RLDSF

Outline

2

Background & Motivation

Data

Pathways

Determinants

Conclusion

Evaluating Graduation: Insights from the VUP

EDPRS2

3

The rationale for VUP is contained within the Government of Rwanda’s second Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS-2):

Thematic Area for Rural Development : “… Enable Graduation from Extreme Poverty by … improving the coverage and targeting of core social protection programmes such as VUP. Graduation will also mean linking the poorest to economic activity through the provision of skills.”

Sustainable graduation: “…viable pathways out of poverty that enable people to exit core social protection support and progress to complementary social development programme that build skills and resilience.”

BackgroundDataPathwaysDeterminantsConclusion


EDPRS2 Poverty Reduction Targets

4

Consumption poverty vs. Ubudehe category


EDPRS

Outcome

Outcome indicator Unit Base-

line

2012

2015/6

Target

2017/8

Target

Responsibility

for Reporting

Data

Source

Reduced

poverty

Population below

the poverty line

% 44.9 30.2 < 30 MINECOFIN/NIS

R

EICV

Reduced

extreme

poverty

Population below

the poverty line

living in extreme

poverty

% 24 15 9 Social

Protection

Sector

EICV

Graduation

from

extreme

poverty

Category 1 or 2

beneficiary

households who

move to Category 3

to 6

% 9.8 30 50 Social

Protection

NISR,

MINAL

OC


The VUP

5

Objectives: Releasing the productive capacities of people Improving community livelihood assets Social protection to the most vulnerable

3 Components:

+ Training & sensitisation

Targeted at the poorest, labour constraint households HH in poorest 2 Ubudehe categories

Decided at the community level using traditional, participatory mechanism

Public Works Direct Support Ubudehe Credit Scheme



The Ubudehe Categories

6

Targeting Exit and Graduation are linked to Ubudehe category Those in Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 are eligible for VUP Formally, households ‘exit’ the programme when no longer eligible Graduation occurs when the household reaches category 5



1 Those in Abject

Poverty

Destitute. Need to beg to survive. Have no land or livestock. Lack adequate shelter,

clothing and food.

2 The Very Poor This group is physically capable of working on land owned by others, although they

themselves have either no land, or very small landholdings, and no livestock.

3 The Poor These households have some land and housing. They live on their own labour and

produce, though they have no savings, they can eat, even if the food is not very

nutritious.

4 The Resourceful

Poor

This group shares the characteristics of category 3 but they have small ruminants

and their children go to primary school.

5 The Food Rich This group has larger land holdings with fertile soil and enough to eat.

6 The Money Rich This group has land and livestock and often has salaried jobs.

Roll out of VUP to date

7



PERIOD COVERAGE (SECTORS)

BUDGET RwF

COVERAGE(BENEFICIARY NUMBERS)

DirectSupport

Public Works

Financial Services

DirectSupport

Public Works

Financial Services

2008 30 30 30 4 Bn - 18,304 -

Jan – June 2009 30 30 30 2.58 Bn 6,850 17,886 -

2009-2010 60 60 60 14.8 Bn 9,692 61,335 55,675

2010-2011 90 90 90 17.6 Bn 18,892 103,557 53,228

2011-2012 120 120 120 22.4 Bn 27,631 94,397 55,326

2012-2013 180 150 150 30.4 Bn 43,671 89,011 55,212

2013-2014 240 150 150 24.2 Bn

Exit and Graduation from VUP

9

From the VUP Targeting Exit and Graduation Guidelines:

“Beneficiary Exit refers to the process of a beneficiary household leaving a programme because they no longer meet the eligibility criteria.”

“Graduation describes a situation where a livelihood has been strengthened so that the households or recipients are able to maintain themselves out of extreme poverty for the medium to long term without VUP support.”



Exit and Graduation from VUP (cont.)

10

Eligibility defined by household social poverty status (Ubudehe categories 1 or 2)

Formally, households ‘exit’ the programme when no longer eligible (Ubudehecategory 3)

Initially Ubudehe category was re-assessed on a yearly basis creating a risk of pre-mature ‘graduation’ - now re-assessment is after 2-years



Livelihood pathway

Services Beneficiary status

VUP supported financial services

Sensitisation programme Complementary services

Direct support Public works

Market-provided credit Market linkages

Asset accumulation

Asset stabilisation

Ubudehe category

Poverty status

6 Non-poor

5

4

Poor

3 Exit from VUP

2 Extreme poor

1

Graduation sustained

Gist of this study

11

1) How have households been performing so far?i.e. Have households moved up in their social poverty status?

Indicator: Net change in Ubudehe status

Shortcomings of Ubudehe category as measure for graduation

2) How have households been performing if we consider alternative indicators? Assets (Perceived) food security

3) What are potential ‘enabling’ factors?i.e. What are the characteristics of households that managed to build up assets?



Data

12

3-year panel household survey: 2009: Baseline information from 30 sectors (cohort 3)

where VUP was launched

in 2010

2011: Follow-up - 1 year after

launch

2014: Follow-up - 3 years later

Total sample: 689 households 108 Direct Support and

186 Public Works beneficiaries

over time



Some Descriptives

13

VUP transfers were most commonly spent on food (75%), other consumables (38%), farm investment and livestock (36%) and education (19%).

Less than 7% of the beneficiary households report to have used their money to invest into other income generating activities.

33% of the households reported to have saved part of their VUP income. The average amount saved is28,468 RwF .

26% of the households interviewed have experienced at least one major negative event in the past 12 months. The most frequent shocks experienced are: Illness: 32% Drought or flood: 20% Death of a member: 9%



Explanation

14

The graphs in the slides which follow show data for four groups of households:

“DS (or PW) 2011” – households which were selected for DS (or PW) for financial year 2010-11 only;

“Current DS (2014)” – households which were targeted for financial year 2013-14 and are currently on the programme;

“DS in 2011 & 2014” – households which have been continuously on VUP since first being selected;

“DS eligible non-beneficiaries” – households which were eligible for VUP according to the Ubudehe categorisation but were not selected



Net-Ubudehe Exit(positive change in Ubudehe category from 2009-2014)

15

Low improvements among households Stronger improvement among

that benefit continuously households that benefit continuously;

Households that benefited only for one year show lower rate of ‘success’



05

101520253035404550

DS in 2011 Current DS(2014)

DS in 2011 &14

DS eligible non-beneficiary

%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

PW in 2011 Current PW(2014)

PW in 2011 &2014

PW eligiblenon-beneficiary

%

(Perceived) food security

16



0

5

10

15

20

25

30


DS in 2011 & 14 DS eligible non-beneficiary

%

Households feel food seucre

0

5

10

15

20

25


PW in 2011 &2014

PW eligible non-beneficiary

%

Households feel food secure

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75


DS in 2011 &14

DS eligible non-beneficiary

Av.

me

als/

day

# of meals consumed per day

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65


PW in 2011 &2014


Av.

me

als/

day

# of meals consumed per day

Households not or no-longer receiving support appear to be less food secure.

Livestock

17



Livestock accumulation common among beneficiaries

Households that no longer receive support disinvest.

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

-

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40



Change in Livestock (TLU, 2009-14)

2009-11 2011-14 Total 2009-14

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

-

0.10

0.20

0.30


PW in 2011 &2014


Change in Livestock (TLU, 2009-14)

2009-11 2011-14 Total 2009-14

Household Equipment and Tools

18



-

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30



Change in Asset Index (2009-14)

-

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25


PW in 2011 &2014


Change in Asset Index (2009-14)

The accumulation of other household assets and equipment appear to less volatile.

Enabling factors

19

Characteristics of top performers (top 20%) with respect to asset and livestock accumulation:



CoefficientMale head (=1) 0.028Age of head (yrs) 0.001Head literate (=1) 0.011*# of adults (18-65) 0.044

# of elderly (65+) -0.092***# of children (0-5) -0.004

Shock (=1) -0.123**Mutuelle (=1) 0.081**Loan (=1) 0.094***Household saves (=1) 0.007Enterprise (=1) 0.053

Distance to market (min.) 0.000Community meetings attended (=1) 0.073*

N 221R2 0.171

• Households with literate heads more likely to perform.

• Household composition can hamper ‘graduation’.

• Loans, i.e. access to financial services seem work as enabling factor.

• Successful households experience less shocks and are insured.

• Community sensitisation has positive effect.

Summary & Conclusion

20

Exit from by defined by social poverty does not necessarily mean that households are able to meet immediate and basic needs and can cope with shocks.

Access to financial services, insurance, education and training are factors to take into consideration for sustainable graduation (in the long run).

Graduation does not appear sustainable for many when benefits have been received only for a short time.

Awareness that some households might not graduate and require continuous support (for example elderly people living alone in the households).



Thank you for your attention

RLDSF

rldsf evaluating graduation: insights from the vision 2020 · “ds in 2011 & 2014”...

Documents