The Most Attractive Pune Call Girls Handewadi Road 8250192130 Will You Miss T...
Evidence on Graduation in Practice: Concern Worldwide's Graduation Programme in Rwanda
1. Evidence on Graduation
in Practice: Concern
Worldwide’s Graduation
Programme in Rwanda
Rachel Sabates-Wheeler
IDS
Transfer Project Workshop, Arusha
2 April 2019
2. Concern Rwanda’s “Graduation
Programme”
Overall aim: Enable sustained exit from
extreme poverty of poor households
Launched in May 2011, ran until Dec 2015
Supported extremely poor households with:
Cash transfer & enhanced savings
Skills development
Coaching and mentoring
Seed capital for investment in enterprise
development
5. The Research
Baseline information plus survey at 12 months (to
assess immediate impacts).
After cash transfer: surveys at 18 & 36 months (to
assess if impacts are sustained).
Two cohorts of beneficiaries & control group
(to assess if changes are attributable).
Survey contains information on financial, social and
human “key impact indicators”.
Quasi-experimental design: Difference in
Differences
6. The Average Impact
1. Significant
reductions in
deprivation
2.55 2.49
2.88
4.35
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Control Beneficiary
Baseline
12 Months
7. 2. Increased ownership of livestock
Cows (+)
Goats (+)
Pigs (+)
Chickens (+)
3. Increased ownership of productive assets
Mobile phone (+)
Radios (+)
Registered land (+)
8. 4. Increased ownership of consumption assets
10
13
10
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
Control Beneficiary
Baseline
12 Months
Value of assets in USD
9. 5. Increased savings
6. Increased investment in children’s
education at secondary school level
7. Increased consumption of meat & vegetables
8. Use of preventative
health measures &
hygiene practices
9. Improved social
cohesion
All participants get access
to health insurance
11. Sabates-Wheeler, R., R. Sabates and S. Devereux (2018).
‘Enabling graduation for whom? Identifying and explaining
heterogeneity in livelihood trajectories post-cash transfer exposure’,
Journal of International Development.
Food Security Assets Livestock
Clients Control Clients Control Clients Control
36m % 36m % 36m % 36m % 36m % 36m %
Improvers 7.66 43 7 7 36 35 25 1 0.74 29 1 1
decliners 3.89 27 3.57 19 16 25 11 10 0 23 0.04 3
dropping
out 3.98 13 3.39 57 15 24 11 77 0.1 24 0.08 82
late
improvers 7.82 17 7 17 33 16 33 13 0.61 24 0.66 14
12. For food security and basic needs indicator:
56 % of ‘dropping out’ households are fhhds
only 37 % of ‘improvers’ are fhhds
‘ improvers’ have more working-age adults compared to
‘dropping out’ households
Same trends and results hold for TLU and asset
indicators
Initial asset base a strong determinant of trajectories
Complementary relationship between land and livestock
Strong location effect for ‘improvers
Findings
13. Heterogeneity in target populations means more nuance is
needed in household support/package
Time horizon for graduation programmes (2–3 years) is
usually too short
Building the evidence base for graduation requires
substantial long-term investment in M&E
Incentives to graduate people – to demonstrate successful
policies (governments) and value for money (donors) – can
lead to premature graduation
Graduation is not possible for everyone – expectations must
be realistic and must be managed
Lessons
Hinweis der Redaktion
livelihood trajectories can be highly heterogeneous even for what programme implementers assume to be ‘similar’ beneficiaries
Treatment (800) and control (200) households
Strong programme effects for food security, livestock asset accumulation and productive assets