This document summarizes the evolution of the graduation model from its origins to its implementation as a public policy program in Colombia. It describes the original BRAC and CGAP/Ford model, and the adaptations made by Fundación Capital in Colombia. Key aspects of Fundación Capital's public policy model include a demand focus approach, cash transfers, and the use of information and communication technologies. The document then outlines the evaluation approach for Fundación Capital's Graduation Project, including a randomized controlled trial to answer several research questions about the effectiveness of the program.

1. IDRC/IPC, Brasilia, September 10-11, 2014
Matthew Bird
Unviersidad del Pacífico
The Ultra-Poor Graduation Project at Fundación Capital:
TowardanEvaluationof a Public Policy Graduation Model

2. EVOLUTION OF THE GRADUATION MODEL
ORIGINAL MODEL
(400,000 households)
REPLICATIONS
(RCT)
ADAPTATION
(Public policy)

3. BRAC AND CGAP/FORD MODEL

4. FUNDACION CAPITAL PUBLIC POLICY MODEL
DEMAND FOCUS
CASH TRANSFER
ICT

5. FUNDAK ADAPTATIONS
DemandFocus
Cash Transfer
ICTs

6. 1. DEMAND FOCUS
Beliefthatitistheparticipantsthemselveswhobestknowtheirpersonalabilities,interests,previousexperiencesandthelocalcontextwellenoughtodeterminewhateconomicactivitywillconstitutethebestinvestmentoftheirtimeandtheprojectresources.
Life plan
Business profile
Local support committee

7. •
Powerfulinstrumentforempowermentand teaching

IFAD
•
Variousstudiesvalidatetheproperuse of resources

GiveDirectlyin Kenya; Blattman, Fiala and Martinezat NUSAF in Uganda; Hanlon, Barrientos and Hulme’sJust Give Money to the Poor; De Mel, McKenzie and Woodruff (Sri Lanka, De Mel, McKenzie and Woodruff in Sri Lanka, 2008

In-kindtransfersdo notguaranteeproperusage
•
More cost-effectiveforgovernments
•
Financialinclusion
2. CASH TRANSFER

8. 3. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Rules of thumb
Colombia LISTA
experience
•
Guaranteesquality
•
Reduces costs
•
Closesdigital gap
•
Createsspillovereffects
•
Enablesparticipantstolearnat theirownpace

9. GRADUATIONPROJECT EVALUATION
Phase2: RandomizedControlledTrial
Phase1: Concept evaluation, Processevaluation, Resultsevaluation
•Pre-Post
•Quantitativesupportedbyquali
Results
•Acceptability, salience, effectiveness
•Qualitativesupportedbyquanti
Concepts
•Implementationof thedesign
•Qualitativesupportedbyquanti
Processes

10. CONCEPT EVALUATION: SOME EXAMPLES
Asset-buildingcoach profile
Communityversus proxy meanstest targeting
Business profileformatand supportingmaterial
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

11. Testing2 targetingmethods: Proxy meansvs. ParticipatoryWealthRanking 0.02.04.06Density 020406080Puntaje Sisbén Unidos/Sisbén Mapas parlantes 0.01.02.03.04.05Density 020406080Puntaje Sisbén

12. PhysicalAssets
Human Assets
Access
Social
Assets
FinancialAssets
LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE INDEX
Weightingdeterminedin
Phase1
Appropriate
variables
determinedin
Phase1

13. 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%

14. INSERT SELECT 3-5 SLIDES FROM DESCRIPTIVE RESULTSSEE ATTACHED FILEWILL GIVE WARNING TO THE AUDIENCE. JUST PRE- POST. MANY CONFOUNDING FACTORS.

15. WorkingRCT 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?

16. Thank you