Matthew bird the ultra poor graduation project at fundación capital

1.145 visualizações

Publicada em

This presentation is part of the programme of the International Seminar "Social Protection, Entrepreneurship and Labour Market Activation: Evidence for Better Policies", organized by the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG/UNDP) together with Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Colombian Think Tank Fedesarrollo held on September 10-11 at the Ipea Auditorium in Brasilia.



0 comentários
0 gostaram
Estatísticas
Notas
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Sem downloads
Visualizações
Visualizações totais
1.145
No SlideShare
0
A partir de incorporações
0
Número de incorporações
334
Ações
Compartilhamentos
0
Downloads
7
Comentários
0
Gostaram
0
Incorporações 0
Nenhuma incorporação

Nenhuma nota no slide

Matthew bird the ultra poor graduation project at fundación capital

  1. 1. The Ultra-Poor Graduation Project at Fundación Capital: Toward an Evaluation of a Public Policy Graduation Model IDRC/IPC, Brasilia, September 10-11, 2014 Matthew Bird Unviersidad del Pacífico
  2. 2. EVOLUTION OF THE GRADUATION MODEL ORIGINAL MODEL (400,000 households) REPLICATIONS (RCT) ADAPTATION (Public policy)
  3. 3. BRAC AND CGAP/FORD MODEL
  4. 4. FUNDACION CAPITAL PUBLIC POLICY MODEL DEMAND FOCUS ICT CASH TRANSFER
  5. 5. FUNDAK ADAPTATIONS Demand Focus Cash Transfer ICTs
  6. 6. 1. DEMAND FOCUS Belief that it is the participants themselves who best know their personal abilities, interests, previous experiences and the local context well enough to determine what economic activity will constitute the best investment of their time and the project resources. Life plan Business profile Local support committee
  7. 7. 2. CASH TRANSFER • Powerful instrument for empowerment and teaching  IFAD • Various studies validate the proper use of resources  Blattman et al. (2013) in Uganda; De Mel et al. (2008) in Sri Lanka; Fafchamps et al. (2011) in Ghana  In-kind transfers do not guarantee proper usage • More cost-effective for governments • Financial inclusion
  8. 8. 3. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES Colombia LISTA experience Rules of thumb • Guarantees quality • Reduces costs • Closes digital gap • Creates spillover effects • Enables participants to learn at their own pace
  9. 9. GRADUATION PROJECT EVALUATION Phase 1: Concept evaluation, Process evaluation, Results evaluation • Pre-Post • Quantitative supported by qualitative Results • Acceptability, salience, effectiveness • Qualitative supported by quantitative Concepts • Implementation of the design • Qualitative supported by quantitative Processes Phase 2: Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
  10. 10. CONCEPT EVALUATION: SOME EXAMPLES Community versus proxy means test targeting Results: PMT more cost-efficient in Colombian context to identify the extreme poor Asset-building coach profile Results: Identification and prioritization of 7 factors that make a suitable coach Business profile format and supporting material Results: Need to simplify and strengthen visual codes because of functional anafalbetism
  11. 11. Testing Two Targeting Methods: Proxy means vs. Participatory Wealth Ranking Item (Cost for targeting 250 program participants) Costo Taller de capacitación de los gestores (incl. viaje y honorarios del tallerista y materiales) USD 700 Organización de 15 talleres mapas parlantes (convocatoria, salones, materiales, y refrigerios) USD 4.500 Honorarios de 5 gestores durante 2 meses (incl. tiempo de formación, convocatoria, talleres y reporte) USD 10.000 TOTAL USD 15.200 0 .02 .04 .06 0 20 40 60 80 Puntaje Sisbén Unidos/Sisbén Mapas parlantes 0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 0 20 40 60 80 Puntaje Sisbén
  12. 12. LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE INDEX Physical Assets Human Assets Access Financial Assets Social Assets Weighting determined in Phase 1 Appropriate variables determined in Phase 1
  13. 13. INDICATORS PRODUCTIVE ASSETS • Participants’ aveƌage ŵoŶthly iŶĐoŵe 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 FOOD SECURITY • 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% FINANCIAL ASSETS • Participants’ saviŶgs ďalaŶĐes have iŶĐƌeased by 30% • The pƌopoƌtioŶ of paƌtiĐipaŶts’ saviŶgs iŶ 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 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. 14. Welfare: Percpetion Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media P37_¿Cómo es el nivel de vida de su hogar en comparación con meses anteriores? Mejor 35,5% 88,6% 29,7% 67,4% 31,0% 77,5% Peor 14,1% 0,2% 23,6% 1,9% 18,1% 1,1% Similar 50,5% 11,2% 46,7% 30,6% 50,9% 21,4% ¿Faltó dinero en el hogar para comprar alimentos? Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media No 28,6% 70,3% 35,8% 60,3% 42,3% 65,0% Si, Algunas veces 42,9% 13,2% 41,5% 32,1% 38,5% 23,1% Sí: Rara vez 14,3% 15,8% 5,7% 3,2% 4,6% 9,2% Sí: Siempre 14,3% 0,5% 17,0% 3,4% 14,6% 2,0% Si; No contestaron 0,2% - 1,1% - 0,7%
  15. 15. Financial Accounting / Planning Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media P17.1_Metas en el corto plazo No 88,4% 80,7% 74,7% 78,7% 78,8% 79,6% Si 11,6% 19,3% 25,3% 21,3% 21,2% 20,4% P17.2_Metas en el mediano plazo No 71,0% 69,0% 65,5% 92,4% 66,9% 81,3% Si 29,0% 31,0% 34,5% 7,6% 33,1% 18,7% P17.3_Metas en el largo plazo No 45,7% 50,1% 58,8% 33,3% 56,5% 41,3% Si 54,3% 49,9% 41,2% 66,7% 43,5% 58,7% P31_¿Sabe ud qué es un presupuesto? No 58,9% 24,6% 87,2% 59,1% 72,9% 42,7% Si 41,1% 75,4% 12,8% 40,9% 27,1% 57,3% Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media P33_¿Elabora usted su presupuesto? No 59,1% 26,4% 94,9% 54,9% 77,7% 40,6% Si 40,9% 73,6% 5,1% 45,1% 22,3% 59,4%
  16. 16. Savings Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media P19_¿le queda dinero para ahorrar? No 59,1% 16,3% 90,5% 21,9% 75,1% 19,2% Si 40,9% 83,7% 9,5% 78,1% 24,9% 80,8% Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media FORMA DE AHORRO MAS SEGURA Dinero en el banco 23,9% 45,2% 11,0% 11,6% 17,8% 27,7% Dinero en la casa 20,2% 33,4% 6,9% 28,5% 13,5% 30,9% En animales 44,6% 26,2% 79,5% 61,3% 62,1% 44,6% En cadenas ,2% ,5% 1,5% 1,5% ,8% 1,0% Otra, ¿Cuál? 11,0% 1,2% 1,0% ,2% 6,0% ,7%
  17. 17. Use of Funds/Resources (Hypothetical 1) Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media Si hoy usted recibiera $100.000 adicionales, ¿en qué se gastaría la plata? En bienes o gastos para el negocio 24,4% 26,0% 11,0% 18,2% 17,2% 21,9% En compra de alimentos 37,8% 23,2% 61,0% 29,5% 49,6% 26,5% En mejoramiento de vivienda 7,8% 13,1% 3,1% 10,5% 6,0% 11,7% En bienes u otros gastos para el hogar 7,1% 10,5% 0,5% 6,2% 3,9% 8,3% Pagar deudas 3,7% 1,2% 8,7% 11,8% 6,1% 6,7% Gastaría una parte y la otra la guardaría 16,8% 25,8% 14,9% 16,2% 15,9% 20,8% Otro 2,3% ,2% ,8% 7,7% 1,4% 4,1%
  18. 18. Source of Funds/Resources (Hypothetical 2) Sitio Nuevo San Luis Total Base Media Base Media Base Media Como obtener 50.000 emergencia De un familiar, amigo o vecino 64,1% 36,1% 72,6% 69,0% 68,2% 53,3% De un prestamista o cadenas 24,4% 7,7% 1,3% ,4% 12,9% 3,9% De un banco 0,0% 0,0% ,3% 0,0% ,1% 0,0% De una casa de empeño 3,2% ,2% ,3% ,2% 1,8% ,2% De la venta de animales o bienes 1,1% 1,6% 15,4% 10,6% 8,0% 6,3% Del dinero que tiene guardado 2,3% 47,8% 1,8% 14,9% 2,1% 30,5% De su cuenta de ahorros 5,2% 2,8% 3,9% No tendría a quien pedirle 4,4% 1,2% 8,2% 1,9% 6,5% 1,6% Otro 0,5% ,2% ,3% ,2% ,3% ,2%
  19. 19. Last emergency where got resources/money 11.95% 0.46% 8.10% 6.94% 4.37% 6.67% 8.74% 3.45% 33.33% 0.23% 18.85% 0.69% 11.72% 0.69% 19.21% 3.01% 20.37% 0.93% 37.50% 2.78% Vendiendo o empeñando animales o bienes Utilizando dinero ahorrado Pidiendo prestado a una eŶtidad fiŶaŶĐieƌa otƌa… 00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Pidiendo prestado a un prestamista Pidiendo prestado a un banco Pidiendo prestado a amigos o familiares Otro Nunca ha tenido una emergencia económica Con los ingresos normales Algún miembro del hogar Ƌue Ŷo tƌaďajaďa o… Sitio Nuevo Media Sitio Nuevo Base 0.84% 0.42% 3.80% 16.46% 9.07% 9.92% 14.10% 23.59% 3.08% 0.51% 0.26% 0.77% 3.59% 32.82% 1.03% 20.26% 3.38% 42.62% 1.27% 11.60% Vendiendo o empeñando animales o bienes Utilizando dinero ahorrado Pidiendo prestado a una eŶtidad fiŶaŶĐieƌa otƌa… 00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Pidiendo prestado a un prestamista Pidiendo prestado a un banco Pidiendo prestado a amigos Otro o familiares Nunca ha tenido una emergencia económica Con los ingresos normales Algún miembro del hogar Ƌue Ŷo tƌaďajaďa o… San Luis Media San Luis Base
  20. 20. Attitudes / Mentalities
  21. 21. 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?
  22. 22. Thank you

×