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.

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. 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
ICT
CASH TRANSFER

5. FUNDAK ADAPTATIONS
Demand Focus
Cash Transfer
ICTs

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. LIVELIHOOD RESILIENCE INDEX
Physical
Assets
Human
Assets
Access
Financial
Assets
Social
Assets
Weighting
determined in
Phase 1
Appropriate
variables
determined in
Phase 1

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Attitudes / Mentalities

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. Thank you