Targeting the Ultra Poor: An Impact Assessment

1
Targeting the Ultra Poor An Impact Assessment
2
Study Background Graduation Model

• Graduation model based on Challenging the
  Frontiers of Poverty Reduction-Targeting the
  Ultra Poor (CFPR-TUP) program pioneered by BRAC
• Model being replicated and evaluated
  (orchestrated by CGAP and the Ford Foundation in
  partnership with local organizations) in 9
  locations
• Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Pakistan, Peru, Yemen
  and India in three places (with Bandhan, SKS, and
  Trickle Up)

3
Overview

• Program Objective (Bandhan)
• To provide free income generating assets,
  training, and other assistance to help ultra poor
  households secure a regular source of income, and
  to graduate them to potential microfinance
  clients.
• Study Objective (CMF)
• CMFs study looks to measure the impact of this
  program in 3 blocks of Murshidabad district in
  West Bengal.
• Is Bandhans THP program resulting in an
  improvement of socio-economic conditions for
  these ultra poor households?

4
Program and Intervention Design

• Aim graduate the poorest of the poor to
  microfinance
• Treatment households get to choose an income
  generating asset, and receive an allowance for
  30-45 weeks depending on the asset selected
• Types of assets include livestock such as cows,
  goats, pigs, or a combination of these, as well
  as non-farm enterprises.
• In approximately 18 months after receiving the
  asset and successfully retaining it,
  beneficiaries receive graduation training

5
Major findings

• Consumption
• Increase in food consumption for treatment group
• mean difference of Rs. 64 per person per month
• Incomes
• Treatment Household income/per person increased
  by Rs 78/month (22) over control.

6
Major findings

• Time Use
• Adults in treatment households work more hours
  per day, on average, than adults in control
  households

7
Additional findings Non monetary transfers and
financial indicators

• transfers / crowd out
• treatment gives approximately 1 more meal per
  month (10 of mean) to other households
• receive 50 less food gifts than control (Rs. 13
  vs Rs. 30 per month)
• financial variables
• no effect on credit (increased interest in
  borrowing)
• increased formal savings (through Bandhan), not
  necessarily increased total savings

8
Additional Findings Financial Behaviour and
Confidence

• Treatment households appear to borrow less from
  formal and informal sources, but the finding is
  not statistically significant.
• Households score higher on an index of financial
  autonomy (can women take decisions on
  assets/operating savings accounts/household
  spending decisions)
• Households express higher confidence in their
  ability to take loans and join savings groups
• Possibly affected by survey connection with
  Bandhan

9
Findings Food Security

• Treatment households report lower food insecurity
  than control households
• Adults less likely to skip meals
• Households are 7 more likely to report that they
  eat enough every day
• Treatment households show higher self-perception
  of their household situation

10
Cost Benefit Analysis

• Cost 331/beneficiary household
• Monetary benefit estimated to be an income gain
  of 90/household/year
• Will these gains persist over time?

11
Conclusion

• positive effects 18 months after asset transfer
• on consumption
• other measures of well being (food security,
  emotional health)
• non-agricultural enterprises appear important in
  income generation

12
Open Questions

• Scale up from 3000 households to entire
  districts.
• The role of monitoring and continual handholding
  and feedback
• Can state governments and livelihood missions
  adopt some form of the program?

13
Research Team

• Dr. Abhijit Banerjee, Dr. Esther Duflo, Dr.
  Jeremy Shapiro (MIT/JPAL)
• Dr. Raghabendra Chattopadhyay (IIM-C)
• Sudha Kant, Lakshmi Krishnan, Jyoti Mukhopadhyay,
  Abhay Agarwal, Deeptha Umpapathy, Projjal Saha
  (Centre for Microfinance)