Transcript S4_BRAC_Anindita_Nanning

Linking Evaluation to Implementation
The Case of BRAC’s Poverty Reduction
Programme targeting the Ultra Poor
Anindita Bhattacharjee
Research and Evaluation Division (RED)
BRAC, Bangladesh
Workshop on Evaluation for Policymaking
24-28 November 2014
Nanning City, Guangxi Province, P.R.China
1/17
www.brac.net
Outline of Presentation
• BRAC- at a glance
• Poverty and Country Context
• BRAC’s “Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction:
Targeting the Ultra Poor (CFPR-TUP)” Programme
• Evidence from BRAC’s Initial Approach to Reach the Ultra
Poor
• Role of research in initial design of CFPR-TUP
• Overview of CFPR-TUP
• Evidence based Evaluation and Improved Implementation
• Final takeaways
2/17
www.brac.net
BRAC- At a glance
• Established in 1972 in a remote village in Bangladesh; currently
the largest development organization in the world;
• Operating now in 11 countries in Asia, Africa and the
Caribbean, touching the lives of approx. 135 million people;
• Dedicated to alleviate poverty by empowering the poor, and
helping them to bring about positive changes in their lives by
creating opportunities.
• Works on a wide range of issues including poverty, education,
health, gender, human rights, etc. all over Bangladesh;
• In-house Research and Evaluation Division (BRAC-RED)
established in 1975 as a separate entity within BRAC framework
in Bangladesh;
3/17
www.brac.net
Poverty and Country Context
• A country of 153 million people of which 17% live in ultra
poverty (BBS 2010);
• Difference between ultra poverty and conventional poverty in
terms of depth, degree and breadth;
• Although microfinance plays a role for improving livelihoods of
the poor, ultra poor are often bypassed.
• Small injections of liquidity (e.g. through microfinance) might
be effective on the intensive margin but is not enough to shift
the poorest into self-employment. (Crepon et. al. 2011)
4/17
www.brac.net
BRAC’s CFPR-TUP Programme
• “Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction- Targeting the
Ultra Poor (CFPR-TUP)” programme launched in 2002;
• The mottos of: pushing down and pushing out.
• The ‘graduation’ perspective;
Image Credit: Amplifier Strategies
5/17
www.brac.net
Evidence from BRAC’s Initial Approach
to Reach the Ultra Poor
• Initiated the “Income Generation for Vulnerable Group
Development (IGVGD)” programme with the United Nations
World Food Programme (WFP) in 1985, to reach out to the
ultra poor through food relief combined with skills training
programme. (Matin and Hulme 2003)
• Evaluation of IGVGD showed:
- Despite considerable achievements, over 40% beneficiaries failed to
start the process of graduation;
- Those dropping out had fragile socio-demographic characteristics;
- Programme design did not focus on social and attitudinal constraints;
- Need for focusing on geographic targeting of location;
- Need for a process-oriented model of graduation;
6/17
www.brac.net
Role of Research in Initial Design of CFPR-TUP
• Search for knowledge on ultra poverty and on approaches to
tackle it;
• National level research carried out by RED;
• Findings showed:
- High incidence of ultra poverty, concentrated in certain pockets of
the country;
- Exclusion of the ultra poor from existing development initiatives;
- Ultra poor’s dependence on local support and patronage for noninclusive, divisive and unreliable social protection;
- Ultra poor themselves want help, not charity;
• Research also helped to develop a set of simple and verifiable
indicators, highly correlated with ultra poverty;
7/17
www.brac.net
Overview of CFPR-TUP
• Programme objectives:
-Improve extreme poverty
situation at the household level;
-Assist the ultra poor households
in getting access to the
mainstream development
programmes.
PC- BRAC
• A clear and specific
definition of Ultra Poor;
8/17
www.brac.net
Overview of CFPR-TUP
• Multi-staged selection process
Participatory Rural Appraisal Method
Mini survey through
questionnaire
Final selection of eligible households through
verification
• Programme components
- Enterprise Development Training
- Asset Transfer: In kind plus stipend
- Tailor made health care support
- Community mobilization work
• Duration of support: 2 years
PC- BRAC
9/17
www.brac.net
Overview of CFPR-TUP
• Programme coverage:
10/17
www.brac.net
Evidence-based Evaluation
and Improved Implementation
• Research undertaken to:
- evaluate and improve targeting
- assess programme impact in various dimensions
- identify suitable support packages
- assess potentiality of scaling up
- explore importance of soft inputs
• Stipend support:
- was not part of original programme design;
- both research and programme experience indicated the need;
- stipend support was soon introduced;
11/17
www.brac.net
Evidence-based Evaluation
and Improved Implementation
• Study on viability of different enterprises:
- importance of taking a holistic perspective;
- risks associated with particular enterprises;
- importance of maintaining a portfolio of assets;
 Required adjustments made in the design from the second
year;
PC- BRAC
12/17
www.brac.net
Evidence-based Evaluation
and Improved Implementation
• Study on targeting effectiveness from Phase 1:
- 10% of ultra poor households were excluded due to microfinance
participation; (indicating higher microfinance participation than
previously assumed)
 Adjustment was made in Phase 2 to take a case-by-case
approach;
PC- BRAC
13/17
www.brac.net
Evidence-based Evaluation
and Improved Implementation
• Research showed evidence of heterogeneity of the ultra poor
- indicating need for diversified support packages;
- diversity in support packages was introduced in Phase 2;
- two major types of support packages are currently in place:
STUP
(grant based)
OTUP
(grant plus credit support)
• Recently, programme has moved to cover coastal and haor
areas with a slightly modified support package which is more
suitable for the ultra poor households living in those areas.
14/17
www.brac.net
Evidence-based Evaluation
and Improved Implementation
• Research outputs show:
-
Sustainable (long-run) programme impacts
employment, food security and asset holding;
on
income,
- Transformation in occupational choices of the ultra poor women,
with associated increase in labor productivity;
- An overall narrowing down of the within community inequality in
terms of occupational choices, regularity of earnings, HH per capita
expenditure, etc.
- Determination, confidence, social network, asset management skill,
and hard work of the participant women as key factors for effectively
utilization of programme supports
15/17
www.brac.net
Final Takeaways
• Innovations and learnings need to be a continuous process.
• Programmes need to be evolving in nature and also to be
adaptable to new learnings in a short time.
• Aside from regular programme monitoring, it is also important
and helpful to have in-house research capacity that can cater to
various research needs from time to time.
• It is extremely important to have research as an integral part of
any development programme for effective and quality
implementation.
16/17
www.brac.net
Thank You
For more details on BRAC’s programmes and research, please visit:
www.brac.net and research.brac.net
17/17
www.brac.net