Transcript Program Learning and Adaptation: Integrating Field

PSNP Plus and GRAD Projects:
Graduating Poor Households from Food Aid.
Program Learning and Adaptation:
Integrating Field Experience and Realities into Improved program Design,
Implementation and Results
TOPS East Africa Knowledge Sharing Meeting
Jay Banjade
Chief of Party
11 June, 2012
Learning Experience with
PSNP Plus
PSNP PLUS CAUSAL MODEL
PULL
Mainstream credit and
Business services –
small loans, insurance
Other food security services
Linkages
P+ Graduated
Households
Business training
Financial literacy training
Productivity training and support
Productive asset transfer
P+ Target
Households
Farmers’ associations
Saving & lending groups
PUSH
PSNP SUPPORT
1. The PSNP Plus hypothesis is: If you provide basic food support, and link the CFI HHs with functioning markets and microfinance ,we
can graduate these families out of food aid. This needs a particular combination and sequencing of services to move these HHs
from chronic food insecurity to food sufficiency to food security.
2. Our major learning interest is to test this hypothesis.
3. Longitudinal Impact Assessment was designed to test this hypothesis.
Other Learning Efforts
•
We had other learning questions specific to project components such as:
– What combination and sequencing of interventions will significantly contribute to
graduation?
– How can a sustainable VSLA-MFI linkage be established?
– How can VSLA link with VC activities?
– Are the value chain interventions in place supporting PSNP plus participants to benefit
from functional markets?
– How do we create win-win B2B relationships between the private sector and
participants based on mutual understanding?
– What would be the effective institutional linkage or system that would enable
participants access inputs and services sustainably?
– What is the most effective and sustainable asset transfer modality?
•
In addition we used IR assessment to check whether the inputs/activities were
resulting to outputs and outcomes
•
A quarterly performance monitoring system was in place to ensure efficiency of
operations. This was particularly important because if we design an action
research to test a hypothesis and do not execute the action research project
efficiently there is a danger of rejecting a valid theory – throwing the baby with
bath water.
Results
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Incomes and assets increased and sources of income diversified but not at a
level to graduate from food insecurity for most beneficiaries.
Hence, only linkages to markets and finance were not enough for
sustainable graduation:
– Climate change adaptation (2009 Drought)
– Gender (critical players in CFI HH’s economy)
– Inspirations (Those with goals succeeded much faster)
– Food support critical (for CFI HHs)
Combination and sequencing
VSLAs strengthened resiliency (IGA)
MFI – VSLA linkages: MF industry building
B2B relationships: MSP - the beginning.
IR assessments showed that the building blocks like systems, relationships,
modules, training packages were developed.
Quarterly monitoring ensured efficient delivery of targeted interventions
Grassroots level learning and the
Learning Workshop
 Assets transfer modality: In kind or cash? Cash is more efficient.
 Conceptual feasibility of interventions (Size/volume of assets (e.g.# of shoats)
 Borrowing capacity of PSNP HHs
 Colony multiplication
 VC missing links: Input/output markets, Private sector in production as well
 Linkages with Cooperatives
 Transitional bee hives.
 Seed multiplication
 Gender
 PMA capacity development (governance, transparency, solidarity, regularity)
 Working closely with the government
 Use of subsidy
 Link to other social services
How was GRAD designed
Using the Lessons
How was GRAD designed
GRAD
Causal
Model
How was GRAD designed
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extension
Resiliency strategies
MF industry building
Private sector engagement in the whole chain
Model farmers
Working together with HABP and Line
agencies
• Non-farm IGAs
Learning about Learning
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learning can be for internal (to sharper the tools, models) and external audience
(to replicate)
Internal learning – mostly implementers’ own questions (e.g. CARE wants to learn
more about women empowerment)
External learning – answers the questions of the donor, government,
industry/sector.
Systematic, planned, proactive AND unplanned (learning happens everyday)
Case studies – go beyond the story (how, why it happened?)
Generate – Document – share/disseminate
Process: Causal model, theory of change, assumptions, pathways or domains of
change, most significant change, conduct KM analysis and develop a strategy/plan.
Key Challenges: Organizational culture, funds and capacity, priority, rigid plans to
incorporate learning, lack of staff capacity development on learning and sharing.
Suggestions: environment encouraging learning, innovations and risk taking;
incentives to learn and share; ask the right learning questions; keep it manageable;
keep reminding why it matters (as this is not viewed as necessary function), focus
on application (not research for research), collective efforts, ownership ?,