No excuses: filli illing the evid idence gap on social assistance - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Welcome to the webinar

• rganised by

The International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

No excuses: filli illing the evid idence gap on social assistance in in humanitarian settings

socialprotection.org presents:

Speakers: Sarah Hague, Chief of Social Policy, UNICEF Lebanon Benjamin Schwab, Development Economist, Kansas State University James Omolo, Cash Transfer and Social Protection Expert, FAO Subregional Office for West Africa and Sahel Moderator: Raquel Tebaldi, Researcher, IPC-IG

No excuses: filli illing the evid idence gap on social assistance in in humanitarian settings

Presenter Sarah Hague UNICEF Lebanon

Sarah Hague is the Chief of Social Policy for UNICEF Lebanon where she leads a team working on child poverty, social protection and public finance. She has previously worked in Ghana and Burkina Faso with UNICEF, developing the District League Table in Ghana and co-authoring the country’s first poverty and inequality

• report. Prior to UNICEF she headed Save the Children UK’s research team, where

she led the development of the first international measure of child poverty. She has also worked for the World Bank, providing country support to carry out Poverty and Social Impact Analyses, as well as being previously employed as a civil servant in the Government of Rwanda, and as the Chair of the NGO Stamp Out Poverty.

No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings

Presenter Benjamin Schwab Kansas State University

• Dr. Benjamin Schwab is a development and health economist in the

Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. Prior to joining the faculty at Kansas State, he worked at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). He has collaborated on several large scale impact evaluations, and currently researches a variety of topics related to food security, agriculture and rural poverty in developing countries.

No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings

Presenter James Omolo FAO

James Omolo is deployed from NORCAP (CASHCAP) to FAO Sub Regional Office for resilience in West Africa and Sahel as Cash Transfer and Social Protection Expert based in Dakar, Senegal, since September 2018. His mission is to support the capacity enhancement and coordination of the Social Protection and Cash Transfers activities in the sub region. Initially an Architect by profession, he has been trained in Cash transfer programming by CaLP and joined the CASHCAP roster from where he has had a chance to be deployed in North East Syria with NRC in 2016 to support its Shelter Sector in Remote Cash Transfer activities.

No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings

Moderator Raquel Tebaldi IPC-IG

Raquel Tebaldi holds a BA in International Relations and a master’s degree in Political Science from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil. She joined the IPC-IG in 2015 and currently works as a Researcher. She has been involved with many research projects at the Centre, including the production of a report on shock-responsive social protection in the MENA region launched in March 2019 in partnership with UNICEF MENARO.

No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings

Submit it your questions to the panell llists

@socialprotectionorg @SP_Gateway

No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings Also, follow our live coverage on Twitter, via #SPorgWebinar!

Min Ila

Impact evaluation of a child-focused social safety net

UNICEF Lebanon

February 2019

Context…. What is Min Ila?

How did we carry

• ut the impact

evaluation? What were the results?

What’s next….?

Food security

Context

➢Globally, increasing use of cash transfers in humanitarian contexts but need to bring the evidence ➢Both ‘monetization’ and ‘genuine’ social assistance ➢Cash assumed to have a wide range of benefits ➢Development versus humanitarian ➢Lebanon – 1.5/6m people a refugee; rapidly expending assets; high debt; increasing negative coping strategies ➢UNICEF leading technical assistance to establishing national system ➢Politically unfeasible to integrate refugees into Lebanese social transfer programmes

Context

➢UNICEF Lebanon prefers child-focused social assistance

• Tackling multiple deprivations
• Addressing negative coping strategies
• Medium to long-term outcomes
• Integrated programming
• Systems approach

➢Leading with UNHCR and WFP global best practice for joint cash delivery system - LOUISE

Min Ila

FAQ

Child-focused social assistance programme Unconditional cash transfers (20 + 45 USD); 8 payments p.a.; on “LOUISE” cards Multisector-referral for household members; household visits for those at risk Reached 50,000 mostly Syrian children, enrolled in second-shift school Aimed to improve child wellbeing through addressing education costs and reduce of negative coping strategies 2016-2018 Implemented by UNICEF with WFP, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education

The IE design

➢Nonexperimental longitudinal design ➢Large sample size and comparison group (geographical regression discontinuity design) ➢Quantitative baseline, midline and endline ➢Qualitative data (KIIs and FGDs) ➢Multisectoral ➢Baseline – prior to programme starting Oct 2016 ➢Midline – Feb-March 2017 (programme then scaled-up) ➢Endline – November-December 2017

The results

Health spending; Health of 5-9 yrs Ate breakfast; not skip a meal; didn’t go to bed hungry Less time

• n chores/

care More

• ptimistic

Ed spending; More attendance (late in school year)

The results

“They used to bring thyme, labnah (yogurt) sandwiches in a bad state while now they bring croissant, cheese, fruits, they buy from the grocery. So you feel they’re really living like other children.” (teacher in Akkar) “We won’t end up with household chores. You need to take advantage of education and time you have to study.” (school girl in Akkar) “The child is [now] contented and relaxed. He feels he is equal to the other kids. He has his

• wn uniform, his bag, sometimes if his

copybook finishes he can buy another one … so the child feels more at ease and is not pressured.” (Teacher in Mt. Lebanon)

The results

➢ Low child labour; no impacts observed ➢ Child marriage? ➢ Health for older kids; child work for younger kids ➢ No impact on self-esteem, social support ➢ School as entry point; 50% schools reached capacity, so couldn’t see enrolment impacts ➢ Problem of measuring attendance at beginning of school year

?

• 1. Just one year’s ‘worth’ of impact
• 2. Poor timing of endline
• 3. Need accompanying supply side response

– systems are crucial

• 4. Limited use of the qualitative data
• 5. No differential impacts by gender…

Challenges

• 6. Child labour questions need to be better

tackled

• 7. The very definition of social protection

requires multi-year funding

• 8. Not realistic to expect national system to

respond

• 9. Need very well designed evaluations

Challenges

What’s next?

➢Overall, very positive impacts – so how to learn and build

• n?

➢Funding jeopardises social assistance; importance of multi-year ➢Programming needs to be more integrated ➢Designed to reach most vulnerable ➢Look closer at supply response

➢So…new programme

➢Document best practice experience of common cash delivery, LOUISE

Thank you!

Comparing the productive effects of cash and food transfers in a crisis setting

Evidence from a randomized experiment in Y emen Benjamin Schwab *

* Kansas State University

May 23, 2019

Question

Are there measurable productive impacts of food and cash transfers on rural beneficiaries in a country dealing with severe economic and political turmoil? Do the productive impacts differ depending on transfer modality (i.e. food or cash)?

Results Preview

▶ Modest increase in some indicators of productive investment ▶ Food recipients initiated cash cropping at higher rates than

cash recipients

▶ Cash recipients accrue more livestock

Results Preview

▶ Modest increase in some indicators of productive investment ▶ Food recipients initiated cash cropping at higher rates than

cash recipients

▶ Cash recipients accrue more livestock

Summary Alleviating poverty and supporting food consumption in com- plex and insecure settings can increase the productive capac- ity of households, though the effects depend on the mode of food assistance.

Motivation: Long Term Impacts of Transfer Programs

▶ Widespread agreement on value of transfer programs for social

protection and consumption

▶ More contentious debate on whether transfer and social

protection programs have sustained, long term impacts

▶ Nutrition and human capital (Baird et al (2018); Parker and

V

• gl (2018); Araujo et al (2017); Hoddinott et al 2013)

▶ Transfers and poverty traps? (Kraay and McKenzie (2014);

Banerjee et al (2015, 2016))

▶ Durability of consumption and welfare effects (Blattman et al

(2018); Haushofer and Shapiro (2018); Fafchamps et al (2013); de Mel, McKenzie, and Woodruff (2012))

Motivation: Transfers and Production

Effect of transfers on agricultural investment

▶ F

AO’s Protection to Production (PToP) project

▶ Mixed results→+livestock and input purchases (Daidone et al 2019)

Motivation: Transfers and Production

Effect of transfers on agricultural investment

▶ F

AO’s Protection to Production (PToP) project

▶ Mixed results→+livestock and input purchases (Daidone et al 2019) ▶ Recent IFPRI studies from Malawi and Senegal (Ambler et al

2017a, 2017b) find cash grants increase livestock holdings and

• verall crop production.

▶ Beaman et al (2015) find liquidity constrained farmers in Mali

increase production as a result of $150 transfer

Motivation: Transfers and Production

Effect of transfers on agricultural investment

▶ F

AO’s Protection to Production (PToP) project

▶ Mixed results→+livestock and input purchases (Daidone et al 2019) ▶ Recent IFPRI studies from Malawi and Senegal (Ambler et al

2017a, 2017b) find cash grants increase livestock holdings and

• verall crop production.

▶ Beaman et al (2015) find liquidity constrained farmers in Mali

increase production as a result of $150 transfer Most studies occur in a context of persistent poverty

▶ Do the results hold in a crisis or emergency setting?

▶ Macroeconomic instability ▶ Political uncertainty and violence

Motivation: Transfer Modality

▶ Historic transition from in-kind to cash transfers, though food

shipments still a large element of food assistance

▶ Evidence on consumption & expenditure effects (Hoddinott et

al 2018; Aker 2017; Cunha 2014; Hidrobo et al 2014)

▶ What about productive impacts?

Conceptual Framework

Should the form of a transfer (food or cash) matter for agricultural impacts?

▶ Basic theory: If transfer is equal-valued and inframarginal, no.

Conceptual Framework

Should the form of a transfer (food or cash) matter for agricultural impacts?

▶ Basic theory: If transfer is equal-valued and inframarginal, no. ▶ Answer more complicated in the face of liquidity

, credit, and risk constraints, seasonality , non-separable consumption/production decisions, etc...

Conceptual Framework: Cash vs Food

The Case for Cash

Conceptual Framework: Cash vs Food

The Case for Cash

▶ Binding liquidity constraints prevent productive investment

Conceptual Framework: Cash vs Food

The Case for Cash

▶ Binding liquidity constraints prevent productive investment ▶ Seasonal constraints and timing of sales

Conceptual Framework: Cash vs Food

The Case for Cash

▶ Binding liquidity constraints prevent productive investment ▶ Seasonal constraints and timing of sales

The Case for Food

▶ Farmers may find self-insurance through food crop production

• ptimal in the face of food price risk (Fafchamps 1992)

Conceptual Framework: Cash vs Food

The Case for Cash

▶ Binding liquidity constraints prevent productive investment ▶ Seasonal constraints and timing of sales

The Case for Food

▶ Farmers may find self-insurance through food crop production

• ptimal in the face of food price risk (Fafchamps 1992)

▶ Food transfers alleviate risk constraint on adopting higher

value cash crops

Setting

Rural areas of two governorates of Y emen: Hajja & Ibb

▶ Sorghum is most commonly raised food crop, while qat is the

most important cash crop

Setting

Rural areas of two governorates of Y emen: Hajja & Ibb

▶ Sorghum is most commonly raised food crop, while qat is the

most important cash crop

▶ Data collection occurred from 2011 to 2012, volatile time

period prior to outbreak of ongoing full-scale war

▶ Onset of Arab Spring and end of 33 year rule of Ali Abdullah

Saleh

▶ Localized violence ▶ Highly volatile food prices

Intervention

▶ Unconditional food or cash transfers to eligible individuals

▶ Randomization of modality at Food Distribution Point (FDP) level ▶ Each FDP is a school serving a cluster of neighboring villages (68 food; 68 cash)

▶ 3 Transfers Each

▶ Cash Transfer: 10,500 YER ( $49) ▶ Food Transfer: 50kg of fortified wheat flour, 5 of oil

Program Timeline

Data & Empirical Strategy

Survey Sampling

▶ 15 beneficiaries and 11 non-beneficiaries in 135 FDPs ▶ Beneficiary status from proxy means test conducted in 2009

▶ Lowest tier (groups A & B) beneficiaries ▶ Next lowest tier (group C) comprise sample non-beneficiary

group

▶ Problem: 10% of FDPs did not have 11 group C households,

so replacements taken from within same subdistrict (uzla)

▶ Three basic empirical strategies

• 1. Ignore non-beneficiaries (Relative effects only)
• 2. Ignore other modality (Absolute effects for each modality)
• 3. Combine (1) and (2)

Data & Empirical Strategy

Survey Sampling

▶ 15 beneficiaries and 11 non-beneficiaries in 135 FDPs ▶ Beneficiary status from proxy means test conducted in 2009

▶ Lowest tier (groups A & B) beneficiaries ▶ Next lowest tier (group C) comprise sample non-beneficiary

group

▶ Problem: 10% of FDPs did not have 11 group C households,

so replacements taken from within same subdistrict (uzla)

▶ Three basic empirical strategies

• 1. Ignore non-beneficiaries (Relative effects only)
• 2. Ignore other modality (Absolute effects for each modality)
• 3. Combine (1) and (2)

Crop Choice Estimates

Food beneficiaries increase probability of planting qat

Livestock Estimates

Positive cash impacts on livestock numbers

Farm Investment Estimates

Cash beneficiaries increase herd and farm asset values, but estimates imprecise

Farm Asset Estimates

Labor Estimates

Both transfers increase off-farm work, and no evidence of increase in child labor.

Results Summary

▶ Small increase in cash cropping for food beneficiaries, but not

cash beneficiaries

Results Summary

▶ Small increase in cash cropping for food beneficiaries, but not cash beneficiaries ▶ Increase in livestock (≈ goat) for cash beneficiaries relative to food

Results Summary

▶ Small increase in cash cropping for food beneficiaries, but not

cash beneficiaries

▶ Increase in livestock (≈ goat) for cash beneficiaries relative to

food

▶ Consistent with risk and liquidity constraints

▶ Karlan et al (2014)

Results Summary

▶ Small increase in cash cropping for food beneficiaries, but not

cash beneficiaries

▶ Increase in livestock (≈ goat) for cash beneficiaries relative to

food

▶ Consistent with risk and liquidity constraints

▶ Karlan et al (2014)

Modest size of overall impacts…

Results Summary

▶ Small increase in cash cropping for food beneficiaries, but not

cash beneficiaries

▶ Increase in livestock (≈ goat) for cash beneficiaries relative to

food

▶ Consistent with risk and liquidity constraints

▶ Karlan et al (2014)

Modest size of overall impacts… But non-zero!

Results Summary

▶ Small increase in cash cropping for food beneficiaries, but not

cash beneficiaries

▶ Increase in livestock (≈ goat) for cash beneficiaries relative to

food

▶ Consistent with risk and liquidity constraints

▶ Karlan et al (2014)

Modest size of overall impacts… But non-zero! Caveats

▶ Liquidity constraints to investment or saving/consumption via

livestock?

▶ Regression to the mean?

Implications

▶ What do ’productivity’ effects mean in the context of

emergency aid, and how should they be measured?

Implications

▶ What do ’productivity’ effects mean in the context of

emergency aid, and how should they be measured?

▶

Multiple constraints to productive impacts almost certainly exist

▶ Elusive search for the key constraint? ▶ Best feasible ROC investment may be difficult to predict ▶ Improvements to current productivity or fundamental change

in livelihood strategy (e.g. migration; commercialization)?

Implications

▶ What do ’productivity’ effects mean in the context of

emergency aid, and how should they be measured?

▶

Multiple constraints to productive impacts almost certainly exist

▶ Elusive search for the key constraint? ▶ Best feasible ROC investment may be difficult to predict ▶ Improvements to current productivity or fundamental change

in livelihood strategy (e.g. migration; commercialization)?

▶ Expectations and risk during a crisis

Implications

▶ What do ’productivity’ effects mean in the context of

emergency aid, and how should they be measured?

▶

Multiple constraints to productive impacts almost certainly exist

▶ Elusive search for the key constraint? ▶ Best feasible ROC investment may be difficult to predict ▶ Improvements to current productivity or fundamental change

in livelihood strategy (e.g. migration; commercialization)?

▶ Expectations and risk during a crisis ▶ Dynamic impacts of food aid on cropping strategies

Future Research

▶ Understanding payment timing and duration

▶ Subjective expectations

▶ Mixing of demand-driven ’grant’ elements with humanitarian

transfers

▶ Attempt to capture heterogeneous productive potential ▶ Feasibility and administrative implications

▶ The counterfactual in humanitarian interventions

▶ Benchmarking and usefulness of pure control group when

marginal value of assistance should be high

▶ How vs If

Webinar 23 May 2019

EVIDENCE OF SOCIAL PROTECTION IN CRISIS SETTING

Impact Evaluation of Emergency CASH+ Mali and Mauritania

JAMES OMOLO Expert en transfert monétaires et protection social REOWA, DAKAR

Project Title: Productive safety nets as a tool to reinforce the resilience in the Sahel” (April 2015 – Feb 2017) - OSRO/RAF/502/FIN

Webinar 23 May 2019

BACKGROUND

2 modalities equal financial value: i) "Cash" - cash transfer only ii) "Cash +" - cash transfer + distribution goats + trainings on good practices and raising awareness of children's nutrition and nutrition. **In each country, half of the beneficiaries received the "Cash" while the other received "Cash +“ kit.

Webinar 23 May 2019

BACKGROUND

➢ Funded by the Finnish government - OSRO/RAF/502/FIN ➢ Implemented in Mali and Mauritania between 13 April 2015 to 28 February 2017. ➢ A total of 1,400 HH were assisted through the following activities:

Training:

• livestock breeding,
• Zoo-technical and

animal health assistance and monitoring missions,

• livelihood and

production capacity training Training:

• nutrition education &

culinary demonstration

Webinar 23 May 2019

STAKEHOLDERS

Private sector (microfinance institutions) Animal health and livestock production decentralized

• ffice

Knowledge generating institutes

Social development decentralized

• ffice

International and national NGO

PROJECT PARTNERS The project was conducted in close collaboration and partnership with government decentralized services, international and national NGOs as well as the private sector (microfinance institutions). In Mali :

• Social development and solidarity-based

economy,

• Animal health and livestock production,
• 2 NGOs (CEPAP and A-KARED) and
• A microfinance institution (Kondo Jigima)

In Mauritania :

• Ministries of Agriculture and Livestock,
• A local NGO (ADIG)
• ACF

Webinar 23 May 2019

EVIDENCE GENERATION

As part of the main objective of the project: Focus on measuring the impact of the different combination of interventions on the resilience to shocks of very poor households. M & E Framework

• Baseline survey
• start of activities,
• providing critical information as a benchmark
• PDM & market survey
• Mali:
• 1 PDM survey in July 2015
• 2 market surveys May and November 2015,
• Mauritania:
• 3 PDM surveys (January, June/August and October 2016)
• Final evaluation
• Mali: December 2016.
• Mauritania: January 2017.
• Impact evaluation/Analysis

Webinar 23 May 2019

IMPACTS

In Mali

• Food security situation up by approximatively 20%.
• Approximatively 24 percent of the children of 6–59 months increased the Individual

Diet Diversity Score.

• Decrease in the percentage of food insecure households from 96.6 to 80.2 percent.
• Increased average and diversified sources of income (income above XOF 66 099 (USD

119) increased from 17.5 to 40.5 percent).

Access categories for food insecurity of beneficiary households Dietary diversity score of children from 6-59 months of beneficiary households

Webinar 23 May 2019

IMPACTS

In Mauritania

• Average monthly income up by 29 percent,
• Improved food access
• Better Coping strategy index;
• Increased food consumption score:
• Increased number of livestock owned.

Number of meals per day Food consumption score

Webinar 23 May 2019

KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE SHARING

Capitalization workshop (Dakar). ✓ Mali, ✓ Mauritania and ✓ FAO sub regional resilience team (REOWA). With focus on three main issues: ❖ The technical aspects ❖ The operational aspects ❖ The analysis of food security and nutrition indicators. Opportunity for a cash+ scale-up study Mali + Mauritania + Burkina Faso + the Niger + Senegal + Chad.

During project implementation, the following communication material was also produced:

• The productive transfers/cash+ approach in the Sahel: empowering women in southern Mauritania (French: http://www.fao.org/emergencies/la-

fao-en-action/histoires/histoire-detail/fr/c/469714/ English: http://www.fao.org/emergencies/fao-in-action/stories/stories-detail/en/c/469691/)

• Fact sheets/news from the field: Productive transfers/cash+ in Mali (French: http://www.fao.org/resilience/ressources/ressources-

detail/fr/c/468831/ English: http://www.fao.org/resilience/resources/resources-detail/en/c/463032/)

• In Action Story CASH+ in Mali (http://www.fao.org/in-action/providing-financial-support-in-mali-kayes-region/en/)
• Photo gallery on cash+ activities in Mali and Mauritania (http://www.fao.org/emergencies/ressources/photos/photos-detail/fr/c/468200/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/faoemergencies/sets/72157675897592234/#)

Regional

Webinar 23 May 2019

LESSONS LEARNED

Elements of success ❖ The combination of different kits (cash+) was appropriate to the specific needs of local communities. ❖ Timely distribution was essential for asset protect. ❖ Sensitization and training on nutrition and key health family practices was crucial to avoid disease/diarrhea for children under five. ❖ Project activities had a strong impact on women (economic empowerment, decision-making positions in the community). ❖ Right targeting methodology: Community-based approach involving women and youth taking into account the results of Household Economy Approach. ❖ A good baseline study was essential to determine the impact ❖ Regular feedback from beneficiaries through focus groups or PDM was necessary.

Webinar 23 May 2019

LESSONS LEARNED

Impediments/constraints: Mali ❖ The inaccessibility of roads during the rainy season and transhumance slowed down the activities ❖ The presence of predators (jackal, snake) and the absence of monitoring of the health of the distributed animals resulted in mortalities ❖ Cases of theft of animals: as an improvement, monitoring mechanisms at community level were developed. ❖ The lack of means of travel and turnover of staff in the decentralized technical services of the Government already involved in the project: Mauritania ❖ The monitoring and evaluation system was not fully assigned to a team member, resulted in less control of the data by the team. ❖ Difficulties around the targeting activity regarding exclusion and inclusion errors ❖ At a regional level, there was a lack of communication between country teams

Webinar 23 May 2019

FOLLOW UP ACTIONS

Recommendations ➢ Continue monitoring the impact through surveys and focus groups - 1year +, 2 years+ and more. ➢ Finalization of the study on the scaling up possibilities ➢ Development of concept notes for scale up/ promotion of inclusion in development policies and food/nutrition security programmes ➢ Workshops and Communication campaign for sharing the good practices ➢ Partnership establishment with other Agencies (UNICEF and WFP etc).

Timely distribution preventing beneficiaries from negative coping strategies - Mali “About four months after the harvest, our food reserve was coming to an end when I received the money.” Maman Sow,

Testimonies

Webinar 23 May 2019

Conclusion

FAO continues to promote CASH+ approach as a tool for emergency response, strengthening resilience and reducing rural poverty. CASH+ Approach ➢ Supports the enhancement of vibrant and diversified livelihoods and provision of important safety net against shocks ➢ It is a tool for quick-impact humanitarian response and recovery as well as serving as a component of long term social protection and resilience programmes. FAO’s work on CASH+ is based on experience and research showing its potential to sustainably enhance economic and social impacts of cash transfers when combined with productive support and/or training.

THANK YOU

Webinar 23 May 2019

No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings

Q&A Session

Thank you for joining

No excuses: fil illin ling the evid vidence gap on so socia ial l ass ssis istance in in humanit itaria ian se settin ings Make sure to answer our webinar survey, available after the session!