Download a PDF of this issue - Field Exchange - Emergency ...

Research
The average per recipient cost
over the life of the project was
US$12.76 in cash/placebo
villages and US$13.65 in zap
villages, or US$0.90 more per
recipient. While there was a
range of benefits from the zap
intervention, the research
focused on two in particular for
the cost-benefit analysis: the
monetary value of the reduced
opportunity costs of programme
recipients’ time (a value of US$0
.91) and the increased cultivation
of cash crops. Using average
household okra production and
the market price for okra during
the programme period, the average
value of this okra production
in zap households would have
been US$5. This suggests that the
cost-benefit ratio is greater than
one, meaning that the additional
costs of the zap intervention
yielded an equivalent or higher
monetary benefit for zap
programme recipients. If the
programme yields benefits in the
longer-term, perhaps by allowing
households to send and receive
more informal transfers or access
formal financial services, this
could potentially yield a higher
rate of return.
An intervention that provided a
cash transfer via the mobile
phone strongly reduced the costs
of programme recipients in
obtaining the cash transfer, and
reduced the implementing
agency’s variable costs associated
with distributing cash. This
suggests that mobile telephony
could be a simple and low-cost
way to deliver cash transfers. In
addition, those in the m-transfer
group bought more types of food
and non-food items, increased
their diet diversity, depleted their
non-durable assets at a slower
rate and produced a more diverse
basket of agricultural goods.
These differences are primarily
due to the m-transfer interven-
Women in Abala Sani village at a
mobile phone training session
tion, and not to the presence of
the mobile phone, suggesting
that a programme that simply
distributes mobile phones might
not yield the same impacts. These
effects appear to be due to the
reduced costs of the programme
and the greater privacy of the m-
transfer mechanism, which are
potentially linked with changes
in intra-household decisionmaking.
The m-transfer approach may
be limited in its application to all
contexts. First, it will only be
effective in cases where telecommunications
infrastructure
currently exists, which could
limit its utility in remote areas.
Second, in areas with high rates
of illiteracy – as is the case in
Niger – programme recipients
might not able use the m-transfer
technology on their own, implying
that they might need help
from other family members,
friends or m-transfer agents. This
could potentially limit the use of
the technology by programme
recipients for informal private
transfers or in accessing other
mobile financial services, but
could be beneficial for the household
as a whole. And finally, the
short-term impacts of the
programme might not persist in
the longer-term. Despite these
caveats, the widespread growth
of mobile phone coverage,
cheaper mobile phone handsets
and m-money services in developing
countries suggests that
these constraints could be easily
overcome. In addition, the benefits
of the programme in a context
such as Niger - a country with
limited investment in power,
roads and landlines, low literacy
rates and one of the highest rates
of financial exclusion in sub-
Saharan Africa - suggests that the
approach could thrive in less
marginalised contexts.
Concern, Niger, 2010/11
Growth monitoring
Revisiting the concept of
growth monitoring and its
possible role in communitybased
programmes
Summary of review 1
Numerous countries still implement growth monitoring (GM) as
their main community-based nutrition activity. A health survey
in 2003 showed that 154 countries worldwide used growth
charts, with two-thirds of the charts covering preschool-aged children.
In the mid-1980s, several consultations suggested that GM should be
designed with additional promotional activities to become growth
monitoring and promotion (GMP.) GMP was envisioned as a cornerstone
activity that would help target at-risk children for secondary
interventions, as a way of empowering caregivers and households to
take an active role in preventing malnutrition of their children, and as a
way to encourage the use of other services available through primary
health clinics.
Differing opinions about the impact and outcomes of GM and GMP
have led to different conclusions from evaluations and assessments of
community-based programmes including GM. This has led to a relative
lack of clarity and common ground in discussions about the value
and place of GM and GMP in addressing the problem of undernutrition
in children.
A recent review attempts to provide answers to questions about
GM, such as its added value and possible place within communitybased
programmes.
The reviewed literature showed that the objectives and expectations
of GM and GMP vary, and programme evaluations are performed
based on different frameworks. Furthermore, multiple reasons for the
lack of impact of GMP have been cited in evaluations. These include a
focus on nutrition status rather than faltering growth, a misplaced
emphasis on curative rather than preventive actions, enrolment of children
in GMP programmes after (instead of during) infancy, the use of
GM as an isolated activity instead of a cornerstone activity, the lack of
individualised advice, the lack of positive feedback for mothers whose
children are growing adequately, the lack of community participation,
an oversimplification of the GMP process, and poor quality of implementation.
As a result of these evaluations, agencies behind large-scale implementation
of GMP were criticszed. At the same time, large
programmes in Tanzania (Iringa), India (Tamil Nadu Integrated
© UNICEF/NYHQ2008-1444/Bonn
1
Mangasaryan. N, Arabi. M, and Schultink. W (2011). Revisiting the concept of growth
monitoring and its possible role in community-based programmes. Food and Nutrition
Bulletin, vol. 32, no. 1 © 2011, The United Nations University.
http://www.foodandnutritionbulletin.org/
24