Fiscal year 2010/11 - Poverty Alleviation Fund, Nepal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex 21 Summary Results of Follow-on Impact Survey 2010 (Done by TU and the World Bank) 1. PAF’s monitoring data is developed on 5 different databases which support the process of working with partner and community organizations and monitoring the sub-project activities (figure 1). These databases provide a rich source of information on PAF activities and have been increasingly analyzed to improve planning and address weaknesses in the project implementation process and to identify areas of strength that can be scaled up. 2. In addition to the MIS, an independent impact evaluation has also been integrated into the design of the program. The IE has been a long-term partnership between the PAF Secretariat, Tribhuvan University (TU) (that carried out the surveys) and the WB task team (that provided Technical Assistance- TA during the design phase and carried out the analysis). Data for the PAF Impact Evaluation (IE) come from two rounds of surveys Partner Organization Selection Partner Organization Selection of 3,000 households from 200 villages. The baseline was carried out in late 2007 and the follow-up of the same households in early 2010. The survey questionnaire is adapted from the Nepal Living Standards Survey (NLSS) and includes detailed information on consumption and income, socio-economic and demographic issues, including education, health and nutrition, housing conditions and physical assets, migration and remittances, employment, social environment, community relationship, voice and participation. For comparability with the national household survey based welfare measures, PAF survey includes a very similar consumption module and follows the same consumption aggregation method. The IE analysis uses panel households (2774 out of 3,000), half of which are PAF beneficiaries (treatment) the rest non-beneficiaries (control) households. Outcome indicators on PAF beneficiary households and carefully matched non-beneficiary households are compared for the periods before and after the initiation of the PAF program. This method is known as difference-in-difference combined with propensity score matching. Consumption Effects Community organization selection and registration Community organizations database-Beneficiary Assessment Community: Selection priority activites Community Agreements database Subproject Projects database Community: Implementation of activites Revolving Fund database 3. The estimated net program impact on per capita consumption (in real terms adjusted for price inflation) growth is 13% for PAF Income Generating (IG) participant households, 28% for PAF money recipient households and 49% for those beneficiaries who have received the money for at least six months. It is not a surprise that these impact estimates are larger for money recipients but it is interesting to note that this effect remains strong for those who have had the funds for some time and have invested them in IGAs. The magnitudes of these estimates are impressive across all three categories of treatments both in terms of per cent change and absolute change. For example, money recipients for more than 6 months recorded on net a 49 per cent growth and Rupees 6,900 (approximately US$100) absolute change in real per capita consumption in just over two years of time. These results are all statistically significant and robust across different matching algorithms. The higher levels of welfare impact over time may suggest that IGA revenue is contributing to the welfare of these households, a result that would be desirable from a policy and sustainability point of view. 4. The net impact in the growth in per capita consumption is even higher for Dalit and Janajatis, implying the program’s ability to distribute growth towards targeted groups. The net effect for money recipients among this caste/ethnic group was an increase in real per capita consumption of 34 per cent, compared to 28 per cent for the overall sample of the same treatment category. Food Security Effects 5. Chronic food insecurity is a particularly important concern in Nepal and substantial amount is spent per year on public works programmes aimed at alleviating hardship for food insecure households. Sustained food price inflation remains a concern and an estimated 3.7 million people are currently food insecure. The impact of high prices and food insecurity is most severe on economically, geographically and socially marginalized communities. Since Nepal‟s poorest households spend more than 75% of their income on food, high prices will continue to affect poverty alleviation efforts. The analysis estimates that the net PAF impact on incidence of food insecurity (as defined as self-reported food sufficiency for six months or less) is 10 per centage points decline when the treatment group is PAF money recipients, and 14 per centage points decrease among money recipients at least 6 months prior to second-round survey. These effects are stronger for Dalit and Janajati households. However, there is no impact for PAF IG households (the base treatment category), possibly implying that the self-reported food sufficiency indicator (measure of perceived change in household’s ability to increase their food consumption) is not affected by PAF participation alone when the household is yet to receive funds and start an IG activity. Once again, these results are quite robust across different matching alternatives. School Enrolment Effects 6. Due to PAF, school enrolment rate among 6-15 year old children increased by a net 7 per centage points for PAF IG households, by a net 9 per centage points for PAF money recipient households , and a net 12 per centage points for PAF money recipients for more than six months. These are all notable and statistically significant impacts. While child education is not a direct outcome associated with PAF intervention, one can think of at least two ways by which a treated household would change its behavior in relation to this outcome. First, PAF households are part of the larger PAF community organization (CO) are and likely to benefit from social-networking and mobilization. Second, actual and perceived positive change in income (PAF funds) will likely reduce potential constraints to sending a child to school. 68 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (2010/2011)
Child Underweight Effects 7. For child malnutrition, measured in terms of underweight, the impacts of PAF are as not strong as they are for other outcome indicators. Nevertheless, incidence of underweight among children under 5 years of age is estimated to decrease by 5 to 10 per centage points. The results are however not statistically significant and also do not hold across different matching techniques and across multiple treatment groups. We take this as a sign of overall trend in the right direction and could see significant effects in the next couple of years. Other Effects 8. There are, as yet, no significant PAF impact evident on indicators associated with community/social capital (trust, respect, relationships between different ethnic groups, community disputes, etc.), although the overall trend for both groups is positive. Similarly, while there is no significant impact of PAF program on the use of health services/ facilities, the effects are qualitatively positive on the use of agricultural centers, community forest services, and farmers’ groups. Targeting 9. The targeting results are consistent with PAF’s objective of targeting the poorest households and support monitoring data results as well. Of the many categories that PAF uses to classify the disadvantaged, one is the level of food sufficiency. The other is whether the household is from Dalit or Janajati caste/ethnicity category. For example, the probability of being selected as PAF money recipient goes up by 25 per centage points if you are from a Dalit/Janajati household. Similarly, one per cent decrease in per capita consumption at the baseline is associated with 15 per centage points increase in the probability of being selected for PAF. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 Reduction in Food insufficency 6.8 60.4 Control Treatment 17.2 3 months or Less 6 months or Less 10. The impact results are also consistent with PAF’s targeting the poorest households. Among other categories that PAF uses to classify the poor, one is the level of food sufficiency. Households are separated into four different groups under this category: hardcore poor (those with less than 3 months of food security either via own production or other -9.1 dependable sources of income), medium poor (those with 3 to 6 months of food security), poor (those with 6 to 11 months of food security), and non-poor (those with 12 or more months of food security). The results show that the per centage of households with food insufficiency of 3 months or less dropped from 13.8% in 2007 to about 5.5% in 2010, a reduction of more than 60%, for the PAF beneficiary households (defined as those engaged in PAF supported income generating activities). The reduction was only about 6.8% for non-beneficiaries. Similarly, the per centage of households with food insufficiency of 6 months or less decreased from 40% in 2007 to about 33% in 2010, a reduction of about 17.5%, for PAF beneficiary households. There was no reduction for nonbeneficiaries during this period and in fact, there was an increase in food insufficiency of these households by about 9%. Access and Use of Services 11. With the second phase of PAF II still ongoing, the number of poor households with access to improved infrastructure facilities has reached more than 49,000. The impact evaluation results show that the school enrollment rate for children from households engaged in PAF supported income generating activities increased by more than 7 per centage points. The enrollment rate was even higher for children from Dalit or Janajati households. While there was no obvious difference between the PAF beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries in the use of health services/ facilities, the beneficiary households were found to be making more use of agricultural centers, community forest services, and farmers’ groups. The increased use of such services supports the monitoring data findings that PAF beneficiaries are investing in agriculture-related opportunities and reaching out to service providers to improve and develop these investments. Conclusions 12. The evaluation results indicate that there is a positive and significant impact on household level welfare due to the PAF program relative to any other poverty reducing efforts that may be on-going at the same time. The results further indicate that the program is an effective tool for targeting the population considered most vulnerable in terms of caste and ethnicity as well as most food insecure. There are many process related questions that this impact evaluation does not yet answer. For example, a review of the monitoring data suggests that women groups are far more diversified in livelihood activities that mixed groups. Impacts on women only groups would need to be analyzed further as should the previously related positive indication of nutritional impact on children under 5 years of age. 13. The household-level panel data provide an opportunity for further analysis over time which may help us understand changes in poverty dynamics and for further counterfactual analysis of the outcomes reported in this paper. As such, a continuation of the survey methodology and of the impact evaluation analysis would be an important tool for policy makers and for the implementation of the poverty alleviation fund at the national level. (Ref. Impact Evaluation of the Nepal Poverty Alleviation Fund, WB/TU) ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (2010/2011) 69
Page 3 and 4:
Foreword The dismal national growth
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Foreword List of
Page 7 and 8:
Executive Director’s Report Makin
Page 9:
Budget Expenditure Out of the total
Page 12 and 13:
(POs) would also be used to facilit
Page 14 and 15:
4 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (2010/2011
Page 16 and 17:
Table 2: CO registration, CO Agreem
Page 18 and 19:
2. Facilitation of Community Throug
Page 20 and 21:
3.5. CO Members by Key Position Hol
Page 22 and 23:
chart 15: Trend of Investment in Li
Page 24 and 25:
Success Story watch, radio shop ear
Page 26 and 27:
Similarly in cumulative scenario, w
Page 28 and 29: Table 11: Ratio of investment by di
Page 30 and 31: Rural Energy Electricity line exten
Page 32 and 33: 2.2.4. Innovative Special Programme
Page 34 and 35: Upadhaya, Dr. Duman Thapa, Dr. Bal
Page 36 and 37: 3.2. Results From Monitoring Data A
Page 38 and 39: 28 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (2010/201
Page 40 and 41: agriculture trade including Non-Tim
Page 42 and 43: Success Story Pig farming transform
Page 46 and 47: 11) were Rs.5.78M, Rs. 247.32 M, Rs
Page 48 and 49: Chapter 7: Lessons and Future Direc
Page 50 and 51: Annex 1 Current Board of Governors
Page 52 and 53: District CO Registered w/ PAF (No.)
Page 54 and 55: District No. of Working Pos Total V
Page 56 and 57: District No. of Working Pos Total V
Page 58 and 59: District Total PAF Agreement Amount
Page 60 and 61: Annex 10 Various trainings to the m
Page 62 and 63: S.N. Description of Training, Orien
Page 64 and 65: Annex 11 PO Capacity Development St
Page 66 and 67: District No. of COs Total CO Member
Page 68 and 69: Annex 14 PAF Result Matrix NEPAL: P
Page 70 and 71: Objective Summary Performance Indic
Page 72 and 73: Annex 17 (1) Program Funding Status
Page 74 and 75: District Target Physical Achievemen
Page 76 and 77: Annex19 PAF II CO registration, agr
Page 80 and 81: Annex 22 Un-audited Financial State
Page 82 and 83: Annex 23 Un-audited Project Account
Page 102: S.N. Staff Name Designation 44 Rame
show all

Fiscal year 2010/11 - Poverty Alleviation Fund, Nepal

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?