Community-based change ranking to assess the impact of a programme for the ultra poor
Munshi Sulaiman
Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Imran Matin
Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC, Dhaka, Bangladesh
PP: 237 - 251
Abstract
Studies of poverty dynamics relying solely on household income-expenditure surveys can overestimate transient poverty and underestimate persistence of poverty, especially for the poorest.
In this study, we make use of an approach that relies on community based change ranking to explore various directions and levels of change experienced by almost 6,000 households living in over 100 communities. We find that changes are initial condition dependent and that improvement, even small ones, are far less likely to happen over time for the poorest.
An intervention that combines promotional and protective supports can bring such improvements in the livelihood of the ultra poor. Understanding the extent of and the forces that drive such smaller movements is important since it is the cumulative dynamics that ultimately lead to the larger movements of ascent, descent and trap, especially for the ultra poor.
Keywords
participatory methods, change ranks, poverty dynamics, ultra poor, programme evaluation, Bangladesh
Article Text
In the last two decades, conceptualization and monitoring of poverty have moved forward from static measures to analysis of dynamics. Greater levels of distinction in poverty by duration and by nature are guiding policies in the endeavor of reducing extreme poverty. Along with the growing number of panel studies in developing countries (Baulch & Hoddinott 2000; Hoddinott 2004), increasing use of qualitative tools have contributed to this development (Barrett 2004; Howe & Mckay 2007). Qualitative approaches have also been crucial in broadening the concept of poverty through contextualization and amalgamation of multiple dimensions of deprivation. Simultaneoussequential mixing (Kanbur 2005) of life-histories or participatory wealth rankings with surveys are providing new insights to our understanding of poverty. Innovations in participatory approaches such as ‘Stages-of-Progress' (Krishna 2006; Krishna, Kristjanson, Radeny & Nindo 2004) have taken place to enable analysis of long-term poverty dynamics even in the absence of panel data. Besides analysis of poverty, different participatory methods are frequently being used in designing and implementing antipoverty programs. Kebede (2007) cites a number of studies that use participatory wealth ranking for analyzing poverty, targeting beneficiaries and monitoring progress. While survey-based approaches should be the primary means of monitoring and evaluation, participatory methods can uncover unanticipated factors or interrogate evidence in an open-ended way (Appleton & Booth 2005).
We explored the impact of a targeted programme for the ultra poor in Bangladesh using a participatory ‘change ranking' exercise. The programme, Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction/Targeting Ultra Poor (CFPR/TUP), was initiated by BRAC in 2002 to assist the ultra poor who were largely being excluded from mainstream development programs (Zaman 2005). Since the ultra poor are highly disadvantaged in terms of their endowments and face multiple obstacles in their way out of poverty (Matin & Hulme 2003; Matin & Halder 2004), the programme has been designed to provide a broad range of supports. The essence of the programme is to create entrepreneurship among the beneficiaries through transfer of assets, hands-on enterprise development training and subsistence allowance. Besides promotional supports, the package includes several protective measures such healthcare facilities, mobilization of social support and building awareness. Beneficiaries of the programme are selected through a rigorous process, which combines participatory wealth ranking and indicator based targeting. Participatory wealth rankings are conducted to identify the ultra poor in the communities. Households in the bottom category are screened through a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria. The selected ultra poor (SUP) receive the comprehensive support for two years. It is expected that, at the end of the cycle, they will have a stable base to improve their livelihood and to participate in mainstream development services (Hulme & Moore 2007). A range of evaluations of the programme demonstrate its success in helping the SUP to improve their livelihood in terms of different indicators such as income, calorie consumption, assets, health status, housing etc (Rabbani, Prakash & Sulaiman 2006; Prakash and Rana 2006; Haseen & Sulaiman 2007).
The main objective of this participatory exercise is to validate these changes in terms of the priorities of the community. Moreover, the study explored differences in the change-ranks across households from different wealth categories of the community and the factors associated with the change for the ultra poor. We argue that chronicity of poverty is initial condition dependent and studies of poverty dynamics relying solely on household income-expenditure surveys can overestimate transient poverty, especially for the poorest. Improvements, even small ones, are far less likely to happen over time for the poorest. Intervention design for the poorest will have to be far more comprehensive by including promotional, protective and transformative strategies to make a real dent on ultra poverty.
In the next section, we outline the process of community-based assessment of poverty dynamics and the survey data that have been used. Section 3 presents the extent of change in household welfare across wealth ranks. The nature of changes in different welfare groups by community reported indicators and more detail account of change for the poorest are reported in the fourth section. The fifth section investigates the initial conditions that put the poorest households in different change trajectories. A final section concludes the paper.
2. Methodology
Participatory Rapid Appraisals (PRA) were conducted in three districts in northern Bangladesh - Rangpur, Kurigram and Nilphamari - in the communities where the CFPR/TUP programme was implemented in 2002. In the programme, participatory wealth rankings were conducted to identify the ultra poor in the community ... continues ...
References
Ali TO, Rabbani M and Sulaiman M (2006) Piloting a methodology to investigate poverty dynamics, Participatory Learning and Action 55(6): 101-106.
Appleton S and Booth D (2005) Combining Participatory and Survey-based Approaches to Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, Q-squared Working Paper 14, University of Toronto.
Barrett C (2004) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in analyzing poverty dynamics, Cornell University.
Baulch B and Hoddinott J (2000) Economic mobility and poverty dynamics in developing countries, Journal of Development Studies 36(6): 1-24.
BBS. (2003) Report of the household income and expenditure survey 2000. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Carter MR and Barrett CB (2006) The economics of poverty traps and persistent poverty: an asset-based approach, Journal of Development Studies 42(2): 178-199.
Hassen F and Sulaiman M (2007) How sustainable is the gain in food consumption of the CFPR/TUP beneficiaries? CFPR/TUP Working Paper 18, BRAC and Aga Khan Foundation Canada.
Hoddinott J (2004) Pathways from poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, BASIS collaborative research program.
Hossain N and Matin I (2004) Engaging elite support for the poorest: BRAC's experience with the ultra poor programme, CFPR/TUP Working Paper 3, BRAC and Aga Khan Foundation Canada.
Howe G and McKay A (2007) Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in assessing chronic poverty: the case of Rwanda, World Development 35(2): 197-211.
Hulme D and Moore K (2007) Assisting the poorest in Bangladesh: learning from BRAC's Targeting the Ultra Poor Programme, Working Paper 1, Brooks World poverty Institute and University of Manchester.
Hulme D and Shepherd A (2003) Conceptualizing chronic poverty, World Development 31(3): 403-423.
Kanbur R (2005) Q-squared? a commentary on qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal, in Q-Squared - Qualitative and Quantitative Poverty Appraisal: Complementarities, Tensions and the Way Forward (edited). Q-squared Working Paper 1. University of Toronto.
Kebede B (2007) Community wealth ranking and households surveys: an integrated approach, Q-squared Working Paper 38, University of Toronto.
Krishna A (2006) Pathways out of and into poverty in 36 villages of Andhra Pradesh, India, World Development 34(2): 271-288.
Krishna A, Kristjanson P, Radeny M and Nindo W (2004) Escaping poverty and becoming poor in 20 Kenyan villages, Journal of Human Development 5(2): 211-226.
Lokshin M and Ravallion M (2005) Rich and powerful? Subjective power and welfare in Russia, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 56(2): 141-172.
Matin I and Hulme D (2003) Programs for the poorest: learning from the IGVGD program in Bangladesh, World Development 31(3): 647-665
Matin I and Halder SR (2004) Combining methodologies for better targeting of the extreme poor: lessons from BRAC's CFPR/TUP programme, CFPR/TUP Working Paper 2, BRAC and Aga Khan Foundation Canada.
Matin I, Noor M and Shihab AM (2004) Struggling TUP members: lessons from case studies. (Mimeo) Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC.
McCulloch N and Baulch B (2000) Stimulating the impact of policy upon chronic and transitory poverty in rural Pakistan, Journal of Development Studies 36(6): 100-130.
McCulloch N and Baulch B (1999) Distinguishing the chronically from the transitory poor: evidence from Pakistan, Working Paper 97, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Nargis N and Hossain M (2006) Income dynamics and pathways out of rural poverty in Bangladesh, Agricultural Economics 35(3): 425-435.
Osmani SR (2007) When endowment and opportunities don't match: understanding chronic poverty, Working Paper 78, Chronic poverty research centre, University of Manchester.
Prakash VA and Rana AKMM (2006) Self-perceived health of ultra poor women: the effect of an inclusive development intervention, CFPR/TUP Working Paper 10, BRAC and Aga Khan Foundation Canada.
Rabbani M, Prakash VA and Sulaiman M (2006) Impact assessment of CFPR/TUP: a descriptive analysis based on 2002-2005 panel data, CFPR/TUP Working Paper 12, BRAC and Aga Khan Foundation Canada.
Sen B (1996) Movement in and out of poverty: a tentative explanation. In Rahman HZ, Hossain M and Sen B (eds) 1987-94: Dynamics of rural poverty in Bangladesh, Mimeo, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), Dhaka.
Sen B and Hulme D (eds) (2004) Chronic poverty in Bangladesh: tales of ascent, descent, marginality and persistence. The state of the poorest 2004/2005. Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), Bangladesh and Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC) UK.
Zaman H (2005) The economics and governance of non government organizations in Bangladesh. Consultation draft, the World Bank, Washington DC.
eContent Home
