1

Mid-Term (12 Month) SKS Ultra Poor Process

Evaluation

Presented to: Swayam Krishi Sangam (SKS) NGO

By: Karishma Huda (CGAP/BDI Evaluation Consultant)

January 29, 2008

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND 3

A NEW APPROACH TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION 3 SKS’S ULTRA POOR MODEL 3 PROCESS EVALUATION STRATEGY 5

SECTION 2: MAIN FINDINGS 6

I. TARGETING 6 UPP’S TARGETING METHODOLOGY 6 EFFECTIVENESS OF TARGETING PROCESS 8 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 II. ULTRA POOR DESIGN AND DELIVERY 11 IDENTIFYING AND DELIVERING ON ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS 11 III. ENTERPRISELIVELIHOODS CHOICES 12 SKS’S LIVELIHOODS STRATEGY 13 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 IV. STIPEND 18 SKS STIPEND DESIGN 18 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 20 V. FIELD ASSISTANT INTERFACE 20 WHAT IT IS AND ITS PURPOSE 20 MEMBERS’ EXPERIENCE OF FIELD ASSISTANTS 21 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 VI. CENTRE MEETINGS 23 THE PRIMARY PLATFORM FOR DELIVERY 23 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 VII. HEALTHCARE ACCESS 24 POOR HEALTHCARE AND ITS RISKS FOR THE EXTREME POOR 25 SKS’ HEALTH STRATEGY ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. VIII. FINANCIAL EDUCATION 25 FINANCIAL EDUCATION AND ITS RESULTS 25 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28

CONCLUSION 29

LESSONS LEARNT THUS FAR 29 FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 31

ANNEX 1: KAT EVALYASYON (POVERTY SCORECARD) 34

POINTS 34

3

Section 1: Background A New Approach to Poverty Alleviation

Development programs have traditionally treated the poor as a homogenous entity, having similar characteristics, needs, and therefore requiring similar forms of assistance. Therefore, single-pronged approaches towards poverty alleviation were seen as the standard, such as microfinance loans: because poor clients were not differentiated, the products delivered to them could be categorized as “one-size-fits-all.” Only recently have significant advances been made in recognizing that the poor are in fact heterogeneous: that gendered poverty exists, and that farmers, landless, rural and urban dwellers, all have a varying spectrum of needs. Similarly, so do difference echelons of the poor: those just resting near the poverty line require a different intervention than the extreme poor who have plunged far below $1/day. Development programs and policies, therefore, need to address their situations using a variety of approaches rather than a standardized solution. Just as one-size-fits all development solutions have become sterile, so has the “protective vs. promotional” debate surrounding poverty alleviation. It is now widely understood that effective poverty-reduction requires both a promotional component (that increases the incomes, productivity or employment prospects of poor people) and a protective component (that reduces the vulnerability of the poor to destitution or hunger). Stand alone ‘promotional’ programs such as microfinance do not meet the varied needs of the extreme poor. While microfinance has successfully addressed millions of poor women’s needs by providing a platform for enhancing economic opportunities, many women who are unable to generate income or attain Livelihoods are left behind and miss the opportunity for change and success through microfinance. The poverty of ultra poor populations is multi-dimensional, and is characterized by malnutrition, hunger, poor health, and illiteracy. The ultra poor lack a stable income and often do not have the means to feed their families more than once a day. They have been excluded from the traditional microfinance sphere because of these challenges. They often self-select themselves out of programs due to a lack of confidence or concern for indebtedness. In addition, microfinance staff and group members may see the ultra poor as a credit risk, thereby preventing them from group inclusion. Existing programs targeted at sustainably improving the economic conditions of the extreme poor are limited. In the same vein, protective elements alone, such as food aid, are effective for short-term relief, but fail to create the building blocks for sustainable change. Training programs work well in providing valuable tools for income-generation, but they fail to the meet immediate health and food needs that are required to ensure focus and dedication towards income generating activities. Social programs are viable empowerment mechanisms, but fail to meet pressing economic concerns. SKS’ Ultra Poor Model1 Realizing the lessons above, SKS implemented the Ultra Poor Program as part of a seven site ‘graduation pilot’ scheme initiated by CGAP/Ford Foundation2. This is a multi-pronged

1 Sourced from “SKS Foundation’s Ultra Poor Program Overview – Working Beyond Microfinance” (2008)

4

livelihoods promotion and social protection scheme designed to uplift extremely poor women in rural Andra Pradesh It consists of three main components:

• Economic Component: this includes the transfer of an entrepreneurial asset, an Livelihoods allowance, a savings component, and financial/asset management training to transfer basic entrepreneurship skills to members

• Social Development Component: intended to build social safety nets through awareness training and confidence building in weekly group meetings

• Health Component: provides free consultations and meets prevalent health concerns, such as iron deficiencies, parasitic infections and pre-natal care. In emergency situations, referral arrangements are made with local government hospitals

SKS launched its pilot of the UPP in the drought-prone Telangana region of Andra Pradesh. As the first area in which SKS launched its operations, it is an area they know well. Currently, SKS Microfinance has over 300,000 members in rural Andra Pradesh, making it their largest operational state. Following the example of BRAC’s Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction/Targeting Ultra Poor (CFPR/TUP) program, SKS’ Ultra Poor Program “marries methods”: it incorporates a combination of ‘pushing down’ (reaching the poorest sectors of the population that traditional microfinance schemes bypass) and ‘pushing out’ (providing services that go beyond income generation to tackle extreme vulnerability). (See Figure 1) Figure 1: “Marrying of Methods”

Huda, 2009 The package of inputs has now been extended to 426 women over an 18 month period. Targeting has started in March 07 and trainings and asset transfers started from Oct 07 The purpose of SKS’ Ultra Poor Program is to create sustainable livelihoods along with quality living for the extreme poor so that they can graduate into one of two paths which will assure continuing and sustainable progress out of poverty:

• join SKS’ mainstream microfinance program • use their existing savings and asset base to grow and diversify their capital base

2 The other countries implementing similar pilots under CGAP/Ford are Haiti, India (Kolkata), Pakistan, Ethiopia, Honduras, Peru

Social Safety Net Social Safety Net Social Safety Net Social Safety Net (Protective):(Protective):(Protective):(Protective):

Field Assistance, Field Assistance, Field Assistance, Field Assistance, LivelihoodsLivelihoodsLivelihoodsLivelihoods stipend, stipend, stipend, stipend, social awareness social awareness social awareness social awareness training, health training, health training, health training, health assistanceassistanceassistanceassistance

Opportunity Ladder Opportunity Ladder Opportunity Ladder Opportunity Ladder (Promotional):(Promotional):(Promotional):(Promotional):

Entrepreneurial assetsEntrepreneurial assetsEntrepreneurial assetsEntrepreneurial assets, , , , asset and financial asset and financial asset and financial asset and financial management management management management training, training, training, training, regular savingsregular savingsregular savingsregular savings

UPP Package of Inputs

5

The aim, therefore, is not to move Ultra Poor members out of poverty after 18 months, but bring them to the stage that they can successfully graduate. Process Evaluation Strategy The process evaluation of SKS’ Ultra Poor Program (UPP) took place at the midpoint of the pilot (July 2008- December 2008). It was led by Karishma Huda (Consultant with CGAP/Brac Development Institute), with K. Radhakrishna assisting in data collection. This evaluation focuses on understanding the processes of project implementation from the perspectives of the UP members and SKS staff. As Figure 1 illustrates, processes refer to the mechanism by which key inputs of the program have been operationalized, and the means by which programmatic outcomes are achieved. The executive staff of the SKS NGO mapped out this program pathway, and identified the key process indicators to be evaluated. It should be noted that this evaluation only interrogates the process component of this pathway. Figure 2: SKS Ultra Poor Pathway

Huda, 2009 Rather than present two snapshots of change (at the beginning and end of the program) as most outcomes evaluations seek to do, the purposes of this evaluation are as follows:

• to explain how SKS has implemented their project processes • to identify the key challenges SKS faced in implementation and how these have been addressed

• to identify any gaps in implementation, and provide suggestions to fill these gaps for Phase II of the project

The qualitative information used consisted of:

• 10 in-depth case studies of UP members (representing various livelihoods) • 8 Focus Group Discussions (6 with UP members, 2 with field staff) • Attendance at 4 group centre meetings • Informal discussions with field staff and program staff • Program data (household surveys, former evaluations and case studies, program materials)

The crux of the methodology was qualitative – however, the following quantitative information was drawn upon:

• Income/expenditure data of members for 1 year • Client monitoring system data • Baseline survey

Process: Targeting FA Training Center Meetings Individual household visits Health FAs and Health Consultant Center leaders Health magic shows

Outputs: Ideal assets for members Protection for assets Income generation Financial independence Increase awareness of gov’t resources Improve social behavior and health practices

Inputs: Assets Asset Insurance Veterinary health care Savings scheme Stipend Financial Education Field Assistance Health Education

6

Section 2: Main Findings I. Targeting The Ultra Poor Program is conceptualized as a program to target a segment of Indian society that is characterized by weak and unstable livelihoods. Simply looking at economic poverty (characterized by the US$ per day income measure) is an insufficient way to assess who should or should not be targeted. For the purposes of this program, SKS surveyed 240 villages and chose 100 villages through randomized selection for the “target group” and 100 villages as the “control group.” One thousand ultra poor members were identified, and through random selection 500 women were selected as the treatment group to receive services from SKS. As a process evaluation, the purpose of this section is not to rigorously assess the effectiveness of UPP targeting – such an assessment requires a comparison of profile indicators between UPP members and SKS microfinance members, which is beyond the scope of this study. Rather, this section will look at the process by which members were selected (e.g. the targeting tools used and method of carrying them out).

UPP’s Targeting Methodology

Through discussions with SKS Microfinance, UPP staff identified the town of Narayankhed in the Medak district of the Telangana region to spearhead the pilot program. Naraynkhed is characterized by high levels of migration, poor wages, and a high presence of members who are too poor to qualify for conventional microfinance. The following steps were then used by the staff to select UPP households: Figure 3: Selection Process of UPP Members

Village Selection

Village Survey

Conducting PRA

Conducting household interviews

Final Selection of Members

1. Village mapping 2. Wealth ranking

1. Field assistant conducts survey 2. Cross checks information with

neighbors

1. FAs present a case for each preliminarily selected member

2. Group meeting to decide final list

1. Fulfill village criteria 2. Introduction with political/ community heads

1. Engage with political/community heads to complete survey to understand the socio economic conditions in village

7

Huda, 2009 Village Selection: For a village to be selected as part of the pilot, it must be within 35 km of the Naryankhed office, and must have more than 1000 people. Field staff selected 58 villages around Narayankhed that met these criteria. Village Survey: The purpose of the village survey is to gather basic information about the village and the kinds of people that live there, but also to begin rapport with the local political leaders of that village. In the state of Andhra Pradesh where government presence is strong, SKS staff have learnt the importance of gaining the support of local government officials. This has proved essential for successful program implementation, and in helping beneficiaries more easily access government resources. The staff sits with local village leaders to draw a preliminary village map, gather basic information about the village, and gather their ideas on who the poorest in their locality are. Conducting PRA: Field staff invite all members of the community to participate in a group meeting. Staff make sure that local political leaders are present, and the meeting size is anywhere from 50-200 people. After initial rapport building, staff ask participants to conduct a village mapping – with the help of all members present, a few are selected to draw every house, physical and geographical landmark that exists within the village. After this, the wealth ranking is conducted. Participants are asked to color code houses on the village map – one color for the poorest, one color for middle class, and one color for rich. Once they have color coded each house, the facilitators probe a bit further: they ask members to place a dot on each house that is landless (owns only homestead land), a dot on each woman headed household, and a dot if the household owns no livestock. Essentially, what they have now is the community’s perceptions of who are the poorest (as identified by the color), as well as the houses who meet the program inclusion criteria for selection (houses with all three dots). In a very simple, effective and participatory way, the staff have preliminarily identified who their selected beneficiaries will be. The facilitators then gather more information on these houses – e.g. if their children go to school, etc. and take notes on this information. They verify with participants that every poor household was captured on this village map and properly color coded -- according to a Field Assistant, “the ultra poor are all in the crowd, so if one of their names weren’t called, they’ll speak up!” Household interview: Upon completion of the PRA, field staff gain the permission of local political leaders to conduct household surveys for all houses identified as the poorest. The surveys include questions on housing conditions (which is not used for targeting purposes), profiles of all household members, household income, outstanding debt, government services they receive, if they are part of an MFI or SHG, etc. (survey attached in Annex 2). The FA goes alone to the houses, introduces himself as a staff member from SKS, and formally conducts the household survey. They double check with neighbors and those around to verify that the information is accurate Member selection: After all household surveys have been completed, the field staff meet to discuss the case of each household. FAs claim that this is a lengthy, very involved meeting, where each FA presents his case as to why a certain member should be selected. All staff need to unanimously agree on the acceptance of each beneficiary. Members need to meet the following program inclusion criteria for selection: Table 1: Selection Criteria for UPP Beneficiaries

8

Inclusion Criteria Woman headed household (widowed, divorced, husband unable to generate income) Age below 60 yrs Ability to work Not a microfinance member If an SHG member, loan balance should not exceed 2500 INR (but if she meets all other criteria, this can be overlooked) No livestock Wet land below 0.5 acre, or dry land below 1.5 acres or not getting any/ very little income from the land

Shah, 20083

Effectiveness of targeting process

Many pilot programs have a very subjective view of extreme poverty that is difficult to define (and thus difficult to identify). SKS, however, has come up with a very clearly defined set of criteria for identifying the extreme poor to bring into the folds of this program: no male support within the household, no livestock, less than 1 acre of cultivable land. While other socio-economic factors are considered (e.g. poor health conditions, high levels of outstanding debt, etc.), a typical SKS Ultra Poor member will be a woman who has been abandoned/widowed, and earns her livelihood primarily as a day laborer with little to no alternative sources of household income. Both the staff and the community are confident that this type of person is the most vulnerable, the least resistant to shocks, and thus the poorest within her community. According to the baseline survey results, 89% of members are widowed/abandoned (staff claimed that those that have husbands are unable to work and thus not contributing to household income); 86% had no livestock prior to joining the UP program (again, staff claim that the very few that had livestock, such as calves or chickens, were not generating income from it); and 62% owned no agricultural land4. From these figures alone, it is clear that SKS have successfully selected the poorest according to their program criteria5. Case studies and FGDs also reconfirm this selection profile, where every member interviewed had no male household counterpart, had less than an acre of cultivable land, and none possessed any livestock at the time of joining the program.

3 Shah, A. (2008) “SKS Foundation’s Ultra Poor Program Overview – Working Beyond Microfinance” (mimeo) 4 The survey simply asked about agricultural land (did not distinguish between cultivable or uncultivable) and did not ask about quantity of land (so those who own less than acre would be included in this percentage). Thus, this number is likely be an underestimation of the percentage of members that own no agricultural land 5 it is beyond the scope of this evaluation to determine whether these members are in fact the poorest -- this would require a comparison of UP members with MFI clients, as well as others in the community that are not a part of this program

9

SKS has done well in the designing of their Wealth Ranking. Most other pilots, including BRAC, ask participants to divide the community into 5 wealth segments (from poorest to richest) and to list their own criteria for each socio-economic category (e.g. the poorest have these characteristics, the richest these characteristics, etc.) In reality, the program’s inclusion/exclusion criteria are pre-determined and are not influenced by the criteria given by the community. Selection decisions are ultimately made on a program’s selection criteria – the community simply narrows the pool of people from which they choose from. Thus gathering community definitions of poverty is in effect an arbitrary exercise that does not get utilized for selection. SKS, rather, asks members to identify those households that they feel are the poorest, but then asks them to identify the houses that meet the program’s inclusion criteria. SKS is using the richness of local knowledge to understand who in the village meets the program’s selection criteria. This combination of streams of knowledge makes more sense than the traditional BRAC PWR approach. SKS has also done well in only creating two distinct groups for targeting –- the microfinance group, and the ultra poor group. Having only two clear divisional groups with very different selection criteria helps Ultra Poor staff easily distinguish who belongs in Ultra Poor (in other words, who does not belong in microfinance). For instance, if SKS had a small credit loan program (an intermediary step between the Ultra Poor program and their flagship microfinance product), it perhaps would be more difficult to discern who the extreme poor are. For instance, does a member have basic enterprising skills and level of confidence – where all she needs is a small bit of capital, or ‘a push’, to help her on her ascent out of poverty? Or is she among the lowest echelon of the extreme poor, where she is so dejected, has no entrepreneurial ability and needs a great deal of support to get begin her ascent? Such targeting decisions are much more nuanced and difficult for a program to make. But for SKS, their vision of the extreme poor are those who cannot succeed within the rigorous confines of traditional microfinance. It is more simple, straightforward and less dependent on intricate nuances and subjectivity of the staff. As a result, they are less prone to making targeting errors – it is very easily discernible if a member belongs in the UP program or within microfinance, even to community members and outside observers. SKS UP staff have done well in having simple and relevant inclusion criteria, effectively identifying only two distinct groups in the pilot phase, thus helping staff to make clear cut decisions using the program’s tools.

Risks and Recommendations

Helpful to have a more rigorous PRA: The biggest problem that field staff identified in the PRA process is its ability to get co-opted by local political leaders. Although it does not happen often, in the past local political leaders have put forth names of his party and supporters rather than the real ultra poor. With the strong reliance on government services, participants were afraid to speak out and disagree. As a result, real ultra poor members’ names had been missed. The staff claim to have bypassed this by getting referred to other ultra poor houses from 1-2 real ultra poor members. As an FA stated, “This ends up being a lot more work, but we are committed to finding every UP member in the village.” However, in this case, the PRA hindered the targeting process rather than assisted. In reality, PRAs done in a very large group setting are often open to bias (a few loud spoken or influential members often dominate the agenda and not everyone’s voices are represented). Following are some suggestions to make the PRA process more rigorous and less susceptible to bias:

10

• Have PRA participants compare houses against each other in order to get a much more nuanced understanding of poverty in the area: Participatory wealth ranking, as designed in South Africa, was intended to rank each house’s wealth in comparison to the others in their locality. This makes sense, as there is never just 1, 2 or 3 categories of wealth in any community. In fact, asking members to pre-define their community members into a set number of groups is imposing an outsider’s perspective of the composition of the village. Although it is more time consuming, a much more nuanced understanding of poverty comes from asking participants “are these two houses, House A and House B, the same?” If no, then probing: “which one is poorer?” Say House A is --you then place House A in the first pile and House B in the second pile. Then with House C: “Is House C poorer than House A?” If yes, House C is in the first pile, House A in the second, House B in the third. You carry on until you get through all of the houses in the village.

You end up with perhaps 15 to 20 piles of different poverty levels – but this gives you a much richer and accurate understanding of who the extreme poor are in this particular community rather than painting all the poor with one brush. We already know that the extreme poor are a heterogeneous group with a varying spectrum of needs – this will help SKS identify who can really benefit from the folds of this program and who cannot. It is difficult to implement this in large villages, but just the same, it is difficult to do effective wealth rankings in large villages. In Haiti, each village was divided into segments of 50 households, and PRAs were conducted with each segment. Although India is more populated, segmentation and conducting PRAs in segments will undeniably lead to richer results and a better understanding of the population. Richer foundational understanding leads to more effective programmatic intervention.

• Have participants do the wealth ranking in a few small groups rather than one large group: If the above suggestion is too onerous, and SKS continues to do the PRA as is, it is highly recommended that the wealth ranking happen in smaller groups. The ingredient to a successful wealth ranking is a just representation of all voices – even in BRAC’s experience, this is difficult to do in a group of 200 members. The village mapping benefits from large groups, but after this is complete, field staff should randomly select 3 sub-groups of 10-12 people. Each sub-group should separately do the wealth ranking, and in the end the field staff can cross-check the results between groups. This in-built system of cross checking guarantees more accurate results, and the smaller sub-groups will allow more open and honest discussion with little room for co-option.

As was discovered in the other pilots, this wealth ranking is the most important foundational step for good targeting. Although the staff can claim to catch any errors made in the home visit, the truth lies in the fact that household surveys will only give you partially accurate information. Regardless of how good program staff’s interrogation strategies are, potential members are aware that the home visit determines whether they qualify to receive something from SKS. Members are understandably strategizing and can hide information from program staff. This has been the case in every pilot, and we cannot always rely on members’ neighbors to disclose everything that was hidden or missed. While the household interview is an important step in the process, community knowledge is always the most reliable – it is thus the program’s responsibility to make the environment as conducive for effective and open information sharing as possible

Need for a poverty scorecard/improved household survey: SKS does currently utilize a household survey that captures basic information, such as family members, family income, outstanding debt, migration details, and benefits received from the government. It also captures information that is not useful for targeting, such as housing description6. There is a 6 FAs have admitted that housing information is irrelevant, since in many cases nice houses were either government provided or built when members’ husbands were alive – the houses remain, but the members have no earning capacity.

11

strong need for a household survey that gives a more holistic view of the member. Examples of indicators to capture are: • any existing health issues and how much they spend on them • if they took an asset, all the people that would help them ( primary social networks) • how many dependents they have (not just members of family, but all the people that they are responsible for supporting)

• some information on food security (what they ate the past 3 days)?\ These indicators can be taken directly from the staff’s own criteria of a successful member (as will be discussed later in the paper). This way, when members enter, the staff know at what place they are starting from. Not all members are equal (someone with lots of dependents and poor health will have a harder time getting ahead than someone without.) This information may even help program start thinking from the beginning what kind of supervision each member needs. Annex 1 shows the poverty scorecard utilized in Haiti – this is not just a survey that captures targeting criteria, but is scored with benchmarks for different poverty levels. This tool can be easily re-administered to gauge how members progress (e.g. how their scores change) over time. II. Ultra Poor Design and Delivery

In any program design, we need to balance:

• a desire to be responsive to members’ needs, with • what is practical for the Ultra Poor Program to provide

This is particularly critical when thinking about scaling up and replication. SKS has not only responded to needs as they’ve arisen, but has been systematic about identifying elements that are essential to be included in the program. This section provides an overview of the implementation of SKS UPP, and highlights how the program learnt from experience and made modifications along the way.

Identifying and Delivering on Essential Components7

SKS’ inputs were well conceptualized as part of the service delivery design – these include the assets, stipend, Field Assistant interface, Health Assistant interface, and training. These inputs were carefully designed as a way of tackling extreme poverty, and these core inputs are the heart of the program and are intended to place members on the first rung on their ascent out of poverty. Like all other ultra poor pilots, SKS has combined promotional elements (assets) with protective elements (stipend, healthcare, hand-holding support) to ensure a holistic approach.

During any program implementation, a number of unexpected issues arise which call for modification of inputs and alterations in strategy. SKS, however, has stayed true to its initially conceived pathway of inputs and intended outcomes. According to a senior staff member, “the needs of the ultra poor are endless – we cannot fall into the trap of providing them everything. As an MFI with the goal of transitioning these members into microfinance, we have to focus on our core strength, which is income generation. If these members can become successful entrepreneurs, they can cater to all other needs themselves.”

7 For a detailed description of SKS Ultra Poor Program’s project methodology, please see “SKS Foundation/NGO – Leading Initiatives for the Ultra Poor Program”

12

While most other pilots modify their inputs to include sanitary latrines, water filters, home renovations, animal sheds and animal feed, SKS has not modified their core inputs through the evolution of the program. This is to maintain cost-effectiveness, as well as programmatic discipline, and their focus upon livelihoods promotion. Some of the modifications that SKS has made are as follows:

• Realizing that health access remained a major programmatic gap, they hired a Health Consultant to provide more hands-on assistance, provide extra training to Health FAs, and select Health Ladies among members to dispense medicine and administer first aid to other members

• Encourage members to set aside 10 INR in each meeting to act as their own personal health fund. Knowing that the program cannot fund major health emergencies, they realized that members need to create a safety net for themselves so they do not sell of their assets and fall into debt when a health emergency rises

• With the increase of rice prices and the potential threat this can have on food security, members were encouraged to begin a ‘rice saving scheme.’ Again, while most other pilots responded to the food crisis by extending consumption stipend support, SKS took a different angle – they encouraged members to save a handful of rice in a communal pot everyday. This will remain locked up, and when a member is too ill to go to the market, cannot afford to buy rice that week, or has gotten unexpected visitors, she can use the community rice stash and replace the amount taken when possible.

• SKS staff realized half way through the program that members were all performing at differing levels – while some were quickly excelling through the program, others were progressing slowly and in danger of not graduating at the end of 18 months. Staff, therefore, discerned the main success factors of the fast climbers and discussed them with members through games and other creative means. True to SKS style, rather than providing additional inputs to help members along, the FAs used the center meetings to provide additional hand-holding support to the struggling members. They also hope for the fast climbers to be role models for the slow climbers in the center meetings.

III. Livelihoods choices Building of productive assets is one of the most important aims for SKS UPP. Assets are intended to provide a regular and reliable daily income (to overcome the insecurity of daily living) as well as longer term income (for savings against the future and security in times of hardship). Prior to joining the program, UPP members had a lack of productive assets and asset savings. Because they did not have daily income it undermined their ability to accumulate assets for the future. Lack of assets meant they were less resilient against shocks and vulnerabilities. SKS promoted asset development through the following strategies:

• Allowing members to choose any viable asset that had market potential • Intensive training prior to receiving the asset and refresher courses • Constant FA support and advice

13

SKS’ Livelihoods strategy

Assets: SKS has provided a wide range of livelihoods for UP members to choose from. They effectively studied the market for all possible viable livelihoods, and thus allowed members to choose any viable livelihood that they had experience with. Table 2 below shows the full livelihood menu and their relevant characteristics (as gathered by the field assistants). Table 2: Asset Menu and Relevant Characteristics Asset Characteristics of

members that choose this asset

Pre-existing skills needed?

Risks? Benefits?

Buffalo (either with calf or ready for delivery)

-need for daily income (does daily labor) -50 years or younger (needs physical strength) -access to wastelands for fodder -enough space within the house -confidence in buffalo rearing -need neighbor/relative support

-exp with buffalo rearing

-need for fodder everyday -space problem -hard to find fodder in rainy season, need to purchase -build a cattle shed (300 INR)

-daily income/milk -hh income from manure/own use -milk for family/children -more creditworthy - income from calves - social status of having buffalo

Goats (either pregnant or with kids )

-no need for immediate income -limited space outside, more space indoors -physical strength -confidence with animals -support from others -access to grazing area

- exp with goat rearing

- requires a lot of grazing -goats get lots of diseases -kids can easily die due to wolves/dogs eating them and disease -theft -frequent abortions -won’t give regular income -need to lock them indoors

-cheaper to feed than buffalo (only graze on leaves, cheaper to buy grass if not available than fodder) -delivers calves 2x a year, each time up to 3 goats - substantial income from selling goats, easy to build a herd -can use manure, sell it

Land lease -investment capacity -no need for immediate income -more risk-taking -strength to work on land

-exp with cultivating land -knowledge of crops and harvesting/when to sell

-crop damage -labor problems/need to hire help -risk of rain (too much or too little) -delayed income -high risk venture

-food security -highest income/biggest risk -can diversify and use as grazing land/fodder -ability to work on own field

Kirana shop -more confidence required than other assets -comfortable with money -basic arithmetic skills and accounting -surrounded by lots of houses (for good business) -strong social networks to build clientele -active sellers already (bidis, etc.)

-knows how to sell -bus exp -counting money -basic arithmetic

-selling on credit -items may spoil -more risk of failure, business not insured like livestock -easy to deplete stock for personal use -requires a lot of FA supervision -more than 12 hours work

-can do other side businesses (e.g. still making bidis, coin box, etc) -gives daily income - can be most profitable if done well -can stay at home if have small children -less phys labor required -can purchase hh goods from own shop rather than someone else’s’ -ability to save more

Others -traditional skills, will only do those

-technical skills already (e.g.

-limited FA support - can devote less time and make more money

14

-uncomfortable with livestock -specific timings for business - independence, can manage asset with limited supervision/assistance

tailoring, veg vending, iron box operation, etc.)

-don’t have to take up something new, existing comfortability

Huda, 2009 The majority of members selected buffaloes (48%) and goats (24%). According to buffalo beneficiaries, “this asset gives us milk to feed our children, and it gives the most income. We get money everyday from selling the milk, and now people come to our house to buy so we don’t even have to go to the market. And we can sell the male calves for a lot of money.” Although goats do not give daily income, most goat beneficiaries are happy with their asset. According to one beneficiary, “I have 10 goats now, and it’s a full time job to take care of them. I don’t do daily labor anymore for that reason. When I need money, I just sell one of my goats – it is harder to sell a buffalo to meet small expenses than a goat . And goats are much easier and cheaper to take care of.” Although FAs disagree, buffaloes appeared to me to be the ‘elite asset’ – it brings the most benefits and gives community members more social prestige than other assets. Simultaneously, those who take buffaloes must have more homestead space, be willing to purchase more expensive fodder, and half of the buffalo beneficiaries spent money out of pocket to purchase better quality buffaloes. Buffalo beneficiaries also seem more equipped with social networks. Several goat beneficiaries commented that the reason they did not want buffaloes is because they did not want to spend money on fodder and they had no one to look after their buffaloes when they went to the fields. These characteristics allude to the fact that buffalo beneficiaries may be less vulnerable than the other extreme poor. There is also variation in terms of livelihoods security – while buffalos guarantee daily income and long term income, other asset choices such as land cultivation have a high risk of failure and only produce income twice a year. Although only roughly 8% of members chose non-livestock livelihoods, FAs claim that land cultivation and kirana shop can be the most profitable. “If members have the experience with cultivating land and buying/selling, we encourage them to take these assets. Not everyone can manage them, but those that can make a lot of money.” Some livelihoods choices, such as vegetable vending, iron box operator, and restaurant operator, only have 1 beneficiary each. But members were convinced that they could succeed at that enterprise because their families/communities engage in that business. These livelihoods receive less FA support than goats and buffaloes (that come with insurance, veterinary support, and FA expertise). Still, members’ feel most comfortable with what they know. According to a member who chose vegetable vending, “my mother is a vegetable vendor, so this is what I am comfortable with. She is still here to help me if I need it. I have no experience with animals, they scare me.” While most pilots pre-select a confined basket of livelihood options and restrict their members to those options, SKS allows for a great deal of freedom. By piquing the interest of the members, letting them take control of their asset choice, and being less prescriptive, FAs feel that members are likely to perform much better with their assets and not blame SKS if the livelihood goes wrong. Essentially, they are trying to foster a sense accountability and ownership of the asset. SKS also understands that community support is an essential component of asset success – for instance, although buffaloes are a very lucrative asset, if a member is from a tailoring community, she will not succeed with a buffalo as there will be no one in her community to help her with the asset.

15

Training and Purchasing: Training is an essential component of the asset selection process and fostering this sense of asset ownership. Each asset training lasts for 3 days. As an example, below are the main components of the buffalo training:

• Buffalo purchasing (signs of a sick/ healthy buffalo, various buffalo breeds) • Care and management of pregnant buffalo • Buffalo illnesses (signs, treatments, preventative measures) • Artificial insemination and buffalo insurance • Clean milk production and marketing

The staff conduct asset trainings prior to asset distribution so that members can be fully aware before making their decision. “Sometimes a member does not want a buffalo anymore after hearing all that is required to take care of it, and asks to go to a different asset training. That of course is fine – better she realizes that she doesn’t like buffaloes earlier rather than later!” The following chart shows the trainings that members attended and the subsequent assets they selected: Figure 5: Status of Livelihoods and Trainings8

Shah, 20089 As part of the training, members are also taught how to purchase the asset. Aligned with SKS’ philosophy of asset ownership, members accompany the FA to the market and physically select their own asset. “In this way,” claims an FA “if a member is unhappy with the performance of her asset she cannot blame SKS for buying her a bad animal. She has to take responsibility for the asset she chose.” As a result, members often selected an asset that was more expensive than the earmarked allotted price (for example, SKS has a budget of 9,000 INR for a buffalo, but a member selects a buffalo for 13,000 INR). In this case, members have to pay the remainder balance themselves. While this is a way of encouraging ownership, SKS must be cognizant of the fact that only members with social networks or willingness to take on debt have this advantage. According to one member, her father paid the extra 3,000 INR to get her buffalo of choice, while another member took a hand loan to get the extra money. Encouraging the accumulation of debt at the onset (before they have any income generation capacity or savings) can be problematic. SKS should think about either just capping the amount so everyone has an equal quality asset, or paying the excess amount

8 This graph needs to be updated. As of Dec 08, 426 assets were distributed 9 Shah, A (2008) “SKS Foundation/SKS NGO –Leading Initiatives for the Ultra Poor Program” (mimeo)

16

and having the member gradually repay SKS when she begins to earn a profit. This arrangement exists for land lease members so why not buffalo beneficiaries? The staff strongly communicate to members the danger of taking on debt, and thus should not create opportunities for debt accumulation through the program. Although members claim to be satisfied with the training, the retention of information from the actual classroom training is low. The main benefit from the training seems to be awareness creation of the asset so that members can be full informed of their decision prior to making it. The real learning comes after asset provision – from regular field assistance and obviously through physically caring for the asset. Asset ownership: Once members select their assets, they are told by the program that the asset is not theirs right away – they are on a probationary period, and if they care for the asset well, only then will they get to keep it. As part of these stipulations, members are told that they too can give back the asset if they find it too burdensome to care for. SKS believes this is a way of ensuring that members do not sell off the asset, that they are motivated to take proper care of it, and do not see the asset as a programmatic hand out. In a few center meetings, however, members expressed concern that they have taken so much care of this animal and invested so much into it, yet they still do not have the paperwork to prove it is theirs. A program that encourages empowerment and protection of assets, they were rightly concerned that SKS could at any time sell their asset and take it away from them: “SKS does not trust us - that is why we don’t have our paperwork yet for the assets. What if they go and sell it? I am working so hard for it, but they can still take it away from me!” Perhaps this phrasing should be reconsidered in scale up – we don’t want to scare people off or feel that they are vulnerable to exploitation as they have been in the past by those of authority. Short term and long-term income sources: Daily labor is seen as the main source of daily income for members, and they are encouraged to continue their daily work even after receiving assets. This is interesting, as most pilots as well as BRAC see the taking on of assets as an opportunity cost – that when they take assets, they have to give up daily labor to care for them full time. SKS disagrees with this philosophy, and rightly so. Evidence shows that members do in fact take their goats with them to the field and tie them up while they work, or they have family members/neighbors graze their animals while they are in the field. Members thus often pick assets based on what community is doing, so they have a support network to care for their assets while they continue their daily labor. SKS’ ability to recognize this early on had several benefits: they did not have to invest in both a short-term and long-term asset for members, assets could be treated as an income boost rather than an income replacement, and members were not given an excuse for discontinuing their current livelihood source and relying solely on program benefits. Other pilots can undoubtedly learn from SKS’ practice, and further research on this would contribute to our understanding of livelihood strategies of the extreme poor. However, Andra Pradesh is an exceptional region in its governmental provisions of daily wage opportunities. Reliance on this as a short-term income source is a luxury that will not necessarily be available everywhere in scale-up. Therefore, there is a need to think of a combination of assets for both long term income and short term. One option is staggering assets (e.g. first giving a long term asset such as a goat, and a regular stipend; once members gain confidence and have received some training, giving them their second asset, such as a small trade shop, after the stipend has ended. With higher confidence, capability, and built up savings, there is less risk of their small trade failing, and the daily income from the small trade will replace the stipend. Other pilots often provide chickens or ducks for short term, but poultry is a very risky livelihood due to its susceptibility to epidemics (as SKS already knows from offering it as an enterprise option to a few willing members). Small trade businesses are an excellent and reliable everyday income source, but organizations

17

often feel that few extreme poor members have the capacity to run a business when they first join the program. Realizing the importance of small trade as an asset, Fonkoze in Haiti used the following innovative approach: they first gave members a goat, accompanied by a regular weekly stipend to members for 6 months (as a daily source of income). In addition, all members were encouraged to attend the refresher training course for small trade/kirana shop beneficiaries and were given additional advice on how to run a business. Members were asked to save a quarter of their weekly stipend. After 6 months, when the stipend ended, members were encouraged to spend $30 of their savings on a small business. This became their short-term asset. The ingenuity of this idea was the fact that 1) members had a chance to develop their livelihood and confidence skills before starting a small trade, 2) they used their own funds for their short-term asset, making it a cost-effective solution for the program, and 3) they successfully transitioned out of the stipend without developing a dependency upon it. Donkeys are seen as an excellent option due to the income generated from offspring as well as hiring it out for transport use (meeting both short term and long term income needs). Members can also use it for their own transport needs, and it is a sturdy animal that requires little maintenance. SKS has given a donkey to one member, but may consider it more widely in scale up.

Risks and Recommendations

Need for more guidance: With so many livelihood options, there is significant variation in the levels of support that that members get from staff. With a member’s interest being the main deciding factor of the enterprise they choose, not everyone is able at the beginning of the program to factor out the potential risks. The staff take the stance of not advising, so members feel totally responsible for their decisions. While this strategy makes sense, members are not always able at the beginning to think of all of the factors that influence success in a livelihood. In some instances, where a member’s caste or community all do a certain livelihood, it makes sense for them to stick to what they know. But as one member who took donkeys stated, “If I took a buffalo my community would be fine with it. But everyone in my caste has donkeys so I selected it, and it helps me with transport. It doesn’t bring me that much income though – if I realized then how profitable buffaloes are, I might have picked that over donkeys. I didn’t know.” According to a happiness scale conducted in an FGD, a kirana shop owner and a restaurant owner were least happy. They did not have proper business experience before, and such livelihoods are challenging. As with most livelihoods that involve selling on credit, their biggest problem was recollecting the money from customers. Another big problem they experienced was taking from the business to feed their families. When asked why they chose this option, they said they did not want livestock, it sounded interesting, and so the FA gave them an opportunity to do it. At the same time, another kirana shop owner has diversified with the help of her FA – she has now taken on a coin box and gas cylinder. She has previous experience, and when asked about how she’s managed to do so well at it she said that she only pays wholesalers after she’s collected everything back from those who took credit, she saves a lot and reinvests her savings into more items. She knows what does not sell, and stays away from those. Both kirana shop owners get appropriate advice from their FA, but some are naturally more enterprising. Beyond asking if members are interested in an asset, FAs should also ask themselves: “can this member succeed?” The characteristics presented in Table 2 should be considered for each member in helping them decide an asset that is perfect for them.

18

Replacing existing assets: Although some members suggested that they were struggling with becoming profitable with their assets, when asked if they would now exchange their assets for another, they all confidently said no. “I’m an old woman, it was hard enough for me to learn how to care for a buffalo. I can’t learn something else now.” For those who do want to replace their assets, SKS FAs help them, but it is their full responsibility. Buffaloes are insured in case of sickness or death, but goats are not. Therefore, if a goat gets sick or dies, SKS has the a stipulation. Members get 9000 Rs budget for an asset. For instance, if a member received 3500 Rs for a goat and she wants to shift to a kirana shop, she can she can sell her goat for 3500 Rs , use the money towards a kirana shop, and SKS will give her 5500 Rs to start a kirana shop (9000 Rs – 3500 Rs = 5500 Rs). But if she is able to get only 2000 Rs as a sale amount, SKS will still give her 5500 Rs, but she must make up that extra 1000 Rs with her own savings, debt etc. If her goat dies, SKS will still give her the remaining balance of 5500 Rs, but she must make up for the cost of the goat, 3500 Rs, herself. In essence SKS is limiting their costs, and encouraging members to take ownership of their replacements. One member has earned no profit from her goats – one offspring got killed by a dog, and now the mother goat is very sick and dying. She does not want them anymore, and wants a buffalo now. But she does not want the burden of selling the sick goat for a minimal profit (FAs advised her to ask for 1000 INR for it), and then paying out of pocket for the remaining difference for a buffalo (an additional 5000 INR). Although SKS is helping some members pay this difference, it is obviously a big financial burden that will hugely dent her savings or put her into debt. SKS should think twice about this asset replacement strategy in the future, but more importantly, it is yet another reason to be very sure of asset choice. Members are either hesitant to change assets mid way, or it is too financially difficult for them to change. Lack of support from center meetings: For members doing one off non-livestock assets (veg vending, tailoring, land lease etc.) their biggest complaint was that they did not have other members in their centers to discuss their livelihoods with. They have no one to get advice from, other than FA – while other center members doing goats and buffaloes can lean on each other. If nothing else, members should be presented with this risk when choosing a rare, one off asset as their livelihood. Social networks are an important factor in enterprise success—members should be aware that they will have limited support from SKS and other members in managing certain assets. IV. Stipend An important component of this program is the stipend, which is a small time-bound grant given to members for “breathing space” to help them concentrate on their assets. As members struggle to build their livelihood and cope with the myriad of shocks that come their way, this stipend is designed as a small hand up to help smooth their income during times of exceptional vulnerability.

SKS Stipend Design

SKS has designed their stipend to be a livelihood stipend – the grants they are given must be used solely for the purposes of their business, with its main use being for animal fodder when it is an expensive commodity on the market. Stipend amounts and duration differ for each asset: for instance, buffalo owners receive distributions of 300 INR for a period of 6 months, while goat owners receive 150 INR disbursements for a period of 12 months. Logic

19

belies the stipend structures – buffalos provide income immediately, and thus have a shorter stipend period than goats (which take about 6 months before they start producing income). Buffalo fodder is also more expensive than fodder for goats, which can graze on easily accessible things such as leaves, grass etc. This explains the difference in the stipend amounts for each animal. The table below shows the stipend amount and duration for the most popular assets: Asset Stipend amount Stipend duration Buffalo 300 INR –max of 1200 6 months Goats 150 INR max 1500 12 months Land cultivation Max 1200 N/A Kirana Shop Max 1200 N/A Tailoring N/A N/A The disbursements are also not issued weekly, as they are for most other pilots. Rather, members must request the FA for a stipend disbursal, and the FA will either authorize or reject the request based on whether they believe the stipend is truly needed. SKS has a very unique perspective on the use of stipends that differs from most pilots. The traditional view (adopted from BRAC’s TUP program) is that the procurement of assets will force members to devote less time to daily wage labor (their primary means of income prior to joining the program), and thus they need financial support to offset this income loss. As mentioned earlier, SKS encourages members to continue their daily wage labor while simultaneously taking care of their assets – this way, the assets will boost their existing income rather than replacing it. With this conceptualization, members do not need a stipend to offset income lost. SKS also firmly believes that regularly distributing money to members creates a dependency upon this handout, thus creating resentment once the stipend ends. Taking a more ‘empowering’ approach, SKS has told members that if they face hardship and are unable to pay for animal fodder for a particular week, SKS will assist them. They are strict on the stipend being used towards the asset, and not for consumption – this also differs from other pilots, who see the stipend as consumption support to ensure food security. There was initial skepticism on whether the stipends were actually used towards livelihoods, as money is fungible and can be used towards anything. However, 3 months of data on stipend use illustrated that in fact stipends are used 100% of the time towards assets (e.g. animal fodder, stock for kirana shop owners, sewing needles/thread for tailors, pesticides/fertilizers for those doing land cultivation, etc.) Case studies re-affirmed this finding, as one member quoted: “I took 300 INR two weeks ago to buy fodder for my buffalo. Right now it is hard to find fodder in the fields, and it is very expensive in the markets. The 300 INR were not enough, I still had to take out 500 INR of my savings to purchase the fodder.” When asked if she had saved part of the stipend or used it towards anything else, she exclaimed, “how is that possible? Fodder costs more than the stipend, so how can I save it or use it for anything else? Ask Sangam Sir, he saw exactly how I spent my stipend.” After a stipend disbursal, Field Assistants demand the following week to see the stock that they claimed to use the stipend for (e.g. the bags of fodder, the thread and needles, etc.) to ascertain that the stipend was properly utilized, and that the amount taken matches the quantity purchased. Interestingly, although members are not utilizing their stipend towards consumption, monitoring data shows that members have increased their

20

expenditure on food consumption from 442 INR to 500 INR per month on average. This is a tremendous learning for all the pilots, and challenges the conventional notion that members need monetary assistance to boost their consumption levels. Amazingly, in a period from December 2007 to August 2008, the maximum number of stipend disbursals was 3 times per member. The majority of members had only taken their stipend one time, and about 20% of members had never taken a stipend. Several members had stated that they never asked for a stipend because they “never needed one”, which is a sharp contrast from all the other pilots where members are given weekly consumption stipends, and a large number requested extensions upon the stipend period terminating. Senior staff claim that members are not told that they have an allotted stipend amount for a certain number of months: “if people know that this money is set aside for them, of course they will demand it and grow dependent on it. We tell them that even after their income, after their savings, if maintaining their asset is difficult we’ll assist them. When you phrase it like that, members are motivated to act on their own before asking for help.”

Risks and Recommendations:

Stipend creativity: SKS’ logic and system behind the stipend is programmatically cost-effective, and does foster independence on behalf of the members. However, it should be noted that in some of the other pilots, members exhibited a tremendous amount of creativity when they were given cash stipends and the freedom to use it towards anything. As mentioned in the previous section, members in Haiti took part of their stipend and saved it in a rotating savings group – when it was their turn at the lump sum, they used it diversify in a small side businesses. Their innovation and ability to turn a small weekly sum into a lucrative business shocked everyone, as the program there conceived it to be a consumption stipend used only towards food. In scale-up, daily wage labor opportunities may be scarce and thus perhaps the stipend will have to be issued in more regular intervals. It may be worthwhile to not predefine the uses of the stipend, but rather give members the tools and ideas on how to use the money most effectively. SKS is already providing the most essential skills to their members through financial education, field assistance and are already monitoring stipend use. By continuing these practices in scale up, SKS may learn that members in fact have more pertinent needs that they use the money towards, as well as learn from their ingenuity in using the funds. V. Field Assistant Interface

What it is and its purpose

The concept that belies the Ultra Poor program is that extremely poor women require more than financial or technical inputs, but need close support in developing the skills and confidence to effectively utilize these resources. Poverty is not just a lack of money, but a set of interconnecting physical, social and psychological weaknesses. The role of the Field Assistant is to accompany members out of poverty, helping them change their behavior and attitudes in such a way as to exit from their cycle of poverty. In concept and in practice, the Field Assistant is the key element for the success of each and every member. Field assistance is a combination of encouragement, instilling discipline, education and providing access to resources. Their roles are two-pronged:

• the technical, as per their job description (training, running center meetings, livelihood and financial advice, social awareness creation)

21

• the capacity to empathize and act as a social network (mediate and attempt to resolve personal/household problems, mobilize government resources for members when necessary)

Field Assistants provide the following support to Ultra Poor members:

• Weekly center meetings and household visits • Classroom Livelihoods trainings • Health education and messaging on pertinent social issues • Regular entrepreneurial advice and hand-holding • Goal setting and a plan to reach the goals by the end of the program • Foster self-autonomy by weaning members off programmatic inputs • Encourage and foster the use of government resources • Formal financial education

The FAs have a very standardized approach to service delivery – their center meetings all have the same components and order, and trainings are all conducted in a similar fashion. They deliver the same social messages, using the same types of mechanisms (games, flip charts, etc.) There is little room for individual creativity and ad-hoc assistance, and senior program staff do believe that standardization is important in a pilot. Their dedication and commitment to members is exemplary. Recently, program staff have created a 24 hour hotline service. As FAs are not continuously available in the field, members can call the hotline at any time and the FA on duty will assist them. Such an intervention is the first of its kind among the pilots.

Members’ experience of Field Assistants

Field Assistants have been a teacher for ultra poor members. They do not necessarily see FAs as a ‘friend’ whom they can confide in about anything -- FAs do keep household visits curt and maintain a bit of distance. SKS senior staff have said this is intentional to avoid a relationship of emotional dependence, as FAs will no longer be a support structure for these members once the program ends. The members, however, do see the FA as a ‘guru’ whom they respect and have learned from: “Sangam Sir teaches us so much – without him, we would not know how to take care of our assets, our animals’ health and our own health.” “I don’t talk to Sir too much about my personal problems – he is a man, after all, and what more can he do for me? He has already given me everything. He gave me my buffaloes and knowledge on how to care for them. Without him, I would still be struggling to survive.” Members also unanimously gave credit to FAs for their pivotal role in shaping their livelihood visions and goals. FAs took the critical step of establishing goals with members, and helping them build and grow their businesses. A kirana shop owner proudly rattled off her plans to start selling clothing in her store, and said that she’s already invested into a coin box – with the advice and help of her FA. Another member claimed that she is currently getting 6 INR/litre of buffalo milk from the nearby market, but her FA is working on aggregating the milk supply of all members so that they can start selling to a milk distribution center for higher profits. The idea and implementation of a milk cooperative exemplifies the dedication, innovation and commitment of FAs to help members thrive with their livelihoods.

Risks and Recommendations

22

Need for gender training: SKS staff have proven to be caring, dependable and have displayed their commitment to ameliorating the situations of the extreme poor in Narayankhed. From a socio-economic and gender perspective, however, FAs will always be in a position of power over UPP members – awareness and sensitatization around these dynamics are crucial for programmatic success and from an ethical standpoint. If UPP seeks to impact empowerment, it needs to always ensure that members are empowered in their interactions with program staff. All the pilots, therefore, have been encouraged to put their staff through gender training by a gender expert who understands the local context. Such training would also help FAs deal more effectively deal with some of the more complex issues of abandonment and abuse that these women have endured from their husbands. The following quotes from members exemplify this: “My husband is an alcoholic and a thief. He used to beat me and my kids. He never gave us money. My in-laws also do not support me so my mother brought me back home. I can’t say that I’m happy, I know I brought my family a lot of shame.” “My husband had left me a long time ago, but now I’ve taken him back. I was told that was the right thing to do.” The pilot in Pakistan have hired gender experts from UNIFEM to design an entire gender strategy for their pilot, to ensure that all inputs and interface are being designed through a gender lens. If SKS would like to pursue this, we can work together to find an appropriate gender expert to at the least conduct a training for staff members in scale up. Social messaging needs to coincide with realities: Social messaging is not enough if it does not coincide with the realistic pressures that women face. As extremely poor women who still face societal pressures, problems of debt and dowry seem to be very serious issues that are not really dealt with in the social awareness component of the program. According to the Finca study, “there is a high level of pressure to spend large sums of money on wedding events. Widowed and abandoned women typically have little decision making power over their children’s marriages, but the cost is still hers to bear.” FAs do discuss debt, dowry and child marriage as being ‘bad’, and while members listen, it does not help them fight the societal pressures that go against these messages. Most members still complained about debt, and the enormous financial pressure looming over their heads due to their children’s pending marriages. When asked if they mentioned these financial pressures to their FA, they all replied “no”. Perhaps members themselves need to be involved in the designing of these social messages – through an FGD, members can inform staff of the most pertinent social issues they deal with. The staff can then perhaps develop a more rights based approach to dealing with these issues. This can involve working with other local organizations that fight these issues with the community, or creating more of a forum for members to at least discuss these issues and come up with creative solutions for themselves. Members need a space to be more candid about these expenses/issues and plan for them, or SKS has to think about more creative and effective ways to deal with these issues that go beyond messaging. Longer household visits: as it stands, FAs spend 5-10 minutes at each member household. Discussion usually takes place outside the home, and the member simply asks about her asset, if anyone is sick, and if the kids are in school before moving on. As will be discuss more in the next section, the importance of the household visit is underestimated. Although staff have limited time and the focus is on the center meetings, it is essential that FAs spend more time with members in their homes and personally discussing matters. Several FAs have stated that at times, members will pull the FA aside if she has a personal problem, in which case he will go into her house and discuss with her. One FA gave the example of his member who pulled him aside to tell him that she could not pay exam fees for her son, and he could not afford to miss his exams. As a proponent of education, the

23

program agreed to provide her an extra 350 INR. to pay the exam fee. It is unclear whether all FAs are taking the effort to proactively find out about personal problems that would affect their ability to manage their livelihoods successfully. Some members complained of debt problems, and being harassed by neighbors to pay back but they do not have the ability – this was upsetting them. Others complained of sick household members that were financially draining them. Yet they had stated that they did not talk to the FA about it because “he can only help with our assets, that’s all his job is to help us with.” While it can be true that members exacerbate their problems to external researchers as a plight to ‘get more,’ the importance of the personal touch, a certain level of emotional involvement and reactiveness to members’ problems is necessary when dealing with a population as vulnerable as this, and a program that is meant to be holistic in its approach. VI. Centre Meetings

The primary platform for delivery

The weekly centre meetings, according to both the staff and the members, is the predominant platform where sharing and learning take place. As one FA stated, “you have five fingers. One finger alone is useless, but with the help of the other four, a hand is useful. That is how the center meetings work – each member teaches one another and the motivate each other along. Alone, they would struggle to get ahead.” Meetings start off with the Sangam song, then savings are collected, and stipends (if any) are distributed. FAs then ask members about their assets, and go on to play a game of snakes and ladders (which incorporates health and social awareness, in a creative, fun platform). While the staff reinforce the important of the group dynamic, members emphasized the interaction with the FA as the most enjoyable part. “Sangam Sir teaches us so much in those meetings. He tells us how to take care of our assets, how to take care of our health, the importance of saving. We learn so much from him in the meetings.” The purpose and benefits of the centre meetings are evident: through interactive, creative means, FAs deliver important social, health and livelihood messages to all members at one central location and time. It enhances FA efficiency to deliver these messages in this manner rather than in individualized household visits, and members can also learn from interaction with each other. It is also a way of enhancing horizontal social capital among members – it is apparent from attending these meetings that members socialize, give each other health advice, offer to look after each other’s assets, etc. Such a benefit would’ve been lost in individualized household visits. For example, in these meetings goat beneficiaries came up with a system of taking turns grazing each other’s goats while the rest of the members are doing daily labor. Land lease members all discuss in these meetings which crops to grow, what pesticides are working well, etc. FAs also enjoy the center meetings, and in a group self-evaluation exercise, staff overall gave their center meetings a rating of 9 out of 10 in terms of effectiveness. The problems that they claimed to encounter were the following:

• members attending meetings late, cutting into the meeting time • mixed understanding capacity of the members – slow climbers not “getting” all of the concepts that are presented

• not enough time to cover all of the topics at hand, while still discussing personal issues

24

Risks and recommendations

Lacking the personal touch: While the benefits are numerous, the drawback of the centre meeting is that there is a finite amount of time with a pretty packed agenda. In the pursuit of covering social and health messaging, asking each member about her business, doing financial transactions such as savings collection and stipend distribution, a very important element gets lost. The personal touch, where members share their personal issues – an open time to reflect and discuss what is happening in their lives and households. FAs also admit to missing out on personal discussion in the center meetings because there is so much to cover. One of the things that make this program different from a livelihoods program is the multi-dimensional level of the obstacles that these members face. Personal issues affect members’ social networks, and networks are a big factor in how members take care of their assets. An example is a member who chose goats because her brothers were supposed to graze them. They got into an argument, they refused to graze her goat and she ended up having to hire someone to do it for her – an expense that she could not meet. As a result, she did not pay the hired hand and, out of spite, he stole her goat. Emotional state of mind also effects enterprise behavior, as a member who does tailoring said that she gave up daily labor as she was in grief when her husband died – she could not get herself out of bed. It is thus imperative that a space be created for members to share these issues. While some members mentioned hesitancy at sharing such personal things in a centre meeting for the fear of spreading gossip, the household visits might be a more appropriate time to discuss these things. Goal setting and achieving: An important thing to focus on in group meetings is goal setting and achieving. FAs do set goals with members during the financial education module, and one FA was seen reviewing these goals with members in the center meetings and helping to ensure that members are on their way to achieving them. This is such a fundamental step in ensuring success of most members. It was unclear, however, if all FAs were doing this - it appeared that there was limited time in center meetings to review personal goals. Given the fact that most FAs complained about ‘understanding capacity’ of all the members, it makes sense at this point to start tailoring the messages/concepts, and reviewing the goals and pathways for slow members specifically. With only 8 months left in the program, they cannot afford to be left behind and their graduation goals unfulfilled. Language barrier: FAs are Telegu speaking, and some members only speak Kannada - this poses a slight communication barrier. According to some members, this prevents them from freely expressing themselves to the FAs. FAs say it is not a huge problem, since they can understand Kannada even though they cannot speak it. Regardless, it is a risk to bear in mind for scale up.

VII. Healthcare access This section attempts to address the following questions regarding healthcare access of CLM members:

• What problems are associated with ill health? • How has SKS dealt with health provision • Risks and Recommendations

25

Poor healthcare and its risks for the extreme poor

Illness is one of the greatest contributors of poverty for Ultra Poor members. In the case studies conducted with ultra poor members, it was striking how many people had fallen into extreme poverty as the result of illness or death. Lack of quality government health services, income to pay for private healthcare and insurmountable debts due to health treatments and death of a primary income earner has impoverished UP households. Nearly all members stated that the main reason they accumulated debt was to pay for health expenses, and the only time they would seek financial support is for health related expenditures. According to one member, “before I joined this program, I had a goat. My father was very sick, so I had to sell my goat for his treatment. I sold my goat that morning, and in that afternoon he died. With no goat, and my father dead, who would support us? We were so desperate before Sangam helped us. When I think of those days it hurts me.” While government health services are available for the poor in Andra Pradesh, poverty increases the risk of damaging illness in two ways:

• increased susceptibility to illness due to poor nutrition, inadequate sanitation, lack of resources to protect against environmental factors, and poor education about preventative healthcare

• Poor quality of government services, unavailability of government doctors, discriminating behavior by hospital staff against the ultra poor, and costs of transport to nearby health facilities cause members to seek out untrained ‘barefoot’ doctors or do nothing in the face of illness.

VIII. Financial Education

Financial Education and its results

SKS offers a very well-designed, rigorous financial education module for members to learn basic money management skills. Financial education is not a standard input for most pilots, but given SKS’ commitment to eventually transitioning members into microfinance, it is a logical input in their pathway. The module covers the following key areas: income/expenditure tracking, budgeting, financial goal setting, and financial negotiations. In the income/expenditure tracking, FAs collect the following information for each member for two weeks post asset transfer (See Figure 2) Figure 6: Income/Expenditure survey

26

FAs then analyze the data and share the results with members. FAs commented that they first performed the exercise upon themselves and were shocked at how poorly they were managing their own funds! As an FA stated, “we can appreciate how hard it is to cut down expenditure and maximize income, but we know that our members will continue to suffer unless they make these financial changes.” Each meeting focuses on a particular member, so the training is relevant to them and is not a classroom type learning environment where little is retained. In the financial goal setting module, for example, the member of that week is asked to show with rocks the number of assets she has now, the number she wants to have at the end of this program, and explain how she plans on reaching that goal. She is given fake money to make transactions, while the other members watched absorbedly and attentively. Members all claimed to really enjoy the financial education module, and the results over a 3 month period are interesting. The following graphs over a 3 month period (June, July and Sep 2008) show the changes in income (Figure 7)10 Figure 7: Financial information from July ’08 – Sep ‘08

10 these graphs and data are taken from program information, and was not compiled by the evaluators

27

244

162

293 299

326

144

468

176

341

271

296

164

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Income from wages income from enterprise hand loans cash in hand

One week Feb08 One week July 08 One week Sep 08

As we can see in Figure 7, income increased drastically from wages (which could be due to seasonality and work availability) and from livelihoods significantly. Cash in hand decreased, and this could be due to the fact that members now keep very little money in the house – members have developed quite a strong savings habit (due to financial education and encouragement of FAs) and deposit nearly all excess income after expenditures into the SKS savings account. From center meeting observations, members are required to deposit 10 INR each week, but it was not uncommon to see members depositing up to 50 INR each week on their own initiative. In Sep 2008, some members had saved up to 3000 INR, and withdrew up to 1700 INR to pay for medical expenses, purchase land, children’s educational expenses or diversify their businesses. Although a direct correlation cannot be proven, members seemed to have learnt valuable lessons in savings and spending only for exigent expenses. The following graph (Figure 8) shows similar the results of members’ expenditure:

28

Shah, 2008 One can see that expenditure on health and consumption increased after asset transfer. Although we cannot make a direct causality between increased income/expenditure and on financial education, what we can see is that:

• SKS is consistently and effectively capturing income and expenditure data as a part of the financial education module

• After receiving the financial education training, members’ income, savings, and expenditures on food have gone up

As a result of the goal setting exercise, members have also been able to very articulately explain where they want their livelihoods to be at the time of graduation. In most other pilots, members usually respond with nebulous answers, such as they want to be financially secure, or grow their businesses. But in SKS, members responded with answers such as: “I have two goats now. I want to grow my herd – by the time this program finishes, I hope I’ll have 6 or 7 goats. I will keep the female ones so my herd will grow, sell the male ones to buy more females. With a big goat herd, I will never have to worry about money.” “I have a buffalo now and a calf. I will keep the female calves and sell the male ones. I will grow the herd, and continue to sell the milk. With my profits from the milk, I want to start purchasing goats too. So by the time I graduate, I will have buffalos, milk business and goats.” “I currently have a plot of land where I grow lentils. If God is willing and I have a good harvest, I can make up to 7,000 INR with my harvest. With that money, I will reinvest and purchase another plot of land and grow another variety of lentil. I will keep reinvesting and accumulate land – I don’t know how to raise animals, but I know that with the profits from two plots of land I will be in a good position when I graduate.” The fact that members are so clearly sighted about their goals and where they want to be at the time of graduation is a huge testament to the quality and fruits of SKS’ financial education.

Risks and Recommendations

A module to deal with debts: As mentioned earlier, debt is an enormous problem for UP members and something that they are not equipped to manage. Although they have

29

improved their earnings significantly, the various financial pressures they face drive them into debt. Many members borrow against their group interest free and pay back slowly, and if the group savings cannot meet their needs, FAs do encourage members to at the least borrow from SHGs at 1% interest. Although some advice is given, members have still mentioned the need for a module in the financial education that properly teaches them how to manage debt.

Conclusion This process evaluation is designed to give an early indication of progress of the Ultra Poor program in strengthening the livelihoods of extremely poor women to a point where they can successfully maintain and continue to improve their situation (through SKS microfinance or independently). Through the ultra poor program, there is incredible potential for the extreme poor to reach higher rungs on their ascent out of poverty. Through multiple interventions, a successful program will both promote income and well-being improvements, and protect against the inevitable problems that characterize poor people’s lives:

• create reliable daily income that that sustains members in the short-run • provide more substantial future income, savings and security in the long-run • help members manage risk in the face of disasters (particularly health) and other emergencies

• improve self-confidence, future vision, life skills, and social networks Key points of further evaluation will come at 24 months, where a rigorous quantitative impact assessment will show outcomes of this program upon the lives of the members. Lessons learnt thus far The field staff have comprised the following divisions/characteristics of members’ progress: Table 4: Chart of members’ progress

Group N. of members

Characteristics

Fast climbers 50 • Better Asset management skills • Active participation in trainings and learning from others

experiences • Increased awareness on various Govt. Scheme’s • Better utilization of Govt. schemes such as PDS cards

(subsidized Rice), participation in NREGS work, Health cards (Arogya Sri Scheme of the Govt. to help the poor to access the specialty services)

• Implementing the learning’s from the Financial Education and cutting in unnecessary expenditure

• Continues Savings from income generated through livelihoods and daily wages for future needs

• Increases awareness on health and implementing the better health practices

• Focusing on future and thinking of investing on education for their children

• Manage better food stocks • Better financial management and started repaying the high

interest old debts • Save more than 500 Rest – in some cases ever more than 1500

Rest • Diversified income sources • Showing more responsibility as a head of the household

30

• More family support/social networks

Solid climbers 220 • Better asset management • Savings up to Rs.300 – Rs.500 • Trying to expand the enterprise • Planning to save income • Just started using the other govt. schemes like SHG groups • Not able to attend the meetings but showing the interest on

livelihoods • Working hard to increase income • Health issues are pulling them back • Implementing the better health management and hygienic

practices • Spending more money on repaying the old debts and unable to

save

Slow climbers 129 • No help from family members in livelihoods maintenance • Less savings < Rs,300 (total in up to Aug) • High expenditure • Unable to diversify the income sources • Not getting daily income – wage labour • Lack of personal interest in increasing the savings • More health expenditure • Not in good terms with other family members • Thinking of marrying children at early age

Members’ responses reinforce this variation in performance. As part of the case studies members placed themselves on a staircase – where they were at baseline and where they are now (in other words, how far do they feel they have progressed overall?) Steps go from Step 1 (lowest) to Step 6 (highest). Out of the 10 case studies, the following table shows the results of the ‘stairway of progress’:

Baseline step Follow-up Step Total change Number of members

1 3 +2 3 2 3 +1 2 1 4 +3 1 1 2 +1 3 1 6 +5 1

The main things to take away from this are the fact that:

• members are all making progress in the face of rising food prices, which is an achievement in itself (in other pilots, some members had gone down the staircase due to personal crises that they were unable to cope with). This demonstrates improvement and resilience on behalf of all the members interviewed

• members are all progressing at very different levels (some slowly, some very quickly)

Through these assessment exercises (by the staff and members themselves), several important lessons can be drawn:

• encouraging savings, setting goals and creating a timeline / plan for attaining them, and leveraging existing support systems such as government schemes are all things that program staff are proactively influencing to ensure that members move quickly

31

• reducing old debts, properly accessing health services, and engaging the support of vertical social networks are important factors of success that program staff can try harder to influence

• The fact that a quarter of the members are slow climbers, according to the staff, indicates that a lot of members do need some additional support/inputs to help them reach the point of graduation.

• Members started the program at different levels, are progressing at different levels, but are expected to be at the same place at the end of 18 months. This implies that different strategies/levels of support are required for different members to create a level playing field and ensure success for all

This last point is an important one, as studies have exhibited the fact that even the extreme poor are not a homogenous group with a standardized set of needs and vulnerabilities. In every pilot there are a group of people that are intrinsically more motivated and are more pre-disposed to success (e.g. they have greater family support, less debt, better health conditions, more entrepreneurial experience, etc.). They are inevitably the fast climbers that soar through the program. The intent behind a holistic program such as this, however, is to help those who do not necessarily have such predispositions to reach that transitional point out of extreme poverty (e.g. the slow climbers). With such a high number of slow climbers half way through the program, SKS should ask itself what additional ‘boosts and skills’ do these members need to reach that transitional point? Further Recommendations 1. While the 10 month point is too soon to make any substantial conclusions on the impact of the program, a close look at processes lets us know that SKS has a well designed pathway that they are strictly adhering to. They have successfully determined their core competencies as an organisation, and have designed all inputs and methods of delivery to coincide with these strengths. As a result, SKS has come up with a cost-effective, easily replicable and scalable program design. Because SKS has stayed true to their initial inputs and desired outcomes, effectiveness of programmatic interventions has been easy to monitor and track – an important component of a well-designed pilot.

A recommendation would be to design a well thought out pathway for scale-up, and for every adjustment, more stringently document it and put in the larger context of the pathway. It is expected for a program to have ad-hoc adjustments along the way, especially within a pilot – but there is also a tendency for program staff to react to a problem immediately without thinking through what the intended outcome of the adjustment is, if it is measurable and scalable if proven to be a success. An example of this is SKS’ initiative to provide informal education camps for members’ children that are not formally enrolled in school. I learnt that SKS senior staff experimented with this imitative, and then suspended it – but it was never documented. It is thus unclear of why it was an input, how it was delivered, and the outcome (if any) that it had. In scale-up, it is crucial to conceptualize and document such innovations within the larger programmatic context.

2. Although SKS is disciplined in terms of its core competencies and sticking to its pathway, the program should re-evaluate if any substantial gaps exist and think through how to fill them. An obvious gap in the program is healthcare access, and in scale-up more thought has to be given to how to create this provision for members. Some suggestions would be to budget in a health insurance fund for members to tap into in case of dire emergency, create partnerships with local health providers/international organizations that specialize in health, or involve the local community to mobilize

32

resources for members when desperately needed. As a holistic intervention that is intended on tackling various root causes of poverty, it should be considered in scale –up if it is taking too minimalist of an approach in its provision of inputs. In Andra Pradesh, SKS could rely on the provisions of the government and security of daily wage labor – and thus it made the assumption that members could manage their own food security, healthcare access, education for children, livelihoods management (shed, fodder, etc), sanitation, and coping with crisis through increased come. In Jharkhand and other areas where external support networks are not so well built-in, SKS should think of providing more inputs so as to create a stronger social safety net for members. Even through greater income generation, this population remains very vulnerable and unable to cope with extreme shocks and vulnerabilities.

3. The focus in the center meetings and household visits should be on getting the slow climbers up to speed. The staff’s willingness to introspect and reflect upon the program’s pathway and progress is one of the program’s biggest strengths. Half-way through this program, the staff should harness this strength and evaluate if each member is on their personal pathway to success. This involves evaluating every member’s progress through some basic, easily assessable indicators (e.g. savings, asset number and value, food security, and income.) SKS is already tracking this information through internal systems as well as the Client Monitoring system. By setting some programmatic benchmarks and seeing where each member is in relation to it, SKS can essentially evaluate if each member is on track, if she is climbing slowly or quickly towards graduation point. At that point, staff can figure out in tangible terms what the slow climbers need to progress more quickly and be where they should by graduation point. SKS is unique in the fact that it has done half the leg work already by discerning the characteristics of success and how quickly members are progressing – all that remains now is tailoring the hand holding and intervention a bit to help the slow climbers along. No better platform for this than the center meetings, and lengthening the slow climber households visits to provide some more intense support.

4. In scale-up, there should be greater involvement from the local community, perhaps through Village Assistance Committees. One of the starkest attributes of extreme poverty is not just being economically poor, but being “poor in people.” Ultra poor members are characterized as being socially marginalized and having very few social networks that they can count on. This includes both horizontal social networks (i.e. with peers) and vertical networks (i.e. with those who are of a higher socio-economic status and can provide assistance to the poor). Through classroom trainings and weekly group meetings, SKS has attempted to create horizontal social capital for CLM members. But in scale-up, SKS still needs to fill the vacuum in forging social relationships with those who have status and the ability to mobilize resources on behalf of the extreme poor. BRAC as well as Fonkoze in Haiti have had tremendous success with VACs – according to the Program Director in Haiti, “we could never be able to do all that we’re doing without the continuous support of our Village Assistance Committees.”

VACs have played a tremendous role in mobilizing funds from the community for members’ funerals, exorbitant health expenses, have helped FAs look after members’ assets, encourage and assist members in sending children to school, helped mediate community conflict and have gotten stolen assets back for members. VAC members have certain knowledge of the community and reach to the members (living within the same community) that help the staff tremendously with their work. By forming a VAC, the program staff are also able to offset some of the members’ problems onto the community rather than shouldering it themselves or leaving the members to deal with them on their own. The key to a successful VAC is

33

• picking the right members (having members elect VAC members on their own is usually effective, as they will nominate those who have traditionally helped the poor in their communities)

• institutionalizing it by holding regular meetings, motivating them and documenting their work

SKS was hesitant to form a VAC in pilot due to the political nuances in the area that they felt would be more of a hindrance to the program. But in scale-up, SKS should reconsider this and involve the local community within the folds of their program. 4. Incorporate Rights Based Approaches (RBAs) in the social component of the

program: The pilot organizations take one of two paths in promoting social development: 1) pre-determining the needs of the extreme poor and providing inputs to fulfill these needs, or 2) pre-determining the relevant issues/needs for the extreme poor and ‘preaching’ about the importance of filling these needs and resolving these issues. From the perspective of implementation, paths 1 and 2 are more feasible, practical and easier to systematize. Another path that more and more organizations are taking is the rights based approach option --, organizations are creating forums for members to advocate on behalf of their rights: what are they entitled to as citizens, how can they demand these rights, what resources are available to them and what can they collectively demand? RBAs do not provide quick development solutions, but seek to empower, encourage participation, and create a space for the poor to engage with issues that affect them. The agenda and discussions are not driven by program staff, and this is the hard part -- organizations often struggle to implement a space that allows members to decide what issues are relevant, and make decisions themselves on how best to solve these issues. It is not an easy thing to structure, systematize, or even facilitate. RBAs are more about encouraging citizenship and activism than providing quick development solutions. But given that these pilots are finite programs that seek to transition members into autonomous, self-sufficient individuals after 18 months, incorporating RBAs should seriously be considered (not as a replacement for any program inputs -- simply as an additional once a month meeting aimed at discussing issues, resources, advocacy, engagement). Plenty of organizations (e.g. Nijera Kori in Bangladesh, Just Associates, Institute of Development Studies (IDS) have implemented and written a tremendous about successful RBAs. If SKS is interested, we could work with program staff to learn more about this.

34

Annex 1: Kat Evalyasyon (Poverty Scorecard)

#119 avenue Christophe z Port-au-Prince, Haïti Tel: (509) 221-7631 or (509) 221-7641 z Fax: (509) 221-7520

Fonkoze Fondasyon Kole Zepòl

Poverty Scorecard (2007 version) Branch: _________________________________ Where the inspection took place: ___________________ Client’s name: ____________________________ Where she lives: _______________________________ Client’s age: _____________________________ Account number: Group number: ___________________________ Credit cycle: __________ Date: __________________ Loan size:________________________________ Person completing the evaluation: __________________ I. INFORMATION ON THE CLIENT’S HOUSE

3 2 1.5 1 0 Points

(*) What is the house made from?

Cement or blocks only

Cement/blocks with

wood/stones Wood and

rocks/palm Turf or earth

(*) What is the roof made from?

Concrete Concrete/iron Iron Straw

(*) What is the floor made from? Ceramic or tiles Cement Cement and

earth Earth

Do they own the house? Yes No

(*) How many rooms does the house have? 4+ 3 2 1

Do they own the land where the house stands? Yes

No

(*) What type of toilet does she have? Hygienic toilet Latrine made

from cement Latrine made

from wood/iron

Latrine made from fabric or

carpet No toilet

TOTAL

II. INFORMATION ON GOODS

3 2 1.5 1 0 Points

(*) What does she sleep on? Wooden bed Iron bed Matress

without a bed

Straw mattress or something on the ground

Does she have electricity?

Solar panel, generator, inverter

Has EDH Use someone else’s outlet Car batteries None

Sample

35

(*) Do they own

Fridge, oven, video, or stereo

equipment

Color television, radio CD

Black and white

television, radio cassette

Small radio, flashlight None

How much land does she have?

One acre or more Half an acre One-quarter

acre One-eighth

acre A small plot or

less

What does she do with this land?

Cultivation Raising

animals Nothing

What livestock does she have?

More than 6 large animals (horses, cattle, mules, pigs)

2 or more large animals with poultry and goats

Poultry, goats Some small poultry only None

TOTAL

III. INFORMATION ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME

3 2 1.5 1 0 Points Does the client have a spouse or partner?

Yes No

What kind of work does he do?

Commerce, office work Manual work

Farming or petty

commerce

Day laborer; Tenant farmer

I don’t have a partner

How much income does the partner contribute to the household?

All Most Half A little None

(*) Does she receive money transfers from abroad?

More than 4 times a year

2 or 3 times a year Occasionally No

What means of transport does she use?

Private car or motorbike

Public transport (car or motorbike)

Mule, horse, donkey or bicycle

On foot

TOTAL

IV. INFORMATION ON THE CLIENT 3 2 1.5 1 0 Points

Can she read and write? Yes, very well More or less No, can read

only No

How many children does she have? 3 or fewer 4 5 6-7 8 or more

(*) How many children

go to school? All Most Half A few None

(*) How many times per week do they cook meat in the house?

Almost every day

2-3 times per week Once per

week Occasionally

(*) How many people live in the house?

3 or fewer 4-6 7-10 More than 10

TOTAL

V. CLIENT’S BUSINESS 3 2 1.5 1 0 Points

36

How much does she usually spend to

purchase goods for her business?

More than 30,000 gourdes

15 to 30,000 gourdes

10 to 15,000 gourdes

3 to 10,000 gourdes

< 3,000 gourdes

What type of commerce does she do? (Put a √√√√ in the corresponding box) Livestock, meat

Cloth or clothes

Miscellaneous items (e.g., beans, oil, flour, sugar,

cosmetics, etc.)

Traveling salesperson and/or bulk sales (e.g. charcoal, food supplies)

Other

Observations:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL POINTS:_____________________

0 31.8 63.5

Minimum Average Maximum I certify that all the information in this document is correct.

Fonkoze Employee Date