Assessing ng t the he M Mult lti- dime mens nsiona nal A l Aspects of P Poverty y Prepared for the 7 th International African Evaluation Conference Yaoundé, Cameroon | March 2014 1
§ Provide an introduction to Nuru § Discuss the importance of measuring poverty § Present Nuru’s approach to assessment of the multi-dimensional aspects of poverty § Lessons Learned 2
A S Sustaina nable le, S , Scala lable le Gr Grassroots M Model l Nuru raises up local businesses and local leaders capable of co-designing integrated solutions to end extreme poverty in remote, rural areas throughout a nation. 3
Addressing Four Areas of Need ① Hunger ② Inability to cope with economic shocks ③ Preventable disease and death ④ Lack of quality education for children 4
By the Numbers… Countries: Ethiopia; Kenya Individual Farmers: 5,518 Acres of Maize Production: 6,236 Metric Tons of Fertilizers & Seed: 686 Farm Input Loan Valuation: USD $570,000 Total People Impacted: >30,000 5
Why M y Measure Poverty? y? 6
Why Measure Poverty? § World Bank estimates that 1.44 billion people are poor and living on $1.25 USD or less a day. § Nuru defines poverty as access to meaningful choices, as defined by Amartya Sen. § By this definition, the number of people living in poverty increases to 1.71 billion § Nuru believes poverty is multi-faceted and complex. § If we are to meet our mission of ending poverty in remote, rural areas we must measure the multi-dimensions of poverty. 7
How Poverty Assessment can be used for Decision-Making There are many potential uses at the project scale, program, country and/or other administrative scales § Planning (design phase) & management § Informing policy/strategy § Prioritization & targeting § Supporting efficient & transparent resource allocation § Supporting monitoring & evaluation efforts § Comparison across projects, regions or countries § Raising awareness among sector-specific stakeholders § Beneficiary empowerment & advocacy § Secondary data analysis 8
Approach t h to me measuring ng t the he mult mu lti-d -dime mens nsiona nal l aspects o of p poverty y 9
Approach to Assessing Poverty § MPAT is the Multi-dimensional Poverty Assessment Tool developed by The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a specialized agency of the United Nations 10
Why Nuru implemented the MPAT § The survey tool was developed by 40+ experts in the field of poverty measurement and extensively piloted in the field 1 § It measures what we want to affect: the creation of an enabling environment for community members § Easily communicated and understood § Relatively straight-forward to conduct – we did it on a low budget and with a small staff § Sum i m is g greater t tha han t n the he p parts: : there is NOT a lot of overlap between the MPAT and our Program Indicators. We did not expect to be able to attribute results of the MPAT to specific program interventions but rather, to an overall change. 1 Quantifying the Qualitative: Eliciting Expert Input to Develop the Multidimensional Poverty Assessment Tool. Alasdair Cohen, Michaela Saisana. The Journal of Development Studies . Vol. 50, Iss. 1, 2014 11
What is the MPAT? § MPAT is a survey-based, 10 component, thematic set of indicators designed to support rural poverty reduction efforts § The 10 components represent areas “… essential to an enabling environment within which people are sufficiently free from their immediate needs…” 1 and thus able to have choice or agency over their lives. § The tool can be used to support various phases of rural poverty alleviation initiatives as needed at different times/ scales § It consists of: – A household survey of ~70 questions – A village survey of ~20 questions of gov’t officials, schools & health centres 1 Alasdair Cohen, Author of the MPAT, 2010 12
Components of the MPAT 13
How the MPAT Works (1) Dem emographic D Data g gather ered ed f from a a Sample o e of H Househ eholds 14
How the MPAT Works (2) Scores are calculated for each subcomponents…. 15
How the MPAT Works (3) …and compiled to generate component scores for the ten MPAT components 16
MPAT Implementation § Nuru Kenya implemented a baseline MPAT in May 2011 in sublocations in Kuria West District, Nyanza Province, Kenya § A follow-up was collected in May 2013 17
How the MPAT was conducted § In 2011, Alasdair Cohen, the lead author of the MPAT, traveled to Kuria to assist in facilitation of the work § Over four weeks, enumerators traveled to randomly chosen households and conducted surveys § 15 village surveys were conducted with government, healthcare, and education officials (IFAD recommends 30 villages) § Data was entered into the MPAT Excel model Rand ndom s m sampli ling ng o of H HHs: P : Preparing ng nu numb mbers ( (le left) a and nd v villa llage e eld lder s sele lecting ng H HHs (cent nter) a and nd E Enu nume merator S Supervisors i ins nstructing ng E Enu nume merator T Team w m whi hich H h HHs t to visit ( (right ht) 18
Scores were generated for MPAT components in fifteen villages MPAT Component values for 15 villages in Kuria District Food & Nutrition Security 100 Village 1, Bonkomo, Nyamaranya Village 2, Gukihuru A, Nyamaranya Gender & Social Equality Domestic Water Supply 80 Village 3, Makonge, Nyamaranya Village 4, Muturio, Nyamaranya 60 Village 5, Nyamaranya A, Nyamaranya 40 Village 6, Seremu, Nyamaranya Exposure & Resilience to Shocks Health & Healthcare Village 7, Gaibose, Ngisiru 20 Village 8, Karamu, Ngisiru 0 Village 9, Kugisingisi, Ngisiru Village 10, Kuibu, Ngisiru Village 11, Kuigoto, Ngisiru Non-Farm Assets Sanitation & Hygiene Village 12, Moseta, Ngisiru Village 13, Ngisiru, Ngisiru Village 14, Nyamorasi, Ngisiru Village 15, Romasanda, Ngisiru Farm Assets Housing, Clothing & Energy Education MPAT P Proje ject O Overview: C : Compone nent nt v valu lues f for 15 v villa llages, 2 , 2011 B Baseli line ne 19
In 2013, baseline scores were compared to the follow-up Nuru Kenya MPAT 2013 Midpoint Overview Food & Nutrition Security 100 Gender & Social Domestic Water Supply 80 Equality 60 Exposure & Resilience 40 Health & Healthcare to Shocks 20 0 Non-Farm Assets Sanitation & Hygiene Housing, Clothing & Farm Assets Energy Education Baseline Midpoint 20
Results and Analysis § From baseline to follow-up point, a positive trend seen in 7 out of 10 MPAT components, indicating lower poverty levels in the project area. § Two of the components show no significant change (Food & Nutrition Security and Farm Assets); while one cannot be calculated (Education) due to a lack of schools in the area. § For results between Nuru and non-Nuru members, Nuru farmers have statistically significant higher scores for the following components: Farm Assets, Non-Farm Assets, and Resilience to Shocks. § Because of the lack of a comparison group at baseline and because Nuru farmers opted into the program after the baseline was collected, the differences in the Nuru versus non-Nuru farmer scores cannot be attributed to Nuru programs because of the differences that may have existed at baseline. 21
Lessons Learned § One ne t the hema matic c composite v versus M Mult lti-t -the hema matic composites: : MPAT believes poverty is multi- dimensional and cannot be aggregated into one index. § Attribution: n: Importance of a comparison group to demonstrate change linked to Nuru’s intervention. § Comple leme ment nt no not S Supple leme ment nt: : A poverty assessment tool cannot take the place of project specific monitoring and evaluation. 22
MPAT Resources • www.ifad.org/mpat 23
Questions ns? 24
Recommend
More recommend
