Welcome to the webinar No excuses: filli illing the evid idence gap on social assistance in in humanitarian settings organised by The International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
socialprotection.org presents: No excuses: filli illing the evid idence gap on social assistance in in humanitarian settings Speakers: Sarah Hague , Chief of Social Policy, UNICEF Lebanon Benjamin Schwab , Development Economist, Kansas State University James Omolo , Cash Transfer and Social Protection Expert, FAO Subregional Office for West Africa and Sahel Moderator: Raquel Tebaldi , Researcher, IPC-IG
No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings Presenter Sarah Hague UNICEF Lebanon Sarah Hague is the Chief of Social Policy for UNICEF Lebanon where she leads a team working on child poverty, social protection and public finance. She has previously worked in Ghana and Burkina Faso with UNICEF, developing the District League Table in Ghana and co-authoring the country’s first poverty and inequality report. Prior to UNICEF she headed Save the Children UK’s research team, where she led the development of the first international measure of child poverty. She has also worked for the World Bank, providing country support to carry out Poverty and Social Impact Analyses, as well as being previously employed as a civil servant in the Government of Rwanda, and as the Chair of the NGO Stamp Out Poverty.
No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings Presenter Benjamin Schwab Kansas State University Dr. Benjamin Schwab is a development and health economist in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University. Prior to joining the faculty at Kansas State, he worked at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). He has collaborated on several large scale impact evaluations, and currently researches a variety of topics related to food security, agriculture and rural poverty in developing countries.
No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings Presenter James Omolo FAO James Omolo is deployed from NORCAP (CASHCAP) to FAO Sub Regional Office for resilience in West Africa and Sahel as Cash Transfer and Social Protection Expert based in Dakar, Senegal, since September 2018. His mission is to support the capacity enhancement and coordination of the Social Protection and Cash Transfers activities in the sub region. Initially an Architect by profession, he has been trained in Cash transfer programming by CaLP and joined the CASHCAP roster from where he has had a chance to be deployed in North East Syria with NRC in 2016 to support its Shelter Sector in Remote Cash Transfer activities.
No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings Moderator Raquel Tebaldi IPC-IG Raquel Tebaldi holds a BA in International Relations and a master’s degree in Political Science from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil. She joined the IPC-IG in 2015 and currently works as a Researcher. She has been involved with many research projects at the Centre, including the production of a report on shock-responsive social protection in the MENA region launched in March 2019 in partnership with UNICEF MENARO.
No excuses: filling the evidence gap on social assistance in humanitarian settings Submit it your questions to the panell llists Also, follow our live coverage on Twitter, via #SPorgWebinar! @SP_Gateway @socialprotectionorg
Min Ila Impact evaluation of a child-focused social safety net UNICEF Lebanon February 2019
Context…. What were the results? What is Min Ila ? What’s next….? How did we carry out the impact evaluation?
Food security
Context ➢ Globally , increasing use of cash transfers in humanitarian contexts but need to bring the evidence ➢ Both ‘monetization’ and ‘genuine’ social assistance ➢ Cash assumed to have a wide range of benefits ➢ Development versus humanitarian ➢ Lebanon – 1.5/6m people a refugee; rapidly expending assets; high debt; increasing negative coping strategies ➢ UNICEF leading technical assistance to establishing national system ➢ Politically unfeasible to integrate refugees into Lebanese social transfer programmes
Context ➢ UNICEF Lebanon prefers child-focused social assistance o Tackling multiple deprivations o Addressing negative coping strategies o Medium to long-term outcomes o Integrated programming o Systems approach ➢ Leading with UNHCR and WFP global best practice for joint cash delivery system - LOUISE
Min Ila Child-focused social assistance programme Aimed to improve child wellbeing through addressing education costs and reduce of negative coping strategies Unconditional cash transfers (20 + 45 USD); 8 payments p.a.; on “LOUISE” cards FAQ Multisector-referral for household members; household visits for those at risk Reached 50,000 mostly Syrian children, enrolled in second-shift school Implemented by UNICEF with WFP, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education 2016-2018
The IE design ➢ Nonexperimental longitudinal design ➢ Large sample size and comparison group (geographical regression discontinuity design) ➢ Quantitative baseline, midline and endline ➢ Qualitative data (KIIs and FGDs) ➢ Multisectoral ➢ Baseline – prior to programme starting Oct 2016 ➢ Midline – Feb-March 2017 (programme then scaled-up) ➢ Endline – November-December 2017
The results Less time Health on chores/ spending; More care Health of optimistic 5-9 yrs Ate breakfast; not skip a Ed meal; spending; didn’t go to More bed hungry attendance (late in school year)
The results “ They used to bring thyme, labnah (yogurt) sandwiches in a bad state while now they “We won’t end up with bring croissant, cheese, fruits, they buy from household chores. You need the grocery. So you feel they’re really living to take advantage of like other children .” (teacher in Akkar) education and time you have to study .” (school girl in Akkar) “The child is [now] contented and relaxed. He feels he is equal to the other kids. He has his own uniform, his bag, sometimes if his copybook finishes he can buy another one … so the child feels more at ease and is not pressured.” (Teacher in Mt. Lebanon)
The results ? ➢ Low child labour; no impacts observed ➢ Child marriage? ➢ Health for older kids; child work for younger kids ➢ No impact on self-esteem, social support ➢ School as entry point; 50% schools reached capacity, so couldn’t see enrolment impacts ➢ Problem of measuring attendance at beginning of school year
Challenges 1. Just one year’s ‘worth’ of impact 2. Poor timing of endline 3. Need accompanying supply side response – systems are crucial 4. Limited use of the qualitative data 5. No differential impacts by gender…
Challenges 6. Child labour questions need to be better tackled 7. The very definition of social protection requires multi-year funding 8. Not realistic to expect national system to respond 9. Need very well designed evaluations
What’s next? ➢ Overall, very positive impacts – so how to learn and build on? ➢ Funding jeopardises social assistance; importance of multi-year ➢ Programming needs to be more integrated ➢ Designed to reach most vulnerable ➢ Look closer at supply response ➢ So…new programme ➢ Document best practice experience of common cash delivery, LOUISE
Thank you!
Comparing the productive effects of cash and food transfers in a crisis setting Evidence from a randomized experiment in Y emen Benjamin Schwab * * Kansas State University May 23, 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question Are there measurable productive impacts of food and cash transfers on rural beneficiaries in a country dealing with severe economic and political turmoil? Do the productive impacts differ depending on transfer modality (i.e. food or cash)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results Preview ▶ Modest increase in some indicators of productive investment ▶ Food recipients initiated cash cropping at higher rates than cash recipients ▶ Cash recipients accrue more livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results Preview ▶ Modest increase in some indicators of productive investment ▶ Food recipients initiated cash cropping at higher rates than cash recipients ▶ Cash recipients accrue more livestock Summary Alleviating poverty and supporting food consumption in com- plex and insecure settings can increase the productive capac- ity of households, though the effects depend on the mode of food assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommend
More recommend
