BRAC’s ultra-poor graduation (UPG) program was modified in 2017, with changes made to the ultra-poor selection criteria and the type of support provided to eligible households. Our study aims to find out the overall impact of this new model on the livelihoods, empowerment, ownership of physical assets, housing condition, employment, income, and consumption of the beneficiaries. Findings show that the program has been quite successful in targeting the vulnerable ultra-poor households who were asset-poor at baseline. The program increased total time devoted to earning activities for both working-age men and women in groups 2 and 3.
Researchers: Atiya Rahman; Anindita Bhattacharjee; Md. Raied Arman; Farzin Mumtahena; Dr Narayan Das
Partners: BRAC
Timeline: 2017-2020
Status: Completed
Contact: Atiya Rahman; atiya.rahman@bracu.ac.bd
Context
BRAC has been implementing the ultra-poor graduation (UPG) program to fight ultra-poverty in Bangladesh since 2002. It was originally designed to provide the ultra-poor people with a grant in the form of productive assets and weekly subsistence, training, and social development support. Several studies have shown the program’s substantial effectiveness in improving the ultra-poor households’ labour force participation, household income, and investment in healthcare, among others.
The program has undergone several modifications over the years to address the emerging challenges and new forms of vulnerabilities. The new design, which was introduced in 2017, brought changes to the ultra-poor selection criteria and the type of support provided to eligible households. The participants are selected into three different categories in the new model. Group 1 consists of the elderly population who are provided with some grant and supported to be enrolled in different social safety net schemes. Group 2 and 3 consists of other ultra-poor households, and the grouping depends on the relative vulnerabilities of the households, as measured by the selection criteria, and, consequently, the magnitude of the support varies by group. Considering this change, this study aims to evaluate the impact of the new model on the beneficiaries.
This study is relevant to SDG 1 (no poverty), particularly to ending poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Objectives
What is the overall impact of this new model on the livelihoods, empowerment, ownership of physical assets, housing condition, employment, income, and consumption of the beneficiaries?
Methodology
BRAC implements the UPG program through its local branch offices (BOs). BRAC identified participants from 21 districts for implementing the 2017 cohort, and for this study, we randomly selected two BOs from each of these 21 districts; from each of these selected branch offices, we then randomly selected 28 households each from groups 2 and 3. Two additional lists of non-eligible households were also prepared, those who had incomes just below the selection criteria but were not eligible to be included in either of the groups. We consider these households as near-eligible, around 50 from each branch, and use them as comparison groups (control) for assessing the effects of the treatment on group 2 and 3. To assess the impact of the intervention for group 1, we surveyed all primarily selected households. During the baseline survey, the final selection for this group was not done yet, and hence those who were not finally selected serve as the control group. We use a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach to have the unbiased estimates of the impacts of the treatment.
Findings and Recommendations
Findings show that the program has been quite successful in targeting the vulnerable ultra-poor households who were asset-poor at baseline. The program increased total time devoted to earning activities for both working-age men and women in groups 2 and 3. Without the intervention, the labour resources of these ultra-poor household members could have remained underutilized. Findings show that the per capita monthly income of groups 2 and 3 increased by 27 per cent and 19 per cent, respectively. Consumption expenditure of the households also increased significantly for the two groups, along with substantial impacts on productive assets like livestock, poultry, and land. There was also a substantial increase in ownership of livestock assets among participating women. This indicates a positive impact on the economic empowerment of targeted women. The positive effects on households’ durable assets indicate that the program was successful in improving the welfare of ultra-poor households. The programme also helped increase the financial assets of groups 2 and 3, such as savings.
Overall, we find that the revised graduation model is highly effective in addressing ultra-poverty in Bangladesh, at least in the short run. Our findings suggest that this model can be scaled up to improve the livelihoods of the ultra-poor.
