Event Recap – Are Resilience-Oriented Cash Plus Interventions Working for Ultra-Poor Households in Malawi

Event Recap - Are Resilience-Oriented Cash Plus Interventions Working for Ultra-Poor Households in Malawi: Learning from Mlumikizi Pro-ACT

IFPRI Malawi virtual brown bag seminar presentation by Natasha Siyumbwa and T. Arthur Chibwana, September 30, 2020

---

Social protection programs that build and sustain resilience and improve livelihoods are critical to the poorest of the poor. While Social Cash Transfer Programs (SCTP) provide regular and predictable incomes to poor households, complementary services, such as Village Savings and Loans (VSL) groups, and lean season progressive cash top ups can help to build more resilient livelihoods. Implementing the EU funded Pro-Resilience Action (Pro-ACT) project, Christian Aid and their partners Synod of Livingstonia Development Program (SOLDEV), Eagles Relief and Development International, and CARE Malawi have provided such interventions to ultra-poor households enrolled in the government social protection scheme using a capability based classification approach. Households are classified into two primary groups (PG) based on their productive capacities and capabilities: PG-1 are households whose productive resources are constrained (no labor potential and/or no access to arable land); while PG-2 covers those with labor potential and/or access to arable land. Christian Aid partnered with IDinsight to establish whether the interventions  and initial assumptions work as envisioned for each group and to draw lessons for current and future SCTP+ programs in Malawi.

During a September 30 virtual brown bag seminar, Natasha Siyumbwa, Senior Associate at IDinsight and T. Arthur Chibwana, Economic Justice Coordinator for Southern Africa at Christian Aid Malawi, presented the results of a cross-sectional study, which focused on three interventions in Mzimba North and Neno districts (Figure 1). The three interventions implemented were: (1) productive-oriented lean season Cash Top-Ups (CTUs), (2) Village Savings and Loans groups (VSLs), and (3) Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA). The CSA interventions constituted around four main themes: (1) soil and water conservation, (2) rainwater harvesting, (3) integrated pest management, and (4) disease control and soil fertility management.

Using data from 371 randomly selected beneficiary households and 10 key informants, the study analyzed whether program households were categorised and targeted as intended, and whether key interventions were likely to achieve their intended outputs and outcomes. The study also investigated areas for improvements in program implementation.

Presenting the key findings and recommendations, Siyumbwa mentioned that labor capacity was identified as an appropriate classifier for SCTP beneficiaries. 60% of households in the study had labor capacity but only 42% had household heads that were fit for work. This gives reason to focus more on households when implementing resilience and graduation programs.

Looking at the VSL interventions, the study found that VSL participation grew from 35% at the beginning of the project to 66% at the time of the study with no significant difference between PG-1 and PG-2. Most of the VSL participants accessed short term loans or received share outs, and some drew from the VSL’s social emergency funds. Some of the most vulnerable ultra-poor households were not able to participate in VSLs, because they could not afford the minimum average weekly contribution of MWK 641. Supplementary trainings, such as financial literacy or business skill trainings, had low attendance but were considered useful.

For CTUs, the study found that recipients spent their transfers as intended on consumption as well as productive investments such as agriculture inputs and livestock management. However, 19% of CTU recipients sold their assets, 40% engaged in ganyu (informal off-farm labor), and 6% migrated to cope with lean season stresses. This was likely because the level of CTU was insufficient to meet all their household maintenance needs. A few used ganyu to supplement productive investments.

Some 59% of targeted households attended at least one CSA training, and most attendees reported adopting the practices and techniques taught (Figure 2).

The study found two main challenges. First, government and cash plus implementers have faced difficulties in aligning government and NGO daily subsistence allowance (DSA) guidelines for frontline workers, which can cause tensions and delays in program implementation. Second, as Pro-ACT and the SCTP deliver interventions at the cluster level to participants to keep logistics simple and implementation affordable, there is a risk of excluding the isolated beneficiaries on the outskirts of the clusters. Siyumbwa emphasized that these challenges are not unique to Pro-ACT, but common to many SCTP implementers.

The study also identified general areas of improvement for future resilience programs. Cash plus programs should:

• Continue to promote VSLs by utilizing cash transfer pay points for sensitization and investigate remaining barriers that prevent beneficiaries from joining VSLs.
• Prioritize coordination between government and NGOs at the community, district, and central levels to align approaches on DSA, grievance redress mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation.
• Design programs to include innovative methods (such as para-extension models and multi-media) for reaching beneficiaries in remote areas.

In her conclusion, Siyumbwa highlighted that there are strong indications that the three interventions are achieving their intended outputs and outcomes. Furthermore, the team noted that many cash plus implementers face challenges in meeting the requirements for rigorous impact evaluations using randomized control trials which could produce useful learnings for the social protection sector. Christian Aid is currently implementing a reflexive impact evaluation by using quasi-experimental approaches to assess the impact of the project and its design.

The virtual event concluded with a Q/A session. Questions centred around issues related to the intervention and methods of impact evaluation.

The presentation slides can be found below or downloaded here. (PDF 1 MB)