Graduation: Results & Lessons Intro self During CLP2 we developed graduation criteria Efficiency + trajectory Can’t say out of poverty. OPM assessing this Would like to share why, process, results and lessons

CLP’s Graduation Criteria Criteria finally agreed soon after March 2014 10 criteria, 6 themes Relate to 1) what CLP aims to achieve 2) char vulnerabilities 3) what the programme delivers HH needs to meet any six of criteria at end of support

Graduation criteria: why? Can potentially still be below the poverty line Can potentially still be above the poverty line Wage labour Plinth Access to water/ sanitation Cash savings (Taka 2,400) Assets of Taka 60,000 CLP 1 heavy emphasis on income/ expenditure Narrow definition of EP Main source of income on chars is wage labour Prone to supply and demand issues (illness, seasonal unemployment) Can still be extremely vulnerable but above the EPL Equally, can be relatively less vulnerable but below the EPL In response: 1) March 2011 annual review recommended graduation criteria 2) we expanded M&E system to 5 thematic areas Wage labour NO plinth NO access to water/ sanitation Cash savings (Taka 500) Assets of Taka 10,000

Developing CLP’s criteria (Timeline) March 2013 Annual Review team tasked with reviewing graduation criteria April 2010 Second Phase of CLP begins March 2011 Annual Review team recommends CLP develop graduation criteria March 2014 Annual Review team tasked with reviewing graduation criteria September 2011 CLP presents a two-step approach to graduation March 2014 Final graduation criteria and methodology agreed Long process (March 2011 – March 2014) 3 annual reviews tasked with reviewing graduation criteria March 2012 Annual Review team recommends changes (one-step process) November 2014 First report published documenting graduation rates

LogFrame Impact Weighting Version 1 LogFrame Impact Weighting Definition Score, if met 40% HH on raised plinth 14 Access to improved water 13 Access to sanitary latrine 30% Has productive assets Tk. 30,000 20 Member of VSL or other social group/committee 5 Savings Tk. 3,000 10% Knowledge of dowry law Ash/soap visible at latrine After March 2011 we 1) consulted community 2) looked at what other programmes were doing 3) debated internally Came up with 2-step process Step 1: must not achieve selection criteria (extreme poverty) Selection criteria: jobless, assetless, landless Step 2: 12 months after end of support must achieve 50+ on poverty scorecard (demonstrated sustainability) Explain scorecard

Annual reviews impact approach March 2012: 2-step process March 2011: Recommendation March 2013: BMI, FCS, Assets Presented 2-step process to 2012 AR team Did not like Recommended drop first step, equal weights, added couple more criteria Birth of what we now have 2 years later, still debating criteria March 2014: Assets/ cash, water seals

% of HHs graduating, by cohort Explain cohorts Official graduation rates i.e. at 18 months 6 or more criteria 2.6 baseline to provide context Overall graduation of 88% (target 85%) Retrofitting for 2.1-2.3 Finally agreed to be able to assess 2.4 graduation rates (June 2014)

% of HHs meeting criteria (2.1-2.5) Cohorts 2.1-2.5 Assets: mean value Taka 38,500 and less than Taka 1,700 at baseline (2.6) Cash savings: mean value Taka 2,400 and less than Taka 50 at baseline (2.6) Consumption increases: Number of meal and food groups (at baseline 37% achieve this)

% of HHs graduating, by cohort, years after CLP support ends Shows cohorts 2.1 – 2.5 Baseline, end of support and in 2015 Changes each time we survey, wage labour still important (affects 3 criteria: more than 1 income source, cash savings, assets) Livelihoods criteria : assets, savings, improving overtime Criteria in decline: water, sanitation, group membership Empowerment remains same CLP1 – in 2014 found 66% still meet graduation criteria   Months 2.1 46 2.2 40 2.3 28 2.4 16 2.5 4 2.6 0 (CLP support ongoing at time of survey)

Pros and cons Pros Cons Multi-dimensional view of poverty Context specific People have different views Time consuming to achieve agreement Difficult to change

Lessons Early consultation important CLP criteria good but by no means perfect (cash savings, assets) They were over-reviewed Community involvement Think through data collection, analysis and reporting framework early Criteria will be ‘interrogated’ – make sure process is defendable

Thank you www.clp-bangladesh.org Many reports related to graduation on CLP website Thank you www.clp-bangladesh.org