1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. % 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
Finally agreed to be able to assess 2.4 graduation rates (June 2014)

8. % of HHs meeting criteria (2.1-2.5)
Cohorts
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)

9. % 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)

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

11. 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

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