1. Community Savings Groups: Evidence of Contributions to Poverty Reduction Among MVC Households in Tanzania Colleen Green DAI – IMARISHA Dar es Salaam, Tanzania +255-782-987-062 colleen_green@dai.com

2. Today’s Discussion Community Savings Groups In Tanzania Research Scope and Methodology Food Security, Health, and Social Outcomes Policy and Program Implications 2

3. What are Community Savings Groups? A methodology whereby groups of 15-30 people save together each week to form a loan fund; An important mechanism for self insurance, savings, and credit, particularly where financial institution do not exist (or by structure price themselves out of reach) –Because of self management CSGs help people to cope with emergencies, build capital, smooth consumption and utilize strategies for self reliance Lots of spontaneous replication of new groups Common names in Tanzania: upatu, VICOBA, HISA, VSLA, and SILC

4. Pamoja Tuwalee Community Savings Groups (CSGs) Pamoja Tuwalee – a PEPFAR and USAID funded OVC program implemented by 4 international organizations and more than 80 local partners CSGs have become an integral part of OVC programs in Tanzania since the start of PEPFAR II. CSGs are the most central ES intervention being implemented by Pamoja Tuwalee partners. Rationale: access to savings increases HH investment in basic needs of child; also agricultural inputs, small business Secondary rationale: Platform for other MVC services/behavior change messaging. 4

5. Scope of Savings Reach of USAID OVC Program OVC Partner Total MVC Househ olds Involved in CSGs Total Number of Savings Groups Total Caregivers, Youths, or MVCC Members Involved in CSGs Total CSG Membe rs Aggregat e Savings Volume (TSh millions) Aggregat e Savings Volume (US$) Africare20,4811,47020,48137,6289,043$5,599,381 FHI 3607,6114354,1797,6111,353$837,771 Pact49,9123,03749,912 2,356$1,458, 824 WEI3,6402483,6406,245591$365,944 Total81,6445,19078,212101,39613,343$8,261,920

6. Research Scope and Methodology Two recently completed studies in Tanzania track new evidence of the impact of CSGs –The Pamoja Tuwalee Community Savings Group Study: A Review of Practice and Innovations in Community Savings Groups aimed at Supporting Most Vulnerable Children in Tanzania (Sept 2013 – Jan 2014) - a Qualitative Study of CSGs; and –The IMARISHA Endline Household Economic Assessment (HEA) 2014 – a mixed methods household assessment with quantitative and qualitative methodologies (June – August 2014). Both studies were participatory – USAID-funded Pamoja Tuwalee partners provided interviewers. Both used purposive sampling to target MVC households.

7. Food Security, Health, and Social Outcomes In addition to quantitative results, both studies highlight important qualitative results: Improved ability to smooth consumption, particularly in the hungry season. Improved food security. Improved accumulation of funds to meet MVC needs. Improved ability to meet family nutrition, health, and education expenditures and joint planning. Reduced isolation and stigma; improved voice of the poor. Development of village based, citizen-responsive institutions.

8. Changes in Household Hunger 8 CSGs were the primary intervention with these households –over three years there is a shift in household hunger.

9. Changes in Reported Monthly Savings (of households that save)

10. Programmatic MVC-specific Innovations MVC Fund Firm rules on % of caregiver/women participation Platform for non-financial services: HIV, GBV, parenting skills, literacy, business training MVC/Caregiver focused Innovations MVC Funds provide direct support for basic needs Financial and legal inclusion through CSGs registration and access to LGA services Social inclusion which improves stigma reduction Direct & Indirect MVC Benefits Direct membership provides economic benefits and engagement Oversight and distribution of MVC funds (in-kind or cash) MVCC Engagement 10

11. Policy and Program Implications NGOs and some local government authorities are incorporating CSGs into livelihoods enhancement programming; TASAF has savings in its design; Important considerations for future programming include: –Consider using a fee-for-service model in lieu of “incentivized” volunteers that disappear at close of project –Ensure CSGs must remain fully owned and managed by members for themselves and continue to serve members based on member needs/desires; –CSGs are a good platform for other messaging and interventions, but need help making good choices. –Share new evidence of what works should be shared broadly with donors, implementers and policymakers.

12. Conclusion CSG participation has a tremendous impact on poor households - improving the lives of children and caregivers. Donors and governments should continue to invest in CSG programming, but with an aim toward longer term sustainability. As TASAF programming expands, mechanisms to promote cash transfer recipients to self-select and participate in CSGs should be explored and evaluated. Continued need for more evidence on CSGs as a social protection and development tool.

13. Additional Resources Allen, Hugh and David Panetta. Savings Groups: what are they? SEEP Network Savings Led Financial Services Working Group. 2010. Savings Groups at the Frontier. SEEP Network Savings Led Financial Services Working Group. 2012 VSL Associates website- basic how to manuals and tools Do No Harm. Guidelines for Promoting Safe and Inclusive Savings Groups. SEEP Network. November 2014

14. Asanteni sana For more information or to obtain a soft copy of the studies, please contact Colleen Green at colleen_green@dai.comcolleen_green@dai.com Or +255-782-987-062