1. What can a mixed methods approach tell us about the impact of poverty on children? Laura Camfield and Keetie Roelen EADI-DSA Conference, September 2011

2.  Importance of timing as well as intensity and duration, especially for children  Need to understanding how and why people become/ remain/ exit poverty ◦ e.g. critical assets, asset thresholds, liabilities  Importance of panel and qualitative data ◦ e.g. Davis & Baulch (2011), Krishna (2009)  Broad conclusions, e.g. role of assets and shocks; need specific, detailed case studies See Shepherd ea (2011), Addison ea (2009), Narayan ea (2007), CPRC website

3.  Static picture misleading as ◦ Seasonal variations in consumption and poverty (Krishna & Dercon, 2000) ◦ Increasing inequality at all levels  Woldehanna ea (2008) – Tigray vs. the rest, younger vs. older  Devereux and Sharp (2006) – Wollo vs. national picture  Dercon (2006), 1989-95, 6 villages, fall in poverty overall but increase in poverty in 2  Bigsten et al (2003:99), 1994-7, “potential poverty reduction... counteracted by worsening income distribution”  Importance of Productive Safety Net Programme

4.  Different degrees of mixing ◦ triangulation or ‘putting together’  e.g. household survey AND life history ◦ Sequential integration  e.g. focus group THEN survey THEN life history ◦ Holistic integration  e.g. ‘extended case’, longitudinal case studies  Case study research ◦ case ‘archive’ can be qual, quant, historical, etc. ◦ can generate or test theoretical propositions through careful sampling (e.g. ‘critical cases’) and comparison  e.g. Burawoy-Zambia, Bevan-Ethiopia, Olsen-India

5.  Young Lives, Ethiopia (rural sites only) ◦ 3 rounds of quan data: 2002, 2006, 2009 ◦ Qual data from 8 sites in 2007, 2008, 2009  Creation of a taxonomy (Roelen & Camfield, 2011)

6. Category Indicator R1R2R3 Ultra-poormalnourishment 7.40.30.5 not enrolled in school na8.114.9 no animals 18.412.810 no land used for agriculture 9.410.18.4 unreliable credit 6.510.67.2 Poorinsufficient food 24.75.16 child worked for money 11.48.25.8 no draught animals/oxen 53.431.524.7 Nearly no membership of organisations 25.27.46.8 poorno iron roof 77.587.247.9 no land irrigated 9390.286.8

7. categoryR1R2R3 ultra-poor78.68.4 poor49.82417.2 nearly poor35.655.541.8 not poor7.71232.6

8. R2 poverty status R1 poverty status ultra- poor poor nearpo or non-poorTotal ultra-poor 1.812.541.990.366.7 poor 5.6217.9323.193.0849.82 nearpoor 0.912.926.815.6236.23 non-poor 00.543.443.267.25 Total 8.3323.9155.4312.32100

9. R3 poverty status R2 poverty status ultra- poor poor nearpoo r non-poorTotal ultra-poor 3.08 1.450.728.33 poor 1.0911.057.254.5323.91 nearpoor 0.915.4329.5319.5755.43 non-poor 0.360.183.628.1512.32 Total 5.4319.7541.8532.97100

10.  Sex of child, age/ health status of hh head, ethnicity, frequency of contact with parents and dependency ratio were not significant

13.  Increasing prosperity -purchased donkeys, sharecropped-in irrigated land  More food – “I get to eat until I will be full”  But family work affecting health and marks: ◦ “Sometimes [my parents] make me to drop out from my education and other times I get [too] tired to study. Therefore, carrying the stone is not good both for my education and for my health because it cuts my body [and] I feel pain on the back of my body” (2008, currently in Grade 5)

14.  Mother heads household, father died 2004  Family picks grit from haricot beans  Initially she welcomed work: ◦ “If I didn’t have a job, I couldn’t have attended class”  But it began to “share” her time for studying:  Then the work stopped ◦ “we could not get the income as we were getting earlier [...] which resulted in lack of food”  By 2009 she was working 45 hrs per week and had missed 10 days of school to earn ETB 40 ($2.35)  Excluded from PSNP, although their land is sharecropped-out

15.  Households became wealthier from 2002 to 2009, despite global economic crises (57% to 25% poor/UP)  But 8% of households remained ultra-poor  Movements up – agricultural diversification, non-farm activities, remittances  Movements down – illness, share-cropping out land, PSNP exclusion  Children affected by duration and timing of poverty (Gabra, Naomi)  But increased wealth didn’t always benefit children (Legesse, Ephrem, Degife)