Frank DeGiovanni | December, 2017

The Graduation Approach:

History, Impacts, and Looking to the Future

Graduation Approach Addresses a Complex Problem

The extreme poor tend to have multiple

challenges:

• Food insecurity

• Own few or no assets

• Limited livelihood prospects

• Poor health

• Social isolation

• Often are poorly served by government and

NGO programs

Graduation Approach is a holistic livelihoods

program designed to address multi-dimensional

needs of extreme poor

Destitute Extreme

Poor

Moderate

Poor

Vulnerable

Non-PoorNon-Poor Wealthy

Financial Services/Development Programs Do Not Reach the Poorest

Microfinance and Livelihood Development Programs

Social Protection Programs

What is Graduation?

Goal – “graduation” into a sustainable

livelihood and putting HH on a path out of

extreme poverty

To reach this goal over time, programs

typically seek to help families achieve

these critical outcomes:

• Improved food security

• Stabilized and diversified income

• Increased assets & savings

• Increased self-confidence

THE GRADUATION INTO SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH

MARKET ANALYSIS

TARGETING

LIFE SKILLS COACHING

ASSET TRANSFER

TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING

SAVINGS

CONSUMPTION SUPPORT

Extreme Poverty

Sustainable Livelihoods

Month24Start Month 3 Month6

Source: CGAP/Partnership for Economic Inclusion

Month36

Characteristics of “Responsible” Graduation Programs

Graduation is NOT a strategy to promote exit from

social protection systems or other social programs

Graduation should be “responsible”:

• Participants should be able to access further

support when needed

• Programs must fit geographic and HH context

• “Graduation” thresholds should be clear,

consistent, and transparent

• Graduation should facilitate access to other types

of support when needed

• Programs should have accountability mechanism

• Graduation is not for all extreme poor HH

Source: Devereux, Roelen, Sabates-Wheeler: Graduation – How to Do It

Responsibly

BRAC developed the “Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction/Targeting the Ultra Poor” (CFPR/TUP) program in 2002

CGAP and the Ford Foundation designed a global pilot program in 2006 to test replication of BRAC’s program in multiple settings

Approach tested in 10 sites in 8 countries to maximize

external validity. Sites spanned:

• 3 different continents

• Different cultures and religions

• Varying subsistence activities and market access

• Degree of overlap with government social safety net

programs

The CFPR/TUP program and the CGAP/Ford pilots all

evaluated rigorously at end of program and one or more

years after program ended

H

7

Development and Replication of the Graduation Approach

CGAP Ford Foundation Graduation ProgramHaiti - India - Pakistan - Honduras - Peru - Ethiopia - Yemen - Ghana

9

Results from the RCTs

Lessons observed from

implementation of the pilots

Widespread interest among

policy makers and

practitioners

Three Types of Lessons Have Emerged

Selected Impacts of the Graduation Approach

VARIABLE

MULTI-SITE INDIA SITE

Change after Three Years

% Change over Control Group

Change after Seven Years

% Change over Control Group

Total consumptionper capita, month

$3.36(control $68.80)

4.9% $15.72 24.9%

Food consumptionper capita, month

$2.62(control $41.2)

6.4% $9.12 25.9%

Productive asset value

$215(control $1,576)

13.6% NA NA

Income from livestock/month

$30.20(control $80.62)

37.5% $25.79 286%

Savings balance$75(control $78.4)

95.7% NA NA

Savings deposited last month

$3.64(control $21.1)

17.3% $18.64 131%

Benefit/cost 166% NA NA NA

• Training in use of asset is critical to maximizing use of asset

• Ongoing “coaching” complements classroom training

• Coaching in “life skills” also seems important

• Setting graduation goals early is important

• Group meetings and village assistance committees help

• Builds resilience

• Helps build assets

• Helps create financial discipline

• Need literacy training to encourage usage

• Flexibility is important consideration in design

• Kick starts the economic activity

• Mix short and long term assets

• Diversify to mitigate risks

• Support services are key (vets, irrigation etc)

• Building markets and value chains are important

• Stabilizes household

• Promotes food security

• Helps create “peace of mind”

• Fosters trust

• Provides “room” for financial education and savings

Savings

Training and

coaching

Lessons learned from implementation

Asset

transfer

Consumptio

n support

Source: CGAP/ Partnership for Economic Inclusion

Graduation Adaptations Worldwide ( Draft - August 2017)

no. programs

1 In brackets, the number of programs

70 ongoing and 26 in planning phase programs

in 43 countries

% by region1 % by lead organization1

59%

32%

7%

NGO (57)

Government (31)

UN Agency (7)

FSP (1)

47%

20%

19%

8%3%

3%

Sub-Saharan Africa(45)Latin America &Caribbean (19)South Asia (18)

East Asia & Pacific(8)

Selected Trends in the Spread of the Graduation Approach II

Expansion to different population segments

• Refugees

• Youth

• People with disabilities

• Indigenous people

Working in different geographic settings

• Urban areas

• Areas affected by climate change

13

Key Questions as the Approach is Adapted and Scaled I How to optimize benefits for different population groups and

geographic contexts?

• How to assist households who benefit the least?

• How to promote women’s empowerment and gender equity?

• How should programs be adapted for refugees, youth, indigenous people,

and people with disabilities?

• What is the value of incorporating psycho-social interventions?

• How should the program be adapted for urban areas, climate change-

affected areas, and conflict-affected and fragile areas?

• What are the best strategies to link households to markets and value

chains?

• How should the programs be adapted to promote wage, rather than self-

employment?

• What can be done to promote the sustainability of the impacts? 14

Key Questions as the Approach is Adapted and Scaled II

How to improve delivery systems and scalability for maximum cost-effectiveness?

• Are all of the components necessary for maximum impact?

• How to optimize the design of each component – what level of effort/value of each component is necessary

• What are the pros and cons of different targeting methods?

• What are the best ways to integrate the approach within national social protection systems?

How to structure the integration of the approach into social protection systems so that households who “graduate” remain eligible for other social protection programs?

• What does it mean to “graduate” from the program?

• How can community development interventions improve program effectiveness?

• How to improve the ability of government staff to implement the approach?

• What are the best ways to address the challenges of scaling the approach nationally?

15

16

Thank you