Building Savings and Protecting Assets Ntongi McFadyen, Save the Children STRIVE Mozambique

Harnessing the Power of Cross-sectoral Programming to Alleviate HIV/AIDS and Food Insecurity


May 30, 2013Washington, DC

Building Savings and Protecting Assets

Ntongi McFadyen, Save the ChildrenSTRIVE Mozambique


STRIVE Mozambique context

• Chronic food insecurity and child malnutrition• Nampula Province:

– 63% of children under 5 chronically malnourished– Smallholder, subsistence-oriented farming– Hunger season from December to March


Program activities

• STRIVE activities implemented in 2008-2012:–Village Savings and Loan (VSL) groups–Rotating labor scheme, Ajuda Mutua (AM)

• 10,000+ participants in VSL groups - potential to impact more than 25,000 children

• Overlay with SANA, a USAID Title II food security program addressing nutrition, agriculture, and disaster risk reduction.


Impact evaluation• To assess program effect on:

– HH food security, HH and child food diversity, and child anthropometric measures

– Intermediary outcomes: income, assets and social capital

• Household cohort survey:– August 2009 and August 2012– 9.1% attrition rate – 1543 program beneficiaries and residents of the

comparison group area


MossurilVSL Only

Nacala VelhaVSL Only

MogincualVSL + AM

AngocheVSL + AM

MembaNo VSL, No AM

EratiNo VSL, No AM

MecontaAjuda Mutua

MomaAjuda Mutua

No VSL, No AM(Control)

VSLOnly

Ajuda MutuaOnly

VSL + Ajuda Mutua

Nampula Province


Qualitative follow-up study

• To explore factors leading to the change in outcomes• Subsample of households from impact evaluation

with measured improvements in income and social capital

• In-depth interviews conducted in Nov-Dec 2012– 43 VSL participants in Mossuril district– 42 VSL&AM participants in Angoche district


VSL AM VSL+AMHousehold Income per capita + + +

Assets* + + +

Mos. of adequate food** + + +

Food diversity (FCS) + Not sig. Not sig.

Child Food diversity (FCS) + Not sig. Not sig.

Stunting Not sig. - -

Wasting Not sig. Not sig. Not sig.

Underweight Not sig. Not sig. Not sig.

Results overview

*aluminum panels, toilets

(+) = better than control

(-) = worse than control


Difference in Difference designEffect of participation = Difference for VSL group – Difference for comparison group

TimeBaseline (2009) End Line (2012)

VSL

Comparison Group

Difference for comparison group

Difference for VSL group

Effect of participation

‘Counterfactual’ for VSL Group

What would have happened in absence of treatment


ResultsIncome and Assets

VSL vs. Control

Baseline (2009)

†DD = .85*** (log. scale); Ratio of difference is 2.3

† Propensity score weighted difference in difference, controlling for natural shocks

Endline (2012)

1,000 Mzn = $38

Total per capita Income

Total Durable Assets

VSL Comparison Group


†DD = 1.124***


ResultsFood Security and Dietary Diversity

VSL vs Control

Baseline (2009)

†DD = .416***

† Propensity score weighted difference in difference, controlling for natural shocks

Endline (2012)

Mo. Adequate Food

Dietary Diversity (FCS)



†DD = .889***


Key drivers of impact

• Income – Men have a central decision-making role in allocating savings and

loans, although women participation is more dominant in VSL – Use of loans to invest in agriculture and business; large changes in

income driven by investment in high value crops– Exposed to business training but sense of limited non-farm

opportunities; no apparent income gains from livestock

• Assets– Households acquiring a range of durable assets (improved toilets,

aluminum and zinc panels, bicycles, clocks, radios, etc)– Given a lump sum, are durable assets an easy and low risk

purchase? Or are they a preference?


Key drivers of impact

• Food security– Share-out almost always timed to align with the hunger season– Women referred to making food and daily needs purchases– Men referred to making agriculture and durable good investments– Members associated dietary diversity with desire for variety in

tastes, rather than nutritional quality

• Child anthropometrics (stunting, wasting, underweight)– Some VSL members exposed to nutrition messages through SANA;

acknowledgement of different food needs among children and equity in intra-household distribution of food

– In hierarchy of needs, potential investment in children’s nutrition appears to be crowded out by other priority needs


Questions


Implications going forwardVSL - overlayed with SANA - was not enough to improve health and nutrition outcomes for children, in this context:

– Would the explicit integration of health and nutrition within VSL yield nutritional outcomes for children? Is the problem not a priority or is the solution not well understood?

– Would increased engagement of resource gatekeepers (men, grandmothers) change allocations to prioritize nutritional needs?

VSL contributed to income, asset, and risk mitigation gains:

– Would children’s nutritional needs eventually compete for finite resources as households work their way through priority expenditures? Can VSL achieve this, and under what timeframe?

– What additional avenues can accelerate outcomes, e.g., readily available nutritional foods at a lower cost?

In other contexts, how has VSL shown to have built and protected assets?

Building Savings and Protecting Assets Ntongi McFadyen, Save the Children STRIVE Mozambique

Documents

Transcript of Building Savings and Protecting Assets Ntongi McFadyen, Save the Children STRIVE Mozambique