Saving for Change
Saving for Change Replicators: To Train or Not to Train Laura Fleischer Proaño Freedom from Hunger
Insert Your Logo Here
Spontaneous vs. Controlled Savings Group Growth Practitioners should let Savings Groups spread spontaneously and organically.
Practitioners should provide adequate training to ensure the responsible growth of Savings Groups.
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change Replication
Structured Replication
Organic Replication
• 3-day training • Pictorial Guide • Certificate
• No 3-day training • No Pictorial Guide • No certificate
Paid NGO animator provides advice to replicators in both structured and organic replication approaches.
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change RCT Design
• • • •
3 years: 2009-2012 Segou, Mali 500 households Questions: – Who participates in Saving for Change? – What is the impact of Saving for Change? – Which replication delivery channel is more cost-effective: structured or organic?
• Design: – Treatment 1: Saving for Change with structured replication – Treatment 2: Saving for Change with organic replication – Control group: No intervention Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change
Research Results (1) In structured replication villages: • Higher take-up (40% vs. 33%) • Higher value of women’s livestock ($91 vs. $72) • Less food insecurity (45% vs. 50%) • More pregnant women took drugs against malaria (85% vs. 79%)
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change
Research Results (2) • • • •
Replicators formed 60% of 19,000 groups in Mali Cost to train a replicator = $40 Cost of structured replication = 40 cents per household Structured replication is cost-effective
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change Replicators:
To Train or Not to Train?
“Given this almost negligible cost difference [40 cents per household], evidence of even slightly higher benefits in structured replication villages would suffice to justify a structured replication strategy. As discussed above, we find that the program impacts on take-up, livestock holdings and food security are significantly and uniformly higher in structured replication villages. In cost-benefit terms, this presents a clear and unambiguous case in favor of structured replication.” Source: Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) Draft Report, February 18, 2013
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Spontaneous vs. Controlled Savings Group Growth Practitioners should let Savings Groups spread spontaneously and organically.
Practitioners should provide adequate training to ensure the responsible growth of Savings Groups.
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change Replication
Structured Replication
Organic Replication
• 3-day training • Pictorial Guide • Certificate
• No 3-day training • No Pictorial Guide • No certificate
Paid NGO animator provides advice to replicators in both structured and organic replication approaches.
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change RCT Design
• • • •
3 years: 2009-2012 Segou, Mali 500 households Questions: – Who participates in Saving for Change? – What is the impact of Saving for Change? – Which replication delivery channel is more cost-effective: structured or organic?
• Design: – Treatment 1: Saving for Change with structured replication – Treatment 2: Saving for Change with organic replication – Control group: No intervention Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change
Research Results (1) In structured replication villages: • Higher take-up (40% vs. 33%) • Higher value of women’s livestock ($91 vs. $72) • Less food insecurity (45% vs. 50%) • More pregnant women took drugs against malaria (85% vs. 79%)
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change
Research Results (2) • • • •
Replicators formed 60% of 19,000 groups in Mali Cost to train a replicator = $40 Cost of structured replication = 40 cents per household Structured replication is cost-effective
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
Saving for Change Replicators:
To Train or Not to Train?
“Given this almost negligible cost difference [40 cents per household], evidence of even slightly higher benefits in structured replication villages would suffice to justify a structured replication strategy. As discussed above, we find that the program impacts on take-up, livestock holdings and food security are significantly and uniformly higher in structured replication villages. In cost-benefit terms, this presents a clear and unambiguous case in favor of structured replication.” Source: Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) Draft Report, February 18, 2013
Insert Your Logo Here
Insert Your Logo Here
