FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

0 downloads 458 Views 502KB Size Report
Goitre. 0.2. 1.6. Leper. 0.2. 1.1. Paralysis. 0.2. 1.1. Total. 15.7. 100. Source: SCTS Baseline Survey. As shown in tabl
Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS) German Technical Cooperation (GTZ)

Social Safety Net Project

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT KALOMO SOCIAL CASH TRANSFER SCHEME

Lusaka, September 2007

EVALUATION TEAM The monitoring and evaluation of the Social Cash Transfer Scheme (SCTS) in Kalomo district was conducted by a consultant team. Mr. W. Colenbrander, M&E consultant, designed and managed the external monitoring and evaluation system. Ms. E. Schüring, technical advisor to the Social Safety Net Project with the assistance of Mr. E. Boonstoppel, M&E consultant, and Mr. S. Michelo, M&E specialist in the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services, conducted the quantitative analysis and wrote the evaluation report. Mr. W. Colenbrander was assisted by his research assistant Mr. Nicholas Chooma and by enumerators Mr. N. Mbandama and Ms. K. Mwiimba, who were trained by Mr. Zimba and Mr. Tembo, both from Central Statistical Office (CSO) in Livingstone. The later also participated as an enumerator. With regards to database design and data entry, the evaluation survey team was assisted by Mr. L. Banda of Trainezee Computer Consultancy Limited under the overall responsibility of Mrs. G. Kamfwa.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT People at community level often get interviewed without receiving any acknowledgement for their time and readiness to respond to all the questions asked. So firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to the respondents. Furthermore, we hope that this report contributes to further improving the service delivery by the public service and non-governmental sector to the target group that is at the centre of this evaluation, i.e. the most vulnerable and incapacitated households in society. This report is a product born out of the input from a wide array of persons, organizations and institutions. Although it is impossible to list them individually, we would still like to extend our appreciation for their tireless efforts. We are particularly grateful for the support received from the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS) at all levels. Special thanks also go to Mr. P.-E. Couralet, Mr. B. Schubert, Mr. M. Rompel for their valuable comments and input in the evaluation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... 1 LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4 1.

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 7

2.

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

3.

TARGETING MECHANISM ................................................................................................... 15 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4.

Nutrition........................................................................................................................ 41 Health .......................................................................................................................... 43 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 44

LIVELIHOODS ..................................................................................................................... 46 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

9

School Enrolment .......................................................................................................... 37 Levels and Reasons for Absenteeism.............................................................................. 38 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 39

IMPACT ON NUTRITION & HEALTH ..................................................................................... 41 7.1 7.2 7.3

8

Cost-effectiveness of the scheme ................................................................................... 32 Quality of management .................................................................................................. 33 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 35

IMPACT ON EDUCATION ..................................................................................................... 37 6.1 6.2 6.3

7

Delivery Mechanism ...................................................................................................... 28 Extraction of Funds........................................................................................................ 28 Accessibility of Transfers ................................................................................................ 29 Client Satisfaction.......................................................................................................... 30 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 31

MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHEME ........................................................................................ 32 5.1 5.2 5.3

6.

Targeting Method .......................................................................................................... 15 Household Characteristics .............................................................................................. 17 Effectiveness of Targeting .............................................................................................. 22 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 26

DELIVERY MECHANISM ...................................................................................................... 28 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

5.

Data Collection................................................................................................................ 9 Quantitative Analysis ..................................................................................................... 10 Qualitative Analysis ....................................................................................................... 11 Constraints ................................................................................................................... 12

Cash Income................................................................................................................. 46 Debt & assets ............................................................................................................... 47 Consumption................................................................................................................. 49 Investment Pattern ........................................................................................................ 51 Misuse ......................................................................................................................... 53 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 54

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY ............................................................................................. 55 9.1 9.2 9.3

Positive impact .............................................................................................................. 55 Negative impact ............................................................................................................ 56 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 57

SOCIAL POSITION AND SELF-ESTEEM ............................................................................... 58

10

10.1 10.2 10.3

Social Position within the Community .............................................................................. 58 Self esteem and future perspective ................................................................................. 60 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 61

11.

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 63

12.

LITERATURE ................................................................................................................... 65

Annex 1 - Research questions, indicators, targets and data sources ........................................... 66 Annex 2 - Sample by Agricultural Block and Geographic Location .............................................. 71 Annex 3 – Baseline survey and Evaluation survey Questionnaire ................................................ 72 Annex 4 – FGDs and Topics ........................................................................................................ 74 Annex 5 – Consumption of Food per Household during a Week .................................................. 75 Annex 6 – Sources of cash income.............................................................................................. 76 Annex 7 – Percentage of households per consumption item ....................................................... 77

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACC

Area Coordinating Committee

CSO

Central Statistics Office

CWAC

Community Welfare Assistance Committee

DR

Dependency Ratio

DSW

Department of Social Welfare

DSWO

District Social Welfare Officer

DSW Office

District Social Welfare Office

DWAC

District Welfare Assistance Committee

FGD

Focus Group Discussions

GTZ

German Technical Cooperation

LCMS

Living Conditions Monitoring Survey

MCDSS

Ministry of Community Development and Social Services

OVC

Orphans and Vulnerable Children

PRSP

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

PSWO

Provincial Social Welfare Office

PWAS

Public Welfare Assistance Scheme

SCTS

Social Cash Transfer Scheme

SSNP

Social Safety Net Project

ZMK

Zambian Kwacha

1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18: Figure 19: Figure 20: Figure 21: Figure 22: Figure 23: Figure 24: Figure 25: Figure 26: Figure 27: Figure 28:

Kalomo District, Base Map 9 Targeting Flow Chart 16 Age Pyramids for Beneficiary Household Members and All Zambia 18 Marital Status of Beneficiary Household Heads 19 Prevalence of Disability of Beneficiary Household Members by Age 20 Composition of Beneficiary Households 21 Reasons for Difficult Access stated by Beneficiary Households 30 Average Number of Meals per Agricultural Block 41 Levels of Satiation of Beneficiary Households 42 Percentage of Beneficiary Households consuming Vitamins and Proteins every day and Meat and Fish at least once per week 43 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Sources of Cash 47 Average Amount of Debt by Location 47 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Number of Assets owned 48 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Number of Times Households sold Assets over 3 Months 49 Average Consumption per Week by Location in ZMK 49 Percentage of Overall Consumption on Different Consumption Categories 50 Percentage of Households making Investments by Location 51 Average Investment per Quarter by Location 51 Percentage of Households with Return on Investment 52 Reasons stated by Beneficiary Households for no Return on Investment 53 Distribution of Beneficiary Households Begging from the Community 55 Frequency of Begging by Beneficiary Households comparing Baseline to Evaluation 56 Perception of Beneficiary Households on whether they are accepted by the Community 58 Tendency of Acceptance by the Community over Time 59 Participation of Beneficiary Households in Community Activities 59 Perception of Beneficiary Households on how are they are viewed by the community 60 Percentage of Beneficiary Household being hopeful about the Future 60 Future Plans of Beneficiary Households 61

2

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17 Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29:

Timing of Baseline and Evaluation Survey 9 Number of Focus Group Discussions per Group and Number of Participants 11 Number of People Interviewed per Key Informant Group 12 Population Distribution by Age and Ratio of Female 17 Marital Status of SCTS Beneficiary Household Members by Age and Sex 18 Age of Heads of Beneficiary Households by Age and Sex Ratio 19 Prevalence of Orphanhood by Type and Age Group 20 Percentage Distribution of Disabilities of Beneficiary Household Members 20 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Dependency Ratio 22 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Disqualifiers of the Scheme 23 Perception of Exclusion Error according to Status after Retargeting in SCTS 25 Satisfaction of Beneficiary Households with CWAC Performance 25 Satisfaction about CWAC Performance disaggregated by Retargeting Status 26 Receipt of Payments by Beneficiary Households 29 Assessment by Beneficiary Households of whether Access to Transfers was difficult disaggregated by Bank and Pay Point 29 Satisfaction by Beneficiary Households with Performance of Pay Points and Bank 30 Development of Costs for Transfers and Administration 32 School Enrolment for Primary & Secondary Education (%) by Age Groups for Beneficiary Households and by Location and Poverty Status for National Average 37 Net & Gross Enrolment Rate for Evaluation 38 Levels of Absenteeism by Sex and by Number of Days for the 3 months preceding the Survey 39 Reason for Absenteeism 39 Average Number of Meals per Day per Beneficiary Household 41 Prevalence of Sickness of Beneficiary Households in the past month by Age and Gender 43 Prevalence of Disabilities among Beneficiary Household who are in Baseline and Evaluation 44 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by different Income Groups and by Location 46 Percentage of Beneficiary Households Having Debt 47 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Ownership of Assets 48 Percentage of Households per Consumption Category 50 Average Investment per Item during the 3 months preceding the Survey 52

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY While conditional and unconditional cash transfer schemes have long been established and tested in middle income settings, they are rather recently implemented and remain contested in low income countries. The Kalomo social cash transfer scheme, which has been set up as a social protection mechanism in reaction to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Zambia, is the first of its kind to verify whether cash transfer schemes are feasible and can have an impact in a low income country with weak administrative structures and constrained financial resources.

OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness of community based targeting A general analysis of the beneficiary household characteristics compared to the national or regional averages shows that the Age Pyramid, SCTS Beneficiary Household Members targeted group of beneficiary households 65+ is proportionally more vulnerable, and 60-64 match the main entry criteria for the 55-59 50-54 scheme which require households to 45-49 40-44 have no or limited self-help potential. 35-39 The beneficiary population has 30-34 25-29 proportionally more younger as well as 20-24 elderly persons, showing the under15-19 10-14 representation of a productive 5-9 0-4 generation. 23.4% of all households are one generation households - out of 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Population (%) which the majority (17.5%) are elderly Men Women one person households - while 32.6% of Source: SCTS, Baseline Survey, 2004 all households are generation gap households, where the elderly take care of the younger children. More than half of all household heads are aged 65 and above, 74% of them are single and 62% are female. The level of orphanhood among the beneficiary children is with 68.4% considerably higher than the national average of 17%. Relatively more household members are disabled with 15.6% compared to 2.4% nationwide. While the characteristics of the targeted households reflect a high degree of vulnerability and the perception of beneficiary households and the community on the quality of targeting has generally been positive, the findings on the effectiveness of the targeting system are not conclusive yet. Based on the calculation of the dependency ratio according to objective criteria (as opposed to the judgement of the CWAC members), we have 29% of households who do not meet the criterion of having a dependency ratio above 300. Nevertheless, this ‘inclusion error’ is mainly explained by the discretion of CWAC members to classify someone as fit or unfit and could also be due to the fact that the dependency ratio requirement of above 300 is not adequate to identify the most destitute and incapacitated households in Zambia. More research is currently underway to look at the effectiveness of community based targeting and contrast it with other targeting mechanisms. Effectiveness of the delivery mechanism Despite limited infrastructure and accessibility problems, the scheme has proven that cash can be delivered effectively in a low-income country like Zambia. Most beneficiary households received the social cash timely and in full through different pay points spread throughout the pilot region. None of the beneficiary households declared any of the money to be extracted by the bank, pay point managers, CWAC members or other stakeholders in the scheme. In addition, 69% of the beneficiary households mentioned that it was not difficult to collect their 4

money, which is generally a positive result given that most household heads are old, some of them are disabled and many suffer from sicknesses. Overall, 90% of the beneficiary households were happy or very happy about the method of payment. Quality of management The Social Cash Transfer Scheme proves to be cost-effective as the administrative costs represented on average 13 % of the total costs of the scheme excluding government salaries and 19% including government salaries. Ongoing technical assistance by GTZ has not been factored in. The cost-effectiveness is first of all a structural advantage of cash transfer programmes, which are less costly in delivery than in-kind transfers and can secondly be ascribed to the utilization of an already existing government structure for the implementation of the scheme. At the beginning of the scheme a lot of capacity building and backstopping was needed to improve the quality of management. After 1.5 years of implementation the general management has now reached satisfactory levels where the scheme is managed by the District Social Welfare Office without any direct technical support.

IMPACT ANALYSIS Education Enrolment rates rose by 3% points to 79.2% at evaluation. This increase is statistically significant and could be an effect of the SCTS. Following the sampled youth of school-going age over time, 50% of all youth (7 – 17) who were not in school at baseline were enrolled at evaluation. Half of them started school while the other half returned to a higher grade in school, meaning that they had dropped out of school before the scheme started. The impact of the SCTS on absenteeism is not conclusive. While there was an overall increase in the number of days absent, absenteeism reduced for shorter periods and increased for longer periods. The longer periods of absenteeism might be a result of the drought which took place in 2004/05 and which increased the opportunity costs to schooling. Qualitative research on the contrary revealed a positive change in school attendance of beneficiary children after the inception of the scheme. Nutrition and health Household members living on one meal a day decreased from 19.3% to 13.3% at evaluation and even more importantly, beneficiary households felt more satiated after having eaten. The percentage of households indicating that

Satiation levels of beneficiary households 60%

56.3%

50% 40%

34.8% 28.5%

30%

23.3% 14.1%

20% 10%

1.1% 0.0%

0% Still Hungry after Meal

Baseline Evaluation

0-5

6-18

Evaluation survey

41.9%

Prevalence of sickness in the past month by age groups 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Baseline survey

19-64

65 and above

Just Enough

Enough

Don't Know

they were still hungry after each meal decreased from 56.3% at baseline to 34.8% at evaluation. Due to the higher purchasing power households were also able to have a more varied diet: the number of households consuming vitamins (vegetables and fruits) and proteins (fish and meat) increased at evaluation. Most-likely due to improved nutrition, the incidence of illnesses reported during the 5

month preceding the surveys went down from 42.8% to 35%. In addition, a reduction of partial sightedness among beneficiary households from 7.2% to 3.3% could be observed, potentially due to the fact that beneficiary households could afford small eye surgeries. It appears unlikely that these positive improvements in nutrition and health would have taken place without the scheme. Livelihoods The scheme has most likely positively impacted upon the livelihoods of the beneficiary households. The number of beneficiary households relying on cash-income from external sources such as relatives and neighbours decreased at evaluation, pointing towards increased self-reliance of the beneficiary households rather than reliance on the community. Ownership of assets by households Type of The average debt went down from roughly 13,000 to Baseline Evaluation asset 8,000 ZMK, and asset ownership developed positively Cattle 5.5% 5.2% from 4.2 assets at baseline to 5.2 assets at evaluation. Particularly, the increase in smaller livestock is Donkeys 1.5% 0.4% noteworthy: 7 times as many households owned goats Goats 8.5% 41.7% and the ownership for chickens increased by 15% points. Pigs 1.5% 1.5% In addition, households who needed to sell assets in order Chicken 42.4% 57.6% to buy food during the 3 months preceding the surveys Guinea fowls 1.9% 2.2% decreased by 4 percentage points. Bicycle 3.7% 5.2% Ox-cart Radio House Furniture Pans/ pots Plough Hoe Axe Grinding Mill Others

3.0% 4.4% 74.9% 16.6% 87.1% 14.4% 86.0% 70.5% 0.0% 0.0%

3.3% 8.1% 91.1% 15.5% 93.4% 17.7% 88.9% 77.5% 10.0% 1.1%

More households both consumed and invested more. The number of beneficiary households making investments quadrupled from roughly 14% to 50% and the average amount invested doubled. 71% of all households mentioned that they had invested part of the social cash and 52% of them even stated to have generated some extra income. Concerning misuse of money, FGDs and quantitative research show that it has been rare. When recorded, CWAC members reacted quickly to reverse this trend.

Wider community The wider community has benefited from the SCTS. The scheme has presented a financial relief to the community with the prevalence as well as the frequency of begging reducing considerably. The percentage of households begging from community members decreased from 86.7% to 69.3% and 75% of households who were still begging at evaluation claimed to beg less. The trend of reduced begging is confirmed by the qualitative research. In addition, it is likely that the SCTS injected cash into the local economy and stimulated economic activities. The majority of the money used on consumption items at evaluation (81.3%) is spent locally. It is therefore likely that neighbours as well as local shopkeepers have also benefited from the additional inflow of cash. Jealousy – even though expressed – does not seem to have caused disturbances in communities and did not tilt the overall positive perception of the scheme by the community. Social status – Self Esteem While the impact of the scheme with respect to the social position of beneficiary households is not conclusive, households have definitely gained more self-confidence over time: they think that they are considered less poor by the community at evaluation, look more positive into the future (households being hopeful increased from 37% at baseline to 49% at evaluation) and more households have plans for the future (increase from 50% at baseline to 73% at baseline), which is a crucial prerequisite for breaking through the vicious cycle of poverty. 6

1.

INTRODUCTION

While conditional and unconditional cash transfer schemes have long been established and tested in middle income settings, they are rather recently implemented and remain contested in low income countries. The Kalomo social cash transfer scheme, which has been set up as a social protection mechanism in reaction to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Zambia, is the first of its kind to verify whether cash transfer schemes are feasible and can have an impact in a low income country with weak administrative structures and constrained financial resources. In order to generate the necessary information on the feasibility, costs and impact of the scheme, the MCDSS/GTZ Social Safety Net Project, which set up the social cash transfer scheme, commissioned a monitoring and evaluation consultancy. The scheme delivers a small amount of cash every month in form of grants to households in Kalomo District without any or limited self-help potential. Most of these households are affected by HIV/AIDS. All targeted households receive 30,000 ZMK1 (US$ 7.52) on a monthly basis while targeted households with children get an additional child bonus of 10,000 ZMK (US$ 2.5). These critically poor and incapacitated households are identified through a community based targeting process carried out by grassroots structures of Public Welfare Assistance Scheme (PWAS). Through cash transfers the pilot project aims to establish a manageable and affordable system of basic social protection that reduces extreme poverty, enables people to care for their basic needs and empowers beneficiaries to take their own decisions without creating dependency or lack of initiative to improve their own livelihood. The pilot scheme pursues the following two main objectives3 : •

Reduce extreme poverty, hunger and starvation in the 10% most destitute and incapacitated (non-viable) households in the pilot region (approximately 1,000 households at the first pilot stage)4; The focus of the scheme is on generation gap households, which are headed by the elderly caring for orphans and vulnerable children (OVCs) because the breadwinners are chronically sick or have died due to HIV/AIDS or other reasons.



Generate information on the feasibility, costs and benefits and all positive and negative impacts of a Social Cash Transfer Scheme as one component of a comprehensive Social Protection Strategy for Zambia.

After a research, design and test phase5 the scheme was launched on 4 May 2004 by the Honourable Marina Nsingo MP Minister of Community Development and Social Services. By January 2005 the scheme had been rolled out to the whole pilot area of Kalomo Central and Kanchele Agricultural Blocks comprising 143 villages, 5 township sections and 11,349 households (approximately 70,000 persons). The scheme currently involves 6 Area Coordinating Committees (ACCs), 39 Community Welfare Assistance Committees (CWACs), 27 Pay Points and the Kalomo Branch of Finance Bank. The intention is to cover the entire district by mid 2007. Since it is equally important to learn whether such a cash transfer scheme is first of all feasible in a low income country and secondly whether it produces the desired impact, the evaluation report is divided into two main parts: 1) Operational effectiveness, 2) Impact analysis. The first 1

The amount of social cash transfer was at the onset of the scheme the equivalent of a 50KG bag of maize. Exchange rate: 4000 ZMK = 1 US$ 3 Details on the preceding research and on the rationale, design and organization of the scheme have been documented in a number of reports, which can be accessed through the SCTS website www.socialcashtransferszambia.org. 4 The 10% limit is based on the PWAS National Household Survey 2003, which concluded that 10.5% of the Zambian Households are destitute households. 5 March 2003 to April 2004 2

7

part sheds light on the quality of the community-based targeting mechanism (Chapter 3), the effectiveness of the delivery mechanism (Chapter 4) and the quality of management at the different levels of PWAS (Chapter 5). This part mainly analyzes whether the right beneficiary households were targeted, whether any households were wrongfully excluded, whether beneficiary households received their transfer on time, regularly and in full and whether the scheme has been cost-effective and professionally managed. The second part of the evaluation report focuses on the impact that the scheme has had on beneficiary households and the wider community. It looks at whether children of beneficiary households have a higher educational attainment (Chapter 6), whether the nutrition and health status of beneficiary households has improved over time (Chapter 7), whether negative cooping mechanisms could be avoided and in what way the cash transfer impacted consumption and investment patterns (Chapter 8). It also regards to what extent the scheme has had an impact on the wider community (Chapter 9), whether cash transfers have changed the status of beneficiary households in the community and whether the self-esteem of beneficiary households has been strengthened (Chapter 10). This report is the final evaluation report that has incorporated feedback, comments and suggestions from a number of stakeholders on the first version of the evaluation report.

8

2.

METHODOLOGY

2.1

Data Collection

The SCTS started in 2004 in two agricultural blocks in Kalomo District, Kanchele and Kalomo Central, and is still ongoing. The baseline survey and the first round of focus group discussions and interviews were conducted before the beneficiaries started receiving the social cash transfers, but after the beneficiaries were targeted. Due to the fact that not all of the beneficiary households were targeted at the same time, the baseline survey was split in two parts. The first half of the baseline survey was done in September 2004 in Kanchele Agricultural Block while the second half of the baseline survey was conducted in December 2004 in Kalomo Central Agricultural Block. One year after the baseline study, the data collection for the evaluation was conducted in Kanchele Agricultural Block in September 2005 and in Kalomo Central Agricultural Block in December 2005. As with the baseline study, the evaluation includes a quantitative survey6 as well as focus group discussions and interviews with relevant stakeholders. Table 1 outlines the sample distribution and timing of the surveys. Table 1 Timing of Baseline and Evaluation Survey Surveys Block

Sep ‘04

Kanchele

Baseline survey 157 HHs

Dec ‘04

Baseline Kalomo 146 HHs Central Source: Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Sep ‘05

Dec ‘05

Evaluation survey 146 HHs survey

Evaluation 128 HHs

survey

Figure 1 Kalomo District, Base Map

Kalomo Central Agricultural Block

Kanchele Central Agricultural Block

Source: Zambia Ministry of Local Government, 2004 6

The surveys took on average 45 minutes and were carried out in the local language, Tonga. The FGDs were done in the local language or English depending on how the participants mastered English.

9

Two different agricultural blocks were chosen for the pilot SCTS to enable an analysis of the performance of the scheme in a rural and urban environment: Kanchele Agricultural Block is entirely rural, while Kalomo Central Agricultural Block is urban, peri-urban and rural.7 Both agricultural blocks are indicated in figure 1. Since the majority of beneficiary households live in rural areas (~80%), the sample has a larger population of rural households: 89 households are considered urban or peri-urban, while 214 households are rural. See Annex 2 for a disaggregation of the sample population by geographical location compared to the population in each CWAC.

2.2

Quantitative Analysis

The quantitative part of the evaluation is based on a randomized sample of 303 households without control group. Given that the SCTS reaches approximately 1000 households, a minimum sample size of 278 was determined to be representative.8 Since the same households were followed for baseline and evaluation, a slightly larger sample size was chosen to mitigate attrition over time.9 After one year the remaining sample size for evaluation amounted to 274 households. In order to compare the baseline data to national household data and more particularly to data from Southern Province, the existing national household surveys such as the Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (LCMS) 2002/2003 and 2004 were used for the analysis. The questionnaire was designed together with the Social Safety Net Project (GTZ), the PWAS Management Unit, a number of non-governmental stakeholders and a Consultant from the Central Statistical Office in Lusaka. The questions asked in the evaluation survey are identical to the questions in the baseline survey, although a number of questions were added to provide more detail on certain topics of particular interest such as retargeting, the returns on investments made, the impact of cash transfers on begging and other forms of community assistance, the performance of the scheme when compared to other programmes etc. See Annex 3 for the baseline and evaluation questionnaires. When conducting the baseline and evaluation survey, every household head10 of the sample was interviewed.11 The respondent answered both the questions at household and individual level for all household members. Questions at individual level relate mainly to background characteristics, education, health and nutrition.

2.2.1 Attrition Any evaluation that utilizes panel data experiences attrition of households (deaths, dissolution and relocation). Attrition of households between baseline and evaluation amounted to 11% of the total sample. In total 271 out of the 303 households from baseline were found at evaluation, meaning that 32 households left the sample. Of the households that left the sample from September 2004 till September 2005, 9 households were dissolved after the death of the household head, 5 households migrated to a different area, no household members were found for the interview in 9 households, 1 household could not be located and there was no information available for 8 households. Attrition is more prevalent in urban areas: 17% of urban households were no longer present at evaluation, while 8% of rural households. A general 7

Urban: 5km from centre According to ‘Table for determining sample size from given populations’ developed by Krijcle, R.V and Morgan D.W (1970) for the USA National Education Association. 9 For sampling the list of all beneficiary households from each Community Welfare Assistance Committee (CWAC) was used. Every third name on the list was chosen. 10 The household head is the person all members of the household regard as the head and who normally makes dayto-day decisions concerning the running of the household (LCMS 2004). 11 In case of his/her absence another household member was asked to respond to the questions. The household head is the person all members of the household regard as the head and who normally makes day-to-day decisions concerning the running of the household (LCMS 2004). 8

10

analysis of households that left the sample in comparison with the total sample shows no significant differences. The analysis with the exception of the section on household characteristics is based on the 271 households.

2.2.2 Fluctuation Those households who stayed in the scheme are quite dynamic and over the course of a year, a number of fluctuations of household members can be noticed. Only 32% of all households remained either the same or grew naturally through the arrival of new-borns. 28% of all households had new household members who joined the household as well as household members who left. 40% of all households had either members leaving or members arriving during the year between baseline and evaluation. For the analysis, this means that even though the same number of households is compared, the number of individuals varies from baseline to evaluation. All together, 75% of all individuals in baseline remained in the sample at evaluation. Those household members who either left or joined the beneficiary households are mainly young people: roughly ¾ of fluctuating household members are below 20 years of age. Consequently the death of older household members cannot largely account for the fluctuations in household membership. Infant mortality or child migration within extended family networks however might be possible explanations why there is a high percentage of under 5s (about 30.3%) who left beneficiary households. More research would be necessary to draw any definite conclusions. Interesting to note is that in particular smaller size households (1 – 5 members) grew in size while the exact opposite development took place for larger households. This can be explained by the fact that smaller households have naturally a higher probability of growing with members finding partners or having children than bigger households who split up once they have reached a certain size. In addition, the cash transfer could have created an additional incentive for either households to take in more household members or for relatives to send their dependents to those households who have additional support.

2.3

Qualitative Analysis

Next to the quantitative survey, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and interviews with various stakeholders were carried out in order to triangulate findings. In total 36 FGDs were held for the evaluation. The number of FGDs was evenly spread over the two agricultural blocks, although slightly more FGDs were conducted in Kanchele Agricultural Block (21 FGDs). FGDs were conducted with headmen and CWAC members who are directly involved in the targeting of the beneficiary households, but are not supposed to be beneficiaries themselves. Separate FGDs were organized with beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households in the community as well as with women and men from beneficiary households. The composition of the FGDs was at random and depended on who happened to be in the area at this particular moment. The following table gives an overview of the number of discussions per category and the number of participants. The FGDs for Headmen and CWAC members were predominantly composed of men. The gender composition of discussions with the community is exactly the opposite: about 70% of the participants were women. Table 2 Number of Focus Group Discussions per Group and Number of Participants

Number of FGD

Headmen CWAC Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary Beneficiary members community HH members HH members members (female) (male)

Total

4

8

36

36

348

7

8

9

Total number of 22 40 163 87 participants Source: Report on Qualitative Research during Evaluation of SCTS

11

FGDs covered the following topics: • • • • • •

Frequency and intensity of begging/ asking for favours in relation to SCTS Increase or decrease in community coherence (jealousy) in relation to SCTS Changes in livelihoods of the beneficiaries in relation to SCTS Relevance of SCTS in comparison with other projects that are implemented in the area Perceived use and misuse of the social cash that is transferred to the beneficiaries Perceptions on inclusion and exclusion errors with regards to the targeting of the beneficiaries

For a more detailed overview of the topics addressed in the specific FGDs see Annex 4. Apart from the discussions on the predetermined topics, the FGDs provided the opportunity to the participants to raise issues that were not addressed in the quantitative survey. Regarding interviews with key informants and stakeholders, a little more than half of the interviews were conducted with people from rural areas (55%) and a few more interviews were conducted in Kalomo Central Agricultural Block (56%). Interviews were conducted with a range of people that were directly or indirectly connected to the SCTS. The interviews were held to acquire a broader opinion base and to get more detailed information on the management, targeting and transfer delivery of the scheme. The selection of people for interviews mainly depended on who was present in the area while conducting the quantitative research. In contrast to the FGDs, where most participants were women, 84% of the people interviewed were men. Almost 80% of the CWAC members interviewed were men12 and most administrative stakeholders at district level were male. The following table shows in more detail who was interviewed. Table 3 Number of People Interviewed per Key Informant Group Key Informants Headman

CWAC ACC CWAC Constituency Councillors chairpersons chairpersons members MP

No of key 4 3 2 1 2 informant 6 interviews Source: Report on Qualitative Research during Evaluation survey SCTS

Pay point managers

others13

3

5

See again Annex 4 for the checklist with questions that were used for interviews with the various stakeholders of the Kalomo Pilot SCTS. With the exception of ‘inclusion and exclusion’ errors, the same topics were covered in FGDs and interviews.

2.4

Constraints

Despite the choice of combining qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to produce a richer evaluation, there were a number of limitations experienced with the research setup. The greatest limitation is that there is no control group. At the design stage it was felt very strongly that for ethical reasons it would be inappropriate to have a control group.14 Stakeholders felt that it would not be appropriate to monitor the suffering of households who are currently not benefiting from this intervention. However, without a control group no definite conclusions on the impact of the SCTS can be drawn since the influence of external factors, such as droughts, harvests, interventions of other organizations, macroeconomic shocks etc 12

The majority of CWAC members are male. Chairperson RDC, NGO staff, senior Council staff (2) and senior government official. 14 When it comes to an extension of the scheme and more beneficiary households are gradually integrated into the scheme, it is recommended to use those beneficiary household who will be included at a later stage (after one year) as a control group. In this way the evaluation would gain in strength while not overlooking ethical concerns. 13

12

cannot be factored out. The lack of a control group is even more unfortunate given that Zambia experienced a drought in the year before the evaluation was conducted while rainfall was favourable in the year before the baseline study. Consequently, while this evaluation attempts to draw some conclusions on the impact of the cash transfer scheme, a stronger focus will be on the operational effectiveness, while the upscaling of the scheme will be used to draw more definite conclusions on the impact. The absence of a control group could be compensated if a national household survey was available for the year of the baseline as well as the evaluation study. Unfortunately, no household survey was conducted in 2005. Disaggregated data for Southern Province concerning education and health could also not be obtained from the respective ministries. With respect to the qualitative research it became clear that at times community members had preconceived responses in answering questions and providing information. In FGDs and interviews concerning the relevance of SCTS in relation to other interventions such as food aid for instance, respondents in rural areas mentioned that they preferred cash above food aid. However, a similar study conducted by CARE International, an organization providing food aid, drew the exact opposite conclusion. Although the latter study was conducted in an area where the SCTS was not implemented, this example stresses the importance for triangulation between quantitative and qualitative methods as well as with other research.

13

PART I

OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

14

3.

TARGETING MECHANISM

The SCTS aims at assisting the 10% most vulnerable and incapacitated households in the community. These households are identified through a community based targeting system that involves the grassroots -, area - as well as the district level. In order to verify the assumption that 10% is the right cut-off point and in order to prove that the chosen targeting mechanism manages to keep leakages low, it is important to calculate the exclusion and inclusion error. Even though there is no fixed international standard for targeting (exclusion and inclusion) errors, the generally accepted error is a maximum of 20% (for each error), a target which has been adopted by the cash transfer scheme. This chapter introduces first of all the targeting method employed by the scheme. It then looks at characteristics of households targeted and compares them to the national average or to the average for Southern Province where possible. Based on this analysis, the calculation of the dependency ratio of beneficiary households and beneficiary households’ perception of the exclusion and inclusion errors, the targeting error is estimated and the effectiveness of the targeting mechanism assessed.

3.1

Targeting Method

In determining the right targeting mechanism for Zambia, several factors played a role. First of all Zambia is a vast and sparsely populated country with certain areas that are difficult to access, making it almost impossible to register all households or obtain sufficient and verifiable information about them at affordable costs. Secondly, the majority of households (61%) live in rural areas in Zambia and poverty levels are noted to be very similar among them. Therefore a standardized questionnaire might not capture the small but nevertheless meaningful difference among those households. Thirdly, Zambia already has a Public Welfare Assistance Scheme (PWAS) in place that coordinates social welfare interventions down to the grassroots level. It operates on a voluntary basis, has experience with targeting and with harmonizing interventions. Considering those factors, a community based targeting system, operated through the PWAS seemed to be the most rational choice. It is certainly cost-effective due to the fact that the community committees work on a voluntary basis and are active in even remote and difficult to access areas. Community committees also know about the difference in poverty status among community members and they can easily verify whether information provided by applicants is correct. Working through PWAS guarantees that the cash transfer scheme is embedded in the landscape of existing social welfare interventions and that government takes ownership of a service that has to be provided by government. In addition, it allows communities themselves to participate actively in interventions that have a direct impact on them. The community based targeting system involves different stakeholders as is outlined in Figure 2. The Community Welfare Assistance Committee (CWAC) establishes a list with all potential destitute and incapacitated households who are supposed to fulfil all of the following eligibility criteria: 1) no self-help potential15, 2) no valuable assets, 3) no steady source of substantial income. The identified households are interviewed individually by CWAC members and the information is recorded in an application form. The headman then checks each and every application form and verifies with his signature that all information provided is correct. The above mentioned eligibility criteria are necessary but not sufficient for inclusion into the scheme since the scheme has fixed a cap of 10%. 10% is not a deliberate cut-off point but originates from a survey carried out by PWAS and by a study commissioned by GTZ, concluding that about 10% of all households in Zambia are destitute and incapacitated.16 Even 15

This translates into either no productive household member or a dependency ratio over 300. The Incapacitated Poor in Zambia, 2004. Available from: http://www.socialcashtransferszambia.org/pageID_2466950.html 16

15

though the limit ignores regional differences, it allows for a greater simplicity in management and targeting. Consequently, after all the potentially eligible households have been selected, the CWAC meets again and decides which households among them fall within the 10% most destitute in the community. In order to differentiate between households the application forms include questions on external support, assets, livelihood strategies and on the problems the household faces. The ranking is then presented to the community who can propose changes and additions. After the community has reached consensus on the targeting, the application forms are checked by the Area Coordinating Committee (ACC) for completeness, consistency and correctness and are then forwarded to the District Social Welfare Office (DSW Office). The District Social Welfare Officer (DSWO) together with a representative from the District Welfare Assistance Committee (DWAC) and with a CWAC member who serves as a resource person review the application forms and either approve or reject them in case a household is neither incapacitated nor destitute (i.e. has self-help potential, valuable assets or a steady source of substantial income). Cases that are critical or deserve further discussion in a broader committee are referred to the DWAC meeting. Given regional differences in poverty, there will sometimes be more than 10% of households that could be included under the criteria and sometimes fewer. The local knowledge of the CWAC is therefore an important factor in helping to decide who should be included. Figure 2: Targeting Flow Chart Community information meeting CWAC lists all extremely needy & incapacitated HH CWAC members interview those HH and fill in application form Headman verifies that the information on application form is correct CWAC meeting ranks HH based on application form Community meeting discusses ranking DSWO together with DWAC member and assisted by respective CWACs approves or rejects

DWAC decides over critical cases, forwarded by the DSWO

DSWO informs Bank, Pay Points and CWACs on approval or disapproval CWAC informs applicants on approval and disapproval Beneficiary HH access transfers at Pay Points

Since a community based targeting mechanism is prone to nepotism, it was decided to integrate checks and balances in the system that help to prevent leakages to the non-poor from the beginning and that allow for revisions later on. That is why the CWAC does not decide on its own who in the community can benefit. The decisions taken by the CWAC are not only checked by local leaders and the community but also by the ACCs, the DSWO and the DWAC. This minimizes the chances of including households that do not fit the criteria. If a household that does not qualify for one reason or another has been included in the scheme, there is still a chance to exclude the household at a later stage. Whoever has doubts about a targeting choice made by the CWAC can report to the DSWO who will then verify the information provided and 16

decide whether a household should still to be in the scheme or should be excluded. There is furthermore a chance to exclude households which do not fit the criteria or are too borderline (given the situation of other households) during the retargeting process, which takes place every other year. The retargeting serves to reassess the situation of beneficiary households and to eventually include new beneficiary households who have recently fallen into destitution and become incapacitated. The CWAC repeats the same targeting process as outlined in figure 2 but only includes new households in case existing households are able to graduate. Since the scheme does not want to create a disincentive for households to use the money wisely and improve their livelihoods, households whose situation has improved over the course of the two years, mainly due to the cash transfers, will be retargeted for a second time. Households whose structure has changed and who have new productive members are those who can be expected to graduate. The first retargeting in the pilot scheme took place after only one year and 23.3% of all beneficiary households in the sample were excluded, mainly based on the impression of CWACs that those households were slightly better off than other community members and based on the assumption that the annual retargeting could facilitate a rotation system. In reaction to this misconception, a decision was taken by the Department of Social Welfare in collaboration with the DSWO, the PSWO and with inputs from GTZ to slightly modify the procedures for the retargeting. A two year rhythm was established that mirrors better the potential of beneficiary households to graduate. In addition, the inclusion of new beneficiary households is only possible if any of the existing households have graduated from the scheme.

3.2

Household Characteristics

Looking at household characteristics and comparing them to national averages gives us a first indication of whether the characteristics of beneficiary households match the household profile that the scheme intends to target.17 The following section therefore sets the stage for the analysis of the effectiveness of targeting, looking at the characteristics of beneficiary household members, at the household structures as well as more precisely at the prevalence of orphanhood and disability among beneficiary households.

3.2.1 Population Distribution by Age and Ratio of Female Table 4: Population Distribution by Age and Ratio of Female Age Group 0–4 5–9 10 – 14 15 – 19 20 – 24 25 – 29 30 – 34 35 – 39 40 – 44 45 – 49 50 – 54 55 – 59 60 – 64 65 +

% Total Baseline LCMS 2004 8.8 14 14.3 15 19.3 15 13.4 12 5.2 11 3.1 8 2.9 6 2.6 5 1.8 4 2.4 3 1.9 2 3.6 2 4.7 1 15.9 2

% Female of Total Baseline LCMS 2004 50.5 51.7 52.6 51.6 50.0 50.0 52.5 50.0 36.5 47.6 47.4 50.0 51.4 53.8 56.3 50.0 68.2 50.0 75.9 50.0 78.3 50.0 69.8 50.0 66.7 50.0 69.8 60.0

17

For the analysis of household characteristics, only the data from the 303 households in the baseline survey is used since the households in the evaluation survey are the same, with the exception of attrition.

17

100 100 Total No of observations 1210 Source: SCTS Baseline Survey & LCMS 2004

56.3 681

50.0

As evidenced by the age pyramids in figure 3, the beneficiary population compared to national data has proportionally more younger as well as elderly persons, showing the underrepresentation of a productive generation and the predominance of more vulnerable groups in the respective area. Whereas the sample contains globally the same percentage of young people (0 – 19) than the LCMS 2004 (~ 56%), there are fewer children from 0 – 4 and more children from 10 – 14 among beneficiary households. This could be related to the fact that beneficiary households have fewer newborns because there are proportionally fewer members of reproductive age and that they have more orphans who join the household at an age of 10 and above. Looking at the productive age classes (20 – 65), we can see that the sample has a considerable lower percentage than the national average, which is almost 50% higher. The most striking difference is among the elderly (65 +), whose percentage in the sample is almost 8 times higher than the national average. Figure 3: Age Pyramids for SCTS Beneficiary Households Members and All Zambia Age Pyramid, All Zambia

Age Pyramid, SCTS Beneficiary Household Members 65+

65+

60-64

60-64

55-59

55-59

50-54

50-54

45-49

45-49

40-44

40-44

35-39

35-39

30-34

30-34

25-29

25-29

20-24

20-24

15-19

15-19

10-14

10-14

5-9

5-9

0-4

0-4

12

10

8

6

4

2 0 2 Population (%) Men

4

6

8

10

12

12

10

8

6

4

2 0 2 Population (%) Men

Women

4

6

8

Women

Source: LCMS 2004

Source: SCTS, Baseline Survey, 2004

Source: SCTS Baseline Survey & LCMS 2004

The female population in the sample is overall higher (56%) than at national level (50%). Disaggregating sex by age group we find that the proportion of women from 20 – 24 is lower among beneficiary households, showing that women in this group probably leave the destitute households to start a household on their own or join their husbands’ households. It is on the contrary significantly higher for age group 40 and above, alluding to the fact that women in destitute households are often coping on their own with partners either having died or left them. The percentage of women in the age group 65 and above in the sample converges to the national average due to the fact that women have on general a higher life expectancy. The information on the marital status of women confirms the finding that women in the higher age categories are often on their own: 64% of all women above 40 are widowed and 8.5% are divorced and interestingly even among the younger women from 40 – 54, only 41% are married. Table 5: Marital Status of SCTS Beneficiary Household Members by Age and Sex Age 12 – 19 (%) Female Male Never married 96.4 99.0 Married 1.6 0.7 Separated 0.3 0.0 Divorced 0.3 0.3 Widowed 1.3 0.0 No of observations 304 306 Source: SCTS Baseline Survey Marital status

Age 20 – 39 (%) Female Male 34.9 73.7 23.0 17.1 5.9 0.6 9.9 3.4 26.3 5.1 152 175

Age 40 – 54 (%) Female Male 5.9 16.7 40.6 44.4 1.0 0.0 13.9 19.4 38.6 19.4 101 36

Age 55 + (%) Female Male 1.8 2.3 20.5 61.3 0.3 4.1 7.1 9.3 70.4 23.1 395 173

18

10

12

3.2.2 Characteristics of household heads With respect to the characteristics of household heads, it can be easily observed that there are relatively few young household heads among beneficiary households and an extremely large proportion of elderly headed households. Table 6 shows that there was no child headed household, which is not that surprising given that only 0.6 of all households are headed by children in Zambia (LCMS 2004) and that mostly in rural settings the extended family takes in the children. Whereas the majority of household heads at national level are to be found in age group 20 – 54, more than half of the household heads at baseline are 65 years of age or above, demonstrating that the scheme’s target group are elderly headed households who have gone past their productive age. This is confirmed by the finding that ¾ of all household heads are classified as unfit for work. Table 6: Age of Heads of Beneficiary Households by Age and Sex Ratio compared to National Average Baseline (%) Female Male Total 0 0 0 Below 19 20 – 34 50.0 50.0 3.3 35 – 54 57.4 42.6 17.8 55 – 64 62.3 37.7 25.4 65 + 64.2 35.8 53.5 Total population 62.1 38.0 100 No of observations 188 115 303 Source: SCTS Baseline Survey and LCMS 2004 Age group

LCMS 2004 (%) 0.6 37.8 42.6 10.2 8.9 100

There are more female than male headed households among the beneficiary population: 62% of all households in the sample are headed by a female, which is in sharp contrast to the national average of 22%. The fact that the majority of beneficiary households are headed by elderly females underlines that the scheme reaches out to a particularly vulnerable group in society. The greater state of vulnerability of household heads in the sample is furthermore stressed by the fact that only 1/4 of all households heads are married as shown in figure 4 and that only 44% of them have enjoyed any education. The situation of female-headed households is even more precarious with only 1.6% of all female-headed households still married and only 29% of them having followed any education. Figure 4: Marital Status of Beneficiary Household Heads 100.0 90.0

Female

80.0 70.0

Total

87.2

63.0

60.0 50.0 40.0 25.4

30.0 20.0 10.0

9.6 8.9 1.1 1.0

1.6

Never married

Married

0.5 1.7

0.0 Separated

Divorced

Widow ed

Source: SCTS Baseline Survey

19

3.2.3 Orphanhood Table 7: Prevalence of Orphanhood by Type and Age Group Parents alive (%)

Age group

Maternal Orphans (%)

0–5 42.5 6 – 14 31.0 15 – 18 24.0 Total 31.6 No of observations 207 Source: SCTS Baseline survey

Paternal Orphans (%)

Double Orphans (%)

30.0 34.6 43.2 35.7 234

18.3 24.4 26.7 23.8 156

9.2 10.0 6.2 9.0 59

Since from the onset, the scheme was classified as an intervention that targets HIV/AIDS affected households and therefore supports orphans, it is of particular interest to look at the overall rate of orphanhood among children. On average 68.4% of the children age 0-18 in the sample are either maternal, paternal or double orphans as indicated in table 7. The prevalence of orphanhood among the beneficiary population is therefore almost 4 times higher than the national average of 16.9% for children from 0 - 18. The majority of double orphans from beneficiary households is staying with their grandparents (83%), pointing to the fact that the household structure of generation gap households is the prevailing coping mechanism to handle the burden of orphanhood amongst beneficiary households.

3.2.4 Disability Figure 5: Prevalence of Disability of Beneficiary Household Members by Age 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

43.2 34.2

18.0

15.6

2.6 Age 0 – 18

Age 19 – 44

Age 45 – 64

Age 65 and above

Total

Source: SCTS Baseline Survey

The level of disability among the beneficiary sample population was considerably higher with 15.6% than the national average which stands at 2.4% (LCMS 2002/2003)18. As indicated by figure 5, the percentage of people with disabilities increases with age. While only 2.6% of children have disabilities, roughly 1/3 of individuals in the age group 45 – 64 and almost half of the elderly of 65 years and above do. Table 8 Percentage Distribution of Disabilities of Beneficiary Household Members Form of disability Partially sighted Lame Blind Deaf Others Mentally ill 18

% among sample 6.0 5.3 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.7

% among the disabled 38.6 33.9 10.0 6.9 6.3 4.2

Disability was not included in the LCMS report 2004 and the data has not been made available yet to the public.

20

Mentally retarded 0.4 Dumb 0.4 Goitre 0.2 Leper 0.2 Paralysis 0.2 Total 15.7 Source: SCTS Baseline Survey

2.6 2.6 1.6 1.1 1.1 100

As shown in table 8, the two most pronounced disabilities were ‘partial sightedness’ (6%) and lameness (5.4%). Both disabilities often develop as a result of aging and contrary to other disabilities in particular short-sightedness can be cured if people get the necessary medical treatment.

3.2.5 Household structure Figure 6: Composition of Beneficiary Households 21.1

23.4 One generation HH Two generation HH Generation gap HH 3/4 generation HH

22.8 32.7

Source: SCTS Baseline Study

Looking at the composure of households, two types of households emerge: 1) elderly one person households and 2) generation gap households where the generation in the middle is missing, mainly due to HIV/AIDS. Overall, the household size of beneficiary households is smaller: the average household size in the sample amounts to 4 members per household compared to 5.2 members nationwide. The 1 to 4 member households account for more than 60% of all households. Among these households the one person household was most common, as 17.5% of all households in the sample only had one member. The high frequency of one person households shows that the concept of the extended family taking care of the elderly and vulnerable is not a reliable safety net for the elderly anymore. 32.7% of all households are generation gap households, which are mainly composed of elderly women, taking care of their grandchildren. 95% of all household heads from those generation gap households are older than 55 and 82% of all households are headed by women who for the most part are widowed (88%). The majority of other members in those generation gap households are grandchildren (96.7%). The remaining 50% of households are characterized by a great proportion of unfit members. 5% of those households just consist of one generation which for the most part is elderly: either elderly married couples or elderly siblings staying in the same household. Those households who have more than just one generation and no gap in between and therefore potentially more productive household members, are headed mainly by elderly women without a spouse: 2/3 of all household heads are alone and the majority of them are women (85%). 2/3 of other household members are children and among the household members of productive age, 23.1% are affected by a disability. Despite their vulnerable state, those multiple generation households are the households with lower dependency ratios: 38% of them have a dependency rate which 21

is below the required one, which illustrates the importance of reconsidering a dependency ratio of above 300 as a fixed entry criterion.

3.3

Effectiveness of Targeting

In order to gauge the effectiveness of targeting, this chapter looks first of all at the inclusion error, the percentage of households who do not qualify for inclusion in the scheme, and secondly at the exclusion error, the percentage of households who have been excluded from the scheme although they qualify. For each targeting error, an upper limit of 20% has been set as a target although 40% is commonly reckoned a reasonable rate for a scheme such as this.19 In a third step, it analyzes how beneficiary households judged the performance of the CWAC with respect to targeting.

3.3.1 Inclusion error Looking at the household characteristics from the previous section, it can already be noticed that the group of beneficiary households targeted is over proportionally vulnerable when compared to the national average: 1/3 of all households are generation gap households headed mainly by elderly women who are taking care of orphans. About 17.5% of all households are elderly one person households and the majority of the remaining 50% of households are also headed by elderly women, have a high percentage of children and disabled. These observations match the main entry criteria for the scheme which require households to have no or limited self-help potential. The elderly who are either all by themselves or who have even grandchildren and other orphans to care for do not have the necessary capacity to meet all the household needs. A more sophisticated method to estimate the inclusion error is to look at criteria that disqualify a household such as a dependency ratio of 300 and below, or assets such as cattle or other valuable possessions. The dependency ratio (DR) is the ratio of the number of persons considered unfit for work, divided by the number of persons considered fit, multiplied by 100. Children aged 0 to 18 years and persons aged 65 years and above plus those who fall into the age group 19 – 64 but are either chronically sick, disabled or schooling are considered unfit. Nevertheless when doing the targeting, this classification only serves as a guideline. It is still at the discretion of the CWAC members to determine a person unfit, even if it does not fulfil the above mentioned objective criteria.20

The formula for DR is:

No of persons unfit for work No of persons fit for work

x 100

Table 9 Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Dependency Ratio Status

Baseline

No. HHs % 1 to 300 78 28.8 Above 300 46 17.0 No fit person (0) 147 54.2 Total 271 100 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Evaluation (retargeted HH) No. HHs 58 34 116 208

% 27.9 16.3 55.8 100

When calculating the dependency ratio based on objective criteria, disregarding the discretion of CWAC members to declare household members as unfit and fit according to their own judgment, the overall DR for the sample at baseline was (928/188*100=) 493. As indicated 19

Based on discussions with Michael Samson from the Economic Policy Research Center in Cape town. The CWAC can for instance classify a person who is 60 years old as unfit if they feel that this person is not capable any more of engaging in productive work in order to take care of a household. 20

22

in table 9 more than half of the households did not have any person fit to work, showing that the STCS managed to target the most incapacitated households. Approximately 29% of beneficiary households for baseline have a dependency ratio of 300 and below, with about 2/3 of those households having a DR below 200. When looking at the application forms for beneficiary households on which the CWAC have classified household members as fit or unfit according to their own localized criteria, 3.4% do not have a dependency ratio of above 300. This shows that some of the CWACs have apparently not fully understood the dependency ratio as an entry criteria and/or the monitoring by the subsequent levels was not done as well as it could have been. Out of all households in the scheme for which data was available (1037)21, 876 had no productive member in the household, while the average DR of the remaining amounted to 470. The overall DR22 comes to 2100 (4003/183*100). Even though the DR with flexible criteria based on the CWAC’s assessment is expected to be higher than the one with objective criteria, a 4 times increase (from 493 to 2100) is difficult to explain. Consequently, the definition of ‘unfit’ that CWAC members used differed substantially from the definition that the scheme provided as a guideline, meaning that either CWAC members were either not trained sufficiently or the definition of the scheme is inadequate. Even after the retraining for the retargeting, the inclusion error based on the DR with objective criteria still seems to be high. According to the DR with objective criteria, the inclusion error amounts to 27.9% and the overall DR totals (738/143*100) = 551. This finding is again in contrast to the DR with flexible criteria, which for evaluation goes up to almost 3000, mainly due to the fact that according to the database 88% (979) of all households for which data was available23 had no productive member at all. A positive development is that through the retargeting, households with a low dependency ratio were excluded from the scheme. The performance of CWACs with regard to only registering households who at least officially fulfil the entry criteria seems to have improved marginally: the inclusion error based on the application forms went down from 3.4 to 2.7%. Table 10: Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Disqualifiers of the Scheme % of HH with DR below 300 (19-64)

% of HH with DR below 300 (19-59)

% of HH with ‘valuable’ assets

Baseline 28.8% 23.6% 13.7% Evaluation 27.9% 23.6% 16.6% Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

% of HH with cash income of 10,000 ZMK per adult equivalent 10.5% 6.4%

If the DR is recalculated based on the age limit of 60 for being classified as unfit, it goes up to 598 and leaves us with an inclusion error of 23.6%. This shows that the CWACs treated the classification of people as unfit more flexibly. However, a DR of 2100 is only attained for instance when the age limits are lowered to 24 as a lower and 35 as an upper limit. It could also be assumed that CWACs classified female heads of households as unfit despite them being of productive age as they usually struggle more to make a living for the entire household by themselves. Household members who are in transient rather chronic sickness might have also been considered as unfit by CWAC members. More research is required to look into the definitions used by CWACs in order to understand this difference and to get a more precise of the actual inclusion error. Interesting to note is that while the overall DR did not change much from baseline to evaluation, the DR of the beneficiary households in the sample fluctuated over time, mainly due to household dynamics and possibly due to the cash transfer scheme and the HIV/AIDS 21

Data for two CWACs is still outstanding. This mean the total number of unfit household members divided by fit household members, multiplied by 100 23 Data for two CWACs is still outstanding. 22

23

pandemic. The DR increased in about 16% of all households, mainly due to the fact that individuals of the active age class from 19 – 65 left the households and were replaced by younger members and that the number of chronically sick has gone up. In about 18% of all households the DR went down because the number of individuals in age group 19 – 65 increased and the number of disabled reduced. Next to a dependency ratio of 300 and below, there are also criteria that disqualify households from participating in the scheme. According to the scheme rules, beneficiary households should neither be in the possession of any valuable assets such as cattle, a radio or an ox-chart, nor should they have a regular and substantial source of income. 13.7% of all household possess at least one valuable asset even though it is debatable to what extent these assets without further clarification of their functionality or acquisition should really be used as disqualifiers. Out of those 13.7%, 8.5% (62%) either have a dependency ratio that is higher than 300 or no productive members and are consequently not disqualified by the dependency ratio. Determining whether someone has a regular source of income is more difficult and can only be crudely estimated. As an approximation, a cash income of 10.000 ZMK per month as adult equivalent is utilised.24 According to this criterion, 10.5% of all households would be disqualified, out of which 7.5% (71%) have a DR higher than 300. If a DR of 300 and below (measured by objective criteria), valuable assets and an income above 10.000 per adult equivalent are used as disqualifier, 42% of all beneficiary households should not have benefited, for the most part because of the dependency ratio criterion. This appears rather high given the vulnerable nature of the targeted households and raises questions as to whether the entry criteria are welldefined. When taking into consideration the perception of beneficiary households on the inclusion error, the scheme still seems to perform in a satisfactory manner. Only 3% of the respondents at baseline survey were of the opinion that some of the households targeted should not have been included, while 34% did not know and 63% claimed that there was no inclusion error. At evaluation, the perception of the quality of targeting was less positive, pointing to problems with the retargeting process: 7.4% thought that households that were not incapacitated or destitute had been included in the scheme, 59.3% did not know and 33.3% were sure that there were no inclusion errors. Although in general, beneficiary and non-beneficiary community members thought that no households that did not qualify were included the scheme, the evaluation team in the field observed that approximately 5 – 10% of the households should not have qualified (e.g. relatives of CWAC members, households with obvious assets and sources of income, headmen, parents staying with the viable households of their children). Given the state of vulnerability of most households and the rather positive results from the qualitative analysis on the targeting and the observations from the evaluation team in the field, it might hence be worth revisiting whether a dependency of above 300 is the correct limit. We can assume that there are many cases where households composed of one fit and three unfit members also have very limited self-help potential and are therefore particularly vulnerable. We might also assume that for instance the possession of a radio alone might not adequately reflect the poverty situation of a household and that even a monthly income level of ZMK 10,000 per adult equivalent is limited in reflecting whether a household has a regular and substantive source of income.

3.3.2 Exclusion error The exclusion error is more difficult to calculate and would need a careful analysis of the characteristics of all households in representative CWACs. In the absence of such an analysis we resort to two indicators that are less precise but nevertheless give a first indication: 1) the perception of beneficiary households, 2) the exclusion error calculated on the basis of management information.

24

0.7 per additional adult and 0.5 per child is added.

24

With respect to the perception of beneficiary households, 58% of the respondents at baseline thought that all the needy and incapacitated households in their community were selected for the scheme, 32% did not know and 10% mentioned that not all qualifying households had been included. Again, the perception for the retargeting was slightly more negative: 33% thought that all qualifying households had been included, 51% did not know and 16% stated that not all of them had been included. The assumption that these results are mainly influenced by the biased answers of those households who were excluded at retargeting (23.3% of all households in the sample) can be refuted as table 10 shows. The perception that qualifying households have been left out is confirmed by FGDs with beneficiary and non-beneficiary members. Table 11 Perception of Exclusion Error according to Status after Retargeting in SCTS Were all needy and at the same time incapacitated HHs in your village selected during the retargeting? Yes (%) No (%) Don't Know (%) Yes 42.4 18.6 39.0 No 29.8 21.3 48.9 Don't Know 5.9 0.0 94.1 No of observations 90 42 138 Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey Retargeted?

Management information on the reasons for exclusion can also be used to estimate an exclusion error. Since CWACs are asked to identify all destitute and incapacitated households in their community, an exclusion error can be calculated by adding up the number of households who have been excluded from the scheme because of the 10% cut-off point. When applying this method, we arrive at an exclusion error of 6%. However, it needs to be noted that not all CWACs followed the instruction to include all qualifying households on the list, knowing that only 10% of them will be targeted in the end.

3.3.3 Performance of CWAC Table 12 Satisfaction of Beneficiary Households with CWAC Performance Are you happy with the performance of the CWAC as regards the (re)targeting process? Baseline (%) Evaluation (%) Very happy 60.9 Happy 28.4 Don't know 9.2 Unhappy 1.5 Very unhappy 0 No of observations 271 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

42.8 24.4 20.3 2.6 10.0 271

The degree to which beneficiary households are satisfied with the performance of CWAC members confirms the findings for the inclusion and exclusion error: households were more satisfied with the initial targeting than with the retargeting. While the satisfaction at baseline was overwhelmingly positive – 90% were satisfied with CWAC performance – the satisfaction decreased to 67% at evaluation. Even though table 13 shows that mostly those households who were not retargeted25 complained about the performance of CWACs during retargeting (53% compared to 5% of households who were retargeted), the level of performance of CWACs still needs improvement.

25

Of the sample population 63.5% declared to have been retained during the retargeting process, 17.5% stated to not have been retained and 19% of the households said that they did not to know what their status in the SCTS was.

25

Table 13: Satisfaction about CWAC Performance disaggregated by Retargeting Status Happy with CWAC performance (%) Happy don't know Un-happy Yes 75.6 19.8 4.7 No 42.6 4.3 53.2 Don't know 60.8 37.3 2.0 No of observations 182 55 34 Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey Retargeted?

The lower performance of CWACs during the retargeting is also shown by the fact that only 46% of the households said to have been interviewed during the retargeting and only 55% were officially informed about the targeting results and their status in the scheme. At baseline, on the contrary, 86% of the households stated to have been interviewed. FGDs and interviews confirm the dissatisfaction with the retargeting process. Beneficiary households stated that some of them had only been informed during the payday that they had been excluded from the scheme. This led to frustration and also difficulties for some of them. One woman complained for instance that: “Some of us had even borrowed money knowing we would pay back after getting the social cash. Now we are left in debts that we will not be able to settle.”

3.4

Conclusion

The analysis of the characteristics of household members clearly indicates that the targeted population is particularly vulnerable and has limited productive potential. The targeted population is comprised of more female (56%) than male, a high proportion of elderly headed households (more than half is 65 and above), single-headed households (only 25% are married), disabled (15.7%) and orphans (68.4% of all children from 0 - 18). Fewer people are of productive age: the sample has a considerable lower percentage in the productive age group (20 – 65) than the national average and the percentage of elderly (65 +) in the sample is almost 8 times higher than the national average. Looking at the household structure, it can be concluded that the targeted population consists of a relatively high number of one person households and generation gap households, with elderly persons taking care of their often orphaned grandchildren. Looking more closely at the inclusion and exclusion error, we don’t have any conclusive results yet. The perception of beneficiary households and the communities about the quality of targeting is very positive. Only a small percentage of beneficiary households (3% at baseline, 7.4% at evaluation) were convinced that non-qualifying households had been included. The DR based on objective criteria, which were provided as a guideline to the communities, shows an ‘inclusion error’ of about 29% and the DR on objective criteria is 4 times lower than the DR calculated on the basis of the CWACs’ classification of household members. This discrepancy between the DR signals that the criteria the CWACs used differed substantially from the objective criteria. It is therefore necessary to get a better understanding of whom CWACs consider as unfit as well as to revisit whether a dependency of above 300 is an adequate limit to conclude on a household’s self-help potential. Regarding the exclusion error the evidence is equally not conclusive: while a larger number of beneficiary households think that qualifying households have been excluded (10% at baseline, 16% at evaluation) and during FGDs the complaint has been expressed that qualifying households have been left out, management information indicates an estimated exclusion error of 6%. More research is definitely necessary to calculate the exact inclusion and exclusion error in order to draw conclusions about the quality of community-based targeting. With regards to the performance of the CWAC, the respondents were satisfied at baseline but less satisfied at evaluation. While this is partly due to biased answers from rejected households 26

after retargeting, it should be stressed that the performance of CWACs needs to be improved in the future. It has to be assured that interviews are held and that vital information is communicated timely to beneficiary households.

27

4.

DELIVERY MECHANISM

Next to targeting the right beneficiaries, it is crucial that the money gets to the beneficiary households in full and on a regular basis. In order to analyze the effectiveness of the delivery mechanism chosen for the scheme, this chapter briefly introduces the delivery mechanism and then examines whether beneficiary households received the amounts in full, whether they have easy access to the transfers and whether they are happy with the methods of cash transfer.

4.1

Delivery Mechanism

The current pilot scheme has 27 pay points that pay out the cash transfers to beneficiary households on a monthly basis. Up till March 2006, beneficiary households living up to 15 km away from Kalomo Town were served through the Bank where they had an individual account. Since March all individual bank accounts have been converted into pay point accounts. This does not only makes it easier for beneficiary households to collect the money but facilitates the administration of the scheme and reduces the workload of the bank. Pay points are usually schools or health centres in the vicinity of beneficiary households. Up till now beneficiary households have come to the pay point to collect their transfer every month. There is a specific payment date that changes every month for security reasons. Beneficiary households are informed by CWAC members about the actual date. However, beneficiary households can even come after the payment date for a period of approximately 3 weeks before the next round of transfers is collected at the bank. Also, if they are unable to walk the distance to the pay point, beneficiary households have the option to appoint a deputy who can pick up the transfer on their behalf. From this November on, the payment will be changed to a bimonthly rhythm in order to reduce transaction costs and to help beneficiary households make bigger investments. The pay points are operated by pay point managers who are government employees and mostly work for either a school in the rural area or a health centre. Since these government employees travel to the district capital every month to collect their salaries, they can use the same trip to collect the money from the bank in Kalomo. Every pay point has an account at the bank. The pay point managers are asked to collect the money during the 2nd week of every month to guarantee some continuity. Whenever they pick up the money at the bank, they also provide the office with financial reports stating how much money they collected last month and how much money had not been collected by beneficiary households and with a list on which all beneficiary households confirm with their signature or thumbprint that they have received the money. At district level, there is a separate account for transfers and for administrative costs. The DSWO only accesses the money from the administrative account. The pay point accounts are automatically credited through the transfer account without anyone having access to it. The money for the transfers and for administrative costs is transferred every month by the Department of Social Welfare upon request by the DSWO.

4.2

Extraction of Funds

Most households, 76%, received the social cash in full for all three months preceding the survey. All (97%) but 9 households received the full amount for the first month. For the second month, all (93%) but 20 households indicated to have received the transfer. For the third month, 63 household stated that they had not received the transfer, meaning that 76% of households received it. Looking at the percentage of households per number of payment, it becomes apparent that the majority of households who did not receive a payment are grouped in the 3rd payment. There are two main reasons why there is such a large number of households who did not receive the third payment: 1) 42 out of the 63 households were not retargeted and were 28

therefore not entitled to the third payment, 2) the date of the interview for those who did not receive the third payment was before December 22, making it likely that they received the payment after the interview since the payment date is always during the 3rd week of a month. Table 14: Receipt of Payments by Beneficiary Households Number of payments received None One Two Three

% of HH 2.6 4.9 16.7 75.8

No of HH 7 13 44 200

Transfer received per round of payment 1st payment 2nd payment 3rd payment Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey

% of HH who received 96.3 92.5 76.2

No of HH26 261 248 202

Looking at the reasons that were provided by beneficiary households themselves, we can see that the fact of not being retargeted accounted for most of them: 61% of all households stated ‘being excluded’ as the principal reason. 11% had not yet collected the transfer at the time of the interview, 4% died and the rest either provided no reason or did not know. The most important finding is that none of the money was declared ‘extracted’ by the bank, pay point managers, the CWAC members or any other stakeholders in the scheme, which is always stated as one of the major concerns of any cash transfer scheme. The fact that pay point managers are government employees and have to write financial reports every month that are counterchecked by the district as well as provincial level has helped to limit possibilities for fraud.

4.3

Accessibility of Transfers

Table 15: Assessment by Beneficiary Households of whether Access to Transfers was difficult disaggregated by Bank and Pay Point % of HH at pay points Not difficult 70.2 Difficult 25.3 Very difficult 4.5 No of observations 178 Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey

% of HH at bank

% Total 66.3 32.6 1.1 89

68.9 27.7 3.4 267

With regards to the accessibility of the social cash, 69% of all households mentioned that it was not difficult to collect their money, while 28% indicated that is was difficult and 3% that it was very difficult. Given that most of the household heads are elderly and/or sick, that for some beneficiary households the commute to the bank was 15 km and that even pay points require some beneficiary households to walk a considerable distance, it is astonishing that only 30% of all households experienced difficulties. The reasons that beneficiary households cited for experiencing difficulties collecting the transfers mirror the characteristics of beneficiary households. All reasons provided are related in a way – whenever a household member is sick, physically disadvantaged or very old, walking long distances becomes problematic. Interesting to note is that even beneficiaries serviced through pay points which usually have shorter distances to walk, cited the distance as the main obstacle. The fact that some households experienced difficulties in accessing the money is also shown by the fact that 7 households who received their money through the bank had to spend money each month to collect the social cash transfer. On average they spent about 8600 ZMK 26

Missing values were excluded. There was 1 missing value for the first round, 3 missing values for the second round and 6 missing values for the third round.

29

to collect their transfer27, which represents a significant proportion of the transfer. The conversion of individual bank accounts into pay point accounts and the fact that every beneficiary household has now the right to appoint a deputy have been attempts to facilitate access. Figure 7: Reasons for Difficult Access stated by Beneficiary Households 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

77.4

% of HH with pay point

56.7

% of HH with bank 30 11.3

Distance too long

Illness

5.7 5.7 Lame

1.9 1.9 Old age

3.8

10

Other

Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey

4.4

Client Satisfaction

Most of the beneficiary households were happy with the method of payment. As table 16 shows, almost 90% of beneficiary households were happy or very happy with the delivery mode, which is a very positive result in a country where long distances, difficult access and low population density complicate the functioning of any payment system. Overall, beneficiary households serviced through pay points expressed a greater degree of satisfaction than beneficiary households who collected the money at the bank. The levels of satisfaction with the bank show more variation to both extremes: while relatively more people expressed to be very happy with the performance, a larger proportion stated to be unhappy. Most likely the distance of beneficiary households’ homes to the bank explains the two extremes: for households living closer to the bank, the bank option was very convenient since they could save the money and were also more flexible in choosing the date of collection. For households further away, the long distance represented a major obstacle. The 20 households who were unhappy with the performance of the delivery mechanism cited long distances to the pay point as the main reason, followed by long waiting times in the bank for those who collected the money at the bank. Table 16: Satisfaction by Beneficiary Households with Performance of Pay Points and Bank Satisfaction of clients Very happy Happy Don't know Unhappy Very unhappy No of observations Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey

27

% of HH for Pay Point 46.4 45.3 3.4 3.9 1.1 179

% of HH for Bank 55.6 30.0 2.2 12.2 0 90

% Total 49.4 40.2 3.0 6.7 0.7 269

The minimum spent was 4,000 ZMK while the maximum went up to 16,000 ZMK.

30

4.5

Conclusion

The delivery mechanism in the SCTS can be regarded as effective, since most households in the scheme received the social cash in full, the majority of the households mentioned that it is not difficult to collect the transfers, and almost 90% of the households were happy with the paypoint or bank as method for transferring the money. This shows that despite limited infrastructure and accessibility problems, cash transfers can be delivered effectively in a country like Zambia. The fact that about 1/3 of beneficiary households had difficulties accessing the transfer and that some of them even paid a considerable portion of their transfer on transport to collect the transfer should not be neglected but has most-likely been solved by the conversion of individual accounts into pay point accounts.

31

5.

MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHEME

Another great concern in implementing a cash transfer scheme in a low income country is the capacity of the country to manage such a complex scheme professionally and cost-effectively. This chapter therefore scrutinizes the cost-effectiveness as well as the quality of the management, i.e. how the management in the scheme is set up, what some of the challenges have been in the past and which solutions have been found or are necessary to react to those challenges adequately.

5.1

Cost-effectiveness of the scheme

Table 17 Development of Costs for Transfers and Administration Month/Year

No. of Admin costs beneficiary HH (ZMK)

Jan-05 1027 Feb-05 1027 Mar-05 1027 Apr-05 1027 May-05 999 Jun-05 982 Jul-05 1141 Aug-05 1155 Sep-05 1155 Oct-05 1182 Nov-05 1182 Dec-05 1180 Jan-06 1180 Feb-06 1180 Mar-06 1180 Apr-06 1172 May-06 1172 Jun-06 1172 Jul-06 1172 Source: DSWO files in Kalomo

5,588,000 4,363,300 4,290,700 5,322,000 3,637,000 9,377,000 8,736,250 6,518,100 5,901,000 7,226,500 6,246,400 5,543,000 7,738,662 8,219,860 2,682,500 3,793,665 6,185,500 4,076,900 4,611,860

Transfers to beneficiary HH (ZMK) 30,810,000 30,810,000 30,810,000 30,810,000 29,970,000 31,159,615 36,863,077 39,314,423 40,425,000 42,506,538 44,325,000 44,250,000 44,250,000 44,250,000 44,250,000 43,950,000 43,950,000 43,950,000 43,950,000

Total costs (ZMK) 36,398,000 35,173,300 35,100,700 36,132,000 33,607,000 40,536,615 45,599,327 45,832,523 46,326,000 49,733,038 50,571,400 49,793,000 51,988,662 52,469,860 46,932,500 47,743,665 50,135,500 48,026,900 48,561,860

Admin cost in % of total costs 15% 12% 12% 15% 11% 23% 19% 14% 13% 15% 12% 11% 15% 16% 6% 8% 12% 8% 9%

As is often used as an internationally accepted standard for cost-effectiveness, the scheme had set itself a target to keep the administrative costs below 15%. After the scheme had been completely rolled out by January 2005, administrative costs28 amounted to c. 5.5 million ZMK, while transfers totalled 30.1 million ZMK. The amount for transfers was increased during the retargeting process by 10,000 ZMK for households with children. Since at the moment when the child bonus was decided upon, it was estimated that 75% of all beneficiary households have children, the average amount went up to 37,500 ZMK. For January 2005 till July 2006, the average amount for transfers came to 39 million ZMK while the average administrative costs were 5.8 million ZMK, representing on average 13 % of total costs. The reason why administrative costs went down in February and increased again in June is that the initial targeting process came to an end in January and the retargeting started in June. During months with training, administrative costs are higher, in particular during the first months of the 28

Administrative costs include training expenses, transport expenses, travel costs for ACCs, CWACs & pay point managers to the district, expenses for follow ups visits by the province and district, the hiring of additional personnel for the scheme, the incentive bonus for the DSWO and assistant, office supplies, communication expenses. It excludes technical assistance and the salary of government employees.

32

(re)targeting process in which start-up costs are incurred and more quality checks are carried out. Even if we include government salaries and suppose that one District Social Welfare Officer works full time on the scheme, the Provincial Social Welfare Officer spends about 10% of his/her time on the scheme and the Senior Social Welfare Officer at headquarters about 50% of his/her time29, administrative costs still remain at reasonable levels, averaging about 19% over the period from January 2005 to July 2006.

5.2

Quality of management

The percentage of administrative costs alone is not a telling figure. Low administrative costs might just be a result of a weak administration which does not carry out a certain number of activities that are necessary for the smooth functioning of the scheme. Next to costeffectiveness, it is foremost important to have a good quality management. This section therefore focuses on whether quality of management went hand in hand with cost-effectiveness.

5.2.1 Management setup The scheme is entirely managed by the Public Welfare Assistance Scheme in Zambia. While the CWACs are in charge of targeting, counselling beneficiary households and reacting to changes and problems, the ACCs predominantly ensure that the CWACs fulfil their roles. The DSWO has an oversight function and makes sure that all processes are running smoothly, that trainings meet the quality standards, that substructures are doing their assigned tasks and most importantly, that everything is in place so that the money reaches beneficiary households in full and on a regular basis. The Provincial Social Welfare Officer (PSWO) then monitors on a regular basis the performance of the DSWO through control visits and he/she awards the DSW office with an incentive bonus if the core functions have been fulfilled satisfactorily. The Department of Social Welfare (DSW) is in charge of making conceptual changes to the scheme, keeping the national and international public informed about the results of the scheme and lobbying for sustainable financial resources from government and cooperating partners.

5.2.2 Challenges In particular at the beginning of the scheme, many challenges were encountered. Capacity constraints and high turnover within the different levels of the PWAS structure was one of the key challenges. At grassroots level the capacity to counsel beneficiary households and manage changes varied from one CWAC to another. Most of the CWACs had never been trained in the tasks they were expected to carry out and therefore performance differed. The capacity of the DSWO to manage a rather complex scheme that requires regular follow up, a good oversight of all actors and effective time and office management in the office was lacking. This capacity is not only necessary for the running of the cash transfer scheme but for combing the scheme with existing tasks. At provincial and national level, the capacity to monitor the scheme and to provide critical feedback and react to problems promptly also had to be built up over time. The fact that the provincial and national level were not involved in the scheme from the beginning on but functions previously fulfilled by GTZ were handed over after one year, certainly delayed the process of capacity building. In addition, officers were demotivated by the fact that they were bound by the management of the scheme to remain in their office for the most part and had little chance to attend workshops and seminars which apart from serving to make the officers learn new skills also provide an additional source of income. CWACs, which work on a voluntary basis but are quite actively engaged in the scheme, also complained about getting little incentives for all the work they were 29

Gross salary of a DSWO is roughly at K 1.5 million, of a Senior Social Welfare officer K 1.9 million and for a Provincial Social Welfare Officer K 3 million.

33

doing. Even though most CWAC members were motivated to work for their community and for the most vulnerable, they sometimes felt that the scheme was asking too much of them such as sacrificing often many days in a month for the scheme and walking long distances to counsel beneficiary households. Inadequate transport is another problem that has complicated management. At the beginning CWACs did not have any means of transportation so they were forced to cover a broad area on foot if they wanted to check on beneficiary households. The lack of transport created therefore a disincentive for CWACs to travel long distances to remote homesteads of beneficiary households. Transport also posed a challenge at district level. Since the female officers do not feel too comfortable using the motorbikes provided and taxis are not always available or reliable, monitoring visits into the field have been less frequent than what would be optimal. In the initial stages, the management of the scheme also suffered from a lack of ownership. Responsibility for tackling problems was as a result often shifted around and it appeared as though the stakeholders did not take much pride and motivation from the success of the scheme. The GTZ advisor stationed at the district level had a tendency to manage the scheme since management by the DSWO was weak, which did not instil the necessary feeling of ownership. At provincial and national level, ownership for the scheme was also missing, mainly because MCDSS at provincial and national level were only actively involved in the scheme and assigned specific tasks at a later stage.

5.2.3 Solutions A pilot is experimental and gives ample room for design changes. In this way some of the challenges encountered could be reacted too quickly. In order to strengthen capacity at the grassroots level, a longer training covering the various tasks of CWACs is organized for the next CWACs that will be integrated into the scheme during the process of upscaling. At district level, capacity building has been intensified in order to improve the management of the scheme with the positive outcome that right now the scheme is running smoothly and problems are handled quickly and professionally. Also procedures in the scheme have been simplified, helping the DSWO to manage the scheme more effectively. Provincial and national level have been more involved in the scheme. GTZ has handed over the monitoring of the DSWO performance to the PSWO and it is currently working closely together with the Department of Social Welfare on advocacy activities and design changes. In order to react to the demotivation of different stakeholders, an incentive bonus for the DSWO was introduced, compensating for the indirect loss of income and serving as a motivation to perform well. For the lower grassroots structures, little incentives such as T-shirts and name tags were produced and for the first time this year, an incentive bonus will be paid out, which is tied to the CWACs’ and ACCs’ performance of monitoring activities. With respect to transport, every CWAC and ACC has been equipped with a bicycle and a small fund to maintain the bicycle. This facilitates visits to beneficiary households, even though CWACs have already pointed out that one bicycle is not enough to carry out the present activities. The use and the longevity of the bicycle will be monitored over time. Transport at district level remains a challenge. Since it is unlikely that the department will equip each and every DSW office with a vehicle in the nearby future, other creative solutions such as carpooling with other ministries need to be sought. The scheme is now regarded as a government intervention by all stakeholders and all levels within PWAS take ownership for it. The fact that technical assistance at district level was phased out strengthened ownership as well as the stronger involvement of the provincial and national level. The Ministry has presented the scheme at different for a on many occasions and is actively engaged in advocacy activities to sensitize other ministries on issues of social assistance and to secure long-term funding. 34

5.3

Conclusion

The scheme has managed to keep administrative costs reasonably low with an average of 13% excluding government salaries and 19% including government salaries. Most importantly, the quality of management has improved over the last one and a half years. Whereas management was the weak point of the scheme previously, needing much attention in terms of capacity building and backstopping, it has now reached satisfactorily levels where the scheme is managed without any direct technical support. However, since the scheme only targets 1/3 of the district, an extension to the entire district is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and quality of management when it comes to running the cash transfer scheme for a larger area. This will help to draw necessary lessons for further capacity building needs.

35

PART II

IMPACT ANALYSIS

36

6.

IMPACT ON EDUCATION

One intended outcome of a cash transfer scheme is that it enables households to make investments in human development by for instance helping them to send the children to school on a regular and sustained basis. This chapter therefore tries to draw conclusions in how far the scheme has impacted school enrolment and school attendance of children from beneficiary households.

6.1

School Enrolment

Table 18: School Enrolment for Primary & Secondary Education (%) by Age Groups for Beneficiary Households and by Location and Poverty Status for National Average Age Group Southern Province (LCMS 2004)

Extremely poor30 (LCMS 2004)

Baseline (SCTS)

No of observations: Total / Female Evaluation (SCTS)

5-6

7 - 10

11 - 13

14 - 15

16 - 18

7 - 13

14 - 18

Total

17

73

92

83

61

81

71

Male Female

15 18

72 73

92 92

86 80

66 56

80 82

74 68

Total

13

68

86

79

63

75

70

Male Female

13 13

67 70

86 87

82 77

69 55

75 76

75 65

Total

16.3

67.9

87.5

81.0

70.8

76.4

75.6

Male Female

13.6 18.5

62.9 72.1

86.4 88.9

69.4 89.6

68.2 73.1

74.3 78.6

68.8 81.0

49 / 27

156 / 86 120 / 54 84 / 48

96 / 52

276 / 140 180 / 100

Total

26.7

69.5

91.8

89.0

68.8

79.4

78.8

Male Female

23.1 29.4

68.8 70.0

95.6 87.9

94.3 85.7

64.0 74.4

81.4 77.6

76.5 80.8

No of observations: 60 / 34 167 / 90 134 / 66 91 / 56 Total / Female Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation survey and LCMS 2004

93 / 43 301 / 156 184 / 99

Looking at school enrolment rates of children (7 – 18) in the sample, we can observe that relatively fewer children from our sample were enrolled in school when compared to the provincial average and slightly more when compared to the average of children from extremely poor households. The enrolment rate went up by 3% points from 76.1% at baseline to 79.2% at evaluation. An increase in enrolment in almost all age groups can be noted, in particular for the 5-6 years old and for the 14 to 15 years old. This tendency could be explained by the fact that children start schooling earlier and stay in primary school longer due to improved nutrition and more money available to pay school fees. Furthermore it is interesting to note that the overall positive development in enrolment rates only applies for boys rather than girls with the exception of the 5 – 6 years old. While enrolment rates for girls remained stable, enrolment rates for boys, in particular those of 11 to 13 years of age went up. We probably cannot observe a greater increase in enrolment rates due to the fact that enrolments rates at baseline are already comparatively high, that in particular rural areas in Zambia access to schooling remains

30

LCMS classified households into ‘not poor’, ‘moderately poor’ and ‘extremely poor’ based on a self-assessment. In the LCMS 2004, 39% of all households regarded themselves as ‘extremely poor’, 48% as ‘moderately poor’ and 12% as ‘non poor’.

37

a challenge and that the amount of the cash transfer is not sufficient to cater for school fees for secondary education.31 Table 19: Net & Gross Enrolment Rate for Evaluation Net enrolment rate32 (%) Primary Education Secondary Education Female 76 21 Male 81 24 Total 78 22 Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey

Gross enrolment rate33 (%) Primary Education Secondary Education 123 34 122 54 123 43

A further disaggregation into net and gross enrolment rate for primary and secondary education is only possible for evaluation since the grades of pupils were not recorded in the baseline survey. The gross enrolment rate of above 100 in table 19 can be explained by the fact that there are a number of pupils who are enrolled at a young age (approximately ¼ o the 5-6 years old are enrolled in primary school), at a later than the official school age and/or repeat grades in primary school, which is very common in rural areas and for the poorer stratum. Even with the cash transfer scheme, a relatively low number of pupils are enrolled in secondary education, which is certainly an indication that the cash transfer is not sufficient to cater for school fees for secondary education and for boarding costs since secondary schools are thinly spread across the district. Furthermore we can suspect that the impact of cash transfers on secondary education would primarily materialize at a later stage anyhow due to the fact that pupils who stopped schooling after their primary education are less likely to return to school to complete secondary education. The number of households who do not send at least one of their children (7 – 18) to school decreased from 41.4% to 33.8%. Looking at the characteristics of those households, we can observe that they have proportionally more children of school-going age, no valuable assets and a low cash income. This could point to the fact that the non-enrolment in school is more of a demand than a supply side constraint and that for households who have more children but no resources to fall back to, the cash transfer might have not been sufficient. Following the same pupils over time, 6.1% of the school going pupils at evaluation (7 – 17) left school at evaluation. Since the majority of them is 15 years and older, it can be assumed that they probably finished the level of education that they could obtain in their respective area or found employment. Approximately half of all children (7 – 17) who were not in school at baseline were enrolled at evaluation. Among them, half of them started school while the other half returned to a higher grade in school, meaning that they had dropped out of school before the scheme started.

6.2

Levels and Reasons for Absenteeism

Levels of absenteeism overall increased slightly over time. The percentage of students who were not absent in the past 3 months decreased marginally by one percentage point at evaluation. The average number of days absent went up from 2 days at baseline to 2.4 days at evaluation, when eliminating the bigger outliers. While the level of absenteeism remained stable for girls, it increased by almost 0.8 day for boys. This negative trend could be an effect of the drought. The worsened food situation might have led to more days of absenteeism due to 31

While primary education is officially free in government schools in Zambia - disregarding indirect costs of accessing school and costs for teacher-parent associations, buildings funds etc. - parents need to pay school fees for secondary education in the range of 160,000 ZMK per term. 32 Net enrolment rate (LCMS 2004): Net enrolment rate is computed as the percentage of persons who attend grades corresponding to their ages. 33 Gross enrolment rate (LCMS 2004): Gross enrolment rate is calculated as enrolment at a given education level or grade as a percentage of population whose ages correspond to that level.

38

sickness and could have also obliged households to take their sons out of school to have them contribute to the family income. In order to filter out the effect of the drought it would be necessary to have the district average rate of absenteeism for 2004 and 2005, which up till now is not available. Table 20 presents a more nuanced picture: while higher levels of long absenteeism (10 days and above) are observed at evaluation, the number of pupils with shorter absenteeism (1 – 9 days) decreased over time. Given that the majority of students is absent over shorter time periods, it could be concluded that the cash transfer scheme might have contributed to mitigating the effects of the drought. Table 20: Levels of Absenteeism by Sex and by Number of Days for the 3 months preceding the survey Woman (%) No of days absent in the last 3 months Baseline Evaluation 0 58.1 59.6 1–3 19.2 13.8 4–9 17.3 17.3 10 – 19 4.4 8.4 20 and above 1.0 0.9 No of observations 203 225 Source: Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Man (%) Baseline Evaluation 59.3 55.2 20.9 17.5 12.6 11.7 4.4 12.6 2.8 3.1 182 223

Total (%) Baseline Evaluation 58.7 57.4 20.0 15.6 15.1 14.5 4.4 10.5 1.8 2.0 385 448

The reason for absenteeism provided by households demonstrate that ‘illness’, ‘fees not paid’, ‘needed in household’ have gained proportionally in importance, which underscores the assumption that the drought might have had a negative impact on school absenteeism by reducing the household’s capacity to pay for school fees, by increasing the household’s need for extra labour and making children more prone to sickness. ‘Sickness’, ‘needed in household’ and ‘hunger’ are reasons that prevail more for shorter periods of absenteeism, while ‘fees not paid’, ‘no uniform/book’ are more often cited as causes for longer periods of absenteeism. Table 21: Reason for Absenteeism Reasons Baseline (%) Evaluation (%) Illness 32.3 41.3 Other 16.8 10.2 Not interested 16.8 10.2 Fees not paid 10.6 18.9 Needed in household 8.7 11.2 Injury 7.5 0.5 Funeral 6.3 0.0 No uniform/book 0.8 2.0 Teacher absent 0.0 1.0 Hunger 0.0 3.6 Delayed holidays 0.0 1.0 No of observations 161 196 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

The findings on absenteeism contradict with impressions by headmasters who were interviewed in the framework of the qualitative analysis. Headmasters not only asserted that children from beneficiary households have come back to school but also that they attend school more regularly. More research would be necessary to draw definite conclusions about the impact of the scheme on education.

6.3

Conclusion

Enrolment rates for 7 – 18 years old rose by 3% points to 79.2% at evaluation. The increase is statistically significant and could be an effect of the SCTS. Unfortunately, no definite 39

conclusions can be drawn concerning the impact of the SCTS because comparative data at district or national data on the evolution of enrolment rates is not available. Out of all children (7 – 17) not enrolled in school at baseline, 50% came back to school at evaluation, showing that the problem for not accessing school might have been rather a demand problem. The impact of the SCTS on absenteeism is less conclusive: while there was an overall increase in the number of days absent, absenteeism reduced for shorter time periods and increased for longer time periods. Focus Group Discussions and interviews with headmasters rather showed a positive change in school attendance of beneficiary children after the inception of the scheme. However the fact that there were more children absent for longer time periods and that the reasons ‘school fees not paid,’ ‘illness’ and ‘needed at home’ gained in importance show that the cash transfer was not able to compensate for extra costs that arose or for the loss of revenue that might have been caused by the drought or other external factors.

40

7

IMPACT ON NUTRITION & HEALTH

Through the injection of extra cash into the household budget, the scheme is expected to allow households a more regular and more varied diet and to enable them to pay for transport to the clinic or for medication. In order to verify whether the scheme has had any impact on nutrition and health, this chapter takes a closer look at the quantity and quality of food intake and at the prevalence of sickness and mortality amongst beneficiary households. Since the nutritional status of people is a short term proxy indicator for their health and well being, this chapter starts out with nutrition.

7.1

Nutrition

When the scheme was conceptualized, the amount of the transfer was chosen so that beneficiary households could afford an extra meal a day, given that the majority lived on less than 2 meals a day. This section focuses on the quantity of food intake, the satiation level and the variety of food consumed and pays particular attention to the nutritional status of the under 5s.

7.1.1 Quantity of Food Intake Table 22 Average Number of Meals per Day per Beneficiary Household No. of Meals

Baseline (%)

1 meal 19.3 2 meals 63.0 3 meals 17.8 No of observations 270 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Evaluation (%) 13.3 63.0 23.7 270

At evaluation survey the food intake at household level was higher than at baseline. Whereas at baseline 19% of households during the week preceding the survey had taken on average only one meal a day, at evaluation survey the proportion reduced to 13%. Furthermore, the percentage of households having 3 meals a day increased by 6% points to 24% at evaluation. Figure 8: Average Number of Meals per Agricultural Block 2.13

2.15 2.1

2.06

2.08

2.05 2 Baseline

1.95 1.9

Evaluation

1.89

1.85 1.8 1.75 Kalomo

Kanchele

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

The fact that there seems to be an increase in the average number of meals just in one agricultural block could be due to additional food relief in one particular area. If we look more closely at the food relief received at baseline and evaluation per agricultural block, we observe that Kanchele received proportionally less food relief at evaluation than at evaluation. The cash 41

transfer scheme could have thus compensated for the reduction in food relief received. Kalomo, on the contrary, received a little more food relief at evaluation, which might explain the higher increase in meals.

7.1.2 Level of Satiation Figure 9: Levels of Satiation of Beneficiary Households 60%

56.3%

Baseline survey Evaluation survey

50% 41.9% 40%

34.8% 28.5%

30%

23.3%

20%

14.1%

10% 1.1% 0.0% 0% Still Hungry after Meal

Just Enough

Enough

Don't Know

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

The number of meals alone is not a conclusive indicator on nutritional improvement since the number of meals can increase but the food intake remains the same due to the fact that the portions are simply reduced. Therefore, the level of satiation is helpful in analyzing whether households really experienced an improvement. As is indicated in figure 9, the households in the sample at evaluation survey felt more satiated after eating than at baseline survey. While at baseline, 56.3% of all households were still hungry after each meal and 42.6% stated to have had enough or just enough, only 34.8% of households felt hungry after each meal at evaluation and 65.2% stated that they had enough or just enough.

7.1.3 Quality of Food Intake The targeted households at evaluation ate on average more food which contains carbohydrates than at baseline. Maize was (both at baseline and evaluation) the main staple food of the majority of households. Although maize was eaten at least one time a week by 97.4% of the households at baseline and by 96.7% at evaluation, the number of days maize was consumed on average increased from 5.5 to 6.5 days a week. The most remarkable increase can be noted for the consumption of sugar: while 16.3% of all households consumed sugar at least once a week at baseline, this percentage more than doubled at evaluation (40.7%). The consumption of fats among the targeted population increased after one year of implementing the SCTS. The average number of days cooking oil was consumed tripled from 0.67 days a week to almost 2 days a week and the percentage of households consuming cooking oil at least once a week went up from 17.8% to 48.2%. The intake of food rich in vitamins among the beneficiary population increased, which is a very positive development given the importance of vitamins for health. The number of households consuming vitamins 7 days a week increased from 72% to 84% as shown in Figure 10. There was an increase in the percentage of households consuming at least once a week cultivated (from 66.3% to 82.2%) and wild vegetables (from 69.1% to 76.3%), cultivated fruits (from 16.7% to 17.8%) and dried vegetables (from 1.1% to 15.6%). The only food item where a considerable decrease in consumption is noticeable is wild fruits (57.4% to 25.9%). This however points to an improved food situation as a positive development since the consumption of wild fruits is often used as a last coping mechanism when nothing else is available. 42

Figure 10: Percentage of Beneficiary Households consuming Vitamins and Proteins every day and Meat and Fish at least once per week 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

83.6 Baseline

71.8

Evaluation

53.9 35.7

34.9 23.4

Vitamins (7 days)

Proteins (7 days)

26.3 17.0

Meat (1 day)

Fish (1 day)

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

The intake of food containing proteins also went up. The number of households consuming proteins 7 days a week increased from 23.4% to 35%. The most significant increase is in the consumption of fish. The number of households consuming at least one time a week fish (fresh, dried or Kapenta) went up from 36% to 54%. Even the consumption of meat, which is considered a luxury good, increased among households: while 17% of households consumed meat at least once a week at baseline, 26.3% did at evaluation. See Annex 5 for a more detailed overview of the intake of foods by type of food. In general, the increased intake of food and increased percentage of households consuming certain foods indicates that the diet of beneficiary households is more varied at evaluation than at baseline. It is likely that through the extra cash beneficiary households had the ability to afford a more varied diet. These findings also match the overall increase in meals and satiation levels.

7.2

Health

Health and nutrition are positively correlated because good nutrition improves health and good health improves the body’s absorption of food nutrients. In order to draw conclusions on the impact of the SCTS on the health status of the beneficiaries, this section analyses a number of indicators such as incidence of illness, type of illness, the mode of treatment, disability as well as the mortality rate.

7.2.1 Incidence of Illness Table 23: Prevalence of Sickness of Beneficiary Households in the past month by Age and Gender Female (%) Male (%) Baseline Evaluation Baseline Evaluation 0-5 35.6 29.9 44.0 24.6 6-18 26.2 23.6 23.2 21.2 19-64 61.2 45.8 35.5 27.8 65 and above 82.0 66.2 81.5 70.7 Total 48.3 39.2 35.6 29.2 No of observations 629 656 475 500 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey Age

Total (%) Baseline Evaluation 39.5 27.4 24.8 22.4 50.3 38.1 81.8 67.6 42.8 34.9 1104 1156

43

The incidence of illnesses decreased at evaluation when compared to baseline.34 During the month preceding the baseline 43% reported to have been sick, which went down to 35% the year afterwards. As table 23 demonstrates, the biggest drop was in the age group 65 and above where the prevalence of sickness was particularly high with 82% at baseline. Considerable decreases have also taken place in the group of under 5s and in the group of productive age from 19 – 64, which is probably a result of improved nutrition and hygiene. Women in general – excluding the under 5s – seem to have been more prone to sickness than their male counterparts, in particular those of age 19 – 64. At evaluation, the differences did not level out completely but decreased respectively.

7.2.2 Disability Table 24: Prevalence of Disabilities among Beneficiary Household Members who are in Baseline & Evaluation Disability

Baseline (%)

Evaluation (%)

Partially sighted 7.2 3.3 Lame 6.5 4.2 Blind 1.8 1.7 Deaf 1.3 0.7 Others 1.3 0.2 Mentally ill 0.7 0.5 Dumb 0.6 0.2 Mentally retarded 0.4 1.2 Goitre 0.4 0.4 Leper 0.0 0.4 Paralysis 0.0 0.1 No of observations 837 837 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Since chapter 3 outlined that the disabilities that most affect members of beneficiary households can sometimes be healed quite easily through proper medical attention, it is interesting to see whether these disabilities reduced over the course of the year. The two main disabilities cited, partially sightedness and lameness, decreased from baseline to evaluation by 4% points and 2% point respectively. In Kalomo district the possibility of operating certain eye sicknesses such as cataract exists. There is a team of American doctors which passes through the district capital from time to time and even the mission hospital carries out such surgeries against a small fee. It therefore seems logical that beneficiary households used part of the transfer to pay for either transportation to the district capital and/or for the operation. This finding is confirmed by Focus Group Discussions, during which some beneficiary households stated that they paid part of the transfer for smaller eye surgeries.

7.3

Conclusion

The analysis of the nutritional status of the beneficiary population shows a marked improvement. Households living on one meal a day decreased from 19.3% to 13.3%, while households with 2 meals a day remained the same and households with 3 meals a day increased from 17.8% to 23.7%. Even more importantly, satiation levels improved: the percentage of households still feeling hungry after a meal decreased from 56.3% down to 34.8% and the percentage of households who had either enough or just enough went up from 42.6% to 65.2%. Food intake also improved in terms of quality: the frequency as well as the 34

Sicknesses cited were: Malaria, Chest pain, TB, Asthma, Bronchitis, Diarrhea, Vomiting, Abdominal pains, Anemia, Boils, Skin infection, Herpes Zoster, AIDS, Pneumonia, High blood pressure, Diabetes, Eye infection, Ear infection, Toothache, Mouth infection, Measles, Cough, Backache

44

number of households taking in carbohydrates went up. The intake of fats, proteins and vitamins increased with more households consuming cooking oil, foods rich in proteins as well as cultivated vegetables and fruits. This positive change can most likely be ascribed to the SCTS, which increased the purchasing power of beneficiary households and thus enabled them to either consume types of food they could not afford before, or to consume more of certain types of food. The SCTS is likely to have had a positive effect on the health status of the beneficiary population. Overall, the incidence of illness decreased, in particular for the group of 65 and above who are particularly vulnerable and who are usually the ones heading the households. The cash transfer probably allowed households to pay for transport to access health services and to cover smaller medical expenses and increased households’ resistance to sicknesses through better nutrition. With respect to disability, the main disability of partial sightedness reduced by more than half, probably because the cash transfer enabled household members to access treatment in the district capital.

45

8

LIVELIHOODS

Livelihoods comprise activities and assets that are utilized in order to sustain and improve the standard of living. It can be expected that extra cash that comes in every month, changes the amount and sources of cash-income of beneficiary households, has an impact on the stock of assets and debt, changes the frequency of running down assets as a coping strategy as well as the consumption and investment patterns of households. This chapter therefore analyzes to which extent the SCTS has evoked any changes in this regard.

8.1

Cash Income

The average cash income per household decreased after one year of implementing the SCTS.35 At baseline survey the average cash income per household within three months amounted to ZMK 29,000, which comes to ZMK 9,670 per month. This shows that most households were reliant on non-cash resources since it is impossible even in rural areas for a household to live below ZMK 10,000 a month. At evaluation survey, the average cash income per household is 36 considerably lower with ZMK 18,900 for three and ZMK 6,300 for one month. At baseline, 92 households (30%) had no cash income, whereas at evaluation more than half of the sample (156 households or 57%) stated to have no cash income excluding the cash transfer. Households receiving between 1 and 14999 ZMK reduced from 1/3 at baseline down to 12% at evaluation (see table 25). Table 25: Distribution of Beneficiary Households by different Income Groups and by Location Average monthly Rural Urban income over the Baseline Evaluation Baseline Evaluation last 3 months (%) (%) (%) (%) no income 40.6 64.0 6.8 39.2 1 – 4999 14.7 1.5 8.1 5.4 5,000 – 9,999 10.7 3.1 5.4 6.8 10,000 – 14,999 7.6 5.6 18.9 4.1 15,000 – 29,999 9.1 12.2 21.6 9.5 30,000 – 59,999 7.1 9.1 24.3 16.2 60,000 and above 11.2 4.6 14.9 18.9 No of observations 197 197 74 74 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Total Baseline Evaluation (%) (%) 30.6 57.2 12.9 2.6 9.2 4.1 10.7 5.2 12.6 11.4 11.8 11.1 12.2 8.5 271 271

A considerable difference can be noticed between the rural and urban beneficiary households. While almost 41% of households living in rural areas had no cash income at baseline, only 7% of households from urban areas did not have any. Most of the households from rural areas can be found in the lower income categories (1 – 14,999), whereas households from urban areas are predominantly found in higher income categories (15,000 – 59,999). This shows that autoconsumption and exchange/trade of goods plays a much more significant role in rural areas. Figure 11 demonstrates that the reduction of cash income can mostly be attributed to a decrease in external assistance. The percentage of households receiving cash through neighbours, relatives and organizations reduced by around 70%, while the average income from external resources went down from 7,800 ZMK to 1,700 ZMK. This reduction translates into less dependence of beneficiary households and a smaller burden for other community members. The percentage of households obtaining income through internal ‘productive’ sources as well as the average amount earned has also decreased at evaluation but by far less than this is the case for income through external sources. It is not evident whether this decrease is due to fewer 35 36

Amounts have not been deflated. The inflation rate for September 04 – September 05 was around 20%. In conducting the survey it was explicitly stated to exclude the cash transfer from the cash income.

46

opportunities related to the drought, due to the interest of beneficiary households to deliberately declare less, due to eventual recording problems of enumerators37 or due to the fact that households decided to work less. Annex 6 details the different items regrouped under external and internal sources including number of households and average amount gained. Figure 11: Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Sources of Cash 70.0 Baseline

57.2

60.0

Evaluation

50.0 40.0

32.1 32.5

30.6

30.0

23.3

20.0

14.0 8.1

10.0

2.2

0.0 No cas h

Cas h extern

Cas h intern

Cash intern & extern

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

8.2

Debt & assets

8.2.1 Debt Table 26: Percentage of Beneficiary Households Having Debt Baseline (%)

Evaluation (%)

Debt 21.0 19.9 No Debt 78.6 78.6 Don't Know 0.4 1.5 No of observations 271 271 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

The percentage of households with debts did not differ greatly from baseline to evaluation. The average debt however went down from roughly 13,000 to 8,000 ZMK. Interestingly, this reduction is mainly due to the fact that the debt for households in Kanchele reduced to one third as evidenced by figure 12. Contrary to the intuition that male-headed households display a riskier behaviour and acquire more debt, no significant difference between female and male headed households can be noticed. Figure 12: Average Amount of Debt by Location 16000 14000 12000

Baseline Evaluation

14403 12832

11024 11016

10000

8078

8000 5525

6000 4000 2000 0 Kalomo

Kanchele

Total

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey 37

See section on consumption.

47

8.2.2 Assets Figure 13: Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Number of Assets owned 60 49.1

50

Baseline Evaluation

44.7

40 31 30 20

25.1 18.5 14 10.3

7.4

10 0

0-2

3-4

5-6

7 and more

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Asset ownership has developed positively from baseline to evaluation. While at baseline households possessed on average 4.2 assets, they owned 5.2 assets at evaluation. Figure 13 shows that households have shifted proportionally to categories with more assets. Households owning 5 and more assets increased from 41.3% at baseline to 67.6% at evaluation. Table 27: Distribution of Beneficiary Households by Ownership of Assets Type of asset

Baseline (%)

Evaluation (%)

Cattle 5.5 5.2 Donkeys 1.5 0.4 Goats 8.5 41.7 Pigs 1.5 1.5 Chicken 42.4 57.6 Guinea fowls 1.9 2.2 Bicycle 3.7 5.2 Ox-cart 3.0 3.3 Radio 4.4 8.1 House 74.9 91.1 Furniture 16.6 15.5 Pans/ pots 87.1 93.4 Plough 14.4 17.7 Hoe 86.0 88.9 Axe 70.5 77.5 Grinding Mill 0.0 10.0 Others 0.0 1.1 No of observations 271 271 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Remarkable are the increases in smaller livestock: 7 times as many households own goats and the ownership for chickens increased by 15 percentage points. In addition, more households at evaluation are in possession of productive assets such as agricultural tools (plough, how, axe) and grinding mills (increase by 10 percentage points). The percentage of households having their own shelter has also increased by 15 percentage points.

48

Figure 14: Distribution of Beneficiary Households by number of Times Households sold Assets over 3 Months 100

83.2

90

86.9

Baseline survey Evaluation survey

80 70 60 50 40 30 20

10

7.5

10

9.3

3

0 Zero

One time

Tw o or more times

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

The percentage of households selling assets at least once to buy food during the period of 3 months decreased from 16.8% at baseline to 13% at evaluation.38 This decrease is mainly due to a decline in the percentage of households that sold assets more than once. The number of households at evaluation selling assets more than one time reduced to one third, from 9% to 3%. No noteworthy difference is revealed when the data in figure 14 is disaggregated by gender of the household head or geographical location. However, as with debt an inverted relationship exists with household size and the number of times a household sold assets. A possible explanation could be that larger households are either in need to sell more assets or that they have more assets to sell.

8.3

Consumption

Figure 15: Average Consumption per Week by Location in ZMK 30000

26300

Baseline 26130

Evaluation

25000 20000 15000

14140

16260

15340

10000 5600 5000 0 Urban Kanchele

Rural Kalomo

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Looking at the average consumption per household per week, we get inconclusive results. There seems to be an overall increase in consumption in Kanchele and the urban part of Kalomo, while consumption levels dropped in rural Kalomo. The drop in consumption levels is consistent with the drop in income levels, which affected most rural Kalomo. Further investigation is necessary to verify whether there was an actual decrease or whether

38

It needs to be kept in mind however that no details concerning the number and the value of assets were inquired.

49

consumption as well as income levels for rural Kalomo were just wrongly recorded.39 The consumption levels in the range of 26,000 ZMK per week for Kanchele and urban Kalomo also do not match the rather low income levels below 10,000 ZMK per month. Even taking into consideration that consumption levels are mostly the more accurate measure than income levels because it is easier for households to recall and households are less afraid of revealing information that would disqualify them, the consumption level around 120,000 ZMK per month (average consumption levels of 26,000 ZMK x 4.5) seem to be unrealistic. Figure 16: Percentage of Overall Consumption on Different Consumption Categories 80 70

72.7 67.3

Baseline Evaluation

60 50 40 30 18.4 13.2

20 10

1.5 1.7

3.9 5.5

3.4 1.2

Education

Health

0 Food & processing

Toiletries

Clothes and footw ear

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Knowing that the average amounts consumed have to be treated with caution, figure 16 also has to be treated with due care. If we take the overall expenditure on consumption and see how much was spent respectively on different categories, we can see that most money was spent on food and food processing at baseline as well as at evaluation. The next most important category are toiletries, showing that households do care about hygiene whenever additional money is available. Toiletries are followed by education and then health. At evaluation, food gained in importance, as well as education, which is a positive development. Expenditure on health decreased, which could be due to the fact that priorities shifted or that there was less need for health expenditures because of lower prevalence of sickness. Annex 7 provides a detailed list of all consumption items and the proportion of households consuming it. Table 28: Percentage of Households per Consumption Category Item

Kalomo Urban Baseline Evaluation 86.5 94.6 52.7 75.7 8.1 5.4 1.4 0 10.8 20.2

Kalomo Rural Baseline Evaluation 84.6 36.5 48.1 11.5 1.9 0 0 0 9.6 0

Food & processing Toiletries Clothes & footwear Education Health Misuse (alcohol & gambling) 1.6 1.4 3.8 No of observations 74 74 52 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

0 52

Kanchele Baseline Evaluation 84.8 94.5 57.9 71 4.8 2.1 15.2 29.7 15.2 9 2.1 145

2.8 145

Total Baseline Evaluation 85.2 83.4 54.6 60.9 5.2 2.6 8.5 15.9 12.9 10.3 2.2 271

1.8 271

Table 28 indicates that the most important consumption items both at baseline and evaluation survey are ‘food and food processing’ and ‘toiletries.’ As has already been highlighted in figure 15, the regional differences in the consumption pattern are striking. While in Kanchele and Kalomo urban, more households seem to consume the various items, the percentage of 39

There was a considerable difference of average consumption levels by different enumerators, ranging for instance from c. 7,250 ZMK to 28,700 ZMK for urban Kalomo. This leads to doubts as to whether all enumerators referred to the same recall period.

50

households consuming has declined for the most part in Kalomo rural. In Kanchele, it is remarkable that education expenditure almost doubled, which could be explained by the fact that most community schools in rural areas expect parents to pay a small contribution while government schools are free in theory. Positive to note is that the percentage of households consuming alcohol and gambling – misuse – is rather small with 2.1% at baseline and 1.8% at evaluation.

8.4

Investment Pattern

Figure 17: Percentage of Households making Investments by Location 64.8

70.0

Baseline

60.0

Evaluation

50.6

50.0 40.0 30.0

34.1 20.7

20.0

14.0 6.3

10.0 0.0 Kanchele

Kalomo

Total

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

After one year of implementing the SCTS, the number of beneficiary households making investments as well as the amount invested rose. While in Kalomo40, a relatively small percentage of households (6.3%) made investments prior to the scheme, this percentage increased by 5 times at evaluation. Even in Kanchele, where already 21% of all households were investing before, the percentage of investing households tripled. In addition, the average amount invested more than doubled at evaluation for both Kalomo as well as Kanchele if outliers are excluded, as evidenced by figure 18. Figure 18: Average Investment per Quarter by Location 30000

26545

Baseline 25000

Evaluation 20206

20000 15000

12911

12929 9013

10000 5000

4508

0 Kalomo

Kanchele

Total

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

40

A further disaggregation into Kalomo urban and rural leads to approximately the same results.

51

Concluding from the average investment per item as indicated in table 29, beneficiary households invested more money at evaluation in livestock, in communication (radio), in seeds, hiring labour, ploughing and selling goods for trading. At the same time, investment for agricultural tools and household items reduced, which can most-likely be explained by the fact that households were already in possession of them. It seems probably thus that the most incapacitated households were enabled by the SCTS to cultivate land because they could buy agricultural inputs and hire labour. In addition, households were empowered to diversify and improve their livelihoods by investing more in goats, chickens and other goods to trade. Table 29: Average Investment per Item during the 3 Months preceding the Survey Investment item

Baseline (ZMK)

Evaluation (ZMK)

Cattle 1845 Donkey 11 Goats 0 Chicken 1240 Guinea Fowls 85 Bicycle 1107 Radio 554 Furniture 162 Pans/Pots 436 Plough 1125 Hoe 185 Axe 186 Fertilizer 738 Seed 369 Ox-chart 0 Ploughing 221 Hiring Labour 0 Goods for Trading 0 Others 0 No of observations 271 Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

0 0 461 4258 89 738 1137 0 196 0 77 102 221 1085 18 1797 428 295 332 271

When asked directly about the use of the cash transfer, 71% households mentioned that they had invested some of the social cash during the year preceding the evaluation survey, confirming the results above.41 Again, more households in Kanchele (83%) mentioned to have invested some of the social cash compared to 57% in Kalomo. Figure 19: Percentage of Households with Return on Investment 70.0 60.0 50.0

58.5

57.8 51.9 47.6

41.5

40.9

Yes

40.0

No 30.0

Don't know

20.0 10.0

1.4

0.0

0.5

0.0 Kanchele

Kalomo

Total

Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey 41

It is important to notice that households’ answers on the use of social cash are only estimations due to the fact that it is impossible to disaggregate how they used the cash in isolation of other income coming in.

52

Of those that invested some money, 52% stated that they had positive returns on their investment during the year preceding the evaluation survey. Again, we can see a substantial difference between Kanchele and Kalomo: while households in Kanchele seem to have either invested in activities and items more successfully or they have invested in activities and items with a quicker turnover, the majority of households in Kalomo do not seem to have garnered any success yet. Figure 20: Reasons stated by Beneficiary Households for no Return on Investment 2.4%

1.2%

1.2%

Drought / crop failure Goat / chicken died 33.3%

Still waiting Goats / chickens yet to breed Do not Know 60.7%

1.2%

Livestock used for consumption

Source: SCTS Evaluation survey

The fact that the Goat/Chicken had not yet bred was the most mentioned reason for failing to get additional money from the investment, followed by the reason that the goat/chicken had died as is indicated in figure 20. However, given that most households invested in livestock and it takes time for it to reproduce, a one year timeframe might not be long enough to adequately assess the returns generated through those investments. Since savings are an indirect indication of investments, it is important to get an idea whether any of the households managed to save part of the cash transfer. When asked whether they were able to save some money from the cash transfer scheme, 8% of the households responded to have saved some money during the three months preceding the evaluation survey. Given the small amount of money and the fact that households who live on barely two meals a day on average were targeted, it is rather astonishing that households managed to save at all.

8.5

Misuse

Many critics of cash transfers are concerned with the fact that money can easily be misused by the beneficiary households. Since the scheme does not impose any conditionality on beneficiary households, it is difficult to clearly define misuse of money. For practical purposes the scheme considers any expenses for alcohol, gambling, luxury goods or any expenses that do not benefit the entire household at all as misuse. In FGDs there was hardly any mention of misuse of cash in rural areas. In urban areas some examples for misuse were given for a few individual cases (e.g. alcohol consumption; individual rather than household use; relatives taking cash from aged beneficiaries). However, it was also noted during the FGDs that if misuse of the cash was observed, the CWAC members responded quickly by counselling the respective beneficiary household and eventually correcting the spending pattern that led to misuse. The quantitative research confirms that misuse has been a rather rare phenomenon in the scheme with 2.1% of household members consuming alcohol at baseline and 1.8% of households consuming alcohol at evaluation.

53

8.6

Conclusion

Despite the hardship of the drought during 2004/2005, the SCTS has most likely had a positive impact on the livelihoods of the beneficiary households. First of all, households depended less on the community for support. The cash income of beneficiary households decreased at evaluation from already low levels below 10,000 ZMK at baseline. The number of households stating that they had no cash income doubled at evaluation. The reduction in cash is mostly due to a drop of income from external sources, meaning assistance from family, the community and organizations. The decrease in income from external sources translates into less dependence for beneficiary households and a smaller burden for community members. Cash from internal ‘productive’ sources has also reduced but by far less than this is the case for income through external sources. More research is necessary to determine the reasons for this decrease. Secondly, households’ average debt halved at evaluation and asset ownership increased. The percentage of households owning more than 5 assets increased from 41.3% to 67.6%, with households owning considerable more livestock such as goats, chickens, more productive assets such as agricultural tools and grinding mill as well as shelter. The percentage of households selling assets on the contrary decreased from 17% to 13% at baseline. This means that fewer households ran down productive means that can also serve as a safety mechanism during times of shocks. Thirdly, more households both consumed and invested more, with consumption and investment in Kanchele Block being a lot higher. The percentage of households investing quadrupled from 14% to 51% at evaluation and the average amount invested doubled. In particular investments in livestock, agricultural supplies and activities went up. When asked directly about the use of the cash transfer, 71% households mentioned that they had invested some of the social cash and 52% of those households even indicated to have had positive returns on their investment already. Concerning misuse of money in the scheme, FGDs and quantitative research show that it has been rare. When recorded, CWAC members reacted quickly to reverse this trend.

54

9

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY

Like any other intervention, impact is not restricted to the targeted beneficiary households but also encompasses the community in which beneficiary households live. This can even be more expected in a rural setting where the poorest are often dependent on other community members, where community members purchase most necessities in their community and where still a sense of communal support exists - even if weakened. This chapter analyses consequently in what way the SCTS has impacted the community positively or negatively. It regards to what extent the scheme has represented a relief to the community, whether the community has captured any economic benefits from it and whether the scheme has generated any negative feelings.

9.1

Positive impact

Whether the scheme has had a positive impact on the community can be measured by looking at in how far the scheme has reduced costs for beneficiary households (financial relief) and in how far the scheme has produced extra benefits.

9.1.1 Financial relief Even if community support structures have been weakened by the HIV/AIDS pandemic and its subsequent effect on the social structures, the poorest in the communities still receive some form of support. At the time of the evaluation, approximately 20% of all households still received some assistance, mainly in form of food, assistance with household chores or ploughing. Figure 21: Distribution of Beneficiary Households Begging from the Community 100 90 80

86.7

Baseline

69.3

Evaluation

70 60 50 40 30

30.4

20

12.2

10

1.1

0.4

0 Yes

No

Don't know

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation survey

Not only did the assistance by the community decrease but beneficiary households also asked 42 less for support. Begging reduced considerably after one year of implementing the SCTS. The percentage of households begging from community members reduced from 86.7% to 69.3% as shown in figure 21.

42

In FGDs begging was defined as asking for favors when it is done frequently and by very poor people.

55

With respect to the frequency of begging, about 75% of the households mentioned that they begged less frequently at evaluation than they did at baseline. Only 13% stated that begging had increased, while 11% of the sample households said that their level of begging remained 43 the same from baseline to evaluation. The trend of reduced begging is confirmed by the FGDs with non-beneficiary community members and who mention that it is a relief to the community at large and more specifically to the headman who are traditionally the initial target for begging in a community. The community members mentioned that begging has considerably reduced among beneficiaries, even though it is still practised, in particular at times when the cash allocation for one month has been spent. Figure 22: Frequency of Begging by Beneficiary Households comparing Baseline to Evaluation 11%

1%

13%

Increased Decreased Remained same Don't know

75%

Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey

The decreased pro-active community assistance can thus be explained by a reduced need for assistance as well as reduced capacity to assist. Due to the fact that the economic status of beneficiary households improved over the course of the year, they required less assistance and begged less frequently. This means that resources of non-beneficiary households in the community are freed for other activities. At the same time support decreased because the food shortage after the previous drought adversely impacted the community’s capacity to assist, as confirmed by FGDs with non-beneficiary community members. In particular the decrease of assistance during crises point to the need of a reliable safety net for the poorest who have no means of coping with an external shock, in particular when it affects the entire community.

9.1.2 Economic benefits The fact that cash is injected on a regular basis into the community usually stimulates economic activity and strengthens local markets. 81.3% of all the money used on consumption items was spent locally. It is therefore likely that neighbours as well as local shopkeepers have also benefited from the additional inflow of cash. Further studies would however be necessary to concretize the economic benefits and study the economic multiplier effects.

9.2

Negative impact

One of the challenges in rural areas where the majority of the population is poor and where differences between households are not always easy to distinguish is the issue of jealousy. It is common in Zambian society that people are jealous of the achievements or additional benefits of others which then results in pressure on the performers or beneficiaries to share resources 43

The percentages are based on an analysis excluding the missing values. However, the level of missing values is with 30% quite high and might influence the analysis.

56

with the non-performers. However, the FGDs and interviews have not given strong evidence of jealousy. Throughout all the discussions jealousy among non-beneficiary stakeholders towards the beneficiaries was not stated as a problem. However, it was mentioned that jealousy could be there without being explicitly expressed. Feelings of jealousy were expressed in FGDs by those households who could not be included in the scheme or were excluded after re-targeting. Rejected beneficiaries assumed that CWAC members were jealous of the improvement in beneficiaries’ livelihoods and therefore excluded them from the scheme.

9.3

Conclusion

With regards to the positive effect of the scheme, it can be concluded that the SCTS has presented a great relief to the community which assisted beneficiary households before. They can now use the limited resources for their needs and in particular as a buffer during times of crisis. Furthermore, the majority of money used on consumption items was spent locally at evaluation and it therefore seems likely that the additional inflow of money has also benefited neighbours, local shopkeepers and other community members. Even though rarely pronounced, there are indications of jealousy, especially among the poor that could not be included and or were excluded during retargeting. Further research would be necessary to evaluate the economic trickle down effects of the transfer and to what extent jealousy has played a role.

57

10

SOCIAL POSITION AND SELF-ESTEEM

Poverty can destroy self esteem and in many cultures the poverty status also determines the social position of a person in a community. It is thus likely that a change in poverty also entrains changes in self-esteem and the social position of an individual or household. This chapter investigates whether such a change has taken place by looking at the perception of poverty of beneficiary households and their acceptance by the community, their participation in community activities and at their future perspective before and after the scheme.

10.1 Social Position within the Community It is difficult to capture whether the social position of beneficiary households has changed over time since social dynamics are first of all not easy to measure and they usually take time. By looking at whether households feel more accepted by the community and whether they participate more actively in community activities, we attempt to draw some lessons on the social position.

10.1.1 Perception on Acceptance by the Community The acceptance of the community can be influenced by two opposing forces: on the one hand, the community can accept beneficiary households more because they are less dependent on the community and can more actively participate in communal activities such as community schools. On the other hand, beneficiary households can be less accepted by the community because of jealousy. When trying to analyze which force is prevailing, we get mixed results. Figure 23: Perception of Beneficiary Households on whether they are accepted by the Community 84.4

90.0 80.0

Baseline

70.0

Evaluation

67.2

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0

15.7

12.7 5.6 4.5

5.9

4.1

0.0 No

Somehow

Yes

Don't know

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

As demonstrated by figure 23, it is difficult to determine whether the acceptance levels by the community have decreased over time due to jealousy or not. On the one hand, there are slightly fewer households feeling ‘not accepted’ by the community. On the other hand, there has been a shift from households feeling ‘accepted’ to households feeling ‘somehow accepted’ and to ‘don’t know.’ However it is difficult to conclude whether the increase in the category ‘don’t know’ means an increase in non-acceptance or is just due to the fact that the question was less clearly phrased at evaluation.

58

Figure 24: Tendency of Acceptance by the Community over Time

35.9% Increased Decreased

53.9%

Same

10.2%

Source: SCTS Evaluation Survey

Nevertheless, when those households who feel accepted or somehow accepted at evaluation are asked directly about a change in their acceptance by the community at evaluation, the result looks different. 54% of the households indicated that the acceptance by the community of their household had increased, while only 10% mentioned that it had decreased.

10.1.2 Participation in the Community Participation in the community could be affected in both ways by the cash transfer scheme: it could increase because beneficiary households feel more comfortable participating in community activities due to the fact that they can contribute more actively and can afford new clothes and soap. It could on the other hand decrease if beneficiary households fear the jealousy of other community members. Figure 25: Participation of Beneficiary Households in Community Activities 70.0

63.3 Baseline

60.0

Evaluation

46.1

50.0 40.0

48.3

33.7

30.0 20.0 10.0

3.0 3.4

0.0 2.2

0.0 No

Somehow

Yes

Don't know

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

Participation levels of beneficiary households in community activities reduced from baseline to evaluation. While at baseline 63% of the households indicated to participate in community activities, only 48% did at evaluation. It is not a dramatic decrease but might reveal that jealousy could play a role in households’ decision not to participate in community activities. Again, more research would have to be carried out to determine to what degree this is the case.

59

10.2 Self esteem and future perspective In order to gauge whether beneficiary households feel more confident about themselves and about the future, we look at how beneficiary households think they are perceived by the community and also whether they have not only hope but concrete plans for the future.

10.2.1 Perception of Poverty Households are usually ashamed of being considered by the community as poor because it indirectly implies that the person considered as the poorest has not succeeded in life. Therefore the perception of other community members matters and has an impact on people’s selfesteem. Figure 26: Perception of Beneficiary Households on how they are viewed by the Community 70.0 60.0 50.0

59.3

Baseline Evaluation 45.2

40.0

33.0 34.4

30.0 18.5

20.0 7.8

10.0

0.0 1.9

0.0 Very poor

Poor

Not poor

Don't know

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

The perception of beneficiary households of how the community viewed their poverty situation slightly improved at evaluation as figure 26 shows: while still only a few at evaluation think that they are considered as ‘not poor’, more households think that they have changed status from ‘very poor’ to ‘poor’. This development is plausible since after one year of receiving transfers, beneficiary households are not expected to climb out of poverty.

10.2.2 Perspective on Future Figure 27: Percentage of Beneficiary Household being hopeful about the Future 35.0

31.5

30.0 25.0

24.4

Baseline

31.1

31.9 27.0

Evaluation

21.9 17.4

20.0 14.8 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 No

A bit

Yes

Don't know

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

60

Extreme poverty often leads to a situation where people have no perspective, no plans and only focus on how they will survive the current day. An improvement in the poverty situation might therefore help households to gain a new future perspective, which in return also boosts their self-confidence. As indicated by figure 27, 31.5% of the households at baseline indicated to have no hope for the future and 36.7% said to be hopeful or a bit hopeful. At evaluation the situation inverted with 24.4% of beneficiary households having no hope and 48.5% being hopeful. Whereas both female and male headed households are more hopeful for the future at evaluation, the increase for female-headed households was much higher than for male headed households. Since female headed households usually face more difficulties in coping, this can be noted as a rather positive development. Figure 28: Future Plans of Beneficiary Households 60.0

Baseline 50.0

49.8

Evaluation 35.6 36.3

40.0

27.4

30.0 20.0 10.0

11.9 3.12.6

4.64.1

12.2

5.4 0.41.1

0.8

0.01.9

2.6 0.4

Others

Don't know

0.0 Education Farming Business activities

Build house

Improve Invest in livelihood livestock

No plans

Source: SCTS Baseline and Evaluation Survey

After one year of implementing the SCTS, relatively more households had plans for the future. The percentage of households having no plans went down from 50% at baseline to 27% at evaluation. Looking at the plans of households, the majority of households were interested in engaging in farming activities at baseline as well as evaluation, showing that even with limited self-help potential households do want to be productive. The major change in terms of plans from baseline to evaluation is that there are more households at evaluation interested in improving their livelihood without specifying the reason and considerably more who want to invest in livestock. The interest in livestock is confirmed by the increased investment in livestock.

10.3 Conclusion While the evidence with respect to the social position of beneficiary households is not conclusive, households have definitely gained more self-confidence over time and look positively into the future, which is a crucial prerequisite for breaking through the vicious cycle of poverty one day. Looking at acceptance levels by the community, we get contradictory information: on the one hand those feeling accepted or somehow accepted declare that acceptance by the community has either remained the same or increased over time. On the other hand, more beneficiary households state to feel accepted at baseline than at evaluation and households also seem to participate less often in community activities, alluding to the fact that jealousy might play a role. More research would be necessary to determine whether households’ social position has improved or deteriorated over time. When looking at self-esteem, we can observe a very positive trend in general and an even more positive development for female headed households. Beneficiary households think that they are 61

considered by the community less poor than at baseline, which is an indication that they are more confident about themselves. Households, in particular female-headed households, are also more hopeful about their future and actually have plans. This does not only confirm that households’ confidence has strengthened over time but also that households have intentions to engage in productive activities according to their means, refuting the prejudice that cash transfers create dependency and discourage households from working.

62

11. CONCLUSION The evaluation report has shown that the cash transfer scheme is feasible in Zambia and can be implemented through existing government structures if the necessary capacity building and conceptual support is provided. Even though the present community-based targeting system appears to be cost-effective and adapted to the Zambian context, more research is necessary to determine its effectiveness. That’s why the technical working group on social assistance, a forum headed by the Department of Social Welfare to coordinate all cash transfer interventions in the country, has decided to pilot a universal targeting mechanism and a self-targeting mechanism for urban areas in different districts to allow for comparison. Furthermore, the technical working group has prioritized research on the inclusion and exclusion error. The delivery mechanism through pay points has proven reliable and convenient for beneficiary households even though alternative transport means involving the private sector should be looked into in the future. The management of the scheme through the Public Welfare Assistance Scheme appears to be advantageous if social welfare officers and the grassroots structures continue to be trained. It not only makes use and strengthens an existing structure but it puts government in the driving seat. However, the technical working group has also expressed an interest to look into alternative methods, involving NGOs, as long as government maintains an oversight function. In addition, since the current pilot area only covers one third of the district, the extension of the scheme to the entire district and to other districts is crucial in order to generate necessary information on further capacity building needs and on conceptual changes so that the scheme remains manageable. The technical working group on social assistance has designed an implementation strategy that envisions the upscaling of the scheme to a total of 5 pilot districts next year. With respect to costs and benefits of the scheme, it can be concluded that the administrative costs of the cash delivery could be kept at reasonable levels, in particular considering that it is a pilot and it takes a certain time to get structures established, roles and responsibilities clarified and stakeholders trained. Again, the upscaling of the scheme to the entire district and to other districts will be able to provide more information on the actual costs of the scheme. Furthermore according to the evaluation report it seems likely that the social cash transfer scheme has had a positive impact on education, health, nutrition, livelihood and the self-esteem of beneficiary household members as well as on the wider community those households live in. Unfortunately due to the absence of a control group, external factors such as the drought in 2004/05 cannot be factored out and the evaluation survey can only try to highlight tendencies and hypothesize on possible linkages to the cash transfer scheme. In order to draw more definite conclusions, the technical working group has decided to carry out an impact analysis with control groups for all pilot districts. An impact evaluation across all pilot districts will also allow assessing different elements in the pilots such an alternative targeting system, variations in the transfer amount and possibly conditionality. Whether to impose conditions in the cash transfer scheme is a discussion that is not only held in Zambia but worldwide. The possibility of testing conditionality in one of the districts is still debated. While on the one hand it would be interesting to contrast a conditional cash transfer scheme with an unconditional cash transfer scheme conducting a cost/benefit analysis, the value added of conditionality remains questionable in Zambia’s case. Not only might it be difficult to find a conditionality that is suitable and factors in the supply side constraints but it would also contradict the underlying principle of the scheme that the poor are not irresponsible. In addition, the evaluation report has alluded to the fact that households have an interest in

63

investing in the future of their children and in improving the livelihood of the household and therefore might not need to be guided through conditionality. Even though cash can be used flexibly and has the potential to improve the livelihood of a household, it is no panacea and needs to be combined with other interventions. First of all, any measure to strengthen the demand of households for other public services such as education and health needs to be coupled with interventions on the supply side, which guarantee that the new demand can be met. In addition, cash can not substitute for psycho-socio counselling which might be equally needed by HIV/AIDS affected households than cash. An advantage of working through the public welfare assistance scheme is that cash can be easily combined with other services through the same structure. The CWACs, in charge of targeting and counselling of the beneficiary households are currently trained in psycho-social counselling in Zambia and they have also received an HIV/AIDS management training by the GTZ/MCDSS social safety net project. In addition, cash transfers cannot exist in isolation and should be embedded in a comprehensive social protection strategy. In Zambia, cash transfers are one component of the social protection strategy and more research will be carried out next year on how this cash transfer component can be better combined with other livelihood approaches. In summary, the evaluation report has shown that social cash transfers are an interesting approach to reach out to HIV/AIDS affected households with no and limited self-help potential and that the scheme definitely merits further exploration.

64

12.

LITERATURE

Colenbrander, W. and N. Chooma, Kalomo Social Cash Transfer Scheme, Mid-Term Evaluation, Report on Qualitative Research Kanchele & Kalomo Central Block (Lusaka, 2006). Krijcle, R.V and D.W. Morgan,Table for determining sample size from given populations, (USA National Education Association, 1970). Provincial Welfare Assistance Scheme, National Household Survey, (2003). Zambia National Living Conditions Monitoring Survey 2002/2003, (2004). Zambia National Living Conditions Monitoring Survey 2004, (2005). SCTS project documents are all available on: www.socialcashtransfers-zambia.org

65

Annex 1 - Research questions, indicators, targets and data sources Research Questions

Indicators

Targets

Data Sources

% of total costs of the Scheme used for administration Table showing the assessment of the design and the implementation by CWAC, ACC, DWAC members and by the DSWOs and the PSWO Table showing how the Manual of Operations (MoO), filing system and bicycles are assessed by different stakeholders

80%

% of beneficiary HH having a dependency ratio over 300.

>80%

How is the horizontal effectivity of targeting?

Q

Q

Q

A

Poverty ranking based on CSO questionnaire Form 1 verified by household visit Poverty ranking based on CSO questionnaire.