Theory of Change, Poverty Graduation

Author

Matt Broerman

Summary of work

(~ 30 minutes to review the framework, not counted)

  • 45 minutes to pull the number list from the paper
  • 45 minutes to interact with ChatGPT to fill in assumptions and evidence ideas
  • 60 minutes to edit copy, format quarto and mermaid code.
  • 30 minutes to chase down a few bits of evidence, running out of time.

Note that owing to editing there are a view inconsistencies in the diagram and copy. Also that due to automatic layout of mermaid, it needs some fine tuning.

Diagram

TODO: get the Outline and Diagram to work together from one source.

graph TD
    subgraph Activities
    A1["1. Staff select sites by national survey data"]
    A2["2. Staff and field officers select villages within the site"]
    A3["3. Villagers rank each other with PWR"]
    A4["4. Field-officers assess assets of selected villagers"]
    A5["5. Staff randomize and offer program"]
    A7["7. Implementing orgs generate a list of assets"]
    A8["8. Field-officers or orgs train villagers about business"]
    A9["9. Implementing orgs distribute assets"]
    A10["10. Staff distribute consumption support"]
    A11["11. Implement orgs do ongoing training"]
    A12["12. Staff provision savings options"]
    A13["13. Staff conduct post-assessment"]
    end

    subgraph Outputs
    B1["14. Participants make selections"]
    A6["6. Participants accept offer"]
    B2["15. Participants receive and use cash stipends"]
    B3["16. Participants attend and benefit from trainings"]
    B4["17. Participants receive assets"]
    C2["19. Participants save profit"]
    end

    subgraph Outcomes
    C1["18. Participants profit from assets"]
    C3["20. Participants do not suffer preventable illness"]
    C4["21. Assets grow"]
    end

    subgraph Impact
    D1["22. Participants graduate from poverty"]
    end

    A1 --> A2 --> A3 --> A4 --> A5
    A7 --> A8 --> A9 
    A5 --> A7
    A5 --> A10
    A5 --> A11 
    A5 --> A12 
    A5 --> A13
    A5 --> A6 
    A5 --> B1 
    A10 --> B2 
    A11 --> B3 
    A9 --> B4
    B4 --> C2
    A12 --> C2
    B4 --> C1
    B3 --> C3
    C2 --> C4
    C3 --> C4
    C4 --> D1
    
    style Activities fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px;
    style Outputs fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px;
    style Outcomes fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px;
    style Impact fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px;

Outline

Activities

1. Staff select sites by national survey data

  • NA: The national survey accurately reflects current needs and conditions.
    • Survey Question: “What are the most pressing needs in your community?”
    • Survey Question: “How have your needs changed over the past year?”
  • EC: Survey data is up-to-date and representative of all demographic groups.
    • Evidence: Recent census data showing demographic distribution.
    • Evidence: Studies or reports validating the accuracy of survey methodologies.
  • EX: Overemphasis on data might overlook newly emerging needs.
    • Evidence: Case studies where reliance on outdated data led to ineffective interventions.

2. Staff and field officers select villages within the site

  • NA: Villages have the infrastructure and willingness to participate.
    • Survey Question: “Does your village have the necessary infrastructure to support [specific intervention]?”
    • Survey Question: “Would you be willing to participate in [specific intervention] if selected?”
  • EC: Political and social stability within selected villages.
    • Evidence: Reports from local governance or NGOs on political stability.
    • Evidence: Social cohesion indicators or studies.
  • EX: Selection may cause feelings of inequality or neglect in non-selected villages.
    • Evidence: Historical accounts of program implementations and their social impacts.

3. Villagers rank each other with PWR

  • EC: Cultural norms support or allow for transparent ranking without conflict.
    • Evidence: Anthropological studies on local decision-making practices.
    • Evidence: Reports on community engagement and conflict resolution methods.
  • EX: Ranking may create or exacerbate tensions among villagers.
    • Evidence: Case studies from similar interventions detailing social dynamics.

4. Field-officers assess assets of selected villagers

  • EC: Asset assessment is comprehensive and considers non-material assets.
    • Evidence: Guidelines or standards for comprehensive asset assessments.
    • Evidence: Training materials for field officers on asset assessment.
  • EX: Asset assessment could lead to jealousy or conflict.
    • Evidence: Psychological studies on perceptions of fairness and jealousy.

5. Staff randomize and offer program to half (implementation, not RCT)

  • EC: Randomization creates a fair and representative sample of participants.
    • Evidence: Statistical analysis demonstrating the effectiveness of random sampling techniques.
  • EX: Those not selected may feel resentment or disengage from community initiatives.
    • Evidence: Surveys or interviews with non-selected community members from past programs.

7. Implementing orgs generate a list of assets

  • NA: The list of assets aligns with the actual needs and capacities of participants.
    • Survey Question: “Which of the following assets would be most beneficial for your household?”
    • Survey Question: “Do you have the skills or knowledge to utilize [specific asset] effectively?”
  • EC: The assets are sustainable and suitable for the local environment.
    • Evidence: Environmental impact assessments for proposed assets.
    • Evidence: Case studies on the longevity and sustainability of similar assets in comparable contexts.
  • EX: Focus on certain assets might neglect broader or longer-term needs.
    • Evidence: Reviews or evaluations of past programs highlighting missed opportunities or oversights.

8. Field-officers or implementing orgs train villagers about business

  • NA: Training content is relevant to the villagers’ business interests and local market opportunities.
    • Survey Question: “What business skills are you most interested in acquiring?”
    • Survey Question: “What types of businesses do you believe would thrive in your community?”
  • EC: The training methodology is adaptable to the local context and learning preferences.
    • Evidence: Pilot training sessions and their evaluations for effectiveness.
    • Evidence: Educational studies on learning outcomes based on various pedagogical approaches.
  • EX: Training leads to oversaturation of certain types of businesses in the local market.
    • Evidence: Market analyses before and after similar training programs.

9. 12 months, Implementing orgs distribute assets

  • NA: Distributed assets match the training and business plans developed by the participants.
    • Survey Question: “Following the training, which assets do you feel are crucial for starting your business?”
    • Survey Question: “How do the assets provided align with your business plan?”
  • EC: Assets are distributed in a timely manner that aligns with the agricultural or business cycle.
    • Evidence: Schedule and planning documents for asset distribution.
    • Evidence: Feedback from participants on the timing of asset receipt.
  • EX: Distribution of assets creates competition that harms existing local businesses.
    • Evidence: Studies on the impact of asset distribution on local economies.

10. 12 months Staff distribute consumption support (cash stipend)

  • NA: The amount of consumption support is adequate to meet immediate needs without discouraging initiative.
    • Survey Question: “How has the consumption support affected your household’s financial stability?”
    • Survey Question: “Do you feel the consumption support is sufficient, too little, or too much?”
  • EC: Consumption support does not lead to inflationary pressures in the local market.
    • Evidence: Economic analysis of previous instances of cash distribution.
    • Evidence: Monitoring of prices before and after cash distribution.
  • EX: Reliance on consumption support reduces motivation for self-sufficiency.
    • Evidence: Longitudinal studies on the effects of prolonged financial aid.

11. 24 months, Implement orgs do ongoing training

  • NA: Ongoing training addresses evolving business skills and market needs.
    • Survey Question: “What additional training do you need as your business grows?”
    • Survey Question: “How have market conditions changed since your initial training?”
  • EC: Participants are able to integrate ongoing training with their current business operations.
    • Evidence: Follow-up assessments of business performance post-initial training.
    • Evidence: Case studies of businesses that have adapted based on ongoing training.
  • EX: Ongoing training distracts from the core business activities.
    • Evidence: Feedback from participants on the balance between running their business and participating in training.

12. Staff provision savings options

  • NA: Savings options are accessible and trusted by the community.
    • Survey Question: “What features do you look for in a savings mechanism?”
    • Survey Question: “Have you had any concerns about saving money with the options provided?”
  • EC: Savings options are resilient to local and regional economic fluctuations.
    • Evidence: Analysis of savings options’ performance in past economic downturns.
    • Evidence: Stability and security ratings of financial institutions offering savings options.
  • EX: Provision of savings options leads to unanticipated financial behaviors, such as excessive risk-taking.
    • Evidence: Studies on changes in financial behavior following the introduction of new savings mechanisms.

13. 24 month, staff conduct post-assessment

  • NA: Post-assessment accurately measures program impact and participant progress.
    • Survey Question: “How well do you think the post-assessment captured your achievements and challenges?”
    • Survey Question: “What aspects of your progress do you feel were not adequately captured by the post-assessment?”
  • EC: The assessment is conducted in a manner that is culturally sensitive and respectful of participants.
    • Evidence: Guidelines and training for assessors on cultural sensitivity.
    • Evidence: Participant feedback on their experience with the assessment process.
  • EX: The assessment process could demotivate participants by highlighting challenges over successes.
    • Evidence: Psychological studies on the impact of feedback on motivation and self-efficacy.

Outputs

6. Participants accept offer.

  • NA: Offers are seen as valuable and relevant by the participants.
    • Survey Question: “How relevant do you find [specific offer] to your current needs?”
    • Survey Question: “What would make [specific offer] more valuable to you?”
  • EC: Participants have the capacity to engage without sacrificing other critical needs.
    • Evidence: Studies on economic activities and time allocation in targeted communities.
  • EX: Acceptance may create perceived inequalities or dependencies.
    • Evidence: Research on social dynamics following aid distribution.

14. Participants receive and use cash stipends

  • NA: Cash stipends are sufficient to meet intended needs.
    • Survey Question: “How far do you expect the cash stipend to meet your household needs?”
    • Survey Question: “What are your planned uses for the cash stipend?”
  • EC: Market conditions allow for effective use of cash stipends.
    • Evidence: Analysis of current market prices and inflation rates.
    • Evidence: Studies on the impact of cash injections on local economies.
  • EX: Inflation or price manipulation affects the purchasing power of stipends.
    • Evidence: Historical data on market reactions to similar programs.

15. Participants attend and benefit from trainings

  • NA: Trainings are relevant and tailored to the participants’ needs and context.
    • Survey Question: “Which skills or knowledge areas would you like to develop?”
  • EC: Participants can attend trainings without significant opportunity costs.
    • Evidence: Studies on local employment and daily routines.
    • Evidence: Feedback from past training programs regarding attendance and engagement.
  • EC: Knowledge gained from training is not utilized or is misapplied.
    • Evidence: Follow-up studies on the application of skills post-training.

16. Participants receive assets

  • NA: Assets are appropriate and desired by the participants.
    • Survey Question: “List the assets you believe would most improve your household’s income or well-being.”
    • Survey Question: “Are there any assets you feel are inappropriate or unwanted? Please explain why.”
  • EC: Assets can be maintained and are sustainable in the local environment.
    • Evidence: Technical assessments of asset sustainability.
    • Evidence: Reports on local environmental conditions affecting asset usability.

Outcomes

17. Participants profit from assets

  • EC: Market demand exists for products or services generated from assets.
    • Evidence: Surveys of local consumers or businesses.
  • EX: Market saturation or competition diminishes profits.
    • Evidence: Studies on market trends and competition levels.

18. Participants save profit

  • NA: Participants have access to and trust in savings mechanisms.
    • Survey Question: “Has your bank account grown?”
    • Survey Question: “What barriers do you face in saving money?”
  • EC: Economic stability allows for saving rather than immediate consumption.
    • Evidence: Economic trend reports indicating stability.
    • Evidence: Surveys on household financial management practices.

19. Participants do not suffer preventable illness

  • NA: Health interventions are effective and accessible.
    • Survey Question: “How easy is it for you to access healthcare when needed?”
    • Survey Question: “What are the most common health issues in your community?”
  • EC: Community health infrastructure supports ongoing health needs.
    • Evidence: Assessments of local healthcare facilities and services.

20. Assets grow

  • EC: Environmental conditions support the growth or enhancement of assets.
    • Survey Question: “When have you spend savings?”

Impact

21. Participants graduate from poverty (i.e., only return through some catastrophic event)

  • EC: The local and global economy supports continued prosperity.
    • Evidence: Economic forecasts and trend analyses.
    • Evidence: Studies on resilience of local economies to shocks.
  • EX: Catastrophic events (natural disasters, economic crises) undo progress.
    • Evidence: Risk assessments for natural disasters or economic downturns.
    • Evidence: Plans and strategies for disaster risk reduction and economic stabilization.