|
| |
Impact Assessment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measuring
the Effectiveness of NRSP's Activities |
Three Important
Questions for NRSP |
 |
|
|
Measuring the
Effectiveness of NRSP's Activ
ities
To measure the effectiveness of NRSP's work in
long-established Regions, NRSP's Monitoring, Evaluation and Research
section has carried out numerous village-level studies. These internal
studies have greatly helped the NRSP staff in determining the level and
types of efforts necessary to achieve optimum results in terms of the
depth and breadth of NRSP's activities. To assess the impact of the
overall programme, NRSP plans to request third parties such as the World
Bank to initiate an impact assessment of the programme. NRSP has also
commissioned international consultants to review and analyse the outcomes
of NRSP in relation to those major questions which arise in the minds of
the stakeholders of NRSP and which establish the basis for a more detailed
and rigorous evaluation. The findings of one such study confirms that
those people who have benefited from the programme have been able to
increase their incomes and therefore their asset base.
The Report notes that " … NRSP respondents pointed to greater agricultural
productivity, higher yields, better supply of inputs and adoption of new
techniques as the factors which had improved their income, consumption and
health." The improvements in health are particularly significant, given
that the study found that "frequency of illness … with resultant high cost
of treatment is an important factor pushing marginal households into
poverty and poor households into deeper poverty" (p.xi).
The UNDP National Human Development Report 2003: NGOs and Communities
Striving for Poverty Alleviation examined the performance of 7 NGOs in a
'spot survey'. NRSP is pleased to report that responses to 3 of the 4
questions show that NRSP performed the most successfully.
| |
|
Did you and your family eat your fill? |
|
|
|
NGOs |
Daily |
Mostly |
Sometimes |
Seldom |
|
KK |
42.90 |
31.40 |
17.10 |
8.60 |
|
OPP |
72.10 |
24.60 |
3.30 |
- |
|
PIEDAR |
66.70 |
12.50 |
14.60 |
- |
|
NRSP |
67.50 |
27.50 |
5.00 |
6.30 |
|
KASHF |
73.70 |
40.50 |
9.50 |
- |
|
OWP |
40.60 |
21.10 |
21.90 |
4.80 |
|
ASB |
40.60 |
37.50 |
5.30 |
5.30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have more to eat now or earlier? |
|
|
|
|
Have more to eat now |
Have more to eat in earlier times |
Equal |
|
KK |
28.60 |
40.00 |
31.40 |
|
OPP |
27.90 |
42.60 |
29.50 |
|
PIEDAR |
35.40 |
47.90 |
16.70 |
|
NRSP |
65.00 |
17.50 |
17.50 |
|
KASHF |
42.90 |
31.00 |
26.20 |
|
OWP |
31.60 |
47.40 |
21.10 |
|
ASB |
31.30 |
56.30 |
12.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is your family’s health better now or earlier? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health is better now |
Health was better earlier |
Equal |
|
KK |
20.00 |
60.00 |
17.10 |
|
OPP |
19.70 |
39.30 |
41.00 |
|
PIEDAR |
25.00 |
41.70 |
31.30 |
|
NRSP |
50.00 |
12.50 |
37.50 |
|
KASHF |
31.00 |
40.50 |
28.60 |
|
OWP |
21.10 |
42.10 |
36.80 |
|
ASB |
15.60 |
40.60 |
43.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did the loan result in sustainable increase in income? |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
Equal |
|
KK |
42.90 |
47.60 |
9.50 |
|
OPP |
71.10 |
17.80 |
11.10 |
|
PIEDAR |
56.50 |
21.70 |
21.70 |
|
NRSP |
81.60 |
7.90 |
10.50 |
|
KASHF |
66.70 |
33.30 |
- |
|
OWP |
- |
- |
100 |
|
ASB |
53.30 |
46.70 |
- |
The Report provides a Province-wise ranking of the 105
Districts of Pakistan. According to this ranking NRSP works in some of the
least-developed Districts: 3 of the 7 least-developed Districts in Punjab
(Lodhran, D. G. Khan and Vehari) and 4 of the 6 least-developed Districts
in Sindh (Mirpur Khas, Badin, Thatta and Dadu). In AJK, which has a
different administrative system, all areas outside Muzzafarabad and Mirpur
can be said to be economically under-developed. The Report notes that all
Districts of Balochistan outside Quetta, Sibi and Ziarat are classified as
'least developed'. The only exception for NRSP is NWFP, where programme
activities were initiated by NRSP as an Implementing Partner in the Swabi
SCARP Project. |
|
BACK
TO TOP |
|
Three Important Questions for
NRSP
In a study conducted in 2000, Mehmood Hasan Khan posed three important
questions about the RSP model: Are the RSPs cost-effective? Do the RSPs
reach the rural poor? And do the RSPs make a difference in the standard of
living (quality of life) of rural households participating in the
Community Organisations (COs)?
He found that " … there are strong economies of scale with quantitative
evidence of increased productivity of NRSP staff and cost-effectiveness in
disbursing loans and in building the physical and social infrastructure."
His findings clearly indicate that "… a) one third to one-half of the CO
member households are poor and (b) there is a 7.5% additional increase in
income over non-members leading to significant economic impact on the
participating households in terms of their total and farm income, total
expenditure, savings, consumer durable goods, and children in school and
it tends to increase with time and c) the annual (real) cost per CO member
fell almost every year from Rs. 4,599 in 1993 to Rs. 438 in 2002. A
similar trend is observed in the nominal cost per CO member. The (real)
unit cost of CO formation fell from Rs. 94,808 in 1993 to Rs. 9,253 in
1997-98; it rose somewhat in 1998-99, but kept on falling in the next four
years, and was Rs. 7,371 per CO in 2001-02. These changes in the unit cost
of NRSP operations indicate clearly that there are significant economies
of scale."
In a survey of 360 [CO member] households, conducted in 2000, Khan
identified the following characteristics, which led him to conclude that
NRSP does reach the poor: "The average household has seven members, with
four adults and three children, and two workers.
|
 |
Ninety-two per cent of the households earn some income from farming and
62 per cent depend on 3-4 sources. The average monthly income is Rs. 965
per person. About 40 per cent of the households can be regarded as poor
since their monthly income per person is not above Rs. 650.
|
|
The average monthly expenditure is Rs. 893 per person and 46 per cent of
the household expenditure is on food. |
|
The average value of household assets is Rs. 72,502 per person. Land and
livestock are the major assets. Livestock is owned by 88 per cent of
households, but 30 per cent of them are landless.
|
|
The average household debt is Rs. 16,613. Two-thirds of the households
borrowed capital during the reference year and one-half of them used it
for production purposes. One-half of the value of loans is from
relatives and friends."
|
|
|
|
Mahmood Hasan Khan, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Professor Khan determined that “… the member households have spent far
more on purchase of assets than non-member households and the non-member
households have spent far more on shelter and health and education than
member households.” He also makes the point that “While the member
households … used three-quarters of the loans for production, the
non-member households … spent over two-thirds of the loan value on housing
and consumption (34 per cent) and health and education (34 per cent)”
|
|
|
|
|
BACK
TO TOP |
|
|
|