ASSAf – SPII WEBINAR
WHAT TO DO TO REDUCE POVERTY AND INEQUALITY?
VENUE: VIRTUAL ZOOM
Evidence from
Impact Evaluation Studies on EPWP
INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PROGRAMME
HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL
Shirin Motala & Stewart Ngandu
OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION
1. EPWP – ENVISAGED CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
2. THEORY OF CHANGE CRITICAL FOR SUCCESSFUL M&E 3. IMPACT EVALUATIONS - BLIND SPOTS IN
INTERVENTION OBJECTIVES ALIGNED TO DESIGN 4. EVIDENCE FROM STUDIES ON OUTCOMES
2
1. EPWP ENVISAGED CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
• National Development Plan (NDP) and the New Growth Path (NGP), and both articulate an important development role for the EPWP.
• EPWP - positioned as a key programme to contribute to achieving
government’s goals of halving unemployment, building communities and active citizenship and reducing gaps in the social protection system of the country
• EPWP Phase 3 Objective
“To provide work opportunities and income support to poor and
unemployed people through the labour-intensive delivery of public and community assets and services, thereby contributing to development.”
4
2. THEORIES OF CHANGE CRTICAL IN
INTERVENTION DESIGN
DEA ENVIRONMENTAL EPWP THEORY OF CHANGE
THE “TRILEMMA” OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES
PEP’s development potential lies in providing all three of these outcomes-
but there are
trade-offs
between them in practice
For different programmes,
sectors and contexts optimal balance between
these 3 will vary
Source: DPW Presentation to Portfolio Committee, 2014
3. INTERVENTION DESIGN BLIND SPOTS
8
1. INTRODUCTION
PES PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS*
Inputs Output Short & mid-term Outcomes
PES PROGRAMME STRATEGIC SUCCESS*
PES PROGRAMME SUCCESS* = IMPLEMENTATION + STRATEGIC SUCCESS
Implementation objectives of the PES* Strategic objectives of the PES*
Activities Impacts
What PESinvests? What PESdoes? What PES
produces? PES’sshort-term RESULTS
(Why is PES doing this?) PESlong term RESULTS EFFICIENCY
How did the PESconvert INPUTS& ACTIVITIESinto
OUTPUTS?
IMPACT
Did the outcomes of the PES contribute to the developmental goal?
SUSTAINABILITY
HAVE and WILL PES’s RESULTSbe maintained?
P R O B L E M C O N TE X T
RELEVANCE Rationale for PES.
EFFECTIVENESS How well did the RESULTS contribute to the realisation of
PES programme objectives?
Inputs Objective Activity Objective Output Objective Purpose Objective Goal Objective
Human Sciences Research Council
INTERVENTION DESIGN BLIND SPOTS
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
• KZN EPWP Evaluation Study, 2014-2015 conducted by HSRC
• DEA EPWP Impact Evaluation Study of 10 selected programmes conducted between 2016-2018
• Design of Phase 4 EPWP (ILO Team) conducted between 2017-2018
10
EVALUATION OF THE KZN EPWP PROGRAMME PHASE 2
• Conducted in 2014-2016. Purposive and stratified sampling of 16 EPWP projects across the province.
• Stratification dimensions – urban and rural;
infrastructure, environment, social and non state (excluded CWP)
• Mixed methods –desk top review, secondary analysis of administrative data, survey, key informant
interviews
IMPACT EVALUATION OF 10 SELECTED DEA EPWP PROGRAMMES CONDUCTED BETWEEN
2016 -2018.
Stratification
Equi-proportional distribution by
• 10 programmes
• 9 Province
• Gender
• Race
Final Realized Sample
Sample + Contingency
Target Realised
Population 1266 1266 1266
Margin of error 4.05% 5% 4.1%
Confidence level 96.0% 95% 95.9%
Sample Size 400 295 388
Mixed methods, theory-based evaluation
Including reconstruction of Theories of Change, desktop review, asset verification, key information interviews, surveys, focus group sessions,
secondary data analysis and a Tracer Study
4. EVIDENCE FROM IMPACT EVALUATION
STUDIES
IMPACT ON
BENEFICIARIES/PARTICIPANTS
14
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (3)
• Education by age of participants (n = 2,778)
• Older cohorts tend to have less educational attainment. Whilst this shows post 1994 progress with respect to schooling, it also shows the extent to which
education can prevent older cohorts from participating in the economy via the labour market and hence the role that EPWP plays in bridging this gap.
• About 80% of sampled participants with matric were in the 16-35 age cohort, i.e.
8%
22%
59%
80%
73%
40%
92%
78%
41%
20%
27%
60%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None or Below Grade 3 Some Primary up to Gr Some Secondary School Matric/Grade 12 Post-Secondary School Other
16-35 36+
WHAT WAS YOUR EMPLOYMENT STATUS BEFORE RECRUITED TO WORK ON THIS DEA-EPWP PROJECT (N = 2, 744)
5%
10%
6%
1%
73%
2%
2%
3%
8%
5%
1%
81%
2%
1%
4%
9%
5%
1%
77%
2%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I had a full time job (Non-EPWP) I had a part time job (Non-EPWP) I was studying I was not available for Work I was unemployed I was working on another EPWP job Other, please specify
Total Female Male
16
• A large number of participants where unemployed before they started working on the DEA EPWP project.
• This shows that DEA’s targeting is consistent with the EPWP recruitment guidelines
• DEA-EPWP participants has had 2.8 number of jobs on average in their lifetime:
Males: 3.1 | Females: 2.6
• These results reflect the gendered labour and unemployment dynamics in South Africa, where males tend to be involved in paid labour while women tend to be in unpaid labour
Limpopo: 3.6 | KZN: 1.9
• This also shows spatial imbalances with respect to the distribution of employment opportunities
• The average income on previous jobs was R1100, lower than the DEA-EPWP average wage.
NUMBER OF JOBS ON AVERAGE IN LIFETIME
AVERAGE MONTHLY INCOME FROM SALARIES AND STIPENDS FOR EPWP PARTICIPANTS
18
R 2 045 R 1 365
R 1 431
R 1 778 R 1 684
R 3 018 R 1 592
R 2 050 R 1 903
R 1 941
R 0 R 500 R 1 000 R 1 500 R 2 000 R 2 500 R 3 000 R 3 500 R 4 000 R 4 500
WoW WftC WfL GOSM P&P WfW WfE WoF WfWet Total
Stipend (n=49) Salary (n=90)
Average monthly income from DEA EPWP across all sub programmes was R 1,941;
males were earning slightly more than females (R2,021 and R1,901 respectively)
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME WOULD YOU SAY WAS FROM THE EPWP SALARY? (N = 2,333)
• More than 56% of participants reported that more than 50% of their gross household income came from the EPWP wage.
• This highlights the important contribution the programme is making to household livelihoods.
18% 16% 17%
15%
34%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0% - 20% 21% - 40% 41% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100%
HOUSEHOLD SOURCES OF INCOME
Main Source of income Whist working on the
project (n = 2, 753) Currently ( n = 2, 738)
Salaries and wages 84% 65%
Child Support Grant 5% 16%
Old age pension 5% 9%
Disability Grant 1% 1%
Regular receipts pension from previous employment & pension
from annuity funds 1% 1%
Support from relatives (remittances, etc.) 1% 1%
Income from informal business (labour ) 1% 2%
Other (Please specify) 1% 1%
Grant-in-aid 0% 1%
Foster Child Grant 0% 0%
Income from formal business non - agriculture 0% 0%
Income from informal trading selling vetkoek/magwinyas 0% 1%
Maintenance and allowances from divorced spouse 0% 0%
Care Dependency Grant 0% 0%
Regular remittances received from non-household members 0% 1%
Income from informal trading sale of farming products (argic and
livestock) 0% 0%
Income from formal business agriculture 0% 0%
Total 100% 100%
• The above shows very little income diversification amongst these households, hence the importance of the wage received.
• Significant reliance on wages and salaries, the child support and the old age pension grants
20
POVERTY INDICATORS
• Poverty levels for female participants are well above the group average
• The results show the gendered nature of poverty and the relevance of targeting women
• Poverty by age raises concerns about the increased percentage of youth in targeting
• Even with income transfers while working on DEA, less than 50% of households are living above the lower
62%
73%
62%
74%
64%
75%
69%
25%
32%
27%
31%
26%
32%
29%
13%
17% 14% 17%
14%
17% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Male Participant
Female Participant
Male Head Female Head Age 16 - 35 Age 36 + Total (n = 13,572) Prevalence Depth Severity
FOOD SECURITY OUTCOMES
22
• The incidence of hunger in the households improved due to participation on the project
• 65% from the sample of 34 participants indicated that working on the project assisted in improving the
incidence of hunger to some extent, while 35%
indicated that it assisted to a great extent.
FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION (2)
4%
43%
52%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No it did not To some extent To a great extent Not Applicable
DID YOUR HOUSEHOLD EXPERIENCE FOOD SHORTAGES WHILST YOU WERE WORKING ON THE PROJECT?
• Experience of food shortage by sub-programme (n = 2,728)
• 35% had experienced food shortages whilst working on the project
71% 73% 69% 67% 74%
59% 67% 72%
64% 71%
65%
29% 27% 31% 33% 26%
41% 33% 28%
36% 29%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
WoW WftC WfL GOSM P&P WfW WfE WfFo WoF WfWet Total No Yes
TRACER STUDY FINDINGS
1-5 YEARS LATER
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS: ONE YEAR LATER
• The tracer was conducted a year later with a sub-sample of the same respondents from the main HSRC-DEA Participant survey
• It found that 55% of the 467 respondents were unemployed
44%
55%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Employed Unemployed Self employed
Employed Unemployed Self employed
26
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY GENDER
• For those participants who were currently employed, 45% indicated that they were temporarily employed and 38% indicated that they were full-time employed while a further 15% were employed part-time.
54%
37%
46% 44%
61%
55%
1% 2% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male Female Total
Employed Unemployed Self employed
POVERTY OUTCOMES OF DEA EPWP TRACK & TRACE STUDY
28
3 64%
81%
68%
59%
27%
36%
27%
23%
14%
19%
14% 12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Working on DEA EPWP Unemployed Non-EPWP job/Self- employed
Another EPWP job
Prevalence Depth Severity
• Those who were unemployed face higher levels of poverty
• Evidence of poverty alleviation arising from EPWP participation
• Poverty levels for female participants are well above the group average
GROSS MONTHLY INCOME OF HH WHILST WORKING AND NOT WORKING
0%
0%
2%
6%
14%
12%
11%
10%
9%
6%
5%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
13%
2%
3%
6%
7%
12%
10%
9%
7%
7%
5% 6%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
14%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
No income R501 - R1,000 R1,501 - R2,000 R2,501 - R3,000 R3,501 - R4,500 R5,501 - R6,500 R7,501 - R8,500 R9,501 - R10,500 R12,501 - R14,500 R16,501 - R18,500 R20,501 - R30,500 Refuse to Answer I Dont Know
Current Whilst working on DEA EPWP programme
• The importance of the wage to participants is further highlighted by the fact that total monthly household income decreased when participants were no longer part of the programme
• A substantial drop in the number of households earning between R1,501 to R2,000 and R
LIVELIHOOD IMPACTS OF ASSETS AND SERVICES
DELIVERED
30
VALUATION OF LIVELIHOODS BENEFITS OF WETLAND REHABILITATION: A CASE STUDY
•
Manalana Wetlands in Bushbuckridge, Mpumalanga – catchment area which supports 100 small farmers (98 women).
•
70% of locals use the Wetlands in some way; 25% dependant on it for sole source of food and income. Contributed 40% of locally grown food.
•
Severely degraded. DEA Intervenes in 2006 to address degradation
•
Economic Valuation Study, 2008, found livelihoods derived
from degraded land was 34%.
BENEFITS OF WETLAND REHABILITATION (2)
•
Rehabilitation contributed to provisioning services at 315 Euros per year to approx. 70% of local households. 50% of these household survive on income of less than 520 Euros per year.
•
Cost of Rehabilitation of this wetland = 86 000 Euros.
•
The economic value of livelihoods benefit = 182 000 Euros.
More than double investment cost.
•
Manalana
–a critical safety net for households at risk of slipping into poverty
Source: Aronson, J. & Blignaut, J. The Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity for national and international Policy Makers
(2009)
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS (1)
• The realised sample is large enough to draw meaningful conclusions on the impact of DEA-EPWP EP interventions
• Findings on targeting validate figures seen in the administrative data and meet the EPWP demographic targets
• There is evidence that DEA-EPWP EP sub-programmes are fulfilling there socio-economic objective by assisting participants to mitigate and reduce the impacts of poverty and unemployment but do not eradicate poverty and vulnerability completely.
• These impact are stronger for Working on Fire due the longer duration of employment
• There is little/limited evidence of enhanced labour market access arising from participation in the programme.
• In the main the training provided is largely focussed on addressing occupational health and safety needs
34
CONCLUSIONS (2)
Participant Impacts
• From a multi-dimensional point of view there is strong evidence of poverty alleviation across a number of
socioeconomic indicators
• Significant contributions to household incomes
• Changes in household expenditure reported
• Improved perceptions of own socioeconomic status
• Access to health care modest asset accumulation e.g. acquire household assets, buy a cell-phone, build or extend houses
• Support with children schooling
OUTCOMES & IMPACTS ARE NOT SUSTAINED POST EXIT FROM EPWP
36
THANK YOU!
Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
ASSAf Research Repository http://research.assaf.org.za/
B. Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) Events I. Other
2021
Webinar One of a Three-part series:
What to do to reduce poverty and inequality? 10 May 2021
Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
Webinar One of a Three-part Series: What to do to reduce poverty and inequality?
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11911/183
Downloaded from ASSAf Research Repository, Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
