Barrier Analysis to Promote Financial Linkage to Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP IV) Beneficiaries,

Oromia Region, Ethiopia, 2018

Barrier Analysis on PSNP IV Clients’ Borrowing Money from Formal Financial Institutions and Timely Repayment of Loans, 2018

Designing for Behavior Change

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and Ethiopian Catholic Church Social Development Coordination Office of Meki (MCS)

DFSA and LRO

© Copyright 2018 Catholic Relief Services All rights reserved. This document, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission. Contact publications@crs.org for permission. Any “fair use” under U.S. copyright law should contain appropriate citation and attribution to Catholic Relief Services.

i | P a g e

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the teams’ commitment: the researchers and the data collectors for their effort in designing the questionnaire and finalizing this study. Gratitude also goes to the MCS field team, SILC Supervisors, Field Agents and Community Animators for their unlimited support during data collection at kebele level. Had it not been for the dedication and support of the CRS and MCS staff, this barrier analysis would have not been realized. Finally, our gratitude is extended to the beneficiaries who gave us their time to interview them.

ii | P a g e

Table of Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ i

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iv

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... v

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Background of DFSA and LRO Activities ................................................................................... 1

1.2. Objectives of the study................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Justification for using Barrier Analysis ....................................................................................... 3

1.4. Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5. Limitations of the study ................................................................................................................. 3

II. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Study Population and Sampling ................................................................................................... 4

2.2. Designing the questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 4

2.3. Barrier Analysis training and Pre-testing ................................................................................... 5

2.4. Data Collection ............................................................................................................................... 5

2.5. Coding, Tabulation and Analysis of study results ...................................................................... 6

III. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1. Behavior 1: Borrowing money from formal financial institutions ........................................ 6

3.2. Behavior 2: Timely repayment of loan ................................................................................. 7

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................ 9

Annexes ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

Annex 1: Designing for Behavior Change framework and Activity Description ................................ 12

Annex 2: Field Work Schedule and Team .............................................................................................. 15

Annex 3: Development of the social and behavior change strategy ..................................................... 17

a. Development of the Social and Behavior Change Strategy ...................................................... 17

b. Description of Designing for Behavior Change Framework and Barrier analysis ................ 17

i. Design for Behavior Change Framework ........................................................................... 17

ii. Definition of the twelve determinants ................................................................................. 18

iii. Barrier Analysis .................................................................................................................. 18

Annex 4: Lessons Learnt ............................................................................................................................ 1

Annex 5: Barrier Analysis Tabulation Sheet ............................................................................................ 3

Annex 5: Barrier Analysis Tabulation Sheet ............................................................................................ 3

iii | P a g e

List of Tables Table 1: Sample woreda with kebeles selected ......................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Summary of result of Barrier Analysis: Borrowing ................................................................. 6

Table 3: Summary of result of Barrier Analysis: Timely Loan Repayment ......................................... 7

Table 4: Designing for Behavior Change framework: Borrowing ....................................................... 12

Table 5: Designing for Behavior Change framework: Timely Loan Repayment ............................... 13

Table 6: Field Work Schedule and Team ............................................................................................... 15

Table 7: Borrowing data analysis table …………………………………….. ......................................... 3

iv | P a g e

List of Abbreviations

BCC: Behavior Change Communication

CRS: Catholic Relief Services

DFSA: Development Food Security Activity

FSPs: Financial Services Providers

GoE: Government of Ethiopia

HCS: Hararghe Catholic Secretariat

HHs: House Holds

IGA Income Generating Activity

LRO: Livelihoods Resilience of Oromia

MCS: Meki Catholic Secretariat

MFI: Microfinance Institution

PSNP IV: Productive Safety Net Program IV

RuSACCOs: Rural Saving and Credit Cooperatives

SILC: Savings and Internal Lending Community

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

WVE: World Vision Ethiopia

v | P a g e

Executive Summary

Catholic Relief Services (CRS), in partnership with Hararghe Catholic Secretariat (HCS) and Meki Catholic Secretariat (MCS), is currently implementing USAID’s Feed the Future (FtF) funded Ethiopia Livelihoods for Resilience of Oromia (LRO) and USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (FFP) funded Development Food Security Activity (DFSA). These Activities focus on food, nutrition and livelihoods securities of Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP IV) households (HHs). They operate in fourteen woredas and overlap in four woredas in MCS. LRO overlaps in one woreda with World Vision Ethiopia (WVE).

The two Activities are working to increase beneficiaries’ access to and usage of financial services – from Financial Service Providers (FSPs)1, to improve the economic well-being of PSNP IV HHs, who the target beneficiaries in this study. Access refers to the ability of HHs to obtain financial services while usage refers to actual consumption of the services. To ensure synergy and long-lasting relationships between borrowers and lenders, financial linkages should look at: access and usage.

The purpose of this assessment is to identify key determinants of practice for two selected behaviors: borrowing money and timely repayment of loan borrowed from FSPs. The objective is to utilize these findings to design effective interventions and behavior change strategies to improve PSNP IV HHs access to FSPs.

The two behaviors were studied by observing PSNP IV beneficiaries’ behavior in five woredas in MCS. Questionnaires were developed for each behavior as per the Health Belief Model, the primary study method utilized in the assessment. Data collection, coding, tabulation and analysis were conducted for each behavior. A total sample size of 192 (99 Doers and 93 Non-Doers) collected for the two behaviors. The analysis was conducted based on p-value, estimated Relative Risk Ratio, and percentage point difference between Doers and Non-Doers. Doers are those who borrow money from formal FSPs and repay their loan on time; whereas, Non-Doers are those who borrow money from formal FSPs but do not repay their loan on time. The results show two determinants for the behavior – borrowing money – and six determinants for the second behavior – timely loan repayment. These findings were found to be significant and need to be considered in the planning process for effective Behavior Change Communication (BCC) interventions. Based on the findings the following conclusions are made:

• On the practice of PSNP clients borrowing money from FSPs, availability of interested members to form a group, ability to deposit initial savings required by FSPs, and inability of some group members to pay back loan/default were found to be significant determining factors that made/would make it easy/difficult to borrow money from formal financial institutions. Therefore, behavior change should focus on increasing target beneficiaries’ ability to deposit initial saving, increasing the ability of group members to repay their loan on time, and promoting advantages of borrowing.

• Another significant determining factor was influence of family members (husband, wife and grown-up children) in approving/disapproving borrowing money from FSPs as well as timely repayment of loan. Hence, targeting family members in messaging the benefits of borrowing money and the benefits of on-time repayment is important.

• Regarding the target clients’ ability to make timely loan repayments, the return borrowers had from their investments was identified as an enabler. Lack of profits from investments made/would make it

1 Financial Services Providers (FSPs) are namely Microfinances Institutions (MFIs) and Rural Savings and Credit Cooperatives (RuSACCOs).

vi | P a g e

difficult for borrowers to make timely payments in times of drought/natural disasters or loss of produce and fodder. Therefore, providing support to beneficiaries to enable them to increase productivity of the loan, to engage in shock resistant activities, such as off-farm activities, and diversifying income are recommended.

• A significant determinant which was perceived to have a negative consequence was selling produce at low price seasons in order to make on time payments. It is recommended timing of loan approval and disbursement be evaluated so repayment phases coincide with high market seasons.

• Remembering when to repay a loan was found to be a significant determinant. Therefore, the Activities should work closely with FSPs to implement effective reminders, like digital messaging, in addition to existing approaches of FSPs: regular monitoring, providing copies of loan agreement and repayment schedule.

• Borrowers perceive that not repaying a previous loan will not necessarily hinder them from getting subsequent loan. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on messaging the disadvantages of not paying loans on time. Furthermore, the messaging should emphasis that they will not get subsequent loan unless they repay the previous loan on time and in full.

• Another significant determinant factor was getting money to repay loan borrowed. Hence, the Activities should closely support borrowers to save more.

• Though there were determinants reported by some Doers and Non-Doers, the Barrier Analysis Model used in this study was not able to account for the prevalence of a particular belief among the target group. Therefore, further study is necessary to capture the prevalence of a particular beliefs among PSNP IV HHs.

1 | P a g e

I. Introduction

1.1. Background of DFSA and LRO Activities

Catholic Relief Services’ (CRS) currently has activities focusing on relief assistance and emergency response, household and community resilience building, agriculture and natural resources management, health and nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and microfinance. The Feed the Future (FtF) funded Ethiopia Livelihoods Resilience of Oromia (LRO) and USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (FFP) funded Development Food Security Activity (DFSA) focus on community resilience building of Productive Safety Net Program IV (PSNP IV) beneficiary households.

Livelihoods Resilience of Oromia (LRO)

Livelihoods Resilience of Oromia (LRO) aims to enable PSNP IV HHs to improve and ensure they sustain their economic well-being. CRS implements LRO in collaboration with its partner MCS in Oromia Regional State. LRO has nine target woredas (districts): Arsi Negelle, Shalla, Siraro, Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha (ATJK), Ziway Dugda, Dodota, Sire, Heben Arsi and Boset. The lifespan of LRO runs from February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2022. The activity aims to reach 24,500 PSNP HHs with the key objectives of:

• Increasing income and diversification through crop and Livestock opportunities; • Increasing income and diversification of off-farm livelihood options; • Increasing income from gainful employment; and • Increasing innovation, scaling and sustainability of livelihood pathways.

Development Food Security Activity (DFSA)

CRS’ Development Food Security Activity (DFSA) is an initiative to sustain and build upon the previous food security improvements achieved under the Government of Ethiopia’s (GoE) framework of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). The goal of the CRS DFSA is to improve and sustain: food, nutrition and livelihoods security of households and communities. The lifespan of DFSA is from September 30, 2016 through September 29, 2021. DFSA has three Purposes (PSNP Systems, Economic Livelihoods, Health and Nutrition), and one cross-cutting sub-purpose (Gender and Youth):

• Women and youth have increased access to and control of community and HH resources (Cross cutting);

• GoE and community systems respond to reduce communities' and households' vulnerability to shocks (Purpose 1);

• Households improve their sustainable livelihood and economic wellbeing (Purpose 2); and • Pregnant and lactating women and children under five have improved nutritional status

(Purpose 3).

2 | P a g e

DFSA is implemented by CRS in collaboration with Mercy Corps, MCS and HCS. It is implemented in Oromia Regional State and Dire Dawa Administrative Council. CRS’ DFSA operates in four livelihood zones, and plans to serve 48,125 PSNP HHs under Purpose 2.

DFSA and LRO overlap in four woredas - Arsi Negelle, Shalla, Heben Arsi and Ziway Dugda. In addition to geographical overlap, the two activities have technical overlaps in thematic areas such as livelihoods, gender, nutrition and market systems. The two activities are closely working together to manage these overlaps with MCS. LRO overlaps in one woreda with World Vision Ethiopia (WVE).

The objective of LRO and DFSA is to increase and diversify PSNP HHs income through on-farm and off-farm livelihood options. To that end, the two activities are working to increase target beneficiaries’ access to financial services by enhancing access and usage of Financial Services Providers (FSPs); namely Microfinances Institutions (MFIs) and Rural Savings and Credit Cooperatives (RuSACCOs).

The linkages will increase access to financial services – savings, loan and micro-insurance, for the activities targeting livelihoods group members (men, women and youth) as they become acquainted in savings, internal lending and develop their financial literacy skills. Financial linkage should look at both sides: access, usage and repayment to ensure healthier financial services so that sustainable relationship between the two actors-borrowers and lenders, financial inclusion, is established and continue even after the end of the Activities.

A significant foundation laid here is that, the two activities are closely supporting target beneficiaries practice savings, internal lending and develop financial literacy skills that will enhance their financial capabilities while dealing with external financial service providers. However, beyond the internal practice, in order to achieve effective results through financial linkage, there is strong need to identify the barriers and the determinants of behavior change among its priority groups. Consequently, this enables the activities to develop comprehensive Social and Behavioral Change Strategy.

According to Financial Services for Real People: Using Behavioral Science to Boost Financial Health in Latin America2 the following barriers have been identified when using behavioral science:

• Few people had thought through how they would pay back their loan. • Many clients had financial goals but no clear plan, making those goals less likely to be achieved. • Borrowers’ tendency to focus on short term consequences, like late fees rather than long-term

consequences like damage to the borrower’s credit history.

When both the plan for repaying and the consequences of failing to do so remain vague in people’s minds, the likelihood of loan delinquency increases significantly.

2 Next Billion, Financial Services for Real People: Using Behavioral Science to Boost Financial Health in Latin

America, November 2017, https://nextbillion.net/financial-services-for-real-people-using-behavioral-science-to-

boost-financial-health-in-latin-america/

3 | P a g e

1.2. Objectives of the study

The objective of the study is to design effective strategies and interventions to enable sustainable financial linkages between PSNP IV beneficiaries and financial services providers. Specifically:

• To identify reasons why PSNP beneficiaries may or may not borrow money from formal financial institutions;

• To identify reasons why PSNP beneficiaries who borrowed money from formal financial institutions may or may not repay the loan on time; and

• To develop strategies and actions to address the identified determinants.

1.3. Justification for using Barrier Analysis

As a rapid assessment tool for behavior change programs, the Barrier Analysis (BA) is useful for identifying behavioral determinants associated with a specific behavior. While it can be carried out at the beginning of an intervention to develop appropriate behavior change messages, strategies, and intervention activities, it can also be used in an ongoing program to further assess why a promoted behavior has not been adopted despite programmatic efforts3.

Therefore, this Barrier Analysis (BA) is conducted to identify the key determinants for financial access and usage to inform the design of effective behavior change strategies and interventions to improve the financial service utilization practices of the targeted beneficiaries.

1.4. Scope

The study is confined to two identified behaviors of PSNP IV beneficiaries in the woredas where the two activities operate. The two identified behaviors are:

a) PSNP clients borrow money from formal financial institutions; and, b) PSNP clients who borrowed money from formal financial institutions repay the loan within the

agreed timeframe.

1.5. Limitations of the study

The findings are specific to the target group – namely PSNP IV beneficiaries; men, women and youth. Moreover, the study and the sampling methodology will not allow analysis by a specific group type, for example, age and gender. Thus, a separate study may be necessary when there is need to assess the perception of a specific group type.

Barrier Analysis identifies significance of determinants based on difference in perception between Doers and Non-Doers in relation to a particular behavior. While there were factors indicated by large proportion of both Doers and Non-Doers, it is important to note that, the BA cannot measure the prevalence of a belief.

3Kittle, Bonnie. 2013. A Practical Guide to Conducting a Barrier Analysis. New York, NY: Helen Keller International

4 | P a g e

II. Methodology

2.1. Study Population and Sampling

Population (the priority group) of the study were PSNP IV beneficiaries, men, women and youth, found in the nine woredas of LRO and DFSA operational areas in MCS.

Five out of the nine woredas were selected for the study considering geography (zonal representation, Activities overlaps, and prior information on seriousness of the problems. Dodota and ATJK (non-overlap), Arsi Negele and Shalla (overlap with DFSA) and Siraro woreda (overlap with are selected.

A Barrier analysis requires a total of 90 interviews (45 Doers, who practice the behavior and 45 Non-Doers, who do not practice the behavior) for each behavior. A total of 18 kebeles (2 kebeles from Dodota woreda and 4 from each of the rest of the woredas) were selected to interview 5 Doers and 5 Non-Doers per kebele per behavior.

Table 1: Sample woreda with kebeles selected

SN Zone

Sample Woreda Names of kebeles: Borrowing/ Repayment

Total respondents: Borrowing/ Repayment

LRO Overlap Non-Overlap Total CRS DFSA

WVE

1 Arsi Dodota 1 Dodota Alem/Amigna Dabeso

10/10

West Arsi

Shala 3 Arjo, Fande Ejersa/ Aji Dida, Danisabunge,

20/20

2 Arsi Negele

Rafo hargisa, Gubeta Arjo/Hada Boso, Galefi Kelo,

20/20

Siraro Basa Maja, Silcha/ Ropi Sinta, Alem Tena Sirbo,

20/20

3 East Shewa ATJK 1 Chitu Gedu, Dambi Harasho/Leliso Dambi, Elelan Ababo,

20/20

Total 5 18 Kebeles 90/90

2.2. Designing the questionnaire

A generic Barrier Analysis questionnaire that constitutes 12 determinants of behavior change was used and developed separately for the two behaviors, initially in English and translated to Afan Oromo. The questionnaire included measures of perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived action efficacy, and perceived positive and negative consequences, perceived social acceptability, perceived self-efficacy, cues for action, perception of divine will, perceived access, perceived social norm, perceived culture and policy attributes of adoption of the new behavior.

5 | P a g e

Barrier Analysis identifies important differences between Doers and Non-Doers. Doers are those people that practice the ideal Behavior and Non-Doers are all those people that do not practice that Behavior. Screening questions were used to classify Doers and Non-Doers for the two behaviors.

For the first behavior, borrowing money, Doers are PSNP clients who borrowed money from formal financial institutions; whereas, Non-Doers are PSNP clients who never borrowed money from formal financial institutions.

For the second behavior, timely repayment of borrowed money, Doers are PSNP clients who borrowed money in five years prior to Ethiopian Fiscal Year (EFY) 2009 (EFY 2004-2008), and who repaid their loan within the agreed timeframe. On the contrary Non-Doers are PSNP clients who borrowed money five years prior to EFY2009 (EFY 2004-2008), but did not repay their loan within the agreed timeframe. Note that, the upper limit of borrowing period was set to exclude loans not matured during the data collection.

2.3. Barrier Analysis training and Pre-testing

Prior to the data collection, the 18 data collectors and the five supervisors underwent a two-day long training. Specifically, the training covered topics on introduction to Barrier Analysis, objectives of the study, roles and responsibilities of data collectors, techniques of probing , and interview ethics.

The data collectors had bachelor degrees and prior experience of data collection. Additionally, to ensure quality and consistency of the data collection, the translated questionnaires are reviewed and amended, where necessary, jointly by technical staffs and the data collectors.

The data collectors were subjected to practical field level experience in nearby kebele of ATJK woreda, on one hand, to ensure they understand their task and responsibilities, on the other hand, to test the questionnaires among priority groups. As part of the training the trainees exercised coding and tabulating of data collected during field test, as it is planned to code and tabulate the data in a participatory way involving the data collectors and the supervisors.

2.4. Data Collection

Data was collected between January 24 – 26, 2018. Each woreda had a team of data collectors and a team supervisor. Data collection, data coding and tabulation was carried out consecutively for each respective behavior (Borrowing Money and Timely Repayment). It was believed that, this process reduced mix-up that could have arose in conducting data collection for two behaviors consequently. There was a total of 92 interviewees (48 Doers and 44 Non-Doers) for the first behavior. There was a total of 100 interviewees (51 Doers and 49 Non-Doers) for the second behavior.

Before the data was collected, data collectors explained the purpose of the data collection to the respondents. Furthermore, to ensure data quality and ethics, the respondents were assured of confidentiality and consent was obtained. During the data collection, the same data collectors interviewed both Doers and Non-Doers to minimize interviewer biases. Moreover, supervisors, who are technical staff of CRS and MCS reviewed the questionnaire for completeness and appropriateness of the classification on the day the data was collected.

6 | P a g e

2.5. Coding, Tabulation and Analysis of study results

The data collected was tabulated in a participatory way where the data collectors and supervisors took part in the coding and tabulation.

The tabulated data was entered a MS Excel table specially created for finding differences between Doers and Non-Doers. The MS Excel calculates P-Value and estimates Relative Risk (RR) that shows the magnitude of the differences of each response between Doers and Non-Doers. First the P-Value is reviewed to decide if the response was significant. If the P-Value was less than 0.05, it indicated that the difference between Doers and Non-Doers was statistically significant. Where P-Value is less than 0.05 we looked at estimated RR to see how big the difference is. If the estimated RR was greater than 1, Doers are more likely to have mentioned a particular response than the Non-Doers. If the Estimated RR is less than 1, Non-Doers are more likely to say it.

III. Results

This section summarizes the significant determinants that are found to be affecting the behaviors.

3.1.Behavior 1: Borrowing money from formal financial institutions

Out of the 12 determinants studied, two determinants, self-efficacy and social norm were found to be significant determinants (See Table 2).

Table 2: Summary of result of Barrier Analysis: Borrowing

Behavior statement: PSNP clients borrow money from formal financial institutions.

Determinant P Value Result

Self-Efficacy

0.017 Doers are 3.5 times more likely than Non- Doers to say availability of interested members to form a group makes it easy

0.022 Non-Doers are 8 times more likely than Doers to say that Ability to deposit initial savings would make it easy

0.017 Doers are 11.3 times more likely than Non-Doers to say that Group members default/inability to pay makes it difficult

Social norm

0.038 Doers are 2.5 times more likely than Non-Doers to say that grown-up children approve the practice

0.021 Doers are 2.6 times more likely than Non-Doers to say that wife approves the behavior

0.033 Non- Doers are 4.6 times more likely than Doers to say husband approves the behavior

0.017 Doers are 11.3 more likely to state that grown-up children disapprove the practice

Universal motivator

0.011 Non-Doers are 9.3 times more likely to say that their big desire is to start dairy farming and cattle raring

7 | P a g e

0.030 Doers are 3.2 times more likely to say that their big desire is sending their children to school

Perceived Self-Efficacy: availability of interested members to form a group, ability to deposit initial savings required by financial service providers, and inability of some group members to pay back previous loan/default were found to be the significant determining factors that made/would make it easy/difficult to borrow money from formal financial institutions.

The results showed that Doers were 3.5 times more likely to report that availability of interested members to form a group makes it easy to borrow money from formal financial institutions, and 11.3 times more likely than Non-Doers to report that group members default/inability to pay makes it difficult. Non-Doers were 8 times more likely than Doers to say that the ability to deposit initial savings would make it easy to borrow money from formal financial institutions.

For Doers, availability of interested members to form a group makes borrowing money easier, while the presences of indebted group participants make borrowing money difficult. In comparison, for Non-Doers, not being able to deposit initial saving was a significant barrier to borrowing money

Perceived Social Norm: Influence of family members (husbands, wives and adult children) in approving/disapproving borrowing money from financial institutions was found to be a significant determining factor. For Doers, children and wives were 2.5 and 2.6 times more likely to approve the decision to borrow money from formal financial institutions, respectively. For Non-Doers, children were 11.3 times more likely to disapprove the decision to borrow money from formal financial institutions, while husbands were 4.6 times more likely to approve.

For Doers, children and wives were identified as important influencers; whereas, for Non-Doers, husbands were identified as important influencers. This suggests that even though women reported that husbands approve their practice of taking loan, in practice, women are not taking out loan.

Universal motivator: On the universal motivator, Doers were 3.5 times more likely to report that their big desires are sending their children to school/educate their children.

3.2. Behavior 2: Timely repayment of loan

Out of the 12 determinants studied, seven determinants; self-efficacy, negative consequences, social norm, access, ques for action/reminders, action efficacy, and divine will were found to be significant (See Table 3)

Table 3: Summary of result of Barrier Analysis: Timely Loan Repayment

Behavior statement: PSNP clients who received loan from formal financial institutions repay the loan on the agreed period. Determinant P Value Result Self-efficacy 0.040 Doers are 4.4 times more likely to say that they can repay their loan on the agreed time Self-efficacy 0.050 Non-Doers are 6.3 times more likely to say that they could possibly repay their loan on the agreed

time Self-efficacy 0.018 Doers are 2.3 times more likely to say that Loan productivity would make it easy

8 | P a g e

Self-efficacy 0.008 Non-Doers are 2.6 times more likely to say that drought-natural disaster (loss of produce, loss of fodder) make it difficult

Self-efficacy 0.011 Doers are 3 times more likely to say that nothing makes it difficult. Negative consequences

0.022 Doers are 2.3 times more likely to say that there are no any disadvantages 0.050 Non-Doers are 6.3 times more likely to say that selling produce at low price could be the

disadvantage Social Norm 0.040 Doers are 4.4 times more likely to say that most people do approve Access 0.016 Doers are 2.6 times more likely to say that Getting finances to pay the money is not difficult at all. Reminder: 0.039 Non-Doers are 2.4 times more likely than Doers to say that it is somewhat difficult to remember to

pay loan on time 0.013 Doers are 2.6 times more likely than Non-Doers to say that it is not difficult at all to remember to

pay loan on time. Action efficacy 0.028 Non-Doers are 2.8 times more likely than Non-Doers to say that it is somewhat likely not to get

additional loan if not paid previous loan Divine Will 0.000 Doers are 18.2 times more likely to say that God approves their repaying of the money they have

borrowed from formal financial institutions. Perceived Self-Efficacy: Loan productivity was reported to make loan repayment easy, whereas, loss of produce/fodder due to drought/natural disaster were found to make timely repayment of loan difficult. Doers were 2.3 times more likely to say that loan productivity makes it easy to pay their loan than Non-Doers. Non-Doers were 2.6 times more likely to say drought/natural disaster, loss of produce/fodder make it difficult to repay their loan on the agreed time. By contrast, Doers were 3 times more likely to say that nothing made it difficult to repay their loan on the agreed time. This suggests Doers have better coping mechanisms to withstand the risk associated with drought/natural disaster.

Perceived Negative consequence: Selling produce at low price to repay loan on-time was one of the significant determinants, perceived as negative consequence. Doers were 6.3 times more likely to give this response. This could be an issue, particularly, to borrowers; engaged on Income Generating Activities (IGAs) that have no regular cash flow, no diversified income and no regular and adequate savings.

Perceived Social Norm: The perception that most people approve on-time repayment of loan was found to be significant. Doers were 4.4 times more likely to say most people around them approve of repaying their loan on time.

Access: In relation to access, the results revealed getting finance to pay loan borrowed from financial institution was an important determinant. Doers were 2.6 times more likely to say getting finances to pay the money is not difficult. physical access, while it was reported to be very difficult to obtain by significant number of respondents, was not a significant determinant in the study.

Reminder: Remembering when to repay loan was found to be a significant determinant. Doers were 2.6 times more likely to say that it is not at all difficult to remember when to repay their loan, whereas, Non-Doers were 2.4 times more likely to say that it is somewhat difficult to remember.

Action Efficacy: Non-Doers were 2.8 times more likely to say it is somewhat likely not to get additional loan if not paid previous loan this response.

Perceived Divine Will: Doers were 18.2 times more likely to say that God approves their repaying of the money they have borrowed from formal financial institutions.

9 | P a g e

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Beyond the low level of financial inclusion, there is huge ‘unpaid’ loans, also called outstanding loans within the rural community which further excludes households from accessing financial services. Since has been considered as one of the major concern for the two Activities-LRO and DFSA, working on increasing target beneficiaries access to and use of financial services from formal FSPs. A significant foundation laid here is that, the Activities are closely supporting target beneficiaries practice savings and loan internally and develop financial literacy skills. However, beyond the internal practice, to achieve ultimate results through financial linkage, there is strong need to identify the barriers and the determinants of behavior change among its priority groups.

The purpose of this BA is, to identify the determinants of and develop intervention strategy to influence the determinants of the behaviors-namely borrowing money from formal financial institutions and timely repayment of loan to Financial Service Providers. The result suggests that two determinants for the behavior- borrowing money and six determinants for the second behavior-Timely loan repayment, were found to be significant which need to be considered in the planning process of effective BCC interventions. Based on the findings of the analysis, the following recommendations are made:

PSNP clients borrowing money from formal financial institutions

• In relation to PSNP clients borrowing from formal financial institutions, availability of interested members to form a group4, ability to deposit initial savings required by financial services providers, and inability of some group members to pay back loan/default5 were found to be significant determining factors that made/would make it easy/difficult to borrow money from formal financial institutions. Therefore, behavior change should focus on increasing target beneficiaries’ ability to deposit initial saving, increasing the ability of group members to repay their loan on time, and promote the advantages of borrowing.

• Influence of family members (husband, wife and children) in approving/disapproving borrowing money from financial institutions was also found to be significant in determining PSNP clients’ likelihood to borrow money from formal financial institutions. Hence, it is worthwhile to target the grown-up children, husbands and wives on the benefits of utilizing loans to improve and diversify household income.

PSNP clients who received loan from formal financial institutions repaying loan timely

• In terms of timely repayment of loan by PSNP clients, belief that the priority group could repay their loan on time was found to be significant.

• Investing borrowed money in productive business was found to make timely repayment of the loan easier. On the other hand, in times of drought/natural disaster, loss of produce and fodder, has made/would make it difficult to repay the loan on time. Hence, beyond reinforcing the perception that

4 Ministry of Trade - Federal Cooperative Agency report on Capacity Gap Assessment and Mapping of Financial Institutions under Food Security Program- Household Asset Building Program (HABP) Areas (2012) indicated that terms of loan provision such as group collateral is among the limitations for the poor to access credit from MFIs 5 As per the findings of Livelihoods for Resilience Activity Gender Analysis & Outcome Mapping (shared by CARE Ethiopia January 2018), outstanding loans, lack of collateral, information and awareness about the loan borrowing conditions were identified as limiting factors to access finance. The same report indicated that decision making about finances in a household is mainly made by husbands.

10 | P a g e

nothing makes repayment difficult through experience sharing of successful borrowers, support to beneficiaries to increase productivity of loan, to engage on shock resistant activities and diversifying income are recommended. Further, ensure that terms and conditions of financial services providers suit and protect clients6.

• Secondly, selling produce at low price to repay loan on-time was one of the significant determinants, perceived as a negative consequence. This is an issue, particularly, to borrowers; engaged in IGAs that have no regular cash flow, no diversified income and no regular and adequate savings. Therefore, behavior change focusing on interventions on enhancing the capabilities ability of beneficiaries to repay loan without selling produce at low cost is suggested in addition to reinforcing the perception that on-time repaying has no any disadvantage. Along these, it is recommended to consider timing of loan approval and disbursement to align repayment with time of high price for borrower’s produce.

• Thirdly, the perception that most people approve on-time repayment of loan was found to be significant. Family is the closest one for the priority group who approves on-time payment, hence, messaging on the benefits of on-time repayment should target family members.

• Fourthly, remembering when to repay a loan was found to be a significant determinant. On one hand, FSPs have a crucial role in reminding borrowers through regular monitoring, providing copies of loan contract and repayment schedule. On the other hand, the Activities should also have role in reminding repayments during livelihood group meetings, in addition to developing digital messaging. Therefore, the Activities should closely work with FSPs to implement effective reminder, like digital messaging, in addition to the traditional reminders.

• Furthermore, for the priority groups, getting finance to pay loan borrowed from financial institution was an important determinant. Hence, aligned to other interventions, Activities should closely support borrowers to increase productivity of their business in addition to reinforcing the perception that getting finance to pay loan is not difficult.

• Additionally, priority groups perceive that not repaying a previous loan will not necessarily hinder them from getting subsequent loan. It is, therefore, necessary to focus on messaging the disadvantages of not paying loans on time. Furthermore, the messaging should emphasis that they will not get subsequent loan unless they repay the previous loan on time and in full.

• The perception that God approves the repayment of money borrowed from formal financial institutions was a significant determinant. Therefore, it is necessary to design a strategy to involve religious leaders in promoting the practice among the priority group.

• Lastly, it is important to note that, because of the study tool applied, measuring the prevalence of a particular belief was not possible. This study focused on the general population (PSNP clients) and not on specific groups/segments of the society. However, data collected indicate that there are determinants7 reported by significant number of both Doers and Non-Doers that are worthwhile considering them during planning or for further study. For instance; availability and distance of financial institution, advise and trainings from financial institutions, DAs and neighbors were mentioned by many respondents as factors for borrowing. Similarly, the role local administration, friends/neighbors and group members on timely repayment were seen as important factor by many respondents. Additionally, even though significant number of female Non-Doers reported that their

6 Youth Barrier Analysis Report of DFSA done by Mercy Corps in MCS and HCS areas (Bonnie L. Kittle, April 2018) indicated that fear of losing money was identified by youth as one of the barriers to start their own business

7 The same report (Bonnie L. Kittle, April 2018) tells that gap of 15 percentage points between Doers and Non-Doers indicates that the response is significant. Occasionally a percentage point less than 15% will also be significant because the p-value calculated by the program is more sensitive.

11 | P a g e

husbands approve their practice of taking loan, the practice is not there, suggesting further study (see Annex 4).

12 | P a g e

Annexes Annex 1: Designing for Behavior Change framework and Activity Description

The detailed activity description is presented in the “activity” column of the DBC Framework, Table 4

Table 4: Designing for Behavior Change framework: Borrowing

Behavior statement

Priority/Influencing group

Determinant Bridge to activity Activity

PSNP clients borrow money from formal financial institutions.

Demographics: • Adult and young

men and women • All PSNP clients • Speak Afaan

Oromo • They live in rural

village Big desires: • They want owning

assets (House, land), sending children to school

Influencing Groups: Family-Husband/children/Wife

Self-Efficacy: Availability of interested members to form a group makes it easy

1. Increase group members interest to borrow money from formal financial institutions (Increase the perception that there are other PSNP clients who are interested in borrowing money from formal financial institutions to start IGA, and diversify income)

(Activity 1)

1. Train LG members on the advantages of borrowing money from formal financial institutions for IGA, financial education and the benefit of group guarantee

2. Continuous coaching of LG members

to use share-out money for initial saving, and to continue saving after share-out from income they earn/have; and to set clear financial goals

3. To discuss with formal financial

institutions on initial saving requirements, and issues related to loan repayment/defaulting

4. Train LG members on business skills

based on the respective livelihood pathway and to take their loan for planned business activities

5. Messaging to family members of LGs

(e.g – grown-up children, husbands and wives) about the benefits of borrowing money to improve and diversify income e.g. posters with message

6. Include discussion topic on advantages of borrowing and consequences of unpaid loans on The Faithful House curriculum and community conversation

Self-Efficacy: Ability to deposit initial savings would make it easy

2. Improve the ability to save initial deposit that is required to borrow money from formal financial institutions

(Activity 2 and 3) Self-Efficacy: Group members default/inability to pay makes it difficult

3. Increase the ability of group members to pay their loan

(Activity 4 and 6)

Social norm: Children approve

4. Reinforce the perception of family (e.g. children and wife/husband) approve the practice of borrowing money to run own business/IGA as long as it is managed properly

(Activity 5 and 6)

Social norm: Wife approve Social norms: Husband approves Social norms- Children disapprove Universal motivators: Sending children to school

7. Success stories and testimonials of successful FSP clients in educating their children.

Outcome indicator Process indicator

13 | P a g e

Percentage of PSNP 4 target beneficiaries borrowed money from formal financial institution

# LG members trained on the advantages of borrowing money, and on the benefits group guarantee # of LG members who use share out money for initial saving # of LG members who set clear financial goals before requesting the loan # of financial institutions readjusted initial saving requirements # of beneficiaries trained on business skill, # of beneficiary families (grown up children, husbands, and wives) who received messaging on the benefits of borrowing money to improve and diversify their income # of Posters developed with messages on the advantages of borrowing and timely repayment # of beneficiaries attended topics of borrowing and repayment in Faithful House and community conversation # of Success stories and testimonials documented of successful FSP clients in educating their children.

Table 5: Designing for Behavior Change framework: Timely Loan Repayment

Behavior statement

Priority Group Determinant Bridges to activity Activity

PSNP clients who received loan from formal financial institutions repay the loan on the agreed time.

Demographics:

• Adult men and women

• All PSNP clients

• Speak Afaan Oromo

• They live in rural village

Big desires:

• They want to be wealthy, healthy and better life

Self-efficacy

Loan productivity makes it easy

Increase the ability to loan productivity

(Activity 1 & 2)

1. Train LG members on business planning/Business skill and financial education by FAs, and

2. Continuous follow up and consultation on loan and business management by CAs and FAs

3. Advise and support LG members on pathway selection on value chain options in relation to shock resistance, e.g. off-farm vs on-farm, and seed variety.

4. Messaging during LG meeting by FA and CA using job-aid card (with messages on saving more and start early, income diversification, loan

Self-efficacy:

Drought-Natural disaster, loss of produce, fodder make it difficult

Increase the ability to engage in shock resistant businesses

And income diversification

(Activity 3,4 &5)

Self-efficacy:

Nothing makes it difficult

Reinforce the perception that it is not difficult to repay money borrowed from formal financial institutions

(Activity 6)

14 | P a g e

Negative consequences: There is no any disadvantages

Reinforce the perception that there is no disadvantage of repaying loan

(Activity 4)

repayment and consequences of late/no payment, advantages of borrowing, loan productivity).

5. Develop and sign MoU with selected FSPs on conditions and terms that suits and protects clients (including timely loan disbursement and repayment aligned with high price time for produce and declining balance method, provide copy of loan agreement and repayment schedule)

6. Arrange experience sharing of successful borrowers within kebele and develop and share Success Stories/testimonial recordings

7. Advise LG members on appropriate time of borrowing, and to engage on diversified income sources, businesses with regular cashflow for installment loan payment

8. Messages to adult family members on loan repayment using poster, and include benefits of timely loan repayment in The Faithful House curriculum

9. Follow up visit to remind groups of the repayment (FA and CA)

10. Strengthen follow-up and monitoring capacity of financial institutions, e.g. training and developing monitoring tools, where necessary

11. Design a strategy to involve religious

leaders in promoting timely repayment of loan received from formal financial institutions.

Negative consequences: selling produce at low price could be the disadvantage

Increase the ability to pay loan without selling their produce at low price

(Activity 4,5 & 7)

Social norm: most people do approve

Reinforce the perception that most people

including family approves repaying loan on the agreed time

(Activity 8)

Social norm: Family approves

Access: Getting finances to pay the loan is not difficult at all.

Increase the perception that getting finances to pay the loan is not that difficult/Increase access to finances/income.

(Activity 1 & 4)

Reminder: Somewhat difficult to remember to pay

Increase the ability to remember the date to repay the loan

(Activity 5, 9 & 10) Not difficult at all to remember

Action efficacy: It is somewhat likely not to get additional loan if not paid previous loan

Increase the perception that it is very likely not to get repeat loan if not paid the previous loan on time

(Activity 4)

15 | P a g e

Devine Will: God approves repaying loan on time to formal financial institutions.

Reinforce the perception that God approves repaying of loan on time to formal financial institution. (Activity 11).

Outcome indicator Process indicators

Percentage of PSNP 4 target beneficiaries who received loan from formal financial institution in the Activities period and repaid or repaying the loan on time.

# of beneficiaries trained on financial education, business skill,

# of LG members attended topics of borrowing and repayment in Faithful House and community conversation

# of LG members advised on pathway selection and shock resistant value chain options

# of Posters developed with messages on the advantages of borrowing and timely repayment

# of job-aids developed for CAs, FAs, religious leaders on saving, income divarication, advantages of borrowing and timely loan repayment.

# of experience sharing sessions organized

# of success stories and testimonials developed and shared

# of MoU developed with terms and conditions that suit clients’ needs

Annex 2: Field Work Schedule and Team

The field work including pre-testing, data collection and coding completed between 22-27 January 2018

Table 6: Field Work Schedule and Team

Date Activity Day 1 Training:

- Objectives of the survey - The basics of Barrier Analysis - Interview techniques – Doer/Non-Doer interviewing “Dos” and “don’ts” and Review of the translated questionnaire

Day 2 Pre-testing- - field exercise/practice of BA data collection - Exercise on coding and tabulating of the field-tested questionnaire

Day 3 Data collection from kebeles of all sample woredas - Behavior one- Borrowing Money

Team Sample Woreda

# of Supervisor

# of Data Collectors

# of Kebeles

No of responses

16 | P a g e

Data collectors

• Data collectors were recruited from the locality and of the eighteen, majority of them have BA degree and prior data collection experience which have contributed for the quality of the process, particularly, understand the questionnaire and quality of data collected.

• Properly introduced the purpose of data collection and confidentiality of the responses to minimize response bias. Moreover, the during the actual data collection, each interviewer were subject to interview both Doers and Non-Doers to minimize interviewer biases. The data collection at each kebele was guided by a supervisor.

Research Team

Proper composition of the team was created an opportunity for the analysis to be finalized without compromising its quality. Staff from CRS SBCC, CRS and MCS SILC and MF were part of the research team. This mix has involved from the early stage of identifying and stating the behaviors, designing questionnaire, supervising the process to finalize report.

Day 4 Coding and tabulating - Behavior one- Borrowing Money

Borrowing/ Timely repayment

Team 1

Siraro 1 4 4 20/20

Team 2

Shalla 1 4 4 20/22

Team 3

A/Negele 1 4 4 20/20

Team 4

ATJK 1 4 4 20/26

Team 5

Dodota 1 2 2 12/12

Total 5 18 18 92/100

The data were coded and tabulated on the subsequent day of data collection because (1) the data collection kebeles and woredas were far apart from each other and (2) it helped to minimize interviewers’ data collection confusion between the two questionnaires. Interviewers had taken major role on the coding and tabulation process

Day 5 Data collection from kebeles of all sample woredas - Behavior one- Timely Repayment

Day 6 Coding and tabulating - Behavior two- Timely Repayment

17 | P a g e

Annex 3: Development of the social and behavior change strategy

a. Development of the Social and Behavior Change Strategy

The design of Social and Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) strategy requires a good understanding of the situation in which the SBCC operates. Thus, the first step of effective SBCC strategy is analyzing the situation. The step- analyzing the situation involves having the right information to develop the SBCC planning (C-Module). Situational analysis details the problem and understanding of its causes, facilitators and possible remedies to address the problem. One way of doing this is conducting formative research with the intended audience to assess their knowledges, attitudes, skills, behaviors, social networks, needs, aspirations and degree of self-efficacy, as well las who influences their behaviors (HC3).

b. Description of Designing for Behavior Change Framework and Barrier analysis

i. Design for Behavior Change Framework

Designing for behavior Change (DBC) Framework is a tool that helps us to populate the different things we need to consider when designing a behavior change strategy. One of the principles of Design for Behavior Change framework is to base decisions on evidence. The reason the DBC Framework is so effective is because it requires to conduct research and gather evidence. The research is conducted among the Priority Group – the group we want to practice the intended behavior, and the evidence is provided by them, thus reduces the amount of guesswork and shows respect for the Priority Group by asking them their opinion about the Behaviors. Designing for Behavior Change Framework has five components, the behavior, the priority/influencing group, the determinants, the bridges to activities, and the activities. It uses survey (Barrier Analysis) findings to complete the last three columns – the determinants, the bridges to activities, and the activities.

The behavior/behavior statement is specific action that the Priority Group members adopt to address a problem they face.

The priority group is the group of people that are being encouraging to adopt the Behavior, as well as those people who ensure that someone else (such as a child) practices the new Behavior.

Influencing group is the group that has the most influence (positive or negative) on the Priority Group regarding the specific Behavior. The influencing group is identified through formative research conducted among the priority group.

Determinants (behavior change) are categories of reasons why the Priority Group may or may not practice a given Behavior. There are 12 Determinants: Self-Efficacy, Positive Consequences, Negative Consequences, Social Norms, Access, Cue for Action, Susceptibility, Severity, Action Efficacy, Divine will, Policy and Culture. Barrier analysis is conducted to identify the most significant reasons why the Priority Group is not practicing the Behavior, as well as the enablers that facilitate adoption of the Behavior. Please, see table 1, for definitions of the twelve determinants of behavior change.

Bridges to Activities are more-specific descriptions of a change one should make to address the issue revealed by the research.

18 | P a g e

Activities are a series of tasks that program implementers plan, organize, and/or conduct usually with the Priority Group or Influencing Groups to address the Bridges to Activities. They are the Activities that eliminate the barriers to adopting the desired Behavior, or reinforce the enablers that facilitate behavior change.

ii. Definition of the twelve determinants

Perceived self-efficacy/skills: An individual's belief that he/she can do a particular behavior given his/her current knowledge and skills

Perceived social norms: The perception that people important to an individual think that he/she should do the behavior

Perceived positive consequences: What positive things a person thinks will happen as a result of performing a behavior

Perceived negative consequences: The negative things a person thinks will happen as a result of performing a behavior

Access: Includes the degree of availability of the needed products or services required to adopt a given behavior

Cues for action/reminders: The presence of reminders that help a person remember to do a particular behavior

Perceived susceptibility/risk: A person's perception of how vulnerable or at risk he/she feels to the problem.

Perceived severity: Belief that the problem is serious.

Perceived divine will: A person’s belief that it is God’s will for him/her to have the problem and/or to overcome it. Includes the priority group’s perception of what their religion accepts or rejects.

Policy: Laws and regulations that affect behaviors and access to products and services.

Perceived action efficacy: The belief that by practicing the behavior one will avoid the problem, that the behavior is effective in avoiding the problem.

Culture: The set of history, customs, lifestyles, values, and practices within a self-defined group. Often influences perceived social norms

iii. Barrier Analysis

Barrier Analysis is a formative research that is conducted among the Priority Group to identify the most significant reasons why the Priority Group is not practicing the Behavior, as well as the enablers that facilitate adoption of the Behavior. Knowing the barriers/enablers allows us to design effective behavior change strategies/interventions that focus on removing barriers and to highlight enables/facilitators. Barrier

19 | P a g e

Analysis is a qualitative method but uses a quantitative approach to analyze the data. It uses the comparison of Doers and Non-Doers that allow us to express the results in quantitative fashion.

In Barrier Analysis, members of the Priority Group who should practice the Behavior are asked a series of questions related to each of the 12 determinants (See table 1). There are four determinants that should always be explored and eight others that may be useful to explore for many Behaviors in some contexts. In addition to identifying the barriers to behavior change, one question (positive consequences) will reveal what the respondent feels are the key benefits of the Behavior. These can then be used as “promoters” to “sell” a Behavior during Behavior promotion activity.

The responses to the questions are compared between two groups of people: those who already have adopted the Behavior, known as “Doers”, and those who are not practicing the desired Behavior, called “Non-Doers”. By comparing the percentage of people who responded with one answer, with the percentage of people who responded in the same way, we can see which barriers and motivators are the most important. This approach is called the Doer/Non-Doer methodology.

The results of Barrier analysis are used to complete the last three columns of the DBC Framework – the determinants, the bridges to activity, and the activity, as well as indicators allowing to monitor and evaluate the planned activities and the outcomes.

1 | P a g e

Annex 4: Lessons Learnt

What worked What did not work What do we need to do differently Behavior selection Two behaviors selected are highly appropriate to conducting BA

Planning and preparation Microfinance staff and SBCC staff CRS staff working together with involvement of partners in developing TOR, designing and translating the questionnaire

Distance between the woredas made difficult doing coding and tabulating on the same day data is collected

The training on the basics of BA and interview techniques

Translation of the questionnaire in consultation of partners’ staff and review of it during orientation session

Sampling: representative woredas and kebeles Not having representative representation of men, women and youth in the survey

In such cases it would be good to select respondents in a representative way; but for this case the result suggests the need to do separate BAs for men and for women

Logistics arrangement was good Actual data collection/Field work Use of our LCFs and CAs as guides and to make the respondents available at the time of visit

Not having strong proof of the clients borrowing and repaying history when classifying Doers and Non-Doers paying

Design mechanism to get borrowing and repayment history from MFIs but carefully that it does not trigger fear in our respondents that there will be measures

Knowledge of LCFs and CAs of the respondents borrowing and repaying history

Participation of CRS and partners, microfinance and SBCC staff during the field work

Knowledge of most of the team and all of the data collectors of the local language

2 | P a g e

Use of university graduate data collectors most of whom some experience in data collection but unemployed: they were highly committed, prevents interviewer bias, provides opportunity for youth to work and to get some experience; they were highly motivated/energetic and dedicated to the work

Data analysis and report writing On spot coding and tabulation of data in the presence of supervisors and data collectors is helpful to ensure quality of the data

Delay of the report writing as staff was engaged in different tasks to draft and finalize the report

Staff to consider such activities require time when planning, and to allocate enough time.

Repeated review of report by the team and staff who has BA experience

Review/editing of the repost by a colleague who was not part of the survey team

Overall Skill and commitment of CRS and partners staff

CRS, partners staff and data collectors understood the basics well and quickly

3 | P a g e

Annex 5: Barrier Analysis Tabulation Sheet

Annex 5: Barrier Analysis Tabulation Sheet Table 7: Borrowing data analysis table Barrier Analysis Tabulation Sheet (1/31/2018)

Total Doers 48

Total Non-doers 44

Estimated Prevalence of Behavior 10% (If unknown, leave as 10%)

Determinants Doers Giving

Response

Non-Doers Giving

Response

Doers NOT

Giving Response

Non-Doers NOT

Giving Response

Doers %

Non-Doers

%

Diff. Odds Ratio

Confidence Interval

Estim. Relative

Risk

p-value

Doers Non-doers

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

1. Self-Efficacy: Can you do the behavior?

Yes 45 41 3 3 94% 93% 1% 1.10 0.21 5.75 1.09 0.619

Possibly 1 1 47 43 2% 2% 0% 0.91 0.06 15.08 0.92 0.731

No 2 2 46 42 4% 5% 0% 0.91 0.12 6.77 0.92 0.658

Don't Know 0 0

2. Self - Efficacy: What makes it easier?

a. Advise and Trainings from: Financial Institutes, DAs and Neighbors

32 30 16 14 67% 68% -2% 0.93 0.39 2.24 0.94 0.527

4 | P a g e

b. Availability of Transportation 5 1 43 43 10% 2% 8% 5.00 0.56 44.60 3.65 0.123

c. Longer repayment time 2 0 46 44 4% 0% 4% 10.39 0.269

d. Previous experience of borrowing 7 2 41 42 15% 5% 10% 3.59 0.70 18.29 2.91 0.101

e. Previous timely repayment experience 3 0 45 44 6% 0% 6% 10.60 0.138

f. Availability of financial institutions/proximity

14 11 34 33 29% 25% 4% 1.24 0.49 3.11 1.21 0.416

g. Availability of amount needed 1 2 47 42 2% 5% -2% 0.45 0.04 5.11 0.47 0.467

h. Having asset for collateral 2 2 46 42 4% 5% 0% 0.91 0.12 6.77 0.92 0.658

i. MCS facilitation 1 3 47 41 2% 7% -5% 0.29 0.03 2.91 0.31 0.276

j. If no interest 1 2 47 42 2% 5% -2% 0.45 0.04 5.11 0.47 0.467

k. Availability of interested members to form group

12 3 36 41 25% 7% 18% 4.56 1.19 17.43 3.53 0.017 Doers are 3.5 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

l. Supportive Government policy 2 1 46 43 4% 2% 2% 1.87 0.16 21.37 1.72 0.533

m. Wife's support 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

n. prior planning 0 2 48 42 0% 5% -5% 0.00 0.00 0.226

o. Ability to deposit initial saving 1 7 47 37 2% 16% -14% 0.11 0.01 0.96 0.13 0.022 Non-doers are 8 more likely to give this response than Doers.

p. Ability to pay 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

3. Self - Efficacy: Makes it Difficult:

a. Distance of Financial Institution/transportation

10 6 38 38 21% 14% 7% 1.67 0.55 5.04 1.57 0.264

5 | P a g e

b. Amount of loan-small 6 2 42 42 13% 5% 8% 3.00 0.57 15.72 2.53 0.164

c. Unable to save initial saving 9 9 39 35 19% 20% -2% 0.90 0.32 2.52 0.91 0.522

d. Unable to repay previous loan 2 1 46 43 4% 2% 2% 1.87 0.16 21.37 1.72 0.533

e. Delayed/untimely loan release 7 6 41 38 15% 14% 1% 1.08 0.33 3.51 1.07 0.568

f. Nothing 12 11 36 33 25% 25% 0% 1.00 0.39 2.57 1.00 0.594

g. Lack of information about loan scheme 5 2 43 42 10% 5% 6% 2.44 0.45 13.29 2.15 0.255

h. Not having collateral/guarantee 6 8 42 36 13% 18% -6% 0.64 0.20 2.03 0.67 0.320

i. Fear of being unable to repay/loss 3 5 45 39 6% 11% -5% 0.52 0.12 2.32 0.55 0.309

j. Limited number of financial service providers

1 4 47 40 2% 9% -7% 0.21 0.02 1.98 0.23 0.155

k. Short repayment period 2 0 46 44 4% 0% 4% 10.39 0.269

l. Bureaucratic procedures of financial institutions

3 3 45 41 6% 7% -1% 0.91 0.17 4.77 0.92 0.619

m.High interest rate 7 4 41 40 15% 9% 5% 1.71 0.46 6.29 1.60 0.314

n. Exclusion during screening 2 1 46 43 4% 2% 2% 1.87 0.16 21.37 1.72 0.533

o. Group member/s default-inability to repay

6 0 42 44 13% 0% 13% 11.29 0.017 Doers are 11.3 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

p. Fear of loss of borrowed money- incase of death of livestock, drought

1 4 47 40 2% 9% -7% 0.21 0.02 1.98 0.23 0.155

q. Lack of family support 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

r. Lack of trust by other group members 0 2 48 42 0% 5% -5% 0.00 0.00 0.226

s. Religion 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

t. Friends' pressure against borrowing 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

6 | P a g e

4. Positive Consequences: What are the advantages?

a. Food security 4 5 44 39 8% 11% -3% 0.71 0.18 2.83 0.73 0.444

b. to fulfill basic needs/improve livelihoods/better income

30 22 18 22 63% 50% 13% 1.67 0.73 3.83 1.59 0.159

c. Educating family, send to school 10 5 38 39 21% 11% 9% 2.05 0.64 6.57 1.87 0.172

d. Job creation/new income source/diversification

10 17 38 27 21% 39% -18% 0.42 0.17 1.05 0.45 0.050

e. Asset building 18 17 30 27 38% 39% -1% 0.95 0.41 2.21 0.96 0.541

f. Practice culture of saving 4 5 44 39 8% 11% -3% 0.71 0.18 2.83 0.73 0.444

g. Move to city 4 0 44 44 8% 0% 8% 10.82 0.070

h. Access to agricultural input 6 9 42 35 13% 20% -8% 0.56 0.18 1.71 0.58 0.227

i. Gap filling when financial problems 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

5. Negative Consequences: What are the disadvantages?

a. Becoming poor/loss of asset 24 23 24 21 50% 52% -2% 0.91 0.40 2.07 0.92 0.496

b. Will be forced to sell produce at cheaper price

2 0 46 44 4% 0% 4% 10.39 0.269

c. high interest rate 10 4 38 40 21% 9% 12% 2.63 0.76 9.11 2.30 0.100

d. Loss of trust by the society if fail to pay 2 0 46 44 4% 0% 4% 10.39 0.269

e. Nothing 5 9 43 35 10% 20% -10% 0.45 0.14 1.47 0.48 0.147

f. Legal consequence/penalty/punishment 16 11 32 33 33% 25% 8% 1.50 0.60 3.72 1.44 0.259

g. Conflict among family members 5 2 43 42 10% 5% 6% 2.44 0.45 13.29 2.15 0.255

h. Conflict among group memebrs-group guarantee

1 5 47 39 2% 11% -9% 0.17 0.02 1.48 0.18 0.083

7 | P a g e

i. Initial deduction of the loan (for saving, application fee, etc.)

2 0 46 44 4% 0% 4% 10.39 0.269

j. No flexibility, like rescheduling in cases of drought

6 3 42 41 13% 7% 6% 1.95 0.46 8.33 1.79 0.288

k. Migration-when unable to repay 5 1 43 43 10% 2% 8% 5.00 0.56 44.60 3.65 0.123

l. Short repayment time 1 1 47 43 2% 2% 0% 0.91 0.06 15.08 0.92 0.731

m. Unplanned loan 3 1 45 43 6% 2% 4% 2.87 0.29 28.64 2.43 0.342

n. Non-productivity of the loan 5 6 43 38 10% 14% -3% 0.74 0.21 2.61 0.76 0.438

6. Social Norms: Do most people approve?

Yes 44 39 4 5 92% 89% 3% 1.41 0.35 5.63 1.37 0.444

Possibly 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

No 4 4 44 40 8% 9% -1% 0.91 0.21 3.88 0.92 0.593

Don't Know 0 0 48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

7. Social Norms: Who approves?

a. Children 15 6 33 38 31% 14% 18% 2.88 1.00 8.27 2.50 0.038 Doers are 2.5 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

b. Brother/Sister 7 7 41 37 15% 16% -1% 0.90 0.29 2.82 0.91 0.544

c. Wife 19 8 29 36 40% 18% 21% 2.95 1.13 7.70 2.57 0.021 Doers are 2.6 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

d. Kebele administrator, Manager, DA 19 21 29 23 40% 48% -8% 0.72 0.31 1.64 0.74 0.282

e. Relatives - uncle 0 4 48 40 0% 9% -9% 0.00 0.00 0.049

8 | P a g e

f. Friend/neighbor who have experience 24 19 24 25 50% 43% 7% 1.32 0.58 2.99 1.28 0.328

g. Family 12 6 36 38 25% 14% 11% 2.11 0.72 6.22 1.92 0.133

h. Mother 1 2 47 42 2% 5% -2% 0.45 0.04 5.11 0.47 0.467

i. Husband 2 8 46 36 4% 18% -14% 0.20 0.04 0.98 0.22 0.033 Non-doers are 4.6 more likely to give this response than Doers.

j. Group members 5 2 43 42 10% 5% 6% 2.44 0.45 13.29 2.15 0.255

k. No one 3 3 45 41 6% 7% -1% 0.91 0.17 4.77 0.92 0.619

l. Financial institutions 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

m. Community/society 0 2 48 42 0% 5% -5% 0.00 0.00 0.226

n. Elders 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

8. Social Norms: Who disapproves

a. No one 31 28 17 16 65% 64% 1% 1.04 0.44 2.44 1.04 0.549

b. Neighbors 4 7 44 37 8% 16% -8% 0.48 0.13 1.77 0.51 0.213

c. Wife 3 2 45 42 6% 5% 2% 1.40 0.22 8.80 1.35 0.542

d. Children 6 0 42 44 13% 0% 13% 11.29 0.017 Doers are 11.3 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

e. Father/mother 2 0 46 44 4% 0% 4% 10.39 0.269

f. Wealthy friends 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

g. Religious leaders 3 3 45 41 6% 7% -1% 0.91 0.17 4.77 0.92 0.619

9 | P a g e

h. Friends 4 1 44 43 8% 2% 6% 3.91 0.42 36.40 3.07 0.209

i. Relatives 3 3 45 41 6% 7% -1% 0.91 0.17 4.77 0.92 0.619

j. Brothers/Sisters 2 2 46 42 4% 5% 0% 0.91 0.12 6.77 0.92 0.658

9. Access - how difficult is it to get what you need to do the behavior?

Very difficult 15 13 33 31 31% 30% 2% 1.08 0.45 2.64 1.08 0.520

Somewhat difficult 15 10 33 34 31% 23% 9% 1.55 0.61 3.93 1.47 0.248

Not difficult at all 18 20 30 24 38% 45% -8% 0.72 0.31 1.66 0.74 0.287

don't Know/Won't say 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

10. Access - how difficult is it to get what you need to do the behavior?

48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

Very difficult 8 7 40 37 17% 16% 1% 1.06 0.35 3.20 1.05 0.574

Somewhat difficult 19 18 29 26 40% 41% -1% 0.95 0.41 2.18 0.95 0.533

Not difficult at all 21 19 27 25 44% 43% 1% 1.02 0.45 2.34 1.02 0.562

don't Know/Won't say 0 0 48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

11. Access - how difficult is it to get what you need to do the behavior?

48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

Very difficult 11 11 37 33 23% 25% -2% 0.89 0.34 2.33 0.90 0.503

Somewhat difficult 15 11 33 33 31% 25% 6% 1.36 0.55 3.41 1.32 0.333

Not difficult at all 22 22 26 22 46% 50% -4% 0.85 0.37 1.92 0.86 0.424

Don't Know/Won't say 0 0 48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

10. Reminders - how difficult is it to remember to do the behavior?

10 | P a g e

Very difficult 7 4 41 40 15% 9% 5% 1.71 0.46 6.29 1.60 0.314

Somewhat difficult 16 20 32 24 33% 45% -12% 0.60 0.26 1.40 0.63 0.165

Not difficult at all 25 20 23 24 52% 45% 7% 1.30 0.57 2.96 1.27 0.335

Don't Know/Won't say 0 0 48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

11. Risk- How likely to get the problem?

Very likely 10 10 38 34 21% 23% -2% 0.89 0.33 2.41 0.90 0.512

Somewhat likely 29 27 19 17 60% 61% -1% 0.96 0.42 2.22 0.96 0.548

Not likely at all 7 6 41 38 15% 14% 1% 1.08 0.33 3.51 1.07 0.568

Don't Know/Won't say 2 1 46 43 4% 2% 2% 1.87 0.16 21.37 1.72 0.533

48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

12. Severity - How serious is the problem?

Very likely 38 31 10 13 79% 70% 9% 1.59 0.62 4.13 1.53 0.235

Somewhat likely 8 13 40 31 17% 30% -13% 0.48 0.18 1.29 0.51 0.111

Not likely at all 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

Don't Know/Won't say 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

13. Action Efficacy - will doing the behavior prevent the problem?

Very likely 42 41 6 3 88% 93% -6% 0.51 0.12 2.19 0.56 0.288

Somewhat likely 4 3 44 41 8% 7% 2% 1.24 0.26 5.89 1.21 0.549

Not likely at all 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

Don't Know/Won't say 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

11 | P a g e

14. Divine Will - does God approve of you doing the behavior?

Yes 28 21 20 23 58% 48% 11% 1.53 0.67 3.50 1.47 0.209

Maybe 20 22 28 22 42% 50% -8% 0.71 0.31 1.63 0.74 0.277

No 0 0 48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

15. Policy - Any community laws/regulations that make is less likely you will do the behavior?

Yes 41 38 7 6 85% 86% -1% 0.92 0.29 3.00 0.93 0.568

Maybe 5 6 43 38 10% 14% -3% 0.74 0.21 2.61 0.76 0.438

No 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

16. Culture - Any cultural rules/taboos against the behavior?

Yes 5 4 43 40 10% 9% 1% 1.16 0.29 4.64 1.14 0.556

Maybe 43 40 5 4 90% 91% -1% 0.86 0.22 3.43 0.87 0.556

No 0 0 48 44 0% 0% 0% 1.000

17. Universal Motivators - What do you desire most in life?

a. Fattening of oxen 3 3 45 41 6% 7% -1% 0.91 0.17 4.77 0.92 0.619

b. Donkey Cart 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

c. Asset like house, land 20 17 28 27 42% 39% 3% 1.13 0.49 2.62 1.12 0.467

d. Automobile/Bajaj 3 6 45 38 6% 14% -7% 0.42 0.10 1.80 0.45 0.201

f. Finances 14 6 34 38 29% 14% 16% 2.61 0.90 7.55 2.30 0.059

g. Fodder business 1 2 47 42 2% 5% -2% 0.45 0.04 5.11 0.47 0.467

12 | P a g e

h. Healthy 7 9 41 35 15% 20% -6% 0.66 0.22 1.97 0.69 0.320

i. Self-sufficient/food security 9 9 39 35 19% 20% -2% 0.90 0.32 2.52 0.91 0.522

j. Businessman with high income 1 5 47 39 2% 11% -9% 0.17 0.02 1.48 0.18 0.083

k. Dairy farmer/cattle rearing 1 8 47 36 2% 18% -16% 0.10 0.01 0.80 0.11 0.011 Non-doers are 9.3 more likely to give this response than Doers.

l. Trader 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

m. Sending children to school 11 3 37 41 23% 7% 16% 4.06 1.05 15.70 3.23 0.030 Doers are 3.2 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

n. Peace 2 1 46 43 4% 2% 2% 1.87 0.16 21.37 1.72 0.533

o. Enjoyment 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

p. Mill house 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

q. Respected person 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

r. Live in US 2 0 46 44 4% 0% 4% 10.39 0.269

s. Many children 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

t. Modern farmer 1 0 47 44 2% 0% 2% 10.19 0.522

u. Hotel owner 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

v. Move to cities 0 6 48 38 0% 14% -14% 0.00 0.00 0.010

w. Go to school/study 0 2 48 42 0% 5% -5% 0.00 0.00 0.226

x. Being religious 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

y. Driver 0 1 48 43 0% 2% -2% 0.00 0.00 0.478

13 | P a g e

14 | P a g e

Table 8 Timely Loan Repayment

Total Doers 51

Total Non-doers 49

Estimated Prevalence of Behavior 10% (If unknown, leave as 10%)

Determinants Doers Giving Respon

se

Non-Doers Giving

Response

Doers NOT

Giving Respon

se

Non-Doers NOT

Giving Respons

e

Doers %

Non-Doers

%

Diff.

Odds Ratio

Confidence Interval

Estim.

Relative

Risk

p-value

Doers Non-doers

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

1. Self-Efficacy: Can you do the behavior?

Yes 49 41 2 8 96%

84% 12%

4.78 0.96 23.77 4.35 0.04

0

Doers are 4.4 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

Possibly 1 6 50 43 2% 12% -10%

0.14 0.02 1.24 0.16 0.05

0

Non-doers are 6.3 more likely to give this

15 | P a g e

response than Doers.

No 1 2 50 47 2% 4% -2%

0.47 0.04 5.36 0.50 0.485

Don't Know 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

2. Self - Efficacy: What makes it easier?

a. Capability of other group members (to pay)

1 3 50 46 2% 6% -4%

0.31 0.03 3.05 0.33 0.294

b. Loan Productivity 26 14 25 35 51%

29% 22%

2.60 1.14 5.95 2.34 0.01

8

Doers are 2.3 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

c. Favorable climate 4 10 47 39 8% 20% -13%

0.33 0.10 1.14 0.36 0.063

d. Savings 5 8 46 41 10%

16% -7%

0.56 0.17 1.84 0.58 0.251

e. Having diversified income/LH 4 3 47 46 8% 6% 2%

1.30 0.28 6.16 1.27 0.523

f. personal planning-business 14 8 37 41 27%

16% 11%

1.94 0.73 5.15 1.79 0.135

g. Experience of other community members paying loan

3 5 48 44 6% 10% -4%

0.55 0.12 2.44 0.58 0.335

h. Training/business skill 4 3 47 46 8% 6% 2%

1.30 0.28 6.16 1.27 0.523

16 | P a g e

i. Follow-up pf financial institutions 6 1 45 48 12%

2% 10%

6.40 0.74 55.26 4.29 0.062

j. having productive asset/land 6 3 45 46 12%

6% 6%

2.04 0.48 8.68 1.86 0.264

k. being long-term customer of MFI, relationship

1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

l. Agreement-good relationship among group members

1 2 50 47 2% 4% -2%

0.47 0.04 5.36 0.50 0.485

m. Support of DA, Kebele admin, supervision

4 4 47 45 8% 8% 0%

0.96 0.23 4.06 0.96 0.620

n. Own effort 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

o. Peace 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

p. Loan size high 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

q. Loan term-long 0 4 51 45 0% 8% -8%

0.00 0.00 0.054

r. Family support 0 2 51 47 0% 4% -4%

0.00 0.00 0.238

s. NGO support 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

3. Self - Efficacy: Makes it Difficult:

17 | P a g e

a. Drought-Natural disaster, loss of produce, fodder

20 32 31 17 39%

65% -26%

0.34 0.15 0.77 0.38 0.00

8

Non-doers are 2.6 more likely to give this response than Doers.

b. Loan price of crops/cattle 9 7 42 42 18%

14% 3%

1.29 0.44 3.77 1.25 0.427

c. Loan repayment being before harvest 2 0 49 49 4% 0% 4%

10.37 0.258

d. Family size-large 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

e. Group Guarantee-no readiness of group members to pay the loan/conflict

5 7 46 42 10%

14% -4%

0.65 0.19 2.21 0.68 0.352

f. Nothing 17 6 34 43 33%

12% 21%

3.58 1.27 10.07 2.98 0.01

1

Doers are 3 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

g. Non-productive-landscape and others 4 9 47 40 8% 18% -11%

0.38 0.11 1.32 0.41 0.102

h. Negligence 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

i. High interest rate 8 5 43 44 16%

10% 5%

1.64 0.50 5.40 1.54 0.304

j. Short loan period 1 2 50 47 2% 4% -2%

0.47 0.04 5.36 0.50 0.485

k. Miss use of the loan\ 4 1 47 48 8% 2% 6%

4.09 0.44 37.91 3.16 0.194

18 | P a g e

l. Inconsistency of information from financial institutions

1 1 50 48 2% 2% 0%

0.96 0.06 15.79 0.96 0.742

m. Loan size -small 0 2 51 47 0% 4% -4%

0.00 0.00 0.238

n. Loss of production/poor management 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

o. Poor health 0 2 51 47 0% 4% -4%

0.00 0.00 0.238

p. Misuse of repayment- by husband 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

4. Positive Consequences: What are the advantages?

a. To get repeat loan/relationship 33 27 18 22 65%

55% 10%

1.49 0.67 3.34 1.44 0.219

b. Less stress-relief 11 10 40 39 22%

20% 1%

1.07 0.41 2.81 1.06 0.541

c. Appreciation/thanks 2 2 49 47 4% 4% 0%

0.96 0.13 7.09 0.96 0.676

d. Trust 26 26 25 23 51%

53% -2%

0.92 0.42 2.02 0.93 0.497

e. Access to new opportunities 1 3 50 46 2% 6% -4%

0.31 0.03 3.05 0.33 0.294

f. Being a good example 4 1 47 48 8% 2% 6%

4.09 0.44 37.91 3.16 0.194

19 | P a g e

g. Avoid legal consequences/additional cost

7 5 44 44 14%

10% 4%

1.40 0.41 4.75 1.35 0.409

h. Nothing 2 1 49 48 4% 2% 2%

1.96 0.17 22.33 1.79 0.515

i. Avoid loss of asset as a result of delayed payment

1 1 50 48 2% 2% 0%

0.96 0.06 15.79 0.96 0.742

j. Increase saving-avoid deductions of saving

1 8 50 41 2% 16% -14%

0.10 0.01 0.85 0.11 0.01

3

Non-doers are 8.7 more likely to give this response than Doers.

k. Good relationship among the group members

2 0 49 49 4% 0% 4%

10.37 0.258

l. Free of liability/ start own business 2 4 49 45 4% 8% -4%

0.46 0.08 2.63 0.49 0.320

m. Create loanable fund for others 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

n. To access saving 0 3 51 46 0% 6% -6%

0.00 0.00 0.114

5. Negative Consequences: What are the disadvantages?

a. Nothing 37 25 14 24 73%

51% 22%

2.54 1.10 5.83 2.33 0.02

2

Doers are 2.3 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

b. Loss of asset/ economic pressure e.g. When drought

13 15 38 34 25%

31% -5%

0.78 0.32 1.86 0.79 0.364

20 | P a g e

c. Selling produce at lower price 1 6 50 43 2% 12% -10%

0.14 0.02 1.24 0.16 0.05

0

Non-doers are 6.3 more likely to give this response than Doers.

d. conflict in the family 2 3 49 46 4% 6% -2%

0.63 0.10 3.92 0.65 0.481

e. Stress to pay on time 2 5 49 44 4% 10% -6%

0.36 0.07 1.95 0.39 0.202

f. Conflict among group members if one pays on time and the other does not

2 2 49 47 4% 4% 0%

0.96 0.13 7.09 0.96 0.676

6. Social Norms: Do most people approve?

Yes 49 41 2 8 96%

84% 12%

4.78 0.96 23.77 4.35 0.04

0

Doers are 4.4 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

Possibly 1 5 50 44 2% 10% -8%

0.18 0.02 1.56 0.19 0.093

No 0 2 51 47 0% 4% -4%

0.00 0.00 0.238

Don't Know 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

7. Social Norms: Who approves?

a. Kebele Chairperson, administrator 20 13 31 36 39%

27% 13%

1.79 0.77 4.17 1.68 0.128

21 | P a g e

b. Friends/Neighbors 21 27 30 22 41%

55% -14%

0.57 0.26 1.26 0.60 0.116

c. Group members 18 15 33 34 35%

31% 5%

1.24 0.54 2.85 1.21 0.388

d. Brother/sister/father 11 12 40 37 22%

24% -3%

0.85 0.33 2.15 0.86 0.456

e. wife 13 14 38 35 25%

29% -3%

0.86 0.35 2.07 0.87 0.451

f. Husband 6 1 45 48 12%

2% 10%

6.40 0.74 55.26 4.29 0.062

g. Children 10 12 41 37 20%

24% -5%

0.75 0.29 1.94 0.77 0.364

h. Family 10 19 41 30 20%

39% -19%

0.39 0.16 0.95 0.42 0.02

9

Non-doers are 2.4 more likely to give this response than Doers.

i. Relatives-uncle 2 3 49 46 4% 6% -2%

0.63 0.10 3.92 0.65 0.481

j. MFI/FSPs staff 7 2 44 47 14%

4% 10%

3.74 0.74 18.97 2.99 0.090

k. MCS staff-CA, NGO staff 2 2 49 47 4% 4% 0%

0.96 0.13 7.09 0.96 0.676

l. No one 1 1 50 48 2% 2% 0%

0.96 0.06 15.79 0.96 0.742

22 | P a g e

8. Social Norms: Who disapproves

a. neighbors/friends 2 2 49 47 4% 4% 0%

0.96 0.13 7.09 0.96 0.676

b. No one 42 42 9 7 82%

86% -3%

0.78 0.27 2.28 0.80 0.427

c. Relatives-uncle 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

d. Group members/defaulters 6 4 45 45 12%

8% 4%

1.50 0.40 5.68 1.43 0.396

e. Husband 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

f. Community members - with default other than group

1 1 50 48 2% 2% 0%

0.96 0.06 15.79 0.96 0.742

g. Children 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

9. Access - how difficult is it to get what you need to do the behavior?

Very difficult 15 20 36 29 29%

41% -11%

0.60 0.26 1.38 0.63 0.162

Somewhat difficult 17 21 34 28 33%

43% -10%

0.67 0.30 1.50 0.69 0.219

Not difficult at all 19 8 32 41 37%

16% 21%

3.04 1.18 7.84 2.63 0.01

6

Doers are 2.6 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

23 | P a g e

don't Know/Won't say 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

10. Access - how difficult is it to get what you need to do the behavior?

51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

Very difficult 8 6 43 43 16%

12% 3%

1.33 0.43 4.17 1.29 0.419

Somewhat difficult 14 14 37 35 27%

29% -1%

0.95 0.40 2.27 0.95 0.539

Not difficult at all 29 29 22 20 57%

59% -2%

0.91 0.41 2.01 0.92 0.487

Don't Know/Won't say 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

11. Reminders - how difficult is it to remember to do the behavior?

Very difficult 5 8 46 41 10%

16% -7%

0.56 0.17 1.84 0.58 0.251

Somewhat difficult 8 16 43 33 16%

33% -17%

0.38 0.15 1.00 0.41 0.03

9

Non-doers are 2.4 more likely to give this response than Doers.

Not difficult at all 38 25 13 24 75%

51% 23%

2.81 1.21 6.52 2.55 0.01

3

Doers are 2.6 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

Don't Know/Won't say 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

24 | P a g e

12. Risk- How likely to get the problem?

Very likely 9 14 42 35 18%

29% -11%

0.54 0.21 1.39 0.57 0.145

Somewhat likely 35 28 16 21 69%

57% 11%

1.64 0.72 3.72 1.57 0.163

Not likely at all 7 6 44 43 14%

12% 1%

1.14 0.35 3.67 1.12 0.531

Don't Know/Won't say 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

13. Severity - How serious is the problem?

Very serious 24 23 27 26 47%

47% 0%

1.00 0.46 2.20 1.00 0.575

Somewhat serious 17 19 34 30 33%

39% -5%

0.79 0.35 1.79 0.81 0.360

Not serious at all 10 7 41 42 20%

14% 5%

1.46 0.51 4.21 1.40 0.330

Don't know/won't say 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

14. Action Efficacy - will doing the behavior prevent the problem?

Very serious 32 34 19 15 63%

69% -7%

0.74 0.32 1.71 0.77 0.312

Somewhat serious 6 14 45 35 12%

29% -17%

0.33 0.12 0.96 0.36 0.03

1

Non-doers are 2.8 more likely to give this

25 | P a g e

response than Doers.

Not serious at all 3 1 48 48 6% 2% 4%

3.00 0.30 29.87 2.51 0.324

Don't know/won't say 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

15. Divine Will - does God approve of you doing the behavior?

Yes 49 26 2 23 96%

53% 43%

21.67 4.73 99.21 18.21 0.00

0

Doers are 18.2 times more likely to give this response than Non-doers.

No 1 3 50 46 2% 6% -4%

0.31 0.03 3.05 0.33 0.294

Won't say/doesn't know 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

16. Policy - Any community laws/regulations that make is less likely you will do the behavior?

Yes 50 46 1 3 98%

94% 4%

3.26 0.33 32.47 3.03 0.294

No 1 1 50 48 2% 2% 0%

0.96 0.06 15.79 0.96 0.742

Won't say/doesn't know 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

17. Culture - Any cultural rules/taboos against the behavior?

26 | P a g e

Yes 4 5 47 44 8% 10% -2%

0.75 0.19 2.97 0.77 0.474

No 47 44 4 5 92%

90% 2%

1.34 0.34 5.29 1.30 0.474

Don't know/won't say 0 0 51 49 0% 0% 0%

1.000

18. Universal Motivators - What do you desire most in life?

a. Being wealthy-finances 20 22 31 27 39%

45% -6%

0.79 0.36 1.75 0.81 0.355

b. Become business man 5 5 46 44 10%

10% 0%

0.96 0.26 3.53 0.96 0.604

c. Better life 6 5 45 44 12%

10% 2%

1.17 0.33 4.13 1.15 0.529

d. Good health 6 8 45 41 12%

16% -5%

0.68 0.22 2.14 0.71 0.356

e. Having children 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

f. Better housing 5 1 46 48 10%

2% 8%

5.22 0.59 46.38 3.75 0.112

g. Cattle rearing-cows and oxen 6 3 45 46 12%

6% 6%

2.04 0.48 8.68 1.86 0.264

h. Fattening-oxen 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

i. Being alive 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

27 | P a g e

. Car owner 1 0 50 49 2% 0% 2%

10.18 0.510

J. Peace 0 2 51 47 0% 4% -4%

0.00 0.00 0.238

k. Shop owner 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

l. Mill owner 0 2 51 47 0% 4% -4%

0.00 0.00 0.238

m. Big farm 0 3 51 46 0% 6% -6%

0.00 0.00 0.114

n. Children education 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

k. Going to school/education 0 1 51 48 0% 2% -2%

0.00 0.00 0.490

28 | P a g e

29 | P a g e