Dedza Safety Nets Pilot ProjectDSNPP
learning lessons about direct welfare transfers
for Malawi’sNational Safety Nets
Strategy
What is the DSNPP?
A ‘pilot’ designed to test a system of Direct Welfare Transfers to the work-constrained rural poor: Elderly, orphans, disabled/sick, etc
The M&E component is key, since the point is to learn lessons for scaling up.
Types of transfer
1. Cash: MK550 per household per month; 2. Vouchers worth MK550 per month to
buy goods at selected retailers; and 3. In-kind transfers: a package of goods
worth MK2,750 in September followed by maize flour worth MK550 between October and April – and nothing from May to August.
Distribution dates so far: 23 September; 2 November; 3 December; 19 December; 30 January
CU delivers to distribution centres 5-person village committees collect the transfers &
distribute them
Distributions
Village committees
There are three types of village committee: Led by the Village Head with members
nominated by the VH Democratically elected at a meeting of the
whole village Formed by the beneficiaries or their carers
Concern Universal
Village Committee
Beneficiary
Retailer
Transfer of cash
Delivery of cash at Distribution Centre
Distribution of cash to beneficiaries and administration and control including de-registration and registration of new beneficiaries
Concern Universal
Village Committee
Beneficiary
Supplier
Transfer of goods and food
Delivery of packs to Village Committee
Administration and control including de-registration and registration of new beneficiaries
Procurement of goods and foodaccording to CU specifications
Contract to supply goods
Concern Universal
Village Committee
Beneficiary
Participating Retailer
Transfer through vouchers
Return of vouchers and receipts
Payment on submission of vouchers and receipts Delivery of vouchers at Distribution Centre
Distribution of vouchers to beneficiaries and administration and control including de-registration and registration of new beneficiaries
Use of vouchers at retailers
Learning the lessons (1)
The impact on beneficiaries, using: baseline and a final impact survey quarterly monitoring of a smaller sample
Aim: To find out what is the impact of the different transfers on beneficiaries’ well-being – especially food security and other basic needs.
Learning the lessons (2)
The process, as managed by the village committees, using: self-monitoring by committee members; external monitoring by CU
personnel/local government officers. Aim:
To find out whether village committees can manage the transfers, and which type of committee is best.
Learning the lessons (3)
The logistics/costs, as managed by CU, using: Project Officers’ records of their interactions with
village committees, retailers, suppliers, ADCs, etc.
– including problems & solutions CU’s accounts for the project, with expenditure
divided into budget categories.
Aim: To assess overall management and logistical requirements, including costs.
Learning the lessons (4)
The expenditure pattern associated with the transfers, using: a section on expenditure in the survey
questionnaires; analysis of voucher receipts.
Aim: To study the pattern of expenditure associated with DWTs to inform retailers about consumer demand under a scaled-up DWT programme.
Learning the lessons (5)
The impact of the project on the local economy (especially retailers), using: Project Officers’ notes Analysis of voucher receipts
Aim: To find out what is the impact of different types of transfer on the retail sector.
Level of monitoring
Closely monitored villages Regular visits by Project Officers and
local government officers Quarterly monitoring surveys
Hands-off villages Visits after 9 months/1 year to simulate
‘real life’ situation in which village committees would manage transfers on their own, with spot checks
Interventions under trial
Transfer
Management Committee
Monitoring
VouchersCashIn-kind
Village headDemocraticBeneficiary/Carer
Closely monitoredHands-off
Interventions under trial
Hands-offBeneficiaries
Closely monitored
Hands-offDemocraticVouchers
Closely monitored
Hands-offVillage Head
Closely monitored
Interventions under trial
Hands-offBeneficiaries
Closely monitored
Hands-offDemocraticVouchers
Closely monitored
Hands-offVillage Head
Closely monitored
Hands-offBeneficiaries
Closely monitored
Hands-offDemocraticCash
Closely monitored
Hands-offVillage Head
Closely monitored
Hands-offBeneficiaries
Closely monitored
Hands-offDemocraticIn-kind
Closely monitored
Hands-offVillage Head
Closely monitored
18 different interventions
3 villages with each type
54 villages
Sampling
386 villages in Linthipe and Kabwazi 54 villages selected at random for the
study Restrictions:
27 villages from each EPA 18 villages for vouchers within 10 km radius
of participating retailers The rest selected at random from the
remaining villages.
Sampling
Vouchers
Cash In-kind
Total
Linthipe 12 6 9 27
Kabwazi 6 12 9 27
Total 18 18 18 54
Village committee
Village Head Committees Nepotism Transparency and accountability problems Cases of theft of transfers
Democratically elected committees Most effective and efficient Demanding to be paid allowances Cases of theft of transfers (less than VH)
Village committee
Beneficiary/carer committees Don’t need allowances No cases of theft Not so capable – need external support
Our recommendation: Beneficiary/carer committees with support
from VDCs Definitely avoid VH committees
Cash transfers
Choice of what to buy and where Easy to understand Don’t have to travel long distances Balanced development of the local retail
sector Simple to manage and low cost Security is a problem, but not difficult to solve Theft by village committees is a problem but
not if beneficiary/carer committees
In-kind transfers
Simple to manage Cheap to deliver Popular with the beneficiaries – in
particular the maize flour Cash cannot necessarily buy flour if supplies not available
BUT don’t contribute to balanced
development of the local retail sector
Voucher transfers
Advantages security – can be traced using serial
numbers
Voucher transfers
Disadvantages Restricted choice of goods to buy Retailers raise prices Try to make beneficiaries spend all at once The most vulnerable – find vouchers difficult
to use Few shops meet requirements, so:
some beneficiaries have to walk long distances congestion
And…
Voucher transfers
Disadvantages A division between ‘included’ and ‘excluded’
retailers leading to… uneven development opportunities for rent-seeking
staffing requirements: retailer liaison officers, accountants
Delivery costs are high Forgery is possible when programme scaled up Vouchers do not prevent stealing by village
committees………...!!
Delivery costs not including overheads
E.g. transport, security, printing of vouchers and receipts, commission to retailers.
Cash MK 14In-kind MK 29Vouchers MK 103
% of total project cost – including overheads - that gets to
beneficiaries
In-kind 69% Cash 71% Vouchers 63%
- but this would be lower in expansion phase
Our recommendationNot vouchers!
Type of transfer
Go for:CashOR
In-kindOR
A combination of both
Well-being of beneficiaries
DWTs make a major contribution to food security and other basic needs
Well-being of beneficiaries
Eating around two meals per day (nsima and snacks) - at time of Q2 survey
Not much difference between type of transfer
But: sub-set of beneficiaries have not avoided
serious food insecurity
Consumer demand
We can predict consumer demand as project expands:
Cash (vouchers similar) maize and maize milling, salt and soap seed in the planting season sugar, fish, paraffin and cooking oil
In-kind items in transfer, e.g. maize flour, blankets,
soap
Impact on the local economy (retail sector)
Cash spread the benefits locally
Vouchers benefit certain shops locally, but others
excluded In-kind
concentrate the benefits with big suppliers in Dedza or Lilongwe
Village heads did not do a good job – over-registration
We recommend: democratically elected committees
ORopen village meeting
Selection of beneficiaries
We recommend:Sliding scale
Multiple beneficiary households
It is possible – but we register name of household head AND name of beneficiary/ies
Careful monitoring would be needed to prevent abuses