1. Gendered Impact of BRAC’s Ultra Poor
Programme
Md. Kamruzzaman
Nusrat Z Hossain
Jinnat Ara
Wameq A Raza
Narayan C Das
www.brac.net

2. The Research and Evaluation
Division of BRAC
• Established in 1975 as an independent unit within
BRAC
• Largest research unit within an NGO (nearly 100 full-
time staff)
• A multidisciplinary research environment
• Primarily mandated to provide research support to
BRAC programmes:
• Design, implementation and fine-tuning
• Impact evaluation
www.brac.net

3. BRAC response to ultra-poverty:
Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction
(CFPR)
Programme Background:
• BRAC learned from its 40 yrs of experience through a
number of programmes (such as IGVGD)
• In order to build the bridge between the ultra poor and
mainstream poverty, BRAC innovated CFPR
• Although predominantly a grant-based approach, it
adopts a holistic attitude in dealing with ultra poverty
reduction
• Lunching in 2002, CFPR has already covered about
400,000 ultra poor households
www.brac.net

4. Programme Background (cont’d)
• Three staged targeting
• Income Generating Assets(IGA) selection and training
(usually livestock/poultry/nursery or a combination
through expert consultation)
• The finally selected ultra-poor were then provided
income generating assets (IGA) worth ~USD $200
• Continued multifaceted training over the next 24 months
• Total cost per beneficiary: ~USD $292
www.brac.net

5. Why women were targeted by CFPR
 Work considered suitable for women in both treatment and control area:
• The assets provided by the programme are considered to be very suitable for
women given that, especially in the rural context, women rarely leave their homes.
These assets can be taken care of without leaving the homestead premises
• While taking care of the assets, women are usually helped by their family members,
especially children
 Work considered suitable for men in both treatment and control area:
• Assets outside the home are considered better for the men as they tend to go outside
their homes, significantly more so than their female counterparts
• Men usually do not opt to take care of assets provided by the programme as they
spend significant amounts of time outside the household
www.brac.net

6. Sample Design: 2007-2009
40 Branch offices
20 ‘control’ branch 20 ‘treatment’ branch
All villages All villages
All primarily selected HH All primarily selected HH
10% of the
(finally selected + those 10 % of the rest of the (finally selected + those
rest of the
who failed to make the HH who failed to make the
HH
final selection) final selection)
www.brac.net

7. Current Status:
• Quantitative survey on socio-economic status
completed (third and final round)
• Qualitative study: first draft completed
• Quantitative questionnaire for asset ownership
and control developed, to be implemented
during mid-November to December,2011
www.brac.net

8. Qualitative Study
Objective:
• To get an insight of the gender aspects related to the
asset holding
• To collect detailed information about the gender
disaggregated asset ownership issues which generally
can not be explored directly through quantitative studies
• Due to the randomized nature of the data, we try to
ascertain pertinent quantitative questions using the
results from the qualitative exploration
www.brac.net

9. Data: Qualitative Exploration
Study area Data collection & analysis method
• One district (Rangpur) • 15 FGDs: 9 in Treatment & 6 in Control area
from Monga (seasonal Respondents:
food insecurity) area -Women beneficiaries
• One district from -Women non beneficiaries
southern Bangladesh -Men (spouses of beneficiary women)
(Madaripur) and • 6 In-depth interviews: Treatment area
• One district (Netrokona) Respondents:
from haor areas.
-Programme staff
• A total of six branch -Community people
offices (one treatment
• Data collection was carried out during
and one control branch
March- April, 2011.
from each of the three
districts) were covered by
the qualitative study • Data was analyzed using the content
analysis method
www.brac.net

10. Extent of Asset Ownership: Study Findings
• Control predominantly depends on the value of the assets in question. Low
value assets such as food items and so forth are controlled by women, whereas
income generating assets and so forth are controlled by the men
• Men often tend to dominate when it comes to making decisions about family
assets.
• Women have the rights to sell household utensils, own attires and cosmetics
and own cultivated vegetable.
• Both men and the women can’t lend out products used by the other without
permission
• Decision of choosing heir is taken by both husband and wife
• Where the women spend their own income is usually up to them, and this
income usually pertains to very small scaled assets such as selling eggs, some
vegetables and so forth from within their homesteads
www.brac.net

11. Qualitative Study Findings
Asset ownership
Assets typically owned Assets owned by Assets owned by women
jointly by men and women women (both areas) in treatment area
 House  Poultry and egg  Items bought from own
 Homestead  fruits, vegetables earned money
 Cash money (earned from  Kitchen utensils  Poultry and livestock
joint controlling assets/  Quilt/ pillow received from
labor selling)  Women’s clothing programme
 Mortgaged-in land and accessories  Radio
 Own land (crops)  Cash money (from
personal income)
 Food (rice, pulse,
sugar, salt)
www.brac.net

12. Ownership of the assets transferred by CFPR/TUP (BRAC)
• The beneficiaries women demanded the using rights of assets, given by programme,
“He won’t take them. Even if he does, BRAC will give them back to me. I certainly
will fight for the rights over my assets.” -Beneficiary Women, Rangpur.
• Divorcees/widows hold the sole rights when it comes to selling her assets
• Usually decisions about spending the lion’s share of the earning generated from the
program assets are taken jointly by both husband and wife together
• Women have the right to bequeath her CFPR assets to whomever she choosed
www.brac.net

13. Findings reiterated initial thoughts on
centering the programme around women:
• “When assets are given to men they are too excited about getting these to
concentrate on the ways to improve their fate through proper utilization. They
become more reluctant and prefer spending more time in gossiping and smoking
biri/cigarette or gambling”. - FGD, Beneficiary male spouse, Rangpur
• One of the main reasons why men are not given the assets is that many of them are
not considered responsible enough to be taking care of them adequately. Anecdotal
evidence suggests men are prone to playing fast and loose with their assets
• Women are primarily disadvantaged, and this transfer would promote their earning
opportunity and empowerment, “It is better to give assets to the women. Because
now even if the husbands want to sell them, wives would not let them do so” –
FGD, Beneficiary male spouse, Rangpur
www.brac.net

14. Project Impact on Beneficiary Women
• Improved economic well-being
• Improved human and social capital
• Improved crisis coping mechanisms through savings
and various asset accumulation
• Spill-over effects
• Improved family relationships
www.brac.net

15. Thank You!
www.brac.net