Income, Assets & Nutrition and the Cost Effectiveness of Heifer Project International Country Programs Paul Clements Western Michigan University

Outline Introduction Evaluation Questions Methodology Findings

Six Value Groups for HPI Evaluations since Meeting basic needs 2.Livestock care and management 3.Environment care and management 4.Education for a just and sustainable world 5.Empowerment of family and community 6.Systems and policy improvements

Evaluation Questions 1.What income gains for Heifer families, including gains in food, due to Heifer programs? 2.What change in assets and nutrition due to Heifer programs? 3.How cost effective are Heifer country programs, particularly comparing gains in income with program costs, but also considering other impacts?

Methodology Purposeful selection of 8 projects per country ~ Random selection of 12 member households per project Household interviews, usually 60 – 90 minutes – Income and food (cash value) in last year due (mainly) to animal gift – Assets – reconstructed baseline, gains since receipt of animal due to income from animal gift – Nutrition – reconstructed baseline, change in consumption of (a) staples, (b) fruit and vegetables, and (c) protein due to animal gift Cost effectiveness – expected annual income gains for all project households in country based on average gains per animal gift among sampled households compared to total country program expenditures over e.g. 6 years (+ other impacts)

Findings 1. Income gains in last year Sales in last year of offspring from animal gift Milk, eggs – sold and consumed in last year Increased crop production due to manure (fertilizer) from animal gift + offspring Net income from assets purchased with income from animal gift (tree plantation, sewing machine…) Minus cash expenses

Uganda, Average Income Gain in One Year per Animal Animal Total ReceivedAverage Income by Sampled Per Animal Households (US$) Cows 42 $1,314 Bulls (draft) 5 $1,356 Dairy goats 13 $687 Boer goats 11 $1,170 Fish ponds 12 $3,367 Pigs 13 $999

Average income gains (from last year) per household by project Project Average Income Gain per Household (US$) Bunsunju (cows) $757 Bulyasojo (cows)$1,343 Jinja (cows)$1,974 UMOJA (cows)$1,189 Buyamba (dairy goats) $812 Nyabushozi (Boer goats)$1,170 Kamwenge (fish ponds)$3,367 Kinkizi (pigs)$1,082 Total$1,456

Findings 2. Assets Assets (value of) when household received animal gift – “poverty anchor” Assets gained since then due to animal gift – purchased with income from animal, offspring (not including for “pass on”), etc.

Average Asset Baselines and Asset Gains by Project Project Average Average Asset Asset Gain per Household Baseline (US$) (US$) Bunsunju $5,000$1,500 Bulyasojo $5,500$3,600 Jinja $9,200$3,100 UMOJA $5,500$2,500 Buyamba $2,900$1,400 Nyabushozi$10,800$5,800 Kamwenge $6,700$6,500 Kinkizi $2,100$2,600 Average: $5,900$3,400

Findings 3. Nutrition Example of scale: Staples (in Uganda mostly maize, cooking bananas, potatoes, cassava, rice, and millet) 0.No access to staples 1.One meal of staples per day through much of the year, or two meals but usually not enough to satisfy 2.Mild shortage of staples year-round 3.Two or three meals of staples per day year-round but at least once a week, or for some period such as a hungry season, not enough to satisfy 4.Three meals of staples per day year round but occasionally not enough to satisfy 5.Enough staples year-round

Average Nutritional Gains Uganda Sampled Households Baseline Gain Endline Staples = 4.4 Fruit & vegetables = 4.0 Protein = 4.1

Likely reductions in child malnutrition in sampled households In Uganda, 38% of children under age 5 suffer from chronic malnutrition (stunting); majority of Ugandans of all ages face nutritional shortfalls Given nutritional gains indicated above (plus evidence re assets and income) proportion of children stunted in project households likely to have been reduced at least by half Average 1.9 children under 5 years per household during project lifetimes Probably at least 91 children in sampled households avoided nutritional shortfalls leading to stunting due to projects

Findings 4. Cost effectiveness Heifer Uganda spent approx $7 million, Distributed: 3021 dairy cattle1573 dairy goats 1647 oxen (draft bulls)2112 Boer goats 78 fish ponds165 pigs (also 94 bee hives, 867 local goats not included in analysis) Based on survey findings, expect annual income gains for mature projects of at least $10 million ($30 m. in 3 years) Plus gains in assets worth at least $20 million Plus at least 8,000 children under five years of age avoided stunting due to nutritional shortfalls Plus impacts in areas of six value groups identified by other parts of the evaluation

Average annual income gains across Heifer country programs for each gift of a cow in sampled households Number Average of cows annual (1 per household) income gain Albania 84 $4,738 Nepal 4 $1,854 Uganda 42 $1,314 Ghana 11 $841 Tanzania 26 $770

Annual income gains per $1 Heifer expenditure across country programs Albania (2011)$2.77 Nepal (2011)$1.40 Uganda (2011)$1.47 Ghana (2008)$0.38 Tanzania (2007)$0.63

Overall conclusion Considering gains in income, assets, nutrition, plus in other aspects of basic needs, livestock care and management, environment care and management, education, empowerment, and systems and policy improvements When Heifer projects are carried out well according to the standard model, they are generally highly cost effective.

Thank you!