Poverty Assessment Tool Analysis

Sovann Phoum

December 2014

Ariana Malushi December 2014

INTRODUCTION The Poverty Assessment Tool was implemented in Sovann Phoum in 2010, in order to: - appraise the partners’ households’ poverty level from a general point of view (the several

indicators in the assessment are totaled into a maximum score of 100 for each household, with 0 representing extreme poverty and 100 representing emerging from poverty);

- depict a household’s economic status with six different factors: demography, finance, housing, assets, nutrition and health;

- and assess the evolution of the poverty situation of households in time (by conducting an assessment of the partners every three loan cycles, i.e. approximately every year).

This is the second time that a complete analysis has been completed on the PAT data collected in the past four years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is interesting to note the significant disparities between the different areas where Sovann Phoum operates. Some areas such as Ahr Sor and Sen Sok 5 systematically register poorer scores for most questions with the overall score of these places raising doubts about Sovann Phoum’s capability to serve areas of great poverty. The main evolutions noted on partners’ situation of poverty as they progress through loan cycles are on the level of assets, and more significantly school attendance of children. There were no notable evolutions either on nutrition or on how they deal with health issues when they arise. There were also varied results in the level of partners’ business capital as they move through loan cycles. Such an analysis gives interesting insight on the level of poverty of the partners served by Sovann Phoum and can provide valuable input under the condition that the PAT data collected on the field is done in an accurate and consistent manner. CONTENTS

Main characteristics of Sovann Phoum partners’ households .......................... 3  Poverty level of households .............................................................................................. 3  Analysis by area of operation ............................................................................................ 4  

Indicators of Poverty .............................................................................................. 4  Education .......................................................................................................................... 4  Assets ................................................................................................................................ 5  Housing conditions ............................................................................................................ 6  Nutrition ............................................................................................................................. 7  Access to health services .................................................................................................. 7  

Comparison between cycles 1, 4 and 7 ................................................................ 8  Poverty Situation Evolution ................................................................................... 9  

Improvements noted .......................................................................................................... 9  Varied Results ................................................................................................................. 11  Partners with decreased PAT scores .............................................................................. 12  

Main characteristics of Sovann Phoum partners’ households The analysis is based the 1370 PAT questionnaires from July 2011-October 2014 (40 weeks), of which 1112 are for 1st cycle loans, 199 for 4th cycle, 48 for 7th cycle loans, and for 8 for 10th cycle loans

Poverty level of households The average PAT Score for all households is 47.2, and scores are spread as follows:

Average size of households The average size of the households is 3.8 persons per home, which compares with a national average of 4.7 based on the 2008 census. There seems to be no correlation between the size of the households and their total PAT score.

Analysis by area of operation There is a noticeable disparity among the different geographical areas in which Sovann Phoum operates, with average scores ranging from 41.1 to 52.7. Please note that some areas did not have a significant number of questionnaires administered (less than 10), and as a result, were taken out of the analysis below:                          

 Average  PAT  score

The differences between the areas with the highest and the lowest scores were noted on most criteria, as shown in the details of the analysis below.

Indicators of Poverty

Education Almost half of the children in the surveyed households do not attend school, however there are some areas that exhibit more promising results.The best score is in Chumpos  Kaak  and  Praek  Tapov,  where 50% of the households have all their children attending school. Official statistics on 2008 census data state that over 80% of the children between 6 and 16 attend school – Sovann Phoum’s partners fall considerably below that average. In addition, in 43.5% of the households, none of the children of a school going age attend school. In Sen  Sok  2,  Chungruk,  Trea,  Sopor  Thmei,  Dey  Thmey,  Sen  Sok,  Beoung  Salang,  Toul  Kork, over 55% of the households do not send any of their children to school.

177  Questionnaires 124  Questionnaires 98  Questionnaires 89  Questionnaires 88  Questionnaires 86  Questionnaires 81  Questionnaires 81  Questionnaires 73  Questionnaires 47  Questionnaires 38  Questionnaires 38  Questionnaires 34  Questionnaires 33  Questionnaires 27  Questionnaires 24  Questionnaires 22  Questionnaires 22  Questionnaires 18  Questionnaires 17  Questionnaires 16  Questionnaires 14  Questionnaires 13  Questionnaires 12  Questionnaires 12  Questionnaires 12  Questionnaires 12  Questionnaires 11  Questionnaires 10  Questionnaires 10  Questionnaires 10  Questionnaires 10  Questionnaires

Almost half of the households assessed have attended secondary school (or primary school with technical training). In about 24% of the households, high school (or secondary school with technical training) is the highest education obtained.

Arh  Sor   and  Changruk  have significantly lower levels of education than the other areas, as practically two thirds of the households have not surpassed primary school. On the other hand, almost 20% of households in Trea attend University (or High school with technical training).  

Assets Business capital Over half of the partners assessed have a business capital of less than 100 US dollars – 24% are below 50 USD.

In Sopor   Thmei, 83% of the partners’ business capital is less than 50 USD; in Arh   Sor,  Chumpos  Kaak,  Toul  Kork.and  OU  Andong  over  45%  of  households  fall  in  this  range.

Household assets Motorbike: 75% of the partners have at least one motorbike and just over 25% of the households’ motorbikes are worth more than $500. Arh   Sor   and   Praek   Tapov   are   both  outliers  to  this  observation  as  in  these  areas,  60%  of  households  do  not  own  a  motorbike.     Mobile phone: 88% of partners assessed have at least one mobile phone with the exception of households in Ahr Sor where 80% do not own a mobile phone. Almost none of the households had mobile phones worth $60 or more.

Housing conditions

Almost all households lived in houses with roofs made from sturdy material (i.e. not leaves, thatch or tarpaulin). A majority of households assessed have their own home in legal areas, but again there are significant differences depending on the areas surveyed:

- Overall, 16% of households rent their home, however more than 50% of the households in Damnak Thom and Boeung Salang pay rent for their homes.

Overall, 6% of the families reside in illegal areas, however households in Sen  Sok  5  and  Prey  Tear  fall below the norm with 30% of partners living in illegal areas.    

-

78% of households assessed own their own concrete toilets; in Prey Tear however, 31% have no concrete toilets (vs. 4% on average), and in Trea, more than 75% of the households share concrete toilets (vs. 18% on average).

Nutrition Almost every single household has at least 2 meals a day, with over 40% of the households eating 3 meals a day. In  Sopor  Thmei,  Dey  Thmey,  and  Sen  Sok  5,  very few households declare eating three meals a day (less than 5% of the partners interviewed, vs. 53% on average).  

A clear majority of partners assessed buy a 50kg bag of rice only once in awhile, indicating that their level of income does not enable them to benefit from economies of scale by purchasing this staple food at wholesale prices.

Access to health services On average almost half of the households go to the doctor or a health centre; however in certain areas such as Praek  Tapov  and  Deoum Slearng none of the families seek this type of treatment. In those areas, it seems that the only alternative is going to the chemist.  

- In Ahr Sor, Chungruk, and Dey Thmey, over 90% of the families go to a doctor or health centre; this is interesting as these areas had lower scores on most other questions.

Fortunately, only 1.3% of partners’ families do not seek any form of modern medical advice when ill (8% in Sen Sok 7).

A clear majority of partners assessed do not have health insurance (99.6%).

Comparison between cycles 1, 4 and 7 This section helps to identify the most volatile indicators based on the number of loans that partners have received from Sovann Phoum. Please note that the figures below do not represent the same group of partners who have moved from cycle 1 to 4 to 7, as they only portray the various economic situations of partners in each cycle individually. A general trend of increasing PAT Scores is observed as the partners progress from Cycle 1 to 4 to 7.

Number of questionnaires 1112 199 48 The analysis does not consider the partners in cycle 10 as there were only 8 questionnaires administered, which is not considered a significant sample. Of note, the business capital of individual partners increases from cycle 1 to 7. For cycle 1, most partners are found to have a business capital of between 50 and 99 USD. For cycle 4, the largest group is found in the range of 100 to 200 USD, and for cycle 7, partners who have business capital of more than 100 USD make up the largest numbers.

There are also progressively more households who own at least one mobile phone in higher cycles. The percentage increases from 83% in Cycle 1 to 86% in Cycle 4 to 92% in Cycle 7. The same trend can be observed in the ownership of motorbikes as well (from 70% in Cycle 1 to 76% in Cycle 4 to 85% in Cycle 7).

With regard to housing, roughly the same percentage of partners own homes in legal areas regardless of their loan cycle.

The last indicator of note is health insurance subscription: almost no partners had health insurance regardless of their loan cycle.

Poverty Situation Evolution This section contains the analysis of figures for 64 partners who were assessed with the PAT at least twice, illustrating a more accurate picture of the changes in the partners’ poverty situation. 52 partners were assessed in Cycles 1 and 4 and 10 partners were assessed in cycles 4 and 7. Only 2 partners in the data set were assessed in cycles 1,4 and 7. - On the one hand, 47 out of 64 of these partners had an increase in PAT score after 3

cycles, averaging an increase of 8.2 points. - On the other hand, 15 partners registered a decrease in score, averaging a decrease of

6.4 points.

Improvements noted 16 families (25%) showed an improvement in the level of school attendance of their children.

A 7% increase was also noted in the percentage of partners who own at least one mobile phone. Please note that 76% of the sample already owned one mobile phone when they first joined.

Similarly, 13 partners who had no motorcycle when they joined Sovann Phoum owned one by the time they took their 4th loans. The percentage of partners who own at least one motorcycle increased by 11%.

Another clear improvement was noticed in the type of toilets that the partners’ households use. There was a significant increase of 24% in the number of households who own concrete toilets.

Varied Results With regard to the number of meals eaten every day, only four families noted improvement, two families went from having 2 to 3 meals a day to having 3 meals every day, one family went from having 1 to 2 meals a day to having 2 to 3 meals every day, and one family even went from not having a meal every day to having three meals every day; the rest remained the same. Access to health facilities improved slightly, fifteen families went from visiting a chemist for treatment to going to the doctor, three families upgraded from going to a chemist to going to the hospital/clinic, and two families went from going to the doctor for treatment to going to the hospital/clinic. Most families, however, did not change the way they seek medical treatment (most of them go the chemist). Ten families even reported a degraded score. The change in business capital between cycles varied greatly for this group of partners: for 39%, the business capital increased, for another 23%, it decreased – while it remained stable for the other 38%.

Partners with decreased PAT scores The 15 partners who registered a drop in PAT score, had decreases in the following indicators: o Partner A: one less mobile phone o Partner B: regressed from owning a toilet in cycle 1 to sharing a toilet in cycle 4, went

from seeking treatment from a hospital in cycle 4 to going to a chemist in cycle 7, and experienced a decrease in capital from cycle 4 to 7

o Partner C: decrease in capital o Partner D: regressed from going to a doctor when ill to going to a chemist o Partner E: regressed from owning home in a legal area to renting a home o Partner F: decrease in capital from cycle 1 to 4, regressed from seeking treatment from

a doctor in cycle 4 to going to a chemist in cycle 7 and had one less source of income from cycle 4 to 7

o Partner G: 5 less sources of income, 3 less mobile phones, 1 less motorbike, 2 less bicycles and regressed from usually buying a big bag of rice to sometimes buying a big bag of rice

o Partner H: regressed from going to the hospital when ill to going to a doctor, went from having 3 meals a day to having 2 to 3 meals a day, and went from owning home in a legal area to renting a home

o Partner I: decrease in capital and regressed from having 3 meals a day to having 2 to 3 meals a day

o Partner J: decrease in capital o Partner K: decrease in capital and regressed from having 3 meals a day to having 2 to

3 meals a day o Partner L: regressed from having 2 to 3 meals a day to having 1 to 2 meals a day o Partner M: one less mobile phone, one less bicycle, one less source of income o Partner N: regressed from having 3 meals a day to having 2 to 3 meals a day o Partner O: decrease in capital, one less bicycle, once less source of income, and

regressed from going to a doctor when ill to going to a chemist