BRAC LCCA HH final presentation 05.02.2014

Household Expenditure Analysis(using the LCCA Lenses)

Bagherpara

3.Feb.2014

Overview- Data collection process- Sample- Cost definitions refresher- 10 Key Messages

Data collection processJune’2013 : Developing methodology, pre-testing questionnaires, field trial round 1

September’2013 : Field staff training in HO, field trial round 2

November’2013 : Refresher training, sampling & data collection

Dec’2013 to Jan’2014 : Data entry & cleaning

Feb’2014 : Data analysis, presentation of preliminary results and feedback

Number of staff: 13 (Field 7, HO 4, Int. Cons. 2)

Location and sample

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

500

300

200

Hard core poor Poor Nonpoor

Cost definitions used for HH Expenditure

Capital expenditureOne off(CapEx)

Operation and minor maintenance

Regular and small(OpEx)

Capital maintenanceIrregular and larger

(CapManEx)

Materials (Rings, ring slabs, bricksm etc)Mason workTransport costsetc.

Brush, bucket, broom, liquid & powder cleaner, soap, siphon, latches etc

Superstructure, ring, ring slabs, pit emptying, roof, colouring, pan, pipe

10 Key Messages

• What is the data telling us?• What evidence do we have to back it up?

1. BRAC WASH programme had catalytic effect on latrine construction…

1. BRAC WASH programme had catalytic effect on latrine construction…. specifically for the hardcore

poor

2. Without BRAC WASH programme the hardcore poor would barely have access to sanitation

3. With the grant, HCP are spending almost as much as the Poor on latrine construction but BRAC WASH providing higher quality latrines

Hardco

re Poo

rPoo

r

Non-po

or0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

CapManEx HH/yearOpEX HH/yearCapEx HH (with grant)

Taka

(med

ian)

3. Without the grant, CapEx for twin pits and twin pit offset not affordable to HCP and borderline for the poor

Hardcore Poor

Poor Non-poor0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Affordability ratio CapEx HH (without gr...

Prop

ortio

n of

Cap

Ex o

n HH

ann

ual

inco

me

International benchmark for wa-ter and sanitation = 5%

Cleaning products take up most of the operation and minor maintenance expenditure (OpEx)

4. Latrines provided to HCP can be maintained and be hygienic at lower costs (OpEx – minor

maintenance)

5. Direct support expenditure is paying off: the HCP have same hygiene pattern as the poor and the

non-poor

Overall, superstructure, upgrade and pit emptying take up most of the HH Capital Maintenance Expenditure

(averaged per year)

6. Capital Maintenance Expenditure different for each socio-economic group…

7. … and Capital Maintenance Expenditure different per latrine (averaged per year)

8. Anticipating requirements for capital maintenance expenditure critical for sustainability

Septic offset

Single pit offset

Twin pit Twin pit offset

Single pit0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Timing CapManEx Superstructure

6th5th4th3rd2nd1st

Year

s af

ter c

onst

ruct

ion

whe

n C

apM

anEx

"ki

cks

in"

8. Anticipating requirements for capital maintenance expenditure critical for sustainability

(upgrade)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th0

100

200

300

400

500

600

CapManEx Superstructure timeseries and costs

Twin pit offsetTwin pit

Ave

rage

taka

per

mai

nten

ance

su-

pers

tuct

ure

9. HCP and Poor spending almost as much on operational and maintenance expenditure…

Hardcore Poor

Poor Non-poor0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

OpEX HH/year#REF!

Taka

per

HH

per

yea

r

10. So far, recurrent maintenance (averaged per year) is affordable (< 1%)

Hardco

re Poo

rPoo

r

Non-po

or0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

Affordability ratio CapManEx HH yearAffordability ratio OpEX HH year

Prop

ortio

n of

OpE

x a

nd

Cap

Man

Ex o

f HH

ann

ual i

n-co

me

To conclude…Now:• Cost benchmarks for hygienic latrines allow to monitor sustainability

and affordability• Trade-off for the poor: lower CapEx for the single pit latrine, higher

OpEx but… lower “service” compared with HCP

For the future:• Poor are the largest proportion of the population in absolute

numbers. Will face higher CapManEx because of regular pit emptying => consider twin pit approach for lower maintenance costs, higher service and higher uptake

• CapManEx for twin-pit offset has not “kick-in” yet for the HCP => plan ahead, asset management component

Is behavior change burdening the poor?Can we increase value for money by targeting the poor?

Hardcore Poor

Poor Non-poor0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Affordability ratio CapEx HH (without grant)

Prop

ortio

n of

Cap

Ex o

n HH

ann

ual

inco

me

International benchmark for wa-ter and sanitation = 5%

Thank you!!