A Gendered Analysis of the Social Protection Network in ... - CISAS

of little importance to those implementing the project. What is key is getting children
into school, the education they receive there appears to be of less, or little concern.
In terms of health again the impact evaluation suggests targets were met or surpassed.
However, once again the targets themselves can be questioned. Results in terms of the
programme of ‘vigilance’ and promotion of growth and development (VPCD), that
included elements such as monitoring weight gain among babies under 3 years old, were
said to have been 2 or 3 times better than the targets. It is important to remember that
health services were contracted out to private providers and they were paid by coverage
and outcome (eg weight gain). As the evaluation itself notes this suggests a conflict of
interest.
Another element monitored under the VPCD was proportion of children under 3 years
of age who had been given an iron supplement to reduce iron deficiency. While anaemia
is a serious problem in the country, iron supplements would not be necessary if a healthy
diet was available to children or maternal health was improved. The goal provides a clear
example of focussing on symptoms not causes of poor health, looking for a quick fix
rather than addressing the fundamental problem.
The second health element being monitored focussed on the vaccination of children
between the ages of 1 and 2 years old which showed a net gain of 17.3% (compared to a
target of 10%) after having taken account of a general increase in vaccination coverage
during the period in non RPS areas. What both the increase in enrolment in schools and
the take up vaccinations suggests is, as noted above, the original notion underpinning the
RPS of the need to change the behaviour of the poor was erroneous. Schooling and
health appear to be valued by the poor as much as any other group in society what has
been lacking in the past was not lack of interest, but lack of access.
The final element considered in the evaluation of phase I of the RPS was focussed on
consumption of food as a proportion of total consumption of the family. The goal was
the only one that was not to be measured by a percentage change, but rather stated as
‘observe the tendency of the change’. Despite the lack of precision of the goal set, it is
said to have been ‘achieved’ (see BID 2003 table 1.2). Although no explanation of how
this goal was achieved, or what this means is given, some figures related to food
expenditure are presented. The average ‘net impact’ of the programme in annual per
capita expenditure is said to have been 25%, and of this 88% was spent on food - or the
equivalent of an increase in US$64 per capita food expenditure (BID 2003: 7).
These figures are difficult to interpret. Since measuring changes in food consumption
would mean longitudinal household research it is perhaps safe to assume they refer to
expenditure within the RPS on food related programmes, rather than the expenditure by
households on food. If this is the case, their inclusion here suggests that it is being
assumed that the resources given as part of programmes such as the RPS are used for the
purposes intended. This is a problematic assumption.
Even when resources are given in kind rather than in cash, they are not always used for
the purposes intended by the donors. While it is usually assumed that this is due to men
gaining control of the resources and using them for personal consumption it is important
to note that this is also not always the case. In fact resources may be ‘misused’ for good
reason, in that the household may have different needs or prioritise their needs
differently than policy makers. It is rational, for example, that the illness of the key wage
10