Natasha Reese, MPP 2014

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC

THIS SUMMER, I interned at the International Food Policy Research Institute—a policy think tank that specializes in “sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty.” They do a lot of program analysis for the World Bank. My summer project was to evaluate an innovative poverty reduction model in Tanzania that the Bank launched in 2011. The program is the first time a conditional cash transfer (CCT) was combined with a community-driven development (CDD) framework.

CCTs are welfare programs that are conditional upon receivers’ actions. For example, the program I evaluated requires that all participating households meet the following education and health conditionalities:

1. All children age 7-15 must attend school, with a minimum 80% attendance rate.
2. All children age 0-5 must visit a health facility three times a year.
3. Elderly household members (60+ years) must visit a health facility once a year.

CCTs represent a more holistic approach to poverty reduction: They aim to reduce short-term poverty with direct cash transfers, while also fighting long-term poverty by increasing human capital among the poor. CCTs have had major successes, such as in Brazil where the Bolsa program saw poverty rates fall by 27.7% among involved households.

Poverty down 27%

Conditional cash transfers have had major successes, such as in Brazil, where the Bolsa program saw poverty rates fall by 27.7%.

In the CCD framework, the poor are treated as partners in the development process. The model was developed in the 1990s when it became clear that the socio-political complexities of the field made topdown, state-led big development strategies ineffective. CCD initiatives give control of the development process, resources, and decision making to a community group. The underlying assumption is that communities are the best judges of how their lives and livelihoods can be improved, rather than an international group coming and saying, “we’re going to do this with the funds.” CCDs also offer the added benefit (at times) of ripple effects that include promoting equity, inclusiveness, efficiency, and good governance.

The project I helped evaluate represents the first time this combo-model has been tried, anywhere. So far the program has been evaluated at the baseline and midline (18 months after implementation) and I worked on the endline evaluation. We saw some exciting improvements.

It’s remarkable how much Batten-knowledge I used. My project, at times, felt like “Introduction to Policy Analysis (IPA) II: The Eightfold Path Never Ends.” And I’ve now logged my 217th hour in Stata where I have been using instrumental variables. While our first year was challenging and produced a few grey hairs, it feels good to look back and realize that all that preparation has now allowed me to be entrusted with interesting and meaningful work. 

Matt Menezes, MPP 2014

Better Future Project, Cambridge, Mass.

THIS SUMMER I worked for the Better Future Project, a climate justice nonprofit based in Cambridge, Mass. The Climate Summer program, which BFP directs, sends teams of cyclists to different regions in New England to support anti-fossil fuel action and advocacy in various communities. Each team travels exclusively by bicycle, living on a $6 per-person, per-day budget and counting mainly on the hospitable grace of local churches for shelter. This summer, my team traveled across western Massachusetts working to oppose fracking in the region and advocating for a transition away from fossil fuel energy in Massachusetts, particularly natural gas.

“This summer, my team traveled across western Massachusetts working to oppose fracking in the region and advocating for a transition away from fossil fuel energy in Massachu­setts, particularly natural gas.”

-MATT MENEZES, MPP 2014

Natural gas currently accounts for over 60% of Massachusetts’ electricity, and this number is likely to grow if fracking operations begin in the Pioneer Valley in western Massachusetts. Advocates for the Better Future Project believe this will be harmful for a number of reasons. Methane leakage from natural gas pipelines have greenhouse effects up to 100 times as harmful as the carbon released by coal-burning plants, making natural gas, on average, as dangerous as or worse than coal as a fuel source. Furthermore, fracking is a water-intensive operation that pumps dangerous chemicals into the earth, which can leak into groundwater and poison drinking water. Finally, we oppose investment in natural gas because every dollar spent on this pollutative infrastructure is a dollar that could be spent on the transition to a clean, renewable energy grid.

As media coordinator for my team, my work primarily consisted of contacting media outlets for the various communities we visited and alerting them to our presence. The act of biking across the state doing climate advocacy tends to attract interest, and my job was to make sure that our stand was made as publicly as possible. My duties included writing press releases, contacting press and inviting them to our events, securing interviews for our team, and prepping team members on messaging and presentation. More broadly, our team worked with community partners (environmental organizations already at work in our host towns) to support their efforts to educate people about the dangers of fracking and push for a ban on fracking in the state of Massachusetts.

I enjoyed learning from the fight against fracking here, since this practice is already ravaging communities in my home state of Colorado. The work, not to mention my passionate colleagues, has given me a great sense of purpose, and I look forward to developments to come. 

MORE STUDENT NEWS

Final Exercises 2013 

Philanthropy Course: Community Connection 

Building Public Servants Conference 

Up to Us Campaign 

FALL 2013 CONTENTS