Evaluating Community-Based Interventions for Highly Vulnerable Widows in Rural Kenya

Hello EA community,

Summary: SWAPC (Samia Widows Aid & Protection Center) in Busia County, western Kenya, is a consortium of widows’ self-help groups working together to improve the long-term wellbeing and resilience of highly vulnerable widows and their households.

We are sharing our work here in the hope of getting feedback on prioritization, measurement, and cost-effectiveness across the core pillars of our model. We operate in a rural, low-income setting where widows frequently face asset loss, land insecurity, reduced income and social exclusion, making them especially vulnerable to poverty traps and climate shocks. 

Our goal is to design and scale practical, community-led interventions that are both locally grounded and increasingly evidence-informed.

Our Overall Theory of Change (Simplified)

At a high level, our working hypothesis is:

If highly vulnerable widows gain; 

1. More stable and diversified income,
2. Improved financial tools to manage risk,
3. More climate-resilient production systems,
4. Access to digital and information tools, and
5. Stronger collective voice and rights protection.

=> then household consumption, resilience to shocks and long-term wellbeing (for both women and children) will improve in sustained ways.

We view these as mutually reinforcing levers, rather than isolated programs, whereby;

1. Climate Change & Resilience

Problem: Households depend heavily on rain-fed smallholder agriculture. Climate variability (erratic rainfall, prolonged dry spells) leads to repeated crop losses, income volatility and food insecurity.

Intervention pathways:

• Training in climate-smart agriculture (soil and water conservation, drought-tolerant crops)
• Promoting diversified and more resilient cropping systems
• Community-level awareness on climate risk and adaptation

Theory of change link:
More climate-resilient production → lower probability of total crop failure → more stable food supply and income → reduced need for distress sales or harmful coping strategies.

EA-relevant angle:
We believe climate adaptation at the smallholder level may be especially cost-effective when targeted at highly vulnerable groups with low baseline resilience, but we are still seeking better benchmarks for:

• Cost per household adopting key practices
• Impact on yield stability and consumption smoothing

2. Financial Inclusion

Problem: Many widows are unbanked, have little savings and rely on informal borrowing during shocks, often at high social or financial cost.

Intervention pathways:

• Formation and strengthening of Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs)
• Financial literacy (budgeting, planning, risk management)
• Linkages to mobile money and formal or semi-formal financial services

Theory of change link:
Access to savings + basic financial tools → improved ability to smooth consumption and invest in small productive assets → reduced vulnerability to shocks and improved long-term income trajectories.

EA-relevant angle:
There is existing evidence that savings groups can increase assets and resilience, but effect sizes vary. We’re interested in:

• Cost per active saver
• Changes in household savings, borrowing behavior, and ability to handle shocks
• Whether combining savings groups with livelihoods support produces multiplicative effects.

3. Agriculture & Livelihoods

Problem: Low productivity, limited access to inputs and weak market linkages keep many households in low-return subsistence farming.

Intervention pathways:

• Training on improved agronomic practices
• Collective production and marketing through widow groups
• Small-scale value addition and agribusiness activities

Theory of change link:
Improved practices + better market access → higher and more reliable farm income → increased household consumption, school retention for children, and reinvestment in productive assets.

EA-relevant angle:
We see agriculture as a key income lever but are aware that agricultural interventions often show moderate but variable impacts. We are especially interested in:

• Comparing cost per household income increase across different livelihood models
• Identifying which combinations (e.g., training + savings groups + market access) produce the strongest outcomes

4. Digital Inclusion

Problem: Many widows have limited digital literacy and use of digital tools beyond very basic phone functions, limiting access to financial services, market information and public services.

Intervention pathways:

• Basic digital literacy training
• Use of mobile platforms for savings, payments and market information
• Exploring digital tools that support agriculture and group coordination

Theory of change link:
Digital access → lower transaction costs, better information and improved access to services → more efficient participation in financial systems and markets.

EA-relevant angle:
We see digital inclusion mainly as an enabler that may increase the effectiveness and scalability of other interventions, rather than as a standalone outcome.

5. Advocacy & Rights

Problem: Widows with the region often face property grabbing, disinheritance and social exclusion, which directly undermine economic gains.

Intervention pathways:

• Awareness of legal and land rights
• Collective action through organized groups
• Engagement with local leaders and institutions

Theory of change link:
Stronger rights awareness + collective voice → reduced asset loss and exploitation → greater ability to retain and benefit from economic gains made through other programs.

EA-relevant angle:
While harder to quantify, we see rights protection as a risk-reduction mechanism that protects the returns of other interventions.

What We’re Trying to Improve

We are early in systematically measuring impact and cost-effectiveness. Areas where we’d really value EA input:

• Prioritization: Which of these pillars seem most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective for extremely resource-constrained households?
• Measurement: Simple, low-cost outcome metrics we could track reliably (e.g., consumption proxies, shock coping, asset indices)
• Program design: How to structure bundled interventions so that components reinforce each other without becoming too complex or expensive

We’re especially interested in approaches that help us do more good per dollar while staying grounded in community ownership and feasibility.

Thanks so much for reading — I’d genuinely welcome critiques, questions, or pointers to relevant research.

Michael Agundah, Gerry

Communications & Fundraising Lead
Samia Widows Aid & Protection Center
Busia County, Kenya