Together with HereWeGrow, an organization working to support coffee farming families in Uganda and Ethiopia, we share a commitment to curiosity and continuous learning. We believe that learning is the foundation of impact, and as learning organizations, we are constantly reflecting on how we can better empower others to escape extreme poverty.
Recently, in collaboration with and funded by HereWeGrow, we engaged Laterite, a data and research firm, to review the 100WEEKS program. This review reflects both our dedication to learning and HereWeGrow’s support in strengthening 100WEEKS as a curious, impact-driven organization. Laterite’s report examined the program's effectiveness and its potential impact on poverty reduction. Their findings offer powerful validation of our approach, while also pointing to areas where we can grow stronger.
Why external review matters
Across the world, cash transfer programs have proven to be an effective way to reduce poverty and improve well-being. However, their approaches differ widely. 100WEEKS builds on the Graduation Model, developed by BRAC. We combine weekly cash transfers of €8, weekly training sessions, and participation in Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLA) meetings over a period of 100 weeks. Because this approach includes specific adaptations, external reviews are essential.
Laterite reviewed the 100WEEKS monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) system, existing 100WEEKS data, and external reports that assess the program's effectiveness. This helps ensure that 100WEEKS’ results are not only positive, but also credible, comparable, and grounded in scientific rigor. By engaging with independent experts, we hold ourselves accountable, identify areas for improvement, and demonstrate to others that the work of 100WEEKS meets a high standard of effectiveness. External review helps 100WEEKS turn data into actionable insights, strengthening our programs and maximizing the positive impact on the lives of the women we serve.
Tracking impact: How 100WEEKS measures success
The 100WEEKS MEL system is how we translate program outcomes into evidence, and further learn from it. It is designed to monitor output, evaluate outcomes, and ensure continuous learning.
This system looks at data via both face-to-face and phone surveys across multiple points, from the start of the program (baseline) to up to four years after program completion. This data is then sent to our online M&E system, as seen below. This structure provides a rich timeline of data that allows us to understand both immediate and long-term improvements in women’s lives.
Laterite’s review praised 100WEEKS monitoring, evaluation, and learning system as robust, adaptive, and learning-oriented. It was noted as “underscoring 100WEEKS’ identity as a learning organization,” by not only collecting data to prove success, but to improve it (Laterite report, page 8). One example of this adaptability was the introduction of Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) in 2020 after our data revealed the importance of group effects.
The way we measure was also highly regarded by Laterite, as many of our survey questions are also based on internationally recognized instruments, which ensures that our findings are reliable and comparable across contexts and studies
At the same time, Laterite identified opportunities to deepen our evidence base. They recommended future data collection to include an addition of monetary consumption (tracking participants' income and spending) and how participants make investment decisions. This would make our findings even more comprehensive and allow stronger comparisons with other programs.
Poverty in focus: What the numbers reveal
At the heart of the data collected is the multidimensional poverty index (MPI). Rather than focusing solely on income, the MPI provides a broader lens on poverty by including multiple dimensions, such as nutrition, health, education, and housing. By tracking changes, we gain a holistic picture of well-being, showing not only whether income rises, but whether lives improve in meaningful ways.
In analyzing the 100WEEKS pre- and post-program data, Laterite found that 100WEEKS participants experienced significant and rapid improvements in their well-being.
From 69% of participants multidimensionally poor at baseline to 17% at endline
In Uganda, the reduction was even greater, from 63% of participants multidimensionally poor at baseline to 8% at endline
On average, the poverty level of those participating in the program decreased 9 to 16 times faster than residents in comparable communities
“In contextualizing these findings and comparing multidimensional poverty against regional and national level reference populations we find strong indications of program effectiveness,” (Laterite report, page 24)
What drives this change? Nutrition was found to be the most significant factor, accounting for more than half of the reduction in MPI. In the context of the MPI, nutrition refers to food security (whether participants have enough to eat). That nutrition is the main driver of MPI improvement is particularly positive, as better nutrition not only improves health, but also supports learning, work, and overall well-being, amplifying the impact of the program. Improvement in assets, electricity, and school attendance also played a role, though varying by country. This tells us that different communities face different challenges, and highlights the importance of customized, context-specific support in program development.
Importantly, Laterite found that the greatest reductions in poverty occurred among participants who were the poorest at the baseline. The most substantial improvements were found among subsistence and conservation farmers, women without a partner, and households with literate beneficiaries. Coffee and cocoa farmers, by contrast, saw smaller reductions in MPI, largely because they were less poor to start with. Even so, evidence from Cash Lab (one of the 100WEEKS studies Laterite reviewed) shows that cocoa farmers still saw increases in income (552 USD more than comparison groups) and savings (349 USD more than comparison groups), suggesting that the program has a positive impact even when MPI changes are modest.
Laterite also highlighted opportunities to deepen our evidence base, noting that while several studies exist on 100WEEKS programs, only one study (Wolf et al., 2024) scored highly for the quality of its research. The other studies were master’s theses, which are valuable but generally less rigorous and harder to compare. A key limitation of the current body of evidence is that it rarely includes counterfactual comparisons (such as control groups who do not receive treatment), making it harder to attribute changes directly to the program.
Laterite recommended that future research incorporates these groups to better assess the program’s true impacts and strengthen the conclusions that can be drawn from the data. Aligned with this idea, we are currently running a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Uganda with refugee communities, and are preparing to launch another RCT in Rwanda focusing on conservation. These RCTs will allow us to measure impact more confidently and contribute to high-quality evidence within the field of development.
These findings reaffirm that 100WEEKS’ model works best where it matters most, reaching the women with the fewest resources and helping them build a foundation for sustainable change.
Cost-effective change: The return on investment of 100WEEKS programming
Laterite also analyzed the return on investment (ROI) of 100WEEKS, measuring the program’s cost effectiveness. The ROI compares the monetary value of the benefits with the cost of delivering the program.
The findings were striking.
The estimated overall ROI for 100WEEKS is 2.99, meaning every 1 USD invested generates nearly 3 USD of benefit over 10 years
When looking at subsistence farmers, ROI increases to 3.38
Those who saw the biggest improvements in MPI experienced the highest returns, with the households showing the most progress achieving an ROI of 4.39
These results reinforce that 100WEEKS is not only effective in reducing poverty, but also highly cost-effective, delivering strong, measurable returns where it matters most.
Learning, adapting, improving
Laterite’s review confirms that the 100WEEKS program works, and works well. It shows that 100WEEKS delivers fast, multidimensional poverty reduction with strong returns on investment, backed by a comprehensive, credible, and data-driven learning system.
At the same time, we welcome the opportunities for growth that Laterite’s review identified.
Our key next steps:
Improving measurements to include monetary consumption or income data alongside MPI, allowing us to better connect changes in living standards with financial outcomes, and to strengthen comparisons with other programs
Strengthening targeting to reach the poorest households who showed the largest gains, enhancing both cost-effectiveness and impact
At 100WEEKS, we remain committed to learning, adapting, and growing alongside the women and families we serve. Learning partners like HereWeGrow are key to 100WEEKS’ progress, with Laterite’s review representing a key advancement in understanding our work. Even though funding such studies can be challenging, prioritizing these reviews is essential to strengthen both our program and the evidence behind it. Together, these steps will make our program even more impactful and reinforce our commitment to continuous learning.