







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 12 

 

Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 

 
Scott Sabin, Josh Meyer, Emile Icoyavuze, Honorine Murorunkwere, 

Méthode Ntibandye, Jared White, Milmer Martinez Vergara,  
Corey Chin, Paul Thompson, Robert Morikawa1

 

 
Smallholder farmers around the world often find themselves at the nexus of poverty and environmental 

degradation. Promotion of savings groups has become a well-recognized strategy for addressing poverty. 

Evidence shows that while savings group promotion can result in positive impact, these results are often 

small. This paper examines a quasi-experimental (difference-in-differences) study of an integrated 

approach to savings group promotion, combining a savings methodology with participatory training in 

regenerative agriculture/agroecology techniques. After 2 years of participation, farmers who participated 

in both church-based savings group activities and regenerative agriculture training saw positive change 

across economic, environmental, and spiritual dimensions, with the treatment group experiencing a 39% 

decrease in poverty as measured by a multidimensional poverty index relative to the control group. 

Results support the integration of savings methodologies with agricultural training to multiply impact 

among smallholder farmer communities. 

 

 
Introduction 

Over 600 million smallholder farmers in the world 

(FAO 2023b) often find themselves living at the nexus 

of poverty and environmental degradation. They are 

also often located in some of the most ecologically 

critical zones in the world, and as such are positioned 

to be important stewards of not only food security, but 

above and below ground ecosystems, water resources, 

biodiversity, and carbon. Equipping smallholder 

farmers, who daily face urgent issues of deforestation, 

declining soil health, and farm productivity is a critical 

element in any global strategy to address environmental 

degradation and climate change. 

Many strategies have been developed to help equip 

smallholder farmers and other households living in 

conditions of poverty under the umbrella of poverty 

alleviation (Lipton 1996). Promotion of savings groups 

has become a significant component of poverty 

alleviation strategies in the past 30 years (VSLA 2023). 

Reviews and meta-analyses of savings group literature 

show a link between savings and positive well-being 

outcomes (Annan, et al. 2013; Biscaye et al. 2015; 

Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014; Stewart, et al. 2012; 

van Rooyen, Stewart, and de Wet 2012). One of the 

first systematic reviews of savings and microfinance 

studies (Stewart, et al. 2012; van Rooyen, Stewart, and 

 
1

 The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of the smallholder farmers in the study areas, who are improving the 

resilience of their communities and watersheds, one group at a time. All authors are employees of non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) that work in the study area and provide training support to farmers. 

 

de Wet 2012) concludes that savings promotion can 

have a positive impact on health, food security, and 

nutrition outcomes, but that results are mixed, and 

authors found little consistent evidence of a positive 

impact on income. 

A randomized control trial (RCT) of village savings 

and loans associations (VSLAs) conducted in Burundi 

(Annan, et al. 2013) shows a positive impact on food 

security indicators and a statistically significant 

reduction in poverty. The intervention studies 

combined training on VSLA group formation with 

training on entrepreneurship and financial literacy. A 

review that looks specifically at studies of savings 

(Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014) indicates that access 

to savings opportunities has a positive long-term impact 

on poverty and income. This review study finds little 

evidence that additional training on financial literacy 

leads to increases in savings habits. An extensive review 

of over one thousand papers looking specifically at 

agricultural communities (Biscaye et al. 2015) 

references a wealth of data on the impact of credit on 

smallholder farmers but much less information on the 

impact of savings. Most studies of savings show at least 

some positive effect, but evidence of increased income 

and resilience is mixed. Authors note that context may 

play an important role in study outcomes, contrasting 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 13 

for example urban versus rural settings. Another large 

meta-analysis of thousands of titles—filtered to 24 

studies that meet author criteria—shows that promotion 

of savings has a small but significant impact on poverty 

metrics such as expenditures, income, return on family 

business, and food security (Steinert et al. 2018). 

A multi-sector approach, while requiring greater 

coordination, has been shown to have a positive impact 

on poverty. In particular, agricultural growth is strongly 

associated with poverty reduction (Lipton 1996). 

Integration of savings with other types of interventions 

has been examined in several studies (Entz, Kaarsgaard, 

and Salomons 2016; Gugerty, Biscaye, and Anderson 

2019; Rippey, and Fowler 2011). A meta-analysis of 

self-help group studies (Gugerty, Biscaye, and 

Anderson 2019), shows that self-help groups often have 

multiple goals, and experience a wide range of 

beneficial outcomes in multiple areas such as maternal 

and childcare, reproductive health, savings, and 

agriculture. A review of studies of savings groups 

integrated with other initiatives (Gugerty, Biscaye, and 

Anderson 2019) reveals that integration can have 

positive outcomes. As these authors note, it also seems 

true that, with other organizations, in some instances, 

these outcomes appear to be more beneficial for the 

linked organization than for the savings group. 

Federations or apex models in particular represent a 

risk of reduced transparency.  

Several studies have examined the linkage between 

savings and agriculture. A study in Ghana (Ankrah 

Twumasi et al. 2019) shows that farmers perceive that 

savings result in an increase in capital, and therefore in 

agricultural production. Participation in Village Savings 

and Loan Associations (VSLAs) in Tanzania results in 

increased farm productivity, food availability, increased 

diversity of income sources, and decreased school 

drop-out rates among smallholder farm households 

(Nyamaka 2019). Another study indicates that 

participation in VSLA results in 38% higher agricultural 

productivity compared with farmers who do not 

participate in VSLA (Dawuni, Mabe, and Damba 

2021). This study suggests that acquisition of inputs is a 

key factor contributing to the increase in productivity. 

Households that are actively saving are more likely to 

adopt climate-smart agriculture techniques according to 

a study in Kenya (Gikonyo et al. 2022). This study notes 

that the majority of households actively saving are 

involved in community groups. 

Some organizations, observing the benefit of 

combined savings with agriculture, have integrated 

savings promotion components to enhance their 

regenerative agriculture or agroecology intervention. A 

training program in Kenya combined sustainable 

agricultural land management practices with VSLA 

(Shames et al. 2015). Authors note that VSLA 

participation provides a source of funding that helps 

farmers implement sustainable agricultural land 

management practices on a long-term basis. A four-year 

study of a training package integrating sustainable land 

management practices and VSLA in Kenya finds 

project farmers experiencing higher levels of savings 

and increased farm yields relative to a control group 

(Nyberg et al. 2020). A climate-smart agriculture 

program in Ghana observes that training programs can 

have a positive influence on adoption of climate-smart 

techniques, and that VSLA can positively influence 

farmer participation in such programs (Martey, Etwire, 

and Mockshell 2021). A financing model called 

community Ecofund credits utilizes a VSLA model and 

provides grants to groups who implement an 

environmental management plan—this program is being 

implemented in Uganda, Malawi, and Tanzania (Wild 

et al. 2021). A conservation agriculture research 

program in South Africa provides VSLA training to 

interested farmer groups and observes VSLA is key to 

the long-term application of conservation agriculture 

practices (Kruger et al. 2022). An agroforestry program 

in Ghana supports formation of VSLA groups which 

allowed farmers, especially female farmers, to access 

credit and diversify farming practices (Kusters, K 2023). 

A smaller number of studies provide evidence of a 

causal link for the impact of integrated savings and 

agricultural training. A quasi-experimental study in 

Tanzania shows that combining VSLA with farmer field 

schools (FFS) helps increase adoption of climate-smart 

agriculture practices such as mulching, composting, and 

crop rotation (Pamuk et al. 2021; 2018). A difference-

in-differences (DID) study of an integrated 

development model combining savings groups with 

regenerative agriculture training in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo observes positive changes in 

household economic condition and ecosystem health 

(Sabin et al. 2019). A case study in Haiti and the 

Dominican Republic at the height of the COVID-19 

pandemic (Sabin et al. 2022) indicates that smallholder 

farmers who participate in savings groups are resilient 

in the face of major shocks and continue to apply 

regenerative agricultural techniques. Another DID 

study of a combined savings and agricultural training 

intervention operated by World Relief in Rwanda 

shows that participating farmers are more likely to apply 

innovative farming techniques, have better food 

security, and improved economic conditions (Dent et 

al. 2020).  

The evidence discussed above makes a case for 

complementary interaction between savings activities 

and agriculture, and in particular, support for 

agricultural training. Yet the number of studies 

providing rigorous quantitative evidence for this 

interaction is small. To contribute to the evidence being 

gathered on this topic, the remainder of this paper 

examines the effect of integrating a regenerative 

agriculture training component into an established 

savings group model using a quasi-experimental design 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 14 

in Burundi, further building the case for 

complementary interaction between savings and 

agricultural training. 

 

Methods 
This study arises from a partnership between two 

organizations, Hope International and Plant With 

Purpose. Data gathering took place in southern 

Burundi, in the provinces of Rutana and Makamba. 

Two watersheds were selected, the treatment 

watershed, Rukuzira (104 square km), and the control 

watershed, Nyakayi (72 square km). Both watersheds 

have somewhat rugged relief and range in elevations 

from approximately 1200 m to 2100 m above sea level 

(Open Topography 2013). Both are considered 

miombo woodlands ecoregion type (Olson et al. 2001) 

and are primarily rural, practicing highlands agricultural 

systems (Hoogeveen and George 2010). 

 
Figure 1: Location of study watersheds within Burundi, 

Treatment = Rukuzira, Control = Nyakayi 

 

 
 

Previously established savings groups, 74 in total, 

were identified in the treatment watershed. Each group 

consists of approximately 20-25 members trained in 

group savings methodology using Hope International’s 

program (Hope International 2023). The savings group 

methodology (Hope International 2024) is church-

centered with a biblically integrated curriculum that 

places a strong emphasis on the transformational power 

of Jesus, and the importance of key principles including 

trust, discipline, transparency, leadership, stewardship, 

fellowship, and commitment to time in prayer and the 

Bible. The goal is to see men and women around the 

world find their soul’s satisfaction in Christ and become 

dignified, hope-filled providers in their families and 

communities. A core element of this approach is 

discipleship: through regular interactions with the men 

and women in the savings group ministry, church-based 

volunteers and pastors share the Gospel, facilitate Bible 

studies, and invite them to experience lasting 

transformation through a relationship with Jesus Christ. 

Groups select their own leadership, write their own 

bylaws, establish their own savings and credit norms, 

and conduct savings and loans transactions openly 

during regular meetings.  

Over a two-year period from 2020 to 2022, Plant 

With Purpose provided additional training in 

agroecology practices such as agroforestry and soil 

conservation to savings groups in the treatment 

watershed. Multiple training strategies were 

implemented including: 

• Use of a multi-year curriculum that covers topics 

including agroforestry, soil conservation, soil health, 

conservation agriculture, biointensive agriculture 

and watershed management. 

• Lecture-style training in which technicians provide 

theoretical and practical information to farmer 

groups on regenerative agriculture/agroecology 

practices. 

• Groups were encouraged to prioritize key practices 

and test them in a farmer field school (FFS) model 

(FAO 2023a). FFS is a training methodology that 

seeks to “level the playing field” between trainer and 

farmer, acknowledging the value of both local and 

external knowledge, and providing the opportunity 

to test farming practices under local, “real life” 

conditions. Using a donated parcel of land in the 

community, participating farmers get to try out what 

they learn in experiments that they propose, and 

then participate in analyzing the outcomes. 

• Volunteer members within savings groups known as 

“endogenous facilitators” were equipped with 

knowledge in regenerative practices and acted as a 

locally-based resource for other farmers. 

 

A difference-in-differences (DID) design 

(“Difference…” 2020) was applied, comparing groups 

in the treatment watershed who did receive regenerative 

agriculture training to similar groups in the control 

watershed who continued with savings activities but 

received no regenerative agriculture training. In 2020 a 

baseline study was conducted with 488 randomly 

selected households surveyed from existing savings 

groups, 309 in the treatment watershed, and 179 from 

the control watershed. In 2022, an endline study was 

conducted with the same randomly selected 

households where possible, 404 in total, 245 from the 

treatment watershed and 159 from the control 

watershed.  

Data were collected on a suite of indicators 

addressing environmental, economic, and 

social/spiritual themes (see Table 1). Results were 

analyzed using the open-source R statistical platform (R 

Core Team 2023). Multidimensional poverty was 

estimated using the method developed by the Oxford 

Poverty and Human Development Initiative (Alkire 

and Foster 2011). The Multidimensional Poverty Index 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 15 

(MPI) is a robust approach to measuring poverty and 

has been tested in a wide variety of contexts. The MPI 

looks at poverty as not simply economic, but also having 

social, health, educational, and even spiritual 

components. This holistic approach aligns well with the 

model applied by both collaborating organizations in 

this study (Hope and Plant With Purpose) who see faith 

as a critical dimension of well-being or poverty. This 

approach/model therefore influences what is 

measured, the definition of impact, and what a 

flourishing life means. See Figure 9 below for the 

indicators included in this study. 

 

Table 1: Metrics linked to desired MPI outcomes 

 

Indicator Metric 

Cash 

Reserves 

Amount of emergency cash available, 

months 

Land 

Protected 

% of farm protected with trees or soil 

conservation measures 

Technique 

Diversity 

Number of regenerative agriculture 

techniques applied on farm 

Soil 

Health 

Evaluated health of soil on farm, Likert 

scale 

Nutrition 

Index 

Estimated nutrition diversity based on 

frequency of consumption of key food 

groups 

Crop 

Yield 

Estimated yield in current season 

relative to previous seasons, Likert 

scale 

Spiritual 

Support 

Estimated support received from 

fellow group members, Likert scale, 

(measured by support through prayer 

or the sharing of prayer requests – not 

included in the MPI summarized in 

figure 9) 

 

 

 

Results 
Using the difference-in-differences approach, a 

series of key metrics linked to the indicators in Table 1 

shows a positive difference in the treatment group 

relative to the control group from the baseline data 

collected in 2020 to the endline data collected in 2022. 

These consist of an increase in cash reserves, 

percentage of land protected with regenerative practices 

on farms, diversity of regenerative agriculture 

techniques applied per farm, soil health, nutrition 

diversity measured as an index, crop yield, and spiritual 

support provided by other group members. Difference-

in-differences analysis looks at the relative change from 

baseline to endline-—his means the absolute difference 

at endline is less important if the change over time 

indicates a difference between treatments. For example, 

spiritual support remains relatively flat for the treatment 

group from baseline to endline, but declines for the 

comparison group, resulting in a relative positive 

change (the difference in the differences) for the 

treatment group. Note that all these differences are 

statistically significant at a p value of 0.01. Each of these 

outcomes is summarized separately in figures 2-8 on the 

following pages: 

 

 

Figure 2: Cash reserves measured in months 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 16 

Figure 3: Percent of land on farm protected with trees 

or soil conservation measures 

 

 
 

 

 

Figure 4: Regenerative agriculture technique diversity 

per farm 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Soil health 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: Nutrition index 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 17 

Figure 7: Crop yield 

 

 
 

Figure 8: Spiritual support 

 

 
 

 

 

Table 2: Results of statistical tests of difference-in-differences 

 

Indicator Baseline Endline DID 
value 

p-value 

 Control Treatment Control Treatment   

Cash reserves (months) 0.51 0.78 0.68 1.38 .43 0.00292 

Land protected (% of farm) 42 28.5 42.7 43 13.8 0.00273 

Technique diversity (per farm) 2.4 2 2.1 3.3 1.6 1.59E-
09 

Soil health (1-5) 2.7 2.7 2.4 3 0.6 9.94E-
06 

Nutrition index (1-4) 2.8 2.8 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.00859 

Crop yield (1-3) 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.2 0.6 3.08E-
07 

Spiritual support (0-3) 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.00288 

 

In addition, a multidimensional poverty index 

(MPI—See Figure 9) is estimated using a series of 12 

indicators across 6 dimensions. Households are 

evaluated for level of deprivation based on the 12 

indicators in the index. Household size is also 

considered in order to estimate both the poverty 

headcount and intensity of poverty. By considering 

multiple dimensions such as education, and access to 

water, MPI reflects a perspective that poverty is about 

more than cash scarcity. The MPI analysis in this study 

shows a decrease in levels of multidimensional poverty 

among the treatment group by 20% from 2020 to 2022, 

and an increase in levels of multidimensional poverty 

among the control group of 19% (See Figure 10). 

 

 

 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 18 

Figure 9: Multidimensional Poverty Index metrics 

 

 
 

 

Figure 10: MPI results (note: no error bars provided on 

MPI as an aggregate value) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 
This study was implemented among well-

established and well-functioning savings groups. The 

treatment group received training in regenerative 

agriculture techniques while the control group did not. 

At baseline, the control and treatment cohorts were 

similar based on the indicators measured. After two 

years of training and application of techniques, the 

treatment group showed significant improvement in a 

variety of dimensions, including soil health, crop yield, 

cash reserves, nutrition, and spiritual support. Simple 

transfer of knowledge was likely not the only factor in 

this change. Traditional lecture-style training was 

provided to farmers, but this was integrated with more 

participatory training methods. In particular, FFS was 

promoted among the treatment group allowing farmers 

to share indigenous knowledge, prioritize, and test 

regenerative techniques locally and appropriately. At 

baseline, approximately 10% of the treatment group 

reported involvement in FFS while at endline 

participation in FFS had increased to 40%. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 19 

It is worth noting the larger context in which this 

study took place. The timing of the study, 2020-2022 

was a period of considerable upheaval—a global 

pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and rampant 

inflation. Regionally Burundi was also experiencing 

drought. As a result, some indicators, such as nutrition, 

show a decline in the comparison group. This is not 

evidence for declining program effectiveness as much 

as it is evidence of the greater global and regional 

context. The treatment group over the same period for 

nutrition for example, also showed a decline, but one 

that was less drastic—providing some evidence of 

greater resilience. 

Several extensive reviews of savings studies (Biscaye 

et al. 2015; Karlan, Ratan, and Zinman 2014; Steinert 

et al. 2018), report positive impacts of savings 

promotion, but these impacts are often mixed or small. 

It is worth remembering that mature savings groups in 

this study were formed out of, and participated in, a 

HOPE International church-based savings group 

ministry that has been associated with significant 

change. In a previous study of HOPE International 

savings groups from Zambia using the same curriculum 

and methodology (Hope International 2024), 73% of 

group members changed something about the way they 

lived because of discipleship training, and were 3 times 

more likely to enjoy increasing trust in relationships 

than a comparison group. The results of this current 

study provide strong evidence that integration of savings 

promotion goals with regenerative agriculture 

promotion can multiply impact and support the results 

of other similar studies (Dent et al. 2020). Farmers in 

this study who participated in both savings group 

activities and application of regenerative techniques saw 

a 39% decrease in levels of poverty as measured by a 

multidimensional poverty index relative to the control 

population farmers who were involved only in savings 

group activities. This impact is large and supported by 

a rigorous quasi-experimental design building on the 

limited number of quantitative studies that add to the 

understanding of the interaction between savings 

groups and regenerative agriculture training.  

This study shows positive, statistically significant 

change across a suite of indicators using a quasi-

experimental design. Where the control population 

remained unchanged or even showed declines in key 

indicators, the treatment population showed 

measurable improvement. These changes were not 

only economic, for example increases in cash reserves, 

but also environmental, specifically increase in the 

amount of land protected per farm, technique diversity, 

and soil health. Furthermore, the treatment group 

showed improvement in spiritual support provided by 

other group members, indicating that the overall 

impacts are truly multidimensional. Use of the quasi-

experimental design, difference-in-differences, and 

clear, statistically significant differences between 

comparison savings groups and treatment savings 

groups permit a high level of confidence in attributing 

change to the influence of the regenerative agriculture/ 

agroecology training component. 

In addition to reduction in levels of economic 

poverty, positive changes in other dimensions such as 

improved soil health, increased amount of land 

protected with trees or soil conservation measures, and 

increased spiritual support among participants suggests 

that change is not economic only, but truly 

multidimensional. It further suggests possible drivers of 

change—improved soil health for example, can lead to 

healthier crops, increased production, and greater 

ability to earn income. Gender is also a consideration—

the regenerative agriculture training component is 

inclusive for both men and women. Typically, female 

participation is between 60-70% of all participants. In 

many contexts, including Burundi, women do at least as 

much farming as men. While beyond the scope of this 

paper, inclusion of women is likely another driver of 

change. Further studies should be conducted to better 

understand the possible drivers of change observed in 

this study. 

This study considers two treatment plans: church-

based savings groups as the control, and church-based 

savings groups plus regenerative agriculture training as 

the treatment. A future study could consider four 

treatment regimes:  

 

1) No training (control) 

2) Savings groups alone 

3) Regenerative agriculture training alone 

4) Combined savings and regenerative agriculture 

training. 

 

This would allow a clearer understanding of change 

and how each component may contribute to change. A 

larger study could look at 3 key components—

environment, economics, and spiritual factors. Such a 

study might have 8 treatments plans: 

 

1) No training 

2) Savings groups alone 

3) Regenerative agriculture training alone 

4) Spiritual renewal training alone 

5) Savings groups and regenerative agriculture training 

combined 

6) Savings & spiritual renewal training combined 

7) Regenerative agriculture and spiritual renewal 

training combined 

8) All three components combined. 

 

Conclusion 
Savings groups, in particular the village savings and 

loan methodology (VSLA 2023), are well established as 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 20 

an effective community development intervention, 

although the impact has been shown to be mixed or 

small (Biscaye et al. 2015; Steinert et al. 2018). This 

study demonstrates that the integration of 

complementary interventions, in this case regenerative 

agriculture training, can multiply the impact of savings 

groups. In this study, farmers who participated in both 

church-based savings group activities and regenerative 

agriculture technique application saw higher levels of 

savings reserves, improved soil health, increased 

household nutrition levels, and decreased levels of 

multidimensional poverty, when compared to savings 

groups with no participation in regenerative agriculture 

training. These results were not small or mixed, with the 

treatment group seeing a 39% relative decline in levels 

of multidimensional poverty over a two-year period. 

This outcome builds on the growing body of evidence 

from other practitioners such as World Relief (Dent et 

al. 2020) and suggests that an integrated approach to 

savings can multiply impact, result in significant 

reductions in multidimensional poverty among 

smallholder farmers, and achieve multiple goals of both 

poverty alleviation and environmental restoration. 

 

 

References 
Alkire, Sabina, and James Foster. 2011. “Counting 

and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement.” 

Journal of Public Economics 95 (7): 476–87. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006.   

Ankrah Twumasi, Martinson, Yuansheng Jiang, Frank 

Osei Danquah, Abbas Ali Chandio, and Wonder 

Agbenyo. 2020. “The Role of Savings 

Mobilization on Access to Credit: A Case Study 

of Smallholder Farmers in Ghana.” Agricultural 

Finance Review 80 (2): 275–90. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-05-2019-0055.   

Annan, Jeanine, Tom Bundervoet, Juliette Seban, and 

Jaime Costigan. 2013. A Randomized Impact 
Evaluation of Village Savings and Loans 

Associations and Family-Based Interventions in 
Burundi. USAID. 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-

Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-

Savings-Annan-

Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075

030acf3d3.   

Biscaye, Pierre, Chris Clark, Katie Panhorst Harris, C. 

Leigh Anderson, and Gugerty, Mary Kay. 2015. 

“Review of Rural and Agricultural Finance in Sub-

Saharan Africa.” EPAR Brief No. 307. Evans 

School of Public Policy & Finance. 

https://epar.evans.uw.edu/review-of-rural-and-

agricultural-finance-in-sub-saharan-africa/. 

Dawuni, Peter, Franklin Mabe, and Osman Damba. 

2021. “Effects of Village Savings and Loan 

Association on Agricultural Value Productivity in 

Northern Region of Ghana.” Agricultural Finance 

Review 81, 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-

02-2020-0024.   

Dent, Kallisse, Rodney Green, Rhona Murungi, 

Beatrice Nyiranzeyimana, Jean de Dieu 

Habiyaremye, Rafael Flores, and Andrew Jones. 

2020. A Case Study of World Relief’s Agriculture 

for Life and Savings for Life in Rwanda. 
https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-

world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-

life-in-

rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc9

1729280065.  

“Difference-In-Differences.” 2020. ScienceDirect. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-

econometrics-and-finance/difference-in-

differences.   

Entz, Meghan, Janet Kaarsgaard, and Michael 

Salomons. 2016. An Overview of Savings and Self 
Help Groups, Their Contribution to Improved 

Food Security, and How to Improve Their 
Function: A Review of the Literature. Canadian 

Foodgrains Bank. 

https://issuu.com/jmakau/docs/an-overview-of-

savings-and-self-help-groups-their-  

FAO. 2023a. “Global Farmer Field School Platform. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-

schools/home/en/.   

———. 2023b. The State of Food and Agriculture 2023: 

Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform 

Agrifood Systems. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations. 

https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en.   

Gikonyo, Naomi Wanjiru, John Rono Busienei, John 

Kamau Gathiaka, and George Njomo Karuku. 

2022. “Analysis of Household Savings and 

Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural 

Technologies. Evidence from Smallholder 

Farmers in Nyando Basin, Kenya.” Heliyon 8 (6): 

e09692. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09692.   

Gugerty, Mary Kay, Pierre Biscaye, and C. Leigh 

Anderson. 2019. “Delivering Development? 

Evidence on Self-Help Groups as Development 

Intermediaries in South Asia and Africa.” 

Development Policy Review: The Journal of the 

Overseas Development Institute 37 (1): 129–51. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12381.   

Hoogeveen, Jippe and Hubert George. 2010. “Major 

Agricultural Systems (Global).” Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog/iso/c9be830e-

daf5-4926-bbf6-0051ad057c53.   

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.006
https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-05-2019-0055
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Randomized-Impact-Evaluation-of-Village-Savings-Annan-Bundervoet/11088c32d5b9d0afdbf21eb20701075030acf3d3
https://epar.evans.uw.edu/review-of-rural-and-agricultural-finance-in-sub-saharan-africa/
https://epar.evans.uw.edu/review-of-rural-and-agricultural-finance-in-sub-saharan-africa/
https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-02-2020-0024
https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-02-2020-0024
https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065
https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065
https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065
https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065
https://www.meda.org/document/a-case-study-of-world-reliefs-agriculture-for-life-and-savings-for-life-in-rwanda/?wpdmdl=4453&refresh=6712b84161bc91729280065
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/difference-in-differences
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/difference-in-differences
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/difference-in-differences
https://issuu.com/jmakau/docs/an-overview-of-savings-and-self-help-groups-their-
https://issuu.com/jmakau/docs/an-overview-of-savings-and-self-help-groups-their-
https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/home/en/
https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/home/en/
https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09692
https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12381
https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog/iso/c9be830e-daf5-4926-bbf6-0051ad057c53
https://data.apps.fao.org/catalog/iso/c9be830e-daf5-4926-bbf6-0051ad057c53


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 21 

Hope International. 2023. “SG Multiply.” 

https://www.hopeinternational.org/what-we-do/sg-

multiply.   

———. 2024. “RESTORE: Savings Curriculum.”  

https://www.hopeinternational.org/resources/resto

re-agreement.  

Karlan, Dean, Aishwarya Lakshmi Ratan, and 

Jonathan Zinman. 2014. “Savings by and for the 

Poor: A Research Review and Agenda.” Review 
of Income and Wealth 60 (1): 36–78. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12101.  

Kruger, Erna, Hendrik Smith, Phumzile Ngcobo, 

Mazwi Dlamini, and Temakholo Mathebula. 

2022. “Conservation Agriculture Innovation 

Systems Build Climate Resilience for Smallholder 

Farmers in South Africa.” In Conservation 

Agriculture in Africa: Climate-Smart Agricultural 
Development, edited by Saidi Mkomwa and Amir 

Kassam, 345–60. Wallingford: CABI. 

https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789245745.0021.   

Kusters, Koen. 2023. Supporting Agroforestry 

Adoption for Climate-Smart Landscapes:  
Lessons from the Working Landscapes 

programme. Tropenbos International. 

https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/

supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate-

smart+landscapes.    

Lipton Michael. 1996. “Successes in Anti-Poverty.” 

Issues in Development Discussion Paper 8, 

International Labour Organization. 

http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Public

ations/WCMS_123434/lang--en/index.htm.   

Martey, Edward, Prince M. Etwire, and Jonathan 

Mockshell. 2021. “Climate-Smart Cowpea 

Adoption and Welfare Effects of Comprehensive 

Agricultural Training Programs.” Technology in 
Society 64: 101468. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101468.   

Nyamaka, Kasukura. 2019. “The Impact of Informal 

Savings Schemes on Household Welfare of 

Smallholder Farmers in Kilolo District, Iringa, 

Tanzania.” Masters Thesis, The Open University 

of Tanzania. http://repository.out.ac.tz/2507/.   

Nyberg, Ylva, Caroline Musee, Emmanuel Wachiye, 

Mattias Jonsson, Johanna Wetterlind, and Ingrid 

Öborn. 2020. “Effects of Agroforestry and Other 

Sustainable Practices in the Kenya Agricultural 

Carbon Project (KACP).” Land 9 (10): 389. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100389.   

Olson, David M., Eric Dinerstein, Eric D. 

Wikramanayake, Neil D. Burgess, George V. N. 

Powell, Emma C. Underwood, Jennifer A. 

D’amico, et al. 2001. “Terrestrial Ecoregions of 

the World: A New Map of Life on Earth: A New 

Global Map of Terrestrial Ecoregions Provides an 

Innovative Tool for Conserving Biodiversity.” 

BioScience 51 (11): 933–38. 

https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-

3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2.   

Open Topography. 2013. “Shuttle Radar Topography 

Mission (SRTM). 

https://doi.org/10.5069/G9445JDF.   

Pamuk, Haki, Marcel van Asseldonk, Karl Deering, 

Evan H. Girvetz, Joseph Hella, Stanley Karanja 

Ng’ang’a, Thabit Masoud, Jamleck Osiemo, and 

Ruerd Ruben. 2018. “Testing a New Model 

Combining Micro-Finance and Farmer Training 

to Upscale the Adoption of Climate-Smart 

Agriculture Practices by Small-Scale Farmers in 

Developing Countries.” CGIAR Research.  
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99020.   

Pamuk, Haki, Marcel van Asseldonk, Cor Wattel, 

Stanley Karanja Ng’ang’a, Joseph Philip Hella, 

and Ruerd Ruben. 2021. “Farmer Field Business 

Schools and Village Savings and Loan 

Associations for Promoting Climate-Smart 

Agriculture Practices: Evidence from Rural 

Tanzania.” Working Paper No.361. CGIAR 
Research Program on Climate Change, 

Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). 
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/114490.   

R Core Team. 2023. “The R Project for Statistical 

Computing.” https://www.r-project.org/,   

Rippey, Paul and Ben Fowler. 2011. Beyond Financial 
Services: A Synthesis of Studies on the Integration 

of Savings Groups and Other Developmental 
Activities. Aga Khan Foundation. 

https://akflearninghub.org/documents/beyond-

financial-services. 

Sabin, Scott, Annah Amani, Guy Paraison, Durbel 

Lora Brito, Milmer Vergara, Grace Santos, Corey 

Chin, and Robert Morikawa. 2022. “Smallholder 

Farmer Resilience: A Multi-Year 

Multidimensional Study in the Dominican 

Republic and Haiti.” Trees, Forests and People 7: 

100189. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100189.   

Sabin, Scott, Birori Dieudonne, John Mitchell, Jared 

White, Corey Chin, and Robert Morikawa. 2019. 

“Community-Based Watershed Change: A Case 

Study in Eastern Congo.” Forests 10 (6): 475. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/f10060475.   

Shames, Seth, Krista Heiner, Martha Kapukha, Amos 

Wekesa, and John W. M. Recha. 2015. “Scaling 

up Sustainable Agriculture Land Management in 

Bungoma County, Kenya.” Ecoagriculture Policy 

Focus no. 12. Washington DC: Ecoagriculture 

Partners. 

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68429.   

Steinert, Janina I., Juliane Zenker, Ute Filipiak, Ani 

Movsisyan, Lucie D. Cluver, and Yulia 

Shenderovich. 2018. “Do Saving Promotion 

https://www.hopeinternational.org/what-we-do/sg-multiply
https://www.hopeinternational.org/what-we-do/sg-multiply
https://www.hopeinternational.org/resources/restore-agreement
https://www.hopeinternational.org/resources/restore-agreement
https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12101
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789245745.0021
https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate-smart+landscapes
https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate-smart+landscapes
https://www.tropenbos.org/resources/publications/supporting+agroforestry+adoption+for+climate-smart+landscapes
http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/WCMS_123434/lang--en/index.htm
http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/WCMS_123434/lang--en/index.htm
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101468
http://repository.out.ac.tz/2507/
https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100389
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051%5b0933:TEOTWA%5d2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051%5b0933:TEOTWA%5d2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.5069/G9445JDF
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99020
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/114490
https://www.r-project.org/
https://akflearninghub.org/documents/beyond-financial-services
https://akflearninghub.org/documents/beyond-financial-services
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100189
https://doi.org/10.3390/f10060475
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68429


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

Sabin et al., Multiplying Impact for Smallholder Farmers 22 

Interventions Increase Household Savings, 

Consumption, and Investments in Sub-Saharan 

Africa? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” 

World Development 104: 238–56. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.018.   

Stewart, Ruth, Carina Van Rooyen, Kelly Dickson, 

Mabolaeng Majoro, and Thea De Wet. 2012. 

“What Is the Impact of Microfinance on Poor 

People? A Systematic Review of Evidence from 

Sub-Saharan Africa - Technical Report.” EPPI 

Centre-Social Science Research, 

https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-

website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-

of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-

review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/.   

Van Rooyen, C., R. Stewart, and T. de Wet. 2012. 

“The Impact of Microfinance in Sub-Saharan 

Africa: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” 

World Development 40 (11): 2249–62. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012.   

VSLA. 2023. “The VSLA Methodology.” VSLA 

Associates. https://www.vsla.net/the-vsla-

methodology/.   

Wild, Robert, Moses Egaru, Mark Ellis-Jones, Barbara 

Nakangu Bugembe, Ahmed Mohamed, Obadiah 

Ngigi, Gertrude Ogwok, Jules Roberts, and 

Sophie Kutegeka. 2021. “Using Inclusive Finance 

to Significantly Scale Climate Change 

Adaptation.” In African Handbook of Climate 

Change Adaptation, edited by Nicholas Oguge, 

Desalegn Ayal, Lydia Adeleke, and Izael da Silva, 

2565–90.  Springer International Publishing. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_127.  
 

 

Scott Sabin is CEO at Plant with Purpose. 

 

Author email: scott@plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Josh Meyer is Senior Director of Savings Group 

Programs at Hope International. 

 https://www.hopeinternational.org,  

 

Author email: josh.aaron.meyer@gmail.com.  

 

Emile Icoyavuze is Deputy National Director at 

Floresta Burundi. 

 

Author email: icoyavuze@gmail.com.  

 

Honorine Murorunkwere is Monitoring and 

Evaluation Manager at Floresta Burundi. 

 

Author email: murorunkwereh2019@gmail.com.  

 

Méthode Ntibandy is Coordinator for Environmental 

Restoration at Floresta Burundi. 

 

Author email: mntibandye@gmail.com.  

 

 Jared White is Senior Program Officer, Africa at 

Plant with Purpose, www.plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Author email: jared@plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Milmer Martinez Vergara is Vice-President, 

International Programs at Plant with Purpose, 

www.plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Author email: milmer@plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Corey Chin is Director of Monitoring, Learning & 

Evaluation at Plant with Purpose, 

www.plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Author email: corey@plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Paul Thompson is COO at Plant with Purpose, 

www.plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Author email: paul@plantwithpurpose.org. 

 

 

Robert Morikawa is Senior Director, Innovation Lab 

at Plant with Purpose, www.plantwithpurpose.org.   

 
Author email: robert@plantwithpurpose.org.  

 

Communication regarding this article may be directed 

to robert@plantwithpurpose.org, 4747 Morena Blvd., 

Suite 100, San Diego, CA, USA, 92117 
 

 

 
 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.018
https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/
https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/
https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/
https://gsdrcwebsite-pjp5ov869n.live-website.com/document-library/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012
https://www.vsla.net/the-vsla-methodology/
https://www.vsla.net/the-vsla-methodology/
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_127
mailto:scott@plantwithpurpose.org
https://www.hopeinternational.org/
mailto:josh.aaron.meyer@gmail.com
mailto:icoyavuze@gmail.com
mailto:murorunkwereh2019@gmail.com
mailto:mntibandye@gmail.com
http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/
mailto:jared@plantwithpurpose.org
http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/
mailto:milmer@plantwithpurpose.org
http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/
mailto:corey@plantwithpurpose.org
http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/
mailto:paul@plantwithpurpose.org
http://www.plantwithpurpose.org/
mailto:robert@plantwithpurpose.org
mailto:robert@plantwithpurpose.org

