Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Cash Transfers and Violence Against Women and Children

Tia Palermo's presentation on cash transfers and violence against women and children to UN Women's regional office and Promundo's Learning Dialogue Series in June 2020.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cash Transfers and Violence Against Women and Children

  1. 1. CASH TRANSFERS & VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN Tia Palermo, University at Buffalo on behalf of the Cash Transfer & IPV Research Collaborative UN Women Webinar: June 24, 2020
  2. 2. CASH TRANSFER & IPV RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE https://www.ifpri.org/project/cash-transfer-and-intimate-partner-violence-research-collaborative
  3. 3. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW 01. Review of the evidence linking cash transfers & intimate partner violence (+ childhood violence) 02. Program design, M&E insights, COVID-19 considerations 03. Discussion / Q&A
  4. 4. Social protection programs Social services Insurance schemes Labor market policies Social safety nets Public works, Subsidies, School feeding, Economic transfers Cash Transfers ~45% global coverage ~2.5 billion in LMICs ~11% coverage in LMICs Sources: World Social Protection Report 2017- 2019: Universal social protection to achieve the SDGs, ILO, Geneva, 2017; Ivaschenko et al. 2018. The state of social safety nets 2018 (English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group
  5. 5. Social protection coverage in Asia & the Pacific *Global average is 45.2 [Asia & Pacific second lowest regionally after Africa]
  6. 6. Mixed method review of cash transfers on IPV 1) Review quantitative and qualitative evidence linking cash transfers (CT) & IPV, focusing on mechanisms underlying impacts 2) Build a program theory linking CT and IPV 3) Propose promising program design features and research gaps needed to further understand linkages/leverage potential of CTs Buller AM, Peterman A, Ranganathan M, Bleile A, Hidrobo M, Heise L. (2018). "A mixed-method review of cash transfers and intimate partner violence in low-and middle-income countries." The World Bank Research Observer 33(2): 218-258.
  7. 7. Program characteristics (22 studies) ▪ Nearly all programs targeted women (*Kenya, South Africa) ▪ 10 quantitative & 3 qualitative Govt run Program type ▪ ‘Plus’: In-kind transfer; Education, health sector linkages; trainings; behavior change communication ▪ Multiple in Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Uganda 0 2 5 7 9 11 UCT UCT plus CCT CCT plus Quantitative Qualitative Geographic Region 0 4 8 12 16 LAC SSA MENA Asia Quantitative Qualitative
  8. 8. 0 4 8 12 16 20 Decrease Mixed Increase No relationship identified Quantiative Qualitative  Majority of studies (73%) showed decreases, impacts stronger for physical/sexual  Overall 36% of quant indicators significant & negative; 2% significant & positive 0 10 20 30 40 Controlling/ psycological/ economic Emotional Physical and/or sexual Decrease Increase Not significant Overall impacts on IPV [22 studies] Quantitative indicators [56 total by IPV type] High-level results: Impacts [11 of 14 studies show any reduction]
  9. 9. Three main pathways Household level impact Marital dynamic impact Woman specific impact
  10. 10. IPV PATHWAY 1: Economic security & emotional wellbeing “In my household it was like happiness, we all got along, with my children, with my husband […] in my house we were happy […] because before we did not have enough money for those things [food].” Female from IDI in cash, food & voucher program in Ecuador (Buller et al. 2016)
  11. 11. IPV IPV “There had been many fights. Because children needed many things that we could not have afforded. I asked my husband and he used to say there is no money. Then I used to get upset and started to yell. We had many fights because of poverty. Not only for us, for all poor, fights come from suffering” PATHWAY 2: Intra-household conflict Female from IDI in CCT plus in-kind transfers in Turkey (Yidrim et al. 2014)
  12. 12. IPV IPV PATHWAY 3: Women’s empowerment “Earlier, … my husband would sometimes sell household items without consulting me. But now that I have my own money, I can have a say on how to spend income. ..With the money, a woman may buy seedlings for planting, and hire an ox-plough or tractor or casual labor to dig for her.” Female from IDI in UCT in Northern Uganda (Nuwakora 2014)
  13. 13.  cRCT, implemented by WFP, evaluated by IFPRI  Provided cash or food transfers – with or without intensive nutrition behavior change communication (BCC) – from 2012 to 2014  Targeted to mothers of children 0-23 months in poor rural households  26% ↓ in physical IPV from Transfers+BCC, 6-10 months after program ended Example from Asia: Transfer Modality Research Initiative (TMRI) in Bangladesh Roy, S., Hidrobo, M., Hoddinott, J., & Ahmed, A. (2019). Transfers, behavior change communication, and intimate partner violence: Postprogram evidence from rural Bangladesh. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(5), 865-877.
  14. 14. Why? Unintended benefit of BCC was sustained increases in women’s social interaction and status  3 components of BCC  Weekly group meetings of women with a trained community nutrition worker  Bi-monthly home visits by community nutrition workers  Monthly meetings with influential community leaders  Material focused on infant and young child feeding  Format led to ↑ in women’s social interaction & status –led to sustained ↓ in IPV
  15. 15. • Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4P), a CCT Government program operating in the Philippines since 2008 [targeted to poor households with children under the age of 18 on the condition that they invest in children’s health and education and participate in maternal health services]  Evaluation by GIL World Bank • Laos Road Maintenance Program (cash-for-work) [targeted to women in poor households, wages given monthly]  Evaluation by GIL World Bank • Maternal cash transfers & SBCC in Myanmar [UCT targeted to mothers in the first 1000 days, SBCC includes information on nutrition & determinants]  Evaluation by Innovations for Poverty Action (Duke & University of Michigan) • Bangladesh Maternity Allowance Program, a Government UCT + supplements + BCC [targeted to mothers in the first 1000 days]  Evaluation by IFPRI (CT & IPV collaborative) Other ongoing studies in Asia
  16. 16. CTs & IPV: conclusions & research gaps  Cash transfers  can improve wellbeing beyond primary program objectives  are proven ‘structural’ prevention complements to dedicated GBV prevention programming  Pathways include increased resources, emotional wellbeing, women’s empowerment, reduced stress, social support  Evidence gaps:  Geographic & humanitarian settings  Sustainability of impacts  Program design: transfer recipient, plus components  Understanding mechanisms/pathways  Cost-effectiveness analysis to compare to dedicated GBV programming
  17. 17. What about violence against children?  Measurement more complex: o Appropriate & specific violence measures vary across age ranges o Ethical issues more acute  Mechanisms more complex: o Violence in different spaces (home, school, & labor settings) o Violence from different perpetrators (household & strangers) o More indirect pathways Peterman A, Neijhoft N, Cook S, Palermo T. (2017). "Understanding the linkages between social safety nets and childhood violence: a review of the evidence from low-and middle-income countries." Health policy and planning 32(7): 1049-1071.
  18. 18. Overall results: 57 indicators (11 studies)  In total, 19% represent protective effects of SSNs (no adverse effects)  Regionally grouped – sexual violence from adolescent studies in SSA, violent discipline from LAC  Only one mixed-methods study (Palestine) [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] Homicide Dating violence Physical against minors Violent discipline Peer bullying Sexual exploitation Sexual abuse
  19. 19. Summary: SSN for childhood violence reduction • Results are promising for protecting adolescent girls against sexual exploitation & abuse, less so for other types of violence • Many evidence gaps: regional, program type—lack of comprehensive studies showing how SSNs can affect multiple types of risk for children (including in different settings, witnessing IPV, frequency or severity of violence) • Mechanisms are diverse: schooling, caregiver stress, adolescent risk behaviors, exposure to high-risk environments, girls’ empowerment. • Lack of studies able to test plus components, including links to integrating child and social protection systems.
  20. 20. Pause for Q&A
  21. 21. What matters for program design: Complementary activities  Complementary activities may be important for sustaining impacts – however what form this takes will vary by context:  Edutainment or aspirational / empowerment messaging  Mental health interventions (i.e., Cognitive behavioral therapy)  Group or couples' trainings on gender norms / roles  Mentoring for girls / guardians  Case management for child/family protection ** Depends what drivers of GBV are in a setting / target group = suggests pre-program gender risk assessment crucial
  22. 22.  Intra-household relationships key: design features to allow women to retain control (messaging, frequency, size of transfer) micro-changes to gender roles in the household with “buy in” of men  Woman as transfer recipient appears important, but few tests of this theory  Public works (cash for work) less effective in terms of overall economic impacts & rarely increase gender empowerment, but are politically attractive  Gender-sensitive approaches (assets developed, women’s participation in decision-making, gender parity in wages, life-course exemptions) What matters for program design: Gender targeting & cash for work?
  23. 23.  No studies to date that compare conditional vs. unconditional programs – or removal of conditions – with respect to IPV [or GBV more broadly]  Protective effects on IPV appear to be more common for CCTs – however this may be in part due to regional differences & very challenging to tell benefits of “conditions” vs. “complementary programming”  More broadly, conditions are not needed to have beneficial “family friendly” impacts  Some evidence conditions excludes most vulnerable & may have detrimental effects What matters for program design: Conditionalities
  24. 24. Implementation matters • Clear communication of program objectives & messaging • Extra support & effort needed to ensure gender-sensitive components are implemented as designed • Need for clear communication on intention & motivation of gender-sensitive design components from national to sub- national level • Existing research largely evaluates programs that are gender blind/neutral; a lot of momentum now to understand programs designed specifically for gender-transformative effects
  25. 25. Considerations for design & implementation during COVID-19 Brief & blog available on the IFPRI website • As of June 12, 195 countries have adapted or introduced 1000+ social protection measures to mitigate against the COVID-19 • Gender considerations are likely to be overlooked in an urgent effort to save lives Brief & blog summarized evidence on considerations for gender-sensitivity in across five areas: 1. Adapting existing schemes & SP modality choice, 2. Targeting, 3. Benefit level and frequency, 4. Delivery mechanisms and operational features, 5. Complementary programming.
  26. 26. M&E considerations • Why M&E? • Assess to what extent meeting program objectives • Understand participation among women • Learn and modify programs • M&E vs. impact evaluation (IE) • IEs usually done by external experts; more complex evaluation methods • M&E can not tell you what might happen in absence of program • M&E may overestimate/underestimate program impacts due to time trends (e.g., economic development, inflation, droughts, floods, COVID-19, etc.) • IEs give causal estimates of impact (i.e., what would have happened had program not been implemented) • Impact evaluation more costly, takes more time
  27. 27. FAO Technical Guide: A toolkit on gender- sensitive social protection • Part of a 3-part guide, focused on step-by-step development of an M&E framework • Define change you want to measure • Develop indicators to track changes (samples in guide) • Identify source of data & frequency of data collection • Describe how data will be reported http://www.fao.org/social-protection/resources/resources- detail/en/c/1170231/
  28. 28. Violence • Intimate partner violence • Non-partner violence • Help seeking behaviors • Violence against children • Risk factors (pathways) • INSPIRE Indicator framework • KNOw VAWdata Asia- Pacific * Ethical considerations must be accommodated! M&E indicators Intra-household decision-making • Decision-making power • Agency & autonomy • Locus of control • Self-efficacy • Voice (individual & collective) & participation • EMERGE (measures of empowerment for gender research) • Measuring women’s agency (Donald et al. 2020) Division of resources • Labor force participation & earnings • Savings & financial inclusion • Asset ownership / bundle of rights • Consumption & expenditure (individual) • Food security & dietary diversity (individual) • Time use (incl. care work) • Women’s economic collectives measurement guide • J-PAL measurement guides
  29. 29. Cash Transfer & IPV Research Collaborative (2019-2021)  Goal 1: Expand evidence base, focusing on geographic diversity, mixed method work (short-term)  Bangladesh: Maternity Allowance Program RCT  Ethiopia: PSNP plus qualitative  Ghana: LEAP 1000 qualitative follow-up  Goal 2: Communication, dissemination & research coordination  Policy & communication products  Presentations to diverse audiences  Technical assistance & coordination  Goal 3: Develop longer-term studies exploring research gaps (starting 2021)  Currently in development phase
  30. 30. THANK YOU! Email: tiapaler@buffalo.edu @tiapalermo | @TransferProjct transfer.cpc.unc.edu Cash Transfer and IPV Research Collaborative https://www.ifpri.org/project/cash-transfer-and- intimate-partner-violence-research-collaborative
  31. 31. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • Slide 3: © FAO/IvanGrifi/19431617964_bf1542f18a • Slide 14: Aminul Khandaker, IFPRI-Dhaka • Slide 22: © FAO/IvanGrifi/20054330395_0779fb2c94

×