Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Cash Transfers & Child Work in Malawi, Tanzania & Zambia

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 37 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Cash Transfers & Child Work in Malawi, Tanzania & Zambia (20)

Advertisement

More from The Transfer Project (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Cash Transfers & Child Work in Malawi, Tanzania & Zambia

  1. 1. Cash Transfers and Child Work in Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia Sudhanshu Handa, University of North Carolina Jacobus de Hoop & Valeria Groppo, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
  2. 2. Funding for this work was provided by the United States Department of Labor under cooperative agreement Number IL-26694-14-75-K-36 to UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti. This material does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government. 100 percent of the total costs of this paper is financed with Federal funds, from the total cooperative agreement of 1,384,468 dollars. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF.
  3. 3. UNICEF OFFICE OF RESEARCH - INNOCENTI The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti (UNICEF Innocenti, Florence, Italy) is UNICEF’s dedicated research centre Purpose Undertake cutting-edge, policy-relevant research Aim Equip organisation to deliver results for children Through UNICEF’s 150+ country offices, UNICEF Innocenti is able to respond to research questions on the ground, and feed results directly into national policy dialogue and practice
  4. 4. TRANSFER PROJECT Multi-country cash transfer research and learning initiative Partnership UNICEF, FAO, UNC Working in 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa & Middle East Collaborate with national governments & research institutions to implement Impact Evaluations and engage in policy dialogue https://transfer.cpc.unc.edu/
  5. 5. 1. Provide evidence on effectiveness of cash transfers 2. Inform development & design of policy & programmes 3. Promote learning on cash transfer evaluations & research TRANSFER PROJECT OBJECTIVES https://transfer.cpc.unc.edu/
  6. 6. UNCONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS Giving poor people cash, no strings attached. CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS Cash transfers given on completion of a condition.
  7. 7. OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAMMES Support consumption and food security Enhanced ability to cope with shocks Improve children’s development outcomes
  8. 8. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FROM TRANSFER PROJECT Cash transfers improve food security and consumption Strong effects on secondary school enrollment Used to increase productive capacity Transfers create benefits to local economy Results across eight programmes are summarized in: “Myth-Busting? Confronting Six Common Perceptions about Unconditional Cash Transfers as a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Africa”, World Bank Research Observer 2018.
  9. 9. CAN CASH TRANSFERS HELP ADDRESS CHILD LABOUR?
  10. 10. Malawi Social Cash Transfer Programme Unconditional Coverage: 281,000 households (7% of population) Zambia Multiple Category Targeted Programme Unconditional Coverage: 430,000 households (12% of population) Tanzania Productive Social Safety Net Conditional: health checkups, school participation Coverage: 1.1 million households (10% of population) USDOL FUNDED STUDIES
  11. 11. PROGRAMME DETAILS Malawi SCTP Zambia MCP Tanzania PSSN Eligibility Ultra-poverty (PMT) & Labor constraints (dependency ratio 4+) • Female/elderly headed with orphans, or • Including disabled • Critical cases Extreme poverty, based on: (1) Geographical targeting (2) community-based targeting (3) PMT Type UCT UCT UCT, CCT, PWP Amount Varying with household size and # of children Flat Varying with # children • CT, max 38,000 TZS (18 USD) per month • Public Works: 2,300 TZS (1.4 USD) per day, max 60 days in 4 months Average monthly 2,571 MKW (3.7 USD). 55 ZMW (12 USD) 19,000 TZS (8 USD)
  12. 12. Pay day, Salima District, Malawi
  13. 13. EVALUATION DESIGN & TIMELINE Malawi SCTP Zambia MCP Tanzania PSSN Location Two rural districts (Salima, Mangochi) Two rural districts Eight mainland districts, one district in Zanzibar Village selection 29 villages randomly selected 92 villages 102 villages Targeting Nov 2012 - May 2013 Jan - Sept 2011 2014 - 2015 Baseline June - Oct 2013 Salima: all eligible households in each village; Mangochi: random 125 in each village. Nov - Dec 2011 Random 33 households in each village. May - July 2015 Random 15 to 18 households per village. Random assignment of villages November 2013 14 Treatment 15 Control December 2011 46 Treatment 46 Control August 2015 35 Treatment (CT) 26 Treatment (CT & PWP) 41 Control Endline Oct - Nov 2015 N children = 5,806 (age 8-17 years) Nov - Dec 2014 N children = 3,999 (age 8-17 years) Apr - Jun 2017 N children = 3,516 (age 5-17 years)
  14. 14. MIXED METHODS USED QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS PHOTO VOICE
  15. 15. WHAT DID WE FIND?
  16. 16. PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT Households invested part of the transfers in their farms This increased farming activities by adults & children
  17. 17. Malawi Zambia Tanzania Owned or cultivated any land ↑ ↑ No change Sold any crop (past season) ↑ ↑ No change Hired anyone (past season) ↑ ↑ N.A. Owns any livestock ↑ ↑ ↑ Sold any livestock (past year) ↑ ↑ N.A. Operated any non farm business ↑ No change No change IMPACTS ON HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES
  18. 18. Owned or cultivated any land Sold any crop (past season) Hired anyone (past season) Owns any livestock Sold any livestock (past year) Operated any non-farm business -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 percentage point impacts Malawi Zambia Tanzania Impacts on Household Productive Activities
  19. 19. Malawi Zambia Tanzania ANY ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES No change ↑ No change Household farm (non-livestock) ↑ N.A. No change Household farm (livestock) ↑ ↑ ↑ Household business No change ↑ No change Paid work outside household ↓ No change ↓ IMPACTS ON CHILD WORK (PARTICIPATION) Shift from off- to on-farm work in Malawi, Tanzania
  20. 20. Any economic activities Household farm (non-livestock) Household farm (livestock) Household business Paid work outside household -.1 -.05 0 .05 .1 percentage point impacts Malawi Zambia Tanzania Impacts on Child Work (Participation)
  21. 21. “When I get PSSN money instead of doing wage labor with my children, I work in my own farms. To me this is a good thing because working in other people’s farm is something that we hate, but sometimes we have to do it in order to get food. ” (Female caregiver, Tanzania) Shift from off- to on-farm work is protective for children. Casual labour is work of last resort “I have seen children abused by landlords when engaged in casual works in the farms...the landlord abuses children and sometimes refuses to pay them their money after they have completed the work ” (Youth FGD, Tanzania)
  22. 22. Malawi Zambia Tanzania ANY HOUSEHOLD CHORE ↑ No change No change Collecting water or firewood ↑ ↑ No change Care of children, cooking, cleaning ↑ No change No change Care of elderly or sick members ↑ N.A. No change IMPACTS ON CHILD HOUSEHOLD CHORES (PARTICIPATION)
  23. 23. Malawi Zambia Tanzania ANY ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES - - - Household farm (non-livestock) - N.A. - Household farm (livestock) increases more for boys - - Household business - - - Paid work outside household - - decreases more for boys ANY HOUSEHOLD CHORES increases more for boys - - SCHOOL PARTICIPATION - - - GENDER DIFFERENCES IN IMPACTS
  24. 24. Excessive Working Hours Based on Age No change in Malawi & Tanzania 20% more likely in Zambia IMPACTS ON HARMFUL CHILD LABOUR Exposure to Hazards No change in Tanzania 17% increase in Malawi N.A. in Zambia Heat, dust = working outdoors, brick-making, tobacco drying Carrying heavy loads = carrying bricks, woods
  25. 25. Excessive economic activities Excess econ activities & chores Exposure to hazards Ill or injured (past 2 weeks) Ill or injured (past year) -.1 -.05 0 .05 .1 percentage point impacts Malawi Zambia Tanzania Impacts on Child Labour
  26. 26. “I am scared during harvesting season … because many snakes hide in the leaves of maize ” (Youth, Malawi) Hazards of work for children “Harvesting the sweet potatoes involves the digging of the ridges that to get to the tuber crop. This make the dust and cause him to get sick with a cough” (Caregiver, Tanzania) “Again, during the period of burning bricks, it pains them because they are exposed to high temperature direct to their faces, but they have to do it because there is no way out, they have to tolerate” (Caregiver, Tanzania)
  27. 27. MECHANISMS Labor constraints – Malawi and Zambia, see next slide Labor market imperfections – labor market is thin, cannot hire labor Liquidity constraints – cash is valuable, not used to hire labor On the job learning – “Children earn from the work itself and how to earn income for the household and the future. They learn about being independent and self-reliant. A child can live his/her own life without depending on others for survival.” (Male caregiver, Tanzania)
  28. 28. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+ Percent Malawi SCT Eligible Population by Age and Sex (N = 16,078) Male Female MALAWI, ZAMBIA PROGRAMMES SELECT LABOUR-CONSTRAINED HOUSEHOLDS
  29. 29. OTHER IMPACTS ON CHILD WELLBEING Cash transfers increased school attendance School dropout declined in the three countries Cash transfers helped to pay for schooling costs No evidence that increased farm work had negative impacts on health in the short term
  30. 30. Attends school Any education expenditure Attends regularly -.2 -.15 -.1 -.05 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 percentage point impacts Malawi Zambia Tanzania Impacts on Schooling (Participation)
  31. 31. “I feel guilty that I’m killing the child’s future… in March I got very sick, I am the one they rely on to bring food on the table…so the child was really pressed. Him being the eldest at home, he was supposed to do everything alone and when it’s too much, he could miss classes” (Female caregiver, Malawi) Tension between school and work caused by extreme poverty, home responsibilities “There are some children that might be given clothes for siblings to wash and be told to do dishes, fetch water and cook and one may fail to go to school. ” (Youth FGD, Malawi)
  32. 32. WHAT WE KNOW NOW Household investments increased child work on the household farm May result in increased harmful child labour Work outside the home declined & school participation improved Implications for children are mixed Important to closely monitor impacts on child time use Complementary policies to enhance positive impacts & limit negative effects
  33. 33. HOW HAS THIS WORK IMPACTED POLICY?
  34. 34. This evidence “laid the basis for strong advocacy work, leading to the Government of Malawi increasing its funding to [approx. USD 2 million]… reaching over 270,000 beneficiary households of the poorest segment of the population.” “Simultaneously the evidence informed the country office of certain limitations of the programmes's impact on schooling and uncovered the programme’s potential increase of child work. As a consequence child work is now on the country office’s radar.” - Beatrice Targa, Chief of Social Policy, UNICEF Malawi
  35. 35. The findings have “made a strong contribution to enhance the understanding of government officials on cash transfer impacts, but also their support for this intervention.” “The specific evidence from the youth well-being impact evaluation facilitated a discussion on how productive and economic impacts affect child work and, in turn, how this relates to schooling of children.” - Paul Quarles van Ufford, Chief of Social Policy, UNICEF Tanzania
  36. 36. “Transfer Project impact evaluations have played a key role in cash-based programming in Zambia. The evidence has been used widely in policy decisions, including scale up of the Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCT).” “Results on child work have fed into discussions on the effects of cash transfers on specific individuals within the recipient household, and on complementary services that can support them.” - Daniel Kumitz, Social Policy Specialist, UNICEF Zambia
  37. 37. THANK YOU

Editor's Notes

  • [Introduction]
    Transition slide, change the word when necessary
  • The Office of Research – Innocenti is UNICEF’s dedicated research centre. Its core mandate is to undertake cutting-edge, policy-relevant research that equips the organization and the wider global community to deliver results for children.

    As the research centre for UNICEF, Innocenti is uniquely positioned to understand and respond to research questions on the ground, and to feed research into policy and practice – through its programmes of cooperation with more 150 low and middle income countries, its links to UNICEF National Committees in 33 high income countries, and as an arm of the world’s leading normative agency that shapes global policies and outcomes for children.

    UNICEF Innocenti also supports and facilitates research conducted by other parts of its parent organization. It is responsible for developing appropriate guidelines, establishing standards of research ethics and quality, facilitating the wider organization’s research agenda, providing technical assistance and promoting best practice.

    UNICEF enjoys the unique privilege of locating its global research function at the nearly 600-year-old Ospedale degli Innocenti in Florence, Italy. Established as a foundling shelter in 1419 by the influential Silk-workers Guild, Innocenti can be viewed as one of the earliest efforts by secular authorities to elevate the concerns of vulnerable children to the level of civic priority.

    Current research projects:
    Child poverty, equity and well-being: multi-dimensional deprivation analysis, and the flagship Innocenti Report Card on child well-being in rich countries
    Social protection: the impact of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa
    Child protection: work on the drivers of violence against children, and family and parenting support
    Children and the internet: investigating child rights in the digital age
    Adolescent well-being: analysis of the structural and social determinants of adolescent well-being across sectors and throughout the life-course
    Education: school settings, learning pathways and life skills
    Emerging areas of focus include: migration, gender, and the intersection of humanitarian and development work.

    Using the Florence location and the convening power of UNICEF, the office hosts a range of high level events, expert working groups, senior research fellows, workshops and seminars.
  • Established in 2008, the project is a collaborative network between UNICEF Innocenti, FAO, University of North Carolina, UNICEF Regional and Country Offices, national governments, and local research partners.

    Goals: Provide rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of large-scale national cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Use this evidence to inform the development of cash transfer & social protection policies & programmes via dialogue & learning.

  • We provide technical assistance in the design, implementation and analysis of Government programmes in over a dozen countries. 
    We engage in dialogue with policymakers and processes from regional to international levels to ensure coordinated efforts, uptake of results and to promote learning.
    We host a regional workshop to promote cross-country learning and have a dedicated capacity-building mandate across our activities.
  • Describe target audience
  • In these settings, cash transfers are not wasted. Households spend transfers on immediate needs (including food, shelter and clothing) and invest transfers in schooling and productive activities. Cash transfers stimulate the local economy.
  • [Introduction]
    Transition slide, change the word when necessary
  • Rural!

    Unconditional, unconditional, conditional

    170k, ?, 1.1mln


    The Government of Malawi’s Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) scheme is an unconditional transfer targeted to ultra-poor and labor-constrained households operated by the Ministry of Gender, Children and Community Development (MoGCCD) with policy oversight and guidance provided by the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development (MoEPD) and UNICEF Malawi. The programme began as a pilot in 2006 in Mchinji District and was subsequently expanded to an additional eight districts in 2009 (Balaka, Likoma, Chitipa, Salima, Machinga, Phalombe and Mangochi). As of 2015, the program reached approximately 170,000 households and many more individuals. The main objectives of the SCTP are to reduce poverty and hunger, and to increase school enrollment. Transfer amounts vary by household size and number of children enrolled in school, ranging from 1,000-6,000 Malawi kwacha (USD $2 – 6) per monthly, approximately 17% of baseline household consumption.

    The MCTG (previously known as Multiple Categorical Grant Program or MCP) was initiated in late 2011 in the districts of Luwingu and Serenje. The MCDMCH chose to start the MCTG in the two districts within Zambia that have some of the highest rates of extreme poverty, thus introducing an element of geographical targeting to the program. These two districts represent some of the most remote locations in Zambia, making them a challenge for providing support services, and are some of the most underprivileged communities in Zambia. As with CGP, recipient households currently receive 70 kwacha (ZMW) a month (equivalent to U.S. $11), regardless of household size. Payments are made every other month through a local pay point manager, and there are no conditions to receiving the money. In 2015, the government decided to consolidate the country’s various cash transfer programs into a single unified program, and MCP households were retargeted for potential eligibility in the new unified program in late 2015. The policy change and retargeting did not affect the impact evaluation of the MCP that was completed in 2014.

    Currently, the third phase of TASAF, the Tanzania Productive Social Safety Net (PSSN) project, supports a national social protection programme aimed at putting in place the building blocks of a permanent national social safety system. Key elements of this Project are the CCT programme complemented with public works and livelihoods enhancement. The programme provides cash transfers to poor and vulnerable households in Tanzania conditional on their use of health and education services along with opportunities to earn additional income through public works and livelihood. The objectives of this new phase, the consolidated PSSN, include: 1) increase consumption of the extremely poor on a permanent basis, 2) smooth consumption during lean seasons and shocks, 3) invest in human capital, 4) strengthen links with income generating activities, and 5) increase access to improved social services. It aims to improve consumption and human capital accumulation and to reduce the poverty headcount and poverty gap by 5 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively. The programme also aims to: improve vulnerable populations’ ability to cope with shocks; invest in human capital; and increase access to improved social services. To receive the CCT component, participating households are required to comply with certain conditions related to children’s school attendance and health care, although a portion of the cash transfer is fixed and unconditional and relies only on eligibility related to household poverty and the number of children in the household. The current phase (TASAF III/PSSN) was scaled up in six waves between 2013 and 2016. The project has continued to make good progress in the implementation of its planned interventions and has achieved the massive scale-up plan. To date, the number of households targeted/enrolled in the programme has moved from 39,473 households in eight Project Area Authorities (PAAs) (in 2013) to 1.1 million households in 161 PAAs and in more than 9,976 villages. This is approximately 10.5 per cent of the total population. All beneficiaries have received CCT payments starting from September/October 2015 payment windows. Eventually, all eligible households nationwide are expected to receive the programme.
  • Village level RCTs. RURAL!!!
  • [Introduction]
    Transition slide, change the word when necessary
  • In all three countries, households invested part of the transfers in their farm, leading to increased ownership of livestock and land holdings. This investment had implications for household member’s time use. In all three countries, the expansion of the household farm went hand in hand with an increase in engagement in agricultural activities by both adults and children.


    Impacts on child work: In all three countries, households partly spent their income support on basic needs, such as food, clothes and shoes. They also spent money on their children’s health and education. And, importantly, they invested part of the transfers in their farm, leading to increased ownership of livestock and land holdings. This investment had implications for household member’s time use. In all three countries, the expansion of the household farm went hand in hand with an increase in engagement in agricultural activities by both adults and children.
     
    Impacts on children caring for livestock were particularly pronounced and consistent across countries. The probability that children cared for livestock more than doubled in Malawi and Zambia (respective control group averages of 4 and 3 percent) and increased by about 40 percent in Tanzania (4 percentage point increase over a control group average of 10 percent). In Malawi and Tanzania, reductions in paid work offset the increase in work on the household farm. In Zambia, there was no significant reduction in paid work outside the household. As a result, overall child participation in economic activities increased.
    The research cannot conclusively establish why there was no concomitant reduction in work for pay in Zambia. One possible explanation is that the areas studied in Zambia are particularly remote and offer fewer opportunities to engage in paid work outside the household, reducing the margin for program impact on this type of work.
  • “Hired anyone (past season)” refers to hiring for farm work
    “Operated any non-farm business” refers to past year
  • “Hired anyone (past season)” refers to hiring for farm work
    “Operated any non-farm business” refers to past year

  • “-” indicates no statistically significant difference in impacts for boys vs. girls

    Malawi: some of the increases in engagement in household agricultural enterprises and household chores were significantly weaker among girls than among boys (supplementary online appendix, table S1.6).
    No significant gender diff in impacts for school participation (attendance, regular attendance, any edu expenditure). This analysis not included in paper.

    Zambia: gender differences in child activities are smaller to start with; statistically significant heterogeneity is not observed in program impacts by gender (supplementary online appendix, table S1.6).
    No significant gender diff in impacts for school participation (attendance, regular attendance, any edu expenditure). This analysis not included in paper.

    Tanzania: the reduction in participation in paid work outside the household is significantly stronger for males than females and for older than younger children (column 5, Tables B1 & B2).
    Gender and age differences in estimated PSSN impacts on education are mostly not statistically significant, although schooling effects appear stronger for males and for younger children (Tables B3 & B4). Overall, impacts on child education and economic activities suggest that both males and females at least partly replace time spent in paid work outside the household with time spent in school and herding livestock for the household. The substitution between work within the household and work outside the household is significantly stronger for males and older children, who are relatively more likely to participate in paid work outside the household in the absence of the program. Improvements in schooling outcomes are relatively stronger for younger children, with weaker gender differences.
  • Impacts on harmful child labor: We followed the international conventions on child labor and the recommendations of the International Conference of Labor Statisticians to explore two aspects that may classify children’s work as harmful child labor: excessive working hours and exposure to hazards. In Malawi and Tanzania, we did not find evidence that cash transfers increase the prevalence of excessive working hours. In Zambia, however, children in villages receiving cash transfers were about 20 percent more likely to have spent excessively long hours in economic activities or household chores (5 percentage points compared to 24 percent in the comparison group). In Malawi cash transfers significantly increased child exposure to hazards by 17 percent (4 percentage points, relative to a 25 percent prevalence in control villages). Hazardous work remained unchanged in Tanzania and was not measured in Zambia.
  • For a combination of reasons, children may increase their work in the expanded household enterprise. Cash transfer programs often target households with a high ratio of dependents to healthy adults. As a result, these households may be constrained in their capacity to augment the labor supply of adult members. Labor market imperfections may limit the ability of households to hire external labor. Liquidity constraints may raise the shadow price of inputs that require cash payments, such as hired labor, making it more efficient to rely on family labor (Singh, Squire, and Strauss 1986). And the benefits of acquiring experience working in the household enterprise may grow as the enterprise expands.
  • Implications for child wellbeing: To understand the broader implications of the cash transfer programmes for children, we examined also impacts on other outcome domains. Cash transfers consistently increased children’s school attendance, with impacts ranging from 8 percentage points in Tanzania to 13 percentage points in Zambia (5 and 9 percent over a comparison group average of about 70 percent). School dropout declined in the three countries. We also found an increase in regular school attendance (in Malawi and Zambia) and highest grade of education (in Tanzania).
    Data on education were collected both at baseline and endline. So, education analyses use difference-in-differences models, comparing changes in outcomes over time between treatment and control villages.
     
    There is no evidence that the (increase in work on the household farm induced by the) cash transfers had negative implications for children’s health. If anything, the cash transfers significantly reduced the prevalence of illnesses during the year before the interview in Malawi, while no significant change is found in Tanzania and Zambia.
     
    That being said, there may be longer-term implications for the health of working children that could not be identified over the period of the studies. Indeed, the qualitative analysis showed that child exposure to work-related hazards was a concern across communities. Commonly mentioned hazards were animal bites, use of sharp tools, heat and fumes.
  • Overall, the implications of the findings are mixed. On the one hand, the programmes we studied led to an expansion of the household enterprise, which in turn resulted in children’s increased engagement in farming activities, including some forms of harmful child labor. On the other hand, children’s engagement in work outside the household was reduced and their school participation improved.
     
    Our main takeaway is that it is important to closely monitor programme impacts of cash transfer programmes on child time use. In case of impacts on household entrepreneurial activities, complementary policies should be considered to enhance positive impacts and limit potentially negative effects on child labor. These policies could, for instance, take the form of information campaigns to emphasize the importance of children’s schooling. We would encourage testing the effectiveness of such interventions alongside cash transfer programmes in similar settings.
  • [Introduction]
    Transition slide, change the word when necessary
  • Beatrice Targa, Chief of Social Policy, UNICEF Malawi: In Malawi, evidence from the 2016 Transfer Project’s Impact Evaluation of the Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) laid the basis for strong advocacy work, leading to the Government of Malawi increasing its funding to MWK 1.5 billion (about USD 2m) in 2017 and 2018, as well as a significant increase in international support with the programme achieving national coverage at the end of 2018 (reaching over 270,000 beneficiary households of the poorest segment of the population). The Malawi SCTP is unconditional and its school bonus functions as incentive and financial support for parents to send their children to school. The compelling evidence of the positive relation between the SCTP and children’s schooling created the grounds for keeping the SCTP school bonus in the programme design when the programme was scaling up. Simultaneously the evidence informed the country office of certain limitations of the programmes's impact on schooling and uncovered the programme’s potential increase of child work. As a consequence child work is now on the country office’s radar and evidence is available to be used when needed in policy negotiations. The evidence on education was already used in 2018 to secure funding and government support for further research on SCTP children’s schooling, seeking policy options to improve the educational impact of the Malawi SCTP. This study started in early 2019 and results are expected late 2019.
  • Paul van Ufford, Chief of Social Policy, UNICEF Tanzania: The Productive Social Safety Net program in Tanzania enters phase II in mid-2019. The preparatory work for phase 2 has been subject of protracted discussions within government and between government and development partners. There was no consensus on program design and the continuation of the cash transfer component of the program was at stake. UNICEF used the evidence from impact evaluations completed with support of the Transfer Project at several moments in this dialogue to nuance understanding of government officials of cash transfer impacts on children. The specific evidence from the youth well-being impact evaluation facilitated a discussion on how productive and economic impacts affect child work and, in turn, how this relates to schooling of children. Repeating the story line of main findings at critical occasions – the program’s review missions and smaller group policy discussions – has made a strong contribution to enhance the understanding of government officials on cash transfer impacts but also their support for this intervention and the confidence, together with other factors, to maintain this component in the design of the second phase of the program.
  • Daniel Kumitz, Social Policy Specialist, UNICEF Zambia: “Transfer Project impact evaluations have played a key role in cash-based programming in Zambia. The evidence has been used widely in policy decisions, including scale up of the Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCT). Results on child work have fed into discussions on the effects of cash transfers on specific individuals within the recipient household, and on complementary services that can support them. The Ministry of Community Development and Social Services has engaged in a whole range of complementary services to address the specific needs of individuals with unique vulnerabilities such as vulnerable children and young adults in SCT households. Amongst these cash plus interventions are two programmes to provide access to secondary education for children from SCT households, and a case management pilot to provide improved child protection to children and adolescents in SCT families, as well as a linkage to adolescent sexual reproductive health services. From 2020, another linkage will be piloted to address the most critical (1000) days for nutrition impact. The Zambian government hopes that through these emerging cash plus architectures other vices such as child labour, streetism and child marriage will also reduce.“

×