Profiles

We examine the effect of the Zambia Child Grant Programme – an unconditional cash transfer (CT) targeted to rural families with children under age five – on height-for-age four years after programme initiation. The CT scheme had large positive effects on several nutritional inputs including food expenditure and meal frequency. However, there was no effect on height-for-age. Production function estimates indicate that food carries little weight in the production of child height. Health knowledge of mothers and health infrastructure in the study sites are also very poor. These factors plus the harsh disease environment are too onerous to be overcome by the increases in food intake generated by the CT. In such settings, a stand-alone CT, even when it has large positive effects on food security, is unlikely to have an impact on long-term chronic malnutrition unless accompanied by complementary interventions.

The 2008 financial crisis triggered the worst global recession since the Great Depression. Many OECD countries responded to the crisis by reducing social spending. Through 11 diverse country case studies (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States), this volume describes the evolution of child poverty and material well-being during the crisis, and links these outcomes with the responses by governments. The analysis underlines that countries with fragmented social protection systems were less able to protect the incomes of households with children at the time when unemployment soared. In contrast, countries with more comprehensive social protection cushioned the impact of the crisis on households with children, especially if they had implemented fiscal stimulus packages at the onset of the crisis. Although the macroeconomic 'shock' itself and the starting positions differed greatly across countries, while the responses by governments covered a very wide range of policy levers and varied with their circumstances, cuts in social spending and tax increases often played a major role in the impact that the crisis had on the living standards of families and children.

Target 2.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals calls for an end to hunger, in all its forms, by 2030. Measuring food security among children under age 5, who represent a quarter of the world’s population, remains a challenge that is largely unfeasible for current global monitoring systems. The SDG framework has agreed to use the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) to measure moderate and severe food insecurity. The FIES is an experience-based metric that reports food-related behaviours on the inability to access food due to resource constraints. We present the first global estimates of the share and number of children below age 15, who live with a respondent who is food insecure.

In this paper we summarize evidence on six perceptions associated with cash transfer programming, using eight rigorous evaluations conducted on large-scale government unconditional cash transfers in sub-Saharan Africa, under the Transfer Project. Specifically, we investigate if transfers: 1) induce higher spending on alcohol or tobacco; 2) are fully consumed (rather than invested); 3) create dependency (reduce participation in productive activities); 4) increase fertility; 5) lead to negative community-level economic impacts (including price distortion and inflation), and 6) are fiscally unsustainable. We present evidence refuting each claim, leading to the conclusion that these perceptions – insofar as they are utilized in policy debates – undercut potential improvements in well-being and livelihood strengthening among the poor, which these programmes can bring about in sub-Saharan Africa, and globally. We conclude by underscoring outstanding research gaps and policy implications for the continued expansion of unconditional cash transfers in the region and beyond.

Childhood malnutrition remains a significant global health concern. In order to implement effective policies to address the issue, it is crucial to first understand the mechanisms underlying malnutrition. This paper uses a unique dataset from Northern Ghana to explain the underlying causes of childhood malnutrition. It adopts an empirical framework to model inputs in the production of health and nutrition, as a function of child, household and community characteristics. The findings suggest that child characteristics are important in explaining inputs and nutritional outcomes, and that maternal agency and health contribute to improved health status. Household resources in the form of consumption are positively associated with food intake and nutritional outcomes. Simulations show that income growth, improving maternal care and avoiding sudden price shocks have a positive but rather limited effect on the reduction of malnutrition. Effects are greater in children under two. Hence, policies that address underlying determinants simultaneously, and target the youngest population of children, could have the largest effect on reducing malnutrition in this population.

The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 1.2 implies that both monetary and non-monetary or multidimensional (MD) child poverty would be measured and monitored, and that the associated indicators would be defined nationally. However, very few countries routinely measure child MD poverty.

We study the impact of the Zimbabwe Harmonized Social Cash Transfer (HSCT) on household food security after 12 months of implementation. The programme has had a strong impact on a well-known food security scale – the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) – but muted impacts on food consumption expenditure. However aggregate food consumption hides dynamic activity taking place within the household where the cash is used to obtain more food from the market and rely less on food received as gifts.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region in the world, the number of cash transfer programmes has doubled in the last five years and reaches close to 50 million people. What is the impact of these programmes, and do they offer a sustained pathway out of ultra-poverty? In this paper we examine these questions using experimental data from two unconditional cash transfer programmes implemented by the Government of Zambia. We find far-reaching effects of these two programmes, not just on their primary objective, food security and consumption, but also on a range of productive and economic outcomes. After three years, we observe that household spending is 59 per cent larger than the value of the transfer received, implying a sizeable multiplier effect. These multipliers work through increased non-farm business activity and agricultural production.

This paper revisits the relationship between income and happiness and estimates the impact of a social cash transfer programme on individual subjective well-being. Social cash transfer programmes provide consistent, non-contributory income to targeted, poor households. In Latin America, they are usually conditioned on measurable behaviours, but in sub-Saharan Africa they tend to be unconditional.

While a long-standing literature analyses cross-country variation in the incidence of child poverty in rich countries in a single year, less is known about children’s individual movements into and out of low household income over a period of time. Using longitudinal data from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), the present study addresses this gap by analysing both income mobility and child poverty dynamics in the EU during the recent economic crisis.

This paper presents results on the levels of bottom-end inequality in children’s incomes in 31 European countries in 2013 and traces the evolution of this measure since 2008. The relative income gap worsened in 20 of the 31 European countries between 2008 and 2013.

The paper investigates the assumption that giving cash as part of social safety nets targeted to women will lead to their empowerment. There is a perception that both conditional and unconditional cash transfers will lead to changes in intra-household power dynamics, but the evidence to support this to date is mixed. This evaluation of Zambia’s Child Grant Programme uses mixed methods to examine the four-year impact on women’s household decision-making, empowerment and overall household dynamics.

Findings show that the CGP enabled poor women to save more cash and that the impact is larger for women who had lower decision-making power at baseline. The results support the proposition that cash transfers have the potential for long-term sustainable improvements in women’s financial position and household well-being by promoting savings and facilitating productive investments among low-income rural households.

The paper uses data from a quasi-experimental evaluation to estimate the impact of the Ghanaian Government’s unconditional cash transfer programme on schooling outcomes. It analyses the impacts for children by various subgroups – age, gender, cognitive ability – and finds consistent impacts. There are differences across gender, especially on secondary schooling, with enrolment significantly higher for boys 13 years or older. For girls, the effect of the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) programme is to improve current attendance among those who are already enrolled in school (across all age groups). The authors found a significant effect on the expenditure on schooling items such as uniforms and stationary for these groups, which helps to explain the pathway of impact because these out-of-pocket costs are typically important barriers to schooling in rural Ghana and most of Africa.

Over the past decade, more than a dozen government-run cash transfer programmes have been launched in sub-Saharan Africa, and there is growing evidence of their ability to improve a range of development outcomes. However, setting the size of such transfers is possibly the most important programming decision to be made. This Brief highlights some of the issues to consider.

Among policymakers, a common perception surrounding the effects of cash transfer programmes, particularly unconditional programmes targeted to families with children, is that they will induce increased fertility. Yet results from an evaluation of the Zambian Child Grant Programme indicate there are no programme impacts on overall fertility. In addition, among young women under 25 years and among women who have access to family planning, fertility actually decreased and use of modern contraceptives increased.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the impacts of cash transfer programmes on the immediate and underlying determinants of child nutrition, including the most recent evidence from impact evaluations across sub-Saharan Africa. The paper finds that the evidence to date on the immediate determinants of child nutrition is mixed with respect to whether cash transfers can positively impact growth-related outcomes among children, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

Inconsistent and unpredictable flow of cash transfers can impact the results of the LEAP programme and its evaluation. The programme did not lead to an increase in consumption, but household debt was reduced and loans repayment improved. Informal social networks gained in strength and reinforced social cohesion and protection helping to reduce risks at the local level.

Many of the coping strategies the rural poor use to cope with failed harvests and other negative income shocks, such as reducing food consumption, selling off productive assets, and pulling children out of school, can mire households in poverty traps – the self-reinforcing conditions that cause poverty to persist. This study investigates whether cash transfers enable households facing weather and other negative shocks to avoid coping strategies that lead to poverty traps.

The ability to correct deficiencies in early childhood malnutrition, what is known as catch-up growth, has widespread consequences for economic and social development. This paper investigates whether nutritional status at early age affects nutritional status a few years later among children using panel data from China, South Africa and Nicaragua.

How do we know if a programme made a difference? The answer to this question is not as straightforward as it seems, because we never know what would have happened without the programme. This concept is referred to as the ‘missing counterfactual’ (or simply 'the counterfactual' since, by definition, a counterfactual is missing). Impact evaluation is the science of estimating the missing counterfactual; getting it right is the necessary first step in any evidence-based approach to policy design. The science of impact evaluation was the subject of a two-week technical training workshop organized jointly by the Transfer Project and the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) in Nairobi, Kenya from June 24 to July 4 2019. The training attracted 24 participants (15 women) from 22 African countries who were selected by the AERC from over 350 applicants. Participants were primarily university lecturers working in the fields of applied and agricultural economics. The workshop is part of a larger collaboration between the Transfer Project and AERC focused on promoting evidence-informed decision-making in sub-Saharan Africa funded by the Hewlett Foundation. The workshop content was structured around this core question (“How do we know if a programme made a difference?”) and the related fact that unless we can invent a machine to take us back in time, we can never observe the outcomes both with and without the programme. The job of the evaluator is to estimate the “missing counterfactual” using the tools of research design and statistics. 'Greatest Hits' During the first week of training, participants were taught the ‘greatest hits’ of estimating a counterfactual, beginning with randomized designs and followed by non-randomized designs, such as propensity score matching, discontinuity design, instrumental variables, and natural experiments. They also learned how to add ‘design elements’ to strengthen their studies - for example through baselines or repeated follow-up observations - and to estimate sample sizes in both simple and complex sampling scenarios. Theoretical lectures were complemented with hands-on computer-based demonstrations and case studies from Transfer Project impact evaluations in Ghana, Malawi and Zambia. In the second week, participants were given a hypothetical “Request for Proposals” for an impact evaluation and worked in groups to develop a response using the tools they had learned throughout the course. Final presentations included proposal designs for a new impact evaluation of the Ghanaian LEAP cash transfer, an evaluation of the Kenya NICHE programme, and an evaluation of the Government of China/UNICEF joint pilot conditional cash transfer programme for child nutrition. These are all actual programmes undergoing or seeking to undergo an evaluation—implementers should feel free to contact the study teams for their full proposals! Impact Evaluation Training with AERC: Ghana's LEAP Programme Technical Research Proposal from The Transfer Project It was clear the participants had absorbed the course contents when, by the end of the second week, we noticed an increasing number of jokes and statements using evaluation language. Patrice from Congo suggested that we didn’t know if we could replicate the success of the course again because he and the other participants were “self-selected”; Isabelle from Cote d’Ivoire suggested we use ‘exact matching’ to figure out who should stand next to whom for the group photo; and everyone supported the idea that the order of group presentations should be randomly assigned... If nothing else, at least we have increased the number of nerdy evaluation jokes that are likely to be cracked across sub-Saharan Africa. In the closing session, Gustavo Angeles from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill told participants that the workshop itself was an intervention, and he was expecting a steep upward slope in the intervention group relative to the counterfactual. AERC Executive Director Dr. Njuguna Ndung’u encouraged participants to make the most of the training by using impact evaluation techniques to make a difference in their home countries. While increasingly used to inform policymakers on the effects of policies, impact evaluation methods are not always included in curricula of undergraduate economics degrees, and even when they are, the focus is merely theoretical with few methods covered. There is increasing demand for comprehensive courses on impact evaluation methods, which has led to the proliferation of several intensive workshops worldwide. In developing countries, however, the supply of such courses has not yet met the demand. The Transfer Project is beginning to close this gap with its capacity building work, but it is clear from the large number of applications for this training that there is a large appetite in the region for more information on this technical topic.   Assess your own knowledge of impact evaluation techniques—take our ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’ quiz and see whether you would benefit from this course! Ashu Handa, University of North Carolina: Ashu is Lawrence I. Gilbert Distinguished Professor in UNC’s Department of Public Policy. Elsa Valli, UNICEF Innocenti: Elsa is a Research Analyst with UNICEF’s Office of Research - Innocenti in Florence. Gustavo Angeles, University of North Carolina: Gustavo is the Senior Evaluation Advisor for MEASURE Evaluation & Associate Professor at UNC. All three authors contribute to the work of the Transfer Project research and learning collaborative.

We have an obligation to invest where it makes the most difference for children. But how do we decide what will reap the greatest benefits in the long term? The dilemma of whether to invest in services that provide immediate benefits, or in evidence generating initiatives for the long term, is a difficult one. The answer requires a careful analysis of the cost of not addressing immediate needs versus the potential future benefits of policy and budgetary change brought about by research and advocacy. As countries climb up the GDP ladder, UNICEF’s assistance is less critical for basic service delivery. Increasingly, what decision makers from low and middle income countries seek is knowledge and evidence for the design of their own programmes and policies. Investment in sound data, research, and evaluation is an essential component of guiding important decisions for years – and perhaps generations – to come. The Impact Evaluation Series of methodological briefs and instructional videos just released by the UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, is a contribution to building a “culture of research” at UNICEF and strengthening our capacity to provide evidence-based advice to partners. The series covers a range of impact evaluation designs and methods, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It discusses their pros and cons, ethical concerns and practical issues. The series is primarily aimed at UNICEF programme staff but is also available to the public. How often do we in UNICEF conduct rigorous impact evaluations and invest in evidence for the long term? What are some of the benefits when we do? The Transfer Project is an example of how UNICEF’s investment in research contributes to evidence-based advice which motivates and empowers governments to effectively support children. This multi-country project runs experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations in sub-Saharan Africa, repeatedly providing evidence to governments about the positive effects of social cash transfers on children and their families. The methodological design of choice is RCT, often considered the ‘gold standard’ of impact evaluation. It provides powerful responses to questions of causality by proving that an impact is achieved as a result of a specific intervention (e.g. the cash transfer) and nothing else. In Zambia for example, an RCT conducted in three districts from 2010 to 2013 showed that the government’s cash transfer programme led to a wide range of health and nutrition benefits. It also contributed to an increase in productive activity, and ownership of livestock. Encouraged by this evidence, the Government of Zambia boosted its budget allocation for the transfer programme from US$3.5 million in 2013 to 30 million in 2014, with larger amounts expected in the coming years as the programme expands. The overall cost of the evaluation of US$5m will ultimately leverage US$150m for children over the next five years. Similarly in Kenya, the evaluation of the government’s cash transfer for orphans and vulnerable children programme showed impacts on consumption, diet diversity and secondary school enrolment. It was an important part of the dialogue on the scale-up of the programme which now reaches over 160,000 families. The government’s own contribution to the program increased from less than US$1m in 2006 to US$12.5m in 2013. The evaluation itself cost US$2m and leveraged an increase in US$10m from the treasury for the programme, securing benefits for children for years to come. RCTs can be costly. They require a large sample size and cannot be undertaken retrospectively. The random assignment they require can sometimes be perceived as unethical or politically sensitive and in such cases other options, such as quasi-, or non-experimental designs for evaluating impact need to be considered. The new Impact Evaluation Series briefs outline different options for conducting an impact evaluation, are written in accessible language, and use examples from UNICEF’s own work. They are accompanied by animated videos particularly useful to impact evaluation novices or for training purposes. The overarching aim of these tools is to contribute to building UNICEF’s capacity in research and evaluation, improving our ability to provide evidence-based, strategic guidance on children for the long term. The materials were written by international evaluation experts from RMIT University, BetterEvaluation and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). An advisory board comprised of UNICEF staff from the Evaluation Office, Data & Analytics section, the Programme Division and many Country and Regional Office guided the quality and relevance of the work. We hope that the materials will contribute to more UNICEF-supported, high-quality impact evaluations, and to more evidence-based decision-making by our partners. Sudhanshu (Ashu) Handa is Chief of Social Policy & Economic Analysis, at UNICEF’s Office of Research – Innocenti and a Principal Investigator on the Transfer Project. Nikola Balvin is Knowledge Management Specialist at the Office of Research – Innocenti and was responsible for coordinating the Impact Evaluation Series.