Profiles

Rigorous research in humanitarian settings is possible when researchers and programmers work together, particularly in the early stages when responses to humanitarian challenges are designed. Six new rigorous research studies from five countries: Ecuador, Mali, Niger, Lebanon and Yemen illustrate this point.

There is increasing interest in understanding if social protection has the ability to foster social cohesion, particularly between refugees and host communities. Using an experimental evaluation of transfers, including cash, food and food vouchers to Colombian refugees and poor Ecuadorians in urban and peri-urban areas we examine if transfers resulted in changes in social cohesion measures. The evaluation was a cluster-randomized control trial examining a short-term programme implemented over six months by the World Food Programme. We examine six aggregate dimensions of social cohesion, derived from 33 individual indicators, in addition to an overall index of social cohesion. Overall results suggest that the programme contributed to integration of Colombians in the hosting community through increases in personal agency, attitudes accepting diversity, confidence in institutions, and social participation. However, while having no impact for the Ecuadorian population. There were no negative impacts of the programme on indicators or domains analysed. Although we are not able to specifically identify mechanisms, we hypothesize that these impacts are driven by joint targeting, messaging around social inclusion and through interaction between nationalities at mandated monthly nutrition trainings.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is widespread globally, with an estimated one-third of women aged 15 years and over experiencing physical and/or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner during their lifetimes. Economic empowerment, or the financial standing of women, is often thought to protect against IPV, signalling sufficient economic autonomy to leave abusive situations or to prevent abuse. Asset ownership is one measure of economic empowerment, and can convey substantial agency as a wealth store, especially for large productive assets, such as agricultural land or home ownership. Despite the important implications of IPV reduction for policy and programming, evidence of this relationship is scarce.We hope this research will advance our global understanding of this potential.

Six common perceptions associated with cash transfers are investigated using data from eight rigorous evaluations of government unconditional cash transfer programmes across seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The evidence refutes each claim. Used in policy debates, these perceptions undermine well-being improvements and poverty reduction, in Africa and globally.

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.

This Brief summarizes the proceedings of the Know Violence Roundtable examining the evidence on the role of social protection in reducing childhood violence hosted by UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, 12-13 May, 2016.

In 2010, the Zambian Ministry of Community Development, Mother and Child Health began implementation of the Child Grant Programme with the goals of reducing extreme poverty and breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty. The impact of the grant was explored across a range of outcomes for women over the medium term (two to four years). One of the difficult aspects of assessing this evidence is the myriad of indicators used to measure ‘empowerment’. For example, researchers have used indicators ranging from women’s intra-household decision-making to social networks, land or asset ownership, and interpret all these as ‘empowerment’, making it difficult to draw conclusions. The analysis is complemented with qualitative data to understand the meaning women and men place on empowerment in the rural communities. Although more evidence is needed to understand how cash transfers can empower women in Africa, women’s savings and participation in small businesses were seen to have increased, giving them more autonomy over cash and improving their financial standing.

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.

According to the 2008-2009 Kenyan Demographic and Health Survey, almost a third of the women of reproductive age were married before they reached their 18th birthday, and more than 75 per cent had their first child by age 24. The role of poverty in influencing adolescent fertility has been well documented and social cash transfers (SCTs) have been recommended as a successful reduction strategy. This Research Brief examines a study comparing two groups who had and had not received unconditional cash transfers. The authors identify four factors through which such cash amounts affect adolescent well-being: increased investment in girls’ education; delay in girls’ sexual debut; improved mental health and increased aspirations for girls; and increased household economic stability.

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.

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.

I feel like a human being now and the luckiest one as well(LEAP 1000 participant, Barrington et al. 2021)The Government of Ghana launched the LEAP 1000 pilot – a ‘cash plus’ programme – targeted at pregnant women and those with infants living in poor households in 2015. The motivation of the pilot was to support children during the first 1000 days, a key period of physical and mental development, with the overall goal of reducing child malnutrition and improving child health outcomes.Participant women received both a bi-monthly unconditional cash transfer (of approximately USD $10-18), as well as a premium waiver for the national health insurance scheme. Ghana is not unique in offering this type of social assistance — in fact, a 2016 mapping of 127 non-contributory social protection programs implemented by governments in Africa found that unconditional cash transfers were the most common type of assistance, and households with children were the most common target group.Despite the clear benefits of putting cash directly in the hands of women, and meeting their practical needs during pregnancy, some questions remain: does LEAP meet and respond to the strategic needs of women or does it use women instrumentally to facilitate the goal of reaching and benefiting children? Furthermore, is targeting women enough to nudge participants towards better social and economic outcomes, or would the focus on women’s role as primary caregivers and mothers unintentionally reinforce gendered inequalities in the household?Questions around the positive and negative effects of the pilot programme on women were integrated into a mixed-methods evaluation led by experts under the umbrella of the Transfer Project. The overall findings were encouraging. Women’s health and wellbeing improved across multiple domains, beyond the explicit objectives of the program. For example, women’s economic standing as measured by their personal savings increased, as did enrollment in the national health insurance scheme and health-seeking behaviors. LEAP 1000 also increased women’s social support in their own households and the larger community, as cash increased dignity, self-esteem, and confidence and allowed them to participate in savings groups and reciprocate support to others.I couldn’t mingle with my colleagues but with the coming of LEAP I can now raise myself and be part of my colleagues (the other women). If I get to the market, I can buy salt or buy a few clothes for my children to wear. Even if don’t dress well myself I have been able to dress my children well so they can mix with their peers.(LEAP 1000 beneficiary, de Milliano et al. 2021)Alongside reductions in household poverty, improvements in women’s social and economic standing were important pathways that led to reductions in their experience of intimate partner violence, including reductions in experience and frequency of physical and emotional violence. Taken together, LEAP 1000 improved tangible development milestones, as well as meaningful improvements in the quality of women’s lives.Truly speaking, at first the relationship between women and their husbands wasn’t good, but now it is better because of the LEAP support. I can say it is … poverty that caused all problems.(LEAP 1000 participant, Barrington et al. 2021)These findings, alongside broader positive impacts of the program on children and households contributed to the decision to integrate the program into the flagship social protection scheme nationwide in 2017. They also led to LEAP 1000 being touted as an example of a ‘gender-responsive’ program in the eyes of numerous stakeholders. But what does this mean in practice?While the social protection community has increasingly recognized the value of paying attention to gender — and frameworks have been proposed unpacking a continuum from ‘gender- discriminatory’ to ‘gender-transformative’ — there is still debate and lack of clarity as to assessment criteria, and what qualifies a program as being truly transformative. Is placing benefits in the hands of women, and improving her wellbeing enough? It is a start, but ultimately the program needs to tackle the root causes of gender inequality and transform harmful gender norms — aspects that the qualitative work suggest were largely unchanged in the context of LEAP 1000. A challenge in understanding how to go about this is that there is no one-size-fits all template. Design and operational components that facilitate gender-transformative change, like gender norms and drivers of inequality, are often context-specific.So, what lessons can be drawn from Ghana’s experience with LEAP 1000? A few reflections emerge:For gender-transformative change, start from a solid base: Long-term change starts with building a strong gender-responsive system and framework to guide growth. In Ghana, stakeholders are moving towards the development of a national framework that provides guidance and political backing for integration of gender in program design, implementation, and monitoring—this anchoring sets the stage for future progress and financing.Think beyond cash to address gendered constraints: While cash transfers have been effective in improving many dimensions of wellbeing, they are limited by contextual barriers that women and poor households face. In Ghana, new work is underway strategically linking participants to a range of complementary social protection and referral servicesto accelerate improvements in health, protection, and violence, all with explicit gender components. Stakeholders are working toward institutionalizing and scaling up these integrated social services nationwide to promote better outcomes for women and children.Address gender in human resources: It is critical to address the limited institutional capacity and lack of collaboration on gender issues at both the national and district levels. The lack of integration between gender focal points and social protection service providers at the local level is a missed opportunity for operational and impact synergies. We cannot forget the importance of investing in people if we want meaningful change in communities.Leverage face time for gender dialogue: Work towards better communication and more effective use of interface between service providers and program participants. Meetings or other face time create spaces and opportunities to discuss issues with communities on topics like social discrimination, exclusion, and gender inequality. These spaces have the potential to influence perceptions on gender norms, and through open dialogue women are able to seek support and exercise agency in their own communities.Poverty cannot be sustainably reduced without tackling gender inequalities. Ghana’s experience shows that moving towards gender-transformative social protection must go beyond just reaching and benefiting women, using local learning and solutions. To truly change gender inequalities, we need political will, adequate financing, and support from broader social welfare services. For Ghana, the gendered evidence-to-action social protection journey is just beginning. Acknowledgements: The LEAP 1000 Evaluation Team included researchers from ISSER at the University of Ghana, Navrongo Health Research Centre, UNICEF Ghana, UNICEF—Innocenti and the University of North Carolina. Learn more about the evaluation here. We thank Clare Barrington, Tia Palermo, Nyasha Tirivayi and Dominic Richardson for helpful comments and suggestions on this blog. Authors: Christiana Gbedemah is a social policy specialist at UNICEF Ghana; Amber Peterman is an research associate professor at UNC Chapel Hill and a social policy consultant at the UNICEF Office of Research—Innocenti and Jennifer Yablonski is head of social protection unit and social policy specialist at UNICEF Ghana.Read more:Impact evaluation of a social protection programme paired with fee waivers on enrolment in Ghana’s National Health Insurance SchemeMore Evidence on the Impact of Government Social Protection in Sub Saharan Africa: Ghana, Malawi and ZimbabweCrowding-out or crowding-in? Effects of LEAP 1000 unconditional cash transfer program on household and community support among women in rural Ghana  

Despite the identification of cash transfers as a promising evidence-informed strategy to address violence against children (VAC) and violence against women (VAW) – until recently, there was little evidence from low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs), that assessed the effects of such interventions on both in the same study. Yet, cash transfers and broader forms of social protection have potential to address both forms of violence through shared risk factors, including reductions in poverty and economic stress, or through complementary ‘plus’ programming targeting risk factors related to conflict in the home or violence norms (see reviews on VAC and IPV).   In this blog, we summarize five studies completed in the last two years that examine impacts of cash, cash-for-work and cash plus programmes on both violent discipline of children and male intimate partner violence against women (IPV) from diverse LMICs – Bangladesh, Colombia, Mali, the Philippines and Rwanda. We include both studies evaluating the effects of cash alone, cash plus programming, as well as those that evaluate just the impacts of the ‘plus’. We focus on studies that were rigorously designed and measured violent discipline and IPV in the same household (rather than those focused on violence against adolescent girls, which might fall in the nexus of both categories of violence). To our knowledge, with the exception of a previous study in Mexico (from 2013), these 5 studies are the only available publications from LMICs examining both types of violence in the same evaluation. We also offer key take away messages and suggest areas for future research.     Bangladesh: An experimental study examined post-intervention effects of the Transfer Modality Research Initiative pilot, implemented in rural areas over 24 months by the World Food Programme. The intervention provided both transfers (cash and food), as well as a group-based nutrition behavior change (BCC) intervention to women with young children living in poor households. The evaluation found reductions in physical IPV of 26% among women in the cash plus BCC arm, however no impacts in the transfer only arm (and no impacts on emotional IPV). In addition, the authors examine two indicators of physical violent discipline from parents taken from the HOME inventory (whether mothers had hit the child during the week prior to the study and if parents react with physical discipline if they are hit by the child). The study found reductions of 25% to 38% across violent discipline indicators, again in the cash plus BCC arm (8 to 12 percentage points [pp]- reported in the online appendix). The author’s examination of mechanisms for IPV suggests that reductions in poverty-related stress, and increases in household economic status, which were larger in the BCC arm, may be a possible joint pathway for reductions in both violence measures (Roy et al. 2019 in the Review of Economics and Statistics).   Colombia: A quasi-experimental study of the government’s conditional cash transfer program targeted to poor households with school-aged children, Familias en Acción, used variation in the timing of bi-monthly payments at the municipality level paired with municipality-level administrative data on reported levels of violence from health and legal services. The authors show that rates of overall domestic violence, as well as rates of IPV from administrative data reported to health and justice systems, decrease by 6% in payment months. In contrast, there are no changes in reported domestic violence specifically against minors. Authors also show that household spending is higher in payment months—suggesting a poverty and stress reduction mechanism achieved via higher consumption expenditures (Camacho & Rodriguez 2020 in the CEDE Working Paper series)   Mali: An experimental study of the government’s Jigisémèjiri program, an unconditional quarterly cash transfer given primarily to male heads of household found decreases in IPV after 24-months. These decreases were concentrated in polygamous households (making up 40% of the sample), where reductions were found for controlling behaviors (23% or 16 pp), emotional IPV (37% or 13 pp) and physical IPV (40% or 7 pp). The study also reported on VAC among a target child aged 2 to 4 years old using the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey measures – showing similar trends as for IPV. Measures of psychological aggression against children were insignificant in the full sample, however physical punishment and number of total acts showed reductions—which increased in magnitude and significance among the polygamous households (showing decreases in psychological aggression of 16% or 11 pps and in physical punishment of 20% or 17 pps). Key mechanisms underlying impacts were reductions in men’s stress and anxiety, as well as in reported household disputes (Heath et al. 2020 in the Journal of Development Economics).   The Philippines: An experimental study of a locally-adapted 12-session group-based parenting program (Masayang Pamilya Para Sa Batang Pilipino – or MaPa) layered on the government flagship conditional cash transfer (Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Programme) reported impacts at program end and 12-months post program. The evaluated intervention reached female caregivers of children aged 2 to 6 years in low-income families in urban Manila. The evaluation found reductions in incidence and frequency of child maltreatment at both follow-up waves, measuring using the ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening tool (e.g. a 49% reduced risk of physical abuse at post-intervention and a 48% reduced risk of neglect). For IPV, risk reductions at program end were 63% and at 12 months post-intervention were 49%. Possible common mechanisms of impact were those reducing overall incidence of family conflict and stress, increased caregiver efficacy and confidence when dealing with male spouses, fewer daily child behavior problems, and lower parenting dysfunction, among others (Lachman et al. 2021 in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific).   Rwanda: An experimental study examined the impacts of the Sugira Muryango program – a home-visiting-based parenting intervention – layered on a government flagship social protection program ‘Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme’ targeting poor households with direct cash support and public works. Sugira Muryango included 12 sessions delivered over 3 months by community-based coaches promoting early childhood development (ECD) and preventing family violence. The study examined outcomes at 12-months post-intervention, showing reductions in female caregiver reports of IPV experience (IRR=0.616, 95% CI 0.458 to 0.828) as well as VAC as measured by harsh parenting using the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey measures (IRR=0.741, 95% CI 0.657 to 0.835). However, no significant impact was shown on male caregiver report of IPV perpetration (among an alternate sample of households where male caregivers were surveyed). The program also showed significant increases in engaging fathers in childcare and select child development outcomes (Jensen et al. 2021 in BMJ Global Health).   Take away messages and future studies   Taken together, these studies suggest a similar pattern of impacts. Across all but one study (Colombia), where impacts are found on IPV—the similar direction of impacts are found for VAC. In Bangladesh, impacts are only observed with the addition of plus components. However, in Rwanda and the Philippines—the evaluation focuses exclusively on the plus intervention—thus we are unable to fully disentangle if there are synergistic or countervailing impacts of the economic component alone. In three cases (Bangladesh, the Philippines and Rwanda) the evaluation includes post-intervention effects, showing that reductions in both IPV and VAC are sustained even after the program ends. The lack of impacts for VAC in Colombia may be due to the use of administrative data on cases of violence reported to health and justice systems (which capture only a fraction of violence prevalence), or the identification strategy (relying on the timing of payments) may not be meaningful enough variation for impacts. In spite of differences in social protection strategies and methodologies used to measure impact, overall, these results show that social protection is a promising intervention and platform to reduce both violence against children and violence against women.   Moving forward, more studies are needed that explore the effectiveness of social protection on multiple dimensions of violence. In doing so, evaluations will need to take a more holistic approach to map out pathways of impact and measure violence. For example, to affect IPV, social protection evaluations often target and focus on women alone and seek to empower her and change her circumstances – however to fundamentally change violence inside the home and parenting practices tied to violent discipline, it is essential to involve and collect data from men as well. In addition, more evidence is needed on possible intergenerational effects – another key point of intersection between VAC and VAW — for example, linking benefits realized by adolescent girls in households receiving social protection benefits to stability and freedom from violence in future intimate relationships. From a methodological standpoint, this research agenda is ripe for inter-disciplinary collaboration between development economists who typically evaluate social protection programming, and public health experts on VAC and VAW.   Stay tuned for more work from UNICEF Innocenti and partners on the intersection of VAC and VAW, including systematic reviews (on effective interventions and shared risk factors) and results from Mozambique’s Child Grant evaluation measuring impacts on violent discipline and IPV.         Authors: Amber Peterman is a Research Associate Professor at UNC where she co-leads the Cash Transfer and Intimate Partner Violence Research Collaborative and consultant to UNICEF Innocenti, Alessandra Guedes is the Gender & Development Research Manager at UNICEF Innocenti.   The authors would like to thank Elena Camilletti and Zahrah Nesbitt-Ahmed for helpful comments.      

A common fear among policymakers is that government-provided benefits for households with young children – including cash transfers – may increase incentives to have children, to gain or maintain program eligibility. This is a topic we’ve had our eyes on for some time through the Transfer Project.  By conducting reviews of evidence and in our own impact evaluations, we’ve found little evidence to support this narrative from cash transfer programming in low-and middle income countries (LMICs).Until recently, however, evidence to support this from the Asia and the Pacific region has been absent from the debate. As fertility rates, norms around childbearing, and poverty levels differ across regions, it is possible cash transfer impacts may differ as well. With support from the Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19: Expert Advice (SPACE) helpline, I recently took a deep dive into evidence from the Asia and the Pacific region. I was curious not only to read new studies, but also to draw out implications for program design, to help inform design of new COVID-19 related cash transfer programs in the region.How might cash transfers affect pregnancy dynamics?There are a number of ways cash transfers could potentially increase or decrease incentives to have children, especially among programs targeted explicitly to pregnant women or households with young children. Policymakers may fear benefits will increase pregnancies, in line with pro-family policies in high-income, low-fertility settings. However, in theory, the impacts of cash transfers on pregnancies and births are equally likely in the opposite direction. For example, using increased income from cash transfers, parents are able to invest in the health, nutrition and education of their existing children, potentially leading couples to prefer smaller family sizes. The use of family planning may increase among transfer recipients due to income effects or more frequent interaction with the health sector, reducing unplanned pregnancies and allowing safe birth spacing. In addition, recent evidence demonstrates that cash transfers are some of the most promising interventions to delay early marriage and pregnancy for adolescent girls and young women. Therefore, it is possible that total fertility rates may decrease as a result of cash transfer programs over the longer-term. These dynamics are likely to vary based on underlying poverty rates, fertility rates and access to services in a given setting.What does the evidence from Asia and the Pacific say?After reviewing existing published and grey literature, compiled through targeted searches and existing review papers, I found a total of five high-quality studies. These studies evaluated cash transfers targeting households with pregnant women or young children and also measured key pregnancy-related outcomes.What did the studies find? The evidence shows no increase in pregnancies due to cash transfers, and in several cases showed impacts in the opposite direction (e.g. increased birth spacing, delay in first birth).Studies from Indonesia show that the government’s Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) increased birth spacing among women of reproductive age in the short-term, however had no impact on early fertility of girls and young women aged 16 to 21 exposed to PKH when they were school-aged.A study of the government of Myanmar’s maternal cash transfer pilot measured both current pregnancy and total number of pregnancies after 30 months of enrollment—finding no impacts on current pregnancy, fertility desires or use of family planning. However, a small reduction in total number of pregnancies since the start of the program was found in the ‘cash only’ group.A study of the government of the Pantawid Pamilyana Pilipino Program (4Ps) in the Philippines showed no impacts on total fertility rates after three years among women of reproductive age. A second study found a delay in age of marriage and first birth among women in their early twenties who lived in recipient households of 4Ps for a short period when they were in their teens. This evidence showing no link between cash transfers and increased pregnancy is particularly policy relevant, given all programs were government run and often reach the poorest women and households. In addition, evaluations reported a host of beneficial outcomes for children, ranging from child nutrition and dietary diversity, to better schooling outcomes. Programming practicalities and the way forwardTaken together, evidence suggests a number of practical considerations for programs to both maximize wellbeing impacts for maternal and child health, as well as reduce potential unintended consequences:Pregnancy-related conditions: While there has been speculation about program designs enforcing pregnancy-related conditions in program eligibility (i.e. making benefits conditional on limiting additional pregnancies or total number of children per woman), others have noted the ethical dangers of such an approach. Conditions may “undermine women’s and couples’ rights to autonomy and reproductive freedom and may translate into dangerous unintended consequences”, which may include “hiding children, not seeking necessary preventative care and health check-ups for children, or, at the extreme, infanticide.” Assuming a wealth-fertility gradient, conditionalities based on limiting number of children will also exclude the most vulnerable women and households. Therefore, given there is little evidence of pregnancy increases in the first instance--it is recommended programs remain free of these types of explicit pregnancy-related conditions.Messaging and labeling: Program design should consider if a labeled cash transfer or messaging campaign could serve program objectives. This could include labeling the cash as funds for maternal and infant health, or providing messages at pay points or via community structures around the importance of children’s education or family planning. For example, a study in Zambia found that giving men messages quantifying risk of maternal mortality and morbidity led them to reduce fertility desires and communicate more about family planning, corresponding with a fall in their wives’ pregnancy rates. Messaging should also clearly lay out criteria for eligibility and programming, to both beneficiaries, as well as other community members to avoid misinformation.Transfer value and duration: A meaningful transfer value is a key factor in enabling improvements in poverty and broader welling for children and families. However, there may be subtle ways to defusing potential adverse effects via transfer design. For example, capping benefits to a maximum number of children per household – or calculating benefits at a household level could help delink benefit value to new pregnancies and births. Alternatively, expanding the child age range eligibility to 17 years—so caregivers are not worried about children “aging out”—may support families in the longer-term, defusing the need for them to ‘re-qualify.’Health infrastructure investments: Governments should seek to combine investments in cash transfers with improvements to health infrastructure and systems strengthening, including strengthening the quality and accessibility of pre- and post-natal care, family planning and other maternal health services. Studies have hypothesized the key role of these services in influencing positive pregnancy-related outcomes for women and families. If couples desire smaller families over time, but are not able to access family planning, or continue to experience adverse birth outcomes, reducing family size may not be possible.Rigorous evidence refutes the narrative that cash transfers produce increase pregnancies in LMICs, including from five recent studies of government-run programming in Asia and the Pacific. Building on momentum to date, I’m eager to see continued evolution of programs incorporating gender-responsive designs—focusing on promoting wellbeing of women, children and families—rather than on unintended consequences that are not evidence-informed. Finally, as a researcher, I’d be remiss without recommending the continued study of impacts of cash transfers on pregnancy outcomes, including use of family planning and safe transitions to adulthood, in the Asia and Pacific context and beyond.  Amber Peterman is a Research Associate Professor at UNC Chapel Hill and a consultant to UNICEF Innocenti focusing on gender and social protection.*** This work is based on the brief Do Child Grants Lead to Increased Pregnancies? An Evidence View from Asia and the Pacific, developed with support from Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19: Expert Advice (SPACE) - a joint initiative of FCDO’s Better Assistance in Crises (BASIC) and Gender Responsive Social Protection (GSP) programmes (funded by UKAid); GIZ (funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development); and the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Helpful comments were received by Juliet Attenborough, Abigail Bakker, Ric Goodman, Lisa Hannigan, Ginevra Jarmaine, Rachel Payne, Jacqui Powell, Dominic Richardson, John Rook and Kathleen Sullivan. SPACE materials including this blog do not necessarily represent FCDO, or GIZ or DFAT’s own views or policies or commit FCDO, GIZ or DFAT to any particular course of action. The author reports no conflicts of interest.

Understanding prevalence, characteristics and motives of disclosure, help-seeking and reporting of violence against children  Violence against children is a pervasive global phenomenon. Estimates indicate over 1 billion children under the age of 18 experience emotional, physical or sexual violence every year from a range of perpetrators – including parents, peers and intimate or dating partners. Despite these high figures, official figures of VAC are just the tip of the iceberg.How much do we know about children’s disclosure, help-seeking and reporting of violence? Most studies in low- and middle-income countries have narrowly focused on either reporting intimate partner violence among adolescent girls, on specific types of violence, or in specific settings. A new publication, analyzing nationally representative Violence Against Children Survey data from six countries, aims to broaden the focus. The publication, just released in BMC Public Health, led by UNICEF Innocenti, in collaboration with other UNICEF offices and government counterparts, examines data from Cambodia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Tanzania.The study had three objectives:Measure the prevalence of informal disclosure (to family and friends among others), formal help-seeking (from social, health and legal services), formal reporting, and receipt of formal help;Document characteristics associated with disclosure and health seeking;Understand reasons why children did not seek help. Using nationally representative data from six countries, the study analyzed reports from children aged 13 to 17 who experienced any physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetimes. These samples of child survivors of violence represented a high percentage of total children across countries: physical violence among children ranged from 50 to 84%, while that for sexual violence ranged from 6 to 36%. What did we learn in terms of disclosure and reporting? Most children have never told anyone about the violence they experience: Across countries the percentage of children who ever told someone informally about their experience was low—23% in Cambodia and 32% in Kenya, to 42% in Tanzania and 54% in Malawi. These estimates show that children may be telling survey interviewers about violence for the very first time and confirms that violence is largely under-acknowledged and “hidden in plain sight.” It also means that children’s existing social networks—including family, friends, and neighbors are often a first source of disclosure and possible support system for children survivors. Formal services are rarely accessed or utilized by child survivors: The percentage of children who reported to formal sources was low—ranging from under 1% in Cambodia to 25% in Tanzania (formal disclosure)—and the percentage who received help was even smaller (1% in Nigeria to 11% in Tanzania, this outcome was not measured in Cambodia or Haiti). These statistics confirm that only a fraction of children attempt to contact health, social or legal services and even fewer receive any support, highlighting the importance of expanding accessibility and reach of assistance. Factors encouraging disclosure, help-seeking and reporting varied by country: Identifying factors that encourage these behaviors could help target services or develop secondary prevention programming. However, few factors were consistently positively correlated with help-seeking behaviors—including factors that are hypothesized to help, like household wealth and residing in urban settings. This lack of pattern underscores the importance of context and the challenges in targeting services using observable characteristics of child survivors. Self-blame, apathy and not needing or wanting services were top factors deterring children from disclosure: Across countries, common reasons cited for not seeking help were responses like “I felt it was my fault (self blame)”, “I did not think it was a problem (apathy)” or “I don’t want or need services.” For example, in Cambodia, the most common reason for not seeking help for physical violence was self-blame, mentioned by 56% of children, while the most common reason in Kenya, Malawi and Nigeria was apathy (25%-39%). Fewer children reported fear of repercussions or helplessness, while lack of access and financial constraints were rarely mentioned. These reasons highlight the role of shame and how the normalization of VAC is pervasive. Better data and methodological innovation is urgently needed: This study underscores the need for innovation in research methodologies to accurately estimate prevalence of sensitive topics. Improvements might include methods allowing self-administration of questions and those which allow for greater confidentiality. In addition, future surveys should include a wider range of household and community level indicators to understand underlying dynamics surrounding the child’s environment—for example, parental (mental health, parenting, time use), household (social and economic vulnerability factors), and community (gender norms, service availability) characteristics. What should we take away from these results? One concrete implication is that statistics based on violence against children reporting to formal sources such as data from health systems, police, or NGO reporting are likely to underestimate the total prevalence ranging from 4 to 940-fold depending on the country. This has implications for the analysis of such data during COVID-19, where there have been fears that children are even less able to access services—and that many cases of violence are uncounted. Our results show this is a huge issue and must be accounted for when interpreting the dynamics stemming from administrative data.Other implications relate to how to improve use of services for survivors. One strategy is to address barriers including social norms that normalize violence, and how these manifest in different contexts. Another is to improve linkages and raise awareness of child protection services and common touchpoints  for children, such as those within the education, health and community-based structures, which are likely to interact with children on an informal, daily basis. These trusted individuals in children’s lives are important entry points for formal services.It is also important to strengthen the capacities of professionals working in health, education and social sectors to be able to identify risks and respond using a survivor centered approach. Given the wide under-reporting and pervasive nature of violence against children, services which are targeted to only one setting or population are unlikely to result in broad uptake of services and assistance. Multi-sectoral responses and well-networked referral systems are necessary.Much more research is needed to unpack the dynamics around help-seeking and secondary prevention for survivors. We hope this analysis will serve as a starting point to advance research and practice to end violence against children and the long-lasting negative effects experienced by children over their lifetimes.***Special thanks to Alessandra Guedes, Alina Potts and Mary Shawa for helpful comments.Amber Peterman, Ph.D. joined UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti in 2015 as a Social Policy Specialist and now works as a consultant with joint affiliation as an Associate Adjunct Professor at UNC Chapel Hill. Amber focuses on gender, violence and adolescent wellbeing and safe transitions to adulthood with the Transfer Project evaluations of social protection and cash transfers in Africa.Audrey Pereira is a Doctoral Student in Public Policy at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Tia Palermo is Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Environmental Health at the University at Buffalo (State University of New York) and an Affiliated Researcher with the Transfer Project. Full citation: Pereira A, Peterman A, Neijhoft AN, Buluma R, Kaloga IF, Harvey R, Islam A, Kheam T, Kitembe M, Lund-Henriksen B, Maksud N, Maternowska MC, Potts A, Rottanak C, Shawa M, T Palermo (2020). Disclosure, reporting and help-seeking among child survivors of violence: A cross-country analysis. BMC Public Health 20(1051).

Embora o mundo tenha sido pego de surpresa pelo tamanho e pelas ramificações da crise da COVID-19, ele deveria estar preparado para responder aos riscos crescentes ao bem-estar e à segurança de mulheres e crianças. A violência contra as mulheres e a violência contra as crianças são disseminadas globalmente e intrinsicamente conectadas, tendo em comum fatores de risco e profundas e similares consequências adversas. A literatura sobre pandemias pode ser limitada, mas temos evidência suficiente para dizer, sem sombra de dúvida, que fatores relacionados, como o confinamento, o isolamento social, níveis aumentados de estresse financeiro e respostas institucionais fracas, podem elevar ou intensificar os graus de violência. “De fato, ao longo do mês passado, notícias alertaram para a ‘tempestade perfeita’, que se manifestou em mais chamadas para linhas telefônicas de ajuda, serviços on-line de apoio e boletins de ocorrência.”De fato, ao longo do mês passado, notícias alertaram para a “tempestade perfeita”, que se manifestou em mais chamadas para linhas telefônicas de ajuda, serviços on-line de apoio e boletins de ocorrência. Organizações multinacionais agiram rapidamente, emitindo declarações que alertavam sobre o aumento do risco das duas formas de violência, enquanto pesquisadores revisavam evidências de crises passadas, propondo políticas para mitigar danos potenciais a populações em situações de vulnerabilidade. Enquanto os governos incrementam as respostas à COVID-19, o que está realmente sendo feito para combater a violência?   1. Expansão das linhas telefônicas de ajuda e compartilhamento de informaçãoA informação está sendo largamente compartilhada através de manuais, recursos e ações de defesa visando amigos e familiares. O programa Parenting for Lifelong Health compilou um guia comprovadamente eficaz para a conduta segura de pais durante a quarentena. Linhas telefônicas de ajuda e plataformas de apoio on-line estão sendo expandidas ou criadas. A Itália, um dos países mais atingidos pela pandemia, está evitando “uma emergência dentro de uma emergência” por meio da linha telefônica de ajuda 1522 para violência e perseguição. Muitos outros países estão se comprometendo a manter linhas telefônicas de ajuda e canais de informação abertos durante e após o pico da COVID-19.   2. Criação de abrigos e de outras opções de acomodação segura para sobreviventesMuitos países reconhecem que alojamentos seguros são necessários em tempos de quarentena. Acomodações seguras permitem que as sobreviventes (e os menores que os acompanham) evitem temporariamente seus agressores. Como parte do pacote de ajuda para enfrentar COVID-19, o Canadá distribuiu 50 milhões de dólares canadenses entre abrigos para mulheres e centros para agressão sexual [18 de março]. Na França, um reforço de 1,1 milhão de euros em financiamento para organizações antiabuso incluíram 20 mil pernoites em hotéis para sobreviventes se protegerem de parceiros abusivos [30 de março]. Em Trento (Itália), um promotor decretou que, em situações de violência doméstica, o agressor deve deixar a casa, ao invés da vítima [28 de março]. Decretos semelhantes foram feitos na Áustria e Alemanha. Apesar da decisão ser louvável, ela faz com que garantir a segurança de sobreviventes que permaneceram em casa seja um desafio, uma vez que os agressores conhecem o local e talvez tenham acesso a ele. Julia, 16 anos, assiste a aulas on-line em casa, enquanto seus pais realizam teletrabalho durante o surto de Coronavírus em Nova Iorque3. Expansão do acesso aos serviços para sobreviventesComo a quarentena limita a mobilidade pessoal e a liberdade de movimento, alguns países estão encontrando maneiras de expandir o acesso a serviços ligados à violência. A França deu início a centros ‘pop up’ em supermercados, lugares que as mulheres provavelmente já estão visitando [30 de março]. Em diversos países (incluindo França, Itália e Espanha), uma ‘palavra-código’ específica sinaliza às farmácias para contatar as autoridades relevantes. Alguns países lançaram ou aprimoraram aplicativos ocultos  através dos quais as mulheres podem buscar os serviços e assim evitar ligar quando estão perto dos agressores (veja Italy, UK, entre outros). Serviços de proteção para mulheres e crianças devem ser considerados “essenciais”, e não bloqueados durante a COVID-19.   4. Limitando fatores de risco associados à violênciaAlguns países estão tentando resolver as formas negativas de se lidar com a COVID-19, as quais podem exacerbar o risco de violência. A Groenlândia proibiu a venda de álcool na capital Nuuk para reduzir o risco de violência a crianças que estão em casa [29 de março]. A África do Sul adotou medidas semelhantes [26 de março]. Embora se demonstre que o abuso de álcool e seu uso problemático estejam ligados a episódios mais graves de violência, a relação é complexa e as evidências de como as políticas relacionadas ao álcool afetam a violência são limitadas. Outros países, contudo, ainda precisam tomar medidas proativas para limitar os riscos associados. Restringir a venda de armas, por exemplo, limitaria o acesso a armas letais em um período de estresse exacerbado, reduzindo potencialmente o risco de feminicídio e de morte infantis. Ações políticas inteligentes podem reduzir o risco de danos e facilitar saídas positivas a fim de diminuir o estresse e promover a saúde mental.   5. Modificações no direito da família e nos sistemas de justiçaA Austrália implementou uma série de modificações no direito da família para permitir ao sistema de justiça responder com mais eficiência aos casos durante a quarentena [3 de abril]. Primeiro, eles permitem que os tribunais exijam monitoramento eletrônico nos casos de fiança e que suspendam, sob certas condições, ordens de prisão. Segundo, eles possibilitam o registro on-line de ordens de restrição. Terceiro, eles criam uma nova infração, multas mais altas e expansão do prazo de prescrição das ordens restritivas. À medida que mais países vivenciam períodos prolongados de suspensão dos serviços de justiça, inovações e emendas adicionais são necessárias para assegurar a proteção dos sobreviventes em situações desafiadoras.     Essas ações são louváveis, embora muitos países ainda não tenham  empregado recursos para ampliar esses serviços. Políticas iniciais se desenvolvem basicamente em países de alta renda, o que pode refletir a realidade de que muitos lugares de renda baixa e média possuem orçamentos limitados para enfrentar a violência contra a mulher e a violência contra a criança, mesmo quando não haja crise. Onde e como os recursos devem ser empregados? Enquanto os casos reportados e os números fornecidos pelos serviços existentes nos proporcionam um indício do que possa estar ocorrendo, eles também nos passam um quadro imperfeito. Por exemplo, em alguns lugares, chamadas para linhas telefônicas de ajuda à violência doméstica diminuíram, possivelmente por que as sobreviventes estão próximas dos agressores em quarentena e não podem buscar ajuda de maneira segura. Em outros, a procura por abrigos diminuiu, possivelmente porque as sobreviventes têm medo de contrair a COVID-19 devido à dificuldade de manter distanciamento físico dentro dos abrigos. Além disso, alguns sistemas de detecção de rotina estão parados, como os professores e os assistentes sociais. Nos Estados Unidos, vários estados já reportaram reduções no abuso e maus-tratos infantis, provavelmente devido à redução na detecção, e não na ocorrência. Ademais, o aumento do uso de telefones e computadores para se comunicar no lugar das interações pessoais, também apresenta outros meios para a perpetração de novas formas de violência on-line, incluindo assédio, exploração e abuso sexuais. Os esforços de mitigação devem tratar das diversas formas de violência conectadas à COVID-19. As medidas tomadas devem ser continuamente monitoradas para garantir que alcancem os efeitos pretendidos, e não resultar em danos indesejados. “Para muitas mulheres e meninas, a ameaça é maior onde elas deveriam estar mais seguras. Em suas próprias casas.”  Enquanto o Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas urgentemente clama pela paz nas casas ao redor do mundo, nós esperamos que essa lista não exaustiva de respostas governamentais forneça inspiração para outras ações. Quando se trata de prevenir e reduzir a violência e apoiar sobreviventes, todos temos um papel a desempenhar, particularmente nesses tempos sem precedentes.   Alessandra Guedes é Gerente de Pesquisas de Gênero e Desenvolvimento na UNICEF Innocenti. Amber Peterman é Especialista em Políticas Sociais junto à Unicef Innocenti e à Universidade da Carolina do Norte em Chapel Hill. Dina Deligiorgis é Especialista em Políticas para acabar com a violência contra as mulheres na ONU Mulheres. Agradecemos a Patricia Salomão do Centro de Referência de Apoio à Mulher Vítima de Violência (CRAM) da Secretaria da Mulher em Barueri (SP – Brasil) e Marcia Salomão por traduzirem este blog da sua versão original em inglês.

While the world may have been caught off guard by the size and ramifications of the COVID-19 crisis, it should be prepared to respond to the increased risks to the wellbeing and safety of children and women. Violence against children and violence against women are widespread globally and intrinsically linked, sharing common risk factors and similar adverse and severe consequences. The literature within pandemics may be limited, but we have enough evidence to say unequivocally that related factors—such as confinement, social isolation, increased levels of financial stress, and weak institutional responses—can increase or intensify levels of violence. Indeed, over the past month, reports have warned of the “perfect storm”, manifesting in increased calls to helplines, online support services, and police reports.Indeed, over the past month, reports have warned of the “perfect storm”, manifesting in increased calls to helplines, online support services, and police reports. Multinational organisations quickly took action, issuing statements warning of increased risk of both forms of violence, while researchers reviewed evidence from past crises, proposing policy actions to mitigate against potential harm to populations in situations of vulnerability. As governments ramp up response to COVID-19, what is actually being done to combat violence? 1. Expansion of helplines and information sharingInformation is being shared widely through guides, resources, and advocacy targeting friends and family members. Parenting for Lifelong Health has compiled evidence-supported guidance for safe parenting during quarantine. Helplines and online support platforms are being expanded or established. Italy, one of the countries hardest hit by the pandemic, is preventing “an emergency within an emergency” by advertising the 1522 helpline for violence and stalking. Numerous other countries are committing to keeping helplines and information channels open during and after the peak of COVID-19. 2. Funding shelters and other safe accommodation options for survivorsNumerous countries have acknowledged that additional safe housing is needed during times of quarantine. Safe accommodation allows survivors (and accompanying minors) to temporarily escape abusers. As part of its COVID-19 relief package, Canada has allocated $50 million to women’s shelters and sexual assault centres [March 18]. In France, a €1.1 million funding increase for anti-abuse organisations included 20,000 hotel nights for survivors to escape abusive partners [March 30]. In Trento (Italy), a prosecutor ruled that in situations of domestic violence the abuser must leave the family home rather than the victim [March 28]. Similar rulings have been given in Austria and Germany. Although a laudable decision, it makes guaranteeing the safety of survivors, who remain at home a challenge given that perpetrators know where to reach them and may have access to the home. Sixteen-year-old Julia attends online school from home while her parents telework during the Coronavirus outbreak in New York.3. Expansion of access to services for survivorsAs quarantine limits personal mobility and freedom of movement, some countries are finding ways to expand access to violence-related services. France has initiated ‘pop up’ centres in grocery stores, where women are likely to be already visiting [March 30]. In a number of countries (including France, Italy, and Spain), a specific 'code word' signals to pharmacies to contact the relevant authorities. Some countries have released or improved concealed apps through which women can seek services to avoid calling in close quarters with abusers (see Italy, UK, among others). Protection services for women and children must be considered “essential” and not locked down due to COVID-19.  4. Limiting risk factors associated with violenceSome countries are tackling the negative ways of coping with COVID-19 that may exacerbate the risk of violence. Greenland has banned alcohol sales in its capital Nuuk to reduce the risk of violence against children in the home [March 29]. South Africa has taken similar measures [26 March]. While alcohol abuse and problematic drinking is shown to be linked to more severe violent episodes, the relationship is complex and there is limited evidence of how alcohol-related policies affect violence. Other countries, however, have yet to take proactive steps to limit associated risks. Curtailing gun sales, for example, would limit access to fatal weapons at a time of heightened stress, potentially reducing the risk of female homicide and child deaths. Smart policy action can reduce risk of harm and facilitate positive outlets to reduce stress and promote mental health. 5. Modifications to family law and justice systemsAustralia has implemented a number of modifications to family law to allow the justice system to better respond to cases during quarantine [April 3]. First, they allow courts to impose electronic monitoring requirements for bail and conditionally suspend imprisonment orders. Second, they enable online filing of restraining orders. Third, they create a new offence, increased fine, and extended limitation period for restraining orders. As more countries experience extended periods of curtained justice services, further innovation and amendments are needed to ensure the protection of survivors in challenging situations. These actions are commendable, however many countries have still not committed resources to increase services. Initial policy responses are largely in high-income countries, which may reflect the reality that many resource-poor settings have limited budgets for addressing violence against children and violence against women even when there is no crisis. Where and how should resources be targeted? While reported cases and numbers from existing services give us a signal of what might be happening, they also give an imperfect picture. For example, in some settings, calls to domestic violence hotlines have decreased, possibly because survivors are in ear shot of perpetrators in quarantine and are unable to safely seek help. In others, demand for shelters has decreased, potentially because survivors are afraid of contracting COVID-19 within close quarters at shelters. In addition, some routine detection systems are closed, such as teachers or social workers. Already in the US, several states have reported reductions in child abuse and maltreatment, believed to be due to a reduction in detection, rather than occurrence. Further, increased time spent on phones and using computers to communicate in place of in-person interactions also poses additional avenues for perpetration of new forms of violence online, including sexual harassment, exploitation, and abuse. Mitigation efforts must address the diverse forms of violence connected with COVID-19. Actions taken must be continuously monitored to ensure they are having intended effects, and do not result in unintended harm. “For many women and girls, the threat looms largest where they should be safest. In their own homes.” As the UN Secretary-General urgently calls for peace in homes around the world, we hope that this non-exhaustive list of government responses will provide some inspiration for further action. When it comes to preventing and reducing violence and supporting survivors, everyone has a part to play, particularly in these unprecedented times.   Alessandra Guedes is the Gender & Development Research Manager at UNICEF Innocenti. Amber Peterman is a Social Policy Specialist with UNICEF Innocenti and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dina Deligiorgis is Policy Specialist on ending violence against women at UN Women.

Reflections from the world’s premier conference on ending violence against women and violence against children from the Sexual Violence Research Initiative Forum 2019  Nearly 800 researchers, policy-makers, practitioners and activists descended on Cape Town, South Africa for the world’s key conference on ending violence against women (VAW), violence against children (VAC) and other forms of violence stemming from gender inequality— the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI)’s biennial forum 21-25 October, 2019. The energy behind the #TimeIsNow movement to end such violence was channeled into themes including social change, linkages between VAW and VAC, importance of scale, the Sustainable Development Goals, new technologies and more. UNICEF was there to share and meet researchers working on both VAC, as well as VAW, and help build bridges between the two communities. On the heels of a packed week, including stimulating research, networking and agenda setting, we asked three of our experts about key takeaways or points of reflection from the forum. What were our researchers' takeaways? Read their reflections and cues for next steps: Alessandra GuedesManager, Gender and Development Research at UNICEF Innocenti and Co-Chair of the SVRI Leadership Council@AlesscguedesWe can prevent violence!: Although many of us have repeated this phrase numerous times, we have often been met with skepticism and occasionally have been concerned ourselves about the feasibility of documenting measurable reductions of the prevalence of violence within our projects’ lifetime. How reassuring, then, to hear that multiple initiatives have been able to decrease levels of violence within reasonable timeframes, as shown by Rachel Jewkes’ presentation summarizing evidence generated by the Global Program “What works to prevent violence against women and girls?” Now we must ensure the evidence is put to good use, with a sense of urgency that is commensurate with the size of the problem. As DFID’s Emily Esplen emphasized in her closing remarks, evidence alone is not enough, “we need to advocate to build outrage.”Quality is of the essence: As evidence emerges about effective interventions, it is tempting to want to scale these up, but we must not lose sight of the principles and values that made the methodologies effective in the first place. It was repeatedly emphasized that interventions are highly dependent on the specific activities, quality of the training provided to those who are implementing them and such training requires time and resources, both human and financial. Ellen Bajenja and Tina Musuya made a great presentation highlighting additional insights from the Community for Understanding Scale Up (CUSP), including the need to prioritize accountability to communities.Let’s be creative! While we must look for ways to expand and scale up interventions that have been found to be effective, it is crucial that we don’t stymie creativity by over relying in a small number of tried interventions. Donors have a key responsibility to continue to support innovative strategies to end VAW and VAC.Lusajo KajulaSocial Policy Analyst, Social and Economic Policy at UNICEF Innocenti@sajokmIdeas that sound good need to be measured. It is always inspiring to meet like-minded researchers who share their hypotheses and research methodologies on reducing VAW and VAC. It is even more inspiring to meet and listen to different practitioners share their experience from specific programs that address issues related to VAW and VAC. However, while attending different panels and sessions, something became clear to me. I heard from quite a few practitioners who questioned the “lengthy” and sometimes cumbersome processes that are involved with evaluations. I left the forum with the realisation of major responsibility for us as researchers to support and engage programs in the use of evidence to inform policies. Evidence improves practice and therefore a win-win situation for programs!Voices of researchers in the Global South need to be amplified. Despite specific efforts from SVRI to promote inclusivity, we are still missing sufficient involvement at the forum from practitioners and activists from the Global South. The next stage of evidence generation needs diverse groups of women with research from the Global South collaborating on violence prevention studies. This will improve our state of the evidence with a lens that compares the global vs. local gaze. It is also a good opportunity to learn from each other, regarding our similarities and differences. Several questions come to mind – how similar (or different) is the face of VAW/VAC across the Global South? What tools can we borrow from each other in our fight to unroot the deep-rooted issues that are associated with VAC/VAW?We need to invest in social norm transformation. Those who attended or watched the opening plenary may agree with me that it was emotional. Two survivors of intimate partner violence, Josina Machel (Mozambique) and Malebogo (Max) Molefhe (Botswana), shared how they had to fight the system to get the justice they deserved after suffering life-changing injuries from their abusers. According to Josina “Women wake up every day and they're faced with rape, beatings and PTSD just like soldiers at war.” The need for systems that address gender norm transformation has never been greater. We need to identify how norms that protect VAW/VAC serve or contradict our communities' values. Amber PetermanConsultant, Social and Economic Policy at UNICEF Innocenti and Research associate professor at the University of North Carolina@a_petermanMeasurement matters: Maybe it is the data geek in me, but I was quite excited to see a resurgence in thinking about how we can better measure and analyze violence-related outcomes and trajectories. A presentation by Lori Heise stressed that the way we think about program success, relies critically on how we analyze outcome data, what we consider abuse, and if we interrogate how programs affect not only occurrence, but also severity, frequency of violence. There were also intriguing debates around data on couple concordance/discordance of violence reporting, an area which the field is only now starting to grabble with—given an emerging generation of evaluations which have explicitly collected data on couples. I expect lots of innovation in the coming years on measurement, and look forward to new insights gained.Going to scale: There was a lot of (welcomed) emphasis on scale, and the need for innovative programming that we not only know works, but that can reach large populations. Some promising examples presented include social protection, school-based programming and mass media or mobile applications – accompanied by the theme of costing from pilot to national scale up. We need more positive examples of programming across different platforms, including within employment (work) based programs, particularly those that are tested with national Governments if we want to leverage economies of scale for prevention efforts. One example of this is the cash transfer and IPV reseach collaborative which Innocenti is part of, which is exploring how to leverage cash transfers at scale for violence reduction.All hands on deck: Attending a forum with such a wide diversity of actors, helps us understand that GBV is not an issue for one organization or one set of stakeholders—it is everyone’s issue. If we want to end violence, everyone has a role to play. It is encouraging to see non-traditional fields attending the forum and thinking creatively how GBV mitigation and prevention components can be integrated into sectors as wide ranging as climate change and environmental programming, to sport and social policy. The most exciting work in my opinion comes from inter-disciplinary and inter-sectorial collaborations—I’m looking forward to more of this (and more Economists, Political Scientists and Psychologists attending the forum in two years!). SVRI 2019 ended with a big bang and left us pondering how to advance gender equality, social justice and violence prevention through research. We feel optimistic that “We know more than before” (Claudia Garcia-Moreno), and that we seem to be “on the cusp of change” (Tina Musuya). Further reading: Bridging the gaps: a global review of intersections of violence against women and violence against childrenCash Plus Model Improving Adolescent Wellbeing with EvidenceBreaking the Cycle: Understanding and addressing the intersections of violence against children and violence against women in Latin America and the Caribbean

Rigorous research in humanitarian emergencies is not only feasible but also necessary to determine what constitutes effective assistance in these settings. This column introduces a Special Issue of the Journal of Development Studies which demonstrates that research establishing causal effects is vital for the design of efficient and effective social protection in settings of fragility and displacement. 

How does a Ghanaian female scholar navigate social-protection research in Africa? Fidelia Dake is a Lecturer at the Regional Institute for Population Studies at the University of Ghana, and recently completed a research fellowship in UNICEF Innocenti with the Transfer Project. UNICEF Innocenti’s Amber Peterman sits down with Fidelia to chat about her fellowship experience and to discuss newly published research on cash transfers. Thanks for speaking with me Fidelia. To start, can you tell us a little about your background, your research interests, and what originally motivated you to work on development issues?My undergraduate studies at the University of Ghana was a combined Bachelor of Science in nutrition and food science with specialization in nutrition. However, I decided that I did not want to work in the laboratory, rather, I wanted to figure out how things worked in the real world. This is what motivated me to do my MPhil and Ph.D. in Population Studies, which I also completed at the University of Ghana. I did a lot of my research on social determinants of obesity, which led to a number of different opportunities, for example visiting scholarships at Pennsylvania State University and the University of North Carolina. After I completed my Ph.D. in 2014, my first job was as a research fellow at the U. N. Economic Commission (ECA) for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This is where I really got into international development, working on myriad issues including gender inequalities, health financing, social protection, schooling, health and nutritional outcomes and how they affect people’s lives, particularly poor and vulnerable populations.The Transfer Project hosts early career African research fellows at Innocenti to generate evidence on effectiveness of cash transfer programmes. What initially attracted you to working with the Transfer Project and can you tell us about the fellowship experience?I first heard about the fellowship while at a conference on Population and Development in Addis Ababa. I saw a call for applications for the Transfer Project advertising the fellowship, so I decided to apply. One thing that originally attracted me was the opportunity to work on impact evaluation. I had some background in methodology and theory from coursework, and also had some experience from working on social inequalities policies from ECA. The fellowship brought these together, with the opportunity to apply data to real world problems. I think it has been a really productive and fruitful partnership. Given that these skills are not the typical types of skills that are learned in our academic training, this is a great opportunity. In fact, I think that the fellowship should be expanded. For example, in addition to visiting Innocenti and working collaboratively on analysis and publication, fellows should also be able to learn the design and data collection phases of evaluation starting from the beginning. And, for those of us finishing up our fellowships, how can we continue collaborating?Your collaborative research with the Transfer Project was recently published—can you tell me about the study you undertook?This study, which has just been published in Studies in Family Planning, is titled “Cash Transfers, Early Marriage and Fertility in Malawi and Zambia.” Basically, the study examines two unconditional Government cash transfer programmes to see if there was any impact on delayed pregnancy and marriage for both male and female youth. The youth we looked at were 14 to 21 years when the programmes started, and were followed for about three years in each case. Although they were not direct recipients of the cash transfers (which went to the household head), we were interested in knowing if there were effects on safe transitions to adulthood. At the end of the day, we do not find evidence of impacts on these outcomes. Nonetheless, I think the study is important to think about how to broaden the scope of domains that are typically looked at, and the pathways through which change can occur for young people. Most of the time, for social protection, the focus has been on adult women or young children, but data is not typically collected on adolescents and youth, so this is a missed opportunity.These results may be disappointing for advocates of cash transfers, however they contain important lessons. What are your main recommendations for future research and for programme implementers?First and foremost, these cash transfers were not meant to impact safe transitions—they were general household support for poverty related objectives. So we cannot say that the cash was unsuccessful. In fact, we find that the programmes positively affected several key pathways, like education, through which improvements for young people may materialize over time. Yet, at least during the study, we see this is not enough to affect the transitions on partnership formation and pregnancy. For researchers, as I mentioned previously, we should try to get a more holistic understanding on how cash works when it enters the household. This includes who we collect data on. There should be a deliberate effort to collect information on adolescents, including their migration and movement as they make these transitions. This can be used to design interventions which could specifically target youth. For example, cash plus programmes, which provide complementary services or benefits to youth themselves in order to target certain outcomes, including reproductive outcomes and union formation....Our research should inform development — but this is not always the case, especially on the African continent, where there tends to be a divide between doing research and engaging directly with development programmes. I encourage young scholars to explore the intersection.One last question: As a female scholar working in a field which is still underrepresented by women, what advice do you have for young girls and women who aspire work in development?I am currently a faculty member at the University of Ghana, and in addition to teaching, I also do research. I really enjoy working in international development, which as you say tends to be a really male-dominated field. I believe research should be done for more than research sake alone — it should be relevant and should impact people’s lives. So, I would encourage young girls and women to strive to do this and explore how they can improve other people’s lives through their research, which can be more fulfilling than just doing research for research sake. For example, if I can show that a small amount of (Ghanaian) cedis can improve people’s lives, I think that is very gratifying. This is important because our research should inform development — but this is not always the case, especially on the African continent, where there tends to be a divide between doing research and engaging directly with development programmes. I encourage young scholars to explore the intersection, even if they think they do not have the right experience at the outset. I have learned a lot in doing this and now have a better understanding of development issues. I would definitely recommend the fellowship to young scholars particularly females who aspire to work in international development.   UNICEF’s Office of Research—Innocenti has hosted six early-career African Researchers to collaborate on analysis of cash transfer programmes with the Social and Economic Policy Team and the Transfer Project. Read more about the fellowship and the capacity building objectives here. This fellowship is made possible with funding from the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) (2016-2020) and the Hewlett Foundation (2018-2020).  

Today, global leaders gather in Stockholm, Sweden for the first ever Agenda 2030 Solutions Summit to end violence against children. The summit brings together governments, UN, civil society, academics and children themselves to share solutions to “prevent and respond to violence against boys and girls.” Underlying this meeting is a growing awareness and recognition that violence is pervasive and that levels represent gross human rights violations.The occasion raises the question – How much do we actually know about the global levels of violence against children?Up until now, our best estimates come from a 2016 systematic review which summarizes data from 36 reports including 112 studies over 96 countries. The review concludes that globally over half of children aged 2-17 have experienced violence and that minimum estimates suggest past-year physical, sexual or emotional violence against children of 50% or more of children in Asia, Africa, and Northern America. While these statistics are alarming, and a crucial step in measuring the magnitude of the problem, they leave many critical questions unanswered. For example, at what age are children most at risk? Should we be targeting girls or boys or both – and who is perpetrating this violence?...for the first time, we understand how children may be at more or less risk across their life course, according to their sex and in different settings. The implications for prevention are huge.A new study published in BMJ Pediatrics gets us one step closer to understanding what we are up against. Led by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, with UNICEF collaborators (among others), we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review - disaggregating measures by perpetrator, age and sex of children. This means, for the first time, we understand how children may be at more or less risk across their life course, according to their sex and in different settings. The implications for prevention are huge.How did researchers develop these estimates? In total, 643 studies from 171 countries, containing 13,830 separate age-specific and sex-specific past-year prevalence estimates were included in the analysis. Only studies of sufficient scale to be representative were included, focusing on international datasets collected across many countries. In addition, estimates were separated by type of violence for all children 0-19 years. To make prevalence estimates across studies comparable, researchers ran random effects meta-regressions. This means estimates were adjusted for the quality of the data, variation in definitions of violence and made to represent country population structures through use of weights (by region-specific, age-specific and sex-specific population data).Although impossible to summarize all results here, a few key findings stand out:The most common perpetrators of physical and emotional violence across a range of ages are household members. An important finding indicates that violence inside the home, perpetrated by a caregiver or other household member, is the most common form of violence experienced by both boys and girls. While prevalence of both emotional and physical violence is above 50% for most ages, emotional violence is more widespread than physical violence. Further, while levels of past-month emotional violence remain relatively constant over age group (at about 60%-70%), levels of past-month physical violence appear to decline slowly as age increases. While at age 2 about 60%-70% of boys and girls experience physical violence from a caregiver or household member, this has decreased to about 40%–50% at age 14.Boys tend to report experiencing school-based violence at higher rates than girls, driven by physical violence. The second most common form of violence is that perpetrated at school by other students. Boys appear to report higher levels of past-year physical violence as compared to girls, whereas both sexes report similar levels of emotional violence. This could be in part due to the higher proportion of boys who attend school globally across the full age range examined. Younger age groups (8-11 years) appear to report higher levels of both emotional and physical bullying (between 70%-80%) as compared to older age groups (12-18 years, estimated at around 50% prevalence).Even at ages as low as 15–19, girls suffer significant rates of intimate partner violence. Based on available data, intimate partners are the third most common source of violence against girls. Physical and emotional violence from dating/intimate partners for girls are about 7% of all girls at age 15 and 13% at age 19. Sexual violence is also non-trivial at 5-7% of 18 and 19 year olds. These figures increase if we consider only girls in partnerships. Unfortunately, a lack of data mean we cannot compute comparable figures for boys. These findings underscore the tendency for partner violence to start young and the need for prevention programs to tackle drivers of violence before marital partnerships are formed.Children are at high-risk of violence from teachers and authority figures. There are too little data to compute global estimates for violence perpetrated by teachers and authority figures. However, available data summarized from four studies among children aged 9-18 years shows rates of violence perpetrated by teachers and authority figures are very high. For example, more than 75% of 9-16 year olds reporting past-year physical violence from a teacher in Uganda. While we have limited understanding of the magnitude of this problem across settings, it is clear that school environments must be targeted for prevention programming.There are too few estimates of sexual violence for boys to understand the true magnitude of the problem. Despite the impressive range of data sources available, huge data gaps still remain. For example, due to the low number of data collection efforts that include questions on sexual violence against boys, we know little about who perpetrates such violence against them and across age ranges. There are also few estimates from violence perpetrated by strangers, and of outcomes of neglect or witnessing violence in the home. It is critical for the global community to close these data gaps and invest in reliable and ethical data collection efforts in the coming decade.A woman who’s family has been affected by violence holds her head as she talks to Social Worker in her home in Kandal province of Cambodia. Overall, the South-East Asia Region had very few estimates of violence that met inclusion criteria for the global review, compared with other regions.Taken together, the findings demonstrate that violence against children is pervasive. It also demonstrates that children of all ages and both boys and girls are at risk for experience of violence in multiple settings (including in the home). This reality means that multi-sectoral, evidence-based programs which address underlying vulnerabilities or which address multiple spheres of children’s lives are urgently needed.The findings also shine a light on the many data gaps. These are not only apparent across typologies of violence, but also in regional distribution. Overall, Europe had substantially more data which met inclusion criteria, and the South-East Asia Region had very few estimates, compared with other regions. Investment is needed to close these data gaps, and to provide sufficient baselines to comparably monitoring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Further, methodological questions remain regarding variation in prevalence obtained from different reporting sources. There is a pressing need to understand optimal methods for soliciting violence experience in the most ethical and safe way possible to protect children from further harm. Without these investments, it will be impossible to monitor if and how violence is reduced across regions and groups equitably towards a world free from childhood violence.Karen Devries is with the Child Protection Research Group and the Gender Violence and Health Centre at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Claudia Cappa (Data and Analytics) and Amber Peterman (Office of Research - Innocenti) are in the Division of Data, Research and Policy (DRP) at UNICEF. The full list of authors and acknowledgement associated with the article are available online via the open access version of “Who perpetrates violence against children? A systematic analysis of age-specific and sex-specific data” in BMJ Pediatrics.Explore the UNICEF Innocenti research catalogue for new publications. Follow UNICEF Innocenti on Twitter and sign up for e-newsletters on any page of the UNICEF Innocenti website.

Gender-based violence is notoriously under-reported—for understandable reasons. Experience of violence is highly stigmatized and victims are often shamed. Respondents may be fearful of retaliation if perpetrators and others find out they have disclosed their experiences. There may also be cultural taboos about disclosing violence, which may be seen as a family issue. This is why most official statistics on gender-based violence are said to be the lower bound of the true prevalence within a population. In an earlier study we published using nationally representative data from 24 countries, we found that most women who experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) had never told anyone. Only a third of women disclosed to friends or family, and only 7 per cent formally reported to police, health facilities, social or legal services. Imagine attempting to improve IPV programming and policy while using data which represents only the tip of the iceberg. Researchers have long invested in designing and implementing surveys to measure the incidence of violence while seeking to both maximize disclosure and minimize harm. However, these careful fieldwork considerations often come at a price. For example, survey instruments which ask behaviorally specific questions for IPV (commonly collected in the DHS and currently the gold standard), can be lengthy to complete. In addition, survey teams must undergo specialized ethics training, provide anonymous referrals to services, employ same sex enumerators, and implement sampling methods to ensure that both women and perpetrators are not interviewed in the same household (or, at times, in the same communities). All this comes at a cost, which may overburden or be logistically infeasible for multi-topic surveys which are not primarily focused on violence. What if there was a way to collect information about violence, while reducing under-reporting without directly asking about violence? A 50 year old woman who has been affected by gender-based violence receives counseling at One Stop Centre that provides support at the Gihundwe hospital in Rusizi district in Rwanda.In a recent publication in Health Economics, we implemented a list randomization to assess the impact of an unconditional cash transfer program on IPV in rural Zambia. List randomization or list experiments, are not a new technique. They have been utilized by Political Scientists for decades to examine public opinion on sensitive topics which respondents were likely to misreport (think racial prejudice, abortion opinions, support for insurgents in war). Economists have increasingly become interested in this method, and others have blogged about methodological considerations. In basic terms, list randomization aggregates a response to a sensitive question alongside responses to non-sensitive questions, thereby masking the respondent’s specific answer to the sensitive question. By randomizing lists with and without the sensitive question, researchers can identify prevalence or incidence of the sensitive item within the population or differences between groups (for example treatment and control), but not attribute the sensitive response on an individual basis. If respondents believe that their sensitive answer is not disclosed to the interviewer, they may be more likely to report private behaviors, such as experience of violence. In our study, we asked one sensitive question to female primary caretakers of children under the age of five at the start of the study: “In the past 12 months, have you ever been slapped, punched, kicked or physically harmed by your partner” in combination with four non-sensitive questions of the same recall period. An example of the non-sensitive questions is: “In the past 12 months have you ever taken care of a sick relative who is unable to care for themselves?” Respondents were asked to report how many of the items they experienced in total (but not which specific items). The data collection was part of the four-year follow-up of a longitudinal randomized control trial where the beneficiary group received an unconditional child grant program (CGP) provided by the Government of Zambia. In our study, we were interested in two things. First, was it feasible to implement the list randomization in a large-multi topic survey—would enumerators collect the data correctly and would prevalence of violence be credible? Second, since the CGP had been highly successful in meeting its main poverty-related objectives, and increased the financial standing of women, we wanted to know if the cash transfer also affected IPV (a potential which has been demonstrated elsewhere). What if there was a way to collect information about violence, while reducing under-reporting and without directly asking about violence?What do we find? First, the list randomization appeared to function as planned, with no evidence of ‘too low’ or ‘too high’ reporting across groups of questions (referred to as ceiling and floor effects). We estimated 15 per cent of women had been exposed to physical IPV in the last year. This is lower than the DHS estimates for Zambia of the same year (2014), which estimate a 21 per cent prevalence for past year physical IPV. This is not surprising as the DHS asks seven questions about specific violent acts which are aggregated to produce this figure. Moreover, when we analyze the impacts of the program, we find that after four years, the CGP resulted in no measurable increases or decreases in IPV. Despite these interesting findings, we are not able to assess the level of underreporting for IPV specifically for the same reasons we could not implement a full IPV module: As the evaluation was not focused on violence or gender topics, there was no logistical room to add complex ethical and logistical arrangements to the evaluation needed to collect IPV measures. However, two other recent working papers have experimented with this approach and shed light on measurement bias. The first paper, by Joseph and colleagues [Underreporting of Gender-based Violence in Kerala, India], examines two types of violence: domestic violence and physical harassment on buses. The authors measure both questions at the household level (e.g. at least one woman in my household has faced physical aggression from her husband; at least one woman/girl in my household has faced physical harassment while traveling on public/private buses). They find that underreporting is over nine percentage points for IPV, however negligible for harassment. They also find a number of sub-groups are more likely to underreport, for example urban households and poorer households are more likely to underreport IPV, as are female respondents. Although a useful demonstration of reporting bias, the analysis is complicated by the fact that the questions are asked at the household level, and thus are not cleanly comparable to the gold standard of women’s self reports. However, it does suggest that respondents in general are more likely to disclose an incident of ‘public’ harassment as compared to ‘private’ abuse—as hypothesized by the literature on underreporting. An 18 year old mother, holds her 2 year old son near the coast shortly after arriving in Cox's Bazar District, Bangladesh. They spent seven days on a bank of the Naf River in Myanmar before making the crossing aboard a fishing boat. There have been numerous reports of gender-based violence affecting Rohyinga refugees fleeing from Myanmar.The second paper, by Agüero and Frisancho [Misreporting in Sensitive Health Behaviors], conducts a list randomization for physical and sexual IPV among female micro-credit clients in peri-urban and rural areas of Lima, Peru. The nice thing about this paper is that the authors conduct nine separate list experiments for each IPV item, thus they are able to compare each IPV item separately (being pushed, being slapped, being threatened with a knife, gun or weapon etc.). In comparing women who were asked the list experiment and those who were asked the direct question—they find no significant differences. However, digging deeper, they find there are differences by level of education of the woman. In particular, women with completed tertiary education report higher levels of IPV under the list experiment as compared to the direct questioning. The implications are that reporting bias may differ by characteristics of the woman, thus changing our conclusions about who suffers from violence, or how interventions affect different sub-groups of women. In this case, authors conjecture that higher educated women may face larger (real or perceived, including higher stigma) costs of being exposed and require higher levels of confidentiality to make them feel safe. However, there are no differential effects by other characteristics of the women, including age, marital status, employment status, memory scores or others, suggesting overall differences between the two methods are limited. Taken together, these three papers build on efforts across disciplines to consider the usefulness and applicability of list randomizations for collection of data on violence. In the best case scenario, we may be able to assess underreporting, similar to other methodologies researchers have investigated, including use of self-administered surveys and qualitative methodologies. In other cases, we may be able to leverage this method for a ‘light touch’ way to monitor potential backlash, increases or decreases in violence in multi-topic and non-sectoral evaluations, which would otherwise not endeavor to collect violence information. We encourage further experimentation and creativity to further understanding of how to best measure, respond to and program for reduction of violence. Amber Peterman and Tia Palermo are Social Policy Specialists at the UNICEF Office of Research—Innocenti working on health, gender and social protection evaluations under the Transfer Project, a multi-organization research and learning initiative evaluating Government cash transfers in sub-Saharan Africa. Explore the UNICEF Innocenti research catalogue for new publications. Follow UNICEF Innocenti on Twitter and sign up for e-newsletters on any page of the UNICEF Innocenti website.

If you work in international development or set aside a portion of your paycheck to donate to promising global causes, then you’ve probably heard of a new trend in giving: direct cash transfers. For example, it is likely you’ve heard about the NGO GiveDirectly. which gives money via mobile transfer with ‘no strings attached’ to poor households, primarily in Kenya and in other East African countries. Publicly founded in 2011, GiveDirectly has taken the global poverty discourse by storm. Called revolutionary, radical, and a breakthrough model, GiveDirectly has been featured on nearly every major news source covering global issues. GiveDirectly and other NGOs just giving cash have been pivotal in raising the discourse on the ability of households to make strategic decisions about their own needs and wellbeing. This shift is hugely welcome and will undoubtedly play a role in future global advocacy for cash transfers in the fight against poverty and inequality. Now, what about the Cash Transfer for Orphan’s and Vulnerable Children or the Hunger Safety Net Programme— have you heard of them? Both are unconditional cash transfers, running for over a decade and implemented by the Government of Kenya. Chances are, unless you work on social protection, or live in Kenya, they are not on your radar. Yet, on face value, they operate in a similar way to GiveDirectly, transferring equivalents of approximately 20 to 25 USD on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to poor households to use as they see fit to improve their lives. However, while GiveDirectly has enrolled 50,000 households and 200,000 people in the five years of operation, these two programs regularly reach over 450,000 households nationwide. All told, Kenya’s four main cash transfer programs provide consistent support to over 800,000 households. In other words, the government of Kenya’s national social protection programs are over 15 times larger than GiveDirectly. This level of government support for social protection is impressive, but not unique. Dozens of others (South Africa, Ethiopia, Zambia, Tanzania, Ghana to name a few) have established cash transfer programs which have been running for up to two decades and with tens of millions of beneficiaries. If Government programs dwarf NGOs like GiveDirectly in nearly every African country, why do all the accolades and publicity go to the NGOs? And, what can Governments and institutional actors do to make their voices heard in driving the international discourse on unconditional cash? Here are seven strategies where NGOs have excelled and where Governments can learn a tip or two: Ghana’s Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) program targets very poor households, particularly those with elderly heads and those keeping orphans. In addition to transfers, beneficiaries also receive free national health insurance.Tell a storyEveryone loves a good story—especially those based on personal accounts and motivation to make change. Stories with an element of ‘aid’ are particularly heartstring grabbing, and make us all to join the bandwagon to support and share the effort (e.g. Western charity). In contrast the ‘story’ of a Government supporting their country’s vulnerable populations—which is arguably their mandate—is, at face value, much less likely to grab headlines. However, this need not be the case: There are plenty of champions and leaders in the fight against poverty within Government programs which have the potential to tell a good story—seeped in national history and culture. We just need to amplify their voices and show why a story of fighting poverty from within is just as compelling as from the ‘West.’ State your aspirationsImportance is measured not only by the current state of affairs, but also by what potential and opportunities lie in the future. Stakeholders want to know what they can expect 5 or 10 years down the road—not just in practical terms (e.g. we want to expand to X beneficiaries)—but in aspirational terms. GiveDirectly states we aim to drive conversations about the future of philanthropy and foreign aid and to reshape international giving. Their 12-year basic income pilot is claimed to be the largest experiment in history. Whether or not this is true, one cannot help but pay attention—and want to be part of this exciting new future. When was the last time we heard a Government be bold enough to share their vision of the global movement they aspire to through cash transfer programming? Be transparentLet’s face it—no matter how much evidence we have suggesting that beneficiaries don’t drink away the money or become lazy and dependent on transfers—there will always be critics who claim cash will be used unwisely or siphoned off through bribes or corrupt implementers. GiveDirectly has responded with GDLive, which provides real, unedited updates and stories from recipients, even providing raw data from basic questions poised to beneficiaries via mobile phones. If anyone questions that cash is not being received in full or being utilized in a positive way—they can simply head over to see for themselves. This confidence and transparency in operations could go a long way to build stakeholder trust and program buy in—yet Governments have largely not taken the leap to experiment with similar models. Leverage evidenceEvaluate your program (rigorously) and seek to answer questions that go beyond your program’s impacts—those which are also of interest to the larger global community. When GiveDirectly implemented a 12-month evaluation of their program in western Kenya, they used the gold standard for evaluation (longitudinal randomized control trial) and experimented with the size, timing and sex of the transfer recipient to understand if program operations affected a large range of outcomes. Governments often do not build in the flexibility, pre-planning or funding for a rigorous evaluation—however bringing evidence to the table is feasible, and can be well worth the investment. Evidence can both ensure the legacy and legitimacy of a program, as well as identify areas to optimize program design and delivery. A savvy operational plan includes evidence to back it up. Tech upMobile payments: They are often more efficient, private, secure, cost-effective and allow a built in real-time monitoring and feedback system. Unless a program is operating in a low coverage area, everyone should be asking themselves why they are not already utilizing mobile payments and what they can do to move to this system. Although many Government programs have piloted mobile transfers (see for example, Malawi and Kenya), moving an at scale-system delivering benefits to millions of individuals to mobile payments comes with unique logistical hurdles, including the need for partnerships with the private sector, and flexible arrangements for when challenges arise. Even newer technology like blockchain offers avenues to further experiment with direct giving. We encourage this continued experimentation to move towards a more efficient and transparent system—an accomplishment already achieved by many smaller scale NGOs. Beneficiaries of the Government of Ghana’s Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) program cue to receive cash transfers. LEAP has been running since 2008 and has recently piloted a model targeted to pregnant women and infants called ‘LEAP 1000’Share your challenges and failuresEveryone loves a success story, but in the real world, not everything goes right all the time. The marker of a progressive organization is the ability to be realistic about challenges and learn from failures. GiveDirectly has embraced this in their blog, often discussing “candid thoughts”—for example, when the Kenya Country Director blogged about refusal rates approaching 50% of households in areas where the program was viewed with suspicion and there was community resistance. Or when reports of fraud were disclosed in Uganda, primarily via enrolling of ineligible households. However, this seemingly unflattering press does not seem to rub off on the NGO, instead it indicates commitment to continually improving operations and impact through recognition of what could be done better. Governments often lack an active social media platform through which to share accomplishments and challenges, which could be a first step to encourage regular information sharing. Don’t be afraid to ask for helpAlthough GiveDirectly has corporate and institutional donors, they do not shy away from asking anyone and everyone for donations. For example, this year they started fundraising for a basic income pilot, which was costed at 30 million USD. To date they have raised 24.6 million USD from donations alone—also a great strategy to make supporters feel like they are part of the solution and movement. Perhaps the same appeal would not be as favorably viewed if initiated by a Government, but the sentiment remains—if there is no recognition and request for expertise or resources to fill a gap—it is likely to remain. These seven strategies require identifying and understanding ones strengths, and exploiting them. Governments have incredible power and resources to implement sustainable programs at scale in a way an NGO will never achieve. Systems can be leveraged to overlay complementary activities and services to create synergies to tackle gaps that cash alone can never address. While there have been some success stories where Governments have leveraged these strategies, there is much untapped potential. Of course, while institutional programming is incredibly diverse, it will never be as flexible as an NGO program—politics may (and do) often constrain actions and activities. However, institutionalized programs can also play a role in shaping the global discourse, being recognized and attracting resources, to further the ultimate goal of national poverty reduction. We hope these strategies will help Government’s think more nimbly and creatively about how to ‘market’ their programs on the international stage. We urge NGOs to work closer with Governments, to form partnerships and provide evidence and experimentation relevant to inform national policy. It is time to recognize that African governments have been (and will continue to be) at the forefront of providing cash transfers to poor and vulnerable populations; now is the time for their presence to be felt on the international stage. Amber Peterman, PhD. is a social policy specialist at the UNICEF Office of Research—Innocenti, and has over 10 years working on evaluations of cash transfer programs, primarily under the Transfer Project. Pamela Dale is a social policy specialist at the UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office based in Nairobi, and has worked and published on social protection in Southeast Asia, eastern Africa, and Europe. Explore the UNICEF Innocenti research catalogue for new publications. Follow UNICEF Innocenti on Twitter and sign up for e-newsletters on any page of the UNICEF Innocenti website.

Late last month, over 500 researchers, policymakers, donors and activists descended on the beautiful city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the 5th bi-annual Sexual Violence Research Initiative Forum, the largest global gathering focusing on gender-based violence (GBV) in low- and middle-income countries. The forum has become the venue to connect with others working to prevent and respond to GBV, hear the newest research and evidence, network and collaborate. The theme of this year’s forum, “Partnerships for Policy Action,” is apt given the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for the first time, include targets to eliminate violence along with tracking and accountability mechanisms for national governments. Dr. Claudia Garcia Moreno of the World Health Organization opened the Forum by reflecting on the great progress made and long road still ahead. She stressed the need for partnerships and a multi-sectoral, participatory approach to tackle the complex forces that drive violence, particularly involving youth, who will determine the landscape of the future. Dr. Garcia Moreno re-emphasized attention to vulnerable groups, including ethnic minorities, and the need to move from intervention testing to effective scale-up of programs that “work.” Although progress has been made in establishing that violence against children is a problem in every country, data alone is not sufficient without processes to contextualize it and use it actively to inform programming, direct policy, and monitor achievementThis years’ forum was the largest to date, with over 350 presentations, workshops and satellite meetings attended by 535 participants, an increase from Stellenbosch, South Africa in 2015 (129 presentations among the 398 attendees) and Bangkok, Thailand in 2013 (105 presentations among the 180 attendees). The Forum’s rapid growth reflects how gender based violence is increasingly recognized as a key global issue and connected to other forms of interpersonal and structural violence. The commitment to end violence is also growing among activists, practitioners, researchers and policymakers. A social worker consults a family in Kandal province, Cambodia. The family has been severely affected by gender-based violence and is in need for social protection and support.For a comprehensive summary of new research and evidence presented at the forum, see its website (where presentations will be posted). The following summaries reflect UNICEF’s contributions, as well as four priority areas of focus. How do we leverage global data on violence affecting children and use it for policy action?This was the topic of an inter-agency panel organized by UNICEF Innocenti, which began with the first ever presentation of global age-, sex-, and perpetrator-specific estimates of childhood violence from a systematic review led by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s (LSHTM) Karen Devries. These results were also recently released as part of the Know Violence in Childhood Initiative, suggesting that a larger number of children are subject to violence than previously estimated. Audrey Pereira (Innocenti) then presented joint ongoing work estimating the percentage and determinants of disclosure and help-seeking among childhood violence survivors across six countries, suggesting the rates of formal help seeking are extremely low, with implications for reducing barriers children face. Innocenti’s Alina Potts and UNICEF Philippines’ Faye Balanon presented work from the Multi-Country Study on the Drivers of Violence Affecting Children, detailing how nationally-led research processes can drive country-level policy change. Although progress has been made in establishing that violence against children is a problem in every country, data alone is not sufficient without processes to contextualize it and use it actively to inform programming, direct policy, and monitor achievement in these areas as well as toward the global SDGs. The understudied linkages between economic empowerment and violence reductionThere is increasing evidence that economic empowerment interventions have potential to decrease violence, a potential explored in a recently published Innocenti review of social safety nets and violence against children. At the Forum, Innocenti’s Amber Peterman presented joint work exploring the intersection of cash transfers and intimate partner violence, reviewing mixed methods studies indicating that the majority of rigorous work to date shows cash can decrease violence through a variety of mechanisms. In the same session, Shalini Roy of the International Food Policy Research Institute presented new work from Bangladesh showing that cash plus behavior change communication reduced intimate partner violence six months after the intervention ended. The Forum also featured alternative economic interventions, such as ongoing work on a youth-parent livestock asset transfers also in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Nancy Glass of John Hopkins University). We look forward to the forum spurring more cross-disciplinary work on economic empowerment and structural interventions to reduce violence between specialists on violence against women and girls and development economists (among others). UNICEF scholarship recipient Joyce sits outside her home in Ndirande township in Blantyre with UNICEF Malawi’s Doreen Matonga. An outstanding student and talented poet, Joyce is top of her class which has a total of 122 children.Gender based violence in EmergenciesUNICEF’s long-standing work, led by Mendy Marsh, has contributed greatly to the professionalization and standardization of both prevention and response of gender based violence in emergencies. This was evident in several panels showcasing inter-agency and sector-leading tools supported and (co)led by UNICEF, including the new Inter-Agency Case Management Guidelines, findings from the “Communities Care” program using social norms theory to reduce GBV in South Sudan and Somalia, and sharing learning and uptake from the first 18 months of rolling out the revised IASC GBV Guidelines. Research in emergencies is possible and vital to informing programming, particularly in protracted crises; the ethics and methods for doing such work were showcased in a pre-conference workshop by the International Rescue Committee and the Global Women’s Institute of George Washington University, who are developing field-friendly guidance to fill gaps in this area. Work showcasing the use of mobile technologies, mixed and qualitative methods, and effectiveness of programs to prevent violence. For example, the work of Mazeda Hossain and Alys McAlpine (LSHTM), the International Rescue Committee, and other colleagues to evaluate programs providing care for gender based violence survivors in Dadaab refugee camp reflects on the impacts this kind of work has on the refugee community workers who often serve as ‘frontline’ responders in their own communities.  The role of social norms in changing harmful behaviors that underpin gender based violenceGender discrimination is recognized as a root cause of violence against women and girls, often underpinned by unequal ‘gender norms’ and harmful ‘social norms.’ Panels focused on the effectiveness of interventions to change harmful social norms and introduce positive social norms among couples, youth, and communities. These included UNICEF’s Communities Care program (mentioned above), identifying entry points for changing social norms promoting gender based violence among young people in the Latin America and Caribbean region and Tunisia, and the Gender Roles, Equality, and Transformations (GREAT) project conducted by Georgetown University’s Institute for Reproductive Health, Save the Children, and Pathfinder International. This initiative aims to understand how gender norms are learned, internalized and passed on among adolescents (ages 10-19). As reflected upon by a participant during the closing session, much of this work assumes that beliefs must be changed before changes in behavior can be achieved, but how do we know that to be the case? Further research is needed to understand how much behavior can change in spite of, or in contradiction to people’s beliefs. The closing plenary with talks by re-emphasized the messages shared by Emma Fulu of the Equality Institute at the start of the conference, including the need to re-establish a feminist approach to combating GBV, one that centers the voices of women and girls in work to end violence against them, and that values different forms of knowledge rather than solely medicalized or technocratic approaches. The importance of inter-sectorality and partnerships was highlighted, as well as a need to meaningfully engage with vulnerable groups such as indigenous populations to end the often overlapping or ‘intersectional’ violence they face. In the words of one courageous survivor of childhood sexual abuse who now works tirelessly against it, Brisa de Angulo of Bolivia, “Nothing about us without us.” There was recognition that despite the growth in numbers, the community working to end violence is relatively small in comparison to the magnitude of the issue—thus a reminder that we “always need to keep marching” to make progress for those less fortunate than ourselves (alluding to the latest march against femicide after the murder of 19-year-old Mara Fernanda Castilla in Mexico). Finally, youth activists from around the world performed for the participants, reflecting on what they had seen, heard, and contributed during the conference, reminding us to put our efforts into evidence for real change, rather than academic accolades. We heartily congratulate the SVRI secretariat on organizing another successful international Forum and look forward to checking back in on how we are progressing in terms of voice, accountability, and evidence, at the next Forum in South Africa in 2019 (in beautiful Cape Town, South Africa)! Amber Peterman is a Social Policy Specialist and Alina Potts is a Research and Evaluation Specialist in Child Protection at the UNICEF Innocenti. For additional information, see Innocenti’s research program on violence, including the Multi-Country Study on VAC, SVRI-funded work linking education to violence in Malawi and Uganda (brief), and our research on cash transfers, women’s asset ownership and violence. Explore the UNICEF Innocenti research catalogue for new publications. Follow UNICEF Innocenti on Twitter and sign up for e-newsletters on any page of the UNICEF Innocenti website.

It is hard to discuss development, poverty and foreign aid without someone mentioning the contentious topic of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Some say it will be the defining issue for the future of poverty and inequity, others say it will never work. But what exactly are the defining features of UBI?According to the Basic Income Earth Network, “A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.” In other words, it is a universal, unconditional cash paid over time. UBI is not only a development tool for countries with generalized poverty—UBI pilots are under discussion or have started in places like Oakland (United States), Ontario (Canada) and Utrecht (Netherlands). Whether you love it (see exhibit A, B, C), hate it (see exhibit D, E, F), or are somewhere in between, headlines and debates are clearly not going away anytime soon.Despite the hype, UBI is not a new concept. In fact, the idea of an unconditional basic income support dates back to the mid-19th century with ‘utopian socialist’ visionaries. Today, giving poor households cash on a regular, predictable basis to use as they wish is already a mainstay of many Governments’ social policies – including (and especially) in countries with mass poverty. In Africa, it is estimated that 40 countries have unconditional cash transfers, a doubling between 2010 and 2014. Proponents of unconditional cash cite similar arguments as UBI enthusiasts—they are simple, cost effective, give beneficiaries dignity and autonomy over use—and they deliver a broad range of poverty- and human capital-related impacts....evidence suggests that giving unconditional cash does not cause people to stop working. Instead, evaluations under the Transfer Project suggest that beneficiaries often switch from working in hard day labor agricultural positions, to working on their own farms and small businessThere are some important differences between UBI and unconditional cash transfers. For one, UBI is universal—thus inviting moral critiques—should give money to the ‘rich’? Who will pay the price tag? Yet, unconditional cash transfers in Africa commonly use geographical targeting, which mean everyone in a specified area receive benefits—thus programs share functional principles of a UBI. Many of the current debates around UBI hinge on the ‘newness’ or ‘novelty’ of implementation—and critique hypothetical outcomes of such experiments. These debates assume we do not yet know what might happen over time when we give people unconditional cash transfers. However, many of these debates center on core concepts which have been studied for decades in unconditional cash transfer programming. As such, it is curious that these same critiques around giving unconditional cash has been reframed as “controversial.”Let’s take a closer look at some of the critical claims in the context of sub-Saharan Africa, the region currently home for three quarters of world’s ultra-poor. A group called the Transfer Project has been studying large-scale Government unconditional cash transfers for about a decade. They have conducted rigorous evaluations to see how cash changed the behavior of beneficiaries over time—the majority of whom were well below the extreme poverty line. Research using eight evaluations in seven countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe) takes a look at some of the ideology:Cash increases spending on alcohol and tobacco: It is hard to propose giving money to the poor without someone suggesting they will drink it away on booze, or waste it on smokes. The Transfer Project evaluations found no evidence of increased spending on these ‘temptation’ goods. Since poverty and related stress can fuel alcohol use—and unconditional cash has been found to decrease both—this is not an altogether surprising finding.Cash is a short term ‘Band-Aid’: Perhaps you have heard the saying “if you give a man a fish…” If so, you will be familiar with the critique that the poor might use cash transfers for short-term consumption, without investment in activities which will ultimately allow them to break the cycle of poverty (e.g. “teach a man to fish”). However, evidence shows that individuals use cash also for investment in activities like agriculture, livestock assets, and education for their children – exactly the types of investments which will “feed them for a lifetime.” In fact, impacts on school enrollment among secondary school-aged children were found to be large, in line with impacts found in Latin America where transfers are mostly conditional on schooling.Cash creates dependency: The age old perception of the ‘lazy’ welfare beneficiary is alive and well. Yet again, evidence suggests that giving unconditional cash does not cause people to stop working. Instead, evaluations under the Transfer Project suggest that beneficiaries often switch from working in hard day labor agricultural positions, to working on their own farms and small business—a switch which improves their welfare. Poor populations have little incentive to stay poor, and giving them an income boost does little to change this."I am poor but now thanks to cash transfers my family can live a better life. I now feel I can change my life and with the money I receive I will open a restaurant-tea house." ~ Widowed beneficiary and mother of three childrenFertility will increase: Policymakers love to suggest that unconditional cash transfers, particularly those targeted to families with children will cause an increase in fertility as families try to gain eligibility for benefits. This is not true. The Transfer Project has found no evidence of increases in fertility—in fact in two countries (Kenya and South Africa), it was found that cash transfers actually decreased early pregnancy among young women and adolescent girls. Let us not assume that giving support to poor households will result in the next baby boom.Cash will have negative impacts on local markets: Critics have also flagged the potential negative community-level impacts of giving cash, including price inflation. The Transfer Project found that cash created beneficial spill overs in the local economy ranging from $1.27 to $2.52 USD generated for every dollar transferred, with no evidence of inflation. Instead of hurting the local economy, transferring cash stimulated community markets and economic development.Zambia's Social Cash Transfer Programme has helped households to pay for school meals and to afford to buy new school uniforms for their children. There is a lot that cash can do, but it is not a silver bullet - families will always need health, education and other social services - problems which cannot be solved by giving cash. However, none of the common myths examined here seem to hold up in the face of hard evidence. While ideology (and politics) will always play a role, we must ensure information is clearly accessible and actionable for policy makers in order for evidence to win over ideology.There are many challenges head in the UBI debate, but let us not make the mistake of inventing the wheel—after decades of research on unconditional cash transfers—we have learned many things. Let us also not forget that while the UBI frenzy overtakes the international scene, in settings of generalized poverty, Governments are already giving regular, predictable, unconditional cash to families—to use as they wish to improve their own lives.“Hunger pushed me to beg. Since I started to receive the cash transfer I no longer have to. I feel happier. Before, when I was in the street, my neighbours would turn away fearing that I would ask them for food; now they greet me.”  ~ Elderly beneficiary, Ethiopia. [A new Innocenti Research Brief by the blog authors: Mythbusting? How research is refuting common perceptions about unconditional cash transfers conveys this evidence in a simple, easy-to-understand format.]Amber Peterman is social policy specialist with the UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti. Silvio Daidone his an econometrician with FAO. The Transfer Project is a multi-organizational initiative of UNICEF, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Save the Children UK and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in collaboration with national governments, and other national and international researchers. For  the full working paper see: Handa S, Daidone S, Peterman A, Davis B, Pereira A, Palermo T, and J Yablonski on behalf of the Transfer Project (2017). “Myth busting? Confronting Six Common Perceptions about Unconditional Cash Transfers as a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Africa” UNICEF Office of Research—Innocenti Working Paper 2017-11.

In international development, research is never purely an academic exercise. Its purpose, ultimately, is to provide knowledge that can be used to improve the lives of poor and vulnerable populations. Yet, despite increased focus on understanding the influence that research has on development policy and practice, methodology for measurement is still in its infancy.The process of evaluating research impact is challenging. True attribution is rarely possible and even assumptions around contribution need to be scrutinized to avoid bias and enhanced perceptions of influence. Some of the methods used for assessing research impact - for example, bibliometrics or "most significant change" - have been around for some time, while new innovations continue to emerge, including Research Contribution Framework, SenseMaker ®, AltMetrics and Social Network Analysis.Applying a case study approach, UNICEF, FAO and partners recently published From Evidence to Action: The Story of Social Cash Transfers and Impact Evaluations in Sub-Saharan Africa. The book focuses on 8 evaluations of government-run social protection programs in African countries, conducted under the Transfer Project (Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe). The special focus of the edition is on how evidence from evaluations were used to catalyze policy and programme change in the social protection arena. Co-authored by researchers, policymakers (including government officials), donors and implementers, each country chapter offers an honest and convincing account of how changed happened.While recognizing variation across countries, the book concludes that 10 years of evidence from the Transfer Project (Chapter 2) contributed to :Building the overall credibility of an emerging social protection sector;Strengthening the case for social protection as an investment tool, and addressing public perceptions and misconceptions;Supporting learning around program design and implementation to inform program improvements; andShaping policy discussions and informing regional social protection agendas.For those of you who have less time to dig into the 350 page volume, here are six key lessons from the editors.Lesson 1: Make sure evaluations are linked to national policy priorities: One of the simplest ways we can ensure results are relevant for policy is to evaluate 'real' programs, which are of interest to stakeholders. In the Transfer Project, this was accomplished by focusing on government-led programming which had gained enough momentum to be squarely on the political agenda. Further, evaluations were commissioned at key moments, when research findings could feed into policy decisions regarding the design, expansion and funding of programs. Because government stakeholders were involved from the outset, key questions of national interest could be included in the evaluation, avoiding the pitfall of answering questions solely driven by academic novelty. Beneficiaries of a Cash Transfer scheme, to which UNICEF is offering technical support, pose for photgraphs at their homes in Bagamoya, Tanzania.Lesson 2: Stronger relationships lead to improved policy linkages: Research teams including both national and international professionals, with quantitative and qualitative expertise, able to interact with and respond to diverse sets of stakeholders, increased national ownership and involvement in the research process. Ultimately this led to trust in, and credibility of, the research teams as well as the evaluation results. Consequentially, when adverse or unexpected findings were uncovered, they were more likely to be accepted, critically discussed, and acted upon, rather than "swept under the rug." For example, in Ghana when irregular payments led to decreased program effectiveness (Chapter 7), or in Zimbabwe when lack of harmonization across targeted transfers led to decreased benefits for households (Chapter 10)-there was commitment to find solutions, instead of finger pointing.Lesson 3: Diversify research products over the evaluation timeline: A common critique of impact evaluations is that once results are delivered-it is too late to make 'course corrections' or inform program scale-up due to the lengthy time between evaluation and publication of results. This was addressed by conducting targeting and baseline analyses, rapid assessments, qualitative work, simulation of local economy impacts, and other products to inform decisions in a timely manner. These analyses complemented the end-of-program impact results to feed into quick 'policy wins' and program change along the evaluation timeline. In Kenya, targeting analysis led to a revision of the targeting formula, better accounting for regional and livelihood differences (Chapter 6) and rapid assessments in Lesotho led to responsive adjustment from a flat transfer to one that varied by household size (Chapter 11). Each country has numerous examples.Lesson 4: Don't overlook the importance of packaging evidence: Another important component of translating evidence into policy change is the framing and presentation of actionable messages through diverse media platforms at key policy junctures. Use of easily accessible products to a non-research audience, such as policy briefs, oral presentations, fact sheets, and advocacy videos (among others) improves links to diverse stakeholders. For example, the Government of Ghana released a series of branded policy briefs utilizing evaluation evidence, which were heavily used in national and regional fora (Chapter 7). Crafting messages to mitigate myths and perceptions which were not backed by evidence also contributed to creating an enabling policy environment. Messaging helped position transfers as investments that create economic multiplier effects as opposed to costs that promote dependency.   Lesson 5: Create regional learning communities: Although evaluations were nationally focused, the combination of evaluations undertaken by the consortium of actors under the Transfer Project contributed to a regional learning culture with its own formal and informal information exchange mechanisms. Annual Transfer Project workshops assisted with cross-country learning and awareness raising among non-evaluation country stakeholders in the region and beyond. Combining evaluation findings from countries at different stages of evaluation and program maturity, to examine both commonalities and divergences, led to a rich regional learning agenda and facilitated an enabling policy environment around social protection.Lesson 6: Build local capacity: Many evaluations work with national research firms and institutes, and build local capacity by training local enumerators or publishing with local academics. The Transfer Project takes this a step further by establishing ongoing research partnerships (e.g. with the African Economic Research Consortium), conducing evaluation training for networks of Ph.D. students, and running a fellowship program, which encourages promising early career African researchers to collaborate with Transfer Project researchers on joint publications, among other activities. Building capacity is not only good practice, but also contributes greatly to ownership and lasting influence of findings at a national level.The authors and editors of From Evidence to Action acknowledge that many decisions come down to politics, or are taken based on influences which are outside the control of research or stakeholder teams. In these instances, and in cases where research findings point out implementation or other challenges, the book still offers important learning that we can glean for future programming (Chapter 14).UNICEF and others who conduct research in international development should strive to use the evidence in a meaningful way. The challenges associated with this outlook are numerous, and include developing and refining sound methods for assessing research impact, as well as using the acquired lessons to maximize the influence of research in the future. Congratulations to the Transfer Project book team, and for raising the bar on research uptake for meaningful change in the lives of poor and vulnerable children and households around the globe!Amber Peterman is a social policy specialist and Nikola Balvin is a knowledge management specialist at the UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti The Transfer Project book "From Evidence to Action" was published by Oxford University Press and edited by Benjamin Davis (FAO), Sudhanshu Handa (UNC, former UNICEF Innocenti), Nicola Hypher (Save the Children UK), Natalia Winder Rossi (FAO), Paul Winters (IFAD) and Jennifer Yablonski (UNICEF), and includes contributions from over 80 authors. For more information on regional book launches and to download the book for free, see the Transfer Project webpage.Explore the UNICEF Innocenti research catalogue for recent publications from the Transfer Project. Follow UNICEF Innocenti on Twitter and sign up for e-newsletters on any page of the UNICEF Innocenti website.

UNICEF works on social protection programs in over 100 countries, and many are expanding rapidly. In discussions with stakeholders, there are two gender assumptions we hear repeatedly: giving benefits to women (rather than men) will result in better outcomes – particularly for children transfers will increase women’s empowerment. In other words, paying attention to gender is important not only to deliver better programme results, but also as its own objective. But are these assumptions based on evidence? While the claims are promising, we actually know less about them than we should. The primary reason for uncertainty is that gender dynamics are highly contextual and their effect on outcomes varies according to underlying cultural norms. As a consequence, it has been hard to land on a global consensus on both topics. A woman has just received her first LEAP 1000 payment Village of Gundaa, Northern Region Let’s consider the first assumption:  Men and women will invest cash transfers in different ways. Of course. However, assuming this will result in significantly better programme outcomes is less clear. Research showing women spend in more ‘family-friendly’ ways is primarily based on household consumption and spending studies – rather than studies which actually evaluated the recipients of transfers in a rigorous way (e.g. through randomization of benefits). Recently, a review attempted to answer questions regarding economic transfers (including cash transfers), screening nearly 6,000 abstracts to find those which compared men and women recipients within the same program. Only 15 studies included a thorough comparison, with the overall conclusion that there was no pattern showing household benefits were greater depending on who in the household received them. What about the second assumption: Cash transfers empower women beneficiaries. While some literature examines this question, a review of quantitative and qualitative evidence on an array of economic interventions shows that only in the case of conditional cash transfers is there strong support of the claim. Evidence from all quantitative studies and qualitative evidence on unconditional cash transfers is mixed. In fact, some critiques suggest conditional transfers could actually reinforce traditional gender roles and increase women’s work burden related to conditions. Assessing this evidence is complicated by a myriad of indicators used to measure ‘empowerment’: indicators range from women’s intra-household decision making to social networks to land or asset ownership, making it difficult to draw conclusions. In addition, programmes may have very different impacts depending on design. Finally, the bulk of evidence comes from Latin America, where programs are largely conditional and where programs have been operating the longest (thus with opportunities to show medium or long(er) term impact). Consider evidence from the multi-country Transfer Project, a sub-Saharan African initiative supporting rigorous mixed-method evaluations of largely unconditional government-run cash transfers. In these programs, the majority of beneficiaries are women or reach female headed households. For example, in Zambia’s Child Grant Program, 99% of beneficiaries are women, as the unconditional cash transfer (equivalent to US$12/month) is given to primary caregivers in households with children age 0-5. In two recent working papers, we examine how the Zambian cash transfer programme could have affected women’s empowerment. In the first paper, we examine women’s intra-household decision making using quantitative impact evaluation data from a 4-year randomized control trial, paired with a qualitative study to examine narratives and definitions of empowerment among women and men in study communities. Quantitatively, we find significant increases in the total number decisions women participated in. However, in practical terms, these increases were so small (one third of a decision over nine domains) they seem inconsequential. This lack of meaningful improvements were echoed in qualitative work, showing entrenched gender norms: “Even in the laws of Zambia, a woman is like a steering wheel, and us (the men) are the ones to drive them in everything” ~Male, age 53 (beneficiary household) Yet, women’s narratives implied a more subtle change: In nearly all cases, when women and men were asked to talk about what empowerment means, they equated it to financial standing, rather than on relationships or social standing. In this realm, women saw a change brought about by the grant: “I have also been empowered because of the child grant. I never used to have my own money, but now even as I suggest something to my husband, I don’t feel worthless because I have money in my hands. It is my first time to experience such; I am really empowered.” ~Female, married age 24 (beneficiary) In a second paper we look directly at women’s financial standing (specifically savings and household non-farm enterprises). We find evidence that the cash transfer increased the probability that women were saving (by 100%), and the amount they saved. Secondly, transfers led to increase in small businesses operated by women – beneficiaries used savings to invest in income- generating activities to smooth consumption and provide additional economic security for their households. Therefore, we see that although decision making is a useful concept, it is difficult to measure and interpret quantitatively, and in this context, actual economic indicators themselves are more insightful. In the words of women themselves, and as mirrored by their financial status, the Zambia transfer programme increased women’s wellbeing, and we hypothesize was made possible because transfers were paid directly to women themselves. Ultimately, gender dynamics within any programme will vary with cultural context and it’s important to consider how gender may affect programs from the start. If not ‘one size fits all,’ what general conclusions can we draw from this example? While transfers target women due to the gender inequalities they can help reduce, cash delivered directly to women (versus men) may not necessarily result in better outcomes for children. We should not assume that giving cash to women will lead to a change in household decision making as this depends on relationships with men and power dynamics within households. Alternative outcome measures could include specific targets – for example women’s savings, labor force participation, education, mental health or subjective welfare. To reduce poverty and gender inequalities, we should be prepared to make design modifications to increase the chance that women can and will take full advantage of the opportunities the program offers. Rigorous evaluation should accompany these innovations to see if they make a difference and at what cost. At the Transfer Project we are busy producing more evidence around gendered outcomes for adults and youth within government-run social protection plans. Follow us at @Transferproject or sign up for our newsletter to get the latest news delivered to your inbox! Amber Peterman is a Social Policy Specialist at UNICEF Office of Research—Innocenti working on gender and safe transitions to adulthood in the Transfer Project. Jennifer Yablonski is a Social Protection Specialist in Social Inclusion and Policy at UNICEF Headquarters supporting UNICEF social protection programme design globally. Luisa Natali is a Consultant with the Social and Economic Policy Division at the UNICEF Office of Research—Innocenti working on cash transfer programmes in Zambia.    

By applying a gender lens to this pandemic, researchers and policy makers can better assess differential risks and target responses to ensure already-vulnerable populations don’t fall even farther behind. Join us for this online discussion with CGD experts, external researchers, practitioners, and advocates on how a gender lens helps us better understand and respond to the threat of COVID-19.