unite for children

The Transfer Project: Findings from Social Cash Transfer Programmes in sub-Saharan Africa on

Gender, Resiliency, and Spillover Effects

Tia Palermo, Ph.D.UNICEF Office of Research—Innocenti

On Behalf of the Innocenti Transfer Project Team: Amber Peterman, Jacob de Hoop, Richard de Groot, Leah Prencipe,

Michelle Mills, Audrey Pereira, Luisa Natali, Naomi Neijhoft, Valeria Groppo

SidaStockholm

December 14, 2016

2

Seminar overview

Transfer Project description

Gender

Resiliency

Multiplier effects (spillovers)

3

Source: Cirillo & Tebaldi 2016 (Social Protection in Africa: Inventory of Non-Contributory Programmes): www.ipc-undp.org/pub/eng/Social_Protection_in_Africa.pdf

Rise of social protection in Africa:Non-contributory Gov’t programming triples over last 15 years

4

The big picture: Gov’t cash transfer programs in sub-Saharan Africa

4

No Cash TransfersAfter 2004Prior to 2004No dataTransfer Project

5

Programs tend to be unconditional (or with ‘soft’ conditions)

Targeting is based on poverty and vulnerability (OVC, labor-constraints, elderly)

Important community involvement in targeting process

Payments tend to be manual (‘pulling’ beneficiaries to pay-points)

Opportunity to deliver complementary services

Key features of the African ‘Model’

6

A number of fledgling government programs and growing practice in SSA on cash transfers (2008) Some with plans for scaling up Most with models that were different from the well-known Latin

American programs

Little evidence from SSA A few programmes rolling out quantitative evaluations Others with evaluations but not rigorous methodology limited documentation and sharing on lessons, experience and impact

evaluation

Transfer Project: Responding to high demand for evidence to: 1) answer policy and program questions and 2) to influence and inform scale-up

In the beginning…

7

Transfer Project: Partners & motivation

Created 2009 as an Institutional Partnership between FAO, UNICEF, Save the Children, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Originally 6 countries, but expanded given high demand Currently: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Madagascar,

South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe Working in close collaboration with national counterparts,

including national governments and research institutions In 2010, Protection to Production (PtoP) began to evaluate the

economic and productive impacts, under the umbrella of the Transfer Project, “piggy-backing” model

8

Transfer Project objectives

1. Provide evidence on the effectiveness of social cash transfer programs in achieving impacts for children and households

2. Inform the development and design of social cash transfer policy and programs

3. Promote learning across the continent on the design and implementation of social cash transfer evaluations and research

9

Overview of Transfer Project prog’s & evaluations

Country (program)

Targeting (in addition to

poverty)

Sample size (HH)

Methodology LEWIE Youth Years of data collection

Ghana (LEAP) Elderly, disabled or OVC 1,614 Longitudinal PSM X 2010, 2012, 2016

Ghana (LEAP 1000)

Pregnant women, child<2 2,500 RDD 2015, 2017

Ethiopia (SCTP) Labour-constrained 3,351 Longitudinal PSM X 2012, 2013, 2014

Kenya (CT-OVC) OVC 1,913 RCT X X 2007, 2009, 2011

Lesotho (CGP) OVC 1,486 RCT X 2011, 2013

Malawi (SCTP) Labour-constrained 3,500 RCT X X 2011, 2013, 2015

South Africa (CSG) Child <18 2,964 Longitudinal PSM X 2010, 2011

Tanzania (PSSN) Food poor 801 RCT X 2015, 2017

Zambia (CGP) Child 0-5 2,519 RCT X 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014

Zambia (MCTG) Female, elderly, disabled, OVC 3,078 RCT X 2011, 2013, 2014

Zimbabwe (HSCT) Food poor, labour- constrained 3,063

Longitudinal matched case-

controlX X 2013, 2014, 2017

10

Cas

h Tr

ansf

er

Mediators• Future expectations• Attitudes towards risk• Information

Household

Consumption• Food Security• Material well-being

Investment• Crop production• Livestock• Assets

Time-use• Use of services• Caring practices• Labor

Income

Income

Young Child• Nutrition• Illness

Older Child• Schooling• Material well-

being• Work• HIV risk• Mental health

Adult Care-giver• Self-assessed

welfare• Health

• Distance/quality of facilities• Prices

• Shocks• Infrastructure

Moderators • Services• Norms

Level 2

How do cash transfers affect household members?

Level 1

11

Total consumption pc

Food security scale (HFIAS)

Overall asset index

Relative poverty index

Incomes & Revenues index

Finance & Debt index

Material needs index (5-17)

Schooling index (11-17)

Anthropometric index (0-59m)

-.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8Effect size in SDs of control group

36-month results at a glanceBroad Impacts from two Zambian programsMCP

CGP

Source: Handa et al. (2016). Can Unconditional Cash Transfers Lead to Sustainable Poverty Reduction? Working Paper.

12

Gender

©FAO/Ivan Grifi

13

Cash transfers: What’s gender got to do with it?

1. Programs often target women as a means to achieve positive outcomes (particularly for children) -- women are perceived as spending cash in a more ‘family responsive’ way

Literature supporting this claim is dated, taken mostly from studies on intra-household consumption/expenditure – rather than gender-randomized experiments

Where rigorous studies exist, findings are mixed (Yoong et al. 2012)

2. Under conditions of (1), it is assumed programs will ‘empower’ women beneficiaries

We see large potential in this possibility – but current evidence is mixed Part of the lack of consensus stems from multitude of indicators utilized,

as well as large variation in gendered context which plays a critical role in conclusions

Source: Yoong et al. (2012). The impact of economic resource transfers to women versus men: A systematic review (Technical report). London, UK: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

14

ProgramFemale

beneficiaries (%)

Female-headed

households (%)

Ghana LEAP 44 60

Ghana LEAP 1000 100 11

Kenya CT-OVC 85 85

Malawi SCTP 84 84

Zambia CGP 99 -

Zambia MCT 75 -

Zimbabwe HSCT 68 68

And three of five beneficiary HH are female-headed

Overall, approximately two-thirds of beneficiaries

are female

Figures for female-headed households may reflect evaluation sample, rather than beneficiary sample. Zambia studies did not collect information on headship.

Gender targeting

15

Programme moderators (explaining heterogenous impacts) Programme impacts (how programme impacts intra-household

indicators, both for adults and for youth – boys/girls)

Mixed-methods case study on Zambia’s Child Grant Programme (CGP) and women’s empowerment:

1. How does cash affect intra-household bargaining power (women’s decision-making) and empowerment?

2. How does cash affect financial indicators for women (savings, small business operation)?

Gender in the Transfer Project

16

Impact on intra-household decision-making

Question: “Who in your household typically decides XX”

Code indicator = 1 if women reports sole and/or joint decision-making

Impacts on 5 out of 9 domains – child schooling, own income, partners income, children’s cloths and shoes, family visits

No impact on child health, major or daily purchases and own health

BUT total is qualitatively small (0.34 additional decisions)

Source: Bonilla et al. (2016). Cash for women’s empowerment? A mixed methods evaluation of the Zambian Child Grant Program [Innocenti Working Paper 2016-01]

Count of sole/joint decisions0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

6.966.34

Treat Control

0.34 impact***

Note: Results from adjusted ANCOVA OLS models*10% significance, **5% significance; ***1%

significance.

17

Qualitative findings support the story

CGP has not led to massive change in relations or dynamics:

“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)

Yet, there is subtle change: transfer income is under control of women, and women equate empowerment = financial standing:

“I am very happy because I don’t have to wait for him to make enough money as he puts it. I am able to suggest anything for the children now. He is in charge, but at least the money is in my hands.” ~Female, married, age 24 (beneficiary)

18

Any savings (24-months)

Any savings (36-months)

Operates NFE (24-months)

Operates NFE (36-months)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50% 47%

36%

47% 45%

22% 23%

30% 31%

Treat Control

10 pp impact**

23 pp impact**

Impacts on saving and small businesses

17 pp impact**

15 pp impact**

Source: Natali et al. (2016). Making money work: Unconditional cash transfers allow women to save and re-invest in rural Zambia [Innocenti Working Paper 2016-02]

Note: Results from multivariate adjusted models difference-in-difference LPM*10% significance, **5% significance; ***1% significance.

19

Interviewer: “What does it mean to you to be empowered? For example, if you were to describe a woman in your community who is empowered, what would she be like?”

Respondent: “Yes, there is a certain woman called Mary. She buys fish and sells . . . before that she never used to do anything. She was also receiving the CWAC money. Her husband had two wives . . .he never paid attention to the CWAC money. She saved some money and started buying fish and give her friends to sell for her in Mansa. She was giving her friends because she didn’t have enough money for transport costs. . . she made some good money and started going to sell herself. She has changed; her children look very clean and they eat well. She buys new clothes for herself and she looks nice.”

~female beneficiary (Kaputa district)

In their own words. . .

20

Social Protection & Violence• Two review papers (childhood violence and IPV)• Case studies (Ghana, IPV; Tanzania, violence

against female youth) • . . . Stay tuned for more!

© Cristian Ibanez

21

Resilience

©FAO/Ivan Grifi

22

What is resiliency?

Sida thematic working group definition: “the ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses – such as earthquakes, drought or violent conflict – without compromising their long-term prospects.”

FAO Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group: “The ability to prevent disasters and crises as well as to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from them in a timely, efficient and sustainable manner….”

Sida 2012 report (Christoplos et al.) recommendation: “use social protection as a cross-cutting concept to put resilience centre stage…need for systems in place to deal with seasonal stress and smaller crises”

Source: Christoplos I, Novaky M, Aysan Y. 2012. “Resilience, Risk and Vulnerability at Sida.” Stockholm: Sida.

23

Resiliency dimensions: mapping to surveys

FAO Resilience Index Measurement & Analysis (RIMA) dimension

Mapping to evaluation survey data

Income strengthening and diversification

Sources of income: crop production, non-farm enterprise operations

Agricultural assets Small tools, livestock

Non-agricultural assets Durable goods

Social safety nets (SSN) Access to government/NGO programs, private transfers

Adaptive capacity (AC) Exposure to shock; coping strategies,debt position

24

Program:Evaluation period:

Malawi SCT12M

ZIM HSCT12M

Zambia CGP48M

Zambia MCT36M

1 Non-agricultural assets Radio, mortar/pestle, total value on all assets

— Asset index Asset index

2 Agricultural assets Livestock

Tools

 Goats, sheep,

chickens Sickle

Goats

Sickle, yokes

Chickens, ducks, cows

Axe, hammer, hoe

Pigs, chickens, goats

shovels3 Livelihoods NFE strengthening NFE diversification Agricultural strengthening Agricultural diversification

 YES (assets)

 MAYBEYESYES 

—YES—

YES

YESYESYESYES

YESYESYES—

4. Transfers, Safety Nets and Debt Government Private individuals Less debt

 

YES— 

YES

YES/NOYESYES

YES—

YES

YES—

YES

5 Shocks and Coping Coping mechanisms

  YES YES YES YES

Impacts on household resiliency

NFE = non-farm enterprise

25

Spillover effects

26

Local Economy Wide Impact Evaluation (LEWIE)

Estimates treatment impacts on local economies Outside of households directly benefiting

Impacts on: Income, production, consumption decisions, access

to information, perceptions, social interactions

27

LEWIE estimates

Source: Taylor E, Thome K, Filipski M. “Local Economy-Wide Impact Evaluations of Social Cash Transfer Programmes.” In “From Evidence to Action.” Eds. Davis B, Handa S, Hypher N, Winder Rossi N, Winters P, Yablonski J. 2016. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28

Conclusions and what’s next?

Working with Government large-scale programs adds to external validity of findings

SCTs have strong, positive impacts on: women’s financial empowerment resiliency-related outcomes beyond beneficiaries

SCTs have potential for positive gendered impacts – both on women (particularly economic outcomes) and for girls (safe transitions, schooling) Still no consensus on how to measure empowerment or in what contexts

cash can ‘empower women/girls’ (we can help here)

Next frontier: “cash plus” programming and evaluation

29

TackAsanteZikomoGrazie!

Ghana LEAP 1000(© Michelle Mills)

30

Transfer Project is a multi-organizational initiative of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Save the Children-United Kingdom (SC-UK), and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in collaboration with national governments, and other national and international researchers.

Current core funding for the Transfer Project comes from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) to UNICEF Office of Research, as well as from staff time provided by UNICEF, FAO, SC-UK and UNC-CH. Evaluation design, implementations and analysis are all funded in country by government and development partners. Top-up funds for extra survey rounds have been provided by: 3IE - International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (Ghana, Malawi, Zimbabwe); DFID - UK Department of International Development (Ghana, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe); EU - European Union (Lesotho, Malawi, Zimbabwe); Irish Aid (Malawi, Zambia); KfW Development Bank (Malawi); NIH - The United States National Institute of Health (Kenya); Sida (Zimbabwe); and the SDC - Swiss Development Cooperation (Zimbabwe); USAID – United States Agency for International Development (Ghana, Malawi); US Department of Labor (Malawi, Zambia). The body of research here has benefited from the intellectual input of a large number of individuals. For full research teams by country, see: https://transfer.cpc.unc.edu/

Acknowledgements

31

• Transfer Project website: www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/transfer • Briefs: http://

www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/transfer/publications/briefs

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TransferProject • Twitter: @TransferProjct Email: tmpalermo@unicef.org

For more information

©FAO/Ivan Grifi

32

Scaled up cash transfers are affordable in SSA

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

In % of general government total expenditureIn % of GDP

Soc

ial c

ash

trans

fer e

xpen

ditu

re e

stim

ates

Plausible simulations show average cost 1.1% of GDP or 4.4% of spending