The impact of social Cash transfers in Zambia 2017 Social Protection Week

The Child Grant Program-CGP Started in 2010 Households with a child under 3 enrolled Unconditional 55 Kwacha per month (increased over time) No differentiation by household size Cooperating partners (UNICEF, DFID, Irish Aid) collaborated with the Ministry of Community Development, Mother and Child Health to create the Child Grant cash transfer program.

Randomisation Giving an equal chance of beneficiaries being on the programme and to enhance acceptability. Removed biasness/ inclusion and exclusion errors. Sensitisation of stakeholders. The Cabinet Minister, District leadership, Traditional leaders were involved and a coin was tossed to select the districts. Randomisation by the evaluators.

The Multiple Category Targeted Program - MCTG Started in 2011 Widow headed w/orphans; Elderly headed w/orphans; Disabled members Unconditional 60 Kwacha per month (increased over time) No differentiation by household size Cooperating partners (UNICEF, DFID, Irish Aid) collaborated with the Ministry of Community Development, Mother and Child Health to create the Child Grant cash transfer program.

Multiple Category Targeted Program MCDSS commissioned ‘gold standard’ evaluations of these two programmes 2010-2014 Child Grant Program N=2500 Treatment Group=1250 Control Group=1250 Multiple Category Targeted Program N=3000 Treatment Group=1500 Control Group=1500 2010 Baseline 2011 2012 24m follow-up 2013 30m follow-up (harvest) 36m (lean) 2014 48m follow-up 36m follow-up Additional features Longitudinal cluster randomized control trials

CGP, MCTG Districts highly isolated, Greatest Levels of Poverty (Travel Time from Lusaka by Vehicle) Kaputa Luwingu Kalabo Serenje Used data from the central statistics office to identify locations with the greatest under five mortality and poverty – geographical targeting. Very remote locations on the border of the country. Very little services in these locations. No other NGOs Shangombo

Very different demographic profile of households in MCTG and CGP MCTG CGP .02 .04 .06 .08 .1 Density 20 40 60 80 100 Age in years .02 .04 .06 .08 .1 Density 20 40 60 80 100 Age in years preschoolers adolescents prime-age adults elderly care-givers

Targeting: Baseline extreme poverty rates much higher than rural households

Targeting: Beneficiaries much more food insecure than all rural households

Core methodology: Compare trend in control group vs Core methodology: Compare trend in control group vs. trend in treatment group Net impact of program Subtract this portion to get net effect of program

Presentation overview: address major questions with giving cash to poor households How is the money spent? Do people invest the money? Do people have more children to remain eligible? How much does it cost? Can a country like Zambia afford cash transfers?

Wasted on alcohol and tobacco? How is the money spent? Spent on necessities? Or Wasted on alcohol and tobacco?

Impacts on total consumption: K12-16 increase (31 percent)

Impacts on food consumption: K10-12 increase (28% CGP) (35% MCTG)

Impacts on food security-percent consuming 1+ meals per day

Impact on food expenditures dominated by cereals, meat/dairy, oil and sugar Increase in diet diversity, more proteins and fats being consumed

No evidence cash is ‘wasted’ on alcohol & tobacco Alcohol/tobacco represent 1% of budget share No positive impacts found on alcohol/tobacco: Data comes from detailed consumption module covering over 200 individual items, so hard to lie on just these items Alternative measurement approaches yield same result: “Has alcohol consumption increased in this community over the last year?” “Is alcohol consumption a problem in your community?” No differences between Treatment and Control group on these responses

Do People Invest the Money? Or Treat Money as a Handout? Productivity Do People Invest the Money? Or Treat Money as a Handout?

Impacts on number of goats: 158% increase in CGP, 195% increase in MCTG

Some SCT Beneficiaries have managed to buy goats

Impacts on number of chickens: 80% increase in CGP, 71% increase in MCTG

Other economic impacts… Value of harvest increased significantly for both programs CGP: More time devoted to own-farm, more crop sold MCTG: More hired labor Non-farm enterprise increased significantly for both programs CGP: Much larger impacts (+12pp), mostly women-operated businesses MCTG: Smaller impacts (+4pp) Pattern of effects consistent with household type CGP more prime-age workers MCTG labor constrained so hired labor to work farm

Positive impacts on school enrollment among secondary age children By 36-months beneficiary children age 11+ more likely to be enrolled in school

Households purchased, shoes, clothes, blankets for children: +20 point impact in children 5-17 having all three items

How Do the Programs Compare? Same transfer size Different demographics Same time-frame

Despite the different target groups, overall impacts are surprisingly similar Key common characteristic is that households are ultra-poor

Benefit to household larger than the value of transfer—multiplier effects! multiplier effect – K1.79 K0.62 Community K0.17 Beneficiary

Not a Handout = Does NOT Create Dependency Increased Productive Activity No Evidence of Increased Fertility No Impact on Alcohol Consumption Improved Standard of Living Children in school, materially better off Cash creates multipliers, allows the poorest to raise their income Can these impacts be enhanced? How? With what other services?

Importance of evidence Without evidence the programme was viewed as a hand out. Enhanced the communication strategy. Helped to scale up the programme because the policy makers were able to buy in. Acceptability of the programme. Enhanced cash plus programming. Other linkages eg SCT/HIV, nutrition, SCALE Project, KGS.

On Going and Planned Studies 7 year follow-up on CGP. Following the same families. Children are now between 9 and 11 years old. Insights into long-term impact. One of the first long-impact studies of this kind in Africa! Children are entering adolescents, another critical area for additional evidence. Planned: Urban Cash Transfer Impact Evaluation This year the SCT went full board with urban coverage. Impact may differ from rural areas. For example productivity gains may translate into labour market participation instead of farming activities. In planning: Cash plus Care Developing a comprehensive case-management system that links cash “plus”, to care and basic services to determine the best combinations for maximum impact. Quick wins, what information do we have and what can we collect to strengthen the implementation.

Is SCT social protection? SCT is only a component of Social Protection