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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Multiple Category Targeted Program
MCDSS commissioned ‘gold standard’ evaluations of these two programmes
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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Targeting: Baseline extreme poverty rates much higher than rural households

9. Targeting: Beneficiaries much more food insecure than all rural households

10. 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

11. 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?

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

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

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

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

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

17. 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

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

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

20. Some SCT Beneficiaries have managed to buy goats

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

22. 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

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

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

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

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

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

28. 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?

29. 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.

30. 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.

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