Child Grants Programme Impact Evaluation

South Africa

Lesotho

Social Protection

Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT)

L Pellerano, M Moratti, M Jakobsen, M Bajgar, V Barca

2014

Pellerano et al., 2014. Child Grants Programme Impact Evaluation – Follow-up Report. Oxford Policy Management.
View publication

Primary data is available at: https://microdata.fao.org/.

2014

Lesotho Child Grants Programme (CGP)

2011-2013 (baseline and endline)

Provide a regular and predictable cash transfer that recipient households could use as a regular source of income to meet basic children and household needs

The eligibility criteria are not clear in the report, but a few statistics help clarify what they are. Eligible households are on average significantly larger (almost 6 household members), mainly as a result of having on average one child aged 0-17 more than non-eligible households. While the proportion of households with at least one chronically ill or disabled household member is similar across eligible and non-eligible households, eligible households have a significantly higher proportion of dependents and are more likely to contain at least one orphan child. The proportion of eligible households with single orphans (37%) and double orphans (28%) is significantly higher than in non-eligible households.

The program provided every quarter a regular transfer between poor households with children that were selected through a combination of Proxy Means Testing (PMT) and community validation and registered in the National Information System for Social Assistance (NISSA).

• Child labor
• Poverty reduction, health
• Education outcomes

RCT

Study design: The study comprised three main components: a) a quantitative panel household survey with a baseline in 2011 and a follow-up in 2013, in control and treatment locations and covering CGP eligible and non-eligible households; b) qualitative fieldwork to inform, explain and add to the information gathered in the quantitative survey, and to undertake further studies as required; and c) gathering of detailed cost information from all implementing partners involved in the implementation of the CGP pilot, to estimate financial and administrative implications of the national roll-out. The control group was selected based on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, in such a way ensuring that it was fully comparable to the treatment group. Within 10 Community Councils selected for Phase 1 – Round 2 expansion of the program, half of all the Electoral Divisions (EDs) were randomly assigned to be covered by the pilot, while the other half were only covered after the end of the evaluation study. EDs were assigned to either the treatment or the control in public lottery events that took place in each electoral division. In treatment EDs the CGP implemented the targeting process, selected recipients, and proceeded to enrolment. In control EDs the CGP implemented the targeting process and selected recipients who should receive the transfer, but enrolment was delayed until after the follow-up data collection was completed.
Sample: a multi-stage sampling approach was adopted. The main source of the impact evaluation was a household panel survey collected in two rounds: (1) the baseline (fielded just after targeting and before the recipients receive their first payment); (2) the follow-up (interviewing exactly the same households as at baseline) two years later. The survey for the evaluation was collected in a sub-sample of treatment and control EDs. Those EDs that were covered by the evaluation are referred to as the evaluation EDs. The households in the treatment communities (EDs) that were selected for the programme are referred to as the treatment group. These households were called to enrol into the programme. In control communities (EDs) a set of households that are comparable to the treatment group has been identified. These were referred to as the control group. These households were exactly the ones who would have been called to enrolment by the programme had it been operating in the control community.
Survey Instrument: The survey was based on a panel design and collected information from a sample of CGP eligible households in treatment and control communities. It also included information for households who were not eligible for the program. The baseline survey fieldwork took place between June and August 2011 and comprised around 3000 households. The follow-up survey fieldwork took place at the same time of the year to avoid seasonality bias – between June and August 2013 – and covered around 2000 households.

The program contributed to increasing the levels of expenditure on schooling, clothing, and footwear for children. The messaging of the program - that the CGP funds should be used in the interest of children - was followed by beneficiary households – the program had a positive effect on children’s access to uniforms and school shoes. However, the CGP was not associated with a significant reduction in poverty rates amongst beneficiary households two years after the introduction of the pilot in the study areas, even though beneficiaries’ welfare has improved. There is evidence of positive effects of the CGP on children’s enrolment in school, but no impact on other important dimensions of school progression (early enrolment, repetition, primary completion, and enrolment in secondary). The evidence on the effect of the CGP on children’s time use and child work is mixed, largely nonconclusive, and not robust across specifications.

Child Labour

Households

National

The evidence on the effect of the CGP on children’s time use and child work is mixed in Lesotho.

The program contributed to increasing the levels of expenditure on schooling, clothing, and footwear for children. The messaging of the program – that the CGP funds should be used in the interest of children – was followed by beneficiary households – the program had a positive effect on children’s access to uniforms and school shoes. However, the CGP was not associated with a significant reduction in poverty rates amongst beneficiary households two years after the introduction of the pilot in the study areas, even though beneficiaries’ welfare has improved. There is evidence of positive effects of the CGP on children’s enrolment in school, but no impact on other important dimensions of school progression (early enrolment, repetition, primary completion, and enrolment in secondary).

The CGP is an unconditional cash transfer, but in practice, respondents receive a very effective message that the cash transfer should be spent on children. In addition to the CGP grant, a Food Emergency Grant was also disbursed to CGP beneficiaries in 2012 and 2013, which might have confounded the impact evaluation that was planned for the CGP.