approximately 430,000 children.1 National coverage isexpected in 2018, when the last ten districts of the countrywill also be covered. The University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill, the Centre for Social Research at theUniversity of Malawi, and UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti, jointly conducted an impact evaluation to identifythe impact of the SCTP on multiple outcomes. Evaluationresults demonstrate a wide-range of improvements in thewellbeing of beneficiary households, including an increasein food consumption and improvements in children’smaterial wellbeing, such as having a blanket or a pair ofshoes. The evaluation also finds evidence amongbeneficiary households of reduced experience of distressand poor mental health, improvements in health status,improvements in school attendance especially as regardsolder children, and increased household participation inbusinesses, particularly agricultural-related activities.

Expanded household farm activities may have both positiveand negative implications for child wellbeing. Supplementalhousehold income may be invested in children’s education,nutrition, and health. However, labour-constrainedhouseholds with few able-bodied adults may rely onchild labour to support theexpansion of the householdbusiness. Moreover, thesehouseholds may rely moreheavily on children’scontributions to householdchores. Increasedengagement in economicactivities and householdchores may take childrenaway from study andleisure, and expose them towork-related hazards.

1 Source: SCTP Management Information System, accessed October 2017.

The Malawi Social Cash Transfer Programme

(SCTP) has been demonstrated to have a widerange of positive effects on beneficiaryhouseholds, including an expansion ofhousehold agricultural business activities.This brief summarizes the results of twostudies which examine whether householdsrely on children to expand their agriculturalbusinesses. The studies confirm that childrensupport the expansion of householdagricultural activities and conclude that theSCTP increases overall child engagement ineconomic activities. However, working hoursare generally moderate and other childwellbeing indicators such as schoolparticipation and physical health improve.This suggests that the SCTP nevertheless playsa positive role in the lives of children. Thesefindings contribute to our understanding of theimpact of cash transfers on children’swellbeing and highlight the importance ofmonitoring the possible impact on child labourof programmes – such as graduation strategies– that encourage the expansion of householdentrepreneurial activities.

INTRODUCTION

The SCTP provides regular unconditional income transfersto ultra-poor, labour-constrained households.The objectiveof the programme is to reduce poverty and hunger and toincrease school enrolment rates. The programme started asa pilot in 2006 in Mchinji District, and is now benefitting174,500 households across 18 districts, including

The Importance of Understanding and Monitoringthe Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes onChild Labour and Education: Findings from MalawiA Policy BriefThe Malawi Cash Transfer Evaluation Team

InnocentiResearchBrief

2018-03

Malawi’s SCTPTransfer Size

The SCTP transferamounts vary with the sizeof beneficiary householdsand with the numberof primary and secondary-school age children.The average transfer (7,000MKW or about 10 USD) isabout 20 per cent ofbeneficiary households’baseline consumption.

“Funding for this work was provided by the United States Department of Labor through Grant Number IL-26694-14-75-K-36 to UNICEF Officeof Research-Innocenti. This document does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Department of Labor, nor doesmention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government.”

IRB2018-03 Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes.qxp_Layout 1 05/04/18 11:48 Pagina 1

With the financial support of the U.S. Department of Labor,the UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti has examinedthis issue in detail. This brief summarizes the findings,which are based on a rigorous quantitative analysis (so-called cluster randomized control trial)2 and in-depthqualitative interviews with youth, caregivers and teachers,which help interpret the quantitative results.3 As part of thequalitative interviews – a unique feature of this study –youth were asked to photograph their daily activities.Some of their pictures are shown here.

RELEVANCE

Child labour may be detrimental for children’s mentalwellbeing, lower children’s participation in school or keepthem from concentrating in school, and expose them tophysical hazards. Ultimately, child labour may hamper

children’s developmentand keep them fromreaching their fullpotential. It is thereforeimportant to understandand monitor the(potentially unintended)impact of programmesthat enhance householdmicro-entrepreneurialactivity on child labourand associated outcomes,such as child educationand health. This holds forlarge-scale cash transferprogrammes, such as theSCTP, and graduationstrategies that aim tosustainably movechildren out of poverty.Improved understanding

of child labour dynamics is particularly relevant if theseprogrammes target labour-constrained households thatmay rely on children for income generation or if theypromote (on- and off-farm) business activities that can becarried out by children.

FINDINGS

The SCTP strongly increased beneficiary householdinvestment in agricultural activities and (both adults and)children increased their participation in these activities.

2 De Hoop, J., Handa, S., and Groppo, V. (2017). Household Micro-entrepreneurial Activity and Child Work: Evidence from Two Cash TransferExperiments. Mimeo.

3 Zietz, S., de Hoop, J., and Handa, S. (2018). The Role of ProductiveActivities in the Lives of Adolescents: Photo voice Evidence from Malawi.Child and Youth Services Review (in press).

The Importance of Understanding and Monitoring the Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes on Child Labour and Education: Findings from Malawi 2

Innocenti Research Brief 2018-03

n The probability thathouseholds ownlivestock doubledfrom 30 to over60 per cent.

n The probability thathouseholds sellcrops increasedfrom 20 to over30 per cent.

n The probability thatchildren care forlivestock increasedfrom 4 to over10 per cent.

n The probability that they engage in crop productionincreased from 14 to over 20 per cent.

n The increase in engagement in on-farm activities waspartly offset by a reduction in work for pay outsidethe household from 19 to 13 per cent. This representsan improvement in children’s lives, as work for payoutside the household mostly consists of casual piecework (so-called Ganyu). This type of work entails hardlabour for low pay and is the labour of last resortfor the ultra-poor.

n The net probability that children engage in anyeconomic activity increased from 30 to 34 per cent.

n Yet the programme broadly contributed to improvingschool attendance.

n Children’s wellbeing indicators such as health andmaterial possessions also improved.

Voices of children: The qualitative interviews show thatchildren’s own perspectives on their engagementin economic activities and household chores are mixed,but mostly positive.

Children feel responsible for caring and providing for theirhousehold. One youth mentioned “The one I relied onmoved out for marriage... the other went away for work.I am the only man left at home, so when something isneeded, it is me who has to go look for Ganyu.”

Youth are also proud of their contribution to the household.As mentioned by one youth “I feel good because I startedthis work some time back and that’s how we manage tohave food in our households.”

Engagement in productive activities is also seen as a wayto acquire skills. Discussing his engagement in constructionactivities, one youth mentions “This in our life helps us tolearn and sharpen the building skills so that when we marryone day and our in-law is asking us to construct a house for

IRB2018-03 Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes.qxp_Layout 1 05/04/18 11:48 Pagina 2

them, we should be able to do that without problems”Speaking of economic activities more generally, anotheryouth mentions “If we were to just sit and watch theparents do it, we would be in trouble in future after theparent’s passing.”

Working hours are generally moderate and there is noevidence that the SCTP resulted in child engagement in’excessive’ working hours as defined in international childlabour conventions and Malawi’s national legislation.4

Moreover, while both caregivers and children identifyengagement in productive activities as a potential deterrentto school attendance, they widely perceive schoolattendance as important. Caregivers indicate that theyprioritize work over school only in case of real need and atan emotional cost. As mentioned by one caregiver “I feelguilty that I’m killing the child’s future… in March I got verysick, I am the one they rely on to bring food on the table,my husband drinks a lot and doesn’t do anything to supportthe family so the child was really pressed. Him being theeldest at home, he was supposed to do everything alone

4 To define excessive hours, we follow ILO recommendations and use thefollowing age-specific thresholds (ILO, Report III: Report of theConference. ICLS 18th Conference, 2008): • Ages 5-11: 1 hour or more in economic activities, or 28 hours or morein household chores. • Ages 12-14: 14 hours or more in economic activities or 28 hours ormore in household chores.• Ages 15-17: 43 hours or more in economic activities or 28 hours ormore in household chores.

and when it’s too much, he would miss classes.” Perhapsaccordingly, the SCTP had a pronounced positive impacton children’s school participation. School enrollmentincreased from 82 to over 90 per cent and uninterruptedschool attendance increased from 73 to 87 per cent.

The quantitative findings show that children’s engagement inhazardous agricultural work increases as a result of the SCTP.Children in beneficiary households are more likely to engagein economic activities that involve carrying heavy loads,working with dangerous tools, exposure to dust, fumes orgas, and exposure to extreme cold, heat, or humidity. Thequalitative interviews provide more perspective on thesehazards and suggest that they are generally modest in nature– although not negligible. Dangerous tools are mostly limitedto Panga knives and shovels. Children are exposed to dustwhen they farm on dry land and sweep the floor in andaround the household dwelling, which can result in coughsand breathing problems. Children are also exposed to smokewhile cooking. There was some mention of exposure toextreme heat due to farm work in the mid-day sun andexposure to extreme noise when working near the maizemill. Injuries were commonly reported but, with a fewexceptions, they tended to be minor in nature. Accordingly,the quantitative data suggest that the health of children inbeneficiary households did not deteriorate and, if anything,may have improved.5

5 We measure only contemporaneous indicators of child health. Longer-term effects could not be measured and the possibility of longer-termnegative health consequences cannot be confirmed nor ruled out.

The Importance of Understanding and Monitoring the Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes on Child Labour and Education: Findings from Malawi 3

Innocenti Research Brief 2018-03

IRB2018-03 Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes.qxp_Layout 1 05/04/18 11:48 Pagina 3

SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS

The SCTP increased the likelihood of beneficiaryhouseholds’ engagement in agriculturalactivities. Children supported the expansion ofthese activities, yet the programme broadlyimproved wellbeing indicators for children.Increased household income led to substantiveimprovements in children’s material wellbeing.School attendance increased despite theincrease in child work. Child health improvedslightly, at least in the short term, despite theincreased exposure to hazards. Although thesefindings suggest that the implications ofincreased engagement in economic activitieswere limited, it is important to highlight somelimitations of our study. First, there are potentialimplications of child work that we may not havecaptured. For instance, while engagement inproductive activities does not appear to have hamperedschool attendance, it may have had negative effects onchildren’s ability to concentrate in school. Second, somenegative implications of child work may only manifestthemselves in the longer run. Think, for instance, of healthproblems due to exposure to toxic pesticides.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Various policy options may be considered to enhance thepositive impacts and limit the potentially detrimentalimpacts of interventions that increase householdentrepreneurial activities:

n Provide a clear picture of programme effects onchildren’s education: This could entail, for example,the collection and analysis of information onchildren’s actual learning outcomes (e.g. test scores,grade repetition), besides school attendance.

n Invest in sensitization/communication:The importance of school attendance and thepotential implications of child work could behighlighted by means of advocacy campaigns.The latter is particularly relevant for programmes

promoting household engagement in entrepreneurialactivities that can be delegated to children, such aslow-skill agricultural activities.

n Closely monitor possible unintended impacts on childlabour: Quantitative assessments could be combinedwith qualitative assessments of child labour.Quantitative assessment can highlight inducedchanges, while qualitative assessment can highlightattitudes of children and caregivers towards theprogramme and implications of changes in children’sactivities.

n Reflect on the supply-side constraints that limit theextent of the positive impacts of programmes oneducation: This could include monitoring indicators ofquality of the schooling system and its infrastructure,such as pupil-to-teacher ratio, pupil-to-classroomratio, adequacy of curricula, availability of electricityand sanitary facilities in schools.6

6 This is also recommended by a study assessing the educational andlabour impacts of Malawi’s SCTP in its pilot stage: Miller, C. and Tsoka,M., 2012. Cash Transfers and Children’s Education and Labour amongMalawi’s Poor, Development Policy Review 30(4): 499-522.

The Importance of Understanding and Monitoring the Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes on Child Labour and Education: Findings from Malawi 4

Innocenti Research Brief 2018-03

UNICEF Office of Research – InnocentiFlorence, Italywww.unicef-irc.org + 39 055 20330 florence@unicef.org @UNICEFInnocenti | facebook.com/UnicefOfficeofResearchInnocenti

The Office of Research – Innocenti is UNICEF’s dedicated research centre. Publications produced by the Office contribute to a global debate on issuesaffecting children. The views expressed are those of the authors and/or editors and are intended to stimulate further dialogue in achieving children'srights. For rights of reproduction or translation, apply to UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti. Short extracts may be reproduced unaltered withoutauthorization on condition that the source is indicated. © UNICEF Office of Research.

Researchfor Childrenat Innocenti

IRB2018-03 Effects of Cash Transfer Programmes.qxp_Layout 1 05/04/18 11:48 Pagina 4