CASH TRANSFERS AND EDUCATION 97 Nicaragua’s RPS also had very high impacts on school attendance rates, at
20 percentage points on average, and as high as 33 percentage points for the extreme poor, 23 points for the poor, and 12 points for the nonpoor. There was a relatively small gender difference, with the program increasing the atten- dance of girls 17 percent and that of boys 23 percent. Although the program was implemented in areas where schools were generally available, supply-side inter- ventions were also undertaken to accommodate the large enrollment changes: these included increasing the number of sessions per day and the number of teachers. The schooling outcomes are thus interpreted to be a combined effect of the demand and the supply interventions (Maluccio and Flores 2005). Another program impact was the school continuation rate, measured as grade advancement for two consecutive years, which was 7.3 percentage points on average. An unanticipated impact was a large impact on students making a transition to the fifth and sixth grades, because fifth-grade enrollment and higher was not a program requirement. This could have been a result of con- fusion as to this requirement, an income effect, or a result of changing atti- tudes toward education. More evidence on the sustainability question was provided by a follow-up survey two years after households were rotated out of the program. An enrollment drop of 12.5 percentage points indicates that, for many, the cash incentive was driving the impact more than a change in attitude toward education. However, enrollment remained 8 percentage points higher than at baseline, suggesting that for this substantial group the program had some sustainable impact. The program impact on child labor was a decrease of 4.6 percentage points in 2001 and a decrease of 5.6 points in 2002, although child labor decreased significantly among both groups in 2001 due to an economic downturn (Maluccio and Flores 2005). RPS was also found to have protected human capital during the shock of the coffee crisis of that period, with program impacts on enrollment and child labor greater in coffee- growing regions than in non-coffee-growing areas (Maluccio 2005).
Latin America and the Caribbean: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Jamaica
In Brazil’s Bolsa Escola, the average program impact on attendance was 3 percentage points among boys ages ten through fifteen, which was not small given that the attendance rate of the comparison group was around 92 per- cent (Cardoso and Souza 2003). The program was associated with a reduction of 7.8 percentage points in dropout rates (an improvement in complete-year attendance) and a gain of 6.2 percentage points in grade promotion (de Janvry, Finan, and Sadoulet 2006). Colombia’s Familias en Acción had an enrollment impact on eight- through thirteen-year-olds of 1.5 and 2.5 percentage points in urban and rural areas, respectively, probably explained by the high enrollment starting point. Sec-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237