Tia Palermo's presentation on cash transfers and violence against women and children to UN Women's regional office and Promundo's Learning Dialogue Series in June 2020.

1. CASH TRANSFERS &
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN
Tia Palermo, University at Buffalo
on behalf of the Cash Transfer & IPV Research Collaborative
UN Women Webinar: June 24, 2020

2. CASH TRANSFER & IPV RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE
https://www.ifpri.org/project/cash-transfer-and-intimate-partner-violence-research-collaborative

3. PRESENTATION
OVERVIEW
01. Review of the evidence
linking cash transfers &
intimate partner violence
(+ childhood violence)
02. Program design, M&E
insights, COVID-19
considerations
03. Discussion / Q&A

4. Social protection programs
Social services
Insurance schemes
Labor market policies
Social safety nets
Public works,
Subsidies, School feeding,
Economic transfers
Cash
Transfers
~45%
global
coverage
~2.5 billion
in LMICs
~11% coverage
in LMICs Sources: World Social Protection Report 2017-
2019: Universal social protection to achieve the
SDGs, ILO, Geneva, 2017; Ivaschenko et al.
2018. The state of social safety nets 2018
(English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group

5. Social
protection
coverage in
Asia & the
Pacific
*Global average is
45.2 [Asia & Pacific
second lowest
regionally after Africa]

6. Mixed method review of cash transfers on IPV
1) Review quantitative and qualitative
evidence linking cash transfers (CT) &
IPV, focusing on mechanisms
underlying impacts
2) Build a program theory linking CT and
IPV
3) Propose promising program design
features and research gaps needed to
further understand linkages/leverage
potential of CTs
Buller AM, Peterman A, Ranganathan M, Bleile A, Hidrobo M, Heise L. (2018). "A mixed-method review of cash transfers
and intimate partner violence in low-and middle-income countries." The World Bank Research Observer 33(2): 218-258.

7. Program characteristics (22 studies)
▪ Nearly all programs targeted women
(*Kenya, South Africa)
▪ 10 quantitative & 3 qualitative Govt run
Program type
▪ ‘Plus’: In-kind transfer; Education, health
sector linkages; trainings; behavior change
communication
▪ Multiple in Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Uganda
0
2
5
7
9
11
UCT UCT plus CCT CCT plus
Quantitative Qualitative
Geographic Region
0
4
8
12
16
LAC SSA MENA Asia
Quantitative Qualitative

8. 0
4
8
12
16
20
Decrease Mixed Increase No
relationship
identified
Quantiative Qualitative
 Majority of studies (73%) showed decreases, impacts stronger for physical/sexual
 Overall 36% of quant indicators significant & negative; 2% significant & positive
0
10
20
30
40
Controlling/
psycological/
economic
Emotional Physical and/or
sexual
Decrease Increase Not significant
Overall impacts on IPV
[22 studies]
Quantitative indicators
[56 total by IPV type]
High-level results: Impacts
[11 of 14 studies
show any reduction]

9. Three main pathways
Household level
impact
Marital dynamic
impact
Woman specific
impact

10. IPV
PATHWAY 1: Economic security & emotional
wellbeing
“In my household it was like happiness, we all got along, with my
children, with my husband […] in my house we were happy […]
because before we did not have enough money for those things
[food].”
Female from IDI in cash, food & voucher program in Ecuador (Buller et al. 2016)

11. IPV
IPV
“There had been many fights. Because children needed many
things that we could not have afforded. I asked my husband
and he used to say there is no money. Then I used to get upset
and started to yell. We had many fights because of poverty.
Not only for us, for all poor, fights come from suffering”
PATHWAY 2: Intra-household conflict
Female from IDI in CCT plus in-kind transfers in Turkey (Yidrim et al. 2014)

12. IPV
IPV
PATHWAY 3: Women’s empowerment
“Earlier, … my husband would sometimes sell household items without
consulting me. But now that I have my own money, I can have a say
on how to spend income. ..With the money, a woman may buy seedlings
for planting, and hire an ox-plough or tractor or casual labor to dig for her.”
Female from IDI in UCT in Northern Uganda (Nuwakora 2014)

14.  cRCT, implemented by WFP,
evaluated by IFPRI
 Provided cash or food transfers – with
or without intensive nutrition behavior
change communication (BCC) – from
2012 to 2014
 Targeted to mothers of children 0-23
months in poor rural households
 26% ↓ in physical IPV from
Transfers+BCC, 6-10 months after
program ended
Example from Asia: Transfer Modality Research
Initiative (TMRI) in Bangladesh
Roy, S., Hidrobo, M., Hoddinott, J., & Ahmed, A. (2019). Transfers, behavior change communication, and intimate partner violence: Postprogram
evidence from rural Bangladesh. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(5), 865-877.

15. Why? Unintended benefit of BCC was sustained
increases in women’s social interaction and status
 3 components of BCC
 Weekly group meetings of women
with a trained community nutrition
worker
 Bi-monthly home visits by
community nutrition workers
 Monthly meetings with influential
community leaders
 Material focused on infant and
young child feeding
 Format led to ↑ in women’s
social interaction & status –led
to sustained ↓ in IPV

16. • Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4P), a CCT Government program
operating in the Philippines since 2008 [targeted to poor households with
children under the age of 18 on the condition that they invest in children’s
health and education and participate in maternal health services]  Evaluation
by GIL World Bank
• Laos Road Maintenance Program (cash-for-work) [targeted to women in poor
households, wages given monthly]  Evaluation by GIL World Bank
• Maternal cash transfers & SBCC in Myanmar [UCT targeted to mothers in the
first 1000 days, SBCC includes information on nutrition & determinants] 
Evaluation by Innovations for Poverty Action (Duke & University of Michigan)
• Bangladesh Maternity Allowance Program, a Government UCT + supplements
+ BCC [targeted to mothers in the first 1000 days]  Evaluation by IFPRI (CT
& IPV collaborative)
Other ongoing studies in Asia

17. CTs & IPV: conclusions & research gaps
 Cash transfers
 can improve wellbeing beyond primary program objectives
 are proven ‘structural’ prevention complements to dedicated GBV
prevention programming
 Pathways include increased resources, emotional wellbeing, women’s
empowerment, reduced stress, social support
 Evidence gaps:
 Geographic & humanitarian settings
 Sustainability of impacts
 Program design: transfer recipient, plus components
 Understanding mechanisms/pathways
 Cost-effectiveness analysis to compare to dedicated GBV programming

18. What about violence against children?
 Measurement more complex:
o Appropriate & specific violence measures vary
across age ranges
o Ethical issues more acute
 Mechanisms more complex:
o Violence in different spaces (home, school, &
labor settings)
o Violence from different perpetrators (household
& strangers)
o More indirect pathways
Peterman A, Neijhoft N, Cook S, Palermo T. (2017). "Understanding the linkages between social safety nets and childhood violence: a
review of the evidence from low-and middle-income countries." Health policy and planning 32(7): 1049-1071.

19. Overall results: 57 indicators (11 studies)
 In total, 19% represent
protective effects of
SSNs (no adverse
effects)
 Regionally grouped –
sexual violence from
adolescent studies in
SSA, violent discipline
from LAC
 Only one mixed-methods
study (Palestine)
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
Homicide
Dating violence
Physical against
minors
Violent discipline
Peer bullying
Sexual exploitation
Sexual abuse

20. Summary: SSN for childhood violence reduction
• Results are promising for protecting adolescent girls against sexual
exploitation & abuse, less so for other types of violence
• Many evidence gaps: regional, program type—lack of comprehensive
studies showing how SSNs can affect multiple types of risk for children
(including in different settings, witnessing IPV, frequency or severity of
violence)
• Mechanisms are diverse: schooling, caregiver stress, adolescent risk
behaviors, exposure to high-risk environments, girls’ empowerment.
• Lack of studies able to test plus components, including links to integrating
child and social protection systems.

21. Pause for Q&A

22. What matters for program design:
Complementary activities
 Complementary activities may be important for sustaining impacts –
however what form this takes will vary by context:
 Edutainment or aspirational / empowerment messaging
 Mental health interventions (i.e., Cognitive behavioral therapy)
 Group or couples' trainings on gender norms / roles
 Mentoring for girls / guardians
 Case management for child/family protection
** Depends what drivers of GBV are in a setting / target group =
suggests pre-program gender risk assessment crucial

23.  Intra-household relationships key: design features to allow women to
retain control (messaging, frequency, size of transfer) micro-changes
to gender roles in the household with “buy in” of men
 Woman as transfer recipient appears important, but few tests of this
theory
 Public works (cash for work) less effective in terms of overall
economic impacts & rarely increase gender empowerment, but are
politically attractive
 Gender-sensitive approaches (assets developed, women’s participation in
decision-making, gender parity in wages, life-course exemptions)
What matters for program design:
Gender targeting & cash for work?

24.  No studies to date that compare conditional vs. unconditional
programs – or removal of conditions – with respect to IPV [or
GBV more broadly]
 Protective effects on IPV appear to be more common for CCTs
– however this may be in part due to regional differences & very
challenging to tell benefits of “conditions” vs. “complementary
programming”
 More broadly, conditions are not needed to have beneficial
“family friendly” impacts
 Some evidence conditions excludes most vulnerable & may
have detrimental effects
What matters for program design:
Conditionalities

25. Implementation matters
• Clear communication of program objectives & messaging
• Extra support & effort needed to ensure gender-sensitive
components are implemented as designed
• Need for clear communication on intention & motivation of
gender-sensitive design components from national to sub-
national level
• Existing research largely evaluates programs that are
gender blind/neutral; a lot of momentum now to understand
programs designed specifically for gender-transformative
effects

26. Considerations for design & implementation
during COVID-19
Brief & blog available on the
IFPRI website
• As of June 12, 195 countries have adapted or
introduced 1000+ social protection measures to
mitigate against the COVID-19
• Gender considerations are likely to be overlooked
in an urgent effort to save lives
Brief & blog summarized evidence on considerations
for gender-sensitivity in across five areas:
1. Adapting existing schemes & SP modality choice,
2. Targeting,
3. Benefit level and frequency,
4. Delivery mechanisms and operational features,
5. Complementary programming.

27. M&E considerations
• Why M&E?
• Assess to what extent meeting program objectives
• Understand participation among women
• Learn and modify programs
• M&E vs. impact evaluation (IE)
• IEs usually done by external experts; more complex evaluation methods
• M&E can not tell you what might happen in absence of program
• M&E may overestimate/underestimate program impacts due to time trends
(e.g., economic development, inflation, droughts, floods, COVID-19, etc.)
• IEs give causal estimates of impact (i.e., what would have happened had
program not been implemented)
• Impact evaluation more costly, takes more time

28. FAO Technical Guide: A toolkit on gender-
sensitive social protection
• Part of a 3-part guide, focused on
step-by-step development of an
M&E framework
• Define change you want to
measure
• Develop indicators to track
changes (samples in guide)
• Identify source of data &
frequency of data collection
• Describe how data will be
reported
http://www.fao.org/social-protection/resources/resources-
detail/en/c/1170231/

29. Violence
• Intimate partner violence
• Non-partner violence
• Help seeking behaviors
• Violence against children
• Risk factors (pathways)
• INSPIRE Indicator
framework
• KNOw VAWdata Asia-
Pacific
* Ethical considerations
must be accommodated!
M&E indicators
Intra-household
decision-making
• Decision-making power
• Agency & autonomy
• Locus of control
• Self-efficacy
• Voice (individual &
collective) & participation
• EMERGE (measures of
empowerment for gender
research)
• Measuring women’s
agency (Donald et al.
2020)
Division of resources
• Labor force participation &
earnings
• Savings & financial
inclusion
• Asset ownership / bundle of
rights
• Consumption &
expenditure (individual)
• Food security & dietary
diversity (individual)
• Time use (incl. care work)
• Women’s economic
collectives measurement
guide
• J-PAL measurement guides

30. Cash Transfer & IPV Research Collaborative (2019-2021)
 Goal 1: Expand evidence base, focusing on geographic diversity, mixed method
work (short-term)
 Bangladesh: Maternity Allowance Program RCT
 Ethiopia: PSNP plus qualitative
 Ghana: LEAP 1000 qualitative follow-up
 Goal 2: Communication, dissemination & research coordination
 Policy & communication products
 Presentations to diverse audiences
 Technical assistance & coordination
 Goal 3: Develop longer-term studies exploring research gaps (starting 2021)
 Currently in development phase

31. THANK YOU!
Email: tiapaler@buffalo.edu
@tiapalermo | @TransferProjct
transfer.cpc.unc.edu
Cash Transfer and IPV Research Collaborative
https://www.ifpri.org/project/cash-transfer-and-
intimate-partner-violence-research-collaborative

32. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Slide 3: © FAO/IvanGrifi/19431617964_bf1542f18a
• Slide 14: Aminul Khandaker, IFPRI-Dhaka
• Slide 22: © FAO/IvanGrifi/20054330395_0779fb2c94