Amsterdam 2015
Menu
AIDSImpact.com
Conference Details
Authors
International Committee
Plenary Speakers
Presenting Speakers
Programme
Sessions
Scientific Committee
Acknowledgements
| Abstract #2337 - Kids in focus: Children and HIV | ||||
|
Session: 7.3: Kids in focus: Children and HIV (Parallel) on Wednesday @ 11.30-13.00 in C001 Chaired by Naume Kupe, Ashraf Grimwood Authors: Presenting Author: Dr Constance Nyamukapa - Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Zimbabwe |
||||
| Additional Authors: | ||||
| Aim: Both conditional (CCT) and unconditional (UCT) cash transfers have been shown to improve school attendance among orphans and vulnerable children in communities severely affected by HIV. More detailed information about causal mechanisms and effect moderators for CCT and UCT will enhance the expansion of cash transfer programmes. We investigated: (1) how household wealth affected the relationship between CCT and UCT and school attendance, (2) whether CCT and UCT affected educational outcomes, (3) the effect of conditions on how much of the transfers households spent on education and (4) if baseline school attendance affected how much of the transfers participants in each arm spent on education. | ||||
| Method / Issue: Data were analysed from the baseline and follow-up surveys of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of CCT and UCT in 30 clusters (15,000 households) in Manicaland province from 2009 to 2010 using logistic and linear regression. Households were eligible for the trial if they were in the poorest wealth quintile or contained orphans or people with disabilities. Recipient households received $18 dollars per month plus an additional $4 per child. Households in the CCT arm received the full cash amount provided their children had above 80% school attendance, a full vaccination record and a birth certificate. The odds of repeating a year of school were used as a measure of educational outcomes. Spending of cash transfers on educational costs, including school fees and expenses, was reported by respondents during the trial follow-up survey. | ||||
| Results / Comments: At baseline, children in less poor households had higher school attendance. After receiving the transfer, this effect was removed in the UCT arm while remaining unchanged in the CCT arm. In the poorest quintile, there was an increase in the odds of 80% attendance at follow-up of 2.98 (2.28-3.90, p<0.001) for UCT vs. control and 3.17 (2.42-4.15, p<0.001) for CCT vs. control. UCT recipients reported spending slightly more (46.1% (45.4-46.7)) of the transfer on school expenses than did CCT recipients (44.8% (44.1-45.5)). Amongst those with baseline school attendance of below 80%, there was no statistically significant difference between CCT and UCT participants in the proportion of the transfer spent on school expenses (p=0.63). However, there was a statistically significant difference between UCT and CCT participant spending of the transfer on school expenses for those with above 80% baseline school attendance, with UCT participants spending 3.5% less (p=0.001) on school expenses than CCT participants. UCT participants were no less likely than those in the control group to repeat a grade of school, whereas CCT participants had 0.69 (0.60-0.79) lower odds vs. control of repeating the previous school grade. | ||||
| Discussion: The education benefits of UCT were greatest among poorer recipients and eliminated the effects of income inequality in school attendance amongst recipients, while CCT increased the quality of education received. Conditions reduced school-related spending among those already meeting the conditions – perhaps due to conditions discouraging spending on school expenses among those who had already met attendance conditions – but did not increase it amongst those who are not. These findings demonstrate important differences in the effects of CCT and UCT and should inform future cash transfer programmes, helping policy-makers chose between UCT and CCT, depending on the particular goals of their programme. | ||||
| Go Back | ||||