Reaching the marginalized: EFA global monitoring report, 2010; 2010

2 0 1Education for All Global Monitoring Report0CountryANNEXEducational effect of selectedsocial protection programmesChapter 3 of this report argues that to mitigatethe negative effects of poverty on education,governments and donors need to scale upsocial protection measures to help poorhouseholds manage risk without compromisingtheir children’s long-term welfare. The table below reviewsevaluations of a range of social protection programmesDirect support for educationIndonesia Jaring Pengamanan Sosial(Social Safety Net)scholarship and grantprogramme (1998–2005)BurkinaFasoCambodiaProgramme (year/s)throughout the developing world, including conditionaland unconditional transfers of cash and food. Differencesbetween programmes and in evaluation methodologymean that comparisons have to be made with caution,but overall the evidence points to positive effects onenrolment and attendance, and, in a few cases, oncognitive development and educational achievement.Scholarships of c. US$10–30 (1998 exchangerate) depending on school level, sufficient tocover full cost of school feesTransfers conditional on educational behaviour, or with specific educational goalsBangladesh Female Secondary SchoolAssistance Programme,part of Nation Wide FemaleStipend Programme(1994– )Girls aged 11–18 insecondary school(grades 6–10)Biannual transfer of stipend, tuition, bookallowance and exam fees, totalling betweenc. US$6 and US$24 (2003)/0.6% of per capitaexpenditure, depending on school levelConditional on attendance and achievementWorld Food Programmeschool lunches and takehomerations(encompassed earlierprogrammes in 2005–2006)Japan Fund for PovertyReduction pilot project(2002–2005)Targeted beneficiariesof education componentPoorest primary andsecondary school students,50% girlsSchool lunches: allchildren in targeted ruralprimary schoolsTake-home food rations:girls in the last two gradesGirls grades 7–9(lower secondary school)Key instrument of educational component/scale of transfer Educational impact 1, 2Lunch for all children in attendanceMonthly take-home ration of 10 kg cerealsfor girls in last two gradesConditional on attendanceUS$45 in three instalments/2–3% of percapita expenditureConditional on enrolment, regular attendanceand maintaining a passing gradeI of 3 p.p. (mid-school year dropoutrate at lower secondary in poorestvillages)i enrolment by 12 p.p.i new enrolments by 5–6 p.p.among younger girlsI absenteeism among girlsi enrolment by 31.3 p.p.; higheramong poorestEducation Sector SupportProject – Scholarships forthe Poor Programme(2005– )Children who havecompleted grade 6 likelyto drop out due to poverty,gender, ethnic minoritystatus, etc.US$45 or US$60 in three instalments/2–3%of median household income, depending onestimated ‘probability of dropout’Conditional on enrolment, regular attendanceand on-time promotioni enrolment by 21.4 p.p.i attendance by 25 p.p.ChileChile Solidario (2002– )Very poor householdsDecreasing monthly benefits for the first24 months, from US$21 to US$8 (2006)/7% of per capita expenditureConditional on attendancei enrolment by 7.5 p.p. amongchildren aged 6-15ColombiaFamilias en Acción(2001/2– )Extremely poor familieswith children enrolled inschoolAbout US$8–33 per child per month/17% ofper capita expenditure, depending on schoollevelConditional on attendanceAges 8-13: i enrolment by 2.1 p.p.Ages 14-17: i enrolment by5.6 p.p.EcuadorBono de DesarrolloHumano 3(1998– ; relaunched as BDHin 2004)Families in the poorest twoquintiles with children aged16 or underCash transfer of US$15/month/