This presentation reviews findings from the team's paper evaluating the impact of the Zambian Child Grant Program (CGP) on women's decision-making and empowerment.

1. Cash for Women’s
Empowerment?
A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Government
of Zambia’s Child Grant Program
Hannah Reeves,1 Rosa Castro Zarzur,1 Juan Bonilla,1 Sudhanshu Handa,2, 3
Claire Nowlin,1 Amber Peterman,3 and David Seidenfeld1 *
November 2015
Copyright © 2015 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved.
1 American Institutes for Research (AIR), Washington, DC, USA
2 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
3 UNICEF Office of Research–Innocenti, Florence, Italy
* On behalf of the Zambia Child Grant Program Evaluation Team

2. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Women’s Empowerment & Social Cash
Transfers
• SCTs often target female-headed households
or women, and thus have potential to
‘empower’ them:
– Affect bargaining power within household
– Other program components can also affect women’s
empowerment.
• As such, women’s empowerment is an often-
cited objective and benefit of SCTs.
• Despite the “empowerment promise”, the
evidence is mixed and mostly from programs
in Latin America:
– ≠ gender dynamics & poverty trends
– CCTs
2

3. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Intra-household decision-making as a
measure of empowerment
• Standard decision-making questions in
quantitative household surveys
– “Who in your household has the final say on …”
» Own health
» Own earnings
» Spouse’s earnings
» Children’s clothes or shoes
» Children’s education
» Small daily household (food) purchases
» Large household (asset) purchases
» Family visits
3
Indicator Respondent
herself
Partner Respondent
and Partner
Jointly
Others
Sole Indicator 1 0 0 0
Sole or Joint Indicator 1 0 1 0
• Standard response options
» Respondent herself
» Partner
» Respondent and partner jointly
» Others in the household

4. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Empirical Specification: ANCOVA
Yijt = α + βTTreatj + ρYij0 + ߛ‫ܦ‬݆݅ + εijt
Yijt : decision-making outcome of interest for woman i in cluster j at time t
Yij0: decision-making outcome of interest at baseline
Treatj: is an indicator that equals 1 if cluster j is in a CGP community
βT: ITT estimator or effect of CGP
‫ܦ‬݆݅: Level of stratification or district at baseline
4

5. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
CGP Women Were Making More
Sole Decisions Regarding their Own Health
5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Count of DM (*)
FITTED COUNT OF SOLE
DECISION-MAKING ACROSS
DOMAINS
Treat Control
Asterisks indicate significance level: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 of corresponding impact estimate
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
Children's
Health
Children's
Schooling
Own
Income
Partner's
Income
Major
Purchases
Daily
Purchases
Children's
Clothes
Family
Visits
Own
Health
(***)
Proportion
FITTED PROPORTION OF WOMEN WITH SOLE
DECISION-MAKING ACROSS DOMAINS
Treat Control

6. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
CGP Women Were Making More
Sole or Joint Decisions in 5 Domains
6
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Children's
Health
Children's
Schooling
(***)
Own
Income
(***)
Partner's
Income
(***)
Major
Purchases
Daily
Purchases
Children's
Clothes (*)
Family
Visits (*)
Proportion
FITTED PROPORTION OF WOMEN WITH SOLE
OR JOINT DECISION-MAKING ACROSS
DOMAINS
Treat Control
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Count of DM (***)
FITTED COUNT OF SOLE OR
JOINT DECISION-MAKING ACROSS
DOMAINS
Treat Control
Asterisks indicate significance level: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 of corresponding impact estimate

7. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Qualitative data to better understand
decision-making and empowerment
• In-depth interviews
(IDIs) with
beneficiary and
non-beneficiary
women and their
partners in Kaputa
District
– 30 women; 10 male
partners or other
decision makers
– June 2015
• Coding and
analysis using
NVivo
7

8. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Men involved in all major decisions; women
make less important decisions
• Domestic chores
• Child health
• Child schooling
• Child clothing/shoes
• Own health
• Major purchases
• Daily purchases
• Own income
• Partner income
• Food choice
• Family visits
• Savings
8

9. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Deeply entrenched traditional perceptions of
gender roles
• Unanimous agreement
that the head of the
household is a man
• Men have ultimate say
in important decisions
“Even in the laws of
Zambia, a woman is like a
steering wheel, and us (the
men) are the ones to drive
them in everything.”
~male, age 53 (CGP beneficiary)
9

10. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Money and economic status = “Empowerment”
• Almost unanimous
belief that money
is synonymous
with being
empowered or
doing well in life
• Ability to make
purchases
independently
described as
empowering
10

11. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Few large changes in decision-making,
some positive changes for women
• Collectively, women and men reported few big changes in
decision-making as a result of the transfer. Some positive
changes reported by married women, however:
• Roughly half of married women indicated they were in charge of
decisions made with the transfer funds
• About a quarter of married women reported that while the decision
process is largely the same, they now make purchases without
having to wait for their husbands to earn or give them money
• Most respondents indicated that the transfer improved their overall
well-being and happiness; a few reported that household
relationships improved while receiving the CGP
11

12. AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
Small positive gains, but no transformation;
difficulty measuring empowerment
• Cash transfer programs such as CGP realize beneficial
gendered impacts (increased savings for women, ability to
start non-farm enterprises, decisions on use of transfer
funds) but do not shift gender norms in a transformational
way
• Room for improvement measuring empowerment through
women’s decision-making indicators: women may state that
they make a decision (jointly or solely), but in cases of
disagreement their husbands have the final word
12

13. Rosa Castro Zarzur
202-403-5213
rcastrozarzur@air.org
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW
Washington, DC 20007-3835
General Information: 202-403-5000
www.air.org
13
Hannah Reeves
202-403-6715
hreeves@air.org