1. CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAMME PAKISTAN

2. Hypothesis • CSP Pilot Hypothesis: linking additional cash support to the FSP families with children would force them to invest in human capital development. By doing this, PBM can further assist ongoing government efforts towards achieving universal primary education.

3. Rationale • Food Support Programme is Pakistan’s largest cash transfer program. It reaches some 1.45 million households. The annual budget is close to US$ 70 million dollars per year • Pakistan Bait-Ul-Mal with technical assistance from WB and DFID decided to pilot and evaluate the impact of offering additional cash transfers conditional on families sending their children to school. • For the pilot, 5 districts were chosen with about 50,000 FSP families. Out of them, about 27,000 families had children of ages 5 to 12.

4. Percentage of families with children of age 5 to 12 enrolled in school by age in the treatment areas

5. General Objectives of CSP • Increase the number of children in primary education towards the achievement of Universal Primary Education • Promote the investment in human capital for poverty reduction.

6. Specific Objectives of CSP • Increase primary school registration in the target districts • Reduce dropout rates • Increase attendance levels • Provide additional resources to the FSP beneficiaries having children of school going age.

7. Target Population • Initially the Programme will cover existing beneficiaries of FSP with at least one child of primary school going age • Additional beneficiaries will be added as long as space becomes available within the approved budget. New poor families will be chosen using proxy means test methodology (second part of the presentation)

8. Benefits • Beneficiaries are entitled to receive Rs. 3,000 (US$ 50) a year from the FSP on quarterly basis • The CSP beneficiary is entitled to receive additional: * Rs. 200 (US$ 3.3) per month for one child * Rs. 350 (US$ 5.8) if they have two or more children of school going age

9. Conditionalities • Beneficiaries: * Children of FSP families between the age of 5-12 years. • Conditions: * Be registered in the primary school * Must attend at least 80% of classes * Pass the final examination.

10. Duration and Exit Policy • Households will stay in the Programme as long as their children meet the conditionalities. • Benefits are suspended when: * Children fail to comply with given conditions * Children have failed in final exam for three consecutive times * Beneficiaries have provided false information.

11. Evaluation of the Programme • Treatment group: Families participating in the Food Support program that have children in the age group 5-12 in the treatment districts. • Control Group: 1) Current FSP beneficiaries in the control districts 2) Non beneficiaries to be selected in the treatment districts

12. Data requirements QUANTITATIVE DATA should be collected three times: • Baseline data: 2,500 households and 200 schools in the treatment and control districts before the enrollment of the beneficiaries in the new program. • Assessment of 4 months into the program: get ideas of the impact of the program, the need for improvements in the design and implementation of the program. • A second data collection: follow up on the same households to assess the impact of the program after the end of the school year and the enrollment in the following school year.

13. PROJECT CYCLE TARGETING COMPLIANCE M&E -program performance -service provision CASE MAGMT ENROLLMENT PAYMENTS

14. Implementation • Design document was approved in June 2006 • First version of the operational manual in August 2006 • Development of the MIS by modules between September 2006 and April 2007 • Enrollment process completed in December 2006 • First payment for January 2007 • First control of conditions for March 2007 • Expansion of the programme to 100,000 households for August 2007. • World Bank is preparing an investment loan to support the expansion process.

15. ANALYSIS OF TARGETING MECHANISMSFOR PAKISTAN AND CCTs IN GENERAL

16. IMPORTANCE OF TARGETING • Maximize : reduction in poverty increase in social welfare • Targeting ensures that limited program resources reach the poorest households • Targeting allow that the poor population are not excluded.

17. TARGETING METHODOLOGIES • Geographic targeting • Proxy means test • Community based targeting • Some Programmes are using combinations of the above methodologies

18. WHY COMBINATIONS? • CCTs are expensive Programmes, and highly criticized if targeting systems are not good. • More and more Programmes are implementing combined systems to assure better targeting.

19. TARGETING SYSTEMS IN CCTs • Combination of GT and PMT. Examples in Mexico, Pakistan, Colombia • Combination of GT and CBT. Examples in Kenya • Combination of PMT and CBT. Example in Sri Lanka • Combination of GT, PMT and CBT. Example to be implemented in Tanzania.

20. GT-PMT-CBT • Geographic targeting is applied to eliminate non-poor areas • Proxy means test is used to identify individual households within poor areas • Community based targeting is applied to prioritize list of beneficiaries and/or verify extreme inclusion errors • Example: Sri Lanka

21. GT-CBT-PMT • Geographic targeting is used to eliminate non-poor areas • Community based targeting is applied to identify initial list of potential beneficiaries by local committees • Proxy means test to verify inclusion errors and order the list of potential beneficiaries to produce a “priority list” • Example: Tanzania?

22. COMBINED SYSTEMS ADVANTAGES • Balanced participation of the Programme execution unit and community • Acceptance by all stakeholders • Lower levels of exclusion and inclusion errors LIMITATIONS • They tend to be expensive, specially in the initial stages • Difficult to be accepted by stakeholders in the beginning • If not well designed, system may end up in chaos.

23. Thank you!!!